Bir durumlu öğrenme vakası ve çevirmenlik edincinin gelişimine ilişkin yansımaları

Öz

Çeviri okullarının görevi, kuram-odaklı akademik eğitim yerine uygulama-yoğun mesleki eğitimi yeğleyen meslek okullarının görevine indirgenmemelidir. Yine de böyle bir önerme uygulamanın çeviri eğitiminin ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu gerçeğini geçersiz kılmaz. Bu yüzden çeviri öğrencilerine eğitimleri süresince gerçek veya özgül etkinlikler sunulmalıdır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma yazar ve birinci sınıfta okuyan 62 lisans öğrencisi tarafından gerçekleştirilen bir durumlu öğrenme projesini değerlendirmiştir. Bu yolla toplumsal edinçlere odaklanılarak proje-tabanlı durumlu öğrenme yaklaşımının çeviri öğrencilerine çevirmenlik edinçlerini geliştirebilmeleri için nasıl yardımcı olabileceği araştırılmıştır. Proje kapsamında öğrencilerden Çanakkale (Türkiye) şehrinde bulunan restoranları ziyaret etmeleri ve düzeltme ihtiyacı olan çeviri menüleri belirlemeleri istenmiştir. Öğrenciler üç ila altı kişiden oluşan 14 grup halinde çalışmışlardır. İki haftalık bu projenin sonunda kendilerinden işverene düzeltmesi yapılmış menüyü ulaştırmaları ve yazara da bir rapor sunmaları istenmiştir. Raporların içerileri Kiraly’nin (2013) mesleki kurallar, müzakere ve ekip çalışmasından oluşan üç toplumsal edinci ve Eser’in (2015) kişilerarası beceriler kavramı göz önünde bulundurularak görüngüsel olarak çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar; projenin katılımcıların çevirinin sadece varsayılan bir kaynak metinden yola çıkılarak bir erek metin üretme süreci olmadığı aynı zamanda bir çeviri görevinin tatmin edici düzeyde tamamlanması için etkili ve verimli kişilerarası becerilere sahip olunmasını ve bir mesleki topluluğun üyeleri olarak mesleki davranış kurallarına uymayı gerektiren bir süreç olduğuna dair farkındalık kazanmaları konusunda yardımcı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Durumlu öğrenme
• çevirmenlik becerisi
• çeviri projesi
• lisans öğrencileri
• gerçek ortamlar

A case of situated learning and its implications for the development of translator competence

Abstract

The task of translation schools should not be reduced to that of vocational schools, which can be claimed to favor ‘practice-intensive training’ over ‘theory-bound education’. However, this proposition does not annul the fact that practice is an integral component of translation education. Therefore, translation students should be offered real-world/authentic activities. In this sense, the present paper presents a situated-learning project conducted by the author and 62 first-year undergraduate students to investigate how a project-based situated learning approach can help translation students develop translator competence with particular focus on social competences. The students were asked to visit the restaurants in the City of Çanakkale, Turkey, and to identify translated menus in need of editing. They worked in 14 groups of three to six members. At the end of this two-week project, they were requested to provide the commissioner with an edited version of the menu and to submit the author a report. The contents of the reports were phenomenologically analyzed in view of Kiraly’s (2013) three social competences – professional etiquette, negotiation, and teamwork – and Eser’s (2015) interpersonal skills. The obtained results suggest that the project helped the participating students raise an awareness that translation is not only the production of a target text based on an assumed source text but also a process that entails acquisition and possession of efficacious interpersonal skills for the satisfactory completion of a translation task and observance of professional codes of behavior as a member of a professional community.

Keywords

• Situated learning
• translator competence
• translation project
• undergraduate students
• real-life settings

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, A. N. (2005). Özerk bir bilim dalı olarak çeviribilim: Adı ve kimliği. In A. O. Öztürk, N. Akpınar-Dellal, & U. Balcı (Eds), IV. uluslararası dil, yazın ve deyişbilim sempozyumu bildirileri kitabı (pp.103-113). 17-19 Haziran 2005, Çanakkale.
2. Bernardini, Silvia (2004). The theory behind the practice. In K. Malmkjaer (Ed.), Translation in undergraduate degree programmes (pp. 17–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
3. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education. 10th ed. Boston: A&B/Pearson.
4. Bowker, L. (2015). Computer-aided translation: Translator training. In S-W. Chan (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of translation technology (pp. 88–104). London/New York: Routledge.
5. Calvo, E. (2015). Scaffolding translation skills through situated training approaches: Progressive and reflective methods. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(3), 306–322. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2015.1103107.
6. Cambridge. (n.d.). Etiquette. In dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary. Retrieved August 20, 2020, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/etiquette.
7. del Mar Haro-Soler, M. (2018). Self-confidence and its role in translator training: The students’ perspective. In I. Lacruz, & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Innovation and expansion in translation process research (pp. 131-160). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
8. deMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: learning through experience. In K. deMarrais, & S. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9. Echeverri, A. (2015). Translator education and metacognition: Towards student-centered approaches to translator education. In Y. Cui, & W. Zhao (Eds), Handbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation (pp. 297-323). Hershey: IGI Global.
10. Eruz, S. (2008). Akademik çeviri eğitimi: Çeviri amaçlı metin çözümlemesi. İstanbul: Multilingual.
11. Eser, O. (2015). A model of translator’s competence from an educational perspective. IJCLTS, 3(1), 4–15. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.3n.1p.4.
12. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Gile, D. (2004). Integrated problem and decision reporting as a translator training tool. Journal of Specialised Translation, (2), 2-20.
14. Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
15. González-Davies, M., & Enríquez-Raído, V. (2016). Situated learning in translator and interpreter training: Bridging research and good practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154339.
16. Göpferich, S., & Jääskeläinen, R. (2009). Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go? Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 169–191. doi: 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.1.
17. Hastürkoğlu, G. (2019). Situated learning in translator and interpreter training: Model United Nations simulations. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 15(3), 914–925. doi: 10.17263/jlls.631533.
18. Int, A. (2005). Translator training and modern market demands. Perspectives, 13(2), 132–142. doi: 10.1080/09076760508668982.
19. Kelly, D. (2002). Un modelo de competencia traductora: Bases para el diseño curricular. Puentes, (1), 9–21.
20. Kelly, D., & Martin, A. (2009). Training and education. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 294–300). London: Routledge.
21. Kiraly, D. C. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
22. Kiraly, D. C. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. META, 50(4), 1098–1111. doi: 10.7202/012063ar.
23. Kiraly, D. C. (2006). Beyond social constructivism: Complexity theory and translator education. TIS, 1(1), 68–86. doi: 10.1075/tis.1.1.05kir.
24. Kiraly, D. C. (2012). Growing a project-based translation pedagogy: A fractal perspective. META, 57(1), 82–95. doi: 10.7202/1012742ar.
25. Kiraly, D. C. (2013). Towards a view of translator competence as an emergent phenomenon: Thinking outside the box(es) in translator education. In D. Kiraly, S. Hansen-Schirra, & K. Maksymski (Eds.), New prospects and perspectives for educating language mediators (pp. 197–224). Tübingen: Narr.
26. Korkmaz, İ. (2019). Teknik çeviri eğitiminde terminoloji – çeviri edinci ilişkisi: Örnek bir inceleme. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (15), 328-341. doi: 10.29000/rumelide.580627
27. Lörscher, W. (1996). A psycholinguistic analysis of translation processes. META, 41(1), 26–32. doi: 10.7202/003518ar.
28. Mossop, B. (2003). What should be taught at translation school? In A. Pym, C. Fallada, J. R. Biau, & J. Orenstein (Eds.), Innovation and e-learning in translator training (pp. 20–22). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Servei de Publicacions.
29. Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation. In C. Schàffner, & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 3–18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
30. PACTE (2000). Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems of a research project. In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger, & M. Presas (Eds.), Investigating translation: Selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation (pp. 99-106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
31. PACTE (2003). Building a translation competence model. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research (pp. 43-66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
32. PACTE (2005). Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. META, 50(2), 609-619. doi: 10.7202/011004ar.
33. PACTE (2009). Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Acceptability and decision making. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 207–230. doi: 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.3. Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), The Teaching of Translation: Training talent and experience (pp. 279-288). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
34. Pym, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age: In defence of a minimalist approach. META, 48(4), 481–497. doi: 10.7202/008533ar.
35. Pym, A. (2005). Training translators – ten recurrent naiveties. Translating Today, (2), 3–6.
36. Risku, H. (2002). Situatedness in translation studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 3(3), 523–533. doi: 10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00055-4.
37. Risku, H. (2016). Situated learning in translation research training: Academic research as a reflection of practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(1), 12–28. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154340.
38. Schäffner, C. (2000). Running before walking? Designing a translation program at undergraduate level. In C. Schäffner & A. Beverly (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 143-157). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
39. Selcen, A. & Eryatmaz, S. (2014). An Interdisciplinary Approach for Academic Training in Translation: Legal Translation as a Specialized Translation Course. Journal of Language and Literature Education, (11), 69-75.
40. Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (2014). Dictionary of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
41. Yazıcı, M. (2007). Yazılı Çeviri Edinci. Istanbul: Multilingual......................................................................................