Çevirmen etkileşimde: Ardıl çeviride uyumsuz aktarımlar

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 20, 774 - 783, 21.09.2020

Şeyda Kıncal

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.792498

Öz

Bu çalışma, yazarın bağlam içinde ardıl çeviri üzerine yazdığı doktora tezinin bulgularını sunmayı ve tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır (Eraslan 2011). Çalışmanın yola çıkış nedenleri ve temelleri ortaya konulduktan sonra aynı makro bağlam içinde iki etkinlikte görev alan bir çevirmenin sözlü çeviri performansının analizine ait sonuçların bir bölümü sunulacaktır. Etkinlikler, çok katmanlı bir bağlam yaklaşımı çerçevesinde betimlenecektir. Dolayısıyla, kurumsal, sosyo-kültürel ve durumsal bağlamlara da kısaca değinilecektir. Bu çalışmadaki tartışma, uyumsuz aktarımlar (Wadesjö 1998) çerçevesinde orijinal konuşma ile hedef konuşma arasındaki farklılıklar incelenerek, çevirmenin aktif rolünün ifade düzeyine yansımalarına odaklanacaktır. Uyumsuz aktarımlar, çevirmenin bağlamsal ve durumsal faktörlerle kullanıcı beklentilerini dikkate alarak aktif rol ve sorumluluk üstlenerek, etkileşimde farklı stratejiler uyguladığı durumlardan oluşmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ardıl çeviri, çevirmenin rolü, bağlam, uyumsuz aktarımlar

The interpreter in (inter)action: Divergent renditions in consecutive interpreting

Öz

This paper aims to present and discuss the findings of the author’s PhD thesis on consecutive interpreting in context (Eraslan 2011). After putting forth the rationale for and laying the foundations to the study, it will provide part of the results pertaining to the analysis of the real-life interpreting performance of an interpreter at two events within the same macro-context. The events will be described within a multi-layer approach to context. Thus, the institutional, socio-cultural, and situational contexts will be briefly mentioned. The discussion will focus on the involvement and active role of the interpreter reflected at the utterance level through the differences between the original speech and the target speech framed as divergent renditions (Wadensjö 1998) at two events. These divergent renditions include instances where the interpreter employs various strategies in the interaction, taking an active role and assuming responsibility depending on user expectations as well as contextual and situational factors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Consecutive interpreting, interpreter’s role, context, divergent renditions

Kaynakça

• Anderson, R. Bruce W. (1976/2002). “Perspectives on the Role of the Interpreter”. In The Interpreting Studies Reader, F. Pöchhacker and M. Shlesinger (eds). London and New York: Routledge (pp. 209-217).
• Angelelli, C. (2003). “The Interpersonal Role of the Interpreter in Cross-Cultural Communication, A Survey of Conference, Court and Medical Interpreters in the US, Canada and Mexico”. In The Critical Link 3 Interpreters in the Community, L. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelpia: John Benjamins (pp. 15-26).
• Bot, H and Verrept, H. (2013). Role Issues in the Low Countries: Interpreting in mental healthcare in the Netherlands and Belgium (pp. 117- 131). Interpreting in a Changing Landscape. Editors Christina Schaeffner, Kryzsztof Kredens, Yvonne Fowler. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia
• Bowen, D. and M. Bowen. (1980). Steps to consecutive interpretation. Washington, DC: Pen and Booth.
• Diriker, E. (2001). De-/Re-contextualizing Simultaneous Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Doctoral Thesis. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University.
• Dollerup, C. and A. Loddegaard. (1992). Teaching translation and interpreting [Training, talent and experience]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Du Bois, J. W., S. Schuetze-Coburn, S. Cumming and D. Paolino. (1993). “Outline of discourse transcription”. In Talking Data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, J.A. Edwards and M.D. Lambert (eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 45-89).
• Eraslan, Ş. (2011). International Knowledge Transfer in Turkey: The Consecutive Interpreter’s Role in Context. Doctoral Thesis. Tarragona: Rovira i Virgili University
• Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Gile, D. (1997). “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem”. In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, J. Danks, G.M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain and M.K. McBeath (eds). London: Sage (pp. 196-214).
• Gillies, A. (2001). Conference interpreting — A students’ companion. Cracow: Tertium.
• Gillies, A. (2005). Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting – A Short Course. Manchester: St. Jerome.
• Herbert, J. (1952). The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Geneva: Georg.
• Hlavac, J. (2017). Brokers, dual-role mediators and professional interpreters: a discourse-based examination of mediated speech and the roles that linguistic mediators enact. (pp. 197- 216). The Translator: 23:2
• Ilg, G. and S. Lambert. (1996). “Teaching consecutive interpretation”. Interpreting 1 (1): 69–99.
• Kade, O. (1963). “Der Dolmetschvorgang und die Notation”. Fremdsprachen 7 (1): 12–20.
• Mason, I. (2006a). “On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting”. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (3): 359-373
• Mason, I. (2006b). “Ostension, inference and response: analysing participant moves in Community Interpreting dialogues”. In Taking Stock: Research and Methodology in Community Interpreting, Linguistica Antverpiensia 5, E. Hertog and B. van der Veer (eds) (pp. 103-120).
• Pöchhacker, F. (1994). Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
• Pöchhacker, F. (2006). “‘Going Social?’ On the pathways and paradigms in interpreting studies”. In Sociocultural Aspects of Translation and Interpreting, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and Z. Jettmarova (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia : John Benjamins (pp. 215-232).
• Pöchhacker, F. (2011). “Consecutive Interpreting”. In Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, K. Malmkjaer and K. Windle (eds). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 294-306).
• Rozan, J.-F. (1956). La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Geneva: Georg.
• Rozan, J.-F. (2002). Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting. Cracow: Tertium.
• Setton, R. (2006). “Context in simultaneous interpretation”. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (3): 374-389
• Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell: Oxford.
• Van De Mieeroop, D. (2012). The quotative ‘he/she says’ in interpreted doctor- patient interaction. Interpreting. 14(1):92-117
• Vranjes, J, Brone, G and Feyaerts, K. (2018). On the Role of Gaze in the Organization of Turn-Taking and Sequence Organization in Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue (pp. 439- 467) Language and Dialogue. Vol.8:3. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia
• Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.
• Zimanyi, Krisztina. (2013). “Somebody has to be in charge of a session”: On the control of communication in interpreter-mediated mental health encounters. Translation and Interpreting Studies: 8(1): 94- 111