Analysing Misunderstanding in Consecutive Interpreting in Sensitive Settings and Interpreter Training

Literatürde yanlış anlama konusu geniş yer bulmuş olsa da ardıl çeviri bağlamında pek irdelenmemiştir. Yazarın ardıl çeviride uygulayıcı ve eğitmen olarak edindiği tecrübeler temelinde gelişen bu çalışma öncelikle diliçi yanlış anlama tetikleyicilerini, bilişsel olan ve olmayan yüklerin arttığı bilinen, hassas bir ortam olan siyasi ve savunmaya yönelik görüşmeler özelinde diller arası bağlamda yeniden incelemektir. Araştırmanın belli başlı iki amacı bulunmaktadır: mevcut analizi ardıl çeviri bağlamında genişletmek ve bağlam içinde öğrenmenin bir parçası olarak ardıl çeviri derslerinde tartışmak üzere gerçek vakalar üzerinde bu bilgiyi kullanmaktır. Öncelikle yanlış anlama tetikleyicileri sunulmakta, ardından mümkün olduğu ölçüde vaka verilmekte ve bunlar ders ortamı ve gerçek hayata ait ilgili tepkilerle bütünlenmektedir. Böylelikle, bu betimleyici çalışma ardıl çeviri derslerine yönelik olarak hassas ortamlarda yanlış anlama konusundaki farkındalığın arttırılması ve daha iyi yönetilebilmesi için deneyimlenmiş, yapılandırmacı bir yaklaşım önermektedir.

Hassas Ortamlarda Yapılan Ardıl Çeviride Yanlış Anlama ve Sözlü Çeviri Eğitimi

Misunderstanding has been deeply investigated in literature up to date. However, not much has been analyzed in the context of consecutive interpreting. Drawing on the experience as a practitioner in consecutive interpreting and as an instructor, this study revisits the initially intralingual model on triggers of misunderstanding, at interlingual level, in the sensitive setting of political and defense related bilateral talks. It is known that cognitive/ noncognitive loads become higher in such contexts, which would affect the occurrences of misunderstanding. The main aims of the study are twofold: i. to expand the analysis for the consecutive interpreting process. ii. to use this practical data accompanied by cases to discuss them during the consecutive interpreting classes as part of situated learning. Firstly, triggers of misunderstanding are noted, then cases, where possible, are given, followed by suggestions as to how would-be consecutive interpreters can cope with such misunderstanding. These are complemented by reactions to cases from class versus real settings about the mentioned types of misunderstanding. Thus, this descriptive paper proposes a tested constructivist approach to grow awareness and better cope with misunderstanding in sensitive settings for consecutive interpreting classes.

PDF

___

Albl-Mikasa, M. (2010). Global English and English as a lingua franca (ELF): Implications for the interpreting profession. Trans-com 3(2), 126-148.
Aronson, E., Wilson T.D. & Akert, R.M. (2004). Social Psychology (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Baker, M, & Maier, C. (2011). Ethics in interpreter & translator traning, Critical perspectives. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5(1), 1-14.
Baker, M. (1997) Non-cognitive constraints and interpreter strategies in political interviews. In K. Simms (Ed.), Translating sensitive texts: linguistic aspects. (pp. 111-131). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Bazzanella, C. & Damiano R., (1999). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 817-836.
Beldad, A. (2006) Misunderstanding and non-understanding in the usage of English as a common language in help desk encounters involving nonnative speakers. [Available online ], Retrieved June 17, 2012. from University of Twente, web site: http://essay.utwente.nl/57395/1/scriptie_Beldad.pdf
Blum-Kulka S. & Weizman,E., (2003). Misunderstandings in political interviews. In J.House, G.Kasper & S.Ross (Eds.), Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk. (pp. 107-128). London: Longman.
Coupland, N., Giles, Wiemann, H., & J.M. (1991). Miscommunication and problematic talk. London: Sage.
Dascal, M. (1999) Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 753- 762.
Drugan, J. & Megone, C.,. (2011). Bringing ethics into translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5(1), 183-211.
Fabian, J. (1991). Time and work of anthropology: Critical essays, 1971-1991. [Available online at: http://books. google.com.tr/books?id=on], Retrieved May 23, 2012.
Free Dictionary (2013). Orthodox. [Available online at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/orthodox] Retrieved May 18, 2013.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Grimshaw, A.D. (1980). Mishearings, misunderstandings and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 31-74.
Hinnenkamp, V. (1999). Journal of Intercultural Communication, 1. [Available online at: http://www.immi.se/ intercultural/nr1/hinnen.htm Retrieved February 2, 2012.
Hinnenkamp, V. (2003). Misunderstandings: Interactional structural and strategic resources. In J. House, G.Kasper & S.Ross (Eds.), Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk. (pp.57-81). London: Longman.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. On Language. [Available online at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ philosophy/works/ge/vhumboldt-wilhelm.htm] Retrieved June 24, 2012.
Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, K. & S.Kalina. (1996). The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, XLI, 1, 118-138.
Koskinen, K. (2012). Public translation studies in the classroom. The Interpreter and Translator Training, 6(1), 1-20.
Kreuz, R.J. & Roberts, R.M. (1993). When collaboration fails: Consequences of pragmatic errors in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 239-252.
Kurz, I. (2003). Physiological stress during simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of experts and novices. [Available online at: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2472/1/03.pdf ] Retrieved June 25, 2012.
Lunce, L.M. (2006). Simulations: bringing the benefits of situated learning to the traditional classroom. Journal of Applied Educational Technologies, 3(1), 37-45.
Mason, I. (2006). On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 359-373.
McRoy, S.W. & Hirst, G. (1993). Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. EACL Proceedings of the sixth conference on European chapter of the association for computational linguistics, 277-286.
Nakane, I. Book Review: Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk. In J.House, G.Kasper and S.Ross (Eds.) London: Longman, In Discourse & Society 16(1), 136-137.
Ramirez Verdugo, D. (2005). The nature and patterning of native and non-native intonation in the expression of certainty and uncertainty: Pragmatic effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 2086-2115.
Roland, R. (1999). Interpreters as diplomats: A diplomatic history of the role of interpreters in world politics. Canada: University of Ottowa Press.
Schäffner, C. (1997). Political Texts as Sensitive Texts. In K.simms. (Ed.)Translating Sensitie Texts: Linguistic Aspects. (131-138).Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Schegloff, E.A. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201-218.
Seleskovitch, D. (1977). Why interpreting is not tantamount to translating languages. The Incorporated Linguist, 16(2), 22-23.Thirteen Ed OnLine. (2004). [Avaiable online at http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/ concept2class/constructivism/index.html] Retrieved May 19, 2013.
Tsutsui, K. (2009). Culturally and linguistically driven misunderstanding? The analysis of intercultural misunderstanding. Institute for Intercultural communication. [Available online at: http:://commcourses. com/iic/?page_id=320] Retrieved January 15, 2012.
Verdonik, D. (2010). Between understanding and misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1364-1379.
Weigand, E. (1999). Misunderstanding. The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 763-785.
Wilson, A. (2004). When contextualization cues mislead: misunderstanding, mutual knowledge, and non-verbal gestures. California linguistic notes, vol XXIX(1).