Murat ÖZGEN, Lütfiye OKTAR, Neslihan YETKİNER KANSU, Yasemin YAVUZ

Yazılı Metinden Sözlü Çeviride Akıcısızlık ve Duraklar: Öğrenci Odaklı Bütünce Temelli Bir Yaklaşım

Bu çalışma, öğrenci odaklı bütünce temelli bir yaklaşımla, yazılı metinden sözlü çeviri esnasındaki öğrenci performanslarında görülen akıcısızlığın takibinin alımlama, üretim, planlama ve aktarım gibi çeviriye ilişkin bilişsel süreçlere yönelik olarak önemli bilgiler sunduğu fikrine dayanmaktadır. Çalışmamızın temel amacı, öğrenci çevirilerinde akıcısızlık türlerinden biri sayılan durak sıklığının, öğrencilerin çeviri sürelerine etkisini ve bu olgunun hangi sözdizimsel yapılarda eşleştiğini yönlülük (İngilizce-Türkçe ve Türkçe- İngilizce) ve metin türü (bilgilendirici ve anlatımsal metinler) parametreleri bağlamında çözümlemektir. Bir başka deyişle, boş ve dolu duraklarla yordanan yazılı metinden sözlü çeviri edimi sırasında öğrencilerin yaşadığı sorunların hangi sözdizimsel yapılar üzerinde oluştuğunu bilişsel olarak ortaya koymak için, durak sıklığı, çeviri süresi ve yantümce-durak ilişkisinin istatistiksel çözümlemeleri yapılmıştır. Öğrenci odaklı bütünce temelli bu çalışmanın veri tabanını İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi Mütercim Tercümanlık bölümünde son sınıfa devam eden 20 öğrencinin toplam 80 yazılı metinden sözlü çeviri ses kaydı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma bulgularımız, her iki metin türünde de Türkçeden İngilizceye çeviri yönünde İngilizceden Türkçeye kıyasla daha fazla durak olduğunu ve bu durumun doğal olarak daha uzun çeviri süresine yol açtığını ortaya koymuştur. Durak sıklığına metin türü açısından bakılacak olursa, daha fazla bilgi yoğunluğuna sahip olan bilgilendirici metinlerde, anlatımsal metinlerle karşılaştırıldığında daha sık olarak durak kullanımı olduğu görülmektedir. Her iki metin türü ve çeviri yönü açısından, bir üretim ve/veya aktarım sorununun boş veya dolu durak şeklinde gözlendiği sözdizimsel yapılar ad ve sıfat yantümceleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Hem eksiklikleri ve sorunları teşhis etmeye hem de bunlara görgül çözümler bulmaya yardımcı olabilecek araştırma bulgularımız, yazılı metinden sözlü çeviri kapsamında daha etkin eğitim ve öğretim bilişsel süreçlerine ışık tutacak veriler sunmaktadır.

Disfluencies and Pauses in Sight Translation: A Learner Corpus Based Approach

The present article pleads for the idea that the analysis of speech disfluencies within a learner corpus of sight translation provides significant information on cognitive translation processes with respect to comprehension, transfer, planning and production. The primary aim of this study is to analyze pauses, their syntactic reflections and influences in the students' performances considering directionality (from English into Turkish vs from Turkish into English) and text types (informative vs expressive texts) parameters. In other words, to show where sight translation problems predicted by silent or filled pauses play out cognitively, frequency of pauses, translation time and clause type-pause correlation are statistically analyzed. The database of the study consists of 80 sight translation recordings of 20 seniors attending İzmir University of Economics, Department of Translation and Interpretation. Our findings revealed that in all translations from Turkish to English, regardless of the text types, more pauses are observed as compared to those from English to Turkish. And this naturally results in longer translation time in this directionality. When we consider the frequency of pauses regarding the text types, it is seen that informative texts, which have higher information density, are marked by more pauses as compared to expressive texts in both directions. In both text types and directions, noun clauses and adjectival clauses are the most frequently observed syntactic structures where we recognize production problems and their reflections with silent or filled pauses. Our findings which can serve both diagnostic and prognostic purposes will constitute a database valuable to construct more effective teaching and learning cognitive processes

PDF

___

Agrifoglio, M. (2004). Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures. Interpreting, 6 (1), 43-67.
Altıparmak, A. ve Kuruoğlu, G. (2014). Filled gaps: A psycholinguistic factor affecting the fluency of speech. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(03), 151-159.
Altıparmak, A. (2015). Türkçe konuşmada akıcısızlık: Psikodilbilimsel bir inceleme. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. S. Lambert ve B. Moser-Mercer (Ed.), Bridging the gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation içinde (ss. 25-38). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aston, G. (Ed.) (2001). Learning with corpora. Bologna: CLUEB.
Bard, E. G., Lickley, R. J. ve Aylett, M. P. (2001). Is disfluency just difficulty?. DISS'01, 97-100. 21 Ağustos 2015 tarihinde http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/archive_papers/diss_01/dis1_097.pdf adresinden erişildi.
Barr, D. J. (2001). Trouble in mind: paralinguistic indices of effort and uncertainty in communication. C. Cavé, I. Guaïtella ve S. Santi (Ed.), Oralité and gestualité: Interactions et comportements multimodaux dans la communication içinde (ss. 597-600). Paris: L'Harmattan.
Bell, L., Eklund R. ve Gustafson, J. (2000). A comparison of disfluency distribution in a unimodal and a multimodal speech interface. B. Yuan, T. Huang ve X. Tang (Ed.). Proceedings of the 6th ICSLP 3 (s. 626-629). Beijing: China.
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S., Bloom, J., Schober, M. ve Brennan, S. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123-147.
Brennan, S. E. ve Schober, M. F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 (2), 274-296.
Cardoen, H. (2013). The (inter)subjectivity of silent pauses in consecutive interpreting. N. D'Amelio (Ed.), La Recherche en interprétation: fondements scientifiques et illustrations méthodologiques içinde (ss. 121-137). Mons: CIPA.
Carter, R. ve McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: a contrastive analysis of professional interpreters' performances. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 11, 63-85.
Chen, Wallace. (2015). Sight translation" Mikkelson, H., and Jourdenais, R. (Ed.). The Routledge handbook of interpreting içinde (ss. 144-154). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ve New York: Routledge.
Clark, H. H. ve Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201-242.
Clark, H. H. ve Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73-111.
Cook, G. (2009). Use of translation in language teaching. M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies içinde (ss. 112-115). London: Routledge
De Jong, N. H. ve Bosker, H.R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. R. Eklund (Ed.). Proceedings of the 6th workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech (Diss) içinde (s. 17-20).
Dragsted, B. ve Gorm Hansen, I. (2009). Exploring translation and interpreting hybrids. The case of sight translation. Meta: Translators' Journal, 54 (3), 588-604.
Duez, D. (1985). Perception of silent pauses in continuous speech. Language and Speech, 28 (4), 377-389.
Erdoğan, V. (2005). Use of English Relative Clauses by Turkish Learners: A Study of Errors. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3 (2), 22-28.
Ersözlü, E. (2005). Training of interpreters: some suggestions on sight translation teaching. Translation Journal, 9, 4, 15 Ağustos 2015 tarihinde http://www.translationdirectory.com/article755.htm adresinden erişildi.
Fox Tree, J. E. (1995). The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 709-738.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (2003). Textologie und Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
Gorszczynska, P. (2010). "The potential of sight translation to optimize written translation" in2010. O. Azadibougar (Ed.), The known unknows of translation studies. Selected essays in honor of the twentieth anniversary of CETRA (1989-2009) içinde 14-08-2015 tarihinde https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/paula- gorszczynska-the-potential-of-sight.pdf adresinden ulaşılmıştır.
Gosy, M. (2007). Difluencies and self-monitoring. Govor, 26, 91-110.
Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London, New York: Routledge.
Gumul, E. (2006). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A strategy or a by-product of language mediation?. Across Languages and Cultures, 7 (2), 171-190.
Gumul, E. (2007). Explicitation in conference interpreting. M. Thelen ve B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Translation and meaning içinde (ss. 449-456). Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd. Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting.
Hatim, B (2001). Teaching and Researching Translation. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Jääskeläinen, R. (1989a). Translation assignment in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. C. Séguinot (Ed.), The translation process içinde (ss.87-98). Toronto: H.G. Publications.
Jääskeläinen, R. (1989b). The role of reference material in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. S. Tirkkonen-Condit ve S. Condit (Ed.), Empirical studies in translation and linguistics içinde (ss. 175-200). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Cambridge: CUP.
Kornfilt, J. (2000). Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish. Alexiadou, A., Law, P. Meinunger, A. ve Wilder, C. (Ed.) The syntax of relative clauses içinde (ss.121-159) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Künzli, A. (2001). Experts versus novices: l'utilisation de sources d'information pendant le processus de traduction. Meta, 46 (3), 507-523.
Lambert, S. (2004). Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 49 (2), 294-306.
Lee, J. (2012). What skills do student interpreters need to learn in sight translation training?. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 57 (3), 694-714.
Maclay, H. ve Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous speech. Word, 15, 19-44.
Mead, P. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 10, 89-102.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1995): Sight translation and human information processing. A. Neubert, G. Shreve ve K. Gommlich,(Ed). Basic Issues in Translation Studies içinde (ss. 159-166) Kent: Kent State University.
Obidina, V. (2015). Sight translation: Typological insights into the mode. Humanities and Social Sciences, 8 (1), 91-98.
Oktar, L.ve Yağcıoğlu, S. (1995). Türkçede metin türleri: Bir sınıflandırma çalışması. IX. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (ss 205-220), Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
Oliveira, M. (2002). Pausing strategies as means of information processing narratives. Proceeding of the international conference on speech prosody (ss. 539-542). Ain-en-Provence.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B. ve Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362-367.
Schnadt, M. J. ve Corley, M. (2006). The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. Language, 212 (2), 8-13.
Shreve, G. M., Lacruz, I. ve Angelone, E. (2010). Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption, and visual interference in a sight translation task. G. M. Shreve ve E. Angelone (Ed.), Translation and cognition içinde (ss. 53-84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shreve, G. M., Lacruz, I. ve Angelone, E. (2011). Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognition. E. Tiselius, A. Hild ve C. Alvstad (Ed.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies içinde (ss. 93-120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. (Ed.) (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 10, 103-127.
Viezzi, M. (1989). Information retention as a parameter for the comparison of sight translation
and simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 2, 65-69.
Vural, E. (2008). Disfluency in second language: A quantitative study on Turkish learners of
English. Yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Weber, W., K. (1990). The importance of sight translation in an interpreter training program. In: D. Bowen ve M. Bowen (Ed.), Interpreting - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow içinde (ss. 44-52). New York: Binghamton.
Yin, K. (2011). Disfluencies in consecutive interpreting among undergraduates in the language lab environment. H. H. Gao ve M. Dong (Ed.). Proceedings of the 25th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation (s. 459-466). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.