Basit öğe kaydını göster

Translation Quality Assessment of TSE Standards in the Field of Construction Translated from English into Turkish: Examining the Effect of Commission in the Light of Skopos Theory

dc.contributor.advisorÜnlü Antonova, Elena
dc.contributor.authorKoçer, Betül
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-17T13:22:40Z
dc.date.available2018-01-17T13:22:40Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.submitted2018-01-10
dc.identifier.citationKoçer, Betül. Translation Quality Assessment of TSE Standards in the Field of Construction Translated from English into Turkish: Examining the Effect of Commission in the Light of Skopos Theory. Master's Thesis, 2018.tr_TR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11655/4187
dc.description.abstractIn the rapidly globalized world, the need for mass production has increased the necessity for standards and their translations. National standardization body of Turkey, Turkish Standards Institution (TSE), went through a radical change in translation policy in the year of 2016, which resulted in the introduction of a new standard developing and translation guide, which is a commission in terms of Skopos theory. The present study aims to evaluate the quality of standards translated from English into Turkish after and before the year of 2016 to determine where there has been an improvement in the translation quality of standards as a result of the innovation. For this purpose, corpus one (C1) consisting of 10 randomly chosen construction standards translated before the year of 2016 and corpus two (C2) consisting of 10 randomly chosen construction standards translated after the year of 2016 were evaluated according to Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) translation quality assessment model (Lommel, Burchardt & Uszkoreit, 2015). Translation errors found in each corpus were classified according to seventeen error types of this model and weighting according to their severities. The results of translation quality analysis of C1 and C2 were compared to find out whether there was any improvement in translation quality of C2 after the introduction of the commission in the year of 2016. The quantitative data analysis revealed that there were 544 instance of translation error observed in C1, while in C2, the number of error decreased to 314. Statistical analysis revealed that the introduction of the commission has significantly improved translation quality. The qualitative analysis revealed that the error patterns differed between the two corpora: in C1 translation errors statistically distributed uniformly over categories while in C2 the majority of the errors were left in the category of Fluency, which could be attributed to the peculiarities of the guideline of 2016. As a result, the present study provides a piece of evidence that the presence of commission is likely to enhance the quality of translation and supports the view of Vermeer that a translator should be provided with a properly defined commission before starting the process of translation.tr_TR
dc.description.tableofcontentsTABLE OF CONTENTS ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL i DECLARATION ii YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI iii ETİK BEYAN iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v ÖZET vii ABSTRACT ix TABLE OF CONTENTS xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xvii LIST OF TABLES xix LIST OF FIGURES xx INTRODUCTION 1 I. GENERAL REMARKS 1 II. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 2 III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 2 IV. METHODOLOGY 2 V. LIMITATIONS 3 VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 3 CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 5 1.1. A GENERAL REVIEW OF SKOPOS THEORY 5 1.1.1. Translation Commission 7 1.1.2. Text Types and Skopos Theory 8 1.2. A REVIEW OF TECHNICAL TEXTS AND STANDARDS 10 1.3. A GENERAL REVIEW OF TRANSLATION QUALITY 11 1.4. MULTIDIMENSIONAL QUALITY METRICS (MQM) 17 1.4.1. Accuracy 20 1.4.1.1. Mistranslation Errors 21 1.4.1.2. Omission Errors 21 1.4.1.3. Addition Errors 22 1.4.1.4. Untranslation Errors 23 1.4.1.5. Terminology Errors 23 1.4.2. Fluency 24 1.4.2.1. Ambiguity Errors 25 1.4.2.2. Inconsistency Errors 25 1.4.2.3. Spelling Errors 26 1.4.2.4. Style Guide Errors 26 1.4.2.5. Typography Errors 27 1.4.2.6. Grammar Errors 27 1.4.2.7. Locale Convention Errors 28 1.4.3. Verity 28 1.4.3.1. Legal Requirements Errors 29 1.4.3.2. Locale-Specific Content Errors 29 1.4.4. Design 30 1.4.4.1. Layout Errors 30 1.4.4.2. Local-formatting Errors 30 1.4.4.3. Graphics and Tables Errors 31 CHAPTER 2: A GENERAL REVIEW OF STANDARDS 32 2.1. WHAT IS A STANDARD? 32 2.2. BRIEF HISTORY OF STANDARDIZATION 34 2.3. NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS 35 2.3.1. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 36 2.3.2. International Organization for Standards (ISO) 37 2.3.3. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) 37 2.3.4. The European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) 38 2.4. STANDARDIZATION IN TURKEY 40 2.4.1. Turkish Standards Institution (TSE) 40 2.5. STANDARDIZATION PROCESS OF TURKISH STANDARDS 41 2.5.1. Idiosyncratic Turkish Standards 43 2.5.2. Adopted Turkish Standards 43 2.5.3. Translation Turkish Standards 43 2.6. GENERAL FEATURES OF STANDARDS AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF THEIR TEXT TYPE 44 2.7. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIELD OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE STANDARD DEVELOPING AND TRANSLATION GUIDE (2016) 49 CHAPTER 3: TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESMENT OF TSE STANDARDS IN THE FIELD OF CONSTRUCTION TRANSLATED FROM ENGLISH INTO TURKISH: EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF COMMISSION IN THE LIGHT OF SKOPOS THEORY 52 3.1. ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF CORPUS 1 52 3.1.1. Accuracy 54 3.1.1.1. Mistranslation Errors 54 3.1.1.2. Omission Errors 57 3.1.1.3. Addition Errors 60 3.1.1.4. Untranslation Errors 62 3.1.1.5. Terminology Errors 63 3.1.2. Fluency 66 3.1.2.1. Ambiguity Errors 66 3.1.2.2. Inconsistency Errors 68 3.1.2.3. Spelling Errors 70 3.1.2.4. Style Guide Errors 71 3.1.2.5. Typography Errors 74 3.1.2.6. Grammar Errors 75 3.1.2.7. Locale Convention Errors 77 3.1.3. Verity 78 3.1.3.1. Legal Requirements Errors 79 3.1.3.2. Locale-Specific Content Errors 79 3.1.4. Design 80 3.1.4.1. Layout Errors 81 3.1.4.2. Local-Formatting Errors 82 3.1.4.3. Graphics and Tables Errors 85 3.2. ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF CORPUS 2 88 3.2.1. Accuracy 90 3.2.1.1. Mistranslation Errors 90 3.2.1.2. Omission Errors 92 3.2.1.3. Addition Errors 95 3.2.1.4. Untranslation Errors 97 3.2.1.5. Terminology Errors 97 3.2.2. Fluency 98 3.2.2.1. Ambiguity Errors 98 3.2.2.2. Inconsistency Errors 100 3.2.2.3. Spelling Errors 101 3.2.2.4. Style Guide Errors 103 3.2.2.5. Typography Errors 105 3.2.2.6. Grammar Errors 106 3.2.2.7. Locale Convention Errors 108 3.2.3. Verity 109 3.2.3.1. Legal Requirement Errors 109 3.2.3.2. Locale-Specific Content Errors 109 3.2.4. Design 109 3.2.4.1. Layout Errors 110 3.2.4.2. Local-Formatting Errors 111 3.2.4.3. Graphics and Tables Errors 113 3.3. COMPARISON OF ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENTS OF CORPUS 1 AND CORPUS 2 116 3.3.1. Hypothesis Tests 116 3.3.1.1. Testing the Equality of Total Number of Errors in C1 and C2 117 3.3.1.1.1. Determining Improvement Level of Translation Quality 119 3.3.1.2. Testing the Equality of Error Weightings in C1 and C2 121 3.3.1.2.1. Test of Minor Errors 121 3.3.1.2.2. Test of Major Errors 122 3.3.1.2.3. Test of Critical Errors 123 3.3.1.3. Testing the Equality of Core Error Categories 125 3.3.1.3.1. Uniformity of Errors over Core Error Categories in C1 125 3.3.1.3.2. Uniformity of Core Error Categories in C2 127 3.4. DISCUSSION 130 CONCLUSION 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY 135 APPENDIX 1. Detailed Data Analysis of C1 and C2 149 APPENDIX 2. TSE Standards Preparation Guide (The Commission) 155 APPENDIX 3. Originality Report 206 APPENDIX 4. Ethics Board Waiver Form 209 AUTOBIOGRAPHY 211tr_TR
dc.language.isoentr_TR
dc.publisherSosyal Bilimler Enstitüsütr_TR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesstr_TR
dc.subjectTranslation Quality Assessment, Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), Skopos Theory, Standards, Technical Translationtr_TR
dc.subjectMultidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM)
dc.subjectSkopos Theory
dc.subjectStandards
dc.subject
dc.subjectTechnical Translation
dc.titleTranslation Quality Assessment of TSE Standards in the Field of Construction Translated from English into Turkish: Examining the Effect of Commission in the Light of Skopos Theorytr_TR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesistr_TR
dc.description.ozetHızla küreselleşen dünyada, seri üretime duyulan ihtiyaç standartların ve çevirilerinin gerekliliğini arttırmıştır. Türkiye’nin milli standardizasyon kuruluşu olan Türk Standartları Enstitüsü (TSE), 2016 yılında çeviri politikasında radikal bir değişikliğe gitti ve bunun sonucunda yeni bir standart hazırlama ve çeviri kılavuzu ortaya çıktı. Bu kılavuz, Skopos kuramına göre çeviri komisyonu olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, ortaya çıkan bu kılavuzun sonucunda standartların çeviri kalitesinde bir artış olup olmadığını belirlemek için 2016 yılından önce ve 2016 yılından sonra İngilizceden Türkçeye çevrilmiş standartların kalitesini değerlendirmeyi amaçlar. Bu amaçla, 2016 yılından önce çevirisi yapılmış, rastgele seçilen 10 inşaat standardından oluşan Derlem 1 (D1) ile 2016 yılından sonra çevirisi yapılmış, rastgele seçilen 10 inşaat standardından oluşan Derlem 2 (D2), Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) (Lommel, Burchardt & Uszkoreit, 2015) çeviri kalitesi değerlendirme modeline göre değerlendirildi. Her bir korpusta bulunan çeviri hataları bu modelin on yedi farklı hata türüne göre sınıflandırıldı ve önem derecesine göre değerlendirildi. Çeviri komisyonunun 2016 yılında takdim edilmesinden sonra D2’nin çeviri kalitesinde herhangi bir artış olup olmadığını tespit etmek amacıyla D1 ve D2’nin çeviri kalitesi analizlerinin sonuçları karşılaştırıldı. Nicel veri analizi, D1’de 544 çeviri hatası olduğunu, D2’de ise hata sayısının 314’e düştüğünü ortaya çıkardı. İstatistiksel analiz, komisyonun varlığının çeviri kalitesini önemli ölçüde artırdığını ortaya koydu. Niteliksel analiz ise, iki korpus arasındaki hata şablonunun farklı olduğunu ortaya çıkardı: D1’de çeviri hataları, hata kategorine istatistiksel olarak homojen bir şekilde dağılmışken, D2’de hataların büyük bir kısmı Fluency [akıcılık] kategorisinde kalmıştır. Bu durum 2016 tarihli kılavuzun özelliklerine dayandırılabilir. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, çeviri komisyonunun varlığının çeviri kalitesini arttıracağı konusunda kanıt sunar ve Vermeer’in, çeviri sürecine başlamadan önce tercümanlara düzgün tanımlanmış bir çeviri komisyonu verilmesinin çeviri kalitesini arttırdığı fikrini destekler.tr_TR
dc.contributor.departmentMütercim-Tercümanlıktr_TR
dc.contributor.authorID10176907tr_TR


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Ad:
10176907.pdf
Boyut:
20.95Mb
Biçim:
PDF
Göster/Aç

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster