Exploratory-Cumulative Talk Discourse Markers in Translation Classes: Covertly-Needed vs. Overtly-Needed Translation Texts
Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation
Samaneh Yazdani
1
,
Hossein Heidari Tabrizi
2
*
,
َAzizeh Chalak
3
1 - English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan Branch), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 - English Department, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran
Keywords: Discourse markers, Exploratory-cumulative talk, Translation classes, Translation of Literary Texts, Translation of Political Texts,
Abstract :
The widening conceptual and methodological approach towards exploratory-cumulative talk reflecting its multi aspects of being the optimal analytical tool and strategy in translation classes was the main motivation to set the present study to check whether there is any significant difference between the occurrence frequencies of the discoursal markers showing exploratory-cumulative features in the covertly and overtly needed translation texts. 63 linguistically homogeneous undergraduate students majoring in English translation at Islamic Azad University participated in this study. Two classes; namely, Translation of Literary Texts and Translation of Political Texts, were held by one of the researchers employing the exploratory-cumulative talk as an effective approach to make the learners more efficient and independent cognitively, pedagogically, linguistically and psychologically. Exploratory-cumulative talk discoursal markers, thereof, were identified by using a number of pre-defined indicators by Wegerif and Mercer based on four ground rules that led to capture the nature of the types of the talks and their frequency in classroom recorded conversations. The results of the data analyses showed although the mean of the occurrences of exploratory-cumulative discourse markers for the course Translation of Political Texts was greater than those for the course Translation of Literary Texts, the difference was not found significant.
Brown, A. C. (2016). Classroom community and discourse: How argumentation emerges during a Socratic circle. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 4.
Bullen, K., Moore, K., & Trollope, J. (2002). The influence of pupil-generated ground rules on collaborative learning in the classroom: A pilot study. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(4), 202-217.
Cheung, C.-K., & Rudowicz, E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 241-254.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Vol. 8): John Benjamins Publishing.
Harasim, H. (2015). The sociology of the classroom. In A. Hartnett (Ed.), The Social
Sciences In Educational Studies, 33–45.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2015). An investigation of final tests of translation as practiced in Iranian undergraduate English translation program. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic and Industrial Engineering, 9(8), 2811-2816.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Pezeshki, M. (2015). Strategies used in translation of scientific texts to cope with lexical gaps (Case of Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis Book). Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(6), 1173-1178.
Higgins, J. P., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., & Sterne, J. A. (2019). Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 205-228.
House, J. (2015). Global English, discourse and translation: Linking constructions in English and German popular science texts. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 27(3), 370-386.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing: Routledge.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2014). Interthinking: Putting talk to work: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners: Multilingual matters.
Mercer, N. (2002). Words and minds: How we use language to think together: Routledge.
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford review of education, 40(4), 430-445.
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 187-199.
Neil Mercer, D. & Mercer, N. (2013). The Development of Understanding in the Classroom. Routledge.
Nord, C. (2000). Training functional translators. Cadernos de traducao, 1(5), 27-46.
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International journal of educational research, 39(1-2), 99-111.
Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2016). How prosody marks shifts in footing in classroom discourse. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic Pedagogy (pp. 186-202). London: Multilingual Matters.
Wegerif, R., Linares, J. P., Rojas-Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Velez, M. (2005). Thinking together in the UK and Mexico: Transfer of an educational innovation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40-48.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1998). Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(3), 199-211.
Yazdani, S., & Chalak, A. (2016). Positive and Negative Presentation: The Manipulation of Ideology in Translation of Iranian Political News Titles. Paper presented at the The 1st National Conference on Advances and Challenges in Science, Engineering and Technology Shiraz, Iran.
Yazdani, S., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2020). Exploratory-cumulative vs. Disputational Talk on Cognitive Dependency of Translation Studies: Intermediate level students in focus. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8(33), 39-57.