Interactions of Institutional Translators with Digital Translation Tools

Year 2025, Issue: 38, 61 - 87, 31.07.2025

Büşra Kurt Uçar , Sinem Sancaktaroğlu Bozkurt

https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.1664272

Abstract

Digitalisation manifests itself in various ways in different business sectors, and translation sector experiences it through its (semi-)automated translation processes due to digital technologies that include computer-aided translation (CAT) tools as well as machine translation (MT) and artificial intelligence (AI) software. It could be argued that the translators are the most affected social actors in this environment although it should be underlined that there are other social actors such as colleagues or employers. Domination of digital translation technologies, as the technical actors, has a powerful effect on shaping the network within which translators operate. Depending on this hypothesis, this paper aims to illuminate and explore perceptions of institutional translators in Türkiye about digital translation tools as well as interactions between these human and non-human actors in light of actor-network theory (ANT) proposed by Callon, Latour and Law. The effects of digital technologies on institutional translators have been investigated via an online questionnaire (N=29) and online interviews with three institutional translators. Although the number of questionnaire participants is limited, it was aimed to increase validity with qualitative data from interviews. It is found that digital translation tools are predominantly perceived indispensable for institutional translators, the alliances forged with these tools are generally well-accepted and valued, and intermediaries such as budget, skills, competencies, teamwork and digital tools contribute to the self-positioning of translators within a heterogeneous network. While obligatory passage points and intermediaries change based on conditions, digital translation tools are generally evaluated positively in individual occupational networks; however, the translators tend to perceive the effects more negatively when broader networks involving other social actors are in question.

Keywords

digital translation tools , actor-network theory , human and non-human actors , sociology of translators , institutional translators

Kurum Çevirmenlerinin Dijital Çeviri Araçları ile Etkileşimleri

Abstract

Dijitalleşme farklı iş sektörlerinde çeşitli şekillerde karşımıza çıkmaktadır ve çeviri sektörü de dijitalleşmeyi bilgisayar destekli çeviri (BDÇ) araçlarının yanı sıra makine çevirisi (MÇ) ve yapay zekâ (YZ) yazılımlarını da içeren dijital teknolojiler aracılığıyla (yarı) otomatikleşmiş çeviri süreçleri ile deneyimlemektedir. Bu ortamda en çok etkilenenlerin sosyal aktörler olarak çevirmenler olduğu ileri sürülebilirken meslektaşlar veya işverenler gibi başka sosyal aktörlerin de bulunduğunun altı çizilmelidir. Teknik aktörler olarak dijital çeviri teknolojilerinin baskın olması çevirmenlerin faaliyet gösterdiği ağı şekillendirme konusunda güçlü bir etkiye sahiptir. Bu varsayımdan yola çıkarak bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki kurum çevirmenlerinin dijital çeviri araçları konusundaki algılarının ve bu insan ve insan dışı aktörler arasındaki etkileşimlerin Callon, Latour ve Law tarafından ileri sürülen aktör-ağ kuramı (AAK) ışığında aydınlatılması ve incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Dijital teknolojilerin kurum çevirmenleri üzerindeki etkileri çevrim içi bir anket (N=29) ve üç kurum çevirmeni ile yapılan çevrim içi görüşmeler aracılığıyla araştırılmıştır. Anket katılımcı sayısı sınırlı olsa da görüşmelerden elde edilen nitel veriler ile geçerliliğin artırılması amaçlanmıştır. Dijital çeviri araçlarının kurum çevirmenleri tarafından büyük oranda vazgeçilmez olarak algılandığı, bu araçlarla kurulan ittifakların genellikle kabul gördüğü ve bunlara değer verildiği ve bütçe, beceriler, yetkinlikler, ekip çalışması ve dijital araçlar gibi aracıların çevirmenlerin heterojen ağda kendilerini konumlandırmalarına katkıda bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Zorunlu geçiş noktaları ve aracılar koşullar doğrultusunda değişiklik gösterirken dijital çeviri araçları bireysel mesleki ağlarda genellikle olumlu olarak değerlendirilmekte fakat başka sosyal aktörleri içeren daha geniş ağlar söz konusu olduğunda çevirmenlerin etkileri daha olumsuz yönde algılama eğiliminde olduğu görülmektedir.

Keywords

dijital çeviri araçları , aktör-ağ kuramı , insan ve insan dışı aktörler , çevirmen sosyolojisi , kurum çevirmenleri

References

• Abdi, H. (2020). Translation and technology: Investigating the employment of computer-aided translation (CAT) tools among Iranian freelance translators. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 10(7).
• Angelelli, C. V. (2014). Introduction. In Claudia V. Angelelli (Ed.), The Sociological Turn in Translation and Interpreting Studies, 66, 1-5.
• Aral Duvan, M. (2021). Türkiye’de toplum çevirmenliği bağlamında mültecilere verilen tercüman bilirkişilik hizmetleri: Ağ kuramı işığında bir değerlendirme/Court interpreting services provided for refugees in Turkey in the context of community interpreting: An evaluation in the light of actor network theory. [Unpublished doctoral Dissertation]. Istanbul University Institute of Social Sciences.
• Bentivogli, L., Bisazza, A., Cettolo, M., & Federico, M. (2016). Neural versus phrase-based machine translation quality: a case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.04631.
• Buzelin, H. (2005). Unexpected allies: How Latour’s network theory could complement Bourdieusian analyses in translation studies. The Translator, 11(2), 193-218.
• Cadwell, P., Castilho, S., O’Brien, S., & Mitchell, L. (2016). Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators. Translation Spaces. A multidisciplinary, multimedia, and multilingual journal of translation, 5(2), 222-243.
• Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1_suppl), 196-233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
• Callon, M. (1991). Techno‐economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.). A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, 132-161.
• Callon, M. (2007). Actor-network theory – The Market Test. In K. Asdal, B. Brenna & I. Moser (Eds.). Technoscience: The politics of interventions, Oslo Academic Press, Oslo, 1, 273-286.
• Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 165-182.
• Çetiner, C. (2021). Sustainability of translation as a profession: Changing roles of translators in light of the developments in machine translation systems. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (Ö9), 575-586.
• Chesterman, A. (2006). Questions in the sociology of translation. In J. F. Duarte, A. A. Rosa & T. Seruya (Eds.). Translation studies at the interface of disciplines (Vol. 68). John Benjamins Publishing. 9-27.
• Chesterman, A. (2009). The name and nature of translator studies. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business, (42), 13-22.
• Coşkun, Ö., & Tunalı, G. (2020). Low social status, high individual status: Turkish translators in the state and private sectors. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(4), 1427-1446.
• Courtney, J., & Phelan, M. (2019). Translators’ experiences of occupational stress and job satisfaction. Translation & Interpreting, 11(1), 100-113.
• Cressman, D. (2009). A brief overview of actor-network theory: Punctualization, heterogeneous engineering & translation.
• Cronin, M. (2010). Globalization and Translation. In Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (Eds.). Handbook of translation studies. John Benjamin Publishing Company, Amsterdam, (1), 134-140.
• Cronin, M. (2013). Translation in the digital age. Routledge.
• Duraner, J. E. (2015). Mapping network in legal translation market in Turkey: Analysis of actors from sociological perspective [Unpublished Master’s thesis], Dokuz Eylül University Institute of Social Sciences.
• ELIA, EMT, EUATC, FIT Europe, GALA, & LIND. (2019). 2019 Language Industry Survey – Expectations and Concerns of the European Language Industry.
• European Commission Representation in the UK, Chartered Institute of Linguists, and Institute of Translation and Interpreting. (2017). UK Translator Survey: Final Report. London.
• Gürleyen, G., & Kıncal, Ş. (2022). Community interpreting network in Turkey: perceptions on (non)professionalization and beyond. [Unpublished MA thesis], Dokuz Eylül University Institute of Social Sciences.
• Gürleyen, G., & Uras, A. (2023). Serbest çeviri ağında dönüştürüm süreci: Aktör-ağ kuramı penceresinden bir bakış. Dünya Dilleri, Edebiyatları ve Çeviri Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 144-171.
• Hekkanen, R. (2009). Fields, networks and Finnish prose: A comparison of Bourdieusian field theory and actor-network theory in translation sociology. In Selected papers of the CETRA research seminar in translation studies 2008, 1-22.
• Hermans, T. (Dd.) (1985). The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation, Croom Helm.
• Hutchins, J. (2001). Machine translation and human translation: in competition or in complementation. International Journal of Translation, 13(1-2), 5-20.
• Jiménez-Crespo, M. A. (2020). The “technological turn” in translation studies: Are we there yet? A transversal cross-disciplinary approach. Translation Spaces, 9(2), 314-341.
• Kurt Uçar, B. (2025). A Sociological perspective on the digitalisation of the translation Process: The effects on the occupational status of translators [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences.
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard university press.
• Latour, B. (1990/1996). On actor-network theory. A few clarifications, plus more than a few complications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369-381.
• Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225-258). MIT Press.
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
• Law, J. (1999). After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. In J. Hassard & J. Law (Eds.) Actor-Network Theory and After (pp. 1-14). Oxford University Press.
• Law, J., & Callon, M. (1988). Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: A network analysis of technological change. Social problems, 35(3), Special Issue: The Sociology of Science and Technology, 284-297.
• LeBlanc, M. (2017). ‘I can’t get no satisfaction!’ Should we blame translation technologies or shifting business practices? In D. Kenny (ed.) Human issues in translation technology (pp. 45-62). Routledge.
• Mesleki Yeterlilik Kurumu (2020). Çevirmen (Seviye 6) Ulusal Meslek Standardı.
• Moorkens, J. (2020). Comparative satisfaction among freelance and directly-employed Irish-language translators. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 12(1), 55-73.
• Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4th ed.). Routledge.
• O’Hagan, M. (2013). The impact of new technologies on translation studies: a technological turn? In C. Millán and F. Bartrina (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies (pp. 503-518). Routledge.
• Olohan, M. (2011). Translators and translation technology: The dance of agency. Translation studies, 4(3), 342-357. Olohan, M. (2021). Translation and practice theory. Routledge.
• Ruokonen, M., & Koskinen, K. (2017). Dancing with technology: translators’ narratives on the dance of human and machinic agency in translation work. The Translator, 23(3), 310-323.
• Şahin, M. & Gürses, S. (2022). A call for a fair translatiosphere in the post-digital era. Parallèles, 34(2), 1-17.
• Seçkin, S. (2021). The constraints in the field of institutional translation in Turkey: A perspective from sociology of translation. Babel, 67(6), 758-790.
• Seçkin, S., & Bogenç Demirel, E. (2019). Kurumsal alanın gerektirdiği çevirmen modeli. Ege Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 109-122.
• Wolf, M. (2007). Introduction: The emergence of a sociology of translation. In M. Wolf and A. Fukari (Eds.) (2007). Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 1-36). John Benjamins.
• Wolf, M. (2014). The sociology of translation and its ‘activist turn’. In Claudia V. Angelelli (Ed.). Sociological turn in translation and interpreting studies (pp. 7-21). John Benjamins.
• Wolf, M.Fukari, A. (Eds.) (2007). Constructing a sociology of translation. John Benjamins.