Türkiye’de profesyonel olmayan toplum çevirmenlerinin mesleki algıları

Abstract

Toplum çevirmenliği en genel anlamıyla göçmenler/mülteciler ve ev sahibi ülkenin kamu kurumlarındaki görevliler arasında dil engelini ortadan kaldırmaya yarayan bir çeviri türüdür. Toplum çevirmenliği birçok ülkede, ilgili dilleri konuşabilen ancak çeviri eğitimi almamış bireylerce, çoğunlukla da yakın çevreden tanıdıklar veya aile bireylerince, gönüllü olarak yürütülen bir faaliyettir (Wadensjö, 2009). Yine birçok ülkede, toplum çevirmenleri için eğitim zorunlu olmayıp tercümanlara ödenen ücret konferans tercümanlarına ödenen ücretten oldukça düşüktür (Hale, 2015:66). Bütün bu etkenler ise toplum çevirmenliğinin meslekleşmesi önündeki temel engellerdir. Benzer şekilde, Türkiye'de de, özellikle son yıllarda artan mülteci nüfusu karşısında, çoğunlukla ilgili dilleri konuşan ancak çeviri eğitimi almamış bireyler kurumlarda tercümanlık hizmeti vermektedirler. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma Türkiye'de göçmenler ve mültecilere yönelik geniş çaplı hizmetler sunan sivil toplum kuruluşlarından biri olan Sığınmacılar ve Göçmenlerle Dayanışma Derneği'nin (SGDD-ASAM) farklı birimlerinde hizmet veren toplum çevirmenlerini ele almaktadır. Bu doğrultuda tercümanların çeviri eylemlerine yönelik görüşleri yarı yapılandırılmış mülakatlar ve anketlerle toplanan verilere dayanarak tartışılacaktır. Ayrıca, tercümanlara yönelik kurumsal davranış ilkeleri rehberi ve kurum yetkilileri ile gerçekleştirilen görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler tartışmada ek veri kaynakları olarak kullanılacaktır. Mevcut veriler ışığında tercümanların çeviri eylemlerine ilişkin görüşlerinin genel olarak sınırlı eylemlilik ve kurumsal ve mesleki etik ilkelere yönelik farkındalık konuları çevresinde şekillendiği ileri sürülebilir. Öne çıkan bu durumlar, tercümanların kendileri için belirlenen kurumsal kimlik ve rolle uyumlarına da işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Toplum çevirmenleri,sınırlı eylemlilik,mesleki etik,kurumsal kimlik

Becoming an interpreter through experience: The perceptions of the non-professional public service interpreters in Turkey

Abstract

Public service interpreting is a type of interpreting that eliminates the language barrier between migrants/refugees and officials of the host country's public institutions. In many countries, it is still an activity performed by friends, family members or neighbors of the minority-language speaker, namely untrained individuals (Wadensjö, 2009), and in many other countries, it is an activity, for which training might be optional, and the remuneration is rather lower than that for conference interpreting (Hale, 2015:66), which are the major factors hindering the professionalization. Likewise, in Turkey, especially in the face of the increased refugee population in recent years, mostly individuals who speak the relevant languages but who have not received interpreter training provide interpreting services in institutions. In this regard, this study addresses the public service interpreters working at the units of the Association for Solidarity with Asylum Seekers and Migrants (SGDD-ASAM), one of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Turkey that provides a wide-scale service to refugees. More specifically, the practitioners' perceptions regarding their interpreting experiences will be discussed based on the data collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. Moreover, the data from the institutional document and the interviews conducted with the institution officials will be used as supplementary data to the discussion. Based on the available data, it can be said the practitioners’ perceptions regarding their interpreting experiences are generally centered around the issues of exercise of restricted agency and awareness of institutional and professional ethics, which also manifest their alignment with the institutional identity and role projected for them.

Keywords

• Non-professional interpreters,restricted agency,professional ethics,institutional identity

References

1. Angelelli, C. V. (2004a). Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Angelelli, C. V. (2004b). Revisiting the Interpreter's Role: A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3. Angelelli, C. V. (2006). Validating professional standards and codes: Challenges and opportunities. Interpreting, 8(2), 175–193.
4. Bahadır, Ş. (2011). The task of the interpreter in the struggle of the other for empowerment: Mythical utopia or sine qua non of professionalism? In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and Status in the Translational Professions (pp. 263-278). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
5. Bancroft, M. (2005). The Interpreter’s World Tour - An Environmental Scan of Standards of Practice for Interpreters. The California Endowment. https://www.ncihc.org/assets/documents/publications/NCIHC%20Environmental%20Scan.pdf.
6. Bancroft, M. (2015). Community Interpreting: A profession rooted in social justice. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 217-235). London and New York: Routledge.
7. Barsky, R. (1996). The interpreter as intercultural agent in convention refugee hearings. The Translator, 2(1), 45-63.
8. Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. London: The University of Chicago Press.

9. Berk-Seligson, S. (2008). Judicial systems in contact: Access to justice and the right to interpreting/ translating services among the Quichua of Ecuador. Interpreting, 10(1), 9–33.
10. Biçer, N. (2017). The Views of Syrian Refugees Migrating to Turkey on the Turkish Language and Culture: Kilis Case. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(3), 97-109.
11. Bot, H. (2003). The Myth of the Uninvolved Interpreter Interpreting in Mental Health and the Development of a Three-Person Psychology. In L. Brunette, G. L. Bastin, I. Hemlin & H. Clarke (Eds.), The Critical Link 3 (pp. 27-35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
12. Bölükbaş, F. (2016). The Language Needs Analysis of Syrian Refugees: İstanbul Sample. The Journal of International Social Research, 9(46), 21-31.
13. Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
14. California Healthcare Interpreters Association (CHIA). (2002). California Standards for Healthcare Interpreters: Ethical Principles, Protocols, and Guidance on Roles & Intervention. http://www.chiaonline.org/Resources/Documents/CHIA%20Standards/standards_chia.pdf.
15. Chesher, T., Slatyer, H., Doubine, V., Jaric, L., Lazzari, R. (2003). Community-Based Interpreting: The Interpreters’ Perspective. In L. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin & H. Clarke (Eds.), The Critical Link 3 (pp. 273-292). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
16. 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 (pp. 9-27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
17. Chesterman, A. (2009). The Name and Nature of Translator Studies. Hermes, 42, 13-22.
18. Clifford, A. (2004). Is Fidelity Ethical? TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, 17(2), 89-114.
19. Corsellis, A. (2008). Public Service Interpreting: The First Steps. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). The USA: SAGE Publications.
21. Dam, H. V., Zethsen, K. K. (2009). Who said low status? A study on factors affecting the perception of translator status. Journal of Specialized Translation, 12, 2-36.
22. Dillioğlu, B. (2015). Suriyeli Mültecilerin Entegrasyonu: Türkiye’nin Eğitim ve İstihdam Politikaları. Akademik ORTA DOĞU, 10(1), 1-22.
23. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Duman, D. (2018). Toplum Çevirmenliğine Yorumbilgisel Bir Yaklaşım: Sağlık Çevirmeni ve Öznellik. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Istanbul Yıldız Technical University.
25. Dursun, S. (2018, September 3). 35 yaş üstü Suriyelilerin yüzde 90’ı hâlâ Türkçe öğrenemedi. Gerçek Hayat. http://www.gercekhayat.com.tr/kapak/35-yas-ustu-suriyelilerin-yuzde-90i-hala-turkce-ogrenemedi/.
26. Edwards, R., Temple, B., Alexander, C. (2005). Users’ experiences of interpreters: The critical role of trust. Interpreting, 7(1), 77–95.
27. Flynn, P., Gambier, Y. (2011). Methodology in Translation Studies. In Y. Gambier & L. V. Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 88-96). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
28. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
29. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
30. Gentile, A., Ozolins, U., Vasilakakos, M. (1996). Liaison Interpreting. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
31. Guéry, F. (2014). Learning To Be A Public Service Interpreter: Boundaries, Ethics and Emotion in a Marginal Profession [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Manchester: The Manchester Metropolitan University.
32. Hale, S. B. (2007). Community Interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Hale, S. B. (2008). Controversies over the role of the court interpreter. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting (pp. 99-121). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
34. Hale, S. B. (2015). Community Interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies (pp. 65-69). London and New York: Routledge.
35. Hale, S. B., Napier, J. (2013). Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
36. Healthcare Interpretation Network (HIN). (2007). The National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services. http://www.saludycultura.uji.es/archivos/HIN_National_Standard_Guide_for_CI_(Canada).pdf.
37. Hsieh, E. (2006). Conflicts in how interpreters manage their roles in provider-patient interactions. Social Science & Medicine, 62(3), 721-730.
38. Ibrahim, Z. (2007). The interpreter as advocate: Malaysian court interpreting as a case in point. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A. L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4 (pp. 205-213). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
39. Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target, 15(2), 243–268.
40. Inghilleri, M. (2005). Mediating zones of uncertainty: Interpreter agency, the interpreting habitus and political asylum adjudication. The Translator, 11(1), 69–85.
41. Inghilleri, M. (2006). Macro-social theory, linguistic ethnography and interpreting research. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 5, 57–68.
42. Kaczmarek, L. (2016). Towards a broader approach to the community interpreter’s role: On correspondence between role perceptions and interactional goals. Interpreting, 18(1), 57-88.
43. Kadric, M. (2000). Interpreting in the Austrian courtroom. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 153-164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
44. Kahraman, R. (2010). Göç ve Çeviri: İltica Başvurularında Sözlü Çeviri Uygulamaları ve Toplum Çevirmeninin Rolü [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. The University of Istanbul.
45. Knapp-Potthoff, A., Knapp, K. (1986). Interweaving Two Discourses – The Difficult Task of the Non-professional Interpreter. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 151–68). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
46. Koskinen, K., Kinnunen, T. (2010). Introduction. In T. Kinnunen & K. Koskinen (Eds.), Translators’ Agency (pp. 4-10). Tampere: Tampere University Press.
47. Leanza, Y. (2005). Roles of community interpreters in pediatrics as seen by interpreters, physicians and researchers. Interpreting, 7(2), 167–192.
48. Lee, J. (2009). Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters. Interpreting, 11(1), 35–56.
49. Lee, J. (2015). Court interpreting. In H. Mikkelson and R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 186-201). London and New York: Routledge.
50. Lipkin, S. L. (2008). Norms, ethics and roles among military court interpreters: The unique case of the Yehuda Court. Interpreting, 10(1), 84–98.
51. Liu, M. (2011). Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based research. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in Interpreting Research (pp.85-119). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
52. May, T. (2011). Social Research: Issues, methods and process (4th ed.). The UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
53. Merlini, R. (2009). Seeking asylum and seeking identity in a mediated encounter: The projection of selves through discursive practices. Interpreting, 11(1), 57–92.
54. Mesa, A. M. (2000). The Cultural Interpreter: An Appreciated Professional Results of a Study on Interpreting Services: Client, Health Care Worker and Interpreter Points of View (M. C. Chiasson, Trans.). In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 67-79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
55. Mikkelson, H. (1998). Towards a Redefinition of the Role of the Court Interpreter. Interpreting, 3(1), 21–46.
56. Niska, H. (1995). Just Interpreting: Role Conflicts and Discourse Types in Court Interpreting. In M. Morris (Ed.), Translation and the Law (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
57. Niska, H. (2002). Community Interpreter Training: Past, Present, Future. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century (pp. 135–146). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
58. Ozolins, U. (2010). Factors that determine the provision of Public Service Interpreting: Comparative perspectives on government motivation and language service implementation. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 14, 194-215.
59. Ozolins, U. (2015). Ethics and the role of the interpreter. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 319-336). London and New York: Routledge.
60. Öztürk, T. (2015). Küresel Hareketlilik Etkisinde Türkiye’de Sağlık Çevirmenliği Uygulamaları: Çevirmen Görüşlerine Dayalı Bir Çalışma [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. The University of Sakarya.
61. Pöchhacker, F. (2000). The Community Interpreter's Task: Self-Perception and Provider Views. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 49-65). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
62. Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
63. Ra, S., Napier, J. (2013). Community interpreting: Asian language interpreters’ perspectives. Translation & Interpreting, 5(2), 45-61.
64. Roberts, R. P. (1997). Overview of community interpreting. In S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 127-38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
65. Roy, C. (1993) The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role metaphors of interpreters. Journal of Interpretation, 6, 127–154.
66. Rudvin, M. (2005). Power Behind Discourse and Power In Discourse in Community Interpreting: The Effect of Institutional Power Asymmetry on Interpreter Strategies. Revista Canaria De Estudios Ingleses, 51, 159-179.
67. Rudvin, M. (2007). Professionalism and ethics in community interpreting: The impact of individualist versus collective group identity. Interpreting, 9 (1), 47–69.
68. Rudvin, M. (2015). Interpreting and professional identity. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 432-446). London and New York: Routledge.
69. Rudvin, M., Tomassini, E. (2008). Migration, ideology and the interpreter–mediator: The role of the language mediator in educational and medical settings in Italy. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting (pp. 245-66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
70. Salaets, H., Balogh, K. (2017). Participants’ and Interpreters’ Perception of the Interpreter’s Role in Interpreter-mediated Investigative Interviews of Minors: Belgium and Italy as a Case. In C. Valero-Garcés & R. Tipton (Eds.), Ideology, Ethics and Policy Development in Public Service Interpreting and Translation (pp. 151-178). Bristol/Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.
71. Saldanha, G., O’Brien, S. (2013). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
72. Santamaría Ciordia, L. (2016). A context-based approach to community interpreting. Perceptions and expectations about professional practice in the Spanish context. International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication, 5, 67-77.
73. Skaaden, H. (2019). Invisible or invincible? Professional integrity, ethics, and voice in public service interpreting. Perspectives, 27(5), 704-717.
74. Souza, I. E. T. De V. (2016). Intercultural Mediation in Healthcare: From the Professional Medical Interpreters’ Perspective. USA: Xlibris.
75. Şener, O. (2017). Healthcare Interpreting in Turkey: Role and Ethics from a Sociological Perspective [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. İzmir Dokuz Eylül University.
76. Tate, G., Turner, G. H. (2002). The code and the culture: Sign Language interpreting – in search of the new breeds ethics. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 372–83). London and New York: Routledge.
77. The Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT). (2012). Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. https://ausit.org/AUSIT/Documents/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdf.
78. The National Association of Judicial Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT). (2002). Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities. https://najit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NAJITCodeofEthicsFINAL.pdf.
79. The National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). (2016). Code of Professional Conduct. http://www.nrpsi.org.uk/downloads/NRPSI_Code_of_Professional_Conduct_22.01.16.pdf.
80. Tipton, R. (2014). Perceptions of the ‘Occupational Other’: Interpreters, Social Workers and Intercultures. British Journal of Social Work, 46(2), 463-479.
81. Tryuk, M. (2007). Community interpreting in Poland. In C.Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A. L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4 (pp. 95-105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
82. Tseng, J. (1992). Interpreting as an Emerging Profession in Taiwan: A Sociological Model. [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Fu Jen Catholic University.
83. Ulusoy, L., Rezaei Osalou, A. (2019). [Tercümanlık ve Tercümanla Çalışma Alanlarında Açıklanması Gereken 14 Kritik Bilgi]. Unpublished raw data.
84. Valero Garcés, C. (2003). Responding to Communication Needs: Current Issues and Challenges in Community Interpreting and Translating in Spain. In L. Brunette, G. L. Bastin, I. Hemlin & H. Clarke (Eds.), The Critical Link 3 (pp. 177-192). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
85. Valero Garcés, C. (2012). A sociological perspective on TIPS. Explorations into the translator’s/interpreter’s (in)visibility in Translation and Interpreting in Public Services. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 17, 13-37.
86. Valero Garcés, C. (2017). Ethical Codes and Their Impact on Prison Communication. In C. Valero-Garcés & R. Tipton (Eds.), Ideology, Ethics and Policy Development in Public Service Interpreting and Translation (pp. 105-130). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
87. Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London & New York: Longman.
88. Wadensjö, C. (2009). Community interpreting. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd ed., pp. 43-48). London and New York: Routledge.
89. Yücel, A., Utas, C., Luchsinger, G., Kavlak, İ.V., Kristjansdottir, İ.B. & Freizer, S. (2018). Needs Assessment of Syrian Women and Girls under Temporary Protection Status in Turkey. Ankara: UN Women & ASAM. https://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eca/attachments/publications/country/turkey/the%20needs%20assessmentengwebcompressed.pdf?la=en&vs=3139.