The Occupational Status of Translators and Interpreters in Turkey: Perceptions of Professionals and Translation Students

Öz

This study aims to investigate the perceptions of professional translators/interpreters and undergraduate translation students enrolled at a state university in Turkey about the occupational status of the translation profession, the curricula of translator-training programmes, and the challenges of translators/interpreters. The participants were 24 translation and interpreting department students enrolled in the Department of Translation and Interpreting at a state university located in southern Turkey and 12 professional translators and interpreters working in various cities in Turkey. Data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews conducted face-to-face and online with the students and an online survey administered to the professional translators and interpreters. Through the lens of professional translators/interpreters and translation students, the study explored a tacit consensus over the status of translators, indicating that translation is perceived as a low-status occupation. By comparing the responses of the professionals and students, this study underscored the cardinal importance of translation students’ specialisation during the course of the undergraduate degree. Based on these findings, this study portrays a more inclusive picture of the translation and interpreting curricula of undergraduate programmes in Turkey and the perceived status of translators/interpreters. The study also presents the participants’ views about how to raise the status of translators in society. In line with the results, the study also provided suggestions regarding the undergraduate translation and interpreting education as well as the potential solutions to improve the status of translators and interpreters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• translator status
• sociology of translation
• translator education

Türkiye’deki Mütercim ve Tercümanların Mesleki Statüleri: Öğrenci ve Çevirmenlerin Algıları

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, profesyonel mütercim ve tercümanların ve Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde lisans programına kayıtlı öğrencilerin mütercim ve tercümanların mesleki statüleri, mütercim-tercümanlık lisans programı müfredatı ve mütercim tercümanların yaşadığı zorluklara ilişkin algılarını incelemektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu, Türkiye’nin güneyinde yer alan bir devlet üniversitesinde Mütercim-Tercümanlık bölümüne kayıtlı 24 lisans öğrencisi ve Türkiye’de farklı illerde görev yapan 12 profesyonel mütercim tercümandan oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın verileri öğrencilerle ayrı ayrı gerçekleştirilen yüz yüze ve çevrimiçi yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve mütercim-tercümanlara çevrimiçi uygulanan bir anket aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Çalışma, çevirmenlerin statüsü konusunda profesyonel mütercim ve tercümanların ve mütercim tercümanlık bölümü öğrencilerinin kuvvetli bir fikir birliğinde oldukları, bu bağlamda çevirmenlerin mesleki statüsünün düşük olarak algılandığı sonucuna ulaşmıştır. Çalışma aynı zamanda profesyonel mütercim ve tercümanların ve öğrencilerin görüşlerinin karşılaştırılması sonucunda, mütercim-tercümanlık öğrencilerinin lisans eğitimleri sırasında bir çeviri alanında uzmanlaşmalarının öneminin altının çizildiğini göstermiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen veriler, Türkiye’de Mütercim-Tercümanlık bölümü lisans düzeyinde verilen eğitimin ve mütercim ve tercümanların algılanan statüsünün kapsamlı bir resmini ortaya koymuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlar ışığında, mütercim-tercümanlık lisans eğitiminin durumu ve mütercim tercümanların statülerinin geliştirilmesi konularında birtakım önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çevirmenlik statüsü
• çeviri sosyolojisi
• mütercim-tercümanlık eğitimi

Kaynakça

1. Bahk-Halberg, J.H. (2007). In their own words: Korean perspectives on becoming interpreter/translators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, the USA.
2. Baker, M., & Maier, C. (2011). Ethics in interpreter & translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10798809
3. Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies (3rd ed.), London & New York: Routledge.
4. Chan, A. L. J., & Liu, C. F. M. (2013). The translator status, the translation market and developing economies: A preliminary study of ASEAN countries. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 31(4), 435-450. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2013.864441
5. Choi, J., & Lim, H-O. (2002). The status of translators and interpreters in Korea. META, 47(4), 627-635. https://doi.org/10.7202/008041ar
6. Cortabarria, B. (2015). The role of translators and interpreters in hybrid English–Spanish contexts in the USA. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(3), 407-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2015.1015345
7. Council of Higher Education – CoHE. (2019). YÖK lisans atlası. Retrieved from https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/lisans-anasayfa.php
8. Dam, H. V., & Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Translator status: A study of Danish company translators. The Translator, 14(1), 71-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799250

9. Dam, H. V., & Zethsen, K. K. (2009). Translators and (lack of) power - a study of Danish company translators’ occupational status. Language at Work - Bridging Theory and Practice, 4(6). https://doi.org/10.7146/law.v4i6.6189
10. Dam, H. V., & Zethsen, K. K. (2010). Translator status: Helpers and opponents in the ongoing battle of an emerging profession. Target, 22(2), 194-211. http://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.2.02dam
11. Dam, H. V., & Zethsen, K. K. (2013). Conference interpreters — the stars of the translation profession? A study of the occupational status of Danish EU interpreters as compared to Danish EU translators. Interpreting, 15(2), 229-259. http://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.04dam
12. Di Mango, D. (2018). The role of theory in translator training. Germany: Narr Francke Attempto.
13. Djovčoš, M. (2014). Translators and social context: The case study of Slovakia. META, 59(2), 330-359. https://doi.org/10.7202/1027479ar
14. Drugan, J. (2017). Ethics and social responsibility in practice: interpreters and translators engaging with and beyond the professions. The Translator, 23(2), 126-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2017.1281204
15. Ersoy, H., & Odacıoğlu, M. C. (2014). Türkiye’de serbest çevirmenlerin karşılaştıkları sorunlar, bu sorunların etkileri ve öneriler [Problems faced by freelance translators in Turkey, effects of these problems and suggestions]. Turkish Studies, 9(6), 367-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6980
16. Flores, J. A. C. (2020). Analysing English for translation and interpreting materials: skills, sub-competences and types of knowledge. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2019.1647920
17. Frankel, J. R, Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (eighth edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
18. Gentile, P. (2013). The status of conference interpreters: A global survey into the profession. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione [International Journal of Translation], 15, 63-82.
19. Gentile, P. (2018). Through women’s eyes. Conference interpreters’ self-perceived status in a gendered perspective. Hermes, 58, 19-42. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i58.111658
20. Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. Ed.). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
21. Hlavac, J. (2013). A cross-national overview of translator and interpreter certification procedures. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 5(1), 32-65. http://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a02
22. Horbačauskienė, J., Kasperavičienė, R., & Petronienė, S. (2017). Translation studies: Translator training vs employers’ expectations. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 5(1), 145-159. https://doi.org/10.1515/jolace-2017-0009
23. Int, A. (2005). Translator training and modern market demands. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 13(2), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668982 Jones, R. (2002). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester, UK/Northampton, MA: St. Jerome.
24. Kafi, M., Khoshsaligheh, M., & Hashemi, M. R. (2018). Translation profession in Iran: current challenges and future prospects, The Translator, 24(1), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2017.1297693
25. Kang, M. S. (2015). A comparative study of the translation profession in Malaysia and Korea (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
26. Kang, M. S., & Shunmugam, K. (2014). The translation profession in Malaysia: The translator’s status and self-perception. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies, 14(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403-12
27. Katan, D. (2017). Translation theory and professional practice: A global survey of the great divide. Hermes, 22(42), 111–153. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96849
28. Kelly, D. (2014). A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice. London/New York: Routledge.
29. Kelly, D. (2008). Training the trainers: Towards a description of translator trainer competence and training needs analysis. TTR, 21(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.7202/029688ar
30. Kingery, S. (2017). Teaching translation. Programs, courses, pedagogies. Edited by Lawrence Venuti. Translation Review, 99(1), 58-61. http://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2017.1367169
31. Koskinen, K. (2000). Institutional illusions. Translating in the EU Commission. The Translator, 6(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799055
32. Lacruz, I. (2017). Cognitive effort in translation, editing, and post‐editing. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 386-401). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
33. Leech, W. (2005). The translator’s visibility: An investigation into public perceptions of the translator and how to raise the translator’s status in society (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of London, London, the UK.
34. Li, D. (2002). Translator training: What translation students have to say. Meta, 47(4), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.7202/008034ar
35. Li, D. (2007). Translation curriculum and pedagogy. Views of administrators of translation services. Target, 19(1), 105-133. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.1.07li
36. Liu, J. (2013). Translator training: Teaching programs, curricula, practices. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 127-132. http://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.1.127-132
37. Massey, G., & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Commenting on translation: Implications for translator training. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 16, 26-41. http://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-4126
38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
39. Orlando, M. (2019). Training and educating interpreter and translator trainers as practitioners-researchers-teachers. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(3), 216-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2019.1656407
40. Parahoo, K. (2014). Nursing research, principles process and issues (3rd ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.
41. Pym, A. (1998). Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome.
42. Pym, A., Grin, F., Sfreddo, C., & Chan, A. L. J. (2013). The status of the translation profession in the European Union. European Commission. http://doi.org/10.2782/64819
43. Robinson, D. (2003). Becoming a translator: An introduction to the theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.
44. Rodríguez-Castro, M., & Sullivan, C. E. (2015). Rethinking the legal translation classroom: a course for legal translation professionals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(2), 205-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1051771
45. Ruokonen, M., & Mäkisalo, J. (2018). Middling-status profession, high-status work: Finnish translators’ status perceptions in the light of their backgrounds, working conditions and job satisfaction. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 10(1), 1-17. http://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a01
46. Ruokonen, M., Salmi, L., & Svahn, E. (2018). Boundaries around, boundaries within: Introduction to the thematic section on the translation profession, translator status and identity. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, (58), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i58.111655
47. Schouten, B., Ross, J., Zendedel, R., & Meeuwesen, L. (2012) Informal interpreters in medical settings, The Translator, 18(2), 311-338, https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2012.10799513
48. Sela-Sheffy, R. (2008). The translators’ personae: marketing translatorial images as pursuit of capital. Meta, 53(3), 609–622.
49. Setton, R., & Liangliang, A. G. (2009). Attitudes to role, status and professional identity in interpreters and translators with Chinese in Shanghai and Taipei. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 4(2), 210-238.
50. Sinković, D. (2017). Perception of translator status among the students of humanities and social sciences (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
51. Tyulenev, S., Zheng, B., & Johnson, P. (2017). A comparative study of translation or interpreting as a profession in Russia, China and Spain. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 12(2), 332-354. http://doi.org/10.1075/tis.12.2.07tyu
52. Uysal, N. M. (2020). Türkiye’de ulusal yeterliliklere dayalı bir çevirmen sertifikasyon sistemine doğru: Süreç nasıl işliyor? [On the way to the establishment of a translator certification system based on national qualifications in Turkey: A closer look at the establishment of the system]. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(71), 146-161.
53. Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
54. Weeks, M., & Leavitt, P. A. (2017). Using occupational titles to convey an individual’s location in social stratification dimensions. Basic and Applied Psychology, 39(6), 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1366321
55. Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and administrative sciences. Johannesburg, South Africa: International Thompson.
56. Xu, J. (2005). Training translators in China. Meta, 50(1), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.7202/010671ar
57. Yılmaz-Gümüş, V. (2017). Training translators for the market in Turkey: What should we teach to future translators? International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies, 5(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.5n.1p.1
58. Yılmaz-Gümüş, V. (2018). Solidity and professionalization of translation: Turkey as a case in point. Hermes, 58, 43-63. Retrieved from https://tidsskrift.dk/her/article/view/111661