A review of actor-oriented capitals and investments in the field of interpreting in Türkiye

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the significance of the habitus and capitals of interpreters in Türkiye and the investments made to acquire such capital, and by employing a descriptive approach through the framework of Bourdieu's Field Theory and Latour's Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (1999). Within the scope of our study, Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital have been used to discuss the position of interpreters in the field in Türkiye. Using a historical perspective, we will discuss the “actants” i.e. human and non-human actors that have played an influential role since the emergence of the profession in Türkiye. According to the ANT, it could be concluded that in Türkiye, these actors may consist not only of individuals but also of agents such as organizations such as TKTD and Türkiye AIIC VEGA, remote working conditions that have become widespread with Covid-19, and volunteering movements that emerged after the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. During the research process of this study, sources such as interviews, webinars held on virtual platforms, newspaper clippings, the online archives of TKTD, and memories shared in books, theses and books on the history of translation and interpreting have been explored. Following our research, it has been determined the first interpreters in Türkiye acquired similar capitals and habituses, whereas present interpreters that accumulate different types of capitals depending on current circumstances and needs such as use of technology and first aid knowledge for community interpreting. Our study shows that the valued capitals play a key role in determining the position of actants in academia and the interpreting sector, resulting in a new dynamic between actants with the network.

Keywords

• Interpreting Studies
• Agency in Interpreting
• Sociology of Translation
• Actor-Network Theory (ANT)
• Bourdieusian Sociology of Translation

Kaynakça

1. Abdallah, K. (2005). Quality from a Different Angle. An Actor-network-theoretic Approach to Production Networks. Paper presented at the Translating and Interpreting as a Social Practice conference. University of Graz, Austria.
2. About TKTD - Türkiye Konferans Tercümanları Derneği. (n.d.). http://www.tktd.org/about-tktd
3. Ab tarafından finanse edilen “konferans çevirmenliğinde en i̇yi uygulamalar ve Dayanışma” etkinliği Cumartesi Günü Yapılıyor. Yenidüzen.
4. Angelelli, C. V. (2012). The sociological turn in translation and interpreting studies. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 7(2), 125-128.
5. Angelelli, C. V. (2014). The Sociological Turn in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Benjamins Current Topics. 1-5.
6. Akkaya, O. (2023, February 9). Afette Rehber çevirmenlik: 150’ye Yakın Deneyimli çevirmenle Sahadayız. Gazete Duvar. https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/afette-rehber-cevirmenlik-150ye-yakin-deneyimli-cevirmenle-sahadayiz-haber-1602559
7. Arslan Özcan, L. (2017). The Birth and Development of Conference Interpreting in Turkey. RIELMA - REVUE INTERNATIONALE D’ETUDES EN LANGUES MODERNES APPLIQUEES, 1(1), 61–88. https://www.tktd.org/the-birth-and-development-of-conference-interpreting-in-turkey/
8. BARÇEV. (2022, April 9). İçimde Bir Konferans Tercümanı Var mı? (Bahar Çotur). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLx5nI_Fr8A

9. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Vol. 16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1999). The Social Conditions of the International Circulation of Ideas. R. Shusterman (Ed.), Bourdieu: A Critical Reader (1st ed.), Blackwell Publishers.
12. Bourdieu, P. (2018). The Forms of Capital. The Sociology of Economic Life. Taylor&Francis, 15–29. * English translation: Richardson J. (Ed.)(1986), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood. 241-258; firstly published in Soziale Ungleichheiten (1983) (Soziale Welt, Sonderheft 2), (Ed.) Reinhard K.
13. Goettingen: Otto Schartz & Co.Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. 183-198.
14. Bulut, A. & Kurultay, T.(2001). Interpreters-in-aid at disasters: Community interpreting in the process of disaster management. The Translator 7 (2), 249–263.
15. Buzelin, H. (2005). Unexpected Allies: How Latour's Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies. The Translator, 11(2): 193-218.
16. Buzelin, H. (2007). Translations “in the Making” in Wolf, Michaela (ed.) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1-31.
17. Cai, Y., & Guo, P. (2020). The application of actor network theory in Medical Translation. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 10(05), 599–605. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2020.105036
18. Can ve İngilizce (2023). Afette Çevirmenlik ve Kriz Yönetimi Deneyim Söyleşisi. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__S0ZaXo0k0&t=49s.
19. Callon, M. (1986a). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieux Bay. Law, J. (Ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books, 196–233.
20. Callon, M. (1986b). The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle. Callon, M., Law, J. & Rip, A. (Eds.) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: The Macmillan Press,19–34.
21. Callon, M. (1999). Actor-Network Theory: The Market Test. Law, J. & Hassard, J. (Eds.) Actor-Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, 181–195.
22. Callon, M. & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley. Pickering, A. (Ed.) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 343–368.
23. Çelik, M. (2020, January 2). “AIIC VEGA HITS UP TURKEY”. Translation-1. https://translation-1.com/en/aiic-vega-hits-up-turkey/
24. Çotur, B. (n.d.). Benden Konferans Tercümanı Olur Mu? Diyelim Oldu; Bu Mesleğin Bir Geleceği Var Mı? https://ceviridernegi.org/benden-konferans-cevirmeni-olur-mu/.
25. Crawford, C. S. (2004). Actor Network Theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory (Vol. 1, pp. 1–3). essay, Sage Publications.
26. Diriker, E. (2015). On the evolution of the interpreting profession in Turkey: From Dragomans to the21st century.Tradition, Tension and Translation in Turkey, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.118.04dir
27. Doğan, A. (2003). Sözlü Çeviri: Çalışmaları ve Uygulamaları. Siyasal Kitapevi.
28. Ekici, E. (2022). Perception of Remote Interpreting Technologies by Conference Interpreters inTurkey. [MA thesis. Dokuz Eylül University]
29. Eraslan Kıncal, Ş. (2023). Sözlü Çeviri Ve Teknoloji . Kriter Yayınevi.
30. Fark Yaratanlar. (2023, March 31). Fark Yaratan Röportaj: Afette Rehber Çevirmenlik Organizasyonu -Alev Bulut. Fark Yaratanlar.https://www.farkyaratanlar.org/tr-tr/haberler-duyurular/fark-yaratan-roportaj-afette-rehber-cevirmenlik-organizasyonu--alev-bulut
31. Gile, D. (2018). Research into translation as a specialism: an analysis and recommendations. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (30), 23-39.
32. Gomart E. & Hennion A. (1999). A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. Law J and Hassard J (Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 220–247.
33. Hilgers, M., & Mangez , E. (2015). Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of Social Fields. In M. Hilgers & E. Mangez (Eds.), Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Fields: Concepts and Applications (pp. 1–35). essay, Routledge.
34. Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity.Target 15 (2) 243-268.
35. Inghilleri, M. (2005). The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the ‘Object’ in Translation and Interpreting Studies, The Translator, 11:2, 125-145.
36. Inghilleri, M. (2015). Sociological Approaches. Pöchhacker, F. (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, 388-390. London and New York: Routledge.
37. Jones, F. R. (2009). Embassy networks: Translating post-war Bosnian poetry into English. Milton, J. & Bandia, P. (Eds.), Agents of Translation. John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks, 301–325.
38. Kahraman, R. (2003). Afette Rehber Çevirmenlik [Master’s Thesis/ İstanbul University]
39. Kıncal, Ş.& Ekici, E. (2020). Reception of remote interpreting in Turkey: A pilot study. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (21), 979-990.
40. Koçak, M. I., & Yağcı, A. S. E. (2018). Readers and Retranslation: Transformation in Readers’ Habituses in Turkey from the 1930s to the 2010s. In Perspectives on Retranslation (pp. 129-147). Routledge.
41. Kung, S.W. (2010). Network & Cooperation in Translating Taiwanese into English: With Reference to the Translation of Modern Taiwanese Literature. Fawcett, A., et al., (Eds.), Translation: Theory and Practice in Dialogue. London: Continuum. 164-180.
42. Kung, S. W. (2015). Bourdieu’s Capital and Latour’s Actor-Network Theory as Conceptual Tools in Translation Research. In Translation and Cross-Cultural Communication Studies in the Asia Pacific. Brill, 389-406.
43. Kuralay, A. S. (2023, February 11). Çokdilli Deprem, AFET Yönetimi ve Arama-Kurtarma Terimcesi . GitHub. https://github.com/acikkaynak/afet-org/discussions/61
44. Kurultay, T., & Bulut, A. (2012). Toplum Çevirmenliğine Yeniden Bakışta Afette Rehber Çevirmenlik (ARÇ). İ.Ü. Çeviribilim Dergisi, (6), 75–102.
45. Kurultay, T. & Bulut, A. (2015). Disaster Relief Interpreting. Pöchhacker, F. (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, 110-111.
46. Latour, B. (1986). “The powers of association”. Law J (Ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge, 264–280.
47. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Latour,B.(1998).On Actor-Network Theory: A few clarifications. http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html
49. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
50. Lee N & Hassard J (1999). Organization unbound: Actor-Network Theory, research strategy and institutional flexibility. Organization 6(3): 391–404.
51. Maton, K. (2012). Habitus. Grenfell, M.(Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu- Key Concepts, 2nd edition, Routledge, 48–64.
52. Mason,I.(1999).Introduction. The Translator 5 (2), 147–160 https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799038
53. Mason, I. (2001). Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome.
54. Mason, I. (2015). Discourse Analytical Approaches. Pöchhacker, F. (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 111-116.
55. Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
56. Okuyan, S. (2019). Küresel koşulların Türkiye akademik sözlü çeviri eğitimine etkisi: Müfredat analizi ve sözlü çeviri piyasası temsilcilerinin görüşleri üzerine bir inceleme [Doctorate thesis, Sakarya University].
57. Okuyan, S. (2020). Türkiye’de Sözlü Çeviri Piyasası ve Akademik Sözlü Çeviri Eğitimi, Gece Kitaplığı.
58. Okuyan, S., & Şahin Er, Ö. (2019). Uzaktan Çeviri Teknolojileri. Çeviribilimde Güncel Tartışmalar 1, 1-10.
59. Özdemir, E. (2022) Sözlü Çeviride Çeviri Teknolojileri: Çevirmenlerin Teknoloji Algısı ve TeknolojiKullanımı. 2022. [Master’s thesis, İstanbul University]
60. Polat Ulaş , A., & Gündüz , A. (2020). Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarında çalışan toplum çevirmenlerine Bourdieu’nun Sosyal Kuramı Işığında Bir Bakış. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, (28), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.675408
61. Pöchhacker, F. (2006). Going social?’ On pathways and paradigms in Interpreting Studies.Pym et al.(Eds),Sociocultural aspects of translating and interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 215–232.
62. Pöchhacker, F. (2008). The Turns in Interpreting Studies. Hansen, G., et al. (Eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John BenjaminsPublishing Company, 25-45.
63. Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Vega Network. AIIC. (n.d.). https://aiic.org/site/VEGA
64. TKTD 2020 Meslekle Tanışma Günleri Türkiye’nin Dört Köşesinden Rekor Katılımla Gerçekleşti!Türkiye Konferans Tercümanları Derneği, TKTD.(2021, February 10). https://www.tktd.org/tktd-2020-meslekle-tanisma-gunleri-turkiyenin-dort-kosesinden-rekor-katilimla-gerceklesti/
65. TKTD Konferans Çevirmenleri İçin Uzaktan Çeviri Kılavuzu. Türkiye Konferans Tercümanları Derneği.(2020, May 18). https://www.tktd.org/tktd-konferans-cevirmenleri-icin--uzaktan-ceviri-kilavuzu/
66. TKTD Nedir? Türkiye Konferans Tercümanları Derneği. (n.d.), http://www.tktd.org/tktd-nedir/ Tüzük.Türkiye Konferans Tercümanları Derneği.(n.d.).https://www.tktd.org/tuzuk Uşaklıgil, E. (2018). Şimdilik Bu Kadar (2nd ed.). Can Yayınları.
67. Sayes, E. (2014). Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency?. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 44(1):134–149.
68. Sela-Sheffy, R. (2005). How to be a (recognized) translator: Rethinking habitus, norms, and the field of translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 17(1), 1-26.
69. Sophie Llewellyn Smith. (2022, January 11). Bahar Çotur, Turkey. YouTube.
70. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsHR7X50FiA Schaffer, S. (1991).The eighteenth Brumaire of Bruno Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 22(1): 174–192.
71. Vardar, S. (2019). Bu Kulaklar Neler Duydu: Türkiye'de Konferans Çevirmenliğinin 50 Yılı. h2o kitap.
72. Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Longman.