Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Drawing on the significant influence of audiovisual media on people’s conceptions of any given phenomenon, the current qualitative study was an attempt to identify the social dimensions of the Iranian translator, represented in feature films in Iran. Specifically, the study aimed to explore the identity, socioeconomic status and lifestyle of the translator characters depicted in Iranian feature films. Therefore, 16 Iranian films, involving interlingual translation, were selected. The thematic analysis revealed five sociological aspects of the Iranian translator reflected in Iranian films: identity of the translator, socioeconomic status of the translator, lifestyle and attitude of the translator, attitudes of other characters towards the translator, and the role of translation in the turn of events. The results indicated that translators are generally shown as self-disciplined and dissociable individuals who are devoted to their work. The translator characters mostly had minor roles in the plot and turn of events.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Angelelli, C.
    2004Revisiting the interpreter’s role: a study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bagozzi, R. P.
    1994Advanced methods of marketing research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, E. H.
    2014 “Socioeconomic status, definition”. InW. Cockerham, R. Dingwall, and S. R. Quah (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior and Society (pp.2210–2214). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118410868.wbehibs395
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118410868.wbehibs395 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourdieu, P.
    1984Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated byR. Nice. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chesterman, A.
    2009 “The name and nature of translator studies”. Hermes (42): 13–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Choi, J., and Lim, H. O.
    2002 “The status of translators and interpreters in Korea”. Meta: Journal des traducteursMeta:/Translators’ Journal (47)4: 627–635. 10.7202/008041ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/008041ar [Google Scholar]
  7. Cronin, M.
    2009Translation goes to the movies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dam, H. V., and Zethsen, K. K.
    2008 “Translator status: A study of Danish company translators”. The Translator (14)1: 71–96. 10.1080/13556509.2008.10799250
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799250 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gentile, P.
    2013 “The status of conference interpreters: A global survey into the profession”. Rivista Internazionale Di Tecnica Della Traduzione (15): 63–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gentzler, E.
    2001Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gil, J. R. B., and Pym, A.
    2006 “Technology and translation (a pedagogical overview)”. InA. Pym, A. Perekrestenko, and B. Starink (eds) Translation Technology and its Teaching (pp.5–19). Taraggona: Universistat Rovira I Virgili and Intercultural Studies Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hermans, J., and Lambert, J.
    1998 “From translation markets to language management: The implications of translation services”. Target (10)1: 113–132. 10.1075/target.10.1.06her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1.06her [Google Scholar]
  13. Hlavac, J.
    2012 “Sociolinguistic profiles of users and providers of lay and professional interpreting services: the experiences of a recently-arrived Iraqi language community in Melbourne”. Translation & Interpreting (3)2: 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hosseini, B. K., and Karimnia, A.
    2012 “A critical study of Iranian translators’ job status”. Journal of Translation Studies (41): 85–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Howard, J. A.
    2000 “Social psychology of identities”. Annual Review of Sociology (26): 367–393. 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.367
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.367 [Google Scholar]
  16. Inghillery, M.
    2009 Sociological approaches. InM. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd ed., pp.279–281). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jenkins, R.
    1996Social Identity. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203292990
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203292990 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kafi, M., Khoshsaligheh, M., and Hashemi, M. R.
    2015 “Typology of capitals expected and received by Iranian translators”. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation (9)1: 26–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kafi, M., Khoshsaligheh, M., & Hashemi, M. R.
    2017 “Translation profession in Iran: current challenges and future prospects”. The Translator, (24)1: 89–103. 10.1080/13556509.2017.1297693
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2017.1297693 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaindl, K.
    2012 “Representation of translators and interpreters”. InY. Gambier and L. V. Doorslaer (eds) Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol.3, pp.145–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.3.rep1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.3.rep1 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2015 “Fictional representations of translators and interpreters”. InC. V. Angelelli and B. J. Baer (eds) Researching Translation and Interpreting (pp.71–82). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lefevere, A., and Bassnett, S.
    1990 “Introduction: Proust’s grandmother and the thousand and one nights: The cultural turn”. InS. Bassnett and A. Lefevere (eds) Translation, History and Culture (pp.1–13). London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. McKay, C.
    2006How to Succeed as a Freelance Translator. Morrisville, NC: Lulu.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mueller, C. W., and Parcel, T. L.
    1981 “Measures of socioeconomic status: alternatives and recommendations”. Child Development (52)1: 13–30. 10.2307/1129211
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1129211 [Google Scholar]
  25. Muzii, L.
    2006 “Quality assessment and economic sustainability of translation”. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica Della Traduzione (9)1: 15–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Myoung, S. K., and Shunmugam, K.
    2014 “The translation profession in Malaysia: the translator’s status and self-perception”. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies (14)3: 191–205. 10.17576/GEMA‑2014‑1403‑12
    https://doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403-12 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pym, A.
    2005 “Training translators – ten recurrent naiveties”. Translating Today (2)1: 3–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pym, A., F. Grin, C. Sfreddo, and A. L. Chan
    2013The status of the translation profession in the European Union. London: Anthem Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rudvin, M.
    2007 “Professionalism and ethics in community interpreting: The impact of individualist versus collective group identity”. Interpreting (9)1: 47–69. 10.1075/intp.9.1.04rud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.04rud [Google Scholar]
  30. Schick, B.
    2007 EIPA Guidelines of Professional Conduct for educational interpreters. Retrieved fromwww.classroominterpreting.org/Interpreters/proguidelines/EIPA_guidelines.pdf
  31. Sela-Sheffy, R.
    2010 “‘Stars’ or ‘professionals’: the imagined vocation and exclusive knowledge of translators in Israel”. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación (2): 131–152. 10.6035/MonTI.2010.2.7
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2010.2.7 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015 “Profession, identity, and status”. InC. V. Angelelli, and B. J. Baer (eds) Researching Translation and Interpreting (pp.131–145). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Simeoni, D.
    1998 “The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus”. Target (10)1: 1–39. 10.1075/target.10.1.02sim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1.02sim [Google Scholar]
  34. Strümper-Krobb, S.
    2009 Zwischen den Welten: die Sichtbarkeit des Übersetzers in der Literatur. Weidler.
  35. Twigg, J.
    2009 “Clothing, identity and the embodiment of age”. InJ. Powell and T. Gilbert (eds) Aging and Identity: A Postmodern Dialogue (pp.1–19). New York, NY: Nova Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Veal, A.
    1993 “The concept of lifestyle: A review article”. Leisure Studies (12)4: 233–252. 10.1080/02614369300390231
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02614369300390231 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wadensjo, C., B. E. Dimitrova, and A. L. Nilsson
    (eds) 2007The Critical Link 4: The Professionalization of Interpreting in the Community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.70 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wolf, M.
    2010 “Sociology of translation”. InY. Gambier & L. V. Doorslaer (eds) Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol.1, pp.337–343). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.1.soc1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.soc1 [Google Scholar]
  39. Zwischenberger, C.
    2009 “Conference interpreters and their self-representation A worldwide web-based survey”. Translation and interpreting studies (4)2: 239–253.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error