1887
Volume 15, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines the way the Cold War shaped the field of interpreting in Turkey. Turkey became part of the anti-communist bloc, and one outcome of this Turkish-American partnership was the influence that a constellation of American and Turkish organizations exerted on the nascent field of interpreting. Through open-ended interviews with selected interpreters, the article seeks to shed light on the way the Cold War impacted the practice of interpreting. By drawing on Lewin’s (1947) concept of gatekeeping, it is suggested that the US-led anti-communist campaign of the Cold War affected the topics that were interpreted, the common language pairs, and interpreters’ lexical choices. The Cold War, thus, became a “gate” through which the interpreted topics, languages, lexical choices, and even the interpreters – all of which were instruments of the regime – had to pass through.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.20084.arz
2020-10-19
2020-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Harvey P. Hail and Eugene P. Northrop
    1963 “The Ford Foundation in Turkey: 1952–1962.” February. Ankara: Ford Foundation Report.
  2. The Ford Foundation Annual Report
    The Ford Foundation Annual Report 1956 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969.
  3. The Ford Foundation in Turkey
    The Ford Foundation in Turkey 1963 Ankara.
  4. Belgin Dölay
    . personal communication, 25.062018.
  5. Belkış Çorakçıoğlu-Dışbudak
    . personal communication, 13.082018.
  6. Fatma Artunkal
    . personal communication, 12.062018
  7. Leyla Ayaş
    . personal communication, 03.072018.
  8. Nur Deriş Ottoman
    . personal communication, 21.062018.
  9. Okşan Atasoy
    . personal communication, 02.082018.
  10. Zeynep Bekdik
    . personal communication, 27.062018.
  11. Ahmad, Feroz
    1993The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Aldrich, Richard
    2003 “Putting culture into the Cold War: The Cultural Relations Department (CRD) and British covert information warfare.” Intelligence and National Security18 (2): 109–133. doi:  10.1080/02684520412331306770
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02684520412331306770 [Google Scholar]
  13. Arslan Özcan, Lale
    2017 “The birth and development of conference interpreting in Turkey.” RIELMA: International Review of Studies in Applied Modern Languages (special issue Interpreting through History): 61–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Arzık Erzurumlu, Özüm
    2019 “Sözlü çevirinin öncüsü üç kadın çevirmen: Belgin Dölay, Fatma Artunkal, Zeynep Bekdik [Three women pioneers of interpreting: Belgin Dölay, Fatma Artunkal, Zeynep Bekdik].” InKelimelerin Kıyısında Türkiye’de Kadın Çevirmenler [On the Brink of the Words: Women Interpreters], ed. by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar , 347–370. İstanbul: Ithaki.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Aytürk, İlker
    2014 “Nationalism and Islam in Cold War Turkey 1944–69.” Middle Eastern Studies50 (5): 693–719. doi:  10.1080/00263206.2014.911177
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2014.911177 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2017 “The flagship institution of Cold War Turcology.” European Journal of Turkish Studies24. 10.4000/ejts.5517
    https://doi.org/10.4000/ejts.5517 [Google Scholar]
  17. Barnhisel, Greg
    2015Cold War Modernists: Art, Literature and American Cultural Diplomacy. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Baumgarten, Stefan
    2010 “Ideology and translation.” InHandbook of Translation Studies, Vol.3, ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc Van Doorslaer , 60–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bezci, Egemen
    2016 “Turkey’s intelligence diplomacy during the Second World War.” Journal of Intelligence History15 (2): 80–95. doi:  10.1080/16161262.2016.1165534
    https://doi.org/10.1080/16161262.2016.1165534 [Google Scholar]
  20. Criss, Nur B.
    2007 “Turkish perceptions of the United States.” InWhat They Think of Us? International Perceptions of the United States since 9/11, ed. by David Farber , 49–74. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Davidson, Brad
    2000 “The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: The social-linguistic role of interpreters in Spanish-English medical discourse.” Journal of Sociolinguistics4 (3): 379–405. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9481.00121
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00121 [Google Scholar]
  22. Deriş Ottoman, Nur
    2004 “From dragomans to interpreters: A brief overview of the profession in Turkey.” aiic.netaiic.net/p/1525. Last accessed25 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Diriker, Ebru
    2015 “On the evolution of the interpreting profession in Turkey from dragomans to the 21st century.” InTradition, Tension and Translation in Turkey, ed. by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar , Saliha Paker , and John Milton , 89–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.118.04dir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.118.04dir [Google Scholar]
  24. Dlutowski, Christopher J.
    1990 “Turkey, the Truman Doctrine, and the Cold War.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs4 (1): 49–66. doi:  10.1080/09557579008400040
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09557579008400040 [Google Scholar]
  25. Erken, Ali
    2016 “Negotiating politics, informal networks and the Ford Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War.” International Journal of Turcologia11 (21): 5–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Erozan, Boğaç
    2009 “Turkey and the West: A history of ambivalence.” Orient50 (3): 4–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Flynn, Peter
    2007 “Exploring literary translation practice: A focus on ethos.” Target19 (1): 21–44. doi:  10.1075/target.19.1.03fly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.1.03fly [Google Scholar]
  28. Haddadian-Moghaddam, Esmaeil
    2016 “The cultural Cold War and the circulation of world literature: Insights from Franklin Book Programs in Tehran.” Journal of World Literature1 (3): 371–390. doi:  10.1163/24056480‑00103006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/24056480-00103006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hammack, David C. and Steven R. Smith
    2018 “Foundations in the United States: Dimensions for international comparison.” American Behavioral Scientist62 (12): 1603–1638. doi:  10.1177/0002764218775159
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218775159 [Google Scholar]
  30. Katan, David and Fransesco Straniero-Sergio
    2003 “Submerged ideologies in media interpreting.” InApropos of Ideology, ed. by María Calzada Pérez , 131–144. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kayaoğlu, Barın
    2009 “Cold War in the Aegean strategic imperatives, democratic rhetoric: The United States and Turkey 1945–52.” Cold War History9 (3): 321–345. doi:  10.1080/14682740902981403
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14682740902981403 [Google Scholar]
  32. Khurana, Rakesh ,
    2011 “How foundations think: The Ford Foundation as a dominating institution in the field of American business schools.” Harvard Business School Working Paper11-070. www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-070.pdf. Last accessed30 August 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Laugesen, Amanda
    2010 “The Franklin Book Programs, translation, and the creation of a modern global publishing culture, 1952–1968.” The Princeton University Library Chronicle71 (2): 168–186. 10.25290/prinunivlibrchro.71.2.0168
    https://doi.org/10.25290/prinunivlibrchro.71.2.0168 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewin, Kurt
    1947 “Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; Social planning and action research.” Human Relations1 (2): 143–153. doi:  10.1177/001872674700100201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100201 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lucas, Scott
    1996 “Campaigns of truth: The Psychological Strategy Board and American ideology, 1951–1953.” The International History Review18 (2): 279–302. 10.1080/07075332.1996.9640744
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1996.9640744 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lucas, W. Scott
    2002 “Mobilizing culture: The state-private network and CIA in the early Cold War. InWar and Cold War in American Foreign Policy 1942–62, ed. by Dale Carter , and Robin Clifton , 83–108. New York: Palgrave. 10.1057/9781403913852_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403913852_4 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2003 “Beyond freedom, beyond control, beyond the Cold War: Approaches to American culture and the state-private network.” Intelligence and National Security18 (2): 53–72. doi:  10.1080/02684520412331306740
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02684520412331306740 [Google Scholar]
  38. Maguire, Thomas J.
    2015 “Counter-subversion in early Cold War Britain: The Official Committee on Communism (Home), the Information Research Department, and ‘state-private networks.’” Intelligence and National Security30 (5): 637–666. doi:  10.1080/02684527.2014.895570
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2014.895570 [Google Scholar]
  39. Needell, Allan A.
    1993 “Truth is our weapon:” Project TROY, political warfare, and government-academic relations in the national security state.” Diplomatic History17 (3): 399–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1567‑7709.1993.tb.00588.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1567-7709.1993.tb.00588.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Oran, Baskın
    ed. 2009Türk Dış Politikası Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar Cilt 1: 1919–1989 [Turkish Foreign Policy Facts, Documents and Comments from the War of Independence onwards Volume 1: 1919–1989]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Örnek, Cangül and Çağdaş Üngör
    eds. 2013Turkey and the Cold War Ideology and Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137326690
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137326690 [Google Scholar]
  42. Örnek, Cangül
    2013 “The populist effect: Promotion and reception of American literature in the 1950s.” InTurkey and the Cold War Ideology and Culture, ed. by Cangül Örnek , and Çağdaş Üngör , 130–158. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137326690_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137326690_7 [Google Scholar]
  43. Paker, Saliha
    2009 “Turkish tradition.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha , 550–560. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pakin, Esra
    2008 “American Studies in Turkey during the “cultural” Cold War.” Turkish Studies9 (3): 507–524. doi:  10.1080/14683840802267520
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14683840802267520 [Google Scholar]
  45. Parmar, Inderjeet
    2015 “The “Big 3” Foundations and American global power.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology74 (4): 676–703. doi:  10.1111/ajes.12115
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12115 [Google Scholar]
  46. Popescu, Monica
    2007 “Cold War and hot translation.” Safund: The Journal of South African and American Studies8 (1): 83–90. doi:  10.1080/17533170701295397
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17533170701295397 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pöllabauer, Sonja
    2012 “Gatekeeping practices in interpreted social media encounters.” Meta57 (1): 213–234. doi:  10.7202/1012750ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1012750ar [Google Scholar]
  48. Robbins, Louise S.
    2007 “Publishing American values: The Franklin Book Programs as Cold War cultural diplomacy.” Library Trends55 (3): 638–650. doi:  10.1353/lib.2007.0022
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2007.0022 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rose, Kenneth W. and Murat Erdem
    2000 “American philanthropy in republican Turkey: The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations.” The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations (Special Issue on 200 Years of Turkish-American Relations) 31 (2): 131–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rose, Kenneth W.
    2008 “The Rockefeller Foundation’s fellowship program in Turkey, 1925–1983.” www.issuelab.org/resources/27981/27981.pdf. Last accessed30 August 2020.
  51. Sander, Oral
    1979Türk-Amerikan İlişkileri [Turkish-American Relations]. Ankara: Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Saunders, Frances Stonor
    2013The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: The New Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Scott-Smith, Giles and Charlotte A. Lerg
    2017 “Introduction: Journals of freedom.” InCampaigning Culture and the Global Cold War, ed. by Giles Scott-Smith and Charlotte A. Lerg , 1–27. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑59867‑7_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59867-7_1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Shoemaker, Pamela J. and Tim P. Vos
    2009Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203931653
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203931653 [Google Scholar]
  55. Singy, Pascal and Patrice Guex
    2015 “Gender.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker . 169–171. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Spolsky, Bernard
    2004Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ülman, Haluk
    1968 “Türk dış politikasına yön veren etkenler, 1923–1968” [The Elements Guiding Turkish Foreign Policy]. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi23 (3): 241–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Üsdiken, Behlül
    2004 “The French, the German and the American: Higher education for business in Turkey, 1883–2003.” New Perspectives on Turkey (31): 5–38. doi:  10.1017/S089663460000399X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S089663460000399X [Google Scholar]
  59. 2011 “Transferring American models for education in business and public administration to Turkey, 1950–1970.” InAmerican Turkish Encounters: Politics and Culture, 1830–1989, ed. by Bilge Nur Criss , Selcuk Esenbel , Tony Greenwood , and Louis Mazzari , 316–330. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz
    2008The Politics and Poetics of Translation in Turkey 1923–1960. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401205306
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401205306 [Google Scholar]
  61. Truman, Henry
    1947 “Special message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey.” The American Presidency Project. 12March. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/232818Accessed30 August 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Vardar, Somnur
    2019Bu Kulaklar Neler Duydu: Türkiye’de Konferans Çevirmenliğinin 50 Yılı [The Things I Have Heard: 50 Years of Conference Interpreting in Turkey]. Istanbul: h20 Kitap.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Vuorinen, Erkka
    1997 “News translation as gatekeeping.” Translation as Intercultural Communication, 161–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.20.17vuo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.20.17vuo [Google Scholar]
  64. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Westley, Bruce H. and Malcolm S. MacLean
    1955 “A conceptual model for communications research.” Audio Visual Communication Review3 (1): 3–12. doi:  10.1177/107769905703400103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905703400103 [Google Scholar]
  66. Eczacıbaşı Holding A.Ş.
  67. Turkish Translations in Franklin Archives
    Turkish Translations in Franklin Archivesas ofFebruray1 1967www.loc.gov/rr/rarebook/pdf/FBPTurkish.PDF
  68. Birinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı
  69. İkinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı
  70. TESEV: The Economic and Social Studies Conference Committee
    TESEV: The Economic and Social Studies Conference Committee. www.tesev.org.tr/en/turkish-economic-and-social-studies-foundation/history/
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.20084.arz
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.20084.arz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cold War , conference interpreting , gatekeeping , ideology , interpreting and simultaneous interpreting
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