Investigating Kurdish Translators’ Stance towards Neutrality from an Academic and Professional Perspective

Investigating Kurdish Translators’

Section: RESEARCH
Issue
Vol. 55 No. 103 (2025): Vol. Fifty-Five / No. One Hundred and three
Published
Dec 2, 2025
Pages
28- 50

Abstract

The current study explores Kurdish translators' stances on neutrality from academic and professional perspectives, shedding light on the challenges of maintaining neutrality in various contexts. This includes sensitivity of linguistic representation in a culturally, politically, and socially charged environment that translators need to negotiate. The study analyzes how neutrality is interpreted and utilized in academic and professional contexts, considering the employer and the audience's expectations, the context, and the translation's intended use. This study uses a quantitative technique to evaluate academics' and professionals' perspectives of neutrality in translation. A standardized questionnaire was provided to various participants, including academics and industry professionals. Data for quantitative responses were examined using statistical methods, resulting in a full picture of the translators' viewpoints. The data show that there is widespread agreement on the impact of culture and politics on neutrality, with cultural elements having the greatest influence. While academics and professionals seek impartiality, freelancers have a stronger consensus on cultural issues. It is argued that, despite differences in context, translators have shared professional attitudes, highlighting translation processes that prioritize translation accuracy while including ethical considerations and cultural sensitivity.

References

  1. References:
  2. Abdullah, Y. N., & Nasser, L. A. (2022). Text typology and lexical problems in machine translation. Adab Al-Rafidayn, 88, 85–108.
  3. Amedi, Z. S. T., & Hussen, A. M. (2024). An investigation of target readers’ worldview on literary texts translated from English into Bahdini Kurdish. Adab Al-Rafidain, 54(98), 113–128.
  4. Angelelli, C. V. & Jacobson, H. E. (2009). Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies. John Benjamins.
  5. Baker, M. & Maier, C. (2011). Ethics in interpreter & translator training: Critical perspectives. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5(1), 1-14.
  6. Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  7. Barnwell, K. (1992). Bible translation: An introductory course in translation principles (3rd edition). Summer Institute of Linguistics International.
  8. Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  9. Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. Longman.
  10. Bielsa, E., & Bassnett, S. (2009). Translation in global news. Routledge.
  11. Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Benjamins.
  12. Daoud, M. (2003). Language and politics in the post-9/11 world. Gharib House for Printing, Publishing and Distribution, Cairo.
  13. Fathi, S. Y. (2012). Translation strategies of cultural specific terms in legal texts. Adab Al-Rafidayn, 42(62), 1-42.
  14. Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2012). The reliability of a two - item scale: Pearson, Cronbach or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642.
  15. Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. Routledge.
  16. Herman, L. (2015). Translating ideologies: Theory and practice. Routledge.
  17. Hervey, S. & Higgins, I. (2007). Thinking translation. Routledge.
  18. House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment. Routledge.
  19. House, J. (2015). Translation as communication across languages and cultures. Routledge.
  20. Ibraheem, A. Kh & Mahdi, A. F. (2016). Ethics dilemma in the process of translation and -interpreting. DIRASAT TARBAWIYA, 9(34), 285-296.
  21. Icoz. N. (2012). Considering ethics in translation. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 2 (2), 131 134.
  22. Jieun, L. (2012). What skills do student interpreters need to learn in sight translation training? Translators' Journal, 57(3), 694-714.
  23. Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. Routledge.
  24. Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4th ed.). Routledge.
  25. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
  26. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Brill.
  27. Nida, E. A. (2001). Language structure and translation: Essays. Stanford University Press.
  28. Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Rodopi.
  29. Phelan, M. (2001). The interpreter's resource. Multilingual Matters.
  30. Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. Routledge.
  31. Pym, A. (2014). Exploring translation theories. Routledge.
  32. Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (1984). Grammatische kategorien und übersetzungsforschung. Verlag Francke.
  33. Robinson, D. (2003). Becoming a translator: An introduction to the theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Routledge, p.75.
  34. Robinson, D. (2003). Becoming a translator: An introduction to the theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  35. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2023). Neutrality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 ed.). Stanford University.
  36. Stansfield, C. (2008). A practical guide to sight translation of assessments. Retrieved from http://texas-cc.org/resources/ell_materials/summit_march09/stansfield_translation_draft.pdf
  37. Tymoczko, M. (2006). Translation: Ethics, ideology, action. The Massachusetts Review, 47(3), 442-461.
  38. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
  39. Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. Routledge.
  40. Venuti, L. (2018). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
  41. Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (pp. 146-163). Routledge, p.150.
  42. Zhong, Y. (2002). Transcending the discourse of accuracy in the teaching of translation: Theoretical deliberation and case study. Translators' Journal, 47(4), 575–585

Authors

Adil Ahmed Abdulazeez Abdulazeez

Department of Translation / College of Languages / University of Duhok/ Duhok - Iraq

Haval Ismail Ahmad Ahmad

Department of Translation / College of Languages / University of Duhok/ Duhok - Iraq

Dilgash Mohammed Salih Tayib Tayib

Department of English / College of Languages / University of Duhok/ Duhok - Iraq

Identifiers

https://doi.org/10.33899/radab.v55i103.54055
Download this PDF file
PDF

Statistics

How to Cite

Abdulazeez , A. A. A. ., Ahmad , H. I. A. ., & Tayib , D. M. S. T. . (2025). Investigating Kurdish Translators’ Stance towards Neutrality from an Academic and Professional Perspective: Investigating Kurdish Translators’. اداب الرافدین, 55(103), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.33899/radab.v55i103.54055
Copyright and Licensing
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.