KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

SÖZCÜKLERDEN SAVAŞA: İSTİHBARAT OPERASYONLARINDA ÇEVİRİ HATALARININ GÜVENLİĞE ETKİSİ

FROM WORDS TO WARFARE: THE IMPACT OF TRANSLATION ERRORS ON SECURITY IN INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS

Ayşe Sungur

Sayfa
181–205
Yayın Tarihi
2026-05-22
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Bu çalışma, istihbarat döngüsünde çeviri hatalarını stratejik düzeyde bir operasyonel risk kaynağı olarak incelemektedir. 1945’teki mokusatsu çeviri hatasından 11 Eylül öncesi dilsel başarısızlıklara ve Avrupa’daki terörle mücadele operasyonlarına uzanan on vaka üzerinden yapılan analiz, yanlış çevirilerin istihbarat değerlendirmelerini, diplomatik sonuçları ve askerî stratejileri nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, Çeviribilim’den üç kuramsal çerçeveyi—Nida’nın dinamik ve biçimsel eşdeğerlik ayrımı, House’un çeviri kalite değerlendirme modeli ve Nord’un Skopos kuramı—uygulayarak hataları dört tipe ayırmaktadır: sözcüksel, deyimsel, kültürel ve teknik. Bulgular, küçük dilsel kaymaların dahi savaşların uzamasına ya da yakın tehditlerin gözden kaçmasına yol açabileceğini göstermektedir. Yöntemsel olarak araştırma, doküman incelemesi ve kuramsal kodlamayı birleştiren nitel bir vaka çalışması tasarımı benimsemektedir. Sonuçlar, çevirinin ikincil bir destek faaliyeti değil, kültürel uzmanlık, doğrulama protokolleri ve analistlerle yakın iş birliği gerektiren stratejik bir istihbarat işlevi olduğunu vurgulamaktadır.

Abstract

This study examines translation errors within the intelligence cycle as a distinct source of strategic risk. Through ten historical and contemporary cases—ranging from the mistranslation of ‘mokusatsu’ in 1945 to linguistic failures preceding the 9/11 attacks and European counterterrorism operations—the analysis demonstrates how mistranslations have repeatedly shaped intelligence assessments, diplomatic decisions, and military strategies. The study applies three frameworks from Translation Studies—Nida’s dynamic vs. formal equivalence, House’s translation quality assessment, and Nord’s Skopos theory—to categorise translation failures into four types: lexical, idiomatic, cultural, and technical. The findings reveal that even minor linguistic distortions can escalate into major security consequences, from prolonging wars to overlooking imminent threats. Methodologically, the research adopts a qualitative case study design, combining documentary analysis with theoretical coding to systematically trace the security implications of mistranslation. The results highlight that translation should not be treated as a secondary support task but as a strategic intelligence function requiring cultural expertise, verification protocols, and close collaboration between linguists and analysts.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Sungur, A. (2026). SÖZCÜKLERDEN SAVAŞA: İSTİHBARAT OPERASYONLARINDA ÇEVİRİ HATALARININ GÜVENLİĞE ETKİSİ. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 181–205. https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.1785120

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Kaynakça (43)

  1. KAYNAKÇA Ahmed, A. (2013). The thistle and the drone: How America's war on terror became a global war on tribal Islam. Brookings Institution Press.
  2. Andreeva, E. (2020). The Zerkani Network and the 2015 Paris and 2016 Brussels attacks: An illustration of counter-terrorism dysfunction in Europe. Egmont Institute, 7–8.
  3. Anthony, I., & Pecht, M. (2016). The response to the multi-site terrorist attacks in Paris. In SIPRI Yearbook 2016 (pp. 429–438). Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
  4. Asada, S. (1998). The shock of the atomic bomb and Japan’s decision to surrender: A reconsideration. Pacific Historical Review, 67(4), 477–512. https://doi.org/10.2307/3641184
  5. Barfield, T. (2010). Afghanistan: A cultural and political history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  6. Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London: Routledge.
  7. Barger, D. (2005). Toward a revolution in intelligence affairs (RAND Technical Report TR242). RAND Corporation.
  8. Butler, R. (2004). Review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction (The Butler Report). London: The Stationery Office.
  9. Cigar, N. (2014). Al-Qaida's doctrine for insurgency: Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin's A practical course for guerrilla war. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
  10. Clark, R. M. (2019). Intelligence analysis: A target-centric approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  11. Cumings, B. (1997). Korea’s place in the sun: A modern history. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  12. Footitt, H., & Kelly, M. (Eds.). (2012). Languages at war: Policies and practices of language in conflict. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. Garin, T. A. (2003). Appraising best practices in defense intelligence analysis. In R. Treverton & G. Thomas (Eds.), Bringing intelligence about: Practitioners reflect on best practices (pp. 61–94). Joint Military Intelligence College.
  14. Giles, H. (2021). Language, translation, and conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Haddadian-Moghaddam, E., & Scott-Smith, G. P. (2020). Translation and the cultural Cold War: an introduction. Translation And Interpreting Studies, 15(3), 325-332. doi:10.1075/tis.00047.int
  16. Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
  17. House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
  18. Hulnick, A. S. (2006). What’s wrong with the intelligence cycle. Intelligence and National Security, 21(6), 959–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684520601046291
  19. Inghilleri, M. (2017). Translation and migration. London: Routledge.
  20. Jackson, J. (Ed.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. Routledge.
  21. Johnson, L. K. (2017). National security intelligence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  22. Lowenthal, M. M. (2020). Intelligence: From secrets to policy (8th ed.). Wash ington, DC: CQ Press.
  23. Marrin, S. (2003). Improving CIA analysis by overcoming institutional obstacles. In R. Treverton & G. Thomas (Eds.), Bringing intelligence about: Practitioners reflect on best practices (pp. 41–60). Joint Military Intelligence College.
  24. Marrin, S. (2016). Improving intelligence studies as an academic discipline. Intelligence and National Security, 31(2), 266-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2014.952932.
  25. Moore, D. T., & Krizan, L. (2003). Core competencies for intelligence analysis at NSA. In R. Treverton & G. Thomas (Eds.), Bringing intelligence about: Practitioners reflect on best practices (pp. 95–132). Joint Military Intelligence College.
  26. Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
  27. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
  28. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: Brill.
  29. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
  30. Palmer, J. (2007). Interpreting and translation for Western media in Iraq. In M. Salama-Carr (Ed.), Translating and interpreting conflict (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  31. Pym, A. (2015). Pym, A. (2015). Translating as risk management. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 67-80.
  32. RAND Corporation. (2012). Language and culture training: Strategies for success in the joint force. RAND National Defense Research Institute.
  33. RUSI. (2015). Paris: An intelligence failure or a failure to understand the limits of intelligence. Royal United Services Institute. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-esearch/publications/commentary/paris-an-intelligence-failure-or-a-failure-to-understand-the-limits-of-intelligence.
  34. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: SAGE Pub lications.
  35. Spivak, G. C. (1992). The politics of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), Rethinking translation: Discourse, subjectivity, ideology (pp. 179–196). London: Routledge.
  36. Sungur, B. (2025). The oversight of outsourcing US intelligence after 9/11: Private intelligence contractors. Palgrave Macmillan
  37. Taub, B. (2010). Khrushchev’s “We will bury you”: Translation and Cold War diplomacy. Journal of Cold War Studies, 12(3), 51–78.
  38. Treverton, G. F. (2009). Intelligence for an age of terror. Cambridge University Press.
  39. U.S. Department of the Army. (2005). Army culture and foreign language strategy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
  40. Venuti, L. (Ed.). (2018). The translation studies reader (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  41. Wang, B., & Xu, M. (2016). Interpreting conflicts and conflicts in interpreting: A micro-historical account of the interpreting activity in the Korean Armistice Negotiations. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 15, 186–204.
  42. Zegart, A. B. (2007). Spying blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the origins of 9/11.
  43. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.