Abstract

The proliferation of a few interpreters who have penetrated the market since the 2000s has resulted in “practical diversity.” Interpreting studies became a new discipline at the theoretical and practical levels in the first half of the twentieth century. It implies that issues concerning the nature and outcomes of such diversity do not mean mutual competition or collaboration but isolation and fragmentation at theoretical and market levels in Korea. Issues of conflict and fragmentation were already identified even without the presence of the internet and machine translation. Some proposed eclecticism or integrative pluralism with the use of the theories of international politics as solutions. This article argues that these ways are insufficient because they still retain the internal boundaries of the interpretation market. The main problem is about a “closed” boundary on the part of the market. What should now be done is deterritorialization, including an “ontological” market change. The new map and codes of knowledge-making must be created in developing the environment for new territories to come into being. It is vital to diversify the authorities of knowledge creation and allow interaction with other fields. This article analyzes, using the example, how it could be applied to a translation market between “fan-scholar” translation and in science through “do-it-yourself (DIY) biology” in the interpretation market.