WEEK 10 - "TRANSLATION AND EMPIRE" BY DOUGLAS ROBINSON & "THE EMERGENCE OF A SOCIOLOGY OF TRANSLATION" BY MICHAELA WOLF

 

*Douglas Robinson, in his book “Translation and Empire” touches upon the different understandings of and approaches to translation. For him, translation is a political act of communication. This idea preserves the common function of translation which is communication but specifying it with the feature of politicalness. He deals with the Descriptive Translation Studies with a critical point of view and criticizes them for the fact that they put too much emphasis on the linguistic side of translational act. Robinson states that this is not enough and translation studies should also delve into the issues of politics, ideologies, power relations. But one can not deny the importance of the descriptive, linguistic translation studies as they provide grounds for the specific debates of power relations, hierarchies between languages etc. Robinson's ideas on the relationship between the translation and empire are quite interesting. His intention is to draw the attentions to the translation as a channel between the colonized and the colonizer in the colonial period. The communication between the higher power group and its unfamiliar colony is realized via translation. On this point he touches upon the interpreter trainings of the time. But it is also possible to ask whether these acts are monolateral or bilateral. That is to say, do both sides try to understand each other? Or is it just the colonizer that understands and the colonized is in the understood position? Is this communication on equal basis? The subject matter of the post colonial theory is another issue problematized in his book. It seems to me that the cases exemplified are the deals taking place between the colonized and the colonizer in the colonial period. Like the India vs. UK situations. What I am curious of is that whether is it possible to apply these theories (I am not sure whether theory and application are good companions) on the recent events. The issue is not colonization but we can define the very concept of hegemony in them. The case I would like to raise is the issue of USA occupation in Iraq. Iraq is not a colony in the sense used before but it is almost under control of US. It would be interesting to see the translational act (if there is any) taking place between these cultures since the US invasion. Also the concepts of subjectivity and interpellation are key concept in understanding Robinson. Because they provide the grounds to establish the framework to understand the situation and relation between the self and the other. The dual sense of subjectivity leaves room to understand both parts. That is to say, the dominating one in a way helps the dominated to become aware of itself as a subject, this dominated subjectified part then becomes the object of the dominating one's act. Interpellation also helps us gain a perspective on the reception of the attributions in both parts. Robinson also provides us with different approaches to translation in the colonial and postcolonial period. As an example, for Cheyfitz translation is a purely harmful tool of imperial acts while for Rafael translation would gain its nature according to its usage. That is to say, unlike Cheyfitz he states that translation can also be used as a good tool to decolonized the ideas that are colonized. As the views on translation vary, the methods suggested by different scholars also vary on the point of the realization of that decolonization. As an example, for Niranjana it is the “retranslation” which is a possible way to decolonize. That is to say, to retranslate the texts that are heavily loaded with colonized perspective and with their elimination come up with culturally aware texts. Whereas for Rafael it is the “mistranslation” that would serve for this purpose. It means that the translator purposefully may mistranslate some concepts ideas so as to retranslate the position of the subordinated. He also touches upon the “metisse translation” issue of Samia Mehrez. What Mehrez suggests is the realization of a text of a language which is in-between. However, the concept of in-betweenness is open to debate as it is not very possible; if possible not very easy; to come up with a clear definition and determination of the limits of this in-betweenness.

*Michaela Wolf's main point is the sociological perspective that is to be integrated into the translation studies. It is important for the fact that it takes the issue of translation studies from the linguistic level and draws our attentions to the sociological side of this act. She presents a clear picture of the studies done in the sociology and their relation to translation studies. However, there are some points in her statements that are open to debate. First of all, her distinction between the cultural and social side of translation is problematic. Because one can easily ask whether is it possible to separate them from one another. That is to say, what produces culture is the society and what represents the features of the society is the culture. But her claim for interdisciplinary approach is profitable for the translation studies as it expands the field and thus its subject matters by providing different perspectives. Furthermore, I am curious about the positioning of sociology of translation studies. Does it take place under the branch of sociology or translation studies? In an interdisciplinary approach both may overlap but I think this distinction is important for the fact that both social sciences apply different methodologies. She also differentiates between different sides of translation like agent, process and cultural product. Again the question “is it really possible to divide these under different categories or don't they overlap” is valid here. But her emphasis on the agent is important as it draws attention to the actor of the translational act which is generally disregarded. She also touches upon the flow of the translation between societies in relation to power relations, which is a dominant feature of societies and all the act realized by these translations. She presents the situation of dominant language which is regarded as the source and the flow taking place from central to peripheral; or in the cases between peripherals the act takes place via a mediator dominant language. As she states historical and institutional perspective is important for the understanding of these relations. However, what sound weird to me is that according to the general assumption in relation to the hierarchies of languages, periphery languages translate from the central languages and it is quite true when we look at the statics about the translation ratios of cultures i.e: %3 in American culture. Is it such a neutral act? Is so, then where do all of these postcolonial discourses come from? Is this act just related to the situation of the peripheral language or in more general sense the peripheral society? Or this flow is manipulated by higher hands? Finally, her emphasis on the necessity of sound methodologies for the sociology of translation is quite important as it is the methodology that enables a science progress. However, she is far from suggesting grounds for the realization of these new brunch of social science which is, with her terms, “under construction.”

REFERENCES

Robinson, Douglas. 1997. Translation and Empire. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.

Wolf, Michaela. 2007. "Introductio: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translations Studies" in Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari (eds.) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

WEEK 9 - ANTOINE BERMAN "TRANSLATION AND TRIALS OF THE FOREIGN" ; WALTER BENJAMIN "THE TASK OF THE TRANSLATOR"; ROSEMARY ARROJO; LUISE VON FLOTOW

* Antoine Berman presents different ideas on translation with the metaphor of trial. For him, translation is an act of challenge both for and of the foreign. That is to say, both the source and target cultures are challenged in the act of translation. Berman's ideas on translation are somehow aggressive and describes the translational act more like a rigorous work rather than a neutral one taking place between languages by impartial agents. He is not as ideologically oriented as Venuti but he has an ethical stance towards translation. His ideas about the ethics of translation are quite subjective. For him what is ethical is to reflect the foreign in the target text. The strategies of naturalization are unethical and against the aim of the translation. Taking into consideration the power relations, asymmetrical hierarchies etc one may agree with him on the points of the elimination of an ethnocentric elements in the translation. However he has a negative approach to the translation analysis and defines it in terms of deformations. He claims that translation at the very beginning results in these deformations and what is to be done by a translator is to be aware of these and avoid them. But it is quite hard to agree with him about the definition of these factors as pure deformations. He has a very restricted approach to texts and does not tackle with the issue from comprehensive perspective. Because these tendencies may not always be deformations but improvements, enrichments. (one may state that the aim of the translation is not to enrich or improve the original in the translation. My aim here is not to support such an attitude. I just would like to state that these tendencies may result in positive features in translation not just negative ones as he suggest.) He does not seem to hesitate to come up with generalizations. As every text requires different strategies and solutions, every translation would present different features and thus the translators would have different tendencies. More importantly, he seems to disregard the nature of language from the very beginning. That is to say, by nature every language is different as they are shaped in accordance with their surrounding natures of their different cultures. Thus, any act realized between these different languages would result in something more or less that these languages but not the same. That is why, it is not right to deal with these differences as pure deformations. Furthermore, one of the most differentiating feature of Berman's attitude is his normative approach. Though he writes in a systematic way and presents his ideas clearly. What he does is just to dictate to translators what to do, while what he lacks is suggesting solutions to avoid the tendencies which he call as deformations.

*Walter Benjamin is probably one of the most difficult scholar read in translation studies. His works requires background knowledge of not only philosophy but also of mystical elements. His ideas are basically on language but as a practice taking place between languages they are quite applicable to translation. First of all, he problematizes the polysemy of the texts and their interpretation for every reader. By admitting this nature of language, how come one can expect a translation to mean the same with the original and put such a heavy burden which is maybe impossible to achieve on the translator? Also he talks about the translatability of some texts? According to him, all of the originals are translatable. But it is not very clear to determine his basis on the point of translatability? Is it the inherent nature of some texts? Is it a result of a personal value judgment? Or does it have solid basis like text-type, genre etc?

On that point he also talks about the untranslatability of the translations. But where does it stem from? Is it because of the fact that it is already pure and there no way further? However, translation as a process of interpretation is endless and any text translated may be translated again. (I am aware of the fact that re-translations are done on the basis of the originals but there may be cases when the re-translations are done on the basis of the previous translations.) Also, such an approach to translation would marginalize it as a text. It is quite understandable to differentiate between the original and translation but how right is it to draw a borderline between them as translatable vs. untranslatable?

Furthermore, his approach to translation as form of after life provider is quite assertive. According to him, some original works gain an after life, longer life with translation. However, the concept of after life is also a difficult concept to define, let alone defining translation on the basis of this concept. Because it has different meanings in different beliefs. As an example, it may mean to have another life after the end of one while in others it may mean to have a better and more importantly eternal life in a different universe. Which one is valid for Benjamin's usage? Maybe the first, maybe the latter and maybe none. This is important because the definition of this term would lead us to different understandings of hierarchy of the original and translation. In the former definition, translation and original may be seen to be on equal basis but within different circumstances, but in the latter one translation is of more value than the original with a more sacred nature.

Also, the definition of translation as a mode is quite problematic. First of all, what is meant with the term “mode” is not clear. The definition of the word “mode” are various and all refer to different ideas. But among them, if translation is viewed as a form then is it an alternative form of what? What is the aim of shaping the original and presenting it in a form? Is this form a foreign form introduced in the target or a foreign form for the original.

Furthermore, the idea of pure language is quite difficult to understand and analyze. Does it have mystical basis or philosophical grounds? This idea reminds me of the Sun-Language Theory of Turkish Republican period. (It may not be as groundless as this but for sure it as vague as this.) All languages emerging from one, which is the pure language. These ideas are uttered in different political, ideological environments but the idea of having single language as a basis for all the other is similar. Also, it is quite difficult to understand his statements on the similarity of the languages. Despite the idea of having one language as a root, for Benjamin this relationship between the languages does not necessarily mean similarity. They may be (as they are now) different from each other and this difference is something good for him and is to be preserved in the act of translation.

Moreover, he tackles with the issue of language and content and for him the same statements expressed in one language would mean totally different things in another one. That is to say, language and content forms different unities in each language and any text produced in these languages would serve to different aims. As for the issue of task of the translator on that point, for Benjamin, translator is to find the intended effect (intention) and reflect it in the target and thus present the pure language. As it can be observed from this statements, it is not an easy task for the readers of Benjamin to understand what he really means with the task of the translator. If it were easier to understand him, it would be more probable to come up with clearer conclusions. According to him, pure language is to be achieved via translation but he does not state any grounds for this interpretation process. That is to say, interpretation is a subjective act and any interpretation would not necessarily lead the translator to what it to be understood from the original. How to neutralize this subjectivity in the light of pure language is left open to question.

On the point of the evaluation of a translation, he talks about real translations and define their determining feature as their transparency. But to what extend is it possible? Because translation is like taking off the clothes of words of the original and putting on clothes of the target culture on them. Transparency brings about nudity in a sense but this is probably not the case for an act taking place between cultures. Anyone can not receive a text outside the limits of his/her culture. By the way, the term “real translation”sound weird? Is it an alternative to the vague descriptions of good and bad? Or something different? If so real according to whom and what?

What is more, his definition of the ideal translation as literal translation destroys all the efforts to understand him with the text as a whole. I think he presents a good example to the question “how incomprehensible can one be?” by concluding his mystical-philosophical ideas to literal translation.

For him, the journey realized between the languages which exist in harmony may end up at literal translation but it would be hard for anyone to define what is meant with the word “literal” It is possible that he uses it in the general sense. But as the terms acquire and are attributed different meaning in all theories, it is hard to believe that the “literal” used by Benjamin is literally literal.

* Rosemary Arrojo, tackles with the issue of translation from a psychoanalytic point of view and presents her ideas with a departure point of philosophical grounds of Nietzsche, Freud etc.

According to her, meaning is not found but constructed and thus texts as meaning units are creations. Arrojo problematizes the relation between creation and power. This relationship can be dealt from different point of views and for Arrojo, the act of creation stems from the will to power. But isn't it too much generalization to conclude the act of writing. Is it really always to gain power? Isn't it possible for the writer to have the have another intention like sharing what s/he has in mind. Also the root of this power is not very clearly defined. Does it stem from ownership? If so does it necessarily bring the authority to control the reception of that work in another languages, which are translations.

Also, Arrojo touches upon different point of the act of translation via metaphors. In the first one, the translator is compared to a burrow and the translational process is resembled to the effort to dig a tunnel. But this tunnel digging process turns out to be so complex that the burrow ends up with a labyrinth in which it is lost. Is it really the case for the translator? Are all the translators are lost in the act of translation? Isn't it possible for them to find their ways? Also being lost may have different references. I mean someone may be lost as s/he does not know where to go (this describes the situation of an incapable translator in which the translator is seen inferior to the original writer) or someone may be lost before the eyes of someone (in this case s/he is said to be lost because nobody sees them.) Is it possible for one to compare the latter option to invisibility of translator?

In the second metaphor, the translator is compared to a thief and accused of stealing. Is this a conscious or an unconscious act? Also isn't the word “steal” is a very strong one to describe the differences between an original and translated text. As well as its negative connotation, it brings about a very strict understanding of the act itself. That is to say, it sounds as if the translator has no right to make any changes on the original work in the translation. But as an intercultural as well as an interlingual act, translation by its nature requires some changes. The concept of fidelity is preserved in the strictest sense here. Does an original writer really have such power over the translator? Isn't it inappropriate to marginalize the idea of authorship to such extents? Because it totally restricts the translator's area of movement. But translation as a process is composed of decisions of translators. In such a strict sense, how can a translator make right decisions with the shadow of the original over him/her all the time? Also, what is actually controlled by this power which is created as a result of the creation of a text? Because as we know, meaning is always out of control and even what is meant in the original text may be understood differently by different people. So with this idea in mind, the impossibility of such a control mechanism would be clearer. Furthermore, it is also possible for one to problematize the idea of original. Is there something as original? Because if it is the former-latter act thing, then there is always a source for every original no matter how you call it such as inspiration, theme, subject etc.

Also, for Arrojo it is defined as a guilt to improve the original but without defining what is meant with improvement, it is not very easy to understand what improves a text. It becomes more difficult taking into consideration the relativity of the term, improvement according to whom and what. However, this is not the end point for Arrojo and the translator's assumption of himself or herself as a writer is something worse than it. But how can one conclude that the translator of the text X thinks of himself/herself as the writer? What will be the grounds for such a claim? If the utmost feature of a writer is his/her creativity, what about the creativity of the translator? In such a perception, the idea of respect to original is exaggerated and leads to the point of blind fidelity.

In the end, Arrojo comes up with two suggestions to eliminate these problems, which are the acceptance of the differences and the change in the general assumptions about the act of translation. However, she is far from presenting solutions to realize these suggestions.

*Luise von Flotow, in her paper, she presents a good summary of the current situation of the Feminist Approaches to Translation Studies. She defines these theories under three common grounds which are identity politics, positionality and historicity. These are useful terms to understand the different conditions surrounding the translation process in different cultures. That is why, the theories produced on the basis of the products and assumptions of different cultures lead to different conclusions on the basis of the same approach. In this context, all of the scholar (like Alicia Parker, Gayatri Spivak, Rosemary Arrojo, Barbara Godard etc.) mentioned in the paper have a feminist stance towards translation but though some may have some point in common they generally come up with different ideas on the issue of translation. . Also what is highly praised by von Flotow is the dis-unity and diversity of the ideas on this issue. As the points problematized by these scholars are different from each other and shaped according to the needs and conditions of their cultures, the theories produced does not have a unity and conclusions are diverse. With the improvement in feminist scholarship, this diversity and dis-unity are to increase, which is something good for the field of translation studies as it would broaden the field as well as enrich it with different perspectives to the translational act.

REFERENCES:

Arrojo, Rosemary. “Writing, Interpreting and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning.”. In Maria Tymoczko, Translation and Power. USA: Massachusetts Press.

Benjamin, Walter. 2000. “The Task of the Translator”. In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

Berman, Antoine. 2000. “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

Von Flotow, Luise. 1988. “Dis-Unity and Diversity- Feminist Approaches to Translation Studies.”. In Lynne Bowker Unity in Diversity- Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

WEEK 8 - ANDRE LEFEVERE "TRANSLATION, REWRITING AND MANIPULATION OF LITERARY FAME (CH:1-3)"; LAWRENCE VENUTI "THE SCANDALS OF TRANSLATION (CH:1,2,4)"

* Once having read André Lefèvre's articles on translation, one can easily distinct him from Zohar, Toury etc. Because their approaches to translation are quite different from one another. First of all, the works of Toury and Zohar, with their descriptive and systemic theories consecutively, provide a methodology for the study of translations within a context. The defining nature of their works is neutrality. They do not judge or present alternatives but provide a picture of what is available. However, from the very beginning Lefèvre makes his point clear and his stance towards translation, which is quite ideological. He tackles with the issue of translation from an ideological point of view and as a result of the revolutionary nature of the ideologies he calls for action and thus changes in the common understanding and practice of translation.

First of all, he broadens the field of study by renaming the act of translation under the title of rewriting. He criticizes the strict definitions of translation and presents this name as an alternative. However, this term is not restricted to translation and any kind of work with the claim of representing another text is a rewriting for him. But this approach is quite problematic from different angles. First, the interlingual nature of the translation (proper) is blurred. Because while on th subject matter of translation there lays the issue of source and target text which are written in different languages. However, the umbrella of rewriting also covers the translation criticisms, anthologies etc., which are written generally in the same language as the target or the original text. Here, if we evaluate translations and source texts; and anthologies and the original works which are given in these anthologies on the same basis of rewriting, wouldn't it take us to somewhere wrong, or isn't it also possible that we would end up at a blind alley? Also, on the point of the anthologies, the source that is presented is the original work; however, this original work is generally received in the target culture via translation. As an example, in an anthology of English classics, there will be books of English literature written mostly in English. But these books would be read mostly in Turkish in Turkish culture via translation. Then is it possible to explain this triple relation on the grounds of rewriting?

Moreover, the ideologically-oriented approach of Lefèvre calling for awareness about the power relations misses an important point. In the definition (though he does not present a clear-cut definition of the term) of the rewriting, the issue of representation matters. In the context of the translation, original text is the represented one while the translation is the representative one, in other words translation representing the original. However, this term itself reveals an issue of hierarchy from the very beginning. That is to say, in the general perception the represented is regarded with a greater respect than the representative and the represented has something valuable enough to be represented. Here, translation (this may not be implied) is not as valuable as the original. (With valuable, I do not mean any specific value judgment, my aim is just to present the unequal degree between translation and original in the context or rewriting.) Also, one may infer that the aim/function of the translation is to represent, which is not on the same path with Lefèvre's idea on translation who views it as a whole with the original.

Furthermore, Lefèvre's ideas on patronage with economic, ideological conditions and status are important to understand the power relations leading the field of translation. This human perspective draws attention on the translation and in a way increases his/her visibility. However, on the issue of patronage, it is not very easy to define these relations on clear-cut basis in the real life situations, because some ideologies, economic interests are clearly stated in some cases while they are not in others and in some cases some may pretend to have the different ideologies and their acts would be evaluated on the basis of their expressed ideologies which may lead to wrong conclusions.

*Lawrence Venuti is another ideologically oriented translation scholar, whose ideas are also quite controversial. First of all, he adopts an interventionist approach to translation. For him, translation I a means of realizing an aim. However, this at the very beginning brings about a few questions: “ does the translator really have such a right? To what extent a translator may intervene into the text? and What is the reason behind translating? If the translator will present something different than the original in his/her translation, why doesn't he/she write on his/her own instead of translating?” Venuti defines the result of this approach (to present the foreignness of the translation, defamiliarizing etc.) as a scandal an unethical process. However, he does not state that this is wrong. For him, this scandalous and unethical end is what is to be realized in translation. It is presented as a natural feature of translation. How right is it to present such an unethical feature as a very natural feature of an act, which is translation in our context? Is it the definition of translation proper for him: scandalous and unethical. What about the non-scandalous and ethical way of translation? Wouldn't it work in the context of unequal power relations? By the way, what is scandal, is it scandalous because it is something very different from the general expectation? Or is it scandalous because it is also something which is very wrong? (The word scandal presents both natures and in Venuti, which one is referred is not very clear ) Also, he is in favor of a resistant translation strategy and against the regime of fluency. For him, keeping what is foreign is not enough and translator is to break the taboos of the target language. However, despite the fact that he calls for such an attitude for a certain aim, it is again open to debate. Because, such a translation would not be very intelligible. The addressed reader would be very restricted. Then these facts bring about other questions. Wouldn't such a strict addressee prevent the translation from achieving his/her goal? Also would it be really effective to play with the established nature/usages of the language? Is language really so flexible? And more importantly, this distorted language usage may reveal the fact that there is something different in this translation, there is something which is aiming at calling for awareness about some point/issue/idea etc. However, wouldn't it be in vain just to understand the fact that there is something that is to be understood unless you understand what is meant?

Furthermore, he calls for a minoritizing project. In this act, he states his idea about language, and according to him a text is always beyond the intentions of the author and mean something more. So he calls for attention in the choice of the texts that are to be translated. At this point he is in favor of translating texts possessing minority status in their cultures. Here, it becomes clear that his ideas on translation are actually language restricted. That is to say, his main aim is to shake the regime of English and thus his ideas are mostly relevant in the cases of into English translations. So, the strategies suggested by him would not work in the case of translations from English to Turkish. Even it would work in the opposite way and strengthen the hegemony of English if the foreign elements of the English languages are kept in Turkish translations, which would also bring quite resistant responses to the translation.

Moreover, on the point of the human agency in the translational act, his stance towards the translator is quite clear and he calls for visible translator. With his/her interventions and the project realized the translator makes himself/herself visible. This is to be achieved in the text via the protection of the foreign in the target text. This is also a feature of the good translation for Venuti on the point of ethical stance with the elimination of the ethnocentric judgments. However, the visibility of the translator is also quite open to debate. As the practicer of the translational act, I also think that the translator should be visible. However, it is not very possible to draw the limits of this visibility and the limits become more ambiguous in the case of an ideological stance and act in translation. It is possible for the translator to come up with a totally different text from the original text with the interventionist approach he/she adopts. Also, as Venuti problematizes in the case of translation and original, the concept of authorship may also gain different meanings. Translation is generally viewed as a case of inauthenticity, distortion and contamination of the original, and the translator as the cause of these points according to him. The calls of Venuti to the translators challenge the concept of authorship and also drives it to a scandalous end. One may be right to claim that the hierarchical relation/view between the translator and the writer is to be eliminated. I mean a translator is not of a lesser value than a writer or vice versa. However, if a text is produced by someone whom we call as the author in this context, then he/she naturally has a right to decide and lead the reception of it in different languages and the translator in a sense is to respect this expectation. I do not mean that the translator is to obey all the things that are required by the author or the text however there should be a limit in the freedom of the translator. I do not think that using a text written by someone to realize an ideological aim via translation is not a right thing to do. I am quite aware of the fact that Venuti's cases are relevant in the context of translations from languages that are generally marginalized or in a minority status into English which has a hegemony over other languages. In these cases, the translator is to keep the culture-specific elements of the source culture in the target text in order to make the English reader aware of the fact that there exists another culture somewhere in the world. In this case, the translator actually does not intervene into the text and becomes visible in the target culture with the kept foreignness of the source culture. The problematics that are mentioned above are generally relevant for vice versa translations and my aim is just to question the concepts in different contexts.

Furthermore, the concept of remainder presented by Venuti is an important one in understanding the difference between the original and translated texts within a cultural context. When one is to compare a translation and an original text, two terms which are used as their equivalents in different languages turn out to be something more than intended. As an example, when one translates the English word “festival” as “bayram” in Turkish. They may seem to mean the same thing however, apart from their basic meanings resembling one another they also have some other connotations. Here we have both national and religious festivals and the meaning intended in English text with this word may be just a special day that is celebrated. In translation with the word “bayram” this meaning is in a way conveyed however religious connotation and national connotations are still there. This is the remainder part. This term is quite useful to preserve an awareness about the cultural differences and in this way one would be able to avoid ethnocentric attitudes which are claimed to be the reason behind bad translations for Venuti.

In conclusion, Lefevere and Venuti with their ideological approach to translation theories, unlike the value-judgment free theories of DTS scholars, provide an understanding of the conditions that would lead the translator as an agent and the translation as an act. With the economic, political and ideological concepts involved in the theories, the field of study is broadened and critical point of views are presented with a call for action by translator scholars. Also with the involvement of the power relations that actually affect all the acts taking place around the world into the translation studies, the theories produced are brought closer to the real life conditions (I do not have any intention to compare them with other theories, they all contribute to the field in a different perspective, this may be seen as the contribution of this kind of theories). By the way noone would expect a social science like translation taking place between cultures to be as objective and neutral as the neutral sciences.

REFERENCES:

Lefèvre, Andrè. 1992. “Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame”. London: Routledge. (Chapters1-3)

Venuti, Lawrence. 1988. “The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference”. London: Routledge. (Chapter: 1,2,4.)

TRANSLATION ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF THE NORM THEORY OF GIDEON TOURY

In this paper, I will present a translation analysis on the basis of the “Norm Theory” of Gideon Toury. The source text is the book “Cannery Row” written by John Steinbeck and the target text is the translation “Sardalye Sokağı”done by Orhan Azizoğlu. I will go step by step and in the end try to come up with a conclusion. In this analysis, I made use of textual (target-source texts), extratextual (prefaces, reviews, commentaries etc.) and paratextual (book cover, fonts etc.) materials. Chronologically, I will start with preliminary norms and continue with the operational norms and conclude with the assessments of initial norms.

Preliminary Norms:

The translation policy and the directness of the translation are the subject matters of this section.

On the point of translation policy, the source text is a novel as a text type and the translation is also realized as a novel, which shows that the text of the source text is preserved in target text and also the source receiver and target receiver are provided with the same text type. On that point, one can ask why the translation is not realized in another form. This decision probably has some grounds in the general expectations of the target culture at that time. In the 1950s, novel is a popular form and read by the majority. That may be the reason behind this choice. Secondly, the publishing agency of the translation is Varlık Yayınları, which claims its commitment to contribute to the cultural and intellectual development of the Turkish society in its brief history. The translation is published under the series of “Büyük Eserler” which include classics of the Turkish literature and translations of the some classics of English, French, German and Russian Literature. This source text may have been chosen as a result of this appreciation in the target culture. Also he book is the fifth edition of the same translation, the first one of which is done in 1955 and the subject matter of this analysis is published in 1973. If I could reach the other translations I may have come up with conclusions on the basis of the differences between the translators. Because any change (which may be linguistic, social, political, economical) in the target culture may result in the need for a different translation. That is to say, the language used in the first edition may become out-of date in the meantime or some elements that are claimed to be inappropriate by the target culture authorities may have been excluded in the first edition with some excuses on the ground of political reasons or vice versa. But, unfortunately, I couldn't have the chance to take a look at the other editions of the translation, so I will not touch upon them.)

Under the title of preliminary norms, secondly, I will touch upon the directness of the translation. The original book is written in English but it is not appropriate to conclude that the translation is done from English into Turkish. Because there are lots of examples in literary history, in which the translations of some books are done on the basis of some translations rather than the original books of that translations. This is generally the case for the books which are written in languages which are not known by many foreigners like Chinese, Russian etc. In this case, it is probable that the translation is done from the original book which is written in English. But to be sure, I have looked at the resume of the translator and try to come up with some grounding remarks to support my inference about the directness of the translation. I have found out that Orhan Azizoğlu has made some other translations from Steinbeck and also Earnest Hemingway. From this point, as neither is there any clear statement about this point in the book, or do I have the chance to get in touch with the publishing agency for now, My statements about the directness of the translation will remain as just a claim.

Operational Norms:

In this section I will touch upon the operational norms which govern the translational process of the production of the text. Their difference from the preliminary norms is that, while the latter refer to the choices and conditions before the production of the translation as a concrete text; the former refer to the very actual production choices and conditions of the translated text. The operational norms are divided under two branches: matricial and textual-linguistic norms.

On the point of matricial norms, the translation is published with a very different book cover from the source text. While the original text presents a painting describing the town, in which the story takes place; the cover of the translated book is a very plain one, on which there is no picture or other things apart from the name of the book, author and the publishing agency.

Also, the segmentation of the original text is generally preserved in the target text. There is one exception to that usage. In the original book, it starts with an abstract of the book and it is followed by chapter one. But in the translation, the abstract part is merged with chapter one and in the translation there is no titling as chapter one, after the introduction part, chapter two comes.

The number of sentences in the translation is almost the same with the original book. But the number of pages of the original and the translation are not equal: the former is 124 pages, while the latter is 235 pages. This difference results probably from the font difference of the books. There aren't any omissions. But there exist some additions not in the general flow of the text but as footnotes named generally as “translators note” in the translated book. The first one is an explanation about a sect of Christianity (p.22). The necessity and efficiency of such a choice is open to question. There may be several reasons leading to such a choice. First of all, the translator may have wanted to help the reader understand what is meant in the text better. The translator may also have wanted to introduce something new to the target culture. Even, it is a possibility that, the translated may be a member of this sect and by introducing it to the readers, he may have aimed at gaining new members to his sect. Furthermore, as suggested by Toury, we have to deal with all the phenomenas of the translational process with an historical point of view. From such a perspective, adding footnotes may be a common form of usage in the translations in those days. These are all to be researched in the long run. One can also question the possibility of the translator's wish to become visible in the translation. The other additions are again in the same manner with a note in the end of each of them as “translator's note.”

Furthermore, though the translator adopts the paragraphing structure of the author, he seems to have adopted a different kind of strategy in the translation of the poem that takes place in the original text. The difference is mostly results from the placement of the translation in the text. It is to be explained with an example:

Source text (p.117):

Even now

They chatter her weakness through the two bazaars

Who was too strong to love me. And small men

That buy and for silver being slaves

Crinkle the fats about their eyes; and yet

No prince of the Cities of the Sea has taken her,

Leading to his grim bed. Little lonely one,

You clung to me as a garment clings; my girl.

Target text (p.224):

Şimdi bile,

Ki pazarlarda, çarşılarda anıldı derdi,

Beni candan sevmek derdi,

Altın ve gümüş için alıp satan adamcıklar,

Gözlerini uğuştururlar, ama hiçbir deniz prensi

Götürmedi iğrenç yatağına onu. Bir tanem benim.

Setrenin omuzuna asılışı gibi sarılırdın bana,

Yavrucuğum.

The motive behind such a choice is not an easy task to discover. Because, it requires good knowledge of the mainstreams of the poetry of that times. Apart from that it can be an individual act of the translator or a common strategy of the publishing house. These are all questions that I am to leave unanswered for now. But I may touch upon a few possibilities. The translator may have wanted to introduce a new form of poetic style to the target reader. As far as I have found, Azizoğlu is not a poet but he may have some interest in poetry and may have tried to show off in this translation. It may also be done to increase the efficiency of the poem and strike the reader at first hand before even reading the poem. The whole poem is translated in the same way the only similarity is that the number of the lines is the same, despite the fact that their formation is quite different.

On the point of textual-linguistic norms, the subject matter of this translation analysis will be linguistic element choices of the translator which are mostly the words. It is to be taken from again a historical (synchronic and diachronic) point of view and it teaches a lot about the common norms of the language used, orthography of the words. First of all, words used by the translator are generally common words used in daily speech today. I mean the language that he use is not out of date. But there are some exceptions to that generalization, such as: “hüzme(quality), tahnit (embalming), tıbranş (tertiibranch), pavurya (crab), imbiklemek (redistill), tasdik (agreement), mukabele etmek (reply) etc.” These words are not used very commonly today. I am not sure about the motives behind such choices. It might be a good idea to look at the first edition of the book to compare these and other words. But unfortunately I did not have the chance to take a look at it. It is also possible that most of the words used in 1955 edition were replaced with commonly used ones of 1970s and these words may be the ones which were not replaced yet at that time. As I do not have any sources to base this assumption, I do not also want to call these word choices as inconsistent with respect to usage.

Apart from the words, what draws most attention in this translation is the difference between the orthography of the 1970s and today. It would be easier to explain the cases with examples. First of all, as can be seen in the word “itiyad, kalb etc” while words do not end with a voiced consonant, the words used in that time end with a voiced consonant. This can be seen as a spelling mistake in today's spelling rules. Also, the conjunction “de,da” is written separately today, while it is written as “katda”in the text. This also shows that the consonant harmony rules of today are not used in the text. Also the common vowel harmony rules of today are not also applied as can be seen in the example “raflariyle.” Besides these, different compounds are used in the translation, which are written separately today such as “tahribedici, nuhunebi, yüztutmuş etc.” These all show that different dominant figures in linguistic terms, grammar, spelling etc. lead to different translations at different times. That is why, they all are to be discussed with a historical perspective.

Lastly, in the analysis process, I will touch upon the initial norms which are acceptability and adequacy. These are binary oppositions but not easy to differentiate from one another easily. In the same text they may sometimes overlap or be combined. First of all, from the perspective of grammar, the text does not sound like a foreign text. The sentence structures, the expressions used are the ones that we see in the original works of Turkish such as “Allahvergisi”, “Vallah billah yaparız!” “Allah için işinin kurdu”. As can be inferred from these and similar examples,the translator makes the characters of the original work speak like Turkish people. On that point, I may claim that the translator choices to be invisible and the translation is read like an original book and these feature makes the translation with its domestication elements an acceptable translation. However, the translator also keeps some of the foreign elements that are specific to that foreign culture and introduce something new to the reader. By carrying the elements peculiar to one culture into another culture (which is Turkish culture in this context), the translator applies the methodology of foreignization and keeps the foreign elements in the translation such as “Christian Science Mezhebi, Valentine, Gallon, Cattail,Halloween, Gopher,” (he adds footnotes for these elements and makes himself more visible). In this way, the reader is introduced with foreign elements and translation presents adequacy to source norms.

These are all that I found out in the translation in the light of the methodology of Toury with the basis of norms governing translation as a norm-governed activity.

REFERENCES

Steinbeck, John. 1947. Cannery Row.  New York: Bantam Books 

Steinbeck, John. 1973. Sardalye Sokağı. Translator: Orhan Azizoğlu. Ankara: Varlık Yayınevi.

Toury, Gideon.1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

WEEK 7- THEO HERMANS "THE END OF TRANSLATION"

In the very first chapter of his book “The Conference of the Tongues“ “The End” Theo Hermans deals with the issue of authentication of the translation. According to Berman, some translations are authenticated and they begin to enjoy the status of the original. After that stage a translation seizes to be a translation and becomes an original. There are different cases in which the act of authentication take place.

The first case is the official authorities authenticating a translation. This is true for official documents like treaties and multilingual contracts. The translations are seen as originals in target languages they are translated into. However, this statement brings into the very questions of what the translation is and what determines a text to be a translation. That is to say, in some explanations for a text to be a translation, the existence of a source text is the first essential requirement. However, in this case, this existence does not seem to be a validating element of a translation. Then this again proves the reliability of the idea that a translation is not something that exists as a natural truth but the perception or the attribution of the people. That is to say, when people call a text a translation and many people thinks the same, a texts starts to be a translation. The same is also true for the vice versa. If someone (in this case, it is the authority) states that a text is an original work and most of the people agree on it, then this very translation seizes to be a translation and becomes an original in the relevant target cultures. This process brings the end of the translation. Also, though Herman does not exclude the power inequalities between the parties of the relevant treaties and contracts, he does not deal with them in depth. However, as the world is the place of inequalities especially in the political arena. The reception and the application force of them would not be the same. I mean these equally forceful texts would have to act in the limits of their target cultures. As an example, think of a treaty on human rights signed both by Norway, Somalia and USA. The application of this treaty in Norway by no means would be the same as its application in Somalia. Then this brings into the question of context: equal text in which context: in the international levels, national levels or even the local levels. These all are to be problematized in respect to the individuality of each context. Furthermore, in the explanations that are presented here, the term “target” is used. But in the case of the lack of a source (as all of the texts are seen as original), the validity of the usage of a term like is also open to question.

In another case of the authentication, the example of Marmoon, the source text disappears according to the common belief and the translated text replaces the original and becomes the original. However, even if people do not have the chance to take a look at the original book, is it a reliable explanation for a translation to become an original. That is to say, for a translation to be a translation, is it the concrete existence of an original that really matters, is not the existence of the common belief that though seen there exist an original text enough? These are all problematic issues that blurs the definition of translation, concepts of target and the source.

In another case, a translation replaces the original as the people forget about the original and begin to perceive the translation as original. But is translation a forgetting and remembering issue? If someone in that culture makes effort and brings the original into discussion and the people remember it then will the translation begin to be translation again?

Furthermore, one of the most important subjects of the chapter is the issue of self translation. Is it again a case of authentication? But without having an established basis on the definition of source, I do not think that this discussion would lead us to anywhere safe. I mean, for example, in the case of Elif Şafak, she writes both in English and Turkish, she lives in the USA-in American culture but she uses the themes of Turkish elements in her works. Let's think of a case, in which she writes in English about the life of dervish living in Turkey. Here, one can ask what is the source culture in this situation: Turkish or American one? Or is it the language she writes in that determines the source culture? Then is it appropriate to say that as she writes in English, the source culture is the American culture?

Also,on that point the case of bilingual authors matter. They may have one mother tongue and may have learned the second one at native speaker level, or they may have parents speaking different languages. When they write in one of the languages they are competent at and translate(?) into the their other language they speak, is it really a translation? Because I somehow found myself thinking that original and translated text are also a matter of authorship. I mean in most of the cases what we call original is written by an author and translated into another language by someone else. That is to say it is a translation because each of the texts are produced by different people. It may sound weird but I can not internalize the idea of self translation as an act of translation. I do not mean to keep it out of the translation studies but I can not categorize it under the title of translation proper at least. To support my idea, I wonder whether it matters to have the original text in written form. That is to say, a bilingual author may write a novel in language X, and the same author may want to write the text again in language Y. In the translation (or in the process of writing in language Y) he does not look at the text written in X. He has the data in his mind. Here what determines the source text? Because he may think in both of the languages. Does the fact that he has written in language X first and after that in language Y really matters here? I mean is a translation a before vs. after thing? Is it chronological order that differentiates the source and the target texts? As one see clearly, these all problematic issues and questions lead to another questions.

Lastly, I would like to touch upon the concept of equivalence and Herman's understanding of the term. His approach to equivalence is similar to what Toury states about the issue. For Toury , "equivalence" becomes a cover term for the relationship between source and target, it not an a priori requirement but a result. He somehow deproblematizes the issue. Hermans takes this approach further and states that there is no possible full equivalence in translation, it is an ideal. If it is fully equivalent to the source text than it is not a translation but an original as it is authenticated. Then are all the discussions on this term made in the history of the translation studies are in vain for him? I am aware of the fact that there is not a single or clear definition of the term and every scholar attributes different meanings to it. But isn't it too risky to use it like a borderline between the translation and original? I am not also in favor getting stuck to these ambiguous terms and leaving the translation studies in the hands of its fate. But equivalence in my mind is one of the criteria of the translation and its analysis. Though I may not be able to come with an exact explanation of my understanding of the term, I internally have a notion of it and carrying to an ideal level is also not a solution. Actually by deproblematizing the term itself, he leads to another problems, debates. Such as the determination of the equivalence level. What does he mean with full equivalence? Is it something impossible? If yes how? If no why? If a text is % 99 percent equivalent to the ST, then is it an original or still a translation? These are some of the questions before which I have no answer to give and realize the fact that studying a social discipline with terms meanings of which may change dramatically from time to time and person to person is a tough job.

REFERENCE

Hermans, Theo. 2007. The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

WEEK 6- DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND

Toury's article on the norms is a quite systematic one. It is divided into clear parts and presents a clear picture of the translation as a norm governed activity as apart of the Descriptive Translation Studies. With picture I mean a photo not a painting, the former of which includes just description of what is in hand, while the latter of which gives place to interpretation, explanation etc. I mean he has a very objective voice. He states the fact that he just describes the situation, his objectiveness is again weird on the point that he speaks as if he is talking about a neutral science. However, translation is a social science which is not empirical but based on explanation and that is why, his objective voice on such a subjective subject is quite interesting.

Toury's contribution to translation studies is quite charming. First of all, he broadens the field of translation studies in real sense with the term he suggests “assumed translation.” It means that any text that is assumed, received, perceived as a translation is a translation and is to be dealt in that perspective. It breaks the link between the source text and target text and reveals the fact that “transfer” and “relationship” are all posited as postulates “rather than factual”.  As I said before it provides the translation studies scholars with a wider and freer area to study and research in. In this way, different areas of translation are dealt and translation studies in not trapped in the limits of the texts which are called “translation proper.” However, despite this positive effect, it is also somehow problematic. Because it blurs the definition of translation and makes it difficult to understand what is meant and determine the limits of translation.

Also, Toury differs from most of the former translation scholars with his emphasis on the target side. Translation is said to be a fact of the target culture. It may be useful on the point that translation is dealt as a text on its own in the target side and independent of the source text. It grants the translation the value that it deserves. However, Toury's point on the matter that translation starts as a result of a need, deficiency on the target side is quite problematic. I take this point into consideration from different perspectives. First of all, I really have difficulty in understanding the statements about the needs of a culture. It sounds as if culture is an institution and publishes orders to meet these needs. But culture is not a concrete thing (though it is really difficult to come up with a certain definition of this term). So who determines this need? Also who feels this need? Who reveals or meet this need? Are we aware of this process? Do they all happen on their own? In addition to the confusion resulting from the expression “need”, I do not understand what is really meant with the terms” deficiency, gap”. How can a culture be deficient of something? May be the people of that culture do not feel this deficiency, then why are these texts translated? We know that the percentage of translated texts in every culture changes, but there is almost no culture which does not include any translated texts. That is why, I agree with the criticism directed to Toury on that point by the post-colonial writers. It is not always target side that initiates the translation process. As in the examples of Indian vs. English culture, we can not easily say that the translations from English into Indian languages are done as a result of the needs of the Indian culture. It may be a reason but the supposition that colonial English people (I do not think that this should be attributed to the whole nation. There are generally few people who plan the whole thing) realized these translation for the purpose of effecting, assimilating or changing the culture of the colony, Indian people.

Moreover, Toury's approach on the term “equivalence” is quite different. We generally use this term as a comparison tool while determining the success (?) of the translation according to the source text. That is to say, what is expected from a target text is to be equivalent to the source text. This equivalence requirement (?) may also be on sentence, word level as well as text level. This term is used for the description of the end product. However, Toury breaks this assumption and states that equivalence is inherently there whenever and wherever translation takes place. His approach has both pros and cons. He eliminates the limits of this term in his description and gets rid of a concept which is already very difficult may be impossible to describe to come up with the description of the translation process. He uses the terms as an inherent nature of the translation process more than the end products of this process, translations. It may sound to be as a good act to deproblematize the term and go ahead on  your way, but does this necessarily mean that it is not a problem anymore? Can we all assume now that equivalence is not a term to emphasize or depend on too much in translation studies? Or does this elimination bring the clarity to the translation?

Furthermore, on the point of the relation between the source text and target text/culture, Toury distinguishes between the terms “adequacy and acceptability”. The definition of these terms is again not very clear and they sometimes overlap with each other as well as with the term equivalence. According to Toury translation may be either adequate to ST or acceptable for the target culture recipient. In a way, they are the checkpoints of the norms which are to be found at the end of the process (though Toury calls them as initial norms) but how to define these adequacy and acceptability is not very clear. But so as to realize a translation adequate or acceptable, any translator may come up with different solutions no matter how weird they are. These binary oppositions may lead to extremes. I do not want to sound too conservative but these uncertainties disturbs me, but I am also aware of the fact that we have no option like observing these processes in a laboratory and come up with universal truths on the point of a social science like translation studies. Probably that is why; Toury’s attempt to come up with universal norms was in vain.

What is more, in my opinion the most important contribution of Toury is the concept of “pseudo-translations.” According to that, some texts are dealt in a culture as translations but they actually are original texts.  This situation reveals different sides of translation and its relation to the culture. First of all, the existence of pseudo-translations in a culture may refer to different points. Translation may be a way of getting rid of the limits of the censors in that publishing sector. It is also possible that translations may be highly appreciated in a culture and new original writers of that culture may find place to themselves in that culture’s literature more easily for their works. The very existence of pseudo-translations in a certain culture may have different connotations and give information us about the place of translation in that specific culture such as whether it is in the center or periphery. According to Toury, pseudo-translations help us better understand a society’s “conception of translation” within a certain period and how it changes through time.  Besides these, pseudo-translations also reveal the fact that what actually the determines the nature of a text as a translation is perception of the people. That is to say, it is the attribution of the people what makes a text a translation not its inherent nature.

Furthermore, Toury puts emphasis on contextualization. According to Toury, translated texts are to be dealt and studied within its context. It may be cultural context, historical context. It helps the translation studies scholar to come up with a historical positioning and in this way the translations may be described properly with regard to their position and function within the period they emerged. This term of conceptualization is quite important on the matter of pseudo-translations. Dealing with translations within a context rather tan in isolation also enables the scholars to make comparative analysis on different bases with different texts of different times and cultures thus conditions as well as the same of the same time period. That is to say, contextualization can be both diachronic and synchronic.

In conclusion, I would like to touch upon the information sources/materials that Toury use in his analysis, which are textual, extra textual and a new one paratextual. In general, I have the tendency just to take the text as a source of information for translation analysis or comparisons.  However, Toury broadens these options and he includes extratextual materials, like prefaces, commentaries of translators, reviews, critics etc. These all may provide useful information to us so as to understand the process in a more comprehensive and consistent way. Besides this, the concept of paratextual materials is quite interesting. But during the readings on Toury and different kind of translations in a context, I found out the fact that even a cover of the book may tell a lot to you and change the expectations from that translation and enable you to deal with it from a different point of view.  It is really interesting to come up with different explanations through the font size of the title and subtitles etc. These are all things that enhance our perspective and perception of translation thus leading our studies to different points of the translation.

REFERENCE

Toury, Gideon. .1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

WEEK 5- THE POLYSYSTEM THEORY AND THE POSITION OF TRANSLATED LITERATURE WITHIN THE LITERARY POLYSYSTEM

 

The Polysystem Theory of Even-Zohar enables us to take a look at the areas that we are dealing with from a multi-dimensional perspective. He states that every field is actually a part of the system in which there are also another systems. This theory is not a specially translation theory but a cultural one. However, within the scope of this theory translation and its place and function in the target system can be analyzed. According to this theory, translation is also a fact of the target system and it is a system on its own and can be assessed according to its correlation with other systems such as literature, politics, culture etc.

The importance of this system for the translation studies is that it broadens the field of the studies and enables the scholars to take into consideration translation and translational process with an interdisciplinary approach. The system is inherently dynamic and subject to change. However, the questions of what is the basis of change? Is it really possible? If yes, how? are left unanswered.

Despite its contribution to the translation studies, the polysystem theory is a complex one with the abstract notions of which the concrete act of translational process is tried to be explained. Probably, best words to define this theory would be interlinkage and interaction. Even from these points it becomes clear that this theory can not be understood on its own without reference to other systems of the polysystem. Even-Zohar defines his theory within binary oppositions. The first one is the center-periphery. It is used to explain the place of translation within the target literary system. That is to say, translation may gain a central position as well as a periphery position. This may change according to several factors. According to Zohar, there are three situations in which translation may gain the central position: a) when the target literature is young, b)when the target literature is weak, c)when there are cultural turns, crisis in the target literature. While a) and c) may be grounded on some points and supported despite their vagueness and complexity, it is almost impossible even to define the option b). It is totally blurred what is meant with the term “weak”; how can one call a literature of a culture as weak? It is a very relative concept which becomes clear when we ask the question weak according to whom or what?

Another binary opposition of Even-Zohar is the canonized and non-canonized differentiation. It is related to the products of the literary system. Some works become canonized as legitimate and highly appreciated works of the target literary system. What is meant here is actually not a single text but common properties of these texts. Whereas, some works are defined as non-canonized which are rejected by the norms of the target system. However, as the former binary opposition mentioned, it is again problematic. The criteria to define this canonized vs. non-canonized strata is not clear. Is it the selling rates which matter, or the respected critics etc? Also, can anything that is non-canonized be on the center or periphery? Does the center-periphery thing matter for the determination of this canonized vs. non-canonized strata?

Also the binary opposition of primary and second types is problematic. The primary types are defined with their innovative nature, while the secondary types are defined with their conservative nature. However, the fact that this innovative text of the present may be a canonized feature of the future makes the situation a little bit complicated. I mean what is defined as innovative refers to the fact that this text is different from the established and common norms of the literary system, from which I may infer that it is against the canonized features of this literary system. However, some works of this type may in time gain the title of canonized strata and from that time on can not be defined as a primary text but a secondary one. As it can be seen obviously, all of these binary oppositions are problematic and they lack the fact that the life is in grays not just in blacks or whites.

Moreover, what is also lacking in this theory is the human agent which is the primary factor of the translational process. He states as if all the processes take place on their own. But in fact it is the human agent who decides what is to be central and what is to be periphery and its his/her attribution. Also probably as a result of the same lacking lacking feature (human agent), the subjective and relative feature of these concepts are ignored, and these all together shake the grounds and credibility of this theory for the translation studies.

Furthermore, if I am to turn back to the issue of center and periphery, Even-Zohar touches upon the issue of power relations in the target system. That is to say, some powerful and dominant classes may effect or determine the places of this binary opposition. As an example to this issue the Republican period in which the movement of Westernization was dominant can be taken into consideration. During this period, works of the Western writers were highly translated and these works came into the center of the Turkish literary system. But these were not the demands of the public but the ones above who act in accordance with an ideology.

In conclusion, the polysystem theory of Even -Zohar contributes a lot to the translation studies with its emphasis on culture, broad perspective based upon the system relations. But some of the points that I have mentioned above open the soundness of the theory into question.

REFERENCES

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1997. “Polysystem Theory”. In Itamar Even-Zohar, Poetics Today. Durham: Duke University Press. p:1-26

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2000. “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary

Polysystem.” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London:

Routledge. p: 192 - 197.

WEEK 4- TYPE, KIND, INDIVIDUALITY OF TEXT & SKOPOS AND COMMISSION

* Reiss as a functionalist deals with the language from lingual, linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Her important contribution to the translation studies is that she determines the text type as the determinant and dominant factor of the translational process and thus all the decisions of this process are realized within the limits of the requirements of the relevant text type. She the texts under three titles informative, expressive and operative. In each of them she states that one factor is the dominant one and this factor is the determinant of the text type, which would determine the translational process. In informative texts, it is content which is of primary importance and the translator is expected to reflect the meaning of the source text into the target text. In expressive texts it is the artistic form which actually matters as well as the content. What I can not get here is that how can one separately take form and content. I mean even while one is thinking on the just form, s/he still includes the content because to analyze the form, one uses the content, meaning unit. As an example, to think of the form of translation of a poem line, one has to deal with the line itself, which is the meaning unit and thus the content material. The situation is even harder top explain in cases of operative texts. Because here the determinant factor is the persuasiveness of the text. Thus to maintain or create this persuasive effect the translator is expected to make some changes in both form and the content to achieve this aim. However, what is missing in these classifications is that though she states the dominant factors, she does not touch upon the points on the ways of realizing these factors in the target texts.

Furthermore, she talks about special cases about the functions of texts that are used for the realization of different functions in the target culture than the ones in the source culture. But this is quite problematic from the very beginning. Because what is meant with function is not clear? Also function is spatial-temporal bound concept; thus, it is even possible for two texts to have the same function in different cultures no matter whether you aim it or the something different. Also any text that is translated for a specific function may be used for a different purpose. That is to say, the translation of an expressive text may be used for an operative function in the same target culture. At that time would the text used for operative function be analyzed in comparison to the source expressive text? Thus these are not clear cut boundaries, and the use of texts are shapes according to the conditions of the dynamic culture.

* Vermeer is best known for his “skopos theory”. His understanding of translation is also shaped from a functionalist point of view and that is what they have in common with Reiss. With this theory, he is probably the closest scholar to the practical arena of the translational process. Because he talks about the actual translation practices and tries to give a say to the translator and other actors of the translational act. It is also innovative from the perspective that it involves actors of the translational process like client, commissioner etc. other than the translator. This situation broadens the study field of translation and makes it closer to the real life situations. Also, his analysis of the translation in the social context is also important for the fact that translation takes place in the society it is produced in and thus it would be the social conditions that would guide the process of this act.

First of all, he states that every action has a purpose thus translation as an action is a purposeful act. One might think that every action does not necessarily have an aim. But he argues that whether consciously or inherently every translation is realized with a purpose. The same vagueness about the existence of a purpose applies to the practitioner of this act, the translator. But is it the aim of the translation or the aim of the translator that matters? Or can they be separated from each other? Or can they have different aims? In these situation do they mean the same thing? That is to say, while the aim of the translator may mean the very meaning of the word. But the aim of the translation (with his terms the “translatum”) is more like the function. The same aim may not result in the same function. Thus, what the translator produce with a reasonable and accountable aim may not result in a product that serves to that aim and may have a different function in the context it is used.

Also, his focus on the translator is quite different from other approaches. He seems to give total freedom to the translator in the process of acting according to his aim. I do not feel comfortable about this Because this makes it very difficult to evaluate a translation and more importantly in real life situations, it is not the case for most of the translators to be the experts of their fields. That is why this freedom may result in distorted translations and they may be grounded on this theory. I know that he balances this freedom with the accountability of the translator. But does having a reason justify all the action? Does the fact that the translator's decision can be explained make it right? In my opinion, this freedom and responsibility balance is not an easy competence for a translator to develop.

Furthermore, this theory is important for the fact that it dethrone the source text before target text. For him what really matters is the target text and target culture. This approach may be helpful for the translation to find its own grounds in the target culture and develop without the pressure of the source text and source culture. This also makes it possible to deal with translations as texts of the target culture. But I am not very sure about the extend of the isolation of the target text from the source text. Because his remark is not very clear on that point. He states that source text is a point of departure but after this departure what way is to be followed is not determined, which brings the vagueness. Also, his remarks on the textual partiality drew my attention. Until now, I used to evaluate a text as a whole with its function, purpose etc. However his statement about the text as a divisible whole is worth discussing. I do not think that it is possible to divide a text into segments for the determination of their skopos. It does not seem to be applicable because of the fact that even an aim of a translation may be illustrated by the translator at a preface or a critics writing, the partial skopos (subskopos) explanation would be available for the translator, and thus for the reader, for the translation analyst etc.

Moreover, he deals with the language within the cultural context and makes a distinction between transcoding and transposing. As these two different terms would suggest this distinction include two different culture and translation happens between these two. While transcoding is source oriented, transposing is said to be more like target oriented. However, is it possible to define this bilateral act with clear cut boundaries between the target culture and source culture while the very root of the word culture is already a vague term with no boundaries, clear definitions etc. Also without coding the units of a source text is it possible to place it into the target language? Thus I do not think that these are divisible concepts of the translational process.

Also, in this attempt to support his view against the oppositions to his theory, he comes up with different meanings and connotations of the word skopos. However, this may seem to be reasonable for his supportive purpose, but too broadening the meaning of a concept at the same would make it a vague one, in my opinion. Thus it would be a better idea to state the meaning of skopos clearly and not try to include all the fields among its application area. Then it would be a harder to invalidate it. Also, the skopos theory may be more applicable to the translation of technical texts. But it is more difficult for me to agree with him on the point of translations of works of art. General aim may be said as creating the aesthetic beauty. But is it possible to evaluate the methods of this aesthetic beauty which is a highly relative concept? Also, is it possible to determine the effect of this work on the source reader so as to be come up with a conclusion on the success of the translation in its creation of this aesthetic beauty?

REFERENCES

Reiss, Katharina. 2000. “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in

Translation.” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London:

Routledge. p: 160 – 172.

Vermeer, Hans J. 2000. “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” In Lawrence

Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge. p: 221 - 233.

WEEK 3- PRINCIPLES OF CORRESPONDANCE & SHIFT OF EXPRESSION

* Nida is seen as the beginner of the functionalist approach in translation. His education and academic background is though based on linguistics and he is a Bible translator. These are important factors that would effect his approach and study on translation.

First of all, his active role in missionary acts of the Christianity via Bible translation is worth dealing with. Because the mission he adopted on that point is quite effective in his works on translation. His religious side seems to effect his translational acts. But it is open to question whether it is ethical according to the translation norms. Also, his area of research and addressee is almost always related to the Bible. So it is quite interesting to find out that he has come out with approaches that are applicable to different genres, texts etc.

Probably his most important contribution to the translation studies is two approaches that he has developed. They are quite beneficial on the point that they broaden the definition of equivalence. The concept of equivalence is generally held as a subject matter in the analysis of translational units, be it words, sentences etc. With his definitions of the approaches, the word also gains a new meaning on the textual-cultural unity bases. The first one is the formal equivalence which can be compared to an source oriented approach. In this approach what is more important is the source text and it is to be reflected in the target language though with the expense of natural expression. On that point, it would be a good idea to adopt when the source text is a culture-bound one. But I am not sure about the acceptability of such kind of translation. Because, despite the fact that fluency, ease of comprehension are too simple and vague terms to define a translation, unfortunately what is generally expected from a translation can easily be specified with these terms. That is why, though this kind of translation might be good for the target reader to acquire acquaintance with the source language structure, I do not think that translator would be thanked for this but blamed. I can not say that I am opposed to it, but I am aware of the fact that it may bring about certain problems in the real life situations. The latter is the dynamic equivalence which can be compared to the target-language oriented approaches. The basic goal is to maintain readability and get the same effect on the reader of the target text as the reader of the source text. But from this very beginning, whether it is possible to evaluate the sameness of the effect between these different cultures is left unanswered. It is also viewed applicable to make omissions, changes on the translation to present the feature of natural expression. However, this is also very dangerous in my opinion. Because, he does not talk about any limits on these changes which may result in texts called translation which are in fact totally different from the source texts in extreme situations. But as there is not clear cut boundaries between these two approaches, what is realized in accordance with the approach of dynamic equivalence may be similar to formal equivalence in some respect. Nida also questions the definition of translation, and states that there are numerous definitions available and it makes it harder to study on translation, on which I totally agree with him.

Furthermore, an interesting point drew my attention. He has a different understanding on adaptation. He does not seem to view it as a subbranch of translation but as a method that is applied in translation partially and it is quite surprising to learn that for a natural (?) translation adaptation on grammar and lexicon are essential. This statement is problematic from the very beginning? First of all what is natural translation? What does he mean with grammar adaptation and lexicon? Is it the adaptation of the target language to the source language determinants or the visa versa?

* Popovic touches upon the nature of the language in general and is effects on the acts between languages (interlingual acts). He at the first hand accepts that the translator is to make some changes as result of the requirement of the source and target languages. What is important is that he develops an understanding on the underlying motives of these natural changes, arrangements etc. realized by the translator. This point is quite inspiring and can also provide the translation critics with a good basis in their evaluations as well as to some scholars who perform detailed text analysis in their descriptive studies. Moreover, he states that the motive behind these shifts is to make target text closer to the original. This is also different from what would be expected. Because when there are amendments in the texts we generally tend to think that the similarity and parallelism distance between the source text and target text is increased. However, what he suggests is the opposite. But what is meant with getting close is not clear. The term “shift of expression” as its name would suggest means that changes in the expression. To understand it better it would be a good ideal to learn what the meaning of “expression” is : “to show a feeling, idea, view etc.” that is to say it is closely related to meaning. Then do shifts in expression mean changes in meaning? At that time how can it be an act to make TT closer to ST? Also, as said before form and content are I indivisible. Then does shift of expression also mean to amend the form? I take this term as finding an alternative way to say the same thing. I mean different translational choices during the decision making process of the translator may be explainable on the basis of this term and this is quite useful for the people who want to get rid of the vague, slippery terms like faithful, free, equivalent etc.

He also deals with different genres and their requirements in the translational process. But I do not agree with him on his point about the superiority/inferiority of genres to one another. It is not clear according to what this superiority/inferiority is determined and let alone the clarity of this point, how can it be possible for a poem to be superior to a prose or for a technical text to be inferior to a literary one?

Furthermore, he makes his point on the spatial-temporal context of meaning. That is to say, meaning changes according to time ans place. As the conditions change when they change, all the elements that lead the perception of the target text change. This takes place in the natural flow of life and one may derive from here that the meaning changes on its on. But shifts in expression are consciously made decisions of the translator. In this perspective, how would we explain these natural changes in the meaning and would it be possible to determine whether these changes are made according to the very original meaning of the source text or according to the newly gained meaning of it in new spatial-temporal conditions? Moreover, his explanation on the phenomena of the translation is quite interesting. He defines translation as both creation and reproduction. But aren't these terms contradictory? If you create something then it is a new thing. If you reproduce something it is new production of a source (text in our context). While the former would end up with a new text, the latter would end up with a text which may appear to be new but not inherently. I do not say that translation is not a creative act, as you make up a whole from the limitless options of your target language. My point is that when we explain the very nature of translation as creation it would be difficult to analyze a translation. Because you can not put barriers to a creation process and it may be almost impossible to find basis for the decisions of the translator, its limits and conditions and explain them on the ground of the term “shift of expression” , all which at the same time would change the position of the translator before the author.

REFERENCES

Nida, Eugene. 2000. “Principles of Correspondance.” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation
Studies Reader. London: Routledge. p: 126-141

Popovic, Anton. 1970. “The Concept ‘Shift of Expression’ in Translation Analysis.” In James

Holmes, ed. The Nature of Translation: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. p: 78-87