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

WEEK 2- WESTERN TRANSLATION THEORY AND ISSUES IN TRANSLATION STUDIES

* Tytler approaches to the translation from a different point of view and he with Dolet, Dryden develop a meta-view. Though he does not question the concept of translation very much, he includes different elements into the translation. He deals with translation from the language perspective and states that different language structures necessitates different translations. However, his opinion on the style and meaning of a text that is to be conveyed via translation is problematic. He states that it may not be possible to maintain both of them in the translation. But how to decide to on one of them is not clearly determined. Also, it is an inherently wrong problematic, because a text exists as a whole and thus it is not possible to separate them. When you change or eliminate the style of a text, you at the same time change the meaning of the text. That is why, I think though his approach to translation from a lingual point of view is promising, it is not enough to explain complex act like translation.

Furthermore, he uses the term perfect translation, which is vague and it is not explained what is meant with it. If I am to question this term, I may come up with nothing and lots of things, because it may mean different things when dealt with different approaches available in the translation studies. Also he develops two different approaches to translation. The first one is more like a source-language oriented, the latter is target-language oriented. However, his statement on the first approach that the deficiencies and blemishes of the text should also be reflected in the translation and, his statement on the latter approach that the text may be improved and arrangements may be realized in the translation are quite problematic in my opinion. Because, it is not possible to determine the limits of these changes, the limits of the freedom that is given to the translator. Also, the translator is always to blame about the defects of the translation, though they exist in the original text.

* Dolet's first interesting point is the position of a translator as a printer. I have never thought of a translator who is at the same time the printer, maybe with today's terms the publisher. He deals with this situation as something usual but when examined carefully, it would be obvious that it would change all the translational conditions that lead the translational process. Among them, more freedom to translator, a different purpose in translation etc. can be counted.

Though Dolet does not deal with the responsibility of the translator, his fate on that matter is a real pity. This brings into question the limits of the responsibility of the translator and the right (?) of the people to judge them. This clearly reveals the necessity of organizational professional acts and established organizations. If there had been any organization on that profession, it might be possible to save him from execution. Even today similar events happen and despite some movements , the organizations are not enough. This situation also brings into question of the very root of the translational act, “what the translation is.”

Also his term “good translation” is a vague one and most of his five criteria to evaluate a translation and decide the goodness of it are not applicable. First of all, he states that the translator should have a good grasp of the meaning of the text. But meaning is a relative concept, not even two person get totally the same meaning from the same text. In this situation, how could it be possible to expect a translator to come up with a generally accepted meaning. He also deals with the relationship of the languages but I am not sure about the classification of languages as rich and poor ones. The fact that there are more words in a language does not necessarily mean that it is a richer language. That is why I do not agree with him on that point either.

* Dryden's most (?) important contribution to the translation studies is his simple and too general classification of the translation into three categories as metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation. His terms may be evaluated as substitutes to word-for-word, sense-for-sense and free translations consecutively. However, though metaphrase and paraphrase are easier to deal with an explain as their predecessors, the imitation is like a catch-all category and any translation that does not fit into the definition of metaphrase and paraphrase put into imitation. But his opinions on imitation are quite confusing. He states that imitation is a good arena for the translator to show his/her talent but it would be very disrespectful if it is applied to a dead person. He also finds it reasonable to make adjustments, omissions on the translation for the first one. But I do not think that translator would have any intention to show off via translation. It may be inspiring with the value that it gives to the translator but I am not sure whether the end product of this interlingual act can be called as a translation. Of course, every translation is a new text in the target culture but the rate of this “newness” is open to question. Also, translation is by nature a creative act; thus the translator does not have to act as an artist or require such kind of talents. I am against limits on a broad issue like translation, but I am for sure against such limitless freedom. In this situation it is almost impossible to study translation. Because it is even not clear whether to evaluate the end product as a translation or not; or whether to deal with the practitioner of this act as a translator or an author.

His metaphor about the position of the translator is a good one. But as he said the success is always attributed to the author of the original text in the target culture, and the failure is always attributed to the translator. In that perspective, it would be even clearer that to act as freely as an imitator would result in bad endings, even executions.

Moreover, he also touches upon the relationship between the languages and he uses the term “inferior” language and the superiority of some languages. I do not agree with his opinion on that matter. Because as I said before it is not appropriate to call a language superior or inferior. Any language is enough for the people communicating thorough it. Thus it would not be a problem for a translator to translate a word that with several equivalents in the source language but with a just one correspondence in the target language. Because, if a word does not exist in a language that would bring my mind that this nuance,concept etc. does not exist in that culture. On that point, the translator should not be blamed. If the aim is to enrich cultures via interlingual and thus intercultural communication, it is up to the translator to import that term into the target language by coining a new word etc. but this is not a must for the translator. It would be overresponsibility.

* Schleiermacher is seen as one of the first to produce systematic translation theories. In his time together with Dryden, German Romanticism has a serious effect on his views. With the culture as the most important dynamic of the societies, it also gains its place in the translation studies. The language and translation is also dealt with the perspective of the culture. First of all, though he does not state it with the Jacobson's term as “intralingual” translation, he gives examples which are similar to that phenomena. In this respect, he broadens the field of translation studies. His remark on the distinction between interpreter and translator is also important. Because until that time, it is generally the written translation that is dealt in the field, there is not much said on oral translation.

Unlike the previous scholars, he does not base the differences between the translation and the source text on linguistic differences. He touches upon them from the cultural point of view. This is important because of the fact that translation is broad concept and trying to define its process and also the end products on the basis of just linguistics is not enough and also even bad for a field which tries to prove its autonomy and even independence from these branches. Also, I think his spatial-meaning relation is worth dealing with. He states that the more the distance between the target and source language the bigger is the difference between the meanings. This is a different approach but again open to some question. Spatial bases in the evaluation of the translation can also be quite misleading. Such as Turkey and Iran are neighbors but the literary traditions are quite different from each other and thus the meaning is. Also Greek and Turkey may be good examples. For some Turkey may be a representative of the East while Greece as the representative of the West. At that time the words would mean different things in that cultures though they are very near to each other. Even this differences can be observed on local levels for example between the Anatolia and Istanbul.

Furthermore, his classifications that he present as alternatives to the empty&full concepts of faithful, free, literal etc. His classification is much more understandable to me on the point that it also somehow presents a method in the definition of his two approaches. But it is again not possible to say that they are clear cut and easy to define. First of all, I do not know whether it is possible to grasp the gust of the author to be able to bring the reader to th author. Secondly, he suggests to bring the author to the reader. But again it is not possible to determine whether s/he brought the author as a whole to the target culture or just could bring his/her legs, arms etc. These are all the problems of the translation by nature. But he does not give limitless freedom to the translator, he states that there should be some limits between the “should not” and “can not”, to which I totally agree with. However, the details of these limits are left unanswered.

Also, his point on the hierarchy of languages between the languages of the target reader and its relevance to the translation is also interesting. He states that the language from or into which the translation takes place is important. He gives us the Latin, German examples. I am curious whether it would be the case for us between the Ottoman Turkish and Turkish. Though they are by root the same language it is sometimes impossible for us to understand Ottoman Turkish. Would it be more appropriate to translate a Latin text into Ottoman Turkish (which is viewed as a very rich (?) language) rather than Turkish.

Finally I would like to touch upon the bilingual author situation. If I am to problematize this view. First, when it is the bilingual author who also writes the same text in another language, is he still the author or the translator for the second text? Does the notion of translator defined as interlingual practicer of someone else's text? If it is not the property of the text that determines the position of author and the translator, what is it? Can the author perform the same in the second language? Would he be able to mean the same thing? Is the limits or the freedom the same for the author in the second text as for the translator?

REFERENCE

Robinson, Douglas. ed. 1997. Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchaster: St Jerome Publishing.

WEEK 1- DIALOGUE BETWEEN THEORY AND TRANSLATION

There is always some kind of tension between the translation studies as a branch of social sciences and translation as a practice. The tension is mostly derived from the questions “what is the use translation theories to the translators?” “Is translational products are relevant to the study of the translation?” “If there is any, what is the relation between the translator and translation scholars?”Different, sometimes opposing approaches and answers to these questions bring about fierce discussions and result in different views.

First of all I would like to touch upon the article of Sabri Gürses on the subject of “what is the use of the translation studies to the translators?” He states that this is an inherently wrong question; thus it would be in vain to await reasonable and grounding answers from that rhetoric. His attitude towards translation studies is very restricted and he isolates the actual practices of the translational action, the translators from the subject matters of these studies. He deals with the situation in terms of subject-object relation and presents his idea with an extreme example: the relationship between the nuclear physicist and the nuclear molecules. I do not think that this is an appropriate analogy. For sure we can not expect a molecule to ask questions to a physicist. But though a translation can not ask question to a translation scholar, the producer of that translation, the translator certainly can. That is why, Gürses' effort to separate the translator and translation from the translation studies presents an unsuccessful one.

It is really weird to think of a branch of study separately from its very subject matter. Translation even as a concept involves the translational action, it is based on practical act. So, in my opinion, translation study can not ignore the end products of these translational acts, translations and the producers of these translations, translators. On that point, it would be useful to define the vast field of translation studies: the process of translational act, factors that effect and guide this process, analysis of what is going on in minds of the translators during that process, translational decisions, the position of source and target texts also with the relationship between these cultures; social, economical, political conditions leading the translational decisions and so on. These are the ones that come to my mind on the first stance, there are several others. But even these are enough to clearly state that translation studies can not ignore the translators.

However, to come up with an answer to the common question or claim of the translators on the use and pragmatics of the translation studies, it is essential to take a look at the generally accepted method of current translation studies, which is descriptive. Descriptive translation studies aim at as its name suggests describe and define the nature, process and end-products of the translational action. The results of these studies do not present pragmatic answers to the demands of translators. I think though not appreciated by the current translation scholars, it may be the prescriptive translation studies that may be helpful to these needs of the translators. However, this approach, immediately brings into question the value of these studies in a scientific field. This is where I get stuck.

Let me first begin with my opinion on prescriptive approaches to TS. As a candidate researcher of this field, I may sincerely say that I am against the ivory towers that most scholars build and hide in. But at the same time I do not think that it is the requisite of this field to act according to the needs of the practicer of the subject matter of it, which is translation. However, the field can not totally ignore the presence and effect of these actors. It sounds like a slippery slope and more than that like a dead-end. If I am to give an answer to these demands of the translator, I would probably choose to start with the definition and nature of translation. Because, by this way, it would be clearer and easier to understand for the translators that it is almost impossible to come up with de facto rules when it is th translation that is discussed. Let me explain why.

There is almost no consensus even on the very definition of the translation. It is attributed different features, specialties and necessities at different times and places. As it is obvious from this explanation, it is a temporal and spatial bound action. Thus, any norm that may be presented as a rule would be invalid in another situation with different conditions. I am talking about translation in general and this may be a little bit more applicable on the point of technical translations, but certainly more impossible on the point of literary translations. From this point of view, any prescriptive approach and suggestion would be doomed to be falsified and invalidated. It would be now easier to understand the orientation of the scholars towards descriptive translation studies on the scientific way to immortality.

I also would like to touch upon one more point on the center-periphery discussion of Gürses on the field. He states that the globalization of the world is made possible with the globalisation of the translation. He deals with translation as an indispensable part of the social existence and defines that it is effected by the social changes. But I can not understand his reduction of the translation studies that can be pragmatics to a particular concept. If something as a whole can not help another thing, how come a part of this something can help this another thing. I am really curious about whether it is possible to reduce knowledge (which is always universal to me , no matter where it is produced) on a field to reduce to local level. Thus I do not think that it is appropriate to make such reductions/classifications.

kuram tartışmaları çok yakında!