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 That is to say, the language used in the first edition may become out-of date in the meantime or some elements that are claimed to be inappropriate by the target culture authorities may have been excluded in the first edition with some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.