FINAL PAPER

    CONCEPT 
          OF 
EQUIVALENCE

WEEK 11 - KATE STURGE, MARIA TYMOCZKO, ŞEBNEM SUSAM-SARAJEVA, THEO HERMANS

* Kate Sturge, in her article she compares the translation and museum as well as presenting a clear picture of the translational act taking place in museums. That is to say, she uses the terms translation in double sense: metaphorical and literal meaning. The main issue she deals with is ethnocentrism existing in both senses. Museum is like translation in the sense that you take an object from its culture, geographical and historical context and display it in a different environment with a possible interpretation. It is similar in the translation where you take the text in a source culture and present it in a framework in the target culture. The biases, purposeful manipulations that can be valid for translation are also applicable to museums. The main idea here is the representation. In the case of translation of the labels, texts in ethnographic museums different methods are applied, which generally results in the anonymity and corrupted representation. In the context of museums, the objects are displayed as if they are products of the whole culture and the actual maker of them are not mentioned and generally are not known or searched. As for the translations, they are are made briefly without any further explanation or detail. Actually the oversimplified representations of the objects which have the potential to lead to complex explanations present another issue, which is power balance. This is also another important point about museums. Because what is displayed in the context of ethnographic museums are generally given as primitive, underdeveloped etc. That is to say the higher presents a part of the history of the lower or subordinated. The importance of translation here is its potential to change this view and reception of the people. There may be different solutions offered like detailed inscriptions of the objects displayed without strict categories. Also a new trend of scattering words of the other culture in the translation is also applicable. However, I doubt the efficiency of such an approach. Because, though it may be useful to give an instinct of the existence of a foreign to the reader, it may result in weird translations, which would lead to less intelligibility and thus would not serve for the aim. Furthermore, she calls for a different system so as to eliminate these deficiencies on the issue of translation of the museum labels and texts. What she suggests is a critical point of view and approach to cultural representations, more awareness and different strategies so as to make the represented more visible in the eye of the visitors.

* Maria Tymoczko is one of the scholars who deserves appreciation for her critical point of view and clarity in expressing her statements. In her article she mainly deals with the issue of (non)representation of the non-Western in translation studies and the drawbacks of the presuppositions held in this field with the solutions that she suggests. She clearly presents the complexity of the translation process with her claim that translation does not take part in different group it may occur in the same group, which is composed of more than one cultural group. This point bring in the question of whether it is possible to draw the lines between the groups clearly. Also, her emphasis on the too much emphasis on written text is important to draw our attentions to the oral translations, which would also present different and interesting features as well as its contribution to non-Western where literate people are low in number. Furthermore, her problematization of too much individualistic view about the translator opens the issue into question and once more makes us think about the other agents taking place in the process. In this way, we would end up with a more comprehensive and clearer picture of the process. The issue of relation between the source and target texts is another problematic point, which would necessitate to re-conceptualize all of the terms of the field, which are shaped according to the point of view and biases of the dominant culture. This would give a chance to the non-Western to rise its voice. Furthermore, the text type determination problem and the limitations about this point in the field is another problem. Studies are generally restricted to a limited number of text types, which are common in the hegemonic culture (in this context it is the Western culture.) But as she suggests there exist other type of texts which are unique to their cultures and translation of them should be included in the field with an unbiased point of view to give the opportunity of self representation to the non-Western. However, all of her ideas are not very much applicable to Turkish context. As an example, her criticism about the presumption that translators are generally well educated experts of their field would not be hold true in Turkey, where translators are generally treated as amateurs and the institutionalization of the professional association is not at a powerful stage.

Also, the concepts of transculturation and the usage of translation as a cluster concept are some of the important points that draw attention. Transculturation as a concept provides us a tool to detect the culturally internalized elements of other cultures. It is a tough job but it would prove to be useful to present cultural relationships, cultural exchanges in more detail. However, here one can easily ask to which culture are we supposed to attribute this cultural element? That is to say, as an example, the Chinese food is largely consumed in a culture, it is very common and possible to find anywhere in that culture and it becomes a part of the eating habits of that culture. Then is it still Chinese or can that culture appropriate it to its culture? Cultural elements are not very easy to deal with with respect to the issue of ownership. As for the translation as a cluster concept, it helps us understand that there are receptions and perceptions of translation. All of these different approaches display similarity but not one shared, established ground. Each approach would be applicable in its own context. The importance of this idea is that it shows us the impossibility as well as the unnecessity of the works to fixate the term. Because it would always continue to say something different to anyone. On that point, I am not very sure about the limits of this non-fixation. I mean, as anyone wold agree it is not a good idea to limit the definition of a study so as to give it place to do its research and improve its field. However, in the universe of endless cases and interpretations isn't it necessary to have some common grounds on which the studies are to be executed? I do not have any clear suggestion for this problem but I am also not quite comfortable with the idea of this too much flexibility.

All of these concepts, ideas suggested by Tymoczko would help to broaden the field, enrich it and move it towards a more neutral (if not neutral to a more democratic) position giving equal place the so-called Others in a social science like Translation Studies. In conclusion, as sh suggests translation can be used for both good and ill. That is why it is important to think twice about the studies of the field with a critical point of view on the grounds of the elimination process of Eurocentric hegemony over the field.

* Şebnem Susam-Sarajevo, in her article mainly deals with the question of “Does political and economic power necessarily bring linguistic power?” She naturally touches upon the power relations and in this context explains the general tendencies between the language groups. Here the hegemony of some languages and the hierarchy between languages are presented. According to her claim, most of the works in the field are seen as products in English and thus products of the English culture or in a more general terms w of the Western culture. Also the fact that the more powerful a language is, the more probable that it would be received as the source and the weaker a language is seen, the more probable that that would be seen as the target. It is also possible to regard the source and target issue as central and peripheral consecutively. These ideas are open to debate from a number of points. First of all, what determines the source of a study? That is to say, is it the language that determines the source or is it the culture of the producer or is it the subject matter of the case study? Secondly, the issue of Western and non-Western distinction is not a clear one. What determines this Westernness? Is it geographical if so how come products of Israel can be see as Western? Is it language? If so in some part of the countries like Algeria, French is spoken. It is also a part of the European dominant languages but do we regard the products of that culture as Western? There not just one answer to these questions. But probably the language is a very dominant factor as the texts on the field are generally published in English no matter what the nationality of the scholars that produce them like Lefevere, Nida etc. and we receive them as the products of Western culture. The aim of the scholars writing in English rather than their mother tongues is explained as the will to reach more people and be accepted by the dominant institutions of the field. No one can blame them for their choice. But that does not necessarily mean that everybody would support them. Because, they sometimes bring about paradoxical statements. As an example, a post colonial writer criticizes the hegemony of the English culture and thus the language on the subordinated. But to express this, s/he uses English. She serves for two parts which are contradictory. On one hand she states her idea on the issue so as to raise awareness while on the other hand she produces her text in English and thus helps English strengthen its power with a new product in it. Furthermore, the idea of universality is a complex subject, which is open to question. Is is really possible to produce value-free, culture-free and neutral theories? I do not think so as no one can think outside the limits of his/her language, which is shaped with the biases, ideologies, ideas, traditions of that culture in which that language is spoken. On these points, her suggestion is to call for a more democratic distribution of scholarly models. But one can easily question the efficiency of democracy, as it may also mean the tyranny of the majority and it would not be difficult to determine the Big Brother in the context of the languages.

* Theo Hermans in the last chapter of “The Conference of the Tongues” opens the issue of the meanings of the concepts in different languages into question and states that the same concept may mean totally different things in different languages. Also with the term domestic representation he makes it that no one can avoid the inscriptions of his/her point of view while dealing with another subjects. That is to say, some extent of subjectivity is inevitable and total neutrality is something impossible. On the point of concepts what he suggests is to provide thick descriptions. It means to provide possible meanings of the terms used with the historical and situational context they are used in. However, this does not sound very achievable. Is it really possible to limit the interpretations? I do not think that it is possible to put an end point to them. Also, how can one determine the historical contexts of these concepts in the cultures other that his/hers? I think no matter how critical, one may provide studies in the field, the end product would always bear some remarks that are peculiar to him/her or in more general terms in his/her culture. Furthermore, according to Hermans, to be able to realize these, what is necessary is to gain access to interpretations of concepts and provide cross-cultural and cross-lingual study of them. However, apart from the infiniteness of the interpretations, the issue of personal cognition also matters here. That is to say, it would not be possible to provide a clear picture of the meanings of the terms in different cultures. Because these cultural differences and interpretations they lead to would also vary from the person to person among themselves in this very complex process. Furthermore, Hermans moves the term thick definition further and comes up with thick translation, which is heavily composed of footnotes, explanations of the terms, ideas. But it is not a gloss-like lists but critical descriptions. This idea is inherently a very good one so as to provide an increased awareness of the culture-bound elements of the texts. However, in the real life when we tackle with this claim what would we come up with? Would these translations be demanded? Would they reach the people so as to realize their aims? In the current situation, I may easily say “no”. But for the translation of text books in the field of translation studies this may prove to be helpful to provide researchers with different perspectives on the same issue. Moreover, the relation between the language and reality is worth discussing. It is not the reality that gives the sense to language but it is the language that makes sense on the point of reality. That is to say, its our attributions to words, concepts etc. that makes them meaningful. In short, they are constructed not inherent. So it would be useful to be aware of other attributions of the same concepts. Also the idea of self reflexivity is a very good one to show both the inevitability of domestic representation and how to deal with this inevitability. Because first you become aware of the fact that your descriptions are loaded with subjective inscriptions and thus deal with other descriptions that are also loaded with inscriptions so as to make a comparison and come up with a critical point of view on these matters. In conclusion he mainly raises the question “do we really communicate?”, which has numerous answers, all of which would also bring about other questions as well as different interpretations in the revision process of the terms of cross cultural studies of translation studies.

REFERENCES

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

        Sturge, Kate. "The Other on Display" in Theo Hermans (eds.) Translating Others Volume II. Manchester: St. Jerome.

         Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem. "A multilingual and International Translation Studies " in Theo Hermans (eds.) Crosscultural Transgressions. Manchester: St. Jerome.

         Tymoczko, Maria. "Reconceptualizing of Western Translation Theory" in Theo Hermans (eds.) Translating Others Volume I. Manchester: St. Jerome.

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.