From the ‘Real’ Author to the ‘Real’ Reader: Manipulation in Translation

Bakkal, Aslı Kalem

doi:10.29228/translogos.2/1.5

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17 Addressing 'indirect translation' within "preliminary norms" governing translational acts, Toury (1995) associates it with "translating from languages other than the ultimate source language" (58). Yves Gambier (2003), on the other hand, provides a broader definition: "translation of literary works, based on a translated version of the original text" translations, using Nutuk (1927) by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as a case study, see Kalem Bakkal 2019. For an ongoing PhD dissertation on the intralingual translation of Çalıkuşu (1922), a Turkish classic, with a range of conceptual discussions, see Baydere 2019.…”

Section: Indirect Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Could the Translation of a ‘Retelling’ Imply for Translation Studies?

Baydere¹

2019

transLogos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to scrutinize the implications that The Canterbury Tales: A Retelling (2009) by Peter Ackroyd and its Turkish translation hold for Translation Studies. The study will focus on the translation concepts of 'retelling,' 'intralingual translation,' 'indirect translation,' and 'retranslation.' The motivation for this study stems from the manner in which the books were introduced into the English and Turkish literary systems. The Turkish translation entitled Geoffrey Chaucer'ın Canterbury Hikâyeleri (Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury tales) (2017) designates Peter Ackroyd as the 'author,' and is presented as a "translat[ion] from the English original" (Ackroyd 2017, 5). In the English edition, on the other hand, Ackroyd appears as the 'translator' of this "original," with Chaucer named as the 'author.' Another noteworthy point is that Geoffrey Chaucer'ın Canterbury Hikâyeleri was preceded by other translations of Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in Turkish. The current study explores how to conceptualize the translational statuses of The Canterbury Tales: A Retelling and Geoffrey Chaucer'ın Canterbury Hikâyeleri through discussing the existing definitions of 'retelling,' 'intralingual translation,' 'indirect translation,' and 'retranslation.' This study argues that the English work is, in fact, an 'intralingual (re)translation,' and the Turkish work can be called both an 'indirect translation' and a 'retranslation through indirect translation,' where 'indirect' refers to the process. Along with this, it also offers two new categories for the typology of "intervening texts" in retranslation (Alvstad and Rosa 2015): 'single intralingual retranslation' and 'compilative inter-and intralingual retranslation through indirect retranslation.' The study ends with a discussion of the implications of the English and Turkish works in question with regard to the ideas of 'originality' and 'authorship.'

show abstract

Section: Indirect Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Could the Translation of a ‘Retelling’ Imply for Translation Studies?

Baydere¹

2019

transLogos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For further information and discussion on intralingual translation in Turkish, see also BerkAlbachten 2005Albachten , 2012Albachten , 2015Birkan Baydan 2011;Kalem Bakkal 2019; Karadağ 2019. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intralingual Translation Has No Name in Turkey: Conceptual Crowdedness in Intralingual Translation

Bakkal

2019

transLogos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to discuss the conceptual crowdedness in intralingual translation in Turkish with the hope to clear the way for it to be called by its own name, a step which may also hopefully still pave the way for intralingual translation to be seen as a type of 'proper' translation first by some scholars who currently oppose the idea, then by the agents of translation and eventually by the (Turkish) public. Departing from the view that one first needs its name to be recognized by its milieu before claiming a position in it, it is believed that refraining from using its name and replacing it with the names of translation strategies employed within it may be the major obstacle for intralingual translation to surmount if it is to take its 'proper' place in the field. Titles used for intralingual translation will be exemplified via publisher's notes, copyright pages, inner and back covers of different intralingual (re)translations of Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar's Gulyabani, with a special focus on two of them as they come from the same publisher: Can Yayınları. A theoretical discussion (indeed a metadiscussion as it is already on a discussion) will be held based on Karen Korning Zethsen and Aage Hill-Madsen's (2016) article, "Intralingual Translation and Its Place within Translation Studies: A Theoretical Discussion." Such metadiscussion will reflect on the views of various theorists and on some translational concepts in terms of their connotations for intralingual translation. Special emphasis will be on Roman Jakobson's tripartite classification and Gideon Toury's "assumed translation" concept.

show abstract

INTRA as a tool for comprehensibility

Bakkal

2020

RumeliDE Dil Ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to discuss intralingual translation based on the concept of comprehensibility. The framework of the study will be drawn by three articles: “Optimising comprehensibility in interlingual translation: The need for intralingual translation” by Matilde Nisbeth Jensen (2015), “Retranslation (re)visited” by Isabelle Desmidt (2009) and “Intralingual translation: An attempt at description” by Karen Korning Zethsen (2009) which will serve as the reference point. The idea of intralingual translation as a tool that optimizes comprehensibility in interlingual translation put forward by Matilde Nisbeth Jensen will be used as the starting point, whereas Isabelle Desmidt’s study, which questions the retranslation hypothesis developed by Antoine Berman (1990), will serve as the point of departure for the discussion in this paper. This article which argues that each intralingual translation following the very first translation is a retranslation, just like in the case of interlingual translation, is based on the view that comprehensibility, which is considered mainly within the framework of functional texts, can be said to be also one of the main factors driving intralingual translation of old Turkish classics. The paper that selects Gulyabani by Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar (1912) as its object of study discusses the intralingual translation in Turkey from the perspective of retranslation hypothesis, taking comprehensibility as the benchmark to evaluate the ‘distance’ between a literary source text and its retranslations.

show abstract

From the ‘Real’ Author to the ‘Real’ Reader: Manipulation in Translation

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

What Could the Translation of a ‘Retelling’ Imply for Translation Studies?

What Could the Translation of a ‘Retelling’ Imply for Translation Studies?

Intralingual Translation Has No Name in Turkey: Conceptual Crowdedness in Intralingual Translation

INTRA as a tool for comprehensibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About