Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Appearance of Turkish Grammatical Evidentials in Fictional Narratives and Their Translation into English: The Case of “My Name is Red”

Year 2023, Volume: 29 Issue: 115, 623 - 646, 31.07.2023
https://doi.org/10.22559/folklor.2502

Abstract

In this study, we investigate the lexical markers and the evidential strategies used
for grammatical evidentials in the Turkish to English translations of Orhan
Pamuk’s novel “My Name is Red”. The objective of the study is to determine the
equivalents of evidentials in the target language of the translation, and to reveal
any potential loss of meaning in terms of language typology-based translations as
well as explaining the reasons of such loss. To make a comparative analysis, we
created two separate corpora from the English and Turkish versions of the novel
by using the Sketch Engine program. Taking into account the narrative types used
in the construction of the novel, we evaluate the equivalents of evidentials –mIş
and ImIş in English on the basis of the corpus. In this framework, we discuss the
appearance of the sub-categories of indirectivity and the functions of evidentials
in the narration on the selected examples by considering the translated samples
in which the loss of meaning occurs. Our findings indicate that indirectivity is
often not reflected in the translated form through inferentials, and the reported
speech as well as language samples that carry uncertainty arising from
indirectivity were lost during the translation. In certain cases, the meaning has
been clarified by adding expressions such as once upon a time, I have heard tell
to the propositions based on second-hand/third-hand evidence, and the oral
culture.

References

  • Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: University Press.
  • Aikhenvald, A.Y. (2018). Evidentiality, the framework. (A. Y. Aikhenvald, Ed.) The Oxford handbook of evidentiality içinde (1-43). Oxford University Press.
  • Aksu Koç, A., Slobin, D. I. (1986). Psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish (W. Chafe, J. Nichols, Ed.) Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. volume XX içinde (159-167). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Blanco, M. P. (2020). Evidentials adjectives in English and Spanish journalistic opinion discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 170, 112-124.
  • Bulut, C. (2000). Indirectivity in Kurmanji. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (147-184). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. (W Chafe, J. Nichols, Ed.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, volume XX içinde (261-272). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Csató, É. Á. (2000). Turkish mış and ımışitems. Dimensions of a functional analysis. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (29-44). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Csató, É. Á. (2009). Rendering evidential meanings in Turkish and Swedish. (É. Á. Csató vd. Ed.) Turcological letters to Bernt Brendemoen içinde (77-86). Novus.
  • Curnow, T. J. (2002). Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 44, 2, 178-196.
  • Demir, N. (2012). Türkçede evidensiyellik. bilig 62, 97-118.
  • Dwyer, A. (2000). Direct and indirect experience in Salar. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (45-60). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Ernst, T. (2007). On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117,1008-1033.
  • Fetzer, A., Oishi, E. (2014). Evidentiality in discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(3), 321-332.
  • Friedman, V. (2018). Where do evidentials come from?, (A. Y. Aikhenvald, Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality içinde (124-147). Oxford University Press.
  • González, M., vd. (2017). Epistemic and evidential marking in discourse: Effects of register and debatability. Lingua, Volume 186-187, 68-87.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Johanson, L. (1996). On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives. (N. Boretzky, W. Enninger, T. Stolz Ed.). Areale, Kontakte Dialekte, Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen içinde (84- 94). Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
  • Johanson, L. (1998). Zum Kontakteinfluss türkischer Indirektive. (N. Demir, E. Taube, Ed.) Turkologie heute-Tradition und Perspektive: Materialien der dritten Deutschen Turkologen Konferenz içinde (141-150). Harrassowitz.
  • Johanson, L. (2000). Turkic indirectives. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (61-87). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Johanson, L. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Curzon.
  • Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. (A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, Ed.) Studies in evidentiality içinde (273-290). Benjamins.
  • Johanson, L. (2018). Turkic indirectivity. (A. Y. Aikhenvald, Ed.) The Oxford handbook of evidentiality içinde (511-525). University Press.
  • Kemp, L. (2018). English evidential –ly adverbs in main clauses: A functional approach. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 743-761.
  • Kozintseva, N. (2000). Perfect forms as a means of expressing evidentiality in modern eastern Armenian. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (401-418). De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 359-367. Mansuroğlu, M. (1953). -miş ekinin fonksiyonları. (O. Turan vd. Ed.) Fuat Köprülü Armağanı içinde (345-350). Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi.
  • Matthews, G. (1965). Hidatsa syntax. Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Menz, Astrid (2000). Indirectivity in Gagauz. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (103-114). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Nuckolls, J., Michael, L., (2012). Intraduction: Evidentials and evidential strategies in interactional and socio-cultural contexts. Pragmatics and Society 3/2, 181-188.
  • Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.
  • Plungian, V. A. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 349-357.
  • Rentzsch, J. (2010). Why Turkic DI is not [+PAST]. (M. Kappler, M. Kirchner, P. Zieme, Ed.) TransTurkic studies. Festschrift in honour of Marcel Erdal içinde (267–279). Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi.
  • Rodríguez-Somolinos, A. (2017). From visual perception to inference in the French evidential markers il m’est avis que, apparemment, and il paraît que. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1-2, 111–133.
  • Slobin, Dan I., Aksu, A. A. (1982). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. (P. J. Hopper, Ed.) Tense-aspect, between semantics & pragmatics içinde (185-200). John Benjamin.
  • Söderqvist, E. B. (2020). Evidentiality in gendered styles in spoken English. ICAME Journal, 44 (1), 5-35.
  • Straughn, C. A. (2011). Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. The University of Chicago.
  • Tekin, T. (1968). A grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Mouton & Co., The Hague.
  • Tietze, A. (2021). Tarihi ve etimolojik Türkiye Türkçesi lugati, 2. cilt. (E. Yılmaz, N. Demir, Ed.). TÜBA.
  • Tosun, S., Filipović, L. (2022). Lost in translation, apparently: Bilingual language processing of evidentiality in a Turkish–English translation and judgment task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25 (5), 739-754.
  • Tournadre, N., Lapolla, R.J. (2014). Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area, 37, 240-263.
  • Üzüm, M. (2022). Birinci kişi katılımı bağlamında Mehmet Âkif Ersoy’un eserlerinde kanıtsallığın görünümü. ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, Yüreklerde Akif, Dillerde Hürriyet Özel Sayısı, 73-90.
  • Üzüm, M. (2023). The development and functions of the inferential marker chog‘i in Uzbek. Acta Linguistica Academica, 70 (1), 109-138.
  • Üzüm, M., Gökter Gençer, B. (2021). Türkçede belirteçlerin işlevleri ve sözlük tanımları: özetle, basitçe, açıkçası, açıkça. Akademik Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 5 (4), 2757-2779.
  • van der Auwera, J., Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79-124.
  • Willet, Thomas (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12, 51–97.
  • Yıldırım, F. (2018). Bayırbucak Türkmen ağzı. Karahan Kitabevi.
  • Zymner, R. (2020). Evidentiality in linguistics and rhetoric. (M. Fludernik, M. Ryan, Ed.) Narrative factuality: A handbook içinde (287-294). De Gruyter.

Türkçe Dil Bilgisel Kanıtsalların Kurgusal Anlatıda Kullanımı ve İngilizceye Çevirisi: “Benim Adım Kırmızı” Örneği

Year 2023, Volume: 29 Issue: 115, 623 - 646, 31.07.2023
https://doi.org/10.22559/folklor.2502

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Orhan Pamuk’un romanı Benim Adım Kırmızı ve İngilizce My name
is red’den hareketle Türkçedeki dil bilgisel kanıtsallara edebi çeviride karşılık olarak
kullanılan sözlüksel işaretleyicileri ve Türkçedeki kanıtsal içeriği İngilizceye aktarma
stratejilerini inceledik. Çalışmanın amacı; Türkçe kanıtsalların hedef dildeki
karşılıklarını tespit ederek çeviride dil tipolojisi kaynaklı anlam kaybı olup olmadığını
ortaya koymak, varsa nedenlerini açıklamaktır. Karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme yapabilmek
için Sketch Engine programı yardımıyla incelemeye konu romanın Türkçe ve
İngilizcesinden iki ayrı veri tabanı oluşturduk. Derlem temelli incelemede, kurgusal
metinde kullanılan çeşitli anlatı türlerini dikkate alarak dil bilgisel kanıtsallar –mIş ve
ImIş’ın İngilizcede nasıl karşılandığını belirledik. Bu çerçevede, ilk olarak anlatının
oluşturulmasında dolaylılığın alt ulamlarının görünümünü ve kanıtsalların işlevlerini
örnekler yardımıyla tartıştık. İkinci aşamadaysa anlam kaybının ortaya çıktığı
durumları değerlendirdik. İnceleme sonucunda, –mIş ile işaretlenen çıkarımsal
bildirimlerde ve ImIş kullanımlarında dolaylılığın her zaman çeviriye yansıtılmadığını,
kaplamsal olarak dolaylılıktan kaynaklanan belirsizlik anlamının da hedef dilde
kaybolduğunu ortaya koyduk. Bazı durumlarda, sözlü kültüre ait aktarım ile ikinci
el/üçüncü el kanıta dayanan önermelere ise once upon a time, I have heard tell gibi
ifadeler eklenerek anlamın açık hâle getirildiğini tespit ettik.

References

  • Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: University Press.
  • Aikhenvald, A.Y. (2018). Evidentiality, the framework. (A. Y. Aikhenvald, Ed.) The Oxford handbook of evidentiality içinde (1-43). Oxford University Press.
  • Aksu Koç, A., Slobin, D. I. (1986). Psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish (W. Chafe, J. Nichols, Ed.) Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. volume XX içinde (159-167). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Blanco, M. P. (2020). Evidentials adjectives in English and Spanish journalistic opinion discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 170, 112-124.
  • Bulut, C. (2000). Indirectivity in Kurmanji. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (147-184). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. (W Chafe, J. Nichols, Ed.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, volume XX içinde (261-272). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Csató, É. Á. (2000). Turkish mış and ımışitems. Dimensions of a functional analysis. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (29-44). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Csató, É. Á. (2009). Rendering evidential meanings in Turkish and Swedish. (É. Á. Csató vd. Ed.) Turcological letters to Bernt Brendemoen içinde (77-86). Novus.
  • Curnow, T. J. (2002). Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 44, 2, 178-196.
  • Demir, N. (2012). Türkçede evidensiyellik. bilig 62, 97-118.
  • Dwyer, A. (2000). Direct and indirect experience in Salar. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (45-60). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Ernst, T. (2007). On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117,1008-1033.
  • Fetzer, A., Oishi, E. (2014). Evidentiality in discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(3), 321-332.
  • Friedman, V. (2018). Where do evidentials come from?, (A. Y. Aikhenvald, Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality içinde (124-147). Oxford University Press.
  • González, M., vd. (2017). Epistemic and evidential marking in discourse: Effects of register and debatability. Lingua, Volume 186-187, 68-87.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Johanson, L. (1996). On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives. (N. Boretzky, W. Enninger, T. Stolz Ed.). Areale, Kontakte Dialekte, Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen içinde (84- 94). Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
  • Johanson, L. (1998). Zum Kontakteinfluss türkischer Indirektive. (N. Demir, E. Taube, Ed.) Turkologie heute-Tradition und Perspektive: Materialien der dritten Deutschen Turkologen Konferenz içinde (141-150). Harrassowitz.
  • Johanson, L. (2000). Turkic indirectives. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (61-87). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Johanson, L. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Curzon.
  • Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. (A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, Ed.) Studies in evidentiality içinde (273-290). Benjamins.
  • Johanson, L. (2018). Turkic indirectivity. (A. Y. Aikhenvald, Ed.) The Oxford handbook of evidentiality içinde (511-525). University Press.
  • Kemp, L. (2018). English evidential –ly adverbs in main clauses: A functional approach. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 743-761.
  • Kozintseva, N. (2000). Perfect forms as a means of expressing evidentiality in modern eastern Armenian. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (401-418). De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 359-367. Mansuroğlu, M. (1953). -miş ekinin fonksiyonları. (O. Turan vd. Ed.) Fuat Köprülü Armağanı içinde (345-350). Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi.
  • Matthews, G. (1965). Hidatsa syntax. Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Menz, Astrid (2000). Indirectivity in Gagauz. (L. Johanson, B. Utas, Ed.) Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages içinde (103-114). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Nuckolls, J., Michael, L., (2012). Intraduction: Evidentials and evidential strategies in interactional and socio-cultural contexts. Pragmatics and Society 3/2, 181-188.
  • Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.
  • Plungian, V. A. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 349-357.
  • Rentzsch, J. (2010). Why Turkic DI is not [+PAST]. (M. Kappler, M. Kirchner, P. Zieme, Ed.) TransTurkic studies. Festschrift in honour of Marcel Erdal içinde (267–279). Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi.
  • Rodríguez-Somolinos, A. (2017). From visual perception to inference in the French evidential markers il m’est avis que, apparemment, and il paraît que. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1-2, 111–133.
  • Slobin, Dan I., Aksu, A. A. (1982). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. (P. J. Hopper, Ed.) Tense-aspect, between semantics & pragmatics içinde (185-200). John Benjamin.
  • Söderqvist, E. B. (2020). Evidentiality in gendered styles in spoken English. ICAME Journal, 44 (1), 5-35.
  • Straughn, C. A. (2011). Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. The University of Chicago.
  • Tekin, T. (1968). A grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Mouton & Co., The Hague.
  • Tietze, A. (2021). Tarihi ve etimolojik Türkiye Türkçesi lugati, 2. cilt. (E. Yılmaz, N. Demir, Ed.). TÜBA.
  • Tosun, S., Filipović, L. (2022). Lost in translation, apparently: Bilingual language processing of evidentiality in a Turkish–English translation and judgment task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25 (5), 739-754.
  • Tournadre, N., Lapolla, R.J. (2014). Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area, 37, 240-263.
  • Üzüm, M. (2022). Birinci kişi katılımı bağlamında Mehmet Âkif Ersoy’un eserlerinde kanıtsallığın görünümü. ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, Yüreklerde Akif, Dillerde Hürriyet Özel Sayısı, 73-90.
  • Üzüm, M. (2023). The development and functions of the inferential marker chog‘i in Uzbek. Acta Linguistica Academica, 70 (1), 109-138.
  • Üzüm, M., Gökter Gençer, B. (2021). Türkçede belirteçlerin işlevleri ve sözlük tanımları: özetle, basitçe, açıkçası, açıkça. Akademik Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 5 (4), 2757-2779.
  • van der Auwera, J., Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79-124.
  • Willet, Thomas (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12, 51–97.
  • Yıldırım, F. (2018). Bayırbucak Türkmen ağzı. Karahan Kitabevi.
  • Zymner, R. (2020). Evidentiality in linguistics and rhetoric. (M. Fludernik, M. Ryan, Ed.) Narrative factuality: A handbook içinde (287-294). De Gruyter.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Turkish Folklore in the Türkiye Field
Journal Section Article
Authors

Nurettin Demir This is me 0000-0002-3891-6546

Melike Üzüm This is me 0000-0002-2338-8066

Kadim Polat 0000-0003-0878-3751

Publication Date July 31, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 29 Issue: 115

Cite

APA Demir, N., Üzüm, M., & Polat, K. (2023). Türkçe Dil Bilgisel Kanıtsalların Kurgusal Anlatıda Kullanımı ve İngilizceye Çevirisi: “Benim Adım Kırmızı” Örneği. Folklor/Edebiyat, 29(115), 623-646. https://doi.org/10.22559/folklor.2502

Journal website: https://folkloredebiyat.org
The journal’s publication languages are both English and Turkish. Also despite articles in Turkish, the title, abstract, and keywords are also in English. Turkish articles approved by the reviewers are required to submit an extended summary (750-1000 words) in English.
The journal is indexed by TR-Dizin, Web of Science (ESCI), DOAJ, and many other indexes and datebases.
Within the scope of TR DIZIN 2020 Ethical Criteria and as of the year 2020, studies requiring ethics committee approval must indicate Ethics Committee Approval details (committe-date-issue) in the article’s methods section. With this in mind, we request from our author candidates to edit their article accordingly before sending it to the journal.

Field EdItors

Folklore:
Prof.Dr. Hande Birkalan-Gedik
(Frankfurt University- birkalan-gedik@em.uni.frankfurt.de)
Prof. Dr. Arzu Öztürkmen
(Bosphorus University- ozturkme@boun.edu.tr)
Edebiyat-Literature
Prof. Dr. G. Gonca Gökalp Alpaslan (Hacettepe University - ggonca@
hacettepe.edu.tr)
Prof. Dr. Ramazan Korkmaz
(President, Caucasus University Association- r_korkmaz@hotmail.com)
Antropoloji-Anthropology
Prof. Dr. Akile Gürsoy
(Beykent University - gursoyakile@gmail.com)
Prof.Dr. Serpil Aygün Cengiz
(Ankara University - serpilayguncengiz@gmail.com)
Dil-Dilbilim/Linguistics
Prof.Dr. Aysu Erden
(Maltepe University - aysuerden777@gmail.com)
Prof. Dr. V. Doğan Günay
(Dokuz Eylul University- dogan.gunay@deu.edu.tr)