Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

ÇEVİRİDE GÖSTERGEBİLİMSEL YAKLAŞIMLA İNCELEME: “BOYNU VURULAN KALİ” - BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI

Year 2024, , 99 - 118, 11.06.2024
https://doi.org/10.56597/kausbed.1443915

Abstract

Bu makalede çağdaş Fransız yazar Marguerite Yourcenar’ın Türkçe’ye “Doğu Öyküleri” adıyla çevrilen “Les Nouvellles Orientales adlı öykü kitabından seçilen “Kali Décapité” (Boynu Vurulan Kali) adlı öykünün çeviride göstergebilimsel bir yaklaşımla çözümlemesi yapılmıştır. Göstergebilim, çeşitli kuram ve yaklaşımlarla dilbilim, çeviribilim çalışmalarında özellikle metin ve söylem analizi konusunda bir araç olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada anlatının derin ve yüzey yapısı arasındaki örüntüyü göstergelerin birbirleriyle olan ilişkisi doğrultusunda anlamlandıran Paris Göstergebilim Okulu bakış açısından yararlanılmıştır. Çalışma boyunca anlatı izlencesi temel alınarak kaynak metinde anlatısal boyut, A. J. Greimas’ın eyleyensel örnekçesi, özne-nesne ilişkisi ve öznenin bilisiel dönüşümü incelenmiş ve çeviri metinde bu bakış açısının ne derece yansıtılıp yansıtılmadığı örneklerle açıklanmıştır. Anlatı göstergebiliminin özellikle çeviri eğitimi derslerinde öğrencilere metni alımlama aşamasında değişik bakış açıları ve düzeylerde metindeki anlam örüntülerini kurabilme olanağı sağlayacağı vurgulanmıştır.

References

  • Baker, M. (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
  • Baker, M., & G, Saldanha. (2009). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
  • Barbier, C. (1998). Etude sur Marguerite Yourcenar Les Nouvelles Orientales. Paris: Ellipses.
  • Barthes, R. (1964). Rhétorique de l’image, Communications, 4, 40–51.
  • Bassnett, S. (1991). Translation studies. London: Routledge.
  • Campbell, J. (2010). Kahramanın Sonsuz Yolculuğu. (S. Gürses, Çev.) İstanbul:Kabalcı.
  • Chevalier, J., & Gheerbrant, A. (1990). Dictionnaire des Symboles: Mythes, Rêves, Coutumes, Gestes, Formes, Figures, Couleurs, Nombres. Paris: Editions Robert Laffont S.A. et Editions Jupiter.
  • Colvin, M. E. (2005). Baroque Fictions: Revisioning the Classical in Marguerite Yourcenar, Amsterdam.
  • Coquet, J.CI. (1984, 1985). Le Discours et son sujet 1-11. Paris: Klincksieck
  • Courtès, J. (1976). Introduction la sémiotique narrative et discursive. Paris: Hachette.
  • Courtés, J. (2001). La sémiotique, comprendre l’univers des signes, in J.-F. Dortier (ed.), Le langage. Nature, histoire et usage, 121–126, Auxerre: Editions Sciences Humaines.
  • Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Eco, U. (2001). Experiences in Translation. trans. A. McEwen, Toronto Italian Studies, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Eco, U. (2004). Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix.
  • Eliade, M. (1969). Le Mythe de l’éternel Retour. Gallimard, Paris: Folio.
  • Fabbri, P. (2008). Le tournant sémiotique. Paris: Lavoisier.
  • Gaudin, C. (1997). Marguerite Yourcenar à la Surface du Temps. Amsterdam:
  • Rodopi, Collection Monographique Rodopi en litterature Française contemporaine.
  • Gottlieb, H. (2017). Semiotics and Translation, in K. Malmkjær (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics, 45–63, London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Greimas, A.J. (1966). Sémantique Structurale. Paris: Larousse.
  • Greimas, A. J. (1983 [1966]). Sémantique structurale. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  • Greimas, A. J.,& J. Courtés (1986). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage, (2), Paris: Hachette
  • Groupe d'Entrevernes. (1977). Analyse Sémiotique des textes. PUF Hachette
  • House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, in R. A. Brower (ed.), On Translation, 232–39, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  • Kıran, A.E. (1999). Günümüzde Yazınsal Göstergebilim. XII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 237-242
  • Kıran, A.E.,& Kıran, Z. (2000). Yazınsal Okuma Süreçleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
  • Kristeva, J. (1974). La révolution du langage poétique. L’avant-garde à la fin du XIXème siècle. Lautréamont et Mallarmé, Paris: Seuil
  • Lederer, M. (1994). La traduction aujourd'hui. Paris: Hachette.
  • Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Lotman, J. (2005). On Semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 33 (1), 205–29.
  • Lotman, J. (2009). Culture and Explosion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Meydan Larousse Ekim (1992) Sabah Yayınları.
  • Mossop, B. (2016). Intralingual Translation: A Desirable Concept?’Across Languages and Cultures, 17 (1), 1–24.
  • Parret, H. (2006). Structures sémiotiques.Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
  • Petrilli, S. (2001). Translation. In The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics. ed. P. Cobley, 278–279. London: Routledge.
  • Peyre, H. (1983). Marguerite Yourcenar: Independent, Imaginative, Immortal, World Literature Today. Transcending Parochial National Literatures, 57(2), 191–195.
  • Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M. (1993). Interpreter pour traduire. Didier Erudition.
  • Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? BTL, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Sütiste, E. (2008). Roman Jakobson and the Topic of Translation: Reception in Academic Reference Works. Sign Systems Studies, 36 (2), 271–314.
  • Toury, G. (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.
  • Toury, G. (1986). Translation: A Cultural-semiotic Perspective’, in T. A. Sebeok (gen. ed.). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics Tome 2, 1111–24, Approaches to Semiotics 73, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Welby, V.L. ([1903] 1983). What Is Meaning? Studies in the Development of Significance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Yourcenar, M. (1963). les Nouvelles Orientales. Paris: Gallimard.
  • Yumer,H. (1992). Doğu Öyküleri. İstanbul: Adam Yayınları
  • Yücel T. (1979). Anlatı Yerlemleri. İstanbul: Y. K.Y.
  • Yücel T. (1999). Yapısalcılık. İstanbul: Y.K.Y.
  • Zethsen, K. K. (2009). Intralingual Translation: An Attempt at Description, Meta, 54 (4): 795–812
Year 2024, , 99 - 118, 11.06.2024
https://doi.org/10.56597/kausbed.1443915

Abstract

References

  • Baker, M. (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
  • Baker, M., & G, Saldanha. (2009). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
  • Barbier, C. (1998). Etude sur Marguerite Yourcenar Les Nouvelles Orientales. Paris: Ellipses.
  • Barthes, R. (1964). Rhétorique de l’image, Communications, 4, 40–51.
  • Bassnett, S. (1991). Translation studies. London: Routledge.
  • Campbell, J. (2010). Kahramanın Sonsuz Yolculuğu. (S. Gürses, Çev.) İstanbul:Kabalcı.
  • Chevalier, J., & Gheerbrant, A. (1990). Dictionnaire des Symboles: Mythes, Rêves, Coutumes, Gestes, Formes, Figures, Couleurs, Nombres. Paris: Editions Robert Laffont S.A. et Editions Jupiter.
  • Colvin, M. E. (2005). Baroque Fictions: Revisioning the Classical in Marguerite Yourcenar, Amsterdam.
  • Coquet, J.CI. (1984, 1985). Le Discours et son sujet 1-11. Paris: Klincksieck
  • Courtès, J. (1976). Introduction la sémiotique narrative et discursive. Paris: Hachette.
  • Courtés, J. (2001). La sémiotique, comprendre l’univers des signes, in J.-F. Dortier (ed.), Le langage. Nature, histoire et usage, 121–126, Auxerre: Editions Sciences Humaines.
  • Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Eco, U. (2001). Experiences in Translation. trans. A. McEwen, Toronto Italian Studies, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Eco, U. (2004). Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix.
  • Eliade, M. (1969). Le Mythe de l’éternel Retour. Gallimard, Paris: Folio.
  • Fabbri, P. (2008). Le tournant sémiotique. Paris: Lavoisier.
  • Gaudin, C. (1997). Marguerite Yourcenar à la Surface du Temps. Amsterdam:
  • Rodopi, Collection Monographique Rodopi en litterature Française contemporaine.
  • Gottlieb, H. (2017). Semiotics and Translation, in K. Malmkjær (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics, 45–63, London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Greimas, A.J. (1966). Sémantique Structurale. Paris: Larousse.
  • Greimas, A. J. (1983 [1966]). Sémantique structurale. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  • Greimas, A. J.,& J. Courtés (1986). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage, (2), Paris: Hachette
  • Groupe d'Entrevernes. (1977). Analyse Sémiotique des textes. PUF Hachette
  • House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, in R. A. Brower (ed.), On Translation, 232–39, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  • Kıran, A.E. (1999). Günümüzde Yazınsal Göstergebilim. XII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 237-242
  • Kıran, A.E.,& Kıran, Z. (2000). Yazınsal Okuma Süreçleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
  • Kristeva, J. (1974). La révolution du langage poétique. L’avant-garde à la fin du XIXème siècle. Lautréamont et Mallarmé, Paris: Seuil
  • Lederer, M. (1994). La traduction aujourd'hui. Paris: Hachette.
  • Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Lotman, J. (2005). On Semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 33 (1), 205–29.
  • Lotman, J. (2009). Culture and Explosion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Meydan Larousse Ekim (1992) Sabah Yayınları.
  • Mossop, B. (2016). Intralingual Translation: A Desirable Concept?’Across Languages and Cultures, 17 (1), 1–24.
  • Parret, H. (2006). Structures sémiotiques.Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
  • Petrilli, S. (2001). Translation. In The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics. ed. P. Cobley, 278–279. London: Routledge.
  • Peyre, H. (1983). Marguerite Yourcenar: Independent, Imaginative, Immortal, World Literature Today. Transcending Parochial National Literatures, 57(2), 191–195.
  • Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M. (1993). Interpreter pour traduire. Didier Erudition.
  • Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? BTL, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Sütiste, E. (2008). Roman Jakobson and the Topic of Translation: Reception in Academic Reference Works. Sign Systems Studies, 36 (2), 271–314.
  • Toury, G. (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.
  • Toury, G. (1986). Translation: A Cultural-semiotic Perspective’, in T. A. Sebeok (gen. ed.). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics Tome 2, 1111–24, Approaches to Semiotics 73, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Welby, V.L. ([1903] 1983). What Is Meaning? Studies in the Development of Significance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Yourcenar, M. (1963). les Nouvelles Orientales. Paris: Gallimard.
  • Yumer,H. (1992). Doğu Öyküleri. İstanbul: Adam Yayınları
  • Yücel T. (1979). Anlatı Yerlemleri. İstanbul: Y. K.Y.
  • Yücel T. (1999). Yapısalcılık. İstanbul: Y.K.Y.
  • Zethsen, K. K. (2009). Intralingual Translation: An Attempt at Description, Meta, 54 (4): 795–812
There are 45 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Translation and Interpretation Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Zeynep Oral 0000-0001-6378-5464

Publication Date June 11, 2024
Submission Date February 27, 2024
Acceptance Date April 4, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024

Cite

APA Oral, Z. (2024). ÇEVİRİDE GÖSTERGEBİLİMSEL YAKLAŞIMLA İNCELEME: “BOYNU VURULAN KALİ” - BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI. Kafkas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi(33), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.56597/kausbed.1443915