Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Çeviri Yaparken Cinas ve Çarpık Deyimlerle Nasıl Başa Çıkabiliriz?

Year 2016, Issue: 6, 33 - 42, 21.04.2016
https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.336535

Abstract

Makalede bir metindeki
cinaslar ve deyimlere dayanan söz oyunlarından kaynaklanan sorunları çözebilmek
için çeşitli imkânlar gözden geçiriliyor. Bu sorunlar, çeviride genellikle kaybolan cinasların
dil içi sistemine özgü ilişkilere (eşadlılık, eşseslilik,
eşyazımlılık,
okşarlık, karşıt anlamlılık, sözcükler arasında ilişki
kurma olanakları) dayanmasından ve farklı dillerde nadiren örtüşen çok anlamlılıktan
doğar. Hem cinaslar, hem de çarpık deyimler sık sık kültüre özgü çağrışımlarla
yüklüdür. Aynı zamanda deyimler her kültüre göre değişen mecazi çağrışımlara
dayanmaktadır. Kendi başlarına ele alındığında söz oyunları
gerçekten tercüme edilemez gibi görünür. Ancak
metinde, bir
işlev
kazanırlar,
belli bir rol üstlenir ve onlar aracılığıyla yazar kamuoyunda belli bir
etki
üretmek niyetindedir. İşte bu işlev ve bu
amaçlanan etki, metinde taşıdıkları anlamı oluşturur ve çeviride konkre
sözcükler ve dil ile oynamanın konkre
biçimi
değil, işte bu anlam aktarılmalı, elbette bunların metinde aynı
yerde bulunması şart değildir.
Analizimiz, Jacqueline Henry tarafından yapılan 1) izole söz
oyunları; 2) m
etinle bütünleşmiş öz oyunları ile 3)
dille oynamayı amaçlayan metin
arasındaki ayrımı inceler. Buüç durumdan
her biri cinaslara farklı bir yaklaşımı gerektirir. Her duruma Fransız ve
İngiliz edebiyatlarından örnekler verilmiş, örneklerin Rusça, Bulgarca ve
sırasıyla İngilizce ve Fransızca çevirileri verilmiştir.

References

  • Alexieva, B. (1997). There Must Be Some System in this Madness. In D. Delabastida (éd.) Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation. Manchester, England and Namur, Belgium: St Jerome Publishing and Presses Universitaires de Namur, 136-154.
  • Capra, A. (2010). Traduttore traditore: de la possibilité de traduire les expressions figées en littérature Textes & contextes, 5 « Stéréotypes en langue et en discours ». Retrieved from http://revuesshs.u-bourgogne.fr/textes&contextes/sommaire.php?id=940
  • Delabastida, D. (1996). Introduction. The Translator 2 (2) Special issue on Wordplay and Translation, 127-139.
  • Delbastida, D. (2004). Literary style in translation: wordplay. In Kittel H., Frank, A. P., Greiner, N., Hermans, T., Koller, W., Lambert, J. & Paul, F. (eds) Uberzetzung/ Tranlation/Traduction, Encyclopédie internationale de la recherché sur la traduction. Tome 1, Berlin, Germany and New York, USA : Walter de Gruyter. 870-874. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4406973/Literary_style_in_translation_wordplay.
  • Dimova, A. (2000). Увод в теорията на превода. Шумен, България: Университетско издателство „Епископ Константин Преславски“.
  • Eco, U. (2003). Dire presque la même chose. (trad. de l’italien). Paris, France : Bernard Grasset.
  • Florin, S. (1983). Муки переводческие [Souffrances du traducteur]. Москва, Русия : Высшая школа.
  • Gentzler, Е. (1999). Съвременни теории на превода [Contemporary Translation Theories trad. bulg.], В. Търново, България : Пик.
  • Henry, J. (2003). La traduction des jeux de mots. Paris : Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1977). La connotation. Lyon, France : Presses universitaires de Lyon.
  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1986). L’implicite. Paris, France : Armand Colin.
  • Nida E. & Taber, Ch. (1982 [1969]). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden, The Netherlands: Published for the United Bible Societies by E. J. Brill.
  • Snell-Hornby, M. (1995 [1987]). Translation studies. An integrated approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Stöl, L. (1971) Traduisibilité et intraduisibilité. Meta, 16 (1-2), 25-31. Retrieved from http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/004199ar
  • Shveitzer, A. D. (1988). Теория перевода [Théorie de la traduction]. Наука, Москва, 1988.
  • Veisbergs, A. (1997). The Contextual Use of Idiom, Wordplay and Translation. In D. Delabastida (Ed.). Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation. Manchester, England and Namur, Belgium: St Jerome Publihing, Presses Universitaires de Namur, 155-176.
  • Villers, D. (2010). Les modalités du détournement proverbial: entre contraintes et libertés. Modèles linguistiques [En ligne], 62/2010. Retrieved from URL: http://ml.revues.org/237
  • Vlakhov S. & Florin, S. (1990). Непреводимото в превода [L’intraduisible en traduction]. София, България: Наука и изкуство.
  • Walkiewicz, B. (2001) Comment traduire le comique verbal. Studia Romanica Posnanensia, XXVII, Posnań, Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 173-185. Retrieved from
  • https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/10593/6025/1/18_Barbara_Walkiewicz_Comment%20traduire%20le%20comique%20verbal_173-185.pdf

Puns and Idiom-Based Wordplays – How to Deal With Them in Translation?

Year 2016, Issue: 6, 33 - 42, 21.04.2016
https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.336535

Abstract

The paper focuses
on the possibilities for tackling issues arising from the use of puns and idiom-based
wordplays in a text. These issues result from the fact that puns are
exploiting, on the one hand, language-specific intralinguistic relations
between signs (homonymy, homophony, homography, paronymy, antonymy, word
affinities, etc.), which are lost, as a rule, when language is changed, and, on
the other hand, polysemy of the word which is only rarely the same in different
languages. Both puns and idiom-based wordplays often carry cultural-specific
references. Also, most of the idioms are usually derived from the metaphoric
associations which are specific to each culture. Considered separately, these
wordplays can often seem untranslatable. But incorporated into a text, they
assume a particular function, the author intends to produce a certain effect on
his audience by using them. And it is this function and this intended effect
that forms the sense of the wordplay within the text, the sense which is to be
rendered in translation, not the specific words themselves, nor the concrete
form of the wordplay, and not necessarily at the same place in the text. The
analysis follows the distinction made by Jacqueline Henry among 1/ isolated
wordplay; 2/ wordplay integrated in the text;
3/ text, the purpose of which is to play with language. Each of these three
cases demands a different approach in relation to the wordplay, which is
illustrated with examples from French or English literature and their
translations in Russian, Bulgarian and respectively in English or French.

References

  • Alexieva, B. (1997). There Must Be Some System in this Madness. In D. Delabastida (éd.) Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation. Manchester, England and Namur, Belgium: St Jerome Publishing and Presses Universitaires de Namur, 136-154.
  • Capra, A. (2010). Traduttore traditore: de la possibilité de traduire les expressions figées en littérature Textes & contextes, 5 « Stéréotypes en langue et en discours ». Retrieved from http://revuesshs.u-bourgogne.fr/textes&contextes/sommaire.php?id=940
  • Delabastida, D. (1996). Introduction. The Translator 2 (2) Special issue on Wordplay and Translation, 127-139.
  • Delbastida, D. (2004). Literary style in translation: wordplay. In Kittel H., Frank, A. P., Greiner, N., Hermans, T., Koller, W., Lambert, J. & Paul, F. (eds) Uberzetzung/ Tranlation/Traduction, Encyclopédie internationale de la recherché sur la traduction. Tome 1, Berlin, Germany and New York, USA : Walter de Gruyter. 870-874. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4406973/Literary_style_in_translation_wordplay.
  • Dimova, A. (2000). Увод в теорията на превода. Шумен, България: Университетско издателство „Епископ Константин Преславски“.
  • Eco, U. (2003). Dire presque la même chose. (trad. de l’italien). Paris, France : Bernard Grasset.
  • Florin, S. (1983). Муки переводческие [Souffrances du traducteur]. Москва, Русия : Высшая школа.
  • Gentzler, Е. (1999). Съвременни теории на превода [Contemporary Translation Theories trad. bulg.], В. Търново, България : Пик.
  • Henry, J. (2003). La traduction des jeux de mots. Paris : Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1977). La connotation. Lyon, France : Presses universitaires de Lyon.
  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1986). L’implicite. Paris, France : Armand Colin.
  • Nida E. & Taber, Ch. (1982 [1969]). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden, The Netherlands: Published for the United Bible Societies by E. J. Brill.
  • Snell-Hornby, M. (1995 [1987]). Translation studies. An integrated approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Stöl, L. (1971) Traduisibilité et intraduisibilité. Meta, 16 (1-2), 25-31. Retrieved from http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/004199ar
  • Shveitzer, A. D. (1988). Теория перевода [Théorie de la traduction]. Наука, Москва, 1988.
  • Veisbergs, A. (1997). The Contextual Use of Idiom, Wordplay and Translation. In D. Delabastida (Ed.). Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation. Manchester, England and Namur, Belgium: St Jerome Publihing, Presses Universitaires de Namur, 155-176.
  • Villers, D. (2010). Les modalités du détournement proverbial: entre contraintes et libertés. Modèles linguistiques [En ligne], 62/2010. Retrieved from URL: http://ml.revues.org/237
  • Vlakhov S. & Florin, S. (1990). Непреводимото в превода [L’intraduisible en traduction]. София, България: Наука и изкуство.
  • Walkiewicz, B. (2001) Comment traduire le comique verbal. Studia Romanica Posnanensia, XXVII, Posnań, Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 173-185. Retrieved from
  • https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/10593/6025/1/18_Barbara_Walkiewicz_Comment%20traduire%20le%20comique%20verbal_173-185.pdf
There are 20 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Turkish language, culture and literature
Authors

Elena Meteva-rousseva This is me

Publication Date April 21, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2016 Issue: 6

Cite

APA Meteva-rousseva, E. (2016). Çeviri Yaparken Cinas ve Çarpık Deyimlerle Nasıl Başa Çıkabiliriz?. RumeliDE Dil Ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi(6), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.336535