A Conceptual Inquiry: What May Retranslation Offer for Translation Studies Research?

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to lead a discussion regarding the nature of the retranslation concept. A growing body of literature on the subject attests to some challenges about how to connect various studies around the same concept. Outi Paloposki and Kaisa Koskinen (2010), for one, point out the problematic borders between various practices and underline the relevance of definitional and methodological considerations in retranslation research in their article entitled “Reprocessing Texts: The Fine Line between Retranslating and Revising.” Advocating that retranslation discussions cannot abstain from how translation is approached as a concept in the first place as a further point, the current article refers back to the definitional leg of Translation Studies research. Similar problems were deemed “unproductive” (9) by Theo Hermans (1985) in “Translation Studies and a New Paradigm” in favor of a “goal-directed” approach (14) in the past. It is reiterated here that essentialist positions need to be sidestepped to gain new results with translational practices and theoretical underpinnings of concepts recognized for possible connections between different studies. For a possible progress in research, Gideon Toury’s (1980) working definition for translation has been critically interpreted for retranslation. By proposing “assumed retranslation,” the article believes that the retranslation concept will be operationalized with a focus concentrated on circumstances of retranslation practices and accumulating data sharing the same conceptual terrain will help understand nature, reasons and consequences of retranslation products better.

Keywords

• translation concepts; progress in research; critical rereading; assumed retranslation; Gideon Toury

References

1. Alptekin, Turan. 2001. Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar: Bir Kültür, Bir Insan. Istanbul: İletişim.
2. Alvstad, Cecilia, and Alexandra Assis Rosa, eds. 2015a. “Voice in Retranslation.” Special issue, Target 27 (1). doi:10.1075/target.27.1.
3. Alvstad, Cecilia, and Alexandra Assis Rosa. 2015b. “Voice in Retranslation: An Overview and Some Trends.” Target 27 (1): 3-24. doi:10.1075/target.27.1.00int.
4. Bengi-Öner, Işın. 2001. “Çeviribilimde ‘Bütünleyici Bir Yaklaşım’ Üzerine Eleştirel Görüşler ve Öneriler.” [Critical views and suggestions on ‘an integrated approach’ in Translation Studies.] Chap. 2.1 in Çeviri Kuramlarını Düşünürken [Reflections on theories of translation]. Istanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
5. Berk Albachten, Özlem. 2015. “The Turkish Language Reform and Intralingual Translation.” In Tradition, Tension and Translation in Turkey, edited by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, Saliha Paker, and John Milton, 165-180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6. Berk Albachten, Özlem, and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar. 2019a. “The Making and Reading of a Bibliography of Retranslations.” Chap. 11 in Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar. New York: Routledge. Google Book.
7. Berk Albachten, Özlem, and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, eds. 2019b. Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods. New York: Routledge. Google Book.
8. Birkan Baydan, Esra. 2015. “Ideological Encounters: Islamic Retranslations of the Western Classics.” In Tradition, Tension and Translation in Turkey, edited by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, Saliha Paker, and John Milton, 233-251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

9. Brownlie, Siobhan. 2006. “Narrative Theory and Retranslation Theory.” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (2): 145-170. doi:10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.1.
10. Cadera, Susanne M. 2016. “Literary Retranslation in Context: A Historical, Social and Culture Perspective.” In Literary Retranslation in Context, edited by Susanne M. Cadera and Andrew Samuel Walsh, 5-18. Oxford: Peter Lang.
11. Cadera, Susanne M., and Andrew Samuel Walsh, eds. 2016. Literary Retranslation in Context. Oxford: Peter Lang.
12. Chesterman, Andrew. (1998) 2017. “Causes, Translations, Effects.” Paper 9 in Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers 1993-2014. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Chesterman, Andrew. (2000) 2017. “A Causal Model for Translation Studies.” Paper 10 in Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers 1993-2014. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14. Chesterman, Andrew. (2007) 2017. “On the Idea of a Theory.” Paper 1 in Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers 1993-2014. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. Chesterman, Andrew. (2008) 2017. “The Status of Interpretive Hypothesis.” Paper 18 in Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers 1993-2014. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
16. Chesterman, Andrew. 2019. “Moving Conceptual Boundaries: So What?” Chap. 1 in Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Helle V. Dam, Matilde Nisbeth Brøgger, and Karen Korning Zethsen. London: Routledge. Google Book.
17. Chesterman, Andrew, and Rosemary Arrojo. (2000) 2017. “Shared Ground in Translation Studies.” Paper 2 in Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers 1993-2014. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Corbetta, Piergiorgio. 2003. “Paradigms of Social Research.” Chap. 1 in Social Research. Theory, Methods and Techniques. Translated by Bernard Patrick. London: SAGE Publications.
19. Deane-Cox, Sharon. 2014. Retranslation: Translation, Literature and Reinterpretation. London: Bloomsbury.
20. Gambier, Yves. 2018. “Concepts of Translation.” In A History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects, edited by Lieven D’hulst and Yves Gambier, 19-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21. Güneş, Alper Zafer. 2018. “The Retranslation of The Time Regulation Institute: A Project of Respect or Prejudice?” In Çeviribilimde Güncel Tartışmalardan Kavramsal Sorgulamalara [From recent discussions to conceptual reflections in Translation Studies], edited by Seda Taş, 379-411. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
22. Güneş, Alper Zafer. 2019. “Why Would Institutional Memory Matter for the Translation Studies?” In Çeviribilimde Araştırmalar [Research in Translation Studies], edited by Seda Taş, 215-234. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
23. Halverson, Sandra L. 1999. “Conceptual Work and the ‘Translation’ Concept.” Target 11 (1): 1-31. doi:10.1075/target.11.1.02hal.
24. Halverson, Sandra L. 2008. “Translations as Institutional Facts: An Ontology for ‘Assumed Translation.’” In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, edited by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 343-362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25. Halverson, Sandra L. 2010. “Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 1, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 378-384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. Hebenstreit, Gernot. 2007. “Defining Patterns in Translation Studies: Revisiting Two Classics of German Translationswissenschaft.” Target 19 (2): 197-215. doi:10.1075/target.19.2.03heb.
27. Hermans, Theo. 1985. “Introduction: Translation Studies and a New Paradigm.” In The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, edited by Theo Hermans, 7-15. London: Croom Helm.
28. Hermans, Theo. 2013. “What Is (Not) Translation?” In Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Carmen Millán and Francesca Bartrina, 75-87. London: Routledge.
29. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2019. “Moving Translation, Revision, and Post-editing Boundaries.” Chap. 4 in Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Helle V. Dam, Matilde Nisbeth Brøgger, and Karen Korning Zethsen. London: Routledge. Google Book.
30. Jakobson, Roman. (1959) 2000. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, 113-8. London: Routledge.
31. Koskinen, Kaisa. 2019. “Revising and Retranslating.” Chap. 20 in The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation. Edited by Kelly Washbourne and Ben Van Wyke. London: Routledge. Google Book.
32. Koskinen, Kaisa, and Outi Paloposki. 2010. “Retranslation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 1, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 294-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33. Lefevere, André. 1985. “Why Waste Our Time on Rewrites? The Trouble with Interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm.” In The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, edited by Theo Hermans, 215-243. London: Croom Helm.
34. Massardier-Kenney, Françoise. 2015. “Toward a Rethinking of Retranslation.” Translation Review 92 (1): 73-85. doi:10.1080/07374836.2015.1086289.
35. Moran, Berna. (1978) 2001. “The Time Regulation Institute: A Critical Essay.” Introduction to The Time Regulation Institute, by Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, 1-23. Translated by Ender Gürol. Madison: Turko-Tatar Press.
36. Paloposki, Outi, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2004. “A Thousand and One Translations: Revisiting Retranslation.” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, edited by Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 27-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37. Paloposki, Outi, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2010. “Reprocessing Texts: The Fine Line between Retranslating and Revising.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (1): 29-49. doi:10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.2.
38. Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem. 2003. “Multiple-entry Visa to Travelling Theory: Retranslations of Literary and Cultural Theories.” Target 15 (1): 1-36. doi:10.1075/target.15.1.02sus.
39. Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi. 1949. Huzur. Istanbul: Remzi.
40. Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi. 1961. Saatleri Ayarlama Enstitüsü. Istanbul: Remzi.
41. Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi. 2001. The Time Regulation Institute. Translated by Ender Gürol. Madison: Turko-Tatar Press.
42. Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi. 2007. Inner Peace. Translated by Ender Gürol. Madison: Turko-Tatar Press.
43. Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi. 2008. A Mind at Peace. Translated by Erdağ Göknar. New York: Archipelago Books. Kobo e-book.
44. Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi. 2014. The Time Regulation Institute. Translated by Maureen Freely and Alexander Dawe. New York: Penguin.
45. Taivalkoski-Shilov, Kristiina. 2015. “Friday in Finnish: A Character’s and (Re)translators’ Voices in Six Finnish Retranslations of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Cruose.” Target 27 (1): 58-74. doi:10.1075/target.27.1.03tai.
46. Toska, Zehra. 2015. “Ahmet Mithat’s Hulâsa-i Hümâyunnâme: A Curious Case of Politics of Translation, ‘Renewal,’ Imperial Patronage and Censorship.” In Tradition, Tension and Translation in Turkey, edited by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, Saliha Paker, and John Milton, 73-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47. Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Jerusalem: Porter Institute.
48. Toury, Gideon. 1985. “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies.” In The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, edited by Theo Hermans, 16-41. London: Croom Helm.
49. Toury, Gideon. 1991. “What are Descriptive Studies in Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions?” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art; Proceedings of the First James S. Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, edited by Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, 179-192. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
50. Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies — and Beyond. 2nd expanded ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. First published 1995.
51. Tymoczko, Maria. 2002. “Connecting the Two Infinite Orders: Research Methods in Translation Studies.” In Crosscultural Transgressions, edited by Theo Hermans, 9-25. Manchester: St. Jerome.
52. Tymoczko, Maria. 2007. “Defining Translation.” Chap. 2 in Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. London: Routledge.
53. Vermeer, Hans J. 1994. “Translation Today: Old and New Problems.” In Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, edited by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 3-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.