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

Year 2019, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 48 - 69, 31.12.2019

Aslı Kalem Bakkal

https://doi.org/10.29228/transLogos.13

Abstract

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 meta-discussion 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 meta-discussion 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.

Keywords

intralingual translation, name, position, properness, Gulyabani

References

• Abir, Nihan. 2012. “Çalıkuşu’nun Hikâyesi.” [The story of Çalıkuşu.] Master's thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University.
• Baydere, Muhammed. 2018. “A New (Mis)Conception in the Face of the (Un)Translatable: ‘Terscüme.’” transLogos Translation Studies Journal 1 (1): 92–120. doi: 10.29228/transLogos.1/1.10.
• Baydere, Muhammed. 2019. “Çalıkuşu’nun Çeviri Serüveni.” [The translational adventure of Çalıkuşu.] Unpublished manuscript, last modified July 3. Microsoft Word file.
• Baydere, Muhammed and Ayşe Banu Karadağ. 2019a. “Çalıkuşu’nun Diliçi Çeviri Serüveni Üzerine Betimleyici Bir Çalışma.” [A descriptive study on the intralingual translation adventure of Çalıkuşu.] Paper presented at the 2nd International Rumeli [Language, Literature and Translation] Symposium, Kırklareli, April 12–13.
• Baydere, Muhammed, and Ayşe Banu Karadağ. 2019. “Çalıkuşu’nun Öz-Çeviri Serüveni Üzerine Betimleyici Bir Çalışma.” [A descriptive study on the self-translation adventure of Çalıkuşu.] In “2nd International Rumeli Symposium [Language, Literature, Translation],” edited by Yakup Yılmaz and Fatih Başpınar. Special Issue, RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, no. 5, 314–333. doi:10.29000/rumelide.606165.
• Berk Albachten, Özlem. 2005. “Diliçi Çeviriler ve Mai ve Siyah.” [Intralingual translations and Mai ve Siyah.] Dilbilim 14:139–149. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iudilbilim/issue/1083/12247.
• Berk Albachten, Özlem. 2012. “Intralingual Translation as ‘Modernization’ of the Language: The Turkish Case.” Perspectives 21 (2): 257–271. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2012.702395.
• Berk Albachten, Özlem. 2014. “Intralingual Translation: Discussions within Translation Studies and the Case of Turkey.” In A Companion to Translation Studies, edited by Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter, 573–585. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
• 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.
• Berk Albachten, Özlem. 2019. “Challenging the Boundaries of Translation and Filling the Gaps in Translation History: Two Cases of Intralingual Translation from the 19th Century Ottoman Literary Scene.” In Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Helle V. Dam, Matilde Nisbeth Brøgger, and Karen Korning Zethsen, 185–199. London: Routledge.
• Birkan Baydan, Esra. 2011. “Editing as Rewriting.” Istanbul University Journal of Translation Studies 2 (3): 53–78. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iuceviri/issue/1231/14424.
• Canlı, Gülsüm. 2018a. “Kavram Tanımlarının Ötesı̇nde Bir Çevı̇ri Eylemı̇: William Faulkner’ın Sanctuary Adlı Romanının Türk Erek Dı̇zgesı̇ndekı̇ Serüvenı̇.” [A translational act beyond definitions of concepts: The adventure of William Faulkner’s Sanctuary in the Turkish target system.] In Çeviribilimde Güncel Tartışmalardan Kavramsal Sorgulamalara [From recent discussions to conceptual reflections in Translation Studies], edited by Seda Taş, 285–314. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
• Canlı, Gülsüm. 2018b. “Relocating Self-Translation from the Interlingual to Intralingual: Faulkner as a Self-Translauthor.” transLogos Translation Studies Journal 1 (1): 41–63. doi:10.29228/transLogos.1/1.8.
• Canlı, Gülsüm. 2019. “William Faulkner’ın Sanctuary Adlı Romanının Kaynak ve Erek Dizgedeki Çeviri Serüveni: Diliçi Çeviri, Öz-Çeviri, Yeniden Çeviri ve Dolaylı Çeviri Kavramları Işığında Bir İnceleme.” [The translational adventure of William Faulkner’s Sanctuary in source and target systems: An analysis in the light of intralingual translation, self-translation, retranslation and indirect translation.] PhD diss., Yıldız Technical University.
• Canseven, Cansu. 2017. “Konuşmalar: Diliçi Çeviri.” [Conversations: Intralingual translation.] T24.com. April 13. https://t24.com.tr/k24/yazi/konusmalar-dilici-ceviri1,1152.
• Durmaz Hut, Aytül. 2019. “Çevirinin Yansımaları Olarak ‘Çeviriyazıların’ Farklı Adlandırılışları Üzerine Bir Çalışma.” [A study on different classification of ‘transcriptions’ as reflections of translation.] In Çeviribilimde Araştırmalar [Research in Translation Studies], edited by Seda Taş, 177–196. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 1938. Gulyabani. Istanbul: Hilmi.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 2015a. Gulyabani. Istanbul: Everest.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 2015b. Gulyabani. Istanbul: İthaki.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 2016. Gulyabani. Istanbul: Kırmızı Kedi.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 2017. Gulyabani. Istanbul: İnkılâp.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 2018. Gulyabani. 2nd ed. Istanbul: Bilgi.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 2019a. Gulyabani Garaib Faturası Külliyatı Birinci Hikâye. Istanbul: Can.
• Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi. 2019b. Gulyabani Günümüz Türkçesiyle. Istanbul: Can.
• Hill-Madsen, Aage. 2015. “Lexical Strategies in Intralingual Translation between Registers.” Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication in Business 27 (54): 85–105. doi:10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22949.
• Jakobson, Roman. (1959) 2004. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, 113–118. London: Routledge. PDF e-book.
• Kalem Bakkal, Aslı. 2019. “From the ‘Real’ Author to the ‘Real’ Reader: Manipulation in Translation.” transLogos Translation Studies Journal 2 (1): 85–101. doi:10.29228/transLogos.2/1.5.
• Karadağ, Ayşe Banu. 2017. “Çeviri, Tarih ve Bellek: Diliçi Edebi Çeviriler Bağlamında Bir İnceleme.” [Translation, history, and memory: An analysis within the context of intralingual literary translations.] Paper presented at the 5th International Western Cultural and Literary Studies Symposium, Sivas, October 4–6.
• Karadağ, Ayşe Banu. 2019. “Türk Edebiyat ve Kültür Dizgesinin Konukseverliğinde Çeviri Roman Deneyimi.” [Experience of translated novels with the hospitality of Turkish literary and cultural system.] Doğu Batı 22 (88): 9–25.
• Karas, Hilla. 2016. “Intralingual Intertemporal Translation as a Relevant Category in Translation Studies.” Target 28 (3): 445–466. doi:10.1075/target.28.3.05kar.
• Lotz, Susan. 2017. “It May Be Copyrighted, But It Still Needs Help: Improving Research Questionnaires by Means of Intralingual Translation.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 53:167–181. doi:10.5842/53-0-740.
• Mossop, Brian. 2016. “‘Intralingual Translation’: A Desirable Concept?” Across Languages and Cultures 17 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1556/084.2016.17.1.1.
• Öztürk Baydere, Hilal. 2019. “Türk Edebiyatını Diliçi Çevirilerden Okumak: Osmanlıcada ve Günümüz Türkçesinde Refik Halid’in Guguklu Saat’i.” [Reading Turkish literature through intralingual translations: Refik Halid’s Guguklu Saat in Ottoman and Modern Turkish.] In Çeviri Üzerine Gözlemler [Observations on translation], edited by Seda Taş, 223–241. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
• Paker, Saliha. 2004. “Türkiye Odaklı Çeviri Tarihi Araştırmaları, Kültürel Hafıza, Unutuş ve Hatırlayış İlişkileri.” [Turkey centered translation history research, relations between cultural memory, forgetting, and remembering.] Journal of Turkish Studies 28 (3): 275–284.
• Paker, Saliha. 2014. “Terceme, Te’lîf ve Özgünlük Meselesi.” [The issue of terceme, te’lif and originality.] In Metnin Hâlleri: Osmanlı’da Telif, Tercüme ve Şerh [The states of text: original, translation and commentary in the Ottoman tradition], edited by Hatice Aynur, Müjgân Çakır, Hanife Koncu, Selim S. Kuru, and Ali Emre Özyıldırım, 36–71. Istanbul: Klasik.
• Vassallo, Clare. 2015. “What’s So ‘Proper’ about Translation? Or Interlingual Translation and Interpretative Semiotics.” Semiotica 2015 (206): 161–179. doi:10.1515/sem-2015-0022.
• Zethsen, Karen Korning. 2009. “Intralingual Translation: An Attempt at Description.” Meta 54 (4): 795–812. doi:10.7202/038904ar.
• Zethsen, Karen Korning, and Aage Hill-Madsen. 2016. “Intralingual Translation and Its Place within Translation Studies: A Theoretical Discussion.” Meta 61 (3): 692–708. doi:10.7202/1039225ar.
• Zhang, Huanyao, and Huijuan Ma. 2018. “Intertextuality in Retranslation.” Perspectives 26 (4): 576–592. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2018.1448875.