Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Ecocriticism and Translation: A Descriptive Study on Elif Shafak’s Bit Palas

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 30, 151 - 164, 16.07.2021
https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.903813

Öz

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the English translation of Elif Shafak’s Bit Palas from the perspective of ecocriticism. As ecocriticism has emerged as a subdiscipline of cultural studies which has affected translation studies to a large extent, one can readily establish a relationship between ecology, culture, literature, and translation. In a translation carried out with ecocritical awareness, what matters is the extent to which the ecological orientations in the source text are transferred to the target text, rather than the fact that a translation is faithful or correct. In this way, translation can foster the construction or restoration of ecological thought. Bit Palas, which is examined in this study, deals with human life in tandem with the phenomenon of garbage. In this respect, it is obvious that the novel contributes to the ecological awareness of society. The novel which reflects the history, culture, and chaos of Istanbul through different characters centers upon the pollution that prevails the city in the second half of the twentieth century. Pollution which could turn into one of the most devastating ecological disasters manifests itself in different aspects throughout the novel. The garbage piles as the sole reason in the novel that triggers pollution is a phenomenon that integrates human beings with history, nature, and the city they live in. The main endeavor in this study will be to discuss how an ecocritical text is recreated in a new cultural and ecological environment. The ecological dimension of the study will be examined through the concepts of çöp [garbage], koku [smell], böcek [insect], and bit [louse]. Based on this, it will be determined how the translator tackles these ecological elements while transferring them to the target text.

Kaynakça

  • Aksoy, N. B. (2020). Insights into a new paradigm in translation: Eco-translation and its reflections. Babel, 66(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00136.aks
  • Badenes, G. & Coisson, J. (2015). Ecotranslation: A journey into the wild through the road less travelled. European Scientific Journal (Special Edition), 356–368. https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6544
  • Cao, L. (2011) Translation ecology. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 19(1), 89-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903404167
  • Coupe, L. (Ed.). (2000). The green studies reader: From romanticism to ecocriticism. Routledge.
  • Cronin, M. (2003). Translation and globalization. Routledge.
  • Cronin, M. (2017). Eco-translation: Translation and ecology in the age of the anthropocene. Routledge.
  • Garrard, G. (2004). Ecocriticism. Routledge.
  • Glotfelty, C. & Fromm, H. (Eds.). (1996). The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology. The University of Georgia Press.
  • Glotfelty, Cheryll. (1996). Introduction. In C. Glotfelty & H. Fromm (Eds.), The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology (pp. xv–xxxvii). The University of Georgia Press.
  • Hastürkoğlu, G. (2020). Transferring ecology-related culture-specific items: A diachronic and quantitative approach. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18, 666-672. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.706463
  • Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. In A. S. Dil (Ed.), The ecology of language. Essays by einar haugen (pp. 325–339). Stanford University Press.
  • Hostová, I. (2016). Of ecosystems and translations: Some ways of translating non-traditional texts. World Literature Studies, 1(8), 74–85.
  • Howarth, W. (1996). Some principles of ecocriticism. In C. Glotfelty & H. Fromm (Eds.), The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology (pp. 69-91). The University of Georgia Press.
  • Kansu-Yetkiner, N., Duman, D., Yavuz, Y. & Avşaroğlu, M. (2018). Erken Cumhuriyet döneminden günümüze çocuk edebiyatındaki çevre odaklı kültürel sözcüklerin çevirisine niceliksel bir yaklaşım. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(2), 57-82. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.405249
  • Kushnina, L. V. & Pylaeva, E. M. (2014). Ecology of translation: Contemporary trends and approaches. Rossijskaa i Zarubeznaa Filolgia, 2, 70-76.
  • Larson, M. L. (1998). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). University Press of America.
  • Logos. (n.d.). Geographic and ethnographic realia. In Logos dictionary. http://courses.logos.it/EN/3_34.html
  • Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice- Hall.
  • Rueckert, W. (1978/1996). Literature and ecology: An experiment in ecocriticism. In C. Glotfelty & H. Fromm (Eds.), The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology (pp. 105-123). The University of Georgia Press.
  • Scott, C. (2015). Translating the nineteenth century: A poetics of eco-translation. Dix-neuf, 19(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/ 10.1179/1478731815Z.00000000083
  • Shafak, E. (2003). Elif Şafak kendini anlatıyor (A. İlhan, Interviewer). düşLE Edebiyat ve Kültür Dergisi, 25. https://www.metiskitap.com/catalog/interview/2876
  • Shafak, E. (2004). The Flea Palace (M. Göçek, trans.). Penguin Books.
  • Şafak, E. (2002). Bit Palas. Doğan Kitap.
  • Shafak, E. (2019, May 1). A conversation with Elif Shafak. (V. S. Mbe, Interviewer). ThoughtEconomics. https://thoughteconomics.com/elif-shafak/
  • Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
  • Steffensen, S. V. & Fill, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences, 41(Part A), 6-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.003
  • Şafak, E. (2002a, March 21). Pislik tam da içimizde. (F. Aygündüz, Interviewer). Milliyet. https://www.milliyet.com.tr/kultur-sanat/pislik-tam-da-icimizde-5221020
  • Şafak, E. (2002b). Bit Palas. Doğan Kitap.
  • Thayer, R. L. (2003). LifePlace: Bioregional thought and practice. University of California.
  • Valero-Garcés, C. (2011). Ecocriticism and translation. Odisea. Revista De Estudios Ingleses, 12, 257-272. https://doi.org/10.25115/odisea.v0i12.333
  • Vlahov, S. & Florin, S. (1980). Neperevodimoje v perevode. Meždunarodnyje otnošenija.

Ekoeleştiri ve Çeviri: Elif Şafak’ın Bit Palas Adlı Eseri Üzerine Betimleyici Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 30, 151 - 164, 16.07.2021
https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.903813

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Elif Şafak’ın Bit Palas adlı eserinin İngilizce çevirisini ekoeleştiri perspektifinden değerlendirmektir. Ekoeleştiri, çeviri çalışmalarını da büyük ölçüde etkileyen bir kültür araştırmaları alt disiplini olarak ortaya çıktığından, ekoloji, kültür, edebiyat, ve çeviri arasında kolaylıkla bir ilişki kurulabilir. Ekolojik bilinçle yapılan bir çeviride önemli olan, çevirinin aslına uygun veya doğru olması değil, kaynak metindeki ekolojik yönelimlerin hedef metne ne ölçüde aktarıldığıdır. Bu şekilde çeviri, ekolojik düşüncenin inşasını veya restorasyonunu teşvik edebilir. Bu çalışmada incelenen Bit Palas adlı roman, insan yaşamını çöp olgusu ile birlikte ele alır. Bu açıdan romanın toplumun ekolojik bilincine katkı sağladığı aşikârdır. İstanbul'un tarihini, kültürünü ve kaosunu farklı karakterler aracılığıyla yansıtan roman, yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısında şehre hâkim olan kirliliği merkeze alır. En yıkıcı ekolojik felaketlerden birine dönüşebilecek olan kirlilik, roman boyunca farklı açılardan kendini gösterir. Romanda kirliliği tetikleyen yegâne sebep olan çöp yığınları, insanı tarih, doğa ve içinde yaşadığı şehirle bütünleştiren bir olgudur. Bu çalışmada temel amaç, ekoeleştirel bir metnin yeni bir kültürel ve ekolojik çevrede nasıl yeniden yaratıldığını tartışmaktır. Çalışmanın ekolojik boyutu çöp, koku, böcek ve bit kavramları üzerinden incelenecektir. Buradan hareketle çevirmenin bu ekolojik unsurları hedef metne aktarırken onları nasıl ele aldığı belirlenecektir.

Kaynakça

  • Aksoy, N. B. (2020). Insights into a new paradigm in translation: Eco-translation and its reflections. Babel, 66(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00136.aks
  • Badenes, G. & Coisson, J. (2015). Ecotranslation: A journey into the wild through the road less travelled. European Scientific Journal (Special Edition), 356–368. https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6544
  • Cao, L. (2011) Translation ecology. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 19(1), 89-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903404167
  • Coupe, L. (Ed.). (2000). The green studies reader: From romanticism to ecocriticism. Routledge.
  • Cronin, M. (2003). Translation and globalization. Routledge.
  • Cronin, M. (2017). Eco-translation: Translation and ecology in the age of the anthropocene. Routledge.
  • Garrard, G. (2004). Ecocriticism. Routledge.
  • Glotfelty, C. & Fromm, H. (Eds.). (1996). The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology. The University of Georgia Press.
  • Glotfelty, Cheryll. (1996). Introduction. In C. Glotfelty & H. Fromm (Eds.), The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology (pp. xv–xxxvii). The University of Georgia Press.
  • Hastürkoğlu, G. (2020). Transferring ecology-related culture-specific items: A diachronic and quantitative approach. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18, 666-672. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.706463
  • Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. In A. S. Dil (Ed.), The ecology of language. Essays by einar haugen (pp. 325–339). Stanford University Press.
  • Hostová, I. (2016). Of ecosystems and translations: Some ways of translating non-traditional texts. World Literature Studies, 1(8), 74–85.
  • Howarth, W. (1996). Some principles of ecocriticism. In C. Glotfelty & H. Fromm (Eds.), The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology (pp. 69-91). The University of Georgia Press.
  • Kansu-Yetkiner, N., Duman, D., Yavuz, Y. & Avşaroğlu, M. (2018). Erken Cumhuriyet döneminden günümüze çocuk edebiyatındaki çevre odaklı kültürel sözcüklerin çevirisine niceliksel bir yaklaşım. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(2), 57-82. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.405249
  • Kushnina, L. V. & Pylaeva, E. M. (2014). Ecology of translation: Contemporary trends and approaches. Rossijskaa i Zarubeznaa Filolgia, 2, 70-76.
  • Larson, M. L. (1998). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). University Press of America.
  • Logos. (n.d.). Geographic and ethnographic realia. In Logos dictionary. http://courses.logos.it/EN/3_34.html
  • Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice- Hall.
  • Rueckert, W. (1978/1996). Literature and ecology: An experiment in ecocriticism. In C. Glotfelty & H. Fromm (Eds.), The ecocriticism reader. Landmarks in literary ecology (pp. 105-123). The University of Georgia Press.
  • Scott, C. (2015). Translating the nineteenth century: A poetics of eco-translation. Dix-neuf, 19(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/ 10.1179/1478731815Z.00000000083
  • Shafak, E. (2003). Elif Şafak kendini anlatıyor (A. İlhan, Interviewer). düşLE Edebiyat ve Kültür Dergisi, 25. https://www.metiskitap.com/catalog/interview/2876
  • Shafak, E. (2004). The Flea Palace (M. Göçek, trans.). Penguin Books.
  • Şafak, E. (2002). Bit Palas. Doğan Kitap.
  • Shafak, E. (2019, May 1). A conversation with Elif Shafak. (V. S. Mbe, Interviewer). ThoughtEconomics. https://thoughteconomics.com/elif-shafak/
  • Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
  • Steffensen, S. V. & Fill, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences, 41(Part A), 6-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.003
  • Şafak, E. (2002a, March 21). Pislik tam da içimizde. (F. Aygündüz, Interviewer). Milliyet. https://www.milliyet.com.tr/kultur-sanat/pislik-tam-da-icimizde-5221020
  • Şafak, E. (2002b). Bit Palas. Doğan Kitap.
  • Thayer, R. L. (2003). LifePlace: Bioregional thought and practice. University of California.
  • Valero-Garcés, C. (2011). Ecocriticism and translation. Odisea. Revista De Estudios Ingleses, 12, 257-272. https://doi.org/10.25115/odisea.v0i12.333
  • Vlahov, S. & Florin, S. (1980). Neperevodimoje v perevode. Meždunarodnyje otnošenija.
Toplam 31 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Dil Çalışmaları
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Selen Tekalp 0000-0002-3050-3835

Yayımlanma Tarihi 16 Temmuz 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Sayı: 30

Kaynak Göster

APA Tekalp, S. (2021). Ecocriticism and Translation: A Descriptive Study on Elif Shafak’s Bit Palas. Çeviribilim Ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 2021(30), 151-164. https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.903813