Postmodernizm ve çeviri: Postmodern söylem içerisinde çevrilemezlik kavramı

Öz

Bu makale, çevrilemezlik kavramının ne’liğini, kavramsal ve kuramsal açınımını ve milenyumun çeviri tarihi içinde başat konumdaki postmodern çeviri yaklaşımlarının çeviri pratiği açısından nasıl bir öneme sahip olduğunu ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu makalede, günümüzün çeviri kuramlarını belirleyen postmodern/ postyapısalcı söylemin temsilcisi konumundaki, Derrida’nın yapıbozumcu/yapısökümcü çeviri yaklaşımı ışığında, anlamın belirsizliği ve dolayısıyla çevirinin imkan(sızlık)ları fikri tartışılmaktadır. Belirsizliğe/ kesinsizliğe, farklılığa/ ötekiliğe ve her anlamda çoğulculuğa vurgu yapan postmodern söylem için, Babil söylencesindeki içerik ve dillerin karışıklığı teması, ayrıcalıklı bir mekân olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır; çünkü Babil, hem insanlar/ toplumlar arası iletişimin, kültürel alış-verişin gerçekleşebilirliğine hem de altüst olup yıkılabilirliğine sahne olan; metinler, diller, gelenekler ve kültürler arasındaki ilişkilerin antagonistik yapısını ortaya koyan bir uzamdır. Çeviri de postmodern söylem gibi, bu antagonistik arada kalma ve belirsizlik durumuyla karşı karşıyadır: kaynak metinle erek metin arasında, birinin diğerini tanıması adına, anlama aracılık etmektedir; her ikisi de anlamın, dolayısıyla çevirinin istikrarsızlığı üzerinden söylem üretmektedirler. Söylemlerinde metinlerarası bağlama vurgu yapılmakta ve her zaman başka metinlerin ve bağlamların izlerini taşıdıkları iddia edilen çeviri metinlerin özerk oluşumlar olduklarının altı çizilmektedir. Çağa egemen postmodern söylem içinde çeviri bu nedenle, orijinalin yeniden üretimi değil, yeniden inşası olarak kavramsallaştırılma aşamasına gelmiştir. Metinlerin yeni bakış açılarıyla okunması anlamına gelen bu duruma göre, Derridacı yapıbozum stratejisinin öngördüğü gibi, anlamın sınırsızlık hali ortaya çıkmakta ve daimî olarak yeni anlam katmanları belirmektedir. Beliren anlam katmanlarının aktarılmasındaki açmaza yönelik her çözüm çabası da bir çevrilemezlik durumuna karşılık gelmektedir. Çevrilemezlik kavramının postmodern söylem içindeki yerini aydınlatmayı hedefleyen bu çalışmada, öncelikle postmodernizm kavramı ele alınmış ve daha sonra postmodern söylemin çeviri üzerindeki etkisi tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonunda, çevrilemezlik kavramının, anlamın sonsuza kadar ertelendiğini, sabit kalmadığını ve farklı siyasal ve bilişsel arka plana göre her okumada yeniden belirlenip inşa edildiğini açığa çıkaran postmodern söylem ile yakın bir ilişki içinde olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çeviri
• çevrilemezlik
• postmodernizm
• yapıbozum
• Derrida

Postmodernism and translation: The concept of untranslatability in postmodern discourse

Abstract

This article aims to reveal what the concept of untranslatability is, what its conceptual and theoretical implications are, and how important postmodern translation approaches are, as holding a dominant position in the translation history of the millennium in terms of translation practice. In this article, in the light of Derrida’s deconstructionist/deconstructionist translation approach, which is the representative of the postmodern/poststructuralist discourse that determines today's translation theories, the idea of the indeterminacy of meaning and therefore the (im)possibilities of translation are discussed. For postmodern discourse, which emphasizes uncertainty/indefiniteness, difference/otherness and pluralism in every sense, the content in the Babylonian myth and the theme of languages being confounded emerge as a privileged site; as of yet, Babylon is an extension of both the realisability and destructibility of human/inter-communal communication and cultural exchange as well as a location that reveals the antagonistic nature of relations between texts, languages, traditions and cultures. Translation, like postmodern discourse, is faced with this antagonistic situation of "in-betweenness” and indeterminacy, thereby mediating the meaning between the source text and the target text so that one can recognize the other. Translation is always a “hybrid” by character and both translation and postmodernism produce discourse on the instability and inscrutability of signification in language and therefore of translation. In their discourses, the emphasis is placed on the intertextual context and it is underlined that the translated texts, which are claimed to always carry the traces of other texts and contexts, are actually autonomous formations. Translation has thus come to be conceptualized within the contemporary postmodern discourse as a rewriting, not as a reproduction of the "original. According to this situation, which means reading the texts from new perspectives, as predicted by the Derridean deconstruction strategy, there emerges a state of infinity of meaning and new layers of meaning are constantly appearing. Every effort to resolve the impasse in the transfer of the emerging layers of meaning also corresponds to a situation of untranslatability. In this study, which aims to illuminate the place of the concept of untranslatability in postmodern discourse, the concept of postmodernism is firstly discussed and then the effect of postmodern discourse on translation is tried to be determined. At the end of the study, it is revealed that the concept of untranslatability is in close relationship with the postmodern discourse, which reveals that the meaning is postponed forever, that it never remains fixed, and that it is redefined and reconstructed in each reading according to different political and cognitive backgrounds.

Keywords

• Translation
• untranslatability
• postmodernism
• deconstruction
• Derrida

Kaynakça

1. ACLA Conference (2010). The translation of philosophy and the philosophy of translation: Annual meeting the American comparative literature association creoles, diasporas, cosmopolitanisms. New Orleans, Louisiana April 1-4 https://www.acla.org/sites/default/files/files/Final_Program_Guide_2010.pdf
2. Abdul-Raof, H. (2001). Qur'an translation: Discourse, texture and exegesis. Routledge
3. Aktulum, K. (2000). Metinlerarası ilişkiler. Ankara: Öteki Yay
4. Aksoy, N., & Aksoy, B. (1992). İki aydınlanma. Birikim. 3. 58-61.
5. Aksoy, N. B. (2002) Geçmişten günümüze yazın çevirisi. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
6. Aldahesh, A. Y. (2014). (Un)Translatability of the Qur’ān: A Theoretical Perspective. International Journal of Linguistics, 6 (6). ISSN 1948-5425 2014. doi:10.5296/ijl.v6i6.6497
7. Apter, E. (2013). Against world literature: On the politics of untranslatability. London:Verso
8. Baker, M. & Saldanha, G. (2020). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. Third Edition. Abingdon: Routledge

9. Bannet, E.T. (1997). Analogy as translation: Wittgenstein, Derrida, and the law of language. New Literary History. 28(4). Philosophical Thoughts. 655-672
10. Bassnett, S. (1993). Comparative Literature: A critical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies. Third edition. London / New York: Routledge
12. Bassnett, S. (2007). Culture and translation: Why did translation studies take a cultural turn? A Companion to Translation Studies. (yay. haz.). P. Kuhiwczak & K. Littau. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd
13. Bellos, D.(2012). Is that a fish in your ear? Translation and the meaning of everything. London: Penguin
14. Benjamin, W. (1997). The Translator’s Task, Walter Benjamin (Translation) (Çev. S. Rendall). TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, vol. 10, n° 2. 151-165. http://www.enl.auth.gr/staff/apostolou/the_Translator's_Task.pdf
15. Berman, A. (1984/1992). The experience of the foreign: Culture and translation in
16. romantic Germany. Albany: State University of New York Press
17. Bertens, H. (1995). The idea of postmodern. A history. London and New York: Routledge
18. Barthes, R. (1968/1977) The death of the author. Roland Barthes: Image Music Text, 142-149. London: Fontana Press
19. Cassin, B., Rendall, S., Apter, E. S. (2014). Dictionary of untranslatables: A philosophical lexicon. Princeton: Princeton University Press
20. Catford, J.C.(1965). A linguistic theory of translation; an essay in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
21. Chesterman, A. (1997). Translating between Aristotle and postmodernism. Mauranen, A. & T. Puurtinen 1997. Translation - Acquisition - Use. AFinLA Yearbook. Publications de l’Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée 55. Jyväskylä. 51-60.
22. Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: the spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
23. Connolly, D. (1998). Poetry translation. (Yay. haz.) Mona Baker. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.170-176. London/New York: Routledge
24. Davis, K. (2001) Deconstruction and translation. Manchester: St Jerome
25. Dear, M. J. (1988). The postmodern challenge: Reconstructing human geography. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers NS 13:262-74.
26. Derrida, J. & Prenowitz, E. (2008). Who or what is compared? The concept of comparative literature and the theoretical problems of translation. Discourse, (30), 22-53. Wayne State University
27. Press. DOI:10.1353/dis.0.0045 https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4313384/mod_resource/content/0/DERRIDA_Who_or_What_is_compared_Concept_of_CompLit.pdf
28. Derrida, J. (1985). The ear of the other: Autobiography, transference, translation. New York: Schocken Books
29. Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3-27.
30. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference, (çev. Alan Bass). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
31. Derrida, J. (1997). Of Grammatology. (Corrected Edition). İng. Çev. Gavatri C. Spivak. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press
32. Derrida, J. (1999). Differance. Toplumbilim, (Önay Sözer, Çev.), Bağlam yay. (10), 49- 61.
33. Dickins, J., Hervey, S., Higgins, I. (eds). 2002. Thinking Arabic translation – A course in translation method: Arabic to English. London: Routledge.
34. Dryden, J.(2004). From the preface to ovid’s epistles. The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. New York: Routledge, 2004. 38-42. Print. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=7PxeAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
35. Eagleton, T. (1996). The illusions of postmodernism. Blackwell Publishing
36. Ecevit, Y. (2001). Türk romanında postmodernist açılımlar. İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
37. Eco, U. (1989). The open work. (çev. Anna Cancogni). Hutchinson Radios. London
38. Eco, U. (2001). Experiences in translation. Toronto Italian Studies. Goggio Publication Series General Editor: Olga Zorzi Pugliese
39. Eser, O. (2014). 20.yy. eleştiri kuramlarında çevirmen görünürlüğü. The Journal of International Social Research. 7 (32). 111-116.
40. Featherstone M. (1988). In Pursuit of the Postmodern: An Introduction. Theory, Culture & Society.;5(2-3):195-215. doi:10.1177/0263276488005002001
41. Foucault, M., Kelly, M., Habermas, J. (1994). Critique and power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:The MIT Press
42. Foucault, M., Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books
43. Gadamer, H.-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics: (çev. David E. Linge) Berkeley/London: University of California Press
44. Gleeson, G., Trinity College Dublin. (2015). Varieties of untranslatability: Exploring a potential system of classification for the discussion of untranslatability in literary texts. Journal of Postgraduate Research,14, 32-48.
45. Gutt, E.-A. (1991) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, Manchester & New York: St. Jerome. (2nd edition 2000).
46. Hassan, I. (1983). Desire and dissent in the postmodern age. Kenyon review, 5.1-18.
47. Hebdige, D. (1986). Postmodernism and ‘The Other Side’. Journal of Communication Enquiry 10/2, 88-100.
48. Heidegger, M. (2008). Being and time. New York: HarperPerennial/Modern Thought.
49. Hermans, T. (1997) Translation as institution: translation as intercultural communication: Selected papers from the EST congress Prague 1995. M. Snell Hornby, M. Jettmarova, K. Kaindl (yay.haz.) Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3-20
50. Humboldt, W. (1988). On language: The diversity of human language-structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. (çev. Peter Heath). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
51. Iser, W. (1995). On translatability: variables of interpretation. The European English Messenger IV (1), 30-38.
52. Jameson, F. (1994). Postmodernizm. Çev. Nuri Plümer, İstanbul: YKY.
53. Kilito, A., & Hassan, W. (2008). Thou Shalt Not Speak My Language. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1pk86bj
54. Kızıler E. F. (2008). Postmodernist bir yaklaşımla yabancı dil öğretiminde yazının yeri. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi (AID).3(2).27-42.
55. Kızıler, F. (2019). Patrick Süskind’in “amnesie in litteris” adlı metninin postmodern yazın bağlamında analizi. International Journal of Economics, Politics, Humanities & Social Sciences. 2.(4). e-ISSN: 2636-8137
56. Kızıler, F. (2006). Moderniteden postmoderniteye kavramsal bir yolculuk. Patrick Süskind’in parfüm adlı romanında postmodernist açılımlar. Erzurum: Salkımsöğüt Yay., 2006.
57. Küçükalp, K. (2017). Nietzsche ve postmodernizm. İstanbul: Kibele Yayınları
58. Koskinen, K. (1994/2002). (Mis)Translating the untranslatable: The impact of deconstruction and post-structuralism on translation theory. Meta. 39 (3). https://doi.org/10.7202/003344
59. Kristeva, J (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to language and art. (trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez). ed. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press
60. Lefevere, A. (1977). Translating literature: the German Tradition from Luther to Rosenzweig (Approaches to Translation 4). Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum
61. Long, L. (2005). Translation and religion: Holy untranslatable? Multilingual Matters Limited. Toronto
62. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
63. Large, D. (2019). Untranslatability:Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge
64. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979/1989). The postmodern conditions: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
65. Moran, D. (2008). Introduction to phenomenology. London: Routledge.
66. Mundt, K. (2019) Against the “Un-” in Untranslatability Against the “Un-” in Untranslatability: On the Obsession with Problems, Negativity and Uncertainty. Large, D., Akashi, M., Jóźwikowska, W., ve Rose, E. (Yay. haz.) Untranslatability: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Routledge.
67. Munslow, A. (1998). Deconstructing history. London: Routledge.
68. Nietzsche, F. (1873) On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense. (çev.) A. K. M. Adam. Edition 1.0, April 2019.Titling set in Hesse Antiqua Text in Scala 12/ 16. Oxford: Quadriga
69. Ogden, C. K., R., I. A., Malinowski, B., & Crookshank, F. G. (1946/2002). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
70. Ortega y Gasset, José. (1937/2000). The misery and splendor of translation. (Çev.Elizabeth Gamble Miller) The translation Studies Reader, (Yay.haz.) Lawrence Venuti, 49–63. London: Routledge.
71. Nietzsche, F. (2002). Güç istenci. (Çev.: Sedat Umran), Birey Yayıncılık, İstanbul
72. Parla, J. (2000). Don Kişot’tan bugüne roman. İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
73. Pym, A. & Turk, H. (1998/2001). Translatability. M. Baker (Yay. haz.) Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies, 273-277. New York /London: Routledge
74. Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press
75. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stanford/California
76. Robinson, D. (1991). Western translation theory: from Herodotus to Nietzsche. London:Routledge
77. Roman, J. (1959) On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In: Venuti, L., Ed., The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge:London,113-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18 . Erişim tarihi. 30.07.2021: https://www.academia.edu/26570349/Jakobson_Roman_1959_On_Linguistic_Aspects_of_Translation
78. Rorty, R. (1982). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
79. Rorty, R. (1983). Postmodernist bourgeois liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy, 583-589.
80. Sacks, J. (2011). Untranslatability, or mourning translation. 126, 5. Comparative Literature Issue. 1083-1122. The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable
81. Sarup, M. (1997). Post-yapısalcılık ve postmodernizm. Çev. B. Güçlü. Ankara: Ark Yay.
82. Saussüre, F. de ([1916] 1959) Course in general linguistics Bally C., Sechehaye, A., (çev. Baskin, W). New York :Philosophical Library
83. Savory, T. H. (1957). The art of translation. London : Jonathan Cape. SBN 224 61309
84. Schulte, R., Biguenet, J. (1992). Theories of translation: an anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
85. Sim, S. (1999). The icon critical dictionary of postmodern thought (Icon Critical Dictionary). Routledge.
86. Skeggs, B.(1991). Postmodernism: What Is All the Fuss about?. British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 12, 2. 255-267. Taylor & Francis, Ltd
87. Smart, B. (1993). Postmodernity: Key ideas. Taylor & Francis Group, ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gsutr/detail.action?docID=1111522.
88. Spivak, G. C.. ( 2000). Translation as culture. Parallax 6 (1):13–24.
89. Stefanink, B., Bălăcescu, I. (2017). The hermeneutical approach in Translation Studies. 37(3), 21-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.2017v37n3p21
90. Timur, K. (1999). Kural tanımayan bir ideoloji: postmodernism. Hikmet-Akademik Edebiyat Dergisi [Journal of Academic Literature], Gelenek ve Postmodernizm Özel Sayısı. 3. 1- 9. https://iwp.uiowa.edu/91st/vol4-num1/translating-culture-vscultural-translation
91. Tural, S. (2018), Modern Türk edebiyatının 200’ü. Otto Yayınları, Ankara
92. Tyulenev, S. (2010). Is translation an autopoietic system? MonTI 2.345-371. University of Cambridge. DOI: 10.6035/MonTI.2010.2.15.
93. Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference, London &New York: Routledge
94. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge
95. Venuti, L. (2000). The translation studies reader. London: Routledge
96. Welsch, W. (2002). Unsere Postmoderne Moderne. Berlin: Akademie Verlag
97. Wilde, A. (1976). Barthelme unfair to Kierkegaard: Some thoughts on modern and postmodern irony. Boundary 2, 5, No. 1 (Autumn, 1976), 45-70. Duke University Press
98. Wilss, W. (1982). The science of translation: Problems and methods. Tübingen: G. Narr
99. Wittgenstein, L. (2002). Tractatus logico-philosophicus [1921]. Pears D. F., McGuinness. London/New York
100. Wittgenstein, L. (1986). Philosophical Investigations. (Çev.:. by G.E.M). Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd
101. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical Investigations [1953]. (çev. Anscombe) G.E.M., Hacker, P. M.
102. Yazıcı, M. (2005). Çeviribilim temel kavram ve kuramları. İstanbul: Multilingual. ISBN975-6542-50-x
103. Zhelvis, V.I., Markovina, I.Y. (197771979). The experience of systematization of English-Russian lacunae. The
104. Research on Problems of the Speech Communication.136-146. Moscow: Nauka publishers