What Could the Translation of a ‘Retelling’ Imply for Translation Studies?

Öz

The purpose of this study is to scrutinize the implications that The Canterbury Tales: A Retelling (2009) by Peter Ackroyd and its Turkish translation hold for Translation Studies. The study will focus on the translation concepts of ‘retelling,’ ‘intralingual translation,’ ‘indirect translation,’ and ‘retranslation.’ The motivation for this study stems from the manner in which the books were introduced into the English and Turkish literary systems. The Turkish translation entitled Geoffrey Chaucer’ın Canterbury Hikâyeleri (Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury tales) (2017) designates Peter Ackroyd as the ‘author,’ and is presented as a “translat[ion] from the English original” (Ackroyd 2017, 5). In the English edition, on the other hand, Ackroyd appears as the ‘translator’ of this “original,” with Chaucer named as the ‘author.’ Another noteworthy point is that Geoffrey Chaucer’ın Canterbury Hikâyeleri was preceded by other translations of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales in Turkish. The current study explores how to conceptualize the translational statuses of The Canterbury Tales: A Retelling and Geoffrey Chaucer’ın Canterbury Hikâyeleri through discussing the existing definitions of ‘retelling,’ ‘intralingual translation,’ ‘indirect translation,’ and ‘retranslation.’ This study argues that the English work is, in fact, an ‘intralingual (re)translation,’ and the Turkish work can be called both an ‘indirect translation’ and a ‘retranslation through indirect translation,’ where ‘indirect’ refers to the process. Along with this, it also offers two new categories for the typology of “intervening texts” in retranslation (Alvstad and Rosa 2015): ‘single intralingual retranslation’ and ‘compilative inter- and intralingual retranslation through indirect retranslation.’ The study ends with a discussion of the implications of the English and Turkish works in question with regard to the ideas of ‘originality’ and ‘authorship.’

Anahtar Kelimeler

• retelling,intralingual translation,indirect translation,retranslation,originality,authorship,The Canterbury Tales

Kaynakça

1. Ackroyd, Peter. 1983. The Last Testament of Oscar Wilde. London: Hamish Hamilton.
2. Ackroyd, Peter. 1985. Hawksmoor. London: Hamish Hamilton.
3. Ackroyd, Peter. 2003. The Clerkenwell Tales. London: Chatto & Windus.
4. Ackroyd, Peter. 2004. Chaucer: Brief Lives. London: Chatto & Windus.
5. Ackroyd, Peter, trans. 2009. The Canterbury Tales: A Retelling. London: Penguin Books.
6. Ackroyd, Peter. 2010. The Death of King Arthur. London: Penguin Books.
7. Ackroyd, Peter. 2017. Geoffrey Chaucer’ın Canterbury Hikâyeleri. Translated by Berna Seden. Istanbul: Can.
8. Alvstad, Cecilia, and Alexandra Assis Rosa. 2015. “Voice in Retranslation: An Overview and Some Trends.” Target 27 (1): 3–24. doi:10.1075/target.27.1.00int.

9. Barrington, Candace, and Jonathan Hsy. 2015. “Global Chaucers.” In Medieval Afterlives in Contemporary Culture, edited by Gail Ashton, 147–156. London: Bloomsbury.
10. Bassnett, Susan. 2001. “Shakespeare’s in Danger: We Have to Act Now to Avoid a Great Tragedy.” Independent. November 14. Accessed July 1, 2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/shakespeares-in-danger-we-have-to-act-now-to-avoid-a-great-tragedy-9159195.html.
11. Bassnett, Susan. 2006. “Writing and Translating.” In The Translator as Writer, edited by Susan Bassnett and Peter Bush, 173–182. London: Continuum.
12. Bassnett, Susan. 2011. “Prologue.” In Tradition, Translation, Trauma: The Classic and the Modern, edited by Jan Parker and Timothy Mathews. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Baydere, Muhammed. 2019. “Çalıkuşu’nun Çeviri Serüveni.” [The translational adventure of Çalıkuşu.] Unpublished manuscript, last modified July 3. Microsoft Word file.
14. 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.
15. Beckett, Sandra L. 2003. “When Modern Little Red Riding Hoods Cross Borders... or Don’t...” Meta 48 (1–2): 15–30. doi:10.7202/006955ar. Bengi-Öner, Işın. (1993) 1999. “Çeviri Eleştirisi Bağlamında Eleştirel Bilincin Oluşması ve Eleştiri, Üst-Eleştiri, Çeviribilim İlişkileri.” [Forming critical consciousness within the context of translation criticism and the relations between criticism, metacriticism, and Translation Studies.] Chap. 3 in Çeviri Bir Süreçtir... Ya Çeviribilim? [Translation is a process... What about Translation Studies?] Istanbul: Sel.
16. Berk Albachten, Özlem. 2013. “Intralingual Translation as ‘Modernization’ of the Language: The Turkish Case.” Perspectives 21 (2): 257–271. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2012.702395.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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. London: Routledge. PDF e-book.
20. Berk Albachten, Özlem, and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar. 2019. “The Making and Reading of a Bibliography of Retranslations.” In Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 212–230. New York: Routledge.
21. 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.
22. Boy, Hülya. 2019a. “The Picture of Dorian Gray’in Diliçi ve Dillerarası Çevirileri Üzerine Kavramsal Sorgulamalar.” [Conceptual reflections on the intra-/inter-lingual translations of The Picture of Dorian Gray.] Unpublished manuscript, last modified July 3. Microsoft Word file.
23. Boy, Hülya. 2019b. “Yeniden Yazım ve Yeniden Çeviri Bağlamında Dorian Gray’in Portresi.” [The Picture of Dorian Gray within the context of rewriting and retranslation.] In Çeviri Üzerine Gözlemler [Observations on translation], edited by Seda Taş, 151–172. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
24. Canlı, Gülsüm. 2018. “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.
25. Canlı, Gülsüm. 2019a. “Bir Çeviri Eylemi Olarak Yeniden Anlatım: ‘The Hogarth Shakespeare’ Projesi.” [Retelling as a translational practice: ‘The Hogarth Shakespeare’ project.] 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, 377–386. doi:10.29000/rumelide.606220.
26. Canlı, Gülsüm. 2019b. “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.
27. Canseven, Cansu. 2017. “Konuşmalar: Diliçi Çeviri.” [Conversations: Intralingual translation.] T24. April 13. https://t24.com.tr/k24/yazi/konusmalar-dilici-ceviri1,1152.
28. Chaucer, Geoffrey. 1993. Canterbury Hikâyeleri: Genel Prolog [The Canterbury tales: General prologue]. Translated by Burçin Erol. Istanbul: Gündoğan.
29. Chaucer, Geoffrey. (1994) 2010. Canterbury Hikâyeleri [The Canterbury tales]. Translated by Nazmi Ağıl. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi.
30. Chaucer, Geoffrey. 2017. Canterbury Hikâyeleri [The Canterbury tales]. Translated by Sibel Alaş. Istanbul: Büyülü Fener.
31. Crystal, David. 2002. “To Modernize or Not to Modernize: There is No Question.” Around the Globe 21:15–17. http://www.davidcrystal.com/?fileid=-4232.
32. David, Alfred, and James Simpson. 2006a. “The Canterbury Tales.” In The Norton Anthology of English Literature, edited by Stephen Greenblatt and M. H. Abrams, 1:216–218. New York: W. W. Norton.
33. David, Alfred, and James Simpson. 2006b. “The Middle Ages.” In The Norton Anthology of English Literature, edited by Stephen Greenblatt and M. H. Abrams, 1:1–23. New York: W. W. Norton.
34. Delabastita, Dirk. 2017. “‘He Shall Signify from Time to Time.’ Romeo and Juliet in Modern English.” Perspectives 25 (2): 189–213. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2016.1234491.
35. Demirkol Ertürk, Şule. 2019. “Retranslating and Repackaging a Literary Masterpiece from a Peripheral Language: The Functions of Paratexts in Recontextualizing Literary Translations.” In Studies from a Retranslation Culture: The Turkish Context, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 137–154. Singapore: Springer.
36. Deveson, Tom, and Susan Bassnett. 2001. “Modernizing Shakespeare.” Around the Globe 20:32–33.
37. Eker-Roditakis, Arzu. 2019. “Repackaging, Retranslation, and Intersemiotic Translation: A Turkish Novel in Greece.” In Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 67–86. New York: Routledge.
38. Erkul Yağcı, A. Selin. 2019. “Retranslation, Paratext, and Recontextualization: Le Comte de Monte Cristo and The Hound of Baskervilles in Turkish (Re)translations.” In Studies from a Retranslation Culture: The Turkish Context, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 155–175. Singapore: Springer.
39. Eubanks, Adelheid. 2012. “Writing from the Margins, Writing in the Margins.” In Exile through a Gendered Lens: Women’s Displacement in Recent European History, Literature, and Cinema, edited by Gesa Zinn and Maureen Tobin Stanley, 83–97. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
40. Even-Zohar, Itamar. (1978) 2004. “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem.” In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, 192–197. London: Routledge. PDF e-book.
41. Gambier, Yves. 2003. “Working with Relay: An Old Story and a New Challenge.” In Speaking in Tongues: Language Across Contexts and Users, edited by Luis Pérez González, 47–66. Valencia: University of Valencia Press.
42. Geçmen, Kerem. 2018. “Retranslation and Shifting Constraints.” transLogos Translation Studies Journal 1 (1): 25–40. doi:10.29228/transLogos.1/1.7.
43. Greer, Germaine. 2009. “The Canterbury Tales.” Financial Times. April 20. https://www.ft.com/content/a7548b72-2add-11de-8415-00144feabdc0.
44. Gutt, Ernst August. 1989. “Translation and Relevance.” PhD diss., University of London.
45. 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.
46. Güneş, Alper Zafer. 2019. “A Conceptual Inquiry: What May Retranslation Offer for Translation Studies Research?” transLogos Translation Studies Journal 2 (1): 47–67. doi:10.29228/transLogos.2/1.3.
47. 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.
48. Jianzhong, Xu. 2003. “Retranslation: Necessary or Unnecessary.” Babel 49 (3): 193–202. doi:10.1075/babel.49.3.02jia.
49. Kafaoğlu Büke, Asuman. 2017. “Canterbury Hikâyeleri.” [The Canterbury tales.] Cumhuriyet Kitap. June 1. https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/katalog/4200/yazar/25521-ASUMAN+KAFACIO%20LI+B%C3%9CKE/2017/6/1.xhtml.
50. 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.
51. Karadağ, Ayşe Banu. 2008. Çevirinin Tanıklığında ‘Medeniyet’in Dönüşümü [Transformation of ‘civilization’ in the witness of translation]. Istanbul: Diye.
52. 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.
53. Karadağ, Ayşe Banu. 2019. “Çeviri Yoluyla Geçmiş, Şimdi ve Gelecek Arasında Köprüler Kurmak.” [Building bridges between the past, present and future through translation.] In Çeviribilimde Araştırmalar [Research in Translation Studies], edited by Seda Taş, 31–58. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
54. Karas, Hilla. 2020. “Intelligibility and the Reception of Translations.” Perspectives 28 (1): 24–42. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2019.1612929.
55. Kim, Kyung Hye. 2017. “Retranslation as a Socially Engaged Activity: The Case of The Rape of Nanking.” Perspectives 26 (3): 391–404. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2017.1388413.
56. Konca, İrem. 2019. “The Turkish Retranslations of Marx’s Das Kapital as a Site of Intellectual and Ideological Struggle.” In Studies from a Retranslation Culture: The Turkish Context, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 81–94. Singapore: Springer.
57. Koskinen, Kaisa. 2019. “Revising and Retranslating.” In The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation, edited by Kelly Washbourne and Ben Van Wyke. London: Routledge. Google Book.
58. Koskinen, Kaisa, and Outi Paloposki. 2010. “Retranslation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 1:294–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
59. Krishnamurthy, Ramesh. 2011. “Indian Tradition.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 449–458. London: Routledge.
60. Kunz, Keneva. 2011. “Icelandic Tradition.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 442–449. London: Routledge.
61. Leatherbarrow, William J. 2002. Review of Retelling Dostoyevsky: Literary Responses and Other Observations, by Gary Adelman. The Modern Language Review 97 (3): 780–781. doi:10.2307/3737585.
62. Marin-Lacarta, Maialen. 2017. 2017. “Indirectness in Literary Translation: Methodological Possibilities.” In “Indirect Translation: Theoretical, Methodological and Terminological Issues,” edited by Alexandra Assis Rosa, Hanna Pięta, and Rita Bueno Maia. Special Issue, Translation Studies 10 (2): 133–149. doi:10.1080/14781700.2017.1286255.
63. McGregor Kendal, Gordon. 2008. “Translation as Creative Retelling: Constituents, Patterning and Shift in Gavin Douglas’ Eneados.” PhD diss., University of St. Andrews.
64. Mehtonen, P. M., and Jussi-Pekka Hakkarainen. 2013. “Retelling The Kalevala: From Martin Buber’s Mysticism to Third Reich Cultural Politics.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 87 (1): 123–139. doi:10.1007/BF03375854.
65. Mørup Hansen, Susanne. 2005. “Hans Christian Andersen – Told for Children.” Perspectives 13 (3): 163–177. doi:10.1080/09076760508668989.
66. Mossop, Brian. 2016. “‘Intralingual Translation’: A Desirable Concept?” Across Languages and Cultures 17 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1556/084.2016.17.1.1.
67. Oittinen, Riitta. 2008. “From Thumbelina to Winnie-the-Pooh: Pictures, Words, and Sounds in Translation.” Meta 53 (1): 76–89. doi:10.7202/017975ar.
68. Onega, Susan. 1996. “Interview with Peter Ackroyd.” Twentieth Century Literature 42 (2): 208–220. doi:10.2307/441734.
69. Öner, Senem. 2008. “Folk Songs, Translation and the Question of (Pseudo-)Originals.” The Translator 14 (2): 229–246. doi:10.1080/13556509.2008.10799257.
70. Öner, Senem. 2013. “Translator: Expert of ‘What’? Translator Training and the Changing/Changeful Identity of the Translator.” In “English Studies.” Special Issue, Journal of History Culture and Art Research 2 (2): 69–78. doi:10.7596/taksad.v2i2.232.
71. Öner Bulut, Senem. 2018. “Sadakat-Merkezli Çeviri Söylemini Lacancı Psikanaliz Çerçevesinde Yeniden Düşünmek.” [Re-thinking faithfulness-centered translation discourse through Lacanian psychoanalysis.] In “1st International Rumeli Symposium [Language, Literature, Translation],” edited by Yakup Yılmaz and Fatih Başpınar. Special Issue, RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, no. 4, 266–273. doi:10.29000/rumelide.454277.
72. Özmen, Ceyda. 2019. “Retranslating in a Censorial Context: H. C. Armstrong’s Grey Wolf in Turkish.” In Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 45–64. New York: Routledge.
73. Öztürk Baydere, Hilal. 2018. “The Canterbury Tales’in İngilizce ve Türkçedeki Çeviri Macerasını Yeniden Düşünmek.” [Revisiting the translational adventure of The Canterbury Tales in English and Turkish.] Paper presented at Enriching Translation Studies through Rereadings Symposium, Istanbul, March 28.
74. 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.
75. Pagello, Federico. 2013. “A. J. Raffles and Arsène Lupin in Literature, Theatre, and Film: On the Transnational Adaptations of Popular Fiction (1905–30).” Adaptation 6 (3): 268–282. doi:10.1093/adaptation/apt002.
76. 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.
77. Perteghella, Manuela. 2013. “Translation as Creative Writing.” In A Companion to Creative Writing, edited by Graeme Harper, 195–212. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
78. Pięta, Hanna. 2014. “What Do (We Think) We Know about Indirectness in Literary Translation? A Tentative Review of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Research Avenues.” In Traducció Indirecta En La Literatura Catalana [Indirect translation in Catalan literature], edited by Ivan Garcia Sala, Diana Sanz Roig, and Bozena Zaboklicka, 15–34. Lleida: Punctum.
79. Pięta, Hanna. 2017. “Theoretical, Methodological and Terminological Issues in Researching Indirect Translation: A Critical Annotated Bibliography.” In “Indirect Translation: Theoretical, Methodological and Terminological Issues,” edited by Alexandra Assis Rosa, Hanna Pięta, and Rita Bueno Maia. Special Issue, Translation Studies 10 (2): 198–216. doi:10.1080/14781700.2017.1285248.
80. Pimentel, Marcia. 1998. “The Give and Take of Retelling: Translating La Mujer Desnuda.” Translation Review 56 (1): 49–53. doi:10.1080/07374836.1998.10523731.
81. Pym, Anthony. 2011. “Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments of Perplexity and Dispute.” In Translation Research Projects, edited by Anthony Pym, 3:75–110. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
82. Ralarala, Monwabisi K. 2014. “Transpreters’ Translations of Complainants’ Narratives as Evidence: Whose Version Goes to Court?” The Translator 20 (3): 377–395. doi:10.1080/13556509.2014.934002.
83. Reis, Huriye. 2001. “The Canterbury Tales in Turkish: A Cultural Translation.” Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, no. 11, 47–58. http://fs.hacettepe.edu.tr/ceviribilim/dosyalar/sayilar/2001.pdf.
84. Ringmar, Martin. 2012. “Relay Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 3:141–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
85. Rogers, Byron. 2009. “Instead of the Poem.” The Spectator. May 13. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/05/instead-of-the-poem/.
86. Rosa, Alexandra Assis, Hanna Pięta, and Rita Bueno Maia. 2017. “Theoretical, Methodological and Terminological Issues Regarding Indirect Translation: An Overview.” In “Indirect Translation: Theoretical, Methodological and Terminological Issues,” edited by Alexandra Assis Rosa, Hanna Pięta, and Rita Bueno Maia. Special Issue, Translation Studies 10 (2): 113–132. doi:10.1080/14781700.2017.1285247.
87. Screnock, John. 2018. “Is Rewriting Translation? Chronicles and Jubilees in Light of Intralingual Translation.” Vetus Testamentum 68 (3): 475–504. doi:10.1163/15685330-12341296.
88. Shuttleworth, Mark, and Moira Cowie. (1997) 2014. Dictionary of Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
89. Špirk, Jaroslav. 2011. “Ideology, Censorship, Indirect Translations and Non-Translation: Czech Literature in 20th-Century Portugal.” PhD diss., Charles University.
90. Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. 2011. “Retranslation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 233–236. London: Routledge.
91. Tellioğlu, Banu. 2019. “Özgünün Kökeni ve Çeviride Telif Hakları Meselesi.” [The origin of the original and the issue of translation copyright.] In Çeviribilimde Araştırmalar [Research in Translation Studies], edited by Seda Taş, 123–148. Istanbul: Hiperyayın.
92. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies — and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
93. Tymoczko, Maria. 2014. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. London: Routledge.
94. Van Poucke, Piet. 2019. “Retranslation History and Its Contribution to Translation History: The Case of Russian-Dutch Retranslation.” In Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 195–211. New York: Routledge.
95. Wakabayashi, Judy. 2011. “Fictional Representations of Author-Translator Relationships.” Translation Studies 4 (1): 87–102. doi:10.1080/14781700.2011.528684.
96. Wakabayashi, Judy. 2012. “Secular Translation: Asian Perspectives.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Kirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PDF e-book.
97. Washbourne, Kelly. 2013. “Nonlinear Narratives: Paths of Indirect and Relay Translation.” Meta 58 (3): 607–625. doi:10.7202/1025054ar.
98. Widman, Julieta. 2019. “Translation Modalities Method in Retranslation Analysis: A Paixão Segundo G. H. in English.” In Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 148–165. New York: Routledge.
99. Wong, Laurence. 1998. “Lin Shu’s Story-Retelling as Shown in His Chinese Translation of La Dame aux Camélias.” Babel 44 (3): 208–233. doi:10.1075/babel.44.3.03won.
100. Woodsworth, Judith. 2012. “Translators and the Emergence of National Literatures.” In Translators through History, edited by Jean Delisle, 61–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
101. Zethsen, Karen Korning. 2018. “Access is not the Same as Understanding. Why Intralingual Translation is Crucial in a World of Information Overload.” Across Languages and Cultures 19 (1): 79–98. doi:10.1556/084.2018.19.1.4.
102. 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.
103. Ziemann, Zofia. 2019. “Extratextual Factors Shaping Preconceptions About Retranslation: Bruno Schulz in English.” In Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, 87–103. New York: Routledge.