(Non-)/Conformity In Translation: Who (Non-)/Conforms To What, When, How And Why?

Tam metin

(1)

T.C.

İSTANBUL 29 MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ

SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ

ÇEVİRİBİLİM ANABİLİM DALI

ÇEVİRİDE RİAYET ETME(ME):

KİM NEYE, NE ZAMAN, NASIL VE NİÇİN RİAYET

EDİYOR/ETMİYOR?

(NON-)/CONFORMITY IN TRANSLATION:

WHO (NON-)/CONFORMS TO WHAT, WHEN, HOW

AND WHY?

(YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ)

Kadir İlbey ÇAKIROĞLU

Danışman:

Prof. Dr. Işın ÖNER

İSTANBUL

2018

(2)
(3)

T.C.

İSTANBUL 29 MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ

ÇEVİRİBİLİM ANABİLİM DALI

ÇEVİRİDE RİAYET ETME(ME):

KİM NEYE, NE ZAMAN, NASIL VE NİÇİN RİAYET

EDİYOR/ETMİYOR?

(NON-)/CONFORMITY IN TRANSLATION:

WHO (NON-)/CONFORMS TO WHAT, WHEN, HOW

AND WHY?

(YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ)

Kadir İlbey ÇAKIROĞLU

Danışman: Prof. Dr. Işın ÖNER

İSTANBUL 2018

(4)

T. C.

İSTANBUL 29 MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ

SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ MÜDÜRLÜĞÜNE

Çeviribilim Anabilim Dalı, Çeviribilim Bilim Dalı’nda 010514YL07 numaralı Kadir İlbey Çakıroğlu’nun hazırladığı “(Non-)/Conformity in Translation: Who (Non-)/Conforms to What, When, How and Why?” konulu yüksek lisans tezi ile ilgili tez savunma sınavı, 02/10/2018 günü 14:00 – 16: 00 saatleri arasında yapılmış, sorulan sorulara alınan cevaplar sonunda adayın tezinin başarılı olduğuna oy birliği ile karar verilmiştir.

Prof. Dr. Işın ÖNER İstanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi

Prof. Dr. Ayşe Banu KARADAĞ Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi (Tez Danışmanı ve Sınav Komisyonu Başkanı)

Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Nilüfer ALİMEN İstanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi

(5)

BEYAN

Bu tezin yazılmasında bilimsel ahlak kurallarını uyulduğunu, başkalarının eserlerinden yararlanılması durumunda bilimsel normlara uygun olarak atıfta bulunulduğunu, kullanılan verilerde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmadığını, tezin herhangi bir kısmının bu üniversite veya başka bir üniversitede başka bir tez çalışması olarak sunulmadığını beyan ederim.

Kadir İlbey ÇAKIROĞLU

(6)

ÖZ

Çeviride Riayet Etme(me): Kim Neye, Ne Zaman, Nasıl ve Niçin Riayet Ediyor/Etmiyor? 1970’lerde çeviri alanında yaşanan paradigma değişikliği ile Çeviribilim alanındaki birçok kavram ya değişikliğe uğradı ya da yeni kavramlar ile değiştirildi. Değişen ve yenilenen kavramlardan bir tanesi de çeviride riayet etme veya etmeme kavramlarıdır. Yenilenen çeviride riayet etme(me) kavramı, diğer kavramlarla birlikte çeviriye ve çeviribilime birçok yenilik getirmiştir ve alanın gelişimine katkıda bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, bu kavramların çeviri eğitiminde de aktif olarak kullanılması önerilmiş ve ilgili kavramlar zamanla kullanılmaya başlamışlardır, Fakat, bu kuramlar ve kavramlar farklı akademisyenler tarafından birçok farklı açıdan eleştirilmişlerdir. Bu eleştirilerin haklı yönleri olsa da, eleştiriler riayet etme(me) kavramının kuramsal ve uygulamalı alanda nasıl kullanılabileceği hakkında bilgi vermemektedirler. Bu tez, ilgili çeviri kuramlarını riayet etme(me) açısından incelemekte, bahsedilen eleştirileri sunmakta, bazı çeviri incelemeleriyle de kuramların, kavramların ve eleştirilerin geçerliğini sorgulamaktadır. Sonuç olarak da yapılan incelemeler ışığında çeviri eğitimi açısından birkaç öneri sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Sözcükler:

(7)

ABSTRACT

(Non-)/Conformity in Translation: Who (Non-)/Conforms to What, When, How and Why?

With the paradigm shift that happened in translation in the ‘70s, many of the concepts in translation studies have been modified or altogether replaced. One of the concepts that has been introduced to the field is the concept of (non-)conformity. (Non-)Conformity, along with the other concepts, brought about new perspectives to the field and helped improve the field. Additionally, academics suggested that these concepts be used in translator training, and gradually academics and trainers around the world implemented the concepts in their courses. However, the theories and concepts have been criticized from different angles by different scholars. Although the critiques touch upon certain valid points, they don’t offer any implications as to how the theories and the concepts should be further modified. This dissertation analyzes the translation theories in terms of (non-)conformity, presents the criticism directed towards those theories, and in light of certain case studies, questions the validity of both the theories and the criticism. As a result, the dissertation offers certain suggestions into how the concept may be applied to translator training.

Keywords:

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor Prof. Dr. Işın Öner. It was she who introduced me to the endless world of translation, in which I might have easily gotten lost. She enabled this dissertation to become a reality. I am forever indebted to her.

I also wish to express my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Ayşe Banu Karadağ. Her critical thinking, attention to detail and invaluable suggestions helped shape my perspective and this dissertation.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank examining committee member Dr. Nilüfer Alimen for her help and support throughout the course of my studies and this dissertation.

(9)

Table of Contents

Tez Onay Sayfası ... ii

Beyan ... iii

Öz ... iv

Abstract ...v

Acknowledgements ... vi

Introduction ...1

1 A QUICK PEEK INTO THE HISTORY OF TRANSLATION ...3

1.1 From Prescriptivism to Descriptivism in Translation Studies...3

1.2 The Concept of (Non-)Conformity ...8

2 THEORETICAL ACCOUNTS ...9

2.1 (Non-)Conformity in Gideon Toury ...9

2.2 (Non-)Conformity in André Lefevere ...14

2.3 (Non-)Conformity in Andrew Chesterman ...16

3 (NON-)CONFORMITY IN TRANSLATOR TRAINING ... 19

4 CRITICISM...22

4.1 Criticism by Theo Hermans ...22

4.2 Criticism by Edwin Gentzler ...24

5 PROBLEMS ...28

5.1 (Non-)Conformity: Laying Down the Problems ...28

5.2 Polarization ...28 5.3 Abstraction ...28 5.4 Depersonalization ...29 5.5 Presumptive/Foregone Products ...29 5.6 Monistic ...29 6 CASES ...30

6.1 Case 1: A Conflict between Turkey and Russia ...30

6.1.1 The Political Climate ...31

6.1.2 News Coverage by NTV ...32

6.1.3 News Coverage by Sözcü ...32

(10)

6.1.5 An Opinion Column by Yaşar Nuri Öztürk ...35

6.1.6 (Non-)Conformity in Media Translation ...36

6.2 Case 2: William Blake’s A Divine Image and Translating Poetry ...40

6.2.1 William Blake the Person ...40

6.2.2 William Blake the Poet ...41

6.2.3 A Critical Analysis of A Divine Image ...42

6.2.4 A Textual Analysis of A Divine Image...43

6.2.5 Two Translations of A Divine Image into Turkish ...45

6.2.6 (Non-)Conformity in Poetry Translation ...49

7 SOLUTIONS ...51

7.1 Theory and Practice or Theory into Practice? ...51

7.2 (Non-)Conformity: Undercutting the Problems and a Few Suggestions ...54

7.2.1 From Polarization to a Spectrum ...54

7.2.2 From Abstraction to Reality ...54

7.2.3 From Depersonalization to Personalization ...55

7.2.4 From Foregone Products to Uncertainty ...55

7.2.5 From Monism to Pluralism ...56

8 CONCLUSIONS ...57

REFERENCES ...58

FIGURES ...66

APPENDIX ...70

(11)

(Non-)/Conformity in Translation: Who (Non-)/Conforms to What,

When, How and Why?

Introduction

The meta-discourse, as in how things happen or should happen, on translation has changed drastically over the last few decades. The biggest reason for this change is undoubtedly the foundation of the academic field, translation studies. For centuries, from Cicero and Horace to Dryden up to the 20th and 21st centuries, the discussions on translation revolved around certain concepts such as “word for word translation”, “literal translation”, “sense for sense translation”, or “free translation”. Translators tried to explain themselves and justify their choices while critics tried to set the rules for all translations, decided how translations should be done and dismissed the translations which were not done according to their rules. Perhaps, to some extent, this trend is still living on. With translation studies, however, this prescriptive approach, which reigned supreme for centuries, by and large left its place to other approaches, one of them being the descriptive approach. The shift from prescriptivism to descriptivism brought the awareness that the decisions taken during a translation process may vary depending on certain factors and both the decisions taken and factors affecting translations are worth studying. The descriptive approach, in short, modified the existing concepts in translation, introduced new concepts and opened up a whole new series of discussions. One of the newer concepts that was introduced with translation studies is “conformity” and “non-conformity” and it has been widely used in many branches of translation studies, especially in translator training. The present dissertation will revolve around the concept of (non-)conformity and its application to translator training.

In the first part, I will cover the shift from prescriptive to descriptive approaches and how the concept of (non-)conformity came into being in translation. The second part will present certain theoretical accounts regarding (non-)conformity, namely by Gideon Toury, André Lefevere and Andrew Chesterman which will be followed by the third part, in which

(12)

I will present the application of the concept. In the fourth part, I will present the criticism directed towards the foundations and the application of the concept. In part five, I’ll list the problems that might arise in light of the direct or indirect criticism towards (non-)conformity. In part six, I will question both the theories and the criticism towards those theories through analyzing certain translation cases. In part seven, I will put both the theories and criticism on a scale according to my findings and offer certain suggestions towards the application of (non-)conformity. Finally, in the last part, I will conclude my dissertation.

(13)

1 A QUICK PEEK INTO THE HISTORY OF TRANSLATION 1.1 From Prescriptivism to Descriptivism in Translation Studies

If one is to investigate the history of translation and translation theory, one common aspect will strike attention, that is, how, throughout centuries, people of eminence prescribed rules for translation. One of the earliest examples of this can be seen in Cicero1, who is considered to be the first person to formulate translation theories. In his Translating Greek

Orations into Latin (Cicero 55 BC) and Translating Greek Philosophy into Latin (Cicero

45 BC), he emphasizes fidelity and he clearly opposes direct translation and encourages people to make use of sense for sense translation. Cicero’s contemporary, Horace2, who

shared similar views on translation with Cicero, mostly focuses on the “faithfulness” of the translators but at the same time advocates “sense for sense” translation as it can be seen in his Imitating in Your Own Words (Horace 20 BC).

Jerome3, who “was revered throughout the Middle Ages and (by Catholics) well into the modern era as the ‘official’ translator of the Bible” (Robinson 2014, 23), is considered to be one of the most influential translation theorists in the western world. Until Jerome, Cicero’s theories on translation were widely accepted and Jerome’s theory marks the first shift in translation theory. His theory, despite still including elements of Ciceronian theory, focused on “the accurate transmission of the meaning of the text rather than the budding orator’s freely ranging imitation.” (Robinson 2014, 24). Jerome and Rufinus, both translators and theologians and once friends, had a bitter clash on theological and translational matters which eventually went to court several times4. In a letter to Pammachius titled as On the Art of Translation, Jerome defends himself against accusations and says:

1 Cicero (106 BC- 43 BC) was a Roman politician, orator, lawyer, and theorist. He mainly translated Greek

philosophers into Latin and introduced them to the Roman Empire.

2 Horace (65 BC – 8 BC) was a Roman poet. He was very influential on literary matters during his time. 3 Saint Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, 347-420) was a priest, theologian and historian. He was

and has been one of the most influential personas in the Christian world.

4 For more information about the incident, see. Chadwick, Henry. 2001. “Jerome and Rufinus: Controversy

(14)

So now my enemies tell the uneducated Christian crowd that Jerome falsified the original letter, that Jerome has not translated word for

word, that Jerome has written ‘beloved friend’ in place of ‘honorable

Sir’, and that – more disgraceful still! – Jerome has maliciously condensed by omitting the epithet ‘most reverend’. These, and similar trifles, constitute my criminal acts. (Carroll 1956, 132) (italics mine)

From Jerome’s words, it can easily be inferred that at that time, word for word translation was considered the most suitable way of translating and strong deviations from that method were considered a crime. Jerome goes on to explain his approach to translation by saying “I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from the Greek – except of course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery – I render, not word for word, but sense for sense.” (Carroll 1956, 136-137) He, then, quotes Cicero and Horace to back up his approach. Jerome’s approach to translation was widely accepted in those times and was ‘obviously’ the correct way because the church continued to pay for his translations.

In the early Renaissance, Leonardo Bruni5 outlines his theory of translation in his

On the Correct Way to Translate as i) the whole essence of translation is to transfer

correctly what is written in one language into another language ii) translators must have a full (wide, idiomatic, accurate, detailed) knowledge of the language to be translated iii) translators must have full grasp of the language into which they translate so that they can translate word for word when it is necessary iv) translators must have a sound ear so that their translations do not disturb and destroy the rhythm of the original work. (Bruni 1424) If anything, what changes in the early Renaissance is that the theories become more structural, more essentialist and eventually more prescriptive.

5 Leonardo Bruni (1370-1444) was an Italian politician, historian and translator. He occupied one of the

(15)

The first acknowledged systematic translation theory, however, would be formulated two centuries later by John Dryden6. He offers three types of translation. Those, he says, are “Metaphrase or turning an author word by word and line by line”, “paraphrase or translation with latitude, where the author is kept in view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly followed as his sense” and “imitation, where the translator (if now he has not lost that name) assumes liberty, not only to vary from the words and sense, but to forsake them both as he sees occasion and taking only some general hints from the original.” (Dryden 1680) Dryden then quotes the likes of Horace and gives practical examples to support his theory, trying to show everyone that his points are indeed valid. Given the fact that he is widely acknowledged as the first systematic translation theorist, it is safe to say that he was quite influential during his time and for some time after.

More recently, Friedrich Schleiermacher7, who influenced modern day translation scholars such as Lawrence Venuti and George Steiner, has been a cornerstone in translation and translation theory. He is considered to be one of the founders of hermeneutics and higher criticism8. Douglas Robinson says that Schleiermacher had priceless contributions to the romantic translation theory. His “On the Different Methods of Translation” is the most crucial document of romantic translation theory, and its effect spread throughout the Western world. Schleiermacher’s dualistic point of view, bringing the reader to the author, or training the target-language readership to accept the “foreign” was instrumental for the theories and theoreticians that followed. (cf. Robinson 2014, 225)

In his theory, Schleiermacher discusses concepts such as the culture(s), language(s) and inter-relations between the two. His vision and theory roughly boil down to either bringing the author to the reader or bringing the reader to the author. (cf. Schleiermacher

6 John Dryden (1631-1700) was an English poet, dramatist, translator and critic. He heavily influenced

English literature in the 17th and 18th century.

7 Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was a German philosopher, theologian and biblical scholar. He was

very influential in the field of criticism.

8 Merriam-Webster defines higher criticism as the study of biblical writings to determine their literary history

(16)

2012, 43-63) Schleiermacher is the first translation theoretician to extensively integrate cultural factors as well as the linguistic factors into translation phenomena and in this respect, his translation theory can be viewed as another turning point in the history of translation.

As it can be seen, even a quick glance into history shows that as time passed, translation theories changed, evolved, expanded and got more complicated. However, at their cores, the concepts such as word for word translation vs sense for sense translation, faithful translation vs free translation remained more or less the same. Essentially, the concepts used in different theories prescribed certain rules. It was not until the mid-1900s that arguably the biggest turning point in translation, which marked the shift from prescriptivism to descriptivism, happened.

It is surely beyond doubt that the seeds of the descriptive approach in translation were first laid by James S. Holmes9. Drawing the map of translation studies (figure 1) as an autonomous academic field, he emphasized the fact that translation studies is indeed an empirical discipline and as with all such empirical disciplines, it needs to establish a fully functional descriptive branch, which he named as descriptive translation studies (DTS). (cf. Holmes 2000, 175-176) Holmes’ map actually reflects a certain need, which was the need of founding a new academic field, that had arisen at the time in the academia. It is possible to say that his work was the conclusion of the cumulative efforts of the likes of Roman Jakobson10, Eugene Nida11 and Jiří Levý 12 and other Czech scholars. Holmes’ call for a new academic field was certainly answered by many scholars around the world. Among the scholars who answered the call, one particular group, which was later named as the manipulation school/group, stood out. In a collection of papers they published which is titled as The Manipulation of Literature, Theo Hermans describes their approach as the

9 James S. Holmes is an American-Dutch poet, translator, and translation scholar. His “The Name and Nature

of Translation Studies” is widely considered to be the founding paper of translation studies as a legitimate field of study.

10 For more information, see. Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” 11 For more information, see. Nida, Eugene. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating.

(17)

group having “… a view of literature as a complex and dynamic system; a conviction that there should be a continual interplay between theoretical models and practical case studies, an approach to literary translation which is descriptive, target-oriented, functional and systemic…” (Hermans 1985, 10-11) The main difference the group brought to translation was that instead of prescribing rules and theorizing translation around “how it should be”, they desired to theorize translation around “how it actually is”. They were so influential with that desire that their name, “the manipulation school”, was identified with arguably the biggest paradigm shift in the history of translation: the shift from prescriptive to descriptive approach. What made them so influential was that they took a big step towards actualizing Holmes’s vision for a new academic field and they did so by coming up with a whole series of new theories based on the descriptive approach, which were fundamentally different than the previous ones. Naturally, with new theories came along new concepts and perspectives which, in turn, caused the pool of concepts used in translation theories to expand exponentially, like it had never done before at any given point in time.

Figure 1 Holmes' map of Translation Studies (adopted from Toury)

Essentially, translation phenomenon has always been omnitemporal, has a history that goes back as far as civilizations go back. Many more esteemed scholars, thinkers and practitioners than I mentioned here in this chapter have questioned the nature of translation. Since the generally assumed point of view in translation had been prescriptive up until the mid-20th century, no matter how valuable the contributions by scholars were, they were

(18)

quite limited. This limitation also confined scholars to revolving around the same concepts, with little to no difference in different theories that reflect their own understanding of translation phenomena. However, with the descriptive approach the existing concepts were modified according to the new needs, brand new concepts were introduced, and a whole new series of discussions were opened up. In the next chapter, I will examine one of the concepts introduced by the descriptive approach.

1.2 The Concept of (Non-)Conformity

The paradigm shift, mentioned in the previous chapter, brought along new lines of questionings. For the scholars who assumed a descriptive approach, there were not “poorly done” translations or “praiseworthy” translation, there were just “translations”, the mere existence of which made them a valid object of study. So as to account for translations, they needed new tools suitable for their approach and its needs.

Most of the theorists wanted to explain the decisions taken during a translation process and in order to do so, they first put translations in broader contexts such as historical, socio-cultural, socio-political, discursive and literary contexts. This led them to be able to make connections between the decisions, their causes/effects and the contexts. One of the tools that helped them make those connections was the concept of conformity and non-conformity. Some of the theorists used the notion literally, some of them conceptualized it within their theory’s scope, some of them connected it to different contexts, but, nevertheless it played an essential role in explaining translations. Beyond that, over time, its use went beyond the theories and descriptive studies and found its way into the applied fields of translation studies such as translation criticism and translator training. In the next part of my dissertation, I will present three theories, which I believe to be very influential in translation studies, in general and analyze how they make use of the concept (non-)conformity in specific.

(19)

2 THEORETICAL ACCOUNTS

2.1 (Non-)Conformity in Gideon Toury

This chapter will be about Gideon Toury’s translation theory and how he uses the concept of (non-)conformity in his theory. However, it is often thought that Toury’s theory goes hand in hand with Itamar Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory. Therefore, with the purpose of understanding Toury’s theory and its concepts in full, I would like to mention Itamar Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory before I start analyzing Toury’s.

With its original formulation in the early ’70s and influenced by the works of the Geneva School on one hand and Russian Formalists and Czech Structuralists on the other, Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory argues that a system consists of both synchrony and diachrony, and each of these is also a system in their own rights. Therefore, polysystem is not a homogeneous or a unified system but “a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersect with each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different opinions, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent.” (Even-Zohar 1979, 290)

Even-Zohar mainly concerns himself with the translated literature and, as a result, he puts translated literature under the literary system in his polysystem. He deems translated literature as a crucial part of the literary polysystem and ponders around the concepts of “canonization”, “central” vs. “peripheral” positions and “primary” (innovatory) vs. “secondary” (conservatory) repertoires when discussing the place translated literature occupies in the literary polysystem. (cf. Even-Zohar 1990, 46-47)

Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory enables translations to be studied historically, that is, both synchronically and diachronically, within the literary, cultural, political, social polysystems. Because of the inter-relations and inter-dependencies between each polysystem, the possible conclusions to be drawn seem infinite. In many ways, Gideon Toury makes use of those possibilities in his theory.

(20)

Gideon Toury’s theory goes by many names such as the descriptive theory, the norm theory, or the target-oriented theory. The reason why Toury’s theory has many names is because it is not a partial but a general theory13. To avoid confusion, I’ll refer to it as the target-oriented theory. Toury formulated his target-oriented theory in 1980 and published his work in his book called In Search of a Theory of Translation. In 1995, he published another book called Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, which he describes as “not just a sequel to, but actually a replacement of” his previous book. Therefore, the main source I will use about his theory will be the latter.

Similar to James S. Holmes, Toury sees translation studies as an empirical discipline and step by step structures his theory on that idea. First of, he assigns the branch of descriptive translation studies a pivotal poisition in the field of translation studies. The reason to do so was because Toury believes that the positions and functions of translations, the relationships between the source and target materials, the act of translation, and the strategies adopted while translating are all connected to each other. Therefore, they need to be described to uncover regularities if translation studies is to become a legitimate field of study. (Toury 1995, 23) Unlike Holmes though, who distinctively divides descriptive translation studies into three branches, namely function-oriented, process-oriented and product oriented, on which separate studies and research can be built, Toury assumes an integrated approach towards the sub-branches of descriptive translation studies. He says that “whether an individual study is process-, product-, or function-oriented (and all three types will no doubt always be performed), when it comes to the institutional level, that of the discipline as a whole, the program must aspire to lay bare the interdependencies of all three aspects if we are to gain true insight into the intricacies of translational phenomena, and to do so within one unified (inter)discipline.” (Toury 1995, 11)

13 For further details about partial and general theories in translation studies, see. Holmes, James S. 2000.

(21)

After establishing the inter-dependencies, Toury assumes a target-oriented approach and cultural standpoint towards describing translations. He believes that: i) translations come into being and assume their positions in the target culture/system ii) the activities and products of translation make changes in the target culture/system iii) translations fill gaps in the target culture/system. (cf. Toury 1995, 26-28) However, that’s not to say Toury’s theory completely ignores the source text. On the contrary, Toury believes that while translations come into being and affect the target culture, they tend to deviate from the source text. (Toury 1995, 28) Therefore, the relations between source and target text also have their implications. In other words, Toury claims that translations are “facts” of the target system, they are in a cause/effect relationship within the same system and/or with other systems in the target system, hence descriptive translation studies will yield valuable results and unearth regularities if they are done in the target system and in relation to the target text.

Within that framework, Toury introduces norms as the behavior-governing socio-cultural constraints which also govern translations. Toury puts the socio-socio-cultural constraints that affect the process of translation under two categories, namely absolute rules and pure

idiosyncrasies and say that along that continuum are the governing factors norms which are

intersubjective. (Toury 1995, 54) He, then, mentions two sets of norms on each level, target and source language/culture. These two sets of norms characterize his i) initial norms. Toury asserts that initial norms determine if a translation will be an adequate translation or an acceptable translation. When translators lean towards conforming to the norms of the source text, language and culture, this will result in adequate translations. On the other hand, when translators conform to the norms of the target text, culture and language, this will bear acceptable translations. There are different consequences of adopting either of the stances. For instance, choosing to be acceptable might result in shifting too much from the source text, or choosing to be adequate might result in a conflict between source and target norms. (cf. Toury 1995, 54) (italics mine)

Following initial norms, Toury introduces two more categories of norms: ii) preliminary norms, consisting of translation policy and directness of translation, and iii)

(22)

operational norms, consisting of matricial norms and textual-linguistic norms. Translation policy governs the selection of the texts (or the text types) and the agents playing a certain role in this selection. Directness of translation, very much connected to translation policy, concerns itself about the tolerance for translating from languages other than the original source language. Matricial norms govern the existence of target language material used, its location in the text, its textual segmentation i.e. omissions, additions etc. which eventually leads the researchers to observe the degree of fullness of the text and the norms that shaped the text. Similarly, textual-linguistic norms determine the selection of material to formulate the target text which may be general (applicable to all types of translations) or (applicable to certain types of translations). Toury describes the relationship between them as “it is clear that preliminary norms have both logical and chronological precedence over the operational ones. This is not to say that between the two major groups there are no relationship whatsoever, including mutual influences, or even two-way conditioning. However, these relations are by no means fixed and given, their establishment forms an inseparable part of any study of translation as a norm-governed activity.” (Toury 1995, 59-60)

Toury, moreover, defines the nature of norms as specific to socio-cultures and instable. At a given period of time (that is to emphasize the historical aspect of norms and the translations they govern), he claims, there are “three types of competing norms, each having its own followers and a position in the culture at large: the ones that dominate the center of the system, and hence direct translational behavior of the so-called mainstream, alongside the remnants of the previous set of norms and the rudiment of the new ones, hovering in the periphery.” (Toury 1995, 62-63)

For the interest of this dissertation, the key concept to follow within Toury’s scope is (non-)conformity. Logically, the inclusion of norms in the theory as behavior-governing factors brings out the fact that there will be people reacting differently towards different norms. Essentially, this creates a web of connections between people (in certain socio-cultural systems or sub-systems) and norms, which leads to a reciprocal relationship

(23)

between them. Toury explains it saying that the fact that norms exists bring about a “certain rate of conformity” to them. Nonetheless, this doesn’t necessarily mean the rate of conformity will be the same in any particular translation process, nor that it will reveal any conformity at all. Non-conformity is perfectly possible, being as commonly found as conformity. About the relationship between norms and (non-)conformity, Toury says violating certain norms doesn’t usually result in harsh sanctions. As a result of this, certain violations of norms may gradually become more common and change the governing norms themselves. (cf. Toury 1980, 182)

To explain the rate (degree) of conformity and how to study it statistically within a corpus, Toury introduces three more types of norms which are named as i) primary norms, which are more or less mandatory for all instances of a certain behavior ii) secondary norms, which determine the favorable behavior and are hence common enough but not mandatory, iii) tolerated behavior, which are still positive but a lot less common than the rest and iii-i)symptomatic devices which are even less common than tolerated behavior. (cf. Toury 1995, 67-69)

Overall, Toury’s theory can be described as a very structurally built one. On each level, it offers concepts that can be used in scholarly ways or that can be applied to different branches. I think, Bengi-Oner’s description of Toury’s theory summarizes it in a nutshell:

Thanks to this theory, the focus [in translation studies] shifted from only translation process to a translation process which includes translation products, from only translation problems to translation problems with solutions, from source to target which includes the source, from a point of view limited to synchrony to a diachronic point of view which includes synchrony, from a prescriptive approach to a descriptive approach which includes prescriptive approaches. Therefore, this approach is product-, solution-, and target-oriented, historical, relational, functional, dynamic, systemic and descriptive. (Bengi-Öner 1999, 119) (translation mine)

(24)

2.2 (Non-)Conformity in André Lefevere

André Lefevere, who is a founding member of the manipulation school and its namesake, theorizes translations as forms of refractions/rewritings which are produced under certain sets of constraints. He first formulated it as refractions, but later on dropped that term and adopted rewriting, which is why throughout this chapter Lefevere’s theory will be addressed as rewriting theory.

Rewriting theory, similar to Toury’s target-oriented theory, is systemic. However, its systemic basis is not built upon the polysystem theory. Instead, Lefevere constructs his own literary system, which is neutral, contrived (consisting of texts and agents who read, write and rewrite them), open to other systems, and not deterministic but acts as a set of constraints. Those constraints include two control factors (patronage – powerful persons, institutions and professionals – critics, reviewers, teachers, translators.), poetics, the universe of discourse and ideology on different levels. (cf. Lefevere 1992, 12-20)

According to Lefevere, “patronage” is the power groups that concern themselves with the politics of literary matters. Patronage determines the products that are to be read, written or “rewritten” and plays a regulatory role between theliterary system and the other systems in a given society. (cf. Lefevere 1992, 15) Lefevere also adds that there are three elements to patronage, which interact with each other. Those are i) ideological constraints that determine which texts are to be chosen, along with how, when, and why they come to life ii) economic elements which are regulated by the patrons that determine who be hired, how much they be paid and iii) an element of status which creates a link between patrons and professionals and usually results in professionals adopting a certain lifestyle and integrating themselves into a certain group. (cf. Lefevere 1992, 16-17) Consequently, in this system, patrons oversee the professionals. Professionals work for the patrons, within the limits set by the patrons, and under the conditions provided by the patrons. In a sense, based on their notion of how the system should be, patrons try to shape the whole system

(25)

Poetics, on the other hand, is a code by which a literary system operates. Lefevere conceptualizes poetics as having two components: “one is an inventory of literary devices, genres, motifs, prototypical characters and situations, and symbols; the other a concept of what the role of literature is, or should be, in the social system as a whole.” (Lefevere 1992, 26) The first set of components (functional) and the second set (ideological) are closely interrelated. Two other concepts of poetics that Lefevere mentions are codification and canonization. Lefevere describes codification’s function as “once a poetics is codified, it exerts a tremendeous system-conforming influence on the further development of a literary system.” (Lefevere 1992, 27) whereas, about canonization which is a process included in codification, he says that:

Codification of a poetics also entails the canonization of the output of certain writers whose work is regarded as conforming most closely to the codified poetics. The work of those writers is then propagated as an example for future writers to follow, and it occupies a central position in the teaching of literature. Rewritings tend to play at least as important a part in the establishment of the poetics of a literary system as original writings do. (Lefevere 1992, 28) (italics mine)

Just like the connection between the functional and ideological components of poetics, there is a connection between codification and canonization. A poetics is first codified then it starts carving its place in the system then it starts canonizing certain agents and certain works.

Based on the aforementioned concepts, Lefevere explains translation as having two factors determining the image of a work of literature: i) the translator’s ideology and ii) the dominant poetics in the target culture. (Lefevere 1992, 41) Translators may either accept and embrace a certain ideology or they might have a certain ideology imposed upon them by the patronage. Similarly, the translators may accept and embrace the dominant poetics in

(26)

the target culture or not. All those factors and variables play a role during the translation process and in determining how the end-product will be.

In Lefevere’s rewriting theory and in his literary system, it can be said that on each level there are different components and attached to those components, there are different ideologies and poetics which are battling for power. For different groups, the motive for battle might be different. However, this doesn’t change the fact that there will always be people (patrons, translators, teachers, students, critics, etc.) who will be conforming to a kind of ideology on a certain level, meanwhile, there will always be people

non-conforming.

2.3 (Non-)Conformity in Andrew Chesterman

Andrew Chesterman, influenced by the Darwinian evolution theory and Karl Popper’s philosophy, sets out to build a “Popperian theory of translation”. In doing so, he first carries out a metatheoretical then a theoretical discussion. In his discussions, he uses the concepts of memes, norms, strategy and value. I will refer to his theory as the meme theory.

Chesterman loans the concept “meme” from Charles Dawkins. As genes are the functional units of the DNA, memes are the functional units of cultures. They are born, they evolve, procreate, mutate, fight for their survival, and eventually fade. Chesterman argues that there exist certain memes of translation, yet only five of them reach the status of “supermeme”. Those are the source-target supermeme, equivalence supermeme, untranslatability supermeme, free vs. literal supermeme, and all-writing-is-translation supermeme. (cf. Chesterman 1997, 7-14) Within this context, if memes are contemporary translation theories, the supermemes are the overarching theories of translation.

Similar to Toury’s theory, Andrew Chesterman assumes a descriptive approach in his meme theory. He mentions certain norms that regulate translations and puts them under four categories: expectancy norms, accountability norms, communication norms and relation norms. The expectancy norms are the products that are the results of the expectancies of the target language and culture. These norms are dynamic, and are

(27)

time-space based. The professional norms, which are further divided into accountability, communication, and relation norms are the direct results of the expectancy norms. The accountability norm determines how a translator should act in order to meet the demands of the commissioner, of the source-text writer, of his/her readers, or of any other concerned parties. This norm also concerns the ethics and professional standards of the translation process. The communication norms denote how a translator should optimize communication between the parties. This norm concerns the social role of the translators as communicators. The relation norm is about the similarity-based relation between the source and the target text. It is a linguistic norm which is relative and mostly situation based.

Chesterman goes on to say that conforming to those norms or deliberately going against them happens because of some higher priority such as loyalty to some aspect of the source text and ideological conviction or the desire to produce more persuasive texts. He also assumes that norm breaking, as in non-conformity, can become the norm itself in time. In terms of conformity, according to Chesterman, professional translators tend to conform to expectancy, accountability, communication and relation norms. (cf. Chesterman 1997)

Although Toury and Chesterman seemingly make use of the same concepts, their definitions of these concepts are quite different. For instance, Chesterman explicitly says that in his categorization of norms, Toury’s preliminary norms are excluded. He says that “[preliminary norms] are questions of social, cultural and economic policy, perhaps also political policy, and fall outside the main focus [of this book]. The norms that interest me here are those come into play after a client has commissioned a translation, those that guide the translator’s work itself.” (Chesterman 1997, 63) Another difference between Toury’s and Chesterman’s understanding may be observed in their use of language. Whereas Chesterman uses “should” language14 regarding the translation norms, Toury never does so.

This means that in the meme theory, conforming to norms becomes something that is advised to agents, while in the target-oriented theory, it becomes a decision that is made by

(28)

the agents. Therefore, no matter how close both the theories seem, the gap between them in terms of conformity and/or non-conformity is very deep.

(29)

3 (NON-)CONFORMITY IN TRANSLATOR TRAINING

Like the evolution of translation theories that I presented in part 1, translator training has also evolved over the years. Translator training has been institutionalized; thus there are many translation departments at various universities around the world, which are training professional translators using different curriculums. Translating itself has also been standardized15 as a profession, meaning the institutions that are training professional translators should one way or another prepare the prospective translators according to those standards. As might be expected, the institutions and the standards have been making use of different theories of translation that have been constructed over the years. However, in this part, I will break down the use of (non-)conformity as a concept in translator training, limiting it to the theories I presented in part 2.

According to Toury, the ultimate purpose of translator training is to get students to acquire translation competence, or at least develop it. (Toury 1980, 182) To that end, he puts his translational norms at the center of translator training, just like he did in his target-oriented theory. He argues that students of translation need to be introduced to the concept of norms and need to be made aware of the fact that there are indeed certain norms at play in each translation process and students have a decision to make about whether to conform to the norms in question or to non-conform to them. (cf. Toury 1980, 190-191)

Toury then offers a two-phased teaching model (a basic one and a more developed one) in each of which students are asked to do “translation acrobatics” between various degrees of conformism or non-conformism. To reinforce this type of practice, Toury offers two more variations, namely analytical and synthetic. In the analytical form of practice, students are exposed to real-life source texts and translations, and their functions, in the broadest sense, in the target system. After this analytical phase comes the synthetic phase in which students work actually translate real-life source texts according to different target norms. (cf. Toury 1980, 192-194) As a result of such a training process, future translators,

(30)

Toury believes, would develop the necessary free-will to choose between conforming to the existing norms in the target system or not.

André Lefevere himself doesn’t offer a teaching method like Toury, yet he offers valuable insight as to what teaching causes in a given setting. His rewriting theory also combines theory and practice, which allows both the academics and the practitioners to work on the same page.

André Lefevere approaches translator training from a different and a literary perspective and says that formal education of translation, along with translation criticism, perpetuates the canonization of certain works. (Lefevere 1982) In other words, the way that future translators are trained, either to conform or non-conform to certain constraints and values, determines which future translations will be deemed valuable. Moreover, critics who had gone through the education system would internalize certain values, which in turn would govern the way they criticize translations. From a broader perspective, a classroom setting could be built upon the rewriting theory itself. Lefevere states that “Translation is, of course, a rewriting of an original text. All rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of a literature and a society.” (Lefevere 1992, vii) Within that context, if applied to a classroom situation, rewriters would be the students, patronage would be the trainers and the institutions, and ideology and poetics would govern how the relationship between the two would unfold, and what kind of product would emerge as a result of this relationship.

Translator training covers a big part of Andrew Chesterman’s meme theory. One full chapter is dedicated to explaining how to improve translational competence in future translators, and it is very elaborately explained there (Chesterman 1997, 147-167). Firstly, Chesterman adapts Dreyfus and Dreyfus’s artificial intelligence stages to translation competence,namely stages i-v, from novice, advanced beginner, competence, proficiency to expertise. In the novice stage, behavior (translation) is “fully conscious, easily verbalized,

(31)

and atomistic”, in the advanced beginner stage, behavior is “conscious, but less easily verbalized and less atomistic”, in the competence stage, behavior “manifests higher levels of expertise”, in the proficiency stage, behavior is “more intuitive, not atomistic but holistic”, and finally in the expertise stage, behavior is “fully intuitive and nonreflective”. Chesterman argues that by going through certain practice stages, the prospective translators can reach the last stage of expertise. The practice stages he proposes are strictly connected to his memes and norms. Those practice stages are called, respectively, exercises with strategies, exercises on accountability, exercises on the communication norm, exercises on relation norm, and exercises on expectancy norm. Chesterman believes that those exercises would foster the necessary skills to become an expert translator.

Similarly to Toury, Chesterman also emphasizes the importance of awareness regarding the norms and, in a seemingly less flexible manner than of Toury’s, suggests that students need to practice conforming to all types of norms, namely his expectancy, accountability, communication and relation norms in order to be “professional translators”. According to Chesterman, the ultimate goal of those types of exercises would be to develop unconscious, context bound, holistic behavior in translators which would in turn improve their decision making. (cf. Chesterman 1997, 153-158)

(32)

4 CRITICISM

The aforementioned theories and their application to translator training have been utterly enlightening. They expanded the academic field, opened up new lines of discussions, and paved the way for many studies and the development of many teaching models. However, this is not to say that the theories in question have been completely exempt from criticism.

Indeed, the descriptive approaches to translation in general have been questioned from several aspects. Within the purpose of this dissertation, in this part, I’ll mainly present the criticism by Theo Hermans and Edwin Gentzler.

4.1 Criticism by Theo Hermans

Theo Hermans, despite being the editor of the renowned book The Manipulation of

Literature, never really aligned himself with the manipulation movement. He prefaced his

1999 book by saying that he “intends to keep a certain distance from” the descriptive approaches. In the same book, Hermans touches upon many points regarding the descriptive approaches, yet here I’ll select only certain points of his that are in line with my study.

Hermans emphasizes that descriptive approaches are very much systemic and the concepts, including conformity and non-conformity, are of a polarized nature. Referring to the polysystem theory, upon which Toury’s descriptive translation studies is built, and its limitations, Hermans points out that it is not possible for studies that are based on the polysystem theory to avoid the binarism and systematization and this fact leads to several problems. To mention a couple of them, Hermans says that i) studies of a systemic nature are extremely abstract and depersonalized ii) binary methods bring their own creations, in other words they create their own objects and they largely ignore hybrid, unstable, mobile, overlapping and collapsed elements that escape binary classification. (Hermans 1999, 117-120)

(33)

To dig a little bit deeper into Hermans’ views on the matter of descriptive translation studies and systems, he posits that systems - and most everything that comes with them - simply do not exist. This view directly opposes Toury’s “rationale for descriptive translation studies”, which is based upon “exposing the interdependencies of function, product and process” (Toury 1995, 21). The depersonalized aspect of Hermans’ critique also derives from Toury’s explicit focus on function, product and process. According to Hermans, Toury, in his theory, doesn’t centralize the human element and the agents of translation, though they are implied and referred to throughout the theory. Lefevere’s and Chesterman’s theories explicitly refer to agents, the former by the concept of patronage, professionals and their ideologies, the latter by holding translators accountable to ethical and professional standards. However, both Lefevere and Chesterman imply that their theories are systemic16. Therefore, since Hermans directs his criticism

towards everything that is systemic, the rewriting and the meme theories are not exempt from being abstract and depersonalized according to Hermans.

The second point listed as a critique by Hermans is fundamentally more crucial within the context of this study as it relates more to binary concepts such as conformity and non-conformity. Essentially, Hermans argues that binary concepts directly canalize translators and researchers alike to a certain product and more importantly to foregone conclusions. Toury, explains that deciding which products are to be translated is determined by the preliminary norms17. Although he doesn’t refer to a similar concept regarding translation scholars, it can be inferred that translation scholars are also subject to certain norms when deciding which products to study and describe. Additionally, binary concepts don’t have the power to completely “describe” the translational phenomena as they are far too complex and too varied by nature. Therefore, categorizing them means overgeneralizing them. I believe Hermans uses the word “ignore” to point out that systemic and descriptive approaches, and especially binary concepts, misclassify many of the

16 See. chapters 2.2 and 2.3 of this dissertation.

(34)

products. Apparently, Toury’s explanation of rate of conformity18 doesn’t solve the problem for Hermans.

4.2 Criticism by Edwin Gentzler

Edwin Gentzler’s 1990 PhD dissertation named Contemporary Translation Theories, which was later published as a book in 1993 and as a revised edition in 2001, compiles and discusses translation theories from ‘70s and onward. Gentzler gets his hands on five theories called the translation workshop, the science of translation, early translation studies, polysystem theory, and deconstruction. Within the purpose of this study, I’ll only deal with his presentation and criticism of early translation studies and polysystem theory.

Gentzler characterizes translation studies as a translation theory (or a paradigm), as opposed to most scholars characterizing it as a new and autonomous field. This categorization signifies a fundamental difference in how Gentzler approaches to translation theories. He then divides translation studies into two periods. The first period is early translation studies, which include the works of James S. Holmes, Jiří Levý, Anton Popovič, André Lefevere, Raymond Van den Broeck. The second one is polysystem theory, which mainly focuses on the works of Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury.

To begin with, Gentzler pays due homage to contemporary translation theorists. He acknowledges the crucial work translation theorists have done yet he doesn’t back down from criticizing the structural and hierarchical nature of their theories either. Referring to his categorization of early translation studies and the related scholars, Gentzler says that the problem in their approach was that “they foregrounded the internal organization of the text and its inherent framework to such a degree that the referent totally vanished.” (Gentzler 2001, 98) This comment of Gentzler stems from the different definitions of “function” by early translation studies scholars. Gentzler believes that terms such as equivalence and

function create dichotomies and dichotomies assume phenomena and assign value to

(35)

phenomena that might be misplaced. Referring to the effort by Van den Broeck and Lefevere to consolidate the negative effects of dichotomies, Gentzler puts forward that:

The reason why Van den Broeck wanted to reclaim the terminology of traditional metaphysical philosophy for translation studies was that the new approach, despite attempts to free itself, retained the same form versus content dichotomy that characterized traditional philosophical dualism…While translation scholars deny its [dichotomy’s] validity, the charge that the group concerns itself only with literary translation is to a large degree justifiable. Their emphasis upon the purely formal characteristics presumes the same form/content dualism without theorizing about the relation of the two. If the effectiveness of the formal representation of the object gets translated, then presumably the object itself will be translated as well. Early translation studies claimed a position that was theoretically new and mediatory as opposed to hermeneutic, yet it found itself embedded in and often perpetuating many of the dichotomies of that same metaphysical tradition. (Gentzler 2001, 99)

As most translation scholars do, Gentzler views the works of Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury as being embedded with one another. He recognizes the invaluable work Even-Zohar and Toury put forward by saying that translation studies pushed translation theory forward. Even-Zohar’s definition of “equivalence” and “adequacy” shattered the traditional static understanding of the concepts, and allowed translations to be studied historically. This resulted in the expansion of translation theories beyond linguistic models and literary theories, and paved the way for translation theories to improve without prescriptions. (cf. Gentzler 2001, 123)

(36)

About Toury’s theory, Gentzler comments that certain aspects of Toury’s theory have contributed to the field: These are; (1) the abandonment of one-to-one notions of correspondence as well as the possibility of literary/linguistic equivalence (unless by accident); (2) the involvement of literary tendencies within the target cultural system in the production of any translated text; (3) the destabilization of the notion of an original message with a fixed identity; and (4) the integration of both the original text and the translated text in the semiotic web of intersecting cultural systems. (Gentzler 2001, 131)

However, in parallel with his criticism of early translation studies, Gentzler has several problems with the systemic theories. He refers to translational norms in general and says that “Inescapable infidelity is presumed as a condition of the [translation] process. Translators don’t work in ideal and abstract situations nor desire to be innocent, but have vested literary and cultural interests of their own, and want their work to be accepted within their culture. Thus, they manipulate the source text to inform as well as conform with the existing cultural constraints.” (Gentzler 2001, 131) In other words, he criticizes the fact that norm theories in translation presuppose certain things which might, in reality, be mis-supposed. Gentzler also emphasizes the fact that there is a two-way cause-effect relationship between norms and translators meaning translators are not only affected by constraints but also actively affect them.

Gentzler also claims that Toury’s work is deeply rooted in the polysystem theory and that this causes a tendency towards “pure” formalism. He says that “Toury’s theory evolves from his formalist and structuralist predecessors, and as such carries certain absolute notions that limit the conceptual framework. Toury’s historical model includes numerous other static concepts as well: translated texts are viewed as empirical facts, cultural norms are defined as static, non-contradictory rules influencing the generation of actual texts, and multiple tendencies within historical epochs are reduced to unified behavioral laws.” (Gentzler 2001, 130) This view of Genztler’s on the polysystem theory compliments his overall view on the matter. He believes that the systemic theories are not

(37)

pluralistic, they are limited in what they can explain and describe, and more importantly they can be misleading.

(38)

5 PROBLEMS

5.1 (Non-)Conformity: Laying Down the Problems

The concept of (non-)conformity has been of great use for many descriptive and systemic theories, academic studies, translator trainers, and prospective and professional translators. However, there is a large disparity between the mentioned theories and the criticism directed towards them. This makes the application of those theories to translator training problematic. If the dichotomy of the concept, either having to conform or non-conform, confines future translators to a synthetic reality with fewer options than there actually are, and prescribes the very rules that the descriptive approaches in translation have assertively been opposing, then I believe that the concept itself needs to be revisited and remodified in terms of its application to translator training. In this chapter, according to the critiques, I will list the points that I will be discussing, and the following sections will be strictly about the application of (non-)conformity to translator training. Unless otherwise is mentioned, I will be referring to all the dynamics involved in translation.

5.2 Polarization

When mentioning the concept conformity in translation, immediately its counterpart

non-conformity comes to mind. Also, with them come certain values and expectations19. They create two opposing poles and by their nature they create two options. In a classroom setting, these polarized options might essentially govern students in their decision-making process on one hand, and limit their option on the other.

5.3 Abstraction

Since (non-)conformity is not a material product that can be observed and studied, it might be hard for some students to explain and grasp how and why this process happens. In addition to that, the values and expectations might also be difficult to communicate between instructors and students. Since values and expectations are also abstract

19 The words value and expectation are used as generic terms here in this chapter. See. part 2 of this

(39)

phenomena, it might be hard for instructors and students to be on the same page since their interpretations of them would not be the same.

5.4 Depersonalization

Disregarding all the other dynamics involved in a translation process, conforming or non-conforming might detach the students from the texts they produce. Instead of questioning and evaluating their own choices in and of themselves as prospective translators, they might examine them only from the perspective of whether they rightfully conformed to expectations or not. This notion might also hinder students from constructing their translator identity and might lead them to question who they are.

5.5 Presumptive/Foregone Products

(Non-)Conformity, by nature, bears products that are preset. Depending on which path the students choose, and again disregarding the other dynamics, even before the translation process or practice is over, one can guess what kind of product will emerge in the end. This might actually be detrimental for students to understand the complex nature of translation.

5.6 Monistic

(Non-)Conformity centralizes the product (or the process, or the agent etc. or multiple of those) and makes way for decision-making and normative judgements from that vantage point. The concept, much like the modernist point of view, doesn’t take into account the pluralistic nature of everyone and everything that revolve around translation. For instance, when a student carries out a translation process and thinks that s/he successfully conformed to certain values and expectations, s/he might not realize that s/he at the same time did not conform to certain other values and expectation in the target context. In other words, due to the monic nature of the concept, students might not realize that, in a single translation process, when conforming on one hand, they non-conform on the other depending on one’s perspective.

(40)

6 CASES

After delving into the theoretical discussions on the concept of (non-)conformity and the critiques by scholars, it is obvious that, as with most theoretical concepts, (non-)conformity itself has a very complex nature. To illustrate this very nature and to gain insight into how the concept can be of use in translator training, I’ll present two cases. The first one, which is of political nature, will be about the news reports of the Russian president Vladimir Putin’s public statements on the downing of the Russian military jet by the Turkish air force. The second one will be on a William Blake poem, A Divine Image, which concerns poetry translation.

6.1 Case 1: A Conflict between Turkey and Russia

On the 24th of November 2015, a Russian military jet was shot down20 near the Turkish-Syrian border by the Turkish Air Force while there was a civil war going on in Syria. As expected, the incident caused huge conflicts between Turkey and Russia, and the news in the press and media of both countries gained more importance during the time. Every day, a huge number of people in Turkey read or watched the news about the conflict and it is possible to say that translation played a crucial role in the aftermath of the incident.

On December 3, 2015 Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, gave a speech in the Russian Parliament, and news channels from all over the world covered it. Hours later, news covering the speech appeared on the websites of Turkish newspapers, immediately translated and served. However, the news on different websites included different parts of Putin’s speech in their news, with different wording and focus.

To put everything into perspective, I’ll now present the political sphere during the incident and then three different samples of the said speech by Putin in three Turkish newspapers and an opinion column. However, it is not my purpose to criticize or judge the

20 For more information about the incident, see. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34912581

Şekil

Figure 1 Holmes' map of Translation Studies (adopted from Toury)

Figure 1

Holmes' map of Translation Studies (adopted from Toury) p.17

Referanslar

  1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34912581
  2. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_125052.htm
  3. https://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/turkiyenin-ucagimizi-dusurmesini-unutmayacagiz,G0j58eWtL0GgSoyIfncEAQ
  4. https://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/turkiyenin-ucagimizi-dusurmesini-unutmayacagiz,G0j58eWtL0GgSoyIfncEAQ
  5. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2015/dunya/putinden-turkiyeye-cok-sert-cikis-1000723/
  6. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2015/dunya/putinden-turkiyeye-cok-sert-cikis-1000723/
  7. www.trsputniknews.com.
  8. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html
  9. https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6604516
  10. https://tr.sputniknews.com/rusya/201512031019440722-putin-federal-meclis/
  11. https://tr.sputniknews.com/rusya/201512031019440722-putin-federal-meclis/
  12. http://www.aydinlikgazete.com/putinin-tek-sozle-baslattigi-devrim-makale,62313.html
  13. http://www.aydinlikgazete.com/putinin-tek-sozle-baslattigi-devrim-makale,62313.html
  14. https://www.ulusal.com.tr/gundem/putin-den-sert-turkiye-aciklamasi-h83388.html
  15. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/putin-turkiye-yaptiklarindan/dunya/detay/2157727/default.htm
  16. https://www.yeniakit.com.tr/haber/putine-sokullu-mehmet-pasa-gondermesi-110851.html
  17. https://www.yeniakit.com.tr/haber/putine-sokullu-mehmet-pasa-gondermesi-110851.html
  18. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html
  19. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/putin-turkiye-yaptiklarindan/dunya/detay/2157727/default.htm
  20. https://www.themorgan.org/collection/William-Blakes-World/181
  21. https://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/turkiyenin-ucagimizi-dusurmesini-unutmayacagiz,G0j58eWtL0GgSoyIfncEAQ
  22. https://tr.sputniknews.com/rusya/201512031019440722-putin-federal-meclis/
  23. https://www.yeniakit.com.tr/haber/putine-sokullu-mehmet-pasa-gondermesi-110851.html
Benzer konular :