![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper addresses a relatively little explored area of Turkish literary translation history and sets out to contextualize a series of alternative translation practices previously expressed as “marginal” forms of translation. These practices are instances of textual production that can be classified neither as translation proper nor as indigenous creation: they are mainly concealed translation and pseudotranslations. The study argues that marginal forms of translation offer information regarding the literary habitus of readers in Turkey, and suggests that the second half of the twentieth century saw a transformation in this habitus which can be traced through the shifts in the use and presentation of concealed translations and pseudotranslations. After providing a historical overview of the use of such translations as a cultural and commercial tool by Turkish writers and publishers, the paper discusses two recent cases which defy established perceptions about pseudotranslations.
Notes
1. The term “translation proper” is not used to highlight accuracy, faithfulness or close adherence to the norms of a given source text but implies an interlingual act of translation involving a cultural and textual operation based on a known source text.
2. In this paper, the concept of “literary habitus” is used to refer to a set of internalized dispositions to read and discuss literature in a specific way, dispositions that can change over time.
3. I avoid using adaptation as a distinct category because I believe its separation from translation creates a false category. Adaptations also involve a source text as their point of departure and a textual transfer operation also takes place – which makes them translations par excellence.
4. All translations from Turkish are mine.
5. For a discussion of these terms and various examples of Turkish authors and poets “inspired” or “influenced” by Western literature, see Yetik Citation2005.
6. For a detailed study of this translation, see Tahir Gürçağlar Citation2001.
7. Müge Işiklar Koçak's impressive findings in her 2007 PhD dissertation are worthy of a separate study. Her work is a pioneering project on marginal translation activities outside the field of literature. She studied non-literary indigenous texts written for/on women in Turkey in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and identified various concealed and pseudotranslations on the topic of women's sexuality. Işiklar Koçak concludes that “when the full range of translations (those lacking in fullness, pseudotranslations, compilative and concealed translations) are compared with indigenous texts, it becomes clear that translators were less constrained than indigenous writers in expressing themselves and created a freer discourse of their own in the early republican period” (Işiklar Koçak 2007, iii).
8. The real author was officially disclosed in 1988 in an interview with Yeğinobali in Cumhuriyet (Bengi-Öner 1999, 41); Yeğinobali's name was given as the author (with “Vincent Ewing” in parenthesis) in Can Yayinevi's 2003 edition.
9. In terms of content, Öztürk Kasar's study of the textual differences between the two versions reveals that the change in the title is also indicative of a change in the novel's mood (Citation2009).
10. Bengi-Öner links this delayed reaction to the novel's status with the changes taking place in the Turkish literary system, while Yeğinobali also suggests that the rise in the status of original novels, which had been largely overshadowed by the popularity of translated literature in the 1950s, may have been instrumental in shaping readers' views of pseudotranslation (Bengi-Öner 1999, 41). Öztürk Kasar connects both the re-publication of Eflatun Kiz as an indigenous novel and Yeğinobali's 1980s disclosure of the pseudotranslated status of Genç Kizlar to the rising feminist movement in Turkey during that decade (2009, 9).
11. F.M. are Spillane's initials, while “Ikinci” means “the second”.
12. These books were all published in 1954 and were Kanun Benim [I, the Jury], Kahreden Kurşun [My Gun is Quick], Kanli Takip [Vengeance is Mine], Intikam Pençesi [The Big Kill], Son Çiğlik [Kiss Me Deadly].
13. Derini Yüzeceğim [I Will Skin You], Ecel Saati [The Deadly Watch], Kara Nâra [The Black Scream] and Kiran Kirana [The Ruthless Fight], published in 1954 and 1955.
15. This appears to be the only pseudotranslation in Nesin's long writing career and has not yet attracted the interest of literary or translation researchers. More pseudotranslations may be found in the future if more of his pseudonyms are revealed.
16. The refusal indicates that the company was acting out of ethical concerns not present some decades earlier.
17. “şiir ve Nasip”, lecture given at the Cunda Workshop for Translators of Turkish Literature, 8 June 2006.
18. “La tradición de las seudotraducciones no ha muerto. Y yo espero que tenga aún muy larga vida”.