Journals / transLogos Translation Studies Journal / 2018 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1

A New (Mis)Conception in the Face of the (Un)Translatable: ‘Terscüme’

Pages
92–120
Publication Date
2018-12-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study concludes that the essentialist perspective on translation may cause the translator to avoid that title and seek to attain visibility under different names for himself/herself and his/her work.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this article is to examine the concept of ‘terscüme,’ a notion recently introduced to the Turkish literary system through the translation of James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, with a focus on the translator’s possible reasons or motives for coining the term.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seventy-seven years after the novel’s completion by Joyce, Finnegans Wake was translated into Turkish twice in 2016, despite lingering doubts and controversy regarding its translatability.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study concludes that the essentialist perspective on translation may cause the translator to avoid that title and seek to attain visibility under different names for himself/herself and his/her work.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:terscüme · untranslatability · translator’s invisibility

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the concept of ‘terscüme,’ a notion recently introduced to the Turkish literary system through the translation of James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, with a focus on the translator’s possible reasons or motives for coining the term. Seventy-seven years after the novel’s completion by Joyce, Finnegans Wake was translated into Turkish twice in 2016, despite lingering doubts and controversy regarding its translatability. Interestingly enough, the first translation titled Finneganın Vahı was released as a ‘terscüme,’ a word derived from the Turkish word tercüme (translation). Having certain negative implications for the work as a translation, ‘terscüme’ could be translated into English as ‘counter-translation,’ ‘inverse translation,’ or ‘contrary translation,’ among other possibilities. In addition, the translator intentionally presents himself as a ‘Turkicizer,’ as opposed to a ‘translator.’ In order to discover the translator’s reasons for placing a seemingly negative cast on the ‘translation’ of this so-called ‘untranslatable’ work, this article considers paratextual elements (Genette 1997) as a research tool and supports them with textual elements. This study argues that what gave rise to the concept of ‘terscüme’ could be the translator’s reticence to assume the essentialist responsibility that would be imposed on a work called a ‘translation’ and designated by the name ‘translator’. The study concludes that the essentialist perspective on translation may cause the translator to avoid that title and seek to attain visibility under different names for himself/herself and his/her work.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYDERE, M. (2018). A New (Mis)Conception in the Face of the (Un)Translatable: ‘Terscüme’. transLogos Translation Studies Journal, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1, 92–120. https://ajindex.com/articles/807481

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Arrojo, Rosemary. (1993) 2012. “Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, and the Teaching of Translation.” Translated by Ben Van Wyke. Translation and Interpreting Studies 7 (1): 96-110. doi:10.1075/tis.7.1.06arr. Arrojo, Rosemary. 1997a. “The ‘Death’ of the Author and the Limits of the Translator’s Visibility.” In Translation as Intercultural Communication: Selected Papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995, edited by Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarová and Klaus Kaindl, 21-32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arrojo, Rosemary. 1997b. “Asymmetrical Relations of Power and the Ethics of Translation.” TextconText 11 (1): 5-24.
  2. Arrojo, Rosemary. 1998. “The Revision of the Traditional Gap between Theory & Practice & the Empowerment of Translation in Postmodern Times.” The Translator 4 (1): 25-48. doi:10.1080/13556509.1998.10799005. Arrojo, Rosemary. 2005. “The Ethics of Translation in Contemporary Approaches to Translators’ Training.” In Training for the New Millennium – Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, edited by Martha Tennent, 225-245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arrojo, Rosemary. 2010. “Philosophy and Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies Volume 1, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 247-251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bassnett, Susan. 2002. Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Batur, Enis. 2016. “Jim-Session.” In Finnegan Uyanması, by James Joyce, xi-xiii. Translated by Fuat Sevimay. Istanbul: Sel. Baydere, Muhammed. 2018. “Finnegans Wake’in Türkçe Çevirileri Üzerinden Çevrilebilirlik/Çevrilemezlik Tartışmalarını Yeniden Ele Almak.” [Revisiting debates on translatability/untranslatability within the context of Finnegans Wake’s Turkish translations.] Paper presented at the Enriching Translation Studies through Rereadings Symposium, Istanbul, March 28. Bazarnik, Katarzyna. 2010. “A Polish Translation of Finnegans Wake in Progress.” James Joyce Quarterly 47 (4): 567-577. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41429584.
  3. Bengi-Öner, Işın. 1990. “A Re-evaluation of the Concept of Equivalence in the Literary Translations of Ahmed Midhat Efendi: A Linguistic Perspective.” PhD diss., Hacettepe University. Benjamin, Walter. 2004. “On Language as Such and on the Language of Man”. In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings 1: 1913-1926, edited by Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings, 62-74. Cambridge: Harvard University. Bergdahl, Lovisa. 2009. “Lost in Translation: On the Untranslatable and Its Ethical Implications for Religious Pluralism.” Journal of Philosop