The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies
International Journal of Social Science
Doi number:http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3019
Number: 36 , p. 489-497, Summer II 2015
Yayın Süreci
Yayın Geliş Tarihi
22.07.2015
Yayınlanma Tarihi
20.08.2015
REWRITING A LITERARY WORK THROUGH
TRANSLATION: A CASE STUDY OF ISTANBULLU*
YAZINSAL BİR METNİ ÇEVİRİ YOLUYLA YENİDEN YAZMAK:
İSTANBULLU ÖRNEĞİ
Lecturer Seda TAŞ
Namık Kemal University Faculty of Arts and Literature Department of English Language and
Literature
Abstract
Translation Studies is a vivid, constantly developing, diverse and
fundamentally interdisciplinary field. It has developed its scope largely in the past
twenty years after it took its own place as a separate discipline in 1970s and moved
beyond the domination of simple and unilateral views based on linguistics or formalist
perspectives during 1980s. Dwelling on the notions of theorists like Mary Snell-Hornby,
Andre Lefevere, Gideon Toury, Itamar Even-Zohar and Theo Hermans, Translation
Studies has intertwined with various fields including literature, anthropology, sociology,
culture, ethnomethodology and also other disciplines. Thus, it has declared itself as a
self-developing discipline as well as an interdisciplinary field. Translation Studies has
explored and renovated itself as a multidimensional field with benefit of knowledge
different approaches provide.
This article aims to explore one of different approaches to Translation Studies
with a focus on its interdisciplinary nature. It mainly deals with an important
phenomenon of Translation Studies, the notion of “rewriting” set forth by Andre
Lefevere in his well-recognized work Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of
Literary Fame (1992). This study is based on Turkish writer Buket Uzuner’s novel called
İstanbullu (2007) and its translation into English. It takes “rewriting” theory as a
framework for demonstrating what kind of influences act in translation of this novel. It
also tries to reveal how it is rewritten in the target language in order to appeal for the
target readers and varies from the source text on the process of rewriting. Accordingly,
this study presents a number of changes such as rewritten titles, adaptation, omission,
addition done during translation for depicting the rewriting process of İstanbullu (2007).
In addition to this, views of the writer about the translation/rewriting process are added.
Key Words: Rewriting, Translation Studies, Target Culture, Interdisciplinarity
This article was developed from a paper presented in “Version, Subversion: Translation, the Canon and Its
Discontents – an International Conference on Literary Translation” that took place in Faculdade de Letras da
Universidade do Porto during 12-13 October 2013.
*
490
Seda TAŞ
Özet
Çeviribilim canlı, sürekli gelişmekte olan, farklı ve esasen disiplinlerarası bir
alandır. 1970’li yıllarda ayrı bir disiplin olarak kendi yerini aldıktan ve 1980’li yıllar
boyunca dilbilimsel veya biçimci bakış açıları üzerine kurulu basit ve tek yönlü
görüşlerin ötesine taşındıktan sona son yirmi yılda kapsamını büyük ölçüde
genişletmiştir. Mary Snell-Hornby, Andre Lefevere, Gideon Toury, Itamar Even-Zohar,
ve Theo Hermans gibi kuramcıların düşünceleri üzerinde durarak Çeviribilim, yazın,
antropoloji, sosyoloji, kültür, etnometoloji ve diğer disiplinleri de içine alan çeşitli
alanlarla iç içe geçmiştir. Böylece, kendi kendini geliştiren bir disiplin olduğu kadar
disiplinlerarası bir alan olarak da yavaş yavaş kendini duyurmaktadır. Çeviribilim farklı
yaklaşımların sağladığı bilgilerin yararı ile çok boyutlu bir alan olarak kendini
keşfetmekte ve yenilemektedir.
Bu makale, disiplinlerarası doğasına odaklanarak Çeviribilime yönelen farklı
yaklaşımlarından birini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Temel olarak Andre Lefevere
tarafından tanınan yapıtı Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame’de
(1992) öne sürülen Çeviribilimin önemli bir olgusunu, “yeniden yazım” düşüncesini ele
alır. Çalışma Türk yazar Buket Uzuner’in İstanbullu (2007) adlı romanına ve İngilizce
çevirisine dayanır. Romanın çevirisinde ne çeşit etmenlerin rol oynadığını göstermek
için “yeniden yazım” kuramını çerçeve olarak alır. Ayrıca, erek okurun ilgisini çekmek
için erek dilde nasıl yeniden yazıldığını ve yeniden yazım sürecinde kaynak metinden
nasıl farklılaştığını ortaya çıkarmaya çalışır. Bu doğrultuda, çalışma İstanbullu (2007)
romanının yeniden yazım sürecini betimlemek için çeviri boyunca yeniden yazılan
başlıklar, yapılan uyarlama, çıkarma, ekleme gibi birtakım değişiklikleri sunar. Buna ek
olarak, yazarın çeviri/yeniden yazım süreci ile ilgili görüşleri de eklenir.
Anahtar
Kelimeler:
Yeniden
Yazım,
Çeviribilim,
Erek
Kültür,
Disiplinlerarasılık
INTRODUCTION
Translation Studies (TS) was viewed merely as a sub branch of other disciplines until
1970s. Its breakthrough was gradual but significant. However, gaining its independence and
claiming its realm within the other disciplines was inevitable for linguistic and formalist
approaches to translation were inadequate any more. The need for theoretical and descriptive
studies in TS created its differentiation among other disciplines as a distinct and new field.
Essentially Holmes' well- known essay, “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” (1972),
was the first drop of water for the recognition of TS. In his work, Holmes (1972/1988) provides a
general framework and discusses the name of this new field. Furthermore, his essay makes the
classification of TS in relation to varied features. For these reasons, his essay is widely accepted
as “the founding statement for the field” (Gentzler, 2001, p. 94).
“The growth of Translation Studies as a separate discipline is a success story of the
1980s” (Bassnett ve Lefevere, 1990, p. ix). Specially Even-Zohar incorporated the socio-cultural
aspect of translation within the literary culture of a society with his “(poly) system theory” in
1970’s. His theory also brought forward the notion of making a “cultural repertoire.” Besides
this, importing and transferring culture via translation showed the correlation between culture
and language in the literary systems which opened new doors for plurality in TS. His works
primarily focused on culture, culture planning and the role of translation in culture planning.
Furthermore, he questions the position of translated literature within the literary, cultural and
historical contexts of the target culture (Even-Zohar, 1990, 1-25). Deriving from the notion of
(poly) system, Even-Zohar clarifies how culture plays an important role in translation and
emphasizes “deliberate acts” or “deliberate interventions” in terms of planning and
implementing culture through translation in the target literary system (Even-Zohar, 2010).
Rewriting A Literary Work Through Translation: A Case Study Of Istanbullu
491
Likewise, Snell- Hornby (2006, p.40) says that “Gideon Toury (1985) views culture as the entire
social context involved in the translation, along with the norms, conventions, ideology and
values of that society or ‘receptor system.” Translation scholar Toury also takes into
consideration the social and literary system of the target culture in his work Descriptive
Translation Studies – And Beyond (1995). Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) requires a
systematic approach to translation and from this he goes for the identification of norms such as
preliminary and operational norms in translation.
Nominately after the famous Leuven conference in 1976 and the collection entitled The
Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation by Theo Hermans (1985), changes and
perspectives in line with its features paved the way for development within the discipline. In
his book Hermans claimed that “from the point of view of the target literature, all translation
implies a certain degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose” (Hermans,
1985, p.11). His view clearly showed the controversial nature of TS as well as its significance
and its often-ignored power. Especially, ‘Manipulation School’ (Hermans, 1985), targetorientedness of polysystems theory (Even-Zohar, 1990) and Gideon Toury’s (1995) work on
norms of translation diverted TS towards the cultural approach. As a result, this carried a new
dimension to the center of Translation Studies. Thereafter, TS has started to be considered as
intercommunicating with a wide range of other disciplines from Linguistics to Cultural Studies.
“Translation Studies brings together work in a wide variety of fields, including linguistics,
literary study, history, anthropology, psychology and economics” (Bassnett ve Lefevere, 1990,
p. ix). It also puts a new face on translation field as complex, dynamic, developmental and
multifaceted discipline benefiting from various disciplines.
Mary Snell-Hornby’s “cultural turn” emphasize in 1990’s developed a broader
understanding for globalization and national identities and the impact of cultural turn created
an open-ended context of translation influenced by cultural, historical and political
considerations. This notion places TS into a much broader social and cultural framework by
providing novelty and insightful perspectives for its development. Being the fountain head,
“paradigm shift” or “cultural turn” in the discipline of translation theory has made a significant
impact in the way TS understood since it brought a new perspective that stemmed from the
plurality and gave way to interdisciplinary works within the field.
André Lefevere and Susan Bassnett (1990) followed a new context so as to include
history and culture into translation by moving beyond the formalist or linguistic phase in their
book Translation, History and Culture (1990). Their work offered a clear step from text to culture.
Later, drawing upon the notions of Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory, Lefevere introduced the
notions of “rewriting”, “patronage” and “manipulation” into TS in his book, Translation,
Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992). Any translated text is produced with a
certain ideology or certain poetics within the target language was the main argument of
Lefevere and for these reasons, text produced in the target language can be exposed to many
kind of changes such as adaptations, additions, cancellation, additions by taking into account
the target audience or reader.
Consequently, all these approaches are important developments, as they tend to shed
light on the process of translation from distinct perspectives. Moreover, they are significant in
revealing many aspects of translation that can play utmost role in expanding the horizon of
translation studies and enlarging its plurality.
1.
Lefevere and His Contributions into Translation Studies: Rewriting
Being introduced by Lefevere into translation, “rewriting” theory is indeed an
important phenomenon that deserves a particular interest within the studies of translation. One
492
Seda TAŞ
of the cornerstones of the cultural approach in TS has been the change of horizon with the work
of Bassnett ve Lefevere (1990) because it revealed cultural power of translation and put a great
emphasize on the target culture rather than the source culture. Especially Lefevere’s theory of
“rewriting” with its target oriented approach has been crucial in this sense. As Lefevere put into
words: “Different languages reflect different values and cultures; therefore, in an attempt to
mediate different languages, values or cultures, translations "nearly always contain attempts to
naturalize the different culture to make it conform more to what the reader of the translation is
used to” (Lefevere, 1990, p.237).
What carries the utmost importance is to make the translation appealing for the target
culture reader. If it isn’t meaningful for the reader or it doesn’t have the related context in target
culture, the translated text will not reach its addressee. Hence, Lefevere implies that translation
should be seen mainly as contextual and he states that “translation as an activity is always
doubly contextualized, since the text has a place in two cultures” (age) When a text has a place
in both source and target culture, it needs to adapt or change itself up to a certain point in
accordance with target language poetics and ideology. Thus, Lefevere claims that original texts
are frequently rewritten via translation by taking into account the features or specific ideologies
of target culture. As Toury mentions:
“After all, as much as translation entails the retention of aspects of the source text, it
also involves certain adjustments to the requirements of the target system, [… and the novelty
of a translated work] derives from the target culture itself, and relates to what that culture is
willing (or allowed) to accept vs. what it feels obliged to submit to modification or even totally
reject” (Toury, 1995, p.166).
This idea basically explains that there is a shift from the source-text to the target text.
Although the target text seems to be an original text, it may include many changes and thus
becomes an instance of rewriting:
“Translation is produced on the basis of an original text with the intention of adapting
the original to a certain ideology or poetics of a different audience, and it is an activity
performed under constraints of patronage, poetics and ideology initiated by the target systems,
as such it is an act of rewriting of an original text to conform to certain purposes instituted by
the receiving system” (Lefevere, 1992, p. vii).
As can be clearly understood acceptance, reception or rejection of a literary work is
dependent on certain factors which are classified as patronage, poetics and ideology by
Lefevere. Moreover, he describes these factors in detail as 1) professionals within the literary
system, 2) patronage outside the literary system and 3) the dominant poetics.
While professionals within the literary system include reviewers, researchers, scholars;
patronage outside the literary system comprises institutions such as media or academic journals
and people that are publishers or editors. Patronage is ‘any power (person, institution) that can
further or hinder the reading, writing and rewriting of literature’ (Lefevere, 1992, p. 15).
Patronage can be influenced by ideological, economic and status components. The last factor is
dominant poetics. “This poetics consists of both an inventory component (genre, certain
symbols, characters, prototypical situations) and a “functional” component, an idea of how
literature has to, or may be allowed to, function in a society” (Lefevere, 2004, p. 236). Thus it has
two components: literary devices and the concept of role of literature. The dominant poetics
goes hand in hand with its components and mostly dictate translation strategy of the translator.
Thus translators’ chose of words, symbols, characters can be determined by the dominant
poetics within the target culture because reception of the translated work has preliminary
importance for the readership of the work. For the sake of target readers, translators employ
Rewriting A Literary Work Through Translation: A Case Study Of Istanbullu
493
target oriented strategies and apply many changes on the original work which eventually result
in rewriting of the work.
Therefore, it can be fallacious to think the translated text as neutral since they have
special duty as being representative of the target culture they are produced for. In this respect,
translated texts are often exposed to rewriting via translation by adding the traces of target
culture in one way or another and mostly omitting source culture features.
As Christina Marinetti (2011, p.27) puts it, since cultures construct ‘images’ and
‘representations’ of authors, texts and entire periods of history, translation practices have a
significant role and power in directing or manipulating the words or concepts. Rewriting an
original text by applying some changes in line with the target culture is a frequently-applied
way for making this possible and rewriters being translators, editors, publishers or critics have
their believes or reasons for its necessity. According to Bassnett and Lefevere (1990, p.10):
“Translation is one of the many forms in which works of literature are “rewritten”, one
of many “rewritings”. In our day and age, these “rewritings” are at least as influential in
ensuring the survival of a work of literature as the originals, the “writings” themselves. One
might even take the next step and say that if a work is not “rewritten” in one way or another, it
is not likely to survive its publication date by all that many years, or even months. Needless to
say, this state of affairs invests a non-negligible power in rewriters: translators, critics,
historians, professors, journalists.”
Rewriting a text via translation is not just an issue related to translators; it also includes
a wide range of actors such as critics, editors, publishers and writers because they have the
chances to determine the fate and the survival of a translated text. Particularly, translators have
more responsibility than the other actors as they faces difficulties and make changes or
adaptations while translating. Ultimately they are considered as the experts of languages and at
the same time, bilinguals. Nevertheless, “since languages express cultures, translators should be
bicultural, not bilingual” Bassnett ve Lefevere (1990, p.11). Thus translators need to be eager to
search, learn about other cultures because they have an enormous role in building bridges
between cultures just like a builder. They should choose the right word or right notion to build
the necessary context and mind the assumptions of the target culture. Accordingly, Lefevere
(2004, p. 236-237) points out that “since different languages reflect different cultures,
translations will nearly always contain attempts to “naturalize” the different culture, to make it
conform more to what the reader of the translation is used to.”
All in all, rewriting theory tends to depict all the actors such as translators, critics,
editors, publishers, journalists and also constraints such as poetics or ideology that enter into
play during the process of both the writing and rewriting of texts. It draws attention to the
power, manipulation and representations in translation practice.
2.
Buket Uzuner’s İstanbullu
Original title being İstanbullular (2007), Buket Uzuner’s İstanbullu (2008) novel
published in English from Everest publishing with the translation of Kenneth J. Dakan. Dakan
is a translator who translated a number of notable works from Turkish to English. Buket
Uzuner also preferred him for translation as she finds Dakan’s translations well to reflect source
language’s richness. She states that: “When compared to the other English translators I’ve
worked with, Ken’s translation appears to be more close to our own language” (S. Taş, personal
interview, 12 June, 2013)
The novel is based on loneliness, impossible love and people who are belonging
different cultures or background. It mainly takes place in İstanbul, International Atatürk
Airport. Main characters are Ayhan, the sculptor and Belgin Gümüş, the professor. On the one
494
Seda TAŞ
hand, Belgin left İstanbul 13 years ago because of a tragic experience she had in İstanbul and
moved to New York. So she identified bad things with İstanbul. Now she has problem in
trusting man and believing in real love. On the other hand, being the seventh child of a cotton
worker from Adana Ayhan, falls in love with the bourgeoisie girl Belgin. Thus Ayhan fears
from love as well as losing Belgin. Belgin moves to İstanbul after so many years to make a new
start and begin a new life with Ayhan. Yet, she gets stuck in Atatürk airport with an
announcement which creates a huge panic and fear of bomb. This leads everyone in the airport
to internal feud and so criticizes themselves as well as their whole life. The narrator is İstanbul,
itself that shows beauty and complexity it has. Thus the novel is fast-moving and enchanting for
the reader with its İstanbul descriptions and picturesque love narration.
3.
Rewriting of İstanbullu through Translation
A comparative analysis of source and target language of the novel revealed a number of
changes employed in translation/rewriting process. Due to the diversity of changes, a
classification of changes has been omission, addition, replacement, untranslated
words/expressions, rewritten titles, other changes.
3.1.
Omission
When the source context provides new sources, new ideas or information about new
places, several omissions can be made use of in the translation in order to win target readers’
heart, make them more interested in and longing for the translated text. In such cases, specific
and long information about the source context can be shorten especially to address target
readers’ favors by taking into account their background knowledge, values, beliefs and ethics.
There is always an actor such as editor, publisher, and translator to suggest these omissions for
they reason them as for the sake of novel’s success in the target context.
When the novel, İstanbullu is considered, there are several omissions that can be
mentioned. Firstly, original text has a part “Thanks and Information”. In this part, the writer
makes dedications and provides the sources she benefited. Moreover she mentions the books
she citated. However, the translated text lacks this information. Secondly, in line with the
Turkish context, the novel’s beginning has Turkish poet Yahya Kemal Beyatlı’s verses of a poem
dedicated to İstanbul. Although the verses are impressive, they weren’t included in the
translated text. This may be done for the fear that the target reader may not be familiar with the
Turkish poet. Thirdly, in its original language it has fifty chapters while translated text has forty
one chapters. Nine chapters, which were mostly providing historical and geographical
information about İstanbul and its parts, were omitted with the permission of the writer. The
writer, herself thinks this as beneficial and necessary as she considers these parts repetitive and
thus distractive. She states that:
“While I was working on İstanbullular novel pocket-sized edition, a reliable and
important editor (which is a very large deficiency of our literature world: unfortunately, a small
number of editors that have the international literary experience, both domestic literary mastery
and authenticity can be found) was able to persuade me that, some parts of the novel fell to the
weakness of repetition” (S. Taş, personal interview, 12 June, 2013).
Uzuner goes on explaining the need for omissions and how she felt about the changes
done on her text during translation:
“Persuasion” I specifically chose this verb, because we, writers may have not only
mental but also emotional ties to the texts we’ve dealt with for years. Thus even the right and
necessary deductions hurt us as if our flesh is taken away! While in Western literary world
experienced editors has the tradition of working with the great writers, this tradition is still
unsettled in our country because of the fact that all redactors think themselves as self- editors
Rewriting A Literary Work Through Translation: A Case Study Of Istanbullu
495
and the publishing industry avoids financial provisions for the growth of good editors.) In fact,
these omissions should have been made from the beginning, I think” (S. Taş, personal
interview, 12 June, 2013).
3.2.
Addition
On account of clarifying some notions or explaining some cultural issues, translators
may add background information inside the text or use footnotes. In this respect, although the
writer doesn’t mention the actor Ayhan Işık or his place in Turkish cinema in original text, after
talking about Belgin Doruk the translator adds extra information inside the text as:
“Who can forget Ayhan Işık, our own Clark Gable, her debonair leading man in those
black-and-white romantic comedies of the 60s?” (Uzuner, 2008, Trans. Dakan, p.15)
As can be clearly sees, the writer uses extra information in context to establish links
between two cultures. Besides this, he uses a resemblance in order to establish links with the
target culture. Likewise, the actor Yılmaz Güney is known as “ugly king” in Turkish cinema but
the translator explicitly writes the name instead of giving it implicitly as in the original text. But
translators could use footnotes instead of additions and explanations.
3.3.
Replacement
Due to cultural and linguistic differences between original context and target context, it
is often the case that the contextual information can be replaced in reasonable ways. In this case,
the chapter I am İstanbul are taken to the beginning in the target language. Thus the target
reader is initially informed that this is a novel about famous İstanbul providing necessary
historical clues. This is understandable goal for the sake of getting target reader’s attention.
Similarly, being the same both in English and Turkish, the novels’ title is İstanbullu But
it was published with the title I am İstanbul in USA, so Turkish readers can find the same novel
with two different titles. This second title is also the introductive chapter’s title which brought
forward. When asked the reason behind this controversy, the writer reasonably explains as:
“İstanbullu, a novel published in English in Turkey (Everest). Royalty agreements are made
according to copyright law of every language and country. Meanwhile, the novel's name
changes according to the feature of that culture and language. Because people won’t be able to
understand İstanbullu in America, its name became I’m Istanbul” (S. Taş, personal interview, 12
June, 2013).
As can be understood, the novel’s titles are replaced in compliance with the target
culture and readers’ taste. This is significant as the titles are influential in determining the fate
and the survival of the novel in target context. In this sense, publishers and editors play decisive
roles and require such changes in translated work.
3.4.
Untranslated Words/Expressions
Every language with its own features has distinctive words or expressions. This
particularity creates difficulty in translation. Translators have varied choices such as leaving
them untranslated, using footnotes or proving close meaning for them. In this novel’s case, the
analysis showed that many Turkish words or expressions such as “hüzün”, “beyfendi”,
“meyhane” left untranslated though they seemed like translatable without difficulty. When
asked to the writer if there is a special reason for that and whether the writer is informed or not,
the writer responded as: “Since the last 30 years-Salman Rushti’s novels (he writes English, you
know)-in translation studies there has occurred an ecole of leaving some special expressions in
original language. After Orhan Pamuk’s translations, hüzün (sadness) became a word that came
into English language. Many Pamuk readers know and many things have been written about it.
So, it wasn’t translated within my knowledge” (S. Taş, personal interview, 12 June, 2013).
496
Seda TAŞ
Thus, it is clear that untranslating can be used as a way for making the translated text
more appealing and interesting for the target reader. With the intent of saving originality and
meaning, new words can be carried to another language as well as a new context. Thereby,
rewriting process serves for the spread and publicity of source culture and language.
3.5.
Rewritten Titles
Translated text compromises forty one chapters and some of the chapters’ title reflect
the same meaning whereas most of the titles changed by shortening or providing a completely
different meaning. Thus they are thought to be rewritten in translation process. Some of the
examples are:
Target Language
Source Language
Chaper 7: The Homecoming
Queen of Poisonous Loneliness
Chapter 8: A Bumpy Landing
A women as beautiful but dangerous as İstanbul,
Chapter 10: An Identity Crisis
A Bridge between Angel and Devil
Chapter 18: Get out of the Mud, İstanbul
Beautiful İstanbul
Chapter 25: Life and Times at the Airport Many Faces, Many Traps, Many İstanbullu
When asked, the writer explains the changes applied in both meaning and structure as
the translators generally prefer short, uncomplicated and defragmented sentences in
translation. Otherwise translated works will not have the interest of the readers they deserve
because target readers don’t tend to enjoy reading literary works which has long, fragmented
and intensive use of literary expressions as they get bored. Also translators don’t want to
translate these kinds of texts as they themselves find them boring.
3.6.
Other Changes
On the ground that expressions of a language can be troublesome for translating,
translators may choose not to translate or translate by not providing the expression but the
feelings and impression though it looks like translating superficially and not seeing under the
mountain. For instance, in Final Return part, the writer questions what is final return and
comments on it with a comparison to other nationalities. Also, she examines the words “final”
and “turn”. She resembles final turn to the embarrassment a person carrying an enormous
transparent bag with a rock stone inside. She states that this creates a kind of victim psychology.
On the other hand translator doesn’t give these kinds of expressions. Instead he mentions
smoothly that final return resembles embarrassment and a failure of some kind.
Consequently, these kinds of changes form a rewritten text in one way or another.
Rewritten texts or translations create both novelty and color, yet at the same time they may go
beyond originality. Thus they can be estimated two faced, yet should be viewed with critical
consideration.
4.
Conclusion
The study, which explores rewriting via translation by revealing the views of the writer
about addition, replacement, omission, untranslated words/ expresions, rewritten titles and
other changes carried out on the original text, is intended to be contributive in the following
aspects. First, in terms of theoretical exploration, the “rewriting” theory is expanded from the
contextual perspective in order to explain place and significance of rewriting in TS. It is
considered as assistive for TS’ evolvement in terms of plurality and interdisciplinarity. This
expanded notion is composed of target oriented perspective which is endowed with the effort
of several actors such as writer, translator, editor, publisher, reviewer, and journalist. As
Bassnett ve Lefevere put into words:
“What the development of Translation Studies shows is that translation, like all (re)
writings is never innocent. There is always a context in which the translation takes place,
Rewriting A Literary Work Through Translation: A Case Study Of Istanbullu
497
always a history from which a text emerges and into which a text is transposed. Translation
involves so much more that the simple engagement of an individual with a printed page and a
bilingual dictionary” (Bassnett ve Lefevere, 1990, p.11).
Hence, the involvement of such an individual in translation practice means that there
are many influential factors which should be thought attentively as they may ruin the
originality of a text or serve for the benefit of the translated text’s success. In İstanbullu’s case, it
is possible to consider the translation/rewritten text as a success for even the writer is satisfied
with the changes done on the original text because she believes that some changes were quite
conformable for the benefit of the novel. She realizes that repetitions or long titles were
challenging and finds the translated text as well organized thanks to replacements and
omissions. Additionally, some Turkish words are untranslated and they are thought to be
following an ecole which can be pretty intriguing or complex for the target reader. Yet this may
also serve for the world cultures come closer and build a better understanding because
translation “has been a major shaping force in the development of world culture, and no study
of comparative literature can take place without regard to translation” (Bassnett ve Lefevere,
1990, p.12). For that being the case, translation/ rewriting process should always be considered
with a great attention with its all dimensions.
REFERENCES
Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A. (1990). Translation, History and Culture. New York: Pinter.
Even-Zohar, I. (1990). “Polysystem Studies”. Poetics Today. V. 11, N. 1, Spring. 1-25.
Even-Zohar, I. (2010). Papers in Culture Research. Tel Aviv: The Culture Research Laboratory.
Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2015, http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/works/books/EZ-CR2005_2010.pdf
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories (2 ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hermans, T. (1985). The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation. (1, 1). London
and Sydney: Croom Helm.
Holmes, J. (1972/1988). “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. Translated! Papers on
Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lefevere, A. (1985). “Why Waste our Time on Rewrites?: The Trouble with Interpretation and
the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm.” T. Hermans (Ed.) The Manipulation of
Literature. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London and New
York: Routledge.
Lefevere, A. (2004). 'Mother Courage's Cucumbers: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of
Literature.” L. Venuti (Ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge
Marinetti, C. (2011). “Cultural Approaches.” Y. Gambier ve L. V. Doorslaer (Ed.) Handbook of
Translation Studies. Vol:2 pp.26-30
Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Toury, G. (1985). “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies” T. Hermans (Ed.).
The Manipulation of Literature (s.16-41). Sydney: Croom & Helm.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Uzuner, B. (2007). İstanbullu. İstanbul: Everest Yayınları.
Uzuner, B. (2008). İstanbullu. (Trans. K. J. Dakan). İstanbul: Everest Publications.
498
Seda TAŞ