| dc.contributor.advisor | Erkazancı Durmuş, Hilal | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mutlu, Kader | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-07-22T08:34:33Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-06-21 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11655/7948 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Culture is an indispensable component of literature and language. Literary works are the pieces which are full of culture related elements and reflect a society’s cultural assets. Since a language itself is a cultural phenomenon, culture specific items are inevitable elements of literary works written in this language within a specific context or society. The fact that translation is a channel of communication between two different languages, societies, readerships, in other words, two different cultures brings about some difficulties for the translators. The focal point of an analysis from a culture specific perspective is to shed light on the difficulties occurring within the translation procedure of CSIs and choices made by the translators to deal with the cultural differences between the source and the target readership. In this study, the English translations of works of one of the canonical authors of Turkish literature, Orhan Kemal, will be analyzed within the scope of CSIs in translation. To this end culture specific items in the English translations of the three works, Baba Evi, Avare Yıllar and Cemile are scrutinized within the light of the translation strategies for culture specific items proposed by Javier Franco Aixelá (1996). Besides Aixelá’s strategies which are used as the microstrategies of the analysis, Lawrence Venuti’s (1995) concepts of domestication and foreignization are used as macrostrategies of this study. The dominant approach of the translator, i.e. domestication or foreignization, to the translation CSIs within Orhan Kemal’s Baba Evi, Avare Yıllar and Cemile are scrutinized. As a result of an in-depth case study, it has been found out that the dominant approach adopted by the translator is domestication. The extent of the use of domestication is higher than the foreignization approach. Furthermore, the possible reason behind the translator’s choices is seen as the cultural gap between thre ST and TT cultures and the incomprehensibility of the CSIs complicating the translation process and understandability of the CSI within the TT readers’ context. | tr_TR |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | TABLE OF CONTENTS
KABUL VE ONAY………………………………………………………………i
BİLDİRİM.............................................................................................................ii
YAYINLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI……………….iii
ETİK BEYAN ……………………………………………………………...……iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................v
ÖZET …………………………………………………………………………….iv
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………..…vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………...….viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………….………xi
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….1
I. GENERAL FRAMEWORK…………….........................................................1
II. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY…………………………………………….…..4
III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………………………………………………5
IV. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………….6
V. LIMITATIONS……………………………………………………………….6
VI. OUTLINE……………………………………………………………………6
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE AND CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS……………..8
1.1. CULTURE, TRANSLATION AND CULTURAL TURN………………8
1.2. DEFINITION OF CULTURE SPECIFIC ITEMS ………………...…..12
1.3.CATEGORIZATION OF CULTURE SPECIFIC ITEMS
1.4. DIFFICULTIES OF TRANSLATING THE CULTURE SPECIFIC
ITEMS……………………………………………………………………17
CHAPTER 2: STRATEGIES OF TRANSLATING CULTURE SPECIFIC
ITEMS ………………………………………………………….19
2.1. MACRO STRATEGIES: DOMESTICATION AND
FOREIGNIZATION ………………………………………………………20
2.2. AİXELÁ’S MICRO STRATEGIES FOR CSI TRANSLATION…….23
2.2.1. Conservation……………………………………………………...…25
2.2.1.1. Repetition…………………………………………………..….25
2.2.1.2. Orthographic Adaptation………………………………………26
2.2.1.3. Linguistic (non-cultural) Translation…………………….……26
2.2.1.4. Intratextual Gloss………………………………………………27
2.2.1.5. Extratextual Gloss………………………………..……………28
2.2.2. Substitution…………………………………………………..…..….28
2.2.2.1. Synonymy…………………………………………………..….29
2.2.2.2. Limited Universalization………………………………………29
2.2.2.3. Absolute Universalization……………………………..………30
2.2.2.4. Naturalization………………………………………………….30
2.2.2.5. Deletion………………………………………….………...….31
2.2.2.6. Autonomous Creation…………………………………………31
2.2.2.7. Attenuation…………………………………………………….31
2.2.2.8. Compensation……………………………………………….32
2.3. POSSIBLES REASONS OF TRANSLATOR’S CHOICES OF TRANSLATION STRATEGIES FOR CSIS………………………………….32
2.3.1. Supratextual Parameters………………………………………………34
2.3.1.1. Degree of linguistic prescriptivism…………………………….…34
2.3.1.2. Nature and expectations of potential readers…………………..…34
2.3.1.3. Nature and aims of the initiators………………………………….34
2.3.1.4. Working conditions, training and social status of the translator….35
2.3.2. Textual parameter…………………………………………………..….35
2.3.2.1. Material textual constraints ………………………………………35
2.3.2.2. Previous translation……………………………………………….35
2.3.2.2. Canonization……………………………………………………...35
2.3.4. The nature of the CSI…………………………………………………..35
2.3.3.1. Pre-established translations……………………………………….35
2.3.3.2. Transparency of the CSI…………………………………………..36
2.3.3.3. Ideological status………………………………………………….36
2.3.3.4. References to third parties…………………………………………36
2.3.4. Intratextual parameter…………………………………………………..36
2.3.4.1. Cultural consideration within the source text………………………36
2.3.4.2. Relevance……………………………………………………….….37
2.3.4.3. Recurrence………………………………………….…………..….37
2.3.4.4. Coherence of the target text…………………………………………37
CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY………..………………………………………39
3.1. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: ORHAN KEMAL…………………………39
3.1.1. His Life…………………………………………..………………..….39
3.1.2. His Literary Life and Works…………………………………………40
3.1.3. His Style and Themes in His Books…………………………………41
3.2. BABA EVİ…………………………………………………………………42
3.2.1. Plot Summary of Baba Evi……………………………………………42
3.2.2. The style and themes in the book………………………….…………44
3.3. ANALYSIS OF BABA EVI……………………………………………....46
3.3.1. Conservation ……………………………………………………………..47
3.3.1.1 Repetition………………………………………………...……..….53
3.3.1.2. Orthographic Adaptation…………………………………………. 54
3.3.1.3. Linguistic (Non-Cultural) Translation……………………………56
3.3.1.4. Intratextual Gloss………………………………………………….59
3.3.2. Substitution……………………………………………………………….60
3.3.2.1. Synonymy…………………………………………………..………61
3.3.2.2. Limited Universalization…………………………………...………63
3.3.2.3. Absolute Universalization…………………………………………65
3.3.2.4. Naturalization…………………………………………………..….67
3.3.2.5. Deletion…………………………………………………..………..69
3.3.2.6. Autonomous Creation……………………………………………..71
3.4. AVARE YILLAR …………………………………………………..……..72
3.4.1. The plot summary of Avare Yıllar…………………………………….…73
3.4.2. The style and themes in the book……………………………………76
3.5. ANALYSIS OF AVARE YILLAR……………………………………….78
3.5.1. Conservation……………………………………………………………..79
3.5.1.1. Repetition……………………………………..……………..…..….80
3.5.1.2. Orthographic Adaptation……………………………………………80
3.5.1.3. Linguistic (Non-Cultural) Translation………………………………80
3.5.1.4. Intratextual Gloss………………………………………………...….81
3.5.2. Substitution………………………………………………………………82
3.5.2.1. Synonymy………………………………………………….……..….83
3.5.2.2. Limited Universalization………………………………………….…85
3.5.2.3. Absolute Universalization……………………………………………87
3.5.2.4. Naturalization…………………………………………………..…….90
3.5.2.5. Deletion…………………………………………………………...….92
3.5.2.6. Autonomous Creation………………………………………………..93
3.5.2.7. Compensation…………………………………………………….….95
3.6. CEMİLE …………………………………………………..…………….95
3.6.1. The Plot Summary of Cemile …………………………………………95
3.6.2. The style and themes in the book………………………………………95
3.7. ANALYSIS OF CEMILE………………………………………………….95
3.7.1. Conservation……………………………………………………………..96
3.7.1.1. Repetition…………………………………………………..………...96
3.7.1.2 Orthographic Adaptation …………………………………………….98
3.7.1.3. Linguistic (Non-cultural) Translation…………………….………….100
3.7.1.4. Intratextual Gloss……………………………………………………102
3.7.2. Substitution……………………………………………………………103
3.7.2.1. Synonymy…………………………………………………..………..104
3.7.2.2. Limited Universalization……………………………………………105
3.7.2.3. Absolute Universalization…………………………………………..109
3.7.2.4. Naturalization…………………………………………………..…....112
3.7.2.5. Deletion………………………………………………………….….116
3.7.2.6. Attenuation…………………………………………………..……..118
3.8. ABOUT THE TRANSLATOR…………………………………………..120
3.9. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………..………….121
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..…………….133
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………....….141
APPENDIX 1: Originality Report ……………………………………………150
APPENDIX 2: Ethics Board Waiver Form……………………………….…152 | tr_TR |
| dc.language.iso | en | tr_TR |
| dc.publisher | Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü | tr_TR |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | tr_TR |
| dc.subject | Culture specific items | |
| dc.subject | Aixelá | |
| dc.subject | Translating culture | |
| dc.subject | Domestication | |
| dc.subject | Foreignization | |
| dc.subject | Orhan Kemal | |
| dc.subject | Kültüre özgü öğeler | |
| dc.subject | Aixelá | |
| dc.subject | Kültür çevirisi | |
| dc.subject | Yerelleştirme | |
| dc.subject | Yabancılaştırma | |
| dc.subject | Orhan Kemal | |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Konu Başlıkları Listesi::Dil ve edebiyat | tr_TR |
| dc.title | Analysis of the Culture Specific Items in the English Translations of Orhan Kemal’s Baba Evi, Avare Yillar and Cemile | tr_TR |
| dc.title.alternative | Orhan Kemal’in Baba Evi, Avare Yillar ve Cemile Adlı Eserlerinin İngilizceye Çevirilerindeki Kültüre Özgü Öğelerinin İncelenmesi | tr_TR |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis | tr_TR |
| dc.description.ozet | Kültür edebiyat ve dilin ayrılmaz bir parçasıdır. Edebi eserler kültüre özgü öğelerle dolu ve bellir bir toplumun kültürün izlerini taşıyan olgulardır. Dilin kendisi de kültür olgusunun bir parçası olduğu için, kültüre özgü öğeler de edebi eserlerin ayrılmaz bir parçasıdır. Çevirinin iki dil arasındaki bir iletişim aracı olması, kültüre özgü öğeleri de bu eserlerin kaçınılmaz bir parçası yapar. Bu da iki farklı okuyucu kitlesinin, toplumun ve kültürün bir araya getirilmesi demektir. Çeviride kültüre özgü öğeler açısından yapılan bir incelemenin odak noktası kültüre özgü öğelerin çevirisinde meydana gelen zorluklara ve çevirmenler tarafından bu zorlukları aşmak için verilen kararlara ışık tutar. Bu çalışmada, Orhan Kemal’in Baba Evi, Avare Yıllar ve Cemile adlı romanlarındaki kültüre özgü öğelerin İngilizce’ye çevirilerinde yarattığı sorunlar ve bu sorunların çevirmen tarafından çözümlerine yakından odaklanılmıştır. Bu amaçla, Javier Franco Aixelá’nın (1996) Kültüre Özgü Öğelerin Çevirisi için önerdiği stratejilerden faydalanılır. Ayrıca, daha geniş bir perspektifte, çevirmenin kültüre özgü öğeleri yerelleştirme veya yabancılaştırma yoluna gidip gitmediğini anlamak için Venuti (1995) tarafından önerilen yerelleştirme ve yabancılaştırma nosyonlarından faydalanılır. Detaylı bir vaka incelemesinin ardından bu tez yerlileştirme yaklaşımının yabancılaştırma yaklaşımına oranla daha fazla kullanıldığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu yaklaşımın ardındaki nedenler olarak da kaynak ve hedef kültürler arasındaki farkların büyüklüğü ve kaynak metindeki kültüre özgü öğelerin hedef okuyucu açısından anlaşılmasının oldukça zor olduğu anlaşılmıştır. | tr_TR |
| dc.contributor.department | Mütercim-Tercümanlık | tr_TR |
| dc.embargo.terms | Acik erisim | tr_TR |
| dc.embargo.lift | 2019-07-22T08:34:33Z | |
