Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of Translation and Interpreting APPLICABILITY OF TRANSLATION CRITICISM APPROACHES TO DIFFERENT TEXT TYPES Tuncay TEZCAN Master‟s Thesis Ankara, 2015 APPLICABILITY OF TRANSLATION CRITICISM APPROACHES TO DIFFERENT TEXT TYPES Tuncay TEZCAN Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of Translation and Interpreting Master‟s Thesis Ankara, 2015 KABUL VE ONAY Tuncay TEZCAN tarafından hazırlanan “Applicability of Translation Criticism Approaches to Different Text Types” başlıklı bu çalışma, 21.07.2015 tarihinde yapılan savunma sınavı sonucunda başarılı bulunarak jürimiz tarafından Yüksek Lisans tezi olarak kabul edilmiştir. Yukarıdaki imzaların adı geçen öğretim üyelerine ait olduğunu onaylarım. Prof. Dr. Yusuf Çelik Enstitü Müdürü BİLDİRİM Hazırladığım tezin/raporun tamamen kendi çalışmam olduğunu ve her alıntıya kaynak gösterdiğimi taahhüt eder, tezimin/raporumun kağıt ve elektronik kopyalarının Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü arşivlerinde aşağıda belirttiğim koşullarda saklanmasına izin verdiğimi onaylarım:  Tezimin/Raporumun tamamı her yerden erişime açılabilir.  Tezim/Raporum sadece Hacettepe Üniversitesi yerleşkelerinden erişime açılabilir.  Tezimin/Raporumun …3… yıl süreyle erişime açılmasını istemiyorum. Bu sürenin sonunda uzatma için başvuruda bulunmadığım takdirde, tezimin/raporumun tamamı her yerden erişime açılabilir. iii ÖZET TEZCAN, Tuncay. Çeviri Eleştirisi Yaklaşımlarının Farklı Metin Türlerine Uygulanabilirliği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2015 Çeviri eleştirisi çeviriyi nesnel bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ancak, çeviriler önceleri sistemsiz bir şekilde değerlendirilmekte ve çeviri eleştirisi öznel değerlendirmelerle sınırlı kalmaktaydı. Çeviri eleştirisindeki temel eğilim “hata avcılığı” yapmaktan öteye geçemiyordu. Çeviri çalışmalarının akademik bir disiplin haline gelmesiyle çeviri eleştirisine olan yaklaşım önemli ölçüde değişiklik gösterdi. Çeviri eleştirisi için yeni yaklaşımlar öne sürüldü. Bu tez çeviribilim paradigmaları çerçevesinde değerlendirilen çeviri eleştirisi modellerinin farklı metin türleri üzerinde uygulanabilirliğini analiz etmeyi amaçlamıştır. Yapılan analiz çerçevesinde sırasıyla Popovic, Koller, Reiss, House, Broeck, Toury ve Berman‟ın çeviri eleştirisi yaklaşımları farklı metin türlerine uygulanmıştır. Bu çeviri eleştirisi yaklaşımlarının uygulanabilirliğini ortaya koymak için kuramsal çerçeve olarak Katharina Reiss‟ın bilgilendirici, anlatımsal ve işlemsel metin türlerini içeren metin tiplendirmesi kullanılmıştır. Son olarak, çeviri eleştirisi yaklaşımlarının yeterli olduğu ya da yetersiz kaldığı yönleri her bir metin türü için verilen örneklerle tartışılmıştır. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular çeviri eleştirisi yaklaşımlarının uygulanabilirliğinin Reiss‟ın önerdiği metin türlerine göre değişiklik gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Analiz kısmındaki örnekler ışığında, bu çalışma çeviri eleştirisi yaklaşımlarının seçilen metin türlerine kısmi bir şekilde uygulanabilmesinden dolayı tüm metin türleri için geçerli bir çeviri eleştirisi olmadığı sonucuna varmıştır. Bu yüzden farklı çeviribilim paradigmaları çerçevesinde ortaya çıkan çeviri eleştirisi modellerinin belirli metinler üzerinde uygulanabilir olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Anahtar Sözcükler Çeviri eleştirisi yaklaşımları, metin türleri, çeviribilim paradigmaları, Katharina Reiss iv ABSTRACT TEZCAN, Tuncay. Applicability of Translation Criticism Approaches to Different Text Types, Master‟s Thesis, Ankara, 2015 Translation criticism aims at evaluating the translated work from an objective perspective. However, translations were initially reviewed unsystematically and translation criticism was confined to subjectivity. The main tendency of translation criticism was „finding faults‟. With the development of translation studies as an academic discipline, the approach towards translation criticism has changed dramatically. New approaches have been offered for translation criticism. This thesis aims at analyzing the applicability of translation criticism approaches discussed under the turns in Translation Studies to different text types. The analysis has been carried out by applying translation criticism approaches of Popovic, Koller, Reiss, House, Van den Broeck, Toury and Berman to different text types respectively. In order to discuss the applicability of translation criticism approaches, text typology of Katharina Reiss including informative, expressive and operative text types has been used as a theoretical framework. Finally, the deficiencies and advantages of translation criticism approaches have been argued within the framework of text examples chosen for each text type. The findings of this study have indicated that the applicability of translation criticism approaches has varied according to text types proposed by Reiss. In the light of the examples discussed in Analysis of Samples part, this study has concluded that there is no general translation criticism approach that can be applied to all text types since the approaches have partially been applied for the text types mentioned above. Thus, it has been observed that each translation criticism approach proposed under the turns in Translation Studies has been applicable to certain text types. Key Words translation criticism approaches, text types, turns in translation studies, Katharina Reiss v TABLE OF CONTENTS KABUL VE ONAY .......................................................................................................... i BİLDİRİM ....................................................................................................................... ii ÖZET ............................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS ............................................................................ viii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1. GENERAL REMARKS .................................................................................... 1 2. THE SCOPE OF THE THESIS ........................................................................ 3 3. THE PURPOSE OF THE THESIS ................................................................... 4 4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................... 4 5. LIMITATION ................................................................................................... 5 6. AN OUTLINE OF THE THESIS ..................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 1 –CONCEPTS OF CRITICISM .............................................................. 7 1.1. THEORIES AND METHODS OF CRITICISM ........................................... 8 1.1.1. Structuralist Method ........................................................................ 8 1.1.2. Psychoanalytic Method ................................................................... 9 1.1.3. Formalistic Method ....................................................................... 10 1.1.4. New Historicism ............................................................................ 10 1.1.5. Marxist Method ............................................................................. 11 1.2. TYPES OF CRITICISM .............................................................................. 12 1.2.1. Art Criticism .................................................................................. 12 1.2.2. Music Criticism ............................................................................. 12 1.2.3. Theatre Criticism ........................................................................... 13 1.2.4. Film Criticism ................................................................................ 13 1.2.5. Literary Criticism .......................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 2 – TRANSLATION CRITICISM APPROACHES ............................. 16 2.1. THE CONCEPT OF „TURN‟ IN TRANSLATION STUDIES ................... 16 2.1.1. The Linguistic Turn ....................................................................... 17 vi 2.1.1.1. Anton Popovic and the Concept of „Shifts of Expressions‟ in Translation Analysis ................................................................ 20 2.1.1.2. Werner Koller‟s „The Concept of Equivalence‟ and „Text Analysis‟ ...................................................................................... 24 2.1.1.3. Katharina Reiss‟ Translation Criticism Approach .......... 28 2.1.1.4. Juliane House‟s Model for Translation Quality Assessment .................................................................................. 33 2.1.2. The Cultural Turn .......................................................................... 37 2.1.2.1. Raymond Van den Broeck‟s Model of Translation Criticism ...................................................................................... 39 2.1.2.2. Gideon Toury‟s „Target-Oriented Approach‟ Descriptive Translation Studies ..................................................................... 43 2.1.2.3. Antoine Berman‟s Translation Criticism Approach ....... 49 CHAPTER 3-TEXT TYPOLOGY OF KATHARINA REISS ................................ 56 3.1. TEXT TYPES .............................................................................................. 56 3.1.1. Informative (Content-Focused) Text Types .................................. 58 3.1.2. Expressive (Form-Focused) Text Types ....................................... 59 3.1.3. Operative (Appeal-Focused) Text Types ...................................... 62 3.2. HYBRID FORMS ........................................................................................ 63 CHAPTER 4- ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES ................................................................. 66 4.1. THE APPLICABILITY OF TRANSLATION CRITICISM APPROACHES ON THE „INFORMATIVE TEXT‟ .................................................................... 66 4.2. THE APPLICABILITY OF TRANSLATION CRITICISM APPROACHES ON THE „EXPRESSIVE TEXT‟ ........................................................................ 86 4.3. THE APPLICABILITY OF TRANSLATION CRITICISM APPROACH ON THE „OPERATIVE TEXT‟ ....................................................................... 104 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 128 APPENDIX 1: ETHICS BOARD WAIVER FORM ............................................... 138 APPENDIX 2: THESIS ORIGINALITY REPORT ................................................ 140 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Source Text: ST Target Text: TT Source Language: SL Target Language: TL Descriptive Translation Studies: DTS Translation Quality Assessment: TQA viii LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS Table 1- Crystal and Davy‟s scheme or correlation with situations and texts ............... 34 Table 2- House‟s adaptation of Crystal and Davy‟s scheme .......................................... 34 Table 3- Raymond Van den Broeck‟s scheme of network relations of texts ................. 41 Table 4- Functional characteristics of Reiss‟ text types and their translation method ... 58 Table 5- Text Varieties of Katharina Reiss .................................................................... 64 Table 6- The applicability of translation criticism approaches in the linguistic turn to different text types......................................................................................................... 125 Table 7- The applicability of translation criticism approaches in the cultural turn to different text types......................................................................................................... 125 1 INTRODUCTION 1. GENERAL REMARKS The Babel myth suggests that all mankind has a unique language. Nevertheless, the idea of one language was not acceptable from the religious point of view since that would make mankind stronger and more powerful. Consequently, different languages had been given by God. Unfortunately, this is only a myth and the origins of languages have a more linguistic and concrete explanation. While the various languages have been attempted to be identified, a new problem has appeared: to communicate. In order to achieve communication between different languages, translation has become a necessity. That is to say, this diversity of languages requires translation. The origin of translation goes back to the ancient times with the distinction of “word for word” and “sense for sense”. These approaches to translation have opened a debate which has continued for centuries. Originally, the etymology of translation, trans-ducere means “bring across”. Nida defines this concept more systematically: Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. But this relatively simple statement requires careful evaluation of several seemingly contradictory elements (1969: 12) In line with this thought, it can be asserted that translation is one of the oldest activities in the world. However; until the 20th century there was no exclusive discipline dealing with the translation activity and its problems. Translation was classified as a sub-branch of applied linguistics. In this era, when the world is constantly becoming smaller, when the nations are gradually drawn closer and the necessity for exchanging information and ideas across borders has become a fact of life, translation has become a significant tool for communication. Therefore, studies in the field of translation have attracted more attention. There are many different factors such as cognitive, socio-cultural, discursive etc. which make translation a complex communication process. The effects of these factors on translation have been discussed more comprehensively after the phenomenon of 2 translation has been regarded as a separate academic discipline. Since the 1950s, translational studies have become a new field of study with the contributions of disciplines and approaches such as linguistics, sociology, literature, psychology, deconstructionism, post-colonialism and feminism. The theories and ideas from these disciplines and approaches have introduced new perspectives for translational studies. However, there have always been several neglected fields of translational studies among various perspectives. Translation criticism is one of these fields. Throughout the years, new approaches have been proposed for translation criticism. As each approach has different methods and principles, approaches for translation criticism have differed. However, the development of translation criticism has not been equated with the prosperity of translation theory. Translation criticism can be defined as a comprehensive analysis of a translated work from different aspects (Taqiyeh, 2005:53). Newmark regards the translation criticism as a vital link between translation theory and its practice (1988:184). Translation criticism is a significant sub-field of Translation Studies, because it improves competence of the translator, expands the knowledge and understanding of the source and target texts by presenting options; it enables us to fully comprehend both texts. (Newmark, 1988:62) Initially, translation critics reviewed the translated works unsystematically as translation criticism was confined to subjectivity due to its neglected and unsystematic status. Translation critics had difficulty to analyze and detect the problems that result from the translation activities. The reviews of these critics usually discarded the facts that they were dealing with a translation and the translated works were not the original products of target language. Due to this limited perspective on translation criticism, the only statements articulated for the translations did not go beyond generalizations including assessments such as: “a fine work”, “beautifully translated”, “translation is adequate” and so on when they are reviewed. The main objective of translation criticism is not to decide whether the translation is “good” or “bad” but to analyze the decisions that are taken during the translation process. However, in the past, the main tendencies of translation criticism were “finding faults” and “detecting errors”. Thanks to the developments in the translational studies, this approach towards translation criticism has dramatically changed. Translation criticism is not just to convey subjective opinions or ideas; on the contrary, the purpose 3 of translation criticism is to present a systematic analysis of the final product. Discussions on the criteria of translation criticism have been abundant and consistent in Translation Studies. The development of translation studies has also given rise to a number of applicable approaches of translation criticism. There are many approaches of translation criticism, most of which has been examined in the following sections of this thesis. 2. THE SCOPE OF THE THESIS The scope of this thesis is to examine applicability of selected translation criticism approaches to different text types. Translation criticism approaches are selected from the turns in Translation Studies which are considered as milestones in that discipline. The selected approaches are applied to different text types. For this analysis, text typology of Katharina Reiss is adopted. For this thesis, seven translation criticism approaches from the two main turns namely the linguistic turn and the cultural turn are chosen. Each translation criticism approach is evaluated within the framework of its turn and applied to Reiss‟ text types including informative texts, expressive texts and operative texts. The applicability of each translation criticism approach is discussed within the context of the findings which are deduced from selected examples. As an informative text, Chapter 2: Getting Started which is a section in İPhone User Guide For İOS 8.1 Software and its translation into Turkish are selected since iPhone is a product of Apple which is a global and one of the most valuable brands in the world. The reason for the selection of this section is that it displays certain challenges as it introduces new and foreign concepts while presenting the product to the users. As an expressive text, Virginia Woolf‟s Mrs. Dalloway and its translation into Turkish by E. Meriç Selvi are chosen. Virginia Woolf is one of the most prominent English writers and she is a significant figure in the literature. Moreover, the novel Mrs Dalloway is considered as a contemporary classic. For the analysis of expressive text type, the first twenty pages of the novel and its translation into Turkish have been analyzed. It is worth noting that the novel are not divided into chapters and thus, the first twenty pages of the novel are selected in order to create a certain coherence in this thesis. As an operative text, “Our Kingdom Ministry” leaflet and its translation into Turkish “Krallık 4 Hizmetimiz” taken from the website of Jehovah‟s Witnesses are selected. Jehovah‟s Witnesses has over seven million members and its publications are translated into more than a hundred languages (www.jw.org). These numbers display that this organization has a significant influence on many people and this influence is certainly obtained by the use of specific operative elements in its publications. The question of how these elements are rendered in the translation in order to provide this influence in the target language is the main reason why this text is chosen as an operative text type. 3. THE PURPOSE OF THE THESIS This thesis aims at analyzing and describing translation criticism approaches by applying them to different text types of Katharina Reiss, i.e. informative, expressive and operative text types. The selected translation criticism approaches are namely the approaches of Anton Popovic, Werner Koller, Katharina Reiss, Juliane House, Raymond Van Den Broeck, Gideon Toury and Antonie Berman. The translation criticism approaches which are evaluated within the framework of the linguistic turn are the approaches of Anton Popovic, Werner Koller, Katharina Reiss and Juliane House, respectively. Additionally, the translation criticism approaches of Raymond Van den Broeck, Gideon Toury and Antoine Berman are examined under the scope of the cultural turn. The applicability of all these translation criticism approaches is discussed within the given examples for each text type of Katharina Reiss. 4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS In line with the purpose of this thesis, answers for the following questions has been sought: 1. Which translation criticism approaches are applicable to which text types? 2. Is there any general translation criticism approach that can be applied to all text types? 5 5. LIMITATION Translation criticism is an interdisciplinary academic sub-field of Translation Studies. It is closely related to literary criticism and especially translation theory. It can be defined as a systematic field of study that evaluates and interprets different aspects of translated works. Translation Studies has made remarkable progress since the 20th century. During this process, perspectives on the concept of translation have also differed. These differences on perspectives can be called as “turn”. However, there are some requirements for conceptualizing these changes as a “turn”. When the change is clearly visible, radical and have a striking affect that redefines the subject of the discipline, it can be acknowledged as a “turn”. Throughout the recent history of Translation Studies, two main influential turns have emerged: the linguistic turn and the cultural turn. The potential third turn may be the social turn which focuses on the roles of agents in translation process. It is the recently developing trend in Translation Studies. Within the framework of this thesis, the linguistic and the cultural turns are discussed as many scholars have reached a consensus on the existence of these turns. Actually, they are not the only turns owing to the fact that there are also some sub-turns such as the pragmatic turn within the linguistic turn; the empirical turn, the power turn, the globalization turn, the fictional turn within the cultural turn (Long, 2012: 38-9). As these sub-turns are not linear and they do not overlap with each other, three turns have been regarded as fundamental turns. The turns in Translation Studies have also had influence on translation criticism. Translation criticism approaches are generally shaped according to its turn in which they are included. This thesis is confined to two main turns and seven translation criticism approaches. In this thesis, while the approaches of Anton Popovic, Werner Koller, Katharina Reiss and Juliane House are examined within the context of the linguistic turn in Translation Studies, the approaches of Raymond Van Den Broeck, Gideon Toury and Antonie Berman are discussed under the scope of the cultural turn. The social turn has not been taken within the scope of this thesis as there is not any specific approach to translation criticism in that turn. The social turn does not only concern with the translation, it also examines the other agents (publishers, commissioners, editors, etc.) having role in translation. 6 The applicability of translation criticism approaches are examined according to text typology of Katharina Reiss. She divides text types into four groups: informative texts, expressive texts, operative texts and audio-medial texts. For this thesis, informative, expressive and operative text types are selected. Reiss‟ fourth text type, the audio- medial texts do not enter the scope of this thesis because especially in recent years, these kinds of texts are analyzed within the scope of audio-visual translation which is a different sub-discipline of Translation Studies. 6. AN OUTLINE OF THE THESIS This thesis is composed of six parts. In the Introduction part, the topic of this thesis is introduced along with the purpose and the scope of analysis. In the first chapter, concepts of criticism are described. In the second chapter, the selected translation criticism approaches to be evaluated under the scope of turns in Translation Studies are discussed. The third chapter dwells on the descriptions and discussions of text typology of Katharina Reiss in detail. In the fourth chapter, the selected translation criticism approaches are applied to sample texts. In the conclusion, the findings obtained from the analysis of these translation criticism approaches are gauged with regards to the purpose of the study and research questions. 7 CHAPTER 1: CONCEPTS OF CRITICISM In this part, the term criticism, its methods and its types has been briefly clarified before the discussion of the translation criticism approaches. As an English word, criticism is derived from the French critique which dates back to 14 th century. The first English meaning of criticism was about judging and interpreting literature which appeared in literary criticism. The meanings and connotations of criticism have varied throughout the centuries. For instance, it has also acquired a philosophical meaning especially used by Immanuel Kant in the 19 th century. It has started to gain more general connotation of being objective or of evaluating advantages or disadvantages of something in the 20 th while the other meanings of criticism has continued. When the dictionary definition of the criticism is concerned, in Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, criticism means “the act of expressing disapproval of somebody/something and opinions about their faults or bad qualities; a statement showing disapproval”. Criticism also means evaluating and interpreting of various elements such as literature, film, artwork etc. As an evaluative action, criticism can occur in every area of human life. When we look at the meaning of criticism from the point of this definition, it can be understood that the aim of criticism is to perceive the meaning of culture and cultural perspectives. In general, such questions may come to mind while dealing with questions: “Who makes the criticism?”, “What does the criticism about?”, “What does it aim?” In order to answer these questions, some qualifications can be required since the act of criticism is an ability to be learnt. First of all, critics should absolutely perceive why they are criticizing. They should also be morally comfortable. They should not have any concerns especially in the process of criticism. Critics should have a detailed knowledge about the subject of their criticism in order to produce an objective criticism. Last but not least, critics should apply the convenient criticism method to the subject of their criticism. Furthermore, the nature of good criticism has a great importance. Ideally, a good criticism should be clear, relevant, well-researched, persuasive and to the point. Each criticism needs to be based on a method or approach no matter what it is about. 8 After briefly examining the concept of criticism and its main features, the criticism methods and its types have been discussed below. 1.1. THEORIES AND METHODS OF CRITICISM 1.1.1. Structuralist Method Structuralism is the name given to a wide range of discourses underlying structures of signification. This signification can happen wherever there is an event or action. Structuralism emerges from the theories of language and linguistics; it examines the elements in culture and literature by connecting them to each other. Within this connection, critics can improve conclusions about the individual works and their system from which originated. Structuralism is considered as a reaction to modernist alienation. Swiss linguists Ferdinand de Saussure have heavily influenced the structuralism. With the works of Saussure, structuralists noticed that everything can be analyzed within a deep structure. Saussure sees the language as a “sign system” including patterns and rules. Saussure‟s structuralism regards the language as a multitude of signs that each sign have a relation with a phonic sound (the signifier) with an idea (the signified). Saussure defines language as two systems: 1. An inherited social system of arbitrary signs, and 2. The active individual use of that system (Waterman, 1956: 307). Structuralists deal with the relationship between „units‟ and „rules‟. In a language, while units refer to words, rules means grammar forms which order the words. The grammar rules and words may be different for each language. However, the structure is same all the time for each language since words are ordered within a grammatical system to provide the meaning. According to structuralists, the structures underlying the units and rules are the product of human mind. Therefore, every human mind can use structural principle to arrange the units and rules. A structure has the following three properties: 1. Wholeness: The system functions as a whole rather than a combination of independent parts. 9 2. Transformation: The system can change. New units can enter the system. If such a case happens, new units are governed according to rules of the system. 3. Self-regulation: It is about the idea of transformation. New elements can be added to the system but the fundamental structure of the system cannot change no matter what is has been added (Piaget, 1971: 5). The most important kind of relation between the units in a signifying system is syntagmatic relation. This relation can be formed linearly since the language forms a chain by connecting units to each other. The linear structure can vary from language to language. For instance, while Subject+ Verb+ Object forms the linear structure of English, same structure for the Turkish language is Subject+ Object+ Verb. Saussure has split the language system into two parts: the synchronic and the diachronic. The synchronic system can then be divided into two axes: the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic. The paradigmatic focuses on value of signs. On the other hand, the syntagmatic deals with the sequence of signs. The primary concern of structuralism is the paradigmatic axe although both factors can be considered for a structuralist analysis. 1.1.2. Psychoanalytic Method Psychoanalytic criticism builds on Freudian theories of psychology. This criticism method has been originated in the work of Sigmund Freud who is a pioneer of psychoanalysis technique. Sigmund Freud is the creator of the structural model of personality. According to this structural personality model, there are three parts in each person‟s personality: „ego‟, „superego‟ and „id‟ (Lapsley & Stey, 2011:4). Psychoanalysis is a process using these three parts of someone‟s personality to analyze the behaviours. In some cases, literary critics used the structural model of personality in order to analyze the characters. When critics explore one of the parts of Freud‟s personality structure in a character, they begin to focus on the character‟s personality. This process is considered as psychoanalytic criticism. This criticism method applies the approaches of “reading” employed by Freud. This method claims that each literary work includes the secret desires and anxieties of the author like dreams. It can be said that a literary work is a product of author‟s neuroses. All characters can be considered as projections 10 of the author‟s psyche. This criticism focuses on the author‟s life, his/her sexual conflicts and so on. Psychoanalytic criticism concerns “what the author intended” (Abrams, 1999:247). 1.1.3. Formalistic Method Formalistic approach is a way of examining the literary work regardless of established terms such as the name of the author and the biography of author. It arose in 1920s and 1930s but developed during 1940s and 1950s. The English and American critics have great contribution to expand this approach. Syntax, grammar and literary devices are the main concerns of this critical method. It deals with the language, form, structure, organization and meaning. Thus, this critical approach anticipates that the reader needs to look closely at the literary work and its value of words rather than the outside aspects which are the elements who and why wrote the literary work. Formalists study the form of the work and try to be objective in their analysis of the work. They only focus on internal aspects of the work. They especially pay particular attention to literary devices used in the work. This critical approach is developed as a reaction to the approaches which interpret the texts by linking those to external issues and the political conditions of the era in which the work has been written. Formalist approach have been adopted by a number of important schools in literature. The Russian Formalism, The New Criticism which is an American approach and the Prague Linguistic Circle were the representatives of this approach. 1.1.4. New Historicism New Historicism is an approach based on the idea that the literary work needs to be examined and evaluated under the scope of both the history of author and critic. The new historicism has been proposed during the 1980s with the work of the critic Stephen Greenblatt as a reaction to the approach by formalist New Critics who have text-only method. New historicists acknowledge the importance of the literary work like formalists. However, they also pay particular attention to the history in which the text was produced. According to this approach, a work of literature has been influenced both 11 by the author‟s conditions and the critics‟ response to that work and their beliefs. New Historicism analyzes the literature in a wider historical context. New Historicists aims at perceiving the work as part of its historical context and cultural situations. Additionally, they also investigate the history through literature. This approach uses Michel Foucault‟s thoughts as his works have become effective on this approach. Foucault‟s theory of cultural knowledge and his technique of examining the documents have been used as a starting point to understand the episteme of a particular time. In this approach, both literary and non-literary texts are investigated before the analysis of the selected work in order to provide information about what the author of the original text himself read. The aim of this research is to understand the connection between the text and the political, economic, social conditions in which the text is originated. New Historicism attempted to rethink the concept of history into literary studies (Holstun, 1989). 1.1.5. Marxist Method Marxist criticism is a kind of criticism that literary works are viewed as material products to be understood in historical terms. Marxist criticism has not a traditional form of criticism; it includes a form of political action. As the literary works are regarded as the product of the work, the role of class, ideology and social order play an important role for the meanings hidden in the work. Marxist criticism believes that literature represents the class struggle and materialism. It investigates how the literary work can work as a force for a social change. It also shows interest in history and lower classes. This critical approach always attempts to clarify the relationship between text and social reality. Marxist critics need to identify the ideology of the work and find out its deficiencies. Marxist theory began with Karl Marx, the 19 th century German philosopher and his prominent work Das Kapital (1867) which is the stimulating work of the communism. Marx is the first initiator of the Marxist literary critic, writing critical essays on such writers as Goethe and Shakespeare. Marx also continued his interest in literature by collaborating with Friedrich Engels. In German Ideology which was written in 1846 by Marx and Engels, they discussed the relation between the arts, politics and economy in terms of social theory. 12 Eagleton states that “the task of Marxist criticism is to provide a materialist explanation of the bases of literary value” (1990: 162). In order to strengthen this explanation, Marxist criticism focuses on “the author‟s social class, its effects on the author‟s society, history and culture of the times in which the text is written and representation of social conflicts in the literature. As it is understood from the descriptions of criticism methods, each criticism method deals with literary works to some extent. Most criticism methods focus on some components which can be highly influential while forming the text. They regard the author‟s life, background, class etc. While these components can be known in the literary text and they can be also influential on the literary work, non-literary texts are mostly anonymous. The ongoing sections of this thesis dwell on the fundamental types of criticism. 1.2. TYPES OF CRITICISM 1.2.1. Art Criticism Art criticism is the discussion of a visual art. The visual art has been criticized within the context of aesthetic and general theory of beauty. To understand a visual art more comprehensively, one needs to be familiar with the heritage of the art product. This can cause to completely understand the themes, symbols, subjects etc. related to the work and how the time in which the art product was produced affects the work. Also, one needs to answer „wh-questions‟ (who, when, what and why). In order to appreciate the significance of the work, the art work needs to be described, analyzed, interpreted and judged. These four processes constitute the criticism method of art criticism. 1.2.2. Music Criticism Music is one of the most difficult arts to criticize. In The Oxford Companion to Music edited by Alison Latham (2002), this type of criticism is defined as “the intellectual activity of formulating judgments on the value and degree of excellence of individual works of music, or whole groups or genres”. Music criticism is a sub-field of musical 13 aesthetics. Music criticism aims at making judgments about composition or performance. However, with the expansion interest to the music over the past century, the music criticism refers to reporting on musical performances. These reports can be published in newspapers, radio, television, music magazines and so on. In the past years, music critics were not professionally trained. They were musicians or composers. However, in the modern world, the music criticism has become a profession. The music critics have started to take part in the recording process, attending performances and other different activities in order to assess the musical work more thoroughly. 1.2.3. Theatre Criticism Theatre criticism is the critique of performing arts such as plays, musicals and operas. Similar to film criticism, the reviews of a theatrical artwork in a periodical or a magazine can be classified as theatre critiques and they are performed by theatre critics. These critics usually inform the audience about the work and convey their positive and/or negative opinions about it. Additionally, scholars conduct academic researches on the field of theatre criticism and articles on this field are published in certain journals. These articles generally explore the artworks of the performing arts within the framework of theatre criticism as an academic discipline. In line with this thought, it is the scope of theatre criticism to examine and evaluate the works of performing arts in an objective and analytical way. 1.2.4. Film Criticism Film criticism is a type of criticism that focuses on films as a product of creativity. It evaluates the achievements of films while highlighting their unique and distinctive features. It also questions whether the films possess or lack a certain quality (Clayton and Klevan, 2001:1). Film reviews in magazines and periodicals fall under the scope of film criticism, however they generally represent the popularist perspective of this type of criticism. They comprise negative or positive critiques of films from certain individuals and these individuals mainly judge the acting, the directing and the cinematography. The other aspect of film criticism is an academic one which is 14 primarily supported by film theory. Academic film criticism is associated with the film studies and it deals with a wide range of topics, to name a few, the discourse in the films, the semiotics of the films, the sound and image of the films and the ideology in the films. This type of film criticism is usually exercised through the articles in academic journals by scholars. Consequently, the film criticism analyzes the films on the account of many aspects and it also discusses the effects of the films on people and the society. 1.2.5. Literary Criticism Literary criticism can be defined as a discipline that studies and evaluates the works of literature. It aims to broaden the horizons of the readers, scholars, translators or any individual who is interested in literature and let them see the literary works from a new and different perspective within the framework of an objective and structured discipline. These newly acquired perspectives pave the way for a better understanding of the elements in the text, what lies beneath it and the disguised references and meaning in the background of the text. To name a few, these elements might entail the content and the style of the text, ideological features, socio-cultural norms which are effective on the text and political and religious references that might be placed within the text. Literary criticism is generally associated with literary theory which is exercised in the academic aspect of literary studies. The reviews of literary works in magazines and periodicals are also classified as literary criticism even though they represent a more popularized aspect of literary criticism since they usually address a wider range of readers. Having all these concerns in mind, it can be noted that literary criticism embodies the criticism of the texts regardless of both the platforms where it is made and also of the target audience that it addresses. To take a step further, literary criticism is essentially important for the field of translation criticism in that its application to the translated literary works can also be considered as a literary criticism. Snell-Hornby (1988) corroborates the abovementioned argument by emphasizing that the translation criticism which is adopted into a given translated literary work resembles to the literary criticism to a certain extent. All in all, 15 it can be stated that the literary criticism offers insights into the translation criticism approaches which has begun to be regarded as a separate field of study in translation studies. 16 CHAPTER 2- TRANSLATION CRITICISM APPROACHES 2.1. THE CONCEPT OF “TURN” IN TRANSLATION STUDIES Translation Studies which deals with phenomena and the theory of translation is a young discipline as an academic field. Holmes states that Translation Studies has two fundamental goals: 1) To describe the „phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience‟, and 2) to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained (1994: 71). It means that this new academic discipline shall benefit from different disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, cultural studies etc. Translation Studies needs to be interdisciplinary due to its nature. With the contributions of the abovementioned disciplines, translation studies have made significant progress. These disciplines have brought about some perspective changes which can be called as turns in the conception of translation since 1950s. Before discussing the turns in translation studies and translation criticism approaches, it is noteworthy to describe the concept of the “turn” within the framework of translation studies. As Mary Snell-Hornby states, the concept of the “turn” as understood here is ideally a paradigmatic change, a marked “bend in the road” involving a distinct change in direction (2010: 366). However, there are some conditions for perceiving this change as a “turn”. Snell-Hornby claims that when the change is clearly visible, radical and has striking effect in order to redefine the subject, it can be acknowledged as a “turn” (2010: 366). Different scholars have various views about the turns and definitions of translation in different ways since the 1950s as the variety definitions of translation may become effective in shaping the turns in translation studies. Translation is a broad concept and may be understood in many ways such as a process, a product or etc. Studies in the field of translation have been affected by the variety of translation definitions and it may lead to develop new viewpoints in the translation. Put it differently, different perspectives give rise to examine the translation through the approaches which are accepted as „turns‟. It could be realized that there is no agreement on the names and numbers of the turns. Within the framework of this thesis, two main turns, namely the linguistic turn 17 and the cultural turn have been discussed as many scholars have reached a consensus on this issue. The potential third turn is the social turn which has been proposed and considered as the next turn and the developing trend in the translation studies. The focus of the studies fulfilled throughout these three turns, namely the linguistic turn, the cultural turn and social turn have been extended in the course of time. Only the surface linguistic features of the text have been discussed in a prescriptive way during the linguistic turn while within the cultural turn, it is underlined that translation needs to be discussed in a cultural context in a descriptive way. Thus, many elements of the social structures which include norms, values, power relations, ideology has been taken into consideration in the translation process. Lastly, roles of agents in the translation process (the translator, the publisher, the editor etc.) has come to fore with the social turn. The following sections include the general remarks about the linguistic turn and translation criticism approaches of Anton Popovic, Werner Koller, Katharina Reiss and Juliane House respectively. 2.1.1. The Linguistic Turn Linguistic turn is closely related to the translation from the perspective of linguistics. Different scholars put forward different notions of translation. The linguistic turn in translation begins in the 1950s. It is a reaction to the traditional epistemology. As the studies in the field of translation are empiricism-oriented before the 20 th century, translation is evaluated under the philological studies and characterized by critical and empirical methods. In the studies related with translation, the texts are systematically and structurally examined with the development of modern linguistics. The viewpoint of translation has shifted from empiricism to scientism. From the 1950s, translation studies have become integrated closely with modern linguistics especially structural linguistics. Different definitions for translation have been put forward. In these attempts, translation has been defined in a scientific way. Theories and approaches within the linguistic turn are generally text-based, source oriented, prescriptive and absolutely linguistic. According to linguists such as Catford, Nida; translation should be faithful and represent the original text accurately (Catford, 1965; Nida, 1964). 18 In the linguistic turn, studies in the field of translation have a relation with modern linguistic theory and structuralism of Saussure. Many translation scholars apply the structural approach to translation. For instance, Roman Jakobson, Eugene Nida, Anton Popovic, Peter Newmark, John Catford, Werner Koller and so many other scholars have contributed to the development of studies in the field of translation. In order to understand the linguistic turn thoroughly, some scholar‟s approaches to translation need to be explained. For instance, linguistic meaning and equivalence are the key elements for the Russian structuralist Roman Jakobson. In his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” he classifies three types of translation: 1) intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language 2) interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language 3) intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems (2012:127) Equivalence is connected to the interlingual form of translation. For Jakobson, there are two equivalent messages in two different codes in this translation type. His approach to translation is related to lexical and grammatical differences between languages. Equivalence is also a concept for Eugene A. Nida. The American Bible translator Nida defines translation as transference of messages from one language to another. He claims that five developments have had important effect on the theory and practice of translation in various parts of the world. These are: - The development of structural linguistics - The application of structural linguistics methods in Bible translating - Organizations of United Bible Societies‟ conferences about translation - The publication of Babel 1 since 1955 - The development of machine translation (Nida, 1964: 21-22). 1 Babel is a scholarly journal designed primarily for translators and interpreters published by John Benjamins Publishing Company 19 According to Nida, a translation must meet the following basic requirements: 1) making sense, 2) reflecting the spirit of the original, 3) having natural form of expression, and 4) creating a similar response (1964: 164). He divides the equivalence into two groups: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. While formal equivalence focuses on the form and content of the source text, dynamic equivalence which is also later termed as functional equivalence intends to reach the complete naturalness of expression. He aims at a similar response between the target audience and target text. He uses the term functional equivalence to avoid possible misunderstandings instead of dynamic equivalence (Whang, 2004: 51). Peter Newmark regards translation as the change of meaning between two languages. He is influenced by the work of Nida. His thoughts on translation are based on textual analysis. He feels that a success of equivalent effect is „illusory‟ (Munday, 2010: 44). He distinguishes two types of translation: communicative translation and semantic translation. He states: Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. (1988: 39) From these descriptions, it can be understood that semantic translation has some resemblances to Nida‟s formal equivalence while communicative translation has shown parallelism to Nida‟s dynamic equivalence. However, Newmark‟s translation types have generally received less attention than Nida‟s formal and dynamic equivalence. According to Munday, this may be because Newmark raises the same points concerning the translation process and the importance of the TT reader. (2010: 46) Catford, likewise, defines translation as replacement of textual material between two languages. He is the first scholar who applied the term “shift” to translation studies in his book titled A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965). His systematic linguistic approach to translation studies focuses on the relationship between textual equivalence and formal correspondence. He sees that if the TT is equivalent to the ST, there is a textual equivalence; on the other hand, if the TT is close to the ST, there is a formal correspondence. 20 Consequently; the linguistic approach to translation theory included the following concepts: meaning, equivalence, shift, text analysis. It can be noted that linguistic turn was a historical step for translational studies. When the definitions of translation were compared, it seems that the definitions of translation after 1950s were much more pathbreaking. In this turn, translation was seen as the transfer of languages. The main concern was to provide equivalence. The consideration of context was neglected. Moreover, the definitions of translation were prescriptive rather than descriptive in the linguistic turn. Nevertheless, many linguistic theories (e.g. Chomsky‟s generative grammar etc.) were applied to studies in the field of translation and this helped the studies progress quickly. However, the understanding of translation was limited to linguistic level. In other words, translation only focuses on the relationship between languages. Naturally, this approach indicates itself in the translation criticism of that period. This viewpoint of the linguistic turn accords with approaches to translation criticism developed in that period. Within the scope of this thesis, the chosen approaches to be evaluated under the linguistic turn have been examined below. 2.1.1.1. Anton Popovic and the Concept of „Shifts of Expressions‟ in Translation Analysis Anton Popovic was active for only twenty years from the 1960s to 1980s as a scholar. His opinions had highly influenced by Russian formalism. Popovic developed his concept of “shifts of expression” in translation analysis. However, the term „shift‟ has been used before him by Catford in the field of translation studies. Prior to explaining Popovic‟s shifts of expression, it may be useful to deal with the shifts as a term. The concept of “shift” in translational studies backs to 1960s. In the 1960s and 1970s, a group of scholars from Czechoslovakia makes considerable contribution to the identifying of translation shifts. However, the term was originally introduced by Catford. He defines the shifts as “departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from SL to the TL” (1965: 73). Catford divides the shifts into two categories: level shifts and category shifts. For the level shifts, he refers to the differences of SL and TL in the level of grammar, lexis, phonology and graphology. A SL item at one linguistic level needs to be equivalent in the TL at a different level. Changes of level 21 shifts are not the only changes affecting the translation. There are also changes affecting structure, class and units. They refer to the category shifts. Catford defines the category shifts as “departures from formal correspondence in translation” (1965: 76). Category shifts has four subgroups: structure shifts, class shifts, unit shifts, and intra-system shifts. After mentioning the emergence of the term „shift‟, it is the time to discuss about Anton Popovic‟s „shift of expression‟. It is noted that Popovic describes the issue of shift within the literary context. Popovic explains the relationship between the original text and the translation by accepting that changes, losses and gains are necessary parts of the translation process (Gentzler, 1993: 86). These changes can happen due to the differences of linguistic and aesthetic features between two cultures. In his essay, “The Concept “Shift of Expression‟ in Translation Analysis”, Popovic states: Each individual method of translation is determined by the presence or absence of shifts in the various layers of the translation. All that appears as new with respect to the original, or fails to appear where it might have been expected, may be interpreted as shift (1970: 78). When the concept of shift proposed by Popovic is considered, it can be concluded three elements: (a) a relationship between the source and target texts; (b) a relationship between the target text and its reception in the target system; (c) a descriptive point of view (Bakker et al., 2009: 270). A shift can be considered as anything different from the original text. Popovic states that “the translator will not strive to preserve all the singularities, but will try to find suitable equivalents in the milieu of his time and his society” (1970: 79). It seems to be in accordance with Toury‟s notion that “translation is a norm-governed activity” (1995: 56). As Popovic argues that the translator needs to strive for preserving the norm of the original. Therefore, the translator needs shifts for the sake of the faithful rendering of the ST in the TL. Popovic highlights the significance of the shift of expression concept as such: “An analysis of the shifts of expression, applied to all levels of the text, will bring to light the general system of the translation, with its dominant and subordinate elements.” (1970: 85) According to Popovic, shifts can be obligatory or optional (Van den Broeck, 1985: 57). Obligatory shifts are governed by linguistic differences such as structural, syntactic, 22 semantic, phonological, cultural etc. between SL and TL. On the other hand, optional shifts are formed by the translator‟s choices. They involve extra-linguistic factors such as cultural awareness, translation skills, and the translator‟s personal choices. Shortly, optional shifts are governed by the translator‟s norms. The term „norm‟ used by Popovic is described by two stylistic norms: “the norm of the original and the norm of the translation” that influence translation process (Hermans, 1999: 24). Popovic takes into account the interpretation effort of the translator in the translation process. He suggests two possible approaches: 1. The translator tries to be “faithful”. The translation may be too literal or, 2. The translator tries to be “free”. The translation may be over-interpretative. Shifts could be seen as the manifestations of manipulation (Dukate, 2009: 46). Therefore, Popovic mentions the manipulation of translations as a part of profession. He called the components which play roles in the manipulation process as „stakeholders‟. These stakeholders can be translators, critics, academics etc. He coined the term “meta- communicational context of translation” to refer the reaction for forming of another text (metatext). This issue of manipulation of translations leads Popovic to take a wide range of implications into consideration for translations. According to Popovic, the editor gives the final version of a translated text. The editor is the mediator between the norms of language and the translation of text. In this regard, an editor can even become the “co-author” of the target text. Principally, Popovic divides position of the editor into three categories: a. the editor is in a position “independent” of the literary and temporal norm, he tries to surpass it b. the editor identifies himself with the prevailing, predominant literary and language norm and is, in fact, its implementer c. the editor sensitively balances the translator‟s text and the normative requirements of the given literary epoch (Spirk, 2009: 13-14). Popovic also touches on translation criticism. According to him, translation criticism has three functions: i. postulating function, directed towards the translator 23 ii. analytical function, directed towards the text iii. operative function, directed towards the reader (Spirk, 2009: 17) Firstly, the postulating function deals with the translation program. It is related to the choice of the text to be translated. It concerns both the context of source culture‟s literature and the context of literature into which a work will be translated. As regards the context of the target literature, the postulating function has connection with the literary norm in that literature. The work of art either should represent the original‟s literature or contribute to its aesthetic structure. Secondly, the analytical function includes the strategies used by the translator. Those are: knowledge of two languages, having capacity for translating the texts stylistically, familiarity with two literary canons and tendency to evaluate shifts of expression correctly. Therefore, Popovic states that the translator should be biliterate as well as bilingual. Thirdly and lastly, the operative function dabbles with the expectations of readers. It tells the readers how the translated work should be understood. According to Popovic, translation criticism is a third chain of communication. He sees that the original work constitutes the primary communication (the first chain of communication), the translated work forms a secondary communication (meta- communication), and the translation criticism comprises as a reaction to it, composing the third chain of communication (Spirk, 2009: 18) Popovic sees the translation criticism as an axiological process. He speaks of three basic axiological aspects of the translation critic‟s job: 1) subjective taste 2) analytical evaluation of the translator‟s product 3) function of the translation in the context of contemporary literature (2009: 11) The function of translations is their contribution to the development of the literary structure in which they are involved. Popovic does not disregard the cultural aspects of 24 translation and the translation process. According to Popovic, translation is not only a linguistic operation but also a semiotic operation. In literary theory and translation, Popovic‟s three concepts have been inspiring until this day: his concept of shifts of expression in translation analysis, his theory of metatext and his model of image of the world in the text. Popovic is also accepted as one of the founding fathers of DTS and manipulation school by many scholars (Bassnett-McGuire 1980, Hermans 1999, Prunc 2001). On the other hand, Popovic has been criticized for being too theoretical. He had done little empirical operation and research in his works. However, it should not be forgotten that Popovic‟s works except of a few articles are inaccessible to a large mass since they are not translated into English. After discussing Anton Popovic‟s approach to translation and translation criticism, the other scholar Werner‟s Koller‟s approach has been examined under the linguistic turn as he sees the translation from the perspective of equivalence which is one of the main concerns in the linguistic turn. 2.1.1.2. Werner Koller‟s „The Concept of Equivalence‟ and „Text Analysis‟ Koller defines the translation from the point of linguistic and text-theoretical perspective. According to Koller, translation can be understood as the result of a text- processing activity, by means of which a source-language text is transposed into a target-language text (1995: 196). From this definition, it has been realised that there is a relationship between source and target texts and this relation has shown itself as equivalence. Koller has carried out significant works on the concept of equivalence. He has linked the concept of equivalence with its own relevant term „correspondence‟. For Koller, the parameters of both correspondence and equivalence differ from each other. Correspondence means comparing two language systems and describing similarities and differences contrastively and this term is usually evaluated within the context of contrastive linguistics (Panou, 2013:3). Its parameters are Saussure‟s langue. The identification of false friends, signs of lexical, syntactic and morphological interferences can be given as examples of these parameters. Conversely, equivalence is associated 25 with equivalent items in ST-TT pairs. Saussure‟s parole is the parameter. Therefore, the knowledge of correspondences is an indication of competence in foreign language while the knowledge and providing the equivalence is an indication of competence in translation. However, there is still no consensus what exactly should be equivalent. Koller remarks: Equivalence is a relative concept in several respects: it is determined on the one hand by the historical-cultural conditions under which texts (original as much as secondary ones) are produced and received in the target culture, and on the other by a range of sometimes contradictory and scarcely reconcilable linguistic-textual and extra-linguistic factors and conditions (1995: 196). Texts in various languages can be equivalent either in different degrees (the text is fully or partially equivalent) or in different levels (the text is equivalent in terms of grammar, lexis, semantics etc.) or in different ranks (the text is equivalent word by word, phrase to phrase etc.). Therefore, Koller suggests five different types of equivalence: 1) Denotative equivalence is related to equivalence of the extralinguistic content of a text. 2) Connotative equivalence deals with the lexical choices, especially between near-synonyms. 3) Text-normative equivalence is related to certain text types, with different kinds of texts behaving in different ways. 4) Pragmatic equivalence is related to the recipient for whom the translation is “specially designed”. 5) Formal equivalence is related to certain aesthetics and the form of the text, including individual stylistic features of the ST (House, 1997: 25). Koller distinguishes these types of equivalence considering their research foci. After describing these types, he stresses their importance for helping the translator. He points out: With every text as a whole, and also with every segment of text, the translator who consciously makes such a choice must set up a hierarchy of values to be preserved in translation; from this he can derive a hierarchy of equivalence requirements for the text or segment in question. This in turn must be preceded by a translationally relevant text analysis. It is an urgent task of translation theory- and one on which no more than some preliminary work has so far been done-to develop methodology and conceptual apparatus for this kind of text analysis, and bring together and systematize such analyses in terms of translationally relevant typologies of textual features (1989: 99-104). 26 As Koller‟s types of equivalences are concerned, the translator needs to decide hierarchy of equivalence for each type of text. Translator needs to use a “translation- oriented text analysis” in this establishing of equivalence process in order to determine the appropriate criteria among the five types. However; the vital point is that the equivalences must be ordered hierarchically considering their communicative situation. Koller‟s purpose is to develop a scientific mode of criticism that can improve the quality of translations. Koller points out that there is a necessity of comprehensive linguistic model for translation quality assessment. Such a model should include: 1) source text criticism with a view to transferability into the target language 2) translation comparison in which the particular methods used in the translation are described 3) evaluation of the translation according to “adequate” or “non-adequate” terms rather than general criteria such as “faithful” or “unfaithful” (House, 1997: 17). Koller‟s approach is an attempt to describe the distinct qualities of ST and TT elements which can be shared. These elements vary from extralinguistic contents to formal- aesthetic features. Each of these variations can correspond to a different type of equivalence. Koller offers a checklist for translation relevant text analysis under the headings of:  language function;  content characteristics;  language-stylistic characteristics;  formal-aesthetic characteristics;  pragmatic characteristics; (Munday, 2010: 48) Consequentially, it can be noted that Koller‟s linguistic-textual approach in translation studies assumes that translations are characterised by a double linkage: the first one is its link to the ST and the second one is its communicative conditions on the receiver. 27 From the linguistic-textual perspective, the extra-linguistic circumstances, the connotations, norms of the text and language, receiver and the aesthetic features have greater importance in the equivalence frameworks. Certainly, Koller‟s thoughts and approach have been also criticized. Particularly, Koller‟s five references of equivalence types have remained strangely intact over the years. His concept of equivalence is either too vague or too bound for language systems (Pym, 1997). Snell-Hornby has the view that “equivalence is unsuitable as a basic concept in translation theory” (1988: 22). To sum up, Koller‟s approach is like a general outline with no suggestions for operations despite the enlightening and fruitful ideas (House, 1997: 17). Moreover, it can be noted that Koller‟s five equivalence frameworks force the translator to choose one type of these equivalence. For example, a text can include rhyme as a stylistic pattern so that the translator might want to maintain and protect this rhyme, thus achieving “formal-aesthetic equivalence” at the expense of “denotative equivalence”. In the linguistic turn, studies in the field of translation focus on transferring the source text‟s item into the target text‟s item by providing the „equivalence‟. However, it is understood that translation is beyond equivalence and studies begin to deal with the concept of „function‟. The functional phase of Translation Studies After examining translation criticism approaches of Anton Popovic and Werner Koller, it can be seen that linguistic approach to translation focuses on key issues of meaning from the perspective of the concepts of „shifts‟ and „equivalence‟. In this turn and its approaches, when the success of a translation is evaluated, people are likely to employ “faithfulness” and “equivalence” to the ST as a most credible criterion to decide the translation is good or not. This type of translation can be considered as over-simplified. Initially, the linguistic approach has dealt with the structure. However, some scholars and theorists have started to understand that language was not only about structure, it was also about the way language is used in a given social context. This side of the linguistic approach has been regarded as functional linguistics with the work of prominent scholars such as Reiss, Vermeer, Nord, House etc. In this functional point of 28 view to translation, Skopos theory put forward by Hans J. Vermeer had a great influence on translation studies. Before examining the translation criticism approaches of Reiss and House, it may be useful to explain Skopos briefly in order to understand their functional approaches to translation criticism. Skopos theory is the core of functionalist translation theory. Skopos is a Greek word for „aim‟ or „purpose‟. This theory views translation as an action with a purpose. It is a new viewpoint of looking at translation. Skopos theory is based on action theory. It means that every action has a purpose; thus translation must have purpose since it is also an action. Skopos theory does not focus on faithfulness or unfaithfulness. It decides the process of translation. Skopos theory suggests different strategies for various conditions since the ST is not the only element involved in translation. This theory is opposed to traditional equivalence-based theories. The Skopos is used to produce a functionally adequate outcome. This outcome is defined as translatum by Vermeer. Hence, knowing why the chosen ST is to be translated and what the function of TT will be key points for the translators. Skopos theory influences most of the scholars. One of the scholars is Katharina Reiss. She tries to give a comprehensive theory which can include all text types with Vermeer. Furthermore, she has suggested an approach to translation criticism in her book entitled “Translation Criticism-The Potentials & Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment (2000)”. In the following sections Reiss‟ approach to translation criticism will be discussed in detail. 2.1.1.3. Katharina Reiss‟ Approach to Translation Criticism Katharina Reiss has suggested her translation criticism approach in her book entitled Translation Criticism-The Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment (2000). In her book, she discusses three different categories for the possibility of an objective criticism by analyzing the results of the translation process. Reiss divides these categories into three groups: literary category, language category, and pragmatic category. To understand Reiss‟ translation criticism approach, these three categories will be explained in the following paragraphs. 29 Katharina Reiss defined literature as the whole range of written expressions in a given language (2000: 48). As she acknowledges any written text in a language as literature, any text can be a basis for translation. Therefore, Reiss firstly discuss the literary category which focuses on text types. The assessment of a translation begins with a determination of its text type. Once the text type is determined and the appropriate strategy for translation is chosen, the relevant criteria to be assessed the degree whether the translator has met the text type accurately. In other words, it accordingly changes the type of text. Reiss explains this circumstance as such: (...) in a content-focused text, it is whether primary concern has been shown for accuracy of data; in a form-focused text, whether special attention beyond the general concern for accuracy of information has been paid so that rhetorical structures will achieve a comparable aesthetic effect; in an appeal-focused text, whether it achieves the purpose intended by the original; (...) (Reiss, 2000: 47). To sum up, the literary category which constitutes the first part of Reiss‟ translation criticism approach deals with text type. In this category, the critic needs to decide the source text‟s type. After the literary character of a translation has been determined, the critic moves on to the next step. It is the next category- a language category which deals with the linguistic elements. Reiss‟ language category which is the second category in her translation criticism approach dwells on the language style, linguistic features and their equivalents in TL. Under this category, details of the translation process which reveals the linguistic features of the SL in the TL are examined (2000: 48). The semantic elements, the lexical elements, the grammatical elements and the stylistic elements are taken into consideration in this category. These elements will be explained below respectively. The semantic elements are critical factors while protecting both content and meaning of the ST. If the translator has misunderstood the words or misinterpret the meaning, this situation can be a problem. Then, it offers an invitation for the critic. In order to avoid this condition, the linguistic context needs to be examined carefully. Afterwards, the translator determines semantic equivalence. As for the lexical elements, Reiss states that “the standard for the lexical components must be adequacy” (2000: 57). Therefore, the critic needs to decide the elements of the ST are sufficiently given in the TT on the lexical level or not. It can mostly be seen 30 when the translator has an achievement while translating the technical terminology, idioms, false friends etc. The other element taken into consideration under the language category is the grammatical elements. The concept of correctness is the criteria for the evaluation of the translation from the perspective of grammatical components of the ST. As long as there is no dominant factor in the nature of the text, the morphology and syntax of the TL need to come fore. If semantic and stylistic aspects of the grammatical structure of the text are successfully translated, grammatical correctness can be pleasing. The last element examined in the language category of Reiss‟ approach is the stylistic elements. In some cases, the author‟s stylistic aspects can differentiate from the normal language usage. Therefore, it should be examined that the translation includes standard, individual or contemporary usage of stylistic components of the TT or not. Then, the critic has to decide whether the text in the TL exhibits complete correspondence (2000: 63). This last criterion has especially importance of the assessment of form-focused and appeal-focused texts since they have much more stylistic aspects than the other text types. In the pragmatic category, extra-linguistic determinants are taken into consideration. Unless the extra-linguistic components of both the source and target texts are considered, the evaluation will be unsatisfactory. The extra-linguistic components are important as well as the linguistic elements. The extra-linguistic determinants contain a variety of factors. They are called determinants since all of these factors have an influence on the linguistic form of the text. In her book, Reiss quoted from Mounin the following conclusion: Translation today does not mean simply observing the structural and linguistic meaning of the text, its lexical and syntactic content, but rather the whole meaning of the statement, including its environment, century, culture, and if necessary the whole civilization which produced it (Mounin cited in Reiss, 2000: 68). The extra-linguistic determinants deals with the immediate situation, the subject matter, the time factor, the place factor, the audience factor, the speaker factor and affective implications. The extra-linguistic factors can allow an author to diminish the linguistic form of the message to be delivered as text receivers can complete the rest of the 31 situation by his/her own language. It has to be done with the immediate context, not with a complete work. The other extra-linguistic factor affecting the linguistic form of the text is the subject matter. The translator needs to be familiar with the text‟s field. As Mounin states that “it is not enough to know the words- it is necessary to know what the words are about” (cited in Reiss, 2000: 70). The subject matter must be understood by the critic as well. When the text is associated with the particular time, the time factor becomes relevant. For instance, while translating an old text, the choice of words, figures of speech etc. should be compatible with the ST. Furthermore, the time factor has another sense for translation criticism. The translation which has been published in old times needs not to be evaluated by the same standards as a recent translation of the text since the original language of the ST cannot change but the TL is changing. The time factor is especially shows itself in the form-focused and appeal-focused texts. According to Reiss, the time factor is very complex and its consideration demands sophisticated sensitivities both linguistically and stylistically (2000: 73). The more difficult factor than the time factor for translator is the place factor. The place factor consists of all the characteristics of the country and culture. If the target culture lacks similar kinds of characteristics, the translation becomes a difficult task. The audience factor is explicit in the common idiomatic expressions, metaphors etc. It depends on the text type. It has a process of decoding. Therefore, the receiver of the text in the target culture should understand the text with his/her own cultural context. The speaker factor refers to the speaker-related determinants which affect the language of the author in lexical, grammatical and stylistic levels. Lastly, affective implications include the emotional determinants affecting lexical and stylistic matters. Thus far, it has been discussed the possibility of an objective translation criticism by examining the results of the process under three different categories. These categories are literary category (text types), language category (linguistic elements) and pragmatic category (non-linguistic determinants). However, three principal categories of Reiss for translation criticism need to be supplemented by other perspectives. As Reiss claims that translation methods vary from the norms, she adds functional and personal category to these three categories (2000: 89). 32 The functional category is a guideline for guiding principle for judging renderings (2000: 92). The texts can have special purposes. Therefore, in this category, the translation should be assessed in the light of special purpose instead of the text type. The other category, the personal one copes with two components: the interpretive skill of the translator and the individual personality of the translator. The personal category can restrict the critic to make absolute judgments. To sum up, Reiss summarizes the discussion for potentials and limitations of an objective translation criticism as follows: 1. Translation criticism is proper if the text-oriented translation method is chosen considering the text types, linguistic elements of the texts and the non-linguistic determinants affecting the text. 2. Translation criticism is proper if the goal-oriented translation method addressing to special function or readership is carefully examined. 3. Both text-oriented and goal-oriented methods of translation can be affected by subjective factors including the personality of the translator. 4. The translation criticism, either text-oriented or goal-oriented can be proper if these subjective factors are taken into consideration. (2000: 114) In her approach, Reiss has attempted to develop a general framework of translation criticism by taking many factors into consideration. She has ranged the standards for different text types. Reiss‟ text typology constitutes the first part for determining the literary, linguistic and pragmatic categories which provide references to translations to be assessed. Then, she has added functional and personal categories to her approach. Reiss‟ approach has been pioneer for many other methods of translation criticism. One of the most important one is Juliane House‟s model which examines the translation from the perspective of quality. 33 2.1.1.4. Juliane House‟s Model for Translation Quality Assessment The quality of a translation is one of the serious concerns for translation studies. The basic concern is how to measure this quality. For this purpose, there have been many attempts to evaluate the quality of translated works. However, only a few of them is applicable and encouraging. One of the most accepted models produced for TQA was developed by the German scholar Juliane House. House‟s model is based on Halliday‟s functional and systemic theory. Her model deals with source-text and target-text analysis by particularly focusing on „mismatches‟ and „errors‟. First of all, House begins her model to discuss the concept of “equivalence”. Translation has a double-binding relationship with its ST and to the communicative conditions of the receiving linguaculture (House, 1997: 29). The notion of equivalence reflects this relation. This notion is ensured with preserving of “meaning” between two languages. There are three aspects of meaning which have a great importance for translation: semantic aspect, pragmatic aspect, and textual aspect. The semantic aspect of meaning includes a relationship between reference and denotation. It means that there is a connection with linguistics units and their referents. The pragmatic aspect of meaning consists of correlation between linguistics units and the user(s) of these units in a given communicative condition. In the textual aspect of meaning, individual elements are associated with each other and they form a text as a whole. From all these aspects, House defines translation as such: Translation is the replacement of a text in the source language by semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language. Equivalence I take to be the fundamental criterion of translation quality. Thus, an adequate translation text is pragmatically and semantically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence, it is posited that a translation text has a function equivalent to that of source text (1997: 31-2). House states that the function can be defined as the text‟s situation in a particular context. In order for establishing this kind of function, a characterization of text‟s “textual profile” which results from a systematic linguistic-pragmatic analysis of the text in its context is necessary (1997: 36). House follows Crystal and Davy‟s (1969) scheme for the analysis. Crystal and Davy‟s system of “situational constraints” in which the situation break into analysable parts. Crystal and Davy‟s scheme deals with 34 correlation situations and texts. The scheme of Crystal and Davy‟s consists of the following elements: A Individuality Dialect Time B Discourse a. (Simple/Complex) Medium (Speech, Writing) b. (Simple/Complex) Participation (Monologue, Dialogue) C Province Status Modality Singularity (Crystal and Davy, 1969:66) In order to construct situational-functional text analysis and translation assessment, Juliane House eclectically adapted this model by collapsing their three sections in two sections: “Dimensions of Language User” and “Dimensions of Language Use”. A. Dimensions of Language User 1. Geographical Origin 2. Social Class 3. Time B. Dimensions of Language Use 1. Medium: simple/ complex 2. Participation: simple/ complex 3. Social Role Relationship 4. Social Attitude 5. Province (House, 1997: 39) The abovementioned situational dimensions are considered to be the elements which display us how the text‟s function is realized. It is possible to analyze the text‟s function within the eight situational dimensions as outlined above. Furthermore, House revises her model and attaches register analysis for translation evaluation to her model. 35 She borrows Hallidayan “trinity” Field, Tenor, Mode for register analysis (1997: 107). According to House, the TT has to be compared with the textual profile of ST to make qualitative statements about the translation. If a translation carries out the requirement of both dimensional and functional match, it will be considered successful. If not, there is a mismatch called error. House defends her model by remarking the following statements: Apart from using the objectively fixed set of situational dimensions as a sort of tertium comparationis, this method of determining the appropriateness of a TT depends of course on the analyst‟s intuition and on the intuitive judgments of further judges asked to help substantiate certain points. This approach of relying on the analyst‟s (as a native speaker, a near-native speaker, and at the same time an expert in translation) seemed to be the only feasible method of putting this type of model into practice (1997: 46). Besides, House supports her arguments by stating that the translation is a complex hermeneutic process and therefore, the translation quality assessment can never be completely objective. The case studies which will be underpinned by this method can have two main purposes: firstly, to reach a comprehensive understanding of the theory and secondly, to develop more statements about the theoretical framework. House suggests some suggestions to refine the model. She bases the success in translation quality on text types and translation type. If the analyst classifies translation type successfully, then s/he will successfully determine the differences and problems in the translation evaluation. Thus, House suggests two approaches for translation typology: overt translation and covert translation. House defines overt translation as such: An overt translation is one in which the addressees of the translation text are quite “overtly” not being directly addressed: thus an overt translation is one which must be overtly be a translation not, as it were, a “second original” (1997: 66). In an overt translation the ST is tied in a specific manner to the source language community and its culture (1997:66). The purpose of an overt translation is to give readers comprehension into the function of the ST in the original culture. In this type of translation, the text and its cultural differences are not adapted to the target culture. Culture-specific elements are usually preserved intact. The ST requiring an overt translation can be categorized into two groups: overt historically-linked source texts in which a specified audience is being addressed and overt timeless source texts which are considered to be works of art and aesthetic creations. In an overt translation, “a direct 36 match of the original function of the ST is not possible” (1997: 67) since a non- repeatable event occurs in the ST and culture. Moreover, cases of overt translation have difficulties because their status in the source culture within the socio-cultural context needs general changes. The other category of House‟s translation typology is covert translation. A covert translation is a translation which enjoys the status of an source text in the target culture (1997: 69). This type is labelled as covert translation since it is not evaluated as a translation of a ST; it is formed in its own right. Pragmatically, the ST and its covert translation have equal concern for both cultures. In case of covert translations, the function of the ST and TT should be the same. To fulfil a functional equivalence, the ST should be translated as well as it should be adapted to the new target culture‟s knowledge. A covert translation is accepted as an independent text in the target culture. Therefore, the readers of the covert translation do not perceive that they are reading a translation. Advertisements can be given as examples of covert translation. The translators of covert translations must take different prerequisites into consideration in order to meet the needs of target culture. House states: In a covert translation, the translator has to make allowances for underlying cultural differences by placing what I call a cultural filter between the source text and the translation text. The translator has, as it were, to view the source text through the glasses of a target culture member (1997: 70). A cultural filter includes the characteristics of target culture which must be applied to a source text in order to achieve intended goal of functional equivalence. However, the translator should clearly analyze the cultural differences to reach the intended goal before making any change in the ST. If translator does not carefully examine cultural filter, there can be mismatches between the source and target texts. Therefore, House suggests “non-risk taking” strategy in covert translation. Her suggestion can be summarized as “when in doubt, leave it out” (1997: 71). House‟s approach to TQA is not “absolutely evaluative”. The model presented in here is a text-based, linguistic one and consists of Hallidayan conception of linguistics (field, tenor and mode). The model has concluded that translation is a linguistic phenomenon. The model also disregards the social dimension because the choice of an overt or a covert translation does not only depend on the translator or the text but also readers or 37 marketing and publishing policies. In other words, there are many factors that cannot be related with the translator since translation is a multidimensional phenomenon. House claims that translation criticism as a field of inquiry, have to move from macro level to micro level. To sum up, the model provides for linguistic analysis, description and comparison of texts, relating them with cultural and situational contexts (1997: 166). According to House, translation quality assessment has two functional components like language itself: the ideational and the interpersonal. The former refers to empirical research, description, analysis and explanation. On the other hand, the latter relates to judgments of values and appropriateness. Both components are connected with each other in translation quality assessments. However, the second is ineffective without the first one (1997: 166). Under the linguistic turn part, translation criticism approaches of Popovic, Koller, Reiss and House has been discussed respectively. It is understood that the linguistic turn focuses on the concept of „equivalence‟ and „shifts‟ This perspective shows itself in the translation criticism approaches developed under the linguistic turn. The translation criticism approaches which has been proposed in this turn deals with the same concepts. However, the perspective to translation has begun to change. Translation was no longer thought of as a linguistic activity. It has been considered as the product of a cultural context. This consideration refers to shift called „cultural turn‟ which will be discussed below. 2.1.2. The Cultural Turn Context has gained importance after the linguistic turn on studies in the field of translation. As a result of this importance, many scholars try to redefine translation. Bassnett and Lefevere have great influence among these scholars. While Bassnett highlights the importance of context, Lefevere regards the translation as rewriting. They take the cultural factors into consideration. This leads to shift of paradigm from linguistic to culture and their definition of translation studies causes the cultural turn from the 1980s. This turn has gained momentum in 1990s. The cultural turn in translation studies can be considered as a part of cultural turn that took place in the 38 humanities in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and has altered the shape of many traditional subjects (Bassnett, 2007: 16). The cultural turn has emerged as a reaction to the linguistic turn. As discussed before, the definitions and perceptions of translation have been influenced by the ideas of structuralism which was effective in the linguistic turn. The understanding of translation has changed and improved with the introduction of more factors such as context, culture, ideology and so on. The concept of translation has been redefined. The most influential definitions are proposed by Bassnett and Lefevere. As mentioned above, Bassnet‟s and Lefevere‟s definitions of translation brings the cultural turn. The cultural turn was firstly appeared in the anthology Translation, History and Culture: A Sourcebook (1992) edited by Andre Lefevere. Theories and approaches under the scope of this turn are generally descriptive and target-text oriented. The focal point is not the text level. Translation has moved beyond the text level and it has pointed out that the purpose of the cultural turn is to define the relation between the translation and culture. In this turn, translation has no longer been defined as transcoding the linguistic units. In other words, translation studies have changed its perspective from reproducing the meanings by providing equivalence to constituting the text in a given socio-cultural context. The focus of translation has shifted from language to context. In the cultural turn, translation has been seen as rewriting (Lefevere, 1992: vii). Therefore, the scope of translation has been widened. The target text gained importance since it has not been assessed as a secondary position. Furthermore, translation studies has also encountered other turns such as „power turn‟ (Tymoczko & Gentzler, 2007), „empirical and globalization turn (Snell-Hornby, 2006) within the introduction more cultural factors and proposed new theories from feminism, deconstructionism, post-colonialism etc. These turns can be considered as remarkable complements of the cultural turn. The cultural turn deals with the TT and its cultural context. In this turn, it is in