Hacettepe University Graduate School Of Social Sciences 

Department of Translation and Interpreting 

 

 

 

 

A CROSS-TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF INTRALINGUAL 

TRANSLATION: THE CASE OF HÜSEYİN RAHMİ GÜRPINAR’S 

WORKS IN TÜRKİYE 

 

 

 

Selim Ozan ÇEKÇİ 

 

 

 

 

Ph.D. Thesis 

 

 

 

Ankara, 2024 

  



 
 

A CROSS-TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION: THE CASE OF 

HÜSEYİN RAHMİ GÜRPINAR’S WORKS IN TÜRKİYE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Selim Ozan ÇEKÇİ 

 

 

 

 

Hacettepe University Graduate School Of Social Sciences 

Department of Translation and Interpreting 

 

 

 

Ph.D. Thesis 

 

 

 

Ankara, 2024 

 



 
 

ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL 

 

The jury finds that Selim Ozan ÇEKÇİ has on the date of 30.05.2024 successfully passed the 

defense examination and approves his/her Ph.D. Thesis titled “A Cross-Temporal Analysis of 

Intralingual Translation: The Case of Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s Works in Türkiye”.  

 

 

Assoc. Prof. Sinem BOZKURT (Jury President) 

 

 

Assoc. Prof. Hilal ERKAZANCI DURMUŞ (Main Adviser) 

 

  

Assoc. Prof. Seda İLMEK 

 

 

Asst. Prof. Elif ERSÖZLÜ  

 

 

Asst. Prof. Ayşe SAKİ DEMİREL  

 

 

 

I agree that the signatures above belong to the faculty members listed.  

 

 

Prof. Dr. Uğur ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN 

Graduate School Director 



 
 

YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI 

Enstitü tarafından onaylanan lisansüstü tezimin/raporumun tamamını veya herhangi bir kısmını, 

basılı (kağıt) ve elektronik formatta arşivleme ve aşağıda verilen koşullarla kullanıma açma iznini 

Hacettepe Üniversitesine verdiğimi bildiririm. Bu izinle Üniversiteye verilen kullanım hakları 

dışındaki tüm fikri mülkiyet haklarım bende kalacak, tezimin tamamının ya da bir bölümünün 

gelecekteki çalışmalarda (makale, kitap, lisans ve patent vb.) kullanım hakları bana ait olacaktır. 

Tezin kendi orijinal çalışmam olduğunu, başkalarının haklarını ihlal etmediğimi ve tezimin tek 

yetkili sahibi olduğumu beyan ve taahhüt ederim. Tezimde yer alan telif hakkı bulunan ve 

sahiplerinden yazılı izin alınarak kullanılması zorunlu metinlerin yazılı izin alınarak kullandığımı 

ve istenildiğinde suretlerini Üniversiteye teslim etmeyi taahhüt ederim. 

Yükseköğretim Kurulu tarafından yayınlanan “Lisansüstü Tezlerin Elektronik Ortamda 

Toplanması, Düzenlenmesi ve Erişime Açılmasına İlişkin Yönerge” kapsamında tezim 

aşağıda belirtilen koşullar haricince YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi / H.Ü. Kütüphaneleri Açık Erişim 

Sisteminde erişime açılır. 

o Enstitü / Fakülte yönetim kurulu kararı ile tezimin erişime açılması mezuniyet 

tarihimden itibaren 2 yıl ertelenmiştir. (1) 

o Enstitü / Fakülte yönetim kurulunun gerekçeli kararı ile tezimin erişime açılması 

mezuniyet tarihimden itibaren ... ay ertelenmiştir. (2) 

o Tezimle ilgili gizlilik kararı verilmiştir. (3) 

    ……/………/……  

                                                                                                                             [İmza] 

                                                                                                                    Selim Ozan ÇEKÇİ 

 

1“Lisansüstü Tezlerin Elektronik Ortamda Toplanması, Düzenlenmesi ve Erişime Açılmasına İlişkin Yönerge”  

(1) Madde 6. 1. Lisansüstü tezle ilgili patent başvurusu yapılması veya patent alma sürecinin devam etmesi 

durumunda, tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte 

yönetim kurulu iki yıl süre ile tezin erişime açılmasının ertelenmesine karar verebilir.   

 

(2) Madde 6. 2. Yeni teknik, materyal ve metotların kullanıldığı, henüz makaleye dönüşmemiş veya patent gibi 

yöntemlerle korunmamış ve internetten paylaşılması durumunda 3. şahıslara veya kurumlara haksız kazanç 

imkanı oluşturabilecek bilgi ve bulguları içeren tezler hakkında tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim 

dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte yönetim kurulunun gerekçeli kararı ile altı ayı aşmamak 

üzere tezin erişime açılması engellenebilir. 

 

 

(3) Madde 7. 1. Ulusal çıkarları veya güvenliği ilgilendiren, emniyet, istihbarat, savunma ve güvenlik, sağlık vb. 

konulara ilişkin lisansüstü tezlerle ilgili gizlilik kararı, tezin yapıldığı kurum tarafından verilir *. Kurum ve 

kuruluşlarla yapılan işbirliği protokolü çerçevesinde hazırlanan lisansüstü tezlere ilişkin gizlilik kararı ise, ilgili 

kurum ve kuruluşun önerisi ile enstitü veya fakültenin uygun görüşü üzerine üniversite yönetim kurulu 

tarafından verilir. Gizlilik kararı verilen tezler Yükseköğretim Kuruluna bildirilir.  

Madde 7.2. Gizlilik kararı verilen tezler gizlilik süresince enstitü veya fakülte tarafından gizlilik kuralları 

çerçevesinde muhafaza edilir, gizlilik kararının kaldırılması halinde Tez Otomasyon Sistemine yüklenir  
 

* Tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte 

yönetim kurulu tarafından karar verilir. 



 

ETİK BEYAN 

Bu çalışmadaki bütün bilgi ve belgeleri akademik kurallar çerçevesinde elde ettiğimi, görsel, 

işitsel ve yazılı tüm bilgi ve sonuçları bilimsel ahlak kurallarına uygun olarak sunduğumu, 

kullandığım verilerde herhangi bir tahrifat yapmadığımı, yararlandığım kaynaklara bilimsel 

normlara uygun olarak atıfta bulunduğumu, tezimin kaynak gösterilen durumlar dışında 

özgün olduğunu, Doç. Dr. Hilal ERKAZANCI DURMUŞ danışmanlığında tarafımdan 

üretildiğini ve Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tez Yazım Yönergesine göre 

yazıldığını beyan ederim. 

[İmza] 

Selim Ozan ÇEKÇİ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  



iv 
 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Assoc. 

Prof. Hilal Erkazancı Durmuş, for her unwavering support, invaluable contributions and 

guidance throughout all the steps of the present thesis. Without her meticulous feedback, 

this thesis would not have been possible. 

I would also like to express my sincerest thanks to my committee members Assoc. Prof. 

Sinem Bozkurt and Assoc. Prof. Seda Taş İlmek for their unconditional encouragement 

and support with unfailing optimism. Additionally, I would like to thank Asst. Prof. Elif 

Ersözlü and Asst. Prof. Ayşe Saki Demirel for agreeing to be members of my Ph.D. 

defence committee and for their meticulous and constructive feedback. 

I would like to thank Asst. Prof. Ahmet Özmen, an expert in Ottoman Turkish and Persian 

Language and Literature, for his assistance in transcribing Ottoman Turkish to modern 

Turkish. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by TÜBİTAK (The 

Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) which was instrumental in 

enabling this study. I am thankful for the 2211-A Doctoral Scholarship (2018 / 3). 

I owe special thanks to my old friend, Barbaros Uzunköprü, whose hard work and 

intellectualism I have admired for years. I am also deeply grateful to my old friend, Mert 

Moralı, for being a source of solidarity during this challenging time. One of my greatest 

career dreams is to have our paths cross in our career journeys with these two very 

accomplished and cultured good old friends whom I admire genuinely. 

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my close friends and colleagues who 

always motivate me: Ozan Abat, who has always been by my side and supported me as a 

true friend; Abuzer Hamza Kaya, who was there for me in my most stressful times and 

became a companion in the writing process; Mehtap Aral, who lifted me up mentally and 

provided substantial help; and Caner Çetiner, who always believed in me. 

To my parents, Hasan and Seher, to my sisters, Pınar and Seda, who have always believed 

in me and provided unwavering support, thank you from the bottom of my heart. 

Last but not least, I would like to thank my companion and my biggest supporter, my 

wife, Banu Çiçek Çekçi and my source of life and joy, my son, Efe Çekçi. Without your 

love and support I could not have done this. 



v 
 

ABSTRACT 

 

ÇEKÇİ, Selim Ozan. A Cross-Temporal Analysis of Intralingual Translation: The Case of 

Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s Works in Türkiye, Ph.D. Thesis, Ankara, 2024. 

 

This study links the shifting language policies in Türkiye to the discourses of intralingual 

translations, taking into account the political and secularisation trajectory of the country. 

The thesis seeks to demonstrate the role and function of intralingual translations played 

in the evolution of the Turkish language and discourse within the framework of the 

establishment of (de)secularisation, the construction of cultural memory, and the 

achievement of linguistic hospitality. To accomplish its aims, the present study carries 

out a cross-temporal analysis of Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s three novels Gulyabani, 

Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç and Efsuncu Baba written before the Turkish language 

reform and their intralingual translations conducted by various private publishing houses 

throughout the Republican history. Seeing discourse as a historically constructed entity, 

the present study employs Discourse Historical Approach devised by Ruth Wodak (2001) 

to conduct a cross-temporal analysis of the intralingual translations of Gürpınar’s novels. 

The discourse patterns detected in various intralingual translations reflect the ideological 

positioning of the time period in which they were created. In conclusion, the 

reconceptualisation of intralingual translations conducted across different time periods 

within the framework of Turkish translation history demonstrates that the discourse on 

Ottoman Turkish is reconstructed based on the prevailing ideologies of the respective 

production periods during the Republican era. It is revealed that the notion of ‘language 

modernisation’ remains inadequate to fully encompass the extent of these intralingual 

translations, as they both secularise and modernise the discourse of the source text and 

demonstrate cultural, social, political and historical zeitgeist. Therefore, research on 

intralingual translations sheds light on the multifaceted relationship between the Republic 

of Türkiye and its Ottoman past, as well as its gradual trajectory towards secularisation 

and modernisation. 

 

Keywords 

Intralingual translation, discourse historical approach, cultural memory, linguistic 

hospitality, secularisation, Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar, translation history 



vi 
 

ÖZET 

 

ÇEKÇİ, Selim Ozan. Diliçi Çeviriye Tarihsel Bağlamda Bir Bakış: Hüseyin Rahmi 

Gürpınar Eserlerinin Türkçe Diliçi Çevirileri, Doktora Tezi, Ankara, 2024. 

 

Bu araştırma, Türkiye'nin siyasi ve sekülerleşme yörüngelerini dikkate alarak, ülkenin 

değişen dil politikalarını diliçi çeviri söylemleriyle ilişkilendirmektedir. Bu tez, diliçi 

çevirilerin Türk dilinin ve söyleminin evriminde oynadığı rolü ve işlevi, sekülerleştirme, 

kültürel belleğin inşası ve dilsel misafirperverliğin sağlanması kavramları çerçevesinde 

ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, mevcut çalışmada Hüseyin Rahmi 

Gürpınar'ın Harf Devrimi öncesinde kaleme aldığı Gulyabani, Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir 

İzdivaç ve Efsuncu Baba romanları ile Cumhuriyet döneminde yapılan diliçi çevirileri 

zamanlararası bir analize tabi tutulmaktadır. Söylemin tarihsel olarak inşa edilmiş 

olduğunu ortaya koyan bu çalışma, kuramsal çerçeve olarak Ruth Wodak tarafından 

geliştirilen Söylem Tarihsel Yaklaşımı’nı kullanmaktadır. Farklı tarihsel evrelerde yapılan 

çeşitli diliçi çevirilerde bulunan tutarlı söylem kalıpları, yapıldıkları dönemin ideolojik 

yaklaşımını yansıtmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, zamanlararası diliçi çevirilerin Türk çeviri tarihi 

çerçevesinde yeniden kavramsallaştırılmasıyla, Osmanlı Türkçesi üzerine kurulan 

söylemin Cumhuriyet dönemi boyunca üretim dönemlerinin hâkim ideolojilerine uygun 

olarak yeniden inşa edildiğini göstermektedir. 'Dil modernleşmesi' kavramının kaynak 

metnin söylemini sekülerleştiren ve modernleştiren ve zamanın kültürel, sosyal, siyasi ve 

tarihi ruhunu gösteren diliçi çevirilerin kapsamını yakalamakta yetersiz kaldığı ortaya 

çıkmıştır. Dolayısıyla diliçi çeviri araştırmalarının Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin Osmanlı 

geçmişiyle çok yönlü ilişkisini ve kademeli sekülerleşme ve modernleşme yörüngesini 

aydınlattığı ortaya çıkmıştır. 

 

Anahtar Sözcükler 

Diliçi çeviri, söylem tarihsel yaklaşım, kültürel bellek, dilsel konukseverlik, 

sekülerleşme, Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar, çeviri tarihi 

 

  

 



vii 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL ............................................................................... i 

YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI.................................. ii 

ETİK BEYAN ................................................................................................................. iii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... iv 

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... v 

ÖZET ............................................................................................................................... vi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. vii 

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... x 

 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 

CHAPTER 1: INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION IN TÜRKİYE ......................... 19 

1.1. INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION AND ITS CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

TRANSLATION STUDIES ................................................................................................. 19 

1.1.1. What is Intralingual Translation? ............................................................................................ 19 

1.1.2. What Can Intralingual Translations Contribute to Translation Studies? ................................. 23 

1.2. INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION IN TÜRKİYE ................................................... 27 

1.2.1. Historical Development of Intralingual Translation ................................................................ 27 

1.2.2. Transition from the Ottoman Era to the Republic of Türkiye.................................................. 35 

1.3. CULTURE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE PLANNING ........................................ 38 

1.3.1. Culture Planning ...................................................................................................................... 38 

1.3.2. Language Planning .................................................................................................................. 42 

1.3.2.1 Language in the Ottoman Empire ..................................................................................................... 42 

1.3.3. Language Planning in the Republic of Türkiye ....................................................................... 44 

1.4. INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION AS A MODERNISATION TOOL ................. 53 

1.4.1. Intralingual Translations in the 1930s ..................................................................................... 53 

1.4.2. Modernisation in Türkiye ........................................................................................................ 60 

1.5. HISTORY OF TRANSLATION IN TÜRKİYE ......................................................... 64 

1.5.1. Turkish Humanism, and Westernism Through Translation ..................................................... 64 

1.5.2. The First National Publishing Congress .................................................................................. 67 

1.5.3. The Translation Bureau ........................................................................................................... 73 

 

CHAPTER 2: MOTIVATIONS FOR INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION IN 

TÜRKİYE ...................................................................................................................... 77 

2.1. SECULARISATION ...................................................................................................... 77 

2.1.1. The Single Party Era ................................................................................................................ 79 



viii 
 

2.1.2. Transition to Multi-Party System ............................................................................................ 84 

2.1.3. The Democrat Party Era in the 1950s ...................................................................................... 85 

2.1.4. The 1960 Coup d’état .............................................................................................................. 86 

2.1.5. The 1971 Military Memorandum ............................................................................................ 87 

2.1.6. The 1980 Coup d’état .............................................................................................................. 88 

2.1.7. The 1997 Turkish Military Memorandum ............................................................................... 89 

2.1.8. The Era of the Justice and Development Party ........................................................................ 89 

2.2. CULTURAL MEMORY ............................................................................................... 91 

2.3. LINGUISTIC HOSPITALITY ..................................................................................... 99 

 

CHAPTER 3: THE SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT SURROUNDING 

HÜSEYİN RAHMİ GÜRPINAR’S WORKS ........................................................... 109 

3.1. SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS IN ANATOLIA .......................................................... 109 

3.1.1. Superstitions and Social Values in the Late Nineteenth Century .......................................... 115 

3.1.2. The Socio-Political Atmosphere and its Impact on Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s Works ........ 117 

3.1.3.1. From the First Modernisation Movements to Sultan Abdulhamid II ............................................. 118 

3.1.3.2. The Sultan Abdulhamid II’s Era .................................................................................................... 120 

3.2. INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION AS A TOOL FOR A SECULAR IDENTITY: 

HÜSEYİN RAHMİ GÜRPINAR’S LIFE, PERSONALITY, AND LITERATURE .... 124 

 

CHAPTER 4: A DISCOURSE-HISTORICAL APPROACH TO 

INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION ......................................................................... 132 

4.1. THEORETICAL RELEVANCE ................................................................................ 132 

4.2. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 135 

4.3. INVESTIGATING THE SOCIO-HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF 

INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATIONS............................................................................... 140 

 

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY ..................................................................................... 145 

5.1. SELECTION OF TEXTS AND LIMITATIONS...................................................... 145 

5.2. MACRO AND MICRO STRATEGIES FOR THE ANALYSIS ............................. 150 

5.3. CASE STUDY .............................................................................................................. 154 

5.3.1. Efsuncu Baba and its Intralingual Translations ..................................................................... 154 

5.3.1.1. Secularisation and De-Secularisation ............................................................................................. 155 

5.3.1.2. Cultural Memory ............................................................................................................................ 160 

5.3.1.3. Linguistic Hospitality ..................................................................................................................... 170 

5.3.1.4. Concluding Remarks ...................................................................................................................... 175 

5.3.2. Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç and its Intralingual Translations ................................... 175 

5.3.2.1. Secularisation and De-Secularisation ............................................................................................. 177 



ix 
 

5.3.2.2. Cultural Memory ............................................................................................................................ 182 

5.3.2.3. Linguistic Hospitality ..................................................................................................................... 187 

5.3.2.4. Concluding Remarks ...................................................................................................................... 191 

5.3.3. Gulyabani and its Intralingual Translations ........................................................................... 192 

5.3.3.1. Secularisation and De-Secularisation ............................................................................................. 194 

5.3.3.2. Cultural Memory ............................................................................................................................ 197 

5.3.3.3. Linguistic Hospitality ..................................................................................................................... 202 

5.3.3.4. Concluding Remarks ...................................................................................................................... 207 

 

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 209 

6.1. FINDINGS REGARDING SECULARISATION/DE-SECULARISATION ......... 211 

6.2. FINDINGS REGARDING CULTURAL MEMORY ............................................... 217 

6.3. FINDINGS REGARDING LINGUISTIC HOSPITALITY ..................................... 224 

 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 231 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 248 

 

APPENDIX 1. DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS OF EFSUNCU BABA, 

KUYRUKLU YILDIZ ALTINDA BİR İZDİVAÇ, AND GULYABANİ AFTER 2014

 ....................................................................................................................................... 259 

APPENDIX 2. ETHICS COMMISSION FORM ..................................................... 262 

APPENDIX 3. ORIGINALITY REPORT ................................................................ 264 

 

  



x 
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Information on the Novels and Intralingual Translations ......................................................... 149 

Table 2. Javier Franco Aixelá’s Strategies for the Translation of Culture Specific Items ...................... 150 

Table 3. Dates and Publishers of Efsuncu Baba’s Intralingual Translations ......................................... 154 

Table 4. Dates and Publishers of Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç’s Intralingual Translations........ 177 

Table 5. Dates and Publishers of Gulyabani’s Intralingual Translations ................................................. 193 

Table 6. Secularisation in Efsuncu Baba ................................................................................................. 212 

Table 7. Secularisation in Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç ............................................................... 214 

Table 8. Secularisation in Gulyabani ...................................................................................................... 215 

Table 9. Cultural Memory in Efsuncu Baba ............................................................................................ 217 

Table 10. Cultural Memory in Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç ........................................................ 220 

Table 11. Cultural Memory in Gulyabani ............................................................................................... 222 

Table 12. Linguistic Hospitality in Efsuncu Baba ................................................................................... 225 

Table 13. Linguistic Hospitality in Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç ................................................. 227 

Table 14. Linguistic Hospitality in Gulyabani ......................................................................................... 229 

 



1 
 

INTRODUCTION 

This study seeks to demonstrate the role and function of intralingual translations played 

in the evolution of the Turkish language and discourse within the framework of the 

establishment of (de)secularisation, the construction of cultural memory and the 

achievement of linguistic hospitality. In order to fulfil its aims, the study carries out a 

cross-temporal analysis of Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s novels and their intralingual 

translations. Through an analysis of the concept of intralingual translation within 

translation studies in general and in Türkiye in particular, the study sets out to see 

intralingual translation as a general concept that has long been overlooked by translation 

studies scholars and researchers in Türkiye. 

The primary objective of this thesis is to examine the underlying influence of intralingual 

translation on language evolution in Türkiye, as well as the effects of language evolution 

on intralingual translations made over the course of the Turkish state’s history. 

Additionally, this research aims to investigate how the gradual secularisation in Türkiye 

is reflected in the languages used in successive intralingual translations. 

Furthermore, the objective is to achieve the reconceptualisation of intralingual translation, 

particularly within the framework of Turkish translation history. The cases of the present 

thesis are composed of the intralingual translations of Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s three 

novels Gulyabani (1913), Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç (1911), and Efsuncu Baba 

(1924) written before alphabet reform made in 1928. The three novels are chosen since 

the present study revolves around the achievement of secularism through language in 

Türkiye. 

Gürpınar's literary works were written in Ottoman Turkish employing the Arabic script 

prior to the introduction of secular reforms by the Republic. These books predominantly 

revolved around the superstitious convictions held by the populace, encompassing a 

wealth of content that included religious and/or superstitious vocabulary and idioms. 

Furthermore, four different intralingual translations of each of the three novels are chosen 

as they mark a political transformation in Turkish history, in the 1950s, the 1970s, the 

1990s and the 2000s, respectively. It is detected that in each decade, the publishing rights 

of Gürpınar’s works are sold to different publishing houses, and they published the novels 



2 
 

single-handedly until 2014, the 70th year after Gürpınar’s death when the copyrights of 

his works became free.  

After the first intralingual translations, the following three different intralingual 

translations of the source text can also be considered retranslations. Tahir-Gürçağlar 

defines the term as: “[t]he term ‘retranslation’ most commonly denotes either the act of 

translating a work that has previously been translated into the same language, or the result 

of such an act, i.e. the retranslated text itself.” (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2009). Classic literature 

and religious writings are frequently retranslated. Retranslation can occur for a variety of 

reasons, such as the need to update outdated language, enhance translation quality, or take 

into consideration a revised edition of the source text (Vanderschelden, 2000). However, 

the different intralingual translations of Gürpınar’s works are not evaluated through the 

retranslation hypothesis in the present thesis because the retranslation hypothesis is not 

deemed suitable for cross-temporal intralingual translations that were carried out in close 

proximity to each other. Moreover, none of the reasons mentioned above apply for the 

intralingual retranslations of Gürpınar's works. The main reason is the trade in the 

copyrights of the books. 

The study argues that Hüseyin Rahmi sought to deconstruct the Ottoman readers’ 

internalisation of superstitions and create a new readerly habitus of writing and reading 

secular(ised) literary texts. His works served this purpose, and one can also claim that the 

intralingual translations of his works sought to achieve the aim of reproducing 

secular(ised) texts through a secularised style and discourse free from religious and 

superstitious lexical elements. Therefore, this thesis will build upon a Critical Discourse 

Analysis (CDA) approach to the analysis of how and to what extent the intralingual 

translations of the selected works served Gürpınar’s aim. By employing CDA, this study 

aims to reveal the underlying and potentially concealed ideologies.  

The study problematises the concept of secularisation as a notion associated with 

intralingual translation. In this respect, the cases regarding secularisation are to be 

evaluated as a dichotomy between secularisation/de-secularisation of the source text in 

successive intralingual translations. Along with secularisation, two other critical elements 

of the current research are the notions of cultural memory and linguistic hospitality. 

Cemal Demircioğlu and Tülay Gençtürk Demircioğlu conceptualise intralingual 



3 
 

translation as a site where cultural memory is shaped. Intralingual translation works as a 

“reminder/mnemonic” cultural memory mode which connects the society’s past to the 

present (Demircioğlu & Gençtürk-Demircioğlu, 2022, p. 158). Accordingly, they 

contextualise intralingual translation as a cultural memory site where the past is 

constructed in the present time regarding the functions these translations perform in the 

culture and literature system in Türkiye (2022, p. 158).  

Intralingual translations in Turkish are examined as sites where the notion of cultural 

memory is constructed. Besides, intralingual translations are reconceptualised as dynamic 

tools functioning as both “familiarisation” and “foreignization” of the Turkish readers to 

their past (2022, p. 161). One point that needs to be emphasised here is that the concepts 

of "familiarisation" and "foreignization" carry different meanings from Venuti's (1995) 

use of "domestication" and "foreignization". That is, the terms are employed here for 

different purposes. The terms "familiarisation" and "foreignization" are used here solely 

within the contexts of cultural memory and intralingual translation. Familiarisation versus 

foreignization can also be explained by the contemporary reader’s “remembering” versus 

“forgetting” the past in terms of intralingual translations in Türkiye (Demircioğlu & 

Gençtürk-Demircioğlu, 2022). 

It is crucial to emphasise that through the foreignization macro-strategy, the modern 

Turkish reader may get alienated from their Ottoman past. That is, the reader is cut off 

from their own history. Similarly, in the familiarisation macro-strategy, the reader is 

familiarised with their own history. That is, it is the reader who has been familiarised with 

the Ottoman historical and cultural past.  

Demircioğlu and Gençtürk Demircioğlu (2022) address the historical developments and 

relationship between Türkiye and the Ottoman Empire through intralingual translation. 

In Türkiye, intralingual translations serve the dual purpose of remembering and forgetting 

the past, therefore highlighting the inherent conflict between the past and the present: 

Intralingual translations can function as active instruments within the framework of the 

motives desired to be remembered, forgotten, erased or repositioned in the society's 

cultural memory in accordance with the spirit of the time. In this case, in the construction 

of a Western-oriented cultural memory in the modernisation process from Tanzimat to 

the Republic, intralingual translations become a practice through which we can observe 

the interactions and changes between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic, as well as 

discover all kinds of ideological, cultural, linguistic orientations and representations in 



4 
 

the ways of connecting the past to the present (Demircioğlu & Gençtürk-Demircioğlu, 

2022, p. 161). 

In this sense, the present study conceptualises intralingual translations as sites where the 

past is reconstructed in the present, and the consciousness of the present influences the 

reconstruction of the past. Thus, intralingual translations as dynamic tools play a crucial 

role in the familiarisation or foreignization of modern readers to their Ottoman past. The 

use of this dualism serves as an instrument for inspecting the process of familiarisation 

and foreignization of Ottoman history within the context of Republican ideology. The 

notion of cultural memory is expected to highlight the conflict and struggle between 

modern Türkiye and its Ottoman past. Examples relating to Ottoman culture's lifestyle, 

habits, traditions, and attitudes are analysed under this notion.  

Paul Ricoeur (2006) puts forward the idea of “linguistic hospitality” with regard to 

interlingual translations carried out between different national languages. In the present 

study, the notion of linguistic hospitality is employed in intralingual translations 

conducted from Ottoman Turkish into modern Turkish where the archaic foreign and the 

native modern are intertwined in one language. The first association of the notion of 

linguistic hospitality with intralingual translation is established in Monica Katiboğlu's 

article (2023), where she adapts the notion to examine Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil’s intralingual 

self-translations from Ottoman Turkish into modern Turkish. Within the concept of 

linguistic hospitality, a translator essentially serves as a mediator in establishing a balance 

between the enjoyment of accommodating the language of the Other and the enjoyment 

of welcoming a foreign language into the Self (Ricoeur, 2006, p. 10). Ricoeur utilises the 

notions put forward by Sigmund Freud as the “work of remembering” and the “work of 

mourning” (2006). Remembering is explained by Ricoeur as “the work of translation, 

won on the battlefield of a secret resistance motivated by fear, indeed by hatred of the 

foreign, perceived as a threat against our own linguistic identity” (2006, p. 23). The work 

of mourning on the other hand, is seen as giving up on the ideal of a perfect translation. 

By this renunciation, translation can serve two ends at the same time and achieve 

linguistic hospitality. 

The process of remembering is employed to elucidate situations in which the terminology 

originating from Arabic and Persian is being recalled from Ottoman history. 

Nevertheless, the use of mourning is necessary to elucidate the losses and renunciations 



5 
 

that arise in later intralingual translations when the language originating from the 

Ottoman era no longer exists. Hence, the existence of this duality gives rise to a 

dichotomy between the acts of remembering and mourning. This dichotomy will be 

employed to elucidate the instances of intralingual translation regarding the Arabic and 

Persian lexical items.  

It would not be wrong to claim that intralingual translations shed light on the implicit and 

explicit struggles between the past and present, old and new, the Ottoman Empire and 

Republican Türkiye. In this respect, the present study seeks to scrutinise the tensions and 

struggles between the past and the present by investigating intralingual translations. 

In the course of my investigation into the historical aspects of translation and its 

connection to Türkiye in relation to language and culture, I developed a keen interest in 

various intralingual translations of novels. This research has yielded a wealth of untapped 

data that holds significant potential for uncovering language policies, translation 

methodologies, and political transformations that shape these phenomena. Having 

acquired a certain level of proficiency in Ottoman Turkish, I have undertaken an initial 

analysis of intralingual translation in Türkiye. This examination is based on a restricted 

dataset that encompasses the source text of Efsuncu Baba, which was written in 1924 

prior to the implementation of alphabet reform. Additionally, the study examines various 

intralingual translations of this text throughout the historical period of Türkiye, 

specifically in 1954, 1966, 1995, and 2009.  

This preliminary investigation revealed that intralingual translations exhibit fundamental 

similarities to interlingual translations of the identical source text, hence demonstrating 

the equal use and practicality of intralingual translations in comparison to interlingual 

translations. When doing a comparative analysis, my primary focus was on the disparities 

in religious terminology and phrases that were prevalent in Efsuncu Baba. The 

preliminary results indicate that when comparing the source text, written in the Arabic 

alphabet, with its intralingual translations from various periods, not only there are changes 

in vocabulary from Arabic and/or Persian to Turkish or spelling rules, but there are also 

cultural and ideological changes that have occurred throughout the entire history of 

Türkiye. 



6 
 

The pilot study prompted me to acknowledge the utility of intralingual translations in the 

examination of politics, language policy, and translation policies within certain historical 

periods. These initial findings prompted me to ask a number of questions that constituted 

historical research regarding Turkish politics and superstitions, the theoretical 

background, and the methodological framework of the present thesis. 

The initial set of questions pertaining to intralingual translation and its predominantly 

overlooked influence in Türkiye can be listed as follows: 

• Did intralingual translations provide comparable utility in fostering the 

acquisition of a novel linguistic repertoire when compared to interlingual 

translations performed from the West?  

• Were intralingual translations performed in an ideologically-neutral manner in 

Türkiye?  

• What were the motivations for doing intralingual translations during the initial 

period of the Republican era?  

• Did intralingual translations play a comparable role in culture planning as 

interlingual translations?  

• In what ways might intralingual translations be employed to investigate the 

historical change in language ideology and hence discourse? 

• Regarding the cultural, linguistic, and ideological spheres, how have intralingual 

translations been utilised?  

• To what extent has intralingual translation been influenced by explicit or implicit 

censorship in Türkiye? 

The second set of questions is pertinent to the relationship between the successive 

intralingual translations and gradual language change throughout the course of events in 

the history of Türkiye: 

• To what extent did pivotal moments in Turkish politics shape language policies? 

• Could these linguistic policies be situated within the framework of secularism? 

• Can intralingual translations serve as evidence for language policy changes or the 

growing secularisation of the country? 



7 
 

• To what extent intralingual translations can be utilised for demonstrating the 

language policies throughout specific time periods?  

• To what extent have intralingual translations had a role in the process of language 

secularisation in Türkiye? 

• In the context of secularisation, how have superstitious beliefs evolved in Türkiye; 

and can intralingual translations be utilised in revealing this evolution in the last 

hundred years? 

Against the backdrop of secularisation, this inquiry seeks to examine the history of 

superstitious beliefs in Türkiye and explore the potential of intralingual translations in 

shedding light on this evolution over the past century. These inquiries motivate me to 

traverse the multitude of debates and inquiries I undertake in the subsequent chapters.  

Prior to delving into the aforementioned inquiries, it is imperative to acknowledge the 

underlying factors that have largely contributed to the marginalisation of intralingual 

translation in the field of translation studies. In the subsequent analysis, I will highlight 

the limitations of existing studies in the area and the potential contributions of intralingual 

translation in expanding the scope and enhancing the historical study within the realm of 

translation studies. 

Despite its significant promise, I identify three challenges that hinder the development of 

intralingual translation research. Turkish translation studies experts do not primarily 

focus on intralingual translation due to its marginalised status among translation scholars 

worldwide (Berk Albachten, 2014; Pillière & Berk Albachten, 2024; Zethsen, 2009). The 

position of intralingual translation research has a direct impact on the enthusiasm to study 

the field in Türkiye. Hence, the field of intralingual translation studies in Türkiye is 

marginalised similar to translation studies elsewhere, with the exception of the emerging 

contemporary study. However, it should be emphasised that a pivotal reference book 

published in 2024 stands out as a solid exception in this regard, demonstrating that 

intralingual translation has a bright future within translation studies. Edited by Linda 

Pillière and Özlem Berk Albachten (2024) The Routledge Handbook of Intralingual 

Translation is expected to break new ground in the translation studies field for years to 

come. 



8 
 

Another factor contributing to the lack of study on intralingual translation is the belief 

that intralingual translations are not considered as translations, intralingual translators are 

not considered as translators, and works that are translated inside a single language are 

not considered as translations. Although some works of literature are presented as 

intralingual translations, the publishing houses mostly present intralingual translations as 

“adaptations to modern Turkish”, “prepared for publishing”, “Turkified version”, 

“edited”, “simplified”, “arranged” (Berk Albachten, 2013, p. 258), which has a direct 

reciprocation among the public. The intralingual translators are also presented as the 

editor, arranger, preparer for publishing, preparer for modern Turkish, or simplifier, with 

a few exceptions that present these agents as translators. Consequently, this neglect 

impacts academic research and results in a lack of enthusiasm for intralingual translation 

research. Furthermore, as Özlem Berk (2019, 2014) states, there is a limited number of 

academics that do not acknowledge the significance of intralingual translation within the 

field of translation studies (Mossop, 1998, 2016; Newmark, 1991; Schubert, 2005). 

In contrast to the preceding two challenges, the last impediment encountered in 

intralingual translation study pertains to the alphabet reform and language reforms, which 

are exclusive to the context of Türkiye. During the initial years of the early Republican 

Türkiye, a series of reforms were implemented. In 1928, the Arabic alphabet was replaced 

with the Latin alphabet. Subsequently, starting in 1932, efforts were made to eliminate 

the Arabic and Persian languages from the Turkish language, aligning with the political 

agenda of the Single Party. Therefore, the researchers in Türkiye seeking to study 

intralingual translation confront an alphabet barrier in addition to a language barrier due 

to the abundance of Arabic and Persian expressions. The researchers are required to learn 

the old Ottoman language, which necessitates diligent work and great effort. Thus, these 

challenges might deter scholars from studying intralingual translations in Türkiye. 

Various researchers, academicians, translation studies scholars, translators, and writers 

have been studying Türkiye’s translation history. Their efforts have aided in the 

construction of the translation history of Türkiye. Most of the research centres on the 

translation journey of Türkiye by scrutinising translation institutions, especially starting 

after the Tanzimat period. In the works studying translation activity during the Republic 

of Türkiye, the paramount importance is attributed chiefly to the state sponsored 

Translation Bureau and its impacts (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2008). The Translation Bureau was 



9 
 

a milestone in Turkish translation history, especially in terms of translations from 

Western languages and translations of Western Classics. It contributed immensely to the 

construction of Turkish humanism, a new secular Turkish identity and culture planning. 

However, this study argues that a focus on interlingual translation alone is not enough to 

explore the history of translation. Although interlingual translation helped substantially 

to the construction of national culture and identity, intralingual translations should not be 

ignored. As Özlem Berk states, “attempts at constructing national cultures and identities 

have taken place not only via interlingual but also intralingual translations” (1999, p. 4). 

The act of translating works produced prior to the implementation of alphabet reform and 

language reforms can be argued to have a role in the formation of one's identity and the 

development of self-awareness. 

In addition to the frequently studied areas of research, there have been quite influential 

studies by a certain number of pioneering scholars in Türkiye. Some of the invaluable and 

illuminating studies made by Berrin Aksoy (2005), Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar (2008), 

Özlem Berk Albachten (2013, 2014, 2015, 2019), Saliha Paker (2002, 2014), Cemal 

Demircioğlu (2005, 2009; Demircioğlu & Gençtürk-Demircioğlu, 2022), and Zehra 

Toska (2015) in the translation history research can be given as examples. For instance, 

Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar includes private publishing houses’ impact in the Republican era 

in her study, while Özlem Berk Albachten is one of the pioneers in Türkiye, 

contextualising and scrutinising intralingual translation. Saliha Paker, Cemal 

Demircioğlu, and Zehra Toska expanded the scope of translation operations in Türkiye to 

include the Ottoman Empire era. They also provided a historical background for various 

translation methodologies. 

Upon analysing the present studies on translation history in Türkiye, it becomes evident 

that there are prevalent tendencies about the significance of attributing the effects of 

politics on translation. Gürçağlar states that most research has a focus on the role given 

to translation in the Westernisation and modernisation of Türkiye, especially in the early 

Republican era (2008, p. 15). She adds that several researchers saw translation as a vehicle 

for transmitting ideas into Türkiye as well as a tool for nation-building (2008, p. 15). 

According to these scholars, understanding the true purpose and function of translation 

in the early Republican period requires a broad historical/political framework (Tahir-

Gürçağlar, 2008, p. 15). 



10 
 

Recognising the political influence of the state on translation throughout the first half of 

the 20th century has significantly expanded the scope of translation studies, particularly 

in acknowledging the role of translation in culture planning. Nevertheless, this 

recognition is limited as the concept of translation in these studies does not encompass 

intralingual translation as well. The significance ascribed to translation primarily in 

shaping culture and attitude among individuals may appear appealing to scholars in the 

subject of interlingual translation studies. Nevertheless, whereas interlingual translation's 

significant influence on the cultural domain in Türkiye is well acknowledged by several 

scholars, the presence and consequences of intralingual translation have largely been 

overlooked. 

Studying intralingual translation is expected to greatly enhance translation studies in 

Türkiye, considering the alphabet and language reforms, as well as the rapid evolution of 

language in response to state interventions in language throughout Republican history. In 

this study, the objective is to enhance the comprehension of the translation history of 

Türkiye by examining the literary works composed in Ottoman Turkish and their 

intralingual translations across various eras of the Republic. The incorporation of 

intralingual translation in translation history study is anticipated to provide a valuable 

addition to the academic discipline of translation studies. It is expected to be a 

contribution of the present study to the general framework of translation studies in 

Türkiye 

Research on intralingual translation is carried out in various domains, such as expert-to-

layman communication, localisation, modernisation of outdated or older texts, 

adaptations of world classics for children, substitution of culturally specific phrases when 

using multiple dialects of the same language, and cross-cultural adaptations (Berk 

Albachten, 2014, p. 577). However, except for particular subfields of research, 

intralingual translation research is often diachronic by nature and most of the research, 

including the present study, centres on the intralingual translation of older texts with 

archaic language. The use of the different translations of each of Gürpınar’s works 

performed in different subsequent periods contributes to the identification of the 

transformation of the Turkish language and culture over the course of time. The 

production of old texts in a new alphabet and with newly created or coined words that 



11 
 

represent the language policies of the government are also entirely instrumental in 

exploring the discourse and the dominant politics in the country. 

The examination of the cases incorporating the intralingual translations of Gürpınar's 

works in this study employs a Discourse Historical Approach (DHA). The adoption of 

the discourse-historical method to intralingual translations is justified by the fact that 

these translations are consecutive and may be examined from a diachronic standpoint.  

The principal grounds for employing Ruth Wodak’s DHA in this research is to give top 

priority to the analysis of the historical dimension of the discourse. DHA, which 

emphasises historical context, has been selected as the preferred methodology for this 

study since it aims to investigate how changing sociopolitical and socio-historical 

conditions have influenced intralingual translations in Türkiye. In this context, the present 

thesis has explored an innovative approach to intralingual translation that offers a unique 

combination of intralingual translation and DHA, distinguishing it from the existing 

research in the translation studies field. The originality of the present study stems from 

this novel approach. 

The case study section, in the light of DHA, aims to uncover the shifts in discourse within 

intralingual translations concerning political and social transformations in Türkiye from 

a diachronic standpoint. The aim is expected to be achieved by examining the correlation 

between historically and socially constructed knowledge and discourse. Thus, this 

research investigates the interplay between political changes and evolutions in 

intralingual translations over time, employing insights provided by DHA. DHA helps the 

present study methodologically in order to emphasise the historicity of discourses in the 

case study analysis.  

The motivation for engaging in intralingual translation extends beyond the mere 

modernisation of an outdated language. The alteration of the alphabet and the ongoing 

endeavours to eliminate vocabulary originating from Arabic and Persian have 

significantly influenced the Turkish language during the past century. Turkish readers 

cannot read the texts written before the alphabet reform in 1928. Comprehending 

literature produced following the alphabet change is particularly challenging due to the 

deliberate and systematic substitution of Arabic and Persian origin words with newly 

introduced Turkish ones resulting from the language reform. Hence, the uniqueness of 



12 
 

intralingual translation in Türkiye lies in its cross-temporal research of language, the 

examination of crucial language changes accompanied by an ideological motivation, and 

the analysis of data obtained from the same language written in multiple alphabets. 

Consequently, this particular research within the field of translation studies is anticipated 

to yield valuable data for comprehending the historical development of translation, as 

well as the social, cultural, and political transformations that have occurred in Türkiye.  

Against this background, Chapter 1 of this thesis is an extensive and thorough section that 

serves to contextualise intralingual translation. It offers a historical overview of 

intralingual translation, establishes the framework for understanding intralingual 

translation, and situates it within the broader field of translation studies, specifically 

within the setting of Türkiye. In addition, this chapter correlates intralingual translation 

with interlingual translation and depicts the parallelisms in the history of both. 

The chapter seeks to discover what intralingual translation means both in the world and 

in Türkiye. Subsequently, an examination of the potential impact of intralingual 

translation in the field of translation studies is conducted through an analysis of the 

academic perspective, as well as an exploration of the existing literature pertaining to this 

topic, with a particular focus on the Turkish context.  

Once intralingual translation is situated within the field of translation studies, an 

examination of its historical development in Türkiye, commencing with the Ottoman era, 

is undertaken. It is emphasised that intralingual translation holds a distinctive position in 

the historical context of the Turkish state. Its origins can be traced back to the Ottoman 

Empire, where it served as a means to update the existing language and facilitate the 

exchange of alphabets between minority languages and Arabic letters. Thus, it is 

demonstrated that intralingual translation was considered a kind of translation practice in 

the Ottoman Empire (Berk Albachten, 2018; Demircioğlu, 2005, 2009). Since they 

complement each other, the history of intralingual translation is followed by the 

translation history of Türkiye with regard to drawing a comprehensive framework 

including many aspects of translation history. 

Following the establishment of a comprehensive framework for intralingual translation, 

the examination of culture planning and language planning that has been central to the 

historical development of the Turkish state is conducted. These factors have played a 



13 
 

crucial role in the emergence of intralingual translation. Commencing with the culture 

planning during the Single Party era and its practical implementations centred around 

translation, the chapter explores language planning as an integral component of culture 

planning. Chapter 1 of this study re-examines intralingual translation in Türkiye, focusing 

on the impact of language planning throughout its history. This analysis is categorised, 

based on political turning points up to the present. The study aligns with one of its 

hypotheses, which suggests that intralingual translations reflect political, cultural, and 

ideological changes. 

Scholars have placed excessive emphasis on interlingual translation and its effects on the 

modernisation and formation of a secular, contemporary Turkish identity, as well as the 

emergence of Turkish humanism. They accept translation as part of attempts to 

Westernise and modernise Türkiye exclusively during the first decades of the Republic 

(Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2008, p. 15). Nevertheless, because they focus on a relatively small but 

essential portion of the system of translated literature, scholars' contextualisation of 

translation activity in Türkiye remains partial (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2008, p. 15). These 

studies lack the incorporation of intralingual translation, which has an essential role in the 

translation history of Türkiye. Besides, the utilisation of intralingual translation during 

the Single Party era for the modernisation of Türkiye is mainly ignored. This chapter 

seeks to bridge this gap. 

Chapter 2 provides a concise overview of the political history and secularisation process 

of Türkiye, drawing upon the intralingual translations of Gürpınar that correspond to 

several significant political milestones in Türkiye. This chapter categorises specific 

periods of Turkish history based on their alignment with the language planning eras 

elucidated in Chapter 1. It delves into notable events that transpired throughout these 

times under the framework of secularisation. These periods are selected deliberately since 

they match different intralingual translations of Gürpınar’s works in addition to marking 

political turning points. While exploring the critical political events, Chapter 2 offers a 

perspective centring on the gradual secularisation of Türkiye. 

Chapter 2 examines the factors influencing the selection of words and the process of 

secularising languages in intralingual translations. It seeks to reveal that gradual language 

change towards secularisation in cross-temporal translations throughout history reflects 



14 
 

the political shifts and secularisation of the country. Therefore, Chapter 2 offers a brief 

history of the political journey of Türkiye, focusing on secularisation in particular. The 

chapter chronologically analyses Turkish political history, starting from the Single Party 

era until the present day. 

 It is essential to combine and read the reforms studied in Chapter 2 together with the 

culture planning and language planning efforts scrutinised in Chapter 1. Additionally, it 

is crucial to read these reforms and efforts from the notion of cultural memory point of 

view since the reconstruction and recalling of the Ottoman past were made in the 

Republican era from the Republican point of view. 

Chapter 2 also surveys the Democrat Party era in the 1950s. The counter-revolutions and 

actions of the government reversing secularisation reforms of the previous term mark this 

period in the history of Türkiye. Afterwards, Chapter 2 scrutinises the 1960s and 1970s, 

focusing on the 1960 coup d’état and 1971 military memorandum. Then, the chapter 

focuses on the 1980 coup d’état and its impacts on politics and law, again centring on 

secularisation. Chapter 2 ends with the 28 February 1997 military memorandum and the 

2000s, the new millennia. Chapter 2 focuses on the longitudinal gradual secularisation of 

the Turkish state. This research aims to uncover this phenomenon through cases of 

intralingual translations of Gürpınar's works from different periods in Türkiye.  

After Chapter 2 deals with the secularisation trajectory of Türkiye, it focuses on the notion 

of cultural memory. The recontextualization of intralingual translations occurs as a means 

of reconstructing the past from the viewpoint of the present and contemporary awareness, 

as posited by cultural memory. In other words, during the Republican era, Ottoman 

history is rebuilt via intralingual translations, which serve as a means for present readers 

to acquire knowledge about their past. 

Lastly, Chapter 2 scrutinises the notion of linguistic hospitality put forward by Paul 

Ricoeur, which foregrounds a dichotomy for reading the translations as the work of 

remembering and the work of mourning. The notion is first adapted and used in the 

intralingual translation by Monica Katiboğlu (2023). Linguistic hospitality is examined 

to establish a division for the examination of translations within a single language, despite 

the fact that the concept is mostly proposed for translations between different languages. 

The present thesis explores linguistic hospitality and adapts it for intralingual translations. 



15 
 

While the work of remembering serves to remember the Ottoman past, the work of 

mourning refers to renunciation for the losses in intralingual translations. The notion of 

linguistic hospitality is employed in cases related to Arabic and Persian origin words to 

reveal whether they are remembered or forgotten in the Republican context. If these 

words are not filtered out during intralingual translation, then they are remembered in 

modern texts. On the other hand, if they are removed or eliminated, their loss is 

renounced. 

The selection of Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar's works for examination in this thesis is based 

on their abundance of religious and superstitious sentiments and happenings. Gürpınar 

endeavoured to deride the superficial superstitious convictions held by the general 

populace throughout his literary oeuvre. He sought to deconstruct the internalisation of 

superstitions among Ottoman readers and to establish a new readerly habitus of writing 

secular(ised) literary texts. His works served this function.  

Chapter 3 provides information on the superstitious beliefs of the society that inspired 

Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar and his novels in the Ottoman Empire. The chapter offers a 

brief history and evolution of superstitious beliefs in Türkiye throughout history. In his 

literary works, Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar used highly superstitious views and religious 

emotions. He mostly ironizes the naive and gullible beliefs of the people living in the 

slums of Istanbul and criticises the people’s circumstances and swindlers’ cheats 

exploiting religion and superstitious beliefs. This chapter provides a comprehensive 

analysis of the historical development of superstitious beliefs under the Ottoman Empire 

and Türkiye. Its purpose is to complement the examination of secularisation conducted in 

Chapter 2. 

After centring on the roots of superstitious beliefs in Anatolia, Chapter 3 surveys 

superstitious beliefs and social values in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire as they 

formed the base of Gürpınar’s novels. This part of Chapter 3 addresses superstitious 

beliefs and customs in Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s era and underlines that people living 

in the Ottoman Empire followed the rules of their religion in addition to superstitious 

beliefs which Gürpınar deals with in his works. Chapter 3 offers insight into the late 19th 

century Ottoman Empire’s socio-political atmosphere and its impacts on Gürpınar and 

his works. The chapter also scrutinises the first modernisation movements in the Ottoman 



16 
 

Empire, beginning with Sultan Mahmud II, understanding that this period is crucial 

because the modernisation of Türkiye dates back to this century. Moreover, during this 

period, Gürpınar's views, which were influenced by Western and modernist ideologies, 

were disseminated and implemented within the country. 

Chapter 3 continues studying Sultan Abdulhamid II’s reign in which Gürpınar started his 

career as a writer. In this era, Gürpınar grew up and first formed his literary life between 

the late 19th century and the early 20th century. The era was quite chaotic due to economic 

collapses, lost wars, and great immigration movements from lost soil to the Ottoman 

Empire. When taking into account all of these conditions, the dissemination of 

modernisation ideas to the disadvantaged and fragmented population throughout the late 

19th and early 20th centuries becomes very challenging. In this environment, literature was 

one of a handful of practical tools used by those who supported modernisation and 

secularisation to enlighten the vast majority of people who were hopelessly backward and 

ignorant of the modern world. Literary works like those authored by Hüseyin Rahmi 

Gürpınar such as Efsuncu Baba, Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç, or Gulyabani aim 

to educate and make the general populace aware of the exploiting situation. Literati like 

Gürpınar critique superstitions while attempting to spread and popularise Westernisation, 

secularisation, and modernisation ideas across society. 

Lastly, Chapter 3 provides the biography of Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar in pursuance of a 

better understanding of the cases. Along with Gürpınar’s life, his personality, worldview, 

and literature are scrutinised in the last part of Chapter 3.  

Chapter 4 offers the theoretical background for the present thesis. Initially, the 

relationship between translation studies and CDA is built. The similarities and common 

grounds are highlighted between the two fields. Research conducted in the translation 

studies field with a CDA perspective is scrutinised. Afterwards, the chapter provides 

information on CDA in general. Chapter 4 also explores the DHA under CDA. Since the 

cases of the present study cover cross-temporal intralingual translations, Wodak's (2001) 

DHA makes a well-suited theoretical tool for the analysis of the case studies. 

Chapter 4 constitutively bridges the findings of the political, social, and historical 

investigations of the first three chapters with the cases by providing a theoretical 

framework that is utilised for the evaluation of discourses of the intralingual translations. 



17 
 

The chapter starts by relating CDA to intralingual translation specifically. In order to 

investigate dialectical power dynamics, control mechanisms and dominance through 

language use in conjunction with intralingual translations made in different eras, CDA is 

studied. As the present study seeks to unearth the discursive changes in intralingual 

translations relating to political and social changes in Türkiye, the connection between 

socially constructed knowledge and discourse is studied. The applicability of CDA to 

translation studies is demonstrated since “translation is an ideologically embedded socio-

cultural/political practice” (Isbuga-Erel, 2008, p. 59). CDA deals with the discourse as an 

ideological entity. A society's translation practices may vary throughout time in response 

to shifts in its political environment. Therefore, this study examines the relationship 

between political transformations and shifts in intralingual translations throughout time, 

utilising the perspectives offered by DHA. 

In Chapter 4, DHA is examined as the primary methodology employed in this study. This 

approach is chosen to investigate cases and to establish connections between the findings 

and the ideological and historical information presented in the first three chapters. The 

primary rationale for using the DHA in this study is to prioritise the examination of the 

historical aspect of discourse, in contrast to alternative CDA approaches. The analysis of 

the cases is based on the historical framework for analysing intralingual translations and 

their discourses. This study considers the historical context while evaluating various 

intralingual translations and their respective discourses throughout different historical 

epochs within the Republic. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the intralingual 

translations and discourses of Türkiye throughout history, considering their 

interdiscursivity. 

Chapter 5 presents the case study works, including Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’s three 

novels and four intralingual translations of each work, made in different periods spanned 

through Türkiye’s history. Before presenting the examples, Chapter 5 begins with the 

summaries of each novel to be studied, namely Efsuncu Baba, Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında 

Bir İzdivaç and Gulyabani. This chapter analyses cases, whereby each example is 

presented in a unified table comprising the source-text line, its transcription into Latin 

letters, and its four intralingual translations. The purpose of this table is to facilitate 

comparison and contrast between the cases. The examples are analysed and interpreted in 

light of the DHA within the framework of CDA. 



18 
 

Chapter 5 starts by establishing a framework for the process of selecting and defining the 

constraints of the cases. Different intralingual translations made in different decades by 

various publishing houses include the following: Hilmi Publishing House in the 1940s 

and 1950s, Atlas Publishing House in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, Özgür Publishing 

House in the 1990s and early 2000s, and Everest Publishing House in the 2000s. Chapter 

5 also scrutinises the macro and micro-strategies adapted for the exploration of the cases. 

For the micro-strategies, Javier Franco Aixelá’s Culture Specific Items’ (CSIs) translation 

strategies (Aixela, 1996, p. 60) are adapted to the present thesis in order to identify the 

interventions in intralingual translations. Afterwards, the macro-strategies, namely, the 

establishment of (de)secularisation, the construction of cultural memory and the 

achievement of linguistic hospitality, are revisited. After studying micro and macro-

strategies, the examples of Efsuncu Baba, Kuyruklu Yıldız Altında Bir İzdivaç and 

Gulyabani are studied and analysed in conjunction with their intralingual translations. 

Respectively, the thesis ends with the Discussion and the Conclusion Chapters. 

  



19 
 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION IN TÜRKİYE 

 

Introductory Points 

- In the present chapter, intralingual translation is contextualised and conceptualised. The 

types of intralingual translation, theoretical framework, discussions on conceptualisation 

and research in other cultures are widely scrutinised. 

- The history of intralingual translation, specifically focusing on the practices of 

intralingual translation in the Ottoman Empire is scrutinised. The chapter explores the 

production of intralingual translations across time and the transcriptions. 

- The State’s support and involvement in intralingual translation following the alphabet 

change is emphasised. 

- To find parallelisms in the languages of intralingual translations of Gürpınar’s works 

from different decades, language planning in accordance with culture planning is 

examined, spanning through the history of Türkiye. 

- To provide a thorough and all-encompassing framework for the history of Turkish 

translation, the focus is placed on interlingual translation history, while also emphasising 

its parallelism with intralingual translation history.  

 

1.1. INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION AND ITS CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

TRANSLATION STUDIES 

1.1.1. What is Intralingual Translation? 

Translation studies became an independent discipline starting in the 1960s. After its 

independence from linguistics, the field has expanded exponentially. Although the field 

has grown in multiple directions with its multidisciplinary nature, most of the studies 

concentrate on interlingual translations, which constitute the primary subject of the field. 

Intralingual translation, on the other hand, has rarely been studied and often stayed out of 

translation studies. Compared to interlingual translation, studying intralingual translation 



20 
 

within the framework of translation studies remained relatively weaker. Notwithstanding, 

this study evaluates intralingual translation as a counterpart of interlingual translation. 

Besides, it asserts that intralingual translation should be treated as interlingual translation, 

especially in the Turkish context, since intralingual translation has been used as a tool as 

useful as interlingual translation in Turkish modernisation. 

The most common definition of translation covers both the act of transferring from one 

language into another and the final product of this process. Throughout history, 

translation has almost always referred to this action and product. However, it was in 1959 

when this definition’s boundaries were extended by a Russian linguist Roman Jakobson. 

In his paper called “On Linguistics Aspects of Translation”, Jakobson introduced two 

new types of translation in addition to “translation proper” that occurs between two 

different languages. Accordingly, Jakobson (1959) distinguishes three possible ways of 

interpreting or translating a verbal sign: “[i]t may be translated into other signs of the 

same language, into another language, or into another, a nonverbal system of symbols” 

The first expression, “translation into other signs of the same language” is the place where 

the intralingual translation is defined. Jakobson labels three kinds of translation: 

intralingual translation, interlingual translation, and intersemiotic translation. The first 

kind, intralingual translation or “rewording” refers to “an interpretation of verbal signs 

by means of other signs of the same language” (1959). The second kind is the interlingual 

translation or “translation proper” refers to “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of 

some other language” (1959). The last kind of translation, intersemiotic translation or 

“transmutation” refers to “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal 

sign systems”. 

In his pioneering and short article, Jakobson does not elaborate on intralingual translation 

as bearing a political motivation. Rather, he focuses on intralingual translations of words 

and asserts that the intralingual translation of a word “uses either another, more or less 

synonymous, word or resorts to a circumlocution”. This explains why he names 

intralingual translation as “rewording”. 

Jakobson’s classification carries utmost importance in terms of expanding the boundaries 

of translation studies out of the classical realm of “translation proper” or interlingual 

translation. It allows two new types of translations into translation studies. However, his 

study is problematised in different aspects by certain translation scholars. Özlem Berk 



21 
 

criticises Jakobson for naming interlingual translation as the only “proper” and claims 

that “Jakobson weakens his attempt to broaden the definition of translation by including 

intralingual and intersemiotic forms of translating” (2014, p. 574). She further questions 

the tripartite division of Jakobson with regard to distinguishing borders between 

languages and asks, “[h]ow can we distinguish between languages and dialects or creoles? 

How can the boundaries be drawn between different historical stages of the development 

of a language? Should the borders of a language be determined by lack of intelligibility?” 

(2014, p. 574). Then, Özlem Berk concludes that her questions “make Jakobson’s division 

between interlingual and intralingual translation ambiguous, and linguists still do not 

agree on clear dividing lines” (2014, p. 574). For example, in a section of his book titled 

“Translation can be intralingual or interlingual” Anthony Pym states as follows: 

It is often assumed that the kind of transfer most pertinent to translation is that which 

takes place exclusively between different languages. This restriction of the field assumes 

a radical division between interlingual and intralingual transfer. Unfortunately there is no 

such division, simply because there are no natural frontiers between languages. The kinds 

of translation that can take place between idiolects, sociolects and dialects are essentially 

no different from those between more radically distanced language systems. Although 

one would expect to encounter a need for increasing transformations with increasing 

cultural distance, there is no strict cut-off point at which wholly intralingual rewriting can 

be said to have become wholly interlingual. Those who travel on foot or have read the 

diachronic part of Saussure know that there are no natural frontiers between languages 

(Pym, 1992, pp. 23-24). 

Gideon Toury makes another criticism towards Jakobson’s classification. Accordingly, 

text generally passes multi-borders when they are translated not simply from one 

language into another or one sign into another. Then, he examples his claim, “when an 

oral story in one language becomes a literary, written one in another; when a religious 

text is transformed into a secular one, a literary work into a non-literary text” (Toury, 

1986 as cited in Berk Albachten, 2004, p. 575) which asserts that Jakobson’s 

classification is not refined.  

Toury’s examples can be classified differently as subbranches under the intralingual 

translation. In order to develop Jakobson’s tripartite division and expand the horizons of 

translation studies, intralingual translation should be considered as an umbrella term and 

cover specific subtypes.  

For centuries, sagas, epics, myths, legends, and folktales have passed from generation to 

generation orally within the same language over time. Later, they were written down and 

constituted works of literature. Before people write down these works, they were 



22 
 

transferred from oral to oral intralingually. Additionally, when they were written down 

from oral into a written form or transcribed, they were intralingually translated once more. 

For example, “Kerem ile Aslı” is a Turkish poetry/folktale dating back to the 16th century. 

It has been passed from generation to generation intralingually. Then, it was intralingually 

translated again when it was transcribed into written form. The process applies all the 

ancient works of literature, such as the Odyssey, Iliad or similarly, the longest epic, the 

epic of Manas consisting of 500.553 lines also intralingually translated and transferred 

from generation to generation. 

Özlem Berk includes other types of transfer practices into intralingual translation such as 

expert-to-layman communication, localisation, updating of archaic or older texts into 

today’s language, children's adaptations of world classics, substitution phrases peculiar 

to a culture when using multiple dialects of the same language, cross-cultural adaptation 

of the children’s literature, rewritings in the postcolonial context and so on (Berk 

Albachten, 2014, p. 577). The adaptation of texts primarily written for the usage of 

experts to reach and comprehend the general public is explained as expert-to-layman 

communication. For example, turning an academic article on medicine into a text that 

people understand requires this kind of intralingual translation. Updating older texts into 

today’s language, such as intralingual translations of the texts written in the Ottoman 

period into their equivalents constituted in the Republican Period, is the primary research 

area of this study. Translation of different dialects of the same language can be another 

subbranch of intralingual translation. Turning a text written with a specific dialect to a 

region in Türkiye into standard Turkish (Istanbul Turkish) was an application 

occasionally applied in the early decades of the Republic to standardise the language. In 

terms of cross-cultural adaptation of children’s literature, for example, J. K. Rowling’s 

Harry Potter series was initially written in British English, and it was intralingually 

translated and published in American English. In addition to some grammatical changes, 

words specific to the British culture, such as “biscuits”, “football”, “Mummy”, and 

“rounders” changed in the American version to “cookies”, “soccer”, “Mommy” and 

“baseball” (Berk Albachten, 2014, p. 577). 

Although there are a number of different subtypes of intralingual translation that can be 

defined, this study sought to address intralingual translation as the updating of archaic 

texts, which makes it a cross-temporal study between the texts created in the last terms of 



23 
 

the Ottoman Empire and their intralingual translations made throughout the history 

Türkiye. The novels written by Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar respectively Kuyruklu Yıldız 

Altında Bir İzdivaç written in 1911, Gulyabani written in 1913 and Efsuncu Baba written 

in 1924, and their intralingual translations made in different times throughout Türkiye’s 

history sought to be compared cross-temporarily. 

 

1.1.2. What Can Intralingual Translations Contribute to Translation Studies? 

The number of instances of intralingual translations can be increased. The abundance of 

subbranches of intralingual translation proves that further research is still required to 

consolidate its place within translation studies. Although it is sometimes hard to define 

definite borders of the intralingual translations since there are uncertain borders between 

interlingual and intralingual translations, the field offers fruitful areas of research. 

Another essential point in this regard is that the place of intralingual translations in 

translation studies still creates a quarrel between translation scholars. While some 

scholars oppose the idea that this field should be included in translation studies, others 

support the inclusion.  

This study claims that intralingual translation is a part of translation studies following 

Gideon Toury’s translation definition. Accordingly, he defines translation in a 

comprehensive viewpoint as “any target-language utterance which is presented or 

regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds” (Toury, 1985, p. 20). 

Another notion supporting the inclusion of intralingual translation into translation studies 

is the understanding of Tymoczko, which suggests translation as a concept of a cluster 

which expands and enlarges the boundaries of translation studies in her book Enlarging 

Translation, Empowering Translators (Tymoczko, 2007). Tymoczko acknowledges and 

enlarges Jakobson’s definition of intralingual translation in her study and states as 

follows: 

Unlike representation and transference which usually occur within single cultures, a 

commonality between the superordinate mode of transculturation and most clusters in the 

cross-cultural concept *translation is that they normally involve interchange and 

interaction between or among cultures. There are exceptions of course that involve 

cultural interface and transculturation in heterogeneous cultures comprising multiple 

languages and multiple cultural patterns. In the case of translation, intralingual translation 

between two states or two dialects of a single language also occur within a single cultural 

framework. Nonetheless, such instances represent limiting cases where translation is used 



24 
 

for intracultural or self-referential purposes, including defining the self, nation building, 

movement of tradition across time, and the like (Tymoczko, 2007, p. 126). 

It is essential to underline that Tymoczko, as this study claims, sees intralingual 

translation as a tool for nation-building. As this study claims, in Türkiye’s context, 

intralingual translation has been used for the building of a new, secular, modern Turkish 

nation and identity. Namely, intralingual translations are used as a tool for modernisation 

in Turkish history. 

The inclusion of intralingual translation in translation studies is still a controversial issue 

among translation scholars. While few researchers oppose this incorporation into 

translation studies, the majority of translation studies scholars accept intralingual 

translation as a part of translation studies in their research. In her recent study, Özlem 

Berk shows the opposite research in terms of accepting or refusing the inclusion of 

intralingual translations in the definition of translation. On one hand, few researchers 

opposed the idea (Mossop, 1998, 2016; Newmark, 1991; Schubert, 2005 as cited in Berk 

Albachten, 2019, p. 168).  

On the other hand, there is a wide range of studies accepting intralingual translation as a 

part of translation studies. Özlem Berk (2019, p. 168) lists the studies and researchers 

who affirmed the importance of intralingual translation for translators and translation 

scholars; Hill-Madsen’s (2014), Schmid’s (2008, 2012) and Zethsen’s (2007) studies 

centring on a variety of intralingual translations such as from expert to layman 

translations; Denton’s (2007) and Zethsen’s (2009) studies on translation for diverse 

target groups between registers; Vlachopoulos’ (2007) on specialised communication in 

the law; Gottlieb’s (2005) on intralingual translation from spoken to written for those with 

hearing or vision impairments in audio-visual media; Caimi’s (2006) and Šilhánková’s 

(2014) on didactics (2019, p. 168).  

As can be seen, the range of the applicability of intralingual translation within translation 

studies is wide open; however, the studies in this term still do not attract enough interest 

among translation scholars yet. In this context, it is important to note that a seminal 

reference work released in 2024 stands out as a clear exception, suggesting that 

intralingual translation has a promising future in the field of translation studies. Edited by 

Özlem Berk Albachten and Linda Pillière, it is anticipated that for many years to come, 

The Routledge Handbook of Intralingual Translation (Pillière & Berk Albachten, 2024) 

will pioneer new developments in the field of translation studies. The book addresses 



25 
 

intralingual translation from a very broad and comprehensive perspective. Intralingual 

translation is studied by various researchers in 26 book chapters, under six main parts: 

Intralingual translation: a diachronic perspective, Intralingual translation: language 

varieties and ideology, Intralingual translation: easy and plain language, Intralingual 

translation: rewording and editing, Intralingual translation: education and language 

acquisition, and Intralingual translation: accessibility from a practical perspective. 

Particularly the first part investigating intralingual translation from a diachronic 

perspective, can be examined in comparison with the present study. This part examines 

cross-temporal or diachronic intralingual translations over millennia in the different 

cultures of Belgium, the Netherlands, China, Rome, and Greece, demonstrating parallel 

research to the present study. 

It is expected to grow steadily within translation studies, and this field of study is expected 

to be widely acclaimed over time. Apart from the studies of intralingual translation on 

various subjects, another vital subject studied with intralingual translation, including this 

study, is cross-temporal studies. In this matter of cross-temporal studies, Özlem Berk 

compiles several studies; Delabastita’s (2016) on the modernisation of Shakespearean 

plays; Davis’ (2014) on the modernisation of Anglo-Saxon English; Özlem Berk’s (2013, 

2014, 2015) own studies on handling intralingual translations in Türkiye’s context from 

ideological perspective (2019, p. 168). 

It is a deficiency in translation studies to underrecognize intralingual translation as a 

subfield. Several reasons lie beneath the unpopularity of this subfield. In Türkiye’s 

context, two leading reasons come to mind before getting intralingual translations into 

perspective. Firstly, intralingual translations in most cases are recognised as authentic, 

and secondly, there is an underestimation of the field as it stays outside of the “proper 

translation”. Insufficient studies give some thought to intralingual translation and its place 

in translation history and translation studies. Özlem Berk underlines the scarcity of 

attention on intralingual translation among Turkish translation studies scholars and cites 

a few of the studies on this subject in the Turkish context as; intralingual translation’s 

usage as a tool for updating the language of older texts of Özlem Berk Albachten’s article 

“Diliçi çeviriler ve Mai ve Siyah” published in 2005, rewritings of traditional folk tales 

(from oral to written language) of Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar’s article “Rewriting, culture 

planning and resistance in the Turkish folk tale” published in 2011, and intralingual 



26 
 

translations as original translations in which the author is viewed as a translator of the 

subjugated, offering the voiceless of Saliha Paker’s article “Translating ‘the shadow class 

[…] condemned to movement’ and the Very Otherness of the Other: Latife Tekin as 

Author–Translator of Swords of Ice” published in 2011 (Berk Albachten, 2013, p. 259). 

In recent years, the trend of studying intralingual translation among Turkish translation 

studies scholars in Türkiye is rising slowly but steadily. Some theses at MA and PhD 

levels have been written in Translation Studies Departments on intralingual translation. 

To name a few are Gülsüm Canlı’s (2019) doctoral dissertation “The translational 

adventure of William Faulkner's Sanctuary in source and target systems: An analysis in 

the light of intralingual translation, self-translation, retranslation and indirect translation”, 

Muhammed Baydere’s (2021) doctoral dissertation “Toward new insights into research 

in descriptive translation studies: Conceptualizing diversity in Reşat Nuri Güntekin's 

intralingual and interlingual translational actions”, Hülya Boy’s (2022) doctoral 

dissertation “Conceptual reflections on the intra-/inter-lingual translations of The Picture 

of Dorian Gray”, Umut Can Gökduman’s (2023) doctoral dissertation “Les Misérables'ın 

dillerarası ve diliçi (yeniden) çevirileri” all of which thesis published under the 

supervision of Ayşe Banu Karadağ at the Yıldız Teknik University. Apart from Yıldız 

Teknik University, there is one Master’s Degree thesis recently defended at Istanbul 

University supervised by Nejdet Neydim, written by Meysun Sözeri (2020) with the title 

“Gains and losses in intralingual and interlingual adaptation translations based on Johann 

Wolfgang Von Goethe's novel 'Reineke Fuchs'”. Another Master’s Degree Thesis was 

written at Sakarya University, supervised by Muharrem Tosun, written by Selçuk Bektaş 

(2008) titled “The interpretation problems due to cultural language changes regarding 

inter-language pratations”. 

In addition to the research on intralingual translations at postgraduate levels, there is a 

slow-growing trend in Turkish translation studies in this matter. However, further 

research is still required especially in Türkiye, where the intralingual translation refers to 

something beyond linguistic or word-level changes. Significantly, cross-temporal 

descriptive research in this regard can shed light on the relationship between past and 

present. In the Turkish context, Özlem Berk’s studies can be considered illuminating and 

a guide for future research. Özlem Berk tries to challenge the idea opposing the 

incorporation of intralingual translation into translation studies and defends that 



27 
 

intralingual translations are valuable sources in revealing “linguistic, translational, and 

ideological norms of the periods in which these translations were produced” (Berk 

Albachten, 2013, p. 257), especially in Türkiye’s context. In her recent study, she 

examines intralingual translations made in the Ottoman era, and in doing so, she attempts 

to include intralingual translation into the translation studies discipline. She explains her 

attempt as an examination of the functions of intralingual translation in the Ottoman era 

sought to illuminate diverse text production practices in the Ottoman literary system, and 

“researching translational phenomena in their historicity will call for the inclusion of 

intralingual translation into translation research, thus expanding the boundaries of the 

discipline and its research domain” (Berk Albachten, 2019, p. 169). The details of her 

research in the Ottoman era sought to be scrutinised in the following subtopics. 

Similar to Özlem Berk’s pioneering studies on intralingual translations, which 

concentrate on revealing the intralingual translations and try to prove that intralingual 

translations are actually part of translation studies, the present study accepts intralingual 

translations as translations, and a field of study under translation studies. To move one 

step further, this study sought to investigate ideological changes in different intralingual 

translations of source texts through CDA offered by Ruth Wodak’s DHA. 

In order to have a comprehensive understanding of intralingual translation, especially in 

the Turkish context, its history requires to be examined beforehand. 

 

1.2. INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION IN TÜRKİYE 

1.2.1. Historical Development of Intralingual Translation 

In order to attain the general incorporation of intralingual translation within translation 

studies, comprehensive research in this regard is required to be done in a wide range of 

different cultures and countries in different periods. 

In most cases, along with the other types and usages, intralingual translation generally 

refers to the update or modernisation of the archaic language, which is not understood by 

the younger generations. In this regard, there have been discussions on intralingual 

translations stemming from a political worldview in Türkiye, which can be grouped into 

two as conservatives using old words and words with Arabic and Persian-origins more 

and modernists who prefer to use more Turkish-originated words. 



28 
 

Certain disputes inevitably arise in the world. Türkiye is not alone in these kinds of 

discussions of modernisation/update of language, which constitute a fruitful resource in 

support of the inclusion of intralingual translations in the academic field of translation 

studies. For example, a discussion on this matter arose in the United Kingdom in 2001 

between prominent translation scholar Susan Bassnett and Tom Deveson in modernising 

the language of Shakespeare for modern-day students (Deveson and Bassnett, 2001/2, as 

cited in Berk Albachten, 2014, p. 582). On the one hand, Bassnett claims the need for 

instant comprehension of Shakespearean language in theatres, thereby the need to 

translate Shakespeare into modern English. On the other hand, Deveson claims that the 

audience would lose touch with a crucial aspect of themselves if the language ties to the 

inherited usages were broken (Berk Albachten, 2014, p. 582). In supporting Deveson’s 

arguments, David Crystal (2002, p. 17 as cited in Berk Albachten, 2014, p. 582) claims 

that many words’ meanings in the Shakespearean language have not changed majorly. 

The problem of comprehension of Shakespeare's works happens not because of linguistics 

but because of the matter of general educational knowledge. He defends educating people 

and making them more fluent in the Shakespearean language instead of modernising 

Shakespeare (2002, p. 17 as cited in Berk Albachten, 2014, p. 582). He claims 

“[d]isassociating authors from the language they have carefully chosen to use hits deeply 

at their identity” Therefore, translation “should only be employed after all other means of 

achieving comprehension have been explored” (Crystal, 2002, p. 17 as cited in Berk 

Albachten, 2014, p. 582). Crystal also opposes the idea of Bassnett in terms of the 

intralingual translation of Shakespeare and defends that such translation is not required. 

Similar debate in terms of modernising language through intralingual translations also 

creates an area of discussion in Greece. Connolly and Bacopoulou-Halls summarise the 

Greek intralingual translation tradition as follows:  

In Greece, translation practice and theory have focused to a large extent on intralingual 

translation – translation, that is, of ancient texts into the modern idiom. The great 

emphasis given to intralingual translation was in part meant to show the continuity of the 

Greek language rather than to produce a new Greek text and also to show the capacity of 

the modern idiom to act as a vehicle for the lofty ideas of the past (David & Bacopoulou-

Halls, 2009, pp. 420-421). 

In the same vein, Dimitris N. Maronitis (2002, p. 37, as cited in Berk Albachten, 2014, p. 

582) claims that the definition, assessment, and perception of the relationship between 

modern Greece and the ancient world determine the level of willingness or unwillingness 



29 
 

to translate Ancient Greek at any particular period. Every time the dominant ideologies 

regard contemporary Greece as being reliant on ancient Greece, there is a shift away from 

intralingual translation. On the other hand, translating thrives when such a connection is 

not made (Maronitis, 2002, p. 37, as cited in Berk Albachten, 2014, p. 582). 

The approach towards intralingual translation in Greece can be considered relevant to the 

context in Türkiye, and as Özlem Berk claims, “historical descriptive studies on Turkish 

intralingual translations would reveal the nature of the link between the Ottoman and 

modern Turkish worlds” (2014, p. 583). Generally, the first thing that comes to mind 

when intralingual translation research in Türkiye is mentioned is the transcription of 

Arabic letters into Latin letters after the language and alphabet reforms made during the 

first decades of Türkiye. The studies, including the present study, majorly scrutinise 

cross-temporal relations and differences between the intralingual translations and the 

source texts belonging to different periods.  

Few studies centring on intralingual translation in Türkiye’s context majorly concentrated 

on translations of the 19th and early 20th century Ottoman literature and their intralingual 

translations after the language reform. However, intralingual translations throughout 

Turkish history cannot be limited to this short period. There are even fewer studies in the 

translation studies academic field of Türkiye in this regard, which primarily deals with 

the intralingual translations made in the Ottoman era, and these studies generally carry 

multidisciplinary characteristics since they are searched by a couple of the researchers in 

Turkish Language and Literature fields in addition to Translation Studies Departments. 

Understanding of translation (terceme) was quite different and embracive in the Ottoman 

Empire than today. Upon studying paratextual data produced in the 19th century on 

Ahmed Midhat’s works, Cemal Demircioğlu detected several culturally specific 

terminology and conceptions of translation (terceme) in his PhD thesis and studies (2005, 

2009). Demircioğlu explains that Ahmed Midhat’s translated works and his discourse on 

translation aid in illuminating the culture-specific terms and notions in translation in the 

late Ottoman literary tradition. The terminology Demircioğlu identified for translations 

and text productions from Europe was “by way of producing not on