Author :
DOI : 10.29228/joh.45577
Year-Number: 2020-XLVII
Language : İngilizce
Konu : Çeviribilim (Mütercim Tercümanlık)-Filoloji Temel Alanı
Abstract
Çeviribilimde söylem genellikle “biçem-içerik” ya da “yapı-anlam” ikili zıtlığının bir parçası olarak tartışılmış ve bu tartışmanın sonunda bazı edebi türlerin zorlu söylem öğeleri (özellikle şiirsel söylem) çevrilemez olarak kabul edilmiştir. Tekinsizlik uyandırma amacı taşıyan fantastik edebiyat tedirginliğe ve “tanıdık bir biçimde yabancı” olacak öğelere ihtiyaç duymaktadır. İdyolekt (bireydil), sosyolekt (özel-grup dil), kurmaca diller, özel bir amaçla seçilmiş özel isimler ve fantastiğin terminolojisi bir yandan bu yabancılığı kurmaya yararken diğer yandan çevirmenlere bazı zorluklar teşkil eder. Her ne kadar söylemsel öğeler çevirmenler için kısıtlayıcı ya da zorlayıcı olsa da çeviri Pym’in de (1992) önerdiği gibi “kültürlerarası söylem çözümlemesinin bir keşif yordamı” olarak olası bir araç görevi üstlenebilir (s. 235). Bu makale fantastik edebiyatın doğası ve sınırlarını tartıştıktan sonra çeviride söylemsel kısıtlar ve söylem çözümlemesinin yerini sorgulamayı amaçlamaktadır.
Keywords
Abstract
In Translation Studies, discourse has generally been discussed as a part of the binary opposition of “form versus content” or “structure versus meaning” and at the end of this discussion, challenging discourse elements of some genres (especially poetic discourse) have been often considered untranslatable. With the goal of arousing uncanny, fantastic literature as a literary genre needs hesitation and a familiar kind of strangeness. While discoursive elements such as idiolects, sociolects, fictional constructed languages (conLang) and specifically designed proper names, special terminology of fantastic can help construct this strangeness, they evoke some challenges for translators. Although discoursive elements can be constraints or challenges for translators; as Pym (1992) offers translation is a potential tool, “a discovery procedure of intercultural Discourse Analysis” (p.235). This article aims to question the discoursive constraints and Discourse Analysis in translation of fantastic literature after discussing the scope and nature of fantastic literature.
Keywords
- Sevcan YILMAZ KUTLAY1 Abstract In Translation Studies, discourse has generally been discussed as a part of the binary opposition of “form versus content” or “structure versus meaning” and at the end of this discussion, challenging discourse elements of some genres (especially poetic discourse) have been often considered untranslatable. With the goal of arousing uncanny, fantastic literature as a literary genre needs hesitation and a familiar kind of strangeness. While discoursive elements such as idiolects, sociolects, fictional constructed languages (conLang) and specifically designed proper names, special terminology of fantastic can help construct this strangeness, they evoke some challenges for translators. Although discoursive elements can be constraints or challenges for translators; as Anthony Pym (1992) offers translation is a potential tool, “a discovery procedure of intercultural Discourse Analysis” (p.235). This article aims to question the discoursive constraints and Discourse Analysis in translation of fantastic literature after discussing the scope and nature of fantastic literature. Keywords: Translation, Discourse, Fantastic Literature, Sociolect, Idiolect. 1Öğr. Gör. Dr., Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksek Okulu, Modern Diller Bölümü, sevcanykutlay@gmail.com, Orcid: 0000-0002-7841-3513
- context (2008: 173-5). It is clear that genres are both determining and determined
- If we leave the critical, deconstructive approaches to genres for practical reasons and try to define fantastic as a literary genre, fantastic literature comes from fantasticum in Latin and phantasein in Greek, which means “to appear or make something visible” (Steinmetz, 2006: 7). In Japan, the term used for fantasy is genso, which means the story of the ghost (Steinmetz, 2006: 10). There are different conceptualizations of fantastic literature such as “the literature of subversion,” or “the liberation of the imagination” (Rayment, 2014: 1). Also, the distinction between the fantastic element in a work and fantastic as a genre can be confused because the limits are not clearly set. Even though there is no agreement on the definition of fantasy and the scope of fantastic literature, literary critics reach a consensus about the role of “uncanny” as a differentiating element in fantastic literature. One thing in common in various definitions is twisting the daily reality by using imagination.
- Todorov’s work named The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre (1970) is the starting point of the interest in fantastic as a literary genre. According to him, fantastic is “a liminal state of the supernatural” which “leaves the reader with a sense of confusion about the work, and whether or not the phenomenon was real or imagined” and includes “an unresolved hesitation” (Fantastic, n.d.). His term hesitation is closely related to uncanny and ambivalence (Fantastic, n.d.). As a structuralist theoretician, Todorov classifies three conditions for the storyline of the fantastic:
- general)” (Borghart&Madelein, 2003: 1). Thus, he gives a special place for
- Apart from the uncanny and hesitation fantastic creates, the feeling of escaping from the real world is another effect attached to fantastic literature (sometimes as a reason for not considering it as high literature but as a part of children’s literature). According to John R. R. Tolkien, fantastic is “a narration based on producing second worlds and belief systems to escape from the reality through amazing the reader”, by doing so it overcomes “the superiority of the observable truth” (as cited in Ayar, 2018: 26-27). Fantastic literature makes alternative worlds more attractive compared to our ordinary world by the feelings of excitement fear and curiosity (Rabkin, 1979: 3-5). Moreover, censored topics and cultural taboos can be expressed under the guise of fantastic. Also, in our postmodernist, capitalist world the need of fantastic can be considered “as the story of the individual who is chasing the impossible even though s/he knows that it is impossible and destroys herself/himself at the end of this process” (Ayar, 2018: 53). These are the potential functions of fantastic for readers.
- (Martínez Fabre and Mateu, 2019: 8). In addition to horror and science fiction,
- and John Grant (1997) argue that referring fantastic elements from the past such
- cited in Martínez Fabre & Mateu, 2019: 10-11). Fantastic literature with
- cited in Martínez Fabre & Mateu, 2019: 10-11)”.
- Last but not the least, roleplaying games and power of the discourse of the fans should not be ignored. In addition to social media platforms, these games encourage a paratextual discourse. Beyond being a simulation of alternative world experience, the paratextual discourse of roleplaying games construct the reality sense through “in-character dialogue, argument over rules, and discussion of the finer points of the setting” (Vu, 2017: 283-284). To conclude, even though there are controversies about the boundaries, categories/subgenres of fantastic, one thing is for sure that its discourse elements can be an indispensable part of the ultimate goal of its genre, namely hesitation and uncanny.
- Defining the term “discourse” is as challenging as defining “fantastic”. Definitions of discourse vary from ‘anything beyond the sentence” to ‘language use’ (from sociolinguistics) and “a broad range of social practices that construct power, ideology, etc.” (as cited in Munday and Zhang, 2017: 1). Different fields and paradigms can have different conceptualizations of discourse due to their focus of study. Hatim and Mason define discourses as “modes of speaking which involve the participants in adopting a particular stance on certain areas of sociocultural activity: racial discourse, scientific discourse, domestic discourse etc.” (1990: 141). This perspective of Hatim and Mason covering socio-cultural elements is generally accepted despite some criticisms. Discourse Analysis studies the relationship between language patterns and these elements of “sociocultural context”. It also focuses on the traces of social identity and ideology in the use of language by analyzing relationships and power relations between participants. By doing so, Discourse Analysis shows “how views of the world and identities are constructed through the use of discourse” (Munday and Zhang, 2017: 1-2).
- texts belong in a translation process (1992: 227). He claims that “most theories
- tongues” (Pym, 1992: 227). Pym also finds Hatim and Mason’s approach
- and speech act and text type” (1992: 228). He accuses Hatim’s description of
- discoursive status of the translator’s thinking and talking” (Pym, 1992: 233).
- discourses are (Pym, 1992: 232). Pym’s solution is recognizing translation “as a
- possible index of intercultural discoursive constraints” (1992: 227). He offers
- Analysis” (Pym, 1992: 235). However, it should not be ignored that translation is
- intertextuality, mythology and so on” (Fernandes, 2006: 46). The strategies about
- phonological replacement and conventionality (Fernandes, 2006: 50-55). Ayşe Ş.
- SpeedErUp : GazlaBeni (Kulaksız, 2019: 67)
- (Hatim & Mason, 1990: 37). These levels of meaning derive from social
- (1990: 42). Translator takes the role of a mediator in this “dynamic process of
- As another related term, Saussurean concept grapholect means the dialects from a social context (particular time, place and social group) (as cited in Üstün: 2012: 25). Eric S. Rabkin claims that “the fantastic fiction, […] proposes a universe which only claims coherence in its own ground rules, in its own grapholect yet decipherable by all the lenses, as one would make sense of a dissimilar dialect than their owns” (as cited in Üstün: 2012: 25). It is like another language in the same language and readers even in the same speech community have to decipher it. In this sense, fantastic narrative is both strange and still meaningful for readers. It is both impossible/imaginary and somehow realistic due to having elements from our daily lives.
- As an example of imaginary sociolects, in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, the language of the hobbits has some discoursive constraints for the translators. Hobbits (also referred as halflings) are “a fictional human-like race in the novels of Tolkien (Hobbit, n.d.). Tolkien portrays them “fond of an unadventurous, bucolic and simple life of farming, eating, and socializing, although capable of defending their homes courageously if the need arises” (Hobbit, n.d.). Hobbits of Tolkien have Cockney accents which is “a pejorative term for the accent or dialect of English traditionally spoken by working-class Londoners” (Cockney, n.d.). Additionally, Tolkien chooses hard consonants, guttural vowels and alliterations, which aid their pejorative position. Thus, translators can have a dilemma (also a binary opposition) about whether to keep the sound or the meaning (Broadway, 2013).
- and we might make a pie, said Bert.” (Tolkien, 2012: 30)
- 2017: 72)
- yerself! said Tom.” (Tolkien, 2012: 30)
- “Sensin dangalak!” dedi Tom. (Tolkien, 2017: 78)
- Apart from sociolects, there can be some constructed languages, namely conLangs or artLangs, in a fantastic novel or story. ConLang or artLang means a created, imaginative language such as Esperanto or Dothraki from HBO's Game of Thrones (www.conlang.org). According to the reason of construction, there are some types of constructed languages such as “engineered languages, auxiliary languages and artistic languages” and fictional constructed language is a category of among them (Mäkelä, 2015: 25). Fictional constructed languages or artLangs can be also categorized into three types in itself: fictional constructed languages spoken by imagined races/nations, idiolects and religious or mystical languages (Rhiemeier, 2012). No matter which category it belongs to, conLang is not just a linguistic tool, but it needs a metalinguistic observation (Tan, 2018). The challenge for translators is that the fictional language they are translating “exists only within the context of that specific written work […] as a product of the author’s imagination” (Mäkelä, 2015: 25). Butnaru criticizes academicians about “overseeing the ever-growing popularity conlangs have experienced over the past few decades” and ignoring the relationship between Discourse Analysis and Translation Studies in terms of conLangs (Butnaru, 2016: 91). Translators of fantastic literature can face with the task of translating a conLang (which is also considered a translation) and they end up with constructing another language in/from the target language. At this point, metalinguistic observation of a critical discourse analysis gains utmost significance.
- an even larger sea-turtle as it travels through space” (Britton, 2018: 2). In the
- a self-reflection process for his readers. As Kirk Boyle (2017) puts it, his narrative
- mockery” (as cited in Britton, 2018: 5). The character named “Death” in the
- (Britton, 2018: 9). As Sarah Britton observes, “the lack of enclosure and size of
- Death” (Britton, 2018: 9). In Turkish translation of the book Mort by Pratchett,
- BEN GÖRÜŞÜRÜZ DEMEYİ TERCİH EDİYORUM, dedi. (Pratchett, 2015: 280)
- e_. Access date: 19.05.2020. Aslan Ayar, P. (2018). Türkçe Edebiyatta Varla Yok Arası bir Tür: Fantastik
- Roman (1876-1960). İletişim. Baudou, J. (2005). Bilim Kurgu. Dost yayinevi. Broadway, C.Q. (2013). What’s in a name: translating proper nouns in the Hobbit.
- The One Ring. https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/ 05/05/ 71399-
- 19.05.2020. Borghart, P. & Madelein, C. (2003). The return of the key: the uncanny in the
- inarchive/uncanny/ borghartmadelein.htm. Access date: 12.03.2020. Boyle, K. (2017). The Rhetoric of Humor: a Bedford Spotlight Reader. St.
- Martin's. Britton, S. (2018). Thoughtful Laughter: Fantasy and Satire as Social
- Carolina at Asheville. Butnaru, N.L. (2016). Means of preserving intentionality and functionality in
- Interstud) (19), 91-100. Clute, J. & Grant, J. (Eds.) (1997). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. Orbit Books. Cockney. (n.d.). in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockney. Access
- date: 10.06.2020. Derrida, J. (1980). The law of genre. Glyph, 1(7), 202-232. Fabre Martinez, M.P. & Matou, F. (Ed) (2019). In a Stranger Field. Studies of
- popularculture.com/Fantastic_literature. Access date: 10.05.2020. Fernandes, L. (2006). Translation of names in children’s fantasy literature:
- 44-57. Firth, J. R. (1951). Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951. Oxford University press. Freud, S. (2002). Totem ve Tabu. (K.Sahir Sel, Trans.). Sosyal yayinlar. (Original
- work published 1989). Goldberg, S. (n.d.). Escape from the spiderhead. Plato. https://www.plato
- 18.05.2020. Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. Longman. Hobbit. (n.d.). in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit. Access date: Irwin, W.R. (1976). The Game of Impossible: a Rhetoric of Fantasy. University
- of Illinois press. Jameson, F. (2008). Modernizm Ideolojisi. (K. Atakay & T. Birkan, Trans.).
- Metis. (Original work published 2007). Jourde, P. & Tortorese, P. (2005). Fantastik: Mantık için bir skandal (E. Özdoğan,
- Trans.). Kitaplık, 80, 79-81. Kim, M. & Matthiessen, C.M. (2017). Ways to move forward in translation
- Translation Studies (p.11-26). John Benjamins. Kulaksız, M. N. (2019). Translation of Saunders’ ‘Escape from the Spiderhead’
- Marmara University, Department of Translating and Interpreting. Mäkelä, O. (2015). Constructed Fictional Language in Translation: Conveying
- thesis, University of Vaasa, Department of English Studies. Munday, J. (2012). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications.
- 3rd ed. Routledge. Munday, J. & Zhang, M. (Eds.) (2017). Discourse Analysis in Translation
- Okyayuz Yener, Ş. & Dalkılıç, V. (2002). Fantastik eserlerin çevirisi. Hacettepe
- Üniversitesi Çeviribilim Uygulamaları Dergisi, 1(12), 77-92. Paltridge, B. (2012). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. (2nd ed).
- Bloomsbury. Pratchett, T. (2019). Mort. Harper Collins. Pratchett, T. (2015). Mort. (N. Elçi, Trans.). Deli Dolu yayinlari. (Original work
- published 1987). Pym, A. (1992). Limits and frustrations of discourse analysis in translation
- 239. Pyrhönen, H. (2007). Genre. in D. Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to
- Narrative (p.109-124), Cambridge University press. Rabkin, E. S. (1976). The Fantastic in Literature. Princeton University press. Rayment, A. (2014). Fantasy, Politics, Postmodernity: Pratchett, Pullman
- Mieville and Stories of the Eye. Rodopi. Rhiemeier, J. (2012). The Art of Conlang Classification. Jörg Rhiemeier’s
- html. Access date: 31.07.2020. Reeder, C.T. (n.d.). Spiderhead. Reeder the Man. https://reederman.wordpress.
- com/essay-1/. Access date: 19.05.2020. Rzyman, A. (2017). The Intertextuality of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld as a Major
- Challenge for the Translator. Cambridge Scholars publishing. Saunders, G. (2013). Tenth of December. Random House. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. (2003). The Handbook of Discourse
- Analysis. Blackwell Publishers. Steinmetz, J. L. (2006). Fantastik Edebiyat. Dost yayinevi. Üstün, Z.G. (2012). Desire of the Impossible: A Cultural Reading of Fantastic
- Tan, I.J. (2018). Dothraki Language Change - Linguistic Implications and
- full. Access date: 31.07.2020. Todorov, T. (1975). The Fantastic: a Structural Approach to a Literary
- Genre. (R. Howard, Trans.). Cornell UP. Todorov, T. (2000). The origin of genres. in D. Duff (Ed.), Modern Genre Theory
- (p.193-209). Harlow. Todorov, T. (2004). Fantastik: Edebi Türe Yapısal bir Yaklaşım. (N. Öztokat,
- Trans.). Metis. (Original work published 1975). Tolkien, J.RR. (1996). Hobbit: Oradaydık ve Şimdi Buradayız. (E. İzmirli,
- Trans.). Mitos Yayıncılık. (Original work published 1937). Tolkien, J.RR. (2012). The Hobbit; Or, There and Back Again. Houghton Mifflin
- Harcourt. Tolkien, J.RR. (2017). Hobbit ya da Gittik ve Döndük. (G. Sarı, Trans.). İthaki
- Yayınları. (Original work published 1937). Vu, R. (2017). Fantasy after representation: D & D, Game of Thrones, and
