Você está na página 1de 17

This article was downloaded by: [Hacettepe University]

On: 12 February 2015, At: 01:19


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Translation Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrs20

Scouting the borders of translation:


Pseudotranslation, concealed
translations and authorship in
twentieth-century Turkey
a
ehnaz Tahir Gralar
a
Department of Translation and Interpreting Studies , Boazii
University , Istanbul, Turkey
Published online: 08 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: ehnaz Tahir Gralar (2010) Scouting the borders of translation:
Pseudotranslation, concealed translations and authorship in twentieth-century Turkey, Translation
Studies, 3:2, 172-187, DOI: 10.1080/14781701003647384

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14781701003647384

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Translation Studies,
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010, 172187

Scouting the borders of translation


Pseudotranslation, concealed translations and authorship in
twentieth-century Turkey
Sehnaz Tahir Gurcaglar

Department of Translation and Interpreting Studies, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey


Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

This paper addresses a relatively little explored area of Turkish literary translation
history and sets out to contextualize a series of alternative translation practices
previously expressed as marginal forms of translation. These practices are
instances of textual production that can be classified neither as translation proper
nor as indigenous creation: they are mainly concealed translation and pseudo-
translations. The study argues that marginal forms of translation offer informa-
tion regarding the literary habitus of readers in Turkey, and suggests that the
second half of the twentieth century saw a transformation in this habitus which
can be traced through the shifts in the use and presentation of concealed
translations and pseudotranslations. After providing a historical overview of the
use of such translations as a cultural and commercial tool by Turkish writers and
publishers, the paper discusses two recent cases which defy established percep-
tions about pseudotranslations.
Keywords: pseudotranslation; concealed translation; readers habitus; authorship;
popular literature in Turkey

This paper explores a marginal field in literary translation in Turkey which stands
on the border marking translation from non-translation or original creation. It
argues, as many scholars have done in the past, that cases such as pseudotranslations
and concealed translations reflect a cultures models of authorship and its concepts
of translation versus original, sometimes in a much more explicit and striking
fashion than do translations proper.1 The paper traces the course of marginal
translation activities in twentieth-century Turkey, setting out to demonstrate that
such activities are not static and that their inherently time-bound character serves as
a strong indicator of changes in a cultures view of translation, original writing and
authorship. As I will illustrate, Turkish writers and translators showed a certain
readiness to appropriate source texts or to present their original works as
translations until the 1960s. This unworried attitude to literary provenance and
intellectual ownership, which was also shared by readers, was transformed towards
the end of the twentieth century. The papers main goal is to explore this
transformation in the literary habitus2 (Bourdieu 1993, 5) of Turkish writers
and readers, which becomes most visible in concealed and pseudotranslations and
the debates surrounding those two activities.
Since the 1980s, the type of marginal (Wakabayashi 1998) translation most
widely explored by researchers is probably the pseudotranslation. However,
pseudotranslations are not the only type of marginal translation activity in Turkey
ISSN 1478-1700 print/ISSN 1751-2921 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14781701003647384
http://www.informaworld.com
Translation Studies 173

and it would be fair to suggest that concealed translations are more common than
pseudotranslations, if only because the term covers a wider range of textual strategies
and is harder to define.

Concealed translations: a preliminary problematization


According to Gideon Toury, even if a text is presented as original writing, the
existence of another text which may have served as a source is sufficient to make the
case an object of study for translation scholars. Toury refers to such cases as
concealed translations, and argues that they can indicate instances where the
distinction between translations and non-translations is not culturally functional
and is hence blurred (Toury 1995, 701).
The concept of concealed translation can be taken to cover a diverse range of
writing activities that have a base in a source text in another culture yet are seldom
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

regarded as translation. Toury argues that in concealed translations the target-


language text replaces a particular source text, but I suggest that concealed
translation can take place without total textual replacement, and is thus a type of
intertextuality. From the perspective of translation this intertextuality, in the form of
horizontal relations among texts (Kristeva 1980), assumes an intercultural dimen-
sion, so that the concept of concealed translation can be used as a tool to trace the
foreign elements contributing to the structuration of texts.
There is little doubt that total and partial cases of concealed translations exist in
all cultures, sometimes never having been revealed as such. A typical example of
concealed translation would be adaptation,3 a text presented as an original work,
especially when it involves the domestication of characters and places. If one moves
beyond the borrowing of actual text fragments from a source culture, the concept of
concealed translation can be stretched to cover phenomena such as influence,
imitation or plagiarism. Although these phenomena are often seen in a negative light
(also by contemporary readers and writers in Turkey) the descriptive rigour of the
concept of concealed translation enables us to analyse them as cases of textual and
cultural transfer rather than acts of forgery or fraud (Apter 2006, 220). A
descriptive-analytical approach thus facilitates the contextualization of these
phenomena, offering insights into the possible motives and personal and social
circumstances of their writers instead of overruling closer consideration due to these
writers supposedly unethical behaviour. The same applies to pseudotranslations,
where the author can easily be accused of cheating the readers by pretending to have
foreign origins.
As concepts of authorship and literary ownership become more established in a
given culture, concerns over literary ethics tend to grow. This is demonstrated by the
striking change in readers attitudes towards these issues in Turkey, from a complete
indifference to issues of literary provenance in the mid-twentieth century to the
opposite pole of high regard for authorship, and ethical expectations placed on
writers use of their sources, at the end of the century. There is little doubt that the
relaxed attitude towards literary provenance in Republican Turkey was a part of
the Ottoman cultural heritage. Ottoman-Turkish interculture was rich in transla-
tions and concealed translations in their various forms. In her 2002 article exploring
the time- and culture-bound nature of terms denoting translation in modern and
Ottoman Turkish, Saliha Paker notes that while Ottoman poet-translators used
174 S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar

paratextual markers to indicate the status of some texts as translations, other texts
were not marked in any way and their status as translations was only disclosed
through the discovery of intertextual sources (Paker 2002, 123). According to Paker,
the Ottoman understanding of translation does not correspond to the contemporary
concept of translation in Turkey, which is a result of 40 years of debate on the
functions, definitions and strategies of translation, using both the old terms terceme
or tercu me and the modern verb c evir-mek and its various derivatives (ibid., 127).
Pakers problematization of Ottoman translation practices has been supplemented
by Cemal Demirciog lu, who shows that nineteenth-century Ottoman literary
discourse employed a plethora of terms to refer to various acts of textual transfer
and presentation related to translation (Demirciog lu 2005, 1). Interestingly enough,
these terms and concepts associated with translation were also ones often used to
describe indigenous writing.
A similar situation continued to prevail in Turkey in the twentieth century, and
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

the literary habitus which admitted an unproblematic attitude towards the issue of
authorship and textual provenance was transformed, mainly through the efforts by
Turkish intellectuals, who created and maintained a discourse on translation
(accompanied by an assumed superiority of the source text and source author over
translation and translator) and the importance of importing the Western literary
canon into Turkey (Tahir Gu rc ag lar 2008a). Despite these efforts, the borders
between translation and original writing remained blurred well into the twentieth
century. However, there was a marked difference between the fields of canonical
and popular literature in terms of the view of translation. In canonical literature,
the Western paradigm of authorship appears to have established itself earlier,
although even here extreme cases of appropriation, i.e., concealed translation,
were not uncommon until a few decades ago. No comprehensive study exists on
the extent to which Turkish writers and poets made use of foreign sources to
create works which they presented as their own. However, a short article published
in 1941 in one of the major national dailies in Turkey, Cumhuriyet, offers
significant evidence of the phenomenons prevalence, at least in the 1940s.
Presenting the case of a major writer (who remains anonymous) discovered to
have translated a foreign work and published it under his own name, the article
offers clues to the kind of attitude towards cases of appropriation that the press,
and probably the literary establishment, was then trying to encourage in readers
minds:
In our country plagiarizing from foreign languages does not create a negative
impression on the majority of the readers. That is why many writers see nothing wrong
with publishing works (!) based on this method. We know consecrated personalities in
our literature who have borrowed many novels, stories, and even poems from Western
languages, especially from French, and presented these works to our literature without
adding so much as their signatures.4 (N. 1941, 1)
The articles title, Fikir Haysiyeti [intellectual dignity], indicates that the issue was
presented as one of human honour.
There are less extreme cases of appropriation, by now well known and widely
documented, that are usually referred to not as appropration or plagiarization but as
influence [etkilenme] or inspiration [esinlenme]5 even though many of these cases
involve downright translation of phrases and borrowing of images from Western
works. Many major Turkish poets and writers of the twentieth century appear to
Translation Studies 175

have been engaged in this practice; examples include leading literary figures such as
Ahmet Hamdi Tanpnar (19011962), Necip Fazl Ksaku rek (19041983) and
Adalet Ag aog lu (b. 1929). Tanpnar is found to have been strongly influenced by
Ge rard de Nervals Aure lia in his 1943 short story Abdullah Efendinin Ru yalar
[The Dreams of Abdullah Efendi] (see Alkan 1995). Ksakurek was criticized for
borrowing characters, dialogue and ideas from Gerardo Gerardi in 1941 (Yetik 2005,
90), while in a debate launched in 1981, Ag aog lus Bir Du g u n Gecesi [A Wedding
Night] was claimed to bear enough similarity to Aldous Huxleys Point Counter
Point to make it an adaptation rather than an original work (ibid., 96). None of
these works has been explored from the viewpoint of translation studies, and a fresh
look at them as acts of concealed translation may illuminate why these great writers
made use of foreign sources so readily and discreetly. In the case of Tanpnar, the
accusation was raised posthumously, while both Ksaku rek and Ag aog lu rejected the
claims when they were first made  though the similarities between their works and
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

the foreign sources indeed seem too close to be coincidental. A more recent case is
Orhan Pamuk, whose Kara Kitap [The Black Book] and Beyaz Kale [The White
Castle] have been accused of borrowing from foreign sources (Yetik 2005, 72).
Pamuk has remained largely silent in the face of these criticisms, while many literary
critics dismissed the accusations, referring to Pamuks skill in creating intertextual
references.
An interesting case of a more conspicuous type of concealed translation in
Turkey is an early Republican-period translation of Dracula that was published in
three different editions until the 1990s. The trajectory followed by this translation
offers interesting evidence regarding the gradual transformation of the views on
translation and originality.
Dracula first appeared in Turkey in 1928 (reprinted in 1946) under the title
Kazkl Voyvoda.6 The novel was credited to a former naval officer, writer and
translator, Ali Rza Seyfi, who domesticated Dracula and used the same storyline, at
times also resorting to verbatim translations of parts of the source text. During the
act of domestication, Ali Rza Seyfi also inserted many passages to the text on the
superiority, patriotism and heroism of the Turkish nation, clearly intending to evoke
nationalist feelings in the readership. This should not come as a surprise, since
Kazkl Voyvoda was published only five years after the proclamation of the
Republic, in a period of intensive reforms aiming to create a new national identity.
The novels status as a translation was only revealed in 1998, when the third
edition came out, this time under the title Drakula Istanbulda [Dracula in Istanbul].
The 1998 edition not only changed the title of the text, but also left out many
nationalist passages from the translation. Bram Stoker was also named as the writer
of the source text. It may be argued that the publishers of the 1998 edition were
migrating Ali Rza Seyfis text into a new cultural and literary context. They did
this in three distinct moves: 1. the revelation of the texts status as a translation and
the emphasis placed on the original text in paratextual material including a
foreword by a famous cinema historian, Giovanni Scognamilio; 2. the change to the
title, which is part of the highlighting of the source text (using the word Dracula in
the title, as opposed to Kazkl Voyvoda  an evil figure in Turkish history associated
with vampirism); 3. the editing process that takes away the texts nationalist
character and reduces it to a simple retelling of the action and romantic parts of
Dracula. These moves produced a text that was presented as a historical curiosity, a
176 S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar

caricature. They also encapsulate the current view on concealed translation as a


mode of literary production which is no longer acceptable or popular.
After this brief foray into the relatively unexplored field of concealed translation
in Turkey, let me turn to pseudotranslating practices in Republican Turkey and delve
further into the transformation of the concept of authorship by contextualizing
various instances of pseudotranslations.

Pseudotranslation in Turkey: an evolving presence


Pseudotranslation  the strategy of presenting a text as a translation despite no
corresponding source texts in other languages ever having existed (Toury 1995,
40)  was a popular tool among Turkish writers/translators up until the 1960s. It is
widely known that translated books often sold more than original Turkish works in
early Republican Turkey, and publishers and writers therefore had an economic
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

interest in presenting works as translations. But if the motivation behind


pseudotranslation was primarily commercial, a close look at the texts themselves
reveals that a cultural role was also played by these texts, some of which thematized
such controversial issues as womens sexuality (see Alt 2008; Isklar Koc ak 2007,7
2008, 2009), anti-capitalism (U yepazarc 2008) or abstract art (Ameiens 1957).
Turkish researchers early developed an interest in the issue of pseudotranslation,
but most work has revolved around one famous case: Nihal Yeg inobals Genc Kzlar
[Young Ladies] of 1950 (Bengi-O ner 1999; O ztu rk Kasar and Cebeciog lu 2006; Alt
2008). The emphasis has mostly been on the innovative character of Genc Kzlar and
Yeg inobals use of the strategy of pseudotranslation to break the norms of a
patriarchal society, which would not have tolerated the novels explicit sexual
references in an original work written by a young unmarried woman. Yeg inobal
published a second pseudotranslation, which remains relatively unknown to this day:
Eflatun Kz [The Lilac Girl]. This book offers rare material for research because it was
published in several different versions: first as an original work in serialized form
under the title Eflatun Kz (1959), then as a translation in book form under the same
title (1964), and then, since 1987, with revisions as an original novel under the title
Mazi Kalbimde Bir Yaradr [The Past is a Wound in my Heart]. Yeg inobal herself
states that her initial reason to have the book published as a translation was mainly
commercial, so there was no feminist or ideological move involved (Alt 2008, 978).
The only analysis of the novel so far is by Su ndu z O ztu rk Kasar, who suggests that the
novel Mazi Kalbimde Bir Yaradr is a naturalized version of Eflatun Kz (2009, 7).
The paratextual features of Eflatun Kz and Mazi Kalbimde Bir Yaradr (in their
first editions) indicate that they each establish a different context for reception. The
cover jacket of Eflatun Kz presents a colourful portrait of a young woman, with full
red lips and a suggestive look in her eyes. The title of the novel is accompanied by the
name Vincent Ewing, the alleged (but non-existent) writer of both Genc Kzlar and
Eflatun Kz, who is introduced as the unforgettable writer of the novel Genc Kzlar
on the inside jacket. Altn Kitaplar, a well-known publisher of translated bestsellers,
drew on the popularity of Vincent Ewing among its readers and was intent on
keeping the Ewing myth alive.8 All in all, the paratextual characteristics of Altn
Kitaplars Eflatun Kz clearly combine to present the book as a romantic bestseller.
Mazi Kalbimde Bir Yaradr, first published by Cem Yaynevi in 1987, features a
much more sombre cover with a semi-abstract painting, and bears Yeg inobals name
Translation Studies 177

in bold red characters, while the back cover has a large picture of the author and a
blurb announcing that the novel is Yeg inobals first original novel (with no mention
of the previous Vincent Ewing version). The paratextual features of the book suggest
a significant boost in Yeg inobals status, while the blurb also elevates the status of
the novel from that of a mere romance. It tells the reader that the novel may seem like
a love story involving a married woman, but in fact reflects not only the world of
feelings but also the authors immediate milieu and the social atmosphere of the
1940s (Yeg inobal 1988, back cover). In other words, in the Cem version, the novel
becomes a social realist work.9
I would like to argue that the trajectory followed by Nihal Yeg inobals two
pseudotranslations also reflects a transformation in the literary habitus of the
readers. In 1964 Altn Kitaplar saw no problem in attributing both novels to the
imaginary Vincent Ewing. Yeg inobal had publicly announced the first books status
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

as a pseudotranslation ten years after it was first published, well before Altn
Kitaplars edition of Genc Kzlar, but she was surprised to find that her
announcement had almost no impact on readers and publishers, who preferred to
continue to see the book as a translation (Bengi-O ner 1999, 38).10 Apparently no-one
felt aggrieved, presumably because the identity of the author and the true provenance
of the novel mattered little at the time. By the late 1980s, when Yeg inobal announced
the pseudotranslated status of the second book, Genc Kzlar, things had changed
completely. This time the novels status did matter to people, sparking off an interest
in Yeg inobal among academics as well. Todays readers are sometimes shocked to
find out how badly they have been deceived (Trincess 2006). This indicates a shift in
the importance attached to authorship in Turkey.
Another well-known example of pseudotranslations in Turkey belongs to the
field of detective fiction, which has been marked by marginal writing and translation
strategies since the nineteenth century (U yepazarc 2008; Tahir Gu rc ag lar 2008b).
An important phase of pseudotranslations occurred in the 1950s with a set of
pseudotranslations of Mickey Spillanes Mike Hammer novels. As the political ties
between Turkey and the USA grew stronger in the post-war environment, American
culture started to make itself felt in the field of popular literature, giving rise to an
interest in American novels. Hundreds of Mike Hammer novels swarmed onto the
book market (Tahir Gurc ag lar 2008a, 175; U yepazarc 2008, 845), starting with the
translation of I, the Jury by the famous writer Kemal Tahir (Demir) (19101973)
under the pen-name F.M. Ikinci in 1954.11 Tahir translated five Mickey Spillane
novels for C ag layan Yaynevi, one of the most popular publishers of the 1950s.12 The
books all became big hits, each selling around 100,000 copies (U yepazarc 1999, 43).
When the publishing house ran out of original Mike Hammer novels to commission
for translation, they asked Kemal Tahir to write them some new Mike Hammer
stories.13 These stories were not explicitly introduced as translations. F.M. Ikinci was
indicated as the writer on the title pages, but the fact that the novels were marketed
as new adventures of Mike Hammer made it more than likely that the readers would
receive them as translations. In any case, they were classified as Translations from
American Literature by the annual National Bibliography, Tu rkiye Bibliyografyas.
These novels were followed by many more, especially from the publishers Hadise,
Plastik and Ekicigil, which introduced the books as translations and credited their
writers as translators.
178 S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar

Apart from the presentational elements, such as the cover design and the
indication of Mike Hammer on the jacket, which carry a high degree of foreign-
ness and thus are associated automatically with translation, Kemal Tahir used a
number of strategies to make the text itself look like a translation. As Toury suggests,
features associated with genuine translations are often embedded in pseudotransla-
tions, sometimes to the extent of overdoing-in-imitation (Toury 1995, 78).
Writers may create the feel of translation in the text through scattering signals of
translationese, such as lexical items or syntax peculiar to the source language or
culture (Rambelli 2008, 209). This was the strategy used by Kemal Tahir. He chose
words of English origin (sometimes explained in footnotes) and created a set of
foreign characters to surround the core Mike Hammer characters he had borrowed
from Spillane. Another of his strategies can be considered overdoing: the frequent
use of references to New York locations and street names. Mickey Spillane also used
some street names in his books, but Kemal Tahir took every opportunity to specify
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

the setting with a name and thus placed special emphasis on the American origins
of the novel (Tahir Gu rc ag lar 2008a, 245).
The motivation of C ag layan in publishing the Mike Hammer series was evidently
commercial, triggering other publishers to demand a share of the cake and become
heavily engaged in pseudotranslations. Erol U yepazarc suggests that Kemal Tahirs
involvement in writing, translating and pseudotranslating detective fiction under
various pen-names arose from his financial difficulties (U yepazarc 2008, 3479).
Writing and translating detective fiction remained Tahirs main means of subsistence
until he established himself as one of Turkeys leading novelists in the 1960s. But
although the key reason for his engagement in popular literature was clearly
financial, a closer look at his work reveals that he used his pseudotranslations as
fertile ground to explore literary strategies which he would later adopt in the novels
and short stories published under his own name.
In his Mike Hammer pseudotranslations, Kemal Tahir made use of the lively
dialogue, rich with local expressions, which would become his hallmark in later
works (U yepazarc 2008, 355; Tahir Gu rc ag lar 2008a, 2357). Furthermore, he
injected his world-view and anti-capitalist stance into his pseudotranslations,
offering a critique of USA through his depictions of New York as a ruthless city
deeply scarred by misery and poverty (Ikinci 1954, 98), making negative references to
Nazis, and introducing anti-militarist passages (U yepazarc 1999, 5). From an
ideological point of view, Tahirs most interesting pseudotranslation is Kara Nara
[The Black Scream], which has a black man as one of the leading characters and
creates a Mike Hammer whose anti-racist and anti-capitalist statements take him
miles away from the original, anti-communist Mike Hammer character (U yepazarc
2008, 3556). In that sense, Kemal Tahirs project is not unlike that of Boris Vian,
whose famous pseudotranslation Jirai cracher sur vos tombes is simultaneously an
imitation of an American genre (which simultaneously burlesques this very genre),
and a carrying across [. . .] of themes and issues from Vians non-pseudonymous
fiction (Scott 1996, 210). Indeed, Kemal Tahir was active in transferring the
American hard-boiled detective genre into the Turkish system of popular literature
but, beyond that, he also pioneered a social-realist strand in popular literature.
Another major literary figure engaged in writing pseudotranslations was Aziz
Nesin (19151995), the famous Turkish novelist and essayist. Aziz Nesin was a
humorist and also someone deeply involved in leftist politics. This combination
Translation Studies 179

made him one of the most popular and also most controversial writers in twentieth-
century Turkey. A prolific writer and the author of many prize-winning novels, short
stories and plays, Nesin wrote under various names, using as many as 50
pseudonyms in the course of his career (Eren 2007).14 He generally used these for
humorous stories published in various newspapers and magazines, which he
probably considered less important for his writing career. However, there were times
when he was banned from writing in the press due to his dissident political activities
and had no choice but to use a pseudonym. One of these is a French-sounding name,
Jean Ameiens, under which Nesin wrote a story for the famous humour magazine
Akbaba in 1948 (ibid.): Modern Sanat [Modern Art], attributed to a French
author without any mention of a translator.15 What was evidently introduced as a
translated story was later reprinted by Akbaba Yaynevi in a collection of funny
stories from around the world. The collection Milletler Gu lu yor [Nations Laugh]
included the story under a different title (Pu f  Puff) but credited it to the same
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

writer (Milletler Gu lu yor 1957). The collection was presented as selected stories
from French, English, Russian, Italian, American, German, Greek and Chinese
humour (ibid., title page). Ironically, Nesins story was chosen to represent
French humour. Yetik suggests that Nesin sent the story to Akbaba as a foreign work
because the editor, Yusuf Ziya Ortac , would not have published it otherwise due to
their less than friendly relations (Yetik 2005, 91). The personal reasons behind the
submission of this story as a translation are impossible to confirm, but the storys
subject matter and the features embedded by Nesin to create the feel of a translation
are worthy of analysis.
The story concerns two artists in Paris, Marcel and Paul. The artists are school
friends and upon their graduation Paul becomes a famous artist, while Marcel, the
more talented and industrious of the two, remains an obscure amateur. When they
meet in a bar, Paul gives Marcel the secrets of the trade and advises him to make
abstract paintings by splashing paint over the canvas. Marcel takes his advice and
becomes a famous artist, but later turns his back on his friend. The story is an ironic
criticism of modern art, hence the original title. Aziz Nesin has chosen his theme
from topical debates among artists and art critics. The 1930s and 1940s was a period
when abstract art was publicly debated and criticized in Turkey, in largely negative
terms. One of the leading art critics and artists in the early Republican period,
Nurullah Berk, criticized precisely the type of art Nesin wrote about in the story: the
haphazard splashing of paint on a canvas (Berk 1933, 17). Seen in this light, the story
becomes a parody of debates on abstract art. Aziz Nesin was involved in art himself
and had attended the Fine Arts School, so he was aware of these debates; his story
may even be offering a satirical account of some well-known artists activities.
The strategy used by Nesin in presenting the story as a translation is also
interesting. His choice of a French name and the Paris setting all suit the readers
stereotypical ideas about France as the world centre of fine arts and painting. Nesin
describes the artists as figures fitting the stereotype: bearded wine-drinkers, wearing
corduroy suits, smoking pipes. Furthermore, he includes several words of French
origin such as konkurd [competition], ekol [school of art], plastik [plastic
arts], creating the impression that the text was originally written in French.
Even this short story, which appears to have been unique in the writers oeuvre,
presents features encountered in most pseudotranslation cases. The storys socio-
cultural function is evident  a clever parody of art criticism and modern art. The
180 S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar

assumedly French provenance of the story serves to display the qualities Turkish
culture attributed to France in the 1940s as a centre for art, with many Turkish
painters of the time working and studying there. It applies the strategies commonly
used by pseudotranslators in creating the effect of translation, such as the utilization
of foreign lexical elements, situations and settings.
The pseudotranslations by three writer-translators presented in this section all
reflect an unproblematic attitude to the issue of authorship which no longer exists in
the field of literature in Turkey. They further share a series of common features:
. The texts point to a specific relationship between Turkish culture and the
foreign cultures chosen as their sources. For Yeg inobal and Kemal Tahir, their
choice of a source culture implies the rising popularity of the American novel
and culture among Turkish readers, while for Nesin the source culture was
French, revealing that countrys perceived position in terms of world art.
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

. All three writers embed stylistic features in their pseudotranslations which


create an effect of translatedness.
. Although mainly prompted by commercial concerns, at least in the case of
Yeg inobal and Kemal Tahir, their texts also fulfilled a series of socio-political
functions.
. The choice of pseudotranslation as a particular strategy was largely due to
outside factors pertaining to the greater popularity of translations compared
to original texts.
. None of these pseudotranslations became scandals of translation in their
time.
Let me now move on to two contemporary examples of pseudotranslation, both
from the 1990s, and see how they compare to their counterparts from the 1940s
1960s period.

Pseudotranslation in the late twentieth century: a literary ploy


Pseudotranslation is no longer a common phenomenon in Turkish literature. The
days of liberally using the names of foreign authors are gone. This is partly due to
more stringent copyright regulations, partly to globalization: it is no longer possible
to keep literary secrets. However, legal and technological innovations are not
the only things standing in the way of pseudotranslation. Evidently, readers are more
responsive to cases of plagiarism or forgery, as demonstrated by the shift in the
attitude of the readers to Yeg inobals Genc Kzlar, the publication of studies on cases
of imitation, influence or plagiarism (Alkan 1995; Yetik 2005), and the recent
outrage caused by plagiarized translations. Apparently, the time that has elapsed
since the 1960s has brought a transformation in the way the readership conceptua-
lizes issues of authorship and literary ethics  resulting in the borders between
translation and original becoming more marked. This points to the existence of a
new, and more uniform, literary habitus defining the expectations and reception
patterns of readers. This new habitus is also visible in two pseudotranslation cases,
both published in 1995: Kabaraden Emekli Bir Kzkardes [A Sister Who Used to
Work at the Cabaret] by Haydar Ergulen and Gizli Hava Mu zesi [The Secret Open-
Air Museum] by Cem Akas.
Translation Studies 181

Haydar Ergu len (b. 1956) is one of the most prolific and popular poets in
contemporary Turkey. He has published various poetry collections and also writes
columns in dailies and periodicals. In 1995, he published a poetry collection entitled
Kabareden Emekli Bir Kzkardes presenting himself as the translator of poems by
an obscure early twentieth-century poetess, Lina Salamandre (Salamandre and
Ergu len 1995). The cover of the book carries both Salamandres and Ergu lens
names, but the blurb on the inside jacket and the preface signed by Ergu len inform
the reader that this is a translated text, while the back inside jacket offers a short
biography concocted by Ergu len as part of the ploy. I call this pseudotranslation a
ploy because, unlike his mid-century predecessors, Ergu len here made his purposes
in creating the imaginary poet clear and disclosed himself to be the writer of
Salamandres poems on a national television show (Koyuncu 1996).
Ergulen wrote eight of these poems overnight with a sudden inspiration and
created the imaginary biography after the poems were written. The inspiration for
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

the poems came from Alain Tanners 1971 film La Salamandre, which he had
watched on that particular night. Once he started writing the poems, Ergu len
realized that they sounded different from his original poetry. The poems he was
writing were more cryptic than his own. They were full of foreign signifiers and
they thematized foreign concepts (Ergu len 2008). He also scattered foreign names
throughout the poems, causing these to smell of translation (ibid.). Because
Ergu len wrote as Salamandre when he started to publish the poems in poetry
magazines, he did not reveal their status to the editors, who continued to publish
them as translated poems. His first attempt to have the book published by a major
house was turned down because it did not fit the publication policy16 (Ergu len
2004): apparently Ergu len had explained the books pseudotranslated status to the
publisher. As the book was being edited for publication by Og lak Yaynlar, Ergu lens
immediate circle of fellow poets and publishers started sensing the situation, so by
the time the book came out the secret was already partly disclosed. However, people
unfamiliar with Ergu len did not find out about Salamandre until much later. In his
review, Tark Dursun K., a leading critic of the time, praised the translation, claiming
he had never heard of the poetry of Haydar Ergu len but had heard about and
perhaps even read Salamandres poetry (K. 1995, 21). It seems there are still readers
who have not heard about Ergu lens ploy, since a poet was recently quoted as listing
Lina Salamandre among her favourite foreign woman poets (Diyapog lu 2008, 39).
Many bookstores place the book in the translated poetry section, as do many online
stores, so new readers might still be led to believe that this is a genuine translation.
What was Ergu lens motivation? Lina Salamandre is not his only pseudonym: he
also wrote poems and published the collection Hafza [Memory] under the name of
Hafz, though that particular book was not presented as a translation. Why has he
written under three different names? Nothing explains the reason better than
Ergu lens own statement: to get rid of the poet (Koyuncu 1996). Ergu len believes
that poetry belongs to everyone and has even proposed the erasure of all poets
names from poems.17 Evidently Ergulen published his pseudotranslation to make a
statement about poetry and authorship, a noble act of effacing himself as the author
for the sake of poetry as a larger literary and philosophical phenomenon. As Santoyo
suggests, Ergu len may be using pseudotranslation only as a means of hiding his
poetic personality and using Salamandre just as a pseudonym (Santoyo 1984, 47).
I would suggest that the translationese-like style and foreign references he uses in the
182 S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar

Salamandre poems, which are very different from his Ergu len poetry, show that he
was trying to create a new poet-personality as distinct from himself as possible. He
was taking up the challenge of creating an other  a woman, as opposed to his own
masculinity, homosexual as opposed to his own heterosexuality, a Christian as
opposed to his strong Alevite identity, a displaced migrant as opposed to his deep
roots in local traditions, and foreign as opposed to Turkish. Therefore Lina
Salamandre was (and still is, since he continues to write as Salamandre) far more
than a pseudonym, it is a pseudo-personality.
A case both similar and distinct is Gizli Hava Mu zesi by Cem Akas (b. 1968). It
was published twice, once in 1995 as a volume of short stories credited to Cortazar,
Calvino, Barthelme, Asimov, Burgess and Borges (Cortazar et al. 1995), then again
in 2002, as part of the collection of stories entitled r and credited to Cem Akas.
Obviously, it was the first edition which created the impression of being a
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

pseudotranslation. There is a double ploy in this first book: it pretends to be a


translation and simultaneously tries hard to show it is not a translation. The cover of
the book features a photograph of Berninis statue of Neptune in the Fountain of the
Four Rivers at Piazza Navona, Rome. The books title is positioned at the top, with
the names of the six writers underneath, and the back-cover blurb reads: A
collection of six pieces, all newly discovered, by six masters. Any Turkish reader
looking at the cover would take the book for a translation (in fact, the Nobel
laureate Orhan Pamuk was among those who saw the cover and asked why the
publisher had not included the translators name; Erol and O zdemir 1999). The title
page carries the title, the writers names, the name of the publisher and the year of
publication; again, no translators name. The contents lists the names of the writers,
this time with their names and surnames in full, and also offers the outline of each
story in brief, incomplete phrases.
On opening the book, however, the picture changes. The opening sentence of the
first story, by Julio Cortazar, reads: The newest map of Istanbul was drawn
twenty years ago [ . . .]. The text continues with a narrative set in Istanbul, full of
local situations and names  something obviously not written by Cortazar and
obviously placed as the first story to break the readers expectations. Two further
stories feature foreign names and settings (Calvino and Burgess) while the remaining
ones address the act of writing itself. The book is not a collection of conventional
narratives but a self-reflexive, postmodern piece of work, aiming to question the act
of writing. In this respect the most telling story in the collection is the last one, by
Borges. The story is about how the collection was written and concludes: stories
had mutated, they could now write themselves; Writing now preceded Writing; one
could not tell who wrote whom. [...] He [the author] had borrowed the title of this
text from Borges; he was of such weak character that he claimed he had not written it
himself (Cortazar et al. 1995, 901). This conclusion makes the motive behind the
book apparent: it was written to make a statement about authorship and texts.
Indeed, Cem Akas declares that his intention in writing the book was to create a
literary game. He picked his favourite authors and wrote stories which had some
kinship with theirs, but differed from them in style. He wished to challenge the idea
that the author was dead. I wanted to show that the writer can disclose himself even
while hiding, he argued (Akas 2009). In other interviews Akas made similar
statements, suggesting that the book also mocked the postmodernist approach:
Translation Studies 183

after all, the author was not dead; the text gives away its creator even when his/her
name is not there, even when s/he hides behind other authors (qtd. in Tunc 2001).
Although the book has long been disclosed as a pseudotranslation, online
bookstores continue to place it in the translated literature section. The content of the
book readily reveals its status as a piece of indigenous writing, but its continued
reception and classification as a translation shows that the book markets
mechanisms rely more on the paratextual features of books than on their content.
If Gizli Hava Mu zesi oscillates between hiding and revealing its originality, a
point which drastically separates it from pseudotranslations published earlier in the
twentieth century, this is not only part of the ploy but is also prompted by the
authors (and the publishers) concern about violating copyright. While the current
copyright law was enacted in 1951, it was not implemented stringently in Turkey in
the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1990s, that situation had changed: the law was amended
twice, in 1983 and in 1995 (with later amendments in 2001, 2004 and 2008), making
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

its provisions stricter, and Cem Akas worried that he could be taken to court for
using the names of the foreign authors given in the book. He devised a strategy
which could simultaneously dissimulate and disclose the true status of the book
(Akas 2009). In fact, he did not manage to avoid negative reactions from his readers.
Some contacted the publishing house threatening to sue, while others demanded
their money back (Erol and O zdemir 1999). This attitude contrasts sharply with the
indifference shown by readers to issues of authorship and textual provenance earlier
in the century. Again, I take this as an indication of the transformation in their
literary habitus.

Concluding remarks: then and now


The marginal translation activities discussed in this paper reveal that a
transformation has taken place in readers views of literary provenance. This
transformation is traceable in the shifting discourses prevailing in and around both
concealed translations and pseudotranslations. The sensitivity of the reading public
and critics to cases of concealed translation seems to have increased, with debates
around issues of influence and plagiarism assuming both a more critical and a
more institutionalized character from the 1990s. There is a growing intolerance to
literary appropriation and hence a more established and strictly defined notion of
authorship and intellectual ownership. The same transformation also brought about
a change in the intentions and functions of pseudotranslations.
The examples of pseudotranslations offered in this paper, from two different
parts of the twentieth century, show us that the roles and functions assumed by
pseudotranslation in Turkey changed in line with changing perceptions of literature
and authorship. While the pseudotranslators of the 19401960s mainly pseudo-
translated for financial reasons, they also used their pseudotranslations as channels
to tackle contemporary issues in society. Furthermore, their choice of source culture
and source languages was indicative of the way the Turkish culture perceived these
cultures and languages. Another significant function served by Yeg inobals and
Kemal Tahirs pseudotranslations was the incorporation of new popular sub-genres
into the Turkish literary system, though whether the writers intended this is another
issue (see also Ben-Ari 2009). Moreover, while readers in the field of popular
literature preferred translations over indigenous literature, they cared little about the
184 S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar

issue of authorship and were not concerned about the provenance of the works of
fiction they consumed.
None of these points is shared by the two pseudotranslations published in 1995.
Haydar Ergulen and Cem Akas did not write the texts to earn money (or rather, not
to earn more money than with their own works). Neither of the texts makes a
socio-political statement or criticizes an ideological position. Furthermore, the link
they establish with the alleged source language and culture is weak: in the case of
Cem Akas, the alleged authors of the stories write in English and Spanish, while
Haydar Ergu lens Lina Salamandre is Russian/French, but her poems in English
are presented, with the note that she also wrote in French.
If these texts do not serve any of the major functions usually associated with
pseudotranslation, then what function do they serve? I would like to argue that their
main intention is literary and even theoretical. Both Ergu len and Akas have made
numerous statements indicating that their motivation in writing the two texts is a
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

wish to relay their concept of authorship. Ironically, they use the same instrument to
convey two opposed positions  indicating different personal poetics that are
inevitably reflected in different ways of looking at issues around literary creation.
Furthermore, the two writers resort to pseudotranslation in specifically
paradoxical ways. Haydar Ergu len writes as Lina Salamandre in order to override
authorship and to point out that poetry belongs to everyone. In that sense he seems
to write from within a traditional poetics that has strong ties with Turkish-Alevite
folk poetry. However, he prefers to pseudotranslate rather than simply writing
anonymously or under a Turkish pseudonym, building a new poetic avenue full of
foreign situations and references to assert a position that draws on the domestic
tradition. In contrast, Cem Akass literary roots appear to be in Western literature.
His choice of pseudotranslation as a writing strategy addresses the postmodern
notion of the death of the author: he writes to claim that the author is not dead and
that the reader will seek out the author even when that author is deliberately
concealed. Akass cleverly created paradox lies in the way he both exhibits and hides
the status of Gizli Hava Mu zesi as a pseudotranslation.
The interest both authors have attracted from literary critics and readers
indicates that the days when Turkish readers did not care about literary provenance
are long gone. But while its functions and forms may change, pseudotranslation as a
literary and translational phenomenon is still alive and well in Turkey: as Santoyo
(1984), 49) remarks, The tradition of pseudotranslations is not dead. And I hope
that it will continue to live a long life (my translation).18 The same can be claimed
for concealed translations  perhaps no longer as cases of hidden appropriation and
replacement of full foreign texts, but in the form of elaborate intertextuality and
partial replacement of foreign sources.

Notes
1. The term translation proper is not used to highlight accuracy, faithfulness or close
adherence to the norms of a given source text but implies an interlingual act of translation
involving a cultural and textual operation based on a known source text.
2. In this paper, the concept of literary habitus is used to refer to a set of internalized
dispositions to read and discuss literature in a specific way, dispositions that can change
over time.
Translation Studies 185

3. I avoid using adaptation as a distinct category because I believe its separation from
translation creates a false category. Adaptations also involve a source text as their point of
departure and a textual transfer operation also takes place  which makes them
translations par excellence.
4. All translations from Turkish are mine.
5. For a discussion of these terms and various examples of Turkish authors and poets
inspired or influenced by Western literature, see Yetik 2005.
6. For a detailed study of this translation, see Tahir Gu rc ag lar 2001.
7. Mu ge Isklar Koc aks impressive findings in her 2007 PhD dissertation are worthy of a
separate study. Her work is a pioneering project on marginal translation activities outside
the field of literature. She studied non-literary indigenous texts written for/on women in
Turkey in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and identified various concealed and
pseudotranslations on the topic of womens sexuality. Isklar Koc ak concludes that when
the full range of translations (those lacking in fullness, pseudotranslations, compilative
and concealed translations) are compared with indigenous texts, it becomes clear that
translators were less constrained than indigenous writers in expressing themselves and
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

created a freer discourse of their own in the early republican period (Isklar Koc ak 2007,
iii).
8. The real author was officially disclosed in 1988 in an interview with Yeg inobal in
Cumhuriyet (Bengi-O ner 1999, 41); Yeg inobals name was given as the author (with
Vincent Ewing in parenthesis) in Can Yaynevis 2003 edition.
9. In terms of content, O ztu rk Kasars study of the textual differences between the two
versions reveals that the change in the title is also indicative of a change in the novels
mood (2009).
10. Bengi-O ner links this delayed reaction to the novels status with the changes taking place
in the Turkish literary system, while Yeg inobal also suggests that the rise in the status of
original novels, which had been largely overshadowed by the popularity of translated
literature in the 1950s, may have been instrumental in shaping readers views of
pseudotranslation (Bengi-O ner 1999, 41). O
ztu rk Kasar connects both the re-publication
of Eflatun Kz as an indigenous novel and Yeg inobals 1980s disclosure of the
pseudotranslated status of Genc Kzlar to the rising feminist movement in Turkey during
that decade (2009, 9).
11. F.M. are Spillanes initials, while Ikinci means the second.
12. These books were all published in 1954 and were Kanun Benim [I, the Jury], Kahreden
Kursun [My Gun is Quick], Kanl Takip [Vengeance is Mine], Intikam Penc esi [The Big Kill],
Son C ig lik [Kiss Me Deadly].
13. Derini Yu zeceg im [I Will Skin You], Ecel Saati [The Deadly Watch], Kara Na ra [The Black
Scream] and Kran Krana [The Ruthless Fight], published in 1954 and 1955.
14. See www.nesinvakfi.org/aziz_nesin_takmaadlar.html#_ftn2 for a full list of his pseudo-
nyms.
15. This appears to be the only pseudotranslation in Nesins long writing career and has not
yet attracted the interest of literary or translation researchers. More pseudotranslations
may be found in the future if more of his pseudonyms are revealed.
16. The refusal indicates that the company was acting out of ethical concerns not present
some decades earlier.
17. S iir ve Nasip, lecture given at the Cunda Workshop for Translators of Turkish
Literature, 8 June 2006.
18. La tradicio n de las seudotraducciones no ha muerto. Y yo espero que tenga au n muy
larga vida.

References
Akas, Cem. 2009. Interview by S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar. 7 January.
Alkan, Erdog an 1995. S iir sanat, du nyada ve Tu rkiyede siir akmlar, siirin temel sorunlar-
kavramlar [The art of poetry, poetic movements in the world and in Turkey, fundamental
problems of poetry, concepts]. Istanbul: Yo n Yaynlar.
186 S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar

Alt, Nil 2008. A gender-based study of Nihal Yeg inobals pseudo-translation Genc Kzlar. MA
thesis, Bog azic i University, Istanbul.
Ameiens, Jean. 1957. Pu f [Puff]. In Milletler gu lu yor [Nations laugh], 99104. Istanbul:
Akbaba Yaynlar.
Apter, Emily. 2006. The translation zone. A new comparative literature. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ben-Ari, Nitsa. 2009. Popular literature in Hebrew as a marker of anti-Sabra culture.
Translation Studies 2, no. 2: 17895.
Bengi-O ner, Isn. 1999. C eviri bir su rec tir. . . Ya c eviribilim? [Translation is a process . . . Is
translation studies?]. Istanbul: Sel Yaynclk.
Berk, Nurullah 1933. Akilleosun topug u [Achilles heel]. Yeni insan, June-July, 17.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The field of cultural production. Trans. and ed. Randal Johnson.
Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Cortazar, Calvino, Barthelme, Asimov, Burgess, Borges. 1995. Gizli hava mu zesi [The secret
open-air museum]. Istanbul: Altkrkbes Yaynlar.
Demirciog lu, Cemal. 2005. From discourse to practice: Rethinking translation (terceme)
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

and related practices of text production in the light of Ahmed Midhat Efendis works in the
late Ottoman literary tradition. PhD diss., Bog azic i University, Istanbul.
Diyapog lu, Ali Enis. 2008. Pessoa: Biraz hic c ag rlmamaktan yaplms [Pessoa: Made of no
recall]. Kitap Zaman, 3 November, 39.
Eren, Burhan. 2007. Yazarn dublo ru : Mu stear [The writers stand-in: Alias]. Zaman, 11
February, www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno786430&keyfield2279617A6172C4B
16E206475626CC3B672C3BC22 (accessed 25 December 2009).
Ergu len, Haydar. 2004. Enis Batur. Radikal, 5 May, www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno
115365&tarih05/05/2004 (accessed 25 December 2009).
***. 2008. Interview by S ehnaz Tahir Gu rc ag lar. 28 November.
Erol, Merve, and Ulas O zdemir. 1999. Hayatmzda bir eye of the tiger oldu [There was once
an eye of the tiger in our lives]. Roll, December, www26.brinkster.com/cemakas/roll.html
(accessed 11 December 2009).
Ewing, Vincent. 1964. Eflatun kz [The lilac girl]. Trans. Nihal Yeg inobal. Istanbul: Altn
Kitaplar.
Ikinci, F.M. 1954. Ecel saati [The deadly watch]. Istanbul: C ag layan Yaynevi.
Isklar Koc ak, Mu ge 2007. Problematizing translated popular texts of womens sexuality: A
new perspective on the modernization project in Turkey from 1931 to 1959. PhD diss.,
Bog azic i University, Istanbul.
***. 2008. Turkish pseudo-translations of pseudo-scientific sex guides. Paper delivered at
the colloquium in tribute to Saliha Paker: Translation, History and Culture, Bog azic i
University, 29 April 2008.
***. 2009. Tu rkiyede iki cinsel yasam klavuzu: Bir derleme c eviri ve bir gizli c eviri [Two
sex guides in Turkey: A translated compilation and a concealed translation]. In C eviri:
arastrma, inceleme, elestiri [Translation: research, study, criticism], ed. Gu lperi Sert, 13858.
Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University Publications.
K., Tark Dursun. 1995. S aire sairi [The poet of a poetess]. Yeni yu zyl, 18 July, 21.
Koyuncu, Cenk. 1996. Haydar Ergu len ile soylesi. Dilimizdeki sahil [An interview with
Haydar Ergu len. The coast in our poetry]. Cumhuriyet kitap, 29 February, www.wdyd.com/
topic.asp?TOPIC_ID3016 (accessed 25 December 2009).
Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art, ed. Leon S.
Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Milletler gu lu yor [Nations laugh]. 1957. Istanbul: Akbaba Yaynlar.
N. 1941. Fikir haysiyeti namna [In the name of intellectual dignity]. Cumhuriyet, 11
February, 1.
O ztu rk Kasar, Su ndu z. 2009. Les pseudo-traductions de Nihal Yeg iobal. Auctorialite
fe minine et e mancipation. In Femmes e crivains a` la croise e des langues, 17002000 / Women
writers at the crossroads of languages, 17002000, ed. Agnese Fidecaro, Henriette Partzsch,
Suzan Van Dijk, and Vale rie Cossy, 18797. Geneva: Me tisPresses.
Translation Studies 187

ztu rk Kasar, Su ndu z, and Serap Gu n Cebeciog lu. 2006. So zde-c eviride soylem ve bic em
O
[Discourse and style in pseudotranslation]. Paper delivered at VI. Uluslararas Dil, Yazn,
Deyisbilim Sempozyumu, Su leyman Demirel University, 12 June 2006.
Paker, Saliha. 2002. Translation as terceme and nazire. Culture-bound concepts and their
implications for a conceptual framework for research on Ottoman translation history. In
Crosscultural transgressions. Research models in translation studies II. Historical and
ideological issues, ed. Theo Hermans, 12043. Manchester: St Jerome.
Rambelli, Paolo. 2008. Pseudotranslation. In Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies, 2nd
ed., ed. Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 20811. London: Routledge.
Salamandre, Lina, and Haydar Ergu len. 1995. Kabareden emekli bir kzkardes [A sister
who used to work at the cabaret]. Istanbul: Og lak Yaynlar.
Santoyo, Julio-Ce sar. 1984. La traduccio n como te cnica narrativa. In Actas del IV congreso de
la asociacio n espan ola de estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos (Salamanca, del 18 al 21 de
Diciembre de 1980), 3753. Salamanca: Ediciones universidad.
Scott, J.K.L. 1996. Jirai cracher sur vos tombes: A two-faced translation. In On translating
French literature and film I, ed. Geoffrey T. Harris, 20925. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Downloaded by [Hacettepe University] at 01:19 12 February 2015

Tahir Gu rc ag lar, S ehnaz. 2001. On a Turkish translation of Bram Stokers Dracula: Adding
towards a nationalist text. Target 13, no. 1: 12548.
***. 2008a. The politics and poetics of translation in Turkey. 19231960. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
***. 2008b. Sherlock Holmes in the interculture: Pseudotranslation and anonymity in
Turkish literature. In Beyond descriptive translation studies: Investigations in homage to
Gideon Toury, ed. Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 13352.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Trincess. 2006. Genc kzlar [Young girls], http://sozluk.sourtime.org (accessed 25 December
2009).
Tunc , Ayfer. 2001. Skldm bu kurmaca isinden [I am sick of this fiction business]. E, March,
www26.brinkster.com/cemakas/E01.html (accessed 9 January 2009).
yepazarc, Erol. 1999. Yumruklaryla sevisen, dudaklaryla dog u sen hafiyesi Mike Hammer
U
yahut Kemal Tahir, Afif Yesari ve dig erlerinin yerli Mayk Hammerleri [Mike Hammer, the
detective who made love with his fists and fought with his lips, or the local Mike Hammers
by Kemal Tahir, Afif Yesari and others]. Mu teferrika 16, 322.
***. 2008. Korkmaynz mister Sherlock Holmes! Tu rkiyede polisiye romann 125 yllk
o yku su (18812006) [Have no fear, Mr. Sherlock Holmes! 125 years of the crime novel in
Turkey]. 2 vols. Istanbul: Maceraperest Kitaplar.
Wakabayashi, Judy. 1998. Marginal forms of translation in Japan: Variations from the norm.
In Unity in diversity?, ed. Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny, and Jennifer
Pearson, 5763. Manchester: St Jerome.
Yeg inobal, Nihal. 1988. Mazi kalbimde bir yaradr [The past is a wound in my heart]. Istanbul:
Cem Yaynevi.
Yetik, Hayri K. 2005. Edebiyatta (c )alnt [Theft/Quoting in literature]. Istanbul: Inklap.

Você também pode gostar