If you can't read please download the document
Upload
cherie
View
29
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Conceptions of Translation in Republican Era. There are two approaches on the structure of human language. First approach;. The human societies are the product of different historical and social conditions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Conceptions of Translation in Republican Era
There are two approaches on the structure of human
language.
First approach;
The human societies are the product of different historical and
social conditions This difference seen in language that reflects
the perceptions of world in that communities.
This approach, assumes that non of the languages in the world
resembles to each other, because each language's words and the
sentences which are composed by these words and their meaning
patters has a unique organization itself.
Second view;
Because the language is the product of the human brain, and because
the pattern of the human brain would not change from person to
person, there is no main difference in the languages which reflect
the perception of the people in this world.
In this approach, it is defended that;even if a meaning which is
formed in its own organization seems cannot be translated in
another language, when closely investigated, there is a way to
transfer it.
First view: totally differentPrefers to depend on the
text
Second view: no main differencePrefers to use the closest
meanings.
In the republican era, both of the approaches are seen.
The first and most extensive translating movements which was
developed in this period began in 1940 with the establishment of
Translation Office.
This office was firstly governed by Nurullah Atac and than it
was governed by Sabahattin Eyuboglu.These two names influenced the
perception of translation in the Republican Period.
According to Atac; Translating is the ability to tell the things
in mother tongue which are told in foreign language.Sentences are
important rather that the words. (pg 270)
However, Eyuboglu would rather to stick on the shape of the text
while translating.
Orhan Bruian opposes Atac's understanding of translation. He thinks that Eyuboglu's translations are more trustable. The interesting thing is that Atac is agree with Burian about this. (pg272)
In fact, as Vedat Gunyol indicates Atac misunderstood Eyuboglu. Because he was also worried about how to transfer the feelings while translating. His translations are also clear and smooth as if it is written in Turkish.
In fact the main difference between these two translator is that
Eyuboglu reflects his own perspective while translating but Atac is
more neutral.
Guzin Dino also compliments the translations of Eyuboglu. (pg.
273) Biceminin ozelliklerinden biri, dusuncenin en gelismisbilgi ve
kavramlarini, en sussuz, en basit konusma dilinde dile getirmesi
....
Erhan also adopts the same approach. (pg273)
kavramlardan terimlerden kacindik, bunlar Avrupa'nin ve Avrupa
felsefesinin Eflatun'a ekledikleri luzumsuz bir suru kaliptir
(Erhan)