Loading...

Shaping the Field of Translation In Japanese ↔ Turkish Contexts I

by Esin Esen (Volume editor) Ryō Miyashita (Volume editor)
Edited Collection 262 Pages

Table Of Content


List of Contributors

Esin Esen, is a, Japanologist. who specializes in Japanese language and literature, translation from Japanese and Japanese women’s literature (Nara-Heian Periods). She applied cognitive poetics and relevance theory to develop a method for translation of reader responsibility features of Japanese language into Turkish. Her PhD is on the Man’yōshū – the reader responsibility approach and cognitive poetics theory. She translated Murasaki Shikibu Nikki into Turkish from classical Japanese and Sasameyuki by the famous Japanese writer Tanizaki Jun’ichirō. She has been translating since the 1990s (Japanese, Spanish and English, Classical Japanese, Turkish (native)). She also teaches theoric and applied translation courses at university level in these languages. Founder of Kotodama Istanbul book project themed Japan in Turkey and Turkey in Japan. (For details please see esinesen.com)

Ryō Miyashita (宮下 遼) Assoc. Prof. Dr. at Osaka University, Graduate School of Language and Culture, Turkish Section. He specializes in History of Turkish Literature and presented his PhD on city images of 16-17th century Istanbul in Divan poetry and has published as Tagensei no Toshi Istanbul: Kinsei Osman Teito no Toshi-kûkan to Shijin, Shomin, Ihōjin [The City of Pluralism: Poet, Populace, Traveler in Ottoman Classical Istanbul], Osaka Univ. Press. Osaka, 2018. In addition co-authored Sekai no 8 Dai Bungakushō [The World Eight Literal Award], Rittō-sha, Tokyo, 2016; Kyōi no Bunka-shi: Chû to Europe wo Chûshin ni [The Cultural History of Marvel], Nagoya Univ. Press, Nagoya, 2015, etc.; translated Orhan Pamuk’s The White Castle, Fujiwara Shoten, Tokyo, 2009; The Museum of Innocence, Hayakawa Shobō, Tokyo, 2010; My Name is Red, Hayakawa Shobō, Tokyo, 2011; Snow, Hayakawa Shobō, Tokyo, 2012; Strangeness in My Mind, Hayakawa Shobō, Tokyo, 2016; Latife Tekin’s Berji Kristen The Tales from Garbage Hill, Kawade Shobō Shinsha, Tokyo, 2014, etc. into Japanese.

Judy Wakabayashi has taught translation theory and Japanese-English translation at the M.A. level at the University of Queensland in Australia and Kent State University in the United States and is also involved in PhD training. Her current research mainly focuses on the history of translation in Japan but also in other parts of East Asia and beyond, with a particular interest in the methodology of translation historiography. Wakabayashi is co-editor of Asian Translation Traditions (2005), Decentering Translation Studies: India and Beyond (2009) and Translation and Translation Studies in the Japanese Context (2012), has published ←9 | 10→dozens of refereed articles and book chapters on translation practice, theory, pedagogy and history and has translated seven books. She serves on a number of journal advisory boards, was CETRA Chair Professor in 2015, and is chair of the steering committee for the Asian Translation Traditions conference series.

Turgay Kurultay. Born in 1955 in Gaziantep. He holds MA and PhD in foreign language teaching and German studies (from İstanbul University). Previous studies on geology (Darmstadt University). Since 1979, he has translated philosophical and literary works as well as technical texts from the fields of economy, law, and etc. He also edited various translations and actively worked in the publishing of translation journals. In 1984, he started to work at Istanbul University as an instructor. In 2000, he received his Professor’s degree, and in 2009, he was retired from Istanbul University. Between 2015 and 2017, he worked at Yaşar University. He has researches and publications in a range of fields, such as translation studies, relations between linguistics and translation studies, translation education, translated literature, children’s literature, cultural reception, and transfer of knowledge. He took part in the working group for improving professional competence in the field of translation. He is a member of Translation & Interpreting Association Turkey (ÇEVDER), Interpreters-in-Aid at Disasters (ARÇ) and Translators’ Society Turkey (ÇEVBİR).

Devrim Çetin Güven is a researcher of Comparative Literature, Japanese Literature, Cultural Studies and translator. He obtained his BA from Ankara University Dept. of Eastern Languages and Literatures, his MA and Ph.D. from Tokyo University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. In his graduate research under the supervision of literary theorist and critic Prof. Komori Yōichi (小森陽一), he conducted a comparative analysis between modern Japanese, modern Euro-American, Turkish and ‘Third World’ literatures from a postcolonial perspective. He also published several articles on 1994 Nobel laureate Ōe Kenzaburō, and wrote a comprehensive commentary for the first volume of “Ōe Kenzaburō—Collected Novels” (Kodansha, 2018) entitled “ ‘Decontextualization’ of World Literature and ‘Mapping’ of the ‘South’—Centring on the Reception of Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover”(われらの時代 における「世界文学」の「脱文脈化」と「南」の「地図作成」——ローレンス『チャタレイ夫人の戀人』の受容を中心に). He taught “Turkish” at Keio University, “Turkish and Translation” at the Research Institute of Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and “Japanese” at Izmir Economy University. He is currently teaching at Dokuz Eylül University Dept. of Comparative Literature. Among his translations into Turkish are Karatani Kojin’s Origins of Modern Japanese Literature (日本近代文学の起源), Kobayashi ←10 | 11→Takiji’s Crab Cannery Ship (蟹工船), Ikezawa Natsuki’s A Burden of Flowers (花を運ぶ妹), and Seirai Yūichi’s Ground Zero, Nagasaki: Stories (爆心).

Keichirō Ishii (石井啓一郎), is a translator and independent researcher on Middle Eastern literature (Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan). He published Japanese translation of short stories by Iranian modernist writer Sādeq Hedāyat in two collections, Ikiume (Zende be-gūr) from Kokusho-kankō-kai (2000) and Sādegu Hedāyato Tanpenshuu (Bargozīde-ye ār-e Sādeq Hedāyat) from Keibunsha (2007), and Feruhado-to Shirin Ferhad ile Şirin (2002) of Nazım Hikmet (to be referred to herein). Also he contributed translations of Hedāyat, Mojtabā Bozorg Alavī, Sīmīn Dāneshvar, Yaşar Kemal, and Mohammad Hoseyn Shahriyār in various literary magazines and academic bulletins. Languages: Persian, Turkish and Azerbaijani, Japanese (native).

İbrahim Soner Özdemir is an aesthetician and art historian. He is a lecturer in the Department of Basic Art Sciences, at Düzce University, Turkey. His research fields include philosophical aesthetics, modern and contemporary art, Japanese aesthetics, and the Kyoto School of philosophy. He completed his Ph.D. on the aesthetics of Kitarō Nishida in the Department of Philosophy at the Middle East Technical University. His native language is Turkish, and he works with French, English, and Japanese. Some of his publications are: “Tasarım and Design: Reflections on a Semantic Gap,” Words for Design III: Comparative Etymology and Terminology of Design and its Equivalents (2010); “Yerin Güzelliği: Kyoto Okulu Estetiği ve İlişkisellik” [The Beauty of Place: Relationality and the Aesthetics of the Kyoto School], rkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları II (2015); “do ve Japon Yağmurları” [do and Japanese Rains], Kotodama İstanbul Hajimari 2015 (2016). He has translated Gilles Deleuze’s Cinéma 1: Image-Movement into Turkish and he is currently working on the Turkish translation of the aesthetical essays of the Kyoto School philosophers.

Nuray Akdemir, lecturer, Social Sciences University of Ankara Doctoral Candidate at Faculty of Languages, History and Geography, Ankara University. Research Area: Modern Japanese Literature, Japanese Language & Culture Doctoral research Topic: Study of fantasy elements and fictional realism in Oe Kenzaburo’s works. Education background: B.A (Hons.) Japanese Language and Literature, M.A in Japanese Language and Literature Languages Proficient in: Turkish (native), Japanese, English.

Ruosheng Sun (孫 若聖), PhD (translation studies) from Kobe University, Assistant professor in the College of Foreign Language, Donghua University, PRC. Research interests include translation theory, and translation of ←11 | 12→contemporary Chinese literature in Japan and Turkey. Sun has published more than 10 papers in academic journals in China and Japan, and a Chinese translation (《翻译行为与跨文化交际》Fan yi Xing wei Yu Kua wen hua Jiao ji) of Fujinami Fumiko’s Honyaku Koui to Ibunka Kmyunike-syon (『翻訳行為と異文化コミュニケーション』, Syoraisya, Tyoto:2007).

Ayşegül Atay is an associate professor at Erciyes University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Japanese Language and Literature. Her research field is Japanese Language and Literature and she teaches Japanese and works on Japanese-Turkish comparative studies. She also teaches translation from Japanese to Turkish at the university. Her PhD thesis is “The Tense and Aspect Dispute in Japanese - iru Auxiliary Verb and Turkish within the Aspect Dispute”

Ayşe Ağrış. M.A. degree at Nanzan University. She researched about the use of gesture in Japanese speech by Turkish Japanese students in her thesis. Her work on gestures in Japanese speech has been previously presented at the Japanese Association of Second Language Acquisition JASLA (2016), the International Symposium on Japanese Language and Education - JADEUS 2017. She has experiences in teaching Japanese language in Turkey/Kirklareli Public Education Center and Turkish language in Japan. Also, She had experience as a Japanese interpreter in The Group of Twenty (G20) and as a translator of Japanese in translation company. She speaks Japanese, English, Bulgarian and beginner level Italian.

Esin Esen & Ryō Miyashita (Eds.)

Is It a Stone in Babel Tower Bridging Both Ends of Asia?

The academic discipline of translation studies is only half a century old and even younger in the field of bilateral translation between Japanese and Turkish. These books will be the first steps to discuss and develop various aspects of the field. The books contain papers on this topic from a variety of perspectives such as translation studies, linguistics, literature, history, philosophy, language education, cognitive science, law, along with others. Such compilation brings together experienced and young Turkology and Japanology scholars as well as academics linked to translation studies and translation; and also translators. Both volumes contain twenty-four essays written by twenty-two authors from Japan, Turkey, USA and China.

The purpose of these books is three-fold. First, they seek to deal with the theoretical and applied aspects of translation in the specific contexts of Japan and Turkey, to bring together the past and present achievements of the field and to build a base for future studies. Second, they aim to contribute to field of translation worldwide. Thirdly, this contribution also attempts to represent a resource for translators in such context.

We, the Japanologist Esin Esen and the Turkologist Ryō Miyashita, both editors of these books, besides being academicians and translators on these fields, have been devoted to different aspects of translation activities including university level translation education. On the one hand, Miyashita is the translator of many Turkish novels of the Nobel-Prize awarded novelist Orhan Pamuk and other modern authors. He also makes translations from Turkish Ottoman. On the other hand, Esen, made first direct translation from Heian period Japanese and also translates Man’yōshū poems from Old Japanese (OJ). Being this engaged in translation activities, the editing process has brought us great enthusiasm and vigor. Each article we have edited has represented a new source of knowledge to us, which, at the same time has made us aware again and again of how wide the field is and that there are endless topics that can be devoted an entire life and still will produce new knowledge. We feel that, all contributors in these books are shaping the field together, like paving small stones to the Tower of Babel. Being a part of this is a great honor.

←13 | 14→

A Brief Outline of Translation in Japanese and Turkish History until the Foundation of First Direct Relations

Translation has deep roots both in Japanese and Turkish history, which played an important role within the polysystem of each culture. In Japanese history, translation activities have begun with the introduction of writing in the VI century along with the continental cultural influx (Nakamura 1964). There was no writing system enabling writing in Japanese until the VIII century, the Japanese were writing from constitutions to histories in Chinese, which eventually was converted into a kind of mental translation with kanbun kundoku system (For further details about this system, see Wakabayashi (2019) in this volume and Miyashita (2019) in Vol. II). The effects of this translation tradition can be seen later in the XVII century, in Dutch translations in Rangaku School which used the same mental translation system. From 1860 on, the literary translations from different western languages are seen in the Japanese polysystem. In this period we see great exertion of Japanese translators to find the right strategy (different from the previous kanbun kundoku method) for translating western texts1. These translations are closely related to the westernization and modernization of the country. 2

In Turkish history, the Kültigin and Bilge Kagan monuments contain both Turkish and Chinese inscriptions however they are not parallel texts. We have also information that the leaders of who pioneered the foundation of these Turkish inscriptions had studied in China and were well educated in Chinese (Yalınkılıç 2013). These two data give us the clue to assume that the translation activities between the two countries may date back to that period. In Anatolian Turkish history the translation activities were important for different fields such as trade, science and government issues. Official language of Seljuk Turks ←14 | 15→was Persian, their science language was Arabic and the language common to people was Turkish; and including relations with Byzantium and the Silk Road trade, the translation activities had great importance (Eruz, 2010: 59). In the Ottoman Empire there were more than 30 languages, this is why translation activities had always been the core of the state affairs and trade. In Istanbul alone Italian, French, Arabic, Persian, Greek, Armenian, Ladino, Yiddish, Bulgarian, and Russian were spoken (Eruz, 2010: 58). Literary translations from Western languages have entered to the Ottoman Empire nearly in same period and with same effect of the Japan in the XIX century. Accordingly, Berk Albachten (2006) states that “Translations from Western literatures were used as the main tool in the modernization of the Turkish society and that the cultural policies played an important role in this process”.

In comparison with these long established translation traditions in both cultures, translation activities between Turkish and Japanese have not begun until the first relation founded in the XIX century. Esenbel (2002) states it as follow:

We don’t have any information regarding the foundation of relationships between Japan and Ottomans before the XIX century. Both countries had acquainted with each other, via some book of travels and some reports on the other country. Ottoman scholar Katip Çelebi in his book Cihannuma writes a couple of pages on “Caponya” country. He mentions that the Japanese have high ethic and moral values. He also mentions that they like to wash themselves with cold water. (p. 149)

Regarding the different denomination employed to refer to Turkey, Esenbel (2002) adds the following:

In the Japanese’s similar kind of books […] and especially in the popular literature works printed in 18th century such as Komozatsuwa [The Tales on Red Headed People] or Bankoku Shinwa [The Tales on Ten Thousand Country], the Ottoman Empire is referred to as “Ottoman State”, “Turks Country” or “Toruko”. In these tales Turkey is described as a strong military power covering three continents. (p. 149).

In spite of the late encounter with each other, the translation traditions of both countries show important similarities which Wakabayashi (2019) deals with in detail in her introduction for this volume as a first and unique approach on this topic.

Japanology and Translation in Turkey

Now we will focus on Japanology and translation in Turkey. In the beginning of the second volume you will have a detailed account on Turkology and translation in Japan.

←15 |
 16→

With the first direct relations between both countries in the XIX century the translation activities had also begun. As presented by Misawa (2019) in the second volume of these books, the Turkish tales took place in Japanese Juvenile Magazines. Dündar (2018) writes about the important discovery of the first Turkish–Japanese dictionary dating back to 1893, which was written by Mustafa Asım Efendi. On the other hand, the Japonism in French had affected Turkish intellectuals who knew French such as the famous Turkish poet Ahmet Haşim. There were poems in haiku form published in journals of that period by 1910 (Suzuki, 2011). We may assume that, a close look to these publications may reveal a Japanese haiku poem translated from French. On the basis of previous works there are two books translated directly from Japanese into Turkish dating back to 1930 and 1937, both translated by the Japanese Turkologist Ōkubo (Misawa, 2006, 2013). The first one titled “Bugünkü Japonya” [Today’s Japan] was not a publication on sale, but to be presented as a gift to Turkish people in Turkey. The second book was prepared by the Turkish Embassy in Tokyo, and was titled “Türk-Nippon Dostluğunun Sonrasız Hatırası Ertuğrul” [The Turkish-Nippon Friendship’s Endless Memory, Ertuğrul].

There is no complete study which deals with the non-fiction translations from Japanese writers, which should be an important title for the future studies. In case of literary translations there are few but important studies in the field. Özrenk Aydın discovered an earliest known direct translation from Japanese to Turkish which is a poem translation by Ōkubo. The article takes place in the second volume of these books (Özrenk Aydın and Esen, 2019). Berk Albachten (2019) presented a detailed account of literary book translations of Japanese literature into Turkish with an inspiring bibliography containing translations from 1959 to 2017. According to this study 120 books excluding retranslations (with retranslations 134 books) have been translated from Japanese literature to Turkish from different genres such as novels, short stories and poems. The direct translations begun from 2003 on, and are represented by 50 books including retranslations (Berk Albachten, 2019).

A significant part of the translators of these direct translations3 are Japanologist academicians. We may see two reasons for it. Being a literary book translator ←16 | 17→requires a background with competence in Japanese literature, culture, language, society and so on, which limits the numbers of translators. The second reason is the economic conditions offered to book translators in Turkey; most of the academicians are making translations for a “cultural capital” as in Bourdieu’s cultural production theory (Fowler, 1997).

In Turkey there is still young but remarkable education in Japanology. The first department on Japanese Language and Literature was founded in Ankara University4 in 1986, and the education began from 1989 on. Çanakkale 18 Mart University Japanese Teachers Department5 was founded in 1993. Erciyes University Japanese Language and Literature Department6 was founded in 1994 and the same year, received students. The fourth university, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Japanese Language and Literature Department7 was founded in 2007 but received the first students from 2017 on. All these four universities have ←17 | 18→master programs and Ankara and Erciyes Universities have doctorate programs. Apart from these, there are more than ten departments on Japanology8 many of them have been founded during the ‘Japanese Year in Turkey’ in 2010, but they can not accept students because of the lack of instructors on this field. According the current system in order to receive students there should be three Japanologists with doctorate degree. Ankara, Çanakkale 18 Mart and Erciyes Universities had received 40 new students this year, and Nevşehir University 259 students. This means each year nearly 145 students begin to learn Japanese in Turkey at university level as major education.

Apart from Japanology programs, in many universites such as Boğaziçi University or Middle East Universitiy, Japanese language education is offered as an elective course with a high level of education. The Japanese education in Turkey is not limited to universities, thus Japanese education is provided in some high schools along with other language courses that are available10.

Although there are 45 translation studies departments in 26 universities in Turkey (Smets 2015: 145) 11 there is no department of translation studies on Japanese in Turkish universities. The translation studies departments such as in Boğaziçi 12 and Hacettepe University13 have elective Japanese courses and encourage their students to learn Japanese.

Focusing on translation education on Japanese in Japanology departments and translation studies departments mentioned above. In Ankara14, Çanakkale ←18 | 19→18 Mart15 and Nevşehir Hacı Bayram Veli16 University the translation education begins in third grade and continues in the subsequent four terms, in total a student gets approximately 192 hours of translation education (assuming that a term lasts 12 weeks). In Erciyes University the translation courses begin in the fourth year of education17, which represents approximately 48 hours of translation education in total for a student. In Boğaziçi University in Japanese elective courses for fourth grade there are 72 hours of translation education18.

The main problems in Japanese translation education may be presented as follows:

1) In the Japanology field, translation courses have been added in a curriculum aiming to teach Japanese language from zero level, which also includes education on Japanese, literature, history, classical Japanese, kanji and so on. In this concentrate program the main aim of the translation courses is not to teach translation but rather to check the student’s language knowledge.

←19 | 20→

2) Most of the instructors are from different fields of Japanology such as history, literature or linguistics. They are not trained for teaching translation and in most of the cases they have been educated on translation as mentioned above. We may say most of the instructors do not know translation theories and approaches. They might not know even translation techniques unless they are also translators.

3) On the other hand, in the case of translation studies departments, students are having a full education on translation, both theoretical and applied. But in this case the problem is that Japanese is only an elective course for them. They might not feel comfortable with a second language other than the main language they master. Additionally, the elective Japanese lessons may not be sufficient to have supportive background knowledge such as culture, history, literature, etc. which are essential in the translation process.

These factors also explain the limited number of translators in the field and also explain why a Japanologist graduated with this title, may often have difficulties in translation activities.

At this point we may suggest that a curriculum design for Japanese translation education is necessary which should be designed by academicians in the field of translation studies, as well as the design of ad hoc resources such as books for translation education in Japanology departments. Beside these books, manuals for the instructors should be created. Both books and manuals should contain historical, theorical and applied aspects of the translation studies, as Kurultay (1989: 48) states “One may translate without knowing theory, but translation can not be taught without theory”.

From this point, we want to deal with briefly the present studies on translation. In the academic studies directly related to translation (in narrow meaning) there are nearly two dozens of papers on Japanese-Turkish translation (Baykara, 2007a, 2007b, 2012a, 2012b, 2013; 2014a, 2014b; Berk Albachten, 2017; Çiftçi, 2017; Erdemir, 2016; Erkin, 2003, 2005, 2008; Esen, 2014a,2014b, 2015, 2018a, 2018b; Kılınç 2013, 2016, Miyashita, 2011; Tekmen, 2011a, 2011b). In his special notes for this volume, Kurultay (2019) deals with the subject in broader meaning by grounding his “framework on the communication in terms of cultural exchange”. He analyzes about 70 studies related to this subject and classifies these publications with regard to their relation with translation. Kurultay (2019) by means of his analysis, provides important insights for each of us as devoted specialists on this field, and also builds a solid base for future studies.

←20 |
 21→

This Volume

This book is the first volume of the world’s first academic book on Turkish↔Japanese translation. While this volume gathered discussions on translation studies with theoric and applied aspects, literature, linguistics, and philosophy, the second volume deals with the history of translation, philosophy, culture education, language education, and law. It also covers the translation of historical materials and divan poetry.

Esin Esen & Ryō Miyashita

Is It a Stone in Babel Tower Bridging Both Ends of Asia?

The editors of the book deal with the Japanology and translation in Turkey, drawing a brief background on the translation traditions of both countries. They present an outline of Turkish translation history from Japanese on the basis of previous studies and give an account of translators. Then they focus on the Japanese education in Turkey and Japanese translation education, presenting the present day problems and suggesting solutions of these problems.

Judy Wakabayashi

Introduction

Collaging Parallels and Divergences in Turkish and Japanese Translation History and Studies

The introduction by Judy Wakabayashi, provides a pioneering comparative look on the field of Japanese-Turkish bilateral translation, along with the examination of translation history and translation studies from both countries.

Turgay Kurultay

Special Notes

Through the Window of Translation Studies: An Overview of Cultural Exchange between Turkey and Japan

The special notes by Turgay Kurultay build a solid base for the future studies on the field of translation from Japanese to Turkish. Each question he reports in his article indicates to the scholars of the field a lifetime study subject. The article examines the studies that analyze the translational relations between Japanese and Turkish and questions their approaches through the window of translation studies. More than 70 publications in the corpus of analysis are classified with regard to their subject and methodology. The article not only reveals that there is a dominance of the studies, which focus on the linguistic comparison but also indicates the present and possible future contributions of the researches, which views translation through a perspective of cultural exchange to the understanding and the development of Japanese-Turkish relations.

←21 |
 22→

Devrim Çetin Güven

Non-European Literature in Translation: A Plea for the Counter-Canonization of Weltliteratur

This paper demonstrates how direct translational activities from, into, and between non-European languages could contribute to decentralize the Euro-centrist bias in world literature canon and serves as an alternative model for a new centrifugal (counter-) canonization. It presents comparatively the cases of Third World Literatures formation process in Euro-American literary and academic worlds; the post-Second World War movement of English translation of Japanese and particularly the on-going Japanese literature in direct Turkish translation experience, as specific cases in achieving such a counter-canonization. This paper is highly original and has theoretical contribution to translation studies and comparative literature, since it provides new perspectives on the extant and persistent problem of Euro-centrism in world literature as well as that of translation from, into and between periphery literatures.

Ryō Miyashita

Translating the Turkish Personal Pronoun “Ben” into Japanese Role Languages

This article is written on the field of literary translation theory and discusses the relationship between Role Language (Yakuwari-go) which is an important analysis axis in contemporary Japanese translation research and Japanese translators through comparing plural translations of Orhan Pamuk.

Keichirō Ishii

On Japanese Socio-Cultural Locutions in Literary Creations: On Ferhad ile Şirin of Nazım Hikmet

This paper deals with the literary translation and analyzes translational processes and role language used in famous Turkish poet Nazım Hikmet’s translations. At the same time, this article also contains the detailed history and philological information about the translation of modern Turkish literature.

İbrahim Soner Özdemir

Confronting Emptiness: Translating Japanese Philosophy into Turkish

This work argues that before any discussion concerning the translation of Japanese philosophy into Turkish, it is necessary to clarify the differences in meaning and field of application between “Nihon no tetsugaku” and Japanese philosophy. By means of such a clarification and with a focus on the accessibility ←22 | 23→of philosophical translations, it examines some of the main difficulties in translating Japanese philosophy into Turkish, as well as highlighting directions for future research on this previously unstudied topic.

Esin Esen

A Method with a Manual for Translation of the Reader Responsibility Feature of Japanese

Reader responsibility is a mutual way of expressing and understanding of unverbalized, implicit, ambiguous items, which have to be shared among groups of people. This paper presents a method for translation of reader responsibility items of Japanese and also offers a manual for Turkish translators. The method is built on the mechanism of the reader responsibility, using the relevance theory’s point of view for translation of implicit meanings and the cognitive poetics theory for translation of cognitive items in the reader responsibility. This paper and the multidisciplinary method dealing the subject with a wide scope of aspects, bring a distinguished approach to the field.

Nuray Akdemir

The Translation Strategies of Cultural Factors from Japanese to Turkish in Kafka on the Shore

This study, employing Peter Newmark’s translation parameters, attempts to review how elements of Japanese culture have been translated for the target readers, in order to evaluate the scope of translation methods utilized in the Turkish translation of Kafka on the Shore. This is also an attempt to understand the balance of domestication and foreignization strategies as suggested by Lawrence Venuti.

Ruosheng Sun

“Istanbul: Memories and The City” in China and Japan

This article forms a guide map for those who wish to know about the current situation of Turkish translation in East Asia as well as in Japan.

Ayşegül Atay

-Te iru in Translated Narratives from Japanese into Turkish

This article aims to define the meanings of -te iru in literary works in Japanese and to determine its equivalents in Turkish, alongside with comparisons of -te iru from the approach of point of view and tense in order to present perceptional differences. In the paper comparison between the two languages on the selected ←23 | 24→examples, it was determined that in Japanese the narrator perceives the event or case being narrated as an evident and current fact; and does not place it on the timeline, while in Turkish translations, it is placed on the past tense timeline due to the narrator’s perception of past tense without any connection with the present time.

Ayşe Ağrış

Some Reflections on Gesture in Japanese Novels and Its Translations into Turkish

Gestures are the movements subconsciously reflect thoughts and feelings through the body. With cognition of gesture in literary language, this study aims to reflect on the gesture properties of the source text during the translation process. Thus, it creates a point of view to the translation of gestures from Japanese to Turkish by focusing on the translation problems that are caused by gesture translation.

Final Words

The books’ cover19 depicting an ancient Japanese lady wearing junihitoe and an Ottoman Turkish Bey with his traditional cloths, encountering in front of the Babel Tower, represents our feelings in relation to this contribution. Thus, we feel that every contribution and idea in this book represent the stones we employ to build the Babel Tower that is bridging both ends of Asia.

References

Baykara, Oğuz, Bungaku to Kotoba to Tomoni. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 2007a. [Problems of Translating from Japanese into Turkish].

Baykara, Oğuz, “Yabancı Dilden Türkçeye Çeviri Sorunları- Örnek Dil Japonca.” 14. Kibatek Edebiyat Sempozyumu Bildirileri - Gagavuz Kültürü, 87–94. 2007b. [The Translation Problems from a Foreign Language into Turkish -In the Example of Japanese].

Baykara, Oğuz, “Taisho Edebiyatından Özgün Bir Çeviri: ‘Kappa’.“ Türkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları Konferansı I, Eds. Selçuk Esenbel, Erdal Küçükyalçın, İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publishing, 2012a. [A Unique Translation from Taishō Literature: Kappa].

←24 | 25→

Baykara, Oğuz, “Japanese Literature in Turkish, 1959-2005 and Beyond.” Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi Vol. 14. No. 55, 131–154. 2012b.

Baykara, Oğuz, “Turkish Literature in Japanese.İ.Ü. Journal of Translation Studies Vol. 1. No. 6, 103–133. 2013.

Baykara, Oğuz, “Türkçe Çevirileriyle Kadim Japon Şiiri.” Türkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları Konferansı II, Eds. Selçuk Esenbel, Erdal Küçükyalçın, İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publishing, 2014a. [The Ancient Japanese Poetry with Turkish Translations].

Baykara, Oğuz, Modern Japon Edebiyatının Doğusu ve Shiga Naoya. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publishing, 2014b. [The Birth of Modern Japanese Literature and Shiga Naoya]

Berk (Albachten), Özlem, “Translating the West: The Position of Translated Western Literature within the Turkish Literary Polysystem.” Revue des littératures de l’Union Européenne. No. 4, 2006.

Berk Albachten, Özlem, “Translation Flows from Japanese Literature into Turkish: A Bibliographical and Critical Survey”, 115th Annual PAMLA Conference. USA: Chaminade University of Honolulu. 2017.

Berk Albachten, Özlem, “Translation Flows from Japanese Literature into Turkish Between 1959-2017”, Ryō Miyashita, Esin Esen (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Cockerill, Hiroko, Style and Narrative in Translations: The Contribution of Futabatei Shimei. London: Routledge, 2014.

Çiftçi, Ümmühan, Japoncadan Türkçeye Yapılan Çevirilerde Ortaya Çıkan Sorunlar: Dilbilimi Açısından Farklılıklar Üzerine, Japon Dili ve Kültürü İncelemeleri, Eds. Cahit Kahraman, Levent Toksöz, London: Transnational Press London, 2017. [The Translation Problems from Japanese into Turkish - In terms of Linguistic Differences].

Dündar, A. Merthan, “İlk Türkçe (Osmanlıca)- Japonca Dilbilgisi Kitabı ve Sözlüğü Üzerine Notlar.” Journal of East Asian Studies in Turkey Vol 1. No. 1, pp. 1–17. 2018. [First Turkish [Ottoman]-Japanese Grammer Book and Dictionary].

Erdemir, A.Volkan, “Japon Edebiyatı ve Çeviri” Edebiyat Bilinci Journal. pp. 22–26, 2016. [Japanese Literature and Translation].

Erkin, H. Can, “Japonca-Türkçe Çeviri Eğitiminin Sorunları”. II. Japonca Öğretmenleri Toplantısı Bülteni, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2003. [The Problems in Japanese-Turkish Translation Education].

Erkin, H. Can, “İkinci Dilden Çeviri İkilemi:Türkçede Japon Yazınından Çeviriler”, Kül Eleştiri No:5, Ankara, 2005. [The Dilemma of Indirect Translation: Translations from Japanese Literature in Turkish].

←25 |
 26→

Erkin, H. Can, “Genji Monogatari no Torukogo Honyaku ni Tsuite” Kokusai Nihon Bungaku Kenkyūkai, Japan, 2008. [On The Turkish Translation of Genji Monogatari] https://kokubunken.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=2746&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1.

Eruz, Sakine, Çokkültürlülük ve Çeviri: Osmanlı Devleti’nde Çeviri Etkinliği ve Çevirmenler. İstanbul: Multilingual, 2010. [Polyculturalism and Translation: The Translation Activities in Ottoman Empire and Translators].

Esen, Esin, “Japon Edebiyatından Türkçeye Çeviriye ‘Okuyucu-Dinleyici Sorumluluğu’ Yaklaşımı –Sasame Yuki Örnekleminde” International Symposium on Asian Languages and Literatures, Proceedings, Kayseri, 2014a. [Reader Responsibility Approach to The Translation of Japanese Literature to Turkish -On The Example of Sasame Yuki].

Esen, Esin, “The Intralingual Translations of Murasaki Shikibu Nikki: A Comparative Study through the Reader Responsibility”, The International Workshop on Intralingual Translation, Boğaziçi University, published abstract, p. 7–8. 2014b.

Esen, Esin, “Sasameyuki no Torukogo no Honyaku: Kikitesekinin oyobi Ninchi Shigaku no Shiten kara” Sekai Bungaku/ Honyaku to Bungaku Tokushū, No 122 s. 71–80, 12, 2015. [Turkish Translation of Sasameyuki: From the point view Reader Responsibility and Cognitive Poetics].

Esen, Esin, “Sasameyuki no Torukogo-yaku ni okeru Kikitesekinin no Imiteki- Ninchiteki Yōso no Honyaku ni tsuite”, Isuramu Sekai, No. 89, pp 1–28, 2018a. [The Translation of Semantic and Cognitive Items of the Reader Responsibility in the Japanese Novel Sasameyuki’s Turkish Translation].

Esen, Esin, “Çevirmenin Zihninin Parmak İzidir Çeviri”. Çevirmenin Sözlüğü, Arka Kapak Dergisi. Vol. 32, 2018b. [Translation is the Finger Print of the Translator’s Mind].

Esenbel, Selçuk, “Türk-Japon İlişkilerinin Tarihi” Türkler, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara: 2002.

Fowler, Bridget, “Pierre Bourdieu and cultural theory: Critical investigations”. Sage, Vol. 48. 1997.

Kenji, Sato, “More Animated than Life: A Critical Overview of Japanese Animated Films.” Japan Echo, Vol 12, 1997.

Kılınç, Esra, “Bir Çeviri Sorunu:Manga Örnekleminde Yansıma Sözcükler” Türkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları Konferansı -II. Istanbul: 14–16 Haziran, 2013. [A Translation Problem: Onomatopoeia in Context of Manga].

Kılınç, Esra, “Manga de Miru Onomatope no Honyaku Mondai -Kishimoto Masashi Naruto wo Rei ni”. Manga-Anime ni Miru Bunk, Bunkyo Gakuin ←26 | 27→University Sōgō Kenkyūj. pp. 39–46, 2016. [The Translation Problem on Onomatope in Manga: In the Example “Istanbul: Memories and the City” in China and Japan of Naruto].

Kurultay, Turgay, Çeviri Dersinde Yapılaşma: Uygulama Sorunları-Yöntem Önerileri Unpublished PhD Dissertation. İstanbul University. İstanbul: 1989. [Structuring in the Translation Courses: Problems of Applied Side and Method Suggestion].

Kurultay, Turgay, “Through the Window of Translation Studies: An Overview of Cultural Exchange between Turkey and Japan”, Esin Esen, Ryō Miyashita (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context I, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Misawa, Nobuo, “Japonya’da Basılmış İlk Türkçe Kitap!” Tarih ve Düşünce Journal p. 28–31. 2006.[The First Book Printed in Turkish in Japan!].

Misawa, Nobuo, “Japonya’da Latin harfleriyle Basılmış Olan İlk ve İkinci Türkçe Kitap”, Cilbend Bulliten, İstanbul: 2013. [The First and Second Books Printed with Latin Alphabets in Turkish in Japan].

Misawa, Nobuo, “Turkish Tales in the Japanese Juvenile Magazines before World War I,” Ryō Miyashita, Esin Esen (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Miyashita, Ryō, “Translating tje Phonetic Elements of Divan Poetry into a Japanese Syllabic Poem Using Kundoku”, Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Miyashita, Ryō, “Japonya’da Orhan Pamuk ve Çeviriye Dair Bazı Notlar” Trans. Esin Esen, Lacivert Journal of short stories and poetry, Vol. 40. p. 91–96, 2011. [Perception of Orhan Pamuk in Japan and notes on Translation].

Nakamura, Hajime, Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan. ed. Phillip P. Wiener, Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1964.

Özrenk Aydın, Gülzemin and Esen, Esin “A Discovery: A Direct Literary Translation from Japanese into Turkish Dating 1938”, Ryō Miyashita, Esin Esen (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Sato-Rossberg, Nana and Judy Wakabayashi, eds. Translation and Translation Studies in the Japanese Context. USA:Blumsbury, 2012.

Smets, Şirin Baykan, Akademik çeviri eğitiminde kuramsal yaklaşımların yeri ve önemi Unpublished PhD Dissertation. İstanbul University, İstanbul, 2015. [The Importance of Theorical Approach in the Academis Translation Education].

Suzuki, Ikuko, Ahmet Haşim’in Şiirlerinde Japon Haiku Estetiğinin Tesirleri, Unpublished Master Thesis. Marmara University, Istanbul, 2011. [The Impact of Japanese Haiku Aesthetics in Ahmet Haşim’s Poetry].

←27 |
 28→

Tekmen, Ayşe Nur, “Öznel Kavrayış ve Çeviri. Int. S. on Asian Languages and Literatures I p. 619–626, 2011a. [Subjective Construal and Translation].

Tekmen, Ayşe Nur, “Japon Edebiyatı Örnekleminde Çeviri Sorunu.” Lacivert Öykü ve Edebiyat Dergisi No. 40. p. 87–90. 2011b. [The Translation Problems in the Context of Japanese Literature].

Wakabayashi, Judy, “Collaging Parallels and Divergences in Turkish and Japanese Translation History and Studies”, Esin Esen, Ryō Miyashita (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context I, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Yalınkılıç, Tuba, “Bir Dönemin İki Farklı Anlatımı-Kül Tigin Yazıtının Çince ve Türkçe Metinlerinin Karşılaştırması.” Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi Vol. 2. No. 4, 2013.

←28 |
 29→

1 For example Futabatei Shimei in his earlier translations had translated the past tense of the original text by using the Japanese auxilary verb -ta. But he changed in his own retranslations of the text “because continual use of past tense forms became very monotonies”, so he used non-past (ru) and past tense alternatively in order to avoid this problem (Cockerill 2014: 32).

In other example “Natsume Sōseki once taught his students that the correct Japanese translation for I love you is “Tsuki ga tottemo aoi naa” (The moon is so blue tonight); what he meant was that to express within the Japanese cultural framework the same emotion expressed in English by “I love you”, one must choose words like “The moon is so blue tonight” (Sato 1997).

2 Translation and translation studies in the Japanese context (2012) edited by Sato-Rossberg, Nana, and Judy Wakabayashi, gives a detailed and inspiring account on translation in Japanese context.

3 The list of translators of Japanese literature in Turkish who made direct translations:This list was last updated in2017. The translators have been listed in chronological order according to the first literary translation from Japanese of each author. Only translators of literary book translations have been included to the list. The genres such as manga and literary theory have been excluded. 1. Mariko ERDOĞAN, Japanese instructor at university level, first translation in 2003, 1 translation.2. Hüseyin ÖZKAYA, (second name in the book as translator). By the time of translation he was a student at Boğaziçi University (Japanese Program), first translation in 2003, 1 translation.3. Oğuz BAYKARA, Ass. Prof. Japanese Literature, translation studies, translator; first translation in 2004, 3+ translations.4.Hüseyin Can ERKİN, Prof. Dr. in Japanese history, first literary book translation in 2006 (he has non-literary translations before), 26+ literary book translations.5. Cihan ARKIN, first translation in 2007, 1 translation. (Erkin 2008)6. Esin ESEN, Dr. Japanese literature, translation studies, first translation in 2009, 3 translations.7. Bilal ÜNAL, Gratuated from Boğaziçi University, attended Japanese program, translated the book during his education in Japan, first translation in 2013, 1 translation.8. Okan Haluk AKBAY, Ass. Prof. Japanese language, first translation in 2012, 2 translations.9. Yukari YASUDA YILMAZ, Non-academician, Japanese and lives in Turkey, first translation in 2013, 1 translation.10. Pınar DEMİRCAN Studied economics, Phd on Sociology, first translation in 2014, 1 translation.11. Ali Volkan ERDEMİR, Prof. Dr. in Japanese literature, first translation in 2015, 5+ translations.12. Levent TOKSÖZ, Dr. Japanese language, first translation in 2015, 1 translation.13. Ümmühan ÇİFTÇİ, Dr. Japanese language, first translation in 2016, 1 translation.14. Devrim Çetin GÜVEN, Dr. Japanese literature, first literary book translation in 2017 (he has a previous translation on literature theory), 2+ translations.15. Barış BAYIKSEL, Studies in Kobe University Japan Law, first translation in 2017, 1 translation.16. Aydın ÖZBEK, Ass.Prof. Japanese language, first translation in 2017, 1 translation.

4 http://japonoloji.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2017/09/2017-2018-G%C3%BCz-D%C3%B6nemi-Ders-Program%C4%B1-g%C3%BCncel-1.pdf

5 http://yde.egitim.comu.edu.tr/japon-dili-egitimi/japon-dili-egitimi-genel-bilgiler.html

6 https://edebiyat.erciyes.edu.tr/Program/Japon-Dili-ve-Edebiyati/Edebiyat-Fakultesi/0/64/1164

7 https://ects.nevsehir.edu.tr/ects/bilgipaketi/dil/tr/bolum/182006/sayfa/1

8 Such as Selçuk University Japanese Language and Literature Department in Konya, Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Japanese Language and Literature Department in Tekirdağ, Pamukkale University Japanese Language and Literature Department in Denizlihttp://fened-dde.web.nku.edu.tr/https://www.selcuk.edu.tr/edebiyat/japon_dili_ve_edebiyati/bolum_hakkinda/trhttp://www.pau.edu.tr/dde/tr/sayfa/hakkimizda-30

9 https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/

10 In this link by Japanese Consulate in Istanbul, there are links of Japanese education in Turkey https://www.istanbul.tr.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_ja/nihongokyouiku.html

11 The first departments on translation studies have received their first students in 1983 on.

12 http://www.boun.edu.tr/tr_TR/Content/Akademik/Lisans_Katalogu/FenEdebiyat_Fakultesi/Ceviribilim_Bolumu

13 http://www.mtb.hacettepe.edu.tr/index_en.phpJapanese courses: http://www.ydyo.hacettepe.edu.tr/tr/japonca_ders_tanim_bilgileri_-168

14 In Ankara University according to 2017 schedule the translation courses begin in third year of the university. There are “translation 1 (Fall)- 2 (Spring)” courses for third grade; “translation 3 (Fall)- 4 (Spring)” courses for fourth grade.http://japonoloji.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2017/02/2016-2017-Bahar-D%C3%B6nemi-Ders-Program%C4%B1-G%C3%BCncel.pdf http://japonoloji.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2017/09/2017-2018-G%C3%BCz-D%C3%B6nemi-Ders-Program%C4%B1-g%C3%BCncel-1.pdf

15 In Çanakkale 18 Mart University the translation courses begin in third grade “Turkish-Japanese Translation 1 (Fall) - 2 (Spring)”, for forth grade “Turkish-Japanese Translation 3 (fall)- 4 (Spring)” and each of them 4 hours a week (2 hours theoric and 2 hours applied),http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/49665/japonca_ogretmenligi.pdf/d51808a2-047f-44be-bbc7-785c6e5d3db0

16 In Nevşehir University the translation education begins in third grade “Translation Techniques 3 (Fall)- 4 (Spring)” each 4 hours a week and in forth grade “Japanese text translation 1 (Fall)- 2(Spring)” four hours a week.http://ects.nevsehir.edu.tr/ects/bilgipaketi/dil/tr/bolum/182006/sayfa/1

17 Erciyes University: “Translation 1 (Fall)- 2 (Spring)” 2 hours a weekhttps://dbp.erciyes.edu.tr/Program/P3.aspx

18 These courses are conducted as a part of history department program, in which in fourth grade there are translation courses “Translation of Turkish and Japanese Texts 1 (Fall)- 2 (Spring). These courses for being elective may contain students from various departments of the university including Translation Studies Department. Both Turkish and Japanese students may join the courses which enables a bilateral interaction between them. The students may have other elective courses on Japanese literature or Japanese history etc.

19 The image of the Japanese lady and Ottoman man in the books’ cover is a miniature painting, Turkish traditional art by Rie KUDŌ a Japanese artist devoted to the Turkish art of miniature painting. The painting is an award wining piece. The backgound image by Athanasius KIRCHER titled Turris Babel.

Introduction by Judy Wakabayashi

Collaging Parallels and Divergences in Turkish and Japanese Translation History and Studies

I’m honored to be invited to contribute to the first volume of this pioneering series on Translation Studies in the Turkish and Japanese contexts—especially since I am neither Turkish nor Japanese. Despite three brief but wonderful visits to Turkey, I claim no expertise in translation in the Turkish context, although Japanese translation has been a longstanding interest. As an Australian, I speak with the temerity of an outsider to both cultures.

The historical context is always a good place to start when considering the current and future state of anything, as the broader temporal framework relativizes contemporary ideas and practices. Similarly, broadening the spatial framework—in this case, to include Turkey and Japan—helps relativize the theory and praxis of translation in individual sites. Let me indulge, then, in some selective meandering through Turkish and Japanese translation history before concluding with some brief and tentative remarks on Translation Studies in these two nations today.

At first glance, the trajectories of translation in Turkey and Japan might seem parallel in the Japanese sense of non-intersecting [heikōsen], since their histories and cultures evolved independently of each other. A closer examination, however, reveals that the English sense of parallel—i.e., being on similar trajectories (even if not identical)—is in fact relevant in certain respects. The two cultures evolved with no direct contacts until the late nineteenth century (notably, the 1890 visit by the Ertuğrul, when Wakayama villagers’ rescue of survivors of the shipwreck on the journey home cemented the incipient friendship between the two nations). Hence any resemblances between Turkish and Japanese translation history derive not from direct or even indirect influences and interactions (social, intellectual or textual) but, I would suggest, from similarities in the role played by translation during periods of major civilizational change in these two cultures. Specifically, the processes of encountering the Other and modernizing constitute fruitful themes for exploring the role and nature of translation in unconnected societies, at least in the case of Ottoman Turkey and Japan. Of course, given the different historical contexts, it would be wrong to force any analogies. An over-emphasis on sameness might ignore differences and ←29 | 30→specificities and risk imposing connections on practices or ideas that are similar in outward manifestation but have disparate causes. Nevertheless, Kostantaras (2013: 396) stresses the value of examining matters that are not directly linked, while Friedman (2015: 11) suggests the strategy of “collaging” phenomena in different times and places “for the insight radical juxtaposition can produce.” Analyzing translation in unrelated sociocultural contexts might help us unsettle and unthink prevailing assumptions and standard meta-narratives, although that lies beyond what is possible in this cursory introduction.

Translation in varying forms has constituted an integral part of Ottoman-Turkish and Japanese history, dating back to the deep ties with Perso-Arabic and Chinese culture respectively. Both civilizations twice underwent major epistemic reorientations involving acculturation—the Japanese adoption of Sinitic culture from around the fifth century and the Seljuk Turks’ adoption of Islam in the tenth century (after a gradual process of conversion from around the eighth century)—followed many centuries later by Westernization in both cases. The two societies drew greatly on the repository of culture and knowledge in their first civilizational mentor, and Ottoman (the hybrid language of the Ottoman interculture) and literary Chinese were used both for administrative and literary purposes. The intermingling of literary Chinese and the Japanese vernacular on the part of educated Japanese (mainly men) over the centuries differed in its particulars from the mixture of Arabic (the language of Islam and sometimes of science), Persian (the literary language) and Turkish (the administrative language) on the part of educated people in the Ottoman Empire from the fourteenth century, yet in both cases this hybridity was influential in shaping the written and spoken languages. Educated Japanese men in premodern times were sufficiently fluent in reading literary Chinese directly or via kanbun kundoku that translations in the conventional (European) sense of the term were not necessary. Instead, the kundoku process entailed a kind of ‘mental translation’, somewhat akin—albeit in the reverse direction and with very different mechanics—to the “concealed translation” (Holbrook 2002: 91) entailed in the Mevlevi practice of translating thoughts conceived in Turkish directly into the liturgical and literary language of Persian until at least the mid-sixteenth century.

Religion has played a prominent role in Ottoman-Turkish translation history, but it has been much less of a driving factor in the Japanese case. Whereas Arabic was viewed by Ottoman scholars in the classical period as the medium of divine revelation and divine will (and hence the basis of a universal truth that underpinned translatability) (Ertürk 2011: 7), literary Chinese never carried such associations. Facilitated by Arabic and Persian literacy, the Ottoman interculture led to transfers of texts and ideas among members of the same religious-cultural ←30 | 31→entity, but in East Asia it was not religion that constituted the most important tie, but the shared script at the basis of the Sinocentric cultural sphere. Whereas religious considerations were the driving force behind interlinear renditions of the Qur’an, the interlinear practice of kanbun kundoku was predicated on the semantic nature of Chinese characters. Yet these different factors both fostered an emphasis on closeness to the prestigious source, rather than free renditions stressing naturalness in the target language. Over time and in different genres, however, both cultures acquired a broad and flexible concept of textual transfer and a spectrum of means for achieving this (e.g., the Ottoman notion of terceme and related concepts such as nakl and telif, and Japanese practices encompassing kundoku, hon’yaku, hon’an and saiwa).

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Turkish translations of Persian and Arabic scientific texts, as well as the translations of Western-European scientific and technical knowledge from the sixteenth century, find a correlate in the limited but vitally important translation of scientific and technical European (particularly Dutch) works in Edo Japan. Other fields, such as law, economics, and philosophy, were also later greatly influenced by translations of imported works as these two societies sought to modernize. Translation scholars tend to focus disproportionately on literary works, but in the discourse and process of modernization it was utilitarian works that were initially of far greater importance, with the state’s needs taking precedence over literary or cultural interest. For instance, translations of Arabic and French military manuals were important in late eighteenth-century Ottoman Turkey, while in nineteenth-century Japan it was Dutch military manuals that were the primary source in this field, later being replaced by English ones.

Ottoman dragomans shared some similarities with Oranda tsūji in that both groups were government officials and played a key role in relations with foreign states, although within a much more narrowly circumscribed scope in Japan. In both societies the position was largely hereditary among certain families (a notion of the profession that is very different from the present-day situation), and their bilingual abilities and work—often extending far beyond ‘just’ linguistic mediation—gave them a status that would not otherwise have been accorded to the Turkish Greeks who dominated the position of dragoman or to the lowly officials in Nagasaki. The Ottomans long had to rely mainly on minorities living under the empire to provide linguistic services, because Muslim Ottomans resisted learning non-Muslim languages. By contrast, the handful of European outsiders in Edo Japan were forbidden to learn Japanese, so the task of translation fell entirely to the tsūji and some Japanese scholars. While the dragomans’ work seems to have focused mainly on interpreting and diplomatic correspondence, ←31 | 32→some scholarly-minded tsūji had noteworthy translations of scientific and medical works, for instance, often undertaken on their own initiative. In the nineteenth century both these professional groups produced translations that contributed to the modernization of thought.

The expansionist Ottoman policy of the sixteenth century and the military campaigns of the seventeenth century contrasted sharply with the isolationism of Edo Japan. This meant that Ottoman society was able to benefit from direct personal contacts with foreigners and their language and knowledge, whereas in Japan such direct contacts were restricted to the Chinese and Dutch tsūji and a very limited few others, all under highly regulated circumstances, so as to contain the spread of foreign knowledge.

The fact that for so many centuries Turkey was part of the Ottoman interculture and Japan was part of the Sinosphere meant that their respective perceptions of Persian and Arabic texts and Chinese texts as Other was far weaker than was subsequently the case with European texts. Despite the huge and longstanding importance of contacts with Chinese texts (from direct access through to kundoku, commentaries and vernacular renditions), these modes were never regarded in Japan as constituting an “age of translation”, unlike that which occurred in the Meiji period with European texts. A strong perception of linguistic and cultural Otherness seems to be a prerequisite for such a label. In the late nineteenth century both societies underwent a “dramatic shift from the familiar eastern … ‘Other’ to the unfamiliar Western … ‘Other’ ”—i.e., a “civilizational change” from a focus on the Muslim or Chinese Other to a focus on the Western (Christian) Other, ushering in a “second major acculturation period” (Paker, Tahir Gürçağlar and Milton 2015: 5) that required new translational approaches. This changing awareness of Otherness played into textual representations.

The founding of the Sublime Porte Translation Office in Constantinople in 1821 reflected the growing enmeshment with other nations and the concomitant need for the knowledge gained from texts written in these nations’ languages. The Sublime Porte and other government departments began to train State translators and interpreters, reducing the need to rely on Greeks. Similarly, official translation bureaus in Japan were a key venue for translator training from the nineteenth century. Official translation bureaus in Edo, such as the Tenmondai (Astronomical Observatory; 1803–69), Bansho Wage Goyō (Office for the Translation of Barbarian Books; 1811–55) and later the Bansho Shirabesho (Institute for the Study of Barbarian Books; 1857–62) and its successors translated a range of non-literary works deemed to be of potential use to the nation.

←32 |
 33→

Outside of the profession and the field of Translation Studies, translators and interpreters are often regarded as of low status and importance, but history shows that their bilingual and cultural expertise is not only of great value to society but can also sometimes help catapult them to positions of political power when combined with personal qualities of leadership. For instance, Mütercim Mehmed Rüşdi Pasha, a well-known translator of military texts in his youth, served as Grand Vizier for five non-consecutive terms between 1859 and 1878. Some Oranda tsūji and other translators became Diet members and prominent Meiji figures (notably, the government translators who formed the core of the influential Meirokusha society, including Yukichi Fukuzawa). Although such individuals were of course in the minority, possible links between the “enlightenment” gained through working as a translator of imported texts and ideas and subsequent activities as reformist leaders of a modernizing society grappling with relations with the West merit further exploration.

When literary works were eventually translated in greater numbers, there was considerable appropriation and adaptation of source text plots and themes in both Ottoman Turkey and Japan. Despite what Professor Saliha Paker, the doyenne of Translation Studies in Turkey, describes as the predominant “episteme of resemblance” (2011: 245) up until the second half of the nineteenth century, there also seems to have been acceptance of a degree of creative imitation of Persian texts. In early modern Japan, there had been far less innovation in how literary Chinese texts were rendered textually and stylistically, but adaptations of vernacular Chinese works were popular from the seventeenth century, as were adaptations of European literary works in the final three decades of the nineteenth century.

Aimed at stemming the empire’s decline, the watershed Tanzimat reform movement of 1839–76 triggered interest in translating European classical and Romantic literature from around 1859, as this was regarded as a prerequisite for modernizing literature, enriching Ottoman culture and generating ‘Turkish classics’. This led to the introduction of new genres (e.g., Western poetry, the novel, drama, philosophical dialogue) and new subject matter. Similarly motivated by concerns over growing external forces, the Meiji Restoration was also a pro-modernization, Westernizing movement that relied heavily on translations of European works, although initially the interest was in utilitarian texts then social science works, rather than literature. In the early Meiji years there was less concern over establishing a new poetics than acquiring information from the West. Nevertheless, interest in a translation-inflected poetics began to emerge from around 1880, and imported genres helped stimulate the literary repertoire, as happened in Turkey. Imported works were of such interest and impact that ←33 | 34→at times they overshadowed local literature in both countries, which had come to the realization that genuine modernization called for understanding Western thinking, not only its sciences and technology.

Let us look briefly at just one example of the influence of translated literature. Francois Fénelon’s Les adventures de Télémaque was translated by Yusuf Kâmil Paşa in 1859 (although not published until 1862), and as the first European novel translated into Turkish it had great impact. This novel also met with a relatively early reception in Japan, in the form of a free yomihon-style translation by Harumatsu Miyajima that appeared between May 1879 and June 1880 under the title Teremaku kafuku monogatari: Ōshū shōsetsu [The vicissitudes of Telemaque: European novel]. Nakamura (1966: 24) suggests that this classic “was chosen evidently because the part containing instructions for the ruler appealed to the current tastes of the Japanese reading public”—perhaps also a reason for its choice by the statesman Paşa. Japanese translations in the gesaku style first took shape with Miyajima’s rendition, which brought the style of Japanese writing a step closer to readers.

As the two societies moved toward modernization, translations of popular works came to play an important role and broadened the readership and impact of translations beyond the elite. Japanese translations of Jules Verne novels (also popular among Turkish readers) from around 1878 deepened the realization that Japan would need to rely on science in the future and represented the start of the new genre of science fiction, while Turkish translations of detective fiction (an imported genre in Japan too) after 1881 helped develop a new prose style. Adventure stories and other popular genres dominated the growing commercial markets for translated literature and stimulated the writing of original works in these genres. In both countries’ early encounters with European genres, the occupations of translator and writer were often embodied in the same person, with translators turning into novelists or leading writers (e.g., Futabatei Shimei and Ahmet Midhat) drawing on their translation work as inspiration for transforming the conventions of writing in their culture. In both nations, social needs led to calls to simplify the language in order to communicate more readily with a wider range of readers, and translations were instrumental in transforming the written language, both literary and non-literary.

According to Paker, Tahir Gürçağlar and Milton (2015: 2–3), in the late nineteenth century the “binary opposition between ‘translation’ and ‘original’ hardly existed in Ottoman practice … The strong tendency of the times was to appropriate via translation, following an ‘imperialist strategy’; it was at the turn of the 20th century that a number of Ottoman poets and intellectuals recognized the ←34 | 35→need for fidelity and fullness in rendering texts from Europe”. In the early years of modernization, both societies had adopted domestication as a key strategy in many translations of European works, but in Japan literal (foreignizing) translations soon eclipsed these, reverting to earlier norms associated with Chinese texts. The binary opposition between ‘original’ and ‘translation’ was also blurred in Japan because of the longstanding practice of kanbun kundoku, but the resulting tendency moved in the opposite direction—i.e., setting out from “fidelity and fullness” and only slowly shifting away from that norm toward a more appropriative stance, although even today free translations are often regarded with some suspicion.

In these pivotal periods of modernization, political considerations—i.e., a Europeanizing or Westernizing ideology, alongside growing nationalism—were a major factor underpinning text selection. Translation and related means such as summary and imitation were viewed as the intellectual foundation for Westernization—as a means of plugging cultural and knowledge gaps, of ‘catching up’ and ‘progress’. Cultural planning led to state intervention in translation. The Ministry of Education in both nations played a role in translation in the late nineteenth century, such as translating foreign textbooks. The translation activities of this ministry (and other government ministries, at least in the case of Japan) helped stimulate the publication of translations by private publishers.

In both societies the press also played a vital role in introducing European ideas and genres via translation. Newspaper serializations of literary translations were an inexpensive and influential mode of introducing foreign works from the late nineteenth century onward, as is trans-editing in newspapers and magazines today, although more frequently in non-literary contexts.

Just as Meiji Japan had made a major break with the past and a sudden shift toward modernization, Turkey underwent abrupt changes with the 1923 founding of the republic. Japan’s moves in the late nineteenth century to loosen ties with China and embrace Europe (datsua-nyūō) found a later counterpart when the Turkish Republic sought to distance itself from the Islamic world and implement reforms, and in both cases an extensive movement to translate European works was instrumental in these efforts and in disseminating foreign ideas. Hence “continuity and rupture in tradition” (Paker, Tahir Gürçağlar and Milton 2015: 1) are important themes in both countries.

Culture planning was of key importance after the founding of the Turkish Republic under Kemal Atatürk, with the ideal of a unitary Turkish language (rather than a multilingual society) contributing to the sense of a united nation. The 1928 replacement of the Arabic-based Ottoman script by the Latin alphabet ←35 | 36→in an effort to improve literacy and break with the ‘backward’ past had a corollary in Japanese moves to oust kanji and replace them with kana—or even to replace the Japanese language with English or French. In Japan, however, these attempts were unsuccessful, avoiding the epistemic shift in Turkey whereby works formerly occupying the centre of the culture became inaccessible to most readers. In both countries, however, linguistic changes over time led to a need for intralingual renditions of old literary texts into the contemporary language. In Turkey, apparently, these are not generally regarded as translations but as “simplified, Turkified, purified, or re-edited versions”, and they “usually function as original texts since the original versions are no longer on the market” (Berk Albachten 2014: 578–79). In Japan, by contrast, gendaigo-yaku openly proclaim their status as translations, and there is an ongoing stream of new versions of the classics for contemporary readers, with the original classics remaining available to interested readers with the necessary expertise.

Largely separate from a political or social agenda on the part of the governments were initiatives by individual agents of change, such as translators and publishers. In the early twentieth century, anthologies of world classics were important in introducing Western literature and broadening the readership of translations in both societies. Notable in Japan were Shinchōsha’s authoritative Sekai bungaku zenshū of 1913–7, Kokumin Bunko Kankōkai’s three series of world literature between 1914 and 1929, and the Sekai dōwa taikei series, which commenced publication in 1924. On the other side of the world, that same year witnessed the start of the “Translations from World Authors” series by the famous Remzi publishing house, with these 127 works representing the biggest and first significant Turkish attempt to translate Western classics.

Commercial initiatives did not, however, mean a complete end to state involvement in private publishing in the two nations. In the 1930s and 1940s the Turkish government offered publishers assistance and guidance in selecting works for translation, as well as subsidies and book awards, and the influential government-sponsored Translation Bureau was established in 1940 to translate Western classics into Turkish. Despite a decline in its activities from 1947, followed by some criticism of the quality and content of the translations, the Bureau continued until 1966 to publish works that were not commercially viable for private publishers. The Japanese government has also provided some ongoing support for non-commercial translations, although now focusing mainly on translations from Japanese. Similarly, in 2005 Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism established the Translation and Publication Grant Program of Turkey (TEDA), which subsidizes the translation of Turkish literary, cultural and artistic works, although so far only seven Japanese translations have appeared under this ←36 | 37→program.1 Such initiatives raise the question of how well government-sponsored translations meet the needs and interests of readers, both in terms of the choice of texts and how they are translated.

Even as late as the 1930s, a key role of translation in Turkey was edification—i.e., to import new ideas and enrich the Turkish language. The People’s Houses set up in 1932 as a means of sociocultural change had an educational mission focusing on reading and on translated classics (not popular literature) so as to change readers’ “mind-set in favour of a westernised, modernised and secular ‘nation’ ” (Tahir Gürçağlar 2008: 83). The turn toward the roots of Western civilization in the form of ancient Greek and Roman culture that was a feature in Turkey from the 1940s found no analogue in modern Japan, although the Greek and Latin classics were gradually translated over time. The role of the People’s Houses as cultural centres and libraries does, however, call to mind the role of the 23 libraries set up by the Occupation forces in Japan between 1945 and 1951, although the impetus for these came from outside, and the books and periodicals were available only in the original language (English), rather than in translation. Separate from these libraries, the Occupation authorities’ two-pronged approach of patronage and censorship of translations was aimed at encouraging the publication of only those translated works that met with the aims and approval of the Occupation authorities—i.e., texts that would help move Japan toward a more democratic and less militaristic society.

Before World War II Japanese government involvement had sometimes taken the form of censorship of translations of leftist works. Politically motivated translations of leftist works were also a feature of the 1960s in Turkey, and in both cases government restrictions on their circulation led to court cases and the imprisonment of translators. As in many other societies, translated works that are regarded as obscene have also been censored in both nations—most famously in Japan with the 1950 banning and court case over Sei Itō’s translation of D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Censorship of works regarded as obscene remains an ongoing issue in Turkey, as is Islamist censorship of ‘secularist translations’. It will be interesting to see how the growing influence of Islamic publishers today will affect translation (for one discussion, see Daldeniz 2010).

The growing resistance to the West and the Western paradigm of modernization in some segments of Turkish society, along with a reassertion of Turkish identity since the late 1980s (Berk Albachten 2006: 12–13), have not been widely ←37 | 38→matched in contemporary Japan, despite increasing nationalism in some quarters in recent years. Nevertheless, in both societies there is ongoing interest in translations from a broader range of source cultures than in the past. Both societies had already witnessed a shift from a focus on European works in the first half of the twentieth century to a focus on English and American works in the second half of the century, although Arabic is also an important source language for certain topics in Turkey.

In 2012 the Japanese publishing industry ranked as the fourth largest in the world, but it has been experiencing a recession for some time, whereas the Turkish publishing industry (ranked as the world’s thirteenth largest that year) is on the rise.2 In 2011 about 19 % of works published in Turkey were translations, and nearly 27 % of literary works published in Turkey that year were translations (Paker, Tahir Gürçağlar and Milton 2015: 8). On the Japanese side, in 2012 translated books accounted for only 8.2 % of all book publications, a figure that is actually on the decline.3

In terms of direct translational contacts between Japan and Turkey, the flow has not been very strong nor, I suspect, equally bidirectional, although research is necessary to substantiate this impression. Searching Japan’s National Diet Library catalogue for translations of Turkish books (specifying Turkish as the source language and Japanese as the target language) results in only 65 works, although experience shows that this catalogue is less than exhaustive. The first listed translation appeared as late as 1979. UNESCO’s notoriously unreliable Index Translationum lists 23 Japanese translations of Turkish works between 1981 and 2008 and 33 from Japanese into Turkish between 1978 and 1999. Despite their likely inaccuracy, these figures suggest that there is still much room for the two cultures to explore each other’s fiction and non-fiction works via translation. It is also worth considering any linguistic, cultural, institutional, financial or other obstacles to greater publication of translations from Turkish in Japan and vice versa. One obvious linguistic hurdle is the relative dearth of translators qualified to work between these two languages.

Prominent in the Diet Library catalogue listing is fifteen Japanese translations of Orhan Pamuk books between 2004 (two years before he won the Nobel Prize, which intensified worldwide interest in his writing) and 2016, including two different versions of Kar (Snow). Pamuk is regarded as a ‘bridge’ between East ←38 | 39→and West, which has contributed to his global success in translation (Roditakis 2015). This calls to mind how Murakami Haruki’s success in the West is due in large measure to his ability to ‘bridge’ “East and West”, partly through repeated references to Western music and so on. Some Murakami’s novels are available in Turkish, and he has written a volume of essays about his travels in Turkey. On the Turkish side, one area of relatively recent interest is the translation/scanlation of Japanese manga.

So what place has the field of Translation Studies carved out in academia in these two nations? Have ‘Western’ theories of translation travelled largely intact, or have they been inflected in their new homes, and if so, in what ways? What attitudes have Turkish and Japanese translation scholars adopted toward these imported theories and intellectual movements? More importantly, what is the nature of various ‘local’ ideas on translation practice and theory, and what insights might they afford in other contexts? Compared with the situation described in an earlier article I wrote about Translation Studies in the Japanese context (Wakabayashi 2012), there is now greater familiarity among Japanese translation researchers with international publications and debates, although the discipline in Japan is still finding its feet to some extent. Despite a noteworthy domestic body of translation-related writing over the past century and strides made in the past few years, Japanese research on translation has not yet had a significant impact on the international field, although signs of that possibility are starting to emerge with the work of researchers such as Kayoko Takeda and Nana Sato-Rossberg and, notably, the American-based scholar Naoki Sakai.

By contrast, Translation Studies in Turkey seems quite advanced, benefiting in part from the easier access to European knowledge (both linguistically and in terms of geographical proximity to conferences and so on). Paker, Tahir Gürçağlar and Milton (2015: 10) mention a study by Tahir Gürçağlar (2014) that identified 50 book-length studies written or edited by Turkish scholars and published in Turkey on a wide range of translation-related topics. Turkish universities have produced translation scholars who are preeminent not only at home but also internationally, from Professor Paker to Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar and Şebnem Susam-Saraeva, to mention a few.

The first translation journal in Turkey was Tercüme, which was affiliated with the Translation Bureau, and today there are four translation journals, indicating the robustness of the discipline. In Japan, the first translation journal was a non-refereed one called Kikan hon’yaku (Culture and Translation), published by Nihon hon’yaku kenkyūkai (Japan translation research group) for a brief period between 1973 and 1976. Today there are two main refereed journals of ←39 | 40→translation and interpreting studies, as well as commercial magazines such as Hon’yaku no sekai.

In both countries, translation history has been a prominent focus, although in Japan this research is not necessarily conducted by scholars of Translation Studies, but often by researchers in related fields, and much of it belongs to earlier decades. In both nations, the focus continues to be on literary translation, but there is growing interest in genres and modes of importance in contemporary technology-oriented society. The subtitling of foreign films and television shows makes audiovisual translation an increasingly significant field, both professionally and academically, in both cultures.

Despite the presence of individual courses on translation at many Japanese universities (though often with the aim of language training rather than professional translator training) and the existence since the 1970s of many commercial translator training schools, translation programs in Japanese universities remain rare. By contrast, translator training at Turkish universities dates back to the early eighties, and there are currently over 50 departments of translating and interpreting (Paker, Tahir Gürçağlar and Milton 2015: 9), with at least five universities offering PhD programs in Translation Studies.

No doubt there are many other similarities and differences in the two cultures’ experiences of translation and Translation Studies (stemming, for instance, from the fact that Ottoman-Turkish culture has always been more multiethnic and multilingual than Japanese culture), but space and the limits to my knowledge of the Turkish situation do not allow further exploration here. I hope that these very tentative preliminary observations might prompt researchers who are better-informed about Turkish and Japanese translation history and the contemporary situation to correct any errors here and delve further into the similarities and tease out the differences, perhaps identifying underlying factors that connect and/or differentiate the seemingly disparate experiences of translation and Translation Studies in Turkey and Japan.

References

Berk Albachten, Özlem. “Intralingual Translation: Discussions within Translation Studies and the Case of Turkey.” A Companion to Translation Studies, edited by Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014, pp. 573–85.

Berk Albachten, Özlem. “Translating the ‘West’: The Position of Translated Western Literature within the Turkish Literary Polysystem.” Review of Literatures of the European Union, vol. 4, 2006, pp. 1–18.

←40 |
 41→

Daldeniz, Elif. “Islamic Publishing Houses in Transformation: The Role of Translation.” Translation Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, 2010, pp. 216–30.

Ertürk, Nergis. Grammatology and Literary Modernity in Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Friedman, Susan Stanford. Planetary Modernisms: Provocations on Modernity Across Time. USA: Columbia University Press, 2015.

Holbrook, Victoria R. “Concealed Facts, Translation, and the Turkish Literary Past.” Translations: (Re)shaping of Literature and Culture, edited by Saliha Paker, Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, 2002, pp. 77–107.

Kostantaras, Dean. “Culture, Structure and Reciprocity: Histoire Croisée and Its Uses for the Conceptualization of the Rise and Spread of National Movements in Europe and the Atlantic World during the Age of Revolutions.” European Review of History—Revue Européenne D’histoire, vol. 20, no. 3, 2013, pp. 383–405.

Nakamura, Mitsuo. Japanese Fiction in the Meiji Era. Tokyo: Kokusai Bunka Shinkokai, 1966.

Paker, Saliha. “Translation, the Pursuit of Inventiveness and Ottoman Poetics: A Systemic Approach.” Between Cultures and Texts: Itineraries in Translation History, edited by Theo Hermans, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011, pp. 243–54.

Paker, Saliha, Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar and John Milton. “Introduction.” Tradition, Tension and Translation in Turkey, edited by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçaglar et al., Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015, pp. 1–24.

Roditakis, Arzu Eker. “The Identity Metonymics of Translated Turkish Fiction in English.” Tradition, Tension and Translation in Turkey, edited by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar et al., Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015, pp. 273–96.

Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. The Politics and Poetics of Translation in Turkey, 1923–1960. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008.

Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. Çevirinin ABC’si(second edition). İstanbul: Say, 2014.

Wakabayashi, Judy. “Situating Translation Studies in Japan within a Broader Context.” Translation and Translation Studies in the Japanese Context, edited by Nana Sato-Rossberg and Judy Wakabayashi, London: Continuum, 2012, pp. 33–52.

←41 |
 42→←42 | 43→

Special Notes by Turgay Kurultay

Through the Window of Translation Studies: An Overview of Cultural Exchange between Turkey and Japan

Translated by Aslı Takanay

Abstract: This article offers an overview of the development of researches on translation and of “translation studies” as an independent discipline, and it analyzes the content and approaches of the researches on translations between Japanese and Turkish (in both directions) with regard to these developments. Corpus of the study consists of more than 70 publications, which are directly or closely related to the field of Japanese-Turkish translations. This study draws on not only the full texts but also the abstracts and the records of publications.

The number of experts in the field of Japanese-Turkish mutual relations, who are well acquainted with the other country’s culture and have a good command of its language, are significantly low when compared to the number of experts of the Western languages and cultures. This fact reveals itself in the limited number of translations between Japanese and Turkish as well. Likewise, the number of researches on these translations and on cultural exchange between Japan and Turkey is significantly low. The vast majority of the translators are academics, and this indicates that neither in Japanese nor in Turkish society cultural exchange has become widespread. In addition, the low number of regular translators and the high number of indirect translations prove that translation does not play a strong intermediary role between Japanese and Turkish.

The publications on the translations and translation problems between Japanese and Turkish, diversifies with regard to their contents and approaches. There is an obvious dominance of the studies that focus on linguistic transfer problems and studies on “images” of each country. As for the approaches in these studies, the focus is on the difficulties of transfer in translation and the necessities of translation. Despite these structuralist and normative studies, there are publications that aim to analyze actual translations with a tendency towards descriptive approach as well.

This article appoints the need for an increase in such studies. It emphasizes that much insight can be gained into (a) the role of translators and other actors of translation, and (b) the cultural exchange by (or, blocked by) translation.

Keywords: Contrastive linguistics, Japanese-Turkish mutual relations, research subjects of translation studies, translation studies, translation history, translation bibliographies

←43 | 44→

Introduction

I have been interested in the relations between Japan and Turkey only as an observer, and it is an interesting experience for me to contribute to a book about the dimension of translation within these relations. I was very pleased when I received a proposal for writing a “special notes” to this book, but at the same time, I questioned whether it would be proper and meaningful. All in all, it would be an academic publication which would gather articles written by the experts of the Japanese-Turkish field. Though, the reason for the proposal was to make me offer a perspective on the approach of translation studies to the translation phenomenon. Yet, I would not feel comfortable with such an overall introduction, which, in the end, might stand eclectic in this book. In my opinion, this paper would not become integrated into the book unless I wrote it by investigating the Japanese-Turkish translational relations. Therefore, I grounded the framework of the article on this subject thinking that it would be meaningful and useful to provide an external perspective and observe the position of research on translation within the context of Japanese-Turkish relations. I am deeply thankful to Esin Esen for her precious efforts to provide me with the material for research. I would also like to thank her for allowing me the opportunity to widen my horizon of knowledge of translational and cultural exchange within the context of Japanese-Turkish relations.

The material in my corpus of analysis dwell upon both the Japanese-Turkish translation activities (in both directions), that is the information of translated publications, and the studies, which are mostly academic, on translation. Here, I take translation in its broader meaning, and I ground my framework on the communication in terms of cultural exchange. In fact, the material that I had the opportunity to investigate included not only the studies which analyzed the translation activities between the two countries, but also the ones which analyzed the bidirectional cultural relations and the images of Japan and Turkey in each country’s eyes that have been formed through these relations. In this context, I had an inevitable limitation with regard to the language. The material was written in Turkish and/or was translated into Turkish from English or Japanese. Including the articles published in this book, I analyzed the records and/or abstracts and/or full texts of more than 70 publications. In the “references”, I only include the publications which I directly refer to. As for the articles in this book, of which I read the abstracts and that I referred to, I am going to mention them only within my article. (Please see Appendix for the list of these publications)

The present article does not cover my evaluations about the translations or cultural exchange between Japan and Turkey, but my observations about the metatexts written on translations and cultural exchange between these countries. In other words, I am going to focus on the researches of translation in this field. ←44 | 45→I surely leave the analysis of actual translations and of the phenomena of cultural exchange to the experts of the field. Yet, I have also looked at the phenomena of translation and of cultural exchange within the context of Japanese-Turkish relations. It was not to analyze the phenomena but to have a better understanding of the relation between the researches of the experts of the field and their material.

In this study, I mainly made use of the records and the abstracts of the publications in this field. The number of the studies I thoroughly read is not high. My aim in thoroughly reading some of the texts was partly to track the traces of specific questions, but mainly for getting an idea about the field itself.

Judy Wakabayashi’s and Özlem Berk Albachten’s articles in these books complement the subject of my article. Wakabayashi’s (2019) article in the beginning of this volume stands as a comparative translation history. She does not focus directly on the history of the translation activities between Japan and Turkey, but on the translation activities and approaches in the (distant and recent) histories of both Japan and Turkey, and sporadically compares these two histories with each other. Whereas Berk Albachten’s (2019) article in the beginning of the second volume directly focuses on the translation flow (only from Japanese into Turkish) and presents the findings of her bibliographical study on translations.

These two articles offer a ground for translation researches. In this context, certain questions may be formulated: Which dimensions of Japanese-Turkish translation exchanges are analyzed, and which questions shaped these analyses, and to which extent the characteristics of these relations are made visible and understandable? Wakabayashi’s article offers a relevant context for this questioning. Such a framework may help us understand the past and present translational exchanges between two countries by analyzing translations in both directions. In fact, this is the only way for us to see the extent and the peculiarities of the exchanges. In addition, Berk Albachten’s study can be highly useful when questioning to which extent and on which basis the phenomena of translation have been analyzed to this day.

Berk Albachten’s study contains “a bibliography of translations”. Thus, it is a useful source for the scholars of translation studies since it systematizes the data they may need. In my corpus I did not come across a study on the same level as Berk Albachten’s article about the translations from Turkish into Japanese.1 I hope her article conduces to such a study.

←45 | 46→

In this article, my main focus will be the general view offered by the academic studies on the Japanese-Turkish translation flow in which I also will draw on these two articles mentioned above. With regard to this, I am going to share my opinions on the possible contributions of translation studies.

Translation Phenomenon and Translation Studies

Firstly, I want shortly refer to the historical development and the current situation of the translation studies as an academic discipline.

The key feature of the academic field of “translation studies” [in Turkish çeviribilim] is to regard translation as it is, that is to say, to accept translation as a phenomenon, and to take this as the starting point of any analysis. Our field of study, which was shaped largely after the 1980s, has been gone through various developments and changes in its approach to translation phenomenon. For a neat and contemporary study on the recent history of translations studies, I can recommend Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar’s book (2011) in Turkish, and Jeremy Munday’s book (2012) in English.

Since the time when “translation studies” became to be regarded as an independent discipline (in short, we can call it “translation studies paradigm”), and researches on translation have been largely grouped under the title of “translation studies”, various dimensions of translation phenomenon began to be evaluated in relation to its own reality and integrity. Focusing on translation processes and the translated products improved our knowledge about the ways how social, cultural and linguistic relations are (or, are not) formed, and what kinds of interactions occur (and, do not occur) between different language groups. This allowed us to gain a wider perspective about the nature and possibilities of translation.

For translation to become the subject of “translation studies” as an independent discipline marks a paradigm shift. The perspective that regards translation as a mere reproduction of a source text in the target language (in short, “source orientedness”) was abandoned, and translation started to be evaluated within its social and actual reality. The naming of the field as “translation studies” brought together a discussion (which is still ongoing) about whether it was possible to analyze translations according to scientific criteria or not. The distinctive point of this shift was moving away from the prescriptive view on translation, and putting the emphasis on the translation realities.

←46 |
 47→

“Translation studies” was born from the “descriptive” studies; or, as Israeli scholar Gideon Toury (1995: 12) briefly puts it, this discipline was born when translations began to be accepted as the products of the target culture. For a translation studies scholar, as long as a text is accepted as a translation by the target culture/society, it becomes a subject of analysis. And, when we question how that text emerged and which features led to its acceptance as a translation, we can have the chance to see the role of social agents and their strategies in the translation process.

Today, translation studies has reached a stage where it values going beyond a mere descriptive approach, and it prioritizes the questioning of the power relations among societies and social agents as well as the ethical dimension of translation (see Camcı 2014). However, the critical approach to translations, for instance, the objections against the assimilation strategies (that is, the sacrifice of linguistic and cultural features of a source text in translation), and the domestication strategies (see Venuti 1998) do not mean that we returned to the pre-translation studies era. Unlike the prescriptive perspective, these critical approaches analyze translations with regard to the dynamics, in which these texts emerged, the social agents and the approaches to translation in the target culture.

However, these developments do not mean that we have come to entirely know what happens during translation processes and the whole possibilities in translation. We are far away from the point that we can schematize and describe the complex and multi-dimensional structure of translation and the whole factors within its production processes. In fact, we may be far away from that point forever. The relation between translation and language seems to be one of the challenging problematic.

Translation and Linguistic Comparison

Before “translation studies”, translation analysis was basically based on the linguistic comparison of source and target texts. Following the emergence of the perspective that regards translation as a social and communicative action, scholars largely distanced themselves from taking the linguistic comparison as a basis for text analysis. However, such an approach is still carried out by especially the scholars who do not embrace the translation studies paradigm.

As it is in other language pairs, the number of studies that analyze translations between Japanese and Turkish by using linguistic comparison is still distinctively high.

←47 |
 48→

The relation between language and translation is a very wide and complex subject. A thorough discussion with regard to this relation is not possible within the limits of this introduction. Yet, in one of my earlier articles, I had questioned this subject as follows:

The linguistic comparison is an inevitable and natural component of translation processes. It is because, while translating, both languages (source and target) meet each other in the mind of the translator as well as in the relations between the two societies. It is impossible for a translator to translate without recognizing the two languages, without thinking about the coherence and differences of these languages, and without the uncertainties about whether to reflect the linguistic possibilities of a source language in the target language or not. However, this does not mean that linguistic comparisons, which are done before the translation process, can provide ready solutions for translation problems. A contrastive perspective can only respond to the realities of translation when it functions in relation to the overall strategy, and when this reflects on the decision making processes. (Kurultay 2000: 12)

Particularly the structural comparisons between languages (contrastive linguistics) can reveal the similarities and differences of two languages. However, the concluding data of such studies is disconnected to the actual translation contexts, since scholars, instead of taking actual phrases of real translations as the basis of their analysis, focus on the possible units of expression. In fact, the very studies reveal the complexity of transition processes among languages. And, they can be significant and functional, unless they aim to specify “equivalent correlatives” in translation. However, this method does not seem to be useful for gaining an insight into what is going on in translation in actual situations. No doubt, examples of actual translations can be examined in the analyses, and in fact, there are studies using such examples. However, it is not realistic to try to draw substantial results about ‘how to translate what’ based on such comparisons.

Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, scholars, who applied linguistic comparisons by using examples of actual translations in the 1960s, stayed away from drawing such substantial results and shed a light on the complexity of translation realities. In their studies that were grouped under the title of “stylistic compare”, Vinay and Darbelnet described and identified the possible kinds of transitions and transformations between source and target languages (translation strategies) (see also Kurultay 2000: 45–47). In this sense, they can be regarded as the messengers of the translation studies paradigm that was developed in the 1980s. Vinay and Darbelnet’s study reveals two points: Firstly, in terms of translation realities, it is nonfunctional to identify equivalences in advance. Secondly, it is impossible to specify when and how translation strategies emerge by merely looking at the linguistic material.

←48 |
 49→

Translations and Researches on Translations in the Japanese-Turkish Translation Flow

When observing the cultural exchanges via translation between Turkey and Japan, the first point to identify is that the translation activities between the two countries seem to be marginal when compared to these countries’ translation activities in general. To draw solid results, we need bibliographical studies on translations. As mentioned above, Oğuz Baykara’s two articles (Baykara 2012, which covers the translations from Turkish into Japanese; Baykara 2013, which covers the translations from Japanese into Turkish) and Özlem Berk Albachten’s (2019) article, which offers an inventory of the translations from Japanese into Turkish provide us with various data.

Baykara’s two articles are annotated bibliographies. They also provide background information about the translations (for instance, information about the translators and the editors: Baykara 2012: 107). Such a type of questioning is valuable for it helps us see the relations and motivations behind the translation flows. However, it is obviously not possible to deepen our knowledge of translation flows with bibliographical studies as such. Hence, the data offered in Baykara’s article is not systematic, for instance, for some of the texts, Baykara states that they are indirect translations, but for some others, no information is provided. In addition, since, for the most part, he does not refer to the sources of data; it might be better to take his findings as a starting point for a research (in other words, as raw data). All in all, Baykara’s two articles are important steps toward a systemic bibliography and provide very useful connections for scholars, who are willing to analyze translation flows in relation to specific publications and publishing groups.

In the Index Translationum (IT), UNESCO’s database of book translations, there are 33 records for translations from Japanese into Turkish, whereas for translations from Turkish into Japanese there are 23. IT depends on the data obtained from the national libraries of the countries; therefore it lacks the records of some of the translations. Yet, it still gives an idea on the proportional level. Although in terms of language pairs, there is a difference between the numbers of the publications in both directions, this does not indicate a significant quantitative inequality.

For instance, according to IT records, in terms of the translation flow between English and Japanese, the number of translations from English is 25 times higher than the number of translations from Japanese (from English there are 101.087 translations, whereas from Japanese the number is 4110). In terms of the translation flow between Turkish and English, the number of translations ←49 | 50→from English is 17 times higher than the translations from Turkish (from English there are 5653 translations, whereas from Turkish the number is 3282). The IT data also shows that the highest number of translations from foreign languages into Japanese is done from English. English is respectively followed by French, German, Chinese, Italian, Korean, Russian and Spanish. It is interesting that the number of translations from Far East countries, which share a common cultural geography with Japan, is less than the number of translations from three Western languages. In terms of translations done into Turkish, with a few exceptions, the source languages are similar with the ones in the Japanese case. However, the first three most translated languages are the same. The list of most translated source languages are respectively as follows: English, French, German, Arabic, Russian, Spanish, Persian and Italian. As this comparison reveals, Japanese and Turkish have a similar position in the context of world literature. There is another parallelism between Japanese and Turkish in terms of their denser relations with the West when compared to their relations with nearby geographical regions. It seems to be important to clarify the anatomy of the very parallelism. Wakabayashi’s (2019) article provides a general framework for such a question.

In Berk Albachten’s bibliography, there are 120 translations from Japanese into Turkish between the years 1959 and 2017. Although Berk Albachten states that her bibliography may not cover all published translations (Berk Albachten 2019), her methodology and research tools assure that the data she provided is inclusive.

Berk Albachten (2019) produces various compound data depending on the bibliography of translated books and reveals certain tendencies by graphics. For instance, numeric data regarding the number of retranslations is presented in time slots. As Berk Albachten underlines, there is a need to broaden the query in order to get an insight into the retranslations; it seems particularly important to observe the relations between retranslations and indirect translations as well as the translations from Japanese.

Among the studies that focus on the Japanese-Turkish translation flow, the number of researches, which dwell upon such questions, is significantly low. In the present study (volume 2) Nobuo Misawa (2019) analyzes the “Turkish tales” published in a Japanese journal before the World War I. Nagashima (2019) in his article on translation of Turkic inscriptions in volume 2, adds an appendix ←50 | 51→with a list of Turkish translations in Japanese, classifies them as fiction and non-fiction categories. As the author states this is not a full list and show problems on including both books and papers in the same appendix. Thus, the only article that analyzes the general translation flow between the two languages is Berk Albachten’s. As mentioned before, Wakabayashi’s article is about the translation flows as well, but not on the translation flow between Japanese and Turkish.

In fact, the studies in my corpus that focus on translation flows are visibly low. Baykara’s another article (other than his two articles mentioned above) can be counted as to dwell upon the subject (Baykara 2014). Erkin in his 2005 and 2008 articles presents a short list on the translation from Japanese into Turkish. In sum, among more than 70 publications in my corpus, I detected only two publications written directly on translation flows.

In terms of translation studies, the translators and their role as cultural agents require close investigation. In the material covering period until 2017 that I examine, there are 16 translators translating from Japanese into Turkish; and there is an apparent dominance of academics among these translators. Two of the translators are Japanese (with Turkish surnames), the rest is Turkish, who lives in Turkey or Japan. The dominance of academics among translators is typical in cases, the languages which the cultural exchange via translation is marginal. This also indicates that the society and the cultural life do not intertwine. It is also highly important to question whether the translators regularly do translation or not. I observed that 9 of the translators have only a single translation. Whereas, there is another translator, Hüseyin Can Erkin, whose number of translations is more than the number of translations done by the rest of the translators by 2017. From the viewpoint of translation studies, it is important to conduct field analyses to shed a light on questions, such as (a) who the translators are, (b) how and why they started translating, (c) relations between the translators and the texts they translated, (d) whether they have a powerful position to have an impact on the cultural programme and the selection processes of the texts to be translated, (e) the interactions between the translators and the other social agents. A translator, who regularly translates, will have a more representative profile in terms of the cultural exchange between two countries.

When I tried to classify the publications in my corpus with regard to their relation with translation, the following titles occurred (the numbers in parentheses show the number of publications; some of them are included more than a single group):

An overall approach to translation, theoretical perspective (4)

Translation activities (flows) between Turkish and Japanese (6)

←51 |
 52→

Problems of transfer peculiar to a specific text type (or a specific group of texts) (10)

Actual translations, translation criticism (6)

Imagology, promotion of culture (18)

Linguistic transfer, the transfer of structural elements (contrastive linguistic analysis) (15)

Foreign language teaching (7)

In terms of the publications in my corpus, there is a significant dominance of the ones that analyze the images (the image of Japan/Japanese in Turkey and the image of Turkey/Turks in Japan) and the problems of linguistic transfer. Numbers are important to see the overall tendencies, but they do not tell us the kinds of questions and tendencies which led the research. Now, I am going to take a closer look at the tendencies of the publications in my corpus.

An overall approach to translation: The publications in this group, to some extent, can be regarded to have a relation with translation theories. However, they do not seem to offer a theoretical model for further analyses; thus, they are not theoretical studies in the strict sense. For instance, an article that questions the problems of Japanese-Turkish translation education will inevitably reflect a choice for a theoretical approach. Or, an article, which analyzes the role of subjective perception in translation, will require a theoretical perspective since it puts forward a fundamental question.

Devrim Çetin Güven’s article (2019) in the present book, in which he depicts his views about the alternative role of translations between Japanese and Turkish within the context of world literature, refers to power relations, which is one of today’s prominent subjects of translation studies, but Güven does not make use of the translation studies’ literature (in other words, the literature that represents the translation studies paradigm). In fact, in the translation studies literature, the subject of world literature is tackled from various aspects. Therefore, a more profound discussion, including factual aspects of translation, can be carried out in connection with the extensive literature of translation studies. And that way, it will also be possible to see if Japanese and Turkish, as a marginal language pair within the context of translation flows, can really play an alternative role.

I elaborated on the publications, which analyze translation activities, in the first section of the present part.

In this group, besides the studies that examine translation activities within a specific context (for instance, in a journal) or a subfield (for instance, in poetry), there are publications that provide a panoramic view of the field as well. Indirect translation, which is one of the fundamental subjects in terms of translation ←52 | 53→activities between Japanese and Turkish (Erkin 2005), introduces an important dimension.

For the observation of translation phenomena, the analysis of translations of specific texts is another field of study. In this group, there are analyses that reflect the features of translation criticism as well as examinations of more general translation problems in the translations of specific authors or texts.

Such studies can contribute to the analysis based on surveys of translation activities, too. For instance, the translations of Orhan Pamuk (11 translations: see Nagashima 2019), which come to the forefront among translations into Japanese, or translations of Haruki Murakami (15 translations: see Berk Albachten, 2019), which come to the forefront among translations into Turkish, can particularly be analyzed. In fact, two studies among the publications in my corpus (Miyashita 2011; Akdemir 2019 in this volume) focus on Pamuk and Murakami. Such studies contribute to the factual evaluation of translation activities as well as the recognition of the complex features of translation processes.

Four articles in this group are by Esin Esen. These articles, in which she particularly dwells upon “the reader’s responsibility”, mention Turkish translations of various Japanese authors. For instance, Esen, based on a text that she translated, embodies translation problems and examples of solutions with regard to cognitive processes by consulting relevance theory and cognitive poetics (2014: 469 and ff).

The studies, which analyze the problems of transfer peculiar to a specific text type or a specific group of texts, reflect a wide variety of choices: Transfer of onomatopoeia in manga translations, translations from Taisho-era literature, translations from Divan literature, comparative analysis of tellings of dreams in Japanese and Turkish, translations of philosophical texts. The examination of the abstracts tells us that these studies analyze predominantly the problems on the level of linguistic units. In order to understand whether the analysis revealed specific characteristics of the text type or group of texts in question, these publications should be thoroughly read.

For instance, the issue of onomatopoeia is a general linguistic problem as well. In Manga, do the onomatopoeia really become specific? From this point, how should be considered that onomatopoeia appears frequently in Manga and sometimes it is used instead of the text? Or, is the transfer of voices in Manga affected by overall decisions of translation? Such questions can be tackled.

Another interesting example is the analysis of phonetic characteristics in the Japanese translations of Divan literature. In Ryō Miyashita’s article (2019 in volume 2), one can see that he examined the types of prosodies of Divan literature. He offers to convert the prosodies in Divan poetry into Japanese syllabic ←53 | 54→poem. He also suggest to use Kundoku method to support this translation. In order to evaluate and comment on Miyashita’s offer, the whole article has to be read and the characteristics of the Kundoku method has to be studied.

Can we directly count the studies that analyze images and cultural promotion of countries to the peoples of other countries within translation analysis? I think that there is a connection between “imagology”, which is an important branch of cultural studies, and the studies based on the translation studies paradigm. Particularly, driving forces behind translation flows and their directions are highly related to this. Even, causal relationships may be spotted between them.

Apart from the two studies in this group, the rest is about the Turkish image in Japan or the promotion of Japanese culture. The number of analyses of images is higher.

It is also significant that the half of these studies is by Hüseyin Can Erkin. This becomes more significant since one of Erkin’s publications is a book (Erkin 2004).

In many studies, the analysis of the Turkish image in the eyes of Japanese is based on the evaluations of Japanese travelers and intellectuals (Nagase Hosuke, Ienaga Toyokichi, Tokutomi Sohō, Shiba Ryōtarō). These people’s texts are important because they are the sources of public knowledge. However, we cannot grasp the prevailing perception in the society via the texts written by people with extraordinary knowledge about a foreign country. Therefore, how and to what extent a foreign country is described in the literature is an important question in the context of imagology. In fact, it is possible to see the society’s authentic perception about another country in literature. In addition, by means of sociological tools (surveys, interviews with people from various strata), social perception can directly be crystallized. Within this context, how and to what extent Turkish literature is known in Japan or how and to what extent Japanese literature is known in Turkey is a subject of research.

Researches on the images and cultural knowledge are particularly important for they can make us see to what extent the general and superficial perceptions are transcended. Questions about the impact of translations in the formation of an image of a source culture and how translations are affected with regard to this image come to the forefront in the context of translation.

Questioning how translation affects the other country’s authors and literature is another interesting question. Since there are few translations from Turkish literature into Japanese and/or from Japanese literature into Turkish and the two countries are distant both geographically and in terms of direct cultural contact, we might not expect much from such a questioning. Yet, one of the studies in my corpus focuses on such a case of influence (Suzuki 2012): Suzuki claims that the style of Ahmet Haşim, who translated “Çay Name” [Book of Tea], is influenced ←54 | 55→by the traditional Japanese culture and literature (the Haiku poetry tradition). If this assertive claim is relevant, a question arises: Was this peculiar to Ahmet Haşim or did it have a relation with the exchanges via various channels between two national literatures? Without doubt, in the first place, the fact that Haşim was influenced by French poetry comes to mind (see Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Ansikopledisi: 62–65). Was the Haiku influence on Haşim first formed by means of French and how should we interpret such an influence in terms of indirect translation?

As mentioned at the outset, linguistic transfer and the transfer of structural elements (contrastive linguistic analysis) is a compelling subject in terms of translation studies.

In most of the analysis of Japanese and Turkish texts, structural characteristics are comparatively evaluated. The subjects of analysis are as follows: how certain verbs are expressed in the other language, structural characteristics of the verbs (tense, mode), affix, semantic gap, how the bodily movements during a speech are expressed in the other language, transfer in relation to pronunciation.

These studies partly consider the contexts of texts and communication, but, all in all, they are comparative studies on the langue (structured language) level. In this sense, these studies fall into the field of contrastive linguistics/grammar, and in fact, most of them, instead of using examples from actual translations, focus on linguistic performances of a typical type. If an analysis is based on examples from actual translations, the researcher will inevitably go beyond structural comparisons. Then, s/he will need to interpret the text, make sense of the context, in which the translation was produced, and make sense of the decisions of the translator in the translation process. Without doubt, in certain aspects, a critical analysis will also be inevitable.

In my corpus, there are two articles focusing on the problems of transfer with regard to the Japanese writing system (Esen 2017). This article is about the transcription of Japanese letters in Turkish. In her article, Esen proposes standardization and suggests certain solutions. Yet, she also analyzes examples of actual linguistic performance (including examples from translations) to reach the crux of the matter. In observing the actual material, Esen does not apply “a descriptive” approach, in the strict sense, but conducts an evaluation on the level of “error analysis” (for examples see p. 4). Once again, I would like to emphasize the need for descriptive studies. Descriptive analysis helps us to see that problems do not have simple solutions and solving problems through a structuralist approach may cause difficulties. As Esen’s article proves, Turkish transliteration of Japanese letters is much more problematic when compared to the transliteration of Western languages (pp. 3–4). Yet, despite the fact that English is the ←55 | 56→most translated Western language in Turkey, there is not an absolute consistency in Turkish transliterations of, for instance, proper names and words borrowed from English. This does not indicate that the demand for consistency in transliteration is incorrect or unnecessary, but it proves that we cannot expect absolute solutions in this sense.

In my corpus of analysis, the number of studies about the field of foreign language teaching is rather low, but this may be because of the composition of my corpus, hence, most of the studies I analyzed are related with translation.

One of the articles in this group deals with the function of translation as a tool in foreign language teaching (Depci 2019 in volume 2).

There is a huge literature about the use of translation in Western language teaching. In the past, when translations were analyzed from a linguistic perspective, the translation practices applied in foreign language teaching were regarded as part of translation competence. In time, the use of translation as a tool in foreign language teaching departed and differed from the researches conducted with regard to translation studies. Although in both fields “translation” is mentioned, we are talking about two different concepts of translation: In the first case, in the mind of a person, who studies a foreign language, it is a matter of transition between two languages, whereas in the latter, translation is a communicative action (which takes place between two groups that speak different mother tongues) realized by a person who is competent both in source and target languages.

Such discussions can be deepened within the context of teaching Japanese (as a foreign language to the Turkish people) and teaching Turkish (to the Japanese).

Three articles in this group are about the impact of the image of Japan on Turkish students’ education. Although it is hard to find a relation between the very subject and translation, we can still talk about the dimension of interaction between two languages.

Conclusion

As mentioned, it is significant that the number of studies about the translation flows between Japanese and Turkish is significantly low. Can this be related to the fact that Japanese-Turkish translation flow (in both directions) is marginal as well? It is a point to dwell upon. In fact, I do not think that this can be a sufficient and sole explanation; to analyze translations by considering them as phenomena and to question the driving forces behind the emergence of these translations is directly related with the approach to translation. Revealing the reasons for ←56 | 57→the low number of translations between Japanese and Turkish and despite the low number (and, in fact, for the very reason), trying to understand the webs of interactions and motivations behind the production of these translations may contribute to future translation attempts as well as a better understanding of the Japanese-Turkish relations.

Another significant point is that the translation flows under study are limited to the field of culture and literature. For instance, in the present article, I did not focus on the sources about cinema and television. Yet, I think that the recognition of particularly the Japanese directors, such as Yasujirō Ozu, Akira Kurosawa, Hayao Miyazaki, and etc. is much higher than the Japanese authors. As in Koji Suzuki’s case, authors, who are known via book-to-movie adaptations (Ring, Dark Water) rather than their books, can be highly popular abroad. (Here, we may also ask how much recognition the Turkish directors and authors could get in Japan via cinema.)

Translation activities in the field of commercial, technological and social relations were not part of my corpus, either. Without doubt, such activities are research subjects of translation studies as well. Such studies will contribute to the understanding of both societies’ recognition of each other, of cultural exchanges between them, and of how they interact (or, do not interact) with each other. It is clear that the Japanese technological and industrial products are in demand in Turkey. There are also joint ventures of the two countries and Japan joins various tenders in Turkey. Thus, it would be interesting for us to see how the translation activities are carried out in this field as well. For instance, the role of indirect translation in the industrial and commercial relations or the number of Japanese speaking Turkish and Turkish people speaking Japanese and their competence in the fields of industry, trade, technology, and etc. can be questioned.

Book translations and audiovisual translation of movies do not indicate a direct contact of the two societies, but through an emic and etic perspective, they enable people to get to know the other society and to share their sensitivities. This contributes to the empathy between the people of two societies. To what extent have the translation activities contributed to cultural empathy and emotional closeness between Japan and Turkey? What kind of an image (of Turkey in Japan and of Japan in Turkey) was cultivated and promoted by the translators’ work? What kind of an image was targeted by the translators, and to what extent they could meet their goals? For such questions, to analyze translation policies is crucial, because they can either be shaped by prejudices or on the contrary, they can help to question prejudices. Without doubt, it is impossible to answer such ←57 | 58→basic questions at once. However, particularly descriptive and critical analyses of translations can shed light on this field.

There is a significant dominance of source-oriented and linguistic approaches in the researches about translations between Japanese and Turkish. Despite the fact that there are some researches, which are carried out in connection with the translation studies paradigm, this has not become a prevalent perspective yet. The comprehensive perspective of translation studies will improve the efficiency of language-oriented researches as well, and thus, it will help to benefit from these studies in terms of translation processes. Without doubt, analyses of uncommon difficulties in translation, and of problems of transfer generating from linguistic and cultural differences are the studies that can contribute to translation activities and help translators to dwell upon their own translations. For this, the starting point has to offer a translation context. In other words, it is of top priority to focus on actual translation problems and the points that can be affected by the decisions of translators and other translation actors (publishers, critics, etc.). The guideline is to consider translation as a bilateral action: That is to say, while paying attention to the meaning and delicacy in the source text, not to ignore how, to what extent and under which conditions they can be transferred. This indicates not to idealize translation and to regard it as a creative activity aimed at drawing societies closer in actual conditions.

Appendix

This list contains the corpus of the articles analyzed in this paper. The corpus also contains articles in these books vol I & II (2019), but for not being repetitive they are not added the list.

Atay, Ayşegül, “Nihongo to Torukogo-ni okeru Kakokei”, 7. Türkiye Japonca Öğretmenleri Konferansı & 13. Symposium on Japanese Language Education in Europe, Çanakkale: 2008. [A Comparison of Japanese and Turkish Past Tense Forms]

Atay, Ayşegül. “Bulunma Durumu Bildiren ‘Iru’ Eyleminin Yardımcı Eylem Olarak Kullanımı Ve Türkçedeki Görünümü”, 10. Uluslararası Dil, Yazın ve Deyişbilim Sempozyumu, pp. 180–186. Ankara: 2010.

Atay Ayşegül. “-Teiru` no Nitto Hikaku”, 4. Japonca Öğretmenleri Konferansı. pp. 83–87. Kayseri: 2005.

Atay, Ayşegül. “Türkçe “gitmek-gelmek” ve Japonca “iku-kuru” Eylemlerinin Bilişsel Açıdan Karşılaştırılması - Türkçe Anadili Konuşucularına Yönelik Öğretimi Üzerine”, Japon Dili ve Kültürü Eğitimi Araştırmalarına Yeni ←58 | 59→Yaklaşımlar, Özbek A., Özşen T., Kawamoto K., (Eds.). Paradigma Publishing. İstanbul: 2016. [A Cognitive Comparative Study on the Verbs “gitmek-gelmek” in Turkish and The Verbs “iku-kuru” in Japanese- About Teaching them to Turkish Native Speakers]

Atay Ayşegül. “Türkçe “–de” Ve Japonca “-ni, -de” Durum Ekleri ve Japonca Öğretimi Üzerine”, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. Vol.30, pp. 41–51, 2016. [-ni -de Case Suffixes in Japanese and Teaching them Japanese Education]

Baykara, Oğuz. Bungaku To Kotoba To Tomoni. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 2007. [Problems of Translating from Japanese into Turkish]

Baykara, Oğuz. “Yabancı Dilden Türkçeye Çeviri Sorunları- Örnek Dil Japonca.” 14. Kibatek Edebiyat Sempozyumu Bildirileri - Gagavuz Kültürü, 87–94. 2007. [The Translation Problems from a Foreign Language into Turkish -In the Example of Japanese]

Baykara, Oğuz, “Taisho Edebiyatından Özgün Bir Çeviri: ‘Kappa’ ”. Türkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları Konferansı I, Eds.:Selçuk Esenbel, Erdal Küçükyalçın, İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publishing, 2012. [A Unique Translation from Taishō Literature: Kappa]

Baykara, Oğuz, “Japanese Literature in Turkish, 1959–2005 and Beyond.” Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14(55), 131–154. 2012.

Baykara, Oğuz, “Turkish Literature in Japanese.” İ.Ü. Journal of Translation Studies, 1(6), 103–133. 2013.

Baykara, Oğuz “Türkçe Çevirileriyle Kadim Japon Şiiri”. Türkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları Konferansı II, Eds. Selçuk Esenbel, Erdal Küçükyalçın, İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publishing, 2014. [The Ancient Japanese Poetry with Turkish Translations]

Baykara, Oğuz. Modern Japon Edebiyatının Doğusu ve Shiga Naoya. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publishing, 2014. [The Birth of Modern Japanese Literature and Shiga Naoya]

Baykara, Oğuz. “Nihongo-Torukogo Honyaku ni okeru Bunpō, Goi Oyobi Imi-teki Sho-mondai- Shiga Naoya no Shosetsu wo Chūshin ni”, Langue and Cultural Exchange Journal, Japan: Vol. 3, pp. 39–53, 2000. [The Problems In Japanese-Turkish Translation on the basis of Grammar, Word and Semantic- Focusing on Shiga Naoya’s Short Stories]

Bosnalı Sonel.Kahraman, Cahit., Moods and Modality in Turkish and Japanese Dream Narration, LİLA, 2015.

Erdemir A.Volkan. “Geç Meiji Dönemi’nde Taiyo Dergisinde Türkiye Haberleri”, Toplumsal Tarih Dergisi, No. 236, pp. 22–27, 2013. [The News on Turkey at the Taiyo Magazine in the Late Meiji Period]

←59 |
 60→

Erdemir A.Volkan. “İstanbul’da Bir Japon Tarihçi - Tokutomi Soho’nun Mektuplarında 19. Yüzyıl Türkiye İmgeleri”. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, pp. 59–68, 2009. [A Japanese Historian in Istanbul - Images of Turkey in the Letters of Tokutomi Soho]

Erdemir A.Volkan. “Japon Edebiyatı ve Çeviri” Edebiyat Bilinci Journal. pp. 22–26, 2016. [Japanese Literature and Translation]

Erkin, Can H. “The Legal Positioning of Foreigners in the Sengoku Era:An Analysis of Takokunin”. Transactactions of the International Conference of Eastern Studies. No.XL,s.119–132, Tokyo, 1995.

Erkin, Can H. “16 seiki Nihon ni okeru gaikokujin no Hoteki Ichizuke” (16. Yüzyılda Japonya’da Yabancıların Hukuki Durumları), Rekishigaku Kenkyu, The Journal of Historical Studies, No.740, s.1–15, Tokyo, 2000. [The Judical Status of Foreigners in 16th Century’s Japan]

Erkin, Can H. “Japonya’da Türkiye Bilgisinin Oluşumu”. Tarih ve Toplum. No.218, pp. 24–34, İstanbul: 2002. [The Formation of Knowledge on Turkey in Japan]

Erkin, Can H. “Toyotomi Seiken no Gaiko Kino no Keisei”. Nihon Rekishi Journal. No. 653, 2002. [The Formation of Toyotomi Authority’s Diplomacy Organ]

Erkin, Can H. “Japon Gezgin Ienaga Toyokiçi’nin 1899–1900 Hatıratı” OTAM Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmaları Merkezi Journal. No:13 2002. [The 1899–1990 Memoir of Japanese Traveler Ienaga Toyokichi]

Erkin, Can H. “Japonca-Türkçe Çeviri Eğitiminin Sorunları”. II. Japonca Öğretmenleri Toplantısı Bülteni, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2003. [The Problems in Japanese-Turkish Translation Education]

Erkin, Can H. “Çağdaşlaşma Dönemi Japon Yazınında Türk İmgesi” Cumhuriyet’in 80. Kuruluş Yıldönümü Sempozyumu Bülteni, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi. 2003. [The Turkish Image in Modernization Period Japanese Literature]

Erkin, Can H. Geçmişten Günümüze Japonya’dan Türkiye’ye Bakış. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları. 2004. [The Vision from Japan to Turkey from Past to Present]

Erkin, Can H. “Çağdaş Japon Yazınında Türk İmgesine Bir Örnek: Şiba Ryotaro’nun “Tepedeki Bulutlar” Eseri” Ankara: Littera No:14, 2004. [An Example to Turkish Image in Contemporary Japanese Literature]

Erkin, Can H. “İkinci Dilden Çeviri İkilemi:Türkçede Japon Yazınından Çeviriler”, Kül Eleştiri No:5, Ankara, 2005. [The Dilemma of Indirect Translation: Translations from Japanese Literature in Turkish]

Erkin, Can H. “Japonya Ortaçağı’nda Zen Işığı”. Ankara: Doğu Batı No:33, 2005. [Zen Light In the Japanese Middle Ages]

Erkin, Can H. “Kinsei Nihon ni Okeru Toruko Ninshiki no Keisei to Hensen: 19 Seiki Zenhan o Chushin Toshite” Tokyo: Rikkyo Institute of Japanese Studies ←60 | 61→Annual Report. No.5, 2006. [The Formation of Perception on Turkey: Focusing on the first half of the 19th Century]

Esen, Esin. “Japon Edebiyatından Türkçeye Çeviriye ‘Okuyucu-Dinleyici Sorumluluğu’ Yaklaşımı –Sasame Yuki Örnekleminde” International Symposium on Asian Languages and Literatures, Proceedings, Kayseri, 2014. [Reader Responsibility Approach to The Translation of Japanese Literature to Turkish -On The Example of Sasame Yuki]

Esen, Esin. “The Intralingual Translations of Murasaki Shikibu Nikki: A Comparative Study through the Reader Responsibility”, The International Workshop on Intralingual Translation, Boğaziçi University, published abstract, p. 7–8. 2014

Esen, Esin. “Japon Edebiyatından Türkçeye Çeviriye ‘Okuyucu-‐Dinleyici Sorumluluğu’ Yaklaşımı – Sasame Yuki Örnekleminde.” Ed. Ali Küçükler and Erdem Erinç. 3. Asya Dilleri ve Edebiyatları Sempozyumu. Erciyes: Erciyes Üniversitesi. pp. 461–483. 2014.

Esen, Esin. “Sasameyuki no Torukogo no Honyaku: Kikitesekinin oyobi Ninchi Shigaku no Shiten kara” Sekai Bungaku/ Honyaku to Bungaku Tokushū, No 122 s. 71–80, 12, 2015. [Turkish Translation of Sasameyuki: From the point view Reader Responsibility and Cognitive Poetics]

Esen, Esin, “Nazlı Kar-Sasameyuki’yi Türkçe Algılamak”. Nazlı Kar. Istanbul: Can Publishing. p. 9–15, 2015. [Perception of Sasameyuki in Turkish]

Esen, Esin. Japoncanın Türkçede Transkripsiyonu. esinesen.com. 2017. [The Transcription of Japanese in Turkish]Kahraman, Cahit; Zengin, Bugra. “Facilitation Potencial of the Mnemonics for the Teaching of Japanese Vocabulary to Turkish Speakers” Humanitas. pp. 165–182, 2014.

Kahraman, Cahit. “Türk Üniversite Öğrencilerinin “Japonca” Kavramına İlişkin Algılarının Metafor Yardımıyla Analizi: Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Örneği”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. Vol 18, pp. 95–110, 2014.

Kılınç, Esra. “Bir Çeviri Sorunu:Manga Örnekleminde Yansıma Sözcükler” Türkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları Konferansı -II. Istanbul: 14–16 Haziran, 2013. [A Translation Problem: Onomatopoeia in Context of Manga]

Kılınç, Esra. “Manga de Miru Onomatope no Honyaku Mondai -Kishimoto Masashi Naruto wo Rei ni”. Manga-Anime ni Miru Bunk, Bunkyo Gakuin University Sōgō Kenkyūj. pp. 39–46、2016. [The Translation Problem on Onomatope in Manga: In the Example of Naruto.]

Imai, Masaharu (Ed.) Sekai no Bunka to Nihongo: Taiyaku II, pp. 124–159. 2005. [Turkish Society and Culture: A Japanese Lived in Turkey during 25 Turbulent Years]

←61 |
 62→

Misawa, Nobuo, “Japonya’da Basılmış İlk Türkçe Kitap!” Tarih ve Düşünce Journal. 28–31, 2006. [The First Book Printed in Turkish in Japan!]

Misawa, Nobuo, “Japonya’da Latin harfleriyle Basılmış Olan İlk ve İkinci Türkçe Kitap”, Cilbend Bulliten, İstanbul: 2013. [The First and Second Books Printed with Latin Alphabets in Turkish in Japan]

Miyashita, Ryō. “Japonya’da Orhan Pamuk ve Çeviriye Dair Bazı Notlar” Trans. Esin Esen, Lacivert Journal of short stories and poetry, V. 40, p. 91–96, 2011. [Perception of Orhan Pamuk in Japan and notes on Translation].

Numata, Sayoko. “Shindo Etsuko Cho ‘Tsukiyo no Chatora Patora’ Torukogo Honyakuban Kanko ni Yosete”. Waseda Journal of Islamic Sciencesç Vol.9, p. 141–147, 2013. [Introduction to Books by Etsuko Shindo “Chatra Patra at Moonlight Night” on the Turkish Translation Version]

Özbek, Aydın. “Japonca İsim+Eylem Deyimlerinin Sözdizimsel ve Anlambilimsel Özellikleri -Türkiye Türkçesi ile Karşılaştırmalı İncelenmesi”. Türkiye’de Japonya Çalışmaları II, Esenbel, Selçuk; Küçükyalçın Erdal (Eds.). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları. pp. 116–127, 2015. [The Japanese noun+verb Idioms Syntactic and Semantic Features - A Comparative Study with Turkish in Turkey]

Özbek, Aydın. “Torukogo no hiteibun ni okeru asupekuto to moodaruteki na tokuchō - Nihongo tono taishō kenkyū”. Tyuruku Syogo Kenkyū no Sukōpu. Yoshimura T. (eds.).Osaka:Keisuisha, pp. 61–76, 2012. [The Negative in Turkish and Its Aspect and Modality Feature- A Comparative Study with Japanese]

Özdemir, İbrahim Soner, “Tasarım and Design: Reflections on a Semantic Gap,” Words for Design III: Comparative Etymology and Terminology of Design and its Equivalents, Ed. Haruhiko Fujita, Osaka: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. pp. 52–59, 2010.

Özşen, Tolga. “Lisans Düzeyindeki Japon Dili Öğrencilerinin Japon Toplumu ve Diline ilişkin Tutumları Üzerinden Japon Dili Öğrencisi Profili Değerlendirmesi”. International Journal of Social Science, No.28, pp. 293–314, 2014. “The Attitudes of the Japanese Language BA Students toward Japanese Society and Japanese Language]

Özşen, Tolga. “II. Yabancı Dil olarak Japon Dili Öğrenenlerin Gözüyle Japon Toplumu ve Kültürü”, I. Japon Dili ve Eğitimi Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Çanakkale: pp. 17–18, 2016. [Japanese Society and Culture through the Eyes of Learning Japanese as a Second Foreign Language]

Suzuki, Ikuko. “Ahmet Haşim’in Estetik Anlayışını Besleyen Bir Kaynak olarak Haiku” Journal of Turkish Cultural Studies. No.26, pp. 207–228, 2012. [Haiku the Origin of Supportive in Ahmet Haşim’s Aesthetics Opinion]

←62 |
 63→

Suzuki, Ikuko, Ahmet Haşim’in Şiirlerinde Japon Haiku Estetiğinin Tesirleri, Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul, 2011. [The Impact of Japanese Haiku Aesthetics in Ahmet Haşim’s Poetry]

Tekmen, Ayşe Nur, “Öznel Kavrayış ve Çeviri”, Int. S. on Asian Languages and Literatures I, 619–626, 2011. [Subjective Construal and Translation]

Tekmen, Ayşe Nur. Japon Edebiyatı Örnekleminde Çeviri Sorunu, Lacivert Öykü ve Edebiyat Dergisi No. 40. p. 87–90. 2011 [The Translation Problems in the Context of Japanese Literature]

References

Akdemir, Nuray. “The Translation Strategies of Cultural Factors from Japanese to Turkish in Kafka on the Shore” Esin Esen, Ryō Miyashita (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Baykara, Oğuz. “Japanese Literature in Turkish, 1959–2005 and Beyond.” Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi. 14 (2012): 131–154.

Baykara, Oğuz. “Turkish Literature in Japanese.” İ.Ü. Journal of Translation Studies. 1(6) (2013): 103–133.

Baykara, Oğuz. “Türkçe Çevirileriyle Kadim Japon Şiiri.” Ed. Selçuk Esenbel and Erdal Küçükyalçın. Japonya Çalışmaları Konferansı II. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Yayınevi, 2014.

Berk Albachten, Özlem “Translation Flows from Japanese Literature into Turkish Between 1959–2017”. Ryō Miyashita, Esin Esen (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Camcı, Meral. Bir Sosyal Bilimler Alanı Olarak Çeviribilim ve Disiplinlerarasılık Bağlamında Çeviribilim Paradigmaları. Diss. Istanbul: Istanbul University, 2014.

Erkin, Hüseyin Can Geçmişten Günümüze Japonyadan Türkiyeye Bakış. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları. 2004.

Erkin, Hüseyin Can. “İkinci Dilden Çeviri İkilemi: Türkçede Japon Yazınından Çeviriler.” Kül Eleştiri. 5 (2005).

Erkin, Can H. “Genji Monogatari no Torukogo Honyaku ni Tsuite” Kokusai Nihon Bungaku Kenkyūkai, Japan, 2008. https://kokubunken.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=2746&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1.

Esen, Esin. “Japon Edebiyatından Türkçeye Çeviriye Okuyucu-Dinleyici Sorumluluğu Yaklaşımı Sasame Yuki Örnekleminde.” Ed. Ali ←63 | 64→Küçükler and Erdem Erinç. 3. Asya Dilleri ve Edebiyatları Sempozyumu. Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi. pp. 461–483. 2014.

Esen, Esin. Japoncanın Türkçede Transkripsiyonu. esinesen.com. 2017. Accesed: 25 July 2018.

Güven, Devrim Çetin. “Non-European Literature in Translation: A Plea for the Counter-Canonization of Weltliteratur”. Esin Esen, Ryō Miyashita (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context I, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Kurultay, Turgay. Çeviri ve Dil – Eşdeğerlik mi Çeviri İşlemi mi?, TS, Istanbul, 2000.

Misawa, Nobuo. “Turkish Tales in the Japanese Juvenile Magazines before World War I”, Ryō Miyashita, Esin Esen (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Miyashita, Ryō. “Japonya’da Orhan Pamuk ve Çeviriye Dair Bazı Notlar”, Çev. Esin Esen Lacivert No. 40, pp. 91–96, 2011.

Miyashita, Ryō. “Translating the Phonetic Elements of Divan Poetry into a Japanese Syllabic Poem Using Kundoku”, Ryō Miyashita, Esin Esen (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. New York: Routledge, 2012 (3. ed.).

Nagashima, Iku. Turks in Japanese “Oriental History” and Translations of Old Turkic Inscriptions, Ryō Miyashita, Esin Esen (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context II, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

Suzuki, Ikuko. “Ahmet Haşim’in Estetik Anlayışını Besleyen Bir Kaynak Olarak Haiku.” Journal of Turkish Cultural Studies. 26 (2012): 207–228.

Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. Çevirinin ABC’si. SAY Yayınları, 2011.

Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 1977.

Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1995.

Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Wakabayashi, Judy. “Collaging Parallels and Divergences in Turkish and Japanese Translation History and Studies”, Esin Esen, Ryō Miyashita (eds.), Shaping the Field of Translation in Japanese↔Turkish Context I, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019.

←64 | 65→

1 Oğuz Baykara has two articles (Baykara 2012 and Baykara 2013), in which he enumerates the translations from Japanese into Turkish, and from Turkish into Japanese. These articles cover wide and detailed infomation, and reflect a perspective of a translation research. However, they can be improved by compelementary researches, since they are not as systematic as the studies on translation bibliographies.

Details

Pages
262
ISBN (PDF)
9783631789346
ISBN (ePUB)
9783631789353
ISBN (MOBI)
9783631789360
ISBN (Book)
9783631789254
Language
English
Publication date
2019 (June)
Tags
translation studies Turkology Japanology translator
Published
Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2019. 262 pp., 4 fig. b/w, 4 b/w tables.

Biographical notes

Esin Esen (Volume editor) Ryō Miyashita (Volume editor)

Esin Esen , Phd, Japanologist. She specializes in Japanese language, literature, translation from Japanese and Japanese women’s literature (Nara-Heian Periods). She is a translator in Japanese, Spanish and English, Classical Japanese, Turkish (native) languages since the 1990s. She also teaches theoric and applied translation courses at university level in these languages. She is the writer and editor of many books on Japan. Ryō Miyashita (宮下 遼)Turkologist. He is a Associate Prof. Dr. at Osaka University, Graduate School of Language and Culture, Turkish Section. He specializes in history of Turkish literature. Translator in Turkish and Ottoman Turkish. He has translated many Turkish literature books in Japanese and he is the writer and editor of many books on Turkey.

Previous

Title: Shaping the Field of Translation In Japanese ↔ Turkish Contexts I