Edited By Esin Esen and Ryō Miyashita
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. 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. These books will be the first steps to discuss and develop various aspects of the field. 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 24 essays written by twenty-two writers from Japan, Turkey, USA and China.
Non-European Literature in Translation: A Plea for the Counter-Canonization of Weltliteratur
Abstract: World literature owes its existence to translation. So much so that, in the context of world literature, one is tempted to say, “In the beginning was The Translation.” All the trans-nationally appreciated texts that modified the Euro-centric world literature canon from The Epic of Gilgamesh to Ossian’s/Macpherson’s Fingal, from Cervantes’ Don Quixote de la Mancha to Mishima’s Confessions of a Mask, are not only works that were created or discovered in their original tongues, but also texts that have continuously been re-created and re-discovered in other languages. Nonetheless, world literature’s development and expansion through translation has always been shadowed by the problem of Euro-centrism. World literature canon consists predominantly of works written in, or translated into metropolitan languages such as English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, which are also used in most of the ex-colonial countries. Furthermore, scholars and translators of metropolitan centres tend to interact with non-European literatures in an “indirect” manner. Namely, translators select works that are written or share discursive homogeneity with European languages. Whereas scholars and critics are prone to read texts that are written, reviewed in, or translated into the languages of metropolitan centres instead of mastering the indigenous language and culture in which the text is written. They also have propensity to “homogenize” and domesticate source cultures by adapting them to the context of the target cultures that actually belong to “heterogeneous” linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This centripetal canonization must be decentralized through alternative models of direct “translational” interactions between centre and...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.