Intralingual Translation Has No Name in Turkey: Conceptual Crowdedness in Intralingual Translation

Abstract

This article aims to discuss the conceptual crowdedness in intralingual translation in Turkish with the hope to clear the way for it to be called by its own name, a step which may also hopefully still pave the way for intralingual translation to be seen as a type of ‘proper’ translation first by some scholars who currently oppose the idea, then by the agents of translation and eventually by the (Turkish) public. Departing from the view that one first needs its name to be recognized by its milieu before claiming a position in it, it is believed that refraining from using its name and replacing it with the names of translation strategies employed within it may be the major obstacle for intralingual translation to surmount if it is to take its ‘proper’ place in the field. Titles used for intralingual translation will be exemplified via publisher’s notes, copyright pages, inner and back covers of different intralingual (re)translations of Huseyin Rahmi Gurpinar’s Gulyabani , with a special focus on two of them as they come from the same publisher: Can Yayinlari. A theoretical discussion (indeed a meta-discussion as it is already on a discussion) will be held based on Karen Korning Zethsen and Aage Hill-Madsen’s (2016) article, “Intralingual Translation and Its Place within Translation Studies: A Theoretical Discussion.” Such meta-discussion will reflect on the views of various theorists and on some translational concepts in terms of their connotations for intralingual translation. Special emphasis will be on Roman Jakobson’s tripartite classification and Gideon Toury’s “assumed translation” concept.