ACADEMIC STUDIES in PHILOLOGY-2019-2.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACADEMIC STUDIES IN PHILOLOGY-2019/2 FİLOLOJİDE AKADEMİK ÇALIŞMALAR-2019/2 Editor Prof. Dr. Zehra GÖRE Cetinje 2019 Editor Prof. Dr. Zehra GÖRE First Edition •© September 2019 /Cetinje-Montenegro ISBN • 978-9940-540-97-5 © copyright All Rights Reserved Ivpe web: www.ivpe.me Tel. +382 41 234 709 e-mail: [email protected] Print Ivpe Cetinje, Montenegro İÇİNDEKİLER ÖN SÖZ ................................................................................................... 2 HAKEMLER ........................................................................................... 3 ÇEVİRİBİLİM .......................................................................................... 4 A TRANSLATION CRITICISM On “CHICK-LIT”: WHILE TRANSLATING BRIDGET JONES’s DIARY Into TURKISH… ............ 5 Melâhat Özgüs (1906-2001) Leben und Werk: Porträt einer Übersetzerin in Zeiten gesellschaftlichen Wandels ..................................................... 40 DÜNYA DİLLERİ VE EDEBİYATLARI....................................................... 52 A STRUCTURALIST ANALYSIS OF WOMEN’S POSITION IN GEORGE ELIOT’S MIDDLEMARCH .................................................. 53 Homage Paid to the King: Marlowe and Shakespeare`s Collaboration” in Defense of Daemonologie……………………………… .................. 75 Von der Sprache zur Kulturellen Zugehörigkeit. Eine Neu-Orientierung in deutsch-türkischen Hip-Hop-Texten .................................................. 94 DOĞU BATI DİVANINDA TEPEGÖZ .............................................. 122 TÜRK HALK BİLİMİ ........................................................................ 140 SİNOP’TA YAŞAYAN EFSANELERE DAİR ANLATI İLKELERİ . 141 YENİ TÜRK EDEBİYATI ................................................................... 157 ŞEMSETTİN SAMİ'NİN GÂVE’SİNİN ÜÇ FARKLI KÜLTÜRDEKİ VARYANTLARI VE ESERİN POLİTİK BAĞLAMDA DRAMATURJİK ANALİZİ ................................................................ 158 2 ÖN SÖZ İnsanı insan yapan ve varlık gereklerinden biri olarak kabul edilen dil aynı zamanda insan topluluklarının toplum olabilmesinin de en önemli aracıdır. Alman düşünür Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’in “Bana bir alfabe veriniz, o alfabeden bir dil, o dilden de bir millet yaratayım!” sözü de dilin bu gücünü ifade etmektedir. Nitekim insanlık tarihinde bir milletin varlığının ve devamlılığının dil ile mümkün olduğu, dilini kaybeden milletlerin tarih sahnesinden silindikleri açıkça görülmektedir. Bu sebepledir ki insanın dün, bugün, gelecek terkibini doğru kurmasında ve dolayısıyla kimliğinin oluşmasında dilin önemini anlamak güç değildir. İster yazılı isterse sözlü olsun dil ile meydana getirilmiş olan metinler bu işlevi üstlenirler. Bu işlevden dolayı metinler de varlık alanıdır. Sadece kültür tarihinde değil mevcut bütün bilim alanlarının esasında metin vardır ve insanı anlama ve anlandırma çabaları birer dil dizgesi olan bu metinlerin incelenmesiyle/değerlendirilmesiyle gerçekleşir. Dilin üstlendiği bu hayati fonksiyon sebebiyle tarih boyunca dil üzerinde görüşler ortaya konmuş günümüze değin gelişerek dilin her yönünü araştıran bilim dalları ortaya çıkmıştır. Filoloji Araştırmaları adıyla yayına hazırlanan bu kitap da bir dilde verilmiş sözlü/yazılı metinlerin incelenerek yorumlandığı, kendine özgü niteliklerinin tespit edilerek değerlendirildiği özgün akademik çalışmaları kapsamaktadır. Söz konusu çalışmalar Çeviribilim, Dünya Dilleri Ve Edebiyatları, Türk Halk Bilimi, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı alanlarına aittir. Kitabın içindeki makalelerin öncelikle ilgili alanlara bir bakış açısı getirmesi ve yeni bilimsel konulara kaynaklık etmesi, genel itibarıyla da filolojiye katkı sağlaması ümit edilmektedir. Kitaba makaleleriyle katılan yazarlara ve bu makaleleri özveri ile değerlendirmek suretiyle bilimsel literatürün gelişmesine destek veren hakem kuruluna teşekkür borçluyuz. Filoloji Araştırmaları kitabında teknik düzenlemenin dışında üslup birliği için bir gereklilik oluşturulmamıştır. Bu itibarla her çalışma başlı başına bütünlük arz etmektedir ya da başka bir ifadeyle çalışmalar bağımız bir karakter taşımakta olup yazarının sorumluluğundadır. Prof. Dr. Zehra GÖRE Konya-2019 3 HAKEMLER Prof. Dr. Fatih TEPEBAŞILI, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Konya Prof. Dr. Mustafa Kurt, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara Prof. Dr. Zehra GÖRE, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Konya Doç. Dr. Selçuk PEKER, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Konya Doç. Dr. Lokman TANRIKULU, Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi, Nevşehir Doç. Dr. Mehmet BARDAKÇI, Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Eda ERCAN Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Konya 4 ÇEVİRİBİLİM 5 A TRANSLATION CRITICISM On ―CHICK-LIT‖: WHILE TRANSLATING BRIDGET JONES’s DIARY Into TURKISH… Fundagül APAK Aesthetic Effect, Critical Perspective and Questions I met Bridget Jones in the 2000s: While watching on TV her and the things happening to her, I was at the same time reading her diary. Bridget had the warmest personality, she was in her thirties. She was a business woman living in London; she had her friends, colleagues and bosses; she had a family; she had people that she loved or hated; she had fears regarding her problems and her future; she was cursing her fate, her physical and cognitive qualities, the pressure exerted ―on women‖ by the society she belonged to; she was confused and her personality was not yet stabilized; she always took others as a role-model, because she was left in-between: in-between her mother and father, in-between eating and not eating, in-between dieting and not dieting, in-between having fun and working, in-between getting married and not getting married, in-between social impositions and her own desires… in-between Daniel and Marc; the things she experienced and everybody around her, especially men, made her feel like a ―fool‖. And that‘s why she regarded herself as the source of all misfortune that happened to her. At last she made a decision; this had to change: Entering the New Year, she made new resolutions; she began to keep a diary and set off to put her plans into practice. But whatever she tried to fix, ended up as the exact opposite; she was unhappy, insecure; disappointed, angry. I was bitterly laughing at her ironic situations. And then I thought to myself: Who or what did Bridget represent? My answer was as such: Us and the societies we live in… She was one of us: She was a woman, but first of all she was a human-being… Along with Bridget, also social and cultural borders seemed to melt away. Then I read the book in Turkish: The voice, image and atmosphere on screen had turned into prose. A transition from the silver screen onto the paper was an ―intersemiotic‖ transformation; an ―intersemiotic translation‖. While reading the book, this time instead of smiling, I laughed out loud, about the conflicts Bridget was experiencing and also I was very surprised. I laughed out loud, because the things included in Bridget‘s diary were even more ironic, funnier. I was surprised, because what had been told in the diary –characters, places, time, the way things happened, the story line, discourses, gestures and mimics, clothes, Assist. Prof. Dr.; [email protected]; Ġstanbul-TÜRKĠYE 6 dialogues etc.– were very different than on TV. Then I started thinking again: What was the reason for this? The main reasons underlying all these changes during the transformation of a written text into a visual text, were they of individual or social nature...? The words of Abacı (1994: 84) on the subject of the relation between literature, cinema and translation, are remarkable: Thinking on a narrative being filmed –especially if it is a product we know, have read or produced– is exciting. Yet the result mostly, for the reader or the writer, is a disappointment. During the process of perception, the reader while reading and the writer while writing, both hope that dark spots of the imagination they set up in their mind, will be resolved and that the scenery presented to them will be in a complete and clarified state. This is expected to be an objective and substantial impersonation. Yet the product emerging, is a manifestation of the perception of the narrative text in cinematographic language, of firstly the director and then the filmmakers. And what‘s more, this again is being reproduced by the viewer. Other lenses are in play now, new ―fractures‖ have surfaced. The writer cries out loud, ―They‘ve ruined my text!‖ The reader, in disappointment, leaves the movie theatre. Adaptations of literary works, have many times become the subject of lawsuits, and more frequently the subject of rough polemics. Some other questions, one after the other, occurred to my mind in this context: Had the author of the book, given approval to the script? Was she happy or unhappy after she had seen the film? What kind of a person was the author, which culture did she belong to? Which literary genre did this work represent; was it a part of canonized or uncanonized culture or even popular culture? Was ―being popular‖ equivalent to not being respectable? How was it taken by the literary system of the source culture? Who were its translators? Had the source text undergone changes as it was translated into the Turkish culture? If such changes occurred, which elements –including textual and extratextual elements– had undergone these changes? What were the reasons of these changes? How were cultural values represented and carried by the work, perceived by the Turkish reader? Was it welcome by the Turkish literary system? What were paratexts mentioning...? While searching for the answers of