Translation and Travelling Theory. the Role of Translation in The

TRANSLATION AND TRAVELLING THEORY The Role of Translation in the Migration of Literary Theories Across Culture and Power Differentials §ebnem Susam-Sarajeva Thesis submitted to the University of London For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Comparative Literature University College London March 2002 ProQuest Number: U643512 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U643512 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT The thesis explores the role translation plays in the migration of literary and cultural theories across linguistic-cultural borders and power differentials. It shows that translation has a double function in this migration. Firstly, it plays a formative role in shaping and transforming the images of the writers and works involved, the attitudes towards imported theories in the receiving system(s), and the local critical discourses and terminology. Secondly, translation plays an indicative role in that it allows insight into, and analysis of, prevailing attitudes towards the importation of theoretical texts. Translation and translator patterns - such as text-selection, the temporal sequence of individual translations, and the interests and agendas of the translators - together with the metadiscourses accompanying translations reflect and reveal how the source texts and authors are received in their new environments. The thesis presents a comparative account of the reception of structuralism and semiotics in Turkey (1960s-1990s) and of French feminism in Anglo-America (1970s- 1990s). Two case studies are examined in depth: the importation of Roland Barthes’s work into Turkish and of Hélène Cixous’s work into English. They offer detailed analyses of the attitudes towards Barthes’s and Cixous’s work in Turkish literary critical circles and Anglo-American academic feminist critical circles, respectively, and trace how the images of these two writers are shaped, challenged and transformed through translation. Issues of terminology and retranslation in the transfer of their texts into Turkish and English, and the (non-)translation of certain political aspects in their writings are also explored. As a study in a field rarely examined by translation scholars - especially within the context of power relations - this comparative investigation illuminates the culture and power differentials involved in the translation of theoretical texts, as well as highlighting the traits common to the importation/exportation patterns of literary and cultural theories in general. The thesis thus contributes both to translation studies and to literary and cultural theory. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The longer a thesis takes, the longer the list of people whom one wishes to thank: I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to Saliha Paker, who started me off on this project and offered inspiration, support and additional comments, and to Theo Hermans, who was always encouraging, critical, and precise in his supervision, always the one to put me back on track when I got lost. Thank you both for not making apparent your disappointments in me... This thesis owes its existence to two different institutions apart from University College London. The first one is the Department of Translation Studies at the University of Bogaziçi, Istanbul. I would like to thank my professors there for their input in my work from first degree onwards. For this thesis, Bülent Aksoy supplied valuable material at the very beginning of the research, and Mehmet Rifat kindly offered comments. Thanks are also due to Arzu Eker who showed great patience with my long distance and usually last-minute bibliographical queries. University of Helsinki is the third institution which gave shape to the thesis. The stimulating atmosphere created within the former AKO Translation Studies Programme, now MonAKO Multilingual Communication Programme proved to be invaluable during the writing-up stage. Andrew Chesterman did his best “to keep me alive” in Helsinki, as he puts it, and to challenge me to think and work harder. I would like to thank him and Pirkko Lilius for the comments they kindly offered on some of my chapters. Thanks are due to Outi Paloposki and her family who made Finland a new ‘home’ for us. I am grateful to Kaisa Koskinen for her interest in my work, her always constructive comments and her friendship. I have appreciated the long-term moral support (mostly via the net) by Kate Sturge and Mieke Desmet, two of my UCL companions on the road to PhD, and the comments, suggestions and final encouragement by Maria Tymoczko during her visit to Helsinki. I would also like to thank the library staff of the three universities mentioned - especially those in the Interlibrary Loans of UCL - for doing their best to provide the often-difficult-to-locate material I worked on. Unfortunately, they remain anonymous. 4 For the financial support, I am first and foremost indebted to my mother, who literally made it all possible. Overseas Research Students Award offered by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, England, was the second big source of funding. University of London Central Research Fund Grant and University College London Graduate School Research Projects/Equipment Fund Award covered the expenses for archival work at Oxford Bodleian Library and The British Library. British Federation of Women Graduates Scholarship also contributed to my survival in London. The family is acknowledged always at the end, possibly because they are usually the ones who give most of the support. I would like to thank Vadim Sarajevs for the computer he shared with me during our long and joint struggle for doctorates, for his assistance in Word for Windows and household matters, and for his - mostly ironic - encouragement in my work. Dasha Zeynep Sarajeva helped my work get mature and not be completed before its proper time by just being there in my life, with all her energy and smiles. My mother Ferda Susam was the single person who enabled me to start, continue, and finish the thesis. I dedicate this work to her - although, I know that she deserves completely different, much better things in life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Table of contents 5 Publications arising out of the research undertaken for the thesis 9 Introduction 10 Notes 14 Chapter 1 - Travelling Theory Translated 16 1.1. ‘Theory’ and ‘translation’ 16 1.2. Theoretical framework 20 Chapter 2 - Structuralism and Semiotics in Turkey, and French Feminism in Anglo-America 27 2.1. Structuralism and semiotics in Turkey 28 2.1.1. What was written/translated? 28 2.1.2. Some key issues 31 2.1.3. The critical response to structuralism and semiotics in Turkey 34 2.1.3.1. Structuralism and art 37 2.1.3.2. Structuralism and ‘apoliticalness’ 40 2.1.4. ‘Objective/scientific’ criticism 42 2.2. French feminism in Anglo-America 47 2.2.1. The critical response to French feminism in Anglo-America 50 2.2.1.1. ‘Too elitist’, ‘too intellectual’, ‘impenetrable’ 55 2.2.1.2. Indebtedness to ‘white fathers’ 59 2.2.1.3. Essentialism and biologism 61 2.2.2. French feminism and psychoanalytic theory in Anglo-America 62 2.3. Conclusions 66 Chapter 3 - Tropes in the Travels of Theory 68 3.1. Attitudes towards French feminism in the Anglo-American feminist critical system 69 3.1.1. Alterity 69 3.1.2. Solidarity 73 3.1.3. Universality 75 3.1.4. Consequences 79 3.2. Attitudes towards structuralism and semiotics in the Turkish literary critical system 82 6 3.2.1. Alterity 82 3.2.2. Lack and lag 84 3.2.2.1. Turning to the West 85 3.2.2.2. Tenkid, critique, ele§tiri 86 3.2.2.3. ‘Self-colonisation’ 90 3.2.3. Consequences 96 3.3. Conclusions 98 Chapter 4 - Image Formation: ‘Turkish Barthes’ and ‘Anglo-American Cixous’ 101 4.1. Images 102 4.1.1. Barthes as a structuralist and semiotician - a ‘scientific’ critic 102 4.1.2. Hélène Cixous as a ‘feminist theoretician’ 105 4.2. Text-selection 110 4.2.2. An inventory of Barthes’s works translated into Turkish 110 4.2.2.1. Retranslations 112 4.2.2.2. The time factor 114 4.2.2.3. Consequences 116 4.2.3. An inventory of Cixous’s works translated into English 119 4.2.3.1. Retranslations 121 4.2.3.2. The time factor 121 4.2.3.3. Consequences 124 4.3. Translators 127 4.3.1. Barthes’s translators 128 4.3.1.1. Before 1986 128 4.3.1.2. After 1986 132 4.3.2. Cixous’s translators 136 4.3.2.1. Before 1986 136 4.3.2.2. After 1986 140 4.3.3. Consequences 145 4.4. The changing images 147 4.4.1. Barthes as an‘essayist’ 148 4.4.2. Cixous as a ‘writer’ 158 4.5. Conclusions 160 Chapter 5 - Multiple-Entry Visa to Travelling Theory 162 5.1. O n ‘retranslation’ 162 7 5.2. Barthes’s texts retranslated into Turkish 166 5.2.1. Turkish Language Reform 168 5.2.1.1. Handling terms and concepts in the Language Reform 171 5.2.1.2. Terms and concepts in literary and cultural theories 173 5.2.2. Terms in the retranslations of Barthes’s writings into Turkish 176 5.2.3.

Load more