Microsoft Word Tezisler Tercume 2009 2010 2011. doc

«TƏRCÜMƏŞÜNASLIQ VƏ ONUN MÜASİR DÖVRDƏ ROLU»   IV Respublika tələbə elmi-praktik konfransı 
 
 
336 
the cultures .It also brings into focus the important question of cultural identity. Else 
Ribeiro Pires Vieira (1999:42) remarks that it is ultimately impossible to translate 
one cultural identity into another. So the act of translation is intimately related to the 
question of cultural identity, difference and similarity. 
A rather interesting approach to literary translation comes from Michel Riffaterre 
(1992: 204-217). He separates literary and non-literary use of language by saying 
that literature is different because i) it semioticicizes the discursive features e.g. lexical 
selection is made morphophonemically as well as semantically, ii) it substitutes se-
miosis for mimesis which gives literary language its indirection, and iii) it has "the` 
textuality' that integrates semantic components of the verbal sequence (the ones open 
to linear decoding)-a theoretically open-ended sequence-into one closed, finite se-
miotic, system" that is , the parts of a literary texts are vitally linked to the whole of 
the text and the text is more or less self contained. Hence the literary translation 
should "reflect or imitate these differences". He considers a literary text as an artefact 
and it contains the signals, which mark it as an artifact. Translation should also imitate 
or reflect these markers. He goes on to say that as we perceive a certain text as literary 
based on certain presuppositions we should render these literariness inducing pre-
suppositions. Though this seems rather like traditional and formalist approach, what 
should be noted here is that Riffaterre is perceiving literariness in a rather different 
way while considering the problems of literary translation: `literariness' is in no way 
the `essence' of a text and a literary text is, for Riffatere one that which contains the 
signs which makes it obvious that it is a cultural artefact. Although he conceives of 
literary text as self-contained system, Riffatere too, like many other contemporary 
approaches sees it as a sub-system of cultural semiotic system. However, if one is 
to consider Riffatere's notion of `text' in contrast to Kristeva's notion of intertextuality 
one feels that Riffaterre is probably simplifying the problem of cultural barriers to 
translatability. 
The assumption that literary text is a cultural artefact and is related to the other 
social systems is widespread these days. Some of the most important theorization 
based on this assumption has come from provocative and insightful perspectives of 
theorists like Andre Lefevere, Gideon Toury, Itamar Evan -Zohar, and Theo Hermans. 
These theorists are indebted to the concept of `literature as system' as propounded 
by Russian Formalists like Tynianov, Jakobson, and Czech Structuralists like Mu-
karovsky and Vodicka, the French Structuralists thinkers, and the Marxist thinkers 
who considered literature as a section of the `superstructure'. The central idea of this 
point of view is that the study of literary translation should begin with a study of the 
translated text rather than with the process of translation, its role, function and re-
ception in the culture in which it is translated as well as the role of culture in influencing 
the `process of decision making that is translation.' It is fundamentally descriptive in 
its orientation (Toury 1985). 
Lefevere maintains, `Literature is one of the systems which constitute the system 
of discourses (which also contain disciplines like physics or law.) usually referred 

---

Materiallar 
                                                                                                                             07 may 2011-ci il
 
 
337 
to as a civilization, or a society (1988:16).' Literature for Lefevere is a subsystem of 
society and it interacts with other systems. He observes that there is a `control factor 
in the literary system which sees to it that this particular system does not fall too far 
out of step with other systems that make up a society ' (p.17). He astutely observes that 
this control function works from outside of this system as well as from inside. The 
control function within the system is that of dominant poetics, `which can be said to 
consist of two components: one is an inventory of literary devices, genres, motifs, 
prototypical characters and situations, symbols; the other a concept of what the role 
of literature is, or should be, in the society at large.' (p.23). The educational estab-
lishment dispenses it. The second controlling factor is that of `patronage'. It can be 
exerted by `persons, not necessarily the Medici, Maecenas or Louis XIV only, groups 
or persons, such as a religious grouping or a political party, a royal court, publishers, 
whether they have a virtual monopoly on the book trade or not and, last but not least, 
the media.' The patronage consists of three elements; the ideological component, the 
financial or economic component, and the element of status (p.18-19). The system of 
literature, observes Lefevere, is not deterministic but it acts as a series of `constraints' 
on the reader, writer, or rewriter. The control mechanism within the literary system is 
represented by critics, reviewers, teachers of literature, translators and other rewriters 
who will adapt works of literature until they can be claimed to correspond to the 
poetics and the ideology of their time. It is important to note that the political and 
social aspect of literature is emphasised in the system approach. The cultural politics 
and economics of patronage and publicity are seen as inseparable from literature. 
`Rewriting' is the key word here which is used by Lefevere as a `convenient `umbrella-
term' to refer to most of the activities traditionally connected with literary studies: 
criticism, as well as translation, anthologization, the writing of literary history and 
the editing of texts-in fact, all those aspects of literary studies which establish and 
validate the value-structures of canons. Rewritings, in the widest sense of the term, 
adapt works of literature to a given audience and/or influence the ways in which 
readers read a work of literature.' (60-61). The texts, which are rewritten, processed 
for a certain audience, or adapted to a certain poetics, are the `refracted' texts and 
these maintains Lefevere are responsible for the canonized status of the text (p179). 
`Interpretation (criticism), then and translation are probably the most important forms 
of refracted literature, in that they are the most influential ones' he notes (1984:90) 
and says, 
`One never translates, as the models of the translation process based on the 
Buhler/Jakobson communication model, featuring disembodied senders and receivers, 
carefully isolated from all outside interference by that most effective expedient, the 
dotted line, would have us believe, under a sort of purely linguistic bell jar. Ideological 
and poetological motivations are always present in the production, or the non pro-
duction of translations of literary works...Translation and other refractions, then, play 
a vital part in the evolution of literatures, not only by introducing new texts, authors 
and devices, but also by introducing them in a certain way, as part of a wider design 
to try to influence that evolution' (97) . 

---