Görüntüleme
9
İndirme
1
Çeviribilimde yazara karşın çevirmenin “ikincil” bir konumda olması uzun yıllardır tartışılagelen bir sorunsaldır. Bu “asimetrik güç ilişkisi”nin metni tek bir anlama sahip, “kapalı” bir birim ve yazarı anlamın belirleyicisi olarak gören edebiyat kuramlarından kaynaklandığı bilinmektedir. Söz konusu eşitsizlik, “yazarın ölümü” tartışmalarıyla sarsılmış ve yapısalcılık sonrası bakış açısıyla “söküme uğratılmaya” çalışılmıştır. Ancak bu yazar söylemi daha geniş bir bakış açısıyla irdelenmelidir çünkü söz konusu söylem sadece Çeviribilim’e ya da edebiyata ait olmadığı gibi son dönem sömürgecilik faaliyetleriyle de başlamamıştır ve yazarı öldürerek yerine konulan “çoğulcu”, bireyci yapısalcılık sonrası söylem de aslında yazarı doğuran söylemin (politik ve ekonomik temelleri açısından) yeniden vücut bulmuş hali olarak görülebilir. Coğrafi keşiflerle ve Rönesans’la kendini “bilen, düşünen özne” olarak dünyanın merkezine koyan “Batılı beyaz adam”, “keşfeden, hükmeden ve belirleyen” bir söylemle karşımıza çıkmış ve politik ve ekonomik temellere dayanan bu söylemini hayatın her alanına, her tür disipline taşımıştır. Dünyayı “keşfeden batılı adam” kendini “yaratıcı” olarak tanımlayınca karşısındaki tüm ötekiler ona “sadakat” göstermekle yükümlü olan “nesne”lere dönüşmüştür. Bunun edebiyata izdüşümü ise “kadirimutlak” yazar olmuştur. Öte yandan, herkesin yazar olabileceği “sınırsız”, “parçalanmış” ve “çoğulcu” bir ortam sunma iddiasındaki yapısalcılık sonrası bakış daha örtük güç ilişkileriyle kurulmuş yeni bir siyasal projenin düşünsel ayağı olarak görülebilir. Bu bildiri, kuramlardan, betimleyicilik gibi kuramsal temelli yöntemlerden kopan ve disiplinlerarasılıkla dizginsiz bir açılıma giden Çeviribilim’in bir disiplin olarak geleceği ve çeviribilim araştırmalarının yöntembilimsel sorunlarını yazar söyleminin doğumu ve ölümünün politiğini temel alarak incelemeye çalışacaktır.
In my translation, the fact that the translation is in a "secondary" position despite the writer is a problem that has been discussed for many years. It is known that the text of this "asymmetric power relationship" is derived from literary theories that have a single meaning, a "closed" unit and the author is seen as the determiner of the meaning. This inequality was stumbled by the discussions of “the death of the writer” and was attempted to be “destroyed” from the post-structualization perspective. But this writer’s speech should be addressed with a wider perspective, because the speech in question has not begun with recent colonial activities, as it does not belong only to Translation or Literature, and the “multiple” post-structualization speech, replaced by the author’s murder, can also be seen as a re-organized state of the speech that actually gave birth to the author (in terms of political and economic foundations). With geographical discoveries and with the Renaissance, the “Western White Man”, who put himself in the center of the world as the “knowing, thinking essence”, came to us with a speech “discovering, ruling and determining” and brought this speech based on political and economic foundations to every field of life, to every kind of discipline. When the “Western man who discovered the world” defined himself as “creative”, all the others in front of him became the “object” which was obliged to show “trust” to him. This literature has become a “scientific” author. On the other hand, the post-structualizm view of the claim to present a “unlimited”, “party” and “multiple” environment in which everyone can be a writer can be seen as the thought foot of a new political project established with more covered power relations. This declaration will try to investigate the future of Translation as a discipline and the methodological problems of translation research, which is separated from theories, theoretical-based methods such as illustration, and goes to an interdisciplinary open up, based on the policy of the birth and death of the writer's speech.
Translators’ “secondary” position has been problematized for decades in Translation Studies. It is known that this “asymmetrical power relation” stems from the literary theories which consider text as a “closed” unit with an attained meaning and author as the determiner of this very meaning. The asymmetry has tried to be “deconstructed” by the declaration of the death of the author and poststructuralism. However, this author discourse entails a wider perspective because it is not confined to only Translation Studies or Literature and also it did not start with the late colonialism. What is more, the “pluralistic”, “individualistic” and poststructuralist new discourse can be seen as the reincarnated form of the previous one. The “white western man” who positions himself at the center of the world after the geographical discoveries and Renaissance appeared with a discourse of “discoverer”, “ruler” and “determiner” ultimate subject and carried this discourse to every field of life and every discipline. As the western man defined himself as creator, all others turned into objects which were obliged to show fidelity/loyalty to him. This situation has projected into literature as “omnipotent author”. The poststructuralist approach which claims to offer a “limitless, fragmented and pluralistic” context can be seen as the intellectual basis of a new political project with implicit power relations. Based on these politics of the “birth” and the “death” of the author, this paper tries to analyze the methodological problems and the future of Translation Studies which has experienced an unbridled expansion for the sake of being interdisciplinary having broken apart from theories and theory-based methodologies such as descriptivism.
Alan : Eğitim Bilimleri; Filoloji; Güzel Sanatlar; Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
