Özet:

This study focused on the absence of translation plagiarism in the context of a retranslation hypothesis that has been discussed and considered with different aspects by many scholars, including pioneering ones such as Antoine Berman (1990), Antony Pym (1998), William Chesterman (2000), Kaisa Koskinen & Outi Paloposki (2010), and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar (2008). It was strange to discover that when scholars consider retranslation as a factual reality that they do not discuss and evaluate translation plagiarism in the framework of this hypothesis. Retranslation was and is usually considered as a “necessity” for “filling a gap” and “complete an incompleteness”. From this point of view, it is a legitimate and acceptable translation activity that emerged with the claim of renewing an old translation. Nevertheless, it is scarcely discussed as translation plagiarism in this context. However, there are many other empirical studies showing that some texts which could easily be called “retranslation” in Turkish are “plagiarize translations” (Parlak: 2008, Gürses: 2008, Çelik: 2008, Evirgen: 2008) as well in other languages and cultures (Turell: 2004, Leighton: 1994). In light of these studies, this article aimed to question if the retranslation hypothesis renders “translation plagiarism” invisible, arguing that retranslation is a necessary activity to present a “new reading experience” of source text. My main question was if the retranslation hypothesis with its silence about translation plagiarism renders it difficult to discuss translation plagiarism in translation studies literature. As a conclusion, I would argue how can the limits be drawn between translation plagiarism and retranslation phenomenon in terms of translation ethics.

Anahtar Kelimeler: