The purpose of this study is to determine the discursive techniques in the play Antony and Cleopatra by Shakespeare and conduct an evaluation of Turkish translations of those contexts with discursive techniques. To this end, the source text of the play was analyzed for discursive techniques based on semiotics of translation model. For translation evaluation, three Turkish translations of the play by different translators each published with a time gap of at least one decade were chosen. The analysis of the source text yielded 30 contexts with discursive techniques. However, translation evaluation of those 30 contexts showed that there were designificative tendencies in target texts in only eight of those contexts, with the rest 22 contexts translated into Turkish preserving the discursive techniques with no designificative tendency. Therefore, in line with the general purpose of this study, -that is to evaluate Turkish translations of the contexts with discursive techniques in the source text from the point of view of semiotics of translation, only those eight contexts were included in this study. Of those eight contexts with discursive techniques, four were produced through anticipation technique while the other four were produced with priming technique. The results of the translation evaluation showed that in translation of those eight contexts into Turkish, a total of ten designificative tendencies were found in three target texts. Of those ten tendencies, five were sliding of the meaning, one was over-interpretation of the meaning, one was alteration of the meaning, one was opposition of the meaning, one was destruction of meaning, and finally one was wiping out of the meaning. It can be concluded from those findings that literary translators could benefit from the steps of semiotics of translation in the signification of the source text and have an awareness of designificative tendencies in translation.
Literary translation, discursive techniques, semiotics of translation, designificative tendencies, translation evaluation.
|Author :||Mesut KULELİ|
|Number of pages:||190-207|