Translation as an act of interpretive process: interpreting the "Snow Man".
Any encounter with a literary production, i.e reading a literary work, necessarily involves interpretation. Likewise, translating or writing a critical review of a literary text necessarily involves one's understanding and/or interpretation of the text in question. Yet, the main distinction between a translation and a critical review would be that, a critical review might hint at possible meanings which can be inferred from a literary text and leave it at that, while a translation has to somehow make choices among possible meanings in order to be able to construct a coherent text in its own right. However, that should never mean that the translator should open up what is ambiguous in the original text or that s/he should reduce the multi-layered nature of the text and its multiplicity of meaning to a single meaning. Both acts of rewriting involve producing a "meta-text" (a text on/about another text) based on one's understanding and interpretation. However, a translated literary work based on the translator's interpretation might be judged as irrelevant or inappropriate; whereas literary criticism of a certain work is often considered as another possible reading/interpretation of that work.
Translation has come to be regarded as an act of interpretation under the influence of poststructuralism and deconstruction, due to the change of perspective which reflects how "meaning" is recreated rather than restituted in the target text. Therefore translation criticism under the guidance of deconstruction takes into account "inferred" meanings by individual translators rather than the author's "intended meaning". The notion of "inferred meanings" necessarily implies the individual's own interpretation of the work and hermeneutics may prove to be useful in understanding the interpretive process. Gadamer's hermeneutics could be seen as a torchlight with its notions of "fusion of horizons" and "dialogue" for literary translation criticism.
The first part of the essay consists of translation scholars' views on how poststructuralist and deconstructive approaches towards meaning have changed the way translation is perceived today. The notion of undecidability of meaning, which is an outcome of poststructuralist and deconstructive approaches, necessarily reflects on how a translation is criticized. In addition, Gadamer's hermeneutic approach, which warns against assigning habitual meaning, is explored in this part as a complementary approach.
The second part of the essay presents varying and even contradictory interpretations of Wallace Stevens's "The Snow Man" both in literary criticism and in two Turkish translations in order to demonstrate plurality of meanings in the poem; and offers a translation criticism guided by the notions explored in the first part. Thus, translation criticism starts from the premises that any literary production is a site of multiple meanings and translation is an act of interpretive process.
1a. Implications of Poststructuralism and Deconstruction for Literary Translation Criticism
Earlier assumptions about translation have been reconsidered vigorously under the influence of poststructuralism and deconstruction. Most importantly, poststructuralism and deconstruction have influenced the way "meaning" is understood. For instance, Rosemary Arrojo, as early as 1998, does not make a distinction between language- or culture-oriented theories of translation, but evaluates them in terms of how they approach meaning and differentiates between essentialist and non-essentialist approaches in this respect (26).
Indeterminacy and multiplicity of meaning, especially in literary texts, are widely recognized today, and this leads to the awareness of the reader's perspective. Tymoczko underlines the notions of "multiplicity, semiotic openness, and permeability rather than convergence of meaning" inherent in poststructuralist approaches to translation. She likewise calls attention to the "awareness of perspective and, indeed, conflicting perspectives" that are built into the deconstructive projects (Tymoczko 467). With regard to the reader's perspective for instance, Hans J. Vermeer maintains that "the recipient's individual world knowledge, actual disposition and situation and other factors inevitably interfere in the understanding" (43). Therefore, meaning is regarded as what the reader attaches to a certain text under his/her own individual circumstances specified by cultural, historical, sociological or psychological contexts. Hence, the reader's understanding, inference or interpretation, in addition to the role of context, are brought to the fore.
The assumption of meaning as a prior presence which resides before and beyond language is shaken up by deconstruction. For Derrida, each and every text is in fact, both translatable and untranslatable at the same time.
As a matter of fact, I don't believe that anything is translatable and, by the same token, that nothing is untranslatable? [...] Translation is always an attempt at appropriation that aims to transport home, in its language, in the most appropriate way possible, in the most relevant way possible, the most proper meaning of the original text, [...] A relevant translation is a translation whose economy, in these two senses, is the best possible, the most appropriating and the most appropriate possible. (Derrida, "What is a Relevant Translation" 178-9).
Translation is thus viewed as an attempt to appropriate meaning, "in the most relevant way possible", in the target language. If we consider "meaning" as separable and strive to transfer a stable meaning which remains untouched and unaltered in translation then we would have to admit that no text is translatable. Derrida explains the need and obligation to translate and yet the impossiblity of translation through the myth of Babel.
The "tower of Babel" does not merely figure the irreducible multiplicity of tongues; it exhibits an incompletion, the impossibility of finishing, of totalizing, of saturating, of completing something on the order of edification, architectural construction, system, and architectonics. What the multiplicity of idioms comes to limit is not only a "true" translation, a transparent and adequate interexpression, it is also a structural order, a coherent of construct, There is then (let us translate) something like an internal limit to formalization, an incompleteness of the constructure. It would be easy and up to a certain point justified to see there the translation of a system in deconstruction. (Derrida, "Des Tours de Babel" 191-192)
"Multiplicity of tongues" implies that languages are incomplete and therefore cannot guarantee a fully determined meaning. Davis explains this as such: "[t]here is no one-to-one correspondence between a sign and a real presence, before and outside of language" (10). Therefore, meaning can only be formed within "a structural order, a coherent of construct", i.e. within the system of language. In other words, no signifier brings us to a final signified which is present outside language; each signifier leads to another signifier. We might assume, therefore, that meaning, which is never fixed or determined, can only be inferred. There can never be a fully determined meaning because a fully determined meaning would imply that there would be a signified that stands beyond language as the final truth. As Arrojo puts it, "the signified is always already also a signifier in a process which never leads us to a pure, definite origin" (41). Kaisa Koskinen explains,"[r]eaching for the signified one only encounters new signifiers" (447). In other words, there is rather a chain of signifiers that never brings us to a final signified. Each signifier is loaded with the "trace" of other signifiers, since each signifier acquires meaning through its relation and especially through its opposition with other signifiers. Meaning is thus multiplied and becomes indeterminate, requiring inference of readers.
Translation criticism, inspired by poststructuralism and deconstruction, foregrounds the instability and plurality of meaning and views the reader/translator of a literary work as producer of meanings. This approach certainly implies possibility of different and even conflicting inferences of meaning or interpretations, depending on the individual translator's world view, disposition or perspective. However, whether any inferred meaning should be considered as another possible interpretation is another issue, whose answers can be sought from the hermeneutic perspective.
1b. Implications of Hermeneutics for Literary Translation Criticism
I intend to focus on the notion of "understanding", "hermeneutical circle", "fusion of horizons" and "dialogue", which I believe would be useful in literary criticism not in terms of methodology, but in the manner these notions might guide criticism in general.
In Gadamer's view, any work of art is made complete through "understanding" as the following quotation demonstrates: "Understanding must be conceived as a part of the process of the coming into being of meaning, in which the significance of all statements-those of art and those of everything else that has been transmitted-is formed and made complete" (146). Understanding, according to Gadamer, is not about reproducing the original meaning but about forming the meaning of a work of art. However, understanding is not about assigning any arbitrary meaning to the work of art. He adopts Heidegger's description of the "hermeneutical circle": "All correct interpretation must be on guard against arbitrary fancies and the limitations imposed by imperceptible habits of thought and direct its gaze 'on the things themselves' (which, in the case of the literary critic, are meaningful texts, which themselves are again concerned with objects)" (Gadamer 236).
This notion arises from the assumption that written literary works especially are meaningful and coherent in themselves. Therefore the interpreter should be first of all guided by the object of the communication and be aware of his/her preconceptions, "fore-meanings" or prejudices. However, this does not mean that s/he should or could in any way avoid them, but that s/he should leave room to the other's meaning.
What another person tells me, whether in conversation, letter, book or whatever, is generally thought automatically to be his own and not my opinion [...] this presupposition is not something that makes understanding easier, but harder, in that the fore-meanings that determine my own understanding can go entirely unnoticed [...] All that is asked is that we remain open to the meaning of the other person or of the text. But this openness always includes our placing the other meaning in a relation with the whole of our own meanings. (Gadamer 237-8)
In brief, "hermeneutical circle" is a process wherein fore-conceptions, which are anticipatory in nature, are tested against meaning borne out by the object or the things themselves, checking their validity against the unity of the meaningful text because, especially in poetry not even a single word is accidental.
The concept of "fusion of horizons", explained below, is closely related with being aware of one's own prejudices and the text's quality of "newness". The tension between the two horizons is not covered up but consciously brought out.
A hermeneutically trained mind must be, from the start, sensitive to the text's quality of newness. But this kind of sensitivity involves neither "neutrality" in the matter of the object nor the extinction of one's self, but the conscious assimilation of one's own fore-meanings and prejudices. The important thing is to be aware of one's own bias, so that the text may present itself in all its newness and thus be able to assert its own truth against one's own fore-meanings. (Gadamer 238)
Therefore, understanding is itself the fusion of horizons where the interpreter is aware of his/her own prejudices and allows the text to modify them. This could be achieved through "dialogue" with the text, meaning practical engagement in a question and answer relationship with the text. Gadamer describes "the work of hermeneutics as a conversation with the text": "The voice that speaks to us from the past-be it text, work, trace-itself poses a question and places our meaning in openness. In order to answer this question, we, of whom the question is asked, must ourselves begin to ask questions. We must attempt to reconstruct the question to which the transmitted text is the answer" (331). For Gadamer, "questioning is not the positing, but the testing of possibilities" (338).
In conclusion, Gadamer's hermeneutics is understanding and interpretation, which requires the interpreter to engage in dialogue with the text through fusion of horizons. The "fusion of horizons" is the tension between our world view, which is an inevitable part of what is understood, and the newness of meaning in the alien text. What I find most valuable in hermeneutics is its claim that not every inferred meaning is possible and that our inferred meanings should always be tested against the meaningful unity of the text itself. This view, in my opinion, highlights the significance of justification of inferred meanings, whether it be translation or critical review.
In addition to deconstruction, which lays bare the ambiguity and indeterminacy of meaning and highlights the importance of interpretation, hermeneutics is useful in literary translation criticism for two reasons. First, it is effective because of its assertion that not any inferred meaning is valid; and secondly it is useful because of its claim that interpretation is possible, provided that one is open to the meanings presented by the alien text which poses itself as a question that requires answers in a gradual widening of the interpreter's horizon.
2. Translation Criticism of "The Snow Man"
Literary critics agree that Wallace Stevens's poetry is marked by ambiguity, obscurity, instability and flux, which is a deliberate composition strategy on his part and which leads to contradictory interpretations of his poems. Stevens's poetry does not foreclose possibilities of meaning by limiting them to one perspective only.
In what follows, there is a review of interpretations of "The Snow Man" both in literary criticism and in two Turkish translations by Talat Sait Halman and Yusuf Eradam. Interpretive clues, which are of crucial importance for comprehension of this poem are highlighted below.
THE SNOW MAN KARDAN ADAM KARDAN ADAM (HALMAN'S (ERADAM'S TRANSLATION) TRANSLATION) One must have a Kis beyinli olmali Kis beyinli mind of winter ki insan olmali insan To regard the Kiragiyla Gorup de frost and cam dallarinda kiragiyla the boughs Kardan kabugu gorup Cam Of the pine- anlasin; dallarindaki trees crusted kardan with snow; kabugu; And have been Usumus olmali Usuyup uzun cold a uzun sure zaman, long time Gormek icin Bakip da buzla To behold the buza burunmus taraz taraz junipers ardiclari, ardiclara, shagged with ice, The spruces Kati kozalaklari Hoyrat rough in the uzak ladinlere, distant glitter Ocak gunedinin; Ocak gunesinin Of the January dusunmek isterse Uzak sun; and Mutsuzlugu ruzgarin piriltisinda; not to think ugultusunda, aklina Of any misery Birkac yapragin getirmezse in the sesinde, Aciyla kederi, sound of ruzgarin the wind, ugultusunda, In the sound Birkac yapragin of a few leaves, hisrtisinda; Which is the Topragin sesidir Aklina sound of bu Ayni getirmezse the land ruzgarla dolu ki ayni Full of the Ayni ciplak ruzgarla dopdolu same wind yerde Topragin sesidir That is blowing esip durur bu ve ruzgar in the Kar icinde dinl Esmektedir, ayni same bare eyen insan ciplak yerde place icin. For the Kendi bir hicse Karlar icinde listener, who goremez ki dinleyene, listens in Orada olmayan Kendisi hic the snow, hic bir deyi, oldugundan And, nothing olan hic bir gormeyene himself, beholds seyi. Orada Nothing that olmayan hic is not there bir seyi, and the nothing olan hic that is. bir seyi.
Gloss Translation (Halman): One must be winter-minded so that s/he can see and understand the frost and crust of snow on the boughs of pine trees; must have been cold a long time in order to see junipers shagged with ice, rough cones in the distant glitter of the January sun; if one wants to think the misery in the howl of the wind, in the sound of a few leaves, this is the sound of the land, full of the same wind, it blows in the same bare place for the one who listens in the snow. If he is nothing himself he cannot see anything that is not there, anything that is there.
Gloss Translation (Eradam): One must be winter-minded to see the frost and the crust of snow on the boughs of the pine-trees; if s/he does not think of any misery in the sound of the wind, in the rustling of a few leaves; in spite of having been cold for a long time (and) having beheld junipers shagged with ice, and the rough spruces, under the January sun's distant glitter; if s/he does not think that, this is the sound of the land, full of the same wind, and that it blows in the same bare place for the listener who listens in the snow, for the one, as s/he is nothing himself, does not see nothing that is not there and nothing that is there.
The main difference between Halman's and Eradam's translations is that Halman considers being winter-minded as a necessary condition to see and understand the frost and the crust of snow on pine trees. A long cold spell is a necessary condition that enables the person to behold the junipers shagged with ice. Halman translates "not to think of' as "dusunmek isterse" (if one wants to think), which might be considered a transition from a winter-minded person, who sees and understands the winter, into "a listener, who listens in the snow", and "who thinks of the misery in the sound of the wind". The last two lines are cut off from the rest of the poem by a full stop (.)
In Eradam's view, being winter-minded is not a necessary precondition to regard and behold, as in Halman's translation, but instead an expression of contempt as understood by the connotative consonance between kis beyinli (winter-brained) and kus beyinli (bird-brained) in Turkish. Kus beyinli means bird-brained in Turkish, which is a phrase used to dismiss stupid people. Therefore kis beyinli (winter-brained) becomes an expression of contempt for those who does not think of any misery in the sound of the wind, despite their having felt cold a long time and having seen junipers shagged with ice and rough spruces. In Eradam's interpretation, the wind blows for the listener in the snow and for the one who does not see anything that is not there and nothing that is there. Therefore the wind might be considered to represent a wake-up call for the winter-minded (or simple-minded people) in his translation.
However, in Milton J. Bates's interpretation, this limitation, i.e. being incapable of emotions, is the the snow man's virtue because being winter-minded enables the snow man to record the scene before him objectively. In Bates's view, being free of emotions enables the snow man to behold nature as it is or as it is not, without attaching any meaning to the sound of the wind or to the sound of the leaves. Let us consider the following quotation from Bates:
The speaker of The Snow Man is [...] a romantic, for he entertains pathetic analogies-hears misery in the sound of the wind, for example-that are lost upon the snow man's "mind of winter". The snow man is incapable of pathos because he is all snow and no man. This limitation is of course his virtue: he is better qualified than the speaker of the poem to record objectively the scene before him, the "nothing that is not there and the nothing that is". [...] To behold nothing that is not there, the snow man must be "nothing himself". He is the sum of his impressions, identical, in this instance, with the nothing he does behold. (Bates 132-3)
We might infer therefore that being a snow man or having a mind of winter is a state of detachment from the ego and a psychological equilibrium without intellectual content. The surrounding reality becomes an absolute void, without the ego, because no feelings or meanings are attached. Helen Vendler, for instance, argues that "'The Snow Man'announces [...] the discovery of the abolition of one old self by a new one, which necessitates at first the contemplation of an absolute void" (49). From this perspective, the "new self' which detaches itself from the ego is desirable and necessary for the contemplation of an absolute void and to regard it under a new light.
Although Halman's and Eradam's interpretations may be contradictory, they both seem to agree that being "nothing himself' implies not being able to "behold (anything) that is not there and the nothing that is". However, in critical interpretations, being nothing or reducing oneself to nothing, could as well be a prelude to regarding and beholding the scene (nature) before oneself. Harold Bloom, for instance, concludes that the snow man "beholds as a nihilist beholds" and "nothing" is equated with "being" in the Nietzschean sense (62). Therefore, man must be reduced to nothing or "stripped off from all mythologies" in order to be made divine (Bloom 63). Yet when this happens, man ceases to be a human being. However, "the listener, reduced to nothing, remains human because he beholds something shagged and rough, barely figurative, yet still a figuration rather than a bareness" (63). Hence, the listener does not become one with reality or the divine but is only reduced; and the analogy for this reduction is the snow man. Bloom's inference of reductiveness, as in "having said no to everything, in order to get at myself' arises from the concluding lines of the poem (48-9). Bloom maintains that, "[A]s Snow Man he was stripped of delusions ('nothing that is not there') and of illusions ('the nothing that is')" or "he diminished so as to augment the majesty of the imagination" (61, 274). Human beings experience things around them under the influence of their own emotions. For this reason the main character of this poem is not a man but a snow man, who is both snow and man and yet is neither snow nor man.
Whereas Bloom regards the snow man as an analogy for the listener who is reduced to nothing but still remains human, Schwarz focuses on the dialogue between speaker and listener and claims that "Stevens imagines himself his own listener" (10). The dialogue between the speaker and the listener is also an "indicative dialogue between the imagination and the external world" (Schwarz 59). Therefore, in Stevens's poetry, dialogue becomes a tool to introduce different perspectives and create pluralistic meanings. Schwarz likens the layers in which the poem is constructed to the layers of snow composing the snow man (65). Schwarz interprets the poem as a whole as follows: "Unless one has a mind of winter [...] one feels the human in the landscape; one hears the misery in the sound of the wind-the wind that is there for the perspicacious listener, the man of capable imagination" (63).
This interpretation might at first glance resemble that of the translators, Eradam and Halman, who negate the state of having a mind of winter. Schwarz affirms this as one possible reading of the poem: "The mind of winter would, in one possible reading, be an exclusive, limited perceiver who would only hear one note" (64). However, Schwarz is also inclined to infer a negative capability: "The poet empties himself of his own ego as a prelude to responding with the full power of his imagination" (64). The speaker of the poem is thus transformed. Detachment from the ego enables him to transcend and open himself to new possibilities and to new experience. Hence, Shwarz points out the two contradictory thoughts in the poem, which are mutually exclusive but entertained at the same time.
In conclusion, literary critics Bates and Schwarz seem to agree that being a snow man and having a mind of winter are associated with being devoid of human ego and regarding nature or reality from a cold distance. Whether this is a required state or not is not obvious from the poem itself, and it depends on one's own interpretation or world view. In Bates's view, this state is the snow man's virtue, which enables him to regard the scene before him objectively, without attaching any meaning to it. Shwarz points out two possible readings of the poem. In one of them being a snow man depicts a negative condition and refers to a limited perceiver. However, at the same time, it is a prelude to responding to nature or reality with an increased power of imagination. Bloom interprets being a snow man as an analogy for the reduction of an individual to nothing, yet the person still remains human. In this regard his interpretation differs from Bates's and Schwarz's. This reductiveness boosts the snow man's imagination and thereby transforms him into a listener with human senses who gazes at his surroundings in amazement.
In light of the above, the ambiguity of meaning in "The Snow Man" mainly arises from the two contradictory thoughts associated with being a snow man. Since they are entertained at the same time, the poem leads to diverse interpretations. In one of them, being a snow man is a state of mind which hints at being nothing as a negative capacity. In this state one regards from a cold distance and does not think of any misery. In another interpretation, being a snow man prepares one to regard and behold under a new light or in a new self, without preconceptions which necessarily lead one to attach meanings which have already become cliches, as in the example of "to think of misery in the sound of the wind". Then, above all, being a snow man, being winter minded and being nothing are states of mind in the poem that may lead to diverse interpretations from particular perspectives. Being a snow man and reducing oneself to nothing might be a mind opening experience from a certain perspective; or from another perspective it can imply a state of mind which is deprived of human qualities. The translator might favor one meaning over the other depending on his/her world view; however, from a hermeneutic perspective s/he should guard against his/her own fore-meanings in order not to be led astray by them.
The translation of the phrase "winter-minded" is worthy of attention in both translations. The choice of kis beyinli (winter-brained), among other choices (kis akilli, for instance), is deliberately preferred due to its connotations in Turkish. Whereas being "winter-minded" is open to interpretation within the "meaningful unity" of the source poem, in the hermeneutic sense, its Turkish translation kis beyinli (winter-brained, with its association of stupidity) closes it to other possible interpretations. This choice furthermore contradicts the meaningful unity of the target poem itself because if having a mind of winter is a necessary condition that enables the person to regard the scene before him, it should not carry the negative connotations of dull-mindedness. Therefore, the choice of kis beyinli for "winter-minded" not only forecloses possible interpretations arising from ambiguity, but it also harms the meaningful unity of the target poem.
Eradam's translation, on one hand, is a perfect example of an interpretation imposed by his own preconceptions or "imperceptible habits of thought". In Eradam's translation the state of being a snow man is obviously that of being a winter-minded (dull-brained) individual who is incapable of perceiving any misery in the sound of the wind. Eradam's translation has a meaningful unity in this respect. Halman's translation, on the other hand, is an example of indecisiveness that leads to confusion rather than ambiguity. The meaningful coherence of the target poem is also lost for this reason. In Halman's translation, ambiguity or plurality of meanings is created by dividing the poem into two parts that contradict with each other. In the first part the translator tells us that one must be winter-minded so that s/he can see and understand the scene before her. However, as pointed out earlier, this seemingly positive attribution to being a snow man is already inflicted with a negativity because of the word kis beyinli's (winter-brained) connotation with kus beyinli (bird-brained). In the second part, being nothing himself becomes a negative state which disables one from seeing anything. I find this rather confusing because it could be understood this way: to be winter-minded (or stupid) is to be something, but if you are nothing you cannot see anything.
I believe, "The Snow Man" is a good example to demonstrate ambiguity which leads to diverse interpretations because Wallace Stevens's poetry in general is marked by obscurity and flux. Various interpretations of "The Snow Man" can be seen both through the literary critics' and translators' perspectives presented in this paper.
The ambiguity of the poem enables one to approach the verses within an array of many possible meanings. As pointed out above, literary criticism can more freely demonstrate the plurality of meaning in a poem, provided that the literary critic can justify her/his inferences on solid ground. However, the translator has to make certain choices among possible meanings in a way which would not foreclose other possibilities. The awareness of plurality of meaning is the key to understand the role of interpretation, which depends on the reader's world view and preconceptions. Through a hermeneutic reading of the poem, one can, through dialogue and fusion of horizons, be aware of her/his preconceptions and put them into relation (or test) with the foreign text's newness of perspective. And as argued above, Wallace Stevens's poetry calls for such a hermeneutic reading because it does not merely attract attention to its own language, but rather requires the pluralistic voices (perspectives) of the poem to be heard by the reader.
Translation criticism of "The Snow Man", offered in this paper, is guided by the implications of deconstruction and hermeneutics for literary translation criticism, explained above. These notions are utilized not as a method or a tool, but as a mindset. Deconstruction is not a translation method but a way of thinking about translation. Deconstruction lays bare plurality and indeterminacy of meaning, and necessity of interpretation, but leaves the interpretive process obscure. Undecidability of meaning brought about by deconstruction, neither means we cannot decide about the meaning nor implies we can identify a definite meaning. Especially in poetry, and specifically in "The Snow Man", diverse and even conflicting meanings reside side by side to make us think of various possibilities and perspectives. Gadamer's hermeneutics, with its notions of "understanding", "hermeneutical circle", "fusion of horizons" and "dialogue" enlightens the way to interpretation. Hermeneutic reading of a text, in its encounter with the foreign, seeks to understand and interpret by engaging in a dialogue with the text which in turn expands one's horizon and furthers one's experience. Consequently, it becomes possible to argue that the implication of deconstructive and hermeneutic approaches for literary translation criticism are important especially from two aspects which complement each other: (1) the notion of undecidability of meaning (deconstruction); (2) the notion of understanding, which warns against assigning meaning "imposed by [one's] imperceptible habits of thought" (hermeneutics).
From a deconstructive perspective, it becomes possible to argue that the choice of kis beyinli (winter-brained) for "winter-minded" in both translations fixes and stabilizes the meaning, whereas in the source poem having a "mind of winter" is more ambigious and thus opens up diverse possibilities and perspectives. As pointed out above, having a mind of winter could both mean being devoid of human ego and thus regarding nature from a cold distance or having limited perceptions. From a hermeneutic perspective, the preference of kis beyinli with its association of stupidity, instead of another possible choice of kis akilli, for instance, could be considered an act of imposing one's own preconceptions without testing them against the source text itself.
Arrojo, Rosemary. "The Revision of the Traditional Gap between Theory and Practice, and the Empowerment of Translation in Postmodern Times". The Translator 4:1. (1998): 25-48.
Bates, Milton J. Wallace Stevens: A Mythology of Self. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U of California P, 1985.
Bloom, Harold. Wallace Stevens: The Poems of our Climate. London: Cornell UP, 1977.
Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester/Northampton: St. Jerome Publishing, 2001.
Derrida, Jacques. "Des Tours de Babel". Difference in Translation. (1985): 165-207.
--. "What is a "Relevant" Translation". Critical Inquiry, 27. (2001): 174-200.
Eradam, Yusuf. "Kardan Adam"Metis Ceviri. 13. (1990): 135-139.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. London: Sheed & Ward, 1988.
Koskinen, Kaisa. "(Mis) Translating the Untranslatable-The Impact of Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism on Translation Theory". Meta. XXXIX: 3. 1994: 446-450.
Schwarz, Daniel R. Narrative and Representation in the Poetry of Wallace Stevens. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.
Tymoczko, Maria. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester/ Kinderhook: St. Jerome Publishing, 2007.
Vendler, Hellen. Wallace Stevens: Words Chosen out of Desire. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard UP, 1986.
Vermeer, Hans J. "Starting to Unask What Translatology is About". Target10:1. (1998): 41-68.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Baydan, Esra Birkan|
|Article Type:||Critical essay|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2015|
|Previous Article:||Food and stories to grow into: the pastiche of inclusions in Diana Abu-Jaber's writings.|
|Next Article:||British South Asian women's voices on the English stage: the work of Kali Theatre Company.|