TRANSLATION THEORIES

Assist. Prof. Lokman TANRIKULU

Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Faculty of Education
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Translation process is an irreplaceable activity which brings societies and
individuals together and which helps them have dialogue and communicate with each
other. It dates back as far as the beginning of the history of mankind. Through this
historical period inter-communal communication has gradually grown and translation
process has developed and become a field of science. As translation science is based
on a broad historical process, we need to mention quite a lot of factors when defining
the term of translation process. Translation science is a discipline which studies the
translation process and the text produced as a result of this process with all its details.
According to Anton Popovic (1987), translation theory is a science which
studies the systemic examination of translation and its task is to structure the
translation process and the text. Similarly, Peter Newmark (1981) defines translation
theory as a body of information related to translation process.
By the second half of the 20th century the prevailing opinion was that
morphological properties of texts should be given particular attention and artistic
influences of written texts may not be conveyed to the target recipient with full
correctness and therefore source text oriented linguistic approaches were adopted. In
this approach the criteria is the source text. With this understanding, translator makes
translation depending on the source text, which means depending only on the words
without looking to the general text. In source text oriented translation, target culture
reader is not expected to be as much influenced as the source culture reader.
Translator depending on the source text deals with the text within the
discourse facilities in his own language or may present the text with a different form
of expression which is unfamiliar to the reader of his mother tongue. Given the fast
growing globalization and accordingly, rapidly increasing communication facilities,
international relations, increasing interest of men in other cultures, source language
oriented approaches were replaced with target language oriented approaches. In this
new approach the general text is of more importance than the words. The goal is not
translating the words but being able to convey the main idea of the text in the source
language to the target recipient. In target language oriented approach, target culture
reader is expected to get influenced from the text as much as the source culture reader.
The studies up to now examine various aspects of translation process. Quite a number
of dignified scientists in this field mention that translation is a very complicated
process and it has pragmatic and communicational dimensions. In our study we are

 The article titled “EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION” has been presented by the author
at 3rd International Symposium On Language Education And Teaching (ISLET 2017) 20-23
April 2017- ROME

97
going to try to sum up briefly the theories and views of Levy, Koller, Klöpfer, Apel
and Reiss & Vermeer.
Key Words: Translation Process, Translation Science, History of
Translation, Translation Theories

ÇEVİRİ KURAMLARI

ÖZET
Çeviri işlemi günümüzde toplumları ve bireyleri birbirine yaklaştıran ve
onlar arasında her türlü diyalogun ya da iletişimin kurulmasını sağlayan vazgeçilmez
bir etkinliktir. Geçmişi insanlık tarihinin başlangıcına kadar uzanmaktadır. Bu tarihsel
süreç içerisinde toplumlar arasındaki iletişim giderek artmış ve çeviri işlemi gelişerek
bir bilim dalı halini almıştır. Çeviri bilim çok geniş bir tarihsel sürece dayandığı için,
çeviri bilimin tanımı içerisinde oldukça çok etkenden söz etmek gerekir. Çeviri bilim,
bir metni kaynak dilden hedef dile aktarma işlemini, bu aktarma işleminin
gerçekleştiği çeviri sürecini ve bu süreç sonunda ortaya çıkan metni her detayıyla
incelemeye alan bir bilim dalıdır.
Anton Popovic’e göre (1987) çeviri kuramı, çevirinin dizgesel bir biçimde
incelenmesiyle uğraşan bir bilim dalıdır ve görevi, çeviri sürecini ve metni
biçimlendirmektir. Benzer biçimde Peter Newmark’da (1981) çeviri kuramını çeviri
süreciyle ilgili bilgiler bütünü olarak tanımlamıştır.
20.yüzyılın ikinci yarısına kadar metinlerin biçimsel özelliklerinin ön planda
tutulması ve yazınsal metinlerin sanatsal etkilerinin hedef dilde aynı şekilde okura
verilemeyeceği düşüncesi hâkim olduğu için, kaynak metin odaklı dilbilimsel
yaklaşımlar benimsenmiştir. Bu yaklaşımda ölçüt, kaynak metindir. Çevirmen bu
anlayışta çeviri işlemini kaynak metne bağlı olarak gerçekleştirir. Kaynak metne bağlı
kalmak metnin geneline bakmadan sadece sözlüklere bağımlı kalmaktır. Kaynak
metin düzeyinde yapılan çeviriler, sözcüğü sözcüğüne yapılan çeviri işlemleridir.
Kaynak metin odaklı çeviri yaklaşımında, hedef kültür okuyucusunun kaynak kültür
okuyucusu kadar yazılanlardan etkilenmesi beklenmez.
Çevirmen kaynak metne bağlı kalarak onu kendi dilinin anlatım olanakları
içinde ele alır, ya da kendi dilinde okurun alışık olmadığı farklı bir anlatım biçimi ile
de sunabilir. Hızla gelişen küreselleşme ve buna bağlı olarak iletişim olanakları,
uluslararası ilişkiler, insanların farklı kültürlere olan meraklarının artması sebebiyle
kaynak dil odaklı yaklaşımlar yerini hedef dil odaklı yaklaşımlara bırakmıştır. Bu yeni
yaklaşımda sözcüklerden çok metnin geneli önemlidir. Hedef sözcükleri aktarmak
değil, kaynak dildeki metnin ana fikrini hedef dildeki okuyucuya aktarabilmektir.
Hedef dil odaklı yaklaşımda yapılan çeviriden hedef kültür okuyucusunun, kaynak
kültür okuyucusu kadar etkilenmesi beklenir. Bu ana kadar yapılan araştırmalar çeviri
eyleminin değişik yönlerini irdelemektedir. Çevirinin karmaşık bir işlem olduğunu
pragmatik ve iletişimsel boyutları olduğunu çok saygın çeviri bilimciler dile
getirmektedir. Biz bu araştırmamızda kuramlar arasından Levy, Koller, Klöpfer, Apel
ve Reiss&Vermeer’in kuramlarını ve görüşlerini kısaca özetlemeye çalışacağız.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Çeviri İşlemi, Çeviri Bilim, Çeviri Tarihi, Çeviri
Kuramları

98
 1. INTRODUCTION
The history of translation science dates back to the beginning of
history of mankind. Translation evolved for several reasons out of the
communication needs of communities using different languages. It first came
out in the form of oral translation and later developed in written form. Treaties
signed by communities may count as the earliest samples of written
translations. Later on religious texts gained more importance. During this
historical process communication between communities gradually increased
and translation process improved to be a science. Since translation science is
based on a broad historical process, we need to mention quite a lot of factors
when defining translation science. Translation science is a science which
studies the act of transferring a text from source language to target language,
the translation process during this transfer and the product in all its details.
Once translation became a science, several translation theories were
developed. However, these theories should be examined as a whole in order
to reach the modern understanding of translation in its actual sense.
Theory, in Turkish Dictionary published by Turkish Language
Institution is defined shortly as: 1.”abstract information approached free from
practice”, 2.”all of the ideas related to an issue” (TDK, 1988, p.929). Another
definition is that “theory is a system of general information and explanation
which comes out at any phase of acquisition of knowledge and the trueness
and reliability of which is established by scientific method” (Ozankaya, 1995,
p.85).
According to Aksoy (2002, p.11-12), translation theory that is in close
relationship with the human phenomenon and seen as an inseparable part of
it, gains a meaning when theory and practice come together. Seeking an
answer to how and why this concept came out means to shed a light to cultural
exchange between men, cultures and communities, to understand which work
of art was translated for what reason and to understand what it contributed to
the communities.
Translation science activity is not only a mechanical transfer but it is
also a creative process and cultural transmission. From this point forth, many
different point of views were put forward when seeking an answer to the
question of “how should a good translation be?” as in the case of any other
discipline. These views and approaches argued took time within the historical
process to gain a scientific quality or are still being on the way to gain a
scientific quality.
By the second half of the twentieth century morphologic properties of
texts were prioritized and as the prevailing belief was that artistic effects of
written texts cannot be given to the reader with the same effect, source text
oriented linguistic approaches were adopted. In this approach the criteria is
the source text. Translator translates the text depending on the source text
according to this approach. Depending on the source text is depending on only

99
the words without looking at the text in general. Source text based translations
are word to word translations. Source text based translation approach does not
expect that target culture reader gets the same effect as the source culture
reader from the written text. Translator deals with the text by using his own
language facilities while keeping adhered to the source text or may present in
a different form of wording which is not familiar to the target language reader.
Due to the fast growing globalization and accordingly rapidly
improving communication facilities, international relations, increasing
interest in other cultures, source language based approaches were replaced by
target language based approaches. In this new approach, the overall text is
more important than the words. The goal is not to transfer the words but to be
able to transfer the main idea to the target reader in the target language. In
target language based approach target culture reader is expected to be
influenced as much as the source culture reader.

1.1. Levy’s Approach

Check translation theoretician Jiri Levy (1969, p.49) is a scientist who
influenced the translation researchers with his approach. Levy’s approach to
translation process differs from other translation theories because Levy takes
the translator, translation process and the form of the translated text into
consideration and to the same extent he considers translation of a written text
as a branch of art. According to Levy, it is of high importance to assign the
communicative aspects of significant formal properties of the foreign writer.
Literary work should not lose its literary value. Levy argues that artistic
aspects of a work can be determined by logic and that those aspects can be
transferred with the same artistic value to the target language free from its
content, world and language and by replacing them with the formal
components of another language. (Stolze, 2001, p. 152)
Levy considers that the goal of translation is to stay with the original
text message, to comprehend and to transfer the original message. Levy also
emphasizes that translation is a recreating process while sticking by the
original text and that a text which is non-conforming with the original should
not be produced. Levy also underlines that certain formal and basic features
of a text should be saved as a basic rule, however, non-functional formal
structures should not necessarily be saved (Göktürk, 2002, p.40-41).
Translation should be consistent and holistic and the goal of
translation should be recreating the effect of the source text in another
language. Levy, who adopts “faithful translation” method, takes translation
process as a “decision making” process (Aksoy, 2002, p. 34-35).
Levy states the goal of a translator as: it is a must for a translator that
he is supposed to have gains and experiences in his field. As a result he is
supposed to save the artistic and aesthetic values of the original text during
translation process. The translator should also remember that he is expected

100
to translate the original text in such a way that the target reader can clearly
understand the message.
Levy’s view is also shared by Lieken-Genvig (1995:58). Genvic, just
like Levy asserts that translation process is made up of two phases. One is
comprehending phase and the other is transmitting the comprehended
message.

1.2. Koller’s Approach

Koller, who produced plentiful works of translation and analyzed
different dimensions of translation, brings forward the equivalence issue in
translation. In his work “Grundprobleme der Übersetzungstheorie, he
pronounces that translation process is a kind of interpretation art. According
to Koller (1972, p.47), phonological, morphological and syntactic units need
to be transferred to the target language with a linguistic interpretation during
translation. In other words, Koller expects that translator will first internalize
the original text in both structural and semantic terms and then will find the
equivalent patterns to be able to transfer the original text to the target language
and when necessary will complete the translation process with his own
interpretation.
According to Koller, translation activity is an equivalence operation
between the source text and the text in the target language. Koller, (1987:85)
divides the equivalence mentioned in a quotation from Nida, into two:
Formal equivalence (Formale Äquivalenz)
Dynamic equivalence (Dynamische Äquivalenz.)
In formal equivalence, equivalence in the source language text is dealt
with in terms of content and form. Here the translator seeks for fidelity in order
to make a transfer sentence-for-sentence and word-for-word. “Word-for-
word” or “”literal translation” is based on this equivalence principle.
Source text writer in his work develops a certain style and uses some
artistic expressions and preciosity in order to beautify the text. When the
translator, who transfers it to the target language, fails to reflect these artistic
values and preciosity as in the source language, the produced text loses its
artistic quality and turns into a plain text. Therefore, formal equivalence is of
great importance while transferring especially literary works.
In dynamic equivalence, the goal is to produce a natural text in the
target language, to make it comprehendible, avoiding any misunderstanding,
in other words, it should not have a complicated or confusing meaning and
thus, equivalence effect should be provided.
A translator trying to achieve a dynamic equivalence seeks ways to
set equivalence between two languages in both content and form.
Additionally, he pays attention to the similarity in terms of the relations
between the original text and its reader and those of the produced text and its
receptors. While doing this, the text in the target language might be longer

101
than the original text or it might require more words. This is not just because
of the structural difference between the two languages but also due to the fact
that the translator wants the produced text to be understood easily and needs
to provide some additional information related to the subject matter to be able
to establish the necessary equivalence between the two languages as well as
not to force the capacity of the receptors (readers).
Koller (1987:86), based upon the opinions of Nida, divides the source
of issues that might occur in equivalence understanding in three groups:
An equivalent term might not exist in the target language culture.
Source language and target language might have differences such as
expressing two connected terms in one term. For instance, Swedish has two
terms for “grandfather”. They use “farfar” for father’s father but “”morfar”
for mother’s father whereas German and English languages offer only one
word “grandfather/Großvater”. Similarly, in Turkish there is no such a
difference.
Source language and target language may differ from each other in
usage of certain indicators (words) for certain states and circumstances.
In dynamic equivalence, the focus is on the message and the receptor
of the message. More accurately, in dynamic equivalence, translator is
supposed to determine primarily to whom the original text addresses, more
clearly, at which social group (children, soldiers, doctors, lower or upper class,
an occupational group which requires a superior-subordinate relationship, etc)
it is aimed and then present the text in the target language according to the
culture of that social group.
After all, translator’s task while analyzing the source text is to
examine the communicational function of the source text on the one hand,
which means solving the message that the foreign writer wants to transmit to
the receptor (reader) and on the other side to present the text in another
mechanism for the receptors of the target language, determining the linguistic
properties of the original text and transferring it to the target language with an
equivalent method.
Communicational translation theory, defended by Nida as well, keeps
the formal aspect of the content in the background while focusing on the
communicational role of the meaning instead. For this purpose, Nida suggests
a principle which he calls “dynamic equivalence”, which advocates that
translator should pay attention to the communicational value of the text in the
target language. Any principle which disregards the formal aspect of a
message and which is based on direct transfer of content fits in free translation
understanding (Aktaş, 1996 s. 74).
Transferring the source text to the target language by keeping the
equivalence depends on analyzing the style of the foreign writer. What do we
mean with the term of style? We need to mention this issue. In its broadest

102
terms, style is usage of a language in a certain context by a certain writer for
a certain purpose (Altay, 1992:26).
In another saying, it is that the translator picks up and uses language
items with his own criteria in order to transmit the thoughts of the source
language user and add a certain speciality to his words (Vardar, 1978:50).
Shortly, we can describe this term that is both related to oral and
written language, especially literary works as linguistic properties of a text, a
discourse in its conventional meaning.

1.3. Kloepfer’s Approach

The general idea of prioritizing formal properties of texts and that the
message in the original text may not be transferred to the target language in
the same fashion led to source text based translations during this period. Later
on it has been understood that it is not sufficient to deal with translation at
only equivalency level ,so scientists like Kloepfer started to think that the
method to be followed in translation is neither simply being faithful to the
source text nor to meet the expectations of the target text reader.
Kloepfer, who puts emphasis on the necessity that the mentioned
factors during the translation process should be considered altogether, also
states that while the translator is reproducing a linguistic work in the target
language, he should do his best to make the original text be comprehendible
in the target language. In other words, translator’s task is to reflect the
language and culture of the source text in the target text, yet symbolic
meanings in the source text should not be rewritten casually, which can be
inferred from Kloepfer’s definition of translation. “Translation is a creative
writing but not rewriting in a random fashion; it is the writership of the writer”
(Göktürk, 2002, p.40).
Kloepfer takes sides with translation produced in accordance with the
types of texts. Like Levy, the issue that Kloepfer also lays emphasis on is the
transfer of form and content. The content of a translation is like two sides of a
paper according to him.
In other words, Kloepfer summarizes translation as the photocopy of
an original text. When he introduces his view, Kloepfer defends that
translators need to reflect all the beauty of the original text in the translated
text as they are. Kloepfer, who overemphasizes the content and form issue,
stresses that the aesthetic and artistic features of a text are determined by these
two elements. He states that the reader will enjoy, will have fun when these
two elements are transferred. When Kloepfer argues his point, he defends that
the value of each indicator in the source text, their semantic fields, their
connotations, self-significance, affective meaning and associative meaning
should be paid attention and the equivalence of all should be sought in the
target language and then transferred.

103
 Another issue that Kloepfer focuses on is that words or word groups
should reflect the implicit expressions .As is known, figurative meaning of
words are often used in theatre scripts in order to entertain, excite, cheer,
exhilarate, provoke or grieve the reader. Kloepfer suggests that such linguistic
indicators should be transferred as they are to the target language. When faced
with some difficulties due to the cultural differences, Kloepfer, just like Levy,
suggests that interpretation should take place. Translator, when transferring
the events those do not exist in another culture, naturally will have to apply to
the act of interpretation, which we call “hermeneutics”. Kloepfer favours
interpretation which is as short as possible considering the reader.

1.4. Apel’s Approach

Another theoretician who differs from other linguistic approaches and
who has a similar view as Kloepfer’s is Apel. Apel focuses especially on the
transfers of implicit expressions of words or word groups.
Apel adopts Kloepfer’s view. He, too, defends that all the properties
of the source text should be primarily analyzed when translating literary texts.
Ape, asserts that with Kloepfer’s view, understanding a text is the first
dimension of translation process. Apel calls the second dimension as the
production process. Apel frames his views on transferring the literary texts as
follows (1983:30):
“Literary texts and amongst these theatre scripts are all works of art.
Readers and the audience are entertaining and having fun with these texts.
When transferring such texts from one language to another, translator
must bear in mind some important points. These are all about the content, style
and meanings of indicators. With these elements which translator may not
ignore, translation product achieves an artistic vale.
All in all, Apel’s approach overlaps with Levy’s approach. Just like
him, Levy, attaches importance to the act of interpretation which we call
“hermeneutic”, apart from the ones we mentioned above. He defends that
difficulties occurring while translating cultural words can be coped with by
using this method.

1.5. Reiss and Vermeer’s Approach

Reiss and Vermeer’s approach covers the effect of the produced
literary texts on the reader, which they call “skopostheorie”.
“Skopos” as a word was first used by Hans J. Vermeer in 1978 and
then in 1983 in more detailed fashion in his book “Articles on Translation
Theories”. The word Skopos, derived from Greek means “target” “goal”.
Vermeer’s Skopos Theory is mainly based on literary theories which reflects
a general shift to communication theory, text linguistics, and text theory and
in addition, reception theories (Baker, 2001, p.235). According to this

104
approach, during translation the target text is formed by the function aimed to
be realized by the target text in the target cultural setting. In another saying,
translation should be focused on the function aimed at the target text in its own
cultural setting. Other scholars working in this paradigm also include Amman
(1990), Hönig and Kußmaul (1982), Kupsch-Losereit (1986) and Nord
(1988), who approach translation on a scientific level and who moved away
from predominantly linguistic translation theories and proposed functional
approach (purpose of translation, target text reader and contingency) instead
of structural approach (language and text) Baker, 2001, p.235). In this context,
Skopos Theory forms a base for the approach “Ground of a General
Translation Theory” developed by Katharina Reiß and Hans J. Vermeer, as
well.
According to this theory every translation is an action and every action
has an aim or a purpose, likewise, every translation has an aim. At this point,
translator is an actor who takes into consideration the cultural aspects that are
contributing factors in the source text and different aspects of the target culture
during translation process and who produces a new text on the related cultural
platform. Translator has more freedom because depending on the source text
was replaced by depending on purpose. Thus, target language, target culture
and target reader are prominent.
Skopos Theory has a functional quality. The person who assigns a
translator for the task of translation has an aim. Translation should achieve the
aim of the source text writer and on the other hand, it should function by
serving to the determined aim established in accordance with the target
world’s cultural properties. While functioning in this direction a new text
should be produced in such a way that it should create the same effect in the
target language. Bengi (1995, p.16) explains that this concept could have three
different uses according to Vermeer. The first is the translation process. The
second is the result of translation, which covers the function of translation.
The third is the translation method, in other words, the aim of the method.
Translation according to Skopos, is” not primarily producing an exact
equivalent of the source text but to produce a new text in accordance with a
certain aim or purpose (Vermeer, 2004 p.31).
Translator, as a member of a society of a certain culture and an
individual, principally is free to choose his own “Skopos” just as every
individual is free to choose his own way of behaviour. Translation depends on
the reaction of a translator to a source text. Translator is free to choose Skopos
needed for a source text to be comprehended well by the aimed recipients and
also responsible for this task. If a source text is demonstrated in a way that the
translator intends to do, then it is properly comprehensible in conformity with
(skopos) (Rifat, 2004, p.265).
Bahadır and Dizdar (2004, p.257-266) quote from Vermeer and define
translation as “transcoding words and sentence patterns in a text into

105
equivalent words and sentence patterns in another language” (Rifat, 2004, p.
257). According to Vermeer, act of translation cannot be dissociated from the
aim of the text produced through translation. “An act of translation could also
be called as a constant intercultural transfer. “As a work and an activity,
translation includes the most appropriate analyze derived from ancient cultural
links of a phenomenon and transfer of these links to the target cultural links”
(Reiß and Vermeer, 1984, p.46).
Skopos in its general meaning is translation for a certain purpose
(Vermeer, 1996, p.4). It seems that Vermeer’s theory divides this concept into
three, namely; “translator’s intention”, the aim of the original text” and “the
function of translation”. This division shows that the word “purpose” is not
limited to the aim of the original text (Vermeer, 1996, p.7-8). In that case it
is apparent that the aim of the employer and the translator play a great role as
much as the aim of the original text. By Vermeer’s definition (1989, p.177)
“aim” is fulfilling a set of acts by the translator towards the end point and he
describes these acts as follows:
a set of actions fulfilled during the translation process and aim
(translator’s intention).
the style or mode of translation (aim of produced text) from now on
the translator’s aim in using this specific mode.
The purpose of translated text, its future function (function of
translation).
To deal with Vermeer’s theory in more detail, the theory comprises
“work”, and “translator” who is considered to be in a position of expert. The
task and decision making power of translator is quite broad in this approach.
As of the properties of the theory, translator-employer, translator-source text
writer and translator-reader relationships draw attention. Where the aim of the
translator is set by the “employer”, the translator is considered to be an
“expert”. The access of the translation to the target text reader depends
primarily on how the employer sets the aim of translation (Yazıcı, 2005, p.
145). Skopos theory places the translator in the centre. The translator holds all
the responsibility; at the same time the translator himself decides whether the
translation is good or bad.
Vermeer and Toury are pioneers of target oriented approaches,
however, these two theoreticians fall apart from each other as it is understood
from their definitions of translation at the very beginning. According to Toury,
every text counts as translation in the target culture is translation whereas
Toury presents a more narrow-scoped definition and defines translation as an
end product of an action. Toury focuses on the position of translation in the
target culture whereas Vermeer rather sets off with reference to the aim of
translation. For these two theories it could be said that Toury’s is “product
oriented” and Vermeer’s is “process-oriented” theories.

106
 This approach named “Skopos Theory” is also adopted by famous
translator Nord (1993:9). Nord explains their approach like:”Skopos theory
takes translation act as a meaningful process, which means what the aim of
translation product is and what it could give to the reader”.

2. RESULT
By the second half of the twentieth century morphologic properties of
texts were prioritized, that is source text oriented translations were popular,
however, in the world globalizing over time, it has been observed that source
text oriented translations could not create the same effect on the target
audience. For this reason target text oriented translations took place and target
audience was expected to have more effect from the translated texts. The
better a source text is analyzed the more satisfactory translation will be
achieved. If the translator focuses only on words or sentences during
translation he would be on the wrong track. The starting point should be the
text and the text should be interpreted as a whole. Only then the recipient
audience can be accessed. Otherwise, translation would not be more than a
transfer of a text.

REFERENCES
Aksoy, B., Bengi, İ., and Karantay, S. (1995): Çeviri ve çeviri kuramı üstüne
söylemler. İstanbul: Düzlem.
Aksoy, B. (2002). Geçmişten günümüze yazın çevirisi. Ankara: İmge.
Aktaş, T. (1996). Çeviri işlemine genel bir bakış. Ankara: Orsen.
Altay, A. (1992). Çeviride üslup kayıpları“, H.Ü. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları
Dergisi, Sayı: 2.
Ammann, M. (1990). Grundlagen der modernen Translationstheorie- Ein Leitfaden
für Studierende, Heidelberg.
Apel, F. (1983). Literarische Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Metzler Verlag.
Bahadır, Ş. & Dizdar D. (2004). Çeviriyorum, Öyleyse Tek Kültürün Ötesinde, Iki
Kültürün Arasında, Üçüncü Kültürün Ortasındayım, Arayışlar. Varlık 71/1155.
Baker, M. (2001). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. Londra:Routledge.
Eruz, F.S. (2003). Çeviriden Çeviribilime’’,Multılıngual Yabancı Dil Yayınları,
İstanbul.
Göktürk, A. (2002). Çeviri: Dillerin Dili. İstanbul. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Gürçağlar, Ş.T. (2016). Çevirinin ABC’si, Say Yayınları, İstanbul.
Hönig G. G. & Kussmaul P. (1982). Strategie der Übersetzung, ein Lehr- und
Arbeitsbuch, Narr Verlag, Tübingen.
Kloepfer, R. (1967). Die Theorie der literarischen Übersetzung. W.Fink, München.
Koller, W. (1972). Grundprobleme der Übersetzungstheorie. Unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung schwedisch-deutscher Übersetzungsfälle. Francke, Bern/München.

107
Koller, W (1987). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Quelle & Meyer,
Heidelberg.
Kupsch-Losereit, S. (1986). Scheint eine schöne Sonne? Oder: Was ist ein
Übersetzungsfehler? Lebende Sprachen 1/1986.
Levy,J. (1969). Die literarische Übersetzung,Theorie einer Kunstgattung’’ Frankfurt
am Main-Bonn.
Link, J. (1997). Elemente der Lyrik. In: Literaturwissenschaft. Ein Grundkurs. Hg.
von Helmut Brackert und Jörn Stückrath. Reinbek b. Hamburg 1997(=Rowohlts
Enzyklopädie), S. 86-101.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation, Oxford-Frankfurt/M.
Nord, C. (1988). Textanalyse und Übersetze , Heidelberg.
Nord, C. (1993). Einführung in das funktionale Übersetzen am Beispiel von Titeln und
Überschriften’’,Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 281,Tübingen.
Ozankaya, Ö. (1995). Temel Toplumbilimleri Sözlüğü, Cem Yayınevi, İstanbul, s. 85
Popovic, A. (1987). ‘’Yazın Terimleri Sözlüğü’’ Haz.Suat Karantay-Yurdanur Salman
Metis Yay.,İstanbul.
Reiß, K. and Vermeer H. J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationstheorie, Tübingen.
Rifat, M. (2004). Çeviri (bilim) nedir? –Başkasının Bakışı. İstanbul: Dünya.
Stolze, R. (2001). Übersetzungstheorien, Eine Einführung. Tübingen:Gunter Narr.
Türkçe Sözlük, (1988). Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 549, Ankara, s. 929.
Vardar, B. (1978). Türk Dili Çeviri Sorunları Özel Sayısı, TDK Yay., Sayı:332.
Vardar, B. (1988). Açıklamalı Dilbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü, ABC Kitapevi, İstanbul.
Vermeer, H.J. (1989). Skopos and Commision in Translational Action“ in: Andrew
Chesterman (ed) Readings in Translation Theory, Helsinki, Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
Vermeer, H.J. (1996). A Sokopos Theory of Translation, Heidelberg.
Vermeer, H.J. (2004). Hans J. Vermeer ile söyleşi. Varlık Aylık Edebiyat ve Kültür Dergisi,
1155, 30-33.
Yazıcı, M. (2005) Çeviribilimin Temel Kavram ve Kuramları. İstanbul: Multilingual.

108