See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254333960

Intralingual translation as 'modernization' of the language: The

Turkish case

Article in Perspectives Studies in Translatology · January 2012

DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2012.702395

CITATIONS READS

7 229

All content following this page was uploaded by Ozlem Berk Albachten on 07 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Bogazici University]
On: 15 June 2013, At: 09:41
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Intralingual translation as
‘modernization’ of the language: the
Turkish case
a
Özlem Berk Albachten
a
Boǧaziçi University, Department of Translation and Interpreting
Studies , Istanbul , Turkey
Published online: 27 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Özlem Berk Albachten (2013): Intralingual translation as ‘modernization’ of the
language: the Turkish case, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 21:2, 257-271

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.702395

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 2013
Vol. 21, No. 2, 257
271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.702395

Intralingual translation as ‘modernization’ of the language:

the Turkish case
Özlem Berk Albachten*

Boǧaziçi University, Department of Translation and Interpreting Studies, Istanbul, Turkey

(Received 2 Feb 2012; final version received 22 May 2012)

This paper focuses on the practice of intralingual translations in Turkey, which

are generally regarded as original writings and thus have remained outside the
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

realm of Translation Studies. In an attempt to offer a different conceptualization

of translation that would contribute to the reconsideration of the nature and
definition of translation, this paper looks at the specific use of intralingual
translation seen as modernization of the language in twentieth-century Turkey.
Using Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil’s Mai ve Siyah (Blue and Black) as a case in point, this
paper will argue that, concealed under the rubric of different terminology,
intralingual translations in Turkey accomplish more than an updating of the
language and reveal linguistic, translational, and ideological norms of the periods
in which these translations were produced. This study will furthermore claim that
the presentation of intralingual translations also sheds light on the practice and
perception of interlingual translations and on our relationship with the past. Thus
this paper argues that enlarging the definition of translation by encompassing
intralingual translations would expand the boundaries of research in Translation
Studies in general, and in Translation History in particular.
Keywords: history of translation; intralingual translation; Turkish language;
Turkish language reform; modernization; translator’s note

Intralingual translation, as the updating of archaic or older texts, is a common practice

in Turkish literature, especially beginning after the language reform of 1928. However,
this is not a phenomenon unique to twentieth-century Turkey; there were also
intralingual translations in the nineteenth-century Ottoman literary culture. One
example of this later type is Ahmed Midhat Efendi’s Hulâsa-i Humayunname
(Summary of Humayunname) which is an intralingual summary translation of Ali
Çelebi’s Humayunname, a sixteenth-century Turkish version of the book of fables
Kalilah wa Dimnah (Demircioğlu, 2005, p. 277; 2009, p. 152; Toska, 2007). In his preface
Ahmed Midhat notes that Ali Çelebi’s translation was an old version in Ottoman
Turkish and ‘incomprehensible for the readers of the late nineteenth century because of
its ornate and long sentences’. He furthermore claims that it was Sultan Abdülhamid II
who commissioned a simplified and explicatory summary (Demircioğlu, 2005, p. 279).
Despite Ahmed Midhat’s statements in the preface, it is interesting to see that his work
has been considered a non-translation by some literary historians, as for them
‘translation proper’ stands only for interlingual translation.

*Email: ozlem.berk@boun.edu.tr

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

 258 Ö. Berk Albachten

Similarly, the main reason for producing intralingual translations in twentieth-

century Turkey, as it is often argued, is the aging of the language and the need for
simplification of the texts for the new generations.1 However, this view is in close
connection with the Turkish Language Reform of 1928 that comprised both the
change of the alphabet from the Arabic writing system to the Latin alphabet (letter
reform) and the change of the language (language reform), and was aimed, among
other goals, to purge Turkish of Arabic and Persian words. However, in this case, the
process was also ideological. The Language Reform as one of the many other reforms
undertaken during the first years of the Republic aimed to create a modern, Europe-
oriented, and secular society, and intralingual translations were born as a direct
result of the implementation of these reforms (Berk Albachten, in press).
What is generally understood by the purification of the language is the
replacement of the ‘old’ words of Arabic and Persian origin with the ‘new’ words
that are created from Turkish roots to renew and enrich the Turkish vocabulary. But
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

perhaps, the major effects of this process have been seen in the literary domain. Thus,
starting after the Language Reform, rewriting the ‘old’ literary works not only in the
new alphabet, but also in the ‘new’ language became a common practice. The main
problem regarding the translation history is the difficulty, if not the impossibility, to
determine which texts have been (intralingually) translated, as they are not labeled as
such.
These new versions of older literary texts are not presented and accepted
as intralingual translations, but as ‘simplified’ (sadeleştirilmiş) or ‘Turkified’
(Türkçeleştirilmiş) versions, ‘arranged’ (düzenlenmiş), and ‘prepared for publishing’
(yayına hazırlanmış) among others. Only very few of them are called or accepted as
translations in the Turkish culture.
Perhaps the first scholar who used the term intralingual translation (diliçi çeviri)

as the updating of older texts
for her translation of Fatma Aliye Hanım’s (1862

1936) works into modern Turkish is Tülay Gençtürk Demircioğlu. In the introduc-
tion to her translation Levâyih-i Hayât (Scenes from Life) Gençtürk Demircioğlu
stresses the importance of the terminology used:

We consider the transfer process of Levâyih-i Hayât from the Ottoman Turkish into the
modern Turkish as intralingual translation. We use the term intralingual translation
instead of ‘simplification’. To this day, works that transferred texts written in the Arabic
script into present day Turkish have used the term ‘simplification’. However, this term
has obscured the fact that the work was a translation activity. [. . .] In translating
Levâyih-i Hayât intralingually, we paid attention to the intelligibility of the text in
solving problems created by the grammar and syntax of the Ottoman Turkish. We have
to point out that our norm of intelligibility centers especially in sections where the
language and the images of the text are heavier or more ‘Ottoman’.2 (p. xix; my
translation)

Gençtürk Demircioğlu’s Levâyih-i Hayât consists of its translation into modern

Turkish, its transcription from the Arabic into the Latin alphabet, and the original
source text in the Arabic script that the translator added into her translation to allow
the readers to compare it to both the transcription and the translation. Her
translation is indeed intelligible and can be read as a piece of literary work without
the translator’s constant visible interference with explanations in the text or in the
footnotes. It is also clear that the translator’s goal was not to find ‘pure’ Turkish
equivalents for Ottoman Turkish words, but to make the text accessible to today’s
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 259

readers. Accordingly, she only translated words that are out of circulation and
restructured sentences in conformity with the grammatical and syntactical rules of
modern Turkish.
But it needs to be said that Gençtürk Demircioğlu’s translation can be considered
an academic study and does not resemble the majority of intralingual translations of
(old) Turkish literature one finds in the market. In fact, in recent years, Ottomanists
recognized the importance of translations in (re)shaping the Ottoman/Turkish literary
system not only from Western languages (Strauss, 2002), but also within the ‘Ottoman
interculture’ (Andrews, 2002; Holbrook, 2002; Toska, 2002), ‘a hypothetical site where
poet-translators operated in the overlap of Turkish, Persian, and Arabic cultures’
(Paker, 2002, p. 137). Accordingly, some Turcologists have looked into the translation
processes from the Ottoman Turkish into modern Turkish (Dilçin, 2007; Tekin, 2003).
However, this recognition within Turkish studies, albeit still marginal, and various
translation activities done by Turcologists/Ottomanists have so far not altered the
translation activities pursued by mainstream publishers.3
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

Intralingual translation has also attracted scarce attention from the Turkish
translation studies scholars, and only a few studies have appeared on the subject. In the
Turkish context, intralingual translation has been studied as the updating the language
of older texts (Berk, 2005), as rewrites of traditional folk tales (from oral to written
language) (Tahir Gürçağlar, 2011), and as ‘original translations’ where the novelist is
seen as a translator of the dispossessed, giving voice to the mute (Paker, 2011).
Furthermore, perhaps also controversially, many ‘cases of plagiarism and abridgement,
adaptation and similar practices in works known as the ‘‘Classics’’’ in the Turkish
publishing market can also be seen as intralingual translations where the ‘so-called’
translators rewrite the previous interlingual translations (ÇEVBİR-YAYBİR, 2007).
Today, most examples of Turkish literature written between the end of the
nineteenth century and the mid-twentieth century one can find in book-stores in
Turkey are the (intralingual) translations of these works into modern Turkish. In
other words, these works do not function as translations, but as original works since
they do not receive that designation. As Theo Hermans argues in his The Conference
of the Tongues, equivalence between source and target texts cannot be ‘extrapolated
on the basis of textual comparison’. Rather, it is ‘proclaimed, not found’ (2007, p. 6).
Thus, intralingual translations in the Turkish publishing market are to a large extent
proclaimed as originals.

Six different versions of Mai ve Siyah by Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil

In this section, six different intralingual translations of Mai ve Siyah (Blue and
Black), a novel written by Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil (1865
1945) will be analyzed. My
choice for this work is not accidental. One of the reasons that I chose Uşaklıgil and
his novel is that he was the first writer in Turkish literature who rewrote and
published the ‘simplified’ versions of his works. Mai ve Siyah was first serialized in
the journal Servet-i Fünun (The Wealth of Knowledge) between 1312 and 1313
(1895
1896). The novel was then published in the book form in 1313 (1895
1896)
and had three editions in the Arabic script until 1938 when Uşaklıgil not only
rewrote it in the Latin alphabet, but also in the ‘simplified’ version (Sançar, 1958).4 It
was the first novel that Uşaklıgil ‘simplified’; the first editions of his other novels in
the Latin alphabet by Hilmi Publishing were in fact the ‘simplified’ versions done by
the author himself. Since then, the novel was published several times by different
 260 Ö. Berk Albachten

publishers. His novels
intralingually translated
are still often reprinted today, and
some have been adapted for television many times. They are among the best-known
classics of Turkish literature.
Born to a wealthy and cultured family, Uşaklıgil was educated at a French
school in Izmir where he developed an affection for French literature. As a young
man he started to write in the Envar-ı Zekâ (Lights of Intelligence) journal, and
began to publish Nevruz (Nawruz), the first literature journal of the province of
Izmir, and Hizmet (Service) and Ahenk (Harmony). A trip to Paris in 1889 further
contributed to his knowledge of European culture. From 1886 onwards, he started
to publish his works in Servet-i Fünun. The publication of the novel Mai ve Siyah
and Aşk-ı Memnu (Forbidden Love) made him known to the general public. For
many, Uşaklıgil is considered the first Turkish author to write novels according to
contemporary European forms and models. He published eight novels, three
volumes of memoirs, two volumes of travelogues, one play, numerous short stories,
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

essays, and prose poems, as well as many translations from French. Following the
suicide of his son in 1937 Uşaklıgil spent his last years in a state of depression and
isolation.
As one of the most prolific writers of his generation, Uşaklıgil’s literary
production reflects his approach to language. In his first works he used an ornate
style and was against the purification movement, insisting that it was impossible to
get rid of the Arabic and Persian words, adjective and noun phrases, and
grammatical elements which had entered the Ottoman language and that the
Turkish equivalents were far from being capable of expressing the meaning of those
words and usages. However, within a period of 10 years, in 1908, he explained how
the language should be purified. According to him, simplification should be
performed by using Turkish synonyms for foreign words. In fact, he then simplified
his own works by replacing the old language, i.e. Persian and Arabic words with new
Turkish ones (Önertoy, 1999, pp. 231
233).
He developed his thoughts on the Turkification of the language, and, finally, at
the first Turkish Language Congress in 1932, Uşaklıgil defended a ‘pure’ Turkish,
trying to show the superior qualities of Turkish over foreign languages, such as
French, English, German, and Italian, and arguing that the Alphabet Reform was
the first step towards the liberation of Turkish from the Arabic and Persian
dominance (Önertoy, 1999, p. 334).
Mai ve Siyah is a period novel that is considered the author’s most outstanding
work and the first Turkish novel in the modern sense of the word. Mai ve Siyah
features pieces from Uşaklıgil’s own life, as well as the life of the literary circles of
Istanbul. Uşaklıgil’s characters are lifelike, and he succeeds in realistically capturing
Istanbul life in the 1890s. The protagonist of the novel is Ahmet Cemil, a young poet
who believes that the book he is writing will revolutionize the world of literature. He
also dreams of marrying the girl he loves. After his father’s death, he starts
translating texts and giving private lessons to support his mother and sister. In the
meantime, he is dreams of becoming rich and famous when his book is presented to
the public. However, his romantic dreams (symbolized by the color blue) come to an
end when his pregnant sister dies as a result of her husband’s abuse, the girl of his
dreams marries an officer, and his work, completed by now, is not well received.
Defeated by life, and by his dreams, he abandons Istanbul with his mother in the
dark of the night.
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 261

In the following pages, five different versions of the novel will be analyzed as
intralingual translations. The aim of the section below is to discuss various issues
that arise in the research of intralingual translation and its relevance to Translation
History. Hence, the first paragraph of Mai ve Siyah from the second edition in the
Arabic script as the source text and five succeeding versions in the Latin alphabet by
different publishers will be given, with the aim to provide an example for comparison
and analysis. The opening paragraphs of the first two editions were translated into
English literally as to show the use of vocabulary, structure of the sentences, and
style, etc. as much as possible. The aim of this section is not to analyze each version
in detail, since this is not possible within the limits of this paper, but to underline a
few main strategies that emerge in Mai ve Siyah’s intralingual translations. This
paragraph should serve just as a short example to give the reader a feel of how the
various versions appear. The discussions that follow will not only focus on this
example, but will also take into account other features found in the entire editions of
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

the novel.
However, it needs to be underlined that my aim is not to look for ‘equivalence’
between the ‘original text’ and its various versions. I want to illustrate how various
versions of Mai ve Siyah continue to be intralingual translations in a genetic sense,
but cease to exist as such and take the place of the original.

1) Mai ve Siyah, Ahmet İhsan ve Şürekâsı, Alem Matbaası, 1317 (1899/1900)

Sofranın etrafında yedi kişi idiler.

Bir gün, Mir’at-ı Şu’ûn sahib-i imtiyazı Hüseyin Baha Efendi, matbaaya çehresinde bir
şa’şaa-ı fevkalâde parıldayarak girdiği zaman dört nüshadan beri devam eden sanayi-i
dahiliye makalesinin altına intiha kelimesinin ya’sını bitmez tükenmez bir hatt-ı medid
suretinde çekmekle meşgul olan sermuharrir Ali Şekib’e demiş idi ki:

There were seven people around the table.

One day, when the publisher of Mir’at-ı Şu’ûn (Mirror of the Events) Hüseyin Baha
Effendi entered the printing house, his face gleaming with an extraordinary joy, said to
the editor in chief Ali Şekip who was busy drawing the ‘ya’* as an endless long line of
the word ‘the end’ below his article ‘Domestic Arts’ that had been continuing for the last
four issues: [. . .] (my translation)

*Last letter of the word ‘the end’
intiha
in the Arabic alphabet. (my note)

As said earlier, Mai ve Siyah was first serialized in Servet-i Fünun between 1895

1896. Shortly after its serialization, the novel was published in book form with some
illustrations by Alem Matbaası (Sançar, 1958, p. 37). The second edition by the same
publisher came in 1317 (1899
1900). Another, probably the third, edition still in
the Arabic script appeared in 1330/1332 (1911
12/1913
14) by Matbaa-i Hayriye ve
Şürekâsı.5
 262 Ö. Berk Albachten

Although written in a rather plain language of the time, Uşaklıgil’s novel contains
a large number of words derived from Arabic and Persian, including adjective and
noun phrases, long phrases, and uses a different orthography than today’s.

2) Mai ve Siyah, Hilmi Publishing, 1938, trans. by Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil

Sofranın etrafında yedi kişi idiler.

Bir gün, Mir’ati Şuun sahibi imtiyazı Hüseyin Baha efendi, matbaaya çehresinde bir
başka sevinc parıldayarak girdiği zaman dört nüshadan beri devam eden ‘‘Dahilı̂
san’atlar’’ makalesinin altına son kelimesini iri bir yazı şeklinde karalamakla meşğul
olan başmuharrir Ali Şekibe demiş idi ki: [. . .]

There were seven people around the table.

One day, when the publisher of Mir’ati Şuun (Mirror of the Events) Hüseyin Baha
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

Effendi entered the printing house, his face gleaming with a different kind of joy, said to
the editor in chief Ali Şekip who was busy scribbling the word ‘the end’ in big font below
his article ‘Domestic Arts’ that had been continuing for the last four issues: [. . .]
(my translation)

Like many of Uşaklıgil’s novels, Mai ve Siyah’s first edition in the Latin alphabet
was published by Hilmi Publishing in 1938. This was the simplified version prepared
by the author himself. There were three other editions by the same publishing house
in 1942, 1945, and 1957.
In his preface to this new edition, Uşaklıgil stated that it was necessary to publish
the novel not only in the new alphabet, but also in a simplified version for the new
generations. He wrote that he tried to ‘accommodate the adjective and noun phrases,
unfamiliar words and heavy sentences’ to the taste of the time. However, as he
declared, he did not change ‘the style, the structure of sentences, in short, the
structure of the text. Doing so would have distanced the book from its real character’
(Uşaklıgil, 1938, p. v; my translation).6
As one can see even from the short section above, in the new edition of his novel
Uşaklıgil replaced some ‘old’ words and adjective phrases with new ones, such as
sermuharrir with başmuharrir (editor in chief), sanayi with san’atlar (arts), intiha with
son (the end), and şa’şaa-ı fevkalâde (extraordinary flare) with bir başka sevinc
(a different kind of joy). But, as he stressed in his preface, he argued that he
did not change the ‘character’ of the novel in this new version. Furthermore,
Uşaklıgil’s preface is the only indication that this edition is a rewritten version of the
‘original’.
One other point to be underlined is that the latest editions of a literary work
usually become ‘the original’ for readers, but also for some ‘translators’. In fact, for
this fourth edition of 1938 Uşaklıgil (and/or also Hilmi Publishing) must have used
the most recent edition of 1330/1332. One example to indicate this is the fact that
chapter nine in Uşaklıgil’s 1938 version is missing. Chapter nine is also missing in the
previous edition of 1330/1332, but not in the second edition of 1317. This was
probably due to a mistake made by the publishers of the third edition, and it is also
clear that this edition was used for the 1938 rewrite of the novel that repeated the
same mistake. As will be seen, this fourth edition of 1938 became ‘the original’
version for the succeeding translations of Mai ve Siyah.
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 263

3) Mai ve Siyah, İnkılâp ve Aka Publishing, 1977, trans. by Nevzat Kızılcan

Şölen masasının çevresinde yedi kişiydiler.

‘‘Olayların Aynası’’nın sorumlusu Hüseyin Baha Efendi, bir gün gazeteye yüzü başka
bir sevinçle parıldayarak girdiği zaman, dört sayı süren ‘‘İç Sanatları’’ yazısının altına
‘‘Son’’ sözcüğünü iri bir yazıyla karalamakla oyalanan başyazar Ali Şekip’e: [. . .]

This version by İnkılâp ve Aka does not give the name of the editor or the
translator in its pages.7 However, from a preface written by Nevzat Kızılcan we
understand that he is the one who simplified the novel. Here, Nevzat Kızılcan refers
to Uşaklıgil’s above-mentioned preface and argues that because of the fast
development of the Turkish language, even Uşaklıgil’s simplified version was no
longer adequate. However, after this short justification for his version, Kızılcan does
not say anything about the strategies he used to simplify (yalınlaştırma) the novel.8
Already the first sentence of the novel gives us some hints about the overall
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

translation. This is the only version where the first sentence is different than the others
by overtranslating sofra (table) as şölen masası (banquet table). The syntax of the
second sentence is also different. Where Uşaklıgil’s and all the other translations start
with birgün (one day), Kızılcan starts the sentence with the subject. The titles of the
newspaper and of the article are also translated into today’s Turkish without giving the
originals. Taking the Turkish phonetics into account, Kızılcan also adopts the ‘new’
orthography in the conversion of both names and words, changing the final
p versus
the final
b (Şekip’e and not Şekibe), or the final
ç versus the final
c (sevinç and not
sevinc). An apostrophe (’) is inserted within a proper noun (Şekip’e and not Şekibe).
Perhaps the only element that dates the text is the word efendi, a former Turkish title of
respect for a gentleman that today is used with either the names or the positions of men
whose socio-economic status is relatively humble. In other words, for someone who is
not familiar with the word’s former meaning, the use of efendi in today’s Turkish
context would rather be read as a derogatory term. Kızılcan also uses the visual effect
by writing the word son (the end) in bold font.
Kızılcan’s version uses indeed ‘pure’ Turkish equivalents in replacement of old
Ottoman Turkish words. In addition to the orthographical changes mentioned above,
there are also syntactical and structural changes, such as the splitting of long
sentences (into shorter ones) and the change in the arrangement of the paragraphs. It
can be seen that Kızılcan was both careful and critical in analyzing the novel and its
various editions and produced his own version. One example to indicate this is
chapter nine of the novel that in Uşaklıgil’s 1938 version is missing. However,
thinking that was a mistake, and taking the story flow into account, Kızılcan creates
the missing chapter by dividing the previous chapter into two.
One other point worth underlining is Kızılcan’s change of the ‘alaturka hour
system’ into the Western time in chapter eight. Here, Ahmet Şevki and Ahmet Cemil
leave the newspaper office at dusk; the exact timing is given by one of the protagonist.
In Uşaklıgil’s version, he says ‘it is getting to eleven thirty, shall we go?’ (Uşaklıgil,
1938, p. 120). This is changed to six thirty in Kızılcan’s. (Uşaklıgil, 1977, p. 116). This
was obviously an issue that Uşaklıgil himself overlooked when he rewrote his version
as the time in the original novel was written in the alaturka hour system, according to
which the time of the sunset was considered 12 o’clock regardless of the season and the
location.9 This system was changed in 1925 when the Western clock and calendar were
adopted. It is clear from the context of the story that the two protagonists leave the
 264 Ö. Berk Albachten

newspaper office after work to go out to eat and have some drinks. Since 12 o’clock
was when the sun set, they had just left before the sunset and therefore six thirty can be
considered an appropriate estimate.
Finally, similar to other versions, Kızılcan added a number of footnotes to his
translation that will be discussed below.

4) Mai ve Siyah, İnkılâp ve Aka Publishing, 1980, trans. by H. Fethi Gözler

Sofranın etrafında yedi kişiydiler.

Bir gün, Mir’ati Şuun’un(1) imtiyaz sahibi(2) Hüseyin Baha Efendi, matbaaya çehresinde
bir başka sevinç parıldayarak girdiği zaman, dört sayıdan beri devam eden ‘‘Dahili
Sanatlar’’ makalesinin altına ‘‘son’’ kelimesini iri bir yazı şeklinde karalamakla meşgul
olan başyazar Ali Şekip’e demişti ki: [. . .]
(1): Hayali bir gazetenin adı. ‘‘Olayların Aynası’’ anlamına gelmektedir.
(2): İmtiyaz hakkına sahip kimse. İmtiyaz: Devlet tarafından, gazete, fabrika, maden
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

v.b.nı işletmek için bir kişi ya da bir kuruluına [sic] verilen özel izin. ‘‘Distingué’e’’

It is interesting to see that only a few years after Kızılcan’s translation a new
version of Mai ve Siyah appeared by the same publisher. This time, the novel was
presented as ‘simplified’ by H. Fehmi Gözler who made himself visible with various
prefaces and introductions. In the first pages we find Uşaklıgil’s above-mentioned
preface to his 1938 version followed by Gözler’s note indicating the continued
validity of Uşaklıgil’s words when he was rewriting the novel and his method of
simplification. Here, Gözler argued that he did not alter words that need to be
simplified; instead, he explained them in footnotes. Simplifying words in the text
would have alienated the novel from the climate of the 1896 (Uşaklıgil, 1980, p. vi).
Gözler also added two prefaces to his version: one on Mai ve Siyah and one on
Uşaklıgil with a bibliography of and on his works.
Even from the opening paragraph of the novel, it is clear that Gözler did, in fact,
‘simplify’ words in the text, contrary to what he said in the preface: nüsha became sayı
(issue) and başmuharrir became başyazar (editor in chief). Gözler also followed the
new orthography. Additionally, he informed the reader that the newspaper in question
was a fictitious one and translated its title in the first footnote. In the second footnote,
Gözler explained the word imtiyaz (license) in Turkish and then gave the French
equivalent of the word. Like Kızılcan, Gözler did not omit chapter nine. The time in
chapter eight as eleven thirty was not changed; however, in a footnote just after a few
pages, Gözler explained the alaturka hour system and argued that Ahmet Cemal and
Ahmet Şevki should have actually left at 18.30 (Uşaklıgil, 1980, p. 128).
Finally, the great number of footnotes appears as the most striking feature in this
version. They are used to give the equivalents and explanations of certain words, to
clarify the text, to give information of certain events, places, and people. More
surprisingly, after the Turkish explanations or equivalents, the meanings of most of
the words are given in French.

5) Mai ve Siyah, İnkılâp Kitapevi, 1997, trans. by Şemsettin Kutlu

Sofranın çevresinde yedi kişi idiler.

Birgün ‘‘Mir’-at-ı Şuûn’’ (1) gazetesinin imtiyaz sahibi Hüseyin Baha efendi, basımevine
yüzünde bir başka sevinç parıldayarak girdiği zaman, dört sayıdan beri süregelen
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 265

‘‘Dahili Sanatlar’’ (başlıklı) yazısının altına son sözünü iri bir yazı biçiminde
karalamakta bulunan başyazar Ali Şekib’e demişti ki: [. . .]

(1) Mir’at-ı Şuûn: Olayların Aynası

İnkılâp Kitapevi gives Şemsettin Kutlu’s name on the front page as the person who
edited (düzenleyen) and prepared the novel for the new edition (yeni basıma hazırlayan).
Also Şemsettin Kutlu started this version with a preface entitled ‘Birkaç Söz’ (A Few
Words), like Uşaklıgil. In his preface, Kutlu made a few comments on the novel, stating
that he used the 1942 version by Hilmi Publishing for his version, and asked the reader
to refer to his prefaces in his other simplified novels by Uşaklıgil, such as Kırk Yıl
(Forty Years) and Aşk-ı Memnu (Forbidden Love), for the strategies he used.
In the preface he wrote for his version of Kırk Yıl, Kutlu explained the strategies he
used in his rewritings. Accordingly, he changed and ‘corrected’ various phrases and
paragraphs that Kutlu thought were complicated. One of the ‘corrections’ is the
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

change of the verbs in the passive voice to the active voice. He also ‘transferred’ the
parts where the language was too old and difficult to be understood by new generations
into contemporary language (Kutlu, 1987). In his preface, Kutlu often stressed the
importance of the ‘original’ work and the author’s style as features that should not be
destroyed or damaged. In order to keep the bond of his version with the original work,
he used a variety of extratextual information by means of footnotes and parentheses in
order not to confuse them with the original text. Furthermore, a glossary at the end of
the book was added. Kutlu called his version an adaptation (uyarlama) and argued that
an adaptation is never a completed work and, as time passes, new versions are bound to
appear (Kutlu, 1987). However, he never referred to the previous translations.
In fact, we can see some of the strategies mentioned in this preface were used in the
short section given above. It is clear that Kutlu wanted to preserve the original text by
highlighting his ‘interventions’ in the text. This is the case when for example, he added
the word başlıklı (entitled) in a parenthesis. It is also worth noting that Kutlu preserved
the syntax of the sentences by only replacing some words he thought to be dated with
new ones, such as etrafında/çevresinde; sahibi imtiyazı/imtiyaz sahibi; matbaaya/
basımevine; çehresinde/yüzünde; nüshadan/sayıdan; devam eden/süregelen; kelimesini/
sözünü; şeklinde/biçiminde; meşg
˘ ul olan/bulunan; and başmuharrir/başyazar. However,
the title of the newspaper was kept as the original in the text, but its translation was
given in a footnote. Apart from keeping the final
b versus the final
p (Şekib’e and
not Şekip’e), Kutlu followed the new Turkish orthography.
The various strategies Kutlu explains in the above-mentioned preface are also to
be seen in the rest of the novel. A large number of parentheses are used to complete
the sentences or to give the equivalents of words preceding. In addition to these
parentheses, there are a number of footnotes and a dictionary (with 102 entries) at
the end of the novel. Furthermore, like in Uşaklıgil’s version, chapter nine is also
missing in Kutlu’s version, and the time in chapter eight is not changed either and left
as ‘it is getting to eleven thirty’ (Uşaklıgil, 1997, p. 118).

6) Mai ve Siyah, Özgür Publishing, 2002, trans. by Enfel Doğan.

Sofranın etrafında yedi kişiydiler.

Bir gün, Mir’ati Şuun [Olayların Aynası gazetesi] sahib-i imtiyazı [imtiyaz sahibi]
Hüseyin Baha Efendi, matbaaya çehresinde [yüzünde] bir başka sevinç parıldayarak
 266 Ö. Berk Albachten

girdiği zaman dört nüshadan [sayıdan] beri devam eden ‘‘Dahili Sanatlar’’ [Ulusal
Sanatlar başlıklı] makalesinin altına son kelimesini iri bir yazı şeklinde karalamakla
meşgul olan [uğraşan] başmuharrir [başyazar] Ali Şekip’e demişti ki: [. . .]

This is the most recent translation of Mai ve Siyah. In fact, this is the only version
one can find in book-stores. This translation is produced by Enfel Doğan who
appears on the front page as the editor of the novel (yayına hazırlayan) and, like the
editors of the previous three translations, wrote a preface to his version where he
talks briefly about the novel and quotes from Uşaklıgil’s preface on his method of
simplification. Another preface written by the chief editor reveals the policy and
methods of the publishing house. It was claimed that the previous editions of the
novel were found unsatisfactory both because of their language which was already
dated and because of the various mistakes those editions contain which damaged the
literary values of the novel. The editor argued that the reader has to have the
opportunity to look at the ‘original edition that simplified version is based on
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

whenever ‘‘s/he is/feels doubtful’’’ (Uşaklıgil, 2002, p. 5).

As can be seen from the short passage quoted above, Doğan aims at keeping the
original text and uses a vast number of brackets and footnotes that provide translated
words as well as extra information. However, the orthography of the original text is
changed according to the modern Turkish orthography. This strategy did obviously
not allow any changes in the syntax. It is interesting to notice that some words that
were probably thought to be ‘old’ and changed into modern Turkish in previous
versions were kept in Doğan’s version. Words such as etrafında, matbaaya, devam
eden, and kelimesini were left unchanged without giving any equivalents in brackets
or in footnotes. There are, for example, 177 brackets in the first chapter (of 13 pages)
of the novel, and this number shows clearly that Doğan did not restrain himself from
using them in his version. In Doğan’s version chapter nine is also missing, and the
time in chapter eight is also given as ‘eleven thirty’ following the alaturka hour
system.

Discussion of the case study results

It is clear that one case cannot provide a detailed account of the strategies followed in
and the socio-cultural context of all intralingual translations in Turkey. But since
many of the publishers and editors/translators of Mai ve Siyah have also rewritten
and published other literary works, it can nevertheless be illustrative of the general
strategies used in many intralingual translation processes in Turkey. One important
common feature of intralingual translations in Turkey is the claim of authenticity. All
the intralingual translations of Mai ve Siyah mentioned above could be designated as
authenticated versions (Hermans, 2007, pp. 22, 23
25). It is through the prefatory
statements written by the translators, editors, and publishers, who do not deny the
original, but claim that their texts convey the same meaning and recreate the original,
that such authentication takes place. Thus, the statements of authentication ‘as the
proclamation of equivalence’ in these versions appear in the texts themselves
(Hermans, 2007, p. 11).
All six versions of Mai ve Siyah were published with the author’s name, i.e. Halid
Ziya Uşaklıgil, and the title on their cover pages. Although very similar to the
modern Turkish usage mavi (blue), mai is a word of Arabic origin that was kept in the
title of the novel in all the versions. Perhaps one common strategy that most of
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 267

intralingual translations in Turkish share is the non-translation of the title. Names of

the rewriters as editors, or designations such as ‘simplified versions’ on the inner
covers tell the readers little to nothing as to what extent the new versions have
undergone change. Although the prefaces written by the ‘translators’ often refer to
the original version by Uşaklıgil, they nevertheless stress the authenticity of their
own versions. Furthermore, apart from the most recent intralingual translation by
Enfel Doğan, none of the versions refer to the previous translations. As mentioned
earlier, they make references to Uşaklıgil’s ‘simplified version’ in their prefaces;
however, other versions are completely ignored. On the other hand, the ‘original
version’ they refer to is actually the already rewritten version by Uşaklıgil himself
and not one of the three previous editions in the Arabic script.
As earlier, the main reason for intralingual translations of Mai ve Siyah is given
by all the publishers, editors, and translators as the dated language of the previous
versions and the need of a more up-to-date language for new generations without
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

altering the original. Though different in their approaches, all these rewriters try to
separate the author’s original text from their own additions in an attempt to claim
authenticity. Despite the declarations of the translators that they do not interfere
with the original text and that the new versions are the originals, what we find is a
constant reminder of the translator’s presence, and what we read is a translation and
not the original. In addition to various prefaces and introductions, all these
translations used a large number of parentheses, brackets, footnotes, and glossaries
as evidence to prove that they left the original intact.
Perhaps the extensive number of footnotes in all these versions provides the most
helpful clues about the factors that have an impact on intralingual translations.
There are, for example, 44 footnotes in the whole novel by Özgür Publishing, by
İnkılâp Kitabevi the number of the footnotes is 66, and there are 80 footnotes in
Kızılcan’s version published by İnkılâp ve Aka. In Gözler’s version, there are 43
footnotes in the first chapter of 12 pages, and 406 in the whole book. The main
points of focus in the footnotes can be summarized as general information,
geographic and biographic information, information on the novel, translations of
foreign names from Western languages into modern Turkish, translations of the
quotations (mostly literary) from the Ottoman Turkish into the modern Turkish, and
(critical) comments on the novel and its language. An examination of the footnotes
shows that the ‘simplification’ process was not limited to finding equivalents on the
word level; it also aimed to provide the new generation of readers with all kinds of
historical, cultural, and linguistic information.
In relation to this point, a major problem arises from determining the foreignness
of the text. In interlingual translation it is accepted that the source text belongs to a
different linguistic and cultural system. Thus the text to be translated becomes
subject to a complete translation process. However, in intralingual translation there
is a selective process: only parts of the source text are considered foreign or
unintelligible to the target culture. This viewpoint prevents a holistic approach to the
text being translated. The choices made by the translators in determining the old and
foreign words are obviously subjective and depend very much on their linguistic and
cultural background and their ideological stance. While certain words are translated
every time they appear in the text, some others are translated only once. Also some
words of Arabic and Persian origin are replaced by Western, for example French,
borrowings. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that some words that were thought
to be old or foreign in the 1970s and 1990s and changed by Kızılcan and Kutlu,
 268 Ö. Berk Albachten

respectively, were kept in the most recent version by Doğan. This demonstrates that
the most recent version is not necessarily written in the most ‘pure’ Turkish and that
the reasons for such choices need to be sought in the ideological norms of the period
in question.

Concluding remarks
Intralingual translation is an area of research that has been hitherto largely neglected
or overlooked by translation scholars. Intralingual translation in Turkey in the sense
of updating old literary texts is in close connection with the country’s cultural
policies since the first years of the Republic. Various intralingual translations of a
literary work are therefore good sources that reveal linguistic, translational, and
ideological norms of the periods during which these translations were produced.
The differences in the words that were chosen to be changed and the synonyms
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

selected to replace these words in different versions of Mai ve Siyah are good cases in
point that show the language situation in Turkey in the decades following the
Republic. The fact that intralingual translations sometimes appear at intervals of
only a few years refutes the claim of the aging of language and that the development
of the language follows a linear path. In this context, Nevzat Kızılcan appears to be
the one that tends to use the most pure Turkish words in his translation, although it
is the first intralingual translation after Uşaklıgil’s version. Gözler’s version that
followed Kızılcan’s only after three years uses a language closer to Uşaklıgil’s. These
versions demonstrate that the translational choices by the translators are not
innocent, but reveal their ideological stances. Furthermore, the analysis of the
omissions, additions, or other changes made in intralingual translations in
accordance to the changing norms and ideology of the country is another interesting
and less known area for research in Translation History.10
The presentation of intralingual translations also sheds light on the practice and
perception of interlingual translations. In the prefaces and footnotes written by the
translators, we can see what is regarded as (interlingual) translation and what falls
outside this realm. One can generally argue that the translators of Mai ve Siyah
wanted to be visible in order to distinguish their interventions from the author’s
work. Their main concern was to protect the ‘original’ work, and their aim was to
reproduce a work that is identical to the original. One can perhaps also argue that the
concept of authenticity and the belief that the original can be identically reproduced
became stronger with the more recent versions. The fact that none of these versions
are labeled as translations might also suggest that in the eyes of these translators,
(interlingual) translation betrays the original. Thus, what they are engaged in is not a
type of translation.
Finally, and perhaps more importantly, intralingual translations can shed light on
our relationship with the past. Discussions on intralingual translation in literary
circles and its practice in Turkey reveal a certain unease with the Ottoman past as to
the (dis)continuity and (dis)unity of the Turkish language and culture. Detailed
analyses of the practice of intralingual translation would indicate what is considered
foreign and what is accepted in different periods, and accordingly how the
relationship between Ottoman and modern Turkish literature and culture has been
defined, evaluated, and perceived.
Concealed under the rubric of different terminology, the practice of intralingual
translation in Turkey shows that it is not a merely linguistic activity, but a cultural
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 269

and ideological one, exceeding the efforts of finding equivalents for words, and thus
needs to be analyzed with translational concepts. The relationship between
intralingual translation in the sense of modernizing the language and different
nationalisms, especially in countries such as Turkey, offers a valuable and interesting
area of research that needs to be included in Translation History. There is much need
especially for historical-descriptive research and systemic analyses of texts that have
remained outside the realm of ‘proper translation’ or texts that have not been defined
as translations, such as intralingual translations in Turkey. Further research that
reveals the agenda behind intralingual translations and their effects would contribute
not only to translation, but also to research in cultural and literary history.

Notes
1. Simplification is used here for the Turkish term ‘sadeleştirme’, from the Persian ‘sade’,
meaning simple, plain, and pure among others. ‘Sadeleştirme’ is a general term in
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

Turkish used for intralingual translations where the translator’s main aim is to transform
the text into a linguistically (and stylistically) simpler version for new generations.
2. ‘Levâyih-i Hayât’ın Osmanlı Türkçesinden günümüz Türkçesine aktarılmasını diliçi çeviri
olarak değerlendiriyoruz. Diliçi terimini de ‘‘sadeleştirme’’ nin yerine kullanıyoruz.
Bugüne kadar, Arap harfli metinleri günümüz Türkçesine aktaran çalışmalarda genellikle
‘‘sadeleştirme’’ terimi kullanılmıştır. Ancak bu terim çalışmanın bir çeviri faaliyeti
olduğunu gizlemektedir. [. . .] Levâyih-i Hayât’ın diliçi çevirisinde, Osmanlı Türkçesinin
gramer ve cümle yapısı bakımından yarattığı sorunların çözümünde metnin anlaşılabilir
olmasına özen gösterdik. Anlaşılabilir olma normumuzun özellikle metnin dilinin,
imajlarının daha ağır veya daha ‘‘Osmanlıca’’ olduğu bölümlerde yoğunlaştığını
belirtmeliyiz.’
3. See for example Ahmet Necdet’s anthology of Divan poetry (1995) where he restructured
210 poems in modern Turkish without any explanatory notes, but with the originals on
the opposing page and with a dictionary at the end of the book.
4. There is one more version of the novel in the Arabic script which appeared in 1928 in the
abridged form by Halid Fahri Ozansoy which is not included in the following discussion.
5. The year 1330 appears on the inner cover and on the outer cover of the book; however,
the publishing date is given as 1332.
6. ‘Terkibleri, me’nus olmayan kelimeleri, ağır cümleleri bugünün zevkine uydurmak
istedim. Üsluba, ibarelerin inşa tarzına, velhasıl eserin bünyesine asla dokunmadım.
Aksine hareket, kitabı esas mahiyetinden soymak olurdu.’
7. Previous editions of 1963, 1968, and 1971 and by the same publisher use Uşaklıgil’s
simplified version.
8. The term Kızılcan uses here is another ‘simplified’ word: He does not use ‘sadeleştirme’
but ‘yalınlaştırma’ from the Turkish ‘yalın’ which has an equivalent meaning.
9. One can also assume that, despite the adoption of the Western time and calendar in 1925,
the alaturka hour system and the traditional calendar of the Ottoman Empire, the Hijri
calendar, were used in people’s everyday life for a long time.
10. Analyzing various editions of Reşat Nuri Güntekin’s Çalıkuşu (The Autobiography of a
Turkish Girl) comparatively, N. Ahmet Özalp (1999) concludes that the sixth edition of
the novel published in 1939 differs considerably from the 1922 edition in its content.
Similarly, Özalp (2011) reveals how nine of the ten books Refik Halid Karay wrote before
1922 were significantly rewritten after 1939. Especially, Karay’s various essays that he
wrote under the pen-name Kirpi (Hedgehog) where he criticized the Committee of Union
and Progress were to a large extent (self)censured.

Notes on contributor
Özlem Berk Albachten holds a BA in Italian Language and Literature (Istanbul University)
and an MA and PhD in Translation Studies (University of Warwick, UK). She is associate
 270 Ö. Berk Albachten

professor of translation studies at Boğaziçi University. Her areas of research include history of
translation in Turkey, translation and identity formation, intralingual translations, Turkish
literature in translation, and travel writing. Her recent publications include ‘The Turkish
Language Reform and Intralingual Translation’ (Tension and Tradition: Dynamics of
Translation in Turkey, ed. by Şehnaz Tahir-Gürçağlar et al., John Benjamins, in press), ‘Exile
as Translation and Transformation in the early Republican Turkey’ (Translation Studies:
Special Issue: Contemporary Perspectives on Translation in Turkey, 3(2), 132
148).

References
Andrews, W.G. (2002). Starting over again: Some suggestions for rethinking Ottoman Divan
poetry in the context of translation and transmission. In: S. Paker (Ed.), Translations:
(re)shaping of literature and culture (pp. 15-40). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Berk, Ö. (2005). Diliçi çeviriler ve Mai ve siyah [Intralingual translations and Blue and black].
Dilbilim, 14, 139
149.
Berk Albachten, Ö. (in press). The Turkish language reform and intralingual translation. In
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

S. Paker, J. Milton, & Ş. Tahir Gürçağlar (Eds.), Tension and tradition: Dynamics of
translation in Turkey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
ÇEVBİR-YAYBİR. 2007. Plagiarism Investigation Commission Final Report. Retrieved from
http://www.cevbir.org/index.php?optioncom_content&viewarticle&id205:plagiarism&
catid51:english
Demircioğlu, C. (2005). From discourse to practice: Rethinking ‘Translation’ (Terceme) and
related practices of text production in the late Ottoman literary tradition (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Boğaziçi University, Turkey.
Demircioğlu, C. (2009). Translating Europe: The case of Ahmed Midhat as an Ottoman agent
of translation. In J. Milton & P. Bandia (Eds.), Agents of translation (pp. 131
159).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dilçin, C. (2007). Divan şiirini günümüzün Türkçesine aktarma ve diliçi çeviri [Transfer of
Divan poetry into the present-day Turkish and intralingual translation]. In A. Külahlıoğlu
İslam & S. Eker (Eds.), Edebiyat ve dil yazıları, Mustafa İsen’e armağan [Essays on
literature and language: Festschrift for Mustafa İsen] (pp. 149
169). Ankara: Grafiker
Yayınları.
Hanım, F.A. (1897
98/2002). Hayattan sahneler (Levâyih-i hayât) [Life scenes]. (T. Gençtürk
Demircioğlu, Trans. & Ed.). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Hermans, T. (2007). The conference of the tongues. Manchester: St Jerome.
Holbrook, V.R. (2002). Concealed facts, translation, and the Turkish literary past. In S. Paker
(Ed.), Translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (pp. 77
107). Istanbul: Boğaziçi
University Press.
Kutlu, Ş. (1987). Kırk yıl üzerine [On Kırk yıl]. In H.Z. Uşaklıgil, Kırk yıl [Forty years] (pp. 7
15).
Istanbul: İnkılâp Kitabevi.
Necdet, A. (1995). Bugünün diliyle Divan şiiri antolojisi [Anthology of Divan poetry in today’s
language]. Istanbul: Adam.
Önertoy, O. (1999). Halit Ziya Uşaklıgil romancılıg ˘ ı ve romanımızdaki yeri [Halit Ziya Uşaklıgil
as a novelist and his place in our novel]. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
Özalp, N.A. (1999). Edebiyatta dirijizm: Çalıkuşu operasyonu I
II [Dirigism in literature:
Çalıkuşu operation I
II]. Kaşgar, 10
11(29
36), 10
23.
Özalp, N.A. (2011). Refik Halid Karay: Okları kırılmış kirpi [Refik Halid Karay: Hedgehog
with the broken quills]. Istanbul: Kapı Yayınları.
Paker, S. (2002). Translation as terceme and nazire: Culture-bound concepts and their
implications for a conceptual framework for research on Ottoman translation history. In
T. Hermans (Ed.), Crosscultural transgressions, research models in Translation Studies II:
Historical and ideological issues (pp. 120
143). Manchester: St Jerome.
Paker, S. (2011). Translating ‘the shadow class [. . .] condemned to movement’ and the very
otherness of the other: Latife Tekin as author-translator of Swords of ice. In
D. Asimakoulas & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation and opposition (pp. 146
160). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 271

Sançar, N. (1958). Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil’in eserleri ve eserlerinin çeşitli basımları [Halid Ziya
Uşaklıgil’s works and their various editions]. Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Bülteni, 7(3
4),
36
47.
Strauss, J. (2002). Turkish translations from Mehmet Ali’s Egypt: A pioneering effort and its
results. In S. Paker (Ed.), Translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (pp. 108
147).
Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Tahir Gürçağlar, Ş. (2011). Rewriting, culture planning and resistance in the Turkish folk tale.
In D. Asimakoulas & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation and opposition (pp. 59
76). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Tekin, G.A. (2003). Eski Türk edebiyatı metinlerinin bugünkü Türkçeye açımlamalı
çevrilmesinin gerekliliği üzerine [On the necessity of translating old Turkish literary texts
into today’s Turkish with explanations]. In A. Ata & M. Ölmez (Eds.), Mustafa Canbolat
armağanı [Festschrift for Mustafa Canbolat] (pp. 233
254). Ankara: Şafak Matbaası.
Toska, Z. (2002). Evaluative approaches to translated Ottoman Turkish literature in future
research. In S. Paker (Ed.), Translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (pp. 58
76).
Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Toska, Z. (2007). Ahmet Midhat Efendi’nin ‘Bir diğer eseri’: Hülâsa-i Hümâyunnâme
Downloaded by [Bogazici University] at 09:41 15 June 2013

[‘Another work’ by Ahmet Midhat Efendi: Hülâsa-i Hümâyunnâme]. Journal of Turkish

Studies [In memoriam Ş. Tekin Hatıra sayısı II, Y. Dağlı, Y. Dedes, & S.S. Kuru (Eds.)],
31(II), 291
318.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (1317). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black]. Istanbul: Ahmet İhsan ve Şürekâsı,
Alem Matbaası.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (1330/1332). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black]. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Hayriye ve
Şürekâsı, Muhtar Halid Kitaphanesi.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (1928). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black] (H.F. Ozansoy (Ed.). Ankara: Maarif
Vekaleti.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (1938). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black]. Istanbul: Hilmi.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (1977). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black]. (N. Kızılcan, Trans.). Istanbul: İnkılâp
ve Aka.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (1980). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black]. (H.F. Gözler, Trans.). Istanbul: İnkılâp
ve Aka.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (1997). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black]. (Ş. Kutlu, Trans.). Istanbul: İnkılâp
Kitabevi.
Uşaklıgil, H.Z. (2002). Mai ve siyah [Blue and black]. (E. Doğan, Trans.). Istanbul: Özgür
Yayınları.

View publication stats