Advertisement

Turkish Retranslations of Philosophical Concepts in Kritik der reinen Vernunft

  • Yeşim Tükel Kanra
Chapter
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)

Abstract

This study analyzes the (re)translations of Kritik der reinen Vernunft (The Critique of Pure Reason) (1781/1787), one of the three critiques of Kant discussing the limits of reason in Western metaphysical philosophy. This text has been selected for analysis mainly because its (re)translations cover a period from 1935 to 2010, a period where significant steps were taken regarding linguistic policies in Turkey. The focus of analysis will be the retranslation of philosophical concepts in Kant’s philosophy in mainly three translations. Linguistic preferences of translators and particularly their preferences in translating concepts can provide valuable insights on their discursive positions amid ongoing political transformations. Retranslations are bound to reflect these tendencies, and hence research on retranslations of philosophical concepts potentially yields substantial insights. As a methodology, conceptual history has the potential to help researchers in exploring how the concepts conveyed by translation are posited in Turkish as a language of philosophy. This study involves a detailed analysis of the typology of key concepts in the translations and retranslations as the preliminary step in a study on conceptual history based on the diachronic and synchronic methodology at the macro level suggested by Koselleck (Begriffsgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte, Metapherngeschichte. Wallstein, Göttingen, 2002) to embark on an analysis of the intertextuality of concepts outside of the text. The findings presented in this study on retranslations of concepts are bound to provide preliminary insights for future research on conceptual history drawing on the resources envisaged by Koselleck.

References

  1. Alper, Ö. M. (2005). Eski Dilde Yeni Felsefe: Arap Harfli Türkçe Kant Çalışmaları. Cogito, 41–42, 510–516.Google Scholar
  2. Atıcı, M. (1998, June 25). Felsefe Çevirilerinde Dilin Önemi, Cumhuriyet Kitap [Cumhuriyet literary supplement]. https://jimithekewl.com/2012/03/04/medaratici/.
  3. Bal, M. (Ed., & Trans.). (2012). Kant’ın Temel Kavramları, (based on A Hegel dictionary by Michael Inwood). Bibliotech- Felsefe, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(17), pp. 68–82.Google Scholar
  4. Boase-Beier, J. (2006). Stylistic approaches to translation. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
  5. Bozkurt, N. (2008). In I. Kant (Ed.), Kant’ın “Seçilmiş Yazıları”nı Sunarken (pp. 11–12). Istanbul: Say Yayınları.Google Scholar
  6. Bykova, M. (1993). Probleme der philosophischen Übersetzung. In A. P. Frank et al. (Eds.), Übersetzen, verstehen, Brücken bauen (Vol. 1, pp. 248–255). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
  7. Dostal, R. J. (1993). Das Übersetzen Kants ins Englische. In A. P. Frank et al. (Eds.), Übersetzen, verstehen, Brücken bauen (Vol. 1, pp. 256–268). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
  8. Duralı, Ş. T. (2010). Salt Aklın Eleştirisi’nin Özet Tercümesi ile Yorumu. Tercümeye Sözbaşı. In Aklın Anatomisi – Salt Aklın Eleştirisinin Teşrihi (pp. 126–129). Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları.Google Scholar
  9. Erişirgil, M. E. (1935). Birkaç Söz. In I. Kant (Ed.), Kant’tan Parçalar (pp. 1–3). Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası.Google Scholar
  10. Erişirgil, M. E. (1997). Kant ve Felsefesi. Istanbul: İnsan Yayınları.Google Scholar
  11. Frey, M., & Aly, A. (2010). Kant auf Arabisch: Übersetzungsprobleme und deren Lösungen durch die Übersetzer der Schriften “Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?” und “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”. Asiatische Studien, 64(3), 535–579.Google Scholar
  12. Gökberk, M. (2004). Değişen Dünya Değişen Dil (4th ed.). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, F. R. (2009). Literary translation. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), The Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed., pp. 152–157). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Kafadar, O. (2000). Türkiye’de Kültürel Dönüşümler ve Felsefe Eğitimi. Istanbul: Iz Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  15. Kant, I. (1784). Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/beantwortung-der-frage-was-ist-aufklarung-3505/3. Accessed 25 Oct 2015.
  16. Kant, I. (1998a/1781). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (J. Zimmerman, Ed.). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  17. Kant, I. (1998b). Preface for the second edition. In J. Zimmerman (Ed.), Kritik der reinen Vernunft (pp. 15–40). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kant, I. (2003/1788). Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (H. Brandt, Ed.). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  19. Kant, I. (2009/1799). Kritik der Urteilskraft (H. F. Klemme, Ed.). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  20. Kara, İ. (2001). Bir Felsefe Dili Kurmak. Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları.Google Scholar
  21. Koselleck, R. (2002). Hinweise auf die temporalen Strukturen begriffsgeschichtlichen Wandels. In H. E. Bödeker (Ed.), Begriffsgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte, Metapherngeschichte (pp. 29–47). Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
  22. Levend, A. S. (1960). Türk Dilinde Gelişme ve Sadeleşme Evreleri. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
  23. Öksüz, Y. Z. (1995). Türkçenin Sadeleşme Tarihi – Genç Kalemler ve Yeni Lisan Hareketi. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
  24. Öztop, A. (Ed.). (2016). Felsefe Mecmuası Baha Tevfik ve Arkadaşları. Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.Google Scholar
  25. Öztürk, Ü. (2012a). Türkçede Kant Çevirileri: Terminolojik Problemlere Bazı Çözüm Önerileri. In Uluslararası Dil ve İletişim Sempozyumu: Araştırma Eğilimleri ve Güçlükler (pp. 1641–1648), Izmir University.Google Scholar
  26. Öztürk, Ü. (2012b). Şaban Teoman Duralı: Aklın Anatomisi – Salt Aklın Eleştirisi’nin Teşrihi. Kaygı, 19, 213–215.Google Scholar
  27. Paker, S. (1997). A historical perspective on the diversity of discourses in Turkish as a target language. In H. Anamur (Ed.), Memoriam of Hasan-Âli Yücel (pp. 47–55). Istanbul: Yıldız Technical University.Google Scholar
  28. Price, J. M. (2008). Translating social science: Good versus bad utopianism. Targets, 20(2), 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadoğlu, H. (2003). Türkiye’de Ulusçuluk ve Dil Politikaları. Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, N. K. (1918). A commentary Kant’s critique of pure reason. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  31. Tahir Gürçağlar, Ş. (2008). The politics and poetics of translation in Turkey 1923–1960. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tevfik, R. (2015). In R. Alpyağıl (Ed.), Kâmûs-ı Felsefe. Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları.Google Scholar
  33. Toska, Z. (2000). İleriye Yönelik Araştırmalarla İlgili Olarak Eski Türk Edebiyatı Sahasında Yazılmış Olan Tercüme Metinleri Değerlendirmelerde İzlenecek Yöntem/ler Ne Olmalıdır? Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları, 24(1), 291–306.Google Scholar
  34. Uçman, A. (2005). Rıza Tevfik’in Mufassal Kamus-ı Felsefe Adlı Lügatı. İlmi Araştırmalar, 19, 165–175.Google Scholar
  35. Ülken, H. Z. (1947). Türk Felsefe Dilinin Gelişmesi. Felsefe Tercümeleri Dergisi, 1(1), 135–143.Google Scholar
  36. Ülken, H. Z. (2001). Türkiye’de Çağdaş Düşünce Tarihi (7th ed.). Istanbul: Ülken Yayınları.Google Scholar
  37. Utku, A. (2011). Felsefe Sözlüklerimiz: Geç-Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Bir Literatür Değerlendirmesi. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 9(17), 399–420.Google Scholar
  38. Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallerstein, I. (1981). Concepts in the social sciences: Problems of translation. In M. G. Rose (Ed.), Translation spectrum: Essays in theory and practice (pp. 88–98). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  40. Yardımlı, A. (1993). In I. Kant & A. Usun Eleştirisi (Eds.), Arkasöz (pp. 765–770). Istanbul: Idea Yayınevi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yeşim Tükel Kanra
    • 1
  1. 1.Istanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations