Interview by Erkan Avşar
Hocam, as someone who has done valuable work on translation and teaches in this field, how would you define translation?
If it were possible to define translation — which is limited by multifaceted, multidimensional factors — in a single sentence, I would say: “Translation is being born in another language.” I would thus be adding one more — if somewhat exotic-sounding — to the dozens of definitions that have been made. That is why I liken the definition of translation to the definition of love — I mean as a method. Ask a few people around you to define love. Depending on their experiences, reading and intellectual level, you will find definitions that may differ from or resemble one another. Translation is the same: the definition takes shape according to the perspective from which you look at it. Those who see translation from a linguistic perspective, for example, define it differently from those who see it as text, discourse, social interaction, intercultural pragmatics and so on. Consequently the approaches differ too.
I must say you have a very different and colourful perspective. On that basis, could you tell us what the turning points in translation research have been over the last thirty years?
Limiting your question to the last thirty years is very wise. We are talking about a period in which translation “stood on its own feet” as a discipline — a period in which translation studies gained independence from comparative literature and contrastive analysis. I could call it the period of “systematic translation studies”. Its groundwork was laid by work done in the fifties and sixties: the linguistically oriented studies of Catford, Vinay and Darbelnet, and later Mounin and Nida, are important milestones in this process.
By the seventies we see the linguistic approach to translation being continued and developed by researchers in Germany. In this period, under the influence of text linguistics and discourse analysis, text-oriented approaches to translation also developed; the work of Reiss and Vermeer is very important in this respect.
In the eighties, descriptive translation studies based on theories of comparative literature emerged. The work of the Israeli scholar Gideon Toury is an important milestone.
In the nineties, especially in applied translation studies, I can say that researchers such as my esteemed teacher Mona Baker — whose doctoral-level courses I benefited from — and Hatim and Mason produced work that left its mark.
Seen in the perspective of this development, translation studies continues to develop today through interdisciplinary work.
How do you see Arabic translation activity in Türkiye?
In Arabic translations made in Türkiye I see two trends developing as if unaware of each other. In the first, content is given priority: the attitude that “as long as the content of a message is carried into the target language, it doesn’t matter how.” We see this approach dominating especially in the translation of ideological and religious texts. In this approach, since the source text is in effect translated back into the source text by means of the target language, loss is inevitable at many levels. I cannot say this tendency is the right approach. The second trend is more promising. Although it is not usually nourished by translation research, the translator’s awareness is noticeable. Translations of some narrative and historical texts in recent years show that Arabic translation in Türkiye is now taking steps towards “normalisation”.
Can we say, then, that Arabic translation in Türkiye still has some problems and needs to be developed?
Arabic translation in Türkiye has many handicaps, among them “weak” translations. Shouldn’t a translator of novels have read at least some of the Turkish and world classics? Shouldn’t someone who translates poetry be a devoted reader of poetry?
A second handicap of Arabic translation is the dominance of a one-way translation movement. In Türkiye, when Arabic translation is mentioned, what first comes to mind is translation from Arabic. In other words, the “import–export balance” in Arabic translation has unfortunately developed in favour of imports and continues to do so. The classic names of Turkish literature and intellectual history do not yet exist in Arabic.
Could the fact that Arabic and Turkish are very different languages also be causing these problems?
Of course it could. Turkish and Arabic are two languages that differ in phonology, morphology and syntax. These differences do not stem only from “semantic gaps” between words. There are many words that entered our language from Arabic and underwent a shift in meaning; we call them “false friends”. Through L1 interference or negative transfer, language learners can fall into the trap of using them. Yet the word the student thinks is Arabic has now become “Turkish” — and perhaps is no longer used in Arabic, or is used in another sense. Such a problem hardly exists between English and Arabic; it is an important problem especially between languages that are culturally close.
In this situation, compensating for the problems arising from linguistic differences depends on the translator’s experience and skill. Sometimes, as in poetry translation, compensation may not be possible.
However, in translation practice from or into Arabic, inadequacies of translation play a more negative role than the differences between the two languages. To overcome this, we first of all need contrastive linguistic studies between the two languages. Above all, we do not have a “map” of the differences between them at various levels; data produced by qualitative or quantitative research is almost non-existent. Here academia can play a very important role.
Are these problems in translation also reflected in the teaching of Arabic in Türkiye? If so, what are the problems in teaching Arabic in Türkiye?
The biggest problem of Arabic teaching in Türkiye is not being aware of the problem. If you accept the problem, you focus on the solution. Thinking quickly, leaving aside the student, I see two problems in Arabic teaching: the textbook and the teacher. So everything is problematic (laughter). As for textbooks, this is an important gap in Arabic teaching not only in Türkiye but worldwide. In textbooks prepared in Arab countries, a concern with “delivering a message” is generally more noticeable than with teaching Arabic. The books are not communicative, the visuals are gloomy, the texts are cut off from life, and the activities are monotonous and inadequate. Just leaf through a book from the English face2face series and a book from any series published in the Arab world, and you will see the difference at once.
As for teachers, Arabic teachers often lack the motivation of teaching a foreign language. Especially at secondary level, the teacher should be able to use drama successfully in teaching the language, shape the textbook to the needs of their own students, and use visual and audio aids. I am not going to give a methodology lesson here. In short, the teacher must “do something”.
Speaking of methodology brings to mind your book Öteki Dilde Var Olmak (Existing in the Other Language), published by Multilingual. Frankly, I see it as a groundbreaking work in this field. Why “Existing in the Other Language”?
As you know, it is a work I turned into a book from my doctoral thesis, and I am receiving very positive responses from many readers and researchers. The book examines various levels of equivalence. When we speak of equivalence between the source and target languages, a series of parameters comes into play. In my view, these arise because one language is “other” in relation to the other. I thought of it like this: if you create a text, one way or another, in the target language — that is, in the “other” — you have in a sense realised your existence in the “other”.
An interesting approach. Finally, do you have a message for the volunteers of Onlinearabic?
What can I say? I love them (laughter). I would like to say that following the dynamic developments in translation studies will broaden their perspective on translation and contribute to translation studies in Türkiye meeting the needs of the day.
Hocam, thank you for this conversation, which was as satisfying as it was enjoyable.
It was a pleasure for me. This country needs people who ask questions more than people who give answers; the path to critical thinking passes through asking questions. Being questioned by a hard-working student of the past who is now a productive colleague was exciting for me. Heartfelt love to the Onlinearabic community.
At the time of this interview, Mehmet Hakkı Suçin, a graduate of the Department of Arabic Language and Literature at Ankara University’s Faculty of Languages, History and Geography (1993), had worked as a translator at the Embassy of Kuwait in Ankara (1993–1998), begun teaching at the Department of Arabic Language Education at Gazi University (1998), completed a master’s thesis on Yahya Haqqi’s narrative art (1998) and a doctoral thesis on equivalence problems at the level of words and fixed expressions in Arabic translation (2004), and worked as a visiting scholar at the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, University of Manchester (2006).
Originally published in Turkish on Onlinearabic. Translated into English for this site.