the ideology of lexical choices in the turkish translations of oliver twist

publishers in the translation process. Christina Schäffner points out that “what may
look like a ‘mistranslation’ or ‘translation loss’ at first glance (from a linguistic or
text specific point of view) will actually turn out to highlight the socio-political or
ideological structures, processes, norms, and constraints in which translations were
produced (and received)” (2004; 142). Therefore, a critical analysis of the target texts
would help unveil and criticize the socio-political practices and relationships (ibid.).
The texts, which provide the data for this thesis, are Charles Dickens’ Oliver
Twist, and its five different Turkish versions. The analysis was carried out in the
following sequence: First, the source text and then the five versions were read
carefully. Then, lexical items (words, phrases, and expressions) that sounded
‘different’ were extracted from the versions, and they were paired with the
corresponding ones in the source text. This method helped identify the alterations to
the source text, i.e., additions, omissions, and distortions made by the publishers. To
consider the publishers as the active agents responsible for these alterations may
seem problematic. However, the translators are not acknowledged in none of the
versions; that is, their names do not appear in the published texts at all. Therefore, it
is assumed that it is the publishers that have produced them.
There are four reasons behind the choice of Oliver Twist as the source text.
First, the work is hailed as one of the greatest works of world literature. Second, it is
an account of the 19 th century England, and it contains a great many cultural
elements, particularly elements of Christianity. It was thought that it would be
interesting to compare the source text with its Turkish versions in terms of the
treatment of cultural, specifically religious, elements. Third, the Turkish versions are
examples of ‘translation for children’ rather than ‘translation of children’s literature.’
That is to say, each version is an example of a ‘refracted text.’ A refracted text is
defined by Lefevere as a text that has been “processed for a certain audience
(children, for example), or adapted to a certain poetics or certain ideology” (1981;
72). In that respect, the Turkish versions can also be regarded as examples of
‘rewriting,’ which is “the adaptation of a work of literature to a different audience,
with the intention of influencing the way in which that audience reads the work”
(Lefevere, 1982; 4). Thus, it would not be wrong to use the terms ‘adaptation,’
xii