This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 16 November 2014, At: 12:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Translation StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrs20

Beyoğlu/Pera as a translating site inIstanbulŞule Demirkol-Ertürka & Saliha Pakerb

a Department of Translation and Interpreting Studies, YeditepeUniversity, Turkeyb Department of Translation and Interpreting Studies, BoğaziçiUniversity, TurkeyPublished online: 10 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Şule Demirkol-Ertürk & Saliha Paker (2014) Beyoğlu/Pera as a translating site inIstanbul, Translation Studies, 7:2, 170-185, DOI: 10.1080/14781700.2013.874538

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.874538

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Beyoğlu/Pera as a translating site in IstanbulŞule Demirkol-Ertürka* and Saliha Pakerb

aDepartment of Translation and Interpreting Studies, Yeditepe University, Turkey; bDepartmentof Translation and Interpreting Studies, Boğaziçi University, Turkey

In this article the Beyoğlu/Pera district, heart of cosmopolitan Istanbul, isconceived as a site of “interculture”, of interaction, involving a nexus oftranslators and publishers from different ethnic, cultural and linguistic back-grounds. To explore the making of new culture repertoires replacing thosedominant in the early years of the Turkish nation state, the context is set with abrief history of the social/political/cultural change in Istanbul, before and after the1990s. Here, “interculture” gains urban concreteness, enabling analyses ofmultiple translating/publishing practices which concern specifically Armenianand Kurdish “minority” cultures and languages of Turkey, as well as Turkish.Discourses are foregrounded to illuminate (a) aspects of the translators’/publish-ers’ habitus regarding current resistance to patterns set by the dominantdiscourse, and (b) the agents’ intentions to work for change in creating newspaces of inter-communication and interaction, opening closed societies andstanding against “structured” differences among ethnic and linguistic collectivitiesthat operate in the same area of Istanbul.

Keywords: Beyoğlu/Pera; Armenian and Kurdish “minority” cultures; intercul-ture; culture repertoire; translator’s habitus; translation as resistance; history oftranslation

The city […] does not tell its past, but contains it like the linesof a hand, written in the corners of the streets, the gratings of thewindows, the banisters of the steps, the antennae of the lightningrods, the poles of the flags, every segment marked in turn with

scratches, indentations, scrolls.

(Calvino 1978, 11)

Istanbul wasn’t always Istanbul. It has been Byzantion, Constantino-polis, in the mid-Byzantine period it was simply Polis, in the Ottoman

period it was Konstantiniyye, İslambol, Dersaadet, and had manyother names; but it was never only Istanbul. During the first half of the20th century, the names, except for Istanbul, were almost completelywiped out. The city became Istanbul. This, as always, signifies more

than just a name change.

(Tanyeli 2008, 43)

Names are fragile ciphers for dramatically changing realities.(Simon 2012, 15)

*Corresponding author. Email: suledemirkol@gmail.com

Translation Studies, 2014Vol. 7, No. 2, 170–185, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.874538

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

As its various names imply, Istanbul is a city of multilayered memories and histories.With the complex, multifaceted aspects of its past and present, it stands like a“plural”, “writerly text”, as defined by Roland Barthes ([1974] 2002, 5), which lendsitself to multiple readings and rewritings. In such a “plural” city, stories and historiesdepend on the perspectives of its readers: visitors travelling its streets or lifelongresidents, immigrants from different parts of Anatolia or from different countries ofthe world, those living in the shanties or those who had to leave it never to return.The city means a different past and a different present to each who writes about it.Authors writing about Istanbul also read the city as a “plural” text (Demirkol-Ertürk2010, 8–9). Just like a translator who “must make choices, selecting aspects or partsof a text to transpose and emphasize” (Tymoczko 2000, 24), they highlight parts ofthe city-text and create alternative narratives of the city, since it cannot be reflectedin its entirety (Demirkol-Ertürk 2010, 8–9).

For the contemporary international reader, one among these various narrativesseems to have prevailed over others: the Nobel Prize-winning Orhan Pamuk’sreading of the city, in his Istanbul, Memories and the City (Pamuk [2005] 2006). Theimage he has produced travels the world through its interlingual translations andrewritings based on or inspired by it. According to Pamuk (ibid.), Turkey’s“westernization” project failed and the multicultural character of the city wasdestroyed due to nationalist movements born hand in hand with it: “It was the end ofthe grand polyglot multicultural Istanbul of the imperial age; the city stagnated,emptied itself out, and became a monotonous monolingual town in black and white”(ibid., 238, 245–246).

It is true that the city has changed remarkably in the last century. As UğurTanyeli (2008) pointed out, a process of social and cultural homogenization tookplace from the 1920s onward, in the course of which the city “forgot” many of its oldnames. Istanbul became the standard designation for the city as “the least political,least religious and least ethnical [sic] among the names in use” and “the singulariza-tion foreseen by nationalist imagination appeared to have been established” (ibid.,44–45).1 However, a new cosmopolitanism has gradually come to replace thetraditional one: “The city of fixed communities and statuses, where inflow andoutflow was strictly controlled, now (especially after the 1980s) set out to becomeone shaped by the countless parameters of individualities, preferences, expressions,interests, groupings and separations” (ibid., 45).

Without claiming to be exhaustive in scope and detail, this article sets out tobreak new ground in exploring the cultural networks of the city – focusing on theBeyoğlu/Pera district of contemporary Istanbul in light of shifting parametersoccurring in culture, language and politics, especially since the 1990s. This particulardecade marks a significant turn in the creation of new culture repertoires to replacethose dominant in the early years of the Turkish nation state. Naturally, translatingand translations play an essential role in this process, as they did in the days ofOttoman Konstantiniyye and further back in Byzantine Konstantinoupolis. TheBeyoğlu district on the European side of the city is specifically selected as the focalpoint of this article as it represents an intriguing example of a modern “interculture”where conflicts and divergences in cultural memory seem to have entered a processof negotiation and mediation through translation activity. Beyoğlu, the heart ofcosmopolitan Istanbul, has also been known as Pera (from the Greek to pera, “theother side” of the old city) since Byzantine and Ottoman times.2 The name Pera,

Translation Studies 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

which had fallen into relative disuse in the idiom of Istanbul until the 1990s, hassince then been revived as a symbolic designation of the new cosmopolitanism ofIstanbul. Here we chose to refer to the district as Beyoğlu/Pera for its resonance withthe past.

Istanbul has been aptly described as “an interzone of mediation” (Eldem, quotedin Simon 2012, 154), which would apply equally well to Beyoğlu/Pera. Using theconcept of “interculture” (as will be discussed below) which has already made a placefor itself in translation studies, we have chosen to explore Beyoğlu/Pera as anexample of not an abstract notion, but one which gains an urban concreteness in thiscontext. We have observed that Beyoğlu/Pera, representing a nexus of active agentsfrom different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, working with different languages,lends itself to analyses of multiple translating activities. The very existence oftranslations and of translators, working today in Beyoğlu/Pera from different“minority” languages of the city into Turkish and also in the opposite direction,may be seen in itself as an indicator of a will to communicate and of mutualrecognition between communities, in contrast to non-translation which can be inter‐preted as a sign of neglect or rejection, or of a need to retreat into closed circles –as in the case of the “minority” communities of Istanbul during the early republicbut also for a long time later until the 1990s. Translators and publishers are nowcrossing borderlines to ensure permeability by negotiating the rules of interactionbetween ethnic, cultural, ideological differences. The Armenian and Kurdishcommunities in particular can no longer be considered “invisible minorities” (Cronin2010, 250) in the interculture of Beyoğlu/Pera as their translators and publishersactively introduce options that are changing the established culture repertoires. Forthis reason, such agents are discussed here not only as professionals but as“socialized individuals” (Meylaerts 2008). Through an overview of the statementsby translators and publishers, the present article takes a first look at their ways ofresisting normative structures, which obviously calls for more research into aspectsof their habituses (Bourdieu [1979] 2005; Simeoni 1998; Meylaerts 2004, 2008, 2010;Sela-Sheffy 2005). Such research would focus on a larger social context with a criticalawareness of the “overemphasis placed on translators’ submissiveness as a universalcomponent of translators’ habitus” (Meylaerts 2010, 2) and pay more attention tothe “the structuring role of translators vis-à-vis the translational norms” (TahirGürçağlar 2008, 45). In this respect, Rakefet Sela-Sheffy’s criticism also deservesattention:

It may be argued that in established cultures such as those of English and Frenchspeaking communities today, which Simeoni probably had in mind, translators are moreinclined to comply with overpowering domestic standards. Yet in peripheral or nascentcultures submissiveness is not always a prevailing strategy. (2005, 5)

Such approaches support our preliminary findings regarding the various agents ofthe newly energized interactions among linguistic and cultural communities ofIstanbul, who are no longer submitting to structures that prevailed in Turkey till the1990s. Therefore, the concept of habitus is conceived here as a “dynamic and plural”one (Meylaerts 2008, 94), shedding light on the translators’ power to resist andchange. From this theoretical perspective, the present article sets out to examine ifthe work of translators and publishers of different languages in Istanbul is an activity

172 Şule Demirkol-Ertürk and Saliha Paker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

which opts for resistance at a macro level by challenging official narratives andresisting dominant discourses about different communities of the city and byoffering, by this means, new options for the city’s culture repertoires (Even-Zohar 2010).

Our main focus is on translation/publishing practices concerning Armenian andKurdish cultures and languages, the former recognized as an official “minority”language, the latter unrecognized and banned as such, until 1991. As KarinKarakaşlı claims, “ ‘Kurdish’ and ‘Armenian’ are usually attached to the conceptsof ‘problem’ or ‘issue’ in Turkish rhetoric, revealing something problematic aboutthese identities” (2012). For us, translations done by and published by Armenian andKurdish agents of interculture stand for complexities to be looked into and analysedrather than “problems”. For reasons of space, we could not include our findings onthe new Greek3 publishing company, Istos, founded in 2012. Istos is engaged intranslating from and into Greek, and aims to resist “ghettoization” (cf. Cronin 2010),by overcoming structures interiorized by the Greek community of Istanbul (seeBenlisoy et al. 2012). This case and the rather different one of the Sephardic (Jewish)contribution to the network of interculture need to be taken up separately andstudied in detail. To be mentioned here is the importance of Rifat Bali’s researchon minorities and Karen Gerşon Şarhon’s leadership in reviving the Ladino/Judeo-Spanish language (Şarhon 2014).

We begin with a brief historical overview, paying close attention to the 1990s inthe course of which significant political and cultural changes took place. To flesh outour description of Beyoğlu/Pera as an “interculture” in the next section, we draw onour interviews with two writers and translators, Karin Karakaşlı and MuhsinKızılkaya, for their “take” on this area from Armenian and Kurdish perspectives.This discussion is followed by two sections of analytical overview of the discourse ofagents involved in translating and publishing Armenian and Kurdish texts.Samplings of their statements (some from seminars and panel discussions organizedin the district) are foregrounded here to focus on their intentions, modes and lines ofresistance since it is important to discover how and in what contexts they aim atchallenging official narratives and dominant discourses about different linguistic andcultural communities of the city. Translators and publishers seem to show activecooperation in challenging normative structures which had set borderlines betweenco-existing linguistic and cultural communities. Creating new spaces of intercom-munication and interaction, standing against “structured” differences among ethnicand linguistic collectivities, appear to be common goals of agents operating inBeyoğlu/Pera. However, in general terms, their individual statements also indicatethat their ultimate goals in producing books in their mother tongue and translationsinto and from Turkish, as well as from other languages, need to be differentiated interms of both communities.

Istanbul, a city of multilayered histories

In her Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, Judith Herrin (2008,242–251) gives a short but lively description of the “cosmopolitan society” of theimperial capital in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in which at least 14 languages(ranging from Scythian to Catalan) were spoken by the multi-ethnic population.Greek was required for taxpayers. During the Ottoman reign, until the Greek

Translation Studies 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

uprising against Ottoman rule, leading to its independence (1821–1832), Greekfamilies, mostly Phanariots, served as interpreters in the Ottoman court. Greek,Jewish and Armenian intellectuals took part in learned societies for the translation ofEuropean sources into Ottoman Turkish (Mardin 2000, 234, 236, 238–239). Innineteenth-century Istanbul, newspapers, magazines and other printed matter werepublished in eighteen different languages besides Turkish.4

The language policies changed altogether with the birth of the Turkish Republicin 1923 as a nation state. The Constitution defined the official language as Turkish.Moreover, Article 42 established that “[n]o language other than Turkish shall betaught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training oreducation” (Constitution of the Republic of Turkey). An exception is the case of“official minorities” whose rights were defined by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).5

Thus Armenian, Greek and Jewish communities (mainly residing in Istanbul) couldsend their children to their own schools and publish journals and newspapers in theirown languages.6 However, those of different sects of Islam or of different ethnic orlinguistic background were not granted official minority rights (Oran 2007, 36–37;2011, 9–10).

The sociocultural conditions of Turkey’s “minority” populations, be they Muslimor not, would be better understood in the context of early republican culture planning.Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, the first to study this subject in detail, writes:

The first twenty years of the republic were marked by intensive planning activity whichaimed to westernize Turkey while building a nation equipped with a unique Turkishidentity, […] a new and secular identity which would ideally rise upon a commonculture, language and history instead of religion. (2008, 49–50)

According to Rifat Bali (1999, 1), various ethnic communities remaining from theold empire were expected to quickly accommodate themselves to this urgent identitychange. However, the new nation state was conducting nothing less than a majorcultural revolution (mainly from Ankara, the new capital, not from Istanbul) whichimposed radical measures (rather than offering “options”) in planning or engineeringchanges in language, script, dress and women’s status. In their rejection ofeverything to do with the Ottoman Empire, such measures concerned the larger,traditional Muslim population as much as non-Muslim minorities. It may well beargued that the whole nation was subject to multiple forms of “translation”. BaskınOran (2010, 3), a political scientist and advocate of “minority” rights, argues thatwhile trying to create a nation with a singular identity, the new republic worked onassimilating its Muslim communities but failed to do the same with the non-Muslimones, choosing to force them out of the country through a series of laws and bans.7

In 1928 a campaign was initiated in Istanbul, calling on all “Citizens” to “SpeakTurkish”.8 The politics of Turkification (based mainly on language politics)regarding the non-Muslim communities were active until 1945 (Bali 2001), whilepressure on religion continued until the 1990s with ups and downs (Oran 2010).

It was in the 1990s and later that questions of identity and “minority” rights(Muslim or not) gradually became issues of heated public debate in Turkey. Suchdiscussion was triggered by the large-scale urban demolitions (1986–1988) inBeyoğlu’s Tarlabaşı district which was once inhabited by the non-Muslim popula-tion of the empire and by the Levantines (i.e. descendants of Europeans who had

174 Şule Demirkol-Ertürk and Saliha Paker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

settled in Istanbul), but later by migrants from Anatolia (Bartu 1999, 36). A risingawareness of cultural diversity was expressed as municipal plans to transformIstanbul into a global city in the twenty-first century were put into action. Turkey’sapplication for membership in the European Union in 1987, and acceptance of itscandidacy in 1999, played a crucial role in the process. However paradoxical it mayseem, so did the rise of political Islam. The Welfare Party won the Istanbulmunicipal elections of 1994, hailing the “second conquest of the city” by its “realowners” (ibid., 40), with their own politics of identity up for debate. How thispolitical shift figured eventually in the celebration of Istanbul as the “CulturalCapital of Europe”9 in 2010 and the controversies over keeping a balance in therepresentation of the Europeanized (translated) aspects of the city and those of itsOttoman past (naively presumed to be untranslated) deserve a separate study.

The official language regime faced several challenges in the 1990s due to the riseof politics of identity which supported claims endangering the presumed integrityand homogeneity of the nation’s cultural and linguistic representations (Balçık 2008,5–6). Of historic importance was the 1991 repeal of the ban on the Kurdishlanguage,10 put into place in 1983 by a law following the notorious military coup of1980. This constitutes a milestone in the history of the languages of Turkey, not onlyopening the way for publications in Kurdish (ibid., 133), but also acknowledging thediversity of cultures and languages cohabiting the same cities of the same country.

Following the overturn of the ban on Kurdish in 1991, Rewşen, the firstmagazine legally published in Kurdish, was started by the Mesopotamian CulturalCentre founded in Beyoğlu to revive Kurdish and provide patronage to Kurdishauthors and translators. Nûbihar, another magazine, which was predominantly inKurdish, followed in 1992 (in Beyazıt) as well as Avesta Publishing in 1995, also inBeyoğlu, specializing in original Kurdish publications as well as translations fromKurdish into Turkish. The founding of Aras, the Armenian publishing house in 1993in Beyoğlu, followed by that of the Armenian weekly newspaper Agos in 1996 (inOsmanbey, closely connected to Beyoğlu) were also major enterprises of the decade.The discourse of peace, mutual recognition and understanding was advocated by thelate Hrant Dink, founder of Agos and its chief editor until 2007. His assassinationwas met with horror and indignation and must be considered a dramatic turningpoint in the self-identification of the “majority” with “minority”, or in theminoritizing of majority. Hrant Dink had stated that Agos was published in Turkish(with four pages in Armenian) so that the Armenian community could breakthrough their confinement to better express themselves, uphold their identity, andexplain problems common to both Armenians and Turks (Dink and Duman 2006,129, 131). According to Karin Karakaşlı (2012), the Kurdish movement for culturalrights made a strong impact in opening up the Armenian community. She finds itsignificant that the first publication by Aras was Mıgırdiç Margosyan’s GâvurMahallesi [Neighbourhood of Infidels]. This was based on the lives of Armeniansand their Kurdish, Chaldean, Assyrian and Jewish neighbours in Diyarbakır, nowthe mainly Kurdish city in south-eastern Turkey, where Margosyan was born (ibid.).

The Pera of Istanbul as an “interculture” and its translators as “socialized individuals”Reine Meylaerts’ (2004, 289) statement reflects precisely what is taking place inconcrete terms in the interculture sited in Beyoğlu/Pera: “in multilingual geopolitical

Translation Studies 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

contexts, geo-linguistic barriers between ‘source’ and ‘target’ cultures are indefiniteso that translations, both as a process and as a product, also function in the sourceculture”. In turn, Meylaerts’ words resonate to a certain extent with Saliha Paker’scontention that in the case of the “Ottoman interculture”, with its imperialtranslation strategies that were mostly appropriative of Persian and Arabic sources,the boundaries between “source” and “target” became less distinct as from thesixteenth century, but also later, in the nineteenth century, when French wasintroduced (Paker 2002, 136; 2006, 331; 2011, 468). Now, in the twenty-first century,we can site an interculture in Istanbul, more specifically in Beyoğlu/Pera, thatoperates in a network of a very different nature, but building on the Ottoman legacy.For the sake of distinction, some might choose to site “source” and “target” culturesin the different linguistic communities (some of which are defined legally as“minorities”) who, in fact, can share the same streets, the same districts, the samepublic spaces, within the same country. However, this would defy any binaryrelationship because of the fact of the hybridity of each. Karin Karakaşlı offers anexplanation:

Everything started with an uneven and lumpy letter “A” I wrote on the wall. Inside thehouse my grandmother showed me other signs for A and B. “What’s this grandma?”“It’s Armenian.” There I was, totally confused and fascinated with two labyrinths ofalphabets that looked like ciphers and two languages, both rivalling each other for beingmy mother tongue; one for home and one for the street. Sometimes I would confusethem and create my unique language in a single question: “Bu inç e?” meaning “What isthis?”: “bu” in Turkish, “inç e” in Armenian. (2012)

The historical cosmopolitan site of Beyoğlu/Pera stands today as not just amultilingual interaction zone, but a cultural network that is inherently hybrid,which is closer to what we mean by “interculture” (an overlap of diverse domesticcultures and languages, which may not be easily described as “source” and “target”in translations produced from one into the other by a network of cultural agents).Interculture does not correspond to the concept of “multicultural” either: the latter isimagined and promoted in official or semi-official rhetoric as a “mosaic” of manycultures, representing mutual recognition and tolerance. Turkish discourse placesmulticulturalism mostly in an imagined Ottoman history, in some sort of nostalgiccontext. However, the locus of discussion chosen for this paper is not thecosmopolitan, multicultural Beyoğlu of the late Ottoman times but a new space ofresistance, challenge, as well as mediation, intended for the voices of “minorities” tobe heard and, hopefully, understood. Memories of numerous conflicts and hardshipsand resulting sensitivities inevitably interfere and one cannot speak of equality interms of social, cultural, political power. Therefore, in this context, it is more thaninteresting to observe how translators and publishers as agents of interculture resistand challenge social structures and sociocultural power relations which they hadinternalized. Muhsin Kızılkaya, writer, translator and political commentator, offersan absorbing insight into what we mean by Beyoğlu/Pera as an interculture:

Above everything else, the birds of Beyoğlu don’t only sing in Turkish. For a longwhile, “other” birds had their beaks stuffed with straw but now each sings in its owntongue in this unique place. Since my days in the 1980s, Beyoğlu has given me the same,unconfined air to breathe as on the mountains of Hakkari [on the border with Iran and

176 Şule Demirkol-Ertürk and Saliha Paker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Iraq, where he spent the first 20 years of his life], making me feel the same as I did in mybirthplace. […] My adventures as a translator started in Beyoğlu when […] I wasintroduced to the founder of the modern Kurdish novel, Mehmed Uzun, and when, oneday in Çiçek Bar, Yashar Kemal assigned me the task of translating Uzun’s Siya Evînêinto Turkish. […] Uzun’s Kurdish originals were brought out by two publishers inBeyoğlu. Avesta which has published almost the entire corpus of classical and modernKurdish literature, was also founded here. Many contemporary Kurdish institutions […]including the Kurdish theatre group Seyri Mesel, started operating here. Time whichhad frozen still in 1918 seemed to come back to life after ninety years. (2012)11

Kızılkaya draws attention to an important historical fact which is not widelyknown:

In 1918, Jîn (Life), the publishing organ of the Society For Kurdish Advancement wasfounded here in Beyoğlu and became the centre for Kurdish enlightenment. In 1919,Mem û Zîn, the founding classic of Kurdish literature (1695) was first edited andpublished by Hamza of Müks [Hemzeyê Mûksî], with a preface so bold that it could notbe reprinted in 1968. Tolerance for the Kurdish language once shown in Beyoğlu hadlong disappeared by 1968. I couldn’t find a publisher for Mehmed Uzun’s novel when Ifirst translated it into Turkish in 1995. People were disdainful: was there enough of aKurdish language to produce a Kurdish novel? So I’ve always wondered why MehmedUzun first found his readership in Istanbul, Beyoğlu, instead of his homeland,Diyarbakır?12 (Ibid.)

In Kızılkaya’s view,

the rest of the country remains a province of Istanbul, of Beyoğlu, in terms of ourmodernization history. From the days of a genteel district, to those of crime, for a while,and to its eventual transformation into a centre of arts and culture, Beyoğlu was the firstplace where the voice of the “othered” could be heard. (Ibid.)

Publishers and translators of Armenian: Aras Publishing and Agos Weekly

Mıgırdiç Margosyan’s Gâvur Mahallesi [Neighbourhood of Infidels] was mentionedabove as the first publication by Aras in 1993. In 2011, Aras brought out a trilingualvolume of the same work, in Armenian (Mer Ayt Goğmerı, the original), its rewritein Turkish by the author, and the Kurdish version (Taxa Filla, published initially byAvesta in 1999). The publisher’s note stated that their aim was to “transform intoreality the desire for all ancient Anatolian languages to live side by side in peace”.The book is a remarkable example of “minoritizing” (cf. Cronin 2010) Turkish, thedominant language, through translation in a mediating role. It also highlighted ameaningful collaboration between Armenian and Kurdish literary communities: onepushed away into the shadows as an “official minority”, the other, with no legalminority status at all, banned for many decades.

Aras publishes translations that serve the creation of an alternative histori-ography which aims at resisting and challenging the dominant official one. “Fordecades 1915 was a historical taboo or a subject of official history, related andtaught with the use of hostile generalizations that described Armenians as ‘traitors’who collaborated with the Russian armies and were, therefore, deported”, says KarinKarakaşlı (2012). From this perspective, Aras’ publications of Turkish translationsfrom Armenian and other languages used by Armenians in diaspora, about

Translation Studies 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Armenian experiences under Ottoman rule and the early Republic, may be betterappreciated with particular attention to the Armenians’ will to articulate their senseof belonging to Anatolia and to its cultural history. One of the most importanthistoriographical studies to come out from Aras is 1915 Öncesinde OsmanliImparatorlugunda Ermeniler (2012), a very recent Turkish translation of LesArméniens dans l’Empire Ottoman à la veille du genocide [Armenians in the OttomanEmpire on the Eve of the genocide] originally published 20 years ago by Raymond H.Kévorkian and Paul B. Paboudjian.

Another book, published earlier this year by Aras, deserves special attention.This is a collection of short stories translated from Armenian into Ottoman Turkish13

and edited by Sarkis Srents in 1913 in Istanbul (Srents [1913] 2012): ErmeniEdebiyatı Numuneleri 1913 (titled in English as Anthology of Armenian Literature1913, in the Aras catalogue 2010–2011). First serialized and well received in aprestigious Ottoman Turkish literary journal, the book is now a republication of the1913 translation into Ottoman Turkish (in Arabic script) accompanied by a parallelintralingual translation into modern Turkish (transcribed in the Roman alphabet) tomake it accessible for contemporary Turkish readers. The co-translator, AriŞekeryan (2012, 15), states in his introduction that the book is yet one morecontribution to increasing Turkish awareness of Armenian history, language, cultureand literature. The stories which represented, at the time, a lively existing literature,are, in Şekeryan’s words, “but a pale reflection of what has perished since: OttomanTurkish is no longer a living language, there is no literary production in Armenian inTurkey anymore and the Western Armenian language used in most of the narrativesin the book is sinking into oblivion” (2012, 13). It is also ironic that in hiscommendatory preface for the 1913 edition, Haratyun Şahrigyan should haveclaimed “Ottoman Turks had no sacred sense of nation”; it was

just beginning to emerge among Armenian intellectuals. […] One of our responsibilitiestowards Turkey is to establish this sacredness in all its purity. […] Only then willunderstanding bear fruit between us and hand us back the right to live, thus making wayfor respect, mutual sacrifice, maturity, a common goal and friendship, working togetherfor the welfare of our common homeland. ([1913] 2012, 62–63)

Such a commitment brings to mind the words of Karin Karakaşlı, who is anArmenian journalist and translator, as mentioned above, but also well known as afiction writer and poet in Turkish:

Finding a new language for old history, for the present we live in and the future to comeis now more than a necessity for being a writer. This was instilled in me as a leitmotiv bymy mentor Hrant Dink, editor-in chief of Agos, who, despite his dedication to the peacestruggle, or because of it, was assassinated in front of the office building in 2007. Now astone in Armenian and Turkish, carved into the pavement on the spot where he felldead, reminds me of my debt to him each and every day I enter the building. Inspired byhis discourse, I would call this new language a poetic-political language, rooted in theawareness that the Armenian and Kurdish “problems” constitute Turkey’s actualimpasse […] in calling it a poetic-political discourse, it simultaneously becomes possibleto underline the autonomy of each individual and to undermine stereotypical general-izations such as “Turks” and “Armenians”. The poetic element gives depth to thepolitical one which is no longer experienced as short-term politics bound to nationalinterests, bargaining and conjuncture, but one that reveals the truth about societies in

178 Şule Demirkol-Ertürk and Saliha Paker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

the way political science would have it. Among all the languages I pour my words into,Armenian, Turkish, German and English, the one I hold dearest is this new poetic-political language of understanding each other and expressing oneself. To me, red linesare not taboos’ warning signals, but exit signs. Only by touching on and overcomingthem can we reach freedom. That is the legacy of Hrant Dink’s language dedicated topeace, to challenge the red lines of state policy. What we most need nowadays is anintralingual translation: of words resonating in the heart with confidence in oneself andtrust in the other, so that the language of peace and reconciliation may be reached.(2012)

The latest catalogue of titles by Aras Publishing, which consists of a wide range ofliterature in Armenian before the 1950s and an equally impressive range oftranslations into Turkish, is ample proof of an energetic contribution to thechallenging of “red lines” as well as to the growing repertoire of interculture.

Publishers and translators of Kurdish

Original publications in Kurdish and translations from Kurdish into Turkish andvice versa, are seen by many as part of the movement for the right to be legallyrecognized in terms of identity, language and culture. For Abdullah Keskin, thefounding of Avesta Publishing (1995) was “a passionate ideal, a matter of honour”(Keskin 1995). Since then, publishing books in Kurdish and translations fromKurdish into Turkish has proliferated widely not only in Istanbul, but also inDiyarbakır. “Publish your books in Kurdish”, a campaign started by Turkish writersin 2010, added new dynamics by calling for more translations from Turkish intoKurdish (Bia Haber 2010). But in our view the real change had come about in the1990s with the Turkish translations of works by the late Mehmed Uzun (1953–2007),the leading modernizer of the Kurdish novel.

Translations of Uzun’s novels into Turkish not only introduced the readers ofTurkish language to modern Kurdish literature but also drastically changed theirperception of the Kurdish language: readers and publishers had no idea that suchfiction could exist in Kurdish (Temo, Tarık, and Akınhay 2007; Kızılkaya 2012).Besides, this phenomenon raised the complex question of assimilation – in this case,“where to position Uzun as a translated Kurdish author: in ‘Turkish literature’, in‘literature in Turkish’, or in the ‘literature of Turkey?’ ” (Spangler, MA diss., inprogress).

Michael Cronin draws attention to a crucial question arising from “assimila-tionist translation pressures”:

writers in a minority language have frequent recourse to auto-translation into a majorlanguage […] to facilitate their presence as writers/translators in other languages. […]Does the frequent practice of auto-translation create not a literature-in-translation but aliterature-for-translation? (2010, 260; italics in original)

Although Uzun was involved in self-translating a novel of his into Turkish at onestage of his career (Spangler, MA diss., in progress) and cared a lot about beingtranslated into Turkish and other languages, we don’t think he would have beeninvolved in “literature-for-translation”, because his main concern was to forge aKurdish prose style for modern Kurdish fiction and, as Spangler has pointed out (ina personal communication), to give priority to publishing his books in Kurdish “for

Translation Studies 179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

the fostering of the Kurdish novel, almost forcing readers of both languages toapproach the Kurdish first”. However, Cronin’s question brings to mind a differentcase. Yavuz Ekinci and Murat Özyaşar are two young Kurdish fiction writers,educated in Turkish, having had no training in their mother tongue. So far, theyhave published their books in Turkish and won significant literary prizes. Thereforeit is fair to say that they were subjected to “assimilationist translation pressures”.However, since 2011 their fiction has been translated into their mother tongue byKawa Nemir, Lal Laleş and Mehmed Said Aydın, all accomplished writers andtranslators whose achievement needs to be taken into account also as a form ofresistance against the consequences of assimilationism, one that would perhapscompensate for the loss suffered earlier by Ekinci and Özyaşar, and others like them.Ekinci says he “was delighted that his novel was translated into his mother tongueand met with a completely different readership” (2012).

The chief mission that Mehmed Uzun had set out for himself was to masterliterary Kurdish, to refine it by drawing on the oral narrative tradition for therenewal of the modern Kurdish novel. Kawa Nemir, “a Kurdish poet, writing inKurdish”, adopted a parallel strategy in translating Shakespeare’s Sonnets, which hecalled a “revolution in Kurdish”: it was to enrich his mother tongue (Nemir andStêrk 2010). Similarly, Lal Laleş, Kurdish translator and publisher, believes thattranslating world classics into Kurdish and reviving forgotten Kurdish authors willhelp build a modern Kurdish literature (Evrensel 2010).

The first major, comprehensive, two-volume, bilingual Kürt Şiiri Antolojisi[Anthology of Kurdish Poetry, with Turkish translation] (2007) is an impressivestep towards reviving classical and modern Kurdish literature. The co-translator andeditor Selim Temo “lived for many years far away from Kurdish, without a sense ofbelonging to either Kurdish or Turkish” (Temo and Günçıkan 2011). He first startedto translate and to work on Kurdish literary history when (like Mehmed Uzun,whom he also translated), he decided to “win back” Kurdish as his native literarylanguage and work for its recognition (ibid.). For Temo, “a literature becomesknown only through translation”, but his own poetry should be published in Kurdishand kept “untranslated” (Temo and Tuna 2012). The Turkish reviews of hisanthology revealed widespread astonishment: “nobody ever thought such a historyof poetry could exist” (Temo, Tarık, and Akınhay 2007). Temo’s anthology alsocame as a surprise to Kurdish intellectuals, whom he criticizes for paying attentiononly to the oral roots of the language while ignoring the classical works written inreligious circles (ibid.). While acutely aware of ongoing political troubles, “feelingthem in his flesh”, Temo refuses to discuss his work outside its literary context (Temoand Tuna 2012). In Temo’s view, the misfortune of Kurdish literature lies in its “self-orientalist” perception. Literariness is missed or ignored, as literature is read onlyfrom a certain political, ideological perspective (Temo and Günçıkan 2011).

We leave the last word to Kızılkaya:

As Turkish is joined by the languages that were once banned, the “common wisdom”which once ruled these lands will be eventually re-established. Today, the country hasonce more come to know about Armenian literature, at least through Turkishtranslations. It is thanks to Turkish translations that Kurdish has been recognized asone of the oldest Mesopotamian languages, that it is not only a medium for politics butalso for literature. To quote Oğuz Atay, our cult novelist, our adventure in translationand in different tongues is a long-term journey towards “Turkey’s psyche”. (2012)

180 Şule Demirkol-Ertürk and Saliha Paker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Concluding remarks

This study, which sites a network of interculture in Beyoğlu/Pera, has yielded resultsthat draw particular attention to translators and publishers involved in two“minority” languages, Armenian and Kurdish. As regards Istanbul Greek, the newlyestablished Istos Publishing will be interesting to explore in the future.

Publications as well as aims, intentions, criticisms aired in discourse show thattranslating into Turkish, the dominant language, is considered by agents mentionedin this study as a primary function of the interculture network, one which runsparallel to making the “originals” visible/readable/audible. While the Armenianemphasis appears to be on recognition of history, the Kurdish insists on recognitionof language. Hence, the stronger will to write/read/publish in Kurdish and totranslate into Kurdish. In the Armenian context, translations that focus on the longhistory and difficult cultural survival of Armenians in Anatolia/Istanbul areforegrounded, while the newspaper Agos continues to function actively as atranslating site, be it interlingually or, as Karakaşlı (2012) put it, “intralingually”.In the Kurdish context translating is given different roles: translations from Kurdishinto Turkish as well as from Turkish and other languages into Kurdish are seen aspart of the Kurdish people’s struggle to maintain their identity, language andtraditions, while translations, along with text production in Kurdish, are expected tocontribute to developing the Kurdish mother tongue as a written and literarylanguage, and to creating a modern Kurdish literature through the import ofcanonical works of western literature into Kurdish.

Published originals and Turkish translations are intended (a) to confrontTurkish readers with their loss of memory of the domestic languages, literaturesand cultures of identities “othered” and repressed, especially until the 1990s; (b) tochallenge and change sociopolitical attitudes and “red lines” set by the establishmentas represented in the Turkish normative official or semi-official discourse; but also(c) to revive “minority” languages and win recognition; and (d) to offer ways (overtor covert) towards mediating differences, avoiding further conflict and promotingunderstanding.

In terms of habitus, it is evident that publishers and translators operating as fully“socialized” agents not just of “minority” groups but of the interculture which alsoembraces Turkish agents, have more than resisted dominant policies and attitudes.Along with significant steps taken towards a more democratic and liberal societysince the 1990s, efforts have been made to change established norms in translatingand publishing.

We may also conclude that the interculture sited in Beyoğlu/Pera has served as adynamic source of options currently enlarging the repertoires of cultural revival notonly on a “minority” level, but also on a “majority” level with the greaterinvolvement of Turkish publishers, translators and readers. These new and widerrepertoires of interculture are worthy of close analysis.

Notes1. In her inspirational study of Kolkata, Trieste, Barcelona and Montreal in Cities in

Translation, Sherry Simon (2012) also dwells on the homogenization of Istanbul, in termsof a “duality” brought about by the nationalist pull for a Turkish “monoculture” of the

Translation Studies 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Republic (founded in 1923) away from former Ottoman pluralism and diversity. This, inSimon’s view, takes the form of a “dual translation”: of language, from Ottoman(hybridized with Persian and Arabic) into modern Turkish, of a society of multiple ethnicminorities into a nation of dominant Turkish identity (ibid., 156). Thus it “was translatedout of its messy imperial multiplicity, away from its past, and given a simpler shape”(ibid.; italics in original). Simon’s palimpsest metaphor for Istanbul, Kolkata and Triesteis a powerful one: “translation has been a writing-over, the effacement of the past,the sponging out of competing memories” (ibid.). An aspect that needs to be clarified inthe case of Istanbul, is that it defies description as a “dual city” in which “two languagesvie for the role of a tutelary language” as in the case of Kolkata, Trieste, Barcelona andMontreal (ibid.). Especially in the case of Istanbul since the nineteenth century, tensionsbetween imperial or republican state policies and diverse ethnic identities/languages maynot be easily reduced to the duality of individual ones between Greek and Turkish,Armenian and Turkish or Judeo-Spanish and Turkish.

2. For a full history of Pera, see Millas (2001).3. The Greeks of Istanbul are called “Rum” in Turkish, “Konstantinoupolites” or simply

“Polites” in Greek. İlay Romain Örs refers to them as “Rum Polites”, combining the twoterms in Turkish and Greek, and argues that “for the Rum Polites the context of culturalbelonging beyond the nation-state is specifically centred on the urban cosmopolitanexperience of being from Istanbul” (Örs 2006, 81). In our paper, “Greek” refers to theGreek Orthodox population of Istanbul and their idiom.

4. Çok Dilli İletişim Merkezi (Multilingual Communication Centre at the School ofJournalism, Istanbul University).

5. For a detailed discussion of the Treaty of Lausanne, its interpretation and implementationby Turkey see Oran 2007.

6. For example, Armenian newspapers Jamanak/Ժամանակ (1908) and Nor Marmara/Նոր Մարմարա (1941), Greek newspapers Apoyevmatini/Απογευματινή (1925) andIho/HXΩ (1977), the weekly Jewish newspaper Şalom/ םולש (1947), largely in Turkishsince 1984, all of which are still running.

7. See “The Greek Turkish Population Exchange”, http://cmes.arizona.edu/sites/cmes.arizona.edu/files/3.%20Case%20study%20-%20Greek%20Turkish%20Population%20Exchange.pdf.

8. This campaign was initiated by the Students’ Association of the Law School of the olduniversity known as Darülfünun (today, Istanbul University) at a congress held on 13January 1928. In a later meeting organized by the Turkish Hearths (Türk Ocakları,founded in 1911 by Ziya Gökalp, the champion of Turkish nationalism), it was decided toput up posters in public spaces and give conferences at schools calling all citizens to speakTurkish in public. Similar campaigns followed not only in Istanbul but also in differentregions of the country until the end of the Second World War. Another campaign, startedafter the military coup of 1960, was quashed soon after (see Bali 2006 and Akdoğan2012).

9. See Göktürk, Soysal, and Türeli (2010).10. The Kurdish languages/dialects, each a separate language divided into sub-dialects

according to Ziya Gökalp (1995, 32), are as follows: Goranî, Kirmanckî (Dimilî, Kirdkî,Zazakî), Kurmancî (the one most translated into Turkish), Lorî and Soranî.

11. All translations from Turkish are ours unless otherwise indicated.12. Diyarbakır is only just beginning to emerge as a centre of Kurdish culture after decades of

economic deprivation, sociopolitical and military conflict and emigration to westernTurkey, especially to Istanbul.

13. Ottoman Turkish, composed of Turkish, Persian and Arabic lexical and syntacticelements was the language of “Ottoman interculture”, written in the Arabic script. Underthe Turkish Republic, the Arabic script was replaced by the Roman alphabet in 1928. TheLanguage Reform which was started in the 1930s, aimed to “purify” Turkish of Persianand Arabic linguistic/literary structures. Contemporary Turkish readers often needintralingual translations in order to understand works originally written in the Ottomanlanguage.

182 Şule Demirkol-Ertürk and Saliha Paker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Notes on contributorsŞule Demirkol-Ertürk is assistant professor of translation studies at Yeditepe University,Istanbul. Her research interests include translation of urban narratives, translation and thetransfer of cultural images, and Turkish literature in translation. She has published articles inEnglish, French and Turkish on the role of literary translation in the creation and circulationof the images of the city of Istanbul. She is also an active translator of literary and scholarlytexts from English and French into Turkish.

Saliha Paker is the first professor of translation studies to be appointed in Turkey. In 2008 sheretired from Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, but still teaches a course in the PhD programme inthe same department and continues to serve on PhD dissertation committees. Her research hascovered Turkish translation history, with special emphasis on literary-theoretical aspects oftranslation in the Ottoman period, and the history of Turkish literature in English translation.Her articles have come out in international publications since 1986, and her co-translations ofmodern Turkish poetry and fiction have appeared in the UK and USA.

ReferencesAkdoğan, Nuran Savaşkan. 2012. “The ‘Speak Turkish Campaigns’ and the Jewish

Community during the Reformation and Nation Building Process of The Early TurkishRepublic, 1928–1938.” In Jewish Migration: Voices of the Diaspora, edited by RanieroSpeelman, Monica Jansen, and Silvia Gaiga, 90–108. Utrecht: Igitur. http://www.italianisticaultraiectina.org/publish/articles/000157/article.pdf.

Balçık, Mehmet Berk. 2008. “Formations and Transformations of Language Regimes:Turkey, A Case Study.” PhD diss., Sabancı University, Turkey.

Bali, Rifat. 1999. “Bir Varmış Bir Yokmuş Bir Zamanlar Bu Diyarlarda Azınlıklar Yaşarmış.”Virgül 25: 4–7. http://www.rifatbali.com/images/stories/dokumanlar/bir_varmis_bir_yokmus.pdf.

Bali, Rifat. 2001. “Türkleştirme ve Azınlıklar.” Virgül 42: 41. http://www.rifatbali.com/images/stories/dokumanlar/turkcelestirme_ve_azinliklar.pdf.

Bali, Rifat. 2006. “Vatandaş Türkçe Konuş.” Birgün, June 23. http://www.rifatbali.com/images/stories/dokumanlar/turkce_konusma_birgun.pdf.

Barthes, Roland. (1974) 2002. S/Z. Translated by R. Miller. New York: Blackwell.Bartu, Ayfer. 1999. “Who Owns the Old Quarters? Rewriting Histories in a Global Era.” In

Istanbul, Between the Global and the Local, edited by Çağlar Keyder, 31–45. Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield.

Benlisoy, Foti, Haris Theodorelis-Rigas, Seckin Erdi, and Nilay Vardar. 2012. Yeniden RumcaYayıncılık: İstos. http://www.bianet.org/bianet/azinliklar/138775-yeniden-rumca-yayincilik-istos.

Bia Haber. 2010. “Kitaplarınızı Kürtçe Yayınlatın!” http://bianet.org/bianet/kultur/125810-kitaplarinizi-kurtce-yayinlatin.

Bourdieu, Pierre. (1979) 2005. La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Éditions deMinuit.

Calvino, Italo. 1978. Invisible Cities. Translated by William Weaver. London: Harcourt.“Constitution of The Republic of Turkey.” http://www.byegm.gov.tr/Content.aspx?s=tcotrot

(accessed February 1, 2012).Cronin, Michael. 2010. “The Cracked Looking-Glass of Servants: Translation and Minority

Languages in a Global Age.” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by MonaBaker, 145–162. London: Routledge.

Demirkol-Ertürk, Şule. 2010. “The City and its Translators: Istanbul Metonymized andRefracted in the Literary Narratives of Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar and Orhan Pamuk, inTurkish, English and French.” PhD diss., Boğaziçi University, Turkey.

Dink, Hrant, and Kenan Evren Duman. 2006. Hrant Dink, interview by Kenan EverenDuman. In “Türkiye’de Azınlık Basını ve Sorunları”, MA diss., Istanbul University,Turkey.

Ekinci, Yavuz. 2012. Interview in Turkish by Saliha Paker via email, Istanbul, November.

Translation Studies 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2010. Papers in Culture Research. Tel Aviv: Porter Chair of Semiotics(temporary electronic book). http://~www.tau.ac.il/∼itamarez/works/books/EZ-CR-2005_2010.pdf (accessed December 24, 2012).

Evrensel. 2010. Daha fazla klasik Kürtçede okunabilece. http://www.evrensel.net/v2/haber.php?haber_id=64735.

Gökalp, Ziya. 1995. Kürt Aşiretleri Hakkında Sosyolojik Tetkikler. İstanbul: Toker Yayınları.Göktürk, Deniz, Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, eds. 2010. Orienting Istanbul: Cultural

Capital of Europe? London: Routledge.“The Greek Turkish Population Exchange.” http://cmes.arizona.edu/sites/cmes.arizona.edu/

files/3.%20Case%20study%20-%20Greek%20Turkish%20Population%20Exchange.pdf(accessed December 7, 2013).

Herrin, Judith. 2008. Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Karakaşlı, Karin. 2012. Interview in English by Saliha Paker and Şule Demirkol-Ertürk viaemail, Istanbul, October.

Keskin, Abdullah. 1995. Avesta: İddialı bir Kürt yayınevi. http://www.avestakitap.com/sayfa.php?sayfa=sicil1.

Kévorkian, Raymond H., and Paul B. Paboudjian. 2012. 1915 Öncesinde Osmanlı İmpar-atorluğunda Ermeniler. Translated by M. Saris. İstanbul: Aras Yayıncılık.

Kızılkaya, Muhsin. 2012. Interview in Turkish by Saliha Paker and Şule Demirkol-Ertürk viaemail, Istanbul, October.

Mardin, Şerif. 2000. The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization ofTurkish Political Ideas. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Margosyan, Mıgırdiç. 2011. “Gâvur Mahallesi.” In Üç Dilde Gâvur Mahallesi. Translatedfrom Turkish into Kurdish by R. B. Keskin. Istanbul: Aras Yayıncılık.

Meylaerts, Reine. 2004. “La traduction dans la culture multilingue: à la recherche des sources,des cibles et des territories.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 16 (2):289–317.

Meylaerts, Reine. 2008. “Translators and (their) Norms: Towards a Sociological Constructionof the Individual.” In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage toGideon Toury, edited by Miriam Shlesinger, Daniel Simeoni, and Anthony Pym, 91–102.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Meylaerts, Reine. 2010. “Habitus and Self-Image of Native Literary Authors-Translators inDiglossic Societies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 5 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1075/tis.5.1.01mey

Millas, Akylas. 2001. Pera: The Crossroads of Constantinople. Translated by D. Christodou-lou. Athens: Militos Editions.

Nemir, Kawa, and Rawîn Stêrk. 2010. “Kawa Nemir: Shakespeare Kürtçe bir devrimdir.”http://www.firatnews.eu/index.php?rupel=nuce&nuceID=21038.

Oran, Baskın. 2007. “Minority Concept and Rights in Turkey: The Lausanne Peace Treatyand Current Issues.” In Human Rights in Turkey, edited by Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat,35–52. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Oran, Baskın. 2010. “Azinliklar.” In Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 159–165. Istanbul: NTVYayinlari.

Oran, Baskin. 2011. “Biz Azınlık Kavramını Pek Bilmeyiz ve Sevmeyiz” In Azınlık. TürkBağlamında Azınlık Kavramına Çapraz Bakışlar, edited by Samim Akgönül, 9–12. İstanbul:BGST Yayınları.

Örs, İlay Romain. 2006. Beyond the Greek and Turkish Dichotomy: The Rum Polites ofIstanbul and Athens. South European Society & Politics 11 (1): 79–94. doi:10.1080/13608740500470349

Paker, Saliha. 2002. “Translation as Terceme and Nazire: Culture-bound Concepts and TheirImplications for a Conceptual Framework for Research on Ottoman Translation History.”In Crosscultural Transgressions, Research Models in Translation Studies II: Historical andIdeological Issues, edited by Theo Hermans, 120–143. Manchester: St Jerome.

Paker, Saliha. 2006. “Ottoman Conception of Translation and its Practice: The 1897 ‘ClassicsDebate’ as a Focus for Examining Change.” In Translating Others, Volume 2, edited byTheo Hermans, 325–348. Manchester: St Jerome.

184 Şule Demirkol-Ertürk and Saliha Paker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Paker, Saliha. 2011. “Translation, the Pursuit of Inventiveness and Ottoman Poetics: A SystemicApproach.” In Culture Contacts and the Making of Cultures: Papers in Homage to ItamarEven-Zohar, edited by Rakefet Sela-Sheffy and Gideon Toury, 457–472. Tel Aviv: Unit ofCulture Research, Tel-Aviv University. http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/Publications/IEZ-Homage/Even-Zohar_Homage_Book_Offprints/Paker_in_Even-Zohar_Homage_Book-2011.pdf.

Pamuk, Orhan. (2005) 2006. Istanbul: Memories and the City. Translated by M. Freely.London: Faber & Faber.

Şahrigyan, Harutyun. (1913) 2012. “Beğence.” In Ermeni Edebiyatı Numuneleri 1913, editedby Srents, Sarkis, 53–63. Istanbul: Aras Yayıncılık.

Şarhon, Karen Gerşon. 2014. The Sephardim of Turkey and their Language, Judeo-Spanish:A 517 Years Old Saga. http://www.istanbulsephardiccenter.com/eng/?sayfa=arsiv&id=2.

Şekeryan, Ari. 2012. “Sunuş.” In Ermeni Edebiyatı Numuneleri 1913, edited by Srents, Sarkis,13–17. Istanbul: Aras Yayıncılık.

Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet. 2005. “How to Be a (Recognized) Translator: Rethinking Habitus,Norms, and the Field of Translation.” Target 17 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1075/target.17.1.02sel

Simeoni, Daniel. 1998. “The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus.” Target 10 (1): 1–39.doi:10.1075/target.10.1.02sim

Simon, Sherry. 2012. Cities in Translation: Intersections of Language and Memory. New York:Routledge.

Spangler, Amy. “Mehmed Uzun and His Kurdish-to-Turkish Translators.” MA diss., inprogress, Okan University, Turkey.

Srents, Sarkis, ed. (1913) 2012. Ermeni Edebiyatı Numuneleri 1913. Translated by M. Ü. Erişand A. Şekeryan. Istanbul: Aras Yayıncılık.

Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. 2008. The Politics and Poetics of Translation in Turkey, 1923–1960.Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Tanyeli, Uğur. 2008. “Becoming Istanbul.” In Becoming Istanbul: An Encyclopedia, edited byPelin Derviş, Bülent Tanju, and Uğur Tanyeli, 43–45. Istanbul: Garanti Gallery.

Temo, Selim, and Berat Günçıkan. 2011. “Selim Temo: Anadilimi Edebi Bir Dil OlarakKazanmak Için Çalıştım.” http://dipdalga.net/makale/selim-temo-anadilimi-edebi-bir-dil-olarak-kazanmak-icin-calistim.html.

Temo, Selim, and Ceyhun Tuna. 2012. “Selim Temo’yla Kürt Şiiri Antolojisi Üzerine.” http://www.selimtemo.com/ceyhuntuna.html.

Temo, Selim, Bekir Tarık, and Osman Akınhay. 2007. Köklü Bir Dilsel Geleneğin İfşası.Mesele. 11: 14–21. http://www.selimtemo.com/mesele.html.

Tymoczko, Maria. 2000. “Translation and Political Engagement: Activism, Social Changeand the Role of Translation in Geopolitical Shifts.” Translator 6 (1): 23–47.

Translation Studies 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

05 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014