folk songs, translations and originals (2008)

8/11/2019 Folk Songs, Translations and Originals (2008)

1/20

This article was downloaded by: [88.15.196.196]On: 09 October 2014, At: 02:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The TranslatorPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20

Folk Songs, Translation and theQuestion of (Pseudo-)OriginalsSenem neraaMainz Johannes Gutenberg University, GermanyPublished online: 21 Feb 2014.

To cite this article:Senem ner (2008)Folk Songs, Translation andthe Question of (Pseudo-)Originals, The Translator, 14:2, 229-246, DOI:10.1080/13556509.2008.10799257

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799257

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot 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 liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13556509.2008.10799257http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13556509.2008.10799257http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799257http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13556509.2008.10799257http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20


2/20

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19

6]at02:5209October2014
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/20

ISSN 1355-6509 St Jerome Publishing, Manchester

The Translator. Volume 14, Number 2 (2008), 229-46 ISBN 978-1-905763-10-8

Folk Songs, Translation and the Question of

(Pseudo-)Originals

SENEM NERMainz Johannes Gutenberg University, Germany

Abstract. This article examines the translation of Kurdish folksongs into Turkish, an issue which became the subject of a heateddebate and controversy in Turkey during the 1990s. It outlines three

areas of criticism related to the translations in question and analyzesthe translation strategies used as well as the textual-linguistic make-up of the lyrics. Although criticism tended to focus on the cultural

policies of the Turkish state, on the translators themselves, and onquestions of ethics and economic exploitation, the translations para-doxically display loss, destruction and forgetting on the one hand,and gain, survival and remembering of Kurdish culture on the other.The translators seem to have appealed to two target audiences atthe same time, one of which is also the source audience. The article

suggests that the main reason behind the controversy concernedthe way in which the songs were presented to the audiences ratherthan how they were actually translated. Given that the Turkish ver-

sions were presented as original songs, they are referred to here aspseudo-originals, though the concept of original itself is shownto be questionable. The article concludes by problematizing anyclaim to an original in the context of folk songs.

Keywords. Folk songs, Kurdish, Turkish, (Pseudo-)original.

In the year 2000, an unprecedented project was initiated by the Music Unit ofthe Mesopotamian Culture Centre (Mezopotamya Kltr Merkezi/Navendaanda Mezopotamya), an eminent Kurdish art and culture centre in Istanbul.The project was titled ahiya Stranan (Celebration of Folk Songs) in Kurdishand yielded two albums: ahiya Stranan I(2000) and ahiya Stranan II(2004).Before this project, there had been other albums in which Kurdish folk songs

were compiled, but none had focused on anonymous and attributed Kurdishfolk songs which, until then, had been circulating in various media in theirwell-known Turkish versions. Presenting the albums as a response to theseexisting translations, the Music Unit of the Centre explained the projects

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



4/20

Folk Songs, Translation and the Question of (Pseudo-)Originals230

rationale as follows on the cassette insert of the rst album:1

It was our sense of responsibility that led us to gather the Kurdish

folk melodies which had been deprived of their cultural texture andidentity, had been translated into other languages in a degenerated wayand had their musical structure spoiled and to present them in theirown language and musical structure.

In claiming these songs back, the musicians involved in the project wereexplicitly criticizing the previous translations on the grounds that these folksongs were deprived of their Kurdish identity. Such criticisms were shared

by several other musicians and journalists, raising considerable controversy

especially within the Kurdish circles in Turkey during the 1990s over thetranslation of Kurdish folk songs into Turkish. The present article exploresthe reasons behind this controversy, focusing on the following questions:Why was there a heated debate, which mostly took place within the sourceculture, with little participation from the target culture?2Why was a sourceculture protesting against something which was supposed to be a fact ofthe target culture (Toury 1995:29)? Why was this case not perceived as anatural interaction in which two cultures living together translated eachothers songs or in which the songs travelled from one culture to the other

but was rather discussed in terms of assimilation and exploitation? Last butnot least, why were the Turkish translations, and the act of translating in thiscase, sometimes referred to as Trk(e)letirmek (Turk(ish)ifying), armak(pilfering) and intihal etmek(plagiarizing),3rather than as eviri(translation),which is the modern culture-bound [Turkish] concept connoting delity tothe source text (Paker 2002:128)?

Drawing on these questions, this study will rst discuss three interrelatedelements of the critical discourse surrounding these translations (section 1).Here I will restrict my discussion and analysis to the extratextual and discur-

sive level and will not engage in an anthropological or sociological analysisof the translation case in question. In section 2, I assess the relevance of thetraditional distinction between source and target cultures, which is preva-lent in translation studies, for the particular case in hand. Section 3 analyzesthe broad translation strategies observed in these folk songs and focuses onthe textual-linguistic make-up of one of them, a song entitled Lorke Lorke

1All back translations of quotations and lyrics into English are mine. I would like to thank

Turhan Yaptran, a musician and one of the coordinators of the ahiya StrananProject,for his help in translating the Kurdish songs.2 Throughout this study, I use target/source culture and Turkish/Kurdish cultureinterchangeably with target/source audience and Turkish-speaking/Kurdish-speakingaudience, as convenient labels and never to imply monolithic and essential categories.3For a detailed discussion of these terms and their implications, see ner (2007).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



5/20

Senem ner 231

in Kurdish and its Turkish version entitled Diyarbekir Gzel Balar/Lorke(Beautiful Vineyards in Diyarbekir/Lorke).4The nal section offers a discus-sion of the ndings derived from textual and extratextual sources and what I

refer to as pseudo-originals.1. The critical discourse on the translation of Kurdish folk songs

Any analysis of the Turkish versions of Kurdish folk songs, which wereproduced and received in a particular historical, cultural and socio-politicalcontext, must begin by taking this context into account. This requires us toconsider certain asymmetrical power relations, as well as issues of dominationand cultural identity. Furthermore, the fact that the translations in question

are themselves folk songs requires us to dwell upon the relationship betweenidentity, social memory and music, the latter being a site of symbolic actions,which is highly important for nation-states (Stokes 1998:136) and whichhas a power to facilitate remembering and forgetting (Radano and Philip2000:646).

The way different musicians, writers and journalists criticized and prob-lematized the translation of Kurdish folk songs into Turkish reveal how they

perceived the interrelations between translation, power relations, culturalidentity and social memory. When these criticisms are examined, three main

points emerge, all of which touch on the contextual issues mentioned above:(i) criticism of the states cultural policies, in terms of language and assimila-tion; (ii) criticism of the ethical stance of the translators, and (iii) criticism of

practices of economic exploitation.

1.1 Cultural policies of the state and the issue of language

The legal situation of the Kurdish language in Turkey is a polemical issuewhich exceeds the limits of the present article. For our current purposes, itis sufcient to point out that the critics base their claims on the view that theKurdish language has been either ofcially or unofcially suppressed in Tur-key since the early years of the Republic. For instance, in his article on thetranslation of Kurdish folk songs into Turkish, Mehmet Korkmaz mentionsthat according to law no. 2932, which was abolished in 1991, apart from therst ofcial language of states recognized by the Turkish State, the release,

4For a detailed discussion and comparative analysis of the other nine translations and

their source versions, see ner (2005). All the source songs were selected from the twoahiya StrananProject albums. I located three of the Turkish versions in the Trk HalkMzii Szl Eserler Antolojisi (Turkish Folk Music Anthology of Oral Works of Art) ofTRT Mzik Dairesi Bakanl(TRT Music Ofce Presidency), and one inMehur OlmuTrklerimiz (Our Famous Folk Songs, Turhan 2003). The rest are taken from albums ofdifferent singers/compilers.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



6/20


propagation or publication of thoughts in any other language is prohibited(Korkmaz 2002:45); he interprets this legal situation as ambiguous in the sensethat the Kurdish language was prohibited despite the fact that it was not even

recognized as a minority or a national language. This perceived restriction onKurdish underpins the criticisms focusing on issues of identity and the trans-lation of folk songs. As mentioned above, it was argued in ahiya Stranan Ithat the Turkish versions had deprived the Kurdish folk songs of their culturalidentity. This concern, which is shared by critics other than those participat-ing in the project, is based on the perception that the practice of translatingKurdish folk songs into Turkish is related to the cultural policies implemented

by the Turkish nation-state. These policies were allegedly based on ignoringand assimilating the traditional Ottoman and ethnic cultures, and replacing

them with Western culture and an invented Turkish national culture (Hasgl1996:41). Musician Nesimi Aday also conceives the translation of Kurdishfolk songs into Turkish in a similar fashion (1994:8; my emphasis):

The traditional assimilation policies of the statehave also inuencedthe folk songs; Kurdish folk songs were treated as plunder. They weremostly grouped under the title Turkish Folk Music and were appropri-ated as the property of Turkish culture.

What is implied in such a discourse is a lack of sensitivity on the part of statecultural policies with respect to issues of identity. Likewise, in his article ontheahiya Stranan Project, entitled Ezgiler Kendi Kimliine Kavuunca(When Melodies Finally Find Their Own Identity), Sinan Gndoar (2000)directly relates the translation of Kurdish folk songs into Turkish to the issueof identity and celebrates ahiya Strananas an album which brings thesemelodies back to their origins.

Musician Erol Mutlu is another writer who criticizes the translation of

Kurdish folk songs into Turkish within the context of cultural policies. InMutlus view, political practices aimed at reducing the ethnic and culturalplurality and diversity of Anatolia to a singular structure led to the erosionof Kurdish culture and music (Mutlu 1996:60). Given that oral culture wasthe only domain left for Kurds, music had a privileged place and a specialsocial function for them (ibid.:54). Mutlu contends that not only the his-torical events, but also epic products, heroic acts, conicts, legends, lyricstories and mystical values are recorded through music and thus retained inthe [Kurdish] societys collective memory (ibid.:55). Hence the protest fromwriters, musicians and critics, who perceived the translation of Kurdish folksongs as an extension of cultural assimilation policies of the state. However,the state was not the only target of criticism; the translators themselves wereequally taken to task.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



7/20

Senem ner 233

1.2 Translators and ethics

The second criticism directed at thetranslators of Kurdish songs concerned

the way in which the Turkish versions were presented to their audiences. Thesingers/compilers who translated and/or performed the Turkish versions ofthe folk songs which were later compiled in the ahiya Strananalbums hadeither presented them as their own compositions or as anonymous Turkishfolk songs that they themselves have compiled. Members of the music unitwhich initiated the Project were particularly critical of the silence surroundingthe actual source of these folk songs. One of the project coordinators, TurhanYaptran, remarked that in the translation of folk songs, especially where thecomposer and the lyricist are unknown, it is unacceptable not to mention the

source.5This type of omission, discussed in more detail in section 3 below,lies at the heart of the controversy and forms the basis of the three points ofcriticism elaborated in the debate.

This second point of criticism, which focuses on the issue of ethics, targetsthose compilers, singers and translators who have mostly been of Kurdishorigin themselves. Placing the translation of Kurdish folk songs into Turkishwithin the context of the nation-building process, Erol Mutlu (1996:60-62)argues that

[I]n the compilations and selections initiated by the Istanbul State Con-servatory in 1926 and conducted mostly by Ankara State Conservatoryin coordination with the radio, musical products created as a result ofthe interaction of Turkish and other cultures were labelled exclusivelyas Turkish ... Ofcial cultural policies fostered by the vision of musicin the TRT [Turkish Radio and Television] and the private mediamaintained the genre of Kurdish Music with Turkish lyrics with thehelp of popular singers of Kurdish origin.(my emphasis)

Similarly, writing about the Kurdish folk song Hawraman, which wastranslated into and performed in Turkish by Hilmi Yarayc, Blent Ylmaz(1999:6) criticizes Yarayc for not citing the appropriate source of the songin his album:

The way this song, which is sung under the name Gudileke, is pre-sented on the album insert renders the musician ethically responsible:neither the ethnic origin of the song is mentioned nor whose arrange-ment the performance was based on. On the album insert the piece is

described as an Iranian folk song. This deciency/obscurity in theexplanation seems highly signicant. (my emphasis)

5From an interview with the coordinators of the ahiya StrananProject, 20 November2004, Mesopotamian Culture Centre, Istanbul.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



8/20


Translators of Kurdish origin were similarly targeted by the project coordina-tors, who equated the practice with theft. This brings us to the link betweenthe two points of criticism, i.e. the interrelation between the practice of the

singer, compiler and translators and the economic impact of the translationcase under discussion.

1.3 Exploitation

The third point of criticism concerns the issue of exploitation. The projectcoordinators, as well as other writers and critics, argued that the translationof Kurdish folk songs into Turkish was directly motivated by self-interest:compilers, singers and translators appropriated popular Kurdish folk songs

and sold them in order to gain fame and money. This issue was emphasizedby the ahiya Strananproject coordinators in interviews. The coordinatorssuggested two possible reasons that might have led the translators to presentthese songs as anonymous Turkish folk songs or as their own compositions,and noted that it was the second reason which warranted criticism:

The rst reason may be that because ones mother tongue was banned,there was the need to express oneself, albeit in another language.The translators accordingly took the popular melodies of their own

culture and translated the lyrics into Turkish. On the other hand, sometranslators thought that Kurdish culture was not accepted and had nolegitimacy, and that they could take the existing melodies and no onecould claim copyright hence the pillaging of the folk songs: existingmelodies were used and new lyrics were written for those melodies.6

In his highly critical article entitled Krt Mziinde Talan klimi (TheClimate of Pillaging in Kurdish Music), Nesimi Aday also focuses on theissue of exploitation. In a section headed Krteden Trkeye evirilerve Mzik Krallar (Translation from Kurdish into Turkish and the Kings ofMusic), Aday (1994:8) criticizes many compilers, singers and translators, oneof whom is the famous Burhan aan:

His successful compilations opened for him the doors of the TRTand private TVs. In every programme he participated, aan marketedthe Kurdishstrans[folk songs] as his own new compositions. (myemphasis)

Its sarcasm aside, Adays statement illustrates the interdependence of the three

points of criticism particularly well. As Aday implies, the marketing of theTurkish versions as the singers own songs would not have been possible had


Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



9/20

Senem ner 235

the socio-political conditions in Turkey been different.The translation of Kurdish folk songs into Turkish, then, proved controver-

sial and was discussed in relation to the ofcial cultural policies, the unethical

stance of translators and the issue of exploitation. Before turning our attentionto these controversial translations themselves and examining some of thestrategies adopted in the process, a brief examination of the notions of sourceand target culture is in order. The relationship between these notions in thespecic case under discussion constitutes a particular contextual factor which,I believe, was crucial in the choice of translation strategies.

2. Source culture and target culture: a problematic dichotomy

In hisDescriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury proposed the idea ofstudying assumed translations, that is, all utterances which are presentedor regarded as such within the target culture, on no matter what grounds(ibid.:32). He thus contributed to extending the theoretical boundaries of trans-lation studies and paved the way for studying real-life translational practicesin their cultural and historical contexts. A further argument of Tourys whichcan be considered in relation to the notion of assumed translation is thattranslations are facts of [sic] target culture (ibid.:24). It is often the targetculture which initiates the translations and which, in turn, is inuenced by

them (ibid.:26-27). In Tourys view, [t]ranslations are ... on occasion facts ofa special status, sometimes even constituting identiable (sub)systems of theirown, but of the target culture in any event (ibid.:29). In this particular case,however, a source culture was offended by something which was supposedto be a fact of the target culture.

At rst glance, the case of the translation of Kurdish folk songs into Turk-ish may seem clear-cut in terms of the basic binary theoretical constructs oftranslation studies, such as target culture in this case the Turkish one andsource culture Kurdish. However, when we take into consideration the

fact that the majority of Kurds living in Turkey are bilingual in Turkish andKurdish and that there is considerable interbreeding and interaction betweenthe two groups, it becomes clear that the Turkish translations, which at rstseemed to be presented only to the monolingual Turkish audience, had actu-ally also been presented to the bilingual Kurdish speakers. One may arguethat instead of a single source culture or target culture, there are two targetcultures in this particular case, i.e. the monolingual Turkish culture and the

bilingual Kurdish one. Consequently, the translations in question are facts ofboth cultures. This is precisely the point where one can begin to appreciate

the unease felt by members of the source culture in relation to the Turkishversions of Kurdish folk songs; these were their facts too. This case revealsthe problematic nature of the distinction between target and source culturesand demonstrates that these constructs are not independent and monolithicentities. The same holds for the position of the translators involved, as it is

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



10/20


difcult to situate the bilingual compiler, singer or translator of Kurdish originin an exclusively Turkish or Kurdish culture.

How might this complex situation have affected the textual make-up of

the translations then? Did the translators choose their strategies with onlythe Turkish culture in mind, or did they also take the Kurdish culture intoaccount, both as a source and second target culture? In what follows I willdiscuss some of the translation strategies observed in the ten selected Turkishtranslations (see Appendix), whose Kurdish versions were compiled in theahiya Strananalbums; I will then focus on one particular example whichillustrates a variety of strategies.

3. Textual-linguistic make-up of ST and TT versions and relevant

translation strategies

Given that the source and target texts in question are song lyrics, the differencesand similarities in terms of melody, the use of couplets, quatrains and refrains,verse length and performance aspects should ideally be taken into considera-tion in any detailed analysis of the Kurdish and Turkish versions. For reasonsof space, however, I mainly focus in this article on how the translations were

presented in the written sources.In the ten translations examined,7the general strategy seems to have been

to rewrite new lyrics for existing music. When the source and target songs arecompared in terms of their melodies, they seem very close if not identical. Thetranslators seem to have preferred to retain the music in its entirety or to takeone part of the source songs melody and write new lyrics only for that part.This may partly be explained by the motivations of bilingual Kurdish compil-ers, singers and translators, who might have wished to maintain their musicalheritage and pass on their melodies to future generations, while expressingthemselves in another language at the same time.

The other most common strategy involves a degree of miscegenation

between the source and target lexical elements. On the one hand, certainlexical items were borrowed from the source lyrics but used in a totallydifferent context. On the other hand, the translators resorted to strategies ofaltered transliteration, substitution and non-translation for other Kurdish lexi-cal items. Furthermore, they inserted certain location markers associated withthe source culture, which in fact did not exist in the source lyrics in the rst

place. These strategies, which feature regularly in translations by differentcompilers, singers and translators, require closer investigation.

3.1 Phonetic and semantic correspondences

The frequent strategies of transliteration, substitution and non-translation

7For the Kurdish and Turkish titles of these songs, please refer to the Appendix.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



11/20

Senem ner 237

observed in different translations are reminiscent of translation-speciclexical items. Toury denes a translation-specic lexical item as a word withno meaning which is completely detachable from its use as a translational

solution; that is a target-language-intended replacement of a certain item ofa certain language other than that language (Toury 1995:214). However, thepresent case is somewhat different from Tourys translation-specic lexicalitems, which are almost only seen in translations and rarely in the originalutterances composed in the target language. The difference is that the word

pairs in Turkish translations do not have any meaning in Turkish; they aremerely substitutions of certain Kurdish words with similar sounding Turkishwords which do not bear any semantic correspondence to them.

One exampleis the translation of the Kurdish Lo berde and Le berde

in the Turkish version Makaram Sar Balar8

(My Bobbin Winds Yellow).The Kurdish folk song Lo Berde is a love song written in the form of a dia-logue in which a boy and a girl speak to each other. Lo berde means Boy,let my hand go in Kurdish and is both the title of the song and one of the

phrases repeated in the refrain. Le berde is another phrase used repeatedlyin the source refrain and means Girl, let my hand go. In the Turkish version,

both imperatives are translated or transcribed into o perde, which meansthat curtain/veil in Turkish. This translation solution is adopted only for the

purposes of rhyme and does not have any semantic relation to the theme of

the Turkish lyrics.Another relevant example is the translation of the repeated phrase yarmala ke (whose beautiful love is she?) in the song Aldand Yar Aldand(Deceived Beloved Deceived), and of the title of Yaramn a Bedew e (MyBeloved is Beautiful). Both Kurdish phrases were rendered as yar dlo can inTurkish. This is a combination of three different words which do not exactlyform a meaningful unit. Yar means beloved and can means soul/life.What is striking here is the appearance of the word dlo, which does not existin the Kurdish source text but comes from the Kurdish word dil (heart). In

Kurdish dilo means my heart and is used in addressing a male, as the suf-x o indicates. The substitution in the target text thus involves two Turkishand one Kurdish word, the latter transcribed according to the rules of Turkish

phonetics.

3.2 Inserting local place names associated with the Kurdish population

One very interesting strategy observed in the Turkish versions is the addition ofplace names which belong to the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolian regions,

where no such reference exists in the Kurdish lyrics. By adding names of citieswith a sizeable Kurdish population, the Turkish lyrics draw attention to thespatial and to an extent, cultural and ethnic origins of these folk songs.

8Taken from the Turkish Folk Music Anthology of Oral Works of Art (2000:580).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



12/20


One example is the addition of Elaz, a city located in Eastern Anato-lia, in the Turkish Evlenmem (I Wont Marry, Krmzgl 2004), althoughthere is neither a reference to Elaz nor to any other location in the Kurd-

ish Nazewcim (I Wont Marry). Similarly, the Turkish version DiyarbekirBedende/Naze (On Diyarbekirs City Wall, Altnmee) mentions Diyarbe-kir the ofcial name of which is Diyarbakr one of the biggest cities inSoutheastern Anatolia with a large Kurdish population, and Dicle, a riveralso located in the same region, although there is no reference to any locationin the Kurdish version Naz.

The last example worth mentioning here is the Turkish Mardin Kap enOlur9(Mardin Gate is Lively). Once again, place names appear both in thetitle of and throughout the Turkish version. Mardin Kap is one of the histori-

cal city wall gates in Diyarbakr. The rst lines of each quatrain begins withthe name of one city wall gate: Mardin Kap, Da Kap (Mountain Gate),Urfa Kap (Urfa Gate) and Yeni Kap (New Gate). There is therefore bothan implicit reference again to Diyarbekir, as well as explicit references to othercities in the Southeastern Anatolia region, such as Mardin and Urfa.

3.3 The diversity of translation strategies in Lorke lorkeI would now like to focus on one particular example which illustrates the vari-ous translation strategies discussed above. Diyarbekir Gzel Balar/Lorke(Beautiful Vineyards in Diyarbekir /Lorke, Turhan 2003:61) is the Turkishversion of Lorke Lorke. The Kurdish and Turkish lyrics are reproduced

below.To start with, what is most conspicuous in the Turkish version is an instance

of non-translation. Lorke is the imperative of Kurdish lorin, which meansrocking and singing a baby to sleep. Turkish does not have an imperativeform of a word similar to lorin, and so lorkeis borrowed from Kurdish and

used extensively throughout the song. This choice, however, must have beendeemed somewhat unintelligible for the monolingual Turkish audience; ac-cordingly, line four offers an explanation of sorts by presenting lorkeas a localfolk dance, which indeed is the case. Here, the translator refers to the lorkeasa folk dance popular among Kurdish people and thus adds another meaningof lorkein the Turkish version, one which does not exist in the Kurdish lyricsas such but is part of the Kurdish culture.10

9Taken from the Turkish Folk Music Anthology of Oral Works of Art (2000:584).10Lorke lorkeis also the name of an Armenian, and later a Greek, folk dance, most probablyspread and mutated through various migrations and interactions in the region.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



13/20

Senem ner 239

Lorke Lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorke xanim lorkeLorke lorke lorke lorke delal lorke

Kr bne penr hr ke xanim lorke

Kr bne penr hr ke delal lorke

Min bi qurbana guly sor ke xanimlorke

Min bi qurbana guly sor ke delal

lorke

Lorke Lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorkemy lady lorkeLorke lorke lorke lorkemy beautifullorke

Bring the knife slice the cheese mylady lorkeBring the knife slice the cheese my

beautiful lorkeI would sacrice myself for your scar-let braids my lady lorkeI would sacrice myself for your scar-

let braids my beautiful lorke

me mala ap El xanim lorke

Dan ber min nan qel delal lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorke xanim lorkeKr bne penr hr ke xanim lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorke xanim lorkeMin bi qurbana guly sor ke delallorke

Diyarbekir Gzel Balar/Lorke

Diyarbekir gzel balar delale lorke

Sular buz gibi alar hatune lorkeAli Paa mahlesinde delale lorkeLorke oynar gzel kzlar hatune lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorke delale lorkeLorke lorke lorke lorke hatune lorke

Urfa Diyarbekir Mardin delale lorkeAkar sular derin derin hatune lorke

Canm oynamak istiyor delale lorkeBana da bir mendil verin hatune lorke


I went to Uncle Alis house my ladylorkeThey served me bread and fried meatmy beautiful lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorkemy lady lorkeBring the knife slice the cheese my

beautiful lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorkemy lady lorkeI would sacrice myself for your scar-let braids my beautiful lorke

Beautiful Vineyards in Diyarbekir

/Lorke

Beatiful vineyards in Diyarbekir delalelorke

Its cold waters ow and fall hatunelorkeIn the district of Ali Pasha delale lorkeBeautiful girls dance lorke hatunelorke


Urfa Diyarbekir Mardin delale lorkeThe waters ow deep hatune lorke

I want to dance delale lorkeGive me a handkerchief hatune lorke

Lorke lorke lorke lorke delale lorkeLorke lorke lorke lorke hatune lor

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



14/20


In the refrain of this song we can observe both non-translation and phonetictranslation. The refrain in Kurdish is:

Lorke lorke lorke lorke xanim lorkeLorke lorke lorke lorke delal lorke.

[Lorke lorke lorke lorkemy lady lorkeLorke lorke lorke lorkemy beautiful lorke.]

In the Turkish version, lorkeis retained as it is, delalis transcribed as delaleandxanimis substituted with hatune.Delalmeans beautiful in Kurdish, andis a gender sufx indicating feminine, but neither of them communicates anymeaning to a monolingual Turkish audience.Xanimmeans woman/lady in

Kurdish. The same word exists in Turkish as hanm, but is not selected as anequivalent here. Instead, we have hatun, another common Turkish word forwoman. The reason for this might be the need to add e which makes up forthe missing syllable corresponding to the sufx in Kurdish, presumably inorder to maintain the verse metre and internal rhyme and because of hatuns

phonetic closeness to hanm.In terms of content, the Turkish lyrics seem to bear little thematic relation-

ship to the Kurdish ones. The Kurdish version draws on images from dailyvillage life (a man calling his wife to put the baby to sleep, to bring the knife

and slice the cheese, and expressing his affection for her). The Turkish ver-sion, however, revolves around the theme of dance. The supplementary images,on the other hand, are dominated by spatiality. The title features Diyarbekironce again, despite its absence in the Kurdish lyrics. Another very strikingaddition to the Turkish lyrics is Ali Paa mahlesinde (in the district of Ali Pa-sha). The Kurdish lyrics contains one line, me mala ap El, which meansI went to Uncle Alis house, but there is no mention of Ali Pasha District,which is again in Diyarbakr. Finally, the rst line of the last quatrain of theTurkish version again features the names of the three Southeastern cities: Urfa,

Diyarbekir and Mardin, with no apparent connection to the rest of the lyricsbut providing further opportunities for maintaining the rhyme and metre.

To sum up, the translation strategies observed in the songs compiled inahiya Strananalbums are varied, but the songs nevertheless have one thingin common. None of the Turkish versions tried to achieve a complete transferof content from the source lyrics. Instead, other strategies were used in orderto construct certain relationships to the Kurdish folk songs and the Kurdishculture in general.

First of all, no signicant changes can be observed in terms of the musical

and formal features of the source songs. The compilers, singers or translatorsgenerally complied with the original melodies, which must be very familiar tothe Kurdish audience. Another interesting feature which establishes a link tothe Kurdish culture is phonetic-semantic correspondence. Words rendered bymeans of altered transliteration and non-translation do not have any meaning

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



15/20

Senem ner 241

in Turkish and become foreign or exotic words for monolingual Turkishspeakers. On the other hand, the same words, such as lorke, are meaningfulfor those who know both Kurdish and Turkish. Such words can be seen as

addressing mainly one of the target cultures, i.e. the Kurdish one. It is alsoworth noting that most of these lexical items appear in the titles of the Turk-ish versions; songs are mostly remembered through their titles and refrains,with the latter often reiterating the title. These are therefore effective waysof recording the oral folk culture in social memory (Mutlu 1996:54). Byretaining these Kurdish lexical items, the Turkish versions can be said tofacilitate remembering rather than forgetting from the perspective of the

bilingual Kurdish-Turkish speakers. Similarly, through the addition of Easternand Southeastern local names, the Turkish lyrics mainly address a population

which has roots in these regions, a population which includes the Kurdish-speaking audience.In light of these observations, I would argue that the translation strategies

adopted in these lyrics were strongly motivated by an attempt to appeal to twodifferent audiences at the same time, one of which is also the source audience.In trying to address both audiences, the compilers, singers and translatorsretained and introduced certain Kurdish-culture-bound images and featuresin the Turkish lyrics.

When the outcomes of the textual analysis are considered together with

the contextual dimension discussed earlier, some interesting conclusions canbe reached. Although the harsh criticisms outlined in section 1 are highlypertinent in terms of the context in which the translations were produced andreceived, the translations themselves depict a picture which is far from beingmonolithic or absolute. In Rembetika Songs and Their Return to Anatolia,ebnem Susam-Sarajeva (2006) examines the revival of rembetika music inTurkey in the context of the growing interest in the music of minorities andthe Turkish-Greek rapprochement process. Based on close analysis of the

presentation and selection of the songs to be included in the albums and the

strategies of translation and/or non-translation of the lyrics, Susam-Sarajevaobserves that the revival depicts both an othering process and at the sametime ensur[es] an after-life for rembetikasongs in a land which reputedlygave birth to them in the rst place (2006:1). Likewise, acloser and compara-tive look at the Turkish translations of Kurdish songs reveals something thatcannot be formulated in an eitheror fashion. Despite the concerns ofthe ahiya Strananproject and other writers, what emerges from the analysisis not a total erasure of the form, content and cultural features of the Kurdishsongs, but a concern to ensure that certain elements of the source songs and

culture do survive. The Turkish versions appropriate some parts of the sourcelyrics, but, deliberately or otherwise, they also resist total erasure and silenc-ing. They therefore involve both loss and gain. They suppress and empower;they facilitate both remembering and forgetting. If this is the case, how canthe debates and criticisms detailed in section 1 be explained?

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



16/20


4. Translation as pseudo-original

As the analysis of the critical discourse surrounding the translations in ques-

tion has shown, the Turkish versions of Kurdish folk songs were criticized inrelation to ofcial cultural policies, to unethical behaviour of the translatorsand to the issue of exploitation. However, the textual analysis illustrated thatit was not the way the songs were translated that might have caused such acontroversy. I would therefore argue that the main cause of their critics dis-comfort concerns the way in which the translations were presented, i.e. thefact that the Turkish versions were not presented as translations, but as ori-ginal compositions or anonymous Turkish folk songs. As opposed to Tourysdenition of pseudotranslations as texts which have been presented as

translations with no corresponding source texts in other languages ever havingexisted (1995:40), these Turkish versions can be said to disguise themselvesas originals. We might thus refer to them as pseudo-originals.

This issue is particularly important in the current context: it is preciselyin considering their status as pseudo-originals that other criticisms of thetranslations become more meaningful. First, some critics discussed the trans-lation of Kurdish folk songs in the context of the process of nationalizationin Turkey and the cultural policies implemented by the Turkish nation-statesince its inception. It was also these critics who described such translation

practices in terms of Trkletirme (Turkifying), Trkeletirme(Turkishify-ing) or Trk(e)letirme(Turk(ish)ifying). Underlying these criticisms wasa concern that the identity of the source songs was erased. Had the Turkishversions been acknowledged as translations, this criticism might not have

been raised in the rst place.The second point of criticism primarily targeted the compilers, singers

and translators, referring to the translations as armak(pilfering) or intihaletmek(plagiarizing). This criticism clearly focuses on the presentation of theTurkish versions, accusing the mediators of presenting or selling the Kurd-

ish (anonymous) folk songs as their own, a practice considered unethical bythe critics.

The third point of criticism, which concerned the issue of economicexploitation, is again closely related to the status of the translations as pseudo-originals. The compilers, singers and translators were criticized for stealingor selling the songs as their own original songs or compilations from Turkishsources. I have noted above, for instance, how Nesimi Aday criticized thesinger/translator Burhan aan for market[ing] the Kurdish strans as hisnew compositions (Aday 1994:8). It is no surprise that Aday uses the term

szde-derleme (pseudo-compilation) in the same article for the Turkishversions.

I have argued so far that the underlying reason for the entire controversywas the way the Turkish versions were presented rather than how they weretranslated. In this context, the term pseudo-original may have some ex-

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



17/20

Senem ner 243

planatory power as a theoretical construct. However, it is not without its ownproblems and risks, especially when well-established critiques of the verynotion of an original are taken into consideration (e.g. Derrida 1982). For,

ironically, the idea of an original or a claim to an original which formed thebasis of the critics arguments, especially those who claimed the Kurdish songsback also underpinned the presentation of the translations from Kurdish asTurkish originals in the rst place. In both the presentation of the translationsas original Turkish compositions or anonymous Turkish folk songs, and in thelater reactions sparked by the way the translations were presented, the claimto an original was crucial. In the rst case, the translations were presentedas Turkish originals; in the second, they were criticized on the grounds thatthese were Kurdish originals that were not presented as such.

The complexity of the situation is recognized by some of the criticsinvolved in the controversy, specically members of the music unit that pro-duced the ahiya Strananalbums. As I mentioned earlier, the preface of therst album criticized the translations on the grounds that they had deprivedthe Kurdish songs of their identity and claimed that these songs were nowcompiled in their own language and musical structure. In the preface of thesecond album, however, the discourse is strikingly toned down. This time themusic unit re-formulates its aims as follows (ahiya Stranan II2004):

Our goal is not to prove that these songs are Kurdish. Naturally, culturesliving together interact. Our aim is to note in the historical record thatthese songs are alsoknown to and sung amongst the Kurdish people.(my emphasis)

The project coordinators, who had previously based their criticisms on theoriginality of the Kurdish folk songs, thus eventually adopted a differentattitude. When I asked them about this softening of approach, the projectcoordinator Turhan Yaptran explained:

In the beginning, we started with the opinion that these songs belongedonly to Kurds. However, we are also aware that various peoples andcultures lived in Mesopotamia, including Kurds, Armenians, Arabs,Yazidis and Assyrians, and that there must have been plenty of give andtake between these cultures. Accordingly, we transformed the projectto reect an understanding which would be more appropriate for ac-knowledging and fostering interaction between different cultures and

peoples. Although we are 99 percent sure that these songs are Kurdish,for the sake of the remaining 1 percent and because of our respect for

everyculture, we nd it sufcient and more appropriate to say thatthese songs were alsosung in Kurdish. (my emphasis)11


Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



18/20


5. Conclusion

I have tried to trace the reasons behind a rather unusual controversy over folk

songs and their different versions, paying attention to both the debates and thelyrics themselves. In doing so, I have observed that some parts of the content orthematic integrity of the Kurdish lyrics were erased; at the same time, certainitems pertaining to the Kurdish culture and language were added in an attemptto address the two target cultures involved. I have concluded that rather than theway the translations were carried out, it was the fact that the Turkish versionswere regarded as pseudo-originals by their critics that sparked the controversyin the rst place. As a theoretical construct, pseudo-originals may be helpfulin this specic case, but we must acknowledge that every original is always

also a pseudo-original and that any claims to pure originality are inherentlysuspect. The reservations expressed by the ahiya StrananProjects musicunit in their preface to the second album point to an alternative approach tooriginality, an exit out of the controversy. For, in addition to revisiting their ownclaim to an original Kurdish text, they simultaneously question any claim toan original in any context. In this sense, the hedge also(these songs are alsoknown to and sung amongst the Kurdish people) in the preface to the secondalbum is far from being a step back. It is a step forward indeed in eradicatingany clash of claims to an original, claims which always have the potential

of creating such controversies as outlined in this study.The translation of Kurdish folk songs into Turkish has proved to be a sig-nicant case ofpseudo-originaltext production, an unusual one which hasvarious implications for translation studies. This case study points towards themulti-dimensional nature of translation practice in a multicultural society. Itdemonstrates the importance of power relations, cultural identity and socialmemory. And nally, it highlights the importance of studying translation totrace the history of cultural interaction and/or confrontation, both in Turkeyand elsewhere.

SENEM NERAbdi peki Cad. Lalezar Apt. 45/3 Nianta, Istanbul-Trkiye, [email protected]

References

Aday, Nesimi (1994) Krt Mziinde Talan klimi [The Climate of Pillage inKurdish Music], zgr Gndem, 28 March, p. 8.

Derrida, Jacques (1982)Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass, Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Gndoar, Sinan (2000) Ezgiler Kendi Kimliine Kavuunca [When the MelodiesFind Their Own Identity],Evrensel, http://www.evrensel.net/00/06/13/kultur.html (last accessed on 6 June 2008).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



19/20

Senem ner 245

Hasgl, Necdet (1996) Cumhuriyet Dnemi Mzik Politikalar [Policies in Musicduring the Republican Era],Folklora Doru [Towards Folklore] 62, Istanbul:Boazii University Press: 27-49.

Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Ap-proaches Explained, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Korkmaz, Mehmet (2002) ifte Standardn Ad Krdbesk: z Krt Sz Trk[Kurdibesque, the Double Standard: Kurdish in Essence, Turkish in Words],in Mehmet Bayrak (ed.) Krt Mzii, Danslar, arklar [Kurdish Music,Dances and Songs], Ankara: zge Publishing, 39-48.

Mutlu, Erol (1996) Krt Mzii zerine [On Kurdish Music], in Kendal Nezan,Mutlu ztrk, Gkhan Gken and Kerem zdemir (eds)Krt Mzii [Kurd-ish Music], Istanbul: Avesta Publishing, 53-64.

ner, Senem (2005) Silent Lyrics: Kurdish Folk Songs in Translation, UnpublishedMA Thesis, Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University.

------ (2007) Pilfering, Converting, Turk(ish)ifying Kurdish Folk Songs inTranslation and the Question of Naming, unpublished paper presented at theTranslation and Translation des faux amis. Tracing Translations AcrossDisciplines conference, Boazii University, Department of Translation andInterpreting Studies, Istanbul, April 5-8.

Paker, Saliha (2002) Translation as TercemeandNazire, Culture-bound Conceptsand Their Implications for a Conceptual Framework for Research on OttomanTranslation History, in Theo Hermans (ed.) Crosscultural Transgressions,

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 120-43.Radano, R. and P.V. Bohlman (eds) (2000)Music and Racial Imagination, Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.Stokes, Martin (1998) Etnisite, Kimlik ve Mzik [Ethnicity, Identity and Music],

Folklora Doru [Towards Folklore] 63, trans. Altu Ylmaz, Istanbul: BoaziiUniversity Press, 123-49.

Susam-Sarajeva, ebnem (2006) Rembetika Songs and Their Return to Ana-tolia, in Loredana Polezzi (ed.) Translation, Travel, Migration, special issueof The Translator12(2): 253-78.

Toury, Gideon (1995)Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Trk Halk Mzii Szl Eserler Antolojisi [Turkish Folk Music Anthology of OralWorks of Art] (2000) Ankara: TRT Mzik Dairesi Bakanl (Turkish Radioand Television Music Ofce Presidency).

Turhan, Salih (2003)Mehur Olmu Trklerimiz [Our Famous Folk Songs] Vol.2, Istanbul: Alfa.

Ylmaz, Blent (1999) Soft-Trk ve Hassasiyet [Soft-Folk Song and Sensitiv-ity],Bak [View], 20 July, 5-9.

Discography

Altnmee, zzet Canl Halk Konseri [Live Concert, date unknown], Istanbul:ahin.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



20/20


aan, Burhan (MESAM Official Web Site) www.mesam.org.tr/Mesam/SearchProduct.aspx

Krmzgl, Mahsun (1993)Alem Buysa Kral Sensin, Istanbul: Prestij.------ (2004) Yklmadm, Istanbul: Prestij.ahiya Stranan I (2000) Istanbul, Kom.ahiya Stranan II (2004) Istanbul: Kom.Tatlses, brahim (1989)Fosforlu Cevriyem, Istanbul: Emre.Tatlses, brahim (2000)Hesabm Var, Sylim mi?, Istanbul: Idobay.

Appendix: Kurdish and Turkish Titles of Songs

Examined in Section 3

Kurdish versions Turkish versions

Can Can (My Life, My Soul), ahiyaStranan I

Cane Cane (CaneCane, Tatlses 2000)

Rabe Cotyar (Wake Up Farmer), ahiyaStranan I

Beyaz Gl Krmz Gl (White RoseRed Rose, Tatlses 1989)

Yaramina Bedew e (My Beloved is

Beautiful), ahiya Stranan II

Aldand Yar Aldand (Deceived Be-

loved Deceived, aan)

Nazewcim (I Wont Marry), ahiyaStranan II

Evlenmem (I Wont Marry, Krmzgl1993)

Ez Kewok im (I am a Pigeon), ahiyaStranan I

Hele Yar Zalm Yar (Beloved Cruel Be-loved, Trk Halk Mzii Szl Eserler

Antolojisi2000)

Naz (Naz), ahiya Stranan I Naze (Naze, Altnmee)

Lo Berde (Boy, Let My Hand Go),

ahiya Stranan I

Makaram Sar Balar (My Bobbin Winds

Yellow, Trk Halk Mzii Szl EserlerAntolojisi 2000)

Lorke Lorke (Lorke Lorke), ahiyaStranan I

Diyarbekir Gzel Balar/Lorke (Di-yarbekir Beautiful Vineyards/Lorke,Turhan 2003)

Le Xanim (O Lady), ahiya Stranan I Mardin Kap en Olur (Mardin Gate isLively, Trk Halk Mzii Szl Eserler

Antolojisi 2000)

Zara (Zara), ahiya Stranan I leyim (Let Me Die, Krmzgl 1998)

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19


folk songs, translations and originals (2008)

Documents