Abstract

In recent years, scholarly discourse has extensively examined retranslations, yet non-retranslations have received insufficient attention. The term non-retranslations refers to works in translation that persist in a literary system without undergoing retranslation. This study examines a concise bibliography of non-retranslations to gain a better understaning of the idea and its dynamics within the Turkish literary system. The bibliography of nineteen works by five Nobel laureates examines instances of non-retranslation through Antoine Berman’s notion of “great” translators. Another key notion used in this study is that of non-translation, which is also explored in the works of six modernist authors. Debates on the lack of (re)translation are compared to the significant increase in retranslations during the 2000s. This study’s findings reflect a tendendy that within the translated literary system Türkiye, non-translations and non-retranslations coexist alongside retranslations.

Keywords: non-retranslation, non-translation, retranslation, great translation

1. Introduction

The field of translation studies has increasingly emphasized retranslation, especially since the early 2000s, owing to the rise in/of retranslations. This boom of retranslations prompted the characterization of the period as “the era of retranslation” (Collombat 1). The initial conception of retranslation originated in 1990 with a special issue of Palimpsestes, most notably in the contributions of/by Antoine Berman and Paul Bensimon, which, including Yves Gambier’s 1994 article “La retraduction, retour et détour,” Andrew Chesterman formulated as the “retranslation hypothesis” (23). Berman’s seminal work, “La retraduction comme espace de la traduction,” lays the basis for the hypothesis, being still one of the most phenomenal essays on retranslation. The hypothesis provides a theoretical framework for the definition, characteristics, and origins of retranslations. Berman gives various explanations for the genesis of retranslations. He asserts that translation is an “incomplete act” that can only be finalized by retranslation. The “assimilative” characteristics of the initial translations require subsequent retranslations that are more focused on the source material. He elaborates that the primary cause of retranslations is the “aging” of previous translations (Berman, “Retraduction” 1-8).

The recent dynamics of retranslations necessitated new dynamic perspectives. Consequently, in the twenty-first century, numerous scholars have broadened the notion of retranslation beyond the confines established by the “retranslation hypothesis,” contending that the hypothesis no longer adequately accounts for the proliferation of retranslations in modern contexts (Brownlie 167; Desmidt 669-70). Consequently, research on retranslation has evolved into a “retranslation theory” (Brownlie 168), and post-2010, the rising prevalence of retranslations as products, along with their theoretical examination, has led to the emergence of “retranslation studies” (Berk Albachten and Tahir Gürçaglar 1). Nevertheless, a significant aspect of modern retranslation studies is that they focus on the lack of retranslations, given that numerous classics persist in a literary system without undergoing retranslation. In a literary system characterized by frequent retranslations, the examination of the lack of retranslations may yield significant insights into the dynamics of a literary system. Koskinen and Paloposki subsequently introduced the concept of “non-retranslation” to address the argumentative necessity for retranslation. Alongside the “era of retranslation,” they inquire whether “eras of non-retranslations” could be identified within various literary systems (“New Directions” 26). Moreover, they assert that scholars should focus more on the cases of non-retranslation, especially those works that continue to be pertinent and read in a given literary system/tradition but are not retranslated or revised (31-32). This study seeks to address this request by compiling a corpus of non-retranslations, grounded in Berman’s concept of “great translations” (“grandes traductions”). Though the concept is generally translated as “great translations,” Peeters and Van Poucke, however, assert that ‘major translation’ would be a more precise term “as the term points to a translation’s status in the target context, without necessarily implying a quality statement” (5). According to Berman, first translations have an introductory function, “they are generally not complete translations, and as is well-known, full of flaws; then come the (many) retranslation ... Eventually a canonical translation may be produced which will stop the cycle of retranslations for a long time” (qtd. in Brownlie 148). These canonical translations are called great translations and are also the only exception to the “aging” translations. It is obvious that the label “great” is ambiguous and subjective. In this study, however, the term “great” is preferred over “major,” and its usage as a “quality label” will be problematized (Van Poucke, “Aging” 96). The reason for focusing on great translations in the context of non-retranslation in this study is twofold. Firstly, Berman asserts that these translations have the power to stop the upcoming translations, therefore serving as the primary rationale for non-retranslation. Secondly, non-retranslations’ “time-resistant nature” could lead their translator to be regarded as “great translators” who have an extraordinary urge to translate (Berman, “Retraduction” 5), which comes with its own challenges.

The primary phenomena under investigation in this research are the dynamics of non-retranslations as well as non-translations in Türkiye since the selection behind what is not translated and/or retranslated provides essential insights into the literary system as a whole. So far, there has been only one attempt at capturing the dynamics of retranslation in Türkiye, namely the bibliography of retranslations compiled by Şehnaz Tahir Gürçaglar and Özlem Berk Albachten. This study will hopefully broaden the scope by providing concise bibliographies of non-translations and non-retranslations in Türkiye. The motivation for compiling the bibliography came from my prior research on the retranslations of modernist literature. My research indicates that certain prominent figures/authors of/in world literature remain unknown to the Turkish audience due to the lack of translation of their works whereas some modernist pioneers have undergone multiple retranslations. This discovery necessitated a comprehensive analysis of non-translations and non-retranslations, as the overlooked aspect of retranslation research can be addressed through these categories. The inquiry into why there is a preference for retranslating specific literary works over others within the same movement can illuminate the Turkish literary canon. The primary objective of this study is to propose a cohesive framework for dealing with non-translations and non-retranslations as grounded in their definitions, dynamics, and precipitating factors. The first section of the study considers terminology used to elucidate these notions given that distincition between them has not been clearly established. The subsequent section analyzes modernist authors who have been extensively retranslated. The third section examines the nineteen works of five modernist Nobel laureates within the framework of non-retranslation. Finally, the intriguing problem of non-translation is explored through the works of six modernist authors.

2. Remarks on Terminological Considerations

The discourse on retranslation encompasses related ideas such as revision and reprint. The main concepts used in this study are non-translation and non-retranslation. Non-retranslations that are “continuously being published without being retranslated” (Svahn 54) emerge as reprints. Retranslation is regarded as a “new” form and interpretation, challenging existing translations and reprints, while on the other hand it affirms the validity of current translations by reinforcing them (Pym 83). Certain translations in my corpus have been reprinted for over fifty years with certain linguistic updates. In some cases, these updates were minor or major revisions, and including revised versions within the frame of non-retranslation is a matter of controversy. While in the original idea of non-retranslation, Koskinen and Paloposki (2003) explain non-retranslation as “not revised,” different scholars handle the issue in different ways. Charlotte Bollaert (2019) analyzes only unrevised reprints as instances of non-retranslations. However, detecting revisions can be challenging if the paratextual context does not provide sufficient information. It is customary for a text to be revised but this is rarely noted on/in the reprint. The works that underwent covert revision can only be understood through a comparative analysis of the texts, which is arduous. In my corpus, the primary choice for the dissemination of literary works appears to be between reprints and retranslations. Bollaert similarly asserts:

We believe … that the choice to reprint, in the case at hand, can – to some extent – be seen as a choice not to retranslate. When the categories that lie between translation and retranslation (here reprints, but also for example revisions) are left out, a gap is assumed between both practices. (60)

The differentiation between revision and retranslation has been a crucial part of the research on retranslation; nevertheless, since my study is mainly concerned with non-retranslations and non-translation, I include reprints, whether revised or not, within the framework of non-retranslation to simplify the process of categorization.

I also focus on the cases of non-translation of modernist literature in Türkiye. There are two aspects to non-translation: it can refer to both untranslated fragments within a text and instances where translation is entirely absent. My emphasis on non-translation pertains to significant modernist literary works that remain untranslated into Turkish despite their global prominence. Certain scholars link non-translation to the notion of “untranslatability” developed in Emily Apter’s Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability (2023), but it is typically regarded as a type of “resistance” manifesting in ideological, economic, and poetological dimensions (Glynn 1). Resistance manifests in multiple forms, and although it most often has to do with the target norms, the source side may encounter specific problems that render the text “resistant” to translation. Although the poetics are closely linked to the source material, the issue arises on the target side, contingent on the translation’s reception. The opposition may also stem from ideological and manipulative factors regarding non-translations (Bollaert 47).

Non-retranslations are regarded as time-resistant texts that have maintained their position within the target literary system for/over an extended period of time. They are therefore seen as superior texts, works of a higher standing than retranslations. The subsequent sections include a thorough examination of the correlation between aging and non-retranslation. Nonetheless, my data indicate that the incentives for non-retranslation are equally diverse as those for retranslation. Moreover, non-retranslations seem to be influenced by the target-side dynamics, with aging being potentially one of several contributing variables.

Furthermore, retranslations and non-retranslations seem to compete for dominance, with the former perceived as superior. Retranslations are considered to exhibit a “positive charisma” (Paloposki and Koskinen 35), while reprints are regarded as inferior alternatives. The recent retranslation presents a more empathetic rendition, while both represent divergent methodologies intended to facilitate the ongoing dissemination of literary works within their own literary contexts. I argue that the existence of reprints in Türkiye is not due to a “lack of the will to retranslate” (Paloposki and Koskinen 34) but is directly linked to financial circumstances. Koskinen and Paloposki contend that although publishing houses prefer reprints to reduce retranslation expenses, the selection between them appears “arbitrary.” Although it has been asserted that retranslations generate “positive publicity” (Koskinen and Paloposki, “New Directions” 33) and thus attract the interest of readers and publishers, leading to the reissuing/reprinting of existing translations with new covers to exploit this attention, this may not be the case in all literary systems. Moreover, it is important to give/provide a comprehensive analysis of the corpora to discern the particular mechanisms that trigger retranslation. This research focuses on the attributes of the texts and their reception, as retranslation may also be stimulated by a revived interest in reprinting. Therefore, it is more precise to assert that causal links regarding the commercial worth of a specific translation are flexible.

3. The Motives for Retranslations and Non-Retranslations

The data of this study indicates that economic factors are the primary cause of retranslations and reprints. These economic factors may result in economic resistance. Translation is a business investment for publishers; if the poetics of the original text do not align with the established conventions of popular literature, it directly leads to difficulty in reception and, eventually, a decline in sales figures. The outcome is non-translation. The choice of material for translation is intricately connected to its perceived economic value. Within the Bourdieusian framework, the literary field comprises two separate domains: the commercial realm and the unique domain of symbolic value (175). The initial sphere emphasizes the commercial importance of texts evaluated in relation to mass production and aimed at satisfying the needs of the target audience. The artistic significance of the text is underscored by its symbolic worth. Bourdieu posited that symbolic status is of higher importance, a subject that continues to be explored in this study. Instances of non-translation and non-retranslation illustrate a hierarchy not only among genres and authors but also among movements (Bourdieu 165). The corpus analysis entails a comprehensive investigation at both macro and micro levels to examine the dynamics within the same genre and among works by the same author. The selection of works for retranslation is considered a matter of assigning “value.” From a hierarchical standpoint, retranslation is regarded as superior, and certain works are deemed “worthy” of retranslation. The instances of non-retranslations appear to be directly linked to works deemed inferior in the hierarchy, correlating their existence with an “unworthy” position. Nonetheless, the data in this study indicates multiple occurrences of non-retranslation, with numerous reprints allowing these works to persist within the intended system for extended periods of time, prompting a reconsideration of their value. This claim pertains to the “positive publicity” (Koskinen and Paloposki, “New Directions” 33) associated with retranslation; yet, in the Turkish literary framework, retranslations and reprints coexist simultaneously. This system, characterized by the intersection of three distinct versions, does not establish a hierarchy simply based on the process itself. The final result and its attributes become prominent while assessing the prevailing forms. Furthermore, despite the “positive publicity” surrounding retranslation, there may be instances where the first translation dominates later retranslations in subsequent reprints. In some cases, both the first translation and the first translator are canonized. Moreover, the significance attributed to a particular text, whether it is a retranslation or not, is also contingent upon the text’s durability within the target system. A retranslation may have a shorter lifespan than the first translation, perhaps due to several factors, such as a publishing house closing down or because a given retranslation is no longer reprinted (Koskinen and Paloposki, “New Directions” 33).

The prevalence of non-retranslations in the Turkish literary system cannot be exclusively attributed to their inherent resistance; publishing firms significantly contribute to this phenomenon. Recent data indicate that small-scale publishing houses favor retranslation, whereas longstanding publishing houses prefer issuing reprints of the first translations, a trend also observed in Türkiye. In the context of my study, it seems this tendency is caused by multiple factors. Initially, esteemed publishing houses in Türkiye assign the first translations to reputable/respectable translators. This results in high-quality translations, reducing the necessity for extensive subsequent revisions. Furthermore, in the business context, the esteemed reputation of these translators can render the works “longsellers” (Svahn 60). Consequently, these translations are seen as more esteemed and are reprinted by numerous publishing firms. Furthermore, a successful first translation produced by a prominent translator may intimidate retranslators and publishing houses alike. In contrast, for a newly-formed publishing company, retranslation may represent a more profitable option and should thus be prioritized. This is especially applicable in cases when copyright limitations on the material do not apply, as retranslation might provide an economic advantage.

4. The Bibliographies of Modernist Works in Turkish

The primary objective of compiling a bibliography of non-(re)translations originates from studying retranslations of modernist literature in Türkiye. The premise that “every generation deserves its own Dostoevsky” (Van Poucke, “Aging” 93) may hold validity, but how can we rationalize the decision to publish three retranslations of the same Dostoevsky’s work in the same year? This abundance is closely associated with “popular” writers and works, as there is no specific purpose for their retranslation in the target culture. Although certain notable works are frequently retranslated, others are not subject to retranslation. This is compelling due to the fact that, in the same literary movement, some authors have achieved considerable acclaim while others have been relegated to the periphery. Before turning to instances of non-translation and non-retranslation, it is beneficial to analyze this phenomenon, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 demonstrates that the retranslation and publishing of the works by Virginia Woolf, Franz Kafka, James Joyce, and D. H. Lawrence exceed the demands of the literary system. The phenomenon is mostly driven by the economic value linked to the canonical status of these works within the target systems. These texts are extensively retranslated not only because of their literary importance as prominent modernist works but also because of their relevance to the socio-cultural dynamics of Türkiye. In Figure 1, Virginia Woolf is the most prominent author and also the only female author represented. Her popularity seems to be associated with the growing impact of feminism in Türkiye. Kafka is positioned as the third most frequently published author in Türkiye (Saglam 61) due to the perceived relevance of his themes to significant events in Turkish political history. His works have been widely translated into Turkish, especially during the periods succeeding military coups in Türkiye. His novel, The Trial, is frequently quoted as a critique of injustice in daily life (Ilkiliç 17). Joyce is a modernist writer who is crucial to discussions on untranslatability, particularly due to his most prominent work, Ulysses. This work underwent two retranslations after the first “iconic” translation, which was accompanied by Nevzat Erkmen’s Ulysses Dictionary (1996). Thus, it is not the intricate narrative that obstructs a text from being retranslated but rather the marketing considerations frequently arising from the author’s prominence.

The surge of retranslations in Türkiye indicates the emergence of an unprecedented “era of retranslation” throughout the 2010s. This period signified a notable rise in retranslation and reprints. Publishers play a vital role, frequently operating autonomously, often unaware of prior or concurrent translations that have been released. This timeframe coincides with the expiry of copyright protection for specific authors from the 2010s onward, illustrating the considerable impact of economic factors. The increase in retranslations can be ascribed to the growing number of new publishing houses that exhibit a preference for retranslation rather than reprints. New publishers specifically favor modern classics hoping the popularity of these works will raise their status. The almost concurrent emergence of these retranslations defies the notion of “aging” posited by the retranslation hypothesis. The timing of retranslations and reprinting coincide, as illustrated in Figure 1, suggesting that these two versions can coexist within the Turkish literary framework, with neither being considered superior to the other.

After analyzing retranslations, it is imperative to turn to what I term “non-retranslation archaeology,” utilizing Pym’s notion of “translation archaeology” (39), to investigate the pathways of non-retranslations by addressing inquiries of what remains unretranslated, when, and for what reason. Figure 2 illustrates that my trajectory is founded on the non-retranslations of various source works by five modernist authors, all of them Nobel Prize laureates. The compilation consists of nineteen works originally written in English and German. They are organized chronologically to demonstrate the interval between the first translations and the most recent editions.

Figure 2. The Editions of Nineteen Works in Chronological Order

The primary emphasis is on the absence of retranslations of these works, authored by Nobel laureates, as indicated in Figure 2, demonstrating that this matter is not related to their importance within the Turkish literary system. In cases when the first translation was released fifty or sixty years ago, no subsequent retranslation has occurred despite its lengthy time span, and the first version remained in circulation until the 2020s. This discovery acts as an opposition to the alleged “aging” of existing translations (Berman, “Retraduction” 1). In this case, the popularity transcends the target audience, as these authors are globally esteemed and formally acknowledged within their own literary traditions. This bibliography suggests that there is no direct association between the importance of source texts in their original culture and the frequency of subsequent retranslations. The dynamics on the target side appear to be independent of the source side.

Between the first and last editions, the texts have undergone adjustments due to language changes. Nonetheless, these modifications fail to satisfy the requisite standards of quantity or quality to be considered revisions. Prominent and long-standing publishing companies in Türkiye have all released the latest editions of these masterpieces. Furthermore, the first translators of these works are proficient and esteemed, and their editions spanning over fifty years seem to be linked to translations of remarkable quality. The first edition in the corpus, Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, was published by the Ministry of Education under the supervision of the government. The other editions of the same translation are utilized by a private publishing house, Can Yayinlari, indicating that there is no conflict of interest between the two parties, which is rarely the case in terms of ideology.

Figure 3. The Number of Translations and Reprints by Translator

Another important aspect to consider is the frequency of reprints within particular time periods. A substantial number of reprints signifies the lasting importance of these translations, implying that the initial translation may enjoy greater longevity than subsequent retranslations. The release of these reprints coincides with the emergence of retranslations in Türkiye, highlighting the complex processes within the literary system that encompass both retranslations and reprints. The esteemed status of these reprinted authors and their works suggests that the importance assigned to a specific work is not determined exclusively by the merit of being “worthy of retranslation,” but rather, the considerable number of reprints underscores the value attributed to the translation itself. Consequently, the notion that retranslation possesses a superior standing compared to reprint is no longer applicable within the Turkish literary framework.

Another significant aspect regarding the translators included in this study is that their translations of various writers have undergone retranslation. Following Rasih Güran’s translation of The Grapes of Wrath, there have been several retranslations of the same text. Kamuran Şipal’s Kafka translations have been succeeded by numerous retranslations. Murat Belge has translated James Joyce. However, subsequent retranslations of Joyce’s works have occurred after his translations. The translations of Joyce and Faulkner appear nearly concurrently. Moreover, it is questionable if these translators can be deemed “great translators.” Within the Bermanian framework, they are not “retranslators,” which constrains their potential for “greatness” despite the longevity of their translations. At this juncture, in light of the redefined notion of “great” translation, it is evident that they are proficient translators worthy of acknowledgment. Consequently, the assessment of translation quality and translator proficiency now encompasses both retranslation and non-retranslation through reprint.

5. The Dynamics of Non-Translation

The third and last stage of this research pertains to the notion of non-translation, or the flip side of selecting texts for translation (Spirk xii), as the decision not to select a book for translation constitutes a choice as well. Non-translation at a micro level involves omitting particular aspects of the text during the translation process. The untranslated parts are frequently associated with ideology or censorship. From the macro perspective I adopt, the term carries/has an abstract connotation denoting the “non-existence” of the entire source text within the target system. Non-translation is clearly linked to canon construction, as “what remains untranslated” also signifies the prevailing dynamics of the target system. Non-translations are the absent products of the target side, as their absence arises from the canons target culture/literature establishes for the source culture/literature (Venuti 67). Translated texts are often perceived to benefit from distinct translation strategies that reflect particular ideologies. A specific prevalent ideology in the target system is reflected in the decision not to translate through exclusion. The absence of these works in the mass market is an aspect of “invisible control,” as the intended audience remains unaware of this absence (Sturge 120). The traces of ideology are typically examined within the narratives of translated texts; nevertheless, non-translation can be viewed as a form of target-orientedness, as the absence of texts directly results from the control mechanisms of the target side (Duarte 106).

Beyond ideology, the selection of texts for retranslation is viewed as either random (Koskinen and Paloposki, “New Directions” 34) or as a response to “particular domestic interests” (Venuti 67). Nonetheless, even the “random” selection constitutes a deliberate choice of target authority, thereby integrating it into domestic requirements. The table below demonstrates numerous instances in which modernist authors have not been translated into the Turkish literary system.

Figure 4. The Corpus of Non-Translations

The instances of non-translation in Figure 4 have various justifications. Primarily, the majority of them do not pertain to the novel genre, which is the most frequently translated literary form into Turkish. Translating poetry can be stylistically challenging and may not necessarily lead to financial rewards. Consequently, it can be said that the novel genre enjoys increased popularity and reputation within the Turkish literary culture. Furthermore, untranslated authors are mainly female, while retranslation cases predominantly include white males, highlighting the limitations of the modernist canon. Instances of non-translation illustrate the progression of the literary canon, as modernist literature in Türkiye is frequently viewed through a limited lens of canonical texts. This perspective differs, even among white male authors. Joyce’s writings have undergone multiple retranslations, while Faulkner has not received comparable attention. Many of the works of female modernist figures have not been translated into Turkish, which has significantly influenced how modernism is perceived by Turkish audiences. Consequently, non-translation influences the literary canon as significantly as retranslations influenced by manipulated reception.

6. Concluding Remarks

This article aimed to present a macro-level framework for clarifying the translation dynamics of modernist literary works within the Turkish literary system. This is accomplished by compiling a corpus that includes non-translations and non-retranslations. Retranslations are highly prevalent in the contemporary literary market of Türkiye, inspiring substantial research in retranslation studies; nonetheless, non-translations and non-retranslations are excluded from this area of study. This study is one of the first to examine a Turkish corpus throughout many versions, making it pioneering in this regard.

Although the 2000s are characterized as a period favoring retranslation (Koskinen and Paloposki, “Retranslations” 28), a phenomenon observed in Türkiye, my study’s findings indicate that the past two decades encompass not only retranslation but also instances of non-retranslation, a fact hitherto unacknowledged. It is impossible to categorize the 2010s with a singular label due to the simultaneous existence of two versions. In my situation, the selection of texts for retranslation and non-retranslation seems deliberate, as non-retranslations exhibit greater economic resistance than ideological resistance. This economic resistance is linked to the literary resistance of the texts. The choice not to (re)translate, even when poetic qualities are present in the source material, frequently arises from considerations on the target side. This may result from an insufficient understanding of the poetics of a particular or publisher failing to see its potential profitability in poetic matter. The alignment of the source texts’ poetic style with the dominant conventions of poetic expression in the target language is crucial, as the adoption of novelty may not always be practical. When the source text conflicts with prevailing norms, the target side may exhibit resistance. The abundance of versions suggests that Türkiye is not a “resistant” environment; instead, it offers an ideal setting for modernist and postmodernist works. This research examined instances of non-translations and non-retranslations from a comprehensive viewpoint. Further research by means of individual case studies may improve the understanding of the fundamental tendencies in the publishing business or in different periods. A comprehensive examination of different literary movements in the 2000s may elucidate the prevalence of non-translated works within the Turkish literary framework.

Works Cited

Apter, Emily. Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. Verso, 2013.

Berk Albachten, Özlem, and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar. Introduction. Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods. Routledge, 2019.

Berman, Antoine. “La retraduction comme espace de la traduction.” Palimpsestes: Revue de Traduction, vol. 4, no.1, 1990, pp. 1-7, https://doi.org/10.4000/palimpsestes.596.

---. Pour Une Critique des Traductions: John Donne. Gallimard, 1995.

Bollaert, Charlotte. “Jean Paul Sartre’s Theatre After Communism: Perpetuating the Past Through Non-Retranslation?” Cadernos de Traduçao, vol. 39, no.1, 2019, pp. 45-72, https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.2019v39n1p45.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Les Règles de l’Art: Gènese et Structure du Champ Littéraire. Seuil, 1992.

Brownlie, Siobhan. “Narrative Theory and Retranslation Theory.” Across Languages and Cultures, vol. 7, no. 2, 2006, pp. 145-70. AKJournals, https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.1.

Chesterman, Andrew. “A Causal Model for Translation Studies.” Intercultural Faultiness, edited by Maeve Olohan, Routledge, 2000, pp. 15-27.

Collombat, Isabelle. “Le XXIe siècle: l’âge de la retraduction.” Translation Studies in the New Millennium, vol. 2, 2004, pp. 1-15. HAL, 2. hal-01452331.

Desmidt, Isabelle. “(Re)translation Revisited.” Meta: journal des traducteurs, vol. 54, no. 4, 2009, pp. 669-89. Érudit, https://doi.org/10.7202/038898ar.

Duarte, João Ferreira. “The Politics of Non-Translation: A Case Study in Anglo-Portuguese Relations.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction, vol. 13, no. 1, 2000, pp. 95-112. Érudit, https://doi.org/10.7202/037395ar.

Glynn, Dominic. “Outline of a Theory of Non-Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures, vol. 22, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-13. AKJournals, https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2021.00001.

Harding, Jason and John Nash, editors. Modernism and Non-Translation. Oxford UP, 2019.

İlkılıç, Süreyya. “Franz Kafka’nın Türkiye’de Alımlanması.” Diyalog, vol.1, 2019, pp. 14-33. DergiPark, dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/diyalog/issue/46911/588103.

Koskinen, Kaisa. “Revising and Retranslating.” The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation, Routledge, 2018.

---, and Outi Paloposki. “Retranslations in the Age of Digital Reproduction.” Cadernos de Tradução, vol. 1, no. 11, 2003, pp. 19-38.

---, and Outi Paloposki, and Outi Paloposki. “Anxieties of Influence: The Voice of the First Translator in Retranslation.” Target, vol. 27, no. 1, 2015, pp. 25-39.

---. “New Directions for Retranslations Research: Lessons Learned from the Archeology of Retranslations in the Finnish Literary System.” Cadernos de Tradução, vol. 39, no. 1, 2019, pp. 23-44, https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.2019v39n1p23.

McGann, Jerome. The Textual Condition. Princeton UP, 1991.

Paloposki, Outi, and Kaisa Koskinen. “Reprocessing Texts: The Fine Line Between Retranslating and Revising.” Across Languages and Cultures, 2010, vol. 11., no. 1., 2010, pp. 29-49. AKJournals, https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.2.

Peeters, Kris, and Piet Van Poucke. “Retranslation Thirty Odd Years After Berman.” Paralelles, vol. 35., no. 1., Apr. 2023, pp. 3-27, https://doi.org/10.17462/para.2023.01.01.

Pym, Antony. Method in Translation History. Routledge, 1998.

Sağlam, Musa Yaşar. “Türkçe’de Franz Kafka.” Litera, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 61-65.

Spirk, Jaroslav. Censorship, Indirect Translations and Non-Translation: The (Fateful) Adventures of Czech Literature in 20th-Century Portugal. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014.

Sturge, Kathryn. “Comment on Translation in the Nazi Literary Journal Bücherkunde.” KU Leuven, 1999, http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/sturge-1999.pdf.

Svahn, Elin. “The (Non)-Ageing of Non-Retranslations? The Alleged Ageing of Swedish Non-Retranslations.” Translation Studies, vol. 17, no. 1, 2023, pp. 53-69. Taylor and Francis Online, https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2023.2175720.

Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. 2nd ed, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012.

Van Poucke, Piet. “Aging as a Motive for Literary Retranslation: A Survey of Case Studies on Retranslations.” Translation and Interpreting Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2017, pp. 91-115. John Benjamins, https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.12.1.05van.

---. “Retranslation History and Its Contribution to Translation History: The Case of Russian-Dutch Retranslation.” Perspectives on Retranslation: Ideology, Paratexts, Methods, edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar, Routledge, 2021, pp. 195-212.

---, and Sanz Gallego. “Retranslation in Context.” Cadernos de Tradução, vol. 39, no. 1, 2019, pp. 10-22. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.2019v39n1p10.

Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. Routledge, 1998.