Challengıng the Other Translatıon: Frederıck Burnaby's on Horseback through Asia Minor's Adventure ın Turkish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sets out to scrutinize two different Turkish translations of the English writer Frederick Burnaby’s travel writing On Horseback through Asia Minor (1878/1996). On Horseback through Asia Minor’s adventure in Turkish is an interesting case because the first translation was published in 1998 by Sabah Kitapları but just one year after this publication, another translation appeared on the Turkish book market, which was published by İletişim Yayınları. However, what is more interesting than these translations, which were published almost simultaneously, is the discourses of the publisher regarding the first translation on the cover of the presentation of the second translation. The publisher claims that the text is a “meticulous”, “uncensored” and “complete” translation, which points out that the previous translation included “censored” and “incomplete” parts. Therefore, this study questions the publisher’s claims by conducting a paratextual and textual analysis of the source text and target texts and also seeks to understand whether the causality created by the publisher led to the second translation or a retranslation. In its theoretical framework, it uses the concept “paratext” put forward by the French scholar Gérard Genette and “operational norms” introduced by the translation scholar Gideon Toury. The findings suggest that the second target text, rather than a “retranslation”, is a simultaneous translation that emerged incidentally almost in the same period, addressed the same target readers, and tried to bring out its difference from the other translation. It is also seen that the claims of the publisher in the second target text on the grounds of “censorship” and “incompleteness” are valid and this causes a rivalry between translations in the translated book market by not only strongly challenging the other translation but also forming market negativity towards it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".