Current Issue Guidelines Reviewers Archives Events Contact us

Nihal Yeğinobalı as an accidental feminist: The case of Turkish translation of Erica Jong’s Fear of Fifty


Read (PDF) version


Ilgın Aktener
İzmir University of Economics, Türkiye
e-mail: ilgin.aktener@izmirekonomi.edu.tr


AGATHOS, Volume 15, Issue 2 (29): 145-162, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.13948961
© www.agathos-international-review.com CC BY NC 2024


Abstract: Focusing on the prolific Turkish translator Nihal Yeğinobalı, this study seeks to establish whether she can be considered a feminist translator. In doing so, her Turkish translation of the feminist author Erica Jong’s Fear of Fifty is elaborated on as a case study. Drawing on von Flotow’s and Massardier-Kenney’s feminist translation strategies and Allan and Burridge’s (2007) work on sexual taboo, the study homes in on (1) translator’s notes to explore Yeğinobalı’s visibility as a feminist translator, and the translation of (2) sexual language/swearing and (3) neologisms, which are both used as feminist strategies by Jong in the aforementioned book. The study reveals that Yeğinobalı’s translator’s notes are merely of explanatory nature and she is not consistent in her use of neologistic translation. Furthermore, she seems to have toned down the explicitness and offensiveness of sexual language used by Jong in the target text she produces. These all imply that Yeğinobalı’s translation strategies derive from a neutral stance rather than a feminist one. Nevertheless, Yeğinobalı–intentionally or unintentionally–uses the recovery strategy by translating and enabling the publication of a feminist author’s personal recount of her own experiences. In this way, she widens the canon of the women’s literature through translation. In this sense, the study argues that Yeğinobalı can be accepted as an accidental feminist translator who ends up serving for the feminist agenda.


Keywords: Erica Jong, Elli Yaş Korkusu, Fear of Fifty, feminist translation studies, Nihal Yeğinobalı


Introduction

One of the most prolific Turkish woman translators, Nihal Yeğinobalı has been the subject of several translation/literary studies (e.g. Erkul Yağcı 2019; Yanık 2013; Tahir Gürçağlar 2010; Alt 2008). Despite a number of studies on Yeğinobalı, there has been no studies focusing on her purely from the perspective of feminist translation studies, to the best of the author’s knowledge. In the light of this, and the contention that translators’ agency has been highlighted as an important research theme within the framework of the studies on the history of translation, especially within microhistorical studies (Adamo 2006; Pym 2014; Tahir-Gürçağlar 2009), this study seeks to establish whether Yeğinobalı’s translation activities, strategies and decisions can be considered as tools serving for the feminist agenda, and hence, whether Yeğinobalı can be positioned as a feminist translator within the history of translation. While doing so, the study concentrates on the case of Yeğinobalı’s Elli Yaş Korkusu (1995), the Turkish translation of the feminist author Erica Jong’s memoir entitled Fear of Fifty (1994), published by Remzi Kitabevi. Reasoning behind the decision to focus on Yeğinobalı is explored in the following paragraphs.

 To start with, it appears that Yeğinobalı grew up with highly open-minded parents, who were appreciative of women’s rights (Yanık 2013). For instance, her father was supportive of women’s liberation in that he spoke positively of the time when Turkish women stopped wearing headscarves (Yeğinobalı 2010, cited in Yanık 2013). Similarly, her mother seems to have been an advocate of women’s right to literacy and to have appreciated that the establishment of Turkish Republic gave women this opportunity (ibid). Furthermore, she wanted to receive education and become a teacher instead of getting married at an early age (Erkul Yağcı 2019). Apple did not fall far from the tree and just like her mother, Yeğinobalı herself valued literacy from her childhood onwards. When she was just 5 years old, she insisted that she went to school (Yanık 2013). These attest to the fact that Yeğinobalı was brought up in an environment responsive to women’s free will.

 It is also important to note that Yeğinobalı is a significant name for women’s literature. Her access to literary world as an author was through her book Genç Kızlar (‘Young Girls’), which she had published at first as a book written by Vincent Ewing and translated by herself as it was initially turned down by publishing houses for being an obscene book written by a woman (Bozkurt 2014). Leaving aside her book, she is seen as a crucial literary agent for (young) women since she has translated many books for women on marriage and sexuality. However, Yeğinobalı herself has stated that her translations on sexuality were a result of her commercial concerns (Erkul Yağcı 2019). Nevertheless, thanks to her strategy of pseudotranslation in the case of her Genç Kızlar, Yeğinobalı is also considered a norm-breaker in Turkish society, which is patriarchal and “would not have tolerated the novel’s explicit sexual references in an original work written by a young unmarried woman” (Tahir Gürçağlar 2010, 176). Contradictorily, Yeğinobalı does not see herself as a feminist as evinced by Alt’s (2008) interview with Yeğinobalı in her study on Genç Kızlar. On the other hand, Tahir Gürçağlar (2010, 176) argues that Yeğinobalı’s text “fulfilled a series of socio-political functions” even though it was motivated by commercial concerns. Furthermore, according to Erkul Yağcı (2019, 231; translation by the author of the study), Yeğinobalı is valued by the women readers, “especially […] young women readers in Türkiye, despite the fact that she does not have a feminist or ideological purpose.” Considering these, and that Yeğinobalı has translated Fear of Fiftyby Erica Jong, a highly controversial feminist, woman author, it would not be unreasonable to argue that, although she does not consider herself a feminist, Yeğinobalı does act as a feminist translator, who–albeit in a volitionless manner–fulfills a feminist purpose. In line with this, as mentioned above, this study aims to uncover whether Yeğinobalı indeed serves for the feminist agenda or not. Before doing so, for the purposes of this study, it is important to delve further into Erica Jong as a feminist author, who tends to use explicit language in dealing with sexuality as a feminist strategy.

 Born in 1942 and into a upper-middle-class Jewish family, Erica Jong received her BA degree in English from Barnard College and her MA in the 18th century literature from Colombia University. Although she sees herself mainly as a poet, Jong has produced novels, memoirs and essay books (Kort 2007; Cox 2000). Her Fear of Flying–on which Fear of Fiftyis a wordplay–is considered a groundbreaking novel in that not only was it “one of the first contemporary American novels to introduce readers to a provocative female author who was willing to explore female sexuality unashamedly and humorously” (Kort 2007, 158) but also it was “about a woman’s discovery of her selfhood, through discarding cultural stereotypes” (Cox 2000, 287). Through Fear of Flying, Jong has also had an impact on sexual revolution and feminism, even though the novel’s explicit approach to sexuality has also been the target of criticism. In any case, Jong’s fiction, non-fiction and poetry shed light on womanhood (Cox 1999; Kort 2007). To corroborate this, Cox (1999, 288) suggests that Fear of Fifty provides “insight into the world of women”. Nevertheless, it was her use of explicit sexual language which attributes Jong a revolutionary role because when Fear of Flying was published, “‘talking dirty’ in print was […] still very much a male prerogative” (Gavera 2004, 52). In fact, it is argued that sexuality is an important part of Jong’s media persona and the way she creates female protagonists, who embraced “free-love ideal” was not only personal but also political for her (ibid, 46). In line with this, her novels treat female sexuality and body, and by doing so, they seem to have served for the feminist agenda: Gavera (2004) explains that Fear of Flying “became an important document of at least the early women’s movement and played a vital role in awakening the sexual consciousness of women” (50). Yet, as mentioned, Jong’s treatment of sexuality is rather explicit, which has been a target of constant criticism. For Suleiman (1985), however, this seems to be an ideological act. She argues:

[…] Jong’s use of obscene language – which was generally recognized as a “first” in American fiction by a woman – was a self-conscious reversal of stereotypes, and in some sense a parody of the language of the tough-guy narrator/heroes of Henry Miller or Norman Mailer. […] What is involved here is a reversal of roles and of language, in which the docile and/or bestial but always silent, objectified woman of male pornographic fiction suddenly usurps both the pornographer’s language and his way of looking at the opposite sex. (Suleiman 1985, 9)

This highlights the importance of Jong’s deliberate use of explicit language in treating sexuality. Through this, not only does she claim a typically male writer technique and thus, empowers herself and her characters, but also assumes a pioneering role in American fiction. Furthermore, Diot (1986) claims that Jong’s use of explicit sexual language serves a certain purpose, which is “defying taboos and propriety, an attitude which is traditionally forbidden to women” (495), and thus, Jong “rids language of its potential malignancy and hostility, its destructive quality by using it against herself, and her sisters, exactly as in the case of anti-semitic jokes told by Jews” (496). In consideration of these, it would be reasonable to maintain that explicit use of sexual language is crucial in terms of Jong’s style as a strong woman writer and to serve for feminist agenda. Therefore, it is also rational to argue that including explicit use of sexual language in the translation of Jong’s works is important to replicate her style at the service of feminist agenda.

 A close reading of Fear of Fifty proved that Jong indeed explicitly uses sexual language. In addition to this, she also includes neologisms that appear to serve for the feminist agenda (see Neologism/Neologistic Translation). Similar to Quebec writers in the 1970s and 1980s, who used experimental language and other means to deconstruct patriarchal and misogynist language (von Flotow 1991, 72), Jong seems to incorporate certain neologisms that highlight the feminine in language and praise motherhood. Mindful of these two elements, one of the aims of this study is to determine how they manifest themselves in Turkish translation. Additionally, the study seeks to explore if and how, as a prolific woman translator, Yeğinobalı claims visibility as a translator, which can also be considered a feminist strategy. By using von Flotow’s (2019; 2020) and Massardier-Kenney’s (1997) set of feminist translation strategies as a reference point for the methodological framework, and Allan and Burridge’s (2007) work on sexual taboo as the theoretical background, the study analyses (1) Yeğinobalı’s translator’s notes, and (2) the use of sexual language and neologisms in source and target texts. The next section deals with the aforementioned methodological and theoretical framework that underpins this analysis.


Methodological/Theoretical Framework

When it comes to feminist translation strategies, von Flotow’s (2019; 2020) and Massardier-Kenney’s (1997) names are generally at the forefront. Von Flotow (2019; 2020) categorizes feminist translation strategies under macro- and micro-translation strategies. Below is a brief account of these two categories and strategies listed under them:

 Macro-translation strategies are (1) prefaces written by translators, which explain political and literary theory, as well as feminist ideas and principles, and enable translator’s visibility; (2) footnotes by translators, which explain translation strategies, highlight feminist facets of the translation, and enable translator’s visibility; (3) non-translation of certain texts, e.g. poetry by male authors; (4) strategic selection of texts that serve for the feminist agenda; (5) selective retranslation of certain texts to rid them of patriarchal interpretations; (6) feminist publishing, reviewing, critiquing through the establishment of feminist publishing houses; and (7) gratis translation of selective texts that are worthy of disseminating in terms of feminist agenda.

 Micro-translation strategies are (1) making the feminine visible in languages through the use of feminine forms and innovative language; and (2) use of neologisms in translating neologisms used by feminist authors to deconstruct patriarchal language.

 Massardier-Kenney (1997), on the other hand, groups feminist translation strategies under author-centred and translation-centred strategies, which are discussed below:

 Author-centred strategies are (1) recovery referring to widening of the canon through the translation of the female experience; (2) commentary (similar to prefaces and footnotes) referring to texts that come with the translation and highlight the importance of the women in the translated text; and (3) resistancy referring to linguistic strategies that distort fluency and create a defamiliarizing effect to make translation visible.

 Translator-centred strategies are (1) commentary referring to the texts that come with the translation and highlight factors related to translation such as the translator’s motivation, elements that affected the translator’s performance, etc; (2) use of parallel texts “in the target language that were produced in a similar situation or that belong to the same genre as that of the source text” (Massardier-Kenney 1997, 64); and (3) collaboration referring to the translator’s joint work with other translators or the author.

 Among these translation strategies, (1) prefaces, footnotes and commentary, (2) recovery, and (3) neologisms are deemed important for the purposes of this study. Firstly, questioning whether the translator used a strategy from the first group would have implications in terms of translator’s visibility, on which, as mentioned in the Introduction, this study focuses. Secondly, the text in question in this study can be scrutinized from the perspective of recovery since, being a memoir by a feminist author, it definitely is a work of the female experience. Lastly, considering that Jong herself uses neologisms, it would be fruitful to home in on these to see if and how Yeğinobalı attempts to replicate them.

 The introductory section also elaborated on Jong’s use of explicit language. Although the above-given sets of feminist translations strategies do not directly address the use of sexual language or obscenity by female authors/translators, it is crucial to focus on this aspect of Jong’s style and how it was translated since, as discussed in the Introduction, it plays (or at least, has played) a key role in serving for feminist agenda, i.e., Jong’s use of sexual language in Fear of Flying placed the very text as a feminist document in the early women’s movement. In addition, it helped Jong assume the role of ‘male’ author, which was revolutionary at the time. Let alone female sexuality, “all sex is subject to taboos and censoring” (Allan and Burridge 2007, 145); therefore, Jong’s explicit treatment of her sexuality in Fear of Fifty can also be considered as a means of deconstructing the male role in literature by assuming the very role herself. In talking about the sex taboo, Allan and Burridge mention three terms, which are orthophemism, euphemism and dysphemism. They suggest that since sex is a tabooed topic, the language related to it “gives rise to a great deal of verbal play and figurative language” (ibid, 144). At this point, it is essential to mention that Jong uses not only euphemistic sexual language in the form of wordplays and figurative language, and orhophemisms that do not cause offense but also dysphemisms that are found offensive, rude and informal. To exemplify it clearly, the reader can see offensive words like ‘fuck’ and ‘cock’ in Jong’s writing, as well as orthophemisms like ‘oral sex’ or figures of speech/euphemisms like ‘eat it like gelato’ (see Sexual Language/Swearing). Keeping in mind that Jong does so to serve for feminist agenda by telling it as it is, resisting taboos and assuming the role of the male author, it is argued here that Jong’s (explicit) use of sexual language is a challenge for the translator. This is because as an imperative part of Jong’s style but at the same time as a source of taboo, explicit sexual language is an element that needs careful deliberation in the translation process. Considering what is discussed in this section, as well as elements determined after a close reading of Fear of Fifty and its translation into Turkish by Yeğinobalı, the units of analysis in this study are determined as (1) translator’s notes, (2) sexual language/swearing and (3) neologisms, which will be discussed in the analysis section separately.


Analysis

Translator’s Notes

A close reading of the Turkish translation of Fear of Fifty showed that there are four translator’s notes in total. All these translator’s notes are of explanatory nature and merely define and describe certain terms. Yeğinobalı’s translator’s notes (referred to as ‘T.N.’) are listed below:

T.N. 1: Mama ve Papa aslında anne ve babaya hitap ederken kullanılan kelimeler olmakla birlikte, yazar çocukluğunda ninesi ve dedesine daha yakın olduğu için onlara böyle hitap etmektedir. (38)
[Although mama and papa are words used in addressing mothers and father, the author addresses her grandmother and grandfather through these terms as she was closer to them during her childhood.]
T.N. 2: Eskiden Doğu Avrupa’da bulunan küçük Yahudi köyleri. (47; in reference to ‘ştetel’)
[Small Jewish villages that used to exist in Eastern Europe.]
T.N. 3: Kuzey Amerika Kızılderilileri tarafından hastalıkların iyileştirilmesi ve savaşta başarı için yapılan danslı şölen. (76; in reference to ‘pow-wow’)
[A celebration with dancing held by North American Indians to cure diseases and for triumphs in wars.]
T.N. 4: Fun-eğlence, sözcüğüne gönderme. (393)
[Fun-a reference to the word eğlence (fun).] (translations by the author of the study)

As can be seen above, footnotes are included only when Yeğinobalı seeks to clarify what is meant by a term. Only in the case of the translator’s note 1, does Yeğinobalı gives information about the author’s life by explaining that Jong used to be closer with her grandparents than she was with her parents. Even though in this footnote, information about the author is offered in the form of commentary, it cannot be argued that the importance of the woman is highlighted through it. Despite the fact that translator’s notes do hint at the presence of the translator in general, Yeğinobalı’s notes do not aim to clarify her translation strategies and decisions, or the feminist facets of the text in question. Considering this, it seems that Yeğinobalı’s footnotes cannot be construed from the perspective of von Flotow’s (2019; 2020) and Massardier-Kenney’s (1997) strategies of footnotes and commentary, and that Yeğinobalı did not add these footnotes for the sake of making herself visible or to serve for the feminist agenda by focusing on her own agency, or on Jong as a feminist author. Then again, this can be a manifestation of Remzi Kitabevi’s (the publishing house of Elli Yaş Korkusu) publishing policy that implies the anonymity of the translator. An analysis of the peritexts–types of texts that accompany the book such as titles, prefaces, notes, titles, etc. (Genette 1997, 5)-shows that there are no other forms of commentary (e.g. afterword, preface, etc.) and the translator’s name is given only in the inner cover, which seem to suggest that the translator is not visible in general in Elli Yaş Korkusu. In fact, the publishing house seems to emphasize Erica Jong as an important figure in that her name is given in red and a big font on the cover along with a picture of her. In this sense, Yeğinobalı’s invisibility might not have been a conscious choice by the translator, but rather a by-product of the publishing house’s choices.


Sexual Language/Swearing

Among all the categories of unit of analysis, sexual language/swearing is the most striking one as Jong uses them throughout her memoir. As mentioned, in doing so, she uses both euphemisms/orthophemisms and dysphemisms. Since there are many occurrences of such euphemisms, orthophemisms and dysphemisms in the source text, representative samples are chosen and analyzed in this section.

 In Fear of Fifty, perhaps one of the most frequently used word denoting copulation that can also be considered vulgar is the word ‘fuck’. Several examples of Jong’s use of the word ‘fuck’ are listed below:

They [men] wonder why women are so tough on them–so they go out and fuck a woman half their age. (79)
He flirted madly with me, but did not fuck me. (84)
I do not fuck him… (114)
Say it, ladies: You want to fuck them, then kill them, having had your way. (117)
When it became clear that he wanted to split to see an old girlfriend in London, I took off for Italy, land of my dreams, where I vengefully fucked a married Italian (the first in a long line of those). (94)
(emphasis by the author of the study)

Although in these instances Jong opts for dysphemisms, Yeğinobalı renders most of them as euphemisms: second, third and fifth occurrences are translated as ‘yatmak’ (‘to sleep with’) and the fourth occurrence is translated as ‘sevişmek’ (‘to make love’). Only in the translation of the first occurrence, Yeğinobalı uses a vulgar term ‘düzmek’, which is labelled as ‘offensive language’ in Turkish Language Association’s (Türk Dil Kurumu) online dictionary. Nevertheless, ‘düzmek’ is not as offensive as the word ‘sikmek’, which is a more direct equivalence for the word ‘fuck’. Taking into account that in the first occurrence, Jong wittily and humorously criticizes a male behavior that, in a way, belittles women, Yeğinobalı might have opted for a more offensive alternative than she usually uses to convey a similar level of derogation.

 When it comes to vulgar words that denote genitalia, an analysis of Yeğinobalı’s treatment of them yields interesting results. Several examples along with their translations by Yeğinobalı are given below:

So Jewish boys are horny, but also full of fear about whether their cocks will survive their horniness. (60)
Bu yüzden Yahudi gençleri şehvetlidir ama bir yandan da, ‘acaba kamışım bu işten sağlam çıkacak mı?’ diye korku içindedirler. (96)
Look to the right of you, look to the left of you, one of you will not get tenure: the one without a cock. (78)
Taş çatlasa içinizden bir tanesi professor olmayacak, acaba kim? Kimin çükü yoksa o! (117)
“My heart and my cunt pounded that old tattoo: Take me, take me, take me or I’ll die. (151)
Yüreğimle birlikte dişilik organım da o bilinen tempoyu tutmaya başlamıştı: Al beni, al beni, al beni, al yoksa öleceğim. (204)
(emphasis by the author of the study)

For the word ‘cock’, Yeğinobalı uses the words ‘kamış’ (‘reed’) and ‘çük’ (an offensive reference to male genitalia), which are both labelled as ‘offensive language’ in Turkish Language Association’s online dictionary–albeit the latter can be considered more offensive than the former. On the other hand, for the word ‘cunt’, Yeğinobalı uses the orthophemistic phrase ‘dişilik organı’ (‘female sexual organ’). In the case that using more explicit terms in translating male genitalia, while using orhophemisms for female genitalia is a deliberate strategy on the part of Yeğinobalı, it would be fair to suggest that it is contradictory with Jong’s unrestrained use of obscenities similar to male authors since, just like them, Jong is clearly not apprehensive about using explicit references to female genitalia.

 In the cases in which the author herself uses euphemistic ways in talking about sex, Yeğinobalı retains a similar level of explicitness in that she also opts for euphemistic uses. To illustrate this, an example is given below:

“Eat it like gelato, baby!” Paolo or Gino or Franco or Sandro raved in bed. I laughed so hard, I thought I’d swallow his pisello. (94)
“Gelato – dondurma niyetine yala, yavrum!” diye yatakta sayıklardı, Paolo, Gino ya da Franco ve ben öyle gülerdim ki onun pisello’sunu yutacak gibi olurdum. (136) [“Lick it as if it’s gelato – ice-cream, baby!” Paolo, Gino or Franco begged in bed and I would laugh so hard that I would almost swallow his pisello.] (emphasis and translation by the author of the study)

It is clear in the example above that the Italian word ‘gelato’ (‘ice-cream’) is euphemistically used for ‘penis’. As ‘gelato’ is a commonly used word for ice-cream for English speakers, this euphemistic use is rather obvious in terms of meaning for them. On the other hand, ‘gelato’ is not commonly used for ice-cream in Turkish. This being the case, it appears that Yeğinobalı chose to explicitate the word by adding ‘dondurma’ (Turkish word for ‘ice-cream’). ‘Pisello’, another Italian word, means ‘pea’ and ‘penis’. Since it is a foreign word for both English speakers and Turkish speakers, it can be considered euphemistic for both of them, despite the fact that the word refers to male genitalia.

 Another example for the use of euphemisms in talking about sex in Fear of Fifty is given below:

He […] entered me on the bed, holding firm inside me for what seemed like forever, while I filled with juice like the pears on the pear tree and began to throb as if a storm were shaking them onto the ground. (106)
[…] yatağın üzerinde içime girdi ve içimde, bana sonsuz gibi gelen bir zaman boyunca sımsıkı kaldı; ben de armut ağacının üstündeki meyveler gibi balla doldum ve dalları sallayıp meyveleri yere döken bir fırtınaya tutulmuşçasına sarsılmaya başladım. (148) [He entered me on the bed and stayed firm in me for some time, which felt endless; and I filled with honey like the fruits on a pear tree and began to shake as if caught by a storm which shook the branches dropping fruits onto ground.] (emphasis and translation by the author of the study)

As can be seen here, Jong uses the simile of a pear tree during a storm in talking about her orgasm. Although Yeğinobalı does not use the exact same wording, she does use the same pear tree simile. That is to say, although Yeğinobalı tends to tone down explicit references to sex in Turkish at times (as in the case of ‘fuck’ and ‘cunt’), she uses similarly euphemistic words and expressions when Jong uses euphemistic references to sexuality.

 As mentioned, Jong euphemistically uses Italian words with direct or indirect links to sexuality in treating sex in Fear of Fifty. In the below example, she similarly uses a French phrase:

She had two children of her own and was involved in a very civilized ménage a trois with my other French translator, Georges Belmont. (172)
İki çocuğu vardı ve bir yandan da öbür Fransızca çevirmenim Georges Belmont’la pek uygar bir menage a Trois – sacayağı ilişkiyürütmekteydi. (227) [She had two children and at the same time, was in a very civilized menage a Trois – a trivet like relationshipwith Georges Belmont, my other French translator.] (emphasis and translation by the author of the study)

As in the Italian case, Yeğinobalı retains the French word as it is but like the ‘gelato’ example, she explicitates the word by adding the Turkish word ‘sacayağı’ (refers to ‘trivet [with three-legs]’ or figuratively to ‘people who are always in solidarity’). Although ‘sacayağı ilişki’ (‘a trivet like relationship’) is not phrase which directly means (sexual) relationship involving three people, i.e., menage a trois, it clarifies–albeit somehow implicitly and figuratively–the French word for the Turkish readers who are not familiar with French. Consistent with the ‘gelato’ example, Yeğinobalı seems to opt for adding explanations in the case of foreign words used in reference to sex.

 In the following example, Yeğinobalı uses another foreign word; but, this time in the case of an English word deriving from Latin:

She graded them from A to E for bed skills, coded the skills according to the first letter of her term for them–C, F, H, B, which turned out to mean cunnilingus, fucking, hugging, and backrub. (186)
Bu erkeklere, yataktaki becerilerine göre A’dan E’ye kadar not veriyor, bu becerileri de, tanımlamak için kullandığı ilk sözcüklerin ilk harfleriyle şifreliyordu: C, F, H, B harfleri, cunnilingus, fucking, hugging, backrub – cunnilingus, düzüşmek, sarmaşmak ve sırt masajıkategorilerini simgeliyordu. (243) [She graded these men for their skills in bed from A to E and coded these skills with the initial letters of the word she used to define the skills: The letters C, F, H, B symbolized cunnilingus, fucking, hugging, backrub – (translators lists the exact same English words that Jong uses and then, Turkish terms for these except for the word cunnilingus, which is retained as it is).] (emphasis and translation by the author of the study)

As can be seen in the above excerpt, Yeğinobalı directly uses the English terms in her translation, possibly in order to retain the exact same letters that Jong uses. However, she also adds Turkish terms for the words listed with one exception: ‘cunnilingus,’ an English word deriving from Latin. There is no such word as ‘cunnilingus’ in Turkish; therefore, unless the Turkish reader is competent in English, she would not understand this word in that Yeğinobalı does not provide an explanation for the word. Considering this, it can be argued that in this instance, Yeğinobalı’s translation choice is not consistent with the previous examples (i.e., ‘gelato’ and ‘menage a Trois’), with which Yeğinobalı provides with an explanation in Turkish. Contradicting with herself in this particular example somehow hints at a possible reflex to cast a veil over oral sex performed on women.1 Another striking example is given below:

I have come on trains without touching myself. (143)
Trenlerde, kendime elimi bile sürmeden belimin geldiği olmuştur. (193) [On trains, my sperm has come [as in ‘ejaculate’] without even touching myself.] (emphasis and translation by the author of the study)

In this example, Jong chooses the verb ‘to come’, which can be used both for male and female orgasm. However, the word ‘bel’ literally means ‘sperm’. In this respect, it appears that Yeğinobalı talks about the male orgasm in this example, although it is known that the narrator (Jong) is a woman. This example is striking in that, as seen in the previous examples (i.e., ‘cunt’ and ‘cunnilingus’), female sexuality is slightly more implicit in the target text than it is in the source text. In the light of these examples, such a translation choice urges one to think that Yeğinobalı might have opted for masculinizing her translation in order to avoid talking about female orgasm. Then again, this could merely be a translation mistake.

 Lastly, a couple of examples of swearing will be discussed. In the below example, we see the use of the word ‘bitch’, which is most often directed at women:

“Everyone thinks you’re so sweet because you’re blonde,” my sister Nana used to say. “But I know what a bitch you are.” (74)
“Herkes sana, çok şeker, diyor çünkü sarışınsın,” derdi ablam Nana. “Ama senine ne yılan olduğunu ben biliyorum.” (112) [“Everyone calls you very sweet because you are blonde,” my big sister Nana used to say. “But I know what a snake you are.”] (emphasis and translation by the author of the study)

In this instance, one can argue that Jong opts for a metaphorical use (‘bitch’) which literally means a female dog but can offensively be used in referring to a woman or specifically to an unpleasant, malicious, spiteful woman. Yeğinobalı similarly chooses a metaphorical use (‘yılan’) which literally means a snake but can be used in referring to a sneaky, malicious and deceitful person. Both these terms are similar in the sense that they are metaphors underlining that the person in question (which is Jong herself) is malicious. However, the word ‘bitch’ is more offensive than ‘snake.’ One interesting thing to revisit here is the fact that the word ‘bitch’ is generally used in insulting women, which gives the word a patriarchal undertone. By discarding ‘bitch’ and compensating it with a more neutral word (‘snake’), Yeğinobalı uses omission and thus,–whether deliberately or unwittingly–eliminates an element that pertains to patriarchal language (von Flotow 2019). In this sense, leaving her intention aside, it can be argued that Yeğinobalı’s stance was a feminist one in this instance. However, the fact that Jong uses the word ‘bitch’, someone else’s insult directed at herself, without any reservation or shame can be in line with Diot’s (1986) aforementioned argument that Jong eradicates the hostility of language by using it against herself and other women. Therefore, it may also be argued that the use of a patriarchal swear word can in fact be a feminist strategy. Another example of swearing can be seen below:

I knew that women had to eat a lot of shit. (75)
Kadınların bir sürü aşağılamayı yutmak zorunda olduklarını biliyordum. (114) [I knew women had to swallow a lot of belittlement.] (emphasis and translation by the author of the study)

In this example, Jong uses the phrase ‘eat a lot of shit’ in talking about how women have to bear things, including belittlement, just for being a woman. As can be seen, this phrase is literally translated as ‘swallow a lot of belittlement’ into Turkish. Although meaning wise this translation does work, offensiveness of the swear word ‘shit’ is eliminated. In this regard, it can be suggested that Yeğinobalı does not replicate Jong’s offensive style but instead she uses explicitation and makes the meaning clearer. Considering the above example as well, we can argue that Yeğinobalı chooses to tone down the offensiveness of swear words. But, it appears that while doing so, she embraces her agency and omits a swear word (‘bitch’) pertaining to patriarchal language and explicitates her translation for the Turkish reader.


Neologism/Neologistic Translation

In Jong’s writing, the reader can find typical examples of neologistic use, which seek to deconstruct patriarchal language. In the example given below, we see one such use:

At nineteen, at twenty-nine, at thirty-nine, even–goddess help me–at forty-nine, I believed that a new man, a new love, a move, a change to another city, another country, would somehow change my inner life. (XXVI) (emphasis by the author of the study)

Although ‘goddess’ is not a newly coined word, its use within context have an innovative aspect in that phrases similar to what Jong uses are generally used in conjunction with the word ‘god’ rather than ‘goddess’ (e.g. ‘god help me’, ‘god save me’, ‘god pity me’, ‘god knows’, etc.). Nevertheless, Jong uses the word ‘goddess’ in such phrases throughout the text and thus, deconstructs the tendency in languages to identify god as male. In translating this phrase, Yeğinobalı similarly uses the word ‘Tanrıça’ (‘Goddess’) in the following phrase: “Tanrıça acısın bana” (22; ‘may Goddess pity me’). This is equally (if not, more) innovative as in Turkish the natural word to use in such phrases is ‘Allah’ (e.g. ‘Allah yardımcın olsun’ [‘may Allah help you’]).

 In addition, Jong uses neologisms in the form of compound words, i.e., ‘motherknot’ and ‘motherpower’, through which she seems to highlight the importance of motherhood that, for her, feminists should also acknowledge:

Is this really so strange? The past may have been bondage, yet it was familiar bondage. The equation of woman with her maternity at least gave women an unambivalent identity. As feminists we ought to understand those feelings of loss instead of mocking them. We ought to acknowledge the huge power of motherknot and the great importance it once conferred on women. Having honored that feeling of loss, we might then insist on everybody’s right to embrace motherpower or else let it go unused. Renunciation, after all, is also a form of power. (37) (emphasis by the author of the study)

Interestingly, the non-compound versions of these are titles of various feminist writings that were published after Fear of Fifty (i.e., Jane Lazarre’s The Mother Knot [1997], Poppy O’Neill’s Mother Power: A Feminist's Guide to Motherhood[2023]). Although it is not clear whether Erica Jong was a direct inspiration for these books, the fact that the very books exist hints at the importance of motherhood from a feminist perspective. In the same line, by turning these phrases into compound words, Jong seems to render them into concepts that are essential enough to require their own names. In the Turkish translation, on the other hand, Yeğinobalı seems to ignore the fact that Jong innovatively uses compound words and translates them as ‘analık bağı’ (‘mother[hood] knot) and ‘analık gücü’ (‘mother[hood] power’) (68). In this sense, it can be argued that Yeğinobalı does not opt for a neologistic translation strategy in this case. Considering that in the case of few examples of neologisms Yeğinobalı uses opposite strategies, it can be assumed that she did not adopt a deliberate and consistent strategy in translating neologisms.


Conclusion

As mentioned earlier, despite the fact that Yeğinobalı has an important role in women’s literature, she does not consider herself a feminist. When the analysis of this study is considered, it can be argued that Yeğinobalı opts for a variety of strategies, of which feminist nature can be contested. In the case of translator’s notes, for instance, one can suggest that Yeğinobalı claims visibility to some extend merely by using them. However, the fact that they are explanatory notes, which do not convey any information on the translator’s choices and strategies or the author’s feminist stance, hints that Yeğinobalı’s stance in using translator’s notes was a neutral one rather than a feminist one. Yeğinobalı’s use of neologisms similarly suggests a neutral stance in that 1) she does not use them consistently in translating every neologistic occurrence in the source text and 2) in the instances where she actually uses neologisms, she might be simply replicating what the author does, which may be a result of her self-declared tendency to be loyal to the content and style (Erkul Yağcı 2019). When it comes to sexual language and swearing, the results are highly interesting. To start with, it appears that Yeğinobalı does not shy away from toning down sexual language, despite her claim that she tends to be loyal to the style. For instance, she generally tones down the offensiveness of the word ‘fuck’ by using non-offensive counterparts like ‘yatmak’ and ‘sevişmek’ in Turkish. On the other hand, this does not apply to sexual language altogether since in the case of the translation of the word ‘cock’ she opts for offensive counterparts in Turkish and seems to explicitate foreign words (‘gelato’, ‘ménage a trois’) used in talking about sex by adding explanations for them in Turkish. Interestingly, when it comes to female sexuality, Yeğinobalı is much more implicit. For instance, unlike the word ‘cock’, when the word ‘cunt’ is used Yeğinobalı chooses the word ‘dişilik organı’, which is a non-offensive word. Moreover, she does not add a Turkish explanation for the word ‘cunnilingus’ as she does with the words ‘gelato’ and ‘ménage a trois’ and translates the word ‘to come’, a reference to female orgasm, as a phrase referring to male orgasm. Overall, one can argue that, although Yeğinobalı does not censor sexual language altogether, she does tone down its offensiveness, especially in the case of female sexuality. However, by eliminating offensiveness of the swear words that are used towards women, Yeğinobalı (perhaps in a designless manner) dismantles patriarchal language. In this respect, one can argue that Yeğinobalı’s strategies are contradictory in terms of her feminist stance. Then again, Yeğinobalı clearly uses the recovery strategy (intentionality of which can also be debated) in that by translating a feminist author’s personal recount of her own experiences, she contributes to the women’s literature and thus, widens the canon through translation. At this point, it is important to revisit the fact that Yeğinobalı censors sexuality to some extend by toning down the explicitness of certain sexual elements (e.g. female sexuality). This is interesting in that, as mentioned above, Yeğinobalı herself claims that she is loyal to author’s style; yet, by toning down the explicitness of sexuality, she does not remain loyal to Jong’s style. But, at the same time, considering that publishers and translators are occasionally taken to court on the grounds of obscenity in Turkey (see Aktener 2019), Yeğinobalı’s tendency to tone down sexuality might have allowed the publication of the book without any official censorship. In this sense, Yeğinobalı’s approach of toning down can be considered as a strategy that enabled the widening of the canon of women’s literature. Considering that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, Yeğinobalı contributes to the women’s literature, one can classify her as an accidental feminist translator. Despite the fact that Yeğinobalı herself says that she is not a feminist nor does she pursue a feminist goal, she ends up serving the feminist agenda by translating and perhaps unintentionally ensuring the publication of The Fear of Fifty, a book by a feminist author on her own female experience, through her toning down approach.


References:

  1. Adamo, Sergia. 2006. “Microhistory of translation”. In G. L. Bastin and P. F. Bandia (Eds.), Charting the Future of Translation History, pp. 81-100. Ottowa: University of Ottowa.

  2. Aktener, Ilgın. 2019. Exploring translators’ and publishers’ perspectives on censorship: The Soft Machine and Snuff court cases. New Voices in Translation Studies, 21: 1-27.

  3. Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  4. Alt, Nil. 2008. A Gender-Based Study of Nihal Yeğinobalı’s Pseudo-Tanslation Genc Kızlar. Unpublished Master Thesis. Boğaziçi University.

  5. Bozkurt, Sinem. 2014. Touched translations in Turkey: A feminist translation approach. Moment Dergi, 1(1): 104-124.

  6. Cox, Virginia. 2000. “JONG, Erica”. In T. Benbow-Pfalzgraf (Ed.), American Women Writers, Volume 1 A-D, pp. 287-289. Detroit/San Francisco/London/Boston/Woodbridge: St. James Press.

  7. Diot, Rolande. 1986. Sexus, Nexus and taboos versus female humor: The vase of Erica Jong. Revue Française d’études Américaines, 30: 491–99.

  8. Erkul Yağcı, Ahu Selin. 2019. “Hep satan kitapların çevirmeni Nihal Yeğinobalı/Nihal Yeğinobalı, the translator of bestsellers”. In Ş. Tahir Gürçağlar (Ed.), Kelimelerin Kıyısında: Türkiye’de Kadın Çevirmenler / On the Border of Words: Women Translators in Türkiye, pp. 216-245. İstanbul: İthaki.

  9. Gavera, Lucille. 2004. The Changing Face of Erotica: A Study of Erotic Literature in the Works of Henry Miller, Anais Nin and Erica Jong. Unpublished Master Thesis. University of Stellenbosch.

  10. Genette, Gerard. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

  11. Jong, Erica. 1994. Fear of Fifty. New York: HarperCollins.

  12. Jong, Erica. 1995. Elli yaş korkusu / The Fear of the Age of Fifty (translated by N. Yeğinobalı). İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.

  13. Kort, Carol. 2007. A to Z of American Women Writers. Revised Edition. New York: Facts on File.

  14. Massardier-Kenney, Françoise. 1997. Towards a redefinition of feminist translation practice. The Translator, 3:1, 55-69.

  15. Pym, Anthony. 2014. Method in Translation History. London: Routledge.

  16. Suleiman, Rubin Susan. 1985. The Female Body in Western Culture: Contemporary Perspectives. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  17. Tahir-Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. 2009. “A cultural agent against the forces of culture: Hasan-Âli Yücel”. In J. Milton and P. Bandia (Eds.), Agents of Translation, pp. 161-188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  18. Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. 2010. Scouting the borders of translation: Pseudotranslation, concealed translations and authorship in twentieth-century Turkey. Translation Studies, 3:2, 172-187.

  19. von Flotow, Louise. 1991. Feminist translation: Contexts, practices and theories. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 4:2, 69–84.

  20. von Flotow, Louise. 2019. “Translation”. In R. T. Goodman (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of 21st-Century Feminist Theory, pp. 229-243. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

  21. von Flotow, Louise. 2020. “Feminist translation strategies”. In M. Baker and G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Third edition, pp. 181-185. London/New York: Routledge.

  22. Yanık, Hande. 2013. Nihal Yeğinobalı’nın Romanlarında Kadın Problemi / The Women Question in Nihal Yeğinobalı’s Novels. Unpublished Master Thesis. Eastern Meditteranean University.

  23. Yeğinobalı, Nihal. 2010. Cumhuriyet çocuğu / The Child of the Republic. İstanbul: Can Yayınları.

1 Another point that can be made in relation to this example is the fact that Yeğinobalı opts for the word ‘düzüşmek’ for ‘fuck’, both of which are offensive but the former is not as offensive in Turkish as the latter is in English.