A descriptive comparison of translations of metaphors in George Orwell's novel 1984

The main aim of the study is to analyze three different Turkish translations of ontological metaphors in the novel 1984 by George Orwell in a comparative and descriptive way within the framework of Toury and Lefevere's Translation Theories. In this context, the study aims to investigate the periodic translation differences in three different Turkish translations of ontological metaphors used in Orwell's novel. For this purpose, a total of one hundred and twenty text units containing ontological metaphors, twenty from the beginning and the end of each chapter of the novel, which consists of three parts, have been selected systematically and equally. Along with their Turkish translations, they have been examined in the light of Toury's Target-Oriented Translation Theory and Lefevere's Rewriting Theory. In this study, as the source text, the copy of the source text published by Penguin Books in 2008; as the target texts, the first translation of the source text in Turkish, 1958 – V. Turhan and S. Tonguç's translation, 1984 – Nuran Akgören's translation, and 2010 – Celâl Üster's translation, whose 75th edition has been published and thus which has attracted Turkish readers' attention most, have been used. The study has been performed through the document analysis method, one of the qualitative research methods. The focus of the current study is that the study of a scientific translation analysis, in other words, translation criticism should be based on a theoretical framework and there should be no "error hunting" in the dimension of true-false. In line with the findings obtained as a result of the study, it is seen that the translators of the target texts have adopted different translation approaches from each other. It is understood that the first target text translators, Turhan and Tonguç, have adhered to the norms of the source culture by preserving the structure of the source text in general terms in the translation of ontological metaphors. Thus, they have created an "adequate" translation close to the norms system of the source text. In this sense, it is quite possible to experience some inconsistencies with the practices and norms of the target language and culture. The second translator of the target text, Akgören, similar to Turhan and Tonguç, has remained largely faithful to the norms of the source text and produced an "adequate" translation. But unlike them, Akgören has used a simpler and more understandable language and has not included so much omission in her target text. The third and final translator of the target text, Üster, has translated ontological metaphors in accordance with the norms of Turkish language and culture. From this point of view, it can be argued that he has presented an "acceptable" translation in the norms system of the target language and culture. However, it is quite possible to encounter some deviations from the source text in such translations. It can be claimed that by adopting this translation approach, Üster has aimed to create a similar effect on Turkish readers as the original text does on its own readers, and to make the text more fluent. In addition, since no significant difference has been observed in terms of equivalence between the source text and all the target texts for any reason such as patronage, ideology, poetics, and so on, these three target texts cannot be said to be "rewritings". As a result, it is concluded that translation is a dynamic process, and therefore, translations made over time approach the norms of the target language and culture, and the source texts are translated with a better understanding in time.