Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Translation is one way texts are accorded transcendence, understood as material transfer from a site of utterance. Although frequently construed as a quality of texts or auctorial virtue, transcendence is enacted by receivers (including translators) texts across time and space, transforming them accordingly. Study of a war-commemoration text attributed to Atatürk shows this happening in its transfer to Australia. The historical authorship of the text has been contested, and analysis of its various translations and interpretations reveals competing interests, strategic omissions, distributed intercultural agency, and inscriptions. However, the historians involved in the debate, in both Turkey and Australia, have not sufficiently considered translation analysis, which can find some justification for the questioned text. Further, an ethics of cross-cultural communication might question the translation as an appeal to resolution based not just on the commonness of human suffering but also the shared concealment of guilt.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baudrillard, Jean
    1973Le Miroir de la production, ou l’illusion critique du matérialisme historique. Paris: Castermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benjamin, Walter
    1923/1977 “Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers.” Illuminationen: Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. by Siegfreid Unseld , 50–62. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brodski, Bela
    2007Can these bones live? Translation, Survival, and Cultural Memory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cheung, Martha
    2012 “The mediated nature of knowledge and the pushing-hands approach to research on translation history.” Translation Studies5 (2): 156–171. doi: 10.1080/14781700.2012.663599
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2012.663599 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chesterman, Andrew
    1994 “Karl Popper in the Translation Class.” Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, ed. by Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard , 89–95. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.5.15che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.5.15che [Google Scholar]
  6. Crowe, Russell
    2014The Water Diviner. Warner Bros.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Daley, Paul
    2015 “Ataturk’s ‘Johnnies and Mehmets’ words about the Anzacs are shrouded in doubt.” The GuardianApril 20, 2015. goo.gl/OAibvE. VisitedMay 19, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Davis, George Frederick
    2008Anzac Day meanings and memories: New Zealand, Australian and Turkish perspectives on a day of commemoration in the twentieth century. Doctoral thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Derrida, Jacques
    1979 “Living On: Border Lines.” InDeconstruction and Criticism, ed. by Harold Bloom , 75–176. New York: Seabury.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dizdar, Dilek
    2015 “Kulturtechnik und Performanz - Tragfähige Begriffe zur Erforschung von Translationspolitik?” Lecture at the University of Vienna, April 27, 2015. https://goo.gl/3cTmcC. VisitedMay 19, 2014.
  11. Ekmekçi, Aslı
    2008The Shaping Role of Retranslations In Turkey: The Case of Robinson Crusoe. Masters thesis. Dokuz Eylül University. goo.gl/E8bHzr. VisitedSeptember 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fisk, Robert
    2006 “Lessons from the ghosts of Gallipoli.” The IndependentMarch 25, 2006. goo.gl/GMQNYh. VisitedMay 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Freud, Sigmund
    1913Totem und Tabu. Vienna: Hugo Heller.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. İğdemir, Uluğ
    1978Atatürk ve Anzaklar/Atatürk and the Anzacs (bilingual), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jones, Adrian
    2004 “A note on Atatürk’s words about Gallipoli.” History of Australia2 (1): 10–1–10–9. goo.gl/BYFFGo. VisitedMay 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Özakıncı, Cengiz
    2015a “1915 Çanakkale Savaşı Anıtlarına Kazınan ‘Conilerle Mehmetçikler Arasında Fark Yoktur’ Sözleri Atatürk’e Ait Değil.” Bütün Dünya, March-April 2015 Translated into English as “The words ‘There is no difference between the Mehmets and the Johnnies’ engraved on the 1915 Gallipoli monuments do not belong to Atatürk.” Honest History: goo.gl/LqyYOA, goo.gl/qgp71T. VisitedMay 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2015b “Old tales of Greece, the Anzacs and Atatürk.” Bütün Dünya, July 2015 English translation atgoo.gl/YHW0xr. VisitedSeptember 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Popper, Karl
    1952The open society and its enemies. Princeton NJ : Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pym, Anthony
    1993a “Why translation conventions should be intercultural rather than culture-specific. An alternative basic-link model.” Parallèles15: 60–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1993bEpistemological probems in translation and its teaching. Calaceite: Caminade.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2015 “Johnnies and Mehmets. Take two.” Unpublished paper. goo.gl/DwtqSa. VisitedFebruary 2016.
  22. Ricoeur, Paul
    2000/2004La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli. Trans. Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer as Memory, history, forgetting . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Stanley, Peter and David Stephens
    2014 “Ataturk’s ‘letter’ expresses admirable sentiment but is not necessarily good history.” Sydney Morning HeraldSeptember 8, 2014: goo.gl/2kTKEm. VisitedMay 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Stephens, David
    2015Tracking Ataturk: Honest History research note. goo.gl/KyqFQ7. VisitedSeptember 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Turkish Embassy, Canberra
    2015 “Atatürk’ün Anzac annelerine hitabı.” March 16, 2015. kanberra.be.mfa.gov.tr/ShowInfoNotes.aspx?ID=218747. VisitedMay 2015.
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Atatürk; Australia; transcendence; translation; Turkey
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error