TurizmMetinlerininevirisistanbulrnei BY

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343863131
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of
Hagia Sophia Museum (Turizm Metinlerinin Çevirilerine Bütüncül Bir
Yaklaşım: Ayasofya Müzesi Örneği)
Chapter · September 2018
CITATIONS
READS
0
843
1 author:
Büşra Yaman
Bandirma Onyedi Eylül Üniversitesi
13 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Büşra Yaman on 25 August 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TRANSLATIONS
OF TOURISM TEXTS:
A CASE STUDY OF HAGIA SOPHIA MUSEUM
Büşra YAMAN*
International tourism has an ever-increasing role in promoting and presenting
cultural heritage of all humankind. It, thus, inevitably bears a significant impact
on all the aspects of social life, including language. The rapid development of international tourism has given rise to increase in translation as a product, process
and activity in the field. For this reason, the tourism texts (brochures, leaflets,
introductory panels and so forth) attract a special attention as a fertile field to be
investigated and questioned within the discipline of translation studies. Accordingly, this paper first aims to discuss the quality assessment of English translation of introductory panel of Hagia Sophia Museum as one of the most popular
historic landmarks of Istanbul by drawing on the Translation Quality Assessment
Model (TQA) of Julian House. The Flesch Reading Ease Test is used to increase the objectivity of translation quality assessment procedure. After spotting the
barriers hindering the functionality and readability of the translated text, the
optimization process is initiated so as to improve the function and comprehension
of the translated text. Such an integrated approach to translated tourism texts are
expected to pave the way for increased intercultural interaction and awareness
on cultural heritage of all humankind.
Keywords: tourism texts, translation quality assessment model, readability
test, optimization, Hagia Sophia
*
Arş. Gör., İÜ Çeviribilim Bölümü İngilizce Mütercim Tercümanlık A.B.D.
42
Büşra Yaman
TURİZM METİNLERİNİN ÇEVİRİLERİNE
BÜTÜNCÜL BİR YAKLAŞIM:
AYASOFYA MÜZESİ ÖRNEĞİ
Uluslararası turizm tüm insanlığa mâl olmuş kültürel mirasın sunulmasında
ve tanıtılmasında giderek artan bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu nedenle dil dâhil olmak
üzere toplumsal hayatın tüm alanları üzerinde önemli bir etkisinin olması kaçınılmazdır. Uluslararası turizmin hızlı gelişimi bir ürün, süreç ve etkinlik olarak çeviride artışa yol açmıştır. Dolayısıyla turizm metinleri (broşürler, ilanlar, tanıtım
tabelaları vb.) çeviribilim disiplinininde araştırılacak ve sorgulanacak bakir bir
alan olarak büyük bir ilgi görmektedir. Bu doğrultuda bu makalede ilk olarak
Julian House’un Çeviri Kalite Değerlendirme Modeli’nden faydalanarak İstanbul’un en popüler tarihi yerlerinden biri olan Ayasofya Müzesinin tanıtım metninin
İngilizce çevirisinin kalite değerlendirmesini tartışmak amaçlanmaktadır. Bu
işlemin nesnellik derecesini arttırmak için Flesch Okuma Kolaylığı Testi kullanılmıştır. Çeviri metnin işlevselliğinin ve okunabilirliğinin önündeki engeller tespit
edildikten sonra çeviri metnin işlevini ve anlaşılmasını iyileştirmek amacıyla optimizasyon süreci başlatılmıştır. Böylece turizm metinleri çevirisi için geliştirilen
bütünlüklü bir yaklaşımın tüm insanlığın kültürel mirasına ilişkin kültürlerarası
etkileşimin ve farkındalığın artmasına katkıda bulunacağı beklenmektedir.
Anahtar sözcükler: turizm metinleri, çeviri kalite değerlendirme modeli,
okunabilirlik testi, optimizasyon, Ayasofya
Introduction
Amongst Istanbul’s many tourist attractions Hagia Sophia Museum is one
of the most remarkable and popular destinations for tourists since it concerns
not only the West but also the East in terms of representing a turning point
in the world history. It is for this reason that the cultural heritage is of much
interest not only to nations but also to such international organizations as The
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
and The International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS), which support
and protect universal values. The underlying reason is that cultural heritage
as an amalgamated concept covers not only national histories but also world
history since they are both inextricably intertwined with each other. As
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
43
for the relation between translation and cultural heritage, we can mention
an inseparable bond between them because of the ever-increasing role of
translation in transferring the cultural heritage across languages and cultures.
The concept of cultural heritage covers both tangible (i.e. buildings,
monuments, landscapes, books and so on) and intangible (i.e. riddles,
traditions, folklore and so forth) cultural products. The scope of this paper is
limited to one of the tangible artefacts in Istanbul, Turkey, which is regarded
as an unique architectural masterpiece by UNESCO (2017)1, and thus attracts
a great deal of attention from all over the world. The Hagia Sophia, which was
designed by Anthemios of Tralles and Isidoros of Miletus in 532-537, was
originally a Greek Orthodox Christian church. It was converted into a mosque
after the conquest of Istanbul in 1453. Today it serves as a museum. It has set
a model for an entire family of churches and later mosques both in the East
and the West. Its vast dome reflects the architectural and decorative expertise
of the 6th century monuments as one of the most important architectural
masterpieces of Byzantine and Ottoman periods. From this point of view, it
is a tangible symbol of cultural blending between the East and the West and
therefore carries great significance for all humankind.
From a translational perspective, research on tourism texts is a barren field
of study except for a few notable examples. Besides this lack of research
interest in the related area, tourism texts representing an interlingual and
intercultural in-betweennes have also linguistic and cultural factors embedded
in the immediate environment (i.e. setting, text and so on) most of which is
untapped potential for the development of translation studies (Neather 2005,
2008; Ravelli 2006; Sturge 2007; Jiang 2010; Guillot 2014).
The question that launches the discussion is simple, but its ramifications
are complex. Therefore, we can ask following questions: (i) to what extent the
introductory panel of Hagia Sophia in English reflects culturally determined
‘ways of seeing’; (ii) to what extent it meets the expectations of tourists in
terms of linguistic and cultural background; (iii) to what extent it has an
impact on tourists; (iv) what is the role of translation in drawing tourists’
attention to the cultural asset; (vi) what translational procedures need to be
used in order to optimize the textual function of the translated text.
Accordingly, I first discuss the issue of functionality of translated
tourism texts within the translation studies discipline. Next, a qualitative
1
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356
44
Büşra Yaman
and quantitative methodology are adopted for assessing the quality and
functionality of the translated tourism text in question. Lastly, I propose an
optimization process for the translated text which constitutes the final step
of the integrated approach to the translated tourism texts. It concludes with a
final remark on the translated tourism text within the context of Turkey.
1. Function as a Central Concept of Tourism Texts
Today while questioning the functionality of a text and how this feature could
be attributed to it, not only linguistic factors concerning language use, namely
textuality, but also communicative factors concerning language users require
close attention of researchers in the field of translation studies. Within this
context, a major step that has been taken by the systemic functional linguistics
should be noted for including the textual features and the communicative
function of language between the parties to discuss the functionality of a
text. Within this coverage, Julian House, who base her Translation Quality
Assessment (TQA) Model on Halliday’s systemic functional approach, defines
function “as a fundamental principle of language, in other words, it can be
interpreted as something going beyond the notion of mere use of language”
(1997: 32). Therefore, at first step, Halliday’s systemic functional theory will
be helpful in disclosing the functionality of tourism texts.
Within the framework of the systemic functional linguistics Halliday
distinguishes three types of language function which is called as
metafunctions of systemic theory. These functions are respectively the
ideational, the interpersonal and the textual function. Halliday’s ideational
function corresponds to Popper’s descriptive and argumentative functions.
In its interpersonal function language acts as an expression of a speaker’s
attitudes and his influence on the attitudes and behavior of the hearer. Through
the interpersonal function, language serves as a means of for conveying
the speaker’s relationship with his/her interlocutor(s), and for expressing
social roles including communication roles such as those of questioner and
respondent. Halliday thus seems to merge Popper’s signalling and expressive
function in his interpersonal function, and also Bühler’s (1990/1934) emotiveexpressive and conative function.
It is through the textual function that language makes links with itself and
with the situation. Namely, the construction of texts becomes possible because
of this linkage. It is a kind of “enabling function”, a “resource for ensuring
that what is said is relevant and relates to its context” (Halliday 1989: 45).
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
45
Halliday’s functional theory thus differs from the other functional
approaches in that only the ideational and the interpersonal functions are
comparable to the notion of function used in the other approaches as a basic
mode of language in use (House 1997: 35). Halliday’s textual function relates
to a level of internal organization of linguistic items.
Having dealt with various approaches to characterizing language functions,
I examine how language functions concerning language use and users are
related to textual functions. From the perspective of translation studies Reiss
and Vermeer discrimination of text types from Textsorte and enrich the notion
of functionality. Accordingly, any text cannot be purely classified into a specific
textual type due to involving various elements which might be regarded as a
sign of other text types. For example, a text might be informative as well as
persuasive or argumentative as in the case of tourism texts.
As shown in various articles, tourism texts (touristic brochures, informatory
panels and/or boards and so forth) are charged with being informative as well
as argumentative in that these texts are expected to attract the tourists’ attention
and to promote the historic site and/or building in question both on national
and international level. Within the framework of this paper TQA Model as
posited by House (1997) best serves to disclose and assess the informative
and argumentative aspects of the translated introductory text of Hagia Sophia
Museum.
The function of a text is different from the functions of language.
Accordingly, House defines function (1997: 36) as follows: “the application
or use which the text has in a particular context of a situation”. This definition
of function requires determining the general textual features after analyzing
the text on linguistic level within its context of situation. As of the textual
function – consisting of an ideational and an interpersonal functional
component in the Hallidayan sense –, the basic idea being that ‘text’ and
‘context of situation’ should not be viewed as separate entities, rather the
context of situation in which the text unfolds “is encapsulated in the text
through a systematic relationship between the social environment on the one
hand and the functional organization of language on the other” (quoted from
House 2014: 63). Drawing upon the context of situation in a Hallidayan sense,
House breaks down this concept into manageable parts called as situational
dimensions. The linguistic correlates of the situational dimensions are the
means with which the textual function is realized and the textual function is
the result of a linguistic-pragmatic analysis along the dimensions with each
46
Büşra Yaman
dimension contributing to the two functional components, the ideational and
the interpersonal, in characteristic fashion (House 2014: 65).
Besides the text-based and/or linguistically-oriented analysis proposed by
House, the functionality of tourism texts (especially written texts to be read)
might be discussed in terms of readability. Thus, readability tests emerge as
supplementary tool to support the textual analysis with numerical data.
As of improving the functionality of tourism text, “the concept of text
optimization” is a key concept proposed by Larsen and Hansen (2010:
23) “as a means of simplifying texts to facilitate processing and improve
comprehension”.
In this paper, the concept of functionality is discussed along with the
linguistically-oriented approach taken by House, the Flesch Reading Ease
Test and text optimization which form an integrated approach to translations
of tourism texts. The underlying reason to use such an eclectic methodology
is that adopting a qualitative and quantitative approach to the evaluation of
the translations of tourism texts might improve the objectivity of the study.
2. Methodology
The methodology adopted in this paper consists of two research methods
which are seen as complementary research tools in line with the aim of this paper.
Besides the qualitative approach adopted to analyze the functionality of
the translated text of Hagia Sophia Museum, I use a quantitative approach,
which is the Flesch Reading Ease Test, in order to elicit numerical data about
the translated text and to imply that the readability test might be one of the
factors affecting the functionality of the text.
2.1. A Qualitative Approach: The TQA Model of House
House divides specific situational dimensions into three categories such as
register, genre and function. Register is composed of three sub-categories of
field, tenor and mode. Field is related to the subject matter and social action
of the text. Tenor refers to the nature of the participants, the addresser and
the addressees and grouped under three sub-headings: author’s provenance
and stance, social role relationship and social attitude (House 2001). Mode is
closely related to language use in the text, which is consisted of medium and
participation. In other words, it refers to both the channel – spoken or written
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
47
– and the degree to which potential or real participation is allowed for between
author and reader. Depending on the findings of Register and Genre, function
of the text is determined. House lists three functional components – namely,
ideational, interpersonal and textual. House (2001: 249) states that “taken
together, the analysis yields a textual profile characterizing the individual
textual function. Whether and how this textual function can be maintained,
depends, however, on the type of translation sought for the original.” So she
distinguishes between two types of translation, overt and covert translation.
Overt translations are “more straightforward,” as the original can be “taken
over unfiltered” as it were, whereas covert translations reproduce in the target
text the function the original has in its discourse world. House (2001: 252)
stresses that “in evaluating covert translations, the translation assessor has to
consider the application of a “cultural filter” in order to be able to differentiate
between a covert translation and a covert version.”
2.2. A Quantitative Approach: The Flesch Reading Ease Test
One of the first readability tools created was the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE)
Test (Flesch 1948). Its formula is based on a 100-point scale, where a higher
score indicates an easier to understand a text while a lower score marks the text
that is more difficult to read. The formula for the Flesch Reading Ease Test is:
total words
total syllables
206.835-1.015
-84.6
total sentences
total words
(
) (
)
The following elements in the above-mentioned formula for analyzing
text passages are: (1) average sentence length in words (the number of words
divided by the number of sentences) and (2) average word length in syllables
(the number of syllables divided by the number of words). With regards to
the elements operationalized in the formula, there are several drawbacks. For
example, periods, explanation points, colons and semicolons serve as sentence
delimiters; each group of continuous non-blank characters with beginning and
ending punctuation are removed from counts as a word; each vowel in a word
is considered one syllable and, (a) -es, -ed and -e (except -le) endings are
ignored; (b) words of three letters or shorter count as single syllables; and
(c) consecutive vowels count as one syllable. Despite these drawbacks of the
formula, it is an effective tool for evaluating the degree to which a technical
text is readable by a large population of reader since it presents a general
picture to help text-creators to increase the readability and comprehension of
the text in question.
48
Büşra Yaman
The specific scores are determined to assess the ease of readability in a text
(Table 1). According to Table 1, the higher the score is much easier the text is
to understand. The scores between 90 and 100 signify that the text is very easy
to understand by a large population of readers since its language is plain and
average sentence length is short.
3. A Case Study: Analyzing and Improving the Functionality of the
Translated Introductory Text of Hagia Sophia Museum
In this section, the functionality of English translation of the introductory
text of Hagia Sophia Museum is discussed on the basis of function and
quality concepts. Within this context, the TQA model of House is applied
on the translated text and a comparative analysis is conducted. Besides the
qualitative methodologic tool, the Flesch Reading Ease Text is used to elicit
numerical data on the basis of readability. The final step of the case study
is the optimization procedure, which aims to propose several suggestions to
improve the readability and comprehensibility of the translated text.
3.1. Application of the TQA Model of House on the Translated
Introductory Text of Hagia Sophia Museum
The introductory text of Hagia Sophia Museum is presented as a panel
supported on the metallic bases in front of the entrance door (See Appendix,
Image 1). The source text (ST) and the target text (TT) are juxtaposed in the
panel. Since the translated text is the main object of my analysis, House’s
TQA model is implemented to discuss the functionality of the text in question.
The textual analysis included the lexical, syntactical and textual means of the
TT in terms of Register (Field, Tenor, Mode) and Genre in order to produce
a statement of function for the text, followed by a readability test applied on
the TT.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
49
The analysis categories of TQA Model are respectively (i) field, (ii) tenor
[author’s temporal, geographical and social provenance, author’s personal
stance, and social role relationship], (iii) mode [medium (simple/complex)
and participation (simple/complex)], and (iv) genre. The textual properties of
both ST and TT are detected by drawing on this schema.
3.1.1. Field
The TT is a tourism text introducing Hagia Sophia Museum to all visitors,
which know English language, regardless of age, nationality and educational
background. It presents in-depth information about the history of Hagia Sophia.
It starts to inform the visitors about the current building’s place and continues to
give details about the situation of Hagia Sophia as a church in Byzantine Empire.
After that, it mentions the conquest of Istanbul which resulted in the conversion
of Hagia Sophia into a mosque. This is followed by the details about the situation
of Hagia Sophia in Ottoman Empire. It concludes with a piece of information
about early Republican period in Turkey where Hagia Sophia was declared as
a museum. The text provides historical facts (events, dates, specific names and
so forth) with an emphasis on negative incidents in the Byzantine period and
positive developments for Hagia Sophia in the Ottoman period. The text contains
a few examples of technical (related to museology) and cultural elements.
3.1.2. Tenor
3.1.2.1. Author’s Temporal, Geographical and Social Provenance
Depending on translation policy of museums in Turkey, there are two
hypotheses about translator(s) of the text. One is that officials of the museum
made a contract with a translation bureau and that a translator being specialist
in the related field (history, art history and so on) completed the task. The
other hypothesis is that a team of Hagia Sophia Museum called as “museum
experts”2, who are consisting of archaeologist, historian and art historian,
produced the TT. The latter seems more likely because the TT involves several
flaws in terms of grammar as well as being a word-for-word reproduction of
the ST. The TT analyzed here contains features of unmarked, contemporary
standard US-American English3.
http://ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr/en/about-us
Contemporary Standard American English, also known as General American, is based on a
generalized Midwestern accent in USA, and is familiar to us from American films, radio and
newscasters (Mastin 2011).
2
3
50
Büşra Yaman
3.1.2.2. Author’s Personal (Emotional and Intellectual) Stance
Although the text is centered on presenting historical information of the
museum, the analysis of the TT highlights certain elements regarding the
personal viewpoint of the content. The early years of Hagia Sophia in the
Byzantine Empire is presented in a negative way such as fire, disruption,
demolition, riot and so on. In other words, the period, when Hagia Sophia
was a church, is mentioned along with damaging incidents. On the other
hand, after the conquest of Istanbul positive developments occurred in the
Ottoman period are strongly emphasized with a slight touch on its intercultural
significance and position. It might be thus stated that translator and/or producer
of the TT seems to present two completely different worlds – a church in the
Byzantine Empire, and a mosque and museum in the Ottoman Empire and
Turkey Republic respectively – and to put some kind of distance between the
TT and its target audience.
3.1.2.3. Social Role Relationship
The social role relationship between addresser(s) and addresses in the TT
is asymmetrical. The addresser(s) conveys detailed information about the
history and physical features of Hagia Sophia Museum while the addresses
need to be informed about the past and present situation of the museum. The
flow of information is unidirectional, i.e. from addresser(s) to addresses.
3.1.2.4. Social Attitude
A formal style is used throughout the TT with frequent use of complex noun
phrases and impersonality markers. There are many instances of frequent use
of passivization as a written means of complex syntactic linkage specifically
for preserving theme-rheme sequence.
3.1.3. Mode
3.1.3.1. Medium
Simple: The TT is “written to be read” by the visitors of the museum knowing
English language. The medium is only designed to provide information about
the historical journey of the museum by referring to specific periods, dates
and historical figures.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
51
3.1.3.2. Participation
Participation is simple as addresses are not directly addressed and/or given
instructions. No interactivity between the TT and its addresses is expected
within a planned and formal discourse.
3.1.4. Genre
The TT is generally categorized as a tourism text. Dann (1996) categorizes
tourism text as a genre according to the medium it uses, i.e. audio, visual,
written or sensory, and to its stage within the tourist cycle, i.e. pre-trip
(advertisements, leaflets, brochures), on-trip (travel guides, travelogues,
introductory text of museums) and post-trip (trip-reports, reviews). The TT is
located in front of the museum to present a first-glimpse of the museum within
a historical perspective. Thus, it is in a written form and on-trip stage for the
target audience. Since the TT has a great deal of descriptive information and
historic facts about the museum, it can be regarded as a factual text. The
TT even expects the addressees to have prior knowledge about Byzantine,
Ottoman and Turkish history, and therefore its information load is dense.
There aren’t any markers indicating promotional statements.
3.1.5. Statement of Function
The ideational function of the text deals with the brief history of the museum
and its physical features. It explains what happened to Hagia Sophia through
the ages (Byzantine, Ottoman and Turkish Republic period respectively); for
example, several transformations that it went through. This is realized in the
Field by way of using devices that keep a linear structure of history, references
to specific dates, places, historical figures directly related to the Hagia Sophia.
However, the text isn’t sufficient in terms of textual coherence due to the lack
of clausal linkage. Another issue is that it involves many details about Ottoman
period which might distract the attention of foreign visitors. On Tenor, the
asymmetrical social role relationship is used to convey objective information
about the museum which makes the authors have authority over the target
audience. However, there is a significant implication that the author(s)
highlights the positive developments of the Hagia Sophia as a mosque in the
Ottoman period and negative incidents occurred in Hagia Sophia as a church
in the Byzantine period. Thus, the authority of the author(s) over the target
audience has a manipulative and/or alienating aspects. On the dimension of
Mode, the medium emphasizes that the text is “written to be read” and it is
52
Büşra Yaman
marked as it has involved Hagia Sophia’s immediate environment-dependent
and formal language. On the dimension of Genre, the ideational function
gives a structure to the history in the informatory panel even if it shows some
narrative features.
In spite of the fact that the ideational function is prominent throughout the
text, it also shows vital markers of the interpersonal function. The dimension
of Tenor clearly marks the interpersonal function by referencing specific
historical figures and events in the Byzantine and Ottoman Empire, which
highlights the stance of the author(s) who expects their target audience to have
a piece of knowledge about the above-mentioned cultures. Moreover, negative
incidents in the Byzantine period are highlighted while the positive ones in
the Ottoman period are underlined which indicate the author(s) produces the
TT from a nationalist perspective by disregarding the intercultural importance
of the museum.
Table 1. Textual Profile of ST
Subject Matter
Social Action
Author's Provenance and Stance
Social Role Relationship
Social Attitude
Medium
Participation
Field
Register
Tenor
Mode
Genre
Function
Introductory Museum Text
General and Popular
Museum Expert(s)
Asymmetrical
Formal
Simple
Simple
Tourism Text
Ideational & Interpersonal
Table 2. Textual Profile of TT
Field
Register
Tenor
Mode
Genre
Function
Tourism Text
Ideational & Interpersonal
Subject Matter
Social Action
Author's Provenance and Stance
Social Role Relationship
Social Attitude
Medium
Participation
Introductory Museum Text
General and Popular
Museum and/or Translator(s)
Asymmetrical
Formal
Simple
Simple
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
53
Table 3. Comparison of Textual Profiles of ST and TT
Field
Subject Matter
Social Action
Author’s Provenance and Stance
Social Role Relationship
Social Attitude
Medium
Participation
Tenor
Mode
*
Note: * signifies mismatches.
After analyzing both ST and TT, mismatches have been found in the
dimension of Field (Table 3) as well as a number of overt errors. In Field, the
specific references to Byzantine and Ottoman history have either been kept as
the original or translated, usually in a literal manner.
Table 4. Mismatches in the Dimension of Field
Source Text
Target Text
Günümüz Ayasofya’sı aynı yere yapılmış The present Ayasofya is the third building
olan üçüncü yapıdır.
of the same name that was constructed in
the same place.
Mimarları, Anadolu’dan, Miletoslu The church was planned by the architects
(Balat) Isidoros ve Trallesli (Aydın) Isidore of Miletus (today Balat) and
Anthemios’dur.
Anthemios of Tralles (today Aydın).
The overt errors are quite prevalent throughout the TT. These errors are
categorized into seven groups as follows (Faghih and Jaza’ei 2015):
(i)
Not translated
(ii) Slight change in meaning
(iii) Significant change in meaning
(iv) Distortion of meaning
(v) Breach of the source language system
(vi) Creative translation
(vii) Cultural filtering
54
Büşra Yaman
I make a slight change in the fifth category by replacing it with “breach of
the target language system” since it is much more relevant for my analysis.
I also propose that another category may be added to the list as the eighth
category under the name of “addition”.
Under the category of “not translated” several words and/or expressions
which aren’t translated either because of translator(s)’ negligence or purpose,
are listed in Table 5. The first example indicates that the bold words meaning
“by rebels” were not translated into English. It is not known who set fire to
the church in the TT. The second example shows that a complete sentence was
omitted in the TT. The omitted expression in the ST means “Hagia Sophia was
transformed into an Islamic-Ottoman social complex with additional buildings”.
In the last example it can be seen that Turkish phrase “415-532 yılları arasında”
meaning “between the years of 415-532” was omitted in the TT.
Table 5. Overt Errors under the Category of “Not Translated”
Source Text
Target Text
Yapı İmparator Arkadios Dönemi’nde During a riot that occurred during the
(365-408) 404’de isyancılar tarafından reign of the Emperor Arcadios (365-406)
yakılmıştır.
in 404, it was set on fire.
Bu tarihten sonra Ayasofya’da çeşitli tamirler yapılmış ve yapı destek duvarlarıyla güçlendirilmiş, çevresine eklenen yapılarla bir külliye haline getirilmiştir.
[…] tarafından 415 yılında yine aynı
planla inşa ettirilmiş, 415-532 yılları arasında şehrin en büyük kilisesi olmuştur.
Ayasofya has been repaired many times
during the Ottoman period. It was
strengthened with additional structural
support walls.
[…] it was rededicated by the Emperor
Theodosios II (406-450) in 415, and had a
similar basilica plan.
The category of “slight change meaning” is composed of one example in
which there is a bit of nuance semantically between the ST and TT (Table
6). When looking at the example, it is observed that the verb in bold in the
ST meaning “opening to worship” was replaced with the verb “dedicate”
meaning “formally opening for use and/or service” in the TT. So a more
implicit equivalent was preferred in the TT instead of explicit word “opening
to worship” which highlights the religious use.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
55
Table 6. Overt Error under the Category of “Slight Change in Meaning”
Source Text
Target Text
[…] 532 yılında yapımına başlanan kilise
sadece beş yılda tamamlanarak 27 Aralık
537’de büyük bir törenle ibadete açılmıştır.
The construction began in 532 and
was completed in 537, a period of only
five years. It was dedicated with a big
ceremony on December 27th 537 A.D.
The category of “significant change in meaning” comprises of several
examples with a considerable amount of distortion between the ST and TT
in terms of meaning which might make the target audience infer different
meanings (Table 7).
The first example displays that a completely different noun phrase was
formed in the TT. Although the bold adjective clause in the ST means “first
building” in English, the noun phrase in the TT, which is “the First Great Church
serving as the cathedral”, gives more specific and additional information
about the religious function of Hagia Sophia in the Byzantium period to the
target audience which makes the related section more comprehensible for the
target audience. Taking a look at the second example, it could be stated that
the adjective clause in bold in ST (meaning new building in English) was
semantically changed since it was replaced with the word “church”. The third
and last example shows that there is a significant change in meaning of the
sentence in the ST and TT. In the TT there is no quantifier whereas the ST
includes a quantifier in bold (meaning “most” in English).
Table 7. Overt Errors under the Category of “Significant Change in Meaning”
Source Text
Target Text
İlk yapı İmparator Konstantios (337-361) The First Great Church serving as the
tarafından 360 yılında bazilikal planlı ve cathedral was constructed by Emperor
Constantius (337-361) in 360; it had a
ahşap çatılı olarak inşa ettirilmiştir.
basilica plan and was covered with a
wooden roof.
II. Theodosis Dönemi kilisesi 532 yılında, İmparator Iustinianos’a (527-565)
karşı çıkan Nika ayaklanması’nda tekrar
yanmış ve kalıntıları temizlenerek yeni
yapıya yer açılmıştır.
Ayasofya’da en kapsamlı onarım çalışmaları 16. yüzyılda Mimar Sinan tarafından yapılmış […]
After the Nike revolt against the Emperor
Justinian (527-565) it was set alight and
shortly afterwards razed to the ground to
make way for a new church.
In the 16th century, extensive repair works
were made by the architect Sinan.
56
Büşra Yaman
The category of “breach of the TL system” includes several examples of
ungrammatical and/or peculiar expressions as well as punctuation errors
(Table 8). In the first example, the formation of sentence isn’t appropriate
according to the grammar of the TL. It could be stated that the colon was
misused and that noun phrase beginning with “a central large dome” wasn’t
subordinated to the main sentence as it was supposed to be. Moreover, there
is a missing apostrophe on the word former. The second example displays
that present perfect tense isn’t appropriate when taken into account that event
took place in the past. Therefore, it is seen that there is a grammatical error in
the TT. In the third example, the coordinating conjunction was inserted in a
wrong place within the sentence in the TT which makes it grammatical error.
The fourth and fifth examples show that the indefinite article “a” and definite
article “the” were used respectively, which results in breaching the TL system.
Table 8. Overt Errors under the Category of “Breach of the TL System”
Target Text
The church was planned by the architects Isidore of Miletus (today Balat) and Anthemios of Tralles (today Aydın): a central large dome supported by two half-dornes on
the eastern and western sides, different from the formers basilica type.
Ayasofya has been repaired many times during the Ottoman period.
These vital repairs and additions contributed both to making it survive until present
and bringing an Turkish-Islamic character to the building.
All these additions ensured that Ayasofya became the a large complex of Ottoman
times. In the reign of the Sultan Abdülmecid […].
Ayasofya, which reflects a combination of Christian and Islamic elements, was transformed into a museum, by a the decision of the cabinet […].
The category of “addition” is comprised of only one example in which
some additional expressions and/or words were inserted in the TT (Table 9).
The additions in the TT are signified in bold and do not have any equivalents
in the ST. In the ST there isn’t any attributive feature for the support walls
such as exterior and/or interior; however, in the TT the word “exterior” was
added in the text which makes the information implicit for the target audience.
Additionally, the sentence in bold were inserted even if the ST doesn’t involve
any benefits that might be attributed to all these repairs.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
57
Table 9. Overt Error under the Category of “Addition”
Source Text
Target Text
[…] bu dönemde yapıya destek duvarları During this period, exterior structural
ve minareler eklenmiştir. Sultan support walls and minarets were added.
Abdülmecid Dönemi’nde […].
All these additions ensured that Ayasofya
became the a large complex of Ottoman
times. In the reign of the Sultan Abdülmecid […].
Lastly, based on the findings summarized in Table 10, it could be stated
that 13 errors are detected throughout the TT, which is comprised of 29 lines
and 21 sentences. The proportion of textual flaws dominates the overall text
when considering the length of the text.
There are three instances under the category of “not translated” which
were omitted in the TT. This indicates that translator(s) produces imprecisely
and negligently the TT. The categories of “slight” and “significant change
in meaning” are comprised of four instances in total and it signifies the fact
that the lexical items had undergone more shift in the process of translation
than the syntactic structures. Moreover, the category of “breach of the TL
system”, in which the most instances occurred, indicates strongly that the TT
might be an exact replication of the ST, which resulted in frequent breaches
of the TL system. It also implies that the producer(s) of the TT might not be
competent in the TL and culture. Besides these instances, there were also
several inconsistencies on the word level and typing errors throughout the TT.
All of these shows that the TT is imprecise in terms of the TL use as well as
target culture and produced from the Turkish point of view without regarding
to intercultural characteristics of the museum.
Table 10. The Frequency of Overt Errors in the TT
Slight
Significant Distortion
Not
translated change in change in of meaning
meaning
meaning
3
1
3
0
Breach Creative Cultural
of the translation filtering
TL
system
5
0
0
Addition
Total
1
13
58
Büşra Yaman
3.2. Application of the Flesch Reading Ease Test on the Translated
Introductory Text of Hagia Sophia Museum
The reading ease score for the translated text of Hagia Sophia is 54.6,
which indicates the text is fairly difficult to understand by the target audience.
As of the textual features, there are 10 sentences that have more than 30
syllables and 17 sentences that have more than 20 syllables. It is found out
that the passive voice count is 15 and that adverb count is 11. In total the text
is comprised of 1,779 characters, 625 syllables, 370 words and 22 sentences.
Depending on the reading ease score, I could put forward that the text is not
easily understandable and/or readable by the target audience. The language
used in the translated text is fairly difficult to read and complex since it
includes long sentences and complex sentence structures. From the qualitative
and quantitative approaches’ framework, I could claim that the translated
text needs to be optimized in terms of readability and comprehensibility for
the target audience in order to reach everyone regardless of age, nationality,
educational background, race and so on in line with the main aim of the
tourism texts.
3.3. Optimizing the Translated Introductory Text of Hagia Sophia
Museum
As described and analyzed in the above sections, both ST and TT contain
a number of complex syntactic elements which can make the texts illegible
or even incomprehensible. These elements form the basis of text optimization
procedure, as an alteration of these elements can assist in simplifying a text.
The definition of text optimization “entails making texts simpler to process
during reading by reducing, removing or simplifying syntactic obstacles
in order to assist the reader in decoding and comprehending the texts with
minimal processing effort” (Larsen & Hansen 2010: 23). More specifically, I
dwell on making a simplification of syntactically difficult structures, namely
reduced relative clauses and passive structures, correction of grammar use in
the TT and editing the TT.
3.3.1. Simplification of Complex Syntactic Structures
In this section, I will review respectively the two syntactic structures I
have selected as my focal points for optimization, i.e. reduced relative clauses
and passive constructions. I will reduce the number of syntactically complex
structures throughout the TT and produce texts that contain an additional
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
59
number of active constructions and fewer instances of passive constructions,
as the latter tends to make a text abstract and formal resulting in an impersonal
and perhaps ambiguous text.
Reduced relative clauses can make the sentences in which they appear
ambiguous, it is possible to optimize such sentences in order to increase the
comprehension rate of the target audience. A rewriting of a reduced relative
clause can be done by e.g. inserting a preposition and strengthening the
meaning of the expression. The following example contains a reduced relative
clause (underlined) which hinders the readability of the TT.
Example 1: During a riot that occurred during the reign of the Emperor
Arcadios (365-408) in 404, it was set on fire.
Optimized Version: It was set on fire during a riot against the Emperor
Arcadius (365-408) in 404.
The following examples include passive structures (underlined) which
make the sentences more complex and less comprehensible for the target
audience. Therefore, all of these structures are replaced with the active
structures in order to make the expressions simple and more understandable
as well as readable.
Example 2: The construction began in 532 and was completed in 537, a
period of only five years.
Optimized Version: The construction lasted only five years from 532 to
537.
Example 3: With the Conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed
II in 1453, Hagia Sophia, as the largest religious structure of the city, was
converted into a mosque.
Optimized Version: Upon the conquest of Istanbul in 1453, Ottoman Sultan
Mehmed II ordered the church’s conversion into a mosque.
Example 4: In the 16th century, extensive repair works were made by the
architect Sinan.
Optimized Version: In the 16th century, the Great Architect Sinan conducted
extensive repairs in the Hagia Sophia.
60
Büşra Yaman
3.3.2. Correction: Grammar Use
Throughout the TT several TL system breaches, which are mostly consisted
of grammatical errors, are detected and they require to be corrected in order to
conduct the optimization procedure of the TT. The following examples show
incorrect grammar use in the TT (underlined) as well as optimized versions of
the expressions in question.
Example 5: It survived until the more serious Nike riot in 532, as the
greatest church in the city.
Optimized Version: It survived until the Nika riot in 532 as the greatest
church in the city.
Example 6: Ayasofya has been repaired many times during the Ottoman
period.
Optimized Version: The Hagia Sophia was repaired many times during the
Ottoman period.
3.3.3. Editing
The TT shows various signs of inconsistent word usages and/or
incomprehensible words or expressions due to grammatical errors, peculiar
usage of the target language and so forth. Therefore, the last category of the
optimization procedure is editing and under this category several letters,
words and sentences were rearranged in order to produce a consistent and
comprehensible TT.
The following example displays incorrect use of colon and apostrophe,
misspelling and peculiar expression starting with “a central large dome…”
as well as foreign items to the audience, who is not from Turkey and/or not
familiar to Turkish history and culture such as “today Balat” and “today Aydın”.
Example 7: The church was planned by the architects Isidore of Miletus
(today Balat) and Anthemios of Tralles (today Aydın): a central large dome
supported by two half-dornes on the eastern and western sides, different from
the formers basilica type.
Optimized Version: The new church was built by the architects Anthemius
of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus. They constructed a massive central dome
with two half-domes on the eastern and western sides. Its design was different
from that of the former basilicas.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
61
In the optimized version of Example 7, the word “new” was added for
the target audience to link the previous sentence with the next. In the TT
the preference of the architects’ names is inconsistent since Anthemios isn’t
used in the target language. Isidorus or Isidore and Anthemius (Latinized
versions) are used and thus “Anthemios” was replaced with “Anthemius” and
“Isidorus” was used to keep the names in harmony. “Today Balat” and “today
Aydın” were omitted in the text in order to decrease the information load of
the TT. The clause starting with “a central large dome…” was formed with
two different sentences to make the TT more readable and understandable for
the target audience.
Conclusion
In this article English translation of the introductory text of Hagia Sophia
Museum is comparatively analyzed by using TQA model of House and Flesch
Reading Ease Test. The aim is to uncover the functionality of the translation
in terms of readability and quality and then to propose an optimization
procedure for the translation to be more readable and comprehensible by the
target audience.
Depending on the comparative text analysis, the findings are listed below.
•
Highly informational and abstract nature of the TT supports the
ideational functional component. In this text, therefore, author and
message are more important than the conditions holding for the text’s
receivers, and this is of course consistent with the author’s message,
i.e. considerations of the receiver do not seem to exist. However, the
tourism texts as general are expected to be popular and general and this
is fulfilled by any visitors regardless of educational background, race,
gender, religion and so on.
•
Interpersonal functional component as a significant feature of
tourism texts is expected to promote the museum and its value for all
humankind, but interpersonal component of the TT is resulted from
the political stance of the author(s). The way of presenting information
load in both ST and TT imply a biased attitude of the author(s) in that
positive incidents about Hagia Sophia occurred in the Ottoman period
are emphasized within the text while the negative ones in the Byzantine
period are highlighted. Besides all these points, there is nearly no
mention about the intercultural and/or universal value and importance
62
Büşra Yaman
of the museum except the sub-clause “bringing a Turkish-Islamic
character to the building”. So the function in question displays few
markers of nationalist and biased attitude instead of representing the
explicit nature of the museum which is a symbol of cultural blending
of various civilizations.
•
After the analysis of the ST and TT, overt mismatches are grouped
under five categories. These categories are respectively “not
translated” (N=3), “slight change in meaning” (N=1), “significant
change in meaning” (N=3), “breach of the target language system”
(N=5) and “addition” (N=1). Given the figures of instances, fourth
category ranks first with six overt mismatches and strongly supports
the hypothesis that the producer of the TT might be museum expert(s)
having no professional translation experience and poor command of
the target language and culture. Other categories (especially the first
and the third ones) imply that the TT is an imprecise product of the
author(s) due to a great deal of grammatical and punctuation errors as
well as inappropriate sentence formation and unnatural expressions.
Also, inconsistency on word and/or term level throughout the TT such
as using cathedral and church interchangeably and incoherency within
the text influence the functionality of the TT in a negative way and
purports again the idea that the TT is imprecise.
The findings after the application of the Flesch Reading Ease Test on the
TT are presented as follows:
•
It has been detected that the reading ease score of the TT is 54.6, which
indicates the text is fairly difficult to understand by the target audience
and addresses the visitors having middle level of educational background.
However, the target audience is expected to be comprised of all visitors
of the museum regardless of educational background, race, religion,
gender and so forth. The expectations of the author(s) contradict with the
prevailing circumstances of the English language readers.
•
As of the textual features, there are a few of long and complex sentence
structures, passive voice structures which hinder the reading process of
the target audience.
•
Another reason why the readability of the TT is fairly difficult is the
lack of clausal linkage and inconsistency on word and/or term level
throughout the text.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
63
•
Given the reading ease score of the TT along with the results of the
application of the TQA Model of House, it could be put forward that
attractiveness, readability and comprehensibility are key features of
tourism texts. Within this framework it could be ascertained that the TT
fails to meet these criteria and the expectations of the target audience
along with that of the ST.
•
The TT is thus required to be functionally revised and improved. This
process is regarded as the optimization procedure and the aim is to
make the text be more easily understandable and/or readable by the
target audience.
•
The findings of the optimization procedure proposed in the article
could be summarized as follows:
•
The problematic points to be optimized in the TT are divided into three
categories –a simplification of syntactically difficult structures, namely
reduced relative clauses and passive structures, correction of grammar
use and editing.
•
An example is presented with its optimized version for each category
and the aim is to simplify the complex sentence structures and to make
the text cohere via clausal linkage. As a result of the procedure, a
more readable and comprehensible TT could be proposed within the
boundaries of text.
In general, given the differences in the historical narrations of Turkey
and other nation-states, a cultural filter may have been applied in the TT to
promote intercultural dialogue and to emphasize the supranational value and
position of Hagia Sophia Museum in the realm of the history of all humankind
without prejudice to any belief, idea and/or parties.
64
Büşra Yaman
References
Ayasofya Müzesi About us, [online] <http://ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr/en/about-us>
[Accessed 10 August 2017].
Bühler, K. (1990/1934) Theory of Language: The Representational Function of
Language, Trans. by Donald Fraser Goodwin in collaboration with Achim Eschbach,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dann, G. (1996) The Language of Tourism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective, Oxon, UK,
CAB International.
Faghih, E. & Jaza’ei, M. (2015) “A Translation Quality Assessment of Two English
Translations of Nazım Hikmet’s Poetry”, Translation Journal, January 2015, [online]
<http://www.translationjournal.net/January-2015/a-translation-quality-assessment-oftwo-english-translations-of-naz-m-hikmet-s-poetry.html> [Accessed 1 August 2017].
Flesch, R. (2006) “A New Readability Yardstick”, In W.E. DuBay (Ed.), The Classic
Readability Studies, Costa Mesa, Impact Information, pp. 99-112.
Fry, E. B. (1988) “Writeability: The Principles of Writing for Increased
Comprehension”, In B.L. Zakaluk & S.J. Samuel (Eds.), Readability: Its Past, Present,
and Future, Newark, International Reading Association, pp. 77-95.
Guillot, M.-N. (2014) “Cross-Cultural Pragmatics and Translation: The Case of
Museum Texts as Interlingual Representation”, In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A
Multidisciplinary Approach, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 73-95.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989) Spoken and Written Language, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
House, J. (1997) Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen, Narr.
House, J. (2001) “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus
Social Evaluation”, Meta, 462(2001), pp. 243-257.
House, J. (2014) Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present, London,
Routledge.
Jiang, C. (2010) “Quality Assessment for the Translation of Museum Texts:
Application of a Systemic Functional Mode”, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology,
18(2), pp. 109-126.
Larsen, T. J. & Hansen, R. A. (2010) “L2 Processing and Comprehension of Complex
Syntactic Structures in English Medical Texts”, MA Thesis, Supervisor: Arnt Lykke
Jakobsen, Copenhagen Business School.
Mastin, L. (2011) “History: Late Modern English (c. 1800 – Present)”, The History of
English, <http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_late_modern.html> [Accessed 17
November 2017].
Neather, R. (2005) “Translating the Museum: On Translation and (Cross-)Cultural
Presentation in Contemporary China”, IATIS Yearbook, pp. 180-197.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
65
Neather, R. (2008) “Translating Tea: On the Semiotics of Interlingual Practice in
the Hong Kong Museum of Tea Ware”, META: Translators’ Journal, 53(1), pp. 218240. <http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2008/v53/n1/017984ar.pdf> [Accessed 3 March
2017].
Nooter Roberts, M. (2008). “Exhibiting Episteme: African Art Exhibitions as Objects
of Knowledge”, In K. Yoshida and J. Mack (Eds.), Preserving the Cultural Heritage of
Africa – Crisis or Renaissance, South Africa, Unisa Press, pp. 170-186.
Nöth, W. (1995) Of Semiotics, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Ravelli, L. J. (2006) Museum Texts: Communication Frameworks, London, Routledge.
Reiss, K. & Vermeer, H. (2014) Towards a General Theory of Translational
Action: Skopos Theory Explained, New York, Routledge.
Sturge, K. (2007) Representing Others: Translation, Ethnography and the Museum,
Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.
Enclosures
End Note 1: Introductory Texts of Hagia Sophia Museum in Turkish
End Note 2: Introductory Texts of Hagia Sophia Museum in English
66
Büşra Yaman
ENCLOSURES
End Note 1: Introductory Texts of Hagia Sophia Museum in Turkish
Günümüz Ayasofya’sı aynı yere yapılmış olan üçüncü yapıdır. İlk yapı İmparator
Konstantios (337-361) tarafından 360 yılında bazilikal planlı ve ahşap çatılı olarak inşa
ettirilmiştir. Yapı İmparator Arkadios Dönemi’nde (365-408) 404’te isyancılar tarafından
yakılmıştır. İkinci yapı ise İmparator II. Theodosios (408-450) tarafından 415 yılında yine
aynı planla inşa ettirilmiş, 415-532 yılları arasında şehrin en büyük kilisesi olmuştur. II.
Theodosios Dönemi kilisesi 532 yılında, İmparator İustinianos’a (527-565) karşı çıkan
Nika Ayaklanması’nda tekrar yanmış ve kalıntıları temizlenerek yeni yapıya yer açılmıştır.
İmparator İustinianos dünyanın en büyük kilisesi olarak, Kutsal Hikmet anlamına gelen
Ayasofya’yı aynı yerde inşa ettirmiş, 532 yılında yapımına başlanan kilise sadece beş
yılda tamamlanarak 27 Aralık 537’de büyük bir törenle ibadete açılmıştır. Mimarları,
Anadolu’dan, Miletoslu (Balat) İsidoros ve Trallesli (Aydın) Anthemios’dur. Bu mimarlar
Ayasofya’nın planını önceki yapıların bazilikal planından farklı olarak doğu ve batıda
yarım kubbelerle desteklenen yarım merkezi kubbe planlı olarak tasarlamışlardır.
Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in İstanbul’u 1453 yılında fethiyle şehrin en büyük dini yapısı olan
Ayasofya, camiye çevrilmiştir. Bu tarihten sonra Ayasofya’da çeşitli tamirler yapılmış
ve yapı destek duvarlarıyla güçlendirilmiş, çevresine eklenen yapılarla bir külliye
haline getirilmiştir. Yapılan tamirler ve eklemeler Ayasofya’nın günümüze kadar ayakta
kalmasını sağlamakla beraber, yapıya Türk-İslam niteliği de kazandırmıştır. Ayasofya’da
en kapsamlı onarım çalışmaları 16. yüzyılda Mimar Sinan tarafından yapılmış, bu dönemde
yapıya destek duvarları ve minareler eklenmiştir. Sultan Abdülmecid Dönemi’nde (18391861) ise İsviçreli Fossati kardeşler 1847-1849 yılları arasında çeşitli onarım çalışmaları
yapmışlardır.
Hristiyan ve İslam öğelerinin bir arada görüldüğü Ayasofya, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün
emri ve Bakanlar Kurulu kararıyla müzeye çevrilerek 1 Şubat 1935 tarihinde ziyarete
açılmıştır.
An Integrated Approach to Translations of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Hagia Sophia Museum
67
End Note 2: Introductory Texts of Hagia Sophia Museum in English
The present Ayasofya is the third building of the same name that was constructed in the
same place.
The First Great Church serving as the cathedral was constructed by Emperor Constantius
(337-361) in 360; it had a basilica plan and was covered with a wooden roof. During a riot
that occurred during the reign of the Emperor Arcadios(365-408) in 404, it was set on fire.
After reconstruction, it was rededicated by the Emperor Theodosios II (408-450) in 415,
and had a similar basilica plan. It survived until the more serious Nike riot in 532, as the
greatest church in the city. After the Nike revolt against the Emperor Justinian (527-565)
it was set alight and shortly afterwards razed to the ground to make way for a new church.
The Emperor Justinian built the new Hagia Sophia, meaning “Holy Wisdom” in the same
place, as the world’s largest cathedral. The construction began in 532 and was completed
in 537, a period of only five years. It was dedicated with a big ceremony on December
27th 537 A.D. The church was planned by the architects Isidore of Miletus (today Balat)
and Anthemios of Tralles (today Aydın): a central large dome supported by two halfdornes on the eastern and western sides, different from the formers basilica type.
With the Conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II in 1453, Hagia Sophia,
as the largest religious structure of the city, was converted into a mosque. Ayasofya has
been repaired many times during the Ottoman period. It was strengthened with additional
structural support walls. These vital repairs and addtions contributed both to making it
survive until present and bringing an Turkish-Islamic character to the building.
In the 16th century, extensive repair Works were made by the architext Sinan. During
this period, exterior structural support walls and minarets were added. All these additions
ensured that Ayasofya became the a large complex of Ottoman times. In the reign of
the Sultan Abdülmecid (1839-1861), the Swiss Fossati Brothers made various kinds of
repairs, between the years of 1847 and 1849.
Ayasofya, which reflects a combination of Christian and Islamic elements, was transformed
into a museum, by a decision of the cabinet and the order of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
It was opened to the public on February 1, 1935.
View publication stats