Çeviri, özellikle de yazınsal metin çevirileri, asıl metin kadar önemli ve değerlidir. Bu nedenle çevirmenin, bir bakıma yazarın kalemi olma sorumluluğunu taşıdığını söyleyebiliriz. Kimi yazarlar vardır ki yazma melekeleri kutsal denebilecek boyuttadır. Bu yazarların yapıtlarının yalnızca kendi dil topluluğuna ait insanlar tarafından okunuyor olması dünya insanlarının geriye kalanları açısından hak-sızlığa uğramış olma hissi yaratabilir. Herbirimizin okumak istedi-ğimiz yazarın dilini, onu kusursuz anlayacak kadar, öğrenmek gibi bir şansımız, ne yazık ki, bulunmamaktadır. O halde, çevirinin ge-rekliliğini hiçbirimiz yadsıyamayız düşüncesindeyiz. Bu noktada, düşünmemiz gereken konu, yazarın yeteneğini çevirmenden bekle-meli miyiz olacaktır. Tamamen farklı bir coğrafyaya, farklı bir kültüre ve farklı bir dil topluluğuna ait olan yazarın yapıtının okuyucusunda bıraktığı etkiyi çevirmenin başarabilmesi mümkün müdür? Daha da önemlisi bunu başarması gerekli midir? Çevirmenin ilkesi ne olmalıdır? Tüm bu sorularımızı cevaplandırmaya çalışırken, bunu “kültür”, “değer”, “eşdeğerlik”, “yeterlik” “bağlam”, “durum”, “düzanlam”, “yananlam” kavramları üzerinden tartışmak makalemizin yöntemini oluşturacaktır.

Translations, especially those of literary texts, are as important and valuable as the original texts. Thereof, we can say that: the translator has, in a sense, the responsibility of being the pen of the author. There are some authors, who have writing faculties in a form that can be called sacred. The works of those authors, being read only by the people of their own language community, can create a feeling of being downtrodden for the rest of the world people. Unfortunately, we all do not have a chance to learn the language of the author, as deeply as to understand him/her impeccably. Therefore, we believe that none of us can deny the necessity of translation. At this point, the subject that we need to think about is, whether we should expect the author's ability from the translator. The primary task of the translator is “to transfer”. His/her concern is first to understand the text, and then to be understandable. A translator can both translate the text from the original language into another language, and translate it from his/her own language into another. In a sense, his/her task is not a primary, but a secondary one. Although the task is a secondary one, his/her work is a few times more difficult than that of the author. This is because he/she has to have many concerns together, while making the transfer. The translator has to have a brilliant comprehension of own native language; inter-regional dialect differences of it; cultural structure of the society; different usages of languages due to inter-personal, cultural and educational disparities; and the sentence structure, syntax and vocabulary set of the language. That is crucial and sine qua non for the translator. Having the responsibility to translate a text from the source language into the target language; the translator has to have as much brilliant comprehension of the other language as his/her native language. However, it is hardly possible to increase the number of those languages. Let alone the culture, quite a long process is required to learn just the world-view and the language of a society. Is it possible for the translator to succeed about leaving the effect of the work of an author, who belongs to a completely different geography, culture and a language community, over the reader? More importantly, is it necessary for him/her to achieve that? What should be principle of the translator? While trying to answer all those questions, discussing the concepts of "culture", "value", "equivalence", "competence", "context", "status", "denotation", and "connotation" will form method of our article. "Meaning" definition of Ferdinand de Saussure, who is recognised as the pioneer of linguistics, is limited to sentence; on the other hand, it substantially paves the way for the ensuing scientist to add "discourse", "context", "status", "form", "substance", etc. to the definition of "meaning". Opposition of the word "old" is "new". However, the value of the word "old" will be different, when the relationship of the word with other words in the system, where it takes place, is considered. If the word "old" in the statements of "I lost my old friend," and "I sold my old car" is evaluated; in one of the statements, the opposition of "old" will undergo a change, while it remains the same as "new" in the other: the word "old" in "my old friend" eludes from the old/new opposition and different meanings of "precious, valuable, intimate" are attributed to it. Humboldt stated that "The universe is perceived by everyone in their own language". We can refer here to perception and interpretation at personal level. Each i