{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027389277389277388, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002331002331002331, 'mean_word_length': 5.289377289377289, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE EVALUATION OF ENGLISH AND TURKISH TRANSLATIONS OF NATHALİE SARRAUTE’S NOVEL

In this study, the English and Turkish translations of the autobiographical work "Enfance" (Childhood) written in 1983 by the French writer Nathalie Sarraute, one of the representatives of the New Roman, was evaluated within the framework of the literary translation criticism. The criticism is a holistic evaluation rather than false hunting. The work was dealt with in the context of non-text and in-text elements based on Anton Popovic’s views. Non-text elements consist of many characteristics of the countries where the work was written and translated such as historical, social, political context and lives of the authors and translators. In-text elements iclude the theme of the work, the literary movement to which it belongs (New Roman), and this movement’s reflection to target literatures -Turkish and English Literature-. After the Popoviç-based evaluation, a stylistic review was carried out based on the criticism method developed by Leo Spitzer. In order to make better this assessment, the study includes basic information about translation-literature relationship, literary translation and literary translation criticism. In addition, the efficiencies that literary translator and literary translation critic should have was also partly mentioned. In conclusion, this work, in which Sarraute tells about her childhood years, and Turkish-English non-text and in-text elements were evaluated within the framework of stylistic structuring. In the belief that the social presence of the translator as well as the author should be included in the translation criticism, Anton Popoviç’s and Leo Spitzer’s views was based on.