cultural borrowing in translation

5/23/2018 Cultural Borrowing in Translation

1/27

CULTURAL BORROWING IN TRANSLATION

Culture and intercultural competence and awareness thatrise out of experience of culture, are far more complex

phenomena than it may seem to the translator. The morea translator is aware of complexities of differencesbetween cultures, the better a translator s/he will be. Itis probably right to say that there has never been a timewhen the community of translators was unaware ofcultural differences and their significance for translation.Translation theorists have been cognizant of theproblems attendant upon cultural knowledge and cultural

differences at least since ancient Rome. Culturalknowledge and cultural differences have been a majorfocus of translator training and translation theory for aslong as either has been in existence. The main concernhas traditionally been with words and phrases that are soheavily and exclusively grounded in one culture that theyare almost impossible to translate into the terms verbalor otherwise of another. Long debate have been heldover when to paraphrase, when to use the nearest localequivalent, when to coin a new word by translatingliterally, and when to transcribe. All theseuntranslatable cultural-bound words and phrasescontinued to fascinate translators and translationtheorists.

The first theory developed in this field was introduced byMounin in 1963 who underlined the importance of thesignification of a lexical item claiming that only if thisnotion is considered will the translated item fulfill itsfunction correctly. The problem with this theory is that allthe cultural elements do not involve just the items, what


2/27

a translator should do in the case of cultural implicationswhich are implied in the background knowledge of SLreaders?

The notion of culture is essential to considering theimplications for translation and, despite the differences inopinion as to whether language is part of culture or not,the two notions of culture and language appear to beinseparable. In 1964, Nida discussed the problems ofcorrespondence in translation, conferred equalimportance to both linguistic and cultural differencesbetween the SL and the TL and concluded that

differences between cultures may cause more severecomplications for the translator than do differences inlanguage structure. It is further explained that parallelsin culture often provide a common understanding despitesignificant formal shifts in the translation. According tohim cultural implications for translation are thus ofsignificant importance as well as lexical concerns.

Nida's definitions of formal and dynamic equivalence in1964 considers cultural implications for translation.According to him, a "gloss translation" mostly typifiesformal equivalence where form and content arereproduced as faithfully as possible and the TL reader isable to "understand as much as he can of the customs,manner of thought, and means of expression" of the SLcontext. Contrasting with this idea, dynamic equivalence"tries to relate the receptor to modes of behaviorrelevant within the context of his own culture" withoutinsisting that he "understand the cultural patterns of thesource-language context". According to him problemsmay vary in scope depending on the cultural and


3/27

linguistic gap between the two (or more) languagesconcerned.

It can be said that the first concept in cultural translation

studies was cultural turnthat in 1978 was presaged bythe work on Polysystems and translation norms by Even-Zohar and in 1980 by Toury. They dismiss the linguistickinds of theories of translation and refer to them ashaving moved from word to text as a unit but notbeyond. They themselves go beyond language and focuson the interaction between translation and culture, on theway culture impacts and constraints translation and on

the larger issues of context, history and convention.Therefore, the move from translation as a text totranslation as culture and politics is what they call it aCultural Turn in translation studies and became theground for a metaphor adopted by Bassnett and Lefeverein 1990. In fact Cultural Turn is the metaphor adopted byCultural Studies oriented translation theories to refer tothe analysis of translation in its cultural, political, andideological context.

Since 1990, the turn has extended to incorporate a wholerange of approaches from cultural studies and is a trueindicator of the interdisciplinary nature of contemporarytranslation studies. As the result of this so called CulturalTurn, cultural studies has taken an increasingly keeninterest in translation. One consequence of this has beenbringing together scholars from different disciplines. It ishere important to mention that these cultural theoristshave kept their own ideology and agendas that drivetheir own criticism. These cultural approaches havewidened the horizons of translation studies with new


4/27

insights but at the same there has been a strong elementof conflict among them. It is good to mention that theexistence of such differences of perspectives is inevitable.

In the mid 1980s Vermeer introduced skopostheorywhich is a Greek word for aim or purpose. It isentered into translation theory in as a technical term forthe purpose of translation and of action oftranslating. Skopos theoryfocuses above all on thepurpose of translation, which determines the translationmethod and strategies that are to be employed in orderto produce a functionally adequate result. The result is

TT, which Vermeer calls translatum. Therefore, knowingwhy SL is to be translated and what function of TT will beare crucial for the translator.

In 1984, Reiss and Vermeer in their book with the title ofGroundwork for a General Theory of Translationconcentrated on the basic underlying rules of this theorywhich involve: 1- A translatum(or TT) is determined by

its skopos, 2- A TT is an offer of information in a targetculture and TL considering an offer of information in asource culture and SL. This relates the ST and TT to theirfunction in their respective linguistic and cultural context.The translator is once again the key player in the processof intercultural communication and production ofthe translatumbecause of the purpose of the translation.

In 1988 Newmark defined culture as "the way of life andits manifestations that are peculiar to a community thatuses a particular language as its means of expression",thus acknowledging that each language group has itsown culturally specific features. He also introducedCultural word which the readership is unlikely to


5/27

understand and the translation strategies for this kind ofconcept depend on the particular text-type, requirementsof the readership and client and importance of thecultural word in the text.

Peter Newmark also categorized the cultural words asfollows:

1) Ecology: flora, fauna, hills, winds, plains2) Material Culture: food, clothes, houses and towns,transport3) Social Culture: work and leisure

4) Organizations Customs, Activities, Procedures,

Concepts:

Political and administrative Religious artistic

5) Gestures and Habits

He introduced contextual factors for translation processwhich include:

1- Purpose of text2- Motivation and cultural, technical and linguistic level ofreadership3- Importance of referent in SL text

4- Setting (does recognized translation exist?)5- Recency of word/referent6- Future or refrent.

He further clearly stated that operationally he does notregard language as a component or feature of culture in


6/27

direct opposition to the view taken by Vermeer whostated that "language is part of a culture" (1989:222).According to Newmark, Vermeer's stance would imply theimpossibility to translate whereas for the latter,translating the source language (SL) into a suitable formof TL is part of the translator's role in transculturalcommunication.

Language and culture may thus be seen as being closelyrelated and both aspects must be considered fortranslation. When considering the translation of culturalwords and notions, Newmark proposed two opposing

methods: transference and componential analysis.According to him transference gives "local colour,"keeping cultural names and concepts. Although placingthe emphasis on culture, meaningful to initiated readers,he claimed this method may cause problems for thegeneral readership and limit the comprehension of certainaspects. The importance of the translation process incommunication led Newmark to propose componentialanalysis which he described as being "the most accuratetranslation procedure, which excludes the culture andhighlights the message".

Newmark also stated the relevance of componentialanalysis in translation as a flexible but orderly method ofbridging the numerous lexical gaps, both linguistic andcultural, between one language and another:

Some strategies introduced by Newmark for dealing with cultural gap:


7/27

1) Naturalization:A strategy when a SL word is transferred into TL text inits original form.

2) Couplet or triplet and quadruplet:Is another technique the translator adopts at the time oftransferring, naturalizing or calques to avoid anymisunderstanding: according to him it is a number ofstrategies combine together to handle one problem.

3) Neutralization:Neutralization is a kind of paraphrase at the level of

word. If it is at higher level it would be a paraphrase.When the SL item is generalized (neutralized) it isparaphrased with some culture free words.

4) Descriptive and functional equivalent:In explanation of source language cultural item there istwo elements: one is descriptive and another one wouldbe functional. Descriptive equivalent talks about size,

color and composition. The functional equivalent talksabout the purpose of the SL cultural-specific word.

5) Explanation as footnote:The translator may wish to give extra information to theTL reader. He would explain this extra information in afootnote. It may come at the bottom of the page, at theend of chapter or at the end of the book.

6) Cultural equivalent:The SL cultural word is translated by TL cultural word

7) Compensation:A technique which is used when confronting a loss of


8/27

meaning, sound effect, pragmatic effect or metaphor inone part of a text. The word or concept is compensatedin other part of the text.

In 1992, Lawrence Venuti mentioned the effective powerscontrolling translation. He believed that in addition togovernments and other politically motivated institutionswhich may decide to censor or promote certain works,there are groups and social institutions which wouldinclude variousplayersin the publication as a whole.These are the publishers and editors who choose theworks and commission the translations, pay the

translators and often dictate the translation method.They also include the literary agents, marketing and salesteams and reviewers. Each of theses players has aparticular position and role within the dominant culturaland political agenda of their time and place.Power playisan important theme for cultural commentators andtranslation scholars. In both theory and practice oftranslation, power resides in the deployment of languageas an ideological weapon for excluding or including areader, a value system, a set of beliefs, or even an entireculture.

In 1992, Mona Baker stated that S.L word may express aconcept which is totally unknown in the target culture. Itcan be abstract or concrete. It maybe a religious belief, asocial custom or even a type of food. In her book,In Other Words, she argued about the common non-equivalents to which a translator come across whiletranslating from SL into TL, while both languages havetheir distinguished specific culture. She put them in thefollowing order:


9/27

a) Culture specific conceptsb) The SL concept which is not lexicalized in TLc) The SL word which is semantically complexd) The source and target languages make differentdistinction in meaninge) The TL lacks a super ordinatef) The TL lacks a specific term (hyponym)g) Differences in physical or interpersonal perspectiveh) Differences in expressive meaningi) Differences in formj) Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific

formsk) The use of loan words in the source text

Mona Baker also believed that it is necessary fortranslator to have knowledge about semantics and lexicalsets. Because in this case:S/he would appreciate the value of the word in a givensystem knowledge and the difference of structures in SLand TL. This allows him to assess the value of a givenitem in a lexical set.S/he can develop strategies for dealing with non-equivalence semantic field. These techniques arearranged hierarchically from general (superordinate) tospecific (hyponym).

In 1992, Coulthard highlightd the importance of definingthe ideal reader for whom the author attributesknowledge of certain facts, memory of certainexperiences ... plus certain opinions, preferences andprejudices and a certain level of linguistic competence.When considering such aspects, the extent to which theauthor may be influenced by such notions which depend


10/27

on his own sense of belonging to a specific socio-culturalgroup should not be forgotten.

Coulthard stated that once the ideal ST readership has

been determined, considerations must be madeconcerning the TT. He said that the translator's first andmajor difficulty is the construction of a new ideal readerwho, even if he has the same academic, professional andintellectual level as the original reader, will havesignificantly different textual expectations and culturalknowledge.

In the case of the extract translated here, it is debatablewhether the ideal TT reader has "significantly differenttextual expectations," however his cultural knowledge willalmost certainly vary considerably.

Applied to the criteria used to determine the ideal STreader it may be noted that few conditions aresuccessfully met by the potential ideal TT reader. Indeed,

the historical and cultural facts are unlikely to be knownin detail along with the specific cultural situationsdescribed. Furthermore, despite considering the level oflinguistic competence to be roughly equal for the ST andTT reader, certain differences may possibly be noted inresponse to the use of culturally specific lexis which mustbe considered when translating.Although certain opinions, preferences and prejudices

may be instinctively transposed by the TT reader whomay liken them to his own experience, it must beremembered that these do not match the social situationexperience of the ST reader. Therefore, Coulthard mainlystated that the core social and cultural aspects remain


11/27

problematic when considering the cultural implications fortranslation.

Postcolonialism

In 1993 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak was the one whointroduced postcolonialism. Post-colonialism is one of themost thriving points of contact between Cultural Studiesand Translation Studies. It can be defined as a broadcultural approach to the study of power relations betweendifferent groups, cultures or peoples in which language,literature and translation may play a role. Spivaks work

is indicative of how cultural studies and especially post-colonialism has over the past decade focused on issues oftranslation, the translational and colonization. The linkingof colonization and translation is accompanied by theargument that translation has played an active role in thecolonization process and in disseminating an ideologicallymotivated image of colonized people. The metaphor hasbeen used of the colony as an imitative and inferior

translational copy whose suppressed identity has beenoverwritten by the colonizer.

The postcolonial concepts may have conveyed a view oftranslation as just a damaging instrument of thecolonizers who imposed their language and usedtranslation to construct a distorted image of thesuppressed people which served to reinforce the

hierarchal structure of the colony. However, some criticsof post-colonialism, like Robinson, believe that the viewof the translation as purely harmful and pernicious tool ofthe empire is inaccurate.


12/27

Like the other cultural theorists, Venuti in 1995 insistedthat the scope of translation studies needs to bebroadened to take the account of the value-driven natureof sociocultural framework. He used the term invisibilityto describe the translator situation and activity in Anglo-American culture. He said that this invisibility is producedby:

1- The way the translators themselves tend to translatefluently into English, to produce an idiomatic andreadable TT, thus creating illusion of transparency.

2- The way the translated texts are typically read in thetarget culture:

A translated text, whether prose or poetry or non-fiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers,reviewers and readers when it reads fluently, when theabsence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it

seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects

the foreign writers personality or intention or theessential meaning the foreign text_ the appearance, inother words, that the translation is not in fact atranslation, but the original.

(Venuti, 1995)

Venuti discussed invisibility hand in hand with two typesof translating strategies:domesticationand foreignization.He considered domestication as dominating Anglo-American (TL) translation culture. Just as thepostcolonialists were alert to the cultural effects of thedifferential in power relation between colony and ex-colony, so Venuti bemoaned the phenomenon of


13/27

domestication since it involves reduction of the foreigntext to the target language cultural values. This entailstranslating in a transparent, fluent, invisible style in orderto minimize the foreignness of the TT. Venuti believedthat a translator should leave the reader in peace, asmuch as possible, and he should move the author towardhim.

Foregnization, on the other hand, entails choosing aforeign text and developing a translation method alonglines which excluded by dominant cultural values intarget language. Ventuti considers the foreignizing

method to be an ethno deviant pressure on targetlanguage cultural values to register the linguistic andcultural difference of the foreign text, sending the readerabroad. According to him it is highly desirable in an effortto restrain the ethnocentric violence translation. Theforeignizing method of translating, a strategy Venuti alsotermed resistancy , is a non-fluent or estrangingtranslation style designed to make visible the persistenceof translator by highlighting the foreign identity of ST andprotecting it from the ideological dominance of the targetculture.

In his later book The Scandals of Translation Venutiinsisted on foreignizing or, as he also called it,minoritizing translatin, to cultivate a varied andheterogeneous discourse. As far as language isconcerned, the minoritizing or foriegnizing method ofVenutis translation comes through in the deliberateinclusion of foreignizing elements in a bid to make thetranslator visible and to make the reader realize that heis reading a translation of the work from a foreign


14/27

culture. Foreignization is close adherent to the STstructure and syntax.

Venuti also said that the terms may change meaning

across time and location.

In 1996, Simon mentioned that cultural studies brings totranslation an understanding of the complexitiesof gender and cultureand it allows us to situate linguistictransfer. She considered a language of sexism intranslation studies, with its image of dominance, fidelity,faithfulness and betrayal. She mentioned the

seventeenth century image of les belles infidels(unfaithful beauties), translations into French that wereartistically beautiful but unfaithful. She went further andinvestigated George Steiners male-oriented image oftranslation as penetration.

The feminist theorists, more or less, see a parallelbetween the status of translation which is often

considered to be derivative and inferior to the originalwriting and that of women so often repressed in societyand literature. This is the core feminist translation thattheory seeks to identify and critique the tangle of theconcepts which relegate both women and translation tothe bottom of the social and literary ladder. Simon takesthis further in the concept of the committed translationproject. Translation project here can be defined as such:

An approach to literary translation in which feministtranslators openly advocate and implement strategies(linguistic or otherwise) to foreground the feminist in thetranslated text. It may seem worthy to mention that theopposite of translation project occurs when gender-


15/27

marked works are translated in such a way that theirdistinctive characteristics are affected.

With the spread of deconstruction and cultural studies in

the academy, the subject of ideology became animportant area of study. The field of translation studiespresents no exception to this general trend. It shouldalso be mentioned that the concept of ideology is notsomething new and it has been an area of interest from along time ago. The problem of discussing translation andideology is one of definition. There are so manydefinitions of ideology that it is impossible to review them

all. For instance as Hatim and Mason (1997) stated thatideology encompasses the tacit assumptions, beliefs andvalue systems which are shared collectively by socialgroups. They make a distinction between the ideology oftranslating and the translation of ideology. Whereas theformer refers to the basic orientation chosen by thetranslator operating within a social and cultural context.In translation of ideology they examined the extent ofmediation supplied by a translator of sensitive texts. Heremediation is defined as the extent to which translatorsintervene in the transfer process, feeding their ownknowledge and beliefs into processing the text.

In 1999 Hermans stated that Culture refers to all sociallyconditioned aspects of human life. According to himtranslation can and should be recognized as a socialphenomenon, a cultural practice. He said that we bring totranslation both cognitive and normative expectations,which are continually being negotiated, confirmed,adjusted, and modified by practicing translators and byall who deal with translation. These expectations result


16/27

from the communication within the translation system,for instance, between actual translations and statementsabout translation, and between the translation systemand other social systems.

In 2002, regarding cultural translation Hervey andHiggins believed in cultural translation rather than literalone. According to them accepting literal translationmeans that theres no cultural translation operation. Butobviously there are some obstacles bigger than linguisticones. They are cultural obstacles and here a transpositionin culture is needed.

According to Hervey & Higgins cultural transposition hasa scale of degrees which are toward the choice offeatures indigenous to target language and culture ratherthan features which are rooted in source culture. Theresult here is foreign features reduced in target text andis to some extent naturalized. The scale here is from anextreme which is mostly based on source culture

(exoticism) to the other extreme which is mostly basedon target culture (cultural transplantation):

Exoticism< Calque< Cultural Borrowing< CommunicativeTranslation< cultural transplantation

1) ExoticismThe degree of adaptation is very low here. The

translation carries the cultural features and grammar ofSL to TL. It is very close to transference.

2) CalqueCalque includes TL words but in SL structure therefore


17/27

while it is unidiomatic to target reader but it is familiar toa large extent.

3) Cultural Borrowing

It is to transfer the ST expression verbatim into the TT.No adaptation of SL expression into TL forms. After atime they usually become a standard in TL terms.Cultural borrowing is very frequent in history, legal,social, political texts; for example, La langue and Laparole in linguistics.

4) Communicative Translation

Communicative translation is usually adopted for culturespecific cliches such as idioms, proverbs, fixedexpression, etc. In such cases the translator substitutesSL word with an existing concept in target culture. Incultural substitution the propositional meaning is not thesame but it has similar impact on target reader. Theliteral translation here may sound comic. The degree ofusing this strategy some times depends on the license

which is given to the translator by commissioners andalso the purpose of translation.

5) Cultural TransplantationThe whole text is rewritten in target culture. The TL wordis not a literal equivalent but has similar culturalconnotations to some extent. It is another type ofextreme but toward target culture and the whole concept

is transplanted in TL. A normal translation should avoidboth exoticism and cultural transplantation.

In 2004, Nico Wiersema in his essay globalization andtranslation stated that globalizationis linked to Englishbeing a lingua franca; the language is said to be used at


18/27

conferences (interpreting) and seen as the mainlanguage in the new technologies. The use of English as aglobal language is an important trend in worldcommunication. Globalisation is also linked to the field ofTranslation Studies. Furthermore, globalisation is placedin the context of changes in economics, science,technology, and society. Globalization and technology arevery helpful to translators in that translators have moreaccess to online information, such as dictionaries oflesser-known languages. According to him suchcomments can be extended to the readers of

translations. Should the target text be challenging for areader, the internet can help him understand foreignelements in the text. Thus the text can be written in amore foreignising / exoticising manner. He mentioned arelatively new trend wherein culturally bound elements(some, one might say, untranslatable), are nottranslated. He believed that this trend contributes tolearning and understanding foreign cultures. Context

explains culture, and adopting (not necessarily adapting)a selection of words enriches the target text, makes itmore exotic and thus more interesting for those whowant to learn more about the culture in question.Eventually, these new words may find their way intotarget language dictionaries. Translators will then havecontributed to enriching their own languages with loanwords from the source language (esp. English).

He considered this entering loan words into TL as animportant aspect of translation. Translation bringscultures closer. He stated that at this century the processof globalization is moving faster than ever before andthere is no indication that it will stall any time soon. In


19/27

each translation there will be a certain distortion betweencultures. The translator will have to defend the choiceshe/she makes, but there is currently an option forincluding more foreign words in target texts. Therefore, itis now possible to keep SL cultural elements in targettexts. In each translation there will be a certain distortionbetween cultures. The translator will have to defend thechoices he/she makes, but there is currently an optionfor including more foreign words in target texts.

According to him translator has three options for thetranslation of cultural elements:

1- Adopting the foreign word without any explanation.2- Adopting the foreign word with extensive explanations.3- Rewriting the text to make it more comprehensible tothe target-language audience.

According to Nico Wiersema (2004), Cultures are gettingcloser and closer and this is something that he believed

translators need to take into account. In the end it alldepends on what the translator, or more often, thepublisher wants to achieve with a certain translation. Inhis opinion by entering SL cultural elements:

a- The text will be read more fluently (no stops)b- The text remains more exotic, more foreignc- The translator is closer to the source culture

d- The reader of the target texts gets a more genuineimage of the source culture.

In 2004, ke Ping regarding translation and culture paidattention to misreading and presupposition. He


20/27

mentioned that of the many factors that may lead tomisreadings in translation is cultural presuppositions.

Cultural presuppositions merit special attention from

translators because they can substantially andsystematically affect their interpretation of facts andevents in the source text without their even knowing it.He pinpointed the relationship between culturalpresuppositions and translational misreadings. Accordingto him misreadings in translation are often caused by atranslators presuppositions about the reality of thesource language community. These presuppositions are

usually culturally-derived and deserve the specialattention of the translator. He showed how culturalpresuppositions work to produce misreadings intranslation.

According to ke Ping Cultural presupposition, refers tounderlying assumptions, beliefs, and ideas that areculturally rooted, widespread.

According to him anthropologists agree on the following features of

culture:

(1) Culture is socially acquired instead of biologicallytransmitted;(2) Culture is shared among the members of acommunity rather than being unique to an individual;

(3) Culture is symbolic. Symbolizing means assigning toentities and events meanings which are external to themand which cannot be grasped alone. Language is themost typical symbolic system within culture;(4) Culture is integrated. Each aspect of culture is tied inwith all other aspects.


21/27

According to ke Ping culture is normally regarded as comprising, with

some slight variations, the following four sub-systems:

(1) Techno-economic System:

ecology (flora, fauna, climate, etc.); means ofproduction, exchange, and distribution of goods; crafts,technology, and science; artifacts.

(2) Social System:social classes and groups; kinship system (typology, sexand marriage, procreation and paternity, size of family,etc.); politics and law; education; sports and

entertainment; customs; general history.

(3) Ideational System:cosmology; religion; magic and witchcraft; folklore;artistic creations as images; values (moral, aesthetic,etc.); cognitive focus and thinking patterns; ideology.

(4) Linguistic System:

phonology and graphemics; grammar (morphology andsyntax); semantics and pragmatics.

Each ingredient in these four sub-systems can lead topresuppositions that are fundamentally different fromthose bred by other cultures, and hence might result inmisreading when translation or other forms ofcommunication are conducted across two cultures. kePing introduced some of these culture-boundpresuppositions as observed in mistranslated texts whichinclude:

a- Cultural presupposition related to techno-economicsystem.b- Cultural presupposition related to social systems.


22/27

c- Cultural presupposition related to ideational system.d- Cultural presupposition related to linguistic systems.

CONCLUSION

The first theory regarding cultural translation introducedby Mounin in 1963 who underlined the importance of thesignification of a lexical item claiming that the besttranslation is the one which just the cultural items arecorrectly translated that only if this notion is consideredwill the translated item fulfill its function correctly. Nidain 1964 believed that differences between cultures may

cause more severe complications for the translator thando differences in language structure. Regardingtranslation of cultural elements he paid more attention todynamic equivalence which tries to relate the receptor tomodes of behavior relevant within the context of his ownculture without insisting that he understand the culturalpatterns of the source-language context. According tohim this method is more tangible for TL reader.

The first concept in cultural translation studieswascultural turnthat in 1978 was presaged by the workon Polysystems and translation norms by Even-Zohar andin 1980 by Toury. The move from translation as a text totranslation as culture and politics is what they call it aCultural Turn in translation studies.

In the mid 1980s Vermeer introduced skopos theorywhich focuses above all on the purpose of translation,and determined the translation method and strategiesthat are to be employed in order to produce afunctionally adequate result. Accordingly culturalelements will be translated according to the purpose of


23/27

the translation, keeping the local color of SL depends onthe purpose of translation.

Newmark in 1988 categorized cultural words into Ecology

(flora, fauna, hills, winds, plains); material Culture( food,clothes, houses and towns, transport); social Culture(work and leisure); organizations Customs, Activities,Procedures, Concepts (Political and administrative,religious ,artistic); gestures and habits. He proposed twoopposing methods: a- transference which gives "localcolor," keeping cultural names and concepts, b-componential analysis which excludes the culture and

highlights the message.

In 1992, Lawrence Venuti mentioned the effective powerscontrolling translation like governments and otherpolitically motivated institutions that may decide tocensor or promote certain works, value system, a set ofbeliefs, or even an entire culture. He said that they effectcultural translation by their power.

In 1992, Mona Baker believed that it is necessary fortranslator to have knowledge about semantics and lexicalsets and the value of the words in source language. Shementioned that a translator can develop strategies fordealing with non-equivalence semantic field. Thesestrategies are arranged hierarchically from general(superordinate) to specific (hyponym).

In 1992, Coulthard highlighted the importance of definingthe ideal reader for whom the author attributesknowledge of certain facts, memory of certainexperiences ... plus certain opinions, preferences andprejudices and a certain level of linguistic competence.


24/27

Then the translator should identify TL reader for whomhe is translating and match the cultural differencesbetween two languages.

Spivaks work in 1993 is indicative of how cultural studiesand especially post-colonialism has over the past decadefocused on issues of translation. The ideology and beliefsof colonizers affected the way the texts of colonizedcountries should be translated.

Venuti discussed invisibility hand in hand with two typesof translating strategies: domestication as dominating TL

culture and foreignization which is to make the translatorvisible and to make the reader realize that he is reading atranslation of the work from a foreign culture and it isclose to SL structure and syntax.

In 1996, Simon mentioned that cultural studies brings totranslation an understanding of the complexitiesof gender and cultureand it allows us to situate linguistic

transfer. She sees a language of sexism in translationstudies, with its image of dominance, fidelity, faithfulnessand betrayal and how the translations are affected by thewomens ideologies. According to him feminist translatorsopenly advocate and implement strategies (linguistic orotherwise) to foreground the feminist in the translatedtext.

Hatim and Mason (1997) stated that ideologyencompasses the tacit assumptions, beliefs and valuesystems which are shared collectively by social groups.They make a distinction between the ideology oftranslating and the translation of ideology. Whereas, theformer refers to the basic orientation chosen by the


25/27

translator operating within a social and cultural context.In the translation of ideology they examined the extent ofmediation supplied by a translator of sensitive texts.

According to Hermans in 1999 translation can and shouldbe recognized as a social phenomenon, a culturalpractice. He said that we bring to translation bothcognitive and normative expectations, which arecontinually being negotiated, confirmed, adjusted, andmodified by practicing translators and by all who dealwith translation,In 2002, regarding cultural translation Hervey mentioned

that for dealing with the cultural gaps culturaltransposition is needed. According to him culturaltransposition has a scale of degrees which are toward thechoice of features indigenous to target language andculture rather than features which are rooted in sourceculture.

In 2004, Nico Wiersema mentined the concept of

globalization and translation. He stated that TT can bewritten in a more foreignizing / eroticizing mannerwherein culturally bound elements (some, one might say,untranslatable), are not translated. He believed that thistrend contributes to learning and understanding foreigncultures.

References:

- Alvarez, Roman and M.C.A. Vidal (1996). Translation,Power, Subversion.Aixel, J.F. Culture Specific Items inTranslation


26/27

- Baker, Mona (1992). In Other Words. London:Routledge.

- Baker, Mona (2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of

Translation Studies. London: Routledge.

- Baker, Mona (2005). Translation and Conflict. Londonand New York: Routledge.

- H. Minabad, Hassan (2004). Culture in Translation andTranslation of Culture Specific Items.TranslationStudies. 5,2. : 31-46

- Hatim, Basil and J. Munday (2006). Translation anAdvance Resource Book. London and New York:Routledge.

- Hung, Eva (2005). Translation and Culturalchange.Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

- Larson, Mildred (1984). Meaning Based Translation: A

Guide to Cross Language Equivalence.Lanham:University Press of America.

- Lefevere, Andr (1992). Translation HistoryCulture. London: Routledge.

- Munday, Jeremy (2001). Introducing TranslationStudies.Tehran: Yalda Ghalam.

- Newmark, Peter (1981).Approaches to Translation.Oxford: Pregamon Press.

- Newmark, Peter (1988).A Text Book of Translation.Tehran: Adab.


27/27

cultural borrowing in translation

Documents

cultural knowledge

translation theory

cultural differencesbetween

translation theorists

gloss translation

what5232018 cultural

tohim cultural implications

allthe cultural elements