See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329213656

Translating culture

Article · November 2018

DOI: 10.20544/HORIZONS.A.22.1.18.P14

CITATIONS READS
3 8,311

2 authors:

Silvana Neshkovska Sonja Kitanovska-Kimovska

University "St. Kliment Ohridski" - Bitola Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje
46 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

vigna.mk and asp.vigna.mk - Macedonian Morphological and Aspect-based Online Conjugators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Silvana Neshkovska on 22 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DOI 10.20544/HORIZONS.A.22.1.18.P14
UDK 81'255.4:316.7

TRANSLATING CULTURE1

Silvana Neshkovska
ul. Vasko Karangjelevski, bb. 7000 Bitola, Faculty of Education, St. Kliment
Ohridski University, silvananeshkovska@uklo.edu.mk
Sonja Kitanovska–Kimovska
blvd. Goce Delcev 9A 1000 Skopje, “Blaze Koneski” Faculty of Philology, Ss.
Cyril and Methodius University, sonjakitanovska@yahoo.com

Abstract
Culture is inextricably bound to translation. Transferring culture from a
source text (ST) to a target text (TT) is a fundamental aspect of the phenomenon
of translation. Translators are entrusted with the task of bridging cultural
differences and enabling TT receptors to understand the original message in its
entirety, just like its ST receptors. Taking into consideration the wide array of
culture-specific terms present in each language, it only follows logically that,
sometimes, these terms can be notoriously difficult to translate. However, many
translation theorists purport that difficult though it is to handle culture-specific
terms in translation, it is not entirely impossible. In that respect, they classify the
culture-specific terms in various domains and propose numerous translation
strategies for rendering culture-specific terms (e.g. borrowing, adaptation,
explanation, generalization, reduction, etc.), their general tendency being either
towards ‘domesticating’ or ‘foreignising’ the translated text as a whole.

Key terms: translation, culture-specific terms, strategies

1
review scientific paper

165
 INTRODUCTION

Culture goes hand in hand with language and is a fundamental aspect of

translation. The task of translators is not merely to translate a text; they need to
strive to preserve the same impact and to evoke the same feelings and reactions
on the part of the target text receptors, just as the original text has done in the
case of the source text readership. In doing that, translators invariably need to
handle the transference of culture, i.e. the culture aspects of the original text into
the translated text with special deliberation and care (Nida, 1964.).
In addition to the general consensus regarding the significance of translating
culture, two general approaches seem to recur repeatedly in translation literature
– the ‘foreignising’ and ‘domesticating’ approach. According to the former, the
receptors might find themselves in a position not to understand the translated
text completely because of the foreign elements that have been transferred from
the source text and preserved in it. In that case, they are at least exposed to the
foreign elements, and, thus, are in a position to expand their viewpoints with
new, insightful information about the foreign culture. Conversely, the latter
approach gives prominence to the target language and culture. Consequently, the
receptors are led to relate to concepts and modes of behavior familiar to them
and relevant to their own culture. The advantage of this approach is that the
receptors will most probably have a much better understanding of the text as a
whole, as the foreign elements will be replaced by domestic ones; however, the
likelihood for them to arrive at new revelations related to the foreign culture is
minimal (Venuti, 1995).
In discussing culture – translation interface, the focus is mainly placed on
translating words, phrases and expressions which originate in a particular culture
and are non-existent in another culture. That is exactly why, traditionally, culture
specific terms (CST) are regarded as a potential source of untranslatability.
Translation theorists who have dealt with this issue, in general, contend that
CST are manageable, i.e. translatable; still they point out that CST call for
special treatment and that translators need to be well-equipped with ample
knowledge of both source and target language/culture (SL/C and TL/C) to be
able to handle the transference effectively.
Assuming this highly pertinent role of mediators between SL/C and TL/C,
translators are obliged to take into account a host of factors, among which the
principal ones are decidedly the profile of the target text receptors as well as the

166
directions, expectations and goals of those who have commissioned the
translation in the first place.

LITERATURE OVERVIEW

The following sections address several questions closely related to the issue
at hand: “What is culture?”; “What items qualify for CST?”, and “What
translation strategies can be applied in overcoming translation problems related
to CST?”

What is culture?

There are numerous definitions of the term culture. Larson (1984), for
instance, defines culture as “a complex set of beliefs, attitudes, values, and rules
which a group of people share”. In his definition of culture Newmark (1988)
states that culture is “the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a
community that uses a particular language as its means of expression”. Duranti
(1997) (in Durdureanu, 2011) views culture as “something learned, transmitted,
passed down from one generation to the next, through human actions, often in
the form of face-to-face interactions, and, of course, through linguistic
communication”.
Komissarov (1991) contends that “people who belong to the same linguistic
community are members of a certain type of culture, and, consequently, they
share many traditions, habits, ways of doing and saying things. In fact, they have
much common knowledge about their country, its geography, history, climate,
its political, economic, social and cultural institutions, accepted morals, taboos
and many other things, and all of that enables them to produce and understand
messages, i.e. to establish meaningful communication with other people”. In this
respect, he further explicates that in interlingual communication between
members of two different cultures this common knowledge may be seriously
limited, which, in turn, presents a serious obstacle to understanding.
On the basis of all of the abovementioned definitions of culture it can be
inferred that translation between different cultures and languages, on the one
hand, is literally unavoidable, and, on the other hand, must be approached very
tentatively due to its delicate nature. Namely, translators need to understand the
beliefs, attitudes, values and rules of the source language audience in order to

167
adequately translate them for people who have a different set of beliefs,
attitudes, values and rules, i.e. belong to a distinct culture community.

What items qualify for culture-specific terms?

Transposing culture from the ST to the TT, manifestly implies replacing

words, phrases and expressions specific to a given language and culture with
suitable words, expressions and phrases from another language and culture.
Languages encompass plenty of such linguistic items and this issue has been
frequently tackled by many translation theorists and practitioners, which
accounts for the abundance of expressions used to refer to these terms (e.g.
cultural words (Newmark, 1988), culture-specific concepts (Baker, 1992), realia
(Robinson, 1997), culture-bound phenomena and terms or culture-specific items
(Schäffner, Wiesemann, 2001), culturem (Lungu Badea, 2004), etc.) (in
Shiryaeva & Lungu Badea, 2014).
Aixela (1996) refers to them as culture specific terms (CST) and defines
them as “elements of the text that are connected to certain concepts in the
foreign culture (e.g. history, art, literature) which might be unknown to the
readers of the TT”. In an attempt to delineate CST, Baker (1992) underlines the
following three general features of CST: 1) the concept that a CST represents is
totally unknown in the target culture; 2) the expression does not have any true
equivalent in the target language; 3) the concept expresses a particular fact that
is closely linked with a specific culture, its habits, language or environment.
Another salient aspect of CST is that literature abounds in attempts at
producing neat typologies of the different types of CST. Thus, Vinay and
Darbelnet (1958) suggest that some CST appear in areas of culture such as: time
division, jobs, positions and professions, food, drink, baking, particular aspects
of social life, etc. Catford (1964) discusses CST that refer to measurements,
coins, institutions, clothing, etc. He also confirms that all these terms
differentiate one community from another and are difficult to translate. Santoyo
(2010) adds CST pertaining to certain sports, dances, musical and artistic terms
(in Durdureanue, 2011).
Newmark (1988) distinguishes five domains for classifying culture words: 1)
ecology (flora, fauna, winds, plains, hills); 2) material culture (food, clothes,
houses and towns, transport); 3) social culture (work and leisure); 4)
organizations, customs, activities, procedures, concepts (political and
administrative, religious, artistic, etc.), and 5) gesture and habits. Fernández

168
Guerra (2012) organizes CST in four major domains:1) geographic and
ethnographic terms; 2) words or expressions referring to folklore, traditions and
mythology; 3) names of everyday objects, actions and events (such as food and
drinks, clothes, housing, tools, public transport, dances and games, units of
measurement, money, etc.); 4) social and historical terms denoting territorial
administrative units or divisions; departments, professions, titles, ranks,
greetings and treatments; institutions, patriotic and religious organizations, etc.
Ku’s (in Fernandez Guerra, 2012) classification of CST includes: 1)
environment, including ecology, place names, etc.), 2) cultural heritage
(religious beliefs, historical events, characters, festivities, folklore, housing,
objects, etc.), 3) social culture (conventions, beliefs, habits, social organizations,
etc.) and 4) linguistic culture (fixed expressions, idioms, insults, etc.).
Evidently, there is a wide array of different types of CST which belong to
different domains referring to both objects and concepts related to a particular
culture. Naturally, some of these concepts and objects simply exist and reflect
the reality of one culture, but are non-existent in another one, as what is
important to one might not be important to another culture. Moreover, in some
cases, similarities can be traced in different cultures, but still these concepts and
objects might not be fully equivalent to each other in the end. Hence, translators
bear a great responsibility in handling CST – first, they need to adequately
comprehend, and, then, suitably transfer CST from SL to TL. This requires a
thorough investigation of the history, sociology, economy and ideology not just
of the text they are translating but of the context in which that text has been
produced. That puts translators in a strenuous position to decide whether it is
more convenient and appropriate to remain loyal, i.e. faithful to the original text
(‘foreignisation’), or to give priority to the target recipients and bring the text
closer to their language and culture (‘domestication’).

What translation strategies can be applied in overcoming translation

problems related to CST?

Given the complex nature of the issue investigated in this study – the
translation of CST – different translation theorists (Newmark, 1988; Baker,
1992; Pedersen, 2011; Fernadez Guerra, 2012; etc.) have proposed a number of
translation procedures or strategies for rendering CST. Although most of these
strategies refer, more or less, to the same phenomenon, still no consensus has
been reached among researchers regarding the terminology that should be used

169
to refer to them. In other words, very frequently, different terms are used by
different researchers for what in essence is one and the same strategy.
In this paper decided to focus on Fernandez Guerra’s (2012) classification of
translation strategies used for dealing with CST in the translation process. This
classification, to the best of our knowledge, is one of the most recent and also
one of the most comprehensive classifications as it offers a very neat summary
of the translation strategies put forward by various researchers. It comprises the
following 15 translation strategies:
1. Adaptation is replacing a SL cultural element by another term from the
TC. The basic goal of the translator when trying to ‘adapt’ the
translation is to have a similar effect on the TL readers.
2. Borrowing is taking a word or expression straight from another
language, without translation. The procedure is normally used when a
term does not exist in the TC, or when the translator tries to get some
stylistic or exotic effect. It can be “pure”, if there is no change of any
kind in the foreign term, or “naturalized”, if the word has some change
in the spelling, and perhaps some morphological or phonetic adaptation.
3. Calque could be described as a literal translation (either lexical or
structural) of a foreign word or phrase. It could actually be considered a
special type of loan or borrowing, since the translator borrows the SL
expression or structure, and then transfers it in a literal translation. The
difference between loan/borrowing and calque is that the former imitates
the morphology, signification and phonetics of the foreign word or
phrase, while the latter only imitates the morphological scheme and the
signification of that term, but not its pronunciation.
4. Compensation introduces a SL element of information or stylistic effect
in another place in the TL text, because it cannot be reflected in the
same place as in the SL.
5. Compression/reduction/condensation/omission happens when the
translator synthesizes or suppresses a SL information item in the TL
text, mainly when that information is considered unnecessary because
the cultural term does not perform a relevant function or may even
mislead the reader.
6. Description is when a term or expression is replaced by a description of
its form or function. It could, thus, be regarded as a sort of paraphrase,
or even as an amplification or explanation of a SL term.

170
 7. Equivalence refers to a strategy that describes the same situation by
using completely different stylistic or structural methods for producing
equivalent texts. This basically means that the translator uses a term or
expression recognized as an established equivalent in the TL. It is
similar to adaptation and to modulation in that it expresses the same
situation in a different way.
8. Explicitation/expansion/amplification/diffusion means that we
express in the TL something that is implicit in the context of the SL, or
that we introduce details that are not expressed in the SL, such as more
information, translator’s notes, or explicative paraphrasing.
9. Generalization – the translator uses hypernyms or more general or
neutral terms, normally for stylistic reasons, or to avoid unnecessary
repetitions or ambiguity.
10. Literal translation or word for word where there is direct transfer of a
ST into a grammatically and idiomatically appropriate TL text with
minimal adjustments.
11. Modulation consists of using a phrase that is different in the SL and TL
to convey the same idea. In other words, there is a change in the point of
view, focus, perspective or category of thought in relation to the SL.
12. Particularisation is in opposition to generalization. It refers to the
procedure in which the translator uses in the TL hyponyms or more
precise or concrete terms.
13. Linguistic-paralinguistic substitution is the translation procedure in
which linguistic elements are replaced by paralinguistic elements
(intonation, gestures, etc.) or vice versa.
14. Transposition involves changing a grammatical category or replacing
one part of the speech for another, without changing the meaning of the
message.
15. Variation is a procedure in which the translator changes elements that
affect several aspects of linguistic variation: changes in tone, style,
social dialect, geographical dialect.
Despite the fact that Fernandez Guerra has managed to neatly summarize the
translation strategies, a thorough analysis of her classification shows that a slight
intervention with respect to several of the proposed strategies could further
conveniently simplify not only the classification itself but its application in
actual research as well. Namely, as Fernandez Guerra herself purports there is no
clear-cut boundary between adaptation, equivalence and modulation, these three

171
strategies could be merged and treated as one strategy under the umbrella term
adaptation. Furthermore, Fernandez Guerra herself acknowledges that calques as
a strategy can be considered a special type of loan or borrowing. Hence, we
deem it much more convenient to treat these two as one single strategy –
borrowing.
Fernandez Guerra also rightfully notes the great similarity between
description and explicitation/expansion/amplification/diffusion. Because there is
no clear-cut boundary in the case of these two strategies, we also propose that
they should be presented as one strategy under the heading explicitation.
Finally, as far as compression/reduction/condensation/omission strategy is
concerned, we deem it necessary to split it into two separate strategies,
compression/reduction/condensation and omission. The argument for this
decision is that translators do not treat CST in the same way when they decide to
reduce or compress CST in some way, and when they decide to omit it
altogether.
Hence, the condensed version of Fernandez Guerra’s classification of the
translation strategies comprises the following strategies: adaptation, borrowing,
literal translation, explicitation, generalization, particularization, compensation,
compression, omission, linguistic-paralinguistic substitution, transposition and
variation.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our literature overview regarding the issue of translating culture

has shown that translation theorists have rightfully recognized this issue as
extremely salient and made significant efforts in deciphering it as clearly as
possible. Translators need to pay special heed when they transpose linguistic
material from a source language to a target language as the transference of
linguistic material is closely intertwined with transferring culture as well. They
need to be aware of the different types of culture specific terms as well as the
host of translation strategies they can employ when dealing with these terms.
Nevertheless, their starting point should always be the decision whether they
would opt for the ‘domesticating’ or the ‘foreignising’ approach, which in turn
will dictate the choice of the translation strategies.

172
 REFERENCES

Ana Guerra Fernández, 1.Translating culture: problems, strategies and practical

realities. Journal of literature, culture and literary translation, Art and Subversion
No.1-Year 3 12/2012-LT.1, 2012.
Eugine Nida, 2.Towards a science of translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964
Irina Durdureanu, Translation of Cultural Terms: Possible or Impossible? JoLIE
4 Romania, 2011.
Javier Franco Aixela, 3. Culture-specific items in translation. In R. Alvarez &
M. CarmenAfrica Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion, pp. 52-78,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1996.
Jen Pedersen, 4. Subtitling norms for television. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2011.
John Cunnison Catford, 5. A linguistic theory of translation: an essay in applied
linguistics Oxford University Press, 1965
Jolita Horbacauskienѐ, Ramunѐ Kasperavicienѐ, Saulѐ Petronienѐ, 6. Issues of
culture specific item translation in subtitling. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences,p. 223 – 228, 2016.
Lawrence Venuti, 7. The Translator‘s Invisibility: A History of Translation.
London & New York: Routledge, 1995.
Milred Larson, 8. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language
Equivalence. Lanham and New York: University Press of America, 1984.
Mona Baker, 9. In Other Words. London: Routledge, 1992.
Paul Vinay & Jean Darbelnet, . A Methodology for Translation In L. Venuti
(Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 84–93). London: Routledge,
1958/2000.
Peter Newmark, 10. Textbook of translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988.
Román Alvarez & M. Carmen-África Vidal, 10. Translation, Power, Subversion.
Multilingual Matters Ltd. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide, 1996.
Shekoufeh Daghoughi & Mahmood Hashemian, 11. Analysis of Culture-
Specific Items and Translation Strategies Applied in Translating Jalal Al-
Ahmad’s by the Pen. English Language Teaching; Vol. 9, No. 4; 2016 ISSN
1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750. Published by Canadian Center of Science and
Education, 2016.
Valentina Shiryaeva & Georgiana Lungu Badea, 12. The Transfer of Culture-
Specific Words in a Multidimensional Translation. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 149, 883 – 888, 2014.

173
View publication stats

Vladimir Komissarov, 13. Language and Culture in Translation: Competitors or

Collaborators? TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 4(1), 33–47. doi:
10.7202/037080ar, 1991.

174