Front Page

Culture-Specific Items in Literary Translations

ranslation as a phenomenon is such an incredibly broad idea that it can be understood in many different ways. Therefore, not surprisingly, many different definitions have been offered, each reflecting a particular underlying theoretical model. The American theorist Lawrence Venuti, for example, defines translation as " a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation" (Venuti 1995: 17). Venuti sees the aim of translation is:

In Venuti's view, the viability of a translation is established by its relationship to the cultural and social conditions under which the translation is produced and read. He believes that a foreign text is the site of many different semantic possibilities that are fixed, only provisionally, in any one translation on the basis of varying cultural assumptions and interpretive choices in specific social situations and during different historical periods.

It is actually believed that, of all the types of translation, literary translation lets one consistently share in the creative process of translation (Landers 2001: 4-5). According to Bush, literary translation is "an original subjective activity at the center of a complex network of social and cultural practices"
    (Bush 1998: 127).

The process of translation differs slightly from translator to translator and is influenced by the particular work translated. Newmark concedes that it usually happens that the literary translator first has to deal with words set on the page by an author "who may be dead physically or metaphorically and now lives in the variegated readings by a host of readers of the source language" (Newmark 1998: 117). Then, the literary translator should overcome the conflict between accuracy and elegance by weighing the linguistic individuality of the SL author against the particular features of normal usage in the TL. Since literary translators translate those works which are selected for translation and which now exist where otherwise there would be silence, they are involved at "a keen point of cultural convergence":

Newmark believes in closely translating the well-written literary language. He writes that literary language must remain aesthetically pleasing in translation and there should be a constant tension between the informative and the aesthetic function of language. The more serious the text, morally and aesthetically, the more accurately and economically it should be translated, reflecting the thought, style, emphasis, and as far as possible, particularly in poetry, the rhythm and sound of original (Newmark 1998: 201). He states:

Undoubtedly, the essence of the type of event that is casually referred to in Translation Studies as literary translation, as Lambert points out, "makes it incumbent on scholars to define the conditions under which this type of event takes place, as well as to investigate the conditions under which it does not occur." Now considering the ambiguous state of translated literature particularly with regard to the concept of 'visibility and invisibility' of literary translation, the act of translation is not an easy task. Lambert then, acknowledges that "a translation may be presented explicitly as a translation, in which case it is visible, or it may be disguised as an original, which explains why the majority of readers remain unaware of the foreign origins of some literary texts" (Lambert 1998: 130). He argues that both pseudotranslations and invisible translations offer interesting indicators of the value position of imported literature in a given culture. He asserts that such translated texts "deserve to be studied systematically as central issues in the development of literatures" (Lambert 1998: 131).

Then, Landers involves himself in translation problems. He asserts that translation problems are not like math problems that have only one or at most a strictly limited number of right answers. As a subfield of literature, translation is subjective in essence. He maintains that "reasonable people may well disagree about which of several proposed alternatives to a particular translation problem best addresses it" (Landers 2001: x). However, in any other branches of translation this problem would not arise, that is, the information would be conveyed irrespective of considerations of style (Landers 2001: 10). Landers remarks that:

Lambert then asserts that since literary translation is generally a goal-oriented activity designed to fulfill a need in the target literary culture, "an analysis of these needs and the strategies employed to address them may help us explain the dynamics of literary relationships and traditions, and hence of literary translation." He also asserts the necessity of taking into account the influence of translated literature on shaping the dynamics of discourse, communication and culture. He argues that the need for serious, descriptive research in this area cannot be overestimated (Lambert 1998:132-3).

Any translation activity and any utterance about translation is part of the data that can be used to elaborate a "profile of a given translation environment and to establish the position that literary translation occupies on the cultural maps of the world" (Lambert 1993 cited in Lambert 1998: 132). In this respect, he concedes that statements of translators and their critics or readers are interesting not so much in themselves but as objects of research. Lambert notes that "most cultures have only a limited tradition of translation criticism and theory but there is generally an obvious systematic in their implicit discourse on translation." He points out the entire network of relationships between translated texts, translators, their critics and readers become more intelligible "when considered as a complex tradition or system" (Lambert 1998: 132). He points that:

Considering literature as being the product of the dominant ideology, it is obvious that sign systems cannot be taken on as understood by everyone, for language is dynamic and apt to change quite rapidly. "Language is dynamic, so is literature and from time to time and ideology to ideology old signs are substituted by new ones" (Abbasi 2005: 33). Indeed, the period and culture of the time have direct influence on the language, and any literary work is, no doubt, the production of its era. It is so significant that Bassnett states "all these elements can be missed if the reading does not take into full account the overall structuring of the work and its relation to the time and place of its production" (Bassnet 1992: 79).

Since the concept of culture is essential to understanding the implications for literary translation and culture-specific items in translation, many translation theorists have dealt with the definition of culture. In 1984 Larson defines culture as "a complex of beliefs, attitudes, values, and rules which a group of people share" (Larson 1984: 431). He notes that the translator needs to understand beliefs, attitudes, values, and the rules of the SL audience in order to adequately understand the ST and adequately translate it for people who have a different set of beliefs, attitudes, values, and rules. In 1998, Newmark remarks 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" (Newmark 1998: 94). Here, he asserts that each language group has its own culturally specific features.

Schmitt in 1999 maintains that culture is composed of "everything that a person should know, be able to feel and to do, in order to succeed in behaving and acting in an environment like somebody from this environment" (Schmitt 1999: 157 cited in Gambier, 2004: 33-4). The process of transmitting cultural elements through literary translation is a complicated and vital task. Culture is a complex collection of experiences which condition daily life. It includes history, social structure, religion, traditional customs and everyday usage. This is difficult to comprehend completely. In 1997, Shuttleworth argues that cultural translation is a term used to refer to those types of translation which act as a tool for cross-cultural or anthropological research. He believes that cultural translation is sensitive to cultural and linguistic factors and takes different forms:

According to Nida and Taber, cultural translation is "a translation in which the content of the message is changed to conform to the receptor culture in some way, and/or in which information is introduced which is not linguistically implicit in the original" (Nida and Taber 1969/1982: 199). In the context of Bible translation, Nida and Taber state that a cultural translation is one in which additions are made which cannot be directly derived from the original ST wording. Thus, these additions might take the form of ideas culturally foreign to ST or elements which are simply included to provide necessary background information (Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997: 35).

In 1964, Nida lists four basic factors which make communication possible and, therefore, make possible the translation of a message from one language and culture to another. These are: 1) the similarity of mental processes of all people, 2) similarity of somatic reactions (similar physical responses to emotional stimulus), 3) the range of common cultural experience, and 4) the capacity for adjustment to the behavioral patterns of others (Nida 1964a 53-5). In addition to Nida, Larson observes that all meaning is culturally conditioned and the response to a given text is also culturally conditioned. Therefore, each society will interpret a message in terms of its own culture:

Indeed, one of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the differences between cultures. People of a given culture look at things from their own perspective. Larson notes that "different cultures have different focuses. Some societies are more technical and others less technical." This difference is reflected in the amount of vocabulary which is available to talk about a particular topic (Larson 1984: 95). Larson adds that there may also be both "technical and non-technical" vocabulary to talk about the same thing within a given society. Therefore, if the SL text originates from a highly technical society it may be much more difficult to translate it into the language of a nontechnical society. However, in the case of similar cultures the conditions are not the same:

Thus, a translator who uses a cultural approach is simply recognizing that each language contains elements which are derived from its culture, that every text is anchored in a specific culture, and that conventions of text production and reception vary from culture to culture. Awareness of such issues can at times make it more appropriate to think of translation as a process which occurs between cultures rather than simply between languages. Most 'cultural words', according to Newmark, are easy to detect since they are associated with a particular language and cannot be literally translated. However, many cultural customs are described in ordinary language, where literal translation would distort the meaning and thus the translation "may include an appropriate descriptive-functional equivalent" (Newmark 1988: 95).

Newmark also introduced 'cultural word' which the readership is unlikely to understand and the translation strategies for this kind of concept depend on the particular text-type, requirements of the readership and client and importance of the cultural word in the text (Newmark 1988: 96). Baker refers to such cultural words and concedes that the SL words may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture. She points out that the concept in question may be "abstract or concrete, it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom, or even a type of food." Baker then, calls such concepts 'culture-specific items' (Baker 1992: 21). Nord uses the term 'cultureme' to refer to these culture specific items. He defines cultureme as "a cultural phenomenon that is present in culture X but not present (in the same way) in culture Y" (Nord 1997: 34). Gambier also refers to such concepts as 'culture-specific references' and asserts that they connote different aspects of life:

Gambier acknowledges that the culture-specific category "contains sixty clips divided into six sub-groups" which included examples of references to the system, food and measurements, sport, institutions, famous people and events, and finally the legal system (Gambier 2004: 160). Newmark asserts that a few general considerations govern the translation of all cultural words. First, the ultimate consideration should be recognition of the cultural achievements referred to in the SL text, and respect for all foreign countries and their cultures. Two translation procedures which are at opposite ends of the scale are normally available; transference, which usually in literary texts, offers local color and atmosphere, and in specialist texts enables the readership to identify the referent in other texts without difficulty. However, transference, though it is brief and concise, blocks comprehension, it emphasizes the culture and excludes the message, does not communicate; some would say it is not a translation procedure at all.

At the other end, there is componential analysis, the most accurate translation procedure, which excludes the culture and highlights the message. Componential analysis is based on a component common to the SL and TL to which one can add the extra contextual distinguishing components. Inevitably, a componential analysis is not as economical and has not the pragmatic impact of the original. Lastly, the translator of a cultural word, which is always less context-bound than ordinary language, has to bear in mind both the motivation and the cultural specialist and linguistic level of readership (Newmark 1988: 96). The point in regard to the systematic way of translating a literary text is that "in each period of time the degree of loyalty with regard to interpretation and translation of literary texts varies regarding the three points of author, reader, and the text." Therefore, the literary translator has to know well the critical approaches as well as their underlying structure (Abassi 2005: 32).

Considering literature as being the product of the dominant ideology, it is obvious that sign systems cannot be assumed to be understood by everyone, for language is dynamic and apt to change quite rapidly. Furthermore, in most societies literary translation seems to have become so prominent that the very concept of translation tends to be restricted to literary translation in comparison with other types of translation and other texts.

One of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the differences between cultures. People of a given culture look at things from their own perspective. Indeed, one of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the differences between cultures. A translator who uses a cultural approach is simply recognizing that each language contains elements which are derived from its culture that every text is anchored in a specific culture, and that conventions of text production and reception vary from culture to culture.

Abbasi, P. and H. Vahid Dasjerdi (2005)"Literary Translation: Challenges and Choices." In: Translation Studies, 3, h. 10, 29-48.

Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledege.

Bassnett, S. (1992) Translation Studies. London: Routledge.

Bush, P. (1998) "Literary Translation." In: M. Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London: Routledge, 127-130.

Gambier, Y. (2007) Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Lambert, J. (1998)"Literary Translation."In: M. Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 130-134.

Landers, Clifford E. (2001) Literary Translation: A practical Guide, New Jersey University Press: Multilingual Maters.

Larson, Mildred L. (1984) Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Lanham and New York: University Press of America, Inc.

Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. New York and London Prentice- Hall.

Newmark, P. (1998) More Paragraphs on Translation. New Jersey University Press: Multilingual Maters.

Nida, E.A. and C. R. Taber (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Nord, C. (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Shuttleworth, M. and M. Cowie, Eds. (1997) Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.

Venuti, L. (1995) The Translator's Invisibility. A history of translation, London and New York: Routledge.