Abstract

A corpus is a systematic collection of texts which documents the usage features of a language

or language variety. The practical uses of computers for data processing and the theoretical

advances of corpus linguistics have given lexicographers powerful tools for the storage and

retrieval of (written and spoken) data to subscribe all aspects of language, especially vocabulary,

and to present the results in dictionaries.

Culture has various definitions but the more common one is that culture is the integrated

pattern of human behavior that includes thoughts, communication, actions, customs, beliefs,

values and institutions of a racial, ethnic, religious or social group. It reflects the norms and

values of a given society.

Culture consists of patterns of behavior and beliefs, which characterize a group of people at a

given point in time. The behavior may relate to religious practices, rituals, and food choices etc.

Multiple identities compete for primacy in different situations and people see themselves as

fully- rounded persons with integrated identities. Culture means drawing a boundary of identity

and difference.

More than 80% of the world’s people live in societies that are collectivist in nature. Those

living in Western societies live in societies that are individualist in nature. This is a fundamental

difference that has the potential to create constant misunderstanding and, therefore,

miscommunication. Remembering that we are all human beings driven by the same emotions,

instincts and ambitions may help us to see cultural difference as something that is on the surface

and not so threatening.

Cultural awareness becomes central when we have to interact with people from other cultures.

People see, interpret and evaluate things in a different ways. What is considered an appropriate

behavior in one culture is frequently inappropriate in another one. Misunderstandings arise when I

use my meanings to make sense of your reality.

Becoming aware of our cultural dynamics is a difficult task because culture is not conscious to

us. Since we are born we have learned to see and do things at an unconscious level. Our

experiences, our values and our cultural background lead us to see and do things in a certain

1

way. Sometimes we have to step outside of our cultural boundaries in order to realize the impact

that our culture has on our behavior.

Since everyone is the product of their own culture, we need to increase both self-awareness and

cross-cultural awareness. There is no book of instructions to deal with cultural diversity, no

recipe to follow. But certain attitudes help to bridge cultures.

Communicating across cultures can be a difficult experience. All successful communication

results from one person understanding the meaning and intention of what another person has

said. The skills associated with effective and rewarding cross-cultural communication can seem

elusive to many people who lack experience of this form of interaction.

The cultural intertraffic is not a process in which information is transferred integrally; on the

contrary, there is a degree of tolerance, there is entropy. There is need to say that the strategy

adopted for the translation of Kulturems depends heavily on their role in the source text (key

elements or peripheral ones) and on the likelihood of their undergoing a process of intercultural

evolution.

CONTENTS

Abstract

Introduction

Chapter One: Defining culture and cultural-awareness

Chapter Two: Culture-bound items typology

2

Chapter Three: The cultural intertraffic in magazine articles

Conclusions

Bibliography

Summary

3

INTRODUCTION

There are many ways to define a corpus, but there is an increasing consensus that a

corpus is a collection of machine-readable, authentic texts, which is sample to be representative

of a particular language variety.

Culture is the integrated pattern of human behavior that includes thoughts,

communication, actions, customs, beliefs, values and institutions of a racial, ethnic, religious or

social group. It reflects the norms and values of a given society.

In chapter one, Defining culture and cross-cultural awareness, the concept of culture is

defined in a number of ways, starting the discussion from a collection of definitions advanced by

sociologists, psychologists, socio-linguists, linguists, etc. The complexity of the term culture is

remarkable and this is the purpose of the first chapter, to demonstrate the complexity of this

word and to show the various value dimensions in the taxonomy of cultures. Cultural awareness

becomes central when we have to interact with people from other cultures. People see, interpret

and evaluate things in a different ways. What is considered an appropriate behavior in one culture

is frequently inappropriate in another one.

Chapter two, Culture-bound items typology, deals with various theories of how to

translate culture specific items and the classification of them. It demonstrates how a simple,

common word can be interpreted in various ways. Culture, connotation and ideological values, as

well as domain specificity- contribute to the considerable richness of vocabulary meaning, which

makes things more complicated to translators. However, the fact that there exist differences in

these aspects across languages does not necessarily imply that there should be insurmountable

problems in translation. In spite of all the differences, there will always be a "common core",

which is amenable to translation, and we can illustrate this by commenting on some of the

culture-specific vocabulary analyses.

4

Chapter three, The cultural intertraffic in magazine articles, exemplifies using theories

of translation how translators create a space of in-betweenness, a space in which foreign cultural

elements are smoothly inserted and how the cultural intertraffic raises serious problems in

translation. Kulturems are classified and analyzed from some magazine articles.

5

CHAPTER ONE: DEFINING CULTURE AND CROSS-CULTURAL

AWARENESS

1. Defining culture

Culture is the learned behaviour of a society or a subgroup. (Margaret Mead)

Culture has been define in a number of ways, but most simply, as the learned and shared

behavior of a community of interacting human beings.

Most social scientists today view culture as consisting primarily of the symbolic, ideational

and intangible aspects of human societies. The essence of a culture is not its artifacts tools, or

other tangible cultural elements but how the members of the group interpret, use and perceive

them. It is the values, symbols, interpretations and perspectives that distinguish one people from

another in modernized societies; it is not material objects and other tangible aspects of human

societies. People within a culture usually interpret the meanings of symbols, artifacts and

behaviors in the same or in similar ways. (Damen,1987: page?).

Culture is the integrated pattern of human behaviour that includes thoughts, communication,

actions, customs, beliefs, values and institutions of a racial, ethnic, religious or social group. It

reflects the norms and values of a given society.

A better word is probably 'acquired behaviour', as conscious learning is not usually involved.

A child acquires the culture of its parents, family, community, nation through its interactions

with those social groups. It is important to emphasise that those cultures are therefore not

necessarily national in nature, but a complex layered mix of family, community, regional and

national cultural concepts and attributes.

Hofstede suggest there are different 'levels of culture, each one deeper and less conscious

than the others, and each requiring different tools to be uncovered:

6

Levels of Culture Discovery methods

Artefacts &

behaviour

expressions of tradition,

clothing, customs

Observation

Beliefs & values beliefs about how the

world should be

Interview & survey

Assumptions often unspoken or

unconscious

Inference &

interpretation

The differing concepts referred to loosely as 'culture' can be distinguished as :

achievements – the creative arts and work of people like Mozart;

lifestyles – the way that we live, and believe that life should be lived, 'the way we do things';

identification – which group we feel we belong to (whether local, regional, national, ethnic

etc);

narrative – the stores we tell about ourselves and the group we belong to.

Some of the elements of culture include:

- language;

- dress and appearance;

- food and eating habits;

- music and dance;

- time and time-consciousness;

- interpersonal relationships; and,

- beliefs and attitudes.

Some other definitions that are useful when considering cultural difference include:

7

- Acculturation – the process of adapting to or adopting a different culture.

- Ethnic – which refers to membership of a group linked by race, nationality, language or

a common cultural heritage.

- Race – a socially defined population that is derived from distinguishable physical

characteristics.

- Stereotype – the notion that all people from a given group are the same.

Some of the most common cultural differences relate to the use of names – how and why

people are named and how they are addressed in certain situations. An example is placing the

family name first when addressing someone in many collectivist cultures. Greetings such as

handshakes, interaction between men and women, family structures, signs of respect, attitudes to

education, and body language, also play central roles in most cultures, and are where most

common misunderstandings occur. For example in many African cultures, avoidance of eye

contact can indicate respect rather than discomfort or a lack of interest.

In many cultures, it is not usual to ask questions of teachers and service providers.

However, when issues are raised, the expectations of both parties will often differ in relation to

acceptable outcomes and the level of concern displayed.

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) argued that the basic idea of culture— that different

nations operate with different categories, assumptions, and moralities—is ancient and can be

found in the Bible, Homer, Hippocrates, Herodotus, and Chinese scholars of the Han dynasty.

Key to the ancient and enduring concept of culture is the relatively modest, yet enormously

consequential doctrine that if people think and feel differently about the world, they are not

demented or stupid. Instead, they simply are making different assumptions and using different

categories to make sense of the world they inhabit and find meaning in it.

In a more recent cultural studies article on the concept and politics of citizenship, Stuart

Hall and David Held (1990) made similar assumptions about central concepts in the human

sciences. They stated the following: “Like all the key contested political concepts of our time, it

[citizenship] can be appropriated within very different political discourses and articulated to very

different political positions” (p. 174). They held that the term has no essence, and that it has a

8

history of discussion and struggle around a set of issues. Their object of analysis thus becomes

the debate itself, the issues it raises, and the different definitions of citizenship under discussion.

Hall and Held explored the issues and conceptual definitions mobilized in the debate between

the left and the right. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) were proprietary about the concept of

culture as a technical term that belonged exclusively to the field of anthropology. Even when

they discussed the way it was used in other fields, such as philosophy, literary studies, or social

work, they still regarded it as the anthropologic concept.

Currently, however, the concept of culture has migrated to different fields of study and,

arguably, in the process of incorporation to different methodologies and research questions, its

definition has been reshaped and changed. The imperial arrogance of the anthropologic gaze and

the proprietary relation to the concept of culture has grown more difficult to sustain.

The current collection of definitions and essays aptly departs from the view of Kroeber and

Kluckhohn in that it explicitly follows the concept of culture as it has migrated to different fields

of study and has been changed in its definition. It includes the testimony of natives. That is,

members of different disciplines speak about how the term culture used in their field.

Cultural anthropology itself has divided into contesting paradigms such that it resembles

differences among disciplines or, at any rate, among schools of thought. In a retrospective view

of cultural anthropology, for example, Clifford Geertz (2002) said that from the mid-1960s

through the end of the 1970s, different paradigms of analysis flowered including French

structuralism, sociobiology, and cognitive anthropology, the ethnography of speaking, cultural

materialism, neo Marxism, neo-evolutionism, neofunctionalism, practice theory, the

anthropology of experience, subaltern studies, and interpretive anthropology. He adds feminism,

anti-imperialism, indigenous rights, and gay liberation. It can be said that in the 1970s, culture

shifted from being an object of study to becoming, under these various paradigms and their

definitions, a flexible tool for study in the service of different analytical projects. Whereas

culture was once seen as static and unchanging, a set of patterns or forms shared among

members of a group, it became a tool used to study the convergence of power, inequality, and

history.

In the wider realm of interdisciplinary academic politics, the anthropologic concept of

culture was a central player in the so-called culture wars of the 1980s, in which it was pitted

9

against the canon and culture in the sense of elite refinement and cultivation. In a pertinent

passage, Raymond Williams (1977) identified the complex nature of the concept of culture in the

following manner:

The complexity of the concept of “culture” is then remarkable. It became a noun of

“inner” process, specialized to its presumed agencies in “intellectual life” and “the arts.” It

became also a noun of general process, specialized to its presumed configurations in “whole

ways of life.” It played a crucial role in definitions of “the arts” and “the humanities,” from the

first sense. It played an equally crucial role in definitions of the “human sciences” and the “social

sciences,” in the second sense.

Tracing the various etymologies of culture in a standard dictionary (e.g., Jewell and

Abate’s New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001), we can develop the “tree” of meaning. We

can see the original roots of “culture” joined to the histories of “cult” and “cultivate.” The word

comes to Middle English (“a cultivated piece of land”) through French “culture” and that from

the Latin verb culturare (“to cultivate,” p. 416). There is a kinship among the words. Cultus, for

example (from which we get “cult”) refers to religious worship, which might be seen as a way of

bringing up (“cultivating”) someone in a religious group.

All versions of the word ultimately come from early Latin, colere, which means to till or

cultivate the ground. Several authors outline the etymologic roots of the word, for example

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952). Raymond Williams (1983) traced the contemporary word to the

German Kultur, which refers to agricultural development. This yields, Williams suggested, three

broad categories of usage in the history of the word. The first refers to the “cultivation” of

individuals and groups of people in terms of the “general process of intellectual, spiritual, and

aesthetic development,” a usage beginning in the 18th century (p. 90). The other uses, each more

contemporary, include a “particular way of life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or

humanity in general” and “the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity”

(p. 90). This last meaning, Williams contended, is the most widely used, and relates to literature,

art, music, sculpture, theater, and other art forms.

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) saw the term as first (in the 1700s) signifying a sort of

general history. A second strain of meaning, running from Kant to Hegel (late 1700s to early

1800s), aligns the meaning with “enlightenment culture and improvement culture” a notion that

10

gave way to the word “spirit” (Geist) as it moved away from the word “culture.” The third and,

for Kroeber and Kluckhohn, current strain, developing after 1850, treats culture as “the

characteristic mode of human existence” The authors argued that the Germanic usage of the term

later became the conceptualization that anthropologists adopted.

In England, one of the earliest definitions of culture (Matthew Arnold in 1869) was “a

pursuit of total perfection by means of getting to know …the best which has been thought and

said in the world” (Kroeber &Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 29). Sumner, a well-known anthropologist,

criticized this use as “and illustration of the degeneracy of language stolen by the dilettanti and

made to stand for their own favorite forms and amounts of attainments” (Kroeber &Kluckhohn,

1952, p. 29). This reflects a different strain of definition, concomitant with the German view of

Kultur, which focused on refinement and the associated expression of “fine arts.” Notably,

writers from Sumner on have resisted this notion of culture.

Durkeim(1937) points the idea the culture could be understood as an aggregate of social

facts, superseding the individual:

They consist in manners of acting, thinking and feeling, exterior to the individual, having

an existence over and above the individual and they are endowed with the power of coercion by

which they impose themselves on the individual.

Huxley (1942) considers culture an integrated system of mentifacts, artifacts, and

sociofacts. Mentifacts or abstract belief systems refer to the ideology raised to prominence within

a culture; according to him, theologies and mythologies, legend, literature, philosophy, and folk

wisdom fall under this category. Artifacts stand for material culture. Huxley speaks in fact of

basic needs artifacts that determine people to feed, house, clothe, defend, transport and entertain.

Sociofacts are to be equated to the social organization of a culture, i.e. to the full range of learned

patterns of behavior at the interpersonal and intergroup levels, shared collectively, in formal and

informal settings.

According to Williams (1989:4), “culture is in every mind”, i.e. it is a mindset (beliefs,

intentions) translated into overt social attitudes.

11

Culture and identity

Mead (1934) sees the construction of identity as awareness of the projection of the self to

the others. Actually, we co-construct our identities by interacting and building relationships.

Individual experience has a social foundation; accordingly, the author introduces the notions of I

and me as social attitudes. The I stands for the response of the individual to the attitudes of the

others (the first-person perspective, Perace, 1994) whereas the me is the organized set of attitudes

of others which one assumes (the third-person perspective, Perace, 1994). The social

construction of identity is a two-step process: the attitude of the others determines the makeup of

the me, and the one reacts toward that as an I. Self- appraisal is conditioned by what one assumes

to be the appraisal by others.

The challenge of the classical status quo with the advent of mass communication and

travel technologies meant virtual proximity (annihilation of space by time in Marx’s words

(1973) or time-space compression, according to Harvey, 1989) and interactive connection. A

globalised world is to be equated to greater cultural convergence, to the felicitous intertwine of

cosmopolitan and vernacular attitudes, and, eventually, to a sericulture.

The emergence and development of global connections, of complex interconnectivity is

identified by Giddens (1991) to the general universe of social activity within which collective

social life, enacted via routines attitudes and avoidance of cognitive dissonance. Therefore, the

author speaks of “tribulations of the self”, i.e. a multiplicity of identities due to the diversifying

of contexts of interaction and strategies of appropriateness of behaviour. Outward –looking

individuals reflexively construct their authentic identities or “autobiographical narratives” and

strive to “keep a particular narrative going”, i.e. although there is a fragmentation of identity,

identity does not consist of disconnected fragments:

The individual’s biography … must continually integrate events that occur in the external

world and sort them into the ongoing “story” about the self. (Giddens, 1991: 54)

He states that modernity is shaped by several dilemmas:

- unification vs. fragmentation: different events become an integral part of the individual

experience;

12

- powerless vs. appropriation: the individual as a situated actor feels powerless when facing

large-scale social phenomena- Giddens thinks that globalization is a paramount importance ;

-authority vs. uncertainty: there is no single authority or source of binding doctrine, on the

contrary, “forms of traditional authority become only authorities among others, part of an

indefinite pluralism of expertise” (Giddens, 1991, quoted by Jaworsky and Coupland, 1999:

422);

- personalised vs. commodified experience: individualism is influenced by the standardizing

effects of collectivism, deriving from commodity capitalism.

Ng and Bradac (1993) state that there are two identity-related mechanisms in the presentation of

reality: the upward and the downward principles. The authors explain that higher-level identities

specify few operational details, little assisting the social actor who is not familiar with the

details. Therefore, there is a constant move between these types of identities since there is a

multiplicity of perspectives available.

Van Leeuwen (2007: 92) identifies ecology of culture in a four-dimensioned model:

- authorization, i.e. legitimation by reference to the authority of tradition, custom and law, and

of persons that are invested authority in;

- moral evaluation, i.e. legitimation by reference to value systems;

- rationalisation, i.e. legitimation by reference to the goals and uses of institutionalized social

action, and to the social knowledge endowing them with cognitive validity;

- mythopoiesis, i.e. legitimation via narratives whose outcomes establish a reward-punishment

system of legitimate and non-legitimate, feasible and non-feasible actions, respectively,

establishing a sense of continuity between past and present behaviours.

Jameson (2007: 210) states six subtypes pertaining to cultural identity:

- vocation: occupational field, profession or job category, employing organization, subunit of

organization;

- class: economic class, social class, educational class;

- geography: nationality; region, state, province, or city identification; density identification

(urban, suburban, small town, rural); residence (if different from nationality);

- philosophy: religious identity; political identity, identity based on other philosophies;

- language: first language, dialect, other languages;

13

- biological traits with cultural aspects: race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, health, age.

Taxonomy of cultures

Hofstede (1980, 1984, 1997, 2001) identifies various value dimensions in his

psychologically-driven taxonomy of cultures:

- individualism vs. collectivism: in individualistic cultures, the interests of the individual gain

ascendancy over the interests of the group in a competitive environment where there is unilateral

self-assertion.

Hofstede (2001: 215, quoted in Fred, 2006:161) analyses a sample of more than 50

countries and ranks the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, New

Zealand, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, France, etc as highly individualistic. In collectivist

cultures, strong cohesive groups protect their members in exchange for unquestioned loyalty and

focus rests upon “interdependent activities and suppressing individual aims for the group’s

welfare (Fred, 2006:161). Japan is placed at the midpoint between individualism and

collectivism and it is been argued that the younger generation holds moderate views of

collectivism. Hofstede (2001) associates national wealth, geographical position, birth rates and

history with the individualism-collectivism dimension. National wealth and individualism seem

to be strongly connected countries with moderate and cold climates show preference for an

individualistic culture, countries with higher birth rates and Confucian countries tend to be

collectivist.

- masculinity vs. feminity: in masculine cultures, there is maximal distinction between the roles

assigned to men and those ascribed to the women, and high value is placed on assertiveness,

competition and material success. In feminine cultures there is some degree of overlapping of

social roles distributed between sexes. In this case, quality of life, interpersonal relationships and

concern for the less privileged come topmost. Hofstede (2001: 286, quoted in Fred, 2006: 171)

provides the following masculinity rankings (decreasing order): Japan, Austria, Venezuela, Italy,

Switzerland, Mexico, Ireland, Jamaica, Great Britain, Germany, The Philippines, etc. It can be

seen that individualism and masculinity do not necessarily correlate.

- power distance, defined as the way the culture deals with the fact that power, prestige and

wealth are not equally distributed among the members of the community. There are higher

14

power distance cultures (such as Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, The Philippines, Mexico,

Venezuela, Arab countries, etc according to Hofstede’s classification (2001: 87) that limit

interaction among people and reinforce social inequalities, and lower power distance countries

(such as Austria, Israel, Denmark, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland,

Switzerland, Great Britain, etc). Geography, population, wealth and history relate to power

distance.

- uncertainty avoidance is the opposite of tolerance for ambiguity. Cultures marked by

uncertainty avoidance promote strict observance of codes of conduct and a belief in absolute

truth. Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Uruguay, Belgium, El Salvador, Japan, Yugoslavia, Peru and

France come at the top of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001: 151). Religion and history

influence this value dimension. Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians rank the first, Judaic

and Muslim cultures are in the middle, and Eastern ones (except Japan) are rated medium to very

low. Similarly, Romance language cultures score high and Confucian cultural inheritance

countries rank lower.

- long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation to life: long-term orientation cultures enhance

thrift, savings, perseverance, purposefulness whereas in short-term orientation ones there are less

savings, preferences for immediate results and a concern with face.

Hofstede (2001: 356) caters the following list of long-term orientation cultures

(decreasing order): China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, India, etc.

Cross-cultural awareness

All people are the same. It’s only their habits that are so different. (Confucius)

Terminology within the cross cultural communications field can sometimes be baffling to

those reading the literature, websites or promotional material. Many ask what is the difference

between 'intercultural' and 'cross cultural’. What is 'cross cultural awareness' as opposed to 'cross

cultural knowledge' or, are 'cultural sensitivity' and 'cultural competence' the same thing? Cross

cultural understanding simply refers to the basic ability of people within business to recognize,

interpret and correctly react to people, incidences or situations that are open to misunderstanding

due to cultural differences. The fundamental intention of cross cultural training is to equip the

15

learner(s) with the appropriate skills to attain cross cultural understanding. Once the foundations

of cross cultural understanding have been laid, the learner(s), either through continued training or

experiences within the workplace, gradually attains a more acute appreciation of cultural

differences. The different types of appreciation are cross cultural knowledge, cross cultural

awareness, cross cultural sensitivity and cross cultural competence. Although all the terms may

appear similar in meaning, subtle differences exist between them.

'Cross Cultural Knowledge' is critical to basic cross cultural understanding. Without it

cross cultural appreciation cannot take place. It refers to a surface level familiarization with

cultural characteristics, values, beliefs and behaviours.

'Cross Cultural Awareness' develops from cross cultural knowledge as the learner

understands and appreciates a culture internally. This may also be accompanied by changes

within the learner's behaviour and attitudes such as a greater flexibility and openness.

'Cross Cultural Sensitivity' is a natural by-product of awareness and refers to an ability to

read into situations, contexts and behaviours that are culturally rooted and be able to react to

them appropriately. A suitable response necessitates that the actor no longer carries his/her own

culturally determined interpretations of the situation or behaviour (i.e. good/bad, right/wrong)

which can only be nurtured through both cross cultural knowledge and awareness.

'Cross Cultural Competence' is and should be the aim of all those dealing with

multicultural clients, customers or colleagues. 'Competence' is the final stage of cross cultural

understanding and signifies the actor's ability to work effectively across cultures. Cross cultural

competency is beyond knowledge, awareness and sensitivity in that it is the digestion, integration

and transformation of all the skills and information acquired through them.

Cross-culture

In language education learners may reach quite high levels of language proficiency and

yet still experience difficulties in understanding complex native-speaker discourse and texts. One

of the reasons for this is that such language forms contain numerous cultural references, whose

decoding is predicated not on language skills and competencies but on knowledge of cultural

16

references. These references are mainly at the Lexical level, and carry assumed to be shared

information about people, places, events, jokes etc.

In order to build skills in this area, learners have to be exposed to culturally-rich texts and

be assisted to develop their Reading and Listening skills while learning to explicitly identify the

cultural references. An easy way to introduce the concept to the learners is to introduce examples

of international cultural references, known by most people, what we might call the 'cultural

givens'. These can be simple references such as 'the 3 Bs' - Bush, Britney and burgers are

examples of cultural reference items everyone is familiar with.

An important aspect here is sensitising learners to what constitutes a cultural reference,

not only so they can learn another culture but so they can also communicate their own. Being

more aware of one's own C1 supports communication as much as being aware of C2, and allows

us to modify or gloss what we discuss. A simple workshop activity here is to ask learners to

brainstorm in groups what 5 people, places, products etc a foreigner would need to know about

to understand an average social conversation that learners may have in the evening.

A main area of cultural training required, especially for the world of professional work

and business, is Cultural Awareness. By this we mean ability for someone from C1 to understand

that their interlocutor from C2 has different assumptions, beliefs, traditions, expectations and

even personality traits.

The goal of Cultural Awareness training is to build awareness in order to facilitate

communication between interlocutors from different cultural backgrounds. Training is often

based around business situations and several books (e.g. Mole (1992), Ferraro (2002)) have

proved popular by introducing case studies and real-life scenarios in which cultural differences

can be observed in work situations. Cultural Awareness training needs to be value-neutral,

presenting differences that may exist, but not judging 2 cultures through these comparisons and

refusing to over-generalise about the ubiquity of these differences.

Despite the best of intentions, this sort of training can be counter-productive, and lead to

cultural insensitivity or national stereotyping, because of the focus on 'difference' rather than

'similarity' between cultural groups. It is important to stress that the assignment of cultural

17

attribute A to a national or regional culture is only at best a superficial generalisation. Not all

citizens of country A are extremely punctual nor citizens of country B focused on hierarchical

corporate models - despite the many examples in such business books.

Intercultural Sensitivity

Bronfrenbener, Harding, and Gallwey’s study (1958) is one of the early studies dealing

with the concept of sensitivity. They proposed that sensitivity to the generalized other and

sensitivity to individual differences (interpersonal sensitivity) are the two major types of ability

in social perception. Intercultural sensitivity is similar to interpersonal sensitivity indicated by

Bronfenbrener.

Hart and Burks (1972) and Hart, Carlson, and Eadie (1980) treated sensitivity as a mind-

set which is applied in one’s everyday’s life. They proposed that sensitive persons should be able

to accept personal complexity, to avoid communication inflexibility, to be conscious in

interaction, to appreciate the ideas exchanged, and to tolerate intentional searching. These

elements appear to be embedded in the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions of

intercultural interaction.

Based on Gudykunst and Hammers’s (1983) three-staged intercultural training model and

Hoopes’ (1981) intercultural learning model, Bennett (1984) conceived intercultural sensitivity

as a developmental process in which one is able to transform oneself affectively, cognitively, and

behaviourally from ethnocentric stages to ethno relative stages.

The route of this transformation process can further separate into six stages: 1. denial- in

which one denies the existence of cultural differences among people, 2. defence – in which one

attempts to protect one’s world view by countering the perceived threat, 3. Minimization – in

which one attempts to protect the core of one’s world view by concealing differences in the

shadow of cultural similarities, 4. acceptance – in which one begins to accept the existence of the

behavioural differences and underlying cultural differences, 5. adaptation – in which one

becomes empathic to cultural differences and becomes bicultural or multicultural, and 6.

18

integration – in which one is able to apply ethnorelativism to one’s own identity and can

experience “difference as an essential and joyful aspect of life” (p.186).

Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity not only requires the gradual change of

affection and cognition, but also the behavioural ability to reach the state of intercultural

communication competence.

Because intercultural sensitivity focuses on personal emotions that are caused by

particular situations, people, and environment (Triandis, 1977), it carries a notion that an

intercultural sensitive individual is able to project and receive positive emotional responses

before, during, and after intercultural interaction. It especially refers to the attitude of respect

(Adler & Towne, 1993).Without knowing how to show respect to others or cultural differences

in the process of intercultural communication usually leads to a lower degree of satisfaction.

According to Gudykunst and Kim (1992), a successful integration of affective and cognitive

process can help people achieve an adequate social orientation that enables them to understand

their own as well as the feelings and behaviours of others. Thus, in order to develop a positive

emotion towards understanding and appreciating cultural differences and eventually promote the

ability of intercultural competence, intercultural sensitive persons must possess the following

elements: self-esteem, self-monitoring, open-mindedness, empathy, interaction involvement, and

non-judgement.

Self –Esteem

A culturally sensitive person usually shows higher degrees of self-esteem. Self-esteem is

a sense of self-value or self-worth. It is based on one’s perception of how well one can develop

one’s potential in social environment (Borden, 1991). A high self-esteem person usually has an

optimistic outlook which instils confidence in interaction with others (Foote & Cottrell, 1995).

Hamachek (1982) also concluded that persons with high self-esteem are likely to think well of

others and to expect to be accepted by others. In intercultural encounters, where people

inevitably meet psychological stresses when trying to complete their jobs and to establish

relationships with others, self-esteem becomes an important variable in the calculation of

19

whether or not they can fulfil their needs. It is self-esteem that enhances the positive emotion

towards accurately recognize and respect the situational differences in intercultural interactions.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring refers to a person’s ability to regulate behaviour in order to match

situational constraints and to implement a conversationally competent behaviour. Persons with

high-self monitoring are particularly sensitive to the appropriateness of their social behaviours

and self-presentation in social interaction (Snyder, 1947).

Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) indicated that high self-monitors are more attentive, other-

oriented, and adaptable to diverse communication situations. In interaction, high self-monitoring

persons are more able to use strategies such as compromise, emotional appeals, coercion,

ingratiation, and referent influence (Farmer, Fedor, Goodman& Maslyn, 1993; Smith, Cody,

Lovette, & Canary, 1990). Berger and Douglas (1982) also reported that high self-monitoring

helps people to better adapt their behaviours to different situations and are more competent in

communication. In intercultural communication persons who are high in self-monitoring are also

likely to be more sensitive to the expressions of their counterparts and know how to use

situational cues to guide their self-presentation (Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1987). These

studies show that self-monitoring equips us an ability of sensitivity to detect the situational cues

and further develop a set of appropriate behaviours to fit the situation.

Open-Mindedness

Open-mindedness refers to the willingness of individuals to openly and appropriately

explain them and accept other’s explanations. This is parallel to Adler’s (1977) concept of

psychologically and socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (p.25). Bennett (1986)

indicated that intercultural sensitive persons possess an internalized broadened concept of the

world. This is to mean that intercultural sensitive persons are open-minded. Culturally insensitive

20

or narrow-minded persons, intercultural sensitive persons understand that an idea can be

rendered in multi-form ways (Hart & Burks, 1972).

Ingrained in open-mindedness is the willingness to recognize, accept, and appreciate different

views and ideas. Yum (1989) indicated that sensitivity motivates people to understand and

acknowledge other people’s needs and makes them more adaptive to differences in culturally

diverse situations. Smith (1966) also pointed out that being sensitive means having consideration

for others, being receptive to others’ needs and differences and being able to transfer such

emotions to actions. It is a process of mutual validation and confirmation of cultural identities

that will foster a favourable impression in intercultural communication (Ting-Toorney, 1989).

Empathy

Empathy has been long recognized as a central element for intercultural sensitivity.

Empathy refers to the process of projecting oneself “into another person’s point of view so as

momentarily to think the same thoughts and feel the same emotions as the other person” (Adler

&Towne, 1987, p.95). Empathy allows us to sense what is inside another’s mind or to step into

another person’s shoes.

According to Barnlund (1988), interculturally sensitive persons tend to look for

communication symbols that will enable them to share other’s experiences. Interculturally

sensitive persons will not take the same role without regard to situations (Hart, Carlson, & Eadie,

1980). Empathy allows us to demonstrate reciprocity of affect displays, active listening, and

verbal responses that show understanding.

Interaction Involvement

Interaction involvement is the ability of individuals to perceive the topic and situation

that involves their conception of self and self-reward (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). It emphasizes

a person’s sensitivity ability in interaction. Cegala (1981, 1982, and 1984) considered interaction

21

involvement to be fundamental to human communication process. His research shows that

interaction involvement is comprised of responsiveness, perceptiveness, and attentiveness.

Being responsive, perceptive, and attentive enables interculturally sensitive persons to better

intercultural interaction fluently and appropriately. In other words, interculturally sensitive

persons know how to “handle the procedural aspects of structuring and maintaining a

conversation” (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p.46)

Non-Judgment

Being non-judgmental refers to an attitude that allows one to sincerely listen to others

during intercultural communication. Non-sensitive persons tend to hastily jump to conclusion

without having the sufficient data in interaction (Hart & Burks, 1972). Thus, intercultural

sensitivity is the avoidance of issuing rash judgments on the valuable inputs of others. This way

allows the other party to be psychologically satisfied and happy that s/he has been listened to

actively.

Research has shown that several types of enjoyment in intercultural interaction for

intercultural sensitivity: 1. the enjoyment of interacting with people from different cultures

(Randolph, Landis & Tzeng, 1977), 2. the enjoyment of increasing good working relations with

others from different cultures (Fiedler, Mithcell, & Triandis, 1971, and 3. the enjoyment of one’s

duties in another culture (Gudykunst, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1977).

22

CHAPTER TWO. CULTURE-BOUND ITEMS TYPOLOGY

Culture bound lexical items (culture-specific vocabulary) are the words and phrases

associated with “the way of life” of a language community. In translation and the bilingual

dictionaries, these lexical items cause particular problems of equivalent.

Theories of translation have always tended to revolve around the two poles of ‘literal’ (or

word-for-word) and ‘free’ (or sense-for sense) translation. When Newmark (1981) advocates

literal word-for-word translation, but adds the qualification, “provided that equivalent effect is

secured” (P.39), he is touching on a concept fundamental to the thinking of many translation

scholars concerned with bridging the cultural gap between ST and TT. Later, particularly in the

mid 20th century , there has been increasing interest in the question of translators’ attitudes to

cultural hegemonies when cultural features and values expressed in a Source Text (ST)are

different from the translator’s, and target reader’s, . But here there is a question remains to be

answered, which is how to translate these cultural factors. Lawrence Venuti’s work (1995) has

focused on the dichotomy between what he terms ‘domesticating’ and ‘foreignizing’ translation.

‘Domestication implies here that the translator’s aim is to give the readers of the Target Text(TT)

the illusion that it was originally written in the Target Language (TL),whereas ‘foreignizing’

translation aims to challenge the TL reader by confronting the dissimilarities between Source and

Target Language cultures. This dichotomy has also proposed by other scholars under different

names. In Schreiber’s (1993) outline of different methods of translating, one of the 3 contrasts

drawn between foreignizing and naturalizing translation. Schreiber (1993) explains that

difference is that in making a foreignizing translation the translator believes the reader expects it

to read like a translation, where as the reader expects a naturalizing translation to red like an

original.

A further distinction is between linguistic versus cultural foreignization / naturalization.

Linguistic foreignization / naturalization has to do with the degree to which the translation

confirms to stylistic and idiomatic norms of the target language, while cultural foreignization /

naturalization is concerned with translation of culture-specific aspects of source text. He points

out that in practice a combination such as linguistic naturalization and cultural foreignization 23

may be common. According to Venuti (2000) there are two different groups concerning literary

translation: one side is for “foreignization”, namely, the translated text should be source

language or source text oriented; the other side is for “domestication” which is target language or

target reader oriented. However, Baker (2000) seems to put more emphasis on study of

translation ontology suc has translation principles, translation criteria, translation processes and

translation methods, etc. According to aforementioned statements when certain translation

criteria are defined, more efforts should be made to study various objective and subjective

factors that may affect translation activities so as to make the discipline of translation more

normative and scientific.

Statement of the Problem

One of the most challenging tasks for all translators is how to render culture-bound

elements in literary texts into a foreign language. Indeed, not much attention has been paid to this

problem by translation theorist. According to Newmark "Translation is a craft consisting in the

attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same message

and/or statement in another language" (1981, p. 7). However, with culturally-bound words this is

often impossible. Indeed, the meaning which lies behind this kind of expressions is always

strongly linked to the specific cultural context where the text originates or with the cultural

context it aims to re-create.

Behind Venuti’s (2000) unease at the prevalence of ‘domesticating’translation in the

English speaking world is a suspicion that it reflects an attitude of superiority, even colonialism,

towards cultures whose language is not English. Bearing in mind the differences between ST and

TT audiences, not only in their previous knowledge of the subject matter, but also in their

relationship with an attitude to the events referred to in the text, in this dissertation the researcher

addresses the extent to which such culture-specific items should be either domesticated or

foreignized. Then different strategies which are available to the translator are outlined and

discussed, and the dissertation shows how a compromise can be reached between the imperative

to make the TT clear and easy to read, and the desire to help the TL reader to an appreciation of

the cultural difference of another country and another time.

24

Translation units

Vinay and Darbelnet (1985) define translation unit as “the smallest segment of utterance

whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually.

Translation strategies

Baker (2001) states: Translation strategies involve the basic tasks of choosing theforeign

text to be translated and developing a method to translate it… determined by various factors:

cultural, economic, and political.

Lexical Gap

Lexical gap according to Hutchins and Somers is “the gap which occurs whenever a

language expresses a concept with a lexical unit whereas the other language expresses the same

concept with a free combination of words” (1992, p. 33)

Translatability

According to Baker (2001) “translatability is mostly understood as the capacity for some

kind of meaning to be transferred from one language to another without undergoing radical

change”.

Descriptive Translation Studies

According to Holmes (cited in Munday2001) it is a branch of translation studies that

describe translation phenomena as they occur without imposing perspective principles on

translation task.

Culture is too board a term to be define in a line or two. Vermeer (1986,citer in Nord

1997) defines culture as “the entire setting of norms and conventions an individual as a member

of a society must know in order to be ‘like everybody’ or to be different everybody”. (p.

28 )Some scholars try to narrow down culture to simplified assumptions about tastes and

preferences. In their view “culture is the way of life and its manifestations that are particular to a

community that uses a particular language as its means of expression” (Newmark, 1988: 94).

25

Culture-specific items

According to Newmark (1998):culture-bound terms, whether single-unit lexemes,

phrases or collocations are those which are particularly tide to the way of life and its

manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of

expression. (p.94)

As Álvarez and Vidal (1996) point out: Everything in a language is a product of a

particular culture, beginning with language itself, it is difficult to define exactly what can be

classified in a text as culture-specific. One broad definition of what might be termed ‘culture-

specific items’ (CSIs) could be every feature in a ST which presents a problem for the translator

because there is an intercultural gap between the SL and the TL. Such a gap is found where an

item in the ST does not exist in the TL culture, or the TL has no word for that item. (p.57)

An intercultural gap is also to be found where, as Álvarez and Vidal state, the referred

item has a “different intersexual status in the cultural system of the readers of the TT” (1996,

p.58), for example where an item has common metaphorical associations in the SL, but conveys

quite different connotations in the TL. It follows that an item of lexis might be classified as a CSI

in a particular context, although in general it would not be considered specific to the SL culture.

Álvarez and Vidal give as an example the month of April, which in England suggests spring or

the renewal of life, but would not do so for TL readers in whose country April was the month of

severe hurricanes. Álvarez and Vidal identify a third component in the nature of CSIs as the fact

that, in the course of time, “objects, habits or values once restricted to one community [may]

come to be shared by others” (1996, p.58). This requires flexibility in the definition of what

constitutes a CSI at any given time in a particular text. In practice, it obliges the translator to

decide to what extent the item is now integrated into the SC.

Style as a culture-specific feature

Hatim and Mason (1990) see style as being “an in dissociable part of the message to be

conveyed” (p.9), style here being distinguished from idiolect, or from the conventional patterns

of expression to be found in a particular language. Modification on stylistic grounds is seen as “a

step on the road to adaptation” (p.9), which turns the producer of the ST into someone with the

outlook of the TL community, and therefore a different person. The translator must therefore

26

consider the cultural significance of such linguistic features as dialect, words marked for social

class, or ‘officials’. Bassnett (1991) also notes that dialect forms or “regional linguistic devices

particular to a specific region or class in the SL” (p.119) can be significant, so their function

should be first established, and then rendered adequately by the translator. Features of style or

register could therefore be classified as CSIs.

Translating culture specific items

Jacobson (2000) asserts that “all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable

in any existing language”, but there is “ordinarily no full equivalence between code units”.

(p.139)According to Jakobson (2000) the translator therefore works mostly inmessages, not

single code units. This contrasts with Catford’s(1965 cited immune day 2001), concept of formal

correspondence, which he defines as “identity of function of correspondent Items in two

linguistic systems” (p.60).However, as Ivir notes, it is “practically impossible to find categories

which would perform the ‘same’ functions in their respective systems, even when the two

languages are closely related” (1981, p. 54).

Content vocabulary may have different connotative valúes and different denotational

meanings in different languages according to cultural idiosyncracy, manifested in culture-

specific "key" meanings and culture-related scripts.

Vocabulary and meaning

If we examine the semantics of a word, we will find a large conceptual complex with two

feces: one dynamic, the other static. Vocabulary can be used either to structure or organize

discourse or to express information content. Both functions may be accomplished by the same

item, but most generally the former is carried out by what has been called schematic vocabulary

and the latter, by the so-called procedural vocabulary (cf. Widdowson, 1983, Robinson, 1988).

This distinction is related to the opposition between/o/maZ schemata structure-based knowledge

structures) and content schemata (content-based knowledge structures), commonly referred to in

schemata theory (Rumelhart, 1980, Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977).

Similarly, words can also be considered to be knowledge structures of their own, which

27

encapsulate two basic kinds of information: Declarative (about factual knowledge) and

procedural (about procedures), in a manner similar to the two types of information that we find

in Anderson's (1983) psychological model of natural language processing (ACT), where working

memory is helped by both declarative and production memory in order to produce language.

There is another perspective, too. Langacker (1987: 163), a cognitive linguist, talks about

"cognitive routines" that are activated when using vocabulary. Lexical units are points of access

to a large network, in which we store knowledge about the world. The very psychological

complexity of the network can be seen in phenomena of cognitive import like prototypicality

effects (that is, effects based on the fact that categories do not have either clear boundaries or

perfect instances but, rather, approximations with different degrees of centrality or marginality

within the category) (Rosch, 1975).

The above-mentioned two-fold quality of vocabulary and the complex network that lies

behind every word explains its encyclopedic nature (cf. Peeters 2000), part of which has to do

with culture. This can be seen, for instance, in cultural "lexical" scripts. In lexical scripts (cf.

Inchaurralde, 1997) we can see how certain vocabulary items are linked to whole sequences of

actions that constitute events of relevance to a certain culture. These cultural signalling lexical

units can also be applied by means of metaphorical mappings to completely new situatíons, as

can be seen, for instance, with words and expressions in Spanish related to bull-fighting ('salir al

ruedo', 'vestirse de luces', 'torear algo', 'dar la puntilla', etc.). These expressions nave a strong

cultural component, since only those familiar with the language of bullfighting can interpret

them in an adequate way, and bullfighting is an activity that is strongly linked to a large number

of Spanish-speakers around the world.

Similar examples can be found in expressions taken from cricket in British English, such

as 'you're out', or from martial arts and sumo in Japanese. This possibility may pose huge

problems for the translator.

When the meaning of lexical units is linked to cultural lexical scripts, we may have either

a coincidence of all the members of a certain cultural context within which that script works well

with the total population that speaks a given language, or cultural-context coverage of only a part

of that population. In the latter case, it is possible to find speakers of the language that do not

understand certain cultural lexical scripts. However, in both cases, translation should try to

28

account for the cultural references implied by the lexical unit. Achieving this is difficult, and the

meaning may be lost when we choose to use”equivalence" in the target language (e.g.,

'bullfighter' in English for Spanish 'matador'), unless we make a paraphrase telling more.

In these cases, when we choose to keep the original lexical unit in the translation (e.g., to use

'matador' in English), then it is assumed that the meaning has a strong cultural "flavour"; but, in

any case, a paraphrase may be useful, since we need to make the reader familiar with the context

from which the unit has been taken.

However, culture may also show itself in the vocabulary in a completely different way.

Wierzbicka (1997, 1998) points out how certain concepts linked to culture are best expressed by

terms of the language normally used in that cultural context. Even terms which apparently have

an easy cross-cultural translation seem to have meanings which are influenced by cultural values.

In fact, there are many lexical units in different languages that have a difficult match, and there

are whole lexical areas which are organized differently.

These differences can be shown through various word frequencies for the translated terms

and various degrees of "cultural elaboration"; but, Wierzbicka goes beyond and emphasizes the

concept of "key words" (cf. Evans-Pritchard, 1968; Williams, 1976; Parkin, 1982, Moeran,

1989), that is, "words which are particularly important and revealing in a given culture"

(Wierzbicka, 1997:15-16). This author mentions, for instance, how the concept of 'friendship' -as

we know it- has different terms, with different meanings, in different languages. The meaning of

the lexical unit 'friend' has changed in English in the course of time, and she explores this change

by examining different expressions that we use nowadays ('bosom friends', 'to make friends', 'trae

friends' vs. 'cióse friends', 'dear friends' vs. 'Enjoyable friends', etc.). However, the differences

are even clearer with respect to the different conceptions of 'friendship' in Russian (expressed in

terms like 'drug', 'podruga', 'prijaíel', 'tovarisc' or 'rodnye'), in Polish (with terms like 'koledzy',

'kolezanki', 'przyjaciel', 'znajomi' or 'rodzina'), or even in Australian English with the tenn 'mate'

(Wierzbicka, 1997: 55-117).

When we examine terms from a language of a non-Western culture and try to translate

them into English, the lexical distance gets even more conspicuous. This happens with Japanese,

for instance. Wierzbicka (1997: 235-278) also examines vocabulary from this language and

concludes that lexical units, such as 'amae', 'enryo', 'wa', 'on', 'giri', 'seishin', 'omoiyari', etc. have

29

a difficult, if not impossible, translation into English, and this imposes a strong dependence on

context when trying to choose a suitable translation. In any case, the translation will not reflect

the real meaning, since culturally-dependent notions require cultural experience an

understanding, which the audience from another language do not have. When there is a strong

coincidence between the use of the language and cultural values, as it is the case with the

examples Wierzbicka mentions for Japanese, the solution is difficult and, normally, the original

lexical unit in the source language is preserved in the target language.

In addition, vocabulary items are also used to express evaluation by rneans of their

connotative value, in fact, Osgood (1976) proved that evaluation itself is a very important factor

in the connotative value of many words. Moreover, the author of any text can use vocabulary in

such a way that it helps transmit a certain ideology and certain values. This can be accomplished

by means of assigning certain behavior and situational structures by means of explicit reference

to facts, ideas or simply values to concrete lexical units (e.g., words referring to political

tendencies, such as 'communist', 'socialist', or 'conservative' can be assigned by different groups

of speakers to different behavior categories), which then get 'loaded' with meaning. Marked

ideological language involves evaluation, either positive or negative, and an ideological domain

to which we can refer.

Ideological domains may be different in different languages, since they depend heavily

on cultural context, especially as regards politics, religion, social groups, etc. It may be the case

that lexical units with a clear and very straightforward translation may lose their original

ideological connotation as concerns their equivalence in the target language. This happens even

with plain connotative values in terms of the opposition positive-negative. The word 'sofisticado'

in Spanish has a pejorative value, with the value of 'too complex', 'too complicated',

'adulterated', or 'unnatural' (showing affectation), which its equivalent in English, 'sophisticated',

does not have. In this case, it is difficult to translate the connotative value if it does not exist in

the target language due to cultural reasons.

To the complex problem of the differences in the encoding of different cultural concepts

in two separate languages, we should add the problem of different levels of expertise in concrete

knowledge domains in the same language or in two separate languages, or the so-called

distinction between "folk categories" and "expert categories" (cf. Taylor, 1989: 72).

30

This distinction has to do with Putnam's notion of the division of labor within a speech

community (1975). Ordinary speakers identify objects in the world by means of "stereotypes",

which rely on our knowledge of perceptual and interactional attributes of certain instances. At

the same time, there are bodies of experts in the same speech community for whom the same

objects or notions are defined in a more scientific, expert way. We have the well-known example

of the term 'whale' in folk biological taxonomies versus 'whale' in a scientific biological

taxonomy. A whale may be thought of as a kind of 'fish' in a popular taxonomy, whereas it is

always a mammal in biology. This is an extreme case, because everybody nowadays is aware of

its 'mammal' status in a scientific taxonomy; but, it may still be considered as a fish in idioms

and in some popular uses of the term (for fishermen, it may be something similar to a fish; and

so, it must be conceptualized as such).

The issue is more relevant for the use of certain terms in specialized domains, since it

may be the case that language users are unaware of the specialized meaning unless explicitly told

about it. The importance of accurate language in science and in law (among other disciplines)

gives a prominent role to definitions. In science, any discussion needs clear definition of the

terms used. Otherwise, scientists may end up discussing different things.

The need for a common core. The example of 'Freedom'

All of these elements -culture, connotation and ideological values, as well as domain

specificity- contribute to the considerable richness of vocabulary meaning, which makes things

more complicated to translators. However, the fact that there exist differences in these aspects

across languages does not necessarily imply that there should be insurmountable problems in

translation. In spite of all the differences, there will always be a "common core", which is

amenable to translation, and we can illustrate this by commenting on some of the culture-specific

vocabulary analyses carried out by Wierzbicka (1997).

There are two English words which clearly have a subtle cultural "flavor", so to speak;

these are freedom and liberty. We all know what freedom means, and we assume that the

meaning is very similar in the corresponding translations to other languages. However,

Wierzbicka (1997: chapter 3) has shown, in a very convincing manner, that freedom is a concept

with different meanings in different languages, according to cultural motivations.

31

Wierzbicka defines different possibilities foot freedom and liberty, by using a met

language with the semantic primitives she has identified after having studied a wide variety of

languages in the world (cf. Wierzbicka, 1996). The definitions she gives are the following:

Freedom [freedom2]

(a) someone (X) can think something like this:

(b) if I want to do something I can do it

(c) no one else can say to me: "you can't do it because I don't want this"

(d) if I don't want to do something I don't have to do it

(e) no one else can say to me: "you have to do it because I want this"

(f) this is good for X

(g) it is bad if someone cannot think this

Freedom (older) [freedom1]

(a) someone (X) can think something like this:

(b) if I want to do something I can do it

(c) I don't have to think: I can't do it

Liberty [liberty2]

(a) everyone can think something like this:

(b) if I want to do something because I think it is good I can do it

(c) no one can say: "this person can't do it because I don't want this"

(d) everyone thinks: this is good

Liberty (older) [liberty1]

(a) someone (X) can think something like this:

(b) if I want to do something I can do it

(c) I don't have to think:

(d) someone can say: "I don't want this"

(e) I can't do it because of this

Her argument is that these words have idiosyncratic definitions which they do not share

with others that are normally used as their translation equivalents in other languages. She

32

explicitly mentions libertas (with several meanings) in Latín, the Russian svoboda and volja(two

meanings), and wolnosc in Polish. However, in contrast with what she claims, there seems to be

in fact a core meaning of freedom, which is shared with the other terms, although with different

semantic restrictions. Wierzbicka is not very enthusiastic in her writings about assigning a fuzzy

structure to meaning, with different levels of prototypicality for the different members of a

category (cf. Taylor, 1989). Not with standing this íact, she builds definitions by showing a core

meaning and, around it, different marginal members of the concept.

Let us see this with the running examples offreedom and liberty. According to the above

definitions, there is something in common, a pivotal definition, which is the following:

FREEDOM

(a) someone (X) can think something like this:

(b) If I want to do something I can do it.

Of all the different definitions that Wierzbicka (1997:154-155) gives of more or less equivalent

words for four languages, there is only another possibility, which is found in the

Latín libertas and the Polish wolnosc, which is:

LIBERTAS

(a) someone (X) can think something like this.

(b) when I do something I do it because I want to do it which still contains the same predicates

(to do something, and to want to do something), but in reverse order. Thus, the difference is only

in emphasis on one or the other direction of the causal chain.

Let us, therefore, take the two-line definition for FREEDOM, and we still have different

possibilities for extension, which characterizes the different meanings in the different terms.

Freedom1 (the older freedom) only adds (c) I don't have to think: I can't do it Freedom2

arises out of freedom1 by means of a double transformation in the analytical structure of its

definition, and (b) has now two possibilities: not only can I do something if I want to, but I can

also choose not to do something if I don't want to. Accordingly, there is the possibility of nobody

being able to say that no one has forced the decision:

(b) if I want to do something I can do it

33

(c) no one else can say to me: "you can't do it because I don't want this"

(d) if I don't want to do something I don't have to do it

(e) no one else can say to me: "you have to do it because I want this"

An evaluative component is also added:

(f) this is good for X

(g) it is bad if someone cannot think this

It is important to notice that this definition is an extension from the previous one. The

concept is more elaborated, but it is not incompatible. Something similar can be said of liberty.

It starts with the basic two-line definition, and adds three more lines, in which complete

independence from what others think is stated:

(c) I don't have to think:

(d) Someone can say: "I don't want this"

(e) I can't do it because of this

The historical transformation into liberty2 is more complex man v/'tíhfreedom2. (a) and

(b) accommodate not "someone" but "everyone". Complete independence from others' thoughts

in (c)-(e) above changes into complete impossibility of others' thoughts against the free action:

(c) no one can say: "this person can't do it because I don't want this"

And here again, there is now evaluation:

(d) everyone thinks: this is good

This is a very simple example of how vocabulary can be connected beyond language and

beyond semantic shifts to form a structured whole. Wierzbicka is right when she states that

different words which are supposed to mean the same are different and that difference is

strongly conditioned by culture, but a relationship holds; this is, therefore, the reason why a

translator can always find a term in the target language even if it is not precise enough.

Differences in meaning across languages can then be expressed by paraphrase, qualifying

adjectives or other means.

We have seen here how content vocabulary may have different connotative values and

different denotation meanings in different languages according to cultural idiosyncrasy,

manifested in both culture-specific "key" meanings and culture-related scripts. To some extent

there is also the possibility to have differences in terrors of expertise related to a specific

34

sublanguage. But in all these cases, it is wise to assume that there should be something in

common across terms in distant languages that make translation possible, i. e., a common core in

vocabulary whereby transcultural communication can be achieved.

35

CHAPTER THREE. THE CULTURAL INTERTRAFFIC IN MAGAZINE

ARTICLES

English as a global language

Throughout the modern history, the English-speaking countries have, somehow,

dominated the global economy. First, there was The Commonwealth – the British colonies,

which included Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the world. The British

administration was installed in those territories, and along with it, domination over every

economical domain like trading and industry. English was declared the official language of these

colonies.

Then, in the last few decades, the USA has become the largest economical power of the

world, reaching a very high level of development.

Nowadays, it is the European Union’s aim to achieve a greater degree of economic and

monetary harmonization between the European countries and especially, the member states.

The European Union has its roots in a desire to make Europe more stable. Since its

creation in the early 1950’s, the member states have become intertwined because of a

convergence in economic and monetary union. As the end of the century approaches, more than

60% of EU member trade is with the other states.

Therefore, the necessity of using a single, global language has become very obvious.

Since 1944, the year the International Monetary System was established, English has been the

international language of communication in all domains. This is proved by the fact that English

is frequently used in official documents of many international organizations, treaties, contracts,

negotiations and summits. Almost all the personalities in the politics communicate their opinions

and decisions in English, for example, the European Parliament president Jose Maria Gil -

36

Robles, in his speech on the 27th of April 1998. International shipping business uses almost

exclusively English.

In Romania, an English- Romanian Shipping Dictionary was published in 1971. It

explains the special terminology used in shipping and maritime trading, and also International

Rules which Romania agreed with.(Solas, Mar. Pol., York Antwerp Rules). The publishing of

dictionaries like this one, all over the world, has made English a global language of

communication, and it will probably be the same for a long time in the future.

Translation

Translation was a constant preoccupation in the history of humanity, but the translation

and the translator’s status varied in time.

Reiss and Vermeer (1984:119) formulated a set of flexible principles in translation:

- The target language text production (which the authors call translatum) depends on its

function, i.e. on the purpose of translation;

- The target language text largely preserves the informative content of the source language

text, but the two texts belong to different cultural contexts;

- The function that the target language text fulfills in its context of insertion does not

always coincide with the one that the source language text had in its context or origin;

- The target language text is characterized by internal coherence, i.e. the translator has

accommodates the readership’s expectations;

- There is coherence between the target language and source texts, i.e. the information is

processed accurately.

Recent literature defines translation in more technical terms. The almost traditional pairing:

the bilingual and the bicultural translator are complemented by technicalities deriving from re-

focusing. Robinson (2003) sees translation from a twofold perspective:

37

- From an inward looking point of view, translation means professionalization, i.e. the

translator’s active engagement in raising the status of the profession through institutional

training, knowledge (specialized language) acquisition or versatility, development of an

exploratory spirit and of his/her protocol of experience (encyclopedic knowledge, real-

world experience, immersion in different cultures), resource management, affiliation with

professional organizations, networking, commitment to quality standards and to a code of

conduct.

- From an outward looking point of view, translation is, eventually, a product or a

commodity that must meet the receivers’ / clients’ requirements, including compliance

with the agency policy, deadline observance, accommodation to particular needs and

interests, globally equated to the loyalty factor.

Kulturems as translation units

Translation involves the survival of cultural power differentials, as PYM (1992) points. If

two cultures are very much alike, there is no need for translation.

It is enough to define the limits of a culture as the points where transferred texts have had

to be (intralingually or interlingually) translated. That is, if a text can adequately be transferred

(moved in space and/or time) without translation, there is cultural continuity. And if a text has

been translated, it represents distance between at least two cultures. (Pym, 1992: 25)

Newmark (1993) considers translation to be one of the most efficient strategies of

mediation between cultures since it presents one culture in terms which are familiar to the other.

Translators are aware that they have to create a space of in-betweenness, a space in which

foreign cultural elements are smoothly inserted. Their strategic choice is motivated by the need

to find cultural equivalents. The two cultures may interfere on a smaller or a larger scale, but we

have to admit that nowadays we witness a new paradigm of international relations, a different

geopolitical structure and that the phenomenon of globalization, of diversity in unity means the

promotion of a higher pre-potent identity that we have to recognize and assume.

38

The cultural intertraffic raises serious problems in translation since the two linguistic

codes, even if, ideally, there are no linguistic gaps, do not place the same value on the signs they

have at their disposal. Every speech community is profiled by a series of customs, beliefs,

axiological values, taxonomies, cultural artifacts and some other realia that constitute the

variability factor in translation. If there is a high degree of cultural asymmetry, there is potential

opacity that blocks the insertion of the source culture into the target one. The presence of the

other, of a distinct identity becomes disruptive, the translator has to invade and colonize the

source language cultural space, s/he has to explore this fascinating territory and to transfer the

transferable items. In other words, there is acculturation work, which reflects the degree of

tolerance of the target language to the source language.

The minimal units that carry over cultural knowledge are called Kulturems, the term

being Els Oksaar’s (1988) contribution to the cultural studies.

The Kulturem could be considered a behavioreme, if we accept the proliferation of terms

ending in –eme. It is a distinctive feature of the communication process - both verbally and non-

verbally- fulfilling a double function: information transmission and cultural transfer.

The cultural intertraffic is not a process in which information is transferred integrally; on

the contrary, there is a degree of tolerance, there is entropy. There is need to say that the strategy

adopted for the translation of Kulturems depends heavily on their role in the source text (key

elements or peripheral ones) and on the likelihood of their undergoing a process of intercultural

evolution.

Taxonomy of Kulturems

There are various classifications of Kulturems. From a linguistic point of view,

Kulturems fall into two broad categories: proper nouns and common nouns. Theo Hermans

(1985) identifies two types of proper nouns: conventional (unmotivated) ones which denote, and

motivated nouns, encompassing names of characters and historical figures.

Newmark (1988: 96) takes over E. Nida’s (1966) classification and establishes the

following recurrent types:

- ecology: flora, fauna, weather;

- cultural artifacts: cuisine, objects of clothing, architecture etc.

39

- socio-economic structures;

- administrative, political, religious and artistic terms;

- customs and gestures (non-verbal communication included).

G. Lungu-Badea (2004:219) provides four main categories of Kulturems, adding culture-

bound items to the list:

1. Formally:

1.1. Simple Kulturems

- Simple common nouns

- Proper nouns

1.2. Compound Kulturems, as a single conceptual unit

2. Functionally:

2.1. Historical Kulturems

- Simple common/ proper nouns, compound nouns

- Phrases

2.1. Contemporary Kulturems

Simple common / proper nouns, compound nouns

Phrases

3. According to the original text-type:

3.1. Literary Kulturems

In poetry

In prose

In drama

3.2. Non-literary Kulturems

Kulturems belonging to literary and non-literary texts alike

40

4. According to the source language cultural space and to the translator’s affinity to the source

language culture:

Native Kulturems (specific to the translator’s mother tongue)

Foreign Kulturems

Furthermore, to give some examples, we shall analyze the Kulturems from an article in

the magazine The American.

The American

Wednesday, 20 June 2012 17:40

Taliban Commander Blocks Polio Vaccines until Drone Strikes End

The Taliban is refusing to administer polio vaccines to children until President Obama suspends

the drone program that has killed nearly 3,000 people along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border,

including over 30 in the month of June.

Just days before the scheduled inoculation of 161,000 children, the tribal leader in North

Waziristan issued the edict cancelling the event. As readers will recognize, North Waziristan has

been the site of many if not most of the airstrikes carried out by the American drones ostensibly

in search of “militants” suspected of hiding out in that mountainous region.

The order was issued by Taliban commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur. Bahadur said the final

decision to ban vaccinations was made by the shura-e-mujahedeen, a coalition council

representing several factions operating in the area, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

A story published by the New York Times reports the health risks resulting from the Taliban’s

policy statement.

41

The announcement, made over the weekend, is a blow to polio vaccination efforts in Pakistan,

one of just three countries where the disease is still endemic, accounting for 198 new cases last

year — the highest rate in the world, followed by Afghanistan and Nigeria.

The tribal belt, which has suffered decades of poverty and conflict, is the largest reservoir of the

disease. A UNICEF spokesman said health workers had hoped to reach 161,000 children

younger than five in a vaccination drive scheduled to begin on Wednesday.

That is likely to be cancelled, at a time when officials felt they were making progress. So far this

year, Pakistan has recorded 22 new polio cases, compared with 52 in the same period last year.

While the use of drones to target and kill suspected terrorists is controversial at home and

abroad, there is another aspect of the story that likely played just as large a role in the Taliban’s

decision.

A Pakistani doctor who was leading the drive to inoculate the region’s children against polio

was recently sentenced by a tribal court to 33 years in prison for allegedly having assisted the

CIA in determining the location of Osama bin Laden’s residence in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Dr. Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program in that city that was allegedly just a front for a CIA

operation to obtain a DNA sample that would verify bin Laden’s presence in the city.

A senior CIA official is quoted in the New York Times piece as saying that the effort was

unsuccessful.

Regardless, the Taliban holds up the Afridi/CIA connection as the real impediment to the

inoculations. That and the near constant bombardment of the area with Hellfire missiles

launched from American drones.

"Almost every resident of North Waziristan has become a mental patient because of the drone

strikes, which are worse than polio," the statement claims. "On one hand, the U.S. spends

millions of dollars to eliminate polio, while on the other hand it kills hundreds with the help of its

slave, Pakistan."

42

Despite Bahadur’s description of the relationship between the United States and Pakistan,

recently the strength of those ties has significantly weakened as a result of the Obama

administration’s refusal to apologize formally for the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers killed by a

Predator drone strike carried out in the North Waziristan area last November.

In reality, though, the U.S. government acts as though it believes it needs neither the permission

nor the assistance of Pakistan in the execution of its deadly operations in the area. President

Obama has been very successful in his use of unmanned drones to target, track, and kill those

branded as enemies of the state, despite the outcry at home and abroad against the exercise of

such dictatorial prerogatives.

If the embargo on inoculation continues, the number of casualties in the never ending “War on

Terror” may soon include hundreds of thousands of innocent children who will suffer the

ravages of a disease that is all but eradicated in much of the world.

In this article we identify some kulturems which are written in bold. They are

administrative, political terms as administration, eradicated, embargo, CIA, Obama. The

common nouns administration, eradicated and embargo have similar equivalents in Romanian

and French. CIA and Obama are proper nouns kulturems and they illustrate administrative

institutions and political figures in America.

Spokesman is a compound kulturem representing one single conceptual unit. Shura-e-

mujahedeen is an administrative kulturem representing a coalition council in Taliban. Al-Qaeda

is a proper-noun representing an administrative, political, contemporary kulturem which is a

terrorist organisation.

43

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvarez Roman, Vidal Carmen-Africa, (1996). Translation Power, Subversion, British Library.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity, Cambridge:Polity Press in association with

Blackwell.

Gudykunst B. William (2003), Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication, Sage

Publication.

Hatim Basil, Mason Ian, (1990). Discourse and the translator.

Hofstede, G. (1984). National cultures and corporate cultures. In L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter

(Eds.); Communication Between Cultures, Belmont, CA: Wadswort.

Jameson, D. (2007). Reconceptualizing Cultural Identity and Its Role in Intercultural Business

Communication.

Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952), Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions.

Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Papers 47.

Lungu-Badea, G. (2004). Teoria culturemelor, teoria traducerii, Timisoara, Editura Universitatii

de Vest.

McEnery Anthony, Xiao Richard (2006). Corpus-Based Language Studies-An advanced

resource book, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Munday Jeremy, (2001). Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and Applications, London

and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ACESTA ESTE MODELUL CORECT!

44

Venuti Lawrence, (2002). The Translation Studies Reader, second edition, Routledge Taylor &

Francis Group.

Vilceanu Titela (2009). Intercultural Communication Prerequisites for Effectiveness and

Efficiency, Editura Universitaria,

Williams Raymond (1958). Culture and society.

MAI ADAUGA TITLURI BIBLIOGRAFICE!

ORDINEA ESTE STRICT ALFABETICA!

45

SUMMARY

SCRIE PESTE TOT CU DIACRITICE! ATENTIE LA EXPRIMAREA IN LB.

ROMANA! ESTI VORBITOR NATIV!

Un fond de baza al unei limbi este o colecţie sistematică de texte care documentează

caracteristicile de utilizare a unei limbi sau varietatea limbii respective. Utilizarile practice ale

computerelor pentru prelucrarea datelor şi dezvoltarea teoretica a lingvisticii corpusului au

furnizat lexicografiei instrumente pentru stocarea şi extragerea de date (limbaj scris şi oral), de a

identifica mult mai detaliat toate aspectele legate de limbă, în special vocabularul, şi să prezinte

rezultatele în dicţionare.

Cultura are definiţii diferite, dar cea mai comuna este faptul că ea este modelul integrat al

comportamentului uman care include idei, acţiuni, obiceiuri, credinţe, valori şi instituţii ale unui

grup rasial, etnic, religios sau social. Ea reflectă normele şi valorile unei anumite societati.

Cultura constă in modele de comportament şi ideologie, care caracterizează un grup de

persoane la un moment dat în timp. Comportamentul se poate referi la practicile religioase,

ritualuri şi opţiunile culinare etc. Intercultura este diferita în materie de limba, eticheta,

comunicarea non-verbală şi norme.

Rădăcinile originale ale "culturii", s-au alăturat la istoriile termenilor "cult" si "cultivat".

Mai multe identităţi sunt în competiţie pentru supremaţie în situaţii diferite şi oamenii se văd în

calitate de persoane cu identităţi integrate. Cultura înseamnă stabilirea unei limite de identitate şi

diferenţă.

Mai mult de 80% din populaţia lumii trăieste în societăţile care sunt colectiviste. Cei care

trăiesc în societăţile occidentale trăiesc în societăţile care sunt de natură individualista. Aceasta

este o diferenţă fundamentală care are potenţialul de a crea neînţelegeri constante şi, prin urmare,

probleme de comunicare. Amintindu-ne că toţi suntem fiinţe umane conduse de aceleaşi emoţii,

46

instincte şi ambiţii, ne poate ajuta sa vedem diferenţa culturală ca pe ceva care este la suprafaţă,

mai putin ameninţător.

Conştientizarea culturală devine centrală atunci când trebuie sa interactionam cu oameni

din alte culturi. Oamenii vad, interpreteaza şi evalueaza lucrurile într-un mod diferit. Ce este

considerat un comportament adecvat într-o cultură este frecvent inadecvat în alta. Neînţelegerile

apar atunci când folosim propriile intelesuri pentru a da sens unei alte realitati.

Sa devenim conştienţi de dinamica culturii noastre este o sarcină dificilă, deoarece

cultura nu este conştientă de noi. Din moment ce ne-am nascut, am invatat sa vedem şi sa facem

lucrurile la un nivel inconştient. Experienţele noastre, valorile noastre culturale ne conduc sa

vedem şi sa facem lucrurile într-un anumit fel.

Uneori trebuie sa passim în afara graniţelor noastre culturale, în scopul de a realiza

impactul pe care cultura noastra are asupra comportamentului nostru.

Din moment ce toată lumea este produsul propriei culturi, avem nevoie sa creştem atât

conştiinţa de sine cat şi sensibilitatea trans-culturala. Nu există nici o carte de instrucţiuni care

sa abordeze cu succes diversitatea culturală. Dar anumite atitudini ajuta la reusita reusita consta

in intelegerea unui mesaj transmis de la o persoana catre alta. Competenţele asociate cu eficienta

de comunicare pot părea evazive la mai multe persoane care nu au experienţă pentru această

formă de interacţiune.

Traficul intercultural nu este un proces în care informaţia este transferată integral,

dimpotrivă, există un grad de toleranţă, de entropie.

Nu este nevoie să spunem că strategia adoptată pentru traducerea culturemelor depinde

foarte mult de rolul lor în textul-sursă (elemente-cheie sau periferice) şi probabilitatea lor de a

trece printr-un proces de evoluţie intercultural.

Tipologia elementelor culturale, se ocupă cu diverse teorii ale modului de a traduce

elemente de cultură specifice şi clasificarea lor. Aceasta demonstrează faptul ca un lexem

simplu, comun, poate fi interpretat în diverse moduri. Cultura, conotatia si valorile ideologice, ca

si domeniu de specificitate, contribuie la imbogăţirea considerabila a sensului, ceea ce face

47

lucrurile mult mai complicate pentru traducători. Cu toate acestea, faptul că există diferenţe în

aceste aspecte nu implică în mod necesar că ar trebui să existe probleme insurmontabile în

traducere. În ciuda tuturor diferenţelor, va exista întotdeauna un "trunchi comun", care poate fi

invocat in traducere şi putem ilustra acest lucru prin comentarea unora dintre analizele de

vocabular specific acelei culturi.

Culturemele (vocabularul specific unei culturi) sunt cuvinte şi expresii asociate cu

"modul de viaţă” al unei comunitati. Prin utilizarea abordarii bazată pe intuiţie, cercetatorii pot

inventa exemple instantanee pentru analiză, deoarece intuitia este uşor disponibila şi inventeaza

exemple este gratuit.

Este posibil să fi influenţat de un dialect sau sociolect. Ceea ce pare inacceptabil pentru

un vorbitor poate fi perfect valabil pentru altul. Ca fondul de baza lingvistic este un întreg sistem

de metode şi principii de aplicare a corpusului în studii lingvistice si didactice, are cu siguranţă

un statut teoretic.

48