Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
contexts. According to this view, translation is more a translation of cultures than of words or sentences. Casagrande (1954, p338) puts it more explicitly when he states that, "In effect, one does not translate languages; one translates cultures." Cultural translation is not irrelevant to Halliday's theory of language, a theory which views language from a social-semiotic perspective. Halliday maintains that language has three general functions: an ideational function, an interpersonal function, and a textual function; - all are unmistakably culture-bound. Studying language from a social-semiotic perspective commits Halliday to a functional view of language - to the belief that language is not simply a formal system, but rather a system that exists to satisfy the communicative requirements of its users, and in so doing, reflects their unique culture. Cross-cultural translation preoccupies itself with the communicative aspect of language at the expense of the pragmatic and the linguistic ones. Chau suggests two methods for accomplishing cultural translation: the ethnographical-semantic method and the dynamic-equivalence method. Ethnographical semanticists, unlike formal grammarians, confront the problem of 'meaning' from an ethnographical point of view on the assumption that meaning is indisputably culture-bound. Translators are advised to be sensitive to the culture-bound elements inherent in lexical items in both SL and TL texts. No two persons think equally alike, nor have their thoughts equally deeply rooted in one and the same language. Between any two languages, even if they belong to the same family, the cultural gap is inevitable, formidable and sometimes, 70
unbridgeable. Strategies to bridge the cultural gaps are referable, almost exclusively to the skill, intuition, and imagination of the translator. To exemplify the cultural implications associated with individual words or phrasal structures in languages, let me take the example of Arabic and English. When we say, in Arabic, that someone (and I translate literally) 'has a lot of ashes', this does not mean that he smokes heavily or that he has a fiery temper. It simply means that he is 'hospitable'. For 'hospitality', a culture-bound concept, is very often attached to the Bedouin Arab who, upon the arrival of an unknown guest from another neighbourhood, slaughters a sheep or a goat, makes a big fire, and serves him a rich meal. Hospitality, a culture- specific characteristic, is deducible from the amount of ashes in one's fireplace. The dynamic-equivalence method, Nida being indisputably its Chief exponent, rests on a universalist hypothesis: anything said in one language can be said in another. While the ethnographical-semantic method indulges in comparative ethnography, dynamic-equivalence method focuses on the reader-response. The TL text should have the same effect on the TL reader as the SL text had on the SL reader. Nida's definition of dynamic equivalence in translation is, "One concerning which a bilingual and bicultural person can justifiably say 'That is just the way we would say it'." The aim is to produce "the closest natural equivalent" to the SL text. (1964, p166) While the ethnographical-semantic translator endeavours to bridge the cultural gaps between SL and TL readers, the dynamic-equivalence translator 71
- Page 31 and 32: Neubert goes on to discuss the ways
- Page 33 and 34: Lotman (1976, pp153-96) argues that
- Page 35 and 36: (a) "the concept of translation equ
- Page 37 and 38: (structural) equivalences provided
- Page 39 and 40: equivalence obtaining between TT an
- Page 41 and 42: in various ways according to the ma
- Page 43 and 44: Roman Jakobson adds another three f
- Page 45 and 46: The communicative approach, of whic
- Page 47 and 48: claims, "free from the formal conta
- Page 49 and 50: to a certain system, to another sem
- Page 51 and 52: (3) RECEPTORS The author of a text
- Page 53 and 54: Messages are linguistically set to
- Page 55 and 56: p192) In immediate interpersonal co
- Page 57 and 58: concerning the communication situat
- Page 59 and 60: level of the individual sentence? B
- Page 61 and 62: In Europe, the linguistic analysis
- Page 63 and 64: demarcation lines between a sentenc
- Page 65 and 66: conditioned by the author's state o
- Page 67 and 68: elevant issues encountered in text-
- Page 69 and 70: features or goals with other texts
- Page 71 and 72: the source text, a step which comes
- Page 73 and 74: and confusing to obscure these diff
- Page 75 and 76: Translation is a relational concept
- Page 77 and 78: other replacement except what gramm
- Page 79 and 80: intersemiotic - springs from and po
- Page 81: the grammars of both SL and TL text
- Page 85 and 86: Moreover, the ability of both child
- Page 87 and 88: he understands the cultural pattern
- Page 89 and 90: to translation is unilaterally mean
- Page 91 and 92: to be considered translations? Is a
- Page 93 and 94: purposes. The transfer operation fo
- Page 95 and 96: In political discourses, however, p
- Page 97 and 98: language. Translations of medical,
- Page 99 and 100: are pragmatically a single text but
- Page 101 and 102: and 'relations' in terms of non-eva
- Page 103 and 104: dependent layers of pragmatic, semi
- Page 105 and 106: What matters more is the ways and m
- Page 107 and 108: (texte) is open, mobile, vibrating
- Page 109 and 110: Post-war linguists shifted their fo
- Page 111 and 112: personalities. He attributed this c
- Page 113 and 114: is interpretable form its language,
- Page 115 and 116: potential' of the source text be pr
- Page 117 and 118: Hatim's arbitrary distinction betwe
- Page 119 and 120: accessory meaning structures. Oblig
- Page 121 and 122: semantics and the speech act theory
- Page 123 and 124: Premised on a rigorous committment
- Page 125 and 126: implemented, will help him achieve
- Page 127 and 128: etween the translator as TL text-or
- Page 129 and 130: The rhetorical model sets out to re
- Page 131 and 132: SL text will have to be dismantled
unbridgeable. Strategies to bridge the cultural gaps are referable,<br />
almost exclusively to the skill, intuition, and imagination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
translator. To exemplify the cultural implications associated with<br />
individual words or phrasal structures in languages, let me take the<br />
example <strong>of</strong> Arabic and English. When we say, in Arabic, that someone<br />
(and I translate literally) 'has a lot <strong>of</strong> ashes', this does not mean<br />
that he smokes heavily or that he has a fiery temper. It simply means<br />
that he is 'hospitable'. For 'hospitality', a culture-bound concept,<br />
is very <strong>of</strong>ten attached to the Bedouin Arab who, upon the arrival <strong>of</strong> an<br />
unknown guest from another neighbourhood, slaughters a sheep or a goat,<br />
makes a big fire, and serves him a rich meal. Hospitality, a culture-<br />
specific characteristic, is deducible from the amount <strong>of</strong> ashes in one's<br />
fireplace.<br />
The dynamic-equivalence method, Nida being indisputably its Chief<br />
exponent, rests on a universalist hypothesis: anything said in one<br />
language can be said in another. While the ethnographical-semantic<br />
method indulges in comparative ethnography, dynamic-equivalence method<br />
focuses on the reader-response. The TL text should have the same<br />
effect on the TL reader as the SL text had on the SL reader. Nida's<br />
definition <strong>of</strong> dynamic equivalence in translation is, "One concerning<br />
which a bilingual and bicultural person can justifiably say 'That is<br />
just the way we would say it'." The aim is to produce "the closest<br />
natural equivalent" to the SL text. (1964, p166) While the<br />
ethnographical-semantic translator endeavours to bridge the cultural<br />
gaps between SL and TL readers, the dynamic-equivalence translator<br />
71
Change language