factors which give rise to linguistic variation are sometimes discussed in terms of cultural differences. It is not unusual to linguistic features quoted as identifiable aspects of ‘working class culture’ or ‘African-American culture’. For example; in many respects this view has been influenced by the work of anthropologists who tend to treat language as one element among others, such as beliefs within definition of culture as “socially acquired knowledge’ given the process of cultural transmission by which languages are acquired. It makes a lot of sense to emphasize the fact that linguistic variation is tied very much to existence of different cultures. In the study of the word’s cultures, it has become clear that different groups not only have different languages, they have different world views which are reflected in their languages. (P.246)
M. Snell-Hornby (1988) defines a translation problem as:
The problems do not depend on the SL itself but on the significance of the translated text for its readers as members of the certain culture, or of a sub-group within the constellation of knowledge, judgment, and perception they have developed from it. (P.42)
As these statements imply, translators are permanently faced with the problem of how to treat the cultural aspects implicit in a source text (ST) and of finding the most appropriate technique of successfully conveying these aspects in the target language. These problems may vary in scope depending on the cultural and linguistic gap between the two languages concerned (Nida, 1985). She states that we expect to encounter fewer problems where the linguistic and cultural distances between source and target codes are least but in fact if languages are too closely the translator will be deceived by the superficial similarities. Therefore in such a situation the quality of the translation is poor. One of these dangers is called ‘false friends’ which are the most common pitfall on the way of a translator and always waiting to trap him. False friends are establishing verbal consistency instead of searching for contextual equivalence which misleads the translator. According to her, in the case of relatedness between two cultures but differences between two languages the translator has to take a formal shift in the translation. She states that the existences of cultural similarities in such instances usually provide a series of parallelism of content that make the translation proportionally mush less difficult than when both languages and cultures are disparate. In other words, cultural differences make more difficulties for the translator than the linguistic differences. Bahameed (2008) also has touched on this subject by saying that the translation between languages of distinct cultures is more difficult than carrying out translation between languages that are culturally related or similar.
Concerning this issue, Martinez-Sierra (2008) has pointed to the paradoxical aspect of every culture stating that cultures are not static, but rather they have a dynamic nature instead. Nevertheless, the paradox lies in the fact that, in spite of that changing character, cultures are also conservative and reluctant to change.
A relatively broad branch of culturally-based translation problems focuses on the translation of cultural-presuppositions. Fawcett (2000, cited in Serban, 2004) believes that since what might be considered a presuppositional trigger in one language may not indicate a presupposition in another language because of collocation and connotation issues, presupposition can be problematic to translation. This problem forces the translator to decide whether or to what extent the target audience may need hint to what is presupposed in the original, which is really a difficult decision to make.
2.7 Presuppositions
Since the researches on “presupposition” have a long history, in this part we provide a definition of presupposition and different types of presuppositions. Different scholars define this term in various ways. Baker (1992, cited in Mansouri, 2009) defined the term “presupposition” as a pragmatic inference relating to the linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge that a sender assumes the receivers to have or which is necessary to retrieve the sender’s message. Fawcett (2000, cited in Serban, 2004) believes that presupposition is a background belief relating to an utterance that must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context and that generally will remain a necessary assumption whether the utterance is placed in the form of assertion, denial or question and can be associated with a specific lexical item or grammatical feature in the utterance.
Acording to Xingchi (2007) there are four types of presuppositions:
2.7.1 Philosophical Presupposition
According to Bullock & Stallybrass (1997, cited in Xingchi, 2007), philosophical presupposition refers to:
The logically necessary condition of some state of affairs which must be satisfied if the state of affairs is to obtain”, e.g. the uniformity of nature is a presupposition of the rationality of inductive reasoning; memory is a presupposition of our having a concept of the past. Kant’s ethical theory of the “categorical imperative” is an account of the presuppositions of a particularly rigorous form of Protestant morality. (P.495)
2.7.2 Semantic Presupposition
In the sixtieth and seventieth of 20th century, with the development of semantics, semanticists extended their research on the definition of presupposition from various points of view. To give a definition of semantic presupposition, it can be said that in logical semanticists’ views, presupposition is defined as the relationship between sentences and presuppositions (Xingchi, 2007).
2.7.3 Pragmatic Presupposition
However, linguists realized that there were some disadvantages in the semantic perspective and presupposition should be regarded as a pragmatic reasoning instead of being considered in such a narrow range of true conditional semantics. According to one conception, a speaker’s assumptions (beliefs) about the speech context are presuppositions. A more restrictive notion is this: the presupposition of a sentence is the set of conditions that have to be satisfied in order that the intended speech can be understood (Xingchi, 2007).
As Keenan (1971, cited in Xingchi, 2007) writes:
Many sentences require that certain culturally defined conditions or contexts be satisfied in order for an express of a sentence to be understood…. These conditions are naturally called presuppositions of the sentence…. An utterance of a sentence pragmatically presupposes that its context is appropriate. (P.45)
Based on Xingchi (2007) while there are many understandings of pragmatic presupposition, there is one point in common, which means pragmatic presupposition is shared background information. So it can also be understood as mutual knowledge and common ground. Only under such circumstances, can two parties of a conversation get the access to realizing the actual points of the other.
2.7.4 Cultural Presupposition
Cultural presupposition plays an important role in translation process because it may affect receivers’ and readers’ interpretation of the facts and events in source language without knowing it (Xingchi, 2007). Since the main focus of this study is based on cultural presuppositions we define this term in the next section in more details.
2.8 Cultural Presuppositions
There are some general words and expressions in all cultures of the world. These words are cultural universals that include bodily adornment, cooking, family, folklore, funeral ceremonies, games, music, numerals, religion, and sexual restrictions, to name but a few (Pavlovic, 2003). All cultures have these categories but there is a point here: do all of them have the same form and the same definitions in every culture. For instance there are words like ‘die’, ‘live’, ‘star’ etc. All cultures know these items and they are not something specialized, in other words, they are universal; however, the manners in which they are expressed vary widely from culture to culture; dwelling, for example, may, and in actual fact do, take many forms, depending upon the environment and technological development of the particular society. So there is a variety of cultural practices which results in great diversity among the world’s many cultures (Pavlovic, 2003).
Ping (1999) defined Cultural presupposition as underlying assumptions, beliefs, and ideas that are culturally rooted, widespread, but rarely if ever described or defined because they seem so basic and obvious as not to require verbal formulation. Stewart and Bennett (2000, cited in Xingchi, 2007) holds the view that cultural presupposition is defined as those abstract, general and systematic views permeated in an individual’s world views and behaviors. More exactly, it is a systematical point of views of cultural features which is accumulated, developed and semantically formulated by members of the pragmatic community. Both of members of the same nature community and of the different nature community, use the cultural presuppositional in order to be successful in verbal communication and cultural communication. Fawcett (2000, cited in Serban, 2004) also coined the word ‘Presupposition trigger’ as a construction or an item that signals the existence of a presupposition in an utterance.
Nord (1997, cited in Al Agha, 2006) in her ST-TT analysis model, suggested that a cultural presupposition analysis is necessary. She

دسته‌ها: No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *