independent. Here despite the differences in opinion as to whether language is part of culture or not, the two notions appear to be inseparable. Having confirmed the close relation of culture and language, Hanada (2009) has stated that words have meanings within their cultural context.
One other theorist who explained the relationship between these two concepts is Kramsch. According to Kramsch (1998), “language expresses cultural reality” (P.3). He states that people express facts, events, and ideas by referring to a stock of knowledge about their world, their beliefs, and their point of view. They give meaning to it through the medium they choose to communicate with one another, for example, speaking on the telephone or face-to-face, writing a letter or sending an e-mail message, reading the newspaper or interpreting a graph or a chart.
He states:
The way in which people use the spoken, written, or visual medium itself creates meaning that are understandable to the group they belong to, for example, through a speaker’s tone of voice, accent, conversational style, gestures and facial expressions. Through all its verbal and non-verbal aspects, language embodies cultural reality. Finally, language is a system of signs that is seen as having itself a cultural value. (P.3)
His notion implies that, there is a natural connection between the language spoken by members of a social group and the social identity of that group. Therefore language can be seen as “a system of signs that is seen as having itself a cultural value” (P.3). He simplifies that speakers of a language identify themselves and others through their use of language; they view their language as a symbol of their social identity. Their use of language is often perceived by its speakers as a mirror reflecting their social group and their culture. Thus we can say that language symbolizes cultural reality. He also believes that “There is nowadays recognition that language as code reflects cultural preoccupations and constrains the way people think” (Kramsch, 1998, P.14).
2.5 Translation and Culture
The definitions of culture are commonly thought to be beyond the scope of translation theory. Thus, studies on cultural issues in translation and on the difficulties of the cross-cultural communication have flourished in recent times. According to Munday (2001) the 1970s and 80s saw a move away from the static linguistic typology translation shifts and the emergence and flourishing in Germany of functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation. During this period, translation was regarded something more than merely transcending the linguistic elements from one language to another. Translation came to be understood as cultural system and it was to be treated with delicate observing of cultural aspects. Hanada (2009) states that any study of translation problems at isolated level, therefore, would not suffice for the training of translators, and any translation theory that concerns merely with one level, for instance lexical problems, will fail to account for the problems of translation. Snell-Hornby (1988) proposes that translation scholars gradually move from ‘text’ to ‘culture’ as translation unit.
In the newest versions of translation’s definitions, the factor of culture has been considered more importantly. Toury (1978) states “translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions” (P.200). This definition implies that the translation does not mean carrying out a word-for-word translation of terms from the SL into the TL; rather the contexts of the terms must be transferred. As Miremadi (1991) has stated “it [translation] is a two-way process: from one culture to the others and from other cultures into one’s culture. In other words, there is a give and take process” (P.11). House (1997, cited in Rayisi Dehkordi, 2010) points out, that translation is a cross-linguistic socio-cultural practice, in which a text in one language is replaced by a functionally equivalent text in another. The fundamental characteristic of a translation is therefore that it is a text that is doubly bound: on the one hand to a text in the source language, on the other hand to the communicative linguistic conditions holding in the culture to which the addressee belongs. As Nida (1964) says: “It is true that in all of translating and interpreting the source and target language must be explicitly or implicitly compared but all such interlingual communication extend far beyond the mechanic of linguistics similarities and contrasts” (P.1). She states that one of the main reasons for this is that the meaning of verbal symbols on any and every level depends on the culture of language community.
Bassnett (1991) provides an example to clarify this issue. According to him in the same way that the surgeon, who operates on a heart, cannot neglect the body that surrounds the heart, the translator cannot treat the text without the culture that surrounds it. He believes that unlike the linguistic approach which defines translation as the transfer of ‘meaning’ from one set of language signs into another set of language signs through the use of grammar and dictionary, the translation process also requires a whole set of extra-linguistic criteria.
Lefevere (1992) also believes that translation must take place within a frame work of culture and began her publication of translation studies with the following central title “issues: language and culture”. She has interestingly pictures the relation between culture and translation. She has argued that:
A culture, then, assigns different functions to translations of different texts. The way translations are supposed to function depends both on the audience they are intended for (there are very few translations of Gulliver’s Travels for children, for instance, in which the hero actually urinates on the imperial palace of Lilliput to put out the flames that threaten to consume it, as heroes in the original – he usually turns to the sea, fills his hat with water and empties it over the palace), and on the status of the source text they are supposed to represent in their own culture. (P.8)
Snell-Hornby (1988) states, that a culture assigns different functions to translation of different texts. She argues that translation studies has to develop its own particular ‘models and conventions’ and to focus on the ‘web of relationships’ in the context of text, situation and culture. Aixela (1996) refers to the understanding role of culture in translation and states that at present, this is a clear recognition of the fundamental role cultural transference plays in translation, a fact that becomes clear if we think of the presence of the term ‘cultural’ and its derivatives in a significant proportion of the modern literature on translation.
The mentioned relationship between culture and translation according to Bahameed (2008) is strong and durable. He has deemed translation as necessary for people “to reach cultures of the other nations.
2.6 Translation Problems
According to Newmark (1988) when a speech community focuses on special aspects – in which case we talk about ‘cultural focus’ – it creates a whole series of words to illustrate its special language or terminology, e.g. the French are known for the various types of wine and cheese, Spaniards for bull-fighting, Chinese for rice and so forth. In other words, where there is a cultural focus, there will be a translation problem because of the cultural gap or differences between the source and target language. However, it is not the only case where no direct equivalence can be found for a word. Other types of differences can make some translation problems, too.
2.6.1 Linguistics Differences
The first kind of difference between two languages that may come to one’s mind might be the linguistic difference. Pavlovic (2003) believes that the real problem of translation results from the ambiguity of terms.
Lohrasbi (2009) explains about it through an example to clarify the idea of different ways of expressing things in various languages. Her example is the danger that “interference” occurs, i.e. that contents overlap because of the similarity of language structures. Lexical interference is often termed false friends in the relevant literature, because one is encouraged to draw false analogies. For example an English terrorism is by no means comparable to a Persian تروریسم although there is a strong similarity between the names. In other words, finding appropriate equivalents is the primary step and here the translator is at the beginning of the way. Putting these equivalents beside each other won’t result in a translation of the work; it is just a bunch of words that seem meaningless. These words are expressed in a special way in every language and the translator should know about it.
According to Pavlovic (2003) translation is not just trying to find the words which have the same meanings in another language; it also includes finding different ways of expressing things in the other language. She believes that the real problem of translation results from the ambiguity of terms. Based on Miremadi (1991) even when the two languages seem to be similar in principle meaning, the necessary senses or associations are so diverse that they cannot be substituted for each other. This diversity causes the lexical gap between two languages.
Baker (1992, cited in Rayisi Dehkordi, 2010) argues that the lexical gap at word level means that language has no direct equivalence for a

دسته‌ها: No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

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