Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 48


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 fullyrounded persons with integrated identities. Culture means drawing a boundary of identity and difference. More than 80% of the worlds 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 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.




Chapter One: Defining culture and cultural-awareness

Chapter Two: Culture-bound items typology

Chapter Three: The cultural intertraffic in magazine articles





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.

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.


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:

Levels of Culture Artefacts & behaviour Beliefs & values

Discovery methods expressions of tradition, Observation clothing, customs beliefs about how the world should be Interview & survey


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: - 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 moralitiesis 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 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 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 Abates 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 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. 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 Marxs 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 individuals 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; - powerless vs. appropriation: the individual as a situated actor feels powerless when facing largescale 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; - 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 groups 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 individualismcollectivism 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 power distance cultures (such as Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, The Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, Arab countries, etc according to Hofstedes 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. Its 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 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 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 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 Gallweys 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 ones everydays 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 Hammerss (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 ones world view by countering the perceived threat, 3. Minimization in which one attempts to protect the core of ones 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. integration in which one is able to apply ethnorelativism to ones own identity and can experience difference as an essential and joyful aspect of life (p.186). Bennetts 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: selfesteem, 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 ones perception of how well one can develop ones 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 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 persons 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, otheroriented, 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 others explanations. This is parallel to Adlers (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 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 peoples 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 persons 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 anothers mind or to step into another persons shoes.

According to Barnlund (1988), interculturally sensitive persons tend to look for communication symbols that will enable them to share others 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 persons sensitivity ability in interaction. Cegala (1981, 1982, and 1984) considered interaction 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 ones duties in another culture (Gudykunst, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1977).



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 translators, and target readers, . But here there is a question remains to be answered, which is how to translate these cultural factors. Lawrence Venutis work (1995) has focused on the dichotomy between what he terms domesticating and foreignizing translation. Domestication implies here that the translators 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 Schreibers (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 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 Venutis (2000) unease at the prevalence of domesticatingtranslation 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. 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). 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 lvarez 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 culturespecific 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 lvarez 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. lvarez 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. lvarez 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 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 Catfords(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 vales 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 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 situatons, 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 account for the cultural references implied by the lexical unit. Achieving this is difficult, and the meaning may be lost when we choose to useequivalence" 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 ithas 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. 'cise 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', 'prijael', '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 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). 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. 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 explicitly mentions libertas (with several meanings) in Latn, 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 act, 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 Latn 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 (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/'thfreedom2. (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 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.



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 Unions 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 1950s, 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 - 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 translators 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 readerships 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 refocusing. Robinson (2003) sees translation from a twofold perspective:

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


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 Oksaars (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 nonverbally- 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. Nidas (1966) classification and establishes the following recurrent types:

- ecology: flora, fauna, weather; - cultural artifacts: cuisine, objects of clothing, architecture etc. - 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 4. According to the source language cultural space and to the translators affinity to the source language culture: Native Kulturems (specific to the translators 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 Talibans policy statement. 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 Talibans decision. A Pakistani doctor who was leading the drive to inoculate the regions 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 Ladens 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 Ladens 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." Despite Bahadurs 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 administrations 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-emujahedeen 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.




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!


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!



SCRIE PESTE TOT CU DIACRITICE! ATENTIE LA EXPRIMAREA IN LB. ROMANA! ESTI VORBITOR NATIV! Un fond de baza al unei limbi este o colecie sistematic de texte care documenteaz caracteristicile de utilizare a unei limbi sau varietatea limbii respective. Utilizarile practice ale computerelor pentru prelucrarea datelor i dezvoltarea teoretica a lingvisticii corpusului au furnizat lexicografiei instrumente pentru stocarea i extragerea de date (limbaj scris i oral), de a identifica mult mai detaliat toate aspectele legate de limb, n special vocabularul, i s prezinte rezultatele n dicionare. Cultura are definiii diferite, dar cea mai comuna este faptul c ea este modelul integrat al comportamentului uman care include idei, aciuni, obiceiuri, credine, valori i instituii ale unui grup rasial, etnic, religios sau social. Ea reflect normele i valorile unei anumite societati. Cultura const in modele de comportament i ideologie, care caracterizeaz un grup de persoane la un moment dat n timp. Comportamentul se poate referi la practicile religioase, ritualuri i opiunile culinare etc. Intercultura este diferita n materie de limba, eticheta, comunicarea non-verbal i norme. Rdcinile originale ale "culturii", s-au alturat la istoriile termenilor "cult" si "cultivat". Mai multe identiti sunt n competiie pentru supremaie n situaii diferite i oamenii se vd n calitate de persoane cu identiti integrate. Cultura nseamn stabilirea unei limite de identitate i diferen. Mai mult de 80% din populaia lumii trieste n societile care sunt colectiviste. Cei care triesc n societile occidentale triesc n societile care sunt de natur individualista. Aceasta este o diferen fundamental care are potenialul de a crea nenelegeri constante i, prin urmare, probleme de comunicare. Amintindu-ne c toi suntem fiine umane conduse de aceleai emoii,


instincte i ambiii, ne poate ajuta sa vedem diferena cultural ca pe ceva care este la suprafa, mai putin amenintor. Contientizarea cultural devine central atunci cnd trebuie sa interactionam cu oameni din alte culturi. Oamenii vad, interpreteaza i evalueaza lucrurile ntr-un mod diferit. Ce este considerat un comportament adecvat ntr-o cultur este frecvent inadecvat n alta. Nenelegerile apar atunci cnd folosim propriile intelesuri pentru a da sens unei alte realitati. Sa devenim contieni de dinamica culturii noastre este o sarcin dificil, deoarece cultura nu este contient de noi. Din moment ce ne-am nascut, am invatat sa vedem i sa facem lucrurile la un nivel incontient. Experienele noastre, valorile noastre culturale ne conduc sa vedem i sa facem lucrurile ntr-un anumit fel. Uneori trebuie sa passim n afara granielor noastre culturale, n scopul de a realiza impactul pe care cultura noastra are asupra comportamentului nostru. Din moment ce toat lumea este produsul propriei culturi, avem nevoie sa cretem att contiina de sine cat i sensibilitatea trans-culturala. Nu exist nici o carte de instruciuni care sa abordeze cu succes diversitatea cultural. Dar anumite atitudini ajuta la reusita reusita consta in intelegerea unui mesaj transmis de la o persoana catre alta. Competenele asociate cu eficienta de comunicare pot prea evazive la mai multe persoane care nu au experien pentru aceast form de interaciune. Traficul intercultural nu este un proces n care informaia este transferat integral, dimpotriv, exist un grad de toleran, de entropie. Nu este nevoie s spunem c strategia adoptat pentru traducerea culturemelor depinde foarte mult de rolul lor n textul-surs (elemente-cheie sau periferice) i probabilitatea lor de a trece printr-un proces de evoluie intercultural. Tipologia elementelor culturale, se ocup cu diverse teorii ale modului de a traduce elemente de cultur specifice i clasificarea lor. Aceasta demonstreaz faptul ca un lexem simplu, comun, poate fi interpretat n diverse moduri. Cultura, conotatia si valorile ideologice, ca si domeniu de specificitate, contribuie la imbogirea considerabila a sensului, ceea ce face lucrurile mult mai complicate pentru traductori. Cu toate acestea, faptul c exist diferene n aceste

aspecte nu implic n mod necesar c ar trebui s existe probleme insurmontabile n traducere. n ciuda tuturor diferenelor, va exista ntotdeauna un "trunchi comun", care poate fi invocat in traducere i putem ilustra acest lucru prin comentarea unora dintre analizele de vocabular specific acelei culturi. Culturemele (vocabularul specific unei culturi) sunt cuvinte i expresii asociate cu "modul de via al unei comunitati. Prin utilizarea abordarii bazat pe intuiie, cercetatorii pot inventa exemple instantanee pentru analiz, deoarece intuitia este uor disponibila i inventeaza exemple este gratuit. Este posibil s fi influenat 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 ntreg sistem de metode i principii de aplicare a corpusului n studii lingvistice si didactice, are cu siguran un statut teoretic.