Р.С. Желдібаева

Абай атындағы Қазақ Ұлттық Педагогикалық Университетінің 1 курс магистранты

The Cultural view on Translation socio-political texts

Traditional translation studies treat translation as the transformation of linguistic signs, taking insufficient notice of the interference of cultural factors in the translating process. However, owing to the natural and close relations between language, culture and translation, with the development of related disciplines, translation studies from the perspective of cultural communication have been gaining weight in the academic circles of translation theories in recent years, which resulted in the cultural view on translation.

This paper discusses translation from the cultural perspective. We point out the defects of traditional translation studies and introduces the currently prevailing cultural view on translation.

Traditionally, translation was defined from the perspective of linguistics. According to Eugene A. Nida, the renowned American theorist on translation, “Translating consists in reproducing the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of language and secondly in terms of style” [1, 6]. Another English translation theorist by the name of Catford more clearly defined translation as “the replacement of textual material in one language（SL）by equivalent textual material in another language（TL）” [2, 18].

Thus, translation studies conducted from linguistic perspective result in the neglect of cultural factors involved in translation. Translation is in nature a cross-cultural communication rather than a mere handling of languages. As is known to all, language, as a cultural phenomenon and a major carrier of culture, can’t survive once separated from the cultural background in which it is deeply rooted. So, translating itself is a process in which cultural intercourse is conducted through the very cultural carrier of language. Every language was born of culture and draws nutrition from it. Therefore, translators should not just concentrate on how to convey the message in one language by the means of another language but endeavour to display the differences of the two cultures’ modes of thinking and the habits of expressing feelings. Examples concerning this aspect can be easily picked up. For instance, it is sound to translate the English phrase “Blue Room” into “Көк Бөлме”, but these expressions fail to convey the cultural connotation of it. In fact, “Blue Room” is the room in which the President meets his friends and relatives. So it is more acceptable to translate it using the method of description as in Kazakh language we don’t have such a comprehension, this leads to the following translation into “ел басы қонақтарын күтуге арналған бөлме (мекеме)”, which to some extent conveys its cultural connotation.

Yet, the concept of culture is a very comprehensive one, which has been given a good number of definitions. The one generally acknowledged as the most classic was provided by an anthropologist, Edward B. Tylor in his Primitive Culture (1871). «(Culture is) that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, customs and many other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. (quoted, in Bock, 1979)»[3, 47].

The term of culture almost covers every aspect of human life. According to A Dictionary of Translation Studies, culture is generally divided by anthropologists into at least four systems: techno-economic system, social system, ideational system and linguistic system.

Thus, the differences and conflicts between various cultures become conspicuous in translating process. For instance, it takes great care to translate the word «Sultan», which is widely used in the western newspaper articles and takes a considerable place in a press of the USA. Also this word is associated with the political regime ‘’Sultanism”. The definition for this word given by Kazakh Explanatory Dictionary is as follows:

СҰЛТАН 1. Шығыс елдеріндегі жергілікті билеушілердің лауазымы. 2. Ауысп. Ең жақсы, ең тәуір.

From the definition in Kazakh, we can see no derogatory meaning in this word. In fact the word “Sultan” in the mind of Kazakh people is associated with strength, wisdom and power, and has only positive connotations, as a proof for this can serve a widespread human name Sultan which has been in a great demand for all times, parents name their children in this way with a hope that their sons will grow strong, domineering and fair.

However, for the USA and some western countries the words “Sultan” and especially “Sultanism” are derogatory. The definition of “Sultan” provided by Oxford Paper back Dictionary is the following:

SULTAN is a ruler of certain Muslim countries.

Nevertheless there is no exact definition of the phenomenon “Sultanism” in English Explanatory Dictionaries, may be that is because this word is relatively new, although , as we have already pointed out before, the word “Sultanism” is widely used in a western and American press in a strong negative connotation.

If to trust the political scientists Juan Lintsu and Alfred Stipen who are actively using in the analysis of not democratic modes the term "Sultanism", the characteristic for this model is "continuous, unpredictable and despotic intervention" of the person possessing the higher authority, to different spheres of public life and public administration.(Naturally, such person not necessarily has to be called as the sultan it is the only historical hint connected with the Ottoman Empire).[4, 23].

Here are some other definitions which were given by different encyclopedias and authors related to their articles.

· Sultanism, another name for Despotism, is a form of authoritarian government characterized by the extreme personal presence of the ruler in all elements of governance. The ruler may or may not be present in economic or social life, and thus there may be pluralism in these areas, but this is never true of political power.[5]

· The term Sultanism is derived from the word Sultan, which is a title used in Muslim societies for a sovereign or absolute monarchy. The Sultan was traditionally a secular office, unlike the Caliphate, and thus the term Sultanism should not be deemed anti-Islamic. Some Sultans were constitutional monarchs.[5]

So, when handling words or expressions containing cultural conflict or connotative meaning, remedy methods such as footnotes or necessary description can be employed so as to succeed in conveying cultural connotation.

Roughly, there are two translating approaches to cultural conflicts: domestication and foreignization. The school of domestication, represented by Eugene A. Nida, is target-language-oriented. Scholars of this school advocate smooth and transparent versions by domesticating foreign cultures so that the target readers can understand them easily. The school of foreignization, represented by Venuti, is source-language-oriented. Scholars of this school hold that the things unique to foreign cultures should be reserved so as to introduce new expressions into the target language and enrich it. The disputes between the two schools have been going on and on and neither side seems to convince the other.

Which strategy is better, domestication or foreignization? There is no certain answer. It is decided upon by varieties of factors whether to choose domesticating or foreignizing strategy, namely, the intention of the translator, textual function, socio-cultural environment, historical limitations, the translator’s style, etc. The decision-making process of translation is conditional rather than unconditional.

The cultural view on translation provides a new perspective for translation studies. There are many disputable issues, including the one between domestication and foreignization. Once researching them from the perspective of culture, scholars of the translation circle find that many of these problems seem solvable. That is, whatever the strategy is, so long as it can help cultural communication, it has its necessity to exist. This is maybe one of the recommendable aspects of the cultural view on translation.

Though the cultural view on translation has its advantages in solving tough problems and it may well help translation studies to develop at a deeper level and in a more scientific direction, it has its own limitations. It is just one perspective of translation studies. Only when scholars engaged in translation combine it with the development of other related disciplines, can they make translation studies an independent and more scientific discipline.

Last but not least, studying translation from the perspective of cultural communication is just one of the many ways of translation studies. It is not so almighty that it can resolve every problem concerning translation studies. It is closely related to the other ways of translation studies. Without the development of related disciplines, the construction and development of cross-cultural translation will be fruitless. So, the cultural view on translation is not opposite but supplementary to the other views on translation.

REFERENCES

1. Nida, E. A. & Charles, R. T. (1969/1982) The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

2. Catford, J. C.（1965）A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.