Culture-Specific Items in Literary Translation

by Dr. Esmail Zare-Behtash (Associate Professor of Chabahar Maritime University), Sepideh

Firoozkoohi
Chabahar Maritime University,
Chabahar, Iran

Abstract
In most societies literary translation seems to have become so important that the very concept
of translation tends to be restricted to literary translation in comparison with other types of
translation and other texts. Furthermore, translating culture-specific items in literary
translations seems to be one of the most challenging tasks to be performed by a translator. In
the present paper attempts were made to explore the concept of literary translation. Finally,
the discussion was restricted to culture-specific items in literary translation which argued about
the different kinds of culture specific items in literary translation.
Keywords: literary translation, culture-specific items, invisibility of translator, source language,
target language
1. Introduction

Translation as a phenomenon is such an incredibly broad idea that it can be understood in

many different ways. Therefore, not surprisingly, many different definitions have been offered,
each reflecting a particular underlying theoretical model. The American theorist Lawrence
Venuti, for example, defines translation as " a process by which the chain of signifiers that
constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language
which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation" (Venuti 1995: 17). Venuti
sees the aim of translation is:
To bring back a cultural other as the same, the recognizable, even the familiar; and this aim
always risks a wholesale domestication of the foreign text, often in highly self conscious
projects, where translation serves an appropriation of foreign cultures for domestic agendas,
cultural, economic, and political. (Venuti 1995: 18)
In Venuti's view, the viability of a translation is established by its relationship to the cultural and
social conditions under which the translation is produced and read. He believes that a foreign
text is the site of many different semantic possibilities that are fixed, only provisionally, in any
one translation on the basis of varying cultural assumptions and interpretive choices in specific
social situations and during different historical periods.
2. Literary Translation
It is actually believed that, of all the types of translation, literary translation lets one
consistently share in the creative process of translation (Landers 2001: 4-5). According to Bush,
literary translation is "an original subjective activity at the center of a complex network of social
and cultural practices" (Bush 1998: 127).
Translating culture-specific items in
literary translations seems to be
one of the most challenging tasks to
be performed by a translator.
Lambert, who is also concerned with the literary translator, asserts that "a published translation
is the fruit of a substantial creative effort by the translator, who is the key agent in the
subjective activity and social practice of translation." He notes that whatever the restrains of
the network of social and cultural factors, this is, in fact, the literary translator who reaches the
thousands of decisions and gives the literary translation its existence (Lambert 1998: 130).
Lander also adds that "literary translation entails an unending skein of choices." In other words,
the literary translator must make a choice, and from a sequence of such choices the translation
comes into existence (Landers 2001: 9). Different strategies might be necessary to approach a
poem or a fiction. A translator of fiction, as Bush quotes from Levine (Levine 1991 cited in Bush
1998: 129), has to engage with the different rhythms, the images and symbols an author may
use in the course of hundreds of pages. He argues that:
Repeated reading and research enable the translator to identify such patterns, though some
will be translated subconsciously as part of the process of imaginative rewriting.... The literary
translator creates a new pattern in a different language, based on personal reading, research,
and activity. This new creation in turn becomes the basis for multiple readings and
interpretations, which will go beyond any intentions of either original author or translator.
(Bush 1998: 128-9)
The process of translation differs slightly from translator to translator and is influenced by the
particular work translated. Newmark concedes that it usually happens that the literary
translator first has to deal with words set on the page by an author "who may be dead
physically or metaphorically and now lives in the variegated readings by a host of readers of the
source language" (Newmark 1998: 117). Then, the literary translator should overcome the
conflict between accuracy and elegance by weighing the linguistic individuality of the SL author
against the particular features of normal usage in the TL. Since literary translators translate
those works which are selected for translation and which now exist where otherwise there
would be silence, they are involved at "a keen point of cultural convergence":
They often play a key role by suggesting works for translation regularly writing readers' reports
for their publishers on books sent by foreign authors and their agents. The eventual selection
implies the work is representative- even if it is anticanonical- of a particular quintessential use
of language and feeling in the source culture. It also implies that the publishers believe there is
a market for that literary translation. (Newmark 1998: 127-8)
Newmark believes in closely translating the well-written literary language. He writes that
literary language must remain aesthetically pleasing in translation and there should be a
constant tension between the informative and the aesthetic function of language. The more
serious the text, morally and aesthetically, the more accurately and economically it should be
translated, reflecting the thought, style, emphasis, and as far as possible, particularly in poetry,
the rhythm and sound of original (Newmark 1998: 201). He states:
Particular care has to be taken to bring out the connotations of polysemous words and
expressions, and to preserve repeated words, which are often keywords. There is sometimes a
case for adapting cultural metaphors and for transforming fictional proper names so that their
meaning is translated and their source language morphology retained. (Newmark 1998: 103)
Undoubtedly, the essence of the type of event that is casually referred to in Translation Studies
as literary translation, as Lambert points out, "makes it incumbent on scholars to define the
conditions under which this type of event takes place, as well as to investigate the conditions
under which it does not occur." Now considering the ambiguous state of translated literature
particularly with regard to the concept of 'visibility and invisibility' of literary translation, the act
of translation is not an easy task. Lambert then, acknowledges that "a translation may be
presented explicitly as a translation, in which case it is visible, or it may be disguised as an
original, which explains why the majority of readers remain unaware of the foreign origins of
some literary texts" (Lambert 1998: 130). He argues that both pseudotranslations and invisible
translations offer interesting indicators of the value position of imported literature in a given
culture. He asserts that such translated texts "deserve to be studied systematically as central
issues in the development of literatures" (Lambert 1998: 131).
Then, Landers involves himself in translation problems. He asserts that translation problems are
not like math problems that have only one or at most a strictly limited number of right answers.
As a subfield of literature, translation is subjective in essence. He maintains that "reasonable
people may well disagree about which of several proposed alternatives to a particular
translation problem best addresses it" (Landers 2001: x). However, in any other branches of
translation this problem would not arise, that is, the information would be conveyed
irrespective of considerations of style (Landers 2001: 10). Landers remarks that:
The goal of literary translation is publication. Translation for pleasure or as intellectual exercise
is well and good, but the dedicated literary translator aims at sharing the final result with TL
readers for whom the work would otherwise forever remain inaccessible. A portion of this
guide is devoted to the question of how to go about finding an outlet for one's translations.
Landers 2001: ix)
Lambert then asserts that since literary translation is generally a goal-oriented activity designed
to fulfill a need in the target literary culture, "an analysis of these needs and the strategies
employed to address them may help us explain the dynamics of literary relationships and
traditions, and hence of literary translation." He also asserts the necessity of taking into
account the influence of translated literature on shaping the dynamics of discourse,
communication and culture. He argues that the need for serious, descriptive research in this
area cannot be overestimated (Lambert 1998:132-3).
Any translation activity and any utterance about translation is part of the data that can be used
to elaborate a "profile of a given translation environment and to establish the position that
literary translation occupies on the cultural maps of the world" (Lambert 1993 cited in Lambert
1998: 132). In this respect, he concedes that statements of translators and their critics or
readers are interesting not so much in themselves but as objects of research. Lambert notes
that "most cultures have only a limited tradition of translation criticism and theory but there is
generally an obvious systematic in their implicit discourse on translation." He points out the
entire network of relationships between translated texts, translators, their critics and readers
become more intelligible "when considered as a complex tradition or system" (Lambert 1998:
132). He points that:
Within this functional research paradigm then, it is assumed that all translation activity
(whether it involves producing, using or commenting on translations) is guided and shaped by
such things as the norms, value scales and the models which are prevalent in a given society at
a given moment in time. The study of literary translation therefore consists of the study of
translation norms, models and traditions. (Lambert 1998: 132)
Considering literature as being the product of the dominant ideology, it is obvious that sign
systems cannot be taken on as understood by everyone, for language is dynamic and apt to
change quite rapidly. "Language is dynamic, so is literature and from time to time and ideology
to ideology old signs are substituted by new ones" (Abbasi 2005: 33). Indeed, the period and
culture of the time have direct influence on the language, and any literary work is, no doubt,
the production of its era. It is so significant that Bassnett states "all these elements can be
missed if the reading does not take into full account the overall structuring of the work and its
relation to the time and place of its production" (Bassnet 1992: 79).
3. Culture-Specific Items in Literary Translation
Since the concept of culture is essential to understanding the implications for literary
translation and culture-specific items in translation, many translation theorists have dealt with
the definition of culture. In 1984 Larson defines culture as "a complex of beliefs, attitudes,
values, and rules which a group of people share" (Larson 1984: 431). He notes that the
translator needs to understand beliefs, attitudes, values, and the rules of the SL audience in
order to adequately understand the ST and adequately translate it for people who have a
different set of beliefs, attitudes, values, and rules. In 1998, Newmark remarks that culture is
"the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular
language as its means of expression" (Newmark 1998: 94). Here, he asserts that each language
group has its own culturally specific features.
Schmitt in 1999 maintains that culture is composed of "everything that a person should know,
be able to feel and to do, in order to succeed in behaving and acting in an environment like
somebody from this environment" (Schmitt 1999: 157 cited in Gambier, 2004: 33-4). The
process of transmitting cultural elements through literary translation is a complicated and vital
task. Culture is a complex collection of experiences which condition daily life. It includes history,
social structure, religion, traditional customs and everyday usage. This is difficult to
comprehend completely. In 1997, Shuttleworth argues that cultural translation is a term used
to refer to those types of translation which act as a tool for cross-cultural or anthropological
research. He believes that cultural translation is sensitive to cultural and linguistic factors and
takes different forms:
Such sensitivity might take the form either of presenting TL recipients with a transparent text
which informs them about elements of the source culture, or of finding target items which may
in some way be considered to be culturally "equivalent" to the ST items they are translating.
(Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997: 35)
According to Nida and Taber, cultural translation is "a translation in which the content of the
message is changed to conform to the receptor culture in some way, and/or in which
information is introduced which is not linguistically implicit in the original" (Nida and Taber
1969/1982: 199). In the context of Bible translation, Nida and Taber state that a cultural
translation is one in which additions are made which cannot be directly derived from the
original ST wording. Thus, these additions might take the form of ideas culturally foreign to ST
or elements which are simply included to provide necessary background information
(Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997: 35).
In 1964, Nida lists four basic factors which make communication possible and, therefore, make
possible the translation of a message from one language and culture to another. These are: 1)
the similarity of mental processes of all people, 2) similarity of somatic reactions (similar
physical responses to emotional stimulus), 3) the range of common cultural experience, and 4)
the capacity for adjustment to the behavioral patterns of others (Nida 1964a 53-5). In addition
to Nida, Larson observes that all meaning is culturally conditioned and the response to a given
text is also culturally conditioned. Therefore, each society will interpret a message in terms of
its own culture:
The receptor audience will decode the translation in terms of his own culture and experience,
not in terms of the culture and experience of the author and audience of the original
document. The translator then must help the receptor audience understand the content and
intent of the source document by translating with both cultures in mind. (Larson 1984:
436-7)
Indeed, one of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the differences
between cultures. People of a given culture look at things from their own perspective. Larson
notes that "different cultures have different focuses. Some societies are more technical and
others less technical." This difference is reflected in the amount of vocabulary which is available
to talk about a particular topic (Larson 1984: 95). Larson adds that there may also be both
"technical and non-technical" vocabulary to talk about the same thing within a given society.
Therefore, if the SL text originates from a highly technical society it may be much more difficult
to translate it into the language of a nontechnical society. However, in the case of similar
cultures the conditions are not the same:
When the cultures are similar, there is less difficulty in translating. This is because both
languages will probably have terms that are more or less equivalent for the various aspects of
the culture. When the cultures are very different, it is often difficult to find equivalent lexical
items. (Larson 1984: 95-6)
Thus, a translator who uses a cultural approach is simply recognizing that each language
contains elements which are derived from its culture, that every text is anchored in a specific
culture, and that conventions of text production and reception vary from culture to culture.
Awareness of such issues can at times make it more appropriate to think of translation as a
process which occurs between cultures rather than simply between languages. Most 'cultural
words', according to Newmark, are easy to detect since they are associated with a particular
language and cannot be literally translated. However, many cultural customs are described in
ordinary language, where literal translation would distort the meaning and thus the translation
"may include an appropriate descriptive-functional equivalent" (Newmark 1988: 95).
Newmark also introduced 'cultural word' which the readership is unlikely to understand and the
translation strategies for this kind of concept depend on the particular text-type, requirements
of the readership and client and importance of the cultural word in the text (Newmark 1988:
96). Baker refers to such cultural words and concedes that the SL words may express a concept
which is totally unknown in the target culture. She points out that the concept in question may
be "abstract or concrete, it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom, or even a type of
food." Baker then, calls such concepts 'culture-specific items' (Baker 1992: 21). Nord uses the
term 'cultureme' to refer to these culture specific items. He defines cultureme as "a cultural
phenomenon that is present in culture X but not present (in the same way) in culture Y" (Nord
1997: 34). Gambier also refers to such concepts as 'culture-specific references' and asserts that
they connote different aspects of life:
Culture-specific references connoting different aspects of everyday life such as education,
politics, history, art, institutions, legal systems, units of measurement, place names, foods and
drinks, sports and national pastimes, as experienced in different countries and nations of the
world. (Gambier 2004: 159)
Gambier acknowledges that the culture-specific category "contains sixty clips divided into six
sub-groups" which included examples of references to the system, food and measurements,
sport, institutions, famous people and events, and finally the legal system (Gambier 2004: 160).
Newmark asserts that a few general considerations govern the translation of all cultural words.
First, the ultimate consideration should be recognition of the cultural achievements referred to
in the SL text, and respect for all foreign countries and their cultures. Two translation
procedures which are at opposite ends of the scale are normally available; transference, which
usually in literary texts, offers local color and atmosphere, and in specialist texts enables the
readership to identify the referent in other texts without difficulty. However, transference,
though it is brief and concise, blocks comprehension, it emphasizes the culture and excludes
the message, does not communicate; some would say it is not a translation procedure at all.
At the other end, there is componential analysis, the most accurate translation procedure,
which excludes the culture and highlights the message. Componential analysis is based on a
component common to the SL and TL to which one can add the extra contextual distinguishing
components. Inevitably, a componential analysis is not as economical and has not the
pragmatic impact of the original. Lastly, the translator of a cultural word, which is always less
context-bound than ordinary language, has to bear in mind both the motivation and the
cultural specialist and linguistic level of readership (Newmark 1988: 96). The point in regard to
the systematic way of translating a literary text is that "in each period of time the degree of
loyalty with regard to interpretation and translation of literary texts varies regarding the three
points of author, reader, and the text." Therefore, the literary translator has to know well the
critical approaches as well as their underlying structure (Abassi 2005: 32).
4. Conclusion
Considering literature as being the product of the dominant ideology, it is obvious that sign
systems cannot be assumed to be understood by everyone, for language is dynamic and apt to
change quite rapidly. Furthermore, in most societies literary translation seems to have become
so prominent that the very concept of translation tends to be restricted to literary translation in
comparison with other types of translation and other texts.
One of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the differences
between cultures. People of a given culture look at things from their own perspective. Indeed,
one of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the differences
between cultures. A translator who uses a cultural approach is simply recognizing that each
language contains elements which are derived from its culture that every text is anchored in a
specific culture, and that conventions of text production and reception vary from culture to
culture.
References
Abbasi, P. and H. Vahid Dasjerdi (2005)"Literary Translation: Challenges and Choices." In:
Translation Studies, 3, h. 10, 29-48.
Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York:
Routledege.
Bassnett, S. (1992) Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
Bush, P. (1998) "Literary Translation." In: M. Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies, London: Routledge, 127-130.
Gambier, Y. (2007) Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Lambert, J. (1998)"Literary Translation."In: M. Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies. London: Routledge, 130-134.
Landers, Clifford E. (2001) Literary Translation: A practical Guide, New Jersey University Press:
Multilingual Maters.
Larson, Mildred L. (1984) Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence.
Lanham and New York: University Press of America, Inc.
Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. New York and London Prentice- Hall.
Newmark, P. (1998) More Paragraphs on Translation. New Jersey University Press: Multilingual
Maters.
Nida, E.A. and C. R. Taber (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nord, C. (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Shuttleworth, M. and M. Cowie, Eds. (1997) Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St
Jerome.
Venuti, L. (1995) The Translator's Invisibility. A history of translation, London and New York:
Routledge.