Ways of Cultural Understanding and Translation

The notion of “culture”, that is national traditions, behavior, thinking and

varying world views among different peoples of the world, are a major focus of
linguists in the US, Europe and Russia, who study cultural specifics of languages
and communication. Translation studies of today are also culturally oriented, and
many translators and scholars consider culture-bound issues to be much more
problematic than lexical or syntactic difficulties.
As a system of congruent and interrelated beliefs, values, strategies and
cognitive environments which guide the shared basis of behavior, culture
happens to be the greatest barrier to translation success, because even if people
speak one language their lack of common cultural background causes the
communication to fail. This is why values, for both translators and interpreters,
will change. No longer will the focus be, exclusively on language and text
(whether source or target), but rather on increasing cultural awareness, which
leads to effective dialogue and mutual understanding, ultimately resulting in
trust.
Questions regarding whether or not translations can account for culture, or
to what extent culture is relevant, are very much at the center of the debate. The
two extreme prevailing views are that either everything can be translated without
loss and that nothing can be translated without loss. These viewpoints are, in fact,
both correct, and can be sensibly discussed by viewing the issue of linguistic-
cultural barrier.
The famous quote from Edward T. Hall and Mildred Reed Hall runs as
follows: “the single greatest barrier to business success is the one erected by
culture”. As both national language and national culture are a manifestation of a
specific national mentality, getting over the language barrier is not the only thing
to focus on. Overcoming the cultural barrier is equally or even more significant.
Hall’s quote as applied to translation studies, in this case may be expressed like
this “greatest barrier to translation success is the one erected by both language and
culture”.
Sapir (1929:214), like Malinovsky, was convinced that language could only
be interpreted within a culture, suggesting that “no two languages are ever
sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same reality. The worlds in
which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with
different labels”. David Katan (1999:74) accepts this idea stating that “the
organization of experience is not “reality”, but is a simplification and distortion
which changes from culture to culture. Each culture acts as a frame within which
external signs of “reality” are interpreted”.
Culture is not only a set of norms, beliefs, and values of the target language
but also a context in which the target language operates. The language is inevitably
tied to people’s culture, i.e. to the perceptual world that people live in and the
practices that they engage in. Language evokes activities and it is only in those
activities that language-use possesses its sense. The speaking of language is part
of an activity, or of a form of life.
The main constituents of the linguistic-cultural barrier are differences in the
systems of languages (grammar structures and lexis - cultural realia, cultural
connotations, idioms), and differences in language usage. These two points are the
manifestation of differences at a visible level. What does not manifest are the
more important yet invisible elements of what actually make up a culture. As
Kramsch (1993:227) says, “it is a fallacy to believe that because Russians now
drink Pepsi-cola, Pepsi means the same for them as for Americans”. This is the
level of underlying core values, habitual patterns of thought, and certain prevalent
assumptions about human nature and society, which the cultural mediator should
be prepared to encounter.
Let us view, first of all, differences on the level of the systems of languages
including grammar and lexis.
Grammar creates the potential within which we act and enact our cultural
being. This potential is at once both enabling and constraining: that is, grammar
makes meaning possible and also sets limits on what can be meant (Halliday
1992:65).
The situation with presenting oneself in the English and the Russian
languages is one of the examples of the limitations and possibilities of grammar. It
is clearly seen in the use of pronouns which is generally a clear index pointing to a
referent. In the English language culturally determined striving for privacy and
singleness is presented with the pronoun I. In the Russian language there is a
striving for the “collective” way of description (we, all, both). - Where should I
meet you tonight? In Russian might be Where should we meet tonight) сегодня
встретимся, Everybody is busy might be All are busy. Instead of the singular being
emphasized in Russian the collective would be emphasized. Instead of saying
“Peter and I went to the cinema” Russians would say “We with Peter went to the
cinema”, instead of saying “everyone/everybody has left”, Russians would say “All
(people) have left”. In Russian scientific articles an author will never refer to
himself as I, he will refer to himself as we. It can be explained by the Russain
value of being very modest and never arrogant. In English “We”, the royal “we”,
refers to Queen Victoria as in the famous phrase “We are not amused”.
Americans and Russians also vary in their perception of the environment.
Americans feel that they can control the environment, and are in charge of their
own destiny. Alternatively, at the opposite end of the spectrum, Russians with their
“spirit of fatalism” feel that the environment (including supernatural forces,
destiny, luck) has a measure of control over them. Americans in their language
tend to bear responsibility for everything that happens in and around them. Such
American phrases as “the buck stops here”, “Don’t just stand there, do something!”
and “Where there is a will, there is a way” are a prime example of a control
orientation. It results in grammar structures with a wide usage of direct active
constructions that use pronoun I and modal verbs expressing direct wish and
attitude (I’m thirsty, I’m sleepy, I’ve broken the cup, I can, I want…).
Russians, on the contrary, tend to use impersonal structures with no subject;
they use it as if everything that happens around them, happens without their direct
participation, as if everything is predestined (Есть хочется, спать хочется,
чашка разбилась). Anna Wierzbicka (1992:31-116) notes the fundamental
importance of 3 Russian values: dusha/soul, sudba/destiny, and toska/yearning/a
painful feeling/nostalgia. These three concepts permeate Russian conversation,
language and literature. The range of meaning is wider and the effect of these
words deeper than in English because they are core values. As with all values, the
translator has to be extremely aware that the values are directly and inexorably
connected to identity.
Russians tend to use a great number of negative and imperative
constructions, which have always been numerous in the language but
dramatically increased in the Soviet times. At that period there appeared much
bureaucratic slang used to maintain the totalitarian system of behavioral
patterns which restricted people to stimulation and punishment. Lynn Visson
(2005:53) in her book “Where Russians Go Wrong in Spoken English” points out
that in the 1960s and 70s Europeans and Americans viewed a Russian as a
caricature saying “no” and “impossible” to everything. Even the Foreign minister
of the USSR Andrey Gromiko was called “Mr. NO” behind his back, because he
made his international speeches using a great number of “no”, “impossible”, “you
mustn’t”, “you shouldn’t” phrases. Although the Soviet era is gone many
Americans because of their linguistic positive thinking and wide usage of “thank
you”, “please”, “excuse me” might interpret many Russian language habits as
rude and inappropriate. Even polite questions in Russian are asked in a negative
way. In English the same questions would be phrased in a positive manner.
Excuse me, do you have a pen?/Might I borrow a pen? in Russian would sound
like Do you not have a pen?
English and Russian have different means of word-formation. In the Russian
language there is a great variety of prefixes, suffixes and diminutives. Some
scientists say that through using diminutives having strong connotations Russian
emotionality is expressed. Most of them are translated into English with neutral
words. In American English it’s common to coin new words from the old words.
The first settlers in America literally invented new compound words from the old,
partly to categorize aspects of their new environment unseen or rare in England,
f.e., jointworm, glowworm, eggplant, canvasback, copperhead, rattlesnake,
bluegrass, bobcat, catfish, bullfrog, sapsucker etc. As Bryson (1994:26) points out,
“These new terms had the virtue of directness and instant comprehensibility –
useful qualities in a land whose populace included increasingly large numbers of
non-native speakers – which their British counterparts often lacked”. Striving for
directness also made Americans specialize in acronyms. When president Clinton
was elected, the term FOB (Friend of Bill) became a commonly used term to show
disapproval (TGIF – Thank God it’s Friday, NIMBY – Not in my backyard).
The combining of words is also culturally bound: to feel blue in Russian will
be to feel sad; open house in Russian will be the day of the open doors; severe
disease in Russian will be heavy disease, American as drunk as a skunk in
Russian will be as drunk as a shoemaker, to give a tip in Rusian will be to leave
some money for tea.
Apart from different ways of categorizing what is seen, languages can lack
the concept itself. In every language there are culture-bound words and phrases,
which represent specific (not general) features peculiar to this culture. Russians
don’t understand what Amish country, or marshmallows, or garage sale, or
NASCAR dads, or GEICO Cavemen, or Black Friday, or cubicle mean because
they don’t have these concepts in their environmental experience. To translate
these words one should understand what they mean and why they have this
meaning. There are lots of mistakes in translation connected with translating
cultural references. The name of a famous black comedy “Sex and Death 101”
was translated into Russian as “Sex and 101 Deaths” though “101” in American
English is any introductory course.
In Russian there are also many culture-bound words: perestroika, borsh,
samovar, matryoshka.
 In translating culture-bound words, as David Katan (1999:81) puts it, there
are a number of alternatives. The language can either borrow the language label, do
without a concept, or invent its own label.
Now Russian as well as languages throughout the world are borrowing
English to a great extent. There is a number of academies who keep a check on
language borrowing and periodically recommend own national labels. However, it
is clear that for the year 2000 and beyond different cultures come together under
the global communication umbrella, and the English language happens to be an
inseparable part of it.
Very often these borrowings have different meaning in Russian, for
example, the Russian language borrowed the word “killer” – киллер, but in
Russian it means “a hit man”. Sometimes loan words are not only practical but add
variety and humor to the language, as, for example, the Russian word “babushka”
(grandmother) which in English also means “shawl” or “kerchief”.
As for connotations they are also culturally determined, It is at the level of
connotative meaning that we judge and react to words. These are, as Margherita
Ulrych (1992:254) points out, “the culturally or socially determined value
judgments that are implicit in the semantics of a word”. According to culture and
belief one and the same word may convey opposite meanings, i.e. have opposite
connotations. The IRA – terrorist/freedom fighter, Fundamentalist – savior/fanatic,
Capitalism – freedom to manage property for profit/exploitation of a man by man.
A few decades ago the word Communism was one of the main values for Russians,
now it mostly has strong negative connotations.
Russians and Americans have different associations connected with one and
the same word, conveying metaphorical meanings. For Russians, for example,
birch tree is a national symbol, associated with a beautiful girl or Motherland. For
Americans an apple pie is very dear and symbolic.
So, it is absolutely clear that how languages convey meaning is related to
culture. Though languages can convey concepts from other cultures, people
(including translators and interpreters) tend not to realize that their perception
(through language) is, in fact, bound by their own culture.
Beside culture manifested in language culture is also manifested in speech.
The way we speak says just as much about ourselves and our culture as the clothes
we wear. Culture encompasses all of the shared rules for appropriate speech
behavior. Stereotypical patterns of behavior are acquired by individuals as a
consequence of being members of the same group, or community, as well as the
values and beliefs that underlie overt behaviors. Their cultural meaning is invisible
and lies in the way these meanings are interpreted by the insiders.
For example, in America with the idea of democracy permeating all
communication there is a tendency to use first names soon after getting acquainted.
It’s common to see that a professor and a student, a boss and a clerk are on first
name terms. In Russia the hierarchy of social relationships is much more confused
and strict. In the Russian language there are two U-forms – ty and vy (as in
German du/Sie and in French tu/vous). Each particular situation prescribes the
usage of ty or vy. Moreover, in formal conversations Russians always use first
names together with patronymic. People can know each other for ages but still call
each other in such a formal way.
Russian and US have their own culturally appropriate greeting rituals. In US
there is a standard reply to the question “Hi, how are you?” “Fine, and you?”. As
for Russians they like to reply this question in detail. As Vladimir Zhelvis (2002:
34) writes in his book “These Strange Russians” “if you meet a Russian and ask
him how he is today he will take a deep breath to tell you all the details of his life.
So, never ask a Russian how he is today if you don’t want to know whether he had
a good sleep and what he had for breakfast”.
There are a lot of other examples of asymmetrical speech behavior within
cultures (methods of saying good-bye, thank you, invitation, mode of address in
written communication etc). All of them show that literal translation is rarely
appropriate. Even dictionaries are now beginning to include sections on speech
behavior.
 Observable behavior is part of a larger pattern, that is the level of
interpretation. The most powerful elements of culture are those that lie beneath the
surface of everyday interaction. The focus here is not on what is read, seen, heard
or felt, but how a message is transmitted and how it is perceived. A translator as
cultural mediator needs to account for information which is implicit in the context
of culture, for example:
New Yorker: “In the upcoming presidential debates, is John Kerry willing to
debate the question, “Who is your favourite Stooge – Larry, Moe, or Curly?
Known to the absolute majority of Americans, the name of this comic trio
becomes a puzzle as it crosses a cultural divide. There is a number of translation
techniques to unobtrusively manipulate a text: footnotes, omission, deletion,
addition, or explication. Let’s view the following example. When talking about the
great American guitarist Jimmy Hendrix, the journalist cites a Mr. Cross who
describes the atmosphere of Hendrix’s childhood,
“It sort of gives an indication of the fractured family Mr. Hendrix grew up
in…This was not “Leave-it-to-Beaver-ville”.
“Leave-it-to-Beaver” is a popular TV series of the 50s, when Russians didn’t
have any access to the American popular culture. The substitution of the film’s title
by the one of the Russian popular film portraying a family idyll would be rather
strange in the context, so the possible solution here may be rephrasing – the back
translation from Russian would sound like “His childhood was far from idyllic”.
Sometimes a translator may decide to omit or replace whole stretches of text
which violate the reader’s expectations of how a taboo subject should be handled.
David Katan (1999:137) cites a great example which highlights the cultural
problems involved in attempting to retain the form of the message. It’s an example
of a literal translation from Italian promotional label which comes with a pair of
shoes.
You chose “Blackpool” shoes made with high quality materials. The leather
has been carefully selected form specialized slaughter-houses; which, after a
variety of treatment, has become softer and more supple.
 The point to be stressed here, is the Anglo-American sensitivity to the
treatment of animals. The British and the Americans don’t wish to be reminded
that their shoes began their life in a slaughter house. A more culturally appropriate
translation would be as follows:
Your “Blackwell” shoes have been carefully made from the finest quality
materials.
Sometimes cultural context can be so unique and culturally bound that
translation fails. It refers to folklore and fairy tales in particular. For example
Americans don’t understand why the main character of many of the Russian fairy
tales is Ivan-the-Fool who is lazy, doing nothing but in the end getting both the
princess and the kingdom. Ivan-the-Fool, however, possesses some qualities
valued in the Russian culture – kindness, modesty and inventiveness. Russians
even have a proverb “Fools are lucky”.

CONCLUSION
Culture is a context within which all communication takes place. The
success of translator’s/cultural mediator’s activity to overcome a linguistic-
cultural barrier depends on the ability to understand how culture in generally
operates, that is to understand the cultural and experimental logic of a foreign
culture which lies behind the original act of speaking or writing; to understand
the potential of the two semiotic systems in terms of their image making; to
understand the invisible cultural meaning formed by values; to be able to match all
of these with appropriate linguistic and cultural responses. The heart of his task is
to be a mediator not between two texts but between two cultures.

Natalia Timko
WORKS CITED
1. Bryson, Bill (1994) Made in America, London: Martin Secker and
Wrburg.
2. Katan, David (1999) Translating Cultures. An Introduction for
Translators, Interpreters and Mediators, Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
3. Kramsh, Claire (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Sapir, Edward (1929) “the Status of Linguistics as a Science”, Language
5:207-214.
5. Timko, Natalia (2003) Culture Factor in Translation, Kursk: ROSI.
6. Ulrych, Margherita (1992) Translating Texts from Theory to Practice,
Rapallo: Cideb editore.
7. Visson Lynn (2005) Where Russians Go Wrong in Spoken English,
Moscow: R. Valent.
8. Zhelvis, Vladimir (2002) Those Strange Russins, Moscow: Egmont.