Abstract: Culture
ABSTRACT
Culture is the background of every human communication. Cultural embedding as a feature of texts in general is also valid in technical and scientific texts. As translation by humans is based on understanding, the translator needs knowledge in order to detect cultural aspects. This is possible by putting down implicit cultural references to certain structures on the text level. Cultural elements appear in the text on all levels – from the concept and form of words, to the sentence and text structure, to pragmatics. Examples for the various appearances are presented in the first part of the paper.
The second part discusses translation as a writing process. Here the categories of attention governing the translator's approach are presented. Taking a holistic view of the text, the translator may consider the relevant cultural context, discourse field, conceptual world and predicative mode to promote his or her understanding. The target language formulation will then observe the medium, stylistics, coherence and function of the text. Dealing with cultural elements may be motivated in view of the aforementioned categories of attention.
Introduction
Technical translation or research in language for specific purposes (LSP) has long been considered as a field of the exact sciences, and the idea of a cultural embedding of technical and scientific texts was dismissed from the theoretical analysis:
As a 'higher-level' discipline, building upon the insights of contrastive linguistics and sharing with it the notion of 'tertium comparationis', TS [sc. Translation Studies] seeks optimally inclusive rules of ST/TT coordination (Wilss 1996: 10).
It is questionable, though, whether the notion of a tertium comparationis – valid for standardised technical terminology – can be transferred to the task of translating in general. Translating technical texts in the professional environment or in scientific communication is more than handling terminology.
Texts, as the means of oral
Culture is the background of every human communication. Cultural embedding as a feature of texts in general is also valid in technical and scientific texts. As translation by humans is based on understanding, the translator needs knowledge in order to detect cultural aspects. This is possible by putting down implicit cultural references to certain structures on the text level. Cultural elements appear in the text on all levels – from the concept and form of words, to the sentence and text structure, to pragmatics. Examples for the various appearances are presented in the first part of the paper.
The second part discusses translation as a writing process. Here the categories of attention governing the translator's approach are presented. Taking a holistic view of the text, the translator may consider the relevant cultural context, discourse field, conceptual world and predicative mode to promote his or her understanding. The target language formulation will then observe the medium, stylistics, coherence and function of the text. Dealing with cultural elements may be motivated in view of the aforementioned categories of attention.
Introduction
Technical translation or research in language for specific purposes (LSP) has long been considered as a field of the exact sciences, and the idea of a cultural embedding of technical and scientific texts was dismissed from the theoretical analysis:
As a 'higher-level' discipline, building upon the insights of contrastive linguistics and sharing with it the notion of 'tertium comparationis', TS [sc. Translation Studies] seeks optimally inclusive rules of ST/TT coordination (Wilss 1996: 10).
It is questionable, though, whether the notion of a tertium comparationis – valid for standardised technical terminology – can be transferred to the task of translating in general. Translating technical texts in the professional environment or in scientific communication is more than handling terminology.
Texts, as the means of oral
Bibliography: 1. Chesterman, Andrew (1994). "Quantitative Aspects of Translation Quality." LebendeSprachen 4/1994, 153-156. 2. Gläser, Rosemarie (1998). "Fachsprachen und Funktionalstile. Art. 16." Lothar Hoffmann & Hartwig Kalverkämper & Hans E. Wiegand (Eds) (1998). HSK – Fachsprachen, Languages for Specific Purposes. Vol. I. Berlin: de Gruyter, 199-208. 3. Goodenough, Ward (1964). "Cultural anthropology and linguistics." D. Haymes (ed.) (1964). Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row, 36-40. 4. Hall, Edward T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. 5. House, Juliane (1997). Translation Quality Assessment. A model revisited. Tübingen: Narr. 6. — (2004). "Explicitness in Discourse across Languages." Juliane House & Werner Koller & Klaus Schubert (Eds) (2004). Neue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft. Festschrift für Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast zum 60. Geburtstag. Bochum: AKS-Verlag, 185-207. 7. Olohan, Maeve & Mona Baker (2000). "Reporting that in translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?" Across Languages and Cultures 1 [2], 141-158. 8. elberg: Quelle & Meyer. 9. Wilss, Wolfram (1996). Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.