1

Jezik i kultura There certainly exists a relationship between folklore, culture and language. This relationship is based on the fact that folklore is expressed by means of language and that both language and folklore are set in the culture of the people who speak the former and produce the latter. In addition, both reflect the culture they are set in. Translation and culture are also so interrelated that translating without taking into account both the source culture and the target culture is impossible. In particular, translating folklore, which is believed to reflect the deepest aspects of the culture that produces it, requires a special consideration of culture. This chapter explores the relationship between these four notions and the importance of paying a particular attention to culture when one is translating folklore in general and folktales in particular since this study is particularly concerned with the translation of Rwandan folktales. Prior to discussing the relationship between these notions, let me first provide a short discussion of folklore and culture. 1.2. Culture 1.2.1. Definition As Katan (1999: 16) puts it, all people instinctively know what culture is and the culture they belong to, but it does not follow that they can define it with ease. However, it seems that, according to the same author (1999: 16), defining culture is imperative, particularly for anthropologists, because it delimits how it is perceived and taught. Still, although many anthropologists have attempted to define culture, they have not reached any agreement regarding its nature. Following this lack of agreement as to the nature of culture, different anthropologists have come up with different definitions. Edward Burnett Tylor (in Katan, 1999: 16) defines culture in the following terms: Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. For the American anthropologists Alfred Louis Kroeber and Clyde Kluckholm (in Katan, 1999: 16), culture can be defined as follows: culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values. Culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other hand, as conditioning elements of future action. In her definition of the term culture, Gail Robinson (in Katan, 1999: 17) argues that culture can be defined as a system consisting of two levels. The first is the external level which consists of behaviours (language, gestures, customs and habits) and products (literature, folklore, art, music, artefacts). The second is the internal level which is related to ideas (beliefs, values and institutions). Other definitions of culture can be drawn from the models of culture known as Trompenaars layers, Hofstedes onion, the Iceberg theory and Halls Triad of culture. Folklore, Culture, Language and Translation

13 Even if these models consider culture from different points of view, they have much in common and constitute a fund of information for the understanding and the definition of culture. Trompenaars layers Fons Trompenaars (cited in Katan: 26) developed a model of culture, known as Trompenaars layers, in which he argues that culture consists of three layers: the outer layer, the middle layer and the core. According to him, the outer layer is made up of artefacts and products. This includes, for instance, the organisation of institutions such as the legal system and the bureaucracy. The middle layer comprises norms and values. Norms refer to social rules of conduct while values relate to aspirations. The third layer,

2

the core, is considered as the heart of culture and contains a given societys basic assumptions about life. Diagrammatically, this model is presented as follows: Artefacts and Products Norms and values Basic Assumptions Implicit Explicit Trompenaars layers (Source: Katan, 1999: 26) Hofstedes Onion Hofstedes model of culture, advocated by Geert Hofstede, is similar to Trompenaars, except that it consists of two layers that he terms values and practices. According to him, the practice layer comprises symbols, heroes and rituals and value layer is the core of culture. This view of culture is schematically presented as follows: Folklore, Culture, Language and Translation

14 values rituals heroes symbols Hofstedes onion (Source: Katan, 1999: 27) The Iceberg Theory As to the Iceberg theory, popularised through Halls works in the 1950s, it is based on the idea that culture consists of two parts. One part which is the most important of culture is completely hidden and the other, the least important, is visible. The first part, according to the proponents of the iceberg theory is concerned with cultural value orientations to action, communication, environment, time, space, power, individualism, competitiveness, structure and thinking. The second part, which constitutes the tip of the iceberg, consists of music, food and drink, greetings, dress manners, rituals and outward behaviour. Brake et al. cited in Katan (1999: 29) add to the list laws, customs, gestures and methods of saying goodbye. Diagrammatically, this theory looks roughly as follows: Music, art food and drink greetings, dress manners rituals, outward behaviour Orientations to: Action Communication Environment Time Space Power Individualism Competitiveness Structure Thinking The Iceberg (Source: Katan, 1999: 30) Folklore, Culture, Language and Translation

15 Halls Triad of Culture Halls Triad of culture views culture as consisting of three levels that are termed technical culture, formal culture and informal culture. This was developed as an extension of the Iceberg Theory (Katan, 1999: 30). Technical culture is, according to Katan (1999: 30), concerned with communication at the level of science, that which can be measured accurately, and has no meaning outside itself. Formal culture is, according to the same author (1999: 31), the culture of traditions, rules, customs, procedures and so on. It is the culture that is part of accepted way of doing things. The informal culture is the kind of culture that is not taught or learned, but acquired informally and without being aware that one is acquiring it (Katan, 1999: 32). As can be seen from this discussion above, culture is a very broad field that even defining it becomes very difficult. However, Nida (2001: 13) provides us with a very simple, short

3

and practical definition of culture as the totality of the beliefs and practices of a society. 1.2.2. Approaches to the study of culture The complexity of culture has driven different anthropologists to use different approaches to the study of culture. These are, according to Katan (1999: 18-20), the behaviourist approach, the functionalist approach, the cognitive approach and the dynamic approach. These are not, however, mutually exclusive and none of them can claim to cover all aspects of culture. _ The behaviourist approach The behaviourist approach to the study of culture is the approach which consists in finding out facts about what given folk or people do and do not do. People of different cultures conceive of the world they live in differently, which makes them observe different dos and donts. It is forbidden for the British, for instance, to kill sparrows. But for Rwandans, it is forbidden to kill wagtails. The behaviourist approach is the approach to the study of culture based on such facts about what is allowed and what is forbidden in a given culture or society. This approach tends towards ethnocentrism, which is, according to Bennett (in Katan 1999: 18), the belief that the worldview of ones culture is central to all reality. Ethnocentrism Folklore, Culture, Language and Translation

16 has, however, one shortcoming: it makes people believe that their own culture is superior to other cultures. As an approach to the teaching of culture, ethnocentrism does not help students to reason because it makes them believe that only their own culture is natural and right. It prevents them then from understanding other cultures and considering their different aspects. _ Functionalist approach The functionalist approach is the approach which goes beyond the behaviourist approach and attempts to find the reason why people observes such dos and donts. According to Katan (1999: 19), the functionalist approach is an approach that looks behind the behaviour for reason. _ The cognitive approach The cognitive approach to the study of culture consists in attempting to explain internal and mental reasons for the links between a particular cause and a particular effect. This approach tends to use the concepts of modelling, and talks of mapping, underlying patterns and the culture-bound categorizing of experience (Katan, 1999: 19). In connection with this, Nostrand (in Katan, 1999: 19) talks of a cultures central code which involves the cultures ground of meaning; its systems of major values, habitual patterns of thought, and certain prevalent assumptions about human nature an society which the foreigner should be prepared to encounter. _ The dynamic approach The dynamic approach to the study of culture views culture as a dynamic process, constantly being negotiated by those involved. It is influenced, but not determined, by past meanings and it establishes precedent for future meanings (Katan, 1999: 21). Secondly, language and culture are also related in two respects: language is, like folklore, a mirror of culture and it is an integral part of culture as well. Language is a mirror of culture in the sense that, as Snell-Hornby (1988: 40) puts it, language is an expression of both culture and the individuality of the speaker, who perceives the world through language. Actually, language reflects the culture of the folk that speak it and through language, one can learn much about the culture in which a language is set or used. In addition, language is not, as pointed out by Snell-Hornby (1988:39), an isolated phenomenon suspended in a vacuum but an integral part of culture. As such, language is better understood with reference to culture. According to Malinowski (1923/1938: 306), the study of language, spoken by a people must be carried out in conjunction with their culture and their environment. Culture should, thus, be understood as the framework within which all communication takes place (Katan, 1999: 241). The meaning transferred through language is, then, dependent upon culture because the words of a language are culture-bound and the form of language, according to Boas (in Katan, 1999: 73) is

4

moulded by the state of culture. Sapir, also convinced of the close relationship between language and culture, says that language has a setting language does not exist apart from culture (Katan, 1999: 73). In other words, language ties up with cultural and social realities. Language finds its meaning in its own context. Folklore, Culture, Language and Translation

18 For Nida (2001: 13), language also constitutes the most distinctive feature of a culture. People can be identified as belonging to such and such a culture on the basis of the language that they speak. Language, according to Nida (2001: 27), represents the culture because the words refer to the culture, as the beliefs and practices of a culture. The other relationship between language and culture can be discussed in terms of how culture makes use of language. Language is used to provide information about processes and the values of a culture, to direct the activity of a culture, to establish and maintain a positive emotional state for the participants within a culture, to perform rituals in a culture, to establish and maintain interpersonal relations, to carry out the cognitive activity (that is thinking), to perform cultural recreative activities and to express the aesthetics of a culture (Nida, 2001: 25). Language is therefore, as Nida (2001: 13) says, indispensable for the functioning and perpetuation of the culture. Thirdly, culture and translation are linked because, as previously mentioned, translating involves the consideration of the source and target language cultures. Translation is now viewed as a cultural rather than linguistic transfer and not as a process of transcoding but as an act of communication (Snell-Hornby, 43-44). Vermeer, one of the leading proponents of this trend, sees translation as a crosscultural transfer and holds the view that the translator should be not only bilingual or multilingual but also bicultural, if not multicultural (Bassnett and Lefevere, 1990: 82). Translation is now defined as a means of intercultural communication, a means to make up for cultural differences. According to Snell-Hornby (1988: 42), the concept of culture as a totality of knowledge, proficiency and perceptions is fundamental in Translation Studies. Using language which is, as mentioned previously, an integral part of culture, the translator needs not only proficiency in the languages he is working with, but also in the cultures that host those languages. She also says that the extent to which the translator understands the cultures determines his or her ability not only to understand the source text but also to produce the target text that fits in the target language culture. The concept of culture is then of paramount importance in Translation Studies. This is because translation involves at least two languages and hence two cultures. However, as Jakobson (in Snell-Hornby et al, 1995: 327) says, cultures not only express ideas differently, they also shape concepts and texts differently. Folklore, Culture, Language and Translation

19 Considered as an intercultural act of communication, translation should thus take into account cultures it is concerned with since it can, as de Beaugrande et al. (1992: 37) say, be properly understood only within a socio-cultural frame of reference which may well differ among languages, text-types or cultures. In addition, translators should be aware of cultural differences because, according to Snell- Hornby (1988: 41), the extent to which a text is translatable varies with the degree to which it is embedded in its own specific culture, also with the distance that separates the cultural background of source text and target audience in terms of place and time. The concept of culture, therefore, deserves to be considered in translation studies owing to the influence that culture exerts on the text that is embedded in it. Moreover, any translation produced should fit into the target culture of the target language. -_____________________________

II. Translation and Cultures

3

5

In a traditional quest of translation activities, translators try to understand the text and make others

understand. However, several variables, especially intrinsic cultural inclinations are involved in the

course of this seemingly linear practice. Recently, efforts have been continuously rendered to

comprehend the inherent cultural perspectives in translation processes. Scholars including Bassnett

(1992) defined tradition as an inter-cultural communication act. In this view, every text was

considered to be embedded within a specific cultural setting, signifying that texts are established by

using a set of culturally dependent and specific symbols. According to this perspective, the extent a

text is translatable varies in accordance with how much the text is situated in its own specific

cultures. Moreover, communications between remotely different cultures always pose practical

difficulties for the translator due to differences in value systems, conceptual presuppositions, and

historical antecedents (Nida 1993).

4 Based on this culture-oriented nature of translation as an interlingual and intercultural

communicative process, pragmatic translation theory has been evolved subsequently. This theory

situates the act of translating within a communicative frame, emphasizing more cultural influence in

translation processes. In this theoretical framework, the concept of language in use and the

language as a form of social action (Halliday 1985) reside at the core. Translators try not only to

communicate specific textual meanings, but also to interpret what is fused in a specific culture at a

specific time and place.

5 With a similar theoretical tenet, it has been argued that translation is a process which attempts to

establish equivalents between two texts expressed in two different languages. These equivalents

are, by definition, always dependent on the nature of the two texts, on their objectives, on the

relationship between the two cultures involved (Cary 1985). This theoretical posture evidently

illustrates the importance of understanding cultures in translation ventures.

2.1 Linguistic and Cultural Equivalents

6 The idea of translation equivalents, especially in the interpretive translation model, implies that

finding an adequate equivalent is a goal a translator should pursue (Hatim and Mason 1990). If

translators fail to recognize any specific meanings reflected in particular cultural milieux, they will

probably fail to complete the tasks. Theoretically, there are almost no exact semantic synonyms

between any two languages, but it is possible to build interlingual equivalences or correspondences

between specific items in specific contexts (Nida and Reyburn 1981).

7 According to the interpretive theory of translation, a translator should transfer the intrinsic intentions

of the authors of the original texts to the readers (Lederer 2003). This transferring presupposes

understanding of the various variables in the text and reconstructing them in the target language.

Cultural presuppositions and diverse conditions have been proved to immensely influence the

nature of these inwardly fused but noteworthy factors. In this context, translation is the combination

6

of a conscious effort to comprehend meanings and intuitive implications expressed in the text, which

is impossible without a through understanding of cultural ramifications diffused in the text and the

comprehension of the relationship between languages and cultures.

2.2 The Relationship between Languages and Cultures

8 Language mirrors various aspects of cultures, supports them, and spreads them. While language is

clearly a product of cultures, this special feature of language distinguishes it from all other aspects

of cultures and makes it crucially important for the transfer of cultural values. One of the most

important cultural products is a language and Kramsch (1998: 3-4) succinctly describes the

interrelatedness between language and culture in three points: Language expresses cultural reality,

language embodies cultural reality and language symbolizes cultural reality.

9 In conjunction with this essential and intimate relationship between language and culture, if people

from two radically different cultures do not understand each other, it is not because their languages

cannot be mutually translated. It is because they do not agree on the meaning and the value of the

concepts covering the words. Conversely, they do not understand the reality of categorized

experience in the same manner. This indicates that understanding across languages does not so

much rely on structural equivalences but on common conceptual systems, formulated by the larger

context of the cultural experience (Kramsch 1998).

10 With this social nature of language and cultures, Bruner (1986: 131) said, Language serves the

double function of being both a mode of communication and a medium for representing the world

about which it is communicating. Within this realm, it is impossible to ignore the impact of value and

conceptual systems taught and handed down by cultures. According to Vygotsky (1986), who had

delved into the intricate relationship between language and thought, language was an agent for

altering the powers of thought by giving a thought new means for explicating the world.

11 Furthermore, it has been constantly demonstrated that aesthetic differences as important aspects of

cultural reality, affect the process of translation. A translator, as an individual belonging to a specific

culture, is bound to be influenced by the aesthetic traditions in the particular culture. According to

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1963: 357), culture systems are conditioning elements of further action.

Consequently, every cognitive action and decision presupposes cultural understanding and

considerations beforehand. As Brooks (1975: 30) states, culture links the thoughts and acts of an

individual to the common patterns acceptable to the group. These views on the influence of culture

are further elaborated in Flecks theory of the thought collective. According to Fleck (1979: 39), a

thought collective is a community of persons mutually exchanging ideas or maintaining intellectual

interaction, the members of which share in, contribute to, and draw upon the collective for their

experiences and ideas.

12

7

Emphasizing the influence of culture on thought mechanisms, Sapir-Whorf formulated a hypothesis

stating that different linguistic communities have different ways of experiencing, categorizing, and

organizing reality (Gorle 1994). Sapir (1956) claims that no two languages are ever sufficiently

similar to be considered as symbolizing the same social reality. The worlds in which different

societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same worlds with different labels. The strong

version of Whorfs hypothesis, that language determines the way we think, is no longer considered

valid. However, a weak version, that there are cultural differences in the meanings evoked by

common concepts, is generally accepted these days (Bassnett 1993).

2.3 Cultural Schemata

13 Another influential and important concept related to the cultural effect on human cognitive activity is

cultural schemata (Pritchard 1990). In the schemata theory, a persons perceptions and judgments

are believed to be affected and determined by the assumptions shared by the groups to which the

person belongs. This process of selecting and deciding sensory input subsequently results in the

creation and instantiation of schemata, which are available for use with new information

encountered. For example, it was observed that the political culture (Hulpke 1991) of a specific

society always exercises certain constraints on the process of translating. Therefore, in a politically

sensitive society, the translator generally makes a conscious effort to avoid any interference with

the established political norms.

14 According to a study on the impact of schemata on reading processing, it was found that cultural

schemata influence readers processing strategies and the level of comprehension they attain

(Pritchard 1990). Translators always use their background knowledge, the situational contexts and

the cues provided by an author of the ST to construct an interpretation of the meaning of a text.

Therefore, a passage dealing with a culturally familiar topic will be easier to comprehend, assuming

all other factors are the same, than a culturally unfamiliar one. This is possible because the

schemata embodying translators background knowledge about the content of culturally familiar

materials facilitate the integration of understandings and enable translators to achieve a unified

meaning of the text. The translators can and must be able to activate and utilize the relevant

schemata connected with any particular text in order to expedite comprehension of the culturally

familiar text. To support this claim, many studies have demonstrated that comprehension of a

culturally unfamiliar text is more difficult than comprehension of a culturally familiar text (Johnson

1981; Lipson 1983). Frequently in translation, what really counts is not language, but culture,

because the meaning intended by the author can only be determined with reference to the cultural

contexts.

15 As a further indication of how cultural values influence the thought systems of people living in the

cultures, one cross-cultural study (Pae 1998) demonstrates a distinct difference in value systems

between Korea and USA as shown below.

8

Table 1

Image pleine grandeur

The difference in value system between Koreans and Americans

16 Even though there is a risk of overgeneralization in this dichotomous differentiation between Korean

and American value systems, this information can be a reference upon which cross-cultural study

on different styles of translation can be formulated. In fact, cultures invariably and incessantly invite

comparison and juxtaposition; they are not only the places where meanings are made, but the

space in which they are being exchanged, transmitted and seek to be translated from one language

into another. As an extreme example, even abandoning native speech does not cancel the culture

to which it belongs, but merely defines its meanings on a new scale offered by the foreign

language (Toporov 1992). It is subject to further analysis whether cultural ramifications remain intact

while their applications and metamorphosis in another language through the translation process.

2.4 Mediation in Translation

17 Translators often resort to different levels of strategies of which definition can be termed as a

potentially conscious procedure for the solution of a problem, in which an individual is faced with

when translating difficult texts (Hatim 2001). Additionally, in an effort to minimize any possible

misunderstanding caused by the difference in cultures between ST and TT, competent translators

make relevant mediations in adjusting their translations with the target culture standards. As clearly

illustrated in Cheong (2004), translators use mediation devices including explication/implication and

expansion/contraction of the translated texts to maintain relevance throughout the text and convey

intended meanings from ST to TT.

18 In this study, the Vygotskian theoretical framework of the mediation was employed as a vehicle to

understand the strategic collaboration between two translators whose cultural backgrounds are

vastly different. Vygotsky (1978) has elaborately demonstrated that higher mental functioning of

human beings is mediated by tools and signs. One of the most important components of these tools

is a language. The fundamental claim in Vygotskys notion of mediation is that any type of human

activities can be mediated through these mental activities. These kinds of cognitive ventures, which

are evidently within the realm of the sociocultural activities, are not so much simply facilitating

activities but fundamentally shaping and defining works. This idea dictates that during the concept

development processes between two people, there can be an essential shift in cultural

perspectives. This shift was enabled by the path of mediation, from intrapsychological level to

interpsychological plane (Wertsch 1990). Cultural concepts or solution strategies exclusively

inherent in one participant can be transferred to another participant and duly internalized by the

9

recipient creatively during the process. This is a particularly effective and powerful tool for finding

solutions through conscious awareness raising and reciprocal efforts between participants (Moll

1990).

III. Methods

3.1 Research Designs

19 This case study was designed to examine how the difference in cultural schemata interacts and

influences comprehension of the translated material and what strategies the translators employ to

cope with ambiguities encountered during collaborative translation processes. Two translators from

Korea and USA participated in collaborative translation of the text from Korean to English. The title

of the translated material is The Japanese perception of Tokdo (the name of an island) during the

opening of ports. This is an article about a very controversial and sensitive issue as Tokdo has

become a center of territorial conflict between Korea and Japan. Tokdo is the easternmost territory

of Korea and Japan has claimed its territorial right on this island for several decades. Originally this

article was translated as a part of a project prepared for a special edition on the issue of Tokdo for a

Korean government-sponsored English academic journal. In an effort to ensure its translation

quality and objectivity for readers whose comprehension language is English, the translation was

designed to be conducted in a collaborative mode. The translation proceeds in the following pattern.

First, the Korean translator put the Korean article into English and then a well-educated native

speaker of English (American, a doctoral student in language education) worked on the article to

point out any parts that needed to be corrected or improved to make the article appropriate for

educated readers in the USA. Initially it was anticipated that this collaborative working mode would

be beneficial through a synergetic mode of cooperation and as the recordings of interactions piled

up, several interesting situations were observed.

20 In order to accurately record every interaction between the translators during this transaction,

exchanges of ideas and comments took place through e-mail. The Korean translator first sent his

version of translation to the American translator. The American translator corrected and sent the

text back to the Korean translator with questions and comments in order to clarify the ambiguity and

improve the understanding for readers. Gathered data demonstrated a series of mediation

endeavors between two translators before they reached agreement on satisfied final translation

idea.

21 Van Dijik and Kintsch (1983: 64-65) defined strategy in cognitive activities as the idea of an agent

about the best way to act in order to reach a goal. Moreover, Brown (1980: 456) describes a

strategy as any deliberate, planful control of activities. In this study strategy is defined as

purposeful and collaborative actions taken voluntarily to achieve smooth and effective translation

over culturally-embedded and ambiguous texts.

10

3.2 Data Collection and Analysis

22 Previous studies on strategic collaboration (Tharp and Gallimore: 1991) and mediation processes

(Vygotsky 1987) provided a theoretical framework for the following analytical taxonomy as a basis

for full-fledged and dialectical analysis of every interaction. Additionally, Pritchard (1990) proposed

the sequence of cognitive activities in reading processes to explain how the cultural schemata

influence the overall reading comprehension processes and the principles of establishing this

taxonomy were applied to this study.

1) Taxonomy of processing strategies in collaborative translation

23 A. Developing cultural awareness and facilitating textual comprehension

1. Understanding the text by activating cultural knowledge

2. Analyzing texts and finding equivalents

B. Negotiating on ambiguities and dealing with differences

1. Conflicts on difference in lexicon and structures

2. Coping with ambiguities and differences

C. Perspective shifting through mediation

1. Mediation processes

2. Approach to mediated products

2) Data Analysis

24 Data for analysis consist of e-mail transactions accumulated for a period of one month. Every

exchange of ideas and opinions on translation materials was collected and analyzed in accordance

with taxonomy of processing strategies as formulated above and data that did not fall into

categories under the above taxonomy were discarded from analysis. The joint endeavors in each

component did not necessarily occur sequentially with the lapse of time, but rather in a parallel

mode during translation collaborations. If questions arise regarding ambiguities in meaning or

cultural implications that need clarification, both translators exchange opinions on any issues and

discuss optimal solutions for smooth and successful processing of the translation. Sentences with

bold print indicate either correction of the translation or exchanges of opinions on the translation.

3.3 Discussion

35 As was revealed earlier (Pae 1998), it is a general belief that American way of thinking is logical and

linear whereas it is not the case of Korean way of thinking and making decisions. Moreover, cultural

differences exercise a significant influence on the way of thinking (Kramsch 1988). However, the

above observation in the analysis of reciprocal transactions between the translators from two

radically different cultures aptly demonstrated that two participants have actively engaged in

pursuing strategic problem-solving mediation to achieve a goal over the difference in their cultures.

11

Vygotsky claimed that human development is relational. It consists of internal consciousness as well

as external behaviors, cognitive processes as well as social ones. According to Vygotsky (1979:1),

The mechanism of social behavior and the mechanism of consciousness are the same we are aware of

ourselves, for we are aware of others, and in the same way we know others; and this is as it is because in

relation to ourselves we are in the same [position] as others to us.

36 The tools used in this collaborative process are interpersonal dialogue or active exchanges of

opinions. As Kozulin (1993) pointed out, Vygotskys approach required that the typology of the

semiotic means of mediation should be complemented by the topology of the overt and inner

dialogue in which culture acquires its psychologically individual form (p. 36-37). These interactions

include highly logical and abstract dialogue as well as spontaneous dialogue. In strategic

collaboration between two people with a task at hand, constant dialogues are required to explore

the nature of the problems (task) they are faced with. Gradually, they come to a common ground of

mutual understanding and further actions to be taken. This relationship is similar to the one

performed during the scaffolding process as termed by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976). These

dialectical processes during collaboration efforts in this paper can be summarized as in the following

figure.

Figure

Image pleine grandeur

IV. Conclusion

37 The traditional view on translation dictates that differences in cultural understanding and strategies

together with attitudes toward cultural difference may cause differences in translation products. With

this tenet, it is very difficult to elucidate overall intrinsic processes during translation endeavors.

Even if a translating process can be dissected into several controllable steps, it would be extremely

difficult to find linear or automatized translation procedures directly related to finding final solutions.

As Lrscher (1996) refers to translation as a chain of spirals or loops, this paper showed that the

translation consists of constant applications of mediation and solution-searching techniques. This

article is an attempt to explain the notion of mediation processes gleaned from collaborated efforts

of translating culturally ambiguous texts. Data analysis in a case study reveals that dialectical and

reciprocal translation processes were created between Korean and American translators. Analytical

criteria to determine various collaboration types were established based on the previous studies and

review of exchanges during collaborations. The analysis of actual opinions and comments rendered

12

between two translators suggests an alternative translation method for culturally ambiguous texts by

applying strategically mediated procedures. Further studies with more cases with other

combinations of languages are expected to reveal more details on transitional procedures and

products obtained through this type of translation endeavor.

Biography

Dae-jin Kim

Prof. Kim received his MA from GSIT at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies and Ph. D. in

language education from the University of Georgia. He currently serves as associate professor in

the English Department at Seoul National University of Technology, Seoul, Korea. He has published

numerous articles mainly focusing on various issues concerning language teaching and

interpretation training. His works include The role of an interactive book reading program in the

development of L2 pragmatic competence, The Modern Language Journal (2002) and A

pedagogical approach to conference interpretation (2002), Hankuk Publishing Co.

References

BASSNETT, S. (1992): Translation Studies, London and New York, Methuen.

BASSNETT, S. (1993): Comparative Literature. A Critical Introduction, Oxford, UK and Cambridge

USA, Blackwell.

BASSNETT, S. and A. LEFEVERE (1990): Translation, History and Culture, London and New York,

Routledge

BROOKS, N. (1975): The Analysis of Language and Familiar Cultures, In R. C. LAFAYETTE (Ed.),

The Cultural Revolution in Foreign Language Teaching, Skokie, IL, National Textbook Company.

BROWN, A. L. (1980): Metacognitive Development and Reading, In R. J. SPIRO, B. C. BRUCE and

W. F. BREWER (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.

BRUNER, J. S. (1986): Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge and London, Harvard University

Press.

CARY, E. (1985): Comment faut-il-traduire, Press Universitaires de Lille.

CHEONG, H. J. (2004): Translated Text Expansion and Contraction Phenomenon: A Corpus-Based

Study of Quantitative Target Text Changes as Reflective of Translation Mediation, unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

13

FLECK, L. (1979): Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Chicago, University of Chicago

Press.

GENTZLER, E. (1993): Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York, Routledge.

GORLE, D. L. (1994): Semiotics and the Problem of Translation, Amsterdam, Editions Rodopi.

HATIM, B. (2001): Teaching and Researching Translation, Harlow and New York, Longman.

HATIM, B. and I. Mason (1990): Discourse and the Translator, London and New York, Longman.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1985): An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, Edward Arnold.

HULPKE, E. (1991): Cultural Constraints: A Case of Political Censorship, In KITTEL and FRANK

(Eds.), Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translations, Berlin, Erich Schimidt.

JOHNSON, P. (1981): Effects on Reading Comprehension of Language Complexity and Cultural

Background of a Text, TESOL Quarterly 15, p. 169-181.

KOZULIN, A. (1993): Vygotsky in the Context, In A. KOZULIN (Ed. and translated), Thought and

Language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

KRAMSCH, C. (1998): Language and Culture, London, UK, Oxford University Press.

KROBER, A. L. and C. KLUCKHOHN (1963): Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions,

New York, Vintage.

LEDERER, M. (2003): Translation: The Interpretive Model (translated by N. Larch), Manchester, UK,

St. Jerome Publishing.

LIPSON, M. Y. (1983): The Influence of Religious Affiliation on Childrens Memory for Text

Information, Reading Research Quarterly 18, p. 448-457.

LRSCHER, W. (1996): A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Translation Process, Meta 41-1, p. 26-32.

MOLL, L. C. (ed.) (1990): Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of

Sociohistorical

Psychology, London UK, Cambridge University Press.

NEWMARK, P. (1998): More Paragraphs on Translation, Clevedon and Buffalo, Multilingual Matters.

NIDA, E. A. (1964): Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden, E. J. Brill.

NIDA, E. A. (1993): Language, Culture and Translating, Shanghai, Shanghai Foreign Language

Education Press.

NIDA, E. and W. REYBURN (1981): Meaning Across Cultures, American Society of Missiology Series

4, New York, Orbis Books.

14

NIDA, E. and C. TABER (1969): The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden, E. J. Brill.

PAE, Y. J. (1998): Cross-cultural Clash between Korean and American People, Journal of the

Applied Linguistics Association of Korea 4-2, p. 59-94.

PITCHARD, R. (1990): The Effects of Cultural Schemata on Reading Processing Strategies,

Reading Research Quarterly 24, p. 273-295.

SAPIR, E. (1956): Culture, Language and Personality, Berkeley and LA, University of California

Press.

SCHULTE, R. and J. BIGUENET (1992): Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden

and Derrida, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press.

THARP, R. G. and R. GALLIMORE (1991): Rousing Minds to Life, NY, Cambridge University Press.

TOPOROV, V. N. (1992): Translation: Sub specie of Culture, Meta 37-1, p. 29-49.

VAN DIJIK, T. A. and W. Kintsch (1983): Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, New York,

Academic Press.

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978): Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, MA,

Harvard University Press.

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1979): Consciousness as a Problem of Psychology of Behavior, Soviet

Psychology, p. 1729-1730.

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1986): Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1987): Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of General Psychology

(translated by N. MINICK; Series editors R. W. RIEBER and A. S. CARTON), New York, Plenum Press.

WERTSCH, J. V. (1990): The Voice of Rationality in a Sociocultural Approach to Mind, In L. MOLL

(Ed.), Vygotsky and Education, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press.

WILSS, W. (1982): The Science of Translation. Problems and Methods, Tbingen, Gunter Narr

Verlag.

WOOD, D. J., BRUNER, J. S. and G. ROSS (1976): The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving, Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17-2, p. 89-100. Auteur : Dae-jin Kim

Titre : Strategic Collaboration as a Means of Mediation in Translating Culturally Ambiguous Text: A Case Study

Revue : Meta/Meta, Volume 51, numro 2, juin 2006, p. 304-316

URI : http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/013258ar

Tous droits rservs Les Presses de l'Universit de Montral, 2006

15

Culture can be defined as the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression. Many translation scholars distinguish cultural language from universal and personal language. For them, words like father, die, live, star, swim and almost virtually every artifact like table are universals which generate no translation problem. But even with regard to such words there is a cultural aspect. Take, for instance, the example of father. The notion of fatherhood takes new characteristics in each different cultural community. A French father is different from an English father who is in turn different from an Arabic father a father normally called Si Sayyed. Another radical cultural difference can be further noticed. Some Amazonian tribes who lead animal-like lives have no father notion in their culture and consequently in their language. So, how to translate the word father to these people? For these scholars, only words like Monsoon, sauna, tsunami and paella are cultural words.

When a speech community focuses its attention on a particular topic (this is usually called cultural focus), it generates a set of words to designate its special language or terminology. For instance, English generated many words on sports, notably cricket words, French on wines, breads, and cheeses, the Germans on sausages, Spaniards on bull-fighting, Arabs on camels and dates, Eskimos, notoriously on snow. Frequently where there is cultural focus, there is a translation problem due to the cultural gap or distance between the source and the target languages.

Language does contain all kinds of cultural deposits, in the grammar (genders of inanimate nouns, take the example of couleur which is a feminine noun in French but masculine in Arabic Lawn), forms of address (like Sie, usted, Lie) as well as the lexis (the sun sets) which are not taken account of in universals either in consciousness or translation. What is worrying is that the translation of most of the general words (particularly morals and feelings) such as love, temper, right and wrong is usually harder than specific words. Most cultural terms are easy to detect, since they are associated with a particular language and cannot be literally translated.

Peter Newmark (1988) states five categories of cultural words, they are ecology, Material culture (artifacts), social culture, organisations, customs and so on and gestures and habits.

1. Ecology: Flora, fauna, plains, hills, Savanna, etc. 2. Material culture (artifacts):

a. Food: Zabaglione, cuscus , paella b. Cloths: anorak, kanga (Africa), c. Houses and towns: bourg, chalet, tower d. Transport: bike, cabriolet, calche

3. Social culture: for instance, leisure: tarab, reggae, 4. Organizations, customs, activities, procedures, concepts:

a. Political and administrative: Knesset, b. Religious: dharma, karma, halal, Chariaa c. Artistic:

5. Gestures and habits: spitting

1.2 The Relationship between Language and Culture Language and culture cannot be separated from each other. According to Nida, since culture is defined succinctly as the totality of beliefs and practices of society, nothing is of greater strategic importance than the language through which its beliefs are expressed and transmitted and by which most interaction of its members takes place (Nida 1993: 105). Later Nida provided more about the relationship between language and culture. Culture makes constant use of language to perform its crucial functions of (1)

16

providing information about the processes and the values of a culture( education is mastering the information regarded as essential for being a part of a society), (2) directing the activity of a culture( traditionally described as the imperative function), (3) establishing and maintaining a positive emotional state for the participants within a culture ( the emotive function), (4) ritual alteration in the status of participants in a culture, for example, marriage vows, sentencing of criminals, religious ritual, interment of the dead ( the performative function), (5) interpersonal relations ( who speaks to whom about what and in what manner), (6) cognitive activity ( the most common use of language is in thinking, although some thoughts are not necessarily expressed in words), (7) recreative ( the use of language in games, for example, scrabble, crossword puzzles, word-guessing games on television,

verbal challenges involving poetry and song), and (8) aesthetics, the use of

Book Review. Issue 1 Title. Language and Culture Author. Claire Kramsch Subtitle. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Series Ed: H.G. Widdowston Publisher. Oxford University Press first printed in 1998. Revised in 2006 ISBN13: 978 0 19 437214 5. US$ 24.95 ix+134pgs. Reviewed by Philippa Mungra University of Rome La Sapienza The complex relationship between language and culture is the topic of this slim volume. Like the other volumes of this series, Kramsch divides the text into a 4fold structure, common to the series: Survey, Readings, References and Glossary. The largest section is the Survey, divided into 7 chapters and this structure results in a readable, uncluttered map of the topic, unencumbered by citations and references aimed at stimulating thought and invite critical participation in the exploration of ideas(pg viii). The other sections of Readings, References and Glossary are distributed between page 85 to 132 and help focus the topics discussed and support the authors thesis by amplifying the readings with examples and are thus particularly useful for students or beginner linguists. In the first chapter, Kramsch delineates the term culture and explores the relationship between language and culture by indicating three verbs. These verbs are expresses, embodies and symbolises : that is, languages expresses, embodies and symbolises cultural realities. She sustains her argument by drawing reference to one poem by Emily Dickinson(1) which she considered a metaphoric stylised reference to the relationship between language, nature and culture: underlining a socialisation/acculturation role of language by its Community of Practitioners (CoP). She then draws the readers attention to the fact that the standards and norms of this CoP help create its culture both in the perception and in the reception of language, used in context. The author spends considerable space (4 pages) on this definition of culture, and describes the roles of practitioners within this community and thus delineates the hegemony and power relationships between them. The historic contributions of Heider, Von Humboldt, Boas, Sapir and Whorf are briefly described and the reader is directed to the Readings and References sections. Chapter 2 defines meaning as code by describing the pragmatic uses of code as in linguistic semeiotics. In this chapter, she draws a picture of how language embodies culture and in a particularly felicitious definition of culture, she holds that in any one language, linguistic signs may denote, connote or represent (iconicity) a semantic representation and this is embodied in code. Thus the semantic relation between code and its meaning is created and is not arbitrarysince it is guided by factors such as desire for recognition, influence and power as well as social and cultural survival. A native speaker views the relationship between code and its meaning or object as natural and is thus part of the culture. Such a defining role of sociocultural

17

conventions is particularly important in translation studies, given that translation deals with questions such as equivalence and context. The question of contextualisationin the Malinowskian senseis taken up in Chapter 3 and Kramsch draws our attention to the necessity of communicating Journal of English as an International Language Vol. 1 103 meaning, taking care to define the pragmatic context: as in the example she gives: freedomfighters vs. guerrilla forces vs. rebels. The context of situation as frames or schemata and context of culture, the role of participants in communication actsboth in oral and written language are then examined briefly and the major schools of thought are briefly mentionedGrice Cooperative Principle and Pragmatic Coherence. Chapter 4 is devoted to oral communication and culture. After a brief excusus defining the features of orate language, she emphasises that there is a continuum between the orate and written medium and suggests that it is cultural and historical contingency that has given predominance to literacy over orality. She suggests that this is because technological development is tied to literacy and thus to power in literate societies. Nevertheless, power relationships are present in oral communication as in social deixis, positioning and codeswitching as well as frames in discourse, face and interactional behaviour. The literature culture is the title of Chapter 5 and here the author gives a historical perspective on the written word and its role in the development of culturefrom biblical exegesis to modernday texts such as legal documents or education testing standards. She claims that literacy is a social construct and is related to power within the CoP, which is the dominant culture of research and scholarship. Current practise is to view a written text as a stable finished product for the consumption of a hypothetical reader while at the same time, a written text may be considered as a highly inferential process of communication between the writer and reader. This communication view of a written teas as discourse results the creation of standards or norms for commonly used genres which become accepted by the CoP. Thus the CoP acts both as the creator as well as the guardians of culture and literacy presumes the ability to function within this CoP. Sociolinguistics is the topic of Chapter 6 and the authors thesis lies in her affirmation that language is the most sensitive relationship between the individual and his social groupit permeates his thinking, and is the battleground between the individual and his allegiances and loyalties. In a delightful passage, the author suggests that the same use of a given language can index both indenture and investment, both servitude and emancipation, both powerlessness and empowerment and that the linguistic semeiotic capital of humankind remain as rich as possible (pg 77). This plea for rich linguistic diversity is left hanging but an interesting issue of belonging is all too briefly raised in the last chapter on the Politics of Recognition. In this concluding chapter, Kramsch raises the issue of belonging linguistically speakingby addressing the twin issues of what is a native speaker, how far nativeness should go, the concept of cultural authenticity in a crosscultural, multicultural and intercultural milieu such as are now common in a modern urban societies. She indicates that linguistic debate in such urban societies must necessarily address cultural issues of the individual and his culture but she limits her issues to questions of cultural hegemony. There are many issues that she could have raised especially in terms of social recognition of I and you, about schooling issues such as teacher training, or the language of instruction, about codeswitching in class, about local and regional accents, about language use in international academic conferences and many other issues also related to varieties of

18

language or to world languages. Journal of English as an International Language Vol. 1

Intercultural communication Objective: To make the students sensitive to cultural differences and the role of cultural factors in translation and more generally in international communication, and to equip them with conceptual tools for interpreting cultures. Indicative content: The relationship between language and culture: culture-specificity and its manifestations in texts; the translator's role as a "cultural mediator', translation problems caused by cultural differences, contrastive approaches (e.g., contrastive rhetorics), translations as a

source of cultural influence.

3. Cultural Psychology in Language

Language is the most important symbolic system in culture and it expresses, embodies and symbolizes cultural reality. It contains all kinds of cultural deposits in the grammar, forms of address as well as texts. Language culture is strongly influenced by psychological culture, because the formation of language is closely related to peoples mentalities and thought patterns, and the use of language has a great deal to do with language-users brain and mind. Just as Humboldt wrote, the language of any group is directly connected to the worldview of the group; the difference in language is a difference in worldviews. (Dahl, 1998)

Some German scholars like Johann Herder and Wilhelm von Humboldt put forward the idea that different people speak differently because they think differently and that they think differently because their language offers them different ways of expressing the world around them (hence the notion of linguistic relativity). Humboldt sees the function of a language and the words, which constitute it as a linguistic reflection of extralinguistic reality in a way characteristic of the speech community involved. Von Humboldt expressed his thoughts, which he voices many times in the observation that the difference between languages is not one of sounds and signs but rather a difference in the view of the world itself . (Wilss, 2001: 34-35) The spiritual traits and the structure of language of a people are so intimately blended that given either of two, one should be able to derive the other from it to the fullest extent. Language is the outward manifestation of the spirit of people: their language is their spirit and their spirit is their language, it is difficult to imagine any two things more identical. (Salzmann, 1993: 151) These statements show that von Humboldt consistently upheld the view that thought is dependent on language; he attributes a special worldview to every language. This notion was picked up again in the United States by the linguist Franz Boas, whose essential view was that linguistic categories reflect but do not dictate thought, that is, the conceptual ideas and thinking patterns characteristic of a culture, and hence linguistic data can be used to study these ideas and thinking patterns, and subsequently by Edward Sapir and his pupil Benjamin Lee Whorf in their studies of American Indian language. Whorfs views on the interdependence of language and thought have become known under the name of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which makes the claim that the structure of the language a people habitually use influences the manner in which the people think and behave because language filters their perception and the way they categorize experience. The hypothesis has been subject to fierce controversy since it was first formulated by Whorf in 1940. The strong version of Whorfs hypothesis that posits that language determines the way we think cannot be taken seriously or people would be prisoners of their native language, but the weak version, suggesting that language has a tendency to influence thought, and supported by the findings that there are cultural differences in the semantic associations evoked by seemingly common concepts, is generally accepted nowadays.

The theoretical source of Shen Xiaolongs Cultural Linguistics can be traced back to the Western Anthropological Linguistics, Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Anthropology, which are mainly concerned with the relations between language and culture. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is one of the famous findings of this research. Shen has asserted that language, with the nature of the worldview and ontology, is both the meaning system and the

value system of a nation and that language is the manifestation of the worldview of a nation. ( 1999: 83) Language like a colorful mirror reflects the characteristics, of a nations economy, politics, cultural psychology,

etc., and is filtered with spirit of a nations culture. (1990: 36) The cultural psychology of a nation is

deeply rooted in the nations language(1990: 19). All in all, language is an integral part of a nation and it permeates a nations thinking patterns and way of viewing the world.

19

Comparatively, Western cultural anthropologists emphasize that language determines culture while Shen emphasizes that culture determines language. However, both of them have disclosed the identity of a nations language and the deep structure of its culture.

To illustrate the identity of language and cultural psychology conveniently, we adopt Su() and Zhuangs() views on language culture: The influence of culture on language is on lexical meaning and discourse structure. And

therefore, the cultural factors in language are embodied in either lexis or discourse. (1999: 148) Lexis refers to both a single word and the word group, and the latter covers idioms, set phrases, etc. The close

relationship between language and culture is most readily seen in words. Discourse means the conventional realization of speech act in a contextual situation. The choice of the topics such as weather, and such private matters as health, age, and income, the choice of language code such as dialects, discourse styles and the organization of discourse such as turns, cohesion, coherence, narrative method and order, all these are largely determined by the world view, pattern of thinking, and value system of a people. When the English and Chinese discourses are compared, differences in respect of terms of address, conversation taboo and adjacency pairs such as greeting, thanks and response, offer and response can be found.

Meaning is the most captivating aspect of language. (Stillings et al., 1989: 389) Meaning is what language is all about. Everybody knows that words represent meaning; the problem is that they present several types of meaning simultaneously. Geoffery Leech, a world famous British linguist, categorizes seven types of meaning: conceptual meaning, connotative meaning, social meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning, collocative meaning and thematic meaning. (Leech, 1985: 23) Reflected meaning and collective meaning, affective meaning and social meaning can all be brought together under the heading of Associative Meaning to explain communication on these levels. Association is the process of forming mental connections or bonds between

sensations, ideas, or memories. () When an association has been formed, one member of the pair tends to remind an individual of its partner. Psychological research suggests that association between items is dependent, on the one hand, on the relation of the items to each other, on the other hand, on an individuals state of

mind such as preference, interest, and feelings. (1980: 232) The cultural tradition especially cultural psychology of a nation, i.e. worldviews, values, thinking patterns, aesthetic standards and so on, plays a latent but important role in activation and direction of association. The differences of cultural psychology may result in different associations to the same items. In English, the horse is used often to refer to a person, such as a willing horse. Loud harsh laugh is called horse laugh; rough and noisy play is called horse play; and plain good sense

is referred to as horse sense. In the Chinese language, there is no such allusion, but is often used to refer to a

person: a hardworking person is called . Lu Xuns saying of is known to almost

everybody in China. This is because the Chinese have been using in farming for thousands of years while the horse has been used to do most farming work in Britain.

Privacy-regulation is concerned with identity expressiveness dimension and the information accessibility dimension. Personal privacy might not be as major a concern for people in collectivistic cultures as it is for people in individualistic cultures. So its necessary to know the different privacy regulations, otherwise, misunderstanding will arise in intercultural communication. Take the choice of the topics in greetings for example. It is quite natural for people to greet each other when they meet. English and Chinese speakers may greet others in different ways. There are some fixed expressions that are used almost exclusively to greet others in English, for example, How do you do?, How are you?, hello, Hi, Nice day, isnt it?, Good morning, Good afternoon, and Good evening. For Chinese people it is important to note that many greetings in Chinese cannot be carried over into

English and used as greetings when they meet English speakers, such as (Have you eaten your meal),

(where are you going), (Are you going to work), etc. If they are put into English and used as greetings to English speakers, misunderstanding may occur. English speakers tend to interpret them literally and may form the false concept that the Chinese people like to intrude into other peoples affairs.

It is often said that English is a hypotactic language and Chinese a paratactic one. Nida has pointed out, for Chinese and English, perhaps one of the most important linguistic distinctions is the contrast between the hypotaxis and parataxis. (Nida, 1982: 16.) In English and in most Indo-European languages, a great many of thought connectors are often used to make meaning clearer. However, in Chinese, the paratactic tradition is deeply rooted.

This linguistic contrast between English and Chinese has been related to legal traditions in Western countries and China. As is widely known, a long history of law making and abiding can be found in Western countries, and laws and regulations are deeply rooted in Western peoples mind. In China, law in feudal society had seldom, if

ever, dominated social affairs. , , , etc. had frequently interfered with legal affairs. In such a situation simplicity had been important to the Chinese people. The contrast of the legal traditions of English speaking countries and China provides an explanation of the parataxis in Chinese and the hypotaxis in English.

Another explanation is that the English speaking people are good at analytic thinking and thus understanding

20

the relationship between linguistic units better, while Chinese people who are inclined to think holistically may not like to indicate explicitly the logical relationship between word and word, phrase and phrase, clause and clause, and sentence and sentence.

The role of language within a culture and the influence of the cultural psychology on the meanings

of words

and the structures of discourses are so pervasive that scarcely any text can be adequately

understood or effectively presented in a translating process without careful consideration of the

factors of cultural psychology in it.

-_______________________

1.4 The relation of language to culture

Language is extremely important to human interaction because it is how we reach out to make

contact with our surroundings. If we were to survey a normal day, we would soon see that we use

words for a wide variety of purposes. We may use langue when we first awake: Good morning! We

use words as a way to unite with the outside world. Or we may use words to share an unpleasant

experience and to get support from others: Let me tell you about the horrible dream I had last

night. This example also demonstrates how we employ words to relate to the past, that is, to talk

about something that has already happened.

Claire Kramsch (2000) said: Language is the principal means whereby we conduct our lives.

When it is used in contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex

ways.

Supposing that culture is an active creation in the whole human beings history, we should have

the right to say that language is the most important creation since the advent of human beings.

Language not only distinguishes man from the other creatures but also makes him the wisest of all

creatures. As a part of cultural whole, language itself is a tool or carrier that carries and transmits

other cultural forms, influencing them and at the same time influenced by the cultural whole. Like

human society, human languages seem to be partly natural, partly conventional. As there are certain

political principles, such as natural justice common to all human societies despite the diversity of

their customs and institutions, all conventional languages have certain common characteristics of

structure which indicate their natural basis in the physical and mental constitution of man.

As we all know, language is a cultural mirror that reflects the culture. Language, culture and

society are not separated. In each stage of cultural development, language, completely and co-

ordinately reflects the given culture which is a reflection of politics and economics of a certain

21

society, and which is fixed and handed down, becoming a carrier that belongs to its own national

culture and knowledge. Modern anthropologists claim that culture is the basis of living and

development of human beings. As a matter of fact, society is a complicated cultural system of

numerous elements and language is only one element of all. Professor Xing Fuyi protests in the

preface of his book Cultural Linguistics (2000):

Language is the symbol of culture, but culture is the channel and orbit of language; just like a mirror or a picture

album, different national languages reflect and record the special cultural styles and features of different nations;

just like a channel and an orbit, the special cultures of different nations, to some extent, exercises their restraints

upon the development of language in different nations. (preface, the first page)

From this, we can see that study on culture would not be complete without the mention of the

relationship between language and culture. As a principal means for people to conduct their social

lives, language is an important part of culture. It records the history of human civilization and social

progress. Without language this would not be possible. Nida ever put forward such an opinion:

Language is a part of culture, and in fact, it is the most complex set of habits that any culture exhibits. Language

reflects the culture, provides access to the culture, and in many respects constitutes a model of the culture. (quoted,

in Schaeffer & Kelly-Holmes, 1995:1)

This special issue of Ethnologies explores the interrelated themes of language and culture, and particularly how language and culture contribute to self-definition in local, regional, national and global contexts. The contributors approach these themes from the perspectives of ethnomusicology, Canadian studies, cultural anthropology, and linguistics. Their topical foci range from Celtic, Mtis and Iroquoian music, to minority language issues affecting French and Ukrainian Canadians in Alberta and Muslims in Northern Ireland, the feminization of job titles in Qubec and France, and language ideologies among Muinane of the Colombian Amazon. The authors use ethnographic, ethnohistorical and archival methods to obtain their data, and exegetical analysis of key texts and cultural performances to derive insights into patterns of language use and identity formation. They contextualize these patterns within particular communities, make comparisons with other communities and use theoretical frameworks which are broadly sociolinguistic and postmodern. A recent review article by Duranti (2003) identifies three paradigms in scholarship pertaining to the relationship of language and culture. The first associated primarily with Boas (1911, 1942), Sapir (1924, 1949) and Whorf (1956) has roots stretching back at least to German Idealism and Romanticism (Chomsky 1966) and focuses on the relationship between grammar and worldview. The second grows from 6 GEORGE FULFORD

22

the work of Gumperz and Hymes (1964) on the ethnography of communication and emphasizes pragmatic aspects of language use. The third and most eclectic paradigm explores the role of language in identity formation. Butlers (1990) work on performativity, Woolard and Schieffelins (1994) study of language ideology, and Trechter and Bucholtzs (2001) analysis of hegemony and race are all examples of the third paradigm. The contributors to this volume nearly all fall within the eclectic third paradigm. However, as Duranti remarks, paradigms do not die and researchers have had no difficulty moving back and forth from one paradigm to another (2003: 333-334). Indeed, by its very nature, the third paradigm transcends the boundaries between grammar and pragmatics that are implicit in the other two paradigms. Thus, it is no surprise that the following articles are ultimately a mix of all three paradigms, seeking what Spitulnik characterizes as a breakthrough into a different kind of relationship (2003: 339). This relationship between language and culture is integrative, local and counter-hegemonic, yet embedded in an increasingly global discourse. Two of the contributors to this issue have explored the issue of

francophone minorities

Language and Culture

There are many ways in which the phenomena of language and culture are intimately related. Both

phenomena are unique to humans and have therefore been the subject of a great deal of

anthropological, sociological, and even memetic study. Language, of course, is determined by culture,

though the extent to which this is true is now under debate. The converse is also true to some degree:

culture is determined by language - or rather, by the replicators that created both, memes.

Early anthropologists, following the theory that words determine thought, believed that language and its

structure were entirely dependent on the cultural context in which they existed. This was a logical

extension of what is termed the Standard Social Science Model, which views the human mind as an

indefinitely malleable structure capable of absorbing any sort of culture without constraints from genetic

or neurological factors.

In this vein, anthropologist Verne Ray conducted a study in the 1950's, giving color samples to different

American Indian tribes and asking them to give the names of the colors. He concluded that the spectrum

we see as "green", "yellow", etc. was an entirely arbitrary division, and each culture divided the spectrum

separately. According to this hypothesis, the divisions seen between colors are a consequence of the

language we learn, and do not correspond to divisions in the natural world. A similar hypothesis is upheld

in the extremely popular meme of Eskimo words for snow - common stories vary from fifty to upwards of

two hundred.

Extreme cultural relativism of this type has now been clearly refuted. Eskimos use at most twelve

different words for snow, which is not many more than English speakers and should be expected since

they exist in a cold climate. The color-relativity hypothesis has now been completely debunked by more

careful, thorough, and systematic studies which show a remarkable similarity between the ways in which

different cultures divide the spectrum.

Of course, there are ways in which culture really does determine language, or at least certain facets

thereof. Obviously, the ancient Romans did not have words for radios, televisions, or computers because

these items were simply not part of their cultural context. In the same vein, uncivilized tribes living in

23

Europe in the time of the Romans did not have words for tribunes, praetors, or any other trapping of

Roman government because Roman law was not part of their culture.

Our culture does, sometimes, restrict what we can think about efficiently in our own language. For

example, some languages have only three color terms equivalent to black, white, and red; a native

speaker of this language would have a difficult time expressing the concept of "purple" efficiently. Some

languages are also more expressive about certain topics. For example, it is commonly acknowledged

that Yiddish is a linguistic champion, with an amazing number of words referring to the simpleminded.

(The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, p.260.)

Culture and Language - United by Memes

According to the memetic theorist Susan Blackmore, language developed as a result of memetic

evolution and is an example of memes providing a selection pressure on genes themselves. (For more

on Blackmore's theory visit The Evolution of Language.) The definition of a culture in memetic theory is

an aggregate of many different meme sets or memeplexes shared by the majority of a population. Using

memetic reasoning, it can be seen that language - itself created by memes and for memes - is the

principal medium used for spreading memes from one person to another.

As Blackmore states in The Meme Machine, memes were born when humans began to imitate each

other. According to her theory, this event preceded - indeed, had to precede - the development of

language. When imitation became widespread, producing selection pressure on genes for successful

imitation, memes began to exploit verbalizations for better and more frequent transmission. The end

result of this complex process was language, and the anatomical alterations needed for its successful

use.

Language, created by memes as a mechanism for ensuring better memetic propagation, has certainly

been a success. Today, the vast majority of memes are transmitted via language, through direct speech,

written communication, radio or television, and the internet. Relatively few memes are transmitted in a

non-linguistic way, and those that are have very specific, localized purposes, such as artwork and

photography. Even these media, though nonlinguistic in themselves, assume language and very rarely

appear without some sort of linguistic commentary. This might take the form of a critical analysis of an

artwork, a caption for a photograph, a voice-over for a video, etc.

Language as Part of Culture

For many people, language is not just the medium of culture but also is a part of culture. It is quite

common for immigrants to a new country to retain their old customs and to speak their first language

amid fellow immigrants, even if all present are comfortable in their new language. This occurs because

the immigrants are eager to preserve their own heritage, which includes not only customs and traditions

but also language. This is also seen in many Jewish communities, especially in older members: Yiddish

is commonly spoken because it is seen as a part of Jewish culture.

Linguistic differences are also often seen as the mark of another culture, and they very commonly

create divisiveness among neighboring peoples or even among different groups of the same nation.

A good example of this is in Canada, where French-speaking natives of Quebec clash with the

24

English-speaking majority. This sort of conflict is also common in areas with a great deal of tribal

warfare. It is even becoming an issue in America as speakers of standard American English - mainly

whites and educated minorities - observe the growing number of speakers of black English

vernacular. Debates are common over whether it is proper to use "Ebonics" in schools, while its

speakers continue to assert that the dialect is a fundamental part of the "black culture".

The Influence of a Language and its Culture: A Theoretical Perspective

Dr. Mohammed S. Al-Odadi

Faculty of Languages And Translation: King Khalid University

INTRODUCTION

Every people see their language and culture as unique, even, on some occasions, superior to

others. On that basis, children are always taught and constantly reminded of their cultural uniqueness.

Edward Said (1993) states that "you read Dante and Shakespeare in order to keep up with the best that

was thought and known, and also to see your people, society, and tradition in their best lights. In time,

culture comes to be associated, often aggressively, with the nation or the state; this differentiates 'us'

from 'them,' almost always with some degree of xenophobia. Culture in this sense is a source of identity,

and a rather combative one at that, as we see in recent 'returns' to culture and tradition. These 'returns'

accompany rigorous codes of intellectual and moral behavior that are opposed to the permissiveness

associated with such relatively liberal philosophies as multiculturalism and hybridity. In the formerly

colonized world, these 'returns' have produced varieties of religious and nationalistic fundamentalism (p.

xiii).

Edward Said sees culture to be as a "sort of theater where various political and ideological

causes engage one another, making it apparent that, for instance, American, French or Indian students

who are taught to read their national classics before they read others are expected to appreciate and

belong loyally, often uncritically, to their Nations and traditions while denigrating or fighting against

others."

These remarks by Said imply the inter-connectedness of language and culture. But the question

remains on the nature of that relationship, i.e. language and culture, which comes first?

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

The interest in the relationship between language and culture has intrigued, among others,

linguists, anthropologists, literary and social critics, throughout the ages. Benjamin Whorf's

hypothesis (1956) that language determines thought, has been one of the most provocative and

controversial. One reason for its controversy is the belief among some scholars who see it the other

way around; i.e. language is just a garment of thought. This argument is based on the assumption that

25

since communication is the main function of language, then thought has already been determined by

the time an idea is expressed (Schlesinger, 1991:8). Schlesinger attributes such thinking to Aristotle

for whom, quoting McKeon (1968:40), "spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and

written words are the symbol of spoken words the mental experiences, which these directly

symbolize, are the same for all" Schlesinger adds, by paraphrasing R.L. Brown (1967:54), "[t]his

conception of language was regarded to be the creation of reason; its only function was held to be

expression of thought and its communication." Schlesinger, however, uses Descartes as an example

of the Enlightenment period thinkers who are frequently associated with the idea of a "Universal

Language" (cf. Chomsky's Universal Grammar), and who are at the opposite of the spectrum with

Plato, who saw language and thought as one and the same; "Are not thought and speech the same,

with this exception that is called thought is the unuttered conversation of the soul? (p.9). But in

another study, Putz (1992) thinks of Plato as a proponent of the first thesis; that is, language is the

garment of thought. Putz (1992:xi) states that Chomsky, in his universalist assumption that all

languages of the world share a common deep syntactic structure, "follows the rationalist tradition of

Plato and Descartes in viewing language as a vehicle for the expression of thought." Geddes and

Grosset (2002:12-13) straightforwardly states that:

"Language cannot create thought, but must be created by thought. Thus the first

expression of articulate thought must have been through symbols rather than words, for

obviously before attempting speech, man must have perceived objects, and their

meaning, use and similarity must have established themselves in his consciousness.

Spoken words evolved as expressions of symbols. In this capacity they have remained

somewhat incomplete, for they merely express ideas and do not originate them."

This unsettling issue takes us further to groups of scholars who add another reason for the

controversy over Whorf's theory. These scholars and philosophers include Plato, who see language

and thought as the same, as mentioned earlier. This argument has many renowned advocates. Also in

Schlesinger (1991:9), he mentions such luminaries as Wilhelm von Humboldt who sees language as

the "thought forming organ", and John Locke "who conceived of language as the determining factor"

in affecting culture (p.12). Herder and his teacher, Johann Georg Hamann, are also quoted to have

said that "we think in language" and words are "moulds in which we see our thoughts" (p.13).

Ferdinand de Saussure (1959:111-12; first published posthumously in 1915) also believes in

language "as organized thought coupled with sounds." He states:

[p]sychologically our thoughtapart from its expression in wordsis only a shapeless

and indistinct mass. Philosophers and linguists have always agreed in recognizing that

without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut, consistent distinction

26

between two ideas. Without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula. There are

preexisting ideas, and nothing is distinct before their appearance.

In a broader sense, language and culture can also be seen from a different angle. Also

according to Schlesinger (1991:13):

There is a parallel between the thoughts of a nation and its language. Culture is

transmitted from father to son through language. With the words of his language the

infant picks up also the emotional flavor given to them by his parents. Thus language

becomes the "collective treasure" of a nation.

These two "dualistic" views of the relationship between language and thought (and therefore

language and culture), that thinking precedes the production of language, according to the

Enlightenment view and other rationalities, or that thinking is in language, as claimed by the

"nominalist" and "identity" theses, have other brands of philosophical views that might even have

nothing to do with language; that is, neglecting any affinity between language and thinking

(Shlesinger 1991:10).

CULTURE AND LITERACY

Each of these theories, needless to say, has its arguments based on many notions relating to

both language and mind/culture. However, the notion of literacy seems particularly important to this

paper since we are all here in a learning institution, but more importantly because of the central role

literacy plays in shaping and expanding culture. In recent studies of linguistics, anthropology, and

cognitive psychology, there have been attempts to distinguish between the intellectual abilities of

people in traditional society, where literacy is low, and the literate society where the level of literacy

is much higher (Fawley, 1987).

Based on Levi-Strauss (1962), Fawley (1987:34) states that by:

"[c]omparing oral (savage) cultures with literate (sophisticated) cultures, Levi-Strauss set

up a taxonomy of differences to characterize the cognitive and social organizations of the

two. Levi-Strauss argued that a literate culture is hot, while an oral culture is cold. That is,

literate peoples are active and open to the acquisition of new information while oral people

tend to maintain the status quo and live in a stable society. Literates, further, tend to

develop abstraction, scientific thought, and scientific knowledge (whatever they are!), in

contrast to oral peoples, who tend cognize according to the concrete and who provide

explanations i