TRANSLATION AS
INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
Introduction
It was Edward T. Hall who coined the term
intercultural communication
While working with US departmental administrators
and Native Americans, he noticed that
misunderstanding arose through cultural differences
→ cultures are different in their languages,
behavior patterns and values
Even though Steiner affirmed that translation is an act
of communication, not all agrees on the existence or
relevance of cultural differences in translation
There are 3 areas of controversy
Definition of culture itself
Originally, culture was simple: it referred
exclusively to the humanist ideal of what was
civilized in a developed society
-> the education system, the arts, architecture…
For the humanists, culture is technically learnt
through explicit instruction
Then a second meaning, the way of life of
people, took place alongside with emphasis on
“primitive” cultures and tribal practices
Anthropologists believe that culture may be learned through
formal or unconscious parenting, socialisation or other
inculcation through long-term contact with others
-> it then becomes unconsciously shared
amongst the group
With the development of sociology and cultural
studies, a third meaning has emerged related to
forces in society or ideology
In sociology and cultural studies, culture is a
site of conflict for authority or power
When it is acquired, it is through the subliminal
and enforced norms of, for example, capitalist
and colonialist action
Clear historical division between
Those who perceive language and
culture as two distinct entities
Translation is seen as a universalist encoding-
decoding linguistic activity, transferring meaning
from the SL to the TL
Using what Reddy called the “conduit
metaphor of language transference”, it
suggests that language acts as a carrier
-> transferring meanings unchanged from one
language to another
Here, culture and any cultural differences can be
carried by the language without significant loss
Those who view language as culture
Others, such as Nida, believe that the context
provides more distinction of meaning than
the term being analysed
Hence, meaning is not carried by the language,
but is negotiated between readers from within
their own contexts of culture
Therefore, here translation is relativist since the
same text will be understood differently depending
on the cultural and linguistic background
This makes translation an act of manipulation and
mediation between two different linguacultures
Importance of the culture filter in translation
House and Katan talk in terms of a “culture
filter” or “cultural filter”
Katan discusses 4 perception filters which
influence or model how humans perceive,
interpret and evaluate the world
They are
Physiological How our physical senses shape perception (e.g.,
vision, hearing)
Culture How shared cultural values and norms influence
understanding
Individual Personal experiences and psychology shape
interpretation
Language The structure and vocabulary of a language
shape thought and perception
How do they work? A model is a useful way of simplifying and making
sense of something complex, such as reality
All the filters function in the same way through
modeling and all models use 3 principles
Deletion We cannot perceive everything, so we “delete”
irrelevant or unnoticed details
Distortion
We interpret information based on what we
know, expect, or focus on, which can lead to
selective perception
Generalisation
We simplify or fill in gaps based on our existing
mental models, making information more
practical and familiar
House believes that a cultural filter is a tool to
understand and bridge cognitive and socio-
cultural differences to be applied by translators
-> it emphasizes adapting translations to cultural
norms and expectations of the target audience
While Katan focuses on the translator’s role as a
mediator who balances multiple filters (cultural,
individual, linguistic, etc.) to create meaning
Hence, cultural filters are one of the four
particular ways in which groups organise
their shared perception of the world
To what extent one filter prevails over another in
translation is then the third area of controversy
With “the cultural turn” (a shift in focus from
linguistic accuracy to cultural adaptation), the
culture filter appeared to take the central stage
However, others believe that the filter should
operate selectively
Some scholars, including House, believe cultural
filters are not always necessary and should be
used only for certain types of texts
-> for example, tourist guides and manuals
often require cultural adaptation to suit target
audiences
For Nida, instead, the degree of cultural adaptation
depends not on the text type but on the cultural
and linguistic gap between the SL and TL
-> the bigger the gap, the more adaptation is
required
This demonstrates that the way culture is
acquired varies according to theory
Culture as a system of frames There are 3 related ideas which can help clarify
the apparently contradictory views of culture
Context(ing)
We have already mentioned Nida’s view of the
crucial importance of context but, as others
have noted, context is not always important
-> for example, instructions are typically
straightforward and rely less on shared context
because their meaning is clear on its own
Specifically, Hall noted that at all times, and in any
communication, there is a process of “contexting”
It is a dynamic process that happens during
communication, where participants negotiate
the role of context in interpreting meaning This involves
How much meaning depends on context
Some meanings are explicit (requiring little
context), while others are implicit and need
shared background knowledge
How much of the context is shared
If the speaker and listener share cultural or
situational context, less explicit information
is needed
If the context is not shared (ex: diff. cultures)
additional information must be provided to
ensure the message is understood correctly
Adding information if necessary
When the context is not shared, communicators
might need to clarify, explain, or provide extra
details to maintain the intended meaning
What is considered relevant in one culture or
context might not be relevant in another
-> a gesture or phrase that makes perfect sense
in one cultural setting might be meaningless or
misinterpreted in another
Context is a term first applied to translation by
the anthropologist Malinowski who studied the
language and culture of the Trobriand Islanders
He noted that the meanings of words and
expressions in the Islanders’ language depended
on their cultural and situational context
Translating these conversations into English
required adding explanations or commentary to
make the implicit meanings clear to outsiders
This is what the anthropologist Geertz would
later call a “thick description”
-> it refers to providing rich explanations to
help outsiders understand not just what is being
said, but also the deeper significance behind it
In translation studies, this idea has been
developed into “thick translation” by scholars
like Appiah and Hermans
That is a translation method that goes beyond
words/grammar, adding background information,
cultural commentary, and situational context
-> without this method, much of the cultural or situational
significance might be lost or misunderstood by readers
who don’t share the same cultural background
To truly understand a text, a translator must
consider the context of situation, which are
circumstances in which the words were spoken
Frames and Logical typing
The anthropologist Bateson noted that context
must be subject to what he called logical typing
Logical typing is the idea that different levels of
context are organized hierarchically, where each
level (“type”) frames or influences the next
Each type exists in a specific logical relationship with
others, meaning you can’t fully understand one level
without considering the broader level above it
-> higher levels (like culture) frame and shape the
interpretation of lower levels (like specific situations)
For example
In a formal political rally, clapping after a speech
may be expected…
…but in another cultural frame (ex: a religious
context), silence might be the norm instead
When translating, you must understand the “type” of
context you’re dealing with: if you only consider the
lower level (the situation) and ignore the higher cultural
frame, the translation may lose important meaning
Goffman, in Frame Analysis, explains that a
frame is a conceptual boundary that helps us
make sense of “what is going on here“
Frames shape perception and interpretation
and define the context in which we interpret an
event, object, or interaction
Example
A pattern of black-and-white stripes might just
look like paint on a wall but…
…if it’s framed as a painting called “Night and
Day”, we interpret it as art with deeper meaning
In translation
Frames help the audience understand not just
what the text says, but also why it matters in its
original cultural or situational context
Translators use frames to reshape meaning so
the target audience understands the text in a
way that makes sense to them
-> it’s about bridging cultural gaps while
preserving the meaning, intent, and emotional
impact of the original
The logical levels of cultures The levels of culture are based on the
anthropological “iceberg model”
It divides culture (the iceberg) into
Visible (above the waterline) Elements like language, dress, food, and
customs: what is immediately observable
Semi-visible
Social norms, customs, traditions, roles, and
expectations: less obvious but still
interpretable with some cultural knowledge
Invisible (below the waterline) Deeply ingrained cultural beliefs, values, and
assumptions that shape identity and worldview
These are harder to perceive and require “thick”
contextual understanding to translate effectively
How much should a translator intervene?
Translators must decide whether to simply transfer
surface-level meaning (visible) or delve into deeper
cultural frames (semi-visible and invisible)
In this sense
Translation scholars focus on the deeper,
invisible levels to preserve meaning and cultural
nuance, often advocating for “thick translation”
Practitioners tend to focus on visible, surface-
level elements, aiming for practical, accessible
translations that meet immediate needs
Therefore, the extent of a translator’s intervention
depends on which levels of culture they prioritise
(visible or invisible) and their goal for the translation
The iceberg model illustrates that much of
culture’s influence lies beneath the
surface, making translation a balance
between transferring visible elements and
interpreting hidden cultural frames
Technical culture: shared
encyclopaedic knowledge
The first cultural frame is at the tip of the
iceberg and coincides with the humanist
concept of culture The focus is on the text
At this technical level, the language signs have a clear
“what you see is what you get” referential function
and any associated hidden values are universal
What does this mean?
Here, the translator aims for direct equivalence
between the source and target texts,
minimizing cultural or contextual adjustments
-> so that “what you get” in the source text is
equivalent to “what you get” in the target text
This is what Newmark called “the
cultural value” of translation
This approach emphasizes transferring the
meaning of the text faithfully without adding or
altering cultural context
For example, a software manual or scientific text might
be translated word-for-word because the focus is on
clarity and accuracy, not cultural nuances
However, the main concern of translators
intervening at this level is the text itself and the
translation of CULTUREMES
Culturemes are specific terms or concepts that
are deeply tied to a particular culture and often
lack a direct equivalent in another language
-> they might relate to geography, traditions,
institutions, or technology, such as legal terms,
food, or festivals
When translating culturemes, the translator
must decide how to render these terms for the
target audience
Kwieci ns ki categorized strategies into 4 groups
Exoticising procedures The foreign term is retained in the target
language, often without translation
Aim The aim is to expose the audience to the cultural
specificity of the term
Examples Borrowing terms like falafel (Middle Eastern food),
macho (Spanish term for masculine), or burka
Risk
While this approach preserves authenticity, it
might confuse readers unfamiliar with the term
unless context is provided
Rich explicatory procedures
Adding extra information to explain the
cultureme, ensuring the target audience
understands its meaning
Tech n i q u e s
Explanatory brackets Adding a brief explanation directly after the
term -> “Knesset (the Israeli Parliament)”
Adjectivizing the term
Adding a descriptive adjective to clarify the
term’s meaning -> “hot cotechino sausage”
(“cotechino” clarified as a type of sausage)
Example
Harry Potter translation
Original Sentence in English “Viewers as far apart as Kent, Yo r k s h i r e and
Dundee have been phoning in”
-> it assumes that readers are familiar with the
UK’s geography and the cultural significance of
Kent, Yorkshire, and Dundee
French Translation
“Des téléspectateurs qui habitent dans des régions
aussi éloignées les unes des autres que le Kent, le
Yorkshire et la côte est de l’Écosse m’ont téléphoné”
-> this makes the reference more comprehensible
to a French audience who might not recognize
Dundee as a Scottish city
Explication
Instead of directly translating Dundee, the translator
provides a broader, more recognizable geographical
reference (the east coast of Scotland)
This ensures that French readers understand the
intended meaning: viewers are calling in from
geographically distant regions
These procedures depend on the translator’s
judgment of the target audience’s familiarity
and how much explanation they need
Recognized exoticism
Using accepted translations for well-known
geographical names, titles, or personal names
that vary depending on the target language
These are not direct translations but established
equivalents that have become standard over time Examples
Geneva in English is translated as Genève
(French), Genf (German), or Ginevra (Italian)
Historical names often change, such as
Charlemagne (French) → Karl der Große
(German) → Charles the Great (English)
Even famous artworks adapt: La Gioconda (Italian)
is widely known as the Mona Lisa in English
Advantage
It reflects linguistic conventions in the target
language and ensures readers immediately
recognize the reference without confusion
Ignoring these conventions might alienate the
audience or make the text seem unfamiliar
Assimilative procedures
Transforming cultural references to align with
the target culture’s context, making them
functionally equivalent in meaning or purpose
If the cultural term is too obscure or irrelevant for
the target audience, it might even be deleted if
it’s not central to the text
Tech n i q u e s
Cultural Substitution (Functional
Equivalence)
Adapting terms to reflect the target audience’s
norms or expectations while retaining their
purpose or function
Examples
French “premier ministre” and Spanish
“presidente del gobierno” become “prime
minister” in English, despite differing powers
Idioms: “White as egret’s feathers” might replace
“white as snow” in a culture unfamiliar with snow
Reduction to Sense (Simplification)
Simplifying a cultural reference to its basic
meaning when full equivalence isn’t possible, though
this might reduce its emotional or evocative power
Example
The simile “white as snow” might become “very,
very white” in cultures where snow is not a
common concept
Advantage
It ensures comprehension and relatability for the
target audience while maintaining the core
message or function
Sometimes, preserving cultural nuance might
confuse the reader, so assimilation helps make
the text feel natural
While still at the level of shared context, we move
to a more context-based communication, such as
Leppihalme's “key-phrase ALLUSIONS”
Allusions are references to well-known phrases,
expressions, or cultural elements (idioms, proverbs…)
that often carry cultural baggage
-> meaning they evoke specific associations or
meanings unique to the source culture
In this sense, Key-Phrase Allusions include
common clichés, proverbs, or figures of
speech that carry cultural significance
Example “Apparently taxis all turn into pumpkins at
midnight”
-> it references the fairy tale of Cinderella and
implies that taxis become unavailable after midnight
The meaning of such allusions often depends on
the reader’s ability to recognize and interpret
them within their cultural context
-> in the target language, these allusions may
lose their effect if the cultural reference is
unfamiliar or irrelevant
Leppihalme suggests that translators need a
metacultural capacity to bridge the gap
between cultures
This capacity involves
Understanding the extralinguistic knowledge of
the source language’s culture (ex: Cinderella story)
Considering the expectations and background
knowledge of the target text readers (ex: whether they
are familiar with the fairy tale or require additional context)
Allusions carry implicit meanings, assumptions,
or values specific to the source culture, opening
up to frames or schemata
Example “Make hay while the sun shines” -> it reflects a rural, agricultural background and might
not resonate in a target culture without this context
These are mental models or structures that
readers use to interpret text based on
cultural norms or values
A translator must assess whether the frame from the
source culture (ex: fairy tales or agricultural metaphors)
aligns with the target culture’s expectations
What Happens in Translation?
Direct Translation If the target audience understands the allusion, it
may be left as is
-> a reference to Cinderella might work in
cultures familiar with Western fairy tales)
Adaptation or Explication If the cultural reference is obscure, the translator might
explain or replace it with a more familiar reference
-> the pumpkin metaphor might be replaced with
a culturally relevant equivalent, or the translator
could clarify it with additional context
Loss or Simplification
If the allusion is untranslatable, it may be
simplified or removed, potentially losing its
cultural nuance
Formal culture, Informal culture
and outside the iceberg
Formal culture: functionalist and appropriate
practices
Hall's second, “formal”, level of culture is part of the
anthropological definition of what is considered
normal, appropriate, or expected within a society
It is below the visible part of the iceberg (semi-
visible level) because people often do not
consciously articulate or question these norms
These cultural norms become visible only when
differences arise (ex: in intercultural
communication or translation)
-> for example, writing styles in business
communication are rarely explicitly taught; they
are internalized through cultural exposure
At this level cultures are distinct and plural and,
therefore, as Sapir pointed out, they can be
considered as “distinct worlds”
Here, translation must mediate between cultural
norms rather than simply transferring meaning as
though it were universal (the “conduit approach”)
Example of “conduit approach” problems:
Business Letter
“I made samples for you in 1994 for the summer
and we had received orders for about 20,000
blouses to be shipped in 1995 but due to a plague
in our country these orders were canceled by
you. The contact was made by (full name and
full address)”
The provided business letter contains culturally
inappropriate elements for English communication
Directness “Due to a plague in our country these orders were
canceled by you” sounds accusatory in English
Over-Personalization Including “full name and full address” may be
unnecessary or intrusive
Unpersuasive Tone The structure and tone do not align with English
norms for professional business communication
Why is the conduit approach problematic?
What seems acceptable, “normal” or polite in
one culture might sound rude or unprofessional
in another or in the target culture
-> a direct translation might fail to convey the
intended tone or function of the original text in
the target culture
Instead of directly translating, the translator
adapts the text and makes it appropriate and
effective to align with the target culture’s norms
For example, the business letter must sound
persuasive to an English-speaking audience
To function persuasively in English, this letter
must be manipulated to fit cultural norms (ex:
softening the tone, rephrasing accusations)
Why Can’t We Assume Cultural Norms Are
the Same?
Target readers in each culture are bound within
an “environmental bubble”: they are
accustomed to their own “model of the world”
Being bound to your model of the world means
that, in general, you can only have at most a
technical understanding of another culture
-> an English-speaking businessperson might
only understand the original letter in a technical
sense, not as persuasive communication
This can lead to ethnocentric judgments, where
readers interpret texts based on their own
cultural biases, generally discriminatory
The target audience will interpret the
translation through their cultural lens, so the
translator must adjust for this
Translators follow cultural norms of the
target culture when deciding
What to Translate Not all parts of the text might be relevant or
acceptable to the target audience
How to Translate
Strategies like assimilation (adapting to the TC)
or compensation (adjusting tone or style) are
used to ensure the text’s function in the TC
Translation norms are domestic (culture-
specific), not universal, meaning they vary
depending on the target culture’s expectations
Informal culture: cognitive systems and
values
Hall's third level of culture is called “informal” or
“out-of-awareness” because it is more about
instinctive, unquestioned cultural assumptions
This level refers to deeply ingrained beliefs,
values, and worldviews that shape how people
think and act
These are not consciously taught or questioned,
but absorbed through upbringing, education,
and societal influences
Translation Challenges at the Informal Level
Some words or concepts, like “dusa” in Russian,
are deeply tied to the culture and may not
have direct equivalents in another language
In Grossman’s novel Life and Fate, the word “dusa”
(soul/spirit) is essential to understanding the text
because it carries emotional weight in Russian culture
However, translating “dusa” directly into English repeatedly
can feel odd to an English reader because it lacks the same
cultural resonance in Anglo-Saxon contexts
Therefore, in order to make the translation feel
more accessible and meaningful to the target
reader, Wierzbicka played an important role
He suggested to
Use partial synonyms Replace “dusa” with similar words that might better
fit the target culture (ex: “heart,” “soul,” “spirit”)
Eliminate some references If the repetition of the word doesn’t make sense or
feels unnatural to the target audience, reduce its use
However, not all interculturally-aware translation
scholars agree with this form of active distortion
of the form suggested by Wierzbicka
In Ven u ti ’s opinion, Wierzbicka’s approach risks
making the translation too “domesticated” or too
adapted to the target culture’s norms and values
The main issue is exactly the opposite: it erases
the “foreignness” of the original text
-> the cultural uniqueness of the source text may
be lost, as the translator tries too hard to “pander”
to the expectations of the target audience
At this informal level, readers evaluate language
not just by its literal meaning but by how it
reflects identity or behaviour
Example of Italo Calvino's The Adventure of a
Wife: Stefania’s bold coffee order
Original “Un ristretto, doppio, caldissimo - disse al
cameriere”
-> typical in Italian culture, where directness in
requests is normal and not considered rude
Translated “A concentrated, double, very hot, she said to
the bareman“
-> in English, such a direct statement can come
across as impolite or demanding, because it
flouts norms of negative politeness
-> and it might confuse English readers because
it doesn’t explicitly say “coffee”
Here, translators face the challenge of balancing
foreignization (keeping the cultural flavor) with
domestication (making the text accessible)
Katan suggests some mediating strategies and to
rewrite the sentence as “She asked the barman for
an espresso, thick, double, and really hot”
Why This Works
Maintains foreignness
Words like “espresso” and “thick” (couching =
accennare a) evoke the Italian coffee culture rather
than using English equivalents like “strong” or “large”
Preserves politeness norms
The phrase is framed as a polite request (“She
asked…”), avoiding a negative impression of
Stefania’s character
This solution allows the readers to experience a
richer “perlocutionary effect”, that is the impact
or response a phrase generates in the reader
By choosing “thick, double” instead of domestic
equivalents, the translation
Encourages readers to experience something
distinctly foreign
Introduces them to the cultural context of
Italian directness without making it feel impolite
Enhances their understanding of the cultural
nuances, enriching their reading experience
Here, even seemingly simple, technical words
(like “coffee”) carry cultural baggage
depending on the reader’s context
Words and phrases are rarely neutral or
denotative; their meaning often depends on
cultural practices and norms
Bassett, for example, notes how global
products, such as butter, whisky and Martini, can
change status and connotation once translated
-> in some cultures, butter it’s an everyday
staple, while in others it may signify luxury
Therefore
In monocultural communication (within the
same culture), words don’t usually require
clarification of their broader social context
In intercultural communication, translators must
Consider how deeply the meaning is tied to the
source culture’s values
Decide how much context or clarification is
needed to make the meaning clear to the target
audience while preserving the cultural essence
Ensure the target reader understands that the
text comes from a different cultural model or
worldview
Cultural grammars
Cultural grammar refers to the unwritten,
subconscious rules that shape how people behave
and perceive the world in a given culture
These rules are internalized over time and
inform what is considered appropriate or
normal within that culture
The values and beliefs that form the basis of the
subconscious rules can be teased out in 2
particular ways
Emically
It focuses on subjective beliefs and
perspectives specific to a particular culture
and seeks to understand culture from the inside
Wierzbicka’s Emic Ethnographic Approach
She uses semantic universals (basic, universally
understood terms free from cultural bias) to
create cultural scripts
Cultural scripts help explain why certain
behaviors or norms are considered appropriate
within a culture in a simplified, neutral way
-> words like “good” and “bad” are used because
they are universally understood without
additional cultural baggage
Ethically
It takes an external, objective view of a culture,
comparing it to others and attempts to classify subjective
cultural behaviors into broader universal categories
For example, a culture might emphasize “self-
effacement” (humility) as a value, which can then
be classified and compared across cultures
In this sense, Kroeber and Klockhuhn were the
first to introduce value orientations
These anthropologists proposed that cultures
respond to universal needs in distinct ways,
and these responses reflect their core values
-> universal needs like how to deal with time,
space, or relationships
While the problems are universal, cultures tend
to favor certain responses over others,
creating their own unique orientations
Then, in response to self-expression, one culture
may value humility (self-effacement), while
another may value assertiveness
These preferences reflect the culture’s deep-
rooted values and beliefs, which become part
of its cultural grammar
Societal power relations
Sociologists and cultural studies scholars focus
on the influence of culture at the level of
society, institutions and prevailing ideologies
Culture is not an isolated or static concept, but is
dynamic and shaped by the forces and systems
that influence how people behave, think, and interact
-> such as social, economic, political, and
historical factors
Two main distinctions highlight the
sociological approach
Individuals and Texts Cannot Be Assigned to
a Single Culture
Unlike the anthropological model, this approach
argues that people and texts often reflect
multiple cultural influences or provenances
-> the first model might classify individuals or
texts into specific cultural groups
Comparing cultures is risky because there are
no universal categories that can be neatly
applied to all human groups
Instead, cultural identities are complex and
overlapping
-> a bilingual author’s work might simultaneously
reflect the values and norms of two distinct cultures,
challenging attempts at simplistic categorisation
This complexity makes it impossible to
rely on oversimplified models of
culture with “neat” classifications
The Translator’s Role and System Are
Questioned
Translators operate within a world of competing
and unequal power structures (ex: political,
economic, ideological)
Therefore, instead of being neutral mediators,
translators are active participants who may
need to take sides
Both the text and the translator are seen as
carriers of ideologies, meaning that every
translation decision is inherently political
Translators at this level consciously engage with the
ideological content of texts: choosing to translate
controversial works involves moral and ethical decisions
Translators must navigate a fine line between
Foreignized translations These resist domestic norms to introduce new
ways of thinking or writing
Risk of unreadability If foreignization goes too far, the text may become
alien or inaccessible to the target audience
Culture has to be understood not as static or
segmented into fixed levels, but as constantly
evolving, as an integrated system
Tex t s are not just transferred across cultures but
are reinterpreted and renegotiated based on the
translator’s and the reader’s cultural viewpoints
A translator’s personal perspective, along with
the context of the text, shapes how the
translation is crafted and understood
The cultural mediator
A cultural mediator is a person who facilitates
communication and action between persons or groups
who differ with respect to language and culture
The role of a cultural mediator
Facilitation
The mediator helps bridge gaps in
communication and understanding between
groups with different languages and cultures
Interpretation They convey each group’s expressions, intentions,
perceptions, and expectations to the other
Balance They ensure that communication is fair and
effective for both sides
A mediator must be bicultural, meaning they
can participate and understand both cultures
involved: this requires intercultural sensitivity
Intercultural sensitivity refers to the ability to
recognize, understand, and appropriately
respond to cultural differences
One advanced stage in intercultural sensitivity is
called contextual evaluation
At this stage, the mediator
Can generate multiple viable translations for
the same text
Can quickly and confidently select the most
appropriate translation for the context,
ensuring it fits the intended purpose and audience
To effectively choose or adapt a translation, the
mediator must “mindshift”, which means changing
their cultural orientation depending on the context
In this sense, the mediator uses a “third
perceptual position”, which is a neutral and
objective perspective From this position
They detach from the cultural context of both
the source text (ST) and the target text (TT)
They can “objectively manipulate the text” to ensure
it serves its purpose while respecting both cultures
When translating a text, all translators will need to have
an idea of the type of text they have to translate and
what culture-bound features it may manifest
Levels of translation
Technical level (behaviour) Translators identify “what is happening” in the text,
understanding the meaning of individual sentences
They address culture-bound features (ex:
idioms, metaphors) and ensure the surface
meaning makes sense in the target language
Formal level (appropriacy)
Translators assess how the text is written in
the source culture and decide how to adapt it
for the target culture
This involves considering whether the tone,
style, or structure of the text is appropriate
and functional in the new cultural context
Informal level (values and beliefs) Translators analyze the implicit cultural messages
and ideologies carried by the source text
They use the “third perceptual position” (a
neutral, external perspective) to understand
The author’s intentions
How the target audience might interpret the
values and beliefs embedded in the text
They address the question: “Why are these
things being expressed in this way?”
Identity
This level refers to how the beliefs, values, and
roles of all the individuals involved in the
translation process influence the final product
Translation involves multiple actors, each with
their own values and expectations, and the
translator must balance competing interests
Respecting the intentions of the original author
Meeting the expectations of the target audience
Considering the commissioner’s goals
Reflecting on their own values and beliefs
about translation (ex: how much to adapt or stay
faithful to the original)
The translator decides on the most appropriate
strategies for conveying the values and identity
of the source text in the target culture
Mission (Societal and Ethical Impact)
This is the highest level of cultural mediation
and involves the translator’s role in society and
their ethical responsibilities
It also reflects on the broader impact of
translation as a profession within systems of
cultural power
It answers questions such as
Why accept or decline a specific translation
project?
How does the translation challenge or support
societal power structures and ideologies?
