How to obtain translation equivalence of culturally specific concepts in a target language
As is often claimed, “the central problem of translation practice is that of finding target language translation equivalents” (
Catford 1965, 21). Translation equivalence occurs when a source language (SL) and a target language (TL) text can be related to the same substance. Therefore, translation failure occurs when a concept in SL cannot be related to the equivalent in TL. Translation failures can be classified into two cases: those where it is impossible to find linguistic equivalence in TL, and those where it is impossible to secure cultural equivalence in TL. This study focuses on the latter, especially how to establish the equivalence of culturally specific concepts from SL to TL. Nobody can understand the meanings of words in a certain culturally specific domain if they do not understand some social institutions, and some history of social practices, in which these words are interpreted. Japanese words
sontaku (roughly, surmise) and
haragei, (literally, belly art) are examples of those culturally specific concepts. Translating these concepts into a TL text includes the identification of their semantic representation. For this purpose, using frame semantics paves the way. By defining frame elements and relations between them and also by identifying cultural practices, we can have a clear understanding of the concepts, which in turn can be related to the TL terms. It is also worth noting that culture-specific words have varying degrees of untranslatability, which can be defined by comparing synonymous words in terms of the frame semantic approach. This research sheds new light on the method of rendering culturally specific untranslatable concepts exemplified by sontaku and haragei more transparent by drawing on frame semantics.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Japanese culturally specific concepts and frame semantics
- 2.1Japanese culturally specific concepts
- 2.2Brief introduction to frame semantics
- 3.How we can capture culturally specific concepts in frame semantics
- 3.1The frame of sontaku and haragei
- 3.2The atmospheric dominance frame
- 3.3Reconsidering sontaku and haragei
- 4.Discussion and conclusion
-
References
References (10)
References
Anderman, Gunilla. 2003. “Round-table Discussion on Translation in the New Millennium.” In Translation Today, ed. by Anderman Gunilla, and Margaret Rogers, 13–51. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Harlow: Longman
Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. “The Case for Case Reopened.” In Syntax and Semantics 8, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry Sadock, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. 

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica 6 (2): 222–254.
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson, and Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. “Background to FrameNet.” International Journal of Lexicography 16 (3): 235–250. 

Hamamoto, Hideki. 2017. “Investigating a Japanese Authenticity-Blurring Mechanism in Discourse: It’s the Mood that has the Last Say in our Discussion.” Asian Culture and History 9 (1): 40–50. 

Hartmann, Reinhard R. K., and Francis C. Stork. 1972. Dictionary of Language Linguistics. Amsterdam: Applied Science.
Pansky, Ainat, and Asher Koriat. 2004. “The Basic Level Convergence Effect in Memory Distortions.” Psychological Science 151: 52–59. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Dalsky, David & Jueyun Su
2024.
A Virtual Transcultural Understanding Pedagogy: Online Exchanges of Emic Asian Cultural Concepts.
Journal of Transcultural Communication 
Fan, LuNan
2024.
2024 IEEE International Conference on Information Technology, Electronics and Intelligent Communication Systems (ICITEICS),
► pp. 1 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.