Ritva Leppihalme
Table of contents

Since all texts are anchored in their culture, it follows that culture-bound items in the source text can present problems for translators, especially if there are notable differences between source and target cultures. The problems are often described as extralinguistic, that is, referring to the surrounding physical and sociocultural reality ‘outside’ language, as opposed to intralinguistic translation problems, which arise from differences between source and target language systems and language usage (Nedergaard-Larsen 1993: 238, note 1). Because of their referential link with reality, words and phrases that are “intimately bound up with the universe of reference of the original culture” (Lefevere 1993: 122) are often referred to as realia (Latin for ‘real things’), following usage in Eastern European Translation Studies (e.g. Vlakhov & Florin 1970).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Florin, Sider
1993“Realia in translation.” In Translation as Social Action. Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives, Palma Zlateva (ed.), 122–128. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka
1998Deutsche Stimmen der Sieben Brüder: Ideologie, Poetik und Funktionen literarischer Übersetzung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Lefevere, André
1993Untitled introduction to Florin (1993). In Translation as Social Action. Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives, Palma Zlateva (ed.), 122–123. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leppihalme, Ritva
2001“Translation strategies for realia.” In Mission, Vision, Strategies, Values: A Celebration of Translator Training and Translation Studies in Kouvola, Pirjo Kukkonen & Ritva Hartama-Heinonen (eds), 139–146. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
Loponen, Mika
2009“Translating irrealia: Creating a semiotic framework for the translation of fictional cultures.” Chinese Semiotic Studies 2: 165–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedergaard-Larsen, Birgit
1993“Culture-bound problems in subtitling.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 2: 207–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene
1964/1945“Linguistics and ethnology in translation-problems.” Word 1: 194–208. Republished in Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology, Dell Hymes (ed.), 90–100. New York, N.Y.: Harper Row.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Jan
2011Subtitling Norms for Television. An exploration focussing on extralinguistic cultural references. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. & Darbelnet, J
1975/1958Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction. Nouvel édition revue et corrigée. Paris: Didier.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Vlakhov, Sergei & Florin, Sider
1970“Neperevodimoe v perevode: realii.” Masterstvo perevoda 6 (1969): 432–456. Moskva: Sovetskij pisatel’.Google Scholar

Further reading

Bödeker, Birgit & Freese, Katrin
1987“Die Übersetzung von Realienbezeichnungen bei literarischen Texten: Eine Prototypologie.” TextconText 2 (3): 137–165.Google Scholar
Denton, John
1994“Translation criticism, translation teaching and intercultural transfer.” Koiné: Problems and Trends in the Teaching of Interpreting and Translation IV: 49–65.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Straight, H. Stephen
1981“Knowledge, purpose and intuition: Three dimensions in the evaluation of translation.” In Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice, Marilyn Gaddis Rose (ed.), 40–51. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Witte, Heidrun
2000Die Kulturkompetenz des Translators. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Rudolf
1981Probleme der Übersetzung formbetonter Sprache: Ein Beitrag zur Übersetzungskritik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar