Propositions on cross-cultural communication and translation

Anthony Pym
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
Abstract

Cross-cultural communication can be characterized by a relatively high degree of effort required to reduce complexity, by relatively high transaction costs, by relatively low trust between communication partners, and by relatively narrow success conditions that create points of high-risk discourse. To communicate successfully between cultures would thus require a special kind of risk management. Translation, as a mode of cross-cultural communication, is held to share those same features, as well as at least two specific representational maxims concerning discursive persons and textual quantity. It is argued that the related concepts of complexity, success conditions and risk can describe not only the act of translating as a mode of cross-cultural communication, but also certain features of the professional intercultures to which translators belong. Step-by-step propositions thus synthesize an approach that runs from an analysis of cross-cultural communication to a description of professional intercultures, their sources of power, and the reasons for their apparent lack of power in a globalizing age.

Keywords:
Table of contents

The following are propositions designed to connect a few ideas about crosscultural communication. They are presented in fairly common language and as concisely as possible. The ideas are drawn from a multiplicity of existing theories; the aim is not particularly to be original. The propositions are instead intended to link up three endeavors: an abstract conception of cross-cultural communication, a description of the specificities of translation, and an attempt to envisage the future of cross-cultural communication in a globalizing age. The various points at which the propositions draw on previous theories are indicated in a series of endnotes. Examples and illustrations can be found in the works referred to.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Agar, Michael
1994 Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1979 Le sens pratique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Chatwin, Bruce
1987 The songlines. London: Picador.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1994a “From ‘is’ to ‘ought’: Laws, norms and strategies in Translation Studies”. Target 5:1. 1–20.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994b “Karl Popper in the translation class”. Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, eds. Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims and visions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 89–95.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Memes of translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Proposal for a Hieronymic oath”. Anthony Pym, ed. The return to ethics. Special issue of The translator 7:2. 139–154.Google Scholar
Colas, Dominique
1992 “Les politiques d’aide”. Françoise Barret-Ducrocq, ed. Traduire l’Europe. Paris: Payot 1992 97–123.Google Scholar
[ p. 26 ]
Even-Zohar, Itamar
1981 “Translation theory today: A call for transfer theory”. Poetics today 2:4. 1–7.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 “Translation and transfer”. Poetics today 11:1, special issue on Polysystem Studies 1990 73–78.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Laws of cultural interference (draft in work)”. http://​www​.tau​.ac​.il​/~itamarez​/papers​/culture​-interference​.htm. Consulted April 2004.Google Scholar
Frow, John
1995 Cultural studies and cultural value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995 Basic concepts and models for translator and interpreter training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 “Logic and conversation”. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press 1975 41–58.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
1991 Translation and relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
1999 “Conceptual work and the ‘translation’ concept”. Target 11:1. 1–31.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1988 “Forms of verse translation and the translation of verse form”. Translated!: Papers on literary translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi 1988 23–33.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
1984 Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold
1978 “Effability and translation”. F. Guenther and M. Guenther-Reutter, eds. Meaning and translation: Philosophical and linguistic approaches. London: Duckworth 1978 191–234.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.
1984 After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, José
1989 “La traduction, les langues et la communication de masse: Les ambiguïtés du discours international”. Target 1:2. 215–237.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levý, Jiří
1967 “Translation as a decision process”. Reprinted in Andrew Chesterman, ed. Readings in translation theory. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab 1989 37–52.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas
1989 Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität, 3. durchgesehene Auflage. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
Mayoral, Roberto
2003 Translating official documents. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Monacelli, Claudia and Roberto Punzo
2001 “Ethics in the fuzzy domain of interpreting: A ‘military’ perspective”. Anthony Pym, ed. The return to ethics. Special issue of The translator 7:2. 265–282.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1992a Translation and text transfer: An essay on the principles of intercultural communication. Frankfurt/Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Vienna: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1992b “The relations between translation and material text transfer”. Target 4:2. 171–189.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992c “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching”. Cay Dollerup and Anne Loddegaard, eds. The teaching of translation: Training talent and experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1992 279–288.Google Scholar
1993 Epistemological problems in translation and its teaching. Calaceite: Caminade.Google Scholar
1995 “Translation as a transaction cost”. Meta 40:4. 594–605.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 27 ]
1996 “Multilingual intertextuality in translation”. Beatriz Penas Ibáñez, ed. The intertextual dimension of discourse. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza 1996 207–218.Google Scholar
1997 Pour une éthique du traducteur. Arras: Artois Presses Université/Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
1998 Method in translation history. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
2000a “On cooperation”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines: Research models in Translation Studies I: Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St Jerome 2000 181–192.Google Scholar
2000b Negotiating the frontier: Translators and intercultures in Hispanic history. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
2001a “Alternatives to borders in translation theory”. Athanor (Bari) 12, nuova serie: Lo stesso altro , ed. Susan Petrilli 2001 172–182.Google Scholar
2001b “Four remarks on translation and multimedia”. Yves Gambier and Henrik Gottlieb, eds. Multimedia translation: Concepts, practices, and research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2001 275–282.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003a “Redefining translation competence in an electronic age”. Meta 48:3. 481–497.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b “Translation Studies should help solve social problems”. Georges Androulakis, ed. Translating in the 21st century: Trends and prospects. Proceedings. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University 2003 439–448.Google Scholar
2004 The moving text: Localization, translation, and distribution. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman
1960 Word and object. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1988 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sprung, Robert C.
ed. 2000 Translating into success: Cutting-edge strategies for going multilingual in a global age. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XI. Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stecconi, Ubaldo
2002 “Not a melting pot: The challenges of multilingual communication in the European Commission”. Paper delivered to conference The translation industry today. Rimini, Italy, 11–13 October 2002.
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “What’s the problem with ‘translation problem’?”. Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, eds. Translation and meaning Part 6: Proceedings of the 3rd International Maastricht–Lódź Duo Colloquium. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht 2002 57–71.[ p. 28 ]Google Scholar