1

Culture-specific Items in Translation

Zehra Yavaş

Department of Translation and Interpreting

Nişantaşı University

Jan 27, 2022

 2

Introduction

Throughout the translation studies, there is always a debate on equivalence in translation process between the

linguists and translators. Especially, in order to prevent the technical difficulties experienced in the translation of

cultural texts from creating contextual errors in the translation process, new techniques have been developed by

linguists and translators. In this study, we will look into Peter Newmark’s approach to the translation of culture-

specific items in cultural texts, and Javier Franco Aixela’s categorization of CSI.

Key words: equivalence, translation studies, culture specific items.

Abbreviations: SL (source language), TL (target language), SC (source culture), TC (target culture), ST(source

text), TT (target text), CSI (culture specific items).

Equivalence in Translation

The importance of equivalence in translation, as Catford points out, “the central problem of translation-practice

is that of finding TL equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions

of translation equivalence.” (Catford 21: 1965). As we can understand from this definition, the concept of

equivalence is a basic requirement that can help translators and linguists to find their path in translation process in

order to have a meaningful TL product. However, as Yinhua (2011) mentions, “no matter how translation defined,

the concept of equivalence is inseparable and is implied in one way or the other” (p. 170).

1.1 Newmark’s approach to the CSI

Peter Newmark considers culture-specific items in the texts as a part of whole area of socio-linguistics. Because,

it is more related with SL’s cultural and social background rather than its syntactical, phonological or

morphological structure of words that being mentioned in the texts. In particular, Newmark identifies six sections

for CSI, which they are;

 3

1) Ecology 2) Public Life 3) Social Life

4) Personal Life 5) Customs and pursuits 6) Private passions

With categorizing these CSI’s, it makes an easy for translators to convey the accurate translation without causing

contextual and structural errors in SL-TL process. In fact, he also points out five basic cultural translation

procedures (2010, p.176):

1) The simple transference of a cultural word – e.g. say der Bundestag, which is only acceptable as a

translation if the word has already been adopted (incorporated, naturalized, eingebürgert) into the

translating (target) language.

2) The TL cultural equivalent – e.g. as in the German House of Commons -or connotative, as was formerly

coffee, of various kinds (espresso, mocha,) for various languages as the cultural equivalent of the English

(Indian, not Chinese) tea.

 In this procedure, basically we change the terms with it’s relative in the TL, and with that, the meaning

transferred as accurately as possible.

3) Non-cultural descriptive equivalent – e.g. In the case of the Bundestag or the House of Commons this is

officially the Lower or the second chamber of Parliament; strictly, this procedure is another type of

componential analysis in that it uses the generic (superordinate, hypernymic) term accompanied by its

basic distinctive (English, German) and a recursive number of supplementary (e.g. number of members,

length of session) components.

4) Componential Analysis – e.g. splits a cultural term into its core or generic component, which it shares

with related terms, thus for Methodism, a Christian religious faith, and its essential distinctive cultural

components, such as a nonconformist denomination deriving from the faith and practice of John Wesley

and his followers; note that the term gives little clue to its semantic content, which is an emphasis on

method and discipline.

 4

5) Cultural and restricted terms to converting - single names or proper nouns from one language into

another, as in Basle, Basel, Bale, Basilea or Jaime/Diego/James; this procedure.

(Because it’s related to the Bible and Christianity, so that’s why, it cannot be changed)

1.2 Aixela’s approach and categorization of CSI

Apart from Newmark’s more socio-linguistic approach to the culture-specific items, Aixela considers CSI’s as

a part of linguistic items that cause problems for translation due to differences in cultural understanding of the

texts (Aixela, 1996). In particular, the main issue to find a definition for CSI in translation obtains because, as

Aixela notes (1997: 57) “in a language everything is culturally produced, beginning with language itself”. And

that’s because, he accentuates to look into the words source culture as bringing linguistic view to the classification

of CSI. To elaborate, according to Axiela (1996), “by means of objects or systems of classification and

measurement whose use is restricted to the source culture, or by means of the transcription of opinions and by

description of habits equally alien to the receiving culture.” (p. 56).

As Newmark did, Aixela scrutinizes techniques for translating CSI’s in two groups; Conservation and

Substitution.

A) Conservation

1. Repetition: it stands on a line between the relationship of ST and TL, its located at the edge of conservative

side. (lexis, meaning of CSI’s not changed)

2. Orthographic Adaptation: almost same as repetition, difference is CSI being transferred into TT only by

changing the orthography of lexical structure.

3. Linguistic Translation: extracts to translation of culture-specific items belongs to Source Culture.

4. Extratextual Gloss: e.g. using commentary, footnote, endnote, writing in bold or italics etc.
 5

5. Intratextual Gloss: nearly same as extratextual gloss, but the difference is intratextual gloss does not give

a specific footnote etc., it points out while translating the CSI into TL by using italics, parenthesis etc.

B) Substitution

1) Synonymy: closest one to conservation, it avoids to repeat CSI while transferring to target culture. (gives

a synonymous reference)

2) Limited Universalization: by this method, instead of finding an exact word for CSI in target culture,

translator uses another CSI that exist to source culture.

3) Absolute Universalization: e.g. TC (target culture) -> SC (source culture) (any foreign connotations are

deleted, translator add better known CSI for it.)

4) Naturalization: no foreign connotation and inserting domestic elements of target culture. (translator held

the originality and authenticity of the text.)

5) Deletion: when the CSI undefinable or translatable or wouldn’t be allowed, translator has a permission to

not transfer the CSI to target culture.

6) Autonomous Creation: it is used for to create a reader attention. Basically, placing non-existent cultural

reference in ST (source text).

Conclusion

To sum up, all approaches that been mentioned above, is putted out to make possible an accurate translation

process between source culture and target culture in terms of their cultural background. Having an consideration

to all of this approaches, gives an eligibility to translator to have meaningful target text. As Öztemel (2017) notes

these strategies that can be used in order to deal with the challenges in translation of CSIs have been presented
 6

(p.34). With the result that, to choosing and applying between Newmark’s and Aixela’s approach to the translation

of culture-specific items depends on the source language and their intentions in relation with the context.
 7

References

Aixela, J.F. (1996). Culture Specific Items in Translation. In Alvarez, R. Vidal, M.C. (Eds.), Translation, Power,

Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual matters Ltd, pp. 52-79.

Catford, J.C.. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.

Newmark, P. (2010). Translation and Culture. In Meaning in Translation. Ed. B. Lewandowska- Tomaszczyk.

Frankfurt M.: Lang. 171-182.

Öztemel, F. (2017). A Study on the Transmission of Culture Specific İtems into English Translation of “Dear

Shameless Death” by Latife Tekin. Ankara: Gazi University.

Yinhua, X. (2011). Equivalence in Translation: Features and Necessity. International Journal of Humanities and

Social Science. Vol. 1. No.10.