Research Article

Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation

Volume: 5 Number: 1 June 30, 2022
  • Jan Buts *
  • James Hadley
  • Mohammad Aboomar
EN

Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation

Abstract

The translation of references specific to a given source culture has long been a prominent, and often problematic aspect of translation practice and research. In indirect translation, or the translation of already translated material, linguistic and cultural differences accumulate, meaning that the omission of cultural references (CRs) or culture-specific items (CSIs) might be a generally expected outcome. Yet before such hypotheses can be tested, research methods are needed that can account for broad patterns across whole texts, and preferably, across semantic categories, genres, time periods, and languages. A ‘textual’ approach, focused on the linguistic context in which CRs are likely to occur, should complement the currently dominant ‘cultural’ approach, which mainly relies on predefined categories and intuition for the selection of objects of study. This article illustrates that corpus research, and particularly keyness analysis, can aid in uncovering recurrent structural patterns and textual functions in which CRs are expected to pose translation difficulties. In this regard, it focuses on expressions of enumeration, or lists, and indicators of identification, or voice. Based on a trilingual (English, French, and Italian) corpus-assisted study of Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726) and John Cary’s An Essay on the State of England (1695), the article accentuates the productive complementarity of numerical operations and context-sensitive readings.

Keywords

References

  1. Alvstad, Cecilia, and Alexandra Assis Rosa. 2015. “Voice in Retranslation: An Overview and Some Trends.” Target 27 (1): 3–24. doi:10.1075/target.27.1.00int.
  2. Anthony, Laurence. 2020. AntConc. Version 3.5.9. Tokyo: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.
  3. Baker, Mona. 2018. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
  4. Biber, Douglas. 2015. “Corpus-Based and Corpus-Driven Analyses of Language Variation and Use.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 2nd ed., edited by Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, 193–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Bondi, Marina. 2010. “Perspectives on Keywords and Keyness: An Introduction.” In Keyness in Texts, edited by Marina Bondi and Mike Scott, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  6. Carnochan, W. B. 1964. “Some Roles of Lemuel Gulliver.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 5 (4): 520–529. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753784.
  7. Cary, John. 1695. An Essay on the State of England, in Relation to Its Trade, Its Poor, and Its Taxes, for Carrying on the Present War Against France. Bristoll: W. Bonny.
  8. Cary, John. 1755. Essai sur L’état du Commerce d’Angleterre [Essay on the state of trade in England]. Translated by Georges-Marie Butel-Dumont. London: Guillyn.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Language Studies

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Mohammad Aboomar This is me
0000-0002-1391-5061
Ireland

Publication Date

June 30, 2022

Submission Date

April 2, 2022

Acceptance Date

June 7, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 2022 Volume: 5 Number: 1

APA
Buts, J., Hadley, J., & Aboomar, M. (2022). Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation. TransLogos Translation Studies Journal, 5(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.29228/transLogos.40
AMA
1.Buts J, Hadley J, Aboomar M. Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation. transLogos Translation Studies Journal. 2022;5(1):1-21. doi:10.29228/transLogos.40
Chicago
Buts, Jan, James Hadley, and Mohammad Aboomar. 2022. “Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation”. TransLogos Translation Studies Journal 5 (1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.29228/transLogos.40.
EndNote
Buts J, Hadley J, Aboomar M (June 1, 2022) Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation. transLogos Translation Studies Journal 5 1 1–21.
IEEE
[1]J. Buts, J. Hadley, and M. Aboomar, “Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation”, transLogos Translation Studies Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–21, June 2022, doi: 10.29228/transLogos.40.
ISNAD
Buts, Jan - Hadley, James - Aboomar, Mohammad. “Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation”. transLogos Translation Studies Journal 5/1 (June 1, 2022): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.29228/transLogos.40.
JAMA
1.Buts J, Hadley J, Aboomar M. Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation. transLogos Translation Studies Journal. 2022;5:1–21.
MLA
Buts, Jan, et al. “Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation”. TransLogos Translation Studies Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, June 2022, pp. 1-21, doi:10.29228/transLogos.40.
Vancouver
1.Jan Buts, James Hadley, Mohammad Aboomar. Keyness, Context, and Cultural Specificity in Indirect Translation. transLogos Translation Studies Journal. 2022 Jun. 1;5(1):1-21. doi:10.29228/transLogos.40