Revisiting the Concept of Symbol in Linguoculturology: A Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis with Implications for Translation

Öz

This work investigates the theoretical foundations of the concept of the symbol in linguoculturology to build a robust theoretical foundation for its analysis and application in translation studies by synthesizing compatible perspectives from related disciplines and critically examining conflicting viewpoints. The study proposes a coherent understanding of the linguocultural symbol as a carrier of culturally embedded meanings, values, and worldviews by synthesizing compatible perspectives from semiotics, cognitive linguistics, ethnolinguistics, hermeneutics, and anthropology through a comparative and interdisciplinary approach. In parallel, the paper critically evaluates divergent or conflicting approaches—such as deconstructionist, analytical, and postcolonial critiques—that either challenge the symbolic dimension of language or provide alternative epistemologies. The study contextualizes theoretical tensions by tracing the philosophical and disciplinary foundations of these disagreements, rather than viewing them as contradictions. Additionally, the paper applies this synthesized framework to translation theory and practice, contending that the translator's capacity to mediate between cultural systems is improved by their awareness of symbolic structures. It is concluded that the incorporation of symbol analysis into translation provides novel insights into intercultural mediation, symbolic competence, and cultural untranslatability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Linguoculturology
• translation studies
• interdisciplinary approach
• symbolic competence
• intercultural mediation

Lingvokültürolojide Sembol Kavramının Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi: Çeviri Alanına Yansımalarıyla Disiplinlerarası Bir Sentez

Öz

Bu çalışma, lingvokültürolojide “sembol” kavramının kuramsal temellerini inceleyerek, onu çeviri çalışmalarında analiz etmek ve uygulamak için sağlam bir teorik zemin oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, ilgili disiplinlerden uyumlu bakış açıları sentezlenmekte ve çelişen görüşler eleştirel bir biçimde değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışma, karşılaştırmalı ve disiplinlerarası bir yaklaşım aracılığıyla göstergebilim, bilişsel dilbilim, etnodilbilim, hermenötik ve antropolojiden elde edilen ilgili perspektifleri bir araya getirerek, lingvokültürel sembolü kültürel olarak içkin anlamların, değerlerin ve dünya görüşlerinin taşıyıcısı olarak tutarlı bir biçimde kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Buna paralel olarak makale, dilin sembolik boyutunu sorgulayan veya alternatif epistemolojiler ortaya koyan yapıbozumcu, analitik ve postkolonyal eleştiriler gibi ayrışan veya çatışan kuramsal yaklaşımları da eleştirel bir değerlendirmeye tabi tutmaktadır. Çalışma, bu kuramsal gerilimleri birtakım çelişkiler olarak görmek yerine, söz konusu görüş ayrılıklarının ardındaki felsefi ve disipliner temelleri izleyerek bağlamsallaştırmaktadır. Ayrıca makale, geliştirilmiş bu sentezleyici çerçeveyi çeviri kuramı ve uygulamasına uyarlamakta; çevirmenin iki kültürel sistem arasında aracılık kapasitesinin, sembolik yapılara yönelik farkındalık ile güçlendiğini savunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışmada, sembol analizinin çeviri süreçlerine dâhil edilmesinin kültürlerarası aracılık, sembolik yeterlik ve kültürel çevirilemezlik konularına yeni açılımlar getirdiği ileri sürülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Lingvokültüroloji
• çeviri çalışmaları
• disiplinlerarası yaklaşım
• sembolik yeterlik
• kültürlerarası aracılık

Kaynakça

1. Abe, M. (1989). Zen and Western Thought. University of Hawaii Press.
2. Apter, E. (2013). World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. Verso.
3. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
4. Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth, and logic (Vol. 10). Courier Corporation.
5. Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation. Routledge.
6. Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology (17). Hill and Wang.
7. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Hill and Wang.
8. Bassnett, S. (2013). Translation studies (4th ed.). Routledge.

9. Berman, A., & Venuti, L. (2021). Translation and the Trials of the Foreign. In The translation studies reader (pp. 247-260). Routledge.
10. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
11. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2008). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. John Wiley & Sons.
12. Cassin, B., Apter, E., Lezra, J., & Wood, M. (Eds.). (2014). Dictionary of untranslatables: A philosophical lexicon. Princeton University Press.
13. Cassirer, E. (1955). The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1: Language (R. Manheim, Trans.). Yale University Press.
14. Cassirer, E. (2023). An essay on man: An introduction to a philosophy of human culture (Vol. 23). Felix Meiner Verlag.
15. Davidson, D. (1986). A nice derangement of epitaphs. Truth and interpretation: Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson, 433-446.
16. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of studies in international education, 10(3), 241-266.
17. Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology. Jhu Press.
18. Durant, A., & Shepherd, I. (2009). ‘Culture’ and ‘communication’ in intercultural communication. European journal of english studies, 13(2), 147-162.
19. Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics (Vol. 217). Indiana University Press.
20. Eco, U. (2013). Mouse or rat?: Translation as negotiation. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
21. Eco, U., & McEwen, A. (2001). Experiences in Translation. University of Toronto Press.
22. Foucault, M. (2012). Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
23. Foucault, M. (2013). Archaeology of knowledge. Routledge
24. Gadamer, H. G. (2013). Truth and method. A&C Black.
25. Geertz, C. (2017). The interpretation of cultures. Basic books.
26. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.153
27. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. OUP Oxford.
28. House, J. (2014). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. Routledge.
29. Johnson, M. (2024). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago press.
30. Jung, C. G. (2012). Man and his symbols. Bantam.
31. Katan, D., & Taibi, M. (2021). Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. Routledge.
32. Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 7(2), 191-222.
33. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge University Press.
34. Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford University Press.
35. Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The modern language journal, 90(2), 249-252.
36. Kramsch, C. (2009). The Multilingual Subject: What Foreign Language Learners Say about Their Experience and Why It Matters. Oxford University Press.
37. Krasnykh, V. V. (2002). Ethnopsycholinguistics and linguoculturology. Gnosis.
38. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2024). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
39. Lotman, Y. M. (1990). Universe of the Mind. A semiotic theory of culture, Indiana University Press.
40. Maslova, V. A. (2001). Lingvokulturologiya [Linguoculturology]. Academy.
41. Mignolo, W. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Duke University Press.
42. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall.
43. Nord, C. (2014). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Routledge.
44. Peirce, C. S. (1934). Collected papers of charles sanders peirce (Vol. 5). Harvard University Press.
45. Peirce, C. S. (2012). Philosophical writings of Peirce. Courier Corporation.
46. Ricoeur, P. (1967). The symbolism of evil (Vol. 18). Beacon Press.
47. Ricoeur, P. (2004). The rule of metaphor: The creation of meaning in language. Routledge.
48. Ricoeur, P. (2007). On translation. Routledge.
49. Ryle, G., & Tanney, J. (2009). The concept of mind. Routledge.
50. Saussure, F. de (2006). Writings in general linguistics. Oxford University Press.
51. Saussure, F. de (1983). Course in General Linguistics (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds.; R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth. (Original work published 1916)
52. Schaffner, C. (2004). Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Multilingual Matters.
53. Sebeok, T. (2001). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. University of Toronto Press.
54. Shaklein, V., & Scomarovscaia, A. (2021). Peculiarities of Greek Origin Words Perception by the Representatives of Contemporary Russian Linguistic Culture: Associative Experiment. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 1036-1050.
55. Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualizations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. John Benjamins Publishing.
56. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 104, 333-339.
57. Spivak, G. C. (2012). Outside in the teaching machine. Routledge.
58. Spivak, G. C. (2023). Can the subaltern speak? In P. Cain & M. Harrison (Eds.), Imperialism (1st ed., pp. 171–219). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003101536-9
59. Steiner, G. (2013). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Open Road Media.
60. Stepanov, Y. S. (1997). Konstanty. Slovar’russkoj kul’tury. Opyt issledovanija [Constants. Dictionary of Russian culture. Research experience]. Shkola “Yazyki russkoy kul’tury.
61. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human resource development review, 4(3), 356-367.
62. Turner, V. (2018). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Cornell University Press.
63. Turner, V., Abrahams, R., & Harris, A. (2017). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Routledge.
64. Tymoczko, M. (2014). Enlarging translation, empowering translators. Routledge.
65. Venuti, L. (2017). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
66. Vereshchagin, E. M., & Kostomarov, V. G. (1990). Language and culture: Linguistic and cultural studies in teaching Russian as a foreign language. Russkiy Yazyk.
67. Vermeer, H. J. & Chesterman, A. (2021). Skopos and Commission in translational action. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (4th ed., pp. 219–230). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429280641-26
68. Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford University Press.
69. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. Oxford University Press.
70. Zhou, L., & Zhang, S. (2018). Mianzi/lian. In Handbook of pragmatics online/Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 141–158). https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.21.mia1