53中英文雙語(yǔ)英語(yǔ)翻譯專業(yè)外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯成品在翻譯中迷失？譯者在國(guó)際商務(wù)中的文化、語(yǔ)言與角色

1、<p>　　外文標(biāo)題：Lost in translation? Culture, language and the role of the translator in international business</p><p>　　外文作者：John Blenkinsopp and Maryam Shademan Pajouh</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處: 《Critica

2、l Perspectives on International Business》 , 2010 , 6 (1) :38-52</p><p>　　英文3189單詞， 17020字符，中文5098漢字。</p><p>　　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無(wú)需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p>　　Lost in translatio

3、n? Culture, language and the role of the translator</p><p>　　in international business</p><p>　　John Blenkinsopp and Maryam Shademan Pajouh</p><p>　　Teesside University Business Sch

4、ool, UK</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　Purpose Issues of language in international business have been the focus of a growing body of theoretical and empirical work, and this paper

5、 contributes to this literature, focusing specifically on issues of translation. The role of translator will vary depending on the language strategy adopted, with strategies linked to differing perspectives on language i

6、n international business – mechanical, cultural and political. We examine these perspectives through the lens of a specific problem for tran</p><p>　　Design/methodology/approach Interviews were conducted wit

7、h</p><p>　　professional linguists (translators and interpreters) to explore how they dealt with issues of untranslatable but cultural salient words in their day-to- day work with international businesses, us

8、ing the problems of translating the Farsi word tarouf into English as a case in point.</p><p>　　Findings The linguists agreed that tarouf was an untranslatable word, and</p><p>　　described their

9、 strategies to deal with this problem. The commonest</p><p>　　strategy was avoidance, stemming from linguists? concern to maintain their professional standing with clients, a finding which reflects an emergi

10、ng emphasis on the importance of context and relationships for</p><p>　　understanding inter-cultural communication.</p><p>　　Practical implications The study highlights the crucial role of the t

11、ranslator in international business, and draws attention to the potential for cross-cultural communication problems arising from mutual lack of awareness of culturally-salient but inherently untranslatable words or phras

12、es.</p><p>　　Social implications Effective inter-cultural communication is an issue of</p><p>　　great importance to wider society, and business has historically been the commonest site of such c

13、ommunication. Our study highlights an issue of considerable importance for improving inter-cultural communications, contributing to a growing inter-disciplinary literature in this area.</p><p>　　Originality/

14、value Much of the research on language in international</p><p>　　business has focused on the emergence of English as a lingua franca, but the present study focuses on specific issues of translation and does

15、so in an under-researched location, Iran. It draws attention to a problem of translation not widely discussed, and shows how important this issue can be for international business.</p><p>　　Keywords: interna

16、tional business; interpreters; language; tarouf; translators; cross-cultural communication</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　The multinational corporation (MNC) is, by definition, a multilingual or

17、ganisation (Fredriksson et al, 2006) and multilingual situations occur</p><p>　　with increasing regularity at various levels of the organisation (Charles and</p><p>　　Marschan-Piekkari, 2002). T

18、hough issues of communication within MNCs have been a concern within the field of international business for an extended period, the specific issue of language was neglected until relatively recently (Janssens et al, 200

19、4; Welch et al, 2005). A possible explanation is that international business practice has also been somewhat blind to this issue – though the practicalities of language barriers were widely recognised, the full implicati

20、ons of ?talking a different langu</p><p>　　An example is offered by Wierzbicka?s (2001) examination of the Polish word przykro. Usually translated as hurt, offended, sorry or sad, Wierzbicka suggests somethi

21、ng is lost in translation, describing przyko as a ?culturally salien Polish emotion. ?That is not to say that speakers of English never experience the emotion associated in Polish with the word przykro; only that they do

22、 not think habitually about their experiences in these terms?(Wierzbicka, 2001: 22). The Chinese word guanxi offers </p><p>　　Linguistic imperialism</p><p>　　Much of the literature on the role o

23、f language in international business has focused on two particular features. The first is the decisions made by MNCs regarding language use, particularly around choices as to whether to adopt a corporate lingua franca (a

24、nd if so, which language to adopt)</p><p>　　and related issues of translation and interpretation. The second is the</p><p>　　study of the growth of English as a lingua franca, through linguistic

25、 imperialism (Philipson, 1992). </p><p>　　Though a complex notion, linguistic imperialism is usefully captured as the process by which speakers of one</p><p>　　language come to feel it necessary

26、 to use another language, ?to the point where they believe they can and should use only that foreign language when it comes to transactions dealing with the more advanced aspects of life? (Ansre, 1979, cited in Sliwe, 20

27、08). Ansre is clearly describing a final outcome, and the process of linguistic imperialism is likely to be highly contested. Though the present article is focused on issues of translation in international business, the

28、rise of English as a lingu</p><p>　　Language barriers in international business</p><p>　　These issues of translation can obviously be viewed as a language barrier for international business, but

29、 Harzing and Feely (2008) argue that the idea of ?language barriers? has been rather under-defined. They propose a model of communication in which different components contribute to a vicious circle which creates the lan

30、guage barrier – failure to communicate effectively leads to uncertainty, anxiety and mistrust, which produces misattribution, conflict and cognitive distortion, to which the v</p><p>　　Jameson argues that la

31、nguage ?defines cultural groups, as well as being the most frequently used symbolic systems through which culture is conveyed? (2007: 214), and as such it is core to cross-cultural communication in all settings. One of t

32、he key issues which led us to examine the issue of ?untranslatable? words is that they are likely to lead to situations in which the failure to communicate effectively is either not recognised, or is recognised but baffl

33、ing to the parties involved.</p><p>　　Translation Studies</p><p>　　In this section we want to examine some of the key ideas in the field of translation studies which might shed light on the pres

34、ent study, though it is useful to recall Nida?s point that many translators will not draw upon theory in any conscious fashion:Instead of speaking of theories of translation, we should perhapsspeak more about various app

35、roaches to the task of translating, different orientations which provide helpful insight, and diverse ways of talking about how a message can be transfer</p><p>　　language to another.(Nida, 1991: 21).</p&

36、gt;<p>　　We can see that the translator has a key role to play in this process, but Pym (2006) notes that until recently the field of translation studies has paid relatively little attention to their role as media

37、tors. It should be noted that although we have used translator as a generic term, it is more precise</p><p>　　to use this to refer to those who translate the written word. Translators of the spoken word are

38、more commonly referred to as interpreters, and Pym</p><p>　　(2006) suggests that the importance of the mediating role is more obvious</p><p>　　and immediate for interpreters. Consistent with thi

39、s, our findings suggest that the issue of untranslatable words presents more of a problem for interpreters than translators.</p><p>　　An overview of Tarouf</p><p>　　Tarouf (?tar-off’) is a Farsi

40、 word which describes a complex cultural construct. Three different English-Farsi dictionaries offer the following translations:</p><p>　　- salutation, compliment, comity, chivalry</p><p>　　- co

41、mpliment, ceremony, offer, present</p><p>　　- compliment(s), ceremony, offer, gift, flummery, courtesy, flattery,</p><p>　　formality, good manners, soft tongue, honeyed phrases.</p><p

42、>　　Many of these words have only limited relation to each other, and this is because they can be seen as facets of tarouf, and the kinds of behaviours associated with it. Two examples illustrate tarouf more effectivel

43、y than these definitions. The first is an Iranian joke:</p><p>　　Many years ago, a young Persian woman became pregnant. The</p><p>　　months passed and she kept getting bigger, finally nine month

44、s came but no baby came out. She kept getting bigger and bigger…but still no baby! Years went by until she became an old woman with a huge belly. Finally the doctors had a machine that could look into her belly and see w

45、hat was going on in there. They looked inside and saw two men with beards saying to each other, ‘a(chǎn)fter you’, ‘no, after you’, ‘no please, after you’.</p><p>　　A second example was told to us by an Iranian ab

46、out his cousin, born in</p><p>　　the UK of Iranian parents, who made his first visit to Iran in his early 20s.</p><p>　　He took a taxi back to the airport, and he and the driver chatted for the

47、whole of the journey. When he got to the airport he asked the driver to tell him the fare, but the driver said there was no charge, it had been a pleasure to talk with him. My cousin didn’t know about tarouf, so he took

48、this at face value, thanked him profusely and left!</p><p>　　The driver, despite no doubt being aghast at this turn of events, let him go.</p><p>　　This illustrates that tarouf is deeply cultura

49、lly embedded – the driver could ill afford to offer a free fare for such a long journey, yet faced with a customer who did not recognise the conventions of tarouf he felt unable to step outside of them and demand the far

50、e.</p><p><b>　　Method</b></p><p>　　In order to explore the idea of tarouf as an ?untranslatable? word, we interviewed translators working in English and Farsi. We were unable to secu

51、re access to translators through agencies, who appeared concerned our approach was a ruse to gain access to translators without paying an agency fee. We therefore adopted a snowball sampling approach, going directly to i

52、ndividual translators based in Iran, and asking them to</p><p>　　recommend other potential participants for us to contact. Clearly the study was premised on our claim that tarouf is untranslatable, so we ini

53、tially asked all participants whether they agreed with that assertion. All confirmed that it was so, and we proceeded to explore the three empirical questions listed above via in-depth telephone interviews with 31</p&

54、gt;<p>　　individuals – 16 translators (5 men, 11 women) and 14 interpreters (12</p><p>　　men, 2 women). Six of the interpreters were interviewed twice, and were also sent follow-up e-mails seeking cla

55、rification of key points. It was not possible to record the interviews so we were unable to produce transcripts, however detailed notes were taken. The opportunity for follow-up interviews and e-mails provided a further

56、rigour to the data gathering process. The question of the implications for international business communication was something upon which they could provide some insight,</p><p><b>　　Findings</b>&

57、lt;/p><p>　　How do you deal with the word tarouf in your work?</p><p>　　Though the concept of tarouf permeates all Iranian writing and speech, the word itself will occur relatively infrequently in

58、the kinds of business documents which translators handle. They were initially rather defensive when we asked them about the difficulties in translating tarouf. Once they understood we were not criticising their practice,

59、 but interested in how they dealt with the problem, they explained that where possible they would seek a word which captured as far as possible the particu</p><p>　　Discussion</p><p>　　The first

60、 is that translators have a clear view on how to handle the issue of untranslatable words. They generally choose either to find the closest approximation in the target language, or to ignore the word altogether. Only whe

61、n neither option seems possible do they choose to raise the issue of the untranslatable nature of a word or phrase, and on such occasions they will provide an explanation of the cultural context in order to help the audi

62、ence understand what the author/speaker is attempti</p><p>　　appears to arise from a concern about the impact of this on their</p><p>　　professional image. </p><p>　　Conclusion</

63、p><p>　　This study highlights the significance of ?untranslatable? words in multi- cultural communications, and the crucial mediating role of the translator/interpreter in international business communication.

64、Our participants?description of their practice reflected elements of all three perspectives on language use – mechanical, cultural and political – described by Janssens et al (2004). Their core practice remained wedded t

65、o the mechanical perspective, as they attempted to render documents or speech </p><p>　　whereas Janssens et al (2004) highlight organisational power dynamics, in this instance it is the professional status a

66、nd personal business concerns of the translator/interpreter which dominate. Their judgement as to whether or not to offer an explanation of tarouf is based upon their view of whether this will enhance or diminish their s

67、tanding in the eyes of their clients (and by extension, whether or not this will lead to repeat business). This suggests a need for greater attention to the role</p><p>　　the clients do not know what they ar

68、e missing, and are therefore unlikely</p><p>　　to see the need to specify their requirements.</p><p>　　References</p><p>　　Barner-Rasmussen, W, and Bjorkman, I. (2005), “Surmounting

69、 interunit barriers”, International Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 35 No.1, pp. 28-46.</p><p>　　Bjerregaard, T, Lauring, J, and Klitmoller, A. (2009). “A critical analysis of</p><p&g

70、t;　　intercultural communication research in cross-cultural management: Introducing newer developments in anthropology”, Critical Perspectives on International Business , Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 207-228.</p><p>　　C

71、harles, M. (2007), “Language matters in global communication”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol.44 No. 3, pp. 260-282.</p><p>　　Charles, M, and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002), “Language training for</

72、p><p>　　enhanced horizontal communication: A challenge for MNCs”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 9-29.</p><p>　　Dowling, P.J. and Welch, D.E. (2004), International Human Resou

73、rce</p><p>　　Management: Managing People in a Multinational Environment (4th Ed), London, Thomson Learning.</p><p>　　Feely, A, J. and Harzing, A, W. (2003), “Language management in</p>&l

74、t;p>　　multinational companies”, Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 37-52.</p><p>　　Fredriksson, R, Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Piekkari, R. (2006), “The</p><p>　　multinatio

75、nal corporation as a multilingual organization: The notion of a common corporate language”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 406-423.</p><p>　　Harzing, A.W.K., and Feely

76、, A.J. (2008), “The Language Barrier and its</p><p>　　Implications for HQ-Subsidiary Relationships”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-60. Jameson, D.A. (2007), “Reco

77、nceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business communication”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 199-235.</p><p>　　Janssens, M., Lambert, J., and Steyaert, C. (200

78、4), “Developing language strategies for international companies: the contribution of translation studies”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 414-430. Khomenei, A, R (1980), “Search and Find the East”, In Albe

79、rt, H (ed). Tell the American People: Perspectives on the Iranian Revolution, Movement for a New Society, Philadelphia, pp. 204-210.</p><p>　　Latifi, F. (1997), “Management Learning in National Context”, PhD

80、 thesis,</p><p>　　Henley Management College.</p><p>　　Lazarova, M., and Tarique, I. (2005), “Knowledge transfer upon repatriation”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 361-373.</p&g

81、t;<p>　　Nida, E.A. (1991), “Theories of translation”, TTR: traduction, terminologie,</p><p>　　rédaction, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 19-32.</p><p>　　Phillipson, R. (1992), Linguistic Imperiali

82、sm, Oxford, Oxford University Press.</p><p>　　Pochhacker, F. (2006), “Interpreters and ideology: from ?between? to</p><p>　　?within?”, Across Languages and Cultures, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp.191–207.<

83、;/p><p>　　Pym, A. (2006), “On the social and the cultural in Translation Studies”, in Pym, A., Shlesinger, M. and Jettmarová, Z. (Eds.), Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting, Amsterdam and

84、 Philadelphia, Benjamins. Pym, A. (2008), “On Toury's laws of how translators translate”, in Pym, A.D., Shlesinger, M., and Simeoni, D. (Eds.), Beyond Descriptive</p><p>　　Translation Studies: Investigat

85、ions in Homage to Gideon Toury, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, Benjamins.</p><p>　　Sliwa, M. (2008), “Understanding social change through post-colonial</p><p>　　theory: Reflections on linguistic im

86、perialism and language spread in Poland”, Critical Perspective on International Business, Vol.4 No. 2/3, pp. 228-241.</p><p>　　Tayeb, M. (2001), “Human Resource in Iran”, in Budwar, P.S. and Yaw, D.</p>

87、;<p>　　(Eds.) Human Resource Management in Developing Countries, London: Routledge, pp.121-134.</p><p>　　Tietze, S. (2008), International Management and Language, London,</p><p>　　Routled

88、ge.</p><p>　　Tietze, S. (2007), “Language and international management emergent themes and new perspectives”, Bradford University School of Management Working Paper, No. 07/35.</p><p>　　Tollefso

89、n, J.W. (1991), Planning Language, Planning Inequality, Language</p><p>　　Policy in the Community, New York, Longman.</p><p>　　Toury, G. (1995), Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond, Amste

90、rdam and Philadelphia, Benjamins.</p><p>　　Welch, D.E, and Welch, L.S. (2008), “The importance of language in</p><p>　　international knowledge transfer”, Management International Review, Vol.<

91、;/p><p>　　48 No. 3, pp. 339-360.</p><p>　　Welch, D, Welch. L, and Piekkari, R. (2005), “Speaking in tongues: The impact of language in international management processes”, International Studies of

92、Management and Organization, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 10-27. Wierzbicka, A. (2001), “A Culturally Salient Polish Emotion: Przykro ['Pshickro]”, International Journal of Group Tensions, Vol. 30 , pp. 3-27.</p><p&

93、gt;　　在翻譯中迷失？譯者在國(guó)際商務(wù)中的文化、語(yǔ)言與角色</p><p>　　約翰．布萊金索普和瑪雅姆．塞得門．帕喬</p><p>　　英國(guó)梯塞德大學(xué)商學(xué)院</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　目標(biāo)：國(guó)際商務(wù)中有關(guān)的語(yǔ)言問(wèn)題一直是越來(lái)越多的理論和實(shí)證性工作的焦點(diǎn)，本文促成了這些文獻(xiàn)并專注于翻

94、譯問(wèn)題。 譯員的角色將根據(jù)所采用的語(yǔ)言策略而變化，這些策略與國(guó)際商務(wù)語(yǔ)言中的機(jī)制、文化和政治觀念相異。 我們通過(guò)跨越國(guó)界傳播的具體問(wèn)題，即“不可翻譯”的詞匯和概念來(lái)審視這些觀點(diǎn)。 </p><p><b>　　設(shè)計(jì)/方式/方法</b></p><p>　　通過(guò)與專業(yè)的語(yǔ)言學(xué)家（筆譯譯員和口譯譯員）進(jìn)行面談，探討他們?cè)趪?guó)際商務(wù)的日常工作中是如何處理難以翻譯但又文化突出的

95、詞匯的，并將波斯語(yǔ)詞語(yǔ)tarouf如何翻譯成英語(yǔ)這一問(wèn)題作為案例切入點(diǎn)。</p><p><b>　　發(fā)現(xiàn)</b></p><p>　　語(yǔ)言學(xué)家一致同意tarouf是一個(gè)不可翻譯的詞，并描述了他們處理這個(gè)問(wèn)題的策略。 最常見(jiàn)的策略是回避，這是源于語(yǔ)言學(xué)家關(guān)注的是要保持其與客戶的專業(yè)地位，這一發(fā)現(xiàn)反映出對(duì)語(yǔ)境和理解跨文化交際之間關(guān)系的重要性的重視。</p>

96、<p><b>　　實(shí)際意義</b></p><p>　　這項(xiàng)研究突出了譯者在國(guó)際商務(wù)中的重要作用，并提請(qǐng)注意由于缺乏對(duì)文化突出但本身不可譯的詞語(yǔ)或短語(yǔ)的認(rèn)識(shí)，從而帶來(lái)跨文化交流的潛在問(wèn)題。</p><p><b>　　社會(huì)意義</b></p><p>　　有效的跨文化交流對(duì)于更廣泛的社會(huì)而言是非常重要的問(wèn)題，

97、并且在商務(wù)中歷來(lái)是此類交流的最常見(jiàn)議題。 我們的研究強(qiáng)調(diào)了一個(gè)對(duì)于改善跨文化交流非常重要的問(wèn)題，并為這一領(lǐng)域的跨學(xué)科文獻(xiàn)的發(fā)展做出了貢獻(xiàn)。</p><p><b>　　創(chuàng)新性/價(jià)值</b></p><p>　　國(guó)際商務(wù)中的大部分語(yǔ)言研究都集中在作為通用語(yǔ)的英語(yǔ)上，但目前的研究都集中在翻譯的具體問(wèn)題上，而在伊朗的波斯語(yǔ)方面則研究不足。 它提請(qǐng)人們注意這是一個(gè)沒(méi)有得到廣泛

98、討論的翻譯問(wèn)題，并說(shuō)明這個(gè)問(wèn)題在國(guó)際商務(wù)中的重要性。</p><p><b>　　關(guān)鍵詞</b></p><p>　　國(guó)際貿(mào)易，口譯譯員，語(yǔ)言，; tarouf; 筆譯譯員; 跨文化交流</p><p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　根據(jù)定義所述，跨國(guó)公司（MNC）是一個(gè)多語(yǔ)言組織（

99、弗雷德里克松等人，2006），伴隨組織層級(jí)的規(guī)律性增加多種語(yǔ)言的情況就會(huì)發(fā)生（Charles and Marschan-Piekkari，2002）。盡管跨國(guó)公司內(nèi)部的交流問(wèn)題一直是國(guó)際商業(yè)領(lǐng)域長(zhǎng)期關(guān)注的話題，但直到最近才出現(xiàn)了語(yǔ)言的具體問(wèn)題（Janssens et al，2004; Welch et al，2005）。一個(gè)可能的解釋是國(guó)際商業(yè)慣例對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題也有些盲目。盡管語(yǔ)言障礙的現(xiàn)實(shí)被廣泛的識(shí)別出來(lái)，但“表達(dá)另一種語(yǔ)言”的全部含義卻

100、沒(méi)有。韋爾奇認(rèn)為語(yǔ)言是“一種心理模式、構(gòu)架活動(dòng)和行為”（2008：341），即使在一個(gè)單詞的層面上，這些構(gòu)架效果也是可見(jiàn)的。</p><p>　　維爾比比亞（2001）對(duì)波蘭詞przykro的考察提供了一個(gè)例子。通常翻譯為傷害，冒犯，抱歉或悲傷，維爾比比亞暗示翻譯中有些東西被遺失，稱其為“一種文化上的波蘭情感”。 “這并不是說(shuō)英語(yǔ)的演講者從來(lái)沒(méi)有體驗(yàn)過(guò)波蘭語(yǔ)中與przykro這個(gè)詞相關(guān)的情感;只是他們不會(huì)習(xí)慣性地

101、對(duì)這些用語(yǔ)的體驗(yàn)進(jìn)行思考“（維爾比比亞，2001：22）。中國(guó)詞“關(guān)系”提供了另一個(gè)明顯的例子，這個(gè)詞既有文化上的突出，又有固有的“不可翻譯”。 關(guān)系已廣為人知的 ， 討論和研究它的概念及其在國(guó)際商業(yè)中的重要性在一定程度上已經(jīng)引起人們的意識(shí)。</p><p>　　語(yǔ)言領(lǐng)域中的帝國(guó)主義</p><p>　　關(guān)于語(yǔ)言在國(guó)際商務(wù)中的作用的大部分文獻(xiàn)都集中在兩個(gè)特點(diǎn)上。首先是跨國(guó)公司就語(yǔ)言使用做出