Discussion
Three key themes emerge from our findings. The first 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 when 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 audience
understand what the author/speaker is attempting to convey. The fact
they engage in such explanations only when deemed unavoidable
appears to arise from a concern about the impact of this on their
professional image. They express the view that any inability to translate
31
will be perceived by the client to reflect a weakness in their linguistic
competence, rather than an issue inherent in the difference of language
and culture. In their analysis of intercultural communication research,
Bjerregaard, Lauring and Klitmøller (2009) suggest cross-cultural
management scholars would benefit from drawing upon more recent
anthropological literature, from which they derive three theoretical
dimensions of culture in communication: “The interrelation between culture
and the local context of social, professional or organizational relationships
in which communication is conducted…The specific motivations and
interests of actors informing the act of invoking cultural identities or
categories in communication… Actors‟ strategies of communication”
(2009: 214). The interpreters‟ decision-making behaviour, their
interactions with clients, and the resultant impact on communication, can
be seen as an illustration of all three dimensions.
The second theme concerns the mutual lack of awareness of the cultural
issues encapsulated in the untranslatable word (in this instance,
tarouf
).
One of the aspects of the present study which may be particularly
important is the point made by the translators, interpreters and managers
alike that there is limited knowledge of Iranian culture among Western
managers. This makes the difficulties in translating a key word which
32
captures a critical element of Iranian culture a much greater issue than it
might be for a more familiar culture. The difficult relations between Iran
and many Western countries (particularly the USA and the UK) has not
been conducive to „knowledge transfer‟ about Iranian culture, and a point
touched upon by some of our participants was the need for Iranians
engaged in international business to have a greater awareness of the role
of
tarouf
, in order to see their own culture as „foreigners‟ see it, and be
able to anticipate and handle the cultural misunderstandings. This might
seem counter-intuitive, in that one might argue that it is the non-Iranians
coming to Iran who need this knowledge, but the participants made the
point that in the current climate it is unrealistic to expect the West will be
learning more about Iranian culture. (Following Sliwe (2008), we would
note that even if the geopolitical situation became more favourable for
inter-cultural communication, English remains the „imperial power‟ in
linguistic terms, and Iranian businesses might still expect to encounter
relative ignorance of their language and culture). The importance of
understanding one‟s own cultural identity as a basis for effective inter-
cultural business communication is stressed by Jameson (2007). She
examines the importance for communication professionals (such as
translators and interpreters) of understanding oneself and one‟s own
cultural identity – it is interesting to observe that in our study it was the
33
Iranian managers, rather than the communication professionals, who had
reached the same conclusion.
The third theme concerns the way in which these problems (a lack of
accurate translation and a gap in cultural understanding) create the kind of
vicious cycle in international business communication identified by Harzing
and Feely (2008). At first glance this would seem to reinforce the
argument for the adoption of a lingua franca. The participant who
appeared to have least issues with
tarouf
was the Iranian manager who
worked exclusively in English, and thus avoided the problem of
tarouf
phrases. However, this manager was also educated in an English-
speaking country, and therefore fully aware both of
tarouf
and of the
„absence‟ of an equivalent concept in such countries (and Western
countries generally, in his view). His use of English was therefore not the
crucial factor, and Iranian managers required to use English would most
likely translate
tarouf
phrases into English in their interactions with
English-speakers and continue to have expectations of behaviour (their
own and others) which draw upon the cultural value of
tarouf
.
Limitations of the study
34
We presented a rationale for using
tarouf
as an exemplar of an
untranslatable but culturally significant word. Though the findings
presented here would appear to have relevance to other situations, it is
clearly necessary to examine whether the same issues can be seen to
arise between other languages and for other words. Our participants
identified a relative Western ignorance of Iranian culture as a key factor in
making
tarouf
problematic. Perhaps with languages and cultures of which
Western business people have a greater awareness, this might make
„untranslatable‟ words less of an issue. All the translators were native
speakers of Farsi, and it would be interesting to examine how English-
Farsi linguists who are native speakers of English handle the issue of
tarouf
. One might speculate that they would be less aware of all the
complex nuances of
tarouf
, but might be more likely to be aware of it as an
important cultural difference and thus more likely to engage in explanation
when it arises. So far we have considered the issue from an Iranian
perspective, with only limited insights into how much of a problem the
native English speakers found it to be. An understanding of this will be
important if we are to develop recommendations as to how MNCs,
international managers and business communication professionals might
address the problem. Finally, as we have noted at various points, the
problem appears to be much greater for interpreters than translators, but
35
the literature on language issues in international business draws heavily
upon translation studies rather than interpreting studies. Future research
might usefully be informed by this younger discipline, which is starting to
pay greater attention to the „in-between‟ nature of the interpreter‟s role
(Pochhacker, 2006).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |