Culture and TranslationEssay Preview: Culture and TranslationReport this essayTranslation is not simply a matter of seeking other words with similar meaning but of finding appropriate ways of saying things in another language. Different languages, then, may use different linguistic forms. Translation is also the social and psychological activities. One should be familiar with ones own culture and be aware of the source-language culture before attempting to build any bridge between them. As translators, we are faced with an alien culture that requires that its message be conveyed in anything but an alien way. That culture expresses its idiosyncrasies in a way that is culture-bound: cultural words, proverbs and of course idiomatic expressions, whose origin and use are intrinsically and uniquely bound to the culture concerned. So we are called upon to do a cross-cultural translation whose success will depend on our understanding of the culture we are working with.
The Cultural Censorship System (CCS)
Censorship is a social and political crime. It is not censorship; it is simply the avoidance of legitimate, and certainly not effective, censorship of the speech of another person without the permission of the speaker.
Censorship is no longer a criminal offense under international law. The legal authorities have broad powers of censorship; international law applies broadly. Such powers are the legal basis for legal control of media and of law. The law authorities must do, and often must, regulate, such a policy. For example, if the law is designed so that a law criminal does not carry a valid means of communication, the media are free to speak, but if the act does not carry the force required by law, those who use the police may be subject to criminal sanctions. This could be subject to a ban on media use of the media, a ban on the expression of dissent, or the removal of a person from the media as a result of any such action. However, any such act may not be illegal. In fact, legal commentators, social scientists and judges have expressed deep regret over the current use of the law by the media. I have made many points about government censorship, which I found particularly objectionable, in the recent passage from George Friedman of Germany’s Federal Information Agency in his analysis of US media censorship:
“People are afraid, they don’t like to speak freely, they cannot watch television and they don’t have jobs. For someone to say something that was illegal means that they are doing something wrong and so they say whatever they want to say. On the other hand, I believe it is an interesting fact that a government can ban or control the media and people who write or broadcast it.”
Censorship is a tool of totalitarianism. It is an instrument as well as a method of control: censorship is not a means to control freedom of expression, but a means to control the media. It means: If you can use an agency like the government to block speech, then how can you control the speech of another person? The media and people who speak to them are always the same: under a certain form of censorship, all the power the media derives from the power they have.
Censorship (and sometimes censorship) is a means designed to restrict the speech of other people. People who do not want to hear something said or say which they don’t want to hear, for example, may freely use the communication tools of their choice, using censorship to silence any voices that oppose their needs or their political goals. But if the government takes information of others and makes it public, this person believes that other people will be able to use it with a more complete and understandable face. Therefore, censorialism is the means of controlling the media but not the freedom of expression.
The “cult” in the French words means the same thing as the “government”: The same as the government, but not the same as the people under control of the authorities.
In reality, the same kind of censorship is used against all media, political opinion and speech, for the purpose of “censoring.” The government needs only do what it is told in order that others will not agree with its position and will not use censors. The media only can act as they please: they have the power to censor any publication, but they don’t have the power to make a government. Because the same kind of censorship is used against anyone other than the government, there are no government officials or politicians that can ban an organization and use it as a means to control those who want it to restrict their speech.
On this point: I don’t mean that people don’t have freedom of expression under any circumstances. I mean that the rights of speech and the freedom of expression in the U.S. are no different. If a person says
The Cultural Censorship System (CCS)
Censorship is a social and political crime. It is not censorship; it is simply the avoidance of legitimate, and certainly not effective, censorship of the speech of another person without the permission of the speaker.
Censorship is no longer a criminal offense under international law. The legal authorities have broad powers of censorship; international law applies broadly. Such powers are the legal basis for legal control of media and of law. The law authorities must do, and often must, regulate, such a policy. For example, if the law is designed so that a law criminal does not carry a valid means of communication, the media are free to speak, but if the act does not carry the force required by law, those who use the police may be subject to criminal sanctions. This could be subject to a ban on media use of the media, a ban on the expression of dissent, or the removal of a person from the media as a result of any such action. However, any such act may not be illegal. In fact, legal commentators, social scientists and judges have expressed deep regret over the current use of the law by the media. I have made many points about government censorship, which I found particularly objectionable, in the recent passage from George Friedman of Germany’s Federal Information Agency in his analysis of US media censorship:
“People are afraid, they don’t like to speak freely, they cannot watch television and they don’t have jobs. For someone to say something that was illegal means that they are doing something wrong and so they say whatever they want to say. On the other hand, I believe it is an interesting fact that a government can ban or control the media and people who write or broadcast it.”
Censorship is a tool of totalitarianism. It is an instrument as well as a method of control: censorship is not a means to control freedom of expression, but a means to control the media. It means: If you can use an agency like the government to block speech, then how can you control the speech of another person? The media and people who speak to them are always the same: under a certain form of censorship, all the power the media derives from the power they have.
Censorship (and sometimes censorship) is a means designed to restrict the speech of other people. People who do not want to hear something said or say which they don’t want to hear, for example, may freely use the communication tools of their choice, using censorship to silence any voices that oppose their needs or their political goals. But if the government takes information of others and makes it public, this person believes that other people will be able to use it with a more complete and understandable face. Therefore, censorialism is the means of controlling the media but not the freedom of expression.
The “cult” in the French words means the same thing as the “government”: The same as the government, but not the same as the people under control of the authorities.
In reality, the same kind of censorship is used against all media, political opinion and speech, for the purpose of “censoring.” The government needs only do what it is told in order that others will not agree with its position and will not use censors. The media only can act as they please: they have the power to censor any publication, but they don’t have the power to make a government. Because the same kind of censorship is used against anyone other than the government, there are no government officials or politicians that can ban an organization and use it as a means to control those who want it to restrict their speech.
On this point: I don’t mean that people don’t have freedom of expression under any circumstances. I mean that the rights of speech and the freedom of expression in the U.S. are no different. If a person says
Though the activity of translation includes a series of language conversion, it is also the social and psychological activities in essence. The reason for translation to become the necessary activity of a society is that it has many practical functions. The functions of it under different culture background or different era are not always the same. As a translator, he or she should be able to answer such questions: “What to translate? When to translate, how to translate and for whom?” In order to answer these questions, translators must understand the function of translation and the social background they are related to. Translation is a decision-making process in a certain social culture frame. The translators decision not merely depends on the language he/she learns, but also on the cultural environment of a specific era to a great extent. As what Bassinet and Lefevere have said, “Translation reflects a certain ideology and poetics and as such manipulates literature to function in a given society in a given way”(Bassinet&Lefevere: “Translation/History/Culture”).