Abstract: The differences in languages play a big role in cross-cultural communication. If meanings are not translated accurately, the risk can be crucial not only on an interpersonal level, but also on the international and political levels. The use of metaphorical language by politicians can cause great confusion, often leading to statements being misconstrued. In these situations, it is the translators who struggle to put forward the intended meaning with clarity and this makes translation an important field to study and analyze when it comes to cross-cultural communication. Owing to the growing importance of language and the power of translation in politics, this research analyzes part of President Bush’s speech in 2001 in which he used the word “Crusade” which caused his statement to be misconstrued. The research uses a discourse analysis of cross-cultural communication literature which provides answers supported by historical, linguistic, and communicative perspectives. The first finding indicates that the word ‘crusade’ carries different meaning and significance in the narratives of the Western world when compared to the Middle East. The second one is that, linguistically, maintaining cultural meanings through translation is quite difficult and challenging. Third, when it comes to the cross-cultural communication perspective, the common and frequent usage of literal translation is a sign of poor strategies being followed in translation training. Based on the example of Bush’s speech, this paper hopes to highlight the weak practices in translation in cross-cultural communication which are still commonly used across the world. Translation studies have to take issues such as this seriously and attempt to find a solution. In every language, there are words and phrases that have cultural, historical and social meanings that are woven into the language. Literal translation is not the solution for this problem because that strategy is unable to convey these meanings in the target language.
Abstract: The present study seeks to investigate the application
of expansion strategy in Persian subtitles of English crime movies.
More precisely, this study aims at classifying the different types of
expansion used in subtitles as well as investigating the
appropriateness or inappropriateness of the application of each type.
To achieve this end, three movies; namely, The Net (1995), Contact
(1997) and Mission Impossible 2 (2000), available with Persian
subtitles, were selected for the study. To collect the data, the above
mentioned movies were watched and those parts of the Persian
subtitles in which expansion had been used were identified and
extracted along with their English dialogs. Then, the extracted
Persian subtitles were classified based on the reason that led to
expansion in each case. Next, the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of using expansion in the extracted Persian
subtitles was descriptively investigated. Finally, an equivalent not
containing any expansion was proposed for those cases in which the
meaning could be fully transferred without this strategy. The findings
of the study indicated that the reasons range from explicitation
(explicitation of visual, co-textual and contextual information),
mistranslation and paraphrasing to the preferences of subtitlers.
Furthermore, it was found that the employment of expansion strategy
was inappropriate in all cases except for those caused by explicitation
of contextual information since correct and shorter equivalents which
were equally capable of conveying the intended meaning could be
posited for the original dialogs.