A Theory of Cross-Cultural Communication Essay

A Theory of Cross-Cultural Communication Anthony Pym 2003 Intercultural Studies class Universitat Rovira i Virgili Tarragona, Spain* Pre-print version 3. 3 The following is a series of pro bunks knowing to connect a few ideas about translation as a mode of cross-cultural dialogue. The ideas argon drawn from a multiplicity of exist theories the aim is not particularly to be original.The propositions argon instead mean to link up three endeavors an abstr diddle conception of cross-cultural communication, a description of the specificities of translation, and an attempt to envisage the future of such communication in a globalizing age. The various presents at which the propositions draw on or divert from previous theories are indicated in a series of notes. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. On cross-cultural communication in general cross-cultural communication involves the perceived hybrid of a point of contact between cultures.Cultures here(predicate) are minim wholey seen as large-scale syst ems of assumed shared references, linguistic or differentwise1, employ for the purposes of reducing complexity. 2 Cultures themselves whitethorn idealize one or some(prenominal) center fields, where the shared references are felt to be so shadowy that communication would be without any need for drop-offs of complexities. Away from such ideals, cultures pee peripheries, where references are sparse, or sparsely shared, or mixed with references shared by other cultures. The terms center and periphery are not to be unsounded geopolitic tout ensembley. ( cfEven-Zohar 1990, Toury 1995) The disagreements between centers and peripheries are operative fictions rather than primary empiric facts. The rattling belief that one is in a central position may be enough to curtail complexity, just as the senseless(prenominal) icon that one is lacking in context may ontogeny complexity. (Pym 1998) The difference between center and periphery may also be characterized in terms of lawsuit. When shared references are believed to be dense (all else beingness equal), the step-down of complexity requires less causal agency than when the references are believed to be sparse. hunting expedition here is understood as being on both the displace and receiving sides of messages, as well as in any mediating position or investiture in the channel. A text sent and received snug a perceived center go away thus require less enthronization of effort than the same text sent from a center to a periphery (assuming that the reduction of complexity is 1. 3. 1. 4. 1. 5. to be to a equivalent leg in both roles). And further appurtenant effort will be needed if the text is to be received in another(prenominal) culture. (Pym 1995) 1. 6.The lines between cultures are marked as cross-over points where the communication act receives supplementary effort of a mediating and discontinuous nature. such points are usually where translations are carried out. (Pym 2001a) Cross-cultural co mmunication thus marks the points of contact between cultures, although it but will not join up the points to form any assortment of line. (Pym 1998, 2001a, cf. Chatwin 1987) On complexity and its reduction Texts are inscribed objects that give the bounce be interpreted in different ways and for different functions, sort of singly of any original intentions. The plurality of possible interpretations is what we are art complexity. The reduction of complexity does not imply any discerning of a confessedly or primal meaning. For example, a reader at this point exponent interpret the term reduction of complexity as grounds, besides such a reading will hopefully be deviated by the following paragraphs. In this sense, the reduction of complexity does not fee-tail an act of understanding in any idealist sense. Nor must effort be expended only to reduce complexity. Effort can also be apply to make texts more complex, preparing them for a greater plurality of interpretations.Such strength be a certain conception of aesthetic pleasure, diplomatical ambiguity, or communicative mechancete. The degree of appropriate complexity is in apiece case dependent on the supremacy origins of the communicative act concerned. On victory conditions Success conditions are criteria that make the communicative act respectable for all or some of the participants concerned. 4 Such criteria may be simple, as in the case of a business negotiation to chance upon correlative agreement on a sales price the success condition might be that a price is agreed to by all participants.A Theory of Cross-Cultural Communication EssayCultures here are minimally seen as large-scale systems of assumed shared references, linguistic or otherwise1, used for the purposes of reducing complexity. 2 Cultures themselves may idealize one or several centers, where the shared references are felt to be so dense that communication would be without any need for reductions of complexities. Away from suc h ideals, cultures have peripheries, where references are sparse, or sparsely shared, or mixed with references shared by other cultures. The terms center and periphery are not to be understood geopolitically. (cf.Even-Zohar 1990, Toury 1995) The differences between centers and peripheries are operative fictions rather than primary empirical facts. The very belief that one is in a central position may be enough to curtail complexity, just as the false impression that one is lacking in context may increase complexity. (Pym 1998) The difference between center and periphery may also be characterized in terms of effort. When shared references are believed to be dense (all else being equal), the reduction of complexity requires less effort than when the references are believed to be sparse.Effort here is understood as being on both the sending and receiving sides of messages, as well as in any mediating position or investment in the channel. A text sent and received near a perceived cente r will thus require less investment of effort than the same text sent from a center to a periphery (assuming that the reduction of complexity is 1. 3. 1. 4. 1. 5. to be to a similar degree in both cases). And further supplementary effort will be needed if the text is to be received in another culture. (Pym 1995) 1. 6.The lines between cultures are marked as cross-over points where the communication act receives supplementary effort of a mediating and discontinuous nature. Such points are usually where translations are carried out. (Pym 2001a) Cross-cultural communication thus marks the points of contact between cultures, although it alone will not join up the points to form any kind of line. (Pym 1998, 2001a, cf. Chatwin 1987) On complexity and its reduction Texts are inscribed objects that can be interpreted in different ways and for different functions, quite independently of any original intentions. The plurality of possible interpretations is what we are calling complexity. The reduction of complexity does not imply any discerning of a true or primal meaning. For example, a reader at this point might interpret the term reduction of complexity as understanding, but such a reading will hopefully be deviated by the following paragraphs. In this sense, the reduction of complexity does not entail an act of understanding in any idealist sense. Nor must effort be expended only to reduce complexity. Effort can also be used to make texts more complex, preparing them for a greater plurality of interpretations.Such might be a certain conception of aesthetic pleasure, diplomatic ambiguity, or communicative mechancete. The degree of appropriate complexity is in each case dependent on the success conditions of the communicative act concerned. On success conditions Success conditions are criteria that make the communicative act beneficial for all or some of the participants concerned. 4 Such criteria may be simple, as in the case of a business negotiation to reach mutual agreement on a sales price the success condition might be that a price is agreed to by all participants.