ELT Voices- International Journal for Teachers of English Volume (5), Issue (3), 48-59 (June 2015)

ISSN Number: 2230-9136

(http://www.eltvoices.in)

A Modification of Culture-specific Items and Translation

Strategies Used by Native and Non-native Translators in

Translation of ‘The Blind Owl’ by Sadegh Hedayat

1Forouzan Dehbashi Sharif,

2Sima Shakiba

1, 2Deptartment of English Language, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Corresponding: s.shakiba11@gmail.com

Article reference:

Dehbashi Sharif, F., & Shakiba, S. (2015). A modification of culture-specific items and translation strategies used

by native and non-native translators in translation of ‘The Blind Owl’ by Sadegh Hedayat. ELT Voices, 5 (3),

48-59.

Abstract: This article reviews culture-specific items (CSIs) and investigates if there is any difference between

the strategies that a native and a non-native translator apply in translating them. The corpus of the study belongs

to Sadegh Hedayat’s The Blind Owl and its translation once done by Costello (1957) as the non-native translator

and later by Bashiri (1974) as the native translator. The theoretical frame work of this study was adopted selec-

tively from strategies proposed by Aixela (1996), Ivir (1987), and Davies (2003) and based on the characteris-

tics of Persian language modified by the writers of this article. After extracting 184 CSIs from the original novel

and comparing them with their English translations, it was concluded that both translators have used all nine

strategies of the framework, including borrowing, extratextual gloss, intratextual gloss, localization, globaliza-

tion, literal translation, synonymy, deletion, and transformation. The results of using chi-square test revealed

that there was no significant difference among the strategies applied in translating CSIs of ‘The Blind Owl’ by

an Iranian translator and an English translator.

Index Terms: Culture, culture-specific items, literary translation, translation strategies

1. INTRODUCTION

Every nation has a unique literature. Literature of every nation is deeply rooted in its culture and beliefs.

As a matter of fact, “world literature cannot be conceptualized apart from translation”. So it is translation that

“enables the international reception of literary texts” (Venuti, 2013, p.193). Literary texts are deeply embedded

in the source culture, so a literary translator may face difficulties in rendering culture-specific items such as

customs, beliefs,and other expressions which should be conveyed to the target readers in their own language.

Therefore, the translators should be aware of differences among cultures and as Xue-bing (2006) states "playing

a role of the bridge in cross-cultural communication, translator should be both linguistically and culturally com-

petent when dealing with problems caused by cultural differences" (p.93).

ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (3), (June 2015) 49

One of the most famous literary works in modern Persian literature is ‘The Blind Owl’ by Sadegh Hedayat

known for his specific style and using cultural words and symbols in his writings. This book was first translated

to English by Desmond Patrick Costello as the non-native translator, in1957 and seventeen years later by

IrajBashiri as the Persian native translator who revised his translation twice, once for the second edition 1984

and then for the third edition 2013.Since symbols represent meanings beyond literal meaning and finding these

meanings is the basic task of the translators, in this article the symbols and cultural dates would be considered as

the culture-specific items and through a systematic way the applied translation strategies by the translators

would be studied and analyzed to find if there is any difference between strategies they applied in translating all

of the CSIs.

2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Theoretical background

Translations are one of the ways of gaining knowledge about other cultures, because they stand for the

original and replace it; so translations have important role information of cultural identities and in positioning

cultures, and may affect the target culture by presenting the source culture picture for the target culture

(Schaffner & Kelly-Holmes, 1995).Vermeer (1992) also regards translation as a “culture transcending process”

(Vermeer, as cited in Schaffner & Kelly-Holmes, 1995, p.2). Venuti (1995) has investigated the role of transla-

tion in forming cultural identities. His investigations show that “translation wields enormous power in con-

structing representations of foreign cultures” (p.10).He states that translations“can create stereotypes for foreign

countries that reflect domestic cultural and political values”and they are“instrumental in shaping domestic atti-

tudes towards foreign countries” (p.10).

Leppihalme (1997) points out that in culturally oriented translation studies, the source text (ST) and the

target text (TT) are not regarded only as samples of linguistic material. She believes that “The texts occur in a

given situation in a given culture in the world, and each has a specific function and an audience of its own. In-

stead of studying specimens of language under laboratory conditions as it were, the modern translation schol-

ar-and the translator-thus approaches a text as if from a helicopter: seeing first the cultural context, then the situ-

ational context, and finally the text itself” (Leppihalme, 1997, p.3).Indeed, according to the new interdiscipli-

narity, the translators and the translation scholars are concerned with a world between disciplines, languages and

cultures, and with texts in their larger situational and cultural context)Leppihalme, 1997).

Since the notion of culture is essential and important in understanding the implications for translation,

many translation scholars have tried to define culture. Larson (1984) defines culture as "a complex of beliefs,

attitudes, values, and rules which a group of people share" (Larson, 1984, p.430). Schmitt(1999) states that cul-

ture is "everything that a person should know, be able to feel and to do, in order to succeed in behaving and act-

ing in an environment like somebody from this environment" (Schmitt, as cited in Gambier, Shlesinger, &

Stolze, 2007, p.33). Newmark (1988) defines culture as “the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar

to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression” (p.94).

Newmark (1988) believes that language contains all types of cultural deposits, in the grammar, forms of

address as well as the lexis and when a language becomes specific for natural phenomena (e.g., flora and fauna)

it would be embedded in cultural features, and therefore translation problems would be created.

2.2. Culture-specific items

50 Dehbashi Sharif & Shakiba (June 2015)

Culture-specific items are considered as items causing translation problems by many scholars. So the

translators in general and literary translators in particular should be aware of these problems. Nida (2000) be-

lieves that cultural differences are as important as linguistic differences and states that “differences between

cultures may cause more severe complications for the translator than do differences in language structure”

(p.130). In line with him Cordero p oints out that “Interest in intercultural translation problems arises from a

recognition that culture-bound concepts, even where the two cultures involved are not too distant, can be more

problematic for the translator than the semantic or syntactic difficulties of a text” (Cordero, as cited in Lep-

pihalme,1997, p.2). Newmark (1988) also believes that when there are cultural words in a text, a translation

problem will occur unless cultural overlap exists among the source and the target languages.

Different scholars while defining culture-specific items, suggest different names for these items: realia or

realium, cultural words, culture- bound items, culture specific-items, etc. Newmark (1988) in his book the text

book of translation labels these items as ‘cultural words’. Baker (1992) refers to these items as ‘culture specific

concepts’ and believes that these concepts may cause problems in finding a proper equivalence. She states that

“The source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture. The concept

in question may be abstract or concrete; it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom, or even a type of

food. Such concepts are often referred to as culture-specific” (Baker, 1992, p.21). Klaudy (2010) believes that

the term ‘realia’ may have two meanings: “it may refer to a thing or concept specific to a given cultural/ linguis-

tic community, or to the name that we assign to that particular thing” (p.96). Nord (1997) uses the term ‘cul-

tureme’ to refer to culture-specific items. She defines cultureme as "a cultural phenomenon that is present in

culture X but not present (in the same way) in culture Y"(p.34).

According to Aixela (1996) CSIs are usually expressed in a text“by means of objects or systems of classi-

fication and measurement whose use is restricted to the source culture, or by means of the transcription of opin-

ions and by description of habits equally alien to the receiving culture”(p.56). He defines these items as those

textually actualized items whose function and connotations in a source text involve a translation problem in

their transference to a target text, whenever this problem is a product of the non- existence of the referred item

or of its different intertextual status in the cultural system of the readers of the target text. (p.58)

Culture-specific items may frequently cause translation problems, because target readers are not familiar

with the source culture. So translators should be aware of these problems and try to use the most appropriate

strategy. There are different strategies and methods proposed for translating CSIs by different scholars. Kuss-

maul (1995) believes that when a translator confronts a problem, s/he should decide to choose the appropriate

strategy by “consideration of text- function within situation within culture” (p.72). The translators as the key

agents of the process of translation and intercultural communication should improve their awareness of cultural

differences. In other words they should be bicultural as well as bilingual, and they should have an excellent

grasp of both source and target cultures. They should be familiar with source and target languages cul-

ture-specific items and also with strategies for translating them.

It is obvious that CSIs of every community are specific to its language; consequently,every word or ex-

pression may refer to a different concept in different languages (Davtalab & Massoum, 2011). “For example, pig

or owl may have the same denotative and dictionary meaning in different languages, but they may convey total-

ly different and even opposite senses in two different languages depending on the culture of the society”

(Davtalab & Massoum, 2011, p.1768). Therefore, the translators should be familiar with both source and target

cultures in order to convey the exact sense to the target readers.

ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (3), (June 2015) 51

‘The Blind Owl’ by Hedayat is one of the best-known Persian novels in the world and “has been regarded

by many literary scholars as the most famous Persian modern work” (Ahmadzadeh, 2003, p.179).This novel was

originally published in in Bombay in1937. It was translated to English by D.P. Costello a professor in the Uni-

versity of Manchester at 1957 and some years later by Iraj Bashiri an Iranian professor of history at the Univer-

sity of Minnesota, USA at 1974. So the first translation was done by a person, who was not a native Persian

speaker, but the second translator was a native Persian speaker and both translations were published for English

native speakers. This novel which is modernist in style has used French symbolism and surrealism techniques in

literature (Katouzian, 2008). The surrealism in this book is Persian surrealism and differs from French surreal-

ism in emotional tone and philosophical consequences (Fischer, 2004).

2.2.1. Symbols as culture-specific items

Symbol is “anobject, animate or inanimate, which represents or stands for something else” (Cuddon, 2013,

p.699).Shaw (1881) defines symbol as “something used for, or regarded as, representing something else. More

specifically, a symbol is a word, phrase, or other expression having a complex of associated meanings” (p.367).

Symbols are related to culture of nations. According to Greetz (as cited in Singh & Pereira, 2005) “culture

is historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conception”. Thus

“Symbols are the vehicles through which cultural information in the form of tacit knowledge is passed from one

generation to the other” (Singh & Pereira, 2005, pp. 40-41). In fact, “Symbols are deeply rooted in the SL cul-

ture; consequently, translators should exercise care in handling such cultural items” (Ordudari, 2008).

Jung (1964, as cited in Dastjerdi & Haghshenas, 2012) divides symbols into "natural" and "cultural" ones,

and explains that natural symbols are derived from the unconscious and cultural symbols are used to express

eternal truth. He believes that cultural symbols form the collective image of every society. Newmark (1993) also

has provided another categorization for symbols. He has divided them into "universal", "cultural" and "individ-

ual" symbols. Existing cultural symbols is common in both categorizations which suggests that symbols are

culture-specific and may be problematic for the translators. According to Dastjerdi and Shoorche (2011) uni-

versal symbols convey the same meaning in different languages and cultures and don’t cause any problem in

translating. They believe that“the problem arises when these symbols are culture-specific, they are symbols

which have different connotations and meanings in different cultures and in some cultures and languages they

may be absent” (Dastjerdi & Shoorche, 2011, p.187).

2.3. Categories and translation strategies of CSIs

Different scholars present different categorizations for CSIs. Some of these scholars are Newmark (1988),

Espindola and Vasconcellos (2006), Thriveini (2002), Povlovic (2003, as cited in Noruzi, 2012), Vlahov and

Florin (1980, as cited in Terestyenyi, 2011) (Appendix A).

Some scholars who have proposed translation strategies for translating CSIs are Aixela (1996), Ivir (1987),

and Davies (2003). Aixela (1996) has divided strategies for translating CSIs in two major groups: conservation

and substitution. Conservation strategies include: repetition, orthographic adaptation, linguistic (non-cultural)

translation, extratextual gloss, and intratextual gloss. Substitutionstrategies include: synonymy, limited univer-

salization, absolute universalization, naturalization, deletion, and autonomous creation. Ivir (1987) has proposed

seven strategies for translating culture-specific items: definition, literal translation, substitution, lexical creation,

52 Dehbashi Sharif & Shakiba (June 2015)

omission, addition, and borrowing. Davies (2003) also has proposed seven strategies for translating CSIs:

preservation, addition, omission, globalization, localization, transformations and creation (explanations for these

strategies are available in the next section).

2.4. Research questions

To achieve the purpose of this study the following research questionswere formulated:

Q1: What strategies have been used by Costello in rendering culture-specific items of ‘The Blind Owl’?

Q2: What strategies have been used by Bashiri in rendering culture-specific items of ‘The Blind Owl’?

Q3: Is there any significant difference among the strategies which are applied in translating ‘The Blind Owl’ by an

Iranian translator and an English translator?

The following hypothesis is based on the third question of the research:

H0: There is no significant difference among the frequencies of strategies applied for translating CSIs of ‘The

Blind Owl’ by an Iranian translator and an English translator.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Participants

After extracting cultural items in the original text and deciding about the type of strategies adopted in

translating them, two Ph.D. holder linguistic professors, and two graduated MA students of translation studies

were selected as raters, and were asked to validate the researchers’ selected strategies for translating CSIs based

on the framework of the study.

3.2. Procedure

In this descriptive corpus-based study a combination of the findings of five scholars was regarded as the

theoretical framework of the study for extracting the culture specific-items. The categorizations of Newmark

(1988), Povlovic (2003), Espindolla andVasconcellos (2006), Thriveiny (2002), and Valhov and Florin (1980),

were applied in this study and presented in table 1:

Table1. CSIs Categories Adopted in This Study

No CSI No CSI

1 Toponym 9 Clothes

2 Anthroponym 10 Houses

3 Ecology 11 Material culture (objects)

4 Measuring System 12 Customs and Traditions

5 Armed Forces 13 Beliefs and Feelings

6 Social Relationships 14 Symbols*

7 Names of Occupations 15 Cultural Date*

8 Food and Drink

It should be mentioned that ‘The Blind Owl’ is considered a symbolic novel, and some scholars such as Jung

(1964) and Newmark (1993) dividing symbols to different categoriesbelieve that some symbols are cultural items.

Jung (1964, as cited in Dastjerdi & Haghshenas, 2012) has divided symbols into "natural" and "cultural" ones,

ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (3), (June 2015) 53

while Newmark (1993) has divided them into "universal", "cultural" and "individual" symbols. Existing cultural

symbols is common in both categorizations which suggests that symbols are culture-specific. Therefore the cat-

egory of symbols was added to the above categorizations of CSIs.

The researchers also found some items in the corpus which referred to special days or hours such as ‘ سیزده

which are important in Persian culture, therefore the category of cultural date was added to ’وقت طلوع فجر‘ or ’نوروز

the culture-specific items. So a total number of 15 categories were considered as the CSIs which were investigated

through the theoretical framework of this study.

Table 2. Strategies Applied in This Study

No

Strategy

Founder

Explanation

1 Borrowing Ivir

(1987)

The borrowed expression should easily integrate into the TL, both pho-

nologically and morphologically. This procedure is often combined with

definition or substitution.

2 Extratextual

Gloss

Aixela

(1996)

The translator…considers it necessary to offer some explanation of the

meaning or implications of the CSI. At the same time, it does not seem

legitimate or convenient to mix this explanation with the text.The gloss

should be distinguished by marketing it as such; footnote, endnote, glos-

sary, commentary, translation in brackets, in italics, etc.

3 Intratextual

Gloss

Aixela

(1996)

The translators feel they can or should include their gloss as an indistinct

part of the text, usually so as not to disturb the reader’s attention.

4 Globalization Davies

(2003)

The process of replacing culture-specific references with ones that are

more neutral or general, in the sense that they are accessible to audiences

from a wider range of cultural backgrounds.

5 Localization Davies

(2003)

The translators may try to anchor a reference firmly in the culture of the

target audience.

6 Literal Transla-

tion

Ivir

(1987)

Literal translation is the mostcommon strategy used when it is combined

with borrowing. The main value of this procedure is its faithfulness to

SL expression and its transparency in TL.

7 Deletion Aixela

(1996)

The translators consider the CSI unacceptable on ideological or stylistic

grounds… they therefore decide to omit it in the target text.

8 Synonymy Aixela

(1996)

The translator resorts to some kind of synonym or parallel reference to

avoid repeating the CSI.

9 Transformation Davies

(2003)

This strategy occurs: where the modification of a CSI seem to go beyond

globalization or localization, and could be seen as an alternation or dis-

tortion of the original.

54 Dehbashi Sharif & Shakiba (June 2015)

For the purpose of determining the strategies applied by two translators in dealing with culture specific-items

more comprehensively, a combination of strategies proposed by Aixela (1996), Ivir (1987), and Davies (2003)

was used as the theoretical basement of this study. The chosen strategies are shown in table 2 above.

After extracting the cultural items in the original text and deciding about the type of strategies adopted in

translating them, four raters were asked to validate the researchers’ selected strategies for translating CSIs based

on the framework of the study. Then the average pairwise percent agreement among raters was calculated and it

was concluded that the general agreement among the raters is about 79.63% which is an acceptable amount

since it is more than 62%. Then an inter-rater reliability analysis using the Kappa statistic was performed to de-

termine consistency among raters.The results showed thatthe reliability for a score based on 4 raters was about

0.85 based on the Inter-Rater Reliability Calculator. The researchers also calculated the correlations among

raters in order to be sure of the reliability of their findings. It was concluded that based on the significant corre-

lation of the inter-rater judgments in almost all the cases the obtained results of the reliability for a score based

on 4 raters which was about 0.85 can be considered acceptable and the researchers can continue their judgments

in this research.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As it was stated earlier, the researchers extracted 184 CSIs from the corpus which categorized them to 15

categories and then determined the strategies applied by two translators according to the framework of the study.

The researchers calculated and analyzed the frequency and the percentage of strategies used by each translator for

all CISs which is shown in table 3:

Table 3 Frequency and Percentage of Strategies Applied by Each Translator

Strategies T1 (Costello) T2 (Bashiri)

Freq. Per. Freq. Per.

Borrowing 13 7.06% 9 4.89%

Extratextual

Gloss

16 8.69% 25 13.58%

Intratextual

Gloss

15 8.15% 19 10.32%

Globalization 29 15.76% 27 14.67%

Localization 14 7.60% 12 6.52%

Literal Transla-

tion

64 34.78% 70 38.04%

Deletion 10 5.43% 1 0.54%

Synonymy 13 7.06% 12 6.52%

Transformation 10 5.43% 9 4.89%

Total 184 100% 184 100%

ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (3), (June 2015) 55

As table 3 shows, both translators of ‘The Blind Owl’ have used all nine strategies presented in the frame-

work of the study for translating CSIs. It is also concluded that literal translation was the most frequently used

strategy by Costello with the percentage of 34.78.The most frequently used strategy by Bashiri was also literal

translation (38.4%).

The researchers also carried out a chi-square test in order to find out if there is statistically any significant

difference among the strategies used by a native and a non-native translator. The results of this test are as fol-

lows:

Table 4. Chi-Square Test

The results of usingchi-square test showed that the difference between the percentages of the strategies

used by the translators for translating CSIs is not significantly different at the probability levels of 95% and

99%. Therefore, in general, there is a harmony among the strategies that the Persian and English translators have

applied for translating CSIs.

Although it was accepted statistically that there is no significant difference among the strategies used by

Costello and Bashiri, as table 3 shows these two translators have used strategies presented in the framework of

the study for translating CSIs with different frequencies and there are some differences among the strategies that

they have applied. Bashiri as Iranian translator has used more literal translation and intratextual and extratextual

glosses, while English translator has used more, localization, globalization, borrowing, deletion, synonymy, and

transformation strategies. These differences indicate that Bashiri as an Iranian translator who is familiar with

Persian culture has paid more attention to introducing Persian culture to target readers by deleting less items or

using more extratextual and intratextual glosses, and also using less localization strategy. Bashiri’s use of dele-

tion strategy constitutes only 0.54% of total strategies. This means that he has tried to be faithful to ST and not

to delete many items. For example in translating houses, Costello has used deletion strategy with the percentage

of 15.38, while Bashiri hasn’t used this strategy. Table 5 shows using more deletion strategy by Costello in the

category of houses:

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage of Strategies for Translating Houses

Houses

Strategies T1 (Costello) T2 (Bashiri)

Freq. Per. Freq. Per.

Borrowing 1 7.69 0 0

Intratextual Gloss 3 23.07 2 15.38

Extratextual Gloss 0 0 2 15.38

Literal Translation 3 23.07 4 30.76

Globalization 3 23.07 4 30.76

Transformation 1 7.69 1 7.69

Deletion 2 15.38 0 0

T1

Castello

T2

Bashiri

Chi-squarea

df

Asymp.Sig.

1.111

6

.981

1.111

6

.981

56 Dehbashi Sharif & Shakiba (June 2015)

Applying more extratextual and intratextual glosses by Bashiri shows his tendency toward making target

readers familiar with source culture through giving extra explanations. Table 6 shows using more extratextual

and intratextual glosses by Bashiri in the category of food and drink:

Table 6. Frequency and Percentage of Strategies for Translating Food and Drink

5. CONCLUSION

The main concern of this study was to find out what translation strategies have been used by two transla-

tors in translating culture-specific items of a famous Persian novel ‘The Blind Owl’, and also to find out whether

there is any difference among the strategies applied by a native and a non-native translator or not. The results of

the content analysis in comparing two translations showed that Costello (T1) has used all nine strategies of the

framework in his translation and literal translation was the most frequently used strategy by him with the per-

centage of 34.78. The least used strategies by Costello were deletion (5.43%) and transformation (5.43%) strat-

egies. Bashiri (T2) also has used all nine strategies of the theoretical framework of this research. The most fre-

quently used strategy by Bashiri was literal translation (38.4%). Deletion strategy was the least frequently

used strategy by Bashiri with only 0.5%. The results of chi-square test revealed that there was no significant

difference among the strategies used by a native and a non-native translator in translating culture-specific items

of ‘The Blind Owl’, so the null hypothesis of the study could not be rejected.

Although the results showed that statistically there was no significant difference among the strategies used

by Costello and Bashiri, the researchers found out that Bashiri as an Iranian translator who is familiar with Per-

sian culture, has paid more attention to introducing Persian culture to target readers by deleting less items or

using more extratextual and intratextual glosses. For example in the category of cultural date Bashiri has pro-

vided a detailed explanation in the foot note for “چهارشنبه آخرسال” which is an important day in Iranian culture, in

order to attain the goal of overcoming the cultural gap.

ST: .چهارشنبه آخر سال رفته بود فالگوش

TT (Costello):On the last Wednesday of the yearshe went to see one of her fortune-tellers.

TT (Bashiri): On the last Wednesday of the yearshe went eavesdropping.

Strategies T1 (Costello) T2 (Bashiri)

Freq. Per. Freq. Per.

Intratextual Gloss 0 0 1 9.09

Extratextual Gloss 0 0 1 9.09

Literal translation 2 18.18 3 27.27

Globalization 3 27.27 3 27.27

Localization 4 36.36 3 27.27

Transformation 2 18.18 0 0

ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (3), (June 2015) 57

His explanation is as follows: “The newyear celebrations begin on the eve of the last Wednesday of the year.

Late that day a bonfire is made and everyone jumps over the fire while reciting: ‘My yellow color for you/ Your

red color for me!’ The episode under discussion follows jumping over the fire.” Costello has used literal transla-

tion for translating this item which cannot transfer its connotative meaning and also its cultural significance to

target readers.

The researchers also realized that the type of the CSI is one of the factors that may influence choosing a

specific translation strategy, for example in translating toponyms, borrowing and extratextual gloss were the

only translation strategies used by two translators, but in translating names of occupations the translators used

different type of strategies. Therefore one strategy which is appropriate for one category, may be inappropriate

in translating another category, for example literal translation as a most frequently used strategy by both trans-

lators can be considered a suitable strategy for translating some CSIs, but in translating symbols as one type of

culture specific-items, it does not work properly because these items carry a connotative meaning rather than

their denotative meaning, and by using literal translation both translators failed to convey the symbolic and

connotative meaning of these items.

REFERENCES

[1] Ahmadzadeh, H. (2003). Nation and novel: A study of Persian and Kurdish narrative discourse. Uppsala:

Uppsala university.

[2] Aixela, J. F. (1996). Culture-specific items in translation. In R. Alvarez, & C. A. Vidal (Eds.), Translation,

power, subversion (pp. 52-78). Frankfurt: Multilingual matters.

[3] Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.

[4] Bashiri, I. (2013). Bouf-e Kour [The blind owl ]. Retrived June 10, 2015, fromwww.angelfire.com/rnb

/bashiri/BlindOwl/blindowl2013.pdf

[5] Costello, D. P. ( 1957). Bouf-e Kour [The blind owl ]. Newyork: Grove Press.

[6] Cuddon, J. A. (2013). A dictionary of literary terms and literary theory(5th

ed.).West Sussex:Wiley-Blackwell.

[7] Dastjerdi, H. V., & Haghshenas, Z. (2012). A cross-Cultural study of animal symbolism in the Persian

translations of children's literature. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(1), 131-146. Doi:

10.5901/jesr.2012.02.01.131

[8] Dastjerdi, H. V., & Shoorche, E. M. (2011). Word choice and symbolic language: A case study of Persian

translations of the Scarlett letter. International Journal of English linguistics, 1(2), 186-195. Doi:

10.5539/ijel.v1n2p186

[9] Davies, E. E. (2003). A Goblin or a dirty nose: The treatment of culture-specific references in translation of

the Harry Potter books. The Translator, 9(1), 65-100.

[10] Davtalab, H., & Hosseini Maasoum, S. (2011). An Analysis of culture-specific items in the Persian

translation of “Dubliners” based on Newmark’s model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12),

1767-1779. Doi: 10.4304/tpls.1.12.1767-1779

[11] Espindola, E., & Vasconcellos, M. L. (2006). Two facets in subtiteling process: Foreignisation and/or

domestication procedures in unequal cultural encounters. Fragmentos, 30, 43-66.

[12] Fischer, M. M. (2004). Mute dreams,blind owls,and dispersed knowledges:Persian poesis in the

transnational circuitry. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

58 Dehbashi Sharif & Shakiba (June 2015)

[13] Gambier, Y., Shlesinger, M., & Stolze, R. (Eds.). (2007). Doubts and directions in translation studies.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[14] Hedayat, S. (2004). Bouf-e kour[The blind owl]. Isfahan: Sadegh Hedayat publications.

[15] Ivir, V. (1987). Procedures and strategies for translation of culture. In G. Toury, Translation across

cultures. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.

[16] Katouzian, H. (2008). Sadeq Hedayat: His work and his wonderous world. Oxon: Routledge.

[17] Klaudy, K. (2010). Specification and generalisation of meaning in translation. In B. L. Tomaszczyk, & M.

Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in translation (pp. 80-104). Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH.

[18] Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

[19] Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning based translation. Lanham: University Press of America.

[20] Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture bumps:An empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters Ltd.

[21] Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Hamel Hempstead: Prentice- Hall International.

[22] Newmark, P. (1993). Paragraphs on translation. Frankfurt: Multilingual Matters.

[23] Nida, E. (2000). Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp.

126-140). London: Routledge.

[24] Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester: S.T Jerome Publishing.

[25] Noruzi, M. (2012). Culture-specific items in Iranian journalistic texts. Journal of Basic and Applied

Scientific Research, 2(2), 1685-1689.

[26] Ordudari, M. (2008). How to face challenging symbols:Translating symbols from Persian to English.

Translation Journal, 12(4), 64-83.

[27] Schaffner, C., & Kelly-Holmes, H. (Eds.). (1995). Cultural functions of translation. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

[28] Shaw, H. (1881). Dictionary of literary terms. Newyork: McGraw-Hill,Inc.

[29] Singh, N., & Pereira, A. (2005). The culturally customized website. Oxford: Elsevier.

[30] Terestyenyi, E. (2011). Translating culture-specific items in tourism brochures. SKASE Journal of

Translation and Interpretation, 5(2), 13-22.

[31] Thriveini, C. (2002). Cultural elements in translation:The Indian perspective. Translation Journal, 6(1),

15-27.

[32] Venuti, L. (1995). Translation and formation of cultural identities. In C.Schaffner & H.

Kelly-Holmes(Eds.),Cultural functions of translation (pp. 9-25).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

[33] Venuti, L. (2013). Translation changes everything:Theory and practice. Oxon: Routledge.

[34] Xue-bing. (2006). Translating cultural-specific items: A descriptive study. Sino-Us English Teaching,

3(12), 82-93.

Authors’ Bio

ForouzanDehbashi Sharif holds Ph.D. in virtual distance educational planning. Her areas of interest are teaching

university courses, translation, workshops, teaching, testing, research, morphology, and translation of idiomatic

expressions and lexicons. She is the author of six books and many articles.

Sima Shakiba is a master candidate in English Translation at Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch,

ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (3), (June 2015) 59

Iran. She has been teaching English language for about 15 years. Her areas of interest are translation of literary

texts and translation of idiomatic expressions.

Appendices

Appendix (A): Categories of CSIs

Category of CSIs proposed by Newmark (1988)

1.Ecology(Flora, fauna, wind, Plains, hills)

2. Material culture or Artifacts (foods, clothes, houses ,towns ,transport)

3. Social Culture(works and leisure)

4.Social Organization, customs, activities, procedures, concepts

5. Gestures and habits

Category of CSIs proposed by Espindola and Vasconcellos (2006)

1.Toponyms 7.Local institution

2. Amnthroponyms8. Measuring System

3. Forms of entertainment 9. Food and drink

4. Means of transportation 10. Scholastic reference

5. Fictional character 11. Religious celebration

6. Legal system 12. Dialect

Category of CSIs proposed by Thriveini (2002)

1. Names 5. Customs and Traditions

2. Social relationships 6. Beliefs and feelings

3. Food habits 7. Religious elements, myths and legends

4. Dress and ornaments8.Geographical and environmental elements

Category of CSIs proposed by NatasaPovlovic (2003, as cited in Noruzi,2012)

1. Ecology 8. The armed forces

2. Every Day life 9. Education

3. Material Culture 10. Forms of address

4. History 11. Gestures and habits

5. Religion 12. work

6. Economy 13.Leisure and entertainment

7. Political and administrative functions and institutions

Category of CSIs proposed by Vlahov and Florin (1980, as cited in Terestyenyi, 2011)

1. Geographical 4. Ethnic

2. Ethnographic 5. Socio-political

3. Art and Culture