Tourist Notices in the Spotlight of Linguistic Landscape and Translation Studies

Cover Page


In the 21st century, even local tourist spots are globally accessible and need to be communicated in a globally shared language, a lingua franca (Ben-Rafael & Ben Rafael 2015). The language of most obvious choice among speakers from different linguacultural backgrounds is English. When translating notices in national parks into English, translators should predominantly consider the function of the TT (target text), the target audience (not exclusively L1 speakers of English but, the speakers of a variety of languacultures communicating in English as lingua franca (ELF) and opt for translation solutions that would account for visitors representing a diversity of languacultures. The present paper aims at finding out what modifications in translation of visitors’ rules may be necessary if the target readership is to be considered, and at explicating the translation process through applying a transdisciplinary perspective of ELF studies, linguistic landscape (LL) studies, cross-field studies on conceptualization, translanguaging and translation studies. The study shows that these modifications affect the significance and hierarchy of the four principles operating in LL (presentation-of-self, power-relations, good reasons and collective-identity) and are projected into specific LL-tailored translation solutions (shifts in modality, lexis, style and discourse markers). The modifications are achievable in ELF, which, as a form and function, a de-regionalized and de-culturalized artifact of global village, is capable of catering for a variety of languacultures with their specific societal conventions, practices, and the whole explicit and implicit axio-sphere.

Full Text

1. Introduction Due to technical and scientific progress and international cooperation, the world has virtually shrunk into a ‘global village’. Globalization has been modeling modern every- day life; the world’s economies, cultures, and populations become increasingly intercon- nected, cross-border financial transactions and exchange of merchandise, services, technology and information are commonplace, frequently accompanied by flows of labor force. The effect of globalization, also referred to as ‘McDonaldization’ (Heller 2003), is multifaceted and politically charged (beneficial for society as a whole, while instigating detriment to certain social groups of people)1. Globalization has affected each branch of economy including tourism labeled as the 21st century industry. Due to globalization, even rare tourist destinations have come under the spotlight and become globally accessible. This situation requires that the local tourist spots be communicated in a globally shared language. Nowadays, the role of a language acting as a globally shared “lingua franca” is fulfilled by English. 2. Globalization and the Role of English as Lingua Franca Depending on the specific cultural context, various lingua francas may be selected, such as English, Russian, Chinese (Muth 2017, Pavlenko 2017) or French (Hülmbauer, Böhringer, Seidlhofer 2008). However, English as lingua franca (ELF) tends to be the language of most frequent choice among speakers from different linguacultural backgrounds. ELF setting may include Inner (L1 speakers) and Outer Circle (English as a foreign/second language) speakers (Jenkins 2009). This status of ELF is also manifested in translating tourist texts targeted at visitors from a variety of linguacultural backgrounds. Predictably, the translators commissioned to translate public notices on furnishing information and regulating visitors’ activities in tourist 1 What is globalization? And how has the global economy shaped the United states areas consider the function of the translated text and the target audience representing a variety of languacultures communicating in ELF. English, a high-status lingua franca, is primarily used with an emblematic function (Blommaert 1996) implying prestige and modernity, and, most noticeably, the prominent position of its users in the social, political, and economic spheres (Papen 2012) and has become an advantage for non-English-speaking countries (Ben-Rafael and Ben-Rafael 2015). English is ‘imported’ into the original linguacultural settings due to various reasons, such as a country’s operating in global markets, hosting worldwide events (Aristova 2016), accepting foreign labor force or trying to attract visitors to tourist destinations. Current globalization trends are typically associated with ELF playing a paramount role both globally and locally, thus affecting the conventional language configurations in many aspects (Aristova 2016). In ELF encounters ‘English’ operates as a means of intercultural communication. Being appropriated to ever-changing communication contexts and purposes, it exhibits both regularity and variability of forms and structures, “it is constantly emergent, con- stantly ‘under construction’” (Hülmbauer, Böhringer, Seidlhofer 2008: 33). In Europe, ELF is one of the features of multilingual settings, a contact language emerging from the need to use a language repertoire suitable for a wide range of language users whose native languacultures are different but who have opted for English as a suitable foreign language (Gnutzman 2000). Hülmbauer, Böhringer, Seidlhofer (2008: 27) emphasize the functional definition of ELF by stressing its purpose as a means of intercultural communication, as opposed to formal definition accounting for its relatedness to the native speaker norms. Within intercultural communicative settings, such an understand- ing of ELF, shuns the view of this variety as a deviant one, it rather treats it “as demo- cratized and universalized in the exolingual use” (Hülmbauer, Böhringer, Seidlhofer 2008: 27) and stresses the language users’ intercultural competences and strategies (ibid). Within the provided definition of ELF, the above-cited scholars (2008: 28) have reconsidered the concepts of speaker status, community and variety. L1 speakers are no longer viewed upon the Russian Journal of Linguistics (21 (3), 493-514) as norm-setting, ELF users are thus independent of native speaker norms and can cooperatively and on-line negotiate meanings and create their own norms in order to adjust the code to their communication needs. ELF users are perceived as a specific community, a community of practice, for which a common native language is irrelevant, a community not defined by a common language variety, rather a variety constantly being shaped by the community (ibid). ELF is viewed as a contact variety operating in intercultural settings, as an amalgam of native forms and structures and the ones that are the outcomes of communicative strategies aiming at achieving an effective goal of intercultural communication (ibid). Scholars investigating ELF have summarized its features as resulting from underlying processes exploiting redundancy (e.g. omitting the 3rd person singular - (e)s), creating novel combinations and forms which may be regarded as ‘latent possibilities’ (Widdow- son 2003), e.g. adding words as in in the year 2019, reconsidering the functions of certain structures, e.g. overuse of -ing forms, etc. 3. Linguistic Landscape, Translanguaging and Multilingual Identity Tourist areas are associated with a specific kind of social practice - engaging in meaningful leisure time activities (such as getting to know new places and new people, enjoying new experiences and carrying out a variety of outdoor activities) thus representing a specific type of public space. On the one hand, participating in given activities testifies to an individual’s social role fulfillment (that of an educated and sophisticated person with a reasonable income, being aware of the necessity of a healthy and active lifestyle). On the other hand, it confirms the individual’s social status (mani- festing their affiliation to a social class, to other individuals who can afford to buy a package of services and sports gear related to visiting tourist places and engaging in all sorts of sports activities). National parks and tourist spots, as places that can offer the aforementioned pas- times have become favorite tourist destinations and, at the same time, specific public spaces. “[P]ublic space has been drawn into the processes of commercialization, and, over the past few decades it has been intensely globalized, i.e. incorporated into the flow of cultural patterns across the globe” (Ferenčík 2015: 367). The signage and notices occurring in them appeal to the potential visitors’ needs, tastes and desires, and, in a cer- tain manner and to a certain extent, they also regulate the visitors’ behavior and activities. Thus, tourist areas have become linguistic landscapes and, unsurprisingly, are getting the attention of LL studies. A region-specific linguistic landscape (LL), in the flagship study authored by Landry and Bourhis (1997: 23), is defined as the “visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region”, or as “ the use of lan- guage in its written form in the public sphere <...> language that is visible in a specified area” by other scholars (Bourhis and Landry 2002 In: Gorter 2006). A LL is conceptu- alized as “a symbolic construction of the public space” (Ben-Rafael & Ben-Rafael 2015), as “a buffer between the state and the private sphere” (Habermas 2013), “a kind of social construct resulting from limitless human choices, barely governed by a universal pattern” (Burr 2003), as a space “riddled with ‘LL items’ created by all kinds of LL actors” (Ben-Rafael & Ben Rafael 2015). An updated understanding of LL also includes moving signage of various kinds (such as running lines on video screens, ads and texts on vehicles, on clothing, etc.) and institutional, commercial and individual websites, thus viewing a LL not as a static entity but as a highly dynamic and virtual entity (Yelenevskaya and Fialkova 2017). When walking or driving along linguistic landscapes, we are submerged by all the signage and texts some of which we intentionally read or merely glimpse for a split of a second, but oftentimes the words from signage on the buildings and facilities remain undetected. Scholars view a linguistic landscape as a Gestalt which materializes from the display of signs. In a LL, due to fluidity in using various languages, the indi- vidual signs and languages cease to function as discrete entities and fluctuation between various language codes - translanguaging - is observed, understood as the selecting and deploying of particular features, structures and even modalities from a unitary linguistic repertoire (Ben-Rafael et al. 2010). The flexibility and dynamism of comprehending signage and texts in several languages is captured in the concept of multilingualism (Wei 2011, Cenoz and Gorter 2015, Pavlenko 2017, Yelenevskaya and Fialkova 2017). From the perspective of trans- languaging, multilingual language users utilize their language repertoire as an interrelated and unitary communication system, not as a sum of discrete and disconnected entities (cf. Kecskes and Papp 2002; Canagarajah 2013; Velasco and García 2014). In order to achieve multilingual conceptual fluency (see: Danesi 1992), it is crucial for multilinguals to create a unified and complex linguistic and conceptualization system which serves as an inventory of language features and concepts. 4. Translation in a Language Landscape The configuration of languages in a LL testifies to their local significance, to the statuses of certain languages in a country or a region. In other words, the rate of occur- rence of a certain language within a LL reflects its status, prestige, power and signifi- cance in a society (Kasanga 2012). English occupies a special position in a LL. On the one hand, it fulfills emblematic functions (Blommaert 1996) as a display and symbolic language associated with modernity and high status of its users. On the other hand, in translated signage and notices, it is utilized for different reasons being used more functionally, as a lingua franca, for those who may not be able to communicate in the local language(s) (Koskinen 2012: 81). In translated signage and texts, the favored direction of translation indicates what its primary purpose is - either to help speakers of the local language to understand English or to cater for foreigners who prefer communicating in English as lingua franca (Koskinen 2012). Scholars in LL research and in translation studies regard the target user orientedness as a fundamental issue. With regard to translated signage and texts in LL, considerations of potential readers materialize in various pragmatic adaptations in translation, such as explicitation, censorship, and politeness strategies (Koskinen 2012) the result of which would be a translation accessible and acceptable to readers from diverse languacultures. In the same vein, ELF scholars argue that within a specific communication context in which speakers from different languacultures communicate in English, modifications within any local form of ELF are to be made for the benefit of all the interactants (Jenkins 2009). Thus, “ELF is <...> a question, not of orientation to the norms of a particular group of English speakers, but of mutual negotiation involv- ing efforts and adjustments from all parties” (Jenkins 2009: 201). For the purpose of translations within LL, we understand ELF as a strategy combined with a fluctuating form, the value of which lies in its adaptability to various languacultures. For the purpose of analyzing translation-related issues in LL studies, the categori- zation of multilingual writing strategies was introduced by Reh (2004). The taxonomy includes duplicating multilingual information (furnishing identical information in a source language and target language/s), fragmentary display of multilingual informa- tion (providing full information in one language and translating parts of it into the target language), overlapping arrangement of multilingual information (partly identical infor- mation provided in the ST and TT, however with some supplementary information given in ST and TT) and complementary multilingual writing (accounting for code-switching or code-mixing) (Koskinen 2012: 79-80). Edelman (2010: 99) elaborated on Reh’s categorization further subdividing the duplicating into “word-for-word translation” and “free translation”, labeling fragmentary translation as “partial translation” and adding the category of “no translation” thereby tagging the shortage of a translation component in complementary multilingual writing (Koskinen 2012). “However, within translation studies this traditional binary division has been found to be too simplistic, and to grasp the variety of translation strategies fully, a more nuanced understanding of the options available for translators is needed. This is where translation studies can be of assistance” (Koskinen 2012: 80). Moreover, Koskinen (2012) claims that any categorization of multilingual writing strategies should be tailormade taking into consideration the target audience and the specific language-pair in question (Koskinen 2012). 5. Research 1. Objective, Method and Material (data) The objectives of the present paper are to find out what modifications in translation of visitors’ rules may be necessary in order to take considerations of the target readership from various languacultures, and to explicate the components of the translation process through applying a transdisciplinary perspective of ELF studies, LL studies, cross-field studies on conceptualization, translanguaging and translation studies. We have posed two research questions: How is the conceptualization of visitors’ rules achieved in the source texts (STs) and target texts (TTs), with regard to the four principles structuring LL (presentation-of-self, power-relations, good reasons and col- lective identity)? How are the potential conceptualization discrepancies projected into the translation process? Thereby we may explicate and elucidate the translation solutions for a specific discourse in a multilingual setting. The data to be analyzed comprise Slovak source texts of tourist notices photographed in all 7 national parks in Slovakia, 4 tourist spots, in 4 ski resorts, 2 camping areas, 5 tourist trails and 3 water sport areas as well as 5 related websites and their renderings into English. The below-given notice exemplifies duplicating bilingual information (Reh 2004), 1. furnishing identical facts in a source language (Slovak, on the left) and a target lan- guage (on the right) without considering the target readership orientedness. This is a commonly occurring presentation of information in tourist notices in the seven Slovak national parks under investigation; identical types of lexis and morphosyntactic structures are used in both ST and TT. Figure 1: Example of a notice board with Slovak text and its duplicate translation into English 2. Suggesting the components of the translating process We agree with Koskinen (2012) who argues that Reh’s categories have proven to be helpful, but it appears mandatory to account for the roles and functions of the translated LL texts, and these can only be explicated through analyzing the suggested components of the translating process itself. We have elaborated on our previous research based on socio-constructivist treatment of human identity, exploring it as a structure defined by using and experiencing lan- guage and producing discourses (Bilá, Kačmárová and Vaňková 2015). We view a trans- lator as having a multilingual identity from a socio-pragmatic perspective, i.e. “by virtue of their regular exposure to social encounters in native settings or with native speakers” (Kačmárová 2011), and we intend to expand such treatment to the encounters with language configurations within a LL. In the present research, we understand a multi- lingual person as an individual capable of translanguaging. We (Bilá, Kačmárová and Vaňková 2017) have developed a four-dimensional pattern of the process of conceptualization which we have applied to linguistic studies (linguistics terminology) and socio-pragmatic studies (conceptualizing various relation- ships associated with the expression ‘friend’, Bilá, Kačmárová and Vaňková, forth- coming). In the analysis below, we apply it to a model of translator’s activities involved in LL translation of the aforementioned discourse. The four-point design of the process of conceptualization includes: 1. Frame establishment 2. Encoding/Pre-understanding 3. Salience 4. Code configuration The suggested four-dimensional pattern should guarantee that the translation as an intercultural communication has taken place; since it is only when the conceptualiza- tion is adopted that the transfer of meaning from a SL (source language) into a TL (target language) has been performed. Conceptualization means necessarily the proper assigning of meanings to the whole texts as well as to their structural components (Bilá, Kačmárová and Vaňková 2018). 1. Frame establishment In order to achieve conceptualization, it is necessary to employ a cognitive struc- turing device, an organizer of human experience (Fillmore 1985), which in translating may be understood as identifying the text function, the target audience/readership (cf Nord 2005) and the topic(s). In this particular case, the target text function is to inform and persuade visitors and, at the same time, to regulate their behavior. The target audience includes visitors from a variety of languacultures and the topics comprise the interlinkage of tourist industry and green issues. Appropriate understanding of the frame enables the translator to perform an in-depth analysis of the ST which, in our paradigm, is referred to as encoding/pre-understanding. 2. Pre-understanding Developing on hermeneutic pre-understanding (Ricoeur 2000), this concept, in our research, represents conceptual knowledge of cultural and linguistic structural systems and codes of a SL, an inevitable part of the translating process, and a TL. At this stage, the translator identifies a specific type of discourse, while this identification causes fur- ther specifics of the translator’s performance. In this case, it is the discourse of a LL in the structuration of which four principles operate (Ben-Rafael 2009), namely the presentation-of-self, good-reasons, collective-identity and power-relation (ibid). We assume that in the explored type of discourse all four principles are involved, however, their share in a SL (Slovak) and TL (ELF) discourses differs. Our assumption is that this types of Slovak texts derive from legal documents (usually available on websites) issued by central or local governments and therefore are compiled as such. They fulfill conative and informative functions manifested through morphosyntactic and lexical features of legal language (rules for visitors are verbalized as orders and/or prohibitions taking the form of imperatives, e.g. in Figure 1: netrhajte rastliny - don’t pick plants; and passives, e.g. in Figure 2: pohyb motorových vozidiel je zakázaný - the movement of motor vehicles is prohibited). Each legal language is embedded in a specific culture (Šarcevic 2000) and, therefore, utilizes specific features with regard to the manner of expressing certain concepts. Thus, in accordance with the Slovak conventions, the notices for tourists and visitors are understood as quasi-legal directive or regulatory (see Schneiderová 2013) texts. The Slovak tourist notices are top-down texts2 (official texts) commonly consisting of three parts - introduction, body and conclusion (see Figure 2 below). The first part may be characterized as a text on marketing performing predominantly an informative function combined with persuasion. It tends to be rich in terminology and formal in regis- ter, thus creating social distance between the initiator/author and the target readership. Introduction Main body Conclusion Figure 2: Example of a Slovak LL top-down-text consisting of three parts The main body specifies the rules formulated as imperatives (orders and prohibi- tions), hence its chief function is conative. This part may also be rich in terminology, formal learned lexis and legalese (oftentimes making explicit reference to legal docu- mentation and specific acts of law), passives and impersonal syntactic structures again creating social distance between the initiator/author and the target readership. Finally, the conclusion tends to fulfill a conative function through calling upon the visitors to obey the rules. The social distance between the initiator/author and the 2 LL studies differentiate between top-down and bottom-up texts taking into consideration a dif- ference between official texts placed by the government or official institutions and non-official texts placed by commercial enterprises or by private organizations or persons (Gorter 2006). target readership is reiterated here through presenting the initiator/author as the authority endowed with the power or privilege to issue orders, make decisions, and enforce respect and obedience with regard to tourist spots. The discourse in question manifests a specific arrangement of the four principles operating in LL. All of them are present, however, they do not seem to be balanced; rather they exhibit varied degrees of significance. The presentation-of-self principle is established at the very beginning of the discourse - in its introductory part, and is expressed through lexical items (terminology and formal register), by means of which the national park authority manifests their expertise and exclusive status with regard to a specific national park. The given principle is foregrounded in the main body in which the initiator/author, as an authority in charge, exercises their power and imposes a number of rules on the visitors. The presentation-of-self and the power-relation principles tend to be intertwined, difficult to separate and even inter-dependent. A national park/tourist spot authority claims all responsibilities, not allowing for any share of the public in this respect. Stylistically, the discourse is structured in such a manner that protecting the environment is to be achieved through obeying the rules rather than through partici- pating in or sharing the responsibilities, or engaging in a joint action. Thus, due to the absence of any appeal for joint action, the collective-identity principle tends to be back- grounded, thus defying the concept of active citizenship. Similarly, the-good-reasons principle, though implicitly present, is backgrounded. 3. Salience Salient meanings are generally understood as such meanings that are favored over other meanings, especially because of being encoded in the user’s mind as conventional, or prototypical (Giora 1997, 2003). Based on the user’s prior experience and the mere communicative situation and/or mental frame, they are processed automatically. Salience is a matter of evolvement of one’s experience. It is built upon prior knowledge: an experience is once one of many (one within the hierarchy of possible meanings) and gradually becomes the most frequent for the mental frame concerned (Kačmárová, Bilá and Vaňková 2018). The hierarchy and arrangement of the aforementioned principles (both in L1 and L2) becomes encoded in a translator’s mind through intensive study, translating practice and general exposure to particular discourses. From the perspective of translation as a form of intercultural communication, a translator becomes aware of the discrepancies between the hierarchy and arrangement of these principles in the source languaculture and the target languaculture. In other words, what is taken for granted in one culture does not work for another culture, and a specific arrangement of these principles in one lan- guaculture may be unacceptable in another one. In LL of a global village, we cater for a variety of languacultures, i.e. it appears to be inevitable to communicate the topic in question (regulating our behavior in a certain manner in order to protect the environ- ment) through applying the four principles of LL structuring in the manner that is both globally and locally accessible and acceptable. Due to the involvement in the specific LL of a variety of languacultures and the necessity to account for all the aspects of text structuring (e.g. with regard to operating on the scale between directness and implicitness as endpoints), the salient choice of a code for a translator seems to be ELF. 4. Code configuration This stage completes the process of translation as intercultural communication. Rendering the meanings in the target language is performed in the configuration process, i.e. in drafting and editing the target text with the deployment of available translation solutions in ELF. In other words, with regard to the specific type of discourse (tourist notice), in order to arrive at an appropriate translation solution in ELF, the process of translating has to be preceded by three phases: frame establishment (i.e. identifying the text function, target audience/readership and the topic), pre-understanding (i.e. identi- fying the particular type of discourse and the operating principles in the SL text) and salience (i.e. the selection of the appropriate language/code). Tables 1, 2 and 3 and the following discussion provide the exemplification and the justification of suggested translation solutions in the selected target language - ELF. The middle columns of the three tables give the literal translation of the SL lexis and structures in order to illustrate the difference in expressing the meaning in the SL (Slovak) and the target language (ELF). We have rendered the translation in order to exemplify the code-configuration stage in the translating process. The given solutions strive to account for such TL form and function (ELF with modifications) that would be accessible and acceptable for the target readership representing a diversity of lan- guacultures. In the introductory ST (column 1) a preference for academic terminology (trans- ferred Latin or Greek words associated with academic papers) and professional termino- logy (formal terms used by experts) may be observed; in the suggested TT popular terms prevail (i.e. layman vocabulary, i.e. familiar alternative terms) (Newmark 1988). The sub- categories of academic and professional terms represent a higher level of terminology than popular terms, thus intensifying the formality and impersonality through which the self-presentation and power-relation principles are not only utilized but even enhanced. Table 1 Introduction: Exemplification of ST and TT translation solutions ST - Slovak Literal translation TT - Translation solution Atraktívnosť územia zvyšuje aj výskyt zaujímavých skalných útvarov... The attractiveness of the area is enhanced by occurrence of interesting rock formations... In the area, you can admire various interesting rock formations… strmé a hlboké kaňony steep and deep canyons sheer-faced canyons tiesňavy a rokliny mountain passes and gorges rock chimneys Kaňon je prístupný celoročne. The canyon is accessible all the year round. You can visit the canyon and enjoy staying here in any season. Opting for popular terms in the TT is a shift to a lesser degree of formality and impersonality, which results in reducing the social distance and thus in rearranging the order of the four principles. Using accessible (popular terminology) less impersonal language enhances the principles of collective-identity (“all of us do understand on what grounds an area becomes a national park”) and good reasons (“all of us are and are willing to be in charge of protecting the environment”). Because of this shift, the self-pre- sentation and power-relations principles become backgrounded. Main body: ST vs. TT translation solutions Table 2 ST - Slovak Literal translation TT - Translation solution 1 Aby krásu prírody NP SR aj v budúcnosti mohli návštevníci obdivovať v tejto podobe, pri pohybe, pobyte a činnosti na území NP SR je potrebné dodržiavať nasledovné pokyny. In order to preserve the beauty of the Slovenský raj National Park so that, in future, visitors may enjoy it in this form, when moving around, staying and engaging in activities, in the territory of the National Park, it is necessary to obey the following instructions. In order to preserve its natural beauties for future generations, the visitors are requested: ... 2 Chráňte prírodu Slovenského raja. Protect the natural beauties of the Slovak Paradise. [the visitors are requested:] to protect the countryside. 3 Netrhajte a nepoškodzujte rastliny. Do not tear or damage plants. [the visitors are requested:] not to tear and damage plants. 4 Klásť oheň v lese a jeho blízkom okolí mimo vyhradených miest je zakázané. It is forbidden to put up fire in the forest and its surroundings, outside the designated areas. [the visitors are requested:] to make fires only in designated areas and not make fires in the woods and nearby areas. 5 Neničte hniezda vtákov, nepoškodzujte zariadenia na prikrmovanie zveri. Rušenie, prenasledovanie a odchyt živočíchov je zakázaný. Do not destroy birds´ nests; do not damage animal feed points. Disturbing, pursuit and trapping of animals are prohibited. [the visitors are requested:] not to destroy birds’ nests, not to damage feeding areas. Disturbing, chasing and catching animals is forbidden. 6 Zachovajte ticho. Vo voľnej krajine obmedzujte používanie svetiel a vonkajšieho osvetlenia. Keep quiet. In the open country, reduce the use of lights and outdoor lighting. [the visitors are requested:] not to make unnecessary noise and to restrict the use of lights. 7 Voľný pohyb psov v NP je zakázaný. Free movement of dogs in the NP is prohibited. [the visitors are requested:] to keep dogs on leads. The main body specifies the rules; hence its chief function is conative. In the ST (see column 2 for literal translation), within the modal meanings, orders and prohibitions prevail taking the morphosyntactic forms of imperatives and passives. These morpho- syntactic features, together with the richness of terminology, formal learned lexis and even legalese foreground the principles of self-presentation and power-relations. The remaining two principles of good-reasons and collective-identity, though inherently present, are not explicitly articulated. In such a manner, social distance between the initiator/author and the target readership is created. In the TT (column 3) we suggest a considerable shift in expressing modality in that the modal meaning of order and prohibition changes into the modal meaning of request. From the perspective of translation procedure, we suggest a change in expression, more specifically a change in perspective (boxes 4, 6 and 7)3. This shift, together with popular terminology in the TT, results in decreasing formality and impersonality, thus reducing the social distance and, consequently, rearranging the four principles. Change in modal meanings, preference for popular terminology and less impersonal language act in favor of the principles of collective-identity (“all of us are familiar with do’s and don’ts in national parks”) and good-reasons (“all of us are in charge of protecting the environ- 3 The term is defined by A. Pym (2016). ment”). Because of this shift, the self-presentation and power-relations principles are subdued. Conclusion: Exemplification of ST and TT translation solutions Table 3 ST - Slovak Literal translation TT - Translation solution 1 Počas svojho pobytu v NP SR dodržujte Návštevný poriadok. During your stay in the National Park, follow the Visiting Rules. Please follow these rules when staying in the NP. 2 Takto i Vy nám pomôžete ochrániť prírodu. This way you will help us to protect nature. You can also help to protect the nature in this way. 3 Želáme Vám príjemný a ničím nerušený pobyt. We wish you a pleasant and undisturbed stay. We wish you a pleasant and peaceful stay. In the ST, the conclusion fulfills a conative function through calling upon the visi- tors to obey the rules (see column 2). Within the modal meanings, orders and statements of facts prevail manifested by the morphosyntactic form of imperatives and declaratives (with the modal verb will). The social distance between the initiator/author and the target readership is reiterated since the initiator/author acts as the authority. In the TT (column 3) we suggest a considerable shift in expressing modality, due to which the modal meaning of order changes into the modal meaning of a polite request (use of the discourse marker please in box 1) and the modal meaning of statement of fact (will) shifts into the modal meaning of possibility (can). Regarding the translation procedure, we again recommend a change in expression, more specifically a change in perspective. This shift, together with popular terminology in the TT, results in de- creasing formality and impersonality thus reducing the social distance and, consequently, rearranging the four principles. The change in modal meaning and the use of a less impersonal language act in favor of the principles of collective-identity and good-reasons (“all of us are members of a culture community, being here and now, and can protect the environment because we know how to achieve that”) and to the disadvantage of self- presentation and power-relations principles. 6. Conclusion The discourse of tourist notices manifests a specific arrangement and hierarchy of four principles operating in LL. We suggest that in translated texts operating in a lin- guistic landscape, their significance and hierarchy be scrutinized and subjected to the function and target reader orientedness. In the Slovak ST (tourist notice), the principle of the presentation-of-self is estab- lished in the very introduction of the text expressed through lexical items (terminology) and formal register. Thus, the authority in question - a National Park Admini- stration/A Local Government - manifests their exclusive status and expertise with regard to the tourist area. In the main body, the given principle is in the forefront; thereby the initiator/author becomes an authority that is in charge of imposing a number of rules on the visitors to a national park. The presentation-of-self principle merges with the power- relation principle in that a National Park Administration/A Local Government is self- presented as the only government body entitled to operate and protect a national park. Thus, the collective-identity and the-good-reasons principles, though inherently present, are backgrounded. In the suggested TT, the hierarchy of four principles is different, and this rearrange- ment is achieved through several language means and communication strategies. Reducing the social distance is achieved by preferring accessible (popular terminology), using less impersonal language and changing modal meanings (order and prohibition are converted into requests/polite requests), thereby boosting the collective-identity and good-reasons principles. The self-presentation and power-relations principles, though inherently present, become backgrounded. The ST arrangement and the suggested TT rearrangement of the four principles can be illustrated by the following figure. Figure 3: Hierarchy of Four LL Principles in a ST and a TT We suggest that in rendering the Slovak tourist notices (quasi-legal texts) in ELF certain considerations be taken into account. For the purpose of translation, these texts may be considered as promotional tourist-friendly texts providing references to the rele- vant Slovak legislation. Therefore, the function and/or purpose of the target text should be considered as the starting point of the translation process. The initiator then would operate as an active agent and clearly and succinctly communicate the details of all the extratextual features of the TT (such as its placement in physical or virtual space, accompaniment by graphic material, video material, etc.). In summary, if the translation of visitors’ notice in a national park/a tourist area is to fulfill its function, i.e. to furnish the readership with information on the natural beauties and rules to be followed, several modifications appear to be necessary. The modifications affect the significance and hierarchy of the four principles operating in LL, and these are subsequently projected into specific LL-tailored translation solutions. These may include shifts in modality, lexis, style and discourse markers. In addition, in accord- ance with EU documentation, e.g. European Models of Good Practice in Protected Areas (2004), a recommendation on the manner of communicating environment protection issues was suggested. Specifically, the language means should be widely comprehensible, clear and “free of the impenetrable jargon“(Synge 2004). The modifications are achiev- able in ELF, which, as a form and function, a de-regionalized and de-culturalized artifact of the global village is capable of catering for a variety of languacultures with their spe- cific societal conventions, practices, and the whole explicit and implicit axio-sphere. The present research is by no means exhaustive. In the follow-up investigation, the suggested renderings will be tested through experiments in which informants repre- senting the languacultures of most frequent visitors to the Slovak national parks and tourist spots will be involved in order to provide a justification for the EFL renderings. Furthermore, we may explore the justification of the principle of faithfulness observed in translating tourist notices in other types of quasi-legal texts.

About the authors

Magdaléna Bilá

University of Prešov

Author for correspondence.
1, 17.Novembra Str., 08078, Prešov, Slovakia

Professor at the Institute of British and American Studies, Faculty of Arts, The University of Prešov in Prešov, Slovak Republic. Her research interests include comparative and contrastive studies (juxtaposing English and Slovak), discourse analysis and translation studies (conceptualization in a source and a target language).

Ingrida Vaňková

University of Prešov

1, 17.Novembra Str., 08078, Prešov, Slovakia

Assistant Professor at the Institute of British and American Studies, Faculty of Arts, The University of Prešov in Prešov. Her research interests include comparative and contrastive studies (English and Slovak lexicology, phraseology, and word formation), text herme- neutics, and translation studies.


  1. Aristova, Nataliya (2016). English translations in the urban linguistic landscape as a marker of an emerging global city: The case of Kazan, Russia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 231, 216-222. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.094.
  2. Backhaus, Peter (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  3. Barni, Monica and Carla Bagna (2015). The critical turn in LL: New methodologies and new items in LL. Linguistic Landscape, an international journal, 1, 1-2, 6-18, doi: 10.1075//ll.1.1-2.0bar.
  4. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer and Miriam Ben-Rafael (2015). Linguistic landscapes in an era of multiple globalizations. In: Linguistic Landscape, an international journal, 1, 1-2, 19- 37. doi: 10.1075/LL.1.1-2.02ben.
  5. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer; Elana Shohamy, Muhammad Amara and Nira Trumper-Hecht (2006). Linguistic Landscape as Symbolic Construction of the Public Space: The Case of Israel. In: Gorter, D. (Ed.) Linguistic Landscape. A New Approach to Multilingualism. Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 7-30.
  6. Bilá, Magdaléna, Alena Kačmárová and Ingrida Vaňková (2015). Adopting cross- disciplinary perspectives in constructing a multilingual’s identity. Human Affairs: a postdisciplinary journal for humanities & social sciences. 25 (4), 430-442. doi: 10.1515/humaff-2015-0035.
  7. Bilá, Magdaléna, Alena Kačmárová and Ingrida Vaňková (2017). What is behind the compiling of a dictionary for a bilingual user? Evolving nature of the English Language: Studies in theoretical and applied linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 201-209.
  8. Blommaert, Jan (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: the linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20 (3), 199-222.
  9. Burr, Vivien (2003). Social constructionism. London: Routledge.
  10. Canagarajah, Suresh (2007). The Ecology of Global English. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1:2, 89-100. doi: 10.1080/15257770701495299.
  11. Danesi, Marcel (1992). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. In: Alatis, J. (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 189-500.
  12. Ferenčík, Milan (2012). English in the Glocalized World: English Language Profile of a Local Linguistic Landscape from a Pluriparadigmatic Perspective. In: Language, literature and culture in a changing transatlantic world II: part I: linguistics, translation and cultural studies. Prešov: Faculty of Arts, University of Prešov, 36-57.
  13. Ferenčík, Milan (2015). Construction of private space in an urban semioscape: a case study in the sociolinguistics of globalisation. Human Affairs: a postdisciplinary journal for humanities & social sciences, 25 (4), 365-379. doi: 10.1515/humaff-2015-0029.
  14. Giora, Rachel (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3), 183-206. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
  15. Giora, Rachel (2003). On Our Mind: Salience context and figurative language. New York: OUP.
  16. Gnutzmann, Claus (2000). Lingua franca. In Byram, M. (ed.). 2004. Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London: Routledge, 356-359.
  17. Gorter, Durk and Cenoz, Jasone (2015). Translanguaging and linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, an international journal, 1 (1-2), 54-74. doi: 10.1075/ll.1.1-2.04gor.
  18. Gorter, Durk (2006). The Study of the Linguistic Landscape as a New Approach to Multilingualism. In: Gorter, D. (Ed.) Linguistic Landscape A New Approach to Multilingualism. (Clevedon • Buffalo • Toronto: Multilingual Matters LTD. 1-7.
  19. Habermas, Jürgen (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  20. Heller, Monica (2003). Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4), 473-492. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9841.2003.00238.
  21. Hülmbauer, Cornelia, Heike Böhringer and Barbara Seidlhofer (2008). Introducing English as a lingua franca (ELF): Precursor and partner in intercultural communication. Synergies Europe (3), 25-36.
  22. Jenkins, Jennifer (2009). English as a Lingua Franca: interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes. 28 (2), 200-207. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X2009.01582.x.
  23. Kačmárová, Alena (2012). Multikulturalita a jej sociálny rozmer. In: Jazyk a kultúra: internetový časopis Lingvokulturologického a prekladateľsko-tlmočníckeho centra excelentnosti pri Filozofickej fakulte Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove [online], 2 (5). Available at:
  24. Kačmárová, Alena, Magdaléna Bilá and Ingrida Vaňková (2018). The conceptualizing of conceptualization (of Linguistics Metalanguage). Prešov: FF PU. Available at: kniznica/elpub/dokument/Kacmarova6.
  25. Kasanga, Luanga Adrien (2012). Mapping the linguistic landscape of a commercial neighbourhood in Central Phnom Penh. In: Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33 (6), 553-567. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2012.683529.
  26. Kecskes, Istvan and Tunde Papp (2000). Foreign language and a mother tongue. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
  27. Koskinen, Kaisa (2012). Linguistic Landscape as a Translational Space: The Case of Hervanta, Tampere. In: Vuolteenaho, Ameel, L., Newby, A. & M. Scott (eds.) Language, Space and Power: Urban Entanglements. Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 13. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, 73-92.
  28. Landry, Rodrigue and Richard Y Bourhis (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality an empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16 (1), 23-49. doi: 10.1177/0261927X970161002.
  29. Muth, Sebastian (2017). Russian language abroad: viewing language through the lens of commodification. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21 (3), 463-492. doi: 10.22363/2312- 9182-2017-21-3-463-492.
  30. Newmark, Peter (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo: Prentice Hall.
  31. Nord, Christiane (2005). Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, B. V.
  32. Papen, Uta (2012). Commercial discourses, gentrification and citizens’ protest: The linguistic Landscape of Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16 (1), 56-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00518.
  33. Pavlenko, Aneta (2017). Linguistic landscape and other sociolinguistic methods in the study of Russian language abroad. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21 (3), 493-514. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-3-493-514.
  34. Pym, Anthony (2016). Translation Solutions for Many Languages. Histories of a flawed dream. Bloomsbury academic.
  35. Reh, Mechthild (2004). Multilingual writing: A reader-oriented typology - with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 170, 1-41.
  36. Ricoeur, Paul (2000). Čas a vyprávění I. [Narrative Time I.]. Praha: Oikomenh.
  37. Šarcevic, Susan (2000). New Approach To Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  38. Schneiderová, Anna (2013). In: Ďuricová, A. (ed.). Od textu k prekladu VIII. Klasifikácia právnych textov a problematika prekladu. Praha: Jednota tlumočníků a překladatelů, 96- 110.
  39. Shohamy, Elana, Eliezer Ben-Rafael and Monica Barni (eds.) (2010). Linguistic Landscape in the City. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  40. Synge, Hugh (2004). European Models of Good Practice in Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management.
  41. Velasco, Patricia and Ofelia García (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 37 (1), 6-23. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2014.893270.
  42. Wei, Li (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (5), 1222- 1235, doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035.
  43. Widdowson, Henry G. (2003) Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Yelenevskaya, Maria and Larisa Fialkova (2017). Linguistic landscape and what it tells us about the integration of the Russian language into Israeli economy. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21 (3), 557-586. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-3-557-492.



Abstract - 331

PDF (English) - 211




Copyright (c) 2019 Bilá M., Vaňková I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies