Abstract

Discoursal norms and conventions are highly important in shaping academic texts. What we assume the identity of an academic author is like, is a matter of discourse conventions which may differ cross-culturally. Translation, in academic discourse contexts, allows a comparative analysis of cross-cultural norms favoured in the exchange of specialized knowledge. The study examines author identity in source and target versions of Carr’s book, What is History?, translated from English into Greek. Pragmatic features shaping the identity of academic author cross-culturally concern two of Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s (2010) communication styles, namely, high-/low- ‘uncertainty avoidance’ and high-/low- ‘power distance’. The study uses the theoretical framework of cross-cultural social psychology analysis. Features identified in an etic approach to the data are verified with an emic approach to the data (through a questionnaire). Findings suggest that there are significant differences in the way academia uses language across English-Greek. The study shows that, in Greek academic discourse, reinforcing certainty and establishing high power distance, which are two highly favoured tendencies, emerge from assumptions about the superior social status of academic authors. The significance of the study lies in that it reflects culturally favoured attitudes in local academic discourses which vary from English.  

Keywords: academic texts, comparative model of analysis, high-and low-power distance, high-low-uncertainty avoidance cultures, discourse manipulation

1. Translating academic discourse

House (2016) describes translation as mediation between different languages that overcomes barriers of both linguistic and cultural nature. In the present context, the question that arises concerns how academic translators overcome barriers of both linguistic and cultural nature, in transferring academic knowledge across English-Greek. This occurs in academic bestsellers translated into Greek for the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and beyond (Sidiropoulou 2017).

Everyday communication in academic contexts differs in certain ways from other genres, but it seems to confirm aspects of the tendencies described in this study. This is manifested not least when Erasmus students visit Greek universities and take a different approach to communicating with the instructor, but also through translating written academic discourses.

The study focuses on how academic authors paint an image of themselves in the academic context, through discourse. The way(s) in which translators may adjust the communicative identity of the academic author cross-culturally to fit the needs of Greek readers is highly indicative of the norms and tendencies operating in a target context and the question is what shifts occur which shape the academic author in translated Greek production. In this sense, the focus of the research is to identify discoursal markers shaping author representation in an English (source) and Greek (translated) historiography text.

In translating Prof. Carr’s literal reproduction of lectures (Cambridge in 1961), the translator (Pappas 2015) explains his intention to facilitate readership through interference. He explains that he made adjustments both for the benefit of the Greek reader:

 in order for the Greek text to be more functional, to the extent that this book is intended for university textbook or teaching aid, I did not hesitate to even omit some digressions of this type for the benefit, I hope, of both the reader and the Greek version. Therefore, I bear full responsibility for these choices as well as for “charging” my translation with almost seventy-five footnotes (TLNs) with regard to individuals mentioned in the book (i.e. historians, authors, political thinkers, and prominent figures of historical events), with whom Greek readership is perhaps not much familiar. (Pappas 2015:9-12)

Τhe translator may not be aware of the theoretical significance of the adjustments, but he has the taste of the (target) language and an acute awareness of what may be appropriate in academic discourse in the Greek context. The question is what the TT adjustments signify and what social behaviour of the text producers the versions shape cross-culturally.

2. Literature review

In the context of cross-cultural transfer of academic discourse, there are patterns of intellectual tradition favoured in various “communities, literacy practices, and notions of politeness” (Koutsantoni 2005a: 98) which shape academic discourses differently. Koutsantoni (2005a) highlights the influence exerted by Greek cultural values on the ways Greek authors dissemi­nate knowledge to the rest of the scientific world and delineate what is assumed to be persuasive. Attitudes of that kind, which inform the translating process, have been also suggested by Davies (2016). She considers such “translational adaptations” pivotal both for intercultural communication and for the alignment of academic works with the societal norms of the receiving culture (Davies 2016: 375).

Analyzing features like ‘uncertainty avoidance/tolerance’ and ‘power asymmetry’ conventions between English and Greek may facilitate an in-depth understanding of the cultural norms pertaining to academic discourse make-up. The features allude to communication styles identified by  Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010), which in this case will be shown to shape the identity of the academic author. Among the Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) dimensions (namely, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculine versus feminine orientation, and short-term versus long-term orientation, individual versus group orientation), the study focuses on the first two which were most productive of linguistic variation cross-culturally, in a pilot study conducted for the purposes of the research.

Previous research in the field of history and historiography translation has emphasized the hegemonic power of the English language upon academic texts in other language contexts. In her study on the impact of translation on Portuguese historiography, Bennett (2012) draws attention to the assimilating power of English against the Portuguese historiographical discourse conventions. Likewise, this research endeavours to examine whether Greek academic translation practice has developed any “resistance mechanisms” or has surrendered to the dominance of English.

Power distance is the extent to which unequal distribution of power constitutes a condition that is being accepted and expected by “the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country” (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 2010: 61). Institutions refer to fundamentals of society, i.e. family, school, and community; organizations relate to places of work. They argue that “the way power is distributed is usually from the behavior of the more powerful members, the leaders rather than those led” (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 2010: 61).

Etic and emic approaches suggested that Greek favours high power-distance between the academic educator and the target audience. Geert Hofstede’s IBM research project results show that Greece occupies the 41^st -42^nd place in the ranking order of power distance index (PDI) and appears to be more inclined towards maintaining higher power distance, whereas Great Britain is found at the 65^th -67^th place in the ranking order. These findings suggest that in the Greek cultural context hierarchy and inequalities are tolerated, if not highly valued. Greek academics enjoy a high status of power over students, which aligns with the theoretical analysis provided by  Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) with regard to power distance in the field of education:

The educational process is highly personalized: especially in more advanced subjects at universities, what is transferred is seen not as an impersonal “truth,” but as the personal wisdom of the teacher. The teacher is a guru, a term derived from the Sanskrit word for “weighty” or “honorable,” and in India and Indonesia this is, in fact, what a teacher is called. The French term is a maître à penser, a “teacher for thinking.” In such a system the quality of one’s learning is highly dependent on the excellence of one’s teachers. (Hofstede et al. 2010: 69)

English is a low-power distance culture, as the Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s (2010) measurement shows. This is manifested in that it is very rare in Greek for a student to address educators by using their first name; they use their surname and the ‘vous’ polite verb form of the ‘tu/vous’ distinction. English does not have a ‘tu/vous’ distinction but it is typical for university students to address educators by first names.

The different positioning of the British and Greek culture in terms of power distance in academia justifies the Greek translators’ choices motivated by the need to abide by the norms pertaining to the assumed authority and higher status of academics in society.

The second dimension of Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s model, which is relevant to this research, is uncertainty avoidance. It is defined as “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 2010: 191). American sociologist James G. March has claimed that the ways of handling uncertainty “are part and parcel of any human institution in any country” (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 2010: 189). In the IBM research project conducted by Geert Hofstede, the differences on uncertainty avoidance among countries “were originally discovered as a by-product of power distance” (2010: 190). The view illustrates the close relationship between the two dimensions and the dual perspective of the present study.

Measurement classifies Greece first on the ranking order among the participating countries and Great Britain is found between the 68^th and 69^th position on the uncertainty avoidance index. This practically means that Greece exhibits the most intense uncertainty intolerance tendency compared to other countries and their culturally-dependent evaluation of uncertainty.

In the context of tertiary education, as in other contexts in Greece, the strong uncertainty avoidance feature expects from speakers to be highly specific in knowledge transmission. In parallel with the German context, where uncertainty intolerance is also highly favoured, Greek cultural imperatives lay particular emphasis on accuracy of expression on the part of teachers. Research with English and Greek-translated economic discourse has shown that favouring the specific is an intrinsic characteristic of strong uncertainty avoidance cultures, such as Greek (Sidiropoulou 2019).

3. Methodology

The first part of the research was dedicated to analysis of   the two communication styles out of the Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov dimensions, uncertainty tolerance/avoidance, to be followed by power distance. The study retrieved sample data from the third chapter of E. H. Carr’s work What is History? (chapter title ‘History, Science and Morality’) and the corresponding chapter in the Greek translation by Pappas (Patakis publishing). The focus on historiography was triggered by Bennett’s 2012 article “Footprints in the Text”, which discusses how the Portuguese historiographical discourse conventions are weakened when scholars write and publish in English. The study chose the third chapter because the thread of discourse would have gone a long way by that point, and discourse tendencies would have been fully developed.

The study took both an etic approach to the data (by presenting the researcher’s view) and an emic approach to the data (by considering lay people’s view of the meaning conveyed by a rendition).

The methodological design comprised three stages: scanning the selected historiographical parallel texts, comparatively analyzing the parallel data, and taking an emic approach to the data in order for the study to elicit data with regard to lay peoples’ evaluation of the TT discourse. The approximate word-count in the original version is 11,160 words, and 12,600 words in the translated version.

As suggested, the study focused on two categories of features, i.e., uncertainty avoidance/tolerance and high-/low-power distance, grouping individual shifting phenomena under these categories. In the final emic stage, the study designed a questionnaire (see appendix) addressing 15 bilingual respondents with an academic background. The aim of the emic approach was to locally examine what impact the translated text would have on intended receivers: how close they perceive the text producer to be to the readership, speaker engagement, speaker intention to favour the specific. Questionnaire results would confirm analysis findings or contradict them.

4. Data analysis

This section displays sample academic extracts in English and their Greek target versions to highlight how translators reshape the communicative style of the author by interfering with the two dimensions.

The section is divided into ‘uncertainty tolerance/avoidance’ and ‘favouring the specific’ subsections, but often tendencies in discourse interrelate with each other, merging into a whole. For instance, raising certainty and favouring the specific may be interconnected, as the examples will show below.

4.1 Uncertainty tolerance/avoidance

Uncertainty tolerance/avoidance is used as a blanket term to facilitate the analysis of shifts. The focus is on observing how and to what extent English and Greek conceptualize notions of certainty/doubt in academic discourse settings.

4.1.1 Heightening certainty

The examples that follow show how uncertainty avoidance enhances in the TT.

Here is a commentary of the shifts appearing in data fragments 1:

 a. ‘[…] evidently’ → ‘Προφανώς, […]’: TT1 enhances the certainty level by placing the adverb at the beginning of the sentence. Adverbial thematisation materialises the Greek translator’s culturally-bound preference for highlighting certitude as opposed to the English version which places the adverbial sentence-finally which mitigates the conveyed certainty.

b. ‘I will try to examine’ → 'Στη συνέχεια, θα εξετάσω’ (Afterwards, I will examine […] the five points : in sharp contrast to the hesitant way of announcing the purpose of the research in the ST (manifested through the hedge ‘try to’), the TT  presents the author as more confident and certain about the task  in which he is about to engage himself.  The Greek author’s choice to remove the hedge intensifies his assertiveness and validates expertise on the subject he discusses. The ‘Στη συνέχεια’ (afterwards) adverbial favours the tendency to be analyzed in the next subsection (4.1.2 Favouring the specific) because the text producer wants to become specific about the sequence of the research steps the author will take.

c. ‘if […], the histo­rian will ask himself’ →  ‘Αν ο ιστορικός είναι πεισμένος ότι’ (if the historian is convinced that). The target version conceptualized the historian as being convinced about something, whereas the English version describes the historian as wondering about questions.

The target version seems to reinforce the assertiveness of the historian, because certainty seems to be a value in a positive politeness strategies, often favoured in Greek (Sifianou 1992), whereas academic modesty in English (a negative politeness concern) would entail less certainty in drawing conclusions.

d.  Ø → ‘δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι’ (there is no doubt that): the Greek academic validates his expertise in the field by literally excluding any doubt in the truth of his statement (that the leaders of the Russian revolution were profoundly influenced). By contrast, the ST makes no evaluation of the truth conditions of the corresponding claim.

e. ‘you can no more separate them’ → ‘είναι αδύνατον κανείς να τα ξεχωρίσει (it is impossible for someone to separate them) …όπως ακριβώς είναι αδύνατον (just as it is impossible to separate…)’:  the TT item ‘it is impossible to’ carries higher certainty about the truth of what is being said. Suffice it to say that ‘it is impossible’ occurs twice in the TT, heightening certainty even more. There are two more markers, in this context, which will be examined later, namely, (a) the high-power distance in Greek, manifested through a vague reference to a historian (κανείς [somebody]) vs. the ST ‘you’ item (hypothetically addressing the reader-historian) directly. This raises the formality of the Greek version and heightens power distance vs. the ST ‘you’ item, which is a manifestation of lower power distance, and (b) the ‘ακριβώς’ (precisely, just) adverbial which heightens the TT preference for the specific, to be presented in 4.1.2.

4.1.2 Favouring the specific

Favouring the specific is another manifestation of the intolerance to doubt in Greek, which is preferred as a device facilitating understanding on the part of the addressee (a positive politeness device implying ‘if you are going to say something be specific’).  The data sets below showcase the different perspective adopted by the English and Greek text producer, respectively, in relation to specificity markers in language use.

Below is a commentary of the shifts appearing in data set 2:

a. ‘at that time’ → ‘του Μεσοπολέμου’:  the TT favours temporal specificity by historically grounding the relevant point in time, as opposed to the ST version, which rather vaguely refers to the period.

b. ‘History of Civilization’ → ‘Ιστορίας του πολιτισμού στην Αγγλία’:  the TT manifests higher specificity, because it spatially contextualizes the item discussed.

c.  ‘the war of 1914’ → ‘Α Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου’: ‘the war of 1914’ is less specific and may potentially be mistaken for some other war, whereas ‘World War I’ stands out as a particular point of reference in the mind of the reader.

d. ‘these movements’ → ‘τον προτεσταντισμό όσο και τον καπιταλισμό’: the TT version offers a detailed account of the movements which the ST refers to. By doing so, the Greek text producer aims at reducing vagueness.

e.  Ø → ‘συγκεκριμένο […] λοιπόν’: the translator enhances the degree of specificity by adding the item  ‘particular’ (συγκεκριμένο) and the ‘thus’ connective, which specifies the type of relationship between the propositions.

The shifts analyzed in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are in alignment with the Greek translator’s intention to avoid obscurities in his text, heightening certainty and favouring the specific.

4.2 Power distance

Power distance is the second dimension of communication style to be examined in this set of parallel data. The data have been subcategorized into more specific types of shifts that reflect variation in portraying the relational dynamics between text producer and audience.

4.2.1. Passivization

The subsection shows a tendency for passivization in the Greek version, which favours impersonality in Greek vs. active verbal structures in English (see TT3a ‘by those who assign to → ‘υποστηρίζεται ότι’ (it is supported that) and TT3b ‘using certain laws’ → ‘θεμελιώνεται’ (is established).

Τhe use of passive voice in TT3a and TT3b  is indicative of two typical tendencies in Greek academic discourse; raising the level of formality and heightening the distance between  an academic and audience.  The passive is typical in certain contexts in Greek (Sifianou 2010 in metro station announcements, Malamatidou 2011 in translated popular science discourse).

In examining the hierarchy of face aspects suggested by an emic test, in political science translation data, Sidiropoulou (2017) found that the relational concern (often manifested through the passive) was given top priority, lending support to the relational perspective prioritized in facework research (Spencer-Oatey 2007). This suggests that the passive is a significant device in shaping the relationship of text producer with the reader.

4.2.2 Other markers

High power distance derives from the fact that the author guides the audience with signposts. The translator (as secondary author) feels a responsibility to facilitate audience with understanding.

The signposts which make the difference are:

a. Ø → ’Τέλος’: the TT favours a connective at the beginning of the sentence that establishes a logical connection between the preceding and the subsequent information.

b. Ø → ‘ενώ σε άλλες περιπτώσεις ίσως λειτουργεί’ (whilst in other cases it may function): In the TT an adversative sentence appears, with the ST only covertly displaying the contrast.  It is as if the text producer feels it is his responsibility to highlight potential contrasts in meaning-making.

c. ‘But’ Ø → […] ‘όμως’:  the Greek author heightens the contrastive force of the ST link, as ‘however’ is a stronger long-distance adversative connective. Such shifts systematically appear in argumentative discourse in Greek, for instance, in translated press (Sidiropoulou 2004).

4.2.3 Translator’s evaluation

This sub-category of data shifts focus on showing how power distance is realized in the Greek text through analysis of translator’s interference and personal comments.

The data show instances of evaluative comments made by the translator. Academic authors are expected to use their expertise and contribute informed opinions and personal viewpoint, which realize a high-power distance preference in social behaviour.

The section highlighted indicators which establish a higher level of formality in Greek. Since tenor is to a great extent, if not entirely, a context-dependent feature of natural languages, the sample data show a culturally-solidified inclination of Greek academia to raise the level of formality and assign the academic expert a leading role in meaning-making.

The next section utilizes lay people’s opinion on the significance of shifts in the TT.

5. Questionnaire analysis

The study designed a questionnaire (see Appendix) to elicit locally generated judgements on data appropriateness in the field of historiography. It asked four questions that required a brief justification. To avoid obscurities and/or misunderstandings, the questionnaire provided information on the content of the extract which the feature appeared in.  The respondents were 15 postgraduate translation students who were skilled in distinguishing meaning differences in discourse. Findings verified the etic analysis results.

Question 1a asked the respondents to evaluate the speaker’s attitude, with respect to how close the text producer placed himself to the audience. The elements that drew their attention were primarily the use of passive voice and formal lexical choices of the translator in the TT. They agreed that, in the Greek version, the speaker appears more distant, detached, and even authoritative and absolute. There are also references to the higher level of formality of the target version, which was considered a typical feature in Greek academia; enhanced formality portrays the historian as being a leading expert in the field.

Question 1b asked which version presented a more confident historian. 78.57 percent of the respondents argued that the Greek version avoided uncertainty compared to the ST: the main cue was ‘είναι πεισμένος ότι’ (is convinced that) and ‘σύνηθες φαινόμενο’ (usual phenomenon). Moreover, the fact that the historian was the subject in the TT was a popular observation among the responses (60 percent). Certainty is viewed as a means to achieve persuasion.

Question 2 asked where the historian appeared more concerned about imminent dangers. All respondents chose the Greek version as conveying the historian’s concern more intensely because it provided evaluation on the part of the text producer: evaluation is a positive politeness device because the speaker is contributing to the addressee to facilitate understanding.

The last question gave respondents the shift (EN) ‘historians […] at that time’ → (GR) ‘historians of the interwar period’ and asked respondents to comment on the author’s intention. They unanimously suggested that temporal specificity facilitates the audience’s understanding and offers accuracy, thus, eliminating knowledge gaps in readers minds.

The questionnaire emic findings verified the etic analysis. Respondents pointed to intensified certainty manifestations and the high-power distance between the Greek academic author and readership.

6. Discussion

Shaping the academic author’s identity is a process intrinsically related to localized discoursal norms and conventions which materialize themselves through language use. Perceptions of the academic author’s roles and identity differ in accordance with culture-specific imperatives and culture-mediated expectations in relation to the discoursal behaviour of people in academia.

The study set out to examine cross-cultural particularities that characterize the dissemination of specialized knowledge in academia. It analyzed pragmatic differences between English and Greek versions of Carr’s history book, using Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s (2010) theoretical framework of cross-cultural social psychology for accounting for the detected shifts in the data set. Findings show that there are significant differences in the way academics use language: Greek academic discourse reinforces certainty (as a positive politeness language) and heightens power distance assuming a superior social status for academic authors. Other features are favouring the specific, cohesive ties, formality, and translator evaluation.

Findings tally with existing literature on cross-cultural discoursal behaviour and pragmatic aspects of meaning-making. From the perspective of cross-cultural discoursal behaviour, Koutsantoni (2005a), in her study on Greek cultural characteristics of academic writing, argues that the normative and conventional imperatives of academic communities are informed by their ideological assumptions. She argues that Hofstede’s “parameters of cultural difference can affect a culture’s intellectual style, literacy practices” (2010:100). In her studies on power distance, Spencer–Oatey (1996, 1997) also lays particular emphasis on the cultural specificities and their catalytic role in establishing power relations in societies. Sidiropoulou (2017) reports the tendency of the Greek translator to enhance cohesion and favour passivization as a means of aligning a target academic text with locally informed academic norms. The Greek author also shows an inclination to avoid vagueness in discourse (Sidiropoulou 2019).

Bennet (2012) emphasizes English hegemony suppressing Portuguese discourse conventions, in her study on the impact of translation on Portuguese historiography. Research in the Greek academic translation practice reveals an activation of ‘resistance mechanisms’ against the imperialistic attitude of English. The role of translation in the ‘resistance mechanisms’ is invaluable in that translation gives the translators an incentive to exploit their insight into appropriateness.

Locher and Sidiropoulou (2021) view the relation between translation and pragmatics a promising synergy, in the sense that translation studies can deploy pragmatics to facilitate exploration of intercultural difference, while pragmatic research can benefit from translation input.

7. Conclusion

Using a comparative model of analysis, the study investigated the influence of culturally bound discoursal norms and conventions on shaping the academic author’s identity in source and target version of Carr’s work on historiography, What is History?, translated from English into Greek. The central objective was a pragmatic exploration of uncertainty avoidance and power distance variations between English and Greek. To facilitate the purpose of the research, the paper uses the theoretical framework of Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s cross-cultural social psychology. The analysis of the data builds on the 6D model of national culture developed by Hofstede and Hofstede and is particularly based on two dimensions, namely, Power Distance Index (PDI) and Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 2010). As suggested, the study took both an etic and an emic approach (through distribution of questionnaires).

The findings indicated that language use in academic discourse settings is conditioned by culture-mediated imperatives which are exclusive to national cultures across the globe. In the Greek academic discourse setting, in particular, results showed that enhancing certainty and adopting high power distance positioning are two highly favoured tendencies that reflect the assumed superior social status of Greek academics. Further, the findings seem to support the hypothesis that Greek academic translation practice has developed “resistance mechanisms”, which shows that Greek academic discourse conventions turn out to be resilient despite the imperialistic potential of English.

Limitations of the present study may be the small sample which the study examined, which does not allow generalisations, although the findings seem to coincide with the ones elicited from previous studies as to the integrity of Greek academic discourse (see Koutsantoni 2005; Sidiropoulou 2017, 2019).

The significance of the research lies in that it tackles cross-cultural pragmatic variation in academic discourse through translation, thus suggesting a new platform for studying cross-cultural pragmatics. The study showed some of the conventions which permeate Greek and English academic discourse style and corroborated the existing literature in the validity of the claims regarding the decisive role of culturally informed norms and conventions in inscribing academic author identity (see e.g., Galtung 1981; Koutsantoni 2005b). The detailed data analysis that is offered in this paper may constitute a significant starting point for future research in other branches of academic discourse within the Greek context and beyond.

As genre is an important factor affecting discourse structure, the highlighted features are pertinent to academic discourse and cannot be assumed to be general features of the target language. An open research problem is how English original academic discourse would differ from Greek original academic discourse, but this is outside the scope of the present paper. Sidiropoulou (2019) who compared Greek translated data with original Greek production of the same genre found that the ‘shifts’ which appeared in the target Greek production were enforced in original Greek production. It was as if translation showed tendencies of a target language in the relevant genre, but perhaps less prominently the the original production would favour.

•  Previous article
• Next article