Oct. 2007, Volume 4, No.10 (Serial No.

46)

Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN1539-8072, USA

On cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese

SUN Shu-nv 1,2
(1. School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310012, China; 2. School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang Education Institute, Hangzhou 310058, China )

Abstract: With the rapid development of globalization, more and more factories and companies in China are keen to put their products onto the international market. Advertising translation is the outcome of this economic trend. This paper tries to analyze cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese at lexical and textual levels, and puts forward some suggestions on how to avoid cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Key words: pragmatic failure; trademark; advertisements

1. Introduction
The theoretical framework of pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication was first established by Jenny Thomas in her Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure published in Applied linguistics in 1983. In the paper, she first defines pragmatic failure as an inability to recognize the force of the speakers utterance, that is, the inability to understand what is meant by what is said. Then, she distinguishes two types of pragmatic failure, that is pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. The former occurs when the pragmatic force mapped by speaker onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target language, or when speech-act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2 (Thomas, 1983). For example, it is typical in Chinese to give a response to thanks by saying Mi gun x. If, however, a Chinese learner of English were to translate Mi gun x into English literally as Never mind in response to an expression of gratitude such as Thanks, the English addressee would not be able to interpret the utterance as an acknowledgement of thanks because Never mind is used only in declination to an apology in English. Thus, the force of the utterance would be lost and the Chinese addresser would have failed to make his/her meaning understood. The latter is used to refer to the social conditions placed on language in use (Thomas, 1983). For instance, people living in western culture tend to verbalize their gratitude and compliments more than the Chinese speakers do and they tend to accept thanks and compliments more than the Chinese (HONG Gang, 1995, p. 115). Thus, when a native speaker of English presents a compliment on a Chinese student like You speak excellent English, many Chinese students would decline it directly with no, my English is very poor which may provoke the feeling that the compliment-giver has a poor judgment. Though Thomas claims that cross-cultural pragmatic failure is not restricted primarily to the pragmatic failure occurs in interactions between native and non-native speakers; her term cross-cultural, as a shorthand
SUN Shu-nv (1981- ), female, graduate student of School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, teaching assistant of School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang Education Institute; research field: cross-cultural communication. 60

On cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese

way of describing, not just refers to native-non-native interactions, but any communication between two people who, in any particular domain, do not share a common linguistic or cultural background (1983), the studies of pragmatic failure after her are mostly on the native-non-native interactions. Similarly, although Thomas would not wish to claim that any absolute distinction can be drawn between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic failure; they form a continuum and there is certainly a grey area in the middle where it is not possible to separate the two with any degree of certainty (1983), most of the scholars tend to adopt her dichotomy.

2. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure Study in China

In China, study of pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication has been paid great attention to in the past years. Most of the studies in this field adopt Thomass dichotomy. This can be proved by the papers written by Chinese scholars (DU Kai-qun, 2005; GUO Ding-qin, 2002; BAO Ming-jie & XIAO Ai-guo, 2002; WANG Li-qin, 2003; CHEN Gui-qin & HU Jia-ying, 2004; HUANG Tian & GUO Jian-hong, 2002; LI Xiu, 2005; LI Chun-fang, 2003; LIAN Yun-jie, 2006; ZHANG Yan-qun, 2006; ZHANG Yan-qun & ZHANG Hong-yun, 2004; ZHOU Jin-jie, 2003; WU Yuan-yuan, 2006). Besides the adoption of Thomass dichotomy, the studies of most Chinese scholars have some other common features. They attribute the cross-cultural pragmatic failure to the cultural difference between China and western countries in a general way. In the analysis of the representations of pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication, they probe into this topic by enumerating vocabularies, sentences and short daily conversations which always bring forth misunderstandings or conflicts between the two parties involved in the communication. The representations they often focus on are addressing, greeting, farewell, appreciation, apology, praise, taboo and euphemism, though they may have slightly different emphasis on several aspects. Concerning how to avoid cross-cultural pragmatic failure, these Chinese scholars, with no exception, all put great expectation on the foreign language teaching in China. It seems that Chinese scholars have reached general agreement in this field. However, SUN Ya and DAI Ling (2002) indicate that the reason for this is that the scope of cross-cultural pragmatic failure study in China is mainly restricted to cross-cultural communication, foreign language teaching and second language acquisition. As a result, almost every scholar ascribes cross-cultural pragmatic failure to cultural difference and pins hope on education. SUN Ya and DAI Ling also point out that recent studies on cross-cultural pragmatic failure are explored at the lexical level or in terms of speech acts by taking daily conversations as examples. They, as well as Thomas, believe that pragmatic failure occur at any linguistic level such as phonetic level and textual level, and in any fields of our social life. Therefore, this paper will try to study on the cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements instead of daily conversations, and to analyze it at different linguistic levels, for pragmatic phenomena are spread at all levels of language (HE Zi-ran, 2003, p. 255).

3. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure in English Advertisements

With the rapid development of globalization, the circulation of merchandise on the international market becomes more and more frequent. In order to scramble for the world market, all the countries around the world spare no pains to promote their national products. So does China. More and more factories and companies in China are keen to put their products onto the international market. Thus, English advertisements are playing an increasingly important role in the economic life. According to Oxford advanced learners English-Chinese dictionary, advertising means to praise something

61

On cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese

publicly in order to encourage people to buy or use it. HE Zi-ran, a Chinese linguist, clarifies that the means of advertising is not limited to the form of printed or audio-visual advertisements in mass media, it also includes the trademarks and other written descriptions of products (1995, p. 166). In a word, advertising is the activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in print or by audio-visual means, with the aim of sale. Because it is impossible to exhibit audio-visual advertisements, the emphasis will be put on written advertisements in this paper. As far as written advertisements are concerned, the cross-cultural pragmatic failure can be well described at lexical and textual levels. 3.1 Pragmalinguistic failure in English advertisements Thomas claims that pragmalinguistic failure may arise from two identifiable sources: teaching-induced errors and pragmalinguistic transferthe inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from one language to another, or the transferring from the mother tongue to the target language of utterances which are semantically/syntactically equivalent, but which, because of different interpretive bias, tend to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language (1983). It is clear that the factor of teaching-induced errors is not easy to be deduced from the English advertisements, but the pragmalinguistic transfer is obvious. 3.1.1 Pragmalinguistic failure at lexical level As mentioned above, trademark is an indispensable part of an advertisement, and to some extent, trademark is the decisive part. If there is pragmatic failure in the trademark, the fate of the product is imaginable. The following two trademarks are good examples to prove it. (a) Guos Totally Nutritious Slimming Extract ( Gu sh yng yng s) (b) Hangzhou Lotus Roots Starch ( Hng zhu x h u fn) At first glance, the above two translated trademarks seem accordant with their Chinese trademarks. However, if native English-speaking people read these trademarks, they must feel odd. Take the first trademark as an example, Chinese people like presenting the effect of a product to attract potential consumers because Chinese consumers want to know what the product is used for and buy it if it is useful. Thus, the trademark includes words such as nutritious and slimming to indicate its effect. By contrary, western people may think that nutritious and slimming is peoples commendatory assessment which can not be a part of a trademark. As a result, they may take it as exaggerated praise or boast. It is self-evident that the failure of this trademark is due to inappropriate transfer of naming rule from mother tongue to the target language. Analogically, the promotion of Hangzhou Lotus Roots Starch is doomed to be a failure on the international market because of semantic transfer from Chinese to English. The Chinese character (fn) in the trademark is used to indicate the shape of the product, but in English the word starch means a white substance that is found in quite a large amount in bread, potatoes, etc which implies that taking this product will cause people put on weight. Undoubtedly, there will be no one to buy this product to make himself/herself fat. 3.1.2 Pragmalinguistic failure at textual level Apart from pragmalinguistic failure in translated trademarks, there is still pragmalinguistic failure in other parts of an advertisement. The following is an advertisement of wine.
Made of well-aged choice grape and Ginsheng produced in Northeast China by scientific method, this product contains various kind of vitamins, organic acid, organic iron, various Panaquilon, Ginsheng, Glucoside, etc. This wine has special efficacy in strengthening the spleen and stomach, nourishing spirit and blood, generating saliva and invigorating mind and body if taken constantly and regularly.

62

On cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese

After reading this advertisement, we may find out that this English version is literally translated from its Chinese version. It is more like an illustration than an advertisement as it lacks advertising features. Though written advertisement inevitably bears some features of written language, such as the careful selection of vocabulary and structure, the use of punctuation and the neat textual form, written advertisement differs from other written language. With its special aim and purpose, advertising English in press advertisement is, generally speaking, written to be spoken for the sake of affecting the readers behavior. In other words, written advertisements should be more like spoken language so as to fulfill both the function of informing and persuading. The translated English version from Chinese lacks emotional appeal because it is information dominant. This pragmalinguistic failure results from the transfer of textual structure from Chinese. 3.2 Sociopragmatic failure in English advertisements As proved, pragmalinguistic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese is due to pragmalinguistic transfer from the mother tongue to the target language, whatever semantically or textually. The factors causing sociopragmatic failure are much more complicated. As HAO Qin-hai (2000) suggests that sociopragmatic failure at lexical level is mainly because of the different associative meaning of the same word between China and English-speaking countries, and sociopragmatic failure at textual level is by reason of different values. 3.2.1 Sociopragmatic failure at lexical level Again, it is possible to probe into English trademarks translated from Chinese as follows: (a) Fang Fang ( fng fng) (b) White Elephant ( ba xing) (c) Golden Cock ( jn j) The above three trademarks are popular in China. fng fng is a brand name of a lipstick, ba xing is for dry cell and jn jis for shoeshine. These three phrases are all associated with commendatory connotations. That is the reason for their popularity in China. However, when they are translated into English, things change. Fang Fang, in China, associates with beauty and fragrance, but for English-speaking people, it is a sharp tooth of a dog or a poison tooth of a snake. Consequently, anyone will be frightened to buy the product. White elephant does not mean an elephant with white skin as its literal meaning in English-speaking countries, but it is a phrase referring to an article, an ornament, or a household utensil no longer wanted by its owner, or something of dubious or limited value. Undoubtedly, English-speaking people will not buy something useless. Similarly, cock in English culture can refer to genitals. This brand name not only damages the image of a company and also leaves an impression of lack of culture. Such sociopragmatic failure in China is beyond our listing, so it is noteworthy that in order to improve the marketing of Chinese products on the world market, the manufacturers should first improve their cross-cultural awareness. When they name or translate the brand names, they should pay great attention to the different associative meaning of words to avoid pragmatic failure. For instance, White Elephant can be changed into Silver Elephant, Golden Cock into Rooster, and Fang Fang into Fragrance. In this way, the promotion is odds-on. 3.2.2 Sociopragmatic failure at textual level Since ancient times, China is hierarchical society. Governments and other official organizations are prestigious. By contrast, western countries advocate democracy, and respect individual. In their mind, individuals interest is the most important and should be first taken into consideration. If Chinese peoples value judgment is embodied in English advertisement, the sociopragmatic failure is unavoidable. The following advertisement is
63

On cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese

typical:
Miraculous 505 Health Products Series developed by Having proved their effects after use by millions of people in China and abroad, these health preservers have been won 50 Chinese and international awards. A gold medal at the Eureba World Inventions Fair in Brussels; An international achievement prize at the 14th World Inventors Fair held in New York; No. 1 among the 50 health products most favored by Chinese customers; Health products first selected for the Chinese sports delegation at the 25th Olympic Games.

This advertisement is very persuasive for Chinese people, because honor and certificates means high quality and good credit standing. At the same time, when English-speaking people read this advertisement, they may take it as nonsense. As we know that English-speaking people are self-regard, and what attracts them is the practicability of the product. Honor and certificates have no say. Whats more, because of their individualism, they do not care honor or something like that. Therefore, they are not familiar with those certificates as Chinese people. They will be at a loss when they are bombed with so many awards.

4. Strategies to Avoid Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure in English Advertisements

From the analysis of cross-cultural pragmatic failure at lexical and textual level, it is found that the reasons for it are various, some of which are linguistic and some of them are cultural. Without doubt, linguistic problems are easy to solve. As many Chinese scholars suggest, foreign language teaching is a good way out. Take vocabulary as an example, if the teacher or the students pay much attention to the denotative and connotative meaning of a word, the pragmatic failure caused by starch or Fang Fang can be totally avoided. Besides, if people know more about the characteristics of advertising language, the written advertisements will not be too informative to attract people to read. Nonetheless, the cultural problems are much harder to overcome. Take the advertisement of Miraculous 505 Health Products Series as an example, the content of this advertisement, though persuasive in China, is different from English-speaking peoples general understanding of advertisements. According to Leech, a successful advertisement must accomplish four things in sequence: it must draw attention to itself; it must sustain the interest it has attracted; it must be remembered, or at any rate recognized as familiar; it must promote the right kind of action. The four things can be summarized as four principles, that is, attention value, readability, memorability and selling power (WANG Lei, 1995, p. 97). Compared with radio or TV commercials, the attention value of press advertisement is rather low. In order to attract potential English-speaking consumers, it is necessary to understand their different needs from Chinese people and to present messages which contain all kinds of appeals. Undoubtedly, the advertisement of Miraculous 505 Health Products Series is not an eye-catching one for English-speaking people. Once an advertisement is paid attention to, it should have the reader to read on. The readability of written advertisement depends more and more on the simplicity of its vocabulary and structure. It seems that in English advertisements translate from Chinese, there are too many facts and information about the products being advertised which puzzle the English-speaking people. By memorability, it means the reader can remember part of the advertisement after reading. If there are no certain linguistic features in an advertisement, memorability is out of the question. Last but not least, selling power can be achieved by using imperative sentences in advertising. Chinese people are too polite to ask for consumers action. However, English-speaking people need such kind of appeal. All these elements taken into consideration, the most important point that deserves attention in the translation of advertisements is that the English version aims at a different group of

64

On cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English advertisements translated from Chinese

people who determine the different characteristics of English advertisements.

5. Conclusion
By the analysis of English advertisements translated from Chinese at lexical and textual levels in terms of Jenny Thomass theory of cross-cultural pragmatic failure, it reveals that pragmatic failure in this field is mostly because of pragmalinguistic transfer and different social values between different countries. The linguistic problems can be solved by education and the cultural problems depend on peoples awareness of cultural difference. On all accounts, the purpose of advertising is to attract and persuade consumers to buy the products, so advertisements, whatever in Chinese or in English, should accord with potential consumers taste. Bear this point in mind, cross-cultural pragmatic failure is avoidable.
References: Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, (2). BAO Ming-jie, XIAO Ai-guo. 2002. On pragmatic failures in intercultural communication. Journal of Southeast Jiaotong University: Social Sciences, (2), 133-137. CHEN Gui-qin, HU Jia-ying. 2004. Tentative study on trans-cultural communication and pragmatic failures. Journal of Harbin University, (2), 40-41. DU Kai-qun. 2005. On pragmatic failures in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Chongqing Three Gorges University, (1), 116-118. GUO Ding-qin. 2002. On pragmatic failures in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Hunan Radio & TV University, (1), 61-62. HAO Qin-hai. 2000. On cross-cultural pragmatic failure in advertising language. Foreign Language Education, (3). HE Zi-ran. 2003. Notes on pragmatics. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press. HE Zi-ran. 1995. Pragmatics and English learning. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. HONG Gang. 1995. Pragmatic failure. In: A collection of papers on foreign language teaching and research (Vol. 3). Hangzhou: Hangzhou University Press, 112-121. HUANG Tian, GUO Jian-hong. 2002. Intercultural pragmatic failure in communication and measures to avoid failure. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, (1), 28-30. LI Chun-fang. 2003. A study of politeness in Chinese and English culture and cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Journal of Gansu Education College: Social Sciences, (3), 43-46. LI Xiu. 2005. Pragmatic failures in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Huaihai Institute of Technology: Humanities & Social Sciences Edition, (2), 63-65. LIAN Yun-jie. 2006. Explanation of speech differences and pragmatic failure in the Eastern and Western inter-culture communication based on maxims of politeness. Journal of Shenyang University, (1), 89-92. SUN Ya, DAI Ling. 2002. Pragmatic failure study in China. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (3), 19-21. WANG Lei. 1995. Registral characteristics in advertising English and its implication for advertising writing. In: A collection of papers on foreign language teaching and research (Vol. 3). Hangzhou: Hangzhou University Press, 95-111. WANG Li-qin. 2003. On cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Journal of Xinzhou Teachers University, (6), 32-33. WU Yuan-yuan. 2006. Sociopragmatic failure in intercultural communication and corresponding strategies. Journal of Tongling College, (3), 117-120. ZHANG Yan-qun. 2006. Sociopragmatic failure in intercultural communication. Journal of Tianzhong, (1), 102-105. ZHANG Yan-qun, ZHANG Hong-yun. 2004. Pragmalinguistic failure. Journal of Tianzhong, (6), 80-83. ZHOU Jin-jie. 2003. Sociopragmatic failure in intercultural communication. Journal of Kaifeng University, (2), 21-24.

(Edited by Stella and Jessica)

65