All Issue

2025 Vol.41, Issue 1 Preview Page

Research Article

31 May 2025. pp. 59-72
Abstract
This study investigates cultural context and creative approaches in Korean internet meme localization among university students. Thirty-five English majors translated seven popular Korean memes into English, employing translation strategies including conventional equivalence, creative translation, and descriptive methods. Results revealed that 71.4% of participants demonstrated excellent or above-average reflection of cultural context. Students successfully navigated challenges in conveying humor, emotional nuance, and cultural references across linguistic boundaries. The findings suggest that meme translation activities effectively develop intercultural communication competence by requiring students to engage with both linguistic and cultural dimensions of communication simultaneously. This research contributes to understanding how digital cultural expressions can be integrated into language education to enhance students’ translation skills and cultural sensitivity in an increasingly interconnected global communication environment.
References
  1. Baker, M. 2018. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315619187
  2. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  3. Chesterman, A. 2016. Memes of Translation: the Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/btl.123
  4. Deardorff, D. K. 2006. Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education 10.3, 241-266.10.1177/1028315306287002
  5. Gile, D. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.8
  6. Hall, J. 2021. Professional vs Non-Professional Translation of Korean TV Dramas. Neke. The New Zealand Journal of Translation Studies 4.1, 1-42.10.26686/neke.v4i1.6739
  7. Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
  8. Hoff, H. E. 2020. The Evolution of Intercultural Communicative Competence: Conceptualisations, Critiques and Consequences for 21st Century Classroom Practice. Intercultural Communication Education 3.2, 55-74.10.29140/ice.v3n2.264
  9. House, J. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: a Model Revisited. Gunter Narr Verlag.
  10. Hu, T. and Zheng, T. 2019. English Translation of China’s Internet Buzzwords from the Perspective of Skopos Theory. In 2019 3rd International Conference on Economic Development and Education Management (ICEDEM 2019). Atlantis Press, 120-122.10.2991/icedem-19.2019.27
  11. Huang, X., Han, Y., Ran, Y., Yang, Y., and Yang, Y. 2024. The Rise of Cross-Language Internet Memes: a Social Semiotic Analysis. Signs and Society 12.2, 125-141.10.1086/729125
  12. Katan, D. 2004. Translating Cultures: an Introduction for Translators, Interpreters, and Mediators. St. Jerome Publishing.
  13. Lee, V. 2017. Translation in the Digital Age: SNS and its Translation in the Classroom. Journal of Translation Studies 18.4, 35-60.10.15749/jts.2017.18.4.003
  14. Liddicoat, A. J. 2022. Intercultural Mediation in Language Teaching and Learning. Intercultural Learning in Language Education and Beyond: Evolving Concepts, Perspectives, and Practices. Multilingual Matters, 41-59.10.2307/jj.22679774.12
  15. Muñoz-Basols, J. 2019. Going beyond the Comfort Zone: Multilingualism, Translation and Mediation to Foster Plurilingual Competence. Language, Culture and Curriculum 32.3, 299-321.10.1080/07908318.2019.1661687
  16. Marczak, M. 2018. Translation Pedagogy in the Digital Age. Angles: New Perspectives on the Anglophone World 7, 1-23.10.4000/angles.895
  17. Molina, L. and Hurtado Albir, A. 2002. Translation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach. Meta 47.4, 498-512.10.7202/008033ar
  18. Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice hall.
  19. Pöchhacker, F. 2022. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003186472
  20. Pym, A. 2014. Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge.
  21. Reiss, K. and Vermeer, H. J. 2014. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315759715
  22. Ryu, J., Kim, Y. A., Eum, S., Park, S., Chun, S. and Yang, S. 2022. The Assessment of Memes as Digital Multimodal Composition in L2 Classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 57, 100914.10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100914
  23. Shirinzadeh, S. A. and Mahadi, T. S. T. 2015. Translators as Cultural Mediators in Transmitting Cultural Differences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 208, 167-174.10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.193
  24. Venuti, L. 2017. The Translator’s Invisibility: a History of Translation. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315098746
  25. Vermeer. H. J. 1998. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 221-232.
  26. Zan, C. and Lyu, L. Q. 2019. A Study on the Translation of Cultural Loaded Words from the Perspective of Skopos Theory. Journal of Literature and Art Studies 9.12, 1299-1304.10.17265/2159-5836/2019.12.010
Information
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 41
  • No :1
  • Pages :59-72