Scholarlink

<p>To what extent do foreign actors impact local communities? Specifically, how do cultural translations between two fundamentally opposed worlds—the Yanomami universe and the U.S. Western universe—manifest and reveal different regimes of meaning? This article analyzes cultural translation as a meaning-making process, highlighting interlocutors’ efforts to establish a mutually intelligible and satisfactory communicative bridge. Methodologically, the author triangulates Lotman’s semiosphere boundaries with Landowski’s interaction regimes, mapping: (1) asymmetric programming; (2) adjustment via embodied practices; (3) indigenous critiques. Texts were coded for: (a) lexical gaps; (b) affective semiosis; (c) power markers. The findings reveal how translation enacts Asad’s ‘epistemological violence’ when Western categories overwrite indigenous lifeworlds. However, when translation is approached as a dynamic act of meaning production—rooted in affectivity and guided by the semiotic framework of adjustment—it offers new possibilities for engaging with otherness in more equitable and meaningful ways.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Translating worlds, translating hearts: An anthropological text analysis of two autobiographies on American-Yanomami

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月1日

查看全文
  • Vanessa Pastorini

摘要

To what extent do foreign actors impact local communities? Specifically, how do cultural translations between two fundamentally opposed worlds—the Yanomami universe and the U.S. Western universe—manifest and reveal different regimes of meaning? This article analyzes cultural translation as a meaning-making process, highlighting interlocutors’ efforts to establish a mutually intelligible and satisfactory communicative bridge. Methodologically, the author triangulates Lotman’s semiosphere boundaries with Landowski’s interaction regimes, mapping: (1) asymmetric programming; (2) adjustment via embodied practices; (3) indigenous critiques. Texts were coded for: (a) lexical gaps; (b) affective semiosis; (c) power markers. The findings reveal how translation enacts Asad’s ‘epistemological violence’ when Western categories overwrite indigenous lifeworlds. However, when translation is approached as a dynamic act of meaning production—rooted in affectivity and guided by the semiotic framework of adjustment—it offers new possibilities for engaging with otherness in more equitable and meaningful ways.