ON TRANSLATION OF MONGOLIAN CULTURE-SPECIFIC WORDS IN TRAVEL WRITING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ECO-TRANSLATOLOGY (BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM “AMONG THE MONGOLS” BY REV. JAMES GILMOUR)

ABSTRACT

Travel writing plays a distinctive role in intercultural communication, functioning simultaneously as ethnographic documentation, literary narration, and translational mediation. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Western travelers to Mongolia produced influential English-language accounts that introduced Mongolian culture to foreign readers and implicitly translated culture-specific terms, thereby shaping early English representations of Mongolian realia. Based on this backdrop, the present study examines the rendering of Mongolian culture-specific words in Among the Mongols (1882) by Rev. James Gilmour through the theoretical lens of Eco-Translatology. Drawing on Hu Gengshen’s concept of translation as adaptation and selection, approximately 100 culture-specific items are analyzed using the three-dimensional transformation framework—linguistic, cultural, and communicative—while selected representative cases are discussed in detail. The findings indicate a dominant use of explicative domestication, supplemented by selective foreignization through transliteration and hybrid strategies. These translational choices reflect adaptive negotiation within the English translational eco-environment and illustrate how Mongolian cultural elements are rendered intelligible while partially preserving cultural specificity.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Путевые заметки играют особую роль в межкультурной коммуникации, одновременно выступая в качестве этнографической документации, литературного повествования и посредничества в переводе. В конце XIX и начале XX веков западные путешественники в Монголию создавали влиятельные англоязычные описания, которые знакомили иностранных читателей с монгольской культурой и неявно переводили специфические для этой культуры термины, тем самым формируя ранние английские представления о монгольской реальности. На этом фоне настоящее исследование рассматривает перевод специфических для монгольской культуры слов в книге «Среди монголов» (1882) преподобного Джеймса Гилмора с теоретической точки зрения эко-трансляционной теории. Опираясь на концепцию перевода Ху Гэншэня как адаптации и отбора, анализируется около 100 специфических для культуры элементов с использованием трехмерной трансформационной структуры — лингвистической, культурной и коммуникативной, — при этом подробно обсуждаются отдельные репрезентативные случаи. Результаты показывают преобладающее использование объяснительной доместикации, дополненной избирательной иноязычностью посредством транслитерации и гибридных стратегий. Эти переводческие решения отражают адаптивный процесс согласования в рамках англоязычной переводческой среды и иллюстрируют, как элементы монгольской культуры становятся понятными, частично сохраняя при этом культурную специфику.

Keywords: travel writing, culture-specific words, Eco-Translatology, adaptation and selection, three-dimensional transformation, Mongolian realia, translational ecology

Ключевые слова: путевые заметки, специфические для культуры слова, эко-трансляционная литература, адаптация и отбор, трёхмерная трансформация, монгольские реалии, переводческая экология

Introduction

Travel writing plays a crucial role in cross-cultural communication by mediating encounters between unfamiliar cultures and distant readerships. Beyond their literary and documentary value, travelogues constitute an important yet underexplored source for translation studies, as they frequently involve the rendering of culture-specific concepts into the traveler’s native language. Such renderings may not take the form of conventional interlingual translation, but they nevertheless represent acts of cultural and linguistic mediation shaped by the expectations of the target readership. Rather than evaluating these renderings solely in terms of source-cultural fidelity, this study argues that the travelers’ mediation of Mongolian culture-specific words should be understood as contextually appropriate adaptive selections, shaped by prolonged immersion in Mongolian society and by the communicative demands of their target readership.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Mongolia attracted a wide range of Western travelers, including missionaries, explorers, scientists, and adventurers. Their writings – such as James Gilmour’s Among the Mongols, Frans August Larson’s Larson, Duke of Mongolia, Roy Chapman Andrews’s Across Mongolian Plains, Oscar Mamen’s Going East and Henning Haslund-Christensen’s Tents in Mongolia, among others – introduced Mongolian landscapes, social structures, beliefs, customs and material culture to Western audiences. In doing so, these authors implicitly translated Mongolian culture-specific words and practices into English, often establishing enduring patterns for how Mongolian realia would subsequently be represented in translation.

Although Mongolian culture-specific words have been discussed in translation studies, existing research has largely focused on modern literary or institutional translation, while the translational significance of historical travel writing remains insufficiently examined. Moreover, Eco-Translatology, despite its growing influence, has rarely been applied to travelogues, particularly those involving implicit or embedded translation. This study addresses these gaps by examining how Mongolian culture-specific words are rendered in Among the Mongols by Rev. James Gilmour through the lens of Eco-Translatology, with the aim of demonstrating how adaptive selection operates in a historical travel-writing context.

Specifically, the study asks how linguistic, cultural, and communicative adaptations interact in the English representation of Mongolian culture-specific words, and what translational patterns emerge from this interaction. By doing so, the article seeks to contribute both to the methodological application of Eco-Translatology and to the study of Mongolian realia in English-language travel literature.

Indeed, the cultures and traditions of nations around the world are highly diverse and therefore difficult to reproduce fully. Nevertheless, such cultural knowledge is mediated through translation, a complex process closely dependent on the translator’s competence and interpretive judgment. When Western travelers encounter Mongolian life, culture, and practices, they interpret and mediate these experiences for readers from their own cultural background, thereby rendering them accessible within the target language and culture. It is therefore essential to identify the translational patterns employed in Western travelogues that contribute to the English rendering of Mongolian culture-specific terms.

Materials and methods

Theoretical Framework: Eco-Translatology, developed by Hu Gengshen, conceptualizes translation as a process of adaptation and selection within a translational eco-environment, a framework derived from the ecological metaphor. This eco-environment encompasses linguistic, cultural, social, and communicative factors that constrain and enable translational choices. Within this framework, the translator or, more broadly, the translating subject adapts to the environment and selects linguistic forms that are most likely to survive and function effectively in the target context [Hu, H. G, 1, p. 9-11]; [Cay Dollerup, 2, p. 5].

Central to Eco-Translatology is the notion of three-dimensional transformation, which operates across the linguistic, cultural, and communicative dimensions. The linguistic dimension concerns conformity to target-language norms; the cultural dimension addresses the transmission and negotiation of culture-specific meanings; and the communicative dimension focuses on achieving the intended communicative effect for the target audience [Hu, H. G. 3, p. 235-239].

Although Eco-Translatology was originally formulated with explicit interlingual translation in mind, its ecological perspective allows for extension to travel writing, where authors function as cultural mediators. In travelogues, writers such as James Gilmour implicitly translate culture-specific words by adapting them to the expectations, knowledge base, and ideological horizons of their readers. From this perspective, such domestication should not be interpreted as a lack of cultural sensitivity. On the contrary, Gilmour’s long-term residence among Mongolians, linguistic competence, and first-hand experience of nomadic life enabled him to make informed adaptive selections that balanced cultural representation with communicative effectiveness. These choices reflect a high degree of ecological adaptation rather than arbitrary simplification, as they are shaped by genre conventions, readership expectations, and the historical context in which the travelogue was produced.

In this study, Eco-Translatology is employed not merely as a descriptive framework but as an analytical tool to examine how Mongolian culture-specific words are selectively adapted across three dimensions. While the dimensions inevitably overlap in practice, they provide a structured means of examining the dominant orientation of each translational choice.

Among the Mongols by Rev. James Gilmour: In the 1870s, the Scottish-born Christian missionary James Gilmour traveled extensively throughout Mongolia on behalf of the London Missionary Society with the aim of spreading Christianity. Although his missionary efforts among the predominantly Buddhist Mongols achieved limited success, Gilmour immersed himself deeply in Mongolian society: he learned the Mongolian language, adopted local dress, and lived a nomadic life, thereby gaining first-hand experience of Mongolian culture and everyday practices. About his experience in Mongolia, James Gilmour, whose literary work serves as the primary source for this study, writes “…It is not a missionary's report nor a traveler’s diary, nor a student's compilation, but has for its source things seen, heard, and experienced by me while travelling with natives through the desert, sharing with them the hospitality of the wayside tent, taking my turn in the night-watch against thieves, resting in the comparative comfort of the portable cloth travelling tent, or dwelling as a lodger in their more permanent abodes of trellis-work, and felt while engaged first of all in learning the language and acquainting myself with the country, and afterwards in the prosecution of my missionary duties”  [James Gilmour. 4, p. vii].

After returning to Britain, he published his masterpiece Among the Mongols (1882), a detailed account of Mongolian beliefs, customs, and social life, as well as his missionary experiences. The book has attracted sustained scholarly and critical attention and has been praised as “the best book about Mongolia,” with one critic remarking that it reads as if “Robinson Crusoe has turned missionary, lived years in Mongolia, and wrote a book about it.” [5, James Gilmour (missionary) – Wikipedia || This is also mentioned (in one way or another) in numerous sources, e.g.: Dr. Howard Culbertson. Christian world missions timeline. Southern Nazarene University https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/line.htm].

The renowned scholar Owen Lattimore further observed “Gilmour’s sincere Christian convictions do not dominate the narrative; instead, the work is distinguished by the keen observations of an author who personally experienced Mongolian life, making it an indispensable classic in English-language writing on Mongolia” [6, Among the Mongols (1883) by James Gilmour | Goodreads]. In Among the Mongols, Gilmour offers detailed descriptions of the harsh climate, nomadic lifestyle, religious practices, social customs, and hardships encountered during his travels. Long after its initial publication, the book has continued to reintroduce Mongolia and the Mongols to Western readers and was translated into Mongolian in 2013 by Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary G. Ganbold.

Culture-specific words: Words and expressions that are deeply rooted in a particular culture and lack direct equivalents in other languages are commonly referred to as culture-specific words or realia. According to Vlakhov and Florin, who were among the first scholars to conduct a systematic study of this phenomenon, realia are words or phrases that denote objects, concepts, and phenomena characteristic of one nation’s way of life but unfamiliar or absent in another [Vlakhov Sergey, Florin Sider. 7, p. 10]. Similarly, Mongolian translation scholar Gurbazar defines culture-specific words and phrases as terms that name culturally unique objects and phenomena, reflecting distinctive features of a people’s way of life, customs, civilization, and social organization [R.Gurbazar. 8, p. 110-111]. Such terms often embody culturally specific concepts, practices, beliefs, and historical experiences, making them resistant to straightforward linguistic transfer. As a result, culture-specific words pose significant challenges in intercultural communication, since their translation requires more than simple lexical substitution. To convey their meaning effectively, translators must negotiate the cultural knowledge, values, and worldviews embedded in these expressions. The study of culture-specific words therefore occupies an important place in translation studies, as it offers critical insights into how cultures are represented, interpreted, and mediated across languages.

The translation of culture-specific words is essential for introducing the traditional life and cultural worldview of a people to foreign audiences. As the Mongolian scholar Bayansan observes, effective translation requires an accurate understanding of the worldview and mental characteristics of the source-language community, followed by careful comparison with those of the target culture. In the process of translation, cultural meanings may be partially reshaped or localized, and readers of the target text often come to perceive these localized expressions as authentic representations of the source culture’s mentality [J. Bayansan. 9, p. 4]. This observation underscores the interpretive and mediating role of the translator when engaging with culture-specific words.

Travelogues occupy a significant position in translation studies concerned with Mongolian culture-specific words. Western travelers encountered Mongolian life, culture, and material artifacts from the perspective of outsiders and mediated these experiences for readers in their own linguistic and cultural communities. In doing so, they developed translation strategies and variants that appeared “sound” and natural in English, contributing to coherence and readability in the target language. Moreover, the translational solutions found in these travelogues have exerted a lasting influence on the linguistic patterns of subsequent English representations of Mongolian culture-specific terms.

In the context of travel writing, this mediating role is particularly pronounced. When describing Mongolian culture and material artifacts, James Gilmour approached them from a European perspective and adapted his representations to the expectations and cultural knowledge of his English-speaking readership. Drawing on his prolonged experience among Mongolians, he employed a range of translational strategies—such as literal translation, borrowing, substitution with near equivalents, and explanatory additions including glosses and footnotes—reflecting adaptive selection within a specific translational eco-environment.

Based on this theoretical and contextual background, the present study identifies three dominant translational patterns in the rendering of Mongolian culture-specific words in Among the Mongols: explicative domestication, selective foreignization through transliteration, and hybrid strategies combining borrowing and explanation.

The following section provides a model three-dimensional Eco-Translatological analysis illustrating these patterns. A partial list of 20 analyzed terms and their English renderings is provided in Appendix A. These representative examples illustrate dominant patterns of adaptive selection across the linguistic, cultural, and communicative dimensions observed in the full dataset of approximately 100 terms. Here, we discuss selected examples to illustrate the principal translation strategies.

Results and discussion

Three-Dimensional Analysis: On several occasions, the Mongolian term “гэр” [ker], referring to the traditional Mongolian dwelling, is rendered as “Mongol tent” through a descriptive strategy oriented toward the target readership. For example, Gilmour writes: “After experiencing how easy it was to get on with Mongolian by living in a Mongol tent, I could not rest till I had installed myself in another…” (Gilmour, pg. 33, 39, 42, 43). Linguistically, this rendering employs a familiar English noun modified by a cultural marker, ensuring clarity and readability for English readers. Culturally, however, “гэр” denotes more than a simple tent, as it embodies the material, social, and symbolic dimensions of Mongolian nomadic life; translating it as “Mongol tent” simplifies these connotations and reduces the term to a generalized Western concept. From the communicative perspective, the translation effectively fulfills the author’s communicative intention by enabling immediate comprehension and maintaining narrative fluency in the target context. Viewed through Eco-Translatology, this rendering reflects an adaptive selection shaped by the English translational eco-environment, achieving communicative effectiveness and a relative ecological balance across the linguistic, cultural, and communicative dimensions, albeit at the expense of cultural specificity.

The Mongolian term тооно [tʰɔːn] is rendered as “hole in the roof”, as exemplified in the passage: “Let them make tea for you, and before you are asked to drink it a portion is thrown out by the hole in the roof of the tent, by way of offering” (Gilmour, 229). This translation conveys the physical function of the architectural feature while adapting it for comprehension by English readers. The term is rendered as “hole in the roof” through a descriptive paraphrase that conforms to English lexical and syntactic norms and ensures immediate comprehensibility for target readers. Linguistically, this choice prioritizes clarity and readability in the target language. Culturally, however, тооно refers not only to a physical opening but also to a structurally and symbolically significant component of the Mongolian “гэр” [ker], carrying architectural and cosmological meanings that are largely simplified in the translation. From the communicative perspective, the rendering facilitates readers’ visualization of everyday nomadic life and effectively fulfills the author’s descriptive intention in the target context, although cultural depth is subordinated to narrative fluency. Viewed through Eco-Translatology, this translation reflects adaptive selection shaped by the English translational eco-environment, achieving communicative effectiveness while resulting in a partial reduction of cultural specificity.

The Mongolian term аргал [arqəɬ] is rendered as “Argol, the dried dung of animals,” as illustrated in the passage: “…Argol, the dried dung of animals, is the common fuel of Mongolia…” (Gilmour, 40). This translation combines transliteration and explanatory gloss to convey both linguistic form and cultural function. Аргал [arqəɬ]  is rendered as “argol, the dried dung of animals” through a hybrid strategy combining transliteration with an explanatory gloss. Linguistically, this approach retains the foreign form while ensuring intelligibility for English readers. Culturally, аргал denotes a culturally embedded fuel central to Mongolian nomadic life, and the explicit explanation conveys its practical function, preventing misunderstanding or exoticized interpretations by Western readers. From the communicative perspective, the extended explanation serves the author’s informative and corrective purpose by challenging readers’ preconceptions. Viewed through Eco-Translatology, this adaptive selection enables the cultural meaning of аргал to be effectively maintained and function within the target context, achieving a balance between foreignness and communicative clarity.

There are several instances in which the author employs general English terms to render Mongolian garments. For example, the Mongolian garment дээл [teːɬ] is translated as “coat,” while дах [taχ] is rendered as “robe” or “overcoat,” as illustrated in the following passages: “The little fellows are pleased enough to put on a red coat, have their heads shaven, carry about the leaf of a Tibetan book between two boards, and be saluted as lama,” and “The nights were of course much colder, but in their great sheepskin robes and shaggy goatskin overcoats the Mongols seemed to stand it well …” (Gilmour, 42, 250).

Translation of дээл [teːɬ] with “coat,” a general English term that reflects adaptation to target-language conventions and ensures immediate intelligibility. Linguistically, this choice facilitates fluency but neutralizes the cultural specificity of дээл, which differs markedly from a Western coat in structure and social meaning. As a result, cultural meaning is simplified in favor of readability, and the translation primarily serves the author’s communicative intention of maintaining narrative flow without explanatory interruption. By contrast, дах [taχ] is rendered as “sheepskin robe” or “goatskin overcoats,” a descriptive compound noun that more explicitly conveys both material and function. Linguistically precise and culturally informative, this rendering preserves essential aspects of nomadic clothing practices and environmental adaptation, allowing the cultural meaning to survive more fully within the target translational ecology. From a communicative perspective, both choices support the author’s depiction of Mongolian daily life for foreign readers, but they represent different patterns of adaptive selection: the former prioritizes fluency through generalization, while the latter achieves greater cultural retention through descriptive specification.

Finally, the translations of artefacts such as хийморийн дарцаг [xiːmœriin tarʦʰək] and уурганы мод [oːrəqni mɔt] illustrate adaptive selection through functional and descriptive strategies, as shown in the following examples: “Approach tents, and the prominent object is a flagstaff with prayer-flags fluttering at the top,” and “The Mongols have, therefore, to buy in Kalgan or Urga the long fishing-rod-like birch poles used in catching their horses” (Gilmour, 84, 229).

The Mongolian term хийморийн дарцаг [xiːmœriin tarʦʰək] is rendered as “prayer flag,” employing a functional equivalent that is familiar to Western readers and facilitates immediate comprehension. Linguistically, this choice adapts the expression to target-language conventions while retaining its religious function. Culturally, although the translation does not fully convey the specific spiritual concept of хийморь, associated with life force or spiritual vitality, it preserves the core ritual function of the object, allowing its cultural significance to survive in a generalized form. A similar strategy is evident in the rendering of уурганы мод [oːrəqni mɔt] as “long fishing-rod-like birch poles used in catching their horses,” where a detailed descriptive paraphrase is used to prioritize clarity and precision. This explanation effectively transmits both form and function, enabling target readers to understand the associated nomadic practice with minimal cultural loss. From the communicative perspective, both translations fulfill the author’s ethnographic and explanatory intentions by situating unfamiliar cultural elements within an accessible cognitive framework. Viewed through Eco-Translatology, these renderings exemplify adaptive selection oriented toward functional retention, achieving communicative effectiveness while allowing key cultural practices to remain intelligible within the English translational eco-environment.

Conclusion

Translation is a complex task, particularly in the case of culture-specific words, which pose significant challenges in intercultural communication. Over several generations, Western travelers who engaged closely with Mongolian life and culture produced extensive travel writings that interpreted and mediated Mongolian traditions for foreign audiences. Through their travelogues, these authors rendered Mongolian culture-specific words accessible to their compatriots by employing strategies such as borrowing, substitution with near equivalents, and explanatory additions that conformed to the linguistic and cultural norms of the target context.

It is important to note that alternative translations of Mongolian culture-specific words, especially those produced from a Mongolian perspective, often prioritize source-cultural fidelity and terminological precision. While such approaches preserve cultural specificity more fully, they may also produce a stronger sense of alienation for target readers unfamiliar with Mongolian culture. In contrast, the travel writers examined in this study – drawing on years of lived experience among Mongolians – tended to favor adaptive strategies that foreground intelligibility and communicative accessibility. From an Eco-Translatological perspective, these differences should not be evaluated hierarchically but rather understood as outcomes of distinct translational eco-environments that call for different forms of adaptive selection. Although approximately 100 Mongolian culture-specific items were identified and analyzed, this article has focused on a limited number of representative examples due to space constraints. These examples were selected because they most clearly illustrate the dominant patterns of adaptive selection across the linguistic, cultural, and communicative dimensions observed in the broader dataset. Overall, the analysis demonstrates that the mediation of Mongolian culture-specific words in Among the Mongols involves adaptive selection across linguistic, cultural, and communicative dimensions. The traveler-author employs strategies such as paraphrase, transliteration, functional equivalence, and explanation to adapt to the English translational eco-environment. These adaptive selections reveal a general tendency toward domestication aimed at enhancing readability and communicative effectiveness, while selectively retaining foreign cultural elements. Although some cultural meanings are simplified or generalized, the translations largely achieve ecological balance, enabling Mongolian cultural elements to survive and function in the target context and to fulfill the author’s intended communicative purpose.

References:

1. Hu, H. G. Eco-Translatology: A New Paradigm of Eco-translation －A Comparative Study on Approaches to Translation Studies, Beijing: – 2016. – 9-11 pp. [in English]
2. Cay Dollerup. An introduction to Eco-Translatology: A Chinese Approach to Translation, Helsinki: – 2013. – 5 pp. [in English]
3. Hu, H. G. Eco-Translatology: Towards an Eco-paradigm of Translation Studies. Singapore, Springer: – 2020. – 235-239 pp [in English]
4. James Gilmour. Among the Mongols, London: – 1882. – vii pp. [in English]
5. James Gilmour (missionary) - Wikipedia || This is also mentioned (in one way or another) in numerous sources, e.g.: Dr. Howard Culbertson. Christian world missions timeline. Southern Nazarene University https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/line.htm
6. Among the Mongols (1883) by James Gilmour | Goodreads
7. Vlakhov Sergey, Florin Sider. The untranslatable in Translation (Непереводимое в переводе). Москва: Международные Отношения: –1980 – 10 pp. [in Russian]
8. Gurbazar, R. Fundamentals of Translation Theory & Practice, Ulaanbaatar: –1996. – 110-111 pp, [in Mongolian]
9. Bayansan, J. Culture, Language, National Mentality, Ulaanbaatar:  – 2002. – 4 pp [in Mongolian]
10. James Gilmour. Among the Mongols, London: – 1882. [in English]
11. Electronic resource www.mongoltoli.mn