1. Introduction

In the present era, the landscape of Translation Studies (from now on, TS) has witnessed a transformative evolution in its linguistic, cognitive, and cultural dimensions. This advancement has occurred due to integrating innovative, inspiring theoretical frameworks within the domain of language-related studies. This is primarily shaped by the emergence of challenging paradigms like English as an International Language (Sharifian, 2009, 2014, 2017c) or English as a Lingua Franca (House, 2024; Mair, 2024) and World Englishes (Mair, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023; Sharifian, 2015b; Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2019; Sharifian & Sadeghpour, 2020, 2021). On the one hand, the concept of English as an International Language the concept of English as an International Language mainly deals with the widespread use of English as the dominant, “obvious transitional lingua franca” (Mair, 2024, p. 255) for intercultural communication across the globe. Commonly known as globalization, this phenomenon, in the context of language learning, generally refers to the processes by which increased global interconnectivity and interdependence drive the spread and acquisition of dominant, ‘global’ language(s) as essential tools for cross-cultural communication, economic participation, and access to global opportunities. The advent of recent waves of “globalisation, and in particular the three M-s” –migration, media, and mobility— have profoundly changed the world’s language ecology over the past three decades” (Mair, 2017, p. 83). In fact, according to Mair (2021), “no analysis of global English is satisfactory unless it takes into account the multilingual contexts in which the global language is used” (p. 28).

On the other hand, World Englishes celebrates the diverse local variations of English produced by the so-called non-native speakers through the process of localization. According to Heidari Tabrizi and Chalak (2025), English is “employed ‘globally’ to negotiate various systems with speakers of World Englishes, and simultaneously used to interact ‘locally’ with associates of the same cultural background”. The consensus between these two perspectives can be encapsulated best in the illustrious ethos: Think globally, act locally. This dual and concurrent localisation phenomenon stemming from globalization is named glocalization. To make the two ends of a continuum meet, the process of glocalization involves interacting with the “modification of a global product to meet local needs and norms” (Sharifian, 2018a, p.1).

The decisive transition from English as a Foreign or Second Language (EFL/ESL) to the paradigm of English as an International Language and the recognition of English varieties shaped by different cultural contexts by the appearance of the World Englishes paradigm necessitated a reevaluation of the significance of culture in language-related studies. Currently, as Mair (2021) proclaims, “most heated language-ideological debates revolve around lingua-franca uses of English” (p. 28). With the increasing opportunities for cross-cultural interactions due to advances made in global mobility, according to Sharifian (2013c, 2013d, 2018b, 2018c), the focus has shifted towards generally prioritizing intercultural communication, cultural awareness and inclusivity and, more specifically, to developing intercultural competence. This shift necessitates modern alternatives, sophisticated approaches, and methodologies to become involved in studying concepts and contexts in language and culture.

As to Cultural Linguistics (CL), according to Sharifian (2011, 2015a, 2017a, 2017d), in the new millennium, such an interdisciplinary approach is relatively young. The CL approach has revealed its potential as a robust theoretical framework and a heuristic analytical instrument. Originating from multiple disciplines, CL offers the means to assess the intricate correlations between language and culture by highlighting the dynamic nature of cultural conceptualizations (CCs). At the core of this theoretical framework resides the central concept of CCs, which form the basis for language use. The theoretical notion of cultural competence is purported to rationalize the variations in an individual’s awareness concerning these culturally delineated elements. Sharifian claims that, generally speaking, “any area of inquiry that involves the interaction between culture and language will significantly benefit from adopting the framework of Cultural Linguistics” (Sharifian, 2015a, p. 488). He asserts that applying the CL framework has “enabled fruitful investigations of the cultural grounding of language in several applied domains” (p. 473) across neighboring disciplines. One such domain, among others, is the field of TS, along with its various subfields.

Thus, the present paper attempts to demonstrate the CL approach’s potential contributions to TS. As a starting point, it is more convenient to provide a concise overview of the principles and practices of the relatively novel interdisciplinary field of CL. This synopsis is followed by a critical state-of-the-art account of translation and its expanded definition in the (post)digital revolution era. Then, the paper explores the possible applications of the theoretical and analytical frameworks of CL to TS, identifies the areas in which the interplay between the two disciplines is most likely to be fruitful for TS, and determines the implications of as well as the future directions in such an interdisciplinary venture.

2. Cultural Linguistics (CL): Basic Premises

Studying the symbiotic correlations between language and culture, together with the call for a rigorous theory and systematic assessing framework, has been and is an ongoing pursuit. Historically, research inquiries into the interplay of language and culture, as “the two major factors of ‘soft power’” (in the words of Mair, 2021, p. 28), faced challenging criticisms stemming from several reasons. The essential issue is the vague definitions of culture, which are subject to the intricate ontological and epistemological inherent complexity and the abstract nature of the elastic term culture, which leads to varying interpretations among scholars and researchers. Any attempt to define culture both theoretically and practically fosters divergent conceptualizations and poses significant challenges. This vagueness often leads to the formation of stereotypes, the tendency to make broad generalizations, and the “essentializing speakers” risk (Sharifian, 2017a). Moreover, within the scope of such assessments, culture is often conceptualized and approached to as a fixed set of facts shared uniformly among language users, perpetuating a static perspective. According to Palmer’s (1996) ‘theory of cultural linguistics’ stands out among the pioneer contributions in studying the uncontested duo, which, according to Kramsch (2015) is to transcend this perceived problem. His theory, centered on a cognitive perspective, revolves primarily around the culturally constructed and defined imagery concept. Nowadays, Palmer is highly credited for laying the groundwork for what has evolved into the internationally renowned domain of study known as CL.

Sharifian (2011, 2017a, 2017b, 2017d) advanced the CL discipline by introducing a more precise sense to this term. Based on the language-thought-culture paradigm, CL can be construed as an emerging study domain that deals with “understanding the correlations among language, culture, and conceptualization” (Sharifian & Sadeghpour, 2021, p. 2). In this article, the CL theoretical and analytical frameworks are explained first and next some critical reflections on its approach and methodology are provided.

2.1. Theoretical Frameworks of the CL Approach

2.1.1. Cultural Cognition and Conceptualizations

CL’s theoretical framework is mainly based on cultural cognition and language. To avoid the ambiguous, obscure term culture, Sharifian (2013b) applies a more dynamic, adaptable concept of CCs as a process of meaning construction by replacing the abstract, static portrayal of culture as an inflexible analytical instrument. Within the CL framework, language is “firmly grounded in a group-level cognition that emerges from the interactions between the members of a cultural group” (Sharifian, 2013b, p. 1). In brief, cultural cognition is described as “networks of distributed representations across the minds in cultural groups” (Sharifian, 2011, p. 5). According to Frank (2015), cultural cognition is “a form of cognition that ... is not represented simply as some sort of abstract disembodied ‘between the ears’ entity” (p. 494). As a dynamic notion that is subject to continues negotiation and renegotiation, cultural cognition “embraces the cultural knowledge that emerges from the interactions between members of a cultural group across time and space” (Sharifian, 2015a, p. 476). To Sharifian (2017a), cultural cognition is a key feature of CL, where language, as one strategic aspect of cultural cognition, serves simultaneously as a “collective memory bank” and “a fluid vehicle for the (re-)transmission of cultural cognition” (p. 2).

As a relatively new multidisciplinary field of inquiry, CL is highly applicable next to substantial contributions to many fields while intersecting with disciplines like English as an International Language, World Englishes, cross-cultural pragmatics, intercultural communication, and political discourse analysis, eventually enriching and being enriched by these engagements (Sharifian 2011, 2017a, 2017d, 2018b, 2018c, Sharifian & Sadeghpour, 2021). Just like other cognitive sciences, in CL, culture is viewed as a cognitive system intricately linked to language. This connection stems from the conceptual faculties inherent in humans who apply language as a means of expression. However, Sharifian (2013d) argues that CL is different in terms of the much greater importance it gives to “the cultural construction of the conceptualisations that serve as the basis for particularly the semantic and pragmatic components of language” (p. 5). He illuminates that at the heart of CL lies the concept of meaning as conceptualization.

By emphasizing disseminated, culturally-built conceptualizations (rather than just culture) heterogeneously, according to Sharifian and Sadeghpour (2021), CL “explores how features of human languages and language varieties are entrenched in cultural conceptualisations” (p. 1), exhibiting diversity inter and intra groups and individuals. Sharifian (2013a) advocates for embracing such diversity (i.e., language users’ varieties and variations) in CCs, particularly in English as an International Language context, by viewing them “as assets rather than liabilities” (p.111). Underscoring the diversity in cultural understanding and cognition throughout language speakers within a social community, the advocates of this perspective reject the notion of shared homogeneous, uniformly, absolutely defined cultural norms as assumed universals, advocating for recognition of the diversity of cultural understandings and access to CCs by language users. Instances of miscommunication in intercultural encounters signal the cross-cultural variations in the manners where culturally heterogeneous interlocutors conceptualize their feelings, thoughts, and experiences; consequently, Xu (2017) argues that CCs act as “a dynamic, ongoing, and interactive process of cultural cognition, (re)schematisation, and (re)negotiation among members of cultural communities” (p. 705). CCs are typically indexed by many forms and features of human languages. The more CCs shared by the individuals involved in intercultural communication, the greater the possibility of reading between the lines (even above/below) and making indirect inferences and conjectures, with a low possibility of miscommunication.

Sharifian (2013d) explains that CCs usually “feed into the semantic and pragmatic levels of meaning, providing speakers with pools of meaning which are to some extent shared across the community of speakers” (pp. 6-7). Within the CL framework, CCs are typically manifested, embodied, and reflected in many aspects and forms of natural languages or cultural formations, like religious rituals, paintings, and literature. These personifications are not limited to verbal forms and can be embedded in non-verbal forms (e.g., in silence) using paralinguistic devices; for instance, in ELT textbooks, CCs are entrenched in texts and illustrations (Heidari Tabrizi & Chalak, 2025). In brief, the primary theoretical units of CL are brought together in the collective term CC to refer to the outcomes of human cognition processing (Sharifian, 2011, 2017a, 2017d).

2.1.2. Metacultural Competence

Another essential part of the CL theoretical framework is metacultural competence, which is defined as the ability to navigate and mediate among multiple cultural conceptual systems (Sharifian, 2013c, 2013d, 2018b, 2018c). Metacultural competence is a new element of the revisited and expanded notion of language proficiency. Within the perspective of English as an International Language, the primary objective of English language instruction is to foster the acquisition of abilities that empower language learners to engage effectively and adaptably with diverse speakers during intercultural interactions. Among these interwoven proficiencies stands Sharifian’s metacultural competence. As a progeny of the CL theoretical framework, this variety of competence enables language users to navigate intercultural communications smoothly next to becoming aware of their own cultural identity and biases. As the ultimate objective of ELT curricula, this competence, when acquired by language learners, can enable them to act as “effective and strategic translanguaging users of English in multilingual communication contexts” (Xu, 2017, p. 704). According to Sharifian (2018b), “unlike very broad and binary notions of culture (source culture versus target culture), the concept of metacultural competence focuses on a dynamic and pluralistic view of cultural encounters and experiences” (p. 262), by focusing on CCs rather than culture itself. Metacultural competence “develops due to the exposure to and familiarity with different cultural conceptualizations associated with English” (Sharifian, 2018c, p.2).

Metacultural competence embodies awareness of conceptual variations, strategies for explication, and negotiation (Sharifian, 2018c). Being aware of conceptual variations is an essential aspect of metacultural competence, which “develops from the awareness that one language can be used by different speech communities to express differing cultural conceptualizations and is further consolidated as a result of growing familiarity with the different systems of cultural conceptualizations used by interlocutors” (Sharifian, 2013c, p. 74). Metacultural competence extends beyond mere awareness-raising to embody the development of abilities necessary for successful intercultural communication, like adopting strategies like explication and negotiation. Explication strategy involves intentional efforts made by speakers to elucidate strange, ‘foreign’ CCs for other interlocutors engaged in cross-cultural communication. The objective of this strategy is to describe the CCs by explanation. The complement to the explication strategy is negotiation, like pursuing clarification of CCs, which enhances the smoothness and effectiveness of interaction among language users involved in intercultural communications. This phenomenon could be illustrated by requesting elucidation of seemingly obvious concepts and expressions, which conceal much deeper layers of meaning. The principal elements of metacultural competence, as articulated by Sharifian, are shown in Figure (1).

Figure 1. Principal Elements of Metacultural Competence (Adopted from Schluer, 2021, p. 209)

2.2. Analytical Frameworks of the CL Methodology

The central analytical tools of CCs within the CL framework embrace the cultural schemas, cultural categories, and cultural metaphors as key concepts, each with a distinct yet closely interlocked contribution in mapping the complex connections between language and CCs.

2.2.1. Cultural Schemas

As the first key component of the CCs, cultural schemas are defined by Sharifian (2021) as the “beliefs, norms, rules, and expectations of behaviour and values relating to different aspects and components’ experience” (p. 10). These schemas, endlessly negotiated and renegotiated from one situation to another, are cognitively developed at the cultural groups’ level, not individuals; they emerge as a consequence of the interactions among the minds forming the cultural community. In brief, according to Sharifian and Sadeghpour (2021), these macro-level “cultural schemas capture encyclopaedic meaning that is culturally constructed for lexical items of human languages” (p. 3). For instance, the cultural schema of FRIENDSHIP is the interconnected networks of ideas delineating ‘friendship’ concerning diverse settings and variables. Every individual collects and internalizes the cultural schemas by interacting with other cultural community members. Cultural schemas are not picked up in a homogeneously dispersed manner. As explained by Sharifian (2017b), “some, but not all, components of a cultural schema” (p. 61) are acquired by each member of the same cultural community. Cultural schema internalization is a process that is partly shared and partly idiosyncratic. Sharifian concludes that “cultural schemas capture pools of knowledge that provide a basis for a significant portion of semantic and pragmatic meanings in human languages” (p. 480).

According to Sharifian (2011), cultural schemas should not be seen as fixed, universally shared repositories of knowledge, and as a major category of CCs, he argues that their nature “does not lend itself to such reductionist accounts” (p. 11). An extensive description of different categories of cultural schemas is available in one of the earlier works of Sharifian (2011, pp. 8-11), where he refers to event, role, image, proposition, and emotion schemas explicitly. Moreover, context schema, procedure schema, and strategy schema can also be incorporated into his taxonomy.

2.2.2. Cultural Categories

As another analytical tool, CCs apply the cultural categories defined by Sharifian (2011) “as patterns of distributed knowledge across a cultural group” (p. 5), entailing “those culturally constructed conceptual categories that are primarily reflected in the lexicon of human languages” (Sharifian, 2017b, p. 4). Categorization is a cornerstone of cognitive function inherent to all human beings, where objects, events, and human experiences are classified into culturally loaded cognitive categories. These categories, built around diverse domains like age, correlations, and food, contribute to the formation of networks and hierarchies, with linguistic lexical items acting as labeling terms for the categories and their instances. The lexico-grammatical system of a language typically encodes cultural categories, where the words food and fast food denote a category, and its subcategory, and instances of that category can be words like hamburger, pizza, and pasta. It is important to note that cultural categorizations are not merely labels, but they are associated with specific linguistic and behavioral expectations and standards. Language users of different cultural backgrounds may have the same or different sets of CCs for a given cultural category.

2.2.3. Cultural Metaphors

Another component of CCs is the concept of cultural conceptual metaphor, which has its roots in cultural systems. Within the CL framework, cultural metaphor holds significant importance as it directs attention toward assessing the cultural underpinnings of metaphorical expressions. Sharifian (2017b) describes cultural metaphors as instances of “cross-domain conceptualizations containing their conceptual basis grounded in cultural traditions” (p. 4). Sharifian (2013a) defines cross-domain conceptualizations as “cognitive structures that allow us to understand one conceptual domain in terms of another” (p. 1591). For instance, in societies shaped by clock and calendar systems, time is characteristically perceived as money, represented in linguistic metaphorical expressions such as saving, spending, wasting, or budgeting one’s time.

Another example is the instantiations of human body parts applied in culturally mediated conceptualizations of an individual’s emotions and beliefs, known as embodiment (THE HEART AS THE SEAT OF LOVE). Likewise, Chalak (in press) argues that taboos, as culture-specific and culturally loaded lexical items, and their suitability or “inappropriateness can be interpreted differently by its users in different sociocultural settings”; moreover, “due to the changes in the language and culture and globalization, the concept of taboo is changing in different societies among the new generations.” Sharifian (2015a) argues that “many aspects of human languages are closely linked with cultural metaphors” (p. 482). According to Sharifian (2017b), “in terms of their cognitive and linguistic status and… processing” (p. 18), these metaphors are best treated along a continuum (moving from the worldview-metaphor end to the most rhetorical, figure-of-speech end).

These conceptual structures help language speakers understand a variety of culturally determined encounters. The process of interpreting one domain in terms of another through analogy is shaped by culturally negotiated and cognitively constructed factors, evolving through social interaction over time in specific contexts. The analogous correlations between particular lexical items and their associated meanings are not universal but culture-specific. In brief, these cross-domain conceptualizations, rooted in cultural belief systems, traditions, and practices, shape language users’ interpretations and behaviors in social interactions, both within and across cultures. These cultural systems encompass worldviews, sociocultural norms, practices in ethno-medicine (folk medicine), and spiritual religious systems (beliefs and values).

The components of the theoretical and analytical frameworks of CL, elucidating how CCs embody different linguistic features and levels and how they are reflected, indexed, and entrenched by language, are shown in Figure (2), where the ground for exploring CCs and their manifestation in language is paved.

Figure 2- CL’s Theoretical and Analytical Frameworks (based on Sharifian, 2017b, p. 6)

2.3. Reflections on CL Approach and Methodology

The CL approach and methodology offer valuable insights into the intersection of language and culture, emphasizing that linguistic meaning is often culturally oriented rather than universally shared. Through analyzing cultural schemas, metaphors, and categories, CL allows us to uncover subtle, culturally specific meanings that might otherwise go unnoticed. Because CL faces some controversial issues, it should be applied cautiously. Most scholars have applied the CL approach and methodology in their empirical studies; recent improvements are evident in the analytical tools. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, significant theoretical advancements are yet to be made beyond Sharifian’s seminal works. We believe that CL theoretical and analytical frameworks should be extended and expanded in order to confront the following challenges.

In the CL approach, culture is seen as a cognitive system intricately interconnected to language. One may argue that since language, culture, and communication fundamentally constitute the social constructs, how would it be feasible to confine them within a cognitive framework? This statement however true, does not preclude them from being understood through a cognitive lens. In CL, culture is viewed not merely as a set of social norms or practices but as a cognitive system that influences how individuals perceive and interact with the world. This view corresponds with the notion that our understanding of language is grounded in our embodied experiences, shaped by cultural contexts. It is acknowledged that reducing language and culture solely to cognitive systems can be restrictive, while, CL seeks to bridge this gap by examining the dynamic interplay between cognitive processes and social constructs. While CL emphasizes cognition, it does not ignore the broader social dimensions of language use; in CL these two constructs as interdependent. Sharifian (2011) argued that cultural cognition, as an emergent system, is the direct result of the “interactions among the members of a cultural group across time and space” (p. 21). In brief, how CL provides valuable insights into the cognitive underpinnings of cultural phenomena while recognizing their social nature is highlighted here. This dual perspective enriches understanding of language as a tool for both individual cognition and collective cultural expression.

The primary conceptual concern here is related to CCs as the cornerstone of the CL approach, with the believe that Sharifian did not adequately elaborate on where CCs originate from or whether they are linked to or grounded in the values upheld by a group. Sharifian’s articles and contributions made to his approach by others have not provided a comprehensive analysis of the exact nature of the interplay between CCs and values, though it is generally known that cultural values crucially account for cultural differences. Moreover, the CL analytical framework apparently consists of three overlapping interconnected mechanisms, each with its interrelated sub-classes, thus forming complex CC networks. For example, Sharifian and Tayebi (2017) argue that “the cultural schema of adab [politeness] is an over-arching macro schema that includes several lower-level cultural [sub]-schemas” (p. 395) like TA’AROF (the language of politeness and praise), RUDARBÂYESTI (modesty), SHARMANDEGI (the feeling of being ashamed), SHEKASTEH-NAFSi, and ÂBERU (honor). From a bird’s view, it seems that some criteria are missing in the CL frameworks for determining which ones are schemas, categories, or metaphors and which are to be recognized as such in a given culture. For instance, how can we determine whether MEHMANNAVAZI (hospitality) is a cultural schema or not?

The main methodological concern here is that the CL frameworks lack rigorous empirical grounding and highly rely on inevitable subjective interpretations of CCs; that is, intuitive knowledge often overshadows empirical evidence due to a lack of logical coherence in the methodologies adopted in the CL frameworks. Some relevant tools should be developed to establish intersubjective agreement for determining and classifying CCs. Likewise, it is clear how much data is required for a given schema, category, or metaphor to reach empirical adequacy in order to be documented as a CC. Moreover, it is necessary to assess whether CCs adopt a bottom-up, inductive, or top-down, deductive method.

Another controversial issue here is related to challenges that CL may face regarding cross-cultural applicability and globalization. With increased intercultural interactions and the widespread ideas of the world, languages are constantly borrowing and adapting cultural concepts from one another. This fluidity can be a challenge to CL’s ability to clearly delineate culture-specific meanings, especially in multilingual or cosmopolitan settings. For instance, cultural metaphors may not remain stable as languages interact and communities adopt words or concepts from one another by reshaping meanings on this path. It can be argued that this approach may require an explanation of how shared meanings evolve in such hybrid cultural contexts. In this context, whether the theoretical constructs of CL can adapt to these cross-cultural, global influences is questionable.

Addressing these concerns requires flexible, context-sensitive approaches that balance the study of shared cultural meanings with an awareness of individual and cross-cultural variation. This balance allows the CL to remain a relevant and valuable framework in this increasingly interconnected world.

2.4. CL Practical Applications

During the past decade, it has become evident that CL can function effectively as a robust theoretical and analytical framework for assessing the complex interplay between language and CCs throughout academic disciplines. Above all, Sharifian’s (2017c) ground-breaking book, Advances in Cultural Linguistics, approves this claim. The book is a single volume, a compilation of 30 studies spanning a diverse range of subjects, “from the very conceptualization of life and death to conceptualizations of emotion, body, humor, religion, gender, kinship, ageing, marriage, and politics” (Sharifian, 2017b, p. 26). Most recently, the Handbook of Cultural Linguistics (Korangy, 2024) covers a kaleidoscope of diverse contributions organized in 45 chapters, an allocation of the theories and trends of CL, and empirical studies mainly on Persian and global CL. As promoted in its short promotional description, this handbook provides “a comprehensive introduction to issues regarding cultural linguistics, by addressing the peculiarities of the field under the rubric of localized studies, and speaking to the possibilities”. Likewise, Wolf et al. (2017), in their editorial published in the International Journal of Language and Culture on CL Contributions to World Englishes, affirm that with “a broad range of applicability and a rich array of methodological approaches…, CL provides a vast meeting ground for scholars working in different frameworks in different perspectives” (p. 121). These applied domains of assessments in the realm of language studies may include, but are not limited to, pedagogy and practice in the context of English as an International Language, World Englishes, and intercultural communication, among others.

For instance, to explore intercultural communication, CL offers a theoretical-analytical framework that is strongly interpretive and meaning-oriented in nature, as Sharifian (2013c) has illustrated. The term intercultural communication has gained an expanded definition and conceptualization in the new millennium due to the ever-increasing processes of globalization, digitalization (technological advances including online social media platforms and networks as well as interactive, virtual, telecollaborative, web-based tools), and international mobilization. According to Sharifian (2018c), these processes introduced a transformative shift in the contexts, the channels, and the contents of intercultural communication, making it “the default context of communication in everyday life” (p. 260). For many people, especially those living in multicultural settings, acknowledging intercultural communication is not just an asset but a must, constituting “an integral component of global citizenship of this millennium” (p. 266). Thus, in recent years, intercultural communication has entailed a promising “meeting place” (Sharifian, 2015a, p. 487) or a point for different cultural systems to meet the conceptual level. Accordingly, CCs, as a core element to the CL framework, may offer a basis for analyzing intercultural meanings, which are eventually constructed, interpreted, recognized, and negotiated in terms of their CCs in intercultural communications among language users with different cultural backgrounds (Sharifian, 2013c), next to impede mutual understanding, which often leads to detrimental miscommunication among speakers in intercultural encounters due to their unfamiliarity with different CCs systems.

Recently, researchers have also been attracted to studying different facets and features of the ELT curricula (such as instructional materials and textbook evaluation) through the lens of the CL framework. As an example, Peters and Mundt (2021) introduced some “novel applications of the cultural-linguistic paradigm in the pedagogy of languages, expanding the scope by contributing insights that are built upon a solid empirical basis” (p. 16). In this edited collection, Schluer (2021) applied a video-based cooperative approach to explore the crucial contribution of L2 metacultural competence in interpreting, elucidating, and negotiating CCs in a receptive language skill (English reading). Most recently, Alemi and Tajeddin (2025) edited a collection of empirically-based studies, all framed by the CL approach, where the ELT curriculum and textbooks are involved. In the same collection, Heidari Tabrizi and Chalak (2025) assessed the CCs of friendship as included in the verbal and visual contents of locally produced English textbooks used in Iranian ELT institutes. Researchers Dabbagh and Atai (2022), Dinh (2017), Dinh and Sharifian (2017, 2021), and Xu (2017) applied the CL-oriented framework to pedagogy and practice in the English context as an International Language. 

The CL methodology is gaining momentum in the TS community because the application of CL to different areas of TS is assumed to be promising. In one of the pioneer studies, Heydon and Kianbakht (2020) proposed a model of analysis based on the CL framework and its CCs for translating humor as a culturally built concept to arrive at a taxonomy of culturally loaded conceptual structures. In another study, Kianbakht (2020), for the first time, applied this framework to address the much-debated concept of equivalence through the CC perspective and introduced the ‘cultural conceptual model of equivalence’, which he claims “is capable of capturing, unpacking, and analyzing cultural conceptualizations underlying lexical items in the source text, and deconstructing them into new linguistic reality of the target text” (p. 139). Likewise, by applying the CL conceptual framework, Hrystiv (2020) assessed the perspective of English translation and found that ethnolinguistic-positioned metacultural competence is helpful in teaching translation and training translators. Although the findings of these pioneer studies are rather immature and inconclusive, they attest to the CL’s capacity to enrich TS, indicating the urgent need for further research studies. Before discussing the possible domains of TS benefiting from the CL theoretical and analytical frameworks, first, it is necessary to revisit the modern concept of translation in the era of the (post)digital revolution.

3. Translation Concept Revisited

The translation conceptualization, as well as its vastness, has undergone substantial transformation due to the rapid proliferation of hyper and multimodal artifacts disseminated extensively across expansive spatial and temporal realms (Meylaerts & Marais, 2023). This evolution is concurrent with the fading predominance of written literary texts, which are traditionally regarded as the main focus of any translational endeavor. The evolutionary process has prompted a reassessment of conventional definitions and methodologies in the field of translation, necessitating broader conceptual frameworks to delve into the nuanced dynamics of translation in its entirety, embracing the diversity and richness of translation practices. In the contemporary discourse, translation is no longer perceived solely as the act of transferring meaning between languages, nor are translators viewed simply as language mediators. The third millennium is witnessing a paradigmatic “major shift in translation studies … distanced from text- and linguistically-oriented approaches to socially and culturally oriented ones due to what is usually known as the cultural turn where one does not translate languages but cultures” (House, 2015, p. 6).

The term cultural turn/shift is applied in TS to recognize the significance of culture as an integral part of all translation activities. TS has developed a rich body of studies to assess the cultural features and facets of the translation process, like the contribution of intercultural mediation, “the impact of the receiving culture in the translation process, the norms that govern the translation process, and the strategies and mechanisms applied in making the translation culturally acceptable to the target audience” (Jiménez-Crespo, 2024, p. 81) or the power of translation to shape cultural conceptualizations and representations mediated by language. Carbonell and Harding (2018) focused on these varying interdisciplinary contributions to study cultures and their substantial debates as informed by TS and addressing the fundamental themes and topics of the theory and practice of translation in their cultural sense by arguing that “any attempt at a theory of cultural translation tends to identify itself with a theory of translation proper, or a theory of cultural communication at large. Isn’t translation always cultural?” (p. 2) while the most crucial aspect is to provide a working definition of culture (and, obviously, of cultural translation) that forms the backbone” (p. 3).

The new millennium is witnessing the emergence of social networks, which have brought people together, interconnecting them as members of one global community (in the words of Noam Chomsky, ‘international integration’). Technology-facilitated mass communication allows people to connect with and be in contact with individuals across diverse cultural and geographical settings. The unleashed growth and ever-presence of new communication technologies have led to ever-increasing interactions among individuals who do not understand one another’s language or culture. Language has transformed from a typical means of communication into a barrier among human beings living in the so-called global village. As agents and driving forces of globalization (rather than its servants), translators are highly contributive in eliminating these linguistic and cultural barriers. Globalization has gained momentum because of translation as a promoting device. According to Cronin (2013), “Translation, in this context, is what makes globalization a reality. Translation accompanies the fluid extensivity culture and allows the channels of global exchange to flow” (p. 70). According to House (2024), “globalization and translation are intertwined: linguistic super-diversity across the globe is part of the globalization and of the growing necessity to translate” (p. 120). Globalization demonstrates the capacity of translation to serve as a key tool in fostering intercultural communication. Nowadays, a predominant proportion of translated documents exhibit a much more practical rather than literary orientation. The dynamic and ever-changing globalized digital environment demands the involvement of translation in a new, diverse array of emerging contexts and scenarios. In the present globalized setting, any communication across cultures is always mediated by translation. In an era characterized by expanding migratory networks and transnational residency, citizens in their daily lives are much more in demand of immediate better translation to help them overcome the barriers caused by not only linguistic but also cultural differences across many contents, contexts, and channels.

In addition, as Heidari Tabrizi and Chalak (in press) explained, “in recent two decades, by massive spread and proliferation of Social Networking Services (SNS) and the ever-increasing use of social media, a virtual dimension has been added to the daily face-to-face interactions” in human intra/intercultural communications. These fresh appreciations contest the prejudice favoring a specific mode of communication (namely, the exclusive emphasis on the ‘written’ aspect of language), which has historically resulted in severe limitations when exploring translation. Furthermore, conventional dichotomies that have shaped the translation conception, like original vs. translation, source vs. target, and domestication vs. foreignization, are being doubted and losing color. These dualities frequently function to confine and oversimplify the intricacies inherent in translation methodologies and practices. In its broader perspective, translation evolves into a dynamic, complex procedure that interacts with the intricacies of culture and communication in different scenarios. Heidari Tabrizi and House (in press) declare that “embracing this complexity allows for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to translation that acknowledges its role in shaping and mediating our interconnected global reality”. Meylaerts and Marais (2023) explain that “such expanded definitions consider translation not merely as a research object but also as a (research) practice, a process constructing, (re)assembling, and (re)connecting the social and as an inter-semiotic all-encompassing epistemological tool and ontological concept which produces knowledge” (p. 1).

Translation goes beyond content transfer among languages and entails processes like open negotiation, creative interpretation, and appropriate adoption. Almanna and House (2024) argue that translation is approached and studied by both researchers and translators as an intricate, multi-dimensional, ever-changing socio-psychological phenomenon. Likewise, House (2014, 2015, 2024) accentuates the significance concern of the cognitive and cultural aspects in translating as she considers it within the intercultural communication and socio-cognitive action frame and perceives it as an act of re-contextualization thus, a stretch of contextually embedded language. Translation embodies the involvement in cognitive processes and commitment to different social elements to manage intercultural disparities and achieve successful cross-cultural interaction. Such an expanded conceptualization of translation is evident in House’s (2001, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2024) framework, which is mainly based on approaching translation as intercultural communication and socio-cognitive endeavor. As to the existing linguistic gaps among cultures, translation makes communication feasible across linguistic borders. Translation requires a mastery of linguistic competence and demands cultural adeptness and sensitivity to navigate intercultural differences successfully (House, 2015).

4. Possible Applications of CL in the TS Context

Sharifian (2015a) believes that the CL theory and model are substantially and undeniably valuable for any field of study exploring the complex interplay among language and cognition and CCs. According to Yu (2007), CL “maintains that language is a cultural form and that conceptualizations underlying language and language use are largely formed or informed by cultural systems” (p. 65). Contemporary TS, as a field of study that assesses the contribution of translation as a cultural mediation in intercultural communication in this globalized digital world, definitely falls among such fields (Heidari Tabrizi, 2021a, 2021b, 2022a, 2022b, Heidari Tabrizi & Chalak, 2021, Heidari Tabrizi et al., 2008). At the macro-level, the CL theory can inform policymakers and curriculum designers involved in developing translation programs on the significance of incorporating metacultural competence in translation curricula for undergraduate and graduate studies. At its practical level, the CL analytical framework can be applied by practitioners in TS to address a wide range of translation issues and problems. All in all, the CL approach introduces a comprehensive and unified model to the interdisciplinary field of TS for systematically assessing different existing translation issues by appreciating the underlying CCs embedded within linguistic elements.

By assessing the elements embedded in languages, translators can do their job more effectively by addressing the sociocultural norms and CCs, next to the cultural connotations associated therein, that may otherwise be lost in translation. The CL framework, by applying CCs, transcends the constraints of conventional linguistic analysis in dealing with translation as intercultural communication by exploring the interplay of different facets of cultural cognition and their realizations in language. This approach fosters greater cross-cultural understanding and appreciation by transcending mere linguistic transfer to encompass the broader context in which language and culture systems operate.

4.1. Translation Pedagogy

As the contribution and status of translation are redefined in this digital era, translation pedagogy and training should be modified and adjusted to correspond with the new requirements of the translation activity as an intercultural mediation in an ever-changing glocalized market (Yazdani et al., 2020, 2023). Globalization has raised new concerns about the adequacy of conventional translation teaching and training practices in dealing with emerging needs. Nowadays, in educating and training prospective translators, the students are treated as interculturalists and social actors. Moreover, similar to translation practice, translation education, pedagogy, and translator training are deeply cross/intercultural in nature; accordingly, CL can play a pivotal role in educating competent translators for the translation industry by raising their awareness of cultural diversity and its impact on language use. CL provides educators with the necessary analytical tools for developing metacultural competence and understanding cultural schemas, categories, and metaphors. CL fosters cross-cultural communication skills essential for translators by giving them insights into how cultural conceptualizations shape linguistic expressions and helps them develop metacultural competence and an awareness of variations in CCs.

The translation curricula should offer students opportunities to cultivate their metacultural competence. They should include modules on CCs to equip students with analytical tools to decode cultural meanings embedded in language by incorporating relevant theoretical content and practical tasks like case studies and comparative analyses. This curriculum should include lessons on CCs in general and tasks for developing conceptual variation awareness, explication and negotiation strategies. In this manner, “the cultural backgrounds of learners become assets and resources enabling the students to reflect on their cultural conceptualizations and allow the development of the necessary skills to explicate these conceptualizations and address them with speakers from other cultural backgrounds” (Sharifian, 2018c, p. 5). Understanding CCs can promote translation strategies, for example, teachers should teach their students that when translating idioms, metaphors, or allusions, they can either find culturally equivalent expressions or provide explanations that convey the intended message.

Though the CL framework makes substantial contributions to translation pedagogy, its application is not without challenges. It requires educators to develop culturally diverse curricula and tasks and provide practical experiences that simulate real-world translation settings. Moreover, maintaining up-to-date knowledge of cultural trends and linguistic changes is essential in an ever-evolving globalized world. As to the availability of resources, developing comprehensive instructional/training materials that incorporate CL principles requires significant resources and expertise.

4.2. Postcolonial Translation

In parallel to issues of identity, representation, and power, postcolonial translation seeks to reclaim and evaluate the marginalized suppressed voices by the colonizer’s language and cultural norms. The colonial legacy is embedded in language and advocates for translations that reflect indigenous cultural and linguistic identities, which is criticized according to the postcolonial translation theory. The CL approach shares this perspective as it suggests that translation is not merely a linguistic transfer but a cultural transposition. By foregrounding cultural and cognitive aspects of language, CL provides a robust framework for producing translations that honor and reflect the cultural richness of the source text. Acknowledging the centrality of cultural translation in postcolonialism, Merrill (2013) supports that “If anything unites those working in the field of postcolonial translation, it is their commitment to investigating the cultural context of any act of translation” (p. 163). As postcolonial societies continue to navigate their linguistic and cultural landscapes, this approach is essential for fostering cross-cultural understanding and promoting the decolonization of translation practices.

One of the key contributions of CL to postcolonial translation is its focus on conceptual metaphors and cultural models. Translators equipped with CL can adopt strategies to recognize and preserve these conceptual metaphors and cultural models more effectively. CL underscores the ethical dimensions of postcolonial translation. Translators hold significant power in shaping how cultures are represented and understood. Awareness of cultural and cognitive frameworks can prevent the distortion or nullification of indigenous cultures. Ethical postcolonial translation practices involve not only linguistic competence and cultural sensitivity but also the commitment to decolonizing knowledge production. In postcolonial contexts, where translation is often a site of cultural negotiation and power dynamics, CL may provide functional devices and valuable insights for producing translations that are culturally and contextually resonant.

4.3. Corpus-based TS

Corpus linguistics provides a rich resource for analyzing language use across different cultural contexts. By assessing big digital multimodal corpora, translators can identify variations in language use that reflect cultural differences. The application of CL in this corpus, in translation, represents a synergistic approach that enhances translation quality and cultural appropriateness, allowing translators to avoid cultural bias. This approach is instrumental in understanding these variations, avoiding cultural misinterpretations, and assuring that the translation resonates with the target audience. For instance, humor, idiomatic expressions, and proverbs often carry deep cultural connotations that may not translate directly. CL-informed analyses of corpora help identify parallel expressions or proper adaptations that preserve the intended effect. CL-informed analyses allow researchers to identify recurrent patterns and expressions that uncover underlying cultural schemas. For example, by examining a bilingual corpus from a CL-oriented perspective, translators can discern how specific CCs are expressed differently in source and target languages. This awareness enriches cultural meanings’ preservation and avoids misinterpretations. As the globalized world continues to evolve, the integration of CL in translation corpus analysis remains pivotal in addressing the complexities of translation in a multicultural realm.

4.4. Media/News Translation

The media’s role in promoting global awareness is deeply intertwined with the translation practice, which has recently undergone significant transformations that extend beyond the endemic concept of translation. The pivotal role assumed by the translator-journalist is that of a cultural mediator, who is responsible for mediating and controlling their readers’ (at least initial) encounters with foreign concepts and cultures. Translation of the global news system involves presenting and embedding realities in global news that flow as established facts. By being the first to report on breaking news, these agencies hold significant influence over how new global phenomena are interpreted and understood by the public through their translations. Political, social, and historical contexts can significantly alter the interpretation of news content; translators must navigate these differences to escape miscommunication. The process of translating international news is intrinsically linked to the concept of framing. The power of translation in shaping public perception and discourse is its significant role in either bridging or widening cultural gaps; consequently, CL explores how cultural values, beliefs, and practices shape language and its usage.

Applying the CL framework in translating media/news content is beneficial as it empowers translators not only with the prerequisite knowledge of and sensitivity to CCs but also with appropriate tools for analyzing texts in their original cultural contexts. Media and news content often involve topics that are politically and socially sensitive. Ensuring cultural sensitivity and contextual adaptation and enhancing communicative efficacy, this framework allows them to avoid encountering communication and cultural bumps, constructing stereotypes, reinforcing cultural oppositions, and inciting violence. Moreover, in the global news system of the information era, media translators must be equipped with cosmopolitan metacultural/intercultural competence, which allows them to undertake their responsibility to engage with foreign cultural contexts. In practice, media translators’ should be aware of the key cultural references like deep-rooted CCs, cultural schemas (e.g., privacy, freedom, democracy, or governance), categories (social roles, family structures, or even time concepts), and metaphors are identified by conducting a thorough analysis of the source text’s cultural context. The cultural appropriateness of the translation product must be assessed to ensure that translations do not inadvertently offend or mislead the target audience and bypass possible misinterpretations and cultural indiscretion.

4.5. Multimodal Translation

In today’s hyper-connected world, it holds that communication through interaction typically involves not one but multiple modes. As text and images are becoming more blended, translators often seek to incorporate speech, text, video, and music, all synchronized to form and communicate the overall message. Central to this effort is re-conceptualizing translation as a process encompassing a wide array of modes and semiotic as well as linguistic and cultural resources. Multimodal translation, as a blanket term, embraces Audiovisual Translation (AVT), Multimedia Translation (MT), and Advertisement Translation, where meaning-making processes are considered to be multimodal. Instances of multimodal translation include a wide range of translation practices from subtitling, voice-over, dubbing, and dialogue interpreting to translating comics, animated poetry, hyper-textual fiction, children’s illustrated books, video games, and ads. The multimodal translation presents unique challenges, as each mode can carry distinct cultural connotations and requires specialized strategies to maintain coherence and contextual relevance in the target language. By “re-positioning of translation as a process of cultural mediation, that engages with multimodality not as a curious add-on, but as part of its normal operation …,” (Carreres & Noriega-Sanchez 2020, p. 202) and “in which texts are transposed in terms of a range of variables: specifically, mode, medium, and genre” (p. 199), the CL framework may better account for, the multimodal dimension of multimedia translation.

Given that the meaning-making process is multimodal, a conceptualization of translation and an extension of the analytical tools applied in multimedia translation became necessary, where the CL framework is definitely among these tools. The AVT, particularly film subtitling, can benefit greatly from applying the CL methodology, responding to the urgent demand for innovative multimodal analytical tools and frameworks. For instance, the conceptual cultural metaphor of JOURNEY to describe life may be universally understood but expressed differently across cultures in terms of imagery and associated symbols. Likewise, Advertisement Translation can benefit from applying the principles and insights of the CL framework. An advertisement featuring a family meal that may evoke different cultural schemas in different cultures requires adjustments in visual and textual elements, like when an educational video uses metaphors and visuals to explain complex scientific concepts. The source material applies cultural metaphors that are familiar to its audience but may be obscure to the target culture. The translator identifies equivalent metaphors in the target culture and adapts the visuals accordingly. The CL helps translators overcome the challenge of mapping the modes of one culture-specific item onto another and avoid undesirable outcomes, whether ideological, cultural, or political. Said otherwise, it helps translators communicate multimodally by applying constructed and orchestrated meanings in global intercultural communications.

4.6. Sociological-oriented TS

As to the sociology of translation, translation is viewed as an inherently social activity where translators are involved in the translation of cultural products in international cultural exchanges. Rather than being viewed as neutral mediators among languages, translators are considered active human agents who significantly influence interactions among different cultures and shape their opinions about realities. As social agents engaged in the production and reception of translation as a cultural product, translators endlessly acquire and adopt cultural structures and systems (e.g., those of values, ideology, power, and dominance). This perspective suggests that translating is not merely about transferring meaning but also worldviews (Heidari Tabrizi, in press). The sociocultural positioning of translators affects how translations are produced and received. Translators insert their own cultural backgrounds, biases, and interpretative frameworks into the translation process, which can influence their choices and strategies.

By acknowledging the sociocultural dimensions of translation, CL provides a framework for understanding the complexities and dynamics involved in translation as a social practice. Translation is not a value-free activity; it is deeply intertwined with social identity and power issues. It offers profound insights into how cultural contexts shape translations and how they influence societal structures and cultural identities. For example, translating literary works from marginalized cultures can either perpetuate stereotypes or offer a more nuanced representation that challenges dominant cultural narratives. Similarly, the choice of which works to translate and how to translate them can reflect and influence power dynamics within and between societies. The CL framework draws attention to the importance of CCs in building meaning, the role of translators as social agents, and the impact of translation on constructing social identity, roles, images, and power dynamics. By integrating the perspectives of CL, the sociological-oriented TS can be better informed by the complexities of translation, a socially driven process, and practice those shapes and influences social interactions in their cultural contexts.

5. Final Remarks

The CL framework is valuable in bridging linguistic and cultural differences, which ultimately enhances the quality and accuracy of translated texts. The advantages of the CL methodology for TS are not limited only to those framed in a cultural perspective but emphasize the importance of cultural context in language translation. Translation is a cognitively demanding profession that involves managing multiple layers of meaning, context, and cultural nuances. Applying the cognitive-oriented CL approach to TS is rewarding. Integration of CL into TS offers advantages, which are twofold: cultural and cognitive perspectives. Considering the cultural-centered perspective, CL facilitates a deeper understanding of cultural contexts, bridges cultural gaps, enhances the conveyance of culturally embedded meanings, and addresses power dynamics.

One of the primary advantages of incorporating CL into TS is its potential to enhance cross-cultural communication. Languages are deeply embedded in cultural contexts, which contain their speakers’ values, beliefs, and worldviews. CL emphasizes the importance of understanding these cultural conceptualizations of the metaphors, schemas, and cultural models that shape how people perceive and articulate their experiences. A deeper understanding of fine cultural elements, which are subtle, often implicit, aspects of culture that influence communication, like humor, politeness strategies, and social norms, is another significant advantage of applying CL in TS. CL enables translators to become engaged critically in the power dynamics and ideologies embedded in the given language. Translation is not a neutral act but involves choices that can perpetuate or challenge cultural stereotypes and power imbalance. By applying CL, translators can become more aware of these dynamics and make informed decisions that promote equity and inclusivity. By applying the CL approach, TS can better fulfill its mission of fostering mutual understanding and appreciation among different cultures.

From a cognitive perspective, the integration of CL in TS offers profound, less conventionally explicit, and explained advantages by illuminating the mental processes to reinforce language use. This cognitive-centered approach emphasizes the importance of understanding how speakers of different languages conceptualize the world; consequently, it facilitates cognitive flexibility in translation, allows for a deeper understanding of cognitive schemas and frames, and assists in effectively translating metaphors and embodied experiences. The cognitive advantages of applying CL in TS emphasize its contribution to understanding conceptual metaphors, enhancing cognitive equivalence, managing cognitive load, and enriching the translator’s cognitive toolkit. The cognitive perspective of CL offers strategies for better anticipating, mitigating, and managing potential cognitive load during the translation process. In the cognitive sense, the application of the CL approach to TS is beneficial as it raises awareness of CCs underlying language elements and assists translators, scholars, and students in navigating the intricate correlation among source/target language, CCs, and thought/cognition.

While the CL approach and methodology can have potential valuable contributions in the TS field, its implementation is not without some challenges that may impede its seamless application. First, it should be mentioned that understanding the sociocultural contexts where CCs are produced and interpreted is essential, though it can be complex and time-consuming. Second, due to the dynamic nature of both culture and language, emerging cultural trends and linguistic alterations are inevitable. Hence, applying the CL framework to keep up-to-date knowledge of these processes is an essential prerequisite, which is difficult for translation researchers, teachers, students, or translators to cope with. In brief, this endeavor requires ongoing education in communicative and metacultural competence. The CL framework, by definition, necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration and a high level of expertise. Integrating insights from diverse fields can be challenging due to disciplinary boundaries and methodologies. While implementing the CL framework in TS presents formidable challenges, its potential benefits assure continued exploration and refinement. Addressing these challenges requires interdisciplinary collaboration, methodological innovation, and ongoing dialogue in this field.

The primary channels that may promote the dynamic interplay between TS and CL consist of the Gender-oriented TS and Translational Activism, AI-informed TS, Cognitive and Ethnographic Approaches to TS, translating tourism, and Translation and Ideology. These directions highlight the more-than-ever interdisciplinary nature of modern digitalized translation studies, emphasizing the need to consider cultural, social, cognitive, and technological factors in the translation process. In this global village where translation is strongly instrumental in fostering communication across cultures and shaping perceptions and worldviews, the importance of culturally informed TS cannot be overstated completely. In an increasingly globalized and multicultural world characterized by rapid advancements in technological innovations and an ever-growing demand for more and better translation, there is an urgent need to develop new frameworks like CL for discussing and conceptualizing translation that comprehensively address the profound changes within the digital domains and spheres. As globalization continues to bring cultures closer to each other, the role of CL in TS will become increasingly vital in bridging linguistic and cultural gaps. Future research and practical implementations will further illuminate the best practices for incorporating CL into different subfields of TS.