Sorry, somewordsofadvice, I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing in the sentence "I didn't like going on welfare" that suggests shame. It's true that there is always stigma attached to claiming financial support - but this is valid for every country, not just America.Hello! In the U.S. there is a negative cultural subtext here. Since Ronald Reagan, the society has been encouraged to have extremely negative, unsympathetic views of people who use public support. "I didn't like going on welfare" carries the sense of shame that goes with financial desperation in the U.S. The richest people are made to feel deserving of the privilege of tax cuts and hundreds of subtle subsidies far in excess of any proportional benefits for the minimum wage earners, while the poorest are humiliated when they go broke paying for health care and heating oil. A translation would want to express the reluctance, shame, and defensiveness signaled by the "I didn't like" at the beginning.
It's true that the cultural knowledge might add to your understanding of the text, but it doesn't affect the translation. Ultimately, you're translating a very simple sentence - "I didn't like going on welfare". How else are we supposed to translate this? "I didn't like going on welfare because I didn't want to suffer the stigma attached" ?In Britain, we would say 'going onto/claiming benefits.'
Objectivity means recognizing the cultural context. Welfare stigma in the US, I would posit, has significant differences from that in the UK. Since the phrase "going on" is obviously American, maybe other US contributors can say if I've veered too far from an accurate read on the phrase. I've heard this used time and again with the emotional baggage I've described bound to the words. I am not suggesting that the word "shame" be inserted in the translation, just that the translator be aware of an underlying cultural message. Thanks for your thoughts. I totally agree that the speaker's message, not a translator's twist, is paramount.