归化与异化翻译论文 第3页
Chapter 2 Towards Domestication and Foreignization
This chapter is towards translation strategies. Firstly, it discusses the definitions of domestication and foreignization. Then, it probes into the disputes over the two translation strategies in history and expresses why the disputes go on. In the end I present my understanding on the advantages and disadvantages of domestication and foreignization.
2.1 Definitions of Domestication and Foreignization本文来自辣;文*论-文~网
The two translation strategies, domestication and foreignization may be new to the Chinese, but the concepts they carry have been at least for a century at the heart of most translation controversies. They have been given various formulations, past and present. The roots of the terms can be traced back to a lecture in 1813: “Ueber die Verschiedenen Mmethoden des Uberstzens” (“On the Different Methods of Translating”), delivered by Friedrich Schleiermacher, a famous German theologian, philosopher and translator, whose German translation of Plato is still widely read and admired today, nearly two hundred years after they were done, so his views on translation carry certain authority. In the speech he argued that “there are only two methods. Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him.” (Venuti, 2004:19-20). It can be illustrated by the following figure:
Although Schleiermacher gave a detailed description of these two translation strategies, he didn’t propose definite terms for each. Different scholars defined these two translation strategies from their own understandings. For example, Lu Xun(鲁迅, 1984:301) thought domestication as “rewriting, changing the foreign story into Chinese story and changing the foreigners into Chinese.” And thought “translation is like going abroad traveling, it must reflect the scene and flavor of the foreign countries…” Ke Ping (柯平, 1993:23) thought that “adaptation” was equal to domestication, which “is to translate the words of the source language into words of the target language which are not only used with the same frequency as the original words in their own language, but also added cultural colors of the target language. The advantage of adaptation is to make the translation read native and expressive”. Liu Yingkai (刘英凯, 1987:58) pointed that “domestication is conforming the source language to target language: translating English into Chinese means thorough sinicizing while translating Chinese into English means completely westernization.” Some scholars use other terms to refer foreignization, such as “alienation”, “Europeanization” or “westernization”. In my opinion these definitions are not so scientific; most of these definitions are focused on the content and language forms. For example, Lu Xun’s definition is one-sided and lack of completeness, for his definition only concerns putting foreign language into Chinese. Ke Ping’s definition narrows down the scope of domestication. Liu Yingkai’s definition stresses too much of the negative side of domestication. It was Lawrence Venuti, an Italian American translation theorist, who first coined these two translation strategies in his book The Translator’s Invisibility—A History of Translation: a domesticating method (domestication) is an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bringing the author back home, and a foreignizing method (foreignization) is an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad (200毕业论文
http://www.751com.cn 4:20). So generally speaking, domestication is a TL-culturally oriented translation strategy in which a natural, fluent style is adopted in order to minimize the linguistic and cultural strangeness of the foreign text for target language readers; foreignization is a SL-culturally oriented translation strategy in which the original forms and content, especially the original cultural features are kept in order to retain the foreignism.
2.2 The Disputes over Domestication and Foreignization in History
Translation, to some extent, has existed since people began to use different languages to communicate with one another. Translation is almost as old as original authorship and has a history as honorable and as complex as that of any other branch of literature. As we all know, in the prehistoric time, the communication and assimilation started among the people in the world, but we have little information about when translation activities really began. According to the materials at hand, in Zhou Dynasty in China, Zhou Li (《周礼》) and Li Ji (《礼记》) had the explicit recordation of translation. There were different formal address forms for translators in different places. “五方之民，言语不通，嗜欲不同。达其志，通其欲，东方曰寄，南方曰象，西方曰狄鞮，北方曰译。” (陈福康, 2000:3). In Europe, strictly speaking, the first translation version is Odyssey, translated from Greek to Latin by Livius Andronicus in the middle of the 3rd century B.C (谭载喜, 1991:4). So translation practice has had a long history for several thousands of years. Whenever there is a translation practice, translators definitely apply certain strategies. The disputes over choosing strategies always go with the translation practices.
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 下一页
归化与异化翻译论文 第3页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
