A Study on the Relativity of Foreignization and Domestication in Translation Based on Data Comparison

Jingjing Cui
Foreign Language Department, Dezhou University; Dezhou, China nathy1018@163.com

Abstract. Foreignizatin and domestication are two strategies to tackle cultural differences in translation. This paper mainly discusses the relativity of foreignization and domestication in translation and comes to a conclusion that if the translation is excessively domesticated, the cultural peculiarity of the SL will be removed. On the contrary, if the translation is excessively foreignized, it will become mechanical translation. It will affect the understanding of the target language reader. Therefore, in practical translation, there is no absolute foreignization or no absolute domestication. They are both relative. Keywords: culture, translation, foreignization, domestication, relativity.

1 Introduction
The debate over whether translation should be source-or target-oriented has been heated in Chinese translation circle over decades. The foreignized translation is source language oriented, while the domesticated translation is target language oriented. Venuti advocates foreignizing translation in the western world, while Nida is the most famous advocate of domesticating translation. The terms foreignization and domestication 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. Lu xun once said that before translating, the translator has to make a decision: either to adapt the original text or to retain as much as possible the foreign flavor of the original text. Many Chinese scholars in the translation circle advocate domesticated translation. When keeping smoothness contradicts keeping foreignness, the latter will be cast away. This paper attempts to illustrate the relativity of the foreignization and domestication in translation.

2 Culture and Translation

Translation is not only an activity of lingual exchange, information transfer, but also a kind of cultural communication between different countries and nations. In translation research and practice, source language and target language have cultural similarities and differences, so cultural factors are always the first thing to be considered. Besides the common similarities shared by different nations, they have their own distinctive
S. Lin and X. Huang (Eds.): CSEE 2011, Part IV, CCIS 217, pp. 352356, 2011. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

A Study on the Relativity of Foreignization and Domestication

353

factors in culture. In fact, frequently where there is cultural focus, there is a translation problem, due to the cultural gap or distance between the source and target languages [1] Due to different cultural traditions, different nations have their own sign systems, and characteristics of morphology, syntax and grammar, which often causes a result that the culture can not be translated. Nida (2001:82) points out that For truly successful translation, biculturalism is even more important than bilingualism, since words only have meanings in terms of the cultures in which they function. Cultural gaps between the source language and the target language have always turned to be a hard nut for translators to crack. Christiane.Nord (2001:34) holds that translating means comparing cultures. 2.1 Domestication and Foreignization Domestication and foreignization are two basic translation strategies which provide both linguistic and cultural guidance. They are termed by American translation theorist L.Venuti (qtd. in Schaffner 1995:4). According to Venuti, the former refers to an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bring the author back home, while the latter is an ethnodeviant pressure on those (cultural) values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad (Venuti 1995: 20). Generally speaking, domestication designates the type of translation in which a transparent, fluent style is adopted to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for target language readers, while foreignization means a target text is produced which deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original (Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997:59). Disputes over domestication and foreignization have existed for a long time. However, till 1950s and 1960s, when the more systematic, and mostly linguisticoriented, approach to the study of translation began to emerge (Jeremy 2001:9), the focus had been on the linguistic level. Since the cultural turn appeared in 1970s, the dispute has been viewed from a brand new perspective social, cultural and historical. The conflict between domestication and foreignization as opposite translation strategies can be regarded as the cultural and political rather than linguistic extension of the time-worn controversy over free translation and literal translation (Wang Dongfeng 2002 : 24). In modern times, translation theorists have different opinions and arguments, but most of them can be classified into two schools, viz. the school of domestication and the school of foreignization. 2.2 The School of Domestication and Foreignization The famous representative of the school of domestication is Eugene Nida. He advocates the communicative function of translation, and he emphasizes the TL readers reaction. It has sometimes been said that the overriding purpose of any translation should be to achieve equivalent effect, i.e. to produce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the readership of the translation as was obtained on the readership of the original. (This is also called the equivalent response principle. Nida calls it dynamic equivalence).[2] He even suggests that the choice of words

354

J. Cui

should be adjustable to aim at different kinds of readers when the Bible is translated. That is to say that the overriding purpose is to make the TL readers receive and understand the information of the source language, yet this process is not bound to make them comprehend and accept the culture pattern of the source language. Contemporary translation theorist Lawrence Venuti has led somewhat a revolution in the field of translation in the Anglo-American world. He advocates foreignizing translation, and he is the representative of the school of foreignizing translation. Both Venuti and Schleiermacher are partial to the foreignizing translation. Venuti takes a foreignized translation as resistance to a domesticated translation, because this method can keep the peculiarity of SLs culture and itself. It takes the TL readers to another kind of culture and taste the peculiarity. It is a method to boycott the cultural colonialism of the powerful culture. Since Venuti thinks the domesticating translation which advocates by Nida as an unequal translation method, he advocates foreignizing translation. He thinks: Fluency translation strategy will cover cultural differences, which, in fact is a practice of cultural imperialism. Therefore, translation should adopt resistant strategies to reflect the language cultural difference coded in the source and target text and to resist imperialistic domestication. Foreignization translation may resist the powerful cultures such as Anglo American culture exerting cultural hegemony over weaker cultures such as Chinese culture it may also resist the ethnocentrism, cultural narcissistic experience and imperialism. It can conduct ethnodeviant pressure on the target language values and send the reader abroad[3]. 2.3 The Relativity of Domestication and Foreignization The Relativity of Domestication. To use the domestication strategy, is to use the closest natural equivalent of the SL to deal with the original text. In fact, domestication is a way of translation, a kind of result of translation. Domestication in translation is one of the goals pursued by every translator because it can make the target text idiomatic and easy to accept by the TL reader. However, domestication in translation is relative. It can not go beyond the usual limits to be disapproved by most people, namely, domestication in translation cannot go to extremes. If it is used excessively, it will remove the peculiarities of style, art, and culture in the original text. The spirit of the original text cannot be reflected in the TL text. As a result, TL reader cannot get to know the external world through the translation. The real value of the translated text will be affected. Besides, the TL reader feel unnatural and awkward, he may be misled. Guo Moruo once translated one line of an English poem Spring, the sweet spring, is the years pleasant king into Chinese . When we Chinese readers read this translation, we feel awkward, because we know that belongs to Chinese ancient culture and a westerner is very likely to be ignorant of it, not to mention knowing the greatness of the two legendary sage kings in ancient China. The Relativity of Foreignization. Foreignization in translation is also relative. It is just a concept to bear in mind. A foreignizing method is to move the reader towards the author, but even Venuti himself questions its practicality. Although Venuti advocates foreignizing translation, he is also aware of some of its contradictions,

A Study on the Relativity of Foreignization and Domestication

355

namely that it is a subjective and relative term that still involves some domestication because it translates an ST for a target culture and depends on dominant target-culture values to become visible when it departs from them.[4]This means that a foreignizing translation is essentially depends on dominant target-culture values. In order for a foreignized translation to have an impact, it must first acknowledge the target culture, and then move away from it. The TL text is partly foreignized, surely with some degree of domestication. In other word, foreignization is just relative.

3 Summary
The wild variety of viewpoints presented to be for or against domestication or foreignization are from different perspectives. In fact, both domestication and foreignization have their advantages and disadvantages. Domesticating translation is easier for the readers to understand and accept. However, the naturalness and smoothness of the TT are often achieved at the expense of the cultural and stylistic messages of the ST. Foreignizing translation preserves the ST formal features and in turn informs the readers of the SL-culture, but alien cultural images and linguistic features may cause the information overload to the reader. In a word, both domestication and foreignization entail losses, as losses are inevitable in the translation process. Its hard to say which strategy is better, if the condition under which a translation is done is not taken into account. Neither domestication nor foreignization is a complete strategy. Both domestication and foreignization are relative. They can not go to extremes. If the translation is excessively domesticated, the cultural peculiarity of the SL will be removed. On the contrary, if the translation is excessively foreignized, it will become mechanical translation. The connotative meaning carried in the SL can not be understood, or can not be able to impress the TL reader as strong as it should do. The two ways are both adverse for cultural communication between different nations. The translator should have a good grasp of the two cultures. A good translation text must be in some degree both domesticated and foreignized.

Literature References
1. Newmark, P.: A Textbook of Translation, p. 94. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai (2001) 2. Newmark, P.: A Textbook of Translation, p. 48. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai (2001) 3. Venuti, L.: The Translators Invisibility: History of Translation, p. 20. Routledge, London (1995) 4. Munday, J.: Introducing Translation Studies: Theories Applications, p. 148. Routledge, London (2001) 5. Schuttleworth, Cowie: Dictionary of Translation Studies, pp. 4344. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai (2004)

356

J. Cui

References
1. Baker, M.: In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Beijing Foreign Language Education and Research Press, Beijing (2000) 2. Hatin, B., Mason, I.: Discourse and the Translators. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai (2001) 3. Nida, E.A.: Language, Culture, and Translation[M]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai (1993) 4. Newmark, P.: Approaches to Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai (2001) 5. Newmark, P.: A Textbook of Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai (2001)