英语毕业论文 归化还是异化—翻译理论中的难题.doc

Domestication or Foreignization? A Dilemma in Translation Theory ABSTRACT In the theory of translation, there are many strategies and methods, among which, domestication and foreignization are the most frequently used ones. Choosing domestication or foreignization is a heated topic in the field of translation, about which many translators are fond of arguing. They hold their own opinions about these two strategies, some of whom choose foreignization and some advocate domestication. Perhaps the best strategy is to take foreignization first, and then domestication, because foreignization is in line with cultural differences between Chinese and English, and the exchange of the different cultural elements could enrich each other. Language is the carrier of culture. The essence of translation is to understand and study the foreign culture through the translation of foreign language. “Domestication Strategy” was preferred in the 20th century, but the history will come to “Foreignization Strategy”. In this paper, examples are given on the translation of menus、literary works、allusions and idioms and advertisements to support this idea. We should apply foreignization as much as possible, but sometimes it will cause misunderstanding. At that time, we need domestication. Applying foreignization doesn’t mean abandoning domestication. These two methods are both useful and important. They come forward side by side and compensate each other. Key words: translation theory domestication foreignization 归化还是异化？——翻译理论中的难题 摘 要 翻译的理论中，有很多的策略和方法。其中，归化译法和异化译法乃最广为采用的方法之一。选择归化还是异化，一直都是译界一个热议的话题。译者们各持己见，有的喜欢归化，有的则热衷异化。也许最好的翻译策略是先异化，后归化。因为异化译法有助于保持文化的个性，丰富双方的文化内涵。语言是文化的载体。翻译的真意就是通过语言间的转化，理解和学习外国文化。归化译法一直主导20世纪的翻译界，而21世纪，乃是异化译法的天下！在这篇论文中，列举了许多关于菜单，文学作品，习语和广告的异化译本，以供大家了解异化译法。虽然我们应该尽量的采用异化译法，但是有时候误解还是难以避免的。此时，归化译法正好派上用场。其实，这两种翻译策略是互补不足，相辅相成的重要翻译策略。 关键字：翻译理论 归化译法 异化译法 CONTENTS ABSTRACT I 摘要 II 1. Introduction 1 2. Translation Theory 2 2.1 Newmark 2 2.2 Shiyab 2 2.3 Toury 3 3. Domestication and Foreignization 5 4. Foreignization First, Domestication Second 7 4.1 Advantages of Foreignization 8 4.2 Foreignizing of Chinese Menus 8 4.2.1 Literal Translation plus Explanation 8 4.2.2 Zero Translation or Zero Translation plus Note 9 4.3 Foreignizing Translation of Literary Works 9 4.3.1 Foreignizing Translation of the Titles 9 4.3.2 Foreignizing Translation of People Names in the Literary Works 10 4.4 Foreignizing Translation of Allusions and Idioms 11 4.5 Foreignizing Translation of Advertisements 12 4.6 Domestication as an Aid 13 4.7 The Purpose and Significance of Foreignization 13 5. Conclusion 15 References 16 Acknowledgements 17 1 Introduction Cultures are absolutely embedded in their own languages. In order to achieve a better communication, translation is required. So as to serve this purpose well, during their practice, many theorists have already made some definitions and regulations years ago. But translation is still a process of understanding and expressing, but in this process, losing some original meaning or form is inevitable. Nowadays, domestication and foreignization are definitely the dominance of translation theory, but, which one is the best strategy according to today’s trend, is still remain controversial topic. Domestication is a reader-oriented strategy while making the understanding easier and yet, losing the foreign flavor of the source language. On the other hand, foreignization is author-oriented strategy while making the translation a little bit foreign-style but keeping the most exotic taste of the source language. In the past, domestication is the most frequently used method due to its readability. But now, foreignization has been summoned because of its advantages, that is, promoting and enriching both cultures. 2 Translation Theory Newmark presents guidelines and prescriptions regarding the different methods of translation. He further provides a list of five topics, which in his view must be included in a comprehensive criticism of a translation. In a more resent book, Shiyab comments on Newmark’s theories, and adds interesting aspects on translation and culture. In this paper, Shiyab function as a complement to Newmark, adding additional aspects to the field of translation theory. Toury provides a useful model of translation norms and strategies, leading to translation solutions. 2.1 Newmark In Newmark’s view, translation is a science as much as a skill, an art and matter of taste. Accordingly, many aspects play a part in the making of a translation, and hence, many aspects should also be considered in the assessing of one. In his book, Newmark outlines five topics which in his view have to be covered in any comprehensive criticism of a translation: a brief analysis of the SL text stressing its intension and its functional aspects; the translator’s interpretation of the SL text’s purpose; his translation method and the translation’s likely readership; a selective but representative detailed comparison of the translation with the original; an evaluation of the translation in the translator’s terms in the critic’s terms; where appropriate, an assessment of the likely place of the translation in the target language culture or discipline. According to Newmark, the more specific a language becomes in regard to natural phenomena such as geographical and ecological terms, the more it becomes embedded in cultural features, and this causes translation problems. 2.2 Shiyab In a book published almost 20 years after Newmark’s, Shiyab concluded that “there is very little consensus between linguists, translation theorists and translation practitioners regarding the principals, rules and methods of translating”. In an attempt to categorize the various views, he divides the definitions of translating into meaning-based (domestication) definitions and semiotic-based (foreignization) definitions. Meaning-based definitions, as explained by Shiyab, use meaning as the base for interpreting, and focus on conveying the meaning of the original text into the translated text. In semiotic-based definitions the focus is instead on studying signs, symbols, codes etc, and “all aspects of human communication are analyzed as systems of signals”. Shiyab classified Newmark’s works as belonging to meaning-based definitions, and repeatedly draws on him when various approaches to the field of translation theory and practices. Toury, who is presented in the next section, is classified as belonging to the other category, in having a semiotic-based definition of translation. In a section devoted to the concept of culture in translation, Shiyab presents the Sapirean notion that “each language exists within a particular culture and has its own particular lexicon which shapes the perception of its speakers”. He comments on this notion, also known as linguistic relativity, by claiming that: Within the process of translation, the awareness of the cultural as well as the socially equivalent frameworks in which a particular text is used is extremely significant, although perfect culture equivalents are indeed unattainable. What is attainable is the approximation of cultural and social context of the two languages, which makes the translated text functionally similar and relatively natural with respect to its original. A “perfect” translation between cultures is thus impossible, according to Shiyab. Through approximation the translated text can however have a similar function as the original text. 2.3 Toury Toury is located within the field of descriptive translation studies and sees translation as an activity which “inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions, i.e., at least two sets of norm-systems on each level”. He expects norms to operate in all sorts of translations, and in each stage in the creation of a translation. Norms, he claims, are thus reflected on every level of the translation product. The initial norm, as explained by Toury, is constituted by the translator’s choice of either subjecting himself/herself to the original SL and its norms, or to the norms active in the TL, thus creating either an SL- or a TL-oriented text. In other words, the translator can aim for either domestication or foreignization in the translation. The difference between these two concepts is, according to Oittinen, that “while domestication assimilates text to target linguistic and cultural values, in foreignization some significant traces of the original text are retained”. Toury’s norm system is also made up of preliminary norms and operational norms, where the latter direct the decisions made during the act of translation. Within preliminary norms, translation policy has to do with the factors that govern the choice of text types to be translated into a particular language and/or culture at a particular time. In order to be able to carry out a satisfactory comparative analysis of an SL and a TL text, Toury suggests the study of “couple pairs of target and source text-segments, ‘replacing’ and ‘replaced’ items, respectively”. Coupled pairs can be used in translation studies to indicate strategies employed by the translator, and when put within a broader context, they further enable speculation on the considerations “which may have been involved in making the decisions along with the factors which may have constrained the act”. In choosing which segments to work with, the crucial requirement is, according to Toury, that these should be “relevant to the operation which would then be performed on them”. These three are no doubt making great contribution to the theory of translation, yet, the cure-all strategy is not found. This is what we call the dilemma of translation. 3 Domestication and Foreignization It is a German philosopher and translation theorist named Schleiermacher who first proposed two approaches of translation in his famous article “On Translation Method”: the translator leads the reader to the author who is kept still or the translator leads the author to the reader who is kept still. But he just described these two kinds of approaches without giving names. In 1995, an American translation theorist Lawrence Venuti, in his The Translator’s Invisibility, defined these two strategies as foreignization and domestication on the basis of Schleiermacher’s descriptions. “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”. That is, foreignization requires the translator to express the author’s idea in a way that is similar to the usage and expression in the author’s language. In this strategy, translators try to keep originality of authors as much as possible, and the TL (target language) readers have to follow the SL (source language) culture. This kind of translation is author-based. Domestication, on the contrary, demands a closeness of the translation to the reader’s language. A domesticated translation reads as if the original text was written in the local language. With this translation strategy, translators give up the cultural elements of SL, so that the TL readers can understand SL smoothly and easily. This kind of translation is reader-based. Based on the idea of Schleiemacher, Lawrence Venuti coined the terms domestication and foreignization in his book The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation in 1995, in which he defines domestication as “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bringing the author back home”, and foreignization as “an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad.” Domestication is TL-culture-oriented translation strategy, in which linguistic and cultural foreignness and strangeness of the original language are eliminated to adapt the conventions and culture of TL and reduce barriers in communication. Among many scholars who favor domestication, Dr. Eugene Nida is generally considered the most influential representative who emphasizes the communicative function of translation. Foreignization is SL-culture-oriented translation strategy which is opposite to domestication. Lawrence Venuti is commonly regarded as a representative of foreignization. Foreignization strategy keeps the value and foreignness of the source culture in TL to promote cultural communication, so that the TL readers can feel alien experience in reading. On the other hand, to Venuti, foreignization is not only a strategy for reducing linguistic and cultural differences, but also one endowed with political connotation. He argues that “Foreignizing translation in English can be a form of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations.” As for which strategy to adopt, to confine the translation to its original work or to translate with more freedom; to keep the “foreignness” or to become domesticated, it is a topic that has been argued for so long. In China, some scholars also have put forward their own opinions about the definitions of domestication and foreignization, among them Lu Xun’s opinion is famous. 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”. He claimed that domestication was as “rewriting, changing the foreign story into Chinese story and changing the foreigners into Chinese”. While foreignization was “translation is like going abroad traveling; it must reflect the scene and flavor of the foreign country concerned.”. Actually, to us, domestication is somewhat like free translation whereas foreignization is similar with literal translation. The difference may be that domestication and foreignization are two translation strategies that study translation from both linguistic and cultural angles whereas free translation and literal translation are two translation methods that mainly deal with linguistic problems. There are two articles which show completely conflicting views on this question. In one article entitled Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation, A. Lefevere makes a generalization based on his comparison of Chinese and Western thinking on translation,