On Domestication And Foreignation In Cultural Translation

Language, culture and translation are closely related. Since one of the major tasks of translation is to turn the cultural elements from one culture into the other and from one language into the other,i.e., from source culture (language) into target culture (language), the fulfillment of the translation will depend not only on the good command of both languages but the culture involved in the translation. In 1990, Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere proposed that translation studies take the'cultural turn', by which it means that the study of translation is that of cultural interaction. Therefore translation is not merely a process of linguistic transcoding, but a process of cultural transfer. Hence in the process of the translation, the translator will inevitably encounter the problem of the culture.Translators often resort to two translation strategies: domestication and foreignization, which arouse heated discussion in this field as both have different approaches towards the source culture.Domestication refers to target-language-culture-oriented translation in which expressions acceptable in the target language culture is exploited in order to make the translated texts intelligible and suitable for the target text readers. Foreignization is source-language-culture-oriented translation, which strives to preserve as much as possible the original flavor in order to retain the foreignness of the source language culture. The respective representatives for the two strategies are: Eugene Nida for domestication who advocates dynamic equivalence in order to achieve the success of the communication and Venuti advocates to develop a theory and practice of translation to signify the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text.By the overall literature review and the detailed analysis in Moment in Peking that is case in point for the application for the two strategies owing to its inimitable position in international writings and translation, it is concluded that the two strategies have their respective features and applicable values. Overemphasis of one strategy from a static and absolute viewpoint is one-sided and unscientific. It is suggested that the two strategies should be viewed and studied dialectically and historically rather than statically and absolutely in order to place translation practice and translation theory in a correct track. The dialectical studies of translation lie in abandoning absolute ideas to evaluate domestication or foreignization. The concept of viewing translation strategies as an organic whole should be established. We should not only study the merits and defects of the two translation strategies, but also analyze their respective values of application as to under what circumstances, for what purpose and in what text types we should use them. We can never regard a translation strategy as absolute or exclude completely one strategy. Dialectical views of translation strategies in historical and dynamic perspective are advantageous to the prosperity of translation studies.