| Domestication and foreignization as opposite translation strategies have long been the focus of discussion in China's translation circles. Before the 1980s, China's literary translation was characterized by the domination of domesticating strategy. After that, translators and theorists began to reconsider the relationship between these two translation strategies. Recently, a new debate on domestication and foreignization has been launched. Different from the earlier debates, the present one has shifted its focus from mere linguistic level to cultural and political levels.The supporters of the two strategies find their theoretical basis in E.A. Nida's and Lawrence Venuti's theories respectively. Nida seemed to be a supporter of domestication when he put forward the concept of "closest natural equivalent". In his opinion, "a translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant to within the context of his own culture" (Nida, 1964:159). While Venuti, an advocate of foreignization, advanced the concept of "resistancy" translation. Such translation attempts to display the foreignness in the text. This paper first analyzes Nida's functional equivalence theory and Venuti's deconstructionism, and then points out their limitations when they are applied to Chinese translation practice. Meanwhile, it analyzes the confusion of definitions exposed in the debate: the confusion between "domestication vs. foreignization" and "free translation vs. literal translation". Inaddition, the paper analyzes the people's prejudice against domestication, and then points out that it is also an effective way in translation.For a long time, the author and the text were regarded as sacred and inviolable, and the author- and text-centered theories dominated the field of literary criticism, and the reader was neglected. At that time, little conscious attention was paid to the readers' function in determining the choice of translation strategies during the process of translation. In the 1960s, on the basis of hermeneutics and phenomenology, reception aesthetics was established, and its points of view provided translation studies with entirely new theoretical angles and approaches. It is of great significance to translation studies.Before they enter a text, as a matter of fact, readers bring their own world view, social experience and certain aesthetic standards, namely, "horizon of expectations". Directed expectations and creative expectations justify both domestication and foreignization respectively. While a moderate aesthetic distance between the horizon of the text and that of the target readers is no doubt desirable also points out that the overuse of either domestication or foreignization strategies regardless of the reception ability of readers is certainly impractical, and therefore should be avoided.As we know, the purpose of translation, the type of texts, the intention of the author and the readership all determine the choice of translation strategies. Expatiating upon three kinds of readers involved in the process of translating ?the translator, the potential readers and the actual readers, this paper explains the determining function of readership in the selection of translation strategies, and statesthat the combination of these three kinds of readers determines the choice between the two strategies.From the point of view of reception aesthetics, employing concepts such as horizon of expectations, aesthetic distance, the fusion of horizons, potential readers, etc. this paper analyzes the debate on foreignization and domestication, and puts forward new definitions of these two terms. Furthermore, it proves the infeasibility of the complete rejection of either of them, and predicts the future positions of the two strategies in the context of globalization, i.e., translators will employ foreignization as the major translation strategy, and domestication as supplementary.
|
PDF Full Text Request