| Recent days have seen the heated discussion of domesticating and foreignizing translation strategies. A close inspection of current study reveals the following defects: first, a large number of scholars maintain that the relationship between domestication and foreignization is dialectical rather than static. Therefore, it should be in specific context to decide whether to translate domestically or foreignizedly. But this conclusion is too comprehensive to be regarded as guidance in practical translation. Second, the present study, under the strong influence of western translation theory, holds intense inclination towards foreignizing translation and even deems it as a future trend for Chinese translation, which is not scientific at all. Third, no study has been carried out from a diachronic perspective so far.Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere once pointed out in History / Language/ Culture that a productive study of translation of literary works can be only social-historic in nature. The technique of translation to the exclusion of the categories mentioned shall run the risk of not being productive. The famous Chinese translation theorist Luo Xinzhang also said: "Any translation theory turns to be short-lived just like water without source or a tree without roots, if it becomes disjointed to its nation's translation practice. The so-called brand-newtranslation theory without origin can only be prevalent for a time but never enduring" Accordingly, this thesis, from a diachronic approach, starts out from a detailed retrospection as well as a careful comparison of translation strategy adopted by Chinese and western translators in different historical periods and under diverse social conditions.The diachronic study clearly reveals that although the tradition of English and Chinese translation is quite different in terms of translation strategy, they share the common ground in the consideration of adopting translation strategies, namely, the affinity between source language and target language, the development stage of target language, target readers' demand for the cultural transmission function of translation and the social environment under which the literary works have been translated.When it comes to E-C literary rendition, the author claims that translation strategy should be discussed at two levels. At linguistic level, domesticating translation is preferred; at social- cultural level, foreignizing translation should be implemented.The detailed reason for choosing domesticating translation at linguistic level lies in that English and Chinese belongs to different language families and differs considerably at linguistic constructions. Foreignized translation versions that can be perceived by limited readership are not intelligible to the majority of Chinese readers, which goes against the gist for literary translation. Hence the author maintains that we should inherit linguistic domestication in Chinese translation tradition. 1930s witnessed the prevalent foreignizing translation, mainly a syntactical one, in translation circle, which is, however, serves for Vernacular Chinese Movement, aiming at introducing some new expression modes into the then immature Modern Chinese. Presently Modern Chinese grammar, by its own evolution or by assimilating some foreign expressions, has become very stable and mature and it needs no more foreignization at the linguistic structure level. Now many over-foreignized expression forms are flooding in translationversions, newspapers, magazines and some other mess media, threatening the purification of Chinese. This phenomenon, to a large extent, is shaped by foreignized translation and must be rectified by the advocacy of linguistically domesticating translation.At social-cultural level, the author approves of the current foreignized theory in translation circle, because translation is, in nature, cross-cultural communication. Chinese civilization has long retained its youthful vigor, that is because foreignized translation in different historical pe...
|
PDF Full Text Request