Domestication And Foreignization In Translation

This thesis mainly deals with the choice of domestication and foreignization as two strategies in translation. Domestication conforms to values currently dominating the target language culture while foreignization resists and aims to revise the dominant. Domestication tries to repress cultural differences and adopts a transparent and fluent style as well as a method of reader's immediate intelligibility while foreignization attempts to recognize those differences and allow them to shape cultural discourses in the target language and eschews fluency for a more heterogenous mix of discourses. The two strategies differ from each other not only at the linguistic level, but also at the cultural level, which differs from the traditional translation method of literal translation and free translation. The choice of the two strategies in translation practice is not arbitrary but constrained by various factors from translator, reader, patronage to ideology, morality etc. since every step in the translation process - from the selection of foreign texts to the implementation of translation strategies to the editing, reviewing, and reading of translations - is mediated by the diverse cultural values and social conditions that circulate in the target language, therefore recognition of the cultural and social conditions of the language and study of the constrained factors in the choice of translation strategies are quite necessary in translationpractice. The thesis holds the opinion that a translation text should be the site where to seek common ground while reserving differences and the choice of the two strategies in translation does not adhere to either this or that rigidly, but should be one of unity of opposites, therefore, in translating it is necessary for a translator to consider all these factors according to specific situation comprehensively when selecting from the two strategies. From a globalization perspective, foreignization will be the preferred strategy of literary translation in the near future for the following three reasons: foreignization can help the reader to get a better understanding of the culture peculiarity of the source text; foreignization can better satisfy the readers' aesthetic anticipation in reading translated literature; foreignization can enrich the target language. At the same time the thesis points out that there should be limitation in applying the two strategies. The thesis also introduces Venuti's opinion on domestication and foreignization in the colonial and post-colonial context and expresses its different view from Venuti's: whether domestication or foreignization, the influence does not concentrate on only one way but two ways. The function of both strategies is a case of a double-edged dagger. There should be awareness of hegemonic use of the strategies, but there is no necessity to exaggerate their functions or to worry excessively about their influences.