On The Improtance Of Domestication In English-Chinese Translation-Based On A Contrastive Study Of Two Chinese Versions Of Gone With The Wind

As a bridge that facilitates the communication of different languages and cultures, translation plays a very important role in intercultural communication. Foreignization and domestication as two major strategies are considered to be the extension of literal translation and free translation in China. They involve not only linguistic level but also cultural level. The choice between domestication and foreignization has always been a controversial issue in the translation circles. At first, each side emphasizes the merits of one strategy and completely negates the other on the basis of a rigid dichotomy between domestication and foreignization. In the 21st century, affected by numerous new theories, more scholars tend to take the two strategies as dialectical; regarding them as complementary rather than contradictory. Recently, the discussion has shifted from which strategy is better to which one should be the dominant strategy in literary translation. In the whole process, domestication or foreignization takes the upper hand in turn.With globalization unceasingly picking up speed and intercultural communication ever-increasing, the transmission of foreign culture becomes more and more important. In this background, foreignization is favored by more and more scholars, nevertheless the fundamental role domestication plays in translation cannot be changed. Invariably clinging to foreignization in the process of translation will inevitably lead to overforeignization. Overforeignization will not facilitate cultural communication as the translator has originally expected. On the contrary, it poses difficulty for readers to understand the translation and finally obstructs the cultural flow. Based on a case study of two Chinese versions of Gone with the Wind , this thesis aims to reaffirm the importance of domestication when the call for foreignization is becoming louder and louder. Therefore, this paper is based mainly on the"cultural orientation"of domestication and foreignization. We know that in the translation circles, Dr. Eugene Nida strongly advocates"dynamic equivalence"or"functional equivalence"which is much the same as domesticating strategy. In contrast, the post-colonial translation theorist Lawrence Venuti puts forward the strategy of foreignization to"resist dominant target language cultural values so as to signify the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text". His main purpose is to fight against cultural hegemony. However, the study of domestication and foreignization in China is based on the equality between different languages and cultures. In this sense, Venuti's theory cannot be completely adapted to the translation study at home. As a result, the author holds that a successful translated text should cater for the need of readers and focus on the acceptability.In this thesis, limitations of domestication are also discussed to avoid any occurrence of over-domestication. To conclude, the key to a good translation lies in the proper manipulation of domestication and foreignization, that is, neither of the two can be dispensed with, nor can either go to extremes. Both overforeignization and overdomestication should be reduced to a minimum so as to produce more excellent translations and authentically contribute to the cultural exchange between China and the West.This paper mainly consists of seven parts.Chapter One serves as the introduction to the whole thesis. Chapter Two mainly introduces the definitions of foreignization and domestication and a literature review of the studies about the two strategies in the West and China. A brief introduction to Gone with the Wind and the two Chinese versions concerned is also conducted. In Chapter Three, Chapter Four and Chapter Five, a detailed case study of the two Chinese versions is carried out. Through comparison and contrast, the necessity of foreignization is analyzed; then the advantages of domestication and the awkwardness of overforeignization are clearly presented. Chapter Six provides the possible causes of overforeignization and limitations of domestication. In the last part, the author concludes that domestication is still rather important in modern translation. Overforeignization is more prevalent and serious than overdomestication. Of course, both overforeignization and overdomestication should be avoided as much as possible to bring about more splendid translations.