These three are no doubt making great contribution to the theory of translation, yet, the cure-all strategy is not found. This is what we call the dilemma of translation.毕业论文
http://www.youerw.com/3 Domestication and Foreignization
It is a German philosopher and translation theorist named Schleiermacher who first proposed two approaches of translation in his famous article “On Translation Method”: the translator leads the reader to the author who is kept still or the translator leads the author to the reader who is kept still. But he just described these two kinds of approaches without giving names.
In 1995, an American translation theorist Lawrence Venuti, in his The Translator’s Invisibility, defined these two strategies as foreignization and domestication on the basis of Schleiermacher’s descriptions. “either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him” . That is, foreignization requires the translator to express the author’s idea in a way that is similar to the usage and expression in the author’s language. In this strategy, translators try to keep originality of authors as much as possible, and the TL (target language) readers have to follow the SL (source language) culture. This kind of translation is author-based. Domestication, on the contrary, demands a closeness of the translation to the reader’s language. A domesticated translation reads as if the original text was written in the local language. With this translation strategy, translators give up the cultural elements of SL, so that the TL readers can understand SL smoothly and easily. This kind of translation is reader-based. Based on the idea of Schleiemacher, Lawrence Venuti coined the terms domestication and foreignization in his book The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation in 1995, in which he defines domestication as “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bringing the author back home”, and foreignization as “an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad.” 原文请加优.文,论,文.网QQ324,9114
Domestication is TL-culture-oriented translation strategy, in which linguistic and cultural foreignness and strangeness of the original language are eliminated to adapt the conventions and culture of TL and reduce barriers in communication. Among many scholars who favor domestication, Dr. Eugene Nida is generally considered the most influential representative who emphasizes the communicative function of translation. Foreignization is SL-culture-oriented translation strategy which is opposite to domestication. Lawrence Venuti is commonly regarded as a representative of foreignization. Foreignization strategy keeps the value and foreignness of the source culture in TL to promote cultural communication, so that the TL readers can feel alien experience in reading. On the other hand, to Venuti, foreignization is not only a strategy for reducing linguistic and cultural differences, but also one endowed with political connotation. He argues that “Foreignizing translation in English can be a form of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations.”
As for which strategy to adopt, to confine the translation to its original work or to translate with more freedom; to keep the “foreignness” or to become domesticated, it is a topic that has been argued for so long. 毕业论文
http://www.youerw.com/In China, some scholars also have put forward their own opinions about the definitions of domestication and foreignization, among them Lu Xun’s opinion is famous. Lu Xun once said that “before translating, the translator has to make a decision: either to adapt the original text or to retain as much as possible the foreign flavor of the original text” . He claimed that domestication was as “rewriting, changing the foreign story into Chinese story and changing the foreigners into Chinese” . While foreignization was “translation is like going abroad traveling; it must reflect the scene and flavor of the foreign country concerned.” . Actually, to us, domestication is somewhat like free translation whereas foreignization is similar with literal translation. The difference may be that domestication and foreignization are two translation strategies that study translation from both linguistic and cultural angles whereas free translation and literal translation are two translation methods that mainly deal with linguistic problems.
There are two articles which show completely conflicting views on this question. In one article entitled Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation, A. Lefevere makes a generalization based on his comparison of Chinese and Western thinking on translation, When Chinese translates texts produced by OTHERS outside its boundaries, and it translates these texts in order to replace them, pure and simple. The translations take the place of the original. They function as the original in the culture to the extent that the original disappear behind the translations. However, Fung and Kiu have drawn quite different conclusions from their investigation of translation between English and Chinese, Our comparison of the two sets of data showed that the English image often disappeared, whereas with the Chinese ones are frequently used. One reason perhaps is that the Chinese audience are more familiar with and receptive to Western culture than the average English readers is to Chinese culture.
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 下一页
归化还是异化？翻译理论中的难题 第4页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
