论文部分内容阅读
【摘要】作为一种常见的翻译策略，异化总是译者不错的选择。但关于归化与异化翻译比较的争论未曾停止过。1987年，一篇名为“归化——翻译的歧路”的文章更是引起了归化与异化的大讨论。这篇文章将主要对翻译中异化策略的定义，异化与归化的比较，导致译者采用异化策略的原因以及异化策略的评估这些主题进行探讨。
【关键词】翻译策略 归化 异化
【Abstract】As a strategy of translation， foreignization is a good choice for many translators. However， the comparison between domestication and foreignization has always been on dispute. In 1987， an essay “归化——翻译的歧路” brought a great discussion about domestication and foreignization. This essay will deal with the definition of foreignization， its comparison with domestication， the reasons leading to this strategy and its evaluation.
【Key Words】 Translation strategy； domestication； foreignization
1. Introduction
Translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation. （Venuti， 17） In an 1813 lecture on translation strategies， Schleiermacher argued “there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace and moves the reader towards him； or he leaves the reader in peace and moves the author towards him”. The former can be interpreted as foreignization， and the later domestication.
1.1 Definition of foreignization
Foreignization is the strategy of retaining information from the source text， and involves deliberately breaking the conventions of the target language to preserve its meaning. It is more source-language orientated and tries to reserve the features of the original culture. It offers chances to get closer to the original culture. But it may add to difficulties in understanding the original because of cultural differences.
1.2 Domestication and Foreignization
Domestication and foreignization differ in the degree to which translators make a text conform to the target culture. Domestication makes text closely conformed to the target culture， which may involve the loss of information. It been debated for many years， but Venuti was the first one formulate them in modern sense in his book The Translator’s Invisibility： A History of Translation. He thought the dichotomy between domestication and foreignization was an ideological one and foreignization as the ethical choice for translators to make.
The debate over domestication and foreignization is an extension of the debate over “literal translation” and “free translation”. There are similarities between literal translation and foreignization： they both emphasize the linguistic and stylistic features of the original， and the foreignized translation is not as fluent as domesticationized ones. Debates over these two strategies are abundant in history. Eugene Nida who has put forward the “dynamic equivalence” supports domestication. He thought good translation should find the closet equivalence in the target language and aim at “naturalness of expression”. Some other theorists are supporters of foreignization. Venuti thought “foreignizing translation signifies the difference of the foreign text， yet only by disrupting to do right abroad， this translation method must do wrong at home， deviating enough from native norms to stage an alien reading experience -- choosing to translate a foreign text excluded by domestic literary canons， for instance， or using a marginal discourse to translate it” （Venuti， 20）.
The debate has been heated at home since Liu Kaiying published an article titled “Domestication--the Wrong Road for Translation” which criticized the abuse of domestication. Liu opposed the abuse of four-character idioms， archaic words in translation， and thought excessive use of domestication would ruin the original. Sun Zhili also upheld foreignization. In “China’s Literary Translation： from Domestication to Foreignization” in 2002， he said “in the last two decades of the 20th century， more attention was paid to the strategies of foreignization.”（Sun， 40） While Cai Ping and Zhang Guruo thought that domestication is of priority. Others own a dialectical view that these two both had its own advantages and could be combined.
2. Application of Foreignization in Translation
Foreignization is quite widespread in translation. The main reason is the cultural differences. Eugene Nida has argues “words are fundamentally symbols for features of the culture.” And he distinguishes five cultural categories. Differences in religious， material and social culture are main reasons for foreignization.
Differences in religious culture， most of the time， resort to foreignizaiton. These religions share different origins. Thus the ancient theorists who are mainly translators of religious texts are supporters of foreignization. Xhi Qian proposed “Following the original meaning without any embroidery”， Dao An also thought “Preaching according to the original without any deduction or addition.” Therefore， the translation of religious texts adopts foreignization to spread religious power. But religious items are also used in daily expressions. Idioms like “an eye for an eye， a tooth for a tooth” are from the Bible and widely used in daily communications. It is better to remain its original form. “The leopard cannot change its spots” is also one from the Bible. The Chinese idiom “江山易改，禀性难移” share almost the same meaning with it. If it is translated as “花豹改不了自己身上的斑点”， it not only enriches the expression of Chinese but also let the Chinese know more about foreign cultures. There are also dilemmas in Chinese to English translation： 湘云笑道：“阿弥陀佛！刚刚的明白了。”
Yang Xianyi： “Buddha be praised. So you’ve caught on at last.”
Hawks： “Holy Name！” said Xiangyun. “She understands.”
Yang adopted foreignization to translate “阿弥陀佛”as “Buddha be praised” but Hawks adopted domestication and translated it into “Holy Name”. Both of the two are acceptable， but Yang’s version is more appropriate for the thorough comprehension of the text. Hawks’ seems more readable for the foreigners.
Difference in material culture also leads to foreignization. Western countries are more advanced in the development of science and technology， but China is more abundant in ancient culture. Some science terms find no equivalence in Chinese and have to be translated literally： Alzheimer：阿兹海默（综合症）； Hacker：黑客； Internet：因特网；Coffee： 咖啡
陋室空堂，当年笏满床。
Yang： Mean huts and empty halls， where emblems of nobility once hung.
Hawks： Mean hovels and abandoned halls， where courtiers once paid daily calls.
“笏” is a kind of board made of ivory or jade. Held by officials in ancient China， it was a symbol of nobility. Yang translated it into “emblems of nobility” was seen as a hint to the tool， while Hawks changed this image into “courtiers”.
Over these years， the foreignization in Chinese to English translation is more and more supported. Some even have proposed to translate materials with Chinese features with Chinese phonetic transcription：功夫：Kongfu；豆腐：tofu；风水：Fengshui
This translation offers not only a more novel view for the foreigners， but also an access to enhance the Chinese culture.
Differences in social culture are also reasons for this strategy. The West and The East own different history， geography and living habits.
Shall I compare thee to a summer’ day？
巧妇难为无米之炊
1）能否把你比作夏日璀璨？
Even the cleverest housewife cannot cook a meal without rice.
2）能否把你比作春日璀璨？
Even the cleverest housewife cannot bake bread without flour.
3. Evaluations of Foreignization
Foreignization entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language. （Munday， 147） Venuti considers foreignization as “an ethnodeviant pressure on values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text， sending the reader abroad”. As for the function of translation， the best way is to combine domestication and foreignization in translation. Foreignization is necessary when there is no counterparts in target culture， and it is a way to resist ethnocentric violence of translation， which mainly refers to X to English translations.
中国有句古话：“不入虎穴，焉得虎子。”
There is an old Chinese saying： “How can you catch tiger cubs without entering the tiger’s lair？”
Such foreignizing translation remains the style of the original and enhances the features of Chinese idioms. Thus there is no need to search painstakingly equivalent idioms in English.
However， excessive foreignization is not enjoyable， especially in daily communication. The translation of film titles mainly adopts domestication to attract target language audience.. Silver linings：乌云背后的幸福线； Frozen：冰雪奇缘 （冰冻）； Inception：盗梦空间.
4. Conclusion
Foreignization can give the target-language speakers a chance to know more about the original-text culture， and at the same time enrich their own culture； on the other hand， cultural exchanges are enhanced. However， excessive use of foreignization may be reduced to disharmony in translation. Combination of foreignization and domestication can be the resolution for good translation.
References：
[1]Jeremy Munday，Introducing Translation Studies： Theories and Application[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，Shanghai，2010.
[2]Lawrence Venuti，The Translator’s Invisibility： A History of Translation[M].Routledge，2008.
[3]刘英凯， 归化——翻译的歧路[J].现代外语，1987，2： 52-57.
[4]孙致礼，China’s Literary Translation： From Domestication to Foreignzaiton[J].Chinese Translation Journal，2002.
作者简介：
蒋罗琼，出生年月：1989.10.20，湖南常德人，华南理工大学外国语学院研究生，研究方向：翻译理论与实践。
【关键词】翻译策略 归化 异化
【Abstract】As a strategy of translation， foreignization is a good choice for many translators. However， the comparison between domestication and foreignization has always been on dispute. In 1987， an essay “归化——翻译的歧路” brought a great discussion about domestication and foreignization. This essay will deal with the definition of foreignization， its comparison with domestication， the reasons leading to this strategy and its evaluation.
【Key Words】 Translation strategy； domestication； foreignization
1. Introduction
Translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation. （Venuti， 17） In an 1813 lecture on translation strategies， Schleiermacher argued “there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace and moves the reader towards him； or he leaves the reader in peace and moves the author towards him”. The former can be interpreted as foreignization， and the later domestication.
1.1 Definition of foreignization
Foreignization is the strategy of retaining information from the source text， and involves deliberately breaking the conventions of the target language to preserve its meaning. It is more source-language orientated and tries to reserve the features of the original culture. It offers chances to get closer to the original culture. But it may add to difficulties in understanding the original because of cultural differences.
1.2 Domestication and Foreignization
Domestication and foreignization differ in the degree to which translators make a text conform to the target culture. Domestication makes text closely conformed to the target culture， which may involve the loss of information. It been debated for many years， but Venuti was the first one formulate them in modern sense in his book The Translator’s Invisibility： A History of Translation. He thought the dichotomy between domestication and foreignization was an ideological one and foreignization as the ethical choice for translators to make.
The debate over domestication and foreignization is an extension of the debate over “literal translation” and “free translation”. There are similarities between literal translation and foreignization： they both emphasize the linguistic and stylistic features of the original， and the foreignized translation is not as fluent as domesticationized ones. Debates over these two strategies are abundant in history. Eugene Nida who has put forward the “dynamic equivalence” supports domestication. He thought good translation should find the closet equivalence in the target language and aim at “naturalness of expression”. Some other theorists are supporters of foreignization. Venuti thought “foreignizing translation signifies the difference of the foreign text， yet only by disrupting to do right abroad， this translation method must do wrong at home， deviating enough from native norms to stage an alien reading experience -- choosing to translate a foreign text excluded by domestic literary canons， for instance， or using a marginal discourse to translate it” （Venuti， 20）.
The debate has been heated at home since Liu Kaiying published an article titled “Domestication--the Wrong Road for Translation” which criticized the abuse of domestication. Liu opposed the abuse of four-character idioms， archaic words in translation， and thought excessive use of domestication would ruin the original. Sun Zhili also upheld foreignization. In “China’s Literary Translation： from Domestication to Foreignization” in 2002， he said “in the last two decades of the 20th century， more attention was paid to the strategies of foreignization.”（Sun， 40） While Cai Ping and Zhang Guruo thought that domestication is of priority. Others own a dialectical view that these two both had its own advantages and could be combined.
2. Application of Foreignization in Translation
Foreignization is quite widespread in translation. The main reason is the cultural differences. Eugene Nida has argues “words are fundamentally symbols for features of the culture.” And he distinguishes five cultural categories. Differences in religious， material and social culture are main reasons for foreignization.
Differences in religious culture， most of the time， resort to foreignizaiton. These religions share different origins. Thus the ancient theorists who are mainly translators of religious texts are supporters of foreignization. Xhi Qian proposed “Following the original meaning without any embroidery”， Dao An also thought “Preaching according to the original without any deduction or addition.” Therefore， the translation of religious texts adopts foreignization to spread religious power. But religious items are also used in daily expressions. Idioms like “an eye for an eye， a tooth for a tooth” are from the Bible and widely used in daily communications. It is better to remain its original form. “The leopard cannot change its spots” is also one from the Bible. The Chinese idiom “江山易改，禀性难移” share almost the same meaning with it. If it is translated as “花豹改不了自己身上的斑点”， it not only enriches the expression of Chinese but also let the Chinese know more about foreign cultures. There are also dilemmas in Chinese to English translation： 湘云笑道：“阿弥陀佛！刚刚的明白了。”
Yang Xianyi： “Buddha be praised. So you’ve caught on at last.”
Hawks： “Holy Name！” said Xiangyun. “She understands.”
Yang adopted foreignization to translate “阿弥陀佛”as “Buddha be praised” but Hawks adopted domestication and translated it into “Holy Name”. Both of the two are acceptable， but Yang’s version is more appropriate for the thorough comprehension of the text. Hawks’ seems more readable for the foreigners.
Difference in material culture also leads to foreignization. Western countries are more advanced in the development of science and technology， but China is more abundant in ancient culture. Some science terms find no equivalence in Chinese and have to be translated literally： Alzheimer：阿兹海默（综合症）； Hacker：黑客； Internet：因特网；Coffee： 咖啡
陋室空堂，当年笏满床。
Yang： Mean huts and empty halls， where emblems of nobility once hung.
Hawks： Mean hovels and abandoned halls， where courtiers once paid daily calls.
“笏” is a kind of board made of ivory or jade. Held by officials in ancient China， it was a symbol of nobility. Yang translated it into “emblems of nobility” was seen as a hint to the tool， while Hawks changed this image into “courtiers”.
Over these years， the foreignization in Chinese to English translation is more and more supported. Some even have proposed to translate materials with Chinese features with Chinese phonetic transcription：功夫：Kongfu；豆腐：tofu；风水：Fengshui
This translation offers not only a more novel view for the foreigners， but also an access to enhance the Chinese culture.
Differences in social culture are also reasons for this strategy. The West and The East own different history， geography and living habits.
Shall I compare thee to a summer’ day？
巧妇难为无米之炊
1）能否把你比作夏日璀璨？
Even the cleverest housewife cannot cook a meal without rice.
2）能否把你比作春日璀璨？
Even the cleverest housewife cannot bake bread without flour.
3. Evaluations of Foreignization
Foreignization entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language. （Munday， 147） Venuti considers foreignization as “an ethnodeviant pressure on values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text， sending the reader abroad”. As for the function of translation， the best way is to combine domestication and foreignization in translation. Foreignization is necessary when there is no counterparts in target culture， and it is a way to resist ethnocentric violence of translation， which mainly refers to X to English translations.
中国有句古话：“不入虎穴，焉得虎子。”
There is an old Chinese saying： “How can you catch tiger cubs without entering the tiger’s lair？”
Such foreignizing translation remains the style of the original and enhances the features of Chinese idioms. Thus there is no need to search painstakingly equivalent idioms in English.
However， excessive foreignization is not enjoyable， especially in daily communication. The translation of film titles mainly adopts domestication to attract target language audience.. Silver linings：乌云背后的幸福线； Frozen：冰雪奇缘 （冰冻）； Inception：盗梦空间.
4. Conclusion
Foreignization can give the target-language speakers a chance to know more about the original-text culture， and at the same time enrich their own culture； on the other hand， cultural exchanges are enhanced. However， excessive use of foreignization may be reduced to disharmony in translation. Combination of foreignization and domestication can be the resolution for good translation.
References：
[1]Jeremy Munday，Introducing Translation Studies： Theories and Application[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，Shanghai，2010.
[2]Lawrence Venuti，The Translator’s Invisibility： A History of Translation[M].Routledge，2008.
[3]刘英凯， 归化——翻译的歧路[J].现代外语，1987，2： 52-57.
[4]孙致礼，China’s Literary Translation： From Domestication to Foreignzaiton[J].Chinese Translation Journal，2002.
作者简介：
蒋罗琼，出生年月：1989.10.20，湖南常德人，华南理工大学外国语学院研究生，研究方向：翻译理论与实践。