the relation between domestication and foreignization我要英语的答案,字数大概是300字左右

the relation between domestication and foreignization我要英语的答案,字数大概是300字左右
the relation between domestication and foreignization
我要英语的答案,字数大概是300字左右

the relation between domestication and foreignization我要英语的答案,字数大概是300字左右
Domestication and Foreignization
Zhao Ni
(School of Interpretation and Translation, Shandong University at Weihai, Weihai, Shandong,264209)
Abstract: In field of translation, there has long been a hot debate over the proper translation strategy chosen for the transmission of cultural contents. The two major approaches are domesticationa and foreignization, which have been the focus of debate since their appearance. This thesis aims to analyse the chioce of domestication and foreignization from a new approach, namely, Skopostheorie.
Keywords: domesticationa, foreignization, Skopostheorie
1.Definitions of Domesticationa and Foreignization
Domestication refers to the target-culture-oriented translation in which unusual expressions to the target culture are exploited and turned into some familiar ones so as to make the translated text intelligible and easy for the target readers. Foreignization is a source-culture-oriented translation which strives to preserve the foreign flavor as much as possible in order to transfer the source language and culture into the target one.
2.Overview of the Debate over Domesticationa and Foreignization
The debate on foreignization or domestication can be viewed as the extension of the debate on “literal translation” and “free translation”. A literal translation is a translation that follows closely not only the content but also the form of the source language, it is also known as word-for-word translation. And translators engaged in literalism have been willing to sacrifice the formal elements of the target language and even the intelligibility of the target language text for the sake of preserving what they regard as the integrity of the source text. While those who favor free translation have quite often chosen to sacrifice the form of the source language for the sake of elegance and intelligibility in the target language. But most scholars hold that literal and free translation are limited on the level of content and form, when two languages are very similar in their structures, the issue of literal versus free translating may not seen to be so acute.
The two pairs of strategies share some similarities: literal translation and foreignization put emphasis on the linguistic and stylistic features of the source text, and the target text translated in these ways may not be very smooth in language and the content may not be familiar to the target readers, so they may feel foreign when reading the translation, while free translation and domestication pay more attention to the target audience, because of the smooth sentences, the familiar expressions and cultural phenomena, sometimes the target readers may not realize that they are actually reading a translated text from another culture. However, this does not mean the two pairs are just one. There are some diferences between them. When a translator resorts to either literal translating method or free translating method, he puts his attention mainly to the linguistic factors of the source text and tries his utmost to keep the original meaning in the target text. But with the development of the translation studies, plenty of translators and theorists have realized that translation is a far more complicated activity with various cultural, poetic, political as well as economic factors related to it. Therefore, foreignization and domestication are a pair of new translation strategies which are more complex and extensive than literal translation and free translation method.
3. A New Approach: Skopostheorie
Which strategy is more appropriate as far as specific literary work is concerned ? Which strategy can make the translated text have a better efect among its target audience, foreignization or domestication? So far no theory can give a definite answer to the question, nor can any theorist completely negate one of them. Personally speaking, I thinks both domestication and foreignization are just two different strategies of translation and should complement with each other, because in translation practice, both methods have their functions which cannot be substituted. To strictly insist upon one another is just bring the strategy to extremes. Both strategies are justified if used in suitable situations from the perspective of the functionalist theory.
3.1 An Overview of the Skopostheorie
Translation, as a form of translaitonal action, like any other forms of human action, must be oriented by certain purpose. In translation practice, which strategy should be chosen should not be determined by the text itself or the translator himself/herself, but should be mainly decided by the purpose of the translation. This purpose-oriented approach of translation is one of the central idea of functionalist theory. The functionalist theory put forward by some German scholars has made a new perspective for translation studies. The German scholars are referred to as the "German school": Katharina Reiss and her functionalist translation criticism, Hans. J. Vermeer's Skopostheorie and its extensions, Justa Holz-Manttari's theory of translational action and Christiane Nord's loyalty plus Skopos.(Nord 2001:4)
Funcitionalists focus on the function or functions of texts and translations, or in German language the skopos of the translation. According to functionalist approaches to translation, i.e. the skopotheorie as presented by Vermeer, there are three major rules in the skopotheorie, namely, the skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity rule. In the functionalist theory, the top-ranking rule for any translation is the “Skopos rule”, which says that a translational action is determined by its Skopos; that is, "the end justifies the means" (Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 101). Vermeer explains the Skopos rule as follows: Translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function (Vermeer 1989a: 20). We can distinguish between three possible kinds of purpose in the field of translation: the general purpose aimed at by the translator in the translational process, the communicative purpose aimed at by the TT in the target situation and the purpose aimed at by a particular translation strategy or procedure. Nevertheless, the term skopos usually refers to the purpose of the TT,(Nord, 2001: 27-28) which is decided by the initiator of the translational action. Though most translational actions have a variety of Skopoi to realize, or more than one purpose to achieve, they usually will follow a hierarchical order. The translator, as a decision-maker, should judge which particular Skopos should be the most important one for him to carry out in a translational process. It also gives the translator a new perspective to decide which strategy will be employed in the whole process. The translator's task is to ascertain and then apply the suitable strategies to reach its purpose. As Vermeer puts it, What the Skopos states is that one must translate, consciously and consistently, in accordance with some principle respecting the target text The theory does not state what the principle is and this must be decided separately in each specific case (1989b: 182).
The coherence rule is also called as the intratextual coherence by functionalists. It requires that the translated text should make sense in the communicative situation in which it is received. It specifies that a translation should be acceptable in a sense that it is coherent with the receivers' situation (Reiss and Vermeer 1984:113). Therefore, in the translating process, the translator should take the target culture into careful consideration and do some alterations in order to make the translation intelligible. Otherwise, the translated text may lose its significance and become meaningless in a target culture.
Since translation is the offer of the information from the source text, the translated text must bear certain relation with the source one. Vermeer called this relationship "intertextual coherence" or "fidelity". This coherence exists between the source text and the target text and the form it takes depends both on the translator's interpretation of the source text and on the translation Skopos.
The core of Skopostheorie is that the translation purpose plays the most important role in a translational process, or “the translation purpose justifies the translation procedures”. But problems arise when the translation purpose is not in line with the communicative intentions of the original author. Another member of the “German School”---Christiane Nord proposes her loyalty principle,which commits the translator bilaterally to the source and the target sides. It refers to the responsibility the translator has toward the source text producer, the target receiver and other agents involved in a translational interaction. Nord emphasizes that the term cannot be mixed up with fidelity or faithfulness, concepts that usually refer to a relationship holding between the source text and the target text. Loyalty is an interpersonal category referring to a social relationship between people. Loyalty demands the translator should be responsible for the target readers, but this does not mean that the translator is always obliged to do exactly what the readers expect Yet at the same time, the translator should also have a sense of moral responsibility not to deceive his readers (Nord 2001: 125)
4. Domesticationa and Foreignization in the Framework of Skopotheorie
4.1 the Relationship between the Two Stategies
Under the framework of skopotheorie, foreignization and domestication may not contradict each other judging from the new functionalist perspective. Since a translation, generally involves various purposes, diferent strategies have to be taken in order to achieve each of them. The functionalist theory can provide guidance for him to decide which strategy is more suitable to employ in a specific translational action. Within the framework of the functionalist theory, the commissioner or the initiator should inform the translator much detailed information concerning the action such as the intended functions and the addressees of the target text at the beginning. Taking all these factors into careful consideration, the translator can give preference to foreignization or to domestication.
If a translation is intended to widen the target addressees' visions and to introduce the source culture into the target culture, the translator may choose foreignization. In this way, the source culture can be transferred into the target culture and further enrich the target culture as well as language. However, this method is not suitable to the texts under all circumstances. Cultural faithfulness should not be acquired at the expense of a vague broken language, resulting in miscomprehension or making little readability of the target text into sense. Therefore translator should also take demestication into consideration when employing the foreignizing strategy.
On the contrary, if the Skopos is to provide a smoother translation without many difficulties for common readers, domesticating method should be taken. It will overcome the culture barriers as well as the language ones for providing an easy reading. Then the most important task for the translator is to eliminate the cultural conflicts, which may be the obstacles in communication and result in misunderstanding. It is also the translators' job to be aware of the connotations of some cultural elements in the source text. Thus a successful communication can be achieved. But the domesticating strategy has its limitations, too. Sometimes it may not be suitable since a translation should read like a translation, remaining something foreign and exotic. If it loses all the characteristics of a translation, it may also lose its atraction.
Therefore, both strategies have their positive points as well as the negative ones. They are far from being all-purpose and can only be taken to reach different Skopoi designed by translation brief. The relationship between foreignization and domestication is in fact dialectical and complementary.
Different participants play different roles, among which the intended TT receiver is of utmost importance. This is why in the framework of Vermeer’s theory, one of the most important factors determining the purpose of a translation is the addressee, who is the intended receiver or audience of the TT with their culture-specific world-knowledge, their expectations and their communicative needs. Every translation is directed at an intended audience, since to translate means “to produce a text in a target setting for a target purpose and target addressees in target circumstances”(1987a:29)
A text is made meaningful by its receiver and for its receiver. Different receivers or even the same receiver at different times find different meanings in the same linguistic material offered by the text. What the translator can do, and should do, is to produce a text that is at least likely to be meaningful to target-culture receivers.
4.2 Case Study
For example, as for the two versions of Hong Lou Meng by Yang Xianyi couple and David Hawkes respectively, the two translators adopt different methods concerning the cultural factors in the story. Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang address their translation to the foreign readers who have some, or at least a litle knowledge about China and Chinese culture. In a word, the addressees of Yangs' translation are some foreigners or experts who are learning Chinese and its culture. On the contrary, Hawkes' translation is for the common English-speaking readers who may or may not know much about China. His main purpose was to bring pleasure to western readers. Based on their varying translation briefs, Yang Xianyi and Hawkes take diferent translating strategies in order to achieve their own Skopos respectively. Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang mainly adopt foreignization in translating while Hawkes goes to domestication. This difference in the strategy can be shown in the translation of various proverbs and idioms in the two versions.
For example:
谋事在人,成事在天
Yangs' version: Man proposes,Heaven disposes.
version: Man proposes, God disposes.
知人知面不知心.
Yangs' version: You can know a man's face but not his heart.
Hawkes' version: Appearances certainly are deceptive.
巧媳妇做不出没米的粥来.
Yangs' version:
Even the cleverest housewife can't cook a meal without rice.
Hawkes' version:
Even the cleverest housewife can't cook bread without flour.
Obviously, Yang’s translation tries his best to preserve the original form, content, structure even the word order to make it more like the Chinese one. While Hawkes discards the original form, only giving the implied meaning or replacing the cultural images with those of the target culture. In this way, the readers could understand the version without much trouble.
Ho wever, that is not to say that the Yangs will always keep to a literal translation of the original form and content without taking any consideration to the target readers’situation or Hawkes’ will stick to strict domestication all the time. For example:
得陇望蜀
Yangs' version:
The more you get, the more you want
Hawkes' version:
One conquest breeds appetite for another.
心较比干多一窍,病如西子胜三分
Yangs'version:
She looked more sensitive than Pikan, more delicate than His Shih.
1“比干” A prince noted for his great intelligence at the end of the Shang Dynasty.
2“西施” A famous beauty of the ancient kingdom of Yueh.
Hawkes' version:
She had more chambers in her heart than the martyred Bi Gan;
And sufered a tithe more pain in it than the beautiful Xi Shi.
“比干 ” and “西施”,are two historical figures very familiar to the Chinese readers. The former is a man of high intelligence while the later is a beauty. In a sense, they are almost the Chinese counterparts of Solomon and Venus in western culture.
In the above examples, the two translators seem to be in conflict with their own methods in that the Yangs give clear and concise paraphrases while Hawkes translates them more literally, adding detailed explanations. Their translating methods are not unchanged from the very beginning to the end. In fact, they take diferent methods according to their needs and translating purposes.
For example,
那时恰是回九三期,就是若不过去,薛姨妈脸上过不去.（《红楼梦》）
The ninth day after the wedding had now come-the day on which newly-weds should visit the bride’s family. If they stayed away, Aunt Hsueh might well feel slighted. (杨宪益等)
Since the concept expressed by the source item is not lexicalized at all in the TL, the translator added some necessary information or explanation on the basis of a literal translation of the term “回九三期”. While in other cases, even if the translator intended to adapt the version to the target language norms on levels of linguistic form and expressions, certain items can also be translated literally with its foreign taste so long as the expressions have been accepted and identified by the intended reader groups.
5. Comments and Conclusion
Functionalist theory places emphasis on the expected function of texts and translations, in this way, domestication and foreignization are not only not incompatible, but should complment with each other. They are just two different strategies of translation, we should not bring them to extremes: domestication does not mean translators can make adaptations at will, while foreignization does not equal word-for-word translation or static translation. What we should do is to draw a balance between the two sides, choosing one does not negate the application of another. Even if the translator takes domestication as the dominating strategy in order for the translation to be easily understood by the receivers, he/she can also reserve the original images concerning specific culturally loaded expressions; on the other hand, even if the translation is to preserve the exoticism to import foreign cultures into the target language, changes must be made on certain points which appear quite unnatural or even unaccepted by the target readers and language. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis of various factors involved in translation, the translators follow both domestication and foreignization, and they can make decisions on the problems of which cultural factors in the original should be reserved and how to reserve them, which factors should be adapted so as to be accepted in the target culture and the extent of the adaption.
That is to say, there is no point to say that one strategy is better than the other, so long as they can serve the intended function of the text in the target language, each of them have their role in translation.
Bibliography
(1) 王东风.归 化 与 异 化: 矛 与 盾 的 交 锋[J].中 国 翻 译 ,2002,(5).
(2) 郭冬女.从目的论看文化因素的翻译[J].河北理工学院学报,2003,（5）.
(3) 郭建中.翻译的文化因素：异化与规化[J].外国语,1998,（2）.
(4) 王平.归化与异化：殊途同归的翻译策略[J].福州大学学报,2004,（1）.
(5) 范祥涛,刘全福.论翻译选择的目的性[J].中国翻译,2002,（11）.
(6) 孟志刚.论翻译中“异化”和“归化”的辩证统一[J].西安外国语学院学报,1999（4）.
(7) Nida,Eugene A.Language,Culture and Translating. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1993.
(8) Nord Christiane. Translation As a Purposeful Activity-Functionalist Approaches Explained. Shanghai Foreign Language Ed