论翻译的归化与异化DomesicaionandForeignizaioninTranslaion_开题报告

Domestication method and foreignizing method were born in 1995, which is an important theory in Writer Lawrence Venuti`s work 《The Translation's Invisibility: A History of Translation》, showed us the difference between the two kinds of translations. And the domestic research status and Current situation of foreign research are below.

（一）Domestic research status

Domestication method and foreignizing method are the main ways of translations in Chinese translation history. All the students in Advanced College of Translation must master the skills of the two ways. A lot of researchers are working on them, which gave me many thoughts about these subjects.

After a great many of researching, we must admit that no matter the domestication method or foreignizing method, our purpose of translation is to communicate with foreign friends, and finish the culture exchanging work. If we just keep the foreign ways of translation, we may lose the real meanings of certain content. But if we do it in the other way, we may not feel the difference between the two kinds of languages. So how to balance the domestication method and foreignizing method become more and more important in the translation research area.

When we go back through the Chinses translation history, we may find some arguments of free translation and literal translation, with the turning of key point of the culture which has changed from language operating to cross culture communication, we have automatically transferred free translation and literal translation into domestication and foreignization. These are also the points that have been argued. Domestication and foreignization can be considered as the extension of free translation and literal translation. 

Domestication 

Fu Lei, a great writer in Chinese literature, really agree the domestication during his translation work. He used to point out that Sino-Foreign countries’ way of thinking and aesthetic taste are similar. So, we need not translated art work word by word, but keep the spirit and aesthetic features of the original works. 

Qian Zhongshu, also a great writer in Chinese literature, who is also agree with this idea. He used to tell the difference between the ways. His great affection makes people think that how to balance the two kinds of ways in real translation work.

Foreignization

Lu Xun, whose real name is Zhou Shuren who is a great writer in Chinese literature, wasn’t agree with the above theories. He thought his work should be translated in way that is closer to the audience. He thought only that way, people can better understand his work. That is also the best way to pass his work from generation to generation. He talked about the Europeanize several times in his speeches or letters, which are the best proof that he agrees with the foreignization.

••••

（二）Current situation of foreign research

Domestication and foreignization are strategies in translation, which need translators to make a text conform to the target culture. Domestication is the strategy of making text closely conform to the culture of the language being translated to, which may involve the loss of information from the source language. Foreignization is the strategy of retaining information from the source language, and involves deliberately breaking the conventions of the target language to preserve its meaning. These strategies have been debated for hundreds of years, but the first person to formulate them in their modern sense was Lawrence Venuti, who introduced them to the field of translation studies in 1995 with his book The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. Venuti's innovation to the field was his view that the dichotomy between domestication and foreignization was an ideological one; he views foreignization as the ethical choice for translators to make.

According to Lawrence Venuti, every translator or interpreter should look at the translation process through the prism of culture which refracts the source language cultural norms and it is the translator’s task to convey them, preserving their meaning and their foreignness, to the target-language text. 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 that circulate in the target language.

He estimates that the theory and practice of English-language translation has been dominated by submission, by fluent domestication. He strictly criticized the translators who in order to minimize the foreignness of the target text reduce the foreign cultural norms to target-language cultural values. According to Venuti, the domesticating strategy “violently” erases the cultural values and thus creates a text which as if had been written in the target language and which follows the cultural norms of the target reader. He strongly advocates the foreignization strategy, considering it to be “an anorexiant pressure on [target-language cultural] values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad.” Thus, an adequate translation would be the one that would highlight the foreignness of the source text and instead of allowing the dominant target culture to assimilate the differences of the source culture, it should rather signal these differences.

••••••

1 Introduction

1.1 Research Background of Free translation and literal translation

1.1.1 The definition of free translation

1.1.2 The definition of literal translation

1.2 Research Background of Domestication and foreignization

1.2.1 The definition of domestication

1.2.2 The definition of foreignization

2 The relationship between Free translation and literal translation and Domestication and foreignization

2.1 Domestic research status of Domestication and foreignization

2.2 Current situation of foreign research of Domestication and foreignization

3 The analysis of the Domestication and foreignization in use.

3.1 Domestication in translation

3.2 Foreignization in translation

4 Conclusion

三、Reference

[1] Venuti, L. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press, 2006

[2] Nord, Christiane. Translation As a Purposeful Activity-Functionalist Approaches Explained[M]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.

[3] Shuttleworth, M &M. Cowie. Dictionary of Translation Study [Z].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.

[4] Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating[M]. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964.

[5] Biguenet,John & Rainer Schulte. The Craft of Translation[M]. University of Chicago Press, 1989.

[6] 郭建中, 翻译中的文化因素: 异化与归化[J]. 上海外国语大学学报,1998年第2 期(总第114 期)

[7] 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)

[8] 杨文伟, 英语习语汉译过程中的异化与归化[J]. 蒙自师范高等专科学校报,

2002 (1).

[9] 王东风, 归化与异化: 矛与盾的交锋[J]. 中国翻译, 2002年第五期.

[10] 王佐良, “翻译中的文化比较”，《文化与翻译》[J]. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2000.