Ananalysisonforeignizaionanddomesicaioninranslaionfromheperspeciveofculure–ankingMomeninPekingasanexample_开题报告

一、Literature Review on Domestication and Foreignization

（一）Studies at Home

The dispute about foreignization and domestication in China can trace back to the controversy on the literal translation and free translation, because many people take them as the extension of literal translation and free translation. The dispute in the modern history dispute over domestication and foreignization arose in the 1920s and 1930s, which took the form of debates about the dichotomy of “faithfulness” and “smoothness”. In the 1920s, some enlightened Chinese scholars proposed to translate western works into China aiming at creating a new culture. Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai, representatives of the “faithfulness” school (in essence, the foreignization translation), declared “rather to be faithful (in thought) than to be smooth (in language)” with the purpose of enriching the Chinese language by introducing new ways of expressions as well as retaining the foreign flavor. 

Lu Xun considered to be the first modern translation theorist in China, played a central part in the debate on translation theory between the late 1920s and early 1930s. He strongly criticized the translation theory favored by Lin Shu and Fu Donghua and deliberately pursued an opposite path. Lu Xun even proposed the idea of “rather to be faithful than fluent “( 宁信而不顺 ). He not only talked about, but also experimented with the idea of absorbing foreign elements in his translation practice. He deployed many Europeanized structures in his translations ， which can be seen as an opposition to fluent translation strategy, or domestication in the linguistic level. He advocated retaining the foreignness of the original text, especially the foreign linguistic structures. In practice, he also explored possibilities of enriching the Chinese language through the importation of Europeanized terms, structures and expressions. 

However, Liang Shiqiu and Zhao Jingshen, as representatives of the “smoothness” school (in essence, the domestication translation), declared “rather to be smooth (in language) than to be faithful (in thought)” and maintained that the demands of the target readers should be considered in the process of translating. In his opinion, Lu Xun followed the original text too closely and used syntax hard to be understood by the target readers. 

Reading Lu’s translations is, consequently, like “reading a map and trying to locate places with one’s fingers.” It is not difficult to conclude that the concepts of domestication and foreignization have come to the field of translation study besides the literal translation and free translation but with the names of “smoothness” and “fluency”. During this debate, the “faithfulness” school took the upper hand and many translators consciously adopted foreignization that had another name “Europeanization”. 

•••

（二）Studies at Abroad

Eugene Nida, a professional linguist and Bible translator, also regarded as a firm advocator of domesticating translation, established a system of translation theories based on structuralism in 1960s-70s. The concept of “dynamic” or “functional equivalence” in translation put forward by him in 1964 has an enormous influence on international translation studies by the assertion of “dynamic” rather than “formal” equivalence. 

The representative in the foreignization school Venuti reveals that the basic reasons for the dominant priority of the natural translation, domestication, in the history of western translation, are to form a norm for foreign literature in English on the basis of the western ideology. Venuti concludes that the past translation tradition in the western countries attempts to recreate the foreign text according to ethnocentrism and imperialistic cultural values. So he puts forward what he calls at different times “foreignizing translation” or “abusive fidelity”. By the adoption of foreignization he means any translation strategy but domestication that claims fluency and transparency. By abusive fidelity he means much the same thing: the translator seeks to reproduce those very features of the foreign text that “abuse” or resist the prevailing forms and values in the receiving culture, thereby allowing the translator to be faithful to aspects of the source text, but still participate in effecting cultural changes in the target language. (Gentzler, 2001: 39) According to Venuti, such strategies will play an important role in preventing cultural hegemony and enhancing the status of foreign culture in the target culture. Venuti suggests that the translators should retain some important cultural factors that are frequently erased, elided, smoothed over or adapted to the point that they are no longer recognizable. In order to expose the illusion of transparency in domesticating translation, Venuti also advocates that the practicing translators “foreground the play of the signifier, puns, neologisms, archaisms, dialects, satire, fragmented syntax and experimental forms, all of which result in discontinuous, fragmented and less than unified final texts.” (Ibid). The purpose of the translation in the foreignization is to seek for the difference not for the commonness. 

•••

二、Outline

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 Origin and Definition for Domestication and Foreignization

2.1 The Origin of Domestication and Foreignization

2.2 The Definition of Domestication and Foreignization

3 Case Studies in Moment in Peking

3.1 The Introduction to Lin Yutang and Moment in Peking

3.2 Translation Strategies of Domestication and Foreignization

3.2.1 Address between the Family Members

3.2.2 Social Appellation

3.2.3 Translation of Custom

Conclusion

Reference

三、Reference

[1]Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi, eds. [M]. Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 1999.

[2]Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies (Third Edition) [MJ]. Shanghai: Shanb nm, ghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.

[3]3] Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.

[4]Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures-essays on Terary Translation. [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.

[5]Chen Hongwei. Cultural Differences and Translation [J]. Meta, XLIV, I, 1999 David, Katan. Translating Cultures. Shang Hai Foreign Language Education Press. Shang Hai. 2006.

[6]Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2001

[7]Heaney, Seamus. The Government of the Tongue [M]. London: Faber and Faber, 1989.

[8]Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction [M]. London and New York: Methuen, Inc., Methuen, 1984.

[9]Hu Wenzhong. Intercultural Communication-What It Means to Chinese Learners of English [J]. Shanghai: Translation Publishing House, 1988.

[10]Nida, Eugene. Language and Culture Context in Translating [M]. 

[11]Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001 Shuttleworth, Mark&Moira Cowie. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004. 

[12]Tylor, Edward B. Primitive Culture. New York: Harper of Torchlooks, 1871. Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility—A History of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004. 

[13]曹柯 . 文学翻译 : 一种诗化意义上的探讨 [J]. 中国翻译， 2006 (1):26 

[14]陈旋波 . 林语堂与新道家 . 华侨大学学报 [J]. 2005 年第一期