【英语专业毕业论文】浅谈跨文化翻译中的归化与异化.doc

浅谈跨文化翻译中的归化与异化摘要：翻译活动从本质上来说是一种文化现象。在跨文化交际中，归化与异化作为两种相反的翻译策略有着各自的优点与应用价值。然而，这两种策略并不是不可调和的，由于翻译活动是一个由多种因素决定的复杂过程，归化与异化原则应该被灵活的加以运用。关键词：归化；异化；跨文化交际Domestication and Foreignization in Cross-Cultural TranslationAbstract: Translation is essentially a cultural phenomenon. In the cross-cultural communication, domestication and foreignization are two opposite translation strategies and have their own merits and values of application. However, The two principles are not incompatible; instead they should be applied in a flexible way since translation is a complex work determined by many factors.Keywords: Domestication, Foreignization, Cross-cultural communication1.0 Introduction: translation and cultureTranslation involves two different languages and cultures; it is not only an inter-lingual activity, but also a cross-cultural communication event. In the past two decades, there has been a clear shift of focus in translation studies, a moving away from looking at translation as linguistic phenomena to looking at translation as cultural phenomena. Holz-Manttari uses “intercultural cooperation” to refer to translation; R Daniel Shaw coins the word “transculturation” to replace translation; Andre Lefevere views translation as “acculturation”. Furthermore, Lance Hewson and Jacky Martin (1991:131-135), while considering the translator as “cultural operator”, claim that “cultural equation should be an essential part of translation theory and practice alike”. From those points of views, it is safe enough for Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere to argue that translation studies is taking a historic “cultural turn”. (Gentzler, 1993:185).In the translation process, culture influences translation strategies a translator may employ and then a very important and knotty problem arises, that is, how to deal with cultural messages a foreign text contains, or how does translator handle the cultural elements involved in cultural translation? What are the suitable methods? Should he take a source language culture-oriented approach, or conversely, a target language oriented-approach? These questions bring us to the so-called “which-culture to-attach-to-contradiction” (Dang, 1997:33), which in turn, leads to the debate between domesticating believers and foreignizing backers.2.0 Domestication and foreignization 2.1 The origins of domestication and foreignization Domesticating translation and foreignzing translation are the terms brought up by an American scholar Lawrence Venuti to describe the two different translation strategies. He puts forth the corresponding terms of “domestication” and “foreignization” in his book The Translators Invisibility: A History of Translation in 1995. The former refers to the translation in which a transparent, fluent style is adopted in order to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for target language readers, while the latter designates the type of translation in which a target text deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original. The roots of the terms can be traced back to the German philosopher Schleiermachers who talked about the different methods of translating in a lecture that there are only two different methods of translation “either the translator leaves the author in peace as much as possible and bring the reader to him, or he can leave the reader in peace as much as possible and bring the writer to him”. (ShuttleworthCowie 1997:43)Venuti Lawrence comments that Schleiermacher allows the translator to choose between a domesticating method, an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target language cultural values, bringing the author back home, and a foreignizing method, an ethnodeviant pressure on target language cultural values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad."(Venuti, 1995: 305-306). 2.2The discordance between domestication and foreignization abroadThere are different viewpoints on domestication and foreignization. An influential representative of domestication is Dr. Eugene Nida who focuses on the communicative function of translation. In his translation theory he emphasizes the equivalent, which consists of stylistic equivalence, social-cultural equivalence and linguistic equivalence. (Nida, 1964). Nida advocated “dynamic equivalence” defined “in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language” (Nida, 1964). He tries to find the equivalent effect in TL readers response. Guided by dynamic equivalence theory, he judges the “hearty handshake ” translated from “holly kiss” as a perfect equivalence. And he thinks the renditions from “it is as significant as a game of cricket” and “to grow like mushrooms” into “这事如同吃饭一样重要” and “雨后春笋” are successful. But as the readers conditions vary, such as the educational level, economic conditions and purposes of reading, the responses must be various. The result must be: a thousand readers will produce a thousand Hamlets in reading the same version of “Hamlet”.Venuti himself strongly suggests that the foreignizing translation should be preferred. By making a thorough research into the history of western translation practice, he criticizes the target language culture oriented tendency characterized by fluent domestication in the Anglo-American translation practice. He argued that foreignizing translation is of great value in preserving the foreignness and otherness of the foreign culture. Venuti firmly believes that a translated text should be the site where a different culture emerges, where a reader gets a glimpse of a cultural otherness, and resistancy. A translation strategy based on an aesthetic of discontinuity can best preserve that difference, that otherness, by reminding the reader of the gains and losses in the translation process and the unbridgeable gaps between cultures. Venuti emphasizes that foreignizing translation restrains the ethnocentric violence on the foreign text and in todays world, this strategic cultural intervention is particularly desirable in order to resist the hegemony of English-language culture and to fight against the phenomenon of inequality in cultural exchange. Hence, “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.” (Venuti, 1995: 20)2.3 The disagreement between domestication and foreignization at homeAt home , Lu Xun(鲁迅,1881-1936), the great modernist innovator in Chinese fiction and well-known proponent of foreignizing translation, argues that：“只求易懂，不如创作，或者改做，将事改为中国事，人也化为中国人。如果还是翻译，那么，首先的目的，就在博览外国的作品，不但移情，也要益智，至少是知道何时何地，有这等事，和旅行外国是很相像的：它必须有异国情调，就是所谓洋气。”( 鲁迅全集?且介亭杂文二集)He promoted literal translation and foreignization at that time and tried to retain the foreignness of foreign works, in order to introduce new thoughts and ideas into China. Though sometimes his translation was difficult to read and understand.The representative of the method of domestication in translation is Qian Zhongshu who puts forward the famous norm in evaluating translation, that is, hua jing, or perfection , in his Lin Shus Translation，these lines was read:“文学翻译的最高标准是化，把作品从一国文字转成另一国文字，即能不因语文习惯的差异而露出生硬牵强的痕迹，又能完全保存原用的风味，那就算得入于化境。十七世纪有人赞美这种造诣的翻译，比为原作的投胎转世，躯壳换了一个，而精神姿致依然故我。换句话说，译文对原作应该忠实得以至于读起来不像译本。因为作品在原文里决不会读起来像经过翻译似的。”（林纾的翻译）In the 1990s, the dialogues about domestication and foreignization had reached the climax in Chinas translation arena. In the year 2002, domestication and foreignization were still the focus of discussion. Professor Yang Zijian (2002) and his coauthor make a research on the origins and definitions of the two terms in Chinese and English; Professor Wang Dongfengs advocacy of foreignization in handling cultural differences fits into the tendency of global cultural blending (郭建中，2003：213); Professor Sun Zhili (2002) predicts the tendency of the theoretical development of the two strategies, pointing out that foreignization tends to be dominant in Chinas literary translation in the 21st century; Professor Guo Jianzhong (2003) makes a detailed analysis of the concepts of adaptation and alienation in his academic paper A Cultural Approach to Translation, drawing a conclusion that adaptation and alienation will coexist forever.3.0Translation strategyThen come to the question: What translation strategy is employed by the translator to deal with cultural differences? And what factors determine the translators choice of translation strategy?Those who advocate foreignization think that translation, as a means of cultural inter-communication, should let TL readers know foreign cultures and customs, and this is also the readers purpose of reading translated texts, otherwise it is no more than “chewing food for others”. Furthermore, obtaining the characteristics of source language can fertilize target cultures and TL communicating methods, which is one of the purposes of translating. A translated text is not “faithful” if it fails to convey the phenomena of SL world. The opposite side, based on SL culture orientation, holds that this translating is overcoming barriers not only in languages, but also in cultures. The task of translators is to avoid cultural clashing. Domestication can be used to help TL readers comprehend much better, removing all barriers in reading in order to achieve the objective of inter-cultural communication.Domestication and foreignization, which is to choose remains a debatable issue in translation studies. In fact, domestication and foreignization have their own merits and values of application considering the following variant factors: purposes of the author, types of texts, aims of translation, readers levels and requirements, and even strong and weak cultures. The two methods have their advantages and disadvantages in translating different texts meant for various levels of readers for different purposes of authors and readers. They are complementary and non-contradictory. 3.1 Advocacy of foreignizationIn some instances, the translator should adapt foreignization method. Facts speak louder than words. The following are some good examples of proverbs translation. Let us compare the following versions:Praise is not pudding.赞美不能当布丁吃.赞美不能当饭吃.In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.盲人国中,独眼称雄.山中无老虎,猴子称霸王.At first sight, we may think the first versions of the two examples are foreign, and other versions familiar, but we have to admit that the first version of both examples offer us a new expression and new cultural images: "布丁", "盲人国". Furthermore, as the development of cross-cultural communication, today's Chinese readers can accept these cultural terms and some of them even know their meanings well. On the contrary, if the translator translates them like the second versions, we only know "饭" ,and know nothing about the foreign culture, how can we communicate with the west ?How can we learn something new from the west? Here the translator should use the foreignization method.3.2 Advocacy of domesticationHowever, in some cases, the translator should adapt domestication. If it is very difficult for the reader to know the implication of the meaning through the foreignization method, then domestication is necessary. As we know, the two cultures have some cultural images in common, such as "dragon" and "龙", but their symbolic meanings are different. In English, the " dragon" symbolizes something evil, sinister and ferocious, while in China "龙" represents "strength" "dignity" and "wealth" etc. It is obvious that they are far from each other in meaning and if the translator uses foreignization blindly in this case, the consequence is awfully conceivable. Compare the following example.Everyman has a fool in his sleeve.人人都有糊涂的时候.人人袖管里都装个傻瓜.For Chinese readers, both "fool" and "sleeve" are not strange, for in China we also have these two cultural terms. But they cannot convey such meaning, and the reader cannot deduce this proverb's meaning this way. Therefore, the translator has to omit the cultural images and translate its meaning as shown in version 1. Every dog has his day.人人都有得意的时候.每一条狗都有它的出头之日.In Chinese culture, the dog is something nidering and ornery, while in the west it does not convey this derogative meaning, and people often use it to refer to a person. If the proverb is translated as version two, the common reader will misunderstand its meaning. However, because Chinese Culture and English Culture are so different, they have more different than common. 3.3 Combination of the two strategiesBesides the cases discussed above, occasionally it is better for the translator to combine these two methods. He can preserve the foreign cultural images and points out its denotation. Take the following proverb as an example: To carry coals to Newcastle. Here, if it is translated as 多此一举 or 运煤到纽卡索, nether is a perfect translation. In this case, the best choice it is translate it as运煤到纽卡索,多此一举. (Zhang Peiji, Yu Yungen, 2000:162) In this way, it not only preserves the original vivid image, but also makes the meaning clearer.Foreignization aims for cultural transfer, whereas domestication tends to be the very reverse of this transference. However, it should be admitted that no translation is the product of absolute domestication or foreignization. No matter what efforts a translator makes, the translated text is always the combination of the two strategies. If the translator employs one method absolutely at anytime, his translation will not be considered " excellent translation". Suppose he puts everything from the western culture to idiomatic Chinese words and images, he may violate the purpose of translation, lower the quality of his translation, mislead the reader or even lose the readers. For example, if the translator translates "God" from the west as "皇帝"in a literary work, the reader may thought in the west they also have "皇帝" and so we Chinese people can never know the west people have "上帝". It has been proved that the two principles are not incompatible; instead they should be applied in a flexible way since translation is a complex work determined by different factors.4.0ConclusionIn fact, cultural communication and transplantation can be done in several ways or approaches, which are useful and practicable in different aspects. According to Vermeers skopos theory (Snell-Hornby, 2001), the translator can adopt domestication and foreignization with reference to a complete analysis of all kinds of factors. There is no difference of good or bad between domestication and foreignization, but the difference in proportion. The controversy over strategies of domestication and foreignization cant be settled down by considering which is correct or incorrect, and