A Study on Application of Foreignization and Domestication in the Literary Translation.txt

107010300040063 h31.08 趶 ()黯 astudyqnapplieationofforeignizationanddomestieation inliteraryanslation 00 . ; . . :.衣 涨: ; ;. 涨) : : ;. : -i 磬 黯黯 laurencevenuti 1995: 黯 黯 黯 磬 黯綨 黯 : 塢黯: 黯 黯 :黯abstract literaturerefleetswritersvalues feelingsoflifeandattitudestowardssoeial phenomena.thelanguageofliterature15vividcolo 1andrichincultural eonnotations.therefore it15themostdifficultfortranslation.inthefieldoftranslation thereexisttwoapproachestowardsdealingwiththeeulturaldiff reneesbetweenthe sourcelanguageandthetargetlanguage that15 theprineiplesofforeignizationand domestication. in1995 laureneevenutiformallyputforwardthetheoryofforeignizationand domestieation elassifyingtranslationintotwoeategnries:theonethat15target language orientedandtheotherthat15sourcelanguage oriented.sincethenthetheory hasbeenwidelyusedforanalysingandevaluatingthetranslationofliterature. manytranslatorshavealreadystudiedtheissue.inliterarytranslation foreignizationanddomestieationareinseparable ornotisolatedftomeachothor and theyarecomplementarytooachother.neltherofthemcanbeusedclusively. however anotieeablefact15that thetranslatorsareinflueneedbymultipleand complexfactors.theyoften90toeitherextremityinadoptingthetwoapproachesor prineiples.thus thekeyproblem15howtoapplythetwoprineiplesappropriately reasonably seientifieally. thethesisconsistsofeightparts. chapteroneservesastheintroduetiontothewholethesisandmainlyreviewsthe studyonliterarytranslationfromthevlewpointofforeignizationanddomesticationin china. chaptert 0mainlyintrodueesliterarytranslation statessomebarrierseausedby culturaldiffereneesinliterarytranslation suehasdifferenthistoricalbaekground differentreligiousbeliefsdl rentlivingenvironmentorgeographiepositions diff reneesofsocialconventionalcultures. inchapterthree thethesistriestoelearthedefinitionsofforeignizationand domestication andtoprobeintotheirlimitations theiradvoeates theoretiealbasisthe debatesonthemandtheir netionsineulturecommunication. chapterfouranalyzesthefaetorsinapplyingthesetwostrategies suchasthetype andnatureofthesourcetext:translators objeetiveandsubjeetiveconditionsandreader acceptanee. ihchapterfiveandchaptersixthethesishasproposedsomepractiealtranslation methodsunderthestrategiesofdomestieationandforeignization.thereareoccasions onwhichdomestieationorforeignizationshouldbeemployed.translationstrategiesfor foreignization:transliteration:1)literaltranslation:2)substitutingwithasimilar expression:3)contextualamplifieation;4)annotation.translationstrategiesfor domestication:1)liberaltranslation;2)culturalreplaeement;3)omission chaptersevenmainlydiscussedthedialectiealrelationshipbetweendomestieation andforeization.finally inanalysingtheenglishversionsofs chaptersofa 9lifeandadreamofredmnsions theauthorpointsoutthatforeignation anddomesticationarenotcontradietorybutcomplementary.theyeanbeusedfor differentpurposesandreaders. inthelastp it15eoneludedthatthetwostrategieshavetheirrespectivefeatures andapplieablevalues.overemphasisofonestrategyfromastatieandabsolute vlewpolnt15one sidedandunscientifie. keywords:litera translationfereignizationdomesticationeomplemenritycodtents i abstct ap r1intduction.l 1.1thesignificanceofthisstudy1 1.2literaturereviewonliterarytranslationfromtheperspeetivesofdomestieation andforeignization1 chapter2uterarylanslatlon7 2.1uteratureandtrans1ation7 2.2literarytranslation8 2.3uterarytranslatinnatdifferentlevels9 2.4barriersofculturaldifferenceinliterarytranslation10 2.4.1differenihistoricalbackgrounds10 2.4.2differentreligiousbeliefs.10 2.4.3differentlivingenvironmentorgeographiepositions11 2.4.4differencesofsocialconventinnalcultures.12 chapter3domesticationandforeigulzation:13 3.1definitionofdomestieationandforeignization13 3.2relativenotionsofdomesticationandforeignization14 3.3advocatesofdomesticationandforeignizatfon14 3.4thcoreticalbasisofdomesticationandforeignization15 3.4.1theoreticalbasisofd0mest1catinn.15 3.4.2thcoreticaibasisofforeignization.16 3.5functionofdomesticationandforeignization17 3.5.1fun 10nofd0mest1cat10n.18 3.5.2functionofforeignization19 3.6advantagesandlimitationofforeignizationanddomestieation20 chapter4factorsinapplyingdomestica onandforegnlzaon23 4.1thetypeandthenatureofthesourcetext.23 4.2translator 5conditions25 4.2.1translator 5objectivecondition.25 4.2.2translator 5su ectiveconditions27 4.3thetargetreader.29 chapter51 anslatlonstrateglesforforeignatn.:3 5.1transliteration34 5.2uteraltranslation35 5.3substitutingwithasimilarexpression39 5.4contextoalamplification40 5.5anflotatinn42 chapter61 anslatlonstrateglesfordomestication.47 6.1uberaltrans1ati0n47 6.2culluralreplacement.48 6.3omission50 chapter7complementalityofforeignizationanddomestieation53 7.1apphcatinnof 0strategiesin choptersofafloatinglife53 7.1.1appllcationofdomestication54 7.1.2applicationofforeignization55 7.2comparisonbetweenl 0englishversionsofadreamofredransions57 chapter8concluslon:1 acknowledgements63 refences:.:.:.5 publ hedacademicpapers.6 chapter1introduetion chapter1introduetion 1.1thesignineanceofthis w arelivingatanagewhendifferenicultureseollideandabsorbfromeaehother morethananytimeinhistory.peoplespeakingonelanguageneedmorethaneverto learnaboutandcommunieatewiththosespeakingdifferentlanguages.translation15the mostimportaniandeffeetivetooltoaeeomplishthistask. literarytranslation duetotherichnessandeomplexityofliterarylanguageisan aspectoftranslationworthmoreattentionandeffortsoftranslators.thebirthofthe theoryofforeignizationanddomestieationmadeanotableimpaetonstudyof translationandmanyseholarshave pliedthetheoryeitherintranslationorin translationcritique. manyoftheseholarsholdtheviewthattranslationshouldbedoneineither wayrei zationordomestieation butnotbothatthesametime.theauthors researehneverthelessshov 5bothofthemeanbeusedtotranslateevenonearticleor oneb0ok. 1.2literaturereviewonlitera anslationfromtheperspeetivesof domestieationandforeignization disputesoverforeignizationanddomesticationhaveaionghistoryinchina t roughouthistory therehavebeenthroelarg sealedebatesonwhichtypeof translationstrategy15preferable foreignizationordomesticatlon. theearliestdatedfarbacktothedisputeof theeleganiandtheplain inthe translationofthebuddhistscriptures. plaintranslation 15equivalenttoforeignizing translationand eleganttranslation 15equaltodomesticatingtranslation.the representativeinsupportof plaintranslation wasnaoan(314 385a.d.)inthe stjindynast whoadvocatedthewellknowntranslatingpdneipleof andcritiei:edthosewhomaderandomadditionsanddeletionstotheoriginal. dao anfeltthattranslatingonlythemeaningofthesutra onegreatweaknessoffree translation wasthattranslatorswouldoftenallowtheirownideastogetmixedinwith thoseoftheori naltext 50thatthetranslationswereofteninflueneedbynonbuddhist concepts.thereforedao ansuggestedthatthetranslatorsfollowtheoriginaitextas closelyaspossible. rksdoneaccordingtosuchcriteriaweretypiealofwordforword translationinwhichnoalterationwasmadeexeeptaeeidentalehangesinwordorder. marajiva(44413ad) inthesixdynast advocatedtheelet translation andlashedatdaoan 5prineiple.tohim plaintranslation couldnever capturethefiavouroftheoriginal:itwaslikefeedingsomeonewiththefoodthathad beenchewedbysomeoneelseeeeeootonlywasthetastelost butitmightevencause nausea.50headopted eleganttranslation inhistranslationpractiee.allhis translationsweredoneinaccordaneewiththeusageofthechineselanguage.hemade eitheradditionoromissionwherehethoughtitneeessaryinordertobetterconveythe senseofthebuddhistsutra.histranslationwentfarandwideandexertedagreat influeneeoverchinesephilosophyandliterature. theseeonddebatetookplaeebetweenthe19205andthe19305.hihisprefaeeto olutionandethies yanfuputfo ardthe mousdoetrineof (faithiness expressivenessandeleganee) whieh15stillresonantinthepresentday translatingworldinchina.faithfulness requiresthatthemeaninginthetarget languageshouldbefaith 1tothemeaningoftheoriginal:expressiveness 15the requirementofintelligibilityofthetargetlanguagetext.eleganeerequiresa translationtobeaestheticallypleasing.thisdoetrine15nodoubtthedeclarationof domestietrallslation. withtheincreasedinfluxofwestemthoughtsandideasinthenewculture movement thedebateondomestieatingtranslationandforeignizingtranslationtumed whitehot. luxun oneoftheleadingadvocatesofforeignizingtranslation askedhimselfas wellasallthetranslatorsaquestionofwhethertodomestieatetheversionortoretainits foreignflavour. ifreadability15thesolerequirement itwouldbebettertowriteones ownworkortorewritethework.(liuyingkai1987:23)inthepreludeofoneofhis translatedworks hewrote atranslationmusthavebothintelligibilityandthestyleof theoriginaltext. (luxun1935 weidingcaothecommereialpress)thushe advocatedthestrictforeignizingtranslationandwasagainstthosewholikedtoborrow wordsorphrasesfromthetargetlanguageintheirtranslationsforthesakeof intelliglbilityandflueney:hebelievedthatliteraltranslationofculturallyloadedwords wasoneoftheimportantmeansofenriehingthemothertongue.thedomesticating translationadvoeatesheldthatintheliterarytranslatedworks thelanguage15awkward andinexpressive asifrenderedbythosewhoknowlittleaboutchinese.theyput p ardtheirrespectivetranslatingideasonthebasisof nfu 5prineipleof faithfulness expressivenessandelegance .themostfamousprineipleoffree chapter1introduetion translation15 alikenessinspiritbyfu1.the. ransferoftheoriginaispirit advoeatedbyfui 15regardedasoneofthemaintasksofliterarytranslation.he wrote: asaproduet translation15likeimitatingapicture.what15moreimportant15 thelikenessofspiritbutnotresemblaneetotheoriginal. (fulie gaolaotou1951) anartistieliterarytranslationdependsonthetransferofthespiritoftheoriginaltext;if theoriginaltext15anartistiework itshouldremainartisticafterit15renderedinto anotherlanguage.fu 5theoryof alikeinspirit anextensionofnfu 5principlehas becomethepredominantguidelineformosttranslatorsinconiemporarychina. in1964 qianzhongshuamemberoftheeulturaleliteinpresentdaychinaput fo ardthetransmi tiontheory( )forliterarytranslation.transmiationin buddhismmeanstheproeessbywhichthesoulspirit orsomeotherseatofpersonality vaeatesthebodyithasbeenoccupyingandentersanotherbodyorobject.heborrowed thebuddhistterminsummarizinghistheoryofliterarytranslation.accordingtohis theory aliterarytranslation15liketheactoftransmigrationinwhichthesoul thespirit oftheoriginaltext remainsinthetargettexteventhoughthecarrlerofthemthe language hasehanged.inotherwords atranslatorshouldtransformthewordsofa workwritteninonelanguageintothewordsofanotherlanguage withouttheslightest traceofrigid awkwardtranslationarisingfromdiserepanciesinspeechhabitsor linguistiepeculiarities andmean vhilewiththestylistiefiavouroftheoriginalkept. in1987 uuyingkaiwroteanartieleentitleddomestication thewrongtrackto translation inwhichliuehallengedtheprevailingpractieeofdomestieating translationandstronglyadvoeatedthedominaneeoftransplantingtranslation. acc0rdingtouu domestieatingtranslationinchina15doneinfiveways:(1)the overuseoffour-charaeteridioms;(2)theoveruseofelassieandrefinedwords;(3)the overuseofabstractexpressions;(4)theoveruseofsubstitution :(5)theunfounded useofimagesandallusions.heconcludedthatatranslatorshouldtranslateasliterally aspossible retainingthegreatestdegreeof exotieflavourandimages inthe orinal anddoinghisuttermosttotran ortthenewwayofexpression( ngzijian 1994:269) tenyearslater thedebatereachedtheelimax.xuyuanchong thetranslatorofone oftheversionsof redandblaek statedthatliterarytra