Domestication in advertising translation
1. Introduction 介绍
1.1 Definition of domestication归化定义
在过去的二十年中，翻译研究的两大趋势之一是注意力从语言转换到文化转换，另一个是交际理论在翻译研究中的应用。这两种倾向的结合是把翻译看作是跨文化交际的活动。术语“翻译”甚至被“跨文化交际”（Christi.Nord 1991），“跨文化合作”（Holz-Manttari 1984），“文化适应”（Andre Lefevere 1992）和“跨文化适应”（R.Daniel Shaw 1988）所取代。信息的最初发送者（原作者）所处的文化环境与信息的最终接收者（目标读者）所处的文化环境不同，因此如何处理文化差异是翻译研究中的一个热点问题。归化和异化不可避免地成为这一领域争论的焦点。归化和异化是美国解构主义翻译理论家劳伦斯·韦努蒂提出的两种不同的翻译策略。它们直接来源于德国神学家和哲学家弗里德里希·施莱尔马赫（Friedrich Schleiermacher）关于“只有两个”的论点。要么译者尽可能地让作者平静下来，把读者移向他，要么他尽可能地让读者平静下来，把作者移向他”。（韦努蒂，1995年：19~19）在他著名的《关于不同翻译方法》的演讲中（1813）。根据韦努蒂的观点，《翻译研究词典》对归化的定义如下：“为了尽量减少译文读者对外文文本的陌生性，译文采用了透明、流畅的风格。”泰利通过保留原作的异国情调来打破目标惯例。(舒特尔沃思和考伊，1997：43，44，59)。归化和异化在多个层面上发生。它们不仅涉及语言元素，而且涉及文化成分。更重要的是，它们与政治有关。在这篇论文中，讨论很少关注政治。
One of the two tendencies of translation studies during the past two decades in the marked shift of attention from language transformation to cultural transformation; the other one is application of communication theory in translation studies. The integration of the two tendencies is to regard translation as an activity of intercultural communication. The term “translation” is even replace by “intercultural communication” (Christiane Nord 1991), “intercultural cooperation” (Holz-Manttari 1984), “acculturation” (Andre Lefevere 1992) and “transculturation” (R. Daniel Shaw 1988) . The initial sender of the message (the original author) is in a culture different from what the final receiver of the message (the target reader) is in, hence how to handle the cultural gap is a hot topic in translation studies. Inevitably, domestication and foreignization become the focus of the controversy in this field. Domestication and foreignization are the two advanced by American deconstructionist translation theorist Lawrence Venuti to describe the two different translation strategies. They directly stem from German theologian and philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher’s telling argument that “there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him”. (Venuti, 1995:19~20) in his famous lecture “On the Different Methods of Translating” (1813). According to Venuti’s opinions, Dictionary of Translation Studies defines domestication as follows: “a transparent, fluent style is adopted in order to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for TL readers.” Foreignization has the definition as follows: “a TT is produced which deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original.” (Shulttleworth and Cowie, 1997:43,44,59). Domestication and foreignization take place at many levels. They not only involve linguistic elements, but also concern cultural constituents. What’s more, they relate to politics. In the present thesis, the discussion pays little attention to politics.
1.2 The History of Domestication In ancient China, the initial controversy between domestication and foreignization was the debate in the form between “文（ornamentation）” and “质（substance）”, which took place in the Buddhist scripture translation occurring in the Han Dynasty. Zhi Qian was in favor of “文（ornamentation）” which his contemporary Wei Zhinan advocated “质（substance）”.(陈福康，中国译学理论史稿，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992年第一版，pp16)Then in the Dongjin Dynasty, Dao’an came uo with “案本（adherence to essentials）”, whereas Kunmarajiva held “依实出华（magnificence out of reality）” in the Six Dynasty.（罗新璋，翻译论集，北京：商务印书馆，1984年第一版，pp2）In the Tang Dynasty, Xuan Zang brought about “new translation” by adopting both strategies and Yan Fu advanced “信、达、雅（fidelity, fluency and elegance）” at the beginning of the 20th century. Especially in the 20’s and the 30’s of the 20th century, the contention broke out in the form between “直译（metaphrase）” whose representative was Lun Xun and “意译（paraphrase）” whose spokesman was Liang Shiqiu. In 1951, Fu Lei put forward “神似（likeness-in-spirit）” and Qian Zhongshu presented “化境（realm of transformation）” in 1964. The debate was ignited again in 1987 by Liu Yingkai’s article “Domestication-the Wrong Path of Translation”(刘英凯，归化－翻译的歧路，现代外语，1987（2）：58) In 1995, a debate between the two views within a national scope was organized by academic institutions concerned, centering on the evaluation of several versions of The Red and The Black. Chinese Translators Journal, in 2002, offered a special column for scholars to air their views on this issue. Traditionally, Chinese views of domestication and foreignization are expressed in expressionistic terms, lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight when compared with the Western ones. It spans back to the Roman Age when both Horace and Cicero, in their remarks on the translation, first eloquently formulated an important distinction between word for word translation and sense for sense ( or figure for figure) translation. (Bassnett, Susan.(1980) Translation Studies. London and New York: Methuen. P43.) As Niethzsche remarked: “Translation was a form of conquest”, Latin poets like Horace and Propertius translated Greek texts into the Roman. (Baker, Mona. (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. P240~241.) With the spread of Christianity, translation came to acquire another role, that of disseminating the word of God. In the Bible translation, St Jerome (400) had a bent for rendering the text colloquially and naturally rather than word for word. King Alfred (reign 871~99) rendered the text sometimes word for word, sometimes sense for sense. In 1530, Luther proposed free translation as opposed to the church authorities of his time over the translation of the Bible into German, and he used the verbs ubersetzen (to translate) and verdeutschen (to Germanize) almost indiscriminately. In 1790, Tytler propounded his widespread three principles: (1) The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work. (2) The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original. (3) The translation should have all the ease of the original composition. (Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Toward A Science of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill. P19) In the 19th century, Goethe (1813, 1814), Humaboldt (1816), Novalis (1798), Schleiermacher (1813), Schopenhawer (1851) and Nietzche (1882) inclined towards more literal translation while Arnold subscribed to a free translation. (Newmark, Peter. (1981) Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. P4) Schleiermacher expounded that translations from different languages into German should read and sound different: the reader should be able to guess the Spanish behind a translation from Spanish, and the Greek behind a translation from Greek. He argued that if all translations read and sounded alike, the identity of the source text would be lost and leveled in the target culture. (Baker, Mona. (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. P242.) In the 20th century, Benjamin recommended foreignizing translation by saying: “The sentence is a wall blocking out the language of the original, whilst word for word translation is the arcade.” (Newmark, Peter.(1981) Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. P4) In the 60’s and the 70’s of the 20th century, Eugene A. Nida constructed a grand theory system of structuralist domesticating translation. In his theory, Nida gives the first place to the target reader. The translation should adjust itself to the norms of the target language and culture in order to sound natural and standard to the target reader. The goal of this translation strategy is to avoid culture conflicts, overcome barriers and promote culture exchanges. The naturalness and smoothness of the TT are often achieved at the expense of the cultural and stylistic messages of the ST, so faithfulness to the source text is not the most important criterion. “The translator must be a person who draw aside the curtains of linguistic and cultural difference so that people may see clearly the relevance of the original message.” (Venuti, 1995:21). In opposition to the Anglo-American tradition of domesticating translation based on humanist, Lawrence Venuti advocated foreignizing translation or resistant translation based on human subjectivity in 1995. In his opinion, the goal of translation is not to eliminate differences but to acknowledge them and to display them, making the translated text a place to manifest a cultural other. Venuti believes that the fluent domesticating translation conceals the efforts of the translator and makes him invisible, which is an unfair practice. In addition, domestication can invisibly “inscribe foreign text with English-language values and provide readers with the narcissistic experience of recognizing their own culture in a culture other.” (Venuti, ibid:15). The emphasis on the fluency will erode almost all the cultural features in the source text and deny the outside nourishment to the target culture. “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, ibid: 20). Foreignization is equally partial in the translation like domestication is, but the former flaunts its partiality and the latter conceals it.
