广告翻译中的归化问题

归化的定义是翻译过程中处理文化因素的一个基本策略，其异化是异化。根据《英国翻译学词典》（1997）出版的《归化翻译》（归化）和“异化翻译”（异化），1995年劳伦斯韦努蒂所使用的两个术语直接源于德国思想家Schleiermacher的演讲。《1813种不同的翻译方法》。在他看来，“只有两种翻译方法，译者要么不打扰原文作者，要么引导读者接近作者，译者尽量不打扰读者，引导原文作者接近读者。”归化是指为了使译文读者的陌生化最小化而采用透明、流畅的翻译策略，而异化则是指目标文本故意破坏目标语的翻译类型。

1. Introduction
1.1 Definition of domestication Domestication has been one fundamental strategy in dealing with the cultural factors in the process of translating, with its opposite as foreignization. According to Dictionary of Translation Studies(1997) published in England, “domesticating translation”(domestication) and “foreignizing translation”(foreignization), the two terminologies used by Lawrence Venuti in 1995, directly originated from the German thinker Schleiermacher’s speech “On the Different Methods of Translating” in 1813. In his opinion, “There are only two methods of translating, either the translator does not bother the original author and leads the reader to approach the author or the translator tries not to bother the reader and leads the original author to approach the reader.” (Schulte & Biguenet, 1992:42) Domestication refers to the translation strategy in which a transparent, fluent style is adopted in order to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for target language readers, while foreignization designates the type of translation in which a target text deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the “original”(Shuttle worth & Cowie, 1997:59). Venuti, an Italian American translation theorist, defines foreignization as “an ethno deviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the readers abroad”, and domestication as “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bringing the author of the source language into the target language culture”.(Venuti, 1995:20)

1.2 Theoretical basis When the target text is expected to be a faithful reproduction of the source text, then equivalence is defined as identity(of meaning and/or form), not necessarily in the strict sense of interchangeability and complete reversibility, but more often in the sense of equal value or correspondence. Before we go any further, it is necessary to review the theory of equivalence as interpreted by some of the most innovative theorists in this field-Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House, and finally Baker. These theorists have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for further study on this topic. Types of equivalence were suggested in order to specify the relationship between the source text and the target text, for example Nida’s formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence, or Newmark’s semantic translation and communicative translation, or House’s overt and covert translation. These theories can be substantially divided into three main groups. In the first there are those translation scholars who are in favor of a linguistic approach to translation and who seem to forget that translation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, when a message is transferred from the source language to target language, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This particular aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by the second group of theorists who regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the message from the source culture to the target culture and a semantic or functionally oriented approach to translation. Finally, there are other translation scholars who seem to stand in the middle, such as Baker for instance, who claim that equivalence is used “for the sake of convenience-because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status”(\baker, 1998:77).

1.2.1 Vinay and Darbelnet and their Definition of Equivalence

1. Introduction
1.1 Definition of domestication
1.2 Theoretical basis
1.2.1 Vinay and Darbelnet and their Definition of Equivalence
1.2.2 Jakobon and the Concept of Equivalence in Difference
1.2.3 Nida and Taber:Formal Correspondence and Dynamic Equivalence
1.2.4 Catford and the Introduction of Translation Shifts
1.2.5 House and the Elaboration of Overt and Covert Translation
1.2.6 Baker’s Approach to Translation Equivalence
1.3 Chinese Scholars’ Formulations of Equivalence in Translation
2.2 Advertising components
2.3 The Cultural Properties of Advertising
2.3.1 National character and aesthetic attitude
2.3.2 National psychology and aspiration
2.3.3 Values and life styles
2.3.4 Colors and Other Signs and Symbols
2.3.5 Religion, Morals, and Ethical Standards
2.4 Summary
Chapter 3
The Existing Problems and The Principles of Domestication Translation
3.1 The Principles
3.1.1 Conciseness
3.1.3 Favorable Pronunciations and Meanings
3.1.4 Aesthetic Feelings
3.1.5 Functional Equivalence
3.2 The Existing Problems
3.2.1 Chinese Phonetic Letters
3.2.2 Inconsistency
Chapter 3 The Application of Domestication in Advertising Translation
3. 1 Basic Strategy in Advertisement Translation
3. 2 Domestication in Trademark Translation
4. 3 Domestication in slogan translation
4. 4 Domestication in advertising chapter translation
Chapter5 Conclusion
5.1 A General Summary
5.2 Possible Theoretical and Practical Significance
5.3 Limitations and the Further Study
Bibliography