英语论文
原创论文
留学生作业
英语论文格式
免费论文
essay
英国硕士论文
英国毕业论文
英语论文
留学生论文
澳大利亚论文
新西兰论文
澳洲Report
澳洲留学生论文
美国留学论文
Dissertation
美国硕博论文
essay case
Eassy
Term paper
英语毕业论文
英文论文
课程作业
德语论文
德语专业论文
德语本科论文
德国留学论文
Assignment
日语论文
韩语论文
法语论文
俄语论文

跨文化视野中的异化翻译

时间:2022-10-28 来源:未知 编辑:-1 阅读:
[Abstract]
 
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion on domestication and foreignization in the translation field, which is scattered in various foreign language journals in China. The fifth issue of China Translation in 2002 also set up a special column to discuss this issue. These articles have greatly promoted the study of "domestication" and "foreignization", but these articles mostly stay at the level of language research. This paper will explore the phenomenon of foreignization in literary translation from a cross-cultural perspective.
 
 
[Key words] Domestication; Alienation; Translation; Cross culture; Post colonialism
 
1、 Introduction: raising questions
 
In recent years, domestic foreign language journals have published many articles on domestication and foreignization. These articles try to apply the discussion on domestication and foreignization in western literary criticism and comparative literature theory to translation theory and practice. Some articles summarize literal translation and free translation from the perspective of culture from a strategic perspective. Others use relevance theory to seek the best connection point between domestication and foreignization, These articles broaden the study of domestication and foreignization from different perspectives.
 
However, there are still some misunderstandings in the discussion of domestication and foreignization translation. The most obvious is to equate domestication and foreignization translation with literal translation and free translation, and to equate literary strategies and cultural ideologies with language strategies and translation techniques, thus bringing the discussion of domestication and foreignization back to the discussion of tradition and experience, which hinders the development of domestication and foreignization translation studies. In the fifth issue of China Translation in 2002, there were articles by Wang Dongfeng and Ge Xiaoqin, etc., discussing the research direction and existing problems of "domestication" and "foreignization" translation, which is a new achievement of the research on domestication and foreignization translation. This paper will discuss domestication and foreignization in translation from a cross-cultural perspective,
 
 
2、 On "Literal Translation" and "Free Translation"
 
 
Literal translation and free translation are the source of the discussion of domestication and foreignization, and many scholars often put them together to discuss. Wang Dongfeng made a deep discussion on them in his article "Domestication and Alienation: The Clash between Spears and Shield". The article points out frankly that "the debate between domestication and foreignization is an extension of the debate between literal translation and free translation, which has a long history." But he did not simply put them into the same category, It points out that: "Domestication and foreignization can be seen as the extension of the concepts of literal translation and free translation, but they are not completely equivalent to literal translation and free translation.... If literal translation and free translation are discussions at the language level, then domestication and foreignization are the continuation of discussions at the language level to the cultural, poetic and political levels. That is to say, the target of the debate between literal translation and free translation is the gain and loss of meaning and form, while the target of the debate between domestication and foreignization is the gain and loss of meaning and form The gain and loss of cultural identity, literariness and even discourse rights in the whirlpool of gains and losses. " (Wang Dongfeng, 2002:24-25) The author basically agrees with the above views, and adds his own views on literal translation/free translation and foreignization/domestication translation.
 
When it comes to literal translation and free translation, people often use the English words literal translation and free translation. At this time, people are concerned about the technical processing problem at the language level, that is, how to keep the form of the original language without distortion of its meaning; Free translation, on the other hand, holds that language has different cultural connotations and forms of expression. When form becomes an obstacle to translation, free translation should be adopted. Others propose hypotaxis and parataxis to be symmetrical with literal translation and free translation. In the history of translation in China, both literal translation and free translation have been favored. In the early Buddhist scripture translation, the theory of literary quality said that Xuan Zang's "truth-seeking" and "metaphor of customs" in the Tang Dynasty, Yan Fu's "faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance" in modern times, Lu Xun's "preferring to believe rather than to follow" and Zhao Jingshen's "preferring to follow rather than believe" all discussed the principles of translation from the perspective of literal translation and free translation.
 
We are not opposed to discussing literal/free translation and domestication/foreignization translation together, but we should pay attention to the similarities and differences between them. In the past, the similarities between domestication/foreignization translation and literal/free translation were discussed more, but the differences between them were not fully discussed. Literal translation and free translation are the two main methods of translation. They are not exclusive, on the contrary, they are complementary. In the same translation, literal translation and free translation are possible. Style also matters. In some styles, there will be more free translation, while in others, there may be more literal translation. On the discussion of literal translation and free translation, the translation circle has basically reached a consensus. Literal translation and free translation are not equivalent to what some people call dead translation and Hu translation. Lu Xun and his younger brother Zhou Zuoren's literal translation of Foreign Novels has attracted a lot of criticism and is regarded as the representative of literal translation. When some scholars talk about Lu Xun, they will inevitably mention his translation idea of "believing rather than being smooth", while ignoring others. In fact, Lu Xun's true meaning of literal translation is what he said in the "Undetermined Draft" of the Second Collection of Qijieting Essays: "All translations must take into account both sides. Of course, they must strive to be easy to understand, while maintaining the richness of the original." It can be seen that Lu Xun did not want to be obedient, but preferred to accept the trust and give up obedience when the two could not have both. Lu Xun's "hard translation" is by no means a literal translation, nor a word for word translation. Instead, it introduces foreign progressive literary works and tries to import new ways of expression to enrich Chinese syntax and vocabulary. "Easy to understand" and "rich" are the real connotation of Lu Xun's literal translation. How does Zhou Zuoren view literal translation? In 1925, Zhou Zuoren mentioned in his "Top Preface": "I still believe in literal translation because I don't think there is a better way. But literal translation also has conditions, that is, it must convey the meaning. To the best of Chinese, it is necessary to preserve the style of the original text and express the meaning of the original language. In other words, it is faithfulness and expressiveness." What kind of translation is dead translation and Hu translation? Zhou Zuoren used two interesting examples. For example, "lying on his back" in English is translated as "lying on his back", which means dead translation; "lying on his back" is translated as Hu translation, which means "lying on his back". Of course, we can occasionally see a few discussions about literal translation and free translation today, but few have new ideas.

Domesticating translation and foreignizing translation was introduced by L Venuti put forward this term, which was directly derived from a paper read out by Schleiermacher in 1813. Schleiermacher focused on the inseparable relationship between translation and understanding, pointing out that there are two situations in translation, one is to let the reader approach the author, the other is to let the author approach the reader. If the reader is close to the author's context, he can feel the exotic atmosphere. Here, Schleiermacher uses the word foreign. [1] According to the above two translation situations, Schleiermacher proposed the author centered translation method and the reader centered translation method, which broke through the traditional boundary between literal translation and free translation, and had a great impact on later scholars. Venuti's foreignization/domestication view is undoubtedly inspired by Schleiermacher's theory. However, Schleiermacher's theory is based on German hermeneutics, while Venuti studies Schleiermacher's arguments in the context of post colonialism, which leads to the proposition of foreignization in translation.
 
Why does Venuti favor foreignization translation? We can look at a passage in his book Translation Rethinking. He was very appreciative of Brown Shao's famous saying: "Translation is a pure game of difference: translation always involves differences, but also covers them up, and at the same time occasionally reveals differences, even often highlights them. In this way, translation itself is the living embodiment of this difference." In his view, there are two reasons why differences are weakened in translation: first, for a long time, the discussion of translation has been obscured, and it is marginalized in the value system of the target language coordinate. Differences are not alive, but in the process of melting. Secondly, the value standards of Britain and English formed a global advantage after the war, which further determined the context of Anglo American nationalist culture. This context only accepts foreign language texts that conform ideologically to the ideology of British and American culture. It is against this background that the domesticated translation always adjusts the translated text according to the specific political, cultural and ideological norms of the target language in order to cater to the taste of the recipient. The weak culture has to obey the manipulation of British and American culture and become a tool for colonists to carry out cultural colonization. (See Venuti 1992)
 
The discussion on translation of domestication and foreignization in the past decade began with the paper "Domestication - The Wrong Way of Translation" published in Modern Foreign Languages in 1987. However, the author may not have expected that foreignization and domestication will be widely discussed as a pair of new theoretical categories. The two terms of domestication and foreignization discussed by western scholars are not complementary, but mutually exclusive. When discussing foreignization translation, American scholar Venuti described the strategy of domestication translation: abide by the current mainstream values of the target language culture, and openly adopt conservative assimilation means to the original text, so as to meet the needs of local codes, publishing trends and politics. The biggest feature of domestication translation is to use fluent and authentic English for translation. In this kind of translation, the translator's efforts are covered by the fluent translation, the translator is invisible, and the differences between different cultures are also covered up. The mainstream cultural values of the target language replace the cultural values of the target language. The strangeness of the original text has been weakened, and the translation has become transparent. The foreignization translation strategy, which absorbs nutrition from the postcolonial theory, regards domestication translation as the conspiracy of imperialism's colonization and conquest, which is the manifestation of cultural hegemonism. Therefore, Venuti advocates the translation strategy of foreignization. According to this strategy, the translator and the target language reader strive to get rid of the fetters from the strong culture in the process of translation. Foreignization translation should not be understood as the corresponding translation, and it cannot improve the faithfulness of the translation. Robinson, a postcolonial scholar, believes that foreignization translation is related to literal translation and word for word translation, but it is not as extreme as literal translation, because they do not adhere to the meaning of individual words in the original syntactic sequence in translation, but insist on retaining the original flavor. (See Wang Dongfeng, 2002:26) In foreignization translation, new things may be added, so as to highlight the identity of the translator, improve the status of translation, and effectively fight back against the cultural hegemony of translation.
 
It can be seen that the domestication/foreignization translation of western scholars is a concept of two opposites in political ideology, and is at the two extremes of discourse power. There is no reconciliation or compromise between them. This is obviously different from the literal/free translation we discussed earlier. However, many of our discussions treat them as equivalent concepts, which may lead to theoretical misunderstanding and practical confusion.
 
3、 Domestication/Foreignization in Chinese
 
How broad are the connotations of foreignization and domestication in English and Chinese? This is something we should pay attention to when studying and discussing domestication/foreignization and literal/free translation. The English expression of domesticating/foreignizing translation is domesticating/foreignizing translation. Although it has some similarities with the free translation/literal translation we are discussing today, there are obvious differences in its essence. When we say literal translation/free translation and hypotaxis/parataxis, the former is the method, and the latter is the result. If we talk about similarity in spirit and shape, it is a description of this result. Domestication/foreignization and free translation/literal translation are two different categories, just like two circles, with only a small overlap on their edges. The results of foreignization/domestication translation cannot be described by similarity in form and spirit. Foreignization and domestication are strategies. In practice, literal translation, modification, addition and other methods may be adopted. As a pair of proprietary translation terms, Foeizing translation/domesticating translation is only elaborated in the latest English academic works. But free translation/literal translation is not. "Whether a translation is domestication or foreignization depends entirely on the reconstruction of the cultural form in which translation is produced and sold; what is domestication or foreignization can be defined only when the value relationship of the target culture is changed." [2](Mona Baker, 1998:243)

"In the current understanding of the issue of 'domestication', translation colleagues should distinguish between the two premises of the domestication method: one is the domestication under the principle of loyalty, and the other is the domestication under the premise of unfaithfulness. The former is generally prescriptive, while the latter is descriptive; the former is source language centric, and the latter is target language and target language cultural orientation." (Ge Xiaoqin, 2002:33) This distinction is basically correct. However, we can also distinguish their natures: domestication under the principle of faithfulness is at the linguistic level, concerned with the artistic effect of translation, and is a method of translation; Domestication under the premise of faithlessness is cultural, concerned with the ideology of translation, and a translation strategy. There are two different kinds of foreignization and domestication in the translation studies we have discussed so far. The first is the terminology of Venuti, which has been mentioned earlier, and the other is some domestication/foreignization repeatedly used in China. The author refers to them in English as assimilation (adaptation) and adaptation. Foreignization and domestication translation are reflected in cultural thinking. From the perspective of translation ideology, their influence on literature and even culture belongs to the category of literary criticism and philosophy. The word foreignization with post colonial deconstructive meaning has been applied to translation in recent years, which is reflected in translation practice, mainly reflected in literary translation in the form of written symbols.
 
Western scholars use a chart to roughly show Jerome's distinction between translation of different natures [2]. According to the current discussion on domestication/foreignization of translation, the author also wants to use two charts to reveal the differences between them:
 
 
 
1.(If translation is carried out on the dimension of linguistics
 
 
 
2. (If translation is carried out on the dimension of cultural studies)
 
 
The above diagram shows that foreignization/domestication in the traditional sense and foreignization/domestication in the modern sense have different functions and purposes. In Chinese, we use the same words to express them, but in English, domestication/foreignization in the linguistic level is expressed by assimilation (adaptation)/alienation, while domestication/foreignization in the cultural level is expressed by domesticating/foreigning. Of course, we can also refer to domestication and foreignization as a cultural strategy with the initial capitalized domesticating/foreignizing, and refer to literal translation at the cultural level with the initial lowercase domesticating/foreignizing, just as we deal with the word "culture". The domestication/foreignization of lower case letters is the extension and development of free translation/literal translation, while the domestication/foreignization of upper case letters is the revolution of free translation/literal translation, opening up a new field of translation research.
 
 
4、 Theory and Practice of Domestication and Foreignization
 
The phenomenon that domestic scholars equate domestication/foreignization with literal/free translation has been discussed in Ge Xiaoqin's articles. Ge has a premise when discussing this pair of concepts, that is, he is putting aside the current context of domestication/foreignization, and based on the literal meaning. [4] The two translation tendencies of domestication/foreignization have often clashed since translation. In the last century, there was a dispute between foreignization and domestication around Lu Xun's "hard translation". Before that, the translation of Yan Fu, Lin Shu, Liang Qichao and others could be regarded as domesticated translation. "Lu Xun's' hard translation 'and his translation ideas are based on his idea of' opposing feudalism and transforming the national character '. However, Lu Xun's intention led to misreading, and the proposal of' hard translation 'was finally drowned in the noise of domestication theory. Later, Fu Lei's' likeness' theory and Qian Zhongshu's' transformation' theory can be said to be extensions of domestication theory. It can be seen that domestication/foreignization discussions are often dominated by domestication theory, although everyone agrees to protect Leave the taste of the West behind. " (Ge Xiaoqin, 2002:33) Ge Wen came from a new round of domestication/foreignization discussion that has arisen in China. Because in this discussion on foreignization/domestication, people almost "side down think that translation should advocate foreignization".
 
 
Objectively speaking, Ge's warning is not unreasonable. However, the author thinks that Ge Suo reminds domestic scholars of domestication/foreignization translation to treat them dialectically. Some of our scholars, while responding to the domestication/foreignization translation advocated by western scholars, have improved the status of Europeanized translation, which was advocated by Lu Xun and criticized by Liang Shiqiu and others. At that time, Lu Xun hoped that translation could convey new ideas and introduce new forms of expression into Chinese language, thus bringing new blood and vitality to Chinese culture. Unfortunately, in the last century, the discussion of domestication/foreignization was often dominated by the theory of domestication. Although we cannot rule out that some scholars today have a theoretical misunderstanding, that is, they hope to accept the views of Western scholars such as Venuti, but they have not been well implemented in practice, but their appeals and practices have created an unprecedented good situation of foreignization/literal translation, which has raised translation research from the past linguistic level to the cultural level, and the method of literal translation has been widely recognized.
 
Therefore, we should treat this problem dialectically. First of all, we need to make more comments on the western domestication/foreignization translation strategies. If we are just a little bit theoretical, the feasibility of our research will be greatly reduced; Secondly, the discussion of foreignization/domestication at the linguistic and cultural level is acceptable, but these studies should not be faceted, put a mask on it, put some examples into it, and then write the article. This will undoubtedly reduce the academic status of translation studies. Secondly, how can the discussion of foreignization/domestication strategy be more closely integrated with the theory and practice of translation? This may be an important topic in the construction of translation theory. We should not only consider the traditional translation theory, but also consider the construction of translation theory from an interdisciplinary perspective. Only in this way can our translation research keep alive.
 
5、 Conclusion
 
 
 
The discussion of translation strategies of foreignization and domestication is not over, but will continue. We should think about foreignization/domestication from a cross-cultural perspective, so that its influence can be fully reflected. We can be sure that this discussion will have a positive impact not only on translation studies, but also on cultural anthropology, sociology, comparative literature, etc.

    注:
 [1] Schleiermacher 的原语是:The translatora can either leave the writer 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. (Schleiermacher, 1838:47, as translated in Wilss, 1982:33)
 ‘Bring the reader to the original text’ would correspond to requiring him to
process the translation in context of the original; ‘[The translator] thus tries to
transport [the reader] to its location, which, in all reality, is foreign to him.’
 (Schleiermacher, 1838:219, as translated in Wilss, 1982:33)
[2] 黑体系作者所加。
[3] 在Mona Baker 主编的《翻译学大词典》中,Jerome关于直译与意译关系的描述是通过下图来表现的:
 1. (If free translation is not bad translation)
 2.  (If free translation is no translation)
 
[4] 不过,Gentzler 认为,Venuti的理论与后现代主义比较更显得现代派一些,他的理论的
转向仍旧根植于若干世纪来的“忠实”与“意译”翻译的争辩之中。参见Gentzler,
Contemporary Translation Theories, Revised 2nd edition, Multilingual Matters Ltd. 第41
页。
 
    参 考 文 献
 
Baker, Mona (ed.). 1998. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. 2001. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation.
 Shanghai Foreign Education Press.
Bassnett, Susan. 19  . Translation Studies. New Accents.
Diaz -Diocaretz, Myriam. 1985. Translating Poetic Discourse: Questions on Feminist Strategies in
Adrienne Rich. John Benjamins B. V.
Dollerup, Cay. 1993. Interlingual transfer and issues. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology.
1993:2, Museum Tusculanum Press.

分享到:
------分隔线----------------------------
发表评论
请自觉遵守互联网相关的政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
最新评论
随机推荐essay