从译文实例看韦努蒂归化异化策略

从译文实例看韦努蒂归化异化策略［Abstract］Domestication and foreignisation are two translation strategies suggested by Venuti. This paper explains their connotations and methods which have something in common with traditional linguistic approaches. The concept of the two strategies is helpful in evaluating the translation activity and the position of the translator from the point of translation history. However, their shortcomings are obvious. By analysing three famous translations between English and Chinese, the author points out the limitation in guidance of both strategies. The conclusion is Venuti’s strategies are rooted only in a specific background of history, culture and politics. When translating from Western languages into the Third World’s languages, the translator should do much research into specific national conditions; essentially, he/she should abide by the democratic thought which is the basis of Venuti’s strategies. Only in this way can the translation maintain the innate cultural elements so as to safeguard the target language and the target culture.［Key words］domestication,foreignisation,translation strategies,Anglo-American cultureDomestication and foreignisation are two translation strategies suggested by Lawrence Venuti. Domestication “entails transla ting in a transparent, fluent, ‘invisible’style in order to minimize the foreignnessof the TT ［target text］.”\[1\]144 Foreignisation, also called resistancy or minoritizing translation, is “a non-fluent or estranging translation style designed to make visible the presence of the translator by highlighting the foreign identity of the ST ［source text］and protecting it from the ideological dominance of the target culture”.\[1\]145There are two issues to consider when applying the strategies. The first is the choice of the foreign texts. Domestication favours the ST which conforms to the domestic cultural values whilst foreignisation prefers those standing in a peripheral position within the source culture; that is those kinds of texts may be neglected by either the source or target readership. The other issue is the selection of the translation methods. Domestication is a target-oriented approach, through which the message is conveyed in the mode of the target culture, even at the cost of adopting as Berman lists “hypertextual translation” including pastiche, imitation, adaptation, free writing.\[2\]278 On the other hand, in order to retain the strangeness of the ST, foreignisation tries to keep a distance from its target readers.In the selection of methodology, these two strategies have something in common with traditional linguistic approaches. Direct translation and oblique translation proposed by Vinay and Darbelnet can be seen as the operating methods of foreignisation and domestication respectively.Ho wever, they are different from “the linguistics-oriented approaches based on pragmatics and text linguistics”.\[3\]103 Venuti’s strategies are dynamic, involving more elements including not only linguistics, but also aesthetics, culture and politics.\[4\]194 These elements enlarge the range of translation studies. When discussing translation, we move beyond the domain of language, investigating translation activity with influences from social ideology, politics and other factors. The two strategies are not limited to the superficial pursuit of literary equivalence, but, rather, focus also on national spirit and political issues.The concept of the two strategies is helpful in evaluating the translation activity and the position of the translator from the point of translation history. Fawcett describes the network of the publishing industry as a “power play” in which editors and copy-editors are players.\[1\]151 In the network, the translator has no position of power. Nevertheless, on the basis of discursive heterogeneity, foreignizing translation gives the translator more responsibilities and obligations. He has to not only demonstrate the heterogeneity of the ST in linguistic and cultural aspects, but also initiate the reformulation of the target culture and cut across the literary hierarchies by releasing the minor variants or, in Lecercle’s terminology, “remainders”\[5\]484, which vary from the standard dialect but are often ignored by the popular masses.However, as a guide to translation practice, the two strategies can be only used in a limited way. First, the effect of the strategies is complex. The distinction between domestication and foreignisation is sometimes unclear. They are not simple binary opposites, but in Venuti’s words: “They possess a contingent variability.”\[6\]146 What they can provide is simply a way of thinking, aiming to attract more attention to the autonomous existence of texts. According to Munday’s understanding, the terms of domestication and foreignisation are not clearly defined. As Venuti further explains: “They can only be defined in the specific cultural situation in which a translation is made and works its effects”.(ibid) From this point of view, the unclear boundary of the two strategies becomes less controllable. The translating process starts with the receiving of the foreign text and ends when the TT is submitted. As for the social effects of a TT, it has nothing to do with the quality of the product itself. With regard to the far-reaching consequences, any previous TT and later TTs share no common cultural situation. So the effect of the previous strategy cannot give any clue for later translators.Secondly, it seems that foreignisation can only be adopted in Anglo-American culture. Resistant translation is rooted in the fight against Anglo-American cultural imperialism. It is said in domestication translation that the medium of the powerful culture integrates, colonizes and marginalizes the minor native culture. Perhaps Toury’s law ofinterference can properly explain why domestication translation is usual in the language of Anglo-American culture: “Tolerance of interference—and hence the endurance of its manifestations—tend to increase when translation is carried out from a ‘major’or highly prestigious language/culture, especially if the target language/ culture is ‘minor’, or ‘weak’.”\[7\]278 For example, Shakespear’s plays boast unmatched reputation in the world plays. The translator tends to follow his canonized model. Here are four lines of the play Merchant of Venice: It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,It is an attribute to God himself;And earthly power doth then show likest God’sWhen mercy seasons justice.\[8\]825Chinese version by Zhu Shenghao: “慈悲的力量却高于权力之上，它深藏在帝王的内心，是一种属于上帝的德性，执法的人倘能把慈悲调剂着公道，人间的权力就和上帝的神力没有差别”。