英语论文网

Domestication in advertising translation 1. Introduction 1.1 Definition of domestication 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 Transl