Tang+Qingmei

【Abstract】Venuti is generally considered a prominent translation theorist， with his special translation approach-domesticating and foreignizing. However， this paper will discuss criticisms on his theory from cultural aspect， like unclear boundaries between the two methods， neglect of the function of domesticating strategy and shortcomings of his foreignizing strategy， to verify that those two strategies should be utilized together when translating.

【Key words】Domesticating； Foreignizing； Criticism； Culture

1. Introduction

Venuti studies translation from cultural aspect and firstly coins two terms - domesticating and foreignizing as translation strategies. Venuti defines domesticating as an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to the target-language cultural values. He insists domesticating method may trigger those dominant cultures intend to be monolingual and unreceptive to the foreign. Thus， he inclines to the use of foreignzing to resist “ethnocentrism and racism， cultural narcissism and imperialism” that exist in Anglo-American culture （Venuti， 1995， p. 20）. Although Venutis advocacy is deemed as a break-through， some theorists in translation field disagree with his opinion.

2. Unclear Boundaries

Paloposki and Oittinen （1998， p. 374） criticize Venutis strategy - domesticating “obey dominant cultural values”， whereas foreignizing “resists the dominant aesthetics”. It is obvious that Venuti classifies those two methods from cultural aspect and regards whether resisting or retaining dominant culture as a dividing criterion. However， translators should never neglect other elements like genre， context etc. Nowadays， translators mainly depend on the content of the source text to decide which method they should utilize rather than consider cultural hegemony. Thus， Venutis criterion is far less enough for translators in contemporary society and it causes problems for translators in choosing between those two methods.

Furthermore， Venutis research of translation is based on the Anglo-American culture and his foreignizing aims at translations from non-English languages to English language， that is， from weak cultures to powerful cultures. Venuti promotes using foreignizing to resist the ethnocentric violence of dominant countries. However， the situation may be totally different when works from dominant cultures are translated into weak cultures. Instead， the domesticating strategy may become a way of resisting cultural hegemony of dominant countries. Therefore， the criteria Venuti carries out for distinguishing those two strategies are not applicable even when considering cultural aspect.

3. Neglect the Function of Domesticating Strategy

According to Chesterman （1997， p. 28）， domesticating method mainly assimilate those foreignness in the source text to the target culture from linguistic aspect. However， Venuti just considers it from cultural aspect and criticizes that domesticating strategy may lead to the ethnocentric racism and violence when those target-language cultures dominate. Paloposki and Oittnen （1998， p. 387） points out domestication do not only comply with dominant culture values， it also enables those weak cultures to recognize the cultural differences and then absorb those advanced cultures. Furthermore， sometimes translation by domesticating may cause influential impacts on the target language culture. Thus， Venuti should not neglect the function of domesticating even from cultural respective.

In addition， Venuti thinks the most important element that domesticating strategy embrace is fluency， mainly using the method like rewriting to realize it. When using the method of rewriting， the translation will experience low-level linguistic and stylistic changes that target language readers will easily enjoy. Thus， translators should domesticate for their readers and take readers ways of understanding into consideration. Furthermore， the accuracy and fluency achieved by domesticating strategy is a hallmark of a good translation throughout history and it is most applicable when dealing with those scientific or financial texts.

4. Criticism on Foreignizting Strategy

Foreignizing strategy refers to resisting the “dominant” element in the target language culture. For Venuti， his foreignzing method is mainly based on the theory of deconstruction and postcolonial. Thus， he builds his foreignizing on the cultural aspect – the subversive power of Anglo-American countries and tries to free both translators and readers from cultural hegemony of dominant cultures.

4.1 Lack of Identifiable Criteria

According to Tymoczko （2000， p. 36）， in terms of translation， there is a lack of identifiable criteria or specific functions in Venutis concept of foreignizing. Venutis opinion on foreigizing as a way to challenge ethnocentric violence is not applicable in contemporary translation， because nowadays the cultural interactions between countries are more frequent and the dominant position of Anglo-American culture is less obvious. Accordingly， translators cannot refer to any norms in foreignizing using but depending on their personal judgment to decide when to apply it.

Translators can judge which method to choose through various ways， such as the genre of the source text， the context of one paragraph or cultural background. Meanwhile， translation practice should be flexible and should not be restricted in fixed norms， which facilitate in improving translators creation during translation process. Thus， if Venutis foreignizing method wants to become a widely used tool in contemporary translation study， it must fit for translators demands， that is， identifiable and applicable.

4.2 Neglect the Feeling of Readers

According to Paloposki and Oittinen （1998， p. 387）， if we view Venutis foreignizing strategy from a dialogic aspect， as a kind of communication or understanding， we cannot agree with his views since he neglects the feeling of target readers. Venuti tries his to promote foreignizing approach， intending to demonstrate the foreignness of the source text in the target language and puts emphasis on what is foreign to the target culture. But he forgets the various levels and acceptability of target language readers. He just takes readers who are brilliant into consideration， and forgets the general readerships that are not that intelligible. According to Lefevere （1992a， p. 155）， the more translators put emphasis on the original culture， the foreign it will seem to their readers. Thus， it needs to be noted target texts should be readable for the mass readers though foreignizing translation is employed.

4.3 Limitations in Utilization

Venutis foreignizing strategy may of course be useful and commendable to some extent since it encourages people to pay more attention to cultural dominance resistance and function of translators. But Venuti himself admits that his foreignizing strategy can be applicable only when the source texts belong to a peripheral culture in the eyes of target language readers （Leppihalme， p. 159）. His foreignizing is based on the situation when Anglo-Ameircan culture plays a leading role.

However， nowadays， the communication and interaction between countries are more frequent and large amounts of non-English works are translated into English， which make the cultural dominance less obvious. Considering the development of society， some simple and easy expressions in source text may become less understandable after translation， particularly when applying foreignizing. Therefore， although Venutis foreifnizing may be legitimate sometimes， the limitations of its utilization are obvious especially when considering the different historical backgrounds.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion， the main disadvantage and the most debatable issue in Venutis argument is that he himself is confused about those two translation methods. Most theorists in translation field believe that those two strategies are only confined to textual level， but Venuti tries to use them to realize his intention in cultural and social-political aspect （Shamma， p. 65）. However， We can never deny the contributions of Venutis domesticating and foreignizing strategies， it indeed enlighten translators to some extent and is a great arm to challenge cultural hegemony. It would be better if those two strategies can be utilized together during translating.

References：

[1]Chesterman，A.（1997）Memes of translation：the spread of ideas in translation theory.Amsterdam and Philadelphia：Benjamins.

[2]Lefevere，A.（1992a）Translation，rewriting，and the manipulation of literary fame.London and New York：Routledge.

[3]Leppihalme，R.（1998）‘Foreignizing strategies in Drama translation：the case of the Finnish Oleanna，in Chesterman A.[et al]（eds.）Translation in context：selected contributions from EST congress，Granada 1998.Amsterdam：Benjamins.

[4]Paloposki，O.and Riitta O.（1998）‘The domesticated foreign，in Chesterman，A.[et al]（eds.）Translation in context：selected contributions from EST Congress，Granada 1998.Amsterdam： Benjamins.

[5]Shamma，T.（2005）‘The exotic dimension of foreignizing strategies.Burtons translation of the Arabian Nights，The Translator，Volume 11，Number 1，51-67.

[6]Tymoczko，M.（2000）‘Translation and political engagement： activism.Social change and the role of translation in geopolitical shifts，The Translator：Volume.6：1：23-47.

[7]Venuti，L.（1995）The translators invisibility：a history of translation.London/ New York：Routledge.

作者簡介：汤青媚（1988.3.22-），女，汉族，武汉晴川学院，英语专业翻译方向。