Translation, or how to be between the sword and the wall

#quotes #translation #interpretation #traducci #think #mindful

---

Foreignization & Domestication in Translation of Culture: Striking a Balance Between Strategies

An original research work by Sumaiyah Hossain, Joseph Gardella, Ricky Lewis, Adrian Torres, Joanna Tatro

TRST 201

Introduction

When contemplating the role of culture in translation, scholars have often debated as to which

strategy is best to employ. Should one do their best to preserve the essence that cultural products

can bring to the readership, or is it more essential to ensure complete understanding of the text,

regardless of any cultural loss that may occur? This question has inspired much debate in the

translation field, and with today’s rapid globalization, it’s paramount that we examine whether

translators should employ domestication or foreignization as the dominant strategy in their work,

or should there be a balance between them?

Moreover, in this paper we also aim at answering the following question: What elements (text type, audience, goal of the text) determine whether a translator utilizes domestication or foreignization? Our prediction is that these elements will all contribute to the translator’s choice and will necessitate a balance between both strategies.

Literature Review

Our research focuses on three articles that each explore the impact domestication and

foreignization have on culture in translation. The first article, Wenfen Yang's “Brief Study on

Domestication and Foreignization,” succinctly defines domestication as a translator's way of

bringing the text to the reader through clear and easily understandable turns of phrase, whereas

foreignization seeks to bring the reader to the text, requiring them to work harder at

understanding the precise meaning of the text but preserving the source culture. Yang presents

two strong views from prominent translation scholars, Lawrence Venuti and Eugene Nida.

Venuti argues that removing cultural values from the target text is an act of violence and the

translator should be present to the reader. Nida, however, supports the domestication approach,

stating that "bi-culturalism is more important that bilingualism, since words only have meanings

in terms of the cultures in which they function" (Yang, 2010). Yang presents a third perspective,

from the cultural turn of the 1970s, in which scholars subscribe to the polysystem theory, which

focuses on "cultural equivalence." This means that in order to make a strategic choice, one must

consider the type of target reader, nature of the text, historical period, and "skopos" or purpose.

Yang concludes that no matter which strategy the translator employs, there is an inevitable cultural loss in domestication and linguistic loss in foreignization. Therefore, it is the task of the

translator to balance their choices by considering all factors of the cultural turn in addition to

linguistics.

In our second article, “The Application of Foreignization and Domestication in the

Translation” Lijun Yang argues that foreignization and domestication should work

supplementary to each other. Yang explores the argument of Chinese and Western scholars.

During the New Culture Movement, scholars such as Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai advocated that

literal translation offered the best product as it would emphasize and preserve the exoticism of

the source language through foreignization. Others, such as Guo Moruo, believed that literal

translation harmed the comprehensibility and refinement of the target language. Regardless,

Yang emphasizes that there needs to be a high cultural competence when translating across

cultures and when culture is attached to the source language. Yang references a line from Shen

Fu’s Six Records of a Floating Life, a book written in Chinese, that was translated into English

by a Chinese and a Western translator. The Chinese translator mainly utilized domestication and

retained exoticism through transliteration, which aids the reader in understanding the Chinese

culture attached to the target text. The Western scholar utilizes foreignization which eliminates

the Chinese cultural elements of the text but affords readers a clear understanding of the story

itself. This suggests that the goal of the text and the audience are important determinants of

which strategy to employ because, if the cultural difference cannot be expressed efficiently, it

may become a barrier to the reader’s understanding and the structure of the text. In Yang’s study,

both strategies coexist to supplement the translation whereas one strategy fails to create a product

that is faithful to the original text and can be understood by target readers.

Our final article, Zsuzsanna Ajtony's "Taming the Stranger: Domestication vs Foreignization in Literary Translation" examines concrete examples of the usage of these strategies in GB Shaw's Pygmalion and a Hungarian translation. She uses the phrase "tame the stranger" to allude to the choices made by the translator as mediator between the author and the reader. This "taming" is a form of domestication but does not favor it over foreignization.

Rather, there is a delicate balance between them, with careful consideration given to its cultural

impact on the text, and then, the reader. Ajtony demonstrates this balance in examples from the

Pygmalion text, in which the translator chooses domestication in the representation of money

values, a gold coin instead of the sovereign indicated in Shaw’s text, but then the translator uses

foreignization in the use of the English word, penny. The best example is the translator’s choice

to preserve London locals, such as Trafalgar Square (Trafalgar téren) and Charing Cross Station

(Charing Crossig), which use both strategies simultaneously in order to communicate their

meaning but still preserve the richness of the London environment.

Rationale of the present study

According to Lijun Yang, foreignization and domestication “should be unified” with

regard to “cultural processing” because they are both important in having the best effect of the

translation (2014). In foreignization, a translator strives to translate the source language and culture into the target language and culture while keeping “a kind of exotic flavor” (Wang 2014). Domestication, on the other hand, orients the translation of a text to its target culture. Expressions that are unusual in the target culture are translated into something familiar so that target readers are able to better understand the text. The term itself describes a form of translation that minimizes the foreignness of the source text. The debate surrounding the use of either foreignization or domestication is still open. As a group, we hypothesized that a balance is needed between domestication and foreignization, and that this balance requires to take into consideration several factors that clearly influence the translation output (e.g., target audience, target environment, skopos, etc.).

Although a translator may favor one strategy over the other, we think that it is important to understand that "the other strategy" can provide an appropriate supplementary or complementary role that further improves the produced translation.

Research Objectives

The first objective of this paper is to observe if, when translating culture, the translator will

either (1) prefer foreignization over domestication, (2) prefer domestication over foreignization,

or (3) utilize foreignization and domestication, where one complements or supplements the other. Moreover, our second objective is to understand what elements (e.g., translator’s preference, the source text, the target text, and the goal of the text) determine whether a translator will utilize foreignization, domestication, or a combination of both.

Methodology

Through comparative reading of the research papers mentioned above (i.e., literary review), we will try to reach the clarification of our research objectives. We will analyze the main ideas exposed by different authors by clustering them in a way that allows to reply to our research questions.

Findings

Our primary finding is that the majority of our sources indicate that the foreignization and

domestication translation strategies can function as supplemental to the other as opposed to utilizing only one. By employing both strategies appropriately, the target text produced is most

successful in balancing the transmission of cultural relevance of the source language into those

of the target language. This finding is in line with our hypothesis that foreignization and domestication can be expertly used together despite being divergent. One collateral finding indicates that, of the four sources, one (25%) suggests that translation loss is inevitable in the translation process regardless of using one strategy over the other. Although linguists like Eugene Nida favor domestication and translators like Lawrence Venuti favor foreignization, only the conditions under which translation is done can determine whether one strategy is better than the other. This finding supports the idea that elements like the text type, the target audience, and the goal of the target text are conditions that affect a translator’s preference of foreignization or domestication, which supports our initial predictions.

Discussion

As a translator, finding the balance between foreignization and domestication is important, and as we have seen from the sources, essentially opposes the idea of having a preference of one over the other. While it is true that there do exist translators who do have a preference to pick one

strategy over the other, these translators have most likely developed this way of translating over

many years, being able to hone their skills in a way that is unique specifically to their style of

work. As for every other translator, the usage of both to enhance the experience of the reader

while reading the target text remains as the primary focus of the translator. Another aspect that

comes as collateral that also must be looked at is the issue of translation loss as a result of

implementing either of these strategies. No matter how we look at it, translation loss in some

form will be inevitable, which will present itself in either cultural loss or linguistic loss. Learning

to mitigate the translation loss is of the utmost importance as translators use all types of tactics

and strategies available to navigate this ordeal.

These sources affirm the mediation role of the translator, and how the acceptability of their work

depends on social and cultural contexts seemingly in flux. Phenomena like globalization,

increased cultural exchange, growth of international business are widespread. Thus, as managers

of cultural exchange, it is more important than ever for translators to cultivate their cultural

awareness in avoiding ethnocentrism of domestication and the alienation of foreignization by

finding the balance between these two strategies. Additionally, the collateral finding of the present study based on the idea that translation loss is inevitable affirms the evolving nature of the field of translation as it endlessly strives to reduce this reality of the trade.

In light of these implications, future studies might consider further elaborating on the dangers of

over-foreignization, as a counterpart to the ethnocentrism of over-domestication which is well established among the selected sources, in order to further support the argument to find a balance.

between the two. There exist many such articles with themes of alienation and dehumanisation

through sensationalism and fetishisation employed in translation. Furthermore, as translators are

to be mediators and facilitators of harmonious cultural exchange, we could also further analyze

how imperialist powers use either foreignization or domestication toward an opposite goal. This

would add to the socio-political perspective of translation in exploring its abuse in such contexts.

In short, in learning more about how foreignization and domestication can be used to extremes to

dehumanize people and stratify cultures, we can better understand the means and necessity of

using a balance of the two in a hospitable and favorable manner. Lastly, another study may

consider expanding on the concept of the inevitability of translation loss, the collateral finding of

this study, by investigating what linguistic pairs typically experience the least translation loss and

why that might be. For instance, is translation loss tied more closely to the linguistic similarity or

cultural similarity in a language pair? The world of translation remains ripe for research.

Conclusion

Upon beginning this study, it was understood that certain factors influence the use of

foreignization and domestication tactics such as the intended audience, the text type, and the goal

of the text. This study then sought what other aspects might determine a translator to favor

foreignization over domestication, specifically in the translation of culture. The conclusions

drawn herein clarified the motivation to both maintain an authentic portrayal of the culture of the

source text as well as to accommodate the target audience in making the text easily

comprehensible in the use of an informed and balanced implementation of both foreignization

and domestication strategies. Incidentally, the study also confirmed that at least some translation

loss is inevitable in the work of translation, especially in the translation of cultural items. In

conclusion, the job of a translator is one characterized by fastidiousness, refinement and most of

all: balance.