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 culture
Domestication 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 foreignness
of 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”.\[1\]145
There 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 of
interference 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’s
When mercy seasons justice.\[8\]825
Chinese 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”。

\[9\]86 (The power of mercy is above that of authority. It hides deeply in the king’s heart as a virtue belongs to God. No difference exists between earthly power and God’s strength. If only mercy is seasoned with justice by the law executor.) The translator retains Christian God, not replaces it
with any spiritual symbol in Chinese culture. Whereas, such tolerance decreases in translation from weak or minor languages into English.
Here is another example—Roger Mason’s translation “On the Redcliff: To the Tune ‘the Handmaiden’s Song’” (《念奴娇·赤壁怀古》).\[10\] He translates “周郎” (Young Man Zhou) in the phrase “三国周郎赤壁” (This is the very Red Cliff where Zhou You defeated Cao Cao’s army in the period of the Three Kingdoms.) as “Sir Zhou Yu”, explaining in the footnote:
Zhou Yu’s Chinese title La ng is usually translated “General”, but the word is also used for the bridegroom at a wedding. I’ve called him “Sir Zhou” because he was a courteous noble warrior like one of King Arthur’s knights.\[11\]30
Therefore Venuti’s criticism of domestication translation is a pan-political view and it is not always correct universally. In fact, generally speaking, the translator’s strategy relies mainly on the TT readers’psychology of acceptance.
We should test the validity of foreignization by changing the perspective. Suppose English language and English culture are the source language and culture rather than target ones. When translating from English works into a minor African language, should the translator obey
the foreignization strategy to retain the strangeness of the source culture? If so, the result may be regarded as cultural colonization and hegemony. So it seems that resistant translation is the only suitable strategy in translating from English. On this point, V enuti does not provide enough explanation.
Venui concedes the popularity of domestication: “Translation is often regarded with suspicion because it inevitably domesticates foreign texts, inscribing them with linguistic and cultural values that are intelligible to specific domestic constituencie s.”\[12\]67 And, contrary to what is said above, domestication translation is also seen in minor or vulnerable languages. For example, Lin Shu, a Chinese domestic translator, considers his readers’acceptance of the popular aesthetic values and uses old-style bookish Chinese to rewrite the texts. Omission and addition are often seen in his TT. For instance, here is the opening passage of Washington Irving’s essay “Westminster Abbey”: On one of those sober and rather melancholy days, in the latter part of Autumn, when the shadows of morning and evening almost mingle together, and throw a gloom over the decline of the year, I passed several hours in rambling about Westminster Abbey. There was something congenial to the season in the mournful magnificence of the old pile; and, as I passed its threshold, seemed like stepping back into the regions of
antiquity, and losing myself among the shades of former ages.\[13\] TT by Lin Shu：一日为萧晨，百卉俱靡，秋人寡欢之时，余在惠斯敏司德寺游憩可数句钟。

当此荒寒寥瑟之境，益以阴沈欲雨之秋天，可云两美合矣！余一入寺门，已似托身于古昔，与地下鬼雄款语。

\[13\] (In a bleak and gloomy autumn morning while all plants were withering I spent several hours rambling about Westminster Abbey. Such a desolate and solitary scene plus cloudy and misty autumn weather gave, so to speak, a mingled double aesthetic feelings. As soon as I passed the gate of the abbey I seemed to be in antiquity chatting with ghosts in the netherworld.)
The example suggests the domestication strategy Lin Shu applied. He omitted some elements in the ST and supplemented some Chinese cultural elements (“gloomy autumn” and “netherworld”) from his imagination to the text.
Furthermore, according to Venuti’s opinion, English is the most translated language and the least translated into.\[3\]92 Thus from his point of view, the domestication would have assimilated English and American culture into the local culture. In this case, English and American culture would have crumbled and could not maintain their dominant-hegemonic position. However, the fact is that the dominance of
the position of English culture in the international community has not by any means been weakened because of its world-wide-spread in translations. So there are contradictions in the concept of foreignisation.
In conclusion, these two translation strategies are deeply rooted 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. What we have to learn is the democratic thought which is the basis of Venuti’s strategies. When working for native readers, the ethics of the translator should lead him to absorbing the essentials of foreign language and culture. Meanwhile he should increase national awareness necessary to protect native language and culture. The promotion of a heterogeneous cultural community should be the ultimate goal of the translator.
【References 】
［1］Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications［M］.Abingdon: Routledge.
\[2\] Berman, Antoine. 2004. Translation and the Trials of the Foreign［C］//Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition). Abingdon: Routledge.
\[3\] Venuti, Lawrence. 1996. Translation, Heterogeneity, Linguistics
［J］.TTR, 9(1).
\[4\] 马会娟，苗菊. 2009. Selected Readings of Contemporary Western Translation Theories［M］.Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
\[5\] Venuti, Lawrence. 2001. Strategies of Translation［C］// Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
\[6\] Venuti, Lawrence. 2004. The Translation Studies Reader. (2nd edition)［M］.Abingdon: Routledge.
\[7\] Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies And Beyond［M］.Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
\[8\] Shakespare, William. 尚永强，高娃，编. 2002. Eight Famous Dramas By W. Shakespeare, 2［M］.Inner Mongolia people’s publishing house.
\[9\] Shakespare, William, 朱生豪，译. 莎士比亚文集4［M］.漓江出版社，2004.
\[10\] 苏轼.念奴娇·赤壁怀古［C］//Mason, Roger (trans. & commentary). 2009. The World of English. The Commercial Press: 30.
\[11\] Baker, Mona. 2001. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies［M］.Abingdon: Routledge.
\[12\] Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference［M］.New York：Routledge.
\[13\]
［摘要］归化与异化是韦努蒂(Venuti)提出的两项翻译策略。

本文分析了它们的内涵以及派生出的方法与传统的语言学的方法的相同之处。

归化与异化策略有助于从翻译史的角度评价翻译活动和译者的地位。

但是它们的不足之处也是明显的，本文分析了三段英汉互译的名著片段，指出归化异化策略缺少对翻译实践的指导意义，从而得出结论：这两种策略只是植根于特定的历史、文化及政治背景之中的。

当译者将西方语言的作品译成第三世界国家语言时，应当对特定国家的情况做充足研究，同时必须掌握的是民主思想——这一韦努蒂翻译策略理论的基础，才能伸张或者维护目标语文化中的固有元素，以捍卫这一民族的语言及其代表的文化。

［关键词］归化；异化；翻译策略；英美文化。