Reflections On The Debate Over Domestication And Foreignization

Since the introduction of the notions of domestication/foreignization from the west, there have been heated debates over these two translation strategies in China. In the western translation circle, Eugene Nida is regarded as the representative of the domestication school. His theory of "dynamic equivalence" has an enormous influence on international translation studies. Lawrence Venuti is considered a firm advocator of foreignization. His famous book, The Translator's Invisibility published in 1986, deprecates domesticating translation fiercely from the point of view of cultural colonialism. There are also scholars who hold comparatively flexible views on translation strategy, such as Hans J. Vermeer and Even-Zohar. In China, scholars and translation theorist hold different views on the issue. Both domestication and foreignzation have their own supporters. On the whole, the voice of foreignization is louder than that of domestication.This thesis is a research on the issue based on some essays on domestication and foreignization published in key translation journals in China to do research. These articles greatly promote translation studies in China today, but they have their drawbacks. In the author's opinion, there are four crucial points we should pay more attention to in the debate. Firstly, free/literal translation differs greatly from domestication /foreignization. Secondly, domestication / foreignization should be distinguished from over domestication / over foreignization. Thirdly, weak cultures and strong cultures treat translation strategy differently. Lastly, text types strongly affect the selection of translation strategy. In the discussion of domestication and foreignization, all of the above points should be taken into consideration.It should be noted that domestication and foreignization are not mutually contradictory, but complementary to each other. Therefore the debate over the question which is superior to the other is virtually unnecessary. Neither foreignization nor domestication should be adhered to rigidly and the selection of either depends on the specific situation. Both domestication and foreignization can be regarded as appropriate if the situation calls for it.In the end, the thesis criticizes the phenomenon of Chinese scholars blindly following western translation theory without further analysis. The paper calls for an objective and fair attitude on the part of translation theorists in their research so as to make real contributions to translation studies in China.