ad and sound different: the reader should be able to guess the Spanish behind a translation from Spanish, and the Greek behind a translation from Greek. He argued that if all translations read and sounded alike, the identity of the source text would be lost and leveled in the target culture. (Baker, Mona. (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. P242.)
In the 20th century, Benjamin recommended foreignizing translation by saying: “The sentence is a wall blocking out the language of the original, whilst word for word translation is the arcade.” (Newmark, Peter.(1981) Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. P4)
In the 60’s and the 70’s of the 20th century, Eugene A. Nida constructed a grand theory system of structuralist domesticating translation. In his theory, Nida gives the first place to the target reader. The translation should adjust itself to the norms of the target language and culture in order to sound natural and standard to the target reader. The goal of this translation strategy is to avoid culture conflicts, overcome barriers and promote culture exchanges. The naturalness and smoothness of the TT are often achieved at the expense of the cultural and stylistic messages of the ST, so faithfulness to the source text is not the most important criterion. “The translator must be a person who draw aside the curtains of linguistic and cultural difference so that people may see clearly the relevance of the original me无忧论文 【http://www.uklunwen.com】ssage.” (Venuti, 1995:21).
In opposition to the Anglo-American tradition of domesticating translation based on humanist, Lawrence Venuti advocated foreignizing translation or resistant translation based on human subjectivity in 1995. In his opinion, the goal of translation is not to eliminate differences but to acknowledge them and to display them, making the translated text a place to manifest a cultural other. Venuti believes that the fluent domesticating translation conceals the efforts of the translator and makes him invisible, which is an unfair practice. In addition, domestication can invisibly “inscribe foreign text with English-language values and provide readers with the narcissistic experience of recognizing their own culture in a culture other.” (Venuti, ibid:15). The emphasis on the fluency will erode almost all the cultural features in the source text and deny the outside nourishment to the target culture. “Foreignizing translation in English can be a form of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations.” (Venuti, ibid: 20). Foreignization is equally partial in the translation like domestication is, but the former flaunts its partiality and the latter conceals it.
|
|
论文题目：
Domestication in advertising translation 
