Domestication and Foreignization

Domestication and foreignization are two basic translation strategies regarding the degree to
which translators make a text conform to the target culture. Both provide linguistic and cultural
guidance. Domestication brings the writer to the reader, but Foreignization takes the reader to the
writer.
They are termed by American translation theorist L.Venuti. According to Venuti, the former
refers to ―an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bring
the author back home,while the latter is ―an ethnodeviant pressure on those (cultural) values to
register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad.
Venuti, Generally speaking, domestication designates the type of translation in which a
transparent, fluent style is adopted to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for target
language readers, while foreignization means a target text is produced which deliberately breaks
target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original.
The conflict between domestication and foreignization as opposite translation strategies can be
regarded as the cultural and political rather than linguistic extension of the time-worn
controversy over free translation and literal translation. Foreignness in language or culture can
serve as a standard to judge whether a translation is domesticated or foreignized.
Domestication and foreignization, however, are concerned with the two cultures, the former
meaning replacing the source culture with the target culture and the latter preserving the
differences of the source culture. Only when there are differences in both linguistic presentation
and cultural connotation, domestication and foreignization exist.
Venuti’s Foreignization vs. Domestication:
As a staunch advocate of foreignization, Venuti believes there is violence residing in the very
purpose and activity of domestication. He holds that the phenomenon of domestication involves
an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to [Anglo-American] target-language cultural
values‘. This entails translating in a transparent, fluent, invisible style in order to minimize the
foreignness of the TT (Jeremy 2001:146). Venuti proposes the strategy of ―resistant translation
(i.e. foreignization) against the tradition of ―smooth translation. He argues that foreignization
―entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are
excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language (Venuti 1997: 242). Foreignization
produces ―something that cannot be confused with either the source-language text or a text
written originally in the target language. Venuti (1995: 20) considers the foreinizing method to be
an ethnodeviant pressure on [target-language culture] values to register the linguistic and cultural
difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad. It is highly desirable, he says, in an
effort to restrain the ethnocentric violence of translation. In other words, the foreignizing method
can restrain the violently domesticating cultural values of the English-language world.
In summary, foreignization advocated by Venuti and his followers 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 and protecting it from the ideological dominance of the target culture.
According to Venuti, domestication and foreignization are heuristic concepts rather than binary
opposites. They may change meaning across time and location. What does not change, however,
is that domestication and foreignization are dealt with the question of how much it rather signals
the differences of that text.
Whether a text should be domesticated or foreignized largely depends on the purpose of the
text. Domestication removes any challenges or violated conventions and does not remind the
reader that they are reading a translation. In lieu of forcing the reader to deal with unfamiliar
conventions and concepts, the text is made more fluent and familiar for the reader. By
foreignizing a text, the reader is forced into a new environment that challenges the literary
tradition.
Foreignization and Domestication should not be viewed as a dichotomy by rather as a
continuum. The benefit of domesticating is that changing an object to a more familiar object,
could aid the reader in understanding the text and increase how they are affected. For example,
instead of characters playing “Xiangqi” which is a Chinese strategy game, they could play Chess
which is also a strategy game but is more familiar to western audiences. If a reader cannot
identify with any of the features in a text, they could feel isolated. While, Domestication aides
the reader is understanding the meaning of the original text, the target text’s fidelity could come
under scrutiny.
Foreignizing can cause a lot of affect but it has a higher chance of creating negative affect, and it
is less likely to leave the reader completely unaffected. It could be used as a shock stratagem. By
using foreign conventions, the reader is forced outside of their comfort zone and it could be used
to reinforce the idea that they are reading a translated text. For example, a foreign language could
be introduced into a paragraph with the purpose of confusing the audience.
Through the combined use of Foreignization and Domestication which can be used in parallel
and complement each other, a comprehensible text can be achieved. Foreignization maybe the
most empowering for a translator as it allows them to permeate the target text most thoroughly;
however, Domestication often has more effect on the reader and the translator facilitates the
process towards fluency and naturalness.
The advantages and disadvantages of domestication ideology in translation
Advantages:
1. The reader of the target language can easily understand the translated text.
2. The translated text sounds natural and communicative.
3. Cultural assimilation is possible.
Disadvantages:
1. Cultural aspects of the source text tend to disappear.
2. The reader of the target language cannot interpret the text because the interpretation is
done by the translator.
3. The reader of the target language knows nothing of the culture of the source language.
The advantages and disadvantages of foreignization in translation
Advantages:
1. The reader of the target text can perceive the culture of the source language.
2. The translated text can present the cultural nuance of the source language.
3. Intercultural learning is possible to take place.
Disadvantages
1. The reader of the target text possible feels uncomfortable finding some strange terms.
2. The language of the target text sometimes sounds unnatural.
3. Negative cultural aspects of the source language can be easily transferred into and can
influence the reader.