“Domesticating” and “foreignizing” here are two relative terms which can only be defined by referring to the formation of target cultural context. Using the foreignizing method cannot basically change the permanent trend of domestication in Chinese translation since
the “foreign” in foreignizing Chinese translation is not a transparent representation of an essence that resides in the foreign text and is valuable in itself, but a strategic construction whose value is contingent on the current target-language situation. Foreignizing Chinese translation signifies the difference of the foreign text, yet only by disrupting the cultural codes that prevail in the target language. (ibid., 20)
The scale from foreignization to domestication indicates a discursive stance, always loaded with ideological factors which bear on self-image and self-perception. Robyns distinguishes four basic stances, depending on whether or not the “otherness” of the foreign (and hence the identity of the self) is viewed as irreducible, and on whether or not the receptor culture adapts the intrusive elements to its own norms: (1) “transdiscursive” stance, assumed when one culture sees another as compatible and Chinese translation is not a cause for concern or alarm; (2) defective stance, assumed when a culture reckons it lacks something which is available elsewhere and can be imported; (3) defensive stance, assumed when a culture wards off imports and tries to contain their impact because it feels they may threaten its identity; and (4) imperialist stance, assumed when a culture only allows imports if they are thoroughly naturalized because it takes the value of its own models for granted (Hermans 1999: 89).
Chinese translation in the late Qing period featured the frequent use of domesticating strategy, yet went to foreignizing strategy at its end. Behind this is the dazzling spectrum reflecting the functioning of a variety of factors within and without China: the change of power differentials (patrons), the focus of learning from the West, and the aggregation of invasions inflicted on the country. Chinese translation during that time is truly an index. The hybridity of fiction Chinese translation incarnates multi-faceted confrontation: quality vs. quantity, the aim of the elite vs. the taste of the mass, wenyan vs. baihua, canonized literature vs. marginal literature, the influence from outside vs. the Chinese tradition, reform vs. convention, and entertainment vs. enlightenment.
Related Articles:
This entry was posted on Monday, March 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 am and is filed under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
