Domestication and Foreignization Orientations

Student Last Name 1
Student Name
Professor Name
Class
Date
Domestication and Foreignization Orientations
Translation, an ancient art developed into a combination of art and science, opens, or should open, doors for intercultural understanding and exchange. Translators, as mediators of language and culture, are, however, often scapegoated for “dishonest” interpretation of a Source-Text (ST) into a Target-Text (TT). The incomprehensibility of a final TT, often coupled by a lack of proper background knowledge of Source-Culture (SC), makes for a good many cases of intercultural misunderstanding, if not conflict. The case for misunderstanding a TT is not, moreover, confined to laypersons per se yet applies to “educated” people supposedly having enough “background knowledge” about SC. This problematizes interpretation process by putting under scrutiny meanings of “foreign” and “domestic” in any given ST/TT. Indeed, “domestication” and “foreignization” are, for decades now, common concepts applied to strategies in interpreting STs into TTs. More specifically, domestication – understood as making domestic/local a TT as to render an ST more readily comprehensible – and foreignization – understood as maintaining “original” patterns and structures of as to render an ST interpretation more “honest” – are often exchangeable interpretation strategies applied differentially and are informed by a diversity of factors to present final TTs to a given set of readers/listeners. For current purposes, a select interpretation choices are discussed in order to explore different contexts domestication and foreignization are applied in. This essay aims, accordingly, to
Student Last Name 2
examine domestication and foreignization as interchangeable interpretation strategies opted in or
out of as a function of reader/listener receptivity and interpreter's own choices.
Literary interpretation is elusive enough in original language to render interpretation into a second language more so. Moreover, idiomatic expressions and syntactic combinations in one original language are often, if at all, discussed in literary analysis in ways even native speakers might not fully capture. To interpret a piece from one language into another is, accordingly, an uphill effort any interpreter would have to accept to deliver in a comprehensible and lucid manner. The degrees of “foreignness” of a given language is a factor of linguistic and cultural proximity of such language to a second. Specifically, languages falling into one or similar families are more likely to be understood and interpreted in more straightforward – and, for that matter, more intensified exchange – compared to languages of distant kinship. Consider Chinese. For millennia, Chinese has generally been a local language confined to native speakers and spoken in commerce circles. Today, China's emergence as a global economic – and perhaps soon political – power has projected Chinese language into fore not only as a language to be learned for pure commercial purposes yet, perhaps more importantly, for scientific and cultural reasons. There is, unsurprisingly, a surge of global interest in Chinese culture and history. Consequently, a good many classic Chinese works are under interpretations radar. Liaozhai Zhiyi (“Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio”) is, for one, an ideal example. Interpreted using domestication and foreignization strategies in different versions, Liaozhai Zhiyi highlights an all too common dilemma in interpretation, now more particularly in Chinese: whether to maintain source culture/language original sensibilities or, for comprehensibility and receptivity, interpretation choices should be made in order to accommodate linguistic/cultural differences
Student Last Name 3
between ST and TT (Liu). The final decision is not, in fact, readily accessible and is a function of
factors including, yet not limited to, audience receptivity, substantial differences between ST and
* in linguistic/cultural patterns and current ...