|
|
Abstract1： Domesticating translation and foreignizing translation are two
different translation strategies. The former refers to the translation
strategy in which a transparent, fluent style is adopted in order to minimize
the strangeness of the foreign text for target language readers, while
the latter designates the type of translation in which a target text deliberately
breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreigness of the
original. But what is the translation practice like in China? Do translators
tend to use foreignizing methods or domesticating ones? What are the factors
that affect their decision making? This paper tries to find answers to
the questions by looking into the translation of English metaphors into
Chinese.
Key words: domesticating translation; foreignizing translation; metaphor;
target
language reader
1. Introduction
"Domesticating translation" and "foreignizing translation" are the terms
coined by L. Venuti (1995) to describe the two different translation strategies.
The former refers to the translation strategy in which a transparent, fluent
style is adopted in order to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text
for target language readers, while the latter designates the type of translation
in which a target text "deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining
something of the foreigness of the original" (Shuttleworth &Cowie, 1997:59).
The roots of the terms can be traced back to the German philosopher Schleiermacher’s
argument that there are only two different methods of translation, " either
the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves
the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible,
and moves the author towards him" (Venuti, 1995: 19-20).
The terms "foreignization" and "domestication" may be new to the Chinese,
but the concepts they carry have been at least for a century at the heart
of most translation controversies. Lu Xun (鲁迅) once said that "before
translating, the translator has to make a decision : either to adapt the
original text or to retain as much as possible the foreign flavour of the
original text" (Xu, in Luo, 1984: 315).
But what is the translation practice like in China? Recently I have read
two articles which show completely conflicting views on this question.
In his article entitled "Chinese and Western Thinking On Translation",
A. Lefevere makes a generalization based on his comparison of Chinese and
Western thinking on translation,
When Chinese translates texts produced by Others outside its boundaries,
it translates these texts in order to replace them, pure and simple. The
translations
take the place of the original. They function as the original in the culture
to the extent
that the original disappear behind the translations. (Bassnett & Lefevere,
1998:14)
However, Fung and Kiu have drawn quite different conclusions from their
investigation of metaphor translation between English and Chinese,
Our comparison of the two sets of data showed that in the case of the English
metaphor
the image often than not retained, whereas with the Chinese metaphors,
substitution is
frequently used. [...] One reason perhaps is that the Chinese audience
are more familiar with
and receptive to Western culture than the average English readers is to
Chinese culture. (Fung, 1995)
The above conflicting views aroused my interest in finding out whether
the Chinese tend to domesticate or to foreignize when they translate a
foreign text. In what follows I shall not compare translation by Western
and Chinese translators, but rather look into the translation of English
metaphors into Chinese.
2. What is Metaphor?
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (second addition) defines metaphor
as "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something
to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance."
While according to BBC English Dictionary, "metaphor is a way of describing
something by saying that it is something else which has the qualities that
you are trying to describe."
Peter Newmark defines metaphor as "any figurative expression: the transferred
sense of a physical word; the personification of an abstraction; the application
of a word or collocation to what it does not literally denote, i.e., to
describe one thing in terms of another. [...] Metaphors may be ’single’
-- viz. one-word -- or ’extended’ (a collocation, an idiom, a sentence,
a proverb, an allegory, a complete imaginative text" (1988b:104).
Snell-Hornby rejects Newmark’s concept of the "one-word metaphor" in favour
of Weinrich’s definition that "metaphor is text" (1988:56). She believes
that a metaphor is a complex of (at least) three dimensions (object, image
and sense), reflecting the tension between resemblance and
disparity" (1988: 56-57).
This paper will follow the idea that "metaphor is text" which includes
an idiom, a sentence, a proverb and an allegory.
3. What has been said about the translation of metaphor?
"In contrast to the voluminous literature on metaphor in the field of literary
criticism and rhetoric, the translation of metaphor has been largely neglected
by translation theorists" (Fung, 1995). In his article "Can metaphor be
translatable?", which is regarded as an initial discussion of the subject,
Dagut says,
"What determines the translatability of a source language metaphor is not
its ’boldness’ or ’originality’, but rather the extent to which the cultural
experience and semantic
associations on which it draws are shared by speakers of the particular
target language"
(1976).
Snell-Hornby takes metaphor translation in the light of the integrated
approach. She says that
The sense of the metaphor is frequently culture-specific, [...] Whether
a metaphor is
’translatable’ (i.e. whether a literal translation could recreate identical
dimensions), how
difficult it is to translate, how it can be translated and whether it should
be translated at all
cannot be decided by a set of abstract rules, but must depend on the structure
and function of
the particular metaphor within the text concerned ". (1988: 56-9)
van den Broeck conceives the treatment of metaphors as a functional relevancy
to the communicative situation (1981). Mary Fung also considers translating
metaphor as a communicative event which is both interlingual and intercultural
(1995).
Different from the semantic, cultural and functional perspectives mentioned
above, Newmark holds a more pragmatic approach. Drawing on his practical
experience, he proposes several procedures for translating metaphor: (1)
Reproducing the same image in the target language; (2)
Replacing the SL image with another established TL image; (3) Replacing
the metaphor by simile; (4) Retaining the metaphor and adding the sense;
(5) Converting the metaphor to sense; (6) Omitting the metaphor if it is
redundant.
Discussions of the subject, especially those written in Chinese, are also
pragmatic rather than theoretical. In E-C Translation Coursebook (1980
) which is the most widely used translation textbook in China, Zhang Peiji
(张培基) and his co-compilers summarized three popular methods for translating
metaphors: (1) Literal translation (similar to Newmark’s first procedure);
(2) Replacing the SL image with a standard TL image (similar to Newmark’s
second procedure); (3) Converting the metaphor to sense (Same as Newmark’s
fifth procedure).
Based on the methods suggested by Zhang and his colleagues, Guo Zhuzhang
(郭著章) proposes five in A Practical Coursebook in Translation Between
English and Chinese (1996, revised edition): (1) Literal translation plus
explanation; (2) Literal translation plus meaning; (3) Adapting the metaphor;
(4) Using Chinese couplets to render the English metaphor; (5) Replacing
the SL image with a TL image. |
|
