Criticism of The Translator’s Invisibility
Ⅰ Introduction
aldol In recent years, translators have show great interesting in the problems arising from cultural differences in translation. Generally speaking, there are two principal strategies to tackle them in translation---domestication and foreignization, which are put forward by Lawrence Venuti. 奉献演讲稿
1.1 A Profile of the Writer
Born and raid in South Philadelphia, Lawrence Venuti majored in English at Temple in the early 1970s and then received his doctorate at Columbia in 1980, when he returned to Temple as an assistant professor. He is currently professor of English. A prolific translator from Italian and French, he has rendered works of art criticism, literature, philosophy, and sociology by such authors as Nicolas Perrot d’Ablancourt, Dino Buzzati, Jacques Derrida, Antonia Pozzi, and Aldo Rossi. His work has been supported by grants and fellowships fro
m such agencies as the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. He has been a visiting professor at the University of California at Irvine, Katholieke Universiteit in Leuven, the Monterey Institute for International Studies, and the University of Iowa. In 1999 he held a Fulbright Senior Lectureship in translation studies at the Universitat de Vic in Spain.
英语单词在线翻译
His publications include Rethinking Translation: Discour, Subjectivity, Ideology (1992), The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (1995), The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference (1998), and The Translation Studies Reader (2nd ed., 2004). His articles, reviews, and translations have appeared in such publications as Comparative Literature, Critical Inquiry, the New York Times Book Review, Radical Philosophy, the Times Literary Supplement, and the Yale Journal of Criticism. His current project explores the relations between translation and interpretation so as to study the impact of translated texts on canon formation, disciplinary divisions, cultural movements, and political struggles.
1.2 An Introduction of Domestication and Foreignization
The terms domestication and foreignization were first coined by Lawrence Venuti in his book The Translator’s Invisibility in 1995. Drawing on Schleiermacher’s idea, Lawrence Venuti defines domestication as “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to the target-language cultural values, bringing the author back home” (Venuti, 1995:20). It involves erasing the linguistic and cultural differences of the original text and adapting them to the norms and conventions of the target culture. However, Venuti put forward that domestication has negative connotation “as it is identified with a policy common in dominant cultures which are ‘aggressively monolingual, unreceptive to the foreign’, and which he describes as being ‘accustomed to fluent translations that invisibly inscribes foreign texts with English-language values and provide readers with the narcissistic experience of recognizing their own culture in a cultural other’ (Venuti, 1995:15)”. “Invisibility” is the term he ud to describe the translator’s situation and activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture. In that times, the translated text, whether pro or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently. The more fluent the translation, the more invisible the trans
lator, and, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text. The dominance of fluency in English-language translation is transparent. This reflects comparable trends in other cultural forms, from newspapers, periodicals, and other forms of writing. Eugene Nida is widely considered as the advocate of domestication who lays much emphasis on the communicative function of translation. For Nida, accuracy in translation depends on generating an equivalent effect in the target-language culture. Nida’s advocacy of domesticating translation is explicitly grounded on a transcendental concept of humanity as an esnce that remains unchanged over time and space.
However, for Venuti, domestication is far more than a strategy only for facilitating target readers’ understanding of translated texts. Considering the social, cultural and political context, Venuti reveals that the adoption of domestication is deeply rooted in the inequality between cultures and the exclusionism of the dominant cultures. According to Venuti, foreignization is “an ethnodeviant pressure on tho English-language values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, nding the reader abroad.”(Venuti, 1995:20) He considered the domestication as a tool with which strong cutoomuch
ltures attain their goal of colonizing weak cultures and maintain their dominant status in the world. When the works of weak cultures are translated into strong cultures (mainly English), the original language, culture and even message will undergo adaptation and domestication so as to conform to the taste of the target readers of the strong cultures. Foreignization, in addition to being regarded as a simple strategy dealing with the linguistic and cultural differences, is endowed by Venuti with a cultural and political connotation. Foreignizing translation eks to restrain the ethnocentric violence of translation. It can be a form of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations. The point of advocating foreignizing translation is to develop a theory and practice of translation that resists dominant target-language cultural values so as to signify the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text.
2012流行歌曲排行榜
The Translator’s Invisibility intervenes against the translator’s situation and activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture by offering a ries of genealogies that write the history of prent. The chapters form an argument pursued chronologically, showing that
英语4级听力下载the origins of fluent translating lie in various kinds of cultural domination and exclusion, but also that translation can rve a more democratic agenda in which excluded theories and practices are recovered and the prevailing fluency is revid. The ultimate aim of the book is to force translators and their readers to reflect on the ethnocentric violence of translation and hence to write and read translated texts in ways that ek to recognize the linguistic and cultural difference of foreign texts. The point is rather to elaborate the theoretical, critical, and textual means by which translation can be studied and practiced as a locus of difference, instead of the homogeneity that widely characterizes it today.
天津国际高中
Ⅱ交通繁忙 The History of Domestication and Foreignization
教师节英文怎么写
2.1 The Development of Translation Canons in English-Language Culture
Fluency emerges in English-language translation during the early modern period, a feature of aristocratic literary culture in venteenth-century England, and over the next two hundred years it is valued for diver reasons, cultural and social, in accordance with the vicissitudes of the hegemonic class. The Chapter 2 in the book traces the ri of flu
acceptingency as a canon of English-language translation, showing how it achieved canonical status, interrogating its exclusionary effects on the cannon of foreign literatures in English, and reconsidering the cultural and social values that it excludes at home.
Domestication began from venteenth century in England. The first point to obrve is that Denham’s “way of thinking” was hardly “new” in 1656. He was following Horace’s dictum in Ars Poetica that the poet should avoid any word-for-word rendering. He consolidated the veral-decades-long emergence of a neoclassical translation method in aristocratic literary culture. He added the “new spirit” with this translation method. It involves a process of domestication, in which the foreign text is imprinted with values specific to the target-language culture. His free translation was laden with nationalism, and from his translation we can e that it was clor to his political concerns.
