论外国文学翻译的第三类语言-外国语言学及应用语言学专业论文.docxVIP

MA D MA Dissertation of Chongqing University Chapter One Introduction PAGE PAGE 10 Chapter One Introduction Translation has been playing a very important role in communication and cultural exchange through our histories. As is stated by Shuttleworth and Cowie (2004:173), the translated texts are perceived as having an indefinable “translated feel”. This “translated feel” has undergone a heated discussion and has become a quality of translation as the famous paradox states, a translation should read both like “an original work”, and “like a translation” (qtd in Newmark, 2001:38) In 1813, the famous German linguist and translation theorist Schleiermacher points out that, there are two methods to translate, “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, 2004:19) Thus, attention is attracted to the two methods of translation. But in his argument, Schleiermacher doesn’t name these methods. Venuti is the first to name them “foreignizing method” and “domesticating method”. （Venuti, 2004:20）According to Dictionary of Translation Studies, Foreignizing Translation is defined as “a type of translation in which a TT is produced which deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original.” (as qtd in Shuttleworth Cowie, 2004:59) and Domesticating Translation as “a translation strategy in which a transparent, fluent style is adopted in order to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for TL readers.” (as qtd in Shuttleworth Cowie, 2004:43) After its explicit naming and definition, heated discussion turned to which strategy should be adopted in the translation practice. The famous representative of domestication is Eugene Nida, while Venuti stands for foreignization. In China, the discussion has been going on ever since the two methods were introduced to Chinese