FOREIGNIZATION OR DOMESTICATION: WHICH SERVES THE READER BETTER?
Keywords:
Foreignization, domestication, reader reception, cultural translation, linguistic equivalence, dynamic equivalence, cultural adaptation, hybrid translation, translator agency.Abstract
The foreignization versus domestication discussion, two opposite methods to translation, has continued to provoke scholarly discourse in translation studies. While domestication seeks to accommodate the receiving culture's expectations by adjusting the source material, foreignization defies accommodation, maintaining the original work's linguistic and cultural difference. This article investigates both methods by discussing their related theories and practical examples, determining which of them yields a greater benefit to the reader. It argues that no approach is better than any other, but, instead, depends on a work's nature, a translation's goal, or a work's skopos, or even a reader's expectation. Inevitably, therefore, a translator becomes a cultural mediator, trying to balance accessibility and original work fidelity.
References
1. Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. 368 p.
2. Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. 341 p.
3. Vermeer, H. J. (1989). “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” In A. Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in Translation Theory. 187 p.
4. Baker, M. (2011). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Routledge. 390 p.
5. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall. 304 p.
