Tension between domestication and foreignization in English-language translations of Anna Karenina
Abstract One of the key issues in recent translation theories has been on whether translation should domesticate or foreignize the source text. Venuti (1995) defines domesticating translation as a replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that is intelligible to the target-language reader. Foreignizing translation is defined as a translation that indicates the linguistic and cultural differences of the text by disrupting the cultural codes that prevail in the target language. Other scholars, like Tymoczko (1999), criticise this dichotomy by pointing out that a translation may be radically oriented to the source text in some respects, but depart radically from the source text in other respects, thus denying the existence of the single polarity that describes the orientation of a translation. For my research I have chosen five English translations of Lev Tolstoyâs Anna Karenina, covering over a century of the history of translations into English: Dole (1886), Garnett (1901), Maude (1918), Edmonds (1954) and Pevear and Volokhonsky (2000). My main objective has been to analyse the relationship between earlier and later translations. Since modern English language readers
Birdwood-Hedger, Maya
domestication ; foreignization
Tension between domestication and foreignization in English-language translations of Anna Karenina. Abstract One of the key issues in recent translation theories has been on whether translation should domesticate or foreignize the source text. Venuti (1995) defines domesticating translation as a replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that is intelligible to the target-language reader. Foreignizing translation is defined as a translation that indicates the linguistic and cultural differences of the text by disrupting the cultural codes that prevail in the target language. Other scholars, like Tymoczko (1999), criticise this dichotomy by pointing out that a translation may be radically oriented to the source text in some respects, but depart radically from the source text in other respects, thus denying the existence of the single polarity that describes the orientation of a translation. For my research I have chosen five English translations of Lev Tolstoyâs Anna Karenina, covering over a century of the history of translations into English: Dole (1886), Garnett (1901), Maude (1918), Edmonds (1954) and Pevear and Volokhonsky (2000). My main objective has been to analyse the relationship between earlier and later translations. Since modern English language readers
tension domestication english_language translation abstract one_key issue recent translation_theory whether translation domesticate source_text define domesticate translation replacement linguistic_cultural difference foreign text text intelligible target_language reader translation define translation indicate linguistic_cultural difference text disrupt cultural code prevail target_language scholar like criticise dichotomy point translation may radically orient source_text respect depart radically source_text respect thus deny existence single polarity describe orientation translation choose english_translation cover century history translation_english main_objective analyse relationship translation since modern_english language reader