The ideology of translation vs translation procedures
Keywords:domestication, foreignization, translation
Translation plays an important role in the transfer of knowledge between cultures, languages and nations different. As an activity to transfer the message or purpose contained in one language into another language appropriately and naturally, translation work becomes complex. Therefore various approaches were initiated to understand the process translation, including the theory of translation ideology. The terms domestication and foreignization in translation are two terms put forward is often referred to as an ideology or translation strategy. Domestication is a strategy which is used to reduce the "alienation" of the term from the source language, thus the reader feel like a translation is not a translation product. While foreignization is on the contrary, this strategy is more towards the source language to introduce the term or foreign culture to the target audience. In practice, translators cannot be separated from both, but different biases are often based on the purpose of translation and who is the user of the translation. This article provides a brief overview of the ideology of translation and how important this theory is to raise awareness translation about the impact of their choice on the translation result.
Goddard, C. (1997). Cultural values and ‘cultural scripts’ of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Journal of pragmatics, 27(2), 183-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00032-X
Goddard, C. (2003). Whorf meets Wierzbicka: variation and universals in language and thinking. Language Sciences, 25(4), 393-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00002-0
Goddard, C. (2004). The ethnopragmatics and semantics of ‘active metaphors’. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1211-1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.011
Goddard, C. (2012). ‘Early interactions’ in Australian English, American English, and English English: cultural differences and cultural scripts. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1038-1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.010
Goddard, C. (2017). Ethnopragmatic perspectives on conversational humour, with special reference to Australian English. Language & Communication, 55, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.09.008
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Contrastive semantics of physical activity verbs:‘Cutting’and ‘chopping’in English, Polish, and Japanese. Language Sciences, 31(1), 60-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.002
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2016). ‘It's mine!’. Re-thinking the conceptual semantics of “possession” through NSM. Language sciences, 56, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.002
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2021). “We”: conceptual semantics, linguistic typology and social cognition. Language Sciences, 83, 101327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101327
Goddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., & Fabréga Jr, H. (2014). Evolutionary semantics: using NSM to model stages in human cognitive evolution. Language Sciences, 42, 60-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.11.003
Meifang, Z., & Li, P. (2009). Introducing a Chinese Perspective on Translation Shifts: A Comparative Study of Shift Models by Loh and Vinay & Darbelnet. The Translator, 15(2), 351-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2009.10799285
Molina, L., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2002). Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functionalist approach. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 47(4), 498-512.
Namy, C. (1978). Reflections on the Training of Simultaneous Interpreters A metalinguistic approach. In Language interpretation and communication (pp. 25-33). Springer, Boston, MA.
Ni, L. (2009). For" Translation and Theories". English language teaching, 2(2), 78-83.
Pym, A., & Torres-Simón, E. (2015). The pedagogical value of translation solution types. Perspectives, 23(1), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2014.928334
Sharei, V. (2017). A comparative study of the strategies employed in" the old man and the sea" translated from English into Persian on the basis of Vinay and Darbelnet's model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(4), 281.
Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation (Vol. 11). John Benjamins Publishing.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Defining emotion concepts. Cognitive science, 16(4), 539-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(92)90031-O
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Anne Ryan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.