MACRO STRATEGIES: DOMESTICATION AND

diverged from the period and culture in which they were produced; therefore, different strategies can be adopted by different translators in different times (Hagfors, 2003, p.118).

According to Aixelá (1996) that forms a “variability factor” for the translators (p.53).

In spite of the multifaceted nature of the CSIs and norms for the translation of CSIs, there are two main categories of strategies widely adopted by scholars and researchers to study the translation of CSIs: macro strategies and micro strategies. While macro strategies help to reveal the dominant tendency of a translator in a TT, the latter scrutinizes the individual choices made by the translator during the translation process. It can be also claimed that macro strategies can be a stimuli for the adoption of certain micro strategies while they can appear as the inevitable result of choices made through micro strategies. Davies (2003) refers to macro strategies as the two primary aims of translator revealed through the solutions found to fill the cultural gap between ST and TT and states that

discussions of alternative treatments for CSIs often invoke the distinction between two basic goals of translation: that of preserving the characteristics of the source text as far as possible, even where this yields an exotic or strange effect, and that of adapting it to produce a target text which seems normal, familiar and accessible to the target audience (p.69).

Although the aims of preserving the main features of the ST and creating a TT easy-to-read for the TT easy-to-readers may seem to be reminiscent of exhaustively discussed concepts of word-for-word versus sense-for-sense translation or source-orientedness versus target orientedness in TS, notions of domestication and foreiginization proposed by Lawrence Venuti (1995) are widely acknowleged. Similarly, among the taxonomies proposed to systematize the strategies adopted at micro-level, Aixelá’s categorization of translation strategies for CSIs are referred as a tool kit by many researchers in numerous studies. In the next section, macro and micro strategies suggested for translation of CSIs will be scrutinized respectively.

2.1. MACRO STRATEGIES: DOMESTICATION AND FOREIGNIZATION

utilized by scholars is the division offered by Lawrence Venuti (1995): domestication and foreignization. Domestication is defined as “adherence to domestic canons both in choosing a foregin text and in developing a translation method” (Venuti, 1998, p. 241).

On the other hand, foreignization is a translation method which implies “the difference of the foreign text only by assuming an oppositional stance toward the domestic, challenging literary canons, professional standards, and ethical norms in the target language” (Venuti, 1998, p. 241).

Source Text Oriented Target Text Oriented

Foreignization Domestication

Table 2. Macro strategies suggested by Venuti (1995)

Venuti (1995) discusses the notions of domestication and foreignization within the framework of “translator’s invisibility” which refers to “the translator’s situation and activity in contemporary Anglo- American culture” (p.1). If a TT does not reflect any linguistic or cultural idiosyncracy of ST and can be read fluently, it is assumed as

“transparent” by TT readers, and thus “the more fluent the translation, the more invisible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text”

( Venuti, 1995, p.1-2).

Although similar categorizations have already been done by various scholars, Venuti’s designation of the translator’s choices made for translation is attributed to Friedrich Schleiermacher’s remarks. He explains his reference to Schleiermacher’s categorization as follows:

I also want to indicate that the freelance literary translator always exercises a choice concerning the degree and direction of the violence at work in any translating. This choice has been given various formulations, past and present, but perhaps none so decisive as that offered by the German theologian and philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher. In an 1813 lecture on the different methods of translation, Schleiermacher argued that “there are only two. 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, 1995,p. 19-20).

Accordingly, it can be suggested that Venuti’s domestication is an equivalent of Schleiermacher’s “leaving the reader in peace and moving the author towards him”

(ibid.). In a domesticating approach, the ST values and norms are assimilated (Venuti, 1998, p.240-244). To this end, the prevailing norms in TL tradition are adopted with a conventional stance against the otherness of the ST culture (ibid.). A translation that can be read easily by the target reader indicates the strategy of domestication which is also named as “fluency” (Venuti, 1995, p.5). Venuti (1995) criticizes this approach by accusing the translator of performing an “acculturation which domesticates the foreign text, making it intelligible and even familiar to the target-language reader” (p.5). In a similar vein, Aixelá (1996) who collects the domesticating strategies suggested for translation of CSIs under the category of “substitution”, relates this approach to the

“hegemony” of the TL culture over the SL culture (p.55). He assumes this tendency to be far from an “innocent” choice made by the translators; rather, it is the indicator of a deliberate effort made to“guarantee the acceptance of their translation by, at least, the initiator and the powers that be (publishers, literary critics, etc.) (Aixelá, 1996, p. 54). It is basically “transformation of the other into a cultural replica” (ibid.).

On the other hand, foreignization approach corresponds to Schleiermacher’s “leaving the author in peace and moving the reader towards him” (Venuti, 1995, p.19-20). In a foreignized TT, translator follows ST norms and shows a tendency to the representation of the foreign culture. In other words, the ST culture values are imported in the TT and

“heterogeneous dialects and discourses” are presented to the TT readers (Venuti, 1998, p.242). He also suggests that foreignization refers to “a form of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations” (Venuti, 1995, p.20). Foreignization enables TT readers an opportunity to discover the other represented by the culture of ST. In spite of the experience of a nonfluent reading of the TT, it helps to introduce a different culture to the target readers. Aixelá (1996) categorizes the foreignizing translation strategies under the title of “conservation” and refers them as “the acceptance of the difference”

(p.54). He implies that exposure to a foreignized TT increases the target reader’s acquaintance with the ST culture (Aixelá, 1996, p.54). According to Venuti (1998), translators who adopt foreignization strategy as an approach intend to conserve the

“linguistic and cultural differences deviating from prevailing domestic values” (p. 240).

Similarly, a translator tends to employ foreignization to reflect the peculiarity of the ST deviating from the traditions of the TL (Hatim, 2001, p.51).

Motives stimulating the choices of the certain strategies adopted by the translators may vary from the extent of cultural differences to the ideologies behind choosing and translating a given ST. In order to clarify the dominant approach in a translated text, Venuti (1998) underlines the necessity of “the reconstruction of the cultural formation”

where the TT is formed and accepted (p. 243). However, he also distinguishes literary and technical translation in terms of the strategies to be employed. He suggests that technical texts are basically prone to domesticating while works of literature are easier to apply foreignization strategy (Venuti, 1998, p.244). It is primarily because of the fact that

“literary translation focuses on linguistic effects that exceed simple communication (tone, connotation, polysemy, intertextuality) and are measured against domestic literary values, both canonical and marginal” (ibid.).

To sum up, two macro strategies include the terms such as “foreignization”,

“domestication”, “resistance” and “fluency” (Venuti, 1995). A translator may either prefer to reflect the otherness of the ST and thus ST culture to the TT reader or smooth out the differences stemming from both linguistic and cultural nonequivalences. In order to comprehend a translator’s choices at the macro-level in terms of CSIs, an analysis should be conducted at a micro-level. To this end, Aixelá’s taxonomy of strategies designated for translation of CSIs will be scrutinized in the following section.