Marriam-Webster defines domesticate as “to bring into use in one’s own country: to bring into domestic use”. In the context of the domestication of translated texts, this means to conform the original language to the target language and culture. On the other hand, foreignized is defined as “to make foreign : give a foreign character or flavor to”; therefore, foreignization is the act of deliberately breaking the target culture’s conventions and retaining at least some of the foreignness of the original. Domestication and foreignization are highly debated translation strategies that determine the extent to which a text conforms to the target culture: how many cultural references should be kept? Should we retain untranslatable words that precisely convey a concept, but might require unnatural explanation for foreign readers? Even names are points of contention: keeping a person’s birth name versus, for example, creating an anglicized name can change the reader’s perception of the text.
Still, domestication and foreignization are not considered to be binary opposites. Rather, they’re seen as part of a continuum, with the translator’s choices determining its position on the spectrum. This article will more concretely define these two strategies, as well as the implications (both positive and negative) for both.
Domestication translates a text to conform to the target culture, using more familiar cultural concepts and linguistic alternatives to make it easier for the reader to understand. Eugene Nida, an American linguist considered one of the founders of modern translation studies, advocates domestication. He argued that the relationship between the target recipient and target information (i.e., foreign readers and the translated text) should essentially be equivalent to the source recipient and source information (i.e., native readers and the original text).
Foreignization retains the information from the source text, breaking the conventions of the target language and emphasizing the cultural flavors of the original. Lawrence Venuti, a leading American translation theorist in modern translation theory, believed that foreignization is the ethical choice for translators: his ideal translation style is one that’s non-fluent or estranged, highlighting the translator’s presence with the source text’s foreign identity, protecting it from the ideologies of the target culture. Venuti views domestication as an unbalanced result of British and American translation culture and can lead to a loss of cultural depth.
However, while Venuti advocates for foreignization, he acknowledges its contradictions: foreignization ultimately is subjective and requires some degree of domestication since one can’t completely disregard the receiving culture. While it can enrich the target audience of the source culture, extreme foreignization can deviate irrevocably from the original and fail to convey its message; this can lead to disinterest or difficulty understanding.
Ultimately, both strategies have their relative advantages and disadvantages, and a quality translation may utilize a blend of both to strike a fine balance between relatability and cultural acknowledgment. Domestication can help readers understand the meaning of the original text as the translation is easier for readers to understand and accept; however, its fluidity often comes at the expense of the cultural and stylistic messages of the original text. However, foreignization has the benefit of helping readers develop an understanding of cultural differences; it preserves the source text’s features and informs foreign audiences of its culture, but an overwhelming quantity of alien concepts may be too formidable for readers. Translation always entails losses, and neither strategy can avoid this truism. Nonetheless, as crucial as it is to understand each method’s implications, what truly matters is how it’s put into practice: a quality translation (and a quality translator) must be able to find an appropriate balance between these strategies.