Translating Culturally-Loaded Phraseological Units: A Study of Foreignization and Domestication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25130/Lang.9.4.P2.13Keywords:
context, cultural, domestication, foreignization, and semantic fidelityAbstract
This study critically examines the translational efficacy of domestication and foreignization strategies in rendering culturally embedded English idiomatic expressions into Arabic. Grounded in Venuti’s conceptual framework and Sager’s linguistic criteria notably inversion, omission, addition, and deviation the research interrogates how idioms, as culture-bound units, are mediated across linguistically and socioculturally divergent systems. Recognizing the communicative complexities inherent in idiomatic translation, the study posits that the choice of strategy directly affects semantic fidelity and audience accessibility. Four hypotheses are advanced, most prominently that domestication, despite its infrequent application, is superior in achieving both interpretive clarity and cultural appropriateness for Arabic-speaking audiences. This approach aligns the source-language idioms with target-language cultural norms, enhancing reader comprehension. Conversely, foreignization, while preserving source-text integrity, may impede interpretive fluidity due to its emphasis on cultural otherness. Through the analysis of ten idioms extracted from advanced English discourse, the research identifies three critical factors compromising translational quality: (1) reliance on dictionary meanings without contextual calibration, (2) neglect of cultural and pragmatic context, and (3) overuse of additive techniques that distort intended meaning. The research concludes that domestication more effectively preserves culturally nuanced semantics, facilitating meaningful cross-cultural communication. However, it cautions against overcorrection, advocating for a balanced translational praxis that harmonizes semantic precision with cultural resonance. Recommendations emphasize enhanced translator sensitivity to contextual and cultural variables to improve idiomatic accuracy in Arabic translation.
References
• Aixelá, J. F. (1996). Culture-Specific Items in Translation. In R. Álvarez & M. C.-Á. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion (pp. 52–78). Multilingual Matters.
• Almanna, A. (2014). Translation Theories Exemplified from Cicero to Pierre Bourdieu: A Coursebook on Translation. Lincom Europa.
• Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Baker, M. (2011). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
• Bassnett, S. (2014). Translation. London: Routledge.
• Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (1990). Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter Publishers.
• Berman, A. (1985). Translation and the Trials of the Foreign. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 284–297). Routledge.
• Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. John Benjamins Publishing.
• Díaz Cintas, J., & Remael, A. (2007). Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
• Gutt, E.-A. (1998). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Routledge.
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
• Hassan, S. M. (2014). Between English and Arabic: A Practical Course in Translation. Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah.
• Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London & New York: Routledge.
• House, J. (2015). Translation as Communication across Languages and Cultures. London: Routledge.
• House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. Routledge.
• Katan, D. (2004). Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Landers, C. E. (2001). Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London & New York: Routledge.
• Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (4th ed.). Routledge.
• Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (4th ed.). Routledge.
• Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
• Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.
• Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. St. Jerome Publishing.
• Pettit, P. (2009). Law and Liberty. In S. Besson & J. L. Martí (Eds.), Law and Republicanism (pp. 31–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Schleiermacher, F. (1838). On the Different Methods of Translating. In Sämmtliche Werke, Vol. 12. Berlin: G. Reimer.
• Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
• Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. London: John Murray.
• Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
• Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London & New York: Routledge.
• Yang, W. (2010). Brief Study on Domestication and Foreignization in Translation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 77–80. Academy Publisher.
