2。1。1 The research of domestication and foreignization in western countries。 

Venuti is strongly critical about the dominance of domestication in translation area in the 17th century。 He believes that this method makes the translator invisible and diminishes the importance of the translator。 It is also a symbol of cultural hegemony。 Hence Venuti encourages translators to reveal the true nature of the work by translating the work creatively。 On the contrary, Eugene A。 Nida, an American translation theorist, is a representative figure of the domestication school。 He put forward the concept of dynamic equivalence (functional equivalence) in translation, and put the reader at the first place。 He believes that the accuracy of the target text depends on whether it can produce the equivalent effect to overcome the linguistic and cultural differences。 The way of expressing the target text should be completely local, and it should fit with the cultural category of the target readers as far as possible。 The readers do not have to accept the source language’s culture mode。来,自,优.尔:论;文*网www.chuibin.com +QQ752018766-

2。1。2 The research of domestication and foreignization in China。

 The study of translation in China firstly occurred in Han dynasty because of the introduction of Buddhist scriptures, the dispute between “wen” and “zhi” is the embryonic form of the dispute between domestication and foreignization。 At the late Qing dynasty and early republic of China, a trend of translating western literature emerged。 Given the Chinese population’s low educational level, some scholars pay more attention to the readability of the translated versions。 The faithful to the original text is less stressed。 Most scholars favor the domestication method。 Lin Xian and Yan Fu are the representative figures of domestication school。 In contrast, Lu Xun advocates the “rigid translation”。 When translating foreign works, he attempts to introduce the foreign elements and exotic flavor, such as: European language structure, new words and foreign terms。 However, this kind of translation style was criticized by most scholars at that time。 It failed to become popular。 For a long time in China, the domestication strategy has prevailed。 In 1987, Liu Yingkai first challenged the domestication strategy with his paper:《归化----翻译的歧路》。 In the article, he put forward a series of criticisms about the domestication strategy。 The main manifestations are: “the abuse of four-character idioms”, “the abuse of quaint words”, “the abuse of abstract method” and “the abuse of Substitution method”。 He believes that after transforming the foreign things and wiping out the national characteristic, the exotic color of foreign culture would fade and lost。 When entering the 21 centuries, the study of domestication and Foreignization in the major foreign language journals in China emerged in an endless stream。 Sun Zhili published 《中国的文学翻译:从归化趋向异化》in 2002, it pointed out that domestication strategy should be only applied to the linguistic level, and to the cultural level the translator ought to maximize the usage of foreignization strategy; he claimed, in order to retain the exotic flavor of the text，foreignization should be served as the protagonist。 We could find that in the twenty-first Century, more and more scholars re-examine the relationship between domestication and foreignization from the perspective of intercultural communication。 The debate has shifted its point to the culture together with the social environment。