On “Strategy” As the Pivotal Concept in Transfer Operations

Vol. 5(5), pp. 106-112, July, 2014 DOI: 10.5897/IJEL2013.0577 Article Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx International Journal of English and Literature ISSN 2141-2626 Copyright © 2014 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/IJEL

Review

On “strategy” as the pivotal concept in transfer operations

Chuanmao Tian1,2

1School of Foreign Studies, Yangtze University, Hubei, 434023 P. R. China. 2Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43002 Tarragona, Spain.

Received 28 January 2014; Accepted 5 May, 2014.

No consensus has been reached on an umbrella term for covering various macro- and micro- transfer operations in translating in the field of translation Studies. Writers have offered a wide spectrum of terminologies of their own for the operations in the past decades. This paper first discusses the reasons for use of “strategy” from a dictionary-based translational perspective. Then, it deals with the global strategies, such as literal/free translation and foreignizing/domesticating translation, analyzing the similarities and differences between the four categories. Finally, the paper summarizes the specific foreignizing/domesticating translation strategies on the basis of Venuti’s 1998 entry on “strategies of translation” in Routledge Encylopedia of translation Studies, with a supplementation of some other strategies.

Key words: Transfer operation, conceptual issue, strategy, reason, type.

INTRODUCTION

Which term can be used to cover Cicero’s word-for-word Conceptual inconsistency translation, Jerome’s sense-for-sense translation, Xuanzang’s bufan (不翻, zero translation), or John The relatively “old” term used to describe how translators Dryden’s metaphrase, compromise and imitation? No handle the source text and create the target text seems to consensus has so far been reached in the field of be a “method” (Methode in German) employed by translation studies with regard to a proper concept for Schleiermacher (2006). In the past few decades, scholars encompassing these classical writers’ nomenclatures for have used different terms to mean something similar, translation operations. In the sections that follow, we will such as “mode” (MacFarlane, 1953), “procedure” discuss the concept of “strategy”, reasons for use of the (procédé) (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1958; Newmark 1988), term, types of translation strategies and the similarities “technique” (Nida 1964; Newmark 1982; Fawcett, 1997; and differences between literal/free translation and Molina and Albir, 2002), “shift” (Catford, 1965; Leuven- foreignizing/domesticating translation. Zwart, 1989/1990), “strategy” (Lefevere, 1975;

E-mail: tcm_316@ 163.com

Author agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License.

Tian 107

Chesterman, 1997/2005; Venuti 1998), “form” (Holmes, Venuti (1998). In discussing poetry translation, Lefevere 1988), “trajection” (Malone, 1988), “solution” proposes seven strategies, such as translation of poetry (Zabalbeascoa, 2000; Pym, 2011), and so on. What a into prose. Clearly, his concept of “strategy” works at the conceptual or terminological mess (Chesterman, 2005; global level. Chesterman (1997: 94-112) develops the Pym, 2011)! In discussing literal translation, Shuttleworth term as referring to various local procedures, including and Moira (1997: 96) call it both a “strategy” and a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic strategies. Venuti “technique”. It is absolutely necessary to sort out the combines global and local procedures into a concept of mess and settle on a term or a set of terms to cover the “strategy” that is manifested in the selection of a source overall process of translating, from selection of the text and the determination of the overall method for it, as source text to macro- and micro-operative procedures of well as such specific methods as explanation, addition actual translating, including the general orientation of and replacement in turning it into the target text (Venuti translation in handling the whole source text and local 1998: 240-244). operations in dealing with a word, phrase, sentence and James Holmes’ “form” is interpreted as “strategy” by sub-text (example, an epistolary text) in the source text. Shuttleworth and Moira (1997: 106). True, his “form” is Our discussion will be restricted to English-language indeed a kind of global strategy. For example, among the research that has been published over the past five or six four forms of verse translation proposed by him, mimetic decades. form is the one in which the form of the source text is retained in the target text. “Trajection” does not seem to be popularly adopted by translation researchers in main- Reasons for use of strategy stream translation studies today. According to Malone (1988: 15), trajection contains a number of basic Of the terms employed by translation scholars in recent translation patterns into which a given source-target decades, Macfarlane’s “mode” is used loosely in a very pairing may partially be solved, such as amplification, general sense to refer to such global translation orien- reduction, reordering, and so on. It is something like tations as actual translation, ideal translation or literal Molina and Albir’s “technique”. translation (Hermans, 2004: 17 to 21). The concept of “Solution” is the nominalization of the verb “to solve”, “procedure” proposed by Vinay and Darbelnet seems to thus enabling a possibility of understanding it as a pro- describe various kinds of resulting differences between cess or result. It can be used to deal with the description source and target texts, rather than real procedures of the translation outcome or with the reformulation of the taking place through time (Chesterman, 2005: 19). actual translating process. Some researchers “Technique” focuses on local operations, especially in (Zabalbeascoa 2000; Pym 2011) like to use “solution” or Molina and Albir (2002) who have summarized 18 “solution type” to describe the actual translation product. techniques, such as adaptation, amplification, borrowing, Translators will inevitably encounter problems in the calque and so on. process of translating and they have to find methods or “Shifts” are defined by Catford (1965: 73) as techniques or follow procedures to solve them. It can be “departures of formal correspondence”; they are in nature argued that “solution” presupposes a problem and thus is a kind of dissimilarity or difference obtained by com- naturally associated with problem-solving. However, a parison of source and target texts. Therefore, it is a solution is not the method itself, even though the former generic textual term covering all kinds of changes that is related to the latter in that a method or a set of has taken place in the translation product. The research methods are used in order to solve a problem. We need a paradigm focusing on shifts seems to take formal term to describe a wide range of translating operations, correspondence/equivalence or literal translation as a from selection of the source text to local procedures in default (that is, natural) tool that is self-evident in rendering it. It seems that “strategy”, “method”, “tech- translation practice and that need not be studied. The nique”, “procedure”, “solution” and “shift” are used with underlying assumption relating to the terms like high frequency nowadays in the field of translation “procedure”, “shift”, “technique”, “solution”, and so on, is studies. Therefore, it is rational to choose and determine that literal word-for-word translation or formal corres- term(s) from among them. Let us first look at their pondence is a kind of mechanical operation that is so definitions in non-technical everyday English. easy that even a machine can do it. Nothing deserves scholarly research in this kind of default translation 1) Strategy: A plan of action designed to achieve a long- activity, which is deeply rooted in the belief that the target term or overall aim. text, of course, should be faithful or equivalent to the 2) Method: A particular procedure for accomplishing or source text. approaching something, especially a systematic or “Strategy” is a term preferred by many scholars, most established one. notably Lefevere (1975), Chesterman (1997/2005) and 3) Technique: A way of carrying out a particular task,

108 Int. J. English Lit.

especially the execution or performance of an artistic translatorial actions under different nomenclatures may work or a scientific procedure. be viewed as those of translation strategies. According to 4) Procedure: An established or official way of doing John Kearns (2009: 282 to 285), translation strategies something. may be grouped into such big dichotomous categories as 5) Solution: A means of solving a problem or dealing with literal/free translation, local/global strategies, a difficult situation. comprehension/production strategies and domesticating 6) Shift: A slight change in position, direction, or and foreignizing strategies, certainly also including strate- tendency. gies concerning selection of source texts. The categories can be sub-divided. For example, Vinay and Darbelnet’s The definitions might elicit various presuppositions from procedures, Nida’s techniques of adjustment, Catford’s advocates of the terms. “Strategy” implies that translation shifts and Malone’s trajections are all of production is a kind of cognitive activity that achieves a goal. strategies. Confronted with so many confusing divisions “Method” and “procedure” suggest that translation has of translation strategies, we will mainly refer to Venuti’s some laws or rules for translators to obey, such as literal and Chesterman’s classifications of strategies. translation that may be viewed as an “established” translating rule for translation practitioners. “Technique” might indicate that translation is an art. “Solution” and Literal vs. foreignizing translation and free vs. “shift” imply that only studies focusing on problems or domesticating translation difficulties in translating are of some value. However, ways of actual translating go beyond those to deal with It seems necessary to make a distinction between two problems and difficulties. pairs of strategies, namely free/literal translation and If we look at the terms from a textual perspective, domesticating/foreignizing translation. There is a strategy seems to be at global level, technique at local misunderstanding in the field of translation teaching and level, and method in between. Procedure, solution and research in China that some students and even teachers shift may be used at different levels. If we do choose an identify literal translation with foreignizing translation and umbrella term to include all kinds of operations in a free translation with domesticating translation. But a specific translation event, “strategy” seems to be the logical distinction of them presupposes a good command most general term. It is a plan of action(s) whose of their definitions and features. implementation requires the making of methods or techniques that are called “tactics” in the military field. In other words, a strategy contains a set of methods or Features of domesticating/foreignizing translation techniques that may be established or provisional, and that are used to deal with easy or difficult things to For Vennuti (1998: 241 to 242), free translation may lead achieve the expected or unexpected result. Therefore, to domesticating translation and literalism leads to a strategy is indirectly linked with procedure, solution and foreignizing translation. However, they are not the same shift. In our opinion, “strategy” can be adopted to mean a thing. A domesticating translation, as Venuti (1998: 240) general or specific plan of action(s) used to achieve a implies, “conforms to values currently dominating the certain goal or solve a certain problem by the translator target-language culture, taking a conservative and openly with an objective. Pym’s (2011: 92-93) definition of assimilationist approach to the foreign text, appropriating “strategy” seems to be scientific and thus can be it to support domesticating canons, publishing trends, accepted by translation scholars: political alignments”, while a foreignizing translation, on the other hand, “resists and aims to revise the dominant A strategy is better seen as an action that aims to by drawing on the marginal, restoring foreign texts achieve a purpose where: excluded by domestic canons, recovering residual values such as archaic texts, translation methods, and cultivating a) There is no certainty of success (that is, it is not a emergent ones”. mechanistic application of a rule), and One of our previous studies on domesticating/ b) There are viable alternative actions (that is, other ways foreignizing translation shows that, with regard to its of aiming to achieve the same or similar purpose). etymological meanings of taming wild plants/animals or converting humans, “domestication seems to mean that a lower-class species is upgraded to an upper-class Types of translation strategies species and an outsider is turned to an insider” (Tian 2010: 81). As far as domestication in translation is Along the line, prescribed by the concept of “strategy” in concerned, it has several metaphorical meanings. First, the above section, various kinds of classifications of the author, the source text and the source culture are like

Tian 109

Figure 1. Directionality of domestication and foreignization.

a lower-class species. Domesticating translators are are like equivalence in translation (Pym 1998). When we egocentric and ethnocentric, viewing their own culture as mention equivalence, it usually means that the target text superior to foreign cultures. The source text is like a wild is equivalent to the source text, not vice versa. plant or animal that is of lower class in the eyes of Otherwise, it cannot be called a translation. Domestication domesticators. Only through domestication can it become and foreignization revolve around the target text rather something of higher class, just like a domesticated plant than the source text. The target text’s swaying to the or animal. Second, a domesticating translation is a source language and culture (SLC) or to the target variation. language and culture (TLC) determines whether it is a Domestication of a plant or animal involves a change in domesticating or foreignizing translation. The directionality living conditions or environment. Translation also relates of domestication and foreignization may be illustrated in to the change in the environment for a text to live in, Figure 1. which is implied in the statement of “translation works on Domestication and foreignization are mutually distance” by Anthony Pym in his translation and text convertible. Whether it is domestication or foreignization transfer (1992). is determined by one’s perspective. Suppose that you Translation usually involves the transfer of a text from were a Chinese who lived in England for some years. one place to another except for a bilingual/multilingual You began to speak English, eat the local food, wear community (example, Hong Kong) where translation may the local clothes, follow the local customs and even think be done for those who know only one of the languages like a native in England. We Chinese people would say used in the community. When a text leaves its own that you had been foreignized. But English people would language-culture environment for another language- say that you had been domesticated. In the case of culture environment, its relation to its own environment translation, target language readers will say that a will be severed because the language in which it was translated text with strong target language-culture written has been replaced by another language, namely characteristics is a domesticating translation. If the target the target or receiving language. The target language is text keeps the source language-culture characteristics, not necessarily related to the source-language culture but target-language readers will feel that it looks exotic and intimately to its own culture. In other words, the language will claim that it is a foreignizing translation. In the circles replacement is a kind of domestication. Weng Xianliang of translation studies, it seems that researchers always (1983: 135), a late Chinese scholar and translator, points put themselves in the shoes of target-language readers out that translation from a foreign language to Chinese, in when they talk about domestication and foreignization, some sense, is a kind of sinocization. True, most words which has almost become a default discourse for tran- and expressions in a language contain some historical slation scholars. However, we need to know that they are residues of their own culture. When target language convertible to each other. That is to say, a domesticating readers read the translated text, some words and translation for target-language readers will become a expressions will remind them of something in their own foreignizing translation for source-language readers, and history or culture. This kind of linguistic variation cannot vice versa. be avoided and may be labeled “passive domestication”. Domestication and foreignization are quantitative and “Active domestication” does not link with the use of qualitative. Various kinds of translation strategies, such language, but with the translator’s attitude and purpose, as foreignization and domestication, or literal translation which may be regarded as another metaphorical meaning and free translation, coexist in many translations. In this of domestication for translation. Domesticating animals case, we can only claim that these translations are more involves moral training. Translation also concerns a moral domesticating or more foreignizing. In other words, attitude taken by a translator. It is almost impossible for a quantitative analysis of the use of domestication and translator to take a neutral stance, neither source-biased foreignization in rendering items in the source language nor target-biased. Venuti points out that adoption of can help consolidate a qualitative analysis which, in turn, domestication or foreignization, in its final analysis, is a can convincingly decide the inclination of a translator in moral attitude (Guo, 2009: 35). The translator’s attitude employing them to render a certain text. Both strategies toward the source text is influenced by their purpose. are multi-layered. They deal with both macro- and micro- Domestication and foreignization are directional. They structures of the source text. Before translating, the

110 Int. J. English Lit.

translator will decide on their general strategy. In and Saldanha, 2008), both entries of free/literal translation Schleiermacher’s words, they have to decide to bring the have been omitted. The reason for the omission might be author to the reader or to bring the reader to the author that they are conceptually too vague, loose, dynamic and (Robinson 2006: 229). Or they choose to stand in controversial. But we have to look them in the face between in the case of somewhat balanced employment because translators have been using them to talk about of the strategies in translating. Schleiermacher’s indication their translations throughout history. of the existence of the distance between the author and It might be advisable to adopt the definitions of free/ the reader implies the degree and process of domesti- literal translation by Shuttleworth and Moira (2004). It cation and foreignization. The distance can be short or might also be of some help in understanding the terms if long, which determines that the extent of the strategies we refer to the definitions offered by the contemporary varies. But they are not specific translation techniques. Chinese dictionary (1999). According to it, literal tran- They are achieved by various techniques or sub- slation refers to a kind of translation in which more strategies, such as addition, omission, substitution for attention is given to the preservation of literal meanings domestication and sound-retained transliteration, of words and syntactic structures of sentences in the meaning-retained loan translation, form-retained trans- source text (1999: 1615), while free translation is a kind plantation for foreignization. Like domesticating wild of translation that is done according to the general mea- plants and animals, domestication and foreignization ning of the original but not word for word and sentence involve a process of transforming the source text into the for sentence (1999: 1496). They are basically what target text in terms of textual micro- and macro- Chinese translators mean by literal or free translation. structures. The destination of the process is a product that may be labeled a domesticating or foreignizing translation. Relations between free/literal translation and domesticating/foreignizing translation

Features of free/literal translation As for the relationship between literal translation and foreig-nizing translation, some writers hold that foreignness Literal translation is a translation “made on a level lower or strangeness is achieved through literalism than is sufficient to convey the content unchanged while (Shuttleworth and Moira, 1997: 96; Robinson, 1998: 127), observing targeted language (TL) norms” (Barkhudarov but nobody, to our knowledge, has so far discussed the 1969: 10, quoted in Shuttleworth and Moira 1997: 95). In relationship between free translation and domesticating other words, literal translation, including word-for-word translation. translation, revolves around the representation of literal In our view, a literal translation is not necessarily a meanings of individual words, phrases and sentences as foreignizing translation. It can become a foreignizing well as the preservation of the word order in the source translation only when target readers feel that the target text. Free translation, on the other hand, is “a type of text has a strange effect or an exotic flavor. Likewise, a translation in which more attention is paid to producing a free translation that is restricted to sense-for-sense naturally reading TT than to preserving the ST wording translation is not a domesticating translation. It is intact” (ibid.: 62). It is also known as sense-for-sense domesticating translation only when target readers feel translation. It focuses on the reproduction of the true the unique color and flavor of their own language-culture meaning in the original without much consideration of from the target text. In other words, if free/literal keeping the source-text form, including literal meaning translation makes target readers feel linguistically and and word order. A simple distinction between literal/free culturally novel or unaccustomed to it, all translations of translation may be made as follows: if form and meaning such kind may be seen as a kind of foreignization. In a cannot be retained at the same time, a literalist will similar vein, if target readers feel that a free or literal choose to preserve the former, while a free-hander will translation is familiar and natural, with no sense of tend to reproduce the latter. distance in language and culture, it can be taken as a However, Professor Douglas Robinson (Baker, 1998: type of domestication. 87-90) combines word-for-word translation (that is, literal translation) and sense-for-sense translation into the concept of faithful translation. Free translation, according Foreignizing and domesticating strategies to Robinson’s examination of translation discourse in human history, is actually an unfaithful translation or an A careful examination of Venuti’s (1998: 240 to 244) imitation because such translation goes against some discussion of “strategies of translation” in the first edition hegemonic tradition or norm. In the second edition of of Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies indicates Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Baker that, as strategies, domestication and foreignization are

Tian 111

umbrella terms that can be further divided into sub- evident in their additions to the Provençal text: strategies. Let us first read some segments of the entry about the strategies and then summarize the specific Shapiro makes his version conform to the familiar image strategies in them. of the yearning courtly lover by adding gently sighing and complained; Blackburn seeks estranging effects that work only in English by adding the pun on night in Day comes Statements on domesticating strategies and the knight goes, as well as the surreal image of the 1) Domesticating strategies have been implemented at sun sprouting. (ibid: 244) (Our addition of bold face least since Rome, as Nietzsche remarked, “translation throughout) was a form of conquest” and Latin poets like Horace and Propertius translated Greek texts “into the Roman The key words in the above segments that directly or present”: they had no time for all those very personal indirectly indicate some kind of strategy have been put in things and names and whatever might be considered the bold face. As Venuti suggests, domestication includes costume and mask of a city, a coast, or a country” such global and local strategies as deletion, addition, (Nietzsche 1974:137). As a result, Latin translators not replacement, free translation, insertion, explanation, only deleted culturally specific markers but also added genre switching, modernizing and assimilation. Foreigni- allusions to Roman culture and replaced the name of the zation is related to strategies like literal translation, Greek poet with their own, passing the translation off as a introduction of new literary forms, archaizing, use of text originally written in Latin. (Venuti 1998: 240 to 241) nonstandard dialects, and retention of differences. The 2) Nicolas Perrot D’ablancourt (see French Tradition), a one strategy may not be unique to or exclusively belong prolific French translator of Greek and Latin, argued that to domestication or foreignization. For example, addition, the elliptical brevity of Tacitus’s prose must be rendered as a local strategy, may be domesticating or foreignizing. freely, with the insertion of explanatory phrases and the The criterion for judging whether a strategy is domestic- deletion of digressions, so as “to avoid offending the cating or foreignizing is whether it signifies canonical or delicacy of our language and the correctness of reason” marginal values in the target language-culture, which is (1640: preface; translated). (ibid: 241) the basis for Venuti’s classification of domesticating and 3) Under D’Ablancourt’s influence, the English translator foreignizing strategies. As for the use of archaic terms, it Sir John Denham (see British tradition) rendered Book 2 is thought that we should distinguish them from culture- of Aeneid in heroic couplets […]. In domesticating foreign specific expressions that may be archaic in that they texts D’Ablancourt and Denham did not only simply were produced long ago. The latter show the tendency of modernize them […]. (ibid: 241) the target text to privilege the target culture. Therefore, 4) The multi-volume English version of Freud’s texts use of archaisms may be an indication of domestication. known as the standard edition (1953-74) assimilated his It is not necessarily to “invite the recognition that it is a ideas to the positivism dominating the human sciences translation produced in a different culture at a different […]. (ibid: 241) period” (Venuti 1998: 244). We do not think it is scientific to establish a correspondence between archaizing/ modernizing and foreignization/ domestication. In some Segments on foreignizing strategies sense, almost all translations are intended for contem- porary readers and thus they have to use modern 1) From its origins in the German tradition, foreignizing language. This kind of universal should not be seen as translation has meant a close adherence to the foreign part of a type of translation strategies in terms of its text, a literalism that resulted in the importation of foreign general tendency in human translation practices. It might cultural forms […]. Johann Heinrich Voss’s hexameter be advisable if domestication and foreignization were versions of the Odyssey (1781) and the Iliad (1793) restricted to the ways in which differences in language introduced this prosodic form into German poetry […]. and culture are handled. As for selection of the source Friedrich Hölderlin’s translations of Sophocles’ Antigone text, the strategy is not self-evident, nor can it be and Oedipus Rex (1804) draw on archaic and non- described by a key word or phrase. It can only be standard dialects […]. (ibid: 242) determined by placing the translator’s choice in the 2) Nott rejected the “fastidious regard to delicacy” that proper cultural context where the target text is produced. might have required him to delete the explicit sexual references in Catullus’ poems, because he felt that “history should not be falsified” (1795: x). (ibid: 243) CONCLUSION

Segments on domesticating/foreignizing strategies Hermans (2006) points out that the “precariousness and insecurity” of translation studies as an academic dis- The distinction between their strategies is particularly cipline, are due to its lack of large-scale encyclopedic

112 Int. J. English Lit.

reference works and comprehensive historical studies, as Lefevere A (1975). Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a well as disputes on some basic issues in the discipline. In Blueprint. Van Gorcum. 3(1):127. Leuven-Zwart KMV (1989). “Translation and Original: Similarities and our opinion, the terminological or conceptual mess with Dissimilarities I”. Target 2:151-181. regard to transfer operations as one of the most basic Leuven-Zwart KMV (1989/1990). “Translation and Original: Similarities element in translation studies will prevent it from and Dissimilarities II”. Target 1: 69-95. developing into a mature, widely recognized science in MacFarlane JW (1953). “Modes of translation”. Durham Univ. J. 45:77- 93. the academic community, although a few scholars, such Malone JL (1988). The Science of Linguistics in the Art of Translation. as Shuttleworth and Moira, have devoted their endeavors New York: State University of New York Press 1(1):241. in this respect. In a word, “strategy” can be used as the Molina L, Albir HA (2002). “Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic central or general concept in describing the way the and functionalist approach” Meta 4:498-512. http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8604403343323968011c92f0.html target text is turned out on both global and local levels, Newmark P (1982). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon because its basic meaning is roughly in agreement with Press 200:45-69. the features of transfer operations. Newmark P (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall Int. 418(02):306. Nida EA (2003). Toward a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Conflict of Interests Brill Acad. Pub. (02):331. Pym A (1992). Translation and Text Transfer. Berlin: Peter Lang Pub The author(s) have not declared any conflict of interests Incorporated. (16):228. Pym A (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome press p.220. Pym A (2011). “Translation research terms: A tentative glossary for ACKNOWLEDGEMENT moments of perplexity and dispute”. Translation Research Projects 3 Anthony Pym (ed.). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group pp.75- 110. Research for this article was funded by the National Robinson D (1998). “Normative model”. In Mona Baker (ed.), Routledge Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science, P. R. Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: China (grant no. 12BYY023). Routledge. (2):161-163. Robinson D (1997). Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (2):337. REFERENCES Schleiermacher F (2006). “On the Different Methods of Translating”. In Douglas Robinson (ed.), Western Translation Theories from Baker M (1998). Free translation, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Translation Studies, London, Routledge, pp.87-90. ISBN 0-415- Research Press (4):225-237. 09380-5, Shuttleworth M, Moira C (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies. St. Baker M, Gabriela S (2008). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Jerome Publishing (2):233. Studies. Manchester: Routledge. 26(3):271-275. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL482152M/Dictionary_of_translation_s Barkhudarov L (1969). Levels of Language Hierarchy and Translation. tudies The Translator’s Notebooks 6:3-12. Shuttleworth M, Moira C (2004). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Catford JC (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Educ. Press 4(1):28. Univ. Press. 1(01):103. Tian C (2010). Etymological implications of domestication and Chesterman A (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in foreignization: A Chinese perspective. Perspectives: Stud. Translatol. Translation Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia : J. Benjamins 2:79-93. 2(9):63-71. Venuti L (1998). “Strategies of translation”. Routledge Encyclopedia of Chesterman A (2005). New Trends in Translation Studies: In Honour of Translation Studies. Baker, M.and .Mlmkjaer (eds.). London and New Kinga Klaudy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó (218):17-28. York: Routledge 240-244. Delisle J, Lee‐Jahnke H, Cormier MC (eds.) (1999). Translation Terminology. Vinay JP, Darbelnet J (1958/1995). Comparative Stylistics of French Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. (1):300. and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam and Guo J (2009). Foreignization and domestication revisited: The new Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company (11):358. edition of Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility. Chin. Translators J. Weng X (1983). Can Image Never Be Drawn?. Beijing: China 2:34-38. Translation and Publishing Corporation (1): 141. Hermans T (2006). Getting research training in Translation or Zabalbeascoa P. (2000). “From techniques to types of solutions”. Intercultural Studies. Disciplinary Objectives. Allison Beeby Doris Ensinger and Marisa Presas 13(01):117-127. http://www.researchschool.org. Accessed May 2007. Holmes JS (1988). Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. (7):117. Kearns J (2009). “Strategies”. In: Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha (eds), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge pp.282-285.