Discourse strategy: Foreignization or localization?

jinjin1996

It is said that the Chinese mode of thought is quite different from that of Westerners: the former is spiral; the latter is linear. And this difference frequently results in distinct strategies in organizing information or ideas. Nida (2001, p. 79) seems to hold a similar view when he says in Langauge and Culture, “A language does reflect in certain aspects the culture of a society, but primarily in its optional features, i.e. in certain of its hierarchies of vocabulary and in the priorities given to various discourse patterns.”

A typical case in point is that, when reasoning out an argument, a westerner tends to put the main point at the beginning and then provide supportive details, but a real Chinese, in all probability, would prefer to reverse the order. This is troublesome. If failing so often to arrive at the crucial point when focusing on the opening stage of a discourse, the westerner may easily conclude that Chinese people are elusive or distrustful. Similarly, the Chinese, when bumping into an unexpected key point right at the outset so many times, may readily announce that western people are either too blunt or too rude.

Of course, this cross-cultural communicative problem can be easily resolved by improving the cultural awareness on both sides as the channel of communication is already there and as some certain basic principles have long been adopted in the international community as a whole. However, it becomes quite a different matter as soon as the problem throws itself into a translator’s hand. If the translator takes the writer-oriented standpoint, he may be accused of doing translation mechanically or practicing translationese; yet if he turns to a reader-oriented strategy, he may equally be put on notice for what might be called unfaithful rendering of the origin. This is a typical case of dilemma: he has to “eat the cake and have it too”.

Fortunately, looking back into the history of cultural exchanges, translators can find a way out or, at least, a guideline for them to disentangle the knot, especially in the age of globalization. That is, try to retain as much possible discourse patterns of the source language unless doing so proves to be an insurmountable task even if at the cost of smooth conveyance of the message. The logic is this: foreignization can enrich linguistic resources of the target language; and, by confronting target readers with exotic elements rather than bringing the outside world before them, it also helps to create a better understanding compared with localization. It is an added plus.