Blog 2
“The difference between modernizing the text and keeping it archaic is not the same as

the one between foreignizing or domesticating it.” Calvino
The difference between modernizing and keeping it archaic is different from foreignizing and domestigating it, while the former works within the perimeter of the TL, the latter introduces foreign textual or cultural elements.

When we deal with text from another time period, the translator in a way serves two masters. He can choose to be as faithful to the original as he can by preserving its archaic flavor by the usage of words, references or cadence of speech. But he also has to make the meaning of the ST clear to his contemporaries by modernizing the text to a certain extant. As we have seen with the numerous Dante translations we have studied, most translations combined both elements of the archaic and modernizing with the needle moving between the two extremes.

What happens, however, if the translator foreignizes the text either by inserting foreign words or phrases, or gives a word-for-word rendering of the ST, he ignores idiomatic expressions or the syntax of the target language. Domesticating is differ from foreignizing because it does not intrude foreign elements into the language but rather makes cultural swaps. A reference to concept, thing or person that is generally familiar in the ST but not in the TL is substituted by one that is familiar in the TL.

A good example of this can be found in a 13th century Hebrew translation of an Arthurian legend:

“ Then King Artus ordered that all the events which befell the knights who went on the Quest of the Dish should be recorded in a memorial volume.”
The “dish” here refers to the Holy Grail. In Christian tradition Jesus shared the wine with the Apostles by drinking from this vessel. In Arthurian legends the Grail has magical qualities that would grant its owner wealth, power, happiness, etc. All these references would be easily understood by a Christian reader.

! To translate the “dish”, the Hebrew scribes uses the Hebrew word “tamchuy”, which also means “dish”, but has a different cultural connotation. “Tamchuy” refers to a charity plate from which food or money was distributed to the hungry and the poor. First of all, the Christian term “Holy Grail” does not exist in Hebrew or Jewish culture; secondly, even if it did, for religious reasons the Jewish scribe would have to avoid it. Thus, the Hebrew translator domesticated a Christian concept and brought it into the Hebrew culture without resorting to footnotes.

As Jhumpa Lahiri said it yesterday “translation is A solution not The solution”. The translator can chose any or the combination of the 4 above mentioned approaches depending on its target audience.