Approaches to cultures involved in translation may be divided into two categories: domesticating translation and foreignizing translation. These are the two terms coined by L. Venuti (1995) to describe the two different translation strategies. The former refers to the translation strategy in which a transparent, fluent style is adopted in order to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for target language readers, while the latter designates the type of translation in which a target text "deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original"(Shuttleworth & Cowie, 1997:59).
The roots of the terms can be traced back to the German philosopher Schleiemacher's argument that there are only two different methods of translation, "Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him"(Venuti, 1995: 19-20). The famous Chinese writer Lu Xun also said that "Before translation, the translator has to make a decision: either to adapt the original text or to retain as much as possible the foreign flavour of the original text" (Xu, in Luo, 1984: 315). .
Venuti proposed the concept of "relevant translation" to justify foreignizing translation. He said, "The relevant translation presents itself as the transfer of an intact signified through the inconsequential vehicle of any signifier whatsoever. The goal was a translation that seemed strange, removed from current target language usage, yet recognizable and very readable." This is a kind of translation strategy that tends to deliberately break the dominance of target language culture and give prominence to the alienation of the source language text in style, culture and other aspects.
American translation theorist Eugene A. Nida is the representative figure of domesticating translation.
