Author:
Mohammed Saeed Maryam Ahmed,Hasan Kanaan Khudher
Abstract
Translation strategies, domestication and foreignization bridge the linguistic and cultural gaps. Domestication adapts foreign texts for target readers, often sacrificing cultural nuances, as seen in historical examples like Rome's assimilation of Greek texts. Foreignization preserves the original text's cultural distinctions.
On social media like Twitter, translators face unique challenges with its character limit and specific lexicon. They must decide between domesticating tweets for clarity or foreignizing them to retain cultural elements.
This paper explores domestication and foreignization in historical and modern contexts, highlighting their implications for cross-cultural communication and translation on digital platforms like Twitter.
Reference31 articles.
1. Abderraouf, C. H. O. U. I. T. (2019). A critical evaluation of Venuti’s domestication and foreignization theory of translation. Traduction et Langues 18 (1), 101-116.
2. Adegbija, E. (1989). A comparative study of politeness phenomena in Nigerian English, Yoruba and Ogori. Journal of pragmatics, 13 (3), 347- 371.
3. Agarwal, A., Xie, B., Vovsha, I., Rambow, O., & Passonneau, R. J. (2011, June). Sentiment analysis of twitter data. In Proceedings of the workshop on language in social media (LSM 2011) (pp. 30-38).
4. Baker, M. (Ed.). (1998). Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
5. Brown, P. (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111-136). Praeger.