异化翻译法（或异化法）（Foreignizing Translation or Minoritizing Translation）和归化翻译法（或归化法）（Domesticating Translation or Domestication）是美国翻译理论家Lawrence Venuti（1995）创造的、用来描写翻译策略的两个术语。异化翻译法是故意使译文冲破目的语常规，保留原文中的异国情调。Venuti把异化翻译法归因于十九世纪德国哲学家Schleiermacher的翻译论说“译者尽量不惊动原作者，让读者向他靠近” (Schleiermacher 1838/1963: 47, 1838/1977:74; Venuti 1995: 19)。Schleiermacher本人是赞同采用异化法的。Venuti（1995: 20）指出，在盲目自大地使用单语、并把归化翻译法作为标准的文化社会（例如英美社会）中，应提倡异化翻译法。在这种情况下采用异化法，表明这是一种对当时的社会状况进行文化干预的策略，因为这是对主导文化心理的一种挑战。主导文化心理是尽力压制译文中的异国情调（或“异物”）。Venuti把异化翻译描述成一种“背离民族的压力”（1995: 20），其作用是“把外国文本中的语言文化差异注入目的语之中，把读者送到国外去”（1995：20）。具体说来，异化翻译法包括以下特点：（1）不完全遵循目的语语言与语篇规范；（2）在适当的时候选择不通顺、艰涩难懂的文体；（3）有意保留源语中的实观材料或采用目的语中的古词语；（4）目的是为目的语读者提供一次“前所未有的阅读经验”（1995：20）。不过，Venuti 也承认，译文是用“本土的文化材料”组成的，异化翻译 像归化翻译那样 只能是翻译过程中的其中一种策略，不同的是，采用异化法的译者一般都态度鲜明，而不是隐隐匿匿（1995：34）。用异化法英译的典型例子包括庞德（Ezra Pound）的许多译作，纳巴科夫（Nabokov）（1964/1975）直译的名著普希金的诗体小说尤金奥涅金(Eugene Onegin)。（参阅：Venuti 1995）The Translators Invisibilty traces the history of translation from the seventeenth century to the present day. It shows how fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to shape the canon of foreign literatures in English, and investigates the cultural consequences of the domestic values which were simulateneously inscribed and masked in foreign texts during this period. Lawrence Venuti examines alternative theories of translation which aim to communicate linguistic and cultural differences instead of eliding them. This book is an indispensable explanation of the way in which translation can be studied as a locus of difference. It will illuminating and helpful reading.Abstract1： Domesticating translation and foreignizing translation are 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 foreigness of the original. But what is the translation practice like in China? Do translators tend to use foreignizing methods or domesticating ones? What are the factors that affect their decision making? This paper tries to find answers to the questions by looking into the translation of English metaphors into Chinese. Key words: domesticating translation; foreignizing translation; metaphor; target language reader 1. Introduction Domesticating translation and foreignizing translation are the 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 foreigness of the original (Shuttleworth &Cowie, 1997:59). The roots of the terms can be traced back to the German philosopher Schleiermachers 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 terms foreignization and domestication may be new to the Chinese, but the concepts they carry have been at least for a century at the heart of most translation controversies. Lu Xun (鲁迅) once said that before translating, 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). But what is the translation practice like in China? Recently I have read two articles which show completely conflicting views on this question. In his article entitled Chinese and Western Thinking On Translation, A. Lefevere makes a generalization based on his comparison of Chinese and Western thinking on translation, When Chinese translates texts produced by Others outside its boundaries, it translates these texts in order to replace them, pure and simple. The translations take the place of the original. They function as the original in the culture to the extent that the original disappear behind the translations. (Bassnett & Lefevere, 1998:14) However, Fung and Kiu have drawn quite different conclusions from their investigation of metaphor translation between English and Chinese, Our comparison of the two sets of data showed that in the case of the English metaphor the image often than not retained, whereas with the Chinese metaphors, substitution is frequently used. . One reason perhaps is that the Chinese audience are more familiar with and receptive to Western culture than the average English readers is to Chinese culture. (Fung, 199