ABSTRACT
The search for alternatives to the domesticating tradition in English-language translation can locate different kinds of foreignizing practices, both in the choice of foreign texts and in the invention of translation discourses. A translator can signal the foreignness of the foreign text, not only by using a discursive strategy that deviates from prevailing discourses (e.g. dense archaism as opposed to transparency dependent on current standard usage), but also by choosing to translate a text that challenges the contemporary canon of foreign literature in the translating language. Foreignizing translation is a dissident cultural practice, maintaining a refusal of the dominant by developing affi liations with marginal linguistic and cultural values in the receiving situation, including foreign cultures that have been excluded because their differences effectively constitute a resistance to dominant values.1 On the one hand, foreignizing translation enacts an ethnocentric appropriation of the foreign text merely by using a discourse in the translating language to render that text, but also by enlisting it in a political agenda in the translating culture, like dissidence. On the other hand, it is precisely this dissident stance that enables foreignizing translation to signal the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text and perform a work of cultural restoration, admitting the ethnodeviant and potentially revising literary canons in the translating language.
