Should the Translator Take the Reader to the Author, or the Author to the Reader?

Have you ever wondered why the word Muggle is retained in some translations of Harry Potter, while in others it is replaced with a more familiar local expression?

This is not simply a matter of word choice.

In fact, decisions like this lead to one of the most interesting questions in translation theory:

Should the translator take the reader to the author, or bring the author to the reader?

This question lies at the heart of two major translation strategies: foreignisation and domestication.

The terms were popularised in the 1990s by American translation scholar Lawrence Venuti, although the underlying dilemma is much older. Translators have long debated whether a translation should preserve the foreignness of the source text or make it feel as natural and familiar as possible to the target reader.

What is domestication?

Domestication means bringing the text closer to the reader.

The translator adapts cultural references, idioms, jokes and other elements so that they are more accessible and natural for the target audience.

The aim is often for the reader to experience the translation as a fluent, natural text rather than as something that has been translated.

Consider the English idiom:

It's raining cats and dogs.

Rather than translating the individual words literally, a translator may choose a natural idiomatic expression in the target language that conveys the same meaning and communicative effect.

This is an example of domestication.

We can also see this approach frequently in audiovisual translation, particularly dubbing. Jokes, cultural references and wordplay may be adapted so that the target audience can understand and appreciate them without needing extensive cultural knowledge.

Sometimes, it is not the words that need to be translated, but the effect they create.

What is foreignisation?

Foreignisation means preserving the sense that the text comes from another culture.

Instead of adapting every unfamiliar element to the target culture, the translator deliberately retains features of the source culture.

Unfamiliar words, concepts, names and cultural references may remain in the translation, even if they make the text feel slightly “foreign”.

For example, in translations of Russian literature, culture-specific terms such as samovar or dacha may be retained in their original form, with an explanation provided where necessary.

The purpose is not necessarily to maximise the reader's comfort.

Instead:

The reader is made aware that they are encountering another culture.

The foreignness of the text is not necessarily a flaw. Sometimes, it is precisely what makes the text distinctive.

So, which strategy is better?

Foreignisation?

Or domestication?

The answer is not that simple.

Rather than asking:

“Which strategy is better?”

a professional translator might ask:

“Which strategy will allow this text to fulfil its purpose most effectively for its target audience?”

The same approach will not necessarily work for every project.

For example:

Marketing and advertising
Often lean towards domestication.
The message needs to feel natural, persuasive and culturally relevant to the target audience.

UI/UX and product localisation
Generally favour domestication.
Users should feel that the product was designed for them, rather than translated for them.

Literary translation
Often involves a combination of both strategies.
Dialogue may be adapted to sound natural, while culture-specific elements are retained to preserve the setting and cultural identity of the original.

Historical and culturally focused texts
May favour foreignisation, particularly when the cultural context itself is an important part of the text.

Technical and medical translation
The issue is somewhat different.
The primary priorities are accuracy, clarity and terminological consistency, rather than preserving or removing cultural foreignness.

How do I approach this in my own work?

In practice, I do not automatically choose one strategy over the other.

If a user is navigating an app interface, I do not want them to feel that they are reading a translated text. The language should feel natural and intuitive.

With literary translation, however, adapting everything to the target culture may not always be appropriate.

For example, translating samovar simply as “teapot” may communicate the basic function of the object, but it can also remove some of the cultural associations carried by the original term.

A professional translator therefore sometimes makes the reader's experience easier — and sometimes deliberately allows the reader to encounter something unfamiliar.

Both decisions can be valid.

What matters is understanding why a particular choice is being made.

Why does Venuti favour foreignisation?

Venuti has particularly advocated foreignisation as an alternative and ethically significant approach within dominant English-language translation traditions.

He argues that excessive domestication can bring foreign texts too closely into line with the norms and expectations of the target culture, potentially making their cultural difference invisible.

In other words, when everything is made to feel completely familiar, we may lose sight of the fact that we are encountering another culture.

From this perspective, foreignisation is not merely a linguistic technique. It can also be understood as a cultural and ideological choice.

What makes a good translator?

A good translator is not necessarily someone who always foreignises — nor someone who always domesticates.

A good translator understands what they are changing and why.

Translation is not simply about asking:

“How do I translate this word?”

Sometimes the more important question is:

“Should I preserve this cultural element, or adapt it for the target reader?”

And the answer will not always be the same.

The translator's professionalism is often revealed precisely in these decisions.

Sometimes our job is to bring the author to the reader.

Sometimes it is to take the reader into the author's world.

The key is to make that choice deliberately and with a clear understanding of the text's purpose, audience and context.

What is your approach?

In your own translation work, do you tend to favour foreignisation or domestication?

Do you take a different approach depending on the type of project — for example, foreignisation in literary translation and domestication in localisation and marketing?

I'd be interested to hear how other translators approach this balance in practice.

---

This article is part of a series exploring translation theory and its practical application in professional translation.