A Review of Lawrence Venuti's Translation Theories: A CiteSpace-Based Visualization Analysis

IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences https://irasspublisher.com/journal-details/IJAHSS ISSN (Online) 3049-0170 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license 7 JOURNAL COVER PAGE A Review of Lawrence Venuti’s Translation Theories: A CiteSpace-Based Visualization Analysis Ying LIANG* Postgraduate Student, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology Corresponding Author Ying LIANG Postgraduate Student, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology Article History Received: 14 / 06 / 2025 Accepted: 28 / 10 / 2025 Published: 06 / 11 /2025 Abstract: This study investigates research trends in Lawrence Venuti’s translation theories by conducting a panoramic analysis of scholarly literature from the CNKI and Web of Science Core Collection databases (2000-2024). Employing the CiteSpace visualization tool, it maps the intellectual trajectory of this field within international scholarship. Departing from previous studies often confined to single cultural contexts, this research innovatively constructs a crosscultural comparative framework. On the horizontal dimension, co-occurrence network analysis and cluster mapping are used to dynamically trace the evolution of core international debates, including the foreignization/domestication dichotomy, critique of the translator’s invisibility, and resistant translation strategies. On the vertical dimension, the study deconstructs the unique path of the Chinese academia, driven by cultural self-awareness, in creatively adapting Venuti’s theories to construct a ―Chinese School‖ of translation discourse. Through this dual perspective of diachronic investigation and synchronic comparison, the study not only reveals the paradigm reconstruction of Western postcolonial translation theory within the Chinese context but also, leveraging the burst detection function of knowledge graphs, prospectively identifies emerging research fronts. These include the reconfiguration of translation ethics in the age of artificial intelligence and the cross-disciplinary integration of digital humanities with translation studies. This research paradigm, which integrates big-data bibliometric analysis with critical theoretical inquiry, provides theoretical support for building a translation theory system with cultural agency and opens new methodological pathways for innovating the practice of Chinese literature translation within the global context. Keywords: Lawrence Venuti; Translation Theory; CiteSpace; Visualization Analysis; Research Shifts How to Cite in APA format: LIANG, Y. (2025). A Review of Lawrence Venuti’s Translation Theories: A CiteSpace-Based Visualization Analysis. IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(11), 7-15. 1. Introduction Lawrence Venuti (1953–) is a seminal theorist and practitioner in contemporary Western translation studies, whose critical perspective and interdisciplinary methodology have profoundly reshaped the ethical and political dimensions of the field. As a foundational figure in postmodern translation theory, Venuti challenged the traditional domestication paradigm with his advocacy for ―foreignizing translation.‖He argues for preserving the linguistic heterogeneity and cultural strangeness of the source text to reveal the power relations and ideological manipulations inherent in translation practices.In his landmark work, The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (1995), Venuti systematically critiqued the fluency-oriented domestication strategy prevalent in the Anglo-American tradition. He demonstrated how this strategy, by erasing linguistic differences, reinforces cultural hegemony and reduces the translator to an ―invisible‖ conduit[1]. He proposed foreignizing translation as a form of resistance, one that retains the source text’s syntactic complexity, archaisms, and cultural referents, thereby forcing target-language readers to confront alterity and challenge the narcissism of their own culture.His subsequent work, The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference (1998), expanded this theoretical framework by exposing translation’s marginalized status within publishing economies, copyright regimes, and literary canon formation, while critiquing the systematic devaluation of translators’ labor[2]. In Translation Changes Everything: Theory and Practice (2013), Venuti further integrated poststructuralist and Marxist theories, introducing the concept of ―interpretive labor‖ to emphasize translation’s potential in the globalized context to reconstruct cultural identities and resist the commodification of culture under neoliberalism[3].Venuti’ s theories engage in deep dialogue with postcolonial studies (e.g., Spivak), deconstruction (e.g., Derrida), and ethics (e.g., Levinas). His model of ―heteronomous translation‖ provides an ethical paradigm for crosscultural communication, with influence extending to world literature, digital humanities, and migration studies. 2. Data Source and Research Methods i. Data Source The Chinese literature sample for this study was sourced from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. An advanced search was conducted using ―韦努 蒂‖(Venuti) and “翻译‖ (translation) as keywords. The search spanned the period from 2000 to 2024. After screening, 595 valid publications were identified for analysis. The data retrieval was completed on March 28, 2024.The sample of international literature was obtained from the Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection. A precise search was performed using ―Venuti‖ AND ―Translation‖ as keywords, with the document type limited to IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 8 ―Article‖ and language to English. The search covered the period from 2010 to 2024. Following a screening process, 128 valid publications were ultimately secured. This data retrieval was finalized on August 29, 2024. ii. Research Methods This study employs bibliometric analysis, utilizing CiteSpace 6.3 R1 (a visual data processing tool developed by Professor Chaomei Chen at Drexel University, USA) to address the research questions. The collected literature data was converted into the Refworks format compatible with CiteSpace. The software was used to generate visualizations that depict the publication characteristics, high-frequency keyword cluster analysis, and thematic evolution of the Chinese and international literature samples. Furthermore, by analyzing key information such as institutional collaboration networks and high-frequency keywords, this study maps the research lineage, hot topics, and evolutionary trajectories of Lawrence Venuti’ s translation theory research both within China and internationally. 3. Statistical Analysis of Basic Bibliographic Characteristics i. Analysis of Annual Publication Volume The annual number of publications is a crucial indicator for measuring the development trajectory of a specific research field within a given period[4]. It provides an intuitive representation of the research trends related to Venuti’s translation theory in domestic and international contexts (see Figure 1). Overall, the annual publication output concerning Lawrence Venuti’s translation theories demonstrates distinct developmental trends in the Chinese and international scholarly landscapes. Fig. 1 Annual Publication Output on Lawrence Venuti’ s Translation Theories: A Domestic and International Comparison Based on the overall domestic publication data presented in Figure 1, the development of Lawrence Venuti’s translation theories in China can be divided into four distinct phases. The first phase was the Initial Stage (2000–2005). During this period, the annual number of domestic publications was extremely low, growing slowly from one article in 2000 to seven in 2005, indicating limited overall attention. This can be primarily attributed to the relatively late introduction of Venuti’s theories to China. His seminal 1995 work, The Translator’s Invisibility, had not yet been widely translated or disseminated, and a general lack of academic resources further restricted its reach. However, with the gradual emergence of the ―Cultural Turn‖in translation studies, Venuti’s perspective, which emphasized cultural politics and ideology, began to pique the interest of some scholars, serving as an important starting point for expanding research paradigms in the field. The second phase was a Period of Rapid Growth (2006– 2010). This stage witnessed a sharp increase in publications, surging from 17 articles in 2006 to 49 in 2010. This explosive growth was facilitated by the successive translation and publication of Venuti’s major works, providing researchers with stable textual support. Concurrently, the proliferation of MA and PhD theses, along with university research projects, promoted the widespread application and localized interpretation of his theories. During this phase, domestic scholars attempted to integrate concepts like ―domestication‖and ―foreignization‖with traditional Chinese translation practices, exploring their manifestations in the work of figures like Lu Xun and Lin Shu. This fusion of theory and practice fueled a research peak. The third phase was a Period of Fluctuation and Adjustment (2011–2019). Although the volume of domestic publications remained relatively high during this stage, it showed a year-on-year declining trend, falling from 48 articles in 2011 to 21 in 2019. This shift indicated that Venuti’s theories were maturing after a period of extensive citation. A significant portion of research remained concentrated on textual analyses using his ―foreignization/domestication‖ strategies, leading to a lack of innovation and a consequent waning of academic interest. Furthermore, as translation studies became more interdisciplinary, scholarly focus gradually shifted towards other theoretical frameworks, such as functionalism, postcolonial translation studies, and eco-translatology, thereby reducing the concentrated attention on Venuti. The fourth phase is marked as a Period of Significant Decline (2020–2024). Publication numbers plummeted, dropping from 31 articles in 2020 to a mere three in 2024, signaling that research on Venuti’s theories in China is approaching its conclusion. This decline is closely linked to an overall paradigm shift in translation studies. In recent years, with -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Publication Count/Publications Annual Publication Volume on Venuti’s Translation Theories: Domestic and International Distribution Domestic Count International Count Linear (Domestic Count) Linear (International Count) IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 9 advancements in artificial intelligence, corpus technology, and the promotion of ―New Liberal Arts‖ initiatives, traditional theoretical research has been increasingly supplanted by data-driven approaches. Simultaneously, a new generation of scholars is turning its attention to emerging fields like multimodal translation and the ethics of machine translation, leading to the gradual marginalization of the ―cultural-political‖ narrative represented by Venuti within the Chinese context. In contrast, international research on Venuti’s theories has followed a distinctly different trajectory and pace. The first phase was a Period of Scarcity (2000–2009), during which there were almost no dedicated research outputs over the decade. Although Venuti held a certain influence within Anglo-American translation studies, his theories had not yet coalesced into a systematic research trend during this period. The international scholarly community was more focused on mainstream directions like functionalism, cognitive translation studies, and the philosophy of language, with early studies on Venuti being sporadically published in non-core journals. The second phase was a Period of Initiation and Exploration (2010–2019). During this stage, dedicated international research on Venuti gradually emerged, maintaining a modest output of between 5 and 8 articles per year, starting from 6 in 2010. As global translation studies expanded further into cultural and political dimensions, Venuti’s ideas gained renewed attention. Particularly in studies involving multilingual and minority languages, his proposed ―foreignizing‖ strategy offered theoretical support for resisting linguistic hegemony. Concurrently, scholars from critical perspectives began proposing revisions and reconstructions of his framework, leading to a gradual diversification of research. The third phase is an Accelerated Development Period (2020–2024). International publication output increased markedly, rising from 19 articles in 2020 and stabilizing at around 14 articles annually thereafter, signifying the entry of international research into an active phase. This is closely tied to the increased global scholarly emphasis on ―decolonization‖ in recent years. Venuti’s ideas emphasizing translator visibility, cultural identity, and linguistic asymmetry resonate with current international cultural-political narratives, making them a key component within critical translation studies frameworks. Furthermore, new translation studies journals and publishing platforms have provided wider channels for disseminating related research, further facilitating the continued internationalization and regeneration of his theories. ii. Comparative Analysis of disciplinary Distribution Prior to the visual analysis using CiteSpace, the built-in statistical functions of CNKI and WOS were utilized to analyze the disciplinary distribution of the literature. The results indicate that domestic research on Lawrence Venuti’s translation theories in China spans 13 disciplines. The four disciplines with the largest shares are Foreign Languages and Literatures (41.7%), Chinese Language and Literature (39.75%), Literary Theory (15.76%), and Chinese Literature (1.12%). Among these, Foreign Languages and Literatures holds an absolute dominance with 41.7% of the publications. The international sample encompasses ten disciplines. Linguistics is the dominant field, accounting for 43.75% of all publications. Disciplines related to Literature, Humanities, and Cultural Studies also show relatively high publication counts. In summary, the disciplinary distribution in both domestic and international research is predominantly centered in the field of linguistics, with significant involvement from literary and cultural studies. A considerable number of publications also fall under multidisciplinary humanities and scientific research management, reflecting a trend towards and demand for interdisciplinary research. iii. Analysis of Institutional Collaboration Networks An analysis of the institutional collaboration networks mapped from the domestic and international sample data reveals low network density scores (0.0015 for domestic and 0.0007 for international), both below the threshold of 0.1. The top five domestic research institutions by publication count are Hunan Normal University (16 publications), Sichuan University (16 publications), Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (16 publications), Capital Normal University (14 publications), and Central South University (12 publications).The top five international institutions by publication count include the Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE) (9 publications), Temple University (9 publications), Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) (4 publications), University of Surrey (3 publications), and Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) (2 publications). A comparison of the data reveals that the primary institutions conducting research on Venuti’s theories, both in China and abroad, are universities, indicating a relatively homogenous institutional landscape. Domestically, institutions typically leverage their strengths in traditional humanities disciplines, focusing on theoretical interpretation and localized application. However, the research model remains relatively insular, with interinstitutional collaboration often limited to regional academic conferences or short-term projects. Internationally, the leading institutions are predominantly public university systems and interdisciplinary research universities, where research emphasizes cross-disciplinary integration. Overall, the collaborative networks among research institutions in both contexts are relatively fragmented and decentralized, failing to form a tightly-knit academic community. 4. Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Research Focuses i. Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis CiteSpace reveals the developmental trajectory of specific scientific fields or research topics by constructing progressive cocitation networks[5]. This study employs the co-citation network feature of CiteSpace for term frequency analysis, using core keywords as an entry point to deeply explore relevant research focus and emerging trends based on their frequency in the literature. As central elements of scholarly texts, periodically highfrequency keywords indicate prioritized research themes during specific periods. Figures 2 and 3 respectively display knowledge domain maps of Venuti translation theory research generated by CiteSpace, while Table 1 lists high-frequency and high-centrality keywords related to Venuti’s translation theories collected from 2000 to 2024. IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 10 Fig. 2 Knowledge Domain Map of Domestic Research on Venuti’s Translation Theories Fig. 3 Knowledge Domain Map of International Research on Venuti’s Translation Theories The phenomenon where keywords jointly appear across multiple documents is termed ―co-occurrence keywords,‖ which clearly reveals article themes and focused issues during specific periods. In the knowledge domain maps, nodes represent keywords with sizes indicating frequency of occurrence, while connecting lines demonstrate co-occurrence relationships between different keywords, their thickness proportional to the probability of coappearance in the same publication. As shown in Figure 2, the core themes of domestic Venuti translation theory research are reflected in the distribution pattern of keyword nodes. ―Venuti‖ occupies the central position as the largest node, directly indicating his theoretical system constitutes a primary research subject in domestic translation studies. Surrounding this core, high-frequency keywords including ―foreignizing translation,‖ ―translation ethics,‖ ―cultural translation,‖ and ―translation strategies‖ form equally prominent nodes, collectively constituting four core research dimensions. Examining inter-keyword relationships reveals a strong binding between ―foreignizing translation‖ and ―Venuti‖ demonstrated by thick connecting lines, confirming the academic consensus regarding foreignization as Venuti’ s central theoretical contribution. The co-occurrence of ―translation ethics‖ and ―cultural translation‖ highlights sustained scholarly attention to ethical responsibilities in cultural intervention through translation, such as balancing cultural fidelity against ethical risks when translating Chinese classics. The keyword co-occurrence network’s topological structure reveals two primary characteristics in domestic research. First, ―practical extension of theoretical cores‖: dense connections between ―foreignizing translation‖ and ―translation strategies‖ indicate researchers focus not only on theoretical interpretation of foreignization but also on exploring practical application pathways. Examples include preserving cultural imagery through literal translation with annotations in English versions of the Analects, or adopting ―cultural compensation‖ strategies in film subtitle localization to reconcile readability with heterogeneity. Such studies attempt to construct dynamic strategic frameworks addressing varying demands for foreignization degrees across different translation contexts (e.g., literary translation, promotional translation of intangible cultural heritage). Second, ―multidimensional conceptual interweaving‖: using ―cultural translation‖ as a hub, its connections with ―translation ethics‖ and ―deconstruction‖ reveal multidisciplinary integration tendencies. Some scholars employ deconstructionist philosophy to critique domesticating translation’s violent eradication of cultural differences, emphasizing linguistic heterogeneity’s irreducibility. Other studies reflect on power relations in translation from ethical perspectives, examining how translators might resist cultural hegemony through foreignizing strategies in postcolonial contexts. This cross-conceptual interaction both expands Venuti’s theoretical connotations and promotes translation studies’ deepening development toward cultural-political critique. IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 11 Figure 3 demonstrates the theoretical system centered around ―Lawrence Venuti‖ occupies a prominent position, visually confirming his paradigm’s foundational role in disciplinary development. Surrounding this hub node, high-frequency keywords including ―translation theories,‖ ―cultural translation,‖ and ―equivalence theories‖ constitute the main research framework. The particularly notable strong co-occurrence between ―cultural translation‖ and ―translation theories‖ profoundly reveals the Cultural Turn characteristic of Venuti’s theory - elevating translation activity from traditional linguistic transfer to culturalpolitical practice. This theoretical shift further extends into cluster distributions of secondary high-frequency nodes like ―cultural politics‖ and ―identity‖ in the research map, signaling the field’s transcendence beyond linguistic paradigm constraints toward focusing on translation’s dynamic mechanisms in power games, cultural negotiation, and identity reconstruction within globalization contexts. The international keyword co-occurrence network’s topological structure manifests three characteristic dimensions. First, ―interdisciplinary theoretical extension‖: the dense association network between ―translation theories‖ and ―equivalence theories‖ reflects scholarly critical reconstruction of traditional theoretical frameworks. By deconstructing the logocentric constraints of equivalence concepts, researchers emphasize foreignizing translation’s functional value in preserving cultural difference beyond superficial linguistic correspondence. Second, ―multidirectional cultural-political interweaving‖: the strong associative network among ―cultural translation,‖ ―cultural politics,‖ and ―discourse‖ signifies translation studies’ deep permeation into cultural critique. This manifests particularly in research examining translators’ use of foreignizing strategies to resist cultural hegemony in postcolonial contexts, and explorations of translation’s mechanisms for representing marginalized discourses from gender perspectives. Finally, ―dynamic equilibrium in practical dimensions‖: the co-occurrence network connecting ―translation strategies,‖ ―reception,‖ and ―influence‖ demonstrates scholarly dialectical understanding of translation’s dual attributes - focusing both on how foreignizing strategies shape target readers’ cultural perceptions in English translations of nonWestern literature, and examining tensions between foreignizing practice and technological rationality versus humanistic values in machine translation era. This multidimensional research configuration establishes that translation studies has formed a three-dimensional knowledge system integrating theoretical depth with practical concern. Table 1. Frequency Distribution of High-Frequency Keywords in Domestic and International Research on Venuti’s Translation Theories CiteSpace was employed to analyze the frequency and centrality of keywords in both domestic and international research on Venuti’s translation theories (see Table 1). A comparative analysis reveals that while there are certain commonalities in research priorities between the two contexts, significant differences in emphasis persist: 1) Shared Focus on ―Domestication and Foreignization‖ Strategies, but with Divergent Perspectives Domestic research predominantly centers on the binary opposition of ―Domestication‖ and ―Foreignization.‖ Judging by keyword frequency and centrality, “异化” (foreignization; frequency: 203, centrality: 0.25), “归化” (domestication; frequency: 160, centrality: 0.47), and “异化翻译” (foreignizing translation; frequency: 84, centrality: 0.27) firmly dominate the domestic research landscape, indicating the field’ s intense focus on Venuti’s domestication-foreignization framework. In contrast, international scholarship leans towards integrative perspectives and conceptual renewal. While it also attends to ―Domestication and foreignization‖ (frequency: 12, centrality: 0.24) and ―Foreignizing translation‖ (frequency: 12, centrality: 0.14), it simultaneously engages with keywords like ―Culture-specific items‖ (frequency: 12, centrality: 0.10). This suggests that international scholars are more concerned with the flexibility and adaptability of strategies within specific cultural contexts, rather than remaining solely at the level of binary theoretical opposition. 2) Shared Emphasis on Tracing and Disseminating Venuti’s Theories, but with Variations in Research Subjects and Methods Domestic research primarily adopts a ―figure-theory‖ integrated approach, emphasizing localized interpretation. Keywords such as ―韦努蒂‖ (Venuti; frequency: 172, centrality: 0.52) and ―鲁迅‖ (Lu Xun; frequency: 27, centrality: 0.13) reflect that domestic scholars are not merely disseminating Venuti’s theories but are actively re-interpreting them through case studies involving native translators and practices. Conversely, international research combines ―theory and application,‖ highlighting interdisciplinary and cross-cultural dissemination pathways. ―Lawrence Venuti"" (frequency: 15, centrality: 0.30) is core, but the presence of keywords like ―Qian Zhongshu‖ (frequency: 12, centrality: 0.16) and ―Translation theories‖ (frequency: 5, centrality: 0.12) indicates that the international dissemination of IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 12 Venuti’ s work places greater emphasis on dialogue and integration with other translation theories and cultural phenomena. 3) Shared Interest in Methodological Expansion of Translation Theory, but with Distinct Research Levels Domestic research tends towards theoretical and macrolevel discussion. Keywords like “翻译策略‖ (translation strategies; frequency: 35, centrality: 0.11), “解构主义” (deconstruction; frequency: 35, centrality: 0.10), and ―翻译伦理” (translation ethics; frequency: 23, centrality: 0.10) demonstrate that domestic scholars often explore the contemporary value of Venuti’s theories from philosophical and ethical perspectives, emphasizing their universality and critical potential. Internationally, the focus leans more towards specific practical methods and empirical approaches. Keywords such as ―Translation studies‖ (frequency: 5, centrality: 0.12), ―Translation projects‖ (frequency: 5, centrality: 0.08), and ―corpus‖ (frequency: 7, centrality: 0.05) suggest that international scholars prefer employing empirical methods like corpus analysis and project research to investigate the applicability and limitations of Venuti’ s theories across different contexts. 4) Shared Concern with Translation in Cultural Transmission, but with Differentiated Topic Selection Domestic research emphasizes ―resistance‖ and the construction of discursive power for "local culture." Although the frequency is relatively low, the keyword “抵抗” (resistance; frequency: 14, centrality: 0.02) aligns closely with Venuti’ s concept of ―the translator’s resistance,‖ reflecting a particular concern among domestic scholars with using translation to achieve cultural identity and contest discursive power within the global context. International research, however, engages with a wider array of cultural topics and socio-political issues. Keywords like ―Translating humor‖ (frequency: 2, centrality: 0.02) address crosscultural challenges in translating humour, while recurring attention to topics like ―Culture-specific items‖ indicates a sustained international focus on cultural difference and practical social applications. ii. Keyword Burst Analysis Leveraging its burst detection technique, CiteSpace effectively identifies emergent keywords by analyzing historical trajectories of term frequency. These emergent keywords help reveal and track research hotspots and their developmental trends within a scientific field[6]. Burst terms refer to those whose frequency increases or decreases rapidly over a relatively short period. Their unique dynamic characteristics can more precisely reflect the frontier research dynamics of a specific discipline [7]. Figures 4 and 5 respectively present the keyword burst maps for domestic and international research on Venuti’s translation theories, generated by CiteSpace. The analysis reveals that while the research focus in domestic and international contexts share some theoretical overlap, they also exhibit significant divergence due to differences in academic traditions and practical needs. Fig. 4 Knowledge Domain Map of Bursting Keywords in International Venuti Translation Studies (2010-2024) Fig. 5 Knowledge Domain Map of Bursting Keywords in Domestic Venuti Translation Studies (2000-2024) IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 13 Domestic burst keywords are predominantly concentrated in the early stages of theoretical introduction and cultural critique, exhibiting distinct temporal characteristics. Between 2000 and 2010, bursts of terms like “抵抗” (resistance; strength: 2.91), “解构主义” (deconstruction; strength: 4.3), and “文化霸权” (cultural hegemony; strength: 1.11) reflected domestic scholars’ efforts to deconstruct Western cultural hegemony from a postcolonial perspective, emphasizing translation’s function as a tool for cultural resistance. Theoretical development during this phase was dominated by philosophical speculation, as evidenced by the introduction of concepts like “德里达” (Derrida; burst in 2006) and “延异” (différance; burst in 2008), highlighting the profound influence of deconstructionism on foreignization theory. After 2010, research gradually shifted towards practical dimensions and localized integration. The emergence of keywords such as “翻译伦理” (translation ethics; 2012-2014, strength: 2.6) and “外宣翻译” (international communication translation; 2015-2021, strength: 1.55) signified an extension of ethical critique into policy and practice. Concurrently, the prominence of local case studies like “唐诗” (Tang poetry; 2013-2017) and “保存 洋气” (preserving foreignness; 2015-2017) demonstrated the theory’s adaptation to the specific context of traditional Chinese culture translation. Notably, the sustained activity of ―文化转向” (cultural turn; 2016-2024, strength: 1.21) indicates a continued domestic focus on translation’s role in cultural transmission within globalization, forming a coherent progression from ―resistance‖ to ―ethics‖ and finally to ―communication.‖ In contrast, international burst keywords highlight a contemporary shift towards empirical methods and interdisciplinary integration. From 2011 to 2015, the brief burst of ―lawrence venuti‖ (strength: 1.29) reflected an initial, foundational focus on his theories, which was quickly superseded by methodological innovation. Post-2020, ―corpus‖ (2021-2025, strength: 1.18) and ―culture-specific items‖ (2021-2023, strength: 0.94) emerged as core burst terms, signaling a research pivot towards corpus-driven analysis of cultural specifics, emphasizing data verification and empirical reliability. Simultaneously, bursts of keywords like ―audiovisual translation‖ (2020-2022, strength: 0.92) and ―childrens literature‖ (2019-2022, strength: 0.79) reveal a trend of translation studies permeating multimodal and interdisciplinary fields such as multimedia and children’s literature. Furthermore, although ―domestication and foreignization‖ (20202023, strength: 0.78) had a relatively low burst strength, its appearance alongside the complete term ―translation theory‖ (2016-2018, strength: 1.66) indicates that while international academia inherits Venuti’s core strategies, it places greater emphasis on the systematic reconstruction of the theoretical framework. A commonality between domestic and international research is the sustained attention to ―domestication/foreignization‖ strategies, yet their paths of realization differ markedly. Domestically, terms like “异化理 论” (foreignization theory; 2012-2016) and “存异伦理” (ethics of difference; 2018-2021) were used to deepen the theoretical connotations, constructing a critical discourse system supported by local cultural cases (e.g., ―Lu Xu,‖―Tang poetry‖). Internationally, reliance on tools like ―corpus‖ and ―culture-specific items‖ promotes the technical application of the theory and expands into emerging fields like audiovisual translation and children’s literature. This divergence reflects distinct academic ecologies: domestic research leans towards theoretical philosophizing and historical contextualization, while international research prioritizes empirical approaches and interdisciplinary application. Together, they constitute a pluralistic academic landscape for Venuti’s theories, simultaneously continuing its core propositions while imbuing it with new vitality through methodological innovation and contextual adaptation. iii. Research Themes: Domestic and International Perspectives Based on the preceding keyword analysis, this study finds that domestic and international scholars approach the subject from different dimensions, leading to a systematic review from these two distinct perspectives. Domestic research predominantly focuses on the practical application and localized interpretation of Venuti’s theories, whereas international scholarship places greater emphasis on the deepening of the theoretical system and its interdisciplinary integration. Current domestic research on Venuti primarily revolves around the following three main themes: 1) Translation Ethics and Translator Subjectivity Domestic scholars frequently concentrate on translator agency and ethical responsibility, exploring the reception of Venuti’s ideas. Wang Ning argues that Venuti moves beyond theoretical exposition of translator subjectivity by actively engaging in practice, providing concrete pathways for realizing translators’ rights and status, all directed towards a broader goal: the awakening of translator consciousness and the construction of the translator’s status as a creator[8]. Jiang Tong posits that Venuti constructs a system operating from the inside out, driven by the deconstructive method of difference. Venuti’s discourse evolves and elevates from the internal ―strategic level‖ to the external ―ethical level,‖ thereby enabling the contextual evaluation of translation’s social function based on translation ethics [9]. Scholars like Yang Rui and Zou Shuli, approaching from a deconstructive perspective, systematically analyze Venuti’s critique of cultural hegemony and its significance for reconstructing translator subjectivity[10]. They note that within the Anglo-American cultural context, domestication strategy, under the guise of ―transparency,‖ forcibly assimilates foreign texts into local cultural norms through fluent translation, constituting essentially ―an ethnocentric practice standardizing according to Anglo-American values and aesthetics.‖ This strategy obscures the violence of translation, rendering the translator invisible behind the text and reducing them to a tool for cultural assimilation. 2) Comparative Studies with Local Theories Domestic scholars also focus on comparative analysis between translation theories, paying particular attention to revealing the explanatory limits and potential for reconstruction of Western theories within the Chinese context through highlighting differences. Zhang Yuan suggests that both Venuti and Lu Xun played significant roles in translation, but with different aims: Venuti resisted mainstream English values and opposed cultural hegemony, while Lu Xun sought to develop the native language and achieve national salvation through literature and art. Although their starting points differed, both acted from a desire to protect their respective native cultures, ultimately converging in their impact. Lu Xun was a pioneer of the foreignizing approach, while Venuti explored it more systematically and deeply; both contributed to the development of translation and the promotion of cultural transmission and exchange [11]. Ren Shukun points out that IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 14 both Lu Xun and Venuti courageously broke with tradition, exercising translator subjectivity and embodying the rebellious spirit of deconstruction in their translation practice[12]. However, differences exist in their translation philosophies. Studying these differences is significant not only for exploring translation strategies but also for deepening the understanding of their intellectual characteristics. 3) Application Studies in Chinese Translation Practice In recent years, a growing number of scholars have applied Venuti’s translation theories to analyze the translation of Chinese classics. Wang Wenjun, taking two English translations of The Peony Pavilion as her research object and guided by Venuti’s foreignization theory, analyzes and compares the methods for translating cultural images and their influencing factors. The study finds that Birch’s translation tends more towards a foreignizing strategy, using thick translation to preserve the heterogeneity of cultural images, albeit at the cost of increased difficulty for the reader, while Wang Rongpei’ s translation centers on the targetlanguage reader, simplifying or deleting cultural images and emphasizing the poetic beauty of rhyme[13]. The research demonstrates that the reasoned application of foreignizing strategies can facilitate equal cultural exchange, offering valuable insights for translating Chinese classics abroad. Tang Yang, by studying the translation of eight key terms in Mozi across seven English versions, discovers a recent trend towards resistant translation and increased translator visibility. This trend helps liberate Mozi’s thought from Western-centric interpretations and promotes its reconstruction in the West. Drawing on Venuti’s translation theory, the study summarizes specific translation techniques for resisting Western centrism, providing direction and reference for future translations of Mozi [14]. Current international research on Venuti mainly engages with topics related to the deepening of his theoretical framework and its philosophical critique. In recent years, international scholars have delved into Venuti’s translation theory, exploring its philosophical roots, theoretical connotations, and applicability across cultural contexts. Moshonkina E. N. investigates the intellectual genealogy of the American translator Lawrence Venuti, particularly his relationship with French poststructuralist theory. The study notes the significant, yet underexplored, influence of French philosophy on Venuti. It analyzes the theoretical connections and divergences between Venuti and three French theorists—Foucault, Derrida, and Berman—while questioning the common misclassification of Berman within the postmodern theoretical framework [15]. Stephen A. A. Noble points out that Lawrence Venuti’s proposition in The Scandals of Translation— that translation is philosophy’s ―dark secret‖—has sparked considerable interest in the relationship between translation studies and philosophy [16]. However, Venuti s position is not simplistic; its complexity is based on the concept of the ―remainder,‖ proposed by the French linguist Lecercle. Noble’s study aims to critically analyze Venuti’s claim, clarify the relationship between philosophy and translation, and reveal how the nature of philosophical language influences conclusions. Khademnabi and Delzendehrooy explore the historical dependency of Venuti’s foreignizing and domesticating strategies, seeking to explain how these strategies manifest across different languages. They redefine foreignization as a method utilizing marginalized elements within the domestic culture, analyzing the translation practices of Persian translators Ahmad Shamlou and Mir Shamseddin Adib-ol-Soltani[17]. Although these practices appear domesticating on the surface, they possess latent foreignizing qualities. By analyzing their intellectual origins within the Iranian context, the study proposes a perspective on foreignization theory applicable to non-English cultures. YI and Yeong-Houn offer a critical reading of Lawrence Venuti’s Contra Instrumentalism: A Translation Polemic [18]. The article explores the definition of ―instrumentalism‖ in translation studies and its traditional discussion within philosophy and humanities, pointing out that the book results from a dramatic shift in Venuti’s theory. It analyzes the internal and external contradictions driving this theoretical transformation and reveals the key issues raised by the book alongside their potential negative impacts. 5. Conclusion Through a systematic literature review and CiteSpacebased visual analysis of domestic and international scholarship on Lawrence Venuti’s translation theories from 2000 to 2024, this paper reveals the dynamic evolutionary trajectories within global translation studies across dimensions such as foreignizing/domesticating strategies, translation ethics, cultural politics, and translator subjectivity. The research finds that the reception and transformation of Venuti’s theories in domestic scholarship exhibit a discernible phase-transition pattern, particularly manifesting in comparative studies with Lu Xun’s translation thought, applications in translating Chinese classics, and the construction of critical discourse concerning cultural identity, thereby reflecting a path of creative adaptation within the Chinese context. Concurrently, international scholarship has recently entered an active phase characterized by theoretical deepening and a transmedia turn, focusing on corpus-driven empirical research, interdisciplinary integration, and diverse practices in emerging fields such as children’s literature and audiovisual translation, thereby continuously propelling the methodological iteration and upgrading of Venuti’s theoretical framework. Although domestic and international research agendas demonstrate divergent paths, against the shared backdrop of global cultural power structure realignment and the impact of the technological revolution on translation ethics, Venuti’s translation theories continue to exhibit robust explanatory power and adaptability. From philosophical foundations to practical applications, and from textual strategies to discursive ethics, the core of his theory is perpetually activated, revised, and extended across different contexts, driving the paradigm in translation studies from logocentrism towards cultural-political critique, and further towards multidimensional integration within the context of digital humanities. Future research could further explore the following directions: First, deepening the discussion on the ethical conflicts between foreignizing strategies and AI translation systems to provide theoretical support for constructing a translation normative system based on technology-humanities synergy. Second, strengthening systematic comparative analysis of multilingual and multi-context corpora to verify the applicability limits and cultural re-interpretation mechanisms of Venuti’s theories in non-English worlds. Third, promoting theory ―reverse export‖ based on Chinese experience, exploring the construction path for a ―Chinese School‖ of translation theory with cultural agency within the global translation studies community. Only in this way can Venuti’s translation theories truly transcend ―theoretical debates‖ and IRASS Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025): 7-15 Vol-2, Iss-11 (November-2025) 15 transform into a driving force for cross-cultural dialogue and knowledge construction. 6. References [1] Venuti L .The Translator’s Invisibility, Routledge, 1995. [2] Venuti L , Ebrary I .The scandals of translation : towards an ethics of difference[J].Routledge, 1998, 93(2):157-160.DOI:10.2307/3736129. [3] Venuti L .Translation Changes Everything[J]. 2012. [4] 邱均平，沈恝谌，宋艳辉.近十年国内外计量经济学 研究进展与趋势：基于 CiteSpace 的可视化对比研 究[J]. 现代情报，2019（2）:26-37. [5] 陈悦，陈超美，等.引文空间分析原理与应用： CiteSpace 实用指南[M].北京：科学出版社，2014： 66. [6] 冯佳，王克非，刘霞.近二十年国际翻译学研究动态 的科学知识图谱分析[J].外语电化教学，2014（1） ：11-20. [7] 王赟.功能语言学视阈下的翻译研究二十年回顾：基 于CiteSpace 知识图谱可视化分析[J].语言教育， 2019，7（3）：58-65，97. [8] 王宁.解构、后殖民和文化翻译——韦努蒂的翻译理 论研究[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(04):51-56. [9] 蒋童.韦努蒂的异化翻译与翻译伦理的神韵[J].外国 语(上海外国语大学学报),2010,33(01):80-85. [10] 杨蕊,邹姝丽.浅析韦努蒂的归化与异化翻译策略 [J].黑河学院学报,2010,1(04):83-86. [11] 张媛.韦努蒂翻译思想与鲁迅翻译思想对比研究[J]. 新课程学习(中),2014,(01):11-12. [12] 任淑坤.鲁迅韦努蒂翻译思想的差异[J].北京师范大 学学报(社会科学版),2014,(05):157-160. [13] 王雯君.韦努蒂异化理论视阈下《牡丹亭》两译本中 文化意象的英译对比研究[D].沈阳师范大学 ,2023.DOI:10.27328/d.cnki.gshsc.2023.001007. [14] 唐杨.韦努蒂理论视角下的《墨子》英译研究[D].电 子科技大学 ,2023.DOI:10.27005/d.cnki.gdzku.2023.004221. [15] Moshonkina E N .Lawrence venuti and "French theory": About poststructuralist roots of contemporary translation studies[J]. 2016. [16] Noble S A .Translation: a dark secret’ of philosophy?[J].Perspectives, 2023, 31(1):130143.DOI:10.1080/0907676X.2022.2148547. [17] Khademnabi M M , Delzendehrooy S .Foreignizing the domestic: Two cases from Persian translations[J].FORUM, 2024, 22(2).DOI:10.1075/forum.23008.kha. [18] YI, Yeong-Houn. (2022). 什么是翻译研究中的“工具 主义”？：对 Venuti 的 Contra Instrumentalism 的批 判性解读. 翻译研究杂志, 23(5), 9-32.