There is no foreignizing translation

Translation goes from A to B.  We think of it as directional, source and target, etc...  We call A foreign and B domestic. 

Foreign is a relational term. A is only "foreign" in relation to B, not intrinsically. In the same way, B is "foreign" in relation to A.  The "foreign" element of translation only exists as a by-product of translation itself. It is produced by the process, not by the "foreignness" of the text itself. What we call a foreignizing translation is one that domesticates in other ways. 

I think we shouldn't use "domestic" either, except in its purely denotative sense. Domestic as familiar, tame, a bit boring.  

The thesaurus gives this range of synonyms for foreign in this sense:  "unfamiliar, unknown, unheard of, strange, alien, exotic, outlandish, odd, peculiar, curious, bizarre, weird, queer, funny; novel, new." It is easy to see the problem here.  We need a term without those connotations, like "second" in "second language acquisition." Lack of familiarity is simply that.