纽马克的翻译理论

1、Chapter 2Peter NewmarkSema ntic and Comm uni cative Tran slati onGuided Readi ngPeter Newmark (1916) is an accomplished translation scholar as well as an experienced translator. He has translated a number of books and articles and published extaensively on translation. His publications on translatio

2、n include Approaches to Translation(1981), About Translation(1983), Paragraphs on Translation段 落翻译 (1985), A Textbook of Translation翻译教程 (1988), and MoreParagraphs on Translation(1993).In his work Approaches to Translation, Newmark proposes twotypes of translation: semantic translation语 义翻译andcommun

3、icative translation 交 际翻译 .Semantic translation focuses primarily upon the semantic content of the source text whereas communicative translation focuses essentially upon the comprehension and response of receptors. This distinction results from his disapproval of Nida's assumption 假定，假设， 设想；假装；承

4、担，担任that all translating is communicating, and theoverriding 最主要的，最优先的principle of anytranslation is to achieve "equivalent effect". For Newmark, the success of equivalent effect is "illusory", and that "the conflictof loyalties,the gap between emphasis on sourceand targetla

5、nguages will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice"(1981:38). To narrow the gap,Newmark 系统地阐述，确切地表达；规划，构想出formulateshis concepts of "communicative translation" and "semantictranslation", which in a sense从某种意义上说are similar toNida's &qu

6、ot;dynamic equivalent translation" and "formal equivalent translation". Newmarks admits "communicative translation" is a common method and could be used in many types of translation.Nevertheless, he justifies证明 .正当 /有理，为 . .辩护 thelegitimacy 合法性，正当；合理性，妥当；嫡出，正统of"semanti

7、c translation" in the following three aspects. Firstly, all translations depend on the three 一分为二，二分法； 本质对立dichotomies, namely, the foreign and native cultures, the two languages, the writer and the translator. Hence, it is unlikely to have a universal theory that could include all these factor

8、s. Secondly, previous discussions on methods of translation, either Nida's "dynamic equivalence" or Nabokow's "literal translation", does not reflect the actual reality of translation method, for each of them either recommends one or 贬低，轻视 disparages the other. Thirdly, t

9、he social factors, especially the readers of the second language, only play a partial 咅 B 分的； 偏爱 /袒/心的 role发挥部分作用in translation. Some texts, such as an expressiveone, require a "semantic translation"(1981:62). It can be seen that可以看出by proposing the coexistence of "communicativetransl

10、ation" and "semantic translation", Newmark suggests acorrelation 相互关系，关联；相关性between translationmethod and text type.欢迎下载2It should be pointed out that应该指出的是Newmark's semantictranslation differs from literal translation直译 because the former"respects context", interprets a

11、nd even explains while the latter sticks very closely to source text at word and syntax level(1981:62). Literal translation, however, is held to be the best approach in both semantic and communicative translation,"provided that 如果 equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translat

12、ion is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation"(1981:39). Here Newmark seems to only take account of 考虑至 U，顾及，体谅 literary translation rather thannon-literary translation, which is often rendered more freely in order to communicate the meaning. But he also states that when

13、there is a conflict between semantic and communicativetranslation, the latter would win out胜出 .For instance, it is better torender communicatively the public sign公共标志bissiger Hundand chien mechant into beward the欢迎下载3dog! in order to communicate efficiently the message, but not semantically as dog t

14、hat bites! and bad dog!(1981:39). Nevertheless, it is diff icult for a translator to follow Newmark's translation methods in practice, which should be adopted flexibly according to the specific context and text type.A Textbook of Translation is an expansion and a revision ofApproaches to Transla

15、tion in many aspects在很多方面.In thisbook, Newmark, follwing the German linguist Karl Buhler's functional theory of language, proposes three main types of texts(i.e. expressive 有表现力的，富有表情的informative 提供大量资料或信息的，授予知识的andvocative呼 格 的 )aswellasmethods of translating them (Chapters 4 and 5). Although h

16、e listsmany translation methods from word-for-word translation to adaptation, he insists that "only semantic and communicative translation fulfill the two main aims of translation, which are first, accuracy, and second, economy". While semantic translation is used for expressive texts, com

17、municative translation is for informative and vocative texts although he admits that few texts are purely expressive, informative or vocative. By stressing the wide applicability of these two translation methods, Newmark seems to overlook the function of other translation methods frequently adopted

18、in translation practice.欢迎下载4Newmark's semantic and communicative translation ahve been quoted frequently among translation scholars. His concern about the coexistence of semantic and communicative translation shows that in his view effect-oriented translation 以效果为导向 的翻译such as Nida's dynami

19、c equivalence should not be overstressed in translation practice, but is just one type of translation. Newmark's types of translation, however, are less influential than Nida's dynamic equivalence in the field of translation studies because they "raise some of the same points concerning

20、 the translationprocess and the importance of the TT reader译文读者 "(Munday2000:46). Further, his views and comments are still very traditionaland prescriptive规定的，指定的，规范的,bearing some tracesof traditional translation theories. The strength of his writing lies in that his discussion on translation

21、covers a wide range of topics, and he always provides useful advice and guidance for translator接受训练的人，实习生，培训生 trainees with a large number of interesting and useful examples, which are more convincing than abstracttheoretical arguments 抽象的理论论证 .The following excerpt is selected from Chapter 3 of New

22、mark's Approaches to Translation.In this chapter he 假定，要求 postulates his two main methods of translation (i.e. Semantic and communicative translation), and欢迎下载5tries to apply them into different types of text.Comm unicative and Sema ntic Tran slati on1. A translation must give the words of the o

23、riginal.2. A translation must give the ideas of the original.3. A translation should read like an original work.4. A translation should read like a translation.5. A translation should reflect the style of the original.6. A translation should possess the style of the translation.7. A translation shou

24、ld read as a contemporary of the original.8. A translation should read as a contemporary of the translation.9. A translation may add to or omit from the original.10. A translation may never add to or omit from the original.11. A translation of verse should be in prose.12. A translation of verse shou

25、ld be in verse.(The Air of Translation, T.H. Savory, Cape, 1968, p.54)In the pre-linguistics period of writing on translation, which may be said to date from Cicero through St. Jerome, Luther, Dryden, Tytler, Herder, Goethe, Schleiermacher, Buber, Ortega y Gasset, not to say Savory, opinion swung be

26、tween literal and free, faithful and beautiful, exact and natural translation, depending on whether the bias was to be in favour of 赞成 the author orthe reader, the source or the target language of the text. Up to the欢迎下载6nineteenth century, literal translation represented a philological语言学的，文献的，文学的a

27、cademic exercise语 言学学术活动from which the cultural reformers 文化改革者 were trying to rescue literature. In the nineteenth century, a more scientificapproach was brought to bear on对 . .有影响，和 . . 有关 translation, suggesting that certain types of textsmust be accurately translated, while others should and cou

28、ld not be translated at all! Since the rise of modern linguistics (philology语言学 was becoming linguistics 语言学 here in the late fifties), and anticipated by 预计到 Tytler in 1790, Larbaud, Belloc, Knox and Rieu, the general emphasis, supported by communication-theorists as well as by non-literary transla

29、tors, has been placed on the reader-on informing the reader effectively and appropriately, notably 显著地，明显地；尤其， 特另 U in Nida, Firth, Koller andthe Leipzig School. In contrast 相反 ,the brilliant essays of Benjamin, Valery and Nabokov (anticipated by Croce and Ortega y Gasset) advocating literal transla

30、tion have appeared as isolated 孤 立的，被 隔离的 , paradoxical phenomena 自相矛盾的现象,relevant only to与 . . 有关 translating works of high literary culture. Koller (1972) has stated that the equivalent-effect principle oftranslation is tending to rule out把 .排除在外，排除.的欢迎下载7可能性；不把 . .考虑在内all others, particularly the

31、predominance of any formal elements such as word or structure. The apparent triumph of the "consumer" is, I think, illusory. The conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphsis on source and target language will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice. How

32、ever, the gap could perhaps be narrowed if the previous terms were replaced as follows:SOURCE LANGUAGE BIAS TARGET LANGUAGE BIASLITERALFREEFAITHFULIDIOMATICSEMANTIC / COMMUNICATIVECommunicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the read

33、ers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as thesemantic and syntactic造句法的，句子结构的structures of thesecond language allow, the exact contextual上下文的，前后关系上的 meaning of the original.In theory, there are wide differences between the two methods. Communicative translation addr

34、esses itself solely to the second reader, who does not anticipate difficulties or obscurities, and欢迎下载8，morewould expect a enerous transfer of foreign elements into his own culture as well as his language where necessary.But even here the translator still has to respect and work on the form of the s

35、ource language text as the only material basis for his work.Semantic translation remains within the original culture and assists the reader only in its 言外之意，涵意 connotations if theyconstitute 组/构 /形成；设立，建立，任命the essential human（ non-ethnic 种族的，民族的，部落的） message of the text.One basic difference between

36、 the two methods is thatwhere there is a conflict, the communicative must emphasize the"force" rather than the content of the message. Thus for BissigeHund or Chien mechant, the communicative translation Beware ofthe dog! Is mandatory命令的；义务的，强制的;the semantictranslations（ "dog that bit

37、e", "savage dog"） would be moreinformative but less effective. Generally, a communicativetranslation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct,more conventional依照惯例的，符合习俗的，因循守旧的；常规的 ，conforming to a particular register语域（在特定社交场合或专业领域中人们使用的词汇、语法等的范围） oflanguage, tending t

38、o（与名）在 .下面 /之下；级别低于，隶属于（与形、动）不足under-translate, i.e .即，换而言之，也就是 To use more generic类的，属的；一般的，通用的，hold-all terms in difficult passages. A semantic translation tendsto be more complex, more awkward不灵活的，笨拙的detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes欢迎下载9思考过程rather than the intention

39、of the transmitter传送 /递 者；传输者；传播者；发射机，发射台 .It tends to over-translate, to be more specific than the original, to include more meanings in itssearch for one nuance意义上的纟田微差另Uof meaning.However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect in secured, the literal word-fo

40、r-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation. There is no excuse for unnecessary " 同义词synonyms", let alone v.&n.释义，意译，改述paraphrases, in anytype of translation.Conversely相反地 ,both semantic and communicative translationcomply with遵照，服从the usually ac

41、cepted syntactic造句法的，句子结构的equivalents (Vinay andDarbelnet's "transpositions") for the two languages in question正在谈论的 .Thus, by both methods, a sentence such as "II traversa la Manche en nageant" would normally be translated as "He swam across the Channel". In semant

42、ic, but not communicativetranslation, any deviation背离，偏离；偏差；离题 from SL 文体规范 stylistic norms 规范，标准 would be reflected in an equally wide deviation from the TL norms, but where such norms clash,the deviations are not easy to formulate构想出，规划；系统地阐欢迎下载10述，确切地表达 ，and the translator has to show a certain t

43、ensionbetween the writer's manner and the 强迫，强制； 冲动，欲望 compulsions of the target language. Thus when the writer uses long complex sentences in a language where the sentence in a "literary" (carefully worked) style is usually complex and longer than in the TL, the translator may reduce

44、the sentences somewhat, compromising between the norms of the two languages and the writer. If in doubt, however, he should trust thewriter, not the "language", which is a sum of abstractions扌由象的总和 .A semantic translation is concrete. Thus when faced with:此处略去一段法语。The translator has to cli

45、ng to words,排列，配置；组合，搭配collocations, structures, emphases( emphasis 的复数 ) 强调，重点："The utilitarian功利的，实用的point of view is as alien andinappropriate as it possibly could be precisely to such an intense eruption 爆发 of supreme rank-classifying, rank-discriminating value-judgements: here in fact feel

46、ing has reached the antithesis对立，相反；对句，对偶of the low degree of fervour( fervor ) 热情，热诚，热烈presumed in every type of calculating深谋 远虑的，精明的；算计的，攻于心计的；计算的cleverness, everyassessment of utility." (My version.)欢迎下载11Thus a translation is always closer to the original than anyintralingual 舌的，语言的renderi

47、ng or paraphrase misnamed"translation" by George Steiner(1975), and therefore it is anindispensable不可缺少的，必需的tool for a semantician( semanticist ) 语义学学者，精通语义学的人and now aphilosopher. Communicative and semantic translation may wellcoincide 同时发生；相符，一致-in particular尤其，特别 ，wherethe text conveys

48、a general rather than a culturally (世俗的，现世的，尘世的；短暂的，暂时的temporally and空间的，与空间有关的 spatially) bound形成 . .的界线，限制 message 有文化限制的信息and where the matter is as important as themanner-notably then in the translation of the most important religious, philosophical, artistic and scientific texts, assuming secon

49、d readers as informed and interested as the first. Further, there are often sections in one text that must be translatedcommunicatively (e.g.non-lieu-"nonsuit，驳回 ”)and otherssemantically (e.g. A quotation from a speech). There is no one communicative nor one semantic method of translating a tex

50、t-these are in fact widely v.重叠，把 .叠在一起；与 .部分一致 n.重叠的部分 overlapping 队 /伙/组 /群 /帮 bands of methods. A translation can be more, or less, semantic-more, or less, communicative-even a particular section or sentence can欢迎下载12be treated more communicatively or less semantically. Thus in some passages, Q.H

51、oare and G. Nowell Smith (1971) state that:"We feel it preferable更可取的，更好的，更合意的to choosefidelity 忠诚，忠实； 精确 over good English, despite its awkwardness, in view of 鉴于，考虑至 U the importance of some concepts in Gramsci's work." Each method has a common basis in analytical or cognitive transl

52、ation which is built up both proposition观点，见解，主张；提议，建议；定理，命题by proposition andword by word, denoting表示，是 .的标志，意味着；指的是，意思是the empirical factual事实的，真实的，确凿的knowledge of the text, but finally respecting the convention习俗，惯例；公约，协议；会议，大会of the target languageprovide that the thought-content of the text has

53、 been reproduced. The translation emerges in such a way that the exact meaning or function of the words only become apparent as they are used. Thetranslator may have to make interim暂时的，临时的；间歇的，过渡期间的 decisions without being able at the time to visualize the relation of the words with the end product. Communicati