纽马克的翻译理论

Chapter 2Peter NewmarkSemantic and Communicative Translation Guided ReadingPeter 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 translation 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 More Paragraphs on Translation(1993).In his work Approaches to Translation, Newmark proposes two types of translation: semantic translation语义翻译and communicative 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；承担，担任that all translating is communicating, and the overriding最主要的，最优先的principle of any translation is to achieve "equivalent effect". For Newmark, the success of equivalent effect is "illusory", and that "the conflictof loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target languages 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formulates his concepts of "communicative translation" and "semantic translation", which in a sense从某种意义上说are similar to Nida's "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the legitimacy合法性，正当；合理性，妥当；嫡出，正统of "semantic 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 factors. 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, the social factors, especially the readers of the second language, only play a partial部分的；偏爱/袒/心的role发挥部分作用in translation. Some texts, such as an expressive one, require a "semantic translation"(1981:62). It can be seen that可以看出by proposing the coexistence of "communicative translation" and "semantic translation", Newmark suggests a correlation相互关系，关联；相关性between translation method and text type.It should be pointed out that应该指出的是Newmark's semantic translation differs from literal translation直译because the former "respects context", interprets and 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 translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation"(1981:39). Here Newmark seems to only take account of考虑到，顾及，体谅literary translation rather than non-literary translation, which is often rendered more freely in order to communicate the meaning. But he also states that when there is a conflict between semantic and communicative translation, the latter would win out胜出. For instance, it is better to render communicatively the public sign 公共标志bissiger Hund and chien mechant into beward thedog! in order to communicate efficiently the message, but not semantically as dog that bites! and bad dog!(1981:39). Nevertheless, it is difficult 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 of Approaches to Translation in many aspects在很多方面. In this book, 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and vocative呼格的) as well as methods of translating them (Chapters 4 and 5). Although he lists many 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, communicative 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 in translationpractice.Newmark'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 dynamic 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 the translation process and the importance of the TT reader译文读者" (Munday 2000:46). Further, his views and comments are still very traditional and prescriptive规定的，指定的，规范的, bearing some traces of traditional translation theories. The strength of his writing lies in that his discussion on translation 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 abstract theoretical arguments抽象的理论论证. The following excerpt is selected from Chapter 3 of Newmark's Approaches to Translation. In this chapter he 假定，要求postulates his twomain methods of translation (i.e. Semantic and communicative translation), and tries to apply them into different types of text. Communicative and Semantic Translation1.A translation must give the words of the original.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 should 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 should 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 between 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 nineteenth century, literal translation represented a philological语言学的，文献的，文学的academic 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 scientific approach was brought to bear on对……有影响，和……有关translation, suggesting that certain types of texts must be accurately translated, while others should and could 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 translators, has been placed on the reader---on informing the reader effectively and appropriately, notably显著地，明显地；尤其，特别in Nida, Firth, Koller and the Leipzig School. In contrast 相反, the brilliant essays of Benjamin, Valery and Nabokov (anticipated by Croce and Ortega y Gasset) advocating literal translation 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……的可能性；不把……考虑在内all others, particularly the 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. However, the gap could perhaps be narrowed if the previous terms were replaced as follows:SOURCE LANGUAGE BIAS TARGET LANGUAGE BIASLITERAL FREEFAITHFUL IDIOMATICSEMANTIC / COMMUNICATIVE Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic造句法的，句子结构的structures of the second 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 addresses itself solely to the second reader, who does not anticipate difficulties or obscurities, andwould expect a generous 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 source 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 they constitute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 the two methods is that where there is a conflict, the communicative must emphasize the "force" rather than the content of the message. Thus for Bissige Hund or Chien mechant, the communicative translation Beware of the dog! Is mandatory命令的；义务的，强制的; the semantic translations ("dog that bite", "savage dog") would be more informative but less effective. Generally, a communicative translation 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）of language, tending to （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 tends to be more complex, more awkward不灵活的，笨拙的, more detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes 思考过程rather than the intention 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 its search for one nuance意义上的细微差别of meaning. However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect in secured, the literal word-for-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 any type of translation.Conversely相反地, both semantic and communicative translation comply with遵照，服从the usually accepted syntactic造句法的，句子结构的equivalents (Vinay and Darbelnet'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 semantic, but not communicative translation, any deviation背离，偏离；偏差；离题from SL 文体规范stylistic norms规范，标准would bereflected 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；系统地阐述，确切地表达, and the translator has to show a certain tension between 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 the sentences somewhat, compromising between the norms of the two languages and the writer. If in doubt, however, he should trust the writer, not the "language", which is a sum of abstractions抽象的总和. A semantic translation is concrete. Thus when faced with:此处略去一段法语。