纽马克翻译理论

Chapter 2
Peter Newmark
Semantic and Communicative Translation Guided Reading
Peter 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，假定，假想；假装；肩负，担当 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 conflict
of 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 系地述，切实地表达；划，构思出 formulates
his concepts of "communicative translation" and "semantic translation", which in a sense从某种意上 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 明⋯⋯正当 /有理，⋯⋯ the
legitimacy合法性，正当；合理性，稳当；嫡出，正of "semantic translation" in the following three aspects. Firstly, all translations depend on the three 一分二，二分法；本立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 低， disparages the other. Thirdly, the social factors, especially the readers of the second language, only play a partial 部分的；偏 /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 能够看出by proposing the coexistence of "communicative translation" and "semantic translation", Newmark suggests a correlation互相关系，关系；有关性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 假如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，谅解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 公共标记 bissiger Hund and chien mechant into beward the
dog! 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在好多方面 . 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，富裕表情的, informative 供给大量资料或信息的，授与知识的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 translation
practice.
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以成效为导向的翻译 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 two
main methods of translation (i.e. Semantic and communicative translation), and tries to apply them into different types of text. Communicative and Semantic Translation
1.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同意the author or
the reader, the source or the target language of the text. Up to the nineteenth c entury, literal translation r epresented a philological 言学的，文件的，文学的academic exercise
言学学活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 ⋯⋯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 言学 was becoming linguistics言学 here in the late fifties), and anticipated by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 著地，明地；特别，
特 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自相矛盾的象, relevant only to 与⋯⋯有关translating works of high literary culture. Koller (1972)has stated that the equivalent-effect principle of
translation is tending to rule out 把⋯⋯清除在外，清除⋯⋯的可能性；不把⋯⋯考在内 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
BIAS
LITERAL FREE
FAITHFUL IDIOMATIC
SEMANTIC / 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, and
would 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 话中有话，涵意connotations if they constitute/构 /形成；立，成立，委任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；的，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 依照例的，切合俗的，因循保守的；常的 , conforming to a particular register 域（在特定交际
合或域中人使用的法等的范）of language, tending to （与名）在⋯⋯下边/之下；低于，
隶属于（与形、）不足under-translate, i.e.即，而言之，
也就是To use more generic 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 不灵巧的，蠢笨的, more detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes 思虑过程rather than the intention of the transmitter 传递 /递者；传输者；流传者；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 意义上的细微差异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 依照，听从the usually accepted syntactic 造句法的，句子构造的equivalents (Vinay and Darbelnet's "transpositions") for the two languages in question
正在讨论的 . 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 背叛，偏离；误差；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 构思出，规划；系统地论述，切实地表达 , and the translator has to show a certain tension between the writer's manner and the 逼迫，强迫；激动，欲念 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。

The translator has to cling to words, 摆列，配置；组合，搭配collocations, structures, emphases（emphasis 的复数）重申，要点 :
"The utilitarian 功利的，适用的 point of view is as alien and inappropriate as it possibly could be precisely to such an intense eruption 迸发 of supreme rank-classifying, rank-discriminating value-judgements: here in fact feeling has reached the antithesis 对峙，相反；对句，对偶 of the low degree of fervour （ fervor ）
情，，烈presumed in every type of calculating 深的，聪明的；算的，攻于心的；算的cleverness, every assessment of utility." (My version.)
Thus a translation is always closer to the original than any intralingual 舌的，言的 rendering or paraphrase misnamed "translation" by George Steiner(1975), and therefore it is an indispensable 不行缺乏的，必要的 tool for a semantician （semanticist）学学者，精晓学的人and now a
philosopher. Communicative and semantic translation may well coincide 同生；符合，一致 ---in particular 特别，特 , where the text conveys a general rather than a culturally ( 世俗的，世的，世的；短的，的 temporally and 空的，与空
有关的 spatially) bound 形成⋯⋯的界，限制message有文化限制的信息and where the matter is as important as the manner---notably then in the translation of the most important religious, philosophical, artistic and scientific texts, assuming second readers as informed and interested as the first. Further, there are often sections in one text that must be translated communicatively (e.g.non-lieu---"nonsuit回"), and others semantically (e.g. A quotation from a speech). There is no one communicative nor one semantic method of translating a
text---these are in fact widely v. 重叠，把⋯⋯叠在一同；与⋯⋯
部分一致 n.重叠的部分 overlapping 一 /伙 / /群/帮 bands of methods. A translation can be more, or less, semantic---more, or less, communicative---even a particular section or sentence can be treated more communicatively or less semantically. Thus in some passages, Q.Hoare and G. Nowell Smith (1971) state that: "We feel it preferable 更可取的，更好的，更合意的to choose fidelity 忠，忠；精准over good English, despite its awkwardness, in view of 于，考到the importance of some concepts in Gramsci's work." Each method has a common basis in analytical or cognitive translation which is built up both proposition 点，解，主；提，建；定理，命 by proposition and word by word, denoting 表示，是⋯⋯的志，
意味着；指的是，意思是 the empirical factual 事的，真的，确的knowledge of the text, but finally respecting the
convention 俗，例；公，；会，大会 of the target language provide that the thought-content of the text has 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. The translator may have to make interim 的，的；歇的，渡期的decisions without being able at the time to visualize the relation of the words with the end product. Communicative and semantic translation bifurcate 分红两支，分
叉at a later stage of analytical or cognitive translation which is
a 在前，先于，早先 pre-translation procedure which may be performed on the source-language text to convert it into the source or the target language---the reluctant versions will be closer to each other than the original text and the final translation.
In principle, cognitive translation 使交换地点 transposes the SL text grammatically to plain "animate 活的，有生命的；有活
力的，有生气的subject+verb+non-animate object" 条款；从句，分句 clauses, or, in the extended version, to sequences of: "an agent (subject) does (active verb) something (direct object 直接
宾语 ) to or for someone (indirect object) with something (instrumental) somewhere (locative 表示地点的 ) "sometime (temporal) to make something (resultant 作为结果的，因此发生的)"---additionally, an agent/object may be in a variety of relationships with another agent/object (possessive 据有欲强的，不肯与人分享的；表示所属关系的词, equative 同义词 , dependency 属国，属地；依靠性 , source, partitive 表示部分的（e.g. some,any), genitive 属格，全部格 , characteristic, etc.)---(relationships often covered or concealed by the English preposition 介词 "of"), which must be spelt out in a clause. Thus the grammatical meaning of the SL text becomes explicit.
Further, cognitive translation splits up 隔离关系，离婚；裂开，
分裂the word-class a.同其余事物演变的；非独创的n.衍生词，派生词 derivatives, i.e. 副词 adverbs
(=preposition+adjective+noun), adjectival 形容词的 nouns (e.g. "whiteness"), qualifying 限制的，限制的 prefix-verb-nouns (e.g. "contribution"), noun-verbs (e.g. "to ration"), noun-adjective-verb-nouns (e.g. "rationalization"), etc., into
their 构成部分，成分，零零件 components and 详尽讲解explicates the relations of all multiple 同很多部分构成的，复合的，多样的，多重的 noun compounds (e.g. "data acquisition 数
据收集 control system": system to control the acquiring of data). Further, it replaces figurative 比喻的，借喻的and colloquial 口语的，会话的language, idioms and 成语的，词
语的 phrasal verbs 短语动词with表示的，指示的denotative terms; clears up 清理；澄清；转晴；解决lexical and grammatical ambiguities 含糊其词，含糊不清; 加入（额外的事），篡改；插入（话、文字） interpolates relevant encyclopedic 广博的，知识渊博的；百科全书的 information for ecological 生态的，生态学的 , cultural and institutional 制度的；学会的，
协会的terms; replaces 代词 pronouns with nouns and
identifies referential 参照的，参照的；指示的synonyms 参照代名词 ; reduces cultural terms to their functional definitions;
and analyses the semantic语义的 features of any words that are likely to be split into two or three words when translated. Thus as far as is possible (the process is artificial) the text is removed from its natural cultural and linguistic axis 轴，坐标轴，中心线，基准线 to an artificial neutral universal plane 飞机；平面 of language.
Nida in his admirable analysis 令人敬佩的剖析 of grammatical meaning (1917a, pp.47-49) approaches cognitive translation somewhat differently, preferring to split surface structures into
separate 委婉的，潜伏的；基本的，根本的；在下边的underlying (previously concealed) sentences. Thus he analyses: "their former director thought their journey was a deception" into: (a) he directed them formerly, (b) he though X (the entire following expression), (c) they journeyed, (d) they deceived Y (without specifying who Y is), adding an analysis of the relationship between (c) and (d)---e.g. means-result: by journeying they deceived", means-purpose (they journeyed in order to deceive), n.增添剂 a.附带的 additive events (they journeyed and they deceived).
For cognitive translation, I think: "The man who used to be their director (to direct them) thought they had travelled to deceive (by travelling they had deceived, they had traveled and
deceived)" is adequate. Another (more likely?) alternative missed by Nida must be added: "The man who used to be their director thought they had merely pretended to travel, in order to deceive others." (Most verbal nouns 名词化的动名词may be active or passive 悲观的，被动的；冷漠的，不主动的in meaning.)
It is not usually necessary to make a full cognitive translation, a procedure similar to Brislin's (1976) "decentring 消解中心化 ". Where the cultures of two languages have been in contact for centuries, the translator normally resorts to cognitive translation only for obscure, ambiguous or complex passages. A cognitive translation may serve as a tertium comparationis between texts with distant cultures and radically different language structures. Where cognitive translation results in a poorly written and/or repetitive text, communicative translation requires a bold attempt to clarify and reorganize it. A text such as the following would require considerable rewriting before it is translated:
"If industrialists are so keen for Britain to join why does not the Government make it possible for those who want to get into Europe without the sacrifice to British sovereignty...which must be the inevitable result of our joining if we are to rely on M. Debre's words recently that the Common Market is unworkable
without the Treaty of Rome.
Proposed rewrite:
"As industrialists are so keen, why does not the Government make it possible for Britain to get into Europe without sacrificing her sovereignty? According to M. Debre's recent statement, this would first require amendments to the treaty of Rome, which is the legal instrument 法律文书 governing the Common Market 共同市场 ."
I am assuming that whilst a semantic translation is always inferior to it original, since it involves loss of meaning, a communicative translation may be better, since it may gain in force 有效，奏效，实行中；大量，大量and clarity 清楚，明晰what it loses in semantic content. In communicative translation the translator is trying in his own language to write a little better than the original, unless he is reproducing the
well-established formulae 配方；公式；套话，固定的说法，
习用语句 of notices or correspondence. I assume that in communicative translation one has the right to correct or improve the logic; to replace clumsy with elegant, or at least functional, syntactic structures; to remove obscurities; to eliminate 除去，除去，除去；裁减 repetition 重复，频频 and tautology 重复，赘述 ; to exclude 把某人清除在外，把某物排
斥在外；防备进入 /参加；不包含the less likely interpretations of an ambiguity; to modify and clarify jargon术语，行话(i.e. Reduce loose 属的，类的；一般的，总称的generic terms 通用条款 /词组 /术语 /说法 to rather more concrete components),
and to normalize 使标准 /正常 /常态化荒诞，独特，独特bizarreries of idiolect 个人语言特色，个人习语 , i.e. wayward
率性的，倔强的，刚愎的；朝三暮四的uses of language.
Further, one has the right to correct mistakes of fact and 滑倒，
失足；小错误，小粗心 slips, normally stating what one has done
in a footnote 注脚，说明 . (All such corrections and improvements are usually inadmissible 不一样意的，不一样意的；不行接受的；不可以认可的 in semantic translation.)
In theory a communicative translation is ipso facto a subjective procedure, since it is intended primarily to achieve a certain effect on its readers' minds, which effect could only be verified 证明，查对，证明 by a survey of their mental and/or physical reactions. In fact, it is initially as constrained by the form, the structures and words of the original as a semantic translation (the pre-translation process) until the version is gradually skewed 偏的，倾斜的；扭曲的，误解的 to the reader's point of view.（渐渐朝着读者的看法倾斜） Then the translator starts to ask himself whether his version is "happy", i.e. a successful
"act", rather than whether it is true, i.e. an exact statement (cf. Austin, 1962). He begins to extend the unit of translation, having secured the referential basis 参照依照 , i.e. the truth of the information; he views words and phrases in expanding waves in their linguistic context 言境 , restructuring and
rearranging clauses, reinforcing emphases. Nevertheless,
each lexical and grammatical unit has to remain 看作，accounted for---that is his Antaean link with the text.
In one sense（ =in a sense 从某种意上） , communicative translation, by adapting and making the thought and cultural content of the original more accessible to the reader, gives semantic translation another dimension 任何一种量度；面，体，程度，范 . The Leipzig School, notably Neubert and Kade,
have referred to（到，提到；；波及，对于，有
关；提交⋯⋯ 理this as the "pragmatic 的，的；
用主的 " element, but I think this is a little misleading易引起解的，易令人生的 . To begin with, peirce and notably 著地，明地；有名地；特别，特 Morris defined "pragmatics 用学，言用学 " as the branch of semiotics 符号学 that deals with the relation between signs or linguistic
expressions and their users (播 /者；送 /达者）(transmitters and receptors). Communicative translation, however, is
concerned mainly with the receptors, usually in the context of a language 言境 and cultural variety 文化多性 , whilst semantic translation is concerned with the transmitter usually as an individual, and often （与⋯⋯比 by contrast with ，与⋯⋯相反 as opposed to）in contradistinction both to his culture and
to the norms of his language 言的范形式. Moreover "pragmatic" is a confusing term, since even in the context of translation (let alone its abundant senses in philosophy) it is also used in the sense of "nonliterary", "technical" and "practical". Neubert and Kade have maintained that the pragmatic (in the semiotic sense) is the variant 不一样的，易的 , difficult and often "untranslatable" element in translation, whilst the cognitive (the material basis and environment) is invariant 不的 , relatively easy and always translatable. Whilst this view obviously has some truth (the objective, physical and concrete being on the whole 的来，大概上；往常easier translate than the subjective, mental and figurative 比的，借的 ), it ignores the indisputable proportion of truth in the Humboldt thesis (the
weak thesis) that each language has its own distinctive structure, reflecting and conditioning the ways of thought and expression of the people using it, but for which translation would be an
easy business. Further, this view hardly comes to terms with
与⋯⋯完成；妥，步，折服 the fact that most material
objects derive their names form the result of mental analogies 推；似，相像and comparisons, that is, from metaphor,
not form any scientific made-to-measure 定做的新neologisms, and that all languages are wilful 率性的，固的；
成心的 and different in their naming of some of the commonest physical objects. Lyons (1976) and Weightman (1967) have independently shown how inadequate or overloaded would be any translation into French of the apparently simple, observational 察的，依据察的 , objective, non-"pragmatic" sentence "The cat sat on the mat". Both the French version (possibly, "le chat etait accroupi sur le paillasson") and the rather better German version ("Die Katze hockte auf der
fu*decke") are翻 overtranslations, illustrating French
and German's lack of words of sufficient generality一般性，普遍性；主要部分，大部分；归纳的表述，平常而and consequently 所以，所以of equivalent frequency （相等的使用率） . On the other hand, there are many cases where the "pragmatic" element can be translated without difficulty, provided 若是，若是，若是；以⋯⋯条件the viewpoint represented in the SL culture is well understood by the reader of the translation: thus words like "revisionist 修正主者，修者
", "terrorist", "patriotic", "proletarian 无产阶级（的） ", "formalistic 形式主义的，过于拘泥形式的 ", etc., can be "agreed" according to the national culture in the educated 受过
教育的，有修养的；依据知识或经验的writing （教育意义的文章） of many world-languages. A GDR 前德意志民主共和国（G erman Democratic Republic ） term such as Abgrenzen (refusal to promise with not-socialist policies), though it is a pragmatic "hot potato", can usually be safely translated
without any of the three points of view (the transmitter's, the
receptor's, the translator's) obtruding （ obtrude 闯进，打搅；强加） on the message. For jager(1975), the "pragmatic element"
is what transforms a "semantic"(i.e. cognitive) into "functional"(i.e. communicative) translation---like most of the linguistic theorists, he only accepts the validity 有效，正当of communicative (his "functional") translation and implicitly委婉地，示意地降低；贬斥，小瞧downgrades semantic translation.
I would prefer to avoid the use of the term "pragmatic" and to regard both communicative and semantic as divergent 多种多样的；分岐的，不一样的，相异的精华，精制，提纯；高雅，
高雅 refinements or 订正，修正revisions of cognitive translation. In both case, the cognitive element may soon have to。