纽马克的翻译理论

Chapter 2

Peter Newmark

Sema ntic and Comm uni cative Tran slati on Guided Readi ng

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 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,

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 咅B 分的；偏爱/袒/心的role

发挥部分作用in translatio n. 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 考虑至U，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