Download Report

SEMANTIC AND COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION
BY SEYYED YAHYA BARKHORDAR
(1)-INTRODUCTION
Peter Newmark born on 12th April 1916 and died on 9th July 2011
was an English professor of translation at the university of
Surrey. He was one of the main figures in founding translation
studies in the English-speaking world since 1980s. He was also
very influential in the Spanish-speaking world.
. Newmark is widely read through a serries of accessible
and occasionally polemical works, the titles of which
are as straightforward as himself: A Textbook of
Translation (1988), Paragraphs on Translation (1989),
About Translation (1991), More Paragraphs on
Translation (1998).
Newmark was associated with the foundation and
development of the center for translation studies at
Surrey. He was chair of editorial board of journal of
Specialised Translation. He also wrote “Translation
Now” bimonthly for the linguist and was an editorial
board member of the institute of Linguist.
(2)-DEFINITIONS AND FEATURES
Newmark’s APPROACHES TO TRANSLATION (1981) and A
TEXTBOOK OF TRANSLATION (1988) have been widely
used on translator training courses and combine a
wealth of practical examples of linguistic theories of
meaning with practical applications for translation.
Newmark suggests the solution of conflict of loyalty, or in
other words, narrowing the gap between emphasis on
source and target language by replacing such old
terms as word for word, sense for sense, literal, free,
and faithful translation with those of semantic and
communicative translation.
Semantic translation attempts to render as closely as
the semantic and syntactic structures of the second
language, allow the exact contextual meaning of the
original. Communicative translation attempts to
produce on it’s readers an effect as close as possible
to that obtained on the readers of the original.
(Newmark-1981)
This description of communicative translation resembles
Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalence, in the effect it is
trying to create on the tt reader, while, semantic
translation has similarities to Nida’s formal
equivalence.
Some of semantic translation’s features are: authorcentered, pursuing author’s thought process and
related to thought, concerned with author as
individual, semantic and syntactic oriented, faithful
and more literal, informative. Some of communicative
translation’s features are: reader-centered, pursuing
author’s intention and related to speech, adapting and
making the thought and cultural content of original
more accessible to the reader, effect-oriented, faithful
and freer, effective.
Based on his own experience on translators training,
Peter Newmark proposed these two translation
methods for three main types of texts. The three main
types of texts are expressive texts, informative texts
and vocative texts, namely, semantic translation for
expressive texts and communicative translation for
informative and vocative texts.
Generally, a communicative translation is likely to be
smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more
conventional, conforming to particular register of
language, tending to under translate, i.e., to use more
generic, hold-all terms in difficult passages.
A semantic translation, on the other hand, tends to be
more complex, more awkward, more detailed, more
concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes
rather than the intention of the transmitter. It tends to
over translate, to be more specific than the original, to
include more meanings in its search for one nuance of
meaning.
A semantic translation is more source text focused.
Although not necessarily a literal translation, it follows
the source text more closely. A communicative
translation, on the other hand, is focused on the
target text and aims to ensure that the reader will
understand the message of the text.
Therefore, the translator’s understanding of the text’s
meaning is reflected in the translation, and so there is
more scope for different interpretations from different
translators. The transmitter presumably is the author
of the source text, and the addressee is the reader of
the target text.
(3)-COMMENTS
Newmark indicates that semantic translation differs
from literal translation, in that, it respects context,
interprets and even explains metaphors for instance.
Literal translation, on the other hand, means word for
word in it’s extreme version and even in it’s weaker
form, sticks very closely to st lexis and syntax.
Newmark believes literal translation to be the basic
translation procedure both in communicative and
semantic translation, in that, translation starts from
there. Importantly, literal translation is held to be the
best approach in both semantic and communicative
translation.
In both semantic and communicative translation, provided
that equivalent effect is secured, literal-word for word
translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method
of translation.(Newmark-1981) However, if there is a
conflict between the two forms of translation, namely, if
semantic translation would result in an abnormal tt or
would not secure equivalent effect in the tl, then
communicative translation should win out.
Semantic translation differs from faithful translation only
in, as far as it must take more account of the
aesthetic value, that is, the beautiful and natural
sound of the sl text, compromising on meaning where
appropriate, so that, no assonance, wordplay, or
repetition jars in the finished version.
The distinction between faithful and semantic
translation is that the first is uncompromising and
dogmatic, while ,the second is more flexible and
allows for the translator’s intuitive empathy with the
original.
Communicative translation attempts to render the exact
contextual meaning of the original, in such a way that,
both content and language are readily acceptable and
comprehensible to the readership.
According to Peter Newmark, only semantic and
communicative translation fulfils the two main aims of
translation which are first accuracy and second
economy. A semantic translation is more likely to be
economical than a communicative translation unless
for the latter, the text is poorly written.
In general, a semantic translation is written at the
author’s linguistic level, a communicative at the
readership’s. Badly and inaccurately written passages
should be corrected in communicative translation. A
semantic translation is normally inferior to it’s original,
as there is both cognitive and pragmatic loss.
A communicative translation is often better than it’s
original. Semantic translation is accurate, but may not
communicate well; whereas communicative
translation communicates well, but may not be very
precise.
There is no one communicative nor one semantic
method of translating a text, there are in fact widely
overlapping bands of methods. A translation can be
more or less semantic or more or less communicative.
Even, a particular section or sentence can be treated
more communicatively or less semantically.
(4)-OPINIONS AND REACTIONS
Newmark’s terms (semantic and communicative translation),
have often been quoted in the literature of translation
theory, but, they have generally received less discussion
than concepts like Nida’s formal and dynamic
equivalence. This may be because, despite Newmark’s
relevant criticisms of equivalent effect, they raise some of
the same points concerning the translation process and
the importance of the tt reader.
Newmark defines Juliane House’ pair of overt and covert
translation in terms of his own semantic and
communicative translation. It is said that translations
are smooth or awkward, while, translation itself is an
art, if semantic, or a craft, if communicative.
Newmark’s approach to translation is based on the
observation of different types of texts; He classified texts
into three main categories according to the main functions
of language, and attempted to match two translation
methods with the three types of texts. However, there are
some scholars who believe Newmark’s text categories and
corresponding translation methods to have their own
shortcomings.
One of the Chinese scholars Zhang believes that classifying
texts into different categories is very difficult, as the
relationship between different language functions is not
clear cut, instead is interwoven. For example, legal
statements are classified as expressive texts by Newmark.
One of the main functions of legal statements is to
indicate what types of behavior is intolerable and could
result in punishment.
From this perspective, legal statements also have a
strong expressive function; however, authorities
probably wish that the public could abide the law and
there would be no need to use the punishment to
maintain law and order. From this perspective, legal
statements have a strong vocative function as well.
Furthermore, Zhang believes that translation method is
not to be determined by the text category only. Other
factors need to be considered as well, such as the
types of readers and the function of the target texts. If
the function of the target text differs from the source
text, a flexible translation method is to be adopted.
For example, the translation of a piece of news. If the
target text is to be used as news, then the errors in
the original text is to be corrected; but if it is to be
used as studying material or legal evidence, then the
meaning of the original should be preserved.
According to the description of Holmes map of
translation studies, it is more appropriate to classify
semantic and communicative translation as partial
translation theory as it deals with only one or a few of
the various aspects of translation theory as a whole.
Newmark’s semantic and communicative translations
could be considered as medium restricted, text type
restricted and problem restricted theory, as it deals
with human translation only, is restricted to the
translation of expressive, informative and vocative
texts, and is concerned with the problem of matching
text type with translation method.
(5)-REFERENCES
1-en.wikipedia.org & www.guardian.cop.uk
2-Introducing Translation Studies, Theories, and
Applications(Geremy Munday)/Chapter 3.Equivalence
and Equivalent Effect
3-A Textbook of Translation(Peter Newmark.1988)
4.proz.com/forum/translation_theory_and_practice/23
4007-semantic_and_communicative_translation
5-aa-translation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/semantictranslation-and
6.docencia.udea.edu.co/TeoriaTraduccion/comunicativo
/peter02.html
7-An article about comparative study of Yan Fu and three
Western translation theories