紐馬克的翻譯理論

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 翻譯 (1985), A Textbook of Translation 翻譯教程 (1988), and MoreParagraphs on Translation(1993).In his work Approaches to Translation, Newmark proposes two types of translation: semantic translation 語 義翻譯 and

3、 communicative translation 交 際翻譯 .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 Nidas assumption假定，假設， 設想； 假裝

4、； 承擔，擔任 that all translating is communicating,principle of anyand the overriding 最主要的，最優(yōu)先的 tran slati on is to achieve equivalent effect. For Newmark, the success of equivalent effect is illusory, and that the con flict of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target languages will alway

5、s remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice(1981:38). To narrow the gap,Newmark系統(tǒng)地闡述，確切地表達；規(guī)劃，構想出 formulateshis concepts of communicative tra nslation and semantic tran slatio n,which in a sense從某種意義上說 are similar toNidas dynamic equivale nt translation and formal equivalen

6、t tran slati on. Newmarks admits com mun icative translation is a com mon method and could be used in many types of tran slati on.Nevertheless, he justifies 證明 正當 /有理，為.辯護 thelegitimacy合法性，正當；合理性，妥當；嫡出，正統(tǒng)ofsema ntic translation in the following three aspects. Firstly, alltran slati ons depend on the

7、 three一分為二，二分法；本質(zhì)對立dichotomies, n amely, the foreig n and native cultures, the two Ian guages, the writer and the translator. Hence, it is unlikely to have a uni versal theory that could include all these factors.Secon dly, previous discussions on methods of translation, either Nidas dynamic equival

8、e nee or Nabokows literal tran slati on, does not reflect the actual reality of translation method, for each of them either recommends one or貶低，輕視 disparages the other.Thirdly, the social factors, especially the readers of the sec ond Ian guage, only play a partial咅B(yǎng)分的； 偏愛/袒/心的role發(fā)揮部分作用in translati

9、o n. 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 communicative translation and semantic translation, Newmark suggests a correlation 相互關系，關between translationmethod and text type.It should be pointed out that 應

10、該指出的是 Newmarks semantic translation differs from literal translation 直譯 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 seman

11、tic and communicative translation, provided that如果 equivalent effect issecured, 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 考慮至 U ， 顧及，體諒 literary translation rather than non-literary tra

12、nslation, 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 勝出 .For instance, it is better to render communicatively the public sign 公共標志 bissiger Hund and

13、 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 diff icult for a translator to follow Newmarks translation methods in practice, which should be adopted flexibly according to the spe

14、cific 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 Buhlers functional theory of language, proposes three main types of texts (i.e. expressive有表現(xiàn)力的，富有表情的 info

15、rmative 提供大 量資料或信息的，授予知識的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

16、 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 trans

17、lation methods,Newmark seems to overlook the function of other translation methods frequently adopted in translation practice.Newmarks semantic and communicative translation ahve been quoted frequently among translation scholars. His concern about the coexistence of semantic and communicative transl

18、ation shows that in his view effect-oriented translation以效果為導向 的翻譯such as Nidas dynamic equivalence should not be overstressed in translation practice, but is just one type of translation. Newmarks types of translation, however, are less influential than Nidas dynamic equivalence in the field of tra

19、nslation studies because they raise some of the same points concerning the translation process and the importance of the TT reader 譯文讀者 (Munday 2000:46). Further, his views and comments are still very traditional and prescriptive規(guī)定的，指定的，規(guī)范的 ,bearing some traces of traditional translation theories. T

20、he 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 接受訓練的 人，實習生，培訓生 trainees with a large number of interesting and useful examples, which are more convincing than abstract theoretical a

21、rguments 抽象的理論論證 .The followingexcerpt is selected from Chapter 3 of Newmarks Approaches to Translation. In this chapter he 假定，要求 postulates his two main methods of translation (i.e. Semantic and communicative translation), andtries to apply them into different types of text.Comm unicative and Sema

22、ntic Tran slati on1. 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 sh

23、ould 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 translat

24、ion 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, Schleiermach

25、er, 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 贊成 the author orthe reader, the source or the target language of the text. Up to thenineteenth century, l

26、iteral translation represented a philological 語 言學 的，文獻的，文學的 academic exercise 語 言學學術活動 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 對 有影響，禾口 . 有關 translation, suggesting that certain types of t

27、exts must be accurately translated, while others should and could not be translated at all! Since the rise of modern linguistics (philology語言學 was becominglinguistics 語言學 here in the late fifties), and anticipated by預計到 Tytlerin 1790, Larbaud, Belloc, Knox and Rieu, the general emphasis, supported b

28、y communicatio n- theorists as well as by non-literary tran slators, has been placed on the reader-on informi ng the reader effectively and appropriately, notably 顯著地，明顯地；尤其， 特另 U inNida, Firth, Koller a nd the Leipzig School .In contrast 相反 ,the brilliant essays of Benjam in, Valery and Nabokov (an

29、 ticipated by Croce andOrtega y Gasset) advocating literal tran slati on have appeared as isolated孤立的，被隔離的，paradoxical phenomena自相矛盾的現(xiàn)象,relevant only to 與.有關 translating works of high literary culture. Koller (1972) has stated that the equivalent -effect principle oftranslation is tending to rule ou

30、t 把 排除在外，排除 的可能性；不把.考慮在內(nèi)all others, particularly thepredo min ance of any formal elements such as word or structure. The appare nt triumph of the consumer is, I thin k, illusory. The con flict of loyalties, the gap betwee n emphsis on source and target Ian guage will always remain as the overriding

31、problem in tran slati on theory and practice. However, the gap could perhaps be narrowed if the previous terms were replaced as follows:SOURCE LANGUAGE BIAS TARGET LANGUAGEBIASLITERAL FREEFAITHFULIDIOMATICSEMANTIC / COMMUNICATIVECommunicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect

32、as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the sema ntic and syn tactic 造句法的，句子結構的 structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual 上下文的，前后 關系 上的 meaning of the original.In theory, there are wide differenc

33、es between the two methods.Communicative translation addresses itself solely to the second reader, who does not anticipate difficulties or obscurities, and would expect a enerous transfer of foreign elements into his own culture as well as his language where necessary.But even here the translator st

34、ill 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 組 /構/形 成；設立，建立，任命the essential human（ non-ethnic 種族的，民族的，部落的

35、 ） message of the text.One basic differe nee betwee n the two methods is thatwhere there is a conflict, the com muni eative must emphasize the force rather than the content of the message. Thus for Bissige Hund or Chie n mechant, the communicative tran slati on Beware of the dog! Is man datory 命令的；義

36、務的，強制的；the sema ntic translations ( dog that bite, savage dog ) would be more in formative but less effective. Generally, a communicative translation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conve ntio nal 依照慣例的，符合習俗的，因循 守舊的；常規(guī) 的，conforming to a particular register 語域（在特定社交 場合或

37、專業(yè)領域中人們使用的詞匯、語法等的范圍）oflanguage, ten di ng to（與名）在 下面/之下；級別低于，隸屬于（與形、動）不足 under-translate, i.e .即，換而言之，也就是Touse more gen eric 類的，屬的；一般的，通用的，hold-all terms in difficult passages. A semantic translation tends to bemore complex, more awkward不靈活的，笨拙的 ， more detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the th

38、ought -processes傳送 /遞 者；思考過程 rather than the intention of the transmitter傳輸者；傳播者；發(fā)射機，發(fā)射臺 .It tends to over-translate, to be more specific than the original, to include more meanings in its search for one nuance 意義上的纟田微差另 U of meaning. However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided th

39、at 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 同義詞synonyms, let alone v.&n. 釋義，意譯，改述 paraphrases, in any type of translation.Conversely 相反地 ,both semantic and communicative tr

40、anslation comply with 遵照，服從 the usually accepted syntactic 造句法 的，句子結構的 equivalents (Vinay andDarbelnets transpositions) for the two languages in question正在談論的 .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 se

41、mantic, but not communicative translation, any deviation 背離，偏離； 偏差； 離題 from SL 文體 規(guī)范 stylistic norms規(guī)范，標準 would be reflected in an equally wide deviation from the TL norms, but where such norms clash, the deviations are not easy to formulate 構想出，規(guī)劃；系統(tǒng)地闡述，確切地表達 ， and the translator has to show a cert

42、ain tension between the writers manner and the 強迫，強制； 沖動，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 sentenc

43、es 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 扌由象的 總和 .A semantic translation is concrete. Thus when faced with:此處略去一段法語。The translator has to cling to words, 排列，配置；

44、組合，搭配 collocations, structures, emphases ( emphasis的復數(shù) ) 強調(diào)， 重 點 ：、?The utilitarian 功利的，實用的point of view is as alien andin appropriate as it possibly could be precisely to such an intense erupti on 爆發(fā) of supreme rank-classifying, rank-discriminating value-judgements: here in fact feeli ng has reache

45、d the antithesis 對立，相反； 對句，對偶 of the low degree of fervour ( fervor ) 熱 情，熱誠，熱烈 presumed in every type of calculating 深謀 遠慮 的，精明的；算計的，攻于心計的；計 算的 cleverness, every assessme nt of utility. (My vers ion.)Thus a translation is always closer to the origi nal tha n any intralingual 舌 的，語言的 rendering or pa

46、raphrase misnamed translation by George Stei ner(1975), and therefore it is an indispe nsable不可缺少的，必需的tool for a semanticianand now a信息and where the matter is as important as thephilosopher. Communi cative and semantic tra nslati on may well coincide 同時發(fā)生；相符，一致-in particular尤其，特別，where the text conv

47、eys a general rather than a culturally ( 世俗的，現(xiàn)世 的，塵世的；短temporally and間有關的spatially) bound形成.的界線， 限制message有 文化限制的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. Furt

48、her, there are often sections in one text that must be translated communicatively (e.g.non-lieu-nonsuit 駁回 ”， and otherssemantically (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. 重疊，把 . 疊在一起； 與.部分一致n.重疊的部分ov

49、erlapping 隊/伙/組/群/幫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 insome passages, Q.Hoare and G. Nowell Smith (1971) state that: We feel it preferable 更可

50、取的，更好的，更合意的 to choose fidelity 忠誠，忠 實； 精確 over good English, despite its awkwardness, in view of 鑒于， 考慮至 U the importance of some concepts in Gramscis work. Each method has a common basis in analytical or cognitive translation which isbuilt up both proposition 觀點，見解，主張；提議，建議；定理，命題 byproposition andw

51、ord by word, denoting 表示，是 的 標志，意味著；指的是，意思是 the empirical factual 事實的，真實 的， 確鑿的 knowledge of the text, but finally respecting the convention習俗，慣例；公約，協(xié)議；會議，大會 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

52、meaning or function of the words only become apparent as they are used. The translator may have to make interim暫時的，臨時 的；間歇的， 過渡期間的 decisions without being able at thetime to visualize the relation of the words with the end product. Communicative and semantic translation bifurcate分成兩支，分叉 at a later s

53、tage of analytical or cognitive translation which is a在前，先于，預先 pre-translation procedure which may beperformed 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 translatio n. In pr

54、inciple, cognitive translation 使互換位置 transposes the SLtext grammatically to plain animate活的，有生命的；有活 力的，有生氣的 subject+verb+non-animate object 條款；從 句，分 句clauses, or, in the extended version, to sequences of: an agent (subject)does (active verb) someth ing (direct object 直接賓 語)to or for some one (indire

55、ct object) with something (instrumental) somewhere (locative 表示 位置的 )sometime(temporal) to make someth ing (resulta nt 作為結果的，因而發(fā)生 的-additionally, an agent/object may be in a variety of relationshipswith another agent/object (possessive 占有欲強的， 不愿與人分享的；表 示所屬關系的詞，equative 同義詞 ，dependency 屬國，屬地； 依賴性 ，so

56、urce, partitive 表示部分的(e.g. some,any), genitive 屬格 , 所有格 ,characteristic, etc.)-(relationships often covered or concealed by the English of),preposition T 訶 which must be spelt out in a clause.Thus the grammatical meaning of the SL text becomes explicit.Further, cognitive translation splits up 斷絕關系，離

57、婚； 裂開， 分裂 the word-class a. 同其他事物演變的；非獨創(chuàng)的 n. 衍生 詞， 派生詞 derivatives, i.e. 畐 U 詞 adverbs(二 preposition+adjective+noun), adjectival 形容詞的 nouns (e.g.whiteness), qualifying 限制的，限定的 prefix-verb-nouns (e.g. contribution), noun-verbs (e.g. to ration), noun-adjective-verb-nouns (e.g. rationalization), etc.,

58、into their 組 成部分，成分，零部件 components and 詳細解說 explicates the relations of all multiple 同許多 部分組成的， 復合 的，多樣的，多重的 noun compounds (e.g. data acquisition 數(shù)據(jù) 采集 control system: system to control the acquiring of data).Further, it replaces figurative 比喻的，借喻的 and colloquial 口語 的，會 話的 language, idioms and 成語的，詞 語的 phrasal verbs 短語動詞 with 表示的，指示的 denotative terms; clears up 清理；澄清；放晴；解決 lexical and grammatical ambiguities 模棱兩可，含糊不清 ；加