纽马克的翻译理论

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 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 MoreParagraphs 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 Nidas assumption假定，假设， 设想； 假装； 承担，担任 that all translating is communicating,principle of anyand the overriding 最主要的，最优先的 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 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 formulateshis concepts of communicative tra nslation and semantic tran slatio n,which in a sense从某种意义上说 are similar toNidas dynamic equivale nt translation and formal equivalent 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 证明 正当 /有理，为.辩护 thelegitimacy合法性，正当；合理性，妥当；嫡出，正统ofsema ntic translation in the following three aspects. Firstly, alltran slati ons depend on the three一分为二，二分法；本质对立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 equivale nee or Nabokows literal tran slati on, 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 sec ond Ian guage, 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 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 相互关系，关between translationmethod and text type.It should be pointed out that 应该指出的是 Newmarks 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 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 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 diff icult for a translator to follow Newmarks 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 Buhlers 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 translation practice.Newmarks 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 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 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 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 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 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 thenineteenth 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，禾口 . 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 becominglinguistics 语言学 here in the late fifties), and anticipated by预计到 Tytlerin 1790, Larbaud, Belloc, Knox and Rieu, the general emphasis, supported by 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 显著地，明显地；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 ticipated by Croce andOrtega y Gasset) advocating literal tran slati on 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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；义务的，强制的；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）oflanguage, ten di ng 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Touse more gen eric 类的，属的；一般的，通用的，hold-all terms in difficult passages. A semantic translation tends to bemore complex, more awkward不灵活的，笨拙的 ， more detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought -processes传送 /递 者；思考过程 rather than the intention of the transmitter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 意义上的纟田微差另 U 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 andDarbelnets 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 be reflected 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 writers 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 扌由象的 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, 排列，配置； 组合，搭配 collocations, structures, emphases ( emphasis的复数 ) 强调， 重 点 ：、?The utilitarian 功利的，实用的point of view is as alien andin appropriate as it possibly could be precisely to such an intense erupti on 爆发 of supreme rank-classifying, rank-discriminating value-judgements: here in fact feeli ng has reached the antithesis 对立，相反； 对句，对偶 of the low degree of fervour ( fervor ) 热 情，热诚，热烈 presumed in every type of calculating 深谋 远虑 的，精明的；算计的，攻于心计的；计 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，语言的 rendering or paraphrase 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 同时发生；相符，一致-in particular尤其，特别，where the text conveys a general rather than a culturally ( 世俗的，现世 的，尘世的；短temporally and间有关的spatially) bound形成.的界线， 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. Further, there are often sections in one text that must be translated communicatively (e.g.non-lieu-nonsuit 驳回 ”， 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. 重叠，把 . 叠在一起； 与.部分一致n.重叠的部分overlapping 队/伙/组/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 insome 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 忠诚，忠 实； 精确 over good English, despite its awkwardness, in view of 鉴于， 考虑至 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 观点，见解，主张；提议，建议；定理，命题 byproposition andword by word, denoting 表示，是 的 标志，意味着；指的是，意思是 the empirical factual 事实的，真实 的， 确凿的 knowledge of the text, but finally respecting the convention习俗，惯例；公约，协议；会议，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暂时的，临时 的；间歇的， 过渡期间的 decisions without being able at thetime to visualize the relation of the words with the end product. Communicative and semantic translation bifurcate分成两支，分叉 at a later stage of analytical or cognitive translation which is a在前，先于，预先 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 principle, cognitive translation 使互换位置 transposes the SLtext 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) someth ing (direct object 直接宾 语)to or for some one (indirect object) with something (instrumental) somewhere (locative 表示 位置的 )sometime(temporal) to make someth ing (resulta nt 作为结果的，因而发生 的-additionally, an agent/object may be in a variety of relationshipswith another agent/object (possessive 占有欲强的， 不愿与人分享的；表 示所属关系的词，equative 同义词 ，dependency 属国，属地； 依赖性 ，source, partitive 表示部分的(e.g. some,any), genitive 属格 , 所有格 ,characteristic, etc.)-(relationships often covered or concealed by the English of),preposition T 诃 which must be spelt out in a clause.Thus the grammatical meaning of the SL text becomes explicit.Further, cognitive translation splits up 断绝关系，离婚； 裂开， 分裂 the word-class a. 同其他事物演变的；非独创的 n. 衍生 词， 派生词 derivatives, i.e. 畐 U 词 adverbs(二 preposition+adjective+noun), adjectival 形容词的 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., into their 组 成部分，成分，零部件 components and 详细解说 explicates the relations of all multiple 同许多 部分组成的， 复合 的，多样的，多重的 noun compounds (e.g. data acquisition 数据 采集 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；放晴；解决 lexical and grammatical ambiguities 模棱两可，含糊不清 ；加入 ( 额外的 事) ，窜改；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 参考的，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 车由，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 令人钦佩的分析 of grammaticalmeaning (1917a, pp.47-49) approaches cognitive translation somewhat differently, preferring to split surface structures into separate含蓄的，潜在的；基本的，根本的；在下面的 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 丫 (without specifying who 丫 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.添加剂 a. 附加的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 (bytravelling 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 消极的，被动的；冷淡的，不主动的 in meaning.)It is not usually necessary to make a full cognitive translation, a procedure similar to Brislins (1976) decentring 消解中心化 . Where the cultures of tw