Sei sulla pagina 1di 33

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 Spanishspeaking 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


Newmarks 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 its 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 Nidas dynamic equivalence, in the effect it is trying to create on the tt reader, while,

semantic translation has similarities to Nidas


formal equivalence.

Some of semantic translations features are: authorcentered, pursuing authors thought process and related to thought, concerned with author as individual, semantic and syntactic oriented, faithful and more literal, informative. Some of communicative translations features are: readercentered, pursuing authors 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 translators understanding of the texts 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 its extreme version and even in its 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 translators 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 authors linguistic level, a communicative at the readerships. Badly and inaccurately written

passages should be corrected in communicative


translation. A semantic translation is normally inferior to its original, as there is both cognitive and pragmatic loss.

A communicative translation is often better than its 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


Newmarks 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 Nidas formal and dynamic equivalence. This may be because, despite Newmarks 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.

Newmarks 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 Newmarks 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.

Newmarks 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/comunicati vo/peter02.html 7-An article about comparative study of Yan Fu and three Western translation theories

Potrebbero piacerti anche