Semantic and-communicative-translation

SEMANTIC AND COMMUNICATIVE

TRANSLATION

By: Hafiz Haseeb

GC University Faisalabad

[email protected]

(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: author-centered, 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_an

d_practice/234007-

semantic_and_communicative_translati

on

5-aa-

translation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/se

mantic-translation-and

6.docencia.udea.edu.co/TeoriaTraduccion

/comunicativo/peter02.html

7-An article about comparative study of

Yan Fu and three Western translation

theories

Thanks for Being Vigilant