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: 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_and_practice/234007-semantic_and_communicative_translation

5-aa-translation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/semantic-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