发布时间 : 星期日 文章Approaches to translation Peter Newmark 翻译方法更新完毕开始阅读620d9dde81c758f5f71f6708
Approaches to translation
Peter Newmark Contents
Part one: Aspects of Translation Theory 1. The theory and the craft of translation 2. What translation theory is about
3. Communicative and semantic translation I 4. Thought, speech, and translation
5. Communicative and semantic translation II
6. The translation of proper names and institutional and cultural terms 7. The translation of metaphor
8. The translation process and synonymy
9. Translation and the metalingual function of language P3.
In the pre-linguistics period of translation, they make no attempt to distinguish types or quality of texts (which are mainly Biblical or literary), and while they are strong on theory, they are short on method and practical examples. They show a gradual transition from a natural or free treatment towards a literal analysis, if not translation, of the original, but there is no development of a theory, and many of the writers were not aware of each other’s work.
2. Translation Theory
1.Translation theory’s main concerns is to determine appropriate translation methods for the widest possible range of texts or text-categories.
The theory demonstrates the possible translation procedures and the various arguments for and against the use of one translation rather than another in a particular context. Note that translation theory is concerned with choices and decisions, not with the mechanics of either the source language (SL) or the target language (TL).
2. Translation theory attempts to give some insight into the relation between thought, meaning, and language; the universal, cultural, and individual aspects of language and behavior, the understanding of cultures; the interpretation of texts that maybe clarified and even supplemented by way of translation. P20.
The practical problems: the translator’s first task is to understand the text, so it is the business of translation theory to suggest some criteria and priorities for this analysis.
First, the intention of a text.
Secondly, the intention of the translator. Tirdly, the reader and the setting of the text.
Fourthly, the quality if the writing and the authority of the text.
I have proposed only two methods of translation: a) communicative translation, where the translator attempts to produce the same effect on the TL readers as was produced by the original on the SL readers, and b) semantic translation, where the translator attempts, within the bare syntactic and semantic constrains of the TL, to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the author.
The basic difference between communicative and semantic language is the stress on ‘message’ and ‘meaning’; ‘reader’ and ‘author’; ‘utterance’ and ‘thought-processes’; ‘like’ and ‘as’-and ‘how’; ‘performative’ and ‘constative’, but this is a matter of difference in emphasis rather than kind.
P26. Grammatical meaning & Lexical meaning
He has to interpret grammatical meaning, both on a general level, and in relation to the distinction between SL and TL constructions.
Grammatical meaning is more significant, less precise, more general and sometimes more elusive than lexical meaning. It can sometimes be identified as text level or at paragraph level. Grammatical meaning can also be identified as word-group, which may comprise Nida’s (1975a) entitles, events, abstracts (or qualities) or relations.
Grammatical meaning may also be rendered by more or less standard transpositions from the SL to the TL.
Lexical meaning starts where grammatical meaning finishes: it is referential and precise, and has to be considered both outside and within the context. Furthermore, all lexical units have elements of grammar.
Lexical translation is more complicated. Any bilingual dictionary appears to imply that most SL words have precise TL equivalents. On the contrary, most SL words have a variety of separate, contiguous, overlapping, inclusive or complementary senses (Nida, 1975a), each of which consists of sentence components. P32.
The area of text-linguistic, cohesion or discourse analysis, i.e. Linguistic analysis beyond the sentence, has evident application in translation theory. Discourse analysis may be mainly an essential point of reference for establishing the significance of all connectives including pronouns, and clarifying semantically undetermined expressions.
Translation theorist is concerned with certain particular problems: metaphor, synonyms; proper names; institutional and cultural terms, grammatical, lexical and referential ambiguity, cliche, quotations; cultural focus, overlap and distance, idiolect; neologism; poetry; jargon, the four categories of key terms. Of these problems,
metaphor is the most important.
Neologisms, which may be either recently coined by others or originals. They can be categorized as:
a) Formal--completely new words. These are rare--the locus classicus is the seventeenth-century word ‘gas’ (from ‘chao’)--in semantic translation.
b) Eponyms--recently based on proper names, including inventors and names of firms and towns.
c) Derived--formed with productive prefixes and suffixes d) New collocations, e.g. ‘urban guerrilla’ e) Phrasal nouns or verbs f) Acronyms
g) Blends, i.e. Combinations of two words. Highly productive h) Semantic, old words with new meanings i) Abbreviations P34.
The process of decoding a linguistically difficult text has been described as ‘decentring’ (Brislin, 1976). Nida (1964), following Chomsky, has proposed several ‘kernel sentences’ as the basis of a neutral or intermediate language, logically constructed, with metaphors converted to sentence, between SL and TL. For European languages, the main problem is one of the abstract ‘jargon’, i.e. Words that contain three or four parts of speech within themselves. P37.
Translation theory goes hand in hand with translation methodology at every stage, so that it acts as a body of reference both for the translation process procedure and for translation criticism. P39.
Source language bias literal→Faithful→
Semantic/communicative Target language bias free→Idiomatic→
Communicative 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 semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.
In theory, there are wide differences between the two methods. Communicative translation addressed itself solely to the second reader, who does not anticipate difficulties or obscurities, and would expect a generous 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 remains within the original culture and assists the reader only in its connotations if they constitute the essential human (non-ethnic) message of the text.
However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is 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 ‘synonyms’, let alone the paraphrases, in any type of the translation.
I’m assuming that whist a semantic translation is always inferior to its original, unless it involves loss if meaning, a communicative translation may be better, since it may gain in force and clarity what it loses in semantic content. In communicative translation, translator is trying in his own language to write a little better than the original, unless he os reproducing the well-established formulae of notices oe correspondence. I assume that in communicative translation one has the right to correct or improve the logic; to replace clumsy with elegance, or at least functional, syntactic structures; to remove obscurities; to eliminate repetition and tautology; to exclude the less likely interpretations of an ambiguity; to modify and clarify jargon, and to normalize bizarreries of idiolect. Further, one has the right to correct mistakes of fact and slips, normally stating what one has done in a footnote. P43
I may prefer to avoid the use of the term’pragmatic’ and to regard both communicative and semantic as divergent refinements or revisions of cognitive translation. In both cases, the cognitive elements may soon have to be abandoned, since the TL view of the same referent may differ from the SL.
P48 Metaphor
Metaphor, as Dugut (1976) has pointed out in a brilliant article, has been much neglected in the literature. I propose to discuss three types of metaphor: dead (fossilized), standard (stock) ans original (creative).
Against:Nida
Nida has shown in his many books that the TL reader can only accept the geographical and historical remoteness of the cultural background being presented to him, if that behavior itself and all imagery connected with it is recast in his own culture. In fact, as the myth recede and less knowledge can be expected from modern man, each new translation of the Bible become more communicative, with the omission of technical terms, dialect and slang,and directed at increasing numbers of less-well-read people.
On the other hand, following Nida’s ‘Translating is communicating’ with its emphasis on a readable (instantly?), understandable text (although Nida also insists on accuracy and fidelity), one notices inevitably a great loss of meaning in the dropping of so
many Biblical metaphors, which, Nida insists, the reader cannot understand. P63
Distinguish semantic translation & literal translation
Definitions: 1) Interlinear translation (Nabokov’s lexical or constructional translation): the primary senses of all words in the original are translated as though out of context, and the word-order of the original is retained. The main purpose is either to understand the mechanics of the source language or to constitute a pre-translation procedure for a complicated SLtext.
2) Literal translation: the primary senses of the lexical words of the original are translated as though out of context, but the syntactic structures of the target language are respected.
The basic difference between semantic and literal translation is that the former respects context, the latter does not. Semantic translation sometimes has to interpret, even explain a metaphor, if it is meaningless in the target language. In semantic translation, the translator’s first loyalty id to his author; in literal translation, his loyalty is, on the whole, to the norms of the source language. P66
A semantic translation is not a rigid procedure: it is admittedly more objective than communicative translation, since the SL words as well as the sentences are operative as a form of control. However, the translator my be constantly exercised between the proportion od denotation and connotation in the original text, bearing in mind that in a literal text, the connotative and allegorical aspect is the most important.
Clearly much remains to be examined. The delicate relationship between aesthetic value and semantic truth requires a full-scale discussion when translation and the expressive function of language are considered. P68
Communicative translation is always concentrated on the reader, but the equivalent-effect element is in operant if the text is out of TL space and time.