Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Newmark: semantic & communicative translation

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Newmark: semantic & communicative translation"— Presentation transcript:

1 Newmark: semantic & communicative translation

2 Notable Opinions 1. The success of equivalent effect is ‘illusory’
2. The most crucial problem in translation theory and practice will always be: ‘the conflict of loyalties’ and ‘the gap between emphasis on source and target language’ The solution? Newmark suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of ‘semantic’ and ‘communicative’ translation:

3 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. (Newmark 1981: 39)

4 Newmark’s Translations vs. Nida’s Equivalence:
1. This description of communicative translation resembles Nida’s dynamic equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on the TT reader. 2. Newmark’s semantic translation is similar to Nida’s formal equivalence. However, Newmark distances himself from the full principle of equivalent effect in one case: ‘if the text is out of TL space and time’. He explains by stating that the effect becomes ‘inoperant’.

5 NOTES: 1. Newmark states that semantic translation differs from literal translation in that it ‘respects context’, interprets and even explains (metaphors, for instance). 2. Literal translation is the best approach in both semantic and communicative translation:

6 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 (Newmark 1981: 39)

7 3. 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. Example: beware the dog! vs. dog that bites! and bad dog! communicative vs. semantic FOR A COMPARISON OF NEWMARK’S SEMANTIC AND COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION, REFER TO TEXTBOOK P.45.


Download ppt "Newmark: semantic & communicative translation"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google