mark翻譯理論專業(yè)知識(shí)課件

PeterNewmark1.philosophicalfoundation2.theoreticaldevelopment3.distinctionbetweenNewmarkandNidathe8translationmethodsReferencesDataanalysisTableofcontents1.ThephilosophicalfoundationofNewmark’sthinkingontranslationPhilosophyisafundamentalissueintranslationtheory.(Newmark,1981:6).TheAmericanphilosopherC.S.Peirce,thefounderofsemiotics,forcommunicativetranslationThemeaningofasignconsistsofalltheeffectsthatmayconceivablyhavepracticalbearingsonaparticularinterpretant,andwhichwillvaryinaccordancewiththeinterpretant.(Newmark,1981:5)theBritishphilosopherJ.Austin’sdistinctionbetweenconstativeandperformativesentencesTranslationisacraftconsistingintheattempttoreplaceawrittenmessageand/orstatementinonelanguagebythesamemessageand/orstatementinanotherlanguage.(Newmark,1981:7)OneofthebasicdifferencesbetweenS-TandC-Tisonconstativeandperformative.(Newmark,1981:23)2.Newmark’stheoreticaldevelopmentSLbias

TLbias

literal

free

faithful

idiomatic

semantic/communicative

(Newmark,1981:39)SLemphasis

TLemphasis

word-for-word

adaptation

literal

free

faithful

idiomatic

semantic/communicative

(Newmark,1988:45)The8translationmethodsWord-for-wordtranslationThisisoftendemonstratedasinterlineartranslation,withtheTLimmediatelybelowtheSLwords.TheSLword-orderispreservedandthewordstranslatedsinglybytheirmostcommonmeaning,outofcontext.Culturalwordsaretranslatedliterally.Themainuseofaword-for-wordtranslationiseithertounderstandthemechanicsofthesourcelanguageortoconstrueadifficulttextasapre-translationprocess.LiteraltranslationTheSLgrammaticalconstructionsareconvertedtotheirnearestTLequivalentsbutthelexicalwordsareagaintranslatedsingly,outofcontext.Asapre-translationprocess,thisindicatestheproblemstobesolved.FaithfultranslationAfaithfultranslationattemptstoreproducetheprecisecontextualmeaningoftheoriginalwithintheconstraintsoftheTLgrammaticalstructures.It‘transfers’culturalwordsandpreservesthedegreeofgrammaticalandlexical‘a(chǎn)bnormality’(deviationfromSLnorms)inthetranslation.Itattemptstobecompletelyfaithfultotheintentionsandthetext-realizationoftheSLwriter.SemantictranslationSemantictranslationdiffersfrom‘faithfultranslation’onlyinasfarasitmusttakemoreaccountoftheaestheticvalue(thatis,thebeautifulandnaturalsound)oftheSLtext,compromisingon‘meaning’whereappropriatesothatnoassonance,word-playorrepetitionjarsinthefinishedversion.Further,itmaytranslatelessimportantculturalwordsbyculturallyneutralthirdorfunctionaltermsbutnotbyculturalequivalentanditmaymakeothersmallconcessionstothereadership.Thedistinctionbetween‘faithful’and‘semantic’translationisthatthefirstisuncompromisinganddogmatic,whilethesecondismoreflexible,admitsthecreativeexceptionto100%fidelityandallowsforthetranslator’sintuitiveempathywiththeoriginal.AdaptationThisisthe‘freeest’formoftranslation.Itisusedmainlyforplays(comedies)andpoetry;thethemes,characters,plotsareusuallypreserved,theSLcultureconvertedtotheTLcultureandthetextrewritten.Thedeplorablepracticeofhavingaplayorpoemliterallytranslatedandthenrewrittenbyanestablisheddramatistorpoethasproducedmanypooradaptations,butotheradaptationshave‘rescued’periodplays.FreetranslationFreetranslationreproducesthematterwithoutthemanner,orthecontentwithouttheformoftheoriginal.Usuallyitisaparaphrasemuchlongerthantheoriginalso-called‘intralingualtranslation’,oftenprolixandpretentious,andnottranslationatall.IdiomatictranslationIdiomatictranslationreproducesthe‘message’oftheoriginalbuttendstodistortnuancesofmeaningbypreferringcolloquialismsandidiomswherethesedonotexistintheoriginal.(AuthoritiesasdiverseasSeleskovitchandStuartGilberttendtothisformoflively,‘natural’translation.)CommunicativetranslationCommunicativetranslationattemptstorendertheexactcontextualmeaningoftheoriginalinsuchawaythatbothcontentandlanguagearereadilyacceptableandcomprehensibletothereadership.Theapparenttriumphofthe‘consumer’is,Ithink,illusory.Theconflictofloyalties,thegapbetweenemphasisonsourceandtargetlanguagewillalwaysremainastheoverridingproblemintranslationtheoryandpractice.’(Newmark:1981:38).ThepurposeofthechangeinthisperiodistonarrowdownthegapbetweenSLandTLorientationbymovingdownoneleveltowardstheconvergingtipoftheVdiagram.In1981,Newmark’sdefinitionofS-T:S-T=torender,ascloselyasthesemanticandsyntacticstructuresofthesecondlanguageallow,theexactcontextualmeaningoftheoriginal.

In1988,hegavetheabovedefinitiontofaithfultranslationandaddedonemoreelementtoS-T:S-T=thecontextualmeaningandaestheticvalueoftheoriginalinTL’smeaningandstructureIn1981,NewmarkdefinedC-Tas:C-T=toproduceonitsreadersaneffectascloseaspossibletothatobtainedonthereadersoftheoriginal

In1988,hegaveup‘effect’andredefinedC-Tas:C-T=torendertheexactcontextualmeaningoftheoriginalinsuchawaythatbothcontentandlanguagearereadilyacceptableandcomprehensibletothereadership.

The1stchangefrom1981to1988ThedifferencebetweenS-TandC-TSemantictranslationCommunicativetranslationFocusoftranslatingMeaning(p23)Message(p23)Translator’sLoyaltyAuthor(p23)/transmitter(p43)Reader(p23)/receptors(p43)QualityoftranslationInferiortotheoriginal(p42)Better(p42),moreeffectiveandmoreelegant(p48)thantheoriginalLicenseoftranslatorCorrectionsandimprovementinadmissible(p42)EntitledtorefinetheTT(p42)AimoftranslatingFortruth,i.e.,anexactstatement(p42)Forasuccessfulact(p42)TranslationUnitSmall(wordorseme)(p44)Large(clauseorsentence)(p44)LastingperiodLong(outoftimeandlocalspace,buthastobedoneeverygeneration)(p47)Ephemeralandrootedinitscontext(p47)TextgenresPhilosophical,religious,political,scientific,technical,literary,(p44);autobiography,privatecorrespondence,anypersonaleffusion(p53)wheremannerandmatterarefusedNon-literary,journalism,informativearticlesandbooks,textbooks,reports,scientificandtechwriting,non-personalcorrespondence,propaganda,publicity,publicnotices,standardizedwriting,popularfiction(p44)IntendedreceptorWideanduniversal,toallreaders(p48)Narrow,‘tailor-made’foronecategoryofreadership(p48)NatureofthemethodArt(p53)Craft(p53)PhilosophicalsignificancePursuesthought-process(p39)Relatedtothought(p60)Pursuesintentionofthetransmitter(p39)Relatedtospeech(p60)The2ndchangefrom1988to1991Replacethefunctionsoflanguagewithtwocorrelationsandarider(Newmark,1991:1-2):布拉格學(xué)派雅科布遜(Jakobson)提出旳語(yǔ)言具有“體現(xiàn)功能”(theexpressivefunction),“信息功能”(theinformativefunction)和“呼喚功能”(thevocativefunction，或稱“誘導(dǎo)功能”)這三大交際功能旳觀點(diǎn)，expressivetext:seriousimaginativeliterature、authoritativestatements、autobiography、personalcorrespondence;informativetext:scientific,technological，commercial，industry，economictextbook,report,paper,article,memo,minutesvocativetext:notices、instructions、propaganda,publicity、popularFiction(calluponpeopletoact,tothink,tofeel)

Themoreimportantthelanguageofatext,themorecloselyitshouldbetranslated.(S-T)thelessimportantthelanguageofatextoranyunitoftextatanyrank,thelesscloselythattooneedbetranslated,andthereforeitmaybereplacedbytheappropriatenormalsociallanguage.(C-T)thebetterwrittenaunitofthetext,themorecloselyittooshouldbetranslated,whateveritsdegreeofimportance,providedthereisidentityofpurposebetweenauthorandtranslator,aswellasasimilartypeofreadership.(S-T)Thepurposeistrytoeliminatethedivisionbetweenthethreelanguagefunctions.3DistinctionbetweenNidaand

NewmarkCriticism:theirpropositionsaresame.ThisdescriptionofC-TresemblesNida’sdynamicequivalenceintheeffectitistryingtocreateontheTTreader,whileS-ThassimilaritiestoNida’sformalequivalence’(Mundy,2023:44).Newmark’sdissatisfactionwithNida’stheory4typesoftextsforwhichtheeffectcannotberealized:(1)non-literarytextwithlanguagepeculiarity;(2)non-literarytextrelatingtothepeculiarityofaculture;(3)artisticworkwithastronglocalflavor;(4)artisticworkforself-relief(Newmark:1981:10-12).①Newmark’stranslatingmethodsarelanguagefunction-orientedwhereasNida’sarereader-centered.ForNewmark,differentSTtypesrequirecorrespondingtranslationmethods,withone-to-onerelationshipbetweenSTandTT.ForNida,asameSTisaddressedtodifferentreadershipsandconsequentlyhasdifferentTLversions.②ThegapbetweenS-TandC-TisnarrowerthanthatbetweenF-EandD-E.③WhileNidatreatsmeaningandformseparately,Newmarkregardsthemasanintegralwhole.WhileNidamakesitclearlythat‘topreservethecontentofthemessagetheformmustbechanged.’(Nida,1969:5),Newmarkalwaysemphasizesinhistranslationmethod‘thesemanticandsyntacticstructuresofthesecondlanguageallow’.④

Theytreatmeaningdifferently.Nida:connotativemeaningandreferentialmeaningincludingobjects,events,abstractsandrelationsNewmark’sObsessionofMeaningMeaningiscomplicated,many-leveled,a‘networkofrelations’.…Amessageisonlyapartofacompletemeaning.(Newmark,1981:51)cognitiveMeaningassociativecommunicativeLinguisticreferentialimplicitthematicIllocutionaryperformativeinferentialprognosticVarietiesofMeaningBesides,meaningisrelatedtowriter’sbackground,culture(materialorideological),situation(formality,generality,objectivity),language(literal,figurative,expressive,informative,persuasiveorimperative,sound).(Newmark,1991:31)References:Munday,Jeremy.IntroducingTranslationStudies:TheoriesandApplications.London&NewYork:Routledge,2023.Newmark,Peter,ApproachestoTranslation,Oxford:PergamonPress,1981.Newmark,Peter.ATextbookofTranslation.London:PrenticeHall,1988.Newmark,Peter.AboutTranslation.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters,1991Nida,E.A.TowardaScienceofTranslating.Leiden:E.J.