SEMANTIC AND COMMUNICATIVE

TRANSLATION

By: Hafiz Haseeb

GC University Faisalabad
hhh_949@yahoo.com
(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  