纽马克的翻译理论
- 格式:doc
- 大小:152.00 KB
- 文档页数:49
简析纽马克的语义翻译和交际翻译理论纽马克的语义翻译和交际翻译理论是由纽马克(Newmark)提出的翻译理论,它是20世纪80年代翻译理论发展的重要成果。
纽马克把翻译分为语义翻译和交际翻译,以满足翻译的两个不同要求:根据语义翻译原则,翻译者应尽可能准确地传达原文的意义;根据交际翻译原则,翻译者应尽可能调整译文,使其与译文读者的文化背景和知识水平相匹配。
语义翻译原则强调保持原文的语义,以实现准确的传达。
纽马克提出,翻译应尽可能准确地传达原文的意义,翻译应尽可能保持原文的语义,而不是简单地把原文字句翻译成等值的译文字句。
因此,翻译应是一种意义的传递,而不是字面上的翻译。
在翻译过程中,翻译者要保持原文的重点和重点,以及原文中的意义,而不能只是简单地把原文字句翻译成等值的译文字句,这样会破坏原文的意义。
交际翻译原则强调调整译文,使之与译文读者的文化背景和知识水平相匹配。
纽马克认为,翻译应尽可能调整译文,使其符合读者的文化背景和知识水平,这样才能有效地传达原文的信息。
这种调整可以通过改变原文中的文体、句式、表达方式等来实现。
纽马克的语义翻译和交际翻译理论,对翻译理论发展具有重要意义。
它提出了翻译的两个不同要求:语义翻译和交际翻译,即根据语义翻译原则,翻译者应尽可能准确地传达原文的意义;根据交际翻译原则,翻译者应尽可能调整译文,使其与译文读者的文化背景和知识水平相匹配。
它的出现,被认为是翻译理论发展的一个重要里程碑,它为翻译理论的发展提供了一个新的视角,引发了翻译理论发展的新思想和新活动。
综上所述,纽马克的语义翻译和交际翻译理论对翻译理论发展具有重要意义,它提出了翻译的两个不同要求:语义翻译和交际翻译,以满足翻译的两个不同要求:根据语义翻译原则,翻译者应尽可能准确地传达原文的意义;根据交际翻译原则,翻译者应尽可能调整译文,使其与译文读者的文化背景和知识水平相匹配。
它的出现,被认为是翻译理论发展的一个重要里程碑,它为翻译理论的发展提供了一个新的视角,引发了翻译理论发展的新思想和新活动,为翻译理论发展提供了新的借鉴和参考。
彼得纽马克翻译新观念概述一、本文概述1、介绍彼得·纽马克及其在翻译领域的贡献彼得·纽马克(Peter Newmark)是当代著名的翻译理论家和实践家,他在翻译领域的贡献广泛而深远。
纽马克出生于1916年,拥有语言学和文学的背景,曾在牛津大学学习并教授语言学和翻译学。
他的学术生涯丰富多彩,不仅在大学里担任教授,还积极参与翻译实践,为翻译界提供了大量宝贵的经验和见解。
纽马克的翻译理论主要集中在语义翻译和交际翻译两个方面。
他强调翻译应该忠实于原文的语义,同时也要考虑到读者的理解和接受程度。
在他的理论中,翻译不仅仅是语言之间的转换,更是一种文化的交流和传递。
纽马克还提出了翻译的五大原则,包括翻译的准确性、清晰度、流畅性、可读性和忠实性,这些原则为后来的翻译研究和实践提供了重要的指导。
除了理论贡献,纽马克还积极参与翻译实践,翻译了众多文学作品和学术著作。
他的翻译作品既注重语言的准确性,又兼顾读者的阅读习惯,展现了其深厚的语言功底和翻译技巧。
纽马克的翻译实践为其理论提供了有力的支撑,同时也为翻译界树立了榜样。
彼得·纽马克是翻译领域的一位杰出人物,他的理论和实践成果为翻译研究和实践提供了宝贵的指导和借鉴。
他的贡献不仅体现在翻译理论的发展上,更体现在其对翻译实践的深刻理解和精湛技艺上。
2、概述文章目的和内容本文旨在全面介绍彼得·纽马克的翻译新观念,旨在帮助读者更好地理解和应用这些观念,以提高翻译质量和效果。
彼得·纽马克是翻译学领域的知名学者,他的翻译理论对翻译实践具有重要的指导意义。
本文将从纽马克的翻译理论出发,探讨其新观念的核心内容,包括翻译的本质、翻译的方法和技巧、翻译的标准和评价等方面。
通过深入剖析这些观念,本文旨在帮助读者建立正确的翻译观念,提高翻译能力,为翻译事业的发展做出贡献。
文章内容将围绕彼得·纽马克的翻译新观念展开,首先介绍其理论背景和发展历程,然后重点阐述其新观念的核心内容。
简析纽马克的语义翻译和交际翻译理论一、本文概述本文旨在深入简析纽马克(Nida Eugene Albert Nida)的语义翻译和交际翻译理论,探讨其在翻译实践中的应用与影响。
纽马克是西方翻译理论界的杰出代表,其提出的语义翻译和交际翻译理论对翻译学研究产生了深远影响。
本文首先将对纽马克的理论进行概述,介绍其基本概念和核心思想。
随后,文章将详细分析语义翻译和交际翻译的特点、优势与局限,以及两者在实际翻译操作中的平衡与选择。
本文还将通过具体案例,探讨纽马克理论在文学、商务、法律等领域翻译实践中的应用,以期对翻译实践提供有益指导。
文章将总结纽马克理论对翻译学的贡献,并展望其未来的发展趋势。
通过本文的论述,读者将能够更全面地了解纽马克的语义翻译和交际翻译理论,为翻译实践提供理论支持和实践指导。
二、纽马克的翻译理论背景纽马克(Eugene A. Nida)是20世纪最著名的翻译理论家和实践者之一,他以其独特的翻译理论和方法在翻译界产生了深远的影响。
他的翻译理论主要基于两个核心概念:语义翻译(semantictranslation)和交际翻译(communicative translation)。
这两个概念不仅为翻译实践提供了指导,也为翻译理论研究开辟了新的路径。
纽马克的翻译理论背景可以追溯到他对语言学、语用学和跨文化交际学的深入研究。
他认为,翻译不仅仅是语言之间的转换,更是一种跨文化交际行为。
因此,翻译者不仅要关注语言的准确性,还要考虑读者的文化背景和接受能力。
在这一思想指导下,他提出了语义翻译和交际翻译两种翻译方法。
语义翻译强调保持原文的语义内容和句法结构,尽可能传达原文的语境意义。
这种翻译方法适用于那些重视原文形式、结构和修辞的文本,如文学作品、科技论文等。
而交际翻译则更注重译文的可读性和可接受性,旨在使译文读者能够像原文读者一样理解和欣赏原文。
这种翻译方法适用于那些以信息传递和沟通为主要目的的文本,如新闻报道、广告、公文等。
奈达与纽马克翻译理论比较一、本文概述本文旨在深入比较和分析奈达(Eugene Nida)与纽马克(Newmark)的翻译理论,揭示两者在翻译理念、方法和实践上的异同。
奈达和纽马克都是翻译领域的杰出学者,他们的理论对现代翻译实践产生了深远的影响。
奈达以其“动态对等”理论著称,强调翻译应以读者为中心,追求原文和译文在语义和风格上的对等。
而纽马克则提出了“语义翻译”和“交际翻译”的概念,主张根据文本类型和翻译目的选择合适的翻译方法。
本文首先概述奈达和纽马克的主要翻译理论,包括其核心理念、关键术语和具体应用。
通过对比分析,揭示两者在翻译理论上的共性和差异,探讨这些差异如何影响翻译实践。
本文还将评估这两种理论在现代翻译实践中的适用性,并探讨其未来发展方向。
通过本文的比较研究,读者能够更全面地了解奈达和纽马克的翻译理论,理解它们在现代翻译实践中的价值,并为今后的翻译研究和实践提供有益的启示。
二、奈达翻译理论概述奈达(Eugene Nida)是当代西方翻译理论界极具影响力的人物,他提出的翻译理论被誉为“功能对等”或“动态对等”理论。
奈达的翻译理论主要基于两个核心概念:形式对等(formal equivalence)和动态对等(dynamic equivalence)。
形式对等,也被称为字面对等,指的是译文尽可能地复制原文的语言形式,包括词汇、语法、句子结构等。
奈达认为,这种对等方式主要适用于那些具有重大历史、文化和文学价值的文献翻译,因为这些文献的语言形式本身就是其意义的重要组成部分。
然而,奈达更加强调的是动态对等,也就是译文应该在传达原文语义和风格上达到对等,而不是在语言形式上。
他认为,翻译的主要目的是使译文读者能够像原文读者一样理解和欣赏原文,因此,翻译过程中应当考虑到译文读者的语言习惯和文化背景。
为了实现动态对等,奈达提倡译者在翻译过程中进行适当的调整和重构,包括词汇选择、句子结构、修辞手法等方面的调整。
纽马克论交际翻译与语义翻译一、本文概述《纽马克论交际翻译与语义翻译》这篇文章主要探讨了纽马克提出的两种翻译方法:交际翻译和语义翻译。
纽马克是20世纪著名的翻译理论家和实践家,他在其著作《翻译问题探讨》中详细阐述了这两种翻译方法的核心思想和应用。
本文旨在概述纽马克的交际翻译与语义翻译理论,分析它们的定义、特点、应用及其在翻译实践中的意义。
本文将介绍纽马克的翻译理论背景及其在翻译领域的贡献。
然后,详细阐述交际翻译和语义翻译的定义和特点,包括它们的区别和联系。
接着,通过具体案例分析,探讨这两种翻译方法在实际翻译过程中的应用,以及它们在处理不同文本类型和语言风格时的优势和局限性。
总结纽马克的交际翻译与语义翻译理论对翻译实践和翻译研究的启示和影响。
通过对纽马克的交际翻译与语义翻译理论的深入剖析,本文旨在帮助读者更好地理解这两种翻译方法的内涵和应用,提高翻译实践的质量和效率。
本文也旨在为翻译研究和教学提供有益的参考和启示,推动翻译学科的发展和进步。
二、交际翻译与语义翻译的定义与特点纽马克(Nida)的交际翻译和语义翻译理论是翻译研究中的重要理论之一。
这两种翻译方法各有其独特的定义和特点,对于理解和处理不同类型的文本具有重要的指导意义。
交际翻译,顾名思义,强调的是翻译过程中的交际效果。
纽马克认为,交际翻译的主要目标是使译文读者能够像原文读者一样理解和欣赏原文,即实现原文的交际功能。
因此,在交际翻译中,译者需要充分考虑到译文读者的文化背景、语言习惯等因素,对原文进行适当的调整和改写,以确保译文的流畅性和自然性。
这种翻译方法通常适用于那些以信息传递为主要功能的文本,如新闻报道、科技论文、广告等。
与交际翻译不同,语义翻译则更加注重原文的语义内容和形式。
纽马克认为,语义翻译的主要目标是尽可能保留原文的语义信息,包括词汇、语法、修辞等方面的特点。
在语义翻译中,译者需要尽可能准确地传达原文的语义内涵,而不是追求译文的流畅性和自然性。
纽马克的翻译理论Chapter 2Peter NewmarkSemantic and Communicative Translation Guided ReadingPeter Newmark (1916) is an accomplished translation scholar as well as an experienced translator. He has translated a number of books and articles and published extaensively on translation. His publications on translation include Approaches to Translation (1981), AboutTranslation(1983), Paragraphs on Translation段落翻译(1985), A Textbook of Translation翻译教程(1988), andMore Paragraphs on Translation(1993).In his work Approaches to Translation, Newmark proposes two types of translation: semantic translation语义翻译 andcommunicative translation交际翻译. Semantic translationfocuses primarily upon the semantic content of the source text whereas communicative translation focuses essentially upon the comprehension and response of receptors. This distinction results from his disapproval of Nida's assumption假定,假设,设想;假装;承担,担任 that all translating is communicating,and the overriding最主要的,最优先的 principle of anytranslation is to achieve "equivalent effect". For Newmark, the success of equivalent effect is "illusory", and that "the conflictof loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target languages will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice"(1981:38). To narrow the gap,Newmark 系统地阐述,确切地表达;规划,构想出formulateshis concepts of "communicative translation" and "semantic translation", which in a sense从某种意义上说 are similar to Nida's "dynamic equivalent translation" and "formal equivalent translation". Newmarks admits "communicative translation" is a common method and could be used in many types of translation. Nevertheless, he justifies证明……正当/有理,为……辩护 thelegitimacy合法性,正当;合理性,妥当;嫡出,正统 of"semantic translation" in the following three aspects. Firstly, all translations depend on the three 一分为二,二分法;本质对立dichotomies, namely, the foreign and native cultures, the two languages, the writer and the translator. Hence, it is unlikely to have a universal theory that could include all these factors. Secondly, previous discussions on methods of translation, either Nida's "dynamic equivalence" or Nabokow's "literal translation", does not reflect the actual reality of translation method, for each of them either recommends one or 贬低,轻视disparages theother. Thirdly, the social factors, especially the readers of the second language, only play a partial部分的;偏爱/袒/心的 role 发挥部分作用 in translation. Some texts, such as an expressive one, require a "semantic translation"(1981:62). It can be seen that可以看出by proposing the coexistence of "communicative translation" and "semantic translation", Newmark suggests a correlation相互关系,关联;相关性 between translationmethod and text type.It should be pointed out that应该指出的是 Newmark'ssemantic translation differs from literal translation直译 because the former "respects context", interprets and even explains whilethe latter sticks very closely to source text at word and syntaxlevel(1981:62). Literal translation, however, is held to be the best approach in both semantic and communicative translation, "provided that 如果 equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation"(1981:39). Here Newmark seems to only take account of考虑到,顾及,体谅 literary translation ratherthan non-literary translation, which is often rendered more freelyin order to communicate the meaning. But he also states that when there is a conflict between semantic andcommunicative translation, the latter would win out胜出. Forinstance, it is better to render communicatively the public sign公共标志 bissiger Hund and chien mechant into beward thedog! in order to communicate efficiently the message, but not semantically as dog that bites! and bad dog!(1981:39). Nevertheless, it is difficult for a translator to follow Newmark's translation methods in practice, which should be adopted flexibly according to the specificcontext and text type. A Textbook of Translation is an expansion and a revision of Approaches to Translation in many aspects在很多方面. Inthisbook, Newmark, follwing the German linguist Karl Buhler's functional theory of language, proposes three main types of texts (i.e. expressive 有表现力的,富有表情的, informative提供大量资料或信息的,授予知识的 and vocative呼格的) as well asmethods of translating them (Chapters 4 and 5). Although he lists many translation methods from word-for-word translation to adaptation, he insists that "only semantic and communicative translation fulfill the two main aims of translation, which are first, accuracy, and second, economy". While semantic translation is used for expressive texts, communicative translation is for informative and vocative texts although he admits that few texts are purely expressive, informative or vocative. By stressing the wide applicability of these two translation methods, Newmark seems to overlook the function of other translation methods frequently adopted in translationpractice.Newmark's semantic and communicative translation ahve been quoted frequently among translation scholars. His concern about the coexistence of semantic and communicative translation shows that in his view effect-oriented translation以效果为导向的翻译 such as Nida's dynamic equivalence should not be overstressed in translation practice, but is just one type of translation. Newmark'stypes of translation, however, are less influential than Nida's dynamic equivalence in the field oftranslation studies because they "raise some of the same points concerning the translation process and the importance of the TT reader译文读者" (Munday 2000:46). Further, his views andcomments are still very traditional and prescriptive规定的,指定的,规范的, bearing some traces of traditional translation theories. The strength of his writing lies in that his discussion on translation covers a wide range of topics, and he always provides useful advice and guidance for translator 接受训练的人,实习生,培训生trainees with a large number of interesting and useful examples, which are more convincing than abstract theoretical arguments抽象的理论论证. The following excerptis selected from Chapter 3 of Newmark's Approaches to Translation.In this chapter he 假定,要求postulates his twomain methods of translation (i.e. Semantic and communicative translation), and tries to apply them into different types of text. Communicative and Semantic Translation 1. A translation must give the words of the original. 2. A translation must give the ideas of the original. 3. A translation should read like an original work.4. A translation should read like a translation.5. A translation should reflect the style of the original.6. A translation should possess the style of the translation.7. Atranslation should read as a contemporary of the original. 8. Atranslation should read as a contemporary of the translation. 9. A translation may add to or omit from the original. 10. A translation may never add to or omit from the original. 11. A translation of verse should be in prose.12. A translation of verse should be in verse.(The Air of Translation, T.H. Savory, Cape, 1968, p.54) In the pre-linguistics period of writing on translation, which may be said to date from Cicero through St. Jerome, Luther, Dryden, Tytler, Herder, Goethe, Schleiermacher, Buber, Ortega y Gasset, not to say Savory, opinion swung between literal and free, faithful and beautiful, exact and natural translation, depending on whether the bias was to be in favour of赞成the author orthe reader, the source or the target language of the text. Up to the nineteenth century, literal translation represented a philological语言学的,文献的,文学的 academic exercise语言学学术活动 from which the cultural reformers文化改革者were trying to rescue literature. In the nineteenth century, a more scientific approach was brought to bear on对……有影响,和……有关 translation, suggesting that certain types of texts must be accurately translated, while others should and could not betranslated at all! Since the rise of modern linguistics (philology语言学 was becoming linguistics语言学 here in thelate fifties), and anticipated by预计到 Tytler in 1790, Larbaud,Belloc, Knox and Rieu, the general emphasis, supported by communication-theorists as well as by non-literary translators, has been placed on the reader---on informing the reader effectively and appropriately, notably显著地,明显地;尤其,特别 in Nida, Firth, Koller and the Leipzig School. In contrast相反, the brilliant essays of Benjamin, Valery and Nabokov (anticipated by Croce and Ortega y Gasset) advocating literal translation have appeared as isolated孤立的,被隔离的,paradoxical phenomena自相矛盾的现象, relevant only to与……有关 translating works of high literary culture. Koller (1972) has stated that the equivalent-effect principle oftranslation is tending to rule out把……排除在外,排除……的可能性;不把……考虑在内 all others, particularly thepredominance of any formal elements such as word or structure. The apparent triumph of the "consumer" is, I think, illusory. The conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphsis on source and target language will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice. However, the gap could perhaps be narrowed if the previous terms were replaced as follows:SOURCE LANGUAGE BIAS TARGET LANGUAGEBIASLITERAL FREEFAITHFUL IDIOMATICSEMANTIC / COMMUNICATIVECommunicative translation attempts to produce on its readers aneffect 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造句法的,句子结构的 structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual上下文的,前后关系上的 meaning of the original.In theory, there are wide differences between the two methods. Communicative translation addresses 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 within the original culture and assists the reader only in its 言外之意,涵意connotations ifthey constitute组/构/形成;设立,建立,任命 the essentialhuman (non-ethnic种族的,民族的,部落的) message of thetext. One basic difference between the two methods is that where there is a conflict, the communicative must emphasize the "force" rather than the content of the message. Thus for Bissige Hund or Chien mechant, the communicative translation Beware of the dog! Is mandatory命令的;义务的,强制的; the semantictranslations ("dog that bite", "savage dog") would be more informative but less effective. Generally, a communicative translationis likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional依照惯例的,符合习俗的,因循守旧的;常规的, conforming to a particular register语域(在特定社交场合或专业领域中人们使用的词汇) 语法等的范围) oflanguage, tending to (与名)在……下面/之下;级别低于,隶属于(与形、动)不足under-translate, i.e.即,换而言之,也就是 To use more generic类的,属的;一般的,通用的,hold-all terms in difficult passages. A semantic translation tends to be more complex, more awkward不灵活的,笨拙的, moredetailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes思考过程 rather than the intention of the transmitter传送/递者;传输者;传播者;发射机,发射台. It tends to over-translate,to be more specific than the original, to include more meanings in its search for one nuance意义上的细微差别 of meaning.However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect in 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 "同义词synonyms", let alone v.&n.释义,意译,改述paraphrases, in anytype of translation.Conversely相反地, both semantic and communicativetranslation comply with遵照,服从 the usually acceptedsyntactic造句法的,句子结构的 equivalents (Vinay andDarbelnet's "transpositions") for the two languages in question正在谈论的. Thus, by both methods, a sentence such as "II traversa la Manche en nageant" would normally be translated as "He swam across the Channel". In semantic, but not communicative translation, any deviation背离,偏离;偏差;离题 from SL 文体规范stylistic norms规范,标准 would bereflected in an equally wide deviation from the TL norms, but where such norms clash, the deviations are not easy to formulate构想出,规划;系统地阐述,确切地表达, and the translator hasto show a certain tension between the writer's manner and the 强迫,强制;冲动,欲望compulsions of the target language.Thus when the writer uses long complex sentences in a language where the sentence in a "literary" (carefully worked) style is usually complex and longer than in the TL, the translator may reduce the sentences somewhat, compromising between the norms of the two languages and the writer. If in doubt, however, he should trust the writer, not the "language", which is a sum of abstractions抽象的总和. A semantic translation is concrete.Thus when faced with:此处略去一段法语。