Creat App Theo EN 2

Overview Page of Appropriateness Theory

30 Chapters（0/30)

Creat_App_Theo_EN_1 Creat_App_Theo_EN_2 Creat_App_Theo_EN_3 Creat_App_Theo_EN_4 Creat_App_Theo_EN_5 Creat_App_Theo_EN_6 Creat_App_Theo_EN_7 Creat_App_Theo_EN_8 Creat_App_Theo_EN_9 Creat_App_Theo_EN_10 Creat_App_Theo_EN_11 Creat_App_Theo_EN_12 Creat_App_Theo_EN_13 Creat_App_Theo_EN_14 Creat_App_Theo_EN_15 Creat_App_Theo_EN_16 Creat_App_Theo_EN_17 Creat_App_Theo_EN_18 Creat_App_Theo_EN_19 Creat_App_Theo_EN_20 Creat_App_Theo_EN_21 Creat_App_Theo_EN_22 Creat_App_Theo_EN_23 Creat_App_Theo_EN_24 Creat_App_Theo_EN_25 Creat_App_Theo_EN_26 Creat_App_Theo_EN_27 Creat_App_Theo_EN_28 Creat_App_Theo_EN_29 Creat_App_Theo_EN_30 ...

Back to translation project overview

Revisiting Newmark's Theory of Translation: To What Extent Is It Appropriate?

Asep Budiman, Student no. 202111080020

Abstract

One of the main problems of translating has often been whether to translate literally or freely. This dispute has been going on since at least the first century BC. Up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, many writers favored some kind of "free" translation: the spirit, not the letter; the sense not the words; the message rather than the form; the matter not the manner. This was the revolutionary slogan of writers who wanted the truth to be read and comprehended. At the twentieth century, when the study of cultural anthropology suggested that the linguistic barriers were insuperable and that language was entirely the product of culture, the translation must be as literal as possible. This resulted in confusion among translators when translating a text, not until they were illuminated by Peter Newmark’s Approaches to Translation. Newmark's idea has been widely used on translator training courses and combine a wealth of practical examples of linguistic theories of meaning with practical applications for translation. However, in this twenty-first century where translation becomes more complex (e.g. political agenda), Newmark's theory seems to have deficiency as it does not pay attention to the role of the translators. Therefore, the translation theory needs to be broadened to take account of the value-driven of the socio-cultural framework. The aim of the present paper is to provide a critical evaluation of Newmark's theory of translation and to suggest a new theory. It is concluded that the Newmark's theory lacks some important criteria to really reach appropriate translation in some cases. Finally, the "Appropriateness Theory" proposed by Woesler (2021) comes to perfect the previous theories and to meet the demands of this twenty-first century translation.

Key words

Newmark's translation theory, 21st century translation, appropriateness theory

Introduction

Peter Newmark is one of the most influential theorists of translation. He is also one of the founders of the Institute of Linguists and a fervent advocate for the professionalization of translators (Panou, 2013). Newmark was once professor of Translation and dean of the School of Modern Languages at the Royal Polytechnic Institution (now the University of Westminster). He taught the theory and practice of translation between German and English, and later taught at the University of Surrey. His opinions on translation theory were mostly reflected in papers published between the 1970s and 1990s, some of which were compiled into collections.

Approaches to Translation, his most important work, was published in 1981, some of his other works includes About Translation, 1991, Paragraphs on translation, 1993, More paragraphs on Translation, 1998 and A Textbook of Translation, 1988. Newmark’s works involve a wide range of problems, and their contents are numerous and complex. Newmark devoted himself to studying the past and present of Western translation. By describing the ideas of various schools, he extensively discussed the relationship between translation and other disciplines, putting forward his own views on this basis (Munday 2016,71).

Newmark's works do not aim to promote any monolithic translation theory but rather attempt to describe a basis for dealing with problems encountered during the translation process. More specifically, Newmark replaces Nida's terms of formal and dynamic equivalence with semantic and communicative translation respectively. The major difference between the two types of translation proposed by Newmark is that semantic translation focuses on meaning whereas communicative translation concentrates on effect. In other words, semantic translation looks back at the Source Language (SL) and tries to retain its characteristics as much as possible. Its nature is more complex, detailed and there is also a tendency to over-translate. On the other hand, communicative translation looks towards the needs of the addressees, thus trying to satisfy them as much as possible (Pym 2014, 93). In this respect, communicative translation tends to under-translate; to be smoother, more direct and easier to read. Hence, in semantic translation a great emphasis is placed on the author of the original text whereas communicative translation is meant to serve a larger readership. It should be pointed out that during the translation process, communicative translation need not be employed exclusively over semantic or vice versa. It may well be the case in a literary text that a particular sentence requires communicative translation whereas another sentence from the same text may require a semantic one. Therefore, the two methods of translation may be used in parallel, with varying focuses where each is employed.

1. Newmark's Semantic and Communicative Translation

Peter Newmark (1916–2011) tackled the notion of equivalence by asking if a translation should try to remain as close as possible to the source language or if it should, instead, aim to be free and idiomatic. He called these two approaches semantic translation and communicative translation respectively.

1.1 Semantic Translation

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 sounds of the Source Language (SL) text, compromising on "meaning" where appropriate so that no assonance, word-play or repetition jars in the finished version. Further, it may translate less important cultural words by culturally neutral third or functional terms but not by cultural equivalents. The distinction between "faithful" and "semantic" translation is that the first is uncompromising and dogmatic, while the second is more flexible, admits the creative exception to 100% fidelity and allows for the translator's intuitive empathy with the original (Newmark 1988, 46). The semantic kind of translation would look back to the formal values of the start text and retain them as much as possible.

It is readable but remains with the original culture and assists the reader only in its connotations if they constitute the essential message of the text. It tends to be more complex, more awkward, more detailed, and tends to over-translate, that is more specific than the original in transferring nuances of meaning. Semantic translation relates to the word or the word-group (Newmark 1981, 60).

This is the sample of the semantic translation:

(German) bissiger hund and (French) chien méchant

would be translated into:

(English) dog that bites or savage dog

(French) défense de marchér sur le gazon

would be translated into:

(English) walking on the turf is forbidden or It is forbidden to walk on the turf. (Newmark 1977, 178)

(Chinese) 我家有四口人.

would be translated into:

(English) My family has four people.

1.2 Communicative Translation

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). It must emphasize the force rather than the content of the message. It is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, tending to under-translate, that means using more generic terms in difficult passages. Communicative translation relates to the sentence (Newmark 1981, 60).

The communicative translation would look forward to the needs of the new addressee, adapting to their needs as much as necessary. Newmark’s preferences tend to lie on the "semantic" side, especially with respect to what he terms "authoritative texts". In theory, however, translators can choose whether to render one aspect or another. There is no necessary assumption of just one "natural" equivalent, and the result is a generally directional theory.

Here is the sample of the communicative translation:

(German) bissiger hund and (French) chien méchant

would be translated into:

(English) beware of the dog!

(French) défense de marchér sur le gazon

would be simply translated into:

(English) keep off the grass (Newmark 1977, 178)

(Chinese) 我家有四口人.

would be translated into:

(English) There are four people in my family.

2. Discussion of Newmark's Work

The description of communicative translation looks like Nida's dynamic equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on the TL reader, while semantic translation has been almost the same as Nida's formal equivalence. Nevertheless, Newmark distances himself from the full principle of equivalent effect, since that effect "is inoperative if the text is out of TL space and time" (Newmark 1981, 69). An example would be a modern British English translation of Homer. No modern translator, irrespective of the TL, can possibly hope or expect to produce the same effect on the reader of the written TL as the oral SL had on its listeners in ancient Greece. Newmark (1981, 51) also raises further questions concerning the readers to whom Nida directs his dynamic equivalence, asking if they are "to be handed everything on a plate", with everything explained for them.

Newmark indicates that semantic translation differs from literal translation in that it "respects context", interprets and even explains (metaphors, for instance). On the opposite, literal translation means word-for-word in its extreme version and, even in its weaker form, sticks very closely to ST lexis and syntax. Importantly, as long as equivalent effect is achieved, Newmark holds literal translation to be the best approach. 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).

The comparison of Newmark's semantic and communicative translation can be seen in the following table:

Although Newmark's idea has been widely used on translator training courses and combines a wealth of practical examples of linguistic theories of meaning with practical applications for translation, his terms semantic translation and communicative translation have generally received far less discussion than 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 target text reader. One of the difficulties encountered by translation studies in systematically following up advances in theory may indeed be partly attributable to the overabundance of terminology. Newmark himself, for instance, defines Juliane House's pair of "overt" and "covert" translation in terms of his own semantic and communicative translation (Newmark 1981, 52) and considers communicative translation to be "identical" to Nida's functional or dynamic equivalence (Newmark 2009, 30).

Newmark has been criticized for his strong prescriptivism, and the language of his evaluations still bears traces of what he himself called the "pre-linguistics era" of translation studies: translations are "smooth" or "awkward", while translation itself is an "art" (if semantic) or a "craft" (if communicative) (Munday 2016, 73). Nevertheless, the large number of examples in Newmark's work provide ample guidance and advice for the trainee, and many of the questions he tackles are of important practical relevance to translation. It should also be noted that in his later discourse, he emphasized the aesthetic principles of writing, the difference between "social, non-literary" and "authoritative and serious" translation and an ethical and truth-seeking function for translation.

In addition, Newmark mentions appropriateness (see the table above) as the parameter of semantic and communicative translation, but unfortunately it limits only on the levels of content, semantics, grammar, situation of the principal, translator, and reader. In fact, this twenty-first century translation demands beyond those levels. It is stated by Woesler (2021, 3) that the translation concern should be broadened to the human yardsticks, that is to say human dignity and ethics come into play. Not to say that Newmark doesn't concern about ethics at all in translation. He indeed mentions it, but unfortunately there is no practical guidelines on how ethics have role in translation.

3. Appropriateness Theory

3.1 The Principle of Appropriateness Theory

"Appropriateness Theory" is the ultimate theory of all translation theories. There may be various answers to the question of appropriateness in different times and from different actors, perspectives, disciplines, etc. (Moratto & Woesler, 2021). An evaluation of the appropriateness of a translation can only be relative and never absolute. Hence, it is necessary to establish a system of evaluation, valuing the different aspects such as the function of the text, loyalty to the author, the ideals of literal/free translation, and how far a translation can "work" in the target language (Moratto & Woesler 2021).

Translation and interpreting theories can each explain particularly well individual aspects of translation processes and the creation of target texts. This allows the existing theories to be used eclectically. In addition, the eclectic use must be supplemented with an enrichment by the final judgment possibility of all theories on super-ordinate categories such as ethics and human dignity in the form of the theory of "appropriateness" (Woesler 2021, 5).

According to the appropriateness theory, however, a line of conflict arises with regard to the user's being at the mercy of the principal, both of whom may pursue different interests. Appropriateness theory, as an integrative theory, accepts all existing translation theories for certain aspects of the translation process. Furthermore, it poses the question to what extent a translation can be called "appropriate" in certain sub‐aspects and as a whole (Woesler 2021, 5).