Difference between revisions of "Appropriateness Theory"
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
=Jawad Ahmad Appropriateness Theory= | =Jawad Ahmad Appropriateness Theory= | ||
[[Creat_App_Theo_EN_5]] | [[Creat_App_Theo_EN_5]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Asep Budiman: Revisiting Newmark's Theory of Translation: To What Extent Is It Appropriate?= | ||
| + | [[Creat_App_Theo_EN_6]] | ||
| + | ==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 human yardsticks 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, 2) 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 | ||
| + | ==摘要== | ||
| + | 翻译的主要问题之一往往是到底是按字面意思翻译还是自由翻译。这种争议至少从公元前一世纪开始就一直存在。直到十九世纪初，许多作家赞成某种 "自由 "翻译：翻译的是精神而不是文字；是意义而不是文字；是内容而不是形式；是事件而不是方式。这是作家们的革命口号，他们希望真理能够被察觉和理解。到了二十世纪，当文化人类学的研究表明，语言障碍是不可逾越的，且完全是文化的产物时，翻译必须尽可能地按字面意思进行。这导致了译者在翻译文本时产生了不少困惑，直到他们被彼得·纽马克的 "翻译方法 "所点醒。纽马克的思想在翻译培训课程中被广泛使用，并结合了大量的语言学意义理论与翻译的实际应用的实例。然而，在这个翻译变得更加复杂的二十一世纪（如政治议程），纽马克的理论似乎有不足之处，因为它没有注意到译者的作用。因此，翻译理论需要拓宽，以考虑到人类尺度框架的价值驱动。本文的目的是对纽马克的翻译理论进行批评性评价，并提出新的理论。而结论是，纽马克的理论缺乏一些重要的标准，无法在某些情况下真正达到恰当的翻译。最后，Woesler（2021，2）提出的 "适当性理论 "完善了以前的理论，满足了二十一世纪的翻译需求。 | ||
| + | ==关键词== | ||
| + | 纽马克的翻译理论，21世纪翻译，适当性理论 | ||
| + | ==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, 4). Newmark was once a 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 (Panou 2013, 4). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Approaches to Translation, his most important work, was published in 1981, some of his other works include 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 (1964, 230)'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, the semantic translation looks back at the Source Text (ST) 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, the 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 the translation may be used in parallel, with varying focuses where each is employed. | ||
| + | ==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. | ||
| + | === Semantic Translation=== | ||
| + | === Communicative Translation=== | ||
| + | == A Critical Evaluation of Newmark's Work== | ||
| + | ===Newmark's Waiver on Ethics of Translation=== | ||
| + | == Appropriateness Theory == | ||
| + | ===The Principle of Appropriateness Theory=== | ||
| + | ===The Suggested Ways to Reach Appropriateness=== | ||
| + | ==Conclusion== | ||
| + | Peter Newmark's papers and works 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. Yet Newmark departs from Nida’s receptor-oriented line. He feels that the success of equivalent effect is "illusory" and that "the conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on the source and target language, will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice"(Newmark 1981, 38). Newmark affirmed his belief that "translation is a noble, truth-seeking activity, and that it should normally be accurate" (1997, 77). In taking that stance, Newmark was certainly traditionalist and willfully unsophisticated, not to say technically wrong. Furthermore, Newmark suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of "semantic" and "communicative" translation which actually leads to an overabundance of terminology to some extent. Besides, in this twenty-first century, Newmark's theory seems to have a 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 socio-cultural framework. Eventually, the "Appropriateness Theory" suggested by Woesler (2021, 1-5) comes to integrate all existing translation theories for certain aspects of the translation process to meet the demands of twenty-first-century translation. Some fundamental ways to reach appropriate translation are also offered. | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | Berman, Antoine. (2012). "La traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger". Texte 4 (1985): 67–81, translated by L. Venuti as "Translation and the trials of the foreign", in L. Venuti (ed.) (2012), 240–53. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dukmak, W. (2012). "The Treatment of Cultural Items in the Translation of Children's Literature: The Case of Harry Potter in Arabic". PhD thesis. University of Leeds. United Kingdom. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Inghilleri, Moira., and Maier, Carol. (2001). "Ethics" in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York and London: Routledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Larkosh, Christopher. (2004). "Levinas, Latin American Thought and the Futures of Translational Ethics". TTR: traduction, terminology, rédaction 17 (2): 27-44. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Moratto, Riccardo., and Woesler, Martin. (2021). New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Singapore: Springer. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Munday, Jeremy. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Application (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nida, Eugene, A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Newmark, Peter. (1977). "Communicative and Semantic Translation". Babel 23 (4): 163-180. Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Newmark, Peter. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon, republished 2001 by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Newmark, Peter. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice Hall. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Newmark, Peter. (1997). "The Customer as King". Current Issues in Language and Society 4 (1): 75–77. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Newmark, Peter. (2009). The Linguistic and Communicative Stages in Translation Theory. in J. Munday (ed.). 20–35. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Panou, Despoina. (2013). "Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation". Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3 (1): 1-6. Academy Publisher. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pym, Anthony. (2014). Exploring Translation Theories (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Qian, Hu. (1993). "On the implausibility of equivalent response (Part IV)". Meta 38 (3): 449–67. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1993/v38/n3/003147ar.pdf | ||
| + | |||
| + | Venuti, Lawrence. (1995). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Venuti, Lawrence. (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London and New York: Routledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Venuti, Lawrence. (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Woesler, Martin. (2021). Ending the "100‐schools" dispute between translation theories by integrating them and measuring the "appropriateness". | ||
| + | |||
| + | International Symposium on Translation Communication 2021. Hunan: Hunan Normal University. | ||
Revision as of 06:56, 18 December 2021
Creating Approprateness Theory
Overview Page of Approprateness 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
Back to translation project overview
- Appropriateness Theory - 易扬帆 殷美达
I need more students here. You can write papers criticizing existing theories here and suggest what needs to be improved to develop a new theory! This is cutting edge research here! I expect the best students to participate and we may try to submit the papers to real academic journals!
我在文章中所举出来的例子会涉及一些人们约定俗成的道德规范，所以我认为您的这个理论是不是表达的是不仅仅只是考虑源文本和目标文本的内容传达，更多的还会去考虑两个文本背后所需要遵循的伦理道德的意思。 可以检查译文可能会不遵循两个entities或者communities之间的伦理道德的关系，最后违背了appropriate theory。 当然我相信人工智能长期来说也会学习道德。 我觉得为了解释appropriateness theory最容易的是用一些已经存在的理论，选择一些例子让读者理解为什么这些理论都有限。 有可能skopos达到了十分，但是翻译还是不对或者不理想。但是用appropriateness theory可以指路怎么提高这个翻译例子的质量。 如果你能找到一些例子，用传统的翻译理论打不到最理想的结果，那我们可以发展自己的Appropriateness Theory想出来一个办法，怎么把这种例子也能翻译的好。 意思就是我们去寻找一些如今还存在着问题亟待解决的译本，然后尝试着用appropriateness theory去解决，而不仅仅只是局限于伦理道德这一个方面。 发展出我们自己的appropriateness theory去提高译文的质量？ 当然appropriateness theory大家都可以做贡献，最后只有一种appropriateness theory，包括你们所提到的解决方法。 所以这个appropriateness theory是一个规模比较大的，它能够修理现在存在翻译理论的一些缺点。 为了找合适的具体的使用例子当然也需要完全懂传统的理论，也要理解它们的限制和缺点。 翻译者一般不按照理论翻译。只是咱们学者用理论。我们只要找一个例子我们觉得翻译的不太好。然后我们看一下按照哪一种传统的理论这个翻译应该还是好的，也没有办法提高质量。比如按照skopos是好的，因为在墓地读者达到跟在原来读者相同的作用。（比如一个假的新闻关于俄国女孩子anna在德国被难民抢劫的在俄国引起反德国的感情，翻译成德文以后在德国也引起从俄国移民到德国的俄国人少数民族的感情。按照appropriateness theory，假的新闻更笨不要翻译成其他语言，引起感情的后果是已经融入德国文化的俄国人开始意识到自己是俄国人，然后他们说他们在德国被压迫并请俄国跟德国打战争。这种例子在美国选举方面也有，在新馆疫情媒体报道方面也有）。然后我们想一想怎么还是可以提高质量（当然这个例子比较敏感，可以加两个词“假的”就提高了质量，但是也会有一些不那么敏感的例子，可以用另外一种方式提高质量）。找到了以后我们就按照这个发展Appropriateness Theory。
Appropriateness Theory in Translation Studies
Revisiting Newmark's Theory of Translation: To What Extent Is It Appropriate?
重审纽马克翻译理论：如何圈画适当性的范围？
Asep Budiman, Hunan Normal University, China
Appropriateness in Lyrics Translation -- A Case Study of Lana Del Rey's Lyrics Translation in QQ Music
歌词翻译中的适当性——以拉娜·德雷在QQ音乐中的译本为例
易扬帆 Yi Yangfan, Hunan Normal University, China
Appropriateness Theory-- A Critical Evaluation on Skopos Theory
适用性理论--对目的论的批判性评价
殷美达Yin Meida, Hunan Normal University, China
Jawad Ahmad Appropriateness Theory
Asep Budiman: Revisiting Newmark's Theory of Translation: To What Extent Is It Appropriate?
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 human yardsticks 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, 2) 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
摘要
翻译的主要问题之一往往是到底是按字面意思翻译还是自由翻译。这种争议至少从公元前一世纪开始就一直存在。直到十九世纪初，许多作家赞成某种 "自由 "翻译：翻译的是精神而不是文字；是意义而不是文字；是内容而不是形式；是事件而不是方式。这是作家们的革命口号，他们希望真理能够被察觉和理解。到了二十世纪，当文化人类学的研究表明，语言障碍是不可逾越的，且完全是文化的产物时，翻译必须尽可能地按字面意思进行。这导致了译者在翻译文本时产生了不少困惑，直到他们被彼得·纽马克的 "翻译方法 "所点醒。纽马克的思想在翻译培训课程中被广泛使用，并结合了大量的语言学意义理论与翻译的实际应用的实例。然而，在这个翻译变得更加复杂的二十一世纪（如政治议程），纽马克的理论似乎有不足之处，因为它没有注意到译者的作用。因此，翻译理论需要拓宽，以考虑到人类尺度框架的价值驱动。本文的目的是对纽马克的翻译理论进行批评性评价，并提出新的理论。而结论是，纽马克的理论缺乏一些重要的标准，无法在某些情况下真正达到恰当的翻译。最后，Woesler（2021，2）提出的 "适当性理论 "完善了以前的理论，满足了二十一世纪的翻译需求。
关键词
纽马克的翻译理论，21世纪翻译，适当性理论
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, 4). Newmark was once a 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 (Panou 2013, 4).
Approaches to Translation, his most important work, was published in 1981, some of his other works include 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 (1964, 230)'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, the semantic translation looks back at the Source Text (ST) 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, the 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 the translation may be used in parallel, with varying focuses where each is employed.
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.
Semantic Translation
Communicative Translation
A Critical Evaluation of Newmark's Work
Newmark's Waiver on Ethics of Translation
Appropriateness Theory
The Principle of Appropriateness Theory
The Suggested Ways to Reach Appropriateness
Conclusion
Peter Newmark's papers and works 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. Yet Newmark departs from Nida’s receptor-oriented line. He feels that the success of equivalent effect is "illusory" and that "the conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on the source and target language, will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice"(Newmark 1981, 38). Newmark affirmed his belief that "translation is a noble, truth-seeking activity, and that it should normally be accurate" (1997, 77). In taking that stance, Newmark was certainly traditionalist and willfully unsophisticated, not to say technically wrong. Furthermore, Newmark suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of "semantic" and "communicative" translation which actually leads to an overabundance of terminology to some extent. Besides, in this twenty-first century, Newmark's theory seems to have a 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 socio-cultural framework. Eventually, the "Appropriateness Theory" suggested by Woesler (2021, 1-5) comes to integrate all existing translation theories for certain aspects of the translation process to meet the demands of twenty-first-century translation. Some fundamental ways to reach appropriate translation are also offered.
References
Berman, Antoine. (2012). "La traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger". Texte 4 (1985): 67–81, translated by L. Venuti as "Translation and the trials of the foreign", in L. Venuti (ed.) (2012), 240–53.
Dukmak, W. (2012). "The Treatment of Cultural Items in the Translation of Children's Literature: The Case of Harry Potter in Arabic". PhD thesis. University of Leeds. United Kingdom.
Inghilleri, Moira., and Maier, Carol. (2001). "Ethics" in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York and London: Routledge.
Larkosh, Christopher. (2004). "Levinas, Latin American Thought and the Futures of Translational Ethics". TTR: traduction, terminology, rédaction 17 (2): 27-44.
Moratto, Riccardo., and Woesler, Martin. (2021). New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Singapore: Springer.
Munday, Jeremy. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Application (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Nida, Eugene, A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Newmark, Peter. (1977). "Communicative and Semantic Translation". Babel 23 (4): 163-180. Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel.
Newmark, Peter. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon, republished 2001 by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newmark, Peter. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, Peter. (1997). "The Customer as King". Current Issues in Language and Society 4 (1): 75–77.
Newmark, Peter. (2009). The Linguistic and Communicative Stages in Translation Theory. in J. Munday (ed.). 20–35.
Panou, Despoina. (2013). "Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation". Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3 (1): 1-6. Academy Publisher.
Pym, Anthony. (2014). Exploring Translation Theories (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Qian, Hu. (1993). "On the implausibility of equivalent response (Part IV)". Meta 38 (3): 449–67. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1993/v38/n3/003147ar.pdf
Venuti, Lawrence. (1995). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence. (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence. (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Woesler, Martin. (2021). Ending the "100‐schools" dispute between translation theories by integrating them and measuring the "appropriateness".
International Symposium on Translation Communication 2021. Hunan: Hunan Normal University.