翻译方法论课程论文NEW.docVIP

Analysis on Semantic translation and Communicative translation I. Introduction The difference between what Peter Newmark calls semantic translation and communicative translation are,,in my opinion, not so much different in terms of the translation aim , but in terms of the approach to the text itself. Communicative translation seeks to bring the text for its new audience, which makes the text as a cultural artifact to be transferred to a new environment in order for it to be used ,enjoyed , assimilated by new people . Accordingly, it in turn, normally requires a certain degree of adaptation. Semantic translation, on the other hand, considers the text as a cultural artifact that is “borrowed” from its original environment to be “displayed” as it were in a museum (linguistic, ethnographic, sociological, historical) not in order to be used, but to be “studied” and “compared”. If I go to a new country, I must know about the laws and regulations of that country, in the way that some texts may formally coincide with or diverge from. An excellent way going out of the eternal dilemma is to be found in Walter Arndt’s Pushkin Threefol . He has produced what may be a perfect solution to poetical translation : a) the original , for those who can use it (not necessarily understand it ;I speak no German ,but have used an original version of Faust to give myself an idea of the “music” while reading the lyrics in a horribly prosaic Spanish rehash) ; b) a semantic (not literal ) version ,from which we get as thorough an idea as English will allow of everything the Russian words “mean” (and since every text , let alone poetry , goes far beyond its sheer linguistic meaning , what we get is something akin to the back of a tapestry); c) a stab at English poetry , a metric translation . The intermediate, semantic text proves invaluable to make us aware of whatever has been changed---invaluable as a philological tool rather than a translation. It will be more useful to the scholar, the