Notes From Jeremy Munday 2: Peter Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation

Notes from Jeremy Munday 2
Despite the heated debate on equivalence, Nida’s systematic linguistic approach to translation,
many subsequent and prominent translation scholars, among them Peter Newmark in the UK
and Werner Koller in Germany discussed the concept focusing on new perspectives.
Peter Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation
Peter Newmark (1916–2011)’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. 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 source and target language, will always remain as the overriding problem in translation
theory and practice’ (Newmark 1981: 38). Newmark suggests narrowing the gap by replacing
the old terms with those of ‘semantic’ and ‘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. However, Newmark distances himself from the full principle of equivalent
effect, since that effect ‘is inoperant if the text is out of TL space and time’ (1981: 69).
Newmark (ibid.: 63) indicates that semantic translation differs from literal translation in that it
‘respects context’, interprets and even explains (metaphors, for instance). On the other hand, as we
saw in Chapter 2, 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.
e.g: bissiger Hund and chien mechant
It would be translated communicatively as beware of the dog! in order to communicate

the message, not semantically as dog that bites! and bad dog!
Newmark’s 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 TT 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 (see
Chapter 6) 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 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).
Nonetheless, 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.
Koller: equivalence relations
Important work to refine the concept of equivalence was carried out by Werner Koller in Heidelberg
(West Germany) and Bergen (Norway). Koller’s Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft
([Research into the science of translation] 1979a; see also Koller 1979b/1989 and 1995) examines the
concept of equivalence more closely along with its linked term ‘correspondence’ (Koller 1979a: 176–
91). The two can be differentiated as follows:
Correspondence falls within the field of contrastive linguistics, which compares two language
systems and describes differences and similarities contrastively. Its parameters are those of Saussure’s
langue (Saussure 1916/1983). This would include the identification of false friends (e.g. German
aktuel means current and not English actual) and of signs of lexical, morphological and syntactic
interference.
(2) Equivalence, on the other hand, relates to equivalent items in specific ST– TT pairs and contexts.
The parameter is that of Saussure’s parole. The following two examples show specific equivalences of
aktuel in real texts:
Aktuel sind 7 Besucher online = There are currently 7 guests online Wir bemühen diese Information
so aktuel wie möglich zu halten = We shall try to keep this information up-to-date.
Importantly, Koller (1979a: 185) points out that, while knowledge of correspondences is indicative of
competence in the foreign language, it is knowledge and ability in equivalences that are indicative of
competence in translation. However, the question still remains as to what exactly has to be equivalent.
Koller (1995) differentiates five types of equivalence relations, constrained, in what is known as
double linkage, by the ST on the one hand and by the communicative conditions of the receiver on the
other. These equivalence types are listed below:
(1)Denotative equivalence, related to equivalence of the extralinguistic

content of a text. Other literature, says Koller, calls this ‘content invariance’.
(2) Connotative equivalence, related to lexical choices, especially between
near-synonyms. Koller considers this type of equivalence to be referred to
by others as ‘stylistic equivalence’.
(3) Text-normative equivalence, related to text types, with different kinds of
texts behaving in different ways. This is closely linked to work by Katharina
Reiss (see Chapter 5).
(4) Pragmatic equivalence, or ‘communicative equivalence’, is oriented towards
the receiver of the text or message. This is Nida’s dynamic equivalence.
(5) Formal equivalence, which is related to the form and aesthetics of the
text, includes wordplays and the individual stylistic features of the ST. It is
referred to by others as ‘expressive equivalence’ and should not be confused
with Nida’s term ‘formal equivalence’.
Characteristics of research foci for different equivalence types (following Koller 1979a: 187–91):
Type of equivalence How attainable Research focus

Denotative By analysis of
correspondences and their
interaction with textual factors
Lexis
Connotative ‘One of the most difficult
problems of translation, and
in practice is often only
approximate’ (Koller 1979b/
1989: 189); theory needs to
identify the connotative
dimensions in different
languages
Additional dimensions: formality
(poetic, slang, etc.), social
usage, geographical origin,
stylistic effect (archaic, ‘plain’,
etc.), frequency, range (general,
technical, etc.), evaluation,
emotion
Text-normative Description and correlation
of patterns of usage between
languages using functional
text analysis
Look at usage in different
communicative situations
Pragmatic Translate the text for a
particular readership,
overriding the requirements
of other equivalences
Analyse the communicative
conditions valid for different
receiver groups in different
language pairs and texts
Formal An analogy of form in the TL,
using the possibilities of the TL
and even creating new ones
Analyse the potential of
equivalence in rhyme, metaphor
and other stylistic forms
The crucial point again is that, in order to assist the translator, the equivalence are hierarchically
ordered according to the needs of the communicative
situation. So, the translator first tries denotative equivalence and, if this is inadequate,
will need to seek equivalence at a higher level – connotative, text-normative,
etc. How the appropriate level is to be decided is open to debate, but an
example (from Hatim and Munday 2004: 50–1) may help to explain:
‘I had wanted for years to get Mrs Thatcher in front of my camera. As she got
more powerful she got sort of sexier.

The quote is from photographer Helmut Newton, recalling his wish to capture on film the former
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The problem is with the term sexier if we think of a
potential translation into, say, Arabic. If we try denotative equivalence (i.e. translating it by sexy) this
might convey the sense of ‘pornographic’.
Connotative equivalence (e.g. attractiveness) would be better but it may be to direct for the
communicative purpose of this type of text (i.e. it would not achieve text-normative equivalence).
Taking into account the needs of the TT readers (i.e. in order to achieve pragmatic equivalence),
the translator may prefer attractive femininity or attractive and full of life, or add an expression
such as so to speak to make it less direct. Full formal equivalence, in Koller’s terms, would
require creativity in the use of stylistic forms appropriate to the TL that may well not be
feasible.

Notes From Jeremy Munday 2: Peter Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes From Jeremy Munday 2: Peter Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes From Jeremy Munday 2: Peter Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes from Jeremy Munday 2

Peter Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation

Peter Newmark (1916–2011)’s Approaches to Translation (1981) and A Textbook of

Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to

In communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is

valid method of translation.

e.g: bissiger Hund and chien mechant

It would be translated communicatively as beware of the dog! in order to communicate

Koller: equivalence relations

(1)Denotative equivalence, related to equivalence of the extralinguistic

Type of equivalence How attainable Research focus

will need to seek equivalence at a higher level – connotative, text-normative,

etc. How the appropriate level is to be decided is open to debate, but an

more powerful she got sort of sexier.

You might also like