纽马克的翻译理论

Peter Newmark

Semantic and Communicative Translation

Guided Reading

Peter 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), About Translation(1983), Paragraphs on Translation段落翻译(1985), A Textbook of Translation翻译教程(1988), and More Paragraphs on Translation(1993).

In his work Approaches to Translation, Newmark proposes two types of translation: semantic translation语义翻译 and communicative translation交际翻译. Semantic translation focuses 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 any translation is to achieve \"equivalent effect\". For Newmark, the success of equivalent effect is \"illusory\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formulates his concepts of \"communicative translation\" and \"semantic translation\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 the legitimacy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 the other. 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 translation method and text type.

It should be pointed out that应该指出的是 Newmark's semantic translation differs from literal translation直译 because the former \"respects context\interprets and even explains while the latter sticks very closely to source text at word and syntax level(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 rather than non-literary translation, which is often rendered more freely in order to communicate the meaning. But he also states that when there is a conflict between semantic and communicative translation, the latter would win out胜出. For instance, it is better to render communicatively the public sign公共标志 bissiger Hund and chien mechant into beward the dog! 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 specific context 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. In this book, 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 as methods 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 translation practice.

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's types of translation, however, are less influential than Nida's dynamic equivalence in the field of translation 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 and comments 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 excerpt is selected from Chapter 3 of Newmark's Approaches to Translation. In this chapter he 假定，要求postulates his two main 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. A translation should read as a contemporary of the original.

8. A translation 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 or the 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 be translated at all! Since the rise of modern linguistics (philology语言学 was becoming linguistics语言学 here in the late 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 of translation 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 the predominance 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 LANGUAGE BIAS

LITERAL FREE

FAITHFUL IDIOMATIC

SEMANTIC / COMMUNICATIVE

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 if they constitute组/构/形成；设立，建立，任命 the essential human

(non-ethnic种族的，民族的，部落的) message of the text. 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 semantic translations (\"dog that bite\\"savage dog\") would be more informative but less effective. Generally, a communicative translation is 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） of language, 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, more detailed, 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\释义，意译，改述paraphrases, in any type of translation.

Conversely相反地, both semantic and communicative translation comply with

遵照，服从 the usually accepted syntactic造句法的，句子结构的 equivalents (Vinay and Darbelnet'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 be reflected 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 has to 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。

The translator has to cling to words, 排列，配置；组合，搭配collocations, structures, emphases（emphasis的复数）强调，重点:

\"The utilitarian功利的，实用的 point of view is as alien and inappropriate as it possibly could be precisely to such an intense eruption爆发 of supreme rank-classifying, rank-discriminating value-judgements: here in fact feeling has

reached the antithesis对立，相反；对句，对偶 of the low degree of fervour（fervor）热情，热诚，热烈 presumed in every type of calculating深谋远虑的，精明的；算计的，攻于心计的；计算的 cleverness, every assessment of utility.\" (My version.)

Thus a translation is always closer to the original than any intralingual舌的，语言的 rendering or paraphrase misnamed \"translation\" by George Steiner(1975), and therefore it is an indispensable不可缺少的，必需的 tool for a semantician（semanticist）语义学学者，精通语义学的人 and now a philosopher. Communicative and semantic translation may well coincide同时发生；相符，一致---in particular尤其，特别, where the text conveys a general rather than a culturally (世俗的，现世的，尘世的；短暂的，暂时的temporally and 空间的，与空间有关的spatially) bound形成……的界线，限制 message有文化限制的信息 and where the matter is as important as the manner---notably then in the translation of the most important religious, philosophical, artistic and scientific texts, assuming second readers as informed and interested as the first. Further, there are often sections in one text that must be translated communicatively (e.g.non-lieu---\"nonsuit驳回\"), and others

semantically (e.g. A quotation from a speech). There is no one communicative nor one semantic method of translating a text---these are in fact widely v.重叠，把……叠在一起；与……部分一致n.重叠的部分overlapping 一队/伙/组/群/帮bands of methods. A translation can be more, or less, semantic---more, or less, communicative---even a particular section or sentence can be treated more communicatively or less semantically. Thus in some passages, Q.Hoare and G. Nowell Smith (1971) state that: \"We feel it preferable更可取的，更好的，更合意的 to choose fidelity忠诚，忠实；精确 over good English, despite its awkwardness, in view of鉴于，考虑到 the importance of some concepts in Gramsci's work.\" Each method

has a common basis in analytical or cognitive translation which is built up both proposition观点，见解，主张；提议，建议；定理，命题 by proposition and word by word, denoting表示，是……的标志，意味着；指的是，意思是 the empirical factual事实的，真实的，确凿的 knowledge of the text, but finally respecting the convention习俗，惯例；公约，协议；会议，大会 of the target language provide that the thought-content of the text has been reproduced. The translation emerges in such a way that the exact meaning or function of the words only become apparent as they are used. The translator may have to make interim暂时的，临时的；间歇的，过渡期间的 decisions without being able at the time to visualize the relation of the words with the end product. Communicative and semantic translation bifurcate分成两支，分叉 at a later stage of analytical or cognitive translation which is a 在前，先于，预先pre-translation procedure which may be performed on the

source-language text to convert it into the source or the target language---the reluctant versions will be closer to each other than the original text and the final translation.

In principle, cognitive translation 使互换位置transposes the SL text grammatically to plain \"animate活的，有生命的；有活力的，有生气的

subject+verb+non-animate object\" 条款；从句，分句clauses, or, in the extended version, to sequences of: \"an agent (subject) does (active verb) something (direct object直接宾语) to or for someone (indirect object) with something (instrumental) somewhere (locative表示位置的) \"sometime (temporal) to make something (resultant作为结果的，因而发生的)\"---additionally, an agent/object may be in a variety of relationships with another agent/object (possessive占有欲强的，不愿与人分享的；表示所属关系的词, equative同义词, dependency属国，属地；依赖性, source,

partitive表示部分的（e.g. some,any), genitive属格，所有格, characteristic, etc.)---(relationships often covered or concealed by the English preposition介词 \"of\"), which must be spelt out in a clause. Thus the grammatical meaning of the SL text becomes explicit. Further, cognitive translation splits up断绝关系，离婚；裂开，分裂 the word-class a.同其他事物演变的；非独创的n.衍生词，派生词derivatives, i.e. 副词adverbs (=preposition+adjective+noun), adjectival形容词的 nouns (e.g. \"whiteness\"), qualifying限制的，限定的 prefix-verb-nouns (e.g. \"contribution\"), noun-verbs (e.g. \"to ration\"), noun-adjective-verb-nouns (e.g. \"rationalization\"), etc., into their 组成部分，成分，零部件components and 详细解说explicates the relations of all multiple同许多部分组成的，复合的，多样的，多重的 noun compounds (e.g. \"data acquisition数据采集 control system\": system to control the acquiring of data). Further, it replaces figurative比喻的，借喻的 and colloquial口语的，会话的 language, idioms and 成语的，词语的phrasal verbs短语动词 with 表示的，指示的denotative terms; clears up清理；澄清；放晴；解决 lexical and grammatical ambiguities模棱两可，含糊不清; 加入（额外的事），窜改；插入（话、文字）interpolates relevant encyclopedic广博的，知识渊博的；百科全书的 information for ecological生态的，生态学的, cultural and institutional制度的；学会的，协会的 terms; replaces 代词pronouns with nouns and identifies referential参考的，参照的；指示的 synonyms参照代名词; reduces cultural terms to their functional definitions; and analyses the semantic语义的 features of any words that are likely to be split into two or three words when translated. Thus as far as is possible (the process is artificial) the text is removed from its natural cultural and linguistic axis轴，坐标轴，中心线，基准线 to an artificial neutral universal plane飞机；平面 of language.

Nida in his admirable analysis令人钦佩的分析 of grammatical meaning (1917a,

pp.47-49) approaches cognitive translation somewhat differently, preferring to split surface structures into separate 含蓄的，潜在的；基本的，根本的；在下面的underlying (previously concealed) sentences. Thus he analyses: \"their former director thought their journey was a deception\" into: (a) he directed them formerly, (b) he though X (the entire following expression), (c) they journeyed, (d) they deceived Y (without specifying who Y is), adding an analysis of the relationship between (c) and (d)---e.g. means-result: by journeying they deceived\means-purpose (they journeyed in order to deceive), n.添加剂a.附加的additive events (they journeyed and they deceived).

For cognitive translation, I think: \"The man who used to be their director (to direct them) thought they had travelled to deceive (by travelling they had deceived, they had traveled and deceived)\" is adequate. Another (more likely?) alternative missed by Nida must be added: \"The man who used to be their director thought they had merely pretended to travel, in order to deceive others.\" (Most verbal nouns名词化的动名词 may be active or passive消极的，被动的；冷淡的，不主动的 in meaning.)

It is not usually necessary to make a full cognitive translation, a procedure similar to Brislin's (1976) \"decentring消解中心化\". Where the cultures of two languages have been in contact for centuries, the translator normally resorts to cognitive translation only for obscure, ambiguous or complex passages. A cognitive translation may serve as a tertium comparationis between texts with distant cultures and radically different language structures.

Where cognitive translation results in a poorly written and/or repetitive text, communicative translation requires a bold attempt to clarify and reorganize it. A text such as the following would require considerable rewriting before it is translated:

\"If industrialists are so keen for Britain to join why does not the Government make it possible for those who want to get into Europe without the sacrifice to British sovereignty...which must be the inevitable result of our joining if we are to rely on M. Debre's words recently that the Common Market is unworkable without the Treaty of Rome.

Proposed rewrite:

\"As industrialists are so keen, why does not the Government make it possible for Britain to get into Europe without sacrificing her sovereignty? According to M. Debre's recent statement, this would first require amendments to the treaty of Rome, which is the legal instrument法律文书 governing the Common Market共同市场.\"

I am assuming that whilst a semantic translation is always inferior to it original, since it involves loss of meaning, a communicative translation may be better, since it may gain in force有效，生效，实施中；大批，大量 and clarity清楚，明晰 what it loses in semantic content. In communicative translation the translator is trying in his own language to write a little better than the original, unless he is reproducing the well-established formulae配方；公式；套话，固定的说法，惯用语句 of notices or

correspondence. I assume that in communicative translation one has the right to correct or improve the logic; to replace clumsy with elegant, or at least functional, syntactic structures; to remove obscurities; to eliminate消除，清除，根除；淘汰 repetition重复，反复 and tautology重复，赘述; to exclude把某人排除在外，把某物排斥在外；防止进入/参加；不包括 the less likely interpretations of an ambiguity; to modify and clarify jargon术语，行话(i.e. Reduce loose 属的，类的；一般的，总称的generic terms通用条款/词组/术语/说法 to rather more concrete components), and to normalize使标准/正常/常态化 怪诞，古怪，怪异bizarreries of idiolect个人言语特点，个人习语, i.e. wayward任性的，倔强的，刚愎的；反复无常的 uses of language. Further, one has the right to correct mistakes of fact and 滑倒，失足；小错误，小疏忽slips, normally stating what one has done in a footnote注脚，注释. (All such corrections and improvements are usually inadmissible不允许的，不许可的；不可接受的；不能承认的 in semantic translation.)

In theory a communicative translation is ipso facto a subjective procedure, since it is intended primarily to achieve a certain effect on its readers' minds, which effect could only be verified证实，核对，证明 by a survey of their mental and/or physical reactions. In fact, it is initially as constrained by the form, the structures and words of the original as a semantic translation (the pre-translation process) until the version is gradually skewed偏的，歪斜的；歪曲的，曲解的 to the reader's point of view.（逐渐朝着读者的观点倾斜）Then the translator starts to ask himself whether his version is \"happy\i.e. an exact statement (cf. Austin, 1962). He begins to extend the unit of translation, having secured the referential basis参照依据, i.e. the truth of the information; he views words and phrases in expanding waves in their linguistic context语言语境,

restructuring and rearranging clauses, reinforcing emphases. Nevertheless, each lexical and grammatical unit has to remain 看作，视为accounted for---that is his Antaean link with the text.

In one sense（=in a sense从某种意义上说）, communicative translation, by adapting and making the thought and cultural content of the original more accessible to the reader, gives semantic translation another dimension任何一种量度；面积，体积，程度，范围. The Leipzig School, notably Neubert and Kade, have referred to（谈到，提到；查阅；涉及，关于，有关；提交给……处理 this as the \"pragmatic实际的，务实的；实用主义的\" element, but I think this is a little misleading易引起误解的，易使人产生错觉的. To begin with, peirce and notably显著地，明显地；著名地；尤其，特别 Morris defined \"pragmatics语用学，语言实用学\" as the branch of semiotics符号学 that deals with the relation between signs or linguistic expressions and their users (传播/输者；传送/达者）(transmitters and receptors). Communicative translation, however, is concerned mainly with the receptors, usually in the context of a language语言环境 and cultural variety文化多样性, whilst semantic translation is concerned with the transmitter usually as an individual, and often （与……对比by contrast with，与……相反as opposed to）in contradistinction both to his culture and to the norms of his language语言的规范形式. Moreover \"pragmatic\" is a confusing term, since even in the context of translation (let alone its abundant senses in philosophy) it is also used in the sense of \"nonliterary\\"technical\" and \"practical\". Neubert and Kade have maintained that the pragmatic (in the semiotic sense) is the variant不同的，易变的, difficult and often

\"untranslatable\" element in translation, whilst the cognitive (the material basis and environment) is invariant不变的, relatively easy and always translatable. Whilst this

view obviously has some truth (the objective, physical and concrete being on the whole总的来说，大体上；通常 easier translate than the subjective, mental and figurative比喻的，借喻的), it ignores the indisputable proportion of truth in the Humboldt thesis (the weak thesis) that each language has its own distinctive structure, reflecting and conditioning the ways of thought and expression of the people using it, but for which translation would be an easy business. Further, this view hardly comes to terms with与……达成协议；妥协，让步，屈服 the fact that most material objects derive their names form the result of mental analogies类推；类似，相似 and comparisons, that is, from metaphor隐喻, not form any scientific made-to-measure定做的 新词neologisms, and that all languages are wilful任性的，固执的；故意的 and different in their naming of some of the commonest physical objects. Lyons (1976) and Weightman (1967) have independently shown how inadequate or overloaded would be any translation into French of the apparently simple, observational观察的，根据观察的, objective, non-\"pragmatic\" sentence \"The cat sat on the mat\". Both the French version (possibly, \"le chat etait accroupi sur le paillasson\") and the rather better German version (\"Die Katze hockte auf der fu*decke\") are 翻译过头overtranslations, illustrating French and German's lack of words of sufficient generality一般性，普遍性；主要部分，大多数；概括的表述，泛泛而谈 and consequently因此，所以 of equivalent frequency（相等的使用频率）. On the other hand, there are many cases where the \"pragmatic\" element can be translated without difficulty, provided假如，倘若，若是；以……为条件 the viewpoint represented in the SL culture is well understood by the reader of the translation: thus words like \"revisionist修正主义者，修订者\无产阶级（的）\形式主义的，过于拘泥形式的\national culture in the educated受过教育的，有教养的；根据知识或经验的 writing（教

育意义的文章） of many world-languages. A GDR前德意志民主共和国（German Democratic Republic） term such as Abgrenzen (refusal to promise with

not-socialist policies), though it is a pragmatic \"hot potato\ translated without any of the three points of view (the transmitter's, the receptor's, the translator's) obtruding（obtrude闯入，打扰；强加） on the message. For jager(1975), the \"pragmatic element\" is what transforms a \"semantic\"(i.e. cognitive) into \"functional\"(i.e. communicative) translation---like most of the linguistic theorists, he only accepts the validity有效，正当 of communicative (his \"functional\") translation and implicitly含蓄地，暗示地 降低；贬低，小看downgrades semantic translation.

I would prefer to avoid the use of the term \"pragmatic\" and to regard both communicative and semantic as divergent多种多样的；分岐的，不同的，相异的 精炼，精制，提纯；高雅，文雅refinements or 修订，修正revisions of cognitive translation. In both case, the cognitive element may soon have to be abandoned, since the TL view of the same referent所指的对象 (object or message) may differ from the SL (cf. chateau d'eau---\"water twoer\"; pas de danger---\"not likely!\"). The transition to semantic translation normally reduces the unit of translation, and brings the text closer to the figurative and formal elements of the original, including where possible its sound effects. Therefore the text becomes more idiosyncratic有气质的，有特性的，不同寻常的，个人习性的 and \"sensitive\". Length of sentences, however long or short, position and integrity of clauses（从句的位置和完整）, word-position for emphasis, are preserved, unless the divergence between the relevant norms of the source and target languages (which also have to be considered, although the individual writer's \"style\" finally prevails) is extensive. The translation to

communicative translation normally makes the text smoother, lighter, more idiomatic惯用语的 and easier to read. Syntax is 修改，再塑remodelled, commoner 排列，配置collocations and more usual words are found. Semantic translation is basically addressed to one \"reader\" only, namely, the writer of the SL text, with the assumption假设，设想；假装；承担，担任 that he can read the TL and will be the best arbiter权威人士，泰斗；仲裁人，裁决者 of the translation's quality.

Since the overriding最主要的 factor in deciding how to translate is the intrinsic importance内在的重要性 of every semantic unit in the text文本的每一个语义单位, it follows that结果就是 the vast majority of texts require communicative rather than semantic translation. Most non-literary writing非文学类的写作, journalism新闻写作；新闻业，新闻工作, informative教育性的，授予知识的，提供信息/资料的 articles and books, textbooks, reports, scientific and technological writing, non-personal correspondence, propaganda宣传, publicity公众的注意；宣传，广告；公开场合, public notices公告, standardized writing规范书写, popular fiction通俗小说---the run-of-the-mill例常的 texts which have to be translated today but were not translated and in most cases在大多数情况下 did not exist a hundred years ago---comprise typical material suitable for communicative translation. On the other hand, original expression, where the specific language of the speaker or writer is as important as the content, whether it is philosophical, religious, political, scientific, technical or literary, needs to be translated semantically. Any important statement requires a version as close to the original lexical and grammatical structures as is obtainable能得到的. Thus Spears' (1966) translation of the following passages of De Gaulle's 18 June 1940 broadcast is unacceptable:

一段法文略

\"It was the tanks, the planes and the tactics of the Germans, far more than the fact that we were 在数量上超过outnumbered, that forced our armies to retreat. It was the German tanks, planes and tactics that provided the element of surprise which brought our leaders to their present plight.

Suggested version:

\"Far, far more than不止，不只 their numbers, it was the tanks, the planes and the tactics of the Germans that caused us to retreat. It was the tanks, the planes and the tactics of the Germans that took our leaders by surprise and thus brought them to the state they are in today.\"

一段法文略

\"For remember this, France does not stand alone. She is not isolated.\"

Suggested version:

For France is not alone! She is not alone! She is not alone!

In these and other passages, Spears has attempted to modify the starkness严厉，严酷；毫无掩饰，质朴无华；明显，突出, simplicity and rawness of De Gaulle's speech. (As a communicative translation of a narrative叙述，讲述；叙事体，记叙文, Spears's first paragraph is valid, but the translation of quotations, however unimportant, is

normally semantic rather than communicative, since the translator is not responsible for their effect on the second reader.

Autobiography, private correspondence, any personal effusion流出，溢出；强烈的情感流露，吐露 requires semantic treatment, since the \"intimate\" flavour of the original is more important than its effect on the reader.

One would normally expect to translate serious literature严肃文学 (high art高雅艺术) semantically, but one has to bear in mind that all art is to a greater or lesser extent allegorical寓言的，寓意的, figurative, metaphorical and a parable寓言, and therefore has a communicative purpose. Figurative language only becomes meaningful if it is recreated n the metaphors of the target language and it culture, or, if this is not possible, reduced to its sense. In the case of minor literature非主流文学；小文学 that 紧密结合is closely bound to一定，必然 its period and its culture (short stories in particular), semantic translation will attempt to preserve its local flavour---dialect, slang and cultural terms (mots-temoins) will present their own problems. In the case of works with universal themes (e.g. love lyrics) and a background that is similar for SL and TL (say, in ecology生态，生态学 and living conditions), there is no reason why a basically semantic translation should not also be strongly communicative. Bible translation should be both semantic and communicative, although the \"modern\" preference (Schwarz, 1970) for

\"philological文献学的，语言学的\" as opposed to相对于，和……相反 \"inspirational凭灵感的；鼓舞人心的\" translation has for long moved away from studies which regarded the text as inspired有创见的，有灵感的 and untouchable达不到的；不可触摸的. Nida has shown in his many books that the TL reader can only accept the

geographical and historical remoteness of the cultural background being

presented to him, if that behaviour itself and all imagery connected with it is recast改写，重写；改换角色的分配，改变演员阵容 in his own (modern) culture. In fact, as the myths recede退去，渐渐远去；向后倾斜，缩进；变淡，变模糊，变渺茫；收回，撤回 and less knowledge can be expected from modern man, each new translation of the Bible becomes more communicative, with the omission遗漏，省略，删除；疏忽，失职 of technical terms专业术语, dialect and slang, and directed at increasing numbers of less-well-read people. Again, the immediate communicative

importance of drama is usually greater than that of poetry or of serious fiction, and for this reason adaptations (where characters and milieu（个人所处的）社会环境，出身背景 are transferred) are sometimes made, whilst they are almost unknown in the novel. However, in the most concentrated集中的，全神贯注的 drama (Skakespeare, Chekhov) the essence of which is that words are 塞满，充满，挤满packed or 使充满charged with meaning, semantic takes precedence在前，优先 over communicative equivalence, since the translator assumes that the dramatist has made use of his inventive resources to give his language communicative potential; it is now the translator's task to extract取出，提取；获得；摘录 the utmost semantic equivalence from the original. Again, where the medium (i.e. The form) is as important as the message, and the peoples of the two language cultures can normally say the same thing using different words, the two elements fuse导火线/索；保险丝.

It is not always possible to state which is the better method to use for a particular text. In a mainly informative text, the section containing

recommendations, instructions, value-judgements, etc. May be translated more

communicatively than the descriptive passages. Where language is used to accompany action or as its symbol (speech-acts言语行为), it is treated

communicatively, whilst definitions, explanations, etc. are semantic. \"standardized language\" must always be translated communicatively, whether a standardized equivalent exists or not, even if it appears in a novel or a quotation, unless the term is used descriptively rather than 实施中的，使用中的；有效的，生效的；可操作的，运行着的operatively in the original text.

Normally in communicative translation it is assumed that the readers of the translation identify with认同 those of the original. However, this is unlikely when elements of the source language culture or of the source language itself are discussed in the text. Nevertheless, \"communication\" is as important here as in a text where the subject matter题材 is of general interest. Where, say, an institution公共机构，制度，习俗；设立，制定 of the SL community社区，团体 is being described, a special meaning of a SL word is used or the double meaning of a homophone同音异义词，同音异形词 or homonym（同形）同音异义词 is being exploited, the translator, if he thinks the point sufficiently important, has to render the author's message communicatively and also address himself independently to the TL reader; in short, he has to \"make\" the pun双关语 as well as explain it. He has to assess (a) the extent of his reader's knowledge of and interest in the relevant aspect of the source language or culture, (b) the text's level of specialism专门研究，专攻；专长；专业化. If he is writing for the general reader, he may be able to achieve his purpose by 抄写；（从速记、录音等）转译（成普通文字）transcribing the appropriate new SL terms unlikely to be familiar to his reader and adding their approximate cultural equivalents (e.g. Fachhochschule or \"polytechnic理工学院\"). If the terms

are not likely to recur再发生，复发；重现, he may decide not to transcribe them. If the text is specialized专门的，专业的, the translator may wish to give his reader all possible information, including the transcription抄/誉写/本, the cultural equivalent, the encyclopaedic definition within the source culture and the literal translation of any new term on the first occasion of its use. He may even propose a \"translation label\假如，若是 he states that he is doing so, and he believes the object or concept is likely to recur in the TL usage. (Thus Volksrat, second chamber, regional assembly in GDR, cf. Bundesrat in FRG, people's Council, National Council.) Or again, if \"Flying planes can be dangerous\" is to be translated, the double meaning has to be explained in the TL with SL illustrations. All that is lost is vividness. Finally, whilst ambiguity, polysemy一词多义, word-play文字游戏, etc. in literary works have to be reproduced as best they can in the TL only (in poetry and plays it is a \"hit or miss无计划的；随意的，漫不经心的；不论成功与否 \" procedure---in prose fiction散文小说 there is room for brief expansion), such facts of language when discussed in non-literary works (e.g. on language, criticism, psychology) must be fully reproduced in the SL and explained in the TL. This has been superbly done by James Strachey in his translation of Freud's Jokes and their Relation to the Unconsciousness (1975) (his introduction contains valuable comments). The book had been previously translated by A. A. Brill as Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious and many examples of word-play replaced by analogous相似的，类似的 English \"equivalents\假的，伪造的 procedure, since the translator gave no evidence of any patient ever having made such 小错误，小疏忽word-slips or puns in English.

In the following passage on therapeutic治疗的 methods in rheumatology风湿

病学, \"此处略一段法文\possibly \"active kinesitherapy活跃的运动疗法\" and \"remedial治疗的，矫正的，改善的 exercises矫正体操erms are used\". In all the above cases the normal flow of communicative

translation is interrupted for his own readers by the translator's 光泽，色泽；注解，评注glosses, which are a combination of transcription and semantic translation.

Legal documents also require a special type of translation, basically because the translator is more restricted than in any other form. Every word has to be rendered, differences in terminology术语，术语学 and function noted, and as much attention paid to the content as to the intention and all possible interpretations and misinterpretations of the text---all legal texts法律文本 are definitions, Adorno noted---thus the semantic aspect; nevertheless, the standard format, syntax, 古语风格，古文体裁；拟古主义archaisms, as well as the formal register of the TL, must be respected in dealing with documents that are to be concurrently同时发生地，并存地；共同地，一起地 valid in the TL community (EEC law, contracts, international agreements, patents)---hence the communicative aspect. Legal documents translated for information purposes only (foreign laws, wills, conveyancing转让) have to be semantically translated.

A semantic translation attempts recreate the precise flavour and tone of the original: the words are \"sacred神圣不可侵犯的\important than the content, but because form and content are one. The thought-processes in the words are as significant as the intention behind the words in a communicative translation. Thus a semantic translation is out of time

and local space局部空间 (but has to be done again every generation, if still \"valid\"), where a communicative translation is ephemeral朝生暮死的，生命短暂的 and rooted in植根于 its context. A semantic translation attempts to preserve its author's idiolect个人言语特点，个人习语, his peculiar form of expression, in preference to优先于 the \"spirit\" of the source or the target language. It relates to buhler's \"expensive\" function of language, where communicative translation responds to the representational表现派的；有关代议制度的 (Darstellung) and vocative呼格的 (Appell) functions. In semantic translation, every word translated represents some loss of meaning (e.g. The loss of sound and rhythm in the word-for-word translation of the De Gaulle speech previously quoted), where in communicative translation the same words similarly translated lose no meaning at all. The syntax in semantic translation which gives the text its stresses and rhythm---the \"foregrounding前景化\" as the Prague布拉格 School calls it---is as sacred as the words, being basically subject only to the standard 调换，换位transpositions (Vinay and Darbelnet) or shifts (Catford) from one language to another. There is a constant temptation, which should be resisted, to transcribe抄写，誉写；改译 the terms for key-concepts关键概念 or theme words主题关键词.

The closer the cultural overlap重叠（的部分） between the two languages---this overlap being more important than the structural affinity密切关系；类同，相似；喜好 or the geographical propinquity接近，临近；类似，近似 of the two languages, but the translator's empathy同感，共鸣；移情 being the most important factor of all---the closer, therefore better, the translation is likely to be. This applies particularly to legal and administrative texts行政法规, where the names of 建立，设立，制定；社会公共/福利机构；制度；习俗institutions peculiar to one national

community社区，社会；团体，界 are frequently not translated, unless they are also important in the TL's culture or are 透明的；简明的，易懂的；显而易见的transparently translatable, whilst the names of institutions with easily identifiable TL cultural equivalents form part of each language's readily \"convertible可转换的，可兑换的，可改变的\"\"translation stock\"(Rabin, 1966). In communicative translation, however, the \"message\" is all important, and the essential thing is to make the reader think, feel and/or act. There should be no loss of meaning, and the aim, which is often realized, is to make the translation more effective as well as more elegant than the original. A communicative translation works on a narrow basis. It is \"tailor-made订做的，特制的；样式和裁制讲究的；合适的\" for one category of readership读者群, does one job, fulfils a particular function. A semantic translation is wide and universal. In attempting to respond to the author, living or dead, it addresses itself to all readers, all who have ears to hear, or just to Stendhal's \"happy few\".

My last comparison will take metaphor as its touchstone试金石；检验标准.

I here propose to abandon the conventional clumsy I. A. Richards's

terminology of 传播媒介，工具，手段vehicle/tenor趋向；要旨，大意；男高音 and to use my own, viz.（＝namely，即，也就是 metaphor/object/image/sense. Thus in a \"sunny smile\" the metaphor is \"sunny\\"sun\also a metaphor, but more fossilized变成化石的；僵化的，老化的；落伍的，过时的). Note this is a stock metaphor which normally has a narrow band一帮，一伙，一群；乐团，乐队；带，条 of \"object\" (e.g. look-mood-disposition).

Metaphor, as Dagut (1976) has pointed out in a brilliant article, has been much neglected in the literature. I propose to discuss three types of metaphor: dead (fossilized), standard (stock) and original (creativity). (The types are clearly distinguishable at their centres, but they merge with each other at the periphery外围，边缘；不重要的部分.) All languages consist of a stock of more or less fossilized metaphors. Many new words are metaphors. One has only to compare the collocations for the main parts of the body (say Fuβ, pied, foot) to see that even in their commonest uses they are not all inter-translatable. (Further, their precise physical areas物理领域 do not coincide.) In some cases the translator has to convert from a dead metaphor (F: franc) to a transparent透明的；明显的；简明的，易懂的 one (\"forehead前额，前部\") or to a concrete word (G: Stirne). Though there is often an area of choice, there is not usually a distinction差别；区别；殊殒，荣誉；优秀，卓越 here between communicative and semantic translation, although one could for instance maintain that figure is a more semantic translation of \"face\" than visage脸，面貌 or face. Normally dead metaphors, being furthest removed from their source, are the easiest metaphors to translate, and their figurative aspect is ignored in SL and TL (e.g. ervagen=ponder) unless it is 苏醒，复苏；复兴，重新流行；恢复生机revived by an extended image (e.g. \"weigh up估量，权衡，仔细考虑；称重量 in my personal scale\").

There are five possible procedures in translating standard, i.e. more or less common, metaphors, which may be simple (one word) or extended (idioms). In making a decision, the translator has to weigh each option against the relative frequency (and, therefore, naturalness) and currency of the TL equivalent within the appropriate language variety品种，各类；变化，多样化. The first solution is to

translate by a metaphor using the same or a similar image (vehicle) (\"a ray of hope\"; ein Hoffnungsstrahl); the secnond is to translate with a different image that has the same sense (avoir d'autres chats a fouetter: \"to have other fish to fry\"); the third is to convert the metaphor into a simile直喻，明喻an expression comparing one thing with another, always including the words `as' or `like'; the fourth is to qualify the simile with the sense (c'est un lion=\"he is as brave as a lion\"), which in communictive translation may be advisable, if the metaphor is obscure; the fifth is to translate as much as possible of the sense behind the image, the sense being the common area between the metaphor's object and the image, as seen by the writer and interpreted by the translator. The question of whether to use semantic or communicative translation will arise only when the translator is in doubt about which solution to adopt. Thus, (pace Reiss) a \"storm in a tea-cup\" will normally be translated as une tempete dans un verre d'eau or ein Sturm im Wasserglas, whatever the context, as long as the three idioms remain equally current within that context. Communicative translation may prefer \"a lot of fuss大惊小怪，小题大作 about nothing\" etc., a semantic translation \"a mountain out of a molehill不重要之物\" when the \"storm in a tea-cup\" becomes too well-worn用旧了的；陈腐的；平凡的，普通的. There is also a case for eliminating a few cliches 化装，假装masquerading as metaphor or idioms in a poorly written text requiring

communicative treatment. Further, the decision whether to translate \"as cool as a cucumber（黄瓜）从容不迫的，泰然自若的\" by tranquille comme Baptiste (pejorative贬低/抑的，轻蔑的) or avec un sang-froid parfait (imperturbable沉着的，冷静的, superbe, etc.) may depend on whether a semantic or communicative translation respectively is more appropriate.

Creative metaphor, as Dagut, quoting Richards (1965), points out, is \"the constitutive有权采取行动、任命的；构成的，构造的；本质的，要素的 form of language\". Further, it is a much commoner phenomenon than those who think of it as the preserve of poets might imagine, and it is often the most accurate and concise descriptive instrument in language, as opposed to mathematics. Notoriously, translators know that it is found most commonly in the financial columns of newspapers: \"Milton Keynes's commercial beacon烽火；灯塔，信号灯...The ticket on which the town sells itself...the start of the slow clamber攀爬，攀登 back, or a brief holiday window between two years?...no check in the push to sell long gilts金边证券（单，镀金）...the new long tap less attractive...Mercifully仁慈地，宽厚地；幸亏 (cf. hopefully, thankfully, gratefully)\" (Guardian, 30 Dec. 1976). Dagut also quotes from a recent issue of Time magazine: \"Mrs Thatcher 简陋木屋，棚屋；小室，间v.同居shacks off her gloves and 桶；枪管，笔杆barrels into battle.\" whether one translates the images or the sense of these phrases will depend first on whether this figurative language is equally appropriate in the TL, and, secondly, on how important and expressive表情丰富的，意味深长的；有表现力的, in the translator's opinion, the image is semantically (if it is not important, he will translate it communicatively.)

Assuming that a creative metaphor is worth translating, there is no question that the more original and surprising it is (and therefore the more remote from the national culture), the easier it will be to translate, since in its essence it will be remote from common semantic as well as cultural associations. For this reason, Kloepfer's (1967) dictum格言；声明 so disapprovingly quoted by Dagut, \"一句法语\

发明的，有创意的 (Dagut quotes \"she killed off the free milk programme\not a metaphor in his 独有的，专用的；唯一的；排外的；高级的，高档的exclusively creative sense创新意识 at all, and which could perhaps be translated by a polysemous一词多义的 word such as achever or tuer, and here Dagut rightly states that \"the translatability of a metaphor is determined by the extent to which the cultural (i.e. Referential) experience and semantic (linguistic) association on which it draws are shared by speakers of the particular TL\". The examples he gives (literal and semantic translation from Hebrew into English) are telling. However, he strangely fails to mention the third factor of universal or 在……之外，超出，越出；非常，格外extra-cultural experience, which makes translation of metaphor relatively easy, provided the semantic range of the relevant words are fairly congruent全等的；适合的，相称的. Thus, in the following lines from E. E. Cummings (1963) (from \"if I have made, my lady intricate错综复杂的；复杂精细的；难以理解的\"), \"the sweet small clumsy feet of April came into the ragged破烂的，褴褛的 meadow of my soul\\"feet\" is virtually事实上，实际上；几乎，差不多 extracultural, in contrast with \"April\" whose 言外之意connotations (freshness, sweetness, 阵雨showers, unfolding of 叶芽；花蕾buds and blossoms, etc.) are restricted to the temperate regions温带地区 of the Northern Hemisphere北半球, and \"meadow\" whose existence (and therefore connations) is also (differently) geographically 在……周围画线；将……限制于一定范围内，约束circumscribed. Of these three metaphors, \"feet\" could be translated into any language, but \"April\" and \"meadow\" would be subject to cultural (i.e. ecological) constraints. (I believe that certain physical and natural objects---and certain mathematical, physical and moral laws---are a priori and therefore extracultural, and they are at least less 借文化传入而使之变化acculturated than other objects and laws. The meanings of objects and concepts are apprehended

partly in as so far as就……而论；远至，到……程度 they are universal and common to all cultures, and partly in as far as they form part of a particular culture, and partly through individual perception.) Note that a creative metaphor is normally difficult enough to translate without the translator being able to account for解释，说明；对……负有责任；占，共计达 sound-effect (as in the above-mentioned Time quotation) unless the sound-effect \"is more important than\" (i.e. is) the sense. If the metaphor includes a neologism (but \"shack\" and \"barrel\" are American English), the translator must create his own neologism in semantic, but not normally in communicative translation.

Newbert has suggested that \"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?\" (Sonnet No. XVIII, W. Shakespeare) could not be semantically translated into a language spoken in a country where summers are unpleasant. This is not so, since the reader should get a vivid impression from the content of the sonnet of the beauty of summer in England, and reading the poem should exercise his imagination as well as introduce him to English culture. A communicative

translation into a Middle East language would certainly require a different imagery and a new poem. However, one could assume that all serious poems should be semantically translated and that the more original the metaphor, the more disconnected it is from its culture and therefore the more its originality can be preserved by a literal translation.

The translation of a metaphor may be a four-fold process: the source language term (e.g.ferme) 经常一起使用，搭配collocated with visage脸，面貌；外表，外观 leads to the image \"closed\" which lead to \"wood\" which leads to \"wooden face\". The

four elements (SL term; SL image; TL image; TL term) depict描绘，描述 the sense and quality of lifelessness没有生气的，没有活力的；无趣的；废弃的，不被使用的 and hardness. These are the conventional processes of communicative translation.

Language has verbs, adjectives and adverbs that refer naturally to persons, but may be transferred in some cases to objects (e.g. \"it's killing\"; \"the price is famously high\"; \"使震惊，使目瞪口呆；打昏，使昏迷stunned surprise使人目瞪口呆的惊喜\"). Similarly, most languages have ambiguous words such as \"fruit, stock, harvest\" which in some contexts may be either concrete or figurative or even both. At times有时，间或 a sentence may even be on three levels, viz. specific, generic类的，属的；一般的，总称的 and figurative, e.g.

\"The rate of absorption of drugs determines their actions.\"

\"The development of drugs determines their actions.\"

\"The future of drugs will determine the scope and importance of pharmacology药理学，药物学.\"

In all these case, a communicative translation will tend to be the easiest version that is consonant符合的，一致的n.辅音（字母） with the function of the utterance发音；表达；言论，话语, whilst a semantic translation will attempt to embrace the total meaning. To sum up, metaphors are not affected by the semantic-communicative argument when they have standardized TL equivalents: in other cases they are translated semantically, but with some allowance津贴，补助，

零用钱；折价，折扣 for different cultures, if they are original and important; communicatively, emphasizing or explicating their sense, in most other cases.

It may be objected that communicative translation should always be semantic and that semantic translation should always be communicative. I do not think this is possible. There is a contradiction, an opposition, at best an overlapping between meaning and message---when both are equally pursued. If, like Darbelnet, one believes that \"此处略去一段法文\"---communication appears to have no place. On the other hand, following Nida's \"translating is communicating\" with its emphasis on a readable可读的；易读的；读起来有趣的 (instantly立即，立刻?), understandable text (although Nida also insists on accuracy and fidelity), one notices invevitably a great loss of meaning in the dropping of so many Biblical metaphors which, Nida insists, the reader cannot understand.

The translation theorist has to raise the question, in considering Nida's dynamic equivalence, not only of the nature (education, class, occupation, age, etc.) of the readers, but of what is to be expected of them. Are they to be handed everything on a plate让某人轻易获得某物；把某物奉送给某人? Are they to make any effort? Are they ever expected to look a word up in a dictionary or an

encyclopaedia? I have no wish to question the appropriateness of the Good News Bible translation, and obviously the translation of any 行为句performatives (public notices, etc.) must also be instantly intelligible可理解的，明白易懂的；清楚的. However, I am writing against increasing assumption that all translating is (nothing but) communicating, where the less effort expected of the reader, the better.

The fact is, as any translator knows, meaning is complicated, many-levelled, a \"network of relations\" as devious刁滑的，不诚实的；不正当的，不光明正大的；弯曲的，蜿蜒的，迂回的； as the channels of thought in the brain. The more communication, the more generalization一般化，普遍化；综合，概括, the more simplification---the less meaning. One is most aware of meaning when one is thinking, or, to be more precise, when one is silently talking to oneself, that process of 使（习俗、规则、思想等经吸收同化而）内在化；吸收，使适应internalized or （使）观念深入人心interiorized language one engages in when one thinks, but for which no language appears to have a word. (It is supplemented by the formation形成，构成；形态，结构；队形，阵列 of images.) But as soon as one writes or speaks, one starts losing meaning---the images disappear, the words are constructed into clauses---and when one channels and points one's communication, in order to make it effective, towards one or a group of receptors, one confines one's meaning even more. When the third stage is reached---translating, the communication into another language---there is even further loss of meaning. The clash between communication and meaning can be illustrated by the difference between say affectant les fonctions amnesiques and \"affecting the function of memory\reguliers et facultatifs, \"normal and special trains\lookout\"---in all cases, the message is the same (perhaps?) but there is a

difference in meaning such as Darbelnet would perhaps refuse to recognize. Again, it has been pointed out too often that the terms Brot, pain, bread may have different meanings in the three languages if one is thinking of the savour, the shape, the composition, the importance of this food, but if one asks a supplier to send a hundred loaves of bread, the message is an effective act of communication, and connotations are likely to be neglected. The contrast can be made most

strongly and paradoxically似是而非地，自相矛盾地；悖理地，反常地, if i say that the more I savour the meaning of a word in all its richness, relating it to its object and its connotations, the less I am inclined to communicate, being absorbed专注的，全神贯注的；被吸收的---whilst if I want to communicate, I deal with meaning at its narrowest, 锋利的；鲜明的；敏锐的；急转的；尖锐的，刺耳的sharpest, most concise---in fact, ideally, meaning is just a reflex or an automatism无意识的行为 to me.

A message, therefore, is only a part of a complete meaning, just as a word, say, \"table\厚板，平板 or board\metaphor for a tavern客栈，酒馆?) for the whole object. Communication has a similar relation to language as functions has to structure.（言语之间相互交流，结构之中体现功能）Language, like structure, like \"global\" meaning, is rich, diverse, many-layered: once one thinks of a message, a communication, a function, the utterance言辞，话语；发音 becomes sharp, thin, direct. Chomsky (1976) denies that language is primarily communicative, and emphasizes that in \"contemplation, inquiry, normal social interchange交换，互换, planning and guiding one's own actions, creative writing, honest self-expression, and numerous other activities with language, expressions are used with their strict linguistic meaning irrespective不顾及的，不考虑的 of the intentions of the \"utterer\" with regard to关于 an audience\"(p.69). Transferring this distinction, I suggest that for most of the linguistic activities mentioned above (I except \"normal social interchange\" which has to be converted to \"standardized language\" equivalents) a semantic

translation is indicated. Semantic translation is subtler, more comprehensive, more penetrating than communicative translation, and does not require cultural adaptation. House (1977b) in a paper, confusingly distinguishes \"overt公开的，不

隐蔽的\" (i.e. semantic) from \"covert暗地的，隐蔽的，秘密的\" (i.e. communicative) translation---shades of \"co-text\" and \"context\" (Catford, 1965)---but usefully points out that a \"covert\" translation \"enjoys or enjoyed (sic) the status of an original source text in the target culture\no one should suspect that it is a translation. Unfortunately she does not distinguish stylistically between the two types of translation, and in her \"textual profile文字简介\比如 degree of generality and of emotiveness.

The distinction between semantic and communicative translation, which a behaviourist might well deny, shows how closely translation theory relates not only to philosophy of language, but even to philosophy in an older sense在旧/过去的意识里 of the term, when it meant perhaps \"interpretation of the meaning of life\". Thus an affirmative赞成的，肯定的 attitude to translation would perhaps stem from a belief in rationalism理性主义，唯物论, in the communicability沟通度, and renewal更新；恢复，复兴，复苏，复活 of common experience共同的经历, in \"innate天生的，固有的；与生俱来的\" human nature and even in natural law.

Normally, one assumes that a semantic translation is briefer and \"more literal\" than a communicative translation. This is usually, but not always so. If the original is rich in metaphor, has simultaneously同时 abstract as well as physical meanings and is concerned with say religion, ritual magic, witchcraft巫术 or other domains of discourse which have covert categories, a prose translation with explanatory power (the interpretation must be within the translation, not follow it) is likely to longer than the original. It has to reproduce the full meaning of the original, not

simply one of its functions.

Semantic translation is sometimes both linguistic and encyclopaedic, whilst communicative translation is strictly functional. \"Adam's rib\pointed out, has always been an inadequate translation.

If, as I believe, we are to use, in principle, semantic translation for works of philosophy, religion, anthropology, even politics, in texts where the manner and the matter are 熔合，混合fused, which are therefore well written, then the translation must be more explicit and usually fuller than for works of literature, particularly poetry. In poetry symbol is retained or transferred; in anthropology, it is retained and explained within the text. As Evans-Pritchard has said \"The translation is the interpretationext, not in a string of notes.

A sentence such as \"mary was a virgin mother\" must be explicated in accordance with与……一致；依照，根据 precisely what the translator believes the writer to have intended, normally retaining both the literal and the symbolical/figurative interpretation.

Crick has stated that in anthropology, Evans-Pritchard led the general shift from function to meaning: in meaning, the significance of symbols and rites in the culture, as well as their effect on spectators and participants, are uncovered. In a period where bare communication (functionalism功能主义) is overvalued, I think there has to be a corresponding shift to semantic translation of all texts that merit

优点，价值；功绩，成绩v.值得，应获得 it (they are not that many).

All translation remains a craft工艺，手艺；船，航天器；骗术 requiring a trained skill技能培训, continually renewed linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and a deal of大量的 flair天资，天分；鉴别力 and imagination, as well as intelligence智力 and above all尤其，最重要的是 common sense. Semantic translation, basically the work of one translator, is an art. Communicative translation, sometimes the product of a translator's team, is a craft. (Those who can, translate. Those who cannot, teach translation theory, learning hopefully from their mistakes.)

The above is an attempt to narrow the range and definition of valid translation, and to suggest that Savory's clever and notorious definitions, which form the superscript标在某一字右上角的；标在上面的 of this paper, since they rest on incorrect assumptions, can be 使和解，调解，调停；使一致，使和谐reconciled. However, not for a moment片刻都没有，一点都不 am I trying to minimize the difficulties of many aspects (too long overlooked) as well as 例子，实例，事例instances of the translator's task. Moreover, I believe that there are also many texts that present few or no difficulties to a translator, and that an effective, if approximate, translation of any text into any language is always possible.

Note: The best twentieth-century comment I know on this type of remark is in Thomas Mann's Introduction to Der Zauberberg (Princeton University, 1939): \"An outstanding Swedish critic declared openly and decisively that on one would ever dare to translate this book into a foreign language, as it was absolutely unsuitable for translation. This was a false prophecy. The Magic Mountain has been translated

into almost all European languages, and, as far as I can judge, none of my books has aroused such interest in the world.\" Cf. Various remarks about Racine's untranslatability into English. (He has recently been successfully translated.) A successful translation is probably more dependent on the translator's empathy with the writer's thought than on affinity of language and culture.