What Are the Main Differential Features-the Advantages and Disadvantages-of Semantic and Communicative Translation? In What Circumstances Would One or the Other Be Appropriate?

全文

(1)What Are the Main Differential Features-the Advantages and Disadvantages-of Semantic and Communicative Translation? In What Circumstances Would One or the Other Be Appropriate? I-ying Tsai. Cheng Shiu University Abstract Translators continue to search for the working standard to produce a standard translation script. Translators generally need to consider two factors at the same time, (a) to make the translated text and its style comply with the writer’s ideas, and (b) to translate the source texts into the reader’s understandable culture and language. Peter Newmark provided two theories, ‘semantic translation’ and ‘communicative translation’, in his academic textbooks, An Approach to Translation (Newmark, 1988a) and A Textbook of Translation (Newmark, 1988b). These descriptions later constituted the most important parts of Newmark’s translation theories and formed the main theoretical framework of this essay within which the topic will be discussed in detail. Based upon Newmark’s theories, this essay is going to discuss the main differential features of semantic translation and communicative translation, with reference to materials mainly dealing with translations from Chinese to English or from English to Chinese. Particular attention is paid to the advantages and disadvantages of Newmark’s two translation methods, and their appropriate application in the ChineseEnglish or English-Chinese translation processes is discussed. In conclusion, the main difference between semantic translation and communicative translation is that the former respects source text above all and the latter considers primarily the readers. Semantic translation theory, in general, is suitable for expressive texts, while communicative translation theory for informative and vocative texts. However, in translation processes, these two theories cannot be applied separately.. 292.

(2) 1.. Introduction. Translators continue to search for the working standard, which aims to produce a standard translation script. Using ethical consideration as an example, is there really a standard principle to judge ethics in this world? This is an open question with no definite answers. Likewise, translation faces the same situation as there is no one absolute standard which can accommodate all the varying problems in different translation circumstances. Therefore, Zhao (2003:115) claimed that the translation process is like the way of human life, which requires following and cross referencing several principles in order to make ways of living (my translation). Put into practical terms, translators generally need to consider two factors at the same time, (a) to make the translated text and its style comply with the writer’s ideas, and (b) to translate the source texts into the reader’s understandable culture and language. To help translators understand these two factors better, Peter Newmark, a British theorist in the translation domain, provided two theories, ‘semantic translation’ and ‘communicative translation’, in his academic textbooks, An Approach to Translation (Newmark, 1988a) and A Textbook of Translation (Newmark, 1988b). These descriptions later constituted the most important parts of Newmark’s translation theories and formed the main theoretical framework of this essay within which the topic will be discussed in detail. Based upon Newmark’s theories, this essay is going to discuss the main differential features of semantic translation and communicative translation, with reference to materials mainly dealing with translations from Chinese to English or from English to Chinese. Examples include the translation of literature (expressive texts), advertisement (vocative texts), and technical manuals (informative texts). Particular attention is paid to the advantages and disadvantages of Newmark’s two translation methods. Based on this analysis, how these two methods can be appropriately applied in the Chinese-English or English-Chinese translation processes has been discussed. This essay is divided into five sections. Following the Introduction, the general background of Newmark’s translation methods will be described in section two. Section three and section four can be seen as a parallel structure. Section three focuses on the semantic translation, its advantage, disadvantage and appropriate translation circumstance. Section four focuses on the communicative translation, its advantage, disadvantage and appropriate translation circumstance. Then in section five, a side-by-side comparison will be made to discuss the importance of integrating these two methods in the translation process and a general conclusion will be drawn accordingly.. 2.. Background Information 293.

(3) As mentioned above, semantic translation and communicative translation will be introduced in this section and their main characteristics will be described. And according to their own characteristics, the question as to what kind of text-category would be appropriate for one or the other will be discussed as well. In the 1960’s, Eugene Nida made a pioneer effort in translation history to debate the approaches of literal and free translation, where he categorized varying translation modes into two main approaches according to the actual conditions, ‘formal equivalence’ and ‘dynamic equivalence’. As stated by Nida (1964: 159), ‘formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content…One is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language’. He went on to say, ‘dynamic equivalence is based on “the principle of equivalent effect,”’ where ‘the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message’ (ibid). His systematic theories set a path for translators moving on from word-to-word translation. Furthermore, his theories had a significant influence on Peter Newmark. As claimed by Munday (2001:44), ‘Communicative translation resembles Nida’s dynamic equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on TT (target text) reader, while semantic translation has similarities to Nida’s formal equivalence’. According to Newmark (1988b: 58), ‘the characteristic of the semantic translation attempts to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the target language grammatical structure’. Whereas for the communicative translation, ‘it attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership’ (ibid: 47). Obviously, semantic translation was created to retain the cultural element, the writer’s register and unique expression in the source language. Thus, by applying semantic translation, the structure of sentences and the order of segments in the target language can be transferred close to the source language. On the other hand, communicative translation is designed to translate the source texts in a reader-oriented approach, which aims to ensure readers understand the main message in the source language. Chen (2005) made a comment on the above two methods that ‘Newmark’s theory should be a choice of selecting the most suitable way of translation in a given situation. For example, the communicative translation should be the way to proceed for the translation of popular fiction. However, if semantic translation is the choice to proceed, then, during the translation process, the smaller fragments of words should be compromised to make the whole look complete’ (my translation). Thus, one must first examine the types and characteristics of the source texts before carrying out the translation. Moreover, Newmark argued that semantic translation and communicative translation should be applied in the translation processes from an integrated perspective rather than alternative as neither of them could successfully accommodate 294.

(4) all the circumstances. To a great extent, therefore, it is only by way of switching between these two types of translation methods that one will be able to create a good piece of translation. Moreover, Newmark mentioned the importance of text analysis in his academic textbooks, An Approach to Translation (Newmark, 1988a) and A Textbook of Translation (Newmark, 1988b), where the text-categories analysis and their related translation methods have been highlighted. According to Newmark, the texts can be divided into three categories: (a) expressive text, (b) informative text, and (c) vocative text. The function of expressive text is to express the mind process of a speaker, a writer, or an originator of the utterance. This type of text includes: serious imaginative literature; authoritative statements; and autobiography, essays, and personal correspondence. Next, the informative text aims to deliver specific knowledge to readers, such as facts, reports, ideas, or theories. And the range of literal varieties covers academic papers, textbooks, popular science or art books, and popular journalism. Last, for the vocative text, its purpose is to call the readership to act, think, or feel, in fact, to ‘react’ in the way intended by the text. Instructions, publicity, propaganda, persuasive writing, and possibly popular fiction all belong to this category. In general, semantic translation is writer-oriented and communicative translation is reader-oriented. Therefore, Newmark (1988a, 1988b) claimed that semantic translation is more suitable for ‘expressive’ texts, while communicative translation is for ‘informative’ and ‘vocative’ texts. To better understand the implementation of these two translation methods, the advantage, disadvantage and appropriate circumstance of semantic translation and communicative translation will be described based on related examples in turns.. 3.. Semantic Translation. Semantic translation ‘attempts to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the target language grammatical structure’ (Newmark, 1988b: 58).. 3.1. Advantage. Newmark (1988b: 47) believed that ‘a semantic translation attempts to preserve its author’s idiolect, his peculiar form of expression, in preference to the “spirit” of the source or the target language’. To support this viewpoint, Liu (2004 ： 57) furthered this argument in detail, stating that ‘semantic translation is a kind of art . It fully demonstrates the expression of a language, in an objective and precise way, whereby during its translation process of the source language, the additional explanation of terms is only required when the target language is becoming difficult to understand by the readers. In other words, semantic translation tries to maintain the original work of the author’ (my translation). Obviously, the purpose of semantic 295.

(5) translation is to ensure that the author’s spiritual features, such as register, phonetics, contextual meaning and so on, have been fully delivered to readers through the target scripts. By applying the semantic translation method, each word in the source texts needs to be translated faithfully. At the same time the grammatical structure of the source language needs to be adjusted towards the target language. Through this way of translation, readers could grasp the essence of the author’s thoughts. To better understand the advantage of semantic translation, its application in the translation process of Tang poems has been taken as an example in the following. Song and Lin (2006: 42) made a comment on the English translation work of the poems in the Tang dynasty to the effect that, when translating such work, ‘one must consider the style and cultural factors of the classic poems, while being able to deliver a clear message to the reader’. Through semantic translation, the target language needs to be able to deliver every detailed meaning of the source language faithfully. To better understand this comment, the poem ‘Untitled’ by Shang Yin Li has been taken as an example here, the translation of which needs to correspond precisely with the poet’s ideas. Li’s ‘Untitled’ is a piece of love poetry that is written to show the sufferings of missing a person through the symbol of silkworms and candles. Below is the translation of it: Original:. 春禪到死絲 (si) 方盡；蠟炬成灰淚始乾. Literal translation:. Spring silkworms die while they spin out the silk; Candles burn and turn to ashes as they have no tear to shed. (my translation) Translated by Anon.: Spring silkworm till its death spins silk from lovesick heart. Candles only when burned up have no tears to shed. (cited in Song & Lin, 2006) For poems, the language exquisiteness lies in its phonetics. In the poem translation processes, therefore, translators should pay particular attention to this issue. In the poem translation above, 絲 (si) has been semantically translated as ‘silk’. This is because the term 絲 (si) literally means silk in Chinese while it also has the same phonetic sound of ‘思 (si) missing’. If translators use communicative translation, the exquisiteness in source language cannot be faithfully delivered to readers though the poet’s intention and thought could be translated straightforwardly. As Newmark (1988b 46) has mentioned, ‘semantic translation is more flexible, admits the creative exception to 100% fidelity and allows for the translators intuitive empathy with the 296.

(6) original’. Thus for poem translation, the semantic translation (the Anon.’s translation version) is more appropriate than communicative translation as it not only delivers the original meaning but also demonstrates the aesthetic value of the source language, in both phonetics and formality.. 3.2. Disadvantage. Newmark (1988b:42) stated that ‘a semantic translation is always inferior to its original, since it involves loss of meaning’. Hence the translated version based on semantic translation is usually worse in quality when compared with the original version. This phenomenon, the loss of meaning, often appears in the translation processes of highly regarded literature or those writings that consist of great literary value. In these kinds of works, therefore, translators are seldom able to completely demonstrate the essence of the original work. Furthermore, Newmark (1988a, 1988b) also mentioned that the semantic translation would often cause over-translation. He claimed that ‘semantic translation is personal and individual, follows the thought process of the author and tends to over-translate’ (1988b: 47). In terms of practice, over-translation means that readers receive more information in the target language than the author has given in the source language. This is usually caused by the improper expression of the culture. Hsu (2001: 79) made an extension on the cause of over-translation, commenting that ‘over-translation would occur if translators are trying to transform the hidden culture meaning into the target language’. For example, Hawkes’ semantic translation (cited in Hsu, 2001) of the following sentence from The Red Chamber is open to argument: Original: Literal translation:. 「謀事在人，成事在天」 Things are worked out by man, but their achievement is met by fate.. Translated by Hawkes:. ‘Man proposes. God disposes’.. Suggested version:. ‘Man proposes Fate disposes’.(my translation). As a Christian, Hawkes translated this sentence as ‘Man proposes. God disposes’. To some extent, ‘天’ (tian) can be translated as ‘God’ literally. However, since this term ‘God’ has a western religious meaning, this semantic translation extends what the author wanted to express and renders the original sentence with a religious meaning. This results in the phenomenon of over-translation. Therefore, to reflect the original meaning of the sentence, the original text should be translated as ‘Man proposes Fate disposes’.. 3.3. Appropriate circumstance, with examples 297.

(7) Newmark (1988a) claimed that the semantic translation is suitable for ‘expressive’ texts translation, where the specific language of the speaker or writer is as important as the content. This is mainly because semantic translation intends to present every detail of the contextual meaning of the source text by means of maintaining the text’s characteristics and expressions. Therefore, poems, novels, speeches, and any authoritative texts should normally be translated semantically from a writer-oriented perspective as ‘the unit of translation is likely to be small, since words rather than sentences contain the finest nuances of meaning’ (Newmark, 1988b: 50). In the early 20th century, Chinese theorists mostly preferred the writer-oriented theories. Since most of the works picked for translation at that period in China were literature or important speeches which always had specific messages or particular expressions, the translation theories created in that period tend to be faithful to the source text. Yan Fu’s ‘fidelity’ (xin), ‘fluency’ (da), and ‘elegance’ (ya) (cited by Chan, 2004) and Lin Yu Tang’s (ibid) theory of ‘faithfulness,’ ‘fluency,’ and ‘beauty’ are very similar to Newmark’s semantic translation method. Lin (ibid) explained that faithful translation does not mean the source texts need to be translated literally or word by word; instead it tends to treat each sentence as a unit and interpret it accordingly. To be fluent, Lin claimed that as far as the translated scripts are sound grammatically and correct in terms of the target language, this would be a good translation. Moreover, Lin (ibid) indicated that beauty is an approach that the translator must follow the author’s style of writing. (Please note that Lin’s ‘beauty’ is different from Yan’s ‘elegance’ as Yan prefers to use those stunning words). The following paragraph is extracted from Bridgehead Revisited as an example to demonstrate that, if the source language has a specific message or particular expression, it needs to be translated semantically. Since the story was set in the period before the Second World War, many sentences used specific expressions to portray the contemporary lifestyle of the upper classes in the 1920’s. The writing style is both discrete and elegant, containing plenty of long sentences. To better express the author’s ideas, this kind of literature translation should usually adopt the semantic translation method. An excerpt from Brideshead Revisited: Julia left Sebastian and me at Brideshead and went to stay with an aunt, Lady Rosscommon, in her villa at Cap Ferrat. <1> All the way she pondered her problem. She had given a name to her widower-diplomat<2>; she called him ‘Eustace’… Translated by Lai (2006) in Chinese: 茱麗亞把賽巴斯欽和我留在白莊，自個兒去姨媽蘿斯卡蒙夫人在費哈岬的別墅陪她住去了。<1> 一路上她都在想心事。她已經給丧妻的外交官 <2>取了個名字，管他叫「依思泰絲」，……. 298.

(8) Based on this excerpt, some important points have been noted regarding the implementation of a semantic translation approach. Analysis: <1> 茱麗亞把賽巴斯欽和我留在白莊，自個兒去姨媽蘿斯卡蒙夫人在費哈岬的別墅陪她住去了。 Back translation: Julia left Sebastian and me at Brideshead, and she herself went to live with an aunt, Lady Rosscommon, in her villa, which is at Cap Ferrat. Interpretation: In the source text, the author used many long sentences, which can be seen as one of his important writing styles. This has been well demonstrated in the sample above, where insertion of many joining clauses forms a complex expression. To allow the author’s writing style to be delivered to the readers successfully, it is necessary to translate every segment from the source language to the target language, thus the ideal translation approach for such a job would be semantic translation. Compared to the original text ‘Julia left Sebastian and me at Brideshead and went to stay with an aunt, Lady Rosscommon, in her villa at Cap Ferrat’, it can be observed that the structure of the semantically translated version is very close to the original one. Analysis: <2> 喪妻外交官 Back translation: Wife-lost diplomat Interpretation: ‘widower-diplomat’ is the author’s own term, by joining two unrelated words together to form a new term. To demonstrate the author’s literal creation of words, and to show this unique bonding in the target language, it is necessary for it to be translated precisely, thus the version based on a semantic translation approach can be found to reflect the writer’s style, an unusual combination.. 4.. Communicative Translation. Communicative translation ‘attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership’ (Newmark, 1988b: 47).. 4.1. Advantage. As claimed by Newmark (1988b: 47), ‘inadequately and/or inaccurately written passages can be “corrected” in communicative translation’. Therefore, communicative translation would make the target scripts more readable, like written in a mother tongue, and more appreciated by the reader. In such a way, the information the author intended to deliver would be easier to get across. Using the most successful advertisement in China, the translation of Coca-Cola, as an example, Coca-Cola is translated as 可口可樂 (Keko-kele), which can be back 299.

(9) translated in English as ‘可口 keko’ for ‘delicious’ and ‘可樂 kele’ for ‘joyous’. Putting “keko” and “kele” two words together would give a meaning of ‘joyous in the mouth’ in Chinese. Therefore, the communicative translation of Coca-Cola in Chinese not only kept the phonetic sound of the word, but also added in marketing elements. Since the message in the translated version is easy to understand and can be delivered to the new audiences in an acceptable way, it attracts many buyers to it in a short period of time. Here is another example to show where the communicative translation is more appropriate: Source language:. wet paint. Semantic translation in Chinese:. 濕油漆. Back translation:. watery paint. Communicative translation in Chinese:. 油漆未乾. Back translation:. the painting is not dry yet.. From the example above, it can be found that the semantic translation can not achieve the purpose of advising audiences to avoid touching the wet paint. In order to deliver the warning message and emphasize the function of the sign, the communicative translation is more suitable in this kind of circumstance.. 4.2. Disadvantage. Newmark (1988b:47-48) pointed out that ‘communicative translation is social, concentrates on the message and the main force of the text, and tends to be undertranslated’. Gan (2005: 139) further elaborated this statement that ‘under-translation has over estimated the meaning of the information provided in the translated text, thus failing to provide the essential information and resulting in readers misunderstanding the message that the author intended to give in the original text’ (my translation). This kind of under-translation caused by communicative translation will frequently make it difficult for readers to get the implied meanings of the source texts. If translators fail to point out such issues, it would lead to an additional distortion of meaning in the translation process. Here, for example, is a paragraph from ‘Laozi’, which was translated into English by Arthur Waley (1999: 121): Source Language:. 有得司契，無得司砌. Semantic Translation:. With Tao (power) you have by contract, without Tao you take by force. (my translation) Communicative Translation: For he who has ‘power’ of Tao is the Grand 300.

(10) Almoner; he who has not the ‘power’ is the Grand Perquisitor. (translated by Waley) In this case, the translator uses ‘Grand Almoner’ and ‘Grand Perquisitor’ to reflect the classic level of the script, but this communicative translation version may pose problems for an English language reader, not only because the terms ‘almoner’ and ‘perquisitor’ themselves are rare, but also because they don’t faithfully reflect the implication of the Chinese source texts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of ‘almoner’ is ‘an official distributor of alms’ (Almoner, 1989) and ‘perquisitor’ is ‘the original acquirer of an estate to which his descendants have succeeded’ (Perquisitor, 1989). In the Chinese source text, the term ‘契’ has the implication of having something by contract and the term ‘砌’ has the implication of taking something by force. In the communicative translation version by Waley, ‘Almoner’ might show a little bit of implied meaning of ‘has something by contract,’ yet ‘Perquisitor’ can hardly be related to ‘taking something by force.’ (Newmark, 1988a: 44) Therefore, the translation does not present the implication of the actual meaning in the source text.Unless the readers have knowledge of the Chinese culture and are very fond of Laozi, they would not be able to get the idea from the translation. As the terms used in the communicative translation are very western and even esoteric, it might confuse and alienate readers even more. It seems that a more semantic translation in this case would be better by using the concepts of ‘contract’ and ‘force’.. 4.3. Appropriate circumstance, with examples. As stated by Chan (2002:15), ‘for those parts that are done with literal translation that would cause reader’s confusion and misunderstanding, translators should use their own comprehension with consideration for the target audiences, and make an interpretation that these audiences would understand’ (my translation). Since communicative translation intends to explain the message of the source text to the readers, it is suitable for ‘informative’ texts and ‘vocative’ texts (Newmark 1988a, 1988b). The informative texts contain those texts related to knowledge, such as nonliterary writing, journalism, informative articles and books, textbooks, reports, scientific and technological writing. On the other hand, the vocative texts contain those texts with pragmatic function, such as propaganda, advertisement, and public notices. Example 1 consists of two instructional sentences that are extracted from a manual of universal adaptor (SS, 2005). It aims to demonstrate the implementation of communicative translation in informative texts. Example 1 Manual of Universal Adaptor: 1. Select the applicable plug-insert for the country in which you are traveling. Please refer to the global traveler guide. 2. Slide and push the plug-insert completely into the master unit Chinese translation: 使用說明書 301.

(11) 1.請選擇適合當地插座的插頭。 Back translation: Please select the applicable plug-insert for the country 2.將插座介面完全推移進用萬用轉接器上。 Back translation: Push and move the plug interface completely into a universal adapter. Analysis: Since information in the technical texts needs to be delivered to the audience from an easily understandable and acceptable way, communicative translation is more appropriate compared to semantic translation. The above instruction could not be semantically translated into Chinese since the Chinese expression way is different from English. Thus, communicative translation helps restructure the original sentences in the source texts to allow them to conform to the register of Chinese, which aims to help Chinese readers to comprehend the instruction. As stated by Newmark (1988a:43), ‘communicative translation is concerned manly with the receptors, usually in the context of language and cultural variety’. Therefore, communicative translation is more appropriate for informative texts than semantic translation. Example 2 is an advertisement extracted from Time Magazine (October 2006, No.128, which was published in a bilingual version in Taiwan). It aims to demonstrate the implementation of communicative translation in vocative texts. Example 2: Packing Order <1> A beautiful piece of vintage luggage might seem like an ideal travel companion. Stylish, graceful and conjuring up a more refined era of globetrotting, a 1920s leather case is guaranteed to turn heads at the airport. Unfortunately, though, these glamorous artefacts weren’t designed for the trials of modern travel. But it is possible to indulge in nostalgia without your clothes ending up scattered across the carousel. In October, the British company Uppercase will launch a new line of band-stitched leather cases inspired by the elegant designs of the 1920s, but with the sturdiness of modern luggage. The range is available in a variety of colors, from traditional beige or black to ultramodern neon pink. This is some emotional baggage <2> you’ll want to keep… Chinese translation: 完美打包<1> 漂亮又復古的皮箱，似乎是理想旅行伴侶。時髦、雅致、令人想起過去那個以更優雅的方式環遊世界的年代，這樣的 1920 年代皮箱保證能在機場引人注目。然而很可惜低，這些迷人的手工藝品禁不起現代旅行的模難。但縱情懷舊之餘，也可以不讓衣服散落在行李輸送帯上。今年十月，英國 Uppercase 公司將推出全新系列的手工縫製皮箱，靈感來自 1920 年代的優雅設計，但具有現代行李箱的堅固耐用。有多種顏色可供 302.

(12) 選擇，從傳統的米色或黑色，到超摩登的螢光粉紅。這會是您想要擁有的「感情包袱」<2> Analysis: <1> 完美打包 Back translation: Perfect packing Interpretation: Compared with the original title, ‘packing order’, the Chinese title, ‘perfect packing (完美打包)’ has been totally changed based on the communicative translation method. To attract the readers, the original structure of the source texts has been broken down and the adjective ‘perfect’ has been added to ‘correct’ (amend) the original written passages. If this title is translated semantically, it becomes ‘pack in order 打包程序’, which will cause Chinese reader’s confusion and misunderstanding of this advertisement. Therefore, communicative translation is more appropriate for vocative texts than semantic translation. Analysis: <2> 「感情包袱」 Back translation: Mental burden Interpretation: This is a metaphor, which not only means material baggage but also presents a meaning of desired burden in people’s mind. The translator uses bricks to emphasize its double-entendre. If using the semantic translation method, this term can be translated as ‘emotional bag 情感的包’, which sounds clumsy in Chinese and loses the implied attraction to the readers. To achieve a certain effect on its readers’ minds (Newmark, 1988a: 42), communicative translation is more appropriate here rather than semantic translation.. 5.. Discussion & Conclusion. In translation processes, there are normally two attitudes that the translators can adopt: one is to make the translated text and style comply with the writers, and the other one is to translate the texts according to the target language. Built upon these two attitudes, Newmark’s semantic translation and communicative translation provide systemic theoretical frameworks for literal translation and free translation. The main difference between semantic translation and communicative translation is that the former respects source text above all and the latter considers primarily the readers. It is clear that semantic translation theory, in general, is suitable for expressive texts, while communicative translation theory for informative and vocative texts. However, these two theories sometimes coincide in some cases. For expressive texts, sometimes detailed explanations based on communicative translation are required to deal with obscurities. On the other hand, for informative and vocative texts, precise description based on semantic translation is also often needed to deliver the essential 303.

(13) information. In translation processes, therefore, these two theories cannot be applied separately. Based on specific requirements in various cases (source/target texts), semantic translation and communicative translation need to be analysed holistically and be applied from an integrated perspective to achieve a better outcome. Nowadays, translators are usually asked to be faithful to the source texts in the literature translation domain. However, Newmark’s theory is based on the translation of French, German, and English. Since the grammatical structure, writing habit, and the way of thinking in Chinese are different to the European language systems, it sometimes requires multi-level manipulation when making translation between Chinese and English. Therefore, further research work is expected to be carried out to discuss the appropriateness of implementing Newmark’s two translation methods in the translation processes between Chinese and English. Words count: 4911. 304.

(14) References References in English: Almoner. (1989). The Oxford English dictionary. (p. 353). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chan, L. T. H. (2004). Twentieth-century Chinese translation theory: Modes, issues and debates. Amsterdam/Philiadelphia: John Benjamins. Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. London: Routledge. Newmark, P. (1988a). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall, International (UK) Ltd. Newmark, P. (1988b). Approaches to translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon. Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Perquisitor. (1989). The Oxford English dictionary. (p. 590). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Waley, A. (1999). Laozi, library of Chinese classics. (A. Waley, Trans.) Hunan: Hunan People’s Publishing House. References in Chinese: Chan, D. A. (2002). 翻譯精要 (The principles of translation). Taipei: Taiwan Commercial Press. Chen, Y. P., (2005). 中西思維方式與中西翻譯理論分析嚴複的“信達雅”與紐馬克的交際翻譯與語義翻譯 (“A comparative study of Yan Fu and Newmark’s translation theories from the perspective of modes of thinking”). Journal of Shijiazhuang Teachers College, 7(5), 89-92. Gan, H. Y. (2005). 欠額翻譯與超額翻譯形成原因及規避策略 (On under translation & over translation and the shunning strategy). Journal of Huaihua University, 24(4), 139-141. Hsu, J. (2001). 文化內涵詞翻譯中資訊傳遞的障礙及其對策 (Culture loaded wordobstacles and the solutions of information exchanges during the translation progress). Journal of PLA University of Foreign Language, 24(2), 77-81. Lui, G. L. (2004). 從古詩詞英譯中看紐馬克的“語義翻譯”與“交際翻譯 (On translation of Chinese ancient poetry through Newmark's ‘semantic translation’ and ‘communicative translation’ Journal of Shijiazhuang Teachers College, 6(4), 55-59. Song, M. & Lin, M. (2006). 從唐詩英譯談文化語境順應 (On the adaptability of cultural context in English translation of Tang poems). Yinshan Academic Journal, 19(1), 41-45. 305.

(15) SS AA 101-9 Manual of universal adaptor. (2005). Zhou, Z. X. (2003). 翻譯實務 (Translation in practice). Taipei: Taiwan Commercial Press.. 306.

(16)