论文关键词：新闻翻译 交际翻译 语义翻译 文本类型 翻译标准 论文摘要：随着现代科技的迅速发展，新闻，作为最重要的大众传播工具之一，与人类生活愈来愈密不可分。因此，新闻翻译不可避免地在信息交流中发挥重要影响。一些学者已经着手对新闻翻译的探讨，并对翻译的操作过程和技巧问题提出了宝贵的见解。法国翻译家纽马克根据布勒对语言功能的分类将文本分成了三种类型，即表达型、信息型和号召型。本文将试从交际翻译和语义翻译的角度来研讨如何有效地翻译法语新闻，法语论文题目，从而能够准确地传达信息并尽量保留原文的创作特点。 本论文由两章组成。第一章深入研讨了交际翻译和语义翻译、文本类型、翻译的标准以及它们之间的关系等问题，从而为本论文打下了核心的理论基础。第二章集中讨论了交际翻译和语义翻译在新闻翻译中的运用 Translation is a science as well as a skill, and each kind of skill needs theory as a guide. A successful translation is not necessary a direct result of painstaking efforts in exploring translation principles, but it should correspond to the laws of translation. Translation theory provides guidance for the practice. 1.1 Communication Translation and Semantic Translation Defined Peter Newmark made an important contribution to the study of translation theory. His major contribution is the dichotomy of communicative translation and semantic translation, which have already been recognized as his most influential achievement in translation studies. Newmark’s communicative translation and semantic translation are believed to be more practical than idealized discussions on translation method: “I have proposed only two methods of translation that are appropriate to any text: (a) Communicative translation, where the translator attempts to produce the same effect on the TL readers as was produced by the original on the SL readers, and (b) Semantic translation, where the translator attempts, within the bare syntactic and semantic constraints of the TL, to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the author” (Newmark, 2004: 39). From these words, communicative translation and semantic translation can be roughly distinguished. As this definition indicates, communicative translation focuses essentially upon the comprehension and response of TL receptors while semantic translation centers around the semantic content of the SL texts. To be more specific, “in communicative translation, the emphasis should be on conveying the message of the original in a form, which conforms to the linguistic, cultural and pragmatic conventions of TL. Both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership. Semantic translation consequently tends to strive to reproduce the form of the original as closely as TL norms will allow” (Shuttleworth and Cowie, 2004: 22). Newmark’s communicative translation and semantic translation are the result of years of experiences undertaking the translation from English to French and from English to German. The new methods have a great bearing on translation studies, expanding translators’ horizon and offering brand new perspectives to viewing the matter of translation strategies. 1.2 Comparison between CT and ST To lend readers more concrete understanding of relevant knowledge about communicative translation and semantic translation, this part will conduct their mutual comparisons. 1.2.1 The Differences between CT and ST These two kinds of translation have obvious difference, according to Peter Newmark, the methods of communicative translation and semantic translation vary from each other in terms of the following aspects: (1) 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. Semantic translation remains within the original culture and assists the reader only in its connotations if they constitute the essential human (non-ethnic) message of the text. (2) Communicative translation must emphasize the “force” rather than the content of the message. Semantic translation would be more informative but less effective. (3) A semantic translation is always inferior to its original, since it involves loss of meaning; Communicative translation may gain in force and clarify what it loses in semantic content. The translator is trying in his own language to write a little better than the original, unless he is reproducing the well-established formulae of notes or correspondence. (Newmark, 2004: 39) Generally, a communicative translation tends to undertranslate. It uses more generic, hold-all terms to translate difficult passages. It is smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, conforming to a particular register of language. It is foremost to produce the same impact or effect on SL readers and fulfill the function of TL texts to establish the communication between SL authors and TL readers. A semantic translation tends to overtranslate. It is more complex, more awkward, more detailed, more concentrated. It pursues the thought-processes and includes more meanings in its search for one nuance of meaning. Differences between communicative translation and semantic translation can be further displayed by the following example: 谋事在人，成事在天 Version A: Man proposes, God disposes. Version B: Man proposes, Heaven disposes. |
