Communicative and Semantic Translation

Communicative and semantic translation may well coincide in particular, where the text conveys
a general rather them a culturally bound message and where the matter is as important as the
manner. Not ably than in the translation of the most important religious, philosophical, artistic and
scientific text assuming second reader as informed and interested as the first. Only communicative
and semantic translation fulfill the two main aims of translation, which, the first accuracy, and
second in general. A semantic translation is written at the author’s linguistic level, a
communicative at the readership semantic translation is used for expressive text, communicative
for in formative and vocative text.

Semantic and communicative translation treat the following items similarly: stock and dead
metaphors, normal collocations, technical terms, slang, colloquialisms, standard notices,
phaticisms, ordinary language. The expressive components of ‘expressive’ texts (usual syntactic
structures, collocations, metaphors, words peculiarly used, neologisms) are rendered closely, if not
literally, but where they appear in informative and vocative text, they are normalized or toned
down (except in striking advent, tenements). Cultural components tend to be transferred intact in
expressive texts transferred and explained with culturally neutral terms in informative texts;
replaced by cultural equivalents in vocative texts. Badly and/or inaccurately written passages must
remain so in translation if they are ‘expressive’, although the translator should comment on any
mistakes of factual or moral truth, if appropriate. Badly and/or inaccurately written passages
should be ‘corrected’ in communicative translation.

So much for the detail, but semantic and communicative translation must also be seen as wholes.
Semantic translation is personal and individual, follows the thought processes of the author, tends
to over-translate, pursues nuances of meaning, yet aims at concision in order to reproduce
pragmatic impact. Communicative translation is social, concentrates on the message and the main
force of the text, tends to under-translate, to be sample, clear and brief, and is always written in a
natural and resourceful stole. A semantic translation is normally inferior to its original, as there is
both cognitive a communicative translation is often better than its original. At a pinch, a semantic
translation to explain.

However, in the communicative translation of vocative texts, equivalent effect is not only
desirable, it is essential; it is the criterion by which the effectiveness, and therefore the value, of
the translation of notices, instructions, publicity, propaganda, persuasive or eristic writing, and
perhaps popular fiction, is to join the Party, to assemble the device-could even be quantified as a
percentage rate of the success of the translation.

In information texts, equivalent effect is desirable only in respect of their (in theory) insignificant
emotional impact; it is not possible if SL and TL culture are remote from each other since normally
the cultural items have to be explained by culturally natural or generic terms, the topic content
simplified, SL difficulties clarified. Hopefully, the TL reader reads the text with the same degree
of interest as the SL reader, although the impact is different. However, the vocative (persuasive)
thread in most informative texts has to be rendered with an eye to the readership, i.e., with an
equivalent effect purpose.

In semantic translation, the first problem is that for serious imaginative literature, there are
individual readers rather than a readership. Secondly, whilst the reader is not entirely neglected,
the translator is essentially trying to render the effect the SL text on himself (to feel with, to
empathize with the author), not on any putative readership. Certainly, the more ‘universal’ the text
(consider ‘To be or not to be’), the more a broad equivalent effect is possible, since the ideals of
the original go beyond any cultural frontiers. The metalingual sound-effects which the translator
is trying to reproduce are in fact unlikely to affect the TL reader, with his different system,
similarly, but here may be compensation. In any event, the reaction.[10]

All translation a craft requiring a trained skill, continually renewed linguistic and non-linguistic
knowledge and a deal of flair and imagination, as well as intelligence and above all common sense.
There is no one communicative nor one semantic method of translating a text. There are in fact
widely overlapping bond of method.

Features of Semantic and Communicative Translation

Although in theory, both of communicative and semantic translation are separable, but in practice
of translation of a long text there are no one communicative nor one semantic unvarnished. There
is a translation inclined to communicative or to semantic, or in certain part is communiativelly and
in other semantically. To more clearly, we can study the features of semantic and communicative
translation in this table:

Features of semantic and communicative translation (Newmark, 1991: 11-13)

Semantic Translation Communicative Translation

1. Author-centered Reader-centered

2. Pursues author’s thought Pursues author’s intention.

process.
Related to speech.
Related to though.

3. Concerned with author as Adapts and makes the thought and

individual cultural content of original more
accessible to reader.
4. Semantic-and syntactic- Effect-oriented. Formal features or
oriented. original sacrificed more readily.

Length of sentences, positions and

integrity of clauses, word position,
etc., preserved whenever possible.

5. Faithful, more literal. Faithful, freer.

6. Informative Effective.

7. Usually more awkward, more Easy reading, more natural, smoother,

detailed, more complex, but briefer. simpler, clearer, more direct, more
conventional, conforming to particular
register of language, but longer.

8. Personal Social

9. Source language biased Target language biased

10. Over-translated: more Under-translated: us of ‘hold-all’ terms.

concentrated and more specific than
original

11. More powerful Less powerful

12. Always inferior to the original May be better than original because of
because of loss of meaning. gain in force and clarity, despite loss in
semantic content.

13. Out of time and local place Ephemeral and rooted in its context,
‘eternal’. ‘existential’.

14. Wide and universal ‘Tailor-made’ or targeted for one

category of readership; does one job,
fulfils one particular function.

15. Inaccuracy is always wrong A certain embroidering, a stylistic

synonymy, a discreet modulation is
condoned, provided the facts are straight
and the reader is suitably impressed.

16. The translator has no right to The translator has the right to correct and
improve or to correct. improve the logic and style of the
 original, clarify ambiguities, jargons,
normalize bizarre personal usage.

17. Mistakes in the original should The translator can correct mistakes of
(and must) be pointed out only in fact in original.
footnote.

18. Target: a ‘true’ version, i.e. an Target: a ‘happy’ version, i.e. a

exact statement. successful act.

19. Unit of translating: tends to Unit of translating: tends to sentences

words, collocations and clauses. and paragraph.

20. Applicable to all writings with Applicable to impersonal texts.

original expressiveness.

21. Basically the works of Basically the work of translating is a

translating is an art. craft.

22. Usually the work of one Sometimes the product of a translation

translator. team.

23. Conforms to the ‘relativist’ Conforms to the ‘universalist’ position,

position of cultural relativity. assuming that exact translation may be
possible.

24. Meaning Message