SECTION

A
1
2
3
4
5 Unit A9
6
7 Text type in translation
8
9
0
11 As part of the ‘form vs function’ debate or whether we should be concerned with
12 how something is said as opposed to what is intended by it, relevance research (e.g.
13 Gutt 1991) took a ‘cognitive’ turn essentially to critique the ‘textual’ turn that
14 was gaining momentum throughout the 1970s (e.g. Beaugrande 1978, Koller 1979).
15 In the analysis of STs or the composition of TTs, the relevance model has drawn on
16 mental resources such as ‘inference’ as a more viable alternative to taxonomic
17 classifications such as text typologies. Yet, most theorizing by proponents of
18 ‘relevance’ on translation strategy (descriptive vs interpretive, direct vs indirect),
19 could not completely ignore macro-structures such as text type or genre. By the end
20 of the 1990s, there was a clear admission that inference can only be enriched by
21 awareness of the conventions governing the communicative event within which
22 texts or genres occur (Gutt 1998). In Unit 7 of this book, we introduced the ‘textual’
23 dimension to the model of pragmatic equivalence and presented the main claims
24 of the textual model. The present unit re-examines these claims and properly
25 assesses the status of text type in the translation process.
26
27
28 STANDARDS OF TEXTUALITY
29
30 Translation theories informed by textual pragmatics (e.g. Thomas 1995) see
31 ‘equivalence’ in relative and hierarchical terms (Koller 1995) and specifically view
32 a ‘translation’ as a valid representative of ST communicative acts (Beaugrande 1978).
33 Concepts such as ‘valid representative’ or ‘communicative act’, however, are
34 problematical in that they can cover quite a range of translation phenomena, from
35 producing a literal replica to a free paraphrase of sentences or entire texts.
36
37 From its very inception in the early 1970s, text linguistics has rejected the form–
38 meaning split and the popular but counter-intuitive assumption that communicative
39 contexts are simply too diffuse to yield meaningful generalizations regarding
40 language use. From a textual perspective, context is seen as:
41
42 A strategic configuration in which what things ‘mean’ coincides intention-
43 ally and in systematic ways with what they are used for and with whatever
44 else is going on in the situation.
45 (Beaugrande 1991: 31)
46

67
SECTION Introduction
A
This notion of context as purpose and function is underpinned by several standards 1
of textuality which all well-formed texts (or their translations) must meet 2
(Beaugrande 1980). Cohesion subsumes the diverse relations which transparently 3
hold among the words, phrases and sentences of a text. Underlying these surface 4
phenomena is coherence which taps a variety of conceptual resources, ensuring that 5
meanings are related discernibly. 6
7
These aspects of texture link bottom-up with situationality, a cover term for the 8
way utterances relate to situations. Situational appropriateness (together with 9
efficiency and effectiveness provided by cohesion and coherence) is regulated by 0
the principle of informativity, or the extent to which a text or parts of a text may 11
be expected or unexpected, thus exhibiting varying degrees of dynamism (i.e. 12
uncertainty or interestingness, see the ‘markedness’ section on p. 69–70). The entire 13
communicative transaction is driven by the intentionality of a text producer, 14
matched by acceptability on the part of a text receiver, which together ensure that 15
the text is purposeful and that it functions in a particular way to serve the purposes 16
for which it is intended. Finally, intertextuality ensures that texts or parts of texts 17
link up in meaningful ways with other texts. 18
19
20
Example A9.1 21
22
She woke at midnight. She always woke up then without having to rely on an alarm 23
clock. A wish that had taken root in her awoke her with great accuracy. For a few 24
moments she was not sure she was awake. . . . 25
Habit woke her at this hour. It was an old habit she had developed when young and 26
it had stayed with her as she matured. She had learned it along with the other rules of 27
married life. She woke up at midnight to await her husband’s return from his evening’s 28
entertainment . . . 29
(N. Mahfouz (Bayn al-Qasrayn) Palace Walk (1962) [italics added]) 30
31
32
★ Task A9.1 33
34
➤ Consider Example A9.1 and answer the questions below. Pay particular 35
attention to those elements in the text in italics. 36
37
■ What strikes you as interesting about the repetition of woke, woke up, etc.? 38
(Cohesion) 39
■ How does this repetition help to sustain the narrative threading its way 40
through the text? (Coherence) 41
■ What do you think is intended by the repetition? (Intentionality) 42
■ Can this function be appreciated for what it is by the average reader of the 43
text? (Acceptability) 44
■ Is it normal and expected, or dynamic and unexpected? (Informativity) 45
■ What aspect of social life does the repetition underscore? (Situationality) 46

68
 Text type in translation SECTION

A
1 ■ Does this kind of language, scene, etc., remind you of other texts? Does it
2 sound like an argument, an explanation, a narrative, etc? (Intertextuality)
3
4 ➤ In the light of this analysis, work out a strategy for translating the passage into
5 a language of your choice.
6
7 As a general template for the study of equivalence, then, the textual-pragmatic
8 scheme focuses our attention on the range of textual relations that can be established
9 and must be accounted for in moving from a ST to a TT.
0
11
12 MARKEDNESS
13
14 One particular relationship worth noting in this respect is markedness or what we
15 have so far referred to variously under such labels as textual salience and dynamism.
16 The arrangement of words and sentences may take a ‘preferred’ or ‘expected’ form
17 (i.e. unmarked), or a somewhat unfamiliar and unexpected form (i.e. marked,
18 salient, dynamic).
19
20 Unmarked options confront us with no significant problems. But texts are rarely
21 if ever so straightforward. There are situations in which language is deliberately
22 used in a non-habitual, non-ordinary way, and it is this dehabitualization or non-
23 ordinariness (i.e. dynamism) that usually proves particularly challenging in trans-
24 lation. The theoretical thinking on this issue in Translation Studies runs something
25 like this: if contextually motivated (that is, if used ungratuitously), marked
26 grammar and lexis must be accounted for in the processing of text and preserved
27 in translation. Practice tells a different story.
28
29
30 Task A9.2
★
31
➤ Consider this specific example from an Arabic ‘absurdist’ drama (T. Al-Hakeem
32
(1960) al-Sultan al-Haa’ir, The Sultan’s Dilemma) which has seen two trans-
33
lations into English, one heavily domesticated, the other less so. Focus on the
34
italicized elements in this respect, and reflect on the effect likely to be generated
35
by the different renderings:
36
37
38 Example A9.2a (Version 1, italics added)
39
40 EXECUTIONER: . . . Now that I have warned you of this condition, do you still want
41 me to sing?
42 CONDEMNED MAN: Go ahead.
43 E: And you will admire and applaud me?
44 CM: Yes.
45 E: Is that a solemn promise?
46 CM: It is.

69
SECTION Introduction
A
Example A9.2b (Version 2, italics added) 1
2
EXECUTIONER: . . . Now, having drawn your attention to the condition, shall I sing? 3
CONDEMNED MAN: Sing! 4
E: And will you admire me and show your appreciation? 5
CM: Yes. 6
E: You promise faithfully? 7
CM: Faithfully. 8
9
Version 1 is from a translation which has opted for some form of dynamic equiva- 0
lence (see Unit 6), drastically glossing the source utterance, while Version 2 is from 11
a translation which predominantly uses formal equivalence, reproducing form 12
for form and thus preserving such aspects of the text as the repetition considered 13
here to be maximally motivated. Informed by textual pragmatics, we could say that 14
the effect which the latter translation conveys is defamiliarizing: the translation 15
seeks to preserve subtle aspects of ST meaning, such as the fact that the speaker in 16
this text sounds ‘ridiculous’, ‘absurd’, etc. 17
18
But is preserving non-ordinariness in this way a valid solution all the time? Within 19
the textual model, it is maintained that non-ordinariness should not be seen in static 20
terms, with the non-ordinary forms of the original simply reconstructed or 21
transferred more or less intact. Rather, a process is set in motion in which some 22
form of negotiation takes place to establish what precisely is intended by the ST, and 23
then to ascertain how the target reader may best be made aware of the intricacies 24
involved. The communicative resources of the TL may have to be stretched, but this 25
must always be interpretable. One way of enhancing this sense of interpretability is 26
to exploit the target user’s cultural experience and knowledge of his/her language. 27
Text examples discussed in Unit 2 (e.g. Examples A2.2–2.5) show how inter- 28
pretability can suffer irreparably sometimes. 29
30
31
TEXT-BASED INFORMATION 32
33
In dealing with issues such as markedness and equivalence from a text-linguistic 34
point of view, a gradient may be proposed to capture how, specifically as a reader, 35
the translator tends to move backwards and forwards between what may be called 36
‘reader-supplied’ information at one end, and information ‘supplied by the text’ at 37
the other. Research into reading suggests that, as the reading process gets underway, 38
there would ideally be less reliance on information supplied by the reader, and more 39
on information which the text itself supplies. Indeed, according to Beaugrande 40
(1978: 88), it is only when reading becomes almost entirely dependent on infor- 41
mation dominated by the text that a ‘truly objective translation’ is possible, ‘a 42
translation which validly represents the perceptual potential of the original’. 43
44
What precisely is involved in ‘text-based information’? This term is a misnomer, and 45
the focus has been placed erroneously on ‘form or content concretely present in the 46

70
 Text type in translation SECTION

A
1 text’, which is not necessarily always the case. To appreciate this point, consider the
2 following unidiomatic, published translation of an editorial:
3
4
5 Example A9.3a
6
7 EDITORIAL
8
9 A necessary move
0
11 Through Lebanese satellite’s channels and newspapers we acknowledge and always
12 emphasize the unity of the Lebanese and the Syrian tracks. [. . .]
13 We do not discuss the idea of the two tracks’ coherence in spite of remarks about
14 liberating South Lebanon. But we would like to point out that [. . .]
15 (Al-Watan 1999)
16
17 The translator is concerned with ‘what the media are saying’, etc., an area of content
18 which, although physically present in the ST, is simply not relevant to what is
19 intended. The reference to satellite channels and newspapers, for example, is a
20 rhetorical way of talking which cannot be taken literally. The text producer is simply
21 saying something like ‘we have publicly acknowledged that . . .’. This is part of a
22 concession which could be conveyed much more effectively by using an appropriate
23 signal such as ‘Certainly’, ‘Of course’, followed by an adversative: ‘However, this
24 is not the issue’. If used, this format would naturally pave the way for a forthcoming
25 contrast: ‘The issue is . . .’, ushering in the counter-claim.
26
27
28
29
Task A9.3
★
30 ➤ With a clearer idea of what ‘text-based information’ means, edit and revise the
31 published translation (Example A9.3a).
32
33 The text-linguistic view regarding what is said vs what is intended and how it is
34 a combination of the two that can properly signal what text-based information
35 is about, is stated clearly by Beaugrande (1978: 91): ‘the word cannot be the unit of
36 translation’. This claim is informed by a general stance which takes text to be the
37 minimal unit of communication. In the above translations, a pragmatic reading
38 of text-based information necessitates that we depart drastically from the surface
39 manifestations of both form and content (i.e. from surface structure and denotative
40 meaning).
41
42 This is consistent with the view that text-based information is yielded not by ‘purely
43 formal features, but rather as the result of an intense . . . evaluation of the com-
44 municative relevance of formal features’ (Beaugrande 1978: 95). In the above
45 example, the conditional structure or a word such as discuss is a striking example
46 of how the lexicogrammar tends to communicate meanings that go beyond

71
SECTION Introduction
A
structural relationships and that must be placed within larger templates to be 1
appreciated properly. This wider framework, we suggest, is provided by text type, a 2
macro-structure which essentially encompasses the purposes for which utterances 3
are used under what we will explain shortly as the rhetorical purpose of the text. 4
5
6
READER-SUPPLIED INFORMATION 7
8
Reader-supplied information is another potentially misleading term. It is best 9
seen not as sole reliance on form or content but in terms of ‘linguistic competence’. 0
This competence in turn would not be in the mechanics of syntactic or semantic 11
structures per se, but would relate to the individual’s ability to operate within a set 12
of constraints imposed by such macro-structures as text type. We are specifically 13
concerned with real-life situations, and with the influence of variables such as socio- 14
economic status, education and training, knowledge and beliefs. In dealing with 15
the above text examples, for example, what the reader supplies would certainly 16
relate to content and to knowledge of the grammar (say, of conditionals) and the 17
semantics of words such as satellite channels and newspapers. But the focus would 18
inevitably be much wider. It would cover how this content or lexicogrammar is 19
deployed to serve higher-order value and belief systems to do with the function 20
of text in context: 21
22
■ serving social institutions and social processes (e.g. countering an adversary’s 23
claim subtly); 24
■ maintaining relations of power and solidarity (e.g. issuing the counter-claim 25
politely without alienating the adversary); 26
■ making sense (conveying a semblance of a balance between claim and counter- 27
claim cohesively and coherently). 28
29
Example A9.3a, for example, would now read something like: 30
31
32
Example A9.3b (suggested amendment) 33
34
Certainly the Lebanese and Syrian tracks for peace with Israel run parallel and in perfect 35
harmony. However, this is not the issue. The issue is [. . .] 36
37
Thus, it is the values yielded by these text-in-context relationships that collectively 38
make up the ‘perceptual potential’ of the text which is the sole basis of ‘textual 39
equivalence’ (in Beaugrande’s terms; compare with Catford’s term in Unit 4). This 40
is the outcome of an intricate interaction between form and content which we seek 41
to preserve in translation. Let us examine what is involved in greater detail. 42
43
44
45
46

72
 Text type in translation SECTION

A
1 TEXT TYPOLOGY
2
3 The text-oriented models of the translation process that have emerged in recent
4 years have all sought to avoid the pitfalls of categorizing text in accordance with
5 situational criteria such as subject matter (e.g. legal or scientific texts). Instead, texts
6 are now classified on the basis of a ‘predominant contextual focus’ (e.g. expository,
7 argumentative or instructional texts). This has enabled theorist and practitioner
8 alike to confront the difficult issue of text hybridization. That texts are essentially
9 multi-functional is now seen as the norm rather than the exception.
0
11
12
13
Task A9.4
★
14 ➤ What justifies the combination of reporting and commentary? Can you, for
15 example, justify the use of a cleft structure (it was . . . that) and other emphatic
16 devices in the following translation of an Arabic news report?
17
18
19
Example A9.4
20
21
It was the tension between the Blacks and Jewish communities in New York which
22
ended in bloodshed in yesterday’s clashes that glaringly exposed how precarious the
23
relations are between the two groups. [. . .]
24
25 The tension simply began with a traffic incident when [. . .]
26 (Al-Majalla 1981 (italics added))
27
28 In this example, there is undoubtedly a certain amount of commentary. There
29 are two points to make about this case of hybridization. First, the evaluativeness in
30 this news report is justified in the light of a number of factors including, most
31 importantly, the sensitivity of the issue reported. Second, despite the presence of
32 evaluative material, we cannot fail to recognize the text for what it is: predominantly
33 a news report. We are aware of this because we are familiar with what straight
34 reporting (as opposed to commentary) looks or sounds like. But, perhaps more
35 significantly, we are almost sure that reporting and commentary cannot be equally
36 prominent. Since there is insufficient evaluation to turn the text into an editorial,
37 the overall purpose of the text must be ultimately to report the news.
38
39 With the emphasis on contextual focus, the multi-functionality of all texts is thus
40 no longer seen as a weakness of the text type model, nor indeed as a licence for an
41 ‘anything goes’ attitude in the production or analysis of texts or translations. For
42 example, it is recognized that, while a distinction may usefully be made between
43 so-called expressive texts (of the creative, literary type) and informative texts (of
44 the factual variety), texts are rarely if ever one or the other type. Yet it can safely be
45 assumed that, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, metaphors in pre-
46 dominantly expressive texts, for example, are best rendered metaphorically, while

73
SECTION Introduction
A
those in predominantly informative texts may if necessary be modified or altogether 1
jettisoned (Reiss 1971: 62). 2
3
4
★ Task A9.5 5
6
➤ Example A9.5 is an extract from the Charter of the Palestinian militant group 7
Hamas. Given what charters should look or sound like, can you suggest some 8
improvements on this translation, perhaps cutting down on the emotiveness 9
that is allowed to feature too prominently. Would you, on the other hand, accept 0
a reasonable measure of emotiveness in this particular context? Why? 11
12
13
Example A9.5 14
15
Article Nine 16
17
The state of truth has disappeared and was replaced by the state of evil. Nothing has 18
remained in its right place, for when Islam is removed from the scene, everything 19
changes. These are the motives. 20
As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it, so that truth 21
may prevail and homelands revert to their owners [. . .] 22
(The Hamas Charter 1990 (trans Prof. R. Israeli)) 23
24
Whether you have approved of or rejected the decision to preserve emotiveness in 25
the Hamas text, your decision will have been informed by what the text is intended 26
to do in a given context for a given text user. Central to text typologies of the kind 27
advocated by context-sensitive theories of translation is the view that language use 28
beyond the sentence may helpfully be seen in terms of rhetorical purpose (e.g. 29
exposition, argumentation, instruction). This sense of purpose yields increasingly 30
finer categories (e.g. report, counter-argument, regulation), and a variety of text 31
forms identified on the basis of such factors as subject matter or level of formality 32
(e.g. reporting, argumentation or instruction may be technical/non-technical, 33
subjective/objective, spoken/written). But to reiterate, it is generally accepted that, 34
in all cases, such a categorization is necessarily idealized and that, since all texts are 35
in a sense hybrid, the predominance of a given rhetorical purpose in a given text is 36
an important yardstick for assessing text-type ‘identity’. 37
38
Models of translation informed by text typology have thus sought to encompass 39
and account for the diversity of rhetorical purposes normally served in any act of 40
communication. This entails that communicative values (related to such contextual 41
factors as situationality, intentionality, intertextuality) are fully integrated into the 42
way text types are used or produced. A set of constraints emerges, and text types 43
are seen as ‘guidelines’ which text users instinctively refer to in adopting a given 44
translation strategy with an eye on both sides of the translation divide – the ST and 45
the TT. 46

74
 Text type in translation SECTION

A
1 In this unit, we have examined the minimal criteria which texts or their translations
Summary
2 must meet to be effective, efficient and appropriate. But it may happen that the
3 criteria are not followed either for no good reason (in which case we would be
4 dealing with gratuitous ‘violation’) or with justification (contextually motivated
5 ‘flouting’). The rhetorical purpose of a text is thus an important yardstick by which
6 to assess, first, whether the text is intended to monitor (view with detachment) or
7 manage (evaluate) and, second, whether, within each of these broad categories, the
8 text is intended to serve any of a number of sub-purposes such as counter- or
9 through-argumentation, conceptual or narrative exposition. Finally, rhetorical
0 purpose is important not only in defining norms but also in spotting deviations
11 which (if contextually motivated) must be heeded and preserved in translation.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

75