1

LECTURE 6. TEXT TYPE IN TRANSLATION

6.1 Standards of Textuality

6.2 Markedness
6.3 Text-Based Information
6.4 Reader-Supplied Information
6.5 Text Typology

6.1 Standards of Textuality

Translation theories informed by textual pragmatics (Thomas, 1995) see
equivalence in relative and hierarchical terms (Koller, 1995) and specifically view a
“translation” as a valid representative of ST communicative acts (Beaugrande, 1978).
Concepts such as valid representative or communicative act, however, are
problematical in that they can cover quite a range of translation phenomena, from
producing a literal replica to a free paraphrase of sentences or entire texts.
From its very inception in the early 1970s, text linguistics has rejected the form-
meaning split and the popular but counter-intuitive assumption that communicative
contexts are simply too diffuse to yield meaningful generalizations regarding language
use. From a textual perspective, context is seen as: “A strategic configuration in which
what things “mean” coincides intentionally and in systematic ways with what they are
used for and with whatever else is going on in the situation. (Beaugrande, 1991: 31)
This notion of context as purpose and function is underpinned by several
standards of textuality which all well-formed texts (or their translations) must meet
(Beaugrande, 1980). Cohesion subsumes the diverse relations which transparently hold
among the words, phrases and sentences of a text. Underlying these surface phenomena
is coherence which taps a variety of conceptual resources, ensuring that meanings are
related discernibly.
These aspects of texture link bottom-up with situationality, a cover term for
the way utterances relate to situations. Situational appropriateness (together with
efficiency and effectiveness provided by cohesion and coherence) is regulated by the
 2
principle of informativity, or the extent to which a text or parts of a text may be
expected or unexpected, thus exhibiting varying degrees of dynamism (i.e. uncertainty
or interestingness). The entire communicative transaction is driven by the intentionality
of a text producer, matched by acceptability on the part of a text receiver, which
together ensure that the text is purposeful and that it functions in a particular way to
serve the purposes for which it is intended. Finally, intertextuality ensures that texts
or parts of texts link up in meaningful ways with other texts.
As a general template for the study of equivalence, then, the textual-pragmatic
scheme focuses our attention on the range of textual relations that can be established
and must be accounted for in moving from a ST to a TT.

6.2 Markedness
One particular relationship worth noting in this respect is markedness or what we
have so far referred to variously under such labels as textual salience and dynamism.
The arrangement of words and sentences may take a “preferred” or “expected” form
(i.e. unmarked), or a somewhat unfamiliar and unexpected form (i.e. marked, salient,
dynamic).
Unmarked options confront us with no significant problems. But texts are rarely
if ever so straightforward. There are situations in which language is deliberately used in
a non-habitual, non-ordinary way, and it is this dehabitualization or non-ordinariness
(i.e. dynamism) that usually proves particularly challenging in translation. The
theoretical thinking on this issue in Translation Studies runs something like this: if
contextually motivated (that is, if used ungratuitously), marked grammar and lexis must
be accounted for in the processing of text and preserved in translation. Practice tells a
different story.
Consider this specific example from an Arabic “absurdist” drama (T. Al-Hakeem,
1960) al-Sultan al-Haa’ir − The Sultan’s Dilemma) which has seen two translations
into English, one heavily domesticated, the other less so:
Executioner: … Now that I have warned you of this condition, do you still want
me to sing?
 3

Version 1
Executioner: … Now that I have warned you of this condition, do you
still want me to sing?
Condemned man: Go ahead.
Executioner: And you will admire and applaud me?
Condemned man: Yes.
Executioner: Is that a solemn promise?
Condemned man: It is.

Version 2
Executioner: … Now, having drawn your attention to the condition,
shall I sing?
Condemned man: Sing!
Executioner: And will you admire me and show your appreciation?
Condemned man: Yes.
Executioner: You promise faithfully?
Condemned man: Faithfully.
Version 1 is from a translation which has opted for some form of dynamic
equivalence, drastically glossing the source utterance, while Version 2 is from a
translation which predominantly uses formal equivalence, reproducing form for form
and thus preserving such aspects of the text as the repetition considered here to be
maximally motivated. Informed by textual pragmatics, we could say that the effect
which the latter translation conveys is defamiliarizing: the translation seeks to preserve
subtle aspects of ST meaning, such as the fact that the speaker in this text sounds
ridiculous, absurd, etc.
Within the textual model, it is maintained that non-ordinariness should not
be seen in static terms, with the non-ordinary forms of the original simply
reconstructed or transferred more or less intact. Rather, a process is set in motion in
 4
which some form of negotiation takes place to establish what precisely is intended by
the ST, and then to ascertain how the target reader may best be made aware of the
intricacies involved. The communicative resources of the TL may have to be stretched,
but this must always be interpretable. One way of enhancing this sense of
interpretability is to exploit the target user’s cultural experience and knowledge of
his/her language.

6.3 Text-Based Information

In dealing with issues such as markedness and equivalence from a text-linguistic
point of view, a gradient may be proposed to capture how, specifically as a reader, the
translator tends to move backwards and forwards between what may be called reader-
supplied information at one end, and information supplied by the text at the other.
As the reading process gets underway, there would ideally be less reliance on
information supplied by the reader, and more on information which the text itself
supplies. It is only when reading becomes almost entirely dependent on information
dominated by the text that a truly objective translation is possible, a translation which
validly represents the perceptual potential of the original (Beaugrande, 1978: 88).
The term text-based information is a misnomer, and the focus has been placed
erroneously on form or content concretely present in the text, which is not necessarily
always the case. To appreciate this point, consider the following unidiomatic, published
translation of an editorial:
A necessary move
Through Lebanese satellite's channels and newspapers we acknowledge and
always emphasize the unity of the Lebanese and the Syrian tracks. […]
We do not discuss the idea of the two tracks’ coherence in spite of remarks about
liberating South Lebanon. But we would like to point out that […] (Al-Watan, 1999).

The translator is concerned with what the media are saying, etc., an area of
content which, although physically present in the ST, is simply not relevant to what is
intended. The reference to satellite channels and newspapers, for example, is a
 5
rhetorical way of talking which cannot be taken literally. The text producer is simply
saying something like “we have publicly acknowledged that…”. This is part of a
concession which could be conveyed much more effectively by using an appropriate
signal such as “Certainly”, “Of course”, followed by an adversative: “However, this is
not the issue”. If used, this format would naturally pave the way for a forthcoming
contrast: “The issue is ...”, ushering in the counter-claim.
In the above translations, a pragmatic reading of text-based information
necessitates that we depart drastically from the surface manifestations of both form and
content (i.e. from surface structure and denotative meaning).
This is consistent with the view that text-based information is yielded not by
“purely formal features, but rather as the result of an intense… evaluation of the
communicative relevance of formal features (Beaugrande, 1978: 95). In the above
example, the conditional structure or a word such as discuss is a striking example of
how the lexicogrammar tends to communicate meanings that go beyond structural
relationships and that must be placed within larger templates to be appreciated properly.

6.4 Reader-Supplied Information

Reader-supplied information is another potentially misleading term. It is best seen
not as sole reliance on form or content but in terms of “linguistic competence”. This
competence in turn would not be in the mechanics of syntactic or semantic structures
per se, but would relate to the individual’s ability to operate within a set of constraints
imposed by such macro-structures as text type. We are specifically concerned with real-
life situations, and with the influence of variables such as socio-economic status,
education and training, knowledge and beliefs. In dealing with the above text examples,
for example, what the reader supplies would certainly relate to content and to
knowledge of the grammar (say, of conditionals) and the semantics of words such as
satellite channels and newspapers. But the focus would inevitably be much wider. It
would cover how this content or lexicogrammar is deployed to serve higher-order value
and belief systems to do with the function of text in context:
1) serving social institutions and social processes (e.g. countering an
 6
adversary’s claim subtly);
2) maintaining relations of power and solidarity (e.g. issuing the counter-claim
politely without alienating the adversary);
3) making sense (conveying a semblance of a balance between claim and
counter-claim cohesively and coherently).
Thus, it is the values yielded by these text-in-context relationships that
collectively make up the “perceptual potential” of the text which is the sole basis of
“textual equivalence”. This is the outcome of an intricate interaction between form and
content which we seek to preserve in translation.

6.5 Text Typology

The text-oriented models of the translation process that have emerged in recent
years have all sought to avoid the pitfalls of categorizing text in accordance with
situational criteria such as subject matter (e.g. legal or scientific texts). Instead, texts are
now classified on the basis of a “predominant contextual focus” (e.g. expository,
argumentative or instructional texts). This has enabled theorist and practitioner alike to
confront the difficult issue of text hybridization. That texts are essentially multi-
functional is now seen as the norm rather than the exception. Let’s consider the
example:
It was the tension between the Blacks and Jewish communities in New York which
ended in bloodshed in yesterday's clashes that glaringly exposed how precarious the
relations are between the two groups. […] The tension simply began with a traffic
incident when […] (Al-Majalla. 1981
There is undoubtedly a certain amount of commentary. There are two points to
make about this case of hybridization. First, the evaluativeness in this news report is
justified in the light of a number of factors including, most importantly, the sensitivity
of the issue reported. Second, despite the presence of evaluative material, we cannot fail
to recognize the text for what it is: predominantly a news report. We are aware of this
because we are familiar with what straight reporting (as opposed to commentary) looks
or sounds like. But, perhaps more significantly, we are almost sure that reporting and
 7
commentary cannot be equally prominent. Since there is insufficient evaluation to turn
the text into an editorial, the overall purpose of the text must be ultimately to report the
news.
With the emphasis on contextual focus, the multi-functionality of all texts is thus
no longer seen as a weakness of the text type model, nor indeed as a licence for an
“anything goes” attitude in the production or analysis of texts or translations. For
example, it is recognized that, while a distinction may usefully be made between so-
called expressive texts (of the creative, literary type) and informative texts (of the
factual variety), texts are rarely if ever one or the other type. Yet it can safely be
assumed that, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, metaphors in predominantly
expressive texts, for example, are best rendered metaphorically, while those in
predominantly informative texts may if necessary be modified or altogether jettisoned
(Reiss, 1971: 62).
Whether you have approved of or rejected the decision to preserve emotiveness in
a text, your decision will have been informed by what the text is intended to do in a
given context for a given text user. Central to text typologies of the kind advocated by
context-sensitive theories of translation is the view that language use beyond the
sentence may helpfully be seen in terms of rhetorical purpose (e.g. exposition,
argumentation, instruction). This sense of purpose yields increasingly finer categories
(e.g. report, counter-argument, regulation), and a variety of text forms identified on the
basis of such factors as subject matter or level of formality (e.g. reporting,
argumentation or instruction may be technical/non-technical, subjective/objective,
spoken/written). But to reiterate, it is generally accepted that, in all cases, such a
categorization is necessarily idealized and that, since all texts are in a sense hybrid, the
predominance of a given rhetorical purpose in a given text is an important yardstick for
assessing text-type “identity”.
Models of translation informed by text typology have thus sought to
encompass and account for the diversity of rhetorical purposes normally served in
any act of communication. This entails that communicative values (related to such
contextual factors as situationality, intentionality, intertextuality) are fully integrated
 8
into the way text types are used or produced. A set of constraints emerges, and text
types are seen as “guidelines” which text users instinctively refer to in adopting a given
translation strategy with an eye on both sides of the translation divide − the ST and the
TT.