2.10. The Text Typological Model
De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: 3) define a text as:
A COMMUNICATIVE OCCURRENCE which meets seven standards of
TEXTUALITY. If any of these standards is not considered to have been
satisfied, the text will not be communicative.
According to De Beaugrande and Dressler, the seven standards of textuality are
cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and
intertextuality (cf. ibid 48-208). The interaction of these standards with each other
makes communication efficient. However, if a text lacks any of these standards it will
not be considered communicative.
The Text Typological Model of translation consists of four components. They are:
1) Context is a crucial element which determines the structure of the text. According
to Hatim (1984:147), context almost causally determines the shape of the text’s
hierarchic structure, which in turn determines the kind of texture devices used to make
the text operational. To deal with texts effectively, Hatim maintains that three aspects
of context have to be taken into consideration: pragmatics (implicatures-speech acts),
semiotics (a text as a sign which interacts with other signs) and communicative
transaction. Hatim adds:
It is this pragma-semio-communicative decision on the part of discourse users,
and the acceptance of such a decision by discourse receivers, which constitute
optimum conditions for the successful realization of the text in question (ibid:
147).
These three contextual domains of activity work together with other contextual
variables such as: field of discourse (i.e. what the text is going to be about), tenor of
discourse (whether a text is formal, semi-formal or informal) and the mode of
discourse (whether the text is to be read, or to be listened to, etc).
2) Structure refers to the way a text is organized. This kind of organization is
hierarchical, and it is within this hierarchy that a number of elements (e.g.
grammatical clauses or phrases) combine to form larger sequences (supra-sentential
entities) which combine to form texts.
3) Texture is the way various elements of a discourse hang together to form bigger
chunks of language. According to Halliday and Hassan (1976: 2): “A text has
texture, and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text… the texture
is provided by the cohesive relation”. It is the structure of text - determined by the
context- which motivates the deployment of the various devices of texture. These
devices include cohesion, theme-rheme progression and the kinds of information
collectively used in ‘charting routes’ for the discovery of structure and text. Consider
the following example from the source texts:
“We the undersigned call upon the British government: …to apply pressure through
the UN for Israel to respect the UN resolutions requiring its withdrawal from the
territories it illegally occupied in 1967” (Text Eleven).
It is obvious that both ‘its’ and ‘it’ refer back to (are anaphoric with) ‘Israel’. These
anaphoric functions of ‘its’ and ‘it’ give cohesion to the sentence. The texture is
provided by the cohesive relation which exists between ‘its’, ‘it’ and ‘Israel’.
According to Shaheen,
“Understanding structure and texture is very useful for students as it enables
them to achieve an objective reading of the SLT. As a result, the students will
be able to preserve the SL text type by finding the closet equivalence in the TL,
with the least possible modifications to the SL” (1991: 38).
4) Text type: Different text typologies have been proposed, each addressing texts
from a different perspective. For example, Buhler’s (1934) typology of texts is based
on language function. It suggests three functions of language: the expressive, focusing
on the author’s mind (e.g. literary work, etc); the informative, focusing on the
extralinguistic reality (e.g. scientific report, news reports, etc); and the vocative,
focusing on the receiver’s response (e.g. instructions, publicity, etc.) (Newmark 1988:
40). Werlich’s (1976) typology, which is based on a rhetorical purpose, suggests three
function types of text. The first is the expository text, with its three subtypes:
descriptive, focusing on object and relation in space; narrative, focusing on events and
relations in time and conceptual, focusing on concepts and relations in terms of either
analysis or synthesis. The second type is the argumentative, with its two subtypes:
overt argumentation (e.g. the counter-argumentative “letter to the editor”) or covert
argumentation (e.g. the case-making propaganda tract). The third type is the
instructional, with its two subtypes: instruction with option (e.g. advertising) or
instruction with no option (e.g. treaties, contracts and other binding legal documents)
(Hatim and Mason, 1990: 153-8).
Hatim and Mason (ibid: 150-3) maintain that identifying the text type enables the
translator to find the best equivalence at both the macro-and micro-textual levels of
the text. They acknowledge the importance of using a text-linguistic approach to the
classification of texts as an effective tool for selecting, grading and presenting
materials for the training of the translator. They believe that ‘different text types seem
to place different demands on the translator, with certain types and forms being more
demanding than others’ (ibid: 177-193). Holding the same view, Shaheen (1991: 3747) stresses the significance of a text typology approach to translating, adding that this
approach helps the translator to achieve an objective reading of the SLT and to
produce a closely corresponding TLT, preserving the SL text type. Snell-Hornby
(1992: 17) also maintains that translator trainers should present students with a
representative cross-section of subject areas and text types in order to properly
prepare them for entering the translation profession. However, a major problem with
text typology is the hybrid nature of many texts, i.e. some parts of the overall text may
be best classified as belonging to one text type (for example, the expository), while
others may be best classified as belonging to another text type (for example, the
argumentative). According to Hatim (1997: 41), texts also tend to manifest different
features that are difficult to attribute to a certain text type. Newmark (1988: 42) also
states that classifying texts into ‘expressive’, ‘informative’ and ‘vocative’ is only used
to show the emphasis or thrust of a text or what Werlich (1976) calls dominant
contextual focus (Quoted in Hatim and Mason, 1990: 145).
It is within this model that a number of lexical, cultural and grammatical problems
can be adequately identified and explained. The Text Typological Model can provide
a plausible explanation of problems committed not only at the levels of syntax and
lexis but at the level of discourse as well.
References
El Haj Ahmed, M. (2009). Lexical, Cultural and Grammatical Translation Problems
Encountered by Senior Palestinian EFL Learners at the Islamic University of Gaza,
Palestine. PhD Thesis, University of Salford.