Didactics of Translation: Text in Context

The semiotic dimension

This is another aspect of the context of the communicative activity. According to Hatim and Mason, in addition to the communicative and the pragmatic dimensions,
There is a third dimension which we shall call semiotic, treating a communicative item, including its pragmatic value, as a sign within a system of signs (1990: 57).
The phrase “as a sign within a system signs” introduces a key concept within this dimension, namely, interaction. For Hatim and Mason (1990: 229), this concept can be seen at different levels of the communicative activity; i.e. at the level of interaction between co-communicants, at the level of interaction within the text, and finally at the level of interaction between the text itself and other texts.
Concerning the first type of interaction, interlocutors carry out communicative transactions which reflect a certain level of technicality (field), a certain mode of language (written, spoken, etc.), and a certain degree of formality (tenor), depending on who they are and what they are doing with language.
The second type of interaction, i.e. interaction within the text, concerns, among other things, the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships between text elements, in addition to the relationship between the pragmatic values of these elements: “the perception of this interaction of signs within a text constitutes the basis of micro-text processing” (Ibid: 229).

It is the third type of interaction that has pride of place in this interactive theory. In this type of interaction, the text itself is regarded as a sign among other signs, which “acquires significance within a cultural context” and is recognized as “an instance of a given genre, and as an expression of a particular discourse” (Ibid). It is also seen as an instance of a certain text type. In other words, text-users, in their processing of discourse, “perceive ideational meanings within a given field (i.e. genre), textual meanings within a given mode (i.e. text) and interpersonal meanings within a given tenor (i.e. discourse)” (Hatim and Mason 1997: 28), and then link these perceptions through an intertextuality process to other genres, discourses and texts which are internalized in their minds.

As far as the translator is concerned, it is, according to Hatim and Mason
the perception of pragmatic and semiotic values which enable translators to transfer the entirety of the message. (Ibid: 59).
This is particularly so since translation
primarily deals with signs and attempts to preserve semiotic as well as other pragmatic and communicative properties which signs display. (Ibid: 69)
However, this transfer is not possible without certain adjustments on the part of the translator due to the nature of the translation process itself. The latter involves source and target languages whose generic, discoursal and textual traditions may vary (Ibid: 69).
Before moving on to consider how the translator should deal with this semiotic dimension of texts in his or her text processing and rendering operations, it would be worthwhile at this point to clarify the semiotic concepts of genre, discourse and intertextuality.

1. Genre

According to Bakhtin (1986: 121), “the diverse areas of human activity involve the use of language” which takes the form of “individual concrete utterances (oral or written) by participants” in these diverse areas. Moreover, these utterances are said “to reflect the specific conditions and goals of each such area” through their content, linguistic style (choice of vocabulary, phraseology and grammatical structures) and compositional structure. Consequently, each one of these areas of human activity in which language is used is believed “to develop its own relatively stable types of these utterances which are referred to as speech genres.

Hatim (2000: 11-12) refers to the linguistic means of representing these different areas as ‘textual practices’. A distinction is thus established between “cultural entities (i.e. products of socio-economic, geopolitical or scientific technological forces and institutions” and textual practices.

Taking into consideration speech genres is of paramount importance to both Bakhtin and Hatim, each from his own perspective. For Bakhtin,
A clear idea of the nature of the utterance in general and … of various speech genres is necessary, we think, for research in any special area. To ignore the nature of the utterance or to fail to consider the peculiarities of generic subcategories of speech in any area of linguistic study leads to perfunctoriness and excessive abstractness, distorts the historicity of the research, and weakens the link between language and life. (Bakhtin 1986: 122)
For Hatim, the issue lies at the very heart of the notion of ‘culture’:
The tendency in certain languages and cultures has been systematically to overlook or treat as secondary the macro-structural side. It will be further argued that it is those neglected aspects of textual practices (the discourse, the genre and the actual texts that typify a given mode of communication) which ultimately set the framework for the act of cultural and linguistic boundaries. In fact, the obsession with the word as an isolated verbal sign can be made to work most effectively only when seen within authentic textual practices. (Hatim 2000: 12)
Genres are considered by Hatim & Mason (1990: 140) as a “set of features which we perceive as being appropriate to a given social occasion”. This social occasion itself is taken to include, among other things, “how we do things with language when, for example, we write letters to the editor, letters of application for jobs or personal letters” (Ibid). In another more detailed definition, they follow Kress (1985) and maintain that genres are
conventionalized forms of texts which reflect the functions and goals involved in particular social occasions as well as the purposes of the participants in them… From a socio-semiotic point of view, this particular use of language is best viewed in terms of norms which are internalized as part of the ability to communicate. (Ibid: 69)
Related to the notion of genre, there is a derived notion, namely that of the ‘genrelet’, which was suggested by Hatim. According to Haddad (1995: 25 – 26):

the difference between a genre and a genrelet is that a genrelet is highly conventionalized in the sense that it involves more specific topics [and] more specific roles of participants on the one hand, and that it operates within constraints imposed by structure as well as language on the other hand.

Examples of genrelets include death notices, wedding invitations, birth announcements, etc.
In what follows, genres will be discussed in terms of their forms, their types and their main features.
A/ the forms of genres: Genres differ from one another mainly because of differences in their structures. By structure is meant “the internal relationships through which the elements of a given text are organized” (Haddad 1995: 27). These elements of structure can be obligatory or optional. More importantly, these different structures themselves seem to be the products of different goals which are pursued by language users. In this connection, Rothery (1985), cited in Haddad (Ibid), states:
Genres differ in having different goals and in being structured differently to achieve these goals. Structure shows the stages through which we can go to achieve our goals through language.
Compared with some genres whose structures are more or less flexible (e.g. service encounters), obligatory elements appear “in a highly predictable sequence” in other types of genre such as wedding invitation cards, death notices… Consequently, participants are controlled in their interactions by the structural requirements of the genrelet. Moreover, the register here, (field, tenor, mode), is characterized by its stability (Haddad 1995: 34-36).
B/ The types of genre: Since genres differ from one another mainly because of differences in their structures, it has been proposed that a classification of genres could be made on the basis of the generic structure of a given text (Kent 1985 cited in Haddad 1995: 50). This classification, however, is directed to match “the generic expectations of the competent reader and not those of the naive” who has not internalized the conventions of genre (Ibid). The different types of genre, in other words, are placed on a spectrum in such a way as to correlate with the expectations of a sophisticated reader. With this regard, Haddad says:
At one extreme of [a] spectrum, there lies the highly predictable and formulaic text which matches the competent reader’s generic expectations… At the other extreme, there lies the highly unpredictable, unformulaic and uncertain text which violates the competent reader’s generic expectations. This super-genre corresponds with the super-reader.

The super-genre cannot be classified generically since it always deforms the textual generic conventions on which the competent reader depends for identifying the generic membership of a given text (Ibid: 50).

C/ The main features of genre: In addition to generic structure as the main device for identifying different types of genres, there are also a set of features which are usually associated with a particular genre. These features have to do with the pragmatic level, the semantic level and the surface level (i.e. the phonological, lexical, syntactic features and the graphic representation). However, the distribution of these features is not even in all genres; some genres foreground some particular features such as for example phonology or syntax while other genres disregard some other specific features (Ibid: 54).

1. 
   The Pragmatic Level of Genre Membership
   

As mentioned above, generic structure is one of the main devices for differentiating different types of genre. However, it has to be recalled that behind any generic structure there is the text producer’s particular intention or goal which is realized in a particular structure and thereby points to a particular genre (Rothery 1985).
Since intentions and goals are the domain of pragmatics, it becomes evident that the pragmatic dimension of language has a paramount role to play in language communication.
Apart from intentions and goals, there are also other pragmatic features which help identify a particular type of genre. These features are related to the channel of communication (whether it is spoken as in a political speech or written as in an editorial), the setting (i.e. when and where a given text can be used; an editorial, for example, can only appear in a certain place of prominence, e.g. on the front page of a quality newspaper). These features are also connected with the addresser-addressee relationships (a scientific article, for instance, is written by a specialist for a particular type of readership).

2. 
   The Semantic Level of Genre Membership
   

Texts belonging to the same genre are characterized by “topical unity and logico-semantic coherence” (Haddad 1995: 61). A scientific article will be concerned with scientific matters only and will not be expected to deal with literary or religious themes.

3. 
   The Surface Level of Genre Membership
   

Some surface level elements can also be invoked by language users in the process of differentiating and identifying types of genres. According to Haddad (Ibid: 63),
the surface structure has to do with metric and phonetic regularities, specialized vocabularies, formulaic expressions or particular characteristics of pronunciation or graphic realization.
Thus, formulaic expressions such as “once upon a time” are used by language users to infer a pragmatic intention which is to narrate.

4. 
   Register and Genre Membership
   

There is a strong relationship between genre and register. According to House (1997: 106):
Registers are the result of decisions inside a genre choice concerning field, mode and tenor.
She further adds:
The relationship between genre and register is then such that generic choices are realized by register choices, which in turn are realized by linguistic choices that make up linguistic structures in the instantiation of a text.
Tony Bex (1996:13) cites the case of the recipe as a genre which may have a variety of potential realizations. As an example, he gives the following two recipes: a basic one and its variant.