Didactics of Translation: Text in Context

Individual text function establishment in translation quality assessment

In House’s model of translation quality assessment, it is suggested that a statement on the quality of a translation presupposes a comparison of the textual profiles of the ST and the TT; i.e. comparing the linguistic- situational correlations and the function of the ST with those of the TT. However, to establish functional equivalence between a ST and a TT, the source text has to be analyzed first such that the equivalence which may be sought for the translation text can be stated precisely” (House 1997: 37). Any mismatches along the linguistic-situational correlations are said to result in a functional mismatch, i.e. a faulty translation:
The degree to which the textual profile of the translation text matches or does not match that of the ST is the degree to which the translation text is more or less adequate in quality. (Ibid: 42)
From the above, it then becomes clear that the notion of ‘function’ takes on a great importance in House’s quality translation assessment model. House, however, warns against any misrepresentation of this notion. She thus draws attention to the distinction between an individual text’s function and language functions:
The use of the term ‘function’ in this context is open to misinterpretation, mainly because different language functions can co-exist inside what will here be described as an individual text’s function and because language functions have often been directly and in my opinion incorrectly correlated with textual types. (Ibid: 32)
She further adds that although a typology “based on a predominant language function exhibited in the text is useful for selecting and classifying texts for analysis, it is of no use in terms of determining an individual text’s function, let alone establishing functional equivalence”. (Ibid: 36)
Among the language functions that House enumerates, there are those suggested by Bühler (1965), Karl Popper (1972) and Halliday (1973). Bühler proposes three main language functions: representational, emotive- expressive and conative. The representational function describes the “extra linguistic reality’’. The emotive-expressive function refers to the feelings of the encoder of the message. The conative function focuses on the message receiver. For Bühler, the representational function is unmarked and is found in any message, whereas the two other functions are marked.

Halliday also works with three language functions: ideational, interpersonal and textual. The first two are similar to Bühler’s representational and emotive-expressive. The ideational function describes things in the external world. The interpersonal one serves to express the speaker’s attitude and feelings as well as the relationship with her/his interlocutors. The textual function, however, is distinct; it allows language “to make links with itself and with the situation’’, thus enabling the construction of texts. (House 1997: 35)

Now to establish the function of an individual text, House avoids associating a text type with a predominant language function that is manifest in the text as Reiss has done. Instead, she defines the function of a text “as the use which the text has in the particular context of situation” (Ibid: 36). More precisely, the function of an individual text is the outcome of two operations:

1. 
   Undertaking a systematic linguistic-pragmatic analysis of the text in its context of situation in order to characterize its textual profile;
   

i.e. indicating how the different situational dimensions are realized syntactically, lexically and textually.
2. Examining the way in which the situational dimensions contribute to the language functions which are usually present in any given text.

2.