Didactics of Translation: Text in Context

Analysis of ST

x Dimensions of language user

1. 
   geographical origin
   
2. 
   social class
   
3. 
   time
   

x Dimensions of language use

1. 
   medium:
   

2. 
   participation:
   

x syntactic means
x lexical means
x textual means
x syntactic means
x lexical means
x textual means

3. 
   social role relationship
   

x syntactic means
x lexical means
x textual means

4. 
   social attitude
   

5. 
   province
   

x syntactic means
x lexical means
x textual means
x syntactic means
x lexical means
x textual means

2. Statement of function:

This statement is obtained by looking at the ways in which the situational dimensions are linguistically marked in the text, and the way they contribute to the ideational and interpersonal functions of language.

3. ST and TT comparison:

Here mismatches between the ST and TT along the contextual dimensions are noted.

4. Statement of quality:

This statement concerns any alterations of the ideational or interpersonal components of the ST in the translation text.
When it was first published, House’s (1977) work was hailed as an important contribution to translation studies, and more specifically to translation evaluation, since it sought to place translation quality assessment on empirical and objective footing. In spite of this, it did not escape some criticism, especially with regard to the analytical categories used. These were considered too “rigid” (Newmark 1981: 182) and “too complicated to be used in translation classes or by practising translators working under time pressure” (Slote 1978).
Heeding these criticisms and taking into consideration new developments within translation theory, House (1997) modifies her original model by “re-grouping” the analytical categories “into fewer and more general ones” (Ibid: 105); e.g., field and tenor. Moreover, she incorporates the concept of genre in order “to account for the semiotic dimension and different types of discourses”(Ibid).
The revised model has included several categories of Crystal and Davy within the more general and straightforward Hallidayan categories of field, tenor and mode, which are themselves linked to the individual text function along with the category of genre. The revised model of House for analyzing and comparing original and translation texts and which consists of four levels (function of the individual text, genre, register and language/ text) is shown below:

Figure 1: (Adapted from House’s revised text analysis model 1997)

The analytical procedure of the revised model for analyzing and assessing texts thus looks as follows:

x Field
. lexical means
. syntactic means
. textual means
x Tenor

1. 
   Author’s temporal, social and geographical
   

provenance
. lexical means

. syntactic means

. textual means

2. 
   Author’s personal stance
   

. lexical means
. syntactic means
. textual means

3. 
   Social role relationship
   

. lexical means
. syntactic means
. textual means

4. 
   Social attitude
   

. lexical means
. syntactic means
. textual means
x Mode

1. 
   Medium
   

. lexical means
. syntactic means
. textual means

2.