Functional approaches to translation
The functional theory in translation first emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, when the translation theory shifted away from the linguistic approach so as to consider the function and purpose of translation.
Katharina Reiss
One of the most well-known functional theories is Reiss's type of text in which she argues that the functional equivalence should be sought on a text level by analysing the language dimension. Reiss pointed out that “the establishment of the text variety is of decisive importance for the translator, so that he may not endanger the functional equivalence of the TL text by naively adopting SL conventions” (Venuti 2004:173). Her approach is based on a systematic analysis of the SL text function to be used as an assessment of the translation process and target text. Reiss categorised three types of functions in written texts in which each text-type communicates a different situation. These three functions are stated by Reiss as follows:
“ a. the communication of content— informative type.
b. the communication of artistically organized content— expressive type
c. the communication of content with a perspective character— operative type” (Venuti 2004:171).
It is worth noting that these three forms of written communication are drawn from “Bühler’s three functions of linguistic sign”; however, these three functions are not purely realised in a given text, since some texts may have certain features of more than one function. Reiss moved on to describe two additional functions that had been introduced by Roman Jakobson which are the phatic and the poetic functions. The phatic function is essentially “the establishment and maintenance of contact” (Venuti 2004:172). However, according to Reiss, these two additional functions cannot be isolated as a text type, but merely as communicating elements in the language. Thus, it can be said that the phatic and the poetic functions can be found in each of the three functions mentioned earlier. The translator, therefore, should consider these functions when translating a certain text by first determining the function of the source text and communicating the same function accordingly in the target text. Reiss also had a set methodology for translators to follow when translating one of these functions. When translating the first text type, ‘informative text’, the translator is mainly concerned with transferring the content of the source text using ‘plain prose’; since this type is essentially communicating facts such as news articles. In the expressive text type, the translator is expected to take into account the aesthetic aspect of the language used in the source text, and to communicate this poetic language in the target text. The form of the message in the expressive text type is extremely important; the translator has to analyse the structure of the given text to convey its aesthetic form by means of semantic and syntactic features in the target language text. An example of the expressive text type is literary works. Whereas the operative text type such as advertisements aims at being appealing to the text receptor, the translator is therefore required to follow the adaptation method to translate this type by recreating an equivalent effect on the target receiver regardless of the use of new words that will achieve the required goal. Finally, Reiss realised that there is no “pure” function in a given text; therefore, “the translation method employed depends on far more than just text type. The translator’s own role and purpose, as well as sociocultural pressures, also affect the kind of translation strategy that is adopted” (Munday 2016:120).
Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer
Skopos theory is thoroughly discussed in Reiss and Vermeer’s book Grundledung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie (1984) translated as Towards General Theory of Translational Action (2013). They proposed a general theory of translational action as a subcategory for the theory of action. Reiss and Vermeer argue that this general theory of translational action is applicable for all text types, which can be defined as a “theory of translational action begins with a situation that always includes a preceding action, i.e. the source text, here, the question is not whether and how somebody acts by whether, how and in what respect the previous action is continued (translated/interpreted). Seen in this light, a theory of translational action is a complex theory of action” (1984/2013:85). This theory is governed by rules in which the main rule is the Skopos rule. Skopos is a Greek word which means ‘purpose’. Reiss and Vermeer argued that the purpose of the translation ultimately determines which strategies the translator decides to use in the translation process; they also pointed out that the purpose of the source text might differ from that of the target text (1984/2013:92). It is worth mentioning that a translator cannot determine the skopos of a translation work unless the target readers are known; so that the translator would be able to decide on a certain function that could be seen as relevant for the target receivers.
Christiane Nord
Nord criticised Skopos theory for not being applicable to all text types. She also pointed out that Skopos theory does not analyse the source text on a micro-level (Nord 1997:109-22). In her book Text Analysis in Translation (2005), Nord proposed two types of translation: the documentary translation and the instrumental translation. Whereas the former “serves as a document of a source culture communicate between the author and the ST recipient” (Nord 2005: 80), the latter “serves as an independent message transmitting instrument in a new communicative action in the target culture, and is intended to fulfil its communicative purpose without the recipient being conscious of reading or hearing a text which, in a different form, was used before in a different communicative situation” (Nord 2005:80). With documentary translation, the translator is expected to use a similar strategy to the literal translation by preserving the cultural- specific wordings such as food and clothes. It is considered to be a great method for literary translation, since the literary works consist of many cultural-specific words that may raise issues for the literary translator. The TT receiver is aware that they are reading a translated work by acknowledging some of the cultural-specific wordings that are embedded in the TT. Whereas, the instrumental translation may communicate a purpose that is similar to the ST. In the instrumental translation, the translator attempts to reproduce a TT that is read as if it is the source text by preserving the function of the ST. This type of method is considered to be applicable to non-literary texts.
The functional theory in translation first emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, when the translation theory shifted away from the linguistic approach so as to consider the function and purpose of translation.
Katharina Reiss
One of the most well-known functional theories is Reiss's type of text in which she argues that the functional equivalence should be sought on a text level by analysing the language dimension. Reiss pointed out that “the establishment of the text variety is of decisive importance for the translator, so that he may not endanger the functional equivalence of the TL text by naively adopting SL conventions” (Venuti 2004:173). Her approach is based on a systematic analysis of the SL text function to be used as an assessment of the translation process and target text. Reiss categorised three types of functions in written texts in which each text-type communicates a different situation. These three functions are stated by Reiss as follows:
“ a. the communication of content— informative type.
b. the communication of artistically organized content— expressive type
c. the communication of content with a perspective character— operative type” (Venuti 2004:171).
It is worth noting that these three forms of written communication are drawn from “Bühler’s three functions of linguistic sign”; however, these three functions are not purely realised in a given text, since some texts may have certain features of more than one function. Reiss moved on to describe two additional functions that had been introduced by Roman Jakobson which are the phatic and the poetic functions. The phatic function is essentially “the establishment and maintenance of contact” (Venuti 2004:172). However, according to Reiss, these two additional functions cannot be isolated as a text type, but merely as communicating elements in the language. Thus, it can be said that the phatic and the poetic functions can be found in each of the three functions mentioned earlier. The translator, therefore, should consider these functions when translating a certain text by first determining the function of the source text and communicating the same function accordingly in the target text. Reiss also had a set methodology for translators to follow when translating one of these functions. When translating the first text type, ‘informative text’, the translator is mainly concerned with transferring the content of the source text using ‘plain prose’; since this type is essentially communicating facts such as news articles. In the expressive text type, the translator is expected to take into account the aesthetic aspect of the language used in the source text, and to communicate this poetic language in the target text. The form of the message in the expressive text type is extremely important; the translator has to analyse the structure of the given text to convey its aesthetic form by means of semantic and syntactic features in the target language text. An example of the expressive text type is literary works. Whereas the operative text type such as advertisements aims at being appealing to the text receptor, the translator is therefore required to follow the adaptation method to translate this type by recreating an equivalent effect on the target receiver regardless of the use of new words that will achieve the required goal. Finally, Reiss realised that there is no “pure” function in a given text; therefore, “the translation method employed depends on far more than just text type. The translator’s own role and purpose, as well as sociocultural pressures, also affect the kind of translation strategy that is adopted” (Munday 2016:120).
Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer
Skopos theory is thoroughly discussed in Reiss and Vermeer’s book Grundledung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie (1984) translated as Towards General Theory of Translational Action (2013). They proposed a general theory of translational action as a subcategory for the theory of action. Reiss and Vermeer argue that this general theory of translational action is applicable for all text types, which can be defined as a “theory of translational action begins with a situation that always includes a preceding action, i.e. the source text, here, the question is not whether and how somebody acts by whether, how and in what respect the previous action is continued (translated/interpreted). Seen in this light, a theory of translational action is a complex theory of action” (1984/2013:85). This theory is governed by rules in which the main rule is the Skopos rule. Skopos is a Greek word which means ‘purpose’. Reiss and Vermeer argued that the purpose of the translation ultimately determines which strategies the translator decides to use in the translation process; they also pointed out that the purpose of the source text might differ from that of the target text (1984/2013:92). It is worth mentioning that a translator cannot determine the skopos of a translation work unless the target readers are known; so that the translator would be able to decide on a certain function that could be seen as relevant for the target receivers.
Christiane Nord
Nord criticised Skopos theory for not being applicable to all text types. She also pointed out that Skopos theory does not analyse the source text on a micro-level (Nord 1997:109-22). In her book Text Analysis in Translation (2005), Nord proposed two types of translation: the documentary translation and the instrumental translation. Whereas the former “serves as a document of a source culture communicate between the author and the ST recipient” (Nord 2005: 80), the latter “serves as an independent message transmitting instrument in a new communicative action in the target culture, and is intended to fulfil its communicative purpose without the recipient being conscious of reading or hearing a text which, in a different form, was used before in a different communicative situation” (Nord 2005:80). With documentary translation, the translator is expected to use a similar strategy to the literal translation by preserving the cultural- specific wordings such as food and clothes. It is considered to be a great method for literary translation, since the literary works consist of many cultural-specific words that may raise issues for the literary translator. The TT receiver is aware that they are reading a translated work by acknowledging some of the cultural-specific wordings that are embedded in the TT. Whereas, the instrumental translation may communicate a purpose that is similar to the ST. In the instrumental translation, the translator attempts to reproduce a TT that is read as if it is the source text by preserving the function of the ST. This type of method is considered to be applicable to non-literary texts.
Comment