Part One Approaches to Text Types

Text Typological Model

1.1 Introduction
Translation has played a key role in the enhancement of communication between peoples
of the world. “Translation adds value, bringing other creators and creations into being, in
ways that reflect the mobility and multiplicity of our world (Jose, 2015: p. 8). However,
the ambivalent role of translation in both establishing and destabilizing notions of
authenticity has permeated translation theory. Much of the theoretical discussion on
translation has revolved around the idea of equivalence with the original text. To this end,
theoreticians strive to find appropriate theories and methods of translation to help
translators doing their job. Many theories, models and approaches have been proposed
and subjected to heated debate amongst theoreticians. In this regard, Almijrab (2014: p.
131) argues that “different translation models and approaches have sought to eradicate
translational misunderstandings, yet each of them has engendered more controversies than
solving existing ones”. One of these models is text typology which seeks to group texts
into categories and types. It aims at identifying and describing linguistic and conceptual
features that texts belonging to a particular group have in common. This is because one of
the characteristics of text is its resemblance to or difference from other texts. But we may
wonder, as did Bell (1991: p. 202) “how is it given that each text is unique, that some
texts are treated as the same?” The key concept for answering such a question, he (ibid.)
suggests: “is that of a type-token relationship; each individual text is a token, a realization,
of some ideal type which underlies it”
During medieval era, the Arab scholar Al-Jahiz (in Aharoun, 1969: p. 75) had predicted
the emergence of the text typological model when he states that “the translator should
know the structure of the text, behaviours of the people and their ways of understanding
each other”. In the twentieth century, Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: p. 186) hold almost
the same notion when they define text-typology as “a set of heuristics for producing,
predicting, and processing textual occurrences, and hence acts as a prominent determiner
of efficiency, effectiveness, and appropriateness”. Both scholars put emphasis on the
structure of the text, which indicates the rhetorical purpose of the text type, whether it is
argumentative, expository or instructive.
Reiss (1976: 97-100) also notes that text type is an important concept for translation
quality assessment. She believes that one can be in a position to judge a translation
“fairly”, only when one is able to establish some factors among which is the
1
determination of “the kind of text the original represents” in terms of text type and text
variety. Broadly speaking, text-typology aims at grouping texts into categories and types,
and at identifying and describing linguistic and conceptual features that texts belonging to
a particular group have in common. The definition of the term text-type varies somewhat
between different linguists, but most follow Hatim‟s (1990) in relating this concept to
communicative intentions. In such an approach, texts are defined by features which could
be described as external to the text itself. These include areas such as text purpose, text
producer‟s intentions, writer/reader relationships, and medium of communication.

1.2 Text Typological Model

Beaugrande (1985:197) writes "a text type is a distinctive configuration of relational
dominances obtaining between or among elements of: (i) the surface text; (ii) the textual
world; (iii) stored knowledge patterns and (iv) a situation of occurrence". Unlike
Beaugrande, Hatim and Mason (1990:140), view text type as "a conceptual framework
which enables us to classify texts in terms of communicative intentions serving an overall
rhetorical purpose".

The following is an overview of a variety of different approaches attempting to classify

texts into some major categories and types. Reiss (1976), in her attempt to set up a text
typology relevant to translation quality assessment, suggests that texts can be categorized
according to their field of discourse, with examples like „journalistic‟, „religious‟,
„poetic‟, technical, etc. Another attempt has been carried out by Schmidt (1977), who
proposes two basic possibilities for the study of text types. One can either start out with
the traditionally defined types (e.g. literary, poetic, scientific, religious, journalistic, etc.)
as observable objects, and try to reconstruct them via a consistent text theory; or one can
begin with a text theory which sets up theoretical types to be compared with empirical
samples.

Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) differentiate text-types along „functional lines‟, (i.e. text
or rather language function. They believe that text-types are supposed to perform specific
and intended functions and in so doing contribute to the process of human and social
communication. They follow this line of thought because they view text-types as a
linguistic product.

2
However, Werlich (1976) bases his classification of texts on criteria called „dominant
contextual focus. He explains this notion by saying that texts distinctively correlate with
the contextual factors in a communication situation. These factors draw the addressee‟s
attention only on specific factors and circumstances from the whole set of factors.
Accordingly, texts can be grouped together and generally classified on the basis of their
dominant contextual focus (Werlich 1976:19). Based on this dominant contextual factor,
He (Ibid.) proposes the following five dominant contextual foci that can be observed in
any given text:
(i) The focus is on factual phenomena (i.e. persons, objects, and relations). Texts of this
group will be referred to as descriptive texts.
(ii) The focus is on factual and/or conceptual phenomena in the temporal context. Texts of
this group will be referred to as narrative texts.
(iii) The focus is on the de-composition (analysis) into or the composition (synthesis)
from constituent elements of concepts of phenomena that the communicants have. Texts
of this group will be referred to as expository texts.
(iv) The focus is on the relations between concepts of phenomena that the communicants
have. Texts of this group will be referred to as argumentative texts.
(v) The focus is on the composition of observable future behaviour, with reference to
phenomena, in one of the communicants, that is either in the speaker/writer or
hearer/reader. Texts of this group will be referred to as instructive texts.

Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997) takes the stand that texts are not most usefully categorized
according to their field of discourse, with examples like „scientific, religious‟ literary,
„poetic and so forth. Here, the assumption is that classification of texts is “based on
criteria such as field of discourse alone amounts to little more than a statement of subject
matter”; and if defined in this way “text type will be so broad as to have no predictive
value, and when attempts are made to narrow the focus of description, “we run the risk of
ending up with virtually as many text types as there are texts” (Hatim, and Mason
1990:138). Moreover, classification, on the other hand, based on an over-general notion of
text function leads to text types such as literary, poetic, didactic; the categories are too
broad and do not admit the possibility of a literary text being didactic and vice versa. One
of the problems of text typology is that, however the typology is set up any real text will
display features of more than one type. This “multifunctionality is the rule rather than the

3
exception, and any useful typology of texts will have to be able to accommodate such
diversity” (Ibid. 1990: 138).
.

1.2.1 Typology of Texts

Based on their view of text typology, Hatim and Mason (1990) propose a method for the
classification of texts. They maintain that any given text- when meeting a number of
standards of textuality- would have a context, a structure, and a texture. Each of these
domains is capable of yielding a set of hypotheses about the text; and when they
collaborate, they can construct a text that is able to reflect its overall rhetorical goal.
Moreover, it is based on the notion „text predominant rhetorical purpose‟ which is "a term
stands for the means whereby a text is defined as a token of a type. The term subsumes
the set of communicative, pragmatic and semiotic procedures which followed when
relating a text to its context".(Ibid. 149) Based on the above-mentioned „dominant
contextual focus, three main text types can be distinguished: exposition, instruction, and
argumentation.

Before proceeding with the rhetorical model proposed by Hatim and Mason, our main
concern in this domain, it is worthwhile stretching a point to elaborate on three attempts
scholars have made to set up a typology of texts. We can distinguish between formal,
functional and rhetorical typologies.
A) The formal typology
It draws heavily on the study of register. It associates text- typology with the prevailing
register distinction between text-types like institutional, technical, literary (cf. Nuebert and
Shreeve 1992:203). There are however various obstacles to the application of the formal
typological model to translation. The number of types is not definite, and there is a
vagueness about the meaning of concepts such as "literary" "technical" or "scientific". Traits
that can be said to belong to one of the types can be found in another. Thus content, the basis
of formal typology categorization, cannot act as an adequate discriminator between texts.

B) The functional typological model

Proponents of (e.g. Newmark 1981, 1988) divide texts according to Buhler's (1965) three
main functions of language: the expressive, the informative and the vocative.

4
a. The expressive type consists of the feelings of the author (producer) regardless of any
response.
b. The informative type concerns the facts of a topic such as reported ideas or theories.
c. The vocative type is concerned with the readership or the addressee.
One advantage of functional typology is that it makes it possible to list each text-type under a
function. However, it overlooks how these functions are rhetorically represented in the text.

C) The rhetorical Typology

Typologists (e.g. Halliday and Hasan 1976, Hatim and Mason 1990) prefer to divide texts
according to their rhetorical purposes that characterize every text. Within this model, three
major text-types, with other branching subtypes, can be listed: exposition/expository,
instruction/instructive and argumentation/argumentative.

First, Exposition
An expository text is used to analyze concepts with the aim of informing or narrating. In this
text category, the contextual focus is either on the decomposition (analysis) into
constituent elements of given concepts or their composition (synthesis) from constituent
elements. In other words, the focus of exposition is on states, events, entities and
relations. There are three important variants of this kind of conceptual exposition
differentiated, namely: descriptive, narrative and conceptual texts.
Description or descriptive text handles objects or situations, i.e. it focus on space.
Narrative text arrange actions and events in a particular order: focus on time.
Conceptual texts in terms analysis or synthesis, i.e. to analyze concepts with the aim of
informing or narrating.
Hatim (19997) notes that whereas description and narration are generally easily
recognizable, boundaries in other cases are more difficult to establish. In exposition, the
focus is on providing a detached account. The topic sentence sets the scene and must be
expounded (explain). Thus, the scene setter exposes various aspects of the scene being
introduced to be expounded. (Please refer to the text 3 in the appendix).

Second, instruction
Instructional text type is another basic text group. Instructive text is used to direct the
receiver towards a certain course of action. The focus here is on the formation of future
behaviour in order to regulate through instructions the way people act or think. It focusing
on influencing future behaviour either (a) instructions with option (advertising, consumer
5
advice) or (b) instructions without option (in treaties and .contracts, etc.). Generally
speaking, the focus in this text-type is directed towards swaying opinions or behaviour and
to provoking action or reaction. (please refer to text 4 in the appendix).

Third, Argumentation
An argumentative text is used to evaluate objects, events or concepts with the aim of
influencing future behaviour. Following Hatim‟s (1990) model of text types the counter-
argumentative text is a basic form of the major category called „argumentative text-type‟.
Unlike the through-argumentative text, which is another form of argumentation
characterized by an extensive substantiation of an initial thesis followed by a conclusion.
Counter-argumentative text involves rebuttal of a cited thesis followed by a substantiation
and conclusion. The configurations of these two text forms, which adopted from Hatim
and Mason (1990) may be diagrammatically represented in Table One as follows:
Counter-argument Through-argument
i. Thesis cited to be opposed i. Thesis cited to be supported
ii. Opposition ii. Substantiation
iii. Substantiation of counter-claim iii. Conclusion
iv. Conclusion

These differences in handling rebuttal, according to Hatim (1997), are believed to result
from many factors, among which are the mismatches between the linguistic systems and
conventions of languages. Moreover, different preferences within the same language shall
be considered too. Within counter-argumentation, there are two sub-types: balance and
explicit concessive. In the former, according to Hatim and Mason (1990), the text
producer has the option of signaling the contrastive between what may be viewed as a
claim and a counter-claim either explicitly by using an explicit adversative particle like
conversely, however or implicitly by using no explicit adversative particle but rather by
using a clause to express the contrast. In the latter, however, the counterclaim is
anticipated by using an explicit concessive like while, although, despite, and the like.

The type of text reinforces certain stylistic formats than others. The contextual focus tends
to emphasize certain patterns more than others. For instance, in argumentation the topic
sentence sets the tone which must be substantiated and would exhibit a pattern like:

6
Tone-setter > Thesis substantiated
On the other hand, an exposition sets the scene, which must be expounded and therefore
would show a structure such as: Scene-setter > Aspects of the scene expounded (Hatim
and Mason 1990:155-56).

Argumentation in English and Arabic

Various argumentative formats appear not to be equally available for all language users to
choose from and the preference for one or the other varies within, as well as across,
languages and cultures. Hatim and Mason (Ibid.) believe that the preference for one or the
other form is motivated by many factors, such as politeness, ideology, power and so forth.
Koch (1983: 47) who emphasizes the notion that culture dominates rhetoric conventions,
claims that "in contrast to Western modes of argument, which are based on a syllogistic
model of proof and made linguistically cohesive through the subordination and hypotaxis,
Arabic argumentation is essentially paratactic, abductive and analogical". She (Ibid.)
concludes that persuasion in Arabic can be achieved by making its argumentative claims
linguistically present: by repeating and paraphrasing them.

In comparison with Arabic which coheres through the high frequency of cohesive devices,
English opts for economy in the use of such devices (Renad Abbadi 2014). In other
words, each language has a unique set of rhetorical conventions. Thus, the tendency to
prefer an argumentative style or format over another does not necessarily mean that the
language lacks that style. The more logical interpretation is that for certain reasons,
language users tend to favour a certain style.

Hatim (1991) identifies two variants of argumentation in respect of Arabic and English.
The first variant is through argumentation which is more typical of Arabic than English.
The second is counter-argumentation which is more frequently a characteristic of
English and can be divided into two further sub-types: balance and lopsided. The balance
type gives the text-producer the option of signaling explicitly or implicitly his antithesis
after the claim to be opposed is made. (see the analysis of the Arabic text). On the
contrary, antithesis (opposite) in the lop-sided argument is anticipated in advance as the
thesis to be opposed is initiated by an explicit concessive (e.g. while, although, despite,
etc.). Hatim (1991) then, presented an order of preferences, which may be taken as
indicative of the general trend of argumentation in each language as follows:

7
 English Arabic
A. the balance counter-argument through-argumentation
B. through-argumentation the lopsided argument
C. the lopsided (misleading) argument the balance argument
Table Two: the format or structure of counter and through- argumentation

Texts can also have different levels of argumentation which Hatim (1990) identified as
macro- and micro-balance. Macro-balance indicates the argumentative format of the
entire text whereas micro-balance indicates an embedded argument within the macro-
pattern of text.

The analysis of the macro-structure of a text can be verified in translation only through
the choice and arrangement of its actual linguistic signs because they are the usual
feedback that students are provided with. Therefore, syntactic, semantic and stylistic
errors are examined in terms of their effect on the macro-textual level of translation. The
nature of the text may only motivate the surfacing of some errors more than others. For
example, tense errors can be more frequent when translating an argumentative text from
English into Arabic, This is because the narrative in argumentation involves higher
temporal shifts according to the type and time of action or event, in addition to the cross-
linguistic variation in terms of tense systems between Arabic and English.
1.2.3 Mistranslation of Text-type Format
The Arabic and English argumentative STs were analyzed by applying Hatim and
Mason's (1990) approach to textual analysis of argument structure (see Table One). The
results of this structural analysis are displayed in the following representative tables:

Text One: (through argument) ‫العالقات المصرية االمريكية‬

Thesis to be argued through

Substantiation 1
‫بد اٌّزؾذح‬٠‫ال‬ٌٛ‫ٓ فب‬٠‫ض‬١ِّ ‫د‬ٚٚ ‫خ رّزؼذ ألوضش ِٓ ػمذ ِٓ اٌضِٓ ثأٌفخ‬٠‫خ اٌّصش‬١‫ى‬٠‫غ أْ اٌؼاللبد االِش‬١ّ‫زفك اٌغ‬٠
‫خ‬٠‫خ اٌّصش‬١ٍ١‫خ اٌغالَ اإلعشائ‬١‫ب ٌّصش ِٕز ارفبل‬٠‫بد‬٠‫سا س‬ٚ‫رجٕذ د‬

Substantiation 2
‫ عجغ‬ٛ‫ ٔؾ‬ٌٝ‫خ ثبإلظبفخ ا‬٠‫اٌؼغىش‬ٚ ‫خ‬٠‫ ِٓ اٌّغبػذاد االلزصبد‬ٟ‫ى‬٠‫الس أِش‬ٚ‫بس د‬١ٍِ 2 ,2 ٛ‫ب ٔؾ‬٠ٕٛ‫ ِصش ع‬ٝ‫رزٍم‬ٚ
.‫ظ‬١ٍ‫ىب ئثبْ ؽشة اٌخ‬٠‫ب أِش‬ٙ‫ ِؾز‬ٟ‫ْ اٌز‬ٛ٠‫الس ِٓ اٌذ‬ٚ‫بساد د‬١ٍِ

Substantiation3
.‫ إٌّطمخ‬ٟ‫س٘ب ف‬ٚ‫د‬ٚ ‫خ ظذ ِصش‬١‫ى‬٠‫ اٌصؾبفخ األِش‬ٟ‫ْ أٗ ؽٍّخ ِشوضح ف‬ٚ‫ؼزمذ‬٠ ‫ذ ِّب‬٠‫ُ اٌشذ‬ٙ‫ْ لٍم‬ٛ٠‫ْ ِصش‬ٌٛٛ‫ ِغئ‬ٞ‫جذ‬٠ٚ

8
Substantiation4
‫اعت خالفبد ِشؽٍخ‬ٚ‫ ِّب أصاي س‬ٟ‫ اٌؼبٌُ اٌؼشث‬ٍٝ‫غذ خطب ِٕفزؾب ػ‬ٙ‫ ِجبسن أز‬ٟٕ‫بدح ؽغ‬١‫ً أْ ل‬١‫ألٍك أٔ صبس ئعشائ‬ٚ
.)‫فذ‬٠‫(وبِت د‬
Conclusion
.ٍٟ١‫ اإلعشائ‬ٌٕٞٚٛ‫ ػٓ اٌغالػ ا‬ٟ‫ؾزًّ اٌصّذ اٌغشث‬٠ ‫ؼذ‬٠ ٌُ ِٟ‫ئعال‬ٚ ٟ‫ ػٓ ئعّبع ػشث‬ٞ‫لف اٌّصش‬ٌّٛ‫ؼجش ا‬٠ٚ
Text Two: (counter argument) Russia's Space Programme
Thesis to be opposed For the Russian space programme, the comeback was
supposed to begin last month.
Opposition Ever since the fall of communism, the agency that gave the world Sputnik,
Gagarin and the space station Mir appeared to have fallen too.
Substantiation 1 Russia has been funnelling all its space resources into the launch of
its Mars 1996 probe.
Substantiation 2 But last month, the grand promenade to Mars turned into a near
earth lob shot.
Substantiation 3 Russia sustained a less conspicuous public relations blow when officials
admitted that two of the country's spy satellites had recently fallen from
orbit.
Conclusion In the wake of the Mars debacle, this was enough to cause
observers inside Russia and out to wonder aloud just how deep the
space programme's troubles run and whether any technological
solution can fix what ails it.

As to the translation of Text One, if we follow the same ST argumentative format with
thesis to be argued through: All agree that Egypt and America are in good terms for
more than a decade.
Followed by substantiation 1: The United States has adopted a leading role to Egypt
since the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. Substantiation 2: Annually, Egypt
receives about 2.2 billion US dollars in economic and military aid in addition to annul
about seven billion dollars of debt. Substantiation 3: Egyptian officials express their
deep concern of what they believe a severe campaign in the American press against Egypt
and its role in the region. Substantiation 4: Israel supporters are worried about the
leadership of President Hosni Mubarak, which has pursued an open-door policy towards
the Arab World, the matter that removed the disputes of Camp David period. Conclusion:
The Egyptian position represents the Arab and Islamic consensus no longer bears the
Western silence about Israel's nuclear weapons.

We have to be aware of the fact that the Arabic ST format is through argumentation
which should be changed into counter argumentation in English (see the table above).

9
In this translation, our main concern is to achieve equivalence at the linguistic level even
at the expense of functional equivalence.

In Text Two, we have an explicit macro-balance argumentation signaled by the cohesive

device but at the beginning of the second paragraph and implicit micro-balance
argumentation between the second sentence of the first paragraph (Ever since....
underfinanced), on the one hand, and the rest of the paragraph [sentences (i) and (iii)], on
the other. The following is a translation of the first paragraph similar in terms of
argumentation structure of the SL.
)ii( ٗ‫ داّ٘ٗ اٌّشض ِٕز فزشح ثبٌزمبغ أٔفبع‬ٞ‫ اٌز‬ٟ‫ع‬ٚ‫ ثشٔبِظ اٌفعبء اٌش‬ٟ‫ش اٌّبظ‬ٙ‫جذأ اٌش‬٠ ْ‫لغ أ‬ٛ‫( وبْ ِٓ اٌّز‬i)
‫ب‬ٙ‫ش لذ أصبث‬١ِ ‫خ‬١‫اٌّؾطخ اٌفعبئ‬ٚ ٓ٠‫عبعبس‬ٚ ‫ه‬١ٕ‫ر‬ٛ‫ لذِذ ٌٍؼبٌُ عج‬ٟ‫وبٌخ اٌز‬ٌٛ‫ اْ رٍه ا‬ٚ‫جذ‬٠ ‫خ‬١‫ػ‬ٛ١‫بس اٌش‬١ٙٔ‫فّٕز ا‬
ٌٟٚ‫أضػبط اٌّغزّغ اٌذ‬ٚ ‫بد االغالق‬١ٍّ‫ رعبؤي ػذد ػ‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬ٜ‫خ ِّب أد‬١ٔ‫ضا‬١ٌّ‫ ا‬ٟ‫عب ثغجت االٔخفبض اٌؾبد ف‬٠‫اٌشًٍ أ‬
ً‫ ظخ و‬ٍٝ‫ب ِإخشا ػ‬١‫ع‬ٚ‫ِغ رٌه فمذ ػىفذ س‬ٚ (iii( .‫ذ‬١٘‫ب اٌض‬ٍٙ٠ّٛ‫ب ثغجت ر‬ٙ‫سح ٘زٖ اٌشؽالد سغُ لٍز‬ٛ‫ِٓ خط‬
‫س‬ٚ‫ب ٌزذ‬ّٙ١ّ‫اد رُ رص‬ٚ‫ ِشوجخ ثال س‬ٟ٘ٚ 6991 ‫ع اغالق ِشوجخ اٌفعبء عٕخ‬ٚ‫ ِشش‬ٟ‫ب ف‬ٙ٠‫ ٌذ‬ٟ‫ً اٌفعبئ‬٠ّٛ‫ِصبدس اٌز‬
‫ب اعزؼبدح‬١‫ع‬ٚ‫ٌخ س‬ٚ‫ ِؾب‬ٛ٘ ‫ االِش‬ٟ‫ٌؼً اُ٘ ِب ف‬ٚ ٗ‫ عطؾ‬ٌٝ‫ضح اعزىشبف ا‬ٙ‫ٌزشعً أسثؼخ أع‬ٚ ‫وت األؽّش‬ٛ‫ي اٌى‬ٛ‫ؽ‬
.‫بدح اٌفعبء‬٠‫ س‬ٟ‫ذ ف‬١‫ب اٌّغ‬ٙ١‫ِبظ‬

The Arabic translation above is a formal rendering of the English ST. The native speaker
of Arabic is unlikely to perceive an underlying continuity in argumentation especially
between sentences (i) and (ii). This is because Arabic rhetoric does not usually allow such
formats as that linking sentences (i) and (ii), where a single statement claim is followed
immediately and without previous anticipation by a counter-claim. The norm is to follow
a description, an explanation or supporting argumentation (Almijrab 2015). The
expectation of a support rather than oppose is further highlighted by the use of the
cohesive device ‫ اٌفبء‬which mainly functions as the English conjunctive and or to express a
cause/effect relation like because or therefore. In the case of the translation above, it does
not serve either function. Linking sentences (i) to (iii) by the connector ‫ اٌفبء‬would be more
appropriate in Arabic as one supports the other. As to the macro-balance relation
sentences )i( and )iii( to )ii), it is best translated taking Hatim's (1991:195) following
suggestion into account: "to deal with this case of multi-level argumentation, the
microbalance would have to be transformed into a lop-sided format in Arabic". Hence, a
translation of the first paragraph, which attempts to render the conceptual relationships
more explicitly for the Arabic reader, would be as follows:

11
ٓ٠‫سائذ اٌفعبء عبعبس‬ٚ ‫ه‬١ٕ‫ر‬ٛ‫ عج‬ٟ‫ لذِذ ٌٍؼبٌُ اٌمّش اٌصٕبػ‬ٟ‫خ اٌز‬١‫ع‬ٚ‫وبٌخ اٌفعبء اٌش‬ٚ ‫ أصبة‬ٞ‫( سغُ اٌشًٍ اٌز‬ii)
‫ظ‬ٛ‫ رذْ ٍِؾ‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬ٜ‫ أد‬ٞ‫ب االِش اٌز‬ٙ‫ز‬١ٔ‫ضا‬١ِ ٟ‫خ اصش االٔخفبض اٌؾبد ف‬١‫ػ‬ٛ١‫بس اٌش‬١ٙٔ‫ اػمبة ا‬ٟ‫ش ف‬١ِ ‫خ‬١‫اٌّؾطخ اٌفعبئ‬ٚ
‫لغ‬ٛ‫) فبٔٗ وبْ ِٓ اٌّز‬i( .‫ذ‬١٘‫ب اٌض‬ٍٙ٠ّٛ‫ب ثغجت ر‬ِٕٙ ٝ‫سح ِب رجم‬ٛ‫ ِٓ خط‬ٌٟٚ‫أضػبط اٌّغزّغ اٌذ‬ٚ ‫ ػذد اٌشؽالد‬ٟ‫ف‬
‫ب‬١‫ع‬ٚ‫) ار ػىفذ س‬iii( ٟ‫ش اٌّبظ‬ٙ‫ داّ٘ٗ اٌّشض ِٕز فزشح ثبٌزمبغ أٔفبعٗ اٌش‬ٞ‫ اٌز‬ٟ‫ع‬ٚ‫جذأ ثشٔبِظ اٌفعبء اٌش‬٠ ْ‫أ‬
6991 ‫خ عٕخ‬٠‫ اٌّش‬ٌٝ‫اد ا‬ٚ‫خ ثال س‬١‫ٕخ فعبئ‬١‫ع ئغالق عف‬ٚ‫ ِشش‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٟ‫ً اٌفعبئ‬٠ّٛ‫ صت وً ِصبدس اٌز‬ٍٝ‫ِإخشا ػ‬
‫ب‬١‫ع‬ٚ‫ذ س‬١‫سثّب األُ٘ ِٓ رٌه وٍٗ أْ رغزؼ‬ٚ ٗ‫ عطؾ‬ٌٝ‫ضح اعزىشبف ا‬ٙ‫رشعً أسثؼخ أع‬ٚ ‫وت األؽّش‬ٛ‫ي اٌى‬ٛ‫س ؽ‬ٚ‫ٌزذ‬
.‫بدح اٌفعبء‬٠‫ س‬ٟ‫ب اٌغبثمخ ف‬ٙ‫ِىبٔز‬
(despite the fall of the agency that gave the world Sputnik, Gagarin and the space station
Mir, (in the wake of the collapse of communism) following the slashing of the agency's
budget to fewer launches and the deep concerns of the international community about the
dangers of those under-financed missions, the comeback of the Russian space programme
was supposed to begin last month for Russia has been funnelling all its space resources
into the launch of its Mars 1996 probe, an unmanned spacecraft designed to orbit the red
planet, dispatch a quartet of landers to the surface and, perhaps most important, return the
country to the spacefaring pre-eminence it once enjoyed)
Within counter-argumentation, Hatim distinguishes two sub-types: balance and explicit
concessive. In the former, according to Hatim, the text producer has the option of
signalling the contrastive between what may be viewed as a claim and a counter-claim
either explicitly (by using an explicit adversative particle like „but‟, „however‟, etc.) or
implicitly (by using no explicit adversative particle but rather by using a clause to express
the contrast). In the latter, on the other hand, the counter-claim is anticipated (by using an
explicit concessive like while, although, despite, etc.

Hatim notes that the various argumentative formats appear not to be equally available for
all language users to choose from and the preference for one or the other varies within, as
well as across, languages and cultures. He believes that the preference for one or the other
form is motivated by many factors, such as: politeness, ideology and power.

Hatim stipulates that argumentation, in general, and counter-argumentation, in particular,

engages text users in situation managing, guiding the receiver in a manner favourable to
the text producer‟s goals. Counter-argumentation has particular features that distinguish it
from other text types. It is characterized by some linguistic and non-linguistic features that
are not in any other text type.

11
To sum up, Reiss (1976) draws a comparison between argumentative texts and
instructional texts with options. She believes that the two types can be treated as operative-
type texts. Reiss lays down the following principles of operative texts (texts that arouse
interest), which text producers have to follow in order to arouse the interest of the reader
and succeed in convincing him or her:
i. Comprehensibility (use of short sentences, simple syntax).
ii. Topicality (closeness to life, „in‟-words, topical allusions)
iii. Memorability (rhetorical repetition, puns, rhymes, slogan)
iv. Suggestivity (manipulation of opinions by exaggeration, value-judgement, implication)
v. Emotionality (anxieties and fears are played on, threats and flattery used; the
associations of words are exploited).
vi. Language manipulation (propaganda is disguised as information through means such as
linguistic parallelism which is used to imply factual comparability)
vii. Plausibility (appeals to authorities, witnesses, „experts).
Despite these similarities, clearer patterns of logical thinking are more apparent in
argumentative than in instructional texts, because, given discoursal as well as generic
constraints, logical presentation tends to be part and parcel of the argumentative text
format.

Yet, the three typological notions (formal, functional and rhetorical) may not exclude each
other. They overlap in some instances, for example, both the functional category "vocative"
and the rhetorical "instructive" tend to aim at the readership. The notions may also
complement each other, for example, the formal categories may serve as a format for either
the functional or rhetorical typology. Texts can be categorized as: (a). expressive, literary or
(b) expository; scientific.

We may conclude that the translator is first of all a text-analyst who should determine a type
and a format; a profile - using House's (1977) term - for the text s/he is dealing with. The
translator will then need to consciously manipulate and combine the features of the profile
that are essential to make the translated text an instance of the text type in the TL and culture.

12
Discussion and Research Points
Q.1 Discuss in details the difference between formal and functional typology.
Q.2 Give one definition of text typology by one of the scholars in the field.
Q.3There are three subtypes of exposition. Discuss them with examples.
Q.4 State the difference between argumentation in Arab and English.
Q.5 What is instructive text?
Q. 6 How could the translator benefit from rhetorical typology during the process of
translation?

13
 PART TWO
Discourse Parameters (Register)
2.1 Introduction
The essence of translation that meaning be preserved across the two languages involved
has three basic aspects: semantic, pragmatic and textual.
The semantic aspect is the most easily accessible from the three aspects and has been
given preference by evaluators.
The pragmatic aspect that is "the particular use of an expression on a specific occasion",
(House, 1977:27). It is very important in translation because translation deals with
language in use.
The textual aspect has been frequently neglected though it is a very important aspect
because all the references such as substitutions, anaphora, ellipses, etc. that make up the
different ways of text functions account for the textual meaning that should be preserved
in translation.
The equivalence sought should be an equivalence of function that is both source and
translated texts must present the same function and the text's function can only be made
explicit through a detailed analysis of the text itself. For instance, the translation of the
English expression white coffee is ‫ت‬١ٍ‫ح ثبٌؾ‬ٛٙ‫ ل‬is an equivalence of function, i.e. though the
Arabic noun ‫ت‬١ٍ‫ اٌؾ‬differs in meaning from white but has the same function.
2.2 Register (Discourse Parameters)
Style is often determined by the social relationship that holds between participants in
discourse as, for instance, between the translator and the TL reader in the case of translation.
This interaction between producer, translator and receiver (TL reader) must also operate, as
Hatim (1997:25) points out, "within constraints imposed by the particular 'use' to which they
[text producer and receiver] put their language". Following Halliday (1976), he identifies
these constraints as the three discourse parameters of field, tenor and mode. These three
Hallidayan parameters constitute the situational adequacy.

2.2.1 Field of Discourse is an abstract term which refers to what the text is about.
Linguistic choices in translation are often determined in terms of the field of discourse.
Field of subject matter can be a novel, poem, play, social action: it can be specific,
general, popular, etc. In crude terms, field refers to the nature of the social action: what it
is the interactants are about, what is going on, where what is going on is interpreted
institutionally, in terms of some culturally recognized activity. Examples of fields are

14
activities such as tennis, opera, linguistics and so forth. When people ask you what you do
when first getting to know you, you tend to answer in terms of field.

2.2.2 Tenor of discourse concerns the relationship between the author of the text and the
intended reader. Tenor refers to the statuses and role relationships: who is taking part in
the interaction. It refers to the way you relate to other people when doing what you do.
One aspect of tenor is status people have power over one another. In some particular
discourses, tenor is of most significance as it is concerned with the power and status of the
participants.

Misrepresentation of tenor, on the other hand, is often a result of a failure to transfer the
ST's interpersonal relationships. Writer's or translator's background and stance, social role
relationship. In this respect, two relationships can be identified: (1) symmetrical means
the text contains features indicating solidarity and equality between addresser and
addressees; and, (2) asymmetrical means the text contains features indicating authority
relationship between addresser and addressees. Social attitude: the text contains features
indicating the degrees of social distance or proximity, i.e. five styles of formality: frozen,
formal, consultative, casual and intimate.

2.2.3 Mode of discourse is the form of the text, however, is concerned with the role
language plays in the interactive process (Halliday and Hasan 1989:24). Mode refers to
the rhetorical channel and function of the discourse: what part the text is playing. It also
refers to the channel you select to communicate speech and writing, e-mail, telephone,
radio, television, video, film and so on. (Halliday, 1994)

For example, the abbreviation re is appropriate in a business letter but is rarely, if ever,
used in spoken English (Baker 1992:16). Likewise, ‫ ثغٍّخ‬an (acronym of the Arabic verse
meaning ُ١‫( ثغُ هللا اٌشؽّٓ اٌشؽ‬In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, and the Most
Merciful) is widely used in written Arabic but is unlikely to be acceptable in spoken
Arabic varieties. These language choice restrictions (re and ‫ )ثغٍّخ‬are in both cases likely
to be imposed, as Baker (ibid.) explains, by the fact that speakers of each language have
certain expectations about what kind of language is appropriate to particular situations.

In terms of text mode, counter-argumentative text has a distinctive mode. Text mode is a
term used in linguistic studies as a parameter to distinguish one stretch of language from

15
another. According to Halliday and Hasan‟s classification, (1985: 12), counter-
argumentative text, being an evaluative discourse, is written to be read. They believe that
counter-argumentative text, unlike a political speech, which is a text written to be read
aloud, is written to be read silently like those in newspapers, books of various sorts,
journals, magazines, and etc.

Mode or medium: is simple if it is written to be read and complex if it is written to be

heard. Participation is simple if it means monologue or complex if it means addressing a
large community.

Figure One macro-translation errors (House, 2009, p.35)

Hatim (1997:26) argues that tenor, perhaps the most determining factor of the
translator/receiver relationship, overlaps with both field and mode resulting in formality
and technicality. On the other facet, tenor overlaps with mode giving rise to functional
tenor as illustrated in the following figure:

16
 TECHNICALITY/FORMALITY
FIELD
TENOR
MODE
FUNCTIONAL TENOR

Overlap of discourse parameters ((Hatim 1997:26)

This is the basis for the model, and what makes it different from other criteria for
establishing equivalence is the fact that those criteria relied either on the writer's intention,
an item that is not open to empirical investigation, or on the reader's responses, which
present problems to be measured. The function of a text would then be "the application or
use of what the text has in the particular context of a situation" (House, 1977, 37).

2.3 Translation Errors

In translation, we can distinguish between two major types of error: errors committed at
micro-textual level and those at macro-textual level the two of which (micro- and
macro-levels) constitute the standards of textuality of text.
2.3.1 Micro-errors refer to those deficiencies in the organization of the textual elements
in the text, i.e. the way the surface components of text (phonology, morphology and
syntax) relate together. Errors at the micro-level are mainly threefold: syntactic, semantic,
and stylistic. The idea is an amalgamation of Widdowson's (1979) categorization of
equivalence and Kussmaul's (1995) typology of errors.

At the micro-level, the syntactic type is usually more important in foreign language
teaching but appears also in translations (Kussmaul, 1995:143-55). It includes errors such
as the wrong use of conjugation, prepositions, agreement and word order. Semantic errors
often refer to the wrong selection of a word's meaning particularly in judging between
polysemes and synonyms. The stylistic type represents the student's inability to
distinguish between intrinsic stylistic features peculiar to each language or different
situations within the same language. Indeed, different styles are often used with different
genres. For instance, repetition is a prominent stylistic feature that characterizes Arabic
texts and often shows up in English texts translated by native Arab speakers. In English,

17
however, repetition is often considered redundant and is usually required to be avoided in
translation from Arabic (cf. Williams 1984).

Macro-errors, however, refer to failures to render the extra-linguistic meaning of the

surface components and the communicative functions they perform. We can distinguish,
within this contextual aspect of text, two types of error: one relating to situational
adequacy and the other to general cultural adequacy.
a. Situational errors involve failure to preserve any of the three Hallidayan discourse
parameters of field, tenor and mode of the ST in the TT.

Mistranslation of Register (Field, Tenor, Mode)

Text one (see appendix) is taken from the Egyptian state-run daily َ‫األ٘شا‬. The Egyptian
daily uses Classical Arabic expressions and vocabulary the matter that affects the level of
formality. For instance, the sentence reads:
.ٓ١ٌٍ‫ا‬ٚ ‫ االػزذاي‬ٛ‫ب ٔؾ‬١‫ج‬١ٌ ‫ْ اٌؼاللبد رؾذ شؼبس عزة‬ٛ‫غ‬ٛ‫غ‬٠ ‫ا‬ٛ‫ْ ِب ثشؽ‬ٛ٠‫ْ اٌّصش‬ٌٛٛ‫وبْ اٌّغئ‬ٚ
(The Egyptian officials justify their relations under the emblem of attracting Libya
towards moderation and softness)
It is difficult for some people to interpret, let alone to translate, words and expressions
from Classical Arabic such as the verb ‫ؽ‬ٛ‫غ‬٠ (justify) in the ST. Here, the writer opted for
the archaic alternative to fulfill extra semiotic values associated with this variety of
Arabic. The defective verb ‫ ِب ثشػ‬which means still in this context. If it is changed it will
affect the level of formality of the translated text, taking into consideration that the tenor
of the ST is very formal due to its structure and jargon.

Discourse parameters and their interface can play an essential role in the quality of
translation. Indeed, in the case of Text Two, we notice that the level of formality (tenor) is
in fact an interval in that it overlaps in a number of significant ways with the field as well
as with the mode of discourse. For instance, due to the use of scientific and technical
terms in addition to some French words, tenor and field interact to colour Text Two with a
relatively high level of formality, as in the following extract:
But last month, the grand promenade to Mars turned into a near earth lob shot,
when a booster malfunction sent the spacecraft plummeting back to earth shortly
after its launch. For a time it looked as if the craft was going to hit Australia,
endangering it not just with debris but also with the 270 grams of plutonium it was
carrying as a power source.
18
This excerpt consists of a relatively long sentence and has a high frequency of
sophisticated terms which presuppose a readership with more than an average level of
education. The translation of the sentence cannot keep the same level of
formality/technicality for reasons connected with cross-linguistic and cultural variation.
For instance, the French expression the grand promenade is another illustration of the
difficulty in maintaining the same level of formality of the expression into the TT. This is
because some novice translators will render it literally as ‫ّخ‬١‫شح اٌؼظ‬١‫( إٌض٘خ اٌىج‬the big/great
excursion) which lacks various meaning aspects existing in the ST; the use of French
words in the ST is not meaningless, but serves the purpose of irony, which the original
author intended to achieve. French terms or expressions are often used in English to mark
prestige or greatness. However, the French expression is used here by the author
ironically in order to indicate that what was claimed to be the grand promenade (notice
the use of the polysyllabic Romance word) has turned out to be, in actual fact, an earth
lob shot (notice parallely the use of monosyllabic Germanic words).

Generally, Arabic tends to borrow from other languages in the case of a lexical gap while
the motive for borrowing (e.g. French words) in English is usually to fulfill a social
function rather than to respond to a linguistic need. Technical terms tend to be less
common in Arabic compared with English (Almijrab 2015). Therefore, losses at the level
of formality are inevitable in this situation. However, the communicative function of these
terms within the whole argumentative discourse could be maintained. For instance, the
expression reconnaissance capabilities in the sentence below could be translated into
Arabic as:
‫ِبد‬ٍٛ‫ اعزمصبء اٌّؼ‬ٍٝ‫( اٌمذسح ػ‬the ability to trace knowledge).
Although the tenor of the translation is not the same as that of the ST, it succeeds in
reproducing the ST's sense of irony by the addition of another expression as in the Arabic
translation of ST Sentence below:
Leaving the [Russian] military without any space-based reconnaissance capabilities.
ٗ١ٍ‫ ال رؾغذ ػ‬ٜٛ‫ ِغز‬ٌٝ‫ِبد ا‬ٍٛ‫ اعزمصبء اٌّؼ‬ٍٝ‫ب ػ‬ٙ‫ٌزصً لذسر‬
(Its reconnaissance capabilities have left Russia in an unenviable position).
Tenor also interacts with mode in terms of language function to regulate or merely to
inform through face-to-face encounters or indirectly as between writer and audience. Text
One and Two are written to be read which emphasizes the relative formality of the texts
and therefore indicates a relative physical distance between producer and receiver as well

19
as between users and subject matter. However, the degree of physical proximity existing
in the STs is not the same in the students' translations given the same reasons of cross-
linguistic variation.
2.3.3 Cultural Adequacy
Translation is best described as the manifestation of culture. This means that culture is
part and parcel of any translation activity. One of the obstacles in the process of
translation is how to convey the cultural load items and expressions from one language
into another. Cultural errors are not easy to be detected due to its discrete nature and
peculiarity. In this section, some light is shed on how to deal with such erros.
a. Cultural Errors in Translation

Cultural errors refer to the failure to represent the embedded cultural meaning of the ST
into the TT. Difficulty in translating the cultural embedding often increases when the text
is of what House (1977:188-204) calls the covert type. She distinguishes in this respect
between covert and overt translation.

In a covert translation "the ST is tied in a specific way to the source language

community and culture" (ibid.:189), that is, the field of the ST is not shared by or
common to the target culture. Cultural problems usually arise at this level for the student
who, in such a situation, is often undecided about whether to opt for a cultural adaptation
as a way of compensation or keep the exotic character of the ST as a way of enhancing
cross-cultural rapprochement. Translators should be left in such cases to decide for
themselves, though they should be advised to take into consideration the readership.

Overt translation, on the other hand, is one which enjoys the status of an original ST in
the target culture..., [that is, one which] is not marked pragmatically as TT of an ST but
may, conceivably, have been created in its own right (House 1977:194). This translation
type does not usually represent any major cultural problems since the text is culturally of
equal concern for both the source and target reader. It should be noted, however, that at
the macro-textual level we are concerned with what is linguistically realized either
syntagmatically or paradigmatically. That is, failure to represent the macro-textual level in
translation is often related to a failure to make the appropriate choice of grammar or
vocabulary.
To sum up, Covert errors: those which result from a mismatch of one situational
dimension with a similar one in TT, and Overt errors: those which result from a non-

21
dimensional mismatch. Such errors can be divided into seven categories of: not Translated
Slight change in meaning significant change in meaning distortion of meaning Breach of
the SL system Creative translation Cultural filtering

Figure Two Covert and Overt Translation errors (House, 2009, p.35)

2.3.4 Cultural Transplantation

It represents the extreme degree of the communicative model whereby the ST undergoes a
`wholesale' conversion into the TL without any trace of foreignness. Hervey & Higgins (1992)
consider that the translation strategies dealing with culture-bound terms vary between the two
poles of exoticism (SL oriented) and cultural transplantation (or naturalization, TL oriented). The
excessive naturalization of the translation totally annihilated the loftiness of the original. For
example the title of the fiction:
Alice in Wonderland
can be transplanted into Arabic as: ‫ ثالد اٌؼغبئت‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٍٝ١ٌ (Layla in Wonderland)
Another example is the English idiomatic expression: All Roads lead to Rome is translated
into Arabic: ‫ ِىخ‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬ٞ‫وً اٌطشق رإد‬

The result of this technique is that translation would lose its primary role as a means of better
understanding between cultures. People would tend to project their own cultural frame of
reference onto the foreign text and culture. The interpretation of the ST would be in
accordance with their cultural rules of conduct, and act according to the behaviour patterns

21
of their own culture (Witte 1994:70). With such a process, there is the risk of the distortion
of the intended meaning of the ST. Translation in this event functions as a gate-keeping
device which reinforces a set of familiar and ideologically friendly ideas as a faithful
rendering from one language to another (Almijrab 1999).

Discussion and research Points

Q.1 Read the following passage carefully and identify: a. Its text type and subtype and b. Its
register of field, tenor and mode.
UN Secretary-General Annual Report to the General Assembly
At the beginning of the year, I undertook a special effort to pursue the convening of an
international peace conference on the Middle East. With the wide spread support of the
international community, I held numerous consultations with the parties and the members of the
Security Council. These consultations focused on both the principle of a conference and
questions of procedure. The views expressed to me differed in nuance and details, but it was
generally hoped that they could be sufficiently narrowed to make possible the convening of a
conference at which the more difficult substantive issues could be tackled in a constructive
spirit.

Text Type:
Field:
Tenor:
Addressor:
Addressees:
Level of formality:
Mode:
Channel of communication:
Q.2 Define tenor and mode and give examples.
Q.3 Culture plays a prominent role in the process of translation. Talk about cultural adequacy
in terms of: a. overt and covert texts. b. What is cultural transplantation.

22
 PART THREE
What is Text Linguistics?
3.1 Introduction
In 1981 two Canadian scholars, Beaugrande de and Dressler published a book entitled
Introduction to Text Linguistics in which they present a model and called Text Linguistic
because it is a further development of the linguistic model and reflects the expansion of
translation studies into discourse analysis and pragmatics. The text linguistic model is
text-based conception for meaning and has realistic formulation of the notion of
translation equivalence. It locates equivalence at a textual communicative level, not at the
sentential and lexical level in order to provides more powerful analytic tools for the study
of translation (Neubert and Shreve 1992).

The text-linguistic model starts from context as a crucial element which determines the
meaning of the text and caters for other essential meaning aspects. Within the text-linguistic
model two conflicting claims can be distinguished: Nord's (1997, among others) call for a
ST-oriented translation analysis where primacy is given to the ST, whereas Toury (1980,
among others) emphasizes the need for a target-oriented translation. In either case, the idea
of text linguistics is organized around seven principles which Beaugrande de and Dressler
(1981) term as standards of textuality.

Yet, the text itself is considered the primary unit of study from which the reader or the
translator can infer and refer to other contextual elements. Another motivation for the
development of the text linguistic model for translation comes from the practical
experience of doing translations and teaching translation students. Beaugrande de and
Dressler (1981) define text linguistics as "the study of the properties of texts and their
uses in communicative occurrence and textuality is the notion which makes the text
unified, meaningful and structural rather than a mere text of unrelated words and
sentences".

The importance of the text linguistic model is that it treats the text not as a set of separate
words and sentences and not as a linguistic unit intended to impress or merely to inform, but
as a whole communicative unit which derives its meaning from other aspects of context. In
this respect, Papegaaij and Schubert (1988:20) explains that "the treatment of sentences
taken in isolation from their surrounding text will often be highly ambiguous, and

23
sometimes practically meaningless; much of the message of text itself can only be
understood when seen as a single structure".

3.2 Standards of Textuality

Beaugrande de and Dressler (1981:37) point out, of describing and explaining both shared
and distinct features between texts. They should describe the way texts as communicative
occurrences are
connected to others via grammatical dependencies on the surface
(cohesion): via conceptual dependencies in the textual world (coherence);
via the attitudes of the participants toward the text (intentionality and
acceptability); via the incorporation of the new and the unexpected
(informativity); via the setting (situationality); and via the mutual
relevance of separate texts (intertextuality).

These features are called the seven standards of textuality which every text should
meet in order to satisfy its communicative function. According to this model, "a text
will be defined 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. Hence, non-communicative texts are treated as
non-texts" (Beaugrande and Dressler 1981:7). The seven standards are:

1. Cohesion 2. Coherence 3. Intentionality 4. Acceptability

5. Informativity 6. Situationality 7. Intertextuality

3.2. 1 Cohesion
The first standard will be called COHESION and concerns the ways in
which the components of the SURFACE TEXT, i.e. the actual words we
hear or see, are mutually connected with a sequence. The surface
components depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and
conventions, such that cohesion rests upon GRAMMATICAL
DEPENDENCIES.
To understand cohesion, one has first to consider text as a manifestation of either a written
or a spoken form. Cohesion is about the buildup and the gluing together of sentences to
produce a text. It deals with the following aspects:
a). The nature of the cohesive elements, i.e. whether they are semantic or syntactic.
b). The direction of these elements, i.e. whether they are cataphoric (refers forward)
or anaphoric (refers backward).

24
In their discussion of ways by which textual cohesion is created, Beaugrande and Dressler
(1981) include in addition to the aspects described by Halliday (1976) a number of other
features; here is their complete list:

(i) Grammar dependency network, at phrase, clause and sentence level

(ii) Recurrence: straightforward repetition of elements or patterns

(iii) Partial recurrence: shifting of already used elements to different classes (e.g. from
noun to verb)

(iv) Parallelism: repeating a structure but filling it in with new elements

(v) Paraphrase: repeating content but conveying it with different expressions
(vi) Use of pro-forms: replacing content-carrying elements with short place-holders with
no independent content [includes personal and demonstrative references]

Halliday (1976) describes five ways by which cohesion is created in English:

1. Reference; 2. Ellipsis; 3. Substitution; 4. Conjunctions, and 5 Lexical cohesion
1- Reference
(a) Personal reference includes: pronouns, possessive adjectives, possessive pronouns;
(b) Demonstrative reference such as that, this, the, here, there;
(c) Comparative reference: items such as adjectives of identity (same, identical, equal,
identically, equally), of similarity (similar, additional, similarly, likewise, so, such); of
difference (other, different, else, differently, otherwise); comparative numeratives (more,
fewer, less, further, additional; so, as, equally + quantifier [e.g. so many]); comparative
adjectives and adverbs (better, more interesting, less easy etc.).

Reference identifies cataphorically or anaphorically a person or a thing stated in a text.

(d) Anaphoric: an item that refers back to something else in the same text. For example,

There was an old lady who lived in a shoe.

She had so many children; she didn’t know what to do.

The definite article introduces information and identifies it from a general group a person
or a thing belongs to, which are already mentioned in the text. It usually occupies an
anaphoric position. For example, I bought a house. The house you saw.

(e) Cataphoric: an item refers to something coming along in the text.

25
For example, I do not know if he is serious, but my roommate wants to walk on a tight
rope over Nigeria falls.
Gutwinski, (1976) mentions other relations like:
(i) Exophoric: an item refers to a situation outside of language.
For instance, when a person says this cat, and points to the cat in the yard.
Paraphoric: an item refers to something in another text.
For example, Marcel Proust‟s work; most of his novels refer to another novel of his.
Homophoric: an item refers to one‟s general knowledge. The Queen has carried out her
political duties as head of state.

3. Substitution is an explicit indication of what has been deleted; it also shows its
grammatical function. In other words, the substitute serves as a place-holding device,
showing where something has been omitted and what its grammatical function would be.
Nominal substitutes: one: can be used as head of a noun phrase to replace a noun which is
count and not a proper name. Usually the substitution is not possible if the head is
preceded by a classifier (e.g. a noun or adjective indicating a particular subclass of the
thing in question) some / any /much / many and the same. For instance, winter is often so
damp. The same is true for the summer.
Verbal substitutes such as do/do not and auxiliaries. The nominal group: some/any; one
Clausal substitutes like so, not. Examples of substitution:
I sold a house.
Well, I built a new one
I cocked a dinner last night.
I did it myself.

2. Ellipsis is another form of anaphoric cohesion realized in a text whereby something is

presupposed by what is left out in the text, i.e. deleting a part of a sentence which can be
recovered. Ellipsis sets up a relationship that is not semantic but lexico-grammatical, a
relationship in the wording rather than directly in the meaning, For instance,
Can I borrow some money?
Sorry, I haven’t any. (I haven‟t any money)
Joan brought some carnations and Catherine some pears. (brought)

4 Conjunction is widely used to explicitly denote a relationship in a text. It is indicated

by formal markers such as: and, but, so, however, despite, although … etc.

26
Disjunction: links two things which have alternative status, i.e. two things of which only
one can be true. For example: He is a gentleman or a fool, but not both.
Contra-junction: links things having the same status but appearing incongruous or
incompatible in the textual world, e.g. a cause and an unanticipated effect.
Subordination: links things when the status of one depends on that of the other, example,
things true under certain conditions or for certain motives

5 Lexical Cohesion may be realized as follows: the reiteration of the same term. Words
are semantically related; for example, when they all concern the same topic. Reiteration –
includes repetition, synonymy: use of superordinates (generals), hyponyms and opposites
(absolute opposites, antonyms, converses), for instance:
a- I bought a house; the house is a large one.
b- the use of synonyms/antonyms register.
The house has large doors and small windows.
A clear understanding of cohesive elements would help to reach a higher level of fidelity
in translating a text into the TL.

3.2.2 Coherence
"The Second standard will be called COHERENCE and concerns the ways in which the
components of the TEXTUAL WORLD, i.e. the configuration of CONCEPTS and
RELATIONS which underline the surface text, are mutually accessible and relevant".
In English, surface sequences cannot radically rearranged without causing disturbances. A
road sign reads:
1 Slow Children at Play
2 Children Play Slow at
3 Slow
Children
At Play (Beaugrande de and Dressler 1981).

The first version of the road sign can be interpreted by motorists that something related to
the children's intelligibility or fitness. The second drivers would not understand the sign
because it is so disjointed. Only the third sign which can be interpreted as a request for
drivers to slow speed. Coherence can be illustrated particularly well by a group of
relations, (i) cause; (ii) enablement; (iii) reason and (iv) purpose, subsumed under
CAUSALITY.

27
(i) Cause
These relations concern the ways in which one situation or event affects the conditions for
some other one. In a sample such as:
Jack had an accident and twisted his ankle.
The event of having an accident is the CAUSE of the event of twisting, since the event of
having an accident created the necessary conditions for the event of twisting his ankle.
Here, Jack's twisting his ankle was independently necessary because we could not ask:
what made him feel like doing that?

(ii) Enablement
This relation is a weaker form of cause because it creates sufficient but not necessary
condition, i.e. it made it possible, but not obligatory. For instance:
Jack left his car open and a thief stole his CD player.
Here Jack's action created the sufficient, but not necessary condition for the thief's action.

(iii) Reason
The term reason can be used for the relation where an action follows as a rational
response to some previous event, for instance:
He failed his examinations because he was lazy.
His failure is nor actually caused or enabled by his laziness, but is nonetheless a
reasonable and predictable outcome.
(iv) Purpose
The term PURPOSE can be used for an event or situation which is planned to become
possible via a previous event or situation. For instance:
My cousin Mary went to the garden to water the crops.
Mary's first action does enable the second, but the plan is involved in the previous
example. Cause, Enablement, and reason have forward directionality, that is, the earlier
event or situation causes, enables, or provides the reason for the later one. Only Purpose
has backward directionality that is, the later event or situation is the purpose for the earlier
one.

Coherence already illustrates the nature of a science of texts as human activities. A text
does not make sense by itself, but rather by the interaction of TEXT-PRESENTED
KNOWLEDGE with people‟s STORED KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD (Beaugrande
and Dressler 1981). Cohesion and coherence are text-centered notions, designating

28
operations directed at the text materials. In addition, we shall require user-centered
notions which are brought to beat on the activity of textual communication at large, both
by producers and by receivers (Beaugrande and Dressler 1981).

The first two standards, cohesion and coherence, as Bell (1991:164-165) notes, though not
the same, share the common features of binding the text together by creating sequences of
meaning. Cohesion serves to connect the surface components of text while coherence
requires the sequencing of concepts and relations of the textual world (ibid.). It should be
noted, however, that cohesion and coherence are not always manifest in the same way cross-
linguistically and the analyst/translator should be well aware of this fact. For instance,
cohesion is usually language- specific; thus, the translators should examine whether they
have managed to find equivalent sequences of connectivity in the TT. Coherence relations
such as cause-effect relation should remain, whenever possible, constant in translation from
ST to TT because of the shift of emphasis or meaning their alteration may cause. Consider
for example the following Hadith:
ٗ‫ؾت ٌٕفغ‬٠ ‫ٗ ِب‬١‫ؾت ألخ‬٠ ٝ‫إِٓ أؽذوُ ؽز‬٠ ‫ال‬
If the translation does not preserve the condition relation that holds in the ST, meaning can
be distorted, as in:
He who wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself truly believes in God.
Translation above implies that such a wish is what makes one a true believer in God whereas
in the original text such a wish is just part of true belief in God. A more faithful translation
should preserve the condition relation existing in the ST as in:
(31b) None of you [truly] believes in God until he wishes for his brother what he
wishes for himself.
Notice that the addition of the adverb "truly" is vital to the determination of the expression's
intended meaning: belief in God does not depend only on wishing your fellow humans well
since this is just part of what is involved (Almijrab 1997:232). In dealing with such texts, the
translator should carefully observe meanings and how they are conceptually related within
the scope of what is intended and, as is apparent, the text-linguistic model offers the
necessary framework to complete this task.

29
Intentionality
The third standard of textuality could then be called INTENTIONALITY
concerning the text producer‟s attitude that the set of occurrences should
constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in fulfilling the producer‟s
intentions, e.g. to distribute knowledge or to attain a GOAL specified in a PLAN.
A hybrid structure such as this documented in Coulthard 1977:72):
Well where do - which part of town do you live?

did not disturb communication because it still served the superior goal of finding our
someone‟s address, although the subordinate goal of maintaining cohesion did not fully
succeed. But if a text producer intended to defy cohesion and coherence, communication
would be slowed down for negotiation anti could break down altogether.

Acceptability

The fourth standard of textuality would be ACCEPTABILITY, concerning

the text receiver‟s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a
cohesive and coherent text having some use or relevance for the receiver, e.g.
to acquire knowledge or provide co-operation in a plan. If acceptability is
restricted, communication can be diverted.
It is accordingly taken as a signal of non-co-operation if a text receiver raises questions
about acceptability when the text producer‟s intentionality is obviously in effect (Dickens
l947 774).
“What we require, sir. is a probe of this here’’
"Probate, my dear sir, probate,’’ said Pell.
Well, sir,’ replied Mr. Weller sharply, probe and probe it a very much the same; if you
Don’t understand what I mean, sir, I daresay I can find them as does.’
No offence, I hope, Mr. Weller, said Pell meekly.
Text producers often speculate on the receivers‟ attitude of acceptability and present texts
that require important contributions in order to make sense. While cohesion and coherence
can be seen as two text- phenomena, the notions of intentionality and acceptability have a
strict pragmatic foregrounding in the sense that they are primarily concerned with the
relations which obtain between participants in discourse. At this level, the text is viewed as
wholly emanating from the individual using specific strategies (e.g. cohesion & coherence)
to communicate a certain act to the receiver. Thus, the text would involve a producer who
performs a communicative act with particular intended meaning (intentionality) and a
receiver who would react to the act positively or negatively (acceptability). Notice that the
communicative model has been incorporated in this context.

31
Another task of the translator is to examine whether the two notions in the ST are well
represented in the TT. However, this is not an easy task because, for instance, once
intentionality is identified, the translator faces two alternatives, namely managing or
monitoring the text (Hatim and Mason 1990).

In managing situation, the translator attempts to manage or steer the text in a manner
favourable to the ST goals in respect of the TL receivers' response. This technique is usually
very effective in translation as it leaves some freedom for the translators to learn how to
develop an approach to translation that is suits their personal characteristics and to act as
responsible translators (Holz-Manttari 1984:180-81). However, the technique can be
criticized for being partial or unfaithful because of the high subjectivization of translation
that it may induce, particularly in cases of sensitive texts where the general norm requires all
possible objectivity.

In a monitoring situation, the translator provides as detached a translation as possible

which may however compromise the communicative goal of the ST if the thought or cultural
structure in the TT is alien and incomprehensible to the TL reader or is likely to provoke an
opposite effect from that existing in the ST. It is for the translator to decide whether the
translation as such should be interdependent of a complete textual analysis in which other
communication components are taken into consideration.

Informativity
The fifth standard of textuality is called INFORMATIVITY and "concerns the extent to
which the occurrences of the presented text are expected vs. unexpected or known vs.
unknown/certain". Every text is at least somewhat informative: no matter how predictable
form and content may be. Particularly low informativity is likely to be disturbing, causing
boredom or even rejection of the text. The opening stretch of a science textbook runs like
this: The sea is water

The fact asserted here is so well known to everyone that there seems to be no point in
saying it here. The stretch of text is clearly cohesive and coherent, and undoubtedly
intended to be acceptable as such. But it is nonetheless a marginal text because it is so
uninformative. Not until we look at the continuation does the status of the text seem
sounder:

31
The sea is water only in the sense that water is the dominant substance present. Actually,
it is a solution of gases and salts in addition to vast numbers of living organisms….

The assertion of the obvious fact in the above example functions as a starting point
asserting something more informative. The surface cue „actually‟ signals that the well-
known “substance-of” relation is not strictly accurate. The ensuing correction of a
common view is less expected, so that the informativity of the whole passage is upgraded.

Situationality
The sixth standard of textuality can be designated SITUATIONALITY and "concerns the
factors which make a text RELEVANT to a SITUATION of occurrence". Consider the
road sign stated earlier:
SLOW
CHILDREN
AT PLAY
In this manner, the sense and use of the text are decided via the situation. Situationality
even affects the means of cohesion. If the road sign made explicit, it would not be
appropriate to a situation where receivers have only limited tune and attention to devote to
signs among the other occurrences of moving traffic.

Intertextuality
The seventh standard of textuality is to be called INTERTEXTUALITY and concerns
"the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or
more previously encountered texts" In this context, Halliday and Hasan (1991:11)
mention that "part of the environment for any text is a set of previous texts, texts that are
taken for granted as shared among those taking parts". For instance, A driver who has
seen road sign (i) is likely to see another sign further down the road, such as:
RESUME SPEED
One cannot resume something unless one was doing it at an earlier time and then stopped
it for some reason.

The three remaining standards of textuality concern the way the text's information is
structured, the factors which make a text relevant to a situation of occurrence and the
relationship of the text to other preceding and surrounding texts. Thus, every text would have
an information structure, a relevant situation and an intertextual extension. If information in

32
the text is structured in a predictable way, the text will be easy to read but uninteresting the
sense that it does not involve any significant efforts in processing. In other words, "the less
predictable a choice is, the more informative and interesting it is; excessive unpredictability
may produce an unreadable text, though (Bell 1991:167-168).

Thus, the translators should be trained to define some limits whereby predictability is not too
high to the level of unreadability or too low to the level of boredom. Bell (1991:220-1)
suggests in this respect three regulative principles:
a. Efficiency, which requires economy of effort by participants in discourse (producer and
receiver).
b. Effectiveness, which consists of creating the required conditions for the achievement of
the communicative goal aimed at.
c. Appropriateness which attempts to provide a balance between (a) and (b).
This is not an easy task to accomplish because efficiency and effectiveness tend to be in
conflict.

The analysis of the text does not consist only of the linguistic signs it is composed of and the
participants in discourse it involves as well its relevance to the situation in which it occurs.
Consider, for example, the following metaphor:
I can see a light at the end of the tunnel
This cannot be understood properly unless its situation occurrence is taken into account. For
instance, the reader may take it literally if its immediate situation concerns a passenger
waiting for a train near a tunnel. But situationality is just part of the contextual-meaning
network of text. Translators should also be trained to go beyond the linguistic text, the
participants and the immediate context in order to find meaning in other contextually "far"
but related texts.

Intertextuality is, in this respect, an important principle which relates textual occurrences to
each other by evoking our previous textual experience. Using the preceding textual
experience as a guide, the translator is consciously reconstructing elements of intentionality,
acceptability, situationality, informativity, coherence, and cohesion to conform to the textual
expectations of the target audience (Neubert and Shreve 1992:119). Intertextuality is a global
pattern that perpetuates and organizes the other standards. Thus, inadequacies in translation,
as Nuebert and Shreve (Ibid.) postulate, "are usually the result of an objective divergence

33
between the textual conventions of the two communicative communities and the translator's
failure to mediate divergence".

A successful translation would involve a successful inter-textual mediation that puts the ST
at the disposal of the TL reader through a process of semiotic transformation of all SL signs
into a TL matrix. In other words, the translated text should read as a natural monolingual text
that is fully integrated in the TL textual world. This is, however, an ideal goal for translation
theory to pursue and for translation practice to achieve because translation, as Duff (1981:xi)
observes, no matter how competent, often reads like a foreign tongue. Thus, it is more
realistic and more objective as well to create what Nuebert and Shreeve (1992:120) call
"exotic intertextual hybrids". The translator can allow the intertextuality of the ST to show
through in the TT which would consequently implement cross-cultural communication and
acquaintance.

Intertextuality is an important factor in determining the meaning of the text. The abstraction
of the meaning of a particular text implies making some intertextual resemblance/distinction
from other types of text. Intertextuality is therefore closely related to the notion of text-type.
Intertextual distinctions, Neubert and Shreve (1992:120) argue, are first-order text-
typological distinctions.

Discussion and research Points

Q.1 There are attempts to set up text typology: formal, Functional and Rhetorical.
Discuss I details formal and functional typology.
Q.2 Cohesion and coherence are text centered. Define and explain with examples one of
them.
Q.3 Intentionality and acceptability are called the twins. Talk about their roles in the process
of texts.
Q.4 Intertextuality is an important factor in determining the meaning of the text. Talk about
the role of Intertextuality in translation.

34
‫‪Text Map:‬‬
‫‪----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------‬‬
‫‪----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------‬‬
‫‪----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------‬‬
‫‪----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------‬‬
‫‪----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------‬‬

‫‪TEXT ONE‬‬
‫‪٠‬زفك اٌغّ‪١‬غ أْ اٌؼاللبد األِش‪٠‬ى‪١‬خ‪-‬اٌّصش‪٠‬خ رّزؼذ ألوضش ِٓ ػمذ ِٓ اٌضِٓ ثأٌفخ ‪ٚٚ‬د ِّ‪١‬ض‪… ٓ٠‬فبٌ‪ٛ‬ال‪٠‬بد‬
‫اٌّزؾذح رجٕذ د‪ٚ‬سا س‪٠‬بد‪٠‬ب ٌّصش ِٕز ارفبل‪١‬خ اٌغالَ اإلعشائ‪١ٍ١‬خ اٌّصش‪٠‬خ‪ٚ .‬رزٍم‪ِ ٝ‬صش عٕ‪٠ٛ‬ب ٔؾ‪١ٍِ 2 ,2 ٛ‬بس د‪ٚ‬الس‬
‫أِش‪٠‬ى‪ ِٓ ٟ‬اٌّغبػذاد االلزصبد‪٠‬خ ‪ٚ‬اٌؼغىش‪٠‬خ ثبإلظبفخ اٌ‪ٔ ٝ‬ؾ‪ ٛ‬عجغ ٍِ‪١‬بساد د‪ٚ‬الس ِٓ اٌذ‪ ْٛ٠‬اٌز‪ِ ٟ‬ؾز‪ٙ‬ب أِش‪٠‬ىب‬
‫ئثبْ ؽشة اٌخٍ‪١‬ظ‪٠ٚ .‬جذ‪ِ ٞ‬غئ‪ِ ٌْٛٛ‬صش‪ ْٛ٠‬لٍم‪ ُٙ‬اٌشذ‪٠‬ذ ِّب ‪٠‬ؼزمذ‪ ْٚ‬أٗ ؽٍّخ ِشوضح ف‪ ٟ‬اٌصؾبفخ األِش‪٠‬ى‪١‬خ ظذ‬
‫ِصش ‪ٚ‬د‪ٚ‬س٘ب ف‪ ٟ‬إٌّطمخ‪ٚ .‬اٌصؾ‪١‬ؼ أْ ػذدا ِٓ اٌّطج‪ٛ‬ػبد األِش‪٠‬ى‪١‬خ (ِضً ِغٍخ ‪ ٛ٠‬أط ‪ٚٚ‬سٌذ أٔذ ٔ‪ٛ١‬ص‬
‫س‪٠‬ج‪ٛ‬سد) ٔششد ِمبالد ‪ٚ‬رؼٍ‪١‬مبد رؾًّ ػذاء ظذ ِصش ‪ِٚ‬صبٌؾ‪ٙ‬ب‪ٚ .‬سدد اٌصؾبفخ اٌّصش‪٠‬خ ِٕذدح وّب أْ‬
‫ِغزشبس اٌشئ‪١‬ظ ِجبسن أعبِٗ اٌجبص أوذ أْ ِصش ٌ‪١‬غذ ربثؼخ ألؽذ ِجذ‪٠‬ب اعزغشاثٗ ٌز‪ٛ‬ل‪١‬ذ اٌؾٍّخ‪ .‬اْ ِب ‪٠‬غّ‪ٝ‬‬
‫ثبٌؾٍّخ ػٍ‪ِ ٝ‬صش ٌ‪١‬غذ عذ‪٠‬ذح‪ .‬فأٔصبس ئعشائ‪ِ ً١‬ب فزئ‪ٛ‬ا ‪٠‬شىى‪ ْٛ‬ثعّبْ صذالخ ِصش صاػّ‪ ٓ١‬أْ ئعشائ‪ً١‬‬
‫‪ٚ‬ؽذ٘ب ٘‪ ٟ‬اٌصذ‪٠‬ك اٌذائُ ألِش‪٠‬ىب ثغجت اعزمشاس٘ب اٌغ‪١‬بع‪.ٟ‬‬
‫‪ٚ‬ألٍك أٔصبس ئعشائ‪ ً١‬أْ ل‪١‬بدح ؽغٕ‪ِ ٟ‬جبسن أز‪ٙ‬غذ خطب ِٕفزؾب ػٍ‪ ٝ‬اٌؼبٌُ اٌؼشث‪ِّ ٟ‬ب أصاي س‪ٚ‬اعت خالفبد‬
‫ِشؽٍخ (وبِت د‪٠‬فذ)‪ٚ .‬وب ْ أٔصبس ئعشائ‪٠ ً١‬ؾجز‪ ْٚ‬اعزّشاس اٌؼضٌخ اٌغ‪١‬بع‪١‬خ ٌّصش ألٔ‪ٙ‬ب رمًٍ ِٓ اعزمالٌ‪١‬ز‪ٙ‬ب‬
‫اٌغ‪١‬بع‪١‬خ ‪ ِٓٚ‬ؽش‪٠‬خ ؽشوز‪ٙ‬ب اٌزفب‪ٚ‬ظ‪١‬خ… ‪ٚ‬ػضص أفزبػ ِصش اٌذ‪ٚ‬س اٌم‪١‬بد‪ ٞ‬اٌز‪ ٟ‬وبٔذ ٌؼجزٗ ِشاد ػذ‪٠‬ذح ف‪ٟ‬‬
‫اٌزبس‪٠‬خ اٌؼشث‪ ٟ‬اٌّؼبصش ‪ٚ‬اٌمذ‪ٚ ...ُ٠‬وبٔذ ئعشائ‪ ً١‬رؼ‪ٛ‬ي ػٍ‪ ٝ‬ػضٌخ ِصش ف‪ِ ٟ‬ؾب‪ٌٚ‬خ ٌجٕبء ع‪١‬بعخ ِضد‪ٚ‬عخ ف‪ٟ‬‬
‫إٌّطمخ رٍؾك ف‪ٙ١‬ب ِصش ثبٌّصبٌؼ إلعشائ‪١ٍ١‬خ اإلعزشار‪١‬غ‪١‬خ‪ٕ٘ٚ .‬بن ػذح ػ‪ٛ‬اًِ أدد اٌ‪ ٝ‬اٌفز‪ٛ‬س األخ‪١‬ش ف‪ ٟ‬اٌؼاللبد‬
‫اٌّصش‪٠‬خ‪-‬األِش‪٠‬ى‪١‬خ‪ .‬ؽ‪١‬ش أْ اٌ‪ٛ‬ال‪٠‬بد اٌّزؾذح أثذد أضػبعب ‪ٚ‬اظؾب ٌٍزمبسة اٌّغزّش ث‪ِ ٓ١‬صش ‪١ٌٚ‬ج‪١‬ب‪ٚ .‬وبْ‬
‫اٌّغئ‪ ٌْٛٛ‬اٌّصش‪ِ ْٛ٠‬ب ثشؽ‪ٛ‬ا ‪٠‬غ‪ٛ‬غ‪ ْٛ‬اٌؼاللبد رؾذ شؼبس عزة ٌ‪١‬ج‪١‬ب ٔؾ‪ ٛ‬االػزذاي ‪ٚ‬اٌٍ‪ ٓ١‬ئال أْ اٌ‪ٛ‬ال‪٠‬بد‬
‫اٌّزؾذح وبٔذ رشغت ف‪ ٟ‬ظغػ ِصش‪ ٞ‬ػٍ‪١ٌ ٝ‬ج‪١‬ب ث‪ٙ‬ذف ػضي إٌظبَ اٌٍ‪١‬ج‪ ٟ‬ػٓ ِؾ‪١‬طٗ اٌؼشث‪٠ٚ .ٟ‬ؼزمذ ِغئ‪ٌْٛٛ‬‬
‫أِش‪٠‬ى‪ ْٛ١‬أْ اٌزمبسة اٌ‪ٛ‬ص‪١‬ك ث‪ِ ٓ١‬صش ‪١ٌٚ‬ج‪١‬ب ٌُ ‪٠‬ؼػ صّبسٖ ثذٌ‪ ً١‬اعزّشاس اٌشفط اٌٍ‪١‬ج‪ ٟ‬رغٍ‪ِ ُ١‬ز‪ ٗ١ّٙ‬ف‪ ٟ‬ؽبدس‬
‫رفغ‪١‬ش غبئشح (ثبْ آَ) ف‪ٛ‬ق اعىزٍٕذا‪ٚ .‬األِش اٌضبٔ‪ ٟ‬اٌز‪ ٞ‬أصػظ األِش‪٠‬ى‪ ٓ١١‬ف‪ ٟ‬اٌى‪ٔٛ‬غشط ‪ٚ‬خبسعٗ ٘‪ ٛ‬االٌزضاَ‬
‫اٌّصش‪ ٞ‬ثبٌؾً اٌشبًِ ٌّشىٍخ اٌششق األ‪ٚ‬عػ‪ .‬فبألِش‪٠‬ى‪ ْٛ١‬وبٔ‪ٛ‬ا ‪٠‬عغط‪ ْٛ‬ثبعزّشاس ػٍ‪ ٝ‬اٌؾى‪ِٛ‬خ اٌّصش‪٠‬خ‬
‫ٌزٍ‪ِٛ ٓ١١‬لف‪ٙ‬ب ِٓ اٌؾى‪ِٛ‬خ اإلعشائ‪١ٍ١‬خ‪ .‬أِب ِب ‪٠‬زؼٍك ثزأصَ اٌؼاللبد األِش‪٠‬ى‪١‬خ‪-‬اٌّصش‪٠‬خ ف‪١‬زؼٍك ثّ‪ٛ‬ظ‪ٛ‬ع اٌغالػ‬
‫إٌ‪ ٞٚٛ‬اإلعشائ‪ٚ .ٍٟ١‬وبٔذ ِصش لذ أثٍغذ اٌؾى‪ِٛ‬خ األِش‪٠‬ى‪١‬خ أٔ‪ٙ‬ب رشفط ثؾش عالؽ‪ٙ‬ب اٌى‪١ّ١‬بئ‪ ٟ‬أ‪ِٛ ٚ‬ظ‪ٛ‬ع‬
‫اٌغالػ اٌى‪١ّ١‬بئ‪ ٟ‬ف‪ ٟ‬اٌششق األ‪ٚ‬عػ ِٓ د‪ ْٚ‬سثطٗ ثبٌزشعبٔخ إٌ‪٠ٚٛ‬خ اإلعشائ‪١ٍ١‬خ اٌز‪ ٟ‬ال رمط ِعبعغ اٌّغئ‪ٓ١ٌٛ‬‬
‫األِش‪ ٠‬ى‪ ٓ١١‬اٌز‪٠ ٓ٠‬غ‪ ٌْٛٛ‬اٌىشح األسظ‪١‬خ ثؾضب ػٓ ئصجبد ‪ٚ‬ع‪ٛ‬د أثؾبس ٔ‪٠ٚٛ‬خ‪٠ٚ .‬ؼجش اٌّ‪ٛ‬لف اٌّصش‪ ٞ‬ػٓ ئعّبع‬
‫ػشث‪ٚ ٟ‬ئعالِ‪٠ ٌُ ٟ‬ؼذ ‪٠‬زؾًّ اٌصّذ اٌغشث‪ ٟ‬ػٓ اٌغالػ إٌ‪ ٞٚٛ‬اإلعشائ‪.ٍٟ١‬‬

‫‪35‬‬
Text Map:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEXT TWO
1. For the Russian space programme, the comeback was supposed to begin last month.
Ever since the fall of communism, the agency that gave the world Sputnik, Gagarin and
the space station Mir appeared to have fallen too, with slashed budgets leading to fewer
launches and worried whispers in the international community that even those missions
were dangerously underfinanced. Lately, however, Russia has been funnelling all its
space resources into the launch of its Mars 1996 probe, an unmanned spacecraft
designed to orbit the red planet, dispatch a quartet of landers to the surface and, perhaps
most important, return the country to the spacefaring pre-eminence it once enjoyed.
But last month, the grand promenade to Mars turned into a near earth lob shot, when a
booster malfunction sent the spacecraft plummeting back to earth shortly after its launch.
For a time it looked as if the craft was going to hit Australia, endangering it not just with
debris but also with the 270 grams of plutonium it was carrying as a power source. That
disaster was averted when the ship sailed past the continent and plopped ignominiously
into the Pacific. A few days later, Russia sustained a less conspicuous public relations
blow when officials admitted that two of the country's spy satellites had recently fallen
from orbit, leaving the military without any space-based reconnaissance capabilities.
What raised eyebrows was not the loss of the satellites but Russia's inability to replace
them. In the wake of the Mars debacle, this was enough to cause observers inside Russia
and out to wonder aloud just how deep the space programme's troubles run and whether
any technological solution can fix what ails it.

36
Text Map:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEXT THREE
Man was ever a materialist. Right from the start he seized what lay around him to
fashion it into tools with which to hack, carve, pound and sew his way through life. But
as he did so, he had little understanding of why each had particular strengths and
weaknesses. Nor did he need it. It is only when you make materials from scratch that
knowing why things are as they are begins to matter; before that, trial and error will
suffice.
The array of materials around today shows that trial and error has done pretty well. But
scientists, of course, are not satisfied with it. In the past century they have developed a
wide field of material science that seeks to explain what arrangements of matter at a
microscopic level give rise to the properties of substances. This knowledge has its
practical side. When scientists gathered at the California Institute of Technology
(Caltech) last month to hear about its work in material science, it was not just the
knowledge that drew them; it was the fact that the researchers presenting it can use that
knowledge to build new properties into matter.
One of the materials they have been working on is glass. Glass is extremely hard
and can be shaped fairly easily, encouraging scientists to look for ways to use its
strength while eliminating, or getting round, its tendency to shatter. The usual way
to toughen glass, developed in the 1920s, is to draw it into fibers that can reinforce
other materials. A different approach was on display at Caltech in the form of a
handful of shiny lozenges cooked up in the material-science laboratories. These
lozenges were glasses, but were made of metal. This metallic glass provides a
combination of strength and flexibility nothing else can match. The fact that these
lozenges are called glass demonstrates the differences between the way normal
people and scientists think about materials. To most people glass is transparent and
made of sand. To scientists glasses are solids with no internal order to the
arrangement of their atoms.

37
Text Map:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEXT FOUR
How to Treat Your Wart, Verruca, Corn or Callus
Directions for Use
Before initial use, carefully remove and discard the white ring from the Salactol bottle.
One daily application
You should apply Salactol once every night to your wart, verruca, corn or callus in order
to achieve success. Treatment can take up to twelve weeks for resistant lesions, so you
must persevere.
1. Every night, soak the affected area(s) in warm water for 2-3 minutes.
2. Dry thoroughly with your own towel.
3. Gently rub away any loose hard skin from the surface of the wart, verruca, corn or
callus with a piece of pumice stone or manicure emery board, used only for this purpose.
4. Carefully unscrew the cap of the bottle and, using the applicator attached to the inside
of the cap (see illustration), apply a few drops of the paint to the affected area, allowing
each drop to dry before the next one is applied. Take care to avoid spreading onto
surrounding normal skin. Any surplus spreading onto surrounding skin should be wiped
off with cotton wool.
5. Replace the cap tightly.
6. If the affected area is on the sole of the foot, cover it with an adhesive plaster. This
enhances absorption of the active ingredients and, for warts and verrucas, helps prevent
the virus from spreading. Elsewhere treated areas need to be covered.
7. Leave for 24 hours and repeat the procedure every night after first removing any
plaster.
8. Remember your wart, verruca, corn or callus may take some time to disappear
completely - you must persevere with your treatment.
Warnings
Keep away from the eyes and mucous membranes.
Salactol should not be used on the face.

38
 References
Almijrab, R. A. (2015) Macro-Level of Translation Pedagogy: A Case of the Libyan Academy,
Benghazi. International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 2, No; 5.
Almijrab, R. A. (2013). Evaluation of Translation Errors: Procedures and Criteria. In
DOI: 10.7763/IPEDR. V62. 13.
Almijrab, R. A. (1999) Ideological Shift in cross-cultural Translation, In Boase-Beier, J.
And Holman, M. (eds.), The Practice of Literary Translation, pp. 59-70
Manchester: St Jerome.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Course Book in Translation, London: Routledge.
Bell, R. T. (1991) Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice, London: Longman.
Beaugrande, de and Dressler, W.( 1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Colina, S. (2009). Further Evidence for a Functionalist Approach to Translation Quality
Evaluation Target 21(2): 215-244.
Delisle, J, Lee-Janke, H. Cormier, M. (eds.) (1999). Translation Terminology.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/fit.1
Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and Language. Manchester: St Jerome.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Harlow.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in
a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990) Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Hatim, B (1991) The Pragmatics of Argumentation in Arabic: the Rise and Fall of a Text
Type. Text-Interdisciplinary. Journal for the Study of Discourse. V. 11, 2, pp 189-200.
Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across Culture. Exeter: Exeter University Press.
House, J. (2001) How do we Know When a Translation is Good. In Steiner, E and Yallop,
C (eds.) Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond
Content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp 127-160.
House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.
Koch, B. (1983): Presentation as Proof: The language of Arab rhetoric. Anthropological
Linguistics 25:1, 47-57.
Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Neubert, A. & Shreve, G. (1992). Translation as Text. Kent: Kent State University Press.
Nunez, k. (2014). Some Tips for Designing and Lecturing an Undergraduate Course in
Economic, Financial and Commercial Translation. In Garant, M. (ed.) Current

39
 Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E.V1 pp 85-114.
Palumbo, G. (2009). Key Terms in Translation Studies. London: Continuum.
Renad Abbadi, (2014) The Construction of Arguments in English and Arabic: A
Comparison of the Linguistic Strategies Employed in Editorials Argumentum 10,
724-746 Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó.
Sager, J. (1997). Text Types and Translation. In Trosborg A (ed.) Text Typology and
Translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reiss, K. (1976) How to Teach Translation: Problems and Perspectives. The Bible
Translator. Vol. 27, N0. 3 PP. 96-102
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). The Deep Structure of Discourse and the Use of Translation.
In Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (eds.). The Communicative Approach to
Language Teaching, pp. 60-71, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, M. (2004) Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-centred
Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

41