Text –Typology and Translation Process

Ahmad Zureikat
Abstract
The question of text typology still offers a severe challenge to text linguistics with regard to the systemization and classification of samples. The challenge arises from the fact that any attempt of categorizing texts into types should include all texts and should avoid the overlapping between types in the same text (i.e. a text might have characteristics of more than one type). This study consists of two parts. In the first part, the paper aimed at examining the most prominent models of text-type classification-;- so, eight scholars who arrived at different classifications based on different criteria are addressed. In the second part, an application of text-type classification to translation studies is briefly presented. The term-paper is intended to make the translator well-acquainted with the text-type features that to enhance his/her performance.

Introduction
Before embarking on a discussion concerning the proposed outline, it seems more appropriate to define what is meant by text-typology and even text itself. In his guide book, Hatim (2004:232) defines text-type as “the way the structure and texture1 of texts are made to respond to their context “-;- and text as” a set of mutually relevant communicative -function-s, structured and textured in such a way as to achieve an overall rhetorical purposes”. Since the emergence of the text linguistics field in the 1960s and 1970s, the interest in classifying texts into types appeared conspicuously, that yielded a plethora of classifications. The reason behind such various classifications is that the bases´-or-the criteria on which the texts categorized are different. Texts, variably, has been classified on different bases such as: purpose, -function-, field of discourse´-or-what is called “subject matter and domain”. The Term-paper, however, tends to survey these trends of classification regarding the well-known scholars who worked on them in the field of text linguistics. By no means, the most problematic issue associated with any classification is that the multi-function-ality, which means the text that, has more than one -function-, so that a text may represent more than one type. Another minor problem linked to text typology is that many authors use different labels for the same kind of categories which complicated even further the already complex matter (Westerweel and D’haen, 1990:86).

Translation as Text emphasizes the fact that translations are texts and that processes of translation are primarily textual process (Neubert and M.Shreve, 1992:124).On the other hand, the best way to seize upon the existing theoretical knowledge relative to text linguistics is to be utilized in the field of translation. So, the second part of this term-paper deals with the possibility of applying such knowledge of text typology to translation. Definitely , being acquainted with the features of text-types , the translator will be simply able to determine what strategy he has to follow in order to produce a competent translation -;- it sounds foolish to adopt the same strategy in translating two different text-types such as legal and literary since each has its distinctive sematic, syntactic and stylistic traits .
Part one
The classifications of Text-types
1- Newmark’s Classification (1988)

Newmark (1988:39) distinguishes three text-types on the basis of the three -function-s of the language that adapted by Buhler. These three categories can be presented as follows:
A- The Expressive
Newmark considers the speaker, the author of the expressive text as the main focus´-or-as ‘author- oriented’ because the whole text is produced to express his feelings. Also, Newmark proposes three characteristic ‘expressive’ text-types:
1- Serious Imaginative Literature: this subtext-type includes some literary genres such as lyrical poetry, short stories, novels, and plays.
2- Authoritative Statements: the typical authoritative statements can be exemplified by political speeches and documents.
3- Autobiography, Essays, Personal Correspondence: these can be categorized under the expressive text because “they are personal effusions, when the reader is a remote background.

B- The Informative
Unlike expressive, the focus here is on the “external situation”´-or-as Suka Joshua in (K. Ray: 2008) called “the extraliguistic information content of the text”. The informative text, on the other hands, could be seen as fact-oriented, scientific and knowledge-based writing. Newmark, in regard to this type, differentiates between the format of the informative text and the topic. By format , he means in which form the text was written such as : textbook , report , paper ,article , memorandum and minutes .While, he means by topic , to what field the content of the text is related , and he gives examples such as : Scientific , technological , commercial , industrial and economic .
C- The Vocative
The readership´-or-the addressee is central to the vocative text (i.e. this type is reader- centred) because such texts usually try to impress upon their readership to act, think, feel and react in the way intended by the text. In addition, he provides other names to designate this text-type: “instrumental, operative and pragmatic “-;- he justifies the uses of these names by claiming that they can be envisaged in the sense of used to produce a certain effect on the reader. The best examples are: notices, instructions, publicity, propaganda and persuasive writing. (Emphasis is mine).
2- Katharina Reiss’s Classification(1976)

Reiss work on text types, influenced by -function-al theories, has been a major influence in contemporary translation theory. Her approach relates translation closely to text linguistics and communication studies, as she affirmed that the level at which communication occurs is textual and not sentential´-or-lexical (Andrews and A.Maksimova, 2010:62-63). With respect to the classification of text types, Reiss starts by sticking to the traditional Buhler’s triadic -function-al model of language, but adds an audio-medial type to cover the increasing use of language (Munday, 2008:72-74). As-Safi (2011:37-39) summarizes her classifications of text - type as follows:

A- Informative
It is concerned with “plain communicative facts “: information, knowledge, opinions. The information is logical´-or-referential the content´-or-topic is the main focus of the communications. (The quotation is Reiss’s).
B- Expressive :
This type can be recognized, more´-or-less, as similar to Newmark’s first type. It refers to the creative composition wherein the author uses the aesthetic dimension of the language.
C- Operative :
The purpose is to induce behavioral responses, i.e., to appeal to´-or-persuade the reader´-or-receiver of the text to act in a certain way.
D- Audiomedial :
It refers to films and visual´-or-spoken advertisements which supplement the other three -function-s with visual images, music … etc.
It is important to note that Reiss recognizes hybrid text and speaks about multiple -function-s being realized within a single text, but generally with one being dominant (Andrews and A.Maksimova, 2010:62-63).It mean that the operative text , for example , may include some characteristics of the informative one , but the dominant nature of the text will remain operative .
The dominant form of language of the informative type is -function-al language and the text is structured primarily on the semantic-syntactic level. While, the expressive text is doubly structured: first on the syntactic-semantic level, and on the level of artistic organisation. In addition to this linguistic -function-, an expressive text must also fulfil an artistic -function-. The operative text is doubly´-or-triply structured: on the semantic-structural level, on the level of persuasion, and sometimes but not necessarily, on the level of artistic organisation. An operative text must fulfil both a linguistic and a psychological -function- (Helge Niska, 1999:8).

3- De Beaugrande and Dessler’s Classification (1981)
According to De Beaugrande and Dessler (1981:182-186), the very idea of text typology is deemed as “fuzzy”, because of the multi-function-ality of the same text. Also, they envision the major difficulty in this domain is that many actualized instances do not manifest complete´-or-exact characteristics of an ideal type-;- as one type could in include some traits of another. In classifying text into types, they rely on two bases: 1- the -function-al lines in communication not merely on the surface format 2- the Domain that the text belongs to. In one way´-or-another, they arrived at three categories of text types based on the -function-al criteria:
A- De-script-ive
There are peculiar several traits characterize the de-script-ive text, as following:
A- The de-script-ive texts would be those utilized to enrich knowledge spaces whose control centers are objects´-or-situations -;-
B- There will be often a frequency of conceptual relations for attributes , states , instances and specifications -;-
C- The surface de-script-ive text should reflect a corresponding density of modifiers -;-and
D- The most applied global pattern would the frame.
(The emphasis is original)

B- Narrative
The narrative texts, in contrast, display specific traits that explained by De Beaugrande and Dessler as follows:
A- The narrative texts would be those utilized to arrange actions and events in a particular sequential order.
B- There will be a frequency of conceptual relations for cause, reason, purpose, enablement and time proximity.
C- The surface text should reflect a corresponding density of subordinations.
D- The most commonly applied global knowledge pattern would be the schema.
C- Argumentative
There are some features pertinent to the argumentative text, as follows:
A- The argumentative texts are those utilized to promote the acceptance´-or-evaluation of certain beliefs´-or-ideas as true vs. false ,´-or-positive vs. negative
B- Conceptual relations such as reason, significance, volition, value and opposition should be frequent.
C- The surface texts will often show cohesive devices for emphasis and insistence, e.g. recurrence, parallelism and paraphrase.
D- The most commonly applied global knowledge pattern will be the plan for inducing belief.
On the other hand, De Beaugrande adopted the domain basis for developing a different classification of texts in to types:
A- Literary
B- Poetic
C- Didactic
D- Scientific
Basil Hatim (2006), in the same vein, argues that this exhibits an odd mixture of categories fluctuating between field in the sense of subject matter and discourse in the institutional sense.
Moreover , De Beaugrande (1980) introduces ,generally speaking, many characteristics for the text as :
- The text is an actual system.
- A text must be defined according to the complete standards of textuality.
- A text must be relevant to a situation of occurrence in which a constellation of strategies, expectations and knowledge is active.
De Beaugrande, however, is deemed as one of the most prominent scholars who established the field of text linguistics in 1980. He, also, elaborated more after by publishing many books based on text types in many languages (English, German , Arabic…etc. ) ,for example : A NEW INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF TEXT AND DISCOURSE (2004), New Foundations for a Science of Text and Discourse(1997).
4- P. Wright’s Classification (1980)
According to Dillon, A. and McKnight, C. (1990) and from a less theoretical standpoint Wright (1980) describes texts in terms of their applicative domains:
• domestic (e.g. instructions for using appliances)
• -function-al (e.g. work-related manuals)
• advanced literacy (e.g. magazines´-or-novels)
She uses these categories to emphasise the range of texts that exist and to highlight the fact that reading research must become aware of this tremendous diversity.

5- Werlich’s Classification(1976)
In her Text Typology: Register, Genre and Text Type (1997:16), Anna Trosborg presents the five Werlich’s text types and she asserts that such as categorization is based on cognitive properties of text type. The five categories are as the following:
1- De-script-ive texts: De-script-ive text is a text which says what a person´-or-a thing is like. Its purpose is to describe and reveal a particular person, place,´-or-thing. The language of de-script-ive texts almost includes :
- Using attributive and identifying process
- Using adjective and classifiers in nominal group
- Using simple present tense

2- Narrative texts: describe a sequence of non-fictional´-or-fictional events. It -function-s to amuse and entertain the reader´-or-listener . In the narrative style , much concern given to the setting of a situation : time and place .
3- Expository texts: is a type of text where the purpose is to inform, describe, explain,´-or-define the author s subject to the reader/listener. Expository text is meant to deposit information. A well-written exposition remains focused on its topic and lists events in chronological order
4- Argumentative texts: evaluation of relations between concepts through the extraction of similarities, contrasts, and transformations.
5- Instructive texts : planning of future behaviour :
a. with option (advertisements, manuals, recipes)
b. without option (legislation, contracts)

6- Kinneavy’s Classification (1971)
Anna (1997:14 ) ,also , argues that Kinneavy depends on Aristotle in categorizing texts into types , as he theorizes a classification of text types in terms of modes , “ which derive from philosophical concepts of how reality can be viewed “ . (Italics Added)
Kinneavy, in a way´-or-another, tries to distinguish between static and dynamic, between looking at something at a particular time and looking how it changes over time. He arrives at four- fold typology, as follows:
A- Narration
B- Classification
C- De-script-ion
D- Evaluation
Anna (1997) illustrates these four types by saying “If our view of reality focuses on individual existences, we describe-;- if it focuses on groups, we classify. If our dynamic view of reality looks at change, we narrate-;- if it looks at the potential for reality to be different, we evaluate “(The emphasis is original) .




7- Crystal and Davy’s Classification (1969 )
In a co-authored book entitled “Investigating English Style “ , Crystal and Davy categorise texts in to types according to the criteria of field of discourse´-or-subject-matter . Built on these criteria, their book includes different text types, such as :
A- The language of religion (Religious Texts )- “ Liturgical Language”
B- The Language of news reporting (Journalistic Texts )-“Journalese“
C- The language of legal Documents ( Legal Texts )
In addition to the above examples, we may mention text-types, based on the parameter of field, such as : medical , literary , technical …etc.
In this regard, Hatim in (Baker, 2006: 263) argues that Crystal and Davy’s classification is deemed as highly appreciative in the field of translation, because it provides the translator with the sound knowledge required in making decision specifically at the equivalence level.
When categorized this way, however, text-type will be so varied and numerous, i.e. Crystal and Davy’s attempt ends up by having as many text type as there are texts. In addition, Gorlach (2004:17) postulates that “field “ is an obvious parameter , but the number of possible distinctions is almost infinite .

8- Hatim and Mason’s Classification
In their attempt to classify texts into types , Hatim and Mason adopted the fivefold classification that Werlich(1976) carried out as mentioned in the fifth classification in this term-paper. To avoid repetition, we would like to mention only their improvement on Werlich’s attempt. They conflate the first three types (De-script-ive , narrative , expository ) into one type : expository . So, they-limit-ed texts into a triadic -function-al model : Expository , Argumentative and Instructive .


Part Two
The Application of Text Typology to Translation
The study of Text Typology that belongs to the budding field of “Text Linguistics” can be useful for the translator in different ways. In principle, being acquainted with the text-type of the ST and it features, translator can simply determine what a more circumspect strategy to be adopted throughout the process of translating. In this respect, Hatim (2004:11) suggests that DIFFERENT TEXT TYPES PLACE DIFFERENT SETS OF DEMANDS ON THE TRANSLATOR, WITH CERTAIN TYPES BEING OBVIOUSLY MORE DEMANDING THAN OTHERS. (The emphasis is original). To put it mildly- actually, translator’s decisions (at the level of equivalent, style, syntax …etc.) should be calculated on the basis of concrete text- type classification.
Emery (1991:565) elucidates that there are two points to be borne in mind in terms of the application of text typology to translation process: First, upon which classification of text types should be based-;- second, what are the methods of translation to be adopted in dealing with these texts.
On the other hand, translation typologies might be classified in terms of the source text (ST) type. Built on the text-type of the source text, Sager (1998) distinguishes three major translation types: Literary translation, translation of the sacred texts and non – literary´-or-technical translation. By the same spoken, Nord, according to the -function- of target text, distinguishes between documentary and instrumental translation. And many other scholars present different dichotomies of translation types regarding text-typology such as: Technical vs. non- technical, specialized vs. non-specialized and literary vs. non-literary (Dukate, 2009: 28).
In terms of determining the strategy per se to be followed in translating a particular text, Newmark (1981) spells it out that a different text- type (expressive, informative and vocative) requires a different strategy. He argues that semantic translation is used for expressive texts and communicative translation for informative and vocative. Also, Hatim (2004) designed his guide book on the basis of text-types-;- he seized upon the spectrum of text typologies by determining a strategy for each type in regard to their -function-al characteristics. To see practically how the translator’s strategy is determined by the text type, Hatim in his guide book (2004) include many translated texts based on this concept-;- for example:
1- Legal texts: this text type, Hatim (2004:16) argues, displays features of a closely knit – texture which the translator has to approach in a disciplined and methodical manner-;- so the approach which seems presents itself most readily is literal. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, translators must abide by the source text syntax and semantics. An example taken from international resolution as follows :

- “The principles of the dignity and equality of all human beings “
The literal translation which is more appropriate for such a legal text-type can be:
مبادئ الكرامة والمساواة بين كافة أبناء البشر" “
This literal translation sounds more proper than any other such as:
مبادئ كرامة كافة أبناء البشر والمساواة بينهم "”
2- Argumentative texts: in this text type, Hatim (2004:145) asserts, that literal translation method is not valid any more, but there a -dir-e need for a more free´-or-“relaxed “method of translation. Such a text-type, however, requires more manipulation in order to render the same ST message in to the TT.

There are apparently many examples to prove that methods and strategies should be altered to conform to different text-types. In fact, it sounds naïve to adopt literal method in translating literary, sacred´-or-journalistic texts. Because the translations will be, more´-or-less, foolish if not funny, especially in translating metaphors, idioms, and collocations which are sometimes considered as culture-specific. Thus, different strategy such as communicative´-or-sense-for-sense translation should be endorsed in those emotive texts.
Given the discussion advanced these lines, the translator’s mission could be crystallized: firstly, he has to construe all characteristics associated with that text-. After that, he needs to determine the strategy that fits that text-type which basically depends on the experience that translator has-;- secondly, he should translate the ST text taken in account its features Into TT type that displays the same ST type. The translation should consist of a TT type that has the same characteristics of the ST-type, otherwise the translation can be considered as incompetent and still lack of something.




Conclusion
To sum up, I agree with the notion that asserts that texts and their typologies are fuzzy, because, more´-or-less, there are texts that display more than one -function- which can’t be categorized under one definite type. Truly, it is not axiomatic to say that the number of classifications are equal to the number of persons who undertaken to discuss the subject. But, such a problem of multi-function-ality of texts,´-or-as Reiss in (A.Maksimova, 2010:62) called “hybrid texts “, could be solved by the concept of “dominant contextual focus “. By this we mean that even if a text that has a miscellany of features that belong to more than one single type , there will be always one dominant -function-´-or-“ contextual focus “ that refers only to one type. For example, if we have a narrative text that include some features relative to other text-types such as de-script-ive´-or-argumentative, the main focus will be still on the narration style whose features are more than any other type .
For many scholars, the translation unit at which communication and equivalence should be achieved is the text. Catford in As-Safi (2011:6) , for example, defines translation as the replacement of textual material by equivalent textual material in the target language . Also, Anderman and Rogers (1999:2) view translation as a conversion of a TEXT, written in one language for a certain situation´-or-purpose into another language. Consequently, the study of texts and their typologies is significant to translation studies-;- as it helps the translator to determine which strategy to be adopted in transferring a particular text.

References
- As-Safi, A.B. 2011.Translation Theories, Strategies and Basic Theoretical Issues. Amman: Dar Amwaj.

- Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice Hall.

- Newmark, Peter.1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.

- Suka Joshua. In K. Ray, Mohit (ed.). 2008 . Studies in Translation. New Delhi: Atlantic.

- Andrews, Edna and A.Maksimova, Elena .2010.Russian Translation Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
- Niska, Helge.1999. Text Linguistic Models for the Study of Simultaneous Interpreting. Stockholm University.

- DE Beaugrande, Robert and Dessler, Wolfgang .1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.


- Beaugrande, R.de. 1980. Text, Discourse and process toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Online available : http://www.beaugrande.com/TDPOpening.htm

- Beaugrande, R .de. 1984. Text production. Online available : http://www.beaugrande.com/text_production.htm
- Beaugrande, R. de. 1997. New Foundations for a Science of Text and Discourse. Available online : http://www.beaugrande.com/new_foundations_for_a_science.htm.
-
- Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. Routledge.

- Dillon, A. and McKnight, C. (1990) towards a classification of text types: a repertory grid approach. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, 623-636


- Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Text Typology: Register, Genre and Text. Amsterdam : John Benjamins B.V

- Hatim, Basil and Munday, Jeremy. 2004. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.


- Hatim, Basil. 1997 .English – Arabic / Arabic –English Translation. London: Saqi Books.

- Hatim, Basil (2006). Text Linguistics and Translation. In. Baker, Mona (Ed.). Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge.


- G. Emery, Peter. 1991. Text Classification and Text Analysis in Advanced Translation teaching. Meta xxxxvi, 4,568-577. Oman: University of Sultan Qaboos.

- Gorlach, Manferd. 2004. Text Types and the History of English. Berlin: Mouten De Cruyter.


- Dukate, Aiga. 2009. Translation, Manipulation and Interpreting. Germany: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.

- Neubert, Albrecht and M. Shreve, Gregory. 1992. Translation as Text. Ohio: the Kent state university.
- Anderman, Gunilla and Rogers, Margaret.1999. Word, Text, Translation. Frankfurt: Multilingual Matters.
-
- Crystal, David and Davy , Derek . 1969 . Investigating English Style .London : Longman Group-limit-ed .

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 32%							Participated in the vote : 8