INTRODUCCIÓN AL SAR

Genres as social processes for achieving purposes within the culture CONTEXT OF SITUATION

Registers as particular configurations of the field, tenor and mode. FIELD

(subject matter or topic)

TENOR

(roles and relationships)

MODE

(spoken or written text)

L ANG UAG E IDEATIONAL METAFUNCTION INTERPERSONAL METAFUNCTION TEXTUAL METAFUNCTION Clause level Experiential Metafunction: The types of processes involved in the activity, the participants, and circumstances surrounding the activity.

Beyond the clause Logical metafunction: The logical relationship between events (e.g. where? when? how? why?

Clause level

Resources for interaction (e.g. MOOD system: questions, statements, commands, offers). Beyond the clause Resources for creating patterns of evaluation and engagement with the audience.

Clause level

Theme and Rheme (the beginning and end of the clause).

Beyond the clause Cohesive devices to form text.

Figure 3. SFL model of language (Adapted from Christie & Derewianka, 2010).

Experiential Metafunction. The experiential metafunction is concerned with the ways in which ideas are presented in a text, what they tell about the world, and how they are

represented in language. This metafunction analyzes clauses in terms of process types (i.e. the verb as the core experiential meaning of the clause), participants (people or things involved in the process), and circumstances that surrounds processes such as time, place, manner, and cause. (Bloor & Bloor, 2004). Process types are material, mental, verbal, behavioral, relational

21

and existential that participant(s) take, and are manifested in a clause as verbs or verb groups. Participants are nominal groups (one word or a group of words) that represent person(s) or thing(s) participating in the process (Bloor & Bloor, 2004). Roles of participants in a clause vary according to various process types, creating links between processes.

Interpersonal Metafunction. The interpersonal metafunction is concerned with the ways language users make their choices to enact relationships with others through their opinions, attitudes, and embedded judgments (Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2016). This metafunction manifests the social distance, solidarity, or intimacy the speaker or writer attempts to establish with the audience. In other words, it focuses on the ways speakers or writers interact and practice their social status and relationship with others (e.g. formal or informal) through their language choices (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010). These manifestations of the language can be explored and examined through the systems of mood and modality. The mood system identifies clauses as declarative (statement), interrogative (question), and imperative (command) showing how the speakers or writers position their audience (i.e. converge to or diverge from the targeted

audience), and the modality system identifies and determines the speakers’ or writers’ stances of confidence and authority or uncertainty and skepticism through their language choices of modal verbs (e.g. might or could) or modal nouns (e.g. possibility or expectation) (Bloor & Bloor, 2004; Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010; Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2016).

Textual Metafunction. The textual metafunction is involved in the development of a text as a cohesive message unit constructed of several linked clauses with different patterns of textual development (Bloor & Bloor, 2004; Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2016). At the clause level, the

22

textual meaning system recognizes the development of clauses and the organization of text parts (e.g., Adjuncts) through two main lexicogrammatical resources: Theme, or given/known information and Rheme, or new information (Bloor & Bloor, 2004). The development of Theme and Rheme elements in a text plays a pivotal role in the linkage or interconnection between the text parts and clauses creating textual cohesion and logical sequences (Bloor & Bloor, 2004; Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2016).

Structurally, Theme is divided into three main types depending on their general meaning connection with co-texts: textual (e.g., conjunctive Adjuncts), interpersonal (e.g., interrogative Mood elements), and topical Theme (e.g. participant, process, or circumstance). In terms of markedness (i.e., infrequency or untypical use), textual and interpersonal Themes are considered marked ones if positioned at the beginning of clauses. However, topical Theme is essential in every clause and can be either marked (e.g., circumstantial Adjuncts) or

unmarked (e.g. pronouns or noun groups). These three types of Theme may combine into constituents of one clause or develop as a single theme (Bloor & Bloor, 2004).

In terms of thematic progression, Themes in a text follow different patterns of development: constant, derived or subordinate, and/or linear patterns (Bloor & Bloor, 2004). That is, to make a cohesive text with well-developed ideas and flow, Themes either represent the general theme or a specific theme in a text (constant pattern), a superordinate item or idea in a text from the general theme (derived pattern), or the Rheme of the previous clause (linear pattern). These patterns of development are significant characteristics of cohesive and coherent texts. Figure 4 shows some of more typical thematic progression patterns found in a cohesive text.

23

Constant Topical Theme Derived Topical Theme Linear Topical Theme A B A C A D A A1 A2 A3 A B B C C D

Figure 4. Patterns of topical themes development in a cohesive text.

All in all, these three metafunctions applied to text analysis have played a significant role in the analysis of language that moves beyond clause level language phenomena to examine paradigmatic meaning choices of both lexical and grammatical items as explored in a variety of texts. Next, we explore how SFL links the practice of translation with the linguistic theory.

SFL and Translation

The previous sections explored the nature of translation studies as an interdiscipline borrowing theories from other relevant disciplines, primarily from linguistics. We also explored the relationship between translation studies and early linguistics, namely structural and transformational linguistics, which resulted in divergence between linguistic theories and practice of translation leading to subjective or intuitive descriptions of translation activity due to their limited concentration on language forms. Furthermore, we reviewed the development of linguistic theories, and SFL in particular, and how they have inspired translation studies, and we provided a general explanation of the SFL modeling of language. In this section, we will elaborate on the commonalities between SFL theories and the activity of translation and on how SFL theories attempt to bridge the gap between linguistics and the practice of

24

From Halliday’s perspective, the process of translation is meaning focused:

“translation (translating/interpreting) is meaning-making activity, and we would not consider any activity to be translation if it did not result in the creation of meaning” (Halliday, 1992, p. 15). Thus, any linguistic theory that pertains to the activity of translation, as Halliday (1992) stresses, must be meaning-oriented and “embody a functional semantics” (p. 15). This concern is shared by the translation community which views languages as carriers whereby various meanings are conveyed and exchanged (Taylor, 1993). With its focus on both form and paradigmatic meaning choices, SFL has been advocated by prominent translation scholars such as Peter Newmark (1991) who praised the meaning-based work of Halliday as follows:

Since the translator is concerned exclusively and continuously with meaning, it is not surprising that Hallidayan linguistics, which sees language primarily as a meaning potential, should offer itself as a

serviceable tool for determining the constituent parts of a source language text and its network of relations with its translation (p. 65).

Unlike some other approaches to translation, the primary focus on the interrelated semantics of both clausal and textual meaning in both SFL and translation studies makes it possible to argue that “the basic unit of semantics is the text – language functioning in context” (Halliday, 1985, p. 43). As Halliday (1985) also emphasizes, “to describe language without accounting for text is sterile; to describe text without relating it to language is vacuous” (p. 10). This perspective towards language description is consistent with the ultimate goal of translation, which is the reproduction of a text or discourse in the source language into a new one that is meaningfully equivalent in the target language. The unit of translation, however, has been a controversial issue among translation communities.

25

The argument about the length of the unit of translation, ‘as short as is possible, as long as is necessary’, is a concrete reflection of the age-old conflict between free and literal translation - the freer the translation, the longer the unit of translation; the more literal the translation, the shorter the unit of translation, the closer to the word, or, in poetry, even to the morpheme. Free translation has always favored the sentence; literal

translation the word. Now, since the rise of text linguistics, free translation has moved from the sentence to the whole text. (Newmark, 1988, p. 54).

Units of translation are categorized into two groups: small units, including words, clauses and sentences, and large units, including paragraphs and texts, and the text as a unit of

translation, hence, is the final stage or “can rather be described as the ultimate court of appeal” in the process of translation (Newmark, 1988, p. 55). This categorization implies that different lengths (i.e., word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or text) of language can be regarded as a unit of translation; the sentence, however, is regarded as the natural unit of analysis in the process of text translation (Newmark, 1988). This view is consistent with Halliday’s perspective on language that regards clause as the basic unit of discourse analysis to explore the lexico-

grammatical patterns that realize the three strands of contextual meaning (Bloor & Bloor, 2004). Since SFG is concerned with both form and meaning realized within the context of a text, it offers a tool that can usefully be adopted in the process of translation in order to create networks of meaning between the source and target language through discourse. Discourse analysis, according to Munday (2016), has gained its significance in translation since 1990 due to its focus on how meanings and social aspects are communicated in the linguistic choices and through a detailed grammar that connects these choices in a text within the boundaries of its social and cultural framework. Moreover, as Kim and Matthiessen (2015) state:

If we see translation as centrally involving the recreation of meaning through choices made by the translator in the interpretation of the source

26

text and through choices in the generation of the translated text, it follows that all modes of meaning are equally implicated: translation involves recreating ideational meanings of the logical kind, ideational meanings of the experiential kind, interpersonal meanings and textual meanings (pp. 335-336).

The next section explores some of the key works by translation scholars who variously utilized different elements of SFL theories in attempts to provide linguistic foundations relevant to the practice and analysis of translation.

Application of SFL to Translation

The development, growth, and wide acceptance of the SFL model of language has shifted the interest of translation community towards the utilization of the SFL model of language as a means of translation analysis. Kim and Matthiessen (2015) describes the link between translation and SFL as follows:

If we see translation as centrally involving the recreation of meaning through choices made by the translator in the interpretation of the source text and through choices in the generation of the translated text, it follows that all modes of meaning are equally implicated: translation involves recreating ideational meanings of the logical kind, ideational meanings of the experiential kind, interpersonal meanings and textual meanings (pp. 335-336).

The common focus and convergence of both translation and SFL towards meaning in context has inspired several translation scholars who have adopted different elements of its functional theories to the analysis, assessment, or education of translation (Baker, 2011; Hatim & Mason, 2005; Hatim & Mason, 1990; House, 2015; Kim, 2007a, 2007b; Kim & Huang 2012; Manfredi, 2011; Munday, 2012; Trosborg, 2000).

27

House (2015) focuses on methods of translation evaluation and proposes a model of translation assessment, drawing on SFL theories of language, which seeks functional equivalence of meanings between the original and target text. Her model is based on systemic comparative analysis of register (i.e. field, mode, and tenor) of the source text and the target text. The model aims to functionally analyze the lexico-grammatical and textual components of both texts in order to find matches or mismatches of meanings, primarily ideational and interpersonal meanings, between the two texts that are further investigated for assessment purposes to demonstrate whether the two texts are semantically, pragmatically, and textually equivalent.

Baker (2011) concentrates on the concept of equivalence in translation and divides it into a series of levels: at word, above word, grammatical, textual, and pragmatic levels of

equivalence. Her work primarily takes advantage of the SFL system of thematic structure and cohesion. Her adoption of Theme system targets the issues of grammaticality versus

acceptability, text organization and development, and marked versus unmarked Theme

sequences and how they pertain to and reflect on the activity of translation. The work of Baker (2011), using SFL theories, gives considerable attention to how thematic structure might result in either a connected or disjointed translation that lacks orientation and readability in the target language.

Moreover, Hatim and Mason (1990, 2005) are among translation scholars who recognized the influence and the possibilities that SFL can bring to translation studies. They believe that “context exerts a determining influence on the structure and, ultimately, the texture of discourse” (Hatim and Mason, 1990, p. 223). They adopted several SFL theories and notions such as genre, register, cohesion, and coherence to their work that focuses primarily on the textuality of translation. Inspired by Halliday’s model of language, they developed a model of

28

translation analysis that makes use of the analysis of discourse levels with special consideration of the interpersonal and ideational functions of language in context in an attempt to connect translation practice with SFL theories. Using the two systems of transitivity and modality, Hatim and Mason (2005) argue that shifts in ideational and interpersonal meanings are caused due to changes in the transitivity structure and level of modality in translation. In other words, the misunderstanding of ideational meanings in the source text by translators might result in, for example, a distorted rendering of the intended meanings in the target text, and the unawareness of the interpersonal meanings available in the source text might result in, for instance, an alteration of a possibility into a factual statement. Therefore, as Hatim and Mason (1990) emphasize, a translator should not merely be capable of two languages, but also has insight into the cultures of both languages in order to preserve the intended meanings and the rhetorical purposes of a text.

Furthermore, Kim (2007a) utilizes SFL grammar in her study to investigate translation errors in an attempt to avoid subjective and intuitive criticism and evaluation of translation in academic settings and provide objective articulation and reasoning of translation errors. She argues that SFL gives explicit criteria to the evaluation of translation through the identification and classification of translation errors using SFL terms. The findings of her study indicate that the classification of translation errors using SFL terms enables both teachers and students to objectively identify, articulate and understand meaning problems found in the translations regardless of experiential, interpersonal, or textual meaning misrepresentation. The study concludes that SFL meaning-based approach helps to raise an awareness among translation students of their choices and to make informed decisions of their practices as future translators,

29

and this approach also helps educators provide feedback for students based on objective reasoning of translation errors.

In another study of the flow and naturalness of translation, Kim (2007b) applies the textual metafunction to investigate and contrast thematic structuring of two translated texts (from English to Korean) as compared with the original text. The study concludes that the description of Theme systems in both English and Korean, and the employment of the textual metafunction as a tool of analysis have the potential to enhance translation education by providing learners with informed choices in their translations that are based on the results of insightful textual analysis of both the source and target texts away from intuitions and personal opinions.

Manfredi (2011), however, employs multiple SFL theories including ideational

grammatical metaphor, appraisal systems, and the textual and interpersonal metafunction in her analysis of translated texts (from English to Italian) in an attempt to link SFL with the practice of translation. The study argues that since SFL and translation share the same main concern for meaning, SFL could serve as a descriptive and analytical tool for translation training and education. The results of the study, using the system of modality, show that some interpersonal meanings that express modality were incorrectly rendered in the target text. This, as Manfredi (2011) stresses, might imply an ideological stance being inaccurately conveyed in the translation. The study concludes that SFL can provide a metalinguistic toolkit to articulate translation

problems using meta-functional terms to assist the translation teaching efforts from analytical and practical perspectives.

Kim and Huang (2012) apply the textual metafunction in order to analyze Theme types and thematic progression of three English translations (target texts) of a Chinese text (source text). Using the system of Theme, their study investigates textual meanings represented in both

30

languages, the reasons behind the different employment of various Theme types in the source text and the target texts, and the influence of those translation choices on the textual quality of translation. The results demonstrate translation shifts and differences in textual meanings in terms of the number of textual, interpersonal, and marked or unmarked topical Themes used in the original Chinese text compared with the three English translations. The authors conclude the differences in the use of Theme types between Chinese and English reflect the fact that both languages have their own structural characteristics that form textual, interpersonal, and topical Themes.

31

CHAPTER 3