translation tipology

RODA P. ROBERTS

TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF TRANSLATIONSRODA P. ROBERTS

School of Translators and Interpreters - Universidad de Ottawa

I. INTRODUCTION

While many general works on translationcontain very partial and tentative typologies oftranslations, no exhaustive and well-estab-lished one exists so far. And yet, every self-respecting discipline has its taxonomy, whichhelps to classify knowledge about the disci-pline and focus attention on specific aspects.Indeed, As Mary Snell-Hornby has noted(1988: 26), «the tendency to categorize isinnate in man and essential to all scientificdevelopment». However, the relatively youngdiscipline of translation studies still needs todevelop a detailed classification of translationtypes, and this paper is an attempt in thatdirection.

First I will analyze some existing typologies.Then, using them as a starting point, I will at-tempt to establish a more complete classi-fication of translations considered from severaldifferent points of view. I will also suggest basiccriteria for the categorization of texts within theproposed types, so that the classification thusproposed can be of practical use to translationresearchers, translation professionals and trans-lation users alike. A major difference betweenthe proposed typology and existing ones lies inits attempt to bring together distinct classi-fications established from different perspectives.

II. EXISTING TYPOLOGIES

Existing typologies fall into two major catego-ries which have relatively little in common: thosewhich have been established from the point ofview of translation studies and those which havebeen proposed from the point of view of thetranslation profession. The focus of the former ismore on classifying translations on the basis ofthe source text, while the latter concentrate onclassification on the basis of the target textproduced by the process of translation. This and

other differences will become apparent as Ianalyze first the classifications of Delisle andNewmark, and then those of Snell/Crampton,and Sagen1 Characteristics2 that seem to con-stitute the basis for the different classes pro-posed by these authors are included in our•analysis, although they are often not specifiedby the authors themselves.

Jean Delisle identifies eight classes of trans-lations on the basis of four distinct characteris-tics:

a) According to the function of the source text,he distinguishes between «traduction de textespragmatiques» or pragmatic translation, and«traduction de textes littéraires» or literarytranslation (1980: 29-34). The former involvesthe translation of a predominantly informativetext, whereas the latter covers the translation ofa text in which the expressive and aestheticfunctions predominate.

b) According to the degree of specialization inthe source text, he differentiates between «tra-duction de textes généraux» or general transla-tion, which requires little or no specialized know-ledge, and «traduction de textes spécialisés» orspecialized translation, which does call for suchspecialized knowledge (1980: 25).

c) According to the general purpose of trans-lating, he separates «traduction scolaire» or aca-demic translation, whose goal is languageacquisition for the translator, from «traductionprofessionnelle» or professional translation,whose objective is the transmission of a mes-sage to a translation user (1980: 40-43).

d) According to the translation approach usedin producing the target text, he makes a distinc-tion between «transcodage» or transcoding,which results in word equivalence, and «traduc-

1 These were chosen because they are more de-tailed than those of others.

2The term «characteristic» is used here in thesense of a quality that distinguishes an object.

3 Characteristics are presented in italics in theclassifications analyzed or proposed.

mus

El mundo de la Traducción

69

Towards a Typology of Translations

tion» or translation (proper), which producesmessage equivalence (1980: 58-69).4

Delisle makes no attempt to link these differ-ent classifications. Hence, although he has triedto show how translations can be categorized, hehas not really established a typology of transla-tions.

The same can be said of Peter Newmark(1981, 1988 and 1991), whose classificationefforts are surprisingly similar to those of JeanDelisle. Indeed, three of the characteristicsidentified by Delisle (source text function, gen-eral purpose of translating, and translationapproach) reappear in Newmark's five-foldclassification of translations.

a) According to the function of the source text,Newmark distinguishes between translation ofan expressive text, which focusses on theauthor and his style, translation of an informativetext, which emphasizes the content, and transla-tion of a vocative text, where the focus is on the-reader (1981:12-15; 1989: 39-42).5

b) According to the style of the source text, hedifferentiates between translation of narration,translation of description, translation of discus-sion, and translation of dialogue (1989:13).6

c) According to the content or subject matterof the source text, he makes a distinction be-tween scientific-technological translation, institu-tional-cultural translation, and literary translation(1991:36-37).

d) According to the general purpose of trans-lating, he separates translation for languageteaching from translation for professional pur-poses (1991: 61-64).

e) Finally, according to the translation ap-proach used in producing the target text, hedistinguishes primarily between two main typesof translation, semantic translation, which

4 This categorization derives from the interpreta-tive theory of the Paris (ÉSIT) school and is devel-oped in Dánica Seleskovitch's work (cfr. Langage,langues et mémoire, 1975, p. 53-56).

This categorization is based on Karl Bühler's1934 statement of the functions of language and itsapplication to translation-relevant text typology byKatherina Reiß (in Möglichkeiten und Grenzen desÜbersetzungskritik, 1971, p. 31ff).

6This categorization derives from Eugene Nida'sdivision of discourse structure types (cfr. Nida andReyburn, Meaning Across Cultures, 1981, p. 42-45).

«attempts to render, as closely as the semanticand syntactic structures of the second languageallow, the exact contextual meaning» (1981: 39),and communicative translation, which «attemptsto produce on its readers an effect as close aspossible to that obtained on the readers of theoriginal» (1981: 39).7 At other points in hisworks, Newmark groups these two types oftranslations with others based on particularmethods, such as word-for-word translation,literal translation, faithful translation, free trans-lation and adaptation (1989: 45-53).

Although, at first glance, Newmark's classifi-cation seems more detailed than Delisle's, hedoes not always specify clearly the distinguish-ing characteristics of the various types. Forexample, the distinction between scientific-technological translation and institutional-culturaltranslation remains vague, despite his subse-quent attempt to differentiate between them bydescribing the former as «potentially (but farfrom actually) non-cultural, therefore universal»and the latter as «cultural... unless concernedwith international organizations» (1989: 151). Asecond, more serious problem is that of fluctua-tion in categories and even in characteristicsused for classification. Thus, the three-folddivision of translations, on the basis of sourcetext content, into scientific-technological, institu-tional-cultural and literary (established in 1983)not only lapses into a two-fold division(scientific-technological and institutional-cultural), but the basis for the division changesfrom content to something totally different (thedegree of «uni-versality» of the source text).

While both Newmark and Delisle concentraterelatively heavily on classification of translationson the basis of the source text (three out ofNewmark's five characteristics and two out ofDelisle's four are source-text-based), othertranslation scholars are even more source-text-oriented. Thus, the starting point for Mary Snell-Homby's integrated concept of translationstudies (1988: 31-35) is literary translation,general translation and special language trans-lation, on the basis of a characteristic of the

7 Newmark considers the distinction that he hasestablished between semantic and communicativetranslation to be his «main contribution to translationtheory» (Approaches to Translation, 1981, p. X).

70leronymus


source text. The trend in professionally-orientedtypologies of translation, illustrated below bySnell/Crampton and Sager, is, on the contrary,far more target-text-based.

Barbara Snell and Patricia Crampton's classi-fication (1983) is based on seven characteris-tics, six of which focus on the translation itself.

a) According to the content, degree of style,and function of the source text, they distinguishbetween literary translation (which includesbooks of all kinds, literary and scientific), trans-lation of promotional and instructional material(covering advertising copy, publicity and salesliterature, service manuals, etc.), and translationof ¡nformatory material (such as legal andofficial documents and scientific papers) (1983:109-117).

b) According to the general purpose of trans-lating, they differentiate between non-com-mercial translation (which is done for pleasureor as a language acquisition exercise) andprofessional translation (which is undertaken fora customer against remuneration) (1983:109).

c) According to the function of the translation,they make a distinction between translation forpublication and translation for information (1983:111,114).

d) According to the degree of style involved inthe translation, they discriminate between liter-ary translation (where style is most important),translation of ¡nformatory material (where styleis least important) and translation of promotionaland instructional material (where style may beimportant) (1983: 109-117).8

e) According to the «integrality» of the trans-lation, they separate translation (proper) (i.e.translation of the full text) from extraction ofinformation (e.g. summary translation) (1983:117-118).

f) According to the direction of the translation,they distinguish between translation into themother tongue and translation out of the mothertongue (1983:119-120).

g) According to the medium of the translation,they differentiate between written translation andoral (or spoken word) translation (the latter cov-

RODA P. ROBERTS

ering not only interpretation, but also dubbing,subtitling and translating aloud for a customer)(1983: 118-119).

Snell/Crampton's classification is somewhatconfusing in that there is some overlap betweentheoretically different categories treated by thetwo authors. Thus, some oral translations (trans-lations done aloud for a customer) are coveredunder «extraction of information» (perhapsbecause often only parts of a text are translatedaloud), while others (dubbing and subtitling) aretreated separately under the subheading «Thespoken word»). Such overlap may be due to thefact that the two authors, each responsible forparticular sections of the classification, did notestablish clear boundaries between the catego-ries that each was to treat. This may also ex-plain why their attempt to hierarchize the varioustypes of translation - which most translationscholars do not attempt to do - is not at allsuccessful.9

Juan Carlos Sager's classification of transla-tion types is also hierarchized and is even pre-sented in tabular form (1983: 125), but hishierarchy seems equally confusing at first sight(cfr. Annex 1 ). However, many of the categoriesof translation that he has proposed in the text(cfr. b, e and f below) are novel in comparisonwith those suggested by others).

a) According to the content or function of thesource text, he distinguishes between literarytranslation and non-literary translation (althoughhe deals only with non-literary translation) (1983:125).

b) According to the status of the translation,determined by what Sager terms «the transla-tion's communicative function in relation to theoriginal», he differentiates between translationwhich is a full substitute for the monolingualreader (which he designates as Type A), trans-lation which is an alternative to the original andcoexists with it (Type B; example: a multilingualbrochure) and translation which is a full equal of

8 Although the types of translation designated inthis category are the same as those in a), they areconsidered from the point of view of the translation,and not the source text.

The attempt at hierarchization is visible in thetypefaces and formatting. However, there are clear-cut contradictions between the major divisions andsubdivisions indicated graphically and those that canbe deduced from the text itself. My presentation ofSnell/Crampton's categories is based on the contentof the text and not on its formal presentation.

îeronymus


71


the original and can serve as a basis for othertranslation (Type C) (1983:122-123).

c) According to the «integrality» of the trans-lation, he separates full translation and selectivetranslation (1983:122).

d) According to the function of the translation,he makes a distinction between translation forpublication (which includes publication for pres-tige and for public record) and translation forother specific purposes (for information, for in-formation and future reference, etc.) (1983:124).

e) According to the translation approach usedin producing the target text, he distinguishesprimarily between writer-oriented translation andreader-oriented translation (1983:123-124).

f) According to the communicative function ofthe target text in relation to the source text, hemakes a distinction between translation with thesame function as the original and translationwith a new function in relation to the original(1983:124,125).

g) According to the degree of modificationintroduced in the target text, he distinguishesbetween translation with modification of theoriginal and translation without modification ofthe original. Sager provides contract translationas an example of translation without modifica-tion (presumably because every detail in acontract must be reproduced without change intranslation if the latter is to be legally valid), andmultilingual legislation as an example of transla-tion with modification (presumably because thestyle and format of legislative drafting variesfrom one language to another) (1983:125).

Sager really does not develop his concept ofeach of these text types very much. He presentsthem briefly in the context of an article entitled«Quality and Standards - the Evaluation ofTranslations». His purpose in doing so consistsin demonstrating that «Different types of textsrequire different methods of translation and leadto different end products» (1983: 121), that«there is no ideal type of translation for any ofthese forms [text types] but rather any organiza-tion which regularly requires translation decidesthe function of translations in the overall systemof communication» (1983: 121), and that «anyevaluation [of translations] involves both com-parison and measurement on a relative or abso-lute scale» (1983: 122). However undeveloped

his categories, poorly named his translationtypes or incoherent his hierarchical table maybe, the characteristics he uses for classificationare nevertheless important for any typology oftranslations.

One of the reasons why Sager's hierarchicalclassification of types of translation does notseem to work and a probable reason for the lackof a hierarchical classification in the work ofmost translation scholars and professionals whohave proposed translation types is the problemof multidimensionality. Multidimensionality hasbeen defined by Lynne Bowker (1992: 1) as «aphenomenon of classification that arises whenobjects can be classified in more than oneway». Since classification involves groupingsimilar objects into a class on the basis of acommon characteristic, if objects in a givenclass can be distinguished on the basis of morethan one characteristic, they can be classified inmore than one way. A classification with morethan one dimension (i.e. way of classifying agroup of objects) is said to be multidimensional.It is clear from the translation types analyzedabove that any proposed classification of trans-lations needs to be multidimensional, for objectsin the class of translation can be, and havebeen, distinguished on the basis of more thanone characteristic. However, what Delisle,Newmark and, to some extent, Snell/Cramptonhave done is to present several unidimensionalclassifications of translations. And Sager'sattempt to represent multidimensionality, i.e. toconsider different ways of classifying translationsimultaneously, is both limited and unsatisfac-tory.

III. PROPOSED TYPOLOGY

In order to be as complete as possible in myown classification, I began by establishing twodistinct typologies of translation: the first lookingat translation from the point of view of thesource text, the second from that of the targettext.

The characteristics of the source text used togroup translations together and the subclassesidentified by means of them are presentedbelow in hierarchical order. Further criteria are

72îeronymus

¿omplutensis


provided to enable the classification of transla-tions into the proposed subtypes.

1. According to the overall ST function, trans-lations are divided into pragmatic and literary.The general function of a pragmatic text is to beof «immediate practical use»,10 that of a literarytext is to be aesthetically appealing. A literarytext can be distinguished from a pragmatic textby the number and kind of rhetorical devicesused: figurative language dominates in theformer, and while the latter may also use meta-phor, the type of metaphor most commonlyfound therein is the metonym.

1.1. According to the specific dominant STfunction, a distinction is made between transla-tion of an informative text, translation of a voca-tive text and translation of an expressive text.The purpose of an informative text is to provideinformation to readers;, that of a vocative text isto persuade readers to act in a certain way; andthat of an expressive text is to allow readers aninsight into the thought and style of a givenauthor. Expressive texts are characterized byleitmotivs and figurative language and may be inthe first person. Informative texts contain mainlytheme words and factual language with conven-tional metaphors and sayings. Vocative textsoften include token words and its language iscompelling and may include original meta-phors.11

Pragmatic texts are generally informative orvocative; literary texts are primarily expressive.

1.2. According to the degree of specializationof the ST content and the SL vocabulary, aseparation is made between general translationand specialized translation. A specialized text, incontrast to a general text, focusses heavily on agiven field or fields and uses the vocabularytypical of that field.

The confusion surrounding the term «pragmatictranslation» is discussed by Peter Newmark (1991:116). For the purposes of this paper, I have partiallyadopted the second sense he has proposed -«pragmatic can mean concened with immediatepracticalities or expedience» - eliminating thenegative connotations contained therein.

1 My distinction between informative, vocativeand expressive texts is very similar to Newmark's(cfr. Newmark, 1981: 15, and 1988: 39-42).

RODA P. ROBERTS

The general/specialized subclasses applymainly to pragmatic (informative and vocative)texts.

1.3. According to the general area of speciali-zation covered by the source texts, the sub-classes sci-tech translation and socio-eco-political translation12 are identified. These typesmatch the basic subject classifications andtherefore need no further development here.

Only specialized texts are categorized as sci-tech or socio-eco-political, since they focusmore heavily on an area of specialization thando general texts. That does not mean, however,that general pragmatic texts, or literary texts forthat matter, do not touch on sci-tech or socio-eco-political issues.

1.4. According to the source text discoursestyle (or discourse structure), translations can besubdivided into description, argument, narrationand dialogue. These four categories are de-scribed as follows by Nida and Reybum:«Narrative discourse consists in a series oftemporarily related events and participants,descriptive discourse consists primarily in aseries of spatially related characteristics ofobjects or events, argument consists in a seriesof logically related events, states, or circum-stances, and dialogue consists essentially in aseries of questions and answers or of state-ments and negations in which the related formsare highly conditioned by one another» (1981:42).

This subclassification according to source textdiscourse style is applicable to all texts, prag-matic or literary (including the various subtypesof pragmatic texts. While it is obvious that thediscourse style «dialogue» is more typical ofliterary texts than of pragmatic texts, it is never-theless a characteristic of certain types of prag-matic texts (e.g. the Hansard).

1.5. According to the source text genre, alltranslations (both pragmatic or literary) can be

12 This is basically the subclass that Newmarkhas termed «institutional» and which he describesas covering the fields of culture, social sciences andcommerce in one work (1991, p. 36) and politics,finance, commerce and government in another(1988, p. 151). However, the term does not indicatethe areas of specialization, as does the designationof the coordinate subtype «sci-tech». Hence thechange in designation.

ieronymus 73


classified into categories such as book, article,textbook, report, notice, law/regulation, letter,novel, essay, poem, play, etc. The subclassesidentified in the typology are not exhaustive:other discourse genres such as memo, contract,etc. should be added to the list to complete it.

As indicated above, all the characteristicstreated in this first typology pertain to the classi-fication of translation on the basis of the sourcetext. The second typology I prepared coversclassification solely on the basis of the targettext and the process of producing it. This classi-fication is more complex, since, at the highestlevel, the translated text can be considered fromfour completely different points of view:

2. According to the general purpose of trans-lating, the translations can be categorized asnon-professional or professional. In the lattercase, the translation is done for a customer athis request against financial remuneration, in theformer it is done for personal reasons by thetranslator.

3. According to the translation approach usedin producing the target text, translations can becategorized as semantic or communicative. Se-mantic translation is more writer-oriented andsource-language-oriented; communicative translation is more reader-oriented and target-lan-guage-oriented.

4. According to the medium of translation, thetranslation can be characterized as oral transla-tion or written translation. It should be noted thatoral translation is taken here in the sense notonly (nor even principally) of interpretation but ofa translation done aloud for a customer or ofdubbing or subtitling.

5. According to the direction of translating, thetranslation can be classified as being into thedominant language or out of the dominantlanguage. These are often called «thème» and«version» in academic (i.e. non-professional)circles, but since translation into the dominantlanguage and out of the dominant language isdone not only in courses but also in the profes-sional milieu, I prefer to use the descriptivedesignations «translation into the dominantlanguage» and «translation out of the dominantlanguage.

• The four classifications noted above are notcompletely unrelated: both non-professional andprofessional translation may be approached

semantically or communicatively, may be inwritten or oral form and may be into or out of thedominant language. However, given that thecharacteristic upon which each classification isbased is totally different, the four cannot becombined hierarchically. Each represents aseparate dimension.

The categories of non-professional andprofessional translation, based on the character-istic of general purpose of translating (cfr. di-mension 2 above), can be further subdivided asfollows:

2.1. According to the intended status of thetranslation in relation to the original, translationscan be classified as full equals of, full substi-tutes of, or alternatives to the original. A fullequal translation, which has the highest status,is described by Sager as «a full equal with theoriginal in all respects and may therefore serveas a basis for other translation» (1983: 123). Afull substitute translation, which is an independ-ent document serving as a full substitute for themonolingual reader, is next in status. An alterna-tive translation, i.e. a translation that «is analternative to the original and coexists with it»(Sager, 1983:123), has the lowest status.

Only a professional translation can be a fullequal, a full substitute or an alternative; althougha non-professional translation can be preparedwith one of these statuses in mind, it rarelyacquires any status in actual fact.

2.2. According to the specific purpose oftranslating, non-professional translation can bebroken down into academic translation (trans-lation done in the framework of a course, oftenfor language learning purposes) and translationfor pleasure (which is sometimes, but rarely,done because of the «importance» of the sourcetext involved). Professional translation on theother hand can be subdvided into translation forinformation and translation for publication. Theterm «publication» is used here in the sense ofwide dissemination, whether in print or by othermeans; for example, dubbing and subtitling areconsidered «translation for publication», sincethey are intended for diffusion to a wide public.Translation for publication has more prestigethan translation for information, which is pro-duced for a restricted (and often well-defined)readership.

74îeronymuso m p I u t c o s i s


RODA P. ROBERTS

A full equal translation is normally a transla-tion for publication, whereas a full substitute oran alternative may be a translation for informa-tion or a translation for publication.

2.3. According to the «integrality of transla-tion», i.e. the «amount» of the source texttranslated, both non-professional translation(aca-demic and for pleasure) and professionaltranslation (for information and for publication)can be either full or selective. Selective transla-tion co-vers not only translation of certain pas-sages in a text but also abstracts or summariesprepared on the basis of a source text in anotherlanguage.

2.4. According to the communicative functionof the translation in relation to that of the sourcetext, translations can be either same functiontranslations or different function translations. Inother words, a same function translation of avocative source text would result in a vocativetarget text, whereas a different function transla-tion of a vocative source text may result in aninformative target text. While selective transla-tion in the form of translation of excerpts is anexample of same function translation, selectivetranslation in the form of the production of anabstract in another language is an example ofdifferent function translation.

2.5. According to the modifications required inthe translation (other than those related to com-municative function and detailed in 2.4 above),both full and selective translations can be con-sidered to be without modification or with modi-fication. The modifications referred to here donot include changes resulting from the «genius»of the target language; rather they includechanges in style, focus or format. They could beexplicitly requested by the translation customeror could be required by the nature of the text tobe translated (e.g. legislation). However, theywould not include modifications that the transla-tor chose freely to introduce in the translationbecause of the translation approach adopted.

On the basis of translation approach, whichconstitutes a separate dimension in our classifi-cation (dimension 3), the categories of commu-nicative translation and semantic translationhave been identified above. These can befurther subdivided as follows:

3.1. According to the focus of the translator, atranslation can be writer-oriented or reader-

oriented. Communicative translation is morereader-oriented and semantic translation morewriter-oriented.

3.2. According to the degree of modificationintroduced in the translation, it can be literal orfree. Here the term «literal translation» refersnot to a translation which is ungrammatical orunidiomatic because of the influence of thesource text, but to a translation in which themodifications introduced are solely those re-quired by the target language. A «free transla-tion» is seen here as any translation whichincorporates more changes than those strictlyrequired by the target language. While a writer-oriented translation will tend to be literal, areader-oriented translation may be either literalor free, for a well-written source text may betranslated literally and still have an equivalenteffect on the reader of the translation.13

Generally, a translation involving a differentfunction and other modifications is generallyproduced using a communicative approach,while a translation with the same function andwithout other required modifications may beproduced using a semantic or a communicativeapproach, or a combination of the two. This linkand others between the dimensions that arebased on the target text and its production - di-mensions 2 and 3 detailed above, as well as 4and 5 which are not further developed here -1 4

are still provisional at this stage and requiremore refinement.

Once the two typologies of translations wereproduced on the basis of two different focuses(source text vs. translation), they were inte-grated into one graph (cfr. Annex 2)15 for the

Newmark (1981: 39) goes as far as to say:«...in communicative as in semantic translation,provided that equivalent-effect is secured, the literalword-for-word translation is not only the best, it isthe only valid method of translation». Although I donot espouse this view totally, I do believe thatcommunicative translation can be literal if the sourcetext is well-written.

14 Dimensions 4 and 5 seem less important than 2and 3 and are therefore not detailed here.

15This graph was produced using a general pur-pose knowledge management tool called CODE,developed by Douglas Skuce ef al. at the ArtificialIntelligence Lab of the University of Ottawa. Mythanks to Karen Eck, a graduate student, whoprepared the graph.

íeronymus


75


simple reason that, despite the difference infocus, they both serve as classifications of thesame class of objects, translation. However, noattempt has been made in this preliminary effortto produce a comprehensive typology of trans-lations to make direct links from one to the other.One could presume, for example, that mostliterary translations would have publication,rather than information, as their general purposeand would have the same function as the origi-nal. However, it seems premature at this stage,when the overall typology is still tentative, togeneralize in terms of such links. But despite thelack of such details, the overall typology pro-posed has the merit of taking into considerationand attempting to put together in a coherent andlogical form the many individual classificationsof translations proposed by both translationscholars and translation professionals.

CONCLUSION

Such a comprehensive typology of transla-tions has the advantage not only of classifyingknowledge in the field - an advantage that mayseem rather «abstract» to many - but also ofserving as a basic tool in translation research, intranslation teaching, and in the translation pro-fession.

Translation scholars can use this typology tocreate a homogeneous corpus for study. Whilethe selection of corpora using source text char-acteristics similar to those listed in dimension 1is not new, this typology might help to suggestother criteria (for instance those found in di-mension 2) which could be used instead of, or inaddition to, the former.

Similarly, translation professors can usedimension 2 and its subcategories to propose avariety of translation exercises to their students.For instance, they can ask students to translatea text for information purposes, and then requirethem to rework it for publication. Or again, theymight ask them to do a full translation for infor-mation purposes and then do a selective trans-lation with the same function. Or they can basethemselves on dimension 3 to encourage stu-dents to develop various translation approaches.

Finally, the typology proposed can be used inthe professional milieu by translation customers,

translation administrators and translators them-selves. Translation customers can use dimen-sion 2 to indicate their requirements (e.g. thetranslation, which is to be a full substitute, isintended for publication, and must be a fulltranslation with the same function and no otherunnecessary modification). Translation adminis-trators can use dimension 1 to assign the trans-lation to an appropriate translator and dimension2 to evaluate the completed translation. Thetranslator can use dimension 3 to make andjustify his translation choices. In other words, thetypology proposed can serve to establish whatRichard Simpkin has termed «translation speci-fications» (1983: 129-139), which would includeboth customer specifications and technicalspecifications.16 Properly established translationspecifications would help the translator to bettermeet the customer's needs.

The practical advantages of a well-estab-lished typology of translation are thus clear.What remains to be done is to refine the pro-posed typology to the point where it can be usedeffectively.

16 Simpkin bases his concept of translation speci-fications on the fact that professional translation isan industrial product, which has to be related both toa target market as a whole and to a specific require-ment within that market. According to Simpkin, aspecification has three purposes: to provide thebasis on which a contract can be struck; to enablethe product to be manufactured in accordance withthe purchaser's requirement or expectations; and toprovide a means of ensuring that the product does infact comply with the specific stipulations of thecontact specification and with any obligatory or vol-untary general provisions which may apply.

76


RODA P. ROBERTS

WORKS CITED

BOWKER, L: «Towards a Methodology for Handling Multidimensionality in a Terminological Knowledge Base», unpub-lished M. A. thesis, Ottawa, University of Ottawa, 1992.

DEUSLE, J.: L'analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction, Ottawa, University of Ottawa, 1980.NEWMARK, P.: Approaches to Translation, Oxford, Pergamon, 1981.- A Textbook of Translation, New York-London, Prentice Hall, 1988.- About Translation, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 1991.NIDA, E. A. and W. D. REYBURN: Meaning Across Cultures. Maryknoll, New York, Orbis, 1981.RBSS, K.: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Übersetzungskritik. Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurtei-

lung von Übersetzungen, Munich, Hueber, 1971.SAGER, J. C: «Quality and Standards. The Evaluation of Translations», in C. Picken (ed.y.The Translator's Handbook,

London, Aslib, 1983, p. 121-128.SELESKOVITCH, D.: Langage, langues et mémoire, Paris, Minard, 1975.SIMPMN, R.: «Translation Specifications», in C. Picken (ed.): The Translator's Handbook, London, Aslib, 1983, p. 129-

139.SNELL, B. and P. CRAMPTON: «Types of Translations.» The Translator's Handbook. Ed. C. Picken. London, Aslib, 1983,

pp. 109-120.SNELL-HORNBY, M.: Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1988.

ANNEX 1: J. C. SAGER'S CLASSIFICATION OF TRANSLATIONS

Mediation + Translation types

Literary Translation

IType A

(writer oriented)(outgoing)

I

INon-LiteraryTranslation

ITypeB(reader

oriented)(incomoding)

I I Ipublished texts legal texts full texts

IFull-equal Translation

TypeC

I Iwith modification without modificationof original (e.g. multilin- of original (e.g.gual legislation) contracts)

Iselective texts

same function,e.g. excerpts

new function,e.g. summary,

gist, abstract

mus 77


oo Annex 2: A Preliminary Typology of Translations

Tramlalton (ST

ni funcllonl

Ihout modificMionl

|Wlh modificalionl

Tunalalkxi ( f f

ICommunlcinvë}«—•—|ñtader-O(icriledh» •—ffTTt]

>.i ' . '» • IWiler-oHenled)-—"

)K

QlAR/XCTERISnCStissu FOR CLASSIFICATION

11.1

1.2

1.3

1.41.5

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

33.13.2

4

S

Overall ST functionSpecific dominant STfunctionDegree ofspecialization of STcontent and SLvocabularyGeneral area ofspecializationST discourse styleST genre

General purpose oftranslatingIntended status of thetranslationSpecific purpose oftranslatingIntegrality oftranslationCommunicativefunction of thetranslationModifications requiredin the translation

Translation approachFocus of the translatorDegree of modificationintroduced in thetranslation

Medium of translation

Direction oftranslating

a.

21

a:

3

translation tipology

Documents