92 Discourse and register analysis approaches

TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT

6 .2 House's model of translation quality assessment

Although there are some similarities between, on the one hand, the categor­ies and text analysis of House's model and, on the other hand, the functional analyzes we discussed in the previous chapter, there are key developments. House herself rejects the 'more target-audience oriented notion of transla­tion appropriateness' as 'fundamentally misguided' and for this reason bases her model on comparative ST-TT analysis leading to the assessment of the quality of the translation, highlighting 'mismatches' or 'errors'. House's ori­ginal model (1977) attracted criticisms that she tackles in her later revision (1997: 101-4). Some of these criticisms echo discussions from the previous two chapters; these concern the nature, complexity and terminology of the analytical categories used, and the absence of poetic-aesthetic texts in House's case studies.

In this section, we concentrate on House's later, 'revisited' model (1997), which incorporates some of her earlier categories into an openly Hallidayan register analysis of field, tenor and mode. The model involves a systematic comparison of the textual 'profile' of the ST and TT (1997: 43). The schema for this comparison is shown in figure 6.2. The comparative model draws on various and sometimes complex taxonomies, but this can be reduced to a register analysis of both ST and TT according to their realization through lexical, syntactic and textual means. Textual means refers (1997: 44-5) to:

Figure 6.2

Scheme for analyzing and comparing original and translation texts (House 1997:108)

Individual textual function

Genre (generic purpose)

_3.

Mode

■ medium

(simple/complex) • participation

(simple/complex)

Tenor

participant relationship

• author's provenance and stance

• social role relationship

• social attitude

Field

subject matter and social action

Language/text

1. theme-dynamics: thematic structure and cohesion;

2. clausal linkage: additive (and, in addition), adversative (but, however), etc.;

3. iconic linkage: parallelism of structures.

In House's model, as is suggested in figure 6.2, register covers a variety of elements, some of which are additional to those expressly stated by Halliday. Field refers to the subject matter and social action and covers the specificity of lexical items. Tenor includes 'the addresser's temporal, geographical and social provenance as well as his [or her] intellectual, emotional or affective stance (his [or her] "personal viewpoint")' (p. 109). 'Social attitude' refers to formal, consultative or informal style. There is an element of indi­viduality to this, as there is to stance. Finally, mode relates to 'channel' (spoken/written, etc.) and the degree of participation between addresser and addressee (monologue, dialogue, etc.; p. 109).

House's model operates as follows:

1. A profile is produced of the ST register.

2. To this is added a description of the ST genre realized by the register (pp. 105-7).

3. Together, this allows a 'statement of function' to be made for the ST, including the ideational and interpersonal component of that function (in other words, what information is being conveyed and what the rela­tionship is between sender and receiver).

4. The same descriptive process is then carried out for the TT.

5. The TT profile is compared to the ST profile and a statement of 'mis­matches' or errors is produced, categorized according to genre and to the situational dimensions of register and genre; these dimensional errors are referred to as 'covertly erroneous errors' (p. 45), to distinguish them from 'overtly erroneous errors', which are denotative mismatches or target system errors.

6. A 'statement of quality' is then made of the translation.

7. Finally, the translation can be categorized into one of two types: overt translation or covert translation.

An overt translation is a TT that does not purport to be an original. In House's rather confusing definition (1997: 66), 'an overt translation is one in which the addressees of the translation text are quite "overtly" not being directly addressed'. Such is the case with the translation after the event of a Second World War political speech by Winston Churchill, which is tied to a particular source culture, time and historical context, and with the transla­tion of works of literature, which are tied to their source culture. With such translations, House believes (p. 112) that equivalence has to be sought at the level of language/text, register and genre. The individual text function can­not, however, be the same for TT and ST since the discourse worlds in which they operate are different. For this reason, House suggests a 'second-level