Учебное пособие: Text analysis in translation

Sometimes it may even be possible to ask the sender in person, or a person related to him or her.

Another source of information is the text itself. If the text environment does not provide the necessary details, the analyst has to look for internal hints about the characteristics of the sender. The use of a certain regional or class dialect may reveal the (geographical or social) origin of the text producer (although not necessarily that of the sender, if they are not the same person), and the use of obsolete forms may tell the analyst that the text producer probably lived in another age. These questions, however, can only be answered after completing the intratextual analysis.

Checklist

The following questions may help to find out the relevant information

about the sender:

1.Who is the sender of the text?

2.Is the sender identical with the text producer? If not, who is the text producer and what is his/her position with regard to the sender? Is s/he subject to the sender's instructions? Is s/he an expert in text production or an expert on the subject?

3.What information about the sender (e.g. age, geographical and social origin, education, status, relationship to the subject matter, etc.) can be obtained from the text environment? Is there any other information that is presupposed to be part of the receiver's general background knowledge? Can the sender or any person related to him or her be asked for more details?

4.What clues as to the characteristics of the sender can be inferred from other situational factors (medium, place, time, motive, function)?

5.What conclusions can be drawn from the data and clues obtained about the sender with regard to

(a)other extratextual dimensions (intention, receiver, medium, place, time, occasion, function) and

(b)the intratextual features?

The difference between intention, function, and effect

In order to ascertain the dimension of intention we have to ask what function the sender intends the text to fulfill, and what effect on the receiver s/he wants to achieve by transmitting the text. It may seem difficult to distinguish the concept of intention from that of function and effect. Biihler (1984), for example, equates "author's intention" with "purpose and effect". The three concepts are three different viewpoints of one and the same aspect of communication. The intention is defined from the viewpoint of the sender, who wants to achieve a certain purpose with the text. But the best of intentions does not guarantee that the result conforms to the intended purpose. It is the receiver who "completes" the communicative action by receiving (i.e. using) the text in a certain function, which is the result of the configuration or constellation of all the situational factors (including the intention of the sender and the receiver's own expectations based on his/her knowledge of the situation). The question "What is S aiming at with the text?" can therefore not be assigned to the factor of text function, but belongs to the dimension of intention.

Text function is defined "externally", before the receiver has actually read the text, whereas the effect the text has on the receiver can only be judged after reception. It is, so to speak, the result of the reception and encompasses both external and internal factors.

It is true that certain genres are conventionally associated with certain intentions, but these need not necessarily be realized in the communicative situation. Some ancient genres, for example, such as magic spells or epic poems, are received today in a function which differs considerably from that intended by the original sender.

Ideally, the three factors of intention, function and effect are congruent, which means that the function intended by the sender (= intention) is also assigned to the text by the receiver, who experiences exactly the effect conventionally associated with this function. Methodologically, the three factors have to be distinguished because their separate analysis allows for a different treatment (preservation, change, adaptation) in the translation process. If the intention has to be preserved in translation, we must often be prepared for a change in function and/or effect.

The intention of (he sender is of particular importance to the translator because it determines the structuring of the text with regard to content (subject matter, choice of informative details) and form (e.g. composition, stylistic-rhetorical characteristics, quotations, use of non-verbal elements etc.). At the same time, the specific organization of a text marks the text type and is a pre-signal which tells the receivers in which function they are expected to use the text.

Example

A set of operating instructions is meant to inform the user about a certain piece of equipment, e.g. a hairdryer, and to explain its correct use. Therefore, the text producer chooses the conventional forms of text organization (composition, sentence structures, lexical cliches, etc.). Taking the text out of the box with the hairdryer, the receiver recognizes the particular forms of text organization and immediately knows that the sender wants to inform about the hairdryer and the way it has to be used. Therefore receivers will normally utilize the text in this particular function. In this case, the text type is linked with a particular intention on the part of the sender, which leads to the corresponding text function on the part of the receiver. The effect will be that of "conventionality".

The sender's intention is also important in connection with the principle of loyalty. Even if the text function is changed in translation, the translator must not act contrary to the sender's intention (if it can be elicited).

The information on the dimension of intention can throw some light on other external factors (e.g., what effect on the receiver might be intended, which medium may be most appropriate or conventionally used to realize the intention in question, or whether there is a link between intention and genre), and, to a large extent, on the intratextual features (e.g. composition, use of rhetorical devices or non-verbal elements, tone, etc.).

What to find out about the sender's intention

What different types of intention can be associated with a text? There may be forms of "communication", where the sender is his or her own addressee: somebody may write something down either to ease the burden of their memory or to sort out their ideas and thoughts, or they may just scribble something on a piece of paper while making a phone call ("zero-intention"). These forms would not appear to be relevant to translation. In normal communication with two or more participants, the possible intentions correspond with the four basic functions of communication described above in connection with the systematic framework. We may ask, for example, whether the sender wants to inform the receiver about a certain issue (referential intention) or intends to express her/his feelings or attitude towards things (expressive intention), whether s/he plans to persuade the receiver to adopt a particular opinion or perform a certain activity (appellative intention), or whether s/he just wants to establish or maintain contact with the receiver (phatic intention).

Of course, a sender may well have more than just the one intention. Several intentions can be combined in a kind of hierarchy of relevance. For pragmatic reasons, this hierarchy may have to be changed in translation.

How to obtain information about the sender's intention

Normally, the receiver is not informed explicitly about the sender's intention, but receives the text as the result of the sender's communicative purposes. One means of obtaining explicit or implicit information about the intention(s) of the sender or text producer, therefore, is the analysis of intratextual features.

However, if we stay with the extratextual factors (sender, receiver, medium, place, time, motive, and function), these can throw some light on the intention the sender may have had in transmitting the text. Paralinguistic phenomena, such as manifestations of the sender's excitement or indignation, may have to be taken into account as well.

In determining the sender's intention we have to consider the role the sender adopts towards the receiver in or through the text, a role which is quite separate from the "real", status-based relationship between the two. A sender who is superior to the receiver because of greater knowledge about the subject in question may nevertheless try to play down this knowledge in order to gain the receiver's confidence. If the analyst knows the sender's role (in relation to status), s/he may be able to draw some conclusions as to the sender's intention.