Appunti di TRANSLATION ENGLISH 2 (Bartolini), Appunti di Traduzione

Scarica Appunti di TRANSLATION ENGLISH 2 (Bartolini) e più Appunti in PDF di Traduzione solo su Docsity!

TRANSLATION ENGLISH 2 - Theory Bartolini 2020 - 2021

THEORY N.

DEFINING TRANSLATION

1. act / process of translating (a written text)
2. product of such act JAKOBSON’S DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION  INTRALINGUAL translation , or “rewording” an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language  INTERLINGUAL translation , or “translation proper” an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language  INTERSEMIOTIC translation, or “transmutation” an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of non-verbal sign systems ex_._ a film version of a book  SOURCE TEXT (ST) = the original text  TARGET TEXT (TT) = the product of a translation process WHEN WAS TRANSLATION BORN? Written and spoken translation has always been important for human communication. As an academic subject, translation was born in the 2nd part of the 20th century. Before that it was just part of the language learning and only then it became a scientific discipline.  Translation of religious texts  The practice of translation is long established  Early on, as a component of language learning  Later on, as an academic discipline (the latter part of the twentieth century) TRANSLATION STUDIES [Unit B1 – Hatim & Munday] pp. 127: J. Holmes, The Name and Nature of Translation Studies (1988)  considered to be the founding statement of this new discipline. HOLMES : according to Holmes, a greater impediment than the lack of a generally accepted name in the way of the development of Translation Studies is the lack of any general consensus as to the scope and structure of the discipline (  little meta-reflection on the nature of Translation Studies) Translation Studies thus has two main objectives :

1. to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s)

FORM and CONTENT: Jakobson makes the crucial claim that all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language, except poetry (> untranslatable) since in verse the form of words contributes to the construction of the meaning of the text  DICHOTOMY between SENSE-CONTENT vs. FORM-STYLE : the sense may be translated, while the form cannot. Ex. translation of names in Harry Potter LITERAL vs. FREE  Literal / word-for-word translation  Free / sense-for-sense translation CICERO : And I did not translate them as an interpreter, but as an orator , keeping the same ideas and forms, the ‘figures’ of thought, but in language which conforms to our usage. And in so doing, I did not hold it necessary to render word for word, but I preserved the general style and force of the language. JEROME : I render not word-for-word but sense for sense LUTHER : he translated the Bible into the everyday language of German people (the language of the ordinary people) = focus on the TARGET LANGUAGE FIDELITY : Initially, fidelity was dismissed as a word-for-word translation, until the end of the 17th century  later on, it was rather considered as FAITHFULNESS TO THE MEANING of the text  faithfulness, loyalty, accuracy etc.… Sometimes, a word-for-word translation can eventually lead to TRANSLATIONESE > when a TT is too close to the ST (negative connotation) NB : The literal–free divide can be seen as a cline (continuum). Different part of a text may be positioned at different points on the cline, while other variables are at work, including audience, medium of transmission, text type, translation purpose, as well as the general translation strategy. SCHLEIERMACHER AND THE VALORISATION OF THE FOREIGN Schleiermacher’s preferred translation strategy: MOVING the READER towards the writer For Schleiermacher, there are two possible strategies in translation:

1. MOVING THE READER TOWARDS THE WRITER  In this case, the translator compensates the inability of the reader to understand the original language: the translator tries to offer the same images, the same impression offered by the original work  The emphasis is on the VALUE OF THE FOREIGN : for this reason, in this strategy the translator would adopt a FOREIGNEIZING METHOD of translation, bending the target language to ensure faithfulness to the ST [by moving the reader to a foreign position, the translation itself would probably seem foreign to the reader]  Schleiermacher proposed to adopt translation strategies that keep the translation as close as possible to the ST and to help the reader to understand the language of the original writer in the ST

2. moving the writer towards the reader  In this case, the text is translated as the author would have written originally in the target language Interpreter (translating commercial texts) vs. Translator (translating scholarly and artistic texts) SOME OF THE VARIABLES that play a role in translation:  writer  text type  audience ( > do we need to make information explicit? ex. Blackfriars)  purpose TRANSLATABILITY vs. COMPREHENSIBILITY > both of them must be taken into account!! Comprehensibility > the accessibility and transparency of a TT in conveying ST meaning efficiently, effectively and appropriately. Overly literal translations often impair comprehensibility. While there will always be unique ST values that will simply defeat our best efforts to convey them across cultural and linguistic boundaries, translation is always possible and cultural gaps are in one way or another bridgeable. To achieve this, an important criterion to heed must be TT comprehensibility. Translatability > the extent to which it is possible to translate from one language to another. Despite obvious differences in linguistic structure (grammar, vocabulary, etc.), meaning can still be adequately expressed across languages. EQUIVALENCE PARADIGM ( 1960-1970)  Theories from the 1960s-1970s based on the assumption that what we say in one language can have the same value when it is translated into another language  All the other paradigms can be seen as responses of the equivalence paradigm  The relation between ST and TT is one of equivalence: relation at the level of form, function or anything in between*  In the course of the 1980s: equivalence paradigm came to be regarded as limited in scope *“Ogni morte di papa”:

- “once in a blue moon” (as an overstatement) > equivalence of FUNCTION - “every time a Pope died” (literally) > equivalence of FORM TRANSLATION UNITS (Unit A3) To a great extent, the two strategies are linked to different translation units, ‘literal’ being very much centred on adherence to the individual word, while ‘free’ translation aims at capturing the sense of a longer stretch of language.  “Literal” translation: the individual word as unit  “Free” translation: the sense of a longer unit

THE LINGUISTIC SIGN ( Saussure ): a linguistic term that unifies signifier (sound-image or word) and signified (concept). The sign is by nature arbitrary and can only derive meaning from contrast with other signs in the same system (language). The unit of translation is normally the linguistic unit which the translator uses when translating. Translation theorists have proposed various units, from individual word and group to clause and sentence and even higher levels such as text and intertextual levels (e.g., Beaugrande 1978). CATFORD’S TRANSLATION SHIFTS Translation shifts are small linguistic changes that occur between units in ST and TT: they are defined as “ departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL”  formal correspondence : any TL category (unit, class, structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the same place in the "economy" of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL. It involves a comparison and description of the language systems (> Saussure’s langue , more general, between a pair of languages )  textual equivalence : any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion (> Saussure’s parole , tied to a specific ST–TT pairs )  WHEN THE TWO CONCEPTS DIVERGE, A TRANSLATION SHIFT IS DEEMED TO HAVE OCCURRED Ex: vietato fumare / defense de fumer / no smoking Unit A4 : The distinction drawn between formal correspondence and textual equivalence relates to Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole : language has two facets, one to do with the linguistic system (> a fairly stable langue ), the other with all that which a speaker might say or understand while using language (> a variable parole ). A. ‘LINGUISTICS-ORIENTED’ translation theory has not interacted well with translation practice because it has systematically sought neatness of categories at the expense of being true to what people say or do with language B. “ PAROLE-ORIENTED ” translation theory and practice concern the communicative process in all its aspects, with conventions (both linguistic and rhetorical) and with translation as mediation between different languages and cultures. CATFORD’S TRANSLATION SHIFTS  Level shifts e.g. “ volevo ordinare una pizza” > “I ’d like to order a pizza”  Category shifts ○ structural shifts e.g. I like jazz > Mi piace il jazz

○ class shifts (from one part of speech to another) e.g. A translation student > Uno studente di traduzione ○ unit shifts/rank shifts (different rank) e.g. An open-minded person > una persona di mentalità aperta ○ intra-system shifts (similar systems which do not correspond) e.g. I need more information > Ho bisogno di più informazioni CRICITISING CATFORD’S APPROACH  Very limited: static contrastive linguistic basis  Examples are invented and decontextualised However, Catford acknowledges that translation equivalence depends on SEVERAL COMMUNICATIVE FEATURES rather than just on formal linguistic features. FROM TRANSLATION SHIFTS TO TRANSLATION PROCEDURES Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995) described a classic taxonomy of linguistic changes in translation. Their list of ‘translation procedures’ is the taxonomy that has been most frequently employed by those investigating translation shifts. Model for the analysis (/production) of a ST-TT pair:  identifying and numbering the units of translation  examining the ST  reconstructing the metalinguistic context of the message  evaluating stylistic effects  (producing and revising the TT) TRANSLATION PROCEDURES 2 “strategies”, covering 7 “procedures”. The two general types of translation described by Vinay and Darbelnet:

1. DIRECT TRANSLATION  borrowing > EN: pasta / IT: computer  calque > EN: salami (salame) / IT: grattacielo (skyscraper)  literal translation (word-for-word)
2. OBLIQUE TRANSLATION  transposition (change of one part of speech for another) e.g. she will soon be back > non tarderà

THEORY N.3 Debate around the concepts of MEANING and EQUIVALENCE (1950s - 1960s) Saussure : langue vs. parole > signified (the concept) + signifier (signal) = sign Equivalence in meaning between words in different languages JAKOBSON (1959/2012): “there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units” > CULTURE-SPECIFIC CONCEPTS Ex. Russian syr : not identical to the English cheese/cottage cheese (language/ culture-specific concept ) JAKOBSON’S RESEARCH ON MEANING AND EQUIVALENCE: Systematic MISMATCH at different levels between different languages Ex: his car / la sua macchina; do / fare, faccio, fai …. LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALISM vs. DETERMINISM: two different positions  Linguistic UNIVERSALISM : although languages may differ in the way they convey meaning and in the surface realisations of that meaning, there is a (more or less) shared way of thinking and experiencing the world  Linguistic relativity / DETERMINISM : differences in languages shape different conceptualisations of the world. This second position in linguistics is strictly connected to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis , which says that the structure of a language determines the individual perception of the world (different ways of perceive and conceive the world) JAKOBSON’S INTERLINGUAL TRANSLATION > “substituting messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language.” The translation of “cottage cheese” will not be the target unit for cottage + cheese (because we do not translate single words) = “ cottage cheese ” must be translated as a whole For the message to be equivalent in the ST and TT, the code units will necessarily be different, because they belong to two DIFFERENT SIGN SYSTEMS , to two different languages, which may perceive reality in different ways. For Jakobson, the problem of meaning and equivalence focuses on differences in the STRUCTURE and TERMINOLOGY of languages, rather than an inability in one language to render a message as it has been written in another language (for Jakobson it is not a question of translatability!) According to Jakobson, languages differ essentially in what they must convey (due to their way to see reality, the way in which they function) and not in what they may convey.” (e.g. differences at the level of gender, aspect/morphology and semantic fields = ex. siblings vs. fratelli e sorelle). According to Jakobson, all is conveyable in any existing language (conveyable in different way) NIDA AND THE “SCIENCE” OF TRANSLATION

Nida = an American linguist, a key figure in translation studies (> Bible translation from English into a number of indigenous languages from Africa and South America). Linguistics work (ex. by Chomsky ) were integrated in Translation Studies by Nida. Nida considered translation as a SCIENCE , that could be analysed systematically: a scientific approach to the analysis of linguistic meaning ( Towards a Science of Translating , 1964; The Theory and Practice of Translation , 1969)  Key concept for Nida: words have no fixed predetermined meaning , but they acquire meaning depending on context and under the influence of the culture of a community (ex. metaphors and idioms are deeply embedded in cultural systems). THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATING ACCORDING TO NIDA (Unit B6) According to Nida, the translator first analyses the message of the SOURCE language , transfers it at this level, and then restructures it to the level in the receptor language, which is most appropriate for the audience which he intends to reach. A) DECODING the source text (ST)  B) ENCODING the message into the target text (TT) [decoding] ANALYSIS of meaning (ST) > TRANSFER > RESTRUCTURING (TT) [encoding] ANALYSIS OF MEANINGS IN THE ST (Unit A5) According to Nida, the analysis of the ST must not be limited to a study of the syntactic relationships between linguistic units or to the or to the denotative (or referential ) meanings of these same units. Analysis must also treat the emotive (or connotative ) values of the formal structure of the communication. Analysis of meaning in the ST > the types of meaning that Nida analyses:  linguistic meaning  referential meaning + connotative meaning RESTRUCTURING > according to Nida there are two dimensions of restructuring:

1. FORMAL dimension o style (technical/formal/informal) o genre
2. FUNCTIONAL dimension ( dynamic dimension): a translation can be judged as adequate only if the response of the intended receptor is satisfactory  reader (Schleiermacher) > the response of the intended receptor (Nida) FACTORS AFFECTING TRANSLATION according to Nida  nature of the message (is content or is form dominant?)

We may want to prefer a dynamic solution when the text is more context-bound, for example when the text contains reference to the source culture (cultural references) , which may be obscure to the target audience.  ex. tea cosy = an Italian reader may not know the meaning! FOUR BASIC REQUIREMENTS of a translation according to Nida  making sense  conveying the spirit and manner of the original  having a natural and easy form of expression  producing a similar response in the target readership For Nida, the key factor to evaluate the success of a translation lies on achieving an equivalent response in the target readership. CORRESPONDENCE IN MEANING must have priority over correspondence in style if equivalent effect is to be achieved. ex: Agnes Dei / the Lamb of God  lamb vs. seal Possibilities for translation of “lamb of God”:

1. Modifying a generic word, e.g., animal, goat, deer
2. Using a loan word
3. Cultural substitution ex. Bethlehem  “House of Bread” in Hebrew ( dynamic equivalence ) vs. Bethlehem ( formal equivalence ) BUT the Arabic for Bethlehem means “House of Meat”  To whose name are we to be equivalent? NIDA’S CONTRIBUTION TO TS “The best translation does not sound like a translation”. The two basic orientation of translation described by Nida: formal equivalence (later called formal correspondence ) and dynamic equivalence (later called functional equivalence ) Nida’s merits:  an alternative to strict word-for-word equivalence  systematic analytical procedure for translators  emphasis on receptor and making room for CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS / norms

• Influenced other scholars, e.g. Newmark and Koller CRITICISMS  How can “effect” be measured and by whom?  Is the notion of “equivalent effect” plausible as a quality factor?

 Started out to be scientific, but in the end subjectivity remains central  Nida’s proselytism and theology: applicable outside Bible translation? NEWMARK’S EQUIVALENCE: Two of Newmark’s books with a focus on pedagogy: Approaches to translation (1981), A textbook of translation (1988). New terms proposed by Newmark: COMMUNICATIVE and SEMANTIC translation. i) COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original ( target -oriented approach ) o communicative translation > dynamic equivalence (Nida) o example of communicative translation solutions: The Simpsons (accents >> utilizzo dei dialetti italiani nella versione italiana) ii) SEMANTIC TRANSLATION attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the target language allow the exact contextual meaning of the source language ( source -oriented approach ) o semantic translation > formal equivalence (Nida) Ex. translations of Homer > modern translations cannot produce the same effect of the TT reader! (different cultural expectations etc.) == dynamic translation is not possible! Equivalent effect in some cases cannot apply). “In communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation (close to the ST structure) is not only the best, but the only valid method of translation.” THEORY N. KOLLER’S DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION : according to Koller, between the TL text and SL text there exists a relationship which can be designated as a TRANSLATIONAL , or equivalence, relation. [NB: from this definition we still don’t know what “equivalence” according to Koller is > what is clear is that translations are produced under conditions which are different from those under which other kinds of writing are produced = the basic idea underpinning Koller’s theory]  Still within the EQUIVALENCE PARADIGM  Koller is a Swiss scholar who carried out important work to refine the concept of equivalence  Translational in the sense of “strictly pertaining translation” Translation vs. original writing (the product of translation process vs. an original text) COMPARING TWO COMPARABLE TEXTS: comparable texts are very common in corpus linguistics “COMPARABLE” = sharing same TEXT TYPE + same SUBJECT MATTER

These frames reflect on the TYPE OF TEXT according to Koller. These five frames are HIERARCHICALLY ORDERED according to the communicative situation, which means that each type of equivalence and the level of language at which translation equivalence is achieved (e.g., extralinguistic, lexical choices, text types …) TENDS TO ADD FEATURES OF THE PRECEDING LEVEL. According to Koller, the translator opts for one kind of equivalence framework, then eliminate this option if it is not appropriate and pass to a higher level According to Koller , a translationally relevant TEXT ANALYSIS should consider the following points:  language function  content characteristics  language-stylistic characteristics  formal-aesthetic characteristics  pragmatic characteristics A translator should choose the strategy to adopt according to these five frames [ translation as a DECISION- MAKING process ]. Factors driving decision-making:  the translator’s own “ aesthetic standards ” ( Levý , 1967)  the translator’s own SOCIO-COGNITIVE SYSTEM (culture and system of values)  the PURPOSE of the translation and the nature of the COMMISSION  the TEXT TYPE (contextual factors surrounding the use of language in a given text) COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS of the translation process : shift from text to MENTAL PROCESSES behind the translated text (> translation as a decision-making process is fundamental), translation is not only the final output! TRANSLATION AND RELEVANCE (Unit B8) “Relevance theory” was elaborated by Sperber & Wilson (1986/95) for understanding the RELEVANCE OF UTTERANCES (a term used in cognitive linguistics and pragmatics). This is what is generally called the COGNITIVE TURN in TS.  The relevance theory is based on the assumption that communicators convey much more information with their utterances than what it is actually contained in their literal sense (> much sense must be inferred > IMPORTANCE of INFERENCES ). Communication starts as a reaction to a stimulus, which enable the reader to reach the speaker’s INFORMATIVE INTENTION. This process is based on the ability of both the language users to convey and analyse inferences.  Communication is triggered by a “ stimulus ”  Interaction of STIMULUS – ASSUMPTION – INTERPRETATION  Ability of language users (speaker and listener) to convey and analyse inferences  Inferencing involves CONTEXT : a set of assumptions surrounding utterances

COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT: it includes everything that language users can perceive, remember or infer. Different cognitive environments yield different contextual assumptions and consequently different interpretations_._ NB: the focus of this theory is on the cognitive aspect and how you get to specific translation, what’s the reasoning behind GUTT (1991/2000): a student of Sperber and Wilson, who started from relevance theory to consider translation as an example of communication based around CAUSE-AND-EFFECT MODEL of inferencing and interpretation, based on the compatibility of cognitive environments of a ST and a TT => according to Gutt, the relationship between the ST and the TT is based on inferencing. IMPLICIT vs. EXPLICIT MEANING > inferencing has very much to do with the degree of implicit and explicit information. DESCRIPTIVE AND INTERPRETATIVE USE OF LANGUAGE (GUTT) Gutt distinguishes two ways of using languages: descriptive and interpretive  DESCRIPTIVE UTTERANCE : it is intended to be true of a state of affairs e.g. a paraphrase or a summary (or the production in English of a tourist brochure => realia, extralinguistic content )  INTERPRETIVE UTTERANCE : intended by the speaker not to represent his/her own thoughts but those of someone else  CLAIM TO FAITHFULNESS > e.g. a direct quotation, direct speech (or the translation of a literary text) From the relevance-theory point of view, translation falls naturally under the INTERPRETIVE use of language, since the translation is intended to RESTATE in one language what someone else said or wrote in another language. For this reason, the same claim to faithfulness that characterizes interpretive utterances, applies to translation as well! According to Gutt, “two utterances interpretively resemble each other more closely, the more explicatures or implicatures they share”. DIRECT vs. INDIRECT TRANSLATION : according to Gutt, a translator can choose to adopt a direct or indirect translation [> two ends of a CONTINUUM ] DIRECT TRANSLATION:  more closely tied to the original (faithfulness & interpretive resemblance)  the translator has “to stick to the explicit contents of the original” because the aim is to achieve interpretive resemblance  the need to give the receptor language audience access to the AUTHENTIC MEANING of the original, unaffected by the translator’s own interpretation (> literature)  direct translation is similar to direct quotation, but without necessarily preserving form and meaning INDIRECT TRANSLATION :  the translator is free to elaborate or summarize  involves changes that the translator deems necessary to MAXIMISE RELEVANCE for a new audience

i) There was an old woman who lived in a shoe. She had so many children, she didn't know what to do. ○ Cataphora (the pronoun comes before the co-referring expression) ii) I don't know if he 's serious, but my roommate wants to walk a tightrope over Niagara Falls.  TRANSITION SIGNALS (linking words), e.g., first, as a result, in contrast ….  SUBSTITUTION iii) Drinking alcohol before driving is illegal, since doing so can seriously impair one's ability to drive safely.  THEME-RHEME STRUCTURE (informativity > known vs. unknown)

2. COHERENCE (meaning ): a text makes sense because there is a CONTINUITY of SENSES within the text. Coherence concerns the way in which the configuration of concepts and relations which underlie the surface test are mutually accessible and relevant. Sometimes the relations are not made EXPLICIT in the text (> they are not activated directly by expressions of the surface). The adding of one’s own knowledge to bring a textual world together is called INFERENCING (> a text makes sense by the interaction of text-presented knowledge with people’s stored knowledge of the world) ex.  relations of CASUALITY ( > the way in which one situation affects the conditions for some other one)  PURPOSE > event which is planned to become possible via a previous event or situation  arrangement of events in TIME NB : COHESION and COHERENCE are text-centred notions , designating operations directed at the text materials. In addition, we shall require user-centred notions (> of producer and receiver).  EXTERNAL CRITERIA: 3. INFORMATIVITY (theme-rheme > known vs. unknown ): informativity concerns the extent to which the occurrences of the presented text are expected or unexpected 4. INTENTIONALITY of a text producer ex. to distribute knowledge, to tell a story, descriptive for a tourist brochure, to attain a goal etc. Intentionality concerns the text’s producer attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in fulfilling producer’s intentions (e.g. to attain a specific goal) 5. ACCEPTABILITY of a text receiver : acceptability concerns the text receiver’s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text having some use or RELEVANCE (ex. acquire knowledge etc. > according to text types) 6. SITUATIONALITY : concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a SITUATION OF OCCURRENCE. 7. INTERTEXTUALITY (links to other texts): intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilizations of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts

These standards are a constitutive principle of textual communication: they define and create the form of behaviour identifiable as textual communicating. But there are also REGULATIVE PRINCIPLES that control textual communication, rather than define it. 3 REGULATIVE PRINCIPLES recognized by Beaugrande & Dressler:  EFFICIENCY of a text > depends on his use, communicating with the minimum effort by the participants  EFFECTIVENESS of a text > depends on its leaving a strong impression and creating favourable conditions for obtaining a goal (it depends on the function and on the purpose of the author/translator)  APPROPRIATENESS of a text > the agreement between a SETTING (where the text is going to be used, by whom etc.) and the ways in which standard textuality are upheld REISS’S TEXT TYPES (+ reading) According to Reiss, interlingual translation may be defined as a bilingual mediated process of communication, which ordinarily aims at the production of a TT that is functionally equivalent to its ST. The use of two natural languages as well as the employment of the medium of the translator result in a change of message during the communicative process > INTENTIONAL CHANGES (occur in translating if the aims pursued in the translation are different from those of the original) and UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES (due to different language structures / differences in translating competence). Communication comprises linguistic and non-linguistic action : non-linguistic elements contributing to oral communication (gestures, facial expressions, speed of speech, intonation, etc.) are partly verbalized. On the other hand, the text analysis is made more difficult by the limitation of the possibilities of explicit verbalization of such elements as well as by the spatio-temporal separation between addresser and addressee and the lack of feedback during the act of communication (> variable understanding of a given text). Action is intentional behavior in a given situation ( Vermeer ). Intention > speech purpose, speech aim, motive leading to language communication. Through the intention, verbalized by the author, the text receives a COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTION for the process of communication. Reiss viewed text as the level at which communication is achieved, and where equivalence must be sought when translating. She stresses equivalence at text level , linking language functions to text types and translation strategies. According to Reiss, text typologies help the translator specify the appropriate hierarchy of equivalence levels needed for a particular translation Skopos. Reiss tried to classify text types according to their main language function (> language function and text types are linked together). She distinguished 3 TEXT TYPES (later extended by Roman Jakobson):  INFORMATIVE TYPE (the plain communication of facts > news, information, knowledge arguments, opinions, feelings, judgements, intentions, etc.): language dimension is logical/referential, and the content is the main focus (ex. a reference work)