Reading Notes on Chapter 6: Discourse and Register Analysis Approaches

花不是向我开

Introduction

Chapter 6 explores the integration of discourse analysis into translation studies during the 1990s, emphasizing its roots in Halliday's systemic functional grammar. This approach shifts focus from mere linguistic units to broader communicative contexts, examining how language functions in social and cultural settings. The chapter highlights key models by House, Baker, and Hatim and Mason, which collectively advance translation theory by incorporating textual, pragmatic, and ideological dimensions.

House's Model of Translation Quality Assessment

Juliane House's model, central to this chapter, employs a Hallidayan-inspired register analysis focusing on field (subject matter), tenor (participant relationships), and mode (communication channel). Her framework compares source and target texts to identify "mismatches," categorizing translations as either "overt" (foreignizing) or "covert" (domesticating). House emphasizes the need for functional equivalence, arguing that translations must align with target-culture norms to achieve adequacy. However, her model faces criticism for its reliance on subjective judgments and limited applicability to literary texts.

Baker's Text and Pragmatic Analysis

Mona Baker's work, particularly in In Other Words, bridges discourse analysis and practical translation. She examines equivalence at multiple levels: thematic structure (how information is organized), cohesion (textual connectivity), and pragmatics (language in use). Baker introduces Grice's conversational maxims to illustrate how translators navigate cultural differences, such as in diplomatic or literary texts where implicit meanings must be preserved. Her approach is praised for its practicality but critiqued for its English-centric bias, which may not fully accommodate languages with divergent structures.

Hatim and Mason's Semiotic Expansion

Basil Hatim and Ian Mason extend discourse analysis by incorporating a semiotic layer, addressing how power, ideology, and genre influence translation. They analyze transitivity, modality, and discourse norms to reveal how translations can manipulate social narratives—for instance, in politicized texts where shifts in point of view alter ideological emphases. Their model underscores translation as a socially contextualized act, though it risks overemphasizing linguistic features at the expense of broader cultural dynamics.

Criticisms and Case Studies

The chapter concludes by critiquing discourse models for their complexity and potential cultural bias. For example, Hallidayan analysis may not seamlessly apply to non-European languages, while Venuti argues that such approaches can reinforce domesticating practices. Case studies, like the analysis of film subtitles in La Haine, demonstrate how register shifts can dilute sociolects, highlighting tensions between authenticity and accessibility.

Conclusion

Discourse and register analysis enriches translation studies by linking micro-linguistic choices to macro-cultural contexts. Yet, its tools require adaptation to address diverse languages and genres fully. This chapter affirms the value of interdisciplinary approaches while calling for greater sensitivity to ideological and receiver-oriented factors in translation critique.