the ISFC39 Proceedings - International Systemic-Functional ...

Papers from the 39th ISFCSFL-based text analysis for translator educationMira Kim and Edward McDonaldThe University of New South WalesAbstractThis paper presents a case study of the use of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as a tool in educatingtranslators. SFL has influenced a number of both theoretical and descriptive translation studies since the 1960s(e.g. Catford (1965); House (1977/1997) and has enjoyed a position of particular “prominence” in the field since“the early 1990s” (Munday 2008: 13) (e.g. Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997); Bell (1991); Baker (1992/2011);Munday (2001/2008); Trosborg (2002); and Steiner (2002, 2004). However, what has not yet been rigorouslyexplored is its application to text analysis in training translators and interpreters. The current research derivesfrom a postgraduate program in interpreting and translation studies featuring English as the common languagealongside a range of European and Asian languages such as Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese,Korean, Russian, and Spanish. It describes a dedicated course in text analysis for translation which draws on anSFL framework to equip students with tools for understanding the links between contextual and textual variables(genre, register) and lexicogrammatical patterning, and then apply those tools comparatively across languages.Based on our classroom data, we aim to put forward a model that can be adopted for similar multilingualeducational contexts, and discuss the pedagogical advantages and limitations of applying SFL for this purpose.1 Contributions of Systemic Functional Linguistics to TranslationStudiesHalliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) has been used in a number of languagerelatedstudies such as language typology (e.g. Caffarel et al. 2004) and discourse analysis(Martin & Rose 2003/2007), as well as professionally oriented disciplines such as medicine(e.g. Sarangi and Roberts 1999), business and finance (e.g. Burns and Moore 2008), andeducation (e.g. Hasan and Williams 1996). It has also provided “methodological refinement”for the field of translation studies which combines a crucial focus on language with a strongprofessional orientation (Steiner 2005: 486). There are some good reasons for the wideapplication of SFL. The key reason can be found in Halliday’s continued efforts to make ameaningful link between theory and practice, as acknowledged by Yallop in the context oftranslation studies (1987: 347). In a recent interview Halliday explained that he “wanted anaccount of language which would be serviceable in these contexts [where problems areresolving themselves into problems of language]…but which would be robust enough to learnfrom these challenges and to continue to evolve while taking on broad new findings” (Burns2008: 124). Another major reason concerns how language is viewed in SFL: as a meaningmakingresource through which people interact with each other in given situational andcultural contexts; and where the main analytical interest lies in exploring how language isused to construe meaning within local as well as global contexts. It is thus a common practicein SFL to study the lexicogrammar, concerned with meaning as realized by wordings at theclause level, in relation to the semantics, concerned with meanings at the text level in relationto their discourse contexts, and vice versa. The centrality of meaning provides core linksbetween SFL and translation studies in particular. It enables translators ‘to interpret meaningat a higher abstract level (semantic) and to analyze how it is realized at a lower level ofwording’ (Burns et al 2009: xxx). Newmark (1987:293) suggests:Since the translator is concerned exclusively and continuously with meaning, it is not surprising thatHallidayan linguistics which sees language primarily as a meaning potential should offer itself as aserviceable tool for determining the constituent parts of a source language text and its network ofrelations with its translation.93