constructing pathways to translation - Higher Education Commission

this question, it is proposed tentatively as a working hypothesis to place the various text
patterns on a continuum, with the maximally expository (non-evaluative) forms at one
168
end and maximally argumentative (evaluative)
forms at the other, and to conclude that:
“The less evaluative the text is, the less need there will be for its structure to be modified
in translation. Conversely, the more evaluative the text is, the more scope there may be
for modification” (Hatim and Mason, 1990:186).
The plausibility of this hypothesis finds support in an important concept from translation
studies. In all probability, consumers of translated expository texts would expect
minimum fidelity to structure but a consumer of a translated editorial would rarely make
such demands.
For instructional texts, a different kind of hypothesis
may be put forward: placing
instructional text forms on a continuum, with maximally culture bound text at one end
and minimally culture bound text at the other. What can be suggested is that “the less
culture bound a text is, the less need there will be for its structure to be modified.
Conversely, the more culture bound a text is, the more scope there may be for
modification” (Hatim and Mason, 1990:187).
The least modification seems to be called for the translation
of treaties, declarations,
resolutions, and other similar documents. These forms are not culture bound, they enjoy
international recognition, and therefore, need to be made available for close scrutiny and
close checking for translation.
But the world is changing. It is noteworthy that textual patterns and conventions are
constantly modified; when texts in less modified languages are translated into English,
the reverse is not the case. It seems that many of the world’s languages are finding
English rhetorical patterns creeping in as new norms. The degree of tolerance of foreign
structure seems to be propositional to the relative prestige of a language. This is a fact of
life, but it is also an interesting area of research and necessary one, if translation
assessment is to be carried out in a more systematic fashion.
All this simply means that the translator’s overall function cannot be defined except
through each one of his manifold tasks and the responsibilities of the Translator, since
translator fly off in many directions. For better of for worse, he must satisfy many