1.

Karl Ludwig Bühler (1934/1965) – German psychologist and linguist - distinguishes three functions of the linguistic sign/language functions:
 informative (Darstellung)  expressive (Ausdruck)  vocative (Appell)
adapted later by Peter Newmark (1981/1988) as follows:

Figure 1. Text continuum (adapted from Bühler)

2. Roman Jakobson (1965) - the linguist and founding member of the Prague School of Linguistics, discusses in the 1960s the functions of
language in terms of six controlling factors (socio-cultural variables) related to verbal communication, each factor determines a different language
function:

1
3. Katharina Reiss (1971/1977) - the German linguist and translation theorist
 argues for the need to preserve the dominant function of the text in translation
 focuses on the connection between text type and the translation method
 influenced by Bühler’s tripartite model (1934/1965), Reiss puts forwards a new view on translation, with focus on aspects of communication
and the text as a whole;

Figure 2. Functional characteristics of

text types and links to translation methods
(adapted from Reiss 1971, in Munday,
2001:74)

2
  according to their communicative intention, texts are divided as follows:
(a) Informative texts represent a ‘plain communication of facts’ (news, information, opinions, etc.), where information is transmitted through a
logical and referential language dimension, and the communicative intention is centered on the ‘topic’ of the text.
(b) Expressive texts, characterized by ‘creative composition’, use the aesthetic dimension of language and focus is laid on the communicative
intention of the author or the ‘sender’ of the message, as well as on its form.
(c) Operative texts, characterized by ‘the inducing of behavioural responses’, have an appellative language function and a dialogic dimension,
the intention of the text being to persuade the reader or ‘receiver’ of the message to act in a certain way. Reiss mentions that an operative text
must also fulfil a psychological function, in addition to the linguistic ones. (see Munday 2001: 73-75)
 a fourth type of texts was developed by Reiss  audiomedial texts, such as films, visual and spoken advertisements.

 the hybrid nature of texts

Reiss (1977/89: 109) ‘the transmission of the predominant function of the ST is the determining factor by which the TT is judged’.

Figure 3. Reiss’s text type and text varieties (in Chesterman 1989: 5)

3
 Undoubtedly, Reiss’ typology is highly relevant and useful, yet, not without flaws. Perhaps, the most important criticism is summarized by
Fawcett (1997:106-8), being related to the number of language functions and the translation methods associated with text types:
- the number of language functions suggested by Reiss is dismissed by Nord (1997:40), who adds a fourth ‘phatic’ function in order to establish
contact between the parties involved in the communication (greetings, phrases that suggest the introduction of an announcement of formal
speech, etc.)
- Reiss’ translation methods are considered impossible to apply in the case of specific texts which, for instance, contain metaphors. Because
some simple dead metaphors have a correspondent (fixed translation) in another language, and complex metaphors have not (there is a
range of equivalents, therefore variability is at stake), specialised texts such in English that contain such metaphors raise different issues in
translation.
- when adopting a certain translation method, it is important to consider the role and purpose of the translator as well as the socio-cultural
embeddedness, which are discarded by Reiss.
 However, the rigid parameters of Reiss’ categorization do not diminish the importance of her work. Reiss’ text typology model is highly
influential within the field of Translation Studies.

4. In his Approaches to translation (1988), Newmark takes up the issue of text typology, paying close attention to Bühler’s functions of language.
 the expressive function A as author-centered, where the writer makes personal use of the language
 the function B as the ‘extralinguistic’ information content of the text
 function C as reader-oriented, including all the resources impacting on the reader, especially on the emotional

Figure 4 - Newmark’s approach to text functionality

4
 Starting with the choice of text, which always includes an informative
function, Newmark discusses it in terms of style, text emphasis, focus and
method.
 The use of new words and meanings, or neologisms, is seen as forbidden for
the technical translator
 Metaphors and sayings are translated according to their conventional status,
found in a dictionary, while unusual metaphors are reduced to their sense;

In A Textbook of Translation (1988), Newmark takes up once again Bühler’s

functional theory of language, this time as adapted by Jakobson, which he
considers ‘the one that is most usefully applied to translating’ (1988: 39):

 The expressive function deals with the mind of the speaker / the writer, who
uses the utterance to express his inner feelings without expecting a response.
Text-types: serious imaginative literature, authoritative statements,
autobiography, essays, and personal correspondence.

 The informative function of language deals with external situations and is

concerned with any type of knowledge and encompasses standard texts such as:
textbooks, technical reports, articles in newspapers, scientific papers or
thesis, minutes of the agenda of a meeting. A formal, non-emotive, technical
style for academic papers; neutral or informal styles for textbooks; warm styles
art books; and even familiar, non-technical styles for popular journalism.

 The vocative function - emphasis is placed on the readership or the

addressee, a readership rather than an individual reader. Text-types: notices,
instructions, publicity, propaganda, persuasive writing (requests, cases,
theses) and possibly popular fiction, whose purpose is to sell the
book/entertain the reader.’

5
5. Important work to establish a text typology in translation is carried out in the mid-1980s by Hatim and Mason - new ‘text-oriented models’ of
translation, based on ‘predominant contextual focus’ (Translation: An advanced resource book, 2004)
 Expository texts  Argumentative Instructional texts.
 Texts are no longer classified based on situational criteria (e.g. legal or scientific texts), their approach also sheds light on the issue o
text hybridization  the multi-functional status of texts.
 A central issue in context-oriented text typologies is the concept of rhetorical purpose, where purpose encompasses a variety of text
forms (e.g. reporting, argumentation or instruction may be technical/non-technical, subjective/objective, spoken/written) and categories (e.g.
report, counter-argument, regulation), based on subject matter and formality. At the same time, Hatim and Munday agree that ‘in all cases,
such a categorization is necessarily idealized and that, since all texts are in a sense hybrid, the predominance of a given rhetorical purpose
in a given text is an important yardstick for assessing text-type ‘identity’. (2004:74)

 Hatim and Munday acknowledge the existence of Reiss’ model as highly influential in the field of Translation Studies. A discussion on text
purpose and function draws attention on Reiss’ text typology based on two important factors:
1. the intention or rhetorical purpose of the text producer
2. the ‘function’ performed by the text in actual use.

 the classification of text types Translation Studies put forward by Hatim and Munday draws emphasis on:
 the one hand, by the wide scope of text type (incorporating many other text-form variants
 the issue of hybridization (because a text consists of more than one text type).

They conclude their presentation admitting that

text typologies, and the identification of text purpose and function continue to be seen as valuable tools for translators in their attempts to
specify the appropriate hierarchy of equivalence levels needed for a particular translation assignment.