Sociosemiotic Approach in Translation

189

Sociosemiotic Approach in Translation: Two Models Revisited

Harris Hermansyah Setiajid
Abstract
Many approaches in translation have been proposed. The approaches are used to improve the quality of translation, both the process and the product. One of the recent approaches to translation is called the sociosemiotic approach, an approach inspired by Hallidays systemic functional linguistics, which emphasizes the importance of context, both context of situation and context of culture, in reconstructing the meaning of a text. This paper tries to look into two models of this approach by Juliane House and Roger T. Bell in order to find the similarities and the differences between the two. It turns out that Houses model utilizes register variables, i.e. fields, tenor, and mode, for translation quality assessment, while Bells model exploits three language metafunctions, i.e. the ideational, interpersonal, and textual, in translation. Keywords: sociosemiotic approach, House model, Bell model

Introduction
In essence, translation is transferring one language into other language. The person in charge of translating a text must be equipped with a certain competence in order to do the job. Although translation looks simple, the process is complex and involves many aspects, both linguistic and extralinguistic aspects. Many scholars have proposed certain approaches to make the process easier. To mention some, the pragmatic approach stresses the importance of language in use, the semantic approach lays stress on the meaning equivalence, and the sociosemiotic approach assumes that language is the realization of the social process and highlights the importance of understanding the context of a text. Recently, the sociosemiotic approach has been widely applied and is considered as a solution to the problem of untranslatability in translation. As mentioned previously, the sociosemiotic approach views language as the embodiment of the social process in a society. This view consequently sees that context is very important in the understanding and interpretation of a text. All texts written in language are context dependent. There is no text which can stand alone, out of context. All texts must be context dependent. Therefore, to understand a text, the context of the text must be reconstructed.

Vol. 9 N0. 3 February 2006

190

Harris Hermansyah Setiajid

This paper tries to present the models of sociosemiotic approach proposed by Juliane House and Roger T. Bell. In Hallidayan tradition, the meaning of sociosemiotic is elaborated, followed by the presentation of the two models of the sociosemiotic approach to find the similarities and differences between them.

Sociosemiotics in Hallidayan Tradition 1. The Nature of Sociosemiotic Approach

The sociosemiotic approach to translation is developed from Hallidays systemic functional linguistics which was rooted in the linguistic intellectual tradition in Europe which grew following the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. Like other theories from the same tradition (such as school of Prague, French functionalism), the sociosemiotic orientation is on the function and the meaning of language rather than a formal and syntactic one. The importance of the sociosemiotic approach to translation has been mentioned by Nida (in Hu, 2000):
Perhaps the most pervasive and crucial contribution to understanding translation process is to be found in sociosemiotics, the discipline that treats all systems of signs used by human societies. The great advantage of sociosemiotics over other interlingual communication is that it deals with all type of signs and codes, especally with languages as the most comprehensive and complex of all systems of signs employed by humans. No holistic approach to translating can exclude semiotics as a fundamental discipline in encoding and decoding sign .

Nidas comment on the sociosemiotic approach seems positive and brings us enlightenment. The approach helps translators better understand not only lexical, syntactical, and structural meaning, but also the difference between referential and associative meaning (Hu, 2000: 4) The theoretical ground for the sociosemiotic approach is the theory of language sociosemiotics developed by Halliday. In his book, Halliday emphasizes the unity of a text (language), context (linguistic and nonlinguistic), and the social structure. He also puts forward the idea that language is a unique system of signs with some social functions which are able to express meaning in other systems of signs. The most important part of the sociosemiotic approach is that the social semiotic not only discusses what the people say and how they do it, but also when (in what context) and why. Thus, the approach can be used to reconstruct the meaning in order to trace its real meaning. This meaning reconstruction is derived from the register analysis covering three variables; they are field, tenor, and mode. This three variables help to trace the context and situation of the text so that the real picture of a text can be gained. Field refers to what is happening, the characteristics of the social process which is in progress. In other words, field reconstructs the aspect of what is being done by the participant by using language as his medium. Besides, the questions asked by field are when, where, how the event
Vol. 9 No. 3 February 2006

Sociosemiotic Approach in Translation

191

happened, and why. Field discusses text structure, cohesion system, transitivity, clause system, group system, and lexis system. Tenor refers to who participates in the social event, the characteristics of the participant, the status as well as the social role which s/he holds. Tenor has three aspects; they are affect, status, and contact. Mode refers to which part is played by language, what is expected by a participant by using language in a certain situation: the texts symbolic organization, the status it holds, its function in context as well as the channel used. The relationship between the register variables and the sociocultural condition of a society might be diagrammed as follows (Munday, 2001: 90):
Sociocultural environment Genre Register (field, tenor, mode) Discourse semantics (ideational, interpersonal, textual) Lexicogrammar (transitivity, modality, theme-rheme/cohesion) Fig. 1.Diagram of the relationship between sociocultural environment and register

The register variables (field, tenor, mode) reflect various meanings of a text, they are ideational, interpersonal, and textual. Those meanings are realized in the lexicogrammar system which divides clause into three types of clause, exchange, representation, and message.

2. Meaning and Translation in Sociosemiotic Perspective

Towards meaning and translation, the sociosemiotic approach has the following views: (a) meaning is viewed in three dimensions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual. Each meaning is construed from three kinds of reality: reality, social reality, and semiotic reality. (b) each meaning has its own function: ideational meaning is realized in transitivity, interpersonal meaning in mood structure, and textual meaning in semiotic system.

Vol. 9 N0. 3 February 2006

192

Harris Hermansyah Setiajid

(c) a good translation should maintain the ideational meaning of the source text, while the interpersonal and textual meaning of the target text might be different.

Models of the Sociosemiotic Approach in Translation

The following discusses at some length two models of the sociosemiotic approach as proposed by Juliane House and Roger T. Bell.

1. The House Model

The House model is used in translation quality assessment by using systematic comparison of the textual profile of the source text and target text (Munday, 2001: 92). To put it simply, the House model of comparison uses a register analysis of the source text and target text according to the system of lexis, syntax, and text of each language. In this model, the register variables cover field, tenor, and mode. Field refers to the subject matter and social action and covers the specificity of lexical items (Munday, 2001: 93). Tenor describes the addressers temporal, geographical, and social provenance as well as his intellectual and emotional or affective stance (his personal viewpoint) (Munday, 2001: 93). Mode has something to do with the channel used (oral or written) and the degree of interaction between speakers and audiences (Munday, 2001: 93). The House model is commonly applied in translation quality assessment by doing the following chronological steps: (a) doing a register analysis to get the source text profile (b) describing source text genre realized in register (c) giving a statement of function to the source text related with ideational and interpersonal meaning (d) treating the target text in the same way as the source text was treated above (e) comparing the two text profiles to produce a statement of inequivalence which is categorized according to the genre and the situational dimension of the genre and register. The errors found are categorized into covertly erroneous errors and overtly erroneous errors (f) providing a statement of quality with reference to the translation result (g) categorizing the translation result into two kinds: overt translation and covert translation. Overt translation is a translation of the target text which is not meant to be the same as the source text. In spite of that, the target text still refers to the source text so that its equivalences must be sought at the level of language/text, register, and genre. As indicated by the name, overt translation itself claims that the result is translation, not the real work. A translation is categorized as overt if the result reads like a translation. On the contrary, covert translation is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source text in the target culture (Munday, 2001: 94). A covert translation reads like an original text, not like a product of translation. Modifications are made to make it acceptable by the target culture.
Vol. 9 No. 3 February 2006

Sociosemiotic Approach in Translation

193

The House model uses a sociosemiotic approach for translation quality assessment by categorizing the product of translation into two kinds, overt and covert. This assessment is based on the similarity between the source text and the target text in terms of the register variables, the genre, and the ideational and interpersonal meanings. The following diagram clarifies the House model:

Fig. 2. Scheme for analyzing and comparing original and translation texts (House, 1997: 108)

2. The Bell Model

This model is developed from Hallidayan Systemic Functional Linguistics. To translate a text, an understanding of three layers of meaning, ideational, interpersonal, and textual must be gained first and then followed by the next step, that is, the translation process. According to Bell, the three layers of meaning are: (a) ideational revealing a cognitive meaning. This meaning is embodied in a transitivity system to create a proposition stating the users experience of the external world of the senses and the inner world of the mind (Bell, 1991: 121). In this transitivity system, there are many kinds of processes, such as material, mental, verbal, verbal behaviour, mental behaviour, attributive relation, identification relation, and existential. (b) interpersonal expressing the functional meaning of speech which is realized in a mood system creating sentences containing propositions or proposals and describing interpersonal relationships between one speaker and another speaker. This mood system realizes the social reality and explores the clauses in the exchange of information of goods and services.

Vol. 9 N0. 3 February 2006

194

Harris Hermansyah Setiajid

(c) textual describing a discourse meaning which is realized in a thematic system producing speech in a communicative event. The speeches are arranged in such a cohesive and coherent way. The macrofunction of language (Halliday called it metafunction) is described in the following diagram. This diagram clearly shows the network and system of languages. The description of the functions of language by Halliday contributes a lot to the understanding of a text.
MACROFUNCTIONS of language consisting of ideational operate through sub-function logical and experiential process TRANSITIVITY role circumstance governing the field of discourse interpersonal governing the tenor of discourse textual governing the mode of discourse organize a range of discoursal THEME information cognitive indicative speech functional MOOD imperative NETWORKS of SYSTEMS

thematization

meanings Fig. 3. Bells macrofunction of language

Bell gives an example, Alfred hit Bill with a hammer. The three layers of meaning contained in the sentence can be reconstructed as follows:

Vol. 9 No. 3 February 2006

Sociosemiotic Approach in Translation Alfred actor S Mood Theme Topical Unmarked hit material process F/P Bill goal C with a hammer circumstance: manner: means Adjunct Residue

195

ideational interpersonal textual

Rheme

The process that happens in the sentence as seen from the ideational level is that a material process hit was carried out by an actor named Alfred against a person named Bill using the means of a hammer. Seen from an interpersonal level, the sentence is indicative declarative with the purpose of giving information. From a textual level, the thematic structure of the sentence is topical unmarked. After reconstructing the meaning of the sentence, the transfer process takes place. The translation should have the same ideational level, while the interpersonal and textual levels might be different.

Concluding Remark
The sociosemiotic approach might be used as a helpful tool in translation as well as for the assessment of translation quality. The models proposed by House and Bell based on Hallidayan Systemic Functional Linguistics might help a translator to reconstruct the meanings contained in the source text. The House model which operates on the basis of comparing the profiles and genre of both source text and target text is useful for translation quality assessment. This assessment will end in the categorization of translations as overt and covert. The Bell model is helpful for text analysis at the ideational, interpersonal, and textual levels. A good translation still carries the ideational meaning of the source text, while the other meanings, interpersonal and textual might be different.

Vol. 9 N0. 3 February 2006

196

Harris Hermansyah Setiajid

References
Baker, Mona. In Other Words. London: Routledge, 1997. Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Longman: London, 1991. Chapelle, Carol A. Some Notes on Systemic-Functional Linguistics. www.public.iastate.edu. (downloaded 8 Agustus 2001), 1998. Halliday, M.A.K. dan Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a Social-semiotic perspective. Burwood: Deakin University. House, Juliane. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 1997. Hu, Yongfang. The Sociosemiotic Approach and Translation of Fiction. Translation Journal Online. Vol. 4, No. 4, October 2000. www. accurapid.com/journal (downloaded 19 Desember 2001). Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Application. London: Routledge, 2001. Ping, Ke. "Translatability vs. Untranslatability: A Sociosemotic Perspective. Translation Journal Online. www.accurapid.com/journal. (downloaded 10 September 2004)

Vol. 9 No. 3 February 2006