C hapter 6

Discourse and Register analysis

approaches

Key concepts
■■ The 1970s onwards saw the growth of discourse analysis in applied linguistics.
Building particularly on Halliday’s systemic functional grammar, it has come to
be used in translation analysis.
■■ House’s model for the assessment of translation quality is based on Hallidayan-
influenced Register analysis.
■■ Baker’s influential coursebook presents discourse and pragmatic analysis for
practising translators.
■■ Hatim and Mason add pragmatic and discourse levels to Register analysis.

Key texts
Baker, Mona (1992/2018) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 3rd edition,
London and New York: Routledge.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshona (1986/2004) ‘Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation’,
in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) (2004) The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition,
London and New York: Routledge, pp. 290–305.
Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic Approaches Explained,
Manchester: St Jerome, Chapters 7–11.
Hatim, Basil (2009) ‘Translating text in context’, in Jeremy Munday (ed.) (2009)
The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, Abingdon and New York:
Routledge, pp. 36–53.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (1997) The Translator as Communicator, London and
New York: Routledge.
House, Juliane (1997) Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.

DOI: 10.4324/9780429352461-7 121

D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

House, Juliane (2015) Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present, London and
New York: Routledge.
Munday, Jeremy (2012) Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator
Decision-making, London and New York: Routledge.

6.0 Introduction
In the 1990s, discourse analysis came to prominence in translation studies, drawing
on developments in applied linguistics. There is a link with the text analysis model of
Christiane Nord examined in Chapter 5, in that the organization of the text above
sentence level is investigated. However, while text analysis normally concentrates on
describing the way in which texts are organized (sentence structure, cohesion etc.),
discourse analysis looks at the way language communicates meaning and social and
power relations. The model of discourse analysis that has had the greatest influence is
Michael Halliday’s systemic functional model, which is described in Section 6.1. In the
following sections, we look at several key works on translation that have employed his
model: Juliane House’s (1997) Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited and
(2015) Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present (Section 6.2), Mona Baker’s
(1992/2018) In Other Words (Section 6.3) and the work of Basil Hatim and Ian Mason,
notably Discourse and the Translator (1990) and The Translator as Communicator
(1997) (Section 6.4). Hatim and Mason go beyond Register analysis to consider the
pragmatic and semiotic dimensions of translation and the sociolinguistic implications
of discourses and discourse communities.

ITS companion website: watch the introductory video at www​.routledge​.

com​/cw​/munday

6.1 The Hallidayan model of language and discourse

Halliday’s model of discourse analysis, based on what he terms systemic functional lin-
guistics (SFL), is geared to the study of language as communication. It sees meaning in
the writer’s linguistic choices and, through a detailed grammar, systematically relates
these choices to the text’s function in a wider sociocultural framework.1 It borrows
Bühler’s tripartite division of language functions (informative, expressive, appellative)
which we discussed in Chapter 5. In Halliday’s model, importantly, there is a strong
interrelation between the linguistic choices, the aims of the communication and the
sociocultural framework. 2 This is illustrated in Figure 6.1.
The direction of influence is top-down. Thus, the sociocultural environment3 in which
the text operates is the highest level. This will include the conventions operating at the
time and place of text production. As well as social and cultural factors, it will reflect any
political, historical or legal conditions. So, for example, the wave of translation of Latin
American fiction in the United States from the 1960s onwards took place in the height-
ened political climate following the Cuban Revolution of 1959. At that time, various cul-
tural, political and philanthropic organizations in the USA were seeking, for sometimes
differing reasons, to build cultural ties with the South. In a different context, translation
in the European Union is conditioned by the legal requirement to make available papers

122 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

Figure 6.1 The Hallidayan model of language

and information for the use of the political representatives and for access of the citizens in
the 24 official languages of the Member States. That legal requirement is in part a state-
ment of the identity and recognition of the different languages.4
The sociocultural environment therefore in part conditions the genre, understood
in SFL as the conventional text type that is associated with a specific communicative
function, for example an invoice sent by the accounts department of a company to a
customer. Genre itself helps to determine other elements in the systemic framework.
The first of these is Register. This should not be confused with the more standard sense
of ‘register’ as formal/informal. In SFL it is a technical term, richer and more complex.
It links the variables of social context to language choice and comprises three elements:

(1) Field: what is being written about – e.g., the price for a delivery of goods;
(2) Tenor: who is communicating and to whom – e.g., a sales representative to a
customer;
(3) Mode: the form of communication – e.g., written or spoken, formal or informal.

Each of the variables of Register is associated with a strand of meaning, or ‘discourse

semantics’, in the text. These three strands, known as ‘metafunctions’, are:

(1) Ideational: provides a representation of the world or an event;

(2) Interpersonal: enacts social relationships;
(3) Textual: makes a text hang together in a coherent way.

C hapter 6  123
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

Table 6.1 Register variables and their typical realizations

Register variable Strand of meaning Lexicogrammatical realization

Field Ideational Subject-specific terminology

(what the text is about and Transitivity structures (verb types,
how this experience is selection of active/passive, selection
represented) of grammatical subject, use of
nominalization instead of verb)*
Tenor Interpersonal Pronouns (‘I/we’ exclusive or inclusive,
(the relationship between ‘you’ formal or informal)
participants) Modality (modal verbs and adverbs, e.g.,
should, possibly, hopefully)
Evaluative lexis (e.g., beautiful, dreadful)
Mode Textual Cohesion (the way a text holds together
(form of communication) lexically through lexical repetition,
use of pronouns in place of nouns,
collocation etc.)
Thematic and information structures (word
order and placement of elements in the
text)

Note: * The choice of a nominalization and passive such as The decision made at the meeting was to reject
your appeal may hide a reality that could otherwise be expressed by an active I and the other members of
the Committee have decided that we are rejecting your appeal.

These strands of meaning are formed by the choices of lexis, grammar and syntax
(‘lexicogrammar’) made by the text producer (author, speaker, translator etc.). The
links are broad as in Table 6.1 (see also Eggins 2004: 78).
Analysis of the lexicogrammatical patterns of transitivity, modality, thematic struc-
ture and cohesion can help reveal how the strands of meaning are constructed in a text
(Eggins 2004: 84). For instance, Munday (2002) shows how the transitivity structures
are changed in the translations of a political essay by García Márquez about a Cuban
child who had been taken out of the country by a small boat to be with cousins in the
USA. The centre of an international controversy, he had been visited in the USA by his
Cuban grandmothers. Examples in the text include the shift from passive to active in
the following:

■■ ST: las abuelas volvieron a Cuba escandalizadas de cuánto lo habían cambiado

(lit. ‘the grandmothers returned to Cuba outraged at how much they had changed
him’);
■■ TT: the grandmothers returned to Cuba outraged at how much he had changed.

The effect of the TT is to disguise the fact that it is the boy’s US relatives who are rep-
resented as being responsible for the change in his conduct. This type of analysis may
be extremely useful for the translator in identifying important elements in an ST and
seeing how they create meaning in a specific cultural and communicative context.
Although its functional focus makes it attractive for applied linguistic study, includ-
ing the study of translation, Halliday’s grammar is also extremely complex and, some

124 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

might say, unwieldy. For that reason, those translation scholars whose work is described
in the following sections have selected relevant elements for their purpose and, where
necessary, simplified them. In the case of the first model, Juliane House’s, the central
concept is Register analysis.

6.2 House’s model of translation quality assessment

House (1997: 159) herself considers that skopos and other approaches oriented towards
the target audience are ‘fundamentally misguided’ because of their neglect of the ST.
Instead, she bases her model on comparative ST–TT analysis leading to the assess-
ment of the quality of the translation, highlighting ‘mismatches’ or ‘errors’. House’s
original model (1977, partly revised 1981) attracted criticisms (see Section 6.5) that
she tackled in a later major revision (1997: 101–4). This model has itself been revised
in House (2015).
The later models incorporate some of her earlier categories into an openly Hallidayan
Register analysis of Field, Tenor and Mode. The model involves a systematic compari-
son of the textual ‘profile’ of the ST and of the TT. The schema for this comparison is
shown in Figure 6.2.
This comparative model draws on various and sometimes complex taxonomies,
but its central point is a Register analysis of both ST and TT. The model focuses on
the lexical, syntactic and textual means used to construct Register. As is suggested in
Figure 6.2, House’s concept of Register covers a variety of elements, some of which are
additional to those stated by Halliday:

Figure 6.2 A revised scheme for analysing and comparing original and translated texts (House
2015: 127)

C hapter 6  125
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

■■ Field refers to the subject matter and social action, and covers the specificity of
lexical items.
■■ Tenor includes ‘the addresser’s temporal, geographical and social provenance as
well as his [or her] intellectual, emotional or affective stance (his [or her] “personal
viewpoint”)’ (1997: 109; 2015: 64). ‘Social attitude’ refers to formal, consultative
or informal style. There is an element of individuality to this, as there is to stance.
■■ Mode relates to ‘channel’ (spoken/written etc.) and the degree of participation
between addresser and addressee (monologue, dialogue etc.).

The model is applied as follows:

(1) A profile is produced of the ST Register.

(2) To this is added a description of the ST genre realized by the Register.
(3) Together, this allows a ‘statement of function’ to be made for the ST, including
the ideational and interpersonal component of that function (in other words, what
information is being conveyed and what the relationship is between sender and
receiver).
(4) The same descriptive process is then carried out for the TT.
(5) The TT profile is compared to the ST profile, and a statement of ‘mismatches’ or
errors is produced. These are categorized according to the situational dimensions
of Register and genre. Such dimensional errors are referred to as ‘covertly errone-
ous errors’ (House 1997: 45) to distinguish them from ‘overtly erroneous errors’,
which are denotative mismatches (which give an incorrect meaning compared to
the ST), and target system errors (which do not conform to the formal grammatical
or lexical requirements of the TL).
(6) A ‘statement of quality’ is then made of the translation.
(7) Finally, the translation can be categorized into one of two types: ‘overt translation’
or ‘covert translation’.

In House’s rather confusing definition (1997: 66; 2015: 54), ‘an overt translation is one
in which the addressees of the translation text are quite “overtly” not being directly
addressed’. In other words, the TT does not pretend to be (and is not represented as
being) an original, and is clearly not directed at the TT audience. Such is the case with
the translation after the event of a Second World War political speech by Winston
Churchill. The ST speech was tied to a particular source culture, time and historical
context; all these factors are different for the TT. Another example is the translations
of literary texts, which are tied to their source culture.
With such translations, House (1997: 112; 2015: 55) believes that equivalence cannot
be sought at the level of the individual text function since the discourse worlds in which
ST and TT operate are different. Instead, House suggests a ‘second-level functional
equivalence’ should be sought, at the level of language, Register and genre. The TT
can provide access to the function of the ST, allowing the TT receivers to ‘eavesdrop’
on the ST. For example, Korean-language readers can use a Korean TT of Churchill’s
speech to gain access to the ST. But they know they are reading a translation, and the
individual function of the two texts cannot be the same.

126 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

A covert translation ‘is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source
text in the target culture’ (1997: 69; 2015: 56). The ST is not linked particularly to
the ST culture or audience; both ST and TT address their respective receivers directly.
Examples given by House are a tourist information booklet, a letter from a company
chairman to the shareholders and an article in the magazine The UNESCO Courier.
The function of a covert translation is ‘to recreate, reproduce or represent in the trans-
lated text the function the original has in its discourse world’ (2015: 67). It does this
without taking the TT reader into the discourse world of the ST. Instead, equivalence
is necessary at the level of genre and the individual text function. To achieve this,
what House calls a ‘cultural filter’ needs to be applied by the translator, modifying
cultural elements and thus giving the impression that the TT is an original. This may
involve changes at the levels of language and Register. The meaning of cultural filter is
discussed by House in the context of German–English comparative pragmatic studies.
She gives examples of different practices in the two cultures that need to be reflected in
translation. For instance, she finds that at that time German business communication
tended to prefer a more direct content focus, whereas English was more interpersonal.
This would need to be reflected in covert translation, the letter from the company
chairman being more interpersonal in English, for instance.
House is at pains to point out the fact that the ‘overt’/‘covert’ translation distinc-
tion is a cline rather than a pair of binary opposites. A text can be more, or less, cov-
ert/overt. Furthermore, if functional equivalence is desired but the ST genre does not
exist in the same form in the target culture, the aim should be to produce a version
rather than a ‘translation’. Such would be the case, for instance, in the manufacturer’s
instructions for playing a board game, such as chess: imagine an ST which is directed
at a 10-year-old child and is written in the correspondingly appropriate language (e.g.,
The castle moves sideways or up/down. Try moving it as far as you want!). If the TL
genre conventions called for a more formal text, directed at adults (or, at least, treating
children like adults), the instructions would need to be altered in the TL version (e.g.,
The rook moves horizontally or vertically with no limit on the number of squares it
may travel).
‘Version’ is also the term used to describe apparently unforced changes in genre.
For example, among the texts analysed by House is an extract (1997: 147–57) from
a polemical history text about civilian Germans’ involvement in the Holocaust (ST
English, TT German). A pattern of differences is identified in the dimensions of Field
and Tenor. In Field, the frequency of the word German, which serves to highlight
German civilian responsibility in the events, is reduced in the TT. In Tenor, there
is a reduction in intensifiers, superlatives and other emotive lexis. This makes the
author’s critical stance less obvious in the TT, and House even suggests (ibid.: 155)
that it has an effect on the genre. Whereas the ST is a controversial popular history
book (even though it is based on the author’s doctoral thesis), the German TT is a
more formal academic treatise. House goes on to suggest possible reasons for these
changes, notably pressure from the German publishers for political and marketing
reasons. The linking of the linguistic analysis to real-world translation conditions is
a move that owes something to the theory of translatorial action which was discussed
in Chapter 5.

C hapter 6  127
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

6.A Exploration: Register shifts in the translation of museum texts

Read the article on Register shifts by Jiang Chengzhi (2010) available through the ITS com-
panion website. Note those areas of House’s model that are illustrated in the article.

6.3 Baker’s text and pragmatic level analysis: a coursebook for translators

House’s 1977 book was the first major translation studies work to use Halliday’s now
popular model. Another that later had some considerable influence on translation
training is Mona Baker’s In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (1992/2018).
Baker looks at equivalence at a series of levels: at word, above-word, grammar, the-
matic structure, cohesion and pragmatic levels. Of particular interest in the present
chapter is her application of the systemic approach to thematic structure and cohesion,
and the incorporation of the pragmatic level of language in use.

6.3.1 Thematic and information structures

Baker is typical of many translation scholars who make detailed use of the terminology
of functional grammar and discourse analysis in that she devotes the most attention
to the textual function. Explicit analyses of the ideational and interpersonal functions
are fewer (though see Section 6.4). Baker focuses more on thematic considerations,
comparing nominalization and verbal forms in theme position in a scientific report
in Brazilian Portuguese and English (Baker 2018: 182–3). Thus, for example, the ST
begins with a pronominal verbal form (my emphasis):

Analisou-se as relações da dopamina cerebral com as funções motoras.

(‘Analysed-one the relations of dopamine with the motor functions.’)

The published English translation presents a normalized word order with the selection
of an English passive form in final position (my emphasis):

The relations between dopamine and motor functions were analysed.

However, for this example Baker recommends a different order of elements (i.e., a
different thematic structure) so as to comply with the genre conventions of English
abstracts. This involves the use of the nominalization analysis in first position as the
‘theme’ of the sentence, along with a different passive verbal form (is carried out):

An analysis is carried out of the relations between dopamine and motor functions.

An inherent problem, illustrated by this example, is that thematic structure is realized

differently in different languages. Baker gives a number of examples from languages
such as Portuguese, Spanish and Arabic. These are verb-inflected languages which may
place the verb in first or ‘theme’ position followed by the grammatical subject, as in

128 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

the Brazilian Portuguese example above. This is known as Verb–Subject (VS) order. It
inevitably creates a different thematic pattern in ST and TT. 5
The most important point for ST thematic analysis is that the translator should be
aware of the relative markedness of the thematic and information structures (see the dis-
cussion in Section 4.3 and also Hatim 2009). Baker (2018: 144) points out that this ‘can
help to heighten our awareness of meaningful choices made by speakers and writers in the
course of communication’ and therefore help decide whether it is appropriate to translate
using a marked form. Again, what is marked varies across languages. Problems in copy-
ing the ST pattern into the TT have been treated by many scholars over the years. Thus,
Vázquez-Ayora (1977: 21 7) emphasizes that calquing a rigid English word order when
translating into a more flexible language such as Spanish would produce a monotonous
translation. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (1986), in her detailed study of German and English,
considers the German calquing of English pseudo-cleft sentences (e.g., What pleases the
public is … What I meant to say was …) to be clumsy. This illustrates the dilemma,
pointed out by Enkvist (1978), of balancing concern for information dynamics with the
sometimes incompatible concern for other areas such as basic syntactic patterns. Some
languages may also mark theme differently; for instance, Japanese uses the particles ga
and wa, rather than word order, to mark new or contrastive themes.
That it is the textual function, and most especially the thematic structure, which
has most frequently been discussed in works on translation theory is perhaps because
of the attention paid to this function by influential monolingual works in text linguis-
tics. Notable early examples are Enkvist (1978) and Beaugrande and Dressler (1981).
Cohesion, an element that encompasses the textual and other metafunctions, has also
been the subject of a number of studies of translation.

6.3.2 Cohesion
Cohesion is produced by the grammatical and lexical links which help a text hold
together. In their seminal study of cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan (1976)
classify five types, which are listed in Table 6.2 along with typical examples (known as
‘cohesive ties’).
Cohesion within the text is closely linked to the coherence of the argument. Blum-
Kulka’s well-known study ‘Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation’ (1986/2004)
hypothesizes that increased explicitation of cohesive ties may even be a general strategy
adopted by all translators, for example (ibid.: 293):

ST: She told them not to help each other.

TT: Elle leur dit de ne pas s’áider et de travailler tout seul.
(lit. ‘She told them not to help each other and to work all alone.’)

Here, the TT explicates what is only an implicit ellipsis in the ST.

Blum-Kulka (ibid.: 294–5) shows how changes in cohesion in translation may bring
about functional shifts in texts. She uses the example of a Hebrew translation of a
scene from Harold Pinter’s play Old Times (1971). In English, the enigmatic open-
ing statement ‘Fat or thin?’ is an ellipsis that leaves the referent deliberately unclear

C hapter 6  129
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

Table 6.2 Forms of cohesion

Type of cohesion Description Example

Reference A semantic relation where I know Bill followed the match. He

meaning needs to be saw it on TV – he refers to Bill, and
interpreted through reference it to the match
to something else, linked
using a pronoun (I, you, it …),
demonstrative (this/that) etc.
Substitution A grammatical substitution Arctic foxes threatened by red ones –
within the text red ones substituted for red foxes
Ellipsis A kind of zero substitution, For every dollar donated federally,
where an element needs to be three more are donated by the State
supplied – the element dollars needs to be
supplied
Conjunction A semantic relation indicating Typical examples are additive (and …),
how what follows is linked to adversative (but, however …) and
what has gone before temporal (at first, then, finally …)
Lexical A lexical relation where cohesion Reiteration, through:
is produced by the selection – repetition of the same word (lion …
of vocabulary; these can be lion)
through reiteration (some – synonym (lion … hunter)
form of repetition or linkage) – superordinate (lion … cat)
and/or collocation (the typical – general word (lion … creature)
co-occurrence of lexical items) Collocation, through:
– pairs of words (inclement weather,
quirk of fate, make a mistake)
– words occurring in the same
semantic field (inclement weather …
rain … wind … cold …)

Source: Halliday and Hasan (1976).

(fat man/woman/boy/girl/animal? etc.). Because Hebrew is a gender-inflected language,

the TT has to fill out at least part of this ellipsis by making the gender explicit and thus
indicating whether the character referred to is a male or female. Similarly, literary
translations from verb-inflected languages into English need to make explicit what
are sometimes deliberately ambiguous grammatical subject referents. The first line of
Argentine author Julio Cortázar’s classic 1960s novel Rayuela (Hopscotch) begins with
the question ¿ Encontraría a la Maga? In English, the translator has to choose between
potential grammatical subjects – Would I/he/she/you find the Magus? – and decide
whether to specify that the Magus is female.

6.B Exploration: Cohesive devices

Look at the categories and examples of cohesive devices listed in Table 6.2. Try to translate
these examples into your L1 or L2. How many of them require a shift in cohesive device?
How would you translate the gender-inflected examples above?

130 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

As with the thematic structure, it is in many ways the density and progression of cohe-
sive ties throughout a text that are important. This web of relationships may have to
differ between ST and TT, since the networks of lexical cohesion will not be identical
across languages. As an illustration, Baker (2018: 198–9) puts forward the idea, backed
by short extracts and their translations, that Portuguese prefers lexical repetition to
pronoun use and that Arabic prefers lexical repetition to variation. A TT should also
normally be coherent. In other words, it should hang together logically in the mind
of the TT receiver. This has to do with pragmatics, the subject of another of Baker’s
chapters.

6.3.3 Pragmatics and translation

Baker considers various aspects of pragmatic equivalence in translation, applying rel-
evant linguistic concepts to interlinguistic transfer. Baker’s definition of pragmatics is
as follows:

Pragmatics is the study of language in use. It is the study of meaning, not as gener-
ated by the linguistic system but as conveyed and manipulated by participants in
a communicative situation.
(Baker 2018: 235)

In this section, we briefly consider three major pragmatic concepts: coherence, presup-
position and implicature.
The coherence of a text, related to cohesion (see Section 6.3.2), ‘depends on the
hearer’s or receiver’s expectations and experience of the world’ (ibid.: 237). Clearly
this may not be the same for the ST and TT reader. Baker gives the example of a
passage about the London department store Harrods. In order to make sense of the
passage, the reader needs to know that the flagship Harrods and the description the
splendid Knightsbridge store are synonyms. TT readers unfamiliar with London may
not know this. The Arabic translation therefore makes the link explicit with the addi-
tion to the name of a gloss incorporating the repetition of the word store (the main
store Harrods).
The area of presupposition is closely related to coherence. It is defined by Baker
(ibid.: 243) as ‘pragmatic inference’. Presupposition relates to the linguistic and extra-
linguistic knowledge the sender assumes the receiver to have or which are necessary
in order to retrieve the sender’s message. Thus, in the European Parliament in 1999,
Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan’s phrase let me now turn to bananas would pre-
suppose that the receiver knows about the then current trade dispute between the
European Union and the United States over banana imports.6 Or at least it would pre-
suppose that the receiver can access this information from the linguistic and extra-
linguistic contexts. This is most likely for the immediate receivers, since they were
Members of the European Parliament and were aware of the issue. Similarly, the
phrase I discussed this issue in Washington presupposes knowledge that Washington
in this context refers to the seat of government of the United States and the venue for
Sir Leon Brittan’s talks. The problem for the translator occurs, of course, when the
TT receivers cannot be assumed to possess the same background knowledge as the ST

C hapter 6  1 31
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

receivers, either because of cultural differences or because the text is being translated
after a time gap when the original information is no longer activated by the refer-
ence. This is the kind of problem which Nida recognized with his concept of dynamic
equivalence (see Chapter 3).
More emphasis is placed on presupposition by Fawcett (1997: 123–34), whose chap-
ter on the subject contains many perceptive and interesting examples. Typical is the
example of the metaphorical use of the place name Mohács in a Hungarian text. The
name would mean little to most receivers in other cultures, so a translator would need
to replace it with an explicitation of its historical significance as the site of a crushing
defeat.
Baker gives more attention to implicature, another form of pragmatic inference,
which she defines (Baker 2018: 240) as ‘what the speaker means or implies rather than
what s/he says’. The concept of implicature was developed by philosopher of language
Paul Grice (1913–1988), who described a set of ‘rules’ or ‘maxims’ that operate in nor-
mal co-operative conversation (Grice 1975). These are as follows:

(1) Quantity: Give the amount of information that is necessary. Do not give too much
or too little.
(2) Quality: Say only what you know to be true or what you can support.
(3) Relevance: What you say should be relevant to the conversation.
(4) Manner: Say what you need to say in a way that is appropriate to the message you
wish to convey and which (normally) will be understood by the receiver.

In addition, some theorists add the maxim (5) politeness: Be polite in your comments
(see Brown and Levinson 1987).
Participants in conversations assume the person to whom they are speaking is (sub-
consciously) following these maxims and they themselves co-operate by trying to make
sense of what is being said. In turn, they also tend to be co-operative in what they say
and the way they say it.
However, the maxims may be deliberately flouted, sometimes for a humorous effect.
Such a flouting of the relevance maxim might have occurred, for instance, had Sir
Leon Brittan, on the occasion mentioned earlier, begun to discuss the value of eating
bananas for breakfast. Particular problems are also posed for the translator when the
TL culture operates with different maxims. An example is some of the translations
from English into Arabic of the Harry Potter books, which delete references to alcohol
and pork and tone down references to sorcery (Dukmak 2012). This shows a differ-
ence in the operation of the maxims of manner and politeness in the two cultures.
This is also the case in an example (Gibney and Loveday, quoted in Baker 2018: 250)
that occurred during negotiations between the USA and Japan in 1970. The Japanese
Premier replies to American concerns on textile exports by saying zensho shimasu (‘I’ll
handle it as well as I can’). This is understood by the US President as a literal promise
to sort out a problem (i.e., it obeys the US-cultural quality and relevance maxims),
whereas the Japanese phrase is really a polite formula for ending the conversation (i.e.,
it obeys the Japanese-cultural maxim of politeness). As Baker notes, this clearly shows
that translators need to be fully aware of the different co-operative principles in opera-
tion in the respective languages and cultures (see also House 2002).

132 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

6.C Exploration: Grice’s maxims

Read House (1998) on the application of Grice’s maxims to translation. Note cross-linguistic
discrepancies in maxims.

6.4 Hatim and Mason: the levels of context and discourse

Two other works that developed out of the Hallidayan model of language have been
especially influential for translation studies: Basil Hatim and Ian Mason’s Discourse
and the Translator (1990) and The Translator as Communicator (1997). They pay
extra attention to the realization in translation of ideational and interpersonal func-
tions (rather than just the textual function) and incorporate into their model the level
of discourse.
An example of Hatim and Mason’s analysis of functions is their examination (1997:
7–10) of a key passage from Albert Camus’s novel L’Étranger (The Outsider), in which
the main character, Meursault, shoots and kills an Arab on a beach near Algiers.
Changes in the transitivity structure in the English translation are seen to cause a shift
in the ideational function of the text, affecting field. The passage in the French ST
contains eight process verbs, of which four indicate intentional action by Meursault.
These are:

‘j’ai crispé ma main’, ‘j’ai touché le ventre poli de la crosse’, ‘j’ai tiré’, ‘je frappais
sur la porte du malheur’
(lit. ‘I clenched my hand’, ‘I touched the polished belly of the [revolver] butt’, ‘I
fired’ and ‘I was striking on the door of misfortune’)7

In translation, these become:

‘my grip closed’, ‘the smooth underbelly of the butt jogged in my palm’, ‘I fired’
and ‘another loud, fateful rap on the door of my undoing’.

In other words, the translation only shows one real action process (I fired); the others
have become actions that occur to Meursault and over which it seems he has little con-
trol. Hatim and Mason’s conclusion (ibid.: 10) is that the pattern of shifts in the TT has
made Meursault more passive. However, they also make the point that the reason for
these shifts may be the translator’s overall reading of the novel, in which Meursault’s
passivity is a key feature of his character.
Hatim and Mason also consider shifts in modality (the interpersonal function) with
an example (ibid.: 73–6) of trainee interpreters’ problems with the recognition and
translation of a French conditional of allegation or rumour in a European Parliament
debate. The phrase in question – ‘un plan de restructuration qui aurait été [‘would have
been’] préparé par les administrateurs judiciaires’ – calls for an indication of modality
of possibility in English, such as ‘a rescue plan which was probably prepared by the
administrators’ or ‘a rescue plan which it is rumoured was prepared by the administra-
tors’. The majority of the trainee interpreters in Hatim and Mason’s sample incorrectly

C hapter 6  133
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

rendered the phrase by a factual statement such as ‘had been prepared’. This altered the
truth value of the message in the TT.
Hatim and Mason’s ‘foundations of a model for analysing texts’ (1997: 14–35)
incorporate and go beyond House’s Register analysis and Baker’s pragmatic analysis.
They combine the kind of bottom-up analysis discussed in the Camus example with
some top-down consideration of the higher levels of discourse. Language and texts are
considered to be realizations of sociocultural messages and power relations. They thus
represent discourse in its wider sense, defined as:

modes of speaking and writing which involve social groups in adopting a particu-
lar attitude towards areas of sociocultural activity (e.g. racist discourse, bureau-
cratese, etc.).
(Hatim and Mason 1997: 216)

One example they give of the influence of the translator’s discourse is the English
TT of a Spanish ST about the history of the indigenous American peoples before
the arrival of the Spaniards in Mexico. Hatim and Mason show (ibid.: 153–9) how
lexical choices such as pre-Colombian and Indian in the TT impose a Eurocentric
view on an ST that had been written from an indigenous perspective. The European
translator is imposing a pro-western ideology and discourse on the recounting of the
history of the Americas.
A semiotic function is also performed by idiolect and dialect. Hatim and Mason
(ibid.: 97–110) consider idiolect within the analysis of Tenor and Register, examining
the Cockney dialect of characters in George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion. The syn-
tactic, lexical and phonetic features of the dialect are recognized by a British audience
and associated with the way of speaking and the values of the uneducated London
characters in the play. The systematic recurrence of this purposely functional feature
of the speech of certain characters is identified by Hatim and Mason (ibid.: 103) as ‘a
noteworthy object of the translator’s attention’. The peculiarities and connotations of
the dialect are unlikely to be replicated easily in any TT culture. Furthermore, liter-
ary genre conventions may intervene. A translator into Arabic, for example, might be
encouraged to adopt a formal classical style throughout since that is the only style felt
to be appropriate for literature in Arab cultures (ibid.: 99).
Although Hatim and Mason propose ‘foundations’ for a model of analysing texts,
they deal with a large number of concepts. It is not clear that their approach constitutes
a model that can be ‘applied’ in the conventional sense of the term. Alternatively, the
authors’ proposals can be taken as a list of elements to be considered when examining
translation. In particular, they concentrate (ibid.: 27–35) on identifying ‘dynamic’ and
‘stable’ elements in a text. These are presented as a continuum and linked to transla-
tion strategy: more ‘stable’ STs may require a ‘fairly literal approach’, while with more
‘dynamic’ STs ‘the translator is faced with more interesting challenges and literal trans-
lation may no longer be an option’ (ibid.: 30–1).
More recent work, both in SFL (e.g., the development of appraisal theory by Martin
and White 2005) and translation theory (e.g., Munday 2012), has begun to examine
in much more detail how dynamism operates in relation to the interpersonal function.
Specifically, the interpersonal function constructs the subjectivity of the participants in
the communication, for example with hedges in academic texts to indicate how strongly,

13 4 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

or weakly, the writer holds a particular view.8 Subjectivity is conveyed by what is called
evaluation or attitude – that is, the choice of evaluative language. Prototypically, these
are epithets such as brilliant or evaluative nouns such as glory, but all naming can be
an expression of ideology or identity – Mossop (2007) gives the example of the shift
from colonial Bombay to modern Mumbai, and the choice between the Anglophone
Montreal and the Francophone Montréal. Also important is the use of pronouns to
locate the text producer in relation to the receiver.
For monolingual communication, this is all part of the writer–reader or speaker–
hearer relationship. In translation, of course, there is a third participant, the translator,
who intervenes in the process. An illuminating example (Munday 2012) is taken from
translations of President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration speech. Many transla-
tions of the speech downplay the degree of evaluation, for instance omitting a transla-
tion of the attitudinal adverb even in the following:

threats that demand even greater effort […] even greater co-operation.

Specific evaluative keywords that are not easily translatable may also be the site for
sensitive translation decisions that may reveal the translator’s subjective interpretation.
Such is the case with the word patchwork. In the following, a key moment in the
speech, it is not used with its frequent negative connotation:

our patchwork heritage is a strength … not a weakness. We are a nation of

Christians and Muslims … Jews and Hindus … and non-believers.

The term is omitted by some simultaneous interpreters working from a printed copy
of the speech (i.e., producing what is known as sight translation), while some writ-
ten translations generalize (e.g., diverse heritage) or explicate (multiethnic heritage).
Finally, Obama’s choice of pronouns constructs a relation around the concept of we
(the American nation, the current American people or, sometimes, the US government).
Translation into a language such as Indonesian or Thai would need to specify whether
this we is inclusive (we and you) or exclusive (we, not including elements of the audi-
ence). The choice of translation of you would also need to indicate formality, informal-
ity and status, and would vary depending on the addressee. These are dynamic and
very sensitive areas for translation.

6.D Exploration: Translation of ideology

Read the article on textual approaches to the translation of ideology (Munday 2007) availa-
ble online through the ITS companion website. Note the features of Register (Field, Tenor and
Mode) and discourse that are identified in the analysis, and the motivations for these uses.

6.5 Criticisms of discourse and Register analysis approaches to translation

Discourse analysis models have become extremely popular among many linguistics-ori-
ented translation theorists and serve as a useful way of tackling the linguistic structure

C hapter 6  135
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

and meaning of a text. However, the basis of the Hallidayan model was famously
attacked by literary theorist Stanley Fish (1981: 59–64) for being overcomplicated in
its categorization of grammar and for its apparently inflexible one-to-one matching of
structure and meaning. This may cause it to struggle to cope with the variety of possi-
ble interpretations of literature, especially experimental literature. Some applications to
literature (e.g., Fowler 1986/1996 and Simpson 1993) therefore adopted a more flexible
‘toolkit’ approach, employing those elements that appear most useful while also incor-
porating issues from literary criticism. In translation studies, others (e.g., Bosseaux
2007; Munday 2008; Saldanha 2011) have used the advances of corpus stylistics in
order to reinforce objectivity, for example in providing a systematic and replicable form
of analysis.
As far as Juliane House’s model is concerned, Gutt (2000: 47–54; see Chapter 4 in
this volume), who writes from the perspective of relevance theory, raises the question
as to whether it is possible to recover authorial intention and ST function from Register
analysis. Even if it is possible, the basis of House’s model is to discover ‘mismatches’
between ST and TT. Yet while mismatches may indicate translation errors, they may
also be caused by other translation strategies such as explicitation or compensation. It
is less clear how House’s model can interpret these.
The analytical frameworks of the translation theorists discussed in this chapter
are also mainly English-language-oriented. This becomes problematic with other lan-
guages, especially in the analysis of thematic and information structures. Other lan-
guages with a more flexible word order and subject-inflected verb forms need to be
analysed differently. This type of problem becomes even more serious if attempts are
made to impose such contrastive discourse analysis on non-European languages whose
conceptual structure may differ crucially.
Linguistic differences are, of course, indicative of cultural differences, and Venuti
(1998: 21) is one critic who sees linguistics-oriented approaches as projecting ‘a con-
servative model of translation that would unduly restrict [translation’s] role in cul-
tural innovation and change’. As an example, Venuti discusses Grice’s maxims (see
Section 6.3.3) and criticizes them for the way in which they support a fluent and ‘domes-
ticating’ translation strategy. Venuti considers the maxims suitable only for translation
in closely defined fields, such as technical or legal documents. Baker herself is aware of
the cultural bias of the maxims:

Grice’s maxims seem to reflect directly notions which are known to be valued in
the English-speaking world, for instance sincerity, brevity, and relevance.
(Baker 2028: 253)

It is Hatim and Mason who make a greater effort to incorporate a Hallidayan notion
of culture and ideology into their analysis of translation, and they devote a chapter to
ideology in The Translator as Communicator (Hatim and Mason 1997: 143–63). Their
findings are illuminating, but although they analyse a range of text types (written and
spoken), their focus often remains linguistics-centred, both in its terminology and in
the phenomena investigated (‘lexical choice’, ‘cohesion’, ‘transitivity’, ‘style shifting’,
‘translator mediation’ etc.). The following case studies adhere to this line by using the
discourse analysis approaches presented in this chapter to examine two different films.

136 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

Case studies
Case study 1
This case study examines Werner Herzog’s German film The Enigma of Kaspar
Hauser (1974).9 The film begins with a written introduction that scrolls down the
screen (Box 6.1). To aid comprehension, we have provided a possible back translation
in English in Box 6.2. The actual English translation appeared two lines at a time and
occupied the bottom of the screen. This is given in Box 6.3.

Box 6.1: Written introduction to Kaspar Hauser

1 Am Pfingstsonntag des Jahres 1828 wurde in der Stadt N. ein verwahrloster Findling
aufgegriffen, den man später Kaspar Hauser nannte.
2 Er konnte kaum gehen und sprach nur einen einzigen Satz.
3 Später, als er sprechen lernte, berichtete er, er sei zeit seines Lebens in einem dunklen
Kellerloch eingesperrt gewesen, er habe keinerlei Begriff von der Welt gehabt und nicht
gewußt, daß es außer ihm noch andere Menschen gäbe, weil man ihm das Essen here-
inschob, während er schlief.
4 Er habe nicht gewußt, was ein Haus, ein Baum, was Sprache sei.
5 Erst ganz zuletzt sei ein Mann zu ihm hereingekommen. 6 Das Rätsel seiner Herkunft ist
bis heute nicht gelöst.

Box 6.2: Back translation

1 On Whit Sunday in the year 1828 in the town of N. a ragged foundling was picked up
whom one later called Kasper Hauser.
2 He could scarcely walk and spoke a single sentence.
3 Later, when he learnt to speak, he reported he had been locked up for his whole life in
a dark cellar, he had not had any contact at all with the world and had not known that
outside there were other people, because one slung food in to him, while he slept.
4 He did not know what a house, a tree, what language was.
5 Only right at the end did a man visit him.
6 The enigma of his origin has to this day not been solved.

Box 6.3: Subtitled version

1 One Sunday in 1828 a ragged boy was found abandoned in the town of N.
2 He could hardly walk and spoke but one sentence.
3 Later he told of being locked in a dark cellar from birth.
4 He had never seen another human being, a tree, a house before.
5 To this day no one knows where he came from – or who set him free.

C hapter 6  137
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

House’s model of quality assessment would show that, for the ST and TT, the Field is
similar. Both relate the story of a poor boy found in the town of N. Nevertheless, there
are mismatches in the amount of information that is given. In the English, we are not
told the boy’s name, that he learnt to speak, that food used to be shoved into the cellar
while he slept, nor, precisely, that ‘the enigma of his origin’ remains unsolved.
There is a similar story as far as Mode is concerned. In both cases, the text is writ-
ten to be read, but the mode of presentation is different. The English is superimposed
over part of the German, two lines at a time. To accommodate this crucial visual con-
straint, the sentences have been shortened. Sentence 3 in German contains a complex
of reported-speech subordinate clauses (starting ‘he reported he had been locked up
…’). Its length gives a sense of formality befitting the early nineteenth-century subject
matter and speech patterns of the film. This sentence is mostly omitted in the TT. The
English sentences are therefore less varied syntactically, although the thematic profile
of the German sentences 1, 3 and 5, where a time adjunct or adverbial is in first posi-
tion, is effectively mirrored in the English. Some higher-level cohesion is also lost in the
immediate translation: the omission of the name Kaspar Hauser is compensated for
by its appearance in the title of the film and in the early scenes, so one would imagine
that the TT reader would be able to retrieve it easily. The use of Rätsel (‘enigma’) in
German sentence 6 is lost in the translation; however, this is also compensated for since
the word enigma appears in the English title of the film. Moreover, TT sentence 5 (To
this day no one knows where he came from – or who set him free) is far more informal
than in the ST (‘The enigma of his origin has to this day not been solved’).
There are mismatches of Tenor arising from the non-translation of the German sub-
junctive in the reported speech after berichtete er (‘he told of …’). The German sub-
junctives sei, habe, gäbe and so on indicate the status of reported and not confirmed
truth. These are either omitted or translated by a simple declarative statement of fact
(He had never seen another human being). On the other hand, there are stronger inter-
personal features in the final sentence in the English TT, with the two interrogatives
(where and who) and the negative no one. These may be considered as another example
of compensation (see Section 4.1.2), with TT sentence 5 adding to the text an element
of modality that was provided by the subjunctive in the German. House’s concept of
mismatches does not easily allow for compensation.
The result of the analysis points to the TT being what House calls an ‘overt’ trans-
lation. Subtitling is in fact an evident example of overt translation, since at all times
during the film the TT reader is reminded visually of the translated words.

Case study 2
This case study examines the English translation of the award-winning Mathieu
Kassovitz French film La haine (‘Hate’) (1995) from the perspective of the discourse level
of Halliday’s grammar. The film is the stark story of three youths living in a poor area
of Paris and of the violence and aggression that characterize and permeate their environ-
ment. Their idiolect (or sociolect, as it is mainly a class-based speech) is indicative of the
identity they have constructed for themselves: it is aggressive, full of slang and obsceni-
ties, and often with little cohesion. This mirrors the poverty of their surroundings and
their youth. It is thus a sociolect that has a purposeful semiotic function in the film. Its

138 C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

systematic recurrence among all three friends also fulfils the criteria presented by Hatim
and Mason (1997: 103) for discourse that requires careful attention in translation.
The translators make an effort to reproduce some of the effect of the lexicogrammat-
ical features, including the evaluative nominal forms pigs and bastards (for police) and
dickhead and wanker (for idiot). However, there is a tendency for the TT to normalize
the grammatical patterns in the TT, which produces increased cohesion and conven-
tional thematic patterns. Thus, the ST je lui aurais mis une balle … BAAAAAAP! (‘I’d
have put a bullet in him … ZAAAAAAP!’) becomes the more formal and grammati-
cally complex If Hubert hadn’t been there, I’d have shot him. It is also difficult to imag-
ine English-speaking youths using the polite imperative Talk nicely! for Tu ne parles
pas comme ça! (‘You don’t talk like that!’) or such a syntactically correct negative as
He didn’t do anything (rather than ‘He ain’t done nothing/nuffin’/nowt’).
The dynamic element of language noted by Hatim and Mason has been reduced in
the subtitles. This might result partly from the intersemiotic shift from oral to written
language; a higher level of formality is expected from written text. There is also the
need to ensure readability, since unusual written forms will make the subtitles harder
to read. Another important element to consider is that the subtitles are part of a com-
plex multimodal ensemble – the translators might have considered that the meaning
expressed through visual resources would compensate for the normalization of verbal
discourse in the subtitles. Nonetheless, the increased cohesion of the TT and the reduc-
tion in some of the evaluative and interpersonal lexical items means that the identity
constructed by the ST sociolect is less coherent and that a certain contradiction has
been introduced between the verbal discourse and the visual elements such as clothes
and setting. Also, the function discourse plays in binding the three main characters
against the outside world is now blurred.

Discussion of case studies

These brief case studies have suggested how discourse and Register analysis can begin
to explain how texts construct meaning. Although it can be used to help a transla-
tor analyse a text prior to translation, House’s model is perhaps designed more for
the uncovering of ‘errors’ in a formal written TT. The analysis of the Kaspar Hauser
example pointed out many such mismatches, but not necessarily the reasons for the
reworking. The reasons are likely to do with the on-screen constraints such as the
number of words that can fit on the screen, the need to keep the TT words legible when
superimposed on the German text, and probably the commission’s views on what was
acceptable to the TT audience. Investigation into the specific translation commission
for this text may uncover some interesting issues.
The brief case study of La haine indicates the potential of Hatim and Mason’s flexible
approach to analysis. An analysis of the lexicogrammar and discourse semantics of the
characters’ speech can explain the construction of their sociolect. The initial findings
concerning the translation of informal grammatical patterns in the film would seem to
corroborate Hatim and Mason’s comments about the difficulties posed to translators
by the dynamic element of communication. The characters’ aggressive sociolect clearly
reflects their sociocultural environment, yet it undergoes shifts in the TT. However, on
many occasions the violence of the speech is communicated in the tone and level of the

C hapter 6  139
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

voice on the soundtrack, even if the TT receiver cannot understand the words. This is
indicative of the complex nature of screen translation, with its audio and visual input,
which a text-based discourse analysis may struggle to explain.

Summary
The discourse and Register analysis approaches described in this chapter are based on
the model of Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics which links micro-level lin-
guistic choices to the communicative function of a text and the sociocultural meaning
behind it. House’s (1977, 1997, 2015) model of Register analysis is designed to compare
an ST–TT pair for situational variables, genre, function and language, and to identify
both the translation method employed (‘covert’ or ‘overt’) and translation ‘errors’. It
has been criticized for its confusing and ‘scientific’ jargon; however, it provides a sys-
tematic means of uncovering some important considerations for the translator.
Works by Baker (1992/2018) and Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997) bring together
a range of ideas from pragmatics and sociolinguistics that are relevant for translation
and translation analysis. Baker’s analysis is particularly useful in focusing on the the-
matic and cohesion structures of a text. Hatim and Mason, also working within the
Hallidayan model, move beyond House’s Register analysis and begin to consider the
way social and power relations are negotiated and communicated in translation. This
ideological level is further developed in the culturally oriented theories discussed in
Chapters 8 and 9. First, in Chapter 7, we will look at other theories that seek to place
translation in its sociocultural context.

Further reading
See Hatim (2009) for a useful overview of discourse analysis in translation and its rela-
tion to functional theories, and also Baker et al. (2010), Munday and Zhang (2015) and
Kim et al. (2021) for a range of recent studies. See Halliday and Hasan (1976) for cohe-
sion, and Mason (2003/2021), Munday (2002) and Calzada (2007) for transitivity. See
Munday (2012) for an analysis of the interpersonal function in translation. See Gutt
(2000: 47–54) for criticisms of House’s Register analysis and Fawcett (1997: 80–4) for
a more balanced assessment.
Bell’s Translation and Translating (1991) outlines the systemic functional model
within a cognitive theory of translation. For a model of discourse analysis and text
types, see Trosberg (1997, 2000). For analysis of thematic structure from a func-
tional sentence perspective, see Firbas (1986, 1992) and Rogers (2006). For work by
House on the dynamic view of text and context, see House (2006). For pragmatics, see
Malmkjaer (2018). See Archer et al. (2012) for an introduction. See Morini (2013) for a
pragmatic approach to literary translation, and Calzada-Pérez and Munday (2020) for
contributions from across the field.
For a more detailed introduction to the workings of systemic functional linguis-
tics see Eggins (2004) and Thompson (2013). Leech and Short (1981) is a well-known
application of the model for the analysis of literary prose. See also Simpson (1993) for a
related model for the analysis of modality, transitivity and narrative point of view, and
Bosseaux (2007) and Munday (2008) for attempts to implement it (see also Section 4.3
and the discussion of the translation of style).

14 0  C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

Discussion and research points

1 Carry out a Register analysis on an ST–TT pair using House’s model. What differences, if
any, are there in text function? What ‘mismatches’ or errors are there? Is it a covert or
overt translation? What might be motivating any differences you note? How useful is
House’s model for understanding the translation process that has produced the TT? Try
analysing a technical and a literary pair of texts and compare results.
2 The text in Box 6.4 is part of a speech by the former Vice President of the European
Commission Sir Leon Brittan to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 3 May 1999.
After following up some of the relevant recommended reading, carry out a Hallidayan
analysis of this text focusing (a) on thematic and information structures (word order, plac-
ing of information, beginnings and endings of clauses and sentences, development of
ideas) and (b) on cohesive patterns (lexical repetition, use of pronouns, collocation etc.).

Box 6.4
Let me now turn to bananas. The Commission decided last week – with the consent
of the Council of Ministers – not to appeal on either the substance of the issue or the
so-called systemic question, but we do intend to pursue the latter issue, the systemic
issue, in the panel which you brought against Section 301 of the US Trade Act. We also
intend to pursue it in the dispute settlement understanding review and if necessary in
the next trade round.
On the substance of the issue, our intention now is to change our regime in order
to comply with the WTO [World Trade Organization] panel ruling. I believe that eve-
rybody has agreed that our objective has to be conformity with the WTO. But this
will not be easy. We intend to consult extensively with all the main players with the
objective of achieving a system which will not be threatened by further WTO chal-
lenges. I discussed this issue in Washington two weeks ago with the US agriculture
secretary among others. My meetings were followed by discussions at official level.
Subsequently, the Council asked the Commission to put forward proposals for amend-
ing the banana regime by the end of May in the light of further contracts with the US
and other parties principally concerned.

How useful do you consider such an analysis to be for a translator? One of the criticisms of the
Hallidayan model is that it is biased towards English. Try translating the text into your mother
tongue or other foreign language. How applicable is the linguistic analysis to your TL?

3 ‘Grice’s maxims seem to reflect directly notions which are known to be valued in the
English-speaking world, for instance sincerity, brevity, and relevance’ (Baker 2018: 253).
Consider Grice’s maxims with relation to the languages in which you work. What exam-
ples can you find of different maxims? How can a translator deal with any differences?
4 Follow up what Baker and Blum-Kulka say about cohesion and coherence. What exam-
ples can you find from your own languages to support the assertion that explicitation
of cohesive ties is a universal feature of translation? How do translators tend to deal

C hapter 6  141
D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

with literary and other texts that are deliberately lacking in conventional cohesion or
coherence? In some multimodal genres, such as adverts or websites, cohesion may be
achieved visually, through layout, image and colour. Find examples of where this might
be problematic in translation.
5 Find translations of Obama’s inauguration speech in your own language(s). How do
the translators deal with questions of dynamic language, including the degree of
evaluation, potentially contested key concepts and pronoun choice? What differences
do you note between translations and interpretations of the speech? A transcription
of the original speech can be found in the White House Archive (https://obamawhite-
house​.archives​.gov​/the​-press​-office​/2013​/01​/21​/inaugural​-address​-president​-barack​
-obama).
6 Case study 2 is a discussion of La haine, in particular the problem of the semiotics of
sociolect and the difficulties of translating it. How would or did your own TL deal with
the translation of this film? Refer to Chapter 11 for a discussion of some of the chal-
lenges presented by audiovisual multimodal texts.

The ITS companion website at www​.routledge​.com​/cw​/munday

contains:
■■ A video summary of the chapter;
■■ A recap multiple-choice test;
■■ Customizable PowerPoint slides;
■■ Further reading links and extra journal articles;
■■ More research project questions.

Notes
1 The crucial role of systemic functional grammar is to provide a precise grammatical termi-
nology for what is known as discourse analysis. That is, it builds a specific linguistic descrip-
tion into the more general framework of language as communication and as an expression
of the sociocultural process. ‘Discourse analysis’ itself is a wider term, employed differently
by different scholars. In this chapter, it is used to mean a combination of: (1) analysis of the
function of a text using the toolkit provided by SFL and (2) the related analysis of social
communication and power relationships as expressed in the text as a communicative act.
2 The most detailed description of the model is to be found in Halliday (1994) and Halliday
and Matthiessen (2012). For a clear synthesis of these, see Eggins (2004) and Thompson
(2013).
3 Called the context of culture in Halliday’s model.
4 The European Commission’s language policy recognizes that ‘in a European Union based
on the motto “United in diversity”, languages are the most direct expression of our culture’
and sees linguistic diversity as ‘a fundamental value of the European Union’ (www​.europarl​.
europa​.eu ​/factsheets​/en ​/sheet ​/142 ​/ language​-policy).
5 Another criticism is the fact that the Hallidayan model of thematic analysis is mainly English-
oriented. Baker (2018) accepts this, and also outlines the alternative functional sentence per-
spective model of thematic structure, which, because it takes into account ‘communicative
dynamism’ as well as word order, may be more suitable for languages with a frequent VS
order.

14 2  C hapter 6
 D isco u rse a n d R egister a n aly sis appr o aches

6 See Discussion point 2 at the end of this chapter for more on this example.
7 In this example, and in the next sentence, all emphasis is added for ease of discussion.
8 For instance, it is possible to hypothesize; this would suggest that; the likely conclusion is
that ….
9 The German original is titled Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle (‘Each for him/herself and
God against everyone’) (ZDF 1974).

C hapter 6  143