The Hallidayan
model, which is a systematic–functional theory, is the foundation of
House's translation quality assessment theory. This paradigm compares an
original with its translation on three levels: text, register, and genre.
House considers the more target audience-oriented conception of translation appropriateness to be fundamentally flawed, hence she builds her approach on a comparative ST-TT analysis that leads to a quality review of the translation, exposing mismatches or errors.
According to House, there are three sections to the register: Field, tenure, and mode. Field includes the social action and subject matter. Tenor encompasses the participant interaction as well as the topic matter and social action. It entails the author's background and position, as well as the author's social role relationship and attitude. The last mode has to do with the channel and the degree of interaction between the addresser and the addressee.
Through lexical, syntactic, and textual approaches, this
comparison model may be reduced to register analysis of both ST and TT. Themes,
clausal linkage, and iconic linkage are all examples of textual methods.
House believes that equivalence is the most important
requirement for translation quality. The function is the first prerequisite for
this equivalence. She divides this role into two parts: ideational and
interpersonal. She also uses the phrases referential
and non-referential to describe
these elements.
Let’s discuss some of the points that how House’s model work.
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.
This allows a statement of function to be made for the ST.
4.
The same is done for TT.
5.
Then compares ST and TT and finds mismatches or errors.
6.
A statement of quality is gained.
7.
Then the translation may be called either overt or covert.
To understand this theory in depth let’s discuss overt and
covert translations.
An overt translation does not claim to be
original and does not attempt to disguise the fact that it is a translation. It
is a translation that stays true to the original text and culture, while
the covert translation in the target culture has the status of
a source text, or it is loyal to the target language and culture. This might
entail making changes like substituting source language idioms with target
language counterparts or making certain implicit information known by a source
text. According to House the function of covert translation is ‘to recreate,
reproduce or represent in the translated text the function the original has in
its linguacultural framework and discourse world.’
As mentioned before that equivalence is important to gain this.
To make TT original House asserts that a cultural filter is needed. These
changes involved the level of genre and register.
The above discussion can be summed up in these words. Overall,
House's model appears to provide a significant contribution by combining a
linguistic approach with textual, situational, and cultural components, as well
as providing valuable tools for judging the quality of a translation by using
register theory to translation quality evaluation. However, because of its
complexity and the lack of a mechanism for quantifying faults, its use is
restricted, and these became variables to consider while analyzing the case
study.
