Our interactions, thought seem quite mechanical and instinctive, are acts of translation per say.

What does such an act involve was the center of attention of this book. Discourse and the translator gave birth to a new practical model that analyzes the cultural dimensions of language, as well as the pragmatic and semiotic dimensions of translation. Mason and Hatim investigate the bound that ties discourse analysis to translation, with a notable inclination toward the linguistic side. For this reason, a previous knowledge of linguistics and of theory of translation is needed so that the reader can understand the concepts mentioned inside.

At first, we are confronted to the discussion of the old and recurrent debates and issues in translation studies, such as literal versus free, formal and dynamic equivalence, should the translation be author-centered or reader-centered?. The purpose of this review was an
1|Page

attempt to withdraw and secede, to break free from this unfruitful reasoning.

Then the authors, in chapter two, reveal the fertile insights that linguistics offered to this discipline. All the progress linguistics has made have provided a new direction for translation studies. This demonstrates the complexity of translation for being more than a mere replacement of nomenclatures, it is a cross-cultural communication. Translation studies, hence, have passed to a whole new level now considering the systematic communicative factors that exists between distinct languages. It is only in this light that issues like the impossibility and the limits of translation and equivalence will reasonably be defined and elucidated.

After that, the study of context is launched, beginning with the analysis of register in chapter three. Hatim and Mason in their examination, rely on the
2|Page

anthropological theory of Malinowski, and the linguistic one taken from Firth. The first tackled the issue of context of situation and culture, raising a very important question to examine: what would be the best method for portraying the English text in the foreign culture and language? Of course, it was the cultural substance which posed a problem for the translator, and it was translation with commentary that stood up in the end.

Malinowski opted for this method arguing that it situationalized the text facilitating by that the translators engagement. Translation is understood as an act of carrying the meaning of a text from one language to another, and because text cannot exist out of context, meaning cannot be captivated without constant reference to the situation in which it was stated. , Malinowski referred to this as the context of situation.

3|Page

Firth, on the other hand, explored the relationship that exists between meaning and language variation. He stated that it was far from being accurate to say that understanding the meaning of an utterance is understanding the words individually. Meaning, he says, is the intended message. The textual meaning comes from the meaning of its words gathered all together as an entity that cannot be fragmented. Therefore, he proposes four levels of meaning to make it easier for the translator to have a clearer distinction, since each contributes to assist or hinder his task. Owing to Firths input, the veil of blurt that the linguistic study of language carried out on this subject matter is now gone.

However, this is far from being the bottom of the problem. According to Catford, the concept of language is very vast and is not operationally useful; it engendered interminable debates all over the years. For this matter, Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964) created a
4|Page

framework for the description of language variation illustrating by that the communicative aspect of language in a very simplistic but adept way. Two dimensions are distinguished: user-related and use related.

USE Register Field of discourse Mode of discourse USER Dialect Social Geographical Figure 01 (non-) standard Ideolectal Temporal Tenor of discourse

In chapter four, the importance of the pragmatic and semiotic aspect of texts is very well scrutinized. Mainly, it is the pragmatic dimension that enables us to do things with words and through it the appropriateness of any utterance usage is defined. And it is the semiotic

5|Page

dimension that enables us to define discourse, in view of the fact that social occasions are expressed in discourse. Such a perception of context leads us to conclude that the transfer of the any message into another system of language is, in every respect, depending on such values to be put right. In other words, the receptors reaction to the text is subject to subtle variation.

In the same chapter they make distinction between text and discourse, but this distinction is very shadowy. The definition of discourse and its true identity has not been explicitly formulated nor was it located at any level. Text is described as meanings and manifestations of

discourses, and consequently regarded as the basic unit for semiotic analysis. This brought up some intriguing
questions to my mind, for instance, how could this definition be useful for our practice? How is the term discourse appropriate in theoretical basis and not functional in translation studies?
6|Page

Hatim and Ian have defined discourse as modes of thinking and talking, but does not refer to translated texts as discourses, and does not consider the translators cognitive process in generating the text, way before its production, as discourse! Additionally, he does not refer to the product of translation as discourse. Why is that? It is quite doubtful really, what should we call the thinking and talking of the translator? Isnt that discourse? Or does it in reality exclude the written aspect? Doesnt this make discourse exclusively a verbal performance?!

Plus, if any semantically and structurally coherent, completed piece of language considered as text, what would discourse be then? If discourse as explained in figure 4.4 is realized in text, would a text be regarded as a concrete representation of discourse? If so, is the communicated meaning attributed to discourse only? If

7|Page

the answer was positive, this means that text being the carcass of discourse is discharged of sense!?

In chapter five, six and seven, Hatim and his colleague come up with an interesting viewpoint. The Pragmatic and semiotic features combined form what they call intertextuality. The authors in this section of the book explain how our previous associations, which come from our previous experiences, and the existing relationship between the elements of the text, are what create this strong intertextual link that give rise to knowledge way beyond that of the text in hand. They reveal throughout the seventh chapter why is intertextual reference essential, portraying its great contribution to the host text as a guide for the translator to perceive the intentionality of the correspondent, car if the intentions are well perceived, the possibilities of misinterpretations are diminished and just then, the decision upon the new silhouette of the text becomes unproblematic.
8|Page

So far, this book tackles the difficulty translators face all along their career which enfolds essentially intentionality and interpretation. The two authors confidently affirm that every text has a specific rhetorical purpose directly related to content, stressing by that the significance of the ideologies texts reflect for practitioners.

Since texts are manufactured in a given speech community, we cannot expect to use the same words that are charged with meaning that is proper to one community which is unique with its classification of reality, and obtain the same reaction and effect in another context of communication that differ from that of the source. All messages enclose individual and groupspecific features in a way that enrich them with more details about the cultural reality and the experiences of the mother community, therefore, it is mandatory for

9|Page

every translator to be aware of this ideological force since it determines the use and usage of each language.

After a great detailed examination of aspects of texts, the two scholars turn their attention in chapter eight to the focus of the translator, the text type. In this section, the writers are determined to provide evidence, in reference to the comprehensive model of context, of the ways in which context mould the focus of any text which set in motion the texts function and classification. In chapter nine, however, the influence of context on the structure of a text is questioned. They submit that the lexical choice and the structure of a particular text type are motivated, i.e., the structure reflects the way culture organize text material in terms of signs. Texts are then mere representations influenced by intentionality.

10 | P a g e

Thus, the translator is required to try not to compromise this particular feature of the text. It is agreed that this is not an easy task to achieve as it demands a profound understanding, a piquant perception and an awareness of its function. Yet, if he ever could manage to do that, he is then requested to find a structure and lexis which conforms to the norms of the target culture and its system of the language which is again not that easy to realize.

Chapter ten entitled Discourse texture, deal with the traits attributed to discourse. The elements namely: coherence, cohesion, thematic organization, are neatly discussed in minutiae, in a way that relate them to discourse and genre. This in effect means that texture provide the translator with means to apprehend the intentions of the discourse and the function structure exerts in any given text plan. And that was one of the

11 | P a g e

wins that we, readers of this book, enormously benefited from.

The translator, previously irritated for being called traitor, turns out to be mediator in the end of this paperback! In retrospect to Ronan Jakobsons model of communication, people cannot understand each other across group boundaries, regardless of their sort. Communication is very difficult when individuals do not share the same worldview. This is why an intercultural speaker, in this case a translator, is needed for this skill enables him to mediate between and interact with other speakers of radically different backgrounds freely without encountering trouble.

A mediator, in this respect, acts as a go-between distinct languages and cultures, each of which regards reality differently. Because he is the one who commands the process of message exchanging between the sender
12 | P a g e

and the receiver, he unconsciously performs a ternary action, i.e. first, he turn into a neutral active reader, this necessitate a complete detachment from his own beliefs and values. Then, decodes the intended meaning, and afterwards, rewrites it by re-encoding it again, taking into account how critical it is for the rhetorical purpose of the source text to remain intact.

The nature of the relationship between discourse analysis and translation is now clearer. This book explores how discourse analysis can be of paramount importance to the field of translation, but once you finish it, it becomes evident that it does not address those interested in learning how to translate; it addresses those who are simply interested in comprehending translations linguistic properties.

13 | P a g e