Formulating a terminology for source document profiling through a literature review: from functionalist to documentational approaches*

Figures & data

Table 1. Target literature for the review.

No	Literature	Orientation	Process
1	House ([1977]2014)	Theory/Pedagogy/Practice	Quality assessment
2	House ([1997]2014)	Theory/Pedagogy/Practice	Quality assessment
3	ISO (2012)	Practice	All processes in translation projects
4	Newmark (1988)	Pedagogy	Translation (including ST analysis)
5	Nord (2005)	Theory/Pedagogy/Practice	ST analysis
6	Reiss (1971/2000)	Theory	Quality assessment
7	Reiss and Vermeer (1991/2013)	Theory	Translation
8	Snell-Hornby (1995)	Theory	Translation

Figure 1. Example of extraction of terms with their descriptions and values from the source literature; the paragraph is excerpted from Nord (2005, p. 58) and the annotations are inserted by the author of this article.

Table 2. Formulated terminology of source document properties.

Knowledge property	Formation property
(K01) subject field	(F01) communication medium
(K02) topic	(F02) symbol type
(K03) genre	(F03) file
(K04) difficulty	(a) volume
(K05) background knowledge	(b) format
(a) academic discipline	(c) markup
(b) presupposition	(d) editability
(K06) resource	(F04) structure
(a) origin	(a) document structure
(b) terminology	(b) content structure
Communication property	Text property
(C01) sending	(T01) language
(a) sender	(T02) register
(i) responsible sender	(a) mode
(ii) author	(b) formality scale
(b) sending time	(T03) dialect
(c) sending place	(a) geolect
(C02) receiving	(b) chronolect
(a) receiver	(c) sociolect
(i) addressee	(T04) style
(ii) chance receiver	(a) stance
(b) receiving time	(b) emotional tone
(c) receiving place	(c) literariness
(C03) sender–receiver relationship	(d) peculiarity / creativity
(C04) communication field	(T05) quality
(C05) function	(a) cohesion
(C06) purpose	(b) coherence
(C07) background situation	(c) readability
	(d) speakability
	(e) degree of error
	(T06) representation pattern

Table A1. Knowledge properties.

Formulated term	Collected terms
(K01) subject field	dimensions of language use → province → topic of the text (House, [1977] 2014), p. 30); subject field (ISO, 2012, p. 19); topic (Newmark, 1988, p. 40); subject matter (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 70)
(K02) topic	dimensions of language use → province → topic of the text (House, [1977] 2014, p. 30); field → subject matter (House, [1997] 2014, p. 65); intratextual factors → subject matter (Nord, 2005, p. 93)
(K03) genre	genre (House, [1997] 2014, p. 65); text type and genre (ISO, 2012, p. 19); type (Newmark, 1988, p. 40); discourse → genre (Newmark, 1988, p. 55); socio-cultural context → genre conventions (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 138); prototypology of the basic text-types (Snell-Hornby, 1995, p. 33)
(K04) difficulty	stylistic scales → generality (difficulty) (Newmark, 1988, p. 14)
(K05) background knowledge	subject matter (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 70)
(a) academic discipline	non-linguistic disciplines (Snell-Hornby, 1995, p. 33)
(b) presupposition	intratextual factors → presupposition (Nord, 2005, p. 105); socio-cultural context → knowledge presupposed in the audience (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 138)
(K06) resource
(a) origin	origin (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(b) terminology	source terminology (ISO, 2012, p. 20)

Table A2. Communication properties.

Formulated term	Collected terms
(C01) sending
(a) sender	tenor → addresser (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); extra-linguistic determinants → speaker factor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 82); producer/sender (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 136)
(i) responsible sender	extratextual factors → sender (Nord, 2005, p. 47)
(ii) author	extratextual factors → text producer (Nord, 2005, p. 47)
(b) sending time	extratextual factors → time of communication (Nord, 2005, p. 70); extra-linguistic determinants → time factor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 71); situational context → time (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 137)
(c) sending place	extratextual factors → place of communication → place of text production (Nord, 2005, p. 67); extra-linguistic determinants → place factor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 74); situational context → place (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 137)
(C02) receiving
(a) receiver
(i) addressee	tenor → addressee (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); audience (ISO, 2012, p. 19); readership (Newmark, 1988, p. 13); extratextual factors → audience → addressee (Nord, 2005, p. 58); extra-linguistic determinants → audience factor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 78); audience/recipient (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 136)
(ii) chance receiver	extratextual factors → audience → chance receiver (Nord, 2005, p. 58)
(b) receiving time	extratextual factors → time of communication (Nord, 2005, p. 70); situational context → time (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 137)
(c) receiving place	extratextual factors → place of communication → place of text reception (Nord, 2005, p. 67); situational context → place (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 137)
(C03) sender–receiver relationship	dimensions of language use → social role relationship (House, [1977] 2014, p. 29); tenor → participant relationship (House, [1997] 2014, p. 65)
(C04) communication field	communicative interaction (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 139)
(C05) function	function of language (Newmark, 1988, p. 39); extratextual factors → text function (Nord, 2005, p. 77); language function (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 26); text type (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 136)
(C06) purpose	purpose (ISO, 2012, p. 19); intention of the text (Newmark, 1988, p. 12); extratextual factors → sender’s intention (Nord, 2005, p. 53)
(C07) background situation	extratextual factors → motive for communication (Nord, 2005, p. 74)

Table A3. Formation properties.

Formulated term	Collected terms
(F01) communication medium	format (Newmark, 1988, p. 40); extratextual factors → medium (Nord, 2005, p. 62)
(F02) symbol type	complexity → form (ISO, 2012, p. 20); text variety (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 156)
(F03) file
(a) volume	volume (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(b) format	complexity → format (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(c) markup	complexity → markup language (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(d) editability	complexity → text-editable (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(F04) structure	intratextual factors → text composition → macrostructure (Nord, 2005, p. 112)
(a) document structure	discourse → structure of the text → pointer (Newmark, 1988, p. 56); macrostructure (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 165)
(b) content structure	discourse → structure of the text (Newmark, 1988, p. 56); content structure (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 165)

Table A4. Text properties.

Formulated term	Collected terms
(T01) language	source language → variant/locale (ISO, 2012, p. 19)
(T02) register
(a) mode	dimensions of language use → medium (House, [1977] 2014, p. 28); mode → medium (House, [1997] 2014, p. 65); extratextual factors → medium → speech/writing (Nord, 2005, p. 62); linguistic components → grammatical → stylistic factor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 60)
(b) formality scale	dimensions of language use → social attitude (House, [1977] 2014, p. 29); tenor → social attitude (House, [1997] 2014, p. 65); stylistic scales → scale of formality (Newmark, 1988, p. 14); intratextual factors → lexis → level of style (Nord, 2005, p. 127); linguistic components → grammatical → stylistic factor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 60)
(T03) dialect
(a) geolect	dimensions of language user → geographical origin (House, [1977] 2014, p. 27); tenor → author’s provenance → geographical (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); intratextual factors → lexis → aspect of space (Nord, 2005, p. 127)
(b) chronolect	dimensions of language user → time (House, [1977]2014, p. 28); tenor → author’s provenance → temporal (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); intratextual factors → lexis → aspect of time (Nord, 2005, p. 127); linguistic components → stylistic (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 60)
(c) sociolect	dimensions of language user → social class (House, [1977] 2014, p. 28); tenor → author’s provenance → social (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); linguistic components → grammatical → stylistic factor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 60)
(T04) style
(a) stance	tenor → author’s provenance → stance (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); attitude (Newmark, 1988, p. 15)
(b) emotional tone	stylistic scales → emotional tone (Newmark, 1988, p. 14)
(c) literariness	complexity → literary nature (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(d) peculiarity / creativity	linguistic components → stylistic (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 63)
(T05) quality	quality of the writing (Newmark, 1988, p. 16)
(a) cohesion	complexity → cohesion (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(b) coherence	complexity → coherence (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(c) readability	complexity → readability (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(d) speakability	phonological aspects → speakability (Snell-Hornby, 1995, p. 34)
(e) degree of error	complexity → error (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
(T06) representation pattern	dimensions of language use → participation (House, [1977] 2014, p. 29); mode → participation (House, [1997] 2014, p. 13); text style (Newmark, 1988, p. 13)

House, J. (1977). A model for translation quality assessment. Narr. (in House, 2014, 21–53).

 Google Scholar

House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Narr. (in House, 2014, 63–84).

 Google Scholar

ISO. (2012). ISO/TS 11669:2012. Translation Projects – General Guidance. International Organization for Standardization.

 Google Scholar

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.

 Google Scholar

Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis (2nd ed.). Rodopi.

 Google Scholar

Reiss, K. (1971/2000). Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment (E. F. Rhodes, Trans.). St. Jerome. (Original work published 1971).

 Google Scholar

Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (1991/2013). Towards a general theory of translational action: Skopos theory explained (C. Nord, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1991).

 Google Scholar

Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins.

 Google Scholar