Text Types and Translation

Katharina Reiss' work mainly focuses on different text types, their functions in the culture they were produced in and how these functions can be reflected in the translation of the text.
She defines translation as the functionally equivalent text of the source text in the target culture. So, her idea of translation depends on the function and creation of the equivalent of it in the target culture.
Reiss' way of looking into translation suggests a systemic and verifiable method to carry out translations since she follows a highly strict way. Reiss defines three main functions. Informative, expressive, and operative. She firstly defines these types/functions of the language/text with clear-cut words and ideas; then defines translation based on and in accordance with these functions. For example; communication of the content is the function of a informative text [Reiss 171]. However, she sets the limits of these function so clearly that she overlooks how actually these functions can be related to each other even in only one text. Of course, she does not claim that a text can only one function; however, according to her one of the functions of a text is the one actually the reader/translator should recognize first, and the other(s) is always secondary thus could be dispensible in the process [Reiss 170,177]. So the duty of the translator would become to find out the "main function" of a text.
In a source text more than one function can be co-existed as well as the very same ST can have more than one function in the TT. Reiss's clear-cut division lacks the perspective to see the variations. One text can be both expressive and operative at the same time. When a translator prefers one function over another in this kind of a situation as Reiss would have suggested, it is impossible for her/him not to miss a part of the text. And this will finally conflict with Reiss' idea of equivalence as the TT will not perform the equivalent function as of the ST.
It is also possible to create a link between Nida's term "effect" [Nida 156] and Reiss' "function". Although these two scholars have different perspectives in general, their idea of equivalence coincides with each other. These two terms have a similar elusiveness which melts the whole reader/receptor range in the same pot and assumes that there is only one kind of a reader and one reading or in Reiss' case one dominant reading of a text. So it can be claimed that although this idea of equivalence considers culture as an important part of the translation, it overgeneralizes a culture and tends to ignore the different parts of a culture.

REFERENCES

Nida, Eugene (1964). "Principles of Correspondence" in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti Lawrence. p.153-167.

Reiss, Katharina (1971). "Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in Translation" in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti Lawrence. p. 168-179.