• 4.1 Intertextuality and text types
• 4.1.1 Text types and translation quality
• 4.2 Katharina Reiss' text typology
• 4.3 Typologies of texts in simultaneous interpreting situations
• 4.3.1 Kopczyn´ski (1980)
• 4.3.2 Niedzielski (1988)
• 4.4 The relevance of text typology to interpreting
• 4.4.1 Alexieva’s semantic model as a tool for establishing text types
• 4.4.2 Suggestions for a hierarchical text typology for interpreting

4 Text typology
4.1 Intertextuality and text types	Intertextuality as a standard of textuality concerns "the ways in which the production and reception of a given text depend upon the participants' knowledge of other texts" (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981:182). According to Bell (1991:170-171) intertextuality refers to "the relationship between a particular text and other texts which share characteristics with it; the factors which allow text-processors to recognise, in a new text, features of other texts they have encountered". Neubert & Shreve (1992:120) see intertextuality as related to the notion of text type, and intertextual distinctions are "first-order text-typological distinctions":  Intertextuality is based on what the text user, not the analyst, expects to see in the text. (…) Intertextuality allows readers to identify scientific texts and poems as different types of texts. Their experience with previous instances of these two kinds of texts has taught them to look for different linguistic markers. A text typology along functional lines could include descriptive, narrative, and argumentative texts (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981:1). The characteristics of argumentative texts in translation have been discussed by Tirkkonen-Condit (1985; 1986), see section 5.2.1. The following table, compiled on the basis of Reiss' description (Reiss 1976:97-100) shows some of the most well-known "classical" text typologies, based on Karl Bühler's tripartite model of the functions of linguistic signs. Reiss' own typology will be described in more detail in section 4.2 below.   Bühler functions of linguistic signs  Stiehler types of human cognition  Coseriu language forms  Reiss text types  informative (Darstellung)  thinking, perceiving  descriptive, declarative, informative  informative  expressive (Ausdruck)  feeling  expressive, affective, emotive  expressive  vocative (Appell)  willing  vocative, imperative  operative  Figure 4 -1 Text typologies (after Reiss 1976)
4.1.1 Text types and translation quality	According to Reiss (1976), the assessment of a translation requires that in the first place one must determine the kind of text the original represents (in term of text type and text variety); the translator's conception of the translation (to be inferred from his manner of translating, and perhaps also explicitly stated in a translator's preface); and the aim of the translated text. Only when these factors have become established is one in a position to judge a translation "fairly", in accordance with the appropriate criteria. (Reiss 1976:97-100.)   Text concept Translation type Translation aim       Text = sum of words  word-for-word translation (interlinear)  comparative linguistic research  Text = sum of sentences  literal translation (grammar translation)  foreign language learning  Text = basic linguistic sign   learned translation (deliberately marked + commentary)  study of culture-bound language differences  Text = verbal component of a communication process (text-with-a-function)  communicative translation a) normal case   b) special subtype  a) integral communicative performance b) all kinds of changes of function  Figure 4-2 Typology of translation (Reiss 1976)
4.2 Katharina Reiss' text typology	In order to set up a text typology relevant to translation, Reiss (1976) begins with the basic communicative situations in which texts fulfil quite specific and distinct communicative functions. A tripartite aspect of language, based on Karl Bühler’s terms Darstellung, Ausdruck, Appell, (Bühler 1934) suggests a similar division of basic verbal communicative situations with three corresponding text types: Informative Plain communication of facts (news, knowledge, information, arguments, opinions, feelings, judgements, intentions etc.,) where the topic is in the foreground of the communicative intention. This includes phatic communication, the actual information value of which is zero, and the message is the communication process itself .  The dominant form of language is functional language. The text is structured primarily on the semantic-syntactic level. Expressive Creative composition, an artistic shaping of the context. The sender is in the foreground. The author creates his topics himself, consciously exploits the expressive and associative possibilities of the language in order to communicate his thoughts in an artistic, creative way. The text is doubly structured: first on the syntactic-semantic level, and on the level of artistic organisation. In addition to this linguistic function, an expressive text must also fulfil an artistic function. Operative Text inducing behavioural responses, as stimuli to action or reaction on the part of the reader. The form of verbalisation is mainly determined by the addressed receiver of the text. The text is doubly or triply structured: on the semantic-structural level, on the level of persuasion, and sometimes but not necessarily, on the level of artistic organisation. An operative text must fulfil both a linguistic and a psychological function.
4.3 Typologies of texts in simultaneous interpreting situations
4.3.1 Kopczyn´ski (1980)	In the conference situation there is a variety of texts ranging from completely unprepared oral spontaneous speech to the reading of a prepared written text. Some of the typical input texts are: 1. unprepared oral monologue or dialogue (e.g. a toast, an exposé, free discussion); 2. semi-prepared oral monologue with notes (e.g. a lecture, a paper); 3. a written monologue intended for oral delivery — reading thereof (e.g. a lecture, a paper, a report, a speech); 4. a written monologue intended for written medium — reading thereof (e.g. a final communiqué, a resolution, a draft document, etc.), Of those four types, type 3 is probably the most common. According to Kopczyn´ski (1980), it is reasonable to assume that the output text produced by the interpreter has the form of extemporaneous speech. Since the interpreter is an indirect source in the communication chain, his performance is not completely "spontaneous" in the sense of "unprepared, unplanned", because the interpreter follows the speaker’s primary source text. The interpreter’s output text is extemporaneous meaning "produced on the basis of a previously unknown text."  Kopczyn´ski (1980) assumes previous knowledge by the interpreter of the field of discourse of the translated texts including terminology, the topic of the conference, etc. By an "unknown text" is then meant concrete textual realisations of a previously known field of discourse. Extemporaneous speech in this sense probably has most of the features of spontaneous oral speech (Kopczyn´ski 1982). In terms of difference between written and spoken subcodes, and conceiving of translation in its broad, semiotic sense, Kopczyn´ski (1980) distinguishes the following translational processes when the simultaneous interpreter deals with the text types defined above: Type 1, unprepared oral monologue or dialogue: spoken subcode L1 --> spoken subcode L2 Type 2, semi-prepared oral monologue with notes: spoken subcode L1 --> spoken subcode L2 Type 3, written monologue intended for oral delivery: written subcode L1 --> spoken subcode INT (intersemiotic translation) --> spoken subcode L2 Type 4, written monologue intended for written medium: written subcode L1 --> spoken subcode INT --> spoken subcode L2 In consecutive interpreting, where translation goes through the stage of note-taking, the process is even more complex: Types 1 and 2. spoken subcode L1 --> graphic medium INT --> spoken subcode L2 Types 3 and 4. spoken subcode L1 --> graphic medium INT --> spoken subcode INT --> spoken subcode L2.
4.3.2 Niedzielski (1988)	Niedzielski (1988) has developed a typology of simultaneous interpreting, inspired by the characteristics of texts in conference interpreting described by Kopczyn’ski (1980). He relies on de Beaugrande’s and Dressler’s (1981) standards of textuality as a theoretical basis. To their seven standards, Niedzielski adds an eighth one, density of information (densité d’information). This is defined as the mathematical product of the length of the discourse, its semantic density, its morphosyntactic complexity, its acoustic clarity, and its speed of delivery (Niedzielski 1988:492-495).  Niedzielski distinguishes seven types of texts in simultaneous interpreting among the two main text types: "oral texts" which are not written, and "written texts" that are written, read-aloud texts. Oral texts: Impromptu monologue Prepared, not edited monologue Partially prepared dialogue Prepared and partially edited monologue Monologues learnt by heart and recited Recorded texts Written texts: Edited and recited monologue Edited and read-aloud text In simultaneous interpreting, text delivery spans from impromptu speech to the reading aloud of written documents. Niedzielski points out an interesting paradox in the fact that the interpreter tends to adopt a more "conversational" style when interpreting a speaker who reads his text, while he tends to "edit" a more spontaneous, spoken utterance. According to Niedzielski, this is apparently due to the perceived role of the interpreter as a conveyor of the intended meaning of the speaker. The interpreter thus has to make the text easy to understand for the listener, i.e. increase the acceptability in terms of textuality.  Another explanation could be that the interpreter, in the more or less "anonymous" conference interpreting situation, is trying to find some kind of perceived "middle norm" in his output — much in the same way as often has been described in the context of written translation.[6] An illustration in our corpus of this "acceptability for all" principle can be found in section 6.1.2.4. A third explanation for the "conversational" style of the interpreter has been suggested by Strolz (1992): the interpreter is actually talking freely and is therefore bound to be more redundant than the speaker. This is because in the interpreter's utterance additional unconscious redundancy is added to the conscious one (produced by the speaker and uttered by the interpreter). In order to avoid processual overload the interpreter often has to start to formulate an utterance before he knows the whole thought and can only guess the general intention of the speaker. If the following input does not contain information that the interpreter had anticipated and the interpreter has capacity to go back and deliver the corrected information, he will by necessity be more redundant (Strolz 1992:152). According to the same principle of alleviating cognitive stress then, some of the redundancy in the speech flow of the "spontaneous" speaker can be reduced by the interpreter. This "compressing" by interpreters is described by Chernov (cf. section 7.1.2). In the following speech sample from our corpus, all of the latter (Finnish) part is strictly speaking redundant as it only refers to what the speaker has already stated in the initial utterance in Swedish. This reiteration by the speaker marks that she is now starting a new section, hence it is of course necessary to interpret, but some of the redundancy can be taken away without any negative consequence.   Section no. Original  Translation of original Interpretation Translation of interpretation 102 i detta sammanhang har ja / haft lite att göra me operaforskning  in this connection I have had / some contacts with opera research tässä yhteydessä olen jossain määrin joutunut tekemisiin oopperatutkimuksen kanssa  In this connection I have to some extent been in contact with opera research / 103 och ja tänker nu byta språk  and I am now going to change language / aion nyt seuraavaksi vaihtaa kieltä /  I am now next going to change language 104 eftersom de här forskningsprojektet går på finska since this research project is carried out in finnish koska projekti on suomenkielinen / since the project is in the finnish language … … … … 108 olen todella like I said I have ja har alltså I have as I said 109 viime aikoina recently 110 joutunu omassa tutkimuksessani  had the chance in my own research i mitt forskning /  in my research  111 aika paljon  quite a lot 112 perehtymään suomalaiseen oopperaan to get to know finnish opera kommit in i den finska operan got into finnish opera 113 ja sen usimpiin teoksiin  (SN) and its newest works å di nyaste verken / and the newest works Italics: deletion Figure 4-3 Economical interpreting (compression)
4.4 The relevance of text typology to interpreting	Gentile (1988:483) suggests further research on text typology based on textuality standards: (...) it may be fruitful to proceed (...) with research on a typology based on textuality standards as outlined by Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), especially those standards which relate more to the receptor than to the text itself and precisely those of acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality. The development of an adequate text typology for interpreting is important for educational purposes in the training of interpreters, as well as the theoretical development within interpreting research. The following approaches could be part of the basis for such an endeavour.
4.4.1 Alexieva’s semantic model as a tool for establishing text types	In her work with developing tools for the study of simultaneous interpreting, Alexieva has presented a model for the analysis of the deep structure of interpreted texts. The model is built up around a three-tier system of semantic units: a) Semantic features (components) as the minimal differentiating factors; b) Clusters of semantic features, subdivided further into arguments, relatable to the semantic category of object, and predicates, relatable to the semantic category of event; c) Predications: a predication is a two-term semantic category of a propositional nature, consisting of a predicate and argument(s).  Within this framework, the meaning of an utterance, as the basic unit of speech, can be represented as a set of predications (Deep Semantic Structure). (For details of the model, see Alexieva 1985:195.) The result of this predication analysis can help to find out the major predications of a text (micro-text) or an aggregate of texts (the macro-text) delivered at a conference; and to establish the types of semantic relationship between the micro-texts of a conference. This in turn helps us to build a typology of the texts delivered at a conference, and more particularly, their thematic progression, which is especially important for the operation of the probability prediction mechanism on the semantic level (Alexieva 1985:196-197; 1994; cf. Chernov, section 7.1).
4.4.2 Suggestions for a hierarchical text typology for interpreting	According to Heinemann & Viehweger (1991), there is now a far-reaching consensus about the difference between text categories and text classes ("Textsorten" and "Textklassen"; i.e. text-externally definable 'genres') on the one hand and text typology ("Texttypologie") on the other.  The former concepts refer to the empirical classification of texts that are being used in various communicative situations and for various needs in human societies. This means that text categories and text classes (genres) are historically and socially determined and prone to change according to circumstance (cf. Bhatia 1993; Swales 1990). Text typology, on the other hand, is the theoretical categorisation of texts into different types according to certain characteristics. Heinemann & Viehweger (1991) develop a hierarchical, multilevel typology for the classification of text types, the main levels being:  I Function types  II Situation types III Action types IV Text structure types  V Prototypical formulation patterns  Along those lines, I suggest that a text typology for interpreting would have to take into account the following factors: a) the discourse function, i.e. whether the text is, in Reiss' terms, see section 4.2, informative, expressive, operative (argumentative, persuasive) or phatic; b) situation types, i.e. the setting, e.g. type of institution where interpreting is conducted; the number of parties involved in the interaction and their roles in society, purpose of interaction etc.; c) type of action that the situation demands, i.e. choosing the (appropriate) genre or in Foucault's terms, the text produced within a "fellowship of discourse"; cf. Swales 1990; d) textual strategy types, i.e. macrostructure, rhetorical types and "aesthetic" features; etc. that the genre requires; e) prototypical formulation matrices, i.e. conventional phrases, conventions for interaction, e.g. politeness, etc.