Channels, Fall 2020

Channels • 20 20 • Volume 5 • Number 1 Page 23 when considering mixed texts and how to preserve elements of both styles. It may very well be the case that one needs to find a typology which makes sense to them or create their own, based on research and rational consideration, as with Burukina. However, it may also be that trying to establish a set of hard and fast rules dictating what does and does not constitute a genre or sub-genre is a task that has no conclusive solution, a question which deserves its own research process and discussion. Perhaps a more modest solution for this study is to acknowledge that different genres do exist based on established norms and that the translator should look to works of similar style, period, audience, and content in guiding their translation decisions based on genre. Audience Arguably every text is written with a reading audience in mind, which the translator must consider when achieving an equivalent result. Several factors figure into this aspect of translation. The translator must determine whether the ST is intended for all readers or only a limited audience (Kallmeyer, Ewald, and Schopp, 2010). Even within a group of readers, the receiving audience is not homogeneous and the intended effects of the author or the translator could vary widely depending on whose intended effect is being imparted. Bakhtin (1986) emphasizes that, even in one-way communication, the reader must be considered an active participant in the communication process as a participant who may not respond as intended. Reiss (1981) notes that upon a change in reading circles, “there is now no attempt an y more to strive for a functional equivalence between the SL and the TL text, but for adequacy of the TL reverbalization in accordance with the ‘foreign function’” (p. 122). In such an instance, where the ST and TT differ in purpose and function, a text-based typology should be replaced with a translation typology, that is, “to what end and for whom is the text translated?” (Reiss, 1981, p.131), which rather flies in the face of equivalence. Karpovskaya (2011), Kallmeyer et al. (2010), and Usacheva et al. (2015) widen the view on participants in the communicative process, including the writer, translator, publisher, and recipient, as well as the relationships at play among them. An additional consideration regarding audience lies, not merely with the individual readers, but with the culture in which they live. Any attempt to achieve an equivalent result in translation must be based on a thorough knowledge of and familiarity with the culture of both the ST and TT (Jones, 2014). Kesic (2015), citing Lefevere (1992), and Mansoor (2018) note that once one moves outside the bounds of a linguistic family, in this case the European family, cultural and linguistic differences are thrust into the foreground, as with English and Arabic. The above considerations speak to the importance and difficulty of considering the audience in translation. As with genre, there are several factors one must consider when addressing audience concerns, including the author, genre, time period, cultural background, and linguistic relation of the SL and TL. Presumably, using these factors as variables which change across translation assignments, the easiest text to translate would be written in the very recent past (about five years) into a TL closely related to the SL (French – Italian) in a similar cultural context for an audience who is familiar with the author and genre at hand. Likewise, the hardest text would be one written in a language