Perspectives
Studies in Translation Theory and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Formulating a terminology for source document
profiling through a literature review: fromfunctionalist to documentational approaches
Rei Miyata
To cite this article: Rei Miyata (2022): Formulating a terminology for source document profilingthrough a literature review: from functionalist to documentational approaches, Perspectives, DOI:
10.1080/0907676X.2022.2049830
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2022.2049830© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 24 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20

PERSPECTIVES
https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2022.2049830

Formulating a terminology for source document proﬁling
through a literature review: from functionalist to
documentational approaches*
Rei Miyata
Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
ABSTRACTARTICLE HISTORY

Achieving a detailed understanding of source documents is an
essential step in the translation process. Furthermore, in modern
settings of translation projects in which various actors, such as
clients, project managers, and translators, are involved, it is
crucial to share such understanding through a properly
formulated terminology. While the previous literature ontranslation studies, particularly in relation to functionalist
approaches, has provided various frameworks and methods forsource text analysis and proﬁling, the terminology for suchprocesses has not been suﬃciently established. This article,
therefore, examines the previous literature to widely collect terms
regarding source document properties and organise them as aterminology from the documentational point of view. The
formulated terminology covers four major categories, i.e.
knowledge, communication, formation, and text properties,
consisting of a total of 57 terms. The constructed terminology not
only theoretically systematises the knowledge accumulated inprevious studies but also would provide a scaﬀold for better
process and communication in translation practices and training.

Received 14 July 2021
Accepted 21 February 2022
KEYWORDS

Terminology construction;
literature review; source text
analysis for translation;translation parameters;
typology of source
document properties

1. Introduction
In many practical settings of translation projects, various actors are involved in the translation process, such as clients, translation service providers (TSPs), project managers,
translators, revisers, and reviewers (ISO, 2015). To facilitate smooth communication
between them, it is crucial to use consistent terminologies in each step of the translation
workﬂow, including source document (SD)1 understanding, translation, revision, and
CONTACT Rei Miyata
miyata.rei.f2@f.mail.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University,
Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan*The formulated terminology is also presented in the following book chapter:
Rei Miyata & Takuya Miyauchi (forthcoming 2022). Metalanguages for Source Document Analysis: Properties andElements. In R. Miyata, M. Yamada, & K. Kageura (Eds.), Metalanguages for Dissecting Translation Processes: Theoretical
Development and Practical Applications. Routledge.
This article is original and diﬀerent from the book chapter in that it includes the theoretical discussions regarding source
document proﬁling and fully reports the method and results of the terminology formulation.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

2

R. MIYATA

review. Among others, terminologies for the revision and review processes have been
established. Several translation quality assessment frameworks oﬀer systematic lists ofterms for identifying translation issue types and have been widely adopted by TSPs to
ensure the quality of translations. For example, MQM (Multidimensional Quality
Metrics) (Burchardt & Lommel, 2014; Lommel et al., 2014) hierarchically lists morethan 100 issue types derived from an examination of existing quality assessment
frameworks.
In contrast, terminologies for the SD understanding process have not necessarily beenutilised in translation practices, while many eﬀorts hitherto have been made to present
terminologies (e.g. ISO, 2012; Nord, 2005). One of the reasons for this is that, althougheach terminology is useful individually, taken together, terminologies may not be consistent; their scope, perspectives and entries are diﬀerent from each other. A consensus about
the process and terms among translation scholars and practitioners has yet to be established. To enhance the translation process and encourage communication among theactors involved in it, a well-managed terminology is crucially needed.
The SD understanding process can be further grouped into two processes: (1) theprocess of understanding the status and properties of a document as a whole, and (2)the process of understanding the speciﬁc textual elements within the document, or translation units, which will be transferred into a target language. With a speciﬁc focus on theformer process, which can be called source document (SD) proﬁling, this article aims toprovide a systematic typology of document properties as a terminology by reviewing literature on translation theories and practices. While the target literature was mainly
selected from the inﬂuential work of functional theories, in which communicative situations and purposes are given great importance, terms and concepts regarding such textexternal factors were interpreted as the properties of documents, which is the most substantial theoretical standpoint of this review.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 examines the notion
and role of documents in translation and provides the formal deﬁnition of the SD
proﬁling process in comparison with the related processes of translation. Section 3
explains the scope and procedures of the literature review used to collect and organise
the existing terms. In Section 4, the resulting systematic typology of document properties
is presented as the terminology for SD proﬁling. Finally, Section 5 concludes the article
with implications for future work.

2. What is source document proﬁling?
The core process of translation includes achieving a proper understanding of the object
to be translated in the initial step. As Nord (2005, p. 1) emphasised, translation-oriented
source text analysis not only facilitates thorough comprehension of a text but also provides a foundation for each decision made by the translator in the translation process.
The widely-acknowledged standard for translation services, ISO 17100, explicitly
deﬁnes the ‘source language content analysis’ as a preparatory step taken before embarking on the productive process of translation, stating that TSPs ‘shall ensure that thesource language content is analyzed to ensure eﬃcient and eﬀective performance ofthe translation project’ (ISO, 2015, p. 9). From the viewpoint of translation competence,
PACTE (2000, p. 102) lists ‘comprehension competence (the ability to analyse, synthesisePERSPECTIVES

3

and activate extra-linguistic knowledge so as to capture the sense of a text)’ as one of the
sub-components of ‘transfer competence’, which is the central competence necessary fortranslation. The translation competence deﬁned in EMT (2017, p. 8) also includes thefollowing: ‘Analyse a source document, identify potential textual and cognitive diﬃculties and assess the strategies and resources needed for appropriate reformulation in linewith communicative needs’.
While the studies and frameworks above refer to a similar range of translation processes, i.e. processes taking place before the interlingual transfer process, several terminological variations are observed in terms of the object to be translated, such as ‘source text’,‘source language content’, and ‘source document’, and of the action, such as ‘analysis’ and‘comprehension’. Hence, the following subsections include an examination of theseterms and an attempt to formalise their usage and scope.
2.1. The notion of documents in translation
In the ﬁeld of translation studies, the term ‘source text’ (ST) is usually adopted to refer tothe object to be translated, which is ‘not simply a linguistic entity, as it enters into networks of relationships of not only a linguistic, but also a textual and cultural nature’(Shuttleworth & Cowie, 1997, p. 158). For example, to lay the foundations for translation-oriented source text analysis, Nord (2005, pp. 13–17) critically examined the‘text-centred’ notions of textuality and provided a perspective for considering both thestructural and pragmatic aspects of text along with their interdependence. However, ina general sense, the notion of ‘text’ is chieﬂy regarded as comprising linguistic elements,
and, particularly, research communities in linguistics and natural language processing
have tended to focus on the linguistic or structural aspects of a text. This may sometimes
become a source of miscommunication between translation studies and related areas inboth research and practice. In this context, this article adopts this rather general view oftexts and, instead, examines the notion of documents in contrast to that of texts.
Referring to communication theory, Sager (1997, p. 27) pointed out that ‘[i]t is thewriter’s intention encoded in the document which distinguishes a document from a‘text’, i.e. a unit of form and content only’, noting that translators ‘mainly deal with documents’. The point is, again, that while a text is viewed as a neutral linguistic or informational unit, a document can be positioned in a situation of communication involving
actors, such as writers and readers.
This view is useful as a point of departure, but it does not suﬃce to deﬁne documents.
For example, consider the sentence ‘Please send me the book by Wednesday’ as a text that
expresses a writer’s intention, such as requesting a reader to do something. Is this sentence a document? Is it possible to translate this sentence adequately? The answer may
be no; translators may not be able to concretely decide how to translate this isolated
text even if they know (only) the intention of the writer. They may also need to know
other kinds of information regarding the text, such as the intended reader of the sentence
and the medium used to convey the message. In other words, the intention is only a single
aspect of the document although it is an important factor to be considered in translation.
More importantly, the notion of a document precedes a text and its properties; the intention encoded in the text is identiﬁable only after the document is objectiﬁed. Here, we canobserve the inherent status of a document that is conceptually diﬀerent from the text.

4

R. MIYATA

The notion of documents has been extensively discussed in the ﬁeld of library andinformation science (e.g. Buckland, 1997, 2018; Lund, 2010). Among the physical,
social, and cognitive aspects of documents mentioned by Buckland (2018), the social
aspect can be of great importance in translation, subsuming the communication situation
regarding the documents. Thus, this view is naturally related to the ‘functionalist’
approach (e.g. Nord, 2018) in that the communication situation surrounding an ST is
considered in the process of translation. Nevertheless, we should note that the functionalist approach tends to regard an ST as one of the variables in the overall situation under
the purpose, or ‘Skopos’, of translation. This is diﬀerent from the view that each document is unique and irreplaceable in society. In this view, as described above, we ﬁrst
objectify the document as a base unit and then identify its surrounding information as
its properties. This can be called the ‘documentational’ approach.
Given the unique status of each document in society, a text included in the document
is not a random collection of text pieces. These pieces are interrelated to each other toform a whole text. This view is related to the genre perspective which focuses on ‘the conventional structures used to construct a complete text within the variety, for example, theconventional way in which a letter begins and ends’ (Biber & Conrad, 2009, p. 2). The
notion of completeness is, therefore, important. From the genre perspective, we view
any textual segment not in isolation, but in relation to the complete text, or the document, of which it forms a part.
In summary, a document cannot be compositionally deﬁned using a text and its properties.Rather, it can be deﬁned as a unique object that bears functions in society andmainly consists of a complete text. Only after the acknowledgement of the document
itself can the certain properties of and textual elements within the document be examined. It should be noted here that in contemporary technologised environments of commercial translation in which translation memories (TMs) are employed, the original unitsof documents are fragmented and translators are presented with ‘a set of sequentiallynumbered segments’ (Olohan, 2020, p. 52). Although facilitating or constraining translators to reuse previously translated segments can increase their productivity andimprove the consistency of translations, the problem of the decontextualisation of
texts induced by TM-based translation environments has long been recognised andhas sometimes been referred to as the ‘sentence salad’ phenomenon (Bedard, 2000;
Bowker, 2005) or ‘collage’ translations (Mossop, 2006). Schneider et al. (2018, p. 753)
also stated that ‘picking one suggested translation “out of context” is a very risky procedure since the topic of the original document might be completely diﬀerent andthus unsuitable’. While translators process texts in a variety of linguistic forms using
various technologies, their decision-making processes during translation are premisedon the proper recognition of the documents.
2.2. Deﬁnition of source document proﬁling
Based on the examination of the notion of documents above, we can broadly identify two
aspects of (source) documents: properties and elements. The document properties widely
cover the external attributes of a document or any document-wide characteristics of acomplete text. For example, the document properties include the ‘author’ and ‘createdperiod’ as well as the ‘degree of formality’ of language use generally observed in the

PERSPECTIVES

5

document. On the other hand, document elements are document-internal segments thatcan mostly be identiﬁed in textual or linguistic forms, such as words, phrases, and sentences. A relevant concept is the translation unit, which is deﬁned as ‘the entity which istaken to be processed by the translator at a given time during the process of translation’(Palumbo, 2009, p. 140). Bassnett (2013, pp. 126–127) stressed that the entire text, whichcorresponds to the document in this article, is the ‘prime unit’ and that smaller translatable units within the text should be related to the whole. In this regard, while this term,
the translation unit, encompasses the document itself (including its properties) as well as
the document elements, the conception of the document as a distinct, primal unit isimportant in translation.
Moreover, the dichotomy between the properties of the whole document and its
internal elements is practically beneﬁcial as the identiﬁcation process of the document
properties may be separately conducted in advance of that of document elements. In
commercial translation projects, the process of identifying document properties is conducted in the project preparation stage. ISO (2012, p. 12) prescribes that the preliminary
project speciﬁcations should cover ‘source content information, including source
language, text type, audience and purpose, subject ﬁeld, volume, known complexity
and challenges, and origin’, most of which can be regarded as document properties.
This information is provided to the translators in the subsequent production stage.
The process of identifying document elements is more closely tied to the productive
process of translation. Gile (2009, p. 89), for example, stated that ‘[t]ranslation can bemodelled as a recurrent two phase process operating on successive Text segments: theﬁrst phase is comprehension, and the second is reformulation in the target language’.
This article is focused on the former process, that is, the identiﬁcation of SD properties, which can be called ‘source document (SD) proﬁling’. A document property can beformalised as a {name: value(s)} pair, such as {language: Japanese}, {genre: business
letter}, and {purpose: to inform stakeholders of the release of a new product}. Here,the ‘names’ of the document properties correspond to the ‘terms’, and they are interchangeably used in this article. A well-organised set of SD properties constitutes an
SD proﬁle.2 Hence, the SD proﬁling process can be restated as the process of specifying
the values of the document properties listed in the SD proﬁle.
The speciﬁed SD proﬁle provides the basis for the subsequent core process of translation. These SD properties are not necessarily preserved in the target document (TD).
Instead, the SD properties should be, when necessary, appropriately converted to TD
properties based on the translation brief or purpose, which will directly govern translators’ decision making. While the detailed formalisation of this conversion process isbeyond the scope of this article, we should be aware that the role and necessity of SD
proﬁling in the overall process of translation (see Nord, 2005, pp. 5–39 for detailed
discussions).

3. Methodology: a literature review
3.1. Target literature
The aim of this article is to provide a formalised terminology for SD proﬁling, that is, anorganised list of terms that refer to document properties. Although several terminologies

6

R. MIYATA

used for ST analysis or source content analysis (e.g. ISO, 2012; Nord, 2005) can be referenced as a starting point, their perspectives and coverage diverge, and some terminological inconsistencies are observed. What is ﬁrst needed is to establish a broad, consistentunderstanding of the existing terminologies. Therefore, taking the literature review
approach, this article investigates the existing terminologies to collect the terms thatare used to indicate document properties and conceptually organise them to form a comprehensive terminology.
Table 1 shows eight books or documents on translation studies and practices selected
as the target of this review,3 all of which include terms regarding document properties.
The target literature was mostly selected from authoritative books on functional theoriesof translation, that is, Nord (2005), Reiss (1971/2000), Reiss and Vermeer (1991/2013),
and Snell-Hornby (1995).4 As mentioned in Section 2, the functionalist approach
attaches importance to extralinguistic communicative situations, that naturally overlap
with the scope of document properties. To further expand the coverage of terminology,
diﬀerent perspectives were also incorporated. The work on translation evaluation models
by House ([1977] 2014; [1997] 2014), which can be broadly categorised as a ‘discourse
and register approach’ (Munday, 2016, pp. 141–168), includes source text analysis processes in the models. The textbook by Newmark (1988) has been widely used in translation training and oﬀers practical methods and frameworks for translation, including
the analysis of source text. While these textbooks are chieﬂy used for theoretical readings
in universities or professional translator training, ISO (2012) principally caters to thepractical needs of the translation industry. As such, the target literature covers various
perspectives on SD proﬁling, and a wide range of terms can be obtained from the review.

3.2. Procedure for terminology construction
The targeted literature is used as a source of terms for document properties. The review
proceeds in two phases:
Term extraction phase: From each source, extract (1) noun phrases that refer to document
properties as terms (i.e. property names), (2) presented examples or options for the properties as values, and (3) the deﬁnitions or explanations to be used as descriptions.
Term organisation phase: Examine the extracted terms, referring to, if any, their values anddescriptions, and hierarchically synthesise them into a uniﬁed typology.

Figure 1 show an example of the execution of the term extraction phase. From this sample
paragraph by Nord (2005, p. 58), two terms, namely ‘addressee’ and ‘chance receiver’, canTable 1. Target literature for the review.
No

Literature

Orientation

Process

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

House ([1977]2014)
House ([1997]2014)
ISO (2012)
Newmark (1988)
Nord (2005)
Reiss (1971/2000)
Reiss and Vermeer (1991/2013)
Snell-Hornby (1995)

Theory/Pedagogy/Practice
Theory/Pedagogy/Practice
Practice
Pedagogy
Theory/Pedagogy/Practice
TheoryTheoryTheoryQuality assessment
Quality assessment
All processes in translation projects
Translation (including ST analysis)
ST analysis
Quality assessment
Translation
TranslationPERSPECTIVES

7

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 ofthis article.

be captured as document properties, along with their descriptions and values. In the workof Nord (2005), these terms are subsumed under the category of ‘audience’, which isfurther subsumed under ‘extratextual factors’. To indicate the hierarchical relationshipof the categories, the following notation is used in this article: superordinate term → subordinate term (e.g. extratextual factors → audience → chance receiver).
In the term organisation phase, the collected terms are aggregated to form a comprehensive terminology. In this process, the terms are adjusted in scope and, if necessary,
renamed to resolve any inconsistencies in related terms and maintain the systematicityof the terminology.

4. Terminology of source document properties
Through the review process in Section 3, a total of 90 terms regarding document properties were extracted from the literature and examined in a bottom-up manner. Table 2
shows the overview of the resultant terminology consisting of 57 formalised terms thatare hierarchically organised. The correspondence between the formulated terms and collected original terms is provided in Appendix.
One novelty of this terminology is the systematic categorisation of terms. Nord (2005)
provided a well-organised framework in which factors for ST analysis are broadly divided
into extratextual and intratextual categories. The former includes, sender, sender’s intention, audience, medium, place of communication, time of communication, motive forcommunication, and text function, while the latter includes subject matter, content, presupposition, text composition, non-verbal elements, lexis, sentence structure, and8

R. MIYATA

Table 2. Formulated terminology of source document properties.
Knowledge property(K01) subject ﬁeld(K02) topic(K03) genre(K04) diﬃculty(K05) background knowledge(a) academic discipline(b) presupposition(K06) resource(a) origin(b) terminology

Formation property(F01) communication medium(F02) symbol type(F03) ﬁle(a) volume(b) format(c) markup(d) editability(F04) structure(a) document structure(b) content structure

Communication property(C01) sending(a) sender(i) responsible sender(ii) author(b) sending time(c) sending place(C02) receiving(a) receiver(i) addressee(ii) chance receiver(b) receiving time(c) receiving place(C03) sender–receiver relationship(C04) communication ﬁeld
(C05) function(C06) purpose(C07) background situation

Text property(T01) language(T02) register(a) mode(b) formality scale(T03) dialect(a) geolect(b) chronolect(c) sociolect(T04) style(a) stance(b) emotional tone(c) literariness(d) peculiarity / creativity(T05) quality(a) cohesion(b) coherence(c) readability(d) speakability(e) degree of error(T06) representation patternsuprasegmental features. This dichotomy – extratextual vs. intratextual – is generally
applicable but seems too coarse-grained to systematically accommodate the wide
variety of document properties identiﬁed in the review. More importantly, the focus of
this study is the unit of document, and even communicative situations are regarded as
properties of the document.
Therefore, the top-level categories of the formulated terminology were deﬁned basedon the general aspects of documents, namely knowledge, communication, formation, andtext. The knowledge properties indicate the status of a document in relation to the knowledge or other documents accumulated in society. The communication properties capture
the role and function of a document in the overall communicative situation surrounding
it; these properties have been extensively mentioned in the literature on functionalist
approaches, such as by Nord (2005) and Reiss and Vermeer (1991/2013). The formation
properties are related to how the content to be conveyed is packaged and encoded as avisible document – whether physical or digital – with a speciﬁc structure. The text properties, in contrast, pertain to how the content to be conveyed is linguistically materialised.
Although the text properties are applicable to various textual spans within a document,
the focus of this study is the whole text, that is, the document-wide characteristics of text.
In the following subsections, details of each term in these four categories will be
explained.

PERSPECTIVES

94.1. Knowledge properties(K01) subject ﬁeld and (K02) topic pertain to the following question: What is this document about? The subject ﬁeld refers to the general categories of subjects, such as chemicalengineering and personal ﬁnance, while the topic can be deﬁned to indicate more speciﬁc
content, such as ‘a story about a bear family’ (House, [1997] 2014, p. 75). Although theprevious literature does not seem to explicitly distinguish between such diﬀerences in
granularity, e.g. ‘topic’ (House, [1977] 2014, p. 30; Newmark, 1988, p. 40) and ‘subject
matter’ (House, [1997] 2014, p. 65; Nord, 2005, p. 93; Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 70), it
would be useful to conceptually separate these terms to understand an SD in detail.
The notion of the (K3) genre and its equivalents has been well discussed in the literature on translation studies. House, [1997]2014, p. 64), for example, aﬃrms the importance of the category of genre for translation quality assessment, noting that ‘it enables
one to refer any single textual exemplar to the class of texts with which it shares acommon purpose or function’. Nevertheless, the deﬁnition of genre has not been fully
established or shared in the target literature, even in linguistics (e.g. Biber & Conrad,2009, pp. 21–23). Since a rigorous inspection of the deﬁnition of genre is beyond thescope of this article, the following concise deﬁnition which is acknowledged in translation studies is adopted: ‘conventional forms of texts associated with particular typesof social occasion’ (Hatim & Mason, 1997, p. 218). A wide variety of genres with
diﬀerent levels of granularity have been presented in various types of literature fromutility patents and appliance user manuals (ISO, 2012, p. 19) to recipes and weather
reports (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 167). These text classes may also be called‘text types’ not only in everyday language, but also in the target literature, such as ISO(2012, p. 19) and the work of Newmark (1988, p. 40). However, the term ‘text type’ isspeciﬁcally used as a function-oriented notion of text classes in translation studies (e.g.
expressive text type). To avoid confusion between theory and practice, the term
‘genre’, which is also familiar to those who are not researchers, has been adopted.
(K04) diﬃculty is an ordinal concept, ranging from easy to diﬃcult. Newmark (1988,
p. 14) provides convenient categories of diﬃculty: simple, popular, neutral (using basic
vocabulary only), educated, technical, and opaquely technical (comprehensible only to
an expert). It should be noted that this property focuses on the diﬃculty of thecontent conveyed by an SD. While the diﬃculty of content is generally correlated withthat of form, i.e. lexis and structure, it is important to distinguish between the two asdiﬃcult content may sometimes be conveyed in plain language.
(K05) background knowledge is the knowledge that is supposed to be or should beknown by readers to properly understand an SD. Snell-Hornby (1995, p. 33) mentioned
the ‘non-linguistic disciplines’ underlying translation, stating, for example, ‘literarytranslation presupposes a background in literary studies and cultural history’. This canbe regarded as an SD property and renamed as (a) academic discipline. Other typesof background knowledge have been broadly categorised as (b) presupposition,
examples of which are ‘the knowledge on the part of the receiver that this [Twelfth
Night or What You Will] is the title of a play’ (Nord, 2005, p. 105) and ‘the reference
to Goethe’s play Faust, Part I, line 421’ (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 138).
Finally, (K06) resource is diﬀerent from the other knowledge properties as it refers toconcrete, visible entities, such as documents and linguistic expressions, rather than10

R. MIYATA

abstract types of knowledge, such as topic and diﬃculty, as mentioned above. While
many kinds of resources can be included in this property, the following two terms
were speciﬁcally identiﬁed: the (a) origin of an SD and the (b) terminology relevantto the source content (ISO, 2012, p. 20).

4.2. Communication properties
The ﬁrst three properties, C01–C03, are related to the sending–receiving situation. (C01)sending and (C02) receiving symmetrically cover (a) sender/receiver (‘who’), (b)sending/receiving time (‘when’), and (c) sending/receiving place (‘where’). Some of theinconsistencies among similar terms such as ‘receiver’, ‘addressee’, ‘audience’, ‘readership’, and ‘recipient’ have been adjusted to keep the typology systematic. It is important
to note that the values of these properties greatly vary; for example, ‘adult’, ‘Spanish’, and‘his wife’ (Nord, 2005, pp. 59–60) are all instances of (C02-a-i) addressee. We canobserve here that the focus and granularity of the descriptions diﬀer from each other.
How to eﬀectively specify these values with the subsequent translation process inmind is yet to be established.
The (C04) communication ﬁeld refers to the domain in which an SD is communicated and captures the broader communication situation. Examples include ‘scholarly,
philosophical, religious, aesthetic or everyday communication’ (Reiss & Vermeer,
1991/2013, p. 139). In this regard, it is diﬀerent from the actor-oriented (C03)sender–receiver relationship.
The (C05) function indicates the communicative eﬀects that are implied in an SD,
which are of central importance in the functionalist approach. The notion of functionis also closely associated with the ‘text type’, the categories of which correspond to
those of functions, such as expressive, informative, and operative. These categories are
based on the functional view of language (e.g. Buhler, 1934; Jakobson, 1959/2013). As
mentioned earlier, the term ‘text type’ might be a source of confusion outside translation
studies; thus, the term ‘function’ is adopted. Although the range of functions diﬀers
depending on the literature, in general, three to six basic categories have been listed,
examples of which are as follows:.
.
.
.

expressive, informative, vocative, aesthetic, phatic, metalingual (Newmark, 1988,
pp. 39–44);
referential (denotative, cognitive), expressive (emotive), operative (appellative, conative, persuasive, vocative), phatic (Nord, 2005, p. 47);
representation, expression, pursuation (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 26);
informative, expressive, operative, multimedia (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 137).

Like the notion of function, the (C06) purpose is the communicative goal of an SD. A
purpose can be abstracted as a function; for example, ‘to give a list of the necessary ingredients’ for cooking (Nord, 2005, p. 56) corresponds to an ‘informative’ function. The
sender’s intention (Newmark, 1988, p. 12; Nord, 2005, p. 53) is interpreted as the
purpose of an SD. This is important as the present study takes the document-oriented
view of translation, avoiding subjective concepts such as intention.

PERSPECTIVES

11

The (C07) background situation explains how and through what process an SD is
produced and communicated, broadly covering its chronological and causal background,such as ‘because something of importance has happened’ and ‘because it is Grandfather’s
70th birthday’ (Nord, 2005, p. 75). This property was rendered from the term ‘motive ofcommunication’ (Nord, 2005, p. 74) to avoid the subjective connotation of the term
‘motive’.
4.3. Formation properties
The most basic forms of a document are the (F01) communication medium, such as
newspaper, magazine, book, multi-volume encyclopedia, leaﬂet, and brochure (Nord,
2005, p. 64), and (F02) symbol type, such as text, images, audio, and video recordings(ISO, 2012, p. 20). Although the direct object to be translated is the linguistic expressions
or text, these properties fundamentally govern the way of translation.
The (F03) ﬁle covers the properties from the viewpoint of document management,
including (a) volume, (b) format, (c) markup, and (d) editability. Importantly, theseproperties are only mentioned in ISO (2012, p. 20), which is mainly intended for prescribing the processes of translation projects in practice. These practical aspects of documents tend to be missed in translation theories.
The formation properties mentioned above can be speciﬁed in the form ‘The [propertyname] is [property value]’. Some examples are as follows:.
.

The (F01) communication medium is a newspaper.
The (F03-c) markup is XML.

In contrast, (F04) structure properties deal with the internal structure of documents,
and description of the values can be more complicated. Some examples are as follows:.
.

(F04-a) document structure: the document is composed of a title, two levels of sections at maximum with headings, and endnotes.
(F04-b) content structure: the document is composed of an introduction, an entry
into the subject, examples, and a conclusion.

The focus here is not on each element in the values, such as the title or introduction,but on the composition of the elements within the whole document. In relation to thispoint, it is also notable that each element is interrelated with the other elements andthe document itself; for example, a subsection with a heading is hierarchically subsumed
under the section.
4.4. Text properties
The (T01) language is the basic property, although it has seldom been explicitly mentioned as a document property in the literature since it is a given from the outset. The
exception is ISO (2012, p. 19), which not only mentions languages in the general sense(e.g. Portuguese and English) but also variants or locale (e.g. Brazilian Portuguese and
UK English).

12

R. MIYATA

The (T02) register refers to ‘a variety associated with a particular situation ofuse (including particular communication purposes)’ (Biber & Conrad, 2009,p. 6). While the basic options of the (a) mode are spoken or written, actual texts
may combine them in a complex manner, such as ‘[w]ritten to be read aloud as
if not written’ (House, [1997] 2014, p. 78). As for the (b) formality scale,
Newmark (1988, p. 14) provides ﬁne-grained options: oﬃcialese, oﬃcial, formal,
neutral, informal, colloquial, slang, and taboo. These parameters are decided
according to the situational contexts of discourse, and the resulting linguistic variations are functional.
On the other hand, (T03) dialect is not functional but conventional, and linguistic
variations are associated with speciﬁc groups of language users (Biber & Conrad, 2009,p. 11). While many types of dialects have been investigated in sociolinguistics (e.g.
Holmes & Wilson, 2017; Hudson, 1996), in this review, three properties – (a) geolect,(b) chronolect, and (c) sociolect,5 which respectively reﬂect the geographical, temporal,
and social dimensions of language users – are identiﬁed. In this study, dialects are
regarded as properties of the text in the document, not its sender. It is possible that an
American author in the twenty-ﬁrst century might write texts using old British
English. In this case, the text properties would be identiﬁed chieﬂy based on text
written in old British English.
The (T04) style is related to the notion of register, and the deﬁnitions and scopeof these terms are often vague and inconsistent in the target literature. Indeed, theexisting terminology in translation studies points out that style is ‘a highly contentious term, disliked by many scholars and researchers because of its vagueness yet
frequently used in descriptions of linguistic and translation phenomena’(Palumbo, 2009, p. 110). According to the style perspective presented by Biber
and Conrad (2009, p. 18), linguistic patterns are ‘associated with aesthetic preferences, inﬂuenced by the attitudes of the speaker/writer about language’.6 Here we
can extend this view and deﬁne styles as manifested varieties of text ascribable tothe author’s preferences or characteristics. Importantly, this deﬁnition includes
diverse types of preferences, such as (a) stance and (b) emotional tone, which
are not limited to ‘aesthetic’ ones.
(T05) quality refers to how linguistically good/bad, or easy/complex, the text is.
Although the quality of a translation is one of the central topics in translation studies,that of an SD is not widely mentioned in the literature. The exception is ISO (2012,
p. 20), which lists several aspects of an SD’s quality as complexity parameters in the translation process, such as (a) cohesion and (b) coherence. The (c) readability property is
distinguished from the (K04) diﬃculty property in Section 4.1, with the former being
concerned with the linguistic forms of a text and the latter being concerned with theknowledge that it aims to convey.
The last property, (T06) representation pattern, refers to how communicative acts
are materialised in a text, which is beyond linguistic viewpoints. This includes, forexample, monologue and dialogue (House, [1977] 2014, p. 29). Although this appears
to be included in the communication properties in Section 4.2, the communicativeacts in question are solely at the level of the text and are irrelevant to the document-external actors. For example, the dialogue between two characters in a novel can be identiﬁed
without referring to the author’s communication situation.

PERSPECTIVES

13

5. Conclusions and outlook
In this article, a literature review was conducted to formulate a systematic terminology
for SD proﬁling, an important preparatory process of translation to specify the propertiesof an SD. A total of 90 terms regarding document properties were ﬁrst collected from theliterature on translation studies and practices, and were then comprehensively examined
and organised hierarchically as a terminology. The formulated terminology consists of 57
formalised terms in four major categories: knowledge, communication, formation, andtext properties. The theoretical signiﬁcance of this review is that existing terms were
examined from the documentational point of view; even document-external parameters,such as the sender’s intention, were interpreted as properties of documents.
This wide-ranging terminology can be used in the SD proﬁling process and facilitate accurate communication between the various actors engaged in translation practices, including
project managers, translators, and clients. To that end, the terminology should ﬁrst be validated in actual use scenarios. Although it was formulated with the use by various people inmind, including those outside the ﬁeld of translation studies, some document properties may
not be easily understood by them. In practice, furthermore, it is unrealistic to fully specify all
the document properties in the SD proﬁling process. Hence, the reﬁnement of terminology
based on users’ feedback and the development of user guidelines will be an important step
towards the eﬀective and eﬃcient implementation of SD proﬁling in practice.
The proper use of terminologies also plays a crucial role in translation education andtraining.7 Terminologies can be used as common languages to share the understanding oftranslation processes and products between translation trainers and trainees, and canhelp trainers transfer their expertise to the trainees. In such use scenarios, the formulated
terminology of SD properties should be evaluated in terms of learnability (whether theterminology is easily assimilated by learners), accuracy (whether learners can correctly
specify the document properties), and eﬀectiveness (whether the use of terminology
improves the translation processes and products).
This article is speciﬁcally focused on the SD proﬁling process and does not explicitly consider the subsequent core task of translation, including comprehending SD elements andtransferring them into a target language. Future work should include elaboration on theirrelationship. Although previous studies have pointed out the role and function of SD
proﬁling in the translation process (e.g. Nord, 2005; Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013), the detailed
linkage between SD properties and translation strategies has not been comprehensively investigated. Since frameworks and terminologies of translation strategies have already been proposed (e.g. Chesterman, 2016; Molina & Albir, 2002; Vinay & Darbelnet, 1958/1995), eﬀorts
should be invested in identifying which SD properties prompt the use of which strategies.
These attempts to establish terminologies and their relations would eventually lead to theexplicit understanding of translation processes, which can contribute not only to theoretical
discussions in the ﬁeld of translation studies but also to translation practices.

Notes
1. In the ﬁeld of translation studies, the term ‘source text’ (ST) is commonly used to refer to theobject to be translated in the source language, but, in this article, ‘source document’ (SD) has
been deliberately adopted. The rationale for this choice is discussed in Section 2.

14

R. MIYATA

2. Although the range of SD properties to be identiﬁed can be deﬁned on an ad hoc basis, inpractical translation projects, it is eﬀective to deﬁne the scheme of SD proﬁle, i.e. a list of the
SD properties to be identiﬁed, in advance.
3. The book by House (2014) was used to refer to the work of House (1977) and House (1997),
reference notations of which are House, ([1977] 2014) and House ([1997] 2014), respectively.
4. Importantly, these books were selected by Munday (2016, pp. 113–114) as ‘key texts’ intranslation studies. Hence, it is reasonable to refer to them as a point of departure.
5. The terms ‘geolect’, ‘chronolect’, and ‘sociolect’ have been adopted from Young and Harrison (2004, pp. 35–36).
6. This view also overlaps the term ‘idiolect’, which is the ‘characteristics of the speech of anindividual, as against a dialect’ (Jackson, 2007, p. 85).
7. In the ﬁeld of language education, for example, Berry (2010) extensively discusses the role ofterminologies or metalanguages.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Professor Kyo Kageura of the University of Tokyo for useful discussions on
the notion and role of documents in translation. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for theirvaluable comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grants-in-Aid for
Scientiﬁc Research (KAKENHI) Grant Numbers 19H05660 and 19K20628.

Notes on contributor
Rei Miyata, PhD, is Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University,
Japan. His main research topic is the development of natural language processing technologies for
document authoring and translation. His publications include Controlled Document Authoring in
a Machine Translation Age (Routledge, 2020) and Metalanguages for Dissecting Translation Processes: Theoretical Development and Practical Applications (co-edited, Routledge, forthcoming2022).

ORCID
Rei Miyata

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7496-457X

References
Bassnett, S. (2013). Translation studies (4th ed.). Routledge.
Bedard, C. (2000). Memoire de traduction cherche traducteur de phrases … Traduire, 186, 41–49.
Berry, R. (2010). Terminology in English language teaching: Nature and use. Peter lang.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press.
Bowker, L. (2005). Productivity vs quality: A pilot study on the impact of translation memory
systems. Localisation Focus, 4(1), 13–20.

PERSPECTIVES

15

Buckland, M. K. (1997). What is a ‘document’? Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 48(9), 804–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199709)48:9<804::AIDASI5>3.0.CO;2-V
Buckland, M. K. (2018). Document theory. Knowledge Organization, 45(5), 425–436. https://doi.
org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-5-425
Buhler, K. (1934). Theory of language: The representational function of language (D. F. Goodwin,
Trans.). John Benjamins.
Burchardt, B., & Lommel, A. (2014). QT-LaunchPad Supplement 1: Practical Guidelines for the
Use of MQM in Scientiﬁc Research on Translation Quality. http://www.qt21.eu/downloads/
MQM-usage-guidelines.pdf.
Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory (2nd ed.).
John Benjamins.
EMT. (2017). European Master’s in Translation Competence Framework 2017. https://ec.europa.
eu/info/sites/default/ﬁles/emt_competence_fwk_2017_en_web.pdf.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). John
Benjamins.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. Routledge.
Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2017). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Routledge.
House, J. (1977). A model for translation quality assessment. Narr. (in House, 2014, 21–53).
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Narr. (in House, 2014, 63–84).
House, J. (2014). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. Routledge.
Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
ISO. (2012). ISO/TS 11669:2012. Translation Projects – General Guidance. International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO. (2015). ISO 17100:2015. Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services.
International Organization for Standardization.
Jackson, H. (2007). Key terms in linguistics. Continuum.
Jakobson, R. (1959/2013). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. Brower (Ed.), On Translation(pp. 232–239). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1959).
Lommel, A., Uszkoreit, H., & Burchardt, A. (2014). Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM): A
Framework for Declaring and Describing Translation Quality Metrics. Tradumatica, 12, 455–
463. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.77
Lund, N. W. (2010). Document, text and medium: Concepts, theories and disciplines. Journal ofDocumentation, 66(5), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011066817
Molina, L., & Albir, A. H. (2002). Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functionalist
approach. Meta, 47(4), 498–512. https://doi.org/10.7202/008033ar
Mossop, B. (2006). Has computerization changed translation? Meta, 51(4), 787–805. https://doi.
org/10.7202/014342ar
Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4th ed.). Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of amodel for translation-oriented text analysis (2nd ed.). Rodopi.
Nord, C. (2018). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
Olohan, M. (2020). Translation and practice theory. Routledge.
PACTE. (2000). Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems of a
research project. In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger, & M. Presas (Eds.), Investigating translation (pp. 99–
106). John Benjamins.
Palumbo, G. (2009). Key terms in translation studies. Continuum.
Reiss, K. (1971/2000). Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations: Categories andCriteria for Translation Quality Assessment (E. F. Rhodes, Trans.). St. Jerome. (Original work
published 1971).
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).

16

R. MIYATA

Sager, J. C. (1997). Text types and translation. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Text typology and translation(pp. 25–41). John Benjamins.
Schneider, D., Zampieri, M., & van Genabith, J. (2018). Translation memories and the translator:
A report on a user survey. Babel, 64(5–6), 734–762. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00062.sch
Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. St. Jerome.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins.
Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. John Benjamins. (Original work published, 1958).
Young, L., & Harrison, C. (2004). Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis:
Studies in social change. Continuum.

Appendix. Correspondence between the formulated terms and collected
original terms
Table A1. Knowledge properties.
Formulated term(K01) subject ﬁeld(K02) topic(K03) genre(K04) diﬃculty(K05) backgroundknowledge(a) academic discipline(b) presupposition(K06) resource(a) origin(b) terminology

Collected terms
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)
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)
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)
stylistic scales → generality (diﬃculty) (Newmark, 1988, p. 14)
subject matter (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 70)
non-linguistic disciplines (Snell-Hornby, 1995, p. 33)
intratextual factors → presupposition (Nord, 2005, p. 105); socio-cultural context →knowledge presupposed in the audience (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 138)
origin (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
source terminology (ISO, 2012, p. 20)

PERSPECTIVES

17

Table A2. Communication properties.
Formulated term(C01) sending(a) sender(i) responsible sender(ii) author(b) sending time(c) sending place(C02) receiving(a) receiver(i) addressee(ii) chance receiver(b) receiving time(c) receiving place(C03) sender–receiver
relationship(C04) communication ﬁeld
(C05) function(C06) purpose(C07) background situation

Collected terms
tenor → addresser (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); extra-linguistic determinants → speakerfactor (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 82); producer/sender (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 136)
extratextual factors → sender (Nord, 2005, p. 47)
extratextual factors → text producer (Nord, 2005, p. 47)
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)
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)
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)
extratextual factors → audience → chance receiver (Nord, 2005, p. 58)
extratextual factors → time of communication (Nord, 2005, p. 70); situational context →time (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 137)
extratextual factors → place of communication → place of text reception (Nord, 2005, p.
67); situational context → place (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 137)
dimensions of language use → social role relationship (House, [1977] 2014, p. 29); tenor→ participant relationship (House, [1997] 2014, p. 65)
communicative interaction (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 139)
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)
purpose (ISO, 2012, p. 19); intention of the text (Newmark, 1988, p. 12); extratextual
factors → sender’s intention (Nord, 2005, p. 53)
extratextual factors → motive for communication (Nord, 2005, p. 74)

Table A3. Formation properties.
Formulated term
(F01) communication
medium(F02) symbol type(F03) ﬁle(a) volume(b) format(c) markup(d) editability(F04) structure(a) document structure(b) content structure

Collected terms
format (Newmark, 1988, p. 40); extratextual factors → medium (Nord, 2005, p. 62)
complexity → form (ISO, 2012, p. 20); text variety (Reiss & Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 156)
volume (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
complexity → format (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
complexity → markup language (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
complexity → text-editable (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
intratextual factors → text composition → macrostructure (Nord, 2005, p. 112)
discourse → structure of the text → pointer (Newmark, 1988, p. 56); macrostructure (Reiss &Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 165)
discourse → structure of the text (Newmark, 1988, p. 56); content structure (Reiss &Vermeer, 1991/2013, p. 165)

18

R. MIYATA

Table A4. Text properties.
Formulated term(T01) language(T02) register(a) mode(b) formality scale(T03) dialect(a) geolect(b) chronolect(c) sociolect(T04) style(a) stance(b) emotional tone(c) literariness(d) peculiarity /creativity(T05) quality(a) cohesion(b) coherence(c) readability(d) speakability(e) degree of error(T06) representation
pattern

Collected terms
source language → variant/locale (ISO, 2012, p. 19)
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)
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)
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)
dimensions of language user → time (House, [1977]2014, p. 28); tenor → author’s
provenance → temporal (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); intratextual factors → lexis → aspectof time (Nord, 2005, p. 127); linguistic components → stylistic (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 60)
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)
tenor → author’s provenance → stance (House, [1997] 2014, p. 64); attitude (Newmark, 1988,
p. 15)
stylistic scales → emotional tone (Newmark, 1988, p. 14)
complexity → literary nature (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
linguistic components → stylistic (Reiss, 1971/2000, p. 63)
quality of the writing (Newmark, 1988, p. 16)
complexity → cohesion (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
complexity → coherence (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
complexity → readability (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
phonological aspects → speakability (Snell-Hornby, 1995, p. 34)
complexity → error (ISO, 2012, p. 20)
dimensions of language use → participation (House, [1977] 2014, p. 29); mode →participation (House, [1997] 2014, p. 13); text style (Newmark, 1988, p. 13)