Article published In:
Languages in ContrastVol. 16:2 (2016) ► pp.264–279
Discourse connectives across languages
Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation
Coherence relations linking discourse segments can be communicated explicitly by the use of connectives but also implicitly through juxtaposition. Some discourse relations appear, however, to be more coherent than others when conveyed implicitly. This difference is explained in the literature by the existence of default expectations guiding discourse interpretation. In this paper, we assess the factors influencing implicitation by comparing the number of implicit and explicit translations of three polysemous French connectives in translated texts across three target languages: German, English and Spanish. Each connective can convey two discourse relations: one that can easily be conveyed implicitly and one that cannot be easily conveyed implicitly in monolingual data. Results indicate that relations that can easily be conveyed implicitly are also those that are most often left implicit in translation in all target languages. We discuss these results in view of the cognitive factors influencing the explicit or implicit communication of discourse relations.
References
Asr, F. and Demberg, V
2012 Implicitness of Discourse Relations. Proceedings of the
24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics
, 2669–2684. Mumbai, India.
Barlow, M
2008 Parallel Texts and Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis. In Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, M. de los Ángeles Gómez González et al. (eds), 101–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Bertin, A
2002 L’Emergence du Connecteur En Effet en Moyen Français. Linx 461:37 – 50.
Blum-Kulka, S
1986 Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübigen: Narr.
Cartoni, B. and Meyer, T
2012 Extracting Directional and Comparable Corpora from a Multilingual Corpus for Translation Studies. Proceedings of
LREC 2012
, Istanbul, Turkey, May 23-25 2012.
Cartoni, B. Zufferey, S. and Meyer, T
Charolles, M. and Fagard, B
2012
En Effet en Français Contemporain: de la Confirmation à la Justification/Explication.” Le Français Moderne 801: 171–197.
Dancygier, B
1999 Conditionals and Prediction. Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Danlos, L
2012 Formalisation des Conditions d’Emploi des Connecteurs ‘En Réalité’ et ‘(Et) En Effet’. Proceedings of the
Third
Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
, Lyon, France, 493 – 508.
Das, D. and Taboada, M
2013 Explicit and Implicit Discourse Relations. A Corpus Study. Proceedings of the
2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association
, Alberta, Canada.
Fagard, B
2011 La Construction ‘En Effet’ dans les Langues Médiévales Romanes et la Question de l’Emprunt.” Oslo Studies in Language 31:26–69.
Fauconnier, G
1985 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halverson, S
2004 Connectives as a Translation Problem. In An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, H. Kittel et al. (eds), 562–572. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Iordanskaja, L. and Mel’čuk, I
1999 Textual Connectors across Languages: French En Effet vs. Russian V Samon Dele
. RASK 9/101:305–347.
Koehn, P
2005 Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. Proceedings of the
10
th
Machine Translation Summit
, Phuket, Thailand, 79–86, September 13-15.
Knott, A. and Dale, R
1994 Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 18(1):35–62.
Kuperberg, G. Paczynski, M. & Ditman, T
2011 Establishing Causal Coherence across Sentences: An ERP Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 231:1230 – 1246.
Hervey, S. and Higgins, I
1992 Thinking Translation. A Course in Translation Method, French-English. London: Routledge.
Mann, W. and Thomson, S
1992 Relational Discourse Structure: A Comparison of Approaches to Structuring Text by ‘Contrast’. In Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, S. Hwang and W. Merrifield (eds), 19–45. Dallas: SIL.
Murray, J
1995 Logical connectives and local coherence. In Sources of Cohesion in Text Comprehension, R. Lorch and E. O’Brien (eds.), 107 – 125. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
1997 Connectives and Narrative Text: The role of Continuity. Memory and Cognition 251: 227–236.
Pander-Maat, H
1998 Classifying negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics 301: 177–204.
Patterson, G. and Kehler, A
2013 Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. Proceedings of the
2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, Seattle, Washington, USA, 914–923.
Prasad, R. Dinesh, N. Lee, A. Miltsakaki, E. Robaldo, L. Joshi, A. and Webber B
2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the
6
th
International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, Marrakesh, Morocco, 2961–2968.
Rossari, C
2002 Les Adverbes Connecteurs: Vers une Identification de la Classe et des Sous-Classes. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 241:11–43.
Roze, C. Danlos, L. and Muller, P
2012 LEXCONN: A French Lexicon of Discourse Connectives. Discours 101, published online.
Sanders, J
1994 Perspective in Narrative Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Sanders, T
2005 Coherence, Causality and Cognitive Complexity in Discourse.
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning
, Biarritz, France, 105–114.
Sanders, T. and Noordman, L
2000 The Role of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing. Discourse Processes 291:37 – 60.
Sanders, T. Spooren, W. and Noordman, L
1992 Towards a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15(1):1–36.
Taboada, M
2006 Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 381:567–592.
2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In Discourse, of Course, J. Renkema (ed.), 125 – 138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J
1958 Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zufferey, S. and Cartoni, B
Zufferey, S. and Gygax, P
2015 The Role of Perspective Shifts for Processing and Translating Discourse Relations. Discourse Processes. published online ahead of print.
Cited by
Cited by 8 other publications
Dupont, Maïté & Sandrine Zufferey
2017. Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 270 ff. 
Fagard, Benjamin & Peter Blumenthal
2020. Topic shifts in contrast: Ways to change the subject in French and German. Journal of Pragmatics 156 ► pp. 206 ff.
Gràcia, Marta, Jesús M. Alvarado & Silvia Nieva
2021. Assessment of Oral Skills in Adolescents. Children 8:12 ► pp. 1136 ff.
Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė & Sibel Özer
2022. An Exploratory Analysis of TED Talks in English and Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish Translations. Contrastive Pragmatics 3:3 ► pp. 452 ff.
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal Gygax
2020. Do teenagers know how to use connectives from the written mode?. Lingua 234 ► pp. 102779 ff.
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal M. Gygax
2017. Processing Connectives with a Complex Form-Function Mapping in L2: The Case of French “En Effet”. Frontiers in Psychology 8
Özer, Sibel, Murathan Kurfalı, Deniz Zeyrek, Amália Mendes, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė, Julia Bosque-Gil, Milan Dojchinovski, Philipp Cimiano, Julia Bosque-Gil, Philipp Cimiano & Milan Dojchinovski
2022. Linking discourse-level information and the induction of bilingual discourse connective lexicons. Semantic Web 13:6 ► pp. 1081 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.