A great number of translation problems are linguistic in nature, but they can only be properly diagnosed and their solutions 'objectively ' assessed if one takes account of the context in which the problematic elements occur. The paper focuses on a prototypical case of such translation problems: English cleft sentences and their counterparts in German. Clefts are claimed to establish a rhetorical relation with a propositional antecedent located beyond the local context, thus contributing to the formation of textual macro-structures. While the local context determines the focal interpretation of clefts within the current discourse, the appeal to earlier ideas attributes to the cleft a higher degree of contextual relevance.
1992 “Aspects of Cleft Constructions in Discourse”. Arbeitspapiere des SFB Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik, Bericht 19. Tübingen.
Delin, Judy
1995 “Presupposition and Shared Knowledge in It-clefts”. Language and Cognitive Processes 10:2. 97–120.
1991b “Spaltsatz oder Fokussierungspartikel?: Ein übersetzungswissenschaftlicher Exkurs zum Verhältnis zwischen Grammatik und Stilistik”. Manfred Kohrt and Christoph Küper, eds. Probleme der Übersetzungswissenschaft. Berlin: Institut für Linguistik der TU 1991 5–37. [Arbeitspapiere zur Linguistik, 26.]
Doherty, Monika
1996 “Passive Perspectives: Different Preferences in English and German—a Result of Parametrized Processing”. Linguistics 34:3. 491–543.
1999 “Position and Explicitness—Language Specific Conditions for the Use of Adverbial Clauses in Translations between German and English”. Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung [Studia Grammatical], 112–148.
Drubig, Bernhard
1998 “Focus and Connectedness: Towards a Typology of Focus Constructions”. Tübingen. [Manuscript.]
Erdmann, Peter
1990 “Fokuskonstruktionen im Deutschen und Englischen”. C. Gnutzmann, ed. Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 1990 69–83. [= Forum Angewandte Linguistik, 19.]
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
1999 “Information Packaging and Translation”. Sprach-spezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung [Studia Grammatica], 175–214.
Grewendorf, Günther und C. Poletto
1991 “Die Cleft-Konstruktion im Deutschen, Englischen und Italienischen”. Gisbert Fanselow and Sascha Felix, eds. Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. Tubingen 1991 174–216. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 39.]
Grice, Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation”. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press 1975 41–58.
Johansson, Stig and Knut Holland
forthcoming. “The English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus: Current Work and New Directions”.
Macheiner, Judith
1995Übersetzen: Ein Vademecum. Frankfurt am Main: Eichborn.
Russell, Bertrand
1945A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Touchstone.
van der Sandt, Rob
1988Context and Presupposition. London: Croom Helm.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Svenonius, Peter
1998 “Clefts in Scandinavian: An Investigation”. Artemis Alexiadiou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Paul Law and Ursula Kleinhenz, eds. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 101. 163–190.
2021. The Effect of Unit-of-Translation on Iranian Upper-Intermediate EFL Learners’ Achievement in Bizarre News Translation. International Journal of Research in English Education 6:1 ► pp. 77 ff.
Fischer, Klaus
2009. Cleft Sentences: Form, Function, and Translation. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 167 ff.
Károly, Krisztina
2013. News Discourse in Translation: Topical Structure and News Content in the Analytical News Article. Meta 57:4 ► pp. 884 ff.
Mi-Sun Mun
2010. 독일어 werden+Infinitiv 구문의 다의성과 행동규칙. Koreanische Zeitschrift für Germanistik 51:1 ► pp. 145 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 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.