Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 23:1 (2011) ► pp.3–25

The future of general tendencies in translation

Explicitation in web localization

| Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Explicitation has long been considered a tendency in translation and has been empirically investigated by a number of scholars. This paper responds to Chesterman´s (2004a: 47) call to test explicitation phenomena on different translation modalities and types, and tests the explicitation hypothesis against a comparable web corpus containing 40m words. The fast evolving field of web localization was selected given that (1) if explicitation is a potential universal or general tendency, it should be equally present in current and future translation types; (2) localization is a specific case of translation in which explicitation might not be expected due to space constraints and web usability guidelines; (3) research using comparable web corpora has produced evidence contradicting other proposed general tendencies, such as conventionalization (Jiménez-Crespo 2009a; Kenny 2001). The results of the study confirm that despite specific constraints, localized texts show explicitation if contrasted with non-translated web texts belonging to the same digital genre.
Keywords: explicitation, tendencies in translation, universal hypotheses, web localization, corpus-based translation studies, comparable corpora
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Translation universals, explicitation and web localization
  • 3.Explicitation and web localization
    • 3.1Web localization and space constraints in translation
  • 4.Corpus-based methodologies and the study of explicitation
  • 5.Methodology: The Spanish Web Comparable Corpus
    • 5.1The Spanish Web Comparable Corpus
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Personal pronoun explicitation
    • 6.2Navigation menu terminology
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2011
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23.1.01jim
References (81)
References
Alcina, Amparo. 2008. “Translation technologies: scope, tools and resources”. Target 20:1. 79–102.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austermühl, Frank. 2001. Electronic tools for translators. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: implications and applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. 233–250.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: the challenges that lie ahead”. Harold Somers, ed. Terminology, LSP and Translation: studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996. 175–186.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “The role of corpora in investigating the linguistic behavior of professional translators”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4:2. 281–298.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “A Corpus-based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 2. 167–193.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1993. “Representativeness in corpus design”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 4. 243–257.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1986. “Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation”. Julianne House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and intercultural communication: discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1986. 17–35.Google Scholar
Bly, Robert. 2002. The Online Copywriter’s Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brinck, Tom, Darren Gergle and Scott Wood. 2002. Usability for the Web. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynn 2006. “Translation memory and ‘text’”. Lynn Bowker, ed. Lexicography, terminology and translation. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2006. 175–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Computer-aided translation technology: a practical introduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Cheong, Ho-Jeong. 2006. “Target text contraction in English into Korean Translation: a contradiction of presumed translation universals?”. Meta 51:2. 343–367.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. “Causal model for Translation Studies”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines. Research models in Translation Studies I. Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing, 2000. 15–27.Google Scholar
. 2004a. “Beyond the particular”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist?. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 33–50.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. “Hypotheses about translation universals.” Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær and Daniel Gile, eds. Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 1–13.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Response and discussion”. Paper presented at the MATS 2010, Methodological advances in Corpus-Based Translation Studies Conference, University College Ghent, Belgium, January 8, 9, 2010.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael. 2003. Translation and globalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter and Véronique Hoste (eds.). 2009. Evaluation of translation technology. LANS 8/2009. Brussels: Academic and Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean, Lee-Jahnke, Hannelore and Monique C. Cormier. 1999. Translation terminology. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Díaz-Cintas, Jorge. 2003. Teoría y práctica de la subtitulación: ingles/Español. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Dieguez, María I. 2008. “Análisis terminológico de sitios web localizados del ingles al Español: uso de técnicas de amplificación y elision”. Tradumática 61. Available at [URL]
Dunne, Kieran. 2006. Perspectives on localization. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund-Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and explicitation in the translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 2000. “Prolegomenon to a theory of translation”. Lawrence Venuti ed. The translation studies reader. London-New York: Routledge. 250–263.Google Scholar
Gamero, Silvia. 2001. La Traducción de textos técnicos. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun. 2008. “Universal thought in translation”. MuTra 2007–LSP translation scenarios: Conference proceedings, June 10, 2009. Available at [URL]
Halverson, Sandra Louise. 1998. “Translation studies and representative corpora: establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study”. Meta 43:4. 494–514.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James 1972/1988 “The name and nature of translation studies.” James S. Holmes, ed. Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies. Amserdam: Rodopi. 67–80.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1987. Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Beyond intervention: universals in translation”. Trans-kom 1:1. 6–19.Google Scholar
Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, 2010. “Explicitation and implicitation in legal translation: A process study of trainee translators”. Meta 55:2. 237–250.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeney, Cynthia. 2007. Writing for the web: A practical guide. Columbus: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2008a. El proceso de localización web: estudio contrastivo de un corpus comparable del género sitio web corporativo. Department of Translation and Interpreting, University of Granada, Spain. [PhD thesis]. Available at: [URL]
2008b. “Web genres in localization: a Spanish corpus study”. Localization Focus – The International Journal of Localization 6:1. 2–13.Google Scholar
2008c. “Caracterización del género ‘sitio web corporativo’ español: análisis descriptivo con fines traductológicos”. Maria Fernández Sánchez and Ricardo Muñoz Martín, eds. Aproximaciones cognitivas al estudio de la traducción y la interpretación. Granada: Comares, 2008. 259–300.Google Scholar
. 2009a. “Conventions in localisation: a corpus study of original vs. translated web texts.” Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized Translation 121. 79–102.Google Scholar
2009b. “Navegación Web accesible”. Tercedor, Maria Isabel, ed. Inclusión y accesibilidad desde el diseño y la presentación de materiales multimedia. Granada: Editorial Tragacanto, 187–206.Google Scholar
2010a. “The effect of Translation Memory tools in translated web texts: evidence from a comparative product-based study”. Linguistica Antverpiensia 81. 213–232.Google Scholar
2010b. “Localization and writing for a new medium: a review of digital style guides”. Tradumática 81. Available at: [URL]. DOI logo
Kenny, Dorothy. 2001. Lexis and creativity in translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga. 1996. “Back-translation as a tool for detecting explicitation strategies in translation”. Kinga Klaudy, Jose Lambert and Aniko Sohár, eds. Translation Studies in Hungary. Budapest: Scholastica, 99–114.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Explicitation”. Mona Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 80–84.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga and Karoly, Krisztina. 2003. “Implicitation in translation: an empirical justification of operational asymmetry in translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 6:1. 13–28.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larose, Robert. 1998. “Méthodologie de l’évaluation des traductions”. Meta 43:2. 163–186.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara. 1996. “Investigating simplification in an English Comparable Corpus of newspaper articles”. Kinga Klaudy and Janos Kohn, eds. Transferre Necesse Est: current issues of translation theory. Budapest: Scholastica, 1996. 531–540.Google Scholar
Laviosa, Sara. 1998. “The corpus-based approach: A new paradigm in Translation Studies”. Meta 43:4. 474–479.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Corpus-based Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
LISA. 2003. Localization Industry Primer. Geneva: The Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA). Available at: [URL]
. 2004. Localization Industry Primer, 2nd Edition. Geneva: The Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA).Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten. 2005. “Norms and nature in Translation Studies”. Synaps: Fagspråk, Kommuniksjon, Kulturkunnscap 161. 13–19.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna and Kujamäki, Pekka. 2004. Translation universals: do they exist?. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2009. The Routledge companion to Translation Studies. London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Jacob. 2000. Designing Web usability: the practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: News Riders.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Jacob and Loranger, Hoa. 2006. Prioritizing Web usability. Indianapolis: News Riders.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Jacob and Tahir, Marie. 2002. Homepage usability: 50 Websited deconstructed. Indianapolis: News Riders.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako. 2009. “Evolution of user-generated translation: fansubs, translation hacking and crowdsourcing”. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 11. 94–121.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O´Hagan, Minako and Ashworth, Donald. 2003. Translation-mediated communication in a digital World: facing the challenges of globalization and localization. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve. 2004. Introducing corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve and Mona Baker. 2000. “Reporting that in translated English: evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation?”. Across Languages and Cultures 1:2. 141–158.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perego, Elisa. 2003. “Evidence of explicitation in subtitling: towards a categorisation”. Across Languages and Cultures 4:1. 63–88.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Price, John and Lisa Price. 2002. Hot text. Web writing that works. Berkeley: News Riders.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, Tiina. 2004. “Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist?. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 165–176.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony, 2005. “Explaining explicitation”. Krisztina Károly and Ágota Fora, eds. New trends in Translation Studies: In honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest. Akadémiai Kiadó, 2005. 29–34.Google Scholar
Reineke, Detlef. 2005 .Traducción y localización. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Anroart Ediciones.Google Scholar
Saldhana, Gabriela. 2008. “Explicitation revisited: bringing the reader into the picture”. Transkom 1:1. 20–35.Google Scholar
Schäler, Reinhard. 2005. “The Irish model in localization”. Paper presented at LISA Forum Cairo 2005: Perspectives from the Middle East and Africa. Available at: [URL].
Snell-Hornby, Mary 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spyridakis, Jan H. 2000. “Guidelines for authoring comprehensible WebPages and evaluating their success”. Technical Communication 47:3. 359–382.Google Scholar
Swales, John 1990. Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 15–32.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonia. 2004. “Unique items—over—or under-represented in translated language?”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist?, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 177–184.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 2005. “Trajectories of research in Translation Studies”. Meta 50:4. 1082–1097.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies”. Meta 43:4. 652–659.Google Scholar
Vanderauwera, Rita. 1985. Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a ‘minority’ literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Venuti, Laurence. 2005. “Translation, history, narrative”. Meta 50:3. 800–816.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Li, Xi & Long Li
2021. Reframed narrativity in literary translation: an investigation of the explicitation of cohesive chains. Journal of Literary Semantics 50:2 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Casado Valenzuela, Alicia
2019. Los universales de localización. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 65:5 ► pp. 678 ff. DOI logo
Alós, Julieta, Sky Marsen & Noora Alkaabi
2017. The light belongs to Yves Saint Laurent: luxury beauty brands in translation. Perspectives 25:3 ► pp. 434 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
2017. Lexical variation, register and explicitation in medical translation. Translation and Interpreting Studies 12:3 ► pp. 405 ff. DOI logo
Zanettin, Federico
2013. Corpus Methods for Descriptive Translation Studies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 95 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Jimenez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2011. A corpus-based error typology: towards a more objective approach to measuring quality in localization. Perspectives 19:4 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 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.