The search for translation universals has been an important topic in translation studies over the past decades. In this paper, we focus on the notion of explicitation through a multifaceted study of causal connectives, integrating four different variables: the role of the source and the target languages, the influence of specific connectives and the role of the discourse relation they convey. Our results indicate that while source and target languages do not globally influence explicitation, specific connectives have a significant impact on this phenomenon. We also show that in English and French, the most frequently used connectives for explicitation share a similar semantic profile. Finally, we demonstrate that explicitation also varies across different discourse relations, even when they are conveyed by a single connective.
2003“A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.” In Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch: Lexicon, Grammar, Discourse, ed. by Arie Verhagen, and Jeroen van de Weijer, 175–199. Utrecht: LOT.
Degand, Liesbeth, and Benjamin Fagard
2012“Competing Connectives in the Causal Domain. French Car and Parce Que.”Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2): 154–168.
2012“Explicitation vs. Implicitation: A Bidirectional Corpus-based Analysis of Causal Connectives in French and Dutch Translations.”Across Languages and Cultures 13 (2): 211–227.
Dixon, R.M., and Alexandra Aikhenvald
eds.2009The Semantics of Clause Linking. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
2004“Connectives as a Translation Problem.” In An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Vol. 11, ed. by Harald Kittel, Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner, Theo Hermans, Werner Koller, José Lambert, Fritz Paul, Juliane House, and Brigitte Schultze, 562–572. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
2008“Explicitation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, and Gabriela Saldanha, 104–108. London: Routledge.
2009“The Asymmetry Hypothesis in Translation Research.” In Translators and Their Readers: In Homage to Eugene A. Nida, ed. by Rodicia Dimitriu, and Miriam Shlesinger, 283–303. Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard.
Klaudy, Kinga, and Krisztina Károly
2005“Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation.”Across Languages and Cultures 6 (1): 13–28.
Knott, Alistair, and Robert Dale
1994“Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations.”Discourse Processes 18 (1): 35–62.
2005 “Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of the 10th Machine Translation Summit, 79–86. Phuket, Thailand>.
1997“Investigating Simplification in an English Comparable Corpus of Newspaper Articles.” In Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Kinga Klaudy, and János Kohn, 531–540. Budapest: Scholastica.
Mann, William, and Sandra Thomson
1992“Relational Discourse Structure: A Comparison of Approaches to Structuring Text by ‘Contrast’.” In Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, ed. by Shin Hwang, and William Merrifield, 19–45. Dallas: SIL.
2016. The Role of Perspective Shifts for Processing and Translating Discourse Relations. Discourse Processes 53:7 ► pp. 532 ff.
ŞEN BARTAN, Özgür
2022. Structural repetitions and discourse relations in English-Turkish translations of TED talks. The Literacy Trek 8:2 ► pp. 186 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. References. In Introduction to Corpus Linguistics, ► pp. 233 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2023. 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.