Cover not available
Article published In:
Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies
Edited by Jeremy Munday and Meifang Zhang
[Target 27:3] 2015
► pp. 370–386

Global English, discourse and translation

Linking constructions in English and German popular science texts

| Universität Hamburg/Hellenic American University, Athens
This paper first briefly discusses the relationship between comparative discourse analyses of original and translated texts as the basis for revealing the behavior of a particular linguistic phenomenon in context and use. Concretely, the paper examines how global English impacts on translations from English into German with regard to so-called ‘linking constructions,’ a hitherto rather neglected area of connectivity in discourse. The analysis focusses on the forms, functions, distribution, and the translation equivalents in parallel and comparable corpora. Results indicate that the use of linking constructions differs substantially in English and German discourse, and these differences may well block English influence on German discourse norms via translation.
Keywords: diachronic corpus study, parallel and comparative corpora, contrastive pragmatics, English-German contrastive discourse analysis, global English, linking constructions, impact of English on German discourse norms
Article outline
  • 1.Discourse analysis and translation
  • 2.The ‘Verdecktes Übersetzen—Covert Translation’ project
  • 3.The present study: Discourse and corpus analysis of linking constructions in English and German original and translated popular science texts
  • 4.What are linking constructions?
  • 5.Analysing extraposed prepositional phrase linking constructions in the Hamburg Popular Science Corpus
    • 5.1The development of EPPs in the English original texts
    • 5.2German ‘Zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter’ (Composite Deictics)
    • 5.3The nature and distribution of translations of English EPP linking construction into German in two time frames
    • 5.4The nature and distribution of EPP linking constructions in the German Comparable Corpus in two time frames
  • 6.Interpretation and discussion of findings
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.27.3.03hou
References (45)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1994. “Themes and Tails: The Discourse Functions of Dislocated Elements.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 121: 137–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, and Julia Probst. 2004. “The Interaction of Spokenness and Writtenness in Audience Design.” In Multilingual Communication, ed. by Juliane House and Jochen Rehbein, 63–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor. 2011. Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation. A Corpus-based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD diss. University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Becher, Viktor, Juliane House, and Svenja Kranich. 2009. “Convergence and Divergence of Communicative Norms through Language Contact in Translation.” In Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations, ed. by Kurt Braunmüller and Juliane House, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, David. 2009. “Mind You.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (5): 915–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bührig, Kristin, and Juliane House. 2004. “Connectivity in Translation: Transitions from Orality to Literacy.” In Multilingual Communication, ed. by Juliane House and Jochen Rehbein, 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “‘So, Given This Common Theme’: Linking Constructions in Discourse across Languages.” In Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, and Lukas Pietsch, 345–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, Monika. 2003. “Discourse Relators and the Beginning of Sentences in English and German.” Languages in Contrast 3 (2): 223–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad. 1982. “Anaphora and Deixis: Same or Different?” In Speech, Place and Action, ed. by Robert Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein, 315–338. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2005. “Pragmatic Properties of Certain German and English Left Peripheral Constructions.” Linguistics 43 (1): 89–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2009. “Parenthetical Adverbials: The Radical Orphanage Approach.” In Dislocated Elements in Discourse, ed. by Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn, 331–348. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Benjamin Shaer, and Werner Frey. 2009. “Postscript: Problems and Solutions for Orphan Analysis.” In Dislocated Elements in Discourse, ed. by Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn, 348–365. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. “Language Structure and Language Function.” In New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. by John Lyons, 140–160. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Misunderstanding: The Case of German and English.” In Contrastive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Marlis Hellinger and Ulrich Ammon, 345–361. Berlin: Mouton.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2003a. “Misunderstanding in Intercultural University Encounters.” In Misunderstanding in Social Life. Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, ed. by Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper, and Stephen Ross, 22–56. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2003b. “English as a Lingua Franca: A Threat to Multilingualism?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4): 556–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. “Text and Context in Translation.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (3): 338–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. “Communicative Styles in English and German.” European Journal of English Studies 101: 249–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Discourse and Dominance: Global English, Language Contact and Language Change.” In Globalization, Discourse, Media: In a Critical Perspective, ed. by Anna Duszak, Juliane House, and Lukasz Kumiega, 61–94. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Linking Constructions in English and German Translated and Original Texts.” In Multilingual Discourse Production, ed. by Svenja Kranich, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder, and Juliane House, 163–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Text Linguistics and Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 31, ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 178–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014a. “Translation as a Site of Language Contact, Variation and Change.” In Translationswissenschaftliches Kolloquium III, ed. by Barbara Ahrens, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Monika Krein-Kühle, Michael Schreiber, and Ursula Wienen,155–180. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2014b. Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2011. “L’emploi des expressions épistémiques dans les lettres aux actionnaires en France, aux États Unis et en Allemagne.” Langage et Société 1371: 115–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, and Victorina Gonzalez Diaz. 2010. “Good, Great or Remarkable: Evaluation in English, German and Spanish Letters to Shareholders.” Paper given at the Conference on ‘New Challenges for Multilingualism in Europe,’ Dubrovnik, 10-15 April 2010.
Kranich, Svenja, Juliane House, and Viktor Becher. 2012. “Changing Conventions in English-German Translations of Popular Scientific Texts.” In Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, ed. by Kurt Braunmüller and Christoph Gabriel, 315–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küppers, Anne. 2008. Sprecherdeiktika in deutschen und französischen Aktionärsbriefen. Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit 87. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1985. “Fancy Syntax and ‘Shared Knowledge’.” Journal of Pragmatics 9 (1): 65–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Probst, Julia. 2001. “Der kulturelle Filter in Wirtschaftstexten multilingualer Unternehmen: Englisch-Deutsch-Französisch.” In Comunicare in ambiente professionale plurilingue. Kommunikation in der mehrsprachigen Arbeitswelt. Communiquer en milieu professionel plurilingue. Communicating in Professional Multilingual Environments, ed. by Sara Cigada, Silvia Gilardoni, and Marinette Mathey, 263–275. Lugano: Proceedings of the VALS/ASLA Congress, 14-16 September 2000.Google Scholar
. 2009. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf das Deutsche - Zum sprachlichen Ausdruck von Interpersonalität in populärwissenschaftlichen Texten. PhD diss. Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen. 1995. “Über zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter und ihre Rolle in argumentierender Rede.” In Wege der Argumentationsforschung, ed. by Harald Wohlrapp, 166–198. Stuttgart: Frommann & Holzboog.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin. 2009. “German and English Left-Peripheral Elements and the ‘Orphan’ Analysis of Non-Integration.” In Dislocated Elements in Discourse, ed. by Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn, 366–397. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siepmann, Dirk. 2005. Discourse Markers across Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry. 2007. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael. 1994. “Left and Right Dislocations: Discourse Functions and Anaphora.” Journal of Pragmatics 22 (5): 629–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Abdulmanova, Adelia Khamitovna, Ekaterina Kirillovna Vyunova & Irina Alekseevna Lekomtseva
2023. Identification of possible translation solutions based on comparative stylistic studies (using the material of English and Russian parallel newspaper texts). Philology. Theory & Practice 16:12 ► pp. 4297 ff. DOI logo
İŞİ, Nazan & Korkut İŞİSAĞ
2022. Implications of English as a Lingua Franca for Translation and Interpreting: Current and Future Directions. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi 2022:32 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár
2021. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, DOI logo
Schäffner, Christina
2019. Translation and Discourse Analysis. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 10:3 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Castagnoli, Sara
2016. Investigating trainee translators’ contrastive pragmalinguistic competence: a corpus-based analysis of interclausal linkage in learner translations. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10:3 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.