Clefts in Translations between English and German

Monika Doherty

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.

Table of contents

It is the context that fixes the meaning

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.


Abraham, Werner
1992 “Clausal Focus Versus Discourse Rhema in German: A Programmatic View”. Language and Cognition II. 1–19.Google Scholar
Andersson, Sven-Gunnar
1993 “Zu Satzspaltung (Cleft) und Langer Extraktion in germanischen Sprachen”. Marga Reis, ed. Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur. Tubingen: Narr 1993 39–61. [Linguistische Arbeiten, 306.]Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1979Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Toronto, New York, London: Bantam.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1963Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften. [Studia Grammatica, II.]Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome
1980On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Cambridge, Mass., London: Belknap.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1987 “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow”. Russel S. Tomlin, ed. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1987 21–52.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crocker, Matthew W.
1996Computational Psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy
1992 “Aspects of Cleft Constructions in Discourse”. Arbeitspapiere des SFB Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik, Bericht 19. Tübingen.Google Scholar
1995 “Presupposition and Shared Knowledge in It-clefts”. Language and Cognitive Processes 10:2. 97–120.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika
1991a “Focus Hierarchies”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40:3-4. 275–284.Google Scholar
[ p. 315 ]
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.]Google Scholar
1996 “Passive Perspectives: Different Preferences in English and German—a Result of Parametrized Processing”. Linguistics 34:3. 491–543.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Acceptability and Language Specific Preferences in the Distribution of Information”. Target 9:1. 1–24.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Processing and Directionality in German and English”. Languages in Contrast 1:1. 23–43.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Bernhard
1998 “Focus and Connectedness: Towards a Typology of Focus Constructions”. Tübingen. [Manuscript.]Google Scholar
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.]Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
1999 “Information Packaging and Translation”. Sprach-spezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung [Studia Grammatica], 175–214.Google Scholar
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.]Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1945A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob
1988Context and Presupposition. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
1998 “Clefts in Scandinavian: An Investigation”. Artemis Alexiadiou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Paul Law and Ursula Kleinhenz, eds. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10. 163–190.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Benjamins Translation Library, 4.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar