When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study

Viktor Becher
Universität Hamburg

Abstract

Additions and omissions of connectives (e.g. conjunctions, connective adverbs, etc.) are a frequent phenomenon in translation. The present article reports on a study whose aim was to elucidate translators’ motivations for performing such shifts, focusing on the addition of connectives. The study was carried out on a bidirectional parallel corpus containing translations of business texts between English and German. Connective additions and omissions were identified, counted and analyzed taking into account the surrounding linguistic context of the shift in question, possibly associated shifts performed by the translator, alternative translation options, etc. It was found that the vast majority of identified shifts were attributable to previously established English-German contrasts in terms of syntax, lexis, and communicative norms. The findings suggest that it is unnecessary to assume that translators follow a “universal strategy” of explicitation, as it has often been done in the literature (cf. e.g. Blum-Kulka’s Explicitation Hypothesis).

Keywords:
Table of contents

Explicitness may be defined as the verbalization of information that the addressee might be able to infer (e.g. from the preceding discourse) if it were not verbalized. Explicitation may then be defined as an increase in explicitness in translation (Becher 2010a: 3). The present article reports on a study that was carried out in order to elucidate when and why translators explicitate. Like previous studies, the present study makes use of a bidirectional translation corpus, in which additions and omissions of connectives were identified and counted. But unlike previous [ p. 27 ]studies, the present study does not depart from Blum-Kulka’s Explicitation Hypothesis, for reasons which will be detailed in the next section. Previous studies on explicitation have tended to be quick to ascribe seemingly unexplainable occurrences of explicitation to an allegedly “universal strategy inherent in the process of language mediation” (Blum-Kulka 1986: 21). The present study is very different in that it goes to great lengths to find less esoteric reasons for when and why translators explicitate, taking into account general pragmatic considerations as well as cross-linguistic differences in syntax, lexis, and communicative norms. A main aim of the study was to show that we do not need the assumption of a translationinherent process of explicitation in order to explain the ubiquity of explicitation in translation. (The study presented here is part of a much larger study in which I analyzed some two thousand explicitating and implicitating shifts including many other kinds of shifts than connective additions and omissions. See Becher (2011a). The results presented in this article may be seen as a representative subset of the findings of the larger project.)

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.

References

Baker, Mona
1996 “Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead”. Harold Somers, ed. Terminology, LSP and translation. Studies in language engineering in honor of Juan C. Sager. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1996 175–186.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 45 ]
Becher, Viktor
2009 “The explicit marking of contingency relations in English and German texts: A contrastive analysis”. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, workshop Connectives across languages: Explicitation and grammaticalization of contingency relations. http://​www​.francais​.ugent​.be​/index​.php​?id​=19​&type​=file (13 May 2010).
2010a “Abandoning the notion of ‘translation-inherent’ explicitation. Against a dogma of translation studies.” Across Languages and Cultures 11:1. 1–28.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b “Towards a more rigorous treatment of the Explicitation Hypothesis in translation studies”. trans-kom 3:1. 1–25.Google Scholar
2010c “Differences in the use of deictic expressions in English and German texts.” Linguistics 48(4). 1309–1342.Google Scholar
2011a Explicitation and implicitation in translation. A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
2011b “Von der Hypotaxe zur Parataxe: Ein Wandel im Ausdruck von Konzessivität in neueren populärwissenschaftlichen Texten.” Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi and Anna Volodina, eds. Satzverknüpfungen. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter 2011 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Bergljot
1999 “A dynamic semantic approach to translation assessment. ING-participial adjuncts and their translation in Norwegian.” Monika Doherty, ed. Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1999 90–112.Google Scholar
2005 “Cohesive ties in translation: A contrastive study of the Norwegian connective dermed”. Languages in Contrast 5:1. 3–32.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik
2008 “On the syntax and semantics of sentence connectives”. Mannheim, Institut für Deutsche Sprache, unpublished manuscript. http://​www​.ids​-mannheim​.de​/gra​/texte​/blu​_connectives​.pdf (24 August 2010).
2010 “Semantische Unterbestimmtheit bei Konnektoren”. Pohl, Inge, ed. Semantische Unbestimmtheit im Lexikon. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2010 205–221.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986 “Shifts of cohesion and coherence in tanslation”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and intercultural communication. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1986 17–35.Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva
2008 “Die Brigitte nun kann der Hans nicht ausstehen. Gebundene Topiks im Deutschen.” Eva Breindl, and Maria Thurmair, eds. Erkenntnisse vom Rande. Zur Interaktion von Prosodie, Informationsstruktur, Syntax und Bedeutung. Zugleich Festschrift für Hans Altmann zum 65. Geburtstag. [Themenheft Deutsche Sprache 1/2008] 2008 27–49.Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva and Ulrich H. Waßner
2006 “Syndese vs. Asyndese. Konnektoren und andere Wegweiser für die Interpretation semantischer Relationen in Texten.” Hardarik Blühdorn, Eva Breindl and Ulrich Hermann Waßner, eds. Text—Verstehen Grammatik und darüber hinaus. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. [Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2005] 2006 46–70.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel
1999 “Topic”. Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt, eds. Focus—linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999 142–165.Google Scholar
Doherty, Monika
2001 “Discourse relators and the beginnings of sentences in English and German”. Languages in Contrast 3:2. 223–251.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Language processing in discourse. A key to felicitous translation. London-New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 46 ]
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
2005 “Elusive connectives: A case study on the explicitness dimension of discourse coherence”. Linguistics 43:1. 17–48.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Dreimal (nicht) dasselbe: Sprachliche Perspektivierung im Deutschen, Norwegischen und Englischen”. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 145. 61–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne and Riitta Jääskeläinen
2009 Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go? Across Languages and Cultures 10:2. 169–191.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner
1986 “Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse”. Computational Linguistics 12. 175–204.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
2004 An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia and Stella Neumann and Erich Steiner
2007 Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 7:2. 241–265.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heltai, Pál
2005 “Explicitation, redundancy, ellipsis and translation”. Krisztina Károly and Ágota Fóris, eds. New trends in translation studies: In honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 2005 24–74.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1997 Translation quality assessment. A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2004 “Explicitness in discourse across languages”. Juliane House, Werner Koller, and Klaus Schubert, eds. Neue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft. Bochum: AKS 2004 185–208.Google Scholar
2008 “Beyond intervention: Universals in translation?”. trans-kom 1:1. 6–19.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
1998 “Creatures of habit? What translators usually do with words”. Meta 43:4. 515–523.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga
2008 “Explicitation”. Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London-New York: Routledge. 104–108.Google Scholar
2009 “The asymmetry hypothesis in translation research”. Rodicia Dimitriu and Miriam Shlesinger, eds. Translators and their readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida. Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard 2009 283–303.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga and Krisztina Károly
2005 “Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 6:1. 13–28.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991 “Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations”. Dietmar Zaefferer, ed. Semantic universals and universal semantics. Berlin-New York-Dordrecht: Foris Publications 1991 190–209.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast
2009 Understanding English-German contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Konšalová, Petra
2007 “Explicitation as a universal in syntactic de/condensation”. Across Languages and Cultures 8:1. 17–32.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Ewald
1991 “Koordinierende Konjunktionen”. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, eds. Semantik. Semantics: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin-New York 1991 597–623.Google Scholar
Laviosa, Sara
1998 “Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose”. Meta 43:4. 557–570.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2004 Introducing corpora in translation studies. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 47 ]
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
Øverås, Linn
1998 “In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation”. Meta 43:4. 557–570.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pápai, Vilma
2004 “Explicitation: a universal of translated text?”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2004 143–164.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasch, Renate; Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl, and Ulrich H. Waßner
2003 Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primatarova-Miltscheva, Antoinette
1986 “Zwar … aber—ein zweiteiliges Konnektivum?”. Deutsche Sprache 14:2. 125–139.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2005 “Explaining explicitation”. Krisztina Károly and Ágota Fóris, eds. New trends in translation studies. In honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 2005 29–34.Google Scholar
2008 “On Toury’s laws of how translators translate”. Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger and Daniel Simeoni eds. Beyond descriptive translation studies. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 311–328.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Waßner, Ulrich H.
2001 “Konnektoren und Anaphorika—zwei grundlegende sprachliche Mittel zur Herstellung von Zusammenhang zwischen Textteilen”. Alain Cambourian, ed. Text-konnektoren und andere textstrukturiernde Einheiten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg 2001 33–46.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter
1979 “Zur Satzkonnektion im Englischen und Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zu einer kontrastiven Vertextungslinguistik”. Folia Linguistica 13. 303–319.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar