When and why do translators add connectives?A corpus-based study
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).
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.)
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.
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).
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
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.
2005 “Cohesive ties in translation: A contrastive study of the Norwegian connective dermed”. Languages in Contrast 5:1. 3–32.
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.
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.
1999 “Topic”. Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt, eds. Focus—linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999 142–165.
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.
Klaudy, Kinga and Krisztina Károly
2005 “Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 6:1. 13–28.
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.
Pasch, Renate; Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl, and Ulrich H. Waßner
2003Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
1986 “Zwar … aber—ein zweiteiliges Konnektivum?”. Deutsche Sprache 14:2. 125–139.
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.
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.
Quirk, Randolph; Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
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.
1979 “Zur Satzkonnektion im Englischen und Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zu einer kontrastiven Vertextungslinguistik”. Folia Linguistica 13. 303–319.
1995Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.