A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation

Sandrine Zufferey and Bruno Cartoni

Abstract

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.

Keywords:
Table of contents

An important topic in translation studies over the past decades has been the identification of ‘translation universals,’ that is properties of translated texts triggered by the process of translation (e.g., Vanderauwera 1985; Mauranen and Kujamäki 2004). Many potential translation universals have been formulated, such as simplification (Laviosa-Braithwaite 1997), conventionalization (Baker 1993) and underrepresentation of target-language specific items (Tirkkonen-Condit 2004). But one of the most well known hypotheses about translation universals, called the “explicitation hypothesis,” was formulated by Blum-Kulka (1986, 292):

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

Asher, Nicholas
1993Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona
1993“Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elene Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995“Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Some Suggestions for Future Research.” Target 7 (2): 223–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor
2010a“Abandoning the Notion of ‘Translation-Inherent’ Explicitation: Against a Dogma of Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (1): 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b“Towards a More Rigorous Treatment of the Explicitation Hypothesis in Translation Studies.” Trans-Kom 1: 1–25.Google Scholar
2011“When and Why Do Translators Add Connectives?” Target 23 (1): 26–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986“Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, ed. by Juliana House, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübigen: Narr.Google Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, and Thomas Meyer
2012 “Extracting Directional and Comparable Corpora from a Multilingual Corpus for Translation Studies.” In Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2132–2137. Istanbul, Turkey.
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey, and Thomas Meyer
2013“Using the Europarl Corpus for Linguistic Research.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 27: 23–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charolles, Michel, and Benjamin Fagard
2012En effet en français contemporain: de la confirmation à la justification/explication.” Le français Moderne 80 (2): 137–164.Google Scholar
Danlos, Laurence
2012 “Formalisation des Conditions d’Emploi des Connecteurs ‘en réalité’ et ‘(et) en effet’.” In Proceedings of 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 493–508. Lyon, France.
Degand, Liesbeth
2000“Contextual Constraints on Causal Sequencing in Informational Texts.” Functions of Language 7 (2): 173–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Henk Pander Maat
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.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Benjamin Fagard
2012“Competing Connectives in the Causal Domain. French Car and Parce Que.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2): 154–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 383 ]
Denturck, Kathelijne
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M., and Alexandra Aikhenvald
eds. 2009The Semantics of Clause Linking. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
2004“Connectives as a Translation Problem.” In An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Vol. 1, 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.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga
2008“Explicitation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, and Gabriela Saldanha, 104–108. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair, and Robert Dale
1994“Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 18 (1): 35–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koehn, Philipp
2005 “Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of the 10th Machine Translation Summit, 79–86. Phuket, Thailand>.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Pekka Kujamäki
eds. 2004Translation Universals: Do they Exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2005“Connecteurs Pragmatiques, Inférences Directionnelles et Représentations Mentales.” Cahiers Chronos 12: 35–50.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Øverås, Linn
1998“In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta 43 (4): 557–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pápai, Vilma
2004“Explicitation: A Universal of Translated Text?” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Pekka Kujamäki, 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted
1997“Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context.” Discourse Processes 24 (1): 119–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman
1992“Towards a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 15 (1): 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 384 ]
Sanders, Ted, and Wilbert Spooren
2009“The Cognition of Discourse Coherence.” In Discourse, of Course, ed. by Jan Renkema, 197–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert
1997“The Processing of Underspecified Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 24 (1): 149–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, and Ted Sanders
2012“Subjectivity and Prototype Structure in Causal Connectives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2): 169–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2004“Unique Items: Over-or Under-Represented in Translated Language?” In Translation Universals. Do They Exist? ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Pekka Kujamäki, 177–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2004“Initial and Final Position for Adverbial Clauses in English: The Constructional Basis of the Discursive and Syntactic Differences.” Linguistics 42 (4): 819–853. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria
1985Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a ‘Minority’ Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine
2012“‘Car, Parce Que, Puisque’ Revisited: Three Experiments on French Causal Connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2): 138–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014“Givenness, Procedural Meaning and Connectives. The Case of French Puisque.” Journal of Pragmatics 62 (1): 121–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, and Bruno Cartoni
2012“English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast.” Languages in Contrast 12 (2): 232–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar