Global English, discourse and translation: Linking constructions in English and German popular science texts

Juliane House
Universität Hamburg/Hellenic American University, Athens

Abstract

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:
Table of contents

What is the contribution of discourse analysis to translation studies? Given that this special issue is about linking discourse and translation, I want to preface the study to be reported in this article with a few general remarks about how I view the connection between discourse and translation. First of all, discourse analysis is a textual approach which sets out to elucidate the function(s) of an utterance due to its specific position in a text/discourse, or the function(s) of part of an utterance inside a larger unit. As in all text-linguistic approaches, the object of investigation is therefore twofold: looking at an utterance in (a certain) position and looking at how discourse is constructed by this utterance in combination with other [ p. 371 ]utterances. An ‘utterance’ is here understood as the smallest unit of speech which starts with a pause and ends with a pause or a change of speaker, and is usually represented in written language by a clause.

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

Aijmer, Karin
1994 “Themes and Tails: The Discourse Functions of Dislocated Elements.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12: 137–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1972Steps 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor
2011Explicitation 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, David
2009 “Mind You.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (5): 915–920. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 384 ]
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John
1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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
1986A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1977A 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Translation 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006a “Text and Context in Translation.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (3): 338–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006b “Communicative Styles in English and German.” European Journal of English Studies 10: 249–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Translation. 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
[ p. 385 ]
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Text Linguistics and Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 3, ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 178–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
2014bTranslation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle 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 137: 115–134. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Küppers, Anne
2008Sprecherdeiktika 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
2009Der 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
Schmid, Monika
1999Translating the Elusive: Marked Word Order and Subjectivity in English-German Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siepmann, Dirk
2005Discourse Markers across Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1993Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry
2007Discourse 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. Crossref[ p. 386 ]Google Scholar