摘要
It is widely believed in the field of translation studies that explicitation is one of the universals of translation. As Blum-Kulka (2001) and Baker (1996) depicted, all translated texts exhibit a higher degree of explicitness than nontranslated target-language texts of a comparable type. Moreover, as noted by Blum-Kulka (2001), translated texts are cohesively more explicit than nontranslated texts. Numerous studies done in the field of translation studies have proved this long-standing stance. These studies include Baker and Olohan (2000) and Papai (2001), just to name a few. However, very few studies have shown the proportion of each cohesive marker’s level of explicitness to the total level of explicitness of a text. This study is an attempt to show which cohesive markers, according to Halliday’s notion of cohesion in English, tend to be more explicit and which cohesive markers tend to be less explicit in the translated texts. In order to carry out the study, a corpus of over 85,000 words was chosen. All of the instances of cohesive markers, that is, ellipses, substitutions, and conjunctions, were identified in the original texts. After that, the ways in which the translators encountered these cohesive markers were studied. Finally, it is reported that the cohesive markers do not behave the same when undergoing the process of explicitation. The results of the present study suggest that conjunctions tend to be more explicit in translated texts than other cohesive markers in English to Persian translation.
Abstract
It is widely believed in the field of translation studies that explicitation is one of the universals of translation. As Blum-Kulka (2001) and Baker (1996) depicted, all translated texts exhibit a higher degree of explicitness than nontranslated target-language texts of a comparable type. Moreover, as noted by Blum-Kulka (2001), translated texts are cohesively more explicit than nontranslated texts. Numerous studies done in the field of translation studies have proved this long-standing stance. These studies include Baker and Olohan (2000) and Papai (2001), just to name a few. However, very few studies have shown the proportion of each cohesive marker’s level of explicitness to the total level of explicitness of a text. This study is an attempt to show which cohesive markers, according to Halliday’s notion of cohesion in English, tend to be more explicit and which cohesive markers tend to be less explicit in the translated texts. In order to carry out the study, a corpus of over 85,000 words was chosen. All of the instances of cohesive markers, that is, ellipses, substitutions, and conjunctions, were identified in the original texts. After that, the ways in which the translators encountered these cohesive markers were studied. Finally, it is reported that the cohesive markers do not behave the same when undergoing the process of explicitation. The results of the present study suggest that conjunctions tend to be more explicit in translated texts than other cohesive markers in English to Persian translation.
Reza Yalsharzeh.
Ellipses, Conjunctions, and Substitutions: Which One Becomes Explicit in the Process of Translation?[J]. 翻译学报. 2011, 14(1-2): 37-52
Reza Yalsharzeh.
Ellipses, Conjunctions, and Substitutions: Which One Becomes Explicit in the Process of Translation?[J]. Journal of Translation Studies. 2011, 14(1-2): 37-52
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
Baker, M. (1996). “Linguistics and Cultural Studies: Complementary or Competing Paradigms in Translation Studies?” In Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller, and Erich Steiner (eds.) Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss. Tübingen: Gunt er Narr, 9-19.
Baker, M. and M. Olohan (2000). “Reporting That in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures 1.2, 141-58.
Blum-Kulka, S. (2001). “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 98-312.
Brown, D. (2003). The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday.
Halliday, M. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. and R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Klaudy, K. (1993). “On Explicitation Hypothesis.” In K. Klaudy and J. Kohn (eds.) Transferre necesse est … Current Issues of Translation Theory. Szombathely, Hungary: Daniel Berzsenyi College, 69-77.
——— (1998). “Explicitation.” In M. Baker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 80-84.
Lahiri, J. (2003). The Namesake. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1996). “The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A Resource and a Methodology for the Empirical Study of Translation.” PhD thesis, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.
Overas, L. (1998). “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.”Meta 43, 557-70.
Papai, V. (2001). “Universals of translated texts. Az explicitacios hipotezis vizsgalata angol-magyar es Magyar-magyar parhuzamos korpuszok egybevetesevel”[Investigating the explicitation hypothesis using English-Hungarian and Hungarian-Hungarian corpora]. Unpublished diss., Gyor-Pecs.
——— (2004). “Explicitation: A Universal of Translation Text?” In Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamaki (eds.) Translation Universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 143-64.
Vinay, J. P. and J. Darbelnet (1958/1977). Comparative Stylistics of French & English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weissbrod, R. (1992). “Explicitation in Translations of Prose-Fiction from English to Hebrew as a Function of Norms.” Multilingua 11.2, 153-71.
PDF(824 KB)
