Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus*

8/13/2019 Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus*

1/25

Languages in Contrast: (), . / - John Benjamins Publishing Company

Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in

an English-German translation corpus*

Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann and Erich SteinerJohannes Gutenberg-Universitt Mainz/Universitt des Saarlandes, Germany

Explicitness or implicitness as assumed properties o translated texts and othertexts in multilingual communication have or some time been the object o spec-ulation and, at a later stage, o more systematic research in linguistics and trans-

lation studies. Tis paper undertakes an investigation o explicitness/implicitnessand related phenomena o translated texts on the level o cohesion. A corpus-based research architecture, embedded in an empirical research methodology,will be outlined, and first results and possible explanations will be discussed. Tepaper starts with a terminological clarification o the concepts o explicitnessand explicitation in terms o dependent variables to be investigated. Te twoterms and their usage by other scholars will be discussed. An electroniccorpus will then be described which provides the empirical data and techniquesor inormation extraction. For the investigation carried out using our corpus,

indicators will then be derived on the basis o which operationalizations andhypotheses can be ormulated or patterns o explicitation occurring betweensource and target texts. Some initial results relating to cohesive explicitness andexplicitation in the data will be presented and discussed, with particular atten-tion being paid to the areas o reerence, substitution,ellipsis, conjunction, andlexicalcohesion. First attempts will also be made at explaining the findings.

Keywords: translation, explicitness, explicitation, cohesion, English/German

. Introduction

Cohesive eatures have been the object o research in translation studies as indi-cators o explicitation. Tey have been studied in what can be called exploratorystudies in example-based approaches (Blum-Kulka 1986) and in a psycholinguis-tic experiment (Englund Dimitrova 2005). Moreover, empirical corpus-driven re-

search has employed concordances in monolingually comparable corpora o rawtext to gain insight into the nature o cohesive eatures (c. several contributions


2/25

Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann and Erich Steiner

in Laviosa 1998; Olohan and Baker 2000). In spite o the insight yielded by thistradition o research, we argue that where explicitation is investigated in raw textswithout taking into account the source texts o translations, the interpretation o

results will remain limited to queries that are possible without annotation, andproblematic since explicitation can only be considered as a shi between sourceand target text, not as a comparison between comparable texts. Works on transla-tions adopting a more linguistic perspective have addressed some o these limita-tions and problems (c. relevant work in Johansson and Oksefell 1998; Fabricius-Hansen 1999; House 2002; House and Rehbein 2004; Doherty 2002; 2006); theocus o these research interests and methodologies is however different rom, andpartly complementary to, ours with respect to corpus architecture, querying tech-

niques and underlying linguistic modelling (or which c. Hansen 2003; Neumann2003; Steiner 2001; eich 2003).

Te remainder o the paper is organized as ollows: or an initial clarificationo key concepts, we shall differentiate between two distinct, though related, no-tions: that o explicitness and explicitation in Section 2. Aer a description othe corpus architecture developed within the CroCo Project,1o which the presentstudy orms a part (Section 3), Section 4 will attempt to stratiy these notions interms o the linguistic levels o lexicogrammar and text. We shall also derive some

cohesive indicators operationalizing explicitness and explicitation in this section.In Section 5 we will discuss findings or the indicators thus derived, and finallycome to some conclusions in Section 6.

. Explicitness and explicitation

Te main aim o the present paper is to discuss cohesive explicitation using a

quantitative methodology. For this purpose, the discussion o key contributionsto the study o explicitness is necessary because it helps to delineate our notion oexplicitation in view o these contributions.

Explicitness on the lexicogrammatical level is conceptually related to densityand directness. Tese three are properties o (lexico-)grammatical constructions(c. Steiner 2004; 2005a; 2005b; 2005c). Te opposite o explicit in this usage islexicogrammatically not realized, but still part o the construction (unrealizedparticipant roles, unrealized eatures in non-finite constructions, grammaticalellipsis, projection o units o meaning onto different grammatical categories,grammatical metaphor, transcategorization, etc.). At a textual level, explicitnessis related to properties such as simple, normal, levelled-out, sanitized, explicit vs.implicit, direct vs. indirect; oriented towards sel vs. other; oriented towards con-tent vs. persons (c. Baker 1996; House 2002 or relevant work). Te explicitness


3/25

Cohesive explicitation in an English-German translation corpus

o higher level units such as texts/discourses is not simply the sum total o theexplicitness eatures o clauses. It is a property emerging at a higher level in thesense that text-level properties are perceived as a result o the interaction o clause-

level eatures, such as explicitness, directness, density, with textual eatures suchas cohesion, markers o genre or register. All o the latter will, in turn, be real-ized as lexical and/or grammatical patterns, but their unction is not accountedor by lexicogrammar. Explicitness on this level can urthermore be a result oglobal textual patterns (such as typetoken ratio, lexical density, etc.), which areepiphenomena o lexicogrammatical patterns, but not lexicogrammatical them-selves. Explicitness a property o lexicogrammatical or cohesive structures andconfigurations in one text is measured through operationalizations o the type

we shall indicate below.Explicitation, on the other hand, is a process or a relationship between in-

tralingual variants and/or translationally related texts. Te texts resulting romexplicitation are more explicit than their counterparts in terms o their lexico-grammatical and cohesive properties. Explicitation can only be observed in in-stantiated, indexed and aligned pieces o discourse/text sharing all or some o theirmeaning, which is particularly true or translations.

Definition:We assume explicitation i a translation (or, language-internally, onetext in a pair o register-related texts) realizes meanings (not only ideational, butalso interpersonal and textual) more explicitly than its source text more pre-cisely, meanings not realized in the less explicit source variant but implicitly pres-ent in a theoretically-motivated sense. Te resulting text is more explicit than itscounterpart.

Note that this definition deliberately excludes the indefinite number o possibili-ties through which meaning can simply be added to some text/discourse, without

being in any motivated sense implicit in the source variant (a view similar to thato Doherty 2006: 49ff).More general discussions in the literature regard the notions o explicitness/

explicitation and its counterpart implicitness/implicitation as a challenge in sev-eral respects. Tese notions are very general, central to some models o language,especially or a philosophically anchored semantics, and in any case highly com-plex. Tey usually reer to ully interpreted acts o communication in a commu-nicative context o situation. However, the data available to a methodologically

empirical project will not consist o high-level interpretations o utterances by hu-man interpreters, but o text corpora with relatively low-level lexicogrammaticaland cohesive categories captured in multi-level annotations. Te data thus yieldinormation aboutpropertieso encoding, rather than about high-level interpreta-tions o such data by human interactants. Precisely the ormer are the ocus o the


4/25


current project an attempt to enquire into properties o encoding which relateto explicitness and explicitation, rather than to add yet another set o example-based discussions o (interpretations o) the data.

Within this context, Linke and Nussbaumer (2000:435ff) anchor their dis-cussion in their handbook article on concepts o implicitness in the wide-spreadmetaphor, or allegory, which conceptualizes texts as icebergs: only a small parto them is visible, the larger part is hidden rom perception. Te visible part (oorm and meaning) is called explicit, the invisible part implicit. More specifi-cally, they draw a distinction between meanings which are implicit, non-literal,dependent on use (the province o pragmatics) on the one hand (B), and thosemeanings which are fixed, literal and independent o use (the province o se-

mantics) (A). Only within the latter do they distinguish, in a linguistically narrow-er sense, between implicit (non-realized) and explicit.Within the latter category,what they call semantics (A), they subclassiy semantic, but implicit, meaningsinto presuppositions, implications (entailments), connotations, affective and de-ontic meanings, remaining marginal types to do with inerencing. Te remaindero meanings on the semantic level are assumed to be explicit. Meanwhile, withmeanings which are implicit, non-literal, dependent on use (the province opragmatics) (B), the sub-classification is into pragmatic presuppositions (rames,

scripts), conversational maxims and conversational implicatures and finally illo-cution and perlocution.

Situating our own concept o explicitness vis--vis this overview, it appearsas i our classification cuts across the one represented there, even though the twocan be related. First, our corpus-based research design enables the investigation omeanings which are explicitin one o the registerial or translational variants undercomparison or else can be grammatically or cohesively related as explicit/implicit

variants to our data. What remains outside o our methodology is the simple addi-

tion or omission o meanings without any grammatical or cohesive relationshipsbetween variants. Second, the meanings which we investigate do not have to beliteral, they may, indeed, be (grammatically or lexically) metaphorical, providedthey are explicit in one o our variants (registers, translations). Finally, the mean-ings which we are looking at are dependent on usage in that the data are drawnrom linguistic instantiations, i.e. texts. However, our operationalizations in termso lexicogrammatical or cohesive realization will bias our observations towardswhatever is grammaticalized and lexicalized, or at least highly conventionalized(cohesive relations, rhetorical relations), and in that sense our approach may ap-pear quite system- and grammar-oriented.

Te reason why our perspective seems to cut across that o Linke and Nuss-baumer is that, being corpus-based, and thus product-based, rather than inter-pretation-based and process-based, we are orced to gear our methodology to the


5/25


investigation o lexicogrammatical realization. Consequently, any meanings theycall pragmatic and not systematically linked to realization appear invisible to ourmethod which is not saying they are unimportant. Tey will eature in herme-

neutic example-based interpretations o our data, but only there.Next, let us attempt to situate our own methodology relative to a discussioncontrasting Relevance Teory with Gricean Pragmatics, this time taken rom Bur-ton-Roberts (2005:389ff ) review o Carstons (2002) Toughts and Utterances: TePragmatics o Explicit Communication. We assume, like Burton-Roberts (and Car-ston), that our explicit vs. implicit distinction cuts across at least several Griceandichotomies: (A) semantics vs. pragmatics, (B) what is said vs. what is implicated,(C) explicit vs. implicit, (D) linguistically en(/de)coded vs. not linguistically en(/

de)coded, (E) context-ree vs. context-sensitive, (F) truth conditional (entailment)vs. non-truth-conditional (non-deductive). Furthermore, addressing Carstons(2002:117) and at this point also Burton-Roberts (2005:391) position, we wouldalso claim that the variants in Burton-Roberts example 1 (a) to (d) below, cannotsimply be contrasted in terms o a binary explicit vs. implicit dichotomy:

(1) a. Mary Jones put the book by Chomsky on the table in the downstairssitting room.

b. Mary put the book on the table. c. She put it there. d. On the table.

According to Carston and Burton-Roberts, any o 1 (a-d) above could be used,in different contexts, to communicate explicitly one and the same proposition (orthought or assumption) (Carston 2002:117). Tis appears to be true what weare investigating with our research design, however, is not an act o communica-tion (and interpretation)situated in a specific context, but rather properties o the

encoding (explicitness, alongside directness and density). In our terms, 1 (a) to(d) are identical as ar as ideational and interpersonal explicitness are concerned.Tere is no difference between them in terms o directness, but there are differ-ences along several dimensions in density, and there are differences in explicitnesson the interpersonal and textual dimensions and in terms o some sub-parameterso cohesion.

However, i we regarded 1 (a) to (d) as intralingual translations o each other,we could also investigate explicitation, rather than only explicitness. In this case,

(b) to (d) would be partial implicitations o (a), with lexicogrammatical and cohe-sive markers which would still trigger a ully instantiated interpretation along thelines o (a) in a ully instantiated discourse. Tese lexicogrammatical and cohesivemarkers in (b) to (d) include definite articles, phoric elements and ellipses, allo which would implicitate some aspect o explicitly coded experiential meaning


6/25


rom 1 (a), while still providing a trigger or clue. With respect to Relevance Te-ory, then, our approach is characterized by the measurement o explicitness as aproperty o encoding, not as a property o the communicative act as such.

A distinction which seems somewhat closer to our own modelling is that ovon Polenz (1988:24ff, 40ff, 92ff, 202ff). He draws a basic distinction between el-liptical, compressed/compact, and implicating modes o expression, and their re-spective corresponding ull, expanded and explicating counterparts. Accordingto his classification, our methodology ocuses on the difference between:

compressed/compact modes o expression and their expanded counter-parts;

elliptical textures which can be related through grammar or cohesion to

non-elliptical ull counterparts; implicit textual configurations and their explicit counterparts.

Von Polenz, however, requently uses explicit in opposition to all three com-pressed/compact, elliptical, implicit (1988:24ff). Our methodology is more con-strained in that we would restrict our notion o realization to lexicogrammaticaland cohesive realization. We would demand some sort o lexicogrammatical reflexor an assumed elliptical, compact/compressed, implicit meaning, rather than a

potentially implicit meaning addable to the piece o discourse in question with-out violating coherence.

Summarizing our discussion so ar, compared to Linke and Nussbaumer(2000), Carston (2002), Burton-Roberts (2005), and to a lesser extent to von Po-lenz (1988), our methodology appears restrictive in the sense o being tied to or-mal realization. However, all o the realizational patterns are considered to be sig-nals only, instructions, to the ull (inter-)textual meaning, and in that sense, we areopening the door to allow a uller view, which ultimately extends to the previously

invisible part o the iceberg. Methodologically, though, we can only do this viaadditional example-based hermeneutic interpretations o individual examples, notin the empirical part o our investigations.

So ar, we have located our position in relation to the semantic and pragmaticend o the spectrum o approaches to explicitness/explicitation. At the oppositeend o the spectrum, there are notions o lexicogrammatically encoded types oimplicitness, realized in non-finite constructions, unrealized participant roles,logico-semantic relators (conjunctions, prepositions), tense, aspect and num-ber. Grammarians (e.g. Dixon 1991:6871) have noted the optional dropping ocomplementizers, relative pronouns or copulas rom complement clauses (see alsoOlohan and Baker 2000 in the context o explicitation). In all o these cases, it cano course be argued that the (highly generalized) grammatical meaning signalledby the absence o the lexical items is contained in the text, at least in the eatures


7/25


o the construction. It can be made visible by contrasting the construction withits counterparts. However, this notion o implicitness is very grammar-orientedand thus also very language-specific. Our methodology is suited to this type o

implicitness, which will be used as an indicator although not necessarily oexperiential, but oen o logical, interpersonal or textual meaning.Our methodology is related to Bibers (1995:157ff, 161ff on explicit vs. situa-

tion-dependent reerence, but also Biber et al. 1999) in many respects. However,we do believe that it is possible to develop a linguistically richer and theoreticallymore substantiated notion o data than is used by Biber, while building on hisachievements in making linguistic enquiry a more empirical discipline than be-ore. Te linguistically richer conceptual tools to be outlined below, influenced

by the notions o grammatical metaphor and o metaunctional diversification(Halliday and Matthiessen 1999; 2004), are intended to narrow the gap betweenthe more conceptual and hermeneutic top-down and the more empirical bottom-up approaches. Tere are unctional notions o implicitness/explicitness, as in ac-counts o modality (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004:620ff), or o inerred/implicitdiscourse relations, oen triggered by genre or register (Halliday and Matthiessen2004:363ff). A urther context or the notion o implicitness is cohesive ellipsis(Halliday and Hasan 1976:142ff). And there is, o course, the important notion

o grammatical metaphor. At least the type involving relocation in rank betweensemantics and grammar has ar-reaching influences on how much and what kindso inormation are made explicit (Halliday and Matthiessen 1999:231ff; 258; 270;Halliday and Martin 1993, Steiner 2004). A final important source o hypothesesconcerning the tendencies postulated or translations between English and Ger-man is Doherty (2002, 2006); this applies particularly to her studies o typologicalparameters o inormation distribution. Tese are our starting points or recogniz-ing more and higher-level types o implicit meaning, even i operationalizations at

the borderlines (i.e. those to do with genre and register) are oen not sufficientlyadvanced to enable a reliable level o quantification.

. A corpus for investigating explicitness and explicitation

Our investigation o explicitation and implicitation o cohesion markers in trans-lations is based on a cross-linguistic corpus containing statistically meaninguland representative samples (c. Biber 1993) o German and English. Te corpuscomprises multilingually comparable texts (English originals (EO) and Germanoriginals (GO)), monolingually comparable texts (EO and English translations(Erans), GO and German ranslations (Grans)) as well as parallel texts (EO andGrans, GO and Erans). Tese sub-corpora represent eight registers relevant or


8/25


translation: popular-scientific texts (POPSCI), tourism leaflets (OU), preparedspeeches (SPEECH), political essays on economics (ESSAYS), fictional texts (FIC-ION), corporate communication (SHARE), instruction manuals (INSR) and

websites (WEB).Te design criteria we consider particularly important are comparability, bal-ance and representativeness. Functional variety orms a basis or comparison en-suring comparability. Tus, our choice o registers to be included was determinedby registerial considerations (or a basic description o this kind o register analysissee Halliday and Hasan 1989): each register is distinct rom the other registers interms o the three register variables o field, tenor and mode o discourse. Apartrom unctional variety, the ollowing criteria were taken into account to achieve

a balanced corpus design: publication date (including texts rom the 1990s on-wards), regional language variety (including American and British English as wellas Standard German rom Austria, Switzerland and Germany) and text length.For our purposes, drawing a representative sample rom the basic population oall texts meant choosing enough specimens rom one register to cover all relevantlinguistic eatures. We ollow Biber (1993) who shows that smaller corpora iwell-balanced are capable o covering all the linguistic eatures o a given regis-ter. His calculations, i.e. 10 texts per register with a length o at least 1,000 words,

serve as an orientation or the size o our core corpus. In our case, we collected ulltexts or text excerpts o about 3,000 words per text and ten texts per register. Tismeans that the our sub-corpora EO, GO, Grans and Erans contain 250,000words each. In addition to register-controlled corpora, we also included reerencecorpora both in English (ER) and German (GR) or detecting contrastive restric-tions o the respective language systems which orce the translator to explicitate asource language structure. Te reerence corpora also allow the identification ospecific eatures o register-controlled corpora, thus serving as a basis o compari-

son (c. Neumann 2003 or a detailed description o the reerence corpora).Te overall corpus comprises 1 million words plus 68,000 words in the reg-

ister-neutral (cross-register) reerence corpora in both languages. We have storedmeta-inormation on all texts on the basis o the EI guidelines2(i.e. inormationon the author, translator, language variety, publication date, register inormationetc.) using the graphical user interace CroCo-Meta specifically developed or auser-riendly and efficient annotation o meta-inormation (c. Vela and Hansen-Schirra 2006). In addition to storing reerences to the texts, meta-inormation al-lows us to filter the corpus according to particular characteristics o the texts whenquerying the corpus in view o linguistic research questions.

A characteristic eature o our corpus is the annotation and alignment osource and target texts on different linguistically motivated layers: the texts areannotated with parts o speech, morphology, phrase structure and grammatical


9/25


unctions. Our alignment is truly multidimensional since it does not only compriseword- and sentence level but also chunk (phrases and grammatical unctions) andclause level (c. Hansen-Schirra et al. 2006 or a detailed description o the tools

and techniques used or corpus alignment and annotation). Each annotation andalignment layer is stored separately in a multi-layer stand-off XML representationormat keeping the annotation and alignment o overlapping and/or discontinu-ous units in separate files. Te mark-up is based on the XCES Standard.3

One o the methodological principles applying to the exploitation o the re-source is the distinction between lexicogrammatical/cohesive annotation osource and target language texts (including the alignment) on the one hand, andthe interpretation o the data in view o more abstract concepts in our case

explicitation on the other. Te architecture o the CroCo Corpus enables theviewing o annotation in aligned segments and the combined querying o differ-ent layers o lower level linguistic eatures assumed to be indicators o the moreabstract concept (using the query languages XSL and XQuery; c. Neumann andHansen-Schirra 2005; Hansen-Schirra et al. 2006). Te theory-neutral analysis othe texts permits the interpretation o a wealth o linguistic inormation, also interms o other research questions.

. Derivation of indicators

Aer the outline o our corpus provided above, let us derive a number o indica-tors and operationalizations or explicitness and explicitation. In the present con-text, indicators on the lexicogrammatical level will be given in linguistic termsonly, whereas, or the level o cohesion, we shall narrow our discussion down tothe level o specific queries into representations in our corpus.

Operationalizations or explicitness in any text, and or explicitation betweentranslationally related segments, will initially be carried out in a theory-neutralway. By adding a modularization o meaning and encoding according to meta-unctions (c. Halliday and Matthiessen 2004 and elsewhere; Steiner 2005c), wecan measure lexicogrammatical explicitness as represented in able 1.

o these indicators and operationalizations, which up to this point have all beenlimited to grammatical phenomena and thereore expressed as indicators per gram-matical unit, i.e. the clause, must then be added indicators and operationalizationsor cohesion, i.e. indicators per text. In the ollowing, we will exempliy the queriespossible on the basis o the annotation and alignment or the cohesion markersdescribed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) and their equivalents or German.

1 to 7 below are hypotheses about cohesion to be tested on the data: or eithera given pair o non-aligned text segments, or else or a given aligned sourcetarget


10/25


ragment o two texts in a translation relationship, we expect global differencesacross entire texts along the ollowing parameters:

1. the proportion o explicit to implicit reerents;2. the proportion o phoric to ully lexical (auto-semantic) phrases;3. the number o newly introduced discourse reerents per discourse segment;4. the amount o cohesive ellipsis and substitution;5. the strength o lexical cohesion as measured by various ratios between content

and unction words, and as measured by typetoken relationships;6. the strength (internal connectivity) o lexical chains as measured by average

number o items per lexical chains;7. the ratio between explicit and implicit encoding o conjunctive relations.

Observe that in comparing any text ragments which are not in a unit-o-transla-tion-relationship, as in our registerially parallel sub-corpora o originals, we are

testing or the global property o (relative) explicitness. However, whenever we arecomparing a specific aligned and instantiated sourcetarget (translation) unit, weare testing explicitation (or its opposite, implicitation).

. Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in the CroCo Corpus

Te ollowing discussion illustrates our current usage o the annotated and aligned

CroCo corpus, ollowing the account o cohesive devices in Halliday and HasansCohesion in English(1976).

Table 1. Modularization o encoding according to metaunctions

MetafunctionGramm.

systemOperationalization

Ideational

Experiential ransitivityNumber o explicit unctions : Number o implicit

unctions (per unit)

Logical axisNumber o explicit unctions: Number o implicitunctions (per unit)

Interpersonal

MoodNumber o explicit Mood-markers: Number oimplicit Mood-markers (per unit)

ModalityNumber o explicit Modality-markers : Number oimplicit Modality-markers (per unit)

extual TemeNumber o auto-semantic Temes : Number osyn-semantic (phoric) Temes (per unit)


11/25


. Reerence

(Co-)Reerence denotes those cohesive ties where the same reerential meaning isrepresented by possibly different wordings, typically a ully lexical reerent and a

pro-orm. It operates similarly both in English and German (c. Kunz this volumeor an extensive analysis o co-reerence).

First, we take a look at hypothesis 1 mentioned in Section 4 concerning theexplicit presence o a reerent. A comparison o German relative clauses contain-ing a pronominal reerent with their non-finite English correspondences lackingan equivalent reerent could provide clues as to the proportion o explicit reerentsto implicit ones. Te retrieval o (co-)reerence markers separately rom the sourceand target language corpora is a straightorward procedure. Te part-o-speechinormation contained in the two corpora permits precise queries. Specific queriesinto these reerence markers in the target texts which have no equivalent in thesource texts are more complex. Yet, they address levels o encoding richer in lin-guistic inormation than merely string-based queries which are unable to retrieveinormation encoded on higher linguistic levels.

Te relevant evidence is reflected in the annotation and alignment at wordlevel. German relative pronouns, which reactivate the antecedent reerent, are as-

signed the part-o-speech tagprels4

and i they occur in both languages, they arelinked to each other in the word alignment. However, i there is a relative pronounin the German translation which cannot be ound in the English original text asin example 2,5the German relative pronoun is not aligned at all it receives a so-called empty or undefined link (see Figure 1 or the XML representation with thetoken, its part-o-speech tag and the empty link in bold ace).

(2) at53palmistt54,t55inerringt56thet57uturet58outt59ot60hist61ownt62linedt63flesht64eint64Handlesert65,t66 dert67seinet68Zukunft69aust70dent71eigenent72Linient73ableitetet74

GTrans token index file GTrans part of speech annotation G2E word alignment

Figure 1. XML corpus annotation and alignment at word level including empty links


12/25


For the investigation o explicit pronominal reerents in German relative clausesvs. implicitly encoded English reerents (since the reerence is encoded in the Eng-lish participle), all German tokens with the part-o-speech tagprelswhich are notaligned at word level have to be extracted. Te respective XQuery is shown in Fig-ure 2 (the part-o-speech tag and its lacking equivalent in bold ace).

Te output o this query yields sentences like 2. Tis example (taken rom theFICION sub-corpus) is interpreted as an instance o explicitation since partici-pant role (and thus the reactivation o the reerent), tense and mood are explicitlyrealized in the finite relative clause o the German translation, whereas they re-main implicit in the English original.

Te results o relative pronoun alignment suggest that the use o relative pro-nouns is typologically motivated: Figure 3 shows that zero-to-one alignment,which implies the lack o a relative pronoun in the original as opposed to the pres-ence o a relative pronoun in the translation, occurs more requently or English-German translations, whereas one-to-zero alignment is a eature o German-Eng-lish translations. Tese findings, taken rom the SHARE sub-corpus, indicate that regardless o the translation direction we can find more relative pronouns inthe German texts than in the English ones. Hence, relative pronouns seem to bemore characteristic o German than o English. Te results or the other constella-tions depicted in Figure 3 corroborate this assumption.

Te evaluation o one-to-zero alignments typical o the German-Englishtranslations suggests that the loss o the relative pronoun in translation can beinterpreted as implicitation. Example 3 is a case in point:

(3) Der Pkw-Markt in Deutschland ist der einzige wesentliche Markt, in dem einRckgang der Auslieerungen an Kunden zu verzeichnen war.

Te German passenger car market was the only major market to see adecline in deliveries to customers.

Here, the German relative pronoun again reactivates the reerent, and the finiteverb war(was) o the relative clause renders tense and mood explicit. In contrast,the English infinitive to see implicitly reers to the nominal phrase the only majormarket. ense and mood are also implicit in the non-finite construction. Te ex-amples discussed here show that, where the use o relative pronouns is concerned,

for $k in $doc//tokens/token

let $fileName := $doc//translations/translation[@n='1']/@trans.loc

let $fileNameNew := replace($fileName,"tok","tag" )

where ($k/align[1][@xlink:href != "#undefined"] and $k/align[2]

[@xlink:href = "# undefined "] and doc($fileNameNew)//token

[@xlink:href eq $k/align[1]/@xlink:href][@pos eq "prels"])

Figure 2. XQuery or relative pronouns with empty links


13/25


phenomena such as explicitation or implicitation seem to be triggered by typo-logical language constraints.

In a next step, hypothesis 2 (c. Section 4) concerning the proportion o phoricto ully lexical (auto-semantic) phrases was verified by comparing the number otokens carrying a pronoun tag with the number o tokens carrying a noun tag inaligned sentences. o obtain an overview o the distribution o nouns and pro-nouns in the CroCo sub-corpora we compared the requencies o these two part-o-speech groups (see able 2).

From this table we can gather the ollowing inormation. Te register-neutralreerence corpus or German (GR) includes a lower proportion o nouns and a

higher proportion o pronouns than the English one (ER). Te different propor-tions in EO and GO are probably a reflection o the broader registerial composi-tion o ER and GR. Te requencies in the translation sub-corpora lie betweenthe originals and the reerence corpora, moving in the direction o the language

Alignment of relative pronouns

0 200 400

0:1

0:2

0:3

1:0

1:1

1:2

2:0

2:1

3:1

f

requency

ofre

l.pronounsper

aligne

ds

entence

number of constellations

EO-Gtrans

GO-Etrans

Figure 3. Alignment distribution o relative pronouns6

Table 2. Frequencies o nouns and pronouns in the sub-corpora in percentage terms

Subcorpus Noun Pronoun

ER 24.60 5.46

EO 27.21 4.73

ERANS 26.14 4.54

GRANS 23.84 8.67

GO 24.51 9.32

GR 22.93 8.45


14/25


average, i.e. the reerence corpora (except or pronouns in Erans). And finally, thecomparison o originals and their matching translations in the respective targetlanguage reveals a strong influence o the target language with similar percentages

occurring in each target language category. Te requency o pronouns in Eransis even lower than both the ER and the EO percentages so that target languageconventions are exaggerated.

With a ocus on the comparison o source and target texts, Figure 4 showsthis tendency to conorm to target language conventions. It reflects the increaseand decrease o noun and pronoun requencies observed when comparing thesource texts with the respective target texts. In the translation direction English-German, the noun requency drops by 3.37 percentage points, while pronouns

rise by 3.94 percentage points. In the opposite direction, there is a slight increasein the requency o nouns (1.63 percentage points) accompanied by a considerabledecrease in the requency o pronouns (-4.77 percentage points). Tis may be dueto a typological constraint which entails an increased use o pronouns in Germanand nouns in English. Te degree to which this happens may, however, also beinfluenced by register, as indicated in Figure 5. Tis figure illustrates the impacto different register norms on the usage o nominal and pronominal constructionsin English-German translations. It supports the overall impression created beore,

i.e. in all registers the German translations use more pronouns and ewer nounsthan the English originals. Most o the registers seem to compensate or their lowrequency o nouns through an increased use o pronouns. Tis is the case orinstructional texts in particular. Te German SHARE corpus conorms to this ten-dency with respect to the low number o nouns, whereas the texts also tend to use

Difference originaltranslation

-6.00

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.003.00

4.00

5.00

noun pronoun

part of speech

percentagepoints

EO-Gtrans

GO-Etrans

Figure 4. Shis o noun and pronoun requencies rom originals to translations


15/25


ewer pronouns than texts in other registers. Tis interesting finding encouragesus to take a closer look at this register.

When comparing the distribution o nouns and pronouns or a sub-corpus

globally, we are dealing with explicitness. We can only determine explicitationbycomparing noun and pronoun tags in aligned versions. In the aligned sentencepairs, non-identical sentence boundaries can be detected through one-to-twomappings and through so-called crossing lines between sentence and clause align-ments or sentence and phrase alignments.

able 3 illustrates this or a SHARE text in the translation direction Englishto German. Sentence pairs 12/15, 13/16 and 15/18 contain strong indicators orexplicitation since both more nouns and more pronouns are used in the German

translations. Shis in sentence pairs 18/23, 20/27 and 24/33, where ewer nounsare used in the German translations compared to their English originals, might beinterpreted as instances o implicitation.

Difference EO-Gtrans

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

Essay

Fictio

n

Instru

ction

Popsc

iSh

are

Speec

h

Touri

sm Web

Register

percentagepoints

noun

pronoun

Figure 5. Shis o noun and pronoun requencies across registers in the translationdirection E to G

Table 3. Noun and pronoun distribution in aligned sentence pairs

EO GTrans

sentence id no. of nouns no. of pronouns sentence id no. of nouns no. of pronouns

s12 3 2 s15 6 3

s13 5 2 s16 7 6

s15 6 4 s18 10 7

s18 8 1 s23 5 1

s20 11 1 s27 9 1

s24 10 0 s33 7 1


16/25


A closer look at the sentence pair in example 4 shows that the English originalcontains 5 nouns and 4 pronouns; the aligned German translation 9 nouns and 3pronouns. Te translation o the pronouns itreerring to downturnin the original

illustrates how explicitation is created. In the translation, we find two paraphraseso the antecedentAbschwung der Konjunktur, namely a general noun in the nounphrase dieseschwierige Situationand a synonym diekonjunkturelleDelle, both cre-ating lexical cohesion. Obviously this shi entails changes in co-reerence.

(4) During challenging market transitions, successul companies usually getsurprised by the downturn, they determine how long itwill last and howdeep itwill be, and then they get ready or the upturn.

In einem Marktumeld, dessen stndige Vernderungen eine groe

Herausorderung darstellen, werden auch erolgreiche Unternehmen von einemAbschwung der Konjunktur zunchst berrascht, untersuchen dann jedochumgehend, wie lange diese schwierige Situationandauern und wie tie diekonjunkturelle Dellesein wird, um r den olgenden Auschwung gerstet zusein.

. Substitution and ellipsis

Reerring to hypothesis 4, we shall discuss substitution and ellipsis together, asthey represent the same process, namely replacing one item by either a semantical-ly weaker one, or, in the case o ellipsis, by zero (c. Halliday and Hasan 1976:88).Substitution is a cohesive device without a direct equivalent in German, which hasimplications or translation. Te most neutral strategy or compensation as usedby the translator in 5 is to use ellipsis instead.7

(5) () proponents o enlargement, o which I am an enthusiastic one,

occasionally all into the rhetorical trap o arguing () () die Verechter der Erweiterung und ich zhle mich zu den

enthusiastischen gehen manchmal in die rhetorische Falle zuargumentieren, ()

However, this is not the only strategy pursued by translators. In 6, instead o re-placing or omitting the item in question, the translator chose to repeat it, thusmaking use o lexical cohesion. Tis can be interpreted as a case o cohesive explic-itation because the syn-semantic element one, whose reerential meaning can onlybe determined by retrieving its previous mention, is replaced by the auto-semanticitem einen Partner, which spells out the reerential meaning.


17/25


(6) () I again want to stress that the US genuinely wants the EU to be astrategic global partner onewe can work closely with to address political,security and economic issues o common concern around the world.

() mchte ich noch einmal hervorheben, dass die Vereinigten Staatenaurichtig an der EU als strategischen globalen[sic!] Partner interessiert sind einen[sic!] Partner, mit dem wir bei politischen, sicherheitspolitischen undwirtschaflichen Fragen, die die ganze Welt betreffen, eng zusammenarbeitenknnen.

From an explicitation-oriented point o view, the other translation direction iseven more interesting. Since substitution is not available to the German sourcetext author, we would expect not to find any substitution in the translations either.

Tis is, however, not the case. ranslators employ substitution in texts that do notcontain any marked cohesive device in the source text, thereby normalizing thetranslations as in 7. Here, the reerent is taken up in an additional cohesive realiza-tion (one).

(7) Die Justizministerin werde ich dazu einladen, und der Verband undwir werden eine vernnfige Lsung finden, die sicherstellt, dass dieWettbewerbsbedingungen in Deutschland verglichen mit anderen

europischen Lndern nicht schlechter sind () I will ask the Justice Minister to join our discussions and together withyour Association we will work out a sensible solution, onethat ensures thecompetitive environment in Germany is no less avourable than in otherEuropean countries ()

Retrieval o all these examples is possible at word level by searching or the sub-stitutor onein a concordance tool. Tanks to our annotation and alignment, sub-stitutions can also be classified according to their grammatical unctions or to the

aligned segments. Since the annotation o grammatical unctions and the corre-sponding alignment is still in progress, this classification is postponed to a laterproject stage.

As to substitution, German seems to offer more flexible means o realizingcohesive ellipsis than English as can be seen rom 8 below.

(8) Habt ihr gesehen, ob er sie kt? Und sie ihn? Have you seen whether he kisses her? And does she kiss him?

Here, the whole verbal group is elided in the German source text. For languagetypological reasons, this is not possible in the English target text, both the finitedoesand the predicator kissare verbalized. Tis results in a more explicit wordingin several ways: Not only is the verbal reerent explicated, strengthening the lexi-cal cohesion. Looking at the example rom the perspective o grammar, we can


18/25


also conclude that tense, mood and voice are explicitated in the translation. Teannotation o grammatical unctions is particularly helpul or querying ellipsis.We can retrieve elided elements rom the corpus or instance by querying finites

in one version with an empty link, i.e. no alignment with a matching finite, in theother version.

. Conjunction

Hypothesis 7 in Section 4 addresses conjunctive relations. Halliday and Hasan de-scribe English conjunctive elements as speciying the way in which what is to ol-low is systematically connected to what has gone beore (1976:227). Tis applies

to German conjunctive elements as well.While conjunction works quite differently rom reerence, we can nonethe-

less pose a similar query to the one described or reerence in Section 5.1. Here,all German tokens with the part-o-speech tag kous(or conjunction) which arenot aligned at word level (since the conjunctive relation is encoded implicitly, orinstance through a participle clause) are extracted. Te results or this query dis-played in Figure 6 are taken rom the SHARE sub-corpus.

Te two examples show explicitation in the German translations since the im-

plicit conjunctive relation encoded in the English participles (marked in bold ace)are translated explicitly with German conjunctions (again marked in bold ace).It should be noted, however, that, ormally speaking, wodurchin the translationo the first example is not a conjunction but an adverbial relative pronoun. Teact that this sentence pair is retrieved by the query can be explained by a use-ul mistake o the statistical part-o-speech tagger. 9 shows a case o implicitationwhere the coordination marked by the conjunction undin the German original istranslated by a subordination which implicitates the conjunctive relation.

Baker Hughes Business Support Services has assumed accounting, payroll,benefits and I support duties or many o the companys U.S. operations, eliminatingduplicate efforts by division personnel. Baker Hughes Business Support Services hat die Buchhrung, Gehalts- undSozialleistungen sowie I-Augaben r viele Niederlassungen des Unternehmens in denVereinigten Staaten bernommen, wodurchdoppelte Arbeit durch das Personal in denochterunternehmen vermieden werden konnte.

In this environment, Baker Hughes revenue declined 22% to $4.5 billionor 1999, compared to$5.8 billion in 1998. Vor diesem Hintergrund sanken die Umsatzerlse von Baker Hughes im Jahre1999 um 22% au 4,5 Mrd. Dollar, whrendsie 1998 noch 5,8 Mrd. Dollar betragen hatten.

Figure 6. Results or conjunctions with empty links


19/25


(9) Wie lange sind die schon da drinnen?ragte ich undstarrte au das schwarzeFenster in der Baracke.

How long have they been in there? I asked, staring at the black window othe structure.

. Lexical cohesion

Lexical cohesion is achieved through the selection o vocabulary (Halliday andHasan 1976:274). It is realized in English by the replacement o a lexical item witha general noun, a (near-) synonym, a superordinate or a hyponym. Finally, thelexical item may simply be repeated. All o these procedures are also available in

German the use o general nouns is however more restricted in German thanin English. While most o these procedures require a semantic analysis which iscurrently not part o the CroCo resource, we obtain an impression o repetitionby computing the two indices typetoken ratio and lexical density as expressed inhypothesis 5 in Section 4. As discussed in Section 2, we have to bear in mind thatthese ratios have to be seen as emergent phenomena and can only serve as indirectindicators or lexical cohesion. Tey are subject to different and conflicting influ-ences. For instance, a low typetoken ratio signalling requent repetitions o types

does not discriminate between the repetition o lexical words relevant to lexicalcohesion and unction words not contributing to lexical cohesion. Te automaticcounting even o lemmatized items has to allow or different spellings (themost prominent example being the different spelling o compounds in English andGerman). Tese ratios thereore have to be complemented by a thorough semanticanalysis particularly with respect to the other realizations o lexical cohesion.8

o compute the typetoken ratio, we counted how oen a given lexical item,i.e. a type, is repeated as a token in the text. Reerring to the spoken-written dis-

tinction, Biber et al. (1999:43) claim that a high type/token ratio (i.e. a high degreeo lexical diversity in a text) serves to increase the semantic precision and inor-mational density o a written text. In CroCo, the calculation is based on the lem-matization included in the morphological analysis. able 4 lists the ratios or eachaligned text o the register OU in the translation direction English to German.

I we compare the ratios in aligned source and target texts, we can interpretthem in terms o explicitation/implicitation, the assumption being that a lowertypetoken ratio in the aligned target text points to higher lexical cohesion and

thus to explicitation. For the interpretation, we have picked out text pair number007 which differs in typetoken ratio by 2.5 percentage points. In absolute num-bers, the English original has 959 types and 6,174 tokens while the German trans-lation contains more types (1,007) and ewer tokens (5,586). Tis leads to the con-clusion that the translated text is less repetitive and thus shows less lexical cohesion


20/25


as realized through repetition. While part o the difference can be explained bythe different compound chunking, the two ollowing examples rom text pair 007show that there are indeed cases o reduced repetition in the translation.

(10) Tere are many bodies concerned with the preservation o the countrysideand wildlie based in Wales and all local authorities pursue an active

conservation policy. Es gibthierzulande eine ganze Reihe von Vereinen, die sich dem Schutz derNatur und der Landschaf widmen. Auerdem betreiben alle Gemeinde undKreisverwaltungen aktiven Naturschutz.

(11) As regards density o population, two thirds live in South East Wales andthe rest are thinly spread throughout the West and North, which gives theseareas a tremendous eeling o space.

Die Bevlkerungsdichte ist sehr unregelmig: zwei Drittel leben im Sdosten

des Landes, und das andere Drittel ist dnn ber den Westen und Nordendes Landes verteilt, was diesen Landesteilen ein unbeschreibliches Gehl desRaumes verleiht.

Te most requent content word o the text pair is the proper noun Wales. It isreplaced in 10 by the adverb hierzulande (here, in this country), and in 11 by thenoun Land(country), consequently reducing the repetition o the noun Wales.Interms o lexical cohesion this can be interpreted as implicitation. Other interpreta-

tions which may, or instance, emphasize the translators tendency to diversiy thevocabulary are beyond the scope o this paper.

Lexical density can be interpreted as an indicator o lexical cohesion in the ol-lowing way: a high lexical density in a given text reflects a high number o lexicalitems which require a certain level o semantic connection, i we presume that the

Table 4. ypetoken ratio in EO_OU and Grans_OU in percentage terms.

Text no. EO Gtrans

001 17.00 20.10

002 15.96 17.94

003 16.19 18.90004 18.77 19.71

005 15.35 18.17

006 15.04 16.81

007 15.53 18.03

008 16.24 18.26

009 15.51 16.85

010 14.96 16.09

011 13.10 15.86


21/25


text is coherent at all. Te comparison o the general figures or the language cor-pora across all registers does not show any marked tendency. However, in all oursub-corpora the register FICION has the lowest lexical density. I we take a closerlook at concrete aligned text pairs rom the English-German FICION corporawe can see that each German translation in this register has a considerably higher

lexical density than the source language texts (see able 5).Tis can be seen as an indicator o a higher level o lexical cohesion. Te in-

fluence o contrastive differences does not provide a satisactory explanation orthis phenomenon, considering that the differences between source and target texts

vary considerably. Tereore, this rise in lexical density might be due to the trans-lation process.

It must be stressed, however, that both typetoken ratio and lexical densitycan only serve to provide a first quantitative indication o lexical cohesion and canonly be interpreted in terms o repetition. As said beore, a complete quantitativeoverview o lexical cohesion can only be obtained by way o an annotation o se-mantic relations.

In this section we have discussed the impact o the different cohesive deviceson explicitness/implicitness and explicitation/implicitation in translations. It isimportant to point out that each o the devices may affect the explicitness o atranslation in different or even conflicting ways; the substitution o one device

with another may even generate an offsetting effect. A generalized statement oncohesive explicitness and explicitation would call or an assessment o the relativeimpact o the different devices and their contribution to explicit and/or implicitpackaging o inormation. It is questionable whether such a prioritization is ea-sible and whether it results in substantiated assertions.

Table 5. Lexical density in English original fiction texts and their translations in percent-age terms

Text no. EO_FICTION GTRANS_FICTION difference in

percentage points

001 43.06 46.53 3.47002 42.66 48.45 5.79

003 48.43 53.17 4.74

004 47.87 54.62 6.76

005 46.31 52.44 6.13

006 42.45 51.81 9.36

007 47.11 52.23 5.12

008 43.84 49.34 5.50

009 45.50 54.40 8.90010 48.80 54.47 5.67


22/25


. Conclusions and outlook

In this article we have attempted to show that explicitness and explicitation oper-

ate differently and thus have to be analyzed in different ways. Aer clariying thetwo concepts and explaining how linguistic indicators rom the areas o cohesion,and partly also lexicogrammar, serve to operationalize them, we have discussedresults obtained by analyzing the CroCo Corpus o annotated English and Ger-man parallel texts. We have presented findings illustrating differences in cohe-sion in English and German and particularly variation in translations comparedto their source texts and/or originals in the target language. In several cases, as orinstance with respect to pronominal reerence, the results suggested contrastive

differences between the two languages involved as the explanation or the explici-tation or implicitation diagnosed.

Te CroCo resource proved able to provide a wealth o inormation or in-vestigating research questions in this area. Additional annotation o the corpus,e.g. by encoding grammatical unctions and particularly semantic relations, willextend the range o possible queries and thus also the range o interpretations inuture work.

Notes

* Te authors would like to thank Mihaela Vela or her help with the queries discussed here,Kerstin Kunz or continuous discussions on cohesive indicators and Mary Mondt or prooreading. Without their contributions this paper would not be possible in its present orm. Wewould also like to thank two anonymous reviewers or helpul comments on an earlier version.Te research reported on here is sponsored by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as proj-ect no. SE 840/5-1.

. For current inormation c. http://r46.uni-saarland.de/croco/

. http://www.tei-c.org

. http://www.xml-ces.org

. Following the Stuttgart bingen ag Set or German (Schiller et al. 1999)

. Unless marked otherwise the examples are all taken rom the CroCo Corpus.

. Note that we did not test the significance o our results.. We concentrated on nominal substitution where the head o a nominal group is substitutedby one.

. eich and Fankhauser (2005) exempliy an interesting way o interpreting lexical cohesion onthe basis o a corpus annotated with semantic relations.
http://fr46.uni-saarland.de/croco/http://www.tei-c.org/http://www.xml-ces.org/http://www.xml-ces.org/http://www.tei-c.org/http://fr46.uni-saarland.de/croco/


23/25


References

Baker, M. 1996. Corpus-based ranslation Studies: Te Challenges that Lie Ahead. In ermi-nology, LSP and ranslation Studies in Language Engineering, H. Somers (ed.), 175186.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Biber, D. 1993. Representativeness in Corpus Design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8/4:

243257.Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions o Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar o Spo-

ken and Written English. London: Longman.Blum-Kulka, S. 1986. Shis o Cohesion and Coherence in ranslation. In Interlingual and

Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in ranslation and Second Language

Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), 1735. bingen: Narr.Burton-Roberts, N. 2005. Review Article: Robyn Carston on Semantics, Pragmatics and En-

coding.Journal o Linguistics41 (2005):389407.Carston, R. 2002. Toughts and Utterances: the Pragmatics o Explicit Communication. Oxord:

Blackwell.Dixon, R.M.W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxord:

Clarendon Press.Doherty, M. 2002. Language Processing in Discourse. A Key to Felicitous ranslation. London,

New York: Routledge.

Doherty, M. 2006. Structural Propensities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Englund Dimitrova, B. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the ranslation Process. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1999. Inormation Packaging and ranslation: Aspects o ranslational

Sentence Splitting (German English/Norwegian). In Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Inor-mationsverteilung, M. Doherty (ed.), 175214. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and ext: Aspects o Language in a

Social-Semiotic Perspective.Oxord: Oxord Univ. Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London:Te Falmer Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning. ALanguage-Based Approach to Cognition.London: Cassell.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2004.An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rdedition. London: Arnold (earlier versions by Halliday in 1985/1994).

Hansen, S. 2003. Te Nature o ranslated ext. An Interdisciplinary Methodology or the Investi-gation o the Specific Properties o ranslations. Saarbrcken: Saarbrcken Dissertations inComputational Linguistics and Language echnology. vol. 13.

Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S. and Vela, M. 2006. Multi-dimensional Annotation and Align-ment in an English-German ranslation Corpus. Proceedings o the 5th Workshop on Multi-dimensional markup in NLP, 3542.rento.

House, J. 2002. Maintenance and Convergence in ranslation some Methods or Cor-pus-Based Investigations. In Inormation Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, H.


24/25


Hasselgrd, S. Johansson, B. Behrens, and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), 199212.Amster-dam, New York: Rodopi.

House, J. and Rehbein, J. (eds.). 2004. Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam: John Benja-mins.

Johansson, S. and Oksefell, S. (eds.). 1998. Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research. Amsterdam:Rodopi.

Kunz, K. (this volume). A Method or Investigating Coreerence in ranslations and Origi-nals.

Laviosa, S. (ed.). 1998.Meta ranslators Journal.vol. 43 no. 4.Linke, A. and Nussbaumer, M. 2000. Konzepte des Impliziten: Prsuppositionen und Imp-

likaturen. In ext- und Gesprchslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenssischerForschung, K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, and S. F. Sager, 435448. Halbband 1.Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.

Neumann, S. 2003. Die Beschreibung von extsorten und ihre Nutzung beim bersetzen.Frankurt/M.: Peter Lang.

Neumann, S. and Hansen-Schirra, S. 2005. Te CroCo Project. Cross-Linguistic Corpora orthe Investigation o Explicitation in ranslations. In Proceedings rom the Corpus Linguis-tics Conerence Series, 1(1). Available at http://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/PCLC/cl-134-pap.pd,accessed May 2007.

Olohan, M. and Baker, M. 2000. Reporting that in ranslated English. Evidence or Subcon-scious Processes o Explicitation?Across Languages and Cultures 1(2): 141158.

Polenz, P. von 1988. Deutsche Satzsemantik. Grundbegriffe des Zwischen-den-Zeilen-Lesens. Ber-

lin: Mouton de Gruyter.Schiller, A., euel, S., Stckert, C. and Tielen, C. 1999. Guidelines r das agging deutscherextcorpora mit SS. Stuttgart: Universitt Stuttgart.

Steiner, E. 2001. ranslations English German: Investigating the Relative Importance o Sys-temic Contrasts and o the ext-ype ranslation . SPRIK-Reportsno. 7. Oslo.

Steiner, E. 2004. Ideational Grammatical Metaphor: Exploring some Implications or the Over-all Model. Languages in Contrast. 4(1):139166.

Steiner, E. 2005a. Some Properties o exts in erms o Inormation Distribution Across Lan-guages. Languages in Contrast 5(1):4972.

Steiner, E. 2005b. Some Properties o Lexicogrammatical Encoding and their Implications orSituations o Language Contact and Multilinguality. Zeitschrif r Literaturwissenschafund Linguistik Jg. 35, He 139:5475.

Steiner, E. 2005c. Explicitation, its Lexicogrammatical Realization, and its Determining (In-dependent) Variables owards an Empirical and Corpus-Based Methodology. SPRIK-reports no. 36. Oslo.

eich, E. 2003. Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and ext: A Methodology or the Investigationo ranslations and Comparable exts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

eich, E. and Fankhauser, P. 2005. Exploring Lexical Patterns in ext: Lexical Cohesion Analy-

sis with WordNet. Interdisciplinary Studies on Inormation Structure2 (2005):129145.Vela, M. and Hansen-Schirra, S. 2006. Te Use o Multi-Level ranslation and Alignment orthe ranslator. Proceedings o the ranslating and the Computer 28 Conerence. London.Available at http://www.aslib.co.uk/conerences/proceedings.html, accessed May 2007.
http://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/PCLC/cl-134-pap.pdfhttp://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/PCLC/cl-134-pap.pdfhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1585-1923()1L.141[aid=8121091]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1585-1923()1L.141[aid=8121091]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1387-6759()5L.49[aid=8121317]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1387-6759()5L.49[aid=8121317]http://www.aslib.co.uk/conferences/proceedings.htmlhttp://www.aslib.co.uk/conferences/proceedings.htmlhttp://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/PCLC/cl-134-pap.pdfhttp://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/PCLC/cl-134-pap.pdfhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1387-6759()5L.49[aid=8121317]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1585-1923()1L.141[aid=8121091]


25/25


Authors addresses

Silvia Hansen-SchirraFachbereich Angewandte Sprach- und

KulturwissenschaJohannes Gutenberg-Universitt MainzPostach 11 50D-76711 GermersheimGermany

[email protected]

Stella NeumannFachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissen-scha, sowie bersetzen und DolmetschenUniversitt des SaarlandesPostach 15 11 50D-66041 SaarbrckenGermany

[email protected]

Erich SteinerFachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissen-

scha, sowie bersetzen und DolmetschenUniversitt des SaarlandesPostach 15 11 50D-66041 SaarbrckenGermany

[email protected]

Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus*

Documents

Transcript of Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus*