Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The aims of this paper are to analyse differences in the degree of lexical variation (type/token ratio and hapax/token ratio) of reporting verbs in reporting clauses placed medially or in postposition in English, French and Czech fiction and to evaluate their consequences in translation, especially in regard to explicitation/implicitation. We expect that, in translations from a language with a low degree of lexical variation of reporting verbs into a language with a high degree of lexical variation, the frequency and the degree of explicitation will be higher than in translations involving languages less different with respect to lexical variation. The analysis, relying on data extracted from the InterCorp multilingual corpus, proposes a classification of reporting verbs based on the type and amount of information conveyed, which allows evaluating the degree of explicitation operated in translations. The results show that most shifts involve only the neutral reporting verb , replaced by a stylistically more specific synonym or by a verb explicitating information obvious from the context. This suggests that modifications of reporting verbs in translation are motivated primarily by respect for the stylistic norm of the target language and the degree of acceptability of the repetition of the neutral reporting verb.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, M.
    1993 Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. InText and Technology, M. Baker , G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  2. Becher, V.
    2010 Abandoning the Notion of “Translation-Inherent” Explicitation: Against a Dogma of Translation Studies. Across Languages and Cultures11(1): 1–28. 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bečka, J. V.
    1992Česká stylistika [Czech Stylistics]. Praha: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bisiada, M.
    2018 The Editor’s Invisibility: Analysing Editorial Intervention in Translation. Target30(2): 288–309. 10.1075/target.16116.bis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16116.bis [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, S.
    1986 Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Čermák, Fr. and Rosen, A.
    2012 The Case of InterCorp, a Multilingual Parallel Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13(3): 411–427. 10.1075/ijcl.17.3.05cer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.05cer [Google Scholar]
  7. Čermáková, A.
    2017 Translating Children’s Literature: Some Insights from Corpus Stylistics. Ilha do Desterro. A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies71(1): 117–134. 10.5007/2175‑8026.2018v71n1p117
    https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2018v71n1p117 [Google Scholar]
  8. Corness, P.
    2010 Shifts in Czech Translations of the Reporting Verb Said in English Fiction. InInterCorp: Exploring a Multilingual Corpus, F. Čermák , P. Corness and A. Klégr (eds), 159–177. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. De Metsenaere, H. and Vandepitte, S.
    2017 Towards a Theoretical Foundation for Explicitation and Implicitation. trans-kom10(3): 385–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dessaintes, M.
    1960La construction par insertion incidente (Étude grammaticale et stylistique). Paris: d’Artrey.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fárová, L.
    2016 Uvozovací slovesa v překladech třech různých jazyků. InJazykové paralely, A. Čermáková , L. Chlumská and M. Malá (eds), 145–161. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fónagy, I.
    1986 Reported Speech in French and Hungarian. InDirect and Indirect Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 255–311. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.255 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gournay, L.
    1992 Linguistique contrastive et narratologie: Dit-il, he said… Ce que nous apprend l’analyse des énoncés en incise sur la relation entre récit et discours direct. InLinguistique contrastive et traduction T.5, J. Guillemin-Flescher (ed.), 34–64. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grevisse, M. and Goosse, A.
    2016Le Bon Usage. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hansen-Schirra, S. , Neumann, S. and Steiner, E.
    2007 Cohesive Explicitness and Explicitation in an English-German Translation Corpus. Languages in Contrast7(2): 241–266. 10.1075/lic.7.2.09han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.09han [Google Scholar]
  16. Hirschová, M.
    1982 K některým otázkám reprodukování cizích výpovědí. Acta Universitatis Palackianae, Studia Bohemica II, Facultas Philosophica Philologica46: 97–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K.
    2012The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. King, S.
    2000On Writing. A Memoir of the Craft. New York: Scribner.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Klaudy, K.
    2003Languages in Translation. Lectures on the Theory, Teaching and Practice of Translation. With Illustrations in English, French, German, Russian and Hungarian. Budapest: Scholastica.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2010 Specification and Generalization of Meaning in Translation. InMeaning in Translation, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), 81–104. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Klaudy, K. and Károly, K.
    2005 Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation. Across Languages and Cultures6(1): 13–28. 10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lamiroy, B. and Charolles, M.
    2008 Les verbes de parole et la question de l’(in)transitivité. Discours2. Available athttps://journals.openedition.org/discours/3232
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Laviosa, S.
    2002Corpus-Based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Levin, B.
    1993English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Levý, J. and Jettmarová, Z.
    2011The Art of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.97
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.97 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P.
    (eds) 2004Translation Universals: Do they Exist?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48 [Google Scholar]
  27. Murtisari, E. T.
    2013 A Relevance-Based Framework for Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation. An Alternative Typology. trans-kom6(2): 315–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Nádvorníková, O.
    2010 The French Gérondif and its Czech Equivalents. InInterCorp: Exploring a Multilingual Corpus, F. Čermák , P. Corness and A. Klégr (eds), 83–96. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny/Ústav Českého národního korpusu.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016 Le corpus multilingue InterCorp et les possibilités de son exploitation. InActes du XXVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, É. Buchi , J.-P. Chauveau and J.-M. Pierrel (eds), 223–237. Strasbourg: Société de linguistique romane/ÉLiPhi.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2017 Les proportions des verbes SAY/DIRE/ŘÍCI dans les propositions incises et leurs équivalents en traduction : Étude sur corpus parallèle. Linguistica Pragensia28(2): 35–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2020a Explicitation des verbes introducteurs dans les propositions incises en traduction: Hypothèse de l’asymétrie explicitation / implicitation face aux données de corpus parallèle français-anglais-tchèque. InCognitivisme et Traductologie: Approches sémantiques et psychologiques 5, G. Achard-Bayle and Ch. Durieux (ed.), 77–93. Paris: Classiques Garnier. 10.15122/isbn.978‑2‑406‑09944‑4.p.0077
    https://doi.org/10.15122/isbn.978-2-406-09944-4.p.0077 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2020b The Use of English, Czech and French Punctuation Marks in Reference, Parallel and Comparable Web Corpora: A Question of Methodology. Linguistica Pragensia30(1): 30–50. 10.14712/18059635.2020.1.2.
    https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2020.1.2. [Google Scholar]
  33. forthcoming. Stylistic Normalisation, Convergence and Cross-Linguistic Interference in Translation: The Case of the Czech Transgressive. InTranslation in Transition, M. Bisiada ed. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nida, E.
    1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Olohan, M.
    2004Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203640005
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Olohan, M. and Baker, M.
    2000 Reporting that in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?Across Languages and Cultures1(2): 141–158. 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pápai, V.
    2004 Explicitation. A Universal of Translated Text?InTranslation Universals. Do They Exist? A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.12pap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.12pap [Google Scholar]
  38. Peprník, J.
    1969 Reporting Phrases in English Prose. Brno Studies in English8: 145–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pípalová, R.
    2012 Framing Direct Speech: Reporting Clauses in a Contrastive Study. Prague Journal of English Studies1(1): 75–107. 10.2478/pjes‑2014‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.2478/pjes-2014-0005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pym, A.
    2005 Explaining Explicitation. InNew Trends in Translation Studies. In Honour of Kinga Klaudy , K. Károly and Á. Fóris (eds), 29–34. Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Svartvik, J. and Leech, G. N.
    2008A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Rosier, L.
    1999Le discours rapporté. Paris: Duculot.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sedláček, M.
    2016 Reporting Clauses in Czech and in English. Master’s Dissertation, Charles University.
  44. Séguinot, C.
    1988 Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction1(2): 106–114. 10.7202/037024ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037024ar [Google Scholar]
  45. Semino, E. and Short, M.
    2004Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203494073
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203494073 [Google Scholar]
  46. Šoltys, O.
    1983Verba dicendi a metajazyková informace. Praha: ÚJČ ČSAV.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tegelberg, E.
    1999 Les verbes d’incise dans Hemsöborna et sa traduction française. Étude contrastive. Studia Neophilologica71: 72–96. 10.1080/00393279950136652
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393279950136652 [Google Scholar]
  48. Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J.
    1958/1995Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rosen, A. , Vavřín, M. and Zasina, A.
    (2017) InterCorp Parallel Corpus, version 9 from 9. 9. 2016. Institute of the Czech national corpus, Prague 2016 Available atwww.korpus.cz.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error