Differences in the lexical variation of reporting verbs in French, English and Czech fiction and their impact on translation

References

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.
   1992 Česká 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.
    1960 La 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.
    2016 Le 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.
    2012 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. King, S.
    2000 On Writing. A Memoir of the Craft. New York: Scribner.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Klaudy, K.
    2003 Languages 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. Klaudy, K.
    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.
    2002 Corpus-Based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Levin, B.
    1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Levý, J. and Jettmarová, Z.
    2011 The 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) 2004 Translation 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. Nádvorníková, O.
    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. Nádvorníková, O.
    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. Nádvorníková, O.
    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. Nádvorníková, O.
    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. Nádvorníková, O.
    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.
    1964 Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Olohan, M.
    2004 Introducing 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.
    2008 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Rosier, L.
    1999 Le 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.
    2004 Corpus 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.
    1983 Verba 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.
    1958/1995 Stylistique 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]