1887
Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Coherence relations linking discourse segments can be communicated explicitly by the use of connectives but also implicitly through juxtaposition. Some discourse relations appear, however, to be more coherent than others when conveyed implicitly. This difference is explained in the literature by the existence of default expectations guiding discourse interpretation. In this paper, we assess the factors influencing implicitation by comparing the number of implicit and explicit translations of three polysemous French connectives in translated texts across three target languages: German, English and Spanish. Each connective can convey two discourse relations: one that can easily be conveyed implicitly and one that cannot be easily conveyed implicitly in monolingual data. Results indicate that relations that can easily be conveyed implicitly are also those that are most often left implicit in translation in all target languages. We discuss these results in view of the cognitive factors influencing the explicit or implicit communication of discourse relations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf
2016-09-16
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asr, F. and Demberg, V
    2012 Implicitness of Discourse Relations. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , 2669–2684. Mumbai, India.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow, M
    2008 Parallel Texts and Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis. InCurrent Trends in Contrastive Linguistics. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, M. de los Ángeles Gómez González et al (eds), 101–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.60.08bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.08bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Bertin, A
    2002 L’Emergence du Connecteur En Effet en Moyen Français. Linx46:37 – 50. doi: 10.4000/linx.90
    https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.90 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, S
    1986 Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka , 17–35. Tübigen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cartoni, B. and Meyer, T
    2012 Extracting Directional and Comparable Corpora from a Multilingual Corpus for Translation Studies. Proceedings of LREC 2012 , Istanbul, Turkey, May 23-25 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cartoni, B. Zufferey, S. and Meyer, T
    2013 Using the Europarl Corpus for Linguistic Research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics27:23–42. doi: 10.1075/bjl.27.02car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.27.02car [Google Scholar]
  7. Charolles, M. and Fagard, B
    2012En Effet en Français Contemporain: de la Confirmation à la Justification/Explication.”Le Français Moderne80: 171–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dancygier, B
    1999Conditionals and Prediction. Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486463 [Google Scholar]
  9. Danlos, L
    2012 Formalisation des Conditions d’Emploi des Connecteurs ‘En Réalité’ et ‘(Et) En Effet’. Proceedings of the Third Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française , Lyon, France, 493 – 508.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Das, D. and Taboada, M
    2013 Explicit and Implicit Discourse Relations. A Corpus Study. Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association , Alberta, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fagard, B
    2011 La Construction ‘En Effet’ dans les Langues Médiévales Romanes et la Question de l’Emprunt.”Oslo Studies in Language3:26–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fauconnier, G
    1985Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, M. and Hasan, R
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Halverson, S
    2004 Connectives as a Translation Problem. InAn International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, H. Kittel et al (eds), 562–572. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Iordanskaja, L. and Mel’čuk, I
    1999 Textual Connectors across Languages: French En Effet vs. Russian V Samon Dele . RASK9/10:305–347.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Koehn, P
    2005 Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. Proceedings of the 10 th Machine Translation Summit , Phuket, Thailand, 79–86, September 13-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Knott, A. and Dale, R
    1994 Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes18(1):35–62. doi: 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kuperberg, G. Paczynski, M. & Ditman, T
    2011 Establishing Causal Coherence across Sentences: An ERP Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience23:1230 – 1246. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21452
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21452 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hervey, S. and Higgins, I
    1992Thinking Translation. A Course in Translation Method, French-English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Mann, W. and Thomson, S
    1992 Relational Discourse Structure: A Comparison of Approaches to Structuring Text by ‘Contrast’. InLanguage in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, S. Hwang and W. Merrifield (eds), 19–45. Dallas: SIL.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Murray, J
    1995 Logical connectives and local coherence. InSources of Cohesion in Text Comprehension, R. Lorch and E. O’Brien (eds.), 107 – 125. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1997 Connectives and Narrative Text: The role of Continuity. Memory and Cognition25: 227–236. doi: 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pander-Maat, H
    1998 Classifying negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics30: 177–204. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00024‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00024-1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Patterson, G. and Kehler, A
    2013 Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Seattle, Washington, USA, 914–923.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Prasad, R. Dinesh, N. Lee, A. Miltsakaki, E. Robaldo, L. Joshi, A. and Webber B
    2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0.Proceedings of the 6 th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , Marrakesh, Morocco, 2961–2968.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rossari, C
    2002 Les Adverbes Connecteurs: Vers une Identification de la Classe et des Sous-Classes. Cahiers de Linguistique Française24:11–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Roze, C. Danlos, L. and Muller, P
    2012LEXCONN: A French Lexicon of Discourse Connectives. Discours10, published online.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sanders, J
    1994Perspective in Narrative Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sanders, T
    2005 Coherence, Causality and Cognitive Complexity in Discourse. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning , Biarritz, France, 105–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sanders, T. and Noordman, L
    2000 The Role of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing. Discourse Processes29:37 – 60. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sanders, T. Spooren, W. and Noordman, L
    1992 Towards a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes15(1):1–36. doi: 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  32. Taboada, M
    2006 Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations.”Journal of Pragmatics38:567–592. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InDiscourse, of Course, J. Renkema (ed.), 125 – 138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.148.13tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.13tab [Google Scholar]
  34. Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J
    1958Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  35. Zufferey, S. and Cartoni, B
    2012 English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast. Languages in Contrast12(2):232–250. doi: 10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 A Multifactorial Analysis of Explicitation in Translation. Target26:361–384. doi: 10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf [Google Scholar]
  37. Zufferey, S. and Gygax, P
    2015 The Role of Perspective Shifts for Processing and Translating Discourse Relations. Discourse Processes. published online ahead of print. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf
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