Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study aims to answer three questions: (1) whether there are differences in the frequency of use of connectives between translated and non-translated Catalan literary texts; (2) whether these differences (if they exist) are sensitive to the type of semantic relation conveyed; and (3) to what extent they are due to explicitation or other factors. Quantitative analysis reveals that there is no significant difference in the overall frequency of occurrence of connectives in translations and non-translations, but the behaviour of connectives in translations is sensitive to the type of semantic relation conveyed. Moreover, the higher frequency of connectives expressing consequence in translations seems to be related to explicitation. Qualitative analysis suggests that explicitation is strongly associated with two factors: the semantic relation conveyed by the connective being part of the common ground shared by participants, and the predominance of the procedural function of the connective.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2007 “The Meaning and Functions of the Swedish Discourse Marker alltså – Evidence from Translation Corpora.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics6: 31–59. doi: 10.5565/rev/catjl.123
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.123 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mona
    1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies – Implications and Applications.” InText and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker , Gill Francis , and Elena Tognini-Bonelli , 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  3. Becher, Viktor
    2010 “Abandoning the Notion of ‘Translation-inherent’ Explicitation: Against a Dogma of Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures11 (1): 1–28. doi: 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2011 “When and Why Do Translators Add Connectives?” Target23 (1): 26–47. doi: 10.1075/target.23.1.02bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23.1.02bec [Google Scholar]
  5. Behrens, Bergljot
    2004 “Cohesive Ties in Translation: A Contrastive Study of the Norwegian Connective dermed .” Languages in Contrast5 (1): 3–31. doi: 10.1075/lic.5.1.04beh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.5.1.04beh [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1986 “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication. Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. by Juliane House , and Shoshana Blum-Kulka , 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cuenca, Maria Josep
    2002 “Els connectors textuals i les interjeccions.” InGramàtica del català contemporani [Grammar of contemporary Catalan], vol.3, Sintaxi [Syntax], ed. by Joan Solà , Maria Rosa Lloret , Joan Mascaró , and Manuel Pérez Saldanya , 3173–3237. Barcelona: Empúries.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Denturck, Kathelijne
    2012 “Explicitation vs. Implicitation: A Bidirectional Corpus-based Analysis of Causal Connectives in French and Dutch Translations.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (2): 211–227. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
    2005Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.64
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.64 [Google Scholar]
  10. Espunya, Anna
    2007 “Is Explicitation in Translation Cognitively Related to Linguistic Explicitness? A Study on Interclausal Relationships.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics21: 67–86. doi: 10.1075/bjl.21.06esp
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.21.06esp [Google Scholar]
  11. Fraser, Bruce
    1996 “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics6 (2): 167–190. doi: 10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  12. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , Stella Neumann , and Erich Steiner
    2007 “Cohesive Explicitness and Explicitation in an English-German Translation Corpus.” Languages in Contrast7 (2): 241–265. doi: 10.1075/lic.7.2.09han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.09han [Google Scholar]
  13. Kenny, Dorothy
    2001Lexis and Creativity in Translation. A Corpus-based Approach. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Klaudy, Kinga
    2001 “The Asymmetry Hypothesis. Testing the Asymmetric Relationship between Explicitations and Implicitations.” Paper presented atthe Third International Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies, “Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies,” 30August–1September 2001, Copenhagen, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 “Explicitation.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker , and Gabriela Saldanha , 80–85. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Klaudy, Kinga , and Krisztina Károly
    2005 “Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures6 (1): 13–28. doi: 10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Nølke, Henning
    2007 “Connectors in a Cross-linguistic Perspective.” Languages in Contrast7 (2): 167–183. doi: 10.1075/lic.7.2.05nol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.05nol [Google Scholar]
  18. Olohan, Maeve , and Mona Baker
    2000 “Reporting that in Translated English. Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures1 (2): 141–158. doi: 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Øverås, Linn
    1998 “InSearch of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta43 (4): 557–570. doi: 10.7202/003775ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar [Google Scholar]
  20. Pápai, Vilma
    2004 “Explicitation: A Universal of Translated Text?” InTranslation Universals: Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranen , and Pekka Kujamäki , 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.12pap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.12pap [Google Scholar]
  21. Puurtinen, Tiina
    2004 “Explicitation of Clausal Relations: A Corpus-based Analysis of Clause Connectives in Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children’s Literature.” InTranslation Universals: Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranen , and Pekka Kujamäki , 165–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.13puu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.13puu [Google Scholar]
  22. Scott, Mike
    2004–2007WordSmith Tools Version 4.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Séguinot, Candace
    1988 “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis.” TTR Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction1 (2): 106–114. doi: 10.7202/037024ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037024ar [Google Scholar]
  24. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  25. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2007 “Discussion Article: Discourse Markers, Modal Particles, and Contrastive Analysis, Synchronic and Diachronic.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics6: 139–157. doi: 10.5565/rev/catjl.128
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.128 [Google Scholar]
  26. Vandepitte, Sonia
    1996 “Causaliteit en haar uitdrukkingsvormen in het Engels: een classificatie.” Handelingen Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en GeschiedenisL: 141–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Vandepitte, Sonia , Kathelijne Denturck , and Dominique Willems
    2013 “Translator Respect for Source text Information Structure: A Parallel Investigation of Causal Connectors.” Across Languages and Cultures14 (1): 47–73. doi: 10.1556/Acr.14.2013.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.14.2013.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Vandevoorde, Lore , et al.
    2017 “A Corpus-based Study of Semantic Differences in Translation. The Case of Inchoativity in Dutch.” Target29 (3): 388–415. doi: 10.1075/target.15009.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15009.van [Google Scholar]
  29. Vinay, Jean-Paul , and Jean Darbelnet
    (1958) 1995Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation [Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais]. Translated by Juan C. Sager , and M.-J. Hamel . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Zufferey, Sandrine , and Bruno Cartoni
    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]
  31. 2014 “A Multifactorial Analysis of Explicitation in Translation.” Target26 (3): 361–384. doi: 10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): connectives , contrast and consequence , COVALT , explicitation and literary translation
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