Defining explicitation in translation

KAMENICKÁ, Renata. Defining explicitation in translation. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty Brněnské univerzity, Řada anglistická: Brno Studies in English 33. Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brně, 2007, roč. 33/2007, č. 1, s. 45-57, 155 s. ISSN 1211-1791.

Základní údaje

Originální název

Defining explicitation in translation

Název česky

Definice překladové explicitace

Autoři

KAMENICKÁ, Renata (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí)

Vydání

Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty Brněnské univerzity, Řada anglistická: Brno Studies in English 33, Brno, Masarykova univerzita v Brně, 2007, 1211-1791

---

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

60200 6.2 Languages and Literature

Stát vydavatele

Česká republika

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

URL

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14210/07:00033386

Organizační jednotka

Filozofická fakulta

Klíčová slova anglicky

explicitation; translation; definition; implicitation; specification; generalization; addition; omission

Štítky

addition, Definition, explicitation, generalization, implicitation, omission, specification, Translation

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

---

Anotace

V originále

The paper discusses problems in defining explicitation (and implicitation) in translation for the purposes of descriptive translation studies, drawing on empirical material and theoretical concepts such as frame theory or figure/ground alignment. Inconsistencies in different approaches taken to the twin concepts in prescriptive theory as well as descriptive research are pointed out. The first main focus of the paper is the connection between explicitation/implicitation and specification/generalization, which is shown to be more complicated than usually described in literature. The second main focus of the paper is the borderline between explicitation/implicitation on the on hand and addition/omission on the other. It is argued that the borderline is intrinsically fuzzy, due to the cognitive mechanisms involved in retrieving implicit information that can be modelled by means of Fillmore's frames, understood as non-accidental networks of salient and less salient contiguities. It is argued that explicitation and implicitation should be treated as prototype categories.

Česky

The paper discusses problems in defining explicitation (and implicitation) in translation for the purposes of descriptive translation studies, drawing on empirical material and theoretical concepts such as frame theory or figure/ground alignment. Inconsistencies in different approaches taken to the twin concepts in prescriptive theory as well as descriptive research are pointed out. The first main focus of the paper is the connection between explicitation/implicitation and specification/generalization, which is shown to be more complicated than usually described in literature. The second main focus of the paper is the borderline between explicitation/implicitation on the on hand and addition/omission on the other. It is argued that the borderline is intrinsically fuzzy, due to the cognitive mechanisms involved in retrieving implicit information that can be modelled by means of Fillmore's frames, understood as non-accidental networks of salient and less salient contiguities. It is argued that explicitation and implicitation should be treated as prototype categories.