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, 33/2007, No 1, p. 45-57, 155 pp. ISSN 1211-1791.

Basic information

Original name

Defining explicitation in translation

Name in Czech

Definice překladové explicitace

Authors

KAMENICKÁ, Renata (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution)

Edition

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

---

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

60200 6.2 Languages and Literature

Country of publisher

Czech Republic

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

References:

URL

RIV identification code

RIV/00216224:14210/07:00033386

Organization unit

Faculty of Arts

Keywords in English

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

Tags

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

Tags

International impact, Reviewed

---

Abstract

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.

In Czech

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.