KAMENICKÁ, Renata. Defining explicitation in translation. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty Brněnské univerzity, Řada anglistická: Brno Studies in English 33. Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brně, 33/2007, No 1, p. 45-57, 155 pp. ISSN 1211-1791. 2007.
Other formats:   BibTeX LaTeX RIS
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
Original language English
Type of outcome Article in a journal
Field of Study 60200 6.2 Languages and Literature
Country of publisher Czech Republic
Confidentiality degree is not subject to a state or trade secret
WWW 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
Changed by Changed by: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph.D., učo 458. Changed: 18/3/2012 21:15.
Abstract
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.
Abstract (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.
PrintDisplayed: 16/4/2024 16:20