Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky Magisterská diplomová práce
|
|  Yüklə 0.83 Mb.
|
5.3 General conclusionThe corpus compiled for the purpose of the present thesis provides data that support Kamenická’s hypothesis that the level of translation inherent explicitation seems to be governed by the norm, whereas the level of translation-inherent implicitation depends on the individual translator’s decision. Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that the sample utilized is not wide enough to allow us to generalize the findings. In the use of explicitation, Hradilek exceeds Markoš only slightly (260 vs. 220 occurrences), especially in the translation of Wilson (EE), partially also in the translation of Wright where textual explicitations dominate. Otherwise it can be inferred that the distribution of different subcategories of explicitation is more or less even. There are approximately 39 instances of experiential explicitation and approximately 35 instances of textual explicitation in each 2,500 running words of the corpus. The two translators studied differ in their approach to implicitation to a greater extent than they do in terms of explicitation. There are 95 instances of implicitation in Hradilek’s translations, while in the Markoš sub-corpus, the number is much higher: 154 implicitations. The most obvious discrepancy can be found in logical and textual implicitation, the two types prevailing in Markoš’s translations. In this respect, Markoš inclines to weakening the cohesive markers of the texts as well as the meanings related to the information structure. Neither textual explicitations nor textual implicitations were particularly frequent in the corpus of literary texts compiled by Kamenická. In the present corpus, however, these types come forth. This fact might be interpreted with respect to the character of the texts chosen and to their style. Popular science literature aspires to transmit information, the closer the texts to serious scientific studies and the more the writers/translators strive to be clear, the more frequent textual explicitation (Hradilek); the closer the target texts to pure fiction (even though the source texts are unmarked), the more frequent textual implicitation (Markoš).
Graph 5. Types of explicitation and implicitation in the whole corpus An interesting conclusion can be drawn with respect to the character of the target texts compared to their source texts. It seems that the translations included in the corpus are more homogenous than the originals. This tendency has already been observed in a couple of studies on translation universals and so called “equalization” or “levelling” has been proposed to be another universal feature of translation. Shlesinger (1989: 170) pointed the phenomenon out while studying whether “interpretation diminishes the orality of markedly oral texts and the literateness of markedly literate ones [in conference interpreting]” (quoted from Pym, 2007: 7), Baker, for example, introduced it as “the tendency of translated text to gravitate towards the centre of a continuum” (1996: 184). This tendency seems to be particularly noticeable in Markoš’s translations, mainly with respect to stylistic qualities; it is, however, present in Hradilek’s texts, too. 5.4 Centre and peripheryIt has been suggested above that explicitation and implicitation will be understood to be prototypical categories with centres and peripheries in the present thesis. An attempt to describe the two proposed universals of translation from this point of view follows. The numbers of occurrences of individual subtypes as well as the similarities between different categories were used as criteria for delimiting the centre and the periphery. It seems that explicitation of elements with experiential function represents the core of explicitation; explicitation of elements with textual function can also be placed close to the centre: there are 187 instances of EE and 144 instances of TE in the corpus (compared to 93 instances of IE and 56 instances of LE). As far as experiential explicitations are concerned, meaning components related to the process participants (in grammar realised by nominal groups) appear to stand at the centre of the category (52% of all occurrences of EE). Various attributes and prepositional phrases can be used to enrich the simple nouns in sentences; often the target text nominal groups are more complex and thus more explicit than the ones in the source text. In some aspects, however, these explicitations are close to interpersonal explicitations from the subcategory of appraisal that—according to the data from the corpus—also stand close to the centre of explicitation. Meanings related to the process circumstances are considered to stand on the periphery of experiential explicitation as they are very similar to textual explicitations. It is difficult to distinguish whether the adverbial groups and prepositional phrases that locate the processes in space or time are known from the context or situation or not at all and consequently belong to the category of textual or experiential explicitation. Based on the data from the corpus it can be asserted that meanings related to temporality form the centre of logical explicitation (75% of all occurrences of LE). No assumption about the centre and periphery of textual explicitation can be made with respect to the data analyzed (elements strengthening the cohesion of the text are just slightly more frequent than meanings related to the information structure—54%); this category intertwines with the category of experiential explicitation (the subcategory of circumstances), as already pointed out above. The centre of the category of interpersonal explicitation is formed by the meanings related to appraisal, affect and intensification in particular (87%).
Temporality Causality 
Cohesion Information structure
IE Circumstances Participants
Participants Processes Appraisal EE Modality
TRANSLATION-INHERENT EXPLICITATION Scheme 1. A tentative scheme of explicitation As far as implicitation is concerned, the findings are similar. Experiential implicitation represents the centre of this universal; textual implicitation follows (99 instances of EI and 78 instances of TI). Occurrences of interpersonal and logical implicitation in the corpus are marginal, thus placing these two subtypes on the periphery of implicitation (37 instances of II and 35 instances of LI). Implicitation of meanings related to the process participants forms the centre of experiential implicitation (64%); meanings related to temporality represent the centre of logical implicitation (66%). Again, the subcategories of textual implicitation are distributed almost evenly (the subcategory of information structure, though, prevails—52%, unlike in the case of textual explicitation). In the category of interpersonal implicitation, the subcategory of appraisal is central (78%). Similarly like in the case of explicitation, there are a couple of problems with classifying implicitation: e.g. the boundary between textual translation-inherent implicitation and textual optional implicitation is extremely vague. 
LI
Causality TI Temporality
Cohesion Information structure
II Circumstances Participants
Participants Processes EI Appraisal Modality
TRANSLATION-INHERENT IMPLICITATION Scheme 2. A tentative scheme of implicitation The description of the centres and peripheries of explicitation and implicitation is not and by no means should be exhaustive; the sample is too narrow. A lot of further research is needed so that the important characteristics arise and can be recognized that would be able to help to set the boundaries. At this point, not only the boundaries between textual and experiential explicitations from the category of circumstances and textual translation-inherent and textual optional implicitations are blurred. It is also difficult to separate e.g. lexical simplification from implicitation, stylistic simplification from normalization, etc. From this perspective, it needs to be acknowledged that the categorization of individual occurrences of translation-inherent explicitation and implicitation could be different if a different person carried out the analysis. Our findings can be compared with the results of Hopkinson who also analyzed a corpus consisting of non-literary texts (essays on social and political topics) and their translations in order to determine which categories of explicitation and implicitation “can lay the strongest claim” to the status of translation universals (Hopkinson, 2008: 215). His “status of a translation universal” is similar to our concept of the centre. Even though Hopkinson’s classification is slightly different from the one used in the present thesis—he only delimits ideational, textual and interpersonal explicitation and implicitation—the data is comparable. An interesting discrepancy arises: “In terms of the status of explicitation and implicitation as translation universals, it is ideational explicitation shifts and interpersonal implicitation shifts that can lay the strongest claim to this status. Explicitation and implicitation affecting textual meanings—the strengthening or weakening of textual cohesion—show a lower degree of universality” (Hopkinson, 2008: 215). Whereas the data for explicitation more or less concur, interpersonal implicitation is central for Hopkinson and only marginal according to the data from our corpus. Textual explicitations and implicitations, on the other hand, are rare in Hopkinson’s corpus and rather frequent in the corpus compiled for the purpose of the present thesis. The issues of universality, norms and individual translators’ preferences can be brought up here again. Further empirical research is needed so that we can learn what really seems to be universal and what does not. Clear criteria for delimiting individual categories are also necessary to be set. |
