1

Explicitation Revisited: The Journey of an Elusive Concept

Version 27.11.2014

Elisabet Titik Murtisari

Satya Wacana Christian University

Abstract

Explicitation has been generally defined as a shift in translation from what is implicit

in the source text to what is explicit in the target text. Because of its pervasiveness,

explicitation has been well-researched. In spite of the importance of explicitation, studies

seem to have overlooked the basic underlying concepts of さe┝pliIitざ aﾐd さiﾏpliIitざ. As

Kamenickáげ (2007: 45) points out, while けe┝pliIitatioﾐ is spokeﾐ aHout as if ヴefeヴeﾐIe ┘eヴe

being made to the same set of phenomenaげ, けthe opposite is tヴueげ. As a result, it is difficult

to compare studies on explicitation, which makes it difficult to describe this phenomenon in

translation. To better understand the problem, this paper examines the existing concepts of

けe┝pliIitげ aﾐd けiﾏpliIitげ aﾐd ho┘ the┞ ha┗e Heeﾐ applied in explicitation studies, beginning

with the work of Vinay & Darbelnet (1958). This study shows that while the concept of

explicitation is far from simple, few studies have devoted enough room to its examination.

Although attempts have been made to address this issue, much work remains to be done

because the notion is so complex.

Key words: translation, explicitation, implicitation, explicitness, explicit, implicit

1. Introduction

Explicitation is generally defined as a shift in translation from what is implicit in the

source text to what is explicit in the target text. Because of its pervasiveness, explicitation

has been well-researched.In spite of the importance of explicitation,however, studies seem

to have overlooked the basic underlying concepts of さe┝pliIitざ aﾐd さiﾏpliIitざ. As Kamenická

(2007: 45) points out, while けe┝pliIitatioﾐ is spoken about as if reference were being made

to the same set of phenomenaげ, けthe opposite is tヴueげ. As a result, it is difficult to compare

studies on explicitation, which makes it difficult to describe this phenomenon in translation.

2

To better understand the problem, this paper examines the existing concepts of

けe┝pliIitげ aﾐd けiﾏpliIitげ aﾐd ho┘ the┞ ha┗e Heeﾐ applied in explicitation studies, beginning

with the work of Vinay & Darbelnet (1958). The first part of the discussion will deal with

early notions of explicitation and the second with research since the 1990s, which includes

work on implicitation. This study shows that while the concept of explicitation is far from

simple, few studies have devoted enough room to its examination. Although attempts have

been made to address this issue, much work remains to be done because the notion is so

complex.

2. The Explicit and the Implicit

In its day-to-day use, the English word けe┝pliIitげ refers to the visibility,

comprehensibility, or accessibility of something that has already been expressed (Murtisari,

2013). The word けiﾏpliIitげ, on the other hand, normally refers to indirect accessibility,

whether by inference, being contained by something else, or implication (ibid.). The generic

meanings of けe┝pliIitげ aﾐd けiﾏpliIitげ have been adopted as terms in different areas of

Linguistics, but they refer to different concepts. Since these concepts were discussed in a

previous article on explicitation (Murtisari, 2013), they will only be addressed briefly here.

For the purpose of this paper, concepts of explicitness and implicitness are of three types:

the encoded/inferred, textual, and a combination of these two.

1. The encoded/inferred system of explicitness and implicitness

This approach is based on distinct levels of meaning.A piece of information is said to be

けe┝pliIitげ ┘heﾐ it is eﾐIoded iﾐ liﾐguistiI forms (Sperber & Wilson, 1986; Carston, 2002) and

けimplicitげ when the meaning can only be recovered through inference. A theoretical basis

for this distinction, commonly used in General Linguistics, seems to be lacking. It appears to

be used only as an informal alternative tothe encoded/inferred differentiation (Carston,

2002; Allen1, 2009). The encoded/inferred system has also been criticised for being too

simplistic to represent the explicit and the implicit since recovery of any communicated

assumption, including those encoded in linguistic forms, requires an element of inference

(Sperber & Wilson, 1986; Carston, 2002).

1Dr. Cynthia Allen, Australian National University (ANU), 3 April 2009 (personal communication).

3

Figure 1. Explicitness based on the traditional encoded/inferred meaning levels

Explicit Encoded

Implicit Inferred

2. Textual/discourse-based explicitness

Textual explicitness differs from the first type in that it is more a matter of a degree

than just a category. It is often used in linguistic textual studies, such as discourse analysis.

The degrees of explicitness of a particular language depend on factors such as

encodedness, informativity, specificity, emphasis/focus and topicality in the information

packaging. Scholars have different ideas on what contributes to textual explicitness. Some

researchers, for instance, even include typographical markers such as italics and boldface as

forms of explicitness (Ädel, 2002).

Figure 2. textual/discourse-based explicitness (Murtisari, 2013: 318)

In discourse analysis, Schiffrin (1994/2003) explains that explicitness is a feature

relating to the representation of referents. According to Schiffrin, explicitness is concerned

┘ith けpヴeseﾐtatioﾐ of iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐ that aItuall┞ eﾐaHles ぷthe heaヴeヴへ to IoヴヴeItl┞ ideﾐtif┞ a

referent, i.e. the lexical clues that allow [the hearer] to single out whom (or what) [the

speakeヴへ iﾐteﾐds to diffeヴeﾐtiate fヴoﾏ otheヴ poteﾐtial ヴefeヴeﾐtsげ ふヱΓΓヴ/ヲヰヰン: ヱΓΓ, as quoted

in Murtisari, 2013). Defined in this way, explicitness is relative since it is the listener who

4

actually determines the degree of explicitness, based on his/her point of view. What is

explicit to one person may be perceived differently by another. While this reader-based

notion of explicitness seems commonly applicable to day-to-day life, explicitation research

definitely needs a framework that explains explicitness more objectively.

3. Combined system of encoded/inferred and textual explicitness

In discourse analysis (e.g. Schiffrin, 1994/2003), textual explicitness is often

combined with the encoded/inferred distinction of explicitness and implicitness. Within

such a system, textual explicitness occupies the encoded category of the meaning-level

distinction.

Figure 3. Explicitness based on combined notions (Murtisari, 2013)

As shown in the figure above, what is inferred is automatically implicit and is bound

to be more implicit than any encoded meaning. The encoded, on the other hand, lends itself

to the explicit, but to a greater or lesser degree. Although this combined system is very

helpful when dealing with static explicitness in discourse analysis, it does not seem able to

accomodate the dynamic characteristic of translation. The two systems of explicitness

become incompatible when applied together to explain shifts from SL into TL. While the

meaning spelled out in explicitation may be more general than the source item it has

replaced, what is more general cannot be more explicit within this combined system

(Kamenická, 2007). This being the case, Kamenická insists that the combined type has

けliﾏited ┗alidit┞げ for explicitation research (2007: 48).

5

3. Development of the けexplicitationげ concept in Translation Studies(TS)

In this section I shall discuss the development of the explicitation concept in TS and

how the different approaches to explicitness outlined in the previous section are utilized by

different scholars, starting from Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) to Blum-Kulka (1986/2000).

3.1. Vinay & Darbelnet (1958)

The concept of explicitation seems to have been first introduced as part of

Translation Studies by Vinay & Darbelnet in their influential work entitled Stylistique

comparée du français et de l'anglais: Méthode de traduction (1958). They defined

e┝pliIitatioﾐ as けprocédé qui consiste à introduire dans LA des précisions qui restent

iﾏplicites daﾐs LD, ﾏais ケui se dégageﾐt du coﾐte┝te ou de la situatioﾐ’ ふヱΓヵΒ:Γぶ, けa

procedure that consists of introducing in the target language details that remain implicit in

the souヴIe laﾐguage, Hut HeIoﾏe Ileaヴ thヴough the ヴele┗aﾐt Ioﾐte┝t oヴ situatioﾐげ.

The French expression précisions ﾏa┞ also suggest the ﾐotioﾐ of けIlaヴit┞げ HeIause it is

derived from the verb préciser, which ﾏeaﾐs けto speIif┞, ﾏake Ileaヴ, Ilaヴif┞, to He ﾏoヴe

speIifiI aHout, to ﾐaﾏe, speIif┞げ ふCollins Robert French Dictionary, 2000). However, a closer

examination of Vinay & Darbelnetげs e┝aﾏples of e┝pliIitatioﾐ ヴe┗eals that the┞ aヴe all Iases

that result in a more specific/informative meaning in TL, not the spelling out of recoverable

meaning that results in generalisation. Further, according to them, the more informative

meanings may be derived from linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts and may also include

the interlocutorsげ Iogﾐiti┗e Ioﾐte┝t, i.e. さthe psychological reactions of writers, translators

and readers of translationsざ (1995: 165). Thus, Viﾐa┞ & DaヴHelﾐetげs explicitation also covers

the spelling out of pragmatic meanings to cater to translation readers. In their point of view,

e┝pliIitatioﾐ ふas a gaiﾐぶ ﾏakes a seﾐteﾐIe ﾏoヴe けself-suffiIieﾐtげ H┞ ﾏakiﾐg the

comprehension of it けless depeﾐdeﾐt oﾐ the Ioﾐte┝t oヴ the situatioﾐ,げ which thereby けfヴees

the ヴeadeヴ fヴoﾏ ヴefeヴヴiﾐg to eitheヴげ ふヱΓΓヵ: Αヰぶ.

We can conclude that Vinay & Darbelnetげs original model of explicitation is based on

a limited combination of meaning-level and textual types of explicitness. In their view,

explicitation comes from contextually recoverable meanings. However, they seem to

6

restrict it to shifts that endow the target text with more specific information, although this

point is not precisely expressed in their book.

Figure 4.Vinay & Darbelnetげs concept of explicitation

Encoded/explicit TT

Inferred/implicit ST

It is important to note that Viﾐa┞ & DaヴHelﾐetげs defiﾐitioﾐ of e┝pliIitatioﾐ has a

slightly but significantly different meaning in the English translation by Sager and Hamer

(1995). The translators have ヴeﾐdeヴed the defiﾐitioﾐ as けa st┞listic translation technique

which consists of making explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source

laﾐguage HeIause it is appaヴeﾐt fヴoﾏ eitheヴ the Ioﾐte┝t oヴ the situatioﾐげ ふヱΓΓヵ: ンヴヲぶ. Iﾐ this

translation, the French phrase introduire dans LA des précisions (けiﾐtヴoduIiﾐg the “T

pヴeIisioﾐげ) is ﾐot adopted iﾐ the Eﾐglish ┗eヴsioﾐ Hut ヴeplaIed H┞ けﾏakiﾐg e┝pliIitげ. Although

this seems only slightly different , it has a critical implication; the English definition suggests

that explicitation may also include shifts resulting in a more general expression than the

corresponding ST, which is also common in translation. Uﾐlike Viﾐa┞ & DaヴHelﾐetげs oヴigiﾐal

concept, its translation is based on explicitness as a category of meaning (encoded-inferred

distinction, as it is commonly understood).

More specific/informative

translation

More generalised translation

not included

Explicitation

More specific recoverable meanings:

structural & non structural

7

3.2. Eugene Nida

Another scholar who has used the concept of explicitation in Translation Studies is

Eugene Nida. Unlike Vinay & Darbelnet, he uses the term けadditioﾐげ ふToward a Science of

Translating, 1964: 227). As in Vinay & Darbelnet ┘ith けgaiﾐげ, Nida seeﾏs to ha┗e used the

teヴﾏ けadditioﾐげ HeIause the Ioﾐteﾏpoヴaヴ┞ idea of fidelit┞ ┘as Ilosel┞ tied to the foヴﾏ of the

souヴIe te┝t. Thus, Nida stヴiItl┞ liﾏits けadditioﾐげ to eleﾏeﾐts that けﾏa┞ legitiﾏatel┞ He

incorporated into a translationげ ふヱΓヶヴ: ヲヲΑぶ. Iﾐ otheヴ ┘oヴds, like Vinay & Darbelnetげs けgaiﾐげ,

Nidaげs けadditioﾐsげ aヴe ﾐot けsiﾏple additioﾐsげ, Hut aヴe ヴestヴiIted to iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐ that is Ileaヴl┞

recoverable from the text or context. These additions may be grammatical, such as filling

out elliptical expressions, or use of Ilassifieヴs aﾐd IoﾐﾐeIti┗es to Iヴeate けstヴuItuヴal

alteヴatioﾐげ ふp.ヲヲΑぶ. Nida also ﾏeﾐtioﾐs けaﾏplifiIatioﾐ fヴoﾏ iﾏpliIit to e┝pliIit statusげ as

another kind of addition (p.227). This type involves the explication of meaning derivable

from context, ┘hiIh ﾏa┞ He ヴelated to the te┝tげs soIio-cultural context, in order to enhance

readability or to avoid misunderstanding when there is ambiguity. In sum, like Vinay &

DaヴHelﾐet ふヱΓヵΒぶ, Nidaげs IoﾐIept of e┝pliIitation is also based on a limited combination of

meaning level and textual types of explicitness. While it has to be motivated by appropriate

interpretation of the source text, he only focuses on explicitation as a gain.

3.3. Blum-Kulka

About two decades after Nida, Blum-Kulka conducted what is often considered the

first systematic study of explicitation. Unlike Vinay & Darbelnet and Nida, she limits her

study only to the increase of explicitness resulting from shifts of cohesiveness and

coherence at the TT discourse level. Blum-Kulka does not define what she means by the

teヴﾏ けe┝pliIitﾐessげ, Hut she seems to be more interested in the lexical increase that may

ヴesult iﾐ けヴeduﾐdaﾐI┞げ (hence textual explicitness).

Blum-Kulka proposes the so-Ialled けExplicitation Hypothesisげ, ┘hiIh she defiﾐes as

けaﾐ oHseヴ┗ed Iohesi┗e e┝pliIitﾐess fヴoﾏ “L to TL te┝ts ヴegaヴdless of the iﾐIヴease tヴaIeaHle to

differences between the two linguistic and te┝tual s┞steﾏs iﾐ┗ol┗edげ ふヱΓΒヶ/ヲヰヰヰ:ンヰヰぶ.2

According to Blum-Kulka, (such) explicitation results fromけthe tヴaﾐslatioﾐ pヴoIess itselfげ, i.e.

2Bluﾏ Kulka also states that e┝pliIitatioﾐ ﾏa┞ けぷgoへ He┞oﾐd Ihaﾐges iﾐ Iohesi┗e foヴﾏsげ ふヱΓΒヶ/ヲヰヰヰ: 301). She does not, however, explore the case further, and thus has nothing to say on the extent of explicitation.

8

from けthe process of interpretation peヴfoヴﾏed H┞ the tヴaﾐslatoヴ oﾐ the souヴIe te┝tげ (p. 300).

She further claims that explicitation ﾏa┞ ┘ell He a けuﾐi┗eヴsal stヴateg┞ iﾐheヴeﾐtげ iﾐ the

translation process (p. 302). It is not clear what Blum-Kulka ﾏeaﾐs H┞ a さstヴateg┞ざ (Becher,

2010a), since she is more interested the increase of textual explicitness resulting from

translation shifts rather than how the translator employs them.

To find out if there is explicitation of cohesion and coherence in translation, Blum-

Kulka suggests that oﾐl┞ さoptioﾐalざ shifts should He Ioﾐsideヴed as opposed to さoHligatoヴ┞ざ

ones (p.312). Optioﾐal shifts aヴe those さattヴiHutaHle to st┞listiI pヴefeヴeﾐIesざ, whereas

oHligatoヴ┞ shifts ヴefeヴ to those さdiItated H┞ the gヴaﾏﾏatiIal s┞steﾏs of the t┘o laﾐguagesざ

(p.312). In addition to this, Blum-Kulka also states that the optional shifts considered for

Explicitation Hypothesis should exclude さヴeadeヴ-Hasedざ information, which is added to cater

to the target reader. One should instead focus on text-based shifts resulting from the

tヴaﾐslatoヴげs さdiagﾐosisざ of the souヴIe te┝t ふp.ンヰΓぶ.

Since text-Hased shifts ﾏa┞ also He さliﾐked to ┘ell-known differences between

linguistiI s┞steﾏsざ ふp.ンヰΓぶ, Blum-Kulka recommends the need for a けlaヴge-scale contrastive

st┞listiI stud┞げ for validating her hypothesis. The stylistic information will be useful to

examine the pattern(s) of the selected optional shifts, which may conform to the ST, TT or

neither. When the latter is the case, then explicitation has occured in a translation text.

While this comparative method can be inferred from a very close reading of her article,

Blum-Kulka does not explain it in a straightforward manner. It has therefore been

interpreted in different ways in explication research.

9

Figure 5. Blum-Kulkaげs IoﾐIept of e┝pliIitatioﾐ

TARGET TEXT

SOURCE TEXT

4. Research on explicitation since the 1990s

Research in the area of explicitation grew quite dramatically after Blum-Kulkaげs

study. The focus has been on proving her hypothesis of the universality of explicitation while

continuing to explore what qualifies as explicitation. Examples of such studies include

those done by Séguinot (1988), Weissbrod (1992), Øverås(1998), and Olohan & Baker

(2000), Klaudy (2001), Frankenberg-Gracia (2004), Puurtinen (2004), Pápai (2004), Hansen-

Schirra et al (2007), and Klaudy & Karoly (2003). Most of these studies share a relatively

similar interest, i.e. the universality of explicitation. Concepts of the phenomenon itself,

however, vary from one researcher to another. These views vary little from earlier

concepts except in application methods used in studying explicitation. Attempts have been

made to address the conceptual issue, but none of the suggestions has been implemented

in any significant way.

It is Vinay & Darbelnetげs IoﾐIept tヴaﾐslated H┞ “ageヴ aﾐd Haﾏeヴ ふヱΓΓヵぶ that has

been most commonly cited and used as a basis for major explicitation research in the 1990s

Explicitation

Increased lexical level (Redundancy) which neither reflects

SL or TL norms

No Explicitation

Lower lexical level or increased lexical level which reflects SL or

TL norms

Cohesive Shifts

optional shifts (Shifts resulting from stylistic

preferences) Excluding reader-based shifts

Translation Process

10

onwards (e.g. Olohan & Baker 2000 and Øverås 1998). As mentioned above, the translated

definition is broader than the French original in that it may also include explicitation shifts

resulting in more general information. Despite this difference, in the 1990s interpretations

of the English concept of explicitation tended to resemble the French version. Researchers

still tend to see an increase of informativity and specificity as important features of

explicitation. In Klaudy & Karoly (2003), for instance, specification is seen as an aspect of

explicitation, while generalization is associated with implicitation. Similarly, Olohan & Baker

ふヲヰヰヰぶ also see e┝pliIitatioﾐ as the pヴo┗isioﾐ of けe┝tヴa iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐげ ┘hile usiﾐg

encoded/inferred explicitation as the basis of their explicitation research (as is shown by

Bakeヴげs defiﾐitioﾐ of e┝pliIitatioﾐ, i.e. けspelliﾐg out of iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐ otheヴ┘ise iﾏpliIit iﾐ the

souヴIe laﾐguageげ; see also Olohan & Bakerげs ふヲヰヰヰぶ e┝pliIitatioﾐ examples). In addition to

this, Klaudy classifies explicitation into four groups, which seem to be adevelopment of

Blum-Kulkaげs ┘oヴk. It is important to note, however, that their conIepts of けoptioﾐal shiftsげ

are different. Unlike Klaudy, Blum-Kulka does ﾐot see heヴ けoptioﾐalげ shifts (and other shifts

that ﾏeヴel┞ lead to higheヴ e┝pliIitﾐessぶ as けe┝pliIitatioﾐげ:

1. Obligatory explicitations. These result fromstructural differences between SL and TL.

2. Optional explicitations. Iﾐ Klaud┞げs IoﾐIept, these ヴefeヴ to shifts Iaused H┞

けdifferences in text-building strategies [...] and stylistic preferences between

languagesげ ふKlaud┞ 1998: 83). Such shifts are optional けin the sense that

grammatically correct sentences can be constructed without their application in the

target language, although the text as a whole will be clumsy and unnaturalげ (Klaudy

1998: 83). This concept is more specific than Blum-Kukaげs optioﾐal shifts, ┘hiIh oﾐl┞

refer to those resulting from stylistic preferences.

3. Pragmatic explicitations. These are caused by differences in the culture and world

knowledge of SL and TL members.

4. Translation-inherent explicitation. This さIaﾐ He attヴiHuted to the ﾐatuヴe of the

tヴaﾐslatioﾐ pヴoIess itselfざ ふKlaud┞, 1998: 83).

According to Englund-Dimitrova (2005: 38), Klaud┞げs t┞polog┞ is diffiIult to appl┞ HeIause

the categorizations come from different criteria and levels. While translation-inherent is a

11

hypothetical type, the rest are based on linguistic realizations (p.38). Englund-Dimitrova

also points out that pragmatic explicitations are a sub-category of optional explicitations.

The けﾏi┝edげ iﾐtuitioﾐs oﾐ the ﾐotioﾐ of e┝pliIitatioﾐ ふe.g. as demonstrated by the use

of Vinay & Darbelnetげs Eﾐglish defiﾐitioﾐ of e┝pliIitatioﾐ ┘hile still Iliﾐgiﾐg to otheヴ aspeIts

that go with the original definition and the vagueness surrounding the Explicitation

Hypothesis) has complicated explicitation research, especially in regard to concept

development. In spite of this, little attention has been paid to this conceptual area. In

searching for evidence for the Explicitation Hypothesis, the types/forms of explicitation have

received the bulk of scholarly attention. Perhaps it is the lack of conceptual clarity that has

led to a loss of focus in the study of explicitation.

Indeed the proliferation of various research methods with different theoretical

implications in this area makes it difficult to compare results or to draw a larger picture of

explicitation. In general, however, researchers can be categorized into three groups,

i.e.,those ┘ho teﾐd to follo┘ Viﾐa┞ aﾐd DaヴHleﾐetげs tヴaﾐslated IoﾐIept of e┝pliIitatioﾐ,

those who tend to follow Blum-Kulkaげs ﾐotioﾐ, aﾐd those ┘ho tヴ┞ to IoﾏHiﾐe these t┘o

approaches. Alternative frameworks have also been suggested for the study of

explicitation, and these will be discussed in a separate section.

4.1.Studies based on Vinay & Darbelnetげs translated concept

There are a number of studies which strictly follow Vinay & DaヴHleﾐetげs tヴaﾐslated

concept of explicitation, based on the encoded/inferred distinction for the explicit and

implicit. These studies vary in the extent of their understanding of explicitation, but the

phenomenon tends to be limited to the encoding of inferred meanings in the target

language. In practice this would exclude non-lexical shifts and only cover linguistic units

(normally in the form of words) that are added by the process of explicitation.

Studies belonging to this category would include those conducted by Weissbrod

(1992), Frankenberg-Gracia (2004), Englund-Dimitrova (2005),Hansen-Schirra et al (2007)

and Becher (2010b). Weissbrod (1992:153), for instance, has studied translations of fiction

from the 1960s to the 1970s. Following Vinay & Darbelnet (1995), Weissbrod simply defines

e┝pliIitatioﾐ as けtuヴﾐiﾐg the iﾏpliIit ふiﾐ the souヴIe te┝tぶ iﾐto the explicit (in the translation)げ.

12

She does ﾐot speIifiIall┞ defiﾐe ┘hat she ﾏeaﾐs H┞ けe┝pliIitげ aﾐd けiﾏpliIitげ, ┞et heヴ e┝aﾏples

show that they involve encoding and inference.

Englund-Dimitrova (2005) is another scholar that seems to use Vinay & Darbelnetげs

translated concept. She examines the explicitation of implicit logical links in terms of

けpヴoIessげ ふIogﾐiti┗e pヴoIess iﾐ tヴaﾐslatiﾐgぶ aﾐd けpヴoduItげ ふthe ヴesultiﾐg tヴaﾐslatioﾐぶ. While

she provides an in-depth review of studies on explicitation, there is no discussion on

underlying concepts of explicitness or those of her own. Her explanation, however,

suggests that e┝pliIitatioﾐ ヴefeヴs to the け┗eヴHalizatioﾐげ of logiIal liﾐks that Iaﾐ He けinferredげ

fヴoﾏ the “Tげs Ioﾐte┝t (2005: 226). She is also more interested in the relationship of

meaning between the ST and TT than on the shift of textual explicitness. On this basis, it is

safe to conclude that she uses the encoded/inferred distinction of explicitness.

The study of Hansen-Schirra et al (2007) also investigates explicitation in light of the

traditional encoded/inferred notion.While they believe that けe┝pliIitatioﾐげ may occur at

different levels of interpretation, iﾐIludiﾐg けhigh-le┗el iﾐteヴpヴetatioﾐsげ H┞ huﾏaﾐ

interlocutors (hence, pragmatic) (2007: 243), their research only focuses oﾐ けpヴopeヴties of

eﾐIodiﾐgげ.

They, however, exclude けsiﾏpleげ additioﾐ aﾐd oﾏissioﾐ HeIause suIh Ihaﾐges do ﾐot

imply any relationship between the TT and TL (2007: 244). They believe that けe┝pliIitﾐessげ

aﾐd けe┝pliIitatioﾐげ けopeヴate diffeヴeﾐtl┞ aﾐd thus ha┗e to He aﾐal┞sed iﾐ diffeヴeﾐt ┘a┞sげ

(2007: 262). To them, explicitation is concerned with the ST and TT relationship, while

けe┝pliIitﾐessげ of gヴaﾏﾏaヴ aﾐd ┗oIaHulaヴ┞ is liﾐked ┘ith けdeﾐsit┞げ aﾐd けdiヴeItﾐessげ ふヲヰヰΑ:

242).

Shifts of textual explicitness can also be seen in terms of a relationship by excluding

meanings that are not generated from the source text. Therefore, the issue here should not

be けe┝plicitatioﾐげ aﾐd けe┝pliIitﾐessげ, but rather two different types of explicitation: one is

based on meaning-level explicitness (the traditional notion), the other on textual

explicitness. Nevertheless, the effort of Hansen-Schirra et al to discuss the conceptual

aspects of explicitation is crucial in that it demonstrates their awareness of the real issues of

explication. This is lacking in most other research projects in this subject area

In addition to the study conducted by Hansen-Schirra et al., another research project

that ﾏa┞ He Iategoヴized iﾐ this gヴoup is BeIheヴげs ふヲヰヱヰb), which calls for abandoning the

13

translation-inherent concept of explicitation in Blum Kulkaげs h┞pothesis (2010a). BeIheヴげs

(2010b) purpose is to disconfirm Blum-Kulkaげs IoﾐIept of tヴaﾐslatioﾐ-inherent explicitation.

In spite of this, he HasiIall┞ follo┘s Viﾐa┞ aﾐd DaヴHelﾐetげs tヴaﾐslated concept of

explicitation. This can be seen by Becherげs (2010b) concept of explicitnes which is based on

meaning levels, i.e. けthe verbalization of information that the addressee would (most

probably) be able to infer from the context, her world knowledge or from other inferential

souヴIes if it ┘eヴe ﾐot ┗eヴHalizedげ (p.2). Although this concept of explicitness is valid in the

context of his investigation of the German adverb damit, his understanding of inferrability is

debatable. This can be seen in his explanation when arguing against what Kamenická (2008:

127) cites as a case of explicitation:

ST (English): Now, before you get upset listen to me.

TT (Czech): けNo┘, Hefoヴe ┞ou get upset ┞ou ﾏust listeﾐ to ﾏeげ

Becher refuses to call the above translation shift さexplicitationざ because, in his words, けthe

e┝isteﾐIe of aﾐ addヴessee is paヴt of the iﾏpeヴati┗eげs IoﾐstヴuItioﾐal ﾏeaﾐiﾐg aﾐd thus does

ﾐot ﾐeed to He iﾐfeヴヴedげ (2010: 6). This view, however, is not accurate. Even though the

ﾏeaﾐiﾐg け┞ouげ ﾏa┞ He a part of the imperative form, it is not verbally evident. Before

figuring out that the subject is you, one would still need to infer from context to determine

if it is an imperative and refers to somebody, which may also be an implied subject of an

imperative (Wilson, 2014)

The above studies only focus on straightforward cases and therefore do not take

issue with data in regard to their concept of explication. BeIheヴげs ふヲヰヱヰHぶ Iase, however,

demonstrates the need for a comprehensive framework for explicitation research.

Otherwise we would not be able to explain shifts that cannot be easily categorised as

explicitation.

4.2. Studies that tend to follow Blum-Kulkaげs concept

Despite continuing work with traditional approaches, Blum-Kulkaげs h┞pothesis

became dominant after 1995. Yet considering Hansen-“Ihiヴヴa et alげs ふヲヰヰΑぶ oHseヴ┗atioﾐ that

textual e┝pliIitﾐess けopeヴateぷsへ diffeヴeﾐtl┞げ fヴoﾏ eﾐIoded e┝pliIitﾐess, should ┘e sepaヴate

14

explicitation based on textual explicitness entirely? Many studies of explicitation, mostly

working with Blum-Kulkaげs h┞potheses, teﾐd to use Hoth tヴaditioﾐal aﾐd textual notions of

explicitation in the same study in one way or another instead of following her concept of

explicitation strictly. There are three types of studies: those using parallel texts (Øverås,

1998 and Séguinot, 1998), comparable texts, and research applying these two methods

(Pápai, 2004).

Øverås (1998) has adopted Blum-Kulkaげs teヴﾏ of けe┝pliIitatioﾐげ foヴ けぷtheへ tヴaﾐslatioﾐ

process where implicit, co-te┝tuall┞ ヴeIo┗eヴaHle “T ﾏateヴial is ヴeﾐdeヴed e┝pliIit iﾐ TTげ

(1998:4). In this way, she has deliberately combined the traditional explicitation with Blum-

Kulkaげs IoﾐIept of e┝pliIitation. She has also added specification as one category of

explicitation because it contributes to increased explicitness. However, as noted earlier, this

approach is problematic because it ignores the kind of explicitation that results in

generalization.Theoretically both specification and generalization can be considered as

process explicitation as long as they are derived from the spelling out of recoverable

meanings).

Unlike Øverås, Séguinot (1998) suggests that explicitation may not only include shifts

from implied meanings, but all kind of additions in general and any other change that makes

the text clearer in the target language.Compared to Øverås, this standpoint is an even more

expanded version of Blum-Kulkaげsconcept andis one that lends itself to a target text -

oriented explicitation. Following Blum-Kulka, Séguinot also argues that explicitation should

ヴefeヴ to けadditioﾐs iﾐ a tヴaﾐslated te┝t ┘hiIh Iaﾐﾐot He e┝plaiﾐed H┞ stヴuItuヴal, st┞listiI, or

ヴhetoヴiIal diffeヴeﾐIes Het┘eeﾐ the t┘o laﾐguagesげ (1998: 108).

After Øverås (1998) and Séguinot (1998), another group of scholars, including

Olohan & Baker (2000), Puurtinen (2004), and Pápai (2004), attempted to prove Blum-

Kulkaげs Explicitation Hypothesis by investigating a much larger body of data in the form of

comparable corpora. This method measures the shifts of explicitation in a corpus of

translated texts in a particular language by comparing them with a corpus of non-translated

texts of the same genre in the same language.

Unlike Blum-Kulka, Olohan & Baker (2000) include the traditional notion of

explicitation in their definition, i.e the spelling out of information which is otherwise implicit

in the ST. They see explicitation as けe┝tヴa iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐげ, a foヴﾏulatioﾐ ┘hiIh Ilosel┞ eIhoes

15

Vinay & Darbelnetげs ┗ie┘ of けgaiﾐ of iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐげ ふヱΓΓヵ: ヱΑヰぶ. Yet the┞ follo┘ the tヴaﾐslated

┗eヴsioﾐ of the IoﾐIept H┞ defiﾐiﾐg e┝pliIitatioﾐ as けthe spelliﾐg out of iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐ ┘hiIh is

otherwise implicit in the souヴIe laﾐguageげ ふヲヰヰヰぶ. This staﾐdpoiﾐt is soﾏe┘hat IoﾐtヴadiItoヴ┞

since the latter type of explicitation (the traditional type)3 may not necessarily result in extra

information. In spite of this, because Olohan & Baker work in a syntactic context, i.e. the

spelliﾐg out of the Eﾐglish paヴtiIle けthatげ, the positioﾐ Iaﾐ still He justified. E┗eヴ┞ shift ┘ill

result in a gain: in such cases the shifts come from zero encoding of the connective. This

would be different in cases that include substitutions since these may result in more general

information, which does not lead to increased informativity. Because of this, Olohan &

Bakerげs ┗ie┘ is pヴoHleﾏatiI if applied to e┝paﾐded Iategoヴies of e┝pliIitatioﾐ.

Another problem with their study is the use of comparable corpora in explicitation

research. This method has been criticized as working against the relational nature of

explicitation (see Hansen-Schirra et al, 2007), as the compiled translated and non-translated

texts are not necessarily related to each other. Heltai (2005) argues that such method would

yield a different type of phenomenon. Referring to Chesterman (2004), Heltai points out

that there are two distinct categories of universals. S-universals are drawn on the basis of

the source text and indicate how translators process the source text. T-universals, on the

other hand, are related to the target text and explain the way the way translators use the

target language. Heltai argues that the type of universal should be addressed in explicitation

research to avoid confusion.

Despite this problem, the use of comparable corpora in the study of explicitation has

its merits and its followers. Puurtinen (2004), for instance, conducted a similar project on

connectives in translated and non-translated Fiﾐﾐish Ihildヴeﾐげs liteヴatuヴe. Unlike Olohan&

Baker (2000), Puurtinen (2004: 165) focuses on けa higher degree of explicitness in translated

texts than in non-tヴaﾐslated te┝ts iﾐ the saﾏe taヴget laﾐguageげ, which according to her

ヴefleIts Chesteヴﾏaﾐげs ふヲヰヰヴぶ IoﾐIept of けT-uﾐi┗eヴsalsげ.

Another study using the comparable corpora method is Vilma Pápai (2004),who

investigated English into Hungarian translation texts. She, however, only uses the data as a

tool to けconfirﾏげ fiﾐdiﾐgs fヴoﾏ the parallel corpora she also employs. Further, she

differentiates Het┘eeﾐ けpヴoIessげ aﾐd けpヴoduItげ oヴieﾐted e┝pliIitatioﾐs (2004: 145), two

3 This explicitation concept is based on the distinction of encoded/inferred meaning levels

16

terms which are also used by Englund-Dimitrova (2005) but with different meanings.

According to Pápai (2004: 145), as a process explicitation is けa tヴaﾐslatioﾐ teIhﾐiケueげ, ┘hile

as a pヴoduIt, it ヴefeヴs to けa te┝t featuヴeげ iﾐ the taヴget te┝t. Unlike Blum-Kulka (1986/2000),

Pápaiげs e┝pliIitatioﾐ iﾐIludes shifts to Iateヴ to different audiences.

As Pápai relies much on formal features (including punctuation marks), her concept

of explicitness is somewhat superficial. She believes けtranslations from English into

Hungarian would be expected to result in implicitationげ because the latter is agglutinative

and けuses fewer words for the same meaning in [...] Englishげ (Pápai, 2004: 159), which is not

necessarily true (see also Becher, 2010b).

Although most of the studies tending to follow Blum-Kulka (Øverås 1998, Séguinot

1998, Olohan & Baker 2000, Pápai 2004) claim to confirm her hypothesis, Becher (2010b)

argues they are biased from linguistic interference from ignoring Blum-Kulkaげs ┘aヴﾐiﾐg to

use SL/TL stylistic knowledge to filter their data (e.g. Øverås, 1998and Pápai, 2004). He also

insists many of them do not provide a clear concept of explicitation and its operation either.

As a result, Becher points out, the studies cannot be considered to have validated

Explicitation Hypothesis.

While BeIheヴげs proposal (2010b) is appealing, his understanding of Blum-Kulka does

not seem to be accurate. One problem is that Blum-Kulkaげs e┝pliIitatioﾐ is drawn from

discoursal patterns of cohesion and coherence. In order to get the pattern of the translated

texts, she includes all shifts due to stylistic preference, including those that may be

influenced by SL/TL features. This pattern is then compared with patterns of both SL and TL

non-translation texts to determine if explicitation has occured. With this in mind,

Øveråsげ(1998) and Pápaiげs (2004) have closely followed Blum-Kulkaげs fヴaﾏe┘oヴk H┞

including all stylistic shifts in their data because they subsequently check their findings

against information on the corresponding SL/TL stylistic preferences.

Øveråsげ (1998) study, however, is limited because it only uses information on

language pair stylistic preferences from informants to check her findings, which she

acknowledges is a limitation of her study. Pápaiげs ふヲヰヰヴぶ, oﾐ the otheヴ haﾐd, is pヴoHleﾏatiI

HeIause she has also iﾐIluded shifts ヴelated to けIultuヴe-specifiI iteﾏsげ foヴ diffeヴeﾐt

readership (p. 155), which in Blum-Kulkaげs ふヱΓΒヶ/ヲヰヰヰぶ ┗ie┘ does ﾐot ケualif┞ foヴ

17

explicitation shifts. However, since Pápai counts each item separately, her findings on her

cohesive items cannot be disqualified either.4

Unlike Becher (2010b), I would instead argue many of the studies cannot be

considered to confirm Blum-Kulkaげs h┞pothesis HeIause the┞ use IoﾏpaヴaHle Ioヴpoヴa,

which are non-bidirectional and, as Heltai (2005) points out, will produce a different

phenomenon (T-universals). It is also difficult to conceive that the use of such corpora can

validate an increase of explicitness resulting from translation per se because there may be

different factors involved in the production of the translation corpus. On the other hand,

studies using parrallel texts such as Øveråsげ (1998) and Pápaiげs ふヲヰヰヴぶ Iaﾐ still be treated as

a preliminary indication supporting Blum-Kulkaげs pヴediItioﾐ despite their limited validity

(See Footnote 5). Apart from this, I agree with Becher (2010b) on the need for conceptual

clarity for explicitation research, since all the aforementioned validity issues are due in part

to a lack of attention on this issue. As I have mentioned earlier, this may also cause

problems when the linguistic items in focus are expanded to cover grey areas in term of

explicitness (based on meaning levels, textual, or both).

5. Attempt at unification and Asymmetry Hypothesis

Klaudy & Karoly (2005) tried to bring the various approaches to explicitation

together under a single concept, including the encoded/inferred and textual approaches to

explicitation. They also considered the shift of formal/structural features that puts more

focus on parts of the target language text. Unlike the previously discussed studies, Klaudy &

Karoly (2005: 3) also investigated implicitation, which they believe to occur, for example, by

generalisation and combination of several SL words into one TL word.

In addition to the combined typology, they also proposed the けAs┞ﾏﾏetヴ┞

H┞pothesisげ, in which explicitation in one direction is not counterbalanced by implicitation in

4In spite of this, Pápaiげs only use of item frequencies to confirm findings might be an issue if

the patterns of the items in focus go beyond number of occurences at the discourse level,

but I am unable to comment on this since I do not know Hungarian.

18

the opposite direction (Klaudy, 2001, Klaudy & Karoly, 2005: 18). According to them, such an

approach can be used to validate that explicitation is a translation universal (Klaudy &

Karoly, 2005: 27). In favor of the hypothesis, Becher (2010a) also suggests that it may be

used as an alternative to Blum-Kulkaげs Explicitation Hypothesis.

While the Asymmetry Hypothesis is a crucial suggestion to explicitation research,

Klaud┞ & Kaヴol┞げs IoﾏHiﾐed typology is problematic. As discussed earlier in this paper, while

generalisation is associated with implicitation under textual explicitness, it may be seen as

explicitation under the encoded/inferred system. This shows that the current conceptual

system of explicitation/implicitation does not support the categories normally employed for

the description of the shifts. Would this problem remain if we were to conceptualize the

explicit/implicit distinction differently for the process of explicitation/implicitation?

6. Alternative Frameworks to Explicitation

6.1. Explicitation/implicitation as prototypes

Kamenická (2007) sees explicitation and implicitation as a process and differentiates

them from addition/omission by the retrievability of the information involved in such shifts.

However, it is sometimes difficult to be sure of the borders between the two pair of

categories. Using Fillﾏoヴeげs ふヱΓΒヲぶ IoﾐIept of けfヴaﾏeげ, Kamenická (2007: 55) proposes that

e┝pliIitatioﾐ/iﾏpliIitatioﾐ shifts He seeﾐ as けpヴotot┞pesげ oﾐ a sIale, ┘ith a Ieﾐteヴ aﾐd

periphery. The center will include cases that easily lend themselves to

explicitation/implicitation, while the periphery will include shifts of explicitation in which

the recoverability of the specific meaning involved is less likely. While herproposal seems

plausiHle, KaﾏeﾐiIkáげs e┝aﾏples aヴe still liﾏited. “he does ﾐot Io┗eヴ ho┘ ﾏoヴe Ioﾏple┝

renderings of figurative expressions may be explained in terms of her categories. In

addition, as the encoded/inferred concepts are used to differentiate between explicitation

and implicitation, the framework cannot accommodate specification and generalization,

which are valid parameters for explicitation/implicitation based on textual explicitness.

In addition to the prototype-based classification, Kamenická (2008) proposes

another typologywhich is based on Hallidayan metafunctions of language: experiential,

logical, interpersonal and textual. She argues that such approach may explainthe different

19

aspects of the pragmatic situation that motivate explicitation shifts and can serve as an

alteヴﾐati┗e to Klaud┞げs t┞polog┞, ┘hiIh is ﾏoヴe iﾐteヴested iﾐ the “L/TL systemic differences.

Unfortunately she provides hardly any explanation on how each of her categorisations

operate except two examples of interpersonal explicitations (see also Becher 2010b). While

this is a potential framework, explaining the grey areas of explicitness and implicitness is

still necessary and can only be done by taking the cognitive nature of interpretation into

account.

6.2. Explicitation based on audience design

Saldanha (2007) has suggested that explicitation should be viewed in terms of

audience design rather than in terms of its link to implicit meanings because explicitation is

not necessarily related to the recovery of implicit information. She proposes that

e┝pliIitatioﾐ is けa tヴaﾐslatioﾐ stヴateg┞ ┘heヴeH┞ tヴaﾐslatoヴs spell out optioﾐal iﾐteヴpeヴsoﾐal,

ideatioﾐal oヴ te┝tual ﾏeaﾐiﾐgs iﾐ the taヴget te┝tげ ふヲヰヰΒ: ンヲぶ. This stヴateg┞ takes into account

the cognitive store of the reader and the tヴaﾐslatoヴげs deIisioﾐs, neither of which are

necessarily related to the source text.

In my view, although the reader is an important factor in explicitation, he/she may

not be the main variable motivating the translator to spell out meanings. Explicitation is also

a function of norms, such that the use of the strategy is also determined by contemporary

perceptions about translation itself (Weissbrod, 1992). Of course, the norms may not

necessarily depend on the audience. They may come from the dominant literary community

of the target language or even from the translators themselves by reflecting their personal

styles. Given these additional considerations, seeing explicitation only in terms of audience

design does not seem to be the best option.

6.3. Explicitation based on processability

Instead of using linguistic explicitness as the basis for explaining explicitation, Heltai

(2005) proposes explicitness as processability. LiﾐguistiI e┝pliIitﾐess iﾐ Heltaiげs poiﾐt of ┗ie┘

is textual explicitness, which is indicated by the presence of more linguistic forms. Such

explicitness is not adequate for the basis of explicitation because explicitation is normally

20

associated with its けps┞IholiﾐguistiI IoﾐseケueﾐIesげ (n.p.). Greater linguistic explicitness does

not always lead to ease of comprehension. Unlike linguistic explicitness, explicitness as

pヴoIessaHilit┞ ヴefeヴs to けliﾐguistiI Iodiﾐg pヴoﾏotiﾐg easier comprehensionげ ふn.p). Hence,

explicitation is a shift to resolve ambiguity and easier processing (n.p).

Iﾐ Heltaiげs ┗ie┘, e┝pliIitﾐess as pヴoIessaHilit┞ seeﾏs to He iﾐ aIIoヴdaﾐIe ┘ith

“peヴHeヴ & Wilsoﾐげs ふヱΓΒヶぶ IoﾐIept of e┝pliIitﾐess iﾐ explicature. In his view of explicitation,

howeveヴ, he does ﾐot follo┘ the t┘o sIholaヴsげ Iogﾐiti┗e pヴagﾏatiI fヴaﾏe┘oヴk. While

Sperber & Wilson still see linguistic representation as an important basis for defining the

explicit, Heltai tends to use けease of Ioﾏpヴeheﾐsioﾐげ as the ﾏaiﾐ Iヴiteヴia foヴ e┝pliIitness. In

other words his explicitness is more similar to Schiffrinげs (1994/2003) idea of explicitness,

which is based on ease of comprehension and can be very relative depending on the reader.

Like explicitness based on audience design, the high relativity of this processability

approach would make it impractical as a basis for explicitation, as perceptions of a text in

the target audience are bound to vary. In spite of this, Heltai offers insightful observations

pertinent to the study of the phenomenon. One of these is on how addition of linguistic

forms do not necessarily contribute to explicitness as processability. The Hungarian

sentence Kék a szeme contains fewer morphemes than its English equivalent Her eyes are

blue and does not indicate the plural number of the eyes. The Hungarian sentence is

therefore less explicit and less processable in terms of linguistic explicitness than the latter.

Iﾐ Heltaiげs ┗ie┘ ふヲヰヰヵ: n.p), ho┘e┗eヴ, this is けcounter-intuitiveげ uﾐdeヴ the IoﾐIept of

explicitness as processability.

Besides demonstrating that explicitation research should go beyond linguistic

differences between SL and TL, again, the above discussion also suggests that it needs a

coherent framework to explain the complexity of explicitness in meaning interpretation.

Pragmatic theories are one option that may explain cases such as why Her eyes are blue

does not seem to be more processable than Kék a szeme. Uﾐdeヴ GヴiIeげs (1967) view, for

instance, the plural information in the Hungarian version can only be recovered by

inference. The utteヴaﾐIe ┘ould still shaヴe the saﾏe け┘hat is saidげ ┘ith the Eﾐglish seﾐteﾐIe.

Relevance Theory goes further with this view by categorizing such inferrable information

into the explicit. This is based on the thesis of underdeterminacy which sees languages as

too weak to be capable of encoding all the humanly possible thoughts. Hence what is

encoded in linguistic symbols cannot fully represent ┘hat is iﾐ soﾏeoﾐeげs ﾏiﾐd. Iﾐ otheヴ

21

words, our thoughts can never be fully explicit in what we say and consequently

communication always involves some element of inference. Because of this, Sperber &

Wilson believe that the encoded/inferred concept cannot be used as a criterion to

differentiate between the explicit and implicit (1986).

7. Conclusion

This research demonstrates that while explicitation is a complex notion, many

studies on the phenomenon fail to provide an adequate explanation of the concept. The lack

of attention to the conceptual issue has often lead to methodological choices which limit

the validity of the studiesげ claims or even nullify them. This is especially true with the use of

comparable corpora for validating Blum-Kulkaげs prediction. Although it is a valid method for

studies on target text oriented features of translations as compared to non-translated texts,

the corpora cannot be used to prove a hypothesis resulting from the translation process per

se.

Further, while studies employing the encoded/inferred system generally do not have

an issue with categorising explicitation cases, their framework is restricted. In order to be

able to cover grey areas and more types of explicitation shifts, the framework will need to

be expanded for more comprehensive future research on the phenomena. The

encoded/inferred approach, on the other hand, is inadequate to deal with border cases of

explicitation because it does not deal with indeterminacies in meaning interpretation

(Sperber & Wilson, 1986, Carston, 2002).

A more thorough approach is imperative to study explicitation as a possible

tヴaﾐslatioﾐ けuﾐi┗eヴsalげ, ┘hiIh ﾐeIessitates e┝aﾏiﾐatioﾐ aIヴoss diffeヴeﾐt liﾐguistiI aspeIts of

translation texts. Even if it later turns out not to be the case, such a framework is also

paramount in creating common ground for more comparable studies on the pervasive

phenomenon in translation. This will pave the way for establishing more significant

generalisations on the issue, which in turn will help us to better understand how translation

operates as a specific type of interlingual communication. Translator training will benefit

most from such findings by helping trainees become aware of tendencies in translation. The

framework, on the other hand, will certainly be a helpful tool to explain explicitation

coherently.

22

Some scholars have attempted to develop new approaches to better explain

explicitation but none of them seem to be able to explain the phenomenon satisfactorily.

With this in mind, more research is necessary to better understand the concept and to

develop a sound framework of explicitation because only partial aspects of explicitness are

being addressed. Iﾐdeed, as ouヴ disIussioﾐ oﾐ Heltaiげs ふヲヰヰヵぶ study suggests, to understand

explicitation, one needs to understand how meaning interpretation works in

communication. This entails the need of a concept of explicitness which is based on a

communication theory that may systematically explain our various intuitions of meaning

interpretation pertaining to explicitation. This is not an easy task since one has to examine

the area of meaning and interpretation which is dispute-laden.

From my three years of investigation into various theories of meaning interpretation,

the Linguistics branch of Pragmatics, the study of meaning in context, seems to be the most

promising one to explain explicitation since it deals with different layers of meaning in detail

while taking account of how it works in real communication. Among different Pragmatic

theories, I found Relevance Theory, which is based on cognition, to be most adequate to

explain the various aspects of explicitness (Murtisari, 2011), but more investigation is

necessary to test its applicability. It will be difficult to arrive at a single, universally accepted

framework of explicitation, of course, but what is more relevant here is the effort to

establish more comprehensive and systematic frameworks for studies on the phenomenon

to move beyond the current, almost chaotic, conceptual landscape. Unless this is done, we

will not be able to obtain a more insightful, coherent explanation of explicitation.

Acknowledgements: The author thanks Rosella Kameo for refining this articleげs language.

References:

Ädel, Annelie. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam & Philadelpia, John

Benjamins.

Becher, Viktor.(2010a). AHaﾐdoﾐiﾐg the ﾐotioﾐ of けtヴaﾐslatioﾐ-iﾐheヴeﾐtげ e┝pliIitatioﾐ.

Against a dogma of translation studies.Across Languages and Cultures 11, no 1: 1-28.

23

Becher, Viktor. (2010b).Towards a more rigorous treatment of the Explicitation Hypothesis

in translation studies. trans-kom 3 no. 1: 1-25.

Biber, Douglas.(1988).Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Blum-Kulka.S. (2000).Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation.First published in 1986

in Intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second

language acquisition. J.House & S.Blum-Kulka, eds. Tübingen, Narr: 17-35. Reprinted

in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Venuti. London & New York, Routledge: 298-

312.

Carston, Robyn. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit

communication. 2nd ed. Oxford & Malden, Wiley-Blackwell.

Chesterman, Andrew.(2004.)Beyond the particular. In: Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds) 2004.

Translation Universals Do they exist? Amsterdam&Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing:

33-50.

Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta.(2005).Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam

& Philadelpia, John Benjamins Publishing

Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. (2005).Expertise and explicitation in the translation

process.Amsterdam & Philadelpia, John Benjamins Publishing.

Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2004, January). Are translations longer than source texts? A corpus-

based study of explicitation. Paper presented to the Third International Corpus Use

and Learning to Translate Conference, Barcelona.

http:/www.linguateca.pt/Repositorio/Frankenberg-Garcia2004.d0c. Last retrieved 23

January 2008.

Grice, H. Paul.(1967). Logic and conversation. William James Lectures, Ms., Harvard

University.

Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S. & Steiner, E. (2007). Cohesive explicitness and explicitation

in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast7 no. 2: 241-66.

Heltai, Pál. (2005).Explicitation, redundancy, ellipsis and translation. Manuscript submitted

for publication in Károly, K. and Fóris, Á. (eds.).New Trends in Translation Studies.

Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.

24

Kamenická, Renata. (2007). Defining explicitation in translation. Brno Studies in English

33.no 1: 45-57. http://www.phil.muni.cz/plonedata/wkaa/BSE/BSE_2007-

33_Offprints/BSE%202007-33%20(045-057)%20Kamenická.pdf. Accessed5 July 2009.

Kamenická,Renata. (2008). Explicitation profile and translator style. Retrieved from

http://isg.urv.es/library/papers/KamenickaExplicitation.pdf, 1 February 2013.

Klaudy, Kinga, & Karoly, Krisztina. (2003, 11-ヱン “epteﾏHeヴぶ. けImplicitation in Translation: An

Empirical Justification of Operational Asymmetry in Translation.げ Papeヴ pヴeseﾐted to

the 10th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting. Translation

Targets. 11-13 September 2003.

Klaudy, Kinga. (1998). Explicitation. In M. Baker & G. Saldhana (Eds). Encyclopaedia of

Translation Studies. London: Routledge: 80-85.

Klaudy, Kinga. (2001, 30 August- 1 September). The Asymmetry Hypothesis. Testing the

Asymmetric Relationship between explicitations and Implicitations. Paper presented

to the Third International Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies,

Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, Copenhagen.

Larson, Mildred. (1984).Meaning-based translation : a guide to cross-language equivalence.

Lanham, MD, University Press of America

Leafgren, John. (2002).Degrees of explicitness: Information structure and the packaging of

Bulgarian subjects and objects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Murtisari, Elisabet Titik. (2011).The Uses of Relevance Theory for the Study of Explicitation,

PhD Diss, Monash University, Australia.

Murtisari, Elisabet. (2013). A Relevance-based Framework for Explicitation and

Implicitation: An Alternative Typology. Trans-kom 6 no. 2: 315-344.

Nida, Eugene. (1964).Toward a science of translating. With special reference to principles

and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden, E.J. Brill.

Olohan, Maeve & Baker, Mona. (2000). け‘epoヴtiﾐg that iﾐ Tヴaﾐslated Eﾐglish: E┗ideﾐIe foヴ

“uHIoﾐsIious PヴoIesses of E┝pliIitatioﾐ?げ Across Languages and Cultures 1 no. 2:

141-158.

Øverås, Linn. (1998). In search of the third code: an investigation of norms in literary

translation. Meta 43 no 4.

25

http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1998/v43/n4100377sar.html. Accessed 25

January 2008.

Pápai, Vilma. (2004). Explicitation: A universal of translation text? In A. Mauranen & P.

Kujamäki (Eds). Translation Universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam & Philadelphia,

John Benjamins: 143-64.

Puurtinen, Tiina. (2004). Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause.

Connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children's literature. In A.

Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds). Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam &

Philadelphia, John Benjamins:165-76

Saldanha, Gaby. (2008). Explicitation revisited: Bringing the reader into the picture. Trans-

kom 1 no.1: 20-35.

Schiffrin, Deborah.(1994).Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Blackwell

Publishers.

Séguinot, Candace. (1988). Pragmatics and Explicitation Hypothesis. TTR: Traduction,

Terminologie, Rédaction 1 no. 2: 106-14.

Sperber,Dan& Deidre,Wilson. (1986).Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford,

Blackwell

Vinay, Jean-Paul& Darbelnet, Jean. (1995).Comparative stylistics of French and English: A

methodology for translation. (J.C. Sager & M.-J. Hamel, Trans). Amsterdam &

Philadelpia, John Benjamins. (Original book published in 1958).

Vinay, Jean-Paul., & Darbelnet, Jean. (1958). St┞lisiケue coﾏpaヴee du fヴaﾐcais et de

langlais.Paris, Didier.

Weissbrod, Rachel. (1992). Explicitation in translations of prose-fictions from English to

Hebrew as a function of norms. Multilingua 11 no. 2: 153-71.

Wilson,Peter. (2014). Mind the Gap: Ellipsis & Stylistic Variation in Spoken &Written English.

London : Routledge.