Table of Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................3 Thesis objectives...........................................................................................................3 Thesis outline.................................................................................................................4 Theoretical background....................................................................................................5 1 Translation universals................................................................................................5 1. 1 Explicitation.......................................................................................................7 1. 2 Implicitation.....................................................................................................10 2 Cohesion and coherence..........................................................................................11 2. 1 Cohesion and coherence in general..................................................................11 2. 2 Cohesion and coherence and translation.........................................................15 2. 2. 1 Blum-Kulkas theory ...............................................................................15 3 Hopkinsons typology of explicitation and implicitation.........................................17 3. 1 The concepts of staticity and dynamism.....................................................19 3. 2 A proposal for a revised classification of BCR theoretical background......21 3. 2. 1 Dynamic approach....................................................................................21 3. 2. 2 Non-classical categories...........................................................................25 3. 3 Subjective perception of static and dynamic relations.....................................28 3. 3. 1 A revised classification of BCRs..............................................................31 Analysis...........................................................................................................................37 4 Corpus-based approach............................................................................................37 4.1 Types of corpora................................................................................................37 4.2 Material and method..........................................................................................41 5 Discussion of corpus findings.................................................................................45 5. 1 Parallel corpus..................................................................................................45 5. 1. 1 The ratio of explicitation to implicitation.................................................49 5. 2 Comparable corpus...........................................................................................53 5. 2. 1. Indicators of BCRs.................................................................................55 5. 2. 2 Frequency of indicators of BCRs: a comparison of the parallel and comparable corpora.............................................................................................58 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................65 Bibliography....................................................................................................................67 6. 1 Works cited and consulted...............................................................................67 6. 2 Primary sources................................................................................................70 6. 2. 1 Parallel corpus .........................................................................................70 6. 2. 2 Comparable corpus...................................................................................76 Appendix I Corpus findings

II

Texts included in the corpora (on the enclosed CD-ROM disk)

Introduction
The thesis is a response to the article Explicitation and Implicitation of Binary Coherence Relations in Translation by Christopher Hopkinson (2007) where he introduced his hypothesis that there are not only quantitative but also qualitative differences in distribution of explicitation and implicitation. These were studied on binary coherence relations which Hopkinson divided into static and dynamic. He came to the conclusion that dynamic relations attract a relatively higher degree of explicitation. His hypothesis was questioned by Kamenick (2008) who applied his theory on the corpus of literary texts (contrary to Hopkinson who analyzed non-literary texts). The hypothesis was not confirmed fully on Kamenicks corpus; the main reason being the vague and questionable determination of the concepts of staticity and dynamism. The topic of the thesis reflects the recent interest of many scholars in investigation into the style of translation, more precisely translation universals features inherent to translation, globally observable tendencies independent of the language involved. This phenomenon goes hand in hand with the introduction of a new approach to translation studies: the corpus-based investigation.

Thesis objectives
The main objective of the present thesis will be an attempt to redefine the static (additive and adversative) and dynamic (causal and temporal) binary coherence relations introduced by Hopkinson taking more into account the subjective perception of these concepts. The hypothesis is tested on both a parallel and a comparable corpus. The parallel

corpus (including English originals) is used as a reference work for testing the validity of Hopkinsons revised hypothesis. Similarly as in Hopkinsons original research, the corpus consists of non-literary texts (yet not of essays but of newspaper articles), the direction of translation is, however, opposite: from English to Czech. The monolingual corpus of translated and original texts, the so called comparable corpus, is used in order to study possible differences between translated and non-translated texts in the same language (Czech in this case). Hopkinson (2007: 58) also observes that as a result of dynamic relations attracting more explicitation the target texts tend to be more explicitly dynamic. The second objective of this thesis is thus to explore target and original texts in terms of their internal coherence based on dynamic vs. static relations. The thesis is a reaction to a hypothesis introduced by another scholar and as such hopes to contribute to the present discussion on the nature of translation universals.

Thesis outline
The thesis consist of two main parts: the theoretical background (Chapters 13) and the analysis (Chapter 4). The theoretical part deals with some theoretical approaches that are relevant to the present topic; they include the definition of explicitation and implicitation in Chapter 1 or general notes on coherence and on coherence in translation (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 is devoted to the introduction of Hopkinsons typology followed by various approaches that contribute to the intended revision of it. Finally a revised classification of binary coherence relations is proposed. The practical part describes the material and method (Chapter 4) and subsequently presents the results of the research based on an analysis of a parallel and comparable corpus (Chapter 5).

Theoretical background
Two theoretical focuses are relevant for the present thesis: firstly, semantics, and secondly, corpus-based approach to the study of translation universals. Important centres of the latter are in Manchester: CTIS (Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies) represented by scholars such as Mona Baker or Maeve Olohan, in Scandinavian (Kirsten Malmkjr, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit) or in Israel (Gideon Toury, Shosana Blum-Kulka). Essays by some of these authors and other scholars who are interested in translation universals (Kinga Klaudy, Sara Laviosa-Braithwaite, Linn vers, a. o.) were used especially in the first theoretical part.

Translation universals
The starting point of the discussion is the fact that translations differ from native

texts. Some scholars search for common shared characteristics of translated texts, others examine what makes a particular translation unique and individual. Yet the main question is to be formulated in other words: what is the nature or the essence of the difference? Is it something that appears regularly and globally in translations, ergo universally? Translation universals presuppose the existence of regularities in translation behaviour but more importantly as Toury (2004: 17) emphasizes, the regularities are there because it is translation. The study of translation universals than goes through the descriptive route looking for similarities, regularities, patterns (Chesterman 2004: 33) of all translated texts regardless of the languages involved. The theoretical approach chosen here the descriptive route represents a move from theoretically towards

empirically oriented studies. The focus of descriptive translation studies (DTS) is also target-oriented rather than source-oriented. As vers summarizes the idea (originally expressed by Gideon Toury), DTS investigates what translations are rather than what they fail to be, and presents a methodology for that purpose (vers 1998: 558). Lynn vers, a Finnish scholar who pioneered corpora applications to translation studies, knew indeed that the concept of translation as a type of sub-language was not new. Nevertheless it had been associated with negative evaluation before (consider notions such as translationese or interference). What was new about the concept was in verss (1998:559) view the non-evaluative aspect. The origins of this concept go back to Frawley and his notion of the third code (a language which was identical with neither source language (SL) nor target language (TL)); other proposals were Blum-Kulkas explicitation hypothesis or Tourys translation laws. Toury (2004) also introduced a probabilistic1 explanation of the appearance of some phenomena in translations in translation studies. The problem has always been that of conceptualization and terminology (Chesterman 2004: 43). Various names, titles, headlines, and terms appeared dealing basically with the same. It was among other the distinction between norms vs. universals, expressed by a Finnish scholar Sari Eskola (2004). Norms are binding constraints, social expectations fixed in a local socio-cultural context; they change in time, and are prescriptive, whereas universals are globally observable tendencies, irrespective of the languages involved; they are descriptive or predictive (2004: 84). The concept of law is treated as a superior concept. Laws are features inherent in translation (Eskola 2004: 85). Norms are then local translation laws and universals
1

As Toury (2004) pointed out, a distinction must be made between regularities of performance frequencies and regularities in the system probabilities: what is the likelihood of the appearance of a specific phenomenon in translation (2004: 19). He than puts the question as follows: If indeed all regularities in translation are conditioned, and only more or less probable, does it follow that it is the probabilistic propositions themselves that represent the coveted universals? (Toury 2004: 29).

universal translation norms.2 Leaving apart the terminological aspect, it is the definition of translation universals formulated by Mona Baker that was taken over for the purpose of this paper:
Universals of translation are linguistic features which typically occur in translated rather than original texts and are thought to be independent of the influence of the specific language pairs involved in the process of translation. (Malmkjaer/Baker 1998: 243)

Universals include several subtypes, including simplification, avoidance of repetition present in the source text, explicitation, normalization, discourse transfer and distinctive distribution of lexical items. Explicitation and its counterpart implicitation will be in the centre of our interest. This paper concentrates on explicitation as one of the potential S-universals in Chestermans (2004) division3, and at the same time the other view the comparison of translated and original comparable texts is explored. The motivation for the latter investigation is to find out whether there will be any significant difference between translated and non-translated texts with respect to the explicitness of the text based on BCRs.

1. 1

Explicitation

A very rough and simplified background for explanation of explicitness as a phenomenon could be based on two premises: first, the task of translation is to communicate something, and second, the common tendency is rather to communicate more than to omit something. The essence of translation universals is the notion of shift; Toury (2004: 22) regards the idea of shift as the defining feature of translation in
2

Eskola also looks at interference in a new way; interference does not necessarilly bring about negative connotations; it is rather interpreted as an existence of some stimulus in SL which is observable in TL. Chesterman (2004: 39) distinguishes so calle T-universals and S-universals. T-universals are about the relation of translation vs. comparable non-translated texts; S-universals, on the other hand, consider universal differences between the source text (ST) and its translation.

general. Similarly explicitation represents a particular shift in meaning; Blum-Kulka (1986: 20) narrowed her definition to cohesive explicitation only because it can be easily found and analysed in text. According to the most widespread definition, expliciting means making explicit in the target text information that is implicit in the source text (Klaudy 1998: 80). Such information may be derived from the context in the ST. Explicitation is formally expressed as a shift in types of cohesion markers, the use of interjections, addition of extra information, grater transparency, and it is often connected with the difference in length (ibid.: 289). The meaning of explicitation has been discussed by various scholars and has been associated with other more or less similar concepts. Blum-Kulka (1986) distinguishes two types of meaning that are contained in explicitation: addition and/or specification. Klaudy and Kroly (2005) subsume generalization under implicitation and specification under explicitaiton. Yet Kamenick (2007: 48) states contradictory occurrences where more general meaning results in explicitation, e.g. the substitution of Heathrow in the ST by letit v Londn in the TT. Another pair of concepts often mentioned with respect to explicitation and implcitation is addition an omission; yet they do not correspond fully. The study of explicitation brings about several issues to be discussed. vers (1998: 10) draws attention to the problem of distinguishing between the shifts that merely explicitate and those that change meaning. Blum-Kulka (1986: 23) asks the question to what extent is explicitation translation universal, a norm that cuts through languages, and to what extent is it just a language pair specific phenomenon. The type of explicitation that we are interested in while studying translation universals is such that doesnt follow from the differences in linguistic systems of the

languages involved. It is rather the result of the process of translation itself. It is called translation-inherent explicitation, sometimes referred to as the explicitation proper. Other types stated in Klaudys (1998: 8182) typology of explicitation include: obligatory explicitation (caused by linguistic/systematic differences), optional (stylistic preferences) and pragmatic (conveying cultural information). Hopkinson (2007), similarly as Kamenick (2007 a), proposes an alternative typology based on Hallidayian meta-functions of language: ideational, interpersonal and textual. Hopkinsons typology is functional, taking into consideration the semantics of explicitation.

In 1986 an Israeli scholar Soshana Blum-Kulka published a study called Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation where she explored the discourse level explicitation connected with shifts of cohesion and coherence 4. This study has been considered to be the first systematic study of explicitation and the theory introduced there has become known as the explicitation hypothesis:
The process of interpretation performed by the translator on the source text might lead to a TL text which is more redundant than the SL text. This redundancy can be expressed by a rise in the level of cohesive explicitness in the TL text. This argument may be stated as the explicite hypothesis, which postulates an observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TL texts regardless of the increase traceable to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved. It follows that explicitation is viewed here as inherent in the process of translation. (Blum-Kulka 1986: 19)

This definition of explicitation was closely connected with cohesion5, she explicitly speaks about cohesive explicitness the result of the interpretative work of translator is a more cohesive text. It has been confirmed by studies on different language pairs so its universal character has been proved.

The paper will be discussed in detail later in the section devoted to cohesion and coherence (p. 14). Similarly Laviosa (1996) mentions that explicitation is sometimes taken as over-representation of text cohesion.

1. 2

Implicitation

Implicitation is in the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies defined as

... the process of allowing the target language situation or context to define certain details which were explicit in the source language. (Laviosa-Braithwaite 1998: 243)

Implicitation occurs for instance when a unit of more specific meaning in ST is replaced by a unit of more general meaning in TT (Pym 2005). Implicitation is the counterpart of explicitation, yet their mutual relationship is asymmetric, which means that explicitation in one direction is not always counterbalanced by implicitation in the opposite direction. Moreover explicitation can be found in translation more often than implicitation (Pym 2005). Nevertheless, the two phenomena are not to be separated. Moreover, looking back at the paper by Hopkinson (2007) discussed here, it must be pointed out that it is not the absolute amount of translation inherent explicitation which is the crucial figure in his research, but rather the ratio of explicitation and implicitation6.

Discussed later, see p. 17.

10

Cohesion and coherence

2. 1

Cohesion and coherence in general

The earliest studies concerning cohesion and coherence included those of Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik. Yet the most widely known book is probably Hallidays Cohesion in English (1976). His conception of cohesion in English will be briefly summarized at this place. Cohesion is a part of the language system (the position of cohesion in language system will be discussed later) and refers to non-structural text-forming 7 relations of meaning (1976: 7). Halliday uses the term texture meaning the organization of text which is made up by cohesive ties. A tie is a complex relational notion because it includes not only the cohesive element itself but also that which is presupposed by it (ibid.: 329). There are five types of cohesive ties which include reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. The concept of cohesion is a semantic one, yet it can be expressed partly through the grammar, partly through the vocabulary (we speak about realizations of semantic relations). The five classes are a mixture of criteria, thus we can distinguish grammatical cohesion where the relation is expressed through grammatical means; this group includes reference, substitution, and ellipsis. Lexical cohesion represents logically the lexical type of cohesion; conjunction stands on the borderline. The most important cohesive tie is, according to Hoey (1991), the lexical cohesion, so the study of cohesion in text is to a considerable degree the study of patterns of lexis in text (Hoey 1991: 10).

Cohesion is a relation between elements in text (it is not concerned with sentence boundaries).

11

The basic forms of cohesive relation are equals, identity of reference and conjoining. Exploring the meaning of these, the five ties can be divided into another three groupings which represent, in Hallidays (1976: 322323) words, the meaning of cohesion in English texts: a) the continuity of lexical-grammatical meaning (represented by lexical cohesion, substitution, and ellipsis), b) the continuity of referential meaning (including reference), and c) the semantic connection with the preceding text (represented by conjunction). The last one is contrary to the previous two meanings non-phoric and can be further categorized into four subtypes: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal meaning8. Texture is made up by cohesive ties, yet it involves more then the presence of semantic relations of the kind we refer to as cohesive ; it also involves some degree of coherence whereas coherence is made up by all semantic resources of the language (not only the content of words but also various interpersonal components (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 23). The authors work with the terms cohesion and register as with two semantic configurations of different kind (situational-semantic configuration): cohesion is about how the text is constructed, register, on the other hand, implies what the text means. The two aspects together define a text.
A text is a passage of discourse which is coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation, and therefore consistent in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself, and therefore cohesive. (1976: 23)

Cohesive ties provide continuity and create the semantic unity of the text. The place of cohesion in the linguistic system is therefore within the textual component (next to the two remaining functional-semantic components of the linguistic system in Hallidayian conception: ideational and interpersonal). The textual component is a text-

Notice that these are the same categories that Hopkinson (2007) implies in his categorization of types of BCRs (see later).

12

forming component and includes structural (concerning the information structure and the theme-rheme determination) and non-structural components, where cohesion belongs. Non-structural, because in structural systems every element has its place or function in the total configuration, which is not the case of cohesion, as Halliday (1976) explains:
Cohesion, on the other hand, is the potential for relating one element in the text to another, wherever they are and without any implication that everything in the text has some part in it. The information unit is a structural unit, although it cuts across the hierarchy of structural units or constituents in the grammar ...; but there are no structural units defined by the cohesive relation. (Halliday 1976: 27)

Cohesion is thus to be defined as a non-structural relation on a textual level. It must be added, however, that cohesion is a relational concept; ...its not the presence of a particular class of item that is cohesive, but the relation between one item and another . (Halliday 1976: 12). Halliday introduced the term cohesive harmony for this combination of ties. Hasan (1984) then places this concept in relation with coherence. Coherence has evidently something to do with the extra-linguistic world. It is, however, not a picture of reality; it is a representation of reality like other semantic phenomena in language (Hasan 1984: 10). Hasan notes several starting points concerning coherence: it is an essential property of texts, whereas it is a relative, not an absolute property; normal speakers are sensitive to variations in coherence, and coherence doesnt necessarily correlate with structure (ibid.: 184). Cohesive devices (lexical-grammatical categories) are realizations of semantic bonds (coherence relations). Her initial hypothesis was based on the assumption that the degree of coherence depends on the cohesive harmony understood as the density of the occurrences of cohesive ties; yet she finally came to the conclusion that it is rather the

13

degree of interaction between cohesive chains9 that has the significant impact on the level of coherence (Hasan 1984: 216). In Schuberts conception (2008: 65) coherence is seen as a configuration of concepts (configuration of knowledge activated from the mind) and relations (links between the concepts which appear in the text). Similarly as cohesion, coherence is also understood as a relational concept. Sanders/Nordman (2000) define it explicitaly as relations that connect two segments (2000: 38). These relations are conceptual, such as cause consequence, list, problem solution, claim argument and may be made explicit by cohesive markers. Coherence is very much about the interpretation of a text. A text is not coherent as such but it is rather understood as coherent. Cohesion on the other hand is given in the text (through grammatical and lexical items) and as such independent of individual perceivers. Coherence is thus a relative property, only measurable in terms of readers assessment (Hoey 1991: 11). Thus there are no absolute criteria. As indicated earlier, this paper is about a redefinition of a certain classification of BCRs using more subjective criteria. Thus it seems reasonable to pay significant attention to the subjective view of the reader while working on the revised hypothesis. Consider now the difference between cohesion and coherence as summarised by Hoey (1991: 12): cohesion is an objective property of the text, whereas coherence is a part of readers evaluation and therefore it is subjective. The linguistic markers (cohesive ties) faciliate the encoding of coherence relations. Their mutual relationship is than aptly expressed by Schubert (2008: 6364): cohesion is helpful for the reader while establishing the coherence, nevertheless it is not necessary or obligatory. And at the same time, cohesion doesnt automatically lead to coherence.
9

Cohesive harmony consists in the formation of the identity and the similarity cohesive chains, but not only in it; another most important source of unity is the interaction between the chains (Hasan 1984: 216).

14

2. 2

Cohesion and coherence and translation

Understanding the concepts of cohesion and coherence are crucial for a successful process of translation. Cohesive ties help to identify semantic relations in the text and thus contribute to their interpretation. As Mona Baker notes, the main value of cohesive markers seems to be that they can be used to facilitate and possibly control the interpretation of underlying semantic relations (1992: 218). vers (1998) regards the level of cohesion as essential in distinguishing various characteristics of translation:
It is the level of cohesion, combined with other aspects found to be typical in translation, that may serve as a guide in the search for the distinguishing characteristics of translation. The third code apparently consists of a series of features present in individual translations to a greater or lesser extent. (vers 1998: 18)

Coherence, Baker (1992) argues, is derived from the interaction of the information contained in the text and readers knowledge and experience. The translator has to bear in mind that the target reader does not have the same background knowledge as the source reader. Coherence thus depends on the ability of the reader to make sense of it. The question that Baker (1992) asks herself is this: is meaning property of text (supporters of this opinion are e.g. Blum-Kulka or Sinclair) or of communicative situation (Firth or Malmkjaer)? Baker (1992) inclines towards the latter opinion:
It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that, regardless of whether meaning is a property of text or situation, coherence is not a feature of text as such but of the judgement made by the reader on the text. (Baker 1992: 222)

2. 2. 1

Blum-Kulkas theory Blum-Kulka dealt with this issue in her paper Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence

in Translation published in 1986. Her main statements will be now looked at more thoroughly. Cohesion is in Blum-Kulkas words an overt relationship holding between parts of the text, expressed by language specific markers (1986: 17); as it is expressed 15

by linguistic means, it is objectively detectable. Coherence, on the other hand, is a phenomenon of potentiality; Blum-Kulka defines it as a covert potential meaning relationship among parts of a text, made overt by the reader or listener through processes of interpretation (1986: 17) or as the realization of the texts meaning potential (ibid.: 23). Theoretically it would be necessary to postulate an ideal reader or to proceed empirically by compiling a questionnaire exploring how readers react to a particular text. As was stated above, the process of translating brings about shifts of various types. Blum-Kulka examines the type of shift on the level of cohesion and coherence proceeding in two directions: a) shifts in level of explicitness, b) shifts in text meaning. She again emphasises that she is not interested in stylistic preferences or changes caused by the differences in linguistic systems, bur rather in important changes inherent to the process of translation (explicitation hypothesis). It is only the optional changes that are relevant in studying shifts in translation, not obligatory changes given by the language system. Put in other words, Blum-Kulka explores the potential of texts to change or lose their meaning (potential) through translation. Speaking about shifts of coherence, Blum-Kulka distinguishes two types of focus: text-focused or reader-focused shifts of coherence (1986: 24). Text-focused shifts concentrate on the process of translation itself as a result of particular choices made by a specific translator. This type of shifts is often linked to different linguistic systems. Reader-focused shifts reflect the change of audience, cultural background or knowledge; such shifts are conveying the message to new audience which is connected with the issue of the so called shared reference. Pyms (2005) terms explicitation and amplification cover approximately the same area.

16

Hopkinsons typology of explicitation and implicitation

Hopkinson introduced what can be called a static/dynamic explicitation

hypothesis which is a functional, meaning-based typology of explicitness shifts (Hopkinson 2007: 53). His motivation was to examine more subtle tendencies regarding explicitness shifts and also to look at the explicitation hypothesis from another perspective, taking into consideration especially the relation of explicitation and the opposite process implicitation. He draws on Hallidays three metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual.10 The ideational function covers a wide range of meaning types, referred to by Hopkinson (2007: 53) as ideational meanings; he states as an example the influence of explicitness shifts on the roles of participants. The effect of explicitation on the textual function is expressed by strengthening of cohesive ties in text; the interpersonal function shows the presence of the author within the text which may be intensified (explicitated) by intensifiers or various boosting devices (Hopkinson 2007: 54). According to Hopkinsons findings the relative predominance of explicitation over implicitation varies depending on the metafunction involved. The hypothesis was formulated as follows:
10

Hallidays (1973, 1976) model of functions of language consists of three functional-semantic components: ideational, interpersonal and textual. The ideational component is per s an expression of content, the attribute of language that it is ABOUT something. It is further devided into experiential (context of culture) and logical (abstract logical relations) subcomponents. The speaker is here seen as an observer. The interpersonal component comprises the social, expressive and conative functions of language. It is the expression of speakers angle; the speaker is regarded as an intruder. Finally, the textual component is a text-forming component including two aspects: information structure (analyzing the text form the point of view of the so called given and new information) and cohesion. They are both related, however. When analysing the text from the point of view of information structure, then everything in the text has some status of the given-new framework. Cohesion, conversely, represents the potential of relating elements to each other without any implication that that everything in the text has some part in it (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 27). This clearly defines the position of cohesion in linguistic system: it is a textual non-structural component:
It is the means whereby elements that are structurally unrelated to one another are linked together, through the dependence of one on the other for its interpretation. (ibid.: 27)

17

Within the ideational and textual functions, it is hypothesized that there are not only quantitative, but also qualitative differences between explicitation and implicitation. ... explicitation does not merely outbalance implicitation by sheer weight of numbers. Instead, particular types of meaning attract relatively more explicitation more than others. (Hopkinson 2007: 5455)

On the basis of his data Hopkinson came to the conclusion that explicitation does not always predominate over implicitation. The relative predominance of explicitation over implicitation may be influenced by some semantic factors (ibid.: 58). He observed a tendency of explicitation shifts to occur with higher frequency by dynamic relations that leads to a greater coherence by dynamic relations and similar or lower coherence by static relations. Yet it has to be emphasized at this point that the indicator of an explicitation shift was not the amount of explicitating in the text but rather the ratio between explicitation and implicitation; the more dynamic the relationship, the greater the gap between explicitation and implicitation. Kamenick (2007 b) introduced the term plicitation quotiant for this ratio:
Dividing the number of occurrences of implicitation by the number of explicitation in a given segment of translation compared with the source text, we obtain a ratio whose value is smaller than 1 for translations where occurrences of explicitation outnumbered occurrences of implicitation and bigger than 1 for translations where implicitations outnumbered explicitations. (Kamenick 2007 b: 123)

The plicitation quotiant was applied in her research where she compared two translators (Pidal a Nenadl) the quotiant remained approximately the same in all samples by one translator but differed considerably in translations of two different translators (Kamenick 2008). Hopkinson (2007), on the other hand, basically explores how the plicitation quotiant differs with respect to the various types of explicitation (influenced by various semantic factors).11

11

The plicitation quotiant is only applicable to a research done on a parallel corpus.

18

In the centre of Hopkinsons attention were binary coherence relations (BCR). The term binary seems to be rather redundant at first sight because in keeping with what was said earlier cohesion and coherence are per se relational concepts; cohesive or coherent links cannot be associated with elements occurring in isolation. Moreover, in a general sense, the presence of two elements (at least) is contained already in the word relation. Nevertheless, Hopkinsons specification of the word binary is probably focusing more on the semantic part rather than on the formal, binary in his conception associates with the assumption that many common coherence relations concern a link between two elements: cause-consequence, problem-solution, contrast, comparison (Hopkinson 2007: 55). Nevertheless the borderline between the coherence relations that should be treated as binary, on one side, and those that shouldnt be treated as binary, on the other side, remains very vague.

3. 1

The concepts of staticity and dynamism

Hopkinsons distinction of static and dynamic relations represents the most questionable part of his hypothesis, probably because its basis is rather intuitive (being derived naturally from the corpus data). Hopkinson distinguishes two sub-types of both static and dynamic relations. Static coherence relations are additive (expressing similarity) or adversative (expressing contrast) relations, and their staticity is given by the objective arrangement of the two elements involved next to each other in time; put in Hopkinsons words they represent the existence of two or more elements in stasis, alongside each other (Hopkinson 2007: 55). Dynamic coherence relations, by contrast, concern the notion of one thing leading to another (ibid.: 55); so they include a certain progression in time.

19

Dynamic relations are represented by causal and temporal relations. Hopkinsons notions of dynamicity and staticity are seen as a scaled property rather than as a binary division of the semantic relations into two groups: static and dynamic. There are differences in the level of dynamism even within each individual group of dynamic relations. As a result, Hopkinson (2007) assigned a scale where the position of individual relations is determined by their degree of semantic dynamism; his suggested scale ranges from the most static to the most dynamic relation from additive, to adversative, temporal and finally causal relations. This scale can be questioned. Kamenick (2008) applied the static/dynamic explicitation hypothesis exploring BCR on the corpus of literary texts but the hypothesis was not confirmed fully. The main contradiction concerned the disputable dynamicity of some temporal shifts, especially in comparison with contrastive relations. In her corpora temporal relations tended to be implicitated (contrary to Hopkinsons theory of dynamic relations being explicitated), which corresponds with the assumption that too many temporal details reduce the dynamism (Kamenick 2008: 56). The problem was, Kamenick (2008) argues, that Hopkinsons distinction of static vs. dynamic relations was based on the objective processuality and arrangement in time of the events and processes being described rather than their perception by the human mind (2008: 57). The nature of shifts in explicitness and implicitness is to make these objective events and processes available for the subjective reader to perceive (ibid: 57). It therefore seems more appropriate to base the distinction between dynamic and static on subjective perceptions. A revised categorization of shifts in explicitness will be discussed in the following chapters.

20

3. 2

A proposal for a revised classification of BCR theoretical background

Bearing in mind the objections raised in the previous part, a revised concept of staticity and dynamicity of binary coherence relations (BCRs) will be now proposed.

3. 2. 1

Dynamic approach Translation theory has long been centered round the notion of equivalence,

which arose from the static approach to translation taking the source text as a starting point. Later the approach to translation theory was revised by using the notion of functional equivalence emphasizing the purpose in both SL and TL (Sager 1997: 25). Nowadays, the major approach in translation studies has become the dynamic one12 whereas the dynamicity is closely associated with meaning. What is specific about the study of meaning with respect to translation is, according to Whyatt (2007: 330), the need for precision. In everyday conversation language users hardly ever care for the precise specification of meaning, but translators have to be able to choose the most appropriate item to express some concrete meaning in a different language. Whyatt (2007) justifies the assumption that meaning is a dynamic concept from the perspective of the translator. Firstly, the translators deal is to transfer the meaning from one language to another, thus there is always a certain movement present; and secondly, the nature of meaning itself is the object of transfer (ibid.: 330). Similarly Sager (1997: 32) points out that the dynamic process in translation does not involve only the change of code but also modifications in contents or even change of purpose.

12

Compare papers by Sager (1997), Whyatt (2007), Groenendijk et al. (1996) and others.

21

Groenendijk et al. in their paper on Coreference and Modality (1996) focus on the interaction between indefinites, pronouns and epistemic modality. Yet they take it as a theoretical challenge to show on this example that dynamic perspective suggests some interesting new solutions to some of these problems.13 Groenendijk et al. (1996) identify the difference between a static and a dynamic view on meaning: for the static view, meaning equals truth conditions (1996: 179), and is described as the relationship between linguistics and the world. Whereas the dynamic approach is based on the relationship between what the speaker does with an utterance and its environment (1996: 180). Much more emphasis is then laid on the performative aspect of the speech act. The concept of meaning introduced by Groenendijk and his colleagues is such that involves change and is sometimes referred to as dynamic semantics. It must be distinguished from other approaches because it places the dynamics of interpretation in the semantics proper (1996: 180, emphasis is mine). Dynamic semantics is than defined as follows:
The meaning of a sentence is the change that an utterance of it brings about, and the meanings of non-essential expressions consist in their contributions to this change. (ibid.: 181)

Such a definition is a very general one because it does not specify how the change is brought about and what exactly gets changed. Traditional dynamic approaches start from the assumption that the main function of language is to convey information. Groenendijk et al. concretize then this definition of dynamic approach by reformulating the word change by change in information (1996: 181). The change in information depends on the empirical domain. To put it in a simplified way; from the dynamic perspective, meaning is the information change

13

The objective of the discussed paper was to apply dynamic approach by means of logical language to explore natural language meaning.

22

potential, from the static perspective, meaning is the truth-conditional/information content. To apply the idea of information change it is necessary to specify what the information is about. There are two kinds of information: the factual information information about the world, and the discourse information anaphora etc. Groenendijk et al. are more interested in discourse information which keeps track of what has been talked about (1996: 184). Anna Espunya is another scholar who used the principle of informativeness of an utterance in the study of translation. In her paper about explicitation in translation and linguistic explicitness (2007), she applied Kortmanns (1991) scale of informativeness for interclausal relationships. Kortmann found differences in the degree of linguistic expliciteness by various relationships. According to his hypothesis the differences depend on the level of informativeness; more informative are those relations that require more knowledge in order to be identified by the reader as the semantic relation holding between them, and such relationships tend to be explicitated more often. Thus he found a correlation between informativeness and linguistic explicitness. Espunyas objective was to find out whether the principle of informativeness plays a role in translation explicitation as well. The higher the position on the scale the higher the percentage of explicitation should be (the scale is stated below). Note that the first, most general criterion for dividing relations into more informative and less informative ones is based on the temporal aspect: relations that express temporal simultaneity are less informative, those expressing succession (anteriority or posteriority) are regarded as more informative.

23

Table 1: Kortmanns scale of informativeness: most informative concession contrast condition instrument cause time before manner exemplification/specification same time (simultaneity/overlap) accompanying circumstance least informative addition purpose result time after

Hendriks (2004) offers another classification of semantic relations. His study was focused on the interaction between ellipsis processes and the establishment of coherence relations in discourse. He uses three general classes of coherence relations: a) cause effect relations (implication is identified between two propositions), b) contiguity relations (sequence of events centred around one common theme), and c) resemblance relations (commonalities and contrast). Let me comment on them in more detail. The common determinator of a cause-effect relation is implication a proposition is implied from a presupposition. A prototypical case of such a relation is called result (1a), other forms of the cause effect relation are explanation (1b) and denial of preventer (1c). (1)
a b c Bill was about to be impeached, and he called his lawyer. Bill called his lawyer, because he was about to be impeached. Bill didnt call his lawyer, even though he was about to be impeached.

The second relation contiguity expresses a sequence of events related to one common theme, it is called narration. The basis of a narration relation is a forward

24

movement in time. (2)

Ken Starr convened his grand jury this morning, and Vernon Jordan was called to testify.

The third relation establishes coherence in a different way than the two foregoing 14; a resemblance relation requires that commonalities and contrasts among parallel entities and properties in the two clauses be recognized (ibid: 136). The common relation in example 3a is the participation in a recreational activity. In 3b the relation between two parallel entities (John and Mary, Clinton and him) is contrasted. (3) a
b Bill likes to play golf, and Al enjoys surfing the net. (parallel) John supports Clinton, but Mary opposes him. (contrast)

3. 2. 2

Non-classical categories The redefinition of Hopkinsons categories should be based on a more subjective

point of view. This approach subjectivity in readers perception of text is represented and analysed in papers by Morris and Hirst (2004, 2005, Morris 2004). They formulated the general research question what degree of subjectivity exists in text understanding and specified it by concentrating on the degree of subjectivity in readers perception of lexical cohesion. They had two major areas of research: lexical cohesion and lexical semantic relations; and they considered them in what they called two aspects of context: the text and the reader (leaving apart other aspects of context such as cultural and environmental background). Lexical cohesion is defined by Morris as the continuity of lexical meaning created by different groups of related words that run through a text (Morris 2004: 2), so called lexical chains; lexical semantic relations are the individual relations

14

A resemblance to the semantics of constituents/syntactic nodes, whereas establishing cause-effect or contiguity relation only goes to the clause-level.

25

that exist between pairs of words, and are therefore involved in the creation of lexical cohesion (Morris 2004: 1); the latter is more relevant for the present studies. The aim of their research was to investigate the nature of a group of related words and the way they are perceived by readers i.e. what readers perceive as a group of related words, how do they perceive the membership of words in various word groups, and how much agreement among readers is there. They believed that a closer understanding of these aspects would help to improve the relations existing in current lexical resources such as WordNet as well as contribute to the improvement of theories and methods. This endeavour is reflected in their concentration on so called nonclassical categories which are traditionally ignored in lexical resources but which were identified much more often by readers. Let us explain the difference between classical semantic categories (synonymy, antonymy etc.) vs. non-classical (all the rest) ones in more detail.

Classical relations are those that are usually used in available resources (such as WordNet); they are characterized by a sharing of the same individual defining properties between the words and the requirement that the words be of the same syntactic class (Morris/Hirst 2004: 46) and include these traditional categories: Category taxonomy or hyponymy hypernymy troponymy meronymy antonymy synonymy Example robin / bird tool / hammer drink / guzzle hand / finger go / come car / automobile

Non-classical relations are non-hierarchical relations with no standard classification which are not reflected in theoretical resources yet used and readers 26

identify members of these categories as related in the context of the text. Morris and Hirst use the term for relations that do not depend on shared properties (2004: 47) and do not have to be of the same grammatical class. The main types of non-classical relations are the following ones (taken from Morris/Hirst 2004: 48): Category relations between members of the category that are part of the structured activity case relations: - general - sentence-specific dog / bark stroke / it (In the sentence: They stroke it.) related terms identified in the thesauri of library and information science (LIS) Example ball, field, umpire / cricket

In their

research, Morris/Hirst (2004, 2005) were only interested in such

relations that can be found and identified within text and wanted to prepare the ground for a future research focusing on how text-specific the word groups and relations are. Their conclusion was the following: readers did not experience any problems to identify the words in the text that are related, the data showed that readers do identify a common core of groups of related words in the text. It seemed to be much harder, however, to determine the specific type of the relation (Morris/Hirst 2004: 50), but still the majority of identified relations were non-classical ones. Sandra Halverson is another scholar who also emphasizes the importance of reconsideration of current semantic categories with respect to the corpora studies (1998). As she explains, classical categories can be define in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions (1998: 13), all members of the category fulfil the stated conditions and have therefore the same status, they are equal. This delimitation has been questioned first by psychologists and philosophers who introduced the concept of

27

family resemblance15. The most controversial idea was that all members of a particular category have to share a set of common features; rather it has been suggested that certain members of a category may share some characteristics, while others share different ones (ibid.: 13). The idea that subjectivity plays a crucial role in the interpretation of text has been justified, among others, by Whyatt as well: Meaning is not objectively available but has to be inferred or interpreted (2007: 330). Naturally, additional factors come into play, such as context, different types of texts, and the individuality of readers. Keeping with this argumentation a new categorization of BCRs will be suggested, a categorization that will reflect the subjectivity of readers perception and apply it on texts of a particular type, namely non-literary translated and original texts.

3. 3

Subjective perception of static and dynamic relations

Until now, some theoretical approaches that were considered useful or relevant to the present topic were introduced. Let me summarize at this point what has been said so far. The dynamicity and staticity is not a straightforward issue and can be viewed and interpreted from different points of view. As a result, what is seen as dynamic by someone does not have to be considered dynamic by someone else who applies different criteria. The objective of this paper is thus to set own criteria of the classification of BCRs with respect to their dynamicity and staticity. Especially two issues in Hopkinsons categorization will be questioned: the location of contrast in the scale and the nature of temporal relations. Hopkinson counts additive and adversative relations to static ones. He is not the only one. Similarly Hendriks (2004) puts these two types of relation next to each other
15

Wiitgensteins argument

28

under one heading: resemblance relations (see chapter 3.2.1). Hand in hand with Morriss emphasis on the subjectivity of readers interpretation, it must be mentioned that the status of additive/commonalities relations versus adversative/contrast ones is not the same; contrast is subjectively quite dynamic, at least much more dynamic than the mentioned additive relation. This is reflected already in Hopkinsons hypothesis (he regarded contrast as a less static relation); I suggest, however, moving contrast even to the dynamic scale. Let me come back to conceptual relations discussed by Sanders/Nordman (2000). In their study, two crucial aspects are investigated: first, whether the processing of information (texts) depends on the type of coherence relation, and second, how the linguistic marking of relations influences the processing (2000: 39). They came to the conclusion that a text segment is processed faster when it is connected by a problem solution structure (causal relation), as opposed to a list relation (addition) that is usually considered a very weak connection (ibid.: 51). Following Sanders/Nordmans distinction of conceptual relations, the present typology of BCR could be based on the relative intensity of a particular type of connection. The intensity of connection is in my view supported by the level of informativeness discussed earlier: semantic relations that require more knowledge in order to be identified by the reader are more informative, and such a connection is regarded as more intensive, more dynamic.16 With reference to Morris again I have to ask if it is possible and desirable to state a limited number of categories (Hopkinson works with only four categories). Morris nad Hirsts research showed that readers usually identify more categories / types of relations than the classical ones. Hopkinsons categorization thus seems to be too generalizing, especially as far as the temporal relations are concerned. Temporal
16

The terms static / dynamic may not fit any more as the existence of two elements alongside or the shift from one thing leading to another (as Hopkinson defined them) is not the decisive aspect any longer. In spite of this I decided to stick to Hopkinsons terminology to retain the association with his hypothesis.

29

relations are of various types. Temporal relations expressing just flow of time or coexistence at the same time are quite static, similarly too many temporal details have rather a static effect (as suggested earlier by Kamenick, see p. 18) but change in time is more dynamic. Change seems to be the key concept too; meanings with more change potential are considered more dynamic; compare Groenendijk (see pp. 2021). In order to be able to derive some statistical information and conclusions in general, it was necessary to narrow down the number of categories or relations to be examined, thus a certain degree of generalization was necessary. I took Hopkinsons categories as a basis and modified them especially with respect to the degree of dynamicity or staticity. It was the case of temporal relations which were split into two separate groups. Further, problem-solution or cause-effect relations could be distinguished as Sanders and Nordman (2000) did but both of them are covered under one heading in the present analysis: causal relations. The analysis of the corpus data showed that two more types of BCRs could be taken into consideration: the concessive relation, included in Espunays (2007) typology as well, and a special kind of relation, that I refer to as an explanation. The order of individual types of BCR is only preliminary and rather intuitive at this point. Again, I have to recall the importance of a subjective perception mentioned earlier, and say that determining the arrangement of BCRs in the scale is based on subjective evaluation of staticity / dynamicity of the particular relation. Moreover, it was not my primary goal to find the exact arrangement of relations according to their subjective informative intensity / dynamicity staticity. During the analysis I will primarily monitor the distribution of explicitness and implicitness among the two basic categories: static relations, on one side, and dynamic relations, on the other one.

30

3. 3. 1

A revised classification of BCRs The working categorization suggested in this paper on the basis of theoretical

research includes the categories stated below: Table 2 An overview of proposed types of BCRs

Binary Coherence Relations Static Dynamic additive relations contrast temporal settings temporal change causal Static binary coherence relations (BCR) are for the purpose of this research such relations where the connection between two entities is subjectively perceived by the reader as weaker. They generally tend to describe a situation rather than shifting it forward. Additive relation the two elements involved in the relation display some common property or properties or similarity. An example of an explicitated additive relation is below (the explicitated phrase is in bold). The common property for the two involved entities (the facts and the increase of oil prices) is the fact they were both an incentive for many governments to reconsider the use of nuclear power again.
(4) ST: TT: TT*: That, and the recent spike in oil and gas prices, has prompted many governments to look again at nuclear power. (E4) Tato fakta spolu s nedvnm nrstem cen ropy a plynu pobdla adu vld, aby o jadern energetice znovu zaaly pemlet. (R4) These facts together with the recent increase of oil and gas prices

In example 5, the common property of both utterances is having a partnership with an island country even if it is not explicitely said in English. It is, however, a part of the background knowledge that Tokyo is the capital of Japan, which is also an island country. This connection is in English implied by using the word also. In Czech no cohesive means is used and the connection is implicitated. 31

(5) Denmark,

ST:

Other islands that Better Place has signed deals with include Hawaii and Australia. The firm also has a partnership with Tokyos largest taxi operator, Nihon Kotsu, to provide swappable batteries for a new fleet of electric taxis which will take to the streets of the Japanese capital. (E13)

TT:

Mezi dal ostrovy, s nimi Better Place ji uzavela dohodu, pat Dnsko, Havaj a Austrlie. Spolenost uzavela partnerstv s nejvt tokijskou taxislubou Nihon Kocu, v jeho rmci dod vmnn baterie pro nov vozov park elektrickch taxk, kter se vydaj brzdit ulice Tokia. (R13)

TT*:

The firm closed a partnership with the Tokyos largest taxi operator

Temporal setting is used in description of two temporal situations that take place simultaneously, or when some accompanying circumstance is described, as it is the case in example 6:
(6) ST: Indeed, no sooner did our meeting finish, and with the world commemorating International Human Rights Day, the Syrian regime launched a massive campaign of arrests and intimidation directed against some of the countrys most prominent dissidents. (PS_EN28) TT: Ba sotvae nae schzka skonila a zatmco si svt pipomnal mezinrodn den lidskch prv, syrsk reim zahjil rozshlou zatkac a zastraovac kampa namenou proti nkterm z nejvznanjch disident v zemi. (PS_CS28) TT*: and meanwhile the world was commemorating International Human Rights day

Explicitaiton of this type of relation covers instances where the time of the story the temporal setting is highlighted. Compare also exapmle 7: (7) ST:
The example Dr Bower and Dr Christensen used was a nerdy one: computer hard-drives. But unbeknown to them a more familiar one was in the making. (E13)

TT:

Doktoi Bower a Christensen demonstrovali svou tezi na pomrn specializovanm pkladu pevnch disk. Pitom v t dob se u rodil jin, mnohem pstupnj irokmu publiku. (R13)

32

TT*: But at that time another one was already in the making

Dynamic binary coherence relations are such relations where the connection is subjectively perceived by the reader as stronger. They include an informational change, adversative meaning or temporal progression.

Contrast two elements or two situations are set in opposition in order to emphasize the adversative meaning. Contrast may take the form of parallelism as in example (8), where the approaches of two groups of congressmen are compared and contrasted: (8) ST:
Some congressmen want it spent on the industries and households hardest hit by the rises in fuel and power prices that cap-and-trade will inevitably bring. Others want it spent on research into and subsidies for cleaner forms of energy. (E1) TT: Nkte z kongresman je chtj pout pro firmy a domcnosti nejvce zasaen nrstem cen paliv a energi, kter nov systm nepochybn pinese. Dal je zase chtj investovat do vzkumu a podpory istch forem energie. (R1)

TT*: Some of the congresmen want to use them for Others, again/on the
other hand, want them invest into

Temporal change describes temporal situations that express anteriority or posteriority; subsequently the progress in time or the contrast between before now after is emphasized. In example (9) the anteriority of the existence of the dynastic succession practice is explicitated in Czech. (9)
ST: As products of revolutionary military takeovers, these secular nationalist regimes failed to produce genuine popular legitimacy and have had to fall back on the dynastic succession practiced by the regimes they toppled. (PS_EN29) TT: Coby produkty revolunch vojenskch pevrat si tyto sekulrn nacionalistick reimy nedokzaly vypstovat skutenou veobecnou

33

legitimitu a musely se obrtit k dynastickmu nslednictv, uplatovanmu dve reimy, je svrhly. (PS_CS29)

TT*: ... applied earlier by the regimes, that they toppled.

Causal relation concerns relations expressing result or effect of some action. The two elements involved represent cause and consequence or problem and solution, the connection between them is subjectively perceived as a very strong one. In example (10), the TT version explicitates the consequence of the decision to deliver gold physically:
(10) ST: Pictet, the wealth-management group, decided some time ago to take physical delivery of gold (rather than get exposure via the derivatives market), and has had to find extra space in its vaults. (E5) TT: Sprvcovsk spolenost Pictet se ped asem rozhodla zlato fyzicky dovet (namsto aby ho nakoupila pes trh s derivty) a musela kvli tomu rozit sv sejfy.(R5) TT*: and because of that had to extend its vaults.

The analysis will thus consisted of two steps which both require a thorough understanding: first, to identify the shift, and second, to determine the type of the BCR that is shifted. Identifying the shift may present a problem in two aspects: determining if the meaning is explicitated at all, and distinguishing translation-inherent explicitation / implicitation (given by the process of translation itself) from an optional shift (given by stylistic preferences). It can be, however, easily solved by following the common rule: if there is a stylisticly plausible alternative in the TT, than it is translation-inherent E/I. The second step determining the correct type of binary coherence relation finally proved to be more disputable. The process of identifying the type of BCR should follow the definitions of individual categories stated above. Yet sometimes there

34

were more semantic aspects involved in the phrase and it was very hard to decide which is dominant. Consider the following examples. In example (11), the timing of the investments in renewables is explicitated in the TT lexically by adding the phrase i za situace; this may be interpreted as an explicitation of the temporal aspect (when the utilities ar obliged to invest in renewables), but it might also evoke the idea of something happening against general expectation, which would than be interpreted rather as a concession (a kind of contrast): (11) ST:
At worst, it will oblige utilities to invest in renewables when there are cheaper low-carbon alternatives available, and so add to the cost of cutting emissions. (E1)

TT:

Pinejhorm pak energetick spolenosti budou investovat do obnovitelnch zdroj i za situace, kdy maj k dispozici levnj nzkouhlkov alternativy, m by se nklady na omezovn emis jet zvily. (R1)

TT*: to invest in renewables also in the situation, when there are cheaper
low-carbon alternatives available.

Temporal change in the sense of posteriority is very clause in meaning to that type of causality that stresses the effect of an action. The Czech word nakonec in the example below may be thus interpreted temporaly (something happens after something else), but also as a special type of causality (something happens as a result of something else). (12)
ST: The hesitation of Colombias business community to confront Chvez may prove to have been the last remaining hurdle for Uribe, the United States, and a handful of Latin American democracies to clear before they could face up to Chvez. (PS_EN14) TT: Mon se nakonec uke, e vhn kolumbijsk podnikatelsk komunity konfrontovat Chveze bylo posledn zbvajc pekkou,

35

kterou museli Uribe, Spojen stty a hrstka latinskoamerickch demokraci pekonat, aby se mohli Chvezovi postavit. (PS_CS14) TT*: It may prove in the end

36

Analysis

Corpus-based approach

4.1

Types of corpora

First some notes about corpora in general will be summarized in order to clarify the terms that will be used throughout this paper. A corpus proved to be a useful tool in translation investigation that can help to illustrate differences between the source text and translation or eventually between translated and non-translated (original) texts. Paul Baker (2006) provides a basic definition of a corpus according to which corpus refers to a body of electronically encoded texts (Baker, P. 2006: 25). It does not mean, however, that corpus may consist of any random texts. Unlike databases or archives which are created with the motivation to simply collect texts a corpus is usually designed for a particular function, with a particular objective in mind. There are several types of corpora classified on the basis of different criteria, such as the number of languages involved, direction of translation or types of text to be included. For the matter of clarity, the types of corpora distinguished with respect to different criteria are listed in the table on the following page.

37

38

For Mona Baker (1995), type A applies to a parallel corpus (as indicated in the brackets) and type B to a comparable corpus including non-translation texts in the TL. An important type of corpus is a specialized corpus, which is used to study a particular type of text or in Bakers conception (Baker, P. 2006: 25) a particular variety of language. McEnery and Xiao (2007: 134) further mention a reference corpus which consists of large amount of data (wide range of texts) and is representative of a particular language variety. Reference corpus could be labelled as a special type of the comparable corpus. The corpora designed for the purpose of the current paper could be described as a) a parallel corpus: bilingual (English Czech), unidirectional (from English to Czech), specialised (newspaper articles), and b) a comparable corpus: monolingual (Czech), unidirectional (from English to Czech), specialised (newspaper articles) designed with both translations and original texts in Czech. The traditional problem of the work with a corpus is the fact that there is not always an appropriate corpus available. Within this context Baker, P. (2006: 24) raised an interesting point the issue of familiarizing yourself with the corpus. The best way to do so is to build own corpus and carry out a pilot study first to find out what texts are to be included and how easily can they be obtained or converted into an electronic format. This process may also help to make the first hypotheses, as certain patterns are noted during the processing of texts.
Corpora therefore tend towards a more balanced, carefully thought-out collection of texts that are representative of a language variety or genre. (Baker, P., 2006: 25)

An important feature of corpora of all types is their representativeness (Halverson 1998) or sampleness (Baker, P. 2006). A corpus always represents a sample

39

of all existing texts and can never be exhaustive. In Bakers view, the degree of representativeness depends on the consistence of selected texts (given by the criteria for selection) and the volume of the corpus17. Halverson (1998), by contrast, focuses on the definition of the target population in other words: what the corpus is intended to represent as the most important aspect rather than the size of the corpus. Defining the target population than consists of two steps: specifying the boundaries and descri-bing the internal structure (1998: 7). Delimiting of boundaries is usually problematic in relation to inclusion/exclusion of non-professional translations, yet Halverson, similarly as Toury, suggests a criterion which is based on the identification of a particular text as translation in the target culture; such a text represents legitimate data for the corpus. Another criterion mentioned in this debate is the inclusion of translations produced only by native speakers of the TL. The object of study that we want the corpora to represent is called by Halverson (1998: 12) category. She promotes so called prototype categorization working with non-classical categories as opposed to classical ones (as was explained earlier, see page 2426) because they seem to be much more suitable for constructing a corpus; the boundary is not fixed, all members are not equal, definitions are relative and allow for a narrower generalization.

It is a well-known fact that working with a corpus is always a two-fold process consisting of the phase of corpus building and of the phase of corpus analysis. The former phase is a process of decision-making about the texts to be included. The usual parameters are domain, medium and time of creation and should be applied with respect to the intended goal.
17

Baker, P. (2006: 28) suggests corpora of about million words for studying grammatical phenomena, whereas discourse phenomena can be studied on a corpus with much smaller amount of data.

40

...all discussion of corpus text selection and classification, the types of analysis
adopted, and the significance of the findings must be grounded in an explicit description of what the enquiry takes to be its object. (Halverson 1998: 2)

The latter part is usually associated with quantitative and statistic methods, but it also includes apart from collecting data (the objective part) the interpretation of the data collected (the subjective, but no less important process).

4.2

Material and method

The intended goal was to explore Hopkinsons reworked hypothesis on a different, yet comparable corpus. My corpus is comparable with Hopkinsons one in size (approximately 50,000 words) and it differs in the direction of translation (Hopkinson: from Czech to English, I from English to Czech), and more importantly in the type of texts used (essays vs. newspaper articles). These parameters determine the target population of the corpus. It was desired to create a corpus that would consist of non-fictional English texts and their Czech translations. This was achieved after an Internet research of both international and Czech media. Some Czech periodicals publish translated articles from international periodicals, thus it was a logical choice to use them, as they are usually provided in an electronic format on the Web as well, which simplifies the technical part of work significantly. Moreover, magazine articles give the possibility to work with up-to-date texts which is probably not primarily required nevertheless, it makes both the source texts and the translations comparable in terms of the time of publishing. The corpus is an ad hoc corpus it was created for the purpose of the present paper it is not supposed to serve as a general translation corpus. This is also reflected in the size and multiplicity of the sources which are with respect to the extent of the

41

paper limited. Yet I tried to get a certain degree of diversity by using texts from two different sources of a similar type of periodical. The sources included English articles from The Economist published in Czech translation in the Czech weekly magazine Respekt, and Project Syndicate where the commentaries are provided both in original English and in translations into various languages, including Czech. At this place, I would like to comment briefly on the issue of authorship. The authors of the articles and commentaries vary (as it is standard practice in a newspaper), similarly most of the articles are usually translated by different persons in each magazine. The translators in Respekt are H. Koutn, P. Horkov, V. Jani, Z. astn, L. Mikolajkov, J. Krodkov, H. Brta and L. Dostlov. The commentaries in Project Syndicate were translated by J. Kobla and D. Dadu. The weekly magazine The Economist does not even indicate the name of the author to express the idea that the articles are composed as a collective work. Nevertheless, the issue of authorship is not so important for the objective of this paper, because it explores a general phenomenon in translation. The identity of the translator was not taken as a relevant criterion for the analysis, and more importantly, for the interpretation of the analysis.18 The basic word statistics analysis was carried out with the assistance of the Wordsmith Tools software (Scott 1999). Such an analysis enables a general comparison of the analysed texts (in terms of size, type/token ratio and other parameters). The instances of BCRs were then looked up manually in the running text. The general information provided by the Wordlist tool include the following parameters: file size (in bytes, i.e. characters), tokens (running words), types (distinct words), type/token ratio (TTR) measures the vocabulary variation within a text, standardised type/token ration (STTR), mean word length (in characters), and mean sentence length (in words). Table 4
18

General statistics

The authors and translators if known are listed in the bibliography overview.

42

GENERAL INFORMATION

ST The Economist 172 208 28 535 5 430 19.03 47.12 4.80 20.05

TT Project Respekt 181 479 26 357 9 102 34.53 62.78 5.62 17.92 Project Syndicate (CS) 175 747 25 157 8 957 35.60 65.70 5.71 19.72

File size (bytes) Tokens Types TTR STTR Word length Sentence length
THE SIZE OF CORPUS

Syndicate (EN) 179 343 28 758 5 239 18.22 47.14 5.00 22.72

ST 57,293

TT 51,514

Tokens

The word statistics were presented to provide a general idea of the corpus which consists of approximately 57,000 words. It also illustrates that the ratio between the two different sources: The Economist and Project Syndicate is comparable. Other features (such as an average sentence length and TTR) are general style markers. The source text (ST) and target text (TT) differ obviously in terms of type/token ration (TTR). The TTR is the ratio of distinct words to the overall number of words in a text. It serves as a signal of the diversity of vocabulary the higher is the ratio, the wider is the range of vocabulary that he author uses. This proportion, however, doesnt apply always and completely. The TTR varies in accordance with the length of the text which is being studied (Scott 1999). For a more informative result it is advisable to use the so called standardised type/token ratio (STTR) which is calculated for every n (by default n = 1 000) running words as the wordlist goes through the text and than a running average is computed which means that you get an average type/token ratio based on consecutive 1,000-word chunks of text (Scott 1999). In our corpus, both the TTR and the STTR were significantly higher for the target texts.

43

The methodology involves the study of corpus data of pairs of English ST and Czech translations, which were extracted manually from English-written magazine and newspaper articles and their translations. The text was searched for occurrences of binary coherence relations. The corpus processing consisted then in analyzing the database of occurrences of BCRs that were implicitated or explicitated, and classifying them in terms of the type of relation. The first step included the identification of a BCR, the second step included assigning an interpretation to the BCR, and the last step consisted in the classification of the translation strategy as a shift (explicitation or implicitation) or non-shift.

44

Discussion of corpus findings

An exploration of explicitness and implicitness of binary coherence relations

yielded the following results. Explicitation outnumbered implicitation, and explicitation shifts were much more frequent by dynamic coherence relations. Thus, in rough outline, the hypothesis seems to be confirmed. Nevertheless, not all partial results, regarding individual types of BCRs, were so convincing. They will be discussed more thoroughly in the following chapters.

5. 1

Parallel corpus

Explicitaiton is usually more frequent than implicitaiton this presumption stood at the beginning of the hypothesis that Hopkinson formulated. He took into account the general presumption that there are not only quantitative, but also qualitative differences between explicitation and implicitation (2007: 54). Then he elaborated this presumption and formulated his observation that particular types of meaning (dynamic) attract explicitation more than other types of meaning (static). Coming back to the quantitative part of the argument it can be concluded that his hypothesis was confirmed in this respect. The distribution of explicitated and implicitated phrases in the analysed text varied importantly: 85 % to 15 %, respectively (see table 5). Table 5 Occurrences of explicitated and implicitated BCRs in the analysed text Implicitation Total number Percentage 24 15 Explicitation 136 85 All occurrences 160 100

45

The other part of Hopkinsons argument says that dynamic relations tend to be explicitated more often. The relations that were suggested as dynamic in the theoretical part proved to be explicitated or implicitated more frequently than the static ones (with the ratio of shifts affecting static relations to shifts affecting dynamic relations of 1:2). Table 6 No. % The distribution of the shifts between static and dynamic relations I Static 52 32.5 Dynamic 108 67.5 All occurrences 162 100

It is also worth noticing that this ratio remains approximately the same even when explicitation and implicitation were considered separately (compare table 7 and figure 1); it is roughly 1:2 for explicitation and 2:3 for implicitation. Table 7 The distribution of the shifts between static and dynamic relations II Static Explicitation (139) Implicitation (23) No. % (100 % = 139) No. % (100 % = 23) 43 31.6 9 37.5 Dynamic 96 68.4 15 62.5

Figure 1 Ratio of static and dynamic relations (%)

100 80 60 40 20 0 All Implicitation Explicitation Dynamic Static

46

The frequency of explicitation and implicitation shifts is shown in the following table. Table 8 shows the number of shifted pairs of BCRs for each individual type of relation that was defined in the theoretical part; it also distinguishes explicitated and implicitated instances. Table 8 The frequency of E/I shifts in absolute numbers additive 34 5 Static temp. setting 9 4 contrast 45 12 Dynamic temp. change 19 2 causal 29 1

explicitation implicitation

Figure 2 Frequency of E/I shifts

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 additive temp. setting contrast temp. change Dynamic causal

explicitation implicitation

Static

During the process of analyzing the corpus data, two additional types of relation emerged naturally; I gave them working labels explanation and concession. Explanation the two elements involved in the relationship correspond in broad outlines to the traditional definition schema: one element, explanans (usually the second one), provides an explanation for the other, explanandum:
(13) ST: In fact, the German political landscape needs nothing more than a truly liberal party, in the US sense of the word liberal a champion of the cause of individual freedom. (PS_EN24)

47

TT:

Nmeck politick krajina toti nic nepotebuje nalhavji ne skuten liberln stranu, a to v americkm smyslu slova liberln tedy zastnkyni svobody jednotlivce. (PS_CZ24)

TT*:

in the American sense of the word liberal ergo an advocate of individual freedom.

Concession is a special way of joining two expressions, conveying the meaning of contrast and negation. It is usually expressed on the inter-clause level by means of connective words (although, though [akoli]), but also lexically, as example (14) illustrates: (14) ST: TT:
Chinese citizens are much freer to visit than foreigners, but many are apparently fearful of going. (E14) nt oban mohou do Tibetu cestovat mnohem svobodnji ne cizinci, ale i tak se jich vtina zdrh. (R14)

TT*: Chinese citizens can travel to Tibet much more freer than foreigners,
but despite of this/ even if it is so, the majority hesitate.

The two additional categories are reflected in table 9. Yet it is evident that some categories are not sufficiently represented, so it can be concluded that further disintegration of the analysed categories would make sense only for a larger corpus, which would provide sufficient data. Yet the two categories were finally regarded as special sub-types of other groups of BCRs on the basis of their meaning rather than because of insufficient representation: concession is a special type of contrast by definition19, and explanation was included into the additive BCRs group, as the two elements involved in the relation are basically expressing equality, which could be taken as an extreme type of similarity.

19

Elisabeth Rudolph discusses the nature of the concessive relation in her research into adversative relations (1996) and she regardes concession as the second part of the connection of contrast. A concessive relation is in her view a special way of conjoining two contrastive entities of language on the background of rather difficult concept such as causality and negation (1996: 385).

48

Table 9
100 % = 162

Extended range of types of BCRs Explicitation No. % 25 9 9 19 38 7 29 15.6 5.6 5.6 11.9 23.8 4.4 18.1 Implicitation No. % 5 0 4 2 12 0 1 3.1 0 2.5 1.3 7.5 0 0.6

Static additive (explanation) temp. setting Dynamic temp. change contrast (concession) causal

The figures in table 9 clearly show which types of BCRs were the most often shifted ones: additive, contrast, and causal. Causal relations were strongly explicitated but minimally implicitated. This observation clearly supports the position of the causal relation at the end of the dynamicity scale. Concession and explanation were only explicitated, which is another reason for raising the question about the legitimacy of having a separate category.

5. 1. 1

The ratio of explicitation to implicitation Hopkinson (2007: 55) assumed that explicitation will tend to strengthen the

coherence of the text, while implicitation will tend to weaken it. Therefore he focuses mainly on explicitation. Dynamic coherence relations are according to his hypothesis more explicitated and less implicitated. Thus it is the gap between the frequency of explicitation and implicitation that indicates the relative dynamicity of a BCR: the more dynamic the coherence relation is, the wider the gap between the frequency of explicitation and implicitation (Hopkinson 2007: 57). Kamenick uses here the term plicitation quotient: the ratio of implicitation and explicitation (see earlier). This quotient should tend to 0 for the most dynamic relations (meaning there are many

49

explicitations and very few implicitations), and should be reaching 1 or more (in case there are more implicitations than explicitations). In an ideal case, the table should contain figures ranging from 1 to 0, with the higher figures reserved for static BCRs and smaller figures reserved for the dynamic ones. Apparently, this doesnt apply fully.

Table 10

I/E quotient by individual types of BCRs additive 5 34 0.15 Static temp. setting 4 9 0.44 contrast 12 45 0.27 Dynamic temp. change 2 19 0.10 causal 1 29 0.03

implicitation explicitation I/E

The plicitation quotient doesnt correspond to the expectation especially in case of the additive BCR. Contrast also has a higher plicitation quotient; this could be considered as an evidence that this relation should be rather treated as a static one as Hopkinson suggested. Static relations, according to Hopkinsons hypothesis, show smaller gap between implicitation and explicitation. Nevertheless, I wouldnt yet give up the delimitation of static and dynamic relations suggested in this paper; I would rather suggest another interpretation of the analysis that doesnt take into account the plicitation quotient. This quotient is a ratio of implicitated and explicitated coherence relations and Hopkinson considered it as an indication of the tendency of BCRs to attract more explicitation. He suggested that there is a correlation between this ratio and the degree of dynamism of a particular relation; to put it in other words, he argues that the more dynamic the relation is, the greater the gap between implicitation and explicitation is. Yet Hopkinsons analysis could be, in my view, interpreted in another way as well. His methodology (that was used in this paper as well) suggested identifying only the marked instances of BCRs during the process of analysis of the corpus, which 50

means only those that were shifted: explicitated or implicitated. Another possible approach would be to identify all instances of BCRs in a text and determine how many of them have been explicitated20. Such an approach would disregard the ratio between implicitation and explicitation (the plicitation quotient) and would rather focus on the ratio between shifted relations and all occurrences of that particular relation. Such an approach would also take into account the inequality of the frequency of individual BCRs in discourse. Some types of binary relations simply occur more often than others; e.g. contrastive BCR occurred in the text more often than instances of temporal setting. Thus it makes a difference whether you have ten shifted instances out of fifteen or out of fifty. The percentage of (ex/im)plicitation for the first case would be 66 %, whereas in the second case it would reach only 36 %. The interpretation might be thus different when proceeding from the other side.21

As was mentioned before, a comparison of individual translator styles or styles of particular media is not the objective of the present paper. A greater corpus would be needed for such a comparison. The following table, comparing occurrences of implicitation and explicitation and their ratio, is included just as an illustration.

Table 11

I/E quotient with respect to individual sources The Economist I E I/E 4 13 0.31 3 7 0.42 10 31 0.32 2 10 0.20 1 22 0.05 Project Syndicate I E I/E 1 21 0.05 1 2 0.50 2 14 0.14 0 9 0.0 0 7 0.0

Static Dynamic

additive temp. setting contrast temp. change causal

20

Hopkinson presupposes that explicitation contributes to the coherence of binary relations whereas implicitation tends to weaken it (2007: 54). In other words, the more dynamic a relation is, the more often it is explicitated. Thus it would be probably adequate to monitor only instances of explicitation. 21 This approach was also chosen by Espunya (2007) in her research.

51

The figures are more convincing in case of The Economist; the tendency of having a higher ratio for static relations and a smaller ratio for dynamic ones is almost entirely fulfilled there. The only exception are additive relations again, nevertheless the discrepancy is not so marked. The instances found in the Project Syndicate corpus are strongly underrepresented, especially as far as implicitation is concerned. Every present or missing occurrence thus changes the statistics a lot. What is true of both sources is that implicitations of causal BCRs are very rare. The numbers also seem to confirm that while the amount of explicitations tends to be similar for different sources, the use of implicitation by individual translators (the collective of translators in Respekt vs. Dadu and Kobla in Project Syndicate) differs to a greater extent. Still, the big difference in the number of occurrences of BCRs between the two sources is surprising considering that both types of corpora are of a comparable size. A possible explanation could be that the Project Syndicate corpus consists exclusively of commentaries (which are in their very essence shorter articles, 600 800 words on average), whereas the Economist corpus includes also more elaborative or complex articles, where there might be more space for language variation.

52

5. 2

Comparable corpus

Hopkinsons hypothesis was further tested by means of a comparable corpus. Hopkinson himself suggested a possible direction of a further research:
With regard to the explicitness with which binary coherence relations are expressed, target texts tend to be more explicitly dynamic than their source texts. This new hypothesis could be tested ... also by using comparable corpora, in order to determine whether the occurrences of selected indicators of staticity and dynamicity differ between translated and non translated texts in the same language. (Hopkinson 2007: 58)

The second step of the analysis thus consisted of identifying the most frequent formal indicators for expressing BCRs (ovem, toti, i ....), and running an analysis of a comparable corpus searching for these expressions in a corpus that consists of original texts (OT) in Czech.22 The results provide a rough idea of the distribution of individual BCRs in original Czech texts; this can be then compared with the distribution of these relations in translation. The intention was to have a comparable corpus that would be really comparable in terms of both the size and the sources used. This was easily fulfilled by using the same source as was used for the parallel corpus: the Czech weekly magazine Respekt (some of the articles used in the corpus were taken even from the same issues as the translations of the articles from The Economist). The basic statistics is stated in table 12 below:

22

In this respect, it is not necessary to identify all occurrences of monitored BCRs and compare them to the occurrences in the corpus of translations. This would make sense only if all instances of BCRs have been monitored in the parallel corpus (explicitated or non-explicitated), as was suggested at the end of the previous chapter.

53

Table 12

Comparison of corpora II TT (parallel corpus) 357,226 51,514 18,059 35.07 64.24 5.67 18.82 OT (comparable corpus) 364,932 54,316 15,482 28.5 65.29 5.46 19.77

File size (bytes) Tokens Types TTR STTR Word length Sentence length

The overall comparison of the size of the corpora is for better transparency included in table 13. The comparable corpus is slightly larger than the Czech part of the parallel corpus, but hopefully, the difference is not relevant. Table 13 Comparison of corpora II
THE SIZE OF CORPORA

Parallel corpus ST 57,293 TT 51,514

Tokens

Comparable corpus OT 54,316

The first step in the process of analyzing the comparable corpus was to identify typical indicators of individual binary relations. They were gathered up from the database of pairs generated during the processing of the parallel corpus. This means that the indicators were based only on shifted instances of BCRs, while the hypothesis concerns a general tendency towards text coherence based more on dynamic rather than static relations; the hypothesis presupposes that target texts tend to be more explicitly dynamic there is a higher degree of internal coherence based on more dynamic relations and relatively similar, or even lower, degree of coherence based on more static relations (Hopkinson 2007: 58). The strategy to derive the indicators of BCRs from the database of explicitness shifts of BCRs seemed natural. First, using data collected in the previous research establishes a continuity of work, and second, it was hoped that an expression that is used to make a particular relation more explicit can be considered as a typical indicator of that relation at the same time. 54

5. 2. 1.

Indicators of BCRs The list of all identified pairs of explicitated 23 binary coherence relations was

examined and searched for indicators expressions which were used in the explicitated phrase and which were regarded as the bearers of explicitness of the phrase. In the following sentence (14) the bearer is the Czech word vak (for explicitation of the contrast relation) and the phrase navc jsou tu (for explicitation of the additive relation): (14) ST:
This works in music. Experiments with micropayments have been held back by the fact that stories are much more perishable than songs, and by transaction costs. (E8)

TT:

Tak to funguje u hudby. Experimenty s mikroplatbami vak vznou na tom, e zprvy jsou mnohem pomjivj ne psn, a navc jsou tu transakn nklady. (R8)

TT*: . Experiments with micropayments have been, however, held back

by the fact that news are much more perishable than songs, and in addition, there are transaction costs.

The relation is not expressed only by means of these words the original English sentence is interpreted as an example of an adversative relation even though no such word is being used in the English version but these words make the particular relation more explicit in Czech. These words were thus used as indicators of a particular type of BCR for the analysis with the full awareness of limits of such an approach. Obviously, these indicators cannot serve as the typical or universal indicators and they are not meant to do so. Rather, they are to be seen as the indicators found in this specific parallel corpus,

23

Only explicitated (and not implicitated) instances of static and dynamic BCRs were monitored quite naturally because the comparable corpus is Czech, and instances of implicitation in the parallel corpus do not provide any formal indicators in Czech.

55

which were taken as a basis for the analysis of this specific comparable corpus. Other indicators could be certainly found using a different corpus or a larger one. Table 14 Bearers of explicitness of BCRs in the parallel corpus Static additive Occurrences (number of repetition) i (10), navc (3), tak (2), spolu s (2), dle, tot i, jak tak i, i pro dobu, pak, jet, s tm, e, stejn jako (explanation) temp. setting Dynamic contrast tedy (5), toti, a to, co, a sice dnes (2), nyn, v souasnosti, stle, v t dob, po celou dobu, zatmco, tehdy ovem (8), vak (6), zase (4), ale (4), zatmco (2), naopak (2), pitom (3), nbr, jen, i, na jedn stran na stran druh, piem vak, souasn, zrove (concession) temp. change sice (5), i tak, a pesto u/ji (5), tehdy (4), zase (3), pak (2), dve, u dv, donedvna, zatm, dnes, v budoucnu, ped nkolika msci, causal pot toti (10), pak (5), (a) tak/take (5), co/m (3), (a) proto (2), protoe, kvli tomu, nakonec, a to, tedy, a dnes u meme ci, The list of indicators includes mainly conjunctions (ale, vak, a proto) and adverbs (tehdy, pak). Not all of them were used in the analysis of the comparable corpus. Some adverbs and conjunctions seem to be more suitable for the research as they already carry the particular meaning (e.g. a proto [therefore] already expresses the meaning of causality). Finally, only expressions that fulfilled the two following conditions qualified as indicators: first, they occur frequently enough that they can be

56

considered as non-random24; second, they already carry the particular meaning by themselves (which is rather intuitive). This could be the objective of a further research: to identify the indicators of individual BCRs on a more general basis, supported by a more thorough theoretical investigation (my approach was rather empirical). The hypothesis would be then tested again using different indicators. The second step consisted of running the analysis of both the parallel (Czech) and the comparable (Czech) corpus using the Wordsmith program that was devised by Mike Scott (1999). Although the analysis of the parallel corpus was in fact carried out manually, it was logical to carry out a computer-assisted analysis as well. The manual analysis covered only shifted occurrences of BCRs; the software, on the contrary, finds all occurrences of a particular expression, which was actually the objective. 25 The intention of the analysis was to monitor the overall presence of typical indicators of BCR in texts both in original Czech texts and in translations into Czech. According to the hypothesis, target texts tend to be more explicitly dynamic more indicators of dynamic coherence relations would be thus expected in the TT part of the parallel corpus. The search was first carried out by means of the Concordance tool of the WordSmith program (Scott 1999), and then revised manually to exclude instances where the search word (the indicator) was clearly not contributing to the expression of a given relation. It showed at the same time, to what extent are the findings of the software reliable. The exclusion concerned mainly those expressions that have more distinct meanings (stle in the sense more and more [m dl tm]), or where the software was not able to differentiate various usages of an expression, and found also instances
24

By some types of relations the number of instances was so limited that even a double-appearance of an expression was regarded as sufficient. 25 Moreover, a comparable corpus can be assessed only in terms of explicitness/implicitness of binary relations, cannot be assessed in terms of explicitation/implicitation, because there is no English original to relate the potential shift (or non-shift) to.

57

where the word was a part of a phrase with a different meaning (e.g. i in phrases such as i kdy, i kdyby [even when, even if]).

5. 2. 2

Frequency of indicators of BCRs: a comparison of the parallel and comparable corpora The results for each individual relation will be now discussed separately.

I) Additive relation Table 15 search word taky/tak navc i spolu s tedy All words TT (parallel corpus) 91 41 11 5 39 187 comp. < > < < < < OT (comparable corpus) 112 29 23 6 62 232

The indicators of the additive relation were more frequent in the original text; the only exception was the word navc. The total of all occurrences then supports the partial results, i.e. the overall tendency to have less indicators of the additive relation in the target text. The expression tedy represents the so called explanation relation (discussed earlier), and it is worth mentioning that regardless of a peripheral position of this relation (there were no instances of implicitation), these figures correspond with the general tendency of additive relations.

II) Temporal setting Table 16

58

search word dnes nyn / te v souasn*26 All words

TT (parallel corpus) 51 41 11 103

comp. < < = >

OT (comparable corpus) 95 69 11 175

According to the findings of the parallel corpus, only dnes would qualify as an indicator of the temporal setting relation, because it was the only expression that appeared in the parallel corpus more than once. Nevertheless, other expressions (nyn, te, v souasnosti) were also included, because they express a similar meaning as the word dnes. The figures show quite convincingly the same tendency as was observed by the additive relation more instances of indicators of this relation were found in the original text.

III) Contrast The figures concerning the contrast relation are rather ambivalent: on the one hand, the total of all expressions is against the expectation (the hypothesis presupposes that these expressions are used more in the target text), on the other hand, considering the individual expressions separately, there are several partial results in favor of the expectation. Table 17 search word ale vak/avak ovem pitom naopak zatmco
26

TT (parallel corpus) 202 156 64 15 12 19

comp. < > > < < >

OT (comparable corpus) 282 112 38 45 28 13

v souasn* the asterisk means that the software disregards the end of the word while searching the corpus; it will thus find e.g. v souasnosti, v souasn (dob) etc.

59

zase sice All words All words (without ale)

17 27 512 310

> < < >

11 41 570 288

A closer view at the results reveals that the total figure is mainly influenced by the number of occurrences of ale (ale comprises almost half of all occurrences). If ale were put aside, the outcome would be the opposite: 310 occurrences in the target text vs. 288 occurrences in the original text. It is also worth noticing that naopak an indicator that explicitly expresses the contrast relation was clearly outnumbered in the original text. Moreover, 3 out of the 9 instances of implicitation of the contrast relation in the parallel corpus were expressed by in turn the English counterpart of the Czech naopak. Finally, the expression sice, which is a representative of the so called concession relation, did not comply with the hypothesis either; however, it is not possible to decide on the basis of our limited figures, whether this is to be considered as a general tendency or only as a coincidence. A research of a wider corpus could clarify this.

IV) Temporal change Table 18 search word u / ji tehdy pak zase All words TT (parallel corpus) 125 11 18 5 159 comp. < < < > < OT (comparable corpus) 224 31 34 4 293

60

The monitored indicators of the temporal change relation were markedly outnumbered in the original texts. Only zase was more frequent in the TT, but this figure is irrelevant with respect to the low number of occurrences of this expression. A reason for that might be that this type of relation is not so easily and downright expressed as e.g. contrast some adversative conjunctions clearly indicate the type of relation. It is thus rather hard to monitor the distribution of this relation using the concordance search.

V) Causal relation The results for the causal relation were rather ambiguous too. Unlike contrast, the total of all instances supports the hypothesis, whereas individual indicators support it only partially.

Table 19 search word (a) proto / protoe co27 toti (a) tak / take pak nakonec All words TT (parallel corpus) 89 62 24 25 19 17 236 comp. > > < > < < > OT (comparable corpus) 64 41 50 19 30 29 233

In conclusion, a table of total figures regarding all types of relation is included to provide an overview of the results yielded from the investigation of occurrences of

27

Including all declination forms in Czech: co, eho, emu, em, m.

61

selected indicators of staticity and dynamicity in translated and original Czech texts. Table 20 Overview BCR Static Dynamic additive temp. setting contrast temp. change causal TT (parallel corpus) 187 103 512 (310 159 236 comp. < < < > < > OT (comparable corpus) 232 175 570 288) 293 233

The figures for the two static relations seem to be more convincing. Almost all indicators of both the additive and the temporal change relation were used in the parallel text less often than in the original text. As for the dynamic relations, the results of the analysis did not fully confirm the hypothesis that a target text tends to be more explicitly dynamic. Finally, only the causal relation showed preponderance of indicators of BCRs in TT over OT, with a very small difference indeed. Actually, the results for the causal relation correspond with those for the contrast relation. In both cases half of the indicators were more frequent in TT and the other half in the OT (contrast: 4 out of 8, causal: 3 out of 6). The total of all instances gives a different outcome for each relation, but it would not be legitimate to argue that in one case the hypothesis was confirmed and in the other was not. It should be rather concluded that the analysis did not yield univocal results as far as dynamic relations are concerned. The results are clearly visualized in the graphic representation of the results in figure 3.

62

Figure 3 Frequency of indicators of BCRs

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 additive contrast Types of BCRs causal

No. of occurrences

TT (parallel corpus) OT (comparable corpus)

It has to be remembered at this place, however, that the results are valid only for the analysis of the present corpora and a revision of the representativeness of some indicators together with a further research would be needed to be able to make a decisive conclusion. The final comment should be devoted to one of the questions raised at the beginning of this chapter: is a computer assisted approach useful and suitable for the investigation of indicators of BCRs? The reliability and appropriateness of this method was tested continuously. I proceeded the analysis as described above using the concordance search tool of the Wordsmith program and also checked the list of findings generated by the software manually. This tool is particularly suitable for running an analysis focusing on the distribution of a particular lexical unit. Problems occur by expressions that have more than one meaning and the analysis is focused only on one of them; the software finds all instances, and then a manual checking is required to sort out the instances where a particular indicator is used in other meaning.

63

An example of this may be the word pak; it can be used in both a causal and a temporal relation. Another example is zase; compare the following two instances of temporal (ex. 15) and contrast28 (ex. 16) relation found in the parallel corpus: (15)
ST TT And if global supply chains do survive, vertical specialisation could help trade recover speedily when demand returns. (E6) A pokud globln dodavatelsk etzce skuten peij, dky vertikln specializaci by se obchod mohl rychle zotavit, a se zase obnov poptvka. (R6) TT* ...when demand returns again.

(16)

ST

For example, China has stopped imports of a wide range of European food and drink, including Irish pork, Italian brandy and Spanish dairy products. The Indian government has banned Chinese toys. (E6)

TT

Napklad na zamezila dovozu irok kly evropskch potravin a npoj, vetn irskho vepovho, italsk plenky i panlskch mlnch vrobk. Indick vlda zase zakzala nsk hraky. (R6)

TT*

The Indian government, on the other hand, has banned Chinese toys.

Still, in some cases there were no or only a few inadequate findings and these indicators (e. g. navc, dnes, ale, naopak, vak, toti) could be easily used for a research including larger amount of data, where a manual checking would be too demanding and time-consuming. It can be thus concluded that the computer assisted approach in a research of this kind is quite eligible providing that expressions that are searched for are unambiguous.

28

The usage of zase in example 16 is tricky by itself. It is a comparison but it is disputable whether two similar (additive relation) or two different (adversative relation) unites are being compared. The relation was finally interpreted as contrast because, in my view, it is presented as a contrast.

64

Conclusion
The main objective of the present thesis was to test Hopkinsons hypothesis based on a functional, meaning-based typology of explicitness shifts. The hypothesis was already applied by Kamenick (2008) on a corpus of literary texts and not confirmed fully. The current thesis tried to redefine the static and dynamic binary coherence relations introduced by Hopkinson and to apply this revised typology on a corpus of newspaper texts. Two issues in Hopkinsons categorization were questioned: the location of contrast among static relations and the nature of temporal relations. The theoretical part introduced several approaches that were relevant to the topic and contributed to the formulation of new criteria for the classification of BCRs concerning their dynamicity and staticity. These criteria were based more on a subjective perception and a relative intensity of the type of connection (supported by the level of informativness). Static BCRs were thus defined as relations where the connection between two entities is subjectively perceived by the reader as weaker, dynamic relations, by contrast, as relations where the connection is subjectively perceived as stronger. The hypothesis was tested on a ad hoc corpus of newspaper articles both parallel and comparable. Explicitation outnumbered implicitation (85 % vs. 15 %), and explicitation shifts were much more frequent by dynamic coherence relations than by static relations (67,5 % vs. 32, 5 %). So, broadly speaking, the hypothesis was confirmed. Nevertheless, not all partial results were so convincing. This might be given also by a different type of the texts studied.

65

Hopkinson also argued that the more dynamic the relation is, the greater the gap between implicitation and explicitation is. In this respect, especially the additive relation did not comply with the hypothesis. The gap was quite great by temporal change and the smallest by temporal setting, which supports the devision of the temporal relations into two separate groups. Nevertheless, a different approach to the interpretation of data could be suggested an approach that would disregard the ratio between implicitation and explicitation (the plicitation quotient) and would rather focus on the ratio between shifted relations and all occurrences of that particular relation. A further research in this direction could be carried out to clarify whether this method yields different results. According to Hopkinson, target texts tend to be more explicitly dynamic, the second part of the practial research thus focused on the exploration of translated texts vs. original texts in Czech. The overall presence of typical indicators of BCR in texts was monitored. There were more indicators of staticity in the original texts, but contrary to expectations not more indicators of dynamicity were found in the target text. Finally only indicators of the causal relation and some individual indicators of other dynamic relations were outnumbered in the target text. Yet it must be beared in mind that the results are valid only for the present analysis (the indicators were also based exclusivelly on the current corpus). A further research would be needed to identify the indicators of individual BCRs on a more general basis.

The thesis was based on a corpus-based research. Though working with corpus is usually associated with the objective task of collecting data, it also includes the subjective process the interpretation of the data collected. This brings about the risk that the researcher is tempted to find the results that he/she is looking for in order to

66

confirm the given hypothesis. Yet this is also the reason why hypotheses including the findings of the present thesis need to be further tested.

Bibliography

6. 1

Works cited and consulted BAKER, M. (1992) In Other Words. London: Routledge. BAKER, M. (1995) Corpora in Translation Studies. An Overview and Suggestions for Future Research, Target 7 (2): pp. 22343. BAKER, P. (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London / New York: Centinuum. ISBN 0-8264-7724-0. BEAUGRANDE, R. a DRESSLER, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman Paperback. BLUM-KULKA, S. (1986) Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In House, J., Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.). Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tbingen: Narr, pp. 1735. CHESTERMAN, A. (2004) Beyond the particular. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamki, P. (ed.) Translation Universals: Do they exist? Vol. 48. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V., pp. 3350. ISBN: 90 2721654 1. ESKOLA, S. (2004) Untypical frequencies in translated language: A corpusbased study on a literary corpus of translated and non-translated Finnish. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamki, P. (ed.) Translation Universals: Do they exist? Vol. 48. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V., pp. 83100. ISBN: 90 2721654 1. ESPUNYA, A. (2007) Is Explicitation in Translation Cognitively Related to Linguistic Expliciteness? A Study on Interclausal Relationships. In Belgian Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 6786. DIMITROVA, B. E. (2005) Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Vol. 64. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V. GROENENDIJK, J., STOKHOF, M. and VELTMAN, F. (1996) Coreference and Modality. In Lappin, S. (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-18752-9.

67

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. Explorations in Langugae Study.London: Edward Arnold. ISBN 0 7131 1738 9. HALLIDAY, M. A. K. and HASAN, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. English Langugae Series, Title No. 9. London: Longman Group Limited. HALVERSON, S. (1998) Translation Studies and Representative Corpora: Establishing Links between Translation Corpora, Theoretical/Descriptive Categories and a Conception of the Object of Study. In Meta, XLIII, 4, pp. 123. HASAN, R. (1984) Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language, and the Structure of Prose. Newark: International Reading Association, pp. 181219. HENDRIKS, P. (2004) Coherence Relations, Ellipsis and Contrastive Topics. In Journal of Semantics 21, pp. 133153. HOEY, M. ( 1991) Paterns of Lexis in Text. New York: Oxfor University Press. ISBN 0 19 437142 S. HOPKINSON, Ch. (2007) Explicitation and Implicitation of Binary Coherence Relations in Translation. In Tomkov, R. (ed.) Translatologica ostraviensia II. Sbornk z konference Den s pekladem. Ostrava, pp. 5359. KAMENICK, R. (2007 a) Defining Explicitaiton in Translation. In SPFFBU, ada anglistick: Brno Studies in English 33, 2007. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, pp. 4557. ISBN 978-80-210-4559-0. KAMENICK, R. (2007 b) Explicitation Profile and Translator Style. In Pym, A. and Perekrestenko, A. (eds.) Translation Research Projects 1. Tarragona, pp. 117130. KAMENICK, R. (2008) Towards a Static/Dynamic Explicitation Hypothesis? In SPFFBU, ada anglistick: Brno Studies in English 34 , Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brn, LVII, 1, pp. 5162. ISSN 1211-1791. KLAUDY, K. (1998) Explicitation. In Baker, M. (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 8084. ISBN: 0415093805. KLAUDY, K., KROLY, K. (2005) Implicitation in Translation. Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation. In Across Languages and Cultures, 2005, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1329. KORTAMNN, B. (1991) Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English. Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.

68

LAVIOSA-BRAITHWAITE, S. (1996) Investigating Simplification in an English Comparable Corpus of Newspaper Articles. In Klaudy, K. Transferre necesse est. Budapest. LAVIOSA-BRAITHWAITE, S. (1998) Universals of Translation. In Baker, M. (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 288291. ISBN: 0415093805. MAURANEN, A. and KUJAMKI, P. (eds.) (2004) Translation Universals: Do they exist? Vol. 48. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V. McENERY, T. and XIAO, Z. (2007) Parallel and Comparable Corpora The State of Play. In Kawauchi, Y. (ed.) et col. Corpus-Based Perspectives in Linguistics. Vol 6. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V. ISBN 978 90272 3318 9. MORRIS, J. (2004) Readers Perceptions of Lexical Cohesion in Text. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science, Winnipeg. MORRIS, J. and HIRST, G. (2004) Non-classical lexical semantic relations. In: Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics, Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, May 2004, pp. 4651. MORRIS, J. and HIRST, G. (2005) The Subjectivity of Coherence Relations. In: Shanahan, J.G., Qu, Y., Wiebe, J. (eds.) Computing attitude and affect in text. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 4148. VERS, L. (1998) In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation. In Meta, vol. 43, n 4, dcembre 1998, pp. 557570. PPAI, V. (2004) Explicitation: A universal of translated text? In Mauranen, A. and Kujamki, P. (eds.) Translation Universals: Do they exist? Vol. 48. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V., pp. 143164. ISBN: 90 2721654 1. PYM, A. (2005) Explaining Explicitation. In New Trends in Translation studies. In Honour of Kinga Kloudy. Budape: Akademia Kiado. pp. 2934. RUDOLPH, E. (1996) Contrast. Adversative and Concessive expressions in English, German, Spanish and Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level (Research in Text Theory). Berlin. ISSN 0179-4167. SAGER, J. C. (1997) Text Types and Translation. In Trostbork, A. (ed.) Text Typology and Translation. Vol. 26. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V., pp. 2541.

69

SANDERS, T. J. M. and NORRDMAN, L. G. M. (2000) The Role of Coherence Relations and Thein Linguistic Markers in Text Processing. In Discourse Processes, 29 (1), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp. 3760. SCOTT, Michael (1999) WordSmith Tools. Version 3.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SCHUBERT, Ch. (2008) Englische Textlinguistik. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. ISBN 978-3-503-09838-5. TOURY, G. (2004) Probabilistic explanations in translation studies: Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universal? In Mauranen, A. and Kujamki, P. (eds.) Translation Universals: Do they exist? Vol. 48. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V., pp. 1532. ISBN: 90 2721654 1. WHYATT, B. (2007) Meaning as a dynamic concept. In Fabiszak, M. (ed.) Language and Meaning. Frankfurt/Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag, pp. 329340. Primary sources Parallel corpus

6. 2 6. 2. 1

The Economnist E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 Sins of emmission In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8622, 14.3. 20.3. 2009, pp. 2627. ISSN 0013-0613. Argentina on the Danube. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8619, 21.2. 27.2. 2009, p. 14. ISSN 0013-0613. Model behaviour. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8621, pTQ22(2), 7. 3. 2009, pp. 2425. ISSN 0013-0613. The critical issue of safety. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8623, 21.3. 27.3. 2009, pp. 6566. ISSN 0013-0613. Show them the money In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8625, A special report on the rich. 4. 4. 2009, pp. 57. ISSN 0013-0613. Nut and bolt get apart. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8624, 28.3. 3. 4. 2009, pp. 7072. ISSN 0013-0613. Machines that can see. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8621, pTQ22(2), 7. 3. 2009, pp. 2223. ISSN 0013-0613. Now pay up. In The Economist. vol. 392, no. 8647, 5. 11. 9. 2009, p. 7. ISSN 0013-0613. Losing Afghanistan? In The Economist. vol. 392, no. 8645, 22. 28. 8. 2009, p. 7. ISSN 0013-0613. The nanny state. In The Economist. vol. 392, no. 8647, 5. 11. 9. 2009, pp. 6566. ISSN 0013-0613. Unnatural selection. In The Economist. vol. 392, no. 8648, 12. 18. 9. 2009, pp. 7375. ISSN 0013-0613. Unjust and ineffective. . In The Economist. vol. 392, no. 8643, 8. 14. 8. 2009, pp. 2123. ISSN 0013-0613.

70

E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18

The electril-fuel-trade acid test. In The Economist. vol. 392, no. 8647, 5. 11. 9. 2009, pp. 7981. ISSN 0013-0613 Not much of a celebration. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8620, 28.2. 6. 3. 2009, pp. 43. ISSN 0013-0613. The enduring popularity of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8621, 7.3. 13. 4. 2009, pp. 3132. ISSN 0013-0613. And now for a nuclear remake. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8622, 14.3. 20. 4. 2009, p. 56. ISSN 0013-0613. Talking-shop-on-Thames. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8622, 14.3. 20.3. 2009, pp. 6768. ISSN 0013-0613. Boom in the bust. In The Economist. vol. 390, no. 8621, 7.3. 13.3. 2009, pp. 5960. ISSN 0013-0613.

Respekt R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R15 R16 R17 R18 Hchy emis. Pel. Koutn, H., Jani, V. a Kordkov, J. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 23. 29.3., vyd. 13/2009, pp. 3133. ISSN 0862-6545. Argentina na Dunaji. Pel. Brta, H., Dostlov, L. a Horkov, P. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 23.2. 1.3., vyd. 9/2009, p. 13. ISSN 0862-6545. Polete pro skety. Pel. Dostlov, L. Horkov, P., Jani, V. a Pota, M. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.4. 13.4., vyd. 15/2009, pp. 6971. ISSN 0862-6545. Nejist renesance. Pel. Horkov, P., Jani, V. a Kordkov, J. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 30.3. 6.4., vyd. 14/2009, pp. 4041. ISSN 0862-6545. Ukate jim ty penze. Pel. Dostlov, L. Horkov, P., Jani, V. a Pota, M. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.4. 13.4., vyd. 15/2009, pp. 3335. ISSN 0862-6545. Kolo se nm polmalo. Pel. Horkov, P., Jani, V. a Kordkov, J. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 30.3. 6.4., vyd. 14/2009, pp. 3235. ISSN 0862-6545. Pod dohledem stroj. Pel. Koutn, H., Jani, V. a Kordkov, J. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 23. 29.3., vyd. 13/2009, pp. 6264. ISSN 0862-6545. A te koukejte platit. Pel. Koutn, H. a Horkov, P. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, pp. 3435. ISSN 0862-6545. Hroz ztrta Afghanistnu? Pel. Koutn, H. a Horkov, P. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, pp. 2223. ISSN 0862-6545. Kdy stt vod za ruiku. Pel. Horkov, P., Jani, V., Mikolajov, L. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, pp. 2930. ISSN 0862-6545. Nepirozen vbr. Pel. Horkov, P., Jani, V., astn, Z. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, pp. 3435. ISSN 0862-6545. Seznam, kter ni ivot. Pel. Horkov, P., Jani, V., astn, Z. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, pp. 4247. ISSN 0862-6545. Nepropst anci. Pel. Horkov, P., Jani, V., Mikolajov, L. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, pp. 3437. ISSN 0862-6545. Kdy lid miluj premira. Pel. Dostlov, L., Horkov, P., astn, Z. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 9.3. 15.3., vyd. 11/2009, pp. 4041. ISSN 0862-6545. Jadern perestrojka. Pel. Jani, V., Pota, M. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 16.3. 22.3., vyd. 12/2009, pp. 3839. ISSN 0862-6545. Jednn nad Tem. Pel. Jani, V., Pota, M. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 16.3. 22.3., vyd. 12/2009, pp. 3233. ISSN 0862-6545. Vzestup v pdu. Pel. Dostlov, L., Horkov, P., astn, Z. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 9.3. 15.3., vyd. 11/2009, pp. 3032. ISSN 0862-6545.

71

Project Syndicate PS_EN_1 SKIDELSKY, R. (2009a) Fictional sovereignties. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-19. [cit. 2009-09-20]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/skidelsky20> PS_CS_1 SKIDELSKY, R. (2009b) Fiktivn suverenity. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online]. 2009-08-19 [cit. 2009-09-20]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/skidelsky20/Czech> PS_EN_2 SCHILLER, R. J. (2009a) Recession Insurance. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-01-15. [cit. 2009-09-20]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller62> PS_CS_2 SCHILLER, R. J. (2009b) Pojitn proti recesi. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-01-15. [cit. 2009-09-20]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller62/Czech> PS_EN_3 SCHILLER, R. J. (2007a) Bubble trouble. In Project Syndicate [online], 2007-09-17. [cit. 2009-09-20]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller53> PS_CS_3 SCHILLER, R. J. (2007b) Trable s bublinou. Pel. Dadu, D. In Pr oject Syndicate [online], 2007-09-17. [cit. 2009-09-20]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller53/Czech> PS_EN_4 STEINER, A. (2009a) Why cutting Carbon Emissions is not Enough. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-10. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/astenier5> PS_CS_4 STEINER, A. (2009b) Pro sniovn uhlkovch emis nesta. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-10. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/astenier5/Czech> PS_EN_5 NYE, J. S. (2009a) American Power in the Twenty-First Century. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-10. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nye74> PS_CS_5 NYE, J. S. (2009b) Americk moc v jednadvactm stolet. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-10. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nye74/Czech> PS_EN_6 LOMBORG, B. (2009a) Global warmings technology deficit. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-02. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg51> PS_CS_6 LOMBORG, B. (2009b) Technologivk deficit boje proti globlnmu oteplovn. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-02. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg51/Czech> PS_EN_7 KINIKLIOGLU, S, (2009a) Now or Never in Cyprus. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-09. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/kinikioglu1> PS_CS_7 KINIKLIOGLU, S, (2009b) Te nebo nikdy na Kypru. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-09. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/kinikioglu1/Czech> PS_EN_8 BEN-AMI, S. (2009a) Middle East Oil Realism. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-03. [cit. 2009-10-12].

72

<http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami33> PS_CS_8 BEN-AMI, S. (2009b) Realistick pohled na ropu ze Stednho vchodu. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-03. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami33/Czech> PS_EN_9 MOISI, D. (2009a) The Democracy Paradox. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-14. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/moisi46> PS_CS_9 MOISI, D. (2009b) Paradox demokracie. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-14. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/moisi46/Czech> PS_EN_10 ROUBINI, N. (2009a) Finding the Policy Exit. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-14. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/roubini17> PS_CS_10 ROUBINI, N. (2009b) Hledn stupov strategie. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-14. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/roubini17/Czech> PS_EN_11 CASSOLA, A. (2009a) Separatism, Italian-Style. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-04. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/cassola2> PS_CS_11 CASSOLA, A. (2009b) Separatismus na italsk zpsob. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-04. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/cassola2/Czech> PS_EN_12 BAKKER, A. (2009a) The IMF beyond the crisis. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-21. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bakker4> PS_CS_12 BAKKER, A. (2009b) kol pro MMF a za krizi. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-21. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bakker4/Czech> PS_EN_13 BEBCHUK, L. (2009a) Unblocing Corporate Governance Reform. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-21. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bebchuk5> PS_CS_13 BEBCHUK, L. (2009b) Jak odblokovat reformu podnikovho zen. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-21. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bebchuk5/Czech> PS_EN_14 CASTANEDA, J. G. (2009a) Time to confront Chvez. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-18. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/castaneda26> PS_CS_14 CASTANEDA, J. G. (2009b) Piel as konfrontovat Chveze. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-18. [cit. 2009-10-12]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/castaneda26/Czech> PS_EN_15 DYSHON, E. (2009a) The language of Genomics. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-18. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dyshon12> PS_CS_15 DYSHON, E. (2009b) Jazyk genomiky. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-18. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dyshon12/Czech>

73

PS_EN_16 EICHENGREEN, B. (2009a) Emerging Markets and Global Financial Reform. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-15. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eichengreen9> PS_CS_16 EICHENGREEN, B. (2009b) Rozvjejc se trhy a globln finann reforma. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-15. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eichengreen9/Czech> PS_EN_17 ETKIND, A: (2009a) Putins history lesson. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-15. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/etkind7> PS_CS_17 ETKIND, A: (2009b) Putinovo ponauen z djin. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-15. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/etkind7/Czech> PS_EN_18 FELDSTEIN, M. (2009a) The G 20s Empty Promises. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-17. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/feldstein14> PS_CS_18 FELDSTEIN, M. (2009b) Przdn sliby G20. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-17. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/feldstein14/Czech> PS_EN_19 KUTTAB, D. (2009a) Freeze the Settlement Freeze. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-08. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/kuttab19> PS_CS_19 KUTTAB, D. (2009b) Zmrazte zmrazen vstavby. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-08. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/kuttab19/Czech> PS_EN_20 RIBERIO, S., WETTER, K. J. (2009a) Fighting biopiracy. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-04. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/riberio1> PS_CS_20 RIBERIO, S., WETTER, K. J. (2009b) Boj proti biopirtstv. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-04. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/riberio1/Czech> PS_EN_21 RODRIK, D. (2009a) The Tobin tax lives again. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-11. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik35> PS_CS_21 RODRIK, D. (2009b) Tobinova da znovu ov. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-11. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik35/Czech> PS_EN_22 ROGOFF, K. (2009a) From financial crisis to debt crisis? In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-02. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff60> PS_CS_22 ROGOFF, K. (2009b) Smujeme od finann krize ke krizi dluhov? Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-02. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff60/Czech> PS_EN_23 SACHS, J. D. (2009a) Electric cars and sustainable development. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-18. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs157> PS_CS_23 SACHS, J. D. (2009b) Elektromobily a udriteln rozvoj. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-18. [cit. 2009-10-17].

74

<http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs157/Czech> PS_EN_24 SCHNEIDER, P. (2009a) Germanys same old election. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-21. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/schneider1> PS_CS_24 SCHNEIDER, P. (2009b) Volby v Nmecku: stle stejn psnika. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-21. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/schneider1/Czech> PS_EN_25 SORMAN, G. (2009a) Japans road to harmonious decline. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-16. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sorman6> PS_CS_25 SORMAN, G. (2009b) Japonsk cesta k harmonickmu padku. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-16. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sorman6/Czech> PS_EN_26 WEITZ, R. (2009a) Success in Afghanistan needs China and Russia. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-16. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/weitz5> PS_CS_26 WEITZ, R. (2009b) K spchu v Afghanistnu je zapoteb ny a Ruska. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-16. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/weitz5/Czech> PS_EN_27 STIGLITZ, J. E. (2009a) GDP Fetishism. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-07. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz16> PS_CS_27 STIGLITZ, J. E. (2009b) Feti HDP. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-09-07. [cit. 2009-10-17]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz16/Czech> PS_EN_28 ABDULHAMID, A. (2008a) Defending Americas Freedom Agenda. In Project Syndicate [online], 2008-01-08. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/abdulhamid5> PS_CS_28 ABDULHAMID, A. (2008b) Obrana americk agendy svobody. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2008-01-08. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/abdulhamid5/Czech> PS_EN_29 BEN-AMI, S. (2008a) Arab Fathers and Sons. In Project Syndicate [online], 2008-01-04. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami13> PS_CS_29 BEN-AMI, S. (2008b) Arabt otcov a synov. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2008-01-04. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami13/Czech> PS_EN_30 BURUMA, I. (2008a) The year of the China model. In Project Syndicate [online], 2008-01-07. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/buruma8> PS_CS_30 BURUMA, I. (2008b) Rok nskho modelu. Pel. Dadu, D. In Project Syndicate [online], 2008-01-07. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/buruma8/Czech> PS_EN_31 MIRROW, T. (2009a) Europes stifled celebration. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-04. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mirrow1> PS_CS_31 MIRROW, T. (2009b) Piduen evropsk oslavy. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-04. [cit. 2009-10-18]. 75

<http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mirrow1/Czech> PS_EN_32 SINGER, P. (2009a) Kidneys for sale. In Project Syndicate [online], 200908-14. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/psinger51> PS_CS_32 SINGER, P. (2009b) Ledviny na prodej. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-14. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/psinger51/Czech> PS_EN_33 MOISI, D. (2009c) The return of Franco-German Leadership. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-21. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/moisi45> PS_CS_33 MOISI, D. (2009d) Nvrat francoutsko-nmeckho veden. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-21. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/moisi45/Czech> PS_EN_34 SINN, H-W. (2009a) The Promise and Peril of Global Change. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-24. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sinn27> PS_CS_34 SINN, H-W. (2009b) Pslib a nebezpe globln zmny. Pel. Kobla, J. In Project Syndicate [online], 2009-08-24. [cit. 2009-10-18]. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sinn27/Czech> 6. 2. 2 Comparable corpus

BRABEC, J. (2009) Mu v ilegalit. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, pp. 3233. ISSN 0862-6545. OPJAKOV, K. (2009) Lid a hry. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 21.9. 28.9., vyd. 39/2009, p. 31. ISSN 0862-6545. OPJAKOV, K., PROCHZKOV, B. (2009) My si t najdem, ty svin. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, pp. 2628. ISSN 0862-6545. KOMREK, M. (2009) Na ern listin. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, pp. 5860. ISSN 0882-6545. KOMREK, M. (2009) Neume matiku, ume dti. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, pp. 1618. ISSN 0882-6545. KUNDRA, O., LAUDER, S. (2009) My ve vlce. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 5.10. 11.10., vyd. 41/2009, p. 12. ISSN 0862-6545. LINDER, T. (2009 a) Princip Angela. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, pp. 2225. ISSN 0862-6545. LINDER, T. (2009 b) Obama potebuje silnou Evropu. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, p. 15. ISSN 0862-6545. LINDER, T. (2009 c) Obnoviteln Nmecko. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 21.9. 28.9., vyd. 39/2009, pp. 2527. ISSN 0862-6545. LINDER, T. (2009 d) Co te? In Respekt. Ronk XX, 5.10. 11.10., vyd. 41/2009, pp. 1618. ISSN 0862-6545. MACKOWIAK, T., LINDER, T., SOBOTA, J. (2009) Spojenci a radar. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, p. 19. ISSN 0862-6545. MACHEK, J. (2009 a) Poprask na modr lagun. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, p. 13. ISSN 0882-6545. MACHEK, J. (2009 b) Pohrdn elitami. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, p. 13. ISSN 0862-6545.

76

MACHEK, J. (2009 c) Hra o 500 miliard. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, p. 12. ISSN 0862-6545. NIEDERMAYER, L. (2009 a) Dluh zaplatme vichni. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, pp. 3637. ISSN 0862-6545. NIEDERMAYER, L. (2009 b) Tak za rok znovu. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, p. 13. ISSN 0862-6545. NEUWIRTH, D. (2009) Trojsk k. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, pp. 5860. ISSN 0862-6545. PILTOV, M. (2009) Vzpomnky na Kubu. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, p. 14. ISSN 0862-6545. PROCHZKOV, B. (2009) Zrod kapitalismu Czech made. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, pp. 3233. ISSN 0862-6545. PROCHZKOV, B., KOMREK, M. (2009) esk bbel. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 5.10. 11.10., vyd. 41/2009, pp. 2426. ISSN 0862-6545. SACHR, T. (2009) Na lovu eskch korupnk. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, pp. 4247. ISSN 0862-6545. SOBOTA, J. (2009 a) Zptky do nudy. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, p. 14. ISSN 0862-6545. SOBOTA, J. (2009 b) Lid versus CIA. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, p. 19. ISSN 0882-6545. SOBOTA, J. (2009 c) Vm, jak vs ovldnout. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, pp. 4247. ISSN 0882-6545. SOBOTA, J. (2009 d) Sebrali nm radar. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 21.9. 28.9., vyd. 39/2009, p 13. ISSN 0862-6545. SOBOTA, J. (2009 e) Obamova vlka. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 5.10. 11.10., vyd. 41/2009, pp. 4247. ISSN 0862-6545. SPURN, J., KUNDRA, O. (2009) Lekce bohm. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, pp. 1618. ISSN 0862-6545. SPURN, J., SACHR, T. (2009) Jedy minulosti a nae budoucnost. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 21.9. 28.9., vyd. 39/2009, pp. 1920. ISSN 0862-6545. IMEKA, M. M. (2009) Odvrcen Evropa. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, p. 14. ISSN 0882-6545. VEHLA, M. (2009 a) Mylenky na vlku. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, p. 12. ISSN 0882-6545. VEHLA, M. (2009 b) Myslete to upmn. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 14.9. 20.9., vyd. 38/2009, p. 12. ISSN 0862-6545. TABERY, E. (2009) Vzro v Brn. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, p. 12. ISSN 0862-6545. TEK, P. (2009 a) Cesta idie bez rukou. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, pp. 4450. ISSN 0862-6545. TEK, P. (2009 b) V rji pravch katolk. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 29.9. 4.10., vyd. 40/2009, pp. 2527. ISSN 0862-6545. UHL, M. (2009) Jak pelstt smrt. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 31.8 6.9., vyd. 36/2009, pp. 2628. ISSN 0882-6545. VLACH, T. (2009) Pokiven djiny. In Respekt. Ronk XX, 7.9. 13.9., vyd. 37/2009, pp. 6264. ISSN 0862-6545.

77