C

HAPTER

E

LEVEN

E

XPLICITATION IN

S

IMULTANEOUS

I

NTERPRETING

–

T

HE

Q

UEST FOR

O

PTIMAL

R

ELEVANCE

?

E

WA

G

UMUL

1. Introduction

The relationship between the explicit and the implicit in discourse is one
of the central notions in linguistics. Targeted within diverse theoretical
frameworks and analysed with a variety of research tools, it has generated
a wealth of literature ranging from purely theoretical accounts to practical
approaches in the field of applied linguistics. The present paper appears to
fall on the other end of the spectrum, being an attempt to contribute to the
discussion on the nature of explicit and implicit information in translation,
or to be more precise, in one of its modes, which in this case is
simultaneous interpreting. This article focuses on the concept of
explicitation, aiming to explore the relationship between this phenomenon
and relevance under the constrained conditions of a simultaneous
interpreting (SI) task.

2. What is explicitation?

Explicitation, a label which to many looks more like a typographic error
for explication, is an established term chiefly employed in Translation
Studies to denote a variety of translational shifts leading to the greater
explicitness of a target text. As early as in 1958, Vinay and Darbelnet
defined it as “a stylistic translation technique which consists of making
explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source
language because it is apparent from either the context or the situation”
(Vinay and Darbelnet [1958] 1995, 342). Explicitation might assume a

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

189

wide range of forms, encompassing both the modifications that result in
addition of syntactic or lexical elements and those that involve
replacement of one item with another, a more specific or transparent one.
A detailed classification of possible types of explicitation, along with
examples, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Types of explicitation

Type of explicitation:

Example:

Dealt with in research
by:

1. adding

connectives

and, so, thus, although,
despite, etc.

e.g. Blum-Kulka 1986;
Séguinot 1998;
Vehmas-Lehto 1989,
2001; Englund
Dimitrova 1993, 2003,
2005; Shlesinger 1995;
Klaudy 1996; Niska
1999; Puurtinen 2003,
2004; Gumul 2006b,
2006c, etc.

2. categorial

shifts

of

cohesive devices (i.e.
from vaguely cohesive
to more explicitly
cohesive)

and they decided to wait
o so they decided to
wait

Øverås 1998; Gumul
2004

3.

shifts from referential
cohesion to lexical
cohesion (i.e.
lexicalisations of pro-
forms)

overlap between them

o

overlap between these
sections

Weissbrod 1992; Øverås
1998; Olohan and Baker
2000; Olohan 2002;
Pápai 2004; Gumul
2004, 2006b, 2006c

4.

shifts from reiteration
in the form of
paraphrase to
reiteration in the form
of identical/partial
repetition

a bridge across the
Thames … the north
bank of the river

o a

bridge across the Thames
… the north bank of the
Thames

Øverås 1998; Gumul
2004, 2006b, 2006c

5. reiterating

lexical

items new projects could be

introduced

o new

projects, new ideas
could be introduced

1

Gumul 2006b, 2006c

1

Reiterations, in fact, fall into two distinct groups. One of them, as illustrated in

the above example, results from self-correction (a strategy of repair), thereby
reflecting the nature of the interpreting task. It is worth noting that since the
analysis focuses only on successful attempts at explicitation, in the analysed cases

Chapter Eleven

190

6.

filling out elliptical
constructions

… some of the other
consequences, and there
were many of them,
some [of the
consequences were]
very important …

Weissbrod 1992; Øverås
1998; Pápai 2004;
Gumul 2004, 2006b,
2006c; Heltai 2005

7.

adding modifiers and
qualifiers

serious psychological
damage
a strange mixture

Vanderauwera 1985;
Øverås 1998; Klaudy
and Károly 2005;
Gumul 2006b, 2006c

8. inserting

hedges

as you probably
know…
it should be
remembered that…

Setton 1999, Ishikawa
1999, Gumul 2006b,
2006c

9. inserting

discourse

organizing items

I would like to begin
with…

Gumul 2006b, 2006c

10. adding a proper name

to a generic name or
substituting a generic
name with a proper
name

every American citizen
Roald, the polar explorer

Øverås 1998; Gumul
2006b, 2006c

11. lexical

specification

(i.e. substituting a word
with general meaning
with a word with more
specific meaning)

say

o accuse

Englund Dimitrova
1993; Øverås 1998,
Perego 2003; Klaudy
and Károly 2005

12. meaning

specification

(i.e. articulating ideas
retrievable or inferable
from the preceding part
of the text or the
cognitive context)

to save the victims

o to

save the victims of the
attack;
hijacked airplanes

o

airplanes hijacked by
terrorists

Ishikawa 1999,

2

Gumul

2006b, 2006c

13. distributing

the

meaning of a source-
text unit over several
units in the target text

this double focus

o this

division into two urban
centres

Klaudy 1996; Klaudy
and Károly 2005,
Gumul 2006c

either both lexical items tend to be correct equivalents, or the first one is better,
whereas the second merely approximates the idea expressed in the source text. The
other type of reiteration is repeating a certain word or phrase later in the text.

2

Ishikawa (1999) uses the term ‘information via background knowledge’.

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

191

14. replacing

nominalisations with
verb phrases

these demands are not
open to negotiation and
discussion

o we will not

negotiate or discuss
these demands

Klaudy and Károly
2005; Puurtinen 2003;
Gumul 2006b, 2006c

15. disambiguating

metaphors or replacing
metaphors with similes

they stand in a frightened
lump

o they stand

huddled together

Weissbrod 1992; Øverås
1998; Gumul 2006b,
2006c

16. including

additional

explanatory remarks

the web page liberty.org Baker 1992; Klaudy

1996; Al-Qinai 2001;
Perego 2003; Pápai
2004; Klaudy and
Károly 2005; Gumul
2006a, 2006b, 2006c

The general definition of explicitation advanced by Vinay and

Darbelnet ([1958] 1995) remains largely valid today. Still, subsequent
approaches introduced additional criteria for recognising explicitation and
established new salient facts about this phenomenon that have to be taken
into account in any analysis of this type of translational shift. Blum-Kulka
(1986), in her seminal work on cohesion and coherence in translation,
views explicitation not just in terms of a translation technique, but as an
inherent feature of the process of translation observable regardless of the
divergences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved
(Blum-Kulka 1986, 19). In fact, independence of language-specific
differences is an issue widely commented on by other authors. While some
researchers regard shifts toward greater explicitness necessitated by
systemic differences as legitimate examples of explicitation (e.g. Klaudy
1993, 1996, 1998; Al-Qinai 2001), most opt for the view that explicitation
proper occurs only when, as Nilsson (2002, 415) puts it, no systemic
contrast can be seen to operate and when it is the translator’s choice to
adopt the most explicit of several available target-language alternatives.

Another issue which is a source of long-standing controversy in the

Translation Studies community are the causes triggering explicitation.
Although explicitation is currently one of the most thoroughly studied
phenomena in Translation Studies, relatively little empirical research has
been conducted into the causes triggering these types of shifts. In most
approaches it is perceived as a desirable feature and ascribed either to the
nature of the translation process itself (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1986; Baker 1993,
1995, 1996; Shlesinger 1995; Ishikawa 1999; Olohan and Baker 2000;
Whittaker 2004) or a translator’s strategic behaviour (e.g. Weissbrod 1992;
Vehmas-Lehto 2001; Pápai 2004; Pym 2005), or even both (e.g. Klaudy and
Károly 2005). Quite apart from the distinction into conscious or strategic

Chapter Eleven

192

explicitation, this phenomenon might be attributable to compliance with
translational norms (e.g. Weissbrod 1992), striving for optimal relevance
(e.g. Setton 1999; Bogucki 2004), or simply the translator’s/interpreter’s
idiosyncratic preferences (e.g. Nilsson 2002). In the Interpreting Studies
community it has been additionally hypothesised to be a process-oriented
strategy for coping with high-load-inducing input (Pöchhacker 2004). In
other words, it is believed to be mostly due to the constraints inherent in the
task of simultaneous interpreting, a problem we shall discuss in detail in
section 4.

The picture emerging from a multitude of research on different types of

explicitation in every mode of translation and a variety of text genres
shows that explicitating shifts can potentially be induced by any of the
hypothesised causes, depending on the circumstances. The question
remains which causes prevail in given genres and modes.

3. Explicitation and relevance

Relevance Theory provides explanation for the nature of implicit
information in discourse, emphasising the key position it occupies in
communication. According to this approach, implicit information is
inherent in human communication as a prerequisite for relevance (Gutt
1996).

In line with these assumptions, most translation accounts based on the

framework of Relevance Theory adopt a most cautious attitude toward
implicit information in this type of interlingual transfer. Indeed, both Gutt
(1996) and Carston (1999) appear to opt against explicitating implicit
information in translation, advocating a viable balance between what is
presupposed and what is openly stated in order to maintain interpretive
resemblance to a source text. The primary motivation behind maintaining
such resemblance is providing access to all cognitive effects of the text at
the same relative processing cost.

Carston claims that within the framework of Relevance Theory, the

target-language version should not be geared at achieving the highest
degree of explicitness. Instead it should rather take into consideration the
receivers’ immediately accessible assumptions and the inferences they can
readily draw (Carston 1999, 105). Gutt’s (1996) stance reflects that of
Carston in many respects. He claims that “since implicit and explicit
information differ so significantly, it is likely that the explication of
implicit information will change the meaning of the translated text” (Gutt
1996).

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

193

Another important consideration to be taken into account while

discussing the relationship between implicit or explicit information and
relevance in translation is the concept of redundancy in language. As
already indicated in section 2, one of the possible manifestations of
explicitation are different forms of repetition, which are of a potentially
redundant nature. This fact is a source of yet another argument against
explicitation as a relevance-enhancing procedure. Repetitive, redundant
utterances are believed to go against the principle of optimal relevance
since such language features require extra processing effort to be offset by
extra effects (Sperber and Wilson 1986; Bogucki 2004).

4. Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting

Obviously, not all aspects of explicitation in written translation outlined in
the preceding sections are equally valid for simultaneous interpreting.
Given the major differences between written and oral translation as well as
the intrinsic constraints impeding the interpreting process, explicitation
might be expected to acquire a different dimension in simultaneous
interpreting (SI). Thus, the application of Relevance Theory to
simultaneous interpreting merits a more careful consideration.

Constraints that distinguish simultaneous from other modes of

interpreting (i.e. consecutive and liaison), and their written counterpart are
manifold. The factors most often referred to in literature are: substantial
temporal pressure and limited short-term or working memory capacity (cf.
Kirchhoff 1976; Gile 1995, 1997; Wei 2002; Zhong 2003; Gumul 2005).
Moreover, owing to virtual simultaneity of the input reception and output
production, an interpreter’s receiver and sender roles overlap in time.
Another major problem is the lack of revision phase – an interpreter’s
output is always the first and the only draft of the text. Numerous accounts
also stress the potentially adverse effects of the linearity constraint (e.g.
Hatim and Mason 1997; Setton 1999). Since the input is presented to the
interpreter in segments short enough to be accommodated in the maximum
time lag of no more than a few seconds, there is hardly any text available
for co-processing. Only the most local information concerning the
structure and context of the utterance is made accessible to the interpreter.
As emphasised by Setton (1999, 10), in SI the decisions are made on the
basis of units not only smaller than a text, but often even smaller than a
proposition. Last but not least, it is essential to highlight the transient
nature of the text delivered orally and its consequences for the target
audience. The subsequent segments of the target text in SI are made
accessible to the recipients for a matter of seconds, after which time they

Chapter Eleven

194

are irrevocably gone, thereby depriving them of the possibility to go
through the text again and trace cognitively demanding interconnections.

All these constraints might be expected to affect not only the type and

extent of explicitating shifts in simultaneous interpreting, but also the
causes triggering explicitation in this mode.

The impact of constraints imposed by the interpreting process upon

relevance is recognised by Gutt (2000), who emphasises an important
consideration regarding the approach to relevance in this mode:

Since the stream of speech flows on, the audience cannot be expected to sit
and ponder difficult renderings – otherwise it will lose the subsequent
utterances; hence it needs to be able to recover the intended meaning
instantly. Accordingly, the translator will often settle for renderings that
resemble the original less closely but get across easily what he considers to
be adequately relevant aspects of the original. (Gutt 2000, 123)

These aspects of explicitation are the focus of the present study, but

before we formulate any specific hypotheses and embark on a discussion
of the relationship of explicitation and relevance in SI, let us present a
brief survey of current research into explicitation in this mode of
interpreting.

Despite initial claims that the constraints intrinsic to simultaneous

interpreting might preclude extensive and recurrent explicitation in this
mode (Schjoldager 1995), the studies conducted in the field of SI
(Shlesinger 1995; Ishikawa 1999; Niska 1999; Gumul 2006b, 2006c) have
confirmed the existence of clear patterns of explicitating shifts in this
mode.

Shlesinger’s (1995) study, aiming to investigate the changes in

cohesive patterns, revealed that interpreters tend to explicitate implicit
links by inserting additional cohesive devices. The same tendency was
observed in Niska’s study. Ishikawa’s (1999) research concentrated on
explicitation without an apparent textual motivation. Her main objective
was to investigate psychological factors triggering explicitation.

The aim of my (Gumul 2006b) research was to identify and analyse

various forms of explicitation in interpreting, ranging from syntactic and
lexical levels to the pragmatic stratum. Results of this product-based study
indicate that explicitation in simultaneous interpreting is mainly cohesion-
related. The six most common changes include adding connectives, shifts
from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion, i.e. lexicalisation of pro-
forms, replacing nominalizations with verb phrases, reiterating lexical
items, filling out elliptical constructions, and shifts from reiteration in the

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

195

form of paraphrase to reiteration in the form of identical or partial
repetition.

The results of another study (Gumul 2006c), both process- and

product-oriented, show that explicitation in interpreting is in most cases an
unconscious, i.e. non-strategic procedure. The analysis of both interpreting
outputs and the retrospective verbal protocols indicates that subconscious
explicitation accounts for 94.15% of all cases of explicitating shifts
detected in the outputs, while strategic explicitation only for 6.85%. The
vast majority of subconscious shifts are cohesion-related, whereas a large
proportion of meaning specification, disambiguating metaphors, and
explanatory phrases are fully conscious strategic choices of the
interpreters.

5. Hypothesis

It appears tempting to assume that despite heavy constraints, explicitation
in interpreting might also be accounted for in terms of relevance-
enhancing procedures. After all, interpreting, as any other act of
communication, is ostensive-inferential in nature. Moreover, while it
should be borne in mind that greater explicitness can by no means be
assumed to lead automatically to better processability (Heltai 2005),
interpreters might be expected to explicitate with a view to maximising
contextual effects and minimising the processing effort of the target
audience, thereby striving for optimal relevance. However, given the
unique conditions of simultaneous interpreting, as well as the fact that the
subjects in the present study are interpreting students who do find the
constraints inherent in the SI task even more encumbering, explicitation
might be expected not to be directly and primarily attributable to striving
for optimal relevance of the transmitted message. The phrase directly and
primarily is an important element of this hypothesis, since the analysed
corpus abounds in examples, in which relevance appears to be at least one
of the reasons why an interpreter ventured to produce a more explicit
version. However, most shifts of this kind are instances of non-strategic,
subconscious explicitation, i.e. are not reported by the subjects in their
retrospective verbal protocols, and as such are beyond the scope of
objectively verifiable analysis as to the causes underlying them. Thus,
notwithstanding the fact that striving for optimal relevance is to a large
extent an essentially subconscious process, as humans have an automatic
tendency to maximise relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1986), and that the
product analysis alone allows for a certain degree of speculation regarding
the reasons for subconsciously performed shifts, I have chosen to limit our

Chapter Eleven

196

analysis to instances of conscious, strategic explicitation. I am fully aware
that by approaching the problem of relevance from the angle of an
interpreter’s intentions, I venture on only one of the possible lines of
research into relevance in simultaneous interpreting.

The principal aim of the present study is the attempt to determine to

what extent striving for optimal relevance of the translated discourse is
interpreting students’ priority motivation to explicitate implicit
information. The initial hypothesis holds that in most cases explicitating
shifts will be induced not only by the intention to achieve maximal
contextual effects for minimal processing effort, but will primarily be
necessitated by the constraints of the simultaneous interpreting task.

6. Research design

The research has been conducted on the Polish-English language pair, in
both directions of interpreting. The subjects in the study are 28 advanced
interpreting students, all of them native speakers of Polish with English as
language B in their language combination (i.e. “a language other than the
interpreter’s native language, of which she or he has a perfect command
and into which she or he works from one or more of his or her other
languages” – AIIC’s Conference Interpretation Glossary).

The experiment was conducted in a standard laboratory used for

teaching simultaneous interpreting. The experimental setting made it
possible to acquire data from retrospective verbal protocols and to obtain
multiple renditions of the same texts under the same conditions. Moreover,
the experimental research design facilitated controlling another crucial
variable, the delivery rate, which was kept at approximately 120-130
words per minute for all texts.

The corpus of source texts consists of five authentic speeches,

constituting four sets (in order to ensure the uniform length of the source
texts within each direction of interpreting, two of the Polish speeches were
used together during one experimental session). Each of the analysed sets
has been interpreted by 14 subjects, which amounts to 56 interpreting
outputs and a corpus of approximately 110,000 words. All the texts belong
to the genre of political speech. Prior to the interpretation, the subjects
received a thorough briefing concerning the pragmatic setting of each
speech, i.e. the details concerning the identity of the speaker, the profile of
the target audience, time, venue, and the subject matter of each text.The
interpreting of each set was followed by a retrospective remarks session.
Directly after the interpreting task, the subjects were asked to listen to the
dual-track recording of their own outputs and the source text and make

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

197

comments whenever they felt they expressed something more explicitly
than it was articulated in the source text, or added any words or
expressions that did not appear in the input. They were instructed to
refrain from making any comments regarding the quality of their outputs,
but rather elaborate on the decisions taken and the reasons triggering such
decisions. It was also emphasised that their remarks should only reflect
what they thought during the task of interpreting, and must not be based
solely on the very outputs.

Both interpreting outputs and retrospective protocols were recorded

and transcribed. In order to ensure a multilayered analysis combining
different observational techniques, the examination of explicitating shifts
was based on both transcripts and the actual audio recordings.

7. Results

The results of the analysis reveal that strategic explicitation in
simultaneous interpreting appears to be attributable to both interpreting
constraints and to striving for optimal relevance. Constraints-conditioned
explicitating shifts seem to prevail, as out of 95 retrospective verbal
protocols reporting intentional explicitation, in 49 cases explicitating shifts
were triggered by interpreting constraints, while in 34 cases, such
transformations were due to striving for optimal relevance of the target
text. There were 12 cases, in which no reasons for explicitation were
verbalised. The remark was just a straightforward statement that
explicitation was intentional without giving any reasons. None of the
comments indicated an interpreter’s intention to comply with translational
norms.

Let us have a look at some examples illustrating both prevailing

tendencies. The following comment expressing the interpreter’s intention
to make the message more relevant is an instance of substituting the
referential cohesive marker with reiteration in the form of identical
repetition:

(1) When the speaker talked about humanity and using the inventions

against humanity, I used once more the word humanity on
purpose to make my translation more comprehensible. If I had
said against it instead of against humanity, it might have been
difficult for the listeners to understand it.

3

3

In order to ensure spontaneity of retrospective protocols, during the retrospective

session the subjects were told to feel free to choose whichever of the two

Chapter Eleven

198

Another example that illustrates prioritising optimal relevance over any
other consideration falls within the broad category of meaning specification
(cf. section 2):

(2) I added the phrase for us, although it was quite obvious that it

referred to the United States and their allies. But I thought that if I
emphasise it and state it explicitly, everybody will understand it
better.

A similar tendency was observed in some instances of reiterating lexical
items and disambiguating metaphors. The retrospective comment number
(3) is in fact an example combining both categories. In these particular
cases the interpreters assumed that the target audience profile made them
unlikely to process the implicatures conveyed in the source text
effortlessly and opted for explicitating this information:

(3) In this fragment, immediately after the word plague, I decided to

use the word problem because I wasn’t sure whether this slightly
metaphorical meaning of plague would be fully comprehensible
in this context for those listening to the English version of the
speech.

(4) I thought that in the Polish version the word journey wouldn’t

express the meaning of the original, so I substituted it for another
word [

walka] which seemed to me more suitable and more easily

understandable in this context.

The other major group of explicitating shifts is according to the data
provided by retrospective verbal protocols directly induced by the
interpreting constraints. The analysis reveals that interpreters often resort
to explicitation as a repair or preventive strategy, employing various filling
expressions, as in the following two examples illustrating the technique of
padding, i.e. uttering non-committal material:

(5) I didn’t hear the beginning of the next sentence, so I decided to

add the word

ataku [of the attack] to the phrase aby uratowaü

ofiary [to save the victims], because I wanted to fill the gap.

languages (Polish or English) they preferred, or even a mixture of both. The
overwhelming majority of the remarks were made in Polish, so they have been
translated as closely as possible for the purpose of this article.

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

199

(6) I added the word

cywilizacji [civilisation] just to fill the gap

while I was thinking how to translate the word inclusive.

As indicated in the previous sections, adding redundant lexical items as
fillers appears to defy the Principle of Relevance (cf. section 3). However,
taking into account the specificity of the SI task, there is another angle to
this issue. As pointed out by Viaggio (2002, 244), “the interpreter’s
pauses, if perceived as inordinately long, are at the same time perceived as
cheating the listener of information that is presumed to be relevant even if
it is not.” Thus, although in this particular case relevance is not the priority
motivation for a target-text producer, it might be considered as an instance
of manipulating the text from the standpoint of optimal relevance to a
specifically targeted audience and under very specific circumstances.

Further examples of retrospective verbal protocols provide additional

evidence that linearity constraint, temporal pressure and lack of a revision
phase are the factors that induce condition to a large extent in this mode of
interpreting:

(7) I had to add this phrase because before the speaker finished his

sentence, I already began a sentence structure that would sound
awkward without an object.

(8) In my translation adding phrases and words stems firstly from

trying to correct the mistranslated fragment, and secondly from
describing a segment for which I couldn’t remember the right
equivalent.

Example (7) reveals that faced with the problems imposed by the nature of
the SI task, the interpreter resorted to forming propositions on the basis of
partial meanings. This form of opportunistic processing, seen by Setton
(1999) as following the Principle of (Pragmatic) Incrementality, might
also, similarily to examples (5) and (6), be perceived as an attempt to
achieve most optimal relevance possible under the given conditions. The
same applies to a general retrospective comment number (8). Although
both self-correction and proving a description in lieu of a direct equivalent
are no doubt more costly in terms of processing effort expended by the
target audience, in the given circumstances these two procedures appear to
be the most relevant solutions obtainable.

Chapter Eleven

200

8. Conclusion

Although the exemplification in the above section is far from exhaustive,
the examples can be said to indicate certain regularities. Although
explicitation in SI appears to be in a substantial number of cases directly
attributable to striving for optimal relevance and thus aiming at reducing
the processing effort of the target audience, the prevailing tendency is that
it is primarily triggered by the existence of various interpreting constraints.
Yet, as observed in the corpus and indicated by retrospective verbal
protocols, the interpreters, when faced with heavy constraints of the
interpreting task, resort to explicitation to ensure optimal relevance of the
translated message.

Thus, by adapting Bogucki’s (2004, 87) stance on relevance in

subtitling to SI, we might conclude that whatever factors impede the
interpreter’s actions, the choices that result from the interpreting process
are filtered through the meta-constraint of relevance, i.e. are ultimately and
invariably geared at achieving maximal contextual effects for minimal
processing effort.

Obviously, these results are only applicable to interpreting students,

and should not be seen as pertaining to professional interpreters. Since
strategies for dealing with SI constraints are bound to be related to the
level of expertise, the same type of research on full-fledged, experienced
interpreters might yield different results.

References

Address to a joint session of Congress on terrorist attacks, delivered by

George W. Bush on 20 September 2001. American rhetoric – rhetoric
of 9-11.
<http://www.americanrhetoric.com> (8 April 2005)

AIIC’s Conference Interpretation Glossary.

<http://www.aiic.net/glossary> (15 March 2006)

Al-Qinai, Jamal. 2001. Explication vs. implication in English-Arabic

translation. In Translation and meaning. Part 5, edited by M. Thelen,
and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd.
Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting.

Baker, Mona. 1992. In other words. London: Routledge.
—. 1993. Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and

applications. In Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, edited
by M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

201

—. 1995. Corpora in Translation Studies: An overview and some

suggestions for future research. Target 7, no. 2: 223-243.

—. 1996. Corpus-based Translation Studies: The challenges that lie ahead.

In Terminology, LSP and translation: Studies in language engineering,
in honour of Juan C. Sager, edited by H. Somers. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1986. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in

translation. In Interlingual and intercultural communication. Discourse
and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies,
edited by J. House, and S. Blum-Kulka. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Bogucki,

àukasz. 2004. A Relevance framework for constraints on cinema

subtitling.

àódĨ: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu àódzkiego.

Carston, Robyn. 1999. The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from

Relevance Theory. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from
different points of view, edited by K. Turner. Oxford: Elsevier.

Englund Dimitrova, Brigitta. 1993. Semantic change in translation – a

cognitive perspective. In Translation and knowledge, edited by Y.
Gambier, and J. Tommola. Turku: Centre for Translation and
Interpreting, University of Turku.

—. 2003. Explicitation in Russian-Swedish translation: Sociolinguistic and

pragmatic aspects. Slavica Lundensia Supplementa 2: 21-31.

—. 2005. Expertise and explicitation in the translation process.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and

translator training. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

—. 1997. Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In

Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting, edited by J. Danks,
G. M. S. Shreve, B. Fountain, and M. K. McBeath. London: Sage
Publications.

Gumul, Ewa. 2004. Cohesion in interpreting. Ph.D. diss., University of

Silesia.

—. 2005. EVS: Czynnik czasu w t

áumaczeniu symultanicznym. In Czas w

jzyku i kulturze, edited by J. Arabski, E. Borkowska, and A.

àyda.

Katowice: Para.

—. 2006a. Eksplicytacja a komunikatywno

Ğü tekstu przekáadu. In

Przekad jako komunikat, edited by P. Fast, and W. M. Osadnik.
Katowice:

ĝląsk.

—. 2006b. Explicitation in conference interpreting. In Translation and

meaning. Part 7, edited by M. Thelen, and B. Lewandowska-
Tomaszczyk. Maastricht: Department of Translation and Interpreting,
Maastricht School of International Communication, Zuyd University.

Chapter Eleven

202

—. 2006c. Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A strategy or a by-

product of language mediation? Across Languages and Cultures 7, no. 2:
171-190

.

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1996. Implicit information in literary translation: A

relevance-theoretic perspective. Target: International Journal of
Translation Studies 8, no. 2: 239-256.

—. 2000. Translation and relevance. Cognition and context. Manchester,

Boston: St Jerome Publishing.

Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason, 1997. Translator as a communicator.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Heltai, Pál. 2005. Explicitation, redundancy, ellipsis and translation. In

New trends in Translation Studies. In honour of Kinga Klaudy, edited
by K. Károly, and Á. Fóris. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Ishikawa, Luli. 1999. Cognitive explicitation in simultaneous interpreting.

In Anovar/Anosar estudios de traducción e interpretación, edited by A.
Álvarez Lugris, and A. Fernández Ocampo. Vigo: Universidade de
Vigo.

Kirchhoff, Hella. [1976] 2002. Simultaneous interpreting: Interdependence

of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and
interpreting strategies. In The Interpreting Studies reader, edited by F.
Pöchhacker, and M. Shlesinger. London, New York: Routledge.

Klaudy, Kinga. 1993. On explicitation hypothesis. In Transferre necesse

est... Current issues of translation theory, edited by K. Klaudy, and J.
Kohn. Szombathely: Dániel Berzsenyi College.

—. 1996. Back-translation as a tool for detecting explicitation strategies in

translation. In Translation Studies in Hungary, edited by K. Klaudy, J.
Lambert, and A. Sohár. Budapest: Scholastica.

—. 1998. Explicitation. In Routledge encyclopedia of Translation Studies,

edited by M. Baker. London, New York: Routledge.

—. 2003. Languages in translation. Lectures on the theory, teaching and

practice of translation. Budapest: Scholastica.

Klaudy, Kinga, and Krisztina Károly. 2005. Implicitation in translation:

empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across
Languages and Cultures 6, no. 1: 13-28.

Nilsson, Per-Ola. 2002. An assessment of the translation-specificity of

over-represented multi-word patterns in Swedish fiction texts
translated from English. Linguistica Antverpiensia 1: 407-417.

Niska, Helge. 1999. Text linguistic models for the study of simultaneous

interpreting. Stockholm University.
<http://www.geocities.com/~tolk/lic/licproj_w2wtoc.htm> (15 March

2000)

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

203

Olohan, Maeve. 2002. Comparable corpora in translation research:

Overview of recent analyses using the Translational English Corpus.
LREC Language Resources in Translation Work and Research
Workshop proceedings.
<http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/cl/yuste/postworkshop/repository/molohan.

pdf> (10 January 2005)

Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker. 2000. Reporting ‘that’ in translated

English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across
Languages and Cultures 1, no. 2: 141-158.

Opening Remarks to the United Nations General Assembly Special

Session on Terrorism, delivered by Rudy Giuliani on 1 October 2001,
New York. American Rhetoric – Rhetoric of 9-11.
<http://www.americanrhetoric.com> (8 April 2005)

O

Ğwiadczenie premiera Jerzego Buzka w związku z zamachami

terrorystycznymi w Stanach Zjednoczonych w dniu 11 wrze

Ğnia 2001

r.; Warszawa, 11 wrze

Ğnia 2001 [Statement by the Prime Minister of

Poland, Jerzy Buzek, in connection with terrorist attacks in the United
States on 11 September 2001; Warsaw, 11th September 2001].
<http://www.kprm.gov.pl> (8 April 2005)

O

Ğwiadczenie Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej Aleksandra

Kwa

Ğniewskiego w sprawie akcji przeciwko terroryzmowi; Warszawa,

7 pa

Ĩdziernika 2001 [Statement by the President of Poland, Aleksander

Kwa

Ğniewski, on the action against terrorism; Warsaw, 7th October

2001].
<http://www.prezydent.pl> (8 April 2005)

Øverås, Linn. 1998. In search of the third code. An investigation of norms

in literary translation. Meta 43, no. 4: 571-590.

Pápai, Vilma. 2004. Explicitation: A universal of translated texts? In

Translation universals. Do they exist?, edited by A. Mauranen, and P.
Kujamäki. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Perego, Elisa. 2003. Evidence of explicitation in subtitling: Towards a

categorisation. Across Languages and Cultures 4, no. 1: 63-88.

Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London, New

York: Routledge.

Puurtinen, Tina. 2003. Explicitating and implicitating source text ideology.

Across Languages and Cultures 4, no. 1: 53-62.

—. 2004. Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of

clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children’s
literature. In Translation universals. Do they exist?, edited by A.
Mauranen, and P. Kujamäki. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.

Chapter Eleven

204

Pym, Anthony. 2005. Explaning explicitation. In New trends in Translation

Studies. In honour of Kinga Klaudy, edited by K. Károly, and Á. Fóris.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Schjoldager, Anne. 1995. An exploratory study of translational norms in

simultaneous interpreting: Methodological reflections. In Translation
and the manipulation of discourse, edited by P. Jansen. Leuven:
CETRA – The Leuven Research Center for Translation,
Communication and Cultures.

Séguinot, Candace. 1988. Pragmatics and the explicitation hypothesis.

TTR Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 1, no. 2: 106-114.

Setton, Robin. 1999. Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic

analysis. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting.

Translator 1, no. 2:193-212.

Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and

cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Vanderauwera, Ria. 1985. Dutch novels translated into English: The

transformation of a ‘minority’ literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri. 1989. Quasi-correctness. A critical study of Finnish

translations of Russian journalistic texts. Helsinki:
Neuvostoliittoinstituutti.

—. 2001. Explicitation as a translation strategy. In Mission, vision,

strategies, and values: A celebration of translator training and
Translation Studies in Kouvola, edited by P. Kukkonen, and R.
Hartama-Heinonen. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

Viaggio, Sergio. 2002. The quest for optimal relevance. The need to equip

students with a pragmatic compass. In Interpreting in the 21st century.
Challenges and opportunities, edited by G. Garzone and M. Viezzi.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. [1958] 1995. Comparative stylistics

of French and English: A methodology for translation. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wei, Lin. 2002. Positive transfer: A neuropsychological understanding of

interpreting and the implications for interpreter training. Translation
Journal 6, no. 3.
<http://accurapid.com/journal/21interpret.htm> (12 January 2003)

Weissbrod, Rachel. 1992. Explicitation in translation of prose-fiction from

English to Hebrew as a function of norms. Multilingua 11, no. 2: 153-
171.

Whittaker, Sunniva. 2004. Etude contrastive des syntagmes nominaux

démonstratifs dans des textes traduits du français en norvégien et des

Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting

205

textes sources norvégiens: stratégie de traduction ou translationese?
Forum 2, no. 2: 221-240.

Wyst

ąpienie Prezydenta Polski Aleksandra KwaĞniewskiego podczas

inauguracji Warszawakiej Konferencji w sprawie zwalczania
terroryzmu; Warszawa, 6 listopada 2001 [Address by the President of
Poland, Aleksander Kwa

Ğniewski, at the inauguration of the Warsaw

Conference on combating terrorism; Warsaw 6th November, 2001].
<http://www.prezydent.pl> (8 April 2005)

Zhong, Weihe. 2003. Memory training in interpreting. Translation Journal

7, no. 3.
<http://accurapid.com/journal/25interpret.htm> (4 September 2003)