TRANSLATION AND MEANING

PART 7

Proceedings of the Maastricht Session

of the 4

th

International Maastricht - Łódź Duo Colloquium

on “Translation and Meaning”,

Held in Maastricht, The Netherlands, 18 – 21 May 2005

MARCEL THELEN

Zuyd University

Maastricht School of International Communication

Department of Translation and Interpreting

Maastricht, The Netherlands

and

BARBARA LEWANDOWSKA-TOMASZCZYK

Department of English Language

University of Łódź, Poland

editors

Technical editor: Marcel Thelen

Zuyd University

Maastricht School of International Communication

Department of Translation and Interpreting

TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 7, 2007, 449 - 456

449

EXPLICITATION IN CONFERENCE INTERPRETING

Ewa Gumul

University of Silesia, Sosnowiecz Poland

Abstract. The explicitation hypothesis of Blum-Kulka (1986), assuming that target texts
tend to be more explicit than source texts, has been confirmed by numerous studies in the
field of translation (e.g. Séguinot, 1988; Klaudy, 1993; Englund Dimitrova, 1993, 2003;
Øverås, 1998; Pápaim 2004; Puurtinen, 2003, etc.). However, given the fundamental dif-
ferences between written and oral translation as well as the intrinsic constraints impeding
the interpreting process, such as substantial temporal load, the linearity constraint, and
limited short-term memory capacity, explicitation might be expected to acquire a different
dimension in interpreting. In an attempt to investigate this problem, the present study offers
some preliminary research into explicitation in conference interpreting. The existing few
studies on explicitation in interpreting (Shlesinger, 1995; Ishikawa, 1999) offer only a
partial view on explicitation in one of the modes – simultaneous interpreting. Thus, the
principal aim of the study is to establish whether there are any differences between the two
modes of conference interpreting: consecutive and simultaneous.

0. Introduction
The phenomenon of explicitation, almost universally acknowledged to be one of translation univer-
sals, has remained in the centre of attention of those preoccupied with translation studies since 1950s.
The first definition of explicitation appeared in the classic work of Vinay and Darbelnet in 1958.
According to them, explicitation is “a stylistic translation technique which consists of making ex-
plicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source language because it is apparent from
either the context or the situation (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1958/1995: 342)”. Probably the most ground-
breaking study in the field of explicitation is that of Blum-Kulka (1986). She formulated the explici-
tation hypothesis, which “postulates an observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TL texts regard-
less of the increase traceable to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved
(Blum-Kulka ,1986:19)”.

The phenomenon of explicitation attracted a lot interest in the translation studies community. The
explicitation hypothesis has been confirmed by numerous researchers, whose studies dealt with vari-
ous forms of explicitating shifts. The most popular feature investigated in the majority of studies on
explicitation is adding connectives (e.g. Blum-Kulka, 1986; Vehmas-Lehto, 1989; Englund Dimitro-
va, 2003; Shlesinger, 1995; Puurtinen, 2003, 2004). Øverås (1998) and Pápai (2004) also detected
the pronounced tendency to reiterate lexical items in target-language outputs. Certain types of cohe-
sive markers shifts were likewise identified as forms of explicitation. These were shifts from referen-
tial cohesion to lexical cohesion (i.e. lexicalisation of pro-forms) (Weissbrod, 1992; Øverås,1998;
Pápai, 2004), shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in the form of identical or
partial repetition (Øverås, 1998), and categorial shifts of cohesive devices (i.e. from vaguely cohe-
sive to more explicitly cohesive) (Øverås, 1998).

Although the explicitation hypothesis has been formulated on the basis of cohesive explicitness,
other studies in the field identified other forms of explicitation, such as: adding modifiers and qualif-
iers (Vanderauwera, 1985), inserting discourse-organizing items (Pápai, 2004), filling out elliptical
constructions (Weissbrod, 1992; Øverås, 1998; Pápai, 2004), replacing nominalizations with verb
phrases (Klaudy & Károly, 2005; Puurtinen, 2003), replacing metaphors with similies (Weissbrod,
1992; Øverås, 1998), including additional explanatory remarks (Baker, 1992; Al-Qinai, 2001; Pápai,
2004), and spelling out implicatures (e.g. Séguinot, 1985; Abdellah, 2004).

450

EWA

GUMUL

The overwhelming majority of these studies dealt with explicitation in written translation. Thus, the
question arises whether it can be also regarded as a universal tendency in interpreted texts. Given the
fundamental differences between written and oral translation as well as the intrinsic constraints impe-
ding the interpreting process, such as a substantial temporal load, the linearity constraint, and limited
short-term memory capacity, explicitation might be expected to acquire a different dimension in in-
terpreting.

Two studies conducted in the field of simultaneous interpreting (Shlesinger, 1995 and Ishikawa,
1999) proved that the phenomenon of explicitation does exist in this mode of interpreting. However,
each of them concentrated only on certain forms of explicitation. Shlesinger was preoccupied with
shifts in cohesion, while Ishikawa concentrated on explicitation without an apparent textual motiva-
tion, investigating psychological factors triggering explicitation.

The question arises what other forms of explicitation can be detected in simultaneous interpreting
and does the extent and type of explicitating shifts in this mode of interpreting differ from the other
mode, namely consecutive interpreting.

Looking closely at these two principal modes of interpreting, one cannot help noticing that although
they involve the same basic processes, they are nevertheless distinctly different. The fundamental
difference lies in the fact that these two modes of interpreting are governed by different constraints.
As regards simultaneous interpreting, the fact that the context and structure are exposed to the inter-
preter gradually impedes the process of rendering source text. By contrast, the specificity of con-
secutive interpreting consists in the fact that since the text is presented in most cases either as a com-
plete one or is available to the interpreter in considerable portions of discourse, it becomes too ‘rich’
to be retained in memory and processed easily. Moreover, one has to acknowledge that certain con-
straints inherent in the interpreting process affect both CI and SI. For instance, both modes are af-
fected to varying degrees by the time pressure factor that differentiates the oral translation from its
written counterpart. Taking into account the constraints intrinsic to simultaneous and consecutive
translation, these two types of interpreting can be expected to be heavily marked by mode-specific
explicitating shifts.

1. The Study
The principal aim of the study is to ascertain which types of explicitating shifts can be detected in
conference interpreting outputs. The study also addresses the question of potential differences be-
tween the two modes of conference interpreting in terms of the extent and type of explicitating shifts.

The research has been conducted on the English-Polish language pair. The corpus consists of two
recorded speeches: ‘A Lecture’ (5 minutes) and ‘A Political Speech’ (7 minutes), both written mono-
logues intended for oral delivery. The two analysed texts have been interpreted by 48 subjects each,
which amounts to 24 consecutive and 24 simultaneous outputs. All subjects were Polish native
speakers having English as language B in their language combination. The direction of interpreting
was from English into Polish. The average rate of delivery was 120 words per minute.

The experiment was conducted in a standard laboratory used for teaching simultaneous interpreting.
The subjects were asked to listen to two texts and interpret the first one (T1) simultaneously and the
other one (T2) consecutively. The students were divided into two groups (A and B); the first one (A)
interpreting T1 using the simultaneous mode and T2 employing consecutive translation. With the
second batch of students (B), the same texts were used but the modes reversed. For the purpose of
consecutive interpreting the pauses in the text were made after each paragraph, ranging from thirty
six to one hundred and forty words. The students were allowed to take notes while listening to the
input.

TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 7, 2007, 449 - 456

451

The two groups of subjects employed in this study were at different stages of their interpreting train-
ing. Prior to the research, the first group had received a nine-month training in both consecutive and
simultaneous interpreting, the other a twenty-seven month training of the same kind. Thus an addit-
ional aim of the research is to determine whether explicitating shifts are experience-related.

Multiple renditions of the same texts have been obtained with a view to verifying whether explicita-
tion can be regarded as the interpreter’s idiosyncratic behaviour, i.e. whether some interpreters tend
to explicitate more than the others.

Whereas the main objective of the present study is to examine the shifts that reside in the interpreting
process itself, it has been assumed that certain shifts may derive from the English-Polish language
pair. In some such cases the explicitation is obligatory due to language-specific restrictions, and
therefore does not provide legitimate evidence for a study attempting to trace explicitating shifts at-
tributable to the interpreting process. Hence the exclusion of all examples exhibiting explicitation
imposed by the discrepancies between source-language and target-language grammatical systems,
which is in agreement with Blum-Kulka’s (1986) pre-requirement for identifying the phenomenon of
explicitation.

2. Results
The analysis of both consecutive and simultaneous outputs revealed the following types of explicit-
ating shifts listed below in the order of frequency, along with the numbers obtained:

TYPES OF EXPLICITATING SHIFTS

SI CI

- adding connectives

73 195

- shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion

38 71

- replacing nominalizations with verb phrases

24 57

- reiterating lexical items

11 40

- filling out elliptical constructions

12 26

- shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to

reiteration in the form of identical/partial repetition

12 15

- adding modifiers and qualifiers

5

20

- inserting hedges

1

17

- inserting discourse organizing items

3

14

- categorial shifts of conjunctive cohesive devices (i.e.

from vaguely cohesive to more explicitly cohesive)

3 10

- including additional explanatory remarks

2

10

- substituting generic names with proper names or adding a

proper name to a generic name

0 10

- meaning specification

1

2

7

- distributing the complex meaning of a ST word over

several words in the TT

2 6

- disambiguating metaphors

2

4

Table 1: SI vs. CI

The results indicate marked differences in the frequency of explicitating shifts appearance between
simultaneous and consecutive interpreting. The overall number of explicitating shifts detected in CI

1

i.e. articulating ideas retrievable or inferable from the preceding part of the text

452

EWA

GUMUL

is 502, whereas for SI the number is significantly lower – 190. The results have been confirmed by
applying t-test, which showed a statistically significant difference between CI and SI (p< 0.05).
As can be inferred from Table 1, adding connectives is the most frequently occurring form of explici-
tation in both modes (73 shifts in SI and 195 in CI). The dominant types of added cohesive markers
are adversative, causal and additive conjunctions

2

. The addition of adversative conjunction to the

surface structure of the target text is exemplified in the following extract from one of the consecutive
interpreting outputs:

(1) Subject 26/CI:
ST:

“(…) they are intended to stand as separate self-contained units (…)”

TT:

“(…) mają one być jednak trzema odrębnymi sekcjami (…)”

BT:

“(…) they are intended however / to stand as three separate units (…)”

3

Another frequent explicitating shift is replacing referential cohesion with lexical cohesion (i.e. lexic-
alisation of pro-forms), a procedure which certainly reduces the processing effort of the receiver:

(2) Subject 1/CI:
ST:

“(…) I propose to divide this course of lectures (…) into three main sections / and perhaps I
could just point point out right at the beginning / that there will be a good deal of overlap
between them”

TT:

“(…) postanowiłem podzielić ten wykład (...) na trzy części i być może na samym początku już
powinienem / wskazać państwu iż części te w znacznej mierze / pokrywają się ze sobą”

BT:

“ (...) I decided to divide this lecture (...) into three parts and perhaps right at the beginning I
should point out that these parts will overlap to a large extent”

Higher explicitness of some target texts is due to replacing nominalizations with verb phrases, as in
the following fragment of simultaneous interpreting output:

(3) Subject 68/SI:
ST:

“(…) we embarked on a reasoned policy to ensure steady economic growth / the
modernisation of industry / and a proper balance between public and private expenditure
(…)”

TT:

“(…) rozwinęliśmy rozsądną politykę by zapewnić aby zapewnić wzrost gospodarczy /
zmodernizowaliśmy przemysł i zapewniliśmy odpowiednią równowagę pomiędzy prywatnym i
publicznym wydatkami (...)”

BT:

“ (...) we developed a reasonable policy to ensure in order to ensure economic growth / we
modernised industry and we ensured a proper balance between private and public
expenditure (…)”

Reiterations, which constitute another frequently occurring form of explicitation, fall into two dis-
tinct groups. Certain reiterations result from self-correction. It is worth noting that in many cases
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:

(4) Subject 56/CI:
ST:

“(…) many of our most important new projects / in other fields / became possible (…)”

TT:

“(…) można było wprowadzić nowe projekty / nowe pomysły (...)”

BT:

“ (...) new projects / new ideas could be introduced (…)”

2

according to the classification of Halliday and Hasan (1976)

3

Apart from the capitalised proper names, only lower case letters have been used in the transcription. There is

no punctuation. The transcriptions have, however, been marked for pauses within the respective utterances,
where a single slash ( / ) denotes a short pause, and a double slash ( // ) denotes a long pause.

TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 7, 2007, 449 - 456

453

The second type of reiteration is just repeating certain word or phrase later in the text, as it is the case
with “two parts of the city”. In this particular example the situation is more complex, as introducing
the phrase “two parts of the city” is another type of explicitation (substituting referential cohesion
with lexical cohesion) and the item in question is reiterated additionally:

(5) Subject 14/SI:
ST:

“(…) cemented them together (…) but / it’s not the linking process that I’m concerned
with just now”

TT:

“(…) połączyło te dwie części miasta (...) ale nie ten / nie proces łączenia się tych
dwóch części miasta / zajmuje moją uwagę teraz”

BT:

“ (...) linked these two parts of the city (…) but it’s not this process of linking two parts
of the city that I’m concerned with now”

Finally, the last of the five categories with the highest frequency of occurrence is filling out elliptical
constructions:

(6) Subject 20/SI:
ST:

“(…) it started of course not as one […] but as two cities / (…)”

TT:

“(…) wszystko zaczęło / zaczęło się nie jako jedno miasto tylko jako dwa miasta (...)”

BT:

“ (...) it all started not as one city but as two cities (...)”

The results disconfirm the hypothesis about the impact of the expertise level on explicitation (Tables
2 and 3). The number of explicitating shifts in the outputs of novice interpreters and those about to
graduate is in fact comparable. The results of the t-test did not show any statistically significant dif-
ference. Of course this hypothesis should also be verified in research using professional interpreters.
The group labelled as Graduates was at the final stage of the interpreting training, but still they can
by no means be compared to professional interpreters with years of practice.

TYPES OF EXPLICITATING SHIFTS

SI/N

4

SI/G

5

- adding connectives

31 42

- shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion

22 16

- replacing nominalizations with verb phrases

13 11

- reiterating lexical items

5 6

- filling out elliptical constructions

5 7

- shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in

the form of identical/partial repetition

6 6

- adding modifiers and qualifiers

2

3

- inserting hedges

0

1

- inserting discourse organizing items

2

1

- categorial shifts of conjunctive cohesive devices (i.e. from

vaguely cohesive to more explicitly cohesive)

3 0

- including additional explanatory remarks

1

1

- substituting generic names with proper names or adding a

proper name to a generic name

0 0

- meaning specification

1

1

- distributing the complex meaning of a ST word over several

words in the TT

0 2

4

N stands for Novices.

5

G stands for Graduates.

- disambiguating metaphors

2

0

Table 2: Results for simultaneous interpreting

454

EWA

GUMUL

TYPES OF EXPLICITATING SHIFTS

CI/N CI/G

- adding connectives

89 106

- shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion

35 36

- replacing nominalizations with verb phrases

20 37

- reiterating lexical items

23 17

- filling out elliptical constructions

16 10

- shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in

the form of identical/partial repetition

9 6

- adding modifiers and qualifiers

12

8

- inserting hedges

9

8

- inserting discourse organizing items

8

6

- categorial shifts of conjunctive cohesive devices (i.e. from

vaguely cohesive to more explicitly cohesive)

3 7

- including additional explanatory remarks

3

7

- substituting generic names with proper names or adding a proper

name to a generic name

7 3

- meaning specification

4

3

- distributing the complex meaning of a ST word over several

words in the TT

2 4

- disambiguating metaphors

3

1

Table 3: Results for consecutive interpreting

The mean score calculated for CI is 10.45 explicitating shifts per output, and 3.89 for SI. However, a
closer analysis of the interpreted outputs revealed that explicitating shifts patterns differ significantly
from output to output. The network of explicitating shifts tends to be much denser in some outputs.
This observation seems to confirm the hypothesis that explicitation can be regarded as the interpret-
er’s idiosyncratic behaviour.

In CI the largest number of explicitating shifts is 18 (4 outputs). There are 10 outputs with 16 or
more explicitating shifts. The lowest number of explicitating shifts in CI is 4 (1 output). There are 12
outputs with 6 or fewer explicitating shifts. A similar tendency can be observed in the other mode. In
SI the largest number of explicitating shifts is 9 (1 output). There are 5 outputs with 7 or more ex-
plicitating shifts. There are 16 outputs with 2 or fewer instances of explicitation, including 3 outputs
where no explicitating shifts were detected.

3. Conclusions
Marked differences between CI and SI are attributable to a number of factors. Given the specificity
of consecutive interpreting, interpreters working in this mode have limited access to texture, i.e. all
surface devices used in establishing continuity of sense and thus making a sequence of sentences
both cohesive and coherent (Hatim & Mason, 1997). Since the reformulation phase is delayed in
time, reconstructing certain surface features of the source text is seriously impeded.

Considerably higher proportion of added connectives in consecutive interpreting might be the result
of notation techniques. In order to reformulate the text effectively, the interpreter marks all connec-
tions explicitly in his or her notes, and consequently tends to incorporate them in the output.

TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 7, 2007, 449 - 456

455

Lower number of explicitating shifts in simultaneous interpreting is certainly attributable to the time
pressure and the need to allocate processing capacity resources to three competing concurrent opera-
tions: the Listening and Analysis Effort, the Production Effort, and the short-term Memory Effort
(Gile, 1995, 1997). Certain explicitating shifts in SI result from adopting the strategy of padding, i.e.
uttering non-committal material contributing no new information, serving primarily as a filler until a
new segment of ST is disambiguated (Kirchhoff, 1976; Setton,1999).

Apart from the potential reasons mentioned above, one has to acknowledge the existence of purely
textually motivated explicitation. The corpus abounds in examples, in which explicitating shifts can
by no means be explained by mode-specific features or constraints. This seems to be yet another ar-
gument supporting the hypothesis about the universal character of explicitation.

Finally, it seems essential to mention some possibilities of further research in the field of explicit-
ation in conference interpreting. First of all, it would be interesting to compare the results of the pre-
sent study with the study using professional interpreters as subjects. Another potentially fruitful
venue for further research in interpreting is relation between explicitation and implicitation, the sub-
ject explored in numerous studies on written translation (e.g. Puurtinen, 2003; Klaudy & Károly,
2005; Pym, 2005, etc.). It also needs to be emphasised that using the methods of Corpus Linguistics
and Think Aloud Protocols would certainly resolve many doubts surrounding this field of research.

References

Abdellah, A.S. (2004), “The Translator’s Dilemma – Implicatures and the role of the translator”, Translation

Journal, 8(2).

Al-Qinai, J. (2001), “Explication vs. Implication in English-Arabic Translation”. In: M. Thelen and B.

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), Translation and Meaning. Part 5. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd.
Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting, pp. 409-423.

Baker, M. (1992), In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986), “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation“. In: J. House and S. Blum-Kulka

(eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication. Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second
Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 17-35.

Davy, D. (1966) Advanced English Course. London: Linguaphone.
Englund Dimitrova, B. (1993), “Semantic change in Translation – A Cognitive Perspective”. In: Y. Gambier

and J. Tommola (eds.), Translation and Knowledge. Turku: Centre for Translation and Interpreting,
University of Turku, pp. 285-296.

Englund Dimitrova, B. (2003), “Explicitation in Russian-Swedish translation: sociolinguistic and pragmatic

aspects”. In: B. Englund Dimitrova and A. Pereswetoff-Morath (eds.), Swedish Contributions to the
Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ljubljana, 15-21 August 2003. Slavica Lundensia
Supplementa 2., pp. 21-31.

Gile, D. (1995), Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gile, D. (1997), “Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem”. In: J. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S.

B. Fountain, and M. K. McBeath (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting.. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 196-214.

Gumul, E. (2004) Cohesion in Interpreting, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Silesia.
Gumul, E. (2006) ‘Eksplicytacja a komunikatywność tekstu przekładu’, P. Fast (eds.) Przekład jako

komunikacja. Katowice: Śląsk.

Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan (1976), Cohesion in English. London/New York: Longman.
Hatim, B. and I. Mason (1997), Translator as a Communicator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Ishikawa, L. (1999), “Cognitive Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting”. In: A. Álvarez Lugris and A.

Fernández Ocampo (eds.), Anovar/Anosar estudios de traducción e interpretación. Vol 1. Vigo:
Universidade de Vigo, pp. 231-257.

Kirchhoff, H. (1976), “Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdependence of Variables in the Interpreting Process,

Interpreting Models and Interpreting Strategies”, In: F. Pöchhacker and M. Shlesinger (eds.), The
Interpreting Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 110-119.

456

EWA

GUMUL

Klaudy, K. (1993), “On Explicitation Hypothesis”. In: K. Klaudy and J. Kohn (eds.), Transferre necesse est…

Current issues of Translation Theory. Szombathely: Dániel Berzsenyi College, pp. 69-77.

Klaudy, K. and K. Károly, (2005), “Implicitation in Translation: Empirical evidence for operational

asymmetry in translation”. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), pp. 13-28.

Øverås, L. (1998), “In search of the Third Code. An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation”. Meta,

43(4), pp. 571-588.

Pápai, V. (2004), “Explicitation: A universal of translated texts?”. In: A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds.),

Translation Universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.
143-164.

Puurtinen, T. (2003), “Explicitating and Implicitating Source Text Ideology”, Across Languages and Cultures,

4(1), pp. 53-62.

Puurtinen, T. (2004), “Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in

translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature”. In: A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds.),
Translation Universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.
165-176.

Pym, A. (2005), “Explaning Explicitation”. In: K. Károly and Á. Fóris (eds.), New Trends in Translation

Studies. In Honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Séguinot, C. (1985), “Translating Implication”. Meta, 30(3), pp. 295-298.
Séguinot, C. (1988), “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis”. TTR Traduction, Terminologie,

Rédaction, 1(2), pp. 106-114.

Setton, R. (1999), Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Shlesinger, M. (1995), “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Translator, 1(2), pp. 193-212.
Vanderauwera, R. (1985), Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a ‘Minority’

Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Vehmas-Lehto, I. 1989. Quasi-correctness. A critical study of Finnish translations of Russian journalistic

texts. Helsinki: Neuvostoliittoinstituutti.

Vinay, J-P. and J. Darbelnet (1958/1995), Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for

Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Weissbrod, R. (1992), “Explicitation in translation of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of

norms”. Multilingua, 11(2), pp. 153-171.