Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 11:2 (1999) ► pp.289–315

Clefts in Translations between English and German

 | Humboldt University, Berlin
A great number of translation problems are linguistic in nature, but they can only be properly diagnosed and their solutions 'objectively ' assessed if one takes account of the context in which the problematic elements occur. The paper focuses on a prototypical case of such translation problems: English cleft sentences and their counterparts in German. Clefts are claimed to establish a rhetorical relation with a propositional antecedent located beyond the local context, thus contributing to the formation of textual macro-structures. While the local context determines the focal interpretation of clefts within the current discourse, the appeal to earlier ideas attributes to the cleft a higher degree of contextual relevance.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1.Basic Hypotheses
    • 1.2.A First Look at Clefts in English and German
  • 2.The Original
    • 2.1.Empirical Observations
    • 2.2.Linguistic Assumptions on Clefts
    • 2.3.Some More Observations and a First Hypothesis
    • 2.4.The Semantic Basis of the Discourse Effect
  • 3.Translations into German
    • 3.1.Systematic Variations
    • 3.2. Improving the Translation
    • 3.3.Focus
    • 3.4.Securing the Appropriate Focus Structure
      • 3.4.1.A Closer Look at Endfocus
      • 3.4.2.Reordering
      • 3.4.3.Retaining the Cleft
  • 4.Summarizing the Discussion
    • 4.1.The Priority of Appropriate Focus Structures
    • 4.2.The Grammatical Differences
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 March 2000
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.2.06doh
References (27)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1992. “Clausal Focus Versus Discourse Rhema in German: A Programmatic View”. Language and Cognition II1. 1–19.Google Scholar
Andersson, Sven-Gunnar. 1993. “Zu Satzspaltung (Cleft) und Langer Extraktion in germanischen Sprachen”. Marga Reis, ed. Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur. Tubingen: Narr, 1993. 39–61. [Linguistische Arbeiten, 306.]Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Toronto, New York, London: Bantam.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1963. Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften. [Studia Grammatica, II.]Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome. 1980. On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Cambridge, Mass., London: Belknap.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow”. Russel S. Tomlin, ed. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1987. 21–52.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crocker, Matthew W. 1996. Computational Psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy. 1992. “Aspects of Cleft Constructions in Discourse”. Arbeitspapiere des SFB Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik, Bericht 19. Tübingen.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Presupposition and Shared Knowledge in It-clefts”. Language and Cognitive Processes 10:2. 97–120.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika. 1991a. “Focus Hierarchies”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40:3-4. 275–284.Google Scholar
. 1991b. “Spaltsatz oder Fokussierungspartikel?: Ein übersetzungswissenschaftlicher Exkurs zum Verhältnis zwischen Grammatik und Stilistik”. Manfred Kohrt and Christoph Küper, eds. Probleme der Übersetzungswissenschaft. Berlin: Institut für Linguistik der TU, 1991. 5–37. [Arbeitspapiere zur Linguistik, 26.]Google Scholar
. 1996. “Passive Perspectives: Different Preferences in English and German—a Result of Parametrized Processing”. Linguistics 34:3. 491–543.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. “Acceptability and Language Specific Preferences in the Distribution of Information”. Target 9:1. 1–24.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Processing and Directionality in German and English”. Languages in Contrast 1:1. 23–43.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Position and Explicitness—Language Specific Conditions for the Use of Adverbial Clauses in Translations between German and English”. Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung [Studia Grammatical], 112–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Bernhard. 1998. “Focus and Connectedness: Towards a Typology of Focus Constructions”. Tübingen. [Manuscript.]Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1990. “Fokuskonstruktionen im Deutschen und Englischen”. C. Gnutzmann, ed. Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1990. 69–83. [= Forum Angewandte Linguistik, 19.]Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1999. “Information Packaging and Translation”. Sprach-spezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung [Studia Grammatica], 175–214.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther und C. Poletto. 1991. “Die Cleft-Konstruktion im Deutschen, Englischen und Italienischen”. Gisbert Fanselow and Sascha Felix, eds. Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. Tubingen, 1991. 174–216. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 39.]Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975. 41–58.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig and Knut Holland, forthcoming. “The English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus: Current Work and New Directions”.
Macheiner, Judith. 1995. Übersetzen: Ein Vademecum. Frankfurt am Main: Eichborn.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1945. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob. 1988. Context and Presupposition. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1998. “Clefts in Scandinavian: An Investigation”. Artemis Alexiadiou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Paul Law and Ursula Kleinhenz, eds. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 101. 163–190.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Benjamins Translation Library, 4.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Ehsan Eshtiyaghi & Abbas Pourhossein Gilakjani
2021. The Effect of Unit-of-Translation on Iranian Upper-Intermediate EFL Learners’ Achievement in Bizarre News Translation. International Journal of Research in English Education 6:1 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Károly, Krisztina
2013. News Discourse in Translation: Topical Structure and News Content in the Analytical News Article. Meta 57:4 ► pp. 884 ff. DOI logo
Mi-Sun Mun
2010. 독일어 werden＋Infinitiv 구문의 다의성과 행동규칙. Koreanische Zeitschrift für Germanistik 51:1 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Klaus
2009. Cleft Sentences: Form, Function, and Translation. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
DOHERTY, MONIKA
2001. Cleft-like sentences. Linguistics 39:3 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Chapter 8. Summary and conclusions. In Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 134], ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 134], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.