Translation studies has long debated whether translated and interpreted texts are systematically more explicit than their source texts — the explicitation hypothesis — or whether added explicit material merely reflects target-language genre conventions. Baumgarten, Meyer and Özçetin (2008) studied bracketed parentheticals in an English–German popular-science corpus and additions in conference interpreting, concluding that explicitation is not a universal of language mediation: most additions in their data aligned translations with German genre conventions or could have come from editors, and interpreting additions varied with the individual interpreter, the mode, and the communicative constellation. They demanded triangulated designs (source text, translation, and comparable target-language originals) and left open how 'genuine' translational explicitation — additions in excess of what target-language norms necessitate — is to be identified and measured, what proportions of added explicitness derive from translators, editors, and genre conventions, which processing variables produce explicitation in interpreting, and how all of this behaves across other language pairs, genres, and registers. The open problem is to settle this jointly: formulate an operational, statistically defensible criterion for excess explicitation and quantify, across languages, genres, and interpreting modes, how much added explicitness is genuinely specific to language mediation and how much is conventional, editorial, or a by-product of processing under load. No accepted criterion for excess explicitation and no general quantified partition of the sources of added explicitness are known to date, so the core remains open.

Background

In translation studies, 'explicitness' denotes the degree to which a text spells information out in linguistic form, and 'explicitation' the process by which a translation or interpretation renders source-text information more explicit than it was (for example by adding explanations, connectives, or bracketed clarifications). The explicitation hypothesis — canonized in the 1980s from work on shifts of cohesion in translation and repeated in translation-studies handbooks — claims that explicitation is inherent in the act of translating and therefore qualifies as a 'universal of translation', that is, a property holding of all translated texts independently of the language pair, translator, or text type. Against this, corpus-based work contrasts explicitation with 'cultural filtering' (adaptation of a text to the communicative conventions typical of the target-language community): if target-language originals already exhibit the added material at the same rate, the additions in translations reflect genre convention rather than anything translation-specific.

Baumgarten, Meyer and Özçetin (2008) tested this with two small studies: (1) a parallel corpus of English popular-science articles and their German translations, plus a comparable corpus of German originals, analyzing bracketed parentheticals (insertions such as abbreviations, acronym expansions, examples, and elaborations placed in round or square brackets) as overt markers of explicitness; and (2) a corpus of interpreter-mediated discourse from a conference setting, examining how different interpreters rendered the same expressions. Although over 60% of the parentheticals in the German translations had no structural counterpart in the source texts, only a very small fraction qualified as translational explicitation under their criterion — following the classical formulation that only additions 'in excess of what is necessitated by the target language system and communicative conventions' count as genuine — with most additions instead tracking German genre conventions (cultural filtering) or being attributable to editors rather than translators. In the interpreting data, explicitating renditions varied with the individual interpreter (for instance with their ear-voice span, i.e. the time-lag between hearing the source utterance and producing the target rendition, and with their chunking, i.e. how they segment the incoming stream into processing units), the interpreting mode (simultaneous vs. consecutive), and constellation features such as the social distance and expertise gap between speaker and audience. The authors concluded that explicitation is a gradual, optional phenomenon, not a universal, and that identifying genuine translational explicitation requires a triangular design comparing source texts, translations, and non-translated comparable texts in the target language.

The methodological landscape relies on three corpus types: parallel corpora (source texts aligned with their translations), comparable corpora (original texts in the target language matched for genre and register), and triangulated designs combining both. Key adjacent results that frame the open questions include studies showing that obligatory, grammar-forced additions (such as inserting subjects when translating from a language allowing null subjects into one forbidding them) do not in themselves amount to explicitation (Kolehmainen 2014), that translated and edited texts share properties of 'mediated' language (Kruger 2012), and the methodological critique of Becher (2010) that the translation-inherent explicitation hypothesis, as traditionally formulated, is too vague to be a testable scientific hypothesis at all.

Problem Statement

Decide, with an operational criterion and quantified evidence, whether added explicitness in mediated language contains a genuine component specific to translation or interpreting, and quantify its sources. Concretely, building on the triangular design demanded by the source study (source texts, their translations, and comparable non-translated target-language texts): (1) formulate, and validate by explicit, checkable procedures, an operational, statistically defensible criterion that distinguishes genuine mediation-specific explicitation — additions in excess of what target-language genre conventions necessitate — from cultural filtering, editorial insertion, and grammar-forced additions; (2) apply it on an obtainable triangulated corpus spanning at least two language pairs, with an explicit statistical procedure, quantifying what proportion of added explicit material is attributable to translator decisions, editorial interventions, and target-language genre conventions respectively; (3) in interpreting, specify a falsifiable analysis design that predicts and tests how processing variables (time-lag or ear-voice span, working-memory load, chunking, anticipation) versus strategic and constellation factors (expertise, mode, social distance between speaker and audience) produce or inhibit explicitating renditions, analysing the process data where available; and (4) state and justify the conditions under which the resulting partition holds or varies across languages, genres, registers, and diachronic change in target-language norms, and the additional evidence such mappings would require. These four components jointly support one objective: replacing the qualitative universal-versus-convention debate with a measured partition of the sources of added explicitness.

References

  1. Baumgarten, N., Meyer, B., & Özçetin, D. (2008). Explicitness in translation and interpreting: A critical review and some empirical evidence (of an elusive concept). Across Languages and Cultures 9(2), 177–203. DOI: 10.1556/acr.9.2008.2.2. https://doi.org/10.1556/acr.9.2008.2.2
  2. Becher, V. (2010). Abandoning the notion of “translation-inherent” explicitation: Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures 11(1), 1–28. DOI: 10.1556/ACR.11.2010.1.1. https://doi.org/10.1556/ACR.11.2010.1.1
  3. Krüger, R. (2014). From S-explicitation to T-explicitation? Tracing the development of the explicitation concept. Across Languages and Cultures 15(2), 153–175. DOI: 10.1556/ACR.15.2014.2.1. https://doi.org/10.1556/ACR.15.2014.2.1
  4. Kolehmainen, L. (2014). The translation of null subjects: a test case for the explicitation hypothesis? Across Languages and Cultures 15(1), 25–50. DOI: 10.1556/acr.15.2014.1.2. https://doi.org/10.1556/acr.15.2014.1.2
  5. Kruger, H. (2012). A corpus-based study of the mediation effect in translated and edited language. Target 24(2), 355–388. DOI: 10.1075/TARGET.24.2.07KRU. https://doi.org/10.1075/TARGET.24.2.07KRU
  6. Kruger, H. (2019). That Again: A Multivariate Analysis of the Factors Conditioning Syntactic Explicitness in Translated English. Across Languages and Cultures 20(1), 1–33. DOI: 10.1556/084.001. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.001
  7. Tang, F., & Li, D. (2016). Explicitation patterns in English-Chinese consecutive interpreting: Differences between professional and trainee interpreters. Perspectives 24(2), 235–255. DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2015.1040033. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1040033
  8. Gumul, E. (2020). Explicitation and cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 23(1), 45–75. DOI: 10.1075/intp.00051.gum. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00051.gum
  9. Wehrmeyer, E. (2020). Additions in simultaneous signed interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16(3), 434–454. DOI: 10.1075/tis.18053.weh. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18053.weh
  10. Jiménez-Crespo, M. Á., & Tercedor Sánchez, M. (2021). Explicitation and implicitation in translation. MonTi Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 13, 62–92. DOI: 10.6035/monti.2021.13.02. https://doi.org/10.6035/monti.2021.13.02
  11. Shen, L. (2023). Referential explicitation of English translated diplomatic discourse? A 50-year 56-lingual corpus-based study on United Nations general debate speeches (1970–2019). Across Languages and Cultures 24(1), 25–51. DOI: 10.1556/084.2023.00330. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2023.00330
  12. Rabadán, R., & Gutiérrez-Lanza, C. (2023). Interference, explicitation, implicitation and normalization in third code Spanish: Evidence from discourse markers. Across Languages and Cultures 24(1), 1–24. DOI: 10.1556/084.2022.00223. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2022.00223
  13. Molés-Cases, T. (2019). Why typology matters: a corpus-based study of explicitation and implicitation of Manner-of-motion in narrative texts. Perspectives 27(6), 890–907. DOI: 10.1080/0907676x.2019.1580754. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676x.2019.1580754
  14. Vahedi Kia, M., & Ouliaeinia, H. (2016). Explicitation across literary genres: Evidence of a strategic device? Translation & Interpreting 8(2). DOI: 10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a06. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a06
  15. Li, Y., & Dong, Y. (2021). Use of explicitation by interpreting students and its contribution to consecutive interpreting performance: A developmental perspective. Perspectives 30(1), 103–119. DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1892158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1892158
  16. Zhang, X. (2024). Corpus-Based Studies of Explicitation. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Translation Studies, 254–268. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003184454-18. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003184454-18
  17. Kranich, S., House, J., & Becher, V. (2012). Changing conventions in English-German translations of popular scientific texts. In K. Braunmüller & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 13), 315–334. John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hsm.13.21kra. https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.13.21kra