Content uploaded by Kåre Solfjeld
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kåre Solfjeld on Oct 31, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
SPRIKreports
Reports of the project Languages in Contrast (Språk i kontrast)
http://www.hf.uio.no/forskningsprosjekter/sprik
No. 33, November 2005
Discourse structure and information extraction to
the left and right in translations
(German-Norwegian)
Kåre Solfjeld
Høgskolen i Østfold
Avdeling for samfunnsfag og fremmedspårk
Os allé 5, N-1757 Halden
kaare.solfjeld@hiof.no
SPRIKreports
Discourse structure and information extraction to the left and right in translations
(German-Norwegian)
Kåre Solfjeld
Høgskolen i Østfold
Avdeling for samfunnsfag og fremmedspårk
Halden
(kaare.solfjeld@hiof.no)
1. Introduction
1.1. Main goal and data
The main topic of the present article is the maintenance of the discourse structure of the
original in translations of German non-fictional prose into Norwegian. As shown in
works by Fabricius-Hansen (1996, 1999), Solfjeld (2000, 2004), and Ramm (2005) the
typical information density in German non-fictional prose often triggers information
splitting, rendering monosentential source versions as multisentential or multiclausal
target versions, when translating into Norwegian. This sort of information splitting
obviously presents the translator with the challenge of preserving the over-all discourse
structure of the original. This article argues that certain choices of target structure form
can be explained by the principle of preserving the discourse structure of the original.
Observations and conclusions are based on data from 10 text pairs of German originals
and authorised Norwegian translations, each text consisting of approximately 5000
words.
1.2. Information extraction to the left and information extraction to the right
Fabricius-Hansen (1999: 196ff) distinguishes between information extraction to the left
and information extraction to the right. Information extraction to the left means that the
extracted information is rendered as a separate sentence or as a conjunct in a coordinative
structure to the left of the so-called principal counterpart (PC), i.e. the predicate
Solfjeld
1
corresponding most closely to the main predicate of the source sentence. (Cf. ’the state of
affairs transeme’ in van Leuven-Zwart 1989: 156):
(1a) Das Flugzeug wurde auf geradem Kurs gehalten ... Da die Abtrift des Flugzeuges (aber) kein optimales
Zielen zuließ, vollführte der Pilot ein S-Manöver, um die ursprüngliche Anlaufrichtung wieder zu
erreichen. (dt1, 235)
[The plane was kept on a steady course ... As the deviation of the plane allowed no optimal aiming, the
pilot completed an S-manoeuvre, to ...]
(1b) Flyet ble holdt på rett kurs .... Det var umulig å sikte på grunn av flyets avdrift. Piloten gjennomførte
en s-sving for å komme tilbake til den opprinnelige angrepsposisjonen (nt1, 119).
[It was impossible to aim because of the drifting of the plane. The pilot completed an S-curve to get
back to the original attack position]
Information extraction to the right means that the extracted information finds its place in
a separate sentence or a conjunct to the right of the PC.
(2a) Ich hörte ihre wie von weither kommende stockende Stimme (dt5, 62)
[I heard her (lit.: ) as if from far away coming stammering voice]
(2b) Jeg hørte den stotrende stemmen hennes, den kom liksom langt borte fra (nt5, 56)
[I heard her stamering voice, it came as if from far away]
The distinction between information extraction to the left and information extraction to
the right gives a fruitful basis for the present study.
1.3. Degrees of information splitting
As implicitly stated above, information splitting in this context covers information
splitting in a strict sense of the word, where one source sentence translates as two (or
more) separate sentences in the target text (Fabricius-Hansen 1999: 180); cf. (1) (above).
The term also covers information splitting in a looser sense, i.e. when the extracted
information is rendered as a conjunct in a coordinative VP- or clause structure (Fabricius-
Hansen 1999: 190); cf. (3):
(3a) Der abenteuerlustige Mann wollte seine neugewonnene Freiheit in vollen Zügen genießen. Aber er
halste sich im Leben zu viele Abenteuer auf – im Traum lud er sich zu viele Mädchen ins Auto. (dt8,
24)
[The adventurous man wanted to enjoy his new won freedom to the full]
Solfjeld
2
(3b) Mannen er eventyrlysten og vil nyte sin nyvunne frihet til bunns. Men han har jaget etter alfor mange
eventyr i livet – (nt8, 27).
[The man is adventurous and wants to enjoy his new won freedom to the full. But he has ...]
It can be argued that the use of punctuation marks like commas and dashes instead of full
stops allows further distiction between information splitting in a strict sense and
information splitting in a looser sense. Our data comprise many cases where commas and
dashes are used more or less parallel to full stops: cf. (2) (above). Some remarks will be
made on punctuation. However, individual habits of punctuation hardly allow too many
conclusions to be drawn from such distinctions.
1.4. Theoretical basis
Theoretically, this article is primarily based on von Stutterheim (1997). Observations and
conclusions also draw on the insights from works within the so-called relevance theory
(Blakemore 1987, Carston 2002), and works within the framework of the so-called
SDRT-theory (Asher 1993, Asher and Vieu 2005). Information structure, as captured in
concept dichotomies like ’given-new’, ’topic-comment’, ’theme-rheme’ and
’presupposed-asserted’, has largely been described on sentence level (for an overview of
such concepts, cf. e.g. Nølke 1995: 80). Generally it is claimed that constituents
anchoring utterances in the preceding context (the first elements in the above concept
pairs) tend to a front position in the sentence, whereas the new, the main informational
contributions tend to an end position in the sentence. (Cf. e.g. Lambrecht 1994: 199;
Baker 1992: 164; Dietrich 1994 and Fant 1995: 11-12). Criticising the monosentential
perspective of many traditional models (cf. von Stutterheim 1997: 33), von Stutterheim
tries to link the ’Textthema’ (the over-all thematic or topic structure of the text) and the
thematic structure of each indvidual utterance. Von Stutterheim (1997: 15ff) assumes that
every text is an answer to a so-called ’quaestio’ – a main question, normally implicit,
formulating the communicative task which the text seeks to solve. This ’quaestio’ serves
as the fundamental guide line for the way the text is built up with regard to content as
well as structure. This, in turn, makes it possible to view each sentence in relation to the
quaestio of the text: Direct answers to the quaestio are part of the ’main structure’ of the
text (Hauptstruktur), whereas utterances not answering the quaestio belong to the ’side
structure’ (Nebenstruktur) of the text. Main structure utterances contain so-called
focussed parts, containing the new contributions to answering the quaestio. A perspective
bridging the gap between the information structure on sentence and on text level seems
Solfjeld
3
fruitful for a study like the present comparing mono- and multisentential/multiclausal
versions of the same informational content.
1.5. From subordination to coordination
The restructuring of one single source sentence as more target sentences or conjuncts in
coordinative structures in the target version necessarily means that information given in a
subordinate form in the original, is rendered in a non subordinate form in the target text –
either as syntactically independent sentences or as conjuncts. Data used for the present
study show how adjunctions on both VP or NP-level are sources of information splitting
and extra sentences/conjuncts in the target text; see (1) for VP- and (2) and (3) for NP-
adjunction as sources of information splitting respectively. The syntactic signals given by
the subordination of the original, help guiding the reader as to what constituents of the
sentence contribute to answering the quaestio of the text (part). Typically, subordination
may signal that the information gives no direct contribution to answering the quaestio of
the text (von Stutterheim 1997: 169). Hence, an important means of guiding the reader is
lost in the translated version. The main topic of the present study is to show how the
transfer of the overall information structure of the original can explain why certain target
versions are preferred, compared to others. Although there is certainly much individual
variation between the different examples forming the basis of the study, most cases of
information splitting involve VP- or NP-adjoined structures, whose subordinate syntactic
status signals that these source structures – giving rise to separate sentences/conjuncts in
the target text – have a subordinate status also from an information structural perspective.
So the compensatory strategies on the part of the translators generally involve
maintaining the subordinate informational status in structures that have an equal status
syntactically: series of syntactically independent sentences or conjuncts in coordinative
structures. Interestingly, information extraction to the left and information extraction to
the right seem to induce somewhat different strategies.
2. Information extraction to the left
2.1 Source structures
Data show that there is a strong tendency that source structures triggering information
extraction to the left, are in a so called ’Vorfeld’-position (prefield position) – i.e. in the
position to the left of the finite verb – in the original. Of the 77 cases of information
extraction to the left, 67 (87%) are in the prefield. Data also suggest that the prefield
structures that trigger information extraction to the left, are informationally dense,
Solfjeld
4
consisting of an average of 7 words per non-clausal prefield – as compared to 3.2 words
per non-clausal prefield as an average for a corpus of (relatively comparable) Norwegian
newspaper texts (Fabricius-Hansen and Solfjeld 1994). The source structures widely
contain nominal phrases with heavy pre- and/or postmodifying elements, partly in the
form of participles and appositions of different kinds, i.e. source structures, for which
analogous translations are not easily found in Norwegian. What triggers information
extraction to the left (as well as information extraction to the right, as will be shown
later), is a more or less clear structural obstacle, not allowing a parallel structure in
Norwegian. For more details, see Solfjeld (2004: 115). Typically, participle forms in
various functions, block analogous translations, like e.g. the expanded postmodifying
attribute in the following source sentence:
(4a) Das Material, von den Kraakern aus der ganzen Stadt herbeigetragen, ist schon aufgeladen: ... (dt4,
114)
[The material, gathered by the kraakers from all over the town, has already been loaded.
(4b) Kraakerne har samlet inn materialet fra hele byen, og de har lempet det oppå allerede ... (nt4, 78)
[The kraakers have gathered the material from all over the town, and they have loaded it already]
The strong correlation between front position in the source structure and position to the
left of the PC in the target version suggests linear translation processes (cf. Hasselgård
2000: 36) – a finding also supported by the observation that information extraction to the
right generally finds its sources at the end of the corresponding source sentences.
2.1. Target structures
By information splitting to the left there is a relatively strong tendency to use
coordinative structures. In 30 out of the 77, i.e. in almost 40% of the sentence pairs in
which an information splitting to the left takes place, we find VP or clause coordination
in the target structures. Furthermore, in almost half of the remaining 47 sentence pairs –
where the translators have chosen sequences of independent sentences – conjoined
structures seem to give more or less equally acceptable alternatives. Thus, there is a
strong affinity between information extraction to the left and coordination.
Coordinative structures – at least in narrative texts – induce inferences with
regard to temporal or causal/enablement relations between the two conjuncts, to the effect
that what is referred to in the first conjunct, temporarily precedes and/or causes or makes
possible what is referred to in the second (Blakemore 1987: 116ff, cf. the concept of
consequentiality in Sandström 1993: 140ff and 156). Sequences of full stop sentences, on
Solfjeld
5
the other hand, are more open, allowing a wider range of discourse relations to hold
(Carston 2002: 246ff; cf. also Fabricius-Hansen e.a. 2005). Our data suggest that the
choice of coordination has discourse structural effects in the sense that coordination in
certain cases preserves an informational focus equivalent to that of the source sentence.
By choosing a conjoined structure the translators exploit the inference mechanisms
triggered by the structure (Blakemore 1987, Carston 2002: 242ff), ’reducing’ the first
conjunct to the discourse function of leading up to the second, i.e. entering into an (at
least weakly) causal or enablement relation with the second. This, in turn, establishes the
second conjunct as main focus, answer to the quaestio, equivalent to the source text,
securing that the content of the first conjunct – from a discourse structural perspective –
does not get a more prominent role than that of the syntactically subordinated phrase from
which it originated. Thus coordinated structures are chosen to block possible
interpretations arising from independent sentence alternatives – options that would not
preserve the focus of the source version and so might lead to reinterpretations with regard
to the quaestio of the text (part). To what extent independent sentences allow
interpretations that blur which information is to carry the main focus and serve as answer
to the quaestio (or whether so-called garden-path-effects arise), has to do with the
propositional content of the constituents. In (5) a causal sub clause has been split off as an
independent sentence in the authorised Norwegian target version; cf. (5a2) and (5b2). The
propositional content of the extracted sentence leaves, however, no doubt that the
extracted sentence does not answer the quaestio. It serves as an explanation for the event
conveyed in the PC (5b3). For this narrative text part the quaestio presupposes that a
chronologically ordered chain of successive event in the past is related (von Stutterheim
1997: 106), and the form chosen for the Norwegian target version does not cause any
interpretational problems. It is clear that (5b1) and (5b3) make up the main structure,
answering the quaestio and thus corresponding to (5a1) and the main predicate of (5a2) in
the original. In this case, the conjoined alternative (5c, rephrased by me) seems to present
a facultative version.
(5a) (a1)... und bald zeigte das Rampenlicht des neuen Tages uns gänzlich den Blicken des Feindes. (a2) Da
unter den gegebenen Umständen an einen Überwassermarsch in das Operationsgebiet nicht zu denken
war, gab der BdU allen Nicht-Schnorchlern Befehl, nur noch zum Laden hochzukommen. (dt1, 233)
[(a1) and soon the limelight of the new day showed us completely to the eyes of the enemy. (a2) As
under the given circumstances a surface march was impossible, the commander ordered all submarines
without .snort tube to get to the surface only to load]
Solfjeld
6
(5b) (b1) ... den nye dagen brakte oss midt inn i fiendens synsfelt. (b2) Under slike forhold var det ganske
umulig å nå invasjonsområdet under vann. (b3) Alle ubåter som ikke hadde snorkel, fikk ordre fra
staben om gå til overflaten for å lade, ellers ikke (nt1, 117)
[(b1)... the new day brought us into the sight of the enemy. (b2) Under such circumstances it was
impossible to reach the invasion area under water. (b3) All submarines which did not have a snort tube,
were ordered by the staff to get to the surface to load, otherwise not]
(5c) Under slike forhold var det ganske umulig å nå invasjonsområdet under vann, og alle ubåter som ikke
hadde snorkel, fikk ordre fra staben om gå til overflaten for å lade, ellers ikke.
[Under such circumstances it was impossible to reach the invasion area under water, and all submarines
which did not have a snort tube, were ordered by the staff to get to the surface to load, otherwise not]
Sentence pair (1) (above) presents a very similar case.
In (6), however, the coordinative structure seems to play an important part in
guiding the reader to an interpretation where the extracted information is downgraded to a
function of leading up to the information of the principal counterpart, thus preventing that
the extracted information is seen as an answer to the quaestio – an interpretation that
would not correspond to the original. This narrative text sequence describes baby care in
hospitals in the past. The original sentence giving rise to information splitting (6a2),
elaborates on the preceding sentence, which is part of the main structure. So (6a2) can
also be seen as part of the main structure. (It is not quite clear to me what status
elaborations of different types have in the quaestio model; von Stutterheim (1997: 226)
suggests, however, that elaborations can be seen as part of the main structure). In this
case coordination is important to secure that the translated version gives the same answer
to the same quaestio as the original; cf. (6b2). Full stop sentences (cf. the paraphrased
version 6c) would rather induce a list interpretation, i.e. suggest that each sentence
conveys separate measures, elaborating on the medical care given – especially if the
connection between sterility and infection is not quite clear to the reader. Thus, the
alternative of separate sentences might lead to an interpretation of what answer this text
sequence gives to the quaestio not licensed by the original. By choosing coordination the
translator preserves the downgraded informational status of the prepositional adjunct
which forms the source of the extracted sentence:
(6a) Für die Trennung des Kindes von der Mutter wurden medizinische und pädagogische Begründungen
angeführt und anhand einiger aus dem gesamten Zusammenhang des Wohlbefinden des Kindes
herausgerissenen statistischen Daten, wie etwa die Verringerung der Säuglingssterbequote, begläubigt
(a1) Eine perfekte medizinisch-technische Versorgung bekam die größte Bedeutung. (a2) Im Interesse
der Infektionsverhütung [...] wurde die Sterilität groß geschrieben.(dt9, 55)
Solfjeld
7
[(a1) A perfect medical care was of vital importance. (a2) In order to prevent infections sterility was
emphasized]
(6b) Det ble anført medisinske og pedagogiske grunner til at mor og barn skulle skilles ad, og dette ble
forklart ved henvisning til statistiske data angående spedbarnas velbefinnende, som var revet ut av sin
sammenheng, såsom nedgangen i spedbarnsdødligheten. (b1) En perfekt medisinsk-teknisk omsorg ble
av største betydning. (b2) Infeksjoner skulle unngås [...], og steriliteten ble skjøvet i forgrunnen (nt9,
63)
[(b1) A perfect medical care was of vital importance. (b2) Infections were to be prevented, and sterility
was emphasized]
(6c) En perfekt medisinsk-teknisk omsorg ble av største betydning. Infeksjoner skulle unngås. Steriliteten
ble skjøvet i forgrunnen
[A perfect medical care was of vital importance. Infections were to be prevented. Sterility was
emphasized]
Our data supply many similar cases, where the preferred conjoined versions in the
translations seem to reflect more effectively an answer to a quaestio corresponding to the
original. In sentence pair (7), taken from a narrative (not part of our main corpus), the
German version giving rise to sentence splitting, conveys an event of cursory reading,
with simultaneous turning of leaves and reading. Coordination licenses or induces a
causal/enablement relation between the conjuncts in the translation, and so the possible
reading as two separate events is blocked in the translation. In this way, at least certain
garden path effects are avoided; cf. the authorised version (7b) and my paraphrase (7c):
(7a) In der Bar bietet die hinterbliebene Leihbibliothek einen Wandschrank voller zerlesener Schwarten auf
englisch an, darunter Bücher von Subhas Chandra Bose. Beim Blättern lese ich seinen Triumph über die
militärischen Siege der Deutschen, 1940, kurz vor seiner Flucht nach Europa geschrieben. (dt11, 42)
[Paging through (the book), I read his triumphs due to the military victories of the Germans in 1940]
(7b) I baren finnes det etterlatte leiebiblioteket, som kan tilby et helt skap med istykkerleste gamle bøker på
engelsk, deriblant bøker om Subhas Chandra Bose. Jeg blar fort igjennom og leser hans triumf over
tyskernes militære seire, skrevet i 1940, kort før hans flukt til Europa. (nt11, 42)
[I page thorough the books quickly and read his triumph because of the military victories of the
Germans, written in 1940...]
(7c) Jeg blar fort gjennom (bøkene). Jeg leser hans triumf over tyskernes militære seire, skrevet i 1940.
[I page through (the books) quickly. I read his triumph due to the military victories of the Germans]
Similarly in (8): The NP-adjunct of the original – source of the extracted sentence in the
target version – serves as background (or possibly necessary preconditions) for the main
Solfjeld
8
predicate, which makes up part of the chain of events in the past that constitute the
answer to the quaestio of this narrative text. Again coordination induces a
causal/enablement relation, which blocks the possible reading that the extracted
information gives an independent answer to the quaestio, an interpretation that might
more easily result from sentences separated by full stop; cf. the authorised translation (8b)
and the paraphrased version (8c). Hence, coordination ’reduces’ the function of this
information to some sort of background, conveying that the second conjunct – the PC –
gives the answer to the quaestio, equivalent to the main predicate in the original.
(8a) Der Gegner, uns überhörend, faßte seine Beobachtungen präzise zusammen. (dt1, 232)
[The opponent, bugging us, gathered information carefully together]
(8b) Motstanderne våre avlyttet våre radiomeldinger og samlet omhyggelig sammen opplysninger (nt1, 116)
[Our opponents bugged our radio messages and gathered information carefully together]
(8c) Motstanderne våre avlyttet våre radiomeldinger. De samlet omhyggelig sammen opplysninger.
[Our opponents bugged our radio messages. They gathered information carefully together]
These findings seem to be in line with relevance theoretical approaches (Blakemore 1987,
Carston 2002), assuming that conjoined structures are processed for relevance as units,
whereas independent sentences are processed for relevance separately. As seen in the
above examples, the translator – by choosing coordination – blocks the possibilty that the
propositional content of the first conjunct relates to the context separately. In this way
readers are guided to interpretations which mirror the answer to the quaestio given in the
original. Dependent on the propositional content, this guiding seems more or less
necessary. Very often, as our data illustrate, the propositional content allows no
alternative interpretation with regard to the function of the extracted information as part
of the side structure (Nebenstruktur). It is clear that the extracted information is no
answer to the quaestio of the text (part), and so the choice of coordination vs. sentences
separated by full stop seems to be more or less facultative. In other cases the choice of an
independent sentence allows interpretations, where the answer to the quaestio deviates
from that of the original, and so coordination seems obligatory, if the discourse structure
is to be preserved. Often differerences are rather subtle. In sentence pair (3) (above) the
translator by choosing coordination seems to prevent the garden path effect that the reader
might think the text part summarises different qualities of the person in question.
Coordination leads more directly to an interpretation mirroring the syntactic
Solfjeld
9
subordination of the original source structure. The proposition of the first conjunct serves
as an explanation or cause for the wish to enjoy the newly won liberty.
It should, however, be added that not all information that is extracted to the left
allows coordination as a possible option. In many cases the establishment of a
causal/enablement relation is a necessary constraint. The lack of such a relation between
the extracted information (in italics) and the PC explains e.g. why the coordination seems
somewhat odd in the Norwegian version of the sentence pair 9:
(9a) Helmut, ein knapp dreißigjähriger Deutscher, der aussieht, als sei er bald fünfzig, erinnert sich: ”...
(dt10 91)
[Helmut, an almost thirty-year-old German, who looks as if he is soon fifty, looks back]
(9b) Helmut er tysker og knapt 30 år. Han ser ut som om han snart blir 50 og tenker tilbake: (nt10, 79)
[Halmut is a German and almost 30 years old. He looks as if he is soon fifty and looks back]
Translations like (9b) do, however, raise the question what alternatives the translator is
left with. The more restricted use of syntactic subordination in Norwegian may e.g. lead
to a somewhat liberal use of coordination, allowing discourse relations to hold between
conjuncts, which would not be accepted in English or German; for a discussion of this,
see Fabricius-Hansen e.a. (2005).
Described in an SDRT-framework the contrast between the discourse relations
discussed for (6), (7) and (8) would (if I understand it correctly) be that a more narrowly
defined discourse relation (cause, enablement, background) inferred to hold between the
conjuncts of the conjoined structure – by full stop alternatives – mistakenly could be
interpreted as a more symmetric or prototypical coordinating kind of Continuation or
Narration connection; cf. Asher and Vieu (2005: 595).
3. Information extraction to the right
3.1 Source structures
In our data information extraction to the right occurs somewhat more frequently than
information extraction to the left. There are roughly twice as many cases of information
extraction to the right, a total of 152. It should, however, be taken into account that
information extraction to the right presents a very heterogeneous picture. The information
extraction may e.g. exclusively amount to expanding some elliptic structure, separated by
a comma in the original, to a complete sentence, also separated by comma, just by adding
a verb in the translation – a translation process which can hardly be seen as information
splitting in a very strict sense; for examples of this, see e.g. Solfjeld (2000). Most cases,
Solfjeld
10
however, represent information extraction in a more proper sense. The sources of the
information splitting are NP- or VP-adjuncts in the originals, which are rendered as
sentences separated by full stops or coordinative clauses in the target versions. 131 cases
of information extraction to the right (86.75%) find their sources in structures to the right
of a finite full verb predicate or to the right of an non-finite full verb in the case of a
complex verbal forms the source sentence. It must be added that by finite full verbs more
refined criteria might have allowed a distinction between information extraction from
extraposed source structures and information extraction from source structures in the so-
called ’middle field’. Still, this very rough division shows that information extraction to
the right parallels information extraction to the left, in the sense that it is most frequently
triggered by structures that are in an end position or at least relatively far to the right in
the original sentence (complex). This confirms the picture that linear translation processes
are frequent; the relative position of the information in the translation is kept constant
compared with the original. It should, however, be added that very often the original
sentences are complex sentences, and that the sources of the extracted information are sub
clause constituents to the right of the predicate of the highest ranked matrix clause, but at
the same time posited to the left of the predicate of the sub clause. In a majority of the
cases the source of the information extraction is a complete sub clause; cf. 10 (below).
Furthermore, information extraction to the right often seems to be triggered by
some sort of structural obstacle, in the sense that an analogous translation would result in
a somewhat unfelicitous target version structure. Our data show that this structural hurdle
can be of different kinds. A recurrent pattern is that a reordering of constituents on VP- or
NP-level presents the translator with the challenge of establishing clear references for
Norwegian relative pronouns showing no congruent features with its antecedent. Cf. the
following typical example:
(10a) Auf der 4. Tagung der Politischen Konsultativkonferenz im Februar 1953 wählten ihn die Delegierten
zu einem der stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden und somit zu einem direkten Mitarbeiter Mao Zedongs, der
dem Volksfrontorgan vorsaß. (dt3 143)
[... the delegates elected him as vice chairman and hence one of the direct associates of Mao Zedong,
who chaired the people´s front assembly]
(10b) På 4. kongress til den politiske rådgivningkonferansen valgte de delegerte ham til en av de
stedfortredende formenn, og dermed en av Mao Zedongs direkte medarbeidere. Mao førte forsetet i
denne folkefrontorganisasjonen, (nt3, 131)
[... the delegates elected him as the vice chairman and hence one of Mao Zedong´s direct associates.
Mao Zedong chaired the people´s front assembly]
Solfjeld
11
(10c) ... valgte de delegerte ham til en av de stedfortredende formenn, og dermed en av Mao Zedongs direkte
medarbeidere, som førte forsetet i denne folkefrontorganisasjonen
[... the delegates elected him as one of Mao Zedong´s direct associates, who chaired the people´s front
assembly]
A relative clause in the Norwegian text, as in (my paraphrased verion) 10c, would –
incorrectly – make medarbeiderne’associates’ the antecedent for the relative pronoun,
which – in turn – triggers the information splitting. Source structures like expanded
premodifying participles; see (2) (above) or genetive forms of the relative pronoun, which
are difficult to copy in Norwegian, are further recurrent structural challenges, which
easily result in sentence splitting. Cf. e.g. (11).
(11a) In diesem Frühjahr ergoß sich ein Strom von Fremden in das verwandelte Land, von dessen
dramatischen Veränderungen man so viel gehört, dessen gewalttätige Energie man von jeher
gefürchtet, aber auch bewundert hatte. Mein Freund, Geoffrey, Korrespondent einer Londoner Zeitung,
kam nach Berlin (dt5, 75)
[This spring there was a stream of refugees into the this transformed country, about whose dramatic
changes one had heard so much, whose powerful energy one feared ...]
(11b) Denne våren kom en strøm av flyktninger til det forvandlede landet; man hadde hørt så meget om de
dramatiske forandringene, om den kolossale energi man nok fryktet, men også beundret. (nt5, 67)
[This spring there was a stream of refugees into this transformed country; one had heard so much about
its dramatic changes, about the powerful energy one certainly feared, but also admired ...]
3.2 Target structures
By information extraction to the right the translators in most cases do not add lexical
markers, for which there are no counterparts in the original, to signal what function the
extracted information has in the target version – i.e. whether it belongs to the main
structure, answering the quaestio of the text part, or whether it is part of the side structure,
not answering the quaestio. The propositional content seems to give the readers clear
enough clues as to discourse structural interpretation. Very often syntactically dependent,
but semantically rather independent clauses, like e.g. non-restrictive relative clauses, are
split off in the translation process. Such clauses seem to give independent contributions to
the main structure of the text; cf. Laux (2002) and Ramm (2005). Event predicates e.g.
clearly signal that the extracted sentence gives an answer to the quaestio, and the
syntactic separation in the translation does not seem to make much of a difference from a
discourse structural perspective. In the narration in (12) the extracted sentence as well as
the source clause are easily interpreted as part of the main structure. It is perhaps more
Solfjeld
12
open whether the matrix clause in (12a) or the first sentence (PC) in (12 b) should be seen
as part of the main structure or rather as some kind of background:
(12a) Im Sommer oder im Herbst 1933 saß ich in einem Berliner Café und betrachtete eine Gruppe junger
eleganter Leute am Nebentisch, die abwechselnd in eine illustrierte Zeitung blickten und sie lachend
und gehässig kommentierten. Ich hatte gleichfalls ”Berliner Illustrierte” vor mir; die neueste Nummer
des Millionenblattes brachte auf mehreren Seiten eine Reportage ... ”Wir gehen mir dem Gesindel ja
viel zu anständig um”. sagte jemand am Nebentisch (dt5, 62)
[In summer or autumn 1933 I sat in a Berlin Café and watched a group of young elegant people at the
neighbouring table, who alternatively looked in a magazine and commented it laughing and hatefully. I
had also Berliner Illustrierte in front of me. The latest issue of the million magazine had a report on
several pages ... ”We are far too decent ....”]
(12b) Sommeren eller høsten 1933 satt jeg på en kafé i Berlin og så på en gruppe elegante unge mennesker
ved sidebordet; avvekslende kikket de i en illustrert avis og kommenterte den leende og hatefullt. Jeg
hadde også ”Berliner Illustrierte” foran meg; siste nummer av millionavisen hadde på flere sider en
reportasje ... ”Vi behandler dette pakket alt for pyntelig”, sa en ved sidebordet... (nt5, 56)
[In summer or autumn 1933 I sat in a Berlin Café and watched a group of young elegant people at the
neighbouring table; alternatively they looked in a magazine and commented it laughing and hatefully. I,
too, had Berliner Illustrierte in front of me. The latest issue of the million magazine had a report on
several pages ... ”We are far too decent ....”
Conversely, equally clear signals that the extracted information is not part of a chain of
temporarily successive events, may secure an interpretation as part of the side structure of
a narrative text. Our data show that temporal markers like the perfect tense in (13) often
make the discourse function as part of the side structure clear in the target text, where
there is no syntactic subordination supporting this interpretation as there is in the original;
cf. the following sentence pair as well as (11) (above).
(13a) Als ich mit Nedim später darüber rede, bringt er mir ein Papier eines türkischen Arbeitskollegen aus
Lünen mit, der es aus dem ”Haus der Jugend”, einer kommunalen Einrichtung, mitgenommen hat. In
den ”Verhaltensrichtlinien für ausländische Besucher” steht, dass ...” (dt10, 92)
[... he brings me a paper belonging to a Turkish colleague from Lünen, who has brought it with him
from the ”House of the Youth” – a municipal institution. In the guiding lines for foreign visitors it says
that ...)
(13b) På et senere tidspunkt snakker jeg med Nedim om dette. Han har med seg er skriv fra en tyrkisk
arbeider fra Lünen. Han har fått det fra ”Ungdommens hus”, som er et kommunalt tiltak. . I ”Regler
for utenlandske besøkende står det at ...” (nt10, 80)
Solfjeld
13
[... he brings me a paper belonging to a Turkish colleague from Lünen. He has brought it with him from
the ”House of the Youth” – a municipal institution. In the guiding lines for foreign visitors it says that
....]
Failure to recognise such discourse structural effects may open for interpretations not
really compatible with the original, as in (14), where the event of the extracted sentence,
translating past perfect as simple past, may be interpreted as temporarily succeeding the
event of the preceding sentence.
(14a) Die Bevölkerung, zwischen Furcht und Hoffnung schwankend, vermied jeden Schein des
Einverständnisses mit den Deutschen. Jeder hörte auf die Resistance, die allen Kollarobateuren blutige
Rache geschworen hatte. Und wie man weiß, wurden nach unserem Rückzug alte Rechnungen
beglichen ... (dt1, 226)
[The population avoided every impression of being on good terms with the Germans. Everyone obeyed
the Resistance, who had sworn all collaborators violent revenge]
(14b) Befolkningen som levde mellom frykt og håp, unngikk handlinger som kunne gi inntrykk av at de sto
på god fot med tyskerne. Alle og enhver adlød ordrene fra motstandsbevegelsen. Kollaboratørene ble
sverget en blodig hevn. Og som vi vet, kom det til mange blodige oppgjør. (nt1, 108)
[The population avoided every impression of being on good terms with the Germans. Everyone obeyed
the Resistance. Collaborators were sworn a violent revenge]
In our data syntactically dependent, but semantically or discourse functionally rather
independent clauses in end position of sentence complexes, primarlily non-restrictive
relative clauses, but also clauses with the connectives wobei, während and da, make up an
important part of the sentence splittings to the right. It can be expected that cases where
the VP- or NP-adjoined source structure giving rise to sentence extractions to the right, is
stronger integrated syntactically, may be more challenging to the translators. The source
structure is e.g. in some way linked with the main predicate or other constituents of the
original, adding information to the main structure. Consider the sentence pairs (15) and
also (2) above. In (15) Zeit’time’ seems to answer the quaestio in this descriptive text,
but Zeit needs the information filled in by the relative clause to make up a full answer to
the quaestio. Whether elaborations of main structures are seen as part of the main
structure or not (cf. von Stutterheim 1997: 226 and also the discussion in Asher and Vieu
2005: 596), the crucial point is that the elaboration is conveyed equally clear in the
translation as in the original.
(15a) Eine weitere unbedingte Dimension des Ganzen ist die der Zeit, in der alle Entwicklungsprozesse in
einer hierarchischen Stufenordnung nach und nach reifen. (dt9, 60)
Solfjeld
14
[A further undisputed dimension of the totality is time, in which all developing processes mature slowly
in a hierachical order]
(15b) Tiden danner en annen og helt selvstendig dimensjon av helheten; her viser utviklingsprosessene seg
og lar de forskjellige stadier modnes litt etter litt, i en hierarkisk trappetrinnordning. (nt9, 69)
[Time is a further undisputed dimension of the totality. All developing processes mature slowly in a
hierachical order]
In (15 ) and (2), as in many sentence pairs of this kind in our data, the propositional
content of the extracted sentence along with anaphoric links suffice to convey the
elaboration, thus preventing an interpretation of the quaestio, deviating from that of the
original. Frequently, elaborations of another kind, specifications of time, place and
manner (in a wide sense) are extracted in separate sentences to the right of the PC. A
strategy often used is to establish anaporic links to event of the preceding sentence,
containig the PC, often by repeating the main verb; cf. Solfjeld (2000).
As by information splitting to the left translators add lexical signals in those cases
where the extracted sentence – without the added lexical marker – might lead to
interpretations where an answer to a quaestio, not equivalent to that of the original, may
be inferred, or where at least certain garden path effects may occur. Typically, adding
lexical signals secures an interpretation by which some extracted sentence – which has a
discourse functional role, traditionally considered as subordinate, like e.g. elaboration, or
explanation (Asher and Vieu 2005: 596) – retains this interpretation, thus avoiding that it
is mistakenly seen as having a more coordinating discourse function, adding a new
constituent to the main structure, which in turn might lead to the inference of a quaestio,
not matching the original. (Cf. the observations in von Stutterheim 1997: 256 about the
deviation from the quaestio as ’marked’ cases, often requiring explicit linguistic signals).
Although, as shown above, most cases of information extraction to the right work well
without these overt signals added, our material clearly suggests that translators are
sensitive to where they should be supplied. In (16) the addition of altså signals that the
proposition it modifies, is an event elaboration – a restatement. This is a useful guide for
the reader, who in this complex context may well think that this sentence refers to a new
event: Altså (paraphrased roughly as ’in this way’ in the English gloss) guides the reader
to unify the referents for bestjal’stole from’ and tok’took’. After the reorganising of the
information in the Norwegian target text it is not quite obvious that these verb forms refer
to the same event.
Solfjeld
15
(16a) Das Basisrelief präsentiert Szenen aus dem Leben von Arjuna, dem Helden des Mahabharata; dort wird
überliefert. dass dieser Arjuna den ”himmlischen Wagen” von Indra – dem altindischen Heldengott mit
menschlichen Zügen, der gegen die Dämonen seine Geheimwaffe Wadscha, die tödliche Keule
schleuderte, als ”König der Götter” verehrt – nahm und damit ins Weltall fuhr. (dt2, 180)
[The base relief presents pictures from the life of Arjuna, the hero of the Mahabharata; here it is told
that this Arjuna took the ”celestial cart” from Indra – the old Indian hero god with human traits, who
flung his secret weapon, the deadly wedge wadscha at the demons, and honoured as the ”king of gods”
– and drove into space.]
(16b) Relieffene viser scener fra Arjunas liv, karrieren til helten i Mahabharata. Her blir det fortalt at denne
Arjuna tok Indras ”himmelvogn” og for ut i verdensrommet; han bestjal altså den gammelindiske
helteguden, som ble æret som ”gudenes konge” og som kastet sitt hemmelige våpen, tordenkilen vajra
mot demonene. (nt2, 180)
[The reliefs present pictures from the life of Arjuna, the career of the hero of the Mahabharata. Here it
is told that this Arjuna took the ”celestial cart” from Indra and drove into space; he stole in this way
from the old Indian hero god, who was honoured as the ”king of gods” and who flung his secret
weapon, the thunder wedge vajra at the demons.]
In (17) nemlig (in the English version paraphrased as ’as I understood’) signals
explanation, preventing an interpretation by which the extracted sentence – without
nemlig – might seem to presuppose a quaestio, making the person´s knowledge a matter
om interest in its own right, which the syntactically subordinate source structure of the
original does not convey.
(17a) ...er ... zeigte sich ohne Vorurteile: Er war daran interessiert, mehr über meine Theorien zu erfahren,
wie ich in ihm begierig den Mann erkannte, der kompetent war, meine in der – oft widersprüchlichen –
Literatur erworbenen Kenntnisse aus seinem profunden Wissen abzuklären. (dt2, 179)
[... as I in him eagerly recognised the man, who out of his profound knowledge was competent to clarify
my knowledge, acquired from often contradictory literature.]
(17b) Han ... var helt uten fordommer. Han var interessert i å få vite mer om mine teorier, og jeg på min side
oppfattet ham som en mann som var i stand til å avklare mine egne kunnskaper, som jeg har fra en ofte
motsetningsfylt litteratur. Hans viten var nemlig meget velfundert (nt2, 179)
[I for my part recognised in him the man, who was competent to clarify my knowledge, acquired from
often contradictory literature. His knowledge was – as I understood – very well founded]
4. Summary and outlook
We may now take stock and discuss briefly some of the points made in this article.
– In translations of German non-fictional prose into Norwegian both information
extraction to the left and information extraction to the right generally seem to work well
in the sense that the translation answers the same quaestio as the original, even when the
Solfjeld
16
translators add no overt signals of discourse function. Propositional content of the
relevant clause/sentence sequences seems to give sufficient orientation points to
reestablish a quaestio corresponding to the original (cf. Fabricius-Hansen 1999).
– Preserving the answer to the quaestio is still an important principle in the translation
process, as discouse function signals are added in exactly those cases where the
propositional content of the extracted sentence – in interplay with the adjacent sentences
– open for interpretations where an answer to the quaestio deviating from the original,
might arise. These findings seem to give support to the claim made by relevance
theoreticians (Sperber and Wilson 1986, Blakemore 1987) that the cost of processing
some lingustic item must be rewarded by a cognitive effect. The discourse guiding signals
are introduced in those cases when there are corresponding cognitive effects, worth the
cost of processing them.
– Information extraction is generally triggered by some structural feature in the source
sentence which can not be transferred analogously into the target text. Obviously, there is
much individual variation, where translators e.g may have very different toleration for
informational density in Norwegian; cf. Solfjeld (2000).
– Information extraction to the left generally finds its source structure posited to the left
of the main predicate of the original, and correspondingly, information extraction to the
right finds its source structures to the right of the main predicate of the original. This
suggests a rather linear translation process, where the relative position of information
items of the original is kept intact in the multisentential/multiclausal target version. It can
be assumed that this mapping of information items onto the target text in the same order
as in the original facilitates the integration of the multisentential/mulitclausal target
version parallel to the source text with regard to anaphoric links etc. The cases where
there is no such linear mapping – where the position of the extracted sentence relative to
the PC is another than the source structure relative to the main predicate – might be a
particular interesting object of further study; cf. the following sentence pair:
(18a) Sie fühlen sich wohl in ihrem Element (dt2, 175)
[They feel well in their element]
(18b) De er i sitt element og føler seg vel ved det (nt2, 175)
[They are in their element and feel well by that]
– Information extraction of the kind described here, involves rerendering in
sentential/coordinative form a subordinate syntactic structure, signalling that it contains
Solfjeld
17
information that is no main part of the answer to the quaestio. The sentence form of the
translation carries no corresponding information as to the discourse subordination of the
extracted information, which needs being conveyed to prevent incorrect or haltering
transfers of the answer to the quaestio, conveyed in the original. This means that lexical
items in the translation to some extent take over the information of syntactic structures of
the original. For a thorough discussion of discourse subordination/coordination from a
contrastive point of view, see Ramm and Fabricius-Hansen (2005).
– A particular interesting strategy of compensating for the loss of information given in
syntactic structures, is the frequent use of conjoined VPs or clauses for syntactic
subordinate original structures extracted to the left. As Norwegian non-fiction generally
tends to a more paratactic forms than German, this seems to be a systematic way of
compensating for the more sparse repertoir of means of syntactic subordination in
Norwegian, as conjunction has the effect of downgrading the first conjunct to some sort
of background function; see also Fabricius-Hansen e.a. (2005). Comparisons with non-
translated Norwegian texts would be an interesting subject for further research.
– Very frequently the information of source structures posited to the left in the original
sentence, are rendered as VP- or clause conjuncts in the target structure, or at least
coordination is a possible option. As conjunction licenses inferences of temporal
sequencing or consequence relations at least in narrative text passages, this, in turn,
means that the initial constituents of the originals widely must have some of this
consequential (causal/enablement) function. Traditional claims that sentence opening are
the preferred sites for elements linking the sentence information to the preceding context
and reactivating necessary background information, seem to gain some support from
these recurring translation patterns. Although the information may not necessarily be
introduced earlier in the text, the position of it in the original seems to signal a
background role in the sentence. Obviously, further research into what syntactic
structures in the originals correspond to what possible rephrasings in the translations
might shed additional light on the function of the NP- and VP-adjunctions of the
originals. Furthermore, future research should look into possible different constraints for
VP- or clause conjunctions in translations, which are here treated non-differentiatedly. As
our data show, extraction to the right often involves some kind of elaboration or
specification, which can not be conjoined with the preceding sentence containing the PC
(Carston 2002: 246, Fabricius-Hansen 1999). Explanations, extracted to the right, can e.g.
not be part of a conjoined structures, as would have been the case if they had been
extracted to the left. This may explain why for certain information items coordination – or
Solfjeld
18
generally transfers to the left (cf. below) – may be preferred. If e.g. the information in 3
had been extracted to the right, it would not have conveyed the relation of explanation or
background as efficiently as in the authorized version 3b; cf. the paraphrase in 3c:
(3a) Der abenteuerlustige Mann wollte seine neugewonnene Freiheit in vollen Zügen genießen. Aber er
halste sich im Leben zu viele Abenteuer auf – im Traum lud er sich zu viele Mädchen ins Auto. (dt8,
24)
[The adventurous man wanted to enjoy his new won freedom to the full]
(3b) Mannen er eventyrlysten og vil nyte sin nyvunne frihet til bunns. Men han har jaget etter altfor mange
eventyr i livet – (nt8, 27).
[The man is adventurous and wants to enjoy his new won freedom to the full. But he has chased too
many adventures in life]
(3c) Mannen vil nyte sin nyvunne frihet til bunns. Han er eventyrlysten. Men han har jaget etter alfor mange
eventyr i livet –
[The man wants to enjoy his new won freedom to the full. He is adventurous. But he has chased too
many adventures in life]
Correspondences between sentences split out to the right and its corresponding source
structures are – of course – an equally interesting object for further research as is the
information extraction to the left.
– Many sentences or conjuncts extracted to the left contain so-called state predicates,
giving information about the participating persons, objects or situations; cf. 3 (above) and
so explaining or making plausible the events described. In this way they enter into a
consequential (causal/enablement) relation with the following sentence (PC), as is
reflected by the fact that they often are or can be rephrased as the first conjunct of a
conjoined structure. Sandström (1993) claims that events in narratives are linked by
’consequentiality’ in so-called ’episodic structures’ (Sandström 1993: 156). Only event
predicates forming ’episodic structures’ can be conjoined. The role of state predicates in
conjoined structures is less discussed (cf., however, the example in Blakemore 1987: 113f
and 117 and Carston 2002: 223f). Our data support the view that state predicates also
often require some causal/enablement relation for being conjoined, which certainly in
many respects parallels the consequentiality relation claimed to hold between events.
Sandström (1993: 160ff) claims that state predicates in narratives are evaluated for their
relevance in relation to events – and typically in relation to subsequent events (Sandström
1993: 168). This seems to fit in with the observation that state predicates extracted to the
left are in some way more self-explanatory than the same predicates extracted to the right.
Solfjeld
19
Readers automatically tend to interpret them as being relevant for – leading up to – what
comes next; cf. (3) (above) and the following example, without coordination.
(19a) Der Traum zeigt deutlich, in welcher Zwangslage sie sich befindet. Ohne ihre befriedigenden
Berufserlebnisse fühlt sich die von Natur aus dynamische, ehrgeizige Frau einsam und isoliert. (dt8,
19)
[The dream clearly shows what a dilemma she is in. Without her satisfying professional experiences the
by nature dynamic, ambitious woman feels lonely and isolated ]
(19b) Drømmen viser tydelig hvilken tvangssituasjon hun befinner seg i. Av natur er hun en dynamisk,
ærgjerring kvinne. Uten tilfredsstillende yrkesopplevelse føler hun seg ensom og isolert. (nt8, 22)
[The dream clearly shows what a dilemma she is in. By nature she is a dynamic, ambitious woman.
Without her satisfying professional experiences she feels lonely and isolated]
Correlation between the information structures of single original sentences and the
information structure of translated multi-sentence/multi-clause passages in narratives with
their interplay between sequences of state and event predicates (and other predicate types)
is certainly an interesting subject for further study.
– The claim that coordinations license consequential interpretations seem to hold for most
of the sentence pairs discussed here, primarily excerpted from narrative texts. It should be
noted that such relations cannot be inferred form all conjoined structures. The point is
according to Blakemore (1987: 120) that in a coordinative structure the conjuncts are
interpreted against the same set of contextual assumptions, thus giving e.g. a single
answer to a single explicit or implicit question. Blakemore and Carston (2005) claim that
the conjuncts in coordinative strucures function together as premises in the derivation of a
single cognitive effect. Much of the argumentation of the present paper hinges on the fact
that by consequence (causal/enablement) readings of conjoined structures the first
conjunct serves as background information for the second. Obviously, more theoretical
perspectives and more text types would allow more perspectives to be taken into account.
Whether coordination is a possible structural choice or not, is obviously a very context
sensitive matter. In 20 the lack of a consequence relation between the conjuncts seems to
justify the full stop version preferred by the translator: cf. 20b.
(20a) ”Auf meinem heißen Eisen war ich einfach der Größte”, erzählt ein vierundvierzigjähriger
Versicherungskaufmann über einen Traum, in dem er sich auf einem Motorrad fahren sah. Dem gut
aussehenden, dunkelhaarigen Wilfred L. war dabei durchaus bewusst, dass das Motorrad gar nicht sein
Eigentum war. (dt8, 23)
Solfjeld
20
[... tells a 44-year old insurance agent about a dream where he saw himself drive a motorbike. The good
looking dark-haired Wilfred L. realised that the motor cycle did not belong to him.]
(20b) ”Jeg var den største i verden der jeg satt på en rask mc”, sa en 44 år gammel forsikringsagent, som
fortalte om en drøm der han så seg selv kjøre motorsykkel. Willy L hadde godt utseende og mørkt hår.
Han var fullstendig klar over at motorsykkelen slett ikke var hans eiendom. (nt8, 25).
[... said a 44-year old insurance agent who told about a dream where he saw himself drive a motorbike.
Willy L was good looking with dark hair. He was perfectly aware of the fact that the motorbike did not
belong to him]
(20c) ... sa en 44 år gammel forsikringsagent, som fortalte om en drøm der han så seg selv kjøre motorsykkel.
Willy L hadde godt utseende og mørkt hår, og (han) var fullstendig klar over at motorsykkelen slett
ikke var hans eiendom.
[...said a 44-year old insurance agent who told about a dream where he saw himself drive a motorbike.
Willy L was good looking with dark hair, and (he) was perfectly aware of the fact that the motorbike
did not belong to him]
The felicity of a coordinative structure in this case seems, however, not exclusively to
depend on the fact that it is hard to infer a causal/enablement relation. If a looser
connection can be established from the context, the alternative of coordination seems
more acceptable; cf. (20c). Here the conjuncts can be seen as giving parallel information
to the implicit question of what the dream, referred to in the preceding sentence, is about.
The claim that coordination in Norwegian is less restricted than English or German as to
what discourse relations may hold between the conjuncts, is another relevant aspect in
this discussion; cf. Ramm and Fabricius-Hansen (2005) and Fabricius-Hansen e.a. (2005).
– Finally, many of the sentence pairs in our data suggest that punctuation – e.g. the choice
of commas/dashes vs. full stops – has discourse functional effects. Our data have not been
studied systematically with regard to this, but the choice of dashes in the Norwegian
translations of the following sentences (as well as the choice of comma in (2) above)
seems to underline the extracted sentences as being close to the preceding sentences from
a discourse perspective – conveying that they explain or elaborate and do not give a new
contribution to answering the quaestio. Here comparisons with original Norwegian texts
would be necessary.
(21a) Außerdem spielte er, als ein Schüler Wilhelm Kempffs, glänzend Klavier (dt5, 87)
[Furthermore he played, as a student of Wilhelm Kempff, the piano excellently]
(21b) Forøvrig spilte han utmerket klavér – han var elev av Wilhelm Kempff (nt5, 77)
[Furthermore he played the piano excellently – he was a student of Wilhelm Kempff]
Solfjeld
21
(22a) Ich drücke den frischen Sandelholzkranz, den ich am gleichen Morgen geschenkt bekommen habe,
unter meine Nase (dt2, 180).
[I press the fresh sandeltree decoration, which I have received the same morning as a substitute for the
old one, under my nose.]
(22b) Jeg presset den nye sandeltrekransen opp til nesen – jeg hadde fått en erstatning for den gamle samme
morgen. (nt2, 180).
[I pressed the fresh sandeltree decoration to my nose – I had received it the same morning as a
substitute for the old one]
Acknowledgments
The research on which this article is based, has been carried out within the framework of the SPRIK-project,
University of Oslo. I would like to thank Cathrine Fabricius Hansen, Bergljot Behrens and Wiebke Ramm,
Oslo, for cooperation and very useful discussions. I would also like to thank Eva Lambertsson Björk, Halden,
for correcting and improving my English.
References
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht–Boston–London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Asher, Nicholas und Laure Vieu. 2005. ”Subordinating und coordinating discourse relations”.
Lingua 115:4, 591–610.
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words. A coursebook on translation. London–New York: Routledge.
Behrens, Bergljot 1999. ”A dynamic semantic approach to translation assessment. ING-participial
adjuncts and their translation into Norwegian”. Monika Doherty ed. Studia grammatica 47
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 90–111.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane and Robyn Carston. 2005. ”The pragmatics of sentential coordination with
and”. Lingua 115, 569–589.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Dietrich, Rainer. 1994. ”Wettbewerb – aber wie? Skizze einer Theorie der freien Wortstellung”
Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik,
Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, 33–47.
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1996. ”Informational density: a problem for translation and translation
theory”. Monika Doherty (ed.) Linguistics, an interdisciplinary journal of the language
sciences 34. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 521–565.
Solfjeld
22
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1999. ”Information packaging and translation: Aspects of
translational sentence splitting (German – English/Norwegian)”. Monika Doherty (ed.)
Studia grammatica 47. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 175–213.
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 2004. ”Elusive connectives. A case study of the explicitness
dimension of discourse coherence”. Lingustics 43:1, 17–48.
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine and Kåre Solfjeld. 1994. Deutsche und norwegische Sachprosa im
Vergleich. Ein Arbeitsbericht.. Oslo: University of Oslo
(http://www.hf.uio.no/forskningsprosjekter/sprik/english.index.html).
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Wiebke Ramm, Kåre Solfjeld and Bergljot Behrens. 2005.
”Coordination, discourse relations, and information packaging – cross-linguistc differences.
SPRIK-reports 31. Oslo: University of Oslo
(http://www.hf.uio.no/forskningsprosjekter/sprik/english.index..html).
Fant, Lars M. 1995. ”Information structure revisited. Old and new applications of dialogic
language theory”. Michael Herslund (ed.) Information Structure (= Copenhagener Studies in
Language 18). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, 11–40.
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2000. ”English Multiple Themes in Translation”. Alex Klinge (ed.) Contrastive
Studies in Syntax (= Contrastive Studies in Language 25. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur,
11–38.
Klein, Wolfgang and Christiane von Stutterheim. 1992. ”Textstruktur und referentielle Bewegung.
Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. 22:86, 67–92.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: University Press.
Laux, Britt Dalen 2002. Die nicht-restriktive Relativsatzkonstruktion im Deutschen:
Diskursfunktion und temporale Funktion. Trondheim: NTNU, Det historisk-filosofiske
fakultet, Germanistisk institutt.
van Leuven-Zwart, Kitty. 1989. ”Translation and Original. Similarities and Dissimilarities” Target
1:2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 151–181.
Nølke, Henning. 1995. ”Utterance Focus. Elements of a Modular Theory”. Michael Herslund (ed.).
Information Structure (=Copenhagener Studies in Language 18). København/Frederiksberg:
Samfundslitteratur, 75–114.
W. Ramm 2005. Satzrelativsätze im Deutschen und ihre Übersetzung ins Norwegische - zum Zusammenhang
zwischen Satzteilung und Diskursfunktion. In: Estudios Filológicos Alemanes. (2005) 9. Universidad de
Sevilla: Revista del Grupo de Investigación de Filología Alemana. 259-277. (Auch als
SPRIKreport Nr.
28 verfügbar (PDF-Format)).
Ramm, Wiebke and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen. 2005. Coordination and discourse structural
salience form a cross-linguistc perspective. SPRIK-reports 30. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Sandström, Görel. 1993. When-clauses and the temporal interpretation of narrative discourse.
Umeå: Department of General Linguistics, University of Umeå.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell
Solfjeld
23
Solfjeld, Kåre 2000. Sententialität, Nominalität und Übersetzung (=Osloer Beiträge zur
Germanistik 26) Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Solfjeld, Kåre. 2004. ”Informationsspaltung in Sachprosaübersetzungen Deutsch-Norwegisch”.
Eva Lambertsson Björk and Sverre Vesterhus (eds.) Kommunikasjon. Halden: Høgskolen i
Østfold, 111–130.
von Stutterheim, Christiane. 1997. Einige Prinzipien des Textaufbaus. Empirische Untersuchungen
zur Produktion mündlicher Texte (= Reihe Germanistische Linguistik). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Source literature
Cremer, Peter (1982): Ali Cremer.U 333. Berlin - Frankfurt/M–Wien: Ullstein, 225–240. (dt1).
Norw. translation (1989): U 333. Vendepunktet. Translated by Tore Bjørn Stornæs-Nilsen.
Oslo: Faktum, 107–128 (nt1).
von Däniken, Erich (1985): Habe ich mich geirrt? München: C. Bertelsmann, 166–194. (dt2).
Norw. translation (1986): Har jeg tatt feil? Translated by Ådne Goplen. Oslo: Ernst G.
Mortensens forlag, 168– 195 (nt2).
Franz, Uli (1987): Deng Xiaoping. Chinas Erneuerer. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags–Anstalt. (dt3),
125–144. Norw. translation (1988) Deng Xiaoping. Kinas sterke mann. Translated by Iver
Tore Svenning. Oslo: Schibsted, 114–132 (nt3).
Haller, Michael (ed.), authors of excerpted texts: Hans Halter und Walter Tauber (1981):
Aussteigen oder Rebellieren. Hamburg: Spiegel-Verlag, 100–116. (dt4). Norw. translation
(1982): Isolasjon eller opprør. Translated by Truls Wyller. Oslo: Gyldendal, 66–80 (nt4).
Hermlin, Stephan (1979): Abendlicht. Berlin: Klaus Wagenbach, 58–87. (dt5). Norw. translation
(1980): Kveldslys. Translated by Carl Fredrik Engelstad. Oslo: Gyldendal, 53–78 (nt5).
Lorenz, Einhart (1989): Willy Brandt in Norwegen. Kiel: Neuer Malik, 132–158 (dt6). Norw.
translation (1989): Willy Brandt i Norge. Translated by Anne-Lise Risø. Oslo: Tiden, 97–115
(nt6).
Schreiber, Hermann (1978): Singles Allein leben. Besser als zu zweit? München: Bertelsmann,
115–133 (dt7). Norw. translation (1980): Leve alene. Bedre enn å være to? Übersetzt von
Leif Toklum. Oslo: Gyldendal, 89–103 (nt7).
Senger, Gerti (1985): Frauenträume Männerträume und ihre Bedeutung Niedernhausen/Ts:
Falken-Verlag, 8–29 (dt8). Norw. translation (1986): Kvinnedrømmer Mannsdrømmer.
Translated by Tormod Ropeid. Oslo: Tekonologisk Forlag, 9–32 (nt8).
Prekop, Jirina (1988): Der kleine Tyrann. München: Kösel-Verlag, 49–67 (dt9). Norw. translation
(1989): Den lille tyrann. Translated by Peter Normann Waage und Eivind Tjønneland. Oslo:
Ex Libris, 55–76 (nt9).
Wallraff, Günter (1985): Ganz unten. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 84–101 (dt10). Norw.
translation (1986): Aller nederst. Translated by Ola Johnsrud. Gjøvik: Pax Forlag, 73–87
(nt10).
Solfjeld
24
Additional material
Grass, Günter (1988): Zunge zeigen. Darmstadt: Luchterhand (dt11). Norw. translation (1989):
Rekke tunge. Translated by Kjell Risvik. Oslo: Gyldendal (nt11).
Solfjeld
25
