A cognitive linguistic distinction between explicitation/implicitation

This section attempts a more theoretically robust distinction between expansion, explicitation and addition on the one hand and between reduction, implicitation and omission on the other. The distinction between explicitation/implicitation and expansion/reduction will draw on the general cognitive linguistic discussion of the schema

concept (see 4.2.4), whereas the distinction between explicitation/implicitation and addition/omission will be informed by the notion of current discourse space (5.3.5) and the cognitive semantic toolset for modelling the implicit knowledge structures underlying overt textual structures in a given usage event (4.5.3). A theoretically enriched expansion- explicitation-addition continuum could look like this:

Figure 6: The expansion-explicitation-addition continuum from a cognitive linguistic perspective

Parallel to this continuum, the reduction-implicitation-omission continuum as seen from a cognitive linguistic perspective can be represented as follows:

Figure 7: The reduction-implicitation-omission continuum from a cognitive linguistic perspective

The distinction between explicitation/implicitation and expansion/reduction can be linked in a straightforward way to the discussion of schemas and the relative semantic contentfulness or schematicity of linguistic units. For example, with reference to Olohan/Baker’s study of the complementizer that we could say that the function word that

is semantically quite schematic so that its introduction or deletion in the target text would be situated toward the expansion or the reduction endpoint of the corresponding continuum. The idea of schematicity would also hold for shifts operating on the syntagmatic plane. For example, the compound fuel sulphur leaves the semantic relation

between its constituents quite schematic whereas the prepositional word group

Schwefelgehalt im Kraftstoff makes the semantic relation much more specific, thus

bringing about a considerable increase in semantic contentfulness. This shift would therefore be located toward the explicitation endpoint of the corresponding continuum. The distinction between explicitation/implicitation and addition/omission is inspired by Kamenická’s (2007) application of frame semantics to explicitation and implicitation research. Kamenická (ibid.:54) asserts that the question of whether a certain piece of information can be claimed to be implicit in a text is a function of the relative saliency of this information in a given frame (or domain matrix) indexed by a particular word or construction. The information found in a given frame/domain matrix and the relative saliency of this information is of course not static but highly dynamic and subject to various factors pertaining to the context of the corresponding utterance or usage event (see 5.3.4). If, for example, we encounter the source text construal the CO2 generated from a

primary fossil fuel and the corresponding target text construal das bei der Verbrennung eines fossilen Primärenergieträgers entstandene CO2 (see chapter 1) and wonder whether

the TT verbalization of the information bei der Verbrennung (during the combustion) is an instance of explicitation or addition, we must consider the saliency of this information in the frame/domain matrix of the term CO2 in the source text by taking the context of this

text into consideration. The domain matrix could look like this:

Figure 8: Possible domain matrix of the term CO2

The domains in this matrix could be SHAPE/FORM (constitutive role of the qualia

structure), CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (constitutive role), PRODUCTION (agentive role) and SOCIETAL RELEVANCE.35

35 _{This list of domains only serves informational purposes. Recall that the number of domains associated with}

a given lexical unit is potentially open-ended (see 4.5.3.2).

text is an instance of expert-to-semi-expert communication we can, for example, make assumptions about the knowledge contexts or the common ground of the discourse participants. We could then assume that the exact circumstances of the production of CO2

(i.e. detailed knowledge about the domain PRODUCTION) will be common ground between the discourse participants and that the discourse context (the participle construction generated from a primary fuel) will probably foreground this domain in the matrix of CO2 while backgrounding others such as SOCIETAL RELEVANCE. We would

thus have a theoretically-backed justification for classifying this shift as an instance of explicitation and not as an instance of addition. It should be obvious that we may often have to refer to all three contextual dimensions discussed in 5.3 to make informed judgements about the distinction between explicitation/implicitation and addition/omission. Of course, this does not provide us with an objective algorithm for determining how to classify certain shifts. However, the theoretical basis provided, together with a transparent reasoning by the respective researcher, should make this inherently difficult distinction open to a sound intersubjective debate.

In the two continua above, I do not refer to the saliency of a given piece of information in a frame/domain matrix but rather employ the broader notion of current discourse space, which was discussed in 5.3.5. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, the CDS can be understood as the cognitive representation of the three context types which were invoked above to discuss the distinction between explicitation/implicitation and addition/omission. As such, it should feature prominently in the theoretical distinction of the two concept pairs. Secondly, it was pointed out that the CDS can also be understood as the locus of the contextual shaping of frames/domain matrices and the ranking of information according to their relative saliency. Thus, I do not move away from Kamenická’s initial insight but merely situate it at the level where the saliency of a given piece of information is actually determined, i.e. at the level of the CDS as a specific mental space providing the locus of meaning construction. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there are instances of explicitation and implicitation that cannot be neatly tied to a particular frame/domain matrix indexed by a given expression. Consider the following example:

EN: About 3-4 MtCO2 that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere is captured and stored annually in

geological formations.

DE: Dabei werden jährlich insgesamt etwa 3-4 Mt CO2 zur Vermeidung von Emissionen in die Atmosphäre

In this example, the pronominal adverb dabei was introduced in the target text, establishing an explicit anaphoric reference to the previous discourse frame. However, the information explicitated in this example cannot be claimed to be salient in a particular frame/domain matrix associated with a specific linguistic expression. Rather, it seems to be salient in the CDS in the form of a more general situation described in the previous discourse frame and a coherent link between this situation and the information presented in the current discourse frame. Therefore, it seems that if our distinction between explicitation/ implicitation and addition/omission is to be applicable to all relevant phenomena, we should model it not with reference to individual frames/domain matrices but by resorting to the broader notion of CDS.