Explicitation and Implicitation

As Table 3.5 indicates, 92 instances of shift are related to the translator’s attempts to implicitate or explicitate certain meanings in the source text. As discussed in Section 2.4.3.2 and 2.5.1, explicitation involves making explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source language because it is apparent from source-text context (Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995: 342, see also Klaudy and Károly 2005). Such change can take the form of addition of explanatory phrases, connectives and the spelling out an implied meaning or giving more specific information (Dimitrova 2005: 34).

Implicitation goes in the opposite direction; it occurs when the translator makes what is explicit in the source language implicit in the target language (Vinay and Darbelnet 1995: 344, Klaudy 2009: 104-5).

3.1.1.2.1.1 Explicitation

Explicitation shifts here involve addition of information inferred from the context about some referents used in the source text, and which can make the reference to people or objects more exact and explicit (see ‘specification of reference’ Nida 2003:

231-32 and Øverås 1998: 560-64). They are the attempts to convey more information than in the original to clarify a reference or provide interpretation of a meaning (see also Séguinot 1988 and Pápai 2004, Section 2.5.1). Examine the following three examples.

20. ST: The rest of them do earn their bread – you live on my charity! Put your trash away, and find something to do.

“I’ll put my trash away, because you can make me if I refuse,” answered the young lady, closing her book, and throwing it on a chair. (CH 3: 26)

Murad TT: da‘ī hādhihi al-nnifāyāt min yadiki, wa-ibḥathī ‘an ‘amalin tu’addīnahu.

[Gloss: put this trash down, and find something to do] (30)

Haqi TT: irmī hādhā al-kitāba al-tāfiha min bayni yadīki, wa-ibḥathī ‘an ‘amalin tu’adīnahu, … (26)

[Gloss: throw this silly book from your hand, and find something to do]

21. ST: He carried her in; I followed grumbling execrations and vengeance. “What prey, Robert?” hallooed Linton from the entrance. “Skulker has caught a little girl, sir,” he replied; ... (CH 6: 51)

Murad TT: wa-hatafa lintun min al-dākhil: mā naw‘u al-farīsati yā rawbirt?

fa’ajabahu: laqad amsaka skilkar bi-fatātin ṣaghīratin yā sayidī. (47)

[Gloss: and Linton hallooed from the inside: what kind of prey, Robert? He replied:

the Skulker has caught a little girl, sir]

Haqi TT: wa-kāna lintun wāqifan ‘inda al-madkhali fa-ṣāḥ: ayyu farīsatan hādhih!

ajāba al-khādimu rawbirt: laqad amsaka al-kalbu bi-fatātin ṣaghīratin yā sayyidī [Gloss: Linton was standing by the entrance and cried: what is this prey! The servant Robert replied the dog has caught a little girl, sir] (60)

Naseem TT: wa-ṣaḥa lintun min al-dākhil: mā naw‘u al-farīsati yā rawbirt?

fa’ajabahu: laqad amsaka al-kalbu skilkar bi-fatātin ṣaghīratin yā sayidī (61)

[Gloss: and Linton cried from the inside: what kind of prey, Robert? He replied: the dog Skulker has caught a little girl, sir]

22. Two benches, shaped in sections of a circle, nearly enclosed the hearth; on one of these I stretched myself, and Grimalkin mounted the other. (CH 3: 33)

Murad TT: baynamā irtaqat al-qiṭṭatu jrimālkin al-dakkata al-ukhrā (30) [Gloss: while the cat Grimalkin mounted the other bench]

In Example (20), Mr. Heathcliff is scolding his daughter-in-law, Cathy, for being lazy and not helping with the housework. The use of the possessive construction “your trash” in Heathcliff’s utterance “Put your trash away” gives rise to the existential presupposition that “Cathy has or carries trash”. The word “trash” can be understood through inference as referring to “the book which Cathy was reading”. In Murad’s translation, by keeping the formal features of the word “trash”, the existential presupposition and the level of explicitness in its presentation in the source text are both preserved. However, in Haqi’s translation, the expression “your trash” is explicitated into “this silly book” which increases the explicitness of this presupposed information.

In (21), Heathcliff says that the dog ‘Skulker’ grabs Catherine by her ankle when they go to spy from the window on Linton children at Thrushcross Grange and get caught. Mr. Linton then asks the servant ‘Robert’ about this. By using the proper names ‘Robert’ and ‘Skulker’, Heathcliff presupposes the existence of the entities named, and from the context the reader can infer that ‘Robert’ is Linton family’s servant and that ‘Skulker’ is their dog. In Murad’s translation, the formal equivalents

“rawbirt” (Robert) “skilkar” (Skulker) convey the same presupposition as in the original. But, the addition of “al-khādim” (the servant) in Haqi’s translation and al-kalb (the dog) in Naseem’s changes this information from the implicit to explicit status.

Similarly in (22), Murad adds the word “cat” before the proper name ‘Grimalkin’, which gives further identification derived from the context, and also fills out the elliptical expression “the other” using a word (bench) from the previous discourse.

In addition to altering the level of explicitness, explicitations can result in imposing one particular interpretation or sometimes a different interpretation to the source utterance. Observe the following example.

23. “You see, sir, I am come, according to promise!” I exclaimed, assuming the cheerful; “and I fear I shall be weather-bound for half an hour, if you can afford me shelter during that space.” (CH 2: 9)

Nassem TT: laqad ḥaḍartu wafā’an bi-wa‘dī. (26) [Gloss: I have come fulfilling my promise]

Haqi TT: ’ara’ayta yā sayyīdī, laqad ḥaḍartu fī al-waqti al-munāsib. (19) [Gloss: have you seen, sir, I have come at the right time]

In example (23), Mr. Lockwood visits Mr. Heathcliff at his house for the second time and tells him when he first sees him that he is come according to promise. The expression “according to promise” gives rise to the presupposition that “there is a promise made by Mr. Lockwood to Mr. Heathcliff”. One plausible interpretation to what the promise refers to is Mr. Lockwood’s promise to Mr. Heathcliff of another visit, which can be inferred from Mr. Lockwood’s utterance “I found him very intelligent on the topics we touched on; and before I went home, I was encouraged so far as to volunteer another visit tomorrow. He evidently wished no repetition of my intrusion” (CH 1: 5). In Naseem’s translation, by opting for the formal equivalent

“wa‘d” (promise), the presupposition and its expressed level of explicitness are preserved, and the interpretation of the word “promise” is also left open as in the original. But in Haqi’s translation, the word is explicitated as “the right time”, which resulted in deleting the original presupposition and imposing the translator’s own interpretation.

3.1.1.2.1.2 Implicitation

Implicitation can involve replacement of a source-language unit that has a specific meaning with a target-language unit that has a more general meaning (Klaudy and Károly 2005: 15), such as replacing a hyponym with a hyperonym (or superordinate) (for some examples in Arabic see Dickins et al 2002: 54-56 and Baker 2011: 23-25).

the source text, most particularly some names of animals and minor characters in the story. Observe the following example.

24. ST: “They have let the bull-dog loose, and he holds me!” The devil had seized her ankle, Nelly: I heard his abominable snorting. (CH 6: 44)

Murad: laqad aṭlaqū al-buldug … (47) [Gloss: They have let the bull-dog loose]

Haqi TT: laqad aṭlaqū wara’anā al-kalba al-kabīr, … (60) [Gloss: They have let the big dog loose]

Nassem TT: laqad aṭlaqū sarāḥa al-kalb (60) [Gloss: They have let the dog loose]

In the example above, Heathcliff tells that people at Thrushcross Grange had let the bull-dog loose when they caught him and Catherine spying from the window. The definite description “the bull-dog” indicates that Heathcliff presupposes the existence of a bull-dog at Thrushcross Grange. In Murad’s translation, the transliteration “al-buldug” (the bull dog) preserves the formal features of the original and the presupposition as it is expressed in the original. However, the expression “the bull-dog” is replaced in the Haqi and Naseem’s translations by the hyperonyms “kalb al-kabīr” (the big dog) and “al-kalb” (the dog), respectively. Other similar examples are the proper names “Skulker” in Example (21) and “Grimalkin” in Example (22), which are replaced in Haqi’s translation by the hyperonym “al-kalb” (the dog) and “al-qiṭṭah”

(the cat) respectively. Compared with the explicitations, which have increased the level of specificity of the presupposed knowledge given in the target utterance, implicitations have decreased it. It is worth noting here that in some cases of implicitation, the referent cannot be fully recovered from the co-text (i.e. the surrounding linguistic environment; see Section 2.4.1), such as when totally removing the words “Skulker” and “Grimalkin” from the text by consistently implicitating them as “the dog” and “the cat”.