Cover not available

Article published In: Languages in Contrast
Vol. 16:2 (2016) ► pp.264–279

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Discourse connectives across languages

Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation

 | Université de Berne (Switzerland)
Published online: 29 September 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf
Coherence relations linking discourse segments can be communicated explicitly by the use of connectives but also implicitly through juxtaposition. Some discourse relations appear, however, to be more coherent than others when conveyed implicitly. This difference is explained in the literature by the existence of default expectations guiding discourse interpretation. In this paper, we assess the factors influencing implicitation by comparing the number of implicit and explicit translations of three polysemous French connectives in translated texts across three target languages: German, English and Spanish. Each connective can convey two discourse relations: one that can easily be conveyed implicitly and one that cannot be easily conveyed implicitly in monolingual data. Results indicate that relations that can easily be conveyed implicitly are also those that are most often left implicit in translation in all target languages. We discuss these results in view of the cognitive factors influencing the explicit or implicit communication of discourse relations.
References (37)
Asr, F. and Demberg, V. 2012. Implicitness of Discourse Relations. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , 2669–2684. Mumbai, India.
Barlow, M. 2008. Parallel Texts and Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis. In Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, M. de los Ángeles Gómez González et al. (eds), 101–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertin, A. 2002. L’Emergence du Connecteur En Effet en Moyen Français. Linx 461:37 – 50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1986. Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübigen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cartoni, B. and Meyer, T. 2012. Extracting Directional and Comparable Corpora from a Multilingual Corpus for Translation Studies. Proceedings of LREC 2012 , Istanbul, Turkey, May 23-25 2012.
Cartoni, B. Zufferey, S. and Meyer, T. 2013. Using the Europarl Corpus for Linguistic Research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 271:23–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charolles, M. and Fagard, B. 2012. En Effet en Français Contemporain: de la Confirmation à la Justification/Explication.” Le Français Moderne 801: 171–197.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. 1999. Conditionals and Prediction. Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danlos, L. 2012. Formalisation des Conditions d’Emploi des Connecteurs ‘En Réalité’ et ‘(Et) En Effet’. Proceedings of the Third Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française , Lyon, France, 493 – 508.
Das, D. and Taboada, M. 2013. Explicit and Implicit Discourse Relations. A Corpus Study. Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association , Alberta, Canada.
Fagard, B. 2011. La Construction ‘En Effet’ dans les Langues Médiévales Romanes et la Question de l’Emprunt.” Oslo Studies in Language 31:26–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halverson, S. 2004. Connectives as a Translation Problem. In An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, H. Kittel et al. (eds), 562–572. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, L. and Mel’čuk, I. 1999. Textual Connectors across Languages: French En Effet vs. Russian V Samon Dele. RASK 9/101:305–347.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koehn, P. 2005. Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. Proceedings of the 10 th Machine Translation Summit , Phuket, Thailand, 79–86, September 13-15.
Knott, A. and Dale, R. 1994. Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 18(1):35–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. Paczynski, M. & Ditman, T. 2011. Establishing Causal Coherence across Sentences: An ERP Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 231:1230 – 1246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hervey, S. and Higgins, I. 1992. Thinking Translation. A Course in Translation Method, French-English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, W. and Thomson, S. 1992. Relational Discourse Structure: A Comparison of Approaches to Structuring Text by ‘Contrast’. In Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, S. Hwang and W. Merrifield (eds), 19–45. Dallas: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, J. 1995. Logical connectives and local coherence. In Sources of Cohesion in Text Comprehension, R. Lorch and E. O’Brien (eds.), 107 – 125. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Connectives and Narrative Text: The role of Continuity. Memory and Cognition 251: 227–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pander-Maat, H. 1998. Classifying negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics 301: 177–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patterson, G. and Kehler, A. 2013. Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Seattle, Washington, USA, 914–923.
Prasad, R. Dinesh, N. Lee, A. Miltsakaki, E. Robaldo, L. Joshi, A. and Webber B. 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6 th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , Marrakesh, Morocco, 2961–2968.
Rossari, C. 2002. Les Adverbes Connecteurs: Vers une Identification de la Classe et des Sous-Classes. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 241:11–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roze, C. Danlos, L. and Muller, P. 2012. LEXCONN: A French Lexicon of Discourse Connectives. Discours 101, published online.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, J. 1994. Perspective in Narrative Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T. 2005. Coherence, Causality and Cognitive Complexity in Discourse. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning , Biarritz, France, 105–114.
Sanders, T. and Noordman, L. 2000. The Role of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing. Discourse Processes 291:37 – 60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T. Spooren, W. and Noordman, L. 1992. Towards a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15(1):1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, M. 2006. Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 381:567–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In Discourse, of Course, J. Renkema (ed.), 125 – 138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. and Cartoni, B. 2012. English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast. Languages in Contrast 12(2):232–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. and Gygax, P. 2015. The Role of Perspective Shifts for Processing and Translating Discourse Relations. Discourse Processes. published online ahead of print. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Gabarró-López, Sílvia
2025. Discourse Markers in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) Dialogues and Their Translation into French: A Corpus-Based Study. Languages 10:9 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Ghesquière, Lobke & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
2025. A contrastive study of English finally/eventually, Dutch eindelijk/uiteindelijk and French finalement/enfin . Languages in Contrast DOI logo
HOINĂRESCU, LILIANA
2025. Valori discursive ale marcatorului epistemic într-adevăr în limba română. O perspectivă diacronică. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 2025:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Oleškevičienė, Giedrė Valūnaitė, Deniz Zeyrek, Amalia Mendes & Dalia Gulbinskienė
2025. Translation Awareness of Sense Shifts of Coveying Discourse Relations Based on English TED Talks and Their Translation into Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish. In Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2480], ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Tskhovrebova, Ekaterina, Mathis Wetzel, Pascal Gygax & Sandrine Zufferey
2025. The role of training and exposure to print for the mastery of connectives in French. Applied Psycholinguistics 46 DOI logo
Zufferey, Sandrine & Liesbeth Degand
2025. Connectives in French. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė & Sibel Özer
2022. An Exploratory Analysis of TED Talks in English and Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish Translations. Contrastive Pragmatics 3:3 ► pp. 452 ff. DOI logo
Özer, Sibel, Murathan Kurfalı, Deniz Zeyrek, Amália Mendes, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė, Julia Bosque-Gil, Milan Dojchinovski, Philipp Cimiano, Julia Bosque-Gil, Philipp Cimiano & Milan Dojchinovski
2022. Linking discourse-level information and the induction of bilingual discourse connective lexicons. Semantic Web 13:6 ► pp. 1081 ff. DOI logo
Gràcia, Marta, Jesús M. Alvarado & Silvia Nieva
2021. Assessment of Oral Skills in Adolescents. Children 8:12 ► pp. 1136 ff. DOI logo
Fagard, Benjamin & Peter Blumenthal
2020. Topic shifts in contrast: Ways to change the subject in French and German. Journal of Pragmatics 156 ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal Gygax
2020. Do teenagers know how to use connectives from the written mode?. Lingua 234 ► pp. 102779 ff. DOI logo
Stede, Manfred, Tatjana Scheffler & Amália Mendes
2019. Connective-Lex: A Web-Based Multilingual Lexical Resource for Connectives. Discours :24 DOI logo
Dupont, Maïté & Sandrine Zufferey
2017. Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal M. Gygax
2017. Processing Connectives with a Complex Form-Function Mapping in L2: The Case of French “En Effet”. Frontiers in Psychology 8 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 99], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue