The future of general tendencies in translation

Explicitation in web localization

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Explicitation has long been considered a tendency in translation and has been empirically investigated by a number of scholars. This paper responds to Chestermans (2004a: 47) call to test explicitation phenomena on different translation modalities and types, and tests the explicitation hypothesis against a comparable web corpus containing 40m words. The fast evolving field of web localization was selected given that (1) if explicitation is a potential universal or general tendency, it should be equally present in current and future translation types; (2) localization is a specific case of translation in which explicitation might not be expected due to space constraints and web usability guidelines; (3) research using comparable web corpora has produced evidence contradicting other proposed general tendencies, such as conventionalization (Jimnez-Crespo 2009a; Kenny 2001). The results of the study confirm that despite specific constraints, localized texts show explicitation if contrasted with non-translated web texts belonging to the same digital genre. Keywords: explicitation, tendencies in translation, universal hypotheses, web localization, corpus-based translation studies, comparable corpora Universals are absolute; translation is probabilistic (Frawley 2000: 256)

1.

Introduction

Since the last decade of the 20th century, our digital world has been undergoing a technological revolution that is having a profound impact on global communication practices. Translation, both as a profession and as an object of scholarly research, is also undergoing a technological revolution that is modifying some of its underlying principles (Cronin 2003), such as the individualistic character of translation (Tymoczko 2005) or the existence of complete unitary texts upon
Target 23:1 (2011), 325. doi 10.1075/target.23.1.01jim issn 09241884 / e-issn 15699986 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

which translation tasks are based (Bowker 2006). Additionally, technology has led to new translation modalities: web, software, videogame or crowdsourcing localization, as well as chat translation and interpreting (OHagan and Ashworth 2003; OHagan 2009). The impact of this revolution can be clearly witnessed in the overall percentage of these technology-related modalities in the translation industry, an estimated 40% in 2005 (Schler 2005). These new modalities are slowly making their way into research in Translation Studies. An overview of current research trends shows that technology has prompted four new areas of inquiry: (1) empirical descriptive research into all types of localization from both professional and Translation Studies perspectives (e.g. Reineke 2005; Dunne 2006; Jimnez-Crespo 2008a), (2) translation technology tools (Austermhl 2001; Bowker 2002; Daelemans and Hoste 2009), (3) how to incorporate these emerging trends in translation training (Alcina 2008), and (4) ethical/philosophical implications of localization and globalization (Cronin 2003). This paper focuses on the first of these trends, applying the descriptive paradigm to the study of localization. In the continuing development of Descriptive Translation Studies (Holmes 1972, 1988; Toury 1995), these new modalities can be extremely useful in order to further test hypotheses regarding tendencies that might potentially apply to all translational behaviour. With this goal, a wealth of studies have focused on the identification of potential general regularities, given that, as with other sciences, Descriptive Translation Studies should also be characterized by a quest for laws (Toury 1995: 259) that can explain and predict phenomena. This is the case of the so-called translation universals (Baker 1993), norms-laws (Toury 1995, 2004), hypotheses (Laviosa 1998), features (Chesterman 2000) or the term used in this paper, tendencies in translations (Olohan 2004). This notion, despite ongoing conceptual and epistemological debates (Chesterman 2010), can be generally defined as features which typically occur in translated text rather than original utterances and which are not the result of interference from specific linguistic systems (Baker, 1993: 243). Since empirical research into translational tendencies searches for evidence supporting or rejecting proposed general or universal tendencies, it seems logical to assume that research should focus not only on contemporary and past translation practices (Venuti 2005: 808), but also on new translation modalities that could appear in the future. The present article responds to Chestermans (2004a: 47) call to work on testing different restricted and unrestricted [translation tendencies] hypotheses on different corpora, and it explores the explicitation hypothesis in website localization from a type-bound perspective (ibid: 41). The descriptive approach taken in this article is a bottom up or low route to the study of translation tendencies: it examines the explicitation hypothesis in a specific translation modality, web

The future of general tendencies in translation

localization, using the most conventional digital genre: the corporate website. It researches this widely studied phenomenon in a specific translation subset, and has the goal of adding to the existing body of knowledge that identifies explicitation as the best potential translation tendency candidate. Additionally, instead of researching the explicitation hypothesis by contrasting it with its opposite tendency, implicitation (Hjort-Pedersen 2010; Toury 2004; Klaudy and Karoly 2003), this paper will use web texts, as they need to be brief and concise due to communicative efficiency and space constraints (Nielsen and Loranger 2006). As a consequence, explicitation resulting in lengthening is likely to be discouraged (Price and Price 2002; Jeney 2007) and technologically constrained. Web localization was selected for this study given that: (1) if explicitation is a potential general tendency, it should be equally present in current and emerging translation types; (2) localization is a specific modality in which explicitation might not be expected due to specific space constraints and web usability guidelines (Nielsen 2000; Nielsen and Loranger 2006); and (3) previous research using the same corpus shows that localized texts are less conventional than non-translated websites (Jimnez-Crespo 2009a), thus contradicting the normalization/conventionalization hypothesis (Baker 1996; Kenny 2001). Methodologically, this study is based on a web-comparable corpus. It tests explicitation on the 40,000-page Spanish Web Comparable Corpus of original and localized corporate websites addressed to customers in Spain (Jimnez-Crespo 2008a). The analysis concentrates on syntactic explicitation both in the overall corpus and in navigation menus, and a genre-based approach is applied in order to separate and contrast specific communicative blocks or moves (Swales 1990) in this digital genre. Thus, several subcorpora of specific moves are extracted, such as navigation menus and legal sections in corporate websites (Jimnez-Crespo 2008b). Following previous studies on optional syntactic explicitation (Olohan and Baker 2000), the analysis concentrates on (1) syntactic optional explicitation of optional Spanish personal pronouns acting as subjects that are obligatory in English, (2) optional explicitation of Spanish demonstratives in navigation menus, and finally, (3) on overall word and character length of lexical units in navigation menus. Since explicitation has been defined and tested by different scholars, a review of the existing literature is presented first in order to delimit the object of study and the underlying theoretical framework. 2. Translation universals, explicitation and web localization Explicitation (Blum-Kulka 1986) has long been considered a tendency in translation and has been investigated by a number of scholars (e.g. Vanderauwera

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

1985; Blum-Kulka 1986; Baker 1995, 1996; Olohan and Baker 2000; Puurtinen 2004; Whittaker 2004; Englund-Dimitrova 2005; Cheong 2006; Saldhana 2008; Hjort-Pedersen 2010). Although it is generally agreed that the term originates with Blum-Kulka (1986), the concept had already been identified by Vinay and Dalbelnet (1958: 8), who describe the strategy of lengthening as the process of introducing information into the target language text which is present only implicitly in the source language text, but which can be derived from the context or situation. This approach to explicitation is reflected in the definition proposed in the seminal papers by Mona Baker (1993, 1996), where explicitation was defined as an overall tendency to spell things out rather than leave them implicit (Baker 1996: 180). Both definitions are generic in nature, covering in principle syntactic, lexical, pragmatic and optional subcategories, while other proposals have focused mostly on the semantic or lexical foundation for explicitation (Blum-Kulka 1986; Klaudy and Kroly 2003), the importance of the cultural or cognitive context and environment of readers (Saldanha 2008) or translators (Malmkjr 2005), or as a consequence of risk aversion by translators (Pym 2005). The lack of conceptual agreement on the definition of explicitation and its possible categories is one of the main problems in empirical research in this field, together with corpus representativeness, conceptualization, operationalization, causality, and the underlying universality claim (Chesterman 2010, 2004a, 2004b). In this regard, and despite the fact that it has been easier to disprove any proposed tendency than to empirically prove its existence (Munday 2009), explicitation continues to be the most widely accepted tendency. In fact, since Blum-Kulka first formulated her much criticized explicitation hypothesis, an increasing number of studies have confirmed it in different language pairs and translation modalities. For example, Englund-Dimitrova (2005: 35) offers a review of twenty-eight studies confirming this tendency. Nevertheless, a smaller number of studies have also produced contradictory evidence suggesting that explicitation is not inherently present in all translational activity (Puurtinen 2004; Cheong 2006). However, even though the current body of research contains overwhelmingly more studies supporting than rejecting this tendency, it is pertinent to maintain that the future of descriptive research into features of translation can only move forward through the bottom-up approach previously mentioned (Chesterman 2004a, 2010). In fact, the prevailing approach since the 90s has led to some universal hypotheses tentatively proposed on the basis of empirical results pertaining only to a subset (Chesterman 2004a: 40). This has partly been due to the high levels of abstraction of previous hypotheses, as well as the limitations of available corpora and genres compiled. For example, Englund-Dimitrovas 2005 review of explicitation shows that 43% of studies were carried out using corpora of literary

The future of general tendencies in translation

texts, 14% using corpora of journalistic or popular scientific texts, 7% using political texts and 7% using audiovisual translation. Following a methodologically sounder approach to the study of tendencies in translation, this study is partially grounded in the framework proposed by Chesterman (2004a), who claims that the best possible route for studying explicitation is by posing well-defined restrictive descriptive hypotheses concerning specific subsets of translations, such as subtitles or literary translations. These hypotheses, once confirmed or rejected, can then be useful in the formulation of future unrestricted descriptive hypotheses (2004a: 44) that can lead to general claims about tendencies. More specifically, this paper maintains that these hypotheses can only be approximations and need to be understood in prototypical terms (Halverson 1998; Chesterman 2010). In order to formulate a restricted hypothesis, Chesterman proposes five types of criteria: language, time, type, translator and situationbound criteria. In time, carefully planned studies can form a body of knowledge confirming or rejecting specific hypotheses, given that certain features might be typical (or not typical) of some subset of translations; or [] seem to be typical (or not typical) of more than one subset (Chesterman 2004a: 41). This article therefore proposes to conceptualize this construct as tendencies in translation, as this allows for a prototypical understanding of these translational phenomena (Halverson 1998) while recognizing the limitations inherent in all corpus-based research (Baker 2004). Baker indicates that these limitations are related, but not limited to, methodological difficulties, the complexity of the issues involved and the search for plausible explanations, the potentially conflicting interpretation of the same set of findings, or the need to move beyond low-level descriptions to situated explanations. In fact, most previous criticism directed towards this type of empirical research has focused on the prevailing universality approach (House 2008), in which potential general hypotheses have been stated and the results obtained for a subset have often been tentatively extended to all types of translational behaviour. This is precisely the argument presented by Tymoczko (2005: 49) who recommends giving up the search for universals. She claims that translation is a cluster concept and not all conclusions of research are applicable to all translation types or all translation contexts. Additionally, some results might merely be culture or language-bound (Tymoczko 1998). Snell-Hornby (2006) also argues that researchers should give up the search for universals, but in this case the arguments are due to the extensive use of language-bound criteria in most studies: that is, the predominance of English and Western languages in corpus-based translation studies. Similarly, Gerzymisch-Arbogast (2008: 2) points to the futility of any attempt to research universals using a corpus-based methodology given that the reasoning that statistically identified characteristics can yield data that is applicable to

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

individual entities (e.g. translations) is a fallacy. Again, the argument is mostly based on the great number of variables that are at play in any specific translation process. While those arguments might be valid when critizing previous studies that searched for universals, their criticisms can be overcome by adopting Chestermans more modest methodological approach based on a restrictive hypothesis for specific subsets and conceptualizing these constructs as tendencies. Essentially, the underlying reasoning behind these criticisms can be summarized as follows: empirical translation research should give up the tendency to generalize from the results of studies of limited subsets to all translational activity. Bakers decision to use the term universal might have led some scholars to overgeneralize their findings, and therefore, it might be time simply to put this term to rest (Chesterman 2010; Toury 2004). Nevertheless, and despite ongoing debates about the usefulness of research into translation tendencies,1 it is undeniable that the increasing number of corpus-based studies has been instrumental in empirically identifying features of translated texts in contrast to non-translated ones. They have been instrumental in discovering facets of the nature of translated text and translating and [raising] awareness about the complex, reciprocal relationship that links language to culture (Laviosa 2002: 77). Once these tendencies have been discovered, translators can be aware of them and can consciously decide how or whether to deal with these tendencies during specific translation tasks. Subsequent quality evaluation processes can also be built around them. More specifically, research into translation tendencies can be extremely useful in instrumental (Nord 1997) or covert (House 1997) translation types. In these cases, recipients are normally unaware of the fact that the text is a translation, and therefore it is logical to assume that translators would be interested in adjusting their translations to the framework of the users expectations for any specific type or genre. Given that this paper focuses on localized texts, the following section reviews the potential implications of this type of research for the web localization industry. 3. Explicitation and web localization Web localization can be defined as a complex communicative, cognitive, textual and technological process by which interactive web texts are modified for use in different linguistic and sociocultural contexts (Jimnez-Crespo 2008a). According to the publications of the largest localization industry association, LISA, its goal is to produce texts that look like they have been developed in-country (LISA 2004: 11). Nevertheless, previous research using comparable and parallel corpora has shown that localized web texts do not necessarily look like non-translated web

The future of general tendencies in translation

texts (Jimnez-Crespo 2008a, 2009a, 2010a). Like all other translation processes, localization is subject to a number of constraints that are not present to the same degree during the production of non-translated documents. These constraints may be social, ideological, cultural, cognitive (Baker 1999: 285), technological and professional, and may result in localized texts that display specific features, some of which might be shared with other translation types, and some of which might be specific to this modality. Jimnez-Crespo (2009a) shows that localized texts are less conventional than original texts, thus contradicting the sanitationconventionalization hypothesis (Baker 1993; Kenny 2001). In part, this was due to the study of the notion of conventionality in association with creative language use in a specific subset, literary texts (Kenny 2001), instead of identifying conventional features in specific non-translated genres and then testing if translated texts showed these previously identified conventions.2 Jimnez-Crespo (2010a) also shows that localized texts are less terminologically coherent and show target textual structures that replicate those of source texts; in other words, localized texts clearly contain cloned structures (Larose 1998). Diguez (2008) demonstrates that terminology explicitation is clearly preferred in localized sites, thus supporting the explicitation hypothesis in sites localized into Spanish. If the goal of localization is to produce sites that look like non-translated texts in each target region (LISA 2004), these studies confirm the need for further descriptive research into general tendencies that can potentially help realign localization and quality assurance processes in the industry. One of the peculiarities that makes web localization an ideal modality for testing explicitation is the underlying principles that guide the development and translation of web content: space constraints and the way users read on screen as opposed to on paper (Nielsen and Loranger 2006). The next section discusses this issue. 3.1 Web localization and space constraints in translation Localization is a translation modality in which space constraints represent a specific challenge. All types of texts are localized, from those found on websites and in user interfaces to more restricted ones such as those on cell phones or any small digital device. Most of these texts are created to be displayed on interactive screens. Innumerable studies have shown that humans read differently interactive screen texts than those produced to be printed and read on paper (Bly 2002; Brink et al. 2002; Nielsen and Loranger 2006). The main implication for writers or translators of digital genres is that conciseness and brevity are recommended in order to produce effective digital texts (Nielsen 2000). Space constraints do not affect all localization types equally: software localization is somewhat different from web localization in that the space available for software interfaces is normally fixed,

10

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

while web texts tend to be dynamically displayed, that is, they can adapt to the presentation and screen preferences of the browser and/or user, thus facilitating web accessibility (Jimnez-Crespo 2009b). Nevertheless, both usability studies (Brink et al. 2002; Nielsen and Loranger 2006) and web style guides strongly recommend producing brief and concise texts: it is even suggested that printed texts be reduced by up to 50% if they are to be used on a website (Nielsen 2000), as reading on screen is normally 25% slower than on paper (Nielsen and Loranger 2006). The degree of conciseness is directly associated with the quality and potential success of any website, given the underlying principle of cognitive efficiency in computermediated communicative interactions. Navigation menus need to be brief due to the fact that their function is to reduce the cognitive and attentional resources needed for hypertextual navigation (Spyridakis 2000). Short and concise lexical units facilitate the human-computer interaction as they assist in the long term memory storage of the site structure. In light of these studies and web usability principles, it might be expected that explicitation resulting in lengthening (Vinay and Dalbernet 1958) would not be present to a significant degree in web texts, specifically in extremely brief segments such as navigation menus. Similarly, explicitation would in principle not be expected in other translation modalities such as subtitling, where due to reading times subtitles can be up to 45% shorter than original versions (Diaz Cintas 2003). Nevertheless, it has been shown that despite the drastic reduction in the number of running words, subtitles can also show traces of Klaudys (1996; 1998) cultural and pragmatic explicitation, with reduction or implicitation occurring at the same time as explicitation (Perego 2003). In Peregos study, and despite strict space constraints, it was shown that pragmatic and cultural explicitation interplays with implicitation; nevertheless, the resulting translated texts do need to be 30% to 40% shorter than non-translated texts. In contrast to Peregos research on subtitling explicitation, the present study concentrates on syntactic and lexical explicitation that result in longer renderings than similar non-translated texts. Peregos (2003) study used Blum-Kulkas (1986) definition of explicitation and focused on what Chesterman (2004a: 39) refers to as S Translation tendencies, that is, hypotheses claiming to capture universal differences between translations and their source texts, i.e. characteristics of the way in which translators process the source text (Chesterman 2004a: 39). The present comparable corpus study tests T Translation hypotheses or phenomena with higher distribution in translated texts than spontaneously produced ones irrespective of language combination. In this study, Olohan and Bakers (2000) definition of optional syntactic explicitation is also used.

The future of general tendencies in translation

11

The hypothesis for the present study is that:

Although space constraints and web usability research relate quality in web texts to brevity and conciseness, localized websites will show T-translation explicitation that normally results in the production of longer formulations of target segments than those found in non-translated web texts belonging to similar digital genres.

4. Corpus-based methodologies and the study of explicitation Within Corpus-Based Translation Studies, translation is understood as a communicative event which is shaped by its own goals, pressures and context of production (Baker 1996: 175), and therefore, translated texts show certain features that distinguish them from spontaneously produced texts (Baker 1993, 1995; Laviosa-Braithewaite 1996; Olohan and Baker 2000; Kenny 2001; Tirkonen-Condit 2004; Mauranen and Kujamki 2004). Since the last decade of the 20th century, these specific features of translations have been investigated using both parallel and comparable corpora, and both methodologies have been used to research different types of proposed general tendencies. Parallel corpora contain both original texts and their respective translations into one or more languages. In the quest for translation tendencies, these corpora have been used to research S Translation features, that is, researching these tendencies by contrasting translations to their source texts, as for the case of sanitation (Kenny 2001) or explicitation (Blum-Kulka 1986). In contrast, this study uses a comparable corpus, that is, a structured electronic collection of texts originally written in a particular language, alongside texts translated into that same language (Baker 1995: 234). This type of corpus has been used to test T-Translation tendencies, such as simplification (Laviosa-Braithewaite 1996) or conventionalization (Baker 1993). The present study tests explicitation as a T-Translation tendency, identifying features of translated texts by means of contrasting them with a comparable corpus of original texts from the same digital genre and addressed to the same target audience. 5. Methodology: The Spanish Web Comparable Corpus The empirical data was provided by the Spanish Web Comparable Corpus, a representative collection of original Spanish and localized corporate websites from the largest US companies addressed to customers in Spain. The corpus was compiled by Jimnez-Crespo (2008a) in the context of a wider study of the description of the language of localization. Given that notions of representativeness (Biber 1993) and comparability (Olohan 2004) are essential in corpus studies, the methodological foundation for the compilation process is briefly described here.

12

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

5.1 The Spanish Web Comparable Corpus The corpus compilation process was divided into two parts: original web texts (OWT) and localized web texts (LWT). For the original section of the corpus, the textual population targeted was the digital genre, corporate website, in Spain.3 The Google Business directory for Spain was used in the selection process in order to guarantee the representativeness of the resulting corpus. All directories and subdirectories were searched, and the first website from each subdirectory that was originally developed in Spanish was selected. This procedure was intended to guarantee that websites of large, medium and small companies from all business sectors in Spain were represented. The final synchronic compilation process took place on May 4th 2006, and yielded a corpus of 172 original Spanish websites. The software tool Httrack ran on four computers in a simultaneous download process. The localized section of the corpus includes all websites from the top 650 US companies that had a localized version for Spain on November 2006.4 As shown in Table 1, the selection process found 114 corporate websites specifically localized for Spain, but only ninety-five of these could be stored due to limitations of the software tool used. The resulting corpus was synchronically downloaded on the 23rd of November, 2006. Despite software limitations, the theoretical and methodological foundation of the compilation process guaranteed, to the highest possible degree, that the resulting corpus could be considered representative of both textual populations targeted. Additionally, several comparable subcorpora were extracted from the main corpus in order to test the hypothesis in the different textual elements or moves in websites. The theoretical framework behind the extraction of the different subcorpora was based on a genre approach to the study of digital texts (Jimnez-Crespo 2008b), in which a global genre is subdivided into its constituent communicative blocks (Gamero 2001) or moves and steps (Swales 1990) as represented in Figure 1. This hypertextual genre subdivision led to the creation of different subcorpora of legal web texts and contact us pages.

Table 1. Spanish Web Comparable Corpus description (Jimnez-Crespo 2008a).

Original Section 172 websites Total Web pages Words total Average 19,102 111.5 Pages/site 8,659,856 453.34 Words/page Localized Section 95 websites Total Average 21,322 224.3 Pages/site 8,871,512 416.07 Words/page 12,562,894 589.50 Words/page

Words in body of pages 4,945,103 258.87 Words/page

The future of general tendencies in translation

13

Figure 1. Corporate website prototypical superstructure and its constituents communicative blocks or moves (Jimnez-Crespo 2008b; 2009a)

In addition, each individual webpage also possesses an intratextual structure in which the content is mainly divided into: (1) interface texts (Price and Price 2002), brief communicative segments whose function is to articulate the hypertextual unit, such as navigation menus, and (2) content texts, the unique and distinct content in each page in a website. In order to analyse the briefest communicative segments in this genre, a manually extracted subcorpus was compiled including all lexical units in navigation menus. Normally, each website has a single hypertextual structure represented in navigation menus and sitemaps, and consequently a single structural representation was collected from each website. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the comparable subcorpus of navigation terminology in corporate websites. The analysis was divided into two stages. The first stage used the entire comparable corpus to analyze the syntactic explicitation of personal pronouns that are optional in Spanish. It was also tested in the web legal subcorpus given that those texts are exhortative and, therefore, the user is frequently addressed directly. In the second stage, all analyses were performed on the navigation menu subcorpus. In this stage, the first step was to analyze contrastively the optional use of Spanish determinants in navigation terminology. As an example, a navigation menu item can optionally include the determinant, la empresa the company, or not, empresa company. The omission of the determinant would be the preferred option both
Table 2. Comparable subcorpus of navigation terminology in corporate websites
Original Section Total Navigation menus Total navigation terms Words total 172 1151 1762 6.69 10.24 Average per site Localized Section Total 95 1566 3034 16.48 31.93 Average per site

14

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

in Spanish and English according to web usability guidelines (Jimnez-Crespo 2010b). The second step consisted of an analysis of the average word and character length in lexical units that correspond to a section or communicative block on the website, such as contact us or about us. The hypothesis would be confirmed if the analysis yielded longer average renderings for lexical units in navigation menus, thus indicating higher levels of explicitation. All lexical analyses were performed using the lexical analysis package Wordsmith Tools, specifically its Wordlist and Keyword functions. Both sections of the main corpus and all subcorpora were analysed, and detailed frequency and keyword lists were extracted. 6. Results The results are presented separately for each of the two stages of analysis mentioned in the previous section. First, a contrastive analysis of optional personal pronoun explicitation in the entire comparable corpus is presented. The second stage concentrates on navigation menus, and the contrastive analysis focuses on the explicitation of articles and average length of lexical units associated with superstructural concepts in hypertexts. 6.1 Personal pronoun explicitation The optional explicitation of personal pronouns functioning as subjects was selected given that they are required in English but not in Spanish. The previously formulated syntactic explicitation hypothesis (Olohan and Baker 2000) is supported if the frequency of use of personal pronouns in translated/localized texts (LWT) is higher than in non-translated web texts (OWT). This type of explicitation could be defined as optional explicitation in Klaudys terms (1998), even when, pragmatically, the recurring use of the optional personal pronoun as subject has a reinforcement use in Spanish and could lead to an impolite tone. For this contrastive analysis, the Wordlist function of the lexical analysis tool was used. The overall frequency of all words in the complete Spanish Web Comparable Corpus will be contrasted in both sections of the corpus. Figure 2 shows the results of the contrastive study using word frequency analysis. The frequency of the most repeated personal pronouns, usted you-formal (LWT=0.7, OWT= 0.3) and nosotros we (LWT=0.084, OWT= 0.047) is consistently higher in localized texts. The other personal pronoun that could be used in order to address the user, t you-informal, is slightly more widely used in the original texts, but the results may be biased given that in Spanish, the personal

The future of general tendencies in translation

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Usted [You-formal] 0.008 0.002 0.004 0.0029 0.049 0.3 Original Localized 0.084

15

0.7

Ud. [You-formal. T [You-Informal] Abr.]

Nosotros [We]

Figure 2. Contrastive study of personal pronoun use in the entire comparable corpus

pronoun t you-informal and the possessive tu your are typographically distinguished using an accent mark. Unfortunately, localized web texts are extremely inconsistent in their use of accentuation of monosyllabic words in Spanish (JimnezCrespo 2008a), and therefore, the results obtained might be biased due to localized texts not using the accent mark on this personal pronoun. Another result of this contrastive study that supports the hypothesis is the higher frequency of use in OWT of the Spanish abbreviation for the pronoun usted you-formal, Ud. This abbreviation is four times more frequent in OWT (0.008) than in LWT (0.002), and this might indicate the tendency in OWTs towards language economy and brevity, a tendency not shared by LWT. A second analysis was performed in an exhortative communicative block in which the user is addressed directly: web legal texts. The web legal comparable subcorpus included the conventional communicative blocks, legal terms, privacy policies and terms of use in corporate websites. The analysis in both subcorpora yields a frequency of use 6.5 times greater for the pronoun usted you-formal in LWT than in OWT. In the former, the pronoun usted has a frequency of 0.39, together with 0.05 for the abbreviation Ud. In original texts, the frequency for usted is 0.06, while the abbreviation is used only three times in the entire subcorpus, or 0.005. This higher frequency of use in LWT can also be observed if a keyword analysis is performed using the original subcorpus as the reference corpus. Keywords analyses identify the specific words that are overrepresented in a specific text or corpus as compared to a reference corpus. In this case, it is logical to assume that this test could be used to observe whether pronouns are more frequently used in LWT compared to non-translated legal web texts. Table 3 shows a keyword analysis of the localized legal subcorpus using the original legal subcorpus as a control corpus. All proper names of companies

16

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

Table 3. Keyword analysis in Wordsmith Tools of localized web legal subcorpus using the original web legal subcorpus as reference corpus
N 2 3 8 11 12 13 17 WORD usted sitio informacin materiales filiales privacidad trminos FREQ, 433 1,212 1,195 145 102 317 251 LOC % 0.39 1.08 1.06 0.13 0.09 0.28 0.22 FREQ, 36 283 327 10 3 61 46 0.11 0.08 NAT % 0.06 0.49 0.57 0.02 KEYNESS 183.3 167.3 114.8 67.8 63.9 60.7 51.6

were eliminated as they tend to be consistently repeated throughout websites. The analysis clearly shows that the pronoun usted you-formal is the most overrepresented word in the localized web legal subcorpus with a 183.3% level of keyness. These contrastive tests clearly demonstrate that optional personal pronouns show higher frequencies of use in LWT than in OWT, even when both are in principle produced with the same textual function and addressed to the same audience. Thus, it is logical to assume that the higher tendency to use the optional personal pronoun in Spanish is a specific feature of localized texts. 6.2 Navigation menu terminology For the next stage, the comparable subcorpus of navigation terminology was used. For the purposes of this study, each entry in the navigation menus was considered as a single lexical unit as they represent concepts related to the structure of the hypertext, such as sitemap or about us. These structural concepts represent each of the conventionalized blocks in the digital genre corporate website (JimnezCrespo 2009a; 2008c). As previously mentioned, web development style guides recommend the use of brief, concise and unambiguous lexical units (Jeney 2007). The two analyses carried out were (1) the contrastive analysis of optional article use; and (2) the average word and character length in navigation terminology. As was the case for the first analysis, most lexical units in navigation menus consist of nouns, and therefore the optional use of articles could be used to analyze contrastively optional syntactical explicitation. As previously mentioned, a lexical unit referring to the communicative block that provides information about the company could be empresa company or la empresa the company. Both renderings would convey the same message in this context, but under the specific constraints of this type of web texts and usability recommendations, it is logical to

The future of general tendencies in translation

17

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.23 0.06 el 0.82 0.51 1.45 1.14 0.43 0.06 la los 00.07 las del 0.51

Original nav. Localized corpus

Total

Figure 3. Contrastive analysis of article use in original and localized navigation menus

assume that the shorter rendering without the article would be more appropriate than the longer one. Both sections of the navigation menu comparable subcorpus were analyzed using the Wordlist components of Wordsmith Tools, and detailed statistical frequency lists were obtained. Figure 3 shows this contrastive analysis for the four articles in Spanish, el (masculine singular), la (feminine singular), los (masculine plural), las (feminine plural) and overall article use. The analysis also incorporated the Spanish contraction del (de+el) of/from the that results from the combination of the preposition de of/from plus the masculine singular article el the. Figure 3 clearly shows that the frequencies in LWT are consistently higher than in OWT for all articles and the contraction del. Globally, articles amount to 1.14% of word use in original navigation menus, while they represent 3% in localized menus. In the case of the masculine singular article, el, together with its prepositional contraction del, the frequency in localized text is almost three times higher (2.95 times) than in original texts. The significance of the higher presence of explicitation of the article can be observed in the list of the ten most frequent words in each subcorpus. In the localized subcorpus list, the articles are the second most frequent words, only preceded by the preposition de of/from with a frequency of 8.11%. In the original subcorpus list, articles occupy the 20th position with 1.14% frequency. The final analysis focuses on the average number of words per lexical unit or superstructural concept. In order to obtain the average number of words per lexical unit, the total number of tokens or number of words in each corpus was divided by the number of lexical units in the corpus. The global analysis yielded a frequency of 1.53 words per lexical unit in OWT and 1.95 words in LWT. Thus,

18

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

Figure 4. Ten most frequent words in navigation menu comparable subcorpus

lexical units in localized navigation menus are on average 27.4% longer than those in original websites. Nevertheless, localized websites in the corpus represent on average larger multinational companies, and their websites contain a higher number of communicative sections per site. Therefore, a second test was needed to guarantee that the results were not merely due to the higher degree of explicitness needed in websites with deeper levels in their hypertextual structures. Using previous descriptive studies by Jimnez-Crespo (2008c, 2009a), two additional analyses were carried out: one with the lexical units that represent the eleven most frequent communicative blocks in this digital genre (home, contact us, about us, location, company history, legal, privacy policy, news, products & services, sitemap, jobs), and a second analysis with only the seven most frequent or conventional communicative blocks, that is, those that appear in over 50% of corporate websites (home, contact, about us, legal, news, products, sitemap).
2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.53 1.95 1.51 1.99 1.43 1.95

+27.40

+31.69 %

+35.77%

Original Localized

All Lexical Units

11 most frequent

7 more frequent

Figure 5. Contrastive analysis of average number of words in navigation menu terminology.

The future of general tendencies in translation

19

As Figure 5 shows, both additional analyses also indicate a higher average number of words in localized navigation terminology. Analysis of the eleven most frequent communicative blocks yielded an average of 1.51 words per lexical unit in OWT and 1.99 words in LWT. Analysis of the seven core communicative blocks in this digital genre also shows a higher number of words per lexical unit, 1.43 words in OWT and 1.95 words in LWT. Interestingly, the difference between the two textual populations is greater in those lexical units that show the higher level of terminology conventionalization (Nielsen and Tahir 2002; Jimnez-Crespo 2009a), such as contact us, home or about us. In this case, the average difference in length went up from +27.4% when analyzing all lexical units in the corpus to +35.77% when contrasting the seven more conventional communicative blocks in this digital genre. This difference is also reflected in the average number of characters used per lexical unit: 10.14 characters per lexical unit in OWT and 12.45 in LWT. This higher average number of words per lexical unit might be directly related to higher levels of syntactic and optional explicitation identified in the previous analysis of article use. The contrastive analyses carried out show clearly that, on average, lexical units used in localized texts for navigation purposes are longer than those found in non-localized corporate websites. This adds to the previous findings related to optional article use that points directly to higher levels of explicitation in translated texts. Given that both web developers of Spanish corporate websites and localizers working into Spanish intended to produce highly conventionalized communicative segments with the same communicative purpose and addressed to the same target audience, these results show that navigation menus are longer and at least, more syntactically explicit than those found in OWT. From the point of view of web usability (Nielsen and Loranger 2006; Brink et al. 2002), it could therefore be argued that the localization process might lead to somewhat reduced levels of usability and quality than those of original websites.5 7.

Conclusions

This study was initiated with the purpose of testing the explicitation hypothesis in a specific translation subset in which explicitation resulting in lengthening would not be expected. The results have confirmed the proposed hypothesis in that a corpus of localized websites shows traces of T translation explicitation when compared to similar non-translated texts. The hypothesis was confirmed for two optional syntactic items in Spanish: personal pronouns acting as subjects, and articles. The former are compulsory in English but optional in Spanish, and the latter are optional in both languages in titles and lexical units in navigation

20

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

menus. Thus, the syntactic explicitation hypothesis has been confirmed both in a potential case of interlingual explicitation similar to that observed by Olohan and Baker (2000), and in navigation menus in which the syntactic item is optional in both languages for this specific context, and therefore there is a lower chance that the results are due to mere interlingual interference (Toury 1995). Additionally, contrastive analysis of navigation menu terminology has confirmed that lexical units are on average longer in localized websites that in original ones. When the seven communicative blocks in this digital genre with the highest level of terminological conventionalization were analyzed (home, contact, about us, legal, news, products, sitemap), the results showed that Spanish lexical units used in localized websites from the ninety-five largest US companies is on average 35.77% longer than that in similar Spanish corporate websites. It is clear that the causes of these longer renderings can be directly attributed to the different constraints that operate during the translation/localization process (Baker 1999). In part, this could be due to the fact that localized websites do not follow terminological conventions found in similar target genres. As previously shown by Jimnez-Crespo (2009a), translators/localizers might be concerned with finding a potential adequate match in the target language for a specific lexical unit, but they might not have the tools to identify the most conventional rendering and opt for alternatives that fulfill the communicative goal. As an example, the most conventional term used for contact us in Spanish is the noun contacto, while websites show clear interference from the English verb+prounoun lexical unit contact us. Thus, localized sites tend to show longer Spanish renderings such as contacte con nosotros or contctenos, even when the process of language and communicative efficiency is clearly shown in the established convention in the target language, the noun contacto. The same can be said of the lexical unit sitemap, conventionalized as mapa web in Spanish, while localized texts show more grammatically adequate renderings such as mapa del sitio. This latter lexical unit might not have been conventionalized due to language efficiency issues. As Baker (2004) rightly indicates, it is quite possible that the same findings could be attributed to different phenomena, and in this case, it could be argued that a combination of syntactic explicitation (Olohan and Baker 2000) and interference (Toury 1995) might be at play. Despite the previously mentioned criticism of any type of research into the search for universals of translation (i.e. House 2008; Tymozcko 2005, 1998), the implications of this study are significant for translation practitioners, trainers and industry experts. The goal of the Localization Industry for the process is to produce quality localized texts that look like they have been developed in-country (LISA 2004: 11). Therefore, being aware of these tendencies during the translation and QA stages can clearly assist in producing texts with fewer syntactic and

The future of general tendencies in translation

21

lexical features that distance them from non-translated ones. Translators, once they are aware of this explicitation-lengthening tendency, can choose to resist it or apply it consciously depending on the translation task at hand (Chesterman, 2004a: 46). The same rationale applies to localization training, currently focused mainly on teaching technology processes. Trainers who are aware of how technology and cognitive processes lead to undesirable effects in localized texts can direct the attention of students towards these, instead of merely replicating currently established processes in the industry that will lead to localized texts with distinct features. Finally, in a user-oriented type of instrumental translation such as localization, usability research is essential to understand how users interact with the digital interactive texts. The effect of a localized text on the user should in principle be similar to that of the original text, and using comparable corpus-based studies can help in identifying the framework of expectations of users in each language/ cultural region combination or locale. Research into the effects of the general tendencies on readers, trainers and translators is still in its infancy (Chesterman 2004a, 2004b), but it can clearly assist in producing texts that look like non-translated, spontaneously produced texts with fewer features linked to the translation/ localization process. It is hoped that this study will help not only global research efforts at understanding the language of translation, but also have an impact in professional and didactic localization practices.

Notes
1. The ongoing interest in translation universals is witnessed by the second international conference on translation universals Methodological Advanced in Corpus-Based Translation Studies that took place in Ghent College, Belgium, Jan 8th9th, 2010. 2. Conventionalization (Kenny 2001) and normalization (Laviosa 1998) were proposed using lexical density as a variable in literary translation, together with word frequency lists. In the case of localization, Jimnez-Crespo (2009a) highlights the need to redefine conventionalization in instrumental or covert translations where conventions play a crucial role (Nord 1997). 3. The operative concept for the compilation is locale, defined as a combination of language and geographical context, such as Spanish-Spain or British English. The locale of the original corpus is Spanish-Spain and source texts are compiled from the locale American English. 4. According to the Forbes list [http://www.forbes.com/lists/]. 5. Specific user-based empirical research would be needed in order to study this potential impact further.

22

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo

References
Alcina, Amparo. 2008. Translation technologies: scope, tools and resources. Target 20:1. 79 102. Austermhl, Frank. 2001. Electronic tools for translators. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Baker, Mona. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: implications and applications. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. 233250. Baker, Mona. 1995. Corpora in Translation Studies: an overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7:2. 223243. Baker, Mona. 1996. Corpus-based Translation Studies: the challenges that lie ahead. Harold Somers, ed. Terminology, LSP and Translation: studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996. 175186. Baker, Mona. 1999. The role of corpora in investigating the linguistic behavior of professional translators. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4:2. 281298. Baker, Mona. 2004. A Corpus-based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 2. 167193. Biber, Douglas. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 4. 243257. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1986. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. Julianne House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and intercultural communication: discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tbingen: Gunter Narr, 1986. 1735. Bly, Robert. 2002. The Online Copywriters Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Brinck, Tom, Darren Gergle and Scott Wood. 2002. Usability for the Web. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman. Bowker, Lynn 2006. Translation memory and text . Lynn Bowker, ed. Lexicography, terminology and translation. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2006. 175187. Bowker, Lynn. 2002. Computer-aided translation technology: a practical introduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Cheong, Ho-Jeong. 2006. Target text contraction in English into Korean Translation: a contradiction of presumed translation universals?. Meta 51:2. 343367. Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. Causal model for Translation Studies. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines. Research models in Translation Studies I. Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2000. 1527. Chesterman, Andrew. 2004a. Beyond the particular. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist?. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 3350. Chesterman, Andrew. 2004b. Hypotheses about translation universals. Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjr and Daniel Gile, eds. Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 113. Chesterman, Andrew. 2010. Response and discussion. Paper presented at the MATS 2010, Methodological advances in Corpus-Based Translation Studies Conference, University College Ghent, Belgium, January 8, 9, 2010. Cronin, Michael. 2003. Translation and globalization. London: Routledge.

The future of general tendencies in translation Daelemans, Walter and Vronique Hoste (eds.). 2009. Evaluation of translation technology. LANS 8/2009. Brussels: Academic and Scientific Publishers. Delisle, Jean, Lee-Jahnke, Hannelore and Monique C. Cormier. 1999. Translation terminology. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Daz-Cintas, Jorge. 2003. Teora y prctica de la subtitulacin: ingles/Espaol. Barcelona: Ariel. Dieguez, Mara I. 2008. Anlisis terminolgico de sitios web localizados del ingles al Espaol: uso de tcnicas de amplificacin y elision. Tradumtica 6. Available at http://www.fti.uab. es/tradumatica/revista/num6/articles/09/9.pdf Dunne, Kieran. 2006. Perspectives on localization. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Englund-Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and explicitation in the translation. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins. Frawley, William. 2000. Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. Lawrence Venuti ed. The translation studies reader. London-New York: Routledge. 250263. Gamero, Silvia. 2001. La Traduccin de textos tcnicos. Barcelona: Ariel. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun. 2008. Universal thought in translation. MuTra 2007LSP translation scenarios: Conference proceedings, June 10, 2009. Available at http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2007_Proceedings/2007_Gerzymich-Arbogast_Heidrun.pdf Halverson, Sandra Louise. 1998. Translation studies and representative corpora: establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study. Meta 43:4. 494514. Holmes, James 1972/1988. The name and nature of translation studies. James S. Holmes, ed. Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies. Amserdam: Rodopi. 6780. House, Juliane. 1987. Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tbingen: Gunter Narr. House, Juliane. 2008. Beyond intervention: universals in translation. Trans-kom 1:1. 619. Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, 2010. Explicitation and implicitation in legal translation: A process study of trainee translators. Meta 55:2. 237250. Jeney, Cynthia. 2007. Writing for the web: A practical guide. Columbus: Pearson Prentice Hall. Jimnez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2008a. El proceso de localizacin web: estudio contrastivo de un corpus comparable del gnero sitio web corporativo. Department of Translation and Interpreting, University of Granada, Spain. [PhD thesis]. Available at: http://hera.ugr.es/tesisugr/17515324.pdf Jimnez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2008b. Web genres in localization: a Spanish corpus study. Localization Focus The International Journal of Localization 6:1. 213. Jimnez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2008c. Caracterizacin del gnero sitio web corporativo espaol: anlisis descriptivo con fines traductolgicos. Maria Fernndez Snchez and Ricardo Muoz Martn, eds. Aproximaciones cognitivas al estudio de la traduccin y la interpretacin. Granada: Comares, 2008. 259300. Jimnez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2009a. Conventions in localisation: a corpus study of original vs. translated web texts. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized Translation 12. 79102. Jimnez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2009b. Navegacin Web accesible. Tercedor, Maria Isabel, ed. Inclusin y accesibilidad desde el diseo y la presentacin de materiales multimedia. Granada: Editorial Tragacanto, 187206. Jimnez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2010a. The effect of Translation Memory tools in translated web texts: evidence from a comparative product-based study. Linguistica Antverpiensia 8. 213232. Jimnez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2010b. Localization and writing for a new medium: a review of digital style guides. Tradumtica 8. Available at: www.fti.uab.es/tradumatica/revista/num8/ articles/08/08art.htm

23

24

Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo Kenny, Dorothy. 2001. Lexis and creativity in translation. Manchester: St. Jerome. Klaudy, Kinga. 1996. Back-translation as a tool for detecting explicitation strategies in translation. Kinga Klaudy, Jose Lambert and Aniko Sohr, eds. Translation Studies in Hungary. Budapest: Scholastica, 99114. Klaudy, Kinga. 1998. Explicitation. Mona Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 8084. Klaudy, Kinga and Karoly, Krisztina. 2003. Implicitation in translation: an empirical justification of operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6:1. 1328. Larose, Robert. 1998. Mthodologie de lvaluation des traductions. Meta 43:2. 163186. Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara. 1996. Investigating simplification in an English Comparable Corpus of newspaper articles. Kinga Klaudy and Janos Kohn, eds. Transferre Necesse Est: current issues of translation theory. Budapest: Scholastica, 1996. 531540. Laviosa, Sara. 1998. The corpus-based approach: A new paradigm in Translation Studies. Meta 43:4. 474479. Laviosa, Sara. 2002. Corpus-based Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. LISA. 2003. Localization Industry Primer. Geneva: The Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA). Available at: http://www.lisa.org/products/primer.html LISA. 2004. Localization Industry Primer, 2nd Edition. Geneva: The Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA). Malmkjr, Kirsten. 2005. Norms and nature in Translation Studies. Synaps: Fagsprk, Kommuniksjon, Kulturkunnscap 16. 1319. Mauranen, Anna and Kujamki, Pekka. 2004. Translation universals: do they exist?. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins. Munday, Jeremy. 2009. The Routledge companion to Translation Studies. London-New York: Routledge. Nielsen, Jacob. 2000. Designing Web usability: the practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: News Riders. Nielsen, Jacob and Loranger, Hoa. 2006. Prioritizing Web usability. Indianapolis: News Riders. Nielsen, Jacob and Tahir, Marie. 2002. Homepage usability: 50 Websited deconstructed. Indianapolis: News Riders. Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. OHagan, Minako. 2009. Evolution of user-generated translation: fansubs, translation hacking and crowdsourcing. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 1. 94121. OHagan, Minako and Ashworth, Donald. 2003. Translation-mediated communication in a digital World: facing the challenges of globalization and localization. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Olohan, Maeve. 2004. Introducing corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Olohan, Maeve and Mona Baker. 2000. Reporting that in translated English: evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation?. Across Languages and Cultures 1:2. 141158. Perego, Elisa. 2003. Evidence of explicitation in subtitling: towards a categorisation. Across Languages and Cultures 4: 1. 6388. Price, John and Lisa Price. 2002. Hot text. Web writing that works. Berkeley: News Riders. Puurtinen, Tiina. 2004. Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish childrens literature. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist?. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 165176.

The future of general tendencies in translation Pym, Anthony, 2005. Explaining explicitation. Krisztina Kroly and gota Fora, eds. New trends in Translation Studies: In honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest. Akadmiai Kiad, 2005. 2934. Reineke, Detlef. 2005 .Traduccin y localizacin. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Anroart Ediciones. Saldhana, Gabriela. 2008. Explicitation revisited: bringing the reader into the picture. Transkom 1:1. 2035. Schler, Reinhard. 2005. The Irish model in localization. Paper presented at LISA Forum Cairo 2005: Perspectives from the Middle East and Africa. Available at: http://www.lisa.org/utils/ getfile.html?id=61136686. Snell-Hornby, Mary 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Spyridakis, Jan H. 2000. Guidelines for authoring comprehensible WebPages and evaluating their success. Technical Communication 47:3. 359382. Swales, John 1990. Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Toury, Gideon. 2004. Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 1532. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonia. 2004. Unique items over or under-represented in translated language?. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamki, eds. Translation universals: do they exist?, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 177184. Tymoczko, Maria. 2005. Trajectories of research in Translation Studies. Meta 50:4. 10821097. Tymoczko, Maria. 1998. Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies. Meta 43:4. 652659. Vanderauwera, Rita. 1985. Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a minority literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Venuti, Laurence. 2005. Translation, history, narrative. Meta 50:3. 800816. Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique compare du franais et de langlais. Mthode de traduction. Paris: Didier. Whittaker, Sunniva. 2004. tude contrastive des syntagmes nominaux dmonstratifs dans des textes traduits du franais en norvgien et des textes sources norvgiens: stratgie de traduction ou translationese?. Forum 2:2. 221240.

25

Authors address
Miguel A. Jimnez-Crespo Coordinator, Translation and Interpreting Program Department of Spanish and Portuguese Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 105 George St NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ, 08901 USA miguelji@rci.rutgers.edu