This article was downloaded by: [88.15.196.196]On: 09 October 2014, At: 02:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The TranslatorPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20

Register Shifts in Scientific andTechnical TranslationMonika Krein-Kühlea

a Cologne University of Applied Sciences, GermanyPublished online: 21 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Monika Krein-Kühle (2011) Register Shifts in Scientific and TechnicalTranslation, The Translator, 17:2, 391-413, DOI: 10.1080/13556509.2011.10799495

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10799495

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ISSN 1355-6509 © St Jerome Publishing Manchester

The Translator. Volume 17, Number 2 (2011), 391-413 ���N 97�-1-90�7�3-27-����N 97�-1-90�7�3-27-�

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation A Corpus-in-Context Study

MoN�ka kre�N-kühleCologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Abstract. This article investigates register shifts in scientific and technical translation, addressing the question of how and to what extent specific features are governed and constrained by register aspects. It examines the translation-relevant items have and be when used as main verbs and their German translation solutions, drawing on a theoretical and methodological framework that takes due account of the context, i.e., the domain(s) underlying the text and reflected in it, and the situation in which the translations fulfill their communicative function in expert-to-expert communication. The data analyzed come from the scientific and technical translation part of the Cologne Specialized Translation Corpus, a high-quality translation corpus designed for translational research. The analysis reveals trends in translation solutions that can be of relevance in translation teaching, professional translation and translation qual-ity assessment. The findings suggest that analyzing register shifts requires translation research to engage with the context, to take account of all textual and extra-textual aspects that trigger specific uses of language in a particular translation. The paper concludes with a call for greater emphasis on the quality of the translation product in corpus compilation, so that researchers may obtain more reliable results and a better understanding of the constrained nature of scientific and technical translation.

Keywords: �cientific and technical translation, equivalence, Corpus method-ology, high-quality translation corpora, register, lexical-semantic features, Translation shifts, Translation solutions.

The notion of register is a highly powerful tool in the analysis of scientific and technical translation (�TT)1 using corpus methods applied to high-quality

1 �cientific and technical translation is used here as a generic term referring to translation of expert-to-expert writing in the theoretical and applied fields of the natural sciences, engi-neering and technology. This definition includes texts which Möhn (1979) calls fachinterne Kommunikation (expert-to-expert communication in the same field(s)) and interfachliche Kommunikation (expert-to-expert communication in different field(s)), but excludes fachexterne Kommunikation (expert-to-layperson communication) which is governed by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation392

translation corpora. �n felicitous translation, the register used reflects an opti-mal selection of syntactic, lexical-semantic and terminological-phraseological means. The register also mirrors the interrelations between those means and aspects of genre and text type conventions, context, and the communicative situation in which the translation fulfils its function in expert-to-expert com-munication. an investigation of register shifts in �TT will not only yield regularities in translation that are useful for the applied branches of the discip-line, but will also enable us to draw more general theoretical conclusions that may help us understand the nature of translation. This paper investigates how these register shifts can be identified in translation analysis by looking at one particular text level in context, the lexical-semantic level, and by examining two specific translation-relevant items, have and be when used as main verbs. The study addresses the question of whether, how and to what extent the use of these specific items is governed and constrained by register aspects. To this end, the investigation must be carried out within a sound theoretical and methodological framework that helps us validate the theory in whose terms our research is carried out (Toury 199�:1), and it must be based on a high-quality translation corpus, so that reliable results may be obtained. The following sections discuss the theoretical bases for corpus compilation and analysis (�ection 1.1) and describe the Cologne �pecialized Translation Corpus (C�TC) as a methodological tool for the investigation of register (�ection 1.2).

1. Towards a high-quality scientific and technical translation corpus

although the use of corpora has now been firmly established in both the theo-retical/descriptive and applied branches of translation studies (�aker 199�, laviosa 2002, Zanettin et al. 2003, �eeby et al. 2009), translation scholars often make no specific mention of the nature of the translations being selected and investigated or of their quality. as a result, given the poor quality of so many translations, the findings can be debatable, as reflected, for example, in Toury’s “law of interference” (199�:274 ff.). �n these approaches, the value of statistical findings is often unclear, since the question of why certain phe-nomena occur in translation is rarely addressed. The fact is, however, that both the nature of the translations selected and investigated and their quality will inevitably influence the results of the analyses. �nattention to these aspects leads to contradictory statements about translational phenomena, such as those found in the literature regarding the phenomenon of explicitation2 (englund

other constraints and conditions. For alternative definitions of scientific translation and technical translation, see �yrne (200�:2 ff.) and Gouadec (2007).2 krein-kühle (2009:223) notes that “[a]lthough it is assumed that explicitation may correlate with translator experience and/or the quality level of the translation (englund Dimitrova 200�:44), some scholars suggest that explicitation occurs more often in transla-tions produced by learners (laviosa-�raithwaite 199�:1�3) or non-professional translators

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 393

Dimitrova 200�:44, krein-kühle 2009), and hence, may mislead researchers and students working with corpora.

1.1 Theoretical prerequisites for corpus compilation and analysis

�n order to compile and analyze a high-quality specialized translation corpus, two requirements must be fulfilled, namely that the object of investigation is translation proper and that the corpus is a high-quality one. These two require-ments are discussed in further detail in this section.

Firstly, the object of our investigation is established as a translation proper (koller 2004, �chreiber 1993) in accordance with the following definition, based on �chreiber (1993:43) and elaborated by krein-kühle (2009:224):

a translation is defined as the interlingual transposition of a source text into a target text based on the invariance requirement of �T sense/in-tended sense or ‘das Gemeinte’ [what is meant] ... and involving an interpretation of the �T against the background of factual knowledge (e.g. domain knowledge, encyclopaedic/world knowledge, etc.) underlying the �T. �ince scientific and technical �Ts may be defective ..., scientific and technical translation may therefore be understood as to include corrections, e.g. to remedy �T factual inaccuracies, or well-motivated minor revisions, omissions or additions (such as a translator’s footnote), but to exclude any revisions, omissions or ad-ditions that go beyond the level of sense/intended sense or ‘Gemeinte’ [what is meant].

although a clear-cut delimitation of the subject matter of ‘translation’ is cer-tainly not always feasible owing to the complexity of the concept of translation and the different theoretical approaches used to investigate it (koller 199�), any definition of equivalence calls for a distinction between translation per se and adaptation (�chreiber 1993). as koller (2004:20�) rightly argues, this delimitation is necessary to allow the description of syntactic, semantic, stylistic and pragmatic regularities in the relationship between source texts and target texts and to work out the conditions which govern a selection from among potential equivalents at the various textual levels. The notion of translation per se views a translation as having the same function as the original or serving the same intended function. �n the case of �TT this means that the target text has the same informative-communicative function among specialists in the target culture that the source text has in the source culture. Functional constancy, therefore, is the prerequisite for translation (albrecht

(�lum-kulka 19��:20-21), whereas others suggest that explicitation is a translation norm and thus may be typical of professional translators as well (Weissbrod 1992, also �lum-kulka 19��)”.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation394

1990:79) and, by extension, for the presence of equivalence (see also house 2009:224). according to albrecht (200�:3�), text function is the main criterion that defines the �T components to be retained in translation. �n our approach and in a prototypical sense (halverson 1999), invariance of text function3 or functional constancy is viewed as the defining criterion for translation.

�econdly, we have to ensure that the corpus is a high-quality corpus, i.e. one that satisfies the criterion of equivalence, as reassessed and extended by krein-kühle (2003, 200�), at all textual levels, that is to say, at the syntactic, lexical-semantic, terminological-phraseological and text levels and at the overall text-in-context level. equivalence is defined as:

a qualitative complete-text-in-context-based concept. �t refers to the translational relation between a complete source text and a complete target text, both of which are embedded in a specific domain-related context, and implies the preservation of �T sense/intended sense or ‘das Gemeinte’ [what is meant] (the invariant) ... in the TT using Tl linguistic means, the best possible selection of which must have been achieved at the syntactic, lexical-semantic, terminological-phraseological, and textual levels. These levels are hierarchically interrelated and subject to pragmatic aspects ... �n this way equality or even improvement (in the case of �T defects) of ‘communicative value’ (kade 1977:3�) may be deemed to have been achieved. (krein-kühle 2009:22�)

equivalence, as understood here, is a hierarchized syntactic, lexical-semantic, terminological-phraseological and textual complex which is determined and constrained by pragmatic, contextual and situational factors. �t is regarded as a dynamic rather than a static concept, since the establishment of potential equivalents requires the unearthing of the equivalence relations extant in a specific �T-TT pair in context, the replication, i.e. reconstitution, of the trans-lation process and the evaluation of translators’ decisions. The dynamism of equivalence lies in the fact that it is both a prospective and a retrospective concept. Prospectively, it is negotiated in the process of translation via trans-lators’ decisions which are constrained by syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and other factors. retrospectively, it is used to replicate the process as well as the translational decisions and their constraints in the analysis of the product. equivalence is a qualitative concept (house 2009) that cannot be assumed per definitionem to exist in translated texts. of course, there is no such thing as total equivalence or total quality, but a very high degree of equivalence/quality in the translations being investigated here can be ensured by defining specific quality-relevant selection criteria and specific comparative parameters on

3 house (1997:3�) defines the function of a text “very simply as the application or use which the text has in the particular context of a situation”.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 395

the basis of the theoretical prerequisites put forward above (i.e. translations proper that are equivalent to their �Ts). as long as scientific and technical translation focuses on the production of functionally invariant high-quality target texts and is geared towards disseminating information and enabling communication to take place between specialists from different linguistic-cultural communities in order to advance scientific and technological progress, the theoretical concepts of equivalence and quality need and deserve further in-depth study and analysis.

To fulfil the two requirements mentioned, our corpus compilation needs to meet selection criteria devised for designing a corpus that promises rel-evant and intersubjectively verifiable insights into translational phenomena or regularities. These criteria are categorized in three sets: general selection criteria, qualitative selection criteria based on textual and extra-textual data, and quantitative criteria (krein-kühle 2003:�4-�1). Firstly, general selection criteria include corpus attributes, i.e. full text, synchronicity, bilinguality, central corpus, reference corpus, etc. and text attributes, i.e. text typology, text status, geographical considerations, genre and register considerations, etc. (see �ection 2). �econdly, qualitative selection criteria include textual and extra-textual data. Textual data refer to parallel texts and additional domain-related reference material available to the translator and the researcher. Professional translators usually have recourse to parallel texts, i.e. original texts of the same text genre/type and on the same subject in the target language, so these texts are to be considered as reference material alongside the corpus. They may help refute or confirm translation-relevant findings and therefore contribute to intersubjective verification of the results of the analysis. extra-textual data refer to contextual-situational aspects such as typicality in respect of the range of �T authors and translators (�aker 199�), translators’ competence, aware-ness of the origin of the translations, recourse to �T authors, translators and experts in the domain, etc. (see �ection 1.2). Finally, there is a quantitative criterion. as regards corpus size, � follow �owker and Pearson (2002:4�-4�), who suggest that more useful information may be retrieved from “a corpus that is small but well designed than from one that is larger but is not custom-ized to meet your needs”.4 This is particularly true of high-quality corpora due to the various quality-relevant factors to be considered in selection and analysis. a subcorpus size of 20,000 to �0,000 words may provide a sound basis for obtaining statistically underpinned generalizations, in particular when research into specific phenomena can be carried out on several homogeneous subcorpora.

however, even the best-devised selection criteria may not guarantee ful-filment of the requirements mentioned above, i.e. that the translations in the

4 as �owker and Pearson (ibid.:4�) have demonstrated, a specialized corpus of 10,000 words may be sufficient to perform specific tasks successfully, e.g. to learn the vocabulary of a particular domain.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation396

corpus are translations per se and that they meet the equivalence requirement. Therefore, each �T-TT pair being considered for inclusion in the corpus was checked� by a translator-expert and/or an expert in the field at the end of the translation process. a separate checking process is then carried out by the researcher, in accordance with certain comparative parameters which help to establish whether the �T-TT pairs are suitable for inclusion in the corpus and to identify translation-relevant features. The comparison procedure is both “linear” and “selective” (as described by reiß 19�1:31�-17) and its param-eters include the translation unit, i.e. the text-in-context in all its complexity, and a reliable tertium comparationis, i.e. the ‘sense’ or ‘intended sense’ as the basis for the comparison. also considered are the directionality of the comparison and the translational and domain(s)-related competence of the researcher. These parameters have been discussed in greater detail elsewhere (krein-kühle 200�).

�t should be noted that the notion of tertium comparationis or invariant is less indeterminate and subjective than some scholars seem to assume (e.g. Munday 2001). There is not so much optionality in translation, since transla-tion, and specialized translation in particular, is a highly constrained process that involves grammatical-syntactic, semantic, terminological, textual, register-related, genre-related, pragmatic, contextual (domain-related) and situational constraints. For example, the sense/intended sense that functions as the invari-ant/tertium comparationis in this approach can be checked to a very reliable degree by referring to the ‘facts of the case’ (Sachverhalt) underlying the text (kade 19�4:94). The intended sense of a scientific and technical source text is generally reflected in the communication of results or facts obtained from intersubjectively verifiable scientific and technological research to an informed specialist readership in a given discourse community. Thus, even if there is no such thing as complete objectivity in producing, assessing or analyzing the quality of a translation, the theoretical and methodological framework proposed here allows informed and intersubjective replication, or reconstitu-tion, of translators’ decisions and conclusions. �n both corpus selection and application, this approach considers linguistic, textual, pragmatic, contextual and situational dimensions. as will be shown, such an approach can yield reliable results. The theoretical prerequisites just described form the basis for the compilation of the Cologne �pecialized Translation Corpus (C�TC) (krein-kühle 2007), which is presented in the next section.

� Checking is understood here as a final checking process comprising two steps. �n a first step, the translator-expert reviews the translation by comparing source and target texts with the help of her or his domain knowledge and translational competence against the theoreti-cal background explained in 1.1 (see definitions of translation/equivalence) and within the framework of the comparative parameters mentioned in this section. �n a second step, the translator-expert and/or an expert in the field reads the target text without referring to the source text, simulating the experience of the end user.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 397

1.2 The Cologne Specialized Translation Corpus (CSTC)

The research discussed here draws on the scientific and technical translation part of the Cologne �pecialized Translation Corpus Project, a unique endeavour to compile high-quality corpora for translational research (ibid.:2007) and to establish corpus-based translation studies at the Cologne University of applied �ciences. This corpus aims to give corpus-based research into translation a stronger qualitative edge than hitherto. high-quality specialized translation corpora optimally reflect the combination of profound domain knowledge and outstanding translational knowledge of the competent professional translator. �uch corpora cannot fail to benefit trainee translators, professional translators in different domains, and translation scholars. �y delivering hard evidence of felicitous translation, they can be used not only to help scholars “to establish, objectively, how translators overcome difficulties of translation in practice, and to use this evidence to provide realistic models for trainee translators” (�aker 199�:231), but also to identify intersubjective regularities or patterns in translation, which can then yield meaningful generalizations that can be useful for translation teaching, professional translation and translation quality assessment (krein-kühle 2003).

The focus on high-quality translations implies that the corpus only contains translations that were produced and/or checked by competent professional translators, with the notion of ‘competent professional translator’ defined as staff translators� who are university graduates, have 10 or more years of experience in professional translation, and are native Tl speakers endowed with the requisite domain-specific knowledge. The translators are competent professionals who adhere to what Chesterman calls “expectancy norms” and “professional norms” (1997:�4-70). all �T authors are acknowledged as domain experts in their scientific communities and have published widely in their respective fields.

awareness of the conditions under which the translations in the corpus were produced may also provide clues as to the quality considerations which have guided the translators. The translators whose texts are included in the corpus have been required to adhere to the most stringent of equivalence-related quality considerations; in most cases, the translations were carried out in close cooperation with the author or with target language experts in the respective fields and with the usual recourse to specialized glossaries, dictionaries and parallel texts. all translations were checked (see fn. �) by senior translators and/or heads of in-house translation departments and by the

� The status of ‘staff translator’ is normally a quality indicator, because staff translators have the opportunity to contact the initiator of the translation within the company; in most cases the initiator is also an expert in the field and can provide the translator with reliable information. Moreover, their translations are normally checked (see fn. �) by a senior translator.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation398

initiators, i.e. the target language experts in the fields, who commissioned the translations and who are often also the authors of the source text, against the background of their linguistic-translational proficiency and/or domain-specific knowledge. all �T-TT pairs included in the corpus have been produced as part of genuine assignments in which a translation of a source text was required for professional purposes. all translations in the corpus have fulfilled their informative-communicative functions among target language experts in the relevant fields in the same way the source texts have fulfilled their functions among experts in the source language.

� had access to original source and target language writing, i.e. domain documentation, and to the translators, �T authors and/or experts in the field to clarify any doubts, thus making it possible to identify and classify shifts which are due to pragmatic, contextual or situational considerations, such as the register shifts investigated here. The aspect of context, i.e. of the domain(s), is of utmost importance in scientific and technical translation (�TT). While translators themselves do not have to be able to perform the research that is described in the text, they must be able to mentally replicate and reproduce its description in the target language. Domain knowledge involves the knowledge of the specialized discipline or disciplines underlying the text and reflected in it, and knowledge of appropriate terminologies, registers and genres. �t also comprises knowledge of the fundamentals of the natural sciences and the ability to understand and replicate specialized reasoning. The researcher, too, needs to have this kind of domain knowledge to replicate translators’ decisions and account for the shifts identified.

The scientific and technical component of the C�TC is an open,7 syn-chronic, bilingual (english/German) and bidirectional corpus that contains predominantly full texts of expert-to-expert communication, i.e. the genres of articles in learned journals, research reports and technical reports. These genres are not only relevant in the field of �TT (�chmitt 1993), but are also typical representatives of scientific and technical discourse. The source texts and their translations belong to what reiß and Vermeer (1991:20� ff.) call the “informative text type” and to what Göpferich (199�:30�) calls “progress-oriented actualizing texts”. The scientific and technical corpus itself consists of several subcorpora, organized by domain, genre and text type. With this homogeneity of corpus design it is hoped to achieve a high degree of meth-odological intersubjectivity. The corpus now contains approximately 199,000 words (30 texts). Current research is focusing on three subcorpora:

• the climate corpus (subcorpus �, approximately 99,000 words), which contains technical reports on climate change, dealing, in particular, with the possibilities of Co2 capture and storage;

7 ‘open’ means that the corpus can be expanded to increase the “coverage of the field” (�owker and Pearson 2002:�3) and to incorporate a variety of translators working in the same domain/genre.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 399

• the automotive corpus (subcorpus ��, approximately �0,000 words), which contains technical papers (articles from a technical paper series and special issues), i.e. papers dealing with automotive issues, such as sealing technology or the development of natural gas engines;

• the coal-chemistry corpus (subcorpus ���, approximately 20,000 words), which contains reports on research into coal chemistry.

The climate and automotive subcorpora contain english into German and Ger-man into english translations, which is the ideal case in corpus compilation and analysis, since both english and German �Ts may function as prototyp-ical source and target language texts, i.e. as parallel texts, for their respective translated counterparts. For reasons of availability of texts, it is often difficult to achieve this balance. The third subcorpus contains english into German translations. all subcorpora are, of course, growing entities and the compila-tion of further subcorpora is to follow.

�t should be noted that even the best translation corpus can never be an end in itself, but is rather a means to an end, i.e. a source of quantitative data in a thorough, systematic and theoretically well-founded comparative investiga-tion into the complex phenomenon of translation. as may be concluded from the above discussion of the theoretical and methodological prerequisites, the compilation and analysis of a high-quality corpus is a demanding and laborious task; this certainly imposes certain constraints on corpus size. however, only an in-depth qualitative approach can take due account of translations and their specific functions in specific contexts and situations. as will be demonstrated in the following section, the corpus described here provides a useful tool for the investigation of translation phenomena such as register shifts.

2. The notion of register

�n the current approach, � follow Ulijn’s definition of register (19�9:1��), since it comprises scientific and technical register (Gerzymisch-arbogast 1993) and stresses its situational dimension. register is defined as follows:

originally drawn from music, the term [register] suggests the various drawers of a chest (the verbal repertory of the speaker), which are pulled out in any particular communication situation. a set of such situations is inherent in the scientific and technical domain ... The ap-proach used here will voluntarily be situational and not diachronic or social ... a speaker or author thus makes use of a specific register for every domain, a register which is recognized by a listener or reader belonging to the same field. (Ulijn 19�9:1��)

register as a situational, use-related variety (halliday et al. 19�4, halli-day 197�, Gregory and Carroll 197�) is understood here as going beyond the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation400

levels of syntax, lexis, terminology and phraseology to include the text level. �n this way, register contributes to implementing genre (house 1997:107)� or Textsorte, which is taken to mean conventionalized forms of text related to specific communicative situations (hatim and Mason 1990:241) and which become operative at the macro-structural level in completed texts (Couture 19��).9 The dimensions of register (according to halliday et al. 19�4, halliday 197�) for the corpus texts investigated can be described as follows:

Field: �cientific and technical discourse, i.e. scientific research reports and technical reports, covering the superordinate domains of coal chemistry and climate change and various adjacent or intersecting domains and subdomains, such as coal technology, chemistry, chemical engineering/chemical process technology, reactor technology, physics, mathematics, kinetics, petroleum engineering, environmental engineer-ing, geology, statistics and others.Tenor: highly dense, factual-informational, scientific and technical english and German. Communication is directed from expert to expert (see fn. 1). Mode: Medium: Written to be read. Participation: monologue, non-interactive, informational, scientific and technical exposition.

This paper investigates specific translation-relevant features at the lexical-semantic level and examines whether and how shifts at this level are governed and constrained by register-related factors. This comparative examination is carried out within the theoretical equivalence-based framework introduced in �ection 1.1 and takes account of the hierarchical interrelatedness of text levels in descending and ascending order, which may be conditioned and modified by pragmatic aspects, so that the underlying pragmatics as manifested in translations is examined as well. Pragmatics as a contextual dimension, and as understood here, is not restricted to the scientific and technical know-how of a certain domain or to several domains, but also includes knowledge of the register appropriate to a specific discipline (or disciplines) and accepted by its expert practitioners, including knowledge of genre conventions. �n this context, it should be noted that as early as 1972 raible stressed that there is no such thing as a ‘text level’ in the sense of one single plane, since any text level is made up of various co-existing levels. according to raible (ibid.:221), this implies that a merely statistical investigation of certain linguistic features (e.g. tense) that ignores the relationship between features and levels cannot provide any meaningful insights. applying raible’s statement to translation, we note that it is not only the relationship between certain features and certain

� house (1997:107) regards genre “as a category linking register (which realizes genre) and the individual textual function (which exemplifies genre)”.9 For an attempt to demarcate register from genre, see �wales (1990:3�-42).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 401

levels that has to be considered, but also the hierarchical interrelations between levels and features, taking due account of the underlying pragmatics and the wider contextual and situational dimensions.

�n what follows, shifts at the lexical-semantic text level will be investigated against this background. For the purpose of this investigation, � will not fol-low the traditional distinction between obligatory shifts (due to constraints in different grammatical systems) and optional shifts (for example, stylistic preferences) (�lum-kulka 19��:33), since it is pragmatic or contextual as-pects that may constrain ‘stylistic’ choices or register choices (�alama-Carr 2001). �nvestigating translational shifts implies looking at the level at which the shifts occur and trying to explain the motivation behind them. Describing stylistic shifts or, in the case of �TT, register shifts as ‘optional’ would imply, as �alama-Carr (ibid.:21�) rightly points out, that pragmatic factors do not represent real constraints.

3. An analysis of register shifts at the lexical-semantic level

�yntax and lexis are still fairly under-researched areas in scientific and tech-nical translation, although some very early investigations (e.g. Jumpelt 19�1)10 pointed out the relevance of syntactic and lexical-semantic aspects in this type of translation. While more recent approaches to �TT deal with aspects such as terminology (hann 1992, 2004), source text defectiveness (horn-helf 1999) or cultural specificity (�chmitt 1999), or investigate the wider aspects of lo-calization (�yrne 200�) and intercultural technical communication (�chmitt 1999, horn-helf 2007), syntactic and lexical-semantic problems of scientific and technical translation have been largely ignored.11 as noted above, register constraints may come into play at all text levels and govern the selection of linguistic features in the translation process, with due account being taken of the wider contextual and situational dimensions.

This research concentrates on the investigation of two features at the lexical-semantic level that are typical of a wide range of scientific and tech-nical genres: have and be used as main verb. These verbs occur very frequently in the corpus and are therefore amenable to being analyzed with a view to establishing trends in translation solutions. The study investigates how and to what extent register aspects may take priority over lexis and modify it in translation.

3.1 An investigation of have and be in scientific and technical translation

according to �wales, have and be used as main verbs are very common in scientific statements (1971:2, emphasis added):

10 �ee the ‘revisiting the Classics’ review in this issue.11 �ut see, for example, krein-kühle (2001, 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation402

�n fact, about a third of all scientific statements have is or are as the main verb. This causes difficulty for students who speak languages in which it is not always necessary to use a verb like be ... The other very common verb in scientific statements is the main verb have. again this can cause a problem because of the grammatical differences between english and many other languages.

although �wales looks at the problem from the point of view of foreign language teaching of technical english, his statement clearly points to an interlingual, and hence translational problem which goes beyond gram-matical aspects. however, except for an uncorroborated statement by Jumpelt (19�1:73) to the effect that the two verbs have to be rendered more specifically in indicating content in German,12 not much attention has been paid so far to this translation-relevant subject. The only recent study to investigate have and be was a small-scale corpus-based study (20,000 words, krein-kühle 2003:1�� ff.) which found that have and be, used as main verbs, account for 2�% of all finite verbs, a figure that correlates with �wales’s (1971) finding, with have accounting for 12% and be for ��% of this category. The high fre-quency of be can be explained by its great versatility in usage. as a main verb with copular function, it can have different types of complementation (Quirk et al. 199�:1170 ff.) and may occur in scientific and technical discourse with adjectival subject complement, nominal subject complement (Cs), or adverbial complementation, with “existential there” (Quirk et al. 199�:1403-0�), in ‘functional verb structures’, with ‘pseudo-subject it’ as part of stock phrases, and in other structures.

To corroborate the findings of that small-scale study, this research was conducted on a more comprehensive corpus (�0,000 words) which comprises the coal-chemistry corpus (20,000 words) and part of the climate corpus (30,000 words), both in the Cologne �cientific and Technical Translation Corpus (C�TC). This more comprehensive subcorpus contains the text genres of research reports and technical reports. Thus, the corpus is not only larger but also includes a further text genre, i.e. technical reports, so that the results may have some validity across genres. To further underpin the findings from a quantitative point of view, one specific and very common category, be with nominal subject complement (Cs), has been analyzed to establish trends in translation that may be governed and constrained by register aspects. For the same reason, the have structure �ubjectPredicate(have)objectdirect (�P(have)od) was investigated. �n the corpus under investigation be accounts for 92% and have for �% of all instances of have and be used as main verbs in various struc-tures. These figures correlate with those mentioned above for the small-scale corpus, i.e. ��% and 12% respectively. �n the present study, be with nominal

12 Jumpelt (19�1:73) talks of ‘auxiliary verb constructions’ in this context, although the two examples he gives clearly indicate a main verb use.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 403

subject complement accounts for 2�% and the �P(have)od structure for �% of the have and be category.

3.2 have and its potential translation solutions

�n the �P(have)od category, in which a characteristic or quantity is attributed to the subject, have has a possessive, stative meaning (Quirk et al. 199�:130-32), with the object characterizing the subject.13 The translation solutions for the category investigated are as follows:

Category: �P(have)od structure

(i) Use of more specific verbs in German: 48%

Example 1�T: ... the naphtha fractions from coprocessing and hydrocracking have similar instabilities while the heavier distillate fractions ...TT: ... weisen die Naphthafraktionen aus dem Coprocessing und dem hydrokracken ähnliche �nstabilitäten auf, während die schwereren Destillatfraktionen ...[... the naphtha fractions from coprocessing and hydrocracking exhibit similar instabilities while the heavier distillate fractions ...]

(ii) haben used as main verb in German: 31%

Example 2�T: … vacuum bottoms has [sic] ≈ 1.� to 2.0% more sulphur than …TT: … Vakuumrückstände haben im Vergleich zu … einen um ca. 1,� bis 2,0 % höheren �chwefelgehalt.[… vacuum bottoms have in comparison to …a ca. 1.� to 2.0% higher sulphur content …]

(iii) Other solutions: 21% Example 3�T: all of these approaches currently have severe deficiencies that limit their ability to stabilize global climate.TT: �isher sind alle diese ansätze aufgrund erheblicher Mängel nur eingeschränkt zur �tabilisierung des Weltklimas geeignet.[�o far, all of these approaches due to considerable deficiencies have been suitable only to a limited extent for stabilizing the global climate.]

13 The fact that German haben can only be used in the stative possessive sense, whereas english have can be used in the stative, dynamic and causative sense is, of course, relevant to semantic aspects of translation (see also Jumpelt 19�1:�9).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation404

as the results show, there is a trend (4�%) in German towards verbs that are somewhat more specific in indicating content for english have, as illustrated by example 1. The more specific verbs are selected on the basis of the semantic clausal and/or sentential co-text in the �T and collocational considerations in the target language, and they include aufweisen (exhibit), enthalten (contain), betragen (amount to) and verfügen über (use/have at one’s disposal). These verbs are characteristic of Tl register in this type of discourse (Pörksen 19��:1��). Haben used as main verb accounts for 31% of translations. as seen in example 2, register requirements come into play and make the use of haben possible. here the register requirements involve high noun-based terminological specificity in the target text; sulphur is shifted to the compound Schwefelgehalt (sulphur content). although it would have been grammatically, syntactically and semantically ‘correct’ to translate to have more sulphur than by mehr Schwefel haben als, this translation ignores the pragmatic aspect, in that it counteracts the register requirements of the target language as regards level of formality and terminological specificity required in German in this type of discourse (see, for example, Fluck 1997). �n example 3 there was no corresponding item in the German TT; these cases of 1:0 correspondence accounted for 4% of the total. This and the other solutions in this category require consideration of further semantic and syntactic shifts but also domain knowledge-induced shifts in perspective, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to elaborate further on these shifts.

3.3 �e and its potential translation solutions

as mentioned earlier, be accounts for 92% of the have and be category, and be with nominal subject complement (Cs) for as many as 2�% of these cases, which make the results for this category amenable to generalization. �n the structure under investigation a state of equality in the mathematical sense may be expressed and/or a definition given. The translation solutions for this category are as follows:

Category: Be with nominal Cs

(i) Use of more specific German verbs: 50%

Example 4�T: �ased on the data for the two … runs, an activation energy of …kcal/mole was estimated assuming pitch conversion is a first order reaction ...TT: anhand der Daten für die beiden … Versuchsläufe wurde eine aktivierungsenergie von … kcal/mol geschätzt, wobei unterstellt wird, dass es sich bei der Pechumsetzung um eine reaktion ersterordnung handelt ...

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 405

[�ased on the data for the two … runs, an activation energy of … kcal/mole was estimated by assuming that pitch conversion represents a first order reaction ...]

(ii) sein used as main verb in German: 41%

Example 5�T: The simplest air capture is forestation. TT: Die einfachste Methode der Co2-abtrennung aus der luft ist die aufforstung.[The simplest method of Co2 separation from the air is the forestation.]

(iii) Other solutions: 9%

Example 6�T: Total energy in recoverable fossil fuels ranges from �400 to �000 TW-year, two-thirds of which is [sic] coal.TT: Die gesamte in förderbaren fossilen �rennstoffen enthaltene energie beträgt zwischen �400 und �000 TWa, zwei Drittel davon in kohle.[The total energy contained in recoverable fossil fuels amounts to between �400 and �000 TWa, two-thirds of which in coal.]

The results show that the translation solution sein used as main verb accounts for 41%, whereas other solutions account for �9%. The use of more specific verbs in German accounts for �0% of all solutions and is illustrated by example 4. �n example �, it is noteworthy that the use of sein may involve additional semantic and syntactic shifts. �t is interesting that the translation solutions for instances of ‘secondary subjectification’14 (rohdenburg 1974, krein-kühle 2001) appear under solution (i), suggesting that this feature gives rise to more specific verbs for the predicate be and may involve further transposition and/or modulation (see Jumpelt 19�1) in the target language, as in example 7:

Example 7�T: The … combination was the worst performer because ...TT: Die kombination aus … schnitt am schlechtesten ab, da ...[The combination of … came off worst, because ...]

14 The phenomenon of ‘sekundäre �ubjektivierung’ (secondary subjectification), which is rooted in the typological differences between english and German, can be very broadly defined as involving cases in which the surface-structure subject does not correspond to the deep-structure subject, as in the report reviews x which can be paraphrased by in this report, I/we will review x or x is reviewed. �t is a translation-relevant structure due to the fact that “non-agentive semantic roles in German frequently resist being mapped onto subjects where this is possible in english” (hawkins 19��:��, referring to rohdenburg 1974).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation406

This instance of personification requires modulation in order to arrive at a more abstract Tl wording typical of the German register (see, for example, Fluck 1997). Depending on the co-text, the following more specific German verbs commonly appear in category (i):

• darstellen (represent) Found in those cases in which the subject is identi-fied/explained by something else, e.g.

�T: ... that ... are somewhat of a compromise TT: ..., dass ... eine Art Kompromiss darstellen.

• sich handeln um (refer to) Found in those cases in which the subject is more specifically defined

by the nominal complement, e.g. �T: It should be noted that these were raw samples from the PDU and not ...

TT: Dabei ist zu beachten, dass es sich um Rohproben aus der PDU und nicht um ... handelte.

• betragen (amount to), ausmachen (account for), sich belaufen auf (come to), liegen bei (to be of the order of)

Found in the context of percentages, figures, costs and prices

other more specific verbs or functional verb groups selected on co-textual and register grounds include einnehmen (take up), bestehen in (consist in), bergen (contain), zum Tragen kommen (take effect), in Betracht kommen (take into consideration), sich befinden (be found), bestehen aus (consist of), sich bewegen (range), bedeuten (mean) and verstehen unter (understand). �n the ‘other solutions’ category, �% are 1:0 correspondences (see example �) and 3% use the verbs haben and müssen. as regards the 1:0 correspondences (�%), further register-related factors (such as higher noun-based terminologi-cal specificity) and domain knowledge-induced shifts may come into play and modify the lexical-semantic level, but an examination of these aspects is beyond the scope of this paper.

3.4 Summary of findings

The results show that the textual distribution of translation solutions estab-lished for the have and be categories examined is as follows: approximately 30% of the cases are accounted for by haben and approximately 70% by other solutions for the have category, whereas in the be category, approximately 40% of the cases are accounted for by sein and �0% by other solutions. �n both categories, the use of semantically more specific words accounts for around �0% of solutions. although these verbs or words are semantically more specific than German haben or sein, they still belong to what Pörksen (19��:1��) calls ‘pallid’ verbs which have a sentence structuring function and are characteristic of German scientific and technical discourse. as has been shown, their selection is governed and constrained not only by the semantics

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 407

of the linguistic item examined in its immediate co-textual environment but, above all, by register-related factors, which may influence all text levels, since register itself is informed by the contextual and situational environment of a specific text. This is also true of some of the 1:0 correspondences and other solutions, which are, moreover, governed not only by register-related factors but also by further syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and domain knowledge-induced considerations. The variety in the overall distribution of translation solutions is also in line with register-related factors in the target language, requiring a reduced ‘monotony of expression’ (reinhardt et al. 1992) in this type of discourse.

Gräf (1972:290) claimed that research reports are a particularly fruitful source of data for translation-relevant research, since they are characterized by an unusual host of tenses, copious terminology that covers intersecting domains, phraseological and idiomatic specificity and more demanding grammatical structures. however, there has been little research in l�P and translation studies to explore the translation of research reports and technical reports. This study therefore provides a first insight into the distribution of translation solutions for the two �T features investigated, the selection of which reflects the different register requirements of these discourse genres in english and German.

4. Conclusion

This research has yielded trends or patterns in translation solutions that can be used in translation teaching, in professional translation and in translation quality assessment. �t has also shown how register considerations may influence the lexical-semantic level in scientific and technical translation. as has been seen, the decisive impact of register, which may operate at all text levels, may itself be governed and constrained by further factors, such as domain-knowledge and genre conventions. hence, more in-depth corpus-based research into register-related factors in this translation type would be very welcome, both on theoretical grounds, i.e. to test and verify or amend the concept of equivalence used in this research, and for applications such as those men-tioned above. This research has also shown that register is a strong pragmatic constraint in the translation process and in the assessment and analysis of the product. register choices in scientific and technical discourse are neither optional nor arbitrary, since language use is patterned in relation to specific activities, situations and domains (hatim and Mason 1990). Therefore, ana-lyzing register shifts in translation and unearthing these patterns require the contextualization of translation research, taking due account of all aspects that have triggered specific uses of language in a particular translation. a better contextualization of �TT analysis also requires more in-depth studies and detailed descriptions of the textual make-up of the genres of research and technical reports in the respective �l and Tl scientific cultures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation408

a number of more general conclusions may be drawn from this research. Firstly, the results obtained are interesting from a lexicographical point of view and could be included in a contextually informed translation-oriented dictionary. They also point to the usefulness of high-quality translation corpora in the study of l�P lexicography and terminology. Due to the ques-tionable quality of so many translations, these are often rejected as unreliable data for lexicographical and terminological work. We do, however, need more translation-oriented studies in these two fields, and high-quality translations can deliver interesting and reliable data on translation-relevant register particu-larities across languages that may pass unnoticed in research into multilingual corpora (i.e. corpora based on original writings in different languages), because their relevance to translation may not always be immediately obvious. To my knowledge, no register-oriented contrastive lexicographical l�P research has been undertaken into the uses of have and be in scientific and technical discourse, which, as we have seen, are relevant from a translational point of view.

�econdly, this research points to the need for greater consideration of the homogeneity of the selected texts under analysis in corpus-based research in terms of situations/contexts in which the texts occur, text functions, text types and genres, all of which exert a decisive influence on the language/register used. a homogeneous corpus enables us to test and validate claims on a more solid basis, especially when research into the same specific feature is carried out using several homogeneous subcorpora. �pecific categories can occur in specific text genres with different frequencies, a fact which may be of inter-est to scholars in the fields of translation studies and specialized language studies. For example, research reports, which are under-researched, seem to exhibit a higher percentage of the be category examined than technical reports, owing to the fact that in research reports the focus is on reporting about tests or experiments carried out, and on results obtained in cutting-edge research. additionally, source texts of questionable quality are very common in research reports, an aspect that is largely ignored in l�P research but is of the utmost importance in translation studies, since poor quality has to be pinpointed and remedied by the translator (horn-helf 1999). The extent to which the frequency of occurrence of specific translation-relevant features may influence the se-lection of translation solutions that are governed by register considerations, which apply on an overall text-in-context level in a specific text genre, would be a fruitful subject for more detailed research.

Thirdly, the fact that the percentages established correlate with those of earlier research that used a smaller corpus (krein-kühle 2003:1�� ff.) suggests that it is not necessarily the size of the corpus that matters, but its quality, the depth and exhaustiveness of categorization and analysis, and the embedding of the research into a well-defined theoretical and methodological framework, so that the linguistic item under investigation can be examined with due account being taken of all syntactic, semantic, terminological, pragmatic, contextual and situational aspects governing the selection of specific translation solu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 409

tions and the rejection of others. as has been shown, the translation of the frequently occurring items have and be in the discourse genres examined is predominantly governed by Tl register requirements.

These observations support a call for greater emphasis on quality and on contextual, i.e. domain(s)-related, and situational awareness in the selection and analysis of corpora, as reflected in the design of the corpus selection criteria and the theoretical prerequisites put forward in this paper. This shift in focus towards quality and contextual awareness is required if corpus-based research is to produce reliable results and afford us a better understanding of the nature of translation. laviosa (forthcoming) comments that corpus-based translation studies “is beginning to contextualize the phenomena investigated”; this is a promising step in the right direction.

MoN�ka kre�N-kühleInstitute of Translation and Multilingual Communication, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Mainzer Str. 5, D-50678 Köln, Germany. monika.krein-kuehle@fh-koeln.de

References

albrecht, Jörn (1990) ‘�nvarianz, Äquivalenz, adäquatheit’ (�nvariance, equiva-lence, adequacy), in reiner arntz (ed.) Übersetzungswissenschaft: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag (Transla-tion �cience: results and Perspectives: �n honour of Wolfram Wilss on his ��th �irthday), Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 71-�1.

----- (200�) Übersetzung und Linguistik (Translation and linguistics), Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

�aker, Mona (199�) ‘Corpora in Translation �tudies: an overview and �ugges-tions for Future research’, Target 7(2): 223-43.

�eeby, allison, Patricia rodríguez �nés and Pilar �ánchez-Gijón (eds) (2009) Corpus Use and Translating, amsterdam: John �enjamins.

�lum-kulka, �hoshana (19��) ‘�hifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation’, in Juliane house and �hoshana �lum-kulka (eds) Interlingual and Intercul-tural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 17-3�.

�owker, lynne and Jennifer Pearson (2002) Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora, london: routledge.

�yrne, Jody (200�) Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation, Dordrecht: �pringer.

Chesterman, andrew (1997) Memes of Translation, amsterdam: John �enjamins.Couture, �arbara (19��) ‘effective �deation in Written Text: a Functional

approach to Clarity and exigence’, in �arbara Couture (ed.) Functional Ap-proaches to Writing: Research Perspectives, london: Pinter, �9-92.

englund Dimitrova, �irgitta (200�) Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process, amsterdam: John �enjamins.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation410

Fluck, hans-rüdiger (1997) Fachdeutsch in Naturwissenschaft und Technik (�pecialized German in �cience and Technology), 2nd edition, heidelberg: Julius Groos.

Gerzymisch-arbogast, heidrun (1993) ‘Contrastive �cientific and Technical regis-ter as a Translation Problem’, in �ue ellen Wright and leland D. Wright (eds) Scientific and Technical Translation, amsterdam: John �enjamins, 21-�1.

Göpferich, �usanne (199�) ‘a Pragmatic Classification of l�P Texts in �cience and Technology’, Target 7(2): 30�-2�.

Gouadec, Daniel (2007) Translation as a Profession, amsterdam: John �enjamins.Gräf, karl (1972) ‘redundanz in den wissenschaftlich-technischen Fachsprachen

des Deutschen und des englischen als translatorisches Problem’ (redundancy in the �cientific and Technical �pecialized languages of German and english as a Translational Problem), in harry �pitzbardt (ed.) Spezialprobleme der wis-senschaftlichen und technischen Übersetzung (�pecial Problems of �cientific and Technical Translation), halle (�aale): Niemeyer, 2�1-9�.

Gregory, Michael and �usanne Carroll (197�) Language and Situation: Language Varieties and their Social Contexts, london: routledge & kegan Paul.

halliday, M.a.k. (197�) Language as Social Semiotic, london: edward arnold.------, angus Mc�ntosh and Peter �trevens (19�4) The Linguistic Sciences and

Language Teaching, london: longman.halverson, �andra (1999) ‘Conceptual Work and the ‘Translation’ Concept’,

Target 11(1): 1-31.hann, Michael (1992) The Key to Technical Translation, 2 vols, amsterdam:

John �enjamins.------ (2004) A Basis for Scientific and Engineering Translation, amsterdam:

John �enjamins.hatim, �asil and �an Mason (1990) Discourse and the Translator, london:

longman.hawkins, John a. (19��) A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unify-

ing the Contrasts, �eckenham: Croom helm.horn-helf, �rigitte (1999) Technisches Übersetzen in Theorie und Praxis (Tech-

nical Translation in Theory and Practice), Tübingen: a. Francke.------ (2007) Kulturdifferenz in Fachtextsortenkonventionen: Analyse und

Translation. Ein Lehr- und ArbeitsbuchEin Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (Cultural Difference in �pecialized Genre Conventions: analysis and Translation. a Coursebook), Frankfurt: Peter lang.

house, Juliane (1997) Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited, Tü-bingen: Gunter Narr.

------ (2009) ‘Quality’, in Mona �aker and Gabriela �aldanha (eds) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edition, abingdon: routledge, 222-2�.

Jumpelt, rudolf W. (19�1) Die Übersetzung naturwissenschaftlicher und tech-nischer Literatur (The Translation of �cientific and Technical literature), �erlin: langenscheidt.

kade, otto (19�4) Subjektive und objektive Faktoren im Übersetzungsprozess: Ein Beitrag zur Ermittlung objektiver Kriterien des Übersetzens als Vor-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 411

aussetzung für eine wissenschaftliche Lösung des Übersetzungsproblems (�ubjective and objective Factors in the Translation Process: a Contribution to the establishment of objective Criteria of Translation as a Prerequisite for a �cientific �olution of the Translation Problem), unpublished PhD thesis, leipzig: University of leipzig.

----- (1977) ‘Zu einigen Grundpositionen bei der theoretischen erklärung der �prachmittlung als menschliche Tätigkeit’ (on Certain Fundamentals in the Theoretical explanation of Translation as a human activity), Übersetzungs-wissenschaftliche Beiträge �: 27-43.

koller, Werner (199�) ‘The Concept of equivalence and the object of Translation �tudies’, Target 7(2): 191-222.

----- (2004) Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft (an �ntroduction to Translation �cience), 7th edition, heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.

krein-kühle, Monika (2001) ‘Towards a Methodology for the �nvestigation of equivalence in �cientific and Technical Translation’, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Specialized Translation, 2-4 March 2000, �arcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 79-�2.

------ (2003) Equivalence in Scientific and Technical Translation: A Text-in-context-based Study, unpublished PhD thesis, �alford, Uk: University of �alford.

------ (200�) ‘Methodology: The Missing link between the Theoretical/Descrip-tive and applied �ranches of Translation �tudies’, in Jean Peeters (ed.) On the Relationships between Translation Theory and Translation Practice, Frankfurt: Peter lang, 29-39.

------ (2007) ‘Corpus-based Translation �tudies research Project. Design and ap-plication of the Cologne �pecialized Translation Corpus (C�TC)’, in Joachim Metzner (ed.) Forschungsbericht (research report) 2007, köln: Fachhochs-chule köln, 21-22.

------ (2009) ‘explicitation in Technical Translation: a ‘Translational Univer-sal’?’, in Barbara Ahrens, Lothar Černý, Monika Krein-Kühle and Michael �chreiber (eds) Translationswissenschaftliches Kolloquium I. Beiträge zur Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft (Köln/Germersheim) (Translation �tudies �eminar �eries �. Contributions to Translation and �nterpreting �tudies (köln/Germersheim)), Frankfurt: Peter lang, 219-39.

laviosa-�raithwaite, �ara (199�) ‘Comparable Corpora: Towards a Corpus lin-guistic Methodology for the empirical �tudy of Translation’, in Marcel Thelen and �arbara lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds) Translation and Meaning, Part 3, Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht, 1�3-�3.

laviosa, �ara (2002) Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Ap-plications, amsterdam: rodopi.

------ (forthcoming) ‘Divergent and Convergent �imilarity in Corpus Translation �tudies’, in �arbara ahrens, �ilvia hansen-�chirra, Monika krein-kühle, Michael �chreiber and Ursula Wienen (eds) Translationswissenschaftliches Kolloquium II. Beiträge zur Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft (Köln/Germersheim) (Translation �tudies �eminar �eries ��. Contributions to Transla-Contributions to Transla-tion and �nterpreting �tudies (köln/Germersheim)), Frankfurt: Peter lang.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Register Shifts in Scientific and Technical Translation412

Möhn, Dieter (1979), ‘Zur aktualität der Fachsprachenforschung’ (on the Topicality of research into �pecial languages), in Wolfgang Mentrup (ed.) Fachsprache und Gemeinsprache (languages for �pecial Purposes and lan-guages for General Purposes), Düsseldorf: �chwann, 10-24.

Munday, Jeremy (2001) Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applica-tions, london & New York: routledge.

Pörksen, Uwe (19��) Deutsche Naturwissenschaftssprachen: Historische und kritische Studien (German �cientific languages: historical and Critical �tu-dies), Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Quirk, randolph, �idney Greenbaum, Geoffrey leech and Jan �vartvik (199�) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, london: longman.

raible, Wolfgang (1972) Satz und Text: Untersuchungen zu vier romanischen Sprachen (�entence and Text. �nvestigations of Four romance languages), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

reinhardt, Werner, Claus köhler and Gunter Neubert (1992) Deutsche Fach-sprache der Technik (German �pecial language of Technology), hildesheim: Georg olms.

reiß, katharina (19�1) ‘Der übersetzungsvergleich: Formen – Funktionen – anwendbarkeit’ (The Translation Comparison: Forms – Functions – ap-plicability), in Wolfgang kühlwein, Gisela Thome and Wolfram Wilss (eds) Kontrastive Linguistik und Übersetzungswissenschaft (Contrastive linguistics and Translation �cience), München: Wilhelm Fink, 311-19.

------ and hans J. Vermeer (1991) Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-theorie (Foundations of a General Theory of Translation), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

rohdenburg, Günter (1974) Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Verb- und Adjektivsyntax (�ec-ondary �ubjectification in english and German: Comparative �nvestigations of Verb and adjective �yntax), �ielefeld: Cornelsen-Velhagen & klasing.

�alama-Carr, Myriam (2001) ‘l’implicite dans la traduction du discours technique et scientifique’ (�mplicitation in the Translation of �cientific and Technical Discourse), Anglophonia/Caliban 9: 21�-22.

�chmitt, Peter a. (1993) ‘Der Translationsbedarf in Deutschland – ergebnisse einer Umfrage’ (Translation Demand in Germany – results of a �urvey), MDÜ (Journal of the German association of Professional �nterpreters and Translators) �: 3-10.

----- (1999) Translation und Technik (Translation and Technology), Tübingen: �tauffenburg.

�chreiber, Michael (1993) Übersetzung und Bearbeitung: Zur Differenzierung und Abgrenzung des Übersetzungsbegriffs (Translation and adaptation: on the Differentiation and Delimitation of the Translation Concept), Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

�wales, John (1971) Writing Scientific English, Walton-on-Thames: Nelson.------ (1990) Genre Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Toury, Gideon (199�) Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond, amsterdam:

John �enjamins.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Monika Krein-Kühle 413

Ulijn, Jan M. (19�9) ‘The �cientific and Technical register and its Cross-linguistic Constants and Variants’, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 1130: 1�3-231.

Weissbrod, rachel (1992) ‘explicitation in Translations of Prose-Fiction from english to hebrew as a Function of Norms’, Multilingua 11(2): 1�3-71.

Zanettin, Federico, �ilvia �ernardini and Dominic �tewart (eds) (2003) Corpora in Translator Education, Manchester: �t. Jerome Publishing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.1

5.19

6.19

6] a

t 02:

43 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014