Response on Explaining Explicitation

This research article has been published by Anthony Pym in 2005. The main idea that has

been discussed is that translation tend to be more explicit than non translation. Klaudy, a

Hungarian translation theorist, has put forward this hypothesis for the very first time with a

distinction between two types of explicitation in translation studies. One type of explicitation is

that when required by different language system where implication is ideally matched. The other

is used as feature in translation process where implication is asymmetric. In introductory part of

the article, Pym describes his meeting and debate with professor Klaudy and other translation

theorists over the issue of explicitation. They are the ones that tell translators to be explicit or

otherwise. Moreover, he says that translation is now an interdisciplinary field, and we must

distinguish it from comparative linguistics because there is a big difference between comparison

of two languages and the process of translation.

Explicitation was described by Vinay and Darbelnet in 1958as “the process of introducing

information into the target language, which is present only implicitly in the source language, but

which can be derived from the context or the situation.” Blum-Kalka in 1986 In its historical

development, the hypothesis broadly states that a translation will be more explicit than a

corresponding non-translation, which may be either the source text or a parallel text in the target

language. Exactly what this term “explicit” means is then cause for debate. This formulation is
worth close attention. Note that the place of explicitation is marked out as “the process of

interpretation performed by the translator”, even though actual research then must refer to the

linguistic qualities of source texts and target texts.

In my opinion, explicitation in translation is tremendously important because without this

technique the implicit ideas will not be revealed to the target audience. It is closely related with

domestication strategy, which is changing the cultural-specific things of source language with

the terms of target language. There are four steps in the process of explicitation: abstraction,

clarity in meaning, operationalizability, and precision. The meaning must be cleared but the

words must not exceed certain limits to alter translation into an analysis. There is a difference

between explication and explicitation. Explication is full explanation while explicitation has a

limit to remove implication and to fulfill the process of translation.

I believe that explicitation is indispensable than non-translation because it will help target

audience to grasp meaning easily rather than foreignization, where the cultural-specific things

are kept the same as in the source language. Explicitation is used in accordance with context and

situation. The solving of translation problems may be seen as a process of generating such

alternatives and then selecting one of them as the translation. The use of explicitation would then

be a way of handling those problems to manage the risks. Explicitation is paving the way for a

clear translation of source language where the ideas will be revealed which are somehow hidden

in the original text.