The translation of tourist literature:The case of connectors1ROSA LORE´S SANZAbstractThis article will report on a small-scale study which focuses on the analysis of connectors(conjunctions and discourse markers)in thematic position in English translations of Spanish tourist literature.The concept of‘theme’adopted here draws on the explicit descriptions provided by systemic gram-mar(Halliday1985).The study will be carried out on a corpus composed of‘comparable texts’(Baker1998;Laviosa1997)(texts written in Eng-lish and texts in English translated from Spanish)and of the corresponding Spanish source texts.Following Francis(1989,1990),Fries(1995)and Ghadessy(1995)among others,it is argued here that the analysis of pat-terns of theme selection provide important insights into the writing and, therefore,translation of a specific genre.1.IntroductionThe present study focuses on the analysis of connectors in thematic posi-tion and explores the way these particles are affected by a process of translation in the genre of tourist literature.Theme is a rapidly develop-ing area of description within different domains of linguistics,particu-larly within text linguistics and functional grammar.The concept of theme adopted here draws on the postulates of systemic grammar and, more specifically,on Halliday’s(1985)precise definition of thematic structure.Halliday(1985:37)defines theme as‘the element which serves as the point of departure of the message;it is that with which the clause is concerned’.2Formally,then,theme is identified as the initial element of the clause, but this is not a definition.What defines it is its function as the angle from which the speaker projects his/her own perception of reality.What-ever we decide to bring to the front of a clause is a signal of what is to be taken as the framework within which what we want to say is to be Multilingua22(2003),291Ϫ30801678507/2003/022Ϫ0291ąWalter de Gruyter292Rosa Lore´s Sanzunderstood.This includes the attitudes or points of view which we want to communicate.McCabe and Alonso(2000:80)say:The Theme of the clause,which formally is the initial element of the clause,functionally combines the expression of the speaker’s percep-tion of reality and the concerns of the speaker to communicate that perception of reality to the listener.It is,thus,both cognitive in the sense that it refers to the world of experience,and communicative,in the sense that it has a discoursal role.Very much in line with the Hallidayan definition of theme is another postulate,on which my study is based,according to which thematic selection contributes to the characterisation of discourse genres.Some linguists working in the Hallidayan tradition(Berry1995;Francis1989, 1990;Fries1995;Ghadessy1995;Whittaker1995)agree that different parts of the message are thematised depending on the purpose of the text and such variation follows different patterns depending on the lan-guage in use.Even though what typifies a genre at the discourse level is not dependent on the presence of any one particular aspect of discourse structure in isolation,but on what Paltridge(1995:403)calls‘the interac-tion and co-occurrence of a number of discourse structures’,the conclu-sion may easily be drawn that a focus on theme can be a useful aid in the descriptive and(contrastive)study of genres.Besides,and with respect to the practice of translation,I agree with van den Broeck(1986:39)in that‘the transfer of a certain piece of discourse from one linguistic and textual system to another(as occurs in translation)involves changes in the internal organization of the discourse’.With these two statements in mind,theme as the projecting point for the message and the existence of different thematic patterns depending on the genres and languages being dealt with,I focus on the analysis of the translation of connectors,due to their tendency to adopt thematic position.2.Connectors,thematic position and generic patternsWhat do we understand by connectors?Connectors are one of the multiple resources every language has to express logico-semantic rela-tionships(addition,adversativeness,causality and temporality).Maura-nen(1993a:159Ϫ163)explains that the general function of connectors in written discourse is‘to indicate relationships between propositions, sentences and parts of texts’and they are‘commonly thought to indicate relationships that are already there in the text’(1993a:161);that is,The translation of tourist literature:The case of connectors293 they are not an essential part of the discourse as they do not add any propositional information to it;the kind of information they provide is already retrievable by the reader of the text.However,if connectors ap-pear in sentence-initial position,this will reflect a choice by the writer to thematise these elements.Secondly,connectors facilitate the readability of texts:by making ex-plicit the relationship between two propositions,the writer makes it eas-ier for the reader to work out the logical relationships.Thirdly,connec-tors have a rhetorical function,as they provide the writer with a means to regulate the way in which readers will interpret the text,which,as Mauranen(1993a:163)points out,‘is seen as also constituting a poten-tially effective means of persuading readers to see things as the writer does,or as the writer wants them to see things’.That is,if indicating the logical relationship between two independent propositions is optional, the writer’s choice to make it explicit is a deliberate discourse act in-tended to influence the reader.Schourup(1999)identifies and discusses a small set of characteristics commonly attributed to the class of connectors.Among other features connectors,to which Schourup refers as‘discourse markers’,are charac-terised by their:Ϫconnectivity,that is,their use to relate utterances or other discourse units;Ϫoptionality,as their removal does not alter the grammaticality of their host sentences.If they are omitted,the relationship they signal is still available to the hearer,though no longer explicitly stated;Ϫnon-truth conditionality,as they are generally thought not to contrib-ute to the truth-conditions of the proposition expressed by an utter-ance.In Schourup’s view,these three characteristics are generally considered to be necessary attributes of connectors.Other features are less consis-tently regarded as critical for the status of connectors.As in other languages,two types of connectors are distinguished in Spanish and English:conjunctions(e.g.Eng.and,but,so;Sp.y,pero, o),and a second class of connectors(e.g.Eng.consequently,at the same time,as a result;Sp.asimismo,adema´s,por consiguiente)which are cur-rently called discourse markers(Blakemore1992;Portole´s1998;Schiffrin 1987),but which are also known by a variety of other names which contribute to the terminological confusion:conjunctive adjuncts(Halli-day1985),linking adjuncts(Mauranen1993a),and also discourse par-ticles or discourse operators,among others.294Rosa Lore´s SanzChalker(1996),in The Collins Cobuild Guide to Linking Words,estab-lishes a number of grammatical differences between conjunctions and discourse markers.In fact,Chalker uses the term connector to refer to what I here call discourse marker.In my view,the term connector is a general word which refers to the superordinate class of word,whereas discourse marker is a particular type of connector.According to Chalker(1996:2Ϫ3)the two subclasses,conjunctions and discourse markers,share many meanings and some words such as before,though and however.The differences are(examples adapted from Chalker1996):1.A conjunction normally combines two or more clauses into one sen-tence,often with a comma separating them,but sometimes with no punctuation mark:(1)Y ou have to read these books before you decide to be a soldier.A discourse marker,by contrast,often shows a connection betweentwo independent sentences,separated by a full stop at the end of the first sentence:(2)Now he’s more focused on his work.Before,he was distracted.2.Clauses that are introduced by a subordinating conjunction are gram-matically incomplete without the rest of the sentence:(3)*Before you decide to enter for the exam.Clauses containing a discourse marker refer back to an earlier sen-tence,but are more grammatically complete:(4)Before,he was distracted.3.Most clauses introduced by a conjunction can precede their mainclause.A sentence containing a discourse marker refers back to the preceding sentence.So a discourse marker cannot appear in the first of two linked sentences,because it cannot refer forward:(5)*I feel,however,that I have not quite understood what she means.I have read her letter.4.Most conjunctions come at the beginning of their clause.Discoursemarkers are also usually at the beginning,but many can come later (and some,e.g.though as discourse marker,must):(6)I have read her letter.I feel,however,that I have not quite under-stood what she means.It is this last difference which reveals itself as particularly interesting for the present study.Halliday(1985:48Ϫ50)establishes this very sameThe translation of tourist literature:The case of connectors295 difference when talking about textual themes,as he distinguishes be-tween elements which are‘typically thematic’,as conjunctive adjuncts (discourse markers),and‘obligatorily thematic’,as conjunctions.An in-teresting distinction which might help to clarify the picture is made by Vasconcellos(1992).She first distinguishes between major themes and minor themes.Major themes are essential to the unit’s structure;they are always cognitive and can be expressed as the subject of the clause,the object,complement,or the predicator.Minor themes are not essential. They are expressed as adjuncts(cognitive and non-cognitive)and con-junctions(non-cognitive only).According to Vasconcellos(1992:154),‘the minor themes,as their slots move away from the major themes,are gradually less cognitive,or experiential,and increasingly noncognitive, or discoursal,in their function’.Two classes of word can function as minor themes:adjuncts-as-theme and conjunctions-as-theme.As for ad-juncts-as-theme,Vasconcellos states that adjuncts by nature play a stage-setting role,whether they are descriptive settings in the concrete sense (they specify time,place,manner,cause)or whether they set the stage for the development of the discourse(e.g.modal adjuncts such as probably, perhaps,frankly,and discoursal adjuncts such as however,nevertheless, in that case,therefore).The first type of adjunct is cognitive,and the second can have a cognitive and non-cognitive use.A second type of minor theme is identified by Vasconcellos:conjunc-tions-as-theme,which include coordinators(but,yet,so,then)and subor-dinators(when,while,whereas,etc.).Conjunctions-as-theme are always non-cognitive.The distinction that Vasconcellos(1992)acknowledges between cogni-tive and non-cognitive uses of textual elements3underlies our categorisa-tion of the general class of connectors as discourse markers and conjunc-tions.This categorisation can be further informed and enlightened by the adoption of a Relevance Theory approach(Sperber and Wilson 1986).Within the framework of Relevance Theory,discourse markers have been analysed as encoding semantic constraints on relevance,that is,‘the connective encodes a procedural instruction to the hearer,leading him in a certain direction in his search for an optimally relevant inter-pretation of the utterance in which the connective occurs’(Unger1996: 404).As semantic constraints save the hearer processing effort,since they exclude from the beginning other possible directions in which the relevance of an utterance could be established,the use of discourse mark-ers can be considered as a‘reader-friendly’device,or rather,manifesta-tions of the writer’s polite and cooperative behaviour towards the reader.4Let us remember at this point that the thematic position in the sen-tence is the point from which addressers project their message,a privi-296Rosa Lore´s Sanzleged position since a certain interpretation of reality can be foisted onto the reader.The question now is to analyse what translators do with respect to the general class of connectors,taking into account,as has been demonstrated in previous studies(Berry1995;Francis1989,1990; Fries1995;Ghadessy1995;Whittaker1995),that:a)the use and frequency of connectors varies according to generic con-ventions;andb)different languages display different thematic patterns,and these the-matic patterns contribute to the characterisation of the different genres.3.The corpus:Data and interpretation of the dataMy contrastive analysis of connectors has been carried out on a corpus of English and Spanish tourist literature.I have applied the approach adopted by corpus studies to the study of translation as I believe,in agreement with Baker(1993),that the techniques and methodologies proposed by corpus studies can cast some light on both theoretical and practical aspects of translation studies.The general corpus of tourist literature on which the present study has been carried out consists of three different sub-corpora:1)a corpus of tourist literature written in Spanish;2)a corpus of tourist literature written in English;3)a corpus of tourist literature translated into English from the Spanishtexts in corpus(1).Sub-corpora(2)and(3)constitute what Laviosa(1997)and Baker(1998) call‘comparable texts’,that is to say,a set of texts written in a certain language together with another set of texts,written in the same language, this time as a target language.Each of the sub-corpora specified above consists of samples from two different subgenres within the more general genre of tourist literature. Thus,following functional criteria(Vermeer1996),I have made a dis-tinction,based on Berry(1995),between promotional texts and informa-tional texts.The purpose of promotional writing(tourist brochures,visi-tors’guides to monuments and other sights)is to persuade readers to visit certain places,or to give them instructions about how to find their way around.They are published by town halls,local authorities,tourist boards,rmational texts(travel guides,informative articles in travel or in-flight magazines)are published by private publishing houses, air companies,etc.,and,although they share with promotional textsThe translation of tourist literature:The case of connectors297 a certain persuasive purpose,they are much more descriptive and less argumentative.5I have worked with a similar number of themes and texts for each sub-corpus and for each subgenre.Only themes in independent sentences have been analysed,which means that only intersentential,and not intra-sentential,connectors have been studied.I have used7texts per sub-corpus,which means21texts in all.With respect to the number of themes,some550themes per sub-corpus have been analysed,which gives a total figure of around1,600themes.Table1shows the distribution of texts and themes analysed per sub-corpus and subgenre:Table1.Distribution of texts and themesPromotional texts Informational texts Total number ofno.of themes no.of themes themes and textsand texts and textsSpanish230(3texts)308(4texts)538(7texts) English257(4texts)301(3texts)558(7texts) English as TL256(3texts)300(4texts)556(7texts) (Target Language)Tables2,3and4show the data(percentages and numbers of connectors in brackets)obtained in each corpus:Table2.Tourist literature in SpanishPromotional texts Informational texts Total number of230themes308themes themes:538 Discourse markers11.3%(26) 5.5%(17)7.9%(43) Conjunctions 4.3%(10) 6.8%(21) 5.7%(31)Total no.15.6%(36)12.3%(40)13.7%(74)of connectorsTable3.Tourist literature in EnglishPromotional texts Informational texts Total number of257themes301themes themes:558 Discourse markers 1.55%(4)0.99%(3) 1.2%(7) Conjunctions0.77%(2)0.99%(3)0.8%(5)Total no. 2.33%(6) 1.99%(6) 2.1%(12)of connectors298Rosa Lore´s SanzTable4.Tourist literature in English as TLPromotional texts Informational texts Total number of256themes300themes themes:556 Discourse markers8.2%(21)3%(9) 5.39%(30) Conjunctions 2.34%(6)9.6%(29) 6.2%(35)Total no.10.54%(27)12%(36)11.6%(65)of connectorsThe analysis of the data suggests the following:first,we observe that the distinction between promotional and informational writing,imple-mented on a rather intuitive basis,is well founded in Spanish(Table2) with respect to the divergent use of each type of connector:whereas in promotional texts,a rather argumentative and persuasive type of writ-ing,the use of discourse markers predominates over conjunctions in the-matic position,in informational texts the use of conjunctions,more grammaticalised,is dominant.With respect to the corpus of texts written in English(Table3),we cannot really see any important differences as regards the use of connec-tors,which,on the whole,suggests that a distinction between two types of writing based on the thematisation of different types of connector is not made in English.Second,when comparing texts written in English(Table3)and texts in English translated from Spanish(Table4)we can observe that,in the latter set of texts,the use of the general class of connectors increases in thematic position,in mimetic behaviour with the Spanish generic pat-terns:the use of discourse markers increases in thematic position in pro-motional writing and the use of conjunctions in informational writing. Third,if we compare the Spanish texts(Table2)with their English translations(Table4),it is observed that,in general,the frequency of connectors in thematic position decreases in the translations with respect to their use in the original texts.In short,even if the English translated texts show a tendency to tone down the frequency of use of connectors in thematic position,which seems to characterise the Spanish genre of tourist literature,when com-paring them with their counterparts written originally in English,impor-tant divergences can be found.Martı´nez(1998,2000)corroborates the scant use of textual elements in thematic position in English tourist literature.She lists a series of aspects which should be observed in the translation of Spanish tourist literature into English.Among others,she mentions the restriction in the use of textual themes‘so that the information flows easily’(2000:285). What we are able to assess in the present study is that English transla-The translation of tourist literature:The case of connectors299 tions do not adhere to the English generic uses in this respect.For some scholars,adherence to the ST(source text)linguistic and cultural norms and not to the linguistic and cultural norms which constrain the TT (target text)dooms the translation to failure.Schäffner(1998:83Ϫ84), for instance,states that‘creating an appropriate translation often means adapting the TT to the text-typological conventions of the target culture.…a TT is of high-quality when it conforms to the text-typological con-ventions of the target culture’.But do we have to evaluate the non-adherence to English conventions in the translation of tourist literature as wrong or infelicitous?What can be deduced from the data extracted is that English translations are undoubtedly influenced by the generic patterns of Spanish originals as regards the use of textual themes,but this influence is subjected to nego-tiation with the English generic patterns and,as a result,is toned down. In consequence,a new pattern emerges in the English translated texts. Both Schäffner(1998)and Martı´nez(1998,2000)clearly adopt an evalu-ative position towards the insights that can be gained from the con-trastive study of texts,and believe that such insights can cast a light on how translations are carried out,and what the ideal translation should be.There are different voices(Baker1998;Frawley1984),however,that claim that translation constitutes a‘secondary communicative situation’, and,as such,develops its own conventions.Further data can be extracted and further conclusions reached with respect to the type of alterations which occur in the translations of Span-ish texts into English:connectors(both discourse markers and conjunc-tions)may be eliminated completely from the text,or displaced to rhe-matic position(in the case of discourse markers),or,on the contrary, they may be newly added or moved to thematic position(again,only possible in the case of discourse markers).The data extracted from the texts analysed reveal the following:A.As far as discourse markers are concerned:1)As a general rule,discourse markers are displaced to rhematic posi-tion in the English translations,that is,discourse markers such as tambie´n,por otro lado and adema´s are made rhematic.The most com-mon translation for all of them is also:(7)Tambie´n tiene Zaragoza la virtud de la hospitalidad.‘Saragossa also has the virtue of being hospitable.’(From Zaragoza,Ciudad de Congresos and Zaragoza,City of Congresses)300Rosa Lore´s Sanz(8)Por otro lado,es una naturaleza diversa.‘Its diversity is also immense.’(From‘Escandinavia,vida natural’and‘Scandinavia,natural life’)2)There is only one instance in which the Spanish discourse markerdisappears completely from the translated text:(9)Por lo dema´s,no serı´a de extran˜ar que la informacio´n estudiantilhubiera resultado incompleta.‘It wouldn’t be surprising if that information were incomplete.’(From‘Espan˜a Verde’and‘The Green Grass of Spain’)3)Discourse markers are,on very few occasions,placed in thematicposition in the English translation,fronted from rhematic positions in the Spanish texts:(10)Para el viajero,por tanto,es recomendable no abandonar esaparte central.‘So it’s best for the traveller to stick to the old parts.’(From‘Mao`,la ciudad blanca’and‘Mao`,the white port’)(11)Los Paulistas,adema´s,lo llevan a gala.‘Furthermore,Paulists proudly boast their own merits.’(From‘Rı´o y Sa˜o Paulo:Del cuerpo al alma’and‘Rio and Sa˜oPaulo:From the body to the soul’)4)Only on one occasion is a new discourse marker provided by theEnglish translator:(11)Los nin˜os escandinavos aprenden en seguida el nombre de los a´r-boles,de las flores ma´s modestas,de los pequen˜os pa´jaros…‘Even so,Scandinavian children quickly learn the names of eventhe smallest or most modest of trees,flowers and birds aroundthem…’(From‘Escandinavia,vida natural’and‘Scandinavia,naturallife’)B.As for the comparison of the use of conjunctions in Spanish texts andEnglish translations:1)The most common conjunction to disappear in the English transla-tion is y:(12)Y algo de eso tiene ma´s visos de estar pro´ximo a la verdad.‘That would appear to be closer to the truth.’(From‘Espan˜a Verde’and‘The Green Grass of Spain’)(13)Y que,impresionados por ello,la llamaron‘Nura’,la isla de losfuegos.‘They were so impressed that they called the island‘Nura’,theisland of fires.’(From‘Mao`,la ciudad blanca’and‘Mao`,the white port’)2)Cases of the omission of the conjunction pero have also been found:6(14)Pero siempre salio´adelante,frente a todas las dificultades,quiza´simpulsada por la sangre indo´mita de los vikingos.‘Despite all adversities,it has always come out ahead,drivenperhaps by that blood of the indomitable Vikings.(From‘Escandinavia,vida natural’and‘Scandinavia,naturallife’)3)Much less frequently,new conjunctions are added in the translation.The only cases registered are the addition of and and but:(15)Ası´se llega a lo que es uno de los centros vivos:la Explanada.‘And so we arrive at one of the liveliest parts:the Explanada.’(From‘Mao`,la ciudad blanca’and‘Mao`,the white port’)(16)Aunque tampoco hay que remontarse tanto,pues hasta la construc-cio´n del tu´nel Velho en1892…‘But even more recently,before the construction of the Velhotunnel in1892…’(From‘Rı´o y Sa˜o Paulo:Del cuerpo al alma’and‘Rio and Sa˜oPaulo:From the body to the soul’)C.As for the range of connectors used in Spanish texts and Englishtranslations,the following can be said:1)The variety of discourse markers used in Spanish and English transla-tions is very similar.The Spanish texts display discourse markers such as:tambie´n,por lo tanto,a continuacio´n,por lo dema´s,por el contrario, sobre todo,au´n ası´,etc.In the English translated texts the following can be found:in the same way,in addition,on the contrary,in fact, therefore,additionally,etc.The most common instances of discourse markers in the Spanish texts are,by far,adema´s,tambie´n and asimismo,all of them of the additive type,and sin embargo,which introduces an idea of contradiction.In the English translated texts,the most common discourse markers are however and therefore,which provide the ideas of contrast and conse-quence respectively.2)As for conjunctions,the English translations display a wider rangein comparison with the Spanish originals.Instances of the following conjunctions can be traced in the corpus analysed:but,and,so,nor, yet,either,or.In the Spanish texts only pero,y,o can be found.In both sets of texts,the additive conjunctions y/and and the adversative pero/but are by far the most frequently used.D.With respect to the set of texts written in English,the following datahave been gathered:1)As shown in Table3above,very few connectors are used in Englishtourist literature.As regards discourse markers only a narrow range is found:in contrast,in fact,thus,for example,and in addition,which contrasts with the19different types found in the English translated texts.With reference to their frequency of use,none of them is used in a significantly higher proportion.2)As for conjunctions,examples including but,and and so are found.Again,their frequency of use is so low that no reliable conclusions can be drawn as regards predominance of one type over the others.4.ConclusionsFirst we can observe that,with respect to the class of connectors,the Spanish genre of tourist literature shows a tendency towards the explici-tation of logical relationships.This tends to be done by means of con-junctions in the subgenre of informational texts,and by means of dis-course markers in promotional texts.In contrast,English tourist litera-ture tends towards the implicitation of logical relationships,displaying a scant use of connectors of either type.On the whole,the difference in the degree of explicitness/implicitness of logical relations between Span-ish and English tourist literature points to the now well-accepted as-sumption that there are culture-bound differences/conventions for mark-ing textual organisation by explicit or implicit means(Suomela-Salmi 1992).If we accept that the class of connectors constitutes a means for the writer to intervene and control the reader’s interpretation of the text, we might,therefore,suggest that the writer’s intervention in the genre of tourist literature is greater in Spanish than in English,at least as far as can be observed from the corpora analysed.7Secondly,with respect to the contrastive study of Spanish originals and English translations,we observe that there is a slight inclination towards the implicitation of logical relationships in translation through the suppression of connectors.To explain this behaviour,reference can。
