 Hola, em sentiu? Can you hear me? Yes? Okay, very good. It feels so nice. Las sensaciones son tan buenas, es tan fantástico de ver este auditorio después de un año y medio de una situación muy difícil para los profesores y para los estudiantes. Very difficult situation, muy complicada por todos. Okay, so first of all, thank you, gracias and welcome. Bienvenidos, para estar aquí. Okay, so we're in Barcelona, Catalonia, so we're going to start practicing some multilingualism here. Okay, you're all going to be linguists of some sort and so I'll be using Catalan, which is the language of the country, also Spanish because it's the official language in Spain and coefficient in Catalonia. And I'm using English because I know that many of you have chosen us because of this international outlook that Pompeo Fabra is very proud of. Okay, so I'm going to be combining and I think this is going to be, you know, the normal state of things while you're here. So this I think would be one of the first recommendations like soak in this, you know, this language management practices and, you know, just be flexible and enjoy that. I think that's one of the great opportunities in Barcelona. Okay, just one more warning. Ya pasaré el català, y hablaré español después. One COVID thing. So everybody's supposed to wear face covering, face mask. Todo el mundo tiene que llevar mascarilla en clase, en realidad en el campus, vale. Pero hoy en este acto las personas que toman la palabra, people who are taking the floor like myself, like Dr. Pilar Prieto and like our guest speaker, Professor Maria Répecuenca, when we're speaking we're going to remove the face covering, but as soon as we're not speaking, then we will resume wearing the face mask, okay. This auditorium has ventilation, good ventilation, so the campus is very safe, our premises are really safe, so you need not be concerned if I'm not wearing a mask or if Dr. Prieto is not wearing a mask or if our speaker is wearing a mask. Our teachers are going to be wearing masks as long as the medical authorities advise us to, okay. So that's going to be the case for, we don't know how long. If things improve we might see some improvements there also, but at this point I cannot guarantee. By the way I did not introduce myself. I'm Anna Spuña, currently I'm the head of the department of translation and language sciences. And so on behalf of the program coordinators, in fact we have four master's programs here. So on behalf of this, of our coordinators, we thank you for having chosen this department. So what I'll do now is I'll go back to Catalan, then I'll speak in Spanish, and then I'll go back to English, yes. Okay, doncs ara començo en català. Avui donem inici el curs acadèmic dels master's oficials del departament. Són quatre master's, master in studies de traducció, master in studies del discurs, master en lingüística, teòrica i aplicada, i master en traducció entre llengües globals, xines, castellà. En nom dels coordinadors us agraïm que ens hagueu escollit l'emissió d'aquest departament, és fer recerca de primera línia i de traslladar aquest coneixement cap a una formació de posgrau que us permet avançar cap a una carrera professional, sigui en el món acadèmic, en l'ensenyament, en la comunicació, en la traducció. Com he dit en anglès, ens heu escollit també per la vocació internacional de la universitat. Jo crec que trobareu... jo crec que no, estic segura, sóc la directora del departament, per tant, ho conec bé. Trobareu professors compromesos, professors molt ben preparats, i trobareu també un personal d'administració i serveis realment al vostre servei. Jo espero que podreu trobar aquí una comunitat d'aprenentatge i que ens enriquireu amb la vostra presència. Us desitjo només molt bona sort amb els vostres estudis. Ok, ara em passo a l'espanyol. Oida-vos inicio al curso acadèmico de los másteres oficiales del departamento. En nombre de los coordinadores, de los cuatro másteres, son Pilar Prieto, del máster en lingüística teórica y aplicada, el profesor José Francisco Ruiz Casanova, del máster en estudios de traducción, la doctora Gemma Andujar, del máster en traducción entre lenguas globales, y la doctora Encarnación Atienza, del máster en estudios del discurso. En su nombre os doy la bienvenida. Os agradezco que nos hayáis elegido. Como decía en catalán, la misión de este departamento es realizar buena investigación en los ámbitos de la traducción y de las ciencias del lenguaje, en un sentido amplio, y por eso nos enorgullece poder ofrecer cuatro programas de máster distintos, porque tenemos profesores comprometidos, muy bien preparados, y tenemos instalaciones, tenemos infraestructura y ilusión. Y tenemos también un personal de administración y servicios que está realmente a nuestro servicio, y a vuestro servicio. Yo espero que podréis encontrar aquí vuestra comunidad de aprendizaje, que construiréis un buen ambiente de aprendizaje y que nos enriqueceréis con vuestra presencia. Estáis en Barcelona, en Cataluña, en un entorno donde conviven lenguas y culturas muy diversas en Barcelona. Yo creo que se hablan más de... Yo creo que el último censo, Joan, en 300 lenguas diferentes. Por lo tanto, os invitamos no solo a conocernos, a conocer nuestra lengua y nuestra cultura, pero también os invitamos a hacernos participar de la vuestra. Muy bien. Pues os deseo buena suerte en estos estudios. Finalmente, un par de palabras en inglés. Como he dicho, nuestra misión es hacer primer nivel de investigación, y de la nostra ambició. Y transferir ese conocimiento a una educación que prepara estudiants per a un successful i, al menos, el carrer gratificat. La gent sempre usa carrer gratificat. Yo creo que, después de lo que vivimos en los últimos dos años, también deberíamos ser gratificados. En academia o en la industria, en la educación, en la comunicación. Sabemos que hemos decidido para nuestro outlook internacional. Veurás la facultad comitiva, veurás la persona administrativa. Espero sinceramente que estigues a casa aquí i trobem i construït la comunitat. Vull dir que és una experiència molt enrichida. I com he dit, en Barcelona, en Catalunya, m'encantaré a saber-nos, a veure una mica el nostre llenguatge, a participar en la nostra cultura, complexa, com és. I també per enganyar-nos amb el teu procés i les teves experiències. Bona tarda en el teu estudi. Ara em donaré la flora a la doctora Pilar Prieto, coordinadora de la master's en teorètica i pràctica, però crec que ella en parlàveu de cada coordinadora. Pilar, no sé quina llengua et utilitza, però crec que hem fet una base de càrregues. Moltes gràcies, Anna, per aquesta introducció. Jo parlaré en anglès, perquè he pensat també que la majoria, alguns de vosaltres heu vingut, i encara no sabeu prou català o castellà, llavors començarem anglès. Molt clar que Maria Josep ha acceptat la nostra invitació per presentar una conversa en el Departament i estic molt honrada per fer-la una data biogràfica per tu. Personalment, he vingut Maria Josep en reunions i conferències sobre els anys, i sé ella també per la participació en el projecte català i gràmica que ella ha tingut, i pot dir que és una pressa real i que s'està passant. Maria Josep Cuenca és professor de català i lingüística a la Universitat de València i member de l'Institut d'Estudis Catalans. La seva investigació focusa en text gràmer i discurs d'anàlisi, sobretot en les xes, compound sentences, connectives, discurs marques en el framework general de les lingüístiques cognitives. Ella ha publicat més de 100 articles sobre les xes que són relacionades amb l'àmbit català i discurs d'anàlisi i molt més que unes setmanes de llocs que han ajudat generacions de estudis per entendre una varieta de topics en lingüística. Ella ha estat una escolar a diferents universitats, com l'Universitat d'Estudis de Venècia, l'Universitat de Califòria a Berkley, l'Universitat d'Esquadra i l'Universitat d'Esquadra. Important, no només ha treballat intensament per una llengua catalana d'un punt científic, d'un punt de vista lingüístic, però també ha contribuït molt a la disseminació i els projectes prescriptius. Professor Cuenca ha estat el director de l'Estudis de Catalunya a l'Institut d'Estudis Catalans, que ha resultat en la publicació de dues grames, que són la pila del nostre sistemes gramàtics. Aquesta és la gramàtica essencial de la llengua catalana del 2018 i la gramàtica bàsica de la llengua catalana del 2019. En relació amb la transició, ella és una part de la llengua tecnolinguística, en relació amb la coordinació de la transició subàrea. Finalment, volia stressar que, en 2020, ella va tenir la creu de Sant Jordi per a la pràctica del nostre govern català. Aquesta és la contribució per a la knowledge i disseminació de la gramàtica catalana. Moltes gràcies, Marius. Moltes gràcies a tots els nostres inheritedats. Moltes gràcies. Bona nit, Marius. És un plaer ser aquí, Bon dia. Quino agradecer a la universitat i la coordinació i els coordinadors de les mestres per convidar-me. Aquest és el meu primer lloc de post-Covid. És una mica emocional, en un sentit, perquè ha estat molt temps. Sobretot vegem com funciona. Avui, parlem de discurs, marques i transmissió, perquè em van preguntar per un topic relacionat amb diverses coses, lingüístiques, discurs, analitzes i transmissió, i em va dir que això pot ser una bona mesura entre aquests diferents països. I, bé, parlem de... Parlem de les essencials, alguns consells bàsics. No puc anar al concepte, perquè hi ha hores i hores de contribuències al topic de discurs, marques, com s'hi pot saber. I molts diferents classificacions, definicions i altres. Però el meu punt és just donar-li un glim de els consells bàsics perquè hi ha aquests consells, d'aquest punt de vista, el meu propós, després de molts anys, treballant en el topic. I, a base d'un estudi de casos, vaig mostrar-li un estudi de casos, analitzant la transmissió dels discurs, marques, en l'acadèmic català, escrivint-li en anglès. I, això... Ho esperem, que això és interessant, no només, no especialment, d'un punt de vista de discurs, sobre català i anglès, però, a fer-nos una cosa sobre discurs, marques, com funcionen, i, també, què és el procés que les translators utilitzen quan transmeten discurs, marques, que, de course, no és un procés conscients, és una cosa que fem, normalment, és espontànius. Però, crec que, en aquests casos de estudi, fins i si és restricte, de course, ha de ser restricte a certes paràmetres, crec que és interessant fer-nos una cosa sobre les nostres idees sobre discurs, marques, sobre transmetent discurs, marques, i, també, sobre algunes de les prèvies contribuïtions a l'àmbit. Ok, doncs, començo amb una definició molt general, que és bàsic, encara que és molt general, potser molt general, però és un punt de començament. Què és el discurs, marquers? Schifrin, en 1987, definia discurs, marques, de següentament dependents unitges que es prenguin de discurs. I, més específicament, diuen que definir marques a més de l'esquadra theoretical com a membres de l'esquadra funcional de verbals i non-verbals que provuen contextuals coordinats per on-going-talk. Aquí, la idea que crec que és la més important idea és que discurs marquers definim una classe funcional, no una classe categòrica. I això és part del problema, i també part de la manera que pensem sobre discurs marquers. Radeker definiria discurs, ella parla de discurs operators, que hi ha molts diferents labels per referir a aquests items. És una frase o una frase, per exemple, una conjuncció d'adverteixement de la interjecció del comentari, que és una altra, amb la funció primària de portar a l'esquadra l'atenció, una part de l'esquadra de l'esquadra de l'esquadra de l'esquadra amb el context de discurs immediat. Hi ha una classe funcional que trobarà diferents categories que poden fer aquesta funció, que és una funció de l'esquadra, l'esquadra entre potions de discurs, que significa que es branca, que es separa, que es separa, both, separa i link. Establish un boundary i també indiqui com el que ha de venir ha de ser interpretat en referència a aquests previst. I... Aquest és encara molt general, com veuràs, doncs hem de anar a dins d'això i ser més específics, però és un lloc de començament. Aleshores, tenim aquesta funció general i el meu punt és que hem de definir quines classes, quines classes es poden performar aquesta funció i aquesta funció general com es pot ser especificat en discurs. Però primer, hi ha una diferència molt important, que no és generalment explicat, però per mi, en el meu estudi és bàsic en la descripció dels discurs marcadors i de com funcionen, i, com veu, és important per l'estudi que presentaré, és el fet que discurs marcadors puguin tenir dues diferències. Hi pot ser utilitzat a l'esquadra connectant parts d'una sentència com un unit independent, com en el primer exemple, o a l'esquadra text. A l'esquadra, el primer exemple, Justin Bieber és l'estudi de Instagram i, per tant, l'estudi de pop music. Aquí tenim, per tant, Linkin, i això és a l'esquadra sentència. L'esquadra de tot és sentència i tenim dues elements que estan linked. A l'esquadra text, un visure also more than such and such copy of the album, the four months, etc. Which was top 20, but nowhere Bieber is more popular than on Instagram. So we here have but, which is linking at text level, this linking the next paragraph with the previous paragraph. So this is important because even even if we have linkage i, a més, els condicions de discurs marquen en un nivell o en l'altre, són diferents, i moltes persones consideren només el text nivell com a discurs marquen. No puc entrar en totes aquestes perspectives diferents, però només manté en compte que tenim aquests elements i, per tant, però, que són discurs marquers, per tant, és clarament considerat com un discurs marquers, i, però, són útils de considerar discurs marquers, però no tots els consideren, perquè són conjunctius, anirem a parlar un petit bit d'això, i algunes persones no consideren el sentit del nivell com a discurs marquen, però com a compound. Però, per cert, l'exemple segon serà considerat per a tots els discurs marquers. I ara, les funcions. Aquesta funcions general de l'inquisic, el meu propòsit, el que és també similar a altres propòsits, com la de Redecker, és similar, no la mateixa clasificació i altres persones, com la de Gann o la de Cribel. So, academics generally identified three or four, it depends on the classification domains, general domains in which a discurs marker can act. So we have the ideational domain or propositional in which the discurs marker indicate a propositional meaning such as addition, disjunction, contrast, concessions. So these are the general meanings that we identify with compound sentences, but they can also be identified at text level, not only in compound sentences. We now have this another domain which is textual domain or sequential or structural, which is the result of the marker bracket in a unit of talk such as the text, the sequence or return, the clear instance of the textual domain is the use of a discurs marker to introduce a turn or a response. And then we also have the interpersonal domain in which we have discurs markers which link, but they also add some interpersonal subjective or intersubjective meaning to what's coming next. So they link as the ones in textual domain, but they also indicate attitude, knowledge or stance of the speaker with respect to what is being said or to the hearer. So we see some examples. So here I am just sketching the general ideas that we will need to follow the case study, okay? So at the ideational domain, for instance, this example, the government had sought time on the grounds that it is in the process of establishing appropriate medical and physical fitness standards and building required infrastructure which includes et cetera, the bench however rejected the government's stance. So we have here that however is linking the previous paragraph and the next paragraph and the meaning is contrast. It's indicating contrast between the two ideas here. At the textual domain, for instance, why does she think she was unhappy? One of the reasons was I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that people didn't seem to care about anything that everyone just care about themselves rather than everything that was happening with the world. And being an oversensitive child without this, it was definitely something I thought about a lot and it made me sad. This ad is not like I want a cake and an ice cream. It's beyond propositional linkage. It indicates continuation in discourse. So this can instantiate the textual domain use of a discourse marker. So we have a group of sentences linked by end as a discourse marker with the next sentence and the meaning is continuity. Finally interpersonal domain, for instance. So there's hope for your friendship. This is from an interview to Greta Thunberg. So there's hope for your friendship with Donald Trump. She lets out the hiccup of laughter. Well, I don't think we will enjoy each other's company that much. We have very different interests. So this, well, it's bracketing a unit of talk. It's introducing a response and indicates disagreement, like mitigated disagreement. So it's linking, as Anne would do, for instance, but it also indicates the stance of the speaker and that's why I would locate this at the interpersonal domain because it's not only linking but also expressing the attitude of the speaker. As for categories, my proposal, this is my proposal that I have elaborated during many years. And I propose to consider three categories. So we remember that discourse marker is a functional class. So which elements can act as a discourse marker? Doncs my proposal is considering three elements. So we have conjunctions. I don't know if I can use a pointer here. Oops, what's wrong? I don't know how to go back to, sorry. I was trying to use a pointer, but wrong place. Okay, I go on for a while. So we have three categories. Si es que toca, aquí está en contesa. Que es debía ser el punter. Okay, it was easy. Thank you. Okay, three categories. So we have conjunctions like bad or Anne. We have seen that in the previous examples. And we have these other elements like however, parenthetical connectives, however, that is, therefore. These elements are the ones that are clearly considered as discourse markers and also pragmatic connectives like well, we've seen the uses of these elements in the previous examples and we will see some more afterwards. And we have these three categories. That's my proposal considering that there are three categories of elements which can act as a discourse marker. So as I said, conjunctions typically introduce compound sentences. Only some of them, basically, Anne and bad, can introduce elements at the text level. So many people would consider that only when they introduce a text level they are discourse markers, so it depends on your definition of discourse marking. Parenthetical connectives are oppositional and syntactically detached items that can combine with conjunctions. We can say Anne furthermore or we can say bad, however. And they are typically text connectives even though they can also be used at sentence level. So it's not that ones are only at text level and others are only at sentence level. That makes the thing difficult but that's reality. So we describe what's going on. And pragmatic connectives are oppositional and syntactically detached items just as parenthetical connectives. But they add these modal meanings so they are used at the interpersonal level, mainly bracketing units of talks, such as interventions, turns, or units inside the terms. So this is the general proposal. We have here the previous examples in briefs. So conjunctions would be this Anne that we've seen before, parenthetical connectives, however, in the previous example, and pragmatic connectives, well. So this is the general idea. These are the map of my proposal just to understand then what we will analyze next. So now we are set. Now we have the concepts. Maybe you say, I don't agree with you. Okay, but it's me talking, you know? So let's pretend for a while that you agree with me. Or you say, okay, let's see where you go with your classification. You see it's nice because it's three and three. So it's kind of nice. Three is a nice number for classifications. I really like it. Okay, so now we have a general idea of what the discourse markers see is and some examples. I think that examples are more telling than definitions, especially because definitions are very broad. And then we have these three levels of these three functions or domains. So we have the ideational sequential or textual and interpersonal and three categories. Conjunctions, parenthetical connectives and pragmatic connectives. Okay, so now we start our case study. The translating a discourse marker is a two-fold task. So when a translator is translating a discourse marker, first we have a comprehension process in which we interpret the discourse marker and we interpret its meaning. And interpreting the meaning of a discourse marker is not as straightforward as interpreting the meaning of a lexical element. When you read a table, you know what a table is, okay? And it's relatively easy. Well, it's not that easy. I am simplifying here. But you say, okay, table in Catalan, taula in Spanish, mesa, et cetera, et cetera. So it's relatively easy. In many cases you have a one-to-one, not always of course, but in many cases you have a one-to-one correspondence. But this is not always the case with discourse markers because many discourse markers do not have a content-like meaning, but a procedural meaning. And it depends on the context heavily, much more than lexical items. So there's a different kind of processing. So we have to interpret the discourse marker in relationship with the two elements that the discourse marker is connecting. And not only the meaning, but the intended effects of the discourse marker. And then we have this production which is a transfer of this relational meaning and we have to transfer the denotation and connotation of a discourse marker. You would say, okay, this is the same when you translate all you always understand and produce. Yes, but the thing is that is not so straightforward as it would be with other elements with lexical content in many cases, which is translating lexical items. Sometimes it's also difficult of course and you have to think. But when we translate the discourse marker we are not translating the discourse marker. We are translating a chunk of discourse and try to find something that goes well and sometimes what was well is nothing. And this is important. And that's the part of what I will explain later. That my point is focusing on implicitation and explicitation of discourse markers. When we delete or we add a discourse marker, why is it so? Is it possible? Is it good? Is it bad? That's my final end, so to speak. So the factors for translating the discourse markers are functional equivalents, frequency and conditions of use such as scope, position, coherence and colocation and meaning, domain and also polyfunctionality and ambiguity because part of the problem with the translation of discourse markers is that some of them are polyfunctional. They have different functions and they can be ambiguous. So the translator disambiguates. Sometimes in good ways, maybe not, it depends. So I have studied the strategies to translate intersentential connectives, connective discourse markers. So discourse markers linking at sentence level. Do you remember the second example? This bot introducing a paragraph. So I have restricted the analysis to intersentential level. And I have analyzed a parallel one direction corpus of academic papers on history to volumes of the journal Catalan Historical Review. This journal includes papers in Catalan translated into English. And I have analyzed, manually analyzed, it's a time consuming task, but it's an interesting task. 10 papers in Catalan translated into English about 100,000 words. I have identified more than 500 discourse markers in almost 3,000 sentences. So about 18% of sentences have an intersentential discourse marker. And which are the research questions first, which are the strategies for translating discourse markers at intersentential level. One important thing is that at intersentential level, discourse markers are not needed from a grammatical or a structural point of view. So this is also important that they could be from a traditional grammatical point of view, they could be excluded all the time, but it's not, of course, they are important for the cohesion of the text. But in this case, we don't have the restrictions of a syntax demanding, so to speak, a discourse marker. And then the second research question is which are the syntactic factors for implicitating and explicitating. I will define what I mean by implicitation and explicitation and which are the semantic, pragmatic factors which account for implicitation or explicitation. So for the purposes of this paper, I have differentiated for general techniques, literal or almost literal translation, dynamic translation with another discourse marker with a different, completely different meaning or with an element which is not a discourse marker, omission of a discourse marker and addition. And I have also differentiated generalization and specification of meaning, as we will see, I will describe these concepts. And implicitation can be, is the result either of omission of a discourse marker of generalization, the use of a discourse marker whose meaning is more general than the one in the language, in the original, in the source language. And explicitation is the result either of the addition of a discourse marker which was an existent in the source text or the specification, the use of a discourse marker whose meaning is more concrete, more specific than the previous one. Okay, here we have some examples. You have the examples in Catalan and then the translation into English. I will go very fast just focusing on the main ideas. So we can see literal translation in the first example. We have E which is and in Catalan and the translation is and. So this is literal translation. I have also considered literal translation some cases in which there are slight changes. For instance, position change because this does not really affect the meaning or the conditions of use of the discourse markers. So that will be literal. We have dynamic. Well, all the rest strictly are dynamic translation because it's non literal but I have differentiated those cases in which there's a change, a huge change in meaning. For instance, in the example, encambi meaning in contrast is translated likewise and encambi do not have the same meaning. In this case, the translator is very good and has repaired the original because there was no contrast between the ideas. So the translator, you know that translators are the best readers and the best interpreters if they are good translators of course. And then we find all the errors of the others. We don't find our own errors but we are very, very good at finding the errors of the authors. And this is a case where an error was corrected but it's not always the source of this technique it's not always error. Sometimes it's a different interpretation that is possible or other factors, as I would say. Then we have a mission. For instance, in the next example we have a donks which is therefore and in the translation it disappears. And there's also additions. So in the next example there was no discuss marker and in the English translation the translator added indeed. So the first thing that we see is that literal translation in this kind of text and in this corpus is overwhelmingly frequent. And this is something that you say, okay. But many, many, many authors would say that is not so frequent. So this is a fair result to consider. Not to say that this is general. It's always happening. But it's frequent. At least when we are dealing with written text, academic text, history. So when we don't have discuss markers acting at the interpersonal domain. So the first thing is that depending on the type of text maybe the languages combined and also the kind of interaction in the text we can have different results. So this is important to keep in mind. And we see that even though literal translation or almost literal translation is very frequent then omission and addition. And also as we will see generalization or specification which here they are not differentiated. I will make the difference afterwards. Are relatively frequent and even if they are not so, so frequent they are puzzling. You wonder but why? How? Why someone would omit a discuss marker or would add a discuss marker? So this is what intrigues me and this is the idea. Ok, so we talk about implicitation of meaning when we delete or reduce the meaning of an item in translation. Claudi and Claudi and Caroli talk about implicitation as derived from omission, contraction or generalization. So this is the general definition by Viner Agave Arne which is a classic manual of translation as you may know. Then, translation, implicitation can be achieved by total omission. For instance, in one, I see is deleted in the translation. It would correspond to so and forth and is deleted in existence diversos exemples per explicar aquesta actitud pragmàtica i adaptativa envers la nova realitat política. I see la vida parroquial en Serla Esglés, a Undel's Pillars, és per exemple, i és deleted. We can have partial omission, which is frequent, not always the case but frequent, when we have two discuss markers, for instance, this is relatively general, when we have a conjunction and then a parenthetical connective, but not just means the translation is nonetheless, just the second part has been translated, the second discuss marker. And also generalisation. For instance, en línies generales, aquesta tesi a Roma és bastant intacta i còmodament abraçada per la historiografia catalana. No obstante, això no té en compte ni la singularitat. No obstante, això, despite this, nonetheless, notwithstanding, is more specific than however. However, it's like the general contrastive discuss marker, parenthetical connective in English. So, previous contributions. There are many contributions talking about omission of discuss markers, as a frequent strategy in translation. Here you have, I will go through this, you have some of the literature about these elements, and omission has generally been considered taking into account elements like well, which is a pragmatic connective and very generally meaning and polyfunctional. So, in this case, omission is very frequent. And a lot, in French, French Italian, also a polyfunctional ambiguous marker. So, this phenomenon of omission has been studied in the case of very general markers or polysemus ambiguous markers. And the results are that omission is relatively frequent. It can be very frequent or less frequent depending on the gender and the discuss marker analyzed. But in my case, I have analyzed all the markers, not just one marker. And this makes a difference. It's very completely different. You just select a marker and you select this marker because you know that this marker has this particularity. I did it myself in 2008 with Well. But I think that this perspective of not analyzing just one marker or a group of markers, but just analyzing the whole picture is interesting and you sometimes get surprising responses for things that the literature does not tell. Here we have more papers. And my research is similar to Beha. And he analyzed business text translating from English into German and the other way around. And his results are similar to mine or my results are similar to his i he did it 10 years ago. Factors to implicitate. The analysis of bibliography say that the factors to implicitate are the absence of a functional equivalent. When you don't have a functional equivalent, then the translator may just omit the discuss marker under specification and polyfunctionality, as I said before. The type of coherent relations, like continuous relations, there are relations that are more easy to express implicitly than other relations, syntactic differences in the languages or in the text and avoiding stylistic overness. And there are also factors not to implicitate because translators are risk-avers because there is often no good reason to do so and because taking things away tends to be more difficult than keep them. And this is, I like this because it's, when you translate you know this, that well, there's a word, I keep a word. But it's not always like that, not with discuss markers I have to say. Okay, so we see this meaning, so my analysis departing from the literature, I made the analysis of my data, the analysis of my data, and these are the factors that I identified in my corpus to omit a discuss marker. First, the meaning, markers with a sequential meaning can be deleted more frequently than other markers. So we have this, I see, so we've seen another case before, and it's the same. I see is like, is continuation and it has been deleted, so this is one factor. Concurrents, when we have more than one discuss marker together, but also in near, then it is possible that one of them is omitted, for instance, in five. Oves podem fer calculs de propostes de baixes enfonsats en productes d'aquests origen, ara ve. Els estudis en aquest sentit solament permeten arribar a indicar les tendències. En el lloc, ceda clar, es pot dir que, aleshores, i la translatora sent que era molt contrastable i la delitit un d'aquests. En Catalunya és fina. S'hi ha dit i és fina, però quan et transmetes, en anglès hi ha moltes coses. I, d'aquests, quan la sensació del marc de discurs integra en un altre lloc i referint per exemple, referirà per exemple, és traslladat com que s'inclou. I llavors inclou, inclou, referi, per exemple. Això també és una ressona per descomptar el marc de discurs. El canvi de l'intersentència a la connexió de l'intersentència és quan has dues setmanes separades i després la transició merges en un sentit de compound i el sentit de compound és aquest. Després, el canvi haurà de fer la misió del marc de discurs. Per part de la misió, tenim corrents de marc de discurs, com he dit abans, tenim dues marcades de discurs, una conjuncció i una connectiva parentètica i generalment la conjuncció desapareix. Aleshores, tenim la mateixa eta i la transició que només queda encara. I encara no ho farà. No és un problema de gramaticalitat o d'incorreny. Ok, després tenim generalització de menys. Implicitació per generalització implica que el marc de discurs és traslladat per un marc de discurs més plenifunctional, més específic. I aquí hem vist 30 casos de generalització, que és relativament molt, almost as omission, which was 37 cases. So, all these markers in Catalan, Arabic, Percontra, Estanta, etcètera, have been in some cases translated by however, an effecte is translated by indeed, daltra banda by and, com a contra pun, yet. So we have this effect of generalization of meaning. It depends on the frequency of the markers. So one marker can be very frequent in one language and not so frequent. The direct counterpart can not be so frequent in the target language. We have been al contrari, translated to however. The change from intersentential to intersentential connection, daltra banda translated into and, and now it's a compound sentence not to separate sentences. So this will be the factors to implicitate. Okay, so now we have the picture of which are the factors to omit or generalize a discourse marker. Now we go to the opposite phenomenon, which is explicitation. So in the source language there is no discourse marker and then the translator adds a discourse marker or there's a general discourse marker and the translator uses no discourse marker. Okay, so this is the process of introducing information which can be derived from the context of situation. So we have here for instance the addition of a discourse marker. In Catalan we have no discourse marker and in English the translator added indeed and there's no grammatical need to add indeed. So it's just that the translator no té la grammatical need or the convenience of adding this discourse marker. Specification, this case E and is translated as furthermore. So you can see it now in English they exploited the space over which they held jurisdiction essentially through crop and livestock farming although they also harvested resources from forests, rivers and the coast and eventually metals noting that they were small cities it couldn't have said and it is worth or simply nothing but it's like and, and, and another and and the translator say furthermore change. But is that something that is needed on any account? Okay, so the the phenomenon of explicitation has been studied linked to what is called the Splicitation Hypothesis formulated by Blam Kolka and he says that translated text tends to be more explicit as for cohesive mechanisms than the source text. Regardless the differences between the linguistic and discourse systems of the two languages involved. This hypothesis has been challenged by many scholars and for instance, Claudi and Karoli have proposed the asymmetry hypothesis which considers because this Splicitation Hypothesis is considered as a universal so it says that whenever we translate we add things and we do not remove things and we have seen that this is not this is not exactly what happens so other scholars have proved that this is not this is too general it's an overgeneralisation and they propose the asymmetry hypothesis which is that Splicitation in the direction L1, L2 are not always counterbalanced by implicitations in the opposite directions because translators prefer to use operations involving Splicitation and often fail to perform optional implicitations. More fine grain is not so general and it looks better as for our experience as translators or analysts so the conclusion of this is that the addition of discourse markers in L2 is expected to be more frequent than the omission of discourse markers in L1 when comparing a two-way corpus I will go through this there are several contributions to this topic and also there are factors to explicitate the markers some markers tend to be explicitate more frequently than others type of coherence relation subjective relations tend to be more often explicitated that objective relationships relationships there can be syntactic differences between the two languages involved i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i