A Deductive-logic-based Falsification of the Explicitation Hypothesis in Translation
Hunan University of Technology and Business
The present research presents a deductive-logic-based falsification of the explicitation hypothesis in translation initiated by Blum-Kulka and supported by some corpus-based empirical studies. Taking the definitions of the four terms, namely, “explicitation”, “translation”, “inherent” and “universal” as our critical weapons, it demonstrates why the arguments used in previous studies represented by Øverås (1998), Olohan and Baker (2000), Pápai (2004), Kenny (2005), Klaudy & Károly (2005), Konšalová’s (2007) have failed to confirm the explicitation hypothesis.
The methods shared by these previous corpus-based studies include the inductive logic of the jump of the conclusion from a strong tendency or likelihood of explicitation to the claim of the universally present explicitation in whatever is called translation; following up inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning; using the unconsciousness or sub-consciousness or subliminality on the part of translator when resorting to explicitation; or the validity of the asymmetry hypothesis or the lack of justifiability of the explicitation, as premises of that kind of reasoning.
The present research puts these arguments to the test of deductive logic based on correct definitions of key concepts, sound propositions, and reasoning free from fallacies, and it reveals the logical fallacies of these reasonings, including Non Sequitur, disguised replacement of concept and hasty generalization. It is concluded that these reasonings are illogical and their conclusions are false.
ISBN 9783969391075. LINCOM Studies in Translation 11. 172pp. 2022.