Volume 63, Issue 6
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper aims to look closely at the achievement of coherence in interpreting through the prism of metadiscourse, a set of grammatical resources instrumental in organizing a discourse, guiding the recipients towards an author/speaker’s preferred interpretation while taking account of their needs and expectation. Despite a general consensus on the role of the umbrella term, opinions vary on what falls under it. Further, while the conception sets an illuminating framework for empirical endeavors to delve into the way in which meaning is negotiated and represented at discoursal level, its discussion is often confined to the analysis of written text in specific genre (e.g. academic treatise), leaving its role in oral discourse scarcely explored. In this paper, we propose an adapted taxonomy for the analysis of devices as such in interpretation and relate them to the building of coherence in interpreted events. Qualitative analysis of instances from real-life situations is then presented to show that successful communication in interpreting does not only come as a result of rendering the propositional message, but also involves a process of skillfully managing various metadiscoursal devices in reconstructing intertextual and intratextual conherences, both of which serve the same communicative goal with neither enjoying precedence over the other. The proposed taxonomy of metadiscourse may have some pedagogical and practical implications.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bao, Bao
    2005Introducing Theories in Interpreting Studies. . Beijing: China Translation & Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bühler, Hildegund
    1986 “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-Linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters”. Multilingua5: 231–235. doi: 10.1515/mult.1986.5.4.231
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1986.5.4.231 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chiaro, Delia, and Giuseppe Nocella
    2004 “Interpreters’ Perception of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web”. Meta2: 278–293. doi: 10.7202/009351ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009351ar [Google Scholar]
  4. Collados Aís, Angela
    2002 “Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Importance of Nonverbal Communication”. InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 327–336. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Crismore, A., R. Markkanen, and M. Steffensen
    1993 “Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students”. Written Communication5: 184–202. doi: 10.1177/0741088388005002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005002004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1973Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
    2001Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian Matthiessen
    2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. He, Huilin
    2002 “Assessment of Chinese-English Conference Interpreting: A Functional Perspective”. InFresh Exploration into Interpreting Studies: New Methods, Concepts and Trends, ed. byCai Xiaohong, 349–362. Hong Kong: Maison d'editions Quaille.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Huang, Guowen
    2009 “The Analysis of Grammatical Metaphor in Translation Studies”. Chinese Translators Journal1: 5–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hu, Zhuanglin
    2004Linguistics: A Concise Course Book. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse
    2004 “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics2: 156–177. doi: 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hyland, Ken
    2005Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ifantidou, Elly
    2005 “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse”. Journal of Pragmatics9: 1325–1353. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kurz, Ingrid
    1993 “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter5: 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurz, Ingrid, and Franz Pöhhacker
    1995 “Quality in TV Interpreting”. Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT – FIT Newsletter: 350–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Latawiec, Beata
    2012Metadiscourse in Oral Discussions and Persuasive Essays of Children Exposed to Collaborative Reasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Munday, Jeremy
    2008Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ren, Xiaoping
    2000 “Flexibility in Diplomatic Interpretation”. Chinese Translators Journal5: 40–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Setton, R., and A. Dawrant
    2016Conference Interpreting: A Complete Course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  21. Tompson, Geoffrey
    2001 “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader”. Applied Linguistics1: 58–78. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  22. Vande Kopple, Williams
    1985 “Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication36: 82–93. doi: 10.2307/357609
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar]
  23. Williams, Joseph
    1981Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error