1887
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The author-audience interaction is an important issue in academic writing, but when academic texts are translated, new issues regarding the author-audience relationship arise because of the translator’s involvement in the text. This paper examines translators’ interventions in academic writing by focusing on one dimension of the author-audience interaction, i.e., reader-oriented strategies or engagement markers. Corpus analysis is employed to explore the use of engagement markers in academic texts translated into English, their corresponding source texts originally written in Slovene, and in comparable original English texts. The analysis reveals that while the frequency of engagement markers is relatively similar in the two sets of originals, it is considerably lower in the translated texts. This means that translators’ interventions resulted in a reduction in the use of engagement markers. The findings identify several potential reasons for translators’ intervention, including a tendency to avoid risky strategies such as the use of directives, adaptation of the target text to the conventions of the target language/culture, and adaptation of the target text to a new audience.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.9.2.03pis
2016-11-11
2019-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdi, Reza
    2002 Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies4 (2): 139–145. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ädel, Annelie
    2006Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2012 “What I want you to remember is…”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. English Text Construction5 (1): 101–127. doi: 10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mona
    2000 Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target12 (2): 241–266. doi: 10.1075/target.12.2.04bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.2.04bak [Google Scholar]
  5. Barlow, Michael
    2003ParaConc: A Concordancer for Parallel Texts. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blaganje, Dana & Ivan Konte
    1998Modern English Grammar (4th edn). Ljubljana: DZS.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bosseaux, Charlotte
    2004 Translating point of view: A corpus-based study. Language Matters35 (1): 259–274. doi: 10.1080/10228190408566216
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10228190408566216 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brems, Lieselotte , Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde
    2012 Intersections of intersubjectivity. English Text Construction5 (1): 1–6. doi: 10.1075/etc.5.1.01int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.01int [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, Penelope & Steven C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Carciu, Oana Maria
    2009 An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica18: 71–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Čmejrková, Svetla
    1996 Academic writing in Czech and English. InAcademic Writing. Intercultural and Textual Issues, Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–152. doi: 10.1075/pbns.41.11cme
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.11cme [Google Scholar]
  12. Déjà Vu
    2007 ATRIL Language Engineering. www.atril.com/
  13. de Pedro Ricoy, Raquel
    2012 Reading minds: A study of deictic shifts in translated written interaction between mental-health professionals and their readers. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies11: 51–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eik-Nes, Nancy Lea
    2009 Dialogging: A social interactive practice in academic writing. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses59: 49–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fløttum, Kjersti , Torodd Kinn & Trine Dahl
    2006 “We now report on…” versus “Let us now see how…”: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. InAcademic Discourse across Disciplines, Ken Hyland & Marina Bondi (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 203–224. doi: 10.1075/pbns.148
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fu, Xiaoli
    2012 The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies14 (4): 399–417. doi: 10.1177/1461445612450373
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612450373 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gillaerts, Paul & Freek Van de Velde
    2010 Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes9 (2): 128–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gosden, H
    2003 ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes2 (2): 87–101. doi: 10.1016/S1475‑1585(02)00037–1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037 [Google Scholar]
  19. Harwood, Nigel
    2005a ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics37 (8): 1207–1231. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2005b ‘We do not seem to have a theory… The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics26 (3): 343–375. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hermans, Theo
    2002 Paradoxes and aporias in translation and translation studies. InTranslation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Alessandra Riccardi (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu, Guangwei & Feng Cao
    2011 Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics43 (11): 2795–2809. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hyland, Ken
    2002 Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal56 (4): 351–358. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.4.351
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2005a Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies7 (2): 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005bMetadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction1 (1): 5–22. doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl [Google Scholar]
  27. Khoutyz, Irina
    2013 Engagement features in Russian & English: A cross-cultural analysis of academic written discourse. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics13 (1): 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuteeva, Maria
    2011 Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes30 (1): 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, Nagiko Iwata
    2009 Stance and engagement in writing: Japanese and American editorials. InLanguage for Professional Communication: Research, Practice & Training, Vijay K. Bhatia , Winnie Cheng , Bertha Du-Babcock & Jane Lung (eds). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, Asia-Pacific LSP and Professional Communication Association, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 61–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Liao, Min-Hsiu
    2011 Interaction in the genre of popular science: Writer, translator and reader. The Translator17 (2): 349–368. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2011.10799493
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10799493 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lillis, Theresa & Mary Jane Curry
    2006 Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English medium texts. Written Communication23 (1): 3–35. doi: 10.1177/0741088305283754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, James
    2000 Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mauranen, Anna
    1993Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Text-linguistic Study. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2007 Refleksivnost diskurza pri mednarodnih govorcih – raba v angleščini kot lingui franci. Jezik in slovstvo3–4: 33–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2010 Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies9 (2): 13–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. McGrath, Lisa & Maria Kuteeva
    2012 Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes31 (3): 161–173. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. McKenny, John & Karen Bennett
    2009 Critical and corpus approaches to English academic text revision: A case study of articles by Portuguese humanities scholars. English Text Construction2 (2): 228–245. doi: 10.1075/etc.2.2.06mck
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.2.2.06mck [Google Scholar]
  38. Mikolic Južnic, Tamara
    2013 Bridging a grammar gap with explicitation: A case study of the nominalized infinitive. Across Languages and Cultures14 (1): 75–98. doi: 10.1556/Acr.14.2013.1.4.
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.14.2013.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  39. Molino, Alessandra
    2010 Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes9 (2): 86–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  40. Moreno, Ana I
    2004 Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes3 (4): 321–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  41. Munday, Jeremy
    2012Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-making. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mur Dueñas, Pilar
    2009 Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) business research articles. English Text Construction2 (2): 246–264. doi: 10.1075/etc.2.2.07mur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.2.2.07mur [Google Scholar]
  43. Nelson, Nancy & Monserrat Castelló
    2012 Academic writing and authorial voice. InUniversity Writing. Selves and Texts in Academic Societies, Monserrat Castelló & Christiane Donahue (eds). Bingley, UK: Emerald, 33–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Sullivan, Emer
    2003 Narratology meets translation studies, or, the voice of the translator in children’s literature. Meta: Journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal48 (1–2): 197–207. doi: 10.7202/006967ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/006967ar [Google Scholar]
  45. Pérez-Llantada, Carmen , Ramón Plo & Gibson R. Ferguson
    2011 ‘You don’t say what you know, only what you can’: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes30 (1): 18–30. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes
    2005 Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes24 (3): 307–319. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2004.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sawaki, Tomoko
    2014 Interactions between ideology, dialogic space construction, and the text-organizing function: A comparative study of traditional and postmodern academic writing corpora. English Text Construction7 (2): 178–214. doi: 10.1075/etc.7.2.02saw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.2.02saw [Google Scholar]
  48. Scott, Mike
    2008WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Shaw, Philip
    2003 Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes2 (4): 343–357. doi: 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00050‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X [Google Scholar]
  50. Shaw, Philip & Irena Vassileva
    2009 Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture; Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics41 (2): 290–305. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  51. Swales, John M. , Ummul K. Ahmad , Yu-Ying Chang , Daniel Chavez , Dacia F. Dressen & Ruth Seymour
    1998 Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics19 (1): 97–121. doi: 10.1093/applin/19.1.97
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.97 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tang, Ramona & Suganthi John
    1999 The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes18: S23–S39. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00009–5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009–5 [Google Scholar]
  53. Thompson, Geoff
    2001 Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics22 (1): 58–78. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  54. Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston
    2000 Evaluation: An introduction. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Thompson, Geoff & Puleng Thetela
    1995 The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text15 (1): 103–127. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vande Kopple, William J
    1985 Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication36 (1): 82–93. doi: 10.2307/357609
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Bonn, Sarah & John M. Swales
    2007 English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes6 (2): 93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Vassileva, Irena
    1997 Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. InCulture and Styles of Academic Discourse, Ana Duszak (ed.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 203–221. doi: 10.1515/9783110821048.203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.203 [Google Scholar]
  59. Venuti, Lawrence
    1993 Translation as cultural politics: Regimes of domestication in English. Textual Practice7 (2): 208–223. doi: 10.1080/09502369308582166
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09502369308582166 [Google Scholar]
  60. Winters, Marion
    2009 Modal particles explained: How modal particles creep into translations and reveal translators’ styles. Target21 (1): 74–97. doi: 10.1075/target.21.1.04win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21.1.04win [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/etc.9.2.03pis
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic discourse , engagement markers , interaction , translation and translators' intervention
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