Translating Metadiscourse Features in TED Political Talks: A Parallel Corpus-Based Investigation of Semantic Underspecification in English and Persian

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 5, Volume 53, Issue 2, July 2020, Pages 127-154   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v53i2.85499

Authors

Reza Kazemian^{* 1}; Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani²

¹Department of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

²Department of Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Abstract

Metadiscourse features are considered important elements of discourse that are used to establish communication between different parts of discourse as well as to help audience (readers and listeners) in understanding the functional relationships. The aim of this study was to investigate these metadiscourse features and to conduct a comparative corpus-based study on some of the most important metadiscourse features in English and Persian. To this end, ten Ted talks, focusing on the political issues in English, were randomly selected and, along with their Persian translations, were added to Sketch Engine corpus software. Hyland’s (2005) framework was selected to analyze and categorize metadiscourse features. In this classification, metadiscourse features are divided into two main categories, namely, interactive and interactional. Transitions belong to the interactive category. The comparative analysis between these elements and their Persian translations suggested that the translation process of these elements can be described in form of two general strategies; literal translation and underspecification. Underspecification process consists of three types, namely, deletion, extension and restriction. Other findings of this study highlighted the significant relationship between the type of underspecification and the type of strategies adopted. Using statistical and quantitative analysis, it was also found that strong transitions are often translated literally, while weak transitions such as “and” are sometimes translated literally and sometimes with underspecification. The findings of this study can be used in future research in the field of corpus-based translation studies and contrastive linguistics.

Keywords

Metadiscourse; Interactive Metadiscourse; Metadiscourse Transitions; Translation; Underspecification; Parallel Corpus

References

احمدی، م. (1390). بررسی ترجمة نقش‌نماهای گفتمانی در رمان هری پاتر و یادگاران مرگ، نوشتة جی. کی. رولینگ. پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، سیستان و بلوچستان.

امیریوسفی، م.، رضوانی سیچانی، ب.، و رضوانی سیچانی، ا. (1398). مدیریت ریسک: راهبردی برای ترجمة دقیق‌تر تردیدنماهای متون علمی. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 11(2)، 25-44.

رفیعی، ع. (1391). مفهوم عامل در واژه‌های مشتق زبان فارسی. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 4(7)، 19-32.

رولینگ، جی. کی. (1387). هری پاتر و یادگران مرگ. ترجمة وید اسلامیه. تهران: کتابسرای تندیس.

صحرایی، ر (1392). نحو کودک؛ نحو تمام‌عیار شواهدی از روند فراگیری بخش مقوله‌ای و ساخت اطلاع زبان فارسی. علم زبان، 1(1)، 57-82.

طارمی، ط.، تاکی، گ.، و یوسفیان, پ. (1397). جنسیت در مقالات علمی فارسی‌زبان: مطالعة پیکره‌بنیاد نشانگرهای فراگفتمان تعاملی براساس انگارة هایلند. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 10(1)، 23-42.

عبدالله زاده، ف. و میرزاده، ط. (1396). بررسی کتاب «فی الأدب العباسی، الرؤیة و الفنّ» عزالدین اسماعیل با تکیه بر الگوی فراگفتمانی هایلند. لسان مبین، 9(29)، 129-146.

فمیان، ع.، و کارگر، م. (1392). تحلیل مقالات نقد کتاب‌های زبان‌شناسی ایران براساس الگوی فراگفتمان هایلند. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 5(9)، 37-52.

مقدم‌کیا، ر. (۱۳۸۳). «بعد»، نقش‌نمای گفتمان در زبان فارسی. نامة فرهنگستان، ۷(۳)، ۸۱-۹۸.

 

Aijmer, K. (2007). The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that. In A. Celle, & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks (pp. 31-46). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.

Altenberg, B. (1999). Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In H. Hasselgård, & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 249-268). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi

Altenberg, B. (2007). The correspondence of resultive connectors in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6(1), 1-26.

Amouzadeh, M., & Zareifard, R. (2019). Interactional metadiscourse of gender in Persian. Pragmatics and Society, 10(4), 512-537.

Anthony, L. (2009). Issues in the design and development of software tools for corpus studies: The case for collaboration. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics (pp. 87-104). London, England: Continuum.

Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London, England: Routledge.

Barkhudarov, L. (2018). The problem of the unit of translation. In P. Zlateva (Ed.), Translation as social action (pp. 39-46). London, England: Routledge.

Barnwell, K. G. (1980). Introduction to semantics and translation with special reference to Bible translation. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Cettolo, M., Girardi, C., & Federico, M. (2012). WIT: Web inventory of transcribed and translated talks. In Proceedings of the 16th EAMT Conference (pp. 261-268). Trento, Italy.

Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. (1996) Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149–81.

Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Revised edition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Crible, L., Abuczki, Á., Burkšaitienė, N., Furko, P., Nedoluzhko, A., Rackevičienė, S., & Zikanova, Š. (2019). Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 139-155.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91–112.

Crismore, A., Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118–36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71.

Cuenca, M. (2008). Pragmatic markers in contrast: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(8), 1373-1391.

Davies, E. E. (2007). Leaving it out: On some justifications for the use of omission in translation. Babel Revue Internationale de la Traduction / International Journal of Translation, 53(1), 56-77.

Degand, L. (2004). Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: The case of “puisque” and “aangezien”. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 251-270). Stanford, Canada: CSLI.

Dryden, J. (1680/1975). From “Preface” to Ovid’s Epistles. In T. R. Steiner (Ed.), English translation theory 1650–1800 (pp. 68–74). Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.

Dupont, M., & Zufferey, S. (2017). Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 270-297.

Egg, M. (2010). Semantic underspecification. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(3), 166-181.

Egg, M., & Redeker, G. (2007). Underspecified discourse representation. In A. Benz & P. Kühnlein, (Eds.), Constraints in discourse (pp. 117-138). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Fischer, K, (2006). Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 1-20). Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Fraser, B. (2015). The combination of discourse marker - A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48-53.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.

Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111-127.

Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3), 149-171.

Ghafoori, N., & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs. female authors of research articles in applied linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 87-113.

Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.

Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. (2017). Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121(2), 113-131.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). London, England: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, England: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2) 133–51.

Hyland, K. (2005). A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 87-112). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (2nd ed.). London, England: Bloomsbury.

Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253–72.

Irmer, M. (2011). Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving under specification in discourse interpretation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Karbalaei, A. & R. Davaei. (2013). Interpersonal metadiscourse in compositions written by Iranian ESP students. European Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 291-300.

Kopple, V., & William J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Northland.

Mortier, L., & Degand, L. (2009). Adversative discourse markers in contrast. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 338-366.

Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Oates, S. (2000). Multiple discourse marker occurrence: creating hierarchical for natural language. In Procedding of the 3rd CLUK Colloquium (pp. 41-45). Brighton, England.

Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 367-381.

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50(3), 199–236.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 149-168.

Williams, J. M. (1981). Ten lessons in clarity and grace (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Zareifard, R., & Alinezhad, B. (2014). A study of interactional metadiscourse markers and gender. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 231-238.