Translating hedging devices in news discourse

Peterlin, A.; Moe, Marija Zlatnar

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.009

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, it was also established by her that even though Slovene and English articles use a similar number of engagement markers, their usage patterns are quite disparate and translations actually follow neither of these patterns. They contain less engagement and employ them in a third design (Peterlin -Moe, 2016), which matches the results on rhetorical patterns. According to Liao (2011), the reason of this phenomenon might be that translators would like to make the reader's task easier by introducing alterations to the texts that they feel would make it more reader-friendly.…”

Section: Metadiscourse In Translationsupporting

confidence: 75%

Metadiscourse distribution measurement – an experimental case study of a translation

Neumayer¹

2020

Porta Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term metadiscourse is used for language elements that either aid the organising of a text or serve the expression of the writer’s stance towards the content of the text or towards the reader. Most research done on metadiscourse scrutinise the number and quality of these elements for whole texts, while disregard the examination of the patterns on a lower level. Nevertheless, discovering paragraph-level patterns may not just help understand the metadiscourse structure of texts but could also help us understand better what happens to texts during translation. To our knowledge, no established methods exist to measure and compare metadiscourse distribution patterns. This paper introduces a method of paragraph-level analysis and comparison, and presents the results of a small case study carried out on a textbook excerpt and its translation. The method shown here opens up the possibility to furthering the depth of knowledge about text construction, reader-writer communication and discourse community-specific characteristics and how these features are handled during translation.

show abstract

Section: Metadiscourse In Translationsupporting

confidence: 75%

Metadiscourse distribution measurement – an experimental case study of a translation

Neumayer¹

2020

Porta Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Descriptive translation studies can undertake a more realistic approach and help reveal metaphtonymic regularities of inherence in interlinguistic transfer. Therefore, the study aims to explore the translation approaches of metaphtonymy and factors which contribute to choices of translators in the context of literary translation by employing task analysis and semistructured discourse-based interviews, an analytical framework put forward by Peterlin and Moe (2016) in analyzing hedging translation and a questionnaire designed for the present study. Philip (2019:131) argues that studying the work of trainee translators offers a new perspective to metaphor translation because "the analysis of multiple translations of a given source text (ST) offers ample evidence of the strategies that are used in translation and allows researchers to incorporate aspects of language proficiency into their analysis."…”

Section: Metaphor Metonymy Metaphtonymy and Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating Metaphtonymy: Exploring Trainee Translators' Translation Approaches and Underlying Factors

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metaphtonymy is identified as a special rhetoric figure that specifies the interaction between metaphor and metonymy and which is pervasive in literary works. How and why do trainee translators translate metaphtonymy? Using task analysis, semi-structured discourse-based interviews, and a questionnaire survey among 30 master of translation and interpreting (MTI) trainee translators, this study investigates their translation approaches adopted when translating the metaphtonymies in Chinese extracted prose and explores the effects of their choices. It is found that they mainly employed three approaches: omission, modification, and retainment, with omission being the most, and retainment the least frequent. The main factors attributing to each approach range from the prominence degrees and cross-cultural adaptation abilities of the metaphtonymies, rhetorical awareness of translators, and transference competence to their translation knowledge sub-competence. This study suggests that trainee translators should be instructed to systematically construct rhetoric knowledge, and the teaching design should emphasize the competence of trainees of identifying rhetorical devices and their competence of shifting rhetoric between languages.

show abstract

“…Translating narrative discourses in literary texts and in verbal communication warrants a creative attitude in using pragmatic markers (Peterlin & Moe, 2016;Metsä-Ketelä, 2016;Alós, 2016). Therefore, introducing such pragmatic markers to the translated Arabic novels, or literature, should be attempted whenever indicated in order to enhance the readability of the translated texts (House, 2013;Nord, 2014).…”

Section: Well As a Prototypical Pragmatic Markermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Pragmatic Markers Acquisition and Phonological Awareness on Word Choice in Translating Literary Texts from Arabic into English

Alwafai¹

2019

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pragmatic markers, either primary or secondary, contribute to the specificity of languages and are sensitive on being translated. This study traces the use of well, the commonest pragmatic marker in the English discourse, in a corpus of translated Arabic novels. The study, too, addresses the influence of the translators’ phonological awareness on their word choices, in the same corpus. Adjacent consonants, consonant-starting and quarter-syllabic words are studied in four groups: free writing of native authors as a control group (G1), literary translations by native English translators (G2), literary English translations by Arabic translators (G3) as well as literary English translations by joint effort (native-speaking and non-native-speaking translators) [G4]. The findings are statistically compared using one-way ANOVA test. Results show a statistically significant difference in the use of the pragmatic marker well and in the use of the three phonological patterns among the four groups. The findings are interpreted and implications are offered for the pragmatic gap and linguistic competence between native-speaking and non-native-speaking translators.

show abstract

Translating hedging devices in news discourse

Cited by 12 publications

References 32 publications

Metadiscourse distribution measurement – an experimental case study of a translation

Metadiscourse distribution measurement – an experimental case study of a translation

Translating Metaphtonymy: Exploring Trainee Translators' Translation Approaches and Underlying Factors

The Impact of Pragmatic Markers Acquisition and Phonological Awareness on Word Choice in Translating Literary Texts from Arabic into English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About