Article published In:
BabelVol. 63:6 (2017) ► pp.846–860
Metadiscourse and coherence in interpreting
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 outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The theory of metadiscourse
- 3.Classification and application of metadiscourse
- 4.Metadiscourse in interpreted text
- 5.Metadiscoursal devices and coherence in interpreting
- 5.1Interactive metadiscourse
- 5.2Interactional metadiscourse
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgement
- Notes
-
References
References (23)
References
Bao, Bao. 2005. Introducing Theories in Interpreting Studies. . Beijing: China Translation & Publishing Corporation.
Bühler, Hildegund. 1986. “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-Linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters”. Multilingua 51: 231–235.
Chiaro, Delia, and Giuseppe Nocella. 2004. “Interpreters’ Perception of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web”. Meta 21: 278–293.
Collados Aís, Angela. 2002. “Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Importance of Nonverbal Communication”. In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 327–336. London: Routledge.
Crismore, A., R. Markkanen, and M. Steffensen. 1993. “Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students”. Written Communication 51: 184–202.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 2001. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
He, Huilin. 2002. “Assessment of Chinese-English Conference Interpreting: A Functional Perspective”. In Fresh Exploration into Interpreting Studies: New Methods, Concepts and Trends, ed. by Cai Xiaohong, 349–362. Hong Kong: Maison d'editions Quaille.
Huang, Guowen. 2009. “The Analysis of Grammatical Metaphor in Translation Studies”. Chinese Translators Journal 11: 5–9.
Hu, Zhuanglin. 2004. Linguistics: A Concise Course Book. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics 21: 156–177.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Ifantidou, Elly. 2005. “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 91: 1325–1353.
Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 51: 13–21.
Kurz, Ingrid, and Franz Pöhhacker. 1995. “Quality in TV Interpreting”. Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT – FIT Newsletter: 350–358.
Latawiec, Beata. 2012. Metadiscourse in Oral Discussions and Persuasive Essays of Children Exposed to Collaborative Reasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois.
Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Ren, Xiaoping. 2000. “Flexibility in Diplomatic Interpretation”. Chinese Translators Journal 51: 40–44.
Tompson, Geoffrey. 2001. “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader”. Applied Linguistics 11: 58–78.
Vande Kopple, Williams. 1985. “Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 361: 82–93.
Williams, Joseph. 1981. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Ren, Wen & Lu Wang
2023.
A corpus-based study of metadiscourse features in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting.
Frontiers in Psychology 14
Li, Ruitian, Andrew K. F. Cheung & Kanglong Liu
2022.
A Corpus-Based Investigation of Extra-Textual, Connective, and Emphasizing Additions in English-Chinese Conference Interpreting.
Frontiers in Psychology 13
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.