Cover not available
Article published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 9:2 (2016) ► pp.268–291

Engagement markers in translated academic texts

Tracing translators’ interventions

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.
Keywords: translation, interaction, engagement markers, academic discourse, translators' intervention
Published online: 24 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.2.03pis
References (60)
Abdi, Reza. 2002. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4 (2): 139–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ädel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “What I want you to remember is…”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. English Text Construction 5 (1): 101–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2003. ParaConc: A Concordancer for Parallel Texts. Houston, TX: Athelstan.Google Scholar
Blaganje, Dana & Ivan Konte. 1998. Modern English Grammar (4th edn). Ljubljana: DZS.Google Scholar
Bosseaux, Charlotte. 2004. Translating point of view: A corpus-based study. Language Matters 35 (1): 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde. 2012. Intersections of intersubjectivity. English Text Construction 5 (1): 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Steven C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carciu, Oana Maria. 2009. An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica 181: 71–92.Google Scholar
Čmejrková, Svetla. 1996. Academic writing in Czech and English. In Academic Writing. Intercultural and Textual Issues, Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déjà Vu. 2007. ATRIL Language Engineering. [URL]
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 Studies 111: 51–73.Google Scholar
Eik-Nes, Nancy Lea. 2009. Dialogging: A social interactive practice in academic writing. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 591: 49–62.Google Scholar
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. In Academic Discourse across Disciplines, Ken Hyland & Marina Bondi (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fu, Xiaoli. 2012. The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies 14 (4): 399–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillaerts, Paul & Freek Van de Velde. 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2): 128–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Purposes 2 (2): 87–101. DOI logo–11Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 37 (8): 1207–1231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 Linguistics 26 (3): 343–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 2002. Paradoxes and aporias in translation and translation studies. In Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Alessandra Riccardi (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10–23.Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 43 (11): 2795–2809. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal 56 (4): 351–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005a. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2008. Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction 1 (1): 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Linguistics 13 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Kuteeva, Maria. 2011. Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes 30 (1): 44–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Nagiko Iwata. 2009. Stance and engagement in writing: Japanese and American editorials. In Language 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
Liao, Min-Hsiu. 2011. Interaction in the genre of popular science: Writer, translator and reader. The Translator 17 (2): 349–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillis, Theresa & Mary Jane Curry. 2006. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English medium texts. Written Communication 23 (1): 3–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James. 2000. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–175.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Text-linguistic Study. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007. Refleksivnost diskurza pri mednarodnih govorcih – raba v angleščini kot lingui franci. Jezik in slovstvo 3–4: 33–51.Google Scholar
. 2010. Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2): 13–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGrath, Lisa & Maria Kuteeva. 2012. Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes 31 (3): 161–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Construction 2 (2): 228–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikolic Južnic, Tamara. 2013. Bridging a grammar gap with explicitation: A case study of the nominalized infinitive. Across Languages and Cultures 14 (1): 75–98. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Molino, Alessandra. 2010. Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2): 86–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Purposes 3 (4): 321–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-making. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mur Dueñas, Pilar. 2009. Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) business research articles. English Text Construction 2 (2): 246–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Nancy & Monserrat Castelló. 2012. Academic writing and authorial voice. In University Writing. Selves and Texts in Academic Societies, Monserrat Castelló & Christiane Donahue (eds). Bingley, UK: Emerald, 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, Emer. 2003. Narratology meets translation studies, or, the voice of the translator in children’s literature. Meta: Journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 48 (1–2): 197–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Purposes 30 (1): 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2005. Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 307–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Shaw, Philip. 2003. Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4): 343–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Philip & Irena Vassileva. 2009. Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture; Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2): 290–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Linguistics 19 (1): 97–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Ramona & Suganthi John. 1999. The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes 181: S23–S39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Puleng Thetela. 1995. The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15 (1): 103–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36 (1): 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bonn, Sarah & John M. Swales. 2007. English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6 (2): 93–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vassileva, Irena. 1997. Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, Ana Duszak (ed.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1993. Translation as cultural politics: Regimes of domestication in English. Textual Practice 7 (2): 208–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Bogdanović, Vesna & Dragana Gak
2024. Framing the Research and Engaging the Reader in Graduate Engineering Students’ Abstracts. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 47:2 ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo
Chou, Isabelle, Weiyi Li, Kanglong Liu & Dipima Buragohain
2023. Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PLOS ONE 18:7 ► pp. e0284849 ff. DOI logo
Pearson, William S. & Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh
2023. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua 293 ► pp. 103561 ff. DOI logo
Li, Xiangdong
2020. Mediating cross-cultural differences in research article rhetorical moves in academic translation: A pilot corpus-based study of abstracts. Lingua 238 ► pp. 102795 ff. DOI logo
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes
2019. Self-translation of academic discourse: the attitudes and experiences of authors-translators. Perspectives 27:6 ► pp. 846 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 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.