Article published In:
English Text ConstructionVol. 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.
References
Abdi, Reza
2002 Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4 (2): 139–145. 
Ädel, Annelie
2012 “What I want you to remember is…”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. English Text Construction 5 (1): 101–127.
Baker, Mona
2000 Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target 12 (2): 241–266.
Barlow, Michael
2003 ParaConc: A Concordancer for Parallel Texts. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Blaganje, Dana & Ivan Konte
1998 Modern English Grammar (4th edn). Ljubljana: DZS.
Bosseaux, Charlotte
2004 Translating point of view: A corpus-based study. Language Matters 35 (1): 259–274.
Brems, Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde
Brown, Penelope & Steven C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carciu, Oana Maria
2009 An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica 181: 71–92.
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.
Déjà Vu
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.
Eik-Nes, Nancy Lea
2009 Dialogging: A social interactive practice in academic writing. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 591: 49–62.
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.
Fu, Xiaoli
2012 The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies 14 (4): 399–417.
Gillaerts, Paul & Freek Van de Velde
2010 Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2): 128–139.
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. –11
–11Harwood, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Hyland, Ken
2002 Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal 56 (4): 351–358.
2005a Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.
2005b Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.
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.
Kuteeva, Maria
2011 Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes 30 (1): 44–57.
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.
Liao, Min-Hsiu
2011 Interaction in the genre of popular science: Writer, translator and reader. The Translator 17 (2): 349–368.
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.
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.
Mauranen, Anna
1993 Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Text-linguistic Study. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
2007 Refleksivnost diskurza pri mednarodnih govorcih – raba v angleščini kot lingui franci. Jezik in slovstvo 3–4: 33–51.
2010 Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2): 13–40.
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.
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.
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. .
.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.
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.
Munday, Jeremy
2012 Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-making. London and New York: Routledge.
Mur Dueñas, Pilar
2009 Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) business research articles. English Text Construction 2 (2): 246–264.
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.
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.
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.
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes
2005 Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 307–319.
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 Construction 7 (2): 178–214.
Scott, Mike
2008 WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Shaw, Philip
2003 Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4): 343–357.
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.
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.
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.
Thompson, Geoff
2001 Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78.
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.
Thompson, Geoff & Puleng Thetela
1995 The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15 (1): 103–127.
Vande Kopple, William J
1985 Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36 (1): 82–93.
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.
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.
Venuti, Lawrence
1993 Translation as cultural politics: Regimes of domestication in English. Textual Practice 7 (2): 208–223.
Winters, Marion
2009 Modal particles explained: How modal particles creep into translations and reveal translators’ styles. Target 21 (1): 74–97.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
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. 
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.
Pearson, William S. & Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh
2023. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua 293 ► pp. 103561 ff.
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes
2019. Self-translation of academic discourse: the attitudes and experiences of authors-translators. Perspectives 27:6 ► pp. 846 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 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.