Cover not available

Article In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Metadiscourse under linguistic constraint

Variation across interpreted, L2, and L1 English

ORCiD logo with link | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
ORCiD logo with link | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
ORCiD logo with link | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
ORCiD logo with link | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study investigates whether distinct linguistic strategies arise from cognitive and linguistic constraints by comparing interpreted English produced by second-language (L2) professional interpreters, L2 spontaneous speech, and first-language (L1) English speech as a reference. Framed within constrained language theory, the analysis centers on metadiscourse features, which have received limited attention in interpreting research despite their relevance in discourse analysis. Findings show that, compared to L1 speakers, L2 interpreters use significantly fewer stance markers, including boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions, while employing directives significantly more frequently. In contrast, L2 spontaneous speakers produce significantly more hedges and boosters but use significantly fewer attitude markers and self-references than L1 speakers. These results suggest systematic differences in metadiscourse features shaped by processing pressure and communicative function. Through a metadiscourse lens, this study offers insights into the linguistic choices made by L2 interpreters and L2 speakers in spontaneous contexts characterized by cognitive and linguistic constraints.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metadiscourse and constrained languages
    • 2.1Metadiscourse
    • 2.2Metadiscourse in constrained languages
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Research aims
    • 3.2Corpora
    • 3.3Instruments
    • 3.4Statistical analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Hedges
    • 4.2Boosters
    • 4.3Attitude
    • 4.4Self-mentions
    • 4.5Directives
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (60)
References
Appel, R., & McKay, R. (2025). The value of interactional metadiscourse in university level writing: Differences between high and low performing undergraduate business students. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 30–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–250). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calabria, M., Costa, A., Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2018). Neural basis of bilingual language control. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1426(1), 221–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Eds.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–54). Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, J., Li, D., & Liu, K. (2024). Unraveling cognitive constraints in constrained languages: A comparative study of syntactic complexity in translated, EFL, and native varieties. Language Sciences, 102, 101612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chou, I., Li, W., & Liu, K. (2023). Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PLoS ONE, 18(7), e0284849. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dayter, D. (2020). Strategies in a corpus of simultaneous interpreting. Effects of directionality, phraseological richness, and position in speech event. Meta, 65(3), 594–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165–207). Gardner Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 196–214). Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Götz, A. (2021). Hedging in interpreted speech: Cognitive hedges in English and Hungarian interpreting. In A. Almanna & C. Gu (Eds.), Translation as a set of frames (pp. 147–164). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Y., & Sang, Z. (2024). Linguistic variation in supreme court oral arguments by legal professionals: A novel multi-dimensional analysis. Discourse Studies, 26(4), 528–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). Longman. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002a). Academic argument: Induction or interaction? Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 44, 29–45. [URL]
(2002b). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 125–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivaska, I., & Bernardini, S. (2020). Constrained language use in Finnish: A corpus-driven approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 43(1), 33–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivaska, I., Ferraresi, A., & Bernardini, S. (2022). Syntactic properties of constrained English: A corpus-driven approach. In S. Granger & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 133–157). Bloomsbury Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jia, J., Afzaal, M., & Naqvi, S. B. (2022). Myth or reality? Some directions on translation universals in recent corpus based case studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 902400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. & Grabowski, Ł. (2021). Formulaicity in constrained communication: An intermodal approach. In M. Calzada & S. Laviosa (Eds.), CTS spring-cleaning — A critical reflection: Reflexión crítica en los estudios de traducción basados en corpus (pp. 148–183). MonTi Monografías De Traducción E Interpretación. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotze, H. (2022). Translation as constrained communication: Principles, concepts and methods. In S. Granger & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 67–97). Bloomsbury Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). Syntactic and pragmatic transfer effects in reported-speech constructions in three contact varieties of English influenced by Afrikaans. Language Sciences, 56, 118–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lanstyák, I., & Heltai, P. (2012). Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 99–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42(1–3), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, K., Yin, H., & Cheung, A. K. F. (2025). Interactional metadiscourse in translated and non-translated medical research article abstracts: A corpus-assisted study. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 33(3), 542–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Cheung, A. K., & Liu, K. (2023). Syntactic complexity of interpreted, L2 and L1 speech: A constrained language perspective. Lingua, 286, 103509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magnifico, C., & Defrancq, B. (2017). Hedges in conference interpreting: The role of gender. Interpreting, 19(1), 21–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez Guillem, S. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: Organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727–746. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maryns, K. (2015). Interpreting in asylum settings. In F. Pöchhacker, N. Grbić, P. Mead, & R. Setton (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 22–25). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity — A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 13–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molino, A. (2018). “What I’m speaking is almost English...”: A corpus-based study of metadiscourse in English-medium lectures at an Italian university. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 935–956. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pym, A. (2015). Translating as risk management. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 67–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qiu, X., Wang, Y. A., Dartey, E. A., & Kim, M. (2024). Interactional metadiscourse in expert and student disciplinary writing: Exploring intrageneric and functional variation. English for Specific Purposes, 73, 124–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ren, W., & Wang, L. (2023). A corpus-based study of metadiscourse features in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1269669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2004). Unique items: Over- or under-represented? In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp. 177–184). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Sakel, J. (2012). Why transfer is a key aspect of language use and processing in bilinguals and L2-users. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(1), 3–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Political discourse and political cognition. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 203–237). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weisi, H., & Zandi, M. (2024). A mixed-method concurrent transformative study of metadiscourse markers employed by L2 speakers: Does proficiency level matter? Language Testing in Asia, 14, 60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, H., & Liu, K. (2023). Syntactic simplification in interpreted English: Dependency distance and direction measures. Lingua, 294, 103607. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yao, Y., Li, D., Huang, Y., & Sang, Z. (2024). Linguistic variation in mediated diplomatic communication: A full multi-dimensional analysis of interpreted language in Chinese Regular Press Conferences. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1409, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoon, H. J. (2017). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34, 705–725. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zahro, F., Irham, & Degaf, A. (2021). Scrutinizing metadiscourse functions in Indonesian EFL students: A case study on the classroom written and spoken discourses. MEXTESOL Journal, 45(2), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue