1. This study examines the translation of textual metadiscourse in academic writing, using the example of translating Slovene research articles into English.
2. The analysis compares 30 geography articles in Slovene and their translations into English, as well as a corpus of 30 English-original geography articles.
3. The results show that not all metadiscourse items found in the original texts are translated, while a significant number of items are inserted in the translation, and literal translation is chosen in over half of the cases.
The article "Translating Metadiscourse in Research Articles" presents an analysis of the translation of textual metadiscourse in academic writing, specifically focusing on the translation of Slovene research articles into English. While the study provides valuable insights into the challenges and strategies involved in translating metadiscourse, there are several potential biases and limitations that need to be considered.
One potential bias is the limited scope of the study, which only examines 30 geography articles in Slovene and their translations into English. This small sample size may not be representative of all types of research articles or all fields of study. Additionally, the study only focuses on one language pair (Slovene-English), which may not generalize to other language pairs.
Another limitation is that the study does not provide a clear definition or operationalization of metadiscourse. The authors mention that they use Hyland's (2005) framework for analyzing metadiscourse, but it is unclear how they applied this framework to their data. Without a clear definition and methodology for analyzing metadiscourse, it is difficult to assess the validity and reliability of the findings.
Furthermore, while the study identifies instances where metadiscourse items are omitted or inserted in translations, it does not provide a clear explanation for why these changes occur. For example, it is unclear whether these changes are due to differences in linguistic conventions between Slovene and English or if they reflect different rhetorical strategies used by authors in different cultural contexts.
The article also makes unsupported claims about the frequency of metadiscourse use in English originals versus translations from Slovene. While the results suggest that English originals use more metadiscourse than translations from Slovene, this claim is not supported by statistical analysis or a comparison with other language pairs.
Overall, while "Translating Metadiscourse in Research Articles" provides some useful insights into translation strategies for metadiscourse, its limited scope and lack of clarity regarding definitions and methodology limit its generalizability and validity. Future studies should aim to address these limitations by using larger samples sizes, providing clear definitions and operationalizations of key concepts, and conducting statistical analyses to support claims made about differences between languages or genres.