1. The study examines the importance of using metadiscourse as rhetorical devices in translation of genre-specific text, specifically news editorials.
2. The use of "interactional resources" was found to be more prevalent than "interactive resources" in both Korean source text and English target text.
3. Trainee translators tended to make more translation shifts in interactive resources, while professional translators made a variety of shifts in interactional resources such as boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mention.
The article titled "Matadiscourse Use in News Editorial Translation" presents a case study on the importance of metadiscourse as rhetorical devices for translation of genre-specific text. The study examines the use of metadiscourse in news editorials given by Korea's leading news agencies and their translations, and investigates the differences between professional and trainee translators' choices.
The article provides valuable insights into the differences that occur in the conventions of metadiscourse use between ST and TT. The findings suggest that trainee translators tend to make more translation shifts in 'interactive resources' than their counterparts, while professional translators make a variety of shifts in 'interactional resources' such as boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, self-mention. These differences could be attributed to the amount of translator's knowledge on the generic convention.
However, there are some potential biases and missing points of consideration in this article. Firstly, the study only focuses on Korean news editorials and their translations, which limits its generalizability to other languages or genres. Secondly, it assumes that metadiscourse is an essential feature of newspaper-genre writing without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Moreover, the article does not explore counterarguments or present both sides equally. For instance, it does not consider whether overuse or misuse of metadiscourse may result in unintentionally unnatural translation or affect readers' comprehension. Additionally, it does not address possible risks associated with relying too heavily on interactional resources or neglecting interactive resources.
Furthermore, the article seems to have a promotional tone towards using metadiscourse as rhetorical devices for effective communication with readers. While this may be true in some cases, it overlooks other factors that may influence readers' engagement with texts such as content relevance, readability level, cultural sensitivity, etc.
In conclusion, while this article provides useful insights into the importance of metadiscourse use for translation of genre-specific text and its differences between professional and trainee translators' choices; it also has some potential biases and missing points of consideration that need further exploration. Therefore, readers should approach its claims with caution and critically evaluate its limitations before applying them to their own research or practice.