1. Translation of hedging devices in news discourse has received limited research attention.
2. Trainee translators often omit or modify hedging devices in their translations.
3. Factors such as pragmatic competence, discourse position and intentional interventions contribute to modifications of hedging devices in translation.
The article "Translating hedging devices in news discourse" explores the challenges of translating hedging devices in journalistic texts. The study investigates the performance of trainee translators in translating hedging devices and their perceptions of the pragmatic role that these devices play in a journalistic text. The paper identifies modifications of hedging devices in texts translated by trainee translators and classifies translation solutions as pragmatically equivalent, modified, or omitted.
The article provides valuable insights into the challenges that pragmatic elements may present in translation. However, there are some potential biases and limitations to consider. Firstly, the study only focuses on trainee translators' performance, which may not be representative of professional translators' abilities. Secondly, the sample size is relatively small, consisting of only 12 participants. Therefore, it is unclear whether the findings can be generalized to a larger population.
Moreover, while the study identifies several factors contributing to modifications of hedging devices in translation, it does not explore potential counterarguments or alternative explanations for these modifications. For example, it is possible that some modifications were made due to differences in linguistic structures between languages rather than pragmatic considerations.
Additionally, the article does not provide evidence for its claims regarding intentional interventions by trainee translators. While it is possible that some modifications were deliberate, this cannot be assumed without further evidence.
Furthermore, the article does not address potential risks associated with modifying hedging devices in translation. For example, omitting or modifying hedges could alter the meaning or tone of a text and potentially mislead readers.
Overall, while the article provides valuable insights into translating hedging devices in news discourse, there are limitations to consider regarding sample size and potential biases. Additionally, further research is needed to explore alternative explanations for modifications and potential risks associated with modifying hedging devices in translation.