1. This study analyzed the distributional pattern of metadiscourse features in TED political discourse in English and Persian, revealing that the English corpus contained more instances of interactive and interactional metadiscourse features than the Persian translation.
2. The use of transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials, and code glosses in the English corpus indicated that speakers were concerned with producing coherent texts and guiding the audience's understanding of their arguments.
3. The study also identified four types of changes in translating metadiscourse features from English into Persian: explicit/implicit changes, (dis)information changes, (de)emphasis change, and (in)visibility changes. These changes affected the level of explicitness and information conveyed in the translated text.
The article titled "Speaker-Audience Interaction in Spoken Political Discourse: A Contrastive Parallel Corpus-Based Study of English-Persian Translation of Metadiscourse Features in TED Talks" provides a detailed analysis of the distributional pattern of metadiscourse features in TED political discourse and their preservation or change in translation from English into Persian. The study is based on a contrastive parallel corpus-based approach, which allows for a comprehensive comparison between the two languages.
Overall, the article presents a well-structured and informative analysis of the use of metadiscourse features in TED talks. The authors provide a clear definition of metadiscourse features and their functions, as well as an overview of the differences between interactive and interactional metadiscourse features. They also present statistical data on the frequency and distributional pattern of these features in both English and Persian corpora.
However, there are some potential biases and limitations to consider when interpreting the results presented in this article. Firstly, the study only focuses on TED talks, which may not be representative of all types of political discourse. Secondly, the authors do not provide any information about how they selected the specific talks included in their corpus or how they ensured that they were comparable across languages.
Moreover, while the authors acknowledge that there were no statistically significant differences between the distributional patterns of metadiscourse features in English and Persian corpora, they do not explore why this might be the case. It is possible that there are other factors at play that could affect how these features are used in different languages or cultural contexts.
Additionally, while the authors provide some examples of changes that occur during translation from English to Persian, they do not discuss how these changes might affect the overall meaning or interpretation of the text. This is particularly important given that metadiscourse features can have a significant impact on how readers interpret and understand written or spoken discourse.
Finally, it is worth noting that while this article provides valuable insights into how speakers use metadiscourse features to interact with their audience in political discourse, it does not explore any potential risks associated with this type of interaction. For example, it is possible that relying too heavily on certain types of metadiscourse features could lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations among audiences who are unfamiliar with them.
In conclusion, while this article provides a useful analysis of speaker-audience interaction in political discourse through an examination of metadiscourse features in TED talks translated from English to Persian, it is important to consider its potential biases and limitations when interpreting its findings. Further research is needed to explore how these findings might apply more broadly to other types of political discourse and cultural contexts.