1. Metadiscourse refers to the ways writers refer to the text, writer, and reader in order to organize the content of a text and persuade readers. It is an integral part of a writer's rhetorical arsenal.
2. Previous research has shown that translation using machine devices can be problematic when it comes to conveying metadiscoursal elements accurately, resulting in the loss of nuances and changes in the interaction between writer and reader.
3. Studies have also found differences in writing conventions regarding metadiscourse features between languages, such as a higher frequency of boosters in Swedish non-fiction texts compared to English. Critical thinking ability can influence learners' grammatical accuracy in EFL/ESL instruction.
The article "Translating Metadiscourse: An Explanatory Analysis of Problems in Students' Work" provides an overview of the importance of metadiscourse in writing and translation, as well as an analysis of the treatment of metadiscourse features in student translations. The authors draw on previous research to highlight significant shortcomings in students' treatment of metadiscourse and propose some tentative explanations with translator training in mind.
Overall, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the topic and draws on a range of sources to support its claims. However, there are some potential biases and limitations that should be considered.
One potential bias is that the article focuses primarily on written texts rather than spoken texts. While this may be appropriate for certain contexts, it limits the generalizability of the findings to other types of discourse. Additionally, the article relies heavily on previous research rather than presenting new empirical data. While this is not necessarily a weakness, it does mean that some claims are not supported by direct evidence.
Another limitation is that the article does not explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives. For example, while the authors note that translators may need to take into account cultural preferences and norms of politeness when translating metadiscourse features, they do not consider how these factors might vary across different languages or cultures.
Additionally, while the authors propose some tentative explanations for why students struggle with translating metadiscourse features, they do not provide concrete recommendations for how to address these issues in translator training programs. This could limit the practical applicability of their findings.
Despite these limitations, the article provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of metadiscourse and translation. It highlights important considerations for translators and educators working with written texts and offers insights into potential areas for future research.