Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article titled "Metadiscourse distribution measurement – an experimental case study of a translation" presents a method of paragraph-level analysis and comparison to measure and compare metadiscourse distribution patterns. The authors argue that discovering paragraph-level patterns can help understand the metadiscourse structure of texts and how these features are handled during translation. However, the article has several limitations and potential biases that need to be addressed.

Firstly, the article lacks clarity in defining metadiscourse and its importance in text construction. While the authors briefly mention that metadiscourse aids in organising a text or serves the expression of the writer's stance towards the content or reader, they do not provide a comprehensive explanation of its significance. This lack of clarity may lead readers to question the relevance of their research.

Secondly, the article presents an experimental case study on a textbook excerpt and its translation but does not provide enough evidence to support their claims. The authors state that their method opens up possibilities for furthering knowledge about text construction, reader-writer communication, discourse community-specific characteristics, and how these features are handled during translation. However, they do not present any concrete examples or data to support this claim.

Thirdly, the article is one-sided in its reporting as it only focuses on measuring metadiscourse distribution patterns without exploring counterarguments or alternative perspectives. This narrow focus limits the scope of their research and may lead readers to question its validity.

Fourthly, there is promotional content in the article as it cites previous works by some of the authors without providing sufficient evidence for their claims. For example, Agnes Pisanski Peterlin's work on academic writing changes and developments is cited without explaining how it relates to their research on metadiscourse distribution patterns.

Finally, while the authors note that disciplinary writing changes over time and affects current practices, they do not explore possible risks associated with these changes. For instance, relying heavily on computer technology for academic writing may lead to plagiarism or other ethical concerns.

In conclusion, while the article presents an interesting method for measuring metadiscourse distribution patterns at a paragraph level, it has several limitations such as lack of clarity in defining metadiscourse's importance in text construction and insufficient evidence to support their claims. Additionally, there is promotional content present in citing previous works by some authors without providing sufficient evidence for their claims. Therefore readers should approach this research with caution and consider alternative perspectives before drawing conclusions from it.