1. The study compares the usage of metadiscourse in English and Swedish non-fiction texts and their translations.
2. There is a higher frequency of metadiscourse in the Swedish original texts, particularly interpersonal metadiscourse with more frequent usage of boosters.
3. Translators tend to increase explicitness by adding transition markers, but may reduce emphasis by omitting boosters or inserting hedges, suggesting differences in writing conventions between English and Swedish non-fiction texts.
The article "Metadiscourse in English and Swedish Non-fiction Texts and their Translations" by Jennifer Herriman compares the usage of metadiscourse in English and Swedish non-fiction texts and their translations. The study finds that there is a higher frequency of metadiscourse in the Swedish original texts, with a larger proportion of interpersonal metadiscourse, particularly boosters. In both translation samples, there is an increase in transition markers, which raises the level of explicitness in the text. However, translators tend to reduce emphasis by omitting boosters and inserting hedges when translating into English.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of metadiscourse and its importance in writing. It also highlights how cultural differences can influence the usage of metadiscourse in different languages. However, there are some potential biases and limitations to consider.
Firstly, the study only focuses on non-fiction texts from one corpus, which may not be representative of all non-fiction writing or all translations. Additionally, the sample size is relatively small, with only five texts selected for each language. This limits the generalizability of the findings.
Secondly, while the article acknowledges that differences in writing conventions may contribute to variations in metadiscourse usage between languages, it does not explore these differences in depth or provide evidence for them. This could be seen as a potential bias towards assuming that cultural factors are solely responsible for differences in metadiscourse usage.
Finally, while the article notes that translators may need to adjust their use of metadiscourse based on cultural norms and preferences, it does not explore any potential risks or challenges associated with this process. For example, translators may inadvertently introduce biases or misinterpretations when attempting to adapt a text's metadiscourse for a new audience.
Overall, while "Metadiscourse in English and Swedish Non-fiction Texts and their Translations" provides valuable insights into how writers use metadiscourse and how it can be translated across languages, readers should approach its findings with caution due to its limitations and potential biases.