1. The study aimed to compare two English translations of the Holy Quran in terms of metadiscourse features application and distribution using corpus-based analysis.
2. Interactive metadiscourse features were found to be more frequent than interactional ones, with transitions being the most frequent type within interactive features and hedges being the most frequent among interactional ones.
3. The dominant attribute of metadiscourse features differed between the two translations, with interactive features being more prominent in Yousef Ali's translation and interactional features being dominant in Itani's translation. The findings have implications for translation studies and corpus-based research.
The article "Metadiscourse Features in two English Translations of the Holy Quran: A Comparative, Corpus-based Inquiry" by Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani and Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi aims to compare two English translations of the Holy Quran in terms of metadiscourse features application and distribution. The authors utilize the model of metadiscourse features proposed by Hyland (2005) and Sketch Engine corpus software for data analysis.
The study finds that interactive metadiscourse features were higher in frequency than interactional ones, with transitions being the most frequent type within interactive metadiscourse features and hedges being the most frequent among interactional ones. Additionally, while Yousef Ali's translation had interactive metadiscourse features as the main trend, Itani's translation had interactional metadiscourse features as the dominant attribute.
Overall, the article provides a thorough analysis of metadiscourse features in two English translations of the Holy Quran. However, there are some potential biases and limitations to consider. Firstly, the study only focuses on two translations, which may not be representative of all English translations of the Holy Quran. Secondly, there is no discussion on how cultural or religious factors may have influenced the use of metadiscourse features in these translations.
Additionally, while the authors provide a detailed analysis of their findings, they do not explore any counterarguments or potential limitations to their methodology. Furthermore, there is no discussion on how these findings may impact readers' understanding or interpretation of the text.
In conclusion, while this article provides valuable insights into metadiscourse features in English translations of the Holy Quran, it is important to consider its potential biases and limitations when interpreting its findings. Further research is needed to explore how cultural and religious factors may influence translation practices and readers' interpretations.