An Investigation of the Online Farsi Translation of Metadiscourse Markers in American Presidential Debates

Kuhi, Davud; Esmailzad, Mahya; Rezaei, Shirin

doi:10.22049/jalda.2020.26749.1166

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

¹ Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh Branch, Maragheh, Iran

² MA in ELT, Nabi Akram University College, Tabriz, Iran

³ PhD Candidate of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2020.26749.1166

Abstract

The term metadiscourse rarely appears in translation studies despite the continuously growing body of research on discourse markers in different genres and through various perspectives. Translation as a product that needs to observe such markers for their communicative power and contribution to the overall coherence of a text within a context has not been satisfactorily studied. Motivated by such an ambition, this study focused on the third American presidential debate of 2016 and its two online translations by IRIB (The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) and BBC News (The British Broadcasting Corporation). This research aimed to investigate similarities and differences between the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the American presidential debate and its two online translations. Overall, the findings revealed a statistically significant difference in the amount of metadiscourse items employed in English original text and its Persian translations. Translated texts into Persian employed fewer metadiscourse markers than the English text. The findings identified several pedagogical challenges that need to be addressed in translator training, including trainee translators’ familiarity with the social and discursive practices of the academic community, and their awareness of rhetorical elements used in academic texts.

Keywords

20.1001.1.2383591.2020.8.1.5.9

Main Subjects

Discourse Studies

Article Title [Persian]

بررسی ترجمه فارسی آنلاین نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در مباحث ریاست جمهوری آمریکا

Authors [Persian]

دکتر داود کوهی ¹
محیا اسماعیل زاد ²
شیرین رضائی ³

¹ گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد مراغه

² دانشگاه نبی اکرم (ص)

³ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز

Abstract [Persian]

اصطلاح فراگفتمان، با وجود رشد مداوم تحقیقات در مورد نشانگرهای گفتمان در ژانرهای مختلف و از دیدگاههای مختلف، به ندرت در مطالعات ترجمه ظاهر می شود. ترجمه، به عنوان محصولی که نیازبه مشاهده چنین نشانگرهایی که برای قدرت ارتباطی و انسجام کلی یک متن در یک بافت لازم هستند، مورد مطالعه در سطح رضایت بخشی قرار نگرفته است. این مطالعه با داشتن چنان انگیزه ای،به مطالعه سومین بحث ریاست جمهوری آمریکا در سال 2016 و دو ترجمه آنلاین آن توسط IRIB (پخش جمهوری اسلامی ایران) و BBC News (شرکت پخش انگلیس) پرداخته است.این تحقیق با هدف بررسی شباهت ها و تفاوت های استفاده از نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی بین فردی در بحث ریاست جمهوری آمریکا و دو ترجمه آنلاین آن انجام شده است. به طور کلی، یافته ها نشان داد که از نظر آماری تفاوت معنی داری در فراوانی فراگفتمان به کار رفته در متن اصلی انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی آن وجود دارد. متون ترجمه شده به فارسی، نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی کمتری نسبت به متن انگلیسی دارند. این یافته ها چندین چالش آموزشی را که باید در آموزش مترجم مورد توجه قرار گیرد، از جمله آشنایی مترجمان کارآموز با شیوه های اجتماعی و گفتمانی جامعه دانشگاهی و آگاهی آنها از عناصر بلاغتی مورد استفاده در متون دانشگاهی، شناسایی کرده است.

Keywords [Persian]

فراگفتمان
فراگفتمان تقابلی
فراگفتمان تعاملی
ترجمه

References

Bateni, M. R. (2006). The living English-Persian dictionary. Tehran: Farhang Moaser Publishers. (Pouya)

Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341–357.

Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society 17(2), 173–203.

Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Chilton, P. A., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Elhambakhsh, S. E., & Jalalian, M. (2015). Critical discourse analysis of hedges and boosters in Iranian TV election debates of presidential candidates. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 3(1), 31-40.

Farghal, M., & Kalakh, B. (2019). Engagement in translation: Interactional metadiscourse markers in American presidential debates. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 12(1), 103-122

Fetzer, A. (2008). And I think that is a very straightforward way of dealing with it: The communicative function of cognitive verbs in political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 384–396.

Fraser, B. (2010). Hedging in political discourse: The Bush 2007 press conferences. In U. Okulska & P. Cap (Eds.), Perspectives in politics and discourse (pp. 201–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1),27-29.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator.London: Psychological Association.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing, London, New York: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Ilie, C. (2003). Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 2(1),71–92.

Jalilifar, A., & Alavi-Nia, M. (2012). We are surprised; wasn’t Iran disgraced there? A functional analysis of hedges and boosters in televised Iranian and American presidential debates. Discourse and Communication, 6(2), 135–161.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mai, H. (2016). An intercultural analysis of meta‑discourse markers as persuasive power in Chinese and American political speeches, International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(6), 207-219.

Nord, Ch. (2016). Meaning, sense, function – What is transferred? Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 231, 3-10.

Nord, Ch. (2017). The phatic function in translation: Meta communication as a case in point, The Study of Language and Translation, 21, 171-184.

Tenorio, E. H. (2002). I want to be a prime minister, or what linguistic choice can do for campaigning politicians, Language and Literature, 11, 243–261.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse, College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.

An Investigation of the Online Farsi Translation of Metadiscourse Markers in American Presidential Debates

References

References

Volume 8, Issue 1April 2020Pages 51-64

Volume 8, Issue 1
April 2020
Pages 51-64