Translating authorial presence

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-128
Author(s):  
Galina Shleykina ◽  
Frances Junnier
Keyword(s):  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
First Person ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
Grammatical Form ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Linguistic Code ◽  
Pragmatic Equivalence

Abstract Of increasing interest in cross-linguistic variation in academic discourse is the way in which writers use first-person pronouns (FPPs) to promote their agency. While research has shown that language specific socio-cultural, rhetorical and lexico-grammatical factors impact levels of self-concealment vs. self-promotion, less attention has been paid to the ways in which translated texts are sensitive to these discoursal traditions. We address this gap by analyzing frequency, rhetorical use, and grammatical form of FPPs in a corpus of research article (RA) abstracts in biology written by Russian and international researchers in two peer-reviewed bilingual journals. Three subcorpora were analyzed: (i) L1 Russian abstracts; (ii) the same abstracts translated into English; (iii) abstracts by international biologists in English from the same journals. The FPP tokens were identified and their frequency, rhetorical use, and forms were compared. The results show significant differences between the corpora which supports previous findings on cross-cultural variation in authorial presence in research genres. The results also suggest that the translation not only transfers L1 linguistic code but also adds a stronger emphasis on author agency. Implications for translating RAs into English as an exercise in linguistic, cognitive, and pragmatic equivalence as well as for accommodating discourse conventions of English as a lingua franca of science are explored.

scholarly journals A cross cultural analysis of conjuncts as indicators of the interaction and negotiation of meaning in research articles

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Povolná
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Cultural Analysis ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Negotiation Of Meaning ◽  
Academic Texts ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Academic Communication

Abstract The role of English as a global lingua franca of academia has become indisputable in the on-going process of internationalization of all scholarship, even though the majority of writers and readers of academic texts are non-native speakers of English. Thus it is questionable whether there is any justification for imposing on international academic communication written in English the style conventions typical of the dominant Anglophone discourse community. Recommendations usually comprise qualities such as clarity, economy, linearity and precision in communication (cf. Bennett, 2015), which can be achieved, among other means, by certain overt guiding signals including conjuncts (Quirk et al., 1985). Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to reveal cross-cultural variation in the use of these important text-organizing means as it is believed that conjuncts can enhance the interaction and negotiation of meaning between the author and prospective readers of academic texts. The paper explores which semantic relations holding between parts of a text tend to be expressed overtly by conjuncts and which semantic classes, such as appositive, contrastive/concessive, listing and resultive conjuncts, contribute most to the interactive and dialogic nature of written academic discourse. The data are taken from research articles (RAs) selected from two journals, one representing academic discourse written by native speakers of English (Applied Linguistics) and the other representing academic texts written in English by Czech and Slovak scholars (Discourse and Interaction).

LEXICAL BUNDLES INDICATING AUTHORIAL PRESENCE: A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF NOVICE CZECH AND GERMAN WRITERS’ ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Cultural Analysis ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Important Indicator ◽  
Lexical Bundles ◽  
Academic Texts ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Novice Writers

With the widespread use of English as the lingua franca of academia, there is a growing need of research into how non-native speakers striving to be socialized in target academic discourse communities deal with variation in meaning and organization of academic texts across fi elds, languages and cultures. An important indicator of competent linguistic production is the mastering of the register- and genre-specifi c formulaic expressions termed lexical bundles, which are defi ned as sequences of three or more words with frequent co-occurrence in a particular context (Biber et al. 1999). While recent studies have addressed disciplinary and novice-expert differences in the use of lexical bundles, cross-cultural variation in bundle use remains underexplored. This paper investigates lexical bundles indicating authorial presence in a specialized corpus of Master’s degree theses from the fi elds of linguistics and methodology written by German and Czech university students. The aim of the study is to compare how novice Czech and German authors use lexical bundles indicating authorial presence, to consider whether and to what extent the novice writers have adapted their writing style to the conventions of Anglo- American academic writing, and to discuss the role of the L1 academic literacy tradition and instructions received in writing courses for the modelling of novice writers’ academic discourse. The analysis shows that the variety and frequency of interpersonal bundles in Czech and German novice writers’ discourse do not approximate to the standard of published academic texts in English. The fi ndings also indicate that while the considerable similarities in the way Czech and German novice writers use the target structures for constructing authorial presence refl ect their common roots in the Central European tradition of academic discourse, the divergences may be attributed to a difference in the degree of adaptation to Anglo-American writing conventions.

scholarly journals Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Discourse

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova
Keyword(s):  
Applied Linguistics ◽  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Rhetorical Structure ◽  
Rate Distribution ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Target Readership ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Hedges and boosters are important metadiscoursal devices contributing to the construal of persuasion in academic discourse as they enable academic writers to distinguish facts from opinions, evaluate the views of others and convey a different degree of commitment to their assertions (cf. Hyland 1998a, Hyland 2004, 2005). This study explores cross-cultural variation in the use of lexical hedges and boosters in the academic discourse of non-native writers. The study is carried out on a specialized corpus of linguistics research articles published in the international journal Applied Linguistics and the national Czech English-medium journal Discourse and Interaction. The main purpose of the cross-cultural investigation is to analyze variation in the rate, distribution and choice of hedges and boosters across the rhetorical structure of research articles in order to shed light on ways in which Anglophone and Czech writers express different degrees of commitment in their assertions when striving to persuade their target readership to accept their views and claims.

Self-Reference in biomedical research article discussions

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 546-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian A. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
English Language ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
First Person ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Multiple Voices ◽  
Person Reference ◽  
Disciplinary Diversity ◽  
Self Reference

The aim of this quantitative and qualitative study is to compare inclusive and exclusive self-reference in a bilingual English-Spanish corpus of biomedical research articles. The study combines corpus techniques with move analysis to determine where authors resort to first-person reference in Discussion sections. Quantitative analysis showed that Spanish writers selected between exclusive and mixed inclusive-exclusive perspectives equally whereas the exclusive perspective predominated in the English-language articles. Major differences between languages were observed for overall use and for statements of results, comparison of current and previous findings, and metatext. From a cross-disciplinary viewpoint, biomedical research articles exhibited less self-promotion than previously reported for biology. Qualitative analysis revealed that first-person verbs in English were frequently associated with self-promotion whereas English possessives and all exclusive use in Spanish served to attribute responsibility for statements and to harmonise the multiple voices in the polyphonic discourse of biomedical Discussions. The study provides further evidence for cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary diversity in academic and scientific discourse.

scholarly journals Abstract Writing: English-Speaking Countries vs. Greece

2002 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 579-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Sidiropoulou
Keyword(s):  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Oral Communication ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Written Discourse ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Theory Of Discourse ◽  
Pragmatic Equivalence ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Cross-cultural variation in written discourse has attracted less attention than similar variation in oral communication, although such studies are useful in quite a few areas of application, especially translation. The article intends to investigate tendencies in abstract writing between researchers from English-speaking countries and Greece. The data come from the Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Applied Linguistics held at Thessaloniki-Halkidiki, Greece, in April 1990. Abstracts by Greek researchers are mostly written in English; it is assumed that internalized mother tongue preferences by Greek will be reflected in their writing in English. A sample of 100 abstracts is examined with respect to the authors' intentions in writing them and their attitude towards the readership. The frameworks assumed are B. Grosz and C. Sidner's theory of discourse structure (1985), P. Brown and S. Levinson's interactional model (1987) and B. Hatim and I. Mason's approach to translation (1990). The differences are of a pragmatic and communicative type: the two research groups differ in their preferences concerning the selection of discourse segments in the abstracts whereas their attitude towards the readership is described by a different positive/negative politeness pattern; no cultural group appears purely positively or negatively polite. Awareness of preferences in abstract writing facilitates both researchers and translators in achieving communicative and pragmatic equivalence in the target language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document