Cover not available

Article published In: English Text Construction
Vol. 9:2 (2016) ► pp.268–291

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Engagement markers in translated academic texts

Tracing translators’ interventions

Published online: 24 November 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.2.03pis
The author-audience interaction is an important issue in academic writing, but when academic texts are translated, new issues regarding the author-audience relationship arise because of the translator’s involvement in the text. This paper examines translators’ interventions in academic writing by focusing on one dimension of the author-audience interaction, i.e., reader-oriented strategies or engagement markers. Corpus analysis is employed to explore the use of engagement markers in academic texts translated into English, their corresponding source texts originally written in Slovene, and in comparable original English texts. The analysis reveals that while the frequency of engagement markers is relatively similar in the two sets of originals, it is considerably lower in the translated texts. This means that translators’ interventions resulted in a reduction in the use of engagement markers. The findings identify several potential reasons for translators’ intervention, including a tendency to avoid risky strategies such as the use of directives, adaptation of the target text to the conventions of the target language/culture, and adaptation of the target text to a new audience.
References (60)
Abdi, Reza. 2002. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4 (2): 139–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ädel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2003. ParaConc: A Concordancer for Parallel Texts. Houston, TX: Athelstan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blaganje, Dana & Ivan Konte. 1998. Modern English Grammar (4th edn). Ljubljana: DZS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosseaux, Charlotte. 2004. Translating point of view: A corpus-based study. Language Matters 35 (1): 259–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde. 2012. Intersections of intersubjectivity. English Text Construction 5 (1): 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Steven C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carciu, Oana Maria. 2009. An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica 181: 71–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Čmejrková, Svetla. 1996. Academic writing in Czech and English. In Academic Writing. Intercultural and Textual Issues, Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Déjà Vu. 2007. ATRIL Language Engineering. [URL]
de Pedro Ricoy, Raquel. 2012. Reading minds: A study of deictic shifts in translated written interaction between mental-health professionals and their readers. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies 111: 51–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eik-Nes, Nancy Lea. 2009. Dialogging: A social interactive practice in academic writing. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 591: 49–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti, Torodd Kinn & Trine Dahl. 2006. “We now report on…” versus “Let us now see how…”: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In Academic Discourse across Disciplines, Ken Hyland & Marina Bondi (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 203–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fu, Xiaoli. 2012. The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies 14 (4): 399–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gillaerts, Paul & Freek Van de Velde. 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2): 128–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gosden, H. 2003. ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (2): 87–101. –11Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harwood, Nigel. 2005a. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (8): 1207–1231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. ‘We do not seem to have a theory… The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26 (3): 343–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 2002. Paradoxes and aporias in translation and translation studies. In Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Alessandra Riccardi (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, Guangwei & Feng Cao. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2795–2809. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal 56 (4): 351–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005a. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khoutyz, Irina. 2013. Engagement features in Russian & English: A cross-cultural analysis of academic written discourse. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 13 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuteeva, Maria. 2011. Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes 30 (1): 44–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Nagiko Iwata. 2009. Stance and engagement in writing: Japanese and American editorials. In Language for Professional Communication: Research, Practice & Training, Vijay K. Bhatia, Winnie Cheng, Bertha Du-Babcock & Jane Lung (eds). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, Asia-Pacific LSP and Professional Communication Association, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 61–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, Min-Hsiu. 2011. Interaction in the genre of popular science: Writer, translator and reader. The Translator 17 (2): 349–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillis, Theresa & Mary Jane Curry. 2006. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English medium texts. Written Communication 23 (1): 3–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James. 2000. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Text-linguistic Study. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Refleksivnost diskurza pri mednarodnih govorcih – raba v angleščini kot lingui franci. Jezik in slovstvo 3–4: 33–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2): 13–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGrath, Lisa & Maria Kuteeva. 2012. Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes 31 (3): 161–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikolic Južnic, Tamara. 2013. Bridging a grammar gap with explicitation: A case study of the nominalized infinitive. Across Languages and Cultures 14 (1): 75–98. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molino, Alessandra. 2010. Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2): 86–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moreno, Ana I. 2004. Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (4): 321–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-making. London and New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, Nancy & Monserrat Castelló. 2012. Academic writing and authorial voice. In University Writing. Selves and Texts in Academic Societies, Monserrat Castelló & Christiane Donahue (eds). Bingley, UK: Emerald, 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, Emer. 2003. Narratology meets translation studies, or, the voice of the translator in children’s literature. Meta: Journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 48 (1–2): 197–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen, Ramón Plo & Gibson R. Ferguson. 2011. ‘You don’t say what you know, only what you can’: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes 30 (1): 18–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2005. Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 307–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, Philip. 2003. Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4): 343–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, Philip & Irena Vassileva. 2009. Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture; Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2): 290–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John M., Ummul K. Ahmad, Yu-Ying Chang, Daniel Chavez, Dacia F. Dressen & Ruth Seymour. 1998. Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 97–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, Ramona & Suganthi John. 1999. The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes 181: S23–S39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Puleng Thetela. 1995. The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15 (1): 103–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36 (1): 82–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Bonn, Sarah & John M. Swales. 2007. English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6 (2): 93–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vassileva, Irena. 1997. Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, Ana Duszak (ed.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 203–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1993. Translation as cultural politics: Regimes of domestication in English. Textual Practice 7 (2): 208–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Huang, Yueyue, Hui Jia & Dechao Li
2025. Transvocal stance in academic translation: A rhetorical analysis of grammatical stance in translated applied linguistics English research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 74 ► pp. 101472 ff. DOI logo
Peterlin, Agnes Pisanski
2025. English as an Academic Lingua Franca in Translation: The Impact of Translation Direction on the Use of Code Glosses. In Dynamics of Translation Studies / Potenziale der Translationswissenschaft [TRANSÜD. Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens, ], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes
2019. Self-translation of academic discourse: the attitudes and experiences of authors-translators. Perspectives 27:6 ► pp. 846 ff. DOI logo
Bogdanović, Vesna & Dragana Gak
2024. Framing the Research and Engaging the Reader in Graduate Engineering Students’ Abstracts. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 47:2 ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo
Chou, Isabelle, Weiyi Li, Kanglong Liu & Dipima Buragohain
2023. Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PLOS ONE 18:7 ► pp. e0284849 ff. DOI logo
Pearson, William S. & Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh
2023. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua 293 ► pp. 103561 ff. DOI logo
Li, Xiangdong
2020. Mediating cross-cultural differences in research article rhetorical moves in academic translation: A pilot corpus-based study of abstracts. Lingua 238 ► pp. 102795 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue