Students' Problems of Rendering Metadiscourse in Consecutive Interpreting of English Political Discourse into Arabic.

Alaswad, Abdullah Saud

doi:10.69513/jnfh.v4.i2.a9

	Students' Problems of Rendering Metadiscourse in Consecutive Interpreting of English Political Discourse into Arabic.
Al-Noor Journal for Humanities
Article 9, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2026, Pages 157-173 PDF (560.59 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.69513/jnfh.v4.i2.a9
Author
Abdullah Saud Alaswad^*
University of mosul
Abstract
This study aims to investigate rendering of metadiscourse resources in consecutive interpreting from English into Arabic. Metadiscourse has been extensively studied in written genres—academic writing, advertisements, textbooks, and popular science articles—there is a significant gap in the exploration of how metadiscourse is interpreted, conveyed, or perhaps lost during consecutive interpreting of political texts . This research aims to close this gap by investigating the extent to which student interpreters recognize and reproduce metadiscourse elements in consecutive interpreting from English into Arabic. Political text is chosen because it is rich in rhetorical devices and persuasive strategies, making them fertile ground for metadiscourse analysis .It is hypothesized that metadiscourse is context-bound and multifunctional. The data draw on a speech delivered by Boris Johnson (2021) interpreted by ten MA candidates at the Department of Translation , University of Mosul. Hyland's (2005) model and Nida's (1964)model are adopted in the analysis and interpreting metadiscourse resources employed in the text . The study revealed that the students could not capture the rhetorical function of metadiscourse resources that caused inadequate and undesirable output.
Keywords
Consecutive; interpreting; metadiscourse; political; texts

References
References 1.Nida E A. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1974. 2. Mercer N, Sara H, . Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research. 2018;187-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017 .08.007 3.Gile D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2009. 4.Pöchhacker, F. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.2004. 5.Nolan J. Interpretation: Techniques and Exercises. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2012. 6.Seleskovitch, Danica. 1975. Langage, langues et mémoire – Etude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard lettres Modernes. 7.Pöchhacker F. Introducing Interpreting Studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.2016. 8.Russell D & Takeda K. Consecutive interpreting. In The Routledge Handbook of interpreting. 2015;pp. 96–111. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10. 4324 /9781315745381. 9.Russel D. Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, In book: Topics in Signed Language Interpreting. 2005;pp:135-164. nDOI:10.1075/btl.63.10rus 10. Walczyński M. Certified Interpreters’ Subjective Experience of Psycho-Affective Factors in Court Interpreting. 2020. Anglica Wratislaviensia 58:165-185 11.Setton T. Mental Representation. In pochhacker, Franz. Encyclopaedia of interpreting studies. 2015; pp.2556. London. Routledge. Authors: 12/Russell D, Shaw R, Maclon K. Effective Strategies for Teaching Consecutive Interpreting. The Internat J Robot Res. 2010; 2:111-119 13.Harris Z S. Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics. Berlin:1970. Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6059-1_27 14.Enkvist N E. Coherence, Pseudo-coherence, and Non-coherence. Inj.Ostman (ed). Cohesion and Semantics.1978. 15.Ventola E. and Mauranen A. Non-native writing and native revising of scientific articles". In E. Ventola (Ed), Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses . 1991;pp: 457-492. Berlin: de Gruyter. 16.Mauranen A. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 1993. 17.Keller E Gambits: conversational strategy signals. J Pragmatics. 1979;3:219-228 19. Taneen D. That’s not what I meant!: How conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others. New York: William Morrow. 1986. 20. Hoppenbrouwers S, Weigand H. Meta-communicati on in the Language Action Perspective. 2000 21.Biber D & Finnegan E . “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect”. Text . 1989; 9: 93-124. 22.Mao I R, Conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review. 1993;11 (2) :265-289 23.Halliday M A K & Hasan R. (1976). Coherence in English. Longman. 24.Williams J M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.1981. 25.Vande K W. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 1995;36(1): 82–93. 26.Van Dijk T A. Some aspects of text grammars: a study in theoretical linguistics and poetics. The Hague: Mouton. 1972. 27.Halliday M A K. . Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Language of William Golding’s The Inheritors. In Chatman, S. (Ed.), Literary Style: A Symposium 1971; (pp. 330-368). New York: Oxford. University Press. 28.Halliday MAK. &Hasan, R. . Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press. 1985. 29.John Sinclai. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse 2004. DOI:10.4324/9780203594070. 30.Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.2005 31.Munday J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (4th ed.). London: Routledge. 2016 32..Nida, E.A. and Taber, C.R. (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation. E. J. Brill, Leiden. . 18.Schiffrin D. Meta-Talk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry.1980;50 (3-4):199-236.
Statistics Article View: 165 PDF Download: 63