Microsoft Word - MJSS VOL 3 NO 2 MAY 2012.doc  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012            357 Specifying Metadiscoursal Signals in the Novel Pride and Prejudice and its Two Persian Translations By Copple’s model (1980) Esmaiel Kaboli Boroujeni Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch Faculty of Humanities English Language Department Email: ekaboli1364@gmail.com Doi:10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n2.357 Abstract: Finding out the metadiscoursal signals in any language and analyzing their usage specially in meaning transfer between two different languages is very important. The present paper adopted the model presented by Vande Copple (1980), to find all of the metadiscoursal signals in the first five chapters of the novel Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. The number of metadiscoursal signals in all of the related parts in the original novel was compared with those of its two Persian renderings by Pooranfar and Ardakani by a comparative study using Vande Copple’s model. The results of the study showed that the number of metadiscoursal signals usage in the TL translation made by Ardakani was more than of those in Pooranfar’s translation. However, considering both translations, they were poor in transferring the original metadiscoursal signals into the Persian language and it resulted to the less comprehensibility of them comparing to that of original novel. Besides, the consistency, meaningfulness and communicativeness of the translated texts were in a lower level than the original due to the lower number of metadiscoursal signals. As a result, it was made clear that the use of metadiscoursal signals is necessary and complementary in any kind of discourse use. Key words: Metadiscourse signals, Text connectives, Code glosses, Validity markers, Narrators, Illocution markers, Attitude markers, and Commentaries 1. Introduction In the process of transferring the meanings, ideas, attitudes, and information we are dealing with language and its different devices (Johnston, 2008). One of the most applicable ways to transfer the ideas in any language is writing. The world of writing is an expanded world for which there have been many debates, researches, and techniques. These techniques can be applicable from the very direct and surface to the very indirect and deep sections of the language. The techniques used in the deepest part of the language especially in writing in order to transfer the meaning and ideas are as deep and complex as what their names denote (Woods, 2006). One of these complicated tools is the metadiscourse through which we can add to the deepness of meanings, attitudes, and ideas which are not very clear as we look at the surface part of a piece of writing (Hyland, 2005). So, it becomes clear that we should adopt a good method and point of view to deal with the metadiscourse and its signals in a text. One of the best views found upon the metadiscourese signals is the model presented by Vande Copple (1985), which has broadly dealt with the metadiscoursal signals (MDSs). Using this model, the present study has tried to find out the extent to which metadiscoursal signals have been used in the novel “Pride and Prejudice”. Besides, this study tries to find out that how much these original metadiscourse signals are transferred in both translations made by “Pooranfar” and “Ardakani”. Then, the researcher has done a comparison among the results of the study to determine which one of the metadiscourse signals has been more successfully transferred to the target language and which one has the least portion in the target language.  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012           358  All of the language producers and receivers are dealing with the use of metadiscourse signals throughout the language production all the times (Johnston, 2008). Metadiscourse is somehow the inner side of the language and as the term “meta” denotes, it is something more than what we can deal with (Hyland, 2005). So, one of the most important features of any text is its usage of metadiscourse signals. When the issue of translation between two completely different languages is under investigation, this matter gets more and more highlighted. In the course of translation, in addition to the elements of grammar, vocabulary, text type, and context there should be a great consideration for discourse and in a larger and deeper scale, metadiscoursal elements. As a matter of fact, without the useful application and noting the metadiscoursal elements a comprehensive and full scale translation will not be fulfilled. Therefore, first, all of the metadiscoursal elements should be understood perfectly in the original text and be explainable in a comprehensive way; later on, in transferring the materials to the target language the best counterparts or equivalents should be used in the translated text instead of the metadiscoursal elements within the original text. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Metadiscourse Definitions and Continuums According to Ken Hyland (2005), metadiscourse is in relation to the self-reflected expressions used in a piece of text by the writer or in a speech by a speaker in order to negotiate and interact the meaning to the reader or audience. Later, he points out the near relationship between metadiscourse job and the one by rhetoric. Based on his assumptions “rhetoric is the art of persuasion” and hence, it is about the way we influence our audiences. Ken Hyland (2005) has brought some pieces of writings in different genres to show how metadiscorsal elements can insert meaning to the text and how they can be influential. a) I admit that the term ‘error’ may be an undesirable label to some teachers. (PhD dissertation ) b) To call a patient at the Royal Free costs 39 off-peak and 49 peak - time per minute!! (Letter to the editor) c) As you know I always meet the assignment de ad-lines (Personal email) d) The newly devised menu ‘Essence D’asiatique’ (of Asian influence) features tantalizing cuisine expertly prepared on the premises. (Restaurant review) e) Read could be sighted on the square minutes before the start of the test receiving deliveries from James Anderson (remember him?) (Sports journalism) The underlined parts and even the shapes are considered the metadiscoursal signals of these pieces of text by all of which the writer has efficiently transferred some implicit meanings to the readers. Part (a) uses ‘’ to show this is not the writers attitude. Part (b) makes use of exclamation mark to show surprise. In part (c) through the use of smile, the writer points out that it’s a joke. In part (d) the usage of parenthesis shows an explanation and finally in part (e) through the application of a question there is a shift to readers to offer a personal comment. In all of the written or spoken discourse works, there are two levels: the primary level upon which the propositional content in established, and the metadiscourse level which is added to the primary level to signal the presence of authors (Vande Copple, 1985). In addition, Halliday (1985) believes that there are three functions of language: (1) the ideational function of language used to express referential information about the matter; (2) the interpersonal function of language in which authors or speakers interact with the readers  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012            359 or hearers; and (3) the textual function of language used to shape language into a connected text. While the ideational function of language is fulfilled by the primary level of discourse, the other two functions of language are fulfilled by the metadiscourse level (Copple, 1985). The use of metadiscourse can be seen in the works of the earliest scholars such as Aristotle as well as those of modern authors, but the point is the inconsistency of use (Hyland, 2005). They use metadiscoursal elements to show different matters and opinions. For example, Aristotle used words which show self confidence authority, whereas another writer, like Bruner, made use of hedges or later authors used metadiscourse elements in their essays and treatises (e.g. Borges, Calvino Descartes, Geothe, (2003); scientists such as Darwin, Gould, & Woodruff (1998)). In addition, metadiscourse is frequently found in popular magazines and books, as well as in technical articles, reports, and books (Crismore and Farnsworth, 1990). The potential importance of metadiscourse has been approved by numerous scholars in different disciplines. A number of communication scholars, modern rhetoricians, and educators believe that, when used appropriately, metadsicourse can guide and direct readers through a text by helping them understand the text and the author’s perspective (Bradley, 1981; Williams, 1985; Winterowd, 1983), thereby making the text more friendly and considerate (Singer, 1986). Obviously, Metadiscourse exists in most of the written works and this illustrates its long history span over major historical periods. Metadiscourse can be used across ten genres and disciplinary discourse types: history, drama, handbooks, textbooks, poetry, religion, biography, fiction, essay, philosophy, and science. Authors discourse about their discourse by choosing from a wide variety of forms to present their textual and interpersonal metadiscourse: as single words, phrases, full clauses/sentences, and paragraphs (Widdowson, 2007). They often choose from such categories of textual metadiscourse (e.g. code glosses, logical connectors, topicalizers, previews and reviews, and narrators) and interpersonal materials (e.g. direct addresses to the readers, hedges and emphatics, evaluatives, and other commentaries), (Johnstone, 2008). Sometimes the authors use metadiscourse elements about the content, text or the processes and strategies used during writing. Metadiscourse is used for different purposes to inform, to persuade, or to express. Sometimes there are multiple pruposes as to inform and persuade, to express and persuade, or to inform and express (Crismore, 1985). 3. Research Methodology The model used in this study to analyze the related data is mainly the model presented by Vande Copple (1980), then after collecting the related information from the original and translations, through the use of charts and diagrams more information was gathered about the original and target language MDSs. So, all of the MDSs in the original novel and its two translations were detected and elaborated. The model is as follow: 3.1. Categorization of Metadiscourse Considering depth of meaning realized by discourse markers and the amount of meaning they are transferring to the readers, there are a number of different models elaborating the categorization of metadiscourse. 3.2. Vande Copple Model (1980) The model presented by Vande Kopple (1980) has been used for data collection and analysis of the study due to its elaborative and full scale nature in the explanation of metadiscourse and being favored by numerous writers such as Crismore and Farnsworth (1985). Vande Copple’s model which is divided into two main parts, regarding the linguistic and extra linguistic factors, considers all the possible available types of metadiscourse in any kind of text. Although there are some problems concerning the application of this model  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012           360  and similar models for different kinds of texts especially their translations, it will be hardly tried to elaborate well the use of MDSs in both original and translated novel. Here the first part of Copple’s model is presented: 3.2.1. The First Part of the Model Textual Metadiscourse Signals Text Connectives Code Glosses Validity Markers Narrators Figure1. First Part of the Copple’s Model As presented, the first part is concerned with the textual types of metadiscourse which mainly deal with linguistic and cohesion markers. They will be clearly explained here: 3.2.1.1. Text connectives Text connectives show how different parts of the text are connected to each other. These items can connect different parts of a text together and shape a cohesive text. They are mainly classified in three categories as below: A. Consequences: first, next …. B. Reminders: as I mention, as it made clear… C. Topicalizers: with regard to, in connection with … 3.2.1.2. Code glosses Code glosses are used to help the readers or hearers understand the writer’s or speaker’s intended meaning. Based upon the reader’s or hearer’s knowledge these devices can reword, explain, define or clarify. All of these are done through putting the desired information within parentheses or making it as an example. 3.2.1.3. Validity markers Validity markers are used to express the writer’s or speaker’s commitment to the probability or truth of a statement. In other words s/he tries to show how much s/he is in agreement with the quoted information. There are mainly three groups of validity markers including: A. Hedges: perhaps, might … B. Emphatics: clearly, undoubtedly … C. Attributers: according to … 3.2.1.4. Narrators Narrators are used to inform readers of the sources of presented information. Sometimes, writers want to directly quote someone else’s believes for which they should use statements like: according to …  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012            361 3.2.2. The Second Part of the Model Interpersonal Metadiscourse Signals Attitude Markers Illocution Markers Commentaries The second part of Copple’s model is dedicated to the interpersonal metadiscourse where lots of attention is devoted to the bidirectional relations between two communicators. Here we should go further the linguistic and structural matters and even lots of symbols may have their own meanings. These subparts will be defined here: 3.2.2.1. Attitude markers Attitude markers are used to express the writer’s attitude to the propositional matter presented. In other words the attitude markers show how much the writer is interested in the presented materials. This is done through the use of statements like: Unfortunately, interestingly, I wish that … 3.2.2.2. Illocution markers Illocution markers are used to make explicit the discourse act the writer is performing at certain points. As explicitness is very important to transfer the desired meaning and since it is necessary for the writer to give his/her readers the sense of end, illocution markers are used in texts by using statements like: To conclude, I hypothesize, to sum up … 3.2.2.3. Commentaries Commentaries are used to address readers directly by commenting on the reader’s probable mood or possible reaction to the text. This helps the writer to build a closer relationship with his/her readers. Commentaries are fulfilled by statements like: You will certainly agree that, you might want to read that … As it was made clear, this study tries to put all the metadiscoursal elements of the original novel into such a distinction and table; then, the same procedure will be followed for the two translations and at last, a comparison between them will be made. 3.3. Materials The data used in this study was gathered from the original novel pride and prejudice written by Jane Austen. This novel has got sixty one chapters and the text belongs to two hundred years ago. The first translation has been done by Pooranfar and the second translation by Ardakani. Pooranfar has not rendered three of the original novel chapters in her translation, while Ardakani has translated all of the original novel chapters into Persian. Then the counterpart and equivalent data in two translations done by Pooranfar and Ardakani were analyzed in order to have a comparison and contrast between the MDSs presented in the original novel and their equivalents. Clearly, all of the data gathered based on the model from the original and translated novels will be usefull in MDSs analysis.  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012           362  4. Findings and Discussion As the figure4.3 shows, the highest and fewest number of metadiscourse signals belonged to the validity markers and illocution markers respectively, where blue stands for the original novel, red stands for the first translation, and green stands for the second translation. Moreover, as depicted clearly, the second translation appeared to be more similar to the original text in the use of certain MDSs than the first translation. Both translators have rendered less number of MDSs in their translations comparing to that of the original novel. 4.1. Data Analysis Concerning the investigated novel of Pride and prejudice the first translation by Pooranfar transferred 347 MDSs to the target language out of 452 original MDSs, while the second translation by Ardakani rendered 411. The lower the amount of MDSs in any text especially the translated texts, comparing to the original one shows the less capability of that text to state clearly the original meaning. There were many differences between the two translations concerning the amount of MDSs use. Although all of the Chapters in the original novel have been analyzed, in this paper the researcher has just brought three sample chapters of the original novel in a comparison with its two Persian renderings. Here are the tables of detailed information of those three chapters of the novel: Table 1: Metadiscourse elements in chapter 1 of the novel MD Signal Original Translation 1 Translation 2 Text Connectiv es _ However little known the feeling… _ But it is, returned she;… _ …,that Netherfield park is let at last… _ بهرصورت کمتر در ... مورد احساسات _ اما اين واقعيت ..... - باالخره پارک ندرفيلد... _ درهرحال کمتر در مورد ... احساسات _ اما اين واقعيت ..... - درآخر پارک ندرفيلد... Code Glosses _ He agreed… that he is to take possession of… _ او موافقت کرد که ... ميتواند مالکيت _ وی با اين نظر موافقت کرد که... Narrators _ …, returned she. _ …, said his lady to… _ در جواب گفت:... _ خانمش روزی به او گفت:. _ در جواب گفت:... _ خانمش روزی به او گفت:. Validity maker _ …, you must know… _ It is very likely that… _ قاعدتا بايد بدانی... _ خيلی احتمال دارد که... - بايد اينرا بدانی که... - آنچه خيلی احتمال دارد... Attitude markers _ He has good fortune to… _ …and was so much delighted _ وضعيت و موقعيت خوب.. _ او خيلی شاد بود که... _ وضع مالی خوبی که... _ شادمانی زياد او...  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012            363 According to the data presented in the table, there are generally 10 MDSs in this Chapter of the original novel. Both translations have done a good job and they have transferred all of the original MDSs into the Persian language. Table 2: Metadiscourse elements in chapter 2 of the novel MD Marker Original Translation 1 Translation 2 Text connectives _ He could do it but… _ Impossible is that… _ ولی از طرفی او ... _ اين غير ممکن است که.. _ اما او بايد ... _ غير ممکن است... Validity markers _ Impossible, …, impossible… _ غير ممکن است آقای بنت _ اين غير ممکن است. .. .محال است Narrators _ replied Elizabeth, … _ cried her mother _ اليزابت پاسخ داد... _ مادرش در جواب ميگويد _ او پاسخ داد _ صدای مادرش درآمد... Attitude markers _ She said resentfully _ I am glad to find out… _ He replied fretfully _ با خشونت گفت _ خيلی خوشحالم _ با بد اخالقی ادامه داد. _ با غيظ گفت... _ خوشحالم که... _ با بداخالقی جواب داد. Illocution markers _ Aye, so it is… _ So, it will be important _.......... _ پس اين مسئله... .بله اينطور است_ _ بنابراين.... Commentaries _ She has no discretion this matter. _ او برای سرفه کردن _ او که گناهی ندارد. مالحظه ی هيچی را نميکند According to the table, there were eleven MDSs in this chapter of the original novel. Both translations have rendered all of the original MDSs except one of the text connectives. As a result, both translations have done a good job in this respect. Table 3: Metadiscourse elements in chapter 3 of the novel MD Marker Original Translation 1 Translation 2 Text connectiv es _ Not all that Mrs. Benet, … _ consequently she was… _ …, in town so soon after… ...خانم بنت برای_ _ او و اليزابت مرتبا... _ بعد از چند روز آمدن به...... ...خانم بنت برای_ _ و در نتيجه .... _ پس از آمدن به شهر... Code glosses _ Only five all together: she and her daughters,… _ بيش از پنج نفر نيستند. خودش و دخترانش و... _ شش خانم را با خودش آورده: خودش و دخترانش و... Validity markers _ They were wonderfully handsome, … _ …extremely agreeable and.. _ زيبای شگفت انگيز... _ بسيار دوست داشتنی.. _ بسيار خوش قيافه بودندو... _ فوق العاده خوش رو... Narrators _ …, said Mrs. Benet… _ …, said he. _ خانم بنت گفت... _ او در پاسخ گفت... _ خانم بنت گفت... _ او در پاسخ گفت... Attitude markers _ Wonderfully handsome… _ Extremely agreeable… _ They had the advantage of.. _ زيبای شگفت انگيز.... _ بسيار دوست داشتنی... _ دختران موفق برای... _ بسيار خوش قيافه بودند. _ فوق العاده خوش رو... _ براوامتيازی داشتند.  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012           364  According to the table, there were eleven MDSs in this chapter of the original novel. Both translations have rendered all of the original MDSs except one of the text connectives. As a result, both translations have done a good job in this respect. Figure3. Frequency of metadiscourse signals in the novel 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Original 1Translation 2Translation 4.2. Discussion In the current research the focus was on the presence of seven metadiscourse signals in the novel pride and Prejudice and its two Persian renderings by Pooranfar and Ardakani through the model presented by Vande Copple (1985). The results derived from the analysis of sixty one chapters of the novel helped the researcher to answer the question concerning the amount of metadiscourse presence in the original novel and its Persian translations. The analysis has shown that the metadiscourse signals of the original novel have been less transferred to the Persian translations. The discussion of results will be presented in seven separate paragraphs for each metadiscourse type. Concerning Text connectives, all the Sixty One tables related to the Chapters of the novel showed that 75 instances were found in the original novel. Considering the first translation, fifty five of them have been transferred to the Persian language while a great number of the metadiscourse signals have remained untranslated. Yet, the second translation did a better job and transferred sixty six of them to the Persian language. As text connectives are very crucial in text consistency and help a lot in building the meaning, the second translation should be considered as a more valuable and meaningful translation than the first one. In terms of Code glosses, according to the data collected in Chapter Four their total number in the original novel was fifty nine of which the first translation has transferred forty and the second translation fifty. Code glosses are definitely necessary to make the meaning more explicit and exemplify some information in a text, hence the code glosses’ role is crucial (Hyland, 2005). Therefore, the meaningfulness and transparency of the second translation has been considered and done well. Meanwhile, the first translation did not render about one third of the original code glosses showing less effort to transfer the meaning correctly. Considering the data available in Chapter Four, there were one hundred seven Validity markers in the original novel of which the first translation had just rendered 67 and the second translation ninety four items to the Persian language. The role of validity markers in identifying the amount of validity and correctness of  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012            365 any information in a text is absolutely fantastic (Halliday, 2002). Without them, it is not clear how much the reader can trust any specific part of the text and the extent of the writer’s belief in what is said remains ambiguous. Therefore, the amount of trust upon the validity and trueness of the information in the novel seemed greater in the second translation. But, considering the first translation, forty items of validity markers have not been transferred to the Persian language, showing weakness of translation in this respect. Regarding the narrators, there have been sixty three narrators detected in the original novel. From this range of MDSs the first translation has transferred 56 and the second translation has rendered sixty one into the Persian language. Narrators metadiscourse signals identify the source of any information within the text and without this nothing can be regarded authoritative and reliable (Gee, 1999). Considering this fact, we can conclude that the second translation is more authenticated due to the higher application of narrators; on the other side, the first translation has not transferred seven original narrators’ MDSs to the Persian language and should be considered as a less reliable text. The number of metadiscourse signals in attitude type was One Hundred and Three on the whole. While the first translation rendered ninety three to the Persian language, the second translation transferred one hundred MDSs to the target language. Among the metadiscourse signals, attitude markers are used in order to show the writer’s attitude toward the propositional content (William, 1983). Considering the amount of transferred attitude MDSs to the Persian language, the second translation again has done a better job and just three original attitude markers have remained untranslated. As a result, the second translation can better show the writer’s attitude toward everything in the text and it will be more explicit and meaningful. In this study the least amount of metadiscourse signals belonged to illocution markers. Nineteen illocution markers were discovered in the original novel out of which the first translation has rendered fourteen and the second translation has transferred sixteen. This kind of metadiscourse signal can show where and how the speech and discourse is going to have a conclusion (Johnston, 2008). Because of the higher amount of illocution markers transferred to the target language, the second translation is more valuable in making conclusions through the text. But, again the first translation has done poorer job in this respect and it has a less sense of closure in any part. Finally, in relation to the commentaries the total number of occurrence in the original novel was twenty six in all. While the first translation has transferred twenty two to Persian language, the second translation has rendered twenty four. The commentaries’ usage in a text is to declare the writer’s opinion about the reader or the audience (William, 1983). It can be concluded that the first translation has not been so successful in transferring the original commentaries, while the second translation has done a better job in this respect. As a result, the second translation is more powerful in showing the writer’s comments about the reader. 5. Concluding Remarks The presence of metadiscoursal signals is crucial and necessary in identifying the exact and deep meaning, either in formation or understanding (Cook, 1994). The use of metadiscourse signals can help the writer to meaningfully build his/her text as well as the readers or audience to better understand the writer’s or speaker’s intended meanings (Gee, 1999). In other words, without discourse and in a deeper scale metadiscourse signals nothing is meaningful and the use of language would be just a hodge-podge of different linguistic items. The analysis of data presented in this study led to the following conclusions: Concerning the text connectives, there were twenty MDSs less than the original in the first translation and just ten MDSs less than the original. It can show why the first translation failed to render different textual connections. So, the meaningfulness of the first translation is weaker than the second translation. The second translation rendered the code glosses better than the first translation and this was helpful in explaining more the intended meanings. There is the same story for the validity markers and narrators. This matter makes the translation more authentic and meaningful.  ISSN 2039‐2117                      Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences                      Vol. 3 (2) May 2012           366  As far as the interpersonal MDSs are concerned, the first translation again did a worse translation comparing to the second translation and considering all attitude markers, illocution markers and commentaries the second translation was more authentic, meaningful and understandable. In fact, the first translation rendered lower amount of interpersonal MDSs and it was less comprehensible and it was not well connected. As a result, according to the data given about the number of MDSs in both translations and the original novel, from the discourse and metadiscourse point of view, the second translator has a more acceptable and meaningful translation comparing to that of the first translator. References Abrams, M. (1953). The discourse of literary criticism and theory. London: Routledge. Armbruster, B. (1981). Schema theory and the design of content area textbooks. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Cook, G. (1994). Discourse and literature: the interplay of form and mind. London: Oxford University Press. Crismore, A & Vande Kopple, W. (1998). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and finnish university students. Newbury Park: Sage. Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Halliday, E. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. EUA: University Park. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse,exploring interaction in writing. London: Routledge. Johnston, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. New York: Routledge. Marandi, S. (2002). Contrastive EAP rhetoric: metadiscourse in Persian versus English. Tehran: university of Tehran. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge university press. Widdoson, H. G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: critical issues in discourse analysis. New York: Blackwell pub. Woods, N. (2006). Describing discourse: a practical guide to discourse analysis/ Nicola Woods. London: Hodder Arnold.