Explore the vast range of titles available.

The guest editors' objective was to open up a space for researchers to reflect on and rethink the role of different categories of translation and interpreting in contemporary contexts, engaging with both theory and practice. 

In multilingual settings, the abstract is the only part of the research article that is regularly translated. Although very brief, abstracts play an important role in academic communication, as they provide immediate access to research findings. Contrastive research has revealed considerable cross-linguistic differences in the rhetorical patterns of abstracts. The present paper focuses on how this variation is bridged in translation, by addressing an important rhetorical dimension of academic discourse, authorial presence. Specifically, it examines how authorial presence is reshaped in translated abstracts. An analysis of a small corpus of 150 Slovene research article abstracts from five disciplines and their English translations reveals several interesting types of recurring translators’ interventions, most notably the tendency to replace personal authorial references with impersonal structures. Data collected in interviews with four experienced translators of academic texts is used to shed light on potential reasons for interventions with authorial presence in translation.

New online educational tools have opened new possibilities for cross-cultural collaboration which supports critical thinking and encourages learner autonomy. Nevertheless, the success of a crosscultural collaborative experience cannot be taken for granted, since it inevitably involves the need to bridge transcultural differences. This paper presents an American-Slovene cross-cultural collaborative project with a focus on the perceptions of the Slovene student-participants. In particular, it examines their views of one of the components of the collaborative project, specifically, the collaborative wiki writing assignment, introduced to develop the students’ academic literacy skills. The findings of the questionnaire study show that the participants’ experiences with the cross-cultural collaboration were positive, although their answers reveal a slight preference for less challenging activities. Nevertheless, even the fairly demanding writing assignment was generally perceived to be interesting and useful: while its full interactive potential was not realized due to the participants’ reluctance to engage in editing, the wiki is clearly an efficient tool for promoting academic literacy.

In recent decades the increasing reliance on computer technology and the emergence of electronic publishing have precipitated changes in both the production and reception of academic writing. At the same time, the dominance of English as the medium of academic communication has been asserted in all fields of study. While many scholars write their own texts in English, it is not exceptional for others to have their papers translated into English. It is interesting, however, that translation of academic discourse has received relatively little research attention so far. In the study presented here, the question how translated academic texts differ from comparable original English academic texts is addressed. To explore this question, a 700,000-word corpus comprising 104 research articles (Slovene-English translations and comparable English originals) is analyzed in terms of references to the entire text itself. The results show considerable differences between the translated texts and the comparable English-language originals.

S problematiko prevajanja epistemske naklonskosti so se ze v osemdesetih letih ukvarjali Tabakowska (1989) ter [R. Markkanen] in [H. Schr]öder (1989), slednja predvsem z vidika pragmatike in metadiskurza, v okviru raziskav t. i. omejevalcev oziroma 'hedges'. Priblizno deset let kasneje je tematiko epistemske naklonskosti s stalisca anglesko-svedske kontrastivne analize sistematicno obdelala tudi Karin Aijmer (1999). Elzbieta Tabakowska (1989) razclenjuje rabo prislovov, ki izrazajo epistemsko naklonskost v zgodovinski knjigi v angleskem jeziku, in ugotavlja, katere ustreznice so bile za posamezne izraze izbrane v poljskem prevodu iste knjige. Tabakowska (1989) pokaze, da se prevodne ustreznice mocno razlikujejo od slovarskih ustreznic in meni, da so prevodne ustreznice izbrane na podlagi prevajalceve ocene o avtorjevi zavezanosti vsebini. Raija Markkanen in Hartmut Schröder (1989) se v svoji studiji ukvarjata s prevajanjem metadiskurzne kategorije omejevalcev v znanstvenih besedilih: pri analizi prevodov znanstvenih besedil, ki so jih prevedli avtorji sami, sta ugotovila, da so vsi trije pisci-prevajalci v procesu mocno posegli v strukturo in pogostost omejevalcev, da bi besedilo prilagodili ciljni kulturi. Toda to je bilo mogoce predvsem zato, ker so bili prevajalci hkrati tudi pisci besedil, Markkanen in Schröder (1989) pa sta postavila zelo tehtno vprasanje, kako se s tem problemom spopada prevajalec, ki ni avtor besedila, in ali bi prevajalec tudi v tem primeru rabo omejevalcev lahko prilagajal ciljni kulturi. Vprasanja sekundarnega poseganja v epistemsko naklonskost se je lotila tudi Anna Mauranen (1997), in sicer z analizo lektorskih popravkov v znanstvenih besedilih: ugotovila je, da so bili ti na podrocju omejevalcev minimalni, saj se je lektorjem zdelo, da bi taksni popravki pomenili poseganje na avtorjevo podrocje. Prevajalec poljudnoznanstvenega besedila se pri prevajanju izrazov epistemske naklonskosti torej srecuje z razmeroma zapletenim problemom: konvencije rabe omejevalcev (in posledicno s tem tudi izrazov epistemske naklonskosti) so v jezikih zelo razlicne, prav tako se med jeziki razlikujejo tudi sredstva za izrazanje epistemske naklonskosti. Ker so kontrastivne studije retoricnih konvencij (npr. Pisanski Peterlin 2005) pokazale, da se raba metadiskurza v slovenscini in anglescini mocno razlikuje, hkrati pa so analize izrazanja naklonskosti za slovenscino (npr. [Carolin Roeder] in [Hansen] 2006) pokazale, da se v njej epistemska naklonskost izraza precej drugace kot v anglescini (npr. [Frank Palmer] 2001), je mogoce predvideti, da se v stevilnih primerih prevajalec znajde pred vprasanjem, ali naj prevod prilagodi ciljni kulturi in izraz epistemske naklonskosti vstavi, izpusti ali spremeni, in s tem mocno poseze v besedilo, ali naj kot vodilo pri prevajanju tovrstnih izrazov jemlje ustreznost in sledi izvirniku, s tem pa tvega, da bo jezik v prevodu drugacen od slovenscine, ki jo najdemo v primerljivih slovenskih izvirnikih. Prvi del analiticnega postopka je obsegal kvantitativno analizo korpusa. Besedilni korpus v elektronski obliki je bil analiziran s pomocjo programskega orodja WordSmith Tools (Scott 1996), verzija 4.0. Analiza je bila narejena na podlagi seznama izrazov epistemske naklonskosti; leksikogramatikalne kategorije, ki so zajete, so podrobneje predstavljene v razdelku 2. Rezultati elektronske analize so bili nato rocno pregledani in v tem delu postopka so bili izloceni vsi zadetki, ki niso izrazali epistemske naklonskosti. Koncni rezultati so bili nato za vsako od kategorij izrazeni v obliki absolutnega stevila vseh pojavitev in preracunani v stevilo pojavitev na 1000 besed. Ob tem je bil za vsako od kategorij izracunan tudi odstotni delez, ki ga pred- stavlja glede na vse identiicirane izraze epistemske naklonskosti. Drugi del postopka je obsegal analizo rabe posameznih kategorij epistemske naklonskosti; analiza rabe je temeljila na analizi sobesedila. Primerjava pogostosti posameznih prislovov pokaze, da se vecinoma pojavljajo v obeh korpusih (izjema so prislovi morebiti, ki se v prevodih ne pojavlja, v korpusu izvirnikov pa je zelo redek, saj se pojavi le trikrat, brzkone, ki se pojavlja le v prevodih, prav tako le trikrat, in nemara, ki se prav tako pojavlja le v prevodih, in sicer dvakrat). Ostali prislovi so vecinoma rabljeni priblizno enako pogosto v obeh korpusih, izjemi sta morda, ki je v prevodih stirikrat pogostejsi kot v izvirnikih, in lahko. Lahko je dalec najpogostejsi prislov v obeh podkorpusih, saj predstavlja priblizno polovico vseh primerov, v katerih se pojavljajo prislovi. V prevodih je precej manj pogost kot v izvirnikih; v prevodih se v epistemski vlogi pojavi v 169 primerih, v izvirnikih pa v 255 primerih. Pri tem je treba seveda upostevati, da lahko ni vedno rabljen v epistemskem pomenu, vendar so v tej raziskavi upostevani le primeri, v katerih je njegova raba epistemska. Spodnji primeri (16-19) ilustrirajo rabo epistemskih prislovov v obeh podkorpusih.

The relationships between text or talk and the context are among the basic fields of pragmatic research and an insight into their nature may contribute to a better understanding of language use. In this article, we use the results of an analysis of discourse marker use in two different conversational genres (telephone conversation and television interviews) in an attempt to examine the impact of context on the use of discourse markers, generalized for each analysed genre. In the first stage of the analysis, we observe important differences between the two genres: discourse markers are far more frequently used in telephone conversations than in television interviews. In the second stage of the analysis, we identify several contextual factors which contribute to the differences in the use of discourse markers. In this way, we obtain insight into this particular aspect of genre context-talk relationships, and identify some of the characteristics of the genres in question.

The paper examines whether a comparison of translated and original Slovene texts reveals differences between the language of translations and the language of originals. The comparison focuses on the use of epistemic modality in popular science texts. The 200,000-word corpus is composed of two parts: the first one comprises 30 original Slovene texts, and the second one comprises 30 texts translated from English into Slovene. The results show a difference in the frequency of use of expressions of epistemic modality between the two parts of the corpus, as well as a difference in the frequency of use of the individual lexicogrammatical categories used to express epistemic modality. Adapted from the source document