Diversity in 21st Century Linguistics

Introduction

Throughout the years, many scholars have tried to explain the nature of translation and to answer the question, “What is a good translation?”. It has now been found that there are different domains of the act of translating and that it cannot be explained through one general theory, but it needs to be defined and analyzed through partial ones (Malmkjaer, 2005). Therefore, Toury (Holmes [1972], 1988) has mapped translation theories systematically and provided a scientific basis for the area known as “translation studies”.

There are varying views regarding the concept of a good translation, but many experts agree that it should have “the truest possible feel of the original” (Edwards, 1957, p. 13) and the potential to be seen as “a first-class native thing” (Belloc, 1931, p. 22). However, achieving these is not an easy task. Pym (2004, p. 7) argues that translation is “a relatively high-effort, high-cost mode of mediated cross-cultural communication” since, while translating, many factors and structures need to be considered. For a good translation, transferring information from one culture to another is not enough. It should also fully reflect the structural and lexical patterns of the source text and the intended nuances of meaning. While doing this, it should also establish successful communication with the audience. According to experts in the field, MDM, which have been investigated more frequently since the 1980s, can help writers/translators achieve these goals. Using various MDM, authors present and/or emphasize their personalities, perspectives, and assumptions about the topic under discussion and interact with their readers (Hyland, 2005, 2017; Kashiha, 2022).

Learning and using MDM in one’s native and/or foreign language (FL) is not easy, however (Çiçek Tümer & Hatipoğlu, 2022; Hatipoğlu & Algi, 2017, 2018). MDM are even more difficult to translate because they are many, have multiple functions, and vary from culture to culture (Axelsson, 2013; Hinkel, 2009; Hyland, 2005). For these reasons, FL students, but especially those who are preparing to become FL experts (e.g., English Language Teachers, Linguists, and Translators), should be trained in how to use and translate them (Bogdanovic & Mirovic, 2018; Pastor, 2022). Since “all translation is selection” (Duff, 1989, p. 38), interpreters with inadequate knowledge and training might be unable to choose the structures that best suit the translated text.

Among the MDM, hedges are the most frequently used but also the most problematic markers for translators. They are multifunctional, and their usage varies according to the topic discussed (science vs. social sciences), the type of writing and genre (academic writing vs. literature), the purpose of the writer (Herriman, 2014), and the social and cultural context (Abbduhl, 2006; Dheskali, 2020; Ghia et al., 2022; Hatipoğlu & Algi, 2017, 2018; Lee, 2020). There is also a lack of one-to-one correspondence between hedges in different languages. A single hedge in the source language could have multiple counterparts in the target language or vice versa. On the translator’s part, this fact poses a real challenge. According Hyland (2000, p. 179), hedges are the “expressions of doubt and certainity” that authors of academic texts employ for modifying “the assertions that they make, toning down uncertain or potentially risky claims, emphasizing what they believe to be correct, and conveying appropriately collegial attitudes to readers”. If hedges are not translated and employed correctly, the texts may lose their message, persuasive power, and connection with the readers.

Despite the crucial function of hedges in establishing the credibility of the premises in the text and in communicating to the readers the reasoning processes of the authors and the level of difficulty they pose for the translators, so far, a surprisingly small number of studies have focused on how they are translated from one domain into another (Chou et al., 2023; Herriman, 2014). The present study aims to contribute to filling in this critical gap in the field and (as far as the authors are aware for the first time in the Turkish contexts) aims to uncover what native speakers of Turkish who are undergraduate university students in the Linguistics Department know about the categories of hedges in Turkish and English and how they translate -mAlI in the Conclusion sections of academic texts from Turkish to English.