International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 8, No. 1; 2018 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 119 Discourse Presentation as an Index of Style: A Comparative Corpus Stylistic Analysis of Self and Other Translators Zara Obaid 1 , Muhammad Asim Mahmood 1 , Javed Iqbal 2 & Maryam Zahoor 1 1 Department of Applied Linguistics, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan 2 University of Gujrat, Pakistan Correspondence: Muhammad Asim Mahmood, Department of Applied Linguistics, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan. E-mail: masimrai@gmail.com; zaraobaid3@gmail.com; javediqbal188@hotmail.com; maryamzahooralam@gmail.com Received: August 30, 2017 Accepted: September 25, 2017 Online Published: October 25, 2017 doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n1p119 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n1p119 Abstract This study aims to explore the style of other and self-translators in comparison with non-translated texts, assuming discourse presentation as an indicator of style. Theoretically, other and self-translators are considered different in their translation style. The reason is that self-translators enjoy more liberty and authority over the source text as compared to other-translators (Bozkurt, 2014; Cordingley, 2013). However, practically, previous studies have explored either the style of self-translators (Ehrlich, 2009) or other-translators (Saldanha, 2011). None of the studies has provided a comparison among these types. The current study is a pioneer in establishing general styles of self and other-translators. It explores three categories of literary texts i.e., by self-translators, other-translators and by Pakistani writers. Each category further comprises of three representative texts. They are, then, processed through AntConc 3.4.4 and tagged manually. The model of speech, writing and thought presentation proposed by Semino & Short (2004) based on Leech & Short’s (1981) model is used, as it encompasses all the presentation techniques employed in literary texts. Frequencies acquired through tagging are then normalized and results are presented in the form of graphs. Findings of the research reveal that both other and self-translators are character-oriented in their style. However, other-translators are more objective and reader-oriented with less interference from the narrator. In contrast, self-translators are more subjective with more intervention from the narrator. These results are significant for further researches concerning self and other-translators. Keywords: comparative corpus stylistics, discourse presentation, other translator, self-translator, speech presentation, thought presentation, writing presentation 1. Introduction Stylistic study of literary texts is a widespread notion with several researchers determining the general styles of authors on the basis of these texts. However, with the birth of translation studies this notion of style also began to tantalize the researchers in this field. As a result, initially this idea of translator’s style was repelled with an argument of invisibility of translators; nevertheless, the works by certain researchers like Baker (2000) made it mainstream. Several studies have been conducted on the style of translators where some used statistical patterns like type-token ratio or average sentence length etc. (ibid.) to determine style; others explored style at a lexical level through collocations for example (Bernardini, 2007); whereas still others explored at sentential or pragmatic level through transitivity, modality and discourse presentation (Bosseaux, 2004). This particular study will focus on discourse presentation to determine the style of self and other-translation categories. Discourse presentation comprises of speech, thought and writing presentation and “focuses on segmental level” (Kuusi, 2016, p. 1). Numerous researches have been conducted on discourse presentation in order to determine the style of translators (Bosseaux, 2004, 2004; Kuusi, 2016; Winters, 2005), however, they just focus on one or two subtypes or categories of discourse presentation. A very few researches employ discourse presentation category as a whole. Huang (2015), for example, discussed all discourse presentation scales but his corpus lacked self-translations and comprised only of an original with its three translations. Hence, as none of the studies discussed style, particularly discourse presentation style, of self and other-translators side by side in its entirety, therefore, this research will be a pioneer in characterizing the general style of self and other-translators.