3.5.2.2.1. Analyzing Translators’ Judgments…………………48
3.5.2.2.2. Translation Strategies………………………………49
3.5.3. Data Sheet……………………………………………………..49
Results and Discussions
4.1 Overview ………………………………………………….52
4.2 Microlevel Analysis…………………………………………………52
4.2.1 Vocabulary……………………………………………………..53
4.2.2. Grammar………………………………………………………54
4.2.2.1 Passive Transformation……………………………………57
4.2.3. Cover page Analysis ………………………………………….58
4.2.3.1 Analyzing the Cover Page of “Killing Hope, US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II”…………………………….59
4.2.3.2. Analyzing the Cover Page of ”سرکوب امید، دخالتهای نظامی آمریکا و سازمان سیا از جنگ جهانی دوم به بعد” …………………………………62
4.2.3.3 Analyzing the cover page of “All the Shah’s Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror”…………………64
4.2.3.3 Analyzing the cover page of ” همهی مردان شاه، کودتای آمریکایی 28 مرداد و ریشههای ترور در خاور میانه”……………………………………..66
4.3. Macrolevel……………………………..……………………………68
4.3.1. Translator’s Judgments…………………………….………….68
4.3.2. Translation strategies………………………………..…………72
4.3.2.1 ”Killing Hope, US military and CIA interventions since World War II”…………………………………………………………………………72
4.3.2.1.1 Omission Strategy……………………………………74
4.3.2.1.2 Substitution/ Alteration strategies…………………..77
4.3.2.1.3 Explicitation…………………………………………84
4.3.2.1.4 Mistranslation Strategy………………………………86
4.3.2.1.5 Addition Strategy……………………………………87
4.3.2.1.6 Undertranslation Strategy……………………………89
4.3.2.2 “All the Shah’s Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror”…………………………………………………..…90
4.3.2.2.1 Omission Strategy……………………………………91
4.3.2.2.2 Substitution/ Alteration Strategies……………….…97
4.3.2.2.3 Explicitation Strategy………………………………107
4.3.2.2.4 Addition Strategy………………………………..…109
4.3.2.2.5 Undertranslation Strategy………………………….113
Conclusion
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………….….116
5.2 Conclusion…………………………………………………..……..117
5.3 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………..…118
5.4 Suggestion for Further Research…………………………………..119
Bibliograghy………………………………………………….………120
List of Tables and Images
Tables:
Table 3.1 sample of verb tables………………………………………….49
Table 3.2 sample of strategy tables……………………………………..50
Table 3.3 sample of each case’s table………………………………..….51
Table 4.1 verbs, types of verbs, and USA and its related words as agent in “Killing Hope, US military and CIA interventions since World War II” and ” “سرکوب امید، دخالتهای نظامی آمریکا و سازمان سیا از جنگ جهانی دوم به بعد………………………………………………………………………..56
Table 4.2 verbs, types of verbs, and USA and Britain and their related words as agents in “All the Shah’s Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” and “همهی مردان شاه، کودتای آمریکایی 28 مرداد و ریشههای ترور در خاور میانه…………………………………………………61
Table 4.3 strategies applied in the translation of Killing Hope, ”سرکوب امید، دخالتهای نظامی آمریکا و سازمان سیا از جنگ جهانی دوم به بعد” ……………73
Table4.4 …………………………………………………………………74
Table 4.5…………………………………………………………………74
Table 4.6…………………………………………………………………75
Table 4.7…………………………………………………………………75
Table 4.8…………………………………………………………………75
Table 4.9…………………………………………………………………76
Table 4.10……………………………………………………………….77
Table 4.11……………………………………………………………….77
Table 4.12……………………………………………………………….78
Table 4.13……………………………………………………………….79
Table 4.14……………………………………………………………….79
Table 4.15……………………………………………………………….80
Table 4.16……………………………………………………………….80
Table 4.17……………………………………………………………….81
Table 4.18……………………………………………………………….81
Table 4.19……………………………………………………………….82
Table 4.20……………………………………………………………….82
Table 4.21……………………………………………………………….83
Table 4.22……………………………………………………………….84
Table 4.23……………………………………………………………….84
Table 4.24……………………………………………………………….85
Table 4.25……………………………………………………………….86
Table 4.26……………………………………………………………….86
Table 4.27……………………………………………………………….87
Table 4.28……………………………………………………………….88
Table 4.29……………………………………………………………….88
Table 4.30……………………………………………………………….89
Table 4.31……………………………………………………………….90
Table 4.32……………………………………………………………….91
Table 4.33……………………………………………………………….92
Table 4.34……………………………………………………………….92
Table 4.35……………………………………………………………….93
Table 4.36……………………………………………………………….96
Table 4.37……………………………………………………………….96
Table 4.38……………………………………………………………….97
Table 4.39……………………………………………………………….98
Table 4.40……………………………………………………………….99
Table 4.41……………………………………………………………….99
Table 4.42………………………………………………………………100
Table 4.43………………………………………………………………100
Table 4.44………………………………………………………………101
Table 4.45………………………………………………………………101
Table 4.46………………………………………………………………101
Table 4.47………………………………………………………………102

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

Table 4.48………………………………………………………………102
Table 4.49………………………………………………………………103
Table 4.50………………………………………………………………103
Table 4.51………………………………………………………………104
Table 4.52………………………………………………………………104
Table 4.53………………………………………………………………105
Table 4.54………………………………………………………………105
Table 4.55………………………………………………………………106
Table 4.56………………………………………………………………106
Table 4.57………………………………………………………………107
Table 4.58………………………………………………………………108
Table 4.59………………………………………………………………108
Table 4.60………………………………………………………………109
Table 4.61………………………………………………………………109
Table 4.62………………………………………………………………110
Table 4.63………………………………………………………………110
Table 4.64………………………………………………………………111
Table 4.65………………………………………………………………111
Table 4.66………………………………………………………………113
Table 4.67………………………………………………………………113
Table 4.68………………………………………………………………114
Table 4.69………………………………………………………………114
Images
Image 4.1 cover page of “Killing Hope”………………………………..59
Image 4.2- Cover Page of “سرکوب امید”………………………………….62
Image 4.3- Cover Page of “All the Shah’s Men”………………………..64
Image 4.4- cover page of ” همهی مردان شاه”………………………………66
List of Abbreviations:
CDA: Critical Discourse Analysis
CL: Critical Linguistics

ST: Source Text
TS: Translation Studies
TT: Target Text
CHAPTER I
Introduction
1.1 General Overview
Translation has been practiced from the very beginning of the human history. In Perez’s words “it is as old as human kind”(2003: 10). Translation has also been discussed from various viewpoints such as linguistic, philosophical, social, and many more. The reason is that the act of translation is involved in more than language and it always takes place in the cultural and political systems and in the history.
Translation studies (TS) owes its development more than anything else to James S. Holmes whose prominent essay, ”the name and nature of translation studies” , was lectured at the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics in Copenhagen in 1972 (Monday 2001: 10). Since then many aspects of translation, from linguistic to hermeneutic, to philosophical and political have been continually scrutinized. Although most of the first attempts focused on linguistic aspects as the only way to investigate translation, nowadays there are many more tools at hand for researchers to conduct their investigations on the phenomenon of translation. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which tries ” to read the traces and effects of power in language and discourse, in text and syntax’ (Hodge & Kress, 1993: 153) is one of these tools.
Perez reflects the idea of CDA scholars when states ” all language use is ideological” (2003: 4), and since translation, as a linguistic and social phenomenon, is carried out on language use it can be a manifestation of ideological encounters too. It is worth mentioning in passing that Fairclough believes (1995: 7) discourse is defined as language use in social practices. On the other hand, Fawcett (1998) demonstrates that ”translation, simply because of its existence, has always been ideological” (cited in Perez, 2003: 107).
Translation has been discussed from social and philosophical viewpoints too. In this regard, translation as a ”representation” of another text and a way through which texts are distributed is in need of more investigation. Simon believes “with the cultural turn in translation studies we can now define translation as the dynamics of culture representation” or “as a tangible representation of a secondary or mediated relationship to reality” (1996: 137). Niranjana, a postcolonial writer, in her seminal book Sitting Translation (1992: 10) argues that colonial forces have used translation as a tool to misrepresent oriental colonized subjects and cultures. This point confirms the profound impact of translation on culture.
1.2 statement of the problem
This research makes use of a method based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to investigate the effects of the process of translation on representation of source texts and their authors’ ideological position. The present study takes two political works into consideration. The first book under scrutiny is William Blum’s Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War ΙΙ (2003) which is a history book on covert CIA operations and U.S. military interference during the second half of the 20th century. This controversial book is translated by Hushang Mahdavi entitled .”سرکوب امید” This research endeavors to have a microscopic analysis of Blum’s critical vantage points presented in the translated text. In fact, it tries to probe the delineation of his ideas and trace his ideological stands transmitted via language in the present translation. The second part revolves around the close analysis of Stephen Kinzer’s All the Shah’s Men: an American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (2003). Kinzer, an American journalist, discusses the 1953 Iranian coup d’état backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in which Mohammed Mossadegh, Iran’s prime minister was overthrown. This book translated by Shahryar Khavajian being given the title of .”همه مردان شاه” Setting up these political works as the established corpus of the present study, the researcher uses CDA to investigate the ideological impacts of the process of translation. With recourse to this critical translation approach, the researcher tries to find out how translation changes or modifies the ideological status of translated texts and consequently represents the source texts’ authors and cultures differently.
1.3 Theoretical Framework of the Study
This study employed Farahzad’s CDA model as its theoretical framework. According to Hodge & Kress, “the signs of syntax always ideologically inflected social meanings” (1993: 208). Selection of one linguistic element and preferring it to another option may reveal the ideological position of translators as it has already disclosed its author’s status. Hodge & Kress (1993: 15) recognize selections as ideologically loaded practices, which determine the representation of reality. Fairclough (1995) believes scholars with various backgrounds can use Critical Discourse Analysis, as an interdisciplinary tool. Therefore, Farahzad’s model of CDA (2007) which is based on Fairclough’s theoretical foundation of CDA was selected as a framework to explore the probable ideological effects of the modifications made in the translated text and reveal their impact on representation of reality. However, due to the fact that CDA encompasses numerous fields, this research only focuses on the cultural and ideological standpoints and will be given full consideration.
1.4 Research Questions
This research tries to answer the following questions in the forthcoming chapters:
1. To what extent does the translator change the ideological position of Blum’s “Killing Hope” with recourse to Farahzad’s Translation Criticism Model?
2. To what extent does the translator change the ideological position of Kinzer’s “All the Shah’s Men” with recourse to Farahzad’s Translation Criticism Model?
1.5 Research Hypotheses
As ”there always exist some elements of untranslatability which provides room for various modifications of the source text according to the structure of representation of the target language or culture” (Carbonell 1996: 81) translation may result in some ideological changes in the TTs. Whether these modifications are optional or obligatory, the changes imposed on the translated texts change the image of authors and the ideology behind their texts in the target language/ culture. In short translation is an act which may change the ideological image of the source author/ culture in favor of the ideological positioning of the target language culture.
The present study hypothesizes these points with the hope of confirmation through the process of this research. The translated texts especially political ones undergo some subtle alterations like implied ideological and cultural changes during the process of translation. Farahzad’s Translation Criticism model can be an accommodating tool for perceiving and extracting the afore-mentioned changes.
1.6 Significance of the Study
When Norman Fairclough (1995: 13) discusses the “discourse practice” dimension of his analysis framework, he states that his dimension is concerned with text production consumption and distribution and defines distribution as “how texts circulate within orders of discourse”. He mentions that the issue of distribution of texts merits more attention. This research follows this line which is depicted in Farahzad’s model of translation criticism and tries to pay attention to translation as a way of text distribution. This purpose was carried out within Farahzad’s framework of CDA. According to Bennet (cited in Duarte J.F. et al, 2006:111), translators working with academic texts need a critical distance with regard to the discourse they use. When a translator becomes familiar with critical approaches to texts, s/he, in fact, recognizes the traces of power in text production, distribution and consumption. This conscious awareness, or in Faircough’s words (1995:18) ”critical language awareness” is the milestone for “resistance” and eventually “emancipation” in this course. This means that translators are no longer the unconscious slaves of power relations. These matters can be traced in Hooshang Mahdavi’s translation of Blum’s Killing Hope (2003) and also in Khavvajian’s rendering of All the Shah’s Men (2003). Blum as a renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy probes his country’s interminable intervention in political affairs of over fifty countries worldwide. He scrutinizes and investigates these political issues to the extent that the book pages allow. He allocates each country some pages including Iran. Seemingly, the amount of emphasis put o Iran is not Satisfactory for the translator because he believes that Iran and the harm done to it deserves more mention and attention thus accordingly, accentuates the matter more. The mentioned reasons can be appointed to the translation of All the Shah’s Men, as well.
Moreover, translation studies (TS) scholars have recognized the dichotomy of linguistic and cultural approach in recent years. The linguistic approach applies descriptive studies focusing on textual forms and fails to address ideological issues. Cultural approach, for its part, targets these issues but has no methodical formal framework of analysis. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and especially Farahzad’s model thereof, can play this role for a systematic analysis because of its interdisciplinary tools and common theoretical background.
The act of translation is not a purely linguistic activity; translators must attend to political, social, and ideological backgrounds of writers to be able to render a message from source to target language. Due to the fact that translation encompasses the close links between language and culture, CDA researches carried on in Translation Studies aim at analyzing the translated texts to realize how much the ideology of writers is visible in the translated texts, and to what extent ideological standing of the translators affect the process of translation and renditions (Venuti, 1998). Considering these issues, the translator does not overlook Blum’s being an American despite his being an outspoken critic of U.S. foreign affairs. These points will be fully discussed in the forthcoming chapters.
In Blum’s work: “Killing Hope, US Military & CIA Interventions since World War II”, the term USA and all words associated with it like CIA, American, America, the States, etc. were put under scrutiny. The reason behind the mentioned words being chosen as the key term in the investigation was that the author put emphasis on USA by bringing it on the cover page. The title of Blum’s work manifests vividly that the content thereof revolves around the pivot of the US and its interventions in a multitude of countries around the globe.
The key terms opted for the second book, kinzer’s “All the Shah’s Men, an American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” were USA and the words pertinent to it as well as Britain and its related words like England, British, MI6, etc. Since, in the title of the book, Kinzer mentioned “an American Coup”, it became clear that U.S plays a pivotal role in the Coup; moreover, the content of the book vividly manifests Britain’s position toward this the Coup in Iran.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
Analyzing the representations of meaning within discourse provides insight to how language is utilized as part of methodology to achieve specific ends for reproduction and legitimations of power. However, making sense of the methods used and the patterns employed is dependent upon the not only the grammatical and semantic knowledge of each individual analyst, but also the social contexts through which the discourse and the language are shaped via outside texts and reference. In analyzing the two books, “Killing Hope” and “All the Shah’s Men” I have strived to be as objective and knowledgeable as possible. I have attempted to analyze the sociosemantic features of the mentioned books and their corresponding translations. One of the limitations of such an analysis of representations is that while I have been able to discuss what I believe to be some of the key representations within the texts; another analyst may find features or patterns that they consider to be more significant. Although the researcher has done his best to analyze the texts as objectively as possible, there may be some different vantage points in interpreting the way both the writer and the translator represented their ideas.
The reason I hose the aforementioned books was that CDA mostly was applied on political texts so I had to narrow down my options to political ones and since the USA was considered to be as the big enemy for Iran again I narrowed the works down to the ones with direct interference of the USA.
Regarding Blum’s “Killing Hope”, since the translator was part of the Iranian community and the translation was asked to be done by an Iranian governmental organization, only the parts of the book considered being in a close relationship with the Iranian government-Asian and Islamic countries-were selected.
Since the writers themselves were among the outspoken critics of the USA’s policy, it was really difficult finding strategies which tried to darken even more the face of USA.
1.8 Definition of Key Terms
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): CDA is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views ”language as a form of social practice” (Fairclough, 1998: 20) and tries ”to read the traces and effects of power in language and discourse, in text and syntax” (Hodge & Kress, 1993: 153).
Ideology: Ideology ”a systematic body of ideas, organized from a particular point of view” (Hodge& Kress, 1993: 6).
Discourse: Discourse is ”the use of language seen as a form of social practice” (Fairclough 1995: 7).
Power: Power is defined as ”asymmetries between participants in discourse events” and also ”unequal capacity to control how texts are produced, distributed and consumed in particular sociocultural contexts” (Fairclough 1995: 7).
Text: “Texts are social spaces in which two fundamental social processes simultaneously occur: cognition and representation of the world and also social interactions” (Fairclough 1995: 7).
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
Critical science in each area asks questions such as those of responsibilities, interests, and ideologies; and instead of focusing on purely academic or theoretical problems, it starts from existing social problems, and in doing so it chooses the view point of those who suffer the most, and seriously analyzes those in power, those who are responsible, and those who have the resources and the opportunity to resolve such problems (Van Dijk cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 1)
Critical science has found its way in linguistics; thus the term Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are known to those in the field. CDA regards ‘language as social practice’ (Fairclough and Wodak cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 1), and takes consideration of the context of language use to be central.
The particular interest of CDA is the relation between language and power. The term CDA is used nowadays to refer more specifically, ‘to the critical linguistic approach of scholars who find the larger discursive unit of text to be the basic unit of communication’ (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 2).
Thus, CDA may be defined as ”fundamentally concerned with analyzing unclear as well as clear structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power, and control as manifested in language” (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 2). In Wodak’s words (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 3) ”CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, signaled, constituted, legitimized and so on by language use”. Most critical discourse analysts would thus support Habermas’s claim that language is a means of domination and social force and it serves to legitimize relations of organized power to the extent that legitimations of power relations are not expressed; language is also ideological (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 5).
“CDA tries to avoid positing a simple deterministic relation between texts and society” (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 3). Taking into account the insights that discourse is structured by dominance; that every discourse is historically produced and interpreted, that is, it is situated in time and space; and that dominance structures are legitimated by ideologies of powerful groups, the complex approach advocated by proponents of CDA makes it possible to analyze pressures from above and possibilities of resistance to unequal power relationships that appear as shared principles. In this line, Fairclough and Kress (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 13) state that resistance is then seen as the breaking of conventions, of stable discursive practices, in acts of ”creativity”. According to this view, dominant structures stabilize conventions and naturalize them, that is, the effects of power and ideology in the production of meaning are obscured and acquire stable and natural forms: they are taken as given.
2.2 The History of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
The 1970s saw the appearance of a form of discourse and text analysis as recognition of the role of language in structuring power relations in society. At that time, much linguistic research elsewhere was focused on formal aspects of language which represented the linguistic competence of speakers and which could theoretically be isolated from specific instances of language use (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 5). Attention to texts, their production and interpretation and their relation to societal impulses and structures indicated a very different kind of interest in the works of some prominent scholars afterwards serves to explain and illustrate the main assumptions, principles and procedures of what had then become known as CL.
Kress 1979 (in Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 11) gave an account of the theoretical foundations and sources of critical linguistics and indicated that the term CL was quite self-consciously adapted from its social-philosophical counterpart, as a label by the group of scholars working at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s. By the 1990s, the label CDA came to be used more consistently with this particular approach to linguistic analysis.
Fairclough and Wodak in 1997 took these criteria further and established ten basic principles of a CDA program. To set out the social theories behind CDA and, as in other critical linguistic works, a variety of textual examples were analyzed to illustrate the field, its aims, and methods of analysis. Particularly the language of the mass media was examined as a site of power, of struggle and also as a site where language was apparently transparent. Fairclough explained and elaborated some advances in CDA, showing not only how the analytical framework for investigating language in relation to power and ideology developed, but also how CDA was useful in disclosing the discursive nature of much contemporary social and cultural change.
Van Dijk’s earlier work in text linguistics and discourse analysis in 1977 showed the interest he took in texts and discourse as basic units and social practices. Like other critical linguistic theorists, he traced the origin of linguistic interest in units of language larger than sentences and in text and context dependency of meanings. Van Dijk and Kintsch in their work in 1978 considered the relevance of discourse to the study of language processing. Their development of a cognitive model of discourse understanding in individuals slowly developed into cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning on a social level (Wodak & Meyer, 2001)
2.3 Ideology
According to Thompson (as cited in Wodak, 2002), the concept of ideology first appeared in late 18th century in France and was used ever since. He defines ideology as “social forms and processes within which, and by means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the social world. In CDA, ideology is seen as an important means by which unequal power relations are established and maintained”. Thompson considers the study of ideology as one of the ways in which various symbolic forms are used to construct and convey meaning. But, it should be noticed that the study of ideology, regardless of the purpose of the study, is more than just construction and conveyance of meaning. Such study should also analyze how the constructed meaning draws the desired or target result or reaction in the outside reality and how it helps maintain relations or direct social actions.
Based on what van Dijk states the theory of ideology that informs the discourse analytic approach is multidisciplinary. It is articulated within a conceptual triangle that connects society, discourse and social cognition in the framework of a critical discourse analysis. In this approach, ideologies are the basic frameworks for organizing the social cognitions shared by members of social groups, organizations or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are “both cognitive and social” (Van Dijk, 1998, p. 18). Van Dijk defines ideology as “socially shared representations of groups” and distinguishes four essential properties for ideologies. In his view, whatever ideologies are, firstly, they are belief systems which do not contain the ideological practices or social structures that are based on them. Secondly, ideologies are socially shared by the members of a collectivity of social actors and, therefore, there is no such thing as ” personal ” or ” private ” ideology. Thirdly, ideologies are fundamental or axiomatic with general and abstract nature, which organize other socially shared beliefs. Finally, ideologies are acquired gradually and changed gradually, and therefore are relatively stable. Sometimes ideologies get so widespread that they become shared by a whole community. In such case, Van Dijk believes they lose their ideological nature and become a common sense, such as the issue of human rights. Van Dijk also describes that ideologies may function variously. Most importantly, they frame the identity of groups in a society, they can organize and ground the social representations which are shared by the members of groups, they determine how discourses and other social practices are conducted in a group, they help members of a group to coordinate and harmonize their individual and joint actions and interactions in favor of the goals and interests of the group, and they function as part of the socio-cognitive interface between social structures and discourses, and thus legitimate domination, articulate resistance, set social guidelines, etc. In other words, ideologies are localized between societal structures and the structures of the minds of social members. In this regard, all variable phonological, lexical or syntactic forms, intonation, and tone in discourse production might be controlled by the underlying representations of group beliefs or ideologies. Yet, the relation between ideology and discourse is indirect and complex; even discourses might not be ideologically transparent, meaning that the producer might hide his/her ideological attitudes by using specific choices. However, when ideologies are mapped onto discourse, they typically become expressed with their own underlying structures. One of the aims of CDA is to demystify and illuminate discourse by means of deciphering ideologies. However, the main problem of most critical approaches to ideology is that they are exclusively inspired by social sciences and rather confused philosophical approaches. They ignore detailed and explicit cognitive analysis, and so they are unable to explicitly link social structures with social practices and discourses of individuals as social members.
2.4 Ideology and Power
When it comes to the theory of ideology the basic social question that comes up is that why people develop ideologies in the first place. Cognitively, ideologies may be developed because they organize social representations. According to Van Dijk (1998) at the level of groups, this means that people are better able to form groups based on identification along various dimensions, including sharing the same ideology. Since ideologies indirectly control social practices in general, and discourse in particular, the obvious further social function of ideologies is that they enable or facilitate joint actions; interaction and cooperation of in-group members, as well as interaction with out-group members. These would be the social micro-level functions of ideologies.
Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 354) states “At the macro-level of description, ideologies are most commonly described in terms of group relations, such as those of power and dominance.” Indeed, ideologies were traditionally often defined in terms of the legitimization of dominance, namely by the ruling class, or by various elite groups or categorizations.
Thus, according to Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 355) if power is defined here in terms of the control one group has over another group or the actions of the members of another group, ideologies function as the mental dimension of this form of control. That is, ideologies are the basis of dominant group members’ practices (say of discrimination). They provide the principles, by which these forms of power abuse may be justified, legitimized, condoned or accepted.
In other words, ideologies are “the beginning and end, the source and the goal of group practices, and thus gear towards the reproduction of the group and its power (or the challenge toward the power of other groups)” (Van Dijk, 1998, cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 354).
Traditionally the term dominant ideologies is used when referring to ideologies employed by dominant groups in the reproduction or legitimization of their dominance. Ideologies may thus, according to Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 358) be geared especially towards the formulation of the principles by which a group deserves advantages over other groups. For instance, opposition to immigration will often be legitimated by claiming that WE were here first and therefore WE have priority over scarce social resources such as citizenship, housing or work.
If there is one concept often pertinent to ideology it is that of power. As is the case for many very general and abstract notions in the social sciences and the humanities, there are many definitions and theories of power. Here we only speak of social power, that is, the power of a group A over another group B. this power may be defined in terms of control.
Usually this means the control of action. Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 357) believes that “A is able to control (limit, prohibit) the actions of B”. Since discourse is also a form of action, such control may also be exercised over discourse and its properties: its context, its topic, or its style. And because such discourse may also influence the mind of the recipients, powerful groups may –indirectly, for instance through the mass media- also control the minds of other people. We then speak of persuasion or manipulation. Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 359) in terms of his cognitive theory states that this means that powerful discourse may influence the way we define an event or situation in our mental models, or how we represent society in our knowledge, attitudes and ideologies. Power needs a “power base”, such as scarce social resources like force, money, real state, knowledge, information or status.
One of the important social resources of much contemporary power is the access to public discourse. According to Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 359), who controls public discourse, indirectly controls the minds (including the ideologies) of people, and therefore also their social practices. We shall often encounter this relation between social power, discourse, the mind and control. In a more critical approach to power, we are especially interested in power abuse or dominance, and how ideologies may be used to legitimate such dominance.
2.5 Translation and power
After the 1960s, as the result of the changes that had occurred in the international relations, and when the dominant ideologies were challenged in the poststructuralist and post-colonialist era, the concept of society and power were reconceptualized. Translation studies as well saw to itself an emerging interest in power in the coming decades. During this time, many translation scholars set off to explore the issues of power and translation. The new descriptive approach in Israel to literary translation in which translation goals are linked to social and political context led to foundation of The Manipulation School in 1985 by Mc-Guire, Toury, Hermans, Lefevere, and Lambert. In their view, translation was one of the primary literary tools that dominant and influential social institutions could use to “manipulate” a given society in order to build a desired culture. The contributions of the proponents of The Manipulation Thesis triggered a change in translation studies known as “the cultural turn” in the 1990s- through such turn did not only affect translation studies but many fields in the humanities. This era was accompanied by many new movements and publishing of new works in translation studies by different scholars (see Tymoczko & Gentzler, 20002, pp. xiv-xvi for some examples and details) central to which was the issue of power majorly either to control or to resist.
Tymoczko (2006) raises a very interesting discussion about the place of translation in society during wartime and peacetime. She posits that during peacetime translation is stereotyped and dismissed as secondary activity and is considered as a job that can be undertaken by any one person with a bilingual dictionary-her statement seems a bit overgeneralized though, since many discourses such as jurisprudence still value translation as an expertise that should be undertaken by professionals- while during wartime the value of translation becomes critical and a matter of national security and survival. Her discussion can easily be linked to the issue of power and translation. In fact, during wartime, regardless of the ruling regime, dominant culture, or the overall amount of translation regularly undertaken in a country, translation is seen as a power tool that can turn the tides, meaning that correct and precise translations are required so as not to fall behind. She also believes that concerns about traitor translators also contribute to such criticality.

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ارشد

پاسخ دهید