تاثیرات ایدئولوژیکی در انواع مختلف گفتمان در برخی پژوهش ها بررسی شده است. یکی از کاربردهای تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی (سی.دی.اِی) روشن نمودن تاثیرات ایدئولوژیکی در ترجمه است. پژوهش حاضر با استفاده از مدلِ اصلاح شده ی تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی ارایه شده توسط فرکلاف (1989، 1995) سعی کرده است ایدئولوژی ها و محدودیت های فرهنگی پیش روی مترجم را تحلیل نموده و به بحث بگذارد .به منظور انجام این تحلیل دو ترجمه از «ایران بین دو انقلاب» نوشته اروند ابراهامیان، در سطوح خرد و کلان تحلیل شد. بین دو ترجمه و نیز هر ترجمه با متن مبدا مقایسه و تطبیق صورت گرفت تا از این طریق تغییرات و تعدیلات صورت گرفته در فرآیندِ برگردان مقصود نویسنده، شناسایی گردد. پژوهش حاضر نشان داد که ترجمه ها در حضور ایدئولوژی های پنهان، تحت تاثیر گزینه های لغوی که به طور ایدئولوژیکی انتخاب شده و نیز تغییرات دستوری در ترجمه، قرار می گیرند.در ترجمه ها در واقع نوعی انحراف و مداخله صورت می گیرد که نتیجه مسائل ایدئولوژیکی می باشد. و نیز راهبردهای متفاوتِ اتخاذ شده در فرآیند ترجمه معمولا تصادفی نبوده و بلکه انگیزه های ایدئولوژیکی پشت آن نهان است.

List of Tables and Figures

Table of Contents

Contents                                                                                              page                                                                                                                 

Chapter One (I) Introduction to the Study                                      1-11

Chapter Two (II) Review of the Literature                                  12- 54

2-9-1. Intertextuality from critical discourse analysis perspective..36

2-11-1-2.Ideology and the translator as a writer of the target text:

Chapter Three (III) Methodology                                                  55-67

Chapter Four (IV) Results and Discussion                                            68-93

Chapter Five (IV) Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research

94-100

Abstract

The presence of ideological effects in different kinds of discourse has been investigated in some studies. One of the applications of critical discourse analysis (CDA) is to reveal the ideological effects included in translations. Following a modified model of Fairclough (1995) CDA, this study tried to analyze and discuss the ideological and cultural constraints faced by translators. For the purpose of analysis, two translated versions of “Iran Between Two Revolutions” by Ervand Abrahamian were analyzed at micro and macro level. This comparison was done between the two translations as well as the translations and the source text to detect any possible modifications during the process of rendering what the author has intended to say. The study revealed that tralations in the presence of underlying ideologies are affected by the lexical items chosen ideologically and grammatical shifts in translations and interventions which are the result of ideological issues, and the different strategies adopted in the process of translation which are often not arbitrary but rather ideologically motivated.

Chapter One

Introduction

1-1. Introduction to the study

Critical Discourse Analysis (hereafter CDA) is a method for analyzing discourse. The aim in critical (vs. non-critical) discourse analysis is to investigate how social power is abused, how dominance is asserted and inequality maintained by text and talk in social and political contexts. critical discourse analysts in their dissident research try to take explicit positions and understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality. CDA is not restricted to language or politics; it has been widely used in other disciplines such as sociolinguistics, psychology, and social sciences.Critical discourse analysis is not a school, approach or specialization as argued by some. It is rather a different method to analyzing, theorizing and using. In this regard , there are also more or less some similar critical approaches in fields such as pragmatics, conversation analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media analysis, among others. We might all think of discourse as a 21st century phenomenon. But, as a matter of fact, discourse is not developed in our age. We can trace its roots back to the Greek sophist Gorgias (485 B.C), who taught and practiced rhetoric. Moreover, discourse was the concern of classical rhetorics (Graesser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 2003). Apart from some exceptions like Gorgias, the study of texts before the 1970s mainly centered around linguistic features of sentences but the observation of factors shaping the text above sentence level was taken into account by linguistics during the 1970s and 1980s (Fairclough, 1992). Graesser (Graesser et al., 2003) believes when researchers became dissatisfied with sentence as the unit of analysis, they became concerned with discourse; and that was the rise of discourse analysis. The roots of CDA lie in classical Rhetoric, Text linguistics and sociolinguistics, as well as Applied Linguistics and Pragmatics. (Wodak, 2006)

What we know today as critical discourse analysis has its roots in critical linguistics of the 1970s (Wodak & Chilton, 2005) (see also Fowler, 1996). It was at this time that “systematic ways of analyzing the political and social import of text were proposed and developed.” (Hodge & Kress, 1979/1993; Fowler, Hodge, & Kress 1979; Fowler, 1996 all cited in Wodak & Chilton, 2005, p. xi). The coming years saw a connection between linguistics and social sciences as a big step forward in CDA. With discourse analysis area of enquiry, translation stepped into a new era in which it was considered as an interdisciplinary area of enquiry, a passage for other disciplines; that is, scholars were not limited to pure linguistic yardsticks any more. They had to take into account the relation between language and other social, political and cultural aspects.

Therefore, discourse is studied in other fields such as sociology, communication, philosophy, politics and many others disciplines and each discipline presents different definitions for the term. During the first 20 years, research was mainly conducted in English, but now the investigations are developing very fast in different fields and practiced with various languages (Wodak & Chilton, 2005).

To fulfil its aims, the research in critical discourse analysis has to meet some requirements. These are enumerated below: For CDA research to be accepted, it has to be of higher quality than other research as in the case for most of the marginal research in the field.

• The focus needs to be social issues and political problems in the first place.
• CDA research has to critically and empirically analyze the social problems.
• CDA tries to explain discourse structures in terms of social characteristics and interactions. This is mostly incarnated in social structure among other factors.
• More specifically, “CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society” (Van dijk, 2003, p. 2). In this research the researcher intends to illustrate how some factors such as ideology, power and etc. beyond the text and linguistic factors involve during the translation process.

1-2. Statement of the problem

According to Fairclough language is a form of social practice. This approach toward the study of language implys two things. First, languange is not seperable from the society rather it is part of it. Second, language is a social process. That is, in a process language is shaped and conditioned in society (Fairclough,1995). Fairclough argues that every translation is shaped by translators’ opinion and ideology to some extent. Other factors such as translation conditions and environment play a crucial role in the translation process; a role which is beyond the role played by linguistic factors. In the context of translation, CDA is an analytical tool for analyzing and identifying the extent of the original writer’s ideology in the translation as well as the effect of culture as a factor interwoven into language. Therefore, CDA is an instrument for the systematic analysis of making the ideology of the translator stand out from the translation.

Fairclough believes that different ‘social actors’ represent events in various ways, that is; each social actor has a different discourse. He argues that social actors have their own way of representing the reality (as cited in Wodak & Chilton, 2005). Lilie Chouliaraki (1998), another scholar, believes that different people have various alternatives from which they use what they prefer. Blommaert (2005) argues that human activities including conversations, texts, images or any other multimedia are seen and presented “in connection with social, cultural, and historical patterns and developments of use” (p. 2). Similarly, van Dijk maintains that there’s a strong relationship between language and social events indicating that the language we may use might vary with regard to different social events (as cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2001). In this regard, ideology and power play a major role in the way events are reflected by media.

Being aware of the other factors which have a role in the translation process and in addition to the linguistic elements paying attention to them will be useful and will help the translators and theorists during their job. CDA is the uncovering of implicit ideologies in texts. It unveils the underlying ideological prejudices and therefore the exercise of power in texts.

Despite the vast research area in this subject worldwide, few attempts have been made to analyze how texts are manipulated by Iranian translators and there is a big gap to be filled in this area. It is not clear to what extent translators project their own ideology to shape the translation. Despite the need for research in this area, few researches have been conducted on the role of ideology in translation both at micro and macro level.                                                                                               This research enterprised attempts to critically analyze the relationship between language, ideology, and society.