منابع پایان نامه درباره Translation، Discourse

e 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

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید