منابع پایان نامه درباره Vocabulary، Translation، evaluation

combinations of these dimensions and insists that for him this only means that he is ”personally most interested in the fascinating socio-cognitive interface of discourse analysis”. According to Van Dijk 1997(cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 97) “because of the fundamentally verbal nature of discourse, CDA also needs a solid ‘linguistic’ basis, where ‘linguistic’ is understood in a broad structural– functional sense”. In other words, CDA as a specific form and practice of discourse analysis obviously always needs to account for at least some of the detailed structures, strategies and functions of text and talk, including grammatical, pragmatic, interactional, stylistic, rhetorical, semiotic, narrative or similar forms of verbal and paraverbal organization of communicative events.
Van Dijk tries to give some guidelines and formulate a method in carrying CDA researches and put his effort to limit his tries to the domain defined by ”the theoretical discourse–cognitive–society triangle”. (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 98) Knowing the interpretations which may be caused because of labels of this sort and hence responsible for reductionist misconception’ is here meant in the broad sense of a ‘communicative event’, including conversational interaction, written text, as well as associated gestures, typographical layout, images and any other ‘semiotic’ or multimedia dimension of signification. Similarly, ‘cognition’ here involves both personal and social cognition, beliefs and goals as well as evaluations and emotions, and any other ‘mental’ or ‘memory’ structures, representations or processes involved in discourse and interaction. And finally, ‘society’ is meant to include both the local, microstructures of situated face-to-face interactions, as well as the more global, societal and political structures variously defined in terms of groups, group-relations (such as dominance and inequality), movements, institutions, organizations, social processes, political systems and more abstract properties of societies and cultures. he goes on to state that adequate discourse analysis at the same time needs detailed cognitive and social analysis, and vice versa, and that it is only the combination of these accounts that may reach descriptive and especially critical sufficiency in the study of social problems( Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 100). Van Dijk explains that CDA does not provide a clichéd approach to social analysis, but emphasizes that for each study a thorough theoretical analysis of a social issue must be made, so as to be able to select which discourse and social structures to analyze and to relate (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 100). He believes that in any practical sense there is no such thing as a complete discourse analysis: a full analysis of a short passage might take months and fill hundreds of pages. He mentions the reason for that as decades of specializations in the field have ‘discovered’ many hundreds of relevant units, levels, dimensions, moves, strategies, types of acts, devices and other structures of discourse. There may be visual, phonological, syntactic, semantic, stylistic, rhetorical, pragmatic, and interactional levels and structures. Hence in CDA a researcher must make choices, and select those structures for better analysis that are relevant for the study of a social issue (Wodak & Meyer, 2001: 98). Thus, if we want to study the ways some speakers or writers exercise power in or by their discourse, it only makes sense to study those properties that can vary as a function of social power. Thus the features which are under the control of speaker are topics for CDA and not those obligatory forms such as the form of words and many structures of sentences are grammatically obligatory and contextually invariant and hence usually not subject to speaker control, and hence irrelevant for a study of social power.
Van Dijk (1998, cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 275) suggests critical research on discourse demands to satisfy a number of prerequisites in order for its aim to be realized effectively:
– “As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be ‘better’ than other research in order to be accepted.
– It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions.
– Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary.
– Rather than to merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of social interaction and especially social structure.
– More specifically CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and dominance in society”.
2.10 Farzaneh Farahzad on CDA
Although Translation Studies has employed various methods in its investigations, it has rarely approached translation analysis through CDA. Only few scholars such as Perez (2003) and Schaffner 1999 (cited in Perez, 2003) in ”Third Ways and New Centres: Ideological Unity or Difference?’ use or mention CDA in some parts of their works.
Farahzad (2007, Bokhara, N. 62: 420-424) seems to be among the first scholars who specifically used CDA as an innovative approach in analyzing translation. She proposes a method for criticizing translation in ‘Translation Criticism’. Farahzad suggests a model for translation criticism which is based on Fairclough’s approach to CDA and intertexuality. Fairclough (1995a: 4) defines intertexuality as ‘texts are constituted from other already produced texts and from potentially diverse text types’. She chooses the terms used by Poppovic as metatext and prototext to refer to corresponding target text and source text. Prototext is ‘a text which serves as an object of intertexual continuity’ and ‘metatext is a text which has been produced using another text’. She declares these two texts are related to each other when they are placed in a translational context. Farahzad adds that prototext and metatext are related to one another through global intertexuality or what she refers to as ‘the continuity of the prototext in the intertexual chain’.
For translation criticism, Farahzad adopts a two-level procedure: micro-level and macro-level. She notes that at both levels lexical choices, metaphors, grammatical elements, and multimodal elements are checked for ideological implications. In her model, the prototext is analyzed as a means of throwing some light on certain properties of metatext. On the other hand, metatext is studied both as an independent text and a continuation of a given prototext. Here the procedure Farahzad proposes comes under the headings Micro- and Macro-level:
2.10.1 Microlevel
At microlevel, following features are scrutinized (Farahzad 2007, Bokhara, N. 62: 420-424):
1. Vocabulary
2. Grammar
3. Multimodal Elements
2.10.1.1Vocabulary
Under vocabulary the following issues are examined (Farahzad 2007, Bokhara, N. 62: 420-424):
– Are any of the words/terms used in the metatext ideologically significant?
– Do any of the words of the metatext signify any special relationship or power relation?
– What metaphors are used? What social issues they represent? (Metaphor as defined by Fairclough (1989: 119) is ”a means of representing one aspect of experience in terms of another.”)
2.10.1.2 Grammar
For examining grammar following questions are answered (Farahzad, cited in Bokhara, 2007, N. 62: 420-424):
1. What kinds of process predominate? How are they rendered into target language? Is agency unclear?
2. Are nominalizations used? How are they translated into target language?
3. Are sentences positive or negative? How are they translated?
4. What modes (declarative, interrogative or imperative) are used? How are they translated?
5. Are sentences active or passive? How are they rendered into TT?
6. What tenses are used in metatext?
Regarding the first question, it is necessary to mention that Hodge & Kress define two types of processes based upon functional grammar of Halliday. They categorize processes into ‘actionals’ and ‘relationals’. Actionals are those verbs which indicate the (physical or mental) actions like bit, go, and think (Hodge & Kress, 1993: 39). Relationals on the other hand are used to classify and attribute adjectives (Hodge & Kress, 1993: 103). Three basic models of relationals are: noun + ‘is’ + noun and noun + ‘is’ + adjective and noun + ‘have’ + noun. The first model allows the speaker to establish the relationship between categories and the second lets attributes to be linked to any entity.
In pursuing answer to the fifth question what Hodge & Kress (1993) say about passive transformation is important when they discuss passive transformation. Transformations are a set of operations on basic forms, deleting, substituting, combining, or recording syntagm or its elements and they serve two functions: economy and distortion (Hodge & Kress, 1993: 9). When they are used for distortion they serve the function of mystification, i.e. they are used to mystify the causality process by hiding the actor(s). This opens the possibility of substituting different actors by different readers, based on their choices, which are more or less dependent upon their unconscious body of knowledge, i.e. common sense and this knowledge is produced by dominant discourse in a society.
Passive form can be defined as ‘the voice used to indicate that the grammatical subject of the verb is the recipient (not the source) of the action denoted by the verb’ (Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/).
Hodge & Kress

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید