JoLIE 4/2011

INVESTIGATING THE POSSIBILITY OF IDEOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND DISCOURSE SHIFTS IN TRANSLATION: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Nasser Rashidi
Shiraz University, Iran

Elham Karimi Fam

Shiraz University, Iran

Abstract The presence of ideological effects in different kinds of discourse has been investigated in some studies. Critical discourse approach has proved to be the best approach for implementing this kind of analysis. One of the applications of CDA is to reveal the ideological effects included in translations. Following a modified model of van Dijks CDA, this study aims at comparing and contrasting two Persian translations of an English literary novel, George Orwells 1984. This comparison is done between the two translations as well as the translations and the source text to detect any possible kind of modifications during the process of rendering what the author has intended to say. The findings revealed and supported the presence of some sort of deviations and interventions which are the result of ideological issues. Key words: Ideology; CDA; Translation; Comparison; van Dijk.

1 Introduction The domain of discourse analysis consists of the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used. It was the focus of interest in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Discourse analysis is not only concerned with the description and analysis of spoken interaction, but also with printed materials such as articles, letters, stories, instructions, and so on. The specialists in this field are interested in levels beyond the linguistic forms. Among the different types of discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of research that primarily studies the way that social power and dominance can be recreated by text and talk within the social and political contexts. In other words, it focuses on the relations between language, power and ideology. Actually, CDA can be defined as an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views language as a form of social practice (Fairclough

112

Nasser RASHIDI and Elham KARIMI FAM

1989:20). That means language is both socially constitutive as well as socially shaped (Fairclough & Wodak 1997:258). It is needless to mention that, the belief originates from the school of socioconstructivism. On the one hand, language is constructed not in isolation but within the social context and on the other hand, language users think differently about the entities in the world, based on their ideologies. Therefore, there exist powerful relationships between language, thought and ideology. Supporting this relation of language and ideology, Fairclough notes that language connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power (1989:15). With regard to the fact that the ideological bases are different not only across various languages and cultures, but also across different users of the same language and culture, it is quite evident that there is a need for clarifying the sources of these deviations. Therefore, CDA tries to uncover the hidden aspects of discourse, which play a crucial role in shaping peoples ideologies as well as changing social realities. This is, for sure, a supra-linguistic method beyond the grammatical structure as it deals with the implications. The CDA approach includes a vast body of fields such as political sciences, social sciences and education. Among the sub-disciplines of CDA, critical linguistics aims to consider the linguistic choices a text producer makes which show a particular ideological stance towards a topic. The application of CDA in translation has enjoyed the scholars interests for decades. Translational studies today are said to be at another turn, i.e. ideological. This is obviously a turn which signifies the growth of trends considering ideological issues within the field. The act of translation is not purely linguistic, because it must consider social and ideological backgrounds of the writer in order to be able to convey a message from the source text to its target equivalent. The aspect of ideology in translation can be investigated through analyzing deficiencies and redundancies of the translated texts so as to see whether they are the results of the translators ideological point of view or not. The critical examination of the ideological manipulations in the contents of the source texts as well as the ideological orientations manifested in translation can show the intentional or unintentional strategies chosen by translators to manipulate the exact message and this will obviously influence the interpretation of the source text. As a matter of fact, the concern in the present study is to show a possible existence of such ideological manipulations and their effects on what the original text had tried to convey. 1.1 Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework used for the categorization and clarification of the obtained data is van Dijks (2004) schema which suggests the relationship between ideology, society, cognition and discourse. He believes that social attitudes can represent an array of ideologies which create ones own personal ideology that

Investigating the possibility of the ideological effects and discourse shifts in translation

113

conforms to ones identity, goals, social position, values and resources. This model consists of the following parts1:
- Actor description: How ideologies determine the way actors are described in the discourse; - Authority: How ideologies determine the way different authorities are cited; - Burden: How different argumentations are presented against a topic; - Categorization: How ideologies determine the way world and human beings are categorized; - Comparison: How ideologies affect the way two things are compared, either positively or negatively; - Consensus: A political strategy applied by a country when it is threatened in some ways; - Counterfactuals: To indicate something in contrast with the current facts; - Disclaimers: How ideologies try to mention out positive characteristics and to focus on negative attributes of a group; - Euphemism: How negative opinions are alleviated through using positive expressions; - Evidentiality: How to provide sufficient evidences and documents for ones claim or point of view; - Example/Illustration: How to give concrete examples to make a claim powerful, reasonable and reliable; - Generalization: How negative characteristics are generalized to the whole group as the results of ideological stance; - Hyperbole: How to exaggerate attributes and characteristics, either positively or negatively; - Implication: How pragmatic and contextual features are presented implicitly within a text/discourse; - Irony: How some issues are stated indirectly, issues such as criticisms and attacks; - Lexicalization: How negative expressions are used deliberately for underestimating something/someone; - Metaphor: How ideologies persuade using different terms, either with positive or negative connotation, to refer to a topic or a person; - National Self-Glorification: How the countrys history, traditions, principles and laws are glorified through the intentional use of language; - Negative Other Representation: How to categorize people as out-groups and ingroups. It is complimentary to positive self-representation; - Norm Expression: How to express norms that is what should and what shouldnt be done; - Number Game: How to use numbers and statistics to increase the credibility, reputation and status of what is claimed; - Polarization, Us-Them Categorization: How polarized cognitions are defined based on in-group vs. out-group or us vs. them categorization; - Positive Self-Representation: How to categorise people as out-groups and ingroups. Its complementary to negative other representation; - Presupposition: How discourse meanings are inferable from previous sociocultural knowledge;
1

For more details see Rahimi & Sahragard 2006.

114

Nasser RASHIDI and Elham KARIMI FAM

- Vagueness: How unclear expressions are used in order not to give enough information or not to say the exact meaning; - Victimization: How ideologies determine the way in which bad characteristics of the out-group are emphasized.

1.2 Significance of the Study Communicating information is not the mere responsibility of the language. Rather, there are more important issues to be done by means of any language, such as establishing and maintaining social identities. In other words, it can provide a detailed theoretical account of the operation of ideology in all aspects of language use. One such aspect is the ideological uses of language in translation. Recently, the issue of ideological presence of translator in translations and the effect of ideological translations on the target readership has been discussed a lot. Although such influences, revealed through discourse shifts, are sometimes clear and distinguishable, the whole area requires more and more systematic studies since the issue is not always clear-cut. CDA can be used as a powerful device for deconstructing the text to come up with the intended ideologies. This methodological approach has proved to be helpful in socio-cultural studies. Also investigating how attitudes and identities can cause socio-linguistic variations in different texts and discourse is of great importance. With regard to the fact that translation represents the relationship between language and culture, CDA tries to analyze the translated texts accurately to see how much of the original writers ideology is visible in the translation and to what extent cultural values affect this process. Therefore, by the help of CDA, it is possible to have a systematic way of analysing translations of a source text to unpack the ideologies behind it. A few numbers of researches have focused on the effects of ideology in translation, especially in literary genre such as novels. This area should receive much attention since the investigations of how the translators ideological stance results in mediation and manipulation of the source text can help the best interpretation of a text as well as its translations. This is quite implausible without doing a critical discourse analysis of the translation. Since the majority of the scholars agree upon the tendency of translations to deviate from their original texts, it is of great importance to recognize and deal with the possible underlying reasons. This study tries to show how different orientations in various Persian translations of the same English text can contribute to the interpretation of that text. In fact, it aims at throwing light into dark sources of manipulation in Persian translations and reveal how these manipulations can be the indicator of the translators ideologies. In addition, the investigation of ideological orientations in literary translations can have implications for both teaching methodologies and translational studies. In fact, the ultimate goal of this research is to show that the ideological bases are different from English to Persian and this should be taken for granted in educational systems since in teaching materials of any kind, both the

Investigating the possibility of the ideological effects and discourse shifts in translation

115

instructor and the learners must be aware of these bases in order to avoid any sort of interference. 1.3 Background of research For years, the translators autonomy has always been questioned since translations were considered as derivatives or, rather exact copies of the source text and all the translator had to do was to replace linguistic codes from one language into another. However, recently, under the influence of post-structuralism and functionalism, the focus of attention has shifted to the issue of translators agency and subjectivity. As a matter of fact, the authors superiority over the translator has not been considered anymore. Old linguistics-based approaches towards translation, whose main focus was on describing textual forms, ignored the ideological aspects. This kind of deficiency resulted in developing a new trend of research called Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). According to CDA advocates, all language use, including translation, is ideological. This area has enjoyed lots of attention and interest over this century. Within the domain of CDA, there exist various models and definitions of ideology, among which van Dijks definition as basic systems of shared social representations that may control more specific group beliefs seems to be outstanding (van Dijk 1996:7). The ideology of translation can deal with both process and product of translation. According to Tymoczko (2003), the ideology of translation resides not simply in the text translated, but in the voicing and stance of the translator, and in its relevance to the receiving audience (pp. 182183). With regard to this issue, Schffner (2003) tried to examine the ideological aspects within the text itself by focusing on both lexical and grammatical level. She concluded that ideology can be extracted from a text by analysing textual features. The effective role of ideology in defining the translators intended purpose is absolutely evident. Based on what Nord (2003) claimed, almost any decision in translation is, consciously or unconsciously, guided by ideological criteria (p. 111). Many different studies have been conducted regarding particular instances of translation. As an example, Dany Badran (2001) aimed at exploring the relationships between modality and ideology in two different translations of the same political text, one in Arabic and the other in English. He concluded that although both translations seem to present a similar stance to that of the original text, the way in which the central issues were tackled revealed some sort of differences. For instance, the Arabic text was much more cautious considering the extent of damage that could occur if adopting the more aggressive method of translation. In addition to the large amount of articles published in the area of CDA, particularly regarding ideological issues, there also exist many different academic dissertations focusing on the same area. Two are selected among the most recent

116

Nasser RASHIDI and Elham KARIMI FAM

ones, available at Shiraz University. Davatgarzadeh (2007) performed a study to investigate the representation of social actors in EFL version of Interchange Third Edition textbooks. Employing van Leeuwens (1996) framework and Hallidays (2004) transitivity model, she proved that female social actors were more prominent, expressive and assertive in comparison to male social actors. The result of her thesis may help the analysis of the two translators discourse in the present study in that it discriminates between male and female discourse. Another thesis conducted by Samaie (2006) tried to apply the CDA approach to examine types of distortion, with ideological nature, in the discourse of Gardners model, extended to a socio-educational model of second language learning. He wanted to find those parts of this model which had become distorted syntactically, semantically, phonologically, pragmatically, etc. The findings of his research revealed a high portion of critical and ideological deformations in the model. The term ideology has been always accompanied by its political connotation. As the dictionary definition suggests, it is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy (The New Oxford Dictionary of English). The ideological considerations of translation seem to be much more evident in literary-political texts since on the one hand, they reveal the ideological stance of the translator and on the other hand, they indicate how translational strategies applied by the translator can help keeping the literary beauty of the original text. Therefore, this study has chosen a novel containing a political orientation which can serve the above-mentioned purpose. The present study tries to look at how critical discourse analysis might be beneficial in the investigation of ideological and discursive issues in translation and also to illustrate how ideologies lead to significant and maybe effective mediation in translated texts. Since texts not only reflect ideological and political stances, but also produce ideological effects, this study aims at indicating the way that reality expressed in the source text is transformed when translated to its target text. The following questions are to be answered in this research: 1) Are particular words or expressions used to represent ideologies in translation of a literary work? 2) If yes, what syntactic and semantic categories are used to reflect these ideological backgrounds? 3) What ideological assumptions can account for the differences between two translations of a literary text?

2 Method This study applied a contrastive analysis approach, since it dealt with contrasting a source text and two of its target translations. Moreover, the two translations were compared with each other as well. The study tried to consider factors which may

Investigating the possibility of the ideological effects and discourse shifts in translation

117

affect the translators decision to make choices in a particular way. It was an explanatory case study and qualitative. 2.1 Material Three texts were used in the process of this research. The main corpus was the original text of George Orwells novel, 1984. The other texts included two translations of this novel, one rendered by Saleh Hosseini and the other by Zhila Sazgar. 2.2 Data collection The English novel was read along with its Persian translations. In problematic cases of shifts, the data were extracted, both at two levels of micro (below sentence level) and macro (beyond sentence level), and were written in tables to examine the effect of contextual, cultural and ideological variations on text variations. It is necessary to mention that the data were chosen randomly from among a large number of examples gathered during the investigation. 2.3 Data analysis The obtained findings from the precise comparison and contrast were then reviewed looking for any possible ideological mediation and manipulation. They were also explained and interpreted based on the theoretical framework used in the study. This comparison had nothing to do with making judgments about the two translations, but only tried to suggest the possibility of discourse shifts.

3 Results and discussion In the discussion section, we tried to sum up the findings of the study as well as comparing them with van Dijks model. The results of the analysis, represented in Table 1 below, suggested that both of the translations had some degree of deviation from the original text. These changes, or rather say manipulations, were more obvious in Saleh Hosseinis translation. Based on the fact that discourse reveals the attitudes of language users in different texts, the two translations involved in this study can be claimed to contain discursive changes, which are of different types. Some of them tend to be strategic, referring to special translational strategies used by the translator to embellish the rendered text. But among the above-mentioned changes, some appear to be personal and ideological indicators of the translators point of view. (see Table 1)

118

Nasser RASHIDI and Elham KARIMI FAM

Original Text

Translation One (Saleh Hosseini) Geribaan collar Ghul aasaa huge Hatta ruz-e nemikard. 1

Translation Two (Zhila Sazgar) Sine breast Ghul aasaa huge Hataa vaghti ke vaghtash bud kaar nemikard. Even when that time its was work didnt. Chenaan haalo ghodrati daasht Such mood and power it had Baraadar-e arshad Brother older Khoshki zade bud Dryness became was Gardesh-e baad Turning wind Zaraate khaak va paare haye kaaghaz raa be baazi gerefte bud. Ingredients of soil and pieces of paper played Dookhteh shodeh bud. Sew become was Be verraaj-ye khod edameh midaad. With talkativeness of himself continued. Dar ma?araz-e tamaashaa va taftish-e televizyoni gharaar daarand. Exposed to watching and inspection of television they are. Hichkas nemidaanest. Nobody knew. That-e moraaghebat ?ast. Under care is

Breast Enormous

2 ruzash kaar 3

Even at the best of times, it was seldom working.

(Pictures which are) so Contrived Big Brother (His skin) roughened Eddies of wind

Even day day its work didnt. Negaar gary-e maaheraneh 4 Painting professional Naazer-e kabir 5 Controler great Zebr shode bud 6 Rough it became Baafehaa-ye baad 7 Sheaves of wind Ghobaar va kaaghaz paare raa be surat-e gerdbaadi raghsaan dar mi aavardand.8 Dust and paper torn in form of tornado dancing became Khireh minegarist. 9 Dazzled watched Shero ver mibaft. Absurd knitted 10

Whirling dust & torn paper into spirals

Looked deep into

Babbling away

Being watched

Paayeedeh mishavi. Watched become you.

11

(How often the thought police plugged in on any individual wire) was a guess work. (Every sound) was overheard. Sordid colonies

Baa keraamolkaatebin bud. 12 Nobody knew . Shenideh mishod . 13 Heard became Mojtameh tu sari khordeh ?i 14 Apartments loser

Investigating the possibility of the ideological effects and discourse shifts in translation

119

They dwarf the surrounding architecture. The apparatus government Penetrating through Advisable Rubber club With the next he was more successful. It was a beautiful book. peculiarly of

Tu-ye sar-e banaahaa zade bud 15 Into head apartments hit it. Dam-o- dastgaah 16 system Gozashtan 17 Passing Laazem 18 Necessary Gaav sar 19 Cow head Chandaan dardesar nadaasht 20 So much trouble didnt have. Gira?i-ye vizheh?i daasht.21 Attractiveness special had Dar jaanash davideh bud. 22 In spirit his ran Tamalok-e ?aan ?ange sazeshkaaraaneh daasht. 23 Possession it agreement had. ?atigheh Antique Parseh zad Prowl Taahod Responsibility Shegeftaa Surprisingly Hadise nafs Talk self Pestaan haa breasts Foru raft Sank hallmark 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Banaahaa-ye ?atraafeh khod raa kuchak karde budand. Apartments around themselves small did they. Nahaadhaa-ye hokumat Institutions government Obur mikard passed Laazem Necessary Chomagh stick Dardesar-e khordan-e mashrub raa nadasht. Trouble drinking wine didnt have. Az zibaa?i-ye khaassi barkhordaar bud. From beauty special had. Dar khod ?ehsaas karde bud. In himself felt. kharide ?aan mitavaanest raftaari soo?e zan bar ?angiz baashad. Buying it could behavior suspicious to be Besyaar ghadimi va faraamush shodeh. So much old and forgotton. Be parvaaz dar ?aamad. To flying out coming Dasto paa zadan haa Hand and foot hit ?ajib bud. Strange was. Harf talk Sineh breast Ghargh shod. Sank Peykar-e ?oo raa suraakh konad va dar ?aan panaah begirad. Body his hole make and in it refuge take

He had been stricken immediately by an over whelming desire to possess it. It was a compromising possession.

Archaic His mind hovered for a moment. Predicament It was curious Monologue Breasts Sank

Burrow into her

Yaaftan-e panaahgaah dar darun. 31 To find shelter in inside

120

Nasser RASHIDI and Elham KARIMI FAM

The parole part Nobody cares what the paroles say. Nebulous Bold-looking Shapeliness Manner (OBrians political orthodoxy) was not perfect. Speech

Jaaygaahe ranjbaraan Place of laboring

32

Kak-e kasi ham nemigazad 33 ????? ?abr ?aalud cloudy Jasur bold Taraash Scratch ?atvaar Coquettishness Yek paayash milangid One foot his clopped Jigh Scream 34 35 36 37 38 39

Jaaygaahe kaargaraan Place of workers Kasi be harf-e kaargar ?e?tenaa?i nadarad. Anybody to words of worker attention dont have. Mobham-o- birang. Unclear and colorless Gostaakh Arrogant ?enhenaa Bent Raftaar-o- harakaatash Behaviors and movements Monazzah-e motlagh nist. Clean absolute isnt. Sokhanraani Speech bozorgtarin doshman-e paakizegi va ta?aal-ye hezb bud. The biggest enemy of cleanness and elevation of party was. Sampaashi va mokhaalefat Spraying and disagreement Vojudash raa dar khod gereft. Existence his in itself caught. Dar ham shekasteh In each other broken Gheyr-e herfe?i Amateur Booyash badtar bud. Smell its worse was Khar kaarhaa-ye por ?isaaro- fadaakaar. Donkey works full sacrificing and devoted. Ghorreshi boland Roar loud Vahshi haa?i kuchak va mahaar nashodani. Savages small and uncontrollable. Naa padid shodeh baashand.

(The earliest) defiler of the partys purity

Loas konande-ye hezb. Hating party

40

Venomous attack

Sampaash-ye kazaa?i Spraying not real

41

Flowed through him.

Dar ?oo seylaan peydaa kard 42 In it flood found Lehideh 43 Crushed Bi mozd-o- mennat 44 Without reward and grace Boo-ye naa midaad. 45 Smell wet gave

Crushed-looking Amateur Smelt worse. Unquestioning drudges Huge voice Little savages devoted

Halghe be gush sommon bokm. Rings to ear silent Sedaa-ye nakareh Sound boom

haa-ye 46 47

Jujeh vahshi haa-ye tokhs 48 Chickens savage naughty Dakhleshaan ?aamade

Have been swallowed up

Investigating the possibility of the ideological effects and discourse shifts in translation

121

Thin

She had died loving him.

Movement Take your time by me Whimpering Grief If the party could thrust its hand into the past

Who controls the past How could you establish the most obvious fact? Heard

baashad. 49 finished Riz naghsh 50 Small figure Ghargheh dar dust dashtane ?oo ruy dar neghaabe khaak keshide bud. 51 Sank in loving him face in mask of soil painted. Kereshmeh 52 Coquetry Yaa ?allaah 53 ???? Zanjemureh 54 Crying hard Ghami jaankaah 55 Sadness deep Dar chanbar-e gozashteh dast foru konad. 56 In the past hand put Har kas gozashte raa zir-e negin daashteh baashad. 57 Anybody who past under jewel has Be korsi beneshaani 58 To seat put Be gushash khordeh bud. 59 To ear his hit was.

Disappeared became them Laghar ?andaam Thin body Zamaani mord ke baa tamaam-e vojud aasheghe ?oo bud. When died that with all being lover him was. Harkat Movement Baa man shoru konid. With me start Geryeh Crying Anduh Sadness Be gozashte dast bebarad. To past hand take ?aan kas ke gozashte raa dar dast darad. That person who past in hand has Sokhan goft. talked Shenideh ?ast. heard

Hame chiz dar mehe ghalizi Hame chiz dar ?ebhaam ?az ?ebhaam bud. 60 zowb shode bud. Everythin in fog thick from Everything in ambiguity ambiguity was. melt become was. Mochat raa gir byandaazad. To raa low bedahad (A single flicker of the 61 You betrayed eyes) could give you away. Wrist your caught Baa che mashaghghat haa?i Baa che mashaghghat haa?i 62 sar kardand. What they have to put up dast be geribaanand. with With such difficulties hand to collar are they With such difficulties spent. Table 1. Deviations from the Source Text Everything mist melted into

The first translation by Saleh Hosseini shows much more intention towards transforming the social patterns of the source text, as represented in Table 2, while the second translation by Zhila Sazgar mostly tends to remain loyal to the original discourse. The obvious issue, visible in both translations, is that social norms and values are the determining factors in representing the ideas. Therefore, it is

122

Nasser RASHIDI and Elham KARIMI FAM

worthwhile investigating the indications of ideologies by noticing the translators backgrounds.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Euphemism Hyperbole Metaphor Hyperbole Irony Underestimation Lexicalization Metaphor Underestimation Hyperbole-Metaphor Hyperbole Norm Expression Underestimation Metaphor Metaphor Disclaimers Underestimation Hyperbole Hyperbole Underestimation 21 22 Metaphor 23 Hyperbole 24 25 Metaphor 26 Positive Attitude 27 Hyperbole 28 Lexicalization 29 Underestimation 30 Hyperbole 31 (2nd trans.) Simile 32 Hyperbole 33 Norm Expression 34 Simile 35 Positive Attitude 36 Hyperbole 37 Hyperbole 38 Norm Expression 39 Hyperbole 40 Norm Expression Table 2. van Dijks model 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58 59 60 62 Hyperbole Metaphor Underestimation Underestimation Hyperbole underestimation Underestimation Hyperbole Norm Expression Hyperbole Norm Expression Hyperbole Lexicalization Hyperbole Hyperbole Simile-Metaphor Norm Expression Metaphor Simile Metaphor

Actually in this study, no effort was made to judge the positive or negative points of the two translations. The only purpose followed in the analysis was to show the possibility of discourse shifts in translation.

4 Conclusions
This study could suggest that translators play a considerable and significant role in the process of translation. Various translations of a source text reflect some sort of deviation which can be socially or culturally ideological. The best approach to detect and explain these deviations is CDA since it can develop systematic research investigating strategies that result in intervention of translators. As a matter of fact, much more attention should be paid to this aspect of translation as it deals with socio-linguistic patterns of the discourse and will of course influence the readership.

4.1 Implications of the study

Investigating the possibility of the ideological effects and discourse shifts in translation proved to be an important issue; not only within translational research,

Investigating the possibility of the ideological effects and discourse shifts in translation

123

but also in language teaching. Translators, researchers and teachers should not ignore these effects since they influence the process in which language flows from one discourse to another. This is still much more noticeable in designing instructional materials which are translated from other languages. Any discourse, carries with itself some cultural and ideological elements that need to be taken into consideration for better didactic results. Studying and contrasting instructional materials which are translated into different world languages can be a suitable topic for further research.

References Badran, D. (2001). Modality and ideology in translated political texts. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 16, 47-61. Davatgarzadeh, G. (2007). The representation of social actors in interchange third edition series: A critical discourse analysis with respect to the socio-semantic features. (Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Shiraz). Fairclough, N. (1989). Language & power. Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Volume 2, (pp. 258-84). London: Sage. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition, revised by C.M.I.M. Matthiessen). London: Arnold. van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard, & M. Coulthard, (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 3270). London: Routledge. Nord, C. (2003). Function and loyalty in Bible translation. In M. Calzada-Prez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology (pp.89-112). Manchester: St. Jerome. Rahimi, A., & Sahragard, R. (2006). Critical Discourse Analysis (1st Ed.). Tehran: Jungle Publication. Roman, D. (2002). Post-structuralism. In V. Taylor & C. Winquist (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Postmodernism (pp. 308-10). London: Routledge. Samaie, M. (2006). A critical discourse analysis of Gardners theory of attitudes and motivation. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Shiraz). Schffner, C. (2003). Third ways and new centers: Ideological unity or difference? In M. Calzada-Prez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology (pp. 23-42). Manchester: St. Jerome.

124

Nasser RASHIDI and Elham KARIMI FAM

Toury, G. (2000). The nature and role of norms in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 198-211). London: Routledge. Tymoczko, M. (2003). Ideology and the position of the translator: In what sense is a translator in between? In M. Calzada-Prez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology (pp. 181-202). Manchester: St. Jerome. van Dijk, T.A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schffner & A. Wenden (Eds.), Language & Peace (pp.17-33). Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing. van Dijk, T.A. (1996). Discourse, opinions and ideologies. In C. Schffner & H. KellyHolmes (Eds.), Discourse and ideologies (pp. 7-37). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. van Dijk, T.A. (2004). Politics, ideology & discourse. Retrieved December 24, 2005, from http://www. Discourse. Org/download/articles. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about. A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp.1-13). London: Sage Publications.