The Translation-centred Discourse−Society Interface Model

4.6.1 Action

Under the component of Action, the following aspects will be considered:

a) in terms of intentionality, the main purpose of creating the source and target texts will be analysed and it will be compared whether the two purposes are identical;

b) in connection with perspective, it will be analysed whose perspective the source and target texts reflect and it will be established which political side the texts are biased towards (if any);

c) as far as implications and consequences are concerned, it will be stated what is explicitly and implicitly stated in the texts and how such implications are to be interpreted in the given social, cultural and political context;

d) interaction could be interpreted from a hermeneutical perspective concerning written discourse but that falls outside the scope of the present CDA approach and would result, in our view, in uncertain speculations. Therefore, in the current CDA Model, interaction will be excluded.

4.6.2 Context

The component of Context involves the following aspects:

a) participants: it will be discussed who the receivers of each text are and how that is reflected in the properties of source and target texts and differences (if any) will be compared;

b) as the current research deals with written texts, the aspect of setting will be excluded from the current analyses;

c) as the texts under scrutiny are written discourse, the aspect of props will be excluded from the current analyses;

d) as the current research deals with written texts, the aspect of action will be excluded from the current analyses;

e) in terms of higher level action, the texts under scrutiny will be positioned in their political agendas and contemporary political environment;

f) with reference to local and global contexts, it will be established in what communicative contexts the source and target texts are constructed and received as well as the immediate and longer term social and political effects the texts exert will be described;

With reference to objectivity raised in point f) of Section 4.5.2.4.2, it must be noted that even if the critical stance required in CDA will be taken by the researcher, it should not be excluded that some readers may find the explanations of the findings presented in Chapter 8 subjective or, from their point of view, even biased, which may cast doubts on the reliability of the research results presented. It must, at the same time, be pointed out that this reservation can be made in connection with all CDA approaches, however, this does not prevent CDA from being a scientifically and theoretically grounded and accepted critical approach.

4.6.3 Power and ideology

Concerning the components of Power and Ideology, as power and ideology are intricate and complex systems which are exclusively understandable in their social, cultural and political contexts, it will be presented how the TDSI Model accounts for power and ideology related discoursal features and in what ways these features connect to journalists’ and translators’

jobs and professional choices of text production.

With reference to power, it will be analysed which social groups are given access to speak, what power the actual newspapers are given through publishing an argumentative political article, what power translators are given through a commission of translating such articles as well as how journalists and translators formulate, produce and enact social dominance through texts.

Journalists, as a rule, satisfy the newspapers that employ them, and usually, to varying extents, reproduce the power the actual newspaper supports, accepts or tolerates.

The job of translators is different. Through a translation assignment, translators are given power by the entity commissioning them: through their target texts, translators control social groups, the readers of translations. Being given a commission to translate holds two types of power: (1) translators create texts that go public − thus translators can have their voices heard; and (2) through target texts, translators can potentially enact power in the discourse they construct.

As regards power enacted in translated texts, translators, as the nature of their job dictates, have three options (c.f. Baker 2006, who writes about two options, here referred to as options 1 and 3): (1) they either reproduce the power relations deemed beneficial by their clients to satisfy such clients (and probably even themselves if they agree with the power enacted in the text for translation) or, (2) translators can act against their clients rejecting the power contained in the text for translation, or can even manipulate target texts in a way that

they contain different power relations than those appearing in the source texts or, alternatively, (3) translators can choose to translate other pieces of texts than the officially/originally selected ones and get them published in the media thereby creating a contesting reality for the target culture. Naturally, if translators want to satisfy their clients, which is of primary importance in this profession, they will potentially benefit from the power their clients possess and potentially share it by reproducing the power in their target texts that serves the interests of their clients. The current research will examine which of the above strategies journalists and translators employ in their jobs with reference to power.

As far as ideology and social cognition are concerned in both the source and the target texts, evaluative beliefs and opinions will be explored, the presence of which signal social and personal beliefs and consequently ideology. Our previous research (Bánhegyi 2008) and van Dijk (1993) have shown that such social and personal beliefs are traceable in the form of individual propositions containing evaluative beliefs and opinions on a discursive microlevel. Therefore, propositions containing ideology in the form of evaluative beliefs and opinions will be highlighted and interpreted.

In terms of the reproduction of ideology, on the basis of van Dijk’s research (1993, 1997, 2001) on the relationship of power and media discourse and the research of Jones and Wareing (1999), it is expected that the following discursive elements will potentially be present in the source and target language texts: argumentation, stylistic features, metaphoric expressions and formulaic language. Concerning the gist of source and target texts, the argumentation contained can reflect social opinions, which usually sound convincing without any further explanations: “It [argumentation] may be persuasive because of the social opinions that are hidden in its implicit premises and thus taken for granted by the recipients” (van Dijk 2001: 358). Such reproduction of power in newspaper articles is no way uncommon (van Dijk 2001, 2002, 2006). It will be explored how translation will cope with such social opinions reproducing ideology.

Specific use of stylistic features and metaphoric expressions surfacing as lexical choice, metaphors, parallels, etc. will be analysed and compared in the source and target texts with a view to the ideology expressed by them. Textual features of implicitness and explicitness extend to the question of what implicature is contained in the texts. Such discourse implicatures will lead readers to infer something that is not explicitly asserted by the text, and often operate over more than one phrase or sentence. Implicature is also present in the political message: due to its shortness, as argued in Section 3.6, the political message contains the ideology expressed in the given article implicitly. Moreover, implicatures are

heavily dependent on shared knowledge between the text producer, the receivers and the surrounding context of discourse. The reproduction of ideology and ideological manipulation frequently takes place by way of implicitly communicating beliefs rather than asserting them, which provides less chance for such beliefs to be ideologically or socially challenged.

It will also be explored to what extent journalist and translators use such strategies.

Formulaic language reproducing ideology will also be pointed out and in source and target texts. The realisations of formulaic language in the source and target texts will be compared. Furthermore, the present TDSI Model enables the exploration of how the US vs.

THEM distinction is realised on the level of discourse in the source and target texts and will allow for the comparison of such features.

4.6.4 Overview of the Translation-centred Discourse−Society Interface Model

Based on the above discussion of van Dijk’s Discourse−Society Interface as well as the description of the TDSI Model in Sections 4.6.1-4.6.3, Tables 4-1 below show the TDSI Model in a table format and provide a compact description of the aspects of the Model, broken down into the four components.

TDSI Model Component: Action

Aspect Description

intentionality main purpose of creating the source and target texts

perspective the perspective the source and target texts reflect and potential bias towards a political side

implications and consequences what is explicitly and implicitly stated in the source and target texts and how such implications are to be interpreted in the given social, cultural and political context

TDSI Model Component: Context

Aspect Description

participants extends to the receivers of the source and target texts and describes how that is reflected in the properties of such texts higher level action position of the source and target texts under scrutiny in their

political agendas and political environment

local and global contexts the immediate communicative context and the immediate longer term social and political effects of the source and target texts

TDSI Model Component: Power

Aspect Description

access to speak • the power the actual newspapers possess through publishing an argumentative article

• the power translators possess through a commission of translating articles and publishing the target texts

• the ways journalists and translators formulate, produce and enact social dominance through source and target texts

TDSI Model Component: Ideology

Aspect Description

social beliefs and personal beliefs present in the form of individual propositions on a discursive microlevel; surface as propositions containing evaluative beliefs and opinions in source and target texts

reproduction of ideology (and

power) • ideology (and power) expressed in the argumentation of source and target texts

• stylistic features and metaphoric expressions surfacing as lexical choice, metaphors, parallels, etc. expressing power relations and/or ideology in source and target texts

• implicitness and explicitness expressed by implicatures in the source and target texts

• formulaic language in the source and target texts

• distinction of US vs. THEM in the source and target texts realised by argumentation, rhetorical figures, lexical choice, story telling, structural emphasis on “their” negative actions and by quoting credible witnesses

Tables 4-1: The components and aspects contained in the Translation-centred Discourse–Society Interface Model