Persian Renderings of English Conceptual Discourse Patterns: A Case Study of Animal Farm

Esmail Faghih, Roya Moghiti

Abstract


Discourse includes both structural and conceptual patterns.  Most of these patterns are different in various languages.  A conceptual pattern in source language can be realized in different ways in target language.  Therefore, the translator should be aware of differences between SL and TL conceptual patterns because rendering these patterns from the source text into the target one can be problematic.  The present descriptive study aimed to investigate the conceptual discourse patterns and related ideologies in George Orwell’s Animal Farm and its Persian translations.  Accordingly, the researchers selected and analyzed the samples based on Fairclough’s (2001) approach to CDA.  Based on the findings, Gheybi (2010) has been more successful in rendering the conceptual discourse patterns and ideologies, because her translation was much more similar to the source text in terms of conceptual discourse patterns as compared to the translation by Hoseyni and Nabizadeh (2003).  The findings indicated that the translators’ ideological and socio-cultural norms affect their translation strategies and lexical and grammatical choices and this in turn influences their success to recognize and transmit the ST implicit ideologies into TT.

 


Keywords


Conceptual Discourse Patterns, Renderings

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aidinlou, N. A., Dehghan, H. N., & Khorsand, M. (2014). Ideology, Change & Power in Literature and Society: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Literary Translations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(6), 260-271.

Bahaa-eddin, M. M. (2014). CDA and PDA Made Simple: Language, Ideology and Power in Politics and Media. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bublitz, W. & Lenk, V. (1997). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Selected Papers from The International Workshop On Coherence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Crespo-Fernández, E. (2014). Euphemism and Political Discourse in the British Regional Press. Brno Studies in English, 40 (1): 5-26.

Dooley, R. A. (2008). Relevance Theory and Discourse Analysis: Complementary Approaches for Translator Training. Dallas, Texas: Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved From www.Gial.Edu/Gialens/Issues.Htm.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London, UK: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992), Discourse and Social Change. UK: Polity press in Association with Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and Text: linguistics and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2): 193-217.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power (Second Edition). London: Longman

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London & New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. (1991). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gheybi, M. (2011). Mazraʼiyi hiyvānāt [Animal Farm]. Tehran: Rahnama Publication.

Hoseyni, S. & Nabizadeh, M. (2003/1383). Mæzræ-E-Hyvanat [Animal Farm]. Tehran: Entesharate Doostan.

Lafta, K. A. (2015). The translation of idioms in George Orwell's “Animal Farm” into Arabic (Doctoral dissertation). University of Malaya, Malaysia.

Li, Q. I. A. O. (2013). Co-existing Relationship of Power and Language: Critical Discourse Analysis of Squealer in Animal Farm from Perspective of Power Discourse. Foreign Language and Literature, 4, 007.

Orwell, G. (1945). Animal Farm. England: Martin Secker & Warburge.

Orwell, G. (1946). Why I Write. London: Gangrel. GB.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Third Edition). UK: Longman.

Schäffner, C. (2003), ‘Third Ways and New Centers: Ideological Unity or Difference,’ In M. Calzada-Pérez (Ed.) Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology – Ideologies in Translation Studies (pp. 23-41). Manchester: St. Jerome.

Schaffner, C. (2004). Political Discourse Analysis from the Point of View of Translation Studies. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1): 117-150.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.

Discourse & Society, 4(2): 249-283.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.

Wales, K. (2014). A dictionary of stylistics. London: Routledge.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.5n.3p.55

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.