to him/her as the creator of a text. Schäffner (2003) argues that functionalist approach is another terminology for the study of scholars who support the idea that the aim of the TT is the main criterion in any translation. Functionalism approach to translation is a key shift from linguistic equivalence to functional appropriateness. Translation in functional approaches is viewed as a communicative act. That is translation is an intercultural communication process in which the end product is a text capable of functioning in specific situations and context of use. Afterwards, the codes of translational (translatorial) action theory set up the foundation of Vermeer’s Skopos theory.
Skopos is a technical term for the aim or purpose of a translation. In the Skopos theory it is believed that any action is done for a specific purpose. In this view translation is viewed not as a process of transcoding (the position usually adopted by earlier non-functionalist approaches), but as a form of human action which has its own purpose basically decided on by the translator (Schäffner, 2003). Vermeer (2000) explains that the skopos of a translation is the goal or purpose, defined by the commission and if it is necessary is adjusted by the translator. He defines commission as the instruction, given by oneself or by someone else, to carry out a given action which could be translation. A text in skopos theorist approach is regarded as an offer of information from its producer to a recipient.
Therefore, translation provides secondary information about some information which is originally provided in the first language within the first culture (Schäffner, 2003). Reasonably, the translator who is considered an expert in translation needs to interpret ST information by selecting those features which most closely correspond to the requirements of the target situation. From this point of view, the translation process is not (necessarily) determined by the source text, its effects on its addressees, or the intention of its author, but prospectively by the skopos of the target text as determined by the target recipient’s requirements which is decided on by the translator himself/ herself). According to the skopos of the translation, the translation is the production of a functionally appropriate target text which is based on an existing ST in which the relationship between the two texts is determined based on the objective specified by the initiator (Schäffner, 2003). Skopos theory focuses on the purpose of translation which is considered to be the most decisive factor in translating from a language to another. In this theory, the translator is given a key role as an expert and the ST is no longer regarded as the sacred original text from which the purpose of translation is determined. The ST just offers information and role played by it is determined by the translator (Schäffner, 2003). Schäffner (2003) in her definition of skopos theory explains that the translator provides information on some aspects of the ST which is determined by the initiator who is the customer here… Vermeer, on the other hand, argues that being aware to the requirements of the skopos of a translation, broadens the scopes of a translation and increases the range of strategies which could be applied to translating a text. Therefore, here the translator plays the role of a target-text author who is almost free from the limitations and restrictions imposed by loyalty to the ST (Schäffner, 2003).
2.12.Fairclough’s model for analyzing discourse critically
The theoretical framework used for the categorization and clarification of the obtained data is Fairclough (1989, 1995) schema. This is the basis for Fairclough’s key questions for text analysis. In simple terms one has systematically to examine:
1. Lexical choices a. lexical choices those are ideologically significant
For example, the word حجاب which was translated as veil, is recently translated as hijab. This word when used in the English metatext, bears a heavy ideological implications in the context of west. Therefore, for translating it matters beyond the literal meaning of the word must come into focus.
b. words or phrases signifying social relationships and power relations For example in the Persian language extremely polite forms of address is used even in everyday speech. These forms are often translated plain ordinary English which sounds flat. This way, the translator creates different power relations in the English metatext from the power relations dominant in the Persian prototext.
2. Grammatical choices According to Fairclough (1995, p. 130) the methods for occurring the grammatical shape the code happenings or relationships in the world, the people or animals or things involved in those happenings or relationships, and their special and temporal conditions, manner of occurrence and so on (Fairclough, 1995)
a. types of process and participant predominating the text
Translators as text producers usually have a choice between different grammatical processes and participant types and the selection that is made can be ideologically loaded. One major issue here is the problem of agency.
For example: the English sentence “power corrupts people,” can be translated into Persian as two (or more) sentences:
الف. قدرت آدم را تباه می کند.
Back-translated as: Power corrupts people.
ب. کسی که صاحب قدرت شود رو به تباهی می رود.
Back-translated as: The person who gains power becomes corrupt. In the first translation, the agent is “power”, as in the ST, whereas in the second translation, agency is assigned to “the person who gains power”. Such a shift of agency is optional in this case and thus bears the ideologically significant implication that corruption is not a property of power, but of people. Grammatical choices which highlight or background agency and are consistently used in the text normally reveal an ideological positioning.
b. nominalization used instead of verbs
A process may appear in the form of nominalization which is a reduced form as no tense, no agent, and is therefore less forceful that sentence. For example: the English sentence “they were excluded from the society”, can be translated into the two below forms:
الف. آنها را از جامعه بیرون رانده بودند.
Back-translated as: they were excluded from the society.
ب. بیرون شدن آنها از جامعه…
Back-translated as: their exclusion from the society…
Nominalization, as in the second translation, is an optional shift. Consistent use of nominalized forms instead of verbs in a metatext leaves agents unclear, renders the actions less forceful and bears ideological implications.
The passive voice is normally used when the action is prominent, not “the agent”. According to Fairclough (1995, p. 130), passive sentences leave causality and agency unclear. For example, the English sentence “He ordered many books and built many libraries.” Can be translated as:
الف. او کتابهای زیادی سفارش داد و کتابخانه های زیادی ساخت.
Back-translated as: He ordered many books and built many libraries.
ب. کتابهای زیادی سفارش داده شد و کتابخانه های زیادی ساخته
Back-translated as: Many books were ordered and many libraries built.
In the first translation the agent is prominent, whereas in the second one the action is. Consistent use of passivization in a metatext assigns significance to actions. The reverse is also true. When most/ all passive sentences are activitzed in the metatexts, agents become forerounded. Both shifts, when optional, gain ideological values.
According to Fairclough (1995, p. 130) “negation is the basic way we have for distinguishing what is not the case in reality from what is the case”. When a positive sentence is translated into negative, a different aspect of reality is highlighted. For example the sentence “the media stopped discussing the topic” could be translated as:
الف. رسانه ها از بحث درباره ی این موضوع دست کشیدند.
Back-translated as: the media stopped discussing the topic.
ب. رسانه ها دیگر به این موضوع نپرداختند.
Back-translated as: the media did not discuss the topic any longer.
The first translation deals with what the media did, but the second translation deals with what they did not do. Such a shift of perspective in a metatext can have ideological impact because it emphasized the negative aspect of an action or process.
The change of tense in a metatext leads to a temporal difference. When a past tense verb is translated into its present tense form, the state of affairs alters.
For example the sentence “why has Imam’s contribution to culture been undervalued?” can be translated into Persian as:
الف. چرا خدمت امام به فرهنگ کم ارزش به حساب آمده است؟
Back-translated as: why has Imam’s contribution to culture been undervalued?
ب. چرا خدمت امام به فرهنگ کم ارزش به حساب می آید؟
Back-translated as: why Imam’s contribution to culture is being undervalued?
In the first translation the use of the present perfect shows that something starting in the past is still in process, whereas the use of the present continuous tense in the second translation shows an existing state of affairs, without any reference to the past. Such temporal shifts bear ideological implications (Fairclouph, 1995).
The significance of the three major modes of declarative, grammatical question (wh-questions and imperative) lies in how they position subjects. Any modal shift in the metatext may be ideologically loaded.
Fairclough (1995, p. 131) argues that “in coordination, the simple sentences have equal weight”, and that in subordination “the main clause is” more informationally prominent than subordinate clauses, with the content of the subordinate causes backgrounded”. When subordination substitutes coordination in a metatext, the information gets divided into relatively prominent and relatively backgrounded parts (tending to mean relatively important and relatively unimportant), which in turn can bear ideological implications at the sentential level.
The aim of this research was to study the effect of translator’s ideology expressed in his translation based on critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach to translation. The researcher applied the CDA model of translation criticism based on Fairclough’s (1989, 1995) framework. Fairclough believes that our language, which shapes our social identities and interactions, knowledge systems, and beliefs, is also shaped by them in turn. Like Kress and Van Leeuwen, he bases his analyses on Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar. In Language and Power (1989), he calls his approach Critical Language Study, and considers the first aim of his approach as helping to correct the vast negligence in relation to the significance of language in creating, maintaining and changing the social relations of power.CDA scholars assume language becomes ideological when issues of ideological maintenance or resistance are triggered.
The design which employed for this study is a descriptive, comparative and analytical one and the research method involves the evaluative texts analysis. Also, it is a qualitative research.
Three texts which