macro context we mean cultural, political, historical, and social structure in which a communicative event occurs. Micro context shows the characteristics of the instantaneous situation and relations in which a communicative event occurs (Van Dijk, 1998).Micro context is defined in Van Dijk (1998) as the concept of cognition and is considered as a form of a mental model of a communicative state and calls it a context model. Context models are mental depictions that regulate various features of text production and comprehension such as genre, choice of topic, and cohesion on one hand, and speech act, style, and imagery on the other (Van Dijk, 1998). These models are present in the long term memories of people i.e. in the part of their memory in which they keep their information and outlook about the happenings they practice. That is to say, there is no straight connection between society and discourse and these models explain how in a certain social situation discourse could be different and how discourse shows the social and personal features in itself. Without these models, how social structures affect discourse, and get affected in turn could not be explained and described (Van Dijk, 1998). From Van Dijk’s (1998) standpoint, critical discourse analysts must have a clear socio-political position and explain their viewpoints, principles, and goals. Of course, in all the phases of determining the theory and the analysis, their labor is political and their criticisms of discourse will encompass political criticism of those who are in charge for the reproduction of dominance and social inequalities; elite groups who are in power; those who cause social inequalities and injustice, continue and legitimize them. The eventual goal of CDA analysts is to help the deprived part of the society, the matters that threat these people’s lives, not small matters concerning discourse structures. CDA analysts’ criticisms should not be momentary or personal. In other words, CDA has to move further, and aim at studying the origins of essential social problems (Van Dijk, 1998). CDA’s criteria, as acknowledged by Fairclough, too, is not merely observational, descriptive or even explanatory, CDA’s prosperity is evaluated in terms of the effect that it has on the macro structure of the society and the role that it plays in the line of changing and removing social inequalities. Van Dijk argued that critical discourse analysis does not reject having a particular direction, and specifies its social and political direction clearly and articulately and is proud of having such a direction (Van Dijk, 1998).
2-11. Deﬁning ideology
According to Van Dijk (2006) the ﬁrst supposition is that ideologies are principally ‘ideas’, or belief systems. This show, that ideologies do not encompass the ideological practices or societal structures (e.g. churches or political parties) that are based on them. It also shows that a theory of ideology requires a cognitive component that is capable of exactly accounting for the notions of ‘belief’ and ‘belief system,’ for example just like these are dealt with in contemporary cognitive science. Secondly, just as there are no private languages, there are no private, personal ideologies (Meyer, 2001). So, these belief systems are socially shared by the members of a collectivity of social actors. However, not any collectivity develops or desires an ideology, and it will be claimed that this is only the case for some kinds of group—typically related to other groups—and not for example for communities, such as cultural, national or linguistic communities . In other words, ideologies contain social representations which deﬁne the social identity of a group, that is, its shared beliefs about its fundamental conditions and ways of existence and reproduction (Fairclough, 1992). Various types of ideologies are deﬁned by the nature of groups that hold to an ideology, just like social movements, political parties, professions, or churches, and many other elements. Thirdly, ideologies do not include socially shared beliefs, such as socio-cultural knowledge or social attitudes, but more central or manifest. They regulate and shape other beliefs that are socially shared. Therefore, a racist ideology can regulate approaches toward immigration, a feminist ideology can control approaches toward abortion or knowledge about gender inequality, and a social ideology can play a more central role of the State in public affairs. So, ideologies are foundational social beliefs of a rather general and abstract nature (Wei, 2006). One of their cognitive functions is to provide (ideological) coherence to the beliefs of a group and thus make their acquisition easy and use in everyday situations. Among other things, ideologies also specify what general cultural values (freedom, equality, justice, etc.) are applicable to the group (Hyland, 2004). Fourthly, as the sociocognitive foundation of social groups, ideologies are progressively acquired and (sometimes) altered through life or a life period, and so need to be relatively constant. Various experiences and discourses are usually required to acquire or change ideologies (Bloor & Bloor, 2007). Therefore, the variability of ideological views of the group members needs to be accounted for at the personal or contextual level and not to reject the notion of a shared, unchanging group ideology (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). Also the reverse is correct: if ideologies could be gradually developed by the members of a group, they also gradually collapse, for instance when members no longer believe in a cause and ‘leave’ the group. Sometimes, ideologies become common so widely that they seem to have become part of the generally accepted attitudes of a community, as obvious beliefs or opinion, or common sense. Therefore, what are today commonly established as social or human rights, which include many systems of gender equality, are ideological beliefs of the feminist or socialist movements (Wei, 2006). In that sense, these beliefs consequently lose their ideological nature as soon as they become part of the Common Ground (Wei, 2006).
2-11-1. Position of Ideology in Translation
The ideology of translation could be is hidden in both process and product of translation which are closely interdependent. According to Tymoczko (2003) translation ideology, is a mixture of the content of the ST and several speech acts embodied in the ST related to the ST context, layered together with the representation of the content, its relevance to the receptor audience, and the numerous speech acts of the translation itself related to the TT context, as well as resonance and discrepancies between these two ‘utterances’. However, she further explains that ‘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.: 182–83). Schäffner (2003) explains:
“Ideological aspect can be determined within a text itself, both at the lexical level (reflected, for example, in the deliberate choice or avoidance of a particular word) and the grammatical level (for example, use of passive structures to avoid an expression of agency). Ideological aspects can be more or less obvious in texts, depending on the topic of a text, its genre and communicative purposes.” (P. 23).
According to Schäffner (2003) ideological aspects can also be examined in the process of text production (translating) and the role of the translator as a TT producer as well as a ST interpreter. These aspects along with two major influencing schools of post-structur
alism and functionalism will be explained in the following paragraphs.
2-11-1-1. Ideology and the translator as a reader of the source text: Post structuralism
According to Venuti (1992), poststructuralist like Derrida and de Man under the impact of Benjamin’s works explored the binary opposition between the ST and TT which made translators invisible. Before the appearance of poststructuralism, structuralists like Saussure provided a definition for language in which language was defined as the world of symbols which is scientifically examinable and constitutes the linguistic system and social structure within which the individual is socially shaped. The structuralists stated that “language is constructed as a system of signs, each sign being the result of conventional relation between word and meaning, between a signifier (a sound or sound-image) and a signified (the referent, or concept represented by the signifier)” (Roman, 2002, p. 309). Later, Barthes, an early poststructuralist, maintained that ‘signifiers and singnifieds are not fixed, unchangeable, but, on the contrary, can make the sign itself signifying more complex mythical signs as intricate signifiers of the order of myth” (Roman, 2002, p: 310). This shift of idea from structuralism toward poststructuralism resulted in extreme revisions in different domains of language, for example, developing of the death of author thinking which later found its way into Translation Studies. From instability of the signifiers and signifieds, Roman (2002) concludes that reading texts in terms of authorial intention or what we think the author meant by such and such a statement, and referring the source of meaning and authority of a text back to its author (as the creator of that text) is no more acceptable. Roman maintains that authors merely write within a language system in which specific authors are born and shaped, texts cannot be thought of in terms of their author’s intentions, but only in relationship with other texts: in intertextuality.” (Roman, 2002, p. 311).
Poststructuralist theorists believe that the ST is itself a translation, an imperfect process of decoding a signifying sequence into univocal signified, and this process is both shown and further complicated when it is decoded by another signifying sequence in a different language (Venuti, 1992),. The originality of the TT is consequently endangered by the poststructuralist concept of textuality. Neither the ST nor the TT is an original semantic unity; both are rather derivative, and consist of varied linguistic and cultural constituents. This makes sense plural and differential. In the same method, neither the writer nor the translator as a person who reads the ST holds the authorial authority to absolutely decide upon the meaning; and the authority will always remain collective due to endless circle of signification” (Venuti, 1992, pp. 7–8). “Poststructuralist textuality redefines the concept of equivalence in translation by assuming from the inception that the differential multitude in every text impedes a simple correspondence of meaning, and a ratio of loss and gain intricately occurs during the translation process.” (Venuti, 1992, pp.7–8) Nevertheless, it becomes sometimes really problematic for a translation researcher to explain whether the ideological divergences observed between the ST and the TT are consequences of the translator’s intuitive ideological interpretation or of his/her purposeful ideological interference which will be debated in the subsequent paragraphs.
2-11-1-2 Ideology and the translator as a writer of the target text: functionalism
Functionalist approaches to translation aim at lessening the power of the ST through emphasizing the role supposed for the translator in other approaches and giving authority