are listed below were used in the process of this research. The main corpus was the original text of “Iran Between Two Revelutions” by Ervand Abrahamian in English and the other texts included two translations of this English book, one rendered to Persian by Ney publication and the other by Markaz publication. 1. Abrahamian, E. (1982). Iran Between Two Revelutions. New Jercy: Princeton.
2.ایران بین دو انقلاب………ترجمه کاظم فیروزمند، حسن شمس آوری، محسن مدیرشانه چی. چاپ پانزدهم. تهران (1389). نشرمرکز
3.ایران بین دو انقلاب………ترجمه احمد گل محمدی، محمد ابراهیم فتاحی. چاپ هجدهم. تهران (1391). نشر نی
3-4. Brief Account about the Author and the Book:
Ervand Abrahamian (born 1940) is a historian of Middle East and particularly Iranian history. An Armenian born in Iran and raised in England, he received his M.A. at Oxford University and his Ph.D. at Columbia University. He is a distinguished professor of history at Baruch College and Graduate Center, City University of New York. Iran Between Two Revolutions” is written by Ervand Abrahamain. This work has begun in 1964 as a study on the social bases of the Tudeh party, the main communist organization in Iran. Focusing on the short period between the party’s formation in 1941 and its drastic repression in 1953, the original work has tried to answer the question why an organization that was clearly secular, radical, and Marxist was able to grow into a mass movement in a country noted for its fervent Shi’ism, traditional monarchism, and intense nationalism. The study, however, gradually expands as the author realized that the Tudeh success could not be fully assessed without constant references to the failures, On the one hand, of its many contemporary nationalistic parties; and, on the other hand, of its ideological predecessors, especially the Social Democrats of 1909-1919, the Socialists of the 1920s, and the Communists of the 1930s.The study further expands as the 1977-1979 revolution unfolded, shattered the Pahlevi regime, and brought to the fore not the Tudeh but the clerical forces. Thus the study has evolved into an analysis of the social bases of Iranian politics, focusing on how socioeconomic development has gradually transformed the shape of Iranian politics from the eve of the Constitutional Revolution in the late ‘nineteenth century to the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in February 1979. The book is divided into three parts.
Part I provides a historical background to the understanding of modern Iran, surveying the nineteenth century, the Constitutional Revolution, and the reign of Reza Shah.
Part II analyzes the social bases of politics in the period between the fall of Reza Shah’s autocracy in August of 1941 and the establishment of Muhammad Reza Shah’s autocracy in August 1953. These thirteen years are the only major period in the modern era in which the historian can look below the political surface into the social infrastructure of Iranian politics, and thereby examine in depth the ethnic as well as the class roots of the various political movements. Readers who are not interested in the internal workings of the communist movement in this period are advised to skim Chapters 7 and 8, which examine in detail the class and ethnic bases of the Tudeh party.
Finally, Part III examines contemporary Iran, describing the SOCIO economic programs carried out by Muhammad Reza Shah, the political tensions aggravated by these programs, and eventually the eruption of the recent Islamic Revolution.
This study was done following the qualitative research procedures. To carry out this research effectively and successfully the process of selecting the criteria for analysis was organized around Fairclough (1995) CDA framework. The researcher randomly selected some chapters of the source book “Iran Between Two Revelutions” by Ervand Abrahamian in English and then studied the source book deeply and completely and then compared the source text with its translations to Persian by Ney publication and the other by Markaz publication in order to find her answers to questions. All data were analyzed at micro-level as well as macro level.
3-6. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework used for the categorization and clarification of the obtained data is Fairclough (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 (Fairclouph, 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.
ed 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 شد.
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.
d. positive/negative 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.
e. Tense 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).
f. Modality 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.
g. Coordination/subordination 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