1. TRANSLATION STUDIES
Translation studies were coined by Holmer, (1972), introducing a new empirical practice, one that looks at actually translated texts as they appear in a given culture (Gentzler, 2016, p. 93). Since then, translation as an independent discipline started to emerge and gain ground. Bassnett (2005) published her book entitled ‘‘Translation Studies’’ in which she lays the foundation of the concept and its development. Bassnet’s (2005) involvement focused on the historical and cultural background of texts, trying to understand the manipulation of texts and factors that influenced translators’ translation strategies which offered new insights into translation studies.
The development of translation studies further exceeded the relation between authors, texts, readers, and norms to scrutinize the relationship between the author and the translator’s intention. The shift departed from the fact that a translator cannot be separated from his/her cultural milieu. It would be engraved in his/her mind that in the decision-making process, he/she would be inevitably influenced either consciously or unconsciously by culture, Ideology, and politics. Hence the study of these factors is of indispensable significance and importance.
1.1.The shift from Structuralism to Post-structuralism and the Emergence of Ideology
Today, Ideology has become highly important in a wide range of academic disciplines, including translation studies. It has gained ground with the shift from structuralism to post-structuralism. Initially, structuralists defined language as a scientific system of signs. They believed that ‘‘language is constructed as a system of signs, each sign being the result of Abstract Ideally, a translation should be faithful to the original message making the translator invisible; however, myriad factors come into play to reconstruct the text suiting the patronage agenda and thus put the translator into the visible mode as he/she rewrites the text. This article explores, in-depth, the concept of Ideology in translation. In other words, to what extent may Ideology impact the translator’s choices regarding what to add and/or omit and other strategies that, consequently, shape the receivers’ worldviews? Having in mind the importance of ideology and translational changes, myriad examples are provided within the theoretical and practical parts to scrutinize the existence of the manipulation within. Received: 09/02/2023 Accepted: 25/03/2023
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)’’(as cited in Karoubi, 2013, p. 3). Poststructuralists later declined this notion of signified and signifier in structuralism on the basis that words are not fixed and could carry mythical meanings and be loaded with cultural notions. Post-structuralism was developed in the late 20th century as a reaction to structuralism. It is characterized by focusing on how power and knowledge are produced and circulated. Poststructuralists believe that no single, stable meaning can be found in any given text or discourse. That meaning is constantly shifting and being negotiated as in travels in time and place. Reading, say a seventeenth-century text, from the perspective of the author of that time, is not acceptable anymore as we can only understand a text in its intertextuality and in relation to the socio-cultural environment in which it saw the light.
Furthermore, in the absence of the author, the reader replaces him/her extracting the meaning of the original. Barthes explains that the readers – who might include translators – understand and explain texts according to their general ideological knowledge; the meaning of a text becomes what individual readers extract from it, not what a supreme author puts in (as cited in Karoubi, 2013). Indeed, the idea that the “author” as a supreme authority who imbues a text with a fixed meaning is rejected. Instead, poststructuralists argue that meaning is not fixed or inherent in the text but is produced by the reader through their interpretation. This means that the same text can have multiple, potentially conflicting meanings depending on the context in which it is read and the background and perspective of the reader. Hence, the text’s meaning is not determined by the author’s intentions but rather by how it is interpreted and used by readers regarding many factors, including Ideology.
2. IDEOLOGY
The term ‘ideology’ is French-born. The French philosopher Antoine Desttut de Tracy coined the term, which meant ‘’the genetic theory of ideas or the science of ideas’’ (Shuping, 2013, p. 57); hence, literally idea-logy. Ideology’s meaning remains vague and often involves rivalry definitions. Destutt’s intention in terming the concept at the very beginning was to provide a theoretical principle by which society turns its back on prejudices and societal beliefs to embark on a scientific mentality based on logic. As aspiring as it seems and before the term takes a political dimension, Napoleon adopted the concept and encouraged Destutt and his companions. He surprisingly dismissed and plotted against it later ‘’after his conspiracy of establishing a monarchy was opposed by ideology theorists, Napoleon, then, considered ‘ideology’ negative and derogatory’’ ( Shuping, 2013 p. 57).
Later, Marx and his companions, namely Engels, molded the term and its concept, which emphasized the political load. Their writings contributed to the change of the initial meaning. They labeled a new one to it, twisting its inherent and native meaning from that technical and positive connotation Destutt aspired to a negative one. Marxists believe that our minds are indoctrinated with sets of ideas and beliefs consciously or unconsciously instilled by the system and are hard to change. For Marx, Ideology is about ‘’delusion and mystification’’ (Heywood, 2017, p. 6), referring to what Engels coined as ‘’false consciousness or misguided belief’’ (Van Dijk, 2000, p. 7). Following both of the mentioned philosophers, ‘’ideologies were first defined as the prevailing ideas of an age… these dominant ideas were associated with those of the ruling class’’(Van Dijk, 1998, p. 2) and served their interests; other ideologies competed for the monopolizing one.
In other words, Ideology can be a positive driving force and a theoretical drive of revolution. The Ideology of the dominating class seldom or, one dare say, never reaches a total consensus allowing forms of social and intellectual resistance by the dominated. In that sense, Lenin and Marxists of his time reconciled the term with its native intended positive force. As it “was robbed of its negative and pejorative meaning, ideology no longer implied necessary falsehood and mystification, and no longer stood in contrast to science” (Heywood, 2017, p. 7). However, it still held a different meaning to Destutt’s technical and purely scientific one.
3. THE TURN
By principle, none of the translations can be considered neutral or completely ideologically innocent. According to Lefevere (1992, p. 14), ‘’Translations are not made in a vacuum. Translators function in a given culture at a given time. The way they understand themselves and their culture are factors that may influence how they translate.’’ Translation, as such, is a rewriting of the original to fit a particular purpose – a reconstruction of a new reality. Shuping (2013, p. 56), reiterating Lefevere, argues that ‘’in its intellectual aspect, translation as a means of acculturation, the choice of the works to be translated, and the guidelines and goals of the translation activity are set by certain forces. Therefore, translation takes the form of rewriting since it is performed under certain constraints and for certain purposes. The original text is selected for a certain purpose, and the translation guidelines are defined to serve this purpose by the translator and/or by those who initiate translation activity. Therefore, to fit that purpose, rewriting is bound to happen during the process of translation.’’
Thousands of years ago, Aljahid explained that, as two languages meet, one suppresses the other. In other words, either the translator favors the target or the original language.
ومتى وجدناه أيضا قد تكلم بلسانين، علمنا أنه قد أدخل الضيم عليهما؛ لأن كل واحدة من اللغتين تجذب الأخرى وتأخذ منها،
وتعترض عليها. (Hassouf, n.d.)
Speaking [translating] two languages means exerting some suppression over both, for each attracts the other, borrows from it, and opposes it. (My translation)The same idea was emphasized later by Schleiermacher. In his words, “just as a man must decide to belong to one country, just so [a translator] must adhere to one language” (Tymoczko, 2003, p. 184). Simply put, allegiance to a source or target language is just as important as the feeling of belonging to one’s own country or country of citizenship. Schaffner (2003) runs in the same line of thought, claiming that ‘’the relationship between Ideology and translation is multifarious. In a sense, it can be said that any translation is ideological since the choice of a source text and the use to which the subsequent target text is put and determined by the interests, aims, and objectives of social agents.’’ (p. 23). And she further explains the strategies taking place at the textual and grammatical levels ‘’ideological aspects 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 at the grammatical level (for example, the use of passive structures to avoid expression of agency).’’ (p. 23)
Viewing translation from this perspective, it can be considered that the translator’s autonomy is no more questioned as it used to be ‘’by those who think of him/her as a monkey’’(as cited by Leppihalme, 1997, p. 18) who ‘stupidly’ imitates his master and emphasizes the English proverb ‘monkey see, monkey do’. However, although translators do not repeat the master’s gestures, they are influenced by the different aspects of their background.
In this respect, ‘’during the process of translation, translators will be inevitably influenced by culture, politics, ideology, etc.’’ (Shuping, 2013, p. 56). By the same token, ‘’translating is, then, inevitably, rewriting and manipulating in so much as it deals not only with translating languages but cultures’’ (Vidal, 2014, p. 84). Moreover, behind every translator’s strategy, addition, omission, and selection of words, “there is a voluntary act that reveals his history and the socio-political milieu that surrounds him. In other words, his own culture [and ideology]” (Álvarez & Vidal, 1996, p. 5). People and institutions have applied, sometimes and mostly all the time throughout translation history, consciously and deliberately, their view to producing specific results to the extent that ‘‘an ideological approach to translation can be found in some of the earliest examples of translation known to us’’ (Fawcett, 2001, p. 106). This is due to the simple reason that ‘’a translator, just like an author, is not simply a ‘person’ but a socially and historically constituted subject…translators interpret texts by setting them against their backdrop of known words and phrases, existing statements, familiar conventions, anterior texts, or, in other words, their general knowledge, which is ideological’’ (Karoubi, 2013, p. 4).
Lefevere (1992), in particular, coins words that express the relation between the translation outcome and the influence governing it, like ‘’the power patronage’’ (p. 7), which refers to ‘’a person and/or institution able to exert significant control over the translator’s work’’ (Hermans, 2009, p. 94). This produces, according to Lefevere, ‘’a rewriting or manipulation of an original text and all rewritings reflect a certain ideology and poetics’’ (Zhang, 2012, p. 1). Herrag (2012, p. 1) defines patronage as a force that ‘’plays a very important role in translation in terms of sponsorship, finance, control, and publication’’. In short, as translation goes through a rewriting process, it declares not only the death of the original author but also the execution of the text.
This new approach to translation shifted the focus from linguistic equivalence to functional one; otherwise, as functionalism advocates believe, ‘’the purpose of the TT is the most important criterion in any translation’’ (Schaffner, 1998, p. 2). Viewing translation from this angle, ‘’scholars become ideological channels that (re)produce and (re)create translational behavior to its most minute detail. Translators qua translators build their identities upon the (artificial) ‘certainties’ that they grasp in these different ideological ‘niches’. (Calzada Pérez, 2014, p. 7)
Turkey is a living example of the manipulation of texts caused by institutional and ideological influence. Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire ‘’translation scholars in Turkey regard their new state as an example of a literary renaissance or revival, where translation played an important role under the manipulation of the state in the direction of creating a modern, enlightened and developed nation’’ (Aksoy, 2010, p. 439). Between 1940 and 1966, Turkey created and financed The Translation Bureau, which translated classics through the prism of secularism and openness to Western civilization. The reason behind the bureau was that ‘’the newly-founded Turkish Republic needed to create itself a new ‘culture’ detached from its Ottoman heritage, and translation was one of the instruments chosen by the government to achieve this goal’’ (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2014, p. 114)
The translation of Western literature was something new back then after it was dominated by translation from two main languages, Arabic and Persian. In 1928, Turkey adopted the Latin alphabet, which is an ideological choice based on political conviction. The main aim behind such an institution is: ‘’to realize a ‘Turkish renaissance’ by importing these works into Turkey via translation and making them instrumental in creating a new culture and literature’’(Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2014, p. 119). This aim reiterates the previously mentioned idea that ‘’no translation is done in a vacuum’’ (Lefevere, 1992, p. 14), especially those produced and financed by private institutions, let alone public ones.
During the Kemalist secular period, the Turkish Ministry of Education Translation Bureau adopted a foreignization strategy to enrich the Turkish culture with other civilizations and inject new ideological beliefs into society. The translation produced by the bureau is considered, in this case, as put by Bassnet, “an instrument, as a means of bringing the TL reader to the SL text in the original” (2002, p. 75). Above all, it is an instrument to convey values, ideas, and Ideology.
On the other hand, Media is the channel through which political speech is channelled and mostly censored to fit the agenda of the institution it represents. The broadcasters are gatekeepers who decide what to translate and, most importantly, how to translate it. In her study of Bin Laden’s speech, Al-Mohannadi (2008) provides a comparative analysis of the latter’s translated speech on both CNN and BBC. From the prelude to the last paragraph, the study shows how ideological interference di-translated the core message and even guided the viewership towards taking a particular position. One example is:
Text 1 (BBC’s version):
Our nation has tasted this humiliation and contempt for over 80 years. Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed. Despite this, nobody cares.
Text 2 (CNN’s version):
Our nation, for nearly 80 years, is tasting this humility. Sons are killed, and nobody answers the call. (Almohannadi, 2008: 536)
Almohannadi (2008) believes that the latter example might be a mere case of mistranslation. However, knowing the influence of media in creating a public opinion that can influence the elected authorities, it is strongly believed that the case of humility/humiliation is, first and foremost, a motivated ideological choice. The comparison between the two translation versions of the text emphasizes the pivotal effect of the translated texts to maximize a certain message in the case of CNN and mitigate it in the case of BBC.
Among many others, another clear example is the Lewinski – Clinton scandal which mushroomed in the media and had its share of translational issues. Before the live broadcast of Clinton’s hearing, ‘’the interpreters were called to the RAI 2 TV news editor’s office…to be told that if Clinton were to speak explicitly about any indecent or embarrassing details of the affair, the interpreters were to limit themselves to saying the following words: The President is giving personal details about his affair with Monica Lewinski. (Katan & Straniero-Sergio, 2014, pp. 140–141). The ethical concern is the basic motivation behind this censorship. In other cases, the motivation can be assigned to political reason, as in the case of Fidel Castro’s interview, where the Spanish interpreter ‘’was instructed to avoid using ‘capitalist lexis’ where possible’’(p. 140). Having all trust in the translator and/or interpreter, the viewer has no knowledge that cardinal information is distorted or eliminated in both Castro and Clinton’s translations.
It is crucial to be aware of the different factors that play a role in the final translation of products. The reader should be aware of the manipulative language and the reasons behind it. Which text is translated? Who translates it? How and for what reason? These are all legitimate issues that researchers should raise to provide a clear picture for the average reader. All translations are rewritings of the original, whether consciously or unconsciously. Hence, this paper will study cases of manipulatively translated political discourse after establishing the inevitability of manipulation, the conscious role of translators, and departing from the death of the linguistic equivalence approach. To reach that aim, the corpus should be collected from politicians and international media channels and will be analyzed through Fairclough’s (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) model.
4. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
CDA is an interdisciplinary approach to studying how language is used in social contexts, focusing on power relations and how they are constructed and reinforced through language. It concerns how language is used to create and maintain social inequalities and, sometimes, how discourse can be used as a tool of oppression or resistance. CDA aims to reveal the underlying ideologies and power structures that shape discourse and to understand how language is used to maintain or challenge social hierarchies.
In relation to translation, translation can be studied through a CDA lens to examine how power relations are constructed and maintained in translated texts. This can include analyzing how certain words, phrases, or cultural references are translated and how this may reflect or reinforce power imbalances between different groups. CDA can also be used to study the role of translation in shaping discourse. For example, analyzing how news stories or political speeches are translated across different languages can examine how meaning is constructed and how power is represented in different cultures. Additionally, CDA may examine how translators navigate the power relations embedded in the source text and how they convey them in the target text. Translation, in turn, can also be used as a tool to implement CDA. Translating texts that challenge dominant power relations and make them accessible to new audiences.
A primary goal of CDA, as outlined by Fairclough (1995), is to investigate the often obscure links between discursive practices, events (rather than texts), and broader societal and cultural structures, relations, and processes. Fairclough illustrates his CDA approach in three interrelated stages of analysis:
Figure 3.1 Fairclough’s (1995, p. 85) three-dimensional diagram for CDA
5. SAMPLES
5.1.Sample One: (The Whitehouse <> Almesryoon)
Whitehouse1
Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region, including its ballistic missile program and support for terrorist groups such as Hizballah and other extremist proxies, in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere.
(Office of the Press Secretary, 2016 )
Almesryoon2
قال الرئيس الأميركي باراك أوباما اليوم الخميس، إن النظام الإيراني يواصل دعمه للإرهاب عبر “تسليح الجماعات
الإرهابية في المنطقة .
(Almesryoon, 2016)
The source text comes with specific names of what the Whitehouse considers terrorist groups and countries where terrorists find refuge. The target text, an Egyptian newspaper, summarizes the names in two words: terrorist groups. Remarkably, Almesryoon prefers to:
• Use an adjective instead of a noun. Hence, ‘’Iran supporting terrorist groups’’ becomes ‘’Iran supports terrorism’’. That should allow the newspaper not to specify names, organizations, or countries marked as terrorists in the source text.
• Omits agents, which are stated clearly in the source text, namely, Hizboullah. Hence, this allows to ‘’leave attribution or casualty unclear.’’ (Fairclough, 1989, p. 124)
Following this translation strategy, Almesryoon opts for eliminating the demonization effect that the source texts aim at by categorizing a certain group as terrorists. Other ideologies consider Hizbollah’s members as heroes and martyrs fighting for the freedom of Lebanon and Palestine. Simply put, the source text follows Van Dijk’s (1998, p. 269) ideological square by saying negative things about the other (In this case, Iran and Hizbollah, Syria and Yemen); the translation counters this effects by generalizing and, as mentioned earlier, not stating agents.
5.2.Sample Two: (Independent <> Egyptwindow)
Independent3
We’ve all grown so used to the “Muslim terror” narratives of our favorite dictators – I’m talking about Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak, and now, of course, Field Marshal-President al-Sissi of Egypt – that we’re in danger of believing them.
(Fisk, 2016)
فيسك، الذي نشر مقاله اليوم بصحيفة “ذي اندبندنت”، قال إنه “قد تعوّدنا على لجوء الطغاة لشماعة الإرهاب من أجل
تبرير القمع”، وأضاف أن السيسي وظّف الحملة التي شنها على جماعة الإخوان المسلمين، تحت ذريعة محاربة الإرهاب،
لتعذيب الآلاف من المصريين، والزج بهم في السجون وتصفيتهم .
(Egyptwindow, 2016)
In the original text, Fisk states that tyrants use ‘Islamic terrorism’ as a means to dictatorship. He named Sissi, Anwar Essadat, Jamal Abdennasser, and Houssni Mubarak. Except for the current Egyptian president, the three former presidents are not mentioned in the target text. By omitting a whole segment of the source text, the translator’s strategy, in this case, is to detach previous presidents from any possible derogatory effect and not to put them on the same scale as Sissi, who does not enjoy the same respect as his predecessors namely Abd-Ennasr. So, instead of naming the president, the translator grouped them into an adjective, ‘dictators’. As a result, readers who have no clue what dictators meant here include some former presidents -in the original text- whom they may sympathize with, who would be influenced by the categorization. The latter ‘’ is not value-free, but imbued with ideologically based applications of norms and values.’’ (Van Dijk, 2000, p. 78) Furthermore, it intends to emphasize the idea of evil vs. good in the receiver’s mind. Brief, omission, and categorization in the following example serve the ideological belief of the translator as a person and/or the institution behind him and intend to enforce it as a reality and extend it to the reader.
‘How can we build your defence capabilities against external threats,
but also, how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries so that Sunni youth feel that they’ve got something other than [the Islamic State, or ISIS] to choose from.
(Friedman, 2015) Yemeress6 وفي مقابلة مع ” نيويورك تايمز”، أضاف أوباما أنه مع تقديم الدعم العسكري ينبغي على الولايات المتحدة أن تتساءل كيف
يمكن تعزيز الحياة السياسية في هذه البلاد حتى يشعر الشبّان إنهم لديهم شيئا آخر يختاروه غير تنظيم “داعش “. (Yemeress, 2015)
Almayadeen.com7 كيف يمكن ان نبني قدراتكم الدفاعية ضد التهديدات الخارجية.. وكيف يمكننا ان نعزز البنية السياسية في هذه الدول من اجل
اشعار جيل الشباب السنة ان لديهم خياراً غير الدولة الاسلامية )داعش( .” (Moundir, 2016)
The omission of a critical detail is evident in Yemeress translation. Being a website following a Sunni Agenda, the writer prefers to generalize the specific. Instead of saying the Sunni Youth, the translation opts for ‘the youth’’. Generalization is one of the techniques used by translators to avoid mentioning the specific. Generalizations are ‘’semantic moves [that] may directly facilitate the formation or change of social attitudes, or they may do so indirectly, that is, through the generalization or decontextualization.’’ (Van Dijk, 1993, p. 259). In this example, the translator successfully avoids connecting Sunni Youth and terrorism directly by using the mentioned technique. On the other hand, Almayadeen, a Shiite channel, and website, remains faithful to this detail because it, by default, meets its agenda.
5.4.Sample Four: (New York Times <> Yemeress)
Nytimes8
As for protecting our Sunni allies, like Saudi Arabia, the president said they have some very real external threats, but they also have some internal threats – ‘’population that is, in some cases, alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievance.
(Friedman, 2015)
Yemeress9 وتابع إنه سيجري “حواراً صعبا” مع حلفاء واشنطن العرب في الخليج سيعد خلاله بتقديم دعم أميركي قوي ضد الأعداء
الخارجيين، لكنه سيقول لهم إنه يتعيّن عليهم معالجة التحديات السياسية الداخلية . وقال أوباما إنه يريد أن يناقش مع “الحلفاء” في الخليج كيفية بناء قدرات دفاعية أكثر كفاءة وطمأنتهم على
دعم الولايات المتحد ة لهم في مواجهة أي هجوم من الخارج. وأضاف “هذا ربما يخفف بعضا من مخاوفهم ويسمح لهم
بإجراء حوار مثمر بشكل أكبر مع الإيرانيين ” . لكن أوباما قال إن أكبر خطر يتهددهم ليس التعرّض لهجوم محتمل من إيران،
وإنما السخط داخل بلادهم بما في ذلك سخط الشبّان الغاضبين والعاطلين والإحساس بعدم وجود مخرج سياسي لمظالمهم.
(Rassd, 2015)
The target text talks about angry youth in Saudi Arabia, while the source does not use the word ‘’angry’’ but underemployed youth. In this excerpt, the writer mixes her/his opinion with the translation. Quotes from translated Obama’s speech are rarely used, confusing the reader as to who says what. Intentionally, the writer aims at that confusion.
The techniques adopted in this translation are rewording and insertion to draw a black image of the situation in Iran. Insertion and rewording “may be seen as framing strategies designed to align the source text with [the translator’s] own narrative position” (Baker, 2006, p. 111). The word سخط (discontent) replaces the original ‘alienated,’ which should be translated as ‘المعزولة .’ In addition, the source adds (in some cases) that the target generalizes the discontent, making it a general rule. Also, the source text’s adjective used to describe the youth is underemployed. Surprisingly, the texts add another adjective rendering the sentence ‘the underemployed angry youth.’
5.5.Sample Five: (Telegraph <> Russia Today)
Telegraph10
Barack Obama: Britain would go to the ‘back of the queue’ when it comes to US trade deals if it leaves the EU.
(Foreign Stuff, 2016)
Russia Today11
أوباما “يتدخل” في الاستفتاء البريطاني
… الأمريكيين يرون في الاتحاد الأوروبي معقلا لهم ضد روسيا …”
(Tass, 2016)
A huge difference lies between the source title and the target one. Back translated from Arabic, it says: ‘’Obama ‘interferes’ in the British referendum’’. Not only does it not faithfully reflect the original, but by reading carefully and thoroughly the original texts, Obama reiterates that he does not interfere but only provides friendly advice. Furthermore, the Russian channel adds a quote supposedly by the London mayor stating that ‘’Americans consider Britain a stronghold against Russia’’. No mention of this sentence is present in the source texts, and it is not available in the mayor’s speeches during the Brexit debate either.
The Russian institution translation aims to discredit Obama’s visit to Britain and portray him, most specifically the country he represents, as a meddler country and one that is losing its iron grip to other powers. Adding to the target and omitting from the source creates a different story version. A case in point is Russia today’s article which uses Fairclough’s (1989, p.111) rewording as a strategy.
6. CONCLUSION
The present article has meticulously shed light on the effect of Ideology on translation in general and, most specifically, political discourse. In light of the analysis and discussion of the provided examples, the ideological stamp unquestionably imposes itself; thus, the demand for readers to adopt a critical reading and reception strategy and for researchers to establish a method of analysis that unveils the hidden discursive structures in a given discourse. This article aims to present the effect of a person, a group of people, and institutions in the final translation and the legitimization of the process of manipulation, rewriting, and re-narration. The results of the provided samples clearly indicate that the manipulation is done on purpose to fit the institution’s ideological agenda, meaning that ideologies are pre-conditioned guidelines for translators who serve merely as a mouthpiece of the institution.
REFERENCES
Aksoy, N. B. (2010). The relation between translation and Ideology as an instrument for the establishment of a national literature. Meta: Translator’s Journal, 55(3), 438–455. https://doi.org/10.7202/045064ar
Al-Mohannadi, S. (2008). Translation and Ideology. Social Semiotics, 18(4), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330802489050
Álvarez, R., & Vidal, M. C.-Á. (1996). Translating: A political act. In M. C. Á. Vidal & R. Alvarez (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp. 1–9). Multilingual Matters Clevedon, UK.
Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. In Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099919
Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation Studies. In Routledge (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03728-14
Bassnett, S. (2005). Translation studies. In Vasa. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Calzada Pérez, M. (2014). Introduction. In M. Calzada Pérez (Ed.), Apropos ideology. translation Studies on Ideology (pp. 1–23). Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. In Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429468896-1
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. In Longman Group Limited. Longman. https://doi.org/10.2307/329335
Fawcett, P. (2001). Ideology and translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 106–111). Routledge.
Gentzler, E. (2016). Translation and rewriting in the age of post-translation studies. In Translation and Rewriting in the Age of Post-Translation Studies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619194
Hassouf, A. (n.d.). أبو يعقوب يوسف الموحدي يأمر ابن رشد . Retrieved January 2, 2023, from https://www.hespress.com/ أبو-يعقوب- يوسف-الموحدي- يأمر-ابن-رشد- 425270.html
Hermans, T. (2009). Translation, ethics, politics. In J. Munday (Ed.), The Routledge companion to translation studies (pp. 93–106). Routledge.
Herrag, E. H. (2012). The ideological factor in the translation of sensitive issues from the Quran into English, Spanish and Catalan. In Thesis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Heywood, A. (2017). Political Ideologies. An Introduction (3rd ed.). Macmillan International Higher Education.
Karoubi, B. (2013). Ideology and Translation. Translation Directory.
Katan, D., & Straniero-Sergio, F. (2014). Submerged ideologies in media interpreting. In M. Calzada Pérez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology (pp. 131–144). Routledge.
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, history, culture (A. Lefevere (ed.)). London and NewYork. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture Bumps. An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusion. Multilingual Matters.
Schaffner, C. (1998). Translation and Quality. Current Issues in Language and Scoiety.
Volume 5, Issue 1, 2023
International Journal of Language and Literary Studies 253
Multilingual Matters.
Schäffner, C. (2003). Third Ways and New Centres. Ideological Unity or Difference? In Apropos of Ideology. Translation Studies on Ideology–Ideologies in Translation Studies (pp. 1–23). Jerome Publishing, Manchester, UK & Northampton MA.
Shuping, R. (2013). Translation as Rewriting. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(18), 55–59. http://ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_18_October_2013/6.pdf
Tahir-Gürçağlar, Ş. (2014). The Translation Bureau Revisited: Translation as Symbol. In M. Calzada Pérez (Ed.), Apropos ideology. translation Studies on Ideology (pp. 113–131). Rouledge.
Tymoczko, M. (2003). Ideology and the Position of the Translator. In What sense is a Translatir “in Between”? In M. Calzada Pérez (Ed.), Apropos ideology. translation Studies on Ideology (pp. 182–201).
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidiciplinary approach. In SAGE Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse. A Multidisciplinary Approach. In Pompeu Fabra University, (Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01352752
Vidal, M. C.-A. (2014). (Mis) Translating Degree Zero Ideology and Conceptual Art. In Apropos of Ideology (pp. 78–95). Routledge.
Zhang, M. (2012). Translation Manipulated by Ideology and Poetics—A Case Study of The Jade Mountain. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 754–758. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.754-758
