ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY
SOUTH TEHRAN BRANCH
FACULTY OF PERSIAN LITERATURE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language Translation
Title:
Investigating the Role of Translator’s Ideology in Manipulating Translated Text: A CDA Approach
Supervisor:
Sayyed Mohammad Karimi Behbahani, Ph.D.
Reader:
Ali Asghar Eftekhari, Ph.D.
BY:
Masoume Feizi
Tehran
December, 2013
In the Name of the Supreme
ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY
SOUTH TEHRAN BRANCH
FACULTY OF PERSIAN LITERATURE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language Translation
Title:
Investigating the Role of Translator’s Ideology in Manipulating Translated Text: A CDA Approach
Supervisor:
Sayyed Mohammad Karimi Behbahani, Ph.D.
Reader:
Ali Asghar Eftekhari, Ph.D.
BY:
Masoume Feizi
Tehran
January, 2013
Islamic Azad University
South Tehran Branch
FACULTY OF PERSIAN LITERATURE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Date: January, 2013
We herby certify that this thesis by Masoume Feizi
Entitled Investigating the Role of Translator’s Ideology in Manipulating Translated Text: A CDA Approach is accepted in partial fulfillment of requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language Translation
 The committee of final examination:
Advisor Dr. Sayyed Mohammad Karimi Behbahani
Reader Dr. Ali Asghar Eftekhari
Referee Dr. Masoud Yazdani Moghaddam
Head of the M.A. Department Dr. Alireza Ameri
Dean of the Faculty Dr. Soheila Musavi Sirjani
Deputy to Research Department of the Islamic Azad University – South Tehran Branch

Dedicated
To my dear husband and son
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr. M. Karimi Behbahani for his help, guidance, and advice during the progress of this research. I am particularly indebted to him for his valuable critical comment and for his academically stimulating discussion. I also wish to thanks Dr. Eftekhari for his valuable support, academically and morally. Last but not least, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my husband who has been very patient and supporting through the different stages of this research.
List of Tables and Figures
Table 2-1 Discourse definitions……………….…………………..……15 Figure 2-1. Fairclough´s diagram for discourse and discourse analysis..25
Table 4-1: An extract of the research data………………..…………….61
Table of Contents
Contents page
Dedication………………………………………………………………IV
Acknowledgments…….……………………………………………….. V
List of Tables and Figures……………………………………………VI
Abstract…………………………………………………………………X
Chapter One (I) Introduction to the Study 1-11
1-1.Introduction to the Study…………………………………………..2
1-2.Statement of the Problem……………………….…………………5
1-3.Research Questions…………………………….………………….7
1-4.Significance of the Study……………………………………….…6
1-5.Definition of the Key terms………………………………………..9
1-6.Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………..10
Chapter Two (II) Review of the Literature 12- 54
2-1.Overview………………………………………………………..13
2-2.What is discourse? ………………….…………….……………..16
2-3.What is Critical Discourse Analysis? …………………..………20
2-4. How ‘CDA Group’ was formed? …………….………….……..22
2-5.General principles of CDA…………………………..…………..23
2-6. Directions in CDA……………………………………………..25
2-6-1.Fairclough: Three-Dimensional Model of Discourse………26
2-6-1-1.The level of text analysis……………………….………29
2-6-1-2.The level of discourse/social practice……..……………30
2-7.Principles of critical discourse analysis…………………………..31
2-8. Power and Discourse………………………….…………………33
2-9.Intertextuality…………..…………………………………………34
2-9-1. Intertextuality from critical discourse analysis perspective..36
2-10.Discourse, Cognition, and Society……………….…………….37
2-11.Defining ideology…………………………….…………………39
2-11-1.Position of Ideology in Translation……………..…………42
2-11-1-1. Ideology and the translator as a reader of the source text: Post Structuralism..………………………………………43
2-11-1-2.Ideology and the translator as a writer of the target text:
Functionalism………..………………………………………….46
2-12.Fairclough’s model for analyzing discourse critically… …….…48

Chapter Three (III) Methodology 55-67
3-1. Overview.……………………………………………………….56
3-2.Design………………..…………………………………………..56
3-3. Materials………….………………….………………………….57
3-4.Brief Account about the Author and the book…………..……….57
3-5. Procedure………………..………………………………………60
3-6.Theoretical Framework……………..……………………………60
Chapter Four (IV) Results and Discussion 68-93
4-1.Results…………………………………………………….……..69
4-1-1. Micro-level analysis…….…………………………………..69
4-1-2.Macro-level analysis………………………………………..87
4-2.Discussion………………..………………………………………88
4-2-1. CDA at Macro-level………………………………………..89

Chapter Five (IV) Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research
94-100
5-1.Concluding summary………………………………………………95
5-2. Conclusion…………………….…………………………………..96
5-3.Suggestions for further research………………………….………..99

References……………………………………………………..………101
Appendix……………….………………………………..…………….109
Persian Abstract……………………………………………………….129
Abstract
The presence of ideological effects in different kinds of discourse has been investigated in some studies. One of the applications of critical discourse analysis (CDA) is to reveal the ideological effects included in translations. Following a modified model of Fairclough (1995) CDA, this study tried to analyze and discuss the ideological and cultural constraints faced by translators. For the purpose of analysis, two translated versions of “Iran Between Two Revolutions” by Ervand Abrahamian were analyzed at micro and macro level. This comparison was done between the two translations as well as the translations and the source text to detect any possible modifications during the process of rendering what the author has intended to say. The study revealed that tralations in the presence of underlying ideologies are affected by the lexical items chosen ideologically and grammatical shifts in translations and interventions which are the result of ideological issues, and the different strategies adopted in the process of translation which are often not arbitrary but rather ideologically motivated.
Chapter One
Introduction
1-1. Introduction to the study
Critical Discourse Analysis (hereafter CDA) is a method for analyzing discourse. The aim in critical (vs. non-critical) discourse analysis is to investigate how social power is abused, how dominance is asserted and inequality maintained by text and talk in social and political contexts. critical discourse analysts in their dissident research try to take explicit positions and understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality. CDA is not restricted to language or politics; it has been widely used in other disciplines such as sociolinguistics, psychology, and social sciences.Critical discourse analysis is not a school, approach or specialization as argued by some. It is rather a different method to analyzing, theorizing and using. In this regard , there are also more or less some similar critical approaches in fields such as pragmatics, conversation analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media analysis, among others. We might all think of discourse as a 21st century phenomenon. But, as a matter of fact, discourse is not developed in our age. We can trace its roots back to the Greek sophist Gorgias (485 B.C), who taught and practiced rhetoric. Moreover, discourse was the concern of classical rhetorics (Graesser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 2003). Apart from some exceptions like Gorgias, the study of texts before the 1970s mainly centered around linguistic features of sentences but the observation of factors shaping the text above sentence level was taken into account by linguistics during the 1970s and 1980s (Fairclough, 1992). Graesser (Graesser et al., 2003) believes when researchers became dissatisfied with sentence as the unit of analysis, they became concerned with discourse; and that was the rise of discourse analysis. The roots of CDA lie in classical Rhetoric, Text linguistics and sociolinguistics, as well as Applied Linguistics and Pragmatics. (Wodak, 2006)
What we know today as critical discourse analysis has its roots in critical linguistics of the 1970s (Wodak & Chilton, 2005) (see also Fowler, 1996). It was at this time that “systematic ways of analyzing the political and social import of text were proposed and developed.” (Hodge & Kress, 1979/1993; Fowler, Hodge, & Kress 1979; Fowler, 1996 all cited in Wodak & Chilton, 2005, p. xi). The coming years saw a connection between linguistics and social sciences as a big step forward in CDA. With discourse analysis area of enquiry, translation stepped into a new era in which it was considered as an interdisciplinary area of enquiry, a passage for other disciplines; that is, scholars were not limited to pure linguistic yardsticks any more. They had to take into account the relation between language and other social, political and cultural aspects.
Therefore, discourse is studied in other fields such as sociology, communication, philosophy, politics and many others disciplines and each discipline presents different definitions for the term. During the first 20 years, research was mainly conducted in English, but now the investigations are developing very fast in different fields and practiced with various languages (Wodak & Chilton, 2005).
To fulfil its aims, the research in critical discourse analysis has to meet some requirements. These are enumerated below: For CDA research to be accepted, it has to be of higher quality than other research as in the case for most of the marginal research in the field.
• The focus needs to be social issues and political problems in the first place.
• CDA research has to critically and empirically analyze the social problems.
• CDA tries to explain discourse structures in terms of social characteristics and interactions. This is mostly incarnated in social structure among other factors.
• More specifically, “CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society” (Van dijk, 2003, p. 2). In this research the researcher intends to illustrate how some factors such as ideology, power and etc. beyond the text and linguistic factors involve during the translation process.
1-2. Statement of the problem
According to Fairclough language is a form of social practice. This approach toward the study of language implys two things. First, languange is not seperable from the society rather it is part of it. Second, language is a social process. That is, in a process language is shaped and conditioned in society (Fairclough,1995). Fairclough argues that every translation is shaped by translators’ opinion and ideology to some extent. Other factors such as translation conditions and environment play a crucial role in the translation process; a role which is beyond the role played by linguistic factors. In the context of translation, CDA is an analytical tool for analyzing and identifying the extent of the original writer’s ideology in the translation as well as the effect of culture as a factor interwoven into language. Therefore, CDA is an instrument for the systematic analysis of making the ideology of the translator stand out from the translation.
Fairclough believes that different ‘social actors’ represent events in various ways, that is; each social actor has a different discourse. He argues that social actors have their own way of representing the reality (as cited in Wodak & Chilton, 2005). Lilie Chouliaraki (1998), another scholar, believes that different people have various alternatives from which they use what they prefer. Blommaert (2005) argues that human activities including conversations, texts, images or any other multimedia are seen and presented “in connection with social, cultural, and historical patterns and developments of use” (p. 2). Similarly, van Dijk maintains that there’s a strong relationship between language and social events indicating that the language we may use might vary with regard to different social events (as cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2001). In this regard, ideology and power play a major role in the way events are reflected by media.
Being aware of the other factors which have a role in the translation process and in addition to the linguistic elements paying attention to them will be useful and will help the translators and theorists during their job. CDA is the uncovering of implicit ideologies in texts. It unveils the underlying ideological prejudices and therefore the exercise of power in texts.
Despite the vast research area in this subject worldwide, few attempts have been made to analyze how texts are manipulated by Iranian translators and there is a big gap to be filled in this area. It is not clear to what extent translators project their own ideology to shape the translation. Despite the need for research in this area, few researches have been conducted on the role of ideology in translation both at micro and macro level. This research enterprised attempts to critically analyze the relationship between language, ideology, and society.

1-3. Research questions
To fulfill the objectives of this study, the following research questions were posed:
• Do particular socio-cultural constraints of the translator affect his/her translation?
• Do particular ideological constraints of the translator affect his/her translation?
1-4. Significance of the study
In recent years professionals from a variety of backgrounds have become interested in discourse issues. Historians, business institutions, lawyers, politicians and…, have used discourse analysis to investigate social problems relating to their work. Van Dijk (1997), who prefers the term Critical Discourse Studies(CDS) for this reason, believed it is a new cross-discipline in virtually all disciplines of the humanities and social sciences that comprises the analysis of the text and talk. Recently, the issue of ideological presence of translator in translations and the effect of ideological translations on the target readership has been discussed a lot Although such influences, revealed through discourse shifts, are sometimes clear and distinguishable, the whole area requires more and more systematic studies since the issue is not always clear-cut.Also ideologies are closely linked to language, because using language is the commonest form of social behavior. This study can provide a broader analytical angle for translation students helping them to recognize texts in connection with all kinds of textual and extra textual constrains such as ideology, power relations, and cultural and historical backgrounds. Indeed, this study was an attempt to emphasize that the underlying ideological filter, most often as an invisible hand, makes every text unbiased or innocent let alone texts having politicized language. Therefore, translators, as any other language users who actively participate in the process of creating meaning, need to be very aware of and conscious about every discursive strategy or choice, ranging from deletion and addition to syntactic and lexical variations, they might adopt during the process of producing the target text on the basis of the source text. The researcher investigated the possible effect of translator’s ideology on the translation. The emphasis on the issue of ideology based on CDA can pave the way for translation trainees and also translation scholars and theorists in the field of translation studies. Moreover, this study can be useful for others who study linguistics or teaching.
1-5. Definition of the key terms
In this study, the terms appearing below have the following meaning:
Critical Discourse Analysis: Discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often open relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, even and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, even and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony… (Fairclough, 1995, pp.132-133).
Constraint: something which controls what you do by keeping you within particular limits (Bloor, 2007 p. 91).
Discourse: Discourse means symbolic human interaction in its many forms, whether directly through spoken or written language or via gestures, pictures, diagrams, films or music. (Bloor, 2007 p.182).
Discourse Analysis: a method for analyzing language, or rather, “a method for investigating changes in language” (Fairclough, 2006).
Ideology: Basic system of shared social representations that may control more specific group beliefs. (Van Dijk, 1996, p. 7).
Manipulation: the usual forms and formats of ideological discourse, such as emphasizing our good things, and emphasizing their bad things (Van Dijk, 2006).
Power: the transformative capacity of human action…the capacity to intervene in a series of events so as to alter their course (Fairclough, 2003, p.41).
1-6.Limitations and Delimitations
Like other researches, there are limitations to this research. Of course, the examination of some element in a given text in itself cannot guarantee whether or not how much ideology plays a role in translating a text. However, it could be helpful in complementing the analysis of a given text.
Also, the collected sample was also another limitation of the study. Due to the lack of space and time, only some parts of the book were selected to analyze the texts. Analyzing the whole book could bring about more comprehensive results.
Despite the endeavor by the researcher, the translators were not available or did not cooperate in the interviews. Having direct access to the translators, the researcher might have been able to provide a more precise biographical account of the translator. Another limitation that the researcher faced during the corpus collection was that it was very time-consuming to gather the instances from all over the translations. Nevertheless, it is doubted the results would be much different if all parts of the corpus were included. In this thesis, the researcher focused upon just two translations. Further research could be done through comparing multiple translations and more cases. This could also be conducted for other language pairs, since our research just focused on English and Persian languages.
Chapter Two
Literature Review
2-1Overview
Research in discourse analysis has focused upon the relationship between language and the context it is used in. Discourse has been the focus of different majors from the 1960s and early 1970s. Various disciplines including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology have dealt with discourse from different aspects in which the term is has its own definition. In the context of language use, discourse analysis is the analysis of spoken interaction between individuals, groups and sometimes even two or more nations. The specialists in this field are interested in levels beyond the linguistic forms.
Different scholars approach discourse according to the specifications of their field and their view on discourse. In the field of language and translation, the whole story discourse is telling is that translation is not limited merely to the text itself; it goes beyond textual boundaries and enters the realm of macro-analysis. That is to say, if grammar gives us coherent sentences, discourse gives us coherent paragraphs and texts (Solhjou, 1377/1998, p.7), “’Critical’ is used in the special sense of aiming to show up connections which may be hidden from people – such as the connections between language, power, and ideology” (Fairclough, 2001, p.5).
CDA in Fairclough (1989) is defined as an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse in which language is viewed as a form of social practice (Fairclough, 1989). The above definition shows that language shaped both by society and society is shaped by the language of its speakers as well (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). The role played by ideology is that language is constructed within its social context not in isolation and language users have different conceptions about the entities in the world, which is defined by their ideologies. Therefore, there’s a powerful link between the ideologies of individuals and their language (Fairclough, 1989). Supporting this relation of language and ideology, Fairclough (1989) states that language bonds with the social through being the principal domain of ideology and “through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power” (p. 15).
Concerning the fact that the ideological roots are different not only across various languages and cultures, but also across different users of the same language and culture, it is reasonably evident that there is a need for clarifying the sources of these deviations. Therefore, CDA tries to uncover the hidden aspects of discourse, which play a crucial role in shaping people’s ideologies as well as changing social realities. This is, for sure, a supra-linguistic method beyond the grammatical structure as it deals with the implications (Fairclough, 1989). The CDA approaches include a vast body of fields such as political sciences, social sciences and education. Among the sub-disciplines of CDA, critical linguistics aims to consider the linguistic choices a text producer makes which show a particular ideological stance towards a topic. The application of CDA in translation has enjoyed the scholars’ interests for decades (for example see, Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). Translational studies today are said to be at another turn, i.e. ideological. This is obviously a turn which signifies the growth of trends considering ideological issues within the field. The act of translation is not purely linguistics, because it must consider social and ideological backgrounds of the writer in order to be able to convey a message from the source text to its target equivalent. The aspect of ideology in translation can be explored through analyzing deficiencies and redundancies of the translated texts so as to see whether they are the results of the translator’s ideological point of view or not (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). The critical inspection of the ideological manipulations in the contents of the ST as well as the ideological orientations displayed in translation can display the intentional or unintentional strategies selected by translators to manipulate the exact message and this will obviously influence the interpretation of the source text. As a matter of fact, the concern in the present study was to show a possible existence of such ideological manipulations and their effects on what the original text had tried to convey.
2-2What is discourse?
The first obstacle and problem of people who newly faced to the field of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is the various definitions of the concept of discourse.
Table 2-1 shows some of the common definitions of discourse in different disciplines and among different scholars.

Table 2-1 Definitions of “Discourse”
dictionary/ scholardefinitionArcheology dictionary (as cited in Haase, 2010)The context, environment, and conditions within which a defined knowledge is produced and made accessible to others. Philosophy Dictionary (as cited in Haase, 2010)A continuous stretch of language containing more than one sentence: conversations, narratives, arguments, speeches.Literary Dictionary (as cited in Haase, 2010)Any extended use of speech or writing; or a formal exposition or dissertation.Linguistics (as cited in Haase, 2010)units of language longer than a single sentence; discourse analysis is the study of cohesion and other relationships between sentences in written or spoken discourse.Geographical Dictionary (as cited in Haase, 2010)A specific assembly of categorizations, concepts, and ideas that is produced, reproduced, performed, and transformed in a particular set of practices.Carling (2004)The act of understandingSchostak (2010)”talk”, the ways in which people account for their experience
Oxford dictionarythe use of language in speech and writing in order to produce meaning; language that is studied, usually in order to see how the different parts of a text are connectedBrown & Yule (1983)language in useFaiclough & Wodak (1997)language as social practiceBlommaert (2005)all forms of meaningful semiotic human activityvan Dijk (cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2001)a communicative eventFoucault (cited in van Leeuwen, 2008)semantic constructions of specific aspects of reality that serve the interests of particular historical and/or social contexts
Table 2-1 shows that “discourse” is used in, at least, three major ways: first, as language above sentence level (e.g. in linguistics and philosophy), second, language in use (e.g. in Brown & Yule, 1983; Oxford Dictionary and Literary Dictionary), and third, language as “it reflects social reality” (e.g. Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Foucault cited in van Leeuwen, 2008). Of course, these three notions overlap to some extent. To detail the subject, Oxford Dictionary, for example, defines it as “the use of language in speech and writing in order to produce meaning; language that is studied, usually in order to see how the different parts of a text are connected”. Brown and Yule (1983), much the same as Oxford Dictionary outline discourse as “language in use” (as cited in Johnstone, 2008, p. xiii), and Foucault, the thinker who had the most obvious influence on CDA, believes discourse is the “semantic constructions of specific aspects of reality that serve the interests of particular historical and/or social contexts,” (as cited in van Leeuwen, 2008, p. vii). Discourse forwarded by Fairclough and Wodak (1997) is almost the same: language as social practice (Apart from the fact that Fairclough (2001a) distinguishes between Discourse and discourses in the sense that the former constitutes the latter.). Fairclough, adopting Foucaultian definition of discourse, believes different ‘social actors’ represent events in various ways, with different discourses (for more information about social actor see Fairclough, 2004). And more specifically, different discourses are “particular ways of representing aspects of the world.” (Fairclough, as cited in Wodak & Chilton, 2005). Lilie Chouliaraki (1998), another CDA scholar believes discourse is a set of alternatives from which language users choose what they prefer. Blommaert (2005), on the other hand, believes discourse is “all forms of meaningful semiotic human activity,” including conversations, texts, images or any other multimedia, “seen in connection with social, cultural, and historical patterns and developments of use” (p. 2). And van Dijk takes a socio-cognitive perspective and sees discourse as “a communicative event”, interaction including language as well as other media (as cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2001, p. 20). All in all, the shared premise among all discourse scholars is that there is a close relationship between language use and “struggles for power” and that “the power of language can help making personal goals” (Fairclough, 1996). Among the manifold definitions above, we deal mostly with Chouliaraki’s (1998) discourse; a set of alternatives from which language users choose what they prefer. The arrangement of any portrayal of a particular reality is “necessarily selective”, which means, discourse participants decide on the inclusion/exclusion of aspects of the reality and their arrangement (Hall, 1997, as cited in Barker & Galasinski, 2001).
2-3What is Critical Discourse Analysis?
According to Teun van Dijk (1993) critical discourse analysts aim at understanding, exposing, and resisting social inequality. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an approach for identifying the hidden ideologies in texts to unveil the underlying ideological biases and therefore the exercise of power in texts (Widdoson, 2000). Fairclough (1995) use the term to refer to the theories concerned with criticizing ideologies and the impact asserted through domination.
The idea of critical linguistics, as the mother of CDA, was developed based on Halliday’s Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) in the 1970s by a group of linguists and literary theorists at the University of East Anglia. SFL as a branch of grammar focuses on the importance of social context in language production and development. CDA in Faircloughean definition is as follows (1995, p.132-133):
“By critical discourse analysis I mean discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.”
In recent years, discourse issues have become the locus of interest by many professionals from a variety of disciplines. Discourse is used by a variety of professionals such as historians, business institutions, lawyers, politicians and medical professionals for investigating the social problems connected to their work. Van Dijk (1993) as a key scholar in the field of CDA with a social approach to discourse, has chosen the term Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) which includes the analysis of text and speech in all disciplines of the humanities and social sciences.
2-4 How ‘CDA Group’ was formed
The CDA as a network of researchers was developed in the early 1990s, by a small symposium in Amsterdam held in January 1991 (Wodak and Meyer, 2009). The founders of the symposium were key scholars like Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen and Ruth Wodak who spent two days together to discuss and negotiate upon CDA methods and theories. The results of these meetings were different approaches to CDA. But, how different they were, they had some features in common. In general, CDA as a paradigm or school is characterized by a number of principles: for example, all approaches are problem-oriented, and thus necessarily interdisciplinary and eclectic. CDA approaches are characterized by their interests in identifying the ideologies and power investigating the semiotic data which includes written, spoken or visual material.
CDA scholars try to make their own positions and interests clear while retaining their respective scientific methodologies and while remaining self-reflective of their own research process. The publication of Van Dijk’s journal Discourse and Society (1990) as well as several books which were completely published simultaneously were the start of the CDA network.
2-5 General principles of CDA
There is a common belief among scholars that CDA cannot be classified as a single method but is viewed as an approach consisting of different methods for studying the relationship between language and social context.
The prominent scholars of the field each have their own principles for CDA. But the most cited principles are Fairclough and Wodak’s (1997), eight principles summarized as follows:
• CDA addresses social problems. It focuses on language and language use as well as linguistic characteristics of “social and cultural processes”. CDA is an endeavor elucidating hidden power relations in texts (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997, p. 268).
• Power relations are discursive, i.e. CDA explains how social relations of power are practiced and negotiated in discourse.
• Discourse comprises society and culture, i.e. every piece of language use “makes its own contribution to reproducing and transforming society and culture, including relations of power” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 63).
• Discourse does ideological work, i.e. ideologies are produced through discourse (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).
• Discourse is history. Discourses, therefore, can only be interpreted with regard to their historical context (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).
• The link between text and society is mediated and CDA, therefore, makes connections between sociocultural processes and structures on the one hand and properties of texts on the other (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).
• CDA is interpretative and explanatory. These interpretations and explanations are “dynamic and open” and are under the influence of new readings and new contextual information (Wei, 2006). This process is referred to by Meyer as a hermeneutic process (see Meyer, 2001).
• CDA, therefore, is a form of social action which aims at revealing “opaqueness and power relations” and attempts to change the communicative and “socio-political” practices (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).
2-6 Directions in CDA
Three key scholars have contributed a lot to the field of CDA. These scholars include: van Dijk, Wodak and Fairclough. Since the field is new and its main pillars of it are not yet specified, many scholars have tried to identify the elements of CDA and provide methods for analyzing discourse critically. The most noticeable works are the methodologies provided by van Dijk (2005, 1997, 2001), Wodak and Meyer (2001), Fairclough (1992, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006), Wodak (1996, 2001), Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), Scollon (1998, 1999, 2003), Gee (1999, 2005) and van Leeuwen (1993, 1995, 1996) (as cited in Wei, 2006).The most common feature shared by all methods is that they all combine theories and models of text analysis with political and sociocultural theories. The slight difference here is that some scholars rely on the linguistic analysis of texts (e.g. see Fairclough, 2001 and Wodak, 1996), and some others, like Scollon (1997, 1998) focus more on the communication in the media, rather than the grammatical perspective. The model proposed by van Dijk (1997), on the other hand, is based on four categories: “action, context, power and ideology”. The methods proposed by Hunston and Sinclair (2000), Hunston and Thompson (2000) and Hyland (2004, 2005, 2006) differ from previous methodologies in that they provide non-functional approaches to analyzing the language of evaluation in its “social and rhetorical dimensions.” Below we will provide some detail about their approach toward CDA.
2-6-1 Fairclough: Three-Dimensional Model of Discourse
The CDA model proposed by Fairclough (1989, 1995) and adopted by many scholars comprises of three analysis processes which are related to three inter-related dimensions of discourse. These three dimensions are:
1. The object of analysis which includes verbal, visual or verbal and visual texts.
2. The processes for producing and receiving the object which includes writing, speaking, designing and reading, listening, and viewing by human subjects.
3. The socio-historical circumstances which rule the above mentioned processes.
Fairclough (1995) argues that each of above dimensions needs a different kind of analysis as follows:
1. Text analysis (description: is the stage which is concerned with the formal properties of the text).
2. Processing analysis (interpretation: is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction – with considering the text as a product of a process of production, and as a resource in the process of interpretation…)
3. Social analysis (explanation: is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context – with the social determination of the processes of production and interpretation, and their social effects.) (pp. 26-27).
The approach proposed by Fairclough is useful because it focuses on the signifiers forming the text, the specific linguistic selections in the text, their juxtapositioning, their sequencing, and their layout and so on. However, we need to take into the account the fact that these selections are determined historically and are related to “the conditions of possibility of that utterance” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 28). That is, texts are instantiations of socially regulated discourses and that production and reception processes are constrained by social factors. Fairclough’s approach to CDA is so useful because of providing manifold points of analytic entry. Figure 2-1 depicts Fairclough’s (1989, 1995) model for CDA. The model consists of three analytical processes which are connected to three inter-related dimensions of discourse.
Figure 2-1. Fairclough´s diagram for discourse and discourse analysis
As seen in the above figure, the first dimension illustrates the discourse fragment, which is the object of analysis and includes verbal, visual or verbal and visual texts. The second dimension to Fairclough’s model for discourse is the aspect of context and the location where struggles over power relations in discourse occur. This dimension is attributed also to the processes by which an object is produced and received (writing/speaking/designing and reading/listening/viewing) . The third discourse dimension is described as power hidden behind discourse or as social practices, because it contains the socio-historical circumstances that rule these processes.
2-6-1-1 The level of text analysis
The first level of analysis proposed in Fairloughian CDA is related to linguistics which is the linguistic description of texts. Some of the elements of Fairclough’s model has changed over time but certain basic assumptions have mostly remained unmodified which are outlined here. First, the concept of text in Fairclough’s model consists of language which is produced as written material which is intended for reading. But the recent view about discourse is that it is not only the language above the sentence level but also more than language in use (Fairclough, 1989). Moreover, as argued by Fairclough texts are products of the discourse process. This places them in between actual text production and text reception/ interpretation, giving the analyst an opportunity to go back, as it were, from his own interpretation of a text in order to see what motivations or in the case of CDA, social structures and practices has influenced its beginning. Thus the negotiation of the meaning(s) of a text is seen as an interplay between its production, the text



قیمت: تومان

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ارشد

پاسخ دهید