Cover not available

Article published In: Babel
Vol. 63:5 (2017) ► pp.702–728

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Ideological shifts between bilingual EU texts

A critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach to translation

 | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki |
Published online: 16 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00005.dam
Abstract
This article examines the translation of an official English European Council text, namely a Commission Communication, into Greek. A critical discourse analysis-based methodology is used to probe the manipulation of ideological shifts between the English source text and its Greek translation. The analysis of both texts aims to shed light on the way culturally-approved patterns reflect and also influence society’s priorities and preoccupations. The comparative analysis provides an example of how the European Union and its official working language influenced the translator’s attitudes and motivations in decoding various ideological patterns. Adopting a social view of political ideologies and their associated readerships, the article discusses how discourse and ideology mediate in the translation of the English-Greek language pair. It shows how discourse reinforces ideological assumptions and how it challenges them by emphasizing that the source culture violates the very norms and values the target culture holds dear.
Résumé
Cet article examine la traduction en grec d'un texte officiel anglais du Conseil européen, à savoir une communication de la Commission. Une méthodologie basée sur une analyse critique du discours sera utilisée pour étudier en détail la manipulation des changements idéologiques entre le texte source anglais et sa traduction grecque. L'analyse des deux textes vise à clarifier comment des modèles culturellement approuvés reflètent et influencent également les priorités et les préoccupations d'une société. L'analyse comparative donne un exemple de la manière dont l'Union européenne et sa langue de travail officielle ont influencé les attitudes et les motivations du traducteur en décodant différents modèles idéologiques. En adoptant une vision sociale des idéologies politiques et de leurs lectorats associés, nous examinons comment un discours et une idéologie interviennent dans la traduction de la combinaison linguistique anglais-grec. Nous montrons comment un discours renforce les hypothèses idéologiques et comment il les remet en question en soulignant que la culture source viole les normes mêmes et les valeurs chères à la culture cible.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Critical discourse analysis and ideology
    • 2.1A social view of discourse analysis
    • 2.2Discourse and ideology
    • 2.3Ideological mediation in translation
    • 2.4Ideological shifts in translation
  • 3.The analytical framework
  • 4.The data-text in its context of culture and situation
  • 5.Translating ideologically laden elements of an English text into Greek
    • 5.1Ideational meaning and transitivity
    • 5.2Interpersonal meaning and modality
    • 5.3Lexical choice and cohesion
    • 5.4Interdiscursivity
    • 5.5Intertextuality
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (35)
References
Agrapidas, Konstantinos. 2006. “Η πρόκληση της μεταρρύθμισης στην Ε.Ε., η ευελιξία και η ασφάλεια στην αγορά της εργασίας.” The World of the Investor, Economy 1781: 2. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caldas-Coulhard, Carmen R., and B. Holland. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In Written Discourse, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, Rosamund Moon, Alison Johnson, Carmen R. Caldas-Coulthard, and Bob Holland, 109–138. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham: The Centre for English Language Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen R., Lorraine Quinn-Adriano, and Malcolm Coulthard. 2000. “Text types, narration and exposition”. In Translation and Discourse, ed. by Carmen R. Caldas-Coulthard, 88–92. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham: The Centre for English Language Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Communication from the Commission. 2001. Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality, COM(2001) 678 final. Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council Resolution on Lifelong Learning. 2002 /C 163/01. Official Journal C 163, 09/07/2002 P. 0001 – 0003. [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doudoulaki, Chrysoula. 2002. “Η μετάφραση κοινοτικών κειμένων ως μετάφραση ειδικών γλωσσών” [The translation of European Commission texts as translation of special languages]. In Translating in the 21st Century: Trends and Prospects, ed. by George Androulakis, 682–689. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1996. “Technologisation of Discourse.” In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Carmen R. Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, 71–83. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001a. “The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis”. In Discourse as Data, ed. by Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates, 229–266. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fochi, Anna. 2010. “Reading multimodal translational webs dialogue of the visual and the verbal in Vanity Fair’s publication of Chronicle of a Death Foretold .” Translation Studies 3 (1): 33–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Janet. 1999. “The discourse of official texts and how it can impede public service translators.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20 (3): 194–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gorlée, Dinda L. 1994. Semiotics and the Problem of Translation: With Special Reference to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 2001. “Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse”. In Discourse Theory and Practice, ed. by Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates, 72–81. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardy, Cynthia, Bill Harley, and Nelson Philips. 2004. “Discourse analysis and content analysis: Two solitudes?” Qualitative Methods Newsletter Spring: 19–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London – NewYork: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holland, Bob. 2001. “Applications of Text Analysis”. In Written Discourse, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, Rosamund Moon, Alison Johnson, Carmen R. Caldas-Coulthard, and Bob Holland, 139–161. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham: The Centre for English Language Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, and Nicolas Coupland. 2000. “Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis”. In The Discourse Reader, ed. by Adam Jaworskis and Nicolas Couplands, 1–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 2001. “From Saussure to critical sociolinguistics: The turn towards a social view of language”. In Discourse Theory and Practice, ed. by Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates, 29–38. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuo, Sai-Hua, and Mari Nakamura. 2005. “Translation or transformation? A case study of language and ideology in the Taiwanese press”. Discourse Society 16 (3): 393–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laffey, Mark, and Juda Weldes. 2004. “Methodological Reflections on Discourse Analysis”. Qualitative Methods 2 (1): 28–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leckie-Tarry, Hellen. 1995. Language and Context: A Functional Linguistic Theory of Register. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2007. “The translator’s intervention through voice selection”. In Translation as Intervention, ed. by Jeremy Munday, 18–37. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papariga, Αleka. 2006. “Συνάντηση ευρωπαϊκών κομμουνιστικών και εργατικών κομμάτων για την Παιδεία” [European Communist and Labour Party Meeting for Education]. Rizospastis, April 8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. 2004. “Political Discourse Analysis from the point of view of Translation Studies”. Journal of Language and Politics 3 (1): 117–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina, and Beverly Adab. 1997. “Translation as intercultural communication – Contact as conflict”. In Translation as Intercultural Communication, ed. by M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarova, and K. Kaindl, 325–337. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1986. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. 1995. “Discourse analysis as ideological analysis”. In Language and Peace, ed. by Christina Schäffner and A. Wenden Teun, 17–33. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varela, Carmen Millán, and Sophia Butt. 2000. “Intertextual and intertemporal relations in translation”. In Translation and Discourse, ed. by Carmen Rosa and Caldas-Coulhard, 103–124. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham: The Centre for English Language Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1992. “Introduction”. In Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 1–17. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wetherell, Margaret. 2001. “Debates in discourse research”. In Discourse Theory and Practice, ed. by Margeret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Stephanie J. Yates, 380–399. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Chen, Shukun, Aiping Mo & Shu Yang
2024. ‘We should have a deep understanding’: reinstantiating cognitive processes in the translation of Chinese political discourse. Perspectives 32:5 ► pp. 942 ff. DOI logo
Pomerleau, Marc
2023. Tension in translation: Spain’s and Catalonia’s discourse on independence. Perspectives 31:3 ► pp. 450 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Shukun, Winfred Wenhui Xuan & Hailing Yu
2022. Applying systemic functional linguistics in translation studies. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 68:4 ► pp. 517 ff. DOI logo
Constantinou, Maria
2020. EU lay communication in translation: mediation, affectivity and EU citizenship. Perspectives 28:2 ► pp. 202 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue