Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard Choices
Political text writers are often tended to implement rhetorical strategies, including the discursive ideological strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, to imply and impose their ideological intentions on the audience. The utilization of such strategies may cause tr...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Lasting Impressions Press
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.eltsjournal.org/archive/value6%20issue3/4-6-3-18.pdf |
| _version_ | 1819036737354072064 |
|---|---|
| author | Roghayeh Adlpour Razieh Eslamieh |
| author_facet | Roghayeh Adlpour Razieh Eslamieh |
| author_sort | Roghayeh Adlpour |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Political text writers are often tended to implement rhetorical strategies, including the discursive ideological strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, to imply and impose their ideological intentions on the audience. The utilization of such strategies may cause translation problems for translators of political texts. Political texts in particular usually act as a source of problem for novice translators who read texts in a traditional way and understand the texts in an uncritical manner. The present paper, attempting to introduce such political rhetorical strategies in English as the source language and their proper rendition in Farsi as the target language, offers a critical discourse analysis of Amir Ghaderi’s Farsi translation of Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices (2014). To this end, Van Dijk’s CDA approach (2004) was used. However, the study has explored only four strategies out of 27 including -hyperbole, euphemism, polarization and vagueness. The results showed that euphemism, with 41 instances out of total 60 instances, was the most frequently observed discursive strategy, as the source text had the political end of highlighting the power and dominance of the source text state to the reader. The other three discursive strategies were observed with relatively close rate: hyperbole =8, polarization =8, and vagueness=3. The findings of this study have the potentialities to make generalization about the meaningful high frequency of euphemism and the use of other discursive strategies in political texts. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T08:10:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7c7318ff158248498cea97957979bf0e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2308-5460 2308-5460 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T08:10:16Z |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | Lasting Impressions Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies |
| spelling | doaj.art-7c7318ff158248498cea97957979bf0e2022-12-21T19:10:41ZengLasting Impressions PressInternational Journal of English Language and Translation Studies2308-54602308-54602018-08-0106033240Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard ChoicesRoghayeh Adlpour0Razieh Eslamieh 1Islamic Azad University, Parand Branch Iran Islamic Azad University, Parand Branch Iran Political text writers are often tended to implement rhetorical strategies, including the discursive ideological strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, to imply and impose their ideological intentions on the audience. The utilization of such strategies may cause translation problems for translators of political texts. Political texts in particular usually act as a source of problem for novice translators who read texts in a traditional way and understand the texts in an uncritical manner. The present paper, attempting to introduce such political rhetorical strategies in English as the source language and their proper rendition in Farsi as the target language, offers a critical discourse analysis of Amir Ghaderi’s Farsi translation of Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices (2014). To this end, Van Dijk’s CDA approach (2004) was used. However, the study has explored only four strategies out of 27 including -hyperbole, euphemism, polarization and vagueness. The results showed that euphemism, with 41 instances out of total 60 instances, was the most frequently observed discursive strategy, as the source text had the political end of highlighting the power and dominance of the source text state to the reader. The other three discursive strategies were observed with relatively close rate: hyperbole =8, polarization =8, and vagueness=3. The findings of this study have the potentialities to make generalization about the meaningful high frequency of euphemism and the use of other discursive strategies in political texts.http://www.eltsjournal.org/archive/value6%20issue3/4-6-3-18.pdfCritical Discourse AnalysisVan Dijk ModelEuphemismPolarizationVagueness |
| spellingShingle | Roghayeh Adlpour Razieh Eslamieh Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard Choices International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Critical Discourse Analysis Van Dijk Model Euphemism Polarization Vagueness |
| title | Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard Choices |
| title_full | Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard Choices |
| title_fullStr | Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard Choices |
| title_full_unstemmed | Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard Choices |
| title_short | Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in Farsi Translation of Hard Choices |
| title_sort | positive self presentation and negative other presentation in farsi translation of hard choices |
| topic | Critical Discourse Analysis Van Dijk Model Euphemism Polarization Vagueness |
| url | http://www.eltsjournal.org/archive/value6%20issue3/4-6-3-18.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT roghayehadlpour positiveselfpresentationandnegativeotherpresentationinfarsitranslationofhardchoices AT razieheslamieh positiveselfpresentationandnegativeotherpresentationinfarsitranslationofhardchoices |