Islamic Azad University Science and Research Campus A Thesis Submitted to the school of Graduate Studies as a Prerequisite in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Translation Studies (M.A) Gender Ideology of Translators Implicated in Their Translations of Virginia Woolf's Novels Advisor: Mohammad Khatib, PhD. Reader: Farzaneh Farahzad, PhD. By: Adeleh Boostani February, 2011
Table of content: Contents page Abstract 1 Chapter One 2 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Background 4 1.3 Statement of the Problem 4 1.4 Research Question 6 1.5 Significance of the Study 6 1.6 Purpose of the Study 7 1.7 Definition of Key terms 8 1.8 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 9 Chapter Two 10 2.1 Overview 11 2.2 Discourse Analysis (DA) 11 2.2.1 Discourse Analysis and Translation 14 2.3 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 15 2.3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis and Translation Studies 18 2.3.1.1 Critical Discourse Analysis and Intertextuality 22 2.3.2 Theories of CDA 22 2.3.2.1 Fairclough and CDA 23 2.3.2.2 Van Dijk and CDA 25 2.4 Translation Criticism (TC) 26 2.4.1 CDA and/in Translation Criticism 28 2.4.2 Farahzad's Model of TC within the Framework of CDA 28 2.5 Ideology 32
2.5.1 Ideology, Translation Studies and CDA 33 2.5.2 Gender Ideology 43 2.5.2.1 Language and Gender 46 2.5.2.2 Gender and Translation 47 Chapter Three 50 3.1 Overview 51 3.2 Description of Research Type 51 3.3 The Procedure 52 3.4 The Unit of Analysis 53 3.5 The Corpus of the Study 53 3.5.1 Size of the Corpus 54 3.5.2 Rationale 55 3.6 Data Collection 56 3.7 Data Processing and Analysis 57 Chapter Four 58 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Data Processing 59 4.2.1 Grammatical Choices in the Persian Translations of "To the Lighthouse" 60 4.2.2 Grammatical Choices in the Persian Translations of "Orlando" 69 4.2.3 Grammatical Choices in the Persian Translations of "Mrs Dalloway" 75 4.3 Results and Discussion 81 Chapter Five 84 5.1 Overview 85 5.2 Conclusion 86 5.3. Pedagogical Implications 88 5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 88
References 90 Appendix A 94 Persian Abstract 103
Abstract: Translation studies recently has focused on the role of translators in cultural communications and emphasized on the translator's identity as one of the factors which impacts the work of translation. This study has examined three novels of Virginia Woolf and their translations into Persian, one done by a female and the other by a male translator, to see the role of gender in choosing grammatical structures. Considering Farahzad's model of translation criticism which is inspired by CDA, as the framework, the corpus of this study has been examined and analyzed to see the relationship between gender ideology and translator's grammatical choices. In general, it can be said that male translators altered the style of the female author while female translators preserved the style and the theme of the texts. The number of negations and temporal shifts and also modal shifts in the males' translations were more than those in the females'. Further research can be conducted to examine the other ideological implications in other layers of the text. Keywords: Language, translation, gender ideology, critical discourse analysis, translation criticism, Farahzad's model.
References: Baker, M. (1998). Encyclopedia of translation studies. London, New York: Routledge. Batchelor, j. B. (1971). Feminism in Virginia Woolf. In C. Sprague, Virginia Woolf: A Collection of Critical Essays(pp.169-180). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2007). The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London: Oxford University Press. Cameron, D. (1996). Verbal Hygiene. London, New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London : Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: the critical study of language. London, New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. and Woodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary introduction, Volum2, (pp. 258-284). London: Sage. Fairclough, N. and Woodak,R.(1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk, Discourse as Social Interaction, (pp. 258-284). London: Sage Fakher, M.(2008).Ideology and Translation Criticism within CDA Framework. Unpublished M.A thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran. Farahzad, F. (2009). Translation Criticism: A CDA approach. Translation studies journal. Vol xi. No. 24
Fawcett, P. (1998). Ideology and Translation. In M.Baker (Ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.106-111). London : Routledge. Hashemi, M. (2008). Translation and Ideology: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach to Translation. Unpublished M.A thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge. Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation, an Advaced Resource Book. London: Routledge. Holmz, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London : Routledge. Kamerae, c. and Spender, D. (2000). Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women. New York, London : Routledge. Karoubi, B. (2005). Ideology and Translation. Unpublished M.A thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran Kuo Sai-hua and Nakamura Mai. (2005). Translation or Transmission? A Case Study of Language and Ideology in the Taiwanese Press. Discourse and Society. London: Sage Lee, D. (1992). Competing Discourse: Perspective and Ideology in Language. New York: Longman. Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London, New York : Routledge. Perez, M.C. (2003). Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology _ Ideology in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Popovic, A. (1976).Aspects of meta-text: in Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 3. In M.Shuttleworth and M.Cowie: Dictionary of Translation Studies ( p.105 &134). Manchester: St. Jerome. Schaffner, C. (2003). Third ways and New Centres: Ideological Unity or Differences. In M.Calzada Perez (Ed.) Apropos of Ideology (pp. 23-42). Manchester: St. Jerome. Schaffner, C. (2004). Introduction, In C. Shaffner (Ed.) Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies (pp. 1-9). Cleveton: multilingual matters LTD. Shuttleworth, M. and Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome. Simon, S. (1996). Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London, New York: Routledge. Spivak, G.C. (1992). The Politics of Translation. New York, London: Routledge. Tavoosi, M. (2008). Translation of Gender Ideology. Unpublished M.A thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science ans Research Campus, Tehran. Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Society. Sage 4(2) :249-283 Van Dijk, T.A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Shaffner and A. Wenden (Eds.) Language and Peace (pp. 17-33). Aldershot: Dartmouth publication. Van Dijk, T.A. ( 1996). Discourse, Opinions, and Ideologies. In C.Shaffner and H.Kelly _Holmes (Ed.). Discourse and Ideologies (pp.7-37). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage. Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Discourse, ideology and context. Folia linguistica, xxx/1-2, 11-40 Venuti, L. (ed.) (1992). Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, London and New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (1995). the Translator s Indivisibility. London and New York: Routledge. Von Flotow, L. (1997). Translation and Gender: translating in the 'Era of Feminism'. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Wardhaugh, R.(1990). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.UK: Basil Blackwell. Williams, J. and Chesteman, A.(2002). The Map: A Beginner's Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome. Woodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments, in R. Woodak and M. Meyer (Eds.). Methods of CDA, (pp. 1-13). London: Sage Publication. Woodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of CDA. London: Sage publication.
X=@1+ GI ()Q165 u@24$a(o [(U10D=O@ *@[Xt]) _151 * 2)2>5,.&mC)=O@ *U10D$&mC) @@ + 20)T5T$()Q,$ 1O2)j 2>5,.,C45T$() $ 2T( 2>5,., (4$* 2+ 5T $ Q165 @5< 2)@1<o $ MO1Go Q615.=@56*G4$<Pi1[DH MO2)1Go()<QJ $ 24$()(4,KR( Q165L[=@J2m4PQ4<()_151 *()ƒ4,i*2+<=@j(.oj PG,$j5)H1,$a O #"ˆˆ 7.@)Pi1[DH (.<$@)Q4=@JE9 )()ƒ4> lr')=@jip&tz-24$$q4=@j(.oe(o [(U10D*<Q4 *H1()<27 @(J 20H() ('1$`gU )H1()<@ O *= (4@= 5 911c&Z&FT+)Y1 = Š7=@56dF4 11cm.)*Y0n )H1() J2)=@,')('1$ ), 25)m. Uu6)*()<Q4E*AeQ4d u@uu6)*(.oqr',h<@= *Q4 2(J $P>@5.$Uu6)H1Go$$= $=OI2(165 @5, [(2(4 $H()E1(J G @[ 7.@)P(O [(U10DPQ165 u@pp$*x@10<&0< 2(4$ T
-:;#<=#?+> $@7A> (M.AC(@=)3B4-24'';"'2-&!"#$%&' (")) )&*+ &, -&%./0 1 &)2% 34551 &6 $%'"7 @D+*;