گردد. پژوهش حاضر نشان داد که ترجمه ها در حضور ایدئولوژی های پنهان، تحت تاثیر گزینه های لغوی که به طور ایدئولوژیکی انتخاب شده و نیز تغییرات دستوری در ترجمه، قرار می گیرند.در ترجمه ها در واقع نوعی انحراف و مداخله صورت می گیرد که نتیجه مسائل ایدئولوژیکی می باشد. و نیز راهبردهای متفاوتِ اتخاذ شده در فرآیند ترجمه معمولا تصادفی نبوده و بلکه انگیزه های ایدئولوژیکی پشت آن نهان است.

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,