ANTHEMS AS PROPAGANDA - CiteSeerX

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)

Volume 5 (3), March 2014; 222-‐237 Khorsand Parcheh, M., & Salmani, B ISSN (online): 2289-‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org

222

ANTHEMS AS PROPAGANDA: A DISCOURSAL TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Majid Khorsand Parcheh, M.A. (Corresponding Author)

Department of English, East Azarbaijan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

E-mail: [email protected], Cell Phone: +989144062797

Bahloul Salmani, Ph.D. Department of English, East Azarbaijan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,

Tabriz, Iran

ABSTRACT Translation of works of aesthetic and literary value particularly anthems has been one of the thought-provoking and serious areas in translation studies. Anthem as one of the techniques of propaganda transmission is a formal song of loyalty, praise, or happiness and a song that is important to a particular group of people. This paper assesses the quality of two English-Persian translations of the anthems in Orwell’s Animal Farm based on House’s revised discoursal model. Accordingly, a literary work has to be translated overtly, to be realized as an adequate translation, and any deviation from it would be considered as an error. First the professional profiles of the translators were analyzed to find out the expert and novice translators based on Dimitrova’s notion of ‘expertise in translation’. Second the profiles of the source text and the two translations were analyzed on four different levels: function of the individual text, genre, register (field, mode and tenor), and language/text. Two types of errors were discussed: the covertly and overtly erroneous errors. Finally conclusions were drawn to find out whether the expert or novice translator’s translation is more or less adequate. The findings of the study revealed that expert performance does not always result in superior performance. KEYWORDS: Discourse, Translation Quality Assessment (TQA), Adequate Translation, Anthem, Propaganda INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem Translation of sociopolitical works of aesthetic and literary value has been one of the thought-provoking and serious areas in translation studies. The situation becomes more challenging and demanding when (a) the source language (SL) and target language (TL) are culturally and socio-linguistically different, and (b) the source text (ST) like Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) is loaded with a large number of literary devices. It is clear that language is truly and inextricably interwoven with culture. It is not an exaggeration to claim that “language is the lifeblood of culture and that culture is the track along which language forms and develops” (Hongwei, 1999, p. 121; Cf. Bailey, 2005, p. 9). On the other hand, form and content are the lifeblood of poetry. Since form and content are of rather equal importance in poetry, it is very difficult and



223

problematic to preserve both in the process of translation. Therefore, the polarity between the significance of form and content places the translator in two minds whether to go towards form or content and put his/her effort in vain in some cases. It is observed that some translators tend to preserve the content, thus, the form of the original is lost. On the contrary, some translators is apt to preserve the form, therefore, the contents is lost. Some other translators, on the other hand, leave the form and content of the original aside and have an intertextual or interpretative inclination towards their translation. Whether, more or less, form is lost or content in the translation depends upon many aspects including the original text, the translator(s), power agencies, publishers etc. It is obvious that there are reasons and philosophies that lie behind these major discoursally ideological distortions. Furthermore, some professional translators try to keep both form and content of the source text to a great possible extent in the translation. Purpose of the Study This paper aims to assess the quality of two English-Persian translations of the anthems in Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) based on House’s (1997/2009) revised discoursal model, among the latest and successful approaches to translation evaluation. The two almost concurrent translations were done one by the expert/experienced translators and one by the novice/non-experienced ones. Therefore, Dimitrova’s (2005, p. 16) notion of “expertise in translation” is applied. She holds that expert performance is defined as “consistently superior performance on a specific set of representative tasks for the domain”. Using the terms “experts and novices” (p. 10), Dimitrova highlights that “translation ability can develop into translator competence (TC), through formal learning and training and/or through gaining practical professional experience. Translator competence can develop into translation expertise” (p. 19). Statement of the Hypotheses On the basis of above mentioned research questions, the following hypotheses have been formulated: (1) Based on House’s translation quality assessment model (1997), a literary work has to be translated overtly, to be realized as an adequate translation, and any deviation from it will be considered as an error. (2) Based on Dimitrova’s (2005, p. 16) notion of “expertise in translation”, expert performance is defined as “consistently superior performance on a specific set of representative tasks for the domain”. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Propaganda Propaganda, one of the major conduits of social control, is a specific type of message presentation aimed at “serving an agenda”, “to actively influence people’s opinions”, and “to merely create a false image in the mind” (NETCHARLES. Retrieved 1/11/2013). Propaganda refers to “information which is false or which emphasizes just one part of a situation, used by a government or political group to make people agree with them” (LDOCE, 2009). In other words, propaganda is a tool in an agency’s hand as an attempt to mold public opinion into biased, untrue and fake images in order to gain unfair control or power. Propaganda may be transmitted overtly



224

or covertly. That is, it can be spread through the mass media explicitly and implicitly in order to receive heavy coverage to be more influential. In fact, the very intention of propaganda is to encourage, promote and support an idea through repetition, and drown-out or disregard or reject any alternative ideas. Chomsky has a different perspective about propaganda. In his book Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Chomsky (1997) maintains that:

. . . As society has become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. (p. 11)

Chomsky claims that propaganda is applied “. . . to control thought and manufacture consent. Nevertheless, people are acquiring an ability and a willingness to think things through”, thus, “skepticism about power has grown, and attitudes have changed on many, many issues” (p. 30). He holds that “in a well-functioning propaganda system, nobody would know what I’m talking about when” (p. 40). Fawcett (2009) considers ‘lies and propaganda’ in the same realm and rate. He highlights that:

lies told in an era give us some real insights into history. . . . [lies and propaganda have been expressed in variety of topics running] the gamut from war and politics to medicine and crime. . . . [With regard to the negative feedback and consequences of lies and propaganda,] some of the lies [cause] . . . great pain, others great embarrassment. [Concerning the people’s response to lies and propaganda,] there are some lies people just want to believe. Other lies are accepted because no one knows better. Many lies are successful simply because the liar is so good at telling them. (p. vii)

However, some of the techniques and strategies that are usually applied to propaganda are as follows: (a) Selected facts in support and confirmation of an idea or statement (b) Lying and purposefully deceiving through an intentionally untruthful statement (c) Repetition, that is, to retelling the same words repeatedly to be imprinted on the people’s mind forever. (d) Identifying the (true or false) enemy, that is, to diverting the public opinion and attention into an imaginary enemy away from the speaker (e) rhetorical questions (intending to not to encourage a specific answer, but rather to elicit the listener to regard a message or perspective) (f) contention (a strong opinion that someone expresses, that is, bold statements). Anthem Anthem, as one of the techniques of propaganda transmission, refers to “a song that has a special importance for a country, an organization or a particular group of people, and is sung on special occasions” (Hornby, 2013). In other words, anthem is “a formal song of loyalty, praise, or happiness and a song that is important to a particular group of people” (Merriam-Webster, 2004). According to this dictionary, the origin of anthem goes back to the church in the mid-16th in which it was regarded as a church music. It was sung at morning and evening prayer. Since anthem is linked to religion as one of the most powerful and magic phenomena political powers tended to misuse its application and use it as a technique of propaganda in order to stabilize their power and position and establish their ideology among the public people. Later on it became as a



225

symbol where each country has a particular anthem for itself called national anthem. According to Encyclopedia Britannica,

National anthem, hymn or song . . . [expresses] patriotic sentiment and either governmentally authorized as an official national hymn or holding that position in popular feeling. The oldest national anthem is Great Britain’s “God Save the Queen,” which was described as a national anthem in 1825, although it had been popular as a patriotic song and used on occasions of royal ceremonial since the mid-18th century. (Britannica, 2012)

However, Anthems in Animal Farm are sources of hollow inspiration and stimulation of ‘loyalty, praise, or happiness’ especially the anthems after the death of old Major. Since they are sung in a frenzy and in a fit of hysteria, they can be considered as emotional and not factual phenomena. Propagandists and Anthems in Animal Farm Anthems are the most outstanding samples of propaganda in Orwell’s Animal Farm. The novel initiates with a war resulting in a victory. Propaganda in Animal Farm is used to deceive, mystify and bewilder the animals, to conceal the reality of the situation from them, and to stop them thinking for themselves. The prominent propagandists of the novel were Old Major, Squealer and Minimus. The anthems in Animal Farm which were the focus of analysis in this paper were “Beasts of England”, “Animal Farm, Animal Farm”, and “Comrade Napoleon!”. Old Major and Beasts of England Old Major is an award-winning boar, holds a meeting consisting of the animals of the Manor Farm in the big barn. According to SparkNotes (2007):

As a democratic socialist, Orwell had a great deal of respect for Karl Marx, the German political economist, and even for Vladimir Ilych Lenin, the Russian revolutionary leader. His critique of Animal Farm has little to do with the Marxist ideology underlying the Rebellion but rather with the perversion of that ideology by later leaders. Major, who represents both Marx and Lenin, serves as the source of the ideals that the animals continue to uphold even after their pig leaders have betrayed them.

Old Major tells them his dream in the form of the song “Beasts of England” of unity among animals living together in peace without being tyrannized, oppressed, or controlled by human beings. The song inspires the animals to voluntarily “toil for freedom’s sake” even if they die before the achievements envisaging the “golden future time”. The anthem “Beasts of England” is so arousing and provoking that the animals sing it for a couple of times in unison. Major highlights that the animals have to be determined to work toward such a utopia. “Beasts of England,” was more than a revolutionary anthem he teaches them preparing for the Rebellion but most of animals are not brainy enough to bring the song into action straightforwardly. This song is the reflection of his dream in words, indicating that Animal Awakening and Animal Spring is coming soon. Old Major “not only bestows his theory upon the animals, he awakens them from the dreamtime of Man’s ideology and rouses them to action” (Gradesaver. Retrieved 22/7/2013). Showing considerable fervor in their eagerness, the animals welcome Major’s dream to come



226

true. Animals sing “Beasts of England” yet again after the battle. However, singing this song is marked as useless and obsolete and becomes forbidden by Napoleon and Squealer in favor of a new anthem containing a promise never to harm Animal Farm. In fact, “Napoleon replaces the revolutionary spirit of ‘Beasts of England’ with the exact opposite, a promise not to rebel”, Minimus’s “Animal Farm, Animal Farm, /Never through me shalt thou come to harm!” (Gradesaver. Retrieved 22/7/2013). Some animals suspect that there is something wrong with the story but they cannot contemplate and reason not being able to describe what or how. It is presumed that the main reason Napoleon forbids the Major’s song is that animals learnt the song by heart, thus, he cannot revise it like the Seven Commandments. Therefore Napoleon forces them to put the song out of their mind. Three nights after his death, Snowball, Napoleon, and Squealer, three younger pigs, establish the philosophy of Animalism based on Major’s main guidelines. Squealer as a Propaganda Machine Napoleon’s propaganda is prevalent among the other animals by a silver-tongued pig called Squealer. Highly influential in making the animals believe almost anything and turning “black into white” (Orwell, 1945, p. 18). In fact, “Squealer is the most prominent propagandist of the novel in favor of Napoleon as his minister of propaganda” (Gradesaver. Retrieved 22/7/2013). Representing a totalitarian government’s propaganda machine, Squealer defends the pigs’ power and control over the properties and disseminates untrue statistics indicating the success of Farm and animals. By Squealer, Orwell shows and helps the reader discover that the people in power very often apply the baffling language, jargon and sophistries to turn true to false in order to maintain their social and political position. One of the significant aims of Orwell was to display how the politicians and power agencies manipulate the fact for the sake of maintaining their power. He believed that the position of power brings about distortion and corruption. The power that Squealer works for is Napoleon. By the use of various rhetorical techniques, Squealer’s attempts are towards supporting Napoleon’s actions and policies. Moreover, he uses simple phrases —as by teaching the sheep to repeat “Four legs good, two legs better!”—and confines the debate lexicon. Regarding Squealer’s strategies in persuading the animals, SparkNotes (2007) states that: By complicating language unnecessarily, he confuses and intimidates the uneducated, as

when he explains that pigs, who are the “brainworkers” of the farm, consume milk and apples not for pleasure, but for the good of their comrades. . . . [Squealer engenders] in the other animals both self-doubt and a sense of hopelessness about ever accessing the truth without the pigs’ mediation.

Squealer’s name was even intelligently chosen to reflect his personality to a great possible extent. According to the Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (2004), “squeal” means (a) “to make or cause (something) to make a long, high-pitched cry or noise” (b) “to tell someone in authority (such as the police or a teacher) about something wrong that someone has done” (c) “to say (something) in a high and excited voice”. The first sense refers to Squealer’s strategy in making the animals to chant limited slogans in spite of the fact that they could not contemplate. The second sense refers to Squealer’s betrayal and lack of morality and steadfast faithfulness to his



227

leader. The third sense of the word “squeal” refers to Squealer’s sly and deceptive use of rhetorical skills. Minimus and His Poems Minimus is the poet pig who composes propaganda songs and poems about and under the rule of Napoleon. Minimus was the pig who “had a remarkable gift for composing songs and poems” (Orwell, 1945, p. 34). Like the name selection strategy of the other protagonists of the novel, the concept of “Minimus” means “a creature or being that is the smallest or least significant” (Dictionary.Reference. Retrieved 20/2/2014). He named “Minimus” since he did not complain and express his own feelings and beliefs although was forced to use his talents in support of Napoleon. He represents “the Soviet Union’s artists, who were forced to use their talents to glorify communism rather than express their personal feelings or beliefs” (Gradesaver. Retrieved 22/7/2013). His nationalistic song “Animal Farm, Animal Farm, /Never through me shalt thou come to harm!” was written to replace the earlier unwavering anthem “Beasts of England,” which Old Major told and passed one to another. In fact, Minimus was the poet and writer of the second and third national anthems of Animal Farm in praise of Napoleon, after Major’s “Beasts of England” is forbidden and outlawed. This short poem was a warm-up to the big change. Kirschner (2004, p. 762) maintains that “”the switch from ‘Beasts of England’ to ‘Animal Farm!’ is a parody of the transition from Lenin’s proletarian internationalism to Stalin’s ‘Socialism in One Country’ ”. The third national anthems was called “Comrade Napoleon!” The replacement of the original anthem by Napoleon with the assistance of Minimus and Squealer was an ideological change representing the official corruption and distortion of the revolutionary doctrines established by Old Major. Serving as propaganda, the main purpose of the songs and more specifically the chants and anthems was to make the working-class animals voice the same terms at the same time. As a result, the pigs could maintain their plans and retain power. Furthermore, the songs distracted the animals’ focus of attention from sense of individuality into the daily tasks with an empty whimsical sense of achieving freedom. Literacy and Propaganda Literacy is “the ability to read and write” (Hornby, 2006). In contrast, illiteracy or analphabetism refers to the inability to read and write. Literacy is the tool for providing a necessary platform for the deep understanding and decoding written or spoken words. Furthermore, visual literacy refers to the ability to comprehend visual forms of communication such as body language, pictures, maps, and video. Literacy covers a multifarious set of abilities to recognize and apply the dominant symbol systems of a culture for personal and community progress. Regarding the definition of literacy, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) states than:

Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve his or her goals, develop his or her knowledge and potential and participate fully in community and wider society. (2005)



228

Some of the examples related to literacy in Animal Farm are Beasts of England, the Seven Commandments, the child’s book, the manuals, the magazines, and the horse-slaughterer’s van. The matter of illiteracy is so prevalent among the animals that it is mentioned more than twenty times throughout the story directly or indirectly. The animals does not understand, are not able to contemplate, and are not able to express their feelings, ideas and beliefs. Except for a couple of animals including the pigs, the dogs, Muriel, the goat, Benjamin, the donkey, most animals could not even read and write (Orwell, 1945, pp. 24-25). Regarding the pubic, some of the expressions indicating the animal’s illiteracy, uncertainty, stupidity and idiocy are as follows: Can you not understand that liberty is worth more than ribbons? (p. 18) [The animals] could never think of any resolutions of their own. (p. 24) None of the other animals on the farm could get further than the letter A. (p. 25) The birds did not understand Snowball’s long words, but they accepted his explanation, . . . (p. 25) They could not understand, . . . (p. 27) . . . at least they thought that they remembered it. (p. 36) . . . some of the animals remembered-or thought they remembered . . . (p. 46) . . . they could no longer remember very clearly . . . (p. 47) . . . hardly anyone was able to understand. (p. 53) None of the animals could form any idea as to what this meant, . . . (p. 54) . . . seemed to understand, but would say nothing. (p. 54) . . . the animals had remembered wrong. (p. 54) The animals believed every word of it. (p. 55) Do you not understand what that means? (p. 58) . . . the other animals were too ignorant to understand. (p. 61) They could not remember. (p. 61) . . . , mistaken ideas had been current. (p. 64) Literacy to propagandists is “a source of power and a vehicle for propaganda” (Gradesaver. Retrieved 22/7/2013). On the other hand, if an audience is illiterate, the propaganda works well and is believed easily and widely. In other words, the less literate the people are, the more they will believe and trust in propaganda and propagandists. Therefore, literacy and awareness are in contrast with and against propaganda and propagandist. From the other point of view, literacy should be consistent in order to promote the past and present conditions. Having a good command of history, not forgetting the past and being aware of the present conditions are among the yardsticks which help to promote the present conditions and develop new ideas. There have been some scholars (Burke, Shepard, & Ventura) who stressed that ‘those who forget, don’t know, or cannot remember the past and history are doomed to repeat it’ (Goodreads. Retririved 1/2/2014). Thus it is for propagandists and their power agencies to evade the issue of literacy among the public people by means of various policies and strategies. One of these policies and strategies utilized by the pigs in Animal Farm is to wrest control of the media from the animals. According to Oxford Dictionary, media refers to “the main ways that large numbers of people receive information and entertainment, that is television, radio, newspapers and the Internet” (Hornby, 2006). In other words, the media is the tool to mold the people’s minds and public



229

opinion into the leaders’, pigs in Animal Farm, intention and for the sake of maintaining, proving and stabilizing their power. It is clear that controlling and narrowing the media are in contrast with the concept of democracy. The animals were restricted to even newspapers: “Muriel, the goat, . . . sometimes used to read to the others in the evenings from scraps of newspaper which she found on the rubbish heap” (Orwell, 1945, p. 24). This means that the reading material including newspapers were downgraded to rubbish which is nonsense. RESEARCH QUESTIONS According to House’s (1997/2009) revisited discourse-based TQA Model, the core discoursal framework of this study, and Dimitrova’s (2005) notion of ‘expertise in translation’, the researcher aims to efficiently answer the following questions: (1) What mismatches and differences are found between the textual profiles of the source text, target text one (TT1) and target text two (TT2)? (2) Which overtly erroneous errors are found in the translations by the expert and novice translators? (3) What is the relation between the translators’ level of professional experience and the degree of adequacy of translation in the two (almost concurrent) translations of Animal Farm? METHODOLOGY The method and analytic framework of this research for the analysis and comparison were as follows: First, on the basis of the analysis and interpretation of the translators’ professional profiles, the expert or experienced translators were differentiated from the novice or non-experienced translators. Second, the profiles of the source text and the two translations were individually analyzed and interpreted on four different levels: “Function of the Individual Text, Genre, Register (Field, Mode and Tenor), and Language/Text” (House, 1997, p. 107). The analysis and interpretation of each text were paralleled and followed by tables. The initial step was that the notion of context of situation were broken down into manageable analytic units, that is, the “three sociolinguistic dimensions of the context of situation jointly characterizing a particular register”: field, mode and tenor (House, 2009, p. 34). If a translation text, in order to be “adequate”, is to fulfill the requirement of a dimensional, and as a result of this, a functional match, then “any mismatch along the dimensions is an error”, such dimensional errors, called “covertly erroneous errors” (1997, p. 45). Third, House’s (1997) revisited discourse-based TQA model was applied to the corpus of this study. The English and Persian translations were analyzed in terms of overtly erroneous errors.



230

The overtly erroneous errors categorized as omissions, additions, substitutions, ungrammaticality and dubious acceptability were found through the in-depth analysis of the texts. Fourth, the final qualitative judgment of a translation text “consists of a listing of both covertly and overtly erroneous errors and of a statement of the relative match of the ideational and the interpersonal functional components of the textual function” (pp. 45-46). Based on House’s (1997/2009) revisited translation quality assessment (TQA) model, a literary work has to be translated overtly, to be realized as an adequate translation, and any deviation from it would be considered as an error. Finally, by applying Dimitrova’s (2005, p. 16) notion of “expertise in translation”, a comparison were drawn between the two translations. Corpus The main concern of this paper was to assess the quality of English- Persian translations of the anthems in Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945), the source text (ST), based on House’s (1997/2009) revised discoursal model. The two (almost concurrent) Persian translations were by Saleh Hosseini and Masumeh Nabi-Zadeh (2004) under the title of Mazraeye Heyvanat [the farm of animals] as TT1 and Mohamad Ali Jodeyri and Samad Mohamadi Asyabi (2005) under the title of Galeye Heyvanat [the castle of animals] as TT2. Orwell’s Animal Farm is filled with songs, poems, and slogans. Serving as propaganda, the anthems include Old Major’s rousing song, “Beasts of England”, Minimus’s revised anthem, “Animal Farm, Animal Farm”, and Minimus’s ode to Napoleon, “Comrade Napoleon!”. All of these songs or anthems serve as propaganda. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Source Text Author’s Profile As a novelist, political writer, essayist and journalist, Eric Arthur Blair (1903–1950) (UCL Orwell Archives, n.d.), known by his pen name George Orwell, was born in India in 1903 and died in England in 1950. Shedding more light on Orwell’s personality and ideology, SparkNotes maintains that:

As a young . . . socialist, speaking openly against the excesses of governments east and west . . . [he] could not turn a blind eye to the cruelties and hypocrisies. . . . [Orwell was] a sharp critic of both capitalism and communism, and is remembered chiefly as an advocate of freedom and a committed opponent of communist oppression. His two greatest anti-totalitarian novels—Animal Farm and 1984—form the basis of his reputation. (2007)

Bloom (2005, p. 370) believes that “fable necessarily suited Orwell better than the novel, because he was essentially an essayist and a satirist, and not a storyteller.” Along his great essays, Orwell has written six novels, Burmese Days (1934), A Clergyman's Daughter (1935), Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936), Coming Up for Air (1939), Animal Farm (1945), Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). The novels are highly filled with the theme of fear and threat and reflect “the extensive



231

changes of outlook and the shifts of values in British and indeed much of human society in the first half of the twentieth century” (Orwell, 1976, p. 8). It continues “Orwell holds a unique place in contemporary English literature” and “honesty, vigor and relevance to today are present in all these novels” (pp. 9-10). The introduction of the book (p. 8) says “He attended Eton, his first publication was a patriotic poem printed by a provincial newspaper during the 1914-18 war, and in 1922 he joined the Indian Imperial Police and served in Burma for the next five years.” From that time (1927) his life, until then, seemingly cast in an “upper middle-class mold” and pointing towards a conventional career in “Imperial service”, took an entirely fresh course (Orwell, 1976, p. 8). Regarding his marriage at the end of his life after the death of his first wife a couple of years earlier, Stanley (1999, p. 234) believes that “Orwell did plan to write other books, according to his friends, and married while in the hospital, but three months later in 1950 he finally died of tuberculosis.” Translators’ Professional Profiles Saleh Hosseini and Masumeh Nabi-Zadeh Saleh Hosseini (1946- ) from Songhor, Kermanshah of Iran is a translator and critic. Hosseini has a PhD in English Literature of George Washington University of the USA (1975-1979) and he is currently teaching in Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran (IRAN-NEWSPAPER. Retrieved 18/12/2007). Iran newspaper holds that Hosseini has written and translated more than twenty six articles, novels and books mainly on literary criticism and translation, as a consequence, he was acclaimed by Iranian Ministry of Culture and Guidance as the leading translator and critic of the Iranian year 1376 (1997). According to National Library and Archives of Iran, Masoomeh Nabi-Zadeh has contributed in a few translations as an editor (NLAI. Retrieved 01/08/2013). Mohamad Ali Jodeyri and Samad Mohamadi Asyabi Mohamad Ali Jodeyri (1958- ) translated a few novels and short stories and written/compiled a few books on general fields and Samad Mohamadi Asyabi (1963- ) like Masoomeh Nabi-Zadeh has contributed in a few translations as an editor (NLAI. Retrieved 01/08/2013). Based on the translators’ professional profiles, the Persian translations analyzed in this study were by Saleh Hosseini and Masumeh Nabi-Zadeh (the experts) under the title of Mazraeye Heyvanat (the farm of animals) (2004) as TT1, and Mohamad Ali Jodeyri and Samad Mohamadi Asyabi titilng Galeye Heyvanat (the castle of animals) (the novices) (2005) as TT2. Text Profiles The profiles of the original text with its two translations were analyzed at this part. The analysis of texts were in four different levels as ‘function of the individual text, genre, register (field, mode and tenor), and language/text’. Table 1 highlights the register analysis of the source text and its comparison with the translations.



232

Table 1: ST and TTs Register Analysis Register ST TT1 TT2 Field Subject matter Sociopolitical and ideological anthems/propaganda,

Anti-totalitarian Satire √ √

Social action General/Popular √ √ Tenor Author’s

provenance and stance

A British political novelist and essayist with pointed criticisms of political oppression and totalitarianism

Distorted to some extent

Distorted to some extent

Social role relationship

Asymmetrical √ √

Social attitude Formal √ √ Mode Medium

Simple/Written to be read, Informational Text, Explicit, Non-Abstract Information

√ √

Participation Complex √ √ Based on Table 1, the original was distorted both in TT1 and TT2 in the realm of tenor. However, the function and genre of the source and target texts were illuminated in Table 2.

Table 2: ST, TT1 and TT2 Analysis of Function, Genre ST TT1 TT2 Function Ideational Ideational Ideational Genre Poetry, Anthem, Satire Poetry, Satire Partly Prose, Anthem

Table 2 underlines that the genre of TT2 was highly distorted where ‘poetry’ in ST was translated into ‘prose’. ‘Form and content’ are the essential, inseparable, interwoven and indispensable elements of poetry. Since the source text is poetry, ‘form’ as one of its main features was partly lost in TT2. At the level of language/text, the comparison of the source text and target text one was illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of ST and TT1 at the Level of Language/Text Item ST TT1 Difference (No.) Difference (%) Word 286 241 -45 15.7%↓ Clause 34 37 +3 8.8%↑ Sentence 14 14 0 0% Paragraph 11 11 0 0%

Note. ↓= decrease, ↑= increase The highest difference between the source text and target text one at the level of language/text was in the number of words with 15.7% decrease. This reduction indicates a distortion with application of the strategy of omission. Whatever the purpose of the omission is in the translation, it is ideological and leads to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the message of the source text. Moreover, Table 4 focuses on the comparison of source text and target text two at the level of language/text.



233

Table 4: Comparison of ST and TT2 at the Level of Language/Text Item ST TT2 Difference (No.) Difference (%) Word 286 306 +20 7%↑ Clause 34 44 +10 29.4%↑ Sentence 14 14 0 0% Paragraph 11 11 0 0%

Note. ↓= decrease, ↑= increase Table 4 displays that a dramatic increase in the number of clauses and a minor increase in words occurred in target text two. This increase indicates the application of the strategy of addition to the translation. This manipulation done by the translator is also ideological. It is clear that any minor or major linguistic changes lead to the distortion of the message of original text. With regard to the extra-linguistic effects of translation texts, there will be sociopolitical effects and changes under any manipulation of translation texts especially in the translation of socio-politically motivated literary texts such as Animal Farm and anthems of this novel in particular. Table 3 and 4 explores the differences between the source and target texts at the level of language/text. These differences were illustrated in Figure 1 more tangibly.

Figure 1: Comparison of ST and TTs at the level of language/text

Figure 1 demonstrates that the major mismatches between ST and TTs at the level of language/text fell into the category of ‘words’. Furthermore, some mismatches were discovered in lexical, syntactic and textual means in the process of the analysis of the texts. Theses mismatches were illustrated in Table 5.



234

Table 5: Mismatches between ST and TTs’ Profiles in Lexical, Syntactic and Textual Means Category ST TT1 TT2 Lexical means More archaic

expressions Some archaic expressions

A few archaic expressions

Less idiomatic expressions

More idiomatic expressions

Less idiomatic expressions

Syntactic means Short clauses and long sentences

Short and simple clauses and sentences

Short clauses and long sentences

Textual means: Strong textual cohesion

Strong textual cohesion

Relatively strong textual cohesion

(a) Clausal linkage More More More (b) Iconic linkage Strong Relatively strong Relatively strong (c) Theme dynamics Strong Relatively strong Relatively strong

RESULTS Conducting the comparative analysis of the source and target texts in details, the covertly erroneous errors of the translations were illustrated in Table 6 in short.

Table 6: Covertly Erroneous Errors of TT1 and TT2 Category TT1 TT2 Author’s Personal Stance 1 1 Lexical Means 2 1 Syntactic Means 1 0 Textual Means 1 2 Genre 1 1 Total Errors 6 5

Table 6 demonstrates that the covertly erroneous errors of TT1 and TT2 are almost at the same rate. Furthermore, after the linguistic analysis of the texts, we summarized the overtly erroneous errors in Table 7.

Table 7: Comparison of Overtly Erroneous Errors of TT1 and TT2 General Categories Specific Categories TT1 TT2 A mismatch of denotative meanings of ST and TT2 elements

Omissions 31 10 Additions 19 5 Substitutions 44 11

The breaches of the target language system Ungrammaticality 0 0 Dubious Acceptability 0 0

Total Number of TT1 and TT2 Overtly Erroneous Errors 94 26 According to Table 7, the highest rate of the errors were in ‘additions’ and the lowest rate of the errors in the subcategories of ‘the breaches of the target language system’ both in TT1 and TT2. The overtly erroneous errors were also appeared in Figure 2 more clearly.



235

Figure 2: Side by Side Comparison of TT1 and TT2 Overtly Erroneous Errors

It is observed that the total number of the overtly erroneous errors in TT1 is more noticeable than TT2. CONCLUSIONS Each and every translation carried out by translators is considered as a work of art and the translator and his/her translation are fully respected. Hence, the purpose of this study was not to degrade the translators and/or belittle their translations at all. The study was purely pedagogical and research oriented. Regarding covertly and overtly erroneous errors, the results of the study demonstrated that there were some distortions in the Persian translations. According to House (1997), a literary work must be translated overtly. House (1997, pp. 74-75) maintains that “Fairy tales may be viewed as folk products of a particular culture, which would predispose a translator to opt for an overt translation”. Moreover, House (1997) maintains that the less covertly and overtly erroneous errors, the more adequate and overt translation will be the result. The covertly erroneous errors found in the comparative analysis of both source and target texts were different in essence but at the same rate. In other words, there was a relative match between ST and TTs in the realm of covertly erroneous errors. However, the overtly erroneous errors discovered in TT1 were considerably (72.3%) more than TT2. Therefore, TT1 was a less adequate and less overt translation than TT2. Moreover, the social and ideological effect the target text readership achieves, particularly in the case of TT1, would be different from that of the source text. In TT1, although the translator tried to preserve the genre of the original by translating poetry to poetry, the content of the original was heavily lost. This means that the form of the translation is poetry but the content is not ‘anthem’. It is a more ‘epic’. Thus the tenor of the translation changed. In other words, the social effect of an ‘anthem’ is totally different from that of an ‘epic’. Accordingly the authors’ purpose seems to be entirely different from the translators’. On the other hand, in TT2, although the translation is ‘prose’, in contrast with ‘poetry’, the content was highly preserved. We can conclude that translating ‘poetry’ is too complicated and challenging for (experienced or non-experienced) translators to preserver both form and content to a great



236

extent. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, it can be concluded that ‘content’ is more seminal and vital than ‘form’ particularly in the case of this study. However, as it was mentioned in the introduction, expert performance is considered as “consistently superior performance on a specific set of representative tasks for the domain”, based on Dimitrova’s (2005, p. 16) notion of “expertise in translation”. In this paper, TT1 which was translated by expert or experienced translators was a less adequate translation than TT2 which was translated by novice or inexperienced translators. In other words, TT2 translated by the novices is a more adequate and less covert than TT1. Regarding the findings of this study, expert performance did not result in superior performance. On the contrary, novice performance led to a (relative) superior performance in comparison with expert performance. Finally, we can conclude that expert performance does not always result in superior performance. The focus of this study was on the TQA of ‘anthems in Animal Farm’. Two almost concurrent translations were chosen out of more than ten translations. At present, not only every country has a national anthem of its own but also even sports communities have their anthems called stadium or sports or arena anthems. Different anthems are for different discourse communities. Such anthems and even their translations can be discoursally analyzed and/or assessed. Moreover, the assessment can go further to evaluate the efficacy of target text readership in social contexts and communities and compare it to its counterpart, source text readership. In other words, extra-linguistic considerations, social factors, external influences and communicative effectiveness can be in a parallel position along with linguistic considerations in analyzing translation texts and assessing their quality. However, the findings of this study can help those translators that are dealing with literary or sociopolitical translations, aiding them to fully consider the translational methods in their profession and pay careful attention to the linguistic and extra-linguistic elements and dimensions of original texts. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thanks my professors during my academic studies particularly Dr. Bahlul Salmani, Dr. Bahram Behin, Dr. Davud Kuhi, Dr. Ahad Haji Boland, Dr. Hossein Sabouri and Dr. Seyed Hadi Mirvahedi who were all the source of inspiration to me and contributed their time, knowledge, and energy throughout various stages of my education. Furthermore, I thank my wife, Fatemeh, whose love, encouragement, inspiration and support have been beyond the expressive words. REFERENCES Burke, E., Shepard, S., & Ventura, J. (2014). Quotes on Doomed to Repeat It, Retrieved 2 1

2014 from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it. Bailey, S. (2005). Cultural Translation and the Problem of Language: Yiddish in Joseph Roth’s

Juden auf Wanderschaft. TRANSIT, 1, 1 (1 – 10). Bloom, H. (2005). Novelists and Novels. Chelsea House Publishers. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (2012). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 24 7, 2013, from

http://www.britannica.com/ Chomsky, N. (1997). Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.



237

Dictionary.Reference. (2014). Minimus. Retrieved 20 2, 2014 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minimus

Dimitrova, B. E. (2005). Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Fawcett, B. (2009). You Said What?: Lies and Propaganda Throughout History. HarperCollins. Gradesaver (Ed.). (2013). Animal Farm Study Guide & Literature Essays. Retrieved 27 7, 2013 from http://www.gradesaver.com/animal-farm/. Hongwei, C. (1999). Cultural difference and translation. Translations’ Journal, 44, 121-132. Hornby, A. (2006). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: International Student’s Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen. House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford University Press. Kirschner, P. (2004). The Dual Purpose of Animal Farm. The Review of English Studies, 55(222), 759-786. Longman, P. (2009). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE) (3rd ed.). UK: Pearson Education. Merriam-Webster. (2004). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. the USA: Merriam- Webster Inc. Netcharles. (2013). Animal Farm. Retrieved 11 1, 2013 from: http://www.netcharles.com/ Orwell, G. (1945/1976). George Orwell: Animal Farm, Burmese Days, A Clergyman's Daughter, Coming Up for Air, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Nineteen Eighty-Four: Complete & Unabridged. Great Britain: Secker and Warburg: Octopus Books. SparkNotes (Ed.). (2007). SparkNote on Animal Farm. Retrieved 12 13, 2012 from http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/animalfarm/ UNESCO. (2005). Aspects of Literacy Assessment: Topics and issues from the UNESCO Expert Meeting, 10-12 June, 2003. Retrieved 1 15, 2014 from http://www.unescobkk.org/education/literacy-and-lifelong-learning/literacy/. Persian References Hosseini, S., & Nabi-Zadeh, M. (2004). Mazraeye Heyvanat [the farm of animals]. Doostan Publisher. Iran newspaper. (2007). Saleh Hosseini. Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Retrieved 18 12, 2007 from www.iran-newspaper.com (p. 24). Jodeyri, M. A., & Mohamadi Asyabi, S. (2005). Galeye Heyvanat [the castle of animals]. Akhtar Publisher. National Library and Archives of Iran (NLAI), (2013). Saleh Hosseini & Nabi-Zadeh, M. Retrieved 1 8, 2013 from http://www.nlai.ir/.

Date post:	18-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ANTHEMS AS PROPAGANDA - CiteSeerX

Documents