1. Applying DA to political translation
Discourse Analysis
Applying DA to political translation
1. Defining discourse
2. Political discourse analysis applied to translation studies by Christina Schäffner
3. Discussion

2. Defining discourse
Individually, jot down some ideas about the following:
How would you define the term “discourse”?
How might you identify a discourse?
Now, discuss your ideas with a partner, and together, think of examples of political discourse.

3. Defining discourse Hatim & Mason (1990):
Discourses are ... modes of thinking and talking which, like genres, can become ritualized. (1990: 71)

4. Defining discourse Johnstone (2002):
The controlling theoretical idea behind [Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)] is that texts, embedded in recurring “discursive patterns” for their production circulation, and reception which are themselves embedded in “social practice” are among the principal ways in which ideology is circulated and reproduced Ways of talking produce and reproduce ways of thinking, and ways of thinking can be manipulated via choices about grammar, style, wording, and every other aspect of discourse.

5. Defining discourse Johnstone (2002: 45-52):
Discourse producers make choices about:
1. How to represent actions, actors, events
In 1997, the lives of at least 300,000 young children were saved by vitamin A supplementation programs.
In 1997, vitamin A supplementation programs saved the lives of at least 300,000 young children.
In 1997, the lives of at least 300,000 young children were saved.
2. How to represent knowledge status
3. How to name and refer to things
4. Which voices to incorporate/represent
etc.

6. Defining discourse Some questions to consider:
In what ways do “discourse” and “narrative” differ?
What similarities and differences do you see between Baker’s approach from last week and the goals of discourse analysis outlined here?

7. Political Discourse Analysis & TS
PDA analyzes political texts
Goals: “relate the fine grain of linguistic behaviour to politics or political behaviour”
Coercion
Resistance, opposition, protest
Dissimulation
Legitimation/delegitimation
Schaffner (2004: 119)

8. Political Discourse Analysis & TS
Discursive aspects we can study:
Lexical choice
Information selection/transfer
Illusion of identity
Schaffner (2004: )

9. Applying discourse analysis
With a partner, compare the introductions to the Liberal and Green 2011 platforms:
What evidence of coercion, resistance/opposition/protest, dissimulation and/or (de)legitimation do you see in each text?
How do the lexical choices achieve political goals?
How has information has been selected or transferred for readers?

10. Discussion related to the readings
In what ways could you apply Côté’s method of analyzing political texts (analysis of lexical frequency) to analyzing political translations?
Would the results be valuable? Do you see any limitations to this approach? In what ways might your results differ from the results you would obtain via narrative analysis?

11. Links to previous weeks
On a piece of paper, jot down three points of comparison between content analysis, narrative analysis, and discourse analysis as theoretical frameworks.
What types of analysis would each theoretical approach be better suited for?
What advantages/disadvantages do these methods pose?

12. References
Côté, Jean-Roch. (2006). Une analyse discursive de trois énoncés québécois de politique internationale. Études internationales, 37(1):
Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London; New York: Longman.
Johnstone, Barbara. (2002). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackstone Publishing.
Schäffner, Christina. (2004). Political Discourse Analysis from the point of view of Translation Studies. Journal of Language and Politics 3(1):