![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper seeks to highlight some of the complexities involved in translating key concepts in international politics. By examining how concepts such as “concession”, “compromise” and “Citationjihad” may be rendered into Persian, the paper shows how these culturally constructed concepts are subject to significant influence from the socio-political contexts in which they are used. It is also observed that semantic shift or expansion associated with these terms over a period of time may be socio-politically motivated. The paper touches upon the politics and translation of metaphor in international politics. The observations made in this paper show that there is an urgent need for a systematic exploration of the conceptual basis of the terminology regularly employed in the discourse of international politics. It goes without saying that mistakes in translating such socio-culturally loaded conceptualisations could have unintended consequences that, in turn, could bring about damage to human life and spirit.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Ms Lorraine Bullock and Professor Roslyn M. Frank for their generous and helpful comments on the earlier drafts of this paper. Professor Brian Nelson deserves a special word of thanks for his encouragement and feedback throughout the development of this paper.
Notes
1. The Oxford Advanced Dictionary defines “compromise” as “an agreement made between two people or groups in which each side gives up some of the things they want so that both sides are happy at the end”.
2. See, for example, CitationBall; CitationHowe; Lakoff “CitationMetaphor and War”, CitationMoral Politics, “CitationSeptember 11”, “CitationMetaphors of Terror”, “CitationMetaphor and War, Again”; Musolff; CitationParis; CitationStuckey.