Low-hanging fruits, usual suspects, and pure serendipity: towards a layered methodological framework on translators and interpreters’ ideological language use drawing on the synergy of CDA and corpus linguistics

ABSTRACT

Following the trends of digital humanities and interdisciplinarity, there is growing interest in exploring the discursive aspects of translation and interpreting (T&I), drawing on the triangulation between Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and corpus linguistics. The comparative nature of this line of research means that bilingual discourse analysis differs from monolingual CDA. Despite its usefulness, traditional CDA was designed for monolingual qualitative analysis and applying it systematically to the corpus analysis of bilingual discourses is less straightforward. So far T&I scholars have explored individual discursive categories (e.g., modality) in a few individual studies. However, there is a lack of overall methodological reflections on the likely ideologically salient categories and how to detect translators and interpreters’ mediation comprehensively. Therefore, a stratified framework is proposed, promising to shed light on the question relating to what CDA researchers might look out for empirically drawing on a corpus approach. The various discursive categories/toolkits covered in this framework potentially serve as a starting point for future studies concerning comparative CDA studies at different levels of abstraction. Rather than being prescriptivist, the proposed layered framework is open-ended, flexible and pragmatic, focusing both on propositional and non-propositional contents and both preconceived a priori experientialist categories and serendipitous discoveries. Illustrative examples from various discursive categories are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Corpus linguistics
• critical discourse analysis (CDA)
• triangulation
• corpus-based/driven approach to TIS
• mixed-methods research
• digital humanities

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The word ‘bilingual’ might be understood differently in different contexts. In this article, for ease of discussion, ‘bilingual’ is used to contrast with ‘monolingual’ discourse analysis and to indicate the bilingual nature of translator and interpreter-mediated communication that features two languages. Given the comparative nature of this line of research, the ST and TT are usually compared at different levels to highlight the potential discursive mediation of translators and interpreters.

2 Given the objectives of CDA, it tends to assume a wide range of language use as being ‘ideological’. However, in reality, often certain language choices may be explained by various reasons and factors. In this study, where relevant, I will use the expression ‘ideologically salient’ to highlight that certain language use is salient and interesting from the perspective of power and ideology. An emphasis on ‘ideological salience’ has the benefit of permitting the researcher to discuss the topic relating to the translator and interpreter’s mediation with a focus on discursive effect. That is, translators and interpreters’ certain language use might be considered salient and interesting discursively, whether this is explicitly ideologically driven or it is done in an unwitting and subconscious manner through socialisation and the internalisation of certain (ideological) beliefs.

3 In the quest to unpack traces of ideology in monolingual texts, discourse analysts are making claims about power and ideology enacted in discourse based on a comparison with what things should have been in their minds. Therefore, it is no wonder that monolingual CDA studies have been routinely subject to criticisms that researchers tend to look for what they wish to find, which call into questions the objectivity, validity and reliability of the research (cf. Orpin, 2005; Stubbs, 1997; Widdowson, 1995). However, in translation and interpreting, one way or another, the original source text serves as a clear point of reference and the translated or interpreted discourse has to bear some resemblance with the original. Admittedly, a CDA approach to translation and interpreting is not completely immune from issues of objectivity. However, the essentially comparative nature of this line of research makes a CDA approach to translation and interpreting perhaps more objective compared with its monolingual counterpart, even though the findings might be relatively subtle and inconspicuous.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chonglong Gu

Chonglong Gu (PhD Manchester; MA Leeds) is currently an assistant professor in translation and interpreting at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, after serving as lecturer at the University of Liverpool, UK. As an interdisciplinary and socially engaged researcher, his scholarly interests chiefly reside in CDA/PDA, corpus linguistics, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic landscape, world Englishes, translation and interpreting studies, and media and communication. His recent academic writings have appeared in peer-reviewed SSCI-indexed journals such as Critical Discourse Studies, Discourse, Context, and Media, Language and Intercultural Communication, Discourse Studies, Journal of Pragmatics, Perspectives, International Journal of Multilingualism, Target, Linguistica Antverpiensia, The Translator, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Translation and Interpreting Studies, and Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.