Show Less
Restricted access

Reframing Realities through Translation

Series:

Edited By Ali Almanna and Juan José Martínez Sierra

This volume affords an opportunity to reconsider international connections and conflicts from the specific standpoint of translation as a dynamic, sociocultural activity, carried out and influenced by numerous stakeholders. The various chapters contained in this volume survey a wide range of languages and cultures, and they all pivot around the relationships that can be established between translation and ideology, re-narration, identity, cultural representation and knowledge reproduction. The ultimate aim is to shed light on the actual act of translating in which the self is well-presented and beautified and the other is deformed and made ugly. In this volume, due consideration is given to the main frames (be they characterization, interpretive or identity frames) as well as to the nonverbal factors that play a fundamental role in forming the final shape of the translated product.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

5 Realities Reframed through Translation: The Case of MEMRI’s English Translations of the Arabic Editorials on Daesh (Nael F. M. Hijjo and Kais Amir Kadhim)

Extract

Nael F. M. Hijjo and Kais Amir Kadhim

5 Realities Reframed through Translation: The Case of MEMRI’s English Translations of the Arabic Editorials on Daesh

Introduction

Interest in framing has historical roots in several academic disciplines, including psychology, media and communication, politics, sociology, literature and linguistics. The word dates back to 1400–1450 in late Middle English (Dictionary.com 2018); however, the contemporary scholarly pioneer use of framing is credited to the English scholar Bateson (1955: 197), who, in A Theory of Play and Fantasy, defines a psychological frame as “spatial and temporal bounding of a set of interactive messages [and] the messages have a special and peculiar relationship to a more concrete or basic reality”. Goffman (1974: 21) broadens the meaning to “principles of organization” or “schemata of interpretation”, which offer the context for interpreting communications and thus enable one or a group to “locate, perceive, identify, and label” social events and in turn govern meanings, experiences and actions. Goffman’s elaboration has paved the way for more scholarly perspectives on framing, including the works of Minsky (1974), Tuchman (1978), Gitlin (1980), Tannen (1993), Pan and Kosicki (1993), Scheufele (1999), Norris et al. (2003), Baker (2006), King and Wells (2009), Wendland (2010), Butler (2012) and Ziegler et al. (2015).

One of the most recent theoretical expansions of framing in translation studies is Baker (2006: 167), who regards frames as “structures of anticipation, strategic moves that are consciously initiated in order to present a...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.