PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION AND TRANSLATION STUDIES, 2 (1-2) / 2009 93

IDEOLOGY AND TRANSLATION

Camelia PETRESCU
Politehnica University of Timişoara

Abstract: Ignored until recently and therefore relatively undocumented, the manifestation of
ideology in the process of translation has become an increasingly important issue in translation
studies. After discussing several definitions of ideology as related to language and giving a short
overview of the translations theories dealing with it, the paper focuses on two translation
situations, i.e. conference interpreting of European institutional discourse and ad-hoc interpreting
as practiced in Romania of “behind the Iron Curtain”, meant to illustrate how ideology can affect
the “rewriting” of the source text.

Key Words: translation, ideology, axiology, conference/ad-hoc interpretation

1. Introduction
Ignored until recently and therefore relatively undocumented, the manifestation
of ideology in the process of translation has become an increasingly important issue in
translation studies. This particular interest can be accounted for by a rather extensive
research in the field of what could be described as “ideologized” language and by a
more comprehensive and finely shaded definition of ideology.
Results of such research will be here related to my personal experience as
ad/hoc interpreter in Romania “behind the Iron Curtain” with a view to assessing how
“ideological” a translation can be.

2. Definition of ideology
2.1. The “innocent” meaning
There is a very general definition of ideology describing it as almost synonymous
with culture. Ideology is thus “a systematic scheme or coordinated body of ideas or
concepts, especially about human life and culture, a manner or the content of thinking
characteristic of an individual, group or culture.” (Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary, 1993).
In this very broad and apparently innocent meaning, ideology is mainly dealt with
in translation studies focused on literary and religious texts. Thus, Henri Meschonnic in
his Pour la poétique II (1973) argues that the translation of the Old Testament from
Hebrew into Greek and then Latin impregnated it with Christian “ideology” by the mere
fact of transposing paratax into syntax.
Antoine Berman, in this same line of thought, speaks about ethnocentric
translations which impose target language cultural values and ideologies on source
language cultures. The Ancient Roman culture and the classical French culture are
94 PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION AND TRANSLATION STUDIES, 2 (1-2) / 2009

striking examples of such imperialistic cultural entities which manifest strong

tendencies towards annexing or reterritorializing foreign cultures (Brisset, 2000).
Such views point to a strongly negative connotation. Even when defined as a
main cultural component ideology appears to be a manifestation of power.

2.2 Socially oriented concepts

When related to society, group interests, political power and dominance,
ideology acquires a fully negative meaning. This is, to a great extent, accounted for by
the traditional Marxist ideology which largely contributed to a negative understanding of
the concept, defined as “a form of cognitive distortion, a false or illusionary
representation of the real” (M. Gardiner apud Beaton, 2007: 272).
In this purely negative meaning, ideology is most commonly used to refer to
“others” not to “ourselves”. As van Dijk (apud Munday 2007:196) says: “few of «us» (in
the West or elsewhere) describe our own belief systems or convictions as
«ideologies». On the contrary, Ours is the Truth, Theirs is the Ideology.”
Ideologies as sets of values and interests shared by a group are therefore
rejected not necessarily because they are false – Marxism, for instance, is still
attractive to many Western people – but mainly because they are imposed by majority
voting in democratic societies, by force in totalitarian regimes or, in more recent times,
by manipulative mass-media. When we reject ideology, we actually reject the idea of
power, dominance, manipulation and subsequent inequality and subordination.

3. Ideology and axiology

It is common knowledge that, in any society at all times, there are several
competing ideologies. One of them is, however, dominant and liable to affect the
others and the society as a whole. “The question of dominance and the notion of
dominant ideology are of particular interest in institutional settings”, argues Beaton
(2007: 273). In such settings ideology acts as “a set of discursive strategies for
legitimizing a dominant power.” (Eagleton apud M. Beaton, 2007: 273)
Viewed as closely connected with dominance and power, institutional ideology
opposes, in principle, any individual set of values and beliefs. “There are no personal
ideologies”, says van Dijk (apud Beaton 2007: 274) and Grant (apud Beaton, 2007:
274) introduces the term axiology to describe such subjective ideological systems of
individual values. Although based on subjectivity, axiology is defined as a “socially
constituted evaluation” (ibid: 274).
The interaction between ideology and axiology has become a matter of
particular interest in translation studies since in translation mediated communication,
the third actor, i.e. the translator/interpreter is presumed to have a higher degree of
self-expression freedom in relation to the two speakers, bound to stick to an “ideology”.
In his study “Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse”, M. Beaton (2007)
attempts to identify the type of relation between the dominant institutional ideology of
 PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION AND TRANSLATION STUDIES, 2 (1-2) / 2009 95

the European Union and various axiologies as manifested in the interpreting

performances of five conference interpreters.
The analysis focused on two textual characteristics: lexical repetition and the
use of metaphor strings. Assessing the “ideologizing” value of these features, Beaton
(idem: 277) says: “In constantly referring to the institution of European Union, the
institution itself is stabilized and functions as a self-referential, semi-closed system.
This self-referentiality strengthens ideological stabilization within the institution.
Institutional self-reference can be clearly seen in the myriad of metaphors used to refer
to the European Union and the process of European integration. By constantly
thematizing and referring to the institution, a given debate stabilizes the institution of
the EU and allows to drive itself forward.” (emphasis added). It is perhaps of some
interest to notice that Beaton’s obvious admiration of the European institutional
discourse is a symptom of “ideological” contamination!
The five axiologies scrutinized by Beaton were found to be in full agreement with
the dominant ideology, i.e. the five German interpreters proved to be firmly attached to
the European values.

4. Translator’s Choice
Following Beaton’s line of demonstration, most professional
translators/interpreters living in totalitarian systems could be expected to share their
commissioners’ / employers’ ideologies. Which might not be the case!
Beaton’s comparative analysis cannot actually account for any personal
ideology/axiology. It does not reveal axiological features, it simply points to
professional competence. The fact that the five interpreters performed similarly by
faithfully translating institutional texts can only speak of their high level of translation
expertise.
The five interpreters chose a certain method of translation – faithful/semantic in
this case – taking into account their commissioner’s requirements, the type of text to be
translated – a text mainly displaying the persuasive functions, the type of translation
i.e. conference interpretation. Their lexico-grammatical choices are thus not indicative
of their ideologies / axiologies.
Although irrelevant in the translation situation evoked by Beaton, axiology may,
in some other translational contexts, account for the translator’s choices. Such an
instance is the ad-hoc interpreting. Ad-hoc interpreting in contrast with conference
interpreting, allows a less formal approach and gives the translator more freedom of
self-expression. This is an instance of mediated communication based on less
structured a more spontaneous speech which “invites” the interpreters to be
spontaneous as well. The interpreter is also less constrained by time being thus able to
better and more creatively process meaning. In such situations speaker and interpreter
address relatively small audiences, which is another factor of stress relief on both
sides.
96 PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION AND TRANSLATION STUDIES, 2 (1-2) / 2009

As an ad-hoc interpreter in communist times I often managed to “humanize”

ideological discourse by depriving it of its “key-features”, i.e. repetitions, excessive use
of dead metaphors (stereotypes) and of impersonal patterns such as, s-a realizat, s-a
obţinut, s-a decis etc. meant to conceal the subject / the doer / the individual.
An apparently innocent stereotype such as oamnenii muncii de la oraşe şi sate
actually evoked a hideous reality: a whole people – both urban and rural inhabitants –
fully pauperized and made dependent on the state support, and an unacceptable
human condition, men (oamenii) seen as “attributes” of work (muncii). “Ideologically”
neutralized, this phrase might become, in English, depending on the context, the
Romanian working people or simply the Romanians.
Used unwittingly at the beginning that practice of “amending” source texts
became in time conscious and systematic.

5. Conclusion
The translator can in some few strongly communicative translation situations, i.e.
less formal, encouraging self-expression, “rewrite” the source text in the light of his/her
personal ideology/axiology.
This can be viewed as a manipulation – happily this is called axiology nowadays
– but this is not however the manipulation preached by the School of Manipulation (see
Snell-Hornby, 1998) since this does not affect the explicit semantic content and
function of the source text.

References
1. Beaton, Moven. 2007. “Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse” in The
Translator, vol. 13, Number 2, (2007), Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.
2. Berman, Antoine. 2000. “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign” in Lawrence Venuti
(ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London Routledge.
3. Brisset, Annie. 2000. “The Search for a Native Language: Translation and Cultural
Identity” in Lawrence Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London Routledge.
4. Meschonnic, Henri. 1973. Pour la Poétique II, Paris, Gallimard.
5. Munday, Jeremy. 2007. “Translation and Ideology” in The Translator, vol. 13, Number
2, (2007), Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.
6. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Interpreted Approach, Amsterdam,
Benjamins.