الفهرس 
الغلافOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 207 |  |  |
| | | from | 207 | | |
Abstract
Abstract
The Manipulation Paradigm (the first term was proposed by Theo Hermans in his edited collection of essays in 1985) or School in translation (the second was given in his book 1999) has brought attention to the study of translated texts. Of special interest to this research is the investigation of ”literary” texts. Not only does it focus on translation as a linguistic process serving a communicative purpose; but rather considers it systematic manipulative strategies apparent in texts. On the one hand, manipulation school theorists believe that translation is a system that is interconnected with other co-existing systems i.e. cultural, literary and political at a given time and place. On the other hand, they-in particular-address literary texts since they are the most prone type to manipulation due to its creative nature, aesthetic conventions, loose norms as well as its continual link with socio-cultural environment (Dukate,2007,pp.139-143). Henceforth, notions such as ideology, power, dominance and manipulation have been intrinsically indicative in the examination of this kind of texts. This research aims at examining manipulation as a concept in theory and practice. It is built on Dukate’s model of translational manipulation (2007), in addition to Lefevere’s view (1985/2014,1992) of translation as rewriting of dominant ideology. The probed data is derived from two Arabic translations of Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945), each belonging to a different historical period (1951,1978). The analytical tools draw on Chesterman’s semantic and pragmatic translation strategies (1997).The findings have showed that the three types of manipulation (handling, improvement and distortion) are exhibited with one dominant type in each target text.
Keywords: Manipulation school, Polysystem, Translation as rewriting , Ideology and poetics, Literary work, Dukate’s model