Publication Details
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of translator attitude on the translation of politics-related news from English to Arabic, bridging the research gap where previous studies often concentrate on isolated case analyses or monolingual discourse assessments. This study conducts a cross-linguistic and cross-institutional analysis by systematically comparing five English-language narratives on contentious global events with their Arabic equivalents in the Arab media, a perspective rarely examined in previous research. The research utilizes Van Dijk’s framework of Critical Discourse Analysis to identify enduring ideological transformations at the lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic levels, concentrating on omissions, amplifications, and lexical substitutions that align with the political biases of the media entities involved. The findings demonstrate that translators, through intentional choices or institutional constraints, significantly influence ideological framing, challenging the assumption of neutrality in media translation. The data indicates that omission and agent deletion were the primary strategies employed to obscure accountability in conflict-related reports, while lexical framing and euphemism substitution were used to align with institutional goals. The study promotes greater transparency in translation methodologies, the augmentation of ideological awareness in translator education programs, and the advancement of explicit translation ethics inside media corporations. Subsequent research could improve this comparative methodology by using larger datasets, analyzing digital media platforms, and utilizing mixed method designs to clarify both discursive patterns and audience responses.