Article published In:
FORUMVol. 11:2 (2013) ► pp.75–93
A Translation Criticism
A critical study of discourse in translation
References (19)
References
Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (1990). Translation, history and culture London, England: Pinter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bateni, M. R. (Ed.) (2007). (3rd ed.). Tehran: Farhang Moaser.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, England: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). London, England: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. London, England: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farahzad, F. (2008). Translation as an intertextual practice. Perspectives, 16(3), 125–131.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farahzad, F. (2009). Translation criticism: A CDA approach. Translation Studies, 6(24), 39–47.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fazeli, M. (2009). Theoretical insights on the sociology of translation [Bineshhaye nazari dar bareye jameeshenasiye tarjome]. Translation Studies, 7(25), 29–46.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haghshenas, A. M. (Ed.) (2001). Farhang moaser English-Persian millennium dictionary. Tehran, Iran: Farahang Moaser Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London, England: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hermans, T. (1985). The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. London, England: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. London, England: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford, England: Pergamon.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach London, England: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Retrieved May 01, 2008, from [URL]
Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about - A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)