Analysis of Discursive Translation Strategies in the Rendition of the U.S. Image: Findings From FM Zarif's Twitter Diplomacy

Document Type : Research Article


Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Salman Farsi University of Kazerun, Kazerun, Iran


Translators are liable to leave traces of their ideological worldviews in instances of text and talk. Tapping into these entails, inter alia, the identification, and analysis of Discursive Translation Strategies, that is, devices employed (un)consciously in creating and/or maintaining certain views of reality. This study set out to explore the use of such devices in the translation of politicians' tweets. The data in this exploratory investigation included all FM Zarif's U.S.-related tweets and their Persian translations as archived on the website of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. A total of 137 tweets, spanned within President Trump's term of office, were isolated to see how, if any, their translations might have contributed to the maintenance and/or construction of the U.S. image as displayed in the Source Texts. It was found the translations added yet another discursive level to the already extant diabolical image of the U.S. in the English tweets. The Discursive Translation Strategies employed included two general categories of those contributing to a smoother rendition of the image of the U.S. to the Iranian public and those showcasing such a portrayal.


Ali, L. A. (2008). Historic US – Iran relations: Revisiting ideology and geostrategy. Pakistan Journal of American Studies, 26(1/2), 43.
Altoaimy, L. (2018). Driving change on Twitter: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of the Twitter debates on the Saudi ban on women driving. Social Sciences, 7(5), 81.
Åkerlund, M. (2020). The importance of influential users in (re) producing Swedish far-right discourse on Twitter. European Journal of Communication, 35(6), 613-628.‏
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145-204.
Breeze, R. (2020). Exploring populist styles of political discourse in Twitter. World Englishes, 39-550-567,
Chiluwa, I., & Ifukor, P. (2015). ‘War against our Children’: Stance and evaluation in# BringBackOurGirls campaign discourse on Twitter and Facebook. Discourse & Society, 26(3), 267-296.
Claramonte, M. C. A. V. (2003). (Mis)translating degree zero: Ideology and conceptual art. In M. Calzada Pérez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology – ideologies in translation studies (pp. 71-88). Routledge.
Evolvi, G. (2019). #Islamexit: inter-group antagonism on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 22(3), 386-401.
Gagarina, V. R., Shelestova, O. V., Sheinina, D. P., & Leake, J. R. (2019). Adaptation of the English Language in Intercultural Political Discourse. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10 (Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Linguistics Issues (ALI 2019) July 19-20, 2019, Saint Petersburg, Russia), 894-902.‏
Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612-1621.
Graham, R. (2016). Inter-ideological mingling: White extremist ideology entering the mainstream on Twitter. Sociological Spectrum, 36(1), 24-36.
Haas, M. L. (2012). The clash of ideologies: Middle Eastern politics and American security. Oxford University Press.
Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2019). Translation: An advanced resource book for students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Jenks, C. (1993). Culture. Routledge.
Kuo, S. H., & Nakamura, M. (2005). Translation or transformation? A case study of language and ideology in the Taiwanese press. Discourse & Society, 16(3), 393-417.
Kreis, R. (2017). #refugeesnotwelcome: Anti-refugee discourse on Twitter. Discourse & Communication, 11(5), 498-514.
Lassen, D. S., & Brown, A. R. (2011). Twitter: The electoral connection? Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 419-436.
Lee, E. J., & Oh, S. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians' personalized tweets affect the public's reactions. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 932-949.
Martin, J. R. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Tagalog. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin, & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (Eds.) Language typology: A functional perspective (255-304). John Benjamins Publishing.
Masroor, F., Khan, Q. N., Aib, I., & Ali, Z. (2019). Polarization and ideological weaving in Twitter discourse of politicians. Social Media+ Society, 5(4).
Maurer, P., & Diehl, T. (2020). What kind of populism? Tone and targets in the Twitter discourse of French and American presidential candidates. European Journal of Communication, 35(5), 453-468.
McGlashan, M. (2020). Collective identity and discourse practice in the followership of the Football Lads Alliance on Twitter. Discourse & Society, 31(3), 307-328.
Munday, J. (2008). Style and ideology in translation: Latin American writing in English. New York: Routledge.
Naudé, J. A. (2002). An overview of recent developments in translation studies with special reference to the implications for Bible translation. Acta Theologica, 22(1), 44-69.‏
Prendergast, M., & Quinn, F. (2021). Justice reframed? A comparative critical discourse analysis of Twitter campaigns and print media discourse on two high-profile sexual assault verdicts in Ireland and Spain. Journalism Practice, 15(10), 1613-1632.‏
Quinn, F., Prendergast, M., & Galvin, A. (2019). Her name was Clodagh: Twitter and the news discourse of murder suicide. Critical discourse studies, 16(3), 312-329.
Salmani, B., & Khalili, F. (2017). Translation as a political tragedy: A study of the political function of signs in literature. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8 (Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language, Discourse and Pragmatics), 200-209.‏
Scammell, C. (2018). Translation strategies in global news: What Sarkozy said in the suburbs. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Schäffner, C. (2003). Third ways and new centres: Ideological unity or difference? In M. Calzada Pérez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology – ideologies in translation studies (pp. 23-43). Routledge.
Soheili, A. (2017). Reflections on Persian grammar: Developments in Persian linguistic scholarship I. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Statista. (2020). Forecast of the number of Twitter users in the United States from 2019 to 2028. Retrieved from
Talebinejad, M. R., & Shahi, M. (2016). Competition of Discourses in Journalistic Translation: Diplomatic Negotiations in Focus. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 30-53.‏
Tymoczko, M. (2003). Ideology and the position of the translator: In what sense is a translator 'in-between'? In M. Calzada Pérez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology – ideologies in translation studies (pp. 181-202). Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications Ltd.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of political ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-33). Sage Publications Ltd.
Yang, G. (2012). Power and transgression in the global media age: the strange case of Twitter in China. In: Kraidy, MM (ed.) Communication and Power in the Global Era: Orders and Borders (pp. 166–183). London: Routledge.
Yaqub, U., Chun, S. A., Atluri, V., & Vaidya, J. (2017). Analysis of political discourse on twitter in the context of the 2016 US presidential elections. Government Information Quarterly, 34(4), 613-626.