In her discussion of translations related to the Yugoslavian conflict, Dragovic-Drouet’s (2007) starting point is neutrality as interpreted by Seleskovitch (1983) as well as the Newmarkian (1989) criteria of moral and factual truth. Through a textual analysis of source and target language texts of the Yugoslavian conflict, Dragovic-Drouet (2007) aims to prove that the above-mentioned professional standards are oftentimes not observed by translators and that translators may resort to censoring or modifying texts should they perceive that, in their judgement, primary text producers (reporters, media personnel, etc.) show unwanted embeddedness (cultural bias), which results in unfair communication. Turning to translation methodology, Dragovic-Drouet (2007) claims that translator training should develop future translators’ ability of coping with situations of conflict both linguistically and in terms of terminology management. This study reveals that translators can potentially manipulate texts politically and also sheds light on the issue of awareness-raising in connection with the translation of political texts.

Gagnon (2006) describes the ways official translations are performed in Canada by the Canadian Prime Minister’s Office, the Parliament and other government institutions, and explores how such translations are received. With reference to the status of originals and translations, Gagnon (2006), discussing the hybridity of target texts (texts showing unusual, strange textual features in the target culture as a result of conscious, deliberate translator decisions), concludes that translations have a lower status than originals in Canada. In terms of the adaptation of texts and the reception of French and English parallel texts, Gagnon (2006), relying on textual analysis performed with the help of Fairclough’s (1989) Critical Discourse Analysis Model, claims that the way translations are done, i.e. what institutional translation strategies are applied, are decided by the audience to be convinced. This signals that the actual ideological aims will determine the translation strategies applied. This points towards the assumption that “French- and English-Canadian cultures do not often meet in translated federal speeches” (Gagnon, 2006, p. 84), which is contrary to the expectations of a homogeneous Canadian nation. This statement seems to indicate that it is almost impossible (and probably at some points not even desired) to produce politically equivalent texts even in the case of bilingual countries, let alone other, more diverse political contexts. The studies described above illustrate that the analysis of the translation of political texts must definitely extend to the contemporary national and/or international contexts the text under scrutiny have been created in.