Related text linguistic research in Translation Studies aimed to point out textually where and in what ways source and target language political texts were not equivalent. The ensuing ethical, political and professional need to critically relate to translated texts, translation activities and the pragmatic effects of translation activities has given rise to numerous critical approaches. Relying on the theories of the best-known and best-established scholars of Critical Discourse Analysis and ideology (Fairclough [1989, 1995b], van Dijk [1990, 2003]) as well as of media discourse analysis (Bell [1991, 1998], Schelesinger and Lumley [1985]), Valdeón (2007) compares written news reports and their translations. With ideology interpreted in this context as “a set of assumptions accepted by the participant in a given stretch of discourse” (Valdeón, 2007, p. 101), with respect to media text producers, two types of mediation are distinguished by Valdeón: positive mediation, i.e. neutrality of text producers towards their subject and negative mediation, i.e. “importing external agendas that might stem from their [the text producers’] own ideological background” (Valdeón, 2007, p. 103). Valdeón (2007), with reference to Baker’s (1992) classification of non-equivalence at the level of words, examines the use and meaning of the lexical items of “terrorist” and “separatist” as well as their (alleged) equivalents. The conclusion of the discussion is that translations produced both for BBC and CNN on the Madrid terrorist attack in 2005 do not seem to “operate in the interest of the target culture, quite the contrary, they operate in their own interest, whether that is understood as personal, editorial or national” (Valdeón, 2007, p. 116). Consequently, Valdeón (2007) using Baker’s (1992) taxonomy, manages to reveal instances of word-level manipulation.

Chan (2007) compares the two Chinese versions of Hillary Clinton’s Living History published by two Chinese publishers China Times and Yilin Press. Chan (2007) contextualises the two Chinese versions in the different receiving Chinese cultures and, with the help of close reading, reveals numerous differences between the two translations. The differences between the source text and the two different translations in terms of the Chinese title of the work, certain textual omissions and translation shifts are due to market considerations as well as the influence of Chinese censorship activities. Chan’s (2007) study is a good example of the need to account for textual features in the backdrop of the receiving culture in the case of political texts.

Schäffner (2004) in the framework of a theoretical proposal urges the closer cooperation of political discourse analysis (PDA) and Translation Studies. PDA explores the link between linguistic behaviour and politics in the fields of pragmatics, semantics and syntax and tries to explain in what ways such linguistic features contribute to political persuasion (cf. Chilton and Schäffner 1997). Schäffner (2004) reviews the most common research areas in Translation Studies with reference to political texts and establishes the following themes as possible joint research areas of PDA and Translation Studies: research of lexical choice in the target text in comparison with that of the source text, the practice of selecting information to translate, and creating new political identities by phrasing and framing (i.e. influencing readers to associate certain phrases with given social and ideological contexts). Through examples, it is demonstrated that all of these translational practices can be used for manipulative purposes, thus sensitivity to such features is very crucial in the field of translating political texts.

In the same study, Schäffner (2004) calls for a systematic approach to the research of the translation of political texts and urges the following: 1) the status (overt or covert translation, i.e. Is the target text identified as translation or not?) and the general practice of translations be established before effecting any kind of analysis, 2) translated texts under scrutiny be published in the original languages not only in English for the sake of clarity, 3) mistranslations or instances of translation losses be analysed in their social-political context so that such shifts can possibly reveal ideological structures and 4) that the entire translation process, not only the end-product, be reviewed for analysis.

Relying on the findings of PDA and with a view to the political strategic functions of political discourse established by PDA, Schäffner (2004) discusses the following four political strategies translation can apply when it comes to the rendering of political texts: coercion, resistance, dissimulation as well as legitimisation and delegitimisation. Putting this in perspective, the following is claimed: translation can be used as a means of controlling access to information by carefully selecting texts for translation (coercion). Translators can take an active role and select texts for translation and, by making such texts available to the public, they can make voices other than the official one heard (resistance). On the other hand, another manipulative translation strategy in the hands of those commissioning translations could be either disallowing certain texts to be translated, purposefully commissioning only certain extracts of given texts to be translated or deliberately publishing inaccurate translations, collectively termed dissimulation. All of these strategies can prevent persons from receiving non-biased information through translation. Finally, positive self-presentation and negative presentation of others can be effected by the fourth type of translation strategy termed legitimisation and delegitimisation.

Schäffner (2004) envisages the cooperation of PDA and Translation Studies in researching the translation strategies described above. Schäffner (2004) at the same time calls for certain principles to be observed in the analysis of the translation of political texts. Accordingly, translated texts under scrutiny in the original language will be included, instances of translation shifts will be analysed in their social-political context and the general practice of translation (circumstances related to the translation commission) will be established before performing analysis. These principles will also be observed in the current research.

As the above studies have demonstrated, critical approaches to the translation of political texts must extend to the analysis of lexical-level manipulation, to the comparison of cultural aspects of source and target cultures as well as to the analysis of linguistic choices (possibly) responsible for political and/or ideological manipulation.

As has been shown in the above literature review, research on the translation of political texts has so far dealt with national and international political contexts (Section 4.3.2.1), the translator as a point of potentially conflicting political views (Section 4.3.2.2), the translation strategies associated with the translation of political texts (Section 4.3.2.3), the effects of translators’ own political commitment (Section 4.3.2.4), the misuse of translated political texts for purposeful manipulation (Section 4.3.2.5) and urged critical awareness (Section 4.3.2.6).

Not underestimating the merits and usefulness of any of the above approaches, we must note that these approaches are not strictly text and context based approaches, nor are they systematic enough to obtain valid and comparable research results in the field of the translation of political texts. Such a systematic approach should, in our view, involve social, political, cultural, historical, hermeneutical and political mass communication contextual features as much and/or relevant as possible. Furthermore, none of the above-described approaches attempt to combine all the relevant contextual features in one single model, which is necessary for a comprehensive description of textual and contextual features and the analysis of their interdependence and interplay. It may thus be concluded that systematic and theoretically well-grounded CDA approaches incorporating all of the above contextual features of political texts have not yet been introduced to Translation Studies.