Cited by 1Translation Studies and PracticesDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesLinguistics and Discourse Analysis

Social Deictic Shifts in Animal Farm: Evidence of More Intense Class Struggle and More Marked Social Stratification in Translation

Open access
Othman Abualadas·2024·Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures

Abstract

This article examines the shifts in social deixis in an Arabic translation of George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm. The results show that the translation moves toward a more frequent use of social deixis and more lexicalization of social/interpersonal relations between characters, bringing some major characters closer to readers in the emotional/psychological space while distancing some other minor characters. The translation moves toward a more emotive language/style, more accentuated/marked focalization, more subjective perspective and more involved reader. There is a tendency toward more explicit social differentiations that improve the text’s clarity and communicability. This explicitation pattern can reflect the translator’s (intentional or unintentional) attempts to reverbalize the original text after his concretization of the social realia of the original story. The explicitation may also be looked at as textual traces of the translator’s (intentional or unintentional) endeavors to speak for the original author, narrator or characters and adopt their speaking voice(s) in the story.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.47012/jjmll.16.3.8

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A substantial number of Jordanian students are unable to communicate effectively despite years of English instruction.

    “However, a substantial number of Jordanian students are unable to communicate effectively, despite the years of English instruction (Al Huneety et al., 2024; Abualadas 2024; Fawareh et al, 2023).”

    From An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Role-play in Improving Fluency in Jordanian EFL Students' Speaking Skills (2025) · cites this paper as Abualadas 2024

    The Analysis and Data and Methodology sections examine social deixis in an Arabic translation of Animal Farm, not Jordanian students’ English-language ability. Searches for the claimed communication difficulty and years of English instruction found no passage addressing either point; the indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Abualadas, Othman. 2020. Shifts in Speech Acts in Fiction Translation: Evidence of a More Marked Narratorial Voice. Dirasat, Human and Social Sciences 47 (1): 61-73.
  2. Abualadas, Othman. 2019a. Deictic shifts in Fiction Translation: Evidence of a More Marked Perspective in the Translated Narrative. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 9 (2): 424-433.
  3. Abualadas, Othman. 2019b. Person Deixis and Point of View in English-Arabic Fiction Translation: A Trend towards Repositioning the Narrator, Characters and Readers. International Journal of Arabic- English Studies 19 (2): 263-280.
  4. Baker, Mona. 2018. Narrative analysis and translation. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies and linguistics (pp. 179-193). London and New York: Routledge.
  5. Black, Elizabeth. 2006. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
  6. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 2004. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), the translation studies reader (pp. 298-313). London and New York: Routledge.
  7. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2018. Stylistic and translation. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies and linguistics (pp. 194-207). London and New York: Routledge.
  8. Fowler, Roger. 2009. Linguistic Criticism (2 nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Goethals, Patrick & July De Wilde. 2009. Deictic Center Shifts in Literary Translation: The Spanish Translation of Nooteboom's Het Volgende Verhaal. Meta 54 (4): 770-794.
  10. Hatim, Basil, & Ian Mason. 2013. Discourse and the Translator. London and New York: Routledge.
  11. House, Juliane. 2016. Translation as Communication across Languages and Cultures. London and New York: Routledge.
  12. Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics (2 nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Klaudy, Kinga. 2009. Explicitation. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2 nd ed) (pp. 80-84). London: Routledge.
  14. Leech, Geoffrey & Mick Short. 2007. Style in fiction (2 nd ed.). UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  15. Levinson, Stephanie. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Levinson, Stephanie. 2006. Deixis. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97- 121). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  17. Lyons, Jone. 2005. Linguistic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Mason, Ian, and Adriana Şerban. 2003. Deixis as an Interactive Feature in Literary Translations from Romanian into English. Target 15 (2): 269-294.
  19. Mason, Ian. 2014. Discourse and translation: A social perspective. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 54-81). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  20. Morini, Massimiliano. 2013. The Pragmatic Translator: An Integral Theory of Translation. London: Bloomsbury.
  21. Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré. 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  22. Pápai, Vilma. 2004. Explicitation: A universal of translated text? In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  23. Patai, Daphne. 2009. Political fiction and patriarchal fantasy. In R. Fowler (Ed.), Bloom's modern critical interpretations: George Orwell's Animal Farm (pp. 3-21) New York: Infobase Publishing.
  24. Reiss, Katharina. 2004. Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision making in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.,), The Translation studies reader (pp. 160-171). London and New York: Routledge.
  25. Richardson, Bill. 1998. Deictic features and the translator. In L. Hickey (Ed.), the pragmatics of translation (pp. 124-142). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  26. Saldanha, Gabriela. 2008. Explicitation Revisited: Bringing the Reader into the Picture. Trans-kom 1 (10): 20-35.
  27. Simpson, Paul. 2005. Language, Ideology and Point of View. London and New York: Routledge.
  28. Stockwell, Peter. 2005/2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
  29. Toolan, Michael. 2016. Making Sense of Narrative Text Situation, Repetition, and Picturing in the Reading of Short Stories. London and New York: Routledge.
  30. Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive translation studies-and beyond (revised edition). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  31. Uspensky, Boris. 1973. A Poetics of Composition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  32. Venuti, Lawrence. 2008. The Translator's Invisibility: History of Translation (2 nd ed). London: Routledge.
  33. Wieczorek, Anna. 2013. Clusivity: A New Approach to Association and Dissociation in Political Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.

Cited by

Authors
Abualadas, O.
Affiliations
University of Jordan (JO)
Corresponding author
Othman Abualadas
Venue
Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures
Published
2024-09
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
709-724
ISSN
  • 1994-6953 (ISSN-L)
  • 2304-8069
OpenAlex
W4406934671
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literature (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
Keywords
social deixis, Animal Farm, George Orwell, Arabic translation, literary translation, social stratification, class struggle, lexicalization, focalization, emotive language, translator's voice, reader engagement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review