critical discourse analysis of bbc english vs. arabic news websites

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF BBC ENGLISH VS. ARABIC NEWS WEBSITES 1

Critical Discourse Analysis of BBC English vs. Arabic News Websites

Khansa T. AL-Qudaimi

Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud University

English Language Department


Introduction

The emergence of Web 2 has reinforced the globalization where people care about other

people’s issues. Beside news radio channels and news TV programs, news websites made an

appearance to aid people browse written form of the latest stories at any time. “News websites,

especially those related to satellite television networks with global coverage, are playing an

increasingly significant role in today’s world”(Abdul-Mageed & Herring, 2008).

One of the well-known sources of news is BBC which provides coverage in English beside

other 32 languages. In this study, the English and Arabic versions are compared to reflect

whether they deliver the same message and whether they are ideologically balanced. In other

words, the differences found in these two versions, that are directed to different audiences, are

analyzed in terms of the ideological perspective hidden in the headlines and the news articles. In

general, two major questions are answered:

1. How does the ideological perspective of the Arabic and English versions differ according

to the target audience, as represented in its headlines?

2. How does the ideological perspective of the Arabic and English versions differ according

to the target audience, as represented in its news articles?

Other minor questions that are answered:

1. Does the BBC speak with one voice or many to its different target audiences?

2. Are there any differences between the English and Arabic versions in terms of

controversies in how ideas are denoted?


News discourse and translating news to the Arabic language have been reviewed in the

background section. To analyze the data, critical discourse analysis (CDA) method is applied.

Then, discussion of the analyses is carried out.

Background

News Discourse, Ideology and CDA

News-making is a practice that influences the social construction of reality (Fowler,1991). On

the other hand, behind every news formation act there is an ideology that is based on the culture

of the target society (Shojaei, 2012). The term “ideology” is defined in the New Oxford

Dictionary of English as, “a system of ideas, ideals especially one which forms the basis of

economic or political theory and policy” (2005, p.770). This system of ideas attempts to justify

the interest of a ruling group or class by distortion or dissimulation (Calzada-Perez, 2003). Thus,

the production of news, the choice of subject and the form of its presentation is affected by the

beliefs or the ideology of the target audience.

In order to identify ideology in the linguistic structure of the news, critical discourse analysis

(CDA) approach can be used since it is crucial to present the role of the society, social cognition

and language users in reproducing the text in the social and political contexts. Hence, CDA

brings together social theory, which refers to the analytical frameworks used to examine social

phenomena, and textual analysis. Moreover, it assumes that discourse constitutes society and

culture and does an ideological work (Van Dijk, 1993).

To analyze the text, CDA underlines a number of linguistic strategies such as presuppositions,

intertextualization, political implicatures and, in general, manipulations. Furthermore,

lexicalization, or word choice is an essential factor of the textual CDA since lexicon is a major


dimension of ideologically controlled discourse meaning (Van Dijk, 1995). Therefore, a word

may be used to convey negative or positive meanings and implications about in-group or out-

group members formed on an ideological basis (Martínez-Roldán and Malavé, 2004).

Translating News Articles

One may assume that the Arabic version of the news is a mere translation of the English

version. However, Lefevere (1992) suggests that the act of reproducing a text with the intention

of adapting the original to a certain ideology of a different audience is actually “an act of

rewriting” (p. vii). Thus, Alvariz and Vidal (1996) argue that the translators’ selections of what

to add, what to leave out, which words to choose and how to place them reveal the ideology and

socio–political milieu that surround them.

In addition to the ideology of the target audience, the patrons that control the target language

constrain the translators’ freedom in rewriting the news articles (Lefevere, 1992). Before

Lefevere (1992), Nord (1991) indicates that the patronage is the controlling factor that covers the

following questions regarding any target text: What is being translated? Who does the

translation? Who is it translated for? How is the material translated? Such patrons allow texts to

be acceptable and affective to further or hinder the reading, writing, and rewriting of news.

BBC News Website

The BBC Online (www.bbc.co.uk) was launched officially in December 1997 as one of

BBC’s public services. Its main responsibility is to provide public service broadcasting in the

UK. Therefore, more than half of the people in the UK regard the BBC as their single most

important source of news. The BBC news website remains the most popular online destination

used by 52% of people who go online (Plunkett, 2013). Additionally, BBC provides a worldwide

http://www.bbc.co.uk/


service in about 32 different languages. Thus, it is ranked as one of the most visited news

websites in 2013 according to Alexa Web Information Company.

BBC Arabic is considered one of the oldest and longest running foreign-language news

services. It was launched in 1938, 16 years after BBC was founded. The Arabic website emerged

with the establishment of BBC worldwide news service in the website. From the beginning, the

BBC sat news standards that cannot be compromised in the name of broadcasting British

propaganda (Partner, 1988). Being one of the most popular sources of news that have criteria to

follow, this study selects the BBC English and Arabic websites to be spotlighted.

Methodology

The primary data for this study are five English headlines and their Arabic equivalents beside

one English news article and its Arabic equivalent. They are collected from the English

(http://www.bbc.com/) and Arabic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/) news websites.

The study aims at comparing the English and Arabic headlines and news articles. The

comparison is carried out in the word level, sentence level and discourse level. CDA is used in

order to uncover the ideological underpinnings of the two news sites by shedding lights on the

lexical choice and the grammatical representation of the news. The results are mostly qualitative.

Analysis

Headlines

Although the first glance of the BBC English and Arabic news websites could reflect

correspondence between these two, the CDA could show the distinction between the two

websites according to the different targeted language users. One clear difference between the

http://www.bbc.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/


English and Arabic headlines is that Arabic headlines tend to be more informative than the

English headlines. This is illustrated in the following example:

English: “Kuwaitis cleared of parliament raid” (9\12\2013)

Arabic: “ 1722ا من تهم اقتحام البرلمان عام ناشطا كويتي 07تبرئة ” (9\12\2013)

Back-translation: “Clearance of 70 Kuwaiti activists that were accused of raiding the parliament

in 2011”

It is obvious that the Arabic version provides more details in regard to the number and role of

Kuwaitis that are involved in the clearance beside the year of the activity. On the other hand, the

English version of the headline has not mentioned any of this information. Another example:

English: “Iraq cafe car bomb kills many” (9\12\2013)

Arabic: “ في انفجار سيارة مفخخة شمال شرقي العراق 22مقتل ” (9\12\2013)

Back-translation: “11 were killed in car bomb blast North Eastern Iraq”

As illustrated above, the Arabic version of the same news provides the number of recipients,

“11” which is not pointed out in the English version. Also, the specific location of the blast is

stated in the Arabic version, “North Eastern Iraq” instead of “Iraq” only in the English version of

the headline.

Another difference found in the headlines of English vs. Arabic BBC news websites is the

ideologies underline the lexical choice and reflect political alignment, for instance, the following

headlines:

English: “Palestinian anger over boy’s death” (8\12\2013)


Arabic: “ فلسطينيالرئاسة الفلسطينية تحمل إسرائيل مسؤولية مقتل طفل ” (8\12\2013)

Back-translation: “Palestinian presidency blames Israel for the killing of a Palestinian boy”

The English version of the headline omits “Israel” and downplays the killing of a Palestinian

boy be using the word “death” as opposed to the Arabic version, “the killing.”

Beside the political alignment, the lexical choice can also reflect a pro-western bias in the

English version. This is demonstrated in the following headlines:

English: “Iran nuclear crisis: UN inspectors visit Arak plant” (8\12\2013)

Arabic: “(2013\12\8) ”خبراء األمم المتحدة يفتشون مفاعل أراك النووي في إيران

Back-translation: “UN experts inspect Arak nuclear plant”

As revealed in these two headlines, the English version uses the word “crisis” to depict an

ideological association with the Western view of the Iranian nuclear program which is unlike the

Arabic version that shows more neutral view to the news.

The English version of BBC news also differs from the Arabic one in terms of the voice in

order to suit the target audience. For example the headlines:

English: “Hagel: US military power must back Iran nuclear deal” (7\12\2013)

Arabic: “(2013\12\7) ”هيغل: واشنطن لن تخفض قوتها العسكرية في منطقة الخليج

Back-translation: “Hagel: Washington will not reduce the number of its military power in the

Gulf region”


In this headline, the voice of the English headline totally contrasts the Arabic one. In the

English version, the reproduction of the headline follows the Western cultural script in which the

US military is considered one of the most powerful military in the world and has the right to

implement justice and peace around the world. Thus, it aims at stopping Iran from having its

nuclear program by maintaining their forces in the region. On the other hand, the Arabic version

of the headline aims at reassuring the Arabs of the US military’s good intentions expressed by

providing support and protection to the Gulf region from the nuclear program of Iran and

maintaining good relations with the Arab allies.

In all the above headlines, the ideological perspectives that are associated with the cultural

groups are displayed in the reproduction of the different texts. This is mirrored in the lexical

choice utilized in the headlines.

News Article

With the use of CDA, not only headlines can show the underlines ideologies, but also the

news articles published in different languages. One example that demonstrates how news differs

from one language to another is the article entitled “Iran agrees to curb nuclear activity at

Geneva talks” (24\11\2013) (Appendix 1).

The English version of this news article starts with,

“Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in return for about $7bn

(£4.3bn) in sanctions relief, after days of intense talks in Geneva.”

On the other hand, the Arabic version uses a more humanized and positive introduction,


( إلى اتفاقية حول البرنامج النووي لطهران في مؤتمر جنيف، حسب 2+5وعة )"توصلت إيران ومجم

ما أفاد وزراء الخارجية".

This positive and peaceful voice in the Arabic version continues to dominate despite the

strong tone found in the English version as in,

“US President Barack Obama welcomed the deal, saying it would “help

prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon”.”

"وقال الرئيس األمريكي باراك أوباما في أول تعليق له على االتفاقية إنها خطوة أولى مهمة باتجاه حل

أشمل لمشكلة البرنامج النووي اإليراني".

The lexical choice in these two versions appears to carry ideologies behind, for instance, the

English version uses the expression; “help prevent Iran” with the negative collocation, “nuclear

weapon.” This aspect cannot be seen in the whole Arabic version where the “nuclear program” is

the problem that needs “to be solved” and not “prevented”.

An addition of the sentence,

"."وقال إنه يرغب بحل الخالف مع إيران حول برنامجها النووي بالطرق السلمية

That cannot be found in the English version downplays the American way of dealing with the

nuclear program in the Arabic version in contrast to the English version which proclaims the

Iranian intentions of building a nuclear weapon.

In the English version, the different presidents and prime ministers declare their definite

opposition to the Iranian nuclear program in long and strong speeches. On the other hand, the

voice of these speeches in the Arabic version reinforces Geneva agreement as a mean to peace

and union instead of going up against the “nuclear weapon.”


Also, the English version displays the Iranian voice in the matter of the nuclear program and

their denial of the nuclear weapon intentions. Yet, the Arabic version minimizes the Iranian

remarks with highlighting their resistance to stopping their nuclear program.

Despite his sharp comments, the statements of Benjamin Netanyahu are reduced to two lines

in the Arabic version,

"وفي القدس لم يبد رئيس الوزراء اإلسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو حماسا لالتفاقية، وقال إنها سيئة وال

إسرائيل في شيء".تلزم

The ideology behind omitting the speech of Netanyahu is, clearly, related to the attitude of Arab

speakers towards Israel and how they may perceive his commentary on this issue. Unlike Arabs,

English speakers do not have similar negative attitude towards Israel. Thus, the whole speech is

mentioned in the English version.

The lexical choice also reflects the ideology carried out by the society and language speakers.

For example, the English version shows how Netanyahu does not oppose the nuclear program of

Iran only, but also has a leading part in “not allowing” Iran to have it,

“We cannot and will not allow a regime that calls for the destruction of Israel

to obtain the means to achieve this goal.”

So, Netanyahu is not merely “unenthusiastic” to the agreement as mentioned in the Arabic

version nor he contents with expressing that “it is not good and doesn’t concern Israel.”

Nonetheless, the Arab speakers will not be satisfied by reading these statements of Netanyahu.

Therefore, the “rewriting” of the news article provides brief information that does not irritate the

Arabic readers.


In addition, the English version of this news article contains 912 words while the Arabic

version contains 240 words. This actually has been noticed in various news articles in the BBC

where the English version articles are longer and more detailed than their Arabic alternatives, as

opposed to the Arabic headlines which are more detailed than the English ones. This can be

explained by considering the role of the English version of the BBC news website as the main

source of news in Britain whereas the Arabic version is not.

As illustrated, CDA has the potential to expose the distinctions between the English and

Arabic news articles. Those differences rely on the ideologies that characterize every society.

Thus, discourse varies depending on the target society and language users.

Discussion

The CDA of the BBC English vs. Arabic news websites reveals a difference in the ideological

perspective in terms of the detailed information provided as opposed to the restricted number of

words and information (Abdul-Mageed & Herring, 2008). As obvious, the Arabic headlines were

more detailed and informative in contrast to the English headlines. However, the English news

articles were more detailed than the Arabic ones.

The variance of the lexical choice may reflect cultural bias, as in the selection of the word

“crisis.” It also indicates a political alignment, as in the choice of the word “death” instead of

“killing.” The addition and omission of words or phrases may also alter the underlie ideologies

from one text to another in terms of positivity and negativity.

Regarding the change of voice and the causative aspect from one text to another, it is

considered as one of the means upon which the different ideologies are shown. Moreover, the

cultural scripts are also associated with certain ideologies to be mirrored in a text (Shojaei,


2012). Those means of expressing ideologies that characterize various societies, cultures and

language users assess the reproduction of the linguistic structure of the news headlines and

articles in order for them to be suitable to the norms of the target audience. This may include

intentional and purposeful alteration and manipulation of the news texts, as shown in Netanyahu

speech in regard to the Iranian nuclear program (Martinez-Roland & Malave, 2004).

Conclusion

In brief, each audience perceives the news text on the bases of the ideologies designated by

the language users in a particular community. Thus, the distinctive framework that features each

language, culture and ideology imposes the form of rewriting news when dealing with different

language users. News writers know that it is impossible to have a totally unbiased piece of

writing. However, they still aim at reproducing unbiased and accurate news articles in many

languages and only one voice. Yet, having ideologies that highlight the diverse linguistic

communities deny this possibility. Thus, each article undergoes the action of rewriting when

different language users are targeted.


References

Abdul-Mageed, M., & Herring, S. (2008). Arabic and English news coverage on AlJazeerah.net.

Proceedings of Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication (pp. 1-16).

France: Nimes.

Alvarez, R., & Vidal, M. (1996). Translating: A political act'. In R. Vidal, & M. Alvarez,

Translation, power,subversion. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Awadh, M., & Al-Jardi, N. (2000). Comparative study of content analysis of CNN, BBC and

KTV 2 Newscasts. Journal of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(23), 135-

183.

Calzada-Perez, M. (2003). Apropos of ideology. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Davis, D. (1989). News as discourse. Journalism Quarterly, 66(2), 507-508.

Fahmy, S., & Al Emad, M. (2011). Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the network's

English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict. The International

Communication Gazette, 73(3), 216.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London:

Routledge.

Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. London:

Routledge.

Limited BBC World (2009, Sept 18). News website carries analysis on BBC's "anti-Iran"

activities. London, United Kingdom.

Loomis, K. (2009). A comparison of broadcast world news web pages: Al Jazeera English, BBC,

CBS, and CNN. Electronic News, 3(3), 143-160.

Martinez-Roland, C., & Malave, G. (2004). Language ideologies mediating literacy and identity

in bilingual contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(2), 155-180.

Metcalf, S. (2006, Dec 14). Analysis: Al-Jazeera English and Arabic news coverage compared.

London, United Kingdom.

Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation. In M. Baker, Routledge Encyclopedia of

Translation Studies. London: Routledge.

Partner, P. (1988). Arab Voices: The BBC Arabic Service. London, United Kingdom.

Plunkett, J. (2013, Sept 25). BBC rated UK's top source for news. The Guardian.


BBC Service Monitor (2006, Nov 15). Analysis: Al-Jazeera's English and Arabic output

compared on launch day. London, United Kingdom.

Shojaei, A. (2012). A critical discourse analysis of political ideology and control factors in news

translation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2535-2540.

Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-

283.

Van Dijk, T. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243–89.


Appendix 1

The English version:

Iran agrees to curb nuclear activity at Geneva talks

Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in return for about $7bn (£4.3bn) in

sanctions relief, after days of intense talks in Geneva.

The deal will last for six months, while a permanent agreement is sought.

US President Barack Obama welcomed the deal, saying it would "help prevent Iran from

building a nuclear weapon".

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran's right to uranium enrichment had been recognised.

Israel, however, said the agreement was a "historic mistake".

World powers suspect Iran's nuclear programme is secretly aiming at developing a nuclear bomb

- a charge Iran has consistently denied.

In a nationwide broadcast on Sunday, President Rouhani repeated that his country would never

seek a nuclear weapon. He hailed the deal, saying it met one of Iran's fundamental principles.

"No matter what interpretations are given, Iran's right to enrichment has been recognised," he

said.

Iran agreed to halt enrichment to medium-grade (20%) purity, which can be further enriched to

weapons-grade level relatively easily, and give better access to UN inspectors.

Tehran insists it must be allowed to enrich uranium to use in power stations.

The deal comes just months after Iran elected Mr Rouhani - regarded as a relative moderate - as

its new president, succeeding the hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It has also been backed by Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say

in nuclear matters.

After four days of negotiations, representatives of the so-called P5+1 group of nations - the US,

the UK, Russia, China, France and Germany - reached the agreement with Iran in the early hours

of Sunday.

Key points of the deal have been released by the White House:

Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond 5%, and "neutralise" its stockpile of uranium

enriched beyond this point

Iran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at Natanz and Fordo

nuclear sites

There will be no further development of the Arak plant which it is believed could

produce plutonium

In return, there will be no new nuclear-related sanctions for six months if Iran sticks by

the accord

Iran will also receive sanctions relief worth about $7bn (£4.3bn) on sectors including

precious metals

US Secretary of State John Kerry said the agreement would make the region safer for its allies,

including Israel.

But the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet it was a "historic mistake"

and that his country reserved the right to defend itself.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/23/fact-sheet-first-step-understandings-regarding-islamic-republic-iran-s-n


"Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in

the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world," he

said.

At a later news conference, Mr Netanyahu said Israel would not be bound by the agreement.

"We cannot and will not allow a regime that calls for the destruction of Israel to obtain the means

to achieve this goal.

"Israel has many friends and allies, but when they're mistaken, its my duty to speak out."

Secret talks

The Israeli comments came as it was revealed that the US and Iran had held a series of face-to-

face talks in recent months that paved the way for the agreement but were kept secret even from

their allies.

At least five meetings, involving Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Vice President Joe

Biden's senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan and Iranian officials, began in March at

undisclosed locations, including the Gulf state of Oman, according to the Associated Press news

agency.

The final four meetings were held after President Rouhani was elected in August. The talks were

personally authorised by President Obama, AP reports quoting senior US administration

officials.

The officials told AP they were "convinced that the outreach had the blessing of Ayatollah

Khamenei".

Oman's Sultan Qaboos played a key role after offering himself as a mediator, according to AP.

'Enrichment continues'

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the agreement was an opportunity for the

"removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

But he insisted that Iran had not given up its right to enrich uranium.

"We believe that the current agreement, the current plan of action as we call it, in two distinct

places has a very clear reference to the fact that Iranian enrichment programme will continue and

will be a part of any agreement, now and in the future," he said.

The US denied any such right had been conceded, while UK Foreign Secretary William Hague

said the agreement was "good news for the whole world".

But Mr Obama warned that if Iran fail to keep its commitments, "we will turn off the relief and

ratchet up the pressure".

This deal may be the most significant agreement between the world powers and Iran for a

decade, says the BBC's James Reynolds in Geneva.

In this latest round of talks, negotiators had been working since Wednesday to reach an

agreement that was acceptable to both sides.

It became clear that a breakthrough had been made in Geneva shortly before 03:00 local time

(02:00 GMT) on Sunday.


In further reaction, President Vladimir Putin of Russia said he looked forward to a more

comprehensive agreement.

"What is done is a breakthrough but it is merely the first step on a long and difficult road," he

said in a statement.

"In conjunction with our partners we are ready to continue the patient search for a mutually-

acceptable, broader and comprehensive solution that upholds Iran's inalienable right to develop a

peaceful nuclear programme."

The Arabic version:

يران: التوصل إلى اتفاقية في محادثات جنيفإ

.ارجية( إلى اتفاقية حول البرنامج النووي لطهران في مؤتمر جنيف، حسب ما أفاد وزراء الخ2+5توصلت إيران ومجموعة )

وقال الرئيس األمريكي باراك أوباما في أول تعليق له على االتفاقية إنها خطوة أولى مهمة باتجاه حل أشمل لمشكلة البرنامج

.النووي اإليراني

وأضاف أن االتفاقية لن تتيح إليران استخدام الجيل الجديد من أجهزة الطرد المركزي، وستفرض قيودا أساسية على برنامجها

.ي وستقطع الطريق على إمكانية إنتاج اسلحة نوويةالنوو

.وقال إنه يرغب بحل الخالف مع إيران حول برنامجها النووي بالطرق السلمية

.وقالت الواليات المتحدة إن االتفاقية سوف تسمح باإلصالحات التي تكفل السالمة والتفتيش داخل إيران

كون نافذة المفعول على مدى ستة اشهر ستخفف العقوبات المفروضة على إيران وأكد البيت األبيض أنه وفقا لالتفاقية التي ست

.مليارات دوالر، ولن تفرض عقوبات جديدة 0بما قيمته

وفي القدس لم يبد رئيس الوزراء اإلسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو حماسا لالتفاقية، وقال إنها سيئة وال تلزم إسرائيل في شيء

التي جرى التوصل إليها هي خطوة مهمة في الطريق لتحقيق السالم واألمن لكن يجب مراقبة تنفيذها وقالت فرنسا إن االتفاقية

.عن قرب

.وأكدت االتفاتقية على حق إيران في برنامج نووي ألغراض سلمية

التوصل الى اتفاق وقالت كاترين اشتون مفوضة السياسة الخارجية لالتحاد األروبي إن االتفاقية ستتيح الوقت والفسحة من أجل

.شامل

وتصر إيران على االستمرار في التخصيب، وقال وزير خارجيتها عقب التوصل إلى االتفاقية إن التخصيب من حق بالده وإنها

.ستستمر فيه ، لكن وزير الخارجية االمريكي جون كاري قال إن االتفاقية ال تمنح إيران حق االستمرار في تخصيب اليورانيوم

.االتفاقية على أنها مؤقتة لكنها ستمهد الطريق التفاقية أشمل وينظر إلى

critical discourse analysis of bbc english vs. arabic news websites

Documents