English Conceptual Discourse Patterns into Azeri-Turkish: A Case Study of Animal Farm

Discourse includes both structural and conceptual patterns. Most of these patterns are different in various languages. A conceptual pattern in source language can be realized in different ways in a target language. Therefore, the translator should be aware of this kind of differences between SL and TL conceptual patterns, because rendering these patterns from the source text into the target one can be problematic and their inaccurate transfer may lead to a flawed translation. This descriptive study aimed to investigate the conceptual discourse patterns and related ideologies in a novel entitled Animal Farm and as the same realizing the conceptual patterns in its translation into Azeri-Turkish. Accordingly, the researchers selected and analyzed the samples based on Fairclough’s approach (2001) to CDA. The findings indicated that the translators’ ideological and socio-cultural norms affect their translation strategies and lexical and grammatical choices and this in turn influences their success to recognize and transmit the ST implicit ideologies into TT.


Introduction
Spoken or written languages have used as an ingenious device for transferring ideologies and concepts for manipulation of the audience or readers' minds by those who have been in power.It is clear that every text is organized according to the writer's beliefs and ideologies who is a member of a group, community, party or a nation, on the one hand.The translator also is a member of another or may be a different society with its special ideologies, on the other hand.This makes the translation more complex, because the selected words, their arrangement, and the structures in which they appear are not chosen haphazardly and usually there are some dominant thought patterns according to which these texts are written.
According to Dooley (2008), since translation is a multi-faceted task, different kinds of difficulties can arise: (1) Readers of receptor language are not always aware of contextual information that the audience of source text understands, and (2) the receptor language has norms of structural organization that are different from those found in the source text.Accordingly, it will be useful for translators to be aware of the role of the conceptual discourse patterns and to avoid rendering the source language discourse patterns accurately and consequently avoiding mismatches.Since translators have always had problems with structural mismatches, it makes sense for translator training courses to deal with these issues, particularly at the discourse level.
Rendering SL conceptual discourse patterns into TL can be considered as a translation problem.Jan-Ola Ostman (as cited in Bublitz & Lenk 1997, p.97) defines discourse pattern as "a part of what we conceive of as the coherence of text/discourse is a chord in the kind of global, cognitive, partly codified understanding we have of how to categorize the text/discourse in question and how to hook this text/discourse onto the cognitive frame of understanding that I call a discursive pattern".
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the conceptual discourse patterns through structural features and to shed light on the relationship between language and ideology involved in translation in general, and more specifically, to uncover the underlying ideological assumptions invisible in the texts, both source text -Animal Farm by Orwell (1945) and target textits Azeri-Turkish translation, and consequently to investigate whether the translator has managed to transfer the ideologies and the concepts into his translation or not.
To achieve the objectives of this study, the following two research questions were posed: RQ1.Has the Turkish translator succeeded in transferring the author's conceptual discourse patterns from English into Azeri-Turkish?It is noteworthy that this study as a case study was limited to analyzing the story, Animal Farm, a novel by George Orwell.However, the lack of Azeri-Turkish translated texts limited the choice of source material.The unavailability of those who were fluent in reading Turkish texts was an obstacle to using inter-rater's evaluation in this study.

Methodology
The present researchers have used the following materials in order to answer the research questions and achieve the objectives of this study.
Considering the purpose of the study, the materials should support the ideological and power concepts.For this mentioned reason, Animal Farm by George Orwell, was chosen as the source text.Animal Farm is an allegorical and dystopian novel by George Orwell, first published by Martin Secker and Warburg in England on 17 August 1945.According to Orwell (1946), the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.Orwell, a democratic socialist, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscowdirected Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War.Orwell has been claiming that every word of his professional work was written to express his discontent and disgust for totalitarian rule.Orwell described Animal Farm as a satirical tale against Stalin and in his essay "Why I Write" (Orwell,1946), wrote that Animal Farm was the first book in which he tried, with full consciousness of what he was doing, "to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole".
Hiyvānlār Qālāsī is the Azeri-Turkish translation of Animal Farm by George Orwell.This novel, translated into Azeri-Turkish by Velayat Gholi Yeo was published by Akbar Rahimzad Faraji in Tabriz, 2010.
To carry out this study, the following steps were taken: 1.The original source material was read line by line by the researchers and the conceptual discourse patterns were realized regarding lexical and grammatical features.The same was done on its Azeri-Turkish translation.Look at the following example extracted from Animal Farm by Orwell (1945): English Example: No animal shall wear clothes.(Orwell, 1945, p.16) Azeri-Turkish Translation: (Gholi Yeo, 2010, p.29) ‫گئیینمیرلر.‬‫پالتار‬ ‫حیوانالر‬ /hiyvānlār pāltār gʼīnmīrlar/ 2. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) given by Fairclough (2001) as an approach was applied in the texts analysis to recognize conceptual discourse patterns in ST and TT and consequently to uncover hidden ideology.
2.1 In terms of text analysis, the linguistic features (lexicology and grammar) of the text have been described to see how ideological position of the writer and translator are encoded in the texts.Fairclough (2001) states three values for analyzing texts.In this study, the experiential and relational values were investigated.Experiential value deals with contents, knowledge, and beliefs and relational value reveals relations and social relationships that are enacted via the text.In the level of vocabulary, the two criteria, overwording and euphemistic expression, were used to analyze the texts.Then, as suggested by Fairclough (2001), grammar features were analyzed including nominalization, active or passive, and modality connectors.
2.2 The next step was interpreting processes of text production.There are two domains here: interpretation of situation context and interpretation of intertextual context.In the interpretation of situation, the researchers followed questions given by Fairclough (2001) including what's going on, who's involve, what relationships are at issue, and what's the role of language.In interpretation of intertextual context, presuppositions were in focus.
3. Explanation concerned with the relationship between those processes and social contexthow the discourse change or sustain certain social relationship in social structurewas needed.
As for the example above, the sentences have analyzed according to the following steps: In this example, modal "shall" indicates an obligatory plan for future.Therefore, it has been expressed that pigs have a good plan for animals' future life, and they have the power to achieve this bright future.They can think and write; therefore, they are powerful characters in animal farm and their discourse is a forcible discourse.
4. The researchers looked at the dominant processes in clauses of the text, i.e., how ideology and power are hidden in transitivity.
5. Upon data collection, the next step was to interpret the differences between the writer's and the translators' conceptual discourse patterns.The existed differences in above example are as: Gholi yeo (2010) has expressed the act of wearing "gʼīnmīrlar" which literally means, "they do not dare" as an arbitrary one in his translation.Therefore, he has not rendered the conceptual patterns of the author; consequently, he has not transferred ideologies behind this conceptual pattern.
Since the present study investigated the texts in a descriptive aspect, the results of the study discussed with the respect of using CDA.This study was a descriptive research, focusing on investigating and analyzing the conceptual discourse patterns and ideologies in a novel entitled Animal Farm and as the same realizing the conceptual patterns in its translation into Azeri-Turkish.The results of this investigation can shed more light on the researchers' path to discover the ideological differences while rendering a ST into TT.

Results and discussion
As previously mentioned, this study has focused on conceptual discourse patterns of the source text, Animal Farm by Orwell (1945), a socio-political Novel.Fairclough's (2001, p.1) theoretical objectives, as the benchmark of the present research, have stemmed from linguistics and those studies in sociolinguistics, which focus on "language in its social context" and on relationship between language and power.Accordingly, the researcher selected and analyzed the samples based on Fairclough's (2001) CDA approach.Therefore, extracted samples are divided into two categories as vocabulary and grammar.In order to improve the reliability of samples of the present study, Azeri-Turkish samples of this study were transliterated.

Vocabulary
In this section, the two following questions along with some English into Azeri-Turkish examples are presented along with a detailed analysis: 1. What experiential values do words have?Is there overwording?
2. What relational values do words have?Are there euphemistic expressions?

Experiential Values and Overwording
First of all, it seems necessary to shed light on Experiential Values and Overwording.Fairclough (2001, p.93) argues about three values that formal features may have: experiential, relational, and expressive.A feature with experiential value is a trace of and a cue to the way in which the text producers' experiences of the natural or social world are represented.The aspect of experiential value of most interest in the context of Fairclough's work, Language and Power (2001), indicates how ideological differences between texts in their representations of the world are coded in their vocabulary.
According to Fairclough (2001, p.96;1989, p.115), overwording is identified as "an unusually high degree of wording, often involving many words which are near synonyms".Overwording shows preoccupation with some aspects of reality that may indicate that it is a focus of ideological struggle.Further, Fairclough (1992, p. 193) uses the expression "over-wording" to refer to the relative density of the number of words used to name the concepts from a particular domain, which may be "a sign of intense preoccupation, pointing to peculiarities in the ideology of the group responsible for it".In other words, Fowler (1991, p. 69) describes, over-lexicalization into "the availability of many words for one concept, and indicates the prominence of the concept in a community's beliefs and intellectual interests".
To understand what experiential values words have and to see whether there is any overwording in Azeri-Turkish translation of Animal Farm, look at the following example.
English Example: "Loyalty and obedience are more important... Discipline, comrades, iron discipline!(Orwell, 1945, p. 36) Azeri-Turkish Translation: (Gholi Yeo, 2010, p.65) ‫اینتیظام.‬‫دمیر‬ ‫یولداشالر،‬ ‫بونالردیر...اینتیظام‬ ‫اوالنالر‬ ‫واجیب‬ ‫ان‬ ‫ایطاعت-‬ ‫و‬ ‫صداقت‬ /sedāqat va īt̩ āʼat en vājīb ulānlār būnlārdīr... īntīz̩ ām yuldāshlār, damīr īntīz̩ ām/ Discussion: In this example, the speaker -Squealer-the representative of a totalitarian regime, looking positive to totalitarianism tries to focus on the concept "iron discipline" which indicated no question and no thinking.By using overwordings such as loyalty, obedience, discipline, and iron discipline, the speaker shows her mental patterns in related discourse.Words used by the speaker contain experiential values and express her beliefs.Gholi Yeo (2010) has managed to transfer the speaker's ideologies from English into Azeri-Turkish.Therefore, it can be concluded that Gholi Yeo (2010) have rendered the conceptual pattern and ideology into TT.

Relational Values and Euphemistic Expressions
First of all, it seems necessary to shed light on Relational Values and Euphemistic Expressions.Regarding the three values, Fairclough (2001, p.93) describes relational value as "a trace of and a cue to the social relationships which are enacted via the text in the discourse".Relational value is to do with relations and social relationships.This question focuses on how a text's choice of wordings depends on, and helps create social relationships between participants.According to Fairclough (2001, p.97), a euphemism is "a word which is substituted for a more conventional or familiar one as a way of avoiding negative values".In a political view, Crespo-Fernández (2014, p.2) argues that euphemism refers to the process whereby the producer makes implicit the inappropriate or offensive word or a distasteful one to provide a "safe" way to deal with certain embarrassing subjects without being politically incorrect or breaking a social convention.It should be mentioned that euphemistic strategies may reflect the politicians' sensitivity to audience's concerns.To understand what relational values words have and to see whether there are any euphemistic expressions in Azeri-Turkish translations of Animal Farm, please look at the following example.
English Example: He was twelve years old and had lately grown rather stout, but he was still a majesticlooking pig.(Orwell, 1945,  /māurūn ārtīq unīkī yāshī vārdī.sun vākhtlār buyūndān chukh aʼnīna veʼrīrdī/ Discussion: It is necessary to mention that Orwell shows Old Major, who symbolizes Karl Marx, as so highly regarded character on the farm.To do so, he tries to address him in a polite way and choose more mild and polite-sounding language in order to introduce him.Therefore, he has used the euphemistic word "stout" which shows the respectful relations between animals and Old Major.In Azeri-Turkish translation, Gholi Yeo (2010) has used more informal expression "buyūndān chukh aʼnīna viʼrīrdī" that literary means "growth in width is more than length" instead of the euphemistic language; therefore, he has not transferred Orwell's discoursal patterns and ideologies.In fact, the Azeri-Turkish translator had not been successful in rendering the ideology from English into Azeri-Turkish.

Grammar
In this section, the following three questions along with some English into Azeri-Turkish examples are discussed in detail: 1. What experiential values do grammatical features have?Are nominalizations used? 2. Are sentences active or passive?
3. What relational values do grammatical features have?Are there important features of relational modality?

Experiential Values of Grammatical Features and Nominalizations
First of all, it seems necessary to shed light on experiential values of grammatical features and nominalizations.The experiential aspects of grammar have to do with the ways by which the grammatical forms of a language code happenings or relationships in the world.Fairclough (2001, p.100) explains that those "happenings or relationships involve all of the creatures (people, animals or things) and their spatial and temporal circumstances, manner of occurrence, and so on".Fairclough (2001) explains nominalization as a grammatical process of converting a verb or an adjective into a noun (or a multi-word compound noun, as here).Through this reduction process, some of the meanings one gets in a sentence are missing like tense; therefore, there is no indication of the timing of the process, modality and often an agent and/or a patient.It indicates that a sentence producer gives priority to actions rather than to the people, responsible for them.Richards and Schmidt (2002, p. 360) identify nominalization as "the grammatical process of forming nouns from other parts of speech, usually verbs or adjectives".Moreover, it can make something that is unclear or uncertain seem stable, powered, and precisely defined.
To understand what experiential values grammatical features have and to see whether there is any nominalization in Azeri-Turkish translation of Animal Farm, please look at the following example.

‫قویدوق.‬ ‫نی‬ ‫نوقطه‬ ‫سون‬ ‫ایله‬ ‫جزاالندیریلماسی‬ ‫خاینلرین‬ ‫گون‬ ‫بو‬
/bū gūn khāyenlarīn jazalandīrīlmāsī īlah sun nuqt̩ ah nī quydūq/ Discussion: The speaker -Squealersummarizes the act of killing the traitors that shows that the purpose of rebellion has been changed through wording "the execution of the traitors".Here, nominalization helps the speaker depersonalize the agent who has changed the aim, leaves the audience in uncertainty, and makes the action more highlighted.It makes something that is unclear or uncertain seem stable, powered, and precisely defined.Here, the experiential value of the grammatical feature is obvious.Gholi Yeo (2010) in his translation, has rendered the English concept into Azeri-Turkish by a nominalization process.

Passivization
First of all, it seems necessary to shed light on passivization.The process of passivization allows Orwell or speaker to leave out the actor/experiencer/speaker in the sentence.In other words, the real subject of the sentence is missed on purpose.By omitting the performer/doer, the producer can protect sources.In fact, passivization has no such an inherent meaning.That is, meaning is all the time the outcome of a specific reader's inferential processing.To understand whether there is any form of passivization in Azeri-Turkish translation of Animal Farm, look at the following example.
English Example: the white hoof and horn with which it had previously been marked had now been removed.(Orwell, 1945, p.91) Azeri-Turkish Translation: (Gholi Yeo, 2010, p.147) .... ‫پوزولدوغو‬ ‫اوردان‬ ‫ایندی‬ ‫تصویرینین‬ ‫دیرناق‬ ‫و‬ ‫بوینوز‬ ‫اوالن‬ ‫اوستونده‬ ‫بایراغین‬ /bāyrāghīn ūstūndah ulān buynūz va dīrnāq tas̩ vīrīnīn īndī urdān puzūldūghū/ Discussion: As you can see in the story, it is clear that most of the goals of revolution changed after pigs received power.Therefore, to maintain power, which is the sign of dictatorship the neighbor, farms should not be aware of this shifting and the speaker (Napoleon) here wants to give less information about the event of changing the flag and deletes the agent.Gholi Yeo (2010) rendered the discoursal patterns into "ulān ...puzu ldu ḡhū" which literary means "it was drawn...has been removed" in Azeri-Turkish by using passive voice.

Relational Values of Grammatical Features and Relational Modality
There are varieties of grammatical features of the text that have relational values among which modality were the focus of this study.Modality is to do with speaker's or writer's authority.We can look at two aspects of this topic including firstly, a matter of the authority of one participant in relation to others and secondly, a matter of the speaker's or writer's authority with respect to the truth or probability of a representation of reality.Modality is expressed by modal auxiliary verbs.The present study focused on shall, will, must, and can.To understand what relational values grammatical features have and to see whether there is any form of relational modality in Azeri-Turkish translation of Animal Farm, please look at the following example: Azeri-Turkish Translation: (Gholi Yeo, 2010, p.29) ‫بیلمز.‬‫اولدوره‬ ‫حیوانی‬ ‫باشقا‬ ‫حیوان‬ ‫بیر‬ /bīr heyvān bāshqā heyvānī uldūrah bīlmaz/ Discussion: According to the story of Animals Farm by Orwell (1945), Old Major emphasizes animals' duty for enmity towards all Men's ways.This shows his ideologies about the purpose of rebellion.Therefore, for a utopian society, the animals should avoid those ways and seven commandments had been written in forcible tone that illustrated the necessity of rules.Gholi Yeo (2010) has translated the expression into "uldūrah bi lmaz" which means "cannot kill" and has not transferred the author's ideology and conceptual discourse pattern about the commandments.
As previously mentioned, the present study investigated the translation of the discoursal patterns from English into Azeri-Turkish.Examples of the findings and discussion were presented based on critical discourse analysis.Specifically, the selected lexemes and phrases of the novel "Animals Farm" were compared with their translations into Azeri-Turkish.The focus was mostly on those features that convey the conceptual or ideological items.
As mentioned in section 3, ST and TT samples were extracted carefully and discussed in detail.Then, these items were analyzed according to CDA to conclude whether the conceptual discourse patterns and ideological aspects of ST are transferred into TT or not.The results of this analysis are presented through the tables and figures below along with a thorough explanation.As shown in Table1 and Figure 1, Gholi Yeo has managed to transfer overwording in his Azeri-Turkish version of Animal Farm 9 times out of 10 (90% percent).Gholi Yeo has failed to transfer overwording in his translation once out of 10 (10% percent).This means that Gholi Yeo was successful in rendering overwording from English into Azeri-Turkish.That is, the Azeri-Turkish translation is an acceptable equivalence of the original English ST.   3 and Figure 3 show that Gholi Yeo has managed to transfer nominalization in his Azeri-Turkish version of Animal Farm 7 times out of 7 (100% percent).On the other hand, Gholi Yeo again has not failed transferring nominalized items in his Azeri-Turkish version of Animal Farm.This means that the Azeri-Turkish translator was successful in rendering nominalization from English into Azeri-Turkish.That is, the Azeri-Turkish translation is an acceptable equivalence of the original English ST.   5 and Figure 5 show that Gholi Yeo (2010) has managed to transfer modality in his Azeri-Turkish translation 18 times out of 24 (75% percent).In other words, Gholi Yeo has failed to transfer modal verbs in his translation 6 times out of 24 (25% percent).7, Gholi Yeo (2010) has managed to transfer ideologies through criteria in his Azeri-Turkish translation 48 times out of 57 (84% percent) and failed to transfer these ideologies 9 times out of 57 (16% percent).
In order to discuss the results of the study, it is necessary to review the research questions of the study.This study was conducted based on Fairclough's (2001) theory of CDA to examine how discoursal features were used to construct ideologies and conceptual discourse patterns in translation.
Tables 1 to 5 show that the key concepts coded in structural features-vocabulary and grammatical items in ST have not been inquired by the translator.For instance, Table 4 shows that 74% percent of passive verbs have not been rendered into TT that in turn caused to miss the conceptual features in the translated text.
Regarding the first research question, the findings illustrated that the Azeri-Turkish translator has transferred 81% percent of Orwell's conceptual discourse patterns that were identified in this novel.As shown in Table 2, euphemism is the biggest difference.It should not be ignored that the use of euphemisms varies from culture to culture because of different historical backgrounds, social customs, values, religions, and moral standards.For example, Gholi Yeo (2010) has used a humorous language in the following example: He was twelve years old and had lately grown rather stout, but he was still a majestic-looking pig.(Orwell, 1945, p. 1) Azeri-Turkish Translation: (Gholi Yeo, 2010, p.6) ‫وئریردی.‬‫ائنینه‬ ‫چوخ‬ ‫بویوندان‬ ‫واختالر‬ ‫واردی.سون‬‫یاشی‬ ‫ایکی‬ ‫اون‬ ‫آرتیق‬ ‫مایورون‬ /māurūn ārtīq unīkī yāshī vārdī.sun vākhtlār buyūndān chukh aʼnīna veʼrīrdī/ Further findings show that Gholi Yeo (2010) has failed to transfer the concepts through the modal verbs especially "shall".In most of ST sentences in which the modal verb "shall" has been used, Orwell (1945) has expressed a forcible prediction while the Azeri-Turkish translator has shifted these cases to actions that have been done arbitrarily.
Regarding the second research question, the researchers have tried to investigate, whether the similar ideologies have been transferred from ST into the Azeri-Turkish translation or not.As shown in Table 7, the Turkish translator i.e., Gholi Yeo (2010) has been able to render 84 percent of ideologies from the ST into TT.

Conclusion
As previously mentioned, the main purpose of this study was the quality assessment of the Azeri-Turkish translations of a famous novel entitled "Animal Farm" by George Orwell under the CDA framework of Fairclough's (2001) notion of ideology, and conceptual discourse patterns in literary text.In this study, CDA gave us a comprehensive insight into the discursive structures of a literary text and its translations.In other words, the present study was an attempt to show the influence of the translators' lexical or grammatical choices on rendering the conceptual discourse patterns and ideological aspects of the source text into target texts.A discoursal pattern in source language can be realized in different ways in a target language; therefore, a translator should be aware of this kind of differences between SL and TL conceptual patterns.
The findings of the present research indicated that the ideological and socio-cultural norms of translator affect their translation strategies and lexical and grammatical choices and this in turn influences their success to recognize and transmit the ST implicit ideologies into TT.It shows that different experiences from the happenings or relationships in the world by various persons from various cultures influence their discoursal patterns and ideological expressions.
According to the CDA-based content analysis, the researchers concluded that Orwell has used different strategies for presenting some socio-cultural concepts and ideological manifestations in his novel.These strategies, according to Fairclough's (2001) model, are overwording, euphemism, nominalization, passivization, and using modal verbs.
In order to answer the first research question, the researchers scrutinized Azeri-Turkish translation totally to examine the renderings of Orwell's discoursal patterns by the translator.
It should be emphasized that ignoring culture-bound criteria such as euphemistic expressions as we can see in Azeri-Turkish translation have led the translators to encounter problems in conveying the conceptual discourse patterns.In other words, the findings of this study following Orwell's or speaker's conceptual discourse patterns lead us to make explicit the ST implicit ideologies or power relations in TT.

Implication
It is clear that language is used to convey culture and ideology from one society to another.In translating an example of language use, the translators cannot be neutral.Therefore, being aware of how this transition takes place can be significant for translators.As Van Dijk (1993, p.29) contends, the text (written or spoken) is like "an iceberg of information" and it is only the "tip" which is really expressed in words and sentences.Therefore, it can be concluded that the analysis of the implicitness is very helpful in the study of the underlying ideologies.Theoretically, the findings of this study can shed a light on the methods of discourse analysis that can systematically help the translators clarify hidden ideologies.
On the other hand, literary texts inspire readers' minds with intellectual insights and enforce them to ponder the social problems.Hence, the development of critical discourse analysis methods is crucial in linguistics and TS.A comparative CDA of ST and its translations in two different languages can provide a broader analytical angle for translation students and can help them recognize texts in connection with all contextual features such as ideology, power relations, and cultural and historical backgrounds.Therefore, the findings of the present research can give the translators a deeper insight towards subtle persuasive strategies that place readers in specific ideological positions.
Overall, this study shows the importance of CDA in the process of translating.
The results of the present study can also be useful for practitioners and researchers in ideology-related issues to discover how some subtle variations might imply some ideologically noteworthy focuses, and that how some beliefs can be inserted to a text.The findings of this study also may help translation students make the debate of TS for the idea that translation is not just substituting lexical and grammatical equivalences.

Suggestion for further Research
The present study focused on the process of investigating the conceptual patterns and ideological topics on one political novel as the source material and its Azeri-Turkish translation, i.e., different cultures, according to critical discourse analysis approach.The following three issues could also be suggested for further research: 1. To conduct research on investigating ideologies and power relations on other genres and discourse types such as poems or drama.
2. To conduct research on analyzing ideological and conceptual patterns in ST and TT according to CDA on different periods for example before and after a revolution in a society.
3. To conduct research on other strategies presented in Fairclough's (2001) CDA approach such as analyzing metaphors and so on.

Flourishing
Has the Turkish translator succeeded in transferring the ideologies of the English source text into Azeri-Turkish text?

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Euphemism Transferred by the Translators According to Table2, as shown in Figure2, Gholi Yeo has managed to transfer the euphemistic expressions in his Azeri-Turkish version of Animal Farm 4 times out of 7 (57% percent).Gholi Yeo has failed to transfer overwording in his Azeri-Turkish translation 3 times out of 7 (43% percent).Table 3. Nominalization Transferred by the Translators Translators Gholi Yeo (Azeri-Turkish) Criterion Yes No Nominalization 7 0

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Passivization Transferred by the Translators According to Table 4 and as shown in Figure 4, Gholi Yeo (2010) has managed to transfer Passivization in his Azeri-Turkish version of Animal Farm 16 times out of 19 (84% percent).In other words, Gholi Yeo (2010) has failed to transfer passivization in his Azeri-Turkish version of Animal Farm 3 items out of 19 (16% percent).

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.The Conceptual Discourse Patterns transferred by the Translators According to Table6, as shown in Figure6, Gholi Yeo (2010) has managed to transfer the conceptual discourse patterns through the criteria in his Azeri-Turkish translation 54 times out of 67 (81% percent) and failed to transfer these patterns 13 times out of 67 (19% percent).

Table 4 .
Passivization Transferred by the Translators

Table 6 .
The Conceptual Discourse Patterns transferred by the Translators

Table 7 .
The Ideology transferred by the Translators Figure 7.The Ideology transferred by the Translators According to Table 7, as shown in Figure