Political discourse and transalation

Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….2

CHAPTER 1

Theory of  Political Discourse ……………………………………………………………4

1.1. The Nature of Political Discourse ………………………………………………………….4

1.2. Language of Politics and Critical Discourse Analysis…………………………………...11

CHAPTER 2

Political Discourse and Translation  …………………………………………...…........14

2.1. Translation of the Language of Politics ………………………………………………… 14

2.2. Political Discourse Translation ………………………………………………………….15

CHAPTER 3

Political Discourse analysis of British and American politicians’ speeches and their translation into Armenian ………………………………………………..19

3.1. Comparative analysis of English and American pre-election speeches and their translation into Armenian …….………………………………………………………………19

3.2. The Use of Syntactical Stylistic Devices in Creating Expressiveness in British and American Politicians’ Speeches and Their Translation into Armenian  ………………..…31

3.3.God and biblical themes in the speeches of American Presidents  …………………..…43

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………...................51

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The study of political discourse has been around for as long as politics itself.   Political discourse analysis is a field of discourse analysis which focuses on discourse in political forums (such as debates, speeches, and hearings).   Politicians in this sense are the group of people who are being paid for their (political) activities, and who are being elected or appointed (or self-designated) as the central players in the polity. Linguistics is  interested in the words and structures politicians use to create a certain view of the world. This word view will be directly linked to their purpose and audience and will affect the language they choose in order to achieve a set goal. Lexical and syntactical choices can affect the voters, persuading them to vote for certain policies or personalities. Political language can be recognized in a variety of forms but in each case lexical and syntactical choices are directly linked to the audience, purpose and context of the discourse. Politicians aim to represent society as it really is, they can use language to adapt reality to suit their purposes.

Speeches of English and especially American politics in the twenty-first century are perhaps more frequently analyzed than any other body of language in modern English. With the growing popularity and use of the major news media and the Internet, the general public currently has an utterly unprecedented level of access to reports, transcripts and even videos of every word that passes through a public speaker's lips. The public scrutiny, however, is generally turned towards the meaningful content of these speeches rather than the manner of their expression. Through analysis of certain speeches of British and American politicians, this study aims to identify some of the common characteristics of preprepared political speeches and highlight the linguistic features commonly present both in speeches of American and English politicians.

The political elite are people that are educated and saddled with the task or business of political leadership and those occupying various political positions like Presidency, Head of State, Governorship, Ministry, Ambassadorship, Advisory, and other political offices. It also embraces those that are involved in practical political practitioning and politicking either civil or military. Each regime has always produced its own political leaders and elite.

Political speech, as a subset of late Modern English, is an interesting entity. Many of its linguistic features attempt to mimic those of conversational, scholarly or formal English, but the defining differences ultimately stem from the fact that it is all carefully crafted to persuade or even manipulate its intended audience.

In this paper we’ve set forth to study the nature of political discourse and critical discourse analysis.  The central aim of our analysis lies in revealing the means by which language is deployed in speeches of American and English politicians in order  to maintain power. Political discourse analysis of British and American politicians’ speeches was better accomplished by means of translation of certain parts of the analyzed speeches.

In this work we set the following tasks:

• to review the sources devoted to the study of the political discourse analysis;
• to reveal certain characteristic features of translation of the language of  politics;
• to investigate political discourse analysis of British and American politicians’ speeches and their translation into Armenian.

The paper is composed of introduction, three chapters, conclusion and bibliography list. In the introduction the object and aims of the paper are mentioned. In the first chapter the general issues of political discourse  are considered. In the second chapter the characteristic features of translation of language of politics are outlined. The third chapter is solely devoted to the practical analysis of the political discourse of British and American politicians’ speeches and their translation into Armenian. The conclusion sums up the results of the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

Theory of Political Discourse

1.1. The Nature of Political Discourse

The way we perceive language is the foundation of our social construction and individual or group relationships, and studies in sociolinguistics have tried to explain this relationship between the use of language and the importance of perceptions. A particular discourse, spoken or written, can stem from different sources such as power,  cultural or social background, region or social status.

Language is closely bound up with our social and cognitive development from  childhood, and our identity formation. The attitude that a listener can adopt towards the speech of another speaker has been a significant issue in sociolinguistics. The  study of language attitudes is one of the most important topics in the social  psychology of language. Much of the work on language attitudes has been conducted under the rubric of the social psychology, but sociolinguistics has always shared “overlapping concerns and involvements” (Garret 2001: 626). Trudgil (1992) describes language attitudes as “the attitudes which people have towards different  languages, dialects, accents, and their speakers” (Trudgil 1992: 44). Such attitudes may range from very favourable to very unfavourable, and may be manifested in subjective judgments about correctness, worth and aesthetic qualities of varieties, as well as the personal qualities of their speakers. Whilst linguistic studies have shown that such attitudes have no linguistic basis, sociolinguistics studies have proven that  attitudes are social in origin, and they may have important effects on language behaviour, being involved in acts of identity and linguistic change. Fasold (2006) notes that most language attitude work is based on a mentalist  view of attitude as a state of readiness: “an intervening variable between a stimulus affecting a person and that person’s response” (Fasold 2006: 147). A person’s attitude, in this view, prepares her/his reaction to a given stimulus in one way rather than in another. The other view is the behaviourist view. According to this theory, attitudes are to be found simply in the responses people make to social situations. Moreover, Holmes (2001) notes that attitudes to language ultimately reflect attitudes to the users and the uses of language. The standard variety in a community has “overt prestige” (Holmes 2001: 344). Speakers who use the standard variety are rated highly in terms of educational and occupational status, and these ratings reflect the  associations of their speech variety, which is generally held up as the best way of speaking in the community. “Covert speech” refers to positive attitudes towards vernacular or nonstandard speech varieties (Holmes 2001: 348).

These studies imply that attitudes to language can be linked to social and cultural identity, to social status and to the notions of prestige and solidarity, and that attitudes to language and its varieties can be influenced by different factors related to the users of that specific language.

Discourse is a broad term with various definitions which “integrates a whole palette of meanings” (Titscher et al. 2000 :42), covering a large area from linguistics, through sociology, philosophy and other disciplines. According to Fairclough (1989) the term refers to “the whole process of interaction of which a text  is just a part” (Fairclough 1989: 24). As pervasive ways of experiencing the world, discourses refer to expressing oneself using words. Discourses can be used for asserting power and knowledge, and for resistance and critique. The speaker expresses

his/her ideological content in texts as does the linguistic form of the text. That is,  selection or choice of a linguistic form may not be a live process for the individual speaker, but the discourse will be a reproduction of that previously learned discourse. 

According to Schaffner (1996), political discourse, as a sub-category of discourse in general, can be based on two criteria: functional and thematic. Political discourse is a result of politics and it is historically and culturally determined. It fulfills different functions due to different political activities. It is thematic because its topics are primarily related to politics such as political activities, political ideas and political relations. Power is a complex and an abstract idea and has a significant influence on our  lives. It is the “ability of its holders to exact compliance or obedience of other  individuals to their will” (The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thoughts, 1999: 678). According to Edelman (1977), the power-holder is a person who can “exercise influence outside the context of formal proceedings [thus wielding] real power” (Edelman, 1977: 123). Language has a key role in the exchange of values in social life and transforming power into right and obedience into duty. It may both create  power and become an area where power can be applied. Social values and beliefs are the products of the institutions and organisations around us, and are created and shared through language. Rousseau (2004) highlights this point saying “the strongest  is never strong enough always to be master unless he transforms his power into right and obedience into duty” (Rousseau, J.J., cited in The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thoughts, 1999: 678). Edwards (2006) notes that people do not “react to the world on the basis of sensory input but, rather, of what we perceive that input to  mean” (Edwards, 2006: 324). This is because language use corresponds to views of the social status of language users, thus providing simple labels which evoke social stereotypes that go far beyond language itself. For instance, listening to a given variety, acts as a trigger or a stimulus that evokes attitudes or prejudices or stereotypes about the community to which the speaker is thought to belong. According to Wareing (2004), the affective function of language is concerned with who is allowed to say what to whom, which is “deeply tied up with power and social status” (Wareing, 2004: 9). In other words, how individuals choose and use different language systems varies according to who the speakers are, how they perceive themselves and what identity they want to project. Language use also varies according to whether the situation is public or private, formal or informal, who is being addressed and who might be able to overhear. Likewise, Meyerhoff (2006) points out that we draw very powerful inferences about people from the way they talk.

It is a common knowledge that politics is concerned with power: the power to  make decisions, to control resources, to control other people’s behaviour and often to control their values. According to Jones and Peccei (2004), politicians throughout ages have achieved success thanks to their “skilful use of rhetoric”, by which they aim to persuade their audience of the validity of their views, delicate and careful use of elegant and persuasive language. Rhetoric is “the art of using language so as to persuade or influence others; the body of rules to be observed by a speaker or writer in order that he may express himself with eloquence” (Oxford English Dictionary).  Although the use of language is unquestionably an important element of politics, Fairclough (2006) notes that it can “misrepresent as well as represent realities, it can weave visions and imaginaries which can be implemented to change realities and in  some cases improve human well-being, but it can also rhetorically obfuscate realities, and construe them ideologically to serve unjust power relations” (Fairclough, 2006: 1).  Wareing (2004) also mentions that words can also have a strong influence on our attitudes; which word is chosen affects people’s perception of the others and of themselves. Similarly, Jones and Peccei (2004) point out that language can be used not only to steer people’s thoughts and beliefs but also to control their thoughts and beliefs. The best example for this notion may be Newspeak, a form of English  invented by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1998) in which people’s thoughts are controlled and limited by the language available to them. Orwell (1949) says that “Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. (...) To give a simple example, the word ‘free’ still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “The dog is free from lice.” It could not be used in its old sense of „politically free‟ or „intellectually free‟,  since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless” (Orwell, 1998: 231). The novel makes it clear that it might be possible to manufacture an ideology which could steer the way people think. The main purpose of politicians is to persuade their audience of the validity of their political claims. Political influence flows from the employment of resources that shape the beliefs and behaviours of others. Common resources include expert skills, the restriction of information, the ability to confer favours on others or to injure them  without physical force, and subtle or crude bribery. Edelman (1977) states that the knowledgeable politician becomes successful by “using his or her knowledge of informal influence” (Edelman 1977: 123). According to Jones and Peccei (2004), this can be achieved through “presupposition” and “implicature”. These tools can lead the listener to make assumptions about the existence of information that is not made explicit in what is actually said, but that might be deduced from what was said. Presuppositions are background assumptions embedded within a sentence or phrase. These assumptions are taken for granted to be true regardless of whether the whole sentence is true. Such technique is particularly useful in political discourse because it can make it more difficult for the audience to identify or reject views communicated in this way, persuading people to take for granted something which is actually open to debate. Like presuppositions, implicatures lead the listener to infer something that was not explicitly asserted by the speaker. However, unlike presuppositions, these operate over more than one phrase or sentence and are much more dependent on shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer and on the context of the discourse (Jones and Peccei 2004: 44). Van Djik (2006) notes that political situations do not simply cause political actors to speak in certain ways, instead “there is a need for a cognitive collaboration between situations and talk or text, that is a context” (Van Djik 2006: 733). Such contexts define how participants experience, interpret and represent the for-themrelevant aspects of the political situation. Political discourse is not only defined with political discourse structures but also with political contexts. Thus, acting as an MP, Prime Minister, party leader, or demonstrator will typically be perceived by speakers or recipients as a relevant context category in political discourse. A linguistic analysis of political discourse in general, and of political speeches in particular, can be most successful when it relates the details of linguistic behaviour to political behaviour. This can be done from two perspectives: we can start from the linguistic micro-level and ask which strategic functions specific structures (e.g. word choice, a specific syntactic structure) serve to fulfil. Alternatively, we can start from the macro-level, i.e. the communicative situation and the function of a text and ask which linguistic structures have been chosen to fulfil this function. Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to the micro-level of the

social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are typically terms that belong to a macro-level of analysis.

Given the power of the written and spoken discourse, Critical Discourse  Analysis (CDA, henceforth) can be used for describing, interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing social life reflected in text. CDA aims to systematically explore relationships between discursive practices, texts, and events and wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes. Precise analysis and descriptions of the materiality of language are factors which are always characteristic of CDA. It strives to explore how these non-transparent relationships are a factor in securing power and hegemony, and it draws attention to power imbalances, social inequities, nondemocratic practices, and other injustices in hopes of spurring people to corrective actions (Fairclough 1992). It tries to illuminate ways in which the dominant forces in a society construct versions of reality that favour their interests. This means that CDA can theoretically bridge the gap between micro and macro approaches, which is a distinction that is a sociological construct in its own right (Van Dijk 2003: 354).

Political discourse analysis first of all should be able to define its proper object of study: What exactly is 'political discourse'? The easiest, and not altogether misguided, answer is that political discourse is identified by its actors or authors, politicians. Indeed, the vast bulk of studies of political discourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as presidents and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and international levels.

Some of the studies of politicians take a discourse analytical approach (Carbó 1984; Dillon et al. 1990; Harris 1991; Holly 1990; Maynard 1994; Seidel 1988b). In the USA, especially studies of presidential rhetoric are numerous (Campbell & Jamieson 1990; Hart 1984; Snyder & Higgins 1990; Stuckey 1989; Thompson 1987; Windt 1983, 1990).

Politicians in this sense are the group of people who are being paid for their (political) activities, and who are being elected or appointed (or self-designated) as the central players in the polity. This way of defining political discourse is hardly different from the identification of medical, legal or educational discourse with the respective participants in the domains of medicine, law or education. This is the relatively easy part (if we can agree on what ‘politics’ means).

However, although crucial in political science and PDA as actors and authors of political discourse and other political practices, politicians are not the only participants in the domain of politics.

From the interactional point of view of discourse analysis, we therefore should also include the various recipients in political communicative events, such as the public, the people, citizens, the `masses', and other groups or categories. That is, once we locate politics and its discourses in the public sphere, many more participants in political communication appear on the stage.

Obviously, the same is true for the definition of the field of media discourse, which also needs to focus on its audiences. And also in medical, legal or educational discourse, we not only think of participants such as doctors, lawyers or teachers, but also of patients, defendants and students. Hence, the delimitation of political discourse by its principal authors' is insufficient and needs to be extended to a more complex picture of all its relevant participants, whether or not these are actively involved in political discourse, or merely as recipients in one-way modes of communication. There is another complication, which is associated with the very delimitation of the field of politics. Obviously, it is not only official or professional politics and politicians that are involved in the polity. Political activity and the political process also involve people as citizens and voters, people as members of pressure and issue groups, demonstrators and dissidents, and so on (Verba, et al., 1993).

All these groups and individuals, as well as their organizations and institutions, may take part in the political process, and many of them are actively involved in political discourse. That is, a broad definition of politics implies a vast extension of the scope of the term 'political discourse' if we identify such practices by all participants in the political process.

Another, but overlapping way of delimiting the object of study is by focusing on the nature of the activities or practices being accomplished by political text and talk rather than only on the nature of its participants. That is, even politicians are not always involved in political discourse, and the same is obviously true for most other participants, such as the public or citizens in general, or even members of social movements or action groups. 

This also means that categorization of people and groups should at least be strict, viz., in the sense that their members are participants of political discourse only when acting as political actors, and hence as participating in political actions, such as governing , ruling, legislating, protesting, dissenting, or voting. 

Specifically interesting for PDA is then that many of their political actions or practices are at the same time discursive practices. In other words, forms of text and talk in such cases have political functions and implications. Although there are many more ways we may approach the problems of definition and delimitation, we may finally take the whole context as decisive for the categorization of discourse as 'political' or not. Participants and actions are the core of such contexts, but we may further analyze such contexts broadly in political and communicative events and encounters, with their own settings (time, place, circumstances), occasions, intentions, functions, goals, and legal or political implications. That is, politicians talk politically also (or only) if they and their talk are contextualized in such communicative events such as cabinet meetings, parliamentary sessions, election campaigns, rallies, interviews with the media, bureaucratic practices, protest demonstrations, and so on. Again, text and context mutually define each other, in the sense that a session of parliament is precisely such only when elected politicians are debating (talking, arguing, etc.) in parliament buildings in an official capacity (as MPs), and during the official (officially opened) session of parliament.

This integration of political texts and contexts in political encounters may of course finally be characterized as accomplishing specific political aims and goals, such as making or influencing political decisions, that is decisions that pertain to joint action, the distribution of social resources, the establishment or change of official norms, regulations and laws, and so on. That this domain is essentially fuzzy, hardly needs to be emphasized.

What may be clear for official political decision making by politicians at all levels, or even for various forms of political protesters and dissidents, is less clear for the decisions and discourse of, say, corporate managers, professors or doctors in other but overlapping domains of social life. In the sense that the latter' s decisions and practices affect the public at large or large segments of the public, also their actions and discourse become more or less 'political'. 

However, in order to avoid the extension of politics and political discourse to a domain that is so large that it would coincide with the study of public discourse in general we shall not treat such forms of discourse-with-possible-political-effects as political discourse. That is, corporate, medical or educational discourse, even when public and even when affecting the life of (many) citizens, will here not be included as forms of political discourse. And although we may readily subscribe to the well-known feminist slogan that the personal is political, we shall similarly not take all interpersonal talk (not even of gender) as political discourse.

The same is true for the discourses that pertain to the societal realms of 'race' or class. Since people and their practices may be categorized in many ways, most groups and their members will occasionally (also) `act politically', and we may propose that `acting politically', and hence also political discourse, are essentially defined contextually, viz., in terms of special events or practices of which the aims, goals or functions are maybe not exclusively but at least primarily political. This excludes the talk of politicians outside of political contexts, and includes the discourse of all other groups, institutions or citizens as soon as they participate in political events. 

From our discourse analytical point of view, such a contextual definition at the same time suggests that the study of political discourse should not be limited to the structural properties of text or talk itself, but also include a systematic account of the context and its relations to discursive structures.

Most, if not all, discourse structures may have many functions, in many different contexts and in many different genres. Except from the obvious case of lexical jargon (typically political words), therefore, we can hardly expect that structures that have so many functions could be reserved only for political genres and contexts.

In other words, once we have analyzed the particular properties of political contexts, political discourse analysis in many respects will be like any other kind of discourse analysis. The specifics of political discourse analysis therefore should be searched for in the relations between discourse structures and political context structures.