Political discourse and transalation

Thus, whereas metaphors in classroom discourse may have an educational function, metaphors in politics will function in a political context, for instance in the attack on political opponents, the presentation of policies or the legitimation of political power. An account of the structures and strategies of, e.g., phonology, graphics, syntax, meaning, speech acts, style or rhetoric, conversational interactions, among other properties of text and talk is therefore necessarily part of political discourse analysis only if such properties can be politically contextualized.

Despite such rather straightforward conditions on political discourse analysis, we may however ask ourselves whether specific discourse structures are more or less typical and especially more or less effective for the political functions they may have, or even, more specifically, in the specific political contexts in which they might be used.

Thus, we know that the 'official language' of government decisions, or the legal jargon of laws and regulations, is both discursively, politically and legally mandatory. Similarly, also parliamentary debates are expected to be held in relatively formal style of address and dialogue. Some of the more formulaic expressions, forms of address and textual and dialogical conventions are even specific for laws, regulations, parliamentary debates, or political speeches.

 

 

1.2. Language of Politics and Critical Discourse Analysis

Politics is a struggle for power in order to put certain political, economic and social ideas into practice. In this process, language plays a crucial role, for every political action is prepared, accompanied, influenced and played by language. 

It is widely conceived that language and politics are interconnected; language is for instance, considered the vehicular expression of politics. It is the means by which politics or political discourse and ideas are widely disseminated, Ali (1975) corroborates this when he opines that language “is the most important point of entry into habits of thought of a people. It embodies within itself cumulative association derived from the total experience of its people” (Ali: 48). In the same spirit, Harris avers, “in politics words have a powerful effect” (1975:58). Similarly, Harris views that Orwell sees political language as being designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, while Harris claims that Disraeli is of the view that “with words we govern men.” He adds, “language is the means by which political ideas are transmitted to the community,” while, he views that Locke claims that the strength of language in politicking is enormous. And at another setting, Ranney (1975: 130) submits that four hostile newspapers were the equivalent of 100,000 enemy troops on the field of battle underlining the extent to which political language is itself a weapon (Ranney: 130). He claims further that every political authority will lead to justify itself by an appeal to language in its symbolic or realistic sense. It is apparent from the various opinions stated above that language is the key factor in political behaviour concerning mobilizing people to support and acceptance; it is this relatedness of language and politics that justifies the need for this research so as to identify and highlight features inherent in the language of the political elite (Urbanavičienė 2004).

The methodological approach we have employed to examine the language of politics is known broadly as critical discourse analysis. This approach is at once both a technique for analysing specific texts or speech acts, and a way of understanding the relationship between discourse and social and political phenomena. By engaging in concrete, linguistic textual analysis—that is, by doing systematic analyses of spoken and written language—critical discourse analysis aims to shed light on the links between texts and societal practices and structures, or, the linguistic-discursive dimension of social action.

Critical Discourse Analysis  (CDA) is a framework for analyzing texts that grew out of the research of Fairclough in the 1980’s. He stated in his first publication, Language and Power, three pillars upon which his research is based; Language, Ideology and Power (Fairclough 1995:3). 

Another important aspect of CDA is the order of proceedings in the process of analysis. The first stage is description where formal properties of a text are treated. Second comes the interpretation, which looks at text-interaction relations. Finally there is the explanation, which explores relations between interaction and social context (Fairclough 1995:21 – 22).

Fairclough has defined some key variables for the practice of CDA, of which we intend to focus on two: ideologically contested words and the usage of the pronouns we and you (Fairclough 1995:92 – 93).

When using pronouns in a public discourse one has to be cautious, especially when giving a speech, which is a type of monologue, since then there is no room for questions and explanation. Finally one of the important features of CDA is the conception of knowledge. Jäger puts forth five central issues based on a theory of Foucault.

• what knowledge (valid at a certain place at a certain time) consists of;

• how this valid knowledge evolves;

• how it is passed on;

• what function it has for the constitution of subjects and the shaping of society and

• what impact this knowledge has on the overall development of society (Jäger 2003:32-33). 

Thus, a central aim of critical discourse analysis lies in revealing the means by which language is deployed to maintain power. What makes critical discourse analysis ‘critical’ is its normative commitment to positive social change.

In terms of studying the role and use of language, there are two levels at which critical discourse analysis functions. First, it engages directly with specific texts in an effort to discover how discursive practices operate linguistically within those texts. Second, because individual text analysis is not sufficient on its own to shed light on the relationship between discourse and social processes, critical discourse analysis adds a wider interdisciplinary perspective which combines textual and social analysis. In essence, critical discourse analysis involves carefully reading a specific text—such as a speech, interview, radio address or report—and employing a series of analytical questions: What assumptions, beliefs and values underlie the language in the text? How does the grammar, syntax and sentence construction reinforce the meanings and effects of the discursive constructions contained in the text? What are the histories and embedded meanings of the important words in the text? What patterns can be observed in the language, and how do different parts of the text relate to each other? What knowledge or practices are normalised by the language in the text? How does the language create, reinforce or challenge power relations in society? Finding answers to these questions goes some way towards understanding how discourses work to construct social processes and structures in ways that reproduce power relations.

Based on the above the conclusion that one must draw is that it is important to apply a critical stance towards how knowledge is presented as a commonly accepted truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2

Political Discourse and Translation

2.1. Translation of the Language of Politics

Political literature like any other scientific kind of literature  have languages items characteristic to them, that requires the translator  to  be precise and sharp. Most books on general politics are characterized  by  the passion of  expression,  polemic  style  and  the  specific  feature  is  in blending the elements of scientific speech  from  one  side  with  different emotionally colored means of expression from another side. The translation of political literature can be considered in two  ways: as a field of linguistic activity and as a separate field in science.

As a field of linguistic activity translation of  political  literature represents one of the types of special translations  possessing  as  objects of its activity different materials of political character.

   The translation of political language comes out into a special field of  study  due to its specific features of written and verbal speech on  political  topics, which is specified by its essential character  and  the  knowledge  of  this science.  Sometimes  these  features  are  so  diverse  that  in  order   to understand them  one  should  have  a special knowledge without which it would be very hard  to  clearly  perceive the inner sense on politics or a translated piece.

  Therefore, the study of specific features of written and verbal  speech acquires great importance to translators  (interpreters).  To  the  features mention above belong the following:

1. maximal filling the political literature with special  political terms, and in verbal speech (among the politicians) – filling it with words of political jargon – slang.
2. presence of special  idiomatic  expressions  and  phraseological units in verbal and written  speech  that  are  rarely  used  in colloquial speech and general literature.
3. the presence of some stylistic deflection from general  literary norms is sometimes very great.

1. wide  usage   of   elliptic   constructions,   especially   in periodically publishing materials, propaganda and  other  kinds of politically important printing media.

2. preciseness and beauty of self-expression which is achieved  by the usage of elliptic constructions along with  wide  usage  of passive constructions.
3. the presence of official writing style, mostly in documents  of official provisions that  cover  administrative  and  political questions.
4. strictly regulated use of verbal  forms and  word  phrases  in special  chapters  of  political   literature   and   political documents.

 

 

2.2. Political Discourse Translation

The purposes of translation are so diverse, the texts so different, and the receptors so varied that one can readily understand how and why many distinct formulations of principles and practices of translation have been proposed. It’s widely known that translators should know both the source and the receptor languages, should be familiar with the subject matter, and should have some facility of expression in the receptor language. Beyond these basic requirements there is little agreement on what constitutes legitimate translating and how the science of linguistics, or even the knowledge of language structures, can and should be applied. For a better understanding of the causes of this lack of agreement and in order to construct a framework for the analysis and evaluation of the various theories of translation, it is essential to review the relations between the source, the message, and the receptors in the communication process, and also the function of the medium of communication which is employed.

What does it mean to act politically? On the face it, the phrase would involve actions influencing relations between people, particularly the loyalties and alliances that form power and direct its flows. The political pronoun is certainly "we", variously inclusive or exclusive. To act politically, in the intercultural field, could thus mean siding with one culture or the other, or with one aspect of a culture against another, to some degree or another, for one reason or another.

Because translation is an activity involving language, there is a sense in which any and all theories of translation are linguistic. There are, however, three quite different ways in which the principles and procedures of translation have been formulated and defended. These diverse approaches to the problems of translating are essentially matters of different perspectives or foci. If the focus of attention is on particular texts (and especially if these are of a so-called literary quality), the underlying theory of translation is generally best regarded as philological. If, however, the focus of attention is on the correspondences in language form and content, that is, on the structural differences between the source and receptor languages, the corresponding theory may be regarded as linguistic. Finally, if the focus is on translation as a part of an actual communication process, the most appropriate designation for the related theories is sociolinguistic. In actual practice, of course, there is a considerable degree of overlap both in the formulation of principles and in the corresponding recommendations on procedures.

That general process is held to have certain elements of irreversibility thanks to its grounding in technological change. Translators will mostly have to come to terms with those elements, as will everyone else. There are, however, political processes that build on globalization but should not be identified with it. Those processes also have consequences for translation but are not to be considered inevitable. Some of them can be resisted or influenced by the use or non-use of translation. Those political processes can thus be indirectly affected by a scholarly Translation Studies, which might thus develop its own politics with respect to globalization. This means that Translation Studies should seek to understand and explain the effects of globalization, without pretending to resist them all. At the same time, it should attempt to influence the more negative political processes within its reach, developing its political agenda and cultivating its ownpolitical organization. In this, the dialectics play out between the technological and the political, between the things we must live with and the things we should try to change. Only with this double vision should we attempt to take a position with respect to globalization.

According to Chilton and Schäffner (2002) in translation studies there are three general perceptions, or understandings, of the concept discourse. First, discourse can refer to real-time utterances in general. Second discourse can refer to a number of real-time utterances seen as a single language event, such as a political speech. This view also perceives a sequence of speeches, e.g. at a political debate, as one language event. Third, discourse can also be perceived as "the totality of utterances in a society viewed as an autonomous evolving entity "(Chilton, Scäffner 2002: 18). In this sense discourse can also be seen as particular types of language use or language practises, e.g. medical practise discourse. This way of perceiving discourse is closely linked to the theoretical practise of discourse analysis, which focuses on making explicit how language is used to exercise power.

From the above it seems difficult to pinpoint precisely what discourse is, but it appears to have something to do with practical use, or uses, of language, and it seems closely connected to the concepts of power and society. This is at least the case when examining the more precise concept of political discourse. Chilton and Schäffner approach this concept from a philosophical/rhetorical angle to begin with, drawing on the works of Aristotle and Plato.

They claim that present day academic approaches to language and politics all derive from this ancient philosophical tradition of perceiving language as a tool for obtaining or exercising power: "The whole classical tradition from the sophists to the enlightenment wrestled with the relationship between persuasion, truth and morality, carrying a deep suspicion of the power of language" (Chilton, Schäffner 2002: 1). As human beings we are inherently social, meaning that we socialize and form groups, and thus human nature is inherently political as we form coalitions, or social groups, based on shared perceptions of what is just and unjust, useful and harmful etc. This forming of political associations depends on the ability to communicate, and thus signaling the shared perception of values of these associations, as it is this signaling of shared perceptions of values that determines the boundaries of the group.  Because of this, political activity does not exist without the use of language, but on the other hand language did not evolve solely for the purpose of politics (Chilton, Schäffner 2002: 2-3).

 

On top of this philosophical foundation we find present day linguistic and discourse based approaches to politics, which tend to use real text and talk as empirical evidence, because such approaches perceive politics to be language (Chilton, Schäffner 2002: 3-4). Furthermore, they argue that the concept of genre is important for political discourse analysis, because of the important role genres play in the exercise of power and influence. This is because "genres specify patterns by which text and talk is sequentially structured, who speaks to whom, when, about what and in what manner". From this, it seems clear that genre is important to political discourse, i.e. political language use, and therefore it highlights the importance of examining the genre when translating political discourse (Chilton, Schäffner 2002: 21).

Schäffner in her essay, Strategies of Translating Political Texts, argues that the term of political text is a vague term that covers a wide range of text genres. She implies that political texts are instances of political discourse, i.e. political language use, and that such language use may come in many forms, both within a nation state and between nation states. As a result, she argues that political texts can cover genres such as political speeches, multilateral treaties, editorials, commentaries in newspapers, a press conference with a politician, a politician's memoir etc. (Schäffner 1997: 119). She also argues that the classification of a text as a political text can best be done based on functional and thematic criteria. Political texts are political because they are the result of or a part of politics, i.e. they are instances of language use for political activities and thus instances of political discourse. They fulfill various functions depending on different political activities, they are determined by history and culture, and their topics are primarily related to politics, e.g. political activities, political ideas etc. Additionally, political texts are often relevant to a wider public and they are often part of a wider political discourse, meaning that they will tend to show a high degree of intertextuality (Schäffner 1997: 119-120). Political discourse can be simply marked as the discourse of politicians, i.e. their text and talk, and their professional activities. The topics discussed usually come from public events that require collective decision-making, policies, regulations or legislation. (Van Dijk 2001: 4) . Political Discourse (PD) relies on translation, in the sense that linguistic behaviour influences political behaviour.

A wrong or inappropriate word choice in the context of politically sensitive issues can lead to great misinterpretations. DA tries to define why a particular word, phrase or structure during the translation process has been chosen over another one. International politics involve translation to a large extent. Agreements between countries are made available in several languages; interpreters participate in the most crucial political events facilitating the work of international institutions such as the European Union, the United Nations Organization, the League of Nations, etc; some governments put translations of significant documents on their websites. As noted by Schaffner, the mass media plays an important role in spreading politics and ideologies.

The kinds of transformations that occur as texts move along the political and media chain are dependent on the goals and interests of the context into which the discourse is being recontextualized. According to Nahrkhalaji: The competent translator should be aware that translation of PD is not a mere process of transferring words from one text into another.   Codes of ethics issued by interpreters' associations define standards that should apply for interpreters of PD. Schaffner stresses that the collaboration of TS and PDA: helps explain that different lexical choices and omissions may point to different ideological , socio- cultural values and reveals the connection between linguistic choices and socio- political structures and processes. That kind of intellectual community carries the weight of history, if nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3

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

3.1. Comparative analysis of British and American pre-election speeches and their translation into Armenian

The main peculiarity of political discourse is that it contains mostly those text types which  have a manipulative intention as a prevailing one. Among the political text types of a manipulative kind we can see political interviews, slogans, announcements, articles in special party papers and certain messages in electronic mass media. Nevertheless, the most remarkable type of manipulative messages which function within political discourse is the text type of pre-election propaganda speeches.

As a rule, the texts of such speeches have some structural and intentional characteristic features which make it possible to consider these speeches as a definite text type. All speeches contain special etiquette phrases (greetings and words of appreciation),  they have prognostic character, the main communicative intention of such speeches is that of promise. In addition to that, pre-election propaganda speeches have one more interesting  peculiarity: the collective recipient of the speech is fully or partly aware of the manipulative character of the message. In other words, recipients guess or understand which effect is planned to be achieved by the producers of pre-election propaganda speeches before the election [Antonova 2011, 1]. 

…There is something happening when people vote not just for the party they belong to but the hopes they hold in common - that whether we are rich or poor; black or white; Latino or Asian; whether we hail from Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, we are ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction. That is what's happening in America right now. Change is what's happening in America.

Yes we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world.

Yes we can… (Barack Obams, January, 08,  2008, Nashua, New Hampshire, USA).