МРНТИ 16.01.45
LEXICAL FEATURES OF THE FUNCTIONING AND TRANSLATION OF DIPLOMATIC
DISCOURSE
A. Smagulova1 G. Mukhametkalueva 2 A.Otepova 3
1candidate
of Philological Sciences, professor of Diplomatic Translations chair, faculty
of International Relations
al-Farabi Kazakh National University
Almaty, Kazakhstan
E-mail:
smagulova.aigerm@kaznu.kz
2candidate of philological sciences, associate
professor of diplomatic translations chair, faculty of international relations,
al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
e-mail: gulnar1962@ mail.ru tel.:87758643918
3master of2nd year Humanitarian science of Diplomatic translations chair, faculty of International Relations
al-Farabi Kazakh
National University Almaty, Kazakhstan,
email: utepovaa15gmail.com
Abstract
Modern
international relations cover all new spheres of communication, including those
areas that have traditionally been considered intra-national. The study of
diplomatic communication from the standpoint of linguistic understanding of a
diplomatic document, from the point of view of strategic communication, the
study of language means of modern diplomacy allow us to consider additional
aspects of the process of functioning of international cooperation. The
subject of the given article is functions of the diplomatic discourse and its
connection to the UN documents discourse. The functions of the diplomatic
discourse are being analyzed from the point of view of their linguistic
influence on the discourse. Moreover, a special consideration is given to the
lexical similarities of these two discourses and to the statistic data of the
UN Convention on international information security and to the statistic
analysis of the data obtained during the research. It can be concluded that the
English text of the Convention is characterized by a wide use of nouns, verbs
and verb forms. Modal relationships are conveyed through modal verbs,
theme-rheumatic relationships are conveyed through impersonal verb forms such
as participle I and II. Often (in 80% of cases), dictionary matching is used,
but there are also omissions (8%), grammatical replacements (7%), additions
(3%), contextual replacement and conversion The analysis exposes the most often
used lexemes, their contexts and meanings in order to define translation
techniques used in the texts of the given type.
Key words:
diplomatic discourse, the UN documents, lexical similarities, quantitative
analysis, translation techniques.
Introduction
Diplomatic
discourse serves to convey information in a situation of diplomatic
communication [1, p. 24]. At the same time, the participants in the
communication declare the position of this or that country in the field of
international relations, but they need to comply with the regulatory norms of
speech practice. Today, the study of diplomatic discourse is of increasing
interest, and its deep study from a linguistic point of view makes it possible
to recognize new aspects of international interaction [6, p.2]. Thus, the study
of linguistic and translation features of diplomatic discourse is important for
the development of effective international interaction. The diplomatic
discourse fulfills the most important function - the implementation of the
state's foreign policy. At the same time, diplomatic discourse is a diverse
phenomenon: it can contain political discourse, legal discourse, military
discourse, economic discourse, as well as the discourse of the media. [4, p.8]
So, in the diplomatic discourse, the regulation is not so high due to the fact
that the implementation of diplomatic functions and the achievement of goals
occurs during oral negotiations [2, p. 54]. But do not forget about such a way
of communication as diplomatic correspondence, which is the basis for written
diplomatic genres, such as declarations, notes, memoranda, communiqués,
resolutions, conventions, etc. In diplomatic discourse, there are two
system-forming signs - the presence of communication goals and the actual
participants in communication, who have as their task to achieve these goals.
Each type of institutional discourse has its own measure of the ratio between
the personal and status components. According to H. Trabelsi, this measure is small
in diplomatic discourse [7, p.11]. It seems possible to consider the discourse
of documents of such an international organization as the United Nations as a
subdiscourse of diplomatic discourse.
Methodological research
The term "discourse", despite the lack of a
clear definition, has firmly entered the everyday life of Sciences that have as
a subject of study the functioning of language (linguistics, semiotics,
psychology, philosophy, sociology, literature), which is largely due to the
desire for multi-discipline, synthesis of scientific results obtained in
various fields. The last decades are marked by the appearance of a number of
works devoted to the analysis of various aspects and types of discourse (N. D.
Arutyunova, N. N. Belozerova, R. Vodak, O. S. Issers, O. Yokoyama, V. I.
Karasik, M. L. Makarov, Yu. E. Prokhorov, P. Serio, L. J..Phillips, M. V.
Jorgensen, Chan Kim Bao, A. P. Chudinov, E. I. Sheigal, T. A. van Dijk, N.
Fairclough, M.A.K. Halliday, E. Laclau, C. Mouffe, D. Schiffrin).
This
allowed modern science to come closer to the disclosure of the problems of the
relationship between language and power, language and politics, the problems of
language manipulation, insincerity (S. N. Plotnikova, E. I. Sheigal).The most
common approaches to distinguish the concepts of "text" and
"discourse" include the opposition "oral" (discourse) -
"written" (text); "process" - " product
(result)"; a broad interpretation of the discourse, reduced to the formula
"discourse = speech + text". Developing the position of Yu.
Prokhorov, we have determined that text and discourse are works that exist in
the structure and content of communication and are "figures of
communication". The study of approaches to discourse analysis allowed to
form the basis for the construction of a complex model of discourse analysis.
The analysis of the provisions of the
theory of discourse by E. Laclo and S. Muff leads to the conclusion that no
discourse is closed and complete; rather, it is constantly changing due to
contacts with other discourses.
Experiment. The activities of this organization are carried out not only through
oral negotiations, but also through written documents. UN documents can be
divided according to the target setting and communication focus into two types:
statutory documents and declarative documents. They differ according to the
difference of addressees. In the case of statutory documents, the addressees
are the UN member states, and in the case of declarative documents, the
addressee is the world community [3, p.12]. Some of the UN documents are
discussed below. The analysis of UN
documents is based on declarations and resolutions of the United Nations. The
diplomatic discourse and discourse of UN documents have a number of common
features at the lexical level: 1) the language includes the vocabulary and
phraseology of state law, civil law, criminal law, labor code, family code,
etc.: political subdivision, terminate the employment. [3, p.45] The language of diplomatic discourse includes vocabulary and phraseology
related to the work of administrative bodies, official activities of citizens,
etc.
For example: rules of procedure, human rights violation,1) to justify; 2) the use of vocabulary
related to political discourse: an armed conflict, national and regional
mechanisms, implementation [4, p.2]; 3) the use of expressions inherent in
business discourse: to exercise functions, settlement agreement, give the
consideration [3, p. 46]; 4) vocabulary is also specific, a significant part of
which is international in nature: control, contact, nation, normalization [1,
p. 4]; 5) nouns are often used that denote the state system of countries, for
example: The United States, People's Republic of China, Czech Republic, etc. 6)
the use of collective nouns is great: assembly, authority, government. [2, p.5]
7) the use of various clichés: high contracting parties - high contracting
parties, on behalf and instruction - on behalf of and on behalf of, I beg to
inform you - I have the honor to inform, I have the privilege to introduce - I
have the honor to present, the ambassador presents his compliments - the
ambassador expresses his respect, presented his credentials - presented his
credentials, the letter of attorney - the agreement.
Research results
The document examined in this
article is the Convention on International Information Security (UN). A
frequency dictionary of word usage and grammatical categories of the English
and Russian versions of the text was created. As a result, we obtained data for
statistical analysis of texts. The most significant discrepancies were
identified in the following cases. Table 1 Noun English-language word
Russian-language word State 58 state 70 Party 33 right 29 right 26 participant
29 technology 23 technology 19 Convention 11 Organization 17 Organization 9
person 13 law 9 Convention 12 individual 9 offense 9 In the Russian version
1130 nouns, which is due to the regulated nature of the text, since a
convention, as an international treaty on a particular issue, presupposes a large
use of nouns related to the subject of the treaty. It is consider that the most commonly used nouns. In the first
place in terms of frequency of use is the noun "state", since the United Nations Organization consists of a
certain number of states and all documents of this organization are oriented
towards them. The second most frequently used noun is "safety", it directly names the
subject of the Convention. This is followed by the word "space", since we are talking
specifically about the security of the information space. The nouns "right" and "participant"
reflect the regulatory function of the text of the Convention, where the
parties to the treaty are designated, as well as the preservation of human
rights. This is followed by "information" and "use", since
the subject of the Convention is the information space and its correct use
without violating human rights. Such a difference in the level of frequency is
due to the phenomenon of conversion in English, thus, one can observe how the
same lexical unit acts as both a noun and an adjective. It should be noted that
most nouns, such as "means",
"development", "cooperation", are translated by
dictionary correspondences, which is fully consistent with theoretical
conclusions on this topic. However, there is another interesting discrepancy in
this table. "Law is 7" and "law is 29". This is due to the
fact that "right" in this text is the equivalent of 2 lexical units -
"law" and "right -
26", thus, in 4 cases of using right in the English version, the method of
omission is applied in translation into Russian. The word party is translated
by the vocabulary correspondence “participant” in 29 cases, in one case it is
translated by the variation correspondence as “party”, and in the other three
it is omitted. The word "organization" is used in the
Russian-language version more often than the word organization in the
English-language version, which is associated with the method of adding, in
order to create a complete two-part sentence in Russian. The word technology in
3 cases is translated into Russian as "technology", thus, the
translation by varied correspondence is used, and in 1 case it is omitted. Of
particular interest is the use of the word information. The text contains 102
cases of conversion during its translation. From these data, we can conclude
that part of the word usage "information" falls on the
Russian-language word usage "informational", another case of
conversion. In these cases, the given token is part of prepositive attributive
phrases, for example, information security, information technology, information
space.
The subject of the Convention is
information security, therefore, the most frequently used adjective is
"informational", followed by "international", which is associated with the international
activities of the United Nations. The third most frequently used adjective is
“national”, followed by “communication”,
since the topic of information security carries an integral part of
communication. The most common adjectives in the English version are:
international, national, illegal, such a wide use is due to the subject of the
Convention and the fact that the document belongs to the United Nations, in the
discourse of which the lexemes "national",
"international" are among the most used. This is followed by human,
social, global, which is due to the fact that the Convention is global in
nature and takes care of human rights and his social needs. The same group can
include such adjectives as fundamental (human rights) - 6 cases and civilian - 3
cases. It is worth noting that the lexeme "communication" is also
translated by conversion in 13 cases, it is translated as "communication" and only in one case as
"communication". In these cases, the given lexeme is part of
prepositive attributive phrases. "Illegal" and "illegal" are matched 5 times out of 10, so omission is
applied in the remaining 5 cases. Similarly, “social” is translated as “social” and “public”, in this case with the help of variation correspondence, as
well as 1 case of omission. The word "global" assumes 2 types of
translation in the Russian-language version "world" and
"global" also with the help of variable correspondence. In general,
we can conclude that adjectives in the ratio "original-translation"
are used in the same way. Table 3 Verb Russian-speaking word English-speaking
word to be, to be 21 be 38 Have 8 have 10 must 8 Since the convention, like any
contract, has a prescriptive and regulatory function, it contains a sufficient
number of verbs. It is interesting to analyze the frequency of verb uses, there
are 201 verbs in the Convention in English, and 120 in Russian. The most frequent are: the verb to be
(38 cases), which is natural for the text of the official business style, in
which most sentences are nominative. informative. These discrepancies are due
to the fact that in English the verb to be can act as a linking verb in a
nominal predicate, and the have verb also conveys grammatical tense, while in
Russian these relations are transmitted by changing the end of the verb or are
omitted, as in the case of the nominal predicate. In this Convention, it is
worth noting that the verb make is used as part of a nominal predicate and a
phrasal verb, such as to make decisions (1), to make sovereign norms (2), to
make up the information space (3), are translated by means of dictionary
correspondence (1), contextual replacement (2), dictionary matching (3).
Another distinguishing feature of the verbal uses of this Convention is the
presence of a synonymous number of verbs: to ensure (7 cases), to protect (4
cases) and to secure (3 cases). At the same time, to protect and to secure are
complete synonyms: to secure is used in the following contexts - secure
information space / information infrastructure / functioning of cooperation; to
protect meets with such as - to protect critical information infrastructures /
protect national and social security of each State. Thus, it can be argued that
these verbs are interchangeable in this context. Consider the contexts of the
verb to ensure, it is used like this: to ensure information stability /
information security / to ensure that…. Thus, we can say that this verb has its
own peculiarity of use in this document, since it can be followed by a
subordinate clause, which is not observed in the case of the verbs to protect,
to secure. The passive voice in the English version is transmitted into Russian
in the same passive voice, therefore the use of this category in the texts of
this Convention is the same. Touching on the topic of modality, it is worth
mentioning the semi-modal verbs be to and have to, which are translated into
Russian as "must", "necessary", which can be considered a
grammatical substitution. Table 4 Modal Verbs Modal Verb Frequency will 9 must
8 can 6 may 5 shall 2 should 2 This table shows that the verb will is the most
frequently used modal verb in the document under study, followed by must, which
has a pronounced regulatory function, followed by can and may, which give the
text a more recommendatory character, supported by certain arguments. Shall and
should are the least common. Shall is translated by the future tense, as well
as by the imperative mood. In the Russian-language version of the Convention,
the present is used in 99% of cases, which indicates such a grammatical
transformation as grammatical replacement. In the English-language text, the
present tense is used, and most modal verbs are translated by the verb in the
present tense into Russian. Only the verb must translates as “should +
infinitive / necessary + infinitive”, may can be translated as “may, may”,
which explains the frequency of the last word. Modal verbs illustratively
represent the regulatory function of the text, since it is modal verbs in
diplomatic texts that convey the need, urgency, obligation to fulfill and
follow what is stated in the documents. So, in the text there are 10 to have
verbs and 9 will verbs, followed by must (8 uses). You can also say that the
verb shall is of little use, like should (2 cases, respectively). The modal
verbs can and may, on the contrary, are more common - 5 and 6 cases, which can
be explained by the prescriptive nature of the text and the hypothetical
possibility, the meaning of which these verbs convey.
The translation of culturally unique phenomena is also something which might be
a source of difficulty when they turn up during a speech. This was a case some
years ago when Hungarian head of government
Fervency mentioned a Hungarian invention
in his speech in Beijing. The name of the invention – just as creative as the
invention itself – comes from an old Hungarian word which is mostly known from
a fairy tale. Also the interpreter had a hard time when he had to translate it.
The politician getting a little upset by his interpreter’s lack of linguistic
competence repeated the word in Hungarian. The interpreter, however, awkward as
it was, replied that he also knows the Hungarian name of the invention.
Although
according to Mathieu it is “a general rule that the higher the delegate in rank
and reputation, the kinder and more understandable he is in his dealings with
interpreters”, this seems to be a reference to the past times. E.g. due to the
widespread use of the English language in diplomatic context, George Bush, then
President of the United States, even questioned the necessity of his speech’s
interpretation into German, and interrupted the interpreter saying “Everyone
speaks English, right?” It was Chancellor Merkel who asked his patience so
that his speech can also be heard in German translation.
It can also be a nightmare for interpreters, when
speakers read out their speeches, as in this case they don’t need to think what
they say, thus they speak faster, time their pauses in a different way, and
usually use a more formal, more bureaucratic way of expression.
DISCUSSION
The
analysis of the pragmatic aspects of DD identified the following illocutionary
acts: directives, representative, expressive, declarative, commissive; the
General (communicative, motivational, emotive, metalinguistic, phatic) and private
(informative comissiona, declarative) the functions of diplomatic
communication.
Taking
into account the pragmatic characteristics of the diplomatic text and the need
to choose translation strategies that correspond to the pragmatic features of
the text and the functions of communication, it is possible to reduce the
illocutionary acts and functions of diplomatic communication to the following
scheme:
Correlation
of functions and illocutionary acts of diplomatic communication.
It
is possible to distinguish the following strategies of diplomatic
communication: 1) General semantic strategy of compatibility (communicative
actions in conflict situations); 2) semantic strategy of discredit; 3)
pragmatic strategy of self-presentation; 4) pragmatic emotional tuning
strategies; 5) rhetorical strategy of persuasion; 6) conversational strategy of
control over the distribution of initiative; 7) conversational strategy of
insincerity. Semantic strategy of discredit, pragmatic strategy of
self-presentation and conversion strategy of insincerity most fully in our
opinion, reflect the features of diplomatic communication.
The
strategy of discredit is presented by complexes of communicative actions of two
types: objective discredit (the purpose – to Express an objective negative
assessment) and subjective discredit (the purpose - to undermine trust, to
cause doubt in positive qualities of the partner, to present it negatively).
Objective discredit includes the use of tactics of objective criticism and
tactics of justified accusations; tactics of unfounded accusations, insults,
ridicule, provocation are the means of implementing the strategy of subjective
discredit.
Let
us consider as an example the communicative move "hint" as an
implicit means of expressing a justified accusation in the following fragment
from Russian language translation: (Убежден: единственным механизмом) I am convinced that the only (принятия решений по использованию) mechanism that can make decisions (военной силы как последнего довода) about using military force as a last (может быть только Устав ООН). И в этой resort is the Charter of the United связи я или не понял то, что было Nations. And in connection with (сказано совсем недавно нашим коллегой), this, either I did not understand министром обороны Италии, либо он what our colleague, the Italian (выразился неточно). (Я, во всяком случае), Defence Minister, just said or what услышал, (что легитимным применение) he said was inexact. In any case, I силы (может считаться только в том) understood that the use of force can случае, (если решение принято в НАТО), only be legitimate when the decision (или в Евросоюзе, или в ООН). (Если он) is taken by NATO,
the EU, or the (действительно так считает, то у нас с)UN. If he really does think so, then (ним разные точки зрения). (Или я) we have different points of view. Or (ослышался.) I didn’t hear correctly.
In
our opinion, this series of statements implicitly indicates a fundamental
difference in the positions of the subjects of the DD; it is possible to assume
that the speaker did not "mishear". In addition to the hint, in this
fragment we find the manifestation of one of the values of DD
("non-categorical, tact, correctness, restraint"), a kind of change
of communicative focus, allowing the partner in the discourse to "save
face" (to confirm that the speaker really misheard).
Russian
and English texts should be clearly emphasized from the point of view of
macro-strategies of translation, and the syntactic structure of the Russian
language should be preserved in some cases in order to create an equivalent
pragmatic effect. Despite the possibility of using the variant I misheard
something, which, in our opinion, would sound more familiar to the
English-speaking reader, but would give the statement a slightly different
shade of meaning, to convey the "positive" pragmatic effect, the expanded
construction I didn't hear correctly is used.
The
strategy of self-presentation to diplomatic communication is the formation of
the international image of the state; from the standpoint of determining
Russia's international image, it is possible to distinguish the following
semantic fields: "cooperation", "a great power",
"continue", "progress of Russian diplomacy", "rivals
and competitors", "the General success", "friendly powers",
"country broker". The strategy includes tactics of positioning, persuasion,
psychological contagion, suggestion.
Conclusion. Continuing the theme of the typical vocabulary of the
conventions, one can also include the participles, which are found 69 times in
this document, among them “combined” - 7 cases, which is associated with the
name of the organization, which owns the document; further "related"
- 5 cases and "specific" - 3 cases, they convey the relationship
between the provisions, terms and definitions in the document;
"Directed", "being", "convinced" - 3 use cases,
respectively, are used to convey the relationship between terms and positions.
Thus, we can conclude that the participles make the text of the Convention
concise and consistent. Returning to the topic of the typical vocabulary of
conventions, it is worth mentioning the participles, which contribute to the
conciseness and consistency of the text. In total there are 29 gerunds in the
text of this Convention. However, this does not diminish their importance. The
most frequently used participles: “including” - 7 cases, “recognizing”,
“noting” and “considering” - 3 cases of use, respectively, which serve to
construct paragraphs in the Preamble, it is this kind of participle that is a
characteristic feature of its writing. The participles I and II play an important
role in the English language. This Convention has 143 participles I. They are
used to give the text structure, brevity and consistency. The most commonly
used ones are: including (10), ensuring (8), taking (into consideration, 6),
increasing (5), using / protecting / affecting / following (4), appear at the
beginning of each paragraph and serve as an introductory word to link
paragraphs. Following, affecting, understanding are synonymous in their
function and meaning in this context, occur in 4 cases, respectively. This is
followed by participle II, which performs the same structuring function, often
used in the function of definition in postposition, for greater detail. The
most common participles II: United (8) - the name of the United Nations, aimed (6)
- explains the purpose and purpose of certain actions, connected (5), based /
related / noted (2) - contextual synonyms that perform one and the same
function and bearing the same meaning.
Thus, it can be concluded that the English
text of the Convention is characterized by a wide use of nouns, verbs and verb
forms. Modal relationships are conveyed through modal verbs, theme-rheumatic
relationships are conveyed through impersonal verb forms such as participle I
and II. Often (in 80% of cases), dictionary matching is used, but there are
also omissions (8%), grammatical replacements (7%), additions (3%), contextual
replacement and conversion.
List
of literature:
1. Volkova T.A. Diplomatic discourse in the aspect of
strategic translation and communication, Tyumen, 2007
2. Golovanova D. A. Interdiscursiveness of diplomatic
discourse // Bulletin of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, No. 7,
2014
3. Gnilorybov S. A. Structural determinants and
categories of discourse in the light of ideas about the dynamic nature of
language, Moscow, 2005
4. Kozheteva AS Linguistic and pragmatic characteristics
of diplomatic discourse // Moscow City Pedagogical University, no. 4, 2012
5. Komissarov V.N., Retsker Ya.I., Tarkhov V.I. Manual on
translation from English into Russian, part 2, Moscow, 1960
6. Prokhorova O. A., Ardasova O. O. Diplomatic discourse
in the system of joint discourses // ScienceandWorld, No. 5, 2014.
7. Trabelsi Haifa, Linguistic and Communicative Analysis
of Diplomatic Discourse, Moscow, 2013. Resolution adopted by the negotiator on
December 29, 2014, 69th session, paragraph 143 back day 66/137. Human Rights
Creation Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People's
Republic of China, 1979 UN Convention on Information Security, http://www.un.org//
8.
Sokolov N.A.
Terminology as a special category of vocabulary // Collection of articles on
linguistics and methods of teaching foreign languages - M., 1973. - p. 97 -
118.( Sokolov 1973)
9.
Вохрышевой. – Самара: Самар.
гос. акад. культуры и искусств, 2007. С. 258-264. (Казань, 4-7 мая 2007 г.).
Т.2: Сравнительно-историческое языкознание. Сопоставительное языкознание.
Фонетика и фонология. Морфемика, словообразование. Лингводидактика / Казан.
гос. ун-т; Ин-т языкознания РАН; Ин-т лингвист. исслед.
10.
Budagov R.A. The
history of words in the history of society. - M., 1971. - S.270.( Budagov1971)
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια