LEXICAL FEATURES OF THE FUNCTIONING AND TRANSLATION OF DIPLOMATIC DISCOURSE A. Smagulova1 G. Mukhametkalueva 2 A.Otepova 3

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)