Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1), pp. 77–108 (2008) DOI: 10.1556/Acr.9.2008.1.5

1585-1923/$ 20.00 © 2008 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO CANADIAN

POLITICAL DISCOURSE

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

English Linguistics Department, Károli Gáspár University of the Hungarian Reformed Church

H-1104 Budapest, Reviczky u. 4./c, Hungary E-mail: banhegyi_matyas@kre.hu

Abstract: By a possible integration of text linguistics (proposition analysis), sociocognitive theory and Critical Discourse Analysis, the present study intends to reveal instances of ideologically charged translation by means of comparing and contrasting certain textual features of an instance of French language Canadian political discourse and its English translation. The aim of the analysis is twofold: to investigate some fundamental differences between source language and target language text production in terms of political power play and persuasion as well as to demonstrate, by analysing a specific political text, a possible application of the above-mentioned integrative approach within the field of discourse analysis. The paper will also offer numerous possible perspectives on further research with a view to the Canadian political discourse in question. Keywords: proposition analysis, sociocognitive theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, political discourse, Canadian politics

1. INTRODUCTION

In the past 15 years the application of discourse theory to political discourse has led to the emergence of a flourishing new discipline. In the present study, politics and Critical Discourse Analysis will be combined with other text linguistic approaches. First, I will briefly highlight two major trends in the analysis of political discourse in the field of text linguistics: the psycholinguistic-sociolinguistic approach and the text-centred approach. Then, in an effort to find a text linguistic approach enabling an evaluative comparison of political texts and their translations, I propose an integrative approach based on three applied research methods. This integrative approach includes

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

78

proposition analysis, sociocognitive analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis. I also intend to illustrate the use of this integrative approach by providing a detailed investigation of both the original French version and the English translation of Jean Chrétien’s 1995 Québec Referendum Speech. The aim of the study is to explore some of the most important differences between source language and target language text production and to demonstrate the possible application of the proposed integrative approach through the analysis of a specific political text.

1.1. Translation Studies and Political Texts

In recent years, more precisely after the ‘cultural turn’ of the early nineties (Dimitriu 2002: 2, Hatim and Munday 2004: 313), Translation Studies has shown intense interest in analysing the translation and interpretation (henceforth collectively called translation) of political texts and the power relations involved in the translation of such texts. In my view, the main research areas in this field of interest to the present study include the following directions, as epitomised by researchers appearing in parentheses: diverse cross sections of discourse analysis, translation studies and politics (Hatim and Mason 1990, Chilton and Schäffner 2002, Schäffner 2004), the analysis of the social, cultural, ideological and political contexts of source and target texts and cultures (Pym 1992, 2000; Schäffner 2003); text typology and textual functions of source and target language texts (Nord 1997, Trosborg 1997); the role of translators as intercultural agents or cultural mediators (Katan 1999, Venuti 1992); translators being potential points of conflict during their work (Tymoczko 2003, Tymoczko and Gentzler 2002); translators’ purposeful manipulation of target texts and translators’ textual choices reflecting ideological and/or political commitment (Alvarez and Vidal 1996, Baker 2006); and, very recently, translators’ political activism and social activism as part of their professional work (Translation, Interpreting and Social Activism, 1st International Forum, University of Granada, 2007).

With the exception of studies dealing with “the cross section of discourse analysis and translation studies”, most of the above approaches do not use specific text linguistic approaches to support their claims through pinpointing potential textual differences between source and target language texts as part of their research methodology and analysis. With a view to this, through the integration of the findings of Translation Studies and text linguistics, the present study is intended to develop an approach in which such textual differences in source and target language texts can be revealed.

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

79

1.2. Major Text Linguistic Trends in the Analysis of Political Discourse Relevant for Translation Studies

Text linguistics offers several approaches for the analysis and the translation of political discourse. Research relevant to Translation Studies in this field falls into two distinct groups. While the first group comprises cultural and social psychological approaches, which perceive translation primarily as cultural mediation, the second group of studies constitutes (psycholinguistic) text-centred approaches, which (a) interpret both source and target language texts as an act of text production (composing texts), or (b) deal with source and target language texts as linguistic products (linguistic qualities of texts composed) as well as focus on the understanding of texts and the effects such texts have on their receivers: the ways readers or listeners interpret texts and the ways such texts influence them. In the next section, a short summary of the above research areas and their major contributors will be presented.

1.2.1. Psycholinguistic and social psychological approaches

Psycholinguistic and social psychological approaches of relevance for the present study include the following research fields: the mental processes of text production and text processing (Kintsch and van Dijk 1978, Kintsch 1998); analysis of the strategies of text production (Chilton and Schäffner 1997, Schäffner and Adab 2001, Baker 2006); the interpretation of context as seen by text linguistics, i.e., the effects of social and sociocultural factors on actual texts produced (van Dijk 1997, Munday 2007); the ideologies of given societies and ideologies surfacing in texts (Tymoczko 2000, van Dijk 2002, van Dijk 2006); sociocognitive theory, which deals with the implicit ways of expressing evaluative beliefs (van Dijk 1997, Schäffner and Kelly-Holmes 1996, Wodak and van Dijk 2000) and the interrelation of all the above fields with the media industry (Fairclough 1997, Bell 1998).

1.2.2. Text-centred approaches

The second group of text linguistic approaches to political discourse, the so-called text-centred approaches is an umbrella term I use for various perspectives which include the following: (a) pragmatic-oriented approaches, in which the text is viewed as interaction between communication partners (Álvarez and Vidal 1996, Hatim and Mason 1997, Gutt 1998, Chilton and Schäffner 1997, Baker 2006), (b) research into quasi-correct text production (hybrid texts), as a result of cultural and political differences between the source and the target cultures (Across Special Issue 2001, Schäffner and Adab 2001) and hedges in

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

80

the translation of political texts (Schäffner 1998) as well as (c) the currently popular Critical Discourse Analysis, practically an offshoot of the above pragmatic-oriented approach, which views communication as a battlefield of conflicting powers and ideologies in the framework of social interaction (van Dijk 1985, Kress 1985, Seidel 1985, Fairclough and Wodak 1997, van Dijk 2001, van Dijk 2006, Valdeón 2007, Chan 2007).

2. THE AIM OF THE STUDY

The present paper wishes to provide an integrated analysis of a referendum speech interpreted as a genre of political discourse and its translation from the perspective of Translation Studies. The study will focus on the introductory part of the 1995 French language Referendum Speech by Canadian Ex-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (more precisely, the first eight sentences of the source text Speech) and its English translation (that is, the first fourteen sentences of the target language text). The study focuses on the introduction only as, in a rhetorical sense, this part of the Referendum Speech contains the thesis sentences that will be elaborated on in the rest of the Speech. This means that if the French and the English versions of the Speech use different means for political persuasion, indications of this will surface already in the introduction. This supposition is also borne out by an analysis carried out by Nagy and Szkárosi, who established the following focal points in Chrétien’s speech: a) “importance of the upcoming event and b) breaking up or building Canada?, i.e., Québec has the intention to separate from Canada” (Nagy and Szkárosi 2005), both of which thoughts appear in the introduction of the French and the English versions of the Speech. As far as their structure is concerned, referendum speeches belong to the argumentative type of discourse, and, consequently the rhetorical steps characteristic of the text type will obviously surface in Chrétien’s Referendum Speech, too. However, I shall not deal with the rhetorical implications as they are beyond the scope of the present paper. For further details, see the works of Aristotle as well as modern discourse analysts such as Campbell, Dolan and Dumm, Gale, Piotrowski and Sowell.)

The aim of this study is threefold: 1) to examine, in the case of the translation of political texts, whether the semantic structure of the target text at the microstructural level bears any relevance, and if so, what kind, to the same qualities of the source text, and to explore if, and to what extent, text production in the target text reproduces evaluative predicates of the source text; 2) to investigate how the number and distribution of evaluative predicates in the target text relate to these characteristics of the source text; and, 3) to pinpoint, with the help of the tools of Critical Discourse Analysis, any potential differences in the above areas of source and target language discourses that

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

81

signal ideologically charged text production taking place in the translation process.

3. METHOD

The Referendum Speech and its translation is analysed through the integration of three different, but closely related approaches.

1. The first approach intends to investigate whether the source and target language texts display the same text structure nodes and whether such nodes are located at the same positions in both the source and the target language texts. For the determination of the above, relying on van Dijk’s microproposition taxonomy (Kintsch and van Dijk 1978), semantically interconnected text structure nodes will be mapped. In my interpretation, such text structure nodes (or focalised propositions) are parts of a text to which several propositions are connected. These, from a text organisational point of view, introduce, explain and contextualise the given focalised proposition.

2. The speech under study is a referendum speech whose pragmatic aim was to persuade the Canadian French and English speaking communities to vote against the independence of Québec at a crucial moment in Canadian history. Therefore, secondly, I wish to explore whether the opinions (the textual realisations of the above pragmatic aim) expressed in the propositions arranged around the text structure nodes in the target text bear any resemblance to corresponding parts of the source text. In other words, are the source text propositions containing opinions (designed to help in political persuasion) translated into the target text as propositions containing opinions (designed to help in political persuasion)? In order to answer this question, the sociocognitive theory (developed by van Dijk in 1997) will be used to examine opinions, i.e., a type of evaluative belief, expressed in propositions.

3. The third approach will attempt to interpret the results of the above two approaches with the help of Critical Discourse Analysis. Taking into consideration the social and cultural characteristics of the Canadian French and English language communities, I will make an attempt to provide explanations for the differences between source and target texts in terms of the aims of text production.

In my view, integration of the above three approaches is necessitated by the fact that the analysis of political texts will give meaningful and objective results exclusively if such texts are understood as a synthesized interpretation of the following two text linguistic methods: A) cognitive aspects of text production and text comprehension as well as B) text seen as being embedded in the social, cultural and political circumstances and background such texts have been created in. The integrated approach presented here is also justified by Baker (2006: 19), who, relying on Ewick and Silbey, explains: “knowledge is

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

82

socially and politically produced”, that is, knowledge possessed by individuals evolves and is interpreted as a result of social and political effects impacting the individual. It follows from this that the analysis of both source and target language political texts must evidently extend to knowledge, more precisely to social, cultural and political knowledge imbibed by both the text producer (including the translator) and the receiver.

4. A BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

To understand the societal implications of the Referendum Speech and its translation, it is essential to provide a concise introduction to the historical background of the Referendum.

After the first referendum held in 1980 on the issue of sovereignty of Canada’s predominantly French-speaking Province of Québec, another referendum was held on 30th October 1995 on the same issue. Most of the sources on the historical background of the 1995 Québec Referendum agree that the referendum initiative was fuelled by negative feelings of English speaking Canadians towards Québec and Canadian French speakers in general and the use of the French language (Hazel 1997). On the ballot sheets in 1995, the following question appeared “Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”, and alternatively in French: “Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l’avenir du Québec et de l’entente signée le 12 juin 1995?”.

Pressurised by the opponents of the sovereignty of Québec, on 12th June 1995, months before the Referendum, three parties advocating the sovereignty of Québec, namely Parti Québécois, Bloc Québécois and Action démocratique du Québec signed an agreement with the contemporary Canadian Government on the cornerstones of the proposed new economic and political partnership between Québec and the rest of Canada, which did not detail the exact conditions of partnership for the eventuality of Québec becoming independent. According to opinion surveys, for several weeks prior to the Referendum it was first the opponents who were in the lead, which was followed by a countertendency of over 50% of voters intending to participate in the Referendum supporting the sovereignty of Québec (Trent 1995).

Both those against and in support of the sovereignty of Québec initiated a massive campaign during which several Canadian politicians addressed the entire Canadian nation. It is noteworthy that the campaign of the No Partisans,

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

83

i.e., those opposing the independence of Québec (as termed by the Mirror in its 23rd October 1995 issue and by the Monteal Gazette in its 24th October 1995 issue), was almost exclusively focused on the French Canadian Prime Minister’s person.

One must not forget about the media’s decisive role in the Referendum campaign. A few days before the Referendum the outcome was far from being decided. As part of the Referendum campaign, five days prior to the date of the Referendum about the sovereignty of Québec, on 25th October 1995, the then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s speech was pre-recorded and broadcast by CBC News both in French and in English simultaneously on two different channels.

The texts of the introduction of the 1995 French language Referendum Speech by Jean Chrétien and its English translation are provided below. For the sake of clarity, the French and the English versions are printed side by side, with the sentences of the two versions numbered with Roman numbers. The French source text sentences and their English target text equivalents have been marked by braces.

Table 1

Text of the French source language Referendum Speech

I. Pour la première fois de mon mandat de Premier ministre, j’ai invoqué une procédure exceptionnelle pour m’adresser à vous ce soir.

II. La procédure est exceptionnelle parce que la situation l’est également.

III. Bien sûr, je m’adresse en particulier à mes compatriotes du Québec, parce qu’ils ont en ce moment l’avenir de notre pays entre leurs mains.

IV. Je m’adresse également à tous mes autres concitoyens du Canada, parce que cette décision les concerne aussi au plus haut point.

V. Ce n’est pas seulement l’avenir du Québec qui se décidera lundi, c’est également celui de tout le Canada.

VI. C’est une décision sérieuse et irréversible, aux conséquences imprévisibles et incalculables.

VII. Le Canada, notre pays et notre héritage sont en danger.

VIII. Briser le Canada ou le bâtir, demeurer Canadiens ou ne plus l’être, rester ou partir, voilà l’enjeu du référendum.

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

84

Table 2

The English target language text of the Referendum Speech

I. For the first time in my mandate as Prime Minister, I have asked to speak directly to Canadians tonight.

II. I do so because we are in an exceptional situation.

III. Tonight, in particular, I want to speak to my fellow Québecers.

IV. Because, at this moment, the future of our whole country is in their hands.

V. But I also want to speak to all Canadians.

VI. Because this issue concerns them – deeply.

VII. It is not only the future of Québec that will be decided on Monday.

VIII. It is the future of all of Canada.

IX. The decision that will be made is serious and irreversible.

X. With deep, deep consequences.

XI. What is at stake is our country.

XII. What is at stake is our heritage.

XIII. To break up Canada or build Canada.

XIV. To remain Canadian or no longer be Canadian.

XV. To stay or to leave.

XVI. This is the issue of the referendum.

5. APPROACH ONE: PROPOSITION ANALYSIS

The so-called “Process Model” applied for proposition analysis (Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978) was originally developed for determining propositions as part of linear text comprehension. More precisely, the Model was devised for analysing cognitive processes related to text processing in terms of mechanisms of recalling and reading for gist. With respect to mechanisms of text recall of political texts, van Dijk claims that such texts are constructed with a view to future receivers, who are seen as a target audience to be convinced (1997: 9). Political texts try to target the cognitive processes of receivers in various ways and consequently try to influence the receivers’ comprehension. Therefore, referendum speeches are also structured so that they draw their listeners’ attention to the issues that voters have a right to decide. In other words, such texts focalise choices, whether they be factual or fictionally implied, as interpreted and put forward by text producers.

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

85

It follows from the above that the Model is also suitable for determining the most emphatic, focalised textual parts, i.e., text structure nodes in political speeches. The theory of microproposition analysis as such is not a novelty. However, a great advantage of this theory is that it has been proven and is universally accepted (McKoon and Ratcliff 1980a and b, Long and Chantel 2002). For this reason the Model can be successfully applied to determine text structure nodes. Indeed, the method of microproposition analysis, the processing of micropropositions in the receiver and the ways such micropropositions form a mental image in the receiver have not been challenged.

The language-independent method of microproposition analysis developed by Kintsch and van Dijk (1978: 367–8, 376–380) is based on the presupposition that the receiver always has a communication aim in mind when engaging in an act of communication, which in turn influences the comprehension and reproduction of the actual piece of text received. Such an aim is termed control scheme by Kintsch and van Dijk. In the case of the Referendum Speech in question, the control scheme is learning about the opinion of the speaker as well as the related justification and arguments referred to.

According to the Process Model, text comprehension is in fact a linear process that takes place while listening to or reading a piece of text. When text comprehension takes place, the words of the actual text, by their semantic functions, act as propositions, i.e., words function as either arguments (concepts) or predicates (interrelation of concepts) at the level of microstructures (i.e., the web of propositions and their relations). A proposition, as a rule, contains a predicate and one or more arguments. Receivers, on the basis of their previous knowledge and inferencing skills, on the one hand, develop fundamental text-level relations between immediate propositions, and, on the other hand, establish logical relations between diverse pieces of information contained in the text as a means of making the text coherent for themselves.

Kintsch and van Dijk describe the hierarchical structure of micropropositions by examining mechanisms of text processing. The present study, however, will confined itself to identifying text structure nodes through the analysis of propositions, since the primary (and only) aim of the current study is to explore whether translators apply evaluative predicates located in propositions linked to text structure nodes, and to establish whether the number and location of such evaluative predicates in the target text mirror the properties of the source text.

In establishing the microstructure of both the source and the target texts, I followed the steps proposed by Kintsch and van Dijk. As a first step, I identified the propositions in the text, secondly, in line with the Process Model, I linked propositions according to their common semantic arguments and included them

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

86

Table 1

Propositions in the French source language text

I II.

1 VI.

TIME: PREMIERE FOIS, MANDAT, PREMIER MINISTRE

2 INVOQUÉ, SPEAKER 3 EXCEPTIONNELLE, PROCÉDURE 4 S’ADRESSER, PROCÉDURE, SPEAKER, LISTENERS 5 TIME: CE SOIR II 6 EXCEPTIONNELLE, PROCÉDURE 7 EXCEPTIONNELLE, SITUATION III 8 S’ADRESSER, SPEAKER, COMPATRIOTES 9 COMPATRIOTES, QUÉBEC 10 S’ADRESSER, PARTICULAR 11 ONT, AVENIR, MAINS, ENTRE 12 AVENIR, LISTENER + SPEAKER, PAYS 13 TIME: MOMENT IV 14 S’ADRESSER, SPEAKER 15 CONCITOYENS, CANADA 16 S’ADRESSER, ÉGALEMENT 17 CONCITOYENS, TOUS, AUTRES 18 CONCERNER, DÉCISION, CONCITOYENS, POINT 19 CETTE, DÉCISION 20 PLUS, HAUT, POINT V 21 DÉCIDER, AVENIR 22 AVENIR, QUÉBEC 23 TIME: LUNDI 24 CELUI, CANADA VI 25 SÉRIEUSE, DÉCISION 26 IRRÉVERSIBLE, DÉCISION 27 IMPRÉVISIBLES, CONSÉQUENCES 28 INCALCULABLES, CONSÉQUENCES VII 29 DANGER, HÉRITAGE, CANADA 30 CANADA, SPEAKER + LISTENER, PAYS VIII 31 BRISER, CANADA 32 BÂTIR, CANADA 33 OU 34 DEMEURER, CANADIENS

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

87

Table 1 cont

35 NE, ÊTRE, CANADIENS 36 OU 37 RESTER 38 PARTIR 39 OU 40 ENJEU, RÉFÉRENDUM

Table 2

Propositions in the English target language text

I 1 TIME: FIRST TIME, MANDATE, PRIME MINISTER

2 ASK, SPEAK, SPEAKER 3 SPEAK, DIRECTLY 4 SPEAK, DIRECTLY, CANADIANS 5 TIME: TONIGHT II 6 3, SPEAKER 7 SPEAKER + LISTENERS, IN, SITUATION 8 EXCEPTIONAL, SITUATION III 9 TIME: TONIGHT 10 WANT, SPEAKER, SPEAK 11 SPEAK, QUÉBECKERS 12 FELLOW, QUÉBECKERS 13 MY, 12 IV 14 TIME: THIS MOMENT 15 IN HANDS, FUTURE 16 FUTURE, COUNTRY 17 COUNTRY, WHOLE V 18 SPEAK, SPEAKER, CANADIANS 19 ALL CANADIANS VI 20 CONCERN, ISSUE 21 CONCERN, THEM 22 CONCERN, DEEPLY VII 23 DECIDED, FUTURE 24 FUTURE, QUÉBEC 25 TIME: MONDAY VIII 26 FUTURE, CANADA 27 ALL, CANADA

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

88

Table 2 cont

IX 28 MADE, DECISION 29 SERIOUS, DECISION 30 IRREVERSIBLE, DECISION X 31 DEEP, CONSEQUENCES XI 32 AT STAKE, COUNTRY XII 33 AT STAKE, HERITAGE XIII 34 BREAK UP, CANADA 35 BUILD, CANADA 36 OR XIV 37 REMAIN, CANADIAN 38 NO LONGER BE, CANADIAN 39 OR XV 40 STAY 41 LEAVE 42 OR XVI 43 ISSUE 44 ISSUE, REFERENDUM

in a table (see Tables 1 and 2). Arguments (first words in the lines of the table) and predicates (other words in the lines) have been printed in capitals and, for clearer interpretability, such arguments and predicates have been separated in terms of the individual sentences containing them. Roman numbers in the left-hand columns denote the number of the Referendum Speech sentence in which the given proposition appears. Arabic numbers stand for the number of propositions in the text (numbered sequentially), while the label “TIME:” indicates time adverbials connected to or constituting a given proposition. Please note that the eight French sentences have been split into sixteen sentences in the English translation, which is shown by different colours in the two columns. In Tables 1 and 2, propositions in the French source language and in the English target language texts are printed in order of appearance.

As part of the Process Model, Kintsch and van Dijk also developed an easy-to-view representation of the microstructure, or, in other words, the semantic relations of the actual propositions of texts. This representation is referred to as the coherence graph. This, in our case, means that the structure of the propositions of the source and target language texts can both be represented in separate coherence graphs. Since here it is text structure nodes that are of primary importance to us, the coherence graphs below highlight the structure of propositions from the first sentence of the Referendum Speeches down to the text structure nodes in light grey print in both the French and the English versions.

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

89

Chart 1. Coherence graph of the French

source language text Chart 2. Coherence graph of the English

target language text

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

90

As it is shown in Charts 1 and 2, both in the French and in the English texts the same, semantically equivalent propositions are focalised: that is, these are the propositions around which numerous other propositions are arranged. In the French source language text, the focalised proposition is predicate 18, i.e., CONCERNER, DÉCISION, CONCITOYENS, POINT; and, in the English language target text, the focalised proposition is predicate 20, i.e., ISSUE, CONCERN. In the French source language text, the following propositions are linked to predicate 18:

19. CETTE, DECISION 25. SERIEUSE, DECISION 29. DANGER, HERITAGE, CANADA 31. BRISER, CANADA 32. BATIR, CANADA 34. DEMEURER, CANADIENS 35. NE, ETRE, CANADIENS 37. RESTER 38. PARTIR

Propositions 31–32, 34–35 and 37-38 display an either-or type of logical choice. Similarly, in the English language target text, one finds the following propositions linked to the focalised proposition CONCERN, ISSUE:

21. CONCERN, THEM 32. AT STAKE, COUNTRY 33. AT STAKE, HERITAGE 34. BREAK UP CANADA 35. BUILD CANADA 37. REMAIN CANADIAN 38. NO LONGER BE CANADIAN 40. STAY 41. LEAVE

Just like in the case of the French text, the English target text also offers an either-or type of logical choice between each two propositions of 34–35, 37–38 and 40–41.

If we disregard proposition 19 and other propositions linked to it in the French text and proposition 21 and other propositions linked to it in the English text, which describe the nature of the decision the Referendum offers, and analyse the rest of the propositions that are linked to the focalised propositions with the help of formal logic, what we find is that in both the French and the English texts the focalised propositions are contextualised in a way that they

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

91

present the focalised proposition’s equality with the propositions linked to them. Practically, this means that the question (i.e., the French source proposition CONCERNER, DÉCISION, CONCITOYENS, POINT; and, correspondingly, the English target proposition CONCERN, ISSUE) to be decided by the Referendum in fact is (or, in formal logic, equals) a serious decision (French source language text: proposition 25). It also means that

• the heritage of Canada and the entire country is at risk (French source

language text: proposition 29; English target language text: propositions 32 and 33);

• there is a choice between Canada breaking up or further developing in unity (French source language text: propositions 31 and 32; English target language text: propositions 34 and 35);

• it is also to be decided whether Québecers wish to continue to remain Canadians or not (French source language text: propositions 34 and 35; English target language text: propositions 37 and 38), and

• it is also to be decided whether Québec will continue to be part of Canada or gain sovereignty (French source language text: propositions 37 and 38, English target language text: propositions 40 and 41).

It seems crucial at this point to underscore that the text producers of the

source and target language texts purposefully equate the question of the Referendum solely with these distinct choices.

In the next section the fundamental concepts of the sociocognitive theory developed by van Dijk will be described in brief, and then the above propositions will be analysed systematically in terms of the opinions expressed in them.

6 APPROACH TWO: THE SOCIOCOGNITIVE APPROACH

The theory of analysing utterances according to the opinions they contained was developed by van Dijk (Schäffner and Kelly-Holmes, 1996), who later further refined his theory (Bell and Garrett 1998: 21–63). Van Dijk’s sociocognitive theory, which came as an amendment to his severely criticised forerunner theory (Bell and Garrett 1998: 23) has three pillars:

• the notion of social functions of ideologies shared by societies and groups of individuals: this pillar, with reference to ideologies developed and used by societies, reflects on related fundamental and general societal questions such as why ideologies need to be developed and used by human societies;

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

92

• the notion of cognitive structures, which reflects on ideological contents and their structures in the utterances of individuals of a given society. As part of cognitive structures possessed by members of a society, values, norms, attitudes, opinions and knowledge are distinguished in terms of different mental representations. At the same time, it is possible to establish personal models (characteristic of the given individual) and contextual models (characteristic of the communicative act in question), in the case of which the above-described values, norms, attitudes, opinions and knowledge are activated at a cognitive level;

• the third pillar of the sociocognitive theory is the actual verbalisation of the above, in other words, discursive expression and reproduction. This pillar deals with the expression, internalisation and reproduction of the above ideological contents as part of written and oral acts of social communication.

In the following, I shall detail the cognitive structures and their discursive

expressions, since these two pillars seem relevant to our discussion of the Referendum Speech. (Incorporation of the first pillar of the sociocognitive theory into this study might have yielded valuable insights into the wider sociocultural context of the Referendum, but such analysis falls beyond the scope of the present study.)

According to van Dijk (Schäffner and Kelly-Holmes 1996: 8–19), individuals, while relying on their mental representations, keep producing propositions at the root of which one finds personal beliefs, i.e., mental information the given persons deem true or justified from their own perspective. Such beliefs are of two kinds: they can either constitute knowledge or an evaluative belief. Knowledge is a justified belief based on facts or experiences connected to the outside world: knowledge is coherent with reality. Knowledge, at the same time, presupposes common, general social knowledge (common knowledge contents, cultural knowledge, etc.) possessed and accepted by the members of a given society.

Evaluative beliefs, on the other hand, evolve by way of mental judgement and are characterised by the fact that there are no objective, empirical truth criteria on the basis of which it can be incontestably decided whether the given statement is true or false. Let me illustrate this with a simple example. The utterance “Mr Smith is a good man” is an evaluative belief, which comes about as a result of a personal decision through the application of an individually subjective system of judgement.

A kind of evaluative belief is an opinion. An opinion is a false or practically unjustifiable belief that is grounded in moral or other judgements. It must be noted, however, that, as a result of the different mental representations

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

93

in individuals and the different kinds and amounts of knowledge they possess, the boundaries between opinion and knowledge and between opinions and evaluative beliefs may differ from individual to individual. To establish moral or other systems of judgement, it is necessary that an individual should be influenced by social norms, which presupposes that the individual accepts and internalises such norms beforehand. In certain cases, nevertheless, individuals’ affective attitudes towards a given issue may play a substantial role in the acceptance of social norms, which, however, will not be elaborated on here for lack of space.

It seems evident that individuals’ opinions are grounded in socially accepted norms even if social norms may vary across societies and groups within societies. From a discursive aspect, senders of any social communication act, as a rule, tend to support their opinions by rational and sensible arguments accepted by their respective societies in order to make such opinions appealing to their receivers on grounds that these arguments resound with accepted and internalised norms.

Opinions can be classified into two distinct types: personal opinions and

social opinions. Personal opinions denote the evaluative beliefs or opinions of an individual, whereas the term social opinions refer to evaluative beliefs shared by a given social group with reference to a certain issue. Larger, complex, interrelated and interdependent structures of opinions shared and accepted by certain social groups are termed attitudes. The interrelation between personal beliefs, knowledge, evaluative beliefs, opinions, personal and social opinions is illustrated on Map 1.

Map 1. Individuals’ mental representations

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

94

As far as discursive practices are concerned, the above personal beliefs surface in everyday discourse as evaluative predicates and, in a semantic sense, they are visible as predicates containing evaluative beliefs. Below, I wish to illustrate which predicates of the French source language and the English target language Referendum Speech texts function as evaluative predicates.

Our starting point in the exploration of personal opinions is that, with a view to the addressees of the Referendum Speech, that is, the Canadian public, the Referendum Speech is intended to be perceived as a personal communication act by being part of a political campaign primarily featuring one person, the then Prime Minister, as noted above. In this respect, in the eyes of the addressees, the Speech conveys the (quasi-)personal opinion of the Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, and through him it obviously reflects the opinions of a political party. On the one hand, I shall categorise as personal opinion every predicate surfacing in propositions that expresses the evaluative belief of an individual as interpreted above, and, on the other hand, those predicates that refer to choices available to voters in the Referendum. These choices are presented as distinct and inevitable choices between two not directly interdependent and mutually exclusive options, as reinforced by the verbalisations of the French and English versions of the Referendum Speech. This, in terms of the given Referendum, is even more intriguing bearing in mind that the issue at hand was the sovereignty of Québec. It is also noteworthy that as part of the economic and political partnership concluded on 12th June 1995 (see above), no exact definition of Québec’s relationship with Canada or Canada’s other individual provinces and territories was provided. In this sense, choices juxtaposed by the use of the conjunction or were not in fact straightforward choices between two distinct options complete with predefined conditions. Thus, due to the fact that Prime Minister Chrétien deemed the issue of the Referendum to be an either-or type of choice between two distinct options, e.g., by claiming that the decision of the Referendum would result in Canada’s definite disintegration or continued unity (French source language text: predicates 34 and 35; English target language text: predicates 37 and 38, etc.) and the fact that this was the main point in the introductory part of his speech, it seems justifiable to treat the given predicates as personal opinions (naturally, concurrently reflecting the aims of a political party). This approach is also supported by the assumption that the Prime Minister, to make such a statement, must have internalised certain social norms (e.g., placing belief in the unity of Canada, for a start) affecting him as an individual (and his party) and must have relied on the assumption that “No to sovereignty is in fact a positive act of saying Yes to Canada.” (Trent 1995). For the same reason, I shall treat all evaluative beliefs of this kind about the same issue in the same context as personal opinion.

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

95

Table 5

Evaluative predicates containing personal opinion in French source language text propositions

I TIME: première fois, mandat, premier

ministre

invoqué, SPEAKER exceptionnelle, procédure PO s’adresser, procédure,

SPEAKER, LISTENERS

TIME: ce soir II exceptionnelle, procédure PO exceptionnelle, situation PO III s’adresser, SPEAKER,

compatriotes

compatriotes, Québec s’adresser, particular ont, avenir, mains, entre avenir, LISTENER +

SPEAKER, pays

TIME: moment IV s’adresseR, SPEAKER concitoyens, Canada s’adresseR, également concitoyens, tous, autres concerneR, décision,

concitoyens, point PO

cette, décision plus, haut, point PO V décider, avenir avenir, Québec TIME: lundi celui, Canada VI sérieuse, décision PO irréversible, décision PO imprévisibles, conséquenceS PO incalculables, conséquences PO VII danger, héritage, Canada PO Canada, SPEAKER + LISTENER, pays VIII briser, Canada bâtir, Canada OR PO demeurer, Canadiens ne, être, Canadiens OR PO rester partir OR PO enjeu, référendum PO

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

96

Table 6

Evaluative predicates containing personal opinion in English target language text propositions

I TIME: first TIME, mandate, prime minister ask, speak, SPEAKER speak, directly, Canadians speak, directly TIME: tonight II 3, SPEAKER SPEAKER + LISTENERS, in, situation exceptional, situation PO III TIME: tonight want, SPEAKER, speak speak, Québeckers fellow, Québeckers my, 12 IV TIME: this moment in hands, future future, country country, whole V speak, SPEAKER, Canadians all Canadians VI concern, issue concern, them concern, deeply PO VII decided, future future, Québec TIME: Monday VIII future, Canada all, Canada IX made, decision serious, decision PO irreversible, decision PO X deep, consequences PO XI at stake, country PO XII at stake, heritage PO XIII break up, Canada build, Canada OR PO XIV remain, Canadian no longer, be Canadian OR PO XV stay leave OR PO XVI issue PO issue, referendum

Another similar instance of the expression of personal opinion is the

surfacing of attributes in the propositions. No system of criteria exists on the

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

97

basis of which one could decide whether a given proposition is true or not. In fact, the use of such attributes in themselves also reflects social norms affecting the individual. Let me put this in perspective: the decision through the act of the Referendum and its consequences are referred to as serious, with deep consequences (French source language text: predicates 25–28; English target language text: predicates 29–31), etc., which again presupposes the belief in Canada’s unity, surfacing as a kind of social norm accepted by the text producer.

Following the above classification system, Tables 5 and 6 show predicates containing personal opinions marked by PO in the French source language and the English target language texts.

7. APPROACH THREE: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Critical Discourse Analysis tends to focus on social problems, examining the ways power is socially reproduced (van Dijk 2001 and Olk 2002) and the ways ‘discourse does ideological work’ (Fairclough and Wodak, quoted. in van Dijk 2001: 353). Relying on background knowledge about the social environment in which the Referendum Speech was produced and in line with the general objectives of Critical Discourse Analysis the present author will now attempt to provide a brief explanation for the textual features of the English and the French versions of the Referendum Speech in terms of how they are used as means for establishing and maintaining power. I will account for similarities and differences between the two texts from three perspectives: (1) logical arguments presented in the texts, (2) feelings and sentiments evoked by the texts and (3) psychological motivation induced by the text.

Let us start with the historical background. Translation of the French Referendum Speech into English was undertaken in the Prime Minister’s Office under the professional supervision of chief communications strategist Peter Donolo acting as Director of Communications at the Prime Minister’s Office. Donolo was responsible for getting across the strategic communications messages of the Central Government’s main communication body, the Strategic Counsel. Donolo was noted for his expertise in crisis communications, which, of course, the Québec Referendum was (The Strategic Counsel, The Globe and Mail 2006, Privy Council Office). As in other similar situations, translation of the Speech into English was executed for the Government by the Translation Bureau in line with the requirements of the Official Languages Act of 1696 (Mossop 2006). The translation of the French source text into English in this case did not simply mean rendering the source text in the target language but also entailed editing, proofing and finalising the target text for publication. In this respect, the target text was eventually produced by political assistants

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

98

(Gagnon 2006) and not by a single translator. However, since it is unnecessary in this study to identify the different participants involved in the production of the text, I shall refer to the producer of the target text simply as ‘translator’. This term will include all the personnel involved in the production of the translation.

It must be noted that translation in Canada can be termed one-culture restricted translation as all translations for Canadians will finally be read in the more or less monocultural political environment of Canada. In the context of the Canadian practice of translation, “readers can only tell they are reading a translation if the publishing institution [for which the given text was translated] provides the status of the text [original text or translation]” (Gagnon 2006:75), which suggests that both the French and the English versions have equal status in the eyes of the public. In this regard, both texts are equally important and should sound as convincing to their respective target audiences as possible, which is even more so in the case of a political text concerning a high-stakes issue.

I shall now turn to the discussion of the three perspectives outlined above: (1) logical arguments presented in the texts, (2) feelings and sentiments evoked by the texts and (3) psychological motivation induced by the text.

7.1. Logical Arguments Presented

As already noted, van Dijk claims that political texts are produced with the perspective of their future receivers in mind (van Dijk 1997). When comparing the French source language Referendum Speech and its English target language translation, it becomes obvious that in both the source and the target language texts evaluative predicates are linked to text structure nodes. In the case of the French source language text, this node is proposition 18 and in the English target language text the corresponding node is proposition 20. The reasons why evaluative predicates are linked to the text structure nodes are easy to see. According to the Single-Shot Attitude Change Theory, originally developed by Hovland, Janis and Kelly at Yale University in 1953, and empirically proved in the case of political texts (Larson 2001), changes can only be realised in the attitude and personal opinions of an individual through persuasion, i.e. targeting the individual through a communication act.

More precisely, changes in voters’ attitudes can only be realised on condition that such changes are supported by sensible or sensible sounding arguments and if such changes later on gain positive reinforcement. The necessity of using argumentative supports to that end resounds with van Dijk’s above-mentioned view, namely that in the case of argumentation, as part of a social communication act, senders are liable to support their opinions with

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

99

rational (factual) or apparently sensible (logically coherent) argumentation to make their opinions acceptable to receivers.

In van Dijk’s classification (van Dijk 1997), this kind of persuasion or argumentation in political texts can take two different shapes: one is persuasion and the other one is manipulation. Van Dijk distinguishes these two in the following way “in persuasion the interlocutors [in essence: receivers of communicative acts] are free to believe or act as they please, depending on whether or not they accept the arguments of the persuader, whereas in manipulation recipients are typically assigned a more passive role: they are victims of manipulation. This negative consequence of manipulative discourse typically occurs when the recipients are unable to understand the real intentions or to see the full consequences of the beliefs or actions advocated by the manipulator. This may be the case especially when the recipients lack the specific knowledge that might be used to resist manipulation. Subsequently, van Dijk also claims that “Manipulation thus focuses on the formation or modification of more general, socially shared representations – such as attitudes or ideologies – about important social issues” (ibid. 368) and the independence of Québec is definitely such an issue in Canada’s history.

The analysis shows that Chrétien’s speech purposefully mixes rational and manipulative argumentation as far as the logical structure of the French source and the English target texts are concerned. Rational arguments are presented in both the French source language text and the English target language text as predicates reflecting the Prime Minister’s (and obviously through him, a political party’s) personal opinion. These predicates, through the logical shift detailed above (i.e., tactfully deeming the issue of the Referendum an either-or type of choice between two distinct options) will, beyond doubt, be equated with the issue of the Referendum in receivers’ mental representations. In this respect, from a social point of view, in the eyes of the public, Chrétien – partly as a result of his position as a Prime Minister of French Canadian origin – is represented as an authority (e.g. a well-known figure whose opinion one should ideally follow). And, as van Dijk’s findings about social fallacies also show, the words of such authorities tend to be observed by those deeming the authority in question credible:

“Specific kinds of fallacies might be used to persuade people to believe or do something, for instance those that are hard to resist, such as the Authority fallacy consisting of presenting devote Catholics with the argument that the Pope believes or recommends a certain action, or addressing Muslims and pointing out that a certain action is recommended by the Koran” (van Dijk 2006:375).

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

100

It follows from the above that the No Partisan campaign, centred around one person and his views, may be interpreted as a deliberate act of eliciting an authority fallacy in receivers, and consequently an instance of manipulative discourse.

As far as positive reinforcement of this fallacy is concerned, in the days following the Speech considerable amounts of positive reinforcement were provided by the media in an attempt to change the voters’ attitudes. Due to lack of space, however, the details of the media campaign will not be described here.

7.2. STYLE, FEELINGS AND SENTIMENTS EVOKED

I shall now go on to provide a comparative analysis of the French source and the English target texts of Chrétien’s Referendum Speech in terms of style, lexical choices, and techniques of persuasion through feelings. Before that, however, let me highlight some historical circumstances that might have some relevance at this point in our discussion.

The French version of the Speech, naturally enough, primarily targets French Canadians, among whom “French Quebecers are often the first targeted addressees when Canadian prime ministers speak to a pan-Canadian audience during national crisis situations” (Gagnon 2006). This fact is important, since the Speech was broadcast at a time when over 50% of those intending to vote in the Referendum were in favour of the sovereignty of Québec, and the overwhelming majority of the French Canadian community (primarily French Quebecers) were strong supporters of Québec’s independence (Sondage 38–9 and The Quebec Referendum 1995). The intended aim of the Speech in this context was to persuade at least some French Canadians to vote for the federation. This public communication aim was already visible in an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette a few days prior to the Referendum date, which collected and promoted French Canadians’ No Partisan views (Wells 1995).

In dealing with persuasion through feelings and sentiments, I will focus on the lexical choices in the source and target texts of the Speech and on their implications surfacing as emotive power and voter mobilisation

The English version of the Speech was directed at English speaking communities living primarily in Québec, including the aboriginals. As the majority of non-aboriginal English Canadians were opposed to Québec’s independence anyway (Sondage 38–9 and The Quebec Referendum 1995), this target group was not of primary importance. This was not the case with the English-speaking aboriginal Canadians: for historical reasons (primarily the Oka crisis), these communities were not very optimistic about the French

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

101

community and its attitude towards aboriginals. As these aboriginals were inclined to vote against the French Canadians, they were presumably specifically targeted with the English Referendum Speech through its very simple, non-compound sentences and style.

Significant differences can be observed in the styles of the source and the target texts. While the French text uses long and elaborate compound sentences, the English version uses short and simple sentences. This is the reason why the French text has 8 sentences, whereas the English text has 16. This already presages another significant difference, namely that the French version sounds more passionate, more committed, and more targeted at feelings, while the English version is almost devoid of feelings and appears to be clearly focussed on argumentation, reading as if at was a less carefully thought-out, hasty translation prepared for the historical record, in observance of Canada’s bilingualism as required by the Official Languages Act.

Nagy and Szkárosi’s research also revealed that Chrétien’s speech, like most referendum and election speeches, was intended partly to mobilise the opponents of Québec’s independence and make them more determined to vote, and partly to discourage the proponents from voting (Nagy and Szkárosi 2005). This strategy also surfaces in the emotive persuasion scheme (realised by lexical choices and textual motivational clues, detailed below) in both the French and the English Referendum Speeches.

Let us continue with a comparison of emotive persuasion related lexical choices in the French source and the English target texts. In this context, we can rely on Baker’s notion of framing by labelling, which denotes “any discursive process that involves using a lexical item, term or phrase to identify a person, place, group, event or any other key element” (Baker 2006:122). By adopting Baker’s definition, we shall claim that all the lexical choices detailed below are in fact acts of labelling, i.e., such lexical choices present receivers with a unique, purposefully promoted image of the Referendum issue.

I will group these projected images of emotive persuasion into five groups on the basis of their respective functions: (1) personal tone, (2) emotive tone, (3) social inclusiveness, (4) foregrounding of national identity and (5) involvement in the consequences of the outcomes of the Referendum. Let us examine these functions in more detail pinpointing textual references.

(1) Personal tone relates to the extent to which the sender is involved in communicating the text. The French text directly addresses receivers by the use of vous, which the English version fails to do (sentences I). This creates more personal involvement on the part of the Prime Minister in the French text, which acts as a powerful persuasion device in the eyes of the Canadian French community.

(2) The term emotive tone refers to vocabulary items that are likely to evoke specific emotional reactions in receivers. The French text seems to be

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

102

more passionate with reference to the following items: in sentence 4 au plus haut point (as opposed to the English deeply in sentence VI). When discussing consequences, sentence VI of the French text uses imprévisibles and incalculables, while the English makes do with a simple emphatic repetition of deep, deep in sentence X. The French source text states that Canada’s heritage is in danger in sentence VII, which in French Canadians evokes the idea of a ‘French cultural island in North America’ (Linteau 1996: 7) and the protection of French cultural and historical traditions, while the English target text (XI and XII) uses the phrase at stake, which has no connotations of something being under threat. The French text reads briser in sentence VIII with reference to disrupting the integrity of Canada, a word that has very pronounced connotations relating to emotions involved in ending a relationship, while the English version uses break (sentence XIII), which has no such immediate connotations. The French text speaks about the enjeu of the Referendum (sentence VIII), a word commonly used in political and election speeches (Corréard 2004: 315), while the English text simply uses the word issue (sentence XVI), which has no such connotations. The use of all these lexical items supports the claim that the French version places more emphasis on emotive persuasion as opposed to the English text.

(3) Social inclusiveness concerns references to the speaker associating themselves with certain social groups. The clause we are in an exceptional situation in sentence II of the English text is interpreted as a reference by the Prime Minister to all Canadians, including himself (inclusive we). No such reference, however, occurs in the French text. With this in mind, the appearance of Canadians in sentence I and the repetition of Canadians in sentence XIV of the English text (as opposed to a single mention of Canadiens in the corresponding French sentence VIII) reinforce the idea of a confederate Canada uniting both French and English citizens under the umbrella term Canadians, which is one of the strategic messages of Chrétien’s communication to English Canadians, representing the majority of Canada’s population. The same idea of unity is found in the phrase our whole country in the English version in sentence IV, which reads notre pays without the emphatic whole in the French text (sentence III). It therefore seems that the English text is more focussed on the idea of Canada’s integrity, thereby encouraging English Canadians to vote for Canada’s unity at the Referendum.

(4) Exploiting the possibilities afforded by the fact that Chrétien is French Canadian, the French text also builds on evoking and foregrounding French Canadian national identity. This theme is addressed in sentence III in the French text through the use of compatriotes du Québec, which is the equivalent of the English term fellow Quebecers. Unlike the English term, the French term has strong connotations of patriotism, and by using it Chrétien presents himself as a compatriot du Québec, offering himself as an authority to be followed.

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

103

(5) Lexical differences between the French and the English texts are also related to the receivers’ involvement in the consequences of the outcomes of the Referendum. While the English text assigns a more passive role to receivers by repeatedly using the relatively neutral lexical item issue (sentences VI and XIV) in referring to the historic importance of the Referendum, the French version applies the more powerful décision (sentence IV), which signals to French Canadians that the Referendum is mainly about them and that they have to bear in mind the consequences such a decision can bring.

To sum up the above features, we can say that the French text is more focused on feelings and sentiments, and constitutes a warning against separation, while the English text is much less emotive and focuses on the idea of Canada’s unity.

7.3. MOTIVATION INDUCED BY THE FRENCH AND THE ENGLISH VERSIONS

Motivation, be it positive or negative, is another common tool in political persuasion. A well-known device used in political campaigns is negative motivation. Negative campaigns often build on presenting the (purported) consequences of a political decision as a cause for fear to certain groups in a society. This is typically achieved by the use of enthymemes, which, by their nature, involve receivers in constructing the argument for themselves. Rose explains this in the following way: “One of the most ancient rhetorical techniques widely used in advertising today is the enthymeme which, according to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, was one of the most effective forms of persuasion (Aristotle, 1954, Book II, Chapter 22). An enthymeme is a form of a logical proposition, called a syllogism, which suppresses one of the premises...” (Rose 1993: 8 as well as Adamik, Jászó and Aczél 2004: 283) constituting the given proposition. Therefore “[t]he reader must construct the missing part of the logical sentence in order to make sense of the argument. As a persuasive technique, enthymemes have been an important part of political communication through the ages (Jamieson, 1988, p. 18; Lanham, 1991, pp. 65-66)” (Rose 1993: 8). The way this was used in the Québec Referendum campaign as part of the Canadian Government’s persuasion propaganda, is described as follows:

“One of the most prominent themes of the federal strategy was to use the federal largesse in Québec to make a strong pro-federalist argument. This line of argumentation was enthymatic and can be represented in the following manner with the major premise being stated and the minor premise left unstated. Major premise: The federal government provides valuable services. Minor premise: Québec separation will eliminate these

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

104

services. Conclusion: Voting No in the referendum will affect provision of valuable federal services.” (ibid.) In this light and political context, Chrétien’s juxtaposition of breaking up

Canada or building Canada, remaining Canadian or no longer being Canadian in the introduction of his speech may be interpreted as an enthymeme, presenting the Referendum as if it offered two mutually exlusive choices (major premise): if Québec is separated (minor premise), this province will not be part of federal Canada any more and lose all administrative and business ties with the rest of Canada (conclusion), which has induced uncertainty and consequently fear in Québec’s inhabitants, especially in aboriginals, who were made to be believe that French Canadians were all racist and felt nothing but contempt towards them (Trent 1995). In this way, voting for the separation of Québec was portrayed as an absolute disaster and a leap into the uncertain future, which was left to be mentally constructed by voters through the above enthymeme.

In conclusion, it seems that both the French Referendum Speech and its English translation apply the same tools for logical persuasion, but employ different lexis and psychological tools for (1) contextualising the above logical persuasion, and (2) providing footing for emotive and motivational persuasion.

8. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Predicates containing personal opinions linked to the text structure nodes in the French source language text are reproduced as similar predicates linked to the English text structure nodes. Some of these predicates, nonetheless, are not present in the English target language text: the French text contains 11 predicates, whereas the English text contains only 10. The English target language text features a lower number of predicates containing personal opinions than the French source language text: 14 predicates in the French text as opposed to 11 predicates in the English text (see items marked with PO in Tables 3 and 4 ).

In the light of Critical Discourse Analysis presented above, these differences seem to stem from the fact that the French version of the Referendum Speech targets receivers’ emotions, while the English translation focuses on persuasion through factual reasoning dressed in simple language. It can therefore be concluded that both the source language Referendum Speech and its target language translation apply the same evaluative predicates as logical arguments, but different lexis as emotive arguments to familiarise voters with the views of one interest group through media coverage. In terms of actual

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

105

lexical realisations, these differences resound with Gagnon’s observations about “the assumption that French- and English-Canadian cultures do not often meet in translated federal speeches” (Gagnon 2006: 84) even if Canada is politically considered a one-culture unit.

A more in-depth analysis of the affective impact of the source and target language texts on receivers, the role of the media in contributing to the formation of such emotive and psychological images in receivers, the effects of the translator’s immediate sociocultural environment on the process and product of translation as well as institutional norms (primarily those of the Strategic Counsel and the Translation Bureau) governing how translators are supposed to reformulate the target text, or, in Baker’s terms, apply “selective appropriation of textual material” (Baker 2006: 114), could also yield fruitful results. Such an analysis would be especially intriguing in the case of bi- (and also multi)lingual states such as Canada, where linguistic differences within one single federal state surface as cultural differences partly indicated by differring language use.

9. SUMMARY

The present study was intended to introduce a synthesis of three text linguistic approaches. The French original of the 1995 Québec Referendum Speech by former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and its English translation were analysed with the help of the van Dijkian Process Model, sociocognitive theory and Critical Discourse Analysis. The aim of the research was to juxtapose the semantic structure of the source and target language texts in terms of the total number and position of propositions and evaluative predicates. It was demonstrated that text structure nodes are surrounded by predicates functioning as evaluative beliefs providing argumentative support. Furthermore, textual realisations of the intentionally manipulative communicative aims followed by the text producers were identified with the help of Critical Discourse Analysis.

In my view, at the intersection of Translation Studies and Text Linguistics, an integrative analysis similar to the one detailed above is likely to provide a comprehensive and full account of some cognitive aspects of translation activities in the field of politics.

References

About PCO. [Author unknown] (No date). Ottawa: Privy Council Office. [Online]. Available: http://www.bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&page=AboutPCO [last accessed: 15th July 2007]

Schäffner, Ch. and Adab, B. (guest eds.) 2001. Across Languages and Cultures. Vol. 2. No. 2. Special Issue on Hybrid Texts and Translation

Adamik, T., Jászó A. and Aczél, P. 2004. Retorika. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

106

Álvarez, R. and Vidal, M.C.-Á. (eds.) 1996. Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, M. 2006. Translation and Conflict. A Narrative Account. London and New York: Routledge.

Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (eds.) 1998. Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Chan, R. 2007. One Nation, Two Translations: China’s Censorship of Hillary Clinton’s Memoir. In: Salama-Carr (ed.) Translating and Interpreting Conflict. New York: Rodopi. 119–131.

Chilton, P. and Schäffner, Ch. (eds) 2002. Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Chilton, P. and Schäffner, Ch., 1997. Discourse and Politics. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. 206–230.

Corréard, M. H. et al. (ed.) 2004. The Oxford Hachette French Dictionary. entry: enjeu, meaning: 3. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dimitriu, I. 2002. Translation, Diversity and Power. Current Writing Vol. 14. No. 2. i-xiv. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.)

Discourse as Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. 258–284. Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman. Hatim, B and Mason, I. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge. Gagnon, Ch. 2006. Language Plurality as Power Struggle, or: Translating Politics in Canada.

Target Vol. 18. No. 1. 69–90. Gutt, E.-A. 1998. Pragmatic Aspects of Translation: Some Relevance-Theory Observations. In:

Hickey, L. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hatim, B. and Munday, J. 2004. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New

York: Routledge. Hazel, K. J. 1997. The problem of objectivity in Québec Journalism. In: British Journal of

Canadian Studies Vol. 12. No. 2. 337–346. Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T. A. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production.

Psychological Review Vol. 85. No. 5. 363–394. Kress, G. 1985. Ideological Structures in Discourse. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of

Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. 27–41. Larson, Ch. U. 2001. Persuasion, Reception and Responsibility. Stamford: Wadsworth. Linteau, P. A. 1996. Les origines de la diversité ethnique et culturelle du Québec. Montreal:

UCAM. Long, D. L. and Chantel, S. P. 2002. Memory for Star Trek: The Role of Prior Knowledge in

Recognition Revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory and Cognition. Vol. 28. No. 6. 1073–1082.

Marrone, S. 1990. Is it possible to translate institutional terms? A pragmatic approach. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3. 72–74.

McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. 1980a. The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19. 668–682.

McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. 1980b. Priming in item recognition: The organisation of propositions in memory for text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19. 369–386.

Mossop, B. 2006. From Culture to Business: Federal Government Translation in Canada. The Translator Vol. 12. No. 1. 1–27.

Munday, J. 2007. Translation and Ideology. A Textual Approach. The Translator Vol. 13. No. 2. 195–217.

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

107

Nagy, J. and Szkárosi, A. 2005. The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Media – An Analysis of Lucien Bouchard's and Jean Chrétien's October 25th Speech. 6th Joint International Conference of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and London Conference of Canadian Studies, London.

Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.

Olk, H. 2002. Critical Discourse awareness in translation. The Translator Vol. 8. No. 1. 101–116. Our People. [Author unknown] (No date). Ottawa: The Strategic Counsel [Online]. Available:

http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_people/p_donolo.asp [last accessed: 15th July 2007]

Peter Donolo. [Author unknown] (3rd May, 2006 date) Ottawa: The Globe and Mail Ottawa: [Online]. Available: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/ content/ subscribe? user_ URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2 Fstory% 2FRTGAM.20040525.edonolo0526%2FBNStory%2FspecialDecision2004%2F&ord=9354262&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true [last accessed: 15th July 2007]

Pym, A, Shlesinger, M. and Jettmarová, Z. (eds.) 2006. Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Pym, A. 1992. Translation and Text Transfer – An Essay on the Principles of Intercultural Communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Pym, A. 2000. Negotiating the Frontier. Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Rose, J. 1993. Government Advertising in a Crisis: The Québec Referendum Precedent. In: Canadian Journal of Communication 18(2) [Online]. Available: http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=166 [last accessed: 25th June 2005].

Schäffner, Ch. 1998. Hedges in Political Texts: A Translational Perspective. In: Hickey, L. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Schäffner, Ch. 2003. Third Ways and New Centres – Ideological Unity or Difference? In: Calzada-Pérez, M. 2003. Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology. Ideologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome. 23–41.

Schäffner, Ch. 2004. Political Discourse Analysis from the point of view of Translation Studies. Journal of Language and Politics Vol. 3. No. 1. 117–150.

Schäffner, Ch. and Adab, B. 2001. The Idea of the Hybrid Text in Translation: Contact as Conflict. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 2. No. 2. 167–180.

Schäffner, Ch. and Kelly-Holmes, H. (eds.) 1996. Discourse and Ideology. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Seidel, G. 1985. Political Discourse Analysis. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. 43–60.

Katan, D. 1999. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters, and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Sondage. 1996. Particion: les Québécois disent NON. L’actualité 15th May, 1996. 38–42. The Political Structure of Canada. [Author unknown] (No date). Ottawa: Statistics Canada

[Online]. Available: http://www43.statcan.ca/04/04a/04a_001_e.htm [last accessed: 15th July 2007]

The Quebec Referendum 1995. [Author unknown] (No date). [Online]. Available: www.synapse.net/radio/refer.htm [last accessed: 29th November 2006]

Trent, J. E. 1995. A Practical Guide to the 1995 Referendum [Online]. Available: http://uni.ca/dialoguecanada/trent_guide.html [last accessed: 29th September 2006]

Trosborg, A. 1997. Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tymoczko, M. 2000. Translation and Political Engagement. The Translator Vol. 6. No. 1, 23–47.

MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

108

Tymoczko, M. 2003. Ideology and the position of the translator: In what Sense is a translator ‘in between’? In: Calzada-Pérez, M. 2003. Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology. Ideologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome. 181–202.

Tymoczko, M. and Gentzler, E. (eds.). 2002. Introduction. In: Translation and Power. Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. i–xxviii.

Valdeón, R. 2007. Ideological Independence or Negative Mediation: BBC Mundo and CNN en Español’s (translated) Reporting of Madrid’s Terrorist Attacks. In: Salama-Carr, M. (ed.) Translating and Interpreting Conflict. New York: Rodopi. 99–118.

van Dijk, T. A. 1997. Discourse as interaction in society. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. 1–37.

van Dijk, T. A. 1985. Semantic Discourse Analysis. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. 103–135.

van Dijk, T. A. 2001. Critical Discourse Analysis In: Tannen, D., Schiffrin, D. and Hamilton, H. E. (eds.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Oxford Blackwell. 352–371.

van Dijk, T.A. 2002. Political Discourse and Political Cognition. In: Chilton, Ch. and Schäffner, Ch. (eds.) Politics as Text and Talk. Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 203–237.

van Dijk, T. A. 2006. Discourse and manipulation. In: Discourse and Society Vol. 17. No. 2. 359–383.

Venuti, L. (ed.) 1992. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London: Routledge.

Wells, P. 1995. Don’t abandon us – francophones say. Montreal Gazette 25th October, 1995, Section A10.

Wodak, R. and van Dijk, T. A. (eds.) 2000. Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.

Sources

French version of the 1995 Referendum Speech: Message á la nation The French version is available in full at: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/premiersministres/h4-4011-f.html [last accessed: 29th November 2006]

English translation of the 1995 Referendum Speech: An Exceptional Situation, Televised speech The English version is available in full at: http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/documents/chretien_speech.htm [last accessed: 29th November 2006]