Translations of Political Speeches Into English and Polish

(1)

Translations of Political Speeches Into

English and Polish

Piotr Prokop

Leiden University

MA Linguistics

English Language and Linguistics

June 2018

Supervisor: Dr. Jill V. Jeffery

(2)

Abstract

The analysis of translation poses a number of challenges, ranging from establishing what constitutes ‘good’ translation to assessing how felicitous a particular phrase is in a given context. When this context is politics, and the translations analysed are political speeches, there are even more factors to be considered. This paper analyses political speeches made in English or Polish as well as their written translations in the other language. The data gathered for the purpose of this paper is a set of six texts, three speeches and their translations. This paper uses a multi-layered model of discourse analysis to investigate a number of specific categories related to the layers of knowledge, agents and the text itself. The paper finds that one of the speeches was created with the explicit aim to be translated into English, while the other two are mainly focused on the audience that speaks the language of the source text. Overall, the results of this paper suggest that comparing the linguistic aspects of a speech and its translation can reveal potentially useful characteristic such as the intended target audience, culturally-significant items or names whose full meaning is particularly difficult to render in another language. The implications of this paper indicate that a similar analysis performed on a much larger scale could provide findings that are more generalisable.

(3)

The purpose of this paper is to provide a linguistic analysis of political speeches and their translations. While there are multiple linguistic analysis done on political speeches, the inclusion of their translations in a different language can provide valuable insight into the impact of the translation process on the text and how it can lead to differences in the analysis. This paper uses a multi-layered model of discourse-linguistic analysis to investigate how political speeches lend themselves to an analysis of this type, and what differences does the model show when comparing the source text and its translation. The issues present when translating political speeches between English and Polish are primarily linked to adapting the translation to a different audience, one which not only speaks a different language, but also possesses different contextual knowledge and whose language puts different restrictions on the rhetorical and stylistic devices that can be used. Due to the audience not speaking the language of the original text, also known as source text, the goal of a translation is either to adapt the text to the audience or vice versa. Examples of bringing the text to the audience involve explaining the references to historical or cultural events which are generally assumed to be obvious to the audience of the source text, but which the audience of the translation may not be familiar with. The same strategy can be used for proper names, such as names of institutions or offices. This is especially visible when said name does not yet have an official equivalent in the target language, and it is thus the translator who provides the first equivalent. In creating such equivalents, the translator has to keep in mind the administrative frameworks from and to which they are translating, as some names may cause confusion or have negative historical implications.

In this paper, the two languages investigated (English and Polish) do not belong to the same language family, the former being a West Germanic language, and the latter West Slavic.

(6)

Thus one could expect a number of hurdles when translating a political speech which, due to its nature, could employ rhetorical and stylistic techniques in the source language which cannot be directly mapped to those used in the target language. One of the problems with an analysis of this type is that political speeches are often interpreted rather than translated, e.g. during a television broadcast, a practice which is undoubtedly sound, given that setting. Interpreting, also referred to as oral translation, abides by a slightly different set of rules, mainly due to the time constraint inherent in the process. Hence, it cannot be analysed and assessed using the same criteria and to the same standards as a written translation.

Nevertheless, political speeches that do receive a written translation present an opportunity to see how some of those issues are solved when time is not a factor and the author of the translation can support themself with all the related materials to which they have access.

2. Background 2.1 Translation Theory

Translation, according to Dictionary of Translation Studies (Shutteworth, 2014), is “an incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many different ways”. It can be

understood as either the process or the product, which can further differentiate the types and subtypes of translation. Being more specific, Jakobson (1959) outlines three types of

translation, namely intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation. The first involves explaining the meaning of the source text in the language of the source text. The second, also called ‘translation proper’, is the “interpretation of verbal sign by means of some other language” (Jakobson, 1959, p. 233). The final type, Intersemiotic, occurs when the verbal sign from the source text are transformed in the target text into signs of a non-verbal sign systems. The notions of source and target text are used not only in the domain of machine translation (see Hutchins & Somers, 1992), but in the whole field of translation studies (House, 1997;

(7)

Munday, 2013). One of the reasons for doing so it to avoid any value judgement in calling the texts the 'original text' and the 'translated text'.

The job of an interlingual translator is therefore to decode the text in the source language and encode it in the target language. The extent to which the translator is successful has been investigated from many perspectives, the most current one being concerned with equivalence (Gutt, 2014). One of the primary problems of translation identified by Jakobson (1959) is that there is rarely full equivalence between words in different languages. Jakobson illustrates that by comparing the English word "cheese" to the Russian "сыр", which shows that in English, 'cottage cheese' is still a cheese, but this is not the case for "сыр" in Russian (Jakobson 1959, p. 233). The choice of how to render those items which do not have a full equivalent in the target language depends primarily on the context. The notion of context is one that is central to the whole concept of translation (House, 1997; Baker, 2006; Gutt, 2014), and there have been many levels at which equivalence has been evaluated, such as at the level of content (Kade, 1968), at five different levels simultaneously (denotation, connotation, textual norms, pragmatics, form) (Koller & Henjum, 1992), with the audience response as the frame of reference (Nida & Taber, 2003), or at the level of function (House, 1997; de Waard & Nida, 1986). The equivalence at the level of function occurs when the part in the source text and translated part of the text fulfil the same function (House, 1997; Gutt, 2014), though the extent to which all possible function can be listed remains undecided (Svejcer, 1981; Gutt, 2014). Due to it being considered the contemporary frame of reference (Gutt, 2014), it is this functional approach that is used in this paper as the basis on which the translation is evaluated and discussed. Moreover, all the texts analysed in this paper fulfil the same primary function, but differ with respect to the primary and secondary audience, especially when comparing a source text and a target text.

(8)

Depending on the form of the source text and the target text, one can distinguish between the following four main types of translation (Kielar, 2003):

1. written-written translation 2. written-oral translation 3. oral-oral translation 4. oral-written translation

This distinction covers the basic one between translating and interpreting, where the former deals in written texts and the latter in oral texts (see Neubert, 1981). The translations gathered as data for this paper fit into the category of written-written translation, as all of them have been completed in writing, even the one that has been subsequently presented orally. One other aspect that can distinguish the translations of the political speeches is what Grucza (1985) names the quasi-translatory properties of a text, i.e. a text that has been written with the prior knowledge that it will be later translated or a text that is meant to be translated. This property puts the translator as one of the targets, if not the primary target, of such a text. As a result, the author of the primary text could alter the text in order to suit the needs of the translator and the audience of the translated text. Such alteration often include additions which explain connotations which may be unfamiliar to the audience of the translation (Kielar, 2003).

This quasi-translatory aspect of translation is further mentioned in Kielar (2003), where she provides an example of how translation of conventional phrases can display the norms of a given social group. She provides an example by looking at the way the Polish phrase “gospodarka nakazowo-rozdzielcza”, used during the communist period, has two equivalents in English. The first is the more literal “a directive-distributive economy”, and the other is the more globally-used “a centrally-planned economy” (p. 37). Kielar further explains

(9)

that the former equivalent was pushed by the Polish state, while the other was more understandable to the English-speaking audience, and at the same time more direct in describing the key aspect of that economic model.

2.2 The Rhetoric of Political Speeches

In everyday use, rhetoric refers to the use of language with aim to influence or persuade the reader or hearer in a particular way. Sometimes referred to as a skill or an art, rhetoric is generally understood to be an effective and persuasive use of speech or writing (Rhetoric, n.d.). The development and codification of rhetoric dates back to Ancient Greece, where it was Aristotle who defined it as “the ability of “seeing” the available means of

persuasion” (Kennedy, 1991, p. 13). Reisigl (2008) defines political rhetoric prototypically as “rhetoric employed by politicians” (p. 97), though he recognised that such rhetoric can also be produced by non-politicians.

When discussing modern presidential rhetoric, Zarefsky claims that “patterns of rhetorical choice do tend to repeat across situations with the same central characteristics” (Zarefsky, 2004, pp. 610-611). One could therefore ask to what extent are these patterns reflected in different languages or in translations. He also points out that it is not easy to pinpoint the audience of presidential rhetoric. Zarefsky (2004) argues that it is often not the general public that is the audience, but other politicians or the media instead. He also proposes that presidential rhetoric “defines political reality” through means such as naming the

contemporary issues and the environment thereof (Zarefsky, 2004, p. 611). One of the ways this defining is achieved is through the creation of associations between known concepts and the issues at hand. This phenomenon is of particular interest to this paper, as it can be

analysed by investigating how presidents name the issues they are discussing, what adjectives they use in relation to these issues and how they themselves link the issues at hand to the ones

(10)

that invoke positive or negative connotations, also known as condensation symbols (see Sapir, 1934; Zarefsky, 2009).

2.2.1 Research on political rhetoric. Practical research done in this area has examined instances of political rhetoric in numerous contexts and using a wide range of models and methods. Zarefsky (2009) examined political rhetoric in the context of strategic manoeuvring. His analysis of the third Kennedy-Nixon debate concluded that the use of strategic manoeuvring was extensive, and that there are some problems with regards to the extent to which one can evaluate strategic manoeuvring in a political setting based on the rules designed for a critical discussion (Zarefsky, 2009).

Reisigl (2008) uses what he called a “politolinguistic analysis of political rhetoric” (p.97) to investigate a number of questions such as the naming of actors – individuals or groups – the positive and negative traits that are attributed to said actors or the perspective from which these points are presented. However, he admits that “there is no simple recipe of how to conduct a politolinguistic analysis of political rhetoric” (Reisigl, 2008, p.100). Even in the case of quantitative analysis, Reisigl (2008) says the measurement is always based on the underlying theoretical definitions of qualitative categories.

A study by Krebs & Jackson (2007) approached political rhetoric from the perspective of rhetorical coercion, and analysed the case of the Druze minority in Israel and the issues regarding military service and citizenship. The model of rhetorical coercion seems to be operating on the layers of pragmatics or dialectics. In this way, analysis done using the concept of rhetorical coercion seems similar to the models based on strategic manoeuvring and argumentation theory.

In general, it seems that the research in the area of political rhetoric and the

(11)

idiosyncratic, a problem which manifests itself both when one wants to compare the results of such analyses and when one seeks to chose the suitable approach for oneself. With that in mind, the methodological framework used for the purpose of this paper is presented in the following Section.

2.3 The Model of Discourse Analysis

The primary reason for the choice of the following model as the methodological framework in this paper is that its focus is on the linguistic analysis of discourse, as opposed to other types of discourse analysis, of which the most recognisable branch is critical

discourse analysis (CDA). The difference comes from a branch of discourse analysis that has been developing in Germany since the 1980s called Diskurslinguistik, (discourse linguistics – DL), and has been regarded as one of the most influential sub-disciplines in German discourse analysis (for more on DL see Wengeler, 2005; Busse, 1987, 2008; Busse & Teubert, 2013). Traditionally, discourse linguistics distanced itself from CDA by adopting a descriptive, rather than critical approach (Busse, 1987; Wengeler, 2005; Spitzmüller & Warnke, 2011b).

One of the issues of DL has been the question of disciplinary boundaries. As discourse is more than just language, discourse analysis should, in theory, extend beyond its linguistic boundaries (Spitzmüller & Warnke, 2011b). However, a linguistic analysis of discourse, such as DL, would be limited as to what it can achieve, as it would focus solely on the linguistic component of discourse, and therefore would not be able to fully grasp its subject. Warnke & Spitzmüller (2008) define the problems associated with traditional DL as

“underspecification” on the one hand, and “overgeneration” on the other. Discourse linguistics is underspecified when it is focused too narrowly in its analysis and does not provide the full possible and necessary analysis of the subject matter (Spitzmüller & Warnke, 2011a, pp. 15-16). Conversely, overgeneration occurs when an analysis is expected to yield

(12)

more and broader results than it is possible using the linguistic tools at one’s disposal (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008).

The search for a solution to the aforementioned obstacles and to a general lack of standardisation in the way linguistic discourse analysis was conducted (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008) led to the creation of a multi-layered linguistic model of analysis (See Section 3.2 for an overview of the model). The goal of this model is to provide a reliable, valid and standardised model of analysis, rather than a theoretical model of discourse as such (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008). In order to answer the issues faced by DL and others (see for instance Reisigl, 2008), the model uses three different layers, each of them naming a different extension of the linguistic object in order to exclude underspecificity and overgeneration (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, p. 23). This ‘multi-layered’ aspect also means that not all of the elements need to be addressed and analysed at the same time. The choice of which elements are to be examined follows from the initial step of the analysis, namely the “first reading1_”. During this step, the reader assumes the position of a “naive reader” (cf. Fix et. al., 2003), and marks any linguistic form which appear to be meaningful. Warnke & Spitzmüller (2008) defend this seemingly vague focus by saying that the tiered process of further analysis precludes any possibility of arbitrariness. This first reading is holistic in nature, and the elements found to be characteristic of a text are classified as either a variation or a confirmation of known expressions (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, pp. 24-25). The first reading highlights the aspects that are to be investigated by means of multiple, selective readings with the emphasis put on a single element. In the process of the first reading, the native-speaking competence of the reader is assigned the status of a reference competence, which corresponds in automated speech analysis to the reference corpus (Warnke &

(13)

Spitzmüller, 2008). They also point out that due to discourse linguistic always having to include questions of semantic nature, the smallest unit of the linguistic system that can be marked as characteristic has to have at least morphemic status. After the first reading is complete, the model splits into three layers of analysis, trans-textual, agent and intra-textual, their respective phenomenal realms being knowledge, actors and texts (Spitzmüller & Warnke, 2011b). Each of those layers is further sub-divided into analysis oriented towards a specific element. With the first reading complete, the subsequent readings allow for selecting one particular feature from the full model and comparing how it has been realised in the original text and the translation. At this stage, any significant changes or deviations between the two text that have been noted are singled out, their implications for the translated text and possible reasons for their presence are discusses in the next Chapter.

3. Data & Method

Section 3.1 describes the speeches selected for analysis, gives an overview of who delivered them and under what circumstances. Section 3.2 presents and describes the model used to analyse said data, together with all the components relevant for the purpose of this paper. Section 3.3 outlines how the methodological model was applied to the data.

3.1 Data

In order to investigate the differences in the analysis of political speeches and their translations, three speeches were selected for the purpose of this paper. The speeches and their translations to the other language (English or Polish) result in six texts in total (135 Congr. Rec.; Bush, 2001; Dubiński, 1999; Duda, 2015a, 2015b; Transcript of President Bush’s Address, 20012_{). The speeches selected present different contexts in which the translation} occurred, as well as different audiences at which the translations are targeted. The first speech

(14)

was targeted at an English-speaking audience, and was translated by a different entity than the one responsible for the source text. The second speech and its translation are delivered to the same audience, with both texts authored by the same entity. The last speech is targeted at a Polish-speaking audience, its translation is not, but both texts come from the same source. This results in the data set consisting of six texts in total, three source texts, one in English and two in Polish, and their three respective translations.

3.1.1 Speeches in Polish and their translations. Two of the analysed speeches which were originally delivered in Polish are the speeches made by Lech Wałęsa and Andrzej Duda. The speech of Lech Wałęsa, chairman of Solidarity3_{, was given on November 15, 1989 to a} joint meeting of the United States Congress. The speech was internationally significant, as Wałęsa was the first non-head-of-state to give such an address. Though Wałęsa delivered his speech in Polish, he was accompanied by an interpreter who consecutively delivered the English version of the speech. It is this version that is included in the data as the translation of Wałęsa’s speech. As both the speech and the translation are produced by Wałęsa and his translator, and not a translator working for the Congress or a news outlet, the two can be seen as a single author, since they are on the same side of the linguistic situation. The fact that the speech was given by a non-head-of-state and a person at the heart of the collapse of the Warsaw pact makes this speech particularly relevant for both Polish and American audience, as it was a historical moment in the history of the Cold War and modern international

relations.

The other speech is the inaugural speech made by Andrzej Duda on August 6, after winning the 2015 presidential election in Poland. The speech was delivered before the Polish National Assembly, a name given to the joint session of both chambers of the Polish

(15)

parliament. The transcript of this speech as well as its English version come from the official website of the Polish president, meaning that the authorship of those two texts belongs to one side of the linguistic situation. The reason for selecting this speech is that it is a relatively recent one, given in a similar context to the one described in Section 3.1.2, but whose translation comes from the same institution as the source text.

3.1.2 Speech in English and its translation. The speech delivered originally in English is the one given by George W. Bush, the then President of the United States, on September 20, 2001, as a direct result of the September 11 attack had happened nine days prior. The speech was an address to a join session of the US Congress, and in it president Bush presented the government’s response to the attack. While the original text was created by the Bush administration, the translation was not, it was done by the receiving party i.e. the audience. The speech was an important event internationally, as it marked the beginning of the international military campaign known as the War on Terror. The speech was interpreted into Polish live on television, though for the purpose of this paper, a written translation is used. 3.2 Method

In order to analyse the data described in the previous Sections, the methodology needs to be on the one hand relevant to the data set, but on the other hand sufficiently clear that the analysis, though qualitative in nature, retains its objective aspect and that could therefore be possibly replicated. With this in mind, the methodological framework chosen is based on Diskurslinguistische Mehr-Ebenen-Analyse4_{(DIMEAN) model (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008;}

Spitzmüller & Warnke, 2011a). A more detailed analysis of the model, its history, connection to other methodologies and possible application can be found in Czachur (2011) and Girnth (2015). The model with all of its categories is presented in the table below:

(16)

Table 1: Layers and categories of the DIMEAN model. Compiled from Spitzmüller & Warnke (2011b)

Layers of

Analysis Sub-layers Categories

Trans-textual Layer

Discourse-oriented Analysis

Intertextuality/intermediality, Schemata (frames/scripts), Discourse semantic protofigures, Topoi, Social symbolism, Orders of

indexicality, Historicity, Ideologies/mentalities, Social and political context

Agent Layer Roles of

interaction Author, Anticipated addressees Discourse

positions

Social stratification/power, Discourse communities, Ideology Brokers, Voice, Verticality status

Mediality Medium, Forms of communication, Areas of communication, Text

patterns

Intra-textual Layer

Text-oriented Analysis

Visual text structure Layout/design, Typography, Text-picture relations, Materiality/text carriers

Macrostructure: text subject

Lexical Fields, Metaphorical fields, Lexical lines of opposition, Topic development, Text strategies/text functions, Text type

Mesostructure: subjects in parts of text Proposition-oriented Analysis Microstructure: propositions

Syntax, Rhetorical figures, Metaphor lexemes, Social, expressive, deontic meaning, Presuppositions, Implicatures, Speech acts

Word-oriented Analysis

Single-word units

Keywords, Stigmatised words, Names, Ad-hoc formations

(17)

The categories selected for analysis come from all the three layers. These are: Social symbolism, Orders of indexicality, Social and political context, Author, Anticipated

addressees, Verticality status, Syntax, Rhetorical figures, Social, expressive and deontic meaning, Keywords, Stigmatised words, Names and Ad-hoc formations. In the following Sections, each of the categories is explained, together with the reason for why it was chosen, with the categories grouped according to the layer in which they are situated. The reason for not selecting some of the other categories, even though they would appear to be somewhat relevant at first, is that they would not contribute to the comparative analysis of the original text versus the translation, merely describe the similarities between the two. Other categories that have not been selected, such as those concerning the visual representation of the text, seemed not directly relevant to the nature of the data.

3.2.1 Trans-textual layer. The first layer, trans-textual, deals with question of what is being talked about in the society at large and who belongs to that society (Warnke &

Spitzmüller, 2008, p. 39). This trans-textual level of analysis goes beyond the level of text linguistics and into the realm of discourse linguistics. The aspects of the trans-textual layer which are relevant to this paper are Social symbolism, Orders of indexicality, and Social and political context.

Social symbolism covers items such as conventionalised register choices, the access to discourse through the knowledge of social-symbolic meanings, and collective symbols, such as metaphors and synecdoches, which are well-suited for contextualisation due to their place in certain discourse communities (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, p. 41).

The category of Orders of indexicality covers the collective agreement over what is perceived to be ‘good’ and ‘bad’ language use. The perception of the ‘good’ language use

(18)

includes those linguistic actions that symbolise and facilitate social success or affiliation to a particular group (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, pp. 41-42).

When it comes to the category of Social and political context, the model does not explicitly state what is to be investigated. Instead, it points out that many analyses focusing on this aspect tend to study the context generated by the influential media. A possible issue with this type of analysis is that it has the potential of taking into account only the corpora

generated by the media, resulting in a tautological confirmation that the general discourse is what the media say it is, based on the data from the media (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008). In order to avoid this issue, for the purpose of this paper, the source of the social and political context comes from the world of academia or official opinion polls, rather than from the media or media-related publications.

3.2.2 Agent layer. Warnke & Spitzmüller (2008) point out in the layer of Agent Layer that in the social sciences, there are many methods for analysing this particular aspect of discourse. For the purpose and the linguistic scope of this paper, it is therefore important to focus only on those aspect which are directly reflected in the language. To that end, the categories pertinent to this paper are Author, Anticipated addressees and Verticality status.

The two categories of Author and Anticipated addressees describe more than just the basic interaction roles of sender and receiver. The category examines both vertical and horizontal relations between the agents, distinguishing between different types of both text producers and text recipients, with the former consisting of authors, principals and animators, and the latter addressees, bystanders and eavesdroppers (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, pp. 33-34). Since these two categories are closely related, the analysis in this paper combines the two categories and thus the results are also presented jointly. This is especially relevant when

(19)

discussing translations, as the source text might, and indeed often does, target a different audience than the target text.

Another aspect that can influence the translation of a political speech is the difference in the stratification of knowledge between the agents, here called Verticality status. This category explores the hierarchical layers of knowledge and the subsequent affiliations of the agents to different communities, both of which can vary between the addressees of the source text and the target text.

3.2.3 Intra-textual layer. This layer is further sub-divided into three levels of

analysis, text-oriented, proposition-oriented and word-oriented. The category of text-oriented analysis takes the broadest view of the text. It concerns both the overall thematic division of the text and the division of text into parts. Warnke and Spitzmüller call this the macro- and meso-structure of the text, respectively. However, they acknowledge that in some cases, this division can hardly be possible (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, p. 29). The layer of

proposition-oriented analysis focuses on syntactical and semantical analysis of particular phrases or sentences as a whole (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, p. 26). Word-oriented analysis, the final level in the intra-textual layer, focuses on single and multi-word units. It analyses not only single words as such, but also particular word collocations, as they are an integral to the proper understanding of the text, or in this case, its translation.

The analysis of Syntax can also be used to establish the relation the author has with the text. Elements of note include particles or adverbs that show the context and the attitude of the author. Another important feature is elision, as by omitting particular elements of a

sentence, the author highlights the elements that are already known or are obvious to the interlocutors. The category of Rhetorical figures is understood as more than just ornamental forms, but as significant linguistic patters such as additions, omission, conversion or

(20)

substitution (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008). They are used for both stylistic and pragmatic reason. On the one hand, they can be used to show the skill of the author, which can impress the reader and thus achieve its stylistic goal. On the other hand, rhetorical figures can serve to add, highlight or even omit parts of the message. When analysing translations, one could also look for additions, elements not present in the source text but introduced to the translated text. The necessity of these additions can help in establishing the differences in both stylistic and pragmatic aspects. This is supplemented by the category of Social, expressive and deontic meaning, which “deals with contextual, in general propositionally constituted meanings of expressions5_{” (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, p. 28). Elision and rhetorical figures both play a} role in the analysis, as their use has the potential to vary to a large extent between the original text and the translation. The category Deontic meaning is also particularly relevant here, as they way it is realised can have a significant influence on how the translated text impacts on and is interpreted by the target audience.

Single and multi-word units are another elements of the analysis, and in some areas they are the ones analysed in most detail. They are classified according to the following four categories: Keywords, Stigmatised words, Names and Ad-hoc formations. The first category, Keywords, is understood as words that “express the self-understanding and the ideals of a particular group/epoch6_{” (Warnke & Spitzmüller, 2008, p. 26). Stigmatised words are used to} negatively describe i.e. stigmatise people, objects or facts, which has the inherent effect of self-appreciation by depreciating others. The category of Names is described as items that help in locating the text or discourse in a particular semantic field. Ad-hoc formations, the fourth category, refer to the context-bound temporary formations, which can highlight the

5 _{Es handelt sich dabei um kontextuell, in der Regel propositional konstituierte Bedeutungen von}

Ausdrücken. Author’s own translation.

(21)

perspective of the author. Warnke & Spitzmüller (2008) also point out that some of these elements might be “cross-classified”, i.e. placed into more than one category (p. 26). The study of those elements in the context of a text and its translation can show what changes have been implemented on the level of a single specific word. Especially when it comes to Ad-hoc formations, the changes in the translation could be linked back to some of the other categories described in this Chapter such as the Anticipated addressees or Social symbolism.

3.3 Procedure

With all the selected categories mentioned in the previous Section, the procedure of the analysis is the following. The analysis starts with the first reading, during which any and all noteworthy aspects are highlighted and used as a justification of which categories should be selected for analysis. These aspect include but are not limited to specific keywords, sentence patterns, particularly salient metaphors or references. The choice of the categories also depended on the general genre of the texts as well as the time, place and manner in which they were delivered or, in the case of translations, the context in which the translation was created. For each category, the data is given a reading with specific attention paid to that category. Every occurrence of a structure, word or phrase which corresponds to a given category is evaluated with respect to the above-mentioned methodological model and the relevant theory summarised in Chapter 2. This results in 13 different readings, one for each category, and the first reading (Erstlektüre), for a total of 14 readings. The finding of these readings are presented in the next Chapter, and are organised according to the three layers in which each category is located, preceded by the initial findings of the first reading.

(22)

4. Results

The analysis is spread over three different layers, Trans-textual, Agent Layer and Intra-textual, with the results grouped accordingly and preceded be the results of the first reading.

4.1 Results of the First Reading

This part of the analysis provides a general overview of the data, serving as a starting point of the overall analysis. Those particular elements which seemed specific to the data or were otherwise noteworthy influenced the choice of the other categories for analysis.

Taking all the texts into account, the first visible feature was the frequent use of repetitions and anaphora. In the speech made by president Bush, a number of sentences started with “Americans have” or “America has”. In the introductory part, after the initial greetings, the phrase “We have seen” is repeated four times in the span of six sentences. In the Polish translation, this has been rendered using three different phrases, namely “Byliśmy świadkami” (“we were witnesses”), “Mogliśmy dostrzec” (“we could see”), “Widzieliśmy” (“we saw” or “we have seen”). Moreover, the main part of the speech was divided into three sections, and this division was introduced by a recurring phrase “Americans are asking [...]”. Both of those features were also present in the translation, their respective Polish equivalents being “Ameryka była” or “Ameryka” plus verb in the past tense, due to there being no wholly symmetric equivalent for the English Perfect tenses in the Polish language, and either

“Amerykanie pytają” or “Amerykanie zadają sobie pytanie” for the phrase “Americans are asking”.

In addition, a significant number of sentences started with the conjunction “And”, a feature that was present across all the texts. The number of such sentences for each speech

(23)

were as follows: 15 for the speech by president Bush, 16 for president Wałęsa and 4 for the then President-elect Andrzej Duda.

The repetitions found in the speech of Lech Wałęsa include the opening phrase “We the people”, in Polish “My naród”, a phrase that is further analysed in the later Sections. This speech also contained a number of sentences in the source language split into two shorter sentences in English, a feature not present as often in the other speeches. Furthermore, some of Wałęsa’s sentences had their syntax altered in the English version in a noticeable manner, a feature discussed in the next Chapter.

In Andrzej Duda’s speech, the first item that stands out it the way the word

“Rzeczpospolita” is rendered into English. The word comes in the official full name of the country, “Rzeczpospolita Polska”, which in English is rendered as the “Republic of Poland”. In this vein, wherever the office of the President of Poland is mentioned, “Rzeczpospolita” is rendered as “Republic of Poland” However, the word is also used in the Polish language in other contexts, as shown in president Duda’s speech: “[…] współdziałać dla dobra

Rzeczpospolitej”, in the English version: “[…] in cooperation for the benefit of Poland”. In the Polish version, the word is used instead of the more common and everyday word

“Polska”, which would be symmetrical with the use of “Poland” in English. In the target text, the choice between the two English translations of “Rzeczpospolita”, one being “Republic of Poland” and the other “Poland”, appears to be a conscious one, and is further analysed in the following Sections.

4.2 Results of the Trans-textual Layer Analysis

The analysis conducted with respect to the trans-textual layer investigated the categories of Social symbolism, Orders of indexicality, and Social and political context.

(24)

4.2.1 Social symbolism. With respect to the first category, the register of the speeches was overall high and formal, in both the source and target texts. The only exception was found in the Polish version of the speech by Lech Wałęsa, where some of the noun phrases are too long and elaborate to be considered prototypical, formal Polish. Examples of such instances include “fakt podstawowy i najważniejszy”, translated into English as “the fundamental, most important fact”, “pojęcie Stanów Zjednoczonych” (the name of the United States), the

sentence “Oto słowa, od których chcę zacząć moje przemówienie.” (“With these words I wish to begin my address.”) or the repeated use of the phrase “ruch o nazwie Solidarność” (“The movement called Solidarity”). The possible reason for the use of these constructions is outlined in the Discussion Chapter.

In his speech after the September 11 attack, George W. Bush makes a reference to a very particular piece of American history, stating that “Americans have known wars, but […] they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941”. This is a clear and explicit reference to the attack on Pearl Harbor, one of the defining historical moments of World War II. By mentioning it, this reference serves as a link between the September 11 attack and the attack on Pearl Harbor, making them both a symbol of the American history.

Lech Wałęsa’s speech begins with the phrase “My naród”, which in the translation is “We the people”, a direct and deliberate reference to the Preamble of the US Constitution and to the American social symbolism in general. This is further evidenced in the following sentences: “I do not need to remind anyone here where these word come from”, the

implicature being that Lech Wałęsa is specifically referencing the American constitution in his addressing the US Congress to show solidarity and like-mindedness. Conversely, the

(25)

Polish language or culture, further supporting Wałęsa’s point of focusing his speech on the American audience.

Another piece of social symbolism referenced by Lech Wałęsa is his jumping over the fence in Gdańsk shipyard. The jump itself is given a full paragraph of context and is included in the speech as a metaphor for the beginning of the Solidarity movement and ultimately, the end of communism in Poland. This is therefore a highly symbolic act in the Polish history, the significance of which and the possible reason for it being mentioned by Lech Wałęsa is described in the next Chapter. Wałęsa also mentions “the solemn pledges […] in Yalta”, a reference to the Yalta Conference of 1945, another symbol in the Polish history, a symbol Wałęsa himself described as “the second greatest national catastrophe, following the one of 1939”. With regard to its symbolic significance and impact on the Polish view of history, Wałęsa makes the following remark: “The awareness of this tragedy was doubly bitter, as the Poles realized that they had been abandoned by their allies. The memory of this is still strong in the minds of many.”, a clear indicator of the significance of that event.

In his speech to the National Assembly, Andrzej Duda mentions the previous Polish president Lech Kaczyński, who died in 2010 in a plane crash. The details surrounding the plane crash had been the subject of a controversy up to and including the 2015 presidential elections in Poland. The deliberate reference to “the President who is no longer with us today” by the then President-elect is a display of the political issues he considers to be important. This reference is also analysed in the category of Social and political context.

4.2.2 Orders of indexicality. Analysis within the category of Orders of indexicality yields the following results about the language choice. As first spotted in Section 4.1, the each speech contains a number of sentences which start with the conjunction “and”. This is a feature that would not be considered part of the ‘standard’ English, and is said to be generally

(26)

avoided in writing. The 15 cases of sentences starting with “and” in the speech by president Bush have been translated into Polish in the following four ways: wholly omitted (11 cases), changed in the Polish version to mean ‘but’ (Polish: ale) (1 case), used to join two clauses (1 case) or is rendered by the Polish equivalent conjunctions “i” or “a” (2 cases). Similarly, the English version of Lech Wałęsa’s speech contained 16 instances of “and”, with the following Polish equivalents: wholly omitted (9 cases), used to join two clauses (4 cases), or the two sentences are instead joined by a comma (3 cases) In the speech by Andrzej Duda, the English version contains four sentences beginning with “and”, while the corresponding Polish

sentences are equivalent in this manner in only 1 case, namely “I to naprawdę w wielu

obszarach” (“And this necessity applies to many areas”). Out of the other three cases, two are the cases where ‘and’ joins two clauses, and thus does not start a new sentence, and one is a case where it was wholly omitted. In this case, there are two sentences, just as in the English translation, but there is no conjunction between them: “And I will note the following” is the English version, while the Polish version is simply “Ja powiem tak”, which would be directly translated as “I [will] say this”.

4.2.3 Social and political context. When it comes to the category of Social and political context, the analysis needed to be based on sources outside of the realm of the media. The analysis of the context of the three speeches is thus the following. The speech made by president Bush was a response to the September 11 attack, an act whose reverberation are yet to be fully understood and assessed. Nevertheless, the analysis of the employee attitudes by Ryan et al. (2003) showed that “contrary to suggestions in the popular press, no evidence was found of widespread effects on employee attitudes. On the other hand, the public polls

showed that the people were indeed affected in a profound way (Ryan et al., 2003, p. 654). Through his speech, given in November 1989, Lech Wałęsa provides the American Congress

(27)

with his view of the way the Polish revolution of the 1980s is viewed by those who have started it. In Poland, the context of the speech of Lech Wałęsa, given in November 1989, which deals with the inception of the Solidarity movement and the beginning of the end of the communist period in Poland, is summarised on the basis of public opinion research as the spirit of pluralism in the nation, not in the government, with massive support for the Solidarity movement” (Mason, 1985, p. 33-34). Moreover, it is the rise of the Solidarity-lead revolution in Poland, and not the fall of the Berlin Wall, that for many Polish people is the beginning of the end of the communist period in Poland, leading ultimately to the collapse of the Soviet Union (Ornatowski, 2015). Taking this into account, the fact that the leader of Solidarity was invited to address the US Congress was seen by many as a landmark event in the Polish history.

When it comes to the context of Andrzej Duda’s 2015 speech, there is not a breadth of academically-researched data on the social and political context, most likely due to the event having occurred relatively recently. Nevertheless, the available information on the context surrounding the 2015 presidential election in Poland states that there was a visible pro- and anti-systemic dichotomy and a deep aversion towards Bronisław Komorowski, the other candidate in the second round of the election (Olszanecka-Marmola, 2015, pp. 89-90). This dichotomy is evidenced, for instance, in the mentioning of the plane crash of the previous president, a topic of many divisive and emotional debates in the political sphere. However, the polls conducted by the Centre for Public Opinion Research (Polish: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznych) in February 2015 suggested that it was Komorowski who was slightly favoured to win the election (Cybulska, 2015).

(28)

In the Agent layer, the three categories of analysis are Author, Anticipated addressees and Verticality status.

4.3.1 Author and anticipated addressees. As outlined in Section 3.2.2, the categories of Author and Anticipated addressees are addressed simultaneously. In president Bush’s speech, he is the author of the text, the anticipated addressees being primarily the

Congressmen to whom he was speaking, and secondarily to all citizens of America, since the issue addressed in the speech concerns the future of the country. The Polish translation of this speech has been created not by G.W. Bush, nevertheless, he serves as the Author of that text as well, the main reason for that being that the first person personal pronouns clearly refer to him, the President of the United States. The anticipated addressees change between the original text and the translation. As the translation of Bush’s speech is in Polish, it is targeted at a Polish-speaking audience interested in American and global news, an audience which, to a sufficiently large extent, does not overlap with the audience of the source text. Similarly, the source text of Andrzej Duda’s speech is first targeted at Polish Members of Parliament, but also at all Polish citizens. The English translation of that speech is therefore not aimed at the Polish audience, since they would not need the translation, but at any non-Polish speaking person who is affected by or interested in Polish affairs. The speech of Lech Wałesa, however, has the same anticipated addressee as its translation. Even though Wałęsa is speaking in Polish, he is addressing the US Congress, as does the consecutively-delivered English

translation. Wałesa makes this abundantly clear in his opening remarks: “I stand before you as the third foreign non-head-of-state invited to address the joint Houses of Congress of the United States” This means that even though the join Houses of Congress cannot be reasonably assumed to understand the Polish text, they still are the anticipated addressees of said text as well as its English translation.

(29)

4.3.2 Verticality status. Since the authors have been established not to change

between the source text and the target text, the Verticality status of the three speeches can only vary if the category of anticipated addressees changed between the two texts. In the hierarchy of knowledge, president Bush is in the higher position when addressing the Congress, since he is the one who knows what options the American government is going to pursue in the aftermath of the September 11 attack. He informs the Congress, and also the nation and the world at large, how his government has decided to respond, a knowledge which places him above those he is addressing. In the case of Andrzej Duda’s 2015 speech, he is also in a higher position than his addressees. In his speech, Duda outlines his plans and hopes for his

presidency, which is similar to the position of president Bush in his speech, as they both inform their citizens about the future of their country. In Wałęsa’s speech, the status is not so clear. Although Wałęsa is in a position of knowledge, as in outlining the situation in his home country he displays knowledge that his addressees cannot be expected to have, this knowledge does not grant him any particular authority. This is further supported by him asking the Congress to support, financially and otherwise, the rebuilding of Polish economy, a move that exemplifies what he himself called “proposals of cooperation bringing benefits to both sides”. In addition, Wałesa’s remarks about American culture and values are intended to show the similarities between the people of the two nations and the values they share. Through stating that he is also entitled to invoke the phrase “We the people” or that his ideals are closely related to “the wonderful principles of American democracy”, Wałęsa seeks to show close affiliation with what he sees as the core American values, thus orienting himself on a horizontal level with his American audience.

(30)

In this layer, the categories selected for analysis are Syntax, Rhetorical figures, Social, expressive and deontic meaning, Keywords, Stigmatised words, Names and Ad-hoc

formations.

4.4.1 Syntax. The speeches have usually employed a mixture of long and short sentences, though Wałęsa’s speech tends to favour long, often complex sentences, and few short ones. This in some cases results in minor stylistic mistakes or difficulties. Wałęsa’s tendency in this regard is not as visible in the translated text, due to, among others, splitting the sentences into two, often through the use of initial “and”. From this angle, the English version of Wałęsa’s speech is similar to the one of Bush, where “and” is also used in the initial position of a sentence multiple times. In fact, it is one of the only consistently used

conjunctions. The lack of this feature in the Polish version of Bush’s speech is here also consistent with the speeches where the source text was in Polish. In other areas of syntax, the Polish translations mirrors the stylistic choices used in the source text. Bush’s sentences follow, in most cases, the standard subject-verb-object structure; the translation follows the same sentence structure as well. All three speeches and their translations contain multiple instances of repetition, though in the case of the speech by Lech Wałęsa, there are multiple fixed phrases repeated within the same paragraph, e.g. “ruch o nazwie Solidarność” (“the movement called Solidarity”), a feature not typically associated with standard, formal Polish. Another feature particular to Wałęsa’s speech is the tendency to use lengthy noun phrases where a shorter alternative would be considered more standard. Examples of this include the aforementioned “ruch o nazwie Solidarność”, “system gospodarowania” and “istnienie biologiczne”. The respective English equivalents found in the translation are: “the movement called Solidarity”, later simply “the Solidarity movement”, “the economy” and “biological existence”. This is evident of a larger trend visible in the English translation of Wałęsa’s

(31)

speech, which, for instance, simplifies the phraseology or splits the long sentences into two shorter ones.

Similarly, the inaugural speech of Andrzej Duda also contains many sentences of considerable length. As noted in Section 4.1, the English translation of this speech contained only four instances of the use of “and” in the initial position, resulting in the sentences being mostly of the same length in the Polish and the English version. Moreover, this speech contains several instances of anaphora within a single paragraph, such as the phrase “Thank you” used in almost every sentence in the second paragraph of the speech, though not always exactly in the initial position. This feature is found in both the Polish and the English version of the speech. A feature typical of this speech is that many a paragraph begin with a vocative expression. This is especially visible in the Polish text, as these expression are rendered there using the vocative case and are in some cases ended with an exclamation mark. In the English translated text, the vocative expressions are still present, but are always followed by a comma.

4.4.2 Rhetorical figures. Apart from the above-mentioned rhetorical figures such as anaphora, alliteration or vocative expression, the most common rhetorical figures found in the speeches are metaphors, though other are present as well, albeit much less common. The most prevailing metaphor found in president Bush’s speech is the use of “America” to mean the American people as a whole, for instance “All of America was touched”, “America will never forget” or “America grows fearful”. Bush also personifies America by saying he “will not forget the wound to our country”. To make his point about the extent to which America is going to fight terrorism and how he sees the dichotomy of this conflict, Bush used the following juxtaposition: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Similar metaphors can be found in other speeches as well. Wałęsa says in his address that “Poland was sinking into mourning” or that “Poland has already done much to patch up divisions in

(32)

Europe”. Duda, however, prefers to speak of Polish people (in Polish: Polacy), rather than employ the same type of metaphor that is used by both Bush and Wałęsa. Excluding the anaphoric use of “And”, these metaphors are also found in the translated texts. The Polish version of Bush’s speech, for instance, also employs the metaphoric use of “America”, e.g. “Ameryka nie zapomni”, “Cała Ameryka była wzruszona” for “America will never forget” and “All of America was touched” respectively.

As for the omissions, the most explicit one is the opening phrase of Wałęsa’s address, where he explicitly states that he does not need to remind his audience the source of the phrase “We the people”. Wałęsa also mentions the Yalta Conference, and although he does explain what the connotations of that conference for the general Polish public, he omits any specific reference to what had been agreed during the conference with respect to Poland’s future. Bush says that “the civilized world is rallying to America’s side”, though he does not state at any point what he means by the civilized world, nor does he state explicitly if the countries which did not join the American side are to be considered uncivilized.

4.4.3 Social, expressive and deontic meaning. In this category, the only phrase that fulfils the criterion of having proposition-constructed meaning is found in the speech by Lech Wałęsa, where he explicitly defines what the United States mean to him and many people in Poland, saying that it is linked with “freedom and democracy, with generosity and

highmindedness, with human friendship and friendly humanity”, in the Polish text this being “kojarzy się [...] z wolnością i demokracją, ze wspaniałomyślnością i ofiarnością, z ludzką przyjaźnią i przyjaznym człowieczeństwem”. In all other instances, the original texts as well as their translations did not involve any words or phrases with propositionally-constructed meaning. In terms of deontic meaning, the speeches did employ language which influenced the audience by appealing to the necessity and desire to act in a particular way. In Bush’s

(33)

speech, the phrase “We will not forget” is used repeatedly, showing a duty and obligation of America to remember the support coming from other nations. Furthermore, the list of demands president Bush makes on behalf of the United States to “the Taliban regime” is a display of what the addressees of these demands ought to do in order not to become an enemy of America. In Wałęsa’s speech, there is no explicit list of demands, but rather an appeal to the goodwill, cooperative spirit and peace-building intentions of the Congress, seen in multiple phrases throughout the speech such as in the following three examples:

“[…] pragniemy natomiast, aby nasz kraj był traktowany jako partner i przyjaciel” “Chcemy współpracy na dobrych i korzystnych warunkach.”

“Chcemy, aby Amerykanie przyszli do nas z propozycjami współpracy korzystnej dla obu stron”

All three of these sentences have been translated into English using the phrase “we would like”, though the more literal meaning of the Polish verbs “pragniemy” and “chcemy” is “we wish”. The respective English version of the three sentences are as follows:

“But we would like to see our country treated as a partner and a friend.” “We would like cooperation under decent and favorable conditions.”

“We would like Americans to come to us with proposals of cooperation bringing benefits to both sides.”

4.4.4 Word-oriented analysis. Since some of the items in this sub-layer can belong to multiple categories simultaneously, the results of the analysis of the last four categories, Keywords, Stigmatised words, Names and Ad-hoc formations are presented collectively. In the category of Keywords, the speech of president Bush repeatedly mentions terrorism, the key issue of that time period. Terrorism also belongs to the category of Stigmatised words, since it is a negative description. Moreover, Bush refers to “the war

(34)

against Iraq”, which is a clear indication of the time period, as since then there was another military conflict in Iraq in 2003. Both the mentioning of terrorism and the reference to what is now referred to as the Gulf War have symmetrical equivalents in the Polish version. However, there are keywords whose translations vary between the two versions. The first is the way Todd Beamer is introduced. In the original English version, the sentence is “Passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer”. The respective Polish sentence loses the reference to passengers, and instead reads “Postaci wyjątkowych jak Todd Beamer”, with the word “postaci” meaning “characters” or “figures”, which is used in the sentence as a hyperonym. The other phrase is the name of the new office whose creation is announced in the speech, and the name did not have an official Polish translation at the time of its announcing. The English name is Office of Homeland Security, while the Polish version is “Urząd do spraw

bezpieczeństwa wewnętrznego”.

Wałesa introduces a keyword explicitly, stating in his speech that the name of United States is associated in Poland with many positive ideas such as freedom, democracy and generosity. Because this keyword is not a generally-accepted one, it fits the criterion of being an Ad-hoc formation as well. In some cases, Wałęsa also refers to the Solidarity movements simply as “Solidarity”, which in the context of the speech and the situation the speech is about does not qualify it to be an Ad-hoc formation. Nevertheless, the term is explained in both versions of this speech.

Duda mentions in his speech “the Polonia”, a term that is used in Polish to refer to those Poles who live abroad. Though it is not explicitly defined in either version, the

following sentence serves as a sufficient explanation for that term. Duda’s speech, similarly to the one by Bush, contains a mention of a newly-established entity, in this case the “Office for the Polonia and Poles Abroad” (Polish: biuro do spraw Polonii i Polaków za granicą). The

(35)

difference is that the translation of this name comes directly from the entity which established said office, and can therefore serve as the official English version.

In addition to the above-mentioned notion of terrorism, a number of other elements form the speech by Bush fit the category of Stigmatised words. The first is the linking of Al-Qaeda to the Mafia, which further supports the strategy of convincing the American audience of the evil this organisation is committing. This is seen in the later passages through the use of words such as “evil”, “destruction” and “brutalized”, all of which are rendered equally

strongly in the Polish version (Polish: zło, zniszczenie, maltretowana). The phrase “to plot evil and destruction” is given a similar but slightly more poetic rendition in Polish: “spiskują w imię zła i zniszczenia”, whose closest English equivalent is “[they] plot in the name of evil and destruction”. The phrase “War on terror” is a stigmatising phrase in itself, as it suggests the negative connotations one has with the notion of war. This also means that the phrase places the speech within the semantic field of military conflict, thus making it an item in the category of Names. This phrase “War on terror” is translated symmetrically into Polish as “wojna z terroryzmem”, with all its implications and connotations equal in the target

language. In the other speeches, the only stigmatised expression comes form the speech made by Lech Wałęsa. In it, he repeatedly paints the communist system in a negative light by calling it an “alien system of government” and associating it with failed, incompatible economy.

Several of the word and phrases mentioned in connection with the previous two categories also fit the category of Names. Every elements analysed in the Keyword category locates the text in a particular semantic field, hence their inclusion in this category as well. Of the items unique to this category, the first are the proper names used in all three speeches. Names of people, their titles and positions in the government, names of institutions, are all

(36)

items which situate their respective texts within the field of government and public

administration. Save for the names of institutions which are covered in the first paragraph of this Section, every title and position has a respective equivalent in the target language and is translated accordingly. One exception to that is the lower house of the Polish parliament, Sejm, which is treated as a proper name and is rendered in English as “the Sejm”.

Of the items in the category of Ad-hoc formations, the first one is the translation of the Office of Homeland Security. At the time, there was no formally-established Polish

equivalent, therefore the one presented in the speech qualifies as a temporary formation. Similarly, the Office for the Polonia and Poles Abroad is an Ad-hoc Formation, since this is the speech in which the name is announced and introduced to the general public. This name also contains the phrase “the Polonia”, which is a temporary construction in the English version of the speech only, as it is a translation of a term that is well-established in the Polish language. A case where the phrase fits this category in both languages occurs in Wałęsa’s speech. The Polish version is a play on words, as the two notions are built in a complementary fashion, “ludzka przyjaźń i przyjazne człowieczeństwo” and their English equivalent “human friendship and friendly humanity” work together to create a unique notion consisting of two counterparts. Finally, Wałęsa’s “Solidarity” can be seen as an Ad-hoc creation as well, especially when it is used without any modifier. That explains why it is capitalised in the transcripts, and that the word does not appear in any other context in the speech.

5. Discussion

Overall, the results show that written translations of political speeches share many aspects between English and Polish. Similar patters have been noticed across all speeches and in both languages, especially in the Actors layer, where the results were largely similar in both language settings. Many rhetorical devices have either a symmetrical or nearly symmetrical

(37)

equivalents in the target language, and many items relating to cultural symbolism have been given a functional equivalent.

One of the more distinguishable findings in this part was that Wałęsa was targeting his Polish speech at an English-speaking audience. This finding would at first seem counter-intuitive, as one would expect the audience to speak the language in which the speech is delivered, yet this scenario seems to be an example of the quasi-translatory property identified in Grucza (1985). This is further supported by the use of the phrase “We the people”, as identified in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.2, a deliberate nod to the American audience which, upon examining the video recording of the speech, was a successful one, and resulted in a standing ovation. Another element which suggests the Polish version of Wałęsa’s speech in Congress was written with the English translation in mind is the explanation of the associations Polish people have with America, a point which would seem redundant if presented to a Polish audience.

The second finding is the divergence in using “and” at the beginning of a sentence. This move was employed in every English version of the speech, whereas the Polish versions used it very scarcely, opting instead for either a longer sentence or a different conjunction. This indicates that either the use or the avoidance of initial “and” in rhetorical context could be more language-specific than universal, and could necessitate further investigation. On a larger scale, this might suggest a different approach to the use of anaphora and repetitions in general the two languages.

The third noticeable finding is that if a speech of this type introduces a new

administrative or government entity, its translation in the target language might vary in terms of their status. In the speech by Duda, both the Polish and the English text come from the president’s office, and can therefore be assumed to provide the official English equivalents of

(38)

names of Polish institutions. By contrast, the Polish version of the speech by Bush does not come from such a place, and therefore the equivalents presented therein cannot be given the same official status. A related problem is exemplified by the translation of name of the Office of Homeland Security into Polish. The name needed to accommodate for the fact that during the communist period, Poland’s security service was called “Służba Bezpieczeństwa

[Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych]” - Security Service [of the Ministry of Internal Affairs], a name which generally does not have many positive connotations amongst the Poles.

Therefore, institutions of this type often have their Polish translations modified in order to avoid similarities in the name.

Other noteworthy results include the fact that the name of Todd Beamer contains a more general and less detailed description in the Polish version of the speech might be seen as not wholly fortunate, especially given that his story might not be as widely-known in Poland as it was in the United States. This could be seen as a flaw, as the information on who Todd Beamer was could have been relevant to the audience of the translated text in order to better understand the situation.

Conversely, Wałęsa’s detailed description of his jumping over the fence in Gdańsk is an example of expanding the context to inform the audience about what they might not know. This act carries enough symbolism in the Polish socio-political sphere surrounding the times of the Solidarity movement in order for it to be considered socially symbolic for the Polish audience. The American audience, however, could not be expected to be aware of this piece of context, which may be why Wałęsa’s jumping over the fence is given a detailed explanation, including the spacial and temporal contexts, so that the non-Polish audience could realise how pivotal this moment was for the Polish history of the late 20th_century.

(39)

The findings of the first reading (Section 4.1) point to Wałęsa’s syntax in the source text being unorthodox and in some areas unnecessarily complex. A possible reason for this is the influence the Polish state had on the Polish language in the latter half of the 20th_century. This influence promoted overly complex structures as well as the use of many newly-created fixed phrases, and therefore was dubbed as ‘nowomowa’ (newspeak), a direct reference to George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four (see Głowiński, 1990; Szymaniak, 2002 for more on newspeak in the Polish language).

The problems with rendering the Polish word “Rzeczpospolita” into English as either “Republic of Poland” or “Poland” seem to reflect two slightly different contexts in which the word is used in the Polish text. The former English equivalent is used in cases where it relates to the office of the president or the full name of the country, the latter seems to be used

whenever “Rzeczpospolita” is used less officially, such as when it is used as a synonym for the shorter version of the name of the country.

6. Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to investigate how political speeches and their translations into either English or Polish can be analysed from a discourse-linguistic perspective. The methodological framework chosen for this purpose was the Diskurslinguistische Mehr-Ebenen-Analyse (DIMEAN) model. This allowed for multiple characteristics to be selected for analysis. The choice of which categories to include was based primarily on their direct applicability to the data set.

In response to the research question, the findings of this paper show that written-written translations of political speeches are generally translated with a large degree of functional equivalence, most features of the source text have been given an equivalent which conveys the same intended meaning, and this seems to be consistent in both target languages.

Translations of Political Speeches Into English and Polish

Translations of Political Speeches Into

English and Polish

Table of Contents: