6. IN SEARCH OF SI ACCURACY AND FAITHFULNESS
6.1 Debate on a familiar topic: television broadcasting
6.1.4 Rhetorical devices
The new rhetoric of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca is interested in the means of argumentation.
The study of the numerous ways of forming arguments focuses on the interpretation of arguments.
The form of the arguments is important for understanding their function and role in a text. Perelman considers the concept ’rhetorical device’ to be pejorative. The citation in Chapter 3 demonstrates, however, the importance Perelman attaches to the linguistic form of argumentation. The concept
’rhetorical device’ will be used here as a neutral term, referring to the linguistic or textual means used by a speaker to focus attention on his point.
Repetition. One rhetorical device that is used by numerous speakers in the present corpus is repetition. Repetition can be used to create presence for something that the speaker wishes to underline.
Speakers may repeat a phrase in order to alert their audience to an important claim, as in the example below. This can be combined with contrasting propositions to clarify the main point, as in the following speech segment:
(1) It is essential that we understand
that we are strengthening the directive, we are not trying to subvert or weaken it.
(2) It is essential to understand
that we are protecting wide and genuine choice for the consumer of broadcasting and we are not frustrating it.
(3) It is essential to understand
that when we ask for a broad and comprehensive definition of broadcasting rather than the narrow one of which Mr. Hoppenstedt spoke we are doing it because that is in the interest of the consumers of broadcasting and [...] [6. 2]
A comparison of the STs with their TTs suggests that interpreters may not have been sensitized to such rhetorical devices. Yet, if they render the surface structure of the input speech as faithfully as is possible in their target language, the resulting TT version will convey the sense of the original quite successfully, as can be seen in the Swedish and Finnish versions below.
Example 14 (6.2)
Original: (1) It is essential that we understand
that we are strengthening the directive, we are not trying to subvert or weaken it.
(2) It is essential to understand
that we are protecting wide and genuine choice for the consumer of broadcasting and we are not frustrating it.
(3) It is essential to understand
that when we ask for a broad and comprehensive definition of broadcasting rather than the narrow one of which Mr. Hoppenstedt spoke we are doing it because that is in the interest of the consumers of broadcasting and [...]
De: (1) Es ist nämlich sehr sehr wichtig ø ø ø
dass wir die Richtlinie stärken und wir nicht versuchen / sie zu unterlaufen.
(2)Es ist wichtig dass uns klar ist
dass wir eine wirckliche Auswahl für den Kunden bieten wollen wir wollen das nicht einengen.
(3) ø ø ø
Wenn wir eine weite Definition der s.s.Sendetätigkeit <er>verlangen ø ø ø dann deswegen weil das im Interesse der Verbraucher liegt.
Sv: (1) Det är väsentligt att vi inser
[ It is essential that we understand att vi stärker direktivet / vi försöker inte försvaga det /
that we are strengthening the directive we are not trying to weaken it] (2) Det är väsentligt att förstå
[ It is essential to understand
att vi skyddar +att vi stöder att tv-konsumenterna ska få tillgång till fler produkter / that we protect +that we support that TV consumers shall have access to more products]
(3) och det är väsentligt att förstå att [...]
[ It is essential to understand that ]
Su: (1) että on hyvin tärkeää että me *ymmärtämme [ that it is very important that we understand
että me vahvistamme tätä direktiiviä // me emme pyri heikentämään sitä millään tavalla that we are strengthening this directive, we are not trying to weaken it in any way]
(2) On tärkeä ymmärtää [ It is important to understand
että me suojelemme todellista valinnanvaraa joka kuluttajilla on / me emme pyri that we are protecting genuine choice that consumers have we are not trying supistamaan valinnanvaraa
Here the speaker focuses attention on his arguments by repeating the phrase ’it is essential to understand’. Accuracy does not refer to lexical items only, it refers to the argumentative structure as a whole. By omitting the second unit of the first phrase (”It is essential that we understand that we are strengthening the directive [...]” – ’Es ist nämlich sehr, sehr wichtig øøø dass wir die Richtlinie stärken’) the German interpreter alters the logic of the argument (’It is important that we strengthen
the directive’). According to the propositional content of the German TT it is important to strengthen the directive. The illocutionary point and semantic content of the TT argument do not correspond with those of the original. The interpreter produces a request concerning what should be done instead of conveying the speaker’s goal which is to focus the audience’s attention on what his group is aiming at (’we are strengthening the directive’). Similar shifts in the propositional content can be found throughout the material. A suggestion or proposal, or like here, the expressed goal of a political group, is turned into a declarative statement of a general nature.
To analyze the sample segment further, the speaker makes his argumentation effective by presenting incompatibilities as discussed by Perelman. He first presents what he and his political group want to achieve with their proposed amendment, after which he states what they are not proposing.
(1) It is essential that we understand that we are strengthening the directive, we are not trying to subvert or weaken it.
He further enhances his argumentation by appealing to the real, to causality, by stating what will be achieved if their policy is accepted (i.e. the consumer will have wide and genuine choice):
(2) It is essential to understand that we are protecting wide and genuine choice for the consumer of broadcasting and we are not frustrating it.
The qualifying terms ’wide and genuine choice’ combined with the verb ’protect’ are all part of the EP rhetoric, which is based on the shared values of democracy, on an open market economy and the supremacy of the interests of the citizens/consumers.
Interpreters process the text as they receive it aurally, and therefore it is not easy to observe such rhetoric devices as textual symmetry; it can be rendered to the listeners only by imitating closely the structures of the input text. This may not be a conscious method for most interpreters who have been instructed to convey the information, or the propositional content of the message.
The Swedish version of the above segment (2) focuses on the propositional content without rendering the counter argument of the speaker:
(2) Det är väsentligt att förstå att vi skyddar +att vi stöder att tv-konsumenterna [ It is essential to understand that we protect +that we support that TV consumers ska få tillgång till fler produkter.
will have access to more products]
The Swedish interpreter may have missed the extension (’and we are not frustrating it’) in the process of correcting himself by changing the verb; the self-correction may have diverted his
attention from listening to the input text.
Another speaker wishes to clarify for the fellow MEPs what the directive is about. She focuses attention on her main claims with the phrase ’It is about’, repeating the phrase six times:
It is about building a strong and competitive audiovisual industry in Europe which should offer 1 million new jobs before the year 2000 for Europeans.
It is about ensuring Europeans benefit economically and culturally from an expanding industry.
It is about our fifteen countries joining together, combining their strength and excellence to ensure ø our industry is a global player in a multichannel world.
It is about ensuring that more than just a handful of people in the world decide what we shall all watch.
It is about ensuring that one universal message from one place in the world does not dominate.
It is about creating a space for Europe's voices to be heard and Europe's stories to be told, [6. 7]
This symmetrical structure was so obvious that all the three interpreters conveyed an equal structure in their target languages without major alterations.
Rhetorical questions. A popular rhetorical device is the use of question form. According to Perelman, a question is a purely rhetorical one if the speaker knows the answer. Politicians often resort to rhetorical questions in order to focus attention on an issue for which there are no ready-made answers.
MEPs in the present corpus frequently resort to what is generally labeled a ’rhetorical question’, using it for many purposes. Firstly, they use this structure to introduce their topics, as in the following example from the debate on the application of Community law (debate No. 3, February 13, 1996):
Wie können wir Europa in die Köpfe der Menschen bringen wenn es so kompliziert ist ?
Wie können wir Europa in die Herzen der Menschen bringen wenn es unzuver ..unzuverlässig ist?
Frau Präsidentin, das sind zwei Fragen auf die ich gerne eingehen möchte . [3. 2]
Secondly, they conclude their speech with rhetorical questions (speech 6. 3 on cross-border broadcasting):
Vilka etiska regler ska gälla för massmedia?
Vilken roll ska public service företag spela gentemot de privata?
Men först och främst: Vilken plats ska vi ge vår kulturella identitet?
Parlamentet kan idag ge bra svar på dessa frågor.
Tack.
[What ethical rules shall apply to the mass media?
What role shall public service companies be playing against the private ones?
But first and foremost: what status shall we give our cultural identity?
The parliament can give good answers to these questions]
The rhetorical question as a syntactic structure may be such an obvious textual choice that interpreters automatically reproduce it. While it may be used to a different degree in the various European languages and cultures, it is nevertheless a device which is present at least in the four languages of the present study.
Figurative speech. Various forms of figurative speech can be found in the present corpus of short political speeches. However, the seven speeches on cross-border broadcasting contain only a few examples of metaphorical language. The most obvious ones can be found in the introductory presentation by Mr. Hoppensted (see Appendix, Speech 6. 1). He compares the drafting process of the final report to ’labor pains’ (’Geburtswehen’) (6. 1: 2, 3). Later he compares the countries that have decided to allow the new services to develop freely as ”traveling in the fast lane”, while Europe would be ”traveling in the slow lane” if it decided to adopt a wide interpretation of broadcasting (6.
1: 13).
The personification of Europe is a form of figurative language that is typical of the EU genre.
One speaker emphasizes the final point of his speech by using this personification:
Europe can help European culture, Mr. President, but it is by being positive rather than by being negative. [6. 4]
Such a personification may refer to all the Member States or to the European institutions as a whole, or to the individual institutions, particularly the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. Interpreters do not convey this personification of Europe in a systematic way. In this case, the German interpreter rendered the segment in the following words: ”Ich denke Europa hat eine eigene Kultur, aber wir sollten positiv sein und nicht negativ.”’I think Europe has a culture of its own but we should be positive and not negative’). The sense of the TT version is not equivalent with that of the ST message, which was expressed in simple terms. Had the interpreter reproduced the message following the linguistic form of the utterance, he would have conveyed the sense accurately and faithfully.
Political language also uses many words and expressions that can be labeled as ’dormant metaphors’. Speakers ”are strengthening the directive”, they want ”a flexible system”, laws have
”känsliga punkter”’ (’sensitive points’). Revision of the directive ”ställer oss inför ett vägval”
(~’places us at a crossroads’, ~’makes us choose the road’). ”A rigid quota system will stifle new development”.
The following excerpt is an example of the large number of dormant metaphors that a short
text passage can contain (side by side with ’live’ metaphors, marked with an asterisk [*]):
If we do not unite it's simple
the result will be fragmentation, disintegration, which will leave us isolated and *the victims of global interests who are simply driven by profit. *The battle for the small screen is to ensure we are not *swamped by cheap TV imports. [6. 7]
The research material shows that metaphorical language is often the reason for discontinuities in the TTs. This is clearly illustrated in the speech of Mr. Hoppenstedt, who uses a metaphor to enhance his point. After having presented his report at some length, he addresses his audience again (”Meine sehr geehrte Damen und Herren”). Next, he introduces a new theme by specifying the topic, which is the regulation of the new services by quotas:
Meine sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
ein weiteres Thema ist glaube ich wichtig: denn auch die neuen Dienste oder die Spartenkanäle, die sich entwickeln würden unter dem Artikel 1, unterfallen der Quotenregelung. [6. 1: 11]
[another theme is important to my mind: because also the new services, or the<xx>
that would develop under Article 1 come within the scope of the quota regulation]
The speaker emphasizes the importance of this issue, pointing out that the Commission cannot have intended to include the new services in the quotas; this is an issue about which there is disagreement within the EP. In line with the policy of creating new job opportunities both in European TV programming and in the European film industry, the Committee was in favour of tighter quotas than what had been proposed by the Commission. The speaker illustrates his point by using figurative language:
Example 15 (6. 1)
Original: [Das ist die Diskussion in dem Ausschuss, und ich kann mir nur vorstellen, dass die die auch sagen]
die auch im Wirtschaftsausschuss gesagt haben, auch im Kulturausschuss, dass Europa sich möglicherweise bei der Entscheidung für eine weite Auslegung auf die
Kriechspur begibt mit diesen neuen Diensten, mit neuen Medienangeboten, und nicht auf der schnellen Bahn, auf der andere dann fahren, mitfahren kann.
[This is the discussion in the Committee, and I can only imagine that those who also say in<xx> they have also said in the Economic Committee also in the Cultural Committee that with the decision for a broad interpretation Europe will possibly get on the slow lane with these new services, the new media offers, and cannot drive on the fast lane that the others are driving]
En: [This was the debate / the controversy on the Committee / and there were some people who said] as the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee said / as some parts of the Cultural
Committee says that Europe might come out in favour of a broader interpretation of new services ø ø which makes new offers on the media market <..> and which would mean which would mean which would mean that some people would be prevented from taking the fast track as regards the development of these new services.
Sv: [<xx >diskussion som vi har haft i utskottet / jag kan mycket väl tänka mig att de som säger] och de som sade också i ekonomiutskottet och i kulturutskottet att Europa eventuellt måste ha en ny tolkning av de här bestämmelserna och kanske ge sig på krigs<..>stigen och man måste också beakta de nya +de nya anbud som finns och man ska inte bara kasta sig på första bästa tåg.
[discussion that we have had in the Committee I can imagine that those who say and those who also said in the Economic Committee and the Cultural Committee that Europe must have a new
interpretation of these regulations and perhaps get on the war path and the new offering that is available should be taken into account and it is not advisable to just hop on the first and best train]
Su: [tämä on keskustelu jota valiokunnissa on käyty ja minä voin vain kuvitella että ne jotka sanovat]
esimerkiksi talousvaliokunnassa jotkut ovat kulttuurivaliokunnassa sanoneet että Eurooppa
mahdollisesti tulee joutumaan tällaiselle ryömimiskaistalle tulee menemään hitaasti jos se päättää tällä tavalla eikä pysty siis kulkemaan tätä nopeata tietä ø ø jota muut tulevat kulkemaan.
[(this debate that has been conducted in the Committees and I can only imagine that those who say) for example in the Economic Committee some have said in the Cultural Committee that Europe possibly will end up on such a slow lane will go slow if it decides like this and will not be able to go the fast way that others will be going]
The English interpreter clearly aims at conveying the propositional content in plain language. The quickly repeated phrase ’which would mean’ may be an indication of the difficulty of comprehending and processing this unit. The key argument is not conveyed (i.e. Europe not being able to keep up with the development if a decision is taken for a broad definition of broadcasting).
Instead, the TT refers to a small group of actors (”some people would be prevented from taking the fast track as regards development of these new services” ).
The Swedish interpreter does not convey the sense of the ST here (”--att Europa eventuellt måste ha en ny tolkning av de här bestämmelserna och kanske ge sig på krigsstigen och man måste också beakta de nya +de nya anbud som finns och man ska inte bara kasta sig på första bästa tåg.”
’[...] Europe must have a new interpretation of these regulations and perhaps get on the war path //
and the new offering that is available should be taken into account / and it is not advisable to just hop on the first and best train’). Nor does the interpreter convey the connection between
’Anlegung’ (’interpretation’) and what has been said previously. Furthermore, instead of referring to
’the slow lane’ she refers to ’the war path’. Either she does not know the word ’Kriechspur’, or she assumes that the speaker has said ’Kriegspur’ (the equivalent of the Swedish ’krigstig’, ’war path’).
The SI’s hesitant delivery indicates that she is uncertain about the propositional content of the ST segment.
The Finnish interpreter conveys the main argument (’that Europe possibly will end up on such a slow lane will go slow if it decides like this and will not be able to go the fast way that others will be going’), complete with the metaphor. However, the modifying phrases specifying the main argument are omitted. Instead of using the specifying utterance, ’[the decision] for a broad interpretation’,the interpreter uses deixis (’if it decides this way’). Thus, whereas the speaker gives all the necessary information in saying ”the decision for a broad interpretation”, those listening to the Finnish SI are expected to remember what is being referred to with the deixis ’if it decides this way’ .