Дуже часто при перекладі змінюється структура речень тексту оригіналу у тексті перекладу: прості речення об’єднуються у складні і навпаки або частина складного речення у тексті перекладу виражається вставною конструкцією.
Збереження сили емоційних аргументів залежить від знань та умінь перекладача відтворювати значення цих одиниць мови оригіналу у мові перекладу.
Resume
The paper deals with peculiarities|feature| of argumentation in political discourse| as a problem of translation. Political activity always plays an important role life of society. The place|seat| of a country in the world and its relationship with other countries depends on certain|definite| political position or situation inside the country. However the way of country representation by its political leaders is very important for determination|definition| of the country image. Politicians in their speeches can appeal both for|by| the international community and the citizens of the country.
Speech-making process is a very |äóæå| difficult because що| politiciansin his speeches notonlyлише| inform an audience about some aspect of public life, but also obtainthefavour and supportofaudience, convince the audiencetoaccept their position. Politicians prove their opinions by arguments and facts, use different methods of persuasion. Therefore, ability to give reasons for the actions is very important for every politician because it affects his popularity among the audience. With the help of an argumentation politicians influence forming and change of voters opinion. And that’s why the research of argumentation peculiarites in political discourse|can be regarded as urgent problem.
The aim of the paper was to research the argumentation peculiarites in political discourse.|For reaching this aim it was necessary to clear up the following tasks:
- to define the basic|main| features of political discourse|;
- to define the basic|main| features of argumentation;
- to research the|explore| basic|main| tactics of argumentations;
- to research the|explore| expressing of argumentation in pre-election speeches as to gender of politicians ;
- to research|explore| the expressing of argumentation in pre-election speeches, belonging to politicians of|by| different|diverse| parties;
- to point out difficulties with |cause|wit the preserving|safety| of argumentation during the translation|cappice| of political speeches.
The object of the researchis a political discourse, and also means of realization of argumentationin political discourse.
The subject of the researchis a methodology of argumentation maintainance during the translation of political discourse.
The research materialis texts of pre-election speeches of six political figures of the USA: Hillary R. Clinton (DemocraticParty), CynthiaMcKinney (GreenParty), SarahPalin (RepublicanParty), BarackObama (DemocraticParty), JoeBiden (DemocraticParty) and JohnMcCain (RepublicanParty).
Modern linguistics researches|work-up| are aimed|ducted| to study different|diverse| types|typestyle| of discourse from the communicative and pragmatic point of view. Such aim foresees the investigation of language|speech| not only as to the means of communication and conveying of information but also as to the mechanism of influence on the behavior of individuals and community groups. The basic|main| features|vinculum| of political discourse| were defined during the research|work-up||definite|. As to Ukrainian linguist F.S. Bacevich discourse| is a type|typestyle| of communicative activity, interactive phenomenon|phenomen|, vocal stream|throughflow|, which has a different|diverse| form|shape| of existence (verbal|parol|, written) and takes place within concrete channel|lade| of intercourse|commonunication|. It is regulated with the help of strategies and tactics of participants. It is a synthesis of cognitive|, linguistic|vocal| and extralinguistic| (social, psychical, psychological etc.) factors, depending on the subject of intercourse|commonunication|. The concept of political discourse was defined as |b to T.A.Van Dijk: political discourse is a discourse|, limited by social sphere, namely by a politics|politics|: discussions in the government, parliamentary debates|discussion|, party programs, speeches of politicians etc. So, political discourse| is pointed out as discourse| of politicians.
The public mission|purpose| of political discourse| is to inspire|suggest| addressees (citizens) the necessity of politically correct actions|act| or evaluations|estimation|. Otherwise speaking, the purpose of political discourse| is not to describe, but convince, making an addressee to ground|substantiate| the persuasion and begin to act|act|. For this purpose|for this reason| politicians use different means of argumentation (use arguments and facts, use various|diverse| methods of persuasion). The argumentation was defined as the system of carefully thought out stage-by-stage|phase-by-phase| speech actions|act|, with|what| takeing into account a communicative situation and following achievement of communicative goal (to convince an audience|auditory| to accept|take| some idea) in the process of intercourse|commonunication|. The argumentation has some methods to achieve the aim. These methods are called tactics. Each of these tactics foresees the use|utillizing| of certain|definite| forms|form| of argumentation, and also certain|definite| reasonable and motional arguments. A.A. Markovych pointed out such main tactics of argumentation: identification of politician with people|peoples|, emotional pressure, contrasting, “soft|mild| leadingout of opponent from the game”|play|, appeal to|by| authority (statistical|collation| or scientific|science| information, well-known facts), reference to own experience.
Many common and divergent features were found out|work-up| in men|husband| and women’s speeches. The subjects of speeches are very alike. The main theme|object-matter| for all of politicians is|appear| the theme|object-matter| of economic|economical| crisis. However, women pay|wife|paypay more attention|attn.| to the results of this crisis emphasize the issues of worsening of public welfare, decline|lowering| of the |Y-level|health protection level, worsening of children education quality etc.|formation||kid On the other hand |richly||butmen|husband| talk more about the reasons|cause| resulted in worsening of public welfare, decline|lowering| of the |Y-level|health protection level, worsening of children education quality etc.: an increase|rise| of taxes, rising of goods and services prices. Men|husband| also pay more|richly| attention|attn.| to the problem of war actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women|wife| in their speeches raise the problem of equal social rights of men|husband| and women|wife| (especially|in particular case| in C. McKinney’s speech).
Also, it was found out that women’s speeches|wife| are highly emotional. Women use much more expressive lexical means of speech(expressing|signifying| emotions, fillings|feeling| and attitude of people) such as: epithets, intensifiers, adjectives of comparative and superlative degree of comparison, adverbs,metaphors and phraseology units etc. Men|husband| use more words of neutral|midway| vocabulary and more dryly|secco| lay|expound| out arguments in their speeches.
As to the results of the research, the structures|building| of speeches of politicians, belonging to different|diverse| parties (Democratic and RepublicanParty), are different. They also express different arguments. For example, JoeBiden and SarahPalin‘s speeches have many agitation theses in behalf of|in behalf on| their candidates BarackObama and JohnMcCain. As to JohnMcCain and BarackObama’s speeches, they have|about| central|center| concepts|notion| to|what| express|signifying| the purpose of hustings each of candidates. So, concept fight is the centralfor the JohnMcCain’s speech. BarackObama’s speech based on such concept asAmerican promise. These concepts| express|signifying| essence and main|head| tasks of these speeches. Due to such concept JohnMcCain’s speech seems|surrenders| very emotional, purposeful, even aggressive. It|her| makes|produce| the deep|plunge| emotional impression on the audience. But JohnMcCainexpresses not the same ideas|opinion| which|what| would like|wish| to hear Americans. Because the majority of population does not support|underprop| J. Bush policy, which|what| is aimed|ducted| to continue the war with Iraq. Therefore voters|voter| elected the nominee whose campaign was aimed|ducted| at the peaceful settlement of states problems. S|preeminentlySSSSSSSSSuch moods were shown|offers| in Obama’s speech. Democrats use more often|narrow-meshed| tactic of emotional pressure and tactic of appeal to|by| authority (statistical|collation| or scientific|science| information, well-known facts) in their speeches. Very often republicans use tactic of identification with people and tactic of |peoples|andaa contrasting.
As to the results of the research, the main difficulty of political speech translation is rendering emotive lexical units. These units are very important for political speeches. Politicians use them in expressing emotional arguments. Sometimes such arguments are more important for speech than logical one. That’s why attention|attn.| was concentrated on rendering such emotive lexical units of source language|tongue| in the target language as:|speech||pro-image| emotionally painted|paint-coated| words (words,|wd||what| expressing|signifying| emotions, fillings|feeling| and attitude of people to|by| the objects and phenomena|phenomen|), metaphor, epithets, various repetitions, phraseology units and colloquial vocabulary. Emotive lexical units have three main ways of rendering their meaning in target language. All these ways of translation is aimed to preserve stylistic and pragmatic meaning of lexical units in target language:
- rendering by full equivalents in target language;
- rendering by lexical units with similar meaning;
- rendering by a descriptive translation.|cappice|
So, adequacy of translation|cappice| depends on knowledges and experience of translator.
The results of the research help to understand how politician’s speech influence the audience. These results can be used in translator and interpretator’s practice, because they help to solve problems with rendering not onlty the content of political discourse but also its emotive influence.
Список використаних джерел
1. Анисимова Т.В. Типология жанров деловой речи (риторический аспект): автореф. дис. … д-ра филол. наук : 10.02.19 / Т.В. Анисимова; Кубанский гос. ун-т. Краснодар, 2000. – 46с.
2. Арутюнова Н.Д., Падучева Е.В. Истоки, проблемы и категории прагматики / Новое в зарубежной лингвистике – М.: Прогресс, 1995. – Вып. 16: Лингвистическая прагматика. – С. 33-38.
3. Баранов А.Н. Введение в прикладную лингвистику / МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. Филос. фак. – М.: Эдиториал, 2001.– 358с.
4. Баранов А.Н. Лингвистическая теория аргументации (когнитивный подход)
/ МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. Филос. фак. – М.: Эдиториал, 2001.– 346с.
5. Бархударов Л.С. Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и часной теории перевода). – М.: “Международные отношения”, 1985. – 240с.
6. Бацевич Ф.С. Основи комунікативної лінгвістики. – К.: Видавничий центр “Академія”, 2004. – 244с.
7. Берков В.Ф. Аргументация как речь / В.Ф.Берков // Стратегии коммуникативного поведения: материалы докладов Междунар. науч. конф., Минск, 3-4 мая 2001 г.: в 3 ч. / Минский гос. лингвист. ун-т; редкол. – С. 56-62.
8. Бігарі А.А. емотивна аргументація у дискурсі сімейного спілкування // Мовні і концептуальні картини світу: збірник наукових праць Київського національного університету імені Т.Г.Шевченка. – К.: “Логос”, 2000. – С. 112-123.
9. Блакар Р.М. Язык как инструмент социальной власти (теоретико-эмпирическое исследование языка и его использования в социальном контексте // Язык и моделирование социального взаимодействия. – М.: 1987. – С. 98-105.
10. Брутян Г.А. Очерк теории аргументации / А.Г. Брутян. – Ереван : Изд-во АН Армении, 1992. – 299с.
11. Ван Дейк Т.А. Язык. Познание. Коммуникация. – М.: Прогресс, 1999. – 312с.
12. Васильев Л.Г. Прагматика аргумента: коммуникативный подход / Л.Г.Васильев // Тверской лингвистический меридиан ; Твер. гос. ун-т. – Тверь, 1999. – Вып. 3. – С. 214-220.
13. Ващук Т.Н. Политический дискурс как объект лингвистического исследования. Режим доступу: http://eprints.zu.edu.ua/1720/1/43.pdf
14. Воробйова М.В. Алюзивні засоби у текстах полемічного дискурсу як спосіб впливу на читача. Режим доступу:http://visnyk.sumdu.edu.ua/arhiv/2006/11(95)1/1_Vorob'eva.pdf
15. Герасимов В.И., ИльинМ.В. Политический дискурс: История и современные исследования // Политическая наука: Сб. науч. тр. / РАН. ИНИОН, Ин-т сравн. политологии, ос. ассоц. полит.науки. – М.: 2002. – № 3 – С. 73-78.
16. Голикова Ж.А. Перевод с англиского на русский: Учебное пособие. – М.: Новое знание, 2003. – 300с.
17. Григорьева В.С. Дискурс как элемент коммуникативного процесса: прагмалингвистический и когнитивный аспекты : монография В.С. Григорьева. – Тамбов : Изд-во Тамб. гос. техн. ун-та, 2007. – 288с.
18. Даньшина Е.В. Стратегии и тактики американского предвыборного дискурса. Режим доступу: http://visnyk.sumdu.edu.ua/arhiv/2007/1(102_2)/5_Danshina.pdf
19. Емерен Франс Х. ван, Гроотендорст Р. Речевые акты в аргументативных дискуссиях: теоретическая модель анализа дискурса, направленная на разрешение конфликта мнений Франс Х. Ван Ееремен, Р. Гроотендорст. – Санкт-Петербург: «Нотабене», 1992. – 457с.
20. Ивин А.А. Логика. Учебник лдя гуманитарных факультетов – М.: ФАИР-ПРЕСС, 2002 – 457с.
21. Игнатенко Л.Ю. Повтор как одна из стратегий речевого воздействия // Весник Харьковского национального университета ім. В.Н.Каразіна № 649. – Харьков: Константа, 2005 – С. 298-306.
22. Каліщук Д.М. лінгвокультурні особливості перекладу політичного дискурсу. Режим доступу: http://visnyk.sumdu.edu.ua/arhiv/2006/11(95)1/29_Kalishuk.pdf
23. Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. – Москва, ГНОЗИС, 2004. – 390с.
24. Кириллов, В.И. Логика : учебник В.И. Кириллов, А.А. Старченко. – М. : Юристъ. – 1995. – 256с.
25. Комиссаров В.Н., Рецкер Я.И., Тархов В.И. Пособие по переводу с англиского языка на русский. – М.: “Высшая школа”, 1965. – 287с.