CC BY
29
АПФ&ПЛ
Тематический выпуск
ЛИЧНОСТЬ И ОБЩЕСТВО В СОВРЕМЕННОМ ЦИВИЛИЗАЦИОННОМ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ: ЯЗЫК И ПОЛИТИКА
CIP&PL
Original Paper
Thematic issue INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY IN MODERN CIVILIZATION: LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
http://philjournal.ru 2021 No 4 186-196
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2021-4-186-196
Precedence and Intertextuality in Political Discourse.
Political Discourse as an Object of Interpreting. Case Study of Formal Speeches by Russian Politicians
Irina V. Piven (Nikitina)1*, Julia A. Volkova2
1 linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod
31A Minin Str., Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation, 603155, 'ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2916-6659; 2ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9117-4262, *e-mail: irene.nikitina@gmail.com
Abstract: The article explores intertexts and precedent phenomena used in current political discourse as exemplified by the speeches of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov. As globalization marches on, an increasing number of international conferences, summits, forums is held. Political speeches garner attention of both linguists and a wider audience, as it becomes apparent that political communication can affect people and the international political agenda. Particular attention should be paid to interpreting intertexts. A combination of these factors makes this research highly relevant. The paper focuses on intertexts in political discourse, their types, and how they are interpreted simultaneously from Russian into English. The case study includes videos and scripts of public speeches delivered by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov that can be found on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on the official website of the President of Russia, and on a video sharing service YouTube. The case study is underpinned by analytical and comparative methods. Practical implications of the present research include ways of interpreting intertexts in the booth in order to ensure successful communication.
Keywords: intertextuality, precedence, precedent phenomenon, political discourse, political communication, interpretation, intertext.
For citation: Piven (Nikitina) I.V., Volkova Ju.A. Precedence and Intertextuality in Political Discourse. Political Discourse as an Object of Interpreting. Case Study of Formal Speeches by Russian Politicians. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021, no 4, pp. 186-196 (In Russ.).
* © Пивень (Никитина) И.В., Волкова Ю.А., 2021.
[gv ф I This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License K^^KEI^H https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/
Оригинальная статья УДК: 81'253
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2021-4-186-196
Прецедентность и интертекстуальность в политическом дискурсе. Политический дискурс как объект устного перевода (на материале выступлений российских политиков)
И.В. Пивень (Никитина)1*, Ю.А. Волкова2
1 2Нижегородский государственный лингвистический университет им. Н.А. Добролюбова
603155, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация, ул. Минина, 31а, 'ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2916-6659; 2ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9117-4262, *e-mail: irene.nikitina@gmail.com
Резюме: В статье рассматриваются интертекстуальные включения и прецедентные феномены, используемые в современном политическом дискурсе, на примере выступлений президента Российской Федерации В.В. Путина и министра иностранных дел Российской Федерации С.В. Лаврова. Излагаемая проблема является актуальной в связи с тем, что в современном мире проводится все большее количество международных конференций, саммитов, форумов и т.д. из-за распространяющейся глобализации, а речь политиков привлекает к себе все большее внимание как исследователей, так и широких масс населения, поскольку становится очевидно, что политическая коммуникация способна оказывать влияние на общественное сознание, на политическую ситуацию на международной арене, вызывать сильную реакцию. Особого внимания заслуживают способы передачи интертекстуальных включений в условиях устного синхронного перевода. Совокупность этих факторов обуславливает актуальность данной статьи. Объектом исследования являются интертекстуальные включения в политическом дискурсе, их типы и способы функционирования при устном синхронном переводе с русского на английский язык. Материалом исследования служат видео и тексты публичных выступлений Президента Российской Федерации В.В. Путина и министра иностранных дел Российской Федерации С.В. Лаврова, которые можно найти на официальном сайте Министерства иностранных дел РФ, на сайте официального интернет-представительства президента России и видеохостинге YouTube. В лингвистической части работы при изучении фактического материала используются метод анализа и сопоставительный метод. Практическая ценность исследования заключается в изучении способов передачи интертекстуализмов в устном синхронном переводе для осуществления успешной коммуникации и поиск оптимального решения для их перевода в условиях строгого ограничения по времени.
Ключевые слова: интертекстуальность, прецедент, прецедентный феномен, политический дискурс, политическая коммуникация, устный перевод, интертекстуальное включение.
Для цитирования: Пивень (Никитина) И.В., Ю.А. Волкова Ю.А. Прецедентность и интертекстуальность в политическом дискурсе. Политический дискурс как объект устного перевода (на материале выступлений российский политиков). Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2021. №4. С. 186-196.
Introduction
In linguistic research, experts have focused their attention on political communication since the middle of the 20th century. Relevant research first came from foreign scholars, whereas Soviet linguists abstained from this scope of study for ideological reasons. However, in the late 20th century, political communication got into the spotlight due to society democratization.
The study of political discourse is gaining momentum, as it is becoming apparent that political communication can affect public conscience. Political discourse as a term encompasses several components that can impact both the text and its perception. Such components include text content that is taken into account by the author and the recipient of a particular text, overall political environment amid which the text is produced, and the author's attitude towards the recipient.
Linguistics pays more and more attention to intertextuality and precedence in political discourse. Many researchers focus on studying intertextual and precedent phenomena, their role in political discourse, their functions and classifications. Nevertheless, these concepts require deeper investigation, as many of them are still subject to debate. It is worth noting that special attention should be paid to conference interpreting of inter-texts. Therefore, this paper will focus on precedent texts and intertexts in political discourse and on how they are interpreted from Russian into English in formal speeches of Russian politicians.
Research methods
Analytical and comparative methods are used extensively in the case study. Research materials include videos and scripts of public speeches delivered by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov in 2021 that can be found on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on the official website of the President of Russia, and on a video sharing service YouTube.
Results and discussion
The term intertextuality was coined by Julia Kristeva in the late 1960s, but the phenomenon itself had existed long before the theory of intertextuality began to emerge. Intertextuality-related issues date back to antiquity and their origins can be traced back to the works of Aristotle and Plato, particularly their writings on mimesis that generally means imitation.
Furthermore, similar or even identical narratives have long been believed to migrate from culture to culture (e.g., the story of Don Juan). This makes many researchers assume that there are "wandering" plotlines and that well-known narratives can change but retain links to the stories based thereon. This is a clear manifestation of intertextuality.
There have been various theories to explain the above, including the mythological theory (early 19th century), the theory of plot borrowing (second half of the 19th century), and the theory of self-generating plots. All of them tried to explain intertextuality and its cultural underpinnings.
As for the theoretical studies of the 20th century, they are mostly based on Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of dia-logism developed in his monographs Rabelais and His World (in Russia known as Francois Rabelais and the Folk Culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance) and Problems ofDostoevsky's Poetics. Both works examine polyphony, carnival, parody and conclude that the novel is dialogic in nature.
Julia Kristeva, while analyzing Bakhtin's ideas, writes that he was a true pioneer in literature, since he discovered that any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations, it is the absorption and transformation of another text [1: 167]. Otherwise speaking, texts always intersect and overlap with each other, i.e. are characterized by polyphony. Having considered Bakhtin's ideas and analyzed Ferdinand de Saussure's Anagrams, Kristeva draws conclusions about a "linguistic dialogue" [2: 433], double reading of texts, ambivalence (relations between texts and history) and ultimately defines intertextuality as an "intertextual dialogue" [2: 437]. Any text is surrounded by a cultural context, it is not isolated from other linguistic components, but rather coexists alongside a huge number of other texts, which raises its value and adds more possible interpretations. According to Kristeva, intertextuality is a continuous process, hence the dynamics of texts.
The concept of intertextuality can first be found in World, Dialogue and Novel by Kristeva. She believes that intertextuality has come to replace intersubjectivity. Thus, 1967, when the term was first introduced, marked a new era in the study of intertextuality.
Since then many linguists have strived to define intertextuality. French structuralist Michael Riffaterre gets a new angle on intertexts and views them as the result of reading, therefore it is up to the readers to define and recognize intertexts, their memory and awareness being the only criteria to identify such intertexts. According to Riffaterre, intertextuality is the reader's perception of the relationship between the given text and other preceding or succeeding texts [3: 21].
American professor Richard Nordquist believes that intertextuality refers to interdependence of texts in relation to one another (as well as to the culture at large) [4].
Russian linguist Natalya Fateyeva reckons that intertextuality may be viewed from the author's perspective and understood as a way of generating one's own texts and postulating oneself through a complex system of relations of opposition, identification, and masking with the texts of other authors, while readers can improve their understanding by establishing multidimensional links with other texts. Such linguistic structures as "text in text" and "text about text" stem from the author's conscious fixation on dialogics that would not limit the author to their subjective, individual consciousness [5: 183].
Russian scholar Valeria Chernyavskaya defines intertextuality as the ability of the text to fully or partially form its meaning by referring to other texts and tools setting the addressee as a carrier for the memories shared with the writer [6: 108]. Another Russian researcher Elena Bazhenova speaks of intertextuality as a textual category, reflecting the correlation of one text with another, the dialogical interaction of texts in the process of their functioning, providing an increment to the meaning of the work [7: 107].
According to Russian professor Natalya Kuzmina, intertextuality is the roll of texts marked by certain linguistic signals, the depth of the text, which is found in the process of its interaction with the subject [8: 53]. Another Russian linguist Svetlana Linnichenko believes that intertextuality is not only a dialogue of texts, but also the multiplicity of perception, the author's peculiar game with the reader, as well as a special cognitive and linguistic practice [9: 103].
We may notice intertextuality manifestations in many areas of our life: in literature, in publicistic texts, in political discourse, in advertisements, on the Internet, etc. Relations between texts and their interaction have a certain impact on the perception of intertexts by the readers or listeners: to understand a work, you need to go beyond it and see what was there before it [10: 157].
As seen above, many researchers come up with their own definitions of intertextuality, but all of them can be considered within broad or narrow approaches, as these two ways of understanding intertextuality have been developed throughout time and have either narrowed or expanded Bakhtin's ideas. According to the broad concept, intertextuality is an idea of a boundless text that is intertextual in every single fragment, which allows a conclusion about text universality with every text being an intertext. This approach has been criticized for its vague definition and impracticability in terms of linguistic text analysis. The narrow concept implies limiting intertextuality to an intentional and marked form of intertextual interactions between a particular text and preceding texts.
It seems reasonable herein to follow the narrow concept of intertextuality, as it is more productive in practical terms. Further, as the paper goes, intertextuality will be understood as visible presence of one text in another through the marked use of intertextual links.
As for the precedent phenomenon, it includes a precedent name, a situation, a text, a statement and is characterized by awareness among representatives of the linguocultural community, cognitive relevance, and repeated use in discourse.
According to Russian linguist Dmitry Gudkov, a precedent is a set of exemplary facts acting as a model for reproducing similar facts, represented in speech by certain verbal signals that actualize some standard content, which is not created anew but is reproduced [11: 199]. For the purposes hereof, this definition will serve as the basic one, as it appears to be the most informative and practical.
When defining core precedent types, similar approaches can be identified in the works of D. Gudkov, Y. Prokhorov, and V. Krasnykh. However, modern Russian linguistics prefers to stick to Prokhorov's definitions of a precedent text, a statement, a situation, and a name.
A precedent text means a finished and self-sufficient product of verbal and cogitative activity, a (poly) predicative unit; a complex sign [12: 188] that is familiar to any member of a linguocultural community and that is referred to multiple times through statements and symbols associated with this text.
A precedent statement is a reproducible product of verbal and cogitative activity, a complete and self-sufficient unit, which may or may not be predicative [12: 188], to which quotes refer.
A precedent situation is a certain reference, an 'ideal' situation with some connotations [12: 189].
A precedent name is an individual name associated either with a widely known text, which is, as a rule, among the precedent ones, or with a situation widely known to native speakers and acting as a precedent name [12: 189].
Anatoly Chudinov points out that precedent phenomena can also include various types of set phrases, phraseological units, repeated metaphors, etc.
Precedent phenomena make the text seem more intellectual, it becomes surrounded by a cultural and historical context bearing different meanings, while readers pay more attention to the content and notice even subtle shades of meaning introduced into the text. Any precedent phenomenon serves as a sign of a boundless dialogue between generations and cultures.
Speaking about a classification of intertexts, it should be borne in mind that the lack of an established approach to defining intertextuality challenges the systemization of intertextual relations. Since there are no generally accepted criteria, it becomes impossible to identify the most complete and correct classification among the many existing ones. In this paper, intertextual interactions will be viewed as marked inclusions of one text into another (quotations, allusions, allusive names, indirect speech).
Today, precedent phenomena are used in different types of discourse, but they are especially widely used in political discourse, e.g. at international conferences or in formal political speeches. Globalization also contributes to a growing number of summits, conferences, symposia, sessions, etc. where politicians frequently use intertexs for various purposes, mostly as a powerful tool to influence their audience.
Speaking about politics itself, let us consider its definitions, as the term seems essential in the context of issues that will be discussed below. Politics is a very broad concept but generally, two approaches to it can be singled out. One implies that it is an effort to gain power between two groups of people: those who aim to assert and maintain it and those who strive to resist it. Another approach views politics as cooperation [13: 3].
Linguists Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl from the University of Vienna represent the discourse-historical approach (DHA), which means that politics is viewed as segmented into a number of "fields of action" [14: 21]. Thus, there are six dimensions of politics: (1) the staging/performance of politics; (2) the everyday life of politics and politicians; (3) the impact of politicians' personality on performance; (4) the mass-production of politics; (5) the recontextualization of politics in the media; (6) participation in politics [15: 24].
This approach is undoubtedly noteworthy and requires a deeper insight into it, but it seems relevant herein to consider other important concepts. First, we need to clarify what is meant by political communication and political discourse. Chudinov believes that political communication is a speech activity aimed at spreading certain ideas, influencing people emotionally, and trying to engage them in political life [16: 40]. At the same time, its main objective is the race for political power, because power and power sharing depend on political communication and reflect the current political agenda.
Political discourse is rather a broad concept, encompassing many interpretations. So far, discourse has no fixed definition, and in Russian political linguistics can relate to a text, a context, or a speech activity. Discourse denotes both current speech activity in a given sphere and a text created in speech [16: 40]. However, a clear and precise definition of a political discourse is a challenge to provide, so a broader concept is generally considered more productive. One of the principle objectives of political discourse analysis implies finding the ways in which language choice is manipulated for specific political effect. It was found out that almost all levels of linguistics are involved for achieving this purpose [17: 410].
The authors of this paper opt for a narrow concept of intertextuality and consider intertextuality as an explicit presence of one text in another. Therefore, the following types of intertexts can be singled out in political discourse:
1. Quotation
Although there is no common understanding of quotations in modern linguistics due to the breadth of this concept and no defined boundaries of the phenomenon, it still bears a number of universal features:
a) a quotation is marked with punctuation marks (inverted commas, italics)
b) a quotation reproduces the source text in whole or in part, its form and content
c) the name of the author / title of the precedent text is indicated
d) there is a certain intention behind using an intertext in the text
e) the original is known to the recipient or its existence can be proven
Let us consider an example of a quotation. At the Primakov Readings International Forum in June 2021, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov quoted Yevgeny Primakov. The table below shows Lavrov's words and how the intertext was interpreted simultaneously into English.
«Сильная Россия сегодня не должна ассоциироваться с угрозой стабильности в мире. К выводу об опасности, исходящей от России, может привести только инерционность мышления...» [18].
"The strong Russia today should not be associated with the threat to stability of Europe and the rest of the world because its only the inertial status of mind can result from the fact if they try to treat Russia as the source of the threat"
[19]._
In his speech, Lavrov focuses the attention of the audience on the fact that Russia does not seek confrontation with other countries; on the contrary, Russia is strongly interested in fruitful and mutually beneficial relations, it is open to cooperation in the fight against coronavirus and generally aspires to play a stabilizing role internationally. Aiming to sound more convincing, Lavrov quotes a prominent Soviet and Russian politician Yevgeny Primakov, after whom this international forum is named. A conference interpreter offers an almost word-for-word translation, striving to convey the gist of this statement. Given the tight timing constraints in the booth, this is probably the only possible option. By way of comparison, we can also analyze how the same quotation has been rendered in written translation: "A strong Russia should not be seen as a threat to world stability. Only the inertia of thinking may suggest the conclusion about a threat emanating from Russia..." [18].
As we can see, a translator opted for a precise translation as well but managed to find a more accurate and logical wording. This is easily explained by additional thinking time and an opportunity to ponder over the final version. These factors are lacking in conference interpreting.
2. Indirect speech
Indirect speech means retelling someone else's speech, i.e. the content is conveyed, the author's name / title of the precedent text is possibly indicated, the form of the source text may be grammatically changed and graphic markings with inverted commas may lack. The linguistic form of the original text may be modified to some extent with additions from the retelling author.
Let us examine the table below to see how indirect speech was interpreted at the Primakov Readings International Forum.
«Буквально в мае Президент Франции Э. Макрон, продвигая один из главных элементов концепции «миропорядка, основанного на правилах», а именно - эффективный мультилатерализм - прямо заявил, что многосторонность не означает необходимость добиваться единогласия...» [18].
"Just in May President Macron, promoting one of the main elements of the concept of the global order based on the rules, spoke about the efficient multilateralism and he said directly that the multilateralism does not mean the necessity to get agreement of everyone..." [19].
Sergey Lavrov refers to the words of French President Emmanuel Macron commenting on the global affairs and hinting at the reasons for failed attempts to advance multilateralism. The Foreign Minister mentions the author of the precedent, makes some additions about the context of the utterance, and introduces indirect speech with the verb «прямо заявил» (explicitly stated). A conference interpreter keeps the meaning and preserves the overall form of the sentence, but alters the syntax slightly by introducing a homogeneous predicate "spoke about". This alteration may be explained by the lack of time and the need to produce a logical sentence in any case.
3. Allusion
Modern explanatory dictionaries generally define an allusion as a stylistic figure, a hint by means of a similar-sounding word, or a reference to a well-known fact, historical event, literary work. That is an implicit or explicit hint referring the recipient to a real or unreal reality. An allusion can be characterized by the absence of graphic markings - inverted commas - and by some links to a particular type of source (a material object or a non-textual source).
Let us look at an excerpt from the speech delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in October 2021:
«А те, кто после окончания холодной войны, об этом мы тоже много раз говорили, почувствовали себя победителями, скоро ощутили, несмотря на то что им казалось, что они забрались на самый Олимп.» [20].
"And those who felt they were victors after the cold war (and we see it that on many occasions) and they felt after climbing the Olympus." [21].
This sentence clearly refers to Mount Olympus generally regarded as the abode of the gods and the site of the throne of Zeus in ancient Greek mythology. In a figurative sense, Olympus means a special circle of people, the social elite. The above example tells about the people who felt superior to others by climbing Mount Olympus. In conference interpreting, this allusion is conveyed word by word, since Olympus in English just like in Russian symbolizes the adobe of the Greek gods. There is no such idiom in English as "climbing the Olympus" but the allusion seems obvious. For comparison purposes, we may look at the written translation: "...thought they climbed Mount Olympus..." [22]. As we see, a translator added the word "Mount", probably to avoid any ambiguities among English-speaking recipients, but in conference interpreting there was no time for that.
Let us consider another example taken from Vladimir Putin's speech at the plenary session of the Russian Energy Week International Forum in October 2021.
«Это фундаментальная вещь, краеугольный камень международной безопасности» [23].
"It's a fundamental thing; it's a cornerstone of international security" [24].
Vladimir Putin, speaking about the withdrawal of certain countries from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2003, says that this treaty is the bedrock of global security and he uses a Biblical allusion to emphasize his stance. In the Bible, «краеугольный камень» (cornerstone) meant the first stone laid between the two walls during construction. In English, the Biblical allusion is best conveyed with the word "cornerstone", which is why the interpreter uses it.
4. Allusive names and titles
This type of intertexts implies the names of various precedent texts or parts of them: films, books, series, TV shows, laws, etc. In this case, the reference to them includes not only the text itself, but all the relevant associations as well. Let us consider some examples:
«... Это такое «королевство кривых зеркал» [25].
During the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club on the Middle East in March 2021, Sergey Lavrov reflected on the US presence in Syria, suggesting that the US rhetoric failed to meet their deed, especially when it comes to their activities in Syria. Lavrov believes that this is a clear case of mendacity and double standards and makes a reference to a fairy tale by Vitaly Gubarev, which is familiar to many Russians because of the Soviet film of the same name «Королевство кривых зеркал» ("The Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors"). In the tale, there are a lot of crooked mirrors around the city aimed to distort all the good things. With this allusion, Lavrov evokes associations and vivid imagery in the minds of Russian listeners and viewers, which allows him to convey his message in a more explicit and expressive way. Regretfully, conference interpreters omitted this intertext, which can be explained by the speaker's high speech rate. However, we assume that "The Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors", if preserved this way, could help convey the image to a certain extent.
Another example is from Vladimir Putin's speech at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in October 2021:
«...и никто не в силах остановить мгновение, каким бы прекрасным оно ни казалось» [20]
'However beautiful the moment was even if you say 'linger on, thou art so fair" you cannot make it stop and linger" [21].
Vladimir Putin was talking about the people who felt their primacy when the Cold War ended. According to Putin, the then state of the world and their joy over it did not last long. In order to sound more expressive, he uses an allusion to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's "Faust". In the original text in German, the phrase sounds slightly different from the one in Russian: «Остановись, мгновение, ты прекрасно!». In English, one of the translations runs as follows: "Linger on, thou art so fair". This is the exact phrase that was offered by a conference interpreter in the booth. Such a close quote from Goethe is admirable indeed. Besides, an interpreter adds the verb "stop" to echo the verb "linger" in order not to lose connection with the quote.
Thus, we cannot escape a conclusion that allusions could hardly be considered the most frequent type of an intertext in political discourse but for sure one of the most evocative. It is essential that the audience would promptly react to such a stylistic device; that is why politicians generally prefer allusions that are instantly recognizable.
5. Special types of pretext
Intertexts also include proverbs, sayings, idioms, and aphorisms. When used in other texts, they function as intertexts. Let us consider several examples below:
«Как говорят китайцы: «Пусть расцветают сто цветов» [25].
«As the Chinese proverb goes: let there be one hundred different flowers» [26].
In the instance above, Sergey Lavrov refers to a famous Chinese aphorism in order to make an expressive and emotional call for an open dialogue and to urge other countries to step up efforts to promote security in the Persian Gulf. As we see, an interpreter conveys the general meaning, but omits the verb «расцветать» (bloom) and uses a neutral verb "to be" instead. Besides, the idea of different flowers is added although it is missing in the original. A more common version of this aphorism in English runs as follows: "Let a hundred flowers bloom".
Another example below is worth discussing:
«.Одна из них, как известно, - не дай бог жить в эпоху перемен» [20].
«And one of them is God forbid that we should live in the time of change» [21].
Vladimir Putin reminds of a proverb sometimes attributed to the Chinese, specifically to a famous Chinese philosopher Confucius. However, another version says that it came into Russian from English a century ago, while in English it has generally been used with a reference to Chinese and runs as follows: "May you live in interesting times". The phrase sounds more like a wish although there is heavy irony behind it. Thus, there are proverbs in Chinese carrying more or less the same meaning but they are still far from the proverb mentioned above. The exact origin of the proverb appears to be unknown and an established English version differs in meaning from the Russian one. Bearing this reasoning in mind, the word-for-word translation offered by an interpreter who successfully conveyed the gist seems the best way to render this type of an intertext widely used in Russian.
Let us consider another illustrative example:
«.скоро ощутили, что и на этом Олимпе почва из-под ног уходит - теперь уже у них.» [20].
«.and they felt after climbing the Olympus that they were losing the ground under their feet» [21].
There are two similar phraseological units in Russian: «терять почву под ногами» (have the ground slipping away from under one's feet) and «земля уходит из-под ног» (the ground crumbles under one's feet). As we see, Vladimir Putin merges two set expressions that in any case mean some wobbly and unstable position, uncertainty, disorientation. In English, there are two idioms with the same meaning and a similar metaphorical image: "lose ground" and "lose footing". While in the booth, an interpreter used the first phraseological unit but augmented it with the idea of one's feet. Such an image is missing in English idioms, but it neither contradicts the meaning nor changes it.
Let us take another example from the Valdai International Discussion Club.
«Подход в духе «своя рубашка ближе к телу» окончательно стал нормой.» [20].
«Everyone is out for themselves and this is the principle that has become the new normal.» [21].
Vladimir Putin refers to a Russian proverb to emphasize the growing prevalence of selfish interests in society, when personal well-being becomes much more important than problems and preferences of others. When addressing the English-speaking audience, an interpreter uses a saying that lacks the imagery of the Russian proverb but is similar in meaning: "Everyone is out for themselves".
Conclusion
Finding a full equivalent to an intertext is indeed a challenge for an interpreter operating under pressure of time. The above case study suggests that sometimes interpreters offer a word-for-word translation of pretexts aiming to convey the meaning as close to the original as possible; in other cases a proper equivalent is found that might or might not contain the metaphorical image but is common and understandable for the English-speaking audience; at times, however, the best way is simply to explain the meaning, as the context requires.
The above intertexts were sampled from the speeches of such prominent Russian politicians as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. They use quotations and indirect speech quite often, as authoritative opinions of their colleagues inserted as intertexts help the politicians sound more convincing and credible and build trust in the audience. Allusions and allusive names are less common due to their specific use in oral speech and their limited use in political discourse. Specific types of pretext, including proverbs, sayings, idioms, and aphorisms, add some emotional coloring to formal speeches and help politicians trigger stronger reactions among the recipients.
When analyzing possible ways to interpret intertexts, we focused a lot on allusions, including allusive names, and specific types of pretext, as they pose major challenges for conference interpreters working under pressure of stress and time.
References
1. Kristeva Yu. Selected works: Destruction of Poetics. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN); 2004. (In Russ.).
2. Kristeva Yu. Bakhtin, word, dialogue and novel. In: French semiotics: From structuralism to poststruc-turalism. Moscow: Progress; 2000: 427-457. (In Russ.).
3. P'ege-Gro N. Introduction to Theory of Intertextuality. Moscow: LKI; 2008. (In Russ.).
4. Richard Nordquist. Intertextuality. Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms. Available from: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-intertextuality-1691077. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Eng.).
5. Fateeva NA. Intertext in the world of texts. Counterpoint intertextuality. Moscow: KomKniga; 2006. (In Russ.).
6. Chernyavskaya VE. Intertext and interdiscourse as a realization of text openness. Questions of cognitive linguistics. 2004;1 (1): 106-115. (In Russ.).
7. Bazhenova EA. Intertextuality. Moscow: Flinta; 2003. (In Russ.).
8. Kuzmina NA. Intertext and its role in the processes of evolution of the poetic language. Moscow: Editorial URSS; 2004. (In Russ.).
9. Linnichenko S.I. Intertextuality as a modern linguo-cognitive practice: new forms of linguistic expression in the German postmodern literature. Vestnik of Samara University. History, pedagogics, philology. 2021 ;2 (27): 103-111. DOI: 10.18287/2542-0445-2021-27-2-103-111. (In Russ.).
10. Eco U. On the mirrors and other essays. Realistic illusion. Moscow: Slovo; 2020. (In Russ.).
11. Gudkov DB. Theory and practice of intercultural communication. Moscow: Gnosis; 2003. (In Russ.).
12. Prokhorov Yu. Reality. Text. Discourse. Moscow: Flinta; 2004. (In Russ.).
13. Chilton P. Analysing Political Discourse. London and New York: Routledge; 2004. (In Eng.).
14. Fairclough N., Fairclough I. Political discourse analysis. London: Book Now Ltd; 2012. (In Eng.).
15. Wodak R. The Discourse of Politics in Action. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009. (In Eng.).
16. Chudinov AP. Political linguistics. Moscow: Flinta; 2006. (In Russ.).
17. Wilson J. Political Discourse. In: Schiffrin D et al. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. USA: Blackwell Publications; 2001. p. 398-415. (In Eng.).
18. Official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Available from: https:// www.mid.ru/ru/press_service/minister_speeches. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Russ.).
19. The Primakov Readings International Forum. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=L6u9pPy2Y1U&t=4017s. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Eng.).
20. Valdai Discussion Club meeting. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTm-YfBLpr8. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Russ.).
21. Valdai Discussion Club meeting. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctLOtI32cWY. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Eng.).
22. Valdai Discussion Club meeting. Available from: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/66975. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Eng.).
23. The plenary session of the Russian Energy Week International Forum. Available from: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=8YOTK69aR5g. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Russ.).
24. The plenary session of the Russian Energy Week International Forum. Available from: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=uXLnzlI-96I. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Eng.).
25. The Valdai Club Middle East Conference's special session. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=waJCX3VNZgE. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Russ.).
26. The Valdai Club Middle East Conference's special session. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=dhEyWa-venU. [Accessed November 29th 2021]. (In Eng.).
Список литературы
1. Кристева Ю. К82 Избранные труды: Разрушение поэтики / Пер. с франц. - М.: Российская политическая энциклопедия (РОССПЭН); 2004.
2. Кристева Ю. Бахтин, слово, диалог и роман. Французская семиотика: От структурализма к постструктурализму / Пер. с франц. / Сост., вступ. ст. Г.К. Косикова. М.: ИГ Прогресс; 2000. С. 427-457.
3. Пьеге-Гро Н. Введение в теорию интертекстуальности / Пер. с фр. / Общ. ред. и вступ. ст. Г. К. Косикова. М.: Изд-во ЛКИ; 2008.
4. Richard Nordquist. Intertextuality. Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms. Доступно по: https:// www.thoughtco.com/what-is-intertextuality-1691077. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
5. Фатеева Н.А. Интертекст в мире текстов: Контрапункт интертекстуальности. М.: Комкнига; 2006.
6. Чернявская В.Е. Интертекст и интердискурс как реализация текстовой открытости. Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2004;1 (1): 106-115.
7. Баженова Е.А. Интертекстуальность. М.: Флинта; 2003.
8. Кузьмина Н.А. Интертекст и его роль в процессах эволюции поэтического языка. М.: Едиториал УРСС; 2004.
9. Линниченко С.И. Интертекстуальность как современная лингвокогнитивная практика: новые способы языкового выражения в литературе немецкого постмодерна. Вестник Самарского университета. История, педагогика, филология. 2021;2 (27): 103-111. DOI: 10.18287/2542-0445-2021-27-2-103-111.
10. Эко У О зеркалах и другие истории. Реалистическая иллюзия. М.: Слово; 2020.
11. Гудков Д.Б. Теория и практика межкультурной коммуникации. М.: ИТДГК «Гнозис»; 2003.
12. Прохоров Ю. Е. Действительность. Текст. Дискурс. М.: Флинта; Наука; 2004.
13. Chilton P. Analysing Political Discourse. London and New York: Routledge; 2004.
14. Fairclough N., Fairclough I. Political discourse analysis. London: Book Now Ltd; 2012.
15. Wodak R. The Discourse of Politics in Action. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009.
16. Чудинов А.П. Политическая лингвистика. М.: Флинта; 2006.
17. Wilson J. Political Discourse. In: Schiffrin D et al. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. USA: Blackwell Publications; 2001. p. 398-415.
18. Официальный сайт Министерства иностранных дел Российской Федерации. Доступно по: https:// www.mid.ru/ru/press_service/minister_ speeches. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
19. Международный научно-экспертный форум «Примаковские чтения». Доступно по: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=L6u9pPy2Y1U&t=4017s. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
20. Заседание международного дискуссионного клуба «Валдай». Доступно по: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=cTm-YfBLpr8. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
21. Заседание международного дискуссионного клуба «Валдай». Доступно по: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=ctLOtI32cWY. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
22. Заседание международного дискуссионного клуба «Валдай». Доступно по: http://en.kremlin.ru/ events/president/transcripts/66975. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
23. Пленарное заседание международного форума «Российская энергетическая неделя». Доступно по: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=8YOTK69aR5g. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
24. Пленарное заседание международного форума «Российская энергетическая неделя». Доступно по: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=uXLnzlI-96I. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
25. Специальная сессия международного дискуссионного клуба «Валдай» по Ближнему Востоку. Доступно по: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= waJCX3VNZgE. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
26. Специальная сессия международного дискуссионного клуба «Валдай» по Ближнему Востоку. Доступно по: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhEyWa-venU. Ссылка активна на 29.11.21.
История статьи:
Получена: 29.10.2021 Принята: 23.11.2021 Опубликована онлайн: 25.12.2021
Article history:
Received: 29.10.2021 Accepted: 23.11.2021 Published online: 25.12.2021
Bionotes:
Irina V. Piven (Nikitina), PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Higher School of Interpreting and Translation, Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation; e-mail: irene.ni-kitina@gmail.com.
Julia A. Volkova, graduate student, Higher School of Interpreting and Translation, Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation; e-mail: julya.volkova@bk.ru.
Сведения об авторах:
Пивень (Никитина) Ирина Владимировна, кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры теории и практики английского языка и перевода, Высшая школа перевода НГЛУ им. Н.А. Добролюбова, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация; e-mail: irene.nikitina@gmail.com.
Волкова Юлия Александровна, студент пятого курса Высшей школы перевода НГЛУ им. Н.А. Добролюбова, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация; e-mail: julya.volkova@bk.ru.
