Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 6, 2 (2014) 159–180

Problems Related to the Translation of

Political Texts
Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ
Department of Applied Linguistics
Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania (Târgu Mureş, Romania)
salusnostra_2000@yahoo.com

Abstract. This study deals with the problems related to the translation of
political texts in the theoretical framework elaborated by the researchers
working in the field of translation studies and reflects on the terminological
peculiarities of the special language used for this text type. Consideration
of the theoretical framework is followed by the analysis of a specific text
spoken then written in English and translated into Hungarian and Romanian.
The conclusions are intended to highlight the fact that there are no recipes
for translating a political speech, because translation is not only a technical
process that uses translation procedures and applies transfer operations, but
also a matter of understanding cultural, historical and political situations
and their significance.

Keywords: translation strategies, political language, political speech,

adaptation, explicitation

Introduction
This study deals with the problems related to the translation of political speeches.
The first part of the study examines some issues related to the theory of translation
and presents the relationship between the source text and target text, sketching
some ideas regarding equivalence in translation. The first part consists of three
main subchapters: 1. The definition of translation. 2. The relationship between
the source text and the target text. 3. Equivalence in translation.
The second part of the study deals with the characterization of political
language, it presents the relationship between language and politics and it
highlights some of the most relevant problems associated with translating
political texts. This part consists of four subchapters: 1. Language and politics. 2.
Translating political texts. 3. Adapting political texts. 4. The problematic nature
of translating political speeches.
160 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

The third part of the study highlights some practical issues related to the
translation of political speeches such as the exact rendering of the message
without losing the spirit of the speech itself. The chosen method was that of
analyzing a parallel corpus which consists of Sir Winston Churchill’s speech
entitled “The Sinews of Peace” and its Hungarian and Romanian translations;
we analyzed the way equivalence is created in the case of the non-translatable
meanings in the two translations.

1. Theoretical framework
1.1. The definition of translation

During the past quarter-century scholars have devoted a great deal of thinking, if
not research, to the translation process as such. For the most part, these have been
scholars of another ilk, primary linguists, aided now and then by mathematicians
and psychologists. In spite of the fact that the results of their thinking proved
to be simplistic when applied to highly complex entities, we should not forget
the contribution of such scientists as Trubetskoy, Havranek, Mukarovsky, Levý,
Proházka, Sapir, Whorf, Loundsbury, Voegelin, Harry Hoijer, Greenberg and
Weinreich to the development of Translation Studies.
Research in this field with several centuries’ tradition shows that translation is
neither just an act or an instance of translating nor just a product but a complex
activity during which the translator transmits cultural and ideological messages
as well. The enlarged perspectives and the application of the results of other
domains help researchers to prove that translation is not just the expression in
the target language of what has been expressed in the source language (preserving
semantic and stylistic equivalences), but a more creative activity that enriches
the source text with new ideological and cultural features.
To shift from one language to another is, by definition, to alter the forms.
Further, the contrasting forms convey meanings which cannot but fail to coincide
completely; there is no absolute correspondence between the lexicons of two
different languages. Something is always “lost” or – why not – gained in the
process of translation, and still the translator has to reproduce somehow the sense
of the original. That’s why (s)he needs to have a translation strategy built up of
different translation techniques. The application of these translation techniques
is more difficult in the case of the translation of political speeches, as this is often
considered an activity subject to numerous strict norms (some of them having
rhetoric character), or as an extremely complex form of translation (sometimes even
moving towards adaptation). Thus if a researcher wants to analyze these translated
texts, he will have to face many problems: what is the relation between the source
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 161

text and the target text? what are the differences between them? and how these
texts will fulfill their communicative and informative role among the target readers
(i.e. whether they have the same impact without having the same context).
Translation is an incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many
different ways. For example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product,
and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling
and machine translation. According to Lederer, “translation is a process which
attempts to establish equivalence between two texts expressed in two different
languages. These equivalents are, by definition, always dependent on the nature
of the two texts, on their objective, on the relationship between the two cultures
involved [....].” (2003: 3)
Translation can be defined as a process and as a product. Those researchers
who consider that translation is just the result of a process (a text) argue that
translation is nothing more than a product determined by cultural and historical
needs. Product-oriented researchers consider that the area of research should
be the description of individual translations. Process-oriented researchers are
concerned with the process or the act of translation itself. Admittedly, the process
is an unusually complex one, during which the translator creates a new text. In
spite of the fact that process-oriented researchers are interested in the process of
translating, the concept of “text” is an important item of their definition as well.
This is obvious given that the end-product of the analyzed process is the text itself.

1.2. The relationship between the source text and the target text

Dealing with translation as a product or a text makes it necessary to analyze

the relationship between the source text and the target text. All cognitive
experience and its classification are conveyable in any existing language. No
lack of grammatical device in the target language makes impossible a literal
translation of the entire conceptual information contained in the original. If
some grammatical category is absent in a given language, its meaning may be
translated into this language by lexical means. Jakobson goes on to claim that
only poetry, by definition, is untranslatable since in verse the form of words
contributes to the construction of the meaning of the text. Such statements
express a classical dichotomy in translation between sense/content, on the one
hand, and form/style, on the other. The sense may be translated, while the form
often cannot (Jakobson 1966: 238). The split between form and content is linked
in many ways to the major polar split which has marked the history of Western
translation theory for two thousand years, between two ways of translating:
literal and free. The translator is torn between form and content (Nida 1964: 2).
This is defined as the dilemma of word and spirit. Translation is art and craft in
the same time.
162 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

If all languages differ in form (and this is the essence of their being different
languages), then quite naturally the forms must be altered if one wants to
preserve the content. The aim of the translator is to inform the target readers
by means of form. Sometimes the translator wants to influence the readers: he
wants the audience to consider the translated text comprehensible and not just
intelligible. The translator must pay attention to avoid ambiguity. These issues
make necessary the introduction in translation studies of a new concept, that of
equivalence (Nida 1964: 158).

1.3. Equivalence in translation

Equivalence in translation has become one of the main areas of research for scientists.
Almost all researchers deal in one way or another with the nature of equivalence.
According to Kinga Klaudy, researchers can be divided in two groups if we regard
their opinions about equivalence: the first group argues that equivalence is a basic
condition for any translation, while the second group considers that texts in different
languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent),
in respect of different levels of presentation (equivalents in respect of context, of
semantics, of grammar, of lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-
for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence). This latter group can be divided into two further
groups: the first one is called the normative group as it tries to prescribe for the
translator how to reach equivalence, the second is called the descriptive group as it
tries to describe how translators obtain equivalence during translation (2003).
There is another concept, that of Katharina Reiss, who considers that equivalence
depends on the type of text (1995). Nida considers that translating consists of
reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-
language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly, in terms of style. The
closest natural equivalent is created through dynamic equivalence. Through
dynamic equivalence, we can thus cater for a rich variety of contextual values and
effects, which utterances carry within texts and which a literal translation would
simply compromise. The opposite of dynamic equivalence is formal equivalence: a
procedure purposefully selected in order to preserve a certain linguistic/rhetorical
effect. These two opposing forms of equivalence can be found when analyzing
political translations (Nida 1964). Some documents, such as a contract or a land
register, are highly formalized and the translator must transfer all the features of
the original into the translation, thus he tries to achieve both formal and dynamic
equivalence at the same time. In my opinion, communicative equivalence – a term
introduced by Kinga Klaudy – is the best possible form of equivalence that can be
attained by a translator dealing with political texts and political speeches. This
means that the translated text will have the same role amongst the target audience
as the original had amongst the source audience. In the case of documents related
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 163

to political events the equivalence of the translated text to the original depends on
the type of text as these translations meet the requirements to serve as politically
valid instruments in a target country (Klaudy 2003).
Never before in the history of the world have there been so many people engaged
in the translation of both literal and technical materials (Klaudy 2003). Translators
translate almost everything: contracts, ID cards, birth certificates, land registers,
poems and novels, medical texts, technical papers, descriptions, etc. Translators
are not necessarily people with linguistic interests. In some cases the translator
fails to find the perfect term or fails to use the correct translation technique
while rendering the information of the source text. That’s why the specialized
translations fail sometimes in fulfilling their communicative role. Even if they
don’t fail totally, these translations will be different from the rest of the translated
texts. In order to analyze them, the researcher must become acquainted with the
characteristics of the text-type to which the translation belongs.

2. Political language and translation

This part deals with the relationship between language and politics, translation
and adaptation. It will present the difficulties of translating political texts and
finally, it will discuss in detail one segment of this category of translation: the
translation of political speeches. It will mainly underline the practical aspects
of this kind of translation. This part consists of three chapters: 1. The general
characterization of political language 2. Translating and adapting political texts.
3. The problematic nature of translating political speeches.

2.1. The general characterization of political language

Political and diplomatic languages belong to the category of the special languages
used in social sciences, and as such are closely linked to the history of political
thought. Both – as technical languages – are in close contact with rhetoric, since
these special languages can be considered the terminological core of many
spoken genres.
The scope and intent of political language are different from that of diplomatic
language. While the latter is mainly used as the protocol language of official events
and ceremonies, the former is adequate for carrying the utterances of historical
genres as well (depicting historical events, personages and socially significant
phenomena in the history of society, and presenting past representations of recent
events whose social significance is recognized by contemporaries). As such, political
language is suitable for recording data and facts (e.g. highlighting important legal
and territorial changes and political events in the world, wars, treaties, etc.).
164 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

The terminology of political language is related to the special language of

political philosophy, since this terminology aids the formulation of the most
common questions regarding the relationship between the individual and society.
However, it is also related to political theory since political terminology is used
to formulate the descriptive theories of political phenomena, too (such as social
criticism, the principles of justice, law, etc.). It would not have been possible to
elaborate state theories without political language, and concepts such as “good
government” or “right form of government” could not have been created. The
description of political ideas (doctrines, ideologies, and political programs
and policy objectives) is also an important domain for the manifestation of
political language. According to the foregoing ideas, political terminology can be
considered a secondary discourse arising from the primary discourse, that is, a
new discourse in which the primary discourse is alloyed with terminology (Sárosi
2011). Strongly related to the language of politics, the language of diplomacy
is also an interesting segment of communication among different states. This
is actually the language of international relations, and its character is closely
related to the function it performs in the international arena. Thus, diplomatic
language is closely related to the nature of the most important diplomatic tasks.
The political representations of different countries generally require the use of
two or more languages and therefore the languages used on the scene of diplomacy
are in permanent contact thus establishing, out of necessity, a kind of lingua
franca of diplomacy. These scenes of diplomacy are: bilateral relations, relations
with third countries and international organizations, international forums and
non-political events with international impact.
Regarding the political issues there is a continuous relationship between
the diplomatic delegation and the competent authorities of the receiving state.
The language of these relationships may also take specific forms since, in many
cases, the members of the diplomatic delegation do not speak the language of the
host country at an appropriate level. In such cases a third language is involved
in communication, or an interpreter is used, the latter representing a special
form of diplomatic communication. Meetings between the senior leadership or
a political delegation of the visiting country and that of the host country – as
well as international diplomatic conferences and all the other similar events –
require special diplomatic language use, as do the preparation of international
agreements, negotiation and the conclusion of treaties. The specialized language
of politics and thus of diplomacy in many respects depends on the international
actions, habits and the bilaterally agreed solutions.
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 165

2.1.1. The political texts as specific expressions of the political language

If we want to specify the nature of the terminology of political language, it is useful

to examine what constitutes the core of political texts. The scope of a political text
can be: persuasion, reasoning, deceit or even hustling, all of which require a specific
language use. The purpose of a persuasive speech is to convince the audience to agree
with an idea or opinion that the speaker puts forth. One can produce an effective
persuasive speech if he/she structures the arguments as the solution to a problem.
The first job of the speaker or writer is to convince the audience that a particular
problem is important to them, and then they must be convinced by the text that the
speaker or writer has the solution for addressing the problem. Persuasive speeches
can come in many forms, such as sales pitches, debates and political proceedings.
Persuasive speeches may utilize emotional and/or logical appeals. Factors such as
body language, the willingness of the audience, and the environment in which the
speech is given, all affect the success of a persuasive speech.
Persuasive texts, whether written or spoken, can be considered a process aimed
at changing a person’s (or a group’s) attitude or behavior. This is a long process.
After a person is convinced regarding an issue, it is very difficult to change his/
her opinion. This requires a lot of energy. Lacking this energy, persuasion will fail
and instead of persuasion we will only talk about adaptation to the expectations,
or possibly about superficial acceptance of the argument, that can be considered
the initial phase of persuasion (Cialdini 2001).
Successful persuasion requires the art of argumentation. A political argument
is an instance of logical argument applied to politics. Political arguments are
used by academics, media, candidates for political office and government
officials. They may also be used by citizens in everyday interactions to comment
on and understand political events. Political arguments are very often circular,
repeating the same facts as premises under perhaps slightly different guises.
Argumentation should be distinguished from propaganda, in that propaganda has
little or no structure or rationality. A specific type of argument is the argument
based on probability, which relies on an observation, experience or finding that
the majority deems acceptable and true. Probably the most important arguments
are those that rely on evidence: facts, statistical data, research results, summary
reports, or reference to prestige (Zemplén – Kutrovátz 2012).
If persuasion based on argument does not achieve success, then deceit,
misguidance and hustling follow. This means that in order to achieve their
aim, the speakers present false data, show bogus statistics and make promises
that cannot be kept due to objective circumstances. Politics is saturated with
speeches: citizens and politicians speak, journalists and political analysts give
speeches and, last but not least, political scientists speak as well (Cacioppo and
Petty 1986). Regarding political texts it can be stated that subsequent readings
166 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

create new interpretations resulting in the same text gaining new meaning and
significance, yet, the most important question remains: what is the texts’ meaning?
what are they saying to us? To effectively answer this question, one must have a
thorough knowledge of political jargon.
The discourse of the political sciences appears as professional language.
Nevertheless, political speech cannot be considered in isolation from different
yet strongly connected political discourses. The problems related to the linguistic
aspects of politics appear the moment when a preliminary idea is formulated
about the role of language in politics, and when language becomes a relevant
issue from the perspective of political scopes as well.
Political terminology has the following functions:
– expressive function, meaning that it expresses aims that are rooted in the real
sphere of politics;
– objective function, meaning that it has an objective reason to influence
people’s thinking, feelings, and thus their actions;
– symbolic function, meaning that thoughts and feelings are expressed by
political symbols.
According to the symbolic approach, if someone is talking about symbolic
politics, then (s)he refers to an individual area of politics that is genuine and
separate from real and actual political issues. In habitual language use, symbolic
politics means a publicly displayed deception or surrogate action that is used to
detract from actual political reality. In this sense symbolic politics is considered
to be a surrogate for politics. Symbolic politics differs from substantial policy. As
a policy of signs (terms and slogans, badges, banners and pictures, gestures, ritual
acts, and political staging), symbolic politics evolves in a semantic field. Substantial
policy, by contrast, consists of a revisable succession of political decisions (e.g.,
legislation, contracts, taxes, etc.). Symbolic politics and substantial policy can be
related to each other. On the one hand, symbolic politics can have an impact on
substantial policy, while substantial policy can be communicated, implemented,
or averted by symbolic politics (Sarcinelli 1998). If we try to define political jargon
from the perspective of language policy, we notice that this conception of language
directs attention to the concept of fighting (Szabó 2003). Assumptions:
– politics is primarily a linguistic arena, largely because the political struggles
take place in the public space defined by the mass media;
– the benefits that are obtainable in this struggle – for example, linking the
positive concepts with one’s own political group and the negative ones with the
opponents – can be directly converted into political gains;
– the ground for further political battles will be the pre-formed political space
in which the winners of the symbolic political struggle will be favoured.
When approached from the perspective of the rhetoric, the analysis of the
structure, tropes, symbols and metaphors used in the political speeches will
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 167

become essential. This is so because, presumably, in these political speeches

the political objectives and means of the speaker are expressed – mainly for
manipulative intent – and because the ultimate objective of political speech is of
course a rhetorical one, i.e. manipulation.
The analysis of political speeches, from the perspective of communication
theory, comes to a particular prominence parallel to the professionalization of
politics. In political communication, we are broadly interested in the relationship
between politics and citizens, and the communication modes that connect these
groups to each other. This theory describes political language as a category of
human behavior, that is equal with other political actions and that has become –
due to the development of communication technologies and mass media – perhaps
the most important form of political action. The language use has an entirely
instrumental nature, the language itself being both the instrument and object of the
actions. The basic question is how other political actions can be reinforced through
the effectiveness of communication. Later, the idea has become prevalent that all
political actions are interesting as they play a role in communication. As a result, it
is obvious that the analysis of political communication refers not only to linguistic
tools or matters of content but to strategies used to attain a position of power.
Proponents of the discursive approach analyze the political language because
through this they wish to understand how the political actors shape the world
around them. Here, the focus is not on the man acting with the aim of linguistic
tools, but on the linguistically mediated interpretations, reports. Politics is a
discursive process. The process consists of actors in the political system who take
up problems/issues which are dealt with in other subsystems such as economy,
and frame it as a political problem. In doing so, a political debate is launched
in which the political problem, or to be more precise, solutions for the political
problem are discussed. Those who are concerned with politics treat reality in
the same way they treat symbols. People generally treat real things in the same
way as they treat the referring concepts that have already been interpreted or
commented somehow (Szabó 2003).

2.2. Translating and adapting political texts

Scientists have considered that it is only a matter of discipline, attention and

technique that allows one to navigate the labyrinth of words and reach perfect
understanding. This can be true only if we consider political language as a
system open for deductive analysis and concrete definitions and not a simple
manifestation of natural language use (Szabó 2001: 1). The political system, just
like the language, continually undergoes a process of change because it is a living
entity, and that is why the state of both the language and the political system is
instantaneous. This is the reason why none of them are amenable to descriptive
168 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

methods. Political language cannot be regarded as a compact technical language,

though it presents some features of the terminology. Political expressions do not
have an intrinsic value, they can be defined only in relation to the discourse of
which they are the elements. Herbert Lyonel Adolphus Hart in his work entitled
Definition and Theory in Legal Sciences emphasizes the following:

[...] the efforts for the definition of such expressions as state power, electoral
system or the system of checks and balances show us that these words do not have
real bonds to the conceptual world, as common words do... There is nothing out
there in the real world that would conceptually suit these political expressions,
there is no equivalent term or word in the everyday language (2000).

Political words cannot be analyzed in isolation, in their analysis one must take
into consideration the whole sentence and even the entire discourse. If we want
to analyze them, we must do it in their context, we must arrange them in phrases.
The primary function of these words is not to describe something but to set up
a relationship; this fact gives rise to the difference between these words and the
rest of the lexicon (Hart 2000: 104).
From the pragmatic point of view we may state that the politician breaks from
the normal language used by common people and forces them into a specific
language domain. The political relevance of a given term makes itself visible
only in this specific language, which destroys the everyday use of human
language. Political language and common language do not differ in the way
foreign languages do. One may ask why political language differs from common
language. The prime reason for this kind of difference is that the semantic value
of the political words is richer than that of normal words. For instance, men are
sentenced to death in the name of the law, properties change owners based on
the words of a contract (Simpson 2000: 144). In the case of performative political
expressions the most important thing is the effect of the sentences on the people.
These effects arise through the manifestation of language. Political effects are
considered concrete effects (Olivecrona 2000: 174).
Political language forces us to reconstruct, through interpretation, those
thoughts which are settled in the political text. This reconstruction is a mental
process through which we rebuild the text according to our knowledge in order
to gain a better understanding.

2.2.1. Political language and translation

A feature of the political system is that it is composed of strongly related

texts, so while creating a new text (e.g. translations) we must pay attention to
its coherence with the rest of the political texts. This coherence is ensured by
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 169

political terminology (party of a contract, death-penalty, etc.) and by some non-

terminological elements such as: regarding, breaking a contract, furthermore, etc.
The tradition of the political text also contributes to this coherence, for which
reason non-jurists may find political text impossible to understand. This is because
the juridical system is a logical one, the texts of which try to avoid complex and
heavy descriptions beyond the understanding of the common person, and which
would require further study and analysis in order to be understood. The specific
scope of these texts may explain the use of long phrases which present a hard
task for the translator to deal with. To understand and, furthermore, to translate
these texts one must interpret them.
One may face a situation in which the source language text (act or contract,
deed of foundation or statute, etc.) is overcomplicated and unclear. Although
this idea is in contradiction to that referring to the logical character of political
texts, it can be seen that in practice, translators often face such situations as a
result of the incompetence or lack of knowledge of those who have written the
texts. The translator will become an interpreter only when faced with problems
related to the act of translation, not to the content of the paper. The problem is
even more considerable if the lack of clarity is due to the differences between the
two language systems. During the process of translation the translator must reject
creativity and instead accept the traditional specialized language. Specialized
language in this study means: the terminology of a domain which mirrors that
slice of reality which is the research territory of a certain circle of specialists
(Kurtán 2003: 50).
It is not a simple task for the translator to deal with special terminology
because he or she may have other linguistic preferences, or might not accept
the existing calque-forms1 of expression. A further cause of difficulty might be
the fact that documentation sources are not available to them (Várnai 2006: 48).
In the case of political translations it is important that the translator use the
existing source language terminology, because this becomes in fact the code of
political communication and the tool of coherent texts. If the translators face
new concepts during the translation process, they must take into consideration
several political, linguistic and cultural aspects in order to reach the perfect or at
least the most acceptable equivalent.
In the process of political translations one may find comparative study a
useful method. It can be used to make a comparative study of the two language
systems. This is an intellectual process that will enrich the reference system of
the translator through the study of a different reference system. Another purpose

1 A calque or loan translation (itself a calque of German Lehnübersetzung) is a phrase borrowed

from another language and translated literally word-for-word. You often see them in specialized
or internationalized fields such as quality assurance (aseguramiento de calidad, assurance
qualité, asigurarea calităţii taken from English).
170 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

of this kind of study is to make a comparison between the two political systems
and to identify common features as well as different characteristics.
Let us analyze how comparative study can help in the comparison of
linguistic and thematic knowledge, and how this method can build a bridge
between two different cultures and worlds. The interpretation and re-texting of
a discourse in the form of an equivalent discourse written in another language
will be possible only if the translator analyses the linguistic signs according to
the extra-linguistic aspects. To produce a translation the translator will need a
minimal knowledge of both political systems. Using the methods of comparative
political study is important not only to understand how the respective
political systems work, but also to place the text correctly in the receptive
culture. The comparison is a theoretical method which helps to understand
the power and the limits of the political actions in the two different political
systems, and it also points out the convergent and divergent aspects of the two
political systems. During the process of comparative study the translator gains
thematic knowledge that becomes active and useful only in the very moment
of translation. Regarding political translations the most difficult issue is the
translation of political realia.2
As a translation technique, adaptation can be defined as a technical and
objective method. The best-known definition is that of Vinay and Darbelnet, who
list adaptation as a separate translation procedure: “adaptation is a procedure
which can be used whenever the context referred to in the original text does
not exist in the culture of the target text, thereby necessitating some form of
re-creation.” This widely accepted definition views adaptation as a procedure
employed to achieve an equivalence of situations wherever cultural mismatches
are encountered (1958).
Eugene Nida has noted that “language is a part of culture, and in fact, it is
the most complex set of habits that any culture exhibits. Language reflects the
culture, provides access to the culture, and in many respects constitutes a model
of the culture.” (1964) In order to render culture specific elements and to reflect a
certain model of culture, translators may use the following techniques:
– omission: the elimination or reduction of part of the text;
– expansion: making explicit information that is implicit in the original, either
in the main body or in footnotes or a glossary;
– exoticism: the substitution of stretches of slang, dialect, nonsense words,
etc. in the original text by rough equivalents in the target language (sometimes
marked by italics or underlining);
– updating: the replacement of outdated or obscure information by modern
equivalents;

2 Specific material elements that exist only in a certain political system / regime (based on analogy
with the culture-specific items).
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 171

– situational equivalence: the insertion of a more familiar context than the one
used in the original;
– creation: a more global replacement of the original text with a text that
preserves only the essential message/ideas/functions of the original.

3. The problem of translating political speeches

A political speech is a speech which relates to government matters as opposed to
the affairs of an individual or organization. It gives an insight into the political
views of the speaker and may either sway listeners in their favor or not.
This chapter of the paper will present the Hungarian and Romanian translations
of Sir Winston Churchill’s speech entitled “The Sinews of Peace”.3 Churchill
was out of office at the time of his famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, in 1946,
after the Labour Party’s landslide victories in the July 1945 election. He was
invited to give the Green Lecture, named for the John Findley Green, an alumni
of Westminster College and was introduced by President Harry Truman to deliver
this address on 5 March 1946.
According to Robert Rhodes-James:

This speech may be regarded as the most important Churchill delivered as

Leader of the Opposition (1945–1951). It contains certain phrases – “the special
relationship,” “the sinews of peace” – which at once entered into general use,
and which have survived. But it is the passage on “the iron curtain” which
attracted immediate international attention, and had incalculable impact upon
public opinion in the United States and in Western Europe. Russian historians
date the beginning of the Cold War from this speech. In its phraseology, in its
intricate drawing together of several themes to an electrifying climax – this
speech may be regarded as a technical classic. (Rhodes-James et al. 1969)

This speech is known for one of its most famous phrases, “Iron Curtain” but
it’s also known as the “Sinews of Peace” speech. (Churchill never named his own
speeches.) The historical context of the speech is of particular relevance. In 1946,
the year following the end of World War Two, there were major shortages in jobs
and housing for those returning from war in Britain. Conditions were made worse
by nature’s vagaries. In 1946 a world-wide wheat shortage necessitated bread
rationing, and the exceptionally severe winter of 1946–7 meant that even potatoes
were rationed (both these basics had been freely available throughout the war).

3 The address, although known as the “iron curtain speech”, had been given the title “the sinews
of peace” speech by Churchill. It captured the moment between the optimism at the end of the
war and the deepening awareness of the risk of future conflicts.
172 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

The nation’s finances, too, were in severe deficit, until much-needed help from
the USA in the form of Marshall Aid. The international situation made a rapid
return to peacetime conditions equally impossible, yet another war was knocking
on the door of Europe: the Cold War that was to separate the old continent into
capitalist and communist blocks for almost four decades.
The translation of such a text is certainly not an easy task. The translated
versions of the speech are not spoken texts, yet their role is significant as only
through the act of translation can it be understood by people all around the
world. The speech was translated into many languages, among them Hungarian
and Romanian. In the following part of the paper we will analyze some excerpts
from the famous speech and their Hungarian and Romanian translations.
In the corpus, besides the original text, we included the Hungarian version
elaborated by László Horváth and the Romanian version elaborated by Luca
Octavian. The Hungarian translation is included in the book entitled Sohase
engedjetek! : Winston Churchill legjobb beszédei (Never give in!), published in
2006 by Európa Publishing House (Hungary). The translation used in this book
was elaborated in 1950. The Romanian text is in fact a subtitle attached to the
speech accessible on Youtube. Thus the year of its elaboration cannot be stated
precisely.

A shadow has fallen Árnyék borult arra a S-a lăsat o umbră peste
upon the scenes so lately színpadra, amelyet scenele atât de luminate,
lighted by the Allied legutóbb a szövetségesek până nu demult, de
victory. győzelme megvilágított. victoriile Aliaţilor.
(Excerpt 1)

In the excerpt above the most interesting element to translate is the metaphor
shadow, which is meant to express the difficulties of the era following the war.
Both the Hungarian and the Romanian translator succeeded in finding the adequate
equivalent of the noun shadow, yet the feeling of the translated texts is different if
compared to the source text. The original version is short and precise expressing
the shock that the victorious nations had to suffer after the euphoria of the victory
was over. The impact of this short and concise sentence is so strong that the
audience may almost feel the shudder caused by the dark shadow. The Hungarian
and the Romanian translations follow the spirit of the original, although they
seem much more artificial yet they are faithful to the source text. We can say that
something is lost in translation, in spite of the fact that transfer operations were
successfully applied and a quite appropriate translation was elaborated.
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 173

Nobody knows what Senki sem tudja, mit Nimeni nu ştie ce

Soviet Russia and its szándékozik tenni intenţionează să facă,
Communist international Szovjet-Oroszország és în viitorul apropiat,
organisation intends nemzetközi kommunista Rusia sovietică şi
to do in the immediate szervezete a közvetlen organizaţia sa comunistă
future, or what are jövőben, sem azt hol internaţională sau care
the limits, if any, to vannak a korlátai, ha sunt limitele, dacă ele
their expansive and vannak egyáltalán există, ale tendinţelor
proselytising tendencies. korlátai expanziós sale expansioniste şi de
és követőket toborzó prozelitism.
irányzatainak.
(Excerpt 2)

Excerpt 2 is a very interesting one from the point of view of equivalence. The
Hungarian and the Romanian translations are almost perfect imprints of the
original text conserving both the form and the message, the translator performing
only the compulsory transfer operations without using any other kind of
translation strategy or method of compensation. Thus we may characterize these
translations by equivalence as named by Nida formal equivalence.
Nida (1964) argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely
formal equivalence, which in the second edition by Nida is referred to as formal
correspondence, and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence focuses
attention on the message itself, in both form and content, unlike dynamic
equivalence, which is based upon the principle of equivalent effect. Formal
correspondence consists of a target language item which represents the closest
equivalent of a source language word or phrase (communist international
organisation – nemzetközi kommunista szervezete – organizaţia sa comunistă
internaţională, intends to do – mit szándékozik tenni – ce intenţionează să
facă, in the immediate future – a közvetlen jövőben – în viitorul apropiat). Nida
makes it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language
pairs (Nida, 1964), he therefore suggests that these formal equivalents should be
used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than
dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious
implications in the target texts since the translation in some cases might not be
easily understood by the target audience. The opposite of formal equivalence
is called dynamic equivalence, defined as a translation principle according to
which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way
that the target language wording will produce the same impact on the target-text’s
audience as the original wording did upon the source-text’s audience (Nida 1964).
The excerpt above is a good example of how these two types of equivalence can be
perfectly intermingled. The phrases listed above are translated word-for-word, yet
this does not influence the perfect rendering of the meaning and spirit of the text.
174 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

From Stettin in the A Balti-tenger mellett De la Stettin, în Baltica,

Baltic to Trieste in the fekvő Stettintől az la Trieste, în Adriatica,
Adriatic, an iron curtain Adriai-tenger mentén o cortină de fier s-a lăsat
has descended across the fekvő Triesztig peste Continent.
Continent. vasfüggöny ereszkedik le
Európára.

(Excerpt 3)

In Excerpt 3 another very expressive metaphor appears, which is perhaps

the most important one of the speech. The term becomes the metaphor for the
borderline that separates Europe and even the entire world into two totally
different parts: the West with the USA as its protector and the East with the
Soviet Union as its “father” and ruler. Thus the task of the translator is even more
difficult as he/she must find a perfect equivalent, an adequate term which will
enter the history books and even history as well. The equivalence achieved is
textual since the correspondence between the source language text and the target
language texts in terms of information and cohesion is created, the key metaphor
is transferred in and adequate manner.

Whatever conclusions Bármilyen Oricare ar fi concluziile ce

may be drawn from következtetéseket pot fi trase din aceste fapte
these facts – and vonjunk le ezekből a – şi faptele există –, aceasta
facts they are – this tényekből – mert ezek cu siguranţă nu este Euro-
is certainly not the tények –, bizonyára pa Eliberată pe care noi am
Liberated Europe we nem az a felszabadított luptat s-o realizăm şi nici
fought to build up. Európa ez, amelynek a nu este una care să conţină
felépítéséért harcoltunk. elementele esenţiale ale păcii
permanente.
(Excerpt 4)

Excerpt 4 poses a new set of problems that relate to the issue of translatability
vs. untranslatability. In the case of this excerpt sociosemiotic untranslatability,
more precisely, referential untranslatability appears. Referential untranslatability
occurs when a referential element in the source message is not known or readily
comparable to a particular item in the target language. The phrase Liberated Europe
is a new referential element that appears in English language political discourse,
thus, translating it is a very tender ground for any translator. In the Hungarian
translation the attribute felszabadított is not capitalized, while in the Romanian
translation – as in the original – it is. This aspect is important only if the speech
is transposed in writing, since as an oral genre it is not relevant whether a lexeme
is capitalized or not. In oral genres the intonation is more important as it is used
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 175

for indicating the attitudes and emotions of the speaker, focusing attention on
important elements of the spoken message. Yet, the difference shown above is not
negligible as it suggests the importance of the phrase.

The safety of the world A világ biztonsága újfajta Securitatea mondială

requires a new unity egységet igényel Európá- presupune o nouă unitate
in Europe, from which ban, olyat, amelyikből egy în Europa, de la care nici
no nation should be nemzetet sem lehet tartó- o naţiune nu trebuie de-
permanently outcast. It san kirekeszteni: Európa finitiv exclusă. Animozi-
is from the quarrels of nagy alapító nemzeteinek tăţilor dintre puternicile
the strong parent races ellenségeskedései robban- rase originare ale Europei
in Europe that the world tották ki azokat a világhá- li s-a datorat izbucnirea
wars we have witnessed, borúkat, melyeknek tanúi celor două războaie mon-
or which occurred in voltunk, vagy amelyek diale la care am fost mar-
former times, have korábban zajlottak. tori, s-au care s-au desfă-
sprung. şurat în ultima perioadă.

(Excerpt 5)

Excerpt 5 is difficult to translate due to the phrase strong parent races in

Europe. This phrase is translated into Hungarian with the phrase Európa nagy
alapító nemzetei and into Romanian with the phrase puternicile rase originare
ale Europei. The English phrase is more expressive and a lot deeper in feeling,
as it appeals to the patriotism of all European nations. The Hungarian translation
simply refers to the fact that there are more important and less important nations
in Europe that influence the course of history. The Romanian translation is closer
to the Hungarian translation in spirit than to the source language text. This
suggests that both translators – without having anything in common and probably
creating their translations in different milieus and eras – operated by the means
of up–down text construction that made it possible to elaborate a freer and more
original-like text. Regarding the excerpt we can conclude that on the textual level
the translations follow the original and if necessary they explain and interpret.

Surely we should Tudatosan kellene Cu certitudine, noi

work with conscious dolgoznunk azért, hogy trebuie să lucrăm pentru
purpose for a grand az Egyesült Nemzetek a conştientiza necesitatea
pacification of Europe, Szervezetén belül unei mari pacificări
within the structure of annak alapokmányával a Europei, în cadrul
the United Nations and összhangban, egész structurii Naţiunilor
in accordance with its Európára kiterjedően Unite şi în conformitate
Charter. megvalósíthassuk a békét. cu Carta sa.
(Excerpt 6)
176 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

The Romanian translation of Excerpt 6 is almost a word-for-word translation

of the source language text. Thus, regarding equivalence we may speak about
rank bound translation (Catford 1965). This term is introduced by Catford,
who proposed very broad types of equivalence in translation according to three
criteria: (a) The extent of translation (full translation vs. partial translation),
(b) The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established
(rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation), (c) The levels of language
involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation). Rank-bound
translation takes place when equivalence is sought at levels lower than the
sentence but shifts that occur at this level result in bad translations as the target
language text will not be an easy read. This is what happened in the case of the
Romanian translation of the above excerpt.

In front of the iron Az Európát átszelő Alături de Cortina de

curtain which lies across vasfüggönyön kívül Fier care se află peste
Europe are other causes más okunk is van a Europa, există şi alte
for anxiety. nyugtalanságra. cauze de nelinişte.
(Excerpt 7)

In Excerpt 7 the most important translation-related issue is the translation of the

adverbial phrase in front of the, that is translated into Hungarian by a postposition
expressed by a present participle (átszelő), while into Romanian by a prepositional
phrase (alături de). The exact meaning of the Hungarian equivalent used in the
translation is crossing, and the exact meaning of the Romanian term is next to or
near. None of these express exactly the meaning of the English phrase, yet they
can be considered adequate as both of them express the viewpoint and attitude
of their translators towards the concept of the iron curtain that separates Europe.

Nevertheless the future Olaszország jövője Cu toate acestea, viitorul

of Italy hangs in the egyébként sem dőlt még Italiei se află pe muchie
balance. el. de cuţit.
(Excerpt 8)

In Excerpt 8 the most interesting translation-related item is the translation of

the verb hangs that is translated in Hungarian by a negative phrase sem dőlt még
el. This transfer operation is called modulation in literature, defined by Gérard
Hardin and Gynthia Picot (1990) as a change in point of view that allows us
to express the same phenomenon in a different way. The Romanian translation
of the same verb is even more interesting as it uses an idiomatic expression se
află pe muchie de cuţit. This kind of translation has a compensating effect, as a
nonfigurative expression is expressed in the target language with an idiom. Both
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 177

the Hungarian and the Romanian translations become richer in meaning than the
original text. The Hungarian text suggests that a historical problem needs to be
solved in the future and the Romanian text expresses that the situation is very
serious and has a great importance for the future of the entire Europe.

All my public life I have Amióta csak kiléptem Toată viaţa mea publică
worked for a strong a nyilvánosság am acţionat pentru
France and I never lost elé, Franciaország o Franţă puternică şi
faith in her destiny, even megerősödéséért niciodată nu mi-am
in the darkest hours. tevékenykedtem, és pierdut credinţa în
még a legsötétebb destinul ei, chiar şi în
pillanatokban sem cele mai grele momente.
veszítettem el iránta
érzett bizalmamat.
(Excerpt 9)

Reading the Romanian translation of Excerpt 9 we can see that the phrase
viaţa mea publică is a literal and non-adequate translation of the phrase my
public life used by the speaker in the original text. The translator should have
used another translation procedure like explicitation or adaptation, just as the
Hungarian translator did. The phrase kiléptem a nyilvánosság elé is a more
expressive option and it better renders the feelings and the purpose of the
speaker. In the Romanian translation an addition should have been used to make
it explicit that the speaker, as a very important political and historical personality
wants to emphasize his beliefs and his faith in the future. For a more appropriate
correspondence a phrase like toată viaţa mea pe scena politică or toată viaţa mea
ca şi personaj politic should have been used in the Romanian translation, too. In
this case appropriate translation means the adequate transposition of the source
text in the target language respecting the basic rules of target-orientedness.

I will not lose faith now. Most sem fogom Nu îmi voi pierde această
elveszíteni. credinţă acum.
(Excerpt 10)

The translation of the sentence included in Excerpt 10 is once again a literal

translation, yet in the Hungarian text we may observe an omission. The translator
omitted the noun faith, without having any impact on the meaning of the text, as it
is obvious from the context what the speaker refers to. The Romanian translation
is complete, there is no omission and even the word order is preserved. Thus we
may conclude that these two translations mirror the source text both syntactically
and semantically.
178 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

Conclusions
The translation of political speeches can be studied from a linguistic perspective,
but it can also be looked at from a broader perspective, based on the theory of
the political discourse and on research related to the study of special languages.
The prominent feature of the style of political speeches is very long sentences.
This predilection for lengthy sentences is due to the need to place all information
on a particular topic in one complete unit, in order to reduce the ambiguity that
may arise if they are put in different sentences (e.g. There is deep sympathy
and goodwill in Britain – and I doubt not here also – towards the peoples of all
the Russia and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in
establishing lasting friendships.). A political speech is always phrased in a very
personal manner so as to address the chosen target audience (In this country you
are all so well-informed about the Far East, and such devoted friends of China,
that I do not need to expatiate on the situation there. On the other hand I repulse
the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more that it is imminent.)
Another feature is the flexible or vague language. Politicians try to be as
imprecise as possible and use general, vague and hazy language. Metaphoric and
abstract language is typical of political speeches that are ideally written to have
great impact on the actual audience (What they desire is the fruits of war and the
indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.).
Due to these features political speeches are hard to translate and they can
sometimes be included in the category of untranslatable text. Politicians do not
deliver their speeches to be translated for foreign audiences. Thus in some cases
translators cannot produce parallel texts that are identical in meaning, or in their
political and historical effect. Thus the translator’s main task is to create a text
that will transmit the core of the message included in the original text. To do
so, the translator must be able “to understand not only what the words mean
and what a sentence means, but also what political or historical impact could
it have. They also have to know how to achieve that certain effect in the other
language.” (Quentel 2006: 3) Translators must be able to use language effectively
to express the most important political concepts in order to achieve the desired
effect. They must be familiar with the conventional rules and styles of political
speeches (rhetoric, stylistics).
Yet, there are many strategies for translating the untranslatable, like explicitation
or using footnotes, but in all of these cases there is loss of the original meaning,
which can be compensated for in other parts of the text or discourse. According
to Gadamer “no translation can replace the original […] the translator’s task is
never to copy what is said, but to place himself in the direction of what is said
(i.e. in its meaning) in order to carry over what is to be said into the direction of
his own saying” (quoted by Newmark 1988: 79).
 Problems Related to the Translation of Political Texts 179

References
Cacioppo, J. T. and R. E. Petty. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of
Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19 (1): 123–205.
Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay on Applied
Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Cialdini, R. B. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hardin, G. and Picot, C. 1990. Translate: Initiation à la pratique de la traduction
[To translate: An Introduction in the Practice of Translation]. Paris: Aubin
Imprimeur.
Hart, H. L. 2000. Meghatározás és elmélet a jogtudományban. [Definition and
Theory in the Science of Law]. In Szabó M., Varga Cs. (eds.), Jog és nyelv [Law
and Language], 98–132. Budapest: PPKE.
Jakobson, R. 1966. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In R.A. Brower (ed.), On
Translation, 107–239. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klaudy, K. 2003. Languages in Translation: Lectures on the Theory, Teaching and
Practice of Translation. Budapest: Scholastica.
Kurtán Zs. 2003. Szakmai nyelvhasználat [Language for Special Purposes].
Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Lederer, M. 2003. The Interpretive Model. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. 1964. Toward a Science of Translation – with Special Reference to
Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.
Olivecrona, K. 2000. A jogi nyelv és a valóság [Legal Language and Reality]. In
Szabó M. and Varga Cs (eds.), Jog és nyelv [Law and Language], 153–216.
Budapest: PPKE.
Quentel G. 2006. Translating a Crucial Political Speech.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2006/
wp20406.pdf (accessed 14 May, 2014)
Reiss, K. 1995. Text Type Translation and Translation Assessment. In Chesterman,
A. (ed.), Reading in Translation Theory, 58–96. Helsinki: FinnLectura.
Rhodes-James R., Taylor, A. J. P, Plumb, J. H. et al. 1969. Churchill: Four Faces
and the Man. London: The Penguin Press.
Sarcinelli, U. 1998. Politikvermittlung und Demokratie in der Mediengesellschaft
[Politics and Democracy Seen through the Media]. Bonn: BpB.
Sárosi, K. 2011. Limbajul juridic şi traducerea [Legal Language and Translation].
In Butiurcă D., Druţă, I. and Imre, A. (eds.), Terminology and Translation
Studies, 211–227. Cluj Napoca: Scientia Publishing House.
Simpson, A.W.B. 2000. A jogi fogalmak elemzése [Defining Legal Concepts].
In Szabó M. and Varga Cs. (eds.), Jog és nyelv [Law and Language], 133–153.
Budapest: PPKE.
180 Krisztina SÁROSI-MÁRDIROSZ

Szabó, Márton. 2003. A diszkurzív politikatudomány alapjai [The Bases of

Discursive Politics]. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó.
Szabó, Miklós. 2000. Szó szerint: a jog és a nyelv interferenciájáról [Word by
Word: On the Interferences of Language and Law]. In Szabó M. and Varga Cs.
(eds.), Jog és nyelv [Law and Language], 1–98. Budapest: PPKE.
Szabó, Miklós. 2001. Játsszunk! [Let’s play!]. In Szabó, Miklós (ed.), Ius humanum.
Ember alkotta jog. Műhelytanulmányok [Ius Humanum. Law Made by Man.
Studies], 41–73. Miskolc: Bíbor.
Várnai Sz. 2006. Jogi szövegek, szerződések és jogszabályok fordításának
sajátosságai [Peculiarities of Translating Juridical Texts, Contracts and Laws].
In Környei Tibor (ed.), Fordítástechnikai útmutató [A Practical Guide for
Translators], 46–53. Budapest: MFE.
Vinay, J. P., Darbelnet, J. 1958. Stilistique acomparée du français et de l’anglais.
Methode de traduction [Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A
Methodology for Translators]. Paris: Didier.
Zemplén, G. and Kutrovátz, G. 2012. Érvelés-tanulmányok [Essays on
Argumentation]. BME FiTuTö, https://www.filozofia.bme.hu/sites/default/
files/anyagok/1295/rvel%C3%A9selm%C3%A9let-filmeken_02.pdf (accessed
on 14 Feb., 2014)