Translation and Diplomacy
Translation and Diplomacy
Translation and Diplomacy
Tamas Baranyai
Abstract: Present short study is dealing with the languages used for diplomatic
purposes throughout the history and at present, and concentrates on the different ways
for solving the question of language-related understanding between the actors of
diplomacy. Since one of the most commonly used methods is the employment of
translators and interpreters, this writing is mainly dedicated to the issues concerning
translation and interpretation in diplomatic context.
Keywords: diplomatic language, translation, interpretation, heteronymous translator,
autonomous translator, linguistic and cultural awareness
Introduction
Diplomacy whose presence in the history of mankind from the very beginning of
civilization has been proved by the archeologists is a formal way of communication between
the states. Since in most of the cases the various states use different language or even
languages in their internal exchanges, the interstate communication usually meets the
challenge of having a common language in order to avoid misunderstandings. This common
language used for diplomatic purposes is sometimes called diplomatic language. Although
most of the diplomatic lexicons and dictionaries mention and explain the notion of diplomatic
language, legally, there has never existed such a language. We should accept the explanation
of Pitti-Ferrand according to which a diplomatic language is practically the language used by
the parties concerned during the actual international negotiations and during the wording of
the actual international legal acts (treaties, conventions, agreements etc.). The parties
involved have to come to an agreement concerning this language on the basis of their equality.
(Pitti-Ferrand 2003: 3)
The conquests of Alexander, the Great, however, increased the importance of the
Greek language during the interactions of different empires, and gradually, Greek had been
used along with Aramean for diplomatic communication, too. Nevertheless, the descendants
of Alexander started to force other peoples to use Greek for official purposes and forbade
them the use of any other language. Also the Roman emperors knew, and used the Greek
language; however, the spread of Latin was obviously unavoidable. Soon, all the provinces of
the huge Empire used Latin for communicating both with each other and with the peoples
beyond the borders. This wide-spread use of the language made it possible that it could play a
significant role in the diplomatic culture even centuries after the fall of the Empire.
Some other factors that helped to maintain Latins importance in diplomacy are as
follows: In the Middle Age, the diplomatic envoys usually come from the educated layer of
the clergy, and also the language of the Church was Latin. Also, being a dead language, the
official use of this language in diplomatic interaction didnt hurt the pride of any nation, as
it didnt indicate a difference in rank. Since Latin had been used for diplomatic purposes for
centuries, it used to have its proper linguistic register for nearly all situations that could occur
in diplomacy of those times, and in case any of the decision makers couldnt speak Latin, the
exact interpretation of the diplomatic texts was rather easy.
Nevertheless, Latin gradually lost its significance in Western Europe following the
age of Renaissance and Humanism. The multitude of modern terms, coming from the fields
of jurisdiction, administration, politics, economy etc., which appear in these decades, had no
equivalents in Latin. Due to the invention of the printing press, the members of the clergy
couldnt maintain their monopoly of reading and writing; whats more, many of the new
books had been published not in Latin anymore, but in the vernacular languages which was
understood by the simple people, too. More and more diplomats had no ties with the Church,
and these people couldnt speak Latin well, or even couldnt speak Latin at all.
In the 1670s, France was at the height of its power, the Sun King was victorious on
the battlefields, as well. Yet, the diplomatic negotiations following his wars had been still
mostly concluded in Latin, although there was one treaty between Holland and France which
was written in French and there was another bilingual, Spanish-French treaty, as well.
However, the reign of the descendants of Louis XIV brought along a political decline for
France as a European power. As Charles Cogan explains,
under Louis XIVs successor, Louis XV, French diplomacy became less
effective, as in the unnecessary renunciation of French gains in the northeast and in
Savoy in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle at the end of the War of the Austrian Succession
(1740-48). In this and the next conflict, the Seven Years War (1756-63), the principal
beneficiaries were England, supreme on the seas, and Prussia, now emerging as a
powerful land-army state under Frederick II. In the Seven Years War, France lost two
hundred thousand men fighting in a change of alliances with Austria against
Prussia while losing its colonies in America and India to England for want of men to
defend them. From that point until the French Revolution in 1789, France did not play a
very active role in European power politics. (Cogan, 2004: 64)
Despite its political and military decline, France seems to exercise an intellectual
hegemony in Europe, and this also contributed to the fact that French soon became the main
means of diplomatic communication.
Although the French lost a war against the Holy Roman Empire, the treaty concluded
in Rastadt in the year 1714, similarly to the afore-mentioned cases, was formulated in the
language of the losing country but this time, this language was French. The reason why
Latin has been completely neglected this time was a rational one. The French general, Villars
couldnt speak Latin, while the commander of the Habsburg Empires army, Prince Eugene
of Savoy who was born in Paris could speak French very well. Thus, the treaty had been
concluded in French, but they added a mention spciale to the treaty to indicate that the use
of French in this treaty is just an exception and this shouldnt be a precedent for later treaties.
However, from this time on, the accidental use of French during the conclusion of treaties
occurred more and more frequently, even though for the next half century the special close
had always been added to them emphasizing the fact that French is not an officially adopted
language for the negotiations.
Yet, the language used for both the diplomatic negotiations and for the diplomatic
documents of this time became exclusively the French. It was only the Treaty of Paris
concluded in 1763 where the special close about the language use had not been added for the
first time. This was a clear sign of the fact that the language that is used in this case and also
in later cases is (and remains) French. From this time on, the dominance of French in the
international negotiations was not a question anymore.
Although France lost its strong political position with the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte,
but its language still could preserve its special place in the diplomatic communication.
Nevertheless, beside Prussia, there was another young country emerging, which challenged
France in different fields as soon as it appeared in the scene of European politics, the United
States. One of these fields was the language use in diplomacy.
Due to the traditional isolation of the Brits from mainland Europe, English was not a
language widely-known during the golden age of the British Empire. Despite the vast
expansion and the political dominance of the Empire, English hadnt become a prevailing
language in diplomatic interactions for long. Since the British had concentrated their attention
to the world outside of Europe and had rather been concerned to build up their Empire that
contained territories on all continents, the main means of communication in European
diplomacy remained French even at the height of Britains power.
Thus, the language started its diplomatic career only at the end of the 19th century,
when not only England was willing to intervene in the matters of mainland Europe, but also
the United States appeared as a young political power. Already the Treaty of Paris concluded
in 1783 which acknowledged the independence of the USA was formulated in English for
the special request of the Americans. In 1895, a tribunal was set up in Paris in order to
address the difficulties which emerged between England and the United States related to
some legal questions concerning the Behring Sea and the protection of sea lions. It was
agreed that the problems will be discussed in English. Also the peace of Portsmouth, which
was concluded between Japan and Russia with American diplomatic mediation was
formulated both English and French, although the French version was considered to be the
original.
Finally, just like the linguistic competence of the negotiating parties influenced the
language use of the diplomatic communication back in 1714, the history repeated itself two
centuries later. However, French was the victim this time. In 1919, the peace treaties which
put an end to WWI have been prepared by a Peace Conference, and especially by a kind of
committee of four statesmen, representing the victorious countries. George Clmenceau and
Vittorio Emanuele Orlando had a good command of English; however, the representatives of
the Anglo-Saxon countries were not as talented regarding the languages. The British David
Lloyd George could speak some French, but not really well, while the American Woodrow
Wilson couldnt speak French at all. Thus, the conditions of the peace have been formulated
both in English and in French, both versions being considered as of equal authority.
Since the peace treaty of Rastadt in 1714, this was the first occasion when not only
French had been used in a Western European diplomatic interaction. Of course, the decision
was severely criticized by the protectors of the French language. The President of the
Republic, the Academy, the public opinion, they all opposed the diversion from the
traditional use of French, but the grave consequences were not to be avoided. In Versailles,
the hegemony of French as the single language of diplomacy was put to an end. From this
time on, there came a period of bilingualism: English and French had been used parallel
during the diplomatic communication. This era of bilingualism lasted until the end of WWII,
then English has assumed the role that French had played in the previous two centuries.
people of these countries. E.g. French is spoken not only in France, but also in Belgium, in
Canada, in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, and in numerous African countries. The
same way, English is shared by a huge number of states beside the United Kingdom and the
United States. Also Spanish (Spain and Latin-America) and Arabic (e.g. Maghreb and
Mashraq countries) can be listed as examples. Thus, even though these countries share the
same language, sometimes the same words and expressions of these languages have different
connotations in their language use. (Mathieu 1951: 29)
the possible success of such a language as early as back in the middle of the 20th century.
(Mathieu 1951: 33)
A special way of solving the issue of different languages is the employment of
translators, people mediating between the communicators. This might happen in two cases:
either theres no common language shared by the participants of the communicative situation,
or they intentionally dont wish to directly communicate by using a common language. This
latter has got nothing to do with the lack of politeness, of course. According to the diplomatic
protocol, high ranking statesmen, heads of state should use their mother tongue in certain
official occasions, and the use of interpreters is a widely used method in diplomatic
negotiations for tactical purposes, as well.
Of course, the employment of translators and interpreters also might have their
disadvantages, such as their time consuming character, their cost, and the eventual inadequate
or even incorrect way of translation or interpretation. The danger of this latter cannot be
avoided even in that case when the translator has a high linguistic competence of both the
main language and of the target language, because at the same time he might not be an expert
of the specific linguistic register of the issue in question, as we shouldnt forget that the
themes of the negotiations can cover the most various fields of issues. A mistakenly or
intentionally incorrect translation or interpretation can cause serious harms in diplomatic
relations, no wonder that as early as in the medieval Italy a slogan spread to draw a parallel
between the translators and the traitors (traduttore traditore). (Nick 2001: 40)
Also the memoir of the former Hungarian minister of foreign affairs, Miklos Banffy
includes a similar idea about the role of interpreters. The politician mentions concerning the
grey eminent of Italian diplomacy of his times, Contarini, that he was only willing to use
Italian language in his communications, so that he can blame his interpreter in any case of
misunderstanding. (Banffy 2000: 270)
international politics, geopolitical competences, the awareness of the systems of alliances and
that of the possible conflicts, the knowledge concerning internal political issues of other
states, and the topics of the actual meeting (e.g. questions of disarmament, economic issues),
completed by diplomatic protocol issues. It seems that it is also essential for the negotiating
parties to know their homologues background, life and works. Apart from these, the
Kissinger records mention conversations regarding historical, philosophical and even
linguistic themes.
We have to admit that not all of the participants of the conversations had an equally
wide knowledge concerning the above-mentioned topics. However, it was essential that the
interpreters could convey the meaning of the speaker in each case. Thus for the sake of
success, interpreters need to possess both a wide knowledge of the world in general, and the
linguistic register expressing the details of the most various fields. Sometimes it is the
interpreter who needs to help out the speaker (even a head of state) in expressing his thoughts
in a more exact way.
Mathieu summarizes the qualifications and qualities of a good interpreter as follows:
Hes required to have a knowledge [sic] of languages and of as many technical subjects as
possible. (Mathieu 1951: 31) As Mathieu underlines, interpreters can requested to
participate in a succession of meetings related to a very wide variety of subjects, such as
atomic energy, technical or legal issues, statistics, demographic issues, the regulation of
whale hunting, human rights issues etc. For all such issues, it is not even enough the detailed
knowledge of the terminology, but the interpreter is also required to be mentally fit to deal
with the individual questions, since during the talks he has to face the real experts of these
fields. (ibid)
Of course, the interpreter has to be able to speak in public without the trace of fright
or shyness. How large ever the audience is or what important and well-known personality
ever his employer is, he has to disregard all these and concentrate on his task without any
stage fright. Another required quality towards interpreters is discretion. The people they are
working for need to feel safe even at (and after) the most confidential meetings. Its important
that they can immediately grasp the meaning of the spoken words. A great presence of mind,
a good measure of psychological understanding, a long-lasting ability of concentration etc.,
these are all essential qualities for a good interpreter. And we already have mentioned the
cultural awareness of the counterpart, which is also a basic prerequisite. As Hortobagyi
explains it: La conscience langagire et la conscience culturelle constituent galement deux
facteurs trs importants dun discours diplomatique., i.e. the linguistic conscience and the
cultural conscience are two equally important factors of a diplomatic discourse. (Hortobgyi
2009)
Sometimes the obscure way of expressing the thoughts gives hard times to the
diplomatic interpreters, as in this case they need to decide within a moment, whether it was
the speakers intention to formulate his thoughts in such an obscure way, in which case the
translation should reflect the same obscure character, or whether it was accidental, when the
interpreter shall make a clear expression of what the speaker wished to share with his
audience.
Some of the speakers might have a heavy accent, especially if they deliver their
speeches in a second language. But even if we consider the various accents of English spoken
in India, Pakistan, in the Arabic countries or by French speakers, we can realize that
interpreters can have a lot of hardships when they are not used to these language variations.
Its another difficult moment when the interpreter finds a mistake in the content of the
speech, as he has to decide immediately, whether it is to be corrected which might mean
losing face of the speaker or not. When Hungarian political leader, Pal Losonczi was
ceremonially welcomed in Sierra Leone as the president of Bulgaria, the interpreter corrected
the mistake without hesitation in his interpretation. (Erdos 2004: 39-40)
In the history of diplomacy, many intentional mistranslations are also well-known.
The reason behind these had varied from provocation to the correction of the text in order to
avoid diplomatic conflicts. An instance where the effect of the original text has been
modified in order to moderate and to make it acceptable for the receiver was the diplomatic
correspondence between the Sultan of the Turkish Empire and Queen Elizabeth I of England
which gives account of the fact that the Turkish emperor didnt consider the queen as equal in
rank; however, the Italian translation of the sultans letters reflects the required relationship
of a vassal as a true friendship. (Lewis 2001: 22)
When speakers use quotations and references during their speech especially in
simultaneous interpretation , it is always a source of difficulty for interpreters, all the more
so if they havent been provided with the required reference material in advance, so that they
can find the documents from which the orators draw their quotations. (Mathieu 1951: 32)
The translation of culturally unique phenomena is also something which might be a
source of difficulty when they turn up during a speech. This was a case some years ago when
Hungarian head of government Ferenc Gyurcsany mentioned a Hungarian invention in his
speech in Beijing. The name of the invention just as creative as the invention itself comes
from an old Hungarian word which is mostly known from a fairy tale. However, the word
gmbc has no equivalent probably in any language. Also the interpreter had a hard time
when he had to translate it. The politician getting a little upset by his interpreters lack of
linguistic competence repeated the word in Hungarian. The interpreter, however, awkward as
it was, replied that he also knows the Hungarian name of the invention.
Although according to Mathieu it is a general rule that the higher the delegate in rank
and reputation, the kinder and more understandable he is in his dealings with interpreters
(Mathieu 1951: 31), this seems to be a reference to the past times. E.g. due to the widespread
use of the English language in diplomatic context, George Bush, then President of the United
States, even questioned the necessity of his speechs interpretation into German, and
interrupted the interpreter saying Everyone speaks English, right? It was Chancellor
Merkel who asked his patience so that his speech can also be heard in German translation.
It can also be a nightmare for interpreters, when speakers read out their speeches, as in
this case they dont need to think what they say, thus they speak faster, time their pauses in a
different way, and usually use a more formal, more bureaucratic way of expression.
10
Summary
The various languages spoken in the different countries necessitate solutions to bridge
the linguistic gap during the interstate exchanges, which challenge had been addressed by the
actual political elites in numerous ways throughout the history. Although the requirements of
the multilateral communicative situations cannot be compared to those of the bilateral
meetings; however, as a rule, the most commonly used method in both cases is the
employment of interpreters and translators.
This paper hasnt dealt with certain questions related to translation and interpretation
in diplomatic context, such as the difference between consecutive and simultaneous
interpretation, the role and necessity of taking notes during interpretation, from which
language to which language to translate etc.; however, we have covered the most important
qualities and qualifications of a good interpreter, as well as the difficulties that an interpreter
might have to face during his work.
We havent mentioned the main differences between the job of the interpreters, who
work closely together with the speaker, and the translators, who work alone by recreating a
text as its second authors. Also havent dealt with the issue of interpreting certain emotions,
such as anger, humor, and confidence; nevertheless, dealt with the advantages and
disadvantages of employing interpreters, and also covered the theme of heteronymous and
autonomous interpreters.
References:
BNFFY, Mikls. 2000. Emlkeimbl. Huszont v. Kolozsvr: Polis, 2000.
BURR William (ed.) 1998. The Kissinger Transcripts: The Top Secret Talks With Beijing and
Moscow. New York: New Press, 1998.
CREMONA, Vicky Ann., MALLIA, Helena. 2001. Interpretation and Diplomacy. In: KURBALIJA,
Jovan., SLAVIK, Hannah. (ed.): Language and Diplomacy. Malta: DiploProjects, 2001, pp. 301-305.
CRONIN, Michael. 2002. The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy, and the Cultural Turn in
Interpretation Studies. In: TYMOCZKO, Maria., GENTZLER, Edwin. (eds.) Translation and Power.
Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002, pp. 45-62.
CRONIN, Michael. 2006. Translation and Identity. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.
ERDS, Andr. 2004. Sorsfordt esztendk. Budapest: Korona, 2004
HIDASI, Judit. 2004. Interkulturlis kommunikci. Budapest: Scolar, 2004
HORTOBGYI, Ildik. 2007. Plurilinguisme et Comptence Interculturelle. tudes franaises 4.
Veszprm: Pannon Egyetemi Kiad, 2007
HORTOBGYI, Ildik. 2008. Gateways to successful intercultural communication. In: Bulletin of the
Transilvania University of Brasov. Vol. 1 (50), 2008. Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies
11
In SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation [online]. 2011, vol. 5, no. 2 [cit. 2011-11-21]. Available
on web page <http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTI06/pdf_doc/01.pdf>. ISSN 1336-7811.
12