See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250006664

A translation studies oriented integrative approach to Canadian political

discourse

Article  in  Across Languages and Cultures · June 2008

DOI: 10.1556/Acr.9.2008.1.5

CITATIONS READS

8 354

1 author:

Mátyás Bánhegyi
Budapest Business School Univsersity of Applied Sciences, Hungary
7 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mátyás Bánhegyi on 10 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1), pp. 77–108 (2008)
DOI: 10.1556/Acr.9.2008.1.5

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED

INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO CANADIAN
POLITICAL DISCOURSE
MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI
English Linguistics Department,
Károli Gáspár University of the Hungarian Reformed Church
H-1104 Budapest, Reviczky u. 4./c, Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: By a possible integration of text linguistics (proposition analysis),

sociocognitive theory and Critical Discourse Analysis, the present study intends to
reveal instances of ideologically charged translation by means of comparing and
contrasting certain textual features of an instance of French language Canadian political
discourse and its English translation. The aim of the analysis is twofold: to investigate
some fundamental differences between source language and target language text
production in terms of political power play and persuasion as well as to demonstrate, by
analysing a specific political text, a possible application of the above-mentioned
integrative approach within the field of discourse analysis. The paper will also offer
numerous possible perspectives on further research with a view to the Canadian
political discourse in question.

Keywords: proposition analysis, sociocognitive theory, Critical Discourse Analysis,

political discourse, Canadian politics

1. INTRODUCTION
In the past 15 years the application of discourse theory to political discourse has
led to the emergence of a flourishing new discipline. In the present study,
politics and Critical Discourse Analysis will be combined with other text
linguistic approaches. First, I will briefly highlight two major trends in the
analysis of political discourse in the field of text linguistics: the
psycholinguistic-sociolinguistic approach and the text-centred approach. Then,
in an effort to find a text linguistic approach enabling an evaluative comparison
of political texts and their translations, I propose an integrative approach based
on three applied research methods. This integrative approach includes

1585-1923/$ 20.00 © 2008 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

78 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

proposition analysis, sociocognitive analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis. I

also intend to illustrate the use of this integrative approach by providing a
detailed investigation of both the original French version and the English
translation of Jean Chrétien’s 1995 Québec Referendum Speech. The aim of the
study is to explore some of the most important differences between source
language and target language text production and to demonstrate the possible
application of the proposed integrative approach through the analysis of a
specific political text.

1.1. Translation Studies and Political Texts

In recent years, more precisely after the ‘cultural turn’ of the early nineties
(Dimitriu 2002: 2, Hatim and Munday 2004: 313), Translation Studies has
shown intense interest in analysing the translation and interpretation (henceforth
collectively called translation) of political texts and the power relations
involved in the translation of such texts. In my view, the main research areas in
this field of interest to the present study include the following directions, as
epitomised by researchers appearing in parentheses: diverse cross sections of
discourse analysis, translation studies and politics (Hatim and Mason 1990,
Chilton and Schäffner 2002, Schäffner 2004), the analysis of the social, cultural,
ideological and political contexts of source and target texts and cultures (Pym
1992, 2000; Schäffner 2003); text typology and textual functions of source and
target language texts (Nord 1997, Trosborg 1997); the role of translators as
intercultural agents or cultural mediators (Katan 1999, Venuti 1992); translators
being potential points of conflict during their work (Tymoczko 2003, Tymoczko
and Gentzler 2002); translators’ purposeful manipulation of target texts and
translators’ textual choices reflecting ideological and/or political commitment
(Alvarez and Vidal 1996, Baker 2006); and, very recently, translators’ political
activism and social activism as part of their professional work (Translation,
Interpreting and Social Activism, 1st International Forum, University of
Granada, 2007).
With the exception of studies dealing with “the cross section of discourse
analysis and translation studies”, most of the above approaches do not use
specific text linguistic approaches to support their claims through pinpointing
potential textual differences between source and target language texts as part of
their research methodology and analysis. With a view to this, through the
integration of the findings of Translation Studies and text linguistics, the present
study is intended to develop an approach in which such textual differences in
source and target language texts can be revealed.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 79

1.2. Major Text Linguistic Trends in the Analysis of Political

Discourse Relevant for Translation Studies
Text linguistics offers several approaches for the analysis and the translation of
political discourse. Research relevant to Translation Studies in this field falls
into two distinct groups. While the first group comprises cultural and social
psychological approaches, which perceive translation primarily as cultural
mediation, the second group of studies constitutes (psycholinguistic) text-
centred approaches, which (a) interpret both source and target language texts as
an act of text production (composing texts), or (b) deal with source and target
language texts as linguistic products (linguistic qualities of texts composed) as
well as focus on the understanding of texts and the effects such texts have on
their receivers: the ways readers or listeners interpret texts and the ways such
texts influence them. In the next section, a short summary of the above research
areas and their major contributors will be presented.

1.2.1. Psycholinguistic and social psychological approaches

Psycholinguistic and social psychological approaches of relevance for the

present study include the following research fields: the mental processes of text
production and text processing (Kintsch and van Dijk 1978, Kintsch 1998);
analysis of the strategies of text production (Chilton and Schäffner 1997,
Schäffner and Adab 2001, Baker 2006); the interpretation of context as seen by
text linguistics, i.e., the effects of social and sociocultural factors on actual texts
produced (van Dijk 1997, Munday 2007); the ideologies of given societies and
ideologies surfacing in texts (Tymoczko 2000, van Dijk 2002, van Dijk 2006);
sociocognitive theory, which deals with the implicit ways of expressing
evaluative beliefs (van Dijk 1997, Schäffner and Kelly-Holmes 1996, Wodak
and van Dijk 2000) and the interrelation of all the above fields with the media
industry (Fairclough 1997, Bell 1998).

1.2.2. Text-centred approaches

The second group of text linguistic approaches to political discourse, the so-
called text-centred approaches is an umbrella term I use for various perspectives
which include the following: (a) pragmatic-oriented approaches, in which the
text is viewed as interaction between communication partners (Álvarez and
Vidal 1996, Hatim and Mason 1997, Gutt 1998, Chilton and Schäffner 1997,
Baker 2006), (b) research into quasi-correct text production (hybrid texts), as a
result of cultural and political differences between the source and the target
cultures (Across Special Issue 2001, Schäffner and Adab 2001) and hedges in

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

80 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

the translation of political texts (Schäffner 1998) as well as (c) the currently
popular Critical Discourse Analysis, practically an offshoot of the above
pragmatic-oriented approach, which views communication as a battlefield of
conflicting powers and ideologies in the framework of social interaction (van
Dijk 1985, Kress 1985, Seidel 1985, Fairclough and Wodak 1997, van Dijk
2001, van Dijk 2006, Valdeón 2007, Chan 2007).

2. THE AIM OF THE STUDY

The present paper wishes to provide an integrated analysis of a referendum
speech interpreted as a genre of political discourse and its translation from the
perspective of Translation Studies. The study will focus on the introductory part
of the 1995 French language Referendum Speech by Canadian Ex-Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien (more precisely, the first eight sentences of the source
text Speech) and its English translation (that is, the first fourteen sentences of
the target language text). The study focuses on the introduction only as, in a
rhetorical sense, this part of the Referendum Speech contains the thesis
sentences that will be elaborated on in the rest of the Speech. This means that if
the French and the English versions of the Speech use different means for
political persuasion, indications of this will surface already in the introduction.
This supposition is also borne out by an analysis carried out by Nagy and
Szkárosi, who established the following focal points in Chrétien’s speech: a)
“importance of the upcoming event and b) breaking up or building Canada?,
i.e., Québec has the intention to separate from Canada” (Nagy and Szkárosi
2005), both of which thoughts appear in the introduction of the French and the
English versions of the Speech. As far as their structure is concerned,
referendum speeches belong to the argumentative type of discourse, and,
consequently the rhetorical steps characteristic of the text type will obviously
surface in Chrétien’s Referendum Speech, too. However, I shall not deal with
the rhetorical implications as they are beyond the scope of the present paper.
For further details, see the works of Aristotle as well as modern discourse
analysts such as Campbell, Dolan and Dumm, Gale, Piotrowski and Sowell.)
The aim of this study is threefold: 1) to examine, in the case of the
translation of political texts, whether the semantic structure of the target text at
the microstructural level bears any relevance, and if so, what kind, to the same
qualities of the source text, and to explore if, and to what extent, text production
in the target text reproduces evaluative predicates of the source text; 2) to
investigate how the number and distribution of evaluative predicates in the
target text relate to these characteristics of the source text; and, 3) to pinpoint,
with the help of the tools of Critical Discourse Analysis, any potential
differences in the above areas of source and target language discourses that

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 81

signal ideologically charged text production taking place in the translation

process.

3. METHOD
The Referendum Speech and its translation is analysed through the integration
of three different, but closely related approaches.
1. The first approach intends to investigate whether the source and target
language texts display the same text structure nodes and whether such nodes are
located at the same positions in both the source and the target language texts.
For the determination of the above, relying on van Dijk’s microproposition
taxonomy (Kintsch and van Dijk 1978), semantically interconnected text
structure nodes will be mapped. In my interpretation, such text structure nodes
(or focalised propositions) are parts of a text to which several propositions are
connected. These, from a text organisational point of view, introduce, explain
and contextualise the given focalised proposition.
2. The speech under study is a referendum speech whose pragmatic aim
was to persuade the Canadian French and English speaking communities to vote
against the independence of Québec at a crucial moment in Canadian history.
Therefore, secondly, I wish to explore whether the opinions (the textual
realisations of the above pragmatic aim) expressed in the propositions arranged
around the text structure nodes in the target text bear any resemblance to
corresponding parts of the source text. In other words, are the source text
propositions containing opinions (designed to help in political persuasion)
translated into the target text as propositions containing opinions (designed to
help in political persuasion)? In order to answer this question, the
sociocognitive theory (developed by van Dijk in 1997) will be used to examine
opinions, i.e., a type of evaluative belief, expressed in propositions.
3. The third approach will attempt to interpret the results of the above two
approaches with the help of Critical Discourse Analysis. Taking into
consideration the social and cultural characteristics of the Canadian French and
English language communities, I will make an attempt to provide explanations
for the differences between source and target texts in terms of the aims of text
production.
In my view, integration of the above three approaches is necessitated by
the fact that the analysis of political texts will give meaningful and objective
results exclusively if such texts are understood as a synthesized interpretation of
the following two text linguistic methods: A) cognitive aspects of text
production and text comprehension as well as B) text seen as being embedded
in the social, cultural and political circumstances and background such texts
have been created in. The integrated approach presented here is also justified by
Baker (2006: 19), who, relying on Ewick and Silbey, explains: “knowledge is

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

82 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

socially and politically produced”, that is, knowledge possessed by individuals

evolves and is interpreted as a result of social and political effects impacting the
individual. It follows from this that the analysis of both source and target
language political texts must evidently extend to knowledge, more precisely to
social, cultural and political knowledge imbibed by both the text producer
(including the translator) and the receiver.

4. A BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

To understand the societal implications of the Referendum Speech and its
translation, it is essential to provide a concise introduction to the historical
background of the Referendum.
After the first referendum held in 1980 on the issue of sovereignty of
Canada’s predominantly French-speaking Province of Québec, another
referendum was held on 30th October 1995 on the same issue. Most of the
sources on the historical background of the 1995 Québec Referendum agree that
the referendum initiative was fuelled by negative feelings of English speaking
Canadians towards Québec and Canadian French speakers in general and the
use of the French language (Hazel 1997). On the ballot sheets in 1995, the
following question appeared “Do you agree that Québec should become
sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and
political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec
and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”, and alternatively in French:
“Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert
formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans
le cadre du projet de loi sur l’avenir du Québec et de l’entente signée le 12 juin
1995?”.
Pressurised by the opponents of the sovereignty of Québec, on 12th June
1995, months before the Referendum, three parties advocating the sovereignty
of Québec, namely Parti Québécois, Bloc Québécois and Action démocratique
du Québec signed an agreement with the contemporary Canadian Government
on the cornerstones of the proposed new economic and political partnership
between Québec and the rest of Canada, which did not detail the exact
conditions of partnership for the eventuality of Québec becoming independent.
According to opinion surveys, for several weeks prior to the Referendum it was
first the opponents who were in the lead, which was followed by a
countertendency of over 50% of voters intending to participate in the
Referendum supporting the sovereignty of Québec (Trent 1995).
Both those against and in support of the sovereignty of Québec initiated a
massive campaign during which several Canadian politicians addressed the
entire Canadian nation. It is noteworthy that the campaign of the No Partisans,

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 83

i.e., those opposing the independence of Québec (as termed by the Mirror in its
23rd October 1995 issue and by the Monteal Gazette in its 24th October 1995
issue), was almost exclusively focused on the French Canadian Prime
Minister’s person.
One must not forget about the media’s decisive role in the Referendum
campaign. A few days before the Referendum the outcome was far from being
decided. As part of the Referendum campaign, five days prior to the date of the
Referendum about the sovereignty of Québec, on 25th October 1995, the then
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s speech was pre-recorded and broadcast by CBC
News both in French and in English simultaneously on two different channels.
The texts of the introduction of the 1995 French language Referendum
Speech by Jean Chrétien and its English translation are provided below. For the
sake of clarity, the French and the English versions are printed side by side,
with the sentences of the two versions numbered with Roman numbers. The
French source text sentences and their English target text equivalents have been
marked by braces.

Table 1
Text of the French source language Referendum Speech

I. Pour la première fois de mon mandat de Premier

ministre, j’ai invoqué une procédure exceptionnelle
pour m’adresser à vous ce soir.

II. La procédure est exceptionnelle parce que la situation

l’est également.

III. Bien sûr, je m’adresse en particulier à mes

compatriotes du Québec, parce qu’ils ont en ce moment
l’avenir de notre pays entre leurs mains.

IV. Je m’adresse également à tous mes autres concitoyens

du Canada, parce que cette décision les concerne aussi
au plus haut point.

V. Ce n’est pas seulement l’avenir du Québec qui se

décidera lundi, c’est également celui de tout le Canada.

VI. C’est une décision sérieuse et irréversible, aux

conséquences imprévisibles et incalculables.

VII. Le Canada, notre pays et notre héritage sont en danger.

VIII. Briser le Canada ou le bâtir, demeurer Canadiens ou ne

plus l’être, rester ou partir, voilà l’enjeu du référendum.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

84 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Table 2
The English target language text of the Referendum Speech

I. For the first time in my mandate as Prime Minister, I

have asked to speak directly to Canadians tonight.
II. I do so because we are in an exceptional situation.
III. Tonight, in particular, I want to speak to my fellow
Québecers.
IV. Because, at this moment, the future of our whole
country is in their hands.
V. But I also want to speak to all Canadians.
VI. Because this issue concerns them – deeply.
VII. It is not only the future of Québec that will be decided
on Monday.
VIII. It is the future of all of Canada.
IX. The decision that will be made is serious and
irreversible.
X. With deep, deep consequences.
XI. What is at stake is our country.
XII. What is at stake is our heritage.
XIII. To break up Canada or build Canada.
XIV. To remain Canadian or no longer be Canadian.
XV. To stay or to leave.
XVI. This is the issue of the referendum.

5. APPROACH ONE: PROPOSITION ANALYSIS

The so-called “Process Model” applied for proposition analysis (Kintsch and
van Dijk, 1978) was originally developed for determining propositions as part
of linear text comprehension. More precisely, the Model was devised for
analysing cognitive processes related to text processing in terms of mechanisms
of recalling and reading for gist. With respect to mechanisms of text recall of
political texts, van Dijk claims that such texts are constructed with a view to
future receivers, who are seen as a target audience to be convinced (1997: 9).
Political texts try to target the cognitive processes of receivers in various ways
and consequently try to influence the receivers’ comprehension. Therefore,
referendum speeches are also structured so that they draw their listeners’
attention to the issues that voters have a right to decide. In other words, such
texts focalise choices, whether they be factual or fictionally implied, as
interpreted and put forward by text producers.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 85

It follows from the above that the Model is also suitable for determining
the most emphatic, focalised textual parts, i.e., text structure nodes in political
speeches. The theory of microproposition analysis as such is not a novelty.
However, a great advantage of this theory is that it has been proven and is
universally accepted (McKoon and Ratcliff 1980a and b, Long and Chantel
2002). For this reason the Model can be successfully applied to determine text
structure nodes. Indeed, the method of microproposition analysis, the
processing of micropropositions in the receiver and the ways such
micropropositions form a mental image in the receiver have not been
challenged.
The language-independent method of microproposition analysis developed
by Kintsch and van Dijk (1978: 367–8, 376–380) is based on the presupposition
that the receiver always has a communication aim in mind when engaging in an
act of communication, which in turn influences the comprehension and
reproduction of the actual piece of text received. Such an aim is termed control
scheme by Kintsch and van Dijk. In the case of the Referendum Speech in
question, the control scheme is learning about the opinion of the speaker as well
as the related justification and arguments referred to.
According to the Process Model, text comprehension is in fact a linear
process that takes place while listening to or reading a piece of text. When text
comprehension takes place, the words of the actual text, by their semantic
functions, act as propositions, i.e., words function as either arguments
(concepts) or predicates (interrelation of concepts) at the level of
microstructures (i.e., the web of propositions and their relations). A proposition,
as a rule, contains a predicate and one or more arguments. Receivers, on the
basis of their previous knowledge and inferencing skills, on the one hand,
develop fundamental text-level relations between immediate propositions, and,
on the other hand, establish logical relations between diverse pieces of
information contained in the text as a means of making the text coherent for
themselves.
Kintsch and van Dijk describe the hierarchical structure of
micropropositions by examining mechanisms of text processing. The present
study, however, will confined itself to identifying text structure nodes through
the analysis of propositions, since the primary (and only) aim of the current
study is to explore whether translators apply evaluative predicates located in
propositions linked to text structure nodes, and to establish whether the number
and location of such evaluative predicates in the target text mirror the properties
of the source text.
In establishing the microstructure of both the source and the target texts, I
followed the steps proposed by Kintsch and van Dijk. As a first step, I identified
the propositions in the text, secondly, in line with the Process Model, I linked
propositions according to their common semantic arguments and included them

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

86 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Table 1
Propositions in the French source language text
I 1 TIME: PREMIERE FOIS, MANDAT, PREMIER
II. VI. MINISTRE
2 INVOQUÉ, SPEAKER
3 EXCEPTIONNELLE, PROCÉDURE
4 S’ADRESSER, PROCÉDURE, SPEAKER, LISTENERS
5 TIME: CE SOIR
II 6 EXCEPTIONNELLE, PROCÉDURE
7 EXCEPTIONNELLE, SITUATION
III 8 S’ADRESSER, SPEAKER, COMPATRIOTES
9 COMPATRIOTES, QUÉBEC
10 S’ADRESSER, PARTICULAR
11 ONT, AVENIR, MAINS, ENTRE
12 AVENIR, LISTENER + SPEAKER, PAYS
13 TIME: MOMENT
IV 14 S’ADRESSER, SPEAKER
15 CONCITOYENS, CANADA
16 S’ADRESSER, ÉGALEMENT
17 CONCITOYENS, TOUS, AUTRES
18 CONCERNER, DÉCISION, CONCITOYENS, POINT
19 CETTE, DÉCISION
20 PLUS, HAUT, POINT
V 21 DÉCIDER, AVENIR
22 AVENIR, QUÉBEC
23 TIME: LUNDI
24 CELUI, CANADA
VI 25 SÉRIEUSE, DÉCISION
26 IRRÉVERSIBLE, DÉCISION
27 IMPRÉVISIBLES, CONSÉQUENCES
28 INCALCULABLES, CONSÉQUENCES
VII 29 DANGER, HÉRITAGE, CANADA
30 CANADA, SPEAKER + LISTENER, PAYS
VIII 31 BRISER, CANADA
32 BÂTIR, CANADA
33 OU
34 DEMEURER, CANADIENS

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 87

Table 1 cont

35 NE, ÊTRE, CANADIENS

36 OU
37 RESTER
38 PARTIR
39 OU
40 ENJEU, RÉFÉRENDUM

Table 2
Propositions in the English target language text

I 1 TIME: FIRST TIME, MANDATE, PRIME MINISTER

2 ASK, SPEAK, SPEAKER
3 SPEAK, DIRECTLY
4 SPEAK, DIRECTLY, CANADIANS
5 TIME: TONIGHT
II 6 3, SPEAKER
7 SPEAKER + LISTENERS, IN, SITUATION
8 EXCEPTIONAL, SITUATION
III 9 TIME: TONIGHT
10 WANT, SPEAKER, SPEAK
11 SPEAK, QUÉBECKERS
12 FELLOW, QUÉBECKERS
13 MY, 12
IV 14 TIME: THIS MOMENT
15 IN HANDS, FUTURE
16 FUTURE, COUNTRY
17 COUNTRY, WHOLE
V 18 SPEAK, SPEAKER, CANADIANS
19 ALL CANADIANS
VI 20 CONCERN, ISSUE
21 CONCERN, THEM
22 CONCERN, DEEPLY
VII 23 DECIDED, FUTURE
24 FUTURE, QUÉBEC
25 TIME: MONDAY
VIII 26 FUTURE, CANADA
27 ALL, CANADA

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

88 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Table 2 cont

IX 28 MADE, DECISION
29 SERIOUS, DECISION
30 IRREVERSIBLE, DECISION
X 31 DEEP, CONSEQUENCES
XI 32 AT STAKE, COUNTRY
XII 33 AT STAKE, HERITAGE
XIII 34 BREAK UP, CANADA
35 BUILD, CANADA
36 OR
XIV 37 REMAIN, CANADIAN
38 NO LONGER BE, CANADIAN
39 OR
XV 40 STAY
41 LEAVE
42 OR
XVI 43 ISSUE
44 ISSUE, REFERENDUM

in a table (see Tables 1 and 2). Arguments (first words in the lines of the table)
and predicates (other words in the lines) have been printed in capitals and, for
clearer interpretability, such arguments and predicates have been separated in
terms of the individual sentences containing them. Roman numbers in the left-
hand columns denote the number of the Referendum Speech sentence in which
the given proposition appears. Arabic numbers stand for the number of
propositions in the text (numbered sequentially), while the label “TIME:”
indicates time adverbials connected to or constituting a given proposition.
Please note that the eight French sentences have been split into sixteen
sentences in the English translation, which is shown by different colours in the
two columns. In Tables 1 and 2, propositions in the French source language and
in the English target language texts are printed in order of appearance.
As part of the Process Model, Kintsch and van Dijk also developed an
easy-to-view representation of the microstructure, or, in other words, the
semantic relations of the actual propositions of texts. This representation is
referred to as the coherence graph. This, in our case, means that the structure of
the propositions of the source and target language texts can both be represented
in separate coherence graphs. Since here it is text structure nodes that are of
primary importance to us, the coherence graphs below highlight the structure of
propositions from the first sentence of the Referendum Speeches down to the
text structure nodes in light grey print in both the French and the English
versions.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 89

Chart 1. Coherence graph of the French Chart 2. Coherence graph of the English
source language text target language text

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

90 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

As it is shown in Charts 1 and 2, both in the French and in the English texts the
same, semantically equivalent propositions are focalised: that is, these are the
propositions around which numerous other propositions are arranged. In the
French source language text, the focalised proposition is predicate 18, i.e.,
CONCERNER, DÉCISION, CONCITOYENS, POINT; and, in the English
language target text, the focalised proposition is predicate 20, i.e., ISSUE,
CONCERN. In the French source language text, the following propositions are
linked to predicate 18:

19. CETTE, DECISION

25. SERIEUSE, DECISION
29. DANGER, HERITAGE, CANADA
31. BRISER, CANADA
32. BATIR, CANADA
34. DEMEURER, CANADIENS
35. NE, ETRE, CANADIENS
37. RESTER
38. PARTIR

Propositions 31–32, 34–35 and 37-38 display an either-or type of logical

choice. Similarly, in the English language target text, one finds the following
propositions linked to the focalised proposition CONCERN, ISSUE:

21. CONCERN, THEM

32. AT STAKE, COUNTRY
33. AT STAKE, HERITAGE
34. BREAK UP CANADA
35. BUILD CANADA
37. REMAIN CANADIAN
38. NO LONGER BE CANADIAN
40. STAY
41. LEAVE

Just like in the case of the French text, the English target text also offers an
either-or type of logical choice between each two propositions of 34–35, 37–38
and 40–41.
If we disregard proposition 19 and other propositions linked to it in the
French text and proposition 21 and other propositions linked to it in the English
text, which describe the nature of the decision the Referendum offers, and
analyse the rest of the propositions that are linked to the focalised propositions
with the help of formal logic, what we find is that in both the French and the
English texts the focalised propositions are contextualised in a way that they

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 91

present the focalised proposition’s equality with the propositions linked to them.
Practically, this means that the question (i.e., the French source proposition
CONCERNER, DÉCISION, CONCITOYENS, POINT; and, correspondingly,
the English target proposition CONCERN, ISSUE) to be decided by the
Referendum in fact is (or, in formal logic, equals) a serious decision (French
source language text: proposition 25). It also means that

• the heritage of Canada and the entire country is at risk (French source
language text: proposition 29; English target language text: propositions
32 and 33);
• there is a choice between Canada breaking up or further developing in
unity (French source language text: propositions 31 and 32; English
target language text: propositions 34 and 35);
• it is also to be decided whether Québecers wish to continue to remain
Canadians or not (French source language text: propositions 34 and 35;
English target language text: propositions 37 and 38), and
• it is also to be decided whether Québec will continue to be part of
Canada or gain sovereignty (French source language text: propositions
37 and 38, English target language text: propositions 40 and 41).

It seems crucial at this point to underscore that the text producers of the
source and target language texts purposefully equate the question of the
Referendum solely with these distinct choices.
In the next section the fundamental concepts of the sociocognitive theory
developed by van Dijk will be described in brief, and then the above
propositions will be analysed systematically in terms of the opinions expressed
in them.

6 APPROACH TWO: THE SOCIOCOGNITIVE APPROACH

The theory of analysing utterances according to the opinions they contained was
developed by van Dijk (Schäffner and Kelly-Holmes, 1996), who later further
refined his theory (Bell and Garrett 1998: 21–63). Van Dijk’s sociocognitive
theory, which came as an amendment to his severely criticised forerunner
theory (Bell and Garrett 1998: 23) has three pillars:

• the notion of social functions of ideologies shared by societies and

groups of individuals: this pillar, with reference to ideologies developed
and used by societies, reflects on related fundamental and general
societal questions such as why ideologies need to be developed and
used by human societies;

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

92 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

• the notion of cognitive structures, which reflects on ideological

contents and their structures in the utterances of individuals of a given
society. As part of cognitive structures possessed by members of a
society, values, norms, attitudes, opinions and knowledge are
distinguished in terms of different mental representations. At the same
time, it is possible to establish personal models (characteristic of the
given individual) and contextual models (characteristic of the
communicative act in question), in the case of which the above-
described values, norms, attitudes, opinions and knowledge are
activated at a cognitive level;
• the third pillar of the sociocognitive theory is the actual verbalisation of
the above, in other words, discursive expression and reproduction. This
pillar deals with the expression, internalisation and reproduction of the
above ideological contents as part of written and oral acts of social
communication.

In the following, I shall detail the cognitive structures and their discursive
expressions, since these two pillars seem relevant to our discussion of the
Referendum Speech. (Incorporation of the first pillar of the sociocognitive
theory into this study might have yielded valuable insights into the wider
sociocultural context of the Referendum, but such analysis falls beyond the
scope of the present study.)
According to van Dijk (Schäffner and Kelly-Holmes 1996: 8–19),
individuals, while relying on their mental representations, keep producing
propositions at the root of which one finds personal beliefs, i.e., mental
information the given persons deem true or justified from their own perspective.
Such beliefs are of two kinds: they can either constitute knowledge or an
evaluative belief. Knowledge is a justified belief based on facts or experiences
connected to the outside world: knowledge is coherent with reality. Knowledge,
at the same time, presupposes common, general social knowledge (common
knowledge contents, cultural knowledge, etc.) possessed and accepted by the
members of a given society.
Evaluative beliefs, on the other hand, evolve by way of mental judgement
and are characterised by the fact that there are no objective, empirical truth
criteria on the basis of which it can be incontestably decided whether the given
statement is true or false. Let me illustrate this with a simple example. The
utterance “Mr Smith is a good man” is an evaluative belief, which comes about
as a result of a personal decision through the application of an individually
subjective system of judgement.
A kind of evaluative belief is an opinion. An opinion is a false or
practically unjustifiable belief that is grounded in moral or other judgements. It
must be noted, however, that, as a result of the different mental representations

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 93

in individuals and the different kinds and amounts of knowledge they possess,
the boundaries between opinion and knowledge and between opinions and
evaluative beliefs may differ from individual to individual. To establish moral
or other systems of judgement, it is necessary that an individual should be
influenced by social norms, which presupposes that the individual accepts and
internalises such norms beforehand. In certain cases, nevertheless, individuals’
affective attitudes towards a given issue may play a substantial role in the
acceptance of social norms, which, however, will not be elaborated on here for
lack of space.

It seems evident that individuals’ opinions are grounded in socially

accepted norms even if social norms may vary across societies and groups
within societies. From a discursive aspect, senders of any social
communication act, as a rule, tend to support their opinions by rational and
sensible arguments accepted by their respective societies in order to make
such opinions appealing to their receivers on grounds that these arguments
resound with accepted and internalised norms.

Opinions can be classified into two distinct types: personal opinions and
social opinions. Personal opinions denote the evaluative beliefs or opinions of
an individual, whereas the term social opinions refer to evaluative beliefs
shared by a given social group with reference to a certain issue. Larger,
complex, interrelated and interdependent structures of opinions shared and
accepted by certain social groups are termed attitudes. The interrelation
between personal beliefs, knowledge, evaluative beliefs, opinions, personal and
social opinions is illustrated on Map 1.

Map 1. Individuals’ mental representations

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

94 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

As far as discursive practices are concerned, the above personal beliefs

surface in everyday discourse as evaluative predicates and, in a semantic sense,
they are visible as predicates containing evaluative beliefs. Below, I wish to
illustrate which predicates of the French source language and the English target
language Referendum Speech texts function as evaluative predicates.
Our starting point in the exploration of personal opinions is that, with a
view to the addressees of the Referendum Speech, that is, the Canadian public,
the Referendum Speech is intended to be perceived as a personal
communication act by being part of a political campaign primarily featuring one
person, the then Prime Minister, as noted above. In this respect, in the eyes of
the addressees, the Speech conveys the (quasi-)personal opinion of the Prime
Minister, Jean Chrétien, and through him it obviously reflects the opinions of a
political party. On the one hand, I shall categorise as personal opinion every
predicate surfacing in propositions that expresses the evaluative belief of an
individual as interpreted above, and, on the other hand, those predicates that
refer to choices available to voters in the Referendum. These choices are
presented as distinct and inevitable choices between two not directly
interdependent and mutually exclusive options, as reinforced by the
verbalisations of the French and English versions of the Referendum Speech.
This, in terms of the given Referendum, is even more intriguing bearing in mind
that the issue at hand was the sovereignty of Québec. It is also noteworthy that
as part of the economic and political partnership concluded on 12th June 1995
(see above), no exact definition of Québec’s relationship with Canada or
Canada’s other individual provinces and territories was provided. In this sense,
choices juxtaposed by the use of the conjunction or were not in fact
straightforward choices between two distinct options complete with predefined
conditions. Thus, due to the fact that Prime Minister Chrétien deemed the issue
of the Referendum to be an either-or type of choice between two distinct
options, e.g., by claiming that the decision of the Referendum would result in
Canada’s definite disintegration or continued unity (French source language
text: predicates 34 and 35; English target language text: predicates 37 and 38,
etc.) and the fact that this was the main point in the introductory part of his
speech, it seems justifiable to treat the given predicates as personal opinions
(naturally, concurrently reflecting the aims of a political party). This approach is
also supported by the assumption that the Prime Minister, to make such a
statement, must have internalised certain social norms (e.g., placing belief in the
unity of Canada, for a start) affecting him as an individual (and his party) and
must have relied on the assumption that “No to sovereignty is in fact a positive
act of saying Yes to Canada.” (Trent 1995). For the same reason, I shall treat all
evaluative beliefs of this kind about the same issue in the same context as
personal opinion.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 95

Table 5
Evaluative predicates containing personal opinion in
French source language text propositions

I TIME: première fois, mandat, premier

ministre
invoqué, SPEAKER
exceptionnelle, procédure PO
s’adresser, procédure,
SPEAKER, LISTENERS
TIME: ce soir
II exceptionnelle, procédure PO
exceptionnelle, situation PO
III s’adresser, SPEAKER,
compatriotes
compatriotes, Québec
s’adresser, particular
ont, avenir, mains, entre
avenir, LISTENER +
SPEAKER, pays
TIME: moment
IV s’adresseR, SPEAKER
concitoyens, Canada
s’adresseR, également
concitoyens, tous, autres
concerneR, décision, PO
concitoyens, point
cette, décision
plus, haut, point PO
V décider, avenir
avenir, Québec
TIME: lundi
celui, Canada
VI sérieuse, décision PO
irréversible, décision PO
imprévisibles, conséquenceS PO
incalculables, conséquences PO
VII danger, héritage, Canada PO
Canada, SPEAKER + LISTENER, pays
VIII briser, Canada
bâtir, Canada
OR PO
demeurer, Canadiens
ne, être, Canadiens
OR PO
rester
partir
OR PO
enjeu, référendum PO

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

96 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Table 6

Evaluative predicates containing personal opinion in

English target language text propositions

I TIME: first TIME, mandate, prime minister

ask, speak, SPEAKER
speak, directly, Canadians
speak, directly
TIME: tonight
II 3, SPEAKER
SPEAKER + LISTENERS, in, situation
exceptional, situation PO
III TIME: tonight
want, SPEAKER, speak
speak, Québeckers
fellow, Québeckers
my, 12
IV TIME: this moment
in hands, future
future, country
country, whole
V speak, SPEAKER, Canadians
all Canadians
VI concern, issue
concern, them
concern, deeply PO
VII decided, future
future, Québec
TIME: Monday
VIII future, Canada
all, Canada
IX made, decision
serious, decision PO
irreversible, decision PO
X deep, consequences PO
XI at stake, country PO
XII at stake, heritage PO
XIII break up, Canada
build, Canada
OR PO
XIV remain, Canadian
no longer, be Canadian
OR PO
XV stay
leave
OR PO
XVI issue PO
issue, referendum

Another similar instance of the expression of personal opinion is the

surfacing of attributes in the propositions. No system of criteria exists on the

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 97

basis of which one could decide whether a given proposition is true or not. In
fact, the use of such attributes in themselves also reflects social norms affecting
the individual. Let me put this in perspective: the decision through the act of the
Referendum and its consequences are referred to as serious, with deep
consequences (French source language text: predicates 25–28; English target
language text: predicates 29–31), etc., which again presupposes the belief in
Canada’s unity, surfacing as a kind of social norm accepted by the text
producer.
Following the above classification system, Tables 5 and 6 show predicates
containing personal opinions marked by PO in the French source language and
the English target language texts.

7. APPROACH THREE: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Critical Discourse Analysis tends to focus on social problems, examining the
ways power is socially reproduced (van Dijk 2001 and Olk 2002) and the ways
‘discourse does ideological work’ (Fairclough and Wodak, quoted. in van Dijk
2001: 353). Relying on background knowledge about the social environment in
which the Referendum Speech was produced and in line with the general
objectives of Critical Discourse Analysis the present author will now attempt to
provide a brief explanation for the textual features of the English and the French
versions of the Referendum Speech in terms of how they are used as means for
establishing and maintaining power. I will account for similarities and
differences between the two texts from three perspectives: (1) logical arguments
presented in the texts, (2) feelings and sentiments evoked by the texts and (3)
psychological motivation induced by the text.
Let us start with the historical background. Translation of the French
Referendum Speech into English was undertaken in the Prime Minister’s Office
under the professional supervision of chief communications strategist Peter
Donolo acting as Director of Communications at the Prime Minister’s Office.
Donolo was responsible for getting across the strategic communications
messages of the Central Government’s main communication body, the Strategic
Counsel. Donolo was noted for his expertise in crisis communications, which,
of course, the Québec Referendum was (The Strategic Counsel, The Globe and
Mail 2006, Privy Council Office). As in other similar situations, translation of
the Speech into English was executed for the Government by the Translation
Bureau in line with the requirements of the Official Languages Act of 1696
(Mossop 2006). The translation of the French source text into English in this
case did not simply mean rendering the source text in the target language but
also entailed editing, proofing and finalising the target text for publication. In
this respect, the target text was eventually produced by political assistants

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

98 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

(Gagnon 2006) and not by a single translator. However, since it is unnecessary

in this study to identify the different participants involved in the production of
the text, I shall refer to the producer of the target text simply as ‘translator’.
This term will include all the personnel involved in the production of the
translation.
It must be noted that translation in Canada can be termed one-culture
restricted translation as all translations for Canadians will finally be read in the
more or less monocultural political environment of Canada. In the context of
the Canadian practice of translation, “readers can only tell they are reading a
translation if the publishing institution [for which the given text was translated]
provides the status of the text [original text or translation]” (Gagnon 2006:75),
which suggests that both the French and the English versions have equal status
in the eyes of the public. In this regard, both texts are equally important and
should sound as convincing to their respective target audiences as possible,
which is even more so in the case of a political text concerning a high-stakes
issue.
I shall now turn to the discussion of the three perspectives outlined above:
(1) logical arguments presented in the texts, (2) feelings and sentiments evoked
by the texts and (3) psychological motivation induced by the text.

7.1. Logical Arguments Presented

As already noted, van Dijk claims that political texts are produced with the
perspective of their future receivers in mind (van Dijk 1997). When comparing
the French source language Referendum Speech and its English target language
translation, it becomes obvious that in both the source and the target language
texts evaluative predicates are linked to text structure nodes. In the case of the
French source language text, this node is proposition 18 and in the English
target language text the corresponding node is proposition 20. The reasons why
evaluative predicates are linked to the text structure nodes are easy to see.
According to the Single-Shot Attitude Change Theory, originally developed by
Hovland, Janis and Kelly at Yale University in 1953, and empirically proved in
the case of political texts (Larson 2001), changes can only be realised in the
attitude and personal opinions of an individual through persuasion, i.e. targeting
the individual through a communication act.
More precisely, changes in voters’ attitudes can only be realised on
condition that such changes are supported by sensible or sensible sounding
arguments and if such changes later on gain positive reinforcement. The
necessity of using argumentative supports to that end resounds with van Dijk’s
above-mentioned view, namely that in the case of argumentation, as part of a
social communication act, senders are liable to support their opinions with

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 99

rational (factual) or apparently sensible (logically coherent) argumentation to

make their opinions acceptable to receivers.
In van Dijk’s classification (van Dijk 1997), this kind of persuasion or
argumentation in political texts can take two different shapes: one is persuasion
and the other one is manipulation. Van Dijk distinguishes these two in the
following way “in persuasion the interlocutors [in essence: receivers of
communicative acts] are free to believe or act as they please, depending on
whether or not they accept the arguments of the persuader, whereas in
manipulation recipients are typically assigned a more passive role: they are
victims of manipulation. This negative consequence of manipulative discourse
typically occurs when the recipients are unable to understand the real intentions
or to see the full consequences of the beliefs or actions advocated by the
manipulator. This may be the case especially when the recipients lack the
specific knowledge that might be used to resist manipulation. Subsequently, van
Dijk also claims that “Manipulation thus focuses on the formation or
modification of more general, socially shared representations – such as attitudes
or ideologies – about important social issues” (ibid. 368) and the independence
of Québec is definitely such an issue in Canada’s history.
The analysis shows that Chrétien’s speech purposefully mixes rational and
manipulative argumentation as far as the logical structure of the French source
and the English target texts are concerned. Rational arguments are presented in
both the French source language text and the English target language text as
predicates reflecting the Prime Minister’s (and obviously through him, a
political party’s) personal opinion. These predicates, through the logical shift
detailed above (i.e., tactfully deeming the issue of the Referendum an either-or
type of choice between two distinct options) will, beyond doubt, be equated
with the issue of the Referendum in receivers’ mental representations. In this
respect, from a social point of view, in the eyes of the public, Chrétien – partly
as a result of his position as a Prime Minister of French Canadian origin – is
represented as an authority (e.g. a well-known figure whose opinion one should
ideally follow). And, as van Dijk’s findings about social fallacies also show, the
words of such authorities tend to be observed by those deeming the authority in
question credible:

“Specific kinds of fallacies might be used to persuade people to believe or

do something, for instance those that are hard to resist, such as the
Authority fallacy consisting of presenting devote Catholics with the
argument that the Pope believes or recommends a certain action, or
addressing Muslims and pointing out that a certain action is recommended
by the Koran” (van Dijk 2006:375).

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

100 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

It follows from the above that the No Partisan campaign, centred around
one person and his views, may be interpreted as a deliberate act of eliciting an
authority fallacy in receivers, and consequently an instance of manipulative
discourse.
As far as positive reinforcement of this fallacy is concerned, in the days
following the Speech considerable amounts of positive reinforcement were
provided by the media in an attempt to change the voters’ attitudes. Due to lack
of space, however, the details of the media campaign will not be described
here.

7.2. STYLE, FEELINGS AND SENTIMENTS EVOKED

I shall now go on to provide a comparative analysis of the French source and
the English target texts of Chrétien’s Referendum Speech in terms of style,
lexical choices, and techniques of persuasion through feelings. Before that,
however, let me highlight some historical circumstances that might have some
relevance at this point in our discussion.
The French version of the Speech, naturally enough, primarily targets
French Canadians, among whom “French Quebecers are often the first targeted
addressees when Canadian prime ministers speak to a pan-Canadian audience
during national crisis situations” (Gagnon 2006). This fact is important, since
the Speech was broadcast at a time when over 50% of those intending to vote in
the Referendum were in favour of the sovereignty of Québec, and the
overwhelming majority of the French Canadian community (primarily French
Quebecers) were strong supporters of Québec’s independence (Sondage 38–9
and The Quebec Referendum 1995). The intended aim of the Speech in this
context was to persuade at least some French Canadians to vote for the
federation. This public communication aim was already visible in an article that
appeared in the Montreal Gazette a few days prior to the Referendum date,
which collected and promoted French Canadians’ No Partisan views (Wells
1995).
In dealing with persuasion through feelings and sentiments, I will focus on
the lexical choices in the source and target texts of the Speech and on their
implications surfacing as emotive power and voter mobilisation
The English version of the Speech was directed at English speaking
communities living primarily in Québec, including the aboriginals. As the
majority of non-aboriginal English Canadians were opposed to Québec’s
independence anyway (Sondage 38–9 and The Quebec Referendum 1995), this
target group was not of primary importance. This was not the case with the
English-speaking aboriginal Canadians: for historical reasons (primarily the
Oka crisis), these communities were not very optimistic about the French

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 101

community and its attitude towards aboriginals. As these aboriginals were

inclined to vote against the French Canadians, they were presumably
specifically targeted with the English Referendum Speech through its very
simple, non-compound sentences and style.
Significant differences can be observed in the styles of the source and the
target texts. While the French text uses long and elaborate compound sentences,
the English version uses short and simple sentences. This is the reason why the
French text has 8 sentences, whereas the English text has 16. This already
presages another significant difference, namely that the French version sounds
more passionate, more committed, and more targeted at feelings, while the
English version is almost devoid of feelings and appears to be clearly focussed
on argumentation, reading as if at was a less carefully thought-out, hasty
translation prepared for the historical record, in observance of Canada’s
bilingualism as required by the Official Languages Act.
Nagy and Szkárosi’s research also revealed that Chrétien’s speech, like
most referendum and election speeches, was intended partly to mobilise the
opponents of Québec’s independence and make them more determined to vote,
and partly to discourage the proponents from voting (Nagy and Szkárosi 2005).
This strategy also surfaces in the emotive persuasion scheme (realised by lexical
choices and textual motivational clues, detailed below) in both the French and
the English Referendum Speeches.
Let us continue with a comparison of emotive persuasion related lexical
choices in the French source and the English target texts. In this context, we can
rely on Baker’s notion of framing by labelling, which denotes “any discursive
process that involves using a lexical item, term or phrase to identify a person,
place, group, event or any other key element” (Baker 2006:122). By adopting
Baker’s definition, we shall claim that all the lexical choices detailed below are
in fact acts of labelling, i.e., such lexical choices present receivers with a
unique, purposefully promoted image of the Referendum issue.
I will group these projected images of emotive persuasion into five groups
on the basis of their respective functions: (1) personal tone, (2) emotive tone,
(3) social inclusiveness, (4) foregrounding of national identity and (5)
involvement in the consequences of the outcomes of the Referendum. Let us
examine these functions in more detail pinpointing textual references.
(1) Personal tone relates to the extent to which the sender is involved in
communicating the text. The French text directly addresses receivers by the use
of vous, which the English version fails to do (sentences I). This creates more
personal involvement on the part of the Prime Minister in the French text,
which acts as a powerful persuasion device in the eyes of the Canadian French
community.
(2) The term emotive tone refers to vocabulary items that are likely to
evoke specific emotional reactions in receivers. The French text seems to be

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

102 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

more passionate with reference to the following items: in sentence 4 au plus

haut point (as opposed to the English deeply in sentence VI). When discussing
consequences, sentence VI of the French text uses imprévisibles and
incalculables, while the English makes do with a simple emphatic repetition of
deep, deep in sentence X. The French source text states that Canada’s heritage
is in danger in sentence VII, which in French Canadians evokes the idea of a
‘French cultural island in North America’ (Linteau 1996: 7) and the protection
of French cultural and historical traditions, while the English target text (XI and
XII) uses the phrase at stake, which has no connotations of something being
under threat. The French text reads briser in sentence VIII with reference to
disrupting the integrity of Canada, a word that has very pronounced
connotations relating to emotions involved in ending a relationship, while the
English version uses break (sentence XIII), which has no such immediate
connotations. The French text speaks about the enjeu of the Referendum
(sentence VIII), a word commonly used in political and election speeches
(Corréard 2004: 315), while the English text simply uses the word issue
(sentence XVI), which has no such connotations. The use of all these lexical
items supports the claim that the French version places more emphasis on
emotive persuasion as opposed to the English text.
(3) Social inclusiveness concerns references to the speaker associating
themselves with certain social groups. The clause we are in an exceptional
situation in sentence II of the English text is interpreted as a reference by the
Prime Minister to all Canadians, including himself (inclusive we). No such
reference, however, occurs in the French text. With this in mind, the appearance
of Canadians in sentence I and the repetition of Canadians in sentence XIV of
the English text (as opposed to a single mention of Canadiens in the
corresponding French sentence VIII) reinforce the idea of a confederate Canada
uniting both French and English citizens under the umbrella term Canadians,
which is one of the strategic messages of Chrétien’s communication to English
Canadians, representing the majority of Canada’s population. The same idea of
unity is found in the phrase our whole country in the English version in
sentence IV, which reads notre pays without the emphatic whole in the French
text (sentence III). It therefore seems that the English text is more focussed on
the idea of Canada’s integrity, thereby encouraging English Canadians to vote
for Canada’s unity at the Referendum.
(4) Exploiting the possibilities afforded by the fact that Chrétien is French
Canadian, the French text also builds on evoking and foregrounding French
Canadian national identity. This theme is addressed in sentence III in the French
text through the use of compatriotes du Québec, which is the equivalent of the
English term fellow Quebecers. Unlike the English term, the French term has
strong connotations of patriotism, and by using it Chrétien presents himself as a
compatriot du Québec, offering himself as an authority to be followed.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 103

(5) Lexical differences between the French and the English texts are also
related to the receivers’ involvement in the consequences of the outcomes of the
Referendum. While the English text assigns a more passive role to receivers by
repeatedly using the relatively neutral lexical item issue (sentences VI and XIV)
in referring to the historic importance of the Referendum, the French version
applies the more powerful décision (sentence IV), which signals to French
Canadians that the Referendum is mainly about them and that they have to bear
in mind the consequences such a decision can bring.
To sum up the above features, we can say that the French text is more
focused on feelings and sentiments, and constitutes a warning against
separation, while the English text is much less emotive and focuses on the idea
of Canada’s unity.

7.3. MOTIVATION INDUCED BY THE FRENCH AND THE

ENGLISH VERSIONS
Motivation, be it positive or negative, is another common tool in political
persuasion. A well-known device used in political campaigns is negative
motivation. Negative campaigns often build on presenting the (purported)
consequences of a political decision as a cause for fear to certain groups in a
society. This is typically achieved by the use of enthymemes, which, by their
nature, involve receivers in constructing the argument for themselves. Rose
explains this in the following way: “One of the most ancient rhetorical
techniques widely used in advertising today is the enthymeme which, according
to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, was one of the most effective forms of persuasion
(Aristotle, 1954, Book II, Chapter 22). An enthymeme is a form of a logical
proposition, called a syllogism, which suppresses one of the premises...” (Rose
1993: 8 as well as Adamik, Jászó and Aczél 2004: 283) constituting the given
proposition. Therefore “[t]he reader must construct the missing part of the
logical sentence in order to make sense of the argument. As a persuasive
technique, enthymemes have been an important part of political communication
through the ages (Jamieson, 1988, p. 18; Lanham, 1991, pp. 65-66)” (Rose
1993: 8). The way this was used in the Québec Referendum campaign as part of
the Canadian Government’s persuasion propaganda, is described as follows:

“One of the most prominent themes of the federal strategy was to use the
federal largesse in Québec to make a strong pro-federalist argument. This
line of argumentation was enthymatic and can be represented in the
following manner with the major premise being stated and the minor
premise left unstated. Major premise: The federal government provides
valuable services. Minor premise: Québec separation will eliminate these

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

104 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

services. Conclusion: Voting No in the referendum will affect provision of

valuable federal services.” (ibid.)

In this light and political context, Chrétien’s juxtaposition of breaking up

Canada or building Canada, remaining Canadian or no longer being Canadian in
the introduction of his speech may be interpreted as an enthymeme, presenting
the Referendum as if it offered two mutually exlusive choices (major premise):
if Québec is separated (minor premise), this province will not be part of federal
Canada any more and lose all administrative and business ties with the rest of
Canada (conclusion), which has induced uncertainty and consequently fear in
Québec’s inhabitants, especially in aboriginals, who were made to be believe
that French Canadians were all racist and felt nothing but contempt towards
them (Trent 1995). In this way, voting for the separation of Québec was
portrayed as an absolute disaster and a leap into the uncertain future, which was
left to be mentally constructed by voters through the above enthymeme.

In conclusion, it seems that both the French Referendum Speech and its
English translation apply the same tools for logical persuasion, but employ
different lexis and psychological tools for (1) contextualising the above
logical persuasion, and (2) providing footing for emotive and motivational
persuasion.

8. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Predicates containing personal opinions linked to the text structure nodes in the
French source language text are reproduced as similar predicates linked to the
English text structure nodes. Some of these predicates, nonetheless, are not
present in the English target language text: the French text contains 11
predicates, whereas the English text contains only 10. The English target
language text features a lower number of predicates containing personal
opinions than the French source language text: 14 predicates in the French text
as opposed to 11 predicates in the English text (see items marked with PO in
Tables 3 and 4 ).
In the light of Critical Discourse Analysis presented above, these
differences seem to stem from the fact that the French version of the
Referendum Speech targets receivers’ emotions, while the English translation
focuses on persuasion through factual reasoning dressed in simple language. It
can therefore be concluded that both the source language Referendum Speech
and its target language translation apply the same evaluative predicates as
logical arguments, but different lexis as emotive arguments to familiarise voters
with the views of one interest group through media coverage. In terms of actual

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 105

lexical realisations, these differences resound with Gagnon’s observations about

“the assumption that French- and English-Canadian cultures do not often meet
in translated federal speeches” (Gagnon 2006: 84) even if Canada is politically
considered a one-culture unit.
A more in-depth analysis of the affective impact of the source and target
language texts on receivers, the role of the media in contributing to the
formation of such emotive and psychological images in receivers, the effects of
the translator’s immediate sociocultural environment on the process and product
of translation as well as institutional norms (primarily those of the Strategic
Counsel and the Translation Bureau) governing how translators are supposed to
reformulate the target text, or, in Baker’s terms, apply “selective appropriation
of textual material” (Baker 2006: 114), could also yield fruitful results. Such an
analysis would be especially intriguing in the case of bi- (and also multi)lingual
states such as Canada, where linguistic differences within one single federal
state surface as cultural differences partly indicated by differring language use.

9. SUMMARY
The present study was intended to introduce a synthesis of three text linguistic
approaches. The French original of the 1995 Québec Referendum Speech by
former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and its English translation were
analysed with the help of the van Dijkian Process Model, sociocognitive theory
and Critical Discourse Analysis. The aim of the research was to juxtapose the
semantic structure of the source and target language texts in terms of the total
number and position of propositions and evaluative predicates. It was
demonstrated that text structure nodes are surrounded by predicates functioning
as evaluative beliefs providing argumentative support. Furthermore, textual
realisations of the intentionally manipulative communicative aims followed by
the text producers were identified with the help of Critical Discourse Analysis.
In my view, at the intersection of Translation Studies and Text Linguistics,
an integrative analysis similar to the one detailed above is likely to provide a
comprehensive and full account of some cognitive aspects of translation
activities in the field of politics.

References
About PCO. [Author unknown] (No date). Ottawa: Privy Council Office. [Online]. Available:
http://www.bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&page=AboutPCO [last accessed: 15th July
2007]
Schäffner, Ch. and Adab, B. (guest eds.) 2001. Across Languages and Cultures. Vol. 2. No. 2.
Special Issue on Hybrid Texts and Translation
Adamik, T., Jászó A. and Aczél, P. 2004. Retorika. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

106 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Álvarez, R. and Vidal, M.C.-Á. (eds.) 1996. Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, M. 2006. Translation and Conflict. A Narrative Account. London and New York:
Routledge.
Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (eds.) 1998. Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Chan, R. 2007. One Nation, Two Translations: China’s Censorship of Hillary Clinton’s Memoir.
In: Salama-Carr (ed.) Translating and Interpreting Conflict. New York: Rodopi. 119–131.
Chilton, P. and Schäffner, Ch. (eds) 2002. Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to
Political Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Chilton, P. and Schäffner, Ch., 1997. Discourse and Politics. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Discourse
as Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. 206–230.
Corréard, M. H. et al. (ed.) 2004. The Oxford Hachette French Dictionary. entry: enjeu, meaning:
3. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dimitriu, I. 2002. Translation, Diversity and Power. Current Writing Vol. 14. No. 2. i-xiv.
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.)
Discourse as Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. 258–284.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Hatim, B and Mason, I. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
Gagnon, Ch. 2006. Language Plurality as Power Struggle, or: Translating Politics in Canada.
Target Vol. 18. No. 1. 69–90.
Gutt, E.-A. 1998. Pragmatic Aspects of Translation: Some Relevance-Theory Observations. In:
Hickey, L. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hatim, B. and Munday, J. 2004. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New
York: Routledge.
Hazel, K. J. 1997. The problem of objectivity in Québec Journalism. In: British Journal of
Canadian Studies Vol. 12. No. 2. 337–346.
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T. A. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychological Review Vol. 85. No. 5. 363–394.
Kress, G. 1985. Ideological Structures in Discourse. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. 27–41.
Larson, Ch. U. 2001. Persuasion, Reception and Responsibility. Stamford: Wadsworth.
Linteau, P. A. 1996. Les origines de la diversité ethnique et culturelle du Québec. Montreal:
UCAM.
Long, D. L. and Chantel, S. P. 2002. Memory for Star Trek: The Role of Prior Knowledge in
Recognition Revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory and
Cognition. Vol. 28. No. 6. 1073–1082.
Marrone, S. 1990. Is it possible to translate institutional terms? A pragmatic approach. The
Interpreters’ Newsletter 3. 72–74.
McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. 1980a. The comprehension processes and memory structures
involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19.
668–682.
McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. 1980b. Priming in item recognition: The organisation of propositions
in memory for text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19. 369–386.
Mossop, B. 2006. From Culture to Business: Federal Government Translation in Canada. The
Translator Vol. 12. No. 1. 1–27.
Munday, J. 2007. Translation and Ideology. A Textual Approach. The Translator Vol. 13. No. 2.
195–217.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 A TRANSLATION STUDIES ORIENTED INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 107

Nagy, J. and Szkárosi, A. 2005. The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Media – An Analysis of
Lucien Bouchard's and Jean Chrétien's October 25th Speech. 6th Joint International
Conference of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and London Conference of Canadian
Studies, London.
Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St Jerome.
Olk, H. 2002. Critical Discourse awareness in translation. The Translator Vol. 8. No. 1. 101–116.
Our People. [Author unknown] (No date). Ottawa: The Strategic Counsel [Online]. Available:
http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_people/p_donolo.asp [last accessed: 15th July
2007]
Peter Donolo. [Author unknown] (3rd May, 2006 date) Ottawa: The Globe and Mail Ottawa:
[Online]. Available: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/ content/
subscribe? user_ URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2 Fstory%
2FRTGAM.20040525.edonolo0526%2FBNStory%2FspecialDecision2004%2F&ord=9354
262&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true [last accessed: 15th July 2007]
Pym, A, Shlesinger, M. and Jettmarová, Z. (eds.) 2006. Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and
Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pym, A. 1992. Translation and Text Transfer – An Essay on the Principles of Intercultural
Communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Pym, A. 2000. Negotiating the Frontier. Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History.
Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
Rose, J. 1993. Government Advertising in a Crisis: The Québec Referendum Precedent. In:
Canadian Journal of Communication 18(2) [Online]. Available: http://www.cjc-
online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=166 [last accessed: 25th June 2005].
Schäffner, Ch. 1998. Hedges in Political Texts: A Translational Perspective. In: Hickey, L. (ed.)
The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schäffner, Ch. 2003. Third Ways and New Centres – Ideological Unity or Difference? In:
Calzada-Pérez, M. 2003. Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology. Ideologies
in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome. 23–41.
Schäffner, Ch. 2004. Political Discourse Analysis from the point of view of Translation Studies.
Journal of Language and Politics Vol. 3. No. 1. 117–150.
Schäffner, Ch. and Adab, B. 2001. The Idea of the Hybrid Text in Translation: Contact as
Conflict. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 2. No. 2. 167–180.
Schäffner, Ch. and Kelly-Holmes, H. (eds.) 1996. Discourse and Ideology. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Seidel, G. 1985. Political Discourse Analysis. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. London: Academic Press. 43–60.
Katan, D. 1999. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters, and
Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Sondage. 1996. Particion: les Québécois disent NON. L’actualité 15th May, 1996. 38–42.
The Political Structure of Canada. [Author unknown] (No date). Ottawa: Statistics Canada
[Online]. Available: http://www43.statcan.ca/04/04a/04a_001_e.htm [last accessed: 15th
July 2007]
The Quebec Referendum 1995. [Author unknown] (No date). [Online]. Available:
www.synapse.net/radio/refer.htm [last accessed: 29th November 2006]
Trent, J. E. 1995. A Practical Guide to the 1995 Referendum [Online]. Available:
http://uni.ca/dialoguecanada/trent_guide.html [last accessed: 29th September 2006]
Trosborg, A. 1997. Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M. 2000. Translation and Political Engagement. The Translator Vol. 6. No. 1, 23–47.

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

 108 MÁTYÁS BÁNHEGYI

Tymoczko, M. 2003. Ideology and the position of the translator: In what Sense is a translator ‘in
between’? In: Calzada-Pérez, M. 2003. Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on
Ideology. Ideologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome. 181–202.
Tymoczko, M. and Gentzler, E. (eds.). 2002. Introduction. In: Translation and Power. Amherst
and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. i–xxviii.
Valdeón, R. 2007. Ideological Independence or Negative Mediation: BBC Mundo and CNN en
Español’s (translated) Reporting of Madrid’s Terrorist Attacks. In: Salama-Carr, M. (ed.)
Translating and Interpreting Conflict. New York: Rodopi. 99–118.
van Dijk, T. A. 1997. Discourse as interaction in society. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Discourse as
Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. 1–37.
van Dijk, T. A. 1985. Semantic Discourse Analysis. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. 103–135.
van Dijk, T. A. 2001. Critical Discourse Analysis In: Tannen, D., Schiffrin, D. and Hamilton, H.
E. (eds.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Oxford Blackwell. 352–371.
van Dijk, T.A. 2002. Political Discourse and Political Cognition. In: Chilton, Ch. and Schäffner,
Ch. (eds.) Politics as Text and Talk. Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 203–237.
van Dijk, T. A. 2006. Discourse and manipulation. In: Discourse and Society Vol. 17. No. 2. 359–
383.
Venuti, L. (ed.) 1992. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London:
Routledge.
Wells, P. 1995. Don’t abandon us – francophones say. Montreal Gazette 25th October, 1995,
Section A10.
Wodak, R. and van Dijk, T. A. (eds.) 2000. Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on
Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.

Sources
French version of the 1995 Referendum Speech: Message á la nation
The French version is available in full at:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/premiersministres/h4-4011-f.html [last accessed: 29th
November 2006]
English translation of the 1995 Referendum Speech: An Exceptional Situation, Televised speech
The English version is available in full at:
http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/documents/chretien_speech.htm [last accessed: 29th
November 2006]

Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1) (2008)

View publication stats