1
Politeness in translation: the case of political discourse
Maria Antoniou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Abstract
This essay examines the conditions governing political discourse with
regard to linguistic politeness. It analyses article titles from the French
newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique and their translations into Greek. It
compares linguistic markers of (im)politeness in French and Greek, trying to
investigate whether symmetrical structures are preserved in translation.
Some of the most frequent phenomena are tackled, such as
impersonalization, nominalization, and the verbal aspect. It is observed that,
in Greek, as far as article titles translation is concerned, the use of different
markers attach the enunciator to his/her utterance in an explicit way, while
in French a rupture is established between them. Given that this rupture
signals distancing and politeness, it appears that the French language
promotes more polite patterns, while the Greek language favors more direct
and less polite ones. We conclude with the hypothesis that politeness
2
markers expressing a linguistic attitude may also reflect a general attitude of
each linguistic community.
Introduction
The present essay constitutes a first attend to explore the conditions
governing political discourse in terms of linguistic politeness. We examine
some linguistic markers with regard to the expression of politeness or
impoliteness in the French and Greek language. We try to discover
underlying operations as well constraints regulating the use of such markers.
In other words, we aim to prove how linguistic markers "guide
metapragmatically aware readers into implicated assumptions and
implicated conclusions retrieved" (Ifantidou, 2011: 177). By contrastingly
comparing the data, we aim to reach some conclusions about the existence
or not of symmetrical linguistics structures in French and Greek, and,
possibly, about the underlying cultural values specific to each language.
Moreover, we investigate whether the Greek target version promotes
patterns which privilege vantage point of politeness or favoring options that
do not assume politeness.
We use the theoretical framework proposed by Penelope Brown and
Stephen Levinson as well as that of the Theory of Enunciation. Our corpus
consists of article titles drawn from the French monthly newspaper Le
3
Monde Diplomatique and their translations into Greek, both from the
electronic editions. The French examples are drawn from the newspaper‟s
official site www.monde-diplomatique.fr; their Greek translations are taken
either from the newspaper‟s official site in Greek, www.mode-
diplomatique.gr, or from the site of the Greek newspaper Eleutherotypia,
http://www.enet.gr. In the last case the translator's name is not mentioned.
The framework
Politeness is a phenomenon which has been sufficiently studied so far,
mainly because of it's discursive importance and it's serious implications in
the interpersonal communication. Lakoff (1975: 64) explained that
"Politeness is developed by societies in order to reduce friction in personal
interaction". He also remarked that politeness "can be defined as a means of
minimizing confrontation in discourse [...] designed specifically for the
facilitation of interaction" (Lakoff 1989: 102).
To begin with some introductory theoretical points within the Brown
and Levinson's framework, politeness is "equivalent to face-work" (cf. also
Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2013: 16). Consequently, terms such as face, positive
and negative face, face threatening acts, etc. are very frequent and figure
among the most debated notions. All these terms are referring to a variety of
social strategies that construct co-operative social interaction across
4
cultures. Let us now focus on some parameters which will help us
understand the phenomena and examples we study.
The association of politeness and indirectness has already been
established by many linguists: John Lyons (1977), Stephen Levinson1
(1983), David Crystal (2000 [1980]: 458), Peter Burke (1999), Maria
Sidiropoulou (1995: 294, 2004: 14).
Culpeper (2013: 12) offers an interesting historical description of
politeness in British culture, by associating indirectness to politeness. He
explains that "Indirectness undoubtedly was given a boost in British society
in the Victorian period, when values relating to the individual such as
privacy and self-respect became highly prized".
Amongst others, Brown and Levinson (1987: 15) argued that there are
three sociological variables that determine the weightiness of a Face
Threatening Acts:
1.„the social distance‟ (D) of Speaker and Hearer (a symmetric relation)
2.the relative „power‟ (P) of Speaker and Hearer (an asymmetric relation)
3.the absolute ranking (R) of imposition in the particular culture.
The consequence is that the more hierarchical a society is, the more it's
system of politeness is formal and elaborated (Burke 1999). This point had
been demonstrated by Brown and Levinson (1987: 130), who put emphasis
on the fact that,« generally negative politeness realisations are forms useful
for social distancing whereas positive politeness realisations are forms of
minimising social distance ».
5
Brown and Levinson (1987) consider that the politeness of a formula
which contains a potentially threatening act for the face (FTA) is
proportional to it's degree of indirectness. This proposition is crucial to our
study. It is obvious that the use of markers of politeness or impoliteness in
our examples orientate discourse towards a polite or impolite direction,
attributing accordingly characterisations to the enunciator and,
consequently, to our languages of study (if not in general, at least, as far as
political discourse is concerned).
Therefore, politeness and indirectness are inevitably bound to each
other. This appears to be Sifianou's conclusion too (2001: 137) as far as the
Greek-English couple of languages is concerned: « People are indirect in
order to be polite ». Let us also cite Sifianou (2001: 4) explaining that
«although indirectness is primarily a sentence level phenomenon, it affects
discourse organisation as a whole ». Philippaki-Warburton (1982: 106) had
already drawn attention to the fact that, in Greek, there is not one typical
word order schema (such as SVO) and that all possible schemas, « all
variations are produced by rules that are sensitive to syntactic features of the
lexical elements of the proposition and to syntactic and pragmatic elements
of the environment ». 2
After this short overview of the existing literature on the subject, we
proceed to a closer analysis of the translation of politeness between French
and Greek. We are trying to find the extent to which certain syntactic
features are used to fulfil pragmatic criteria of usage, whether syntactic
6
traces of politeness are preserved or not in translation, and how the degree
of cultural proximity between the source language and the target language
can influence the translation process. Our remarks are based on a broad
sample, given the fact that we examined 200 titles of press articles and their
translations, dating from 2008 until May 2014. The examples mentioned in
the present essay are necessarily very limited, but, hopefully, representative.
Political discourse
The first question to answer is why did we choose examples
from the political discourse and titles of press articles.
It is known that besides parliamentary debates, laws, government
regulations and other institutional forms of text and talk, political discourse
includes propaganda, political advertising, political speeches, media
interviews, party programs, etc. (van Dijk 1997a: 8). Schäffner (2004: 118)
additionally pointed out that:
It is generally acknowledged that the mass media play an important
role in d i s s emi n a t i n g p o l i t i c s and i n med i a t i n g b e t w een
p o l i t i c i ans an d th e p ub l i c , a l so i n a c r i t i c a l s e n s e
( c f . t h e c o n c e p t o f m e d i a t i s a t i o n o f p o l i t i c s ,
Ekström 2001: 564). The topics which quality newspapers discuss in
7
texts on their front p ages , i n ed i t o r i a l s an d comm ent s
s ho u l d th e r e f o r e b e go o d ex ampl e s o f political texts.
Moreover, these texts, of which the intention is to convince, use
language as a means of persuasion and even of control and manipulation
(see also Chadzisavidis, 2000: 38-39, 72). According to Kerbrat-Orecchioni
(2013: 21) « they are intrinsically of a confrontational nature », thus they are
bound by the notion of politeness and impoliteness. The interest of political
discourse relies on the fact that, as argued by Bakhtin (cited by
Holquist1981):
Undoubtedly, linguistic options for representing the world are clearly
central issues in political discourse, but so are issues of action and
textual production. Utterances within the context of political output are
rarely isolated grammatical cases; they operate within historical
frameworks and are frequently associated with other related utterances
or texts. [cf. also Chilton and Schäffner3 (1997: 207)].
Going into the same direction, but one step forward, Gotovos (1996:
111-116) explicitly associated the media to financial profit and political
influence.
Before proceeding to our corpus analysis, we should point out that it is
obvious that press article titles intend to attract their readers' attention
8
(Chadzisavidis, 2000: 25). Van Dijk (1985: 77) explained that « Headlines
may be used as expedient signals to make effective guesses about the most
important information of the text». Ifantidou (2011: 91) confirmed the
function fulfilled by headlines:
Headlines are often valued less for their summarizing function and
more for their role as 'riveting' devices. Ambiguous, insinuating,
humorous, playful headlines aim at attracting readers' attention than
conveying objective, or complete information.
Therefore we will proceed to an examination of some linguistic
markers that express (im)politeness, some linguistic devices employed by
translators in order to register the creation of (in)directness. The markers we
study include impersonal and personal structures (orientation of the
predicative relation), nominalization and the verbal aspect.
Corpus analysis
(a) Orientation of the predicative relation: (Im)personal,
(In)direct,(Im)polite
(1) Qu’importe les critiques? Αιιά, ποιος νοιάζεηαι για ηις κριηικές ;
9
[lit. what matter the
criticisms?]
Guillaume Pitron, February
2014
[litt. who cares_inherent-reflexive-verb
about the criticisms?]
Guillaume Pitron (trans. Korina
Vassilopoulou), Saturday 8 February 2014
Example (1) allows us to argue that the Greek translation is less polite
comparing to the French original. Guillemin-Flescher (1981: 486) explained
that:
When the predication does not concern the origin of the action /
process, there is often in French an impersonal construction (il faudra
l'envoyer), an indefinite pronoun as Co (on l'a envoyé en colonie de
vacances), an inanimate or a nominalized predicate as Co (une
faiblesse la saisit tout à coup).
Similarly, as shown by Chuquet and Paillard (1989: 141) about the
French-English languages: « Where French uses impersonal constructions,
English uses as a term of departure an animated element ». In other words,
Groussier and Rivière's (1996: 58) hypothesis is verified:
the quality / animated / constitutes a superior degree of determination
compared to the quality / unanimated/ given that the later can be either
discrete (discontinu p.ex. six daisies) or continuous (continu p.ex.
10
coffee, courage) while the first is only /animated / and therefore more
determined.
This also aplies to the translation from French to Greek. When in
French there is an inanimate Subject / Co associated with an animate verb,
Greek tends to establish homogeneity (Chuquet et Paillard, 1989: 141-142).
So Qu'importe les critiques? is translated as ποιος νοιάζεηαι για ηις κριηικές;
Consequently, while in French the predication does not address the origin of
the action, which is obfuscated, in Greek, the abandon of the impersonal
construction (containing the inanimate Subject / Co) in favor of a personal
one (cf. Who instead of The criticisms) attributes to the utterance a more
direct character, thus more aggressive and less polite (cf. also Sifianou 2008:
468).
Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987: 194) explained that the use
of passive voice is one among the ways to avoid any clear and direct
reference to the agents involved in the face-threatening act. They also
claimed (1987: 194) that impersonalization (passive and circumstantial
voices) expresses a negatively polite attitude (cf. also Sidiropoulou 2002:
56, Sifianou 2008: 468).
As far as the Greek language is concerned, the association of passive
voice to formal / scientific and journalistic discourse and to distanciation has
already been established (cf. Holton, Mackridge and Philippaki-Warburton
1999: 214, Sifianou 2008).
11
In this respect, we argue that, even thought the passive voice is related
to the creating of distance, the presence of the interrogative pronoun
referencing people (i.e. who), in the very beginning of the sentence, [instead
of the interrogative pronoun referencing inanimate objects and animals (i.e.
what)] contradicts impersonality/distance. Moreover, the interrogative
pronoun could have be avoided, since it is more a loan from English than a
necessity in Greek. This association has already been established by
Apostolou-Panara (1999: 339) and adopted by Sifianou (2003: 382).
One more remark: νοιάζεηαι is a passive form expressing reflexivity
(verbe pronominal intrinsèque), a reflexive verb that is lacking « the
corresponding non-reflexive from which they can be synchronically
derived».4
The assumption that can be drawn from what has been said so far is
that, not only the politeness of the original proposition is not translated in
Greek, but, on the contrary, the combination of homogenization (animated
subject) and passive voice attributes to the utterance a more impolite
character, according to Kerbrat-Orecchioni's classification (2013: 20-21).
Thus, choosing the passive voice instead of the active one is not an accident.
This use provides means for illustrating lack of politeness and presence of
aggression.
Example (2) leads to similar observations with regard to the presence
or absence of directness and, therefore of politeness:
12
(2) L‟art de gérer un legs
encombrant
[litt. The art of managing a
cumbersome legacy]
Laurent Bonelli and Raffaele
Laudani, January 2011
(2a) Η ηέρλε ηνπ λα διατειρίζεζαι
κηα ελνριεηηθή θιεξνλνκηά
[litt. The art of managing_you a
cumbersome legacy]
Bonelli Laurent and Laudani
Raffaele, (trans. Haris Logothetis),
May 2014
compare with another possible
translation:
(2b) Η ηέρλε ηνπ λα διατειρίζεηαι
κανείς κηα ελνριεηηθή ζπκπεξηθνξά
[the art of managing_imperfective
aspect one/someone a cumbersome
legacy]
also compare with:
(2c) Η ηέρλε ηνπ λα διατειριζηεί
κανείς κηα ελνριεηηθή ζπκπεξηθνξά
[the art of managing_perfective
aspect one/someone a cumbersome
legacy]
The structure of the example (2) illustrates that the French impersonal
infinitive is translated by the 2nd person singular in (2a). So, while in
13
French the co-enunciator is unmarked / not designated, Greek establishes a
location relative to (répérage par rapport à) the co-enunciator by using
markers of the 2nd person singular (see also Guillemin-Flescher 1981: 365,
Sidiropoulou 2003: 122, Nenopoulou 2006: 111, 114, Sifianou 2008: 470).
Sidiropoulou (1995: 294), examining the Greek-English couple of
languages, noticed that the use of first/second person pronouns constitutes
«another linguistic device which supports preference for directness in the
Greek press ». In French, the use of impersonal expressions, of infinitives,
etc. establishes a rupture between the enunciator and it's utterance, rendering
the utterance more indirect/polite. In Greek, the use of different markers
attach the enunciator to his utterance in an explicit way (Nenopoulou, 2006:
111, 114-115). As consequence of this absence of distanciation, the
utterance becomes more direct, thus more impolite, because of the use of the
2nd person singular, which constitutes an option among others without,
nevertheless, being as neutral as the impersonal infinitive structure of the
original version.
At this point we intend to remind our reader that the use of the 2nd
person singular is related to what is called intersubjective relation (also
called interpersonal relation) and which refers to the part of the meaning of
an utterance that reflects social relationships between interlocutors (see also
Antoniou 2004). Accordingly, any change at this feature in translation
reflects modifications in the interpersonal relations and vice-versa.
14
It would be interesting to point out here that Greek possesses an
impersonal alternative such the impersonal pronoun θαλείο [ka'nis] + 3rd
person singular, as in (2b) and (2c), which increases the distance among the
interlocutors and is, therefore, considered as being more polite (Sifianou
2008: 470, Chareaudeau 2006: 8). This would have resulted in the
translation λα δηαρεηξίδεηαη κανείς κηα ελνριεηηθή ζπκπεξηθνξά, which is
both completely acceptable and more polite. It would convey the author's
intention for indirectness. Nevertheless, not adopting this option constitutes
a strategic process of dramatization (as demonstrated by Chareaudeau
(2006: 8). Speaking of dramatization, Chadzisavidis (2000: 71-72)
explained that deformation is a common path leading to accentuating
(dramatizing) the event and, consequently, creating certain ways of thinking.
This deformation actually constitutes a biased approach that conveys to
journalistic discourse a sense of spaciousness which offers an alibi for
exculpation of any guilt on behalf of the newspaper.
Example (3) also illustrates indirectness:
(3) Ø Révolte américaine contre
les ogres du fast-food
[litt. Ø American revolt against
the ogre of fast-food]
Thomas Frank, February 2014
Η θαηάξξεπζε ηνπ κύζνπ ηωλ θαζη-θνπλη
[litt. The demolition of the myth of fast-
food]
Thomas Frank (trans. Korina
Vassilopoulou), 1st March 2014
15
In this case (3), the degree of determination still differs. We claim
that, in French, the zero determiner always refers to the notion and expresses
qualification (not quantification). Therefore the Greek version constitutes an
alternative pattern which differs in the degree of markedness it exhibits: it
prefers deictic specificity, appearing through the transformation of the zero
determiner (Ø) into a definite one [H(The)] (cf. also Sidiropoulou 2003:
122). Within the framework of the Theory of Enunciation, Bouscaren and
Chuquet (1987: 83) explained that:
The zero determiner (or absence of another mark) followed either by
singular or plural, always refers to the notion, that is to the underlying
predication of the constructed notional domain. Ex. "oil" = "what is
oil" as opposed to what is not oil. It is about the qualitative value of
the noun without any quantitative specification.5
Moreover, Bouscaren and Chuquet (1987: 83-84) added that,
depending on the context, we interpret the noun as referring either to
generality (généralité) or to individuals (specific but undetermined), but in
both cases zero determiner maintains it's main and qualitative value of
referring to the notion (renvoi à la notion).
As far as the definite article Η in the Greek translation is concerned, it
indicates a clearly different degree of determination. It is the marker of
pinpointing operation (opération de fléchage) where the collapse of the fast-
16
food myth is one among others (other collapses), an element that is set apart.
The definite article makes of the noun καηάρρεσζη a representative of the
class of collapses (αληηπξόζωπν ηεο ηάμεο ηωλ θαηαξξεύζεωλ)
(Νελνπνύινπ, 2006: 64). Consequently, replacing non determined elements
with more determined ones influences the degree of
qualification/determination and renders the utterance more direct and,
consequently, less polite, as already argued.
(b) Verbal aspect
Examining further the example (2), more interesting conclusions could
be formulated as far as politeness is concerned. It is worth talking into
consideration another relevant point, which is the incidence of the verbal
aspect in Greek. Διατειρίζεζαι / διατειρίζεηαι is in the imperfective aspect
while διατειρισηεί is in the perfective aspect.
In Greek, the use of the imperfective aspect appears normal in this
context (λα δηαρεηξίδεζαη / λα δηαρεηξίδεηαη θαλείο). The use of the
perfective aspect (λα δηαρεηξηζηείο / δηαρεηξηζηεί θαλείο) would not nave
been possible. Actually, it would seem quiet peculiar. This is the reason
why, although there is this readily available option (the perfective aspect), it
is not actually used, because it does not register culturally compatible
cognitive schemata. The explanation to this distinction is offered by
17
Sidiropoulou who associates directness to the durative (i.e. imperfective)
aspect. Because of the « open-ended attitude with respect to time
specification », the durative aspect also constitutes « another instance of
subjectification», of directness and, consequently, of absence of politeness
(Sidiropoulou 2003: 124, cf. also Giannakidou and Zwarts 1999: 106 and
Theophanopoulou-Kontou 1999: 120-121 talking about different degrees of
subject's implication).
(c) Nominalization
Continuing our comparative study, we claim that nominalization is a
more politeness-orientated phenomenon. We examine examples (4) and (5):
(4) Quand la Chine grisonnera
[litt. when China will be/become
grey]
Isabelle Attané, June 2011
Κινέζοι με γκρίζα μαλλιά
[litt. Chinese with grey hair]
Attané Isabelle, (tansl. Vassilis
Papakrivopoulos), Sunday 3 June 2012
(5) Immigrés dans les rets de la
mafia calabraise
« Ils voulaient des bras, ils ont
trouvé des hommes »
[litt. Immigrants (caught) in the
Κνκπίλεο κε επηδνηήζεηο θαη
κεηαλάζηεο ζηελ Καιαβξία
Αθρικανοί ζηα δίτησα ηης μαθίας
[litt. Rackets with subsidies and
18
nets of Calabrian mafia {super-
script title} - They wanted arms,
they found men] {main title}]
Christophe Ventura, November
2010
immigrants in Calabria {superscript
title} - Africans (caught) in the net of
mafia] {main title}]
Ventura Christophe, (transl. Vassilis
Papakrivopoulos), Sunday 30 /1/ 2011
Such examples are characterized by the change in the grammatical
category of the components of the phrase. More precisely, while in the
French original there are verbal phrases (groupes verbaux), in the Greek
translation they turn to nominal phrases (groupes nominaux) (cf. Guillemin-
Flescher, 1993 [1981]: 477-478). This procedure creates distanciation of the
enunciator concerning his/her utterance. This is why Brown and Levinson
(1987) characterized nominalization as a distance creating device (cf. also
Sidiropoulou 2004: 14). Sidiropoulou (2003: 34) also remarks that
nominalizations are "negative politeness devices that raise the level of
formality in interaction".
According to the Theory of the Enunciation, nouns refer to notions
(renvoient à des notions) and they can be presented to the enunciator as
more or less specified (particularized). The degree of determination/
specification of the noun is determined in accordance of the presence /
absence of determination. A noun can be registered within a span ranging
from generality (also mentioned as pure and simple expression of a notion)
to the absolute singularity of the unique occurrence. In our study cases, the
19
presence of nominal phrases in translation, deprived from determination,
refers to the concept expressed by the nouns to a purely qualitative level,
without reference to any particular situation. There is no quantification /
identification of particular elements, fact that allows us to conclude that
nouns refer to the pure and simple notion (Chuquet and Paillard 1989: 42-
43). Given this explanation, the association of "pure notion" with the
distanciation of the enunciator as well as politeness becomes obvious.
Sifianou (2001: 5) explicitly attributes to the case of nominalization
the will to avoid reference to the agent, in other words, the creation of a
certain distance of the enunciator from his utterance. This is undoubtedly the
reason that nominal phrases are traditionally associated to a more erudite
level of language, where distanciation is predominant (cf. also Sidiropoulou
2004: 14, Nenopoulou 2006: 110). This rupture with the situation of
enunciation being equally possible in French, it's absence in our examples
renders the utterances more direct, thus less polite.
As far as both examples (4) and (5) are concerned, we argue that the
Greek translation is more polite. Nominalization is always present. Of
course, we could consider that the copula are (i.e. caught) is omitted in the
example (5); however, even seen through this point of view, the tense switch
is considered by Brown and Levinson (1987: 120) as a positive politeness
strategy (Sidiropoulou 2002: 56). The tense switch consists in that voulaient
is a past continuous, while, in the Greek translation, the copula would be in
present simple [are (caught)].
20
Apparently, there are counterexamples as well, such as the examples
(6) and (7), where nominalization is translated by a verbal construction.
(6) Déception au sein de la
gauche américaine
Le procès de M. Barack Obama
[litt. Disappointment within the
American Left {surerscript} - Mr
Barack Obama's trial {main
title}]
Eric Alterman, October 2011
Ο Οκπάκα τάνει ηελ πίζηωζή ηνπ ζηελ
ακεξηθαληθή αξηζηεξά
[litt. Obama loses his credit with the
American Left]
Alterman Eric, (transl. Geor. Proto-
gerou), Sunday 20 November 2011
(7) Entre rivalités tribales et
intervention occidentale
Libye, les conditions de l’unité
nationale
[litt. Between tribal rivalries and
Occidental intervention
{surerscript} - Libya, the
conditions of national unity {main
title}]
Patrick Haimzadeh, September
2011
Τν Εζληθό Σπκβνύιην απέλαληη ζηελ
ηδηόκνξθε βεδνπϊληθή παξάδνζε
Η ελόηεηα ζηε Ληβύε περνάει από ηηο
θπιέο
[litt. The National council against the
peculiar Bedouin tradition {super-
script} - The unity in Libya passes
through the tribes {main title}]
Haimzadeh Patrick, Sunday 9 October
2011
21
It becomes obvious that, in the Greek translation of the example (6),
the predicative relation is oriented towards the agent of the process (cf.
loses). Therefore, even though the present tense Enestotas (simple present)
used in Greek is an aoristic verbal form, i.e. not having any temporal value
and referring to the notion (see Antoniou 2000: 214, 2003), the predicative
relation is clearly associated to a specific occurrence of lose, thus it becomes
more determined / orientated towards a specific occurrence. Consequently,
using a verbal phrase instead of a nominal one, the translator is opting for a
more direct as well as less polite expression.
Conclusion
Our comparative study leads us to the conclusion that, in the translation of
French article titles into Greek, literal translation is rarely used (see also
Sidiropoulou 1995: 288 as far as the English-Greek couple of languages is
concerned) and that different linguistic structures are used although there
exist symmetrical structures in the French and Greek languages. It also
appears that politeness markers expressing a linguistic attitude also reflect
the attitude of each linguistic community (Philippaki-Warburton 1982: 106,
Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1997: 70, Chadzisavidis 2000: 134-135, Sifianou 2001:
4 and 133, Nenopoulou 2006: 114, Antoniou 2014a). As demonstrated by
22
Nenopoulou (2006: 111, 114-115), in Greek, the use of different markers
attach the enunciator to his utterance in an explicit way. On the contrary, in
French, the use of impersonal expressions, of infinitives, etc. establishes a
rupture between the enunciator and it's utterance, rendering the utterance
more indirect/polite. Consequently, given that in translation the absence of
rupture is not transmitted, there is a stylistic/pragmatic differenciation. In
other words, the rupture with the origin of the enunciation expressed in the
French version is rendered in translation of article titles by markers of
directness, which are associated with impoliteness/lack of politeness.
The organization of the utterances in Greek has as its center the
subject/enunciator, while in French the center is set according to the relation
enunciator/co-enunciator. Therefore, it seems that it is the French language
that tends to be prone to social distancing whereas Greek language prefers
structures that minimize social distance and attribute to the utterance a more
marked/direct thus less polite character. In other words, while the original
promotes patterns which privilege vantage point of politeness, the target
version favors options that do not assume politeness or assume negative
politeness, as shown in examples (4) and (5).
These conclusions associating directness with absence of politeness in
Greek seem to be valid only for the case of political article titles, which is a
specific gender of discourse. It is noteworthy that previous studies
[Antoniou 2014a, Antoniou 2014b, Antoniou 2015 (forthcoming)]
concerning the expression of politeness in comics, show evidence of a
23
diametrical opposite situation, such as solidarity of the enunciator towards
the co-enunciator, proving Greek to be a very polite and very emotional
language indeed.
We believe that the differentiation of our conclusions in the present
study is a result of the specificity of the gender under consideration, i.e.
political discourse, as well as of the constraints that regulate newspaper
article titles and their translation (see also Chadzisavidis 2000: 134-135).
The aim of such translations consists in attracting the readers' attention and
in manipulating them rather than in informing and in being faithful to the
original text; therefore, the use of various modifications is absolutely
comprehensible (see also Sidiropoulou 1995: 286).
References
Antoniou, Maria. 2000. Etude contrastive de l’aoriste grec et des formes
verbales par lesquelles il est représenté en français. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Paris 7-Denis Diderot University, Villeneuve d‟Ascq:
Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, Thèse à la carte.
Antoniou, Maria. 2003. « Ο Ελεζηώηαο ηεο Νέαο Ειιεληθήο: έλαο άρξνλνο
ξεκαηηθόο ηύπνο » ["Enestotas (Present tense) in Modern Greek: an
atemporal verbal form"], Studies in Greek Linguistics, 23: 669-679.
24
Antoniou, Maria. 2004. « The Translation of Advertisement: French, Greek,
English ». In Choice and Difference in Translation. The Specifics of
Transfer, Maria Sidiropoulou and Anastasia Papaconstantinou (eds),
115-127. Athens: The National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
Selected papers of the International Conference on Translation,
University of Athens, Department of English Language and Literature,
3-6 December 2003.
Antoniou, Maria. 2014a. « Politesse et traduction: le cas du couple grec
moderne et français ». Selected papers of the 2nd International
Symposium "Language for International Communication: Linking
Interdisciplinary Perspectives", Department of English Studies and
Center of Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, 23-24 May
2013, Riga, Latvia
http://www.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/lu_portal/apgads/PDF/Langua
ge-for-international-2014.pdf.
Antoniou, Maria. 2014b. « Μεηαθξάδνληαο ηελ ζπλαηζζεκαηηθόηεηα. Η
πεξίπηωζε Γαιιηθήο-Ειιεληθήο» [« Translating Sentimentality: The
Case of French-Greek »], in Intercultural Translation Intersemiotic,
http://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/iti
Antoniou, Maria. 2015. « Μεηαθξάδνληαο ηίηινπο άξζξωλ εθεκεξίδωλ: ε
πεξίπηωζε ηεο Le Monde Diplomatique » [« Translating Newspaper
Article Titles: The Case Study of Le Monde Diplomatique »].
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Greek
25
Linguistics. Department of Mediterranean Studies, Aegean University.
Rhodos, 26-29 September 2013. (Forthcoming).
Apostolou-Panara, Athina-Maria. 1999. « Γιωζζηθή κεηαξξύζκηζε θαη
εμωηεξηθόο δαλεηζκόο: Η πεξίπηωζε ηεο Νέαο Ειιεληθήο »
[«Language reform and external borrowing: The case of Modern
Greek »]. Proceedings of the Conference 1976-1996: Twenty Years
From The Establishment of Modern Greek (Dimotiki) as Official
Language. 333-341. Athens: Tsiveriotis.
Bayraktaroğlu, Arın and Sifianou, Maria. 2001. Linguistic Politeness Across
Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bouscaren, Janine and Chuquet, Jean. 1987. Grammaire et textes anglais.
Guide pour l'analyse linguistique. Paris: Ophrys.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals
in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [First
published 1978 as part of Ester N. Goody (ed.): Questions and
Politeness.]
Burke, Peter. 1999. « Les langages de la politesse ». Terran, 33: 111-126.
Accessed in http://terrain.revues.org/2704#tocto1n2 the 20th/2/2014.
Chadzisavidis, Sofronis. 2000. Ελληνική γλώζζα και δημοζιογραθικός
λόγος. Θεφρηηικές και ερεσνηηικές προζεγγίζεις. [Greek Language and
Journalistic Discourse. Theoretical and Research Approaches].
Athens: Gutenberg.
26
Charaudeau, Patrick. 2006. « Discours journalistique et positionnements
énonciatifs. Frontières et dérives». Semen 22,
http:/semen.revues.org/2793
Chilton, Paul and Schaffner, Christina. 1997. « Discourse and Politics ». In
Discourse as Social Interaction, Van Dijk, Teun A.(ed.), 206-230.
London: Sag.
Chuquet, Hélène and Paillard, Michel., 1989. Approche linguistique des
problèmes de traduction. Anglais/français. Paris: Ophrys.
Crystal, David. 2000 (1980). A First Dictionary of Linguistics and
Phonetics. Blackwell Publishing.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2013. « Impoliteness: Questions and Answers ». In
Aspects of Linguistic Impoliteness, D. Jamet and M. Jobert (eds). 2-15.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Zwarts, Frans. 1999. « Aspectual properties of
temporal connectives: The ambiguity of "κόιηο", "zodra", and "as soon
as" ». In Greek Linguistics '97. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on the Greek Language. 104-113. Athens: Ellinika
Grammata.
Gotovos, Th. 1996. Ραηζιζμός: κοινφνικές, υστολογικές και παιδαγφγικές
όυεις μιας ιδεολογίας και μιας πρακηικής. [Racism: social,
psychological and educational aspects of an ideology and a practice].
Athens: Ministry of National Education and Religions (YPEPTH).
27
Groussier, Marie-Line and Rivière, Claude. 1996. Les mots de la
linguistique. Lexique de linguistique énonciative. Paris: Ophrys.
Guillemin-Flescher, Jacqueline. 1981. Syntaxe comparée du français et de
l'anglais: Problèmes de traduction. Paris: Ophrys.
Holquist, Michael. 1981. Introduction to Mikhail Bakhtin's The Dialogic
Imagination: Four Essays. Austin and London: University of Texas
Press.
Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter and Philippaki-Warburton, Irini. 1999.
Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. Athens:
Patakis [translated by Vassilios Spiropoulos].
Ifantidou, Elly, 2011, Genres and Pragmatic Understanding. Athens:
Patakis Publishers.
Jamet, Denis and Jobert, Manuel. (eds). 2013. Aspects of linguistic
impoliteness. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1997 (1980). L'énonciation: de la
subjectivité dans le langage. Paris: A. Colin.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2002. « Politesse ». In Dictionnaire
d’analyse du discours, P. Charaudeau and D. Maingueneau (eds.),
439-443. Paris: Seuil.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2013. « Politeness, impoliteness, non-
politeness, “polirudeness”: the case of political tv debates ». In
Aspects of linguistic impoliteness, J. Denis and J. Manuel (eds), 16-45.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
28
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. « Language and Woman's Place ». In Language in
Society 2 (1): 45-80
Lakoff, Robin. 1989. « The limits of politeness. Therapeutic and court room
discourse ». Multilingua 8 (2/3): 101-129.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
Nenopoulou, Tonia. 2006. Εκθώνηζη, γλφζζικές διεργαζίες και μεηάθραζη
[Enonciation, Linguistic Operations and Translation]. Thessaloniki:
University Studio Press.
Philippaki-Warburton, Irini. 1982. « Πξνβιήκαηα ζρεηηθά κε ηε ζεηξά ηωλ
όξωλ ζηηο ειιεληθέο πξνηάζεηο ». [« Problems related to the word
order in Greek Sentences »]. Γλφζζολογία. 1: 99-107.
Schäffner, Christine. 2004. « Political Discourse Analysis from
the Point of View of Translation Studies ». Journal of
Language and Politics 3(1): 117–150.
Sidiropoulou, Maria. 1995. « Headlining in Translation. English vs. Greek
Press ». Target 7 (2): 285-304.
Sidiropoulou, Maria. 2002. Contrastive Linguistic Issues in Theatre and
Film Translation. Athens: Typothito-George Dardanos.
Sidiropoulou, Maria. 2003. Options in Translation. Cognitive and Cultural
Meaning in English-Greek Translation. Athens: Sokolis Publishing.
Sidiropoulou, Maria. 2004. Linguistic Identities through Translation.
Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
29
Sifianou, Maria. 2001. Discourse Analysis. An Introduction. Athens: Leader
Books.
Sifianou, Maria. 2003. « ''Εληνπηζκέλεο κνξθέο ηεο Αγγιηθήο'': Οη
αλαθνηλώζεηο ζην Μεηξό ηεο Αζήλαο » [« Situated Forms of the
English Language: Announcements in Athens Underground »]. In
Σύγτρονες ηάζεις ζηην Ελληνική Γλφζζολογία [Contemporary Trends
in Greek Linguistics] ], D. Theophanopoulou-Kontou (ed), 374-389.
Athens: Editions Pataki.
Sifianou, Maria. 2008. « Κνηλνβνπιεπηηθόο ιόγνο θαη επγέλεηα »
[«Parliamentary Discourse and Politeness »]. In Γλώζζης τάριν, A.
Moser, Aikaterini Bakakou-Orfanou and allii (eds), 464-474. Athens:
Ellinika Grammata.
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra. 1999. « Τα κέζα ακεηάβαηα ξήκαηα
ηεο Νέαο Ειιεληθήο θαη ε κεζνπαζεηηθή θαηάιεμε » [« Middle
intransitive verbs of Modern Greek and medio-passive declination »].
In Greek Linguistics '97, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on the Greek Language, 114-122. Athens: Ellinika
Grammata.
Van Dijk , Teun A. 1985. «Structures of News in the Press». T.A. van Dijk
(ed.) Discourse and Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter. 69-93.
Van Dijk, Teun A.(ed.) 1997a. Discourse as Social Interaction. London :
Sag.https://hal.archives-
30
ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/497338/filename/Traduction_vietnamien_
-_francais.pdf
1 "... most usages are indirect. For example, the imperative is rarely used to
issue requests in English; instead we tend to employ sentences that only
indirectly do questioning" (Levinson 1983: 264). 2 This is our translation from the Greek original.
3 According to Chilton and Schäffner (1997: 207) political discourse is "a
complex form of activity" based on the recognition that politics can not be
conducted without language. 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb#cite_note-Parry-5
5 This is our translation from the French original: « L'article Ø (ou absence
d'autre marqueur) suivi soit du singulier soit du pluriel renvoie toujours à la
notion, c'est-à-dire à la prédication sous-jacente du domaine notionnel
construit. Ex. oil = "ce qui est huile" par opposition à ce qui n'est pas huile".
Il s'agit de la valeur qualitative du nom sans aucune spécification de
quantité».