INTERPRETATION

Created By :

• Iis Nur Aisiyah• Adis Tri Permatasari• Iin Inayatul Maula• Rizka Aprilia• Fajar Affriyan

2-HEnglish Department

University of Gunung Jati

QUOTATIONS/ALLUSIONS/TRANSPOSITION

When a speaker quotes from one of the conference documents, the interpreter should always try to use the official translation of the quotation in the target language if the document is available in that language. When a speaker has provided a text of his speech in advance of delivery and the speech contains a literary quotation, the interpreter should try to write out a translation at least of the key parts of the quotation in advance, so that it will come out more smoothly during the interpretation of the speech.

When a speaker quotes from a literary work and the written text has not been provided, the interpreter can usually handle it by translating the quotation. For example, an American delegate once argued against the Berlin Wall by quoting a well-known line from a poem by Robert Frost: "Something there is that does not love a wall". The French interpreter could simply translate this as "Il y a en nous quelque chose qui répugne à un mur", and the Spanish interpreter could say "Hay algo que no quiere a los muros", or similar words.

No one expects an interpretation (as, opposed to a translation) of a quotation to be a literary masterpiece, and the idea is usually sufficiently clear . Many famous quotations, such as "to be or not to be", have set translations in most languages, and an interpreter should strive to learn them by heart.

When the quotation is originally from a work in the target language, it is, of course, desirable to avoid retranslation and use the original quotation if you know it. If not, try at least to use language that reflects the style, register , and period of the author .

For example, if a Frenchman quotes Shakespeare in French and you have to translate it back into English but do not remember the quotation, try at least to give your retranslation something of the flavor of Shakespeare. If the quotation is lengthy and this is impossible, an acceptable alternative approach is to paraphrase the quote in simple, modern English in a way that makes it plain to the.

How could the English interpreter , in the short time available, convey such a complex message? The easy way out was to translate the allusion and hope that everyone in the intended audience (Western experts in chemical and biological weapons) was familiar with La Fontaine's fables ,and would therefore recognize the allusion and get the point. But that seemed unlikely .

And, given the importance of the message, it was better not to take the chance. So, the interpreter opted for transposition: looking for an approximately equivalent reference drawn from English literature which would preserve, if not the full import of the French allusion, at least its main point and essential flavor , humorously portraying the mutual paranoia of the arms-race deadlock as absurd and counterproductive.

In other words, the English interpreter use dastereoty pefrom modern American literature to transpose a stereotype from classical French literature. Given the constraint of brevity , this strategy worked, and it at least preserved the most important element in the original

Argumentation relies primarily on logic and or emotion in varying doses. An interpreter must be alert to both and remember that they are not mutually exclusive and that neither is better perse. Logically sound argument can be stated in such powerful term that it overwhelms all absurdity. And if the speaker’s logic is faulty, the interpreter’s voice must not betray the absurdity. And if the speaker waxes lyrical to a degree that the interpreter finds ridiculous, the interpreter’s voice must not betray his skepticism. This requires interpreters to develop some appreciation of both logical and emotive rhetoric.

Demand great attention to detail on the part of an interpreter, who must carefully follow every step in the speaker’s train of thought. It is important for an interpreter to bear in mind that, in a speech of this kind, a speaker may have to present in detail positions with which he or she is known to disagree.

ARGUMENTATION

In the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to control as to slavery in our federal territories? Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative.

Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine 44”, or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it - how they expressed that better understanding? In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory , and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the "thirty nine" who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority , nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to an unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution… This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority , nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their.

Insured that he who is born poor is no longer condemned to die poor . (Statement by the President of El Salvador) Paradoxically , just as mankind has acquired the technology to reduce the distance between the Earth and other celestial bodies in the universe, the gap between the rich and the poor has alarmingly widened. (Statement by the President of Vietnam)(a) Which of these two arguments relies more on emotion and which appeals more to reason? Which one is stronger?(b) Could the second argument be strengthened by going beyond stating a paradox and using the technique of reduction ad absurdum? Is it the kind of argument that could be strengthened by statistics?(c)Could the two arguments be combined? Try combining them into one sentence. 6 Unlike the incisive logic of Lincoln's speech (pp.118-120), the following excerpt from a speech by President Nelson Mandela of South I Africa relies almost entirely on emotional and moral rhetoric, yet is also very compelling.

After Rome successfully resisted the invasion of Hannibal, the women 4 Rome demonstrated and petitioned the Senate to repeal the austerity laws adopted during the emergency , which forbade them to wear jewelry and colorful dresses. It was the first time in Roman history that women had played any role outside the home.

Notice that, in this short speech, Cato uses "every trick in the book". He "shames" theRoman male by suggesting that he is not man enough to keep women under control. He appeals to authority by saying that, if the laws were repealed, women would be placed on equal footing even legally! He appeals to morality by characterizing women aslicentious. He ingratiates himself with his audience, speaking to them "man to man" when he slyly says, "you know what women are like". He uses the "train of horrors" or "slippery slope“ tactic by hinting darkly at the disastrous consequences that would ensue if women achieved equality.

He elicits sympathy and paints himself as the victim by saying that women have already destroyed men's freedom in the home. He appeals to self-interest by suggesting to the men that they would come to be dominated by women, but he portrays this selfish position as being civic-minded. He uses scare tactics by recalling "you remember what it was like before ', we passed these laws". He uses reduction absurdum humor by concluding that the Romans, who ruled the world, would be the only men in the world ruled by their own wives. And, last but not least, he frames the debate in hisown terms, ignoring other issues.(a) Identify the parts of Cato's speech which contain these different forms of argumentation. Are there any others?(b) Write an equally concise speech using the same techniques of argumentation to refute Cato's position.(c) Does Cato, at any point in his speech, address the central issue of whether emergency Austerity laws adopted in wartime should be kept on the books during peacetime? Was his failure to address this key issue fatal to his other arguments? (The laws he favored were repealed.)(d) Translate Cato's speech into English, French, or your other languages.

1. How to interpret a quotation in interpreting ?

2. What are the functions of allusion ?

3. The interpreter’s voice must not betray his skepticism. How if the interpreter feels skepticism is his perform?

QUESTION