1

Politeness in translation: the case of political discourse

Maria Antoniou

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

manto@frl.uoa.gr

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».