( ). - -2014

bLAZHE KONEsKI FACULTY OF PHILOLOGY sKOPJEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETING

DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATION

(LECTURE NOTES)

TATJANA PANOVA-IGNJATOVIK, PhD

2014

You might like to visit Tsar Samuils Fortress in Ohr

d.

.

dont agree at all.

.

I dislike the idea.

I dont like the idea at all.

.

I reject what you say.

I cant accept what you say.

.

Don't just say "I disagree", show them that you are listening and that you understand them before you explain your opinion.

You can do this by using statements like:

Yes, but...

I see what you mean, but...

I agree up to a point, but

For example:I think we should wait until a better opportunity comes along.

Yes, but we might not get another opportunity like this for a while.

I think we should ask for a 20% discount because it will show them that we are serious.

I see what you mean, but I think 20% might be a bit too much. It might put them off.

Avoid negative words

Instead use positive words in a negative form

People react to positive sounding words, even if they are used with a negative auxiliary.

Don't say: I think that's a bad idea. Say: I don't think that's such a good idea.

Introductory phrases

Use introductory phrases to signal bad news for the listener

e.g. Unfortunately.. / Im afraid.. / Im sorry but.. / With (all due) respect.. These phrases can soften bad news.Signalling that something unpleasant follows or we have to reject his request:

To be honest,

= , ... Frankly (speaking),

= (), ... To put it bluntly,

= , ... As a matter of fact,

= , , ... Actually,

= ,/ , ... In fact,

= , ... Well,

= ,/ , ... Say the magic word: SorryThis word can be used in many ways: to interrupt, to apologise, to show you don't understand, to disagree. It diffuses tension and it allows you to start a statement more comfortably.

Sorry, but can I just say something here?

Sorry, but I don't really agree.

Sorry, but I think that's out of the question!

Reacting to an apology- No problem. (neutral European)

It doesnt matter. (Brit. Engl. rather negative)

Its OK! (Am. Engl. colloquial)

Dont bother. (neutral)

Its fine. Please dont worry.Thats quite all right, we (completely) understand.Avoid 'finger pointing' statements with the word 'you

This is aggressive and too direct. Try to avoid saying 'you' and put the focus on 'I' or 'we'.

Don't say: You don't understand me.

Say: Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Don't say: You didn't explain this point.

Say: I didn't understand this point.

Don't say: You need to give us a better price.

Say: We're looking for a better price. Receiving compliments

A: Thank you for the flowers you brought yesterday. They were beautiful.

B: I am glad you liked them.A diplomat is a man who always remembers a womans birthday but never remembers her age.

(Robert Frost)

The language of diplomacy is ways of saying very nasty things in a very polite way.Some negotiating expressions Being diplomatic in business negotiations

Some of the features of diplomatic English.

You can use the following techniques to sound more diplomatic in English.

1. Use the past continuous to sound more distant

e.g. We were hoping to hammer out the details today. / We were thinking of offering you athree month trial. Using the past continuous helps the speaker to sound more tentative and not overly direct.

2. Use negative questions to make suggestions

e.g. Wouldnt it be better to..? / Dont you think we could.....? / Couldnt we.....? These questions carry the speakers opinion and ask for a reaction.

3. Use modifiers to make things seem less or smaller

e.g. That may cause a slight problem for us. / We have a bit of a problem with the accounts. Using 'slight' here makes helps the speaker to be softer, phrases like a bit of, sort of, kind of came have the same effect.

4. Modal verbs can be used in a similar way e.g. We might be able to agree to that, provided...../ We may be able to help you there..The modal verbs make the verb weaker and not as definite.

5. Use positive adjectives with not instead of negative adjectives

e.g. That might not be possible / Thats not as reasonable as we hoped you would be. The positive adjectives are nicer for people to hear than negative ones.

6. Use phrases to signal bad news for the listener

e.g. Unfortunately.. / Im afraid.. / Im sorry but.. / With respect.. These phrases can soften bad news.

Use of language in diplomacyDESCRIPTION:

Ambassador Stanko Nick takes a practical approach, examining issues such as the choice of language in bilateral and multilateral meetings, the messages conveyed by language choice, difficulties posed by interpretation, and aspects of diplomatic language including nuance, extra-linguistic signalling, and understatement. Language, according to Nick, is not a simple tool but "often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation."

Source: Language and Diplomacy. Ed by J. Kurbalija and H. Slavik (2001)

Author:Stanko Nick Year:2001

File:Language_Diplomacy_Chapter2.PDFAn old and funny catchphrase says that one should use many languages to be properly understood: speaking to God, Latin; to the military, German; to the merchants, Greek and Arabic; to the musicians, Italian; to his cook, Chinese; to the sailors and engineers, English; to the artists, Russian; to friends, Spanish; to enemies Dutch or Hungarian; to his girl-friend, French; to his wife, Japanese...

What language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or what language should diplomats use? Or, to be more precise, what language/languages should a (young) diplomat try to learn to be more successful in his profession?

The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in several ways. First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired one), the speech "used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large group of people";1 in this sense we can say, for example, thatFrench used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-and-such a country spoke of the given subject in totally non-diplomatic language. Also, the term can refer to the particular form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as theminister formulated his conditions in unusually strong language.It may mean as well the verbal or non-verbal expression of thoughts or feelings: sending the gunships is a language that everybody understands.

All of these meanings - and probably several others - can be utilised in both oral and written practice. In any of these senses, the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but very often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Romanlegates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots.

1. Let us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning - that of a tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue. Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the situation to be able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or British and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a serious difference between the same language used in one country and another.2

There are several ways to overcome the problem of communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these ways is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other. Problems may arise: the knowledge of the language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language. A potential problem may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible bad misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect (even if the translator has a good knowledge of both languages, he/she may not be familiar with the particular subject which can be extremely specific - from the protection of the ozone layer to the homologisation of sports records; it was not without reason that the slogan traduttore-traditore,translator = traitor, could be found in mediaeval Italy). Finally, there is the possibility of using one international synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political - and therefore also cultural and linguistic - scene.

So, which language is the diplomatic one? The answer is not simple at all. To start with, there is no single diplomaticlinguafrancathat could be inscribed in the above-mentioned catchphrase. In the past there were periods when one language or another served as a common, widely-used means of inter-state communication, although usually limited to certain geographic areas or political groups of countries. Such a role was played by Acadian (Asyrian-Babilonian), by literary Chinese, by Greek "koin`e" (a mixture of dialects, based mainly on Ionic and Attic), and later by mediaeval Greek, then Latin, Arabic, Turkish, and yet later by Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Italian, Dutch, German, French, and recently, more and more, by English. Very often attempts have been made to impose one language or another, with the argumentation that it is "clearer", "more flexible", "more expressive", "more eloquent, subtle or refined", "most suitable for international negotiations", etc. The mere fact that historically such a role has been taken in turns by so many languages proves that linguistic or semantic reasons are not decisive.3 On the contrary, it can be said that the dominant role of one language or another in diplomacy has resulted from the political, strategic, economic, cultural or other domination of one power or another in international relations.

Let's take a very precise example; the linguistic requirements of a counsellor in the embassy of a small European country in Vienna. Obviously, his/her first need is a good knowledge of German, particularly if his professional activity is oriented towards business circles, press, consular work or cultural life. (In the Austrian Foreign Ministry at Ballhausplatz everybody speaks English and many also speak French, but they like very much to hear foreign representatives speaking good German - particularly if it is not the harsh German of northern Germany, but the soft and melodious Austrian German!) However, many diplomats in Vienna have not read my paper and many of them do not speak German. If our colleague wishes to mix freely with other diplomats he will first need English, and possibly also French and Russian as well (depending on the sections of the diplomatic corps he/she is primarily interested in contacting). If his work includes covering the activities of international organisations in Vienna (more than a dozen!), he will definitely need English, while some knowledge of French, Russian, Spanish, and perhaps also Arabic (specifically for the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) would be very useful...not a very simple answer to the first question, is it?!

Let's suppose our colleague is a well-trained and experienced diplomat, speaking several languages more or less fluently. Which language out of his repertoire should he use in a particular situation? Mechanically, the answer is the language he can speak best. It is logical choice, of course, but professionally not always the wisest one. There are some tactics, even politics, involved in making that decision. Sometime it might be reasonable to use a language which one speaks less perfectly - be it to avoid the maternal tongue of the interlocutor and put him on a more equitable foot, or to avoid a language which might have an undesirable political connotation (for example to speak Hebrew to an Arab - although this language might be your best spoken one!); or to make a gesture of goodwill, courtesy, or a sign of special respect for your partner in conversation or for his country. This is very often done by statesmen arriving on an official visit to a foreign country or by delegates at international conferences saluting the chairman and paying tribute to the host country, when even a few words pronounced in the local language may break the ice and create a positive atmosphere. The "colleague" from whom we can learn the most in this respect is His Holiness the pope John Paul II, one of the very best polyglots in the entire diplomatic history.

2. The use of language inwrittendiplomatic communication is usually explicitly determined (most often by bilateral agreement). Generally speaking, it is based upon one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law - the principle of sovereign equality of states. In application of this principle to the linguistic ground there are several formulas - each implemented in a symmetric way: a) each side writes its communications (notes, letters, etc.) inits own language(e.g., the Croatian Ministry in Zagreb, as well as the Croatian Embassy in Budapest, write in Croatian, while the Hungarian Ministry and their Embassy in Zagreb write in Hungarian); b) each side writes in the language of the other side (opposite from practice a); c) the correspondence ineach country is conducted in the local language(e.g. both sides in Zagreb correspond in Croatian, while in Budapest they do so in Hungarian); d) both sides use a third, mutually agreed, language - e.g., Russian, French or other. Again, each of these formulas has its advantages, but also its deficiencies.

3. Communication in multilateral diplomacy, of course, is even more complicated, inadequate and costly. Various international organisations and numerous diplomatic conferences try - more or less successfully - to solve the linguistic problem by reducing the innumerable possibilities of intercommunication to a relatively small number of selected languages - so calledofficialorworkinglanguages.4 It is obvious that the growing democratisation of international relations results - among other things - in an ever growing number of languages used in multilateral diplomacy. While the idea of the sovereign equality of nations and states, small and large, rich and poor, cannot be questioned, the astronomical cost5 of interpretation at conferences and translation of an enormous amount of written material for international organisations speaks very much against this aspect of its implementation in practical life. Besides, the use of interpretation is slow, impersonal, very often incorrect, and sometimes grossly wrong. As an illustration, an almost unbelievable example could be mentioned which concerns nothing less than the very name of the United Nations in different linguistic versions of the world organisation's "bible" - its charter. In English, French, and Spanish it is called the "United Nations". In Russian, however, it is named "Organisation of the United Nations". The same has been transferred - probably from Russian - to Bulgarian as well.6 Another phenomenon is well known to all diplomats with experience in the work of international organisations or various other multilateral conferences: delegates who do not speak one of the official or working languages well (or who are simply too self-critical about it) hesitate to take the floor at all, or miss the best moment to do so. Thus, they considerably reduce their own delegation's input and probably also reduce the potential value of the final result of the meeting.

4. Leaving the question of the choice of language aside, we can examine a more substantial aspect of language and diplomacy - the aspect of themessage itself, the message contained in every diplomatic communication, oral or written.

Oral communication is the quintessence of personal contact, which - in turn - remains the very substance, even theraison d'etreof diplomatic work. Written communications, telegraph, telephone, fax, and recently various interactive IT systems (Minitel, Internet, electronic mail, etc.) are undoubtedly extremely useful and often much faster and more efficient than personal contacts, but they can not and probably for a long time shall not be able to substitute for a friendly, confidential chat over a cup of coffee.

Every verbal discourse, be it a simple chat, conversation, exchange of views, formal diplomaticdmarche, official negotiation or any other form, basically is adialogue, and therefore consists ofspeaking and listeningto the other person. Speaking is the use of words, linking them into sentences, and then arranging the sentences in a logical order; in addition, it includes accentuation of some words or emphasis of particular parts of a sentence. Oral communication also includes a number of "side effects", such as tone of voice (friendly, solemn, confidential, menacing, nonchalant, etc.), pauses between words or sentences, order in which different parts of the message are presented, gesticulation, face mimic, smiling and so on.7

The choice of the right words is extremely important in diplomacy. Through the centuries a very carefully balanced, restrained, moderate vocabulary has been developed, ensuring a particular way of refined control over nuances in the meaning of words - both when agreeing with one's interlocutor (but taking care not to give the impression of undue enthusiasm!) as well as in rejecting his views (again with fitting concern to avoid undesired offence).

When a diplomat interprets his interlocutor's language and even single words used in a dialogue or correspondence, he always starts from the presumption that the choice of words and phrasing has been conscientious and deliberate. Nobody should nor indeed does assume that the words used are the result of insufficient knowledge of a language, inadequate translation or even less - a momentary bad mood! Knowing that the text will be scrutinised in such a way, the speaker or writer has to be accordingly careful about the formulations he uses. This is more sensitive when preparing a written text since it cannot be softened or corrected once it has been sent out8, while in conversation - if the reaction of the other side is negative - one can always say "Let me explain..." or "In other words..." and then declare something completely different from the original version.

Words are bricks from which sentences are made. Each sentence should be a wound-up thought. If one wants to be clear, and particularly when using a language which he does not master perfectly, it is better to use short, simple sentences. On the contrary, if one wishes to camouflage his thoughts or even not say anything specific, it can be well achieved by using a more complicated style, complex sentences, digressions, interrupting one's own flow of thought and introducing new topics. One may leave the impression of being a little confused, but the basic purpose of withholding the real answer can be accomplished.

One of the typical characteristics of "diplomatic" language is a certain subdued tone, some kind of understatement. It is correct to say that the real weight of words and terms in diplomatic professional jargon ismuchstrongerthan those same words in "normal" everyday speech. Just a few examples: the assistant minister of foreign affairs invites the ambassador of a neighbouring country late in the afternoon to his office and expresses the "concern of his government over reporting in the ambassador's country's press which is not in harmony with the existing friendly relations between the two countries." Translated to standard language this means "we believe that your government is encouraging unfriendly, even hostile, press against our country, and in doing so you have passed the limits and I must warn you that we shall not tolerate it any more." The fact that the ambassador has been summoned to the ministry after office hours indicates that the local authorities consider the matter to be urgent and even beyond the regular framework of bilateral relations. If the minister adds that "he is afraid that the continuation of such practices might reflect negatively on relations between the two countries", it means that these relations are already disrupted (quite evidently, otherwise there would be neither unfriendly press nor sharp reactions on the other side), so that one could expect the postponement of an already agreed bilateral visit or signing of a bilateral cooperation agreement. If the minister even says he is afraid that "his government will not be able to control outbursts of anger in the media or restrain the feeling in the parliament any more" the ambassador would not make a mistake in interpreting it as an announcement of a broad hostile campaign against his country, probably even of a fierce parliamentary debate with an utmost unfriendly charge.

There are several specialised types of diplomatic language in various fields of diplomatic activity - for the redaction ofcommuniqus("atmosphere of friendliness", "closeness of views", "complete openness", etc.), for negotiations (hence the difference between so-calledsoftandhardnegotiators - although I recognise only the distinction betweengoodandbad ones!), for unofficial contacts outside of official premises and for informal occasions, for participation in international conferences, for the conclusion of international treaties, etc.

There are many other aspects - both linguistic or semantic and also metaphoric - of the use of language in diplomacy. Too many, actually, for a relatively short lecture -ars longa, vita brevis!9 In conclusion, it can be said that all of the aforementioned elements serve the purpose of maximising the effect of spoken or written text in diplomatic practice, better transmitting a message, achieving more convincing results, "talking the interlocutor in", convincing him or dissuading him

In this sense the knowledge of language or languages and its (or their) optimal, even masterly use, is not simply al'art-pour-l'artisticskill; they are an absolute must, aconditio sine quanon of a successful, professional, complete diplomat and his responsible approach to his demanding job.

ENDNOTES

1. Definition fromThe World Book Dictionary(Chicago: World Book Inc., 1995).

2. So, for example, the differences between spoken Arabic used in Maghreb and Mashrek countries; or British and American English (it is said that Britain and America are two friendly nationsdividedby the same language...).

3. A similar conclusion is drawn by Dr Ivo Lapenna in his very interesting report "The Language Problem in International Relations", presented at the First International Conference on the Problem of Language in Science and Education, Rotterdam, 1972.

4. Official languages of the UN, for example, are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish; working languages are English and French. The EU and the Council of Europe use English and French; the Danube Commission - French, German and Russian; OPEC - Arabic, English and Spanish; high-level meetings of the non-aligned movement - Arabic, English, French and Spanish; etc.

5. Several years ago it was calculated that the translation ofone single pageto all official languages of the UN amounted to the value necessary to cover the cost of living for one person in India for a whole year! When one takes into account the number of international organisations, and the thousands of pages translated almost daily it is easy to subscribe to the proposal of introducing Esperanto as the language for international communication.

6. The author was not able to check the Arabic and Chinese texts.

7. These effects sometimes take quite bizarre forms - for example, when Nikita Hruscov took off his shoe and banged the rostrum with it, during his speech to the UN General Assembly.

8. The ancient Romans used the expression scripta manent - the written text remains.

9. Latin: art is huge and life is short.

Language and Diplomacy

Language is one of our most basic instincts. From birth humans communicate, at first in order to survive - to ensure that needs are met. But at an amazing rate communication becomes refined into language, one of the defining characteristics of human beings. InThe Language InstinctStephen Pinker writes:In any natural history of the human species, language would stand out as the pre-eminenttrait A common language connects the members of a community into an information-sharingnetwork with formidable collective powers. Anyone can benefit from the strokesofgenius, lucky accidents, and trial-and-error wisdom accumulated by everyone else,present or past. And people can work in teams, their efforts coordinated by negotiated agreements. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1994, 16)As Pinker points out, language is what allows us to build on the work of others, benefiting from their knowledge and collaborating to achieve more than one person can alone. The processes of diplomacy - communicating, negotiating, reaching and formulating agreements, collecting, creating, transmitting and recording knowledge - all depend on language.

Studies of diplomacy usually concentrate on the message rather than the means. However, examination of language use in diplomacy can lead to a better understanding of the way diplomacy functions and why some diplomatic processes are more successful than others. Through careful and critical attention to various aspects of diplomatic language we can improve our understanding of both the explicit and implicit messages world leaders and other political figures send out, and improve our own ability to communicate in the most effective and appropriate ways.Diplomats and Intercultural Communication

A core part of a diplomat's work is easing communication among different national and professional cultures. For example, a diplomat must, on the one hand, understand local culture and cultural patterns in the country of assignment, in order to comprehend and influence local developments. On the other hand, the diplomat has to translate local cultural developments and present them in a lanuguage clear to decision-makers back at home. Another cultural transition managed by the diplomat is between professional cultures. For example, with negotiations on the environment, the diplomat must translate the language and logic of the environmentalists into language understable to politicians, and vice versa. This task is sometimes more difficult than communication between different nations.

6. R H E T O R I C A N D D I P L O M A C YPolitical language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell

Classical rhetoric is defined as the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion. (Merriam-Webster Online)

However, people often think first of a definition more like this: empty words, meaningless speech:The prime minister's speech was pure political rhetoric. (The Newbury House Online Dictionary) These definitions seem at odds with each other: effective and persuasive speech compared to empty, meaningless speech. But whether one considers rhetoric in a positive or negative way, the common factor is that it is speech aiming to persuade.

A N A L Y S I N G R H E T O R I CDiplomats seeking to analyse political rhetoric can benefit from knowledge of the terms andtechniques of classical rhetoric as well as techniques frequently used in modern political speech.

Rhetorical analysis does not involve simply identifying and labeling linguistic features, but an examination of the entire context of the communication: Speech or writing never occurs in a vacuum, but in some historical, cultural, temporal setting that is intimately tied up with how one frames discourse. In one sense, the rhetorical situation refers to what prods or inspires communication: a pressing need, a conventional ceremony, a specific intention.

An important part of context isaudience:

Rhetoric is never about discourse in the abstract; it is always concerned with directing one's words with specific intentions towards specific audiencesAll rhetorically oriented discourse is composed in light of those who will hear or read that discourse. As an example of rhetorical analysis focusing on context, Burton writes about Hitlers rhetoric:Germany of post-World War I was demoralized and disorganized. Adolph Hitler's rhetoric was successful not only because of his personal charisma and his mastery of delivery, but because he spoke at the right time: the German people wanted a way out of its economic morass and its cultural shame, and Hitler provided them both with his strong, nationalistic oratory. Had Germany been doing better economically, Hitler's words would have bounced harmlessly off the air.Repetition: Repetition is effective because people feel comfortable with what they are familiar with, and repetition creates familiarity. Most people have favourite songs, television programs, etc., that they listen to or watch repeatedly. Chants, prayers, rituals, and dances are all based on repeated patterns; we learn them and remember them through repetition.

Anaphora: repetition of the same word or group of words at the beginning of successive clauses or sentences Politicians often repeat key words or themes throughout a speech, and also use internal repetition techniques such as rhyme, alliteration and anaphora. Slogans are another repetition device used by politicians in the hopes that, like in advertising, audiences hearing a message many times will become saturated and remember the message without conscious effort."We shallgo on to the end,we shall fightin France,we shall fighton the seas and oceans,we shall fightwith growing confidence and growing strength in the air,we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,we shall fighton the beaches,we shall fighton the landing grounds,we shall fightin the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills;we shallnever surrender." (Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, June 4, 1940)

"It'sthe hope ofslaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs;the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores;the hope ofa young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta;the hope ofa millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope ofa skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too." (Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope," July 27, 2004)

Political slogans:

Scottish Gaelicsluagh-ghairm='battlecry

All power to the Soviets A Bolshevik slogan in the eve of theOctober revolution.

Arbeit Macht Frei Used 1933-45 byNazi Germanyover the main gates at a number ofNazi concentration camps. In English, the slogan means "work sets you free".

Better dead than Red An anti-Communistslogan.

Bread and roseslaborandimmigrant rights slogan. Deeds Not Words W.S.P.U. suffragette slogan, 1903.

The Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine slogan of theAnti-Saloon Leagueof the UStemperance movement.

Make love not war Against theWar in Vietnam.

Vote for Change British Conservative party slogan for the 2010 general election.

Yes We Can 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan ofBarack Obama.

Association: Association is the process of linking an idea or product with other ideas, events or products which the audience either likes and respects, or hates and fears, depending on the aim of the association. Politicians may use association by directly asserting, for example, their connection with certain groups and communities with which the audience identifies or respects. They may also use indirect language to establish associations, for example, metaphors or allusions. Association may be established with images, music, colours, flags, choice of location and timing for a speech, etc., as well as words. Association may take the form of literary, historical or religious references or allusions.

Composition: The way a presentation is composed can be used as a technique of intensifying. The type of language used (negative or positive, active or passive constructions, simple or abstract, etc.), the level of detail, the use of absolutes (all, always, never, etc.) and qualifiers (perhaps, some, a number of, maybe, etc.), metaphors, rhetorical questions, exaggerations, the order of presentation and the overall organisation of a speech can all be used to emphasise certain ideas or themes. Non-verbal elements can also contribute to composition: facial expression, gestures, tone of voice, etc. also play a role.

Omission: All communication involves decisions about what information to include and what to omit and therefore is limited, slanted or biased in one way or another. However, politicians often choose to deliberately omit information about disadvantages, hazards or side-effects of their proposals. Politicians can also be expected to omit information about any criminal or scandalous activities of their own or their associates in the past, as well as information about their own mistakes or failures. Conflicts of interest may be covered-up and information about the source of controversial information may be omitted also. Finally, information about the oppositions good points is likely to be omitted. Subtle forms of omission include quotes taken out of context and half-truths, and can be hard to detect.

Diversion: Diversion techniques distract focus or divert attention away from key issues, usually by intensifying unrelated issues, or trivial factors. Diversion techniques include attacks on the personality and past of opposition figures rather than their relevant policies, appealing to the emotions fears, hopes, desires of the public rather than their reason, directing attention to the short-comings of the opposition rather than to ones own weaknesses, evasion of difficult topics, emphasis on superficialities or details rather than substance, and finally, jokes or other entertainment to distract attention.

"You want to know what I really think of theEuropeans?" asked the seniorUSState Departmentofficial. "I think they have been wrong on just about every major international issue for the past 20 years..

"The only criticisms of this proposed treaty come from the United States. But we all know that Americans are arrogant and uneducated, so their complaints are irrelevant.

Fear mongering: "We cannot wait for the final proof the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (US PresidentGeorge W. Bush, making the case for declaring war on Iraq)

Confusion: Politicians sometimes make their presentations so complex and chaotic that those listening get tired or overloaded, and give up on trying to follow. Confusion, whether caused by accidental error or deliberate deception, can hide or obscure important issues. Politicians may seek to confuse their audience by using unfamiliar or ambiguous words, technical jargon, euphemisms, round-about or rambling sentence construction, inappropriate or unclear analogies, non-logical sequences of thought or linking of ideas, manipulation of statistics, over complexity, information overload, etc. After introducing confusion, the politician is in the position to offer an easy answer, a simple solution to complex problems, telling the audience: trust me.

Spin

Inpublic relations,spinis a form ofpropaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused by their opponents of claiming to be honest and seek the truth while usingspintactics to manipulate public opinion. Because of the frequent association between "spin" andpress conferences(especiallygovernmentpress conferences), the room in which these take place is sometimes described as aspin room. A group of people who develop spin may be referred to as "spin doctors" who engage in "spin doctoring" for the person or group that hired them

Spin techniquesThe techniques of spin include:

Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position (cherry picking)

Non-denial denial Phrasing in a way thatassumes unproven truths Euphemismsto disguise or promote one's agenda

"Burying bad news": announcing one popular thing at the same time as several unpopular things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular one.

War Propaganda

Hugh Rank offers a set of guidelines for analysing war propaganda, another genre of political rhetoric. He writes: Words are weapons in warfare. Words affect how people think about themselves and about others. War is probably the time of the greatest language manipulation, when people are most likely to deceive others, least able to negotiate, and are under the most intense emotional stress -- of fear and anger -- with the greatest dangers of loss, death, and destruction.

Rank points out that some types of war propaganda target the domestic audience, with the aims of uniting the country, building morale, silencing opposition, inciting action, and channelling energy. Other types of war propaganda are aimed at the enemy, with the intention to terrorise or demoralise.

With modern means of mass communication, messages can be ensured to reach a huge audience, worldwide. War propaganda has the risk of getting out of control, and inciting more hatred than originally intended. The basic techniques used for war propaganda are to intensify your own good points and downplay the enemys good points, and to downplay your own weaknesses while intensifying those of the enemy. As we have seen repeatedly in the last century, the enemy is demonised, while the good guys are portrayed as the protectors of the free world.Humour

Humour may be a useful rhetorical technique for diplomats. A new type of joke, the serious joke, may aid the diplomatic practice of the 21st century, inspiring creative approaches to problem solving through new perspectives and shifting frames of reference.

Inglott writes: ...jokes are the paradigmatic example of language. ...the most singular aspect of language - namely its creativity - is most manifest in wit and humour - in jokes. A joke is a powerful tool becauseit shows things in a new perspective, it shifts frames of reference and places things in a new gestalt. As Edward de Bono puts it, it causes perceptions and conceptions which were set up in one pattern to be reconfigured into another different pattern. That is its inbuilt goalIt takes you to an apparently unreasonable point from which the main road along which you have been travelling does not appear to be the only one. A joke is the best device to get you on the side track from where you can see that there are other ways of getting about than just the contraries forward or backward, or right and left. Joking involves glimpsing the improbable and using upside down logic.Inglott compares jokes to arguments, pointing out that joking may be a more productive technique in diplomacy:The structure of an argument is the confrontation of contraries aimed at making a choice between opposite ways. A serious joke, on the other hand, is a provocation to both parties displaying the possibility of adapting an as yet unexplored angle of approach. It aims not at the victory or defeat of either side, not a compromise, which means some sacrifice by both sides, not consensus, which is only agreement at the low level of the highest common ground, but at a situation where something is gained by both sides. Serious joking is the prime tool of the mediator who does not conceive of his role as neutral or passive, but as a promoter of win-win conclusions. ("To Joke or Not to Joke: A Diplomatic Dilemma in the Age of Internet,"Language and Diplomacy, Malta: DiploProjects, 2001)7. AMBIGUITYA very busy man, dividing his time between his political and literary pursuits, Benjamin Disraeli had a standard reply, unmatched for diplomatic ambiguity, for would be authors who sent him manuscripts to read. Many thanks, he would write back, I shall lose no time in reading it.

DE F I N I T I O N SA word, phrase, or sentence is ambiguous if it hasmore than one meaning. (Kent Bach,Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophyentry on Ambiguity)any verbal nuance, however slight, which gives room foralternative reactions to the same piece of language. (William Empson,Seven Types of Ambiguity,London: Hogarth Press, 1927)ambiguities are pieces of language that 1. can be interpreted as meaning A, 2. can be interpreted as meaning B, and 3. cannot be interpreted as A and B simultaneously, but, eventually, as a neutral (re)source, from which, under specific focuses of vision/interpretation, both A and B might at separate times springIn order to qualify as an ambiguity an expression must generate not only at least two different meanings, but alsotwo incompatible and unrelated meanings. It is only then that an expression is truly ambiguous .ambiguity is a one-many relation between syntax and sense. (Geoffrey Leech,Semantics,Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1987, quoted by Pehar)

A good visual model of ambiguity is the well-known duck-rabbit picture, a drawing which can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit, but not both at the same time. This picture thus includes two separate and incompatible possibilities.T Y P E S OF AMBIGUITYMost sources differentiate between two types of ambiguity: lexical and syntactic or structural.A third type of ambiguity, textual ambiguity, is also of relevance in diplomacy.Lexical (also known as referential)

The comedian Dick Gregory tells of walking up to a lunch counter in Mississippi during the days of racial segregation. The waitress said to him, We dont serve colored people. Thats fine, he replied, I dont eat colored people. Id like a piece of chicken. (Quoted by Stephen Pinker,The Language Instinct, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1994)

Lexical ambiguity is ambiguity based on a single word. In many cases, a single word in a language corresponds to more than one thought, for example, the adjectivelight(not dark vs. not heavy); the nounbank(financial institution vs. the edge of a river); and the verbrun(to move fast vs. to direct or manage). Words may also have more than one meaning through their unrelated use in more than one category of speech, for example,can(a container of food noun vs. to be able to verb).

Inattentive use of ambiguous words can lead to humorous or even awkward situations, as shown by these newspaper headlines collected by Stephen Pinker.Iraqi Head Seeks ArmsChilds Stool Great for Use in GardenStud Tires OutStiff Opposition Expected to Casketless Funeral PlanDrunk Gets Nine Months in Violin Case

Syntactic (also known as structural or sentence)In the movie Animal Crackers Groucho Marx says I once shot an elephant in mypyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas Ill never know. (Quoted by Stephen Pinker)

Sometimes an entire sentence has more than one different and incompatible interpretations, even if none of the words are ambiguous. This happens when one part of the sentence may grammatical specify in more than one direction.

Lexical ambiguity can also lead to humorous sentences, for example, the following collected from newspapers by Stephen Pinker.Yoko Ono will talk about her husband John Lennon who was killed in an interview with Barbara Walters.Two cars were reported stolen by the Groveton police yesterday.The judge sentenced the killer to die in the electric chair for the second time.The summary of information contains totals of the number of students broken down by sex, marital status and age.No one was injured in the blast, which was attributed to a buildup of gas by one town official.One witness told the commissioners that she had seen sexual intercourse taking place between two parked cars in front of her house.Cross-TextualA third type of ambiguity which is based on incompatibilities between different parts of a text, or specifications in multiple directions, across a text. This kind of ambiguity is best exemplified with so-called 'open-ended sentences' which can be found in legal texts. For example, a chapter in a peace treaty may begin with a precise enumeration of the powers that one entity, for example, a central federal authority, may exercise. But at the end of the chapter an open-ended provision is inserted, which may, for instance, state that 'the central federal authority may exercise some other duties as well.'A M B I G U I T Y I N D I P L O M A C YWe often hear the phrase diplomatic ambiguity used to describe a special type of language used by diplomats. In common parlance the skill offinding formulations which avoid giving offence and are at the same time acceptable to all sides is treated with justifiable respect and often referred to as a 'diplomatic' form of expression. Thisusage probably reflects an accurate perception of language and diplomacy down the years.Why is ambiguity used in diplomacy?

Ambiguous formulations are used in diplomacy to allow for a degree of consensus when parties to a negotiation cannot come to an agreement. If two parties have strong and contradictory interests, and if it seems that neither side is ready to concede a part of its maximum demand, and/or if the negotiations are running short of time and the parties can not discuss such concessions in more detail, then the issue of conflicting interests can be resolved by, so to speak, simulating a compromise in a very rudimentary form. The mediators may come up with a formula which is open to at least two different interpretations; which can carry at least two meanings, A and B, one to gratify the interests of party A and another to gratify the interests of party Bambiguities make sure that, on the one hand, the parties retain their own individual perceptions as to how things should proceed and that, on the other, one common language is adopted, which both parties may later equally use.Norman Scott, in his paper on ambiguity in conference diplomacy, points out that while a party may push for precise language to serve the purposes of his own side in stipulating claims or limits to commitments it may seek ambiguity to allay anxieties on either side or to secure a margin for subsequent interpretation.

Is ambiguity an effective diplomatic tool?

Arguments can be found both against and for the use of ambiguity in diplomacy. Opponents point out that an ambiguous formulation in a treaty or agreement does not actually resolve a problem but simply puts it off until a later time, or allows the parties to the agreement a means of avoiding their obligations. Proponents respond that in a conflict, any tactic that brings an end to actually physical violence is useful and valuable.Example:

Delphi Oracle - Syntactic Ambiguity

A famous Latin translation of one of the prophecies of the oracle at Delphi reads "Ibis, redibis numquam peribis in bello." Two different translations and interpretations may be provided for this sentence. 1. "You'll leave, and you shall never return as you will perish in the war." 2. "You'll leave and return, and you shall not perish in the war." "Numquam" here specifies in too many directions; prima facie it can specify both "redibis" and "peribis", but it cannot specify both simultaneously. However, nothing in the sentence indicates to which verbal phrase the "numquam" qualifier should be allocated.

SIGNALLINGOur day-to-day verbal communication includes a sub-text of signals: some verbal and others_non-verbal,some deliberate and others unintended, some subtle and others obvious. Methodsofasignalling range from physical gestures and facial expressions to choices such the order inawhich topics in a conversation are raised, what other people are present to overhear a conversation, and the tone or volume of voice used when talking about a certain topic. Signalling may be used to reinforce a message or to contradict it. For example, compare an invitation to dinner mentioned at the beginning of a conversation with a smile and a welcoming tone of voice with an invitation mentioned at the end of a conversation as an afterthought, in a hesitant tone. In the first case the signals reinforce the message, in the second, the listener may feel that her presence is not really desired.

In diplomatic communication, as in communication between individuals, signals are frequently used to transmit messages. Actors of diplomacy often choose to use signals rather than direct communication for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is inappropriate for one actor to make too direct a suggestion or demand of another, or to transmit a message in person. A message passed through signals rather than directly also saves face for the receiving party, which can comply without seeming weak or refuse to comply without creating confrontation by simply ignoring the signals.

According toChrister Johnsson and Karin Aggestam, "the classic diplomatic dialogue can be seen as a system of signals, based on a code shared by the members of the profession." They point out that diplomatic signalling is characterised by "constructive ambiguity" for the following reasons:First, it may be a deliberate means to retain flexibility and make signals disclaimable. Ambiguous signals allow the sender to argue "I never said that", "that is not what I meant" and the like, if the situation calls for it.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, ambiguity is often promoted by the need to take multiple audiences into account. ....In diplomatic signalling the potential audiences may be both international and domestic.

A third factor contributing to the ambiguity of diplomatic signals is the prevalence of non-verbal messages and "body language" in communication between states. Diplomatic "body language" has come to encompass everything from personal gestures to the manipulation of military forces. (Trends in Diplomatic Signalling,Innovation in Diplomatic Practice(ed. Jan Melissen), London: Macmillan Press, 1999, 151)T Y P E S O F D I P L O M A T I C S I G N A L L I N GDiplomatic signalling is carried out through a wide variety of methods and means. A few commonly used methods are described here.

MediaOne of the most widely used methods of conveying signals is the medianewspapers, television or radio news, and now, increasingly, the Internetas an intermediary. The media are frequently used to send messages toother governments. This allows for an informal exchange of information between leaders, indicating for example, willingness to talk or a pending military action against the other country. These messages are generally (and primarily) not intended for the general public in either country. An example from the following newspaper headline:"Iraq Issues Threat to Hit Turkish Base Used by U.S." (NYT 2/16/99: A4)The article reports that Iraqi Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan is threatening to hit a Turkish military base used by the US. While Iraq has not communicated this threat directly to the US government, a diplomatic message has been sent to the US with the assistance of the media. (Communications in International Relations course materials, Spring 2000)

Drazen Pehar, researcher on language and diplomacy, provides the following scenario of signalling through the media in the Balkans: Imagine that the prime minister of Serbia, Zoran Djindjic, speaks to his Macedonian counterpart, and in the course of the conversation he says: "We have had too many divisions in the Balkans. We would regret it if Macedonia was divided into Macedonian and Albanian territories." While this comment was directed by Djindjic to his Macedonian counterpart, Djindjic knows that the conversation will be televised or published in full in a newspaper that the prime minister of Montenegro, Djukanovic, usually reads. Then Djindjics message to the Macedonian prime minister has meaning for Djukanovic and the government of Montenegro as well: approximately, that "Serbia and Montenegro should remain together. We would regret it if Montenegro was to declare independence and secede from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." In other words, Djindjic sent a message carrying a diplomatic signal to Djukanovic.

Intermediary

A third person, or intermediary, may be used for diplomatic signalling, with or without her knowledge. The sender of the message tells something to the intermediary assuming that the intermediary will pass on the information to the desired recipient of the message. The content of the message may have one meaning which the intermediary understands, and another which is comprehensible to the intended recipient. The intermediary may not even know that she is being used as a messenger.

Diplomatic Relations

Signalling can take the form of the cutting or establishing of diplomatic ties between countries. Kishan Rana, former Indian ambassador to Germany,discusses one of the classical signals of diplomacy:...the "withdrawal of an ambassador for consultations", used to convey a measured degree of displeasure; it continues to be used, but mainly between countries that are practitioners of "old" diplomacy. In many post-colonial states it would not be understood, and this may be one reason why, for example, Africans seldom use this gesture with another African state, save at the stage of real breakdown in relations. It may also be that the world over, the ambassador is no longer the unique vehicle of contact, and his presence or absence is less remarkable than before. Some observers have noted that no country, which has withdrawn an ambassador for a period of time in a gesture of political disapproval, has derived benefit from the move. It has often had the reverse effect of not having a senior envoy at post when he is needed the most, a situation of difficult relations.

Military Threat or Action

The threat of military action, or even action itself can be used as a diplomatic signal. Major General Charles D. Link, speaking before the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, on April 28, 1999, criticised the way in which military action was employed by NATO in Kosovo. He said that By viewing Operation Allied Force as an exercise in diplomatic signaling -- and not as a state of war -- NATO has failed to lend the necessary purpose to its military efforts. By avoiding the issue of being at 'war,' NATO leaders have also managed to avoid the serious thinking that would lead us to a deeper understanding of the risks versus gains of various courses of action or inaction. (US House of Representatives website)

Diplomatic Visits

Diplomatic visits are commonly recognised as symbols of the closeness of relations between two countries, but less recognised is the signaling function of visits. Signals focus on future behavior.

Political efficacy of signaling via visits is that nothing has to be explicitly stated, thereby avoiding bruising nationalistic feelings and eliciting hostile responses. The subtlety of this mode of signaling has been valued historically, especially through multilateral summitry. One is reminded of the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic wars that signaled that radical political change in Europe would not be tolerated. The Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin wartime summits signaled to Hitler that the Allied coalition could not be broken. The Millennium Summit at the UN, where 154 government leaders gathered, signaled that globalization has virtually unanimous acceptance (if not enjoying unanimous enthusiasm).

Attire

Even the attire chosen for a particular event or visit can project signals. Kishan Rana writes that The wearing of a particular kind of attire at an event of significance, when images are captured and broadcast around the world, may signify a hidden intent, for positive projection or for negative reasons. When national leaders visit their troops in the field, like President Bush in Kosovo in July 2001, they put on ordinary combat outerwear, to emphasize identification with the ordinary soldier.

Departures from Protocol

A signal can be conveyed by a departure from diplomatic protocol, in a positive or negative way. Kishan Rana suggests that actions such as the "level at which a foreign dignitary is met at the airport, or who receives the foreign visitor for a meeting... a social gesture honoring the visitor, like a lunch, or some other function...especially when it is not mandatory under local custom can all be used to convey positive or negative signals. Rana provides a further example with the issue of punctuality: Some years back, during a state visit to Morocco, the late King Hassan kept Queen Elizabeth waiting for some ten minutes, surely not by accident, but to assert a notion of royal prerogative of his ancient monarchy, and indirectly assert equality with a major power. Rana also discusses the inconvenience display as a powerful form of signal, when a host goes out of his way to do something for the visitor at the cost of personal inconvenience, like coming to the front entrance steps to receive him....S I G N A L L I N G A N D I N T E R C U L T U R A L I S S U E SWhile diplomatic messages transmitted through signals offer some advantages to both sender and receiver, as nothing need be explicitly stated, they also present some risks. Foremost is the risk that a message might not be received, or more seriously, that it might be misinterpreted. Misinterpretation of signals often happens when a signal is interpreted differently in a different cultural setting. As Rana points out, the same signal may carry different meanings in different cultures. This problem is becoming more and more prevalent due to a change in the nature of the setting in which foreign policy and diplomacy operate.

Because signalling is an integral part of communication of all kinds it seems unlikely that its use can or should be avoided in diplomacy. However, as diplomatic communication deals at times with matters of high importance and the outcomes of diplomatic decisions affect vast numbers of people, misinterpretation of signals can have serious consequences. Awareness of cultural differences and conscious and considered use of signals is necessary now more than ever.

8. An Approach to Diplomatic Translationby Adrian Fuentes Luque

Uncovering diplomatic translation

The world of translation generally appears to us in one of three facets: academic, where teaching plays a pivotal role; research, that sort of sanctuary to which we all aspire, and with which we all flirt to the extent of our abilities, so that we can then share our findings or boast about our assumptions in conferences or through dense papers. Finally, there is professional translation, the primary and fundamental pillar (in the broadest sense of the term), but also, sadly and shamefully, a great unknown, constantly questioned by all those who, from their theoretical ivory towers, continue to ignore it.

Diplomatic translators must have a vast wealth of knowledge and be very familiar with international affairs and in particular with the political, social and economic situation of their own countries.

There are many fields in translation, almost as many as there are adventurers of this noble and challenging field; economic translationnot too profitable, legal translationsometimes very biased, scientific translation, whose chemistry often escapes our understanding; and technical translation, which makes us hate the cosmic synergy of a car or the reflection of a computer screen. The latter is probably the best known, as it accounts for some 90% of the translation workload around the world. Obviously, what we have in mind here is software translation (or localization - mainly manuals and software). Apart from these there are others, perhaps just as important and unfortunately equally unknown, like translation in international bodies or agencies; translation of advertising, community translation (nothing to do with the European Union, but rather with services offered to the community; this type of translation is very little known throughout Europe, but in countries such as Australia or Canada it fulfills a very important social function). Audiovisual translation is sure to become the most booming one in the next few years, but it is also the one where the most atrocious [whether intentional or not] mistakes are found. And diplomatic translation, something very few have ever heard about. Our aim in this paper is to give a brief overview of the complex, serious, esoteric, and unknown world of diplomatic translation. Diplomatic translation is carried out within diplomatic missions, embassies or consulates. In certain aspects, we could relate this type of translation to that carried out within international bodies, in terms of the type of texts translated and the conventions established. However, diplomatic translation has its own rules and peculiarities. That glamourous, romantic halo of 19th century intrigues, where the full load of foreign relations fell upon ambassadors and an army of translators and interpreters, is all but forgotten now. In the old days, interpreters working at embassies or diplomatic missions were called Dragoman (or Drogman), especially in the East Mediterranean region. In those days, however, they enjoyed a certain degree of protection. This term would later evolve, and would also encompass consular officers, possibly because of their need to master the language of the host country. Firstly, the diplomatic world is a very closed one, extremely inaccesible to outsiders and, paradoxically enough, not very diplomatic on many occasions. Not all embassies have, as one would logically think, a translation and /or interpreting service. On the contrary, very few diplomatic missions realise how important it is to have professional translators and interpreters among their staff. In this sense, we could mention that, of all the English-speaking embassies accredited to Spain, only those of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom have at least one translator/interpreter. It is surprising that major embassies like the Canadian Embassy in Spain, Canada being an officially bilingual country, commission all translation/interpreting-related tasks to some of their administrative staff. Smaller missions, like New Zealand, do not even contemplate this possibility. There are, however, other diplomatic missions which, despite the fact that English is not the prime language of their country, use English as their working language. This is the case of countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan or India (where apparently diplomats themselves carry out translation duties, after a period of linguistic immersion).

Some embassies, the biggest and most representative ones, have a team of professional translators/interpreters. They diversify their tasks and show a great degree of professionalism and specialisation. In this sense, we could mention the case of the British Embassy, where there is a team of translators/interpreters, headed by a senior translator, specialising in press and chancery matters, plus two more people specialising in military and defence affairs. As for consulates and consular offices, to the best of our knowledge, they do not have translators/interpreters among their staff. But, what exactly is diplomatic translation? What does it encompass? Well, the truth is, a little of everything and a bit more. This is precisely one of its most attractive, but also one of the most difficult, features. One has to reveal him/herself as a universal expert, as some sort of epitome of knowledge with all its nine letters in capitals, in order, for instance, to start the day with the translation of a health certificate for a licence to export crocodile meat, followed by a back translation of a dense and cryptic opinion article on macroeconomy and, to finish the day,an aide-mmoire on the treacheries of the common agricultural policy for dessert. Diplomatic hierarchy

It is important to outline some of the terms and concepts common to the diplomatic context. Firstly, it must be said that a very strict hierarchy governs the diplomatic world. It is important to know the different levels within the diplomatic strata, since each level deals with different aspects and has a different approach: Ambassador: Also called Head of Mission or by the acronym, HOM. He/she occupies the highest level within a diplomatic career, and is the head of a diplomatic mission or embassy. There are different types of ambassadors: "career" Ambassador, politically appointed Ambassador, ad hoc Ambassador, extraordinary Ambassador (called Ambassador at large), and permanent representative. In Vatican diplomacy, the ambassador is called Nuncio. In countries with a Catholic tradition, the Nuncio is normally considered, for courtesy reasons, the "Dean of the Diplomatic Corps". If this is not the case, he is called Pro-Nuncio. Embassies are located in the capital of the host country. An embassy can also have "accredited countries", that is, a given embassy in a given country may also be in charge of several surrounding countries, to which it is accredited. Counsellor: Second in command in a diplomatic mission. He/she represents and substitutes, in his/her absence, the ambassador. In Vatican diplomacy this figure is called Auditor. When he/she is the acting ambassador, in the absence of the ambassador, he/she signs official documents as Charg d'Affaires a.i. [ad interim]. Secretary: Category immediately under that of Counsellor. There can be several subcategories: First, Second, Third Secretary. He/she is directly above the Attach. However, in some instances titles can be combined, i.e. the First Secretary can be Consul at the same time, or the Third Secretary also be the Cultural Attach. Consul: Hierarchically situated below the Secretary, his/her diplomatic and administrative functions are basically consular affairs (looking after the country's nationals abroad, handling passports, visas, certificates of non impediment, etc.). He/she can be a "career" diplomat or an Honorary Consul (designated for his/her personal merits or profile, he/she does not need to be a national of the country he/she represents). In certain English-speaking diplomatic missions, the Consul is also called, due to the functions they perform as administrative managers of the offices, SAO (Senior Administrative Officer / Chancellor / Viceconsul). Consular offices can be located within the Embassy or be in a different location in the same city. Each country has different criteria for the establishment of consulates, consular offices or Honorary Consulates in other towns, according to its own interests. Attach: They can be diplomatic civil servants or of a lower category, in charge of a particular military, political, cultural or economic field, perhaps the most popular ones being the Military, the Cultural and the Commercial attachs. Certain countries also place attachs within their diplomatic missions and embassies whose real duties they do not wish to disclose. As in the case of the consuls, there can also be Honorary Attachs.

Apart from the diplomatic staff accredited to a diplomatic mission, there is also local staff, basically composed of nationals of the country in which the diplomatic mission or embassy is located. The locally engaged staff are not civil servants, and therefore do not enjoy the privileges of diplomats. However, many local staff members perform functions and tasks that correspond to diplomatic staff of higher category. Local staff are known as Locally Engaged Staff or LES.

Formulae and diplomatic documents

Within the scope of diplomatic translation, there are two main groups of documents (although they are not the only ones):

chancery documents

consular documents

The first group consists of texts or documents aimed to serve as a vehicle for diplomatic communication between the given diplomatic mission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and viceversa. The most common one is the Third Person Note, which is used to inform or advise about a particular issue, to obtain the support of the government for an international body or agency (for example, in cases of candidacies), to communicate the termination or commencement of a person's functions as a diplomat, etc. The Third Person Note is handed over by a diplomat or through other official channels. It is written in the third person (hence its name), and always follows the same structure, with regards to the introduction and the salutation:

"The ... Embassy presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honour to advise / inform / request, etc. ...". "The ... Embassy avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highest consideration".

The Head of Mission or Ambassador signs the Note, and the name of the addressee, that is, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is placed at the bottom of the document, together with the date.

The Letter is another type of document. As opposed to the Third Person Note, the Letter is written in the first person and is normally signed by the Head of Mission. This is a much more direct and personal means of diplomatic communication, usually addressed to the Minister. With regards to Letters we find the term Exchange of Letters, to refer to a particular exchange of information concerning a particular issue.

Perhaps one of the least known document type is the Non-Paper, which is a document that, having originated from an official body (Embassy, Ministry, Directorate General, etc.) has, intentionally, no official nature, and therefore it does not commits the body issuing such document. Its nature is marked by the use of plain paper, that is no crest or official letterhead, which is used both in Third Person Notes and Letters. The idea of unofficiality is often reinforced with the words "Non-Paper" at the top of the document.

Upon taking up his/her post, the Ambassador or Head of Mission hands over the Credentials or Style Copies to the President or Head of State of the host country. Before presenting his/her Credentials, the diplomat must have previously received the Agrment from the host government, which states that there is no impediment to his/her taking up his/her mandate in the host country. Obviously, there is a widespread use of gallicisms in this type of translation. This is not coincidental, since French was for many years (and still is) the diplomatic language par excellence. Similar to the Third Person Note, albeit having its own characteristics and format, is the Memorandum or Aide-memoir. This is a document presented by an embassy or diplomatic mission to a ministry (normally the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), explaining the situation of a given matter, including the position or viewpoint of the issuing country with regards to a specific issue, making particular suggestions, etc. This document is written in an impersonal way, excluding any courtesy formulae unlike Third Person Notes. Letterheads are not commonly used here. The Memorandum / Aide-memoir is undoubtedly one of the many documents that translators in a diplomatic mission have to deal with most, especially in matters concerning issues such as international economy and commerce, farming and agriculture, and issues of international relevance (human rights, workers' rights, environment, etc.). The translation of these documents must be accurate and careful, given the intricacies of the issues in question. The same care applies to the Letters and the Third Person Notes, which demand the highest degree of thoroughness, as a mistake or a misinterpretation of the original meaning could compromise diplomacy and even lead to a diplomatic incident.

Consular issues-related documents constitute a great deal of the bulk of translation work in an embassy. This is an extremely varied field, although highly related to the fields of legal and sworn translation. Thus, translators find themselves confronted by birth, marriage and death certificates, certificates of no impediment, divorce sentences, deeds, etc., together with other documents, mainly related to visas, passports, forensic death reports, assistance to arrested nationals, etc.

The academic side is not, for the moment, highly developed in the world of diplomatic translation. Although embassies and diplomatic missions act as valuable intermediaries in the establishment and updating of different kinds of academic exchanges, the translation staff of these official bodies do not usually carry out translations of academic degrees or diplomas for recognition or validation purposes. Eyes Only

Security and confidentiality are always crucial in professional translation, and in particular with regards to the client. Diplomatic translation is no exception to this. Furthermore, confidentiality is probably much more important and compromising in this field than in any other field of translation, as it involves the security of one or several countries. We are not saying here that the translator becomes a sort of James Bondno, that only happens in the movies. Today, most confidential issues have to do with such "top secret" matters as farming or agriculture. Curious, isn't it? In any case, several degrees of confidentiality of diplomatic documents in English can be established:

Unclassified: not compromising, available to anyone. Classified. In confidence. Confidential. Secret. Top Secret (the translator seldom has access to these documents).

Also worth mentioning, concerning confidentiality, is the question of professional incompatibilities. Can a translator in an embassy engage in other translation-related jobs? In principle, the answer is yes, provided that the nature of the job and its development do not incur a conflict of interest. In any case, it is highly advisable to seek permission and clearly state that it will not interfere with diplomatic tasks in any way.

Functions and responsibilities Diplomatic translators seldom deal exclusively with only translation-related matters. They go through a very difficult selection processes, rather similar to those of international organisations. The work is varied and multidisciplinary, which is, in principle, gratifying and generates a wealth of knowledge and experience. However, the tremendous workload and the level of experience demanded is not, in most cases, recognised.

Basically, the duties of the diplomatic translator can be set out as follows:

a. Translation: Most of the work is translation-related, including a wide variety of documents, as seen earlier. It could be said that the translator translates a bit (or a lot) of everything, even the weirdest issues, and all is done at a pace of "it had to be done by yesterday".

b. Interpreting: Interpreting is, as in many other fields of life, a very little (if at all) recognised skill in the diplomatic world. We could even say that in many workplaces you can often hear: "mmmm, you know a bit of English, don't you? I need you to do some simultaneous interpreting for me with the Director General...". Interpreting work is much less frequent than translation, although virtually all varieties of interpreting are dealt with in the course of diplomatic discussions, including, and above all, whispered or chuchotage interpreting. We are aware of the case of a diplomatic translator, with very little training as an interpreter and hardly any "real life" experience, who was once called to carry out bilateral interpreting, "very informal and straightforward, 15 minutes, just for both interlocutors to know each other". The 15-minute bilateral turned out to be a 5-hour whispered interpreting into the interpreter's non-native language, about technical aspects of veterinary health. No comment.

c. Information and documentation: Complementary to translation. This is no doubt a most gratifying challenge for the translators, who sometimes have to dive into administrative bureaucracy, or the ministerial meanders, until they find the right person or information. Fortunately, translators nowadays have access to good sources of documentation and information (bibliographies, dictionaries, Internet, direct information sources that are easily accessible in the capital, etc.). However, it is not always easy to find specific and thorough information about a particular topic, given the confidential nature of many matters.

d. Research /advisory functions: In many cases, the translator at a diplomatic mission is required to write economic, political (or other) reports about the host country. Sometimes the limits are ignored and an excessive degree of responsibility or qualifications are demanded from the translator (as in the case of interpreting) that go beyond the translator's capabilities and/or training.

e. A very interesting aspect of diplomatic translation is the possibility of working as part of a team. Let's take, for example, the case of Spanish. The Spanish translator in a given embassy in Spain can share, in certain cases, the workload with his/her counterparts in other embassies of the same country located in Latin American countries. This way the whole team of translators can have their workload reduced and they can all share a common document, that follows a set of previously established criteria, in order to achieve a greater degree of linguistic standardisation. In this sense, it should obviously be advisable to set out certain conventions and use a language (Spanish in this case) as neutral as possible, in order to avoid linguistic misunderstandings due to regional differences.

Professional situation

We have seen that professional diplomatic translation is not very well known or recognised. Diplomatic translators are not, as is popularly believed, privileged in the sense of making large sums of money, doing nothing but attending receptions. No, that is a stereotyped image from certain 19th Century-style movies. Diplomatic translators must have a vast wealth of knowledge and be very familiar with international affairs and in particular with the political, social and economic situation of their own countries (i.e. the host country and the country of the Embassy for which they work). It is only in this way that a certain degree of professionalism and thoroughness can be achieved. The work is varied (something that is always welcome, if we take into account the monotony of software translations, for example), and involves a high degree of difficulty and responsibility in many cases. On the other hand, the job is not always recognised, especially considering the level of thoroughness demanded for the diverse tasks, and the subsequent responsibility. Like in many fields of translation in so many other different instances, the existing legal vacuum and the lack of adequate professional associations to look after the interests of this group of professionals do not help this situation. Nevertheless, working as a diplomatic translator provides a unique opportunity to learn about many different issues that cannot be grasped anywhere else and which, to the best of our knowledge, are not taught in any translation school anywhere in the world.

Copyright Translation Journal and the Author 1999URL: http://accurapid.com/journal/10dipl.htm

Diplomatic Translation andInterpretation

I do not hesitate to read all good books in translations. What is really best in any book is translatable any real insight or broad human sentiment. Ralph Waldo EmersonI N T R O D U C T I O NOver the last century various ethnic groups have become more aware of their identity and rights. In some countries ethnic minority groups have demanded the right to education, media and otherservices in their own languages, at times leading to armed conflict with the majority groups intheir countries. In the last few decades contact between nations has increased, as more and more countries take an active and interactive role in international affairs. Both of theseprocesses have led to an awareness of linguistic rights as human rights. At the same time asEnglish has gained currency as an international language and as the most commonly useddiplomatic language, international organisations are recognising the various languages of member states as official or working languages for their proceedings, both oral and written. In diplomacy, now more than ever before, interpreters and translators are of vital importance.

The history of language use in diplomacy:Documents exchanged between countries in the past were written in the single vehicular language then in use in Europe: Latin. In the 18th century French had become the generally accepted diplomatic language, so much so that even diplomatic notes addressed to the British Foreign Office by the Legation of the USA were written in that language. The 20th century saw a gradual emergence of English as a second and later even dominant diplomatic language. At the same time, a growing number of countries insisted on the use of their own language in diplomatic correspondence and joint diplomatic documents. As a result the United Nations admitted to five languages at its inception (Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish), to which Arabic has later been added by informal agreement. In the European Union, all twelve languages of the members are currently in use and their number is bound to grow as new members will be admitted. Translation and interpretation have therefore become a major element in present-day diplomatic life. ("Texts in Diplomacy,"Language and Diplomacy, Malta: DiploProjects, 2001)Dr Stanko Nick, Croatian Ambassador to Hungary, makes the point that although it has frequently been argued that one language or another is more suitable for diplomacy as it is clearer, more flexible, more expressive, or more eloquent, the mere fact that historically such a role has been taken in turns by so many languages (Acadian, literary Chinese, Greek "koin`e", mediaeval Greek, Latin, Arabic, Turkish, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Italian, Dutch, German, French, and English) proves that linguistic or semantic reasons are not decisive. On the contrary, it can be said that the dominant role of one language or another in diplomacy has resulted from the political, strategic, economic, cultural or other domination of one power or another in international relations. ("Use of Language in Diplomacy,"Language and Diplomacy, Malta: DiploProjects, 2001)T R A N S L A T I O NRoger Chriss, a professional translator, describes the role of the translator:Translators are language professionals. They are applied linguists, competent writers, diplomats, and educated amateurs. Like linguists, translators have to be capable of discerning subtleties and nuances in their languages, researching terminology and colloquialisms, and handling new developments in their languages. Like writers, translators have to be accustomed to working long hours alone on a subject which interests few people and with a language that few people around them know. Like diplomats, translators have to be sensitive to the cultural and social differences which exist in their languages and be capable of addressing these issues when translating. And like educated amateurs, translators have to know the basics and some of the details about the subjects they deal with.In diplomacy one of the main drawbacks of the growing need for translation is cost. Nick points out that although most organisations and conferences try to limit the number of languages used by selecting several official or working languages, the cost of interpretation and translation is astronomical. Several years ago it was calculated that the translation of one single page to all official languages of the UN amounted to the value necessary to cover the cost of living for one person in India for a whole year! When one takes into account the number of international organisations, and the thousands of pages translated almost daily it is easy to subscribe to the proposal of introducing Esperanto as the language for international communication.

Another drawback to the use of translation in multilateral diplomacy is the complexity of the task of producing equivalent documents in different languages.

Versions in working languages are based on the records of simultaneous interpretation. Versions in other languages have to be prepared separately. All have to go before the drafting committee which therefore needs at least one member for each language. Preferably however members of a drafting committee should master two or more of the languages used so as to ensure proper concordance of texts. The drafts submitted to the committee are prepared by the secretariat of the negotiating body, which must check recordings of simultaneous interpretation and produce versions in languages which were not used as working languages. The complexity of the task of a drafting committee explains why, in some cases, it will re-convene after the treaty has already been authenticated, with the express competence of making linguistic adjustments between the various versions.

I N T E R P R E T A T I O NThe difference between the work of a translator and that of an interpreter:Translators work alone, facing a white sheet of paper and a text. They recreate the text by becoming its second author, understanding and recreating the author's writing skills

The interpreter's work is not a solitary one. The interpreter works directly with an orator, whopossibly elaborates his text as the topic unfolds, expressing his thoughts directly withoutany time for re-elaboration or rewording. The interpreter also works directly with a public, thefloor, who is listening simultaneously to him and to the orator.

Types of Interpretation

There are two main types of interpretation: consecutive and simultaneous.

In consecutive interpretation, the interpreter listens to the speaker and takes notes, and when the speaker chooses (at intervals of anything from a few minutes to half an hour), renders the speech into the target language.

In simultaneous translation, the interpreter sits in a booth and listens to the speaker through headphones, then instantly renders the speech into the target language, a few seconds to a minute behind the speaker. Although quality and accuracy are not as high as in consecutive interpretation, speed and intensity are higher.

Some of the techniques they use as conference interpreters, which center on identifying key words for the conference topic before the conference and listening carefully for those words during the speeches:Interpreters are chameleons, they have to lend themselves to the topic under discussion, and blend themselves with the general decorCertain interpreters choose to specialise in particular areas, in order to be able to handle the language peculiarities of a particular field.

an interpreter must seek other sources of infor