Reading between the Lines: Analysis of Frames in a Text and Its Translation

Material Information

Reading between the Lines: Analysis of Frames in a Text and Its Translation
UKHANOVA, MARGARITA A. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Fear ( jstor )
Language ( jstor )
Language translation ( jstor )
Linguistics ( jstor )
Morality ( jstor )
Taxes ( jstor )
Terrorism ( jstor )
Verbs ( jstor )
War ( jstor )
Words ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Margarita A. Ukhanova. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
Resource Identifier:
659871200 ( OCLC )


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2007 Margarita A. Ukhanova


3 For my parents who built the foundation of my every success—thank you. I would have never m ade it without you. To all of my friends in Russia and the United States who stood by me—thank you.


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the University of Florida and the Linguistics Departm ent for giving me this opportunity and experience. I also thank my friends and family who deserve all the credit for my accomplishments.


5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................12 Translation Studies............................................................................................................ .....12 The Notion of Frame............................................................................................................ ..16 Framing in Politics............................................................................................................ ......26 Research Question.............................................................................................................. ....29 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 31 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................31 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................32 4 COMPARISON OF THE TEXTS.......................................................................................... 34 ‘Nation as a Family’ and ‘I’ vs. ‘They’..................................................................................34 ‘Strict Father’ Morality....................................................................................................... ....39 War on Terror.........................................................................................................................43 ‘Tax Relief’.............................................................................................................................47 ‘Regime’....................................................................................................................... ..........48 ‘September 11’ and ‘Ground Zero’........................................................................................ 49 Non-verbal Cues................................................................................................................ .....50 5 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... ..52 Summary.................................................................................................................................52 Results and Further Analysis.................................................................................................. 53 APPENDIX A THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS .................................................. 56 B ("THE W HITE HOUSE", )...........................................................................................69 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................87


6 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................90


7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Text recoding.....................................................................................................................12 2-2 Recoding of ‘hello’........................................................................................................ ....13 2-3 Semantic inequality of verbs.............................................................................................. 14


8 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts READING BETWEEN THE LINES: ANALYSIS OF FRAMES IN A TEXT AND ITS TRANSLATION By Margarita A. Ukhanova May 2007 Chair: Virginia LoCastro Major: Linguistics In translation studies, the differences in language and cultural code of the source and target languages cause m any problems for translators. There are no full equivalents even in related languages since each word has its own semantic field and its own associations. While associations are elusive items and can be individual for different speakers, frames activated in the text are shared by the majority of speakers within a culture. The notion of frames is used in different fields (e.g., psychology, public communications and linguistics); in linguistics it can denote a cognitive structure that is subconsciously applied by the listener/reader for interpreting texts and at the same time it is activated by the material in the text by usage of one of the lexical or gramma tical items that are a part of a network of a particular frame. So when interpreting a text the reader adopts a frame for understanding a problem. On the other hand, words and structures in the text itself activate frames too. It has been argued by G. Lakoff1 that appropriate framing of issues by Conservatives helps them in effective communication of their values, contributing to their electoral victories. The use 1 Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (2003). Framing the Issues: UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff Tells How Conservatives Use Language to Dominate Politics (October 27, 2003). UC Berkley News . Retrieved 2005, November 10.


9 of frames by politicians is effective because their entire audience shares these cognitive structures. In this study, we are looking at what happens with the interpretation of a text if the audience and the text do not share one culture and one language code. This problem becomes very important in the case of foreign affairs, advertisement and any other need of intercultural and interlinguistic relations. This study shows that during the process of translation the frames of the original text may not be taken into account, which can result in the distortion of the text and the image of the author, which can in turn be detrimental for a politician. Successful interpretation of frames sometimes may require inexact (as opposed to ‘word-for-word’) translation. This leads to a conclusion that it is important for a translator to take into account frames of the original text in order to produce a proper translation. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant: Progressive Values and the Framing Wars: a Progressive Guide to Action . White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Lakoff, G. (2006). Simple Framing (February 14, 2006). Rockridge Institute . Retrieved 2006, December 20. http://www.rockridgeinstitute .org/projects/strategi c/simple_framing/view Lakoff, G. (2006). “War on Terror”, Rest in Peace. (February 28, 2006). Rockridge Institute . Retrieved 2006, December 20. http://www.rockridgeins


10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Although translation studies is a relatively new discipline, it has a long ‘practical’ history; however, in spite of all innovations and technology introduced in this field, translating a text is still an art. The problem s that translators must overcome are related not only to the differences between languages and cultures, but also to the issu e of interpreting the text and extracting all the meanings, which are rarely on the surface. The translation of political speeches represents a special difficulty, since it is in the domain of not only translation studies but also public speaking. Public speaking teaches how to influence an audience on both conscious and subconscious levels and one of the tools to do that is to use frames (words that evoke a prototypical situation and strong emotions). However, these structures (frames), since they are a part of our subconscious level, represent another difficulty for translation. So the major questions in this study are: what happens to frames when the text is translated into another language, how can frames of the original text be best preserved, and what happens to the overall effect of the translated text on the reader? Th e accuracy of translation becomes especially important when it is translation related to international politics and can influence the foreign affairs of an entire country. For the purpose of this study texts were selected that heavily rely on frames (American political speech by George W. Bush). The problem of translation is analyzed from the linguistic point of view using tools of cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis. Possibilities for the translation of a frame in different texts/contexts were singled out through text analysis; then, original frames and their translations into Russian language are analyzed in order to see the deviation in meaning and to predict the effect of each frame on the audience. For example, ‘Ground Zero’ is a frame established in the United States that evokes strong feelings that


11 accompany a scenario of terrorist attack, casualties, explosion and emptiness. By referring to ‘Ground Zero’ the speaker can get certain expected emotions from the audience as well as determine how information should be understood. In Russian culture, however, there is no equivalent frame: ‘Ground Zero’ can be literally translated as a ‘place of explosion’ with no reference to the place in New York where the World Trade Center used to be. Hence, the translated speech loses its expressive power and can even confuse the reader, since it is not clear what ‘place’ the author is talking about. This study is an attempt to explore the communicative force of frames and at the same time it is a move in the direction of data-driven study of frames, which can lead to some insights in the domain of linguistics as well as translation studies. For translators, being aware of such constructions as frames can help to produce more accurate translations and avoid disfiguring the original texts and the image of the speaker. This information can also be used in the domain of artificial intelligence and help to improve machine translation, since unlike individual associations frames are predictable and should be taken into account in the translation process.


12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Translation Studies Translation studies is a relatively young discipline; however, work in this dom ain started long before it acquired an official status. Not only translators, but also writers and linguists contributed to this field. S. Bassnett (2002) in the book Translation studies gives an overview of problems (which are of high importance for the present study) that any translator faces and the debate about these problems. The processes of decoding and recoding of a te xt from one language into another can be represented in the following diagram: SOURCE LANGUAGE TEXT RECEPTOR LANGUAGE TRANSLATION ANALYSIS RESTRUCTURING Transfer Figure 2-1. Text reconstruction in another language code (from Bassnett 2002) For example, the English word “hello” has different corresponding words in other languages: French: a va; hallo; bonjour German: wie gehts; hallo Italian: ol; pronto; ciao While English has no distinction between greetings said face to face and on the phone, Italian ‘pronto’ and German ‘hello’ are used only for telephone greetings. At the same time, in the English language the phrase ‘How do you do?’ is regarded as formal, while French and German use similar questions as casual greetings. Italian ‘ciao’ is said both in the situation of arrival and


13 departure; English ‘hello’ is restricted to arrival. Hence, if someone would have to translate ‘Hello’ from English into French, the mental process can be represented in the following figure: SOURCE LANGUAGE RECEPTOR LANGUAGE TRANSLATION Hello Bonjour! Friendly greeting on arrival Decision to distinguish between forms of greetings available transfer Figure 2-2. Reconstruction of ‘hello’ in another language code (from Bassnett 2002). These examples lead us to the biggest problem in translation: the problem of equivalence. Most linguists agree that there cannot be equivalence in interlingual translation due to differences in the linguistic codes. Jacobsen (1959), for example, assigns incomplete equivalence to the fact that each unit contains within itself a set of non-transferable associations and connotations. Shishkov, in his book A Discourse on the Old and New Style of Russian Language(1803) says that “Every people has its own units of speech and its own linkage of concepts.” This idea is somewhat similar to the notion of a ‘frame’ that we focus on in this study (see below). The following diagram is common in the study of semantics to represent how different words can share meanings:


14 Figure 2-3. Semantic inequality of the verb ‘touch’ in French and English. (Chukovsky (1984) has this example with French and Russian verbs). As there are no absolute synonyms in one language, it is equally hard to find them between different, even related languages. Lexical items can differ not only in their semantic content, but also in their combinability, style and connotations. For example, the French verb ‘ toucher ’ and English verb ‘touch’ both indicate an act of putting hands/fingers onto something. The French equivalent, however, in combination with a musical instrument ( toucher le clavacin ) means “to play”; this is the part of the circle that doesn’t overlap, since this meaning cannot be delivered through the English verb ‘touch’. The problem of equivalence is not only the problem of compatibility and differences in the grammar; it is also the problem of connotations and associations. Saussure (1974) distinguished between types of relations that every word is a part of: the syntagmatic (or horizontal) relations that a word establishes within a sentence with the words that surround it and the associative (or vertical) relations it has with the language structure as a whole. Chukovsky (1965), a skilful translator himself, in his book on translation says “a word in one language has association entirely different from those of the same word in another language. Every language has a hierarchy of words. The style of one and the same word even in two similar languages is completely different.” (Chukovsky 1984, 53) He illustrates it with an example taken from a Russian-Uzbek translation. The Russian word for “parrot” is a contemptuous word, which toucher touch


15 can be illustrated with such an utterance: “You babble like a parrot.” However, in Uzbek the word is canonical of love to one’s sweetheart. Uzbek has such phrases, as ‘You are my adorable parrot’. So in this case verbatim translation would be inappropriate, since in one language the word “parrot” evokes tenderness and endearment, and in the environment of another language it means a contemptuous snort or jeer. Regarding this problem of equivalence the term of untranslatability was introduced. Catford (1965, 32) singles out two types of untranslatability: linguistic and cultural. Linguistic untranslatability occurs when there is lexical or syntactic mismatch between the target and the source languages (no substitute for the item). Cultural untranslatability is related to the absence of the relevant event in the culture of the target language. Both problems can be overcome only by artistic translation, where the translator has to sacrifice precision to get the correct delivery of the ideas and style. “An artistic translation reproduces not only the original author’s ideas and images, not only his plot schemes, but also his literary manner, his creative personality, his style”(Chukovsky 1984, 18). However, this leads us to another problem: although translation is often regarded as a secondary activity, a translator has almost as much influence on the perception of the text as the author. In the terms of text production/perception, translator is both the producer of the text and the receiver (from Bassnett 2002): Author—Text—Receiver=Translator—Text—Receiver Up to the present moment, the perception of the text is highly debatable question; this paper adopts Muka ovsk idea, taken up by Lotman (1978) states that “a text has both an autonomous and a communicative character” (from Bassnett 2002, p.36). Hence, translating a text, a translator can give it a completely different meaning even though staying true to the text


16 and by alternating only style. For literary works the author’s personality is reflected in the individual style of the speaker. That is why the distortion of the style is the distortion of the author’s face. And unfortunately very often the tr anslator constructs a personality different from the author’s, “despite all the striving the translator still reflects himself in the translations. And since the basic nature of every human personality is expressed not only in his conscious, but also in his unconscious manifestations, the translator’s will be reflected sufficiently anyway” (Chukovsky 1984, 46). Traditionally, translation studies focuses on literary works, regarding the aim of business translation as pure information. According to Chukovsky (1984, 15) “The most important thing for it is precision of vocabulary.” However, political speeches, the focus of this study, also represent a fine art—the art of rhetoric; every word, every grammatical structure and every intonation (through syntax, graphics or rhythm) is or should be a calculated act, comparable with what authors do when creating their pieces. Hence, for these texts interference of the translator’s personality and reflection of his/her political and esthetical preferences can be detrimental for the face of the author. The Notion of Frame The term “frame” came to linguistics from psychology and at the moment it is shared not only by these two disciplines but also by cognitive science and mass communication studies. Although there is certain closeness in understanding of this term, each field uses it to fit their own interests. In media and mass communication studies, a ‘frame’ is understood as “selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, a nd/or solution” (Entman 2004, 5). In the case of a car crash, a reporter, depending on what information he/she chooses to present, can focus his/her story on people’s lives or on things that caused this car crash, or use this event as a


17 trampoline to talk about medicine. The frame in this understanding, however, is not only the choice of information, but also a choice of language to present this information. Using linguistic means associated with a specific topic helps to frame the issue in a certain way. For the journalist, this framing can be a conscious effort or a subconscious one, but is always present. In linguistics, following cognitive science and psychology, the term ‘frame’ can be understood as: a system for choosing language tools and the choice itself (Fillmore 1975, 1977, 1982; Talmy 1977); “ideation scaffolding” for processing one’s own experience (Goffman1975, similar idea in Fillmore 1982; Minsky1974); a set of ideas for representing knowledge, as an alternative for the semantic field (Minsky 1974); an organization of notions kept in the memory (of a human or a computer) and also a system of processes that operate this storage. A structure of data for representing typical situations, especially when working with large memory items (Minsky 1974; Fillmore 1982). In cognitive psychology, the term frame corresponds to such terms as schemata (Bartlett 1932, Minsky 1974), associative connections (Bower 1972), and semantic field. A certain type of a language ‘frame’ is a ‘scene’. A scene is not only a visual image but also any mental image (Talmy 1977, 612): interpersonal communication, standard scenarios of behavior in a certain culture. Common in all definitions of frames is the analogy with a mechanical module or a picture/movie frame. The notion of ‘frame’, under various names, goes back at least as far as the concept of ‘schema’ by Bartlett (1932) and has many realizations in works on artificial intelligence, most elaborately in Minsky (1974). This term was elaborated in works of Fillmore (1975, 1977 and 1982). Fillmore : in 1975 he introduced the word ‘frame’ as a substitute for a set of terms: schemata, script, scenario, ideation scaffolding, cognitive model, or folk theory, that means a


18 system of linguistic categories organized according to a ‘motivating context’. “The motivating context is some body of understandings, some pattern of practices or some history of social institutions, against which we find intelligible the creation of a particular category in the history of language community” (Fillmore 1982, 119). Fillmore defines scripts as frames whose elements are a set of sequenced events, for example, going to a party or making an appointment. In the small scope, ‘frame’ is understood as a set of linguistic choices that is associated with prototypical scenes: the choice of grammatical features or lexical items. For example, a commercial event can include two participants (the buyer and the seller), the money and the goods. Although a prototypical event includes all of these things, while constructing a single utterance to describe this event, the language constrains us to choose one particular perspective on the event. The choice of a verb will require us to bring one or more of the participants into perspective: ‘buy’ describes the situation from the point of view of the buyer, ‘sell’ is related to the seller, ‘pay’ focuses on money. This introduces us to the notion of perspective (Fillmore 1977, 72). If we look at sentences 1 and 2 we can notice that they describe the same situation. 1) He beat the stick against the wall. 2) He beat the wall with a stick. These utterances are different in perspective that is realized in grammar (word order). In this example, sentence (1) focuses on “the stick”, so for the author it is important that the action is done with the stick, while in the second sentence the wall is put in perspective. It is perspective that motivates the choice of the grammatical organization of an utterance with the same verb (in sentences 1 and 2), and the choice of a lexical item (hit, beat, knock) within a single semantic domain. There are certain elements of scenes that are usually put in perspective, such as humanness or change of state/location. The fact that English prefers to have human subjects in the center of scene explains why sentence 3 but not 4 is possible:


19 3) I beat Harry with a stick. 4) The stick beat Harry. At the same time the participant of the situation that undergoes change is put in perspective and in the more salient place while the other participants occupy a secondary place. For example in 5 and 6 the object that is being broken goes before the other object that caused it: 5) I broke the vase with the hammer. 6) I broke the hammer on the vase. In the discussion about frames, Fillmore (1975, 1977; 1982) moves from case frames to the notion of scene, since in understanding the semantic structure of a verb it is necessary to understand the properties of the schematized scene that the verb activates, and the semantic structure of the verb is linked to the verb’s syntactic properties. Understanding of meaning requires an appeal to an exemplar or prototype scene activated by the word; this knowledge can be innate or acquired through analysis. Following Talmy (1977), Fillmore (1982, 123) considers that lexical framing provides “‘content’ upon which grammatical structure performs a ‘configuring’ function.” However, for Fillmore a frame is not only a choice of linguistic means but also the organization of knowledge/experience. In this wider scope, the frame can be defined as a certain schema or framework of concepts or terms that are linked together as a system, which may contain elements that simultaneously belong to other frameworks (since different frames use the same language material and can have the same elements or contexts of use) (Fillmore 1982, 111). This system structures and organizes different aspects of human experience. Concepts in this system are related in such a way that “to understand any one of them you have to understand the whole structure in which it fits; when one of the things in such a structure is introduced into a


20 text, or into a conversation, all of the others are automatically made available” (Fillmore 1982, 111). ‘Word’ and ‘frame’ occupy mutually dependent positions: “frame structures wordmeanings, and the word evokes a frame” (Fillmore 1982, 117). In the process of communication it is often that the hearer/reader receives information that isn’t directly stated in the text (see for example Mynsky (1974)); the hearer/reader commutates these meanings by constructing a complex context within which each of the lexically signaled framings was motivated. Fillmore claims that any grammatical category or pattern imposes its own ‘frame’ on the material it structures. Lexical and grammatical material obser vable in the text ‘evokes’ the relevant frames in the mind of the interpreter by the fact that these lexical forms or grammatical structures or categories exist as indices of these frames; on the other hand, there are cases when the interpreter assigns coherence to a text by invoking a particular interpretive frame that comes from general knowledge, that exists independently from the text. This makes Fillmore distinguish between frames that are evoked by the material in the text and frames that are evoked by the interpreter. So whenever we pick a word or phrase, we automatically bring along a larger context that establishes term/rules according to which the word or phrase we have chosen is going to be analyzed, understood and be interpreted. Fillmore compares it to a ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ of a picture. In the works of Fillmore, we also meet the notion of ‘reframing’ (Fillmore 1982, 126), which is understood as a shift in the underlying schemata. For example, it was noticed that pairs of words ‘Man : Boy’ and ‘Woman : Girl’ are unequal; the shift between a boy and a man comes earlier than that of a girl to a woman (a male is called a man, while a female at the same age can be called a girl). Some people find this difference in the language use offensive, so in order to be


21 politically correct speakers make a conscious effort of calling young females a “woman” instead of a “girl”. This change in the frame Fillmore calls reframing. Bateson : in 1972 he looked at the possibility of using frames in psychotherapy to treat schizophrenia. It was observed that animals, like people, have certain signals that are interpreted ‘metaphorically’. For example, during play animals give special mood signals that indicate that such acts like biting should be interpreted as play and not as aggression or defense. A frame “gives the receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the messages included within a frame”; it delimits the logical type and can be metalinguisticly (Bateson 1972, 188) present in the discourse or subconsciously considered when interpreting a message. Bateson compares a psychological frame with a picture frame: the frame delimits the space of the wall from the space of the picture and suggests interpreting it as art. Within a frame, there is a ‘figure’ and ‘background’ that also influences interpretation of the ‘figure’. In psychiatric practice rules for doctor-patient interaction would be the picture fr ame, while discussing the rules (if they decide to play a game during a session) would be the background for the picture. Goffman (1975): he takes his understanding of the term from Bateson, and associates the frame with the framework; it is ideation scaffolding for processing one’s experience. In this approach, the domain of ethnology of speech, frames are understood as base elements that the researcher can identify in a specific situation. Situations follow organization rules that “generate” events, including social events. The same principles control our own participation in the events. Initial relationship structure within a social group is the center element of a culture since it reveals basic classes of schemes, relationships between these classes, forces, and participants, who, according to sociologists, have freedom in actions.


22 Mynsky (1974): he works in the domain of artificial intelligence. He defines ‘frame’ as “a collection of questions to be asked about a hypothetical situation: it specifies issues to be raised and methods to be used in dealing with them” (Minsky 1974, 124). His idea of frame is based on Bartlett’s (1932) “schemata” and Kuhn’s (1962) “paradigm”; the idea of the frame-system goes back to Winograd (1974). Mynsky looks at the frame as a “data structure for representing a stereotyped situation” (Minsky 1974, 111); for example, attending a child’s birthday party. Each frame has different types of information attached to it: how to use the frame, what can follow it, and what to do if these expectations are not confirmed. This functional information about the usage is called “subframe”. We can think of a frame as a nodes and relations. The top levels of a frame are fixed, and represent things that are always true about the supposed situation. The lower levels have many terminals—slots that must be filled by specific instances or data. Collections of related frames are linked together into frame systems. (Minsky 1974, 112) Different frames of a system represent diffe rent ways of using the same information, located at the common terminals. For example, an engine can be looked at from the mechanical point of view or from the electrical point of view. When operating, the person chooses one frame at a time to work with, because of the memory limitations. However s/he can go back and forth between these frames. On the conceptual level, a frame-system represents the choices: what questions shall I ask about this situation? According to Minsky, the meaning of an utterance is encoded not only in the positional and structural relations between the words but also in the word choices themselves. Minsky formulates his qualitative theory of "grammatical": “if the top levels are satisfied but some lower terminals are not, we have a meaningless sentence; if the top is weak but the bottom solid, we can have an ungrammatical but meaningful utterance” (Minsky 1974, 116). That is why people can still get a picture when they hear a se ntence “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” It


23 is common that sentences can evoke certain images (not only visual). People admit assigning color, size, purpose, attitude, or other elements of the scenario, when they hear, for example, “John kicked the ball” (Minsky 1974, 114). “When we go beyond vision, terminals and their default assignments can represent purposes and functions, not just colors, sizes, and shapes” (Minsky 1974, 117). Through frames Minsky explains questions, raised in Charniak's thesis (1972), about fragments that seem easy for people to comprehend but that obviously need rich default structures. In elementary school, reading stories such as the following is common: “Jane was invited to Jack's birthday party. She wondered if he would like a kite. She went to her room and shook her piggy bank. It made no sound” (Minsky 1974, 118). Even young readers understand that Jane intends to buy Jack a kite for a present but that there is no money to pay for it in her piggy bank. Charniak (1972) proposes a way to facilitate such inferences—there is an inference for 'present' that is concerned with money, and an inference that if one shakes a piggy bank and there is no sound, this means the bank is empty, and so on. But although the reader understands that the story is talking about 'present' and 'money' to buy it, they aren’t mentioned in the text. This can be explained by the fact that even young readers have an ideal picture of a birthday party and a scenario of how it should go. A “kid’s party” has many attributes that can normally be assumed by way of default assignments: a birthday party is held usually on Sunday. The child who attends the party needs to dress nicely and get a present that will please the host. The present is usually wrapped pretty. During the party kids play different games (like hide and seek or pin the tail on the donkey). The place for the party is decorated with balloons, favors and crepe-paper. Kids get to eat a special party meal, things that they enjoy the most and don’t get to eat every day: cake, ice cream (standard three-flavor), soda and hot dogs.


24 At the end of this meal there should be a cake with candles; when they bring the cake everyone should sing the birthday song and the child whose birthday it is must make a wish and blow out the candles. Ideas and key words of a discourse activate thematic or scenario structures that are drawn from the memory with multiple default assumptions. These representations are rearranged or elaborated according to the situation. From the point of view of scal e Minsky (1974, 123) singled out the following levels: 1. “SURFACE SYNTACTIC FRAMES. Mainly verb and noun structures. Prepositional and word-order indicator conventions. 2. SURFACE SEMANTIC FRAMES. Action-centered meanings of words. Qualifiers and relations concerning participants, instruments, trajectories and strategies, goals, consequences, and side effects. 3. THEMATIC FRAMES. Scenarios concerned with topics, activities, portraits, setting. Outstanding problems and strategies commonly connected with topic. 4. NARRATIVE FRAMES. Skeleton forms for typical stories, explanations, and arguments. Conventions about foci, protagoni sts, plot forms, development, and so on, designed to help a listener construct a new, instantiated thematic frame in his own mind.” According to Minsky, frames are responsible for the organization of knowledge; framing is responsible for the fact that some people are considered ‘clever’. For Minsky, these people are just more skillful (efficient and fast) in retrieving information kept in their brains. Van Dijk (1981): he shares the idea that frame is an organization of knowledge around a particular notion that, unlike associations, contains information about what is essential, typical and predictable for this notion. The frame has a conventional nature, which is why, for a particular culture; it specifies what is expected and prototypical and what is not. It is important for the scripted routine episodes of social interaction, for example, going to the movies or taking a bus. Frames organize our understanding of the world in general and guide us in our everyday


25 life (for example, paying for a bus ticket). This idea of a scripted scene sends us back to the Fillmore’s idea of a prototypical event. Talmy : in the study of frames, Fillmore started by looking at case frames and thematic roles assigned by verbs. Talmy (1977) also looks at grammatical components of scenes, how frames can be built and how incompatible frames are processed. According to him, the structures of scenes can be very complex, since more than one element of the sentence (lexical or grammatical) can specify values for the same dimension, or property of the part of a scene. This creates possibilities for either compatibility or conflict of different grammatical or lexical items, which the speaker resolves by cognitive processes of “competibilization”, which can be a shift, a blend or juxtaposition. These three processes can be better explained with examples. A ‘shift’ can be illustrated by the following sentence: 7) The handkerchief bent in two. This utterance combines two incompatible entities: “handkerchief” and “bent”. A handkerchief is usually made from cloth that has no shape (one can talk only about the surface). The verb “bent”, at the same time, is used to describe a change in shape of “hard” things. So when coming across such a sentence one has to come up with an explanation for it: a handkerchief is very dirty or made out of an atypical material. ‘Blending’ is the process when two frames are put together to form one entity. An example of blending would be: 8) She wafted through the party. Hearing this sentence one would have difficulty suggesting a possible explanation. To process this utterance there is a need to put two other images side by side: 9) The leaf wafted through the air. 10) The woman walked through the party.


26 This is an example of a “metaphor”, therefore. For ‘juxtaposition’ we need to look at an utterance like number 11: 11) Joe likes himself. When said in a conversation about a 3rd person this sentence has no contradictions within itself. However, if Joe says it about himself and in the discourse are mentioned “feathers”, this sentence creates an irony or comic effect. In the case of juxtaposition “incompatible entities are held together in attention for simultaneous viewing; a higher level unity is formed by drawing a perimeter around disparate contents” (Talmy 1977, 620) Framing in Politics G. Lakoff (2002 and 2004) brought the idea of fram e from cognitive science into analyzing political discourse and introducing practical s uggestions on public speaking. According to him when somebody names a frame or gives its attributes in our mind it evokes the whole frame. For example, mentioning the name ‘Polly’ and ‘crackers’ activates the frame “parrot”. The listener visualizes a talking bird of different colors, a cage, and possibly this bird eating crackers. He speculated that the usage of frames dramatically contributed to the success of the Republican Party in the United States. So he came up with practical suggestions for using the frames in political speeches. “Moral 1: Every word evokes a frame. Moral 2: Words defined within a frame evoke the frame. Moral 3: Negating a frame evokes the frame. Moral 4: Evoking a frame reinforces that frame.” (Lakoff 2006, Simple framing ) For example, if someone wants to change a view on a problem, negating the already existing frame will just reinforce it; instead, the issue should be reframed. That was the case in President Nixon’s speech “I’m not a crook”: the more he negated the frame, the more it got associated with him.


27 Lakoff (2002, 2003, 2006) singled out several frames frequently used by the Republicans. One of them is “tax relief”. For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act by which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain. (Lakoff 2003) Another frame is “war on terror”: The phrase “War on Terror” was chosen with care. “War” is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack – an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers for the President, who becomes Commander in Chief. It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war effort is treasonous. The abstract noun, “terror”, names not a nation or even people, but an emotion and the acts that create it. A “war on terror” can only be metaphorical. Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end. (Lakoff 2006, February 28) Lakoff argues that the word “terror” having a component of the meaning “fear” is used to create fear in the listener. One of the central metaphors of political discourse, according to Lakoff, is “family”. While progressives adopt “the nurturant parent” fr ame, Republicans use “the strict father” model. In the “strict father” model the world is viewed as dangerous and competitive. Children are born bad and it is father who shows example, teaches what is moral and what is not and punishes when it’s necessary. Mother’s role is secondary, she is supposed to support the father and comfort the children. She can have a potentially bad influence on the child, since mothers can spoil children with too much love; the child gets what it didn’t deserve. The father is supposed to prepare the child for the outside competitive world where there are winners and losers. Only people with strong morality can succeed in life. Hence, competition is viewed as a good thing, since it rewards the good guys and punishes bad and lazy. In this model, rich people are good since they are disciplined and earned their wealth with hard work. If you are poor, on the other


28 hand, it means that you aren’t moral enough. Everyone should act from a self-interest point of view in self-disciplined fashion: in this case everyone moves towards ones own happiness. So when this model is applied to a nation, roles distribute in the following way: President is a “strict father” and “nation” is his children. There is also a hierarchy of morality: “God above man, man above nature, adults above children, Western culture above non-Western culture, America above other nations men above women, white above non-whites, Christians above non-Christians, straights above gays” (Lakoff 2004, 82). This model results in a specific approach to the main political issues: foreign politics, taxes, environment, social programs and economy. In order to create an effective speech, a politician has to build the speech on the morality that fits bests his/her interests and frame the problem according to this morality. So far Republicans have been very successful in framing their issues according to ‘Strict Father’ morality, which reflected in the elections. According to Lakoff people vote their identities and not self-interest; that is why for a politician to express his/her moral views is more important than to deliver their stance on a set of issues. This ‘moral’ approach allowed Republicans to win the “swing” votes too, since most people share or at least are familiar with both worldviews (a person can be strict father at home, and nurturant parent at work and vise versa). So it is possible to activate a moral view on the problem, and get people to vote in the desired way when using frames while presenting the issue. The idea of influencing people through discourse is developed in the works of Van Dijk (2006). He distinguishes between persuasion and manipulation, which is “illegitimate in a democratic society, because it reproduces or may reproduce inequality” (Van Dijk 2006, 363– 364). According to him, manipulation of people’s opinions usually relies on an incomplete or total lack of knowledge (hence inability to make counter-arguments), norms and values, strong


29 emotions (events that evoke them) and social groups. Mental models (frames) created by manipulators effect the view of a problem. Van Dijk gives examples of how governments influence the perception of immigrants, linking to it such problems as unemployment, violence and crime. However, not everyone believes in the power of frames. Herbert (2006), an op-ed columnist for the New York Times , thinks that “straight talk”, being truthful and direct to the audience, is more effective than using frames, which he considers as abstract concepts. Although this view appeals to common sense, it fails to capture the complexity of cognitive behavior. Research Question The studies of fram es that have been done so far often have a theoretical rather than datadriven nature. This study is a step towards data-based studies that need to be done in the future. At the same time, although there are a number of concepts that are close to frames (association, metaphor or semantic field), ‘frame’ seems to bring sometimes deeper and sometimes different understandings of the matter of text interpretation, since it builds predictions of the text perception that spreads on the whole language community. The concept of frames also opens new doors for understanding cognitive processes of knowledge storage, speech interpretation and understanding of experience in general. The literature review demonstrated gaps between studies of practical application of frames and their power. So far frames were analyzed only within one speech community (i.e., within U.S.); however, this context is not always the case in real life, since texts get to be interpreted by speakers of languages different than the source language. This study addresses three of questions related to this issue. 1. What happens with the frames of the original text when it is translated into another language?


30 2. What is the best way to preserve the frames in the translated text? 3. How does the mismatch of frame networks between two languages influence text perception and interpretation? The hypothesis for this analysis is that because of the mismatch of the two language codes and subconscious nature of frames, mental structures during the translation are overlooked by the translator and, as a result, are either lost or substituted by similar structures resulting in a shift in the meaning. Chapter 1 of this paper has given a general overview of the study. Chapter 2 has covered a review of the literature on ‘frames’ and advancements in the domain of translation studies. It also presents the research questions for this study. In Chapter 3 methodology and materials used in this study are discussed. Chapter 4 of this paper focuses on the analysis of specific frames from the State of the Union address: family, war on terror, tax relief, September the 11th, and Ground Zero, as well as values delivered through the frames. This Chapter also discusses the question of how these frames have been translated into Russian. Chapter 5 summarizes the results of this study and suggests questions for further research.


31 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Data Analysis To explore the question of translatability of frames and their perception by different speech communities it was decided to analyze a text and the way it was translated into another language (Russian). The chosen text had to rely on frames in its expressive power (like poetry and literature) and its ability to influence people’s opinion. Hence, it was decided to use a text from political public speeches. It was desirable as well that the text be built on a particular worldview. Since many texts implement both (i.e., frames and conveying a worldview) the main criterion for the original text was its clarity regarding frames and worldview; this would allow this research to focus on the way the text is translated, rather than how the original text is built. The speech by George W. Bush, the State of the Union Address, seems to satisfy this parameter; the speaker tends to use frames discussed by Lakoff like ‘tax relief’, ‘war on terror’, and ‘September 11th’. At the same time, throughout the text Bush activates the ‘Strict Father’ worldview using different discourse tools. This speech, unlike many other texts produced by the same speaker, seems to cover a number of topics ranging from foreign affairs to the U.S. economy. On one hand, the variety of topics allows exploration of how the worldview is communicated in different domains of political life of a country. On the other hand, it also gives the researcher the possibility to explore framing of different issues. This text c ontains the largest number of frames discussed by Lakoff, which, again, allows focusing on the translation and comparison as opposed to the building of the source text. In order to see what choices the translator makes and what these choices add to the meaning of the text, first, there should have been singled out options of translation of the same item. It became apparent that the translator of the State of the Union Address was trying to be


32 close to the original text, preserving when possible syntactic constructions, lexical items and their grammatical categories. In many places, it was almost word-for-word translation. After obtaining sets of options for translating one and the same frame (from multilingual dictionary ABBY Lingvo and from the State of the Union Address), these sets of possibilities were used to evaluate translators choices in the translation of State of the Union Address; they were analyzed in regards to worldview and constructed frames, with their function in the text and their effect on the reader in order to see whether they match the original equivalents. If not, then the new frame was analyzed to see what new meaning of the text emerges with the change of the frame. Hence, this study is a comparative analysis of two texts: the State of the Union Address and its translation into Russian. Frame analysis, in this paper, relies on the approach suggested by Lakoff (2003, 2004, 2006). In his works he gives interpretations for such frames as ‘tax relief’, ‘war on terror’, ‘September 11th’ and family metaphor. Russian frames were suggested based on online multilingual dictionary ABYY Lingvo and encyclopedic entries from Wikipedia. Using online resources was, on one hand, a matter of convenience and, on the other hand, gave information that reflected native speakers perception of the languages (Russian and English) (the case with Wilipedia). Information in online resources is being constantly updated and gives more current data than published encyclopedias and dictionaries. Entries in Wikipedia can be modified by readers; this gives more accurate speakers’ perspective on the meanings of words. The online dictionary uses newspaper titles as examples of translation, which helps in understanding of current trends of translation. Data Collection This study analyses speeches by George W . Bush, in particular the State of the Union Address and its translation into Russian. The original speech is taken from the website of the White House; it is put there together with some photos of the president giving the speech, with


33 sound file and video recording, so site viewers can both read, listen to and see how the president delivered the Address. On the borders of the page there are links to other speeches of the president and titles of the recent press conferences, releases and news of the White House. The Russian translation is taken from the website of InoSMI, which is an independent Internet project that reviews over 600 regular overseas publications and posts and translates into Russian the most notable, representative and outstanding articles. The focus of interest is not only articles about Russia; the goal is to deliver a wide variety of information that received significant attention abroad. The Chief Editor of Ino takes responsibility for the quality of the translation; however, he admits that there may be limitations to the quality of posted information due to large amounts of data and time constraints (from a press conference given by Yaroslav Ognev, editor in chief). He also claims that his political views have no influence on his work: there is no attempt to present any specific point of view. That is also why the site does not try to write analytical articles, but just translates already published overseas articles. The only censure for this project is claimed to be the quality and the material; there is no political line of the Editors nor do the leaders of the project influence the choice of the posted information. The presentation of the translated text on the Ru ssian web page is different from that of the source speech. The text is surrounded by titles of articles on current events that are changed every day. At the bottom of the article there are links to additional information on the same topic (analytical articles) and a link for discussion and comments. The president’s pictures that accompany the source text and its translation are not identical, although both are portraits.


34 CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON OF THE TEXTS ‘Nation as a Family’ and ‘I’ vs. ‘They’ In the book Moral politics, Lakoff (2002) argues that people vote their identities and not their interests. So far, Republicans have been very successful at delivering their m oral stance on a set of issues. To do that they rely on communicating their family values. ‘Nation as a Family’ metaphor allows implementing family values in politics. This metaphor (when the nation is viewed as a family) is deeply rooted in American culture. The president is regarded as a father of the nation and the American people are his children. This idea is realised in the concept of “Founding Fathers”, where the leaders are parents and people in the nation are children. Both Democrats and Republicans share this metaphor. The difference is in the organization and principles of this ‘family’: Democrats use a ‘Nurturant parent’ model, while for Republicans emplement a ‘Strict father’ model. In Russian culture, the nation also used to be percived as a family; for example, the czar was refered to as ‘dad’ ( /czar-dad). During the Soviet era, the General Secretary of the State was called ‘the father of the nations’ and republics of the USSR were refered to as brothers and sisters. Although the ‘nurturant’ model is present in Russian society in general, it is significantly reduced in politics. Most political leaders had an ‘iron hand’ and ruled the country through establishing and demonstrating his/her power (czars like Ivan IV, Peter the Great and Katerina II as well as Soviet leaders, Lenin a nd Stalin). Even now people are looking for this type of person for the head of the government. However, the whole nation as a family metaphor has significantly disappeared or been modified since the 1980s and a new paradigm hasn’t been established yet. At this point Russian people perceive the nation as a very big unorganized family, where parents neglect their childern (because of the lack of time and desire to care for


35 them), and where parents act in their self-interest disregarding interests of children. This model of a “family” shows the gap between politicians and ordinary people that is present in Russian culture; and it is most likely to be implemented by Russian speakers for interpretation of government-people relationships in texts from another country. One of the ways in which the ‘nation as a family’ metaphor manifests itself in a text (oral or written) is through grouping or confining the space, dividing people into ‘me’, ‘you’, ‘us’ and ‘they’. In the speeches by G.W.Bush, this opposition is created through the use of pronouns, syntax, and word and sentence semantics. Throughout the text the speaker positions himself differently depending on the subgoal: He separates himself from everyone else (‘I’). He puts himself and his government in one group and opposes it to the people of the country. He associates himself with the rest of the family (‘our country’, ‘our nation’). For example, in the following utterance, there is ‘I—we’ (me and the nation) opposition. Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, and our country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives for freedom. ‘I’ is used here to stress personal responsibility and power behind a promise; ‘you and all who lost a loved one’ creates a community that this promise is given to, and although the President in fact adresses not only this group of people, but the whole nation, singling out this group activates the September 11 frame and appeals to people’s emotions; by stressing ‘I’ in the beginning the speaker makes the phrase ‘our cause’ to be read as ‘the cause of me and my government’. However, putting it in one row with ‘our country’ and specifying the group ‘who lost the loved one’ makes a shift towards making this cause be peceived as ‘the cause of the whole nation’. This phrase is translated into Russian as ‘all, which lost’ , ,


36 is a word used to single out a group within another group, so in the Russian translation the promise is made actually only to the people who lost relatives and not to the whole nation. Throughout the text Bush favors possessive pronouns as specifiers of nouns, as opposed to using articles. This emphasises the meaning of ‘them’ and ‘us’ in the usage of usually neutral determiners. The following utterance provides an example of it: The men and women of our Armed Forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on the mountaintops and in caves—you will not escape the justice of this nation. It is expected that the speaker would use ‘our nation’ instead of ‘this nation’. However, instead of creating a unity in the second part of the utterance he created a distance between him/his words and the nation, to give an outsider’s perception of the message and of the country. Before looking at the Russian interpretation, it is important to comment on a syntactic difference between Russian and English: while English (countable) nouns require a determiner (an article or a possessive/demonstrative pronoun) in the Russian language there are no articles. So the only possible determiners are pronouns; hence it is very common to see nouns without any determiner. Another comment on Russian is related to stylistics: Russian speakers are encouraged to avoid unnecessary repetition of words. For example, T.Efimova (2004), discussing the nature of mistakes and the culture of written and oral speech says: “ . , ”. ( A typical stylistic mistake is the unjustified repetition of words. e.g., First we hear the narration of the author himself. This is the narration about the questions that tortured him”[translated by the author] ). In this example the repetition of ‘narration’ sounds awkward; the inability to find synonyms is considered to be a sign of inarticulate speech and lack of vocabulary. ‘Repetition’ is understood as both: using the same lexical item and using another lexical item with the same root. Repetitions, however, can


37 be used as a stylistic device, usually accompanied by specific syntactic structures like parallelism. In English, on the other hand, restrictions on lexical repetitions represent individual preference rather than an official guideline for style. These differences between the two languages represent a problem for translation. In the text under consideration, Bush often uses parallel constructions and repetition of the pronouns (I, we, our); when several utterances within a paragraph start with “our”, this creates a certain rethorical effect, making the speech more organized and helps to draw parallels and stress certain information (reinforce the frame). Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, and our country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives for freedom. Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. , , , , , , . , . , , . , . ‘Our’ and ‘us’ are used 9 tim es in these two English paragraphs and 11 times in Russian translation; neither 9 nor 11 is acceptable in Russian language. The interpreter was bound to use an extra ‘us’ in “the task ahead of us ” because of the verb valence requirement (the phrase ‘ahead’ in Russian needs specification ‘ahead of what/whom’). The interpreter inserted the second ‘extra’ ‘we’ in “Our cause is just and it continues.” This is a set expression in the Russian language, so the translator probably produced it in the translation as unanalyzed chunk. In this abstract ‘our’ in English creates an opposition with “they”; it unites the audience. In the translation “our” is substituted by “we” (“ ”) (second sentence second paragraph) and the


38 syntax of the phrase that ‘our’ is a part of is changed too (the Russian interpretation uses focus structure That, what we found in Afghanistan [translated by the author of this thesis]). While in English such repetition strengthens the family frame and reinforces the idea that the deeds of the President and his people are actually the deeds of the whole nation, in Russian, it acquires an inarticulate stylistic flavor and creates an image of a person who puts his own interests ahead of everyone else’s and talks a lot about himself (L akoff (2004) argues that nations are viewed as people that have characters and motives like human individuals). In half of the cases where ‘our’ is used in the Russian translation precisely following the original Bush speech (with ‘our’ as a required determiner), it carries emphatic stress, since in neutral speech in most of these cases the Russian speaker would use nouns without any determiner (i.e., possessive pronoun). Overall throughout the text, Bush reinforces the idea that he and the rest of the nation are one entity. Another important feature of this text is that the President frames his decisions as decisions of the nation by using pronouns (‘we will’ and ‘our country’) and nouns (‘America’ and ‘Americans’). In the opposition to this one entity are the enemies of the president and the country. ‘We’ and ‘they’ are framed in terms of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’: everything related to the American nation the President describes as good, right, positive, high, moral; everything concerned with enemies is represented as bad, wrong, negative, low and immoral; for example, “our cause is just”, American troops have “courage and skills”, “outlaw regimes”, “a terrorist underworld”, and the terrorist allies are the “axis of evil”, “terrorist parasites”. The most representative example of this opposition in this text is in the following excerpt: The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cell at Guantanamo Bay. And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own. In the frame of the ‘flag’, there are such components as straight tall mast; a flag flying high represents one’s pride and success, while lowered it stands for one’s sorrow. A country’s flag is


39 also the symbol of the whole country. So here we are getting the meaning that the America stands straight with its head high. On the other hand, cells activate a frame of prison, wrongness, and darkness, and this frame is attached to the nation’s enemies. This opposition is also supported by the syntax of the paragraph; it is divided into two parts: first is aboout ‘us’, second about ‘them’. Sentences about terrorists are also built in two parts: ‘now’ and ‘then’, which is supported by the repetition of the verb ‘occupy’ and a pair of pronouns ‘their’ and ‘their own’. In the Russian translation, although the general frame is preserved, the opposition is weakened by the change of the verb ‘ ’(occupied) and ‘ ’ (are the habitants) and, because the translator decided to preserve the syntactic opposition, the sentence sounds a little awkward. ‘Strict Father’ Morality Although ‘strict father’ m orality is close to the Russian idea of ‘a strict father’ (dominant in politics), Russian and American moral views of what is good and bad within these models do not completely ovelap; differences in moral priorities represent a problem for adequate translation. Although this paper makes some comparisons of moral values between American and Russian cultures, it will not be attempted to give a full overview of their similarities and differences. However, there linguistic-sociological and philosophical studies in this domain have started. Pokrovskij and Lapin singled out sets of values for each culture. For American culture, George Lakoff gives a hierachy of Conservative morality that moves from God to humans and animals; this hierachy is realised in different i ssues, for example, the enviroment, foreign affairs, minorities and religions. In these texts ‘moral hierachy’ is represented in the approach to foreign politics. According to Lakoff, in the “strict father” model America is viewed as more moral than other countries. In following example this approach is implemented:


40 America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. , , , . Here Bush first creates a frame of ‘the leader’, who is usually powerful, strong, right, and able to tell right from wrong (those who are led, at the same time, are weak, dependent and needing guidance). Then Bush reinforces ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ opposition that we duscussed before: he talked about rightness and truthfulness where Amer ica is said to be right by defending “justice and liberty”, which makes opponents and anyone who disagrees with these actions wrong. In this text, Bush frames America as a ‘leader’ assigning to it all expected positive leadership qualities. Framing the problem in this way also introduces opposition as natural and opponents as people staying in the way of progress and good changes; those people are physically or morally not strong enough (leaders go first and usually have to face opposition that is trying to undermine its authority and resist moving forward). In the following example, other governments are framed as dependent and not being able to cope with difficult situations: But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. . , : , . It is interesting that in all this cases Bush uses the noun ‘America’ as opposed to other possibilities (f or example ‘we’). By saying ‘Ameri ca will’ he activates the frame of ‘America’ as a country with its boundaries, flag, anthem and all its values (like freedom and independence), which appeals to American patriotism. In the State of the Union address the president often opposes America to all other countries either as a leader, an example or as a receiver of the message as in the following example:


41 And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. B : , . The illocutionary force of this statement is ambiguous: it can be treated as a warning or as a threat. Proper interpretation relies on non-verbal cues that are absent in the written text and consequently in its translation (that keeps the ambiguity and leaves it up to the reader to choose one of the meanings). Hence, in the Russian text this statement can be interpreted as aggressive towards other nations. In all these examples, the president portrays America as a moral example to other countries, assigning it good qualities of the leader, putting it on the top of the ‘Moral hierachy’. While in English it appeals to American patriotism, when translated into Russian, it becomes a statement of superiority. In Russian culture, however, being modest and humble is viewed as a traditional value; one should wait for others to say good things about him/her; it is immoral to say good things about oneself. Hence, positive values become negative in the translated text and America as a person is viewed as selfish, self-centered and even aggressive in protecting itself. On the grammarical level, this moral authority position is supported by the usage of the verbs ‘must’ and ‘will’: And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. . ‘Must’ in both languages is a strong modal verb that is usually avoided in neutral speech. The verb ‘will’, however, in English is used to form the future tense and can be unmarked. This unmarked ‘will’ would be translated into Russian by ‘ ’. In this text the interpreter uses the word ‘ ’ which is a considerably stronger synonym. Hence, the presence of such strong


42 words as ‘must’ throughout the text, in the absence of established and agreed on moral superiority, turns what is understood in the English text as moral authority into dictatorship. One of the features of a frame, mentioned by Lakoff, is that denying a frame actually activates it. In this text there is an example of it, which becomes even sharper when it acts together with the previously discussed differences in moral hierarchy: We have no intention of imposing our culture. . Imposing American culture is one of the components of the frame “the moral superiority of the USA.” So by negating this attribute the speaker evokes the frame and makes it stronger. This act contradict the speakers intention and plays against him. Another component of the ‘Strict father’ morality expressed in this text is the attitude towards work. According to this world view, it is moral to work hard; people who work hard succeed in life; people, who don’t work, shouldn’t get things that they don’t deserve. That is why Bush puts such an emphasis on “good jobs”: Americans who have lost their jobs need our help and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. Yet, American workers want more than unemployment checks – they want a steady paycheck. When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs. The speaker explicitly states that it is not the unempoyement benefits that America needs to prosper but good jobs. “Good jobs” is repeated multiple times in the text to appeal to the people to share this value, which in the Russian transnation is read slightly differently. According to Russian values, a person should be hardworking; however, it does not make a reference to his/her job. “Good jobs” in American culture activates such notions as pay check, social security, social status, taxes, health benefits, promotion. In the Russian culture, ‘good jobs’ is an ambiguous term that would be defined differently depending on the speaker. This difference is


43 related to the ongoing in the U.S. debate about unemployement, immigrants and jobs going overseas. In the U.S. it is an established discourse, while in Russia, inspite of having similar problems, the discourse has not been established in this way. Hence, in the Russian text these words are interpreted as abstract, potencially emty promises of uncpecified ‘good’. Let us now look at some other frames found in the text. According to Lakoff, frames can be activated either through the name of the frame (‘parrot’) or through its attributes (‘polly’, ‘cracker’, ‘talking bird’). When translating into another language, the hardest task for the interpreter is to translate a frame that is activated through the name, for example, ‘tax relief’ or ‘war on terror’ since, although the mental structure exists, it might not have a name parallel to that in the source language (creating a shift in meaning) or there are constraints in the target language for using the name. War on Terror One of the fram es discussed by Lakoff is “war on terror”, and it is also one of the centeral issues in the chosen speeches. The analysis of texts showed two regular translations for this word combination: (“war on terror”) and (“war on terrorism”). For example, from the State of the Nation Address: . America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. Another interesting example is drawn from the Presidents speech on the Middle East: , , . .


44 All states must keep their promise, made in a vote in the United Nations to actively oppose terror in all its forms. No nation can pick and choose its terrorist friends. In this paragraph both words “terror” and “terrorist” are used but in Russian text these cases are translated by and (“terrorism” and “terrorist”). The first word in this frame is “war”; it is us ually translated in the Russian with the word “ ”. Like the English equivalent, it evokes a frame of a violent conflict with patriotism, arms, blood, deaths, and soldiers’ sacrifices. In Russian culture the idea of the defense of one’s motherland is also very important, since war is closely associated with the frame of World War II, where there is an aggressor that invades other countries (Germans/Hitler) and a defender of the motherland (the whole nation). So when this frame is applied to the war on Iraq, there emerges an ambiguous interpretation: Terror invaded the U.S. and now the nation leads a defensive war on its territory. The U.S. invaded Iraq to fight terror (something abstract and imaginary/unreal). It isn’t clear who is the good guy and who is the bad. This ambiguity emerges from the strong connection in the Russian frame between the invader being a bad guy and the invaded party being a good guy standing for his/her interests. The only morally justified war for Russians is a defensive war. The frame ‘war on terror’ leaves freedom for ambiguity; hence, the mismatch of frames “war” in the two languages can potentially evoke a subconscious “negative” meaning unfavorable to the US point of view. The input of the word “terror” makes another change in the frame. It looks like (“war on terror”) preserves the frame from the source text and the second way of translation ( “war on terrorism”) ignores it. However, the Russian word “terror” doesn’t have the same components of meaning as the frame in English evoked by “terror”. Lakoff argues that the word “terror” is chosen to play on peoples’ subconscious fears


45 and that this component of the meaning is very important in the frame. The Russian equivalent of “terror” is not built on ‘fear’, although it has this component of meaning. The part, absent in the English frame, is ‘aggression’; usually ‘terror’ can be defined as: , ( ) . — — ... . The use of force or a threat to use it to reach political and econom ics goals, conducted by the strong side (usually the state) towards the weak side of the conflict. The reverse practice of the use of force or a threat to use it by the weak side towards the strong side is called terrorism Terror is one form of political repression and is one form of political fighting. This distinction in Russian between ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ makes the frame ‘war on terror’ different; this frame turns into “war on aggression conducted by the state”, which aggravates the ambiguity created by the frame of “war”. This results in a hazy meaning and lack of expressive force of the word combination. The whole frame doesn’t appeal to the audience since its meaning is ambiguous and unclear and looks like a game of words. Native speakers of Russian prefer to reframe it, for example, like ‘oil war’ in the name of the article “USA—Iraq war for oil dollars?” (Kotolov 2003). The distribution of the two possible translations of “war on terror” apparently depends on the esthetic preferences of the interpreter as we ll. The translator of State of the Union Address did a precise translation that almost word for wo rd preserves lexical items of the original text, while ignoring the rhetoric side of it. The frame ‘war on terror’ established in Russian news and translation practice (following the first translation of this frame) doesn’t have the same effect as the English equivalent. The other possibility of substituting it with words like ‘terrorist’ and


46 ‘terrorism’ can be explained through a native Russian speaker’s sense of semantic compatibility, since the government can lead a war with terrorism (attacks on the government through force), but not with terror (something a bad government does to its enemies/people). In the English text, this frame is reinforced by the multiple repetition of the word ‘terror’, as well as through the use of other words that support the motive of fear: there is developed a whole ‘world’ of terror that can have a “face”, ha ve “terror training camps”, have regimes that “support” and “export” it; there are also words like “dangers”, “dangerous killers”, “murders”, and “outlaw regimes”. In the Address there are cases where the word “terror” is used in every sentence. For example: Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility towards America and to support terror. When this text is translated into Russian, the reinforcing of a frame simply by repeating its name contradicts with style rules that were discussed before: the same words shouldn’t be repeated so often, especially not in the neighboring utterances. This makes the speaker sound inarticulate having a lack of vocabulary. A possible solution to making this translation work in Russian is to activate the frame not by repeating its name, but through mentioning of its attributes, for example, how it is done with a case of ‘tax relief’ (see below). However, there are examples where the frame ‘war on terror’ is activated without mentioning any of these words as in the following abstract: We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world. Here the speaker activates both the frame of fear and the frame of war without mentioning the ‘war on terror’. “Weapons” and “surveillance maps”, key objects that all are the attributes of war, while having it all in one’s home is supposed to support the legitimacy of the threat.


47 Although in the Russian text the frame of ‘war on terror’ is absent, this abstract gets the interpretation in the frame of ‘war’, hence, this passage can be considered a more succesful way of establishing and activating the frame, rather than naming it. ‘Tax Relief’ The other fram e singled out by Lakoff is “tax relief”. In the two paragraphs dedicated to this topic in the speech, the expression “tax relief” is used three times and its synonyms were used only twice (“reducing tax rates” and “tax cut”). In the Russian translation, these deviations are left unnoticeable. However, in two out of five cases, ‘relief’ was translated by the same expression “ ” (discount) and twice with the neutral “ ” (cut/reduction). While the second possibility is quite neutral, the first variant of translation builds a new frame, different from the original one: “tax cut/tax relief” is translated as “ ”. The word “ ” can be translated into English as a “discount’ and is used very often in the context of sales, shopping and the market. It also has a connotation of luck, getting something in an easy cheaper way or gamble (“you never know when you can come across a discount”). So ‘tax cut’ in the Russian translation is framed as something temporary and a random unpredictable act of someone with power. Hence, in this interpretati on the role of a chance is associated with the government/President and ordinary people have the luck if having their taxes reduced. In this example, like in the previous one, in the process of translation, the frame is deformed and conveys the wrong connotations. However, once the phrase ‘tax relief’ was translated as ‘reduction of the tax burden’ (“ ”), the frame ‘relief’ has been activated. The word ‘burden’ is one of the intended components of the ‘relief’ frame; although in the Russian language the frame of ‘burden’ has only the affliction as a component of the meaning, it has components of ‘something hard being imposed on a person’. Hence, this variant of the translation is very close to the English frame of ‘tax relief’ as taxes are portrayed as


48 unnecessary and an unjustified burden on the people. Although the translator doesn’t translate here word for word, the overall frame turns out to be more precise. ‘Regime’ Another of the fram es created in the President’s speeches in a reference to Saddam Hussein’s government and supported by the media is “regime”. The English word ‘regime’ can be regarded as a neutral one, for example, as it is put in Wikipedia: A regime is the set of rules, both formal (for example, a Constitution) and informal (Common law, cultural or social norms, etc.) that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with the economy and society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of the Constitution in the 1780s. The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term. In the Russian language, however, this word has negative connotations; it is related to the means of exercising political power, legitimacy of the government and political freedoms; a democratic regime as opposed to tyranny, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. ‘Saddam’s regime’ to Russian speakers, describes a country that is ruled by a tyrant or group of people that illegitimately hold the power while the rest of the country lives in fear for their lives. The frame of ‘regime’ is repeated throughout the text, for example: This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens— leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. . , . , .


49 This frame of ‘regime’is reinforced by atributes like “outlaw” and “dangerous” as well as the repetition of the name of the frame and descriptive characteristic of a regime as a ‘vilian’. And since the word regime exists in both languages, the English “regime” is regularly translated by Russian “ ” delivering a stronger negative frame, since in Russian it can not have a neutral meaning and always contains negative evaluation as a component of meaning. ‘September 11’ and ‘Ground Zero’ After 9/11 two new fram es was created in the U.S. culture: ‘September 11’ and ‘Ground Zero’. The first one evokes a picture of the trage dy, victims, terrorist attack, fire fighters and the World Trade Center as a symbol of the United States. Ground zero has an association with an explosion, a place where the World Trade Center used to be, a place where there was something and now there is nothing. A scenario of a terrorist attack is related to both frames. However, in the Russian media there is still no set way of translating ‘Ground Zero’ and ‘September 11th’ has not been established yet and evokes the script of the tragedy only in a specific context. The term suggested by the interpreter of the President’s speech (“ ” epicenter of the tragedy) is quite ambiguous; it does not give enough information either about the place that the President talks about or about the tragedy. So while to the American reader the frame establishes closeness of the President to his people, showing his familiarity with people’s problems, a significant part of the Russian readers will be lost after coming across this expression in translation. For many Americans, these four months have brought sorrow, and pain that will never completely go away. Every day a retired firefighter returns to Ground Zero, to feel closer to his two sons who died there. At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: Dear Daddy, please take this to heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again some day. The repetition of the ‘September 11th’ frame to the Russian speakers is not always explicit enough to evoke the scenario of the terrorist attack, or victims and tragedy, which results in the


50 overall weaker effect on the reader. For example, in the following sentence the speaker relies on the frame itself without supporting it with any other clues, which can leave some of the readers unclear about the referent event: “September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress.” Non-verbal Cues Van Dijk (2006) talks about m anipulation, and ways through which power can be established in a text. An important aspect in interpreting texts are visual aids. The President’s speech in English is accompanied by pictures, while the Russian translation doesn’t have pictures at all or can give different pictures. The differe nce in these visual aids creates a difference in framing of the text. The English text of the President has his portrait on the side. This relates the written text to its oral version. At the same time it creates the impression of directness, closeness and reliability (the text, ones can see, coming directly from the president and no one (for example, people who typed and posted it on the website) stands in between). The absence of the picture in the Russian translation takes away the sense of directness; the text is edited and somebody’s third opinion intervenes between the speaker and the audience. One of the biggest problems for translation is to deliver melody, rhythm and sound effects. These devices consiously or subconsiously are used in rhetoric and, hence, in the political speeches too. The text under consideration has some cases of alliteration: “And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design.” Almost every word of this has a /d/ sound and the whole sentence is dominated by stops. These aggressive sounds help to deliever the speaker’s feelings towards terrorists (contempt). When this piece is translated into Russian, alletiration is lost entirely and the expressive effect is lost together with it (there is not a single /d/ in the interpretation): “ , ” (I glubina nenavisti sravnima s bezumstvom


51 razrusheniya, kotoroe oni planiruyut [translitera ted by the author]). This device can be very powerful, since all speeches of this kind are translated and foreigners don’t have a chance to hear it and use phonetic clues in interpreting the text. Alliteration, however, when properly delivered, stays even in the printed text and can still produce its effect.


52 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Summary The com parative analysis of the original text and its translation into another language showed that moral values and attitudes delivered in the original speech are modified during the translation. For example, what English speakers may see as a moral authority, becomes a statement of superiority. The underlying metaphor of this text is that the world is divided into ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, and there is a struggle going on between these forces. The United States is fighting on the side of ‘Good’ while terrorists are on the ‘Evil’ side. The speaker, G.W.Bush, gives the audience a simple (which means effective) frame for understanding a complex issue that is present even in the young members of the culture; it comes from fairy tales and movies. As the hearer gets more data, the frame would be enriched with information that fits it. However, because of the differences in frames surrounding this issue in Russian culture, the readers of the translated text can receive this speech poorly, since the frames do not exactly match. Doing exact translation, the translator could not preserve the frames of the original text: some of them were modified (‘tax relief’ vs. ‘tax discount’), some were broken (‘war on terror’), some were rebuilt (‘reduction of the tax burden’) and some disappeared entirely (‘Ground Zero’). Analysis showed that the imprecise on the surface (not word-for-word) translation captures frames better than the direct/word-for-word translation (e.g., ‘tax relief’ translated as “tax burden”). Hence, the translator has to find ways to deliver the same meaning with different grammatical and lexical means or make an attempt of introducing a new frame and hope that it will be reinforced by other texts. This text is built on strong emotions that are evoked by frames like ‘September 11th’ and ‘Ground Zero’ and the disappearance of the frames from the text results in a different


53 interpretation of the whole text. Changes in frames may affect the expressive power of the text, the power to influence the audience, and consequen tly distort the portrait of the speaker. This can be one of the reasons for the differences in the image of a politician in his/her own country and abroad. To sum up, through this study were obtained answers on the following research questions formulated in Chapter 2: 1. What happens with the frames of the original text when it is translated into another language? Frames of the original text are often disregarded by the translator; as a result, they are often changed; places where frames are preserved are accidental and unconscious. 2. What is the best way to preserve the frames in the translated text? The mismatch between language codes often doesn’t allow word-for-word translation together with the preservation of a frame. Style requirements of Russian also creates restrictions on word use (no repetition rule). Hence it is better to activate a frame through its attributes and not through the name of the frame. 3. How does the mismatch of frame networks between two languages influence text perception and interpretation? The study shows that the perception of the text and its author is modified by the inaccurate translation of frames. This can lead to an unfavorable image of the speaker and distortion of his message. This question, however, requires further research to obtain data from the readers of the original text and from readers of its translation and see what exactly is different in speakers’ perception on the text. Results and Further Analysis Unfortunately, this paper creates m ore questions than it actually answers. One of the limitations of this study as well as many other papers written on framing is that it is dealing with language without actually looking at reactions of native speakers of the languages. This problem is related to the inability so far to design a proper methodology for such a study: questionnaires


54 do not give enough data for such a study; protocols are hard to analyze and can be unclear; the electronic dial of a “perception analyzer” can give data unrelated to framing. Familiarity of the topic and sometimes sensitivity present another problem: most subjects already have a fully formed frame for many political issues and politicians themselves (for example G. W. Bush is a frame that influences understanding information related to this persona). So studying their reaction on an already familiar topic might not give valid results. Creating a valid methodology for working with human subjects, however, is essential when studying frames; otherwise it can just become speculation or biased analysis depending on the analyst’s worldview. Another problem that needs to be solved in this study is accounting for the translator of the text, who is both the receiver of the source text and the producer of the decoded text. Any translator as uninvolved as he/she wants to be cannot completely avoid showing his/her presence in the outcome (as was discussed in the literature review). Hence for proper analysis, the translator’s agenda, motives, personal preferences as well as relations to the translated text (topic and author) should be taken into consideration. In translation studies, the problem of precise over artistic translation has not found a solution yet. The idea of a mismatch of frame network in two languages is another argument in favor of artistic translation; however, it does not give answers on how exactly it should be done. It is just another aspect to keep in mind while tr anslating a text or creating computer software for translation. Recently, the accuracy of translation of Bush’s speeches has been taken into the hands of the U.S. government. For example, Russian language speeches appear on the U.S. embassy website, which implies that the translation is authorized and that the author of the source text agrees with the way the speech is delivered in another language. However, in these official


55 translations there are the same problems as in the translations done by the news media: the presence of frames is ignored and the message delivered in the original text is to a certain extent changed. It would be interesting to study to what extent this diviation influences and/or changes the perception of the country and effects its image overseas.


56 APPENDIX A THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very m uch. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger. (Applause.) We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression. (Applause.) The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own. (Applause.) America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We'll be partners in rebuilding that country. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai. (Applause.) The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today women are free, and are part of Afghanistan's new government. And we welcome the new Minister of Women's Affairs, Doctor Sima Samar. (Applause.) Our progress is a tribute to the spirit of the Afghan people, to the resolve of our coalition, and to the might of the United States military. (Applause.) When I called our troops into action, I did so with complete confidence in their courage and skill. And tonight, thanks to them, we are


57 winning the war on terror. (Applause.) The man and women of our Armed Forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves—you will not escape the justice of this nation. (Applause.) For many Americans, these four months have brought sorrow, and pain that will never completely go away. Every day a retired firefighter returns to Ground Zero, to feel closer to his two sons who died there. At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: Dear Daddy, please take this to heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again some day. Last month, at the grave of her husband, Mich ael, a CIA officer and Marine who died in Mazur-e-Sharif, Shannon Spann said these words of farewell: "Semper Fi, my love.” Shannon is with us tonight. (Applause.) Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, and our country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives for freedom. Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world. What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were


58 trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were te ns of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning. Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. (Applause.) Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. (Applause.) Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld—including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed—operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.


59 My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nati ons are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. (Applause.) But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.) Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens— leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.


60 We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.) Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch—yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. We can't stop short. If we stop now—leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked—our sense of security would be fals e and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsib ility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.) Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy. September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress. And I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. (Applause.) Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home. I'm a proud member of my party—yet as we act to win the war, protect our people, and create jobs in


61 America, we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. (Applause.) It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month—over $30 million a day—and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training—and they also deserve another pay raise. (Applause.) My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades—because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay. (Applause.) The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack. Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protect ed from attack only by vigorous action abroad, and increased vigilance at home. My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response, airport and border security, and improved intelligence. We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. We'll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters. (Applause.) We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders,


62 strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States. (Applause.) Homeland security will make America not only stronger, but, in many ways, better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs. (Applause.) And as government works to better secure our homeland, America will continue to depend on the eyes and ears of alert citizens. A few days before Christmas, an airline f light attendant spotted a passenger lighting a match. The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives. The people on that plane were alert and, as a result, likely saved nearly 200 lives. And tonight we welcome and th ank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones. (Applause.) Once we have funded our national security and our homeland security, the final great priority of my budget is economic security for the American people. (Applause.) To achieve these great national objectives—to win the war, protect the homeland, and revitalize our economy—our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term, so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner. (Applause.) We have clear priorities and we must act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas: We'll prevail in the war, and we will defeat this recession. (Applause.) Americans who have lost their jobs need our help and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. (Applause.) Yet, American workers want more than unemployment checks—they want a steady paycheck. (Applause.) When


63 America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs. (Applause.) Good jobs begin with good schools, and here we've made a fine start. (Applause.) Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve historic education reform so that no child is left behind. I was proud to work with members of both parties: Chairman John Boehner and Congressman George Miller. (Applause.) Senator Judd Gregg. (Applause.) And I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend, Ted Kennedy. (Laughter and applause.) I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing— (laughter)—but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results. (Applause.) There is more to do. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. (Applause.) We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom. (Applause.) Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil. (Applause.) Good jobs depend on expanded trade. Selling into new markets creates new jobs, so I ask Congress to finally approve trade promotion authority. (Applause.) On these two key issues, trade and energy, the House of Representatives has acted to create jobs, and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation. (Applause.) Good jobs depend on sound tax policy. (Applause.) Last year, some in this hall thought my tax relief plan was too small; some thought it was too big. (Applause.) But when the checks


64 arrived in the mail, most Americans thought ta x relief was just about right. (Applause.) Congress listened to the people and responded by reducing tax rates, doubling the child credit, and ending the death tax. For the sake of long-term growth and to help Americans plan for the future, let's make these tax cuts permanent. (Applause.) The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories and equipm ent, and by speeding up tax relief so people have more money to spend. For the sake of American workers, let's pass a stimulus package. (Applause.) Good jobs must be the aim of welfare reform. As we reauthorize these important reforms, we must always remember the goal is to reduce dependency on government and offer every American the dignity of a job. (Applause.) Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. I ask Congress to join me this year to enact a patients' bill of rights—(applause)—to give uninsured workers credits to help buy health coverage—(applause)—to approve an historic increase in the spending for veterans' health—(applause)—and to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs. (Applause.) A good job should lead to security in retirement. I ask Congress to enact new safeguards for 401K and pension plans. (Applause.) Employees who have worked hard and saved all their lives should not have to risk losing everything if their company fails. (Applause.) Through stricter accounting standards and tougher disclosure requirements, corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct. (Applause.)


65 Retirement security also depends upon keeping the commitments of Social Security, and we will. We must make Social Security financially stable and allow personal retirement accounts for younger workers who choose them. (Applause.) Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on other issues: productive farm policy—(applause)—a cleaner environment—(applause)—broader home ownership, especially among minorities—(applause)—and ways to encourage the good work of charities and faith-based groups. (Applause.) I ask you to join me on these important domestic issues in the same spirit of cooperation we've applied to our war against terrorism. (Applause.) During these last few months, I've been humbled and privileged to see the true character of this country in a time of testing. Our enemies believed America was weak and materialistic, that we would splinter in fear and selfishness. They were as wrong as they are evil. (Applause.) The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve. As I have met the heroes, hugged the families, and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people. And I hope you will join me—I hope you will join me in expressing thanks to one American for the strength and calm and comfort she brings to our nation in crisis, our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.) None of us would ever wish the evil that was done on September the 11th. Yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves. We were reminded that we are citizens, with obligations to each other, to our country, and to history. We began to think less of the goods we can accumulate, and more about the good we can do.


66 For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it.” Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll.” (Applause.) In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We've been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass. (Applause.) My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime—to the service of your neighbors and your nation. (Applause.) Many are already serving, and I thank you. If you aren't sure how to help, I've got a good place to start. To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps. The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need: responding in case of crisis at home; rebuilding our communities; and extending American compassion throughout the world. One purpose of the USA Freedom Corps will be homeland security. America needs retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in major emergencies; volunteers to help police and fire departments; transportation and utility workers well-trained in spotting danger. Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers. And America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world. So we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five


67 years—(applause)—and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world. (Applause.) This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity—a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. (Applause.) And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace. All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth year n to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police. If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. (Applause.) No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. (Applause.) America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror. In this moment of opportunity, a common danger is erasing old rivalries. America is working with Russia and China and India, in ways we have never before, to achieve peace and


68 prosperity. In every region, free markets and fr ee trade and free societies are proving their power to lift lives. Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, and Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom. (Applause.) The last time I spoke here, I expressed the hope that life would return to normal. In some ways, it has. In others, it never will. Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: evil is real, and it must be opposed. (Applause.) Beyond all differences of race or creed, we are one country, mourning together and facing danger together . Deep in the American character, there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism. And many have discovered again that even in tragedy— especially in tragedy—God is near. (Applause.) In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that we've been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential. Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life. (Applause.) Steadfast in our purpose, we now press on. We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, my fellow Americans, we will see freedom's victory. Thank you all. May God bless. (Applause.)


69 APPENDIX B ("THE W HITE HOUSE", ) : . , (Cheney) , , , . , , , , . . ( .) . , , , , , , . ( .) . , , . ( .) , , , . ( .) . . , (Hamid Karzai) . ( .) , , , .


70 . (Sima Samar) . ( .) , . ( .) , . , , . ( .) , : 7000 (1 =1, 853 ), , . ( .) , . , , . : " , , , ”. , (Michael), ( ) , , (Shannon Spann) : " , ". . ( .)


71 , , , , , , . , . , , . , . , . , , . , , , , . 19 , 11 , , . , , , , . . . , , . ( .) , ,


72 . . ( .) , . , , . , , , , . ( .) , . , " " (Hamas), " " (Hezbollah), " " (Islamic Jihad) " " (Jaish-iMoham med) , . , . , , , . , , , . , .


73 , , . . , (Musharraf). ( .) . , : , . ( .) , , ( ). 11 . . , , . , , , . . , , . . , . , .


74 , , , , . , . , , . . . , , , . ( ), . ( .) : , . , . , . , . . ( .) , . , . . .


75 , , . ( .) , , . : ; ; . 11 , , , . , . ( .) , , . , , , , , , . ( .) . , 30 . , . , , . , . , , . ( .)


76 , , . , . ( .) . , 11 , , . . . , : , , . . . ( .) , , . ( .) , , , . ,


77 , , . . ( .) , , , . , , . , " " (al Qaeda) . 200 . (Hermis Moutardier) (Christina Jones) . ( .) , , . ( .) , , , . ( .) , , . . ( .) , , , .


78 ( .) , . , , : . ( .) , . ( .) , . , : (John Boehner) (George Miller). ( .) (Judd Gregg) . ( .) , , (Ted Kennedy) . ( .) , (Crawford) , , ( .) , , . ( .) . . ( .) , : ( .) . ,


79 , , ; , . ( .) . , . ( .) , , , . ( .) . ( .) , ; , . ( .) , ( . .), , , . ( .) , . . ( .) , , , ,


80 . . ( .) . , , . , , . , ( .) , ( .) ( .) (Medicare), . ( .) . 401 . ( .) , , , . ( .) . ( .)


81 , (Social Security), . , . ( .) , : , ( .) , ( .) , , ( .) . ( .) , . ( .) . , , . , . ( .) , , . , , . , , , ,


82 (Laura Bush) , , . ( .) , 11 . , , , . , , , . , , , . : " , ". : " ". ( .) , . , , , " ". , . ( .) , 4000 , , . ( .) , . , , . , , " " (USA Freedom Corps). " " : ; ; .


83 " " . , ; ; , . , . , , , . . " " "AmeriCorps" "Senior Corps", 200000 . , . " " (Peace Corps) ( .) , . ( .) : , , . , , , . ( .) , .


84 , , . , . , , " " . , , . , , , . ( .) , . . : ; ; ; ; ; , ; . ( .) , , , , . , . . ,


85 , . , . , , , . ( .) , , . . . , , . , : , . ( .) , , . , , . , . ( .) , , . , . . . , , .


86 . . ( .) , , . . . , , . . . ( .) : , .Ru 30 2002, 10:39 : The President’s State of the Union Address


87 LIST OF REFERENCES ABBY Lingvo. English Dictionary. Retrieved 2007, January 3. Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: The University Press. Bateson, G. (1972). A Theory of Play and Fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an Ecology of Mind (pp. 117). New York: Ballantine Books. Bassnet, S. (2002). Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Charniak, E. (1974). Toward a Model of Children's Story Comprehension. Unpublished Ph.D.thesis, MIT, and AI Lab Tech Report 266. Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. Chukovsky, K. (1965). Sobranie Sochinenii. (6 vols). Moscow. Chukovsky, K. (1984). The High Art of Tr anslation. In L.G. Leighton (Ed.), The Art of Translation: Korney Chukovky’s A High Art. Knoxville: The University of Tenessee Press. Dijk, T. A. (1981). Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague etc.: Mouton. Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse and Society 17, (pp. 359). Efimova, T. (2004). , ? SVETOZAR. Retrieved 2007, January 15. Entman, R. (2004). Projection of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago. Fillmore, C. (1975). An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. In C. Cogen (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , (pp. 123– 131). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Fillmore, C.J. (1977) The Case for Case Reopened. In P. Cole, J.M. Sadock (Eds.), Grammatical Relations. (pp. 59). New York.: Academic Press. Fillmore, C. J. (1982) Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from the SICOL-198, (pp. 111). Seoul, Korea: Hanshin Publishing Company, 1982. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience . London: Harper and Row.


88 Herbert, B. (2006, May 11). Where’s the Beef? The New York Times , p. A37. Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On Translation . (pp. 232) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kotolov, A. (2003). — : (March 24, 2003). Retrieved 2007, January 15. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . (Second edition, 1970.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (2003). Framing the Issues: UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff Tells How Conservatives Use Language to Dominate Politics (October 27, 2003). UC Berkley News . Retrieved 2005, November 10. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant: Progressive Values and the Framing Wars: a Progressive Guide to Action . White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Lakoff, G. (2006). Simple Framing (February 14, 2006). Rockridge Institute . Retrieved 2006, December 20. Lakoff, G. (2006). “War on Terror”, Rest in Peace. (February 28, 2006). Rockridge Institute . Retrieved 2006, December 20. Lotman, J. and Uspensky B. A. (1978). On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture. New Literary History IX (2), 1978. pp.211. Minsky, M. (1981). Framework for Representing Knowledge. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind Design II, (pp. 111) . Cambridge, Massachusetss: MIT Press, 1997. . (2002, January 29). Ino .ru. Retrieved 2006, December 15. The President’s State of the Union Address. (2002, January 29). The White House. Retrieved 2006, December 15. De Saussure, F. (1974). Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana. Shishkov (1803) A Discourse on the Old and New Style of Russian Language. Moscow


89 Talmy L. (1977) Rubber-sheet Cognition in Language. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, S. Philosoph (Ed.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, (pp. 612– 628 ). Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2007, January 3. Winograd, T. (1974). Five Lectures on Artificial Intelligence. Stanford AI Lab Memo 246. Ognev, Y. (2004). . Retrieved 2007, February 10.


90 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Margarita Ukhanova was born in Russia. She earned her B.S. degree in philology from Moscow State University (Russia). During her studies there, she came twice to the United States. This inspired her to obtain her master’s degree in the USA. In 2004, Margarita entered the program in linguistics at the University of Florida and in 2007 obtained an M.A. degree. Her primary research interests are discourse analysis, second language acquisition and phonetics.