UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRIESTE
XXV CICLO DEL DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN
SCIENZE DELL’INTERPRETAZIONE E DELLA TRADUZIONE
SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION
ON TELEVISION:
T HE CASE OF THE Q UESTION /A NSWER GROUP
IN THE 2004 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATHON
Settore scientifico-disciplinare: L-LIN/12 LINGUA E TRADUZIONE - LINGUA INGLESE
DOTTORANDA
EUGENIA DAL FOVO
COORDINATORE
PROF.ssa FEDERICA SCARPA
SUPERVISORE DI TESI
PROF.ssa CATERINA FALBO
CO-SUPERVISORE DI TESI
PROF.ssa RAFFAELA MERLINI
ANNO ACCADEMICO 2012/2013
This research project started under the supervision of Prof. Francesco Straniero Sergio, with Prof. Caterina Falbo as co-supervisor.
After his passing on July 18, 2011, Prof. Caterina Falbo stepped in as supervisor and Prof. Raffaela Merlini joined her as co-supervisor.
A Francesco
My gratitude goes first and foremost to Prof. Francesco Straniero Sergio, to whom I dedicate my thesis. It was his scholarly work that introduced me to the world of interpreting research in general, and the CorIT project in particular, fascinating and inspiring me to the point of graduating with an MA thesis on CorIT’s data, that he and Caterina Falbo supervised. And it was only thanks to his infectious enthusiasm and his unwavering support that I decided to enter the Ph.D. programme at the Department of Legal, Language, Interpreting and Translation Studies (IUSLIT) of the University of Trieste. From the very beginning, Francesco believed in me and my – very hidden – potential as researcher. In my first 19 months as Ph.D. student, he never ceased to express such belief, encouraging me, discussing with me about my project, and including me in his, soliciting and valuing my opinion in a way that suggested we were equals, rather than student and teacher.
His insight, inspiration, tireless passion, and insatiable curiosity taught me more than any book could ever do.
His sensitivity, wisdom, and the laughters we shared are gifts I will cherish for life.
His passing left a void that can never be filled.
My thesis and my contribution to the CorIT project are an attempt to honour his memory and work. Dedicating them to him does not even remotely begin to express my gratitude.
My heartfelt thanks also go to Prof. Caterina Falbo, who started as co-supervisor of my Ph.D. project and stepped in as supervisor after Francesco’s passing. Together with Francesco, she has been my navigator since I moved my first steps in the academic world, always counterbalancing Francesco’s vision and brilliant intuition with her rigorous thinking and method. I am grateful for her patience and support, and for her confidence in my ability and resolve – especially at times when my self-confidence wavered.
My appreciation also goes to my current co-supervisor, Prof. Raffaela Merlini of the University of Macerata, whose insightful observations and scholarly advice greatly contributed to the completion of my thesis.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the Ph.D. programme coordinator, Prof.
Federica Scarpa, and the members of the Scientific Committee of the IUSLIT Department, as well as the teaching and administration staff of the Advanced School of Modern Languages for Interpreters and Translators (SSLMIT) of the University of Trieste.
Thanks, too, to the staff of the Zentrum für Translationswissenschaft of the University of Vienna, where I spent three months during my study abroad programme.
possible: Bianca Straniero Sergio, for supporting the CorIT project; fellow Ph.D. student Emanuele Brambilla, for helping with the transcription process; and Antonio Castellaneta, for always coming to my rescue when CorIT’s server decided to stop working for no apparent reason.
Aside from the academic world, there is a number of people who deserve special mentioning and all my gratitude for having put up with me during the past four years, sharing my success, failures, joy, and frustration, and never denying me their support: my family – Mum, Dad, Alice, and Enrico; my Friend Milana; my friend and companion in misfortune Gianluca; my friends Petra, Sara, and Vanessa; my “Vienna brother” Sascha, and the rest of my “Vienna family”. Thank you for your endless patience, support, and love. I could have never survived these four years without You.
Finally, I would like to thank friends (old and new), colleagues, and relatives, near and far, who shared parts of my journey, lighting the way with their presence, words and smiles.
List of Abbreviations………. i
List of Tables……… iii
List of Figures………. v
List of Charts……… vii
INTRODUCTION………. 1
Research objective………. 3
Thesis structure……… 7
1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……… 9
1.1 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES ON TELEVISION……….. 11
1.1.1 Media and politics: the merging of agendas……….. 12
1.1.2 Politics on screen: panem et circenses………. 13
1.1.3 Institutionalization of a genre……….. 16
1.1.3.1 Negotiation phase………. 16
Timetable………. 17
Format……….. 17
Staging – or the picture worth a thousand words……….. 18
The third party at the negotiation table: television………. 19
1.1.3.2 Communicative strategies and tactics: the narrative edge………. 20
1.1.4 Presidential debates’ participants: debaters, questioners, audience ……….. 21
1.1.4.1 Debaters………. 21
Incumbent……… 22
Challenger……… 23
1.1.4.2 Questioners……….. 24
1.1.4.3 Audience……… 25
1.2 SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION ON TELEVISION………. 26
1.2.1 Television Interpreting………. 26
1.2.2.1 Origin and advancement of the profession………. 27
1.2.2 Television interpreting studies………. 28 1.2.2.1 Terminological issue……… 28
1.2.2.2 Early studies: the conference-interpreting perspective……….. 29
1.2.2.3 Early studies: the dialogue-interpreting perspective……… 31
1.2.3 TI classification parameters……….. 33
1.2.3.1 Situationality and format………. 33
1.2.3.2 Interpreting modes on television………. 34
1.2.3.3 Working conditions, constraints and stress factors……….. 39
1.2.4 Television interpreters: roles, norms and quality standards……….. 41
1.2.4.1 Pragmatic considerations on the oral dimension of interpreted discourse……….. 41
1.2.4.2 Quality and roles in television interpreting……… 43
1.3 CORPUS-BASED INTERPRETING STUDIES ……….. 46
1.3.1 Corpus-based interpreting studies (CIS)……… 46
1.3.1.1 Identifying interpretation corpora: general and specific issues……….. 47
Representativeness and data selection……… 48
Situation and context………. 48
Dimension and type……… 50
1.3.1.2 Creating an interpreting corpus……… 51
Data collection……….. 51
Data elaboration and distribution………. 53
Transcription………. 55
Corpus markup and annotation………. 58
Alignment……….. 58
1.4 THE QUESTION/ANSWER GROUP……….. 59
1.4.1 Talk-in-interaction in ordinary conversation……….. 60
1.4.1.1 Discourse format……… 60
1.4.1.2 Dialogue-like discourse………. 62
1.4.1.3 Turns in talk-in-interaction in ordinary conversation………. 63
1.4.1.4 Coherence in talk-in-interaction……….. 65
Turn-type preallocation……… 71
Talk for overhearing audience……….. 72
Neutralistic stance………. 73
2 CORPUS OF ANALYSIS……….. 77
2.1 CORIT – ITALIAN TELEVISION INTERPRETING CORPUS……….. 79
2.1.1 Origin of the CorIT project ………. 79
2.1.2 CorIT……….. 80
2.1.2.1 Type of corpus………. 81
2.1.2.2 Multimedia archive settings……… 81
2.1.2.3 Corpus structure……… 84
Data collection and elaboration……… 84
Transcription and alignment……….. 87
Accessibility……….. 90
2.2 DEB.04 CORPUS……… 91
2.2.1 Data collection and elaboration……….. 92
2.2.2 Transcription and alignment……… 93
2.2.3 The 2004 Presidential Debathon……….. 94
2.2.3.1 2004 Presidential debaters………. 95
GEORGE W.BUSH………. 95
JOHN KERRY……….. 96
2.2.3.2 2004 Vice presidential debaters………. 97
DICK CHENEY……… 97
JOHN EDWARDS……… 97
2.2.3.3 2004 Moderators………. 98
JIM LEHRER……….. 98
CHARLES GIBSON………. 98
BOB SCHIEFFER……… 99
GWEN IFILL……… 99
2.2.3.4 The 2004 Debates……… 99
First Bush/Kerry presidential debate……….. 99
Second Bush/Kerry presidential debate………. 100
Third Bush/Kerry presidential debate………. 101
Cheney/Edwards Vice presidential debate……… 102
3 METHODOLOGY………. 103
3.1 PRELIMINARY REMARKS……….. 105
3.1.1 Presidential debates as speech events……….. 105
3.1.2 Interpreting presidential debates……….. 106
3.1.3 Presidential debates’ Q/A exchanges: interpreters vs. interaction……….. 107
3.1.3.1 Doing debate: turn-type preallocation……….. 108
3.1.3.2 Doing debate: goals, actions, roles and constraints……….. 109
3.2 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CLASSIFICATION ………. 110
3.2.1 As classification……… 111
3.2.2 Qs classification……….. 117
3.3 Q/A GROUP CLASSIFICATION……… 123
3.3.1 Degree of intratextual coherence……….. 123
3.3.2 Degree of conflictuality……….. 125
4 ANALYSIS……….. 131
4.1 OTs and ITs’ PROFILES………. 133
4.1.1 OT discourse profile……….. 133
4.1.2 IT discourse profile……… 141
4.2 OT-IT CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS……….. 145
4.2.1 First Bush/Kerry presidential debate……….. 146
4.2.2 Second Bush/Kerry presidential debate……… 150
4.2.2.1 Bush/Kerry 2: OT vs IT sTG5……… 151
4.2.2.2 Bush/Kerry 2: OT vs IT STG24……… 156
4.2.2.3 Bush/Kerry 2: OT vs IT La7……….. 160
4.2.3.3 Bush/Kerry 3: OT vs IT sTG5……… 167
4.2.3.4 Bush/Kerry 3: OT vs IT La7……….. 169
4.2.4 Cheney/Edwards vice presidential debate……….. 171
5 DISCUSSION……… 179
6 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS………. 193
REFERENCES………. . 199 APPENDIX A: ORIGINAL TEXTS Transcripts……… 219
OT_BK1_30092004………. 221
OT_BK2_08102004………. 237
OT_BK3_13102004……….. 255
OT_CEv_05102004……….. 273
APPENDIX B: INTERPRETED TEXTS Transcripts……… 293
IT_BK1_01102004RN………. 295
IT_BK2_09102004La7……….. 311
IT_BK2_09102004sTG5……… 315
IT_BK2_09102004STG24……… 329
IT_BK3_14102004La7……… 343
IT_BK3_14102004RN………. 349
IT_BK3_14102004sTG5………. 365
IT_BK3_14102004STG24………. 375
IT_CEv_06102004RN……… 389
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A Answer
AR Answerer
CI Consecutive Interpreting
CIS Corpus-based interpreting studies CIWN Consecutive interpreting without notes CorIT Italian Television Interpreting Corpus CSQ Confirmation-seeking question CTS Corpus-based translation studies
DB Debater
DBB Debater Bush
DBC Debater Cheney DBE Debater Edwards DBK Debater Kerry
DEB.04 2004 U.S. Presidential Debathon Corpus INB Interpreter Bush
INC Interpreter Cheney INE Interpreter Edwards INK Interpreter Kerry INM Interpreter-Moderator INQRF Interpreter-questioner female INQRM Interpreter-questioner male INT Interpreter
IS Interpreting Studies
ISQ Information-seeking question IT Interpreted text
MOD Moderator
OT Original text
Q Question
Q/A Question/Answer
QR Questioner
QRF Questioner female QRM Questioner male
SI Simultaneous Interpreting
SIA Simultaneous interpreting in absentia SIP Simultaneous interpreting in praesentia SL Source language
ST Source text
TI Television interpreting TL Target language
TT Target text
vDB Vice presidential debater
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4.1 Q-type occurrences in DEB.04 OTs……….. 134
Chart 4.2 Type-3 Q occurrences in DEB.04 OTs……… 135
Chart 4.3 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in DEB.04 OTs………. 137
Chart 4.4 Q-type occurrences in DEB.04 ITs……… 142
Chart 4.5 Type-3 Q occurrences in DEB.04 ITs……….. 143
Chart 4.6 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in DEB.04 ITs……… 145
Chart 4.7 Q-category occurrences in BK1 OT and IT……….. 146
Chart 4.8 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK1 OT and IT……… 147
Chart 4.9 Q-category occurrences in BK2 OT and IT sTG5……….. 152
Chart 4.10 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK2 OT and IT sTG5……… 152
Chart 4.11 Q-category occurrences in BK2 OT and IT STG24……….. 157
Chart 4.12 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK2 OT and IT STG24……… 158
Chart 4.13 Q-category occurrences in BK2 OT and IT STG24……….. 161
Chart 4.14 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK2 OT and IT La7……… 161
Chart 4.15 Q-category occurrences in BK3 OT and IT RN………. 162
Chart 4.16 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK2 OT and IT RN………. 163
Chart 4.17 Q-category occurrences in BK3 OT and IT STG24……….. 166
Chart 4.18 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK2 OT and IT STG24………. 166
Chart 4.19 Q-category occurrences in BK3 OT and IT sTG5………. 168
Chart 4.20 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK3 OT and IT sTG5……… 168
Chart 4.21 Q-category occurrences in BK3 OT and IT La7………. 170
Chart 4.22 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in BK3 OT and IT La7……….. 170
Chart 4.23 Q-category occurrences in CEv OT and IT……… 172
Chart 4-24 Q/A DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY in CEv OT and IT………. 172
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Example of file code………. 82
Figure 2.2 CorIT items’ classification fields as they appear on the users’ interface……… 82
Figure 2.3 Drop-down menu for the search key “participant’s name and surname”……….. 83
Figure 2.4 VirtualDubMod video size settings……….. 85
Figure 2.5 VirtualDubMod video compression settings……… 85
Figure 2.6 VirtualDub audio compression settings……… 86
Figure 2.7 VirtualDub volume settings………. 86
Figure 2.8 Allok Video Splitter main screen……… 87
Figure 2.9 WinPitch screenshot………. 88
Figure 2.10 WinPitch: .rtf file header with alignment code……….. 89
Figure 2.11 Header of OT transcript……… 93
Figure 2.12 Header of IT transcript………. 94
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 CorIT transcription conventions………. 88
Table 2.2 DEB.04 corpus……….. 92
Table 2.3 Speaking turns’ codes in the OT transcripts………. 94
Table 2.4 Speaking turns’ codes in the IT transcripts………. 94
Table 3.1 As Classification table………. 113
Table 3.2 Qs Classification table………. 117
Table 3.3 Classification of the DEGREE OF CONFLICTUALITY……… 125
Table 4.1 Qs occurrences in DEB.04 OTs……… 134
Table 4.2 Overt elements indicating QRs’ neutralistic stance attempts in DEB.04 OTs……….. 136
Table 4.3 Violations of turn-type preallocation and indirect-talk rule………. 137
Table 4.4 Qs occurrences in DEB.04 ITs……….. 141
Table 4.5 Overt elements indicating QRs’ neutralistic stance attempts in DEB.04 ITs………. 143
Table 4.6 First Bush/Kerry presidential debate……… 146
Table 4.7 Case of intratextual incoherence in BK1 IT………. 147
Table 4.8 Example 1 of conflict mitigation in BK1 IT……… 149
Table 4.9 Example 2 of conflict mitigation in BK1 IT……….. 149
Table 4.10 Second Bush/Kerry presidential debate………. 151
Table 4.11 Example of INT-generated intratextual incoherence originating in the A (BK2 IT sTG5)… 153 Table 4.12 Example of INT-generated intratextual incoherence originating in the Q (BK2 IT sTG5)… 154 Table 4.13 Examples of INT-generated CONFLICT BUILD-Ups (BK2 IT sTG5)………. 155
Table 4.14 Examples of conflict mitigating elements in BK2 IT sTG5………. 156
Table 4.15 Example of intratextual incoherence (BK2 IT STG24)……….. 159
Table 4.16 Example of INT-generated intratextual incoherence originating in the A (BK2 IT STG24).. 160
Table 4.17 Examples of conflict-mitigating elements in BK2 IT STG24………. 160
Table 4.18 Third Bush/Kerry presidential debate……… 162
Table 4.19 Example of INT-generated CONFLICT BUILD-UP (BK3 IT RN)………. 164
Table 4.20 Examples of conflict mitigating elements in BK3 IT RN……….. 164
Table 4.21 Example of conflict mitigating elements in BK3 IT STG24……… 167
Table 4.22 Examples of conflict mitigating elements in BK3 IT sTG5……….. 169
Table 4.23 Example of INT-generated intratextual incoherence (BK3 IT La7)……… 171
Table 4.24 Cheney/Edwards vice presidential debate………. 171
Table 4.25 Case of INT-generated intratextual incoherence in CEv IT………. 173
Table 4.26 Cases of repair interventions restoring coherence CEv IT……….. 174
Table 4.27 Examples of INT-generated conflict mitigation in CEv IT……….. 176
Table 5.1 Example of conflict mitigation through indirectness in Q (Q3f)………. 185
Table 5.2 Example of conflict mitigation through omission of assertive interrogative clause (Q3a).. 185
Table 5.3 Example of conflict mitigation through omission of adversarial content……….. 185
Table 5.4 Example of conflict mitigation through omission of adversarial content (Q3c)………. 186
Table 5.5 Example of conflict initiation in the IT A, as a result of conflict mitigation in the IT Q… 188 Table 5.6 Example of OT ‘crowded’ exchange streamlined in the IT……….. 188
Table 5.7 Example of INT-generated intratextual incoherence originating in the A……… 189
Table 5.8 Example of INT-generated intratextual incoherence originating in the Q……… 190 Table 5.9 Example of INT-generated intratextual incoherence successfully self-repaired………. 190 Table 5.10 Example of direct talk translated with the Italian second person singular (informal)….. 191
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Research objective
The object of the present study is simultaneous interpreting on television within a specific television genre, i.e., U.S. presidential debates broadcast on Italian television.
The study focuses on the 2004 U.S. presidential debathon, namely three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, as well as their respective interpreted versions broadcast on Italian television (DEB.04 corpus). It is an offshoot and integral part of a major research project, namely Straniero Sergio’s Italian Television Interpreting Corpus – CorIT. More specifically, it was inspired by Straniero Sergio’s (2007) investigation of talkshow interpreting, which provides for an extremely detailed and exhaustive corpus-based analysis of interpreters’
performances on Italian television talkshows, as well as an insightful consideration of issues regarding the relevant qualitative and ethical aspects of the television interpreter’s profession.
Following in Straniero Sergio’s footsteps, the DEB.04 project shifts the research focus to the output of interpreters working on television in simultaneous mode, and, unlike talkshow interpreters, translating an interaction they do not take part in, delivering their interpretation to a target- language audience that little have to share with their source-language counterpart in terms of perception of and expectations for the event that is being broadcast (and interpreted) on their home screens. Indeed, full correspondence between original event and its interpreted version lies in the ethics of entertainment (Katan/Straniero Sergio 2001, 2003; Straniero Sergio 2007), which guides and shapes production and development of both original and interpreted event, affecting all actors involved – interpreters included, in the case of the latter.
The research objective is expressed in the title of the study: it aims at investigating
simultaneous interpretation on television through the analysis of recordings of real-life
data – i.e., the DEB.04 corpus, composed of the 2004 U.S. debathon and the interpreted
versions of each debate broadcast on Italian television, focusing on the cardinal aspect of
presidential debate talk, namely the question/answer group.
The significance of presidential debates as television genre for their source-language
culture is undisputable: every four years on U.S. television regular broadcasting routine is
interrupted, the stage is cleared and turned into a duel field, and two political champions
face each other in a rule-governed battle, whose outcome will determine the political future
of the country. Their significance lies not only in their informational dimension, but also,
and mostly, in the opportunity they provide for U.S. citizens to witness national history-
making as live spectators, by at the same time actively taking part in the process as jury.
On the basis of such considerations, it is only natural to reflect upon the reasons behind
broadcasters decision of broadcasting interpreted presidential debates on Italian
television. U.S. voters living in Italy are unlikely to require interpretation in order to
understand what is being said, while Italian viewers do not share the former’s interest in
presidential debate, as they are not nearly as affected by their outcomes as U.S. citizens. So
should debates be interpreted at all? Would it be more reasonable to broadcast them in
their original form for the sake of the English-speaking audience in Italy, or, conversely,
tailoring them to the Italian audience needs, by broadcasting a dubbed or subtitled version
of them on the following day? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the Ancient words of
wisdom “in medio stat virtus”, or rather in the medium: indeed, just like Italian viewers,
U.S. voters are simultaneously members of the audience of television (the medium), whose
ethics, norms, and, ultimately, agenda, inevitably and inextricably merge with politics’ in
these particular occasions. Television shapes political discourse and viewers’ perception of
it, while heavily influencing expectations of the latter for the former, and, consequently,
introducing well-established television discourse’s rules and principles in political
communication. I should say the most important thing about the business of government
and politics is not to bore the people, stated Richard Nixon August 25, 1960, while being
interviewed by Jack Paar on The Tonight Show. The ethics and logics of entertainment
permeate presidential debates as much as any other broadcast, turning them into fully-
fledged television shows (Schroeder 2008). Voters/viewers expect to be simultaneously
informed and entertained, in line with the logics of panem (content) et circenses
(everything else), recently reformulated in the principle of television infotainment. In this
regard, presidential debates very much resemble other broadcasts, such as the Olympics,
the Super Bowl, and other major sporting events: they are all examples of “irresistible TV”,
in which “conflict is the engine that propels narrative, be it political, journalistic, dramatic,
or athletic” (Schroeder 2008: 284). They are watched live by millions of viewers relishing
the suspense and urgent rhythm of competition, and eager to cheer the winner.
Broadcasting U.S. presidential debates on television and interpreting them live for the sake
of the target-language audience thus acquires a new meaning: if U.S. television
broadcasting presidential debates provides a representation and re-enactment of real
events, “a substitute for ‘being there’” (Dayan/Katz 1992: 78-79) for voters at home, the
broadcast interpretation of the same event is a re-enactment of the re-enactment, which,
on the one hand, follows the same entertainment rules that guide the first re-enactment
instance, and, on the other, must serve the comfort factor of a different sort of audience, a
non-English-speaking audience in Italy, whose goal is that of being informed about the
campaign, while, and perhaps more importantly, getting a feel of the competition taking
place live on the other side of the globe. Television logics and television audience’s
expectations demand that information be provided as an aesthetic compensation of the
original (the first re-enactment) in an entertaining way (Dayan/Katz 1992). The
entertaining component of the speech event debate lies in its Contest dimension, whose
epitome and prime expression emerges in the dense exchanges of questions and answers,
the former posed with the intent of eliciting conflict and the latter given with the aim of
acting on those conflict elicitations and, eventually, prevailing over one’s opponent in the
eyes of the audience.
By firstly identifying the operationalization of these elements in the corpus through
a careful scrutiny of the recordings of the debates’ source-language versions (OTs), the
present study aims at verifying their presence, absence and degree of similarity in the
target-language versions (ITs), taking into account the added difficulties interpreters’ have
to face when working in a displaced-situationality environment (Straniero Sergio 2007)
with respect to the primary interlocutors: indeed, they interpret in absentia (Falbo 2012),
i.e. not for primary participants (who are not aware that somewhere else in the world their
words are being simultaneously interpreted), but for the Italian TV audience exclusively.
They do not share space (hic) and sometimes even time (nunc) with the communication
participants; their activity is irrelevant for the success of the primary interaction, which
they are unable to influence.
Through the analysis of the DEB.04 corpus, the study aims at verifying whether
interpreters translating presidential debates serve the above-mentioned entertaining
purpose, by preserving conflict-eliciting and conflict-(en)acting elements, not through a
mere description-like recount of them, but rather through a fully-fledged re-enactment, i.e.
doing debate in the booth.
Thesis structure
The study consists of five chapters, preceded by an introduction presenting the research objective and the thesis structure, and followed by a closing section presenting conclusive remarks on the results’ discussion in relation to the research objective, as well as observations on possible future research. The thesis also includes two appendices (A and B) with the transcripts of original (Appendix A) and interpreted (Appendix B) texts of the DEB.04 corpus.
The first chapter is dedicated to the literature review of the four aspects identifying the object of analysis. It starts with the illustration of the type of event actuating the interpretation, namely U.S. presidential debates broadcast on television, describing their main features, structure and significance (1.1); the focus subsequently shifts to the field of interpreting under scrutiny, namely television interpreting, by providing an account of previous contributions to the literature and pinpointing the main aspects distinguishing television interpreting from other forms of interpreting, with particular attention dedicated to simultaneous television interpreting in absentia (1.2); the third section focuses on corpus-based interpreting studies (1.3), with the aim of providing a snapshot of the state of the art of such discipline, identifying the key issues regarding data collection and elaboration identified by scholars in the past decade, as well as various possible approaches to corpus design and collection, serving as a basis for the presentation of the corpus of analysis and its compilation; finally, characteristics of the discourse genre pertaining to the analysed event are investigated (1.4), starting from an overview of the main aspects of talk-in- interaction and then concentrating on talk-in-interaction in institutional settings, with particular attention dedicated to the question/answer (Q/A) group.
The second chapter is divided in two parts. The first part is a description of CorIT - Italian Television Interpreting Corpus (2.1), starting from an account of the origin of the research project that led to its creation, and subsequently moving on to the description of its composition, archive settings and structure, with reference to the selection and use of dedicated softwares for data digitalization and transcription. Data composing the corpus of analysis, DEB.04 corpus, are taken from CorIT sub-corpus Presidential debates. DEB.04 composition and elaboration are presented in the second part of this chapter (2.2), which provides for a step-by-step illustration of the process of data collection, digitalization and preparation for the analysis.
The third chapter is dedicated to the presentation of the methodological approach applied to DEB.04. In the first part of this chapter aspects presented in §1 are discussed in relation to the data at hand. Through a process of problematisation of such aspects (3.1), the analysis template for the corpus-based investigation is elaborated (3.2 and 3.3).
In the fourth chapter the analysis template is applied to the corpus in two stages: the first stage is dedicated to the observation of original (OTs) and interpreted texts (ITs) respectively, providing for a general profile of both as autonomous texts (4.1). In the second stage, the contrastive qualitative analysis of OTs and ITs is presented (4.2): each OT is compared to its relevant IT(s), in order to offer an account of the differences emerged from the first stage of the analysis through the observation of phenomena occurring within each OT-IT pair.
Results obtained in §4 are discussed in the fifth chapter. Data are observed from a more general perspective, taking into account remarks made in 3.1, in an attempt at establishing a relation between recurring phenomena emerging from the investigation of real-life data, on the one hand, and key issues identified through the problematisation of the main theoretical aspects presented in §1.
1
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.1U.S.PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES ON TELEVISION
Every four years a gong goes off and a new Presidential campaign surges into the national consciousness; new candidates, new issues, a new season of surprises. But underlying the syncopations of change is a steady, recurrent rhythm from election to election, a pulse of politics that brings up the same basic themes in order, over and over again (Barber 1980: 3).
American presidential elections take place every four years on Election Day – the Tuesday between November 2 and 8 – and culminate with the Inauguration Day – January 20 of the following year – on which the newly elected U.S. President swears an oath, thus entering on the Execution of the office of the presidency. However, the entire Presidential election process usually starts long before Election Day, in the Spring of the previous year, with the announcement of the candidates who intend to run, followed by primaries, caucuses and finally nominating conventions, during which each party selects its nominee for President. It is at this very point that the real contest begins, with each gaze pointed at the presidential (and vice presidential) candidates facing each other, engaging in the rounds of presidential debates. In fact, citizens cast an indirect vote, first months before presidential debates are held, namely during primaries and/or caucuses, when they elect the parties’ delegates that will take part in the nominating conventions, and then on Election Day, when they choose the delegates who will elect the new President within the Electoral College. Nevertheless, the level of interest and, consequently, popularity of presidential debates greatly exceeds that of any other phase of the election process. “The one undisputed fact about presidential debates is their popularity”, writes Schroeder (2008: 282). “From the outset the public has shown a willingness, even an eagerness to sit up and pay attention to these programs”
(Schroeder 2008: 282), which hold tremendous meaning, not only from an informational point of view, but also, and mostly, as far as witnessing national history-making is concerned: indeed, debates “offer the viewers a chance to observe ‘history’” (Meadow 1983: 91) as live spectators, by at the same time actively taking part in the process as jury (cf. 1.1.4.3). Thus, the great impact of such events since the very first general-election presidential debate between U.S. Senator John F.
Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon on September 26, 1960. There had been other occasions in the past, in which presidential candidates had faced one another in public occasions, such as the series of seven debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas held in front of the U.S. Senate in 1858, or the radio primary presidential debates of 1948 – between the Republican nominees Thomas E. Dewey and Harold Stassen, and 1956 – between the Democratic nominees Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver. Yet, it was the Kennedy/Nixon debate in 1960 that marked a watershed in the history of American election campaigns, when political discourse in its
most public and inclusive form and the ancestral ceremony of the festal “sacred contest”1 (Huizinga 1950: 14), that has its roots in the agonistic values of Ancient Greece, find their way to what was going to become the most prominent stage and vastest arena they could ever take place in: live television.
1.1.1 Media and politics: the merging of agendas
The term “media events” was first introduced by Dayan/Katz (1992: 1) to define
those historic occasions – mostly of state – that are televised as they take place and transfix a nation or the world. They include epic contests of politics and sports, charismatic missions, and the rites of passage of the great – what we call Contests, Conquests, and Coronations.
Media events interrupt the broadcasting routine “switch[ing] away from […] regularly scheduled programming in order to turn to the great event” (Dayan/Katz 1992: 5) and have a major impact on viewers because they stage and celebrate live historical events, made possible by the
“voluntary2 actions of great personalities.” (Dayan/Katz 1992: 8). According to the authors’
classification, presidential debates fall into the Contest category, i.e., “rule-governed battles of champions ” (Dayan/Katz 1992: 26), in which contestants (individuals or teams) face each other following a specific set of rules. Such events are “circumscribed in time and place, and thus represent a certain stepping out of everyday life. The rules are known both to the competitors and to the spectators, who are as much a part of the game as the contestants or the referee”
(Dayan/Katz 1992: 33).
From the very first televised presidential debate in 1960, television has played a key role in defining public political communication, offering reference “frames” (Bentivegna 1994: 8) for political issues of social relevance, highlighting and mediating items of political agendas, not so much with the intent of persuading the public, but rather presenting it with a series of issues worth discussing, and therefore acting as a filter between the political agenda-setting and the audience (cf. Shaw 1979: 96-101). Bionda et al. (1998b) even suggest that television has reached such a level of maturity in conveying political content (information), that televised political communication constitutes a genre in its own right, within which television plays a key role in acting as a filter between reality and the audience.3 As Bentivegna (1994: 15) underlines, Shaw’s agenda-setting
1 “The act is a dromenon, which means ‘something acted’, an act, action. That which is enacted, or the stuff of the action, is a drama, which again means act, action represented on a stage. Such action may occur as a performance or a contest” (Huizinga 1950: 14-15).
2 Italics in original.
3 “Questa duplice constatazione ci fa ritenere che nell’ambito dell’informazione politica la televisione stia raggiungendo una maturità espressiva tale da dar vita ad un vero e proprio genere a sé stante, seppure declinato in una varietà di modi. Di questi modi la televisione, come strumento di conoscenza del reale, è la vera protagonista, prima ancora e più della politica in quanto tale o del giornalismo stesso” (Bionda et al.
1998b: 129)
hypothesis is specific to political communication and suggests that influence, rather than persuasion, lies at its core: television selects those issues that are more likely to elicit audience’s interest and feeling of involvement, so-called “low-threshold issues” (Lang/Lang 1981: 450 ff.) that affect nearly everyone and to which individuals can relate as some kind of personal experience, and will therefore ensure high view ratings. Conversely, “high-threshold issues” do not constitute any form of direct experience for the audience and are learned about indirectly through exposure to the media, which frequently “provide a linkage between stories and national identity” (Fu 2007: 32).
Traditionally, political communication in general and presidential debates in particular would be defined as high-threshold issues, as “the world that we have to deal with politically is out of reach, out of sight, out of mind” (Lippmann 1922: 29). However, the very fact that the media – television, in this case – select these items, framing and amplifying them, leads to an increase in public concern with these very objects, thus lowering their threshold. Their presence in both worlds, media’s and politics’, confers them greater scope in terms of access and understanding, with media and politics mutually enhancing each other’s visibility: “This formulation of the process of agenda- building, then, attributes a key role both to mass media for initially picking up an issue and to political actors for keeping an issue prominent in the media agenda or even increasing its prominence” (Scheufele 2009: 303). There is a very extensive literature on agenda-building and the relation between media and politics (e.g., Cohen 1963, Gandy 1982, Pincus et al. 1993, Lee/Solomon 1990, Cameron/Sallot/Curtin 1997, Shin/Cameron 2003) stressing the media’s role in shaping cultural and political reality, namely “the transfer of object salience (e.g., issues, organizations, etc.) from the media to the public”, while at the same time defining “the process of salience formation as one of mutual interdependency among policymakers and news media.”
(Mitrook et al. 2006: 5-6). Election campaigns are a prime example of such interdependency, which reaches its apex with presidential debates: “Although the mythology surrounding the first Kennedy-Nixon broadcast would greatly amplify in the years to follow, the moral of the story has never varied: presidential debates are best apprehended as television shows, governed not by the rules of rhetoric or politics but by the demands of the host medium” (Schroeder 2008: 9). Indeed, such media events have risen to the status of television genre in their own right (cf. 1.1.3) and a very successful one, according to viewers’ rating figures: Schroeder (2008: 282) observes that presidential debates are regularly watched by an average of 60-to-70 million viewers, and fall therefore in the same rating category with the Super Bowl (80-to-90 million viewers) and the Academy Awards ceremony (40 million viewers).
1.1.2 Politics on screen: panem et circenses
Choreographed and unscripted, contrived and authentic, debates straddle the fault line between artifice and reality – like everything else on TV, only more so. With their clashing costars, enormous
stakes, and “must-see” status, presidential debates are nothing so much as television writ large (Schroeder 2008: 11).
In 1960, when U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon, the then presidential candidates, set foot in the WBBM-TV studio, they could only partially foresee how great a change in political communication and political life their action were bringing about.
Indeed, the Kennedy/Nixon debate may be defined as the “Copernican revolution” of political communication (cf. Mancini / Mazzoleni 1995: 19), an event after which appearance on television has become compulsory for politicians running for presidential elections, “station[s] of the cross that must be successfully traversed by any candidate hoping to clinch his party’s nomination”
(Schroeder 2008: 11). The revolution that started on September 26, 1960 has never stopped, continuing to influence political communication and media strategies today, thanks to technological advancements and evolving attitudes of those involved – electorate included – that very much resemble the conditions that led to that first images being broadcast from Chicago more than five decades ago.
However, as major a landmark the first televised presidential debate was, sixteen years elapsed before the second debate was telecasted. Undoubtedly, the assassination of President Kennedy in 1964 and the great unsettlement that ensued greatly affected the whole election campaign. In the following years (1968 and 1972) incumbent presidents kept refusing to meet their opponents publicly. It was only in 1975, when Gerald Ford realized his opponent’s popularity was exceeding his own, that presidential debates where brought back to the screen, never to leave it again. Despite his declared willingness to respect the citizens’ right to “know where we both stand”, President Ford’s decision to directly confront Jimmy Carter on television was the result of a well calculated strategy: as Republican adviser Michael Duval commented, “the Ford campaign needed something dramatic […]. We needed something that would cause the country to reserve its judgment. The debates seemed to be the answer” (in Schroeder 2008: 17). The dramatic nature of the debate contest has been stressed repeatedly in the literature: Dayan/Katz (1992: 36) write about the “dramatic question, ‘Who will win?’” that they pose, while Mancini/Mazzoleni (1995b:
18) mention the inevitable “spectacularization” of leaders and campaign events4, and Schroeder (2008: 77) illustrates the deeply rooted “theatricality” of presidential debates tapping the very cradle of politics as we know it, namely Ancient Rome and one of the oldest political strategies to win over the electorate, the panem et circenses rule: “Presidential debates consist of equal parts bread and circus: bread representing content, and circus representing everything else”. Politics and television, politics on television and political television: despite the slight shift in perspective that
4 “Era inevitabile che questo carattere fortemente commerciale si riflettesse anche nell’attività informativa politica ed elettorale: da qui la spinta al marketing dei candidati (che progressivamente hanno imparato a
“pianificare” le apparizioni in Tv con spot e interviste e dibattiti), di qui la personalizzazione delle proposte elettorali con l’importantee effetto di oscuramento del partito, di qui la spettacolarizzazione del leader e degli eventi delle campagne” (Mancini/Mazzoleni 1995: 18).
distinguishes these three expressions, not one of them can forego the fact that each single action taken within their frame is subject to the more or less careful scrutiny and judgment of an audience. Viewers/voters expect to be “simultaneously enlightened and entertained” (Schroeder 2008: 77) and, in return, are ready to act “as a critic, to judge not only the winning but the playing”
(Dayan/Katz 1992: 41). The very lexicon used to talk about politics in general and presidential debates in particular is a constant reference to their circenses aspect: journalists and scholars invariably select words pertaining to the language of sports, warcraft, theatre, show business and even music. Debaters themselves are profoundly aware of their role as actors on stage: in defining a good debate performance, Schroeder (2008: 71) quotes former US President Bill Clinton, who
likened the process to jazz: ‘There’s a melody that has to be played, and you have to play it in the right key, but there comes a time when you have to ad lib. If you totally ad-lib and you play out of key and you forget what the song is, you’re in trouble. But if you never vary from the melody line, you won’t be very effective either’.
Stagecraft, format and even timing seem therefore to be the pillars of presidential debates, both in their making – i.e., production – and in their playing – i.e., the debaters’ performance. And yet, “the single most crucial theatrical quality a candidate can bring to a presidential debate is his or her desire to be there. Audiences like watching performers who relish the performance”
(Schroeder 2008: 79). Indeed, the most substantial aspect of presidential debates, their panem component, is the fact that they lead to the election of the US President. Effectively showcasing his/her talent and winning the hearts of the voters is only the initial part, albeit pivotal, of the candidate’s task, whose actions are much more than simply taking part in a popularity contest: “A more suitable analogy is that presidential debates function as job interviews” (Schroeder 2008: 55) for the presidency post, namely “the only job in the world for which all of the applicants show up at the interview and attack each other”, as Tony Schwartz, Democratic media consultant, very insightfully put it. As is frequently the case in job interviews, only part of the selecting process depends on the candidates’ competence and suitability: once again, the logics of show business overlaps with the strictly professional aspect of policy making in subjecting the evaluation of candidates not only to their skills and qualifications, but also to their likeability: “[a]s in all job interviews, it is normal for those sitting in judgment to prefer applicants with whom they click”
(Schroeder 2008: 55).
Contests, battles, job interviews, performances, concerts, matches: regardless of the analogy of choice, stakes are extremely high for all involved. It is not surprising, therefore, that, since their official institutionalization in 1984, presidential debates have been the object of intense negotiation and planning activity. No aspect of televised presidential debates’ production is overlooked or simply left to chance, with intense negotiations and painstakingly detailed agreements marking the pre-production phase, meticulous coverage during production and careful analysis conducted
during the post-production phase. The evolution and major stages of presidential debates’
institutionalization will be briefly illustrated in the next section.
1.1.3 Institutionalization of a genre
Schroeder (2008: 20) identifies the Reagan/Mondale debate of 1984 as the moment in which presidential debates became a constant and essential component of election campaigns – and media life: “By agreeing to appear with Walter Mondale in 1984, then-president Reagan shored up campaign debates as permanent institution”, to such a great degree that the public actually started to expect candidates to face each other before election – as the (in)famous 1992 episode of
“Chicken George” and the “Get on TV” operation.5 Bush’s entourage eventually realized that their only option was to set a date for the first debate. The schedule was fixed and the debates took place in a “tournament-like sequence of four telecasts within nine days” (Schroeder 2008: 22). This was the first major innovation introduced in 1992, which had a significantly positive repercussions for broadcasters, who were able to keep the audience’s level of interest high for the entire duration of the debates. Format is therefore a fundamental component of presidential debates, an aspect that can influence success or failure of both candidates and broadcasts, and constantly fuels the “debate over debates” (Schroeder 2008: 25) that precedes these events. Other significant pre-production aspects are structure, timing and staging. The pre-production negotiation phase is particularly indicative of the hybrid nature of presidential debates, namely political as well as television events, as it is this very phase that requires campaign handlers to act and think as television producers and vice versa. Both sides concentrate on and discuss each and every single detail, as even the slightest advantage may affect the final outcome, which is why the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed and made responsible for the production of presidential debates.
1.1.3.1 Negotiation phase
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987
to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates6.
5 Then-president George H. W. Bush appeared reluctant to meet his opponent Bill Clinton, thus eliciting voters’ outrage and derision, which culminated in a series of individuals dressed in chicken costumes showing up at political conventions throughout the country, representing Bush’s cowardice. TV stations did not miss the chance and, having no debate to broadcast, started airing the chickens instead, inspiring Clinton’s forces to start pressuring Bush to appear on TV and face his opponent – “Get on TV” operation.
6 Commission on Presidential Debates: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=about-cpd (accessed April 20, 2013)
Before its establishment – and in the first following years – the real bargaining was performed mainly by the campaigns, who faced each other to reach an agreement on the most significant aspects of the debates, which was then presented to the broadcasters for approval and minor modifications – de facto it was, however, a done deal. The negotiation terms and procedures changed significantly when the CPD entered into play: agreements increasingly started to resemble actual contracts, subsequently named Memoranda of understanding, written in legal language and extensively “codify[ing] the rules of engagement” (Schroeder 2008: 30).
Timetable
Firstly, negotiators meet to establish a calendar for the debate, which includes deciding on the number of debates to take place, their time distribution and duration. Such specifics are of great importance for campaigns and broadcasters alike: as already mentioned in relation to the 1992 Bush/Clinton election campaign, debates held in close sequence may enhance audience’s interest, whereas debates held far apart from each other may cause a decrease in viewers’ ratings.
On the other hand, a greater time span between one debate and the next, or between the debate round and Election Day, may let a candidate’s poor performance fall into oblivion, thus allowing for a better starting point for the following match. This is precisely the advantage that then- president George W. Bush exploited when facing Senator John Kerry in 2004: the opening debate marked Bush’s worst appearance on television ever – despite the fact that his campaign convinced Kerry’s negotiators to agree on selecting foreign policy as topic for the first debate, which Bush’s forte. Yet, the third and last debate took place on October 13, almost a month before Election Day, by which time Bush’s performance was blurred in the memory of the audience, if not completely forgotten, as well as Kerry’s efficacy.
Format
The initial – and almost conventional – format of presidential debates is the “joint news conference”, in which candidates stand in front of a panel of reporters, who take turns in asking questions not necessarily linked to each other. This allows for the candidates to jump from one topic to another without having to linger on uncomfortable issues for too long and, at the same time, steer back their speech to their “predigested campaign messages” (Schroeder 2008: 38). A further “candidate-friendly” aspect of this formula is that “[b]y directing their answers to a panel,
debaters [can] avoid confronting each another” directly, “in ways that might prove unseemly in front of a viewing audience”7 (Schroeder 2008: 38).
In 1992 a new format was introduced: the “town meeting”, also known as “people’s debate”
or “town hall debate”, in which a moderator selects members of the audience to pose their question to the candidates.
The “table debate” made its first appearance in the CPD Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) in 2000, in which George W. Bush and Al Gore both sat behind a desk, side by side, facing a single moderator, who was also in charge of the questions.
All three formats remain valid alternatives when it comes to the “debate over format”
(Schroeder 2008: 37) and yet the first one, and its variant, with candidates standing behind lecterns, answering the questions posed by one single moderator, are the most preferred choice.
Staging – or the picture worth a thousand words
As any other studio broadcast, presidential debates too have to respond to the rules of the stage. Aside from purely technical discussions such as those regarding timing lights and sounds, use of notes and props, and addressing forms, the set preparation includes other, less predictable aspects, such as, for instance, the height issue: statistics have shown that voters tend to prefer taller candidates, and therefore campaign negotiators try to reduce or at least compensate for height differences by introducing rules on lectern dimensions, microphone positions and use of decorations.
No item is too trivial or insignificant not to be carefully examined and negotiated over, especially if it involves visuals: this is the oldest lesson of televised presidential debates, one that dates back to 1960, one that Nixon himself could not help acknowledging: “I had concentrated too much on substance and not enough on appearance. I should have remembered that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’” (Nixon 1962: 340). In advertising terms, staging may correspond to the
“videostyle” (Kaid 2005: 284) candidates adopt or are attributed, and in particular its “nonverbal”
and “television production” components, namely “the candidate’s body language, dress, language, fluency, appearance and manner” and “production formats, staging, camera angles […] that are used in the production” (Kaid 2005: 284-285) respectively. After all, as is the case for any other type of media event, pictures, “relative to their words, carry much more weight than the balance to which we are accustomed in the nightly news, where words are far more important than pictures”
(Dayan/Katz 1992: 11).
7 The corpus of analysis – DEB.04 – does, in fact, display cases, in which debaters divert from their pre- allocated turns and roles, addressing each other directly in a significantly confrontational manner. They are, however, isolated instances, almost invariably followed by the moderator’s intervention, which restores the agreed-upon exchange format (cf. 3.1.3.1).
