“We are still waiting for a politician to emerge whose speech will be metaphorical, interesting, riveting but also punctual and to the point,” says in an interview for Radio Bulgaria Ass. Prof. Nadezhda Stalyanova, talking about the book “Verbal profiles of Bulgarian politicians and journalists – part two.”

Together with Dr. Vladislav Milanov, she is co-author of the study; both lecture at the Bulgarian Language Studies Department of the St. Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia and are founders of the Centre for Analysis of Political and Journalistic Speech. The book develops the idea underlying part one - of presenting a selection of the speech patterns of latter day Bulgarian politicians.

“Bulgarian politicians tend to go to the two extremes of the public discourse,” Ass. Prof. Nadezhda Stalyanova goes on to say. “On the one hand there is a discourse permeated with clichés, with abstract words that we now call “Brussels newspeak”. This is the institutionalized way of speaking that gives very scant information. There are Bulgarian MPs who love to demonstrate an intellectual superiority not just over their constituents but also over their colleagues. That is something that makes a bad impression because this kind of discourse means using a torrent of words to conceal content which the politician does not want to formulate or when he simply has nothing to say. Another extreme is the vulgarization of the discourse in the low stylistic register of the language – the way that friends talk to each other informally. But from the parliamentary floor or speaking to the national media this kind of verbal conduct is something we, linguists find inappropriate. It is an embodiment of the strategy “I am one of you, I understand your problems – trust me, I can solve them.” What is lacking is the golden mean, i.e. a politician capable of a discourse that will be clear and understandable, but also to the point, a discourse that will give concrete answers to concrete questions and send a message to journalists and to the public. This is the golden mean that we don’t have, not to mention any higher forms of rhetoric. That is the kind of political discourse we are still waiting to see emerging, a discourse that may not be able to convince us of something, that may not persuade us to take the side of the speaker, but will at least intrigue us in a positive way.”

As in part one, in their new book the authors present verbal portraits of popular Bulgarian politicians. For the first time it features interviews with Bulgarian actors, poets, athletes, journalists and translators with a focus on the political discourse.

So, are Bulgarian politicians lost in translation?

The answer to this question is given by translators and interpreters from and to the Bulgarian language. According to Marianna Hill “Bulgarian politicians are apt to get lost in translation all by themselves. There are politicians who show no consideration for the interpreter – translation is more than mere phraseological units, it means translating cultures, attitudes, mentality.” Elena Kreychova – an interpreter for the government in the Czech Republic: “Bulgarian politicians often forget that what they say has to be translated, so they give harangues that simply cannot be interpreted consecutively. And without realizing it, that can turn against them – they may be misunderstood or not understood at all, as the interpreter is unable to remember or convey a statement adequately if it goes on for much more than one minute.” Nicola Wearmouth, conference interpreter, working for two of the EU’s principal institutions - the European Commission and the Council of the EU where the negotiations follow a given pattern and are limited to set topics: “I do not work for the European Parliament so I never have to interpret the fiery speech of politicians who want to play up to the voters. It is difficult, at times impossible to interpret a statement by a politician, whatever his nationality, if he reads a speech prepared beforehand quickly and without the proper intonation. Whether the speaker is Bulgarian or not, if his statement is presented at an appropriate speed and with some degree of improvisation, then the interpreter will be able to convey the message correctly and with spirit.”

English: Milena Daynova