Practice section 2

Questions for discussion

1. Comment upon the notion of perception the sense of oral messages.

2. Comment upon the notion of understanding the sense of oral messages.

3. Comment upon the notion of the “inner speech” of interpreter.

4. Is interpreting possible without “understanding” of the sense of the message? Suggest your arguments to give a positive or negative answer to this question.

Practical assignments

Assignment 1. Give English words and expressions equivalent to the following Ukrainian ones from Text 2.1. Compare your options with the keys.

День свободи; приреченість; розчарування; зневіра; ефективна демократична влада; засторога проти авторитаризму; свобода слова; свобода зібрань; свобода вибору; свобода конкуренції; свобода підприємництва; вийти з тіні; статус ринкової економіки; стабільний ріст народжуваності; іноземні інвестиції; лібералізація візового режиму; справедливість і закон; конституційна реформа; зайти в глухий кут; судова реформа; правоохоронна реформа; громадянські права; політичні свободи; дотримання прав громадян; конституційні повноваження; Рада національної безпеки та оборони; справедливі умови життя; співпрацювати з виконавчою владою; Янукович Віктор Федорович; реванш; бандитські поняття; чорні схеми; подолання бідності; соціальний захист

Assignment 2. Listen to the phonogram of Text 2.1 and get ready to interpret it into English in a consecutive mode.

Text 2.1

Телезвернення Президента України Віктора Андрійовича Ющенка до Українського народу з нагоди Дня свободи 22 листопада 2006 р.

Дорогий Український народе!

Дорогі українські громадяни!

Вітаю вас з Днем свободи.

Два роки тому Український народ переміг страх, приниження і приреченість.

Ваш подвиг – перш за все, відродження поваги до себе. Особистий вчинок, який поставив Україну врівень з іншими народами, що дали світові приклад свободи.

Кажу, цінуючи кожне слово: я знав на що іду і куди веду вас. Я бачив у ваших очах силу, яка стала моєю силою.

Ми відзначаємо день, у якому присутній не лише київський Майдан, а сотні майданів по всій нашій країні і – по всій нашій історії. Цей день присвячений усім українським громадянам незалежно від поглядів. Він об’єднує нас як єдиний народ, як єдину націю.

Сьогодні я звертаюся до кожного з вас на Заході, Сході, Півночі і Півдні країни. Я знаю, що у вас болить, і я не боюся сказати про це. Багато з вас – розчаровані. Розчарування веде до апатії, зневіри, а в декого викликає злість. Ви переживаєте, що втрачається надія, що політики марнують перемогу людей. І ви хочете відновлення віри.

Тому я говорю з вами прямо і відверто.

Що відбулося за останні два роки?

Я став Президентом за вашої загальної волі. Перед початком своєї роботи я ініціював діалог з головними політичними силами, щоб досягти єдності у баченні реформ, у тому числі – і політичної. Я зробив це свідомо. Бо не хотів допустити найменшої можливості кровопролиття.

Я вважав і продовжую так думати – нашій країні потрібні дві речі: ефективна демократична влада і надійна засторога проти авторитаризму.

Ми стаємо вільними. Ми повинні усвідомити цей факт. Воля як повітря – відчуваєш тоді, коли її немає. В країні утвердилися реальні свободи. Свобода слова, зібрань, вибору, конкуренції, підприємництва.

За два роки уряди Юлії Тимошенко і Юрія Єханурова руками розгребли пороги, які заважали жити країні. Бізнес вийшов із тіні. Влада повела з бізнесом партнерський діалог. Економіка почала вільно дихати. Ми отримали статус ринкової економіки. Почали зростати доходи людей. Щороку на 20 відсотків. Людина отримала відчутну соціальну підтримку. Вперше за роки незалежності почався стабільний ріст народжуваності.

Ми вийшли з міжнародної ізоляції. В Україну прийшли іноземні інвестиції. Ми домовились про лібералізацію візового режиму з Європейським Союзом, щоб сприяти контактам молоді, бізнесу та журналістів.

Ми стаємо цікавими. І для себе, і для світу.

Та найважливіше – вперше ми провели справді демократичні вибори. Ніколи досі цього не було. Саме люди тепер дають і забирають владу. Влада почала змінюватись. Ви знаєте про це, бо вільно її критикуєте.

Влада повинна змінюватися.

Демократія дає шанс кожному. Політики мають домовлятися. Якщо це не роблять одні, то зроблять інші. І якщо опозиція, яка прийшла до влади, не вчиться на своїх помилках, вона неминуче знову стане опозицією.

Незмінними і непорушними є лише демократичні правила. Я не відступив і не відступлю від них. І зроблю так, що від них не відступить жодна наступна влада.

Я маю порядок денний і бачення того, що потрібно Україні.

Мої принципи – справедливість і закон.

Щоб навести порядок в державі, я ініціюю продовження конституційної реформи. Вона поставить крапку у конфлікті повноважень і зробить ваш демократичний вибір незворотнім. Нам потрібна Конституція свобод, які реально виконуються. І якщо конституційний діалог політиків зайде в глухий кут, я дам можливість людям сказати своє слово.

Що б це не коштувало, я доведу до кінця справу судової та правоохоронної реформи. Це – ключ до вашої особистої захищеності і безпеки.

Ми вчимося користуватися громадянськими правами і політичними свободами, але маємо серйозні проблеми з дотриманням соціальних та індивідуальних прав громадян. Я добре знаю про це. Знаю про те, що переживає кожен з вас. Ріст цін. Небезпека економічної стагнації і спаду. Проблеми житла. Проблеми освіти. Корупція – на всіх рівнях влади.

Через мої конституційні повноваження, через механізм Ради національної безпеки та оборони, через відкритий діалог з парламентом та урядом я використаю усю політичну волю, щоб зберегти економічний ріст країни і забезпечити для вас справедливі умови життя.

Я продовжу публічний діалог політиків з ключових проблем країни, серед яких найважливіше – виховання національного достоїнства. Для того, щоб поставити крапку над минулим. І як вам, і мені набридла метушня політиків навколо штучних проблем. Ми повинні почати жити сучасним і майбутнім.

І головний критерій для влади – це ваша оцінка і ваші потреби.

У своїх діях я опираюсь на підтримку нової управлінської політичної команди. Команди професіоналів, не загублених в амбіції і корисливості.

Я буду вітати об’єднання національних демократичних сил країни. І якщо така реальність постане – підтримаю нову політичну силу, яка збереже, розвине наші традиції.

Як політичних соратників і однодумців я розглядаю керівників обох помаранчевих урядів і кожного, хто працював для країни і для людей.

Я готовий співпрацювати з новою виконавчою владою. І без дипломатії кажу Віктору Федоровичу Януковичу – відмовтесь від політиків, які хочуть реваншу і конфлікту.

І тим, хто у владі, і тим, хто в опозиції, я нагадую: господар і сила в нашій країні – це народ. Не гроші, не технології, не маніпуляції.

У 2004 році народ дуже ясно продемонстрував, що готовий захищати свою свободу і гідність. Свобода об’єднала Україну і ця свобода призначена для кожного.

Чинний уряд отримав країну в умовах демократичних свобод та економічного зростання. Ці умови треба розвинути. Від цього виграють люди. Від цього виграє країна. Підкреслюю – народ і Президент не допустять ані повернення в минуле, ані повернення бандитських понять і чорних схем.

Нова влада повинна заспокоїтись і почати працювати для людей.

Бідний не може бути вільним, а отже влада повинна боротися з бідністю. Курс на подолання бідності і соціальний захист мають бути збережені. Малому і середньому бізнесу треба дати спокійно жити. І влада повинна чітко бачити пріоритет: допомагати тим, кому потрібна підтримка. Але головний наголос зробити на сприянні найбільш продуктивним верствам, тим, хто хоче і може працювати, – на сприянні господареві.

Ми повинні йти далі.

Саме про це я хотів сказати вам у День свободи.

Я ціную кожен теперішній успіх і знаю кожну помилку.

Я – поруч. Я бачу вашу перспективу. І я не відійду від нашої дороги.

Я хочу, щоб ви були вільними.

Дякую за увагу!

Перший національний телеканал, 22.09.2006, http://1tv.com.ua/,

Офіційне Інтернет-представництво Президента України, http://prezident.gov.ua/news/data/print/11972.html

Assignment 3. Give Ukrainian words and expressions equivalent to the following English ones from Text 2.2. Compare your options with the keys.

Sandra Day O’Connor – born 26 March 1930, is an American jurist who served as the first female Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 to 2006. Prior to joining the Supreme Court, she was a politician and jurist in Arizona. She was nominated to the Court by President Ronald Reagan and served for over twenty-four years. Mrs O’Connor visited Kyiv to take part in the Rule of Law and Public Integrity Symposium held on 11 June, 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor]; U.S. Supreme Court; Associate Justice; U.S. Supreme Court Justice; executive branch of power; legislative branch of power; judicial branch of power (judiciary); Yellow Pages; public service; that sounds conservative with a small “c” (“conservative with a small “c” is a term used in Britain to identify people who are naturally conservative, but who are not necessarily supporters of the Conservative Party [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1469035]; Barry Morris Goldwater; libertarian; Stanford Law School; job interview; county attorney; public sector; hot button issue (something that elicits a strong emotional response or reaction of the public); Opinion (of the court, of the judge); “Planned Рarenthood versus Casey” (the name of the court case); divisive issue; to tie the vote; recount (of votes); Federal Election Law; to remand the case; inauguration of the President; poll (in elections); Al Gore; county; albeit; rule of law; at the end of the day; balance of powers; separation of powers; Abraham Lincoln; the writ of habeas corpus; George Bush; blank check; Noah Feldman; Framers; powers of Congress; the Chief Executive; far cry; Tom DeLay; to thumb one’s nose at somebody; to rule on cases; juvenile death penalty; gay rights; European Court of Human Rights; E.U. Court of Justice; Great Britain’s Highest Court; the interpret the law; ruling (of the court); civics; government; Justice Roberts; Justice Alito; Byron White; complexion (of the court)

Assignment 4. Listen to the phonogram of Text 2.2 and get ready to interpret it into Ukrainian in a consecutive mode.

Text 2.2

Interview with the former US Supreme Court Associate Justice Mrs Sandra Day O’Connor. BBC World, “HARDTalk” with Stephen Sackur, 30.10.2006

Now on BBC World for our “USA Direct” season HARDTalk interviews US Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Stephen Sackur, the BBC presenter: The frame is that the American Constitution harboured few illusions about human nature. And that’s why I invested so much significance in this place: the US Supreme Court – the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. My guest today was the first woman to be appointed as a Justice in this Court, for 25 years she was one of its most influential voices. But is the independence of the judiciary now under threat?

Stephen Sackur: Sandra Day O’Connor, welcome to “HARDTalk”!

Sandra Day O’Connor: Thank you!

Q.: You were raised on a ranch in remote Arizona, and you describe yourself as a cowgirl.

A.: I was, grew up on this remote cattle ranch that was half in Arizona and half in New Mexico, remote near any town and so our little community consisted of my parents and me and of six cowboys. And we all lived basically in the same place and tried to run the ranch, we had cattle and we also raised enough horses to do the work on the ranch. And that was my life…

Q.: So, you were a very practical girl.

A.: I think so, because we had to solve all the problems ourselves. If something broke down or you had a problem, you could not turn to the Yellow Pages and call a repairperson for help. You had to fix it yourself.

Q.: And would you say that you brought that sort of common sense, that practicality to your long career in the law, in public service?

A.: Perhaps, a bit and my parents were very independent in the sense that they thought the best government was the government closest to them and that people could jolly well handle most things for themselves. Thank you very much!

Q.: That sounds conservative with a small “c”.

A.: I would say so!

Q.: You were identified as a sort of “Goldwater” Republican at a time when Barry Goldwater from Arizona was an extreme right-winger.

A.: I don’t know how extreme he was. But he was a fiscal conservative and, I think, had a libertarian touch. When my husband and I were living in [the] Phoenix, Arizona area, which we did for 25 years, he was our friend and neighbour.

Q.: Was it always difficult for you as a woman, because you from the very beginning, you were, sort of, pioneering, you were going places women never haven’t been before?

A.: I came along at the very time that conditions were changing for women in work place in the United States and, probably, in Great Britain as well. You know, in World War-II many of the men, if not most, were pulled off in the military service and women went to work in large numbers. And they discovered that not only could they do jobs reasonably well, they rather enjoyed it. And when at the end of the war the men came back and wanted their jobs back, women wanted to continue to work too. And that was the start of a change in our country. There was legislation at the national level and in most states to ensure equality of job opportunity in the work place for women.

Q.: And you were always highly ambitious.

A.: No, I wouldn’t say that. But I always knew that I liked to work and I wanted to work at something worth doing – that was never in doubt. And once I had a law degree, then I wanted to do work in the legal profession or related to it.

Q.: Well, work in the legal profession…

A.: I had a hard time getting it. When I graduated from Stanford Law School, but that was way back in 1952…

Q.: You mean, because you were a woman…

A.: Because I was a woman I could not get a job interview with a law firm. Couldn’t even get an interview! It was amazing and I was shocked! I think I was naïve because when I went to law school it never entered my mind that I’d have trouble getting a job. I had a good record in school. So my first job coming out of law school as a lawyer ended up being as a deputy of county attorney in a public law office. Opportunities for women-lawyers were first available in public … in the public sector.

Q.: But within 30 you were getting an extraordinary call from the Reagan Administration.

A.: I did! I got a call from the President asking if he could announce my nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court the next day. That was a real shock!

Q.: I’m sure it was … as there had been no women on the Supreme Court.

A.: No, for not for 191 years! That’s how long it took!

Q.: So, what were your feelings at that time?

A.: Frankly, I was very dismayed, because I knew that it would be a totally new experience – I did not know if I could do the job well enough. I’ve always said that it’s exciting and wonderful to be the first to do something but I didn’t want to be the last and to take on that enormous task was of real concern to me.

Q.: You didn’t bring to the court a broader sweeping ideological view of how to interpret the Constitution, whereas many others on the Court had a deeply ideological view.

A.: My Goldwater friendship led me to understand much of his philosophy, which was that he also thought the best government was that closest to the people and that government should not overspend – it should be fiscally conservative. And I rather agree with that. He was not one to get deeply involved in social issues and in more recent years, I think, many people politically have become more involved in trying to resolve some social issues.

Q.: But on that question, and I suppose, if we’d talk about one specific, hot button issue, it would be abortion. Many of those, who supported your nomination, who saw you as a conservative who would be consistent with them on the social issues felt betrayed and let down by you. Were you aware of that at that time?

A.: Not particularly. We’ve had a number of cases dealing with state regulation of abortion and the Court has had to wrestle with them through the years. And I’ve had to do the same thing. By and large the Court through the years has allowed states to regulate abortion within some limits. And it’s where you draw that line that has caused a great deal of public discussion.

Q.: I believe, one of you own Opinions on this in 1992…

A:. …“Planned Рarenthood versus Casey”…

Q.: Exactly … made it plain that that could not could be undue burdens placed on the rights of woman…

A.: Correct. That was the test we adopted.

Q.: Are you happy with that today?

A.: I don’t think anybody in this country is happy with the resolution of questions dealing with abortion. It’s been a very, very divisive issue for the people of this country and it continues to be so.

Q.: Let me ask you about the time when the Court impacted on the consciousness of everybody around the world and that was in November or after November 2000, after the Bush-Gore election, when the vote was essentially virtually tied in Florida?

A.: Yes, it was very close…

Q.: There was a recount and in the end the outcome of the election was effectively settled in the Supreme Court of the United States. Why was it that in the end the case came to you?

A.: I don’t think in the end that was settled so much by this Court as by the votes that were cast in Florida but what came to the Court were issues of whether the Florida courts had correctly applied that law – election law which governed presidential elections. There are certain federal requirements and the first case came to the Court and this Court was unanimous in saying that the Florida courts had not correctly applied Federal Election Law and sent the case back and the case was not then treated by the Florida Supreme Court again before the second case returned. We’d had no response from the Florida court. And here came the second case raising additional issues and the Court resolved it but of course by that time – the time contemplated under Federal Law for the new President to take office – was at hand. And so, we had faced the question of how should it be remanded again to state courts postponing the inauguration of the President or should the Court just proceed and say the poll, that it found, [unintelligible] and let it be! And that’s what the Court did and the result was that there were slightly more votes in the contested counties in Florida for Bush than for Gore. And there were three recounts after this Court finished. Did you know that? There were three recounts of all those votes and those recounts were paid for, at least some of them, by the press itself that very much wanted to see what the deal was. And it’s interesting that in none of that re-counts the result has changed. It was the same.

Q.: Did it damage America, do you think, that whole episode?

A.: Oh, I think, people were very divided as they were on election itself – they were very divided.

Q.: And did it, therefore, because the Court, albeit you say it absolutely rightly, was brought into this? Did it damage the Court?

A.: What I can say speaking from having served on the Court that I think there was any permanent damage done? There was a great deal of unhappiness. But I have to say: at the end of day it is remarkable that we live under o system of a rule of law where hot button issues like that can be resolved without people fighting it out in the streets. At the end of the day, I think, you have to say: “That’s a blessing, not a curse!”

Q.: Now let me ask you about the balance of powers – separation of powers in this country, particularly at the time of war. Since 9/11 this country’s government has declared itself at war, in a global war against terrorism. What implication does this have for the balance of power between particularly the executive branch and the judicial branch?

A.: We have seen in times of war in the past, certainly in our Civil War in the 1860-s – that was the worse situation this country ever faced, and we had a few crises then. Abraham Lincoln was our President and he is one of the great presidents of all time, if not the greatest. And he felt it necessary during the course of that war to suspend unilaterally the writ of habeas corpus.

Q.: You could argue as indeed people argue about George Bush and his use of similar powers today that in the very act of assuming these powers in defence of the nation he’s undermining the very principles for which the fight is being fought?

A.: That’s correct, but this nation was in peril of not surviving in the Civil War. It came very close to not… the North could well have lost that war … and so this is very difficult and I’m just citing you an example of the tension that has arisen in the past in time of war. And then in World War-II we had another issue of how to deal with enemies captured during the war and what to do with them. And once again there were issues between the executive branch and the legislative on what to do and some of those cases came to the Supreme Court. And I think the worse thing that happened in World War-II, probably, from the standpoint of this Court, was the decision by the executive branch, which the legislative branch went along with, – to imprison people of Japanese descent even though they were American citizens out of fear that they were going to commit some acts that would harm us during that wartime period after the country was at war, also was Japan. And that was really a ghastly thing to do – these are people, who were citizens of the country and they were literally put in prison camps.

Q.: And you’ve since described that a mistake!

A.: I think it was!

Q.: So I suppose my question is … yes, whether you believe mistakes are being committed in this war on terrorism?

A.: I’m not going to answer that question because I’m not on the Court. It’s not going to come to me. But what I am telling you is that in times of war this is not the first time that there’ve been tensions between the executive branch, the legislative branch and the courts.

Q.: In the Opinion in 2004 you wrote that, and I’m quoting now, “as state of war is not, not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens”.

A.: That was in the “Hamdy case”… . Yes!

Q.: That’s right! Why did you feel it necessary to say that so bluntly?

A.: Well, we hadn’t issue there that we are trying to address and it was coming to the Court for the first time and were trying to deal with it.

Q.: But did you think, do you think, that there are elements in the executive branch … who do think they’ve got a blank check?

A.: I hope, no! I can’t answer that. I do not know.

Q.: On the general principle, I was interested to read a legal commentator Noah Feldman writing in the New York Times Magazine earlier this year – he said that “the modern presidency, as expressed in the policies of the Bush Administration, provides the strongest evidence they were governed by a fundamentally different constitution from that envisioned by the Framers”. He thinks that the presidential power has massively expanded from that anticipated by the Framers. Do you believe that he is right?

A.: I think there has been an expansion of the role of the executive but I think there’s also have been a massive expansion since the time the Constitution was written and the Powers of Congress! What the Framers of the Constitution envisioned, they were writing – was a national government of limited powers. And it doesn’t look so limited today to me from the standpoint of what Congress does, or what the Chief Executive does. It’s a far cry from the model envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution.

Q.: That sounds like an expression of concern, you’re giving.

A.: No, I’m not! It’s not for me to express concern. These are gonna be worked out over time among the three branches.

Q.: But do you think the independence of the judiciary is under real threat?

A.: I think we’re saying a lot of criticism today both at the national level by members of Congress and in many states at the state level of judges – be they a state or federal judges. And it’s disappointing to see such a strong level of criticism. I hope that over time it will be seen how essential to our system of government it is that we preserve the judicial branch of government – both at the national and the state levels as having the power to carry out the role envisioned by the people who developed the three-party, the three-branch system for government.

Q.: I’d just like you to read you the words of Tom DeLay – of course controversial figure, but senior Republican, who after the Florida courts upheld a key decision on a right to life issue, which gave the husband the right to basically end the life of his wife, who’d been in the vegetative state for a long time – Tom DeLay, who disagreed with the decision, railed against the courts and he described an arrogant, out of control, unaccountable judiciary thumbing their noses at the Congress and the President. What did you think when you heard… ?

A.: Well, I think that is an example of that kind of rhetoric that has occurred in recent years about judges and which makes me unhappy.

Q.: Why is it happening? More now then ever, you know, we see threats, we see attacks on judges – more than we’ve ever seen before. Why is it happening?

A.: It’s inherent, probably, in the world that the courts have, in a system like ours where at the end of the day they’ve had to rule on cases involving issues of social concern: in the abortion area, in the election area, in the juvenile death penalty area, in connection with assertions of so-called “gay rights” – a kind of a new development in recent years. And when courts decide cases in these areas, there’re a lot of people who are going to disagree, as well as some who agree. And it becomes very divisive. Now, Great Britain is soon going to find itself right in the middle of the same kinds of issues because now the courts in Great Britain have to deal with issues that come, arise out of Parliament’s actions, and issues that are now effected by the European Court of Human Rights, its rulings, or even the EU Court of Justice. And these things are going to start coming to Great Britain’s Highest Court, which is being reorganized to look a lot more like the Supreme Court of the United States.

Q.: This spring after you left the Court, you said, “Courts interpret the law as it’s written, not as congressmen might have wished it was written. It takes a lot of degeneration before the country falls into dictatorship, that we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings”.

A.: Yes, by that I mean we have to be more respectful as a nation of the role of the third branch of government – the judicial branch, because it is a very essential branch of government if we are to live in a constitutional democracy, if you will. It can’t work any other way. If you have a Constitution that guarantees certain individual rights against usurpation by the majority acting through an elected body, for instance in the Congress, taking away rights, then who’s going to protect the guarantees of the Constitution if you don’t have a judiciary? They can say what the law is and what the Constitution requires. So we have to have that branch of government. It can act when it is against … the ruling goes against the hopes and wishes of a substantial number of citizens.

Q.: I’m getting back to a point we were discussing earlier. Do you worry about the independence of the judiciary, particularly when you’re not in a war as we’ve traditionally known wars but you’re in open-ended war, which may go on indefinitely with all *leverings to the expansion of executive power?

A.: I worry about it and I think the most important thing is education of our citizens. And I worry a lot about that because I think that we are no longer doing a very good job in our public schools of teaching civics and government in this country.

Q.: Were you disappointed that President Bush could not find a woman to replace one of these two women in the Supreme Court?

A.: I was. I was. Because it took so long to get one and now we’re back to one instead of two. So, yes, I was disappointed, but that’s not to say that the people chosen were not wonderfully qualified. They are! But I was disappointed.

Q.: He did come up with two new Justices: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. The complexion of actual court is gonna change, isn’t it? Because there is not now the centrist, sort of, bridge-builder like you were…

A.: I don’t attach labels but I had a colleague on the Court when I came here – Byron White – and he was a wonderful Justice, and he told me early on that every time a member of the Court changes, you get a new Justice – it’s not just a new Justice, it’s a new Court. And he’s right because when you have a small group of people working together day after day in such a small group, so dependent on each-other, if you change one of the members of the group, you change the group dynamics. So that’s true! Now we’ve had two changes and I’m sure there’ll be as a result a new Court.

Q.: A more conservative, a more ideological Court?

A.: I don’t know. We’ll see… .

Stephen Sackur: Sandra Day O’Connor, thank you very much for being on the “HARDTalk”!

Sandra Day O’Connor: You’re welcome!

Stephen Sackur: Thank you!

BBC World, 30.10.2006, http://www.bbcworld.com/