1 hr confidence:  peer agreement (net): -2 the questionning word
Explanation:
HI!
I would definitely go for "questionning". The idea has to do with the power people "deserved" (as citizens) and "had", during the Perón's era. My interpretation has nothing to do with "imploring". Perhaps, it would also be useful: "inquisitive word".
Humble opinion!
Saludos #:)
I'm argentinian, suffered from P's last period!
| Gabriela Tenenbaum (X)
Uruguay
Local time: 12:09
Native speaker of:  Spanish
PRO pts in pair: 113
|
| |
3 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): -1 the voice that cries for redress
Explanation:
OK, so we are up in arms here, so to speak.
I rather like the etymology presented below...points to more than just a mere *questioning*...in fact, it demands that one be answerable to the "people"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
One entry found for interpellate.
Main Entry: in·ter·pel·late
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-'pe-"lAt, -p&-'lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin interpellatus, past participle of interpellare to interrupt, from inter- + -pellare (from pellere to drive) -- more at FELT
Date: 1874
--->>>>: to question (as a foreign minister) ***formally*** concerning an official action or policy or personal conduct
- in·ter·pel·la·tion /-p&-'lA-sh&n/ noun
- in·ter·pel·la·tor /-'pe-"lA-t&r, -p&-'lA-/ noun
Having added more than my two cents, I now wash my hands of the whole matter and leave it for you to choose what suits you!
Regards,
Rich
ad nauseam
| DR. RICHARD BAVRY (X)
PRO pts in pair: 94
|
| | Grading comment Well, you got there in the end! Do you always put this much effort in? Anyway, it was the "calling for redress" one that struck me as the definite article.
|
|
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
3 hrs confidence: the voice that calls to account
Explanation:
What the hell, what is one more cent or so, especially if it offers you more to choose from.
Nice idiom in English: "calling to account"
See: Google
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&q="calling +to acc...
Rather like this one:
http://www.hlc.org.yu/english/other/other10.htm
Report of the HLC Executive Director on the Situation in Serbian Prisons
The demands put forward by convicts in several prisons in Serbia are reasonable and justified. Extensive damage was caused to property but further destruction was stopped by the prisoners themselves, in keeping with their agreement with Serbia's Co-Ministers of Justice. A fact-finding commission must be set up to inquire into the reasons for the riots, the prison conditions, and to establish the responsibility of the prison authorities for violation of the prisoners' rights. The ethnic Albanian prisoners' demand for safety guarantees must be met immediately. The Co-Ministers' promise that no repressive actions would be taken against convicts who participated in the riots and destruction must be kept. I was present when the Co-Ministers and the Assistant Minister of Justice for the execution of criminal sanctions met with an ethnically mixed delegation of the prisoners at the Sremska Mitrovica Penitentiary on 6 November. The delegation set out the prisoners' demands: amnesty,equal conditions for all prisoners, ***calling to account*** guards who physically abused prisoners, dismissal of the Deputy Warden and Superintendent; better conditions for life and work in the prison. The delegation said ethnic Albanian prisoners received smaller portions at mealtimes than other prisoners, and slept on the floor in overcrowded rooms. As the block occupied by the Albanian prisoners was among the buildings torched during the riot, the Co-Ministers decided to move them to another facility. This was done at about 8 p.m. that evening when all 164 Albanians were transferred to the Central Prison in Belgrade....
Regards,
Rich (sheepishly awaiting an "interpellant word", although my hands are now pristinely clean)
see above
| DR. RICHARD BAVRY (X)
PRO pts in pair: 94
|
| | | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
3 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): -1 Interpellation
Explanation:
Aún cuando eligió la respuesta, tal vez le sirvan las siguientes referencias.
Además, quisiera aclarar que "la palabra interpeladora" no se refiere al poder del pueblo como refiere Gabriela. Se refiere al tipo de discurso utilizado por Perón.
Aquí van referencias:
"...Entre otros varios instrumentos políticos, está la palabra interpelante, herramienta privilegiada para transformar un conjunto social discreto y heterogéneo en un acto social y político: el "pueblo peronista", al que Perón ofrece un canal de expresión y de representación...."
http://ar.clarin.com/suplementos/cultura/2001-07-08/u-00801....
Otras referencias:
------------------------------
"...Consequently, having affirmed that the articulation of ideology with the unconscious is concealed within a ``web of subjective evident truths,'' Pêcheux locates the linkage between the constitution of meaning and that of the constitution of the human subject within the figure of interpellation itself. It is there that the discrepancy in the formulation individual/subject (the ``paradox'' by which the human subject is called into existence) may best be designated. Pêcheux notes that Althusser's formulation carefully avoids presupposing the existence of the human subject on whom the operation of interpellation is performed. As opposed to stating that the ``subject is interpellated by ideology,'' Althusser suggests that the non-subject is interpellated/constituted as a subject by ideology. Herein lies the aforementioned paradox, however, as Pêcheux argues that interpellation so conceived possesses a ``Munchausen effect'': that is, given that every individual hailed by ideological discourse is ``always-already a subject,'' a circular or ``retroactive'' effect results. To illustrate this point, Pêcheux calls forth the image of the immortal Baron Munchausen who, according to legend, lifted himself out of a bog and into the air by pulling ``with all the strength of one arm on a lock of his own hair.''
How to escape this difficulty, then? As will be shown, for Pêcheux the initial step is to establish that ``the effect of the preconstructed as the discursive modality of the discrepancy by which the individual is interpellated as subject [...]while still being `always-already a subject' '' nevertheless operates by contradiction (1982, p. 107). This manoeuvre then allows the ``transparency of language'' to be grappled with concretely: that is, this apparent contradiction between the formulation, after Lacan (1977), of human subjects as processes of representation (``caught'' in a network of signifiers) and the recruitment of subjects (via interpellation) from individuals who accept as evident the meaning of what they hear, say, read and write as ``speaking subjects,'' will be opened up for investigation (1982, pp. 108- 109). ...
...Pêcheux finds convincing Althusser's argument that this sense of ``evidentness,'' what ``everyone knows'' through ``habit'' and ``usage,'' is accomplished through ideology: ideology ``takes up the slack,'' it designates both what is and what ought to be (1982, p. 110). Moreover, ideology supplies the evidentness that makes a word or an utterance ``mean what it says,'' thus what Pêcheux terms the material character of the meaning of words and utterances is subsequently ``masked'' in the ``transparency of language'' (1982, pp. 110-111). This ``masking'' process is theorized as being the outcome of the articulation of representational practices (at times antagonistically) across the field of the ISAs. An uneven, contradictory relationship of correspondence is in this way constructed, the precise nature of which Pêcheux proceeds to specify via two radical theses. The first proposition holds that ``words, expressions, propositions, etc., change their meaning according to the [ideological] positions held by those who use them, which signifies that they find their meaning by reference to those positions; that is, by reference to the ideological formations [once again, the configuration of ISAs] in which those positions are inscribed'' (1982, p. 111). The semiotic polyvalence of which Bakhtin (1981) writes is here recognized as being constrained by a hierarchical set of rules tied to ideological contestation; that is, a specific word ``finds its meaning'' by reference to its inscription within one or more positions located across an institutional configuration. This set of rules, to be theorized as constitutive of a discursive formation, marks the normative limits of ``what can and should be said'' in a historical conjuncture. A discursive formation, caught up in a multiplicity of struggles over appropriateness, accomplishes certain ``meaning effects'' for the human subject while, simultaneously, concealing the contradictory character of the subject's own discourse to him or herself.
What Pêcheux is offering here is a formal account of discursive processes both within discourses and between one discourse and another, rather than a substantive account of particular ideologies and discursive formations in a concrete, situated fashion. According to this definition, a discursive formation seems best understood as a set of regulative principles that underlie actual discourses but remain separate from them. This formulation suggests then that words, expressions, and propositions obtain their meaning from the determinate discursive formation in which they are produced (the linguistic elements selected, how they are combined), thus meaning becomes an effect upon an active human subject, and not a stable property. Once again, an expression or proposition does not have a meaning ``of its own'' perpetually attached to it. Pêcheux stresses the attendant point that given the emergence of this ``matrix of meaning,'' individuals are then interpellated ``as speaking subjects (as subjects of their discourse) by the discursive formations which represent `in language' the ideological formations that correspond to them'' (1982, pp. 111-112). Such a conception leads Pêcheux to declare that the human subject is ``forgetful'': he or she misrecognizes or occludes the ``cause'' or determination of his or her discourse, thinking instead the he or she is its author ``in reality.'' By highlighting how the naturalness or obviousness of words or expressions will, in turn, ``change their meaning'' as they ``slide'' or ``slip'' from one determinate discursive formation to another, Pêcheux substantively refines the notion of intertextuality (the passage from one sign system to another) posited by Bakhtin. Here, the interweaving of elements between contending discursive formations is to be specified as the outcome of the dictates of hegemonic struggles traversing the social field. ...
http://www.cjc-online.ca/~cjc/BackIssues/17.2/montgome.html
-------------------
"...Hay que discutir la interpretación habitual del discurso periodístico según el modelo único que proporciona la llamada "prensa de prestigio", supuestamente ocupada en la información y no en el entretenimiento, supuestamente ilustrada y no plebeya. Desde los orígenes del periodismo de masas y siempre más allá de sus géneros confesadamente "populares" -como la prensa del corazón, deportiva y de sucesos- los relatos informativos han incorporado ingredientes melodramáticos, truculentos y cómicos, y los discursos de la información han explotado procedimientos de interpelación y persuasión que tienen también raíces ajenas al modelo del discurso público...."
http://www.ucm.es/info/per3/cic/cic2ar10.htm
--------
interpellation
Louis Althusser's term for the subject's enjoinment in ideological discourse. His classic example, which illustrates the "policing" character of ideological control through language, is of a policeman who calls out "Hey, you!" The subject who turns around to answer this call (the call of ideology) has been interpellated. Of course, part of Althusser's point is that it is not necessarily the right person who turns around: We are all indiscriminately "hailed" by the dominant ideology, and we thereby submit to the dominance of its values even when we reject them. See his essay, below.
http://gold.truman.edu/~steward/toolbox.html#interpellation
-------------
Le recomiendo el sitio de la referencia. Tal vez pueda servirle en su traducción.
Espero le ayude.
Reference: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/echo/volume3-issue1/smithmurphy/s...
| bea0
United States
Local time: 11:09
Native speaker of: Spanish
PRO pts in pair: 65
|
| |
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
4 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): -1 No se refiere a Interpellation en el siguiente sentido:
Explanation:
power inherent to the Houses of Congress to interrogate / examine a minister of the government / cabinet in order to obtain some information related to governmental acts." (Dicc. Térm. Jurídicos Mazzucco/Maranghello).
Ese proceso NADA tiene que ver con "la palabra interpeladora".
Tal como aparece en una de las referencias que brindé anteriormente, la interpelación es un tipo de discurso, como lo es la persuasión, etc.
Espero le ayude, aún cuando ya cerró la consulta.
Saludos.
| bea0
United States
Local time: 11:09
Native speaker of: Spanish
PRO pts in pair: 65
|
| |
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
4 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): -1 Aclaración
Explanation:
En virtud de que al Dr. Bavry no le ha quedado claro mi aprote, quisiera aclarar lo siguiente:
1. La última definición aportada se refiere al proceso mencionado por el Dr. más arriba. Transcribí la definición para aclarar que "NADA" tiene que ver esa interpretación con el original ("la palabra..."). Y tal como se puede leer en la misma, se trata de una facultad del Congreso / Poder Legislativo, lo que termina de descartar -en mi opinión- que se trate de ese tipo de proceso.
2. El propósito de las referencias que aporto es aclarar con referencias que "la palabra interpelante" es un tipo de discurso utilizado ***generalmente por políticos al dirigirse a las masas***. Sugiero visitarlas antes de descaratarlas como referencias.
3. Los diferentes puntos de vista enriquecen los debates. Apelo al profesionalismo de los colegas, para no interpretar un descuerdo con un ataque personal.
Saludos.
Bea (Argentina)
| bea0
United States
Local time: 11:09
Native speaker of: Spanish
PRO pts in pair: 65
|
| |
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
7 hrs confidence: [FATUOUS REMARK IN PARTING]
Explanation:
What chance does a Yanqui gringo like me have in the face of two angry Argentine ladies? Why do BEAtitude and attitude come to mind?
Ave Maria, gratia plena....
| DR. RICHARD BAVRY (X)
PRO pts in pair: 94
|
| | | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also: Search millions of term translations
You can request verification for native languages by completing a simple application that takes only a couple of minutes.
Review native language verification applications submitted by your peers. Reviewing applications can be fun and only takes a few minutes.
View applications
|
|
peer agreement (net): +1