从目的论看中美撞机事件中“VERY SORRY”的中文翻译
|
摘要
2001年4月1日,中美撞机事件发生后,中美双方为解决这一严重外交事件而采取的举动备受关注。其中,最受关注的和最具争议的莫过于怎样用中文翻译美国政府向中国政府递交的道歉信中的措辞“VERY SORRY”。媒体和网民对中国外交部的中文译文“深表歉意”进行了激烈讨论。大多数美国的主流媒体嘲讽中国政府将英文意思“遗憾”或“惋惜”篡改成中文的“道歉”。一些年轻的中国网民则认为美国政府并没有道歉,因此不认同中译文里的道歉。一些学术界人士甚至认为这样的翻译违背了忠实、对等的原则。那么到底应该怎样看待具有歧义的外事文本的翻译?本文将德国功能派翻译理论——目的论应用于外事翻译领域,通过目的论的三个主要原则分析了中国外交部的中译文本。分析表明,由于外事翻译的首要目的是维护国家利益,根据费米尔(Vermeer)的目的原则,翻译的目的决定翻译的方法和策略,因此,对于具有歧义的外事文本,译员可以根据翻译的目的在一定范围内自由选择翻译策略。同时,这个选择的范围是由原文本的性质决定,即在外事翻译中,如果选择歧义或模糊语言是双方谈判的结果,如本案例中的“VERY SORRY”,那么实际上就已经赋予了双方各自解释的权利和空间。因此,中方的翻译是合理的,也是忠实的。最后,本文提供了一些针对有歧义的外事文本的翻译的原则性指导。
After the happening of the Sino-US military plane collision on April 1, 2001, any action taken by China and the US to resolve the serious incident has attracted the world's attention. Among them, the most spotlighted and controversial action is how to translate the "very sorry" in the English letter for expressing an apology to the Chinese government and people by the US government into the Chinese language. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China 's Chinese translation of "very sorry" as "shenbiaoqianyi" has been argued fiercely on media and Internet. Most mainstream media in United States mocked the Chinese government with the excuse of twisting the English "regret" into a Chinese "apology". Some young Chinese netizens refused to accept the Chinese translation, holding that "very sorry" is not a formal apology from the US government. Some intellectual men criticized the translation as non-equivalent and unfaithful. Then how to look at the translation of ambiguous diplomatic texts? This thesis applied the Germany functionalist Skopos theory to the diplomatic translation. Through the three key principles of Skopos theory, this thesis analyzed the Chinese translation made by the Foreign Ministry and found that, as the top Skopos for the diplomatic translation is to safeguard national interests, it is reasonable, according to Vermeer's Skopos rule that the skopos determines the translation methods and strategies, to translate the diplomatic texts with semantic ambiguity or vagueness freely in certain scale. Meanwhile, the scale is restricted by the nature of the source text, that is to say, as long as the ambiguous text is the negotiated result, such as the citation of "very sorry" in this case, it provides the authority and room for different interpretations of the result. Therefore, the Chinese translation issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry is completely rational and faithful. The present analysis also provides an insightful way to understand the controversial diplomatic translations and the guiding principles for the diplomatic translators dealing with such texts.
After the happening of the Sino-US military plane collision on April 1, 2001, any action taken by China and the US to resolve the serious incident has attracted the world's attention. Among them, the most spotlighted and controversial action is how to translate the "very sorry" in the English letter for expressing an apology to the Chinese government and people by the US government into the Chinese language. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China 's Chinese translation of "very sorry" as "shenbiaoqianyi" has been argued fiercely on media and Internet. Most mainstream media in United States mocked the Chinese government with the excuse of twisting the English "regret" into a Chinese "apology". Some young Chinese netizens refused to accept the Chinese translation, holding that "very sorry" is not a formal apology from the US government. Some intellectual men criticized the translation as non-equivalent and unfaithful. Then how to look at the translation of ambiguous diplomatic texts? This thesis applied the Germany functionalist Skopos theory to the diplomatic translation. Through the three key principles of Skopos theory, this thesis analyzed the Chinese translation made by the Foreign Ministry and found that, as the top Skopos for the diplomatic translation is to safeguard national interests, it is reasonable, according to Vermeer's Skopos rule that the skopos determines the translation methods and strategies, to translate the diplomatic texts with semantic ambiguity or vagueness freely in certain scale. Meanwhile, the scale is restricted by the nature of the source text, that is to say, as long as the ambiguous text is the negotiated result, such as the citation of "very sorry" in this case, it provides the authority and room for different interpretations of the result. Therefore, the Chinese translation issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry is completely rational and faithful. The present analysis also provides an insightful way to understand the controversial diplomatic translations and the guiding principles for the diplomatic translators dealing with such texts.
引文
[1] Avruch, Kevin & Zheng Wang. 2005. Culture, Apology, and International Negotiation: The Case of the Sino-US "Spy Plane" Crisis. [J]. International Negotiation, No.10. p.337-353.
[2] Baker, Mona. 2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[3] Chen Guo-Ming and Ringo Ma. (eds.). 2002. Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution.[M] Westport. CT: Ablex Publishers.
[4] Cheng, M. 2002. The standoff—What is unsaid? A pragmatic analysis of the conditional marker "if. [J]. Discourse & Society, 13th issue: 309-317.
[5] CNN, 1999, Clinton's Evolving Apology for the Lewinsky Affair. [N]. Retrieved October 15,2007 from: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/apology/
[6] Cohen, Jonathan. 1999. "Advising Clients to Apologize." [J]. Southern California Law Review, 72:1009-1069.
[7] Cohen, Raymond. 1987. Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signaling. [M]. New York:Longman.
[8] Cohen, Raymond. 1997. Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World. (Rev. Ed.). [M]. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
[9] Donnelly, E. 2004. The United States-China EP-3E incident: Legality and Realpolitik. [J].Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol.9. No.1. p. 25-42.
[10] Eckholm, Erik. 2001, April 12. "Chinese Claim a Moral Victory, Describing a Much Bigger Battle", [N]. New York Times, Retrieved January 5, 2008 from:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07EED61431F931A25757C0A9679C8B6 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
[11] Gries, Peter Hays & Kaiping Peng. (2002). "Culture Clash? Apologies East and West." [J].Journal of Contemporary China, Vol.11. No.30. p.173-178.
[12] Gries, Peter Hays. 2001. "Tears of Rage: Chinese Nationalism and the Belgrade Embassy Bombing." [J]. The China Journal, No.45. p.25-43.
[13] Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. [M]. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
[14] Hu, H.C. 1944. "The Chinese Concept of Face." [J]. American Anthropologist, Vol.44. No.1.p.45-64.
[15] Huang, Liyun. 2002. Stylistic Analysis of the Diplomatic English and the Diplomatic Translatioin. [D]. Guangxi University
[16] Jonsson, Christen 1990. Communication in International Bargaining. [M]. New York: St.Martin's.
[17] Mao,L.R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: 'Face' revisited and renewed. [J]. Journal of Pragmatics No.21. p.451-86.
[18] Newmark, Peter. 2001a. Approaches to Translation. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[19] Newmark, Peter. 2001b. A Text Book of Translation. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[20] News Collection for the Spy Plane Collision. 2001. [N]. Retrieved July 7 2007 from:http://www.fas.org/news/china/2001/china-010410a.htm
[21] Nord, Christiane. 2001. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[22] Pye, Lucian 1982. Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style. [M]. Cambridge, MA:Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
[23] Pye, Lucian. 1992. Chinese Negotiating Style. [M]. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
[24] Reiss, Katharina. 2004. Translation Criticism. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[25] Sheng, L. J. 2001. A new US Asia policy? : Air collision, arms sales and China-US relations.[J]. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://www.iseas.edu.sg/pub.html
[26] Slingerland, E. B., Blanchard, E. M., & Boyd-Judson, L. 2007. Collision with China:Conceptual metaphor analysis, somatic marking, and the EP-3E incident. [J]. International Studies Quarterly, Vol.51. No.1. p.53-77.
[27] Solomon, Richard H. 1999. Chinese Negotiating Behavior: Pursuing Interests Through "Old Friends". [M]. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
[28] Solomon, Richard H. 1999. Chinese Negotiating Behavior: Pursuing Interests Through "Old Friends". [M]. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
[29] The Foreign Ministry of China. 2001. Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxun lodges Another Representation with the U.S over the Air Collision Incident, [M]. Retrieved on February 1,2008 from: http://www.chinaembassy.se/eng/xwdt/t101285.html
[30] Tian, Dexin & Chin-Chung Chao. 2008. The American Hegemonic Responses to the US-China Mid-Air Plane Collision. [J]. International Journal of Communication, No.2.p.1-19
[31]Venuti,Lawrence.(Ed.).2000.The Translation Studies Reader.[M].London and New York:Routledge.
[32]Vermeer,Hans,J.1987.What does it mean to translate?[J].Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics.No.2.
[33]William,Schneider.2001.Bush Wins "Let's Make a Deal".[J].National Journal 4/21/2001,p15-17.
[34]Xu,Wu.2002.Another Collision:How Mainstream Chinese and America Newspapers Framed the Sino-US Spy Plane Collision.[D].University of Florida
[35]Yang,J.2001.US-China relations:More bumpy road ahead.[J].New Zealand International Review,Vol.26.No.4.
[36]Yee,Albert.2004."Semantic Ambiguity and Joint Deflections in the Hainan Negotiations."[J].An International Journal,Vol.2.No.1.p.53-82
[37]Yi,Lan.2007.Apologizing in Chinese and English:Different Languages,Different Strategies.[D].Zhejiang University
[38]Yuan,Yanhui.2006.Faithfulness in Cross-cultural Translation in Light of Skopos Theory.[D].Sichuan University
[39]Zhang,Hang.2001.Culture and Apology:The Hainan Island Incident.[J].World Englishes,Vol.20.No.3.p.383-391
[40]Zhang,X.L.2005.News framing:A comparison of the New York Times and the People's Daily coverage of Sino-US spy plane collision of April 1,2001.[D].University of Central Florida.
[41]Zhou,Wei.2007.On the Translation of Euphemisms in Journalism English---A Functionalist Approach.[D].Jinan University
[42]卞建华,2006,关于翻译目的论相关问题的讨论--与克里斯蒂安·诺德教授的四次网上交流[J].《中国翻译》,第1期,第44-45页
[43]陈敏,2007,从“目的论”谈外宣翻译中的译者主体性[D].广西师范大学.
[44]陈春&宋曦,2005,试析外交语言中语用含糊的特点[J].《重庆工学院学报》第1期,第111-113页
[45]陈建军,2004,从“目的论”的角度看《布波族:一个社会新阶层的崛起》之中文译本[J].《中国翻译》,第5期,第68-74页
[46]关海鸥,2007,语义模糊性理解与翻译策略研究,[J],《外语学刊》第5期,第110-113页
[47]郭鸣鹤,2006,言语行为理论中英语道歉的语用分析,[D],长春理工大学.
[48]李莉,2001,中英文道歉策略差异的统计分析,[J],《高等函授学报(哲学社会科学版)》 第14卷第4期,第55-57页
[49]沈己尧,2001,深表歉意的历史意义,[J],《台声杂志》第14-15页
[50]新华词典(修订版),[M],2005,北京:商务印书馆第40,185页
[51]徐亚男,2000,外交翻译的特点以及对外交翻译的要求,[J],《中国翻译》第3期,第35-38页
[52]杨洁篪,2001,中国驻美国大使就撞机事件答CNN记者问(全文),[Z],Retrieved Septenlber 1,2007 from:http://www.people.com.cn/GB/junshi/60/20010405/433632.html
[53]张南峰&陈德鸿,2000,《西方翻译理论精选》,[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社
[54]中央电视台,2008,《新闻会客厅之吴建民<外交案例>启示录》,[Z],Retrieved January 20,2008,from:http://www.cctv.com/program/xwhkt/06/index.shtml
[2] Baker, Mona. 2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[3] Chen Guo-Ming and Ringo Ma. (eds.). 2002. Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution.[M] Westport. CT: Ablex Publishers.
[4] Cheng, M. 2002. The standoff—What is unsaid? A pragmatic analysis of the conditional marker "if. [J]. Discourse & Society, 13th issue: 309-317.
[5] CNN, 1999, Clinton's Evolving Apology for the Lewinsky Affair. [N]. Retrieved October 15,2007 from: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/apology/
[6] Cohen, Jonathan. 1999. "Advising Clients to Apologize." [J]. Southern California Law Review, 72:1009-1069.
[7] Cohen, Raymond. 1987. Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signaling. [M]. New York:Longman.
[8] Cohen, Raymond. 1997. Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World. (Rev. Ed.). [M]. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
[9] Donnelly, E. 2004. The United States-China EP-3E incident: Legality and Realpolitik. [J].Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol.9. No.1. p. 25-42.
[10] Eckholm, Erik. 2001, April 12. "Chinese Claim a Moral Victory, Describing a Much Bigger Battle", [N]. New York Times, Retrieved January 5, 2008 from:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07EED61431F931A25757C0A9679C8B6 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
[11] Gries, Peter Hays & Kaiping Peng. (2002). "Culture Clash? Apologies East and West." [J].Journal of Contemporary China, Vol.11. No.30. p.173-178.
[12] Gries, Peter Hays. 2001. "Tears of Rage: Chinese Nationalism and the Belgrade Embassy Bombing." [J]. The China Journal, No.45. p.25-43.
[13] Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. [M]. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
[14] Hu, H.C. 1944. "The Chinese Concept of Face." [J]. American Anthropologist, Vol.44. No.1.p.45-64.
[15] Huang, Liyun. 2002. Stylistic Analysis of the Diplomatic English and the Diplomatic Translatioin. [D]. Guangxi University
[16] Jonsson, Christen 1990. Communication in International Bargaining. [M]. New York: St.Martin's.
[17] Mao,L.R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: 'Face' revisited and renewed. [J]. Journal of Pragmatics No.21. p.451-86.
[18] Newmark, Peter. 2001a. Approaches to Translation. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[19] Newmark, Peter. 2001b. A Text Book of Translation. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[20] News Collection for the Spy Plane Collision. 2001. [N]. Retrieved July 7 2007 from:http://www.fas.org/news/china/2001/china-010410a.htm
[21] Nord, Christiane. 2001. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[22] Pye, Lucian 1982. Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style. [M]. Cambridge, MA:Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
[23] Pye, Lucian. 1992. Chinese Negotiating Style. [M]. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
[24] Reiss, Katharina. 2004. Translation Criticism. [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[25] Sheng, L. J. 2001. A new US Asia policy? : Air collision, arms sales and China-US relations.[J]. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://www.iseas.edu.sg/pub.html
[26] Slingerland, E. B., Blanchard, E. M., & Boyd-Judson, L. 2007. Collision with China:Conceptual metaphor analysis, somatic marking, and the EP-3E incident. [J]. International Studies Quarterly, Vol.51. No.1. p.53-77.
[27] Solomon, Richard H. 1999. Chinese Negotiating Behavior: Pursuing Interests Through "Old Friends". [M]. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
[28] Solomon, Richard H. 1999. Chinese Negotiating Behavior: Pursuing Interests Through "Old Friends". [M]. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
[29] The Foreign Ministry of China. 2001. Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxun lodges Another Representation with the U.S over the Air Collision Incident, [M]. Retrieved on February 1,2008 from: http://www.chinaembassy.se/eng/xwdt/t101285.html
[30] Tian, Dexin & Chin-Chung Chao. 2008. The American Hegemonic Responses to the US-China Mid-Air Plane Collision. [J]. International Journal of Communication, No.2.p.1-19
[31]Venuti,Lawrence.(Ed.).2000.The Translation Studies Reader.[M].London and New York:Routledge.
[32]Vermeer,Hans,J.1987.What does it mean to translate?[J].Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics.No.2.
[33]William,Schneider.2001.Bush Wins "Let's Make a Deal".[J].National Journal 4/21/2001,p15-17.
[34]Xu,Wu.2002.Another Collision:How Mainstream Chinese and America Newspapers Framed the Sino-US Spy Plane Collision.[D].University of Florida
[35]Yang,J.2001.US-China relations:More bumpy road ahead.[J].New Zealand International Review,Vol.26.No.4.
[36]Yee,Albert.2004."Semantic Ambiguity and Joint Deflections in the Hainan Negotiations."[J].An International Journal,Vol.2.No.1.p.53-82
[37]Yi,Lan.2007.Apologizing in Chinese and English:Different Languages,Different Strategies.[D].Zhejiang University
[38]Yuan,Yanhui.2006.Faithfulness in Cross-cultural Translation in Light of Skopos Theory.[D].Sichuan University
[39]Zhang,Hang.2001.Culture and Apology:The Hainan Island Incident.[J].World Englishes,Vol.20.No.3.p.383-391
[40]Zhang,X.L.2005.News framing:A comparison of the New York Times and the People's Daily coverage of Sino-US spy plane collision of April 1,2001.[D].University of Central Florida.
[41]Zhou,Wei.2007.On the Translation of Euphemisms in Journalism English---A Functionalist Approach.[D].Jinan University
[42]卞建华,2006,关于翻译目的论相关问题的讨论--与克里斯蒂安·诺德教授的四次网上交流[J].《中国翻译》,第1期,第44-45页
[43]陈敏,2007,从“目的论”谈外宣翻译中的译者主体性[D].广西师范大学.
[44]陈春&宋曦,2005,试析外交语言中语用含糊的特点[J].《重庆工学院学报》第1期,第111-113页
[45]陈建军,2004,从“目的论”的角度看《布波族:一个社会新阶层的崛起》之中文译本[J].《中国翻译》,第5期,第68-74页
[46]关海鸥,2007,语义模糊性理解与翻译策略研究,[J],《外语学刊》第5期,第110-113页
[47]郭鸣鹤,2006,言语行为理论中英语道歉的语用分析,[D],长春理工大学.
[48]李莉,2001,中英文道歉策略差异的统计分析,[J],《高等函授学报(哲学社会科学版)》 第14卷第4期,第55-57页
[49]沈己尧,2001,深表歉意的历史意义,[J],《台声杂志》第14-15页
[50]新华词典(修订版),[M],2005,北京:商务印书馆第40,185页
[51]徐亚男,2000,外交翻译的特点以及对外交翻译的要求,[J],《中国翻译》第3期,第35-38页
[52]杨洁篪,2001,中国驻美国大使就撞机事件答CNN记者问(全文),[Z],Retrieved Septenlber 1,2007 from:http://www.people.com.cn/GB/junshi/60/20010405/433632.html
[53]张南峰&陈德鸿,2000,《西方翻译理论精选》,[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社
[54]中央电视台,2008,《新闻会客厅之吴建民<外交案例>启示录》,[Z],Retrieved January 20,2008,from:http://www.cctv.com/program/xwhkt/06/index.shtml