Translators' Prison of Words
As translators, there are times when we face problems that we can’t resolve at the moment. Either we can’t make our sentence sound adequately accurate, or the whole piece that we’re trying to translate looks insurmountably difficult, because there’s too much to explain before we can even start. This situation isn’t necessarily due to a lack of adequate knowledge of translation or because we haven’t read enough books about translation. Actually, these problems are a bit like cultural handcuffs, because their source is the contradiction between two divergent - almost opposing - worldviews of two peoples. What is the worldview of a people? We can view it as the way a people sees the relation between man and matter, or between ‘me’ and ‘not-me’. Let’s read a couple of sentences at the beginning of 三國演義 (The Romance of the Three Kingdoms): “滾滾長江東逝水，浪花淘盡英雄。是非成敗轉頭空，青山依舊在，幾度夕陽紅。” [Translation: The surging Yangtze runs ever east, washing up heroes as it goes. Right and wrong, failure and fortune change position in the blink of an eye. The green mountain stand as ever before, witness to countless sunsets] Even though what these thirty characters strive to express is the state of a man, there are only three characters regarding “man”: 英雄 (hero), 頭 (head). (‘eye’ appears only in the English translation.) If we take these few sentences, written by Luo Guanzhong, to represent the Chinese worldview, then we may say that the Chinese think that mankind aspires to matter, and that the ultimate ideal is for mankind to merge with matter in a harmonious whole. People of the West take the opposite view: man is not matter, man masters matter and man observes matter - the more closely the better. One wants to climb up, the other wants to dig down. I’d like to give some examples of what effects differing views about the relation between man and matter can have on the realm of translation.
1. Attachment/執著
It’s not an exaggeration to say that Buddhism affected China no less profoundly than Christianity affected the West. I have no knowledge of the history of the translation of Buddhist texts, but apparently a long time ago, a Chinese translator looked at a Sanskrit word and translated it as ‘執著’; another English translator looked at the same Sanskrit word and translated it as ‘attachment’. To me, attachment sounds calm, as if someone is patiently explaining while 執著 sounds harsher, as if someone wants to give a warning. We can also look at the difference between the two from the ‘man and matter’ angle. The word “attachment” places emphasis on matter - it points to something that is not me, or to a relationship between me and “not me” (matter). 執著 unmistakably emphasizes man, because only man can 執著, matter can’t. You may object, “But 執著 can be the thing to which man is 執著.” Yes, but this doesn’t change the fact that in Chinese, the emphasis of this word is placed on man, not on matter.
2. 太超過了
This example doesn’t have to do with translation actually. Some years ago, the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of Taiwan allowed Chen Zhizhong and his wife Huang Ruijing come to the U.S. to study because there was no evidence implicating him in his father Chen Shuibian’s corruption case. Later, when Chen and Huang came back to face charges, Huang said calmly and thoughtfully at the airport, “What the SIU did was太超過了!” These four words became a hit overnight, and were the butt of many jokes. Why did Huang say, “太超過了!” when she could have said, “太過分了”? The answer is that she didn’t want to antagonize the SIU. Had she said “太過分了”, she would have been criticizing the people of the SIU. To say “太超過了” would only be criticizing their conduct, i.e. matter. She had obviously thought long and hard before uttering those words at the airport. I don’t know if Huang Ruijing has contributed anything else to Taiwanese society, but her thoughtful, love-the-criminal-hate-the-crime kind of Christian charity was truly commendable.
3. Irony/諷刺
Translating ‘irony’ as ‘諷刺’ is a widely accepted practice, but is it appropriate? Among other definitions, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines irony as follows: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result. But 諷刺 has no such meaning in Chinese. This is another example of a word whose emphasis is placed on man rather than on matter. If a man wants to be sarcastic, we may say that his words are sarcastic. But if we hear or read sarcastic words, we can’t say for certain that the man who said those words wanted to be sarcastic; we can only say, “these words fall outside of my expectations.” This is, in fact, the most logical thing to say.
翻译的文字狱
我们做翻译的在工作上会碰到一些一时不知该如何处理的难题。要不然译出来的句子总不能完全达意，或者整篇文章非常难翻译，因为要预先解释的事情太多了。这并不一定是因为我们对翻译的了解不够深，或者翻译书籍读得不够多。这些难题其实是一种来自人文的手铐，因为它们的根源是出于两种回然不同，甚至背道而驰的民族宇宙观间的矛盾。什么是一个民族的宇宙观呢? 说穿了，它是一个族群对人与物间，或我与非我间的关系的看法。让我们看一下<三国演义> 开头的几句话: <滚滚长江东逝水，浪花淘尽英雄。是非成败转头空，青山依旧在，几度夕阳红。 > 尽管这整整三十个字要描述的是一个人的境界，有关人的字眼却只有三个：英雄，头。假使我们把罗贯中的这几句话看成是代表中国人的宇宙观的话，那么我们可以说中国人认为渺小的人总向往着伟大的物，而其最终最完美的境界是人与物溶融为一体。西方人的看法恰好相反：人绝对不是物，人主宰物，人观察物，而且观察得越仔细越好。一个想向上爬，另一个要往下凿。我想举几个在翻译领域因为对人与物间关系的看法不同而衍生出不同后果的例子。
1. Attachment是执着
佛教对中国的影响，比起基督教对西方的影响，应该是有过之而无不及的。我对翻译佛经的历史毫无研究，可是看样子许久以前，一个中文翻译看到经里的一个梵文字而把它译成<执着>； 另一个英文翻译看到同样的梵文字则把它说成<attachment>。 Attachment听起来比较温和，好像在心平气和地解释； 执着听起来比较严厉，好像在苦口婆心地警告。我们也可以从人与物的角度来看两者间的不同：attachment 重物；它指的是一个非我之物，或是我与物间的一种关系。执着则完全重人，因为只有人能执着，物不能执着。你可以反驳：<<其实执着指的是那个被人执着的非我之物。 >> 没错，可是这种说法并没有改变在中文里，此词的重点在人，不在物。
2. 太超过了
这个例子其实跟翻译无关。几年前，台湾的特侦组由于没有证据证明陈致中与父亲陈水扁的贪污案有关而放行他与妻子黄睿靖到美国来念书。后来陈黄两人回台面对指控，在机场里黄睿靖语重心长地说: <<特侦组的做法太超过了!>> 一夜间<太超过了> 这四个字大红起来，变成许多人笑闹的口头禅。为什么黄睿靖要说<太超过了> 当她可以说<太过分了> ? 因为她不愿得罪特侦组。要是她说<太过分了>，她是在批评特侦组的人；<太超过了> 仅仅批评特侦组的行为--物--而已。她显然是在仔细地考虑后才说出机场的那些话。我不知道黄睿靖有没有对台湾社会做出其它的贡献，至少她三思后行，爱罪犯恨罪犯犯的罪的那番基督徒苦心是可圈可点的。
3. Irony 是讽刺
把irony 广泛地译成讽刺应该是一个无争议的事实，可是这种做法是否正确？在Merriam-Webster 字典里，irony 有这样的意思：incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result，可是在中文里讽刺没有这种清描淡写<此事在人意料之外> 的意思。这又是一个中文重人不重物的例子。我们可以说假如一个人要讽刺的话，他的语言文字会有讽刺性的；可是当我们看到或听到好像带有讽刺性的语言文字时，我们不能一口咬定这人一定在讽刺；我们只能说：<<此人的语言文字跟我意料中的有出入。其实这也是最合逻辑的说法。
Eric Chiang
Chinese <> English Translator and Interpreter
e-mail: chiang.eric@ymail.com
The Xiada Model for Interpreter Training
[Editor’s Note: A version of this article originally appeared in the June 2011 issue of the Translation Journal. It is reprinted here with permission]
Abstract
With no pretense to exhaustivity, this brief article aims at introducing a model which is quite renowned in China, namely the Xiada model for interpreter training, and which may be combined with the already existing models in the Western world by interpreting trainees and trainers alike.
Introduction
Training interpreters requires a broad training approach that includes all the elements involved in the task. Since interpreting is a multi-task and complex activity (Pöchhacker 2004), several authors have felt the need to develop models which reflect the reality of interpreting and can serve as a theoretical underpinning to a course in interpreting skills. The best-known model is Gile's “Effort Model” (Gile 1985; 1988; 1997; 1999). Daniel Gile (1992; 1995) emphasizes the difficulties and efforts involved in interpreting tasks and the strategies needed to overcome them, observing that many failures occur even in the absence of any visible difficulty. He then proposes his Effort Models for interpreting which are "designed to help [interpreters] understand these difficulties [of interpreting] and select appropriate strategies and tactics. They are based on the concept of Processing Capacity and on the fact that some mental operations in interpreting require much Processing Capacity," (1992:191). Without delving any further into the study of Gile's Effort Model, which the reader may find in the relevant literature, in this brief article I will present another model, quite renowned in Asia, namely the Xiada model for Interpreter Training (Xiada stands for 厦门大学/Xiàmén dàxué or Xiamen University).
The Xiada model for Interpreter Training
The Xiada model for Interpreter Training follows a non-linear approach. Its main aim is to show that interpreting requires comprehension of the source language (SL) and reconstruction of the message in the target language (TL). This is made possible by an analysis of the discourse and cultural factors involved in the scenario. The model therefore shows the interaction of analyses of both the SL and the TL which, when combined with bringing to the fore the skills and techniques required of an interpreter, leads to successful interpreting.
These factors are represented in the following diagram:
This model was first proposed in Lin & Lei (2006). The authors provide the key to the model itself and illustrate how each component is essential in training future interpreters. Hereafter, I will report the explanation of this model as illustrated in Lin & Lei (2006).
C (SL+K) represents comprehension (C) of the SL which is facilitated by extra-linguistic or encyclopedic knowledge (K). This circle lies behind the others because the SL message initiates the whole interpreting act. The message moves in the direction of the horizontal arrow. Comprehension is the first and most important step towards a correct interpretation. Trainee interpreters should be aware of what comprehension entails. Language honing and enhancement is a life-long commitment. Beginners should dedicate a considerable amount of time and attention to developing their linguistic systems. Along with enhancing their language knowledge, from the very beginning students should be interested in, and deepen their cultural awareness of, a wide range of topics from politics to medicine. Indeed, "the topics and subject matter covered by professional interpreters are both wide ranging in variety and frequently detailed in content. It is, therefore, the job of those training new interpreters to expose them to a wide range of subject matters so as to enable them to embark on a programme of lifelong accumulation of knowledge," (Lin & Lei 2006: 5).
R (TL+K) represents reformulation (R) in the TL which is also informed by extra-linguistic or encyclopedic knowledge (K). This circle overlies the SL circle because the TL message must follow from the SL message. Reformulation may be regarded as both the second step towards interpretation and the ultimate achievement. It must be swift, if not immediate, especially in the simultaneous mode. Furthermore, the more accurate the rendering, clear the tone, appropriate the pace, style and volume, pleasant the voice, the more successful the reformulation will turn out to be.
A (D+CC) represents the analysis (A) which the interpreter uses both in the comprehension and reconstruction of the message. The analysis has two main components: discourse analysis (D) and cross-cultural understanding (CC). The two downward arrows show that A (D+CC) applies to both the other circles. Every trainee interpreter knows that meaning is more important than words per se (Danica Seleskovitch's «théorie interprétative de la traduction» (or «théorie du sens»)). In primis, students learn that their interpretation must match the original message at least in vocabulary, register and genre, and perhaps also with regard to tone and emotion. In time, trainee interpreters understand that effective communication occurs at the level of discourse, above the level of the phrase and sentences. Hence, the analysis ought to include cross-cultural references as well.
S represents the skills and techniques which interpreters resort to when performing their tasks in a professional manner. The triangle is superimposed upon all three circles because the special skills involved differentiate what an interpreter achieves from other types of bi-lingual activity. Some of the most important skills in simultaneous interpreting are multi-tasking, linearity, anticipation and information retention, sight interpreting, simultaneous interpretation with PowerPoint slides and coping tactics.
Prerequisites to become a qualified interpreter
Interpreting is a highly demanding linguistic activity from a cognitive and sociolinguistic point of view, an arduous and challenging task in which clients have high expectations of interpreters. To become a fully qualified interpreter and provide the client with efficient service eliciting positive feedback, an interpreter must have an impeccable degree of proficiency, seriousness and deontological professionalism. Anyone aspiring to become a professional interpreter must undergo an intense period of training and, according to Lin & Lei (2006), ought to have the following seven prerequisites:
- Proficiency in (at least) two languages.
Any aspiring interpreter should have a solid competence in both (all of) his working languages. For instance, a Chinese-Italian interpreter should perfectly master both languages, be able to grasp all the different linguistic nuances, have an acute linguistic sensitivity and a quick wording and phrasing system, let alone a wide vocabulary representing a vast array of semantic possibilities to choose from during the output.
- Broad knowledge.
A professional, highly qualified interpreter cannot merely rely on his linguistic competence; otherwise every bilingual could automatically be considered an interpreter, which is not the case. Interpreters should have an extensive encyclopedic knowledge, a keen interest in current affairs and a general interest in topics ranging from political affairs to scientific discoveries, constitutional matters, habits and customs of peoples, cosmology, cosmogony, astrology, geography, history and so forth. In short, an interpreter should know a little bit about everything without being an expert in any particular field (unless one decides to specialize in a given field). Interpreters always study throughout their whole career and have an intrinsic passion for learning and discovering new things, thus pursuing a commitment to life-long learning. They can find new things to learn everywhere and at all times, constantly increasing their knowledge. For efficient communication an interpreter should also be a cross-cultural expert.
- Mastery of interpreting techniques.
This is the essential key factor for any successful interpreter, because linguistic competence with vast knowledge alone is not enough, otherwise any highly-educated bilingual could end up becoming an interpreter.
- Outstanding memory.
Memory is another key factor in interpreting. During a conference or any other communicative event characterized by time constraints, interpreters de facto have no time to look words up in a dictionary. Hence, the stronger the memory, the more expressions the interpreter will be able to retrieve. Expressions include technical vocabulary, 成语/chéngyŭ (four-character classical Chinese proverbs or sayings), literary quotations and acronyms. Memory is an essential element for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, especially if the interpreter has a long ear-voice span (also known as décalage).
- Ability to quickly acquire and apply knowledge.
An interpreter may have to accept tasks requiring a highly technical vocabulary. Before a conference or any other communicative event, any interpreter regardless of how good or qualified s/he might be should always thoroughly study the topic of the event to make sure that the content of the speaker's message will be fully and appropriately conveyed. For the service to be successful, interpreters should use as efficiently as possible the time they spend in preparing for the event and should also have the ability to retrieve previously memorized information si opus sit during the interpreting task.
- Good physical and psychological conditions.
Interpreting, especially simultaneous interpreting, is an arduous and physically exhausting task. It puts quite a strain on cognitive skills. An interpreter must enjoy good physical health to endure long hours of working and continuously traveling from one place to another. The interpreter's psyche should also be very solid to put up with all the different types of pressure: performance anxiety, stage fright, nervousness and so forth. Interpreters should not be affected by any of these feelings in order to preserve a good quality service.
- Flexibility, quick reflexes and responsiveness.
These are the three ultimate characteristics of a good interpreter. Interpreters are like talking chameleons they should be able to adapt to every different situation, be flexible enough to understand all types of accents and be quick enough to correct any faulty statement uttered by the speaker or, in times of particular distress, by interpreters themselves.
Conclusion
This brief article has attempted to present the reader with a model for interpreter training, i.e. the Xiada model. This short introduction has by no means any pretense to exhaustivity, it merely aims at introducing a model for interpreter training (as illustrated by Lin & Lei 2006) to possibly generate a more complete picture of the characteristics or prerequisites required for becoming or performing the task of an interpreter.
References
Gile, Daniel. (1985). "Le modèle d'efforts et d'équilibre d'interprétation en interprétation simultanée", Meta, Vol. 30, Num. 1, pp. 44-8.
Gile, Daniel. (1988). "Le partage de l'attention et le 'modèle d'effort' en interprétation simultanée", The lnterpreters' Newsletter, Trieste, Università degli studi di Trieste, Num. 1, pp. 4-22.
Gile, Daniel. (1995). "Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation: an experiment", Target, 7: 1. 151-164
Gile, Daniel. (1997). "Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem", in J. H. Danks, G.M. Shreve, S.B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting, (pp. 196-214). London: Sage Publications.
Gile, Daniel. (1999). "Testing the Effort Models' tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting - a contribution", Journal of Linguistics, 23, 153-172.
Lin, Yuru and Lei, Tianfang. (2006). Interpreting Coursebook, Shanghai Foreign Language University Press.
Pöchhacker, Franz. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies, New York: Routledge.
Riccardo Moratto
Chinese <> English Translator and Interpreter
e-mail: riccardomoratto@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment