CATTI成绩查询入口 CATTI考试公告栏 CATTI考试报名入口
公众号:高斋翻译学堂 公众号:高斋外刊双语精读
第28届韩素音青年翻译比赛汉译英原文及参考译文
文章来源:中国翻译协会 发布时间:2019-06-28 12:11 作者:中国翻译协会 点击:

第28届韩素音青年翻译比赛汉译英原文及参考译文

参考译文及评析—(下)汉译英

汉译英竞赛原文

屠呦呦秉持的,不是好事者争论的

 随着诺贝尔奖颁奖典礼的临近,持续2个月的“屠呦呦热”正在渐入高潮。当地时间7日下午,屠呦呦在瑞典卡罗林斯卡学院发表题为“青蒿素——中医药给世界的一份礼物”的演讲,详细回顾了青蒿素的发现过程,并援引毛泽东的话称,中医药学“是一个伟大的宝库”。

对中医药而言,无论是自然科学“圣殿”中的这次演讲,还是即将颁发到屠呦呦手中的诺奖,自然都提供了极好的“正名”。置于世界科学前沿的平台上,中医药学不仅真正被世界“看见”,更能因这种“看见”获得同世界对话的机会。拨开层层迷雾之后,对话是促成发展的动力。将迷雾拨开、使对话变成可能,是屠呦呦及其团队的莫大功劳。

但如果像部分舆论那样,将屠呦呦的告白简单视作其对中医的“背书”,乃至将其成就视作中医向西医下的“战书”,这样的心愿固然可嘉,却可能完全背离科学家的本意。听过屠呦呦的报告,或是对其研究略作了解就知道,青蒿素的发现既来自于中医药“宝库”提供的积淀和灵感,也来自于西医严格的实验方法。缺了其中任意一项,历史很可能转向截然不同的方向。换言之,在“诺奖级”平台上促成中西医对话之前,屠呦呦及其团队的成果,正是长期“对话”的成果。

而此前绵延不绝的“中西医”之争,多多少少都游离了对话的本意,而陷于一种单向化的“争短长”。持中医论者,不屑于西医的“按部就班”;持西医论者,不屑于中医的“随心所欲”。双方都没有看到,“按部就班”背后本是实证依据,“随心所欲”背后则有文化内涵,两者完全可以兼容互补,何必非得二元对立?屠呦呦在演讲中坦言,“通过抗疟药青蒿素的研究历程,我深深地感到中西医药各有所长,两者有机结合,优势互补,当具有更大的开发潜力和良好的发展前景”。这既是站在中医药立场上对西方科学界的一次告白,反过来也可理解为西医立场上对中医拥趸们的提醒。毋宁说,这是一个科学家对科学研究实质的某种揭示。

科学研究之艰深莫测,科学家多有体认,作为旁观者的我们也屡屡耳闻。而科学研究所需要的思维方式,人们未必有足够认识。对屠呦呦和她的团队,做出的学问未必人人能学,其治学的精神和观念却很值得借鉴。这既包括“几十年磨一剑”的硬功夫,也包括一种巧妙平衡的思维方式。

这种思维方式,就体现在其对中西医有机的结合。表面上,这是两种科学体系的对话,而实质上,这也是两种思维方式的平衡——从中医传统中寻觅灵感,屠呦呦们的想象力值得叹服;用西学方法做论证,屠呦呦们的理性思维亦值得重视。想象力与理性思辨的高度平衡,恰恰是优秀科学家具备的关键素质。这两者的平衡,使他们的创新从不是漫谈空想,而实证又绝不会死气沉沉。(朱珉迕《解放日报》2015 年12 月9日)

参考译文

Dispersing the Shroud over Tu Youyou's Achievement

As the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony draws near, Tu Youyou’s two months in the spotlight is reaching its crescendo. On the afternoon of December 7, Tu delivered a speech entitled “Artemisinin – A Gift from Traditional Chinese Medicine to the World” at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Quoting Mao Zedong’s saying that Chinese medicine and pharmacology is “a great treasure-house”, Tu walked the audience through her breakthrough discovery of the anti-malarial compound artemisinin.

Both the speech, delivered in the Mecca of natural sciences, and the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Tu are celebrated as a vindication of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Not only has Chinese medicine and pharmacology gained international recognition at the forefront of medical research, but it is also now part of a dialogue involving the international medical community. This dialogue has been made possible thanks to the milestone contribution by Tu and her team in removing the mystery surrounding TCM, and promoting communication across medical fields to advance medical research.

Some media have interpreted Tu’s speech as an endorsement of TCM, and some even portray her achievements as a challenge to Western medicine. Such views, while well-intentioned, run counter to what Tu truly means. A passing familiarity with her speech or a cursory knowledge of her research convinces us that the discovery of artemisinin benefited from both TCM and Western medicine, with the former being the source of inspiration and cumulative knowledge, and the latter providing the methodology of rigorous experimentation. If either were lacking, events could very possibly have taken a different turn. It is therefore fair to say that the accomplishments of Tu and her peers came from the interaction between TCM and Western medicine, a relationship that had begun long before Tu won the Nobel Prize.

The perennial debate over TCM versus Western medicine has, to some extent, drifted from constructive interaction into a race for supremacy. Advocates of TCM dismiss the prescriptive mechanical procedures of Western medicine as being inflexible. Proponents of Western medicine spurn the apparent whims of TCM as being arbitrary. Chinese practitioners ignore that the rigid western approach is grounded in solid empirical study, while Western practitioners fail to appreciate that the flexible Chinese approach is rooted in time-honored culture. Why must we pit them head-to-head when they can, in fact, be complementary and mutually reinforcing?

In her speech, Tu pointed out, “Through my research of artemisinin, I feel that Chinese and Western medicine are complementary, each with its own advantages. The combination of the two will boost the prospects and potential for development.” This is as much a statement from a TCM scientist to Western academia promoting recognition of TCM, as one from a beneficiary of Western medicine to TCM advocates on the value of modern science. Indeed, the Nobel laureate has shed some light on the nature of scientific work.

Many scientists have learned first-hand how challenging and unpredictable academic research can be, a fact even we non-scientists can appreciate. Yet what we may not be cognizant of is the thought process such research demands. While few people can aspire to what Tu and her team have accomplished, there is much we can gain from their professionalism and dedication. They are true believers in the old Chinese saying “It takes decades to make a great sword.” The determination they have demonstrated coupled with holistic thinking deserves applause.

Such an approach represents an integration of TCM and Western medicine. It aims to promote interaction between the two systems, and more importantly, a connection between the two ways of thinking. Tu and like-minded people are creative enough to draw inspiration from TCM, and rigorous enough to adopt evidence-based Western medicine. The ability to strike a balance between imagination and critical thinking is a key trait of eminent scientists. This balance not only prevents creativity from being fantasy, but also breathes life into the mechanics of empirical study.

(集体讨论,陶庆执笔)

译文评析

为大于细 涓涓不壅

陶庆 郭鸿杰

本届韩素音青年翻译奖汉译英竞赛的原文节选自《解放日报》2015年12月9日署名朱珉迕的一篇短文,题为《屠呦呦秉持的,不是好事者争论的》。文章围绕屠呦呦获得诺贝尔奖这一社会热点问题,探讨中国传统医学与国际接轨的问题。文章指出屠呦呦之所以取得如此巨大的成就,乃得益于中西医学科学的优势互补和东西方思维方式的有机结合。文章观点清晰,言简意赅,行文流畅。如何准确理解原文内含,尤其是如何把握中文字词在不同语境中的含义,梳理逻辑关系,然后用通顺地道的英文再现原文的表现力是翻译成败的关键。

此次竞赛主办方共收到译文595篇,参赛选手展示了各种不同的翻译风格,参差不齐的翻译质量和职业素养。评审小组以职业译者的标准对参赛译文进行了多轮次严格筛选,反复权衡,综合比较,最后一致决定本届汉译英竞赛一等奖作品空缺,二等奖作品3篇,三等奖作品8篇以及优秀奖作品24篇。针对此次参赛译文所反映出的一些共性问题,以下试从译前准备、词语选择、语篇逻辑、语法隐喻等4个方面进行分析总结。

一、译前准备

翻译程序对于翻译质量的重要性不言而喻。无论是英译中,还是中译英,翻译程序大致可以归纳为3个步骤:译前准备、着手翻译和校对反馈。不少译者通常把大部分精力放在后两个环节上,而对第一个环节重视不够。有经验的译者往往会在动笔之前先做足功课,从反复阅读原文到上网查找资料(万兆言,2012;Malmqvist,2006),蒐索各类资源,所谓兵马未动,粮草先行。反之,尚未做好译前准备就仓促动手翻译,往往导致差错频频,影响译文质量。

此次汉译英竞赛原文中有几处直接引用他人的讲话或发言,这些内容国际媒体均有大量报道,屠呦呦团队也提供了相应的英文翻译。因此,首先应该细致查阅,找出原始译文的出处并作为参考,除非原始译文有明显错误,否则不必另起炉灶。例如,原文第一段末尾处是这样写的,“‘中医药学’是‘一个伟大的宝库’。”多数参赛者未采用屠呦呦演讲幻灯片演示中采用的英文短语“Chinese medicine and pharmacology”和“a great treasure-house”,而是译成“Chinese medicine”、“traditional Chinese medicine”、“a great treasure”、“a magnificent/grand treasury”、“a great treasure trove/vault”,凡此种种,不一而足。这些并非都是错译,但直接引用原译更准确、更权威。

另外,这篇文章的发表时间是2015年12月9日,彼时诺奖颁奖典礼尚未举行,而屠呦呦的演讲已经完成。一些译者忽视了相关事件发生的时间顺序,导致译文出现不应有的时态错误。

出现以上情况或许与译者的语言功底无关,却颇能反映译者的工作习惯和职业素养,姑且不论译文优劣,仅就工作态度而言,不少参赛者仍有改进余地。专家评审组从职业译者的角度来评定参赛作品,希望强调译前准备的重要性,故将此作为筛选佳作的评判标准之一。

二、辨义遣词

在中国学生学习英文过程中,尤其是在学习的初始阶段,词汇量常常被作为考核英文水准的一个重要指标。甚至不少人简单地认为词汇量大,英文水准必然就高,汉译英的能力自然就强。其实这是一种认识误区。对于汉译英最重要的是活跃词汇量(active vocabulary),也就是陆谷孙先生所谓的心理词汇库存(陆谷孙,2009)。能灵活使用单词写出地道的句子、再连句成文方见真功夫;而串词成句的本领绝非仅仅通过查阅几本词典或翻阅语法书籍就能立竿见影地掌握,必须以大量的阅读输入和写作输出为基础,英文水准的提高绝非朝夕之功。

傅雷曾经说过汉民族与西方民族的mentality相差太远,“外文都是分析的,散文的,中文却是综合的,诗的。这两个不同的美学原则使双方的词汇不容易凑合。”(转引自何刚强,2003:131)

此次汉译英的参赛译文中,有相当数量的译文或多或少存在“逐词死译”,识其字而不得其意。究其原因,一方面是由于词汇学习尚停滞在“词典+语法”层面,死死抱住常见的词典释义,翻译时亦步亦趋,不敢越雷池半步;另一方面是由于英文学习过程中孤立地记忆单词而忽视搭配及英文语言习惯所致,导致译文艰涩拗口,似通非通。以下试举两例:

原文:对中医药而言,无论是自然科学“圣殿”中的这次演讲,还是即将颁发到屠呦呦手中的诺奖,自然都提供了极好的“正名”。

参考译文:… Both the speech, delivered in the Mecca of natural sciences, and the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Tu are celebrated as a vindication of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).

评析:通过分析上下文可知,为中医提供“正名”机会的是屠呦呦获得诺奖这件事,而不是奖项本身,因此“the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Tu”更能准确地传达原文的语义。不少参赛选手直接翻成“the award”或“the Nobel Prize”等,未能充分达意。

原文:拨开层层迷雾之后,对话是促成发展的动力。将迷雾拨开、使对话变成可能,是屠呦呦及其团队的莫大功劳。

参赛译文1:... Dialogue becomes a driving force behind the development after things are cleared up. It is Tu Youyou and her team who greatly contribute to making such dialogue possible.

参赛译文2:... Dialogue is the driving force for development after fog is cleared away. It is the greatest contribution made by Tu Youyou and her team to clear away the fog and help the dialogue become possible.

参考译文:... This dialogue has been made possible thanks to the milestone contribution by Tu and her team in removing the mystery surrounding TCM, and promoting communication across medical fields to advance medical research.

评析:参赛译文1中的“the development”属于用词笼统,指代不清。没有添加限定词,第一个“dialogue”未讲清楚是什么对话,后面的“such dialogue”就更让人糊涂了。“对话”一词在原文中前后共出现7次,不少译者遇到该词,自始至终译成“dialogue”。合理的做法是应结合具体语境并兼顾英文的搭配习惯灵活处理,可以译作“dialogue”,亦可译作“interaction”。此处的“对话”是指中医与世界的接触、交流,不把这层意思交代清楚,“一个萝卜一个坑”照搬字典释义,容易产生模棱两可的英文句子。

再看第2个参赛译文。评析:此处的 “迷雾”并非气象学意义上的“雾”(fog),而是指外界对中医药缺乏认识和了解所造成的一种神秘感。所以英文单词“fog”、“mist”或更偏重消极意义的“miasma”等词都无法准确表达原文的确切含义。而“demystify”、“remove/unveil the mystery”等能较好地传达原文的神韵。

三、“文采陷阱”和“逻辑软肋”

一般而言,较之英译汉,汉译英时译者对原文的准确理解相对容易。事实上,由于中文写作传统上注重文采,有时即便是实用性文体,也追求文采优美,词藻华丽,乃至忽略文字表达的准确性,给翻译工作带来不少的麻烦(李长栓 2004)。中文文章中有时会出现一些逻辑不够严谨的表达方式,中文读者或许习以为常,不以为意,汉译英时则尤须警惕此类“逻辑软肋”。倘若不加处理照搬原文结构翻译成英文,轻则引起误解,重则贻笑大方。有经验的译者往往特别留意此类陷阱,翻译时需厘清逻辑关系,把握原文确切含义,必要时为了避免译文出现偏差只能“舍车保帅”。此次竞赛原文中便有此一例。

原文:双方都没有看到,“按部就班”背后本是实证依据,“随心所欲”背后则有文化内涵,两者完全可以兼容互补,何必非得二元对立?

参赛译文:Both sides fail to see that behind the seemingly “strictly following prescribed orders” there are evidence-based demonstrations, while behind the seemingly “doing as one pleases” there are cultural connotations. Since both of them can fully complement each other, then why bother to make both of them opposed?

参考译文:Chinese practitioners do not appreciate that the rigid western approach is grounded in solid empirical study, while Western practitioners fail to appreciate that the flexible Chinese approach is rooted in time-honored culture. Why do we have to pit them head-to-head against each other when they can, in fact, be complementary and mutually reinforcing?

评析:在处理这段文字时,许多选手也许把精力都集中在如何处理“按部就班”、“随心所欲”等四字格结构上,而忽略了句子间内在的逻辑关系,“双方都没有看到”不是用“both”就是用“neither”。仔细推敲原文,我们不难发现作者其实是指双方都只看到对己方有利的一点,却没有同时看到两点。也就是说,持中医论者没有看到“‘按部就班’背后本是实证依据”,而另持西医论者没有看到“‘随心所欲’背后则有文化内涵”;并非持中医论者和持西医论者全然不了解“按部就班”和“随心所欲”的价值。参赛译文中所采用的“Both sides fail to see”,“Neither side has ever seen”或“Neither seemed to have noticed”等表述,虽然在句子结构上与原文相似,实则偏离原文含义,有违原文译文效果对等/功能对等(functional equivalence)之原则。

四、语法隐喻

在把一种语码转换成另一语码的过程中,译者往往会面临表达原文意义的多种目的语语法形式、句型结构等。如果原文有两种或更多种译文,在这些译文中最靠近原文形式或意义的表达式可以看作是一致式,而与原文的结构或意义距离较远的则为隐喻式(参见黄国文,2009)。试举一例说明。

原文:这两者的平衡,使他们的创新从不是漫谈空想,而实证又绝不会死气沉沉。

参赛译文1:Only with such a quality, will their innovations not become pipe dreams, and will empirical research not become lifeless drudgery.

参赛译文2:It is this balance that distinguishes their innovation from casual assertions and pipe dreams, and breathes life into their empirical research.

参考译文:This balance not only prevents creativity from being fantasy, but also breathes life into the mechanics of empirical study.

评析:对文化问题的关注是继语言问题之后翻译实践中的又一重要方面。“世界文化交流史上重要里程碑”(王宏印,2004:65)——杨宪益、戴乃迭夫妇所译A Dream of Red Mansions(简称杨译本)和大卫·霍克斯与约翰·闵福德翁婿所译The Story of the Stone(简称霍译本),在西方学术界和民间的认同程度,霍译本远远超过杨译本(江帆,2007;王宁,2011)。谢天振(2013)、汪庆华(2015)等学者认为,中国文化要走出去,需要更多西方文化强势国家的读者参与,要让他们真正接受中国的文明和文化既要靠中国自己的翻译家,更需要依靠国外的资深翻译家。我们认为,在汉译英时,合理使用归化翻译策略,恰当借鉴异域独特的文化意象,一方面容易激活西方读者记忆中的相关图示和隐喻知识,让翻译作品“耐看”;另一方面可以从其他民族语言中汲取有益的语言养分。

参赛译文2和参考译文在翻译原文短语结构“绝不会死气沉沉”时选择了隐喻式,借用英语短语“breathe life into”。《圣经》中这样记载:“Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life – giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live.”(上帝用地上的尘土造成人形,将气息吹进泥人的鼻孔,这人就成了有灵魂的活人。)由此,这个短语负载了独特的《圣经》文化。相比较“not become lifeless drudgery”,基于《圣经》符号释义的breathe life into更雅致传神,更具感染力,也更容易引起英语读者的兴趣和共鸣。

其次,整体上看,原文是包含“从不是”、“绝不会”两个否定词的复合句。很多参赛译文中也相应出现了含有“never、not、by no means”等否定词的英语句式。而参赛译文2和参考译文并未采用和汉语一致的句式,而是采用了英语中“反话正说”的隐喻策略,“从不是”译为了prevent… from…,句式灵动;同样,“绝不会”也进行了转换处理。

结语

不少专家将翻译视为一种“技艺(craft)”(如Malmqvist, 2006等)。Pinkham(1998)指出:“Translation is not a science but a craft, and craftsmen in any field may have different opinions as to the best solution to a given technical problem.”陈文伯(2004)也称,技艺的提升有赖于实践,通过实践领悟翻译的门道。梓匠轮舆能与人规矩,不能使人巧。我们提供的参考译文并非唯一的正确答案,翻译也不存在唯一的正确答案。它是评审组成员反复讨论,斟酌取舍的结果,仅供同好参考并就教于方家识者。希望有志于翻译的读者在此基础上雕琢打磨出更好的译文。伎工于习,事成于勉。要想提高汉译英的技能和水准,唯有反复琢磨,勤奋砥砺,锤炼再三,舍此别无它途。最后,无论是译界的大师或小匠,都应真正做到为受众服务,此乃职业译者的根本。

参考文献

[1] 陈文伯. 译艺:英汉汉英双向笔译[M]. 北京:世界知识出版社,2004.

[2] 何刚强. 英汉口笔译技艺[M]. 上海:复旦大学出版社,2003.

[3] 黄国文. 语法隐喻在翻译研究中的应用 [J]. 中国翻译,2009 (1):5-9.

[4] 江帆. 他乡的石头记《红楼梦》百年英译史研究[D]. 上海:复旦大学,2007.

[5] 李长栓. 非文学翻译理论与实践[M]. 北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2004.

[6] 陆谷孙. 余墨二集[M]. 上海:复旦大学出版社,2009.

[7] 万兆言. 翻译程序之为用大矣——以第23届韩素音青年翻译奖汉译英一等奖译文为例[J]. 中国翻译,2012(3):113-116.

[8] 王宏印. 试论霍译体制之更易与独创[A]. 红楼译评——《红楼梦》翻译研究论文集比[C]. 天津:南开大学出版社,2004:65-80.

[9] 王宁. 文化走出去先要突破翻译困局[N]. 中国文化报,2011-11-16(3).

[10] 汪庆华. 传播学视域下中国文化走出去与翻译策略选择——以《红楼梦》英译为例[J]. 外语教学,2015(3):100-104.

[11] 谢天振. 中国文化走出去不是简单的翻译问题[N]. 社会科学报,2013-12-05 (6).

[12] Malmqvist, G. On the Craft of Translation [J]. Chinese Translators Journal, 2006 (1): 19-21.

[13] Pinkham, J. The Translator’s Guide to Chinese [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1998.

作者简介

陶庆,上海交通大学副教授,硕士生导师。研究方向:英汉互译。

郭鸿杰,上海交通大学副教授,硕士生导师。研究方向:社会语言学、英汉语言对比与翻译。

高斋翻译1.jpg

01电话 | 19909236459

微信:zhulili9966
QQ:1936295050