李小華

Translators are the unacknowledged facilitators of the world.

譯者是不被認(rèn)可的世界推動(dòng)者。

Did a mistaken translation put rovers1 on Mars？ In 1877 Giovanni Schiaparelli2， an Italian astronomer， used his then state-of-the-art telescope to view and describe what he called “canali” on the planet. English translators leapt3 on the discovery of what they rendered as “canals”. There followed a frenzy of speculation that Mars might be inhabited， which left a deep mark on the human imagination. To this day “Martian” is a synonym for alien life.

But the Italian word could also have been translated as “channels”. Which did Schiaparelli mean？ In some writings he was careful to discourage firm conclusions about life on Mars; in others， he encouraged exactly those conclusions. It is almost as though canali let him have both “channels” and “canals” in his mind at the same time.

The story is told in “Dancing on Ropes”4， Anna Aslanyan5’s new book about translators’ and interpreters’ roles at critical moments in history. It is full of lively stories like that of Schiaparelli’s canals. Ms Aslanyan is herself both a translator and interpreter （in the argot of the profession， the former works in writing， the latter in speech）， and enlists both practical experience and archival history. She leaves the reader with an awed respect for the translator’s task.

Ideally， interpreters are invisible， and two people who do not share a language will feel they are conversing directly. But this ideal is virtually unachievable. Speakers cut off their own interpreters. Listeners are rude to them， as if they （not the actual interlocutor6） had said something objectionable. The poor linguist7 in the middle can thus be tempted to clean up or soften a rude remark; Ms Aslanyan relates some enjoyable tales from the Russian interpreter for Silvio Berlusconi8， Italy’s bawdy former prime minister.

The job is draining. In “The Language Game”， Ewandro Magalh?es9， a Brazilian interpreter， described how， at the Nuremberg trials10， small booths11 hooked up with telephone wires were first used for interpretation into several languages. Staff got one day off in three， and shifts were capped12 at 45 minutes. Even so， an interpreter said， four months in Nuremberg made her feel ten years older. Perhaps only the Ottomans13， who made “dragoman14” a powerful job—the grand dragoman was simultaneously deputy foreign minister—gave interpreters the respect they deserve.

Translation is different： usually solitary， seemingly more leisurely， but now under tremendous economic pressure. In the digital era， everyone competes with everyone and buyers often simply take the lowest bid （or Google Translate）. The literary work that cannot be done by a faceless contractor or a machine may not always pay the bills， but it at least provides stimulation. Ms Aslanyan recalls trying to transpose a Russian spoken in rural Ukraine into an English that carried the same tones; after she and a collaborator considered and rejected a Scottish inflection15， they went with snatches16 of West Country17 English. Since 2016 the overseers of the International Booker Prize for fiction have split the prize-money equally between authors and their translators.

Ms Aslanyan says a mistranslation also played a role in America’s atomic bombing of Japan in 1945. An official statement said that the Japanese would “mokusatsu18” the Potsdam Declaration that called on Japan to surrender. The verb can mean things including “to offer no comment on” and “to kill with silence”， but also “to treat with silent contempt”. The Americans leaned towards the latter interpretation—a defiant insult—helping seal19 Hiroshima’s fate.

Devotees of Esperanto20， an artificial language， have long hoped that understanding would promote peace between peoples. Douglas Adams21， author of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”， satirically took the opposite stance. In his fantasy， the Babel Fish—which， once stuck in your ear， instantly provides perfect translation of all languages—is responsible for more wars than anything else in history.

But the most eloquent comment on translation may come from José Ortega y Gasset22， a Spanish philosopher whom Ms Aslanyan cites. Two words in two languages are never exact translations of each other， he said. More than that， though， no two people mean the same thing by the same word （with the possible exception of some scientific terms）.? Translation， therefore， is a “utopian” endeavour， an impossible act of perfect mind-reading23. That does not mean it should not be attempted—but those who try should be “good utopians” who know they can never succeed.

是誤譯把漫游車(chē)送上了火星嗎？1877年，意大利天文學(xué)家喬范尼·夏帕雷利使用當(dāng)時(shí)最先進(jìn)的望遠(yuǎn)鏡觀察并描繪了火星上他所稱(chēng)的canali。英語(yǔ)翻譯人員匆忙之中，將此發(fā)現(xiàn)譯為“運(yùn)河”。隨之人們紛紛猜測(cè)火星上可能有生命存在，這對(duì)人類(lèi)的想象產(chǎn)生了深刻影響。至今“火星人”還是外星生命的代名詞。

但這個(gè)意大利語(yǔ)單詞本也可以譯為“水道”?？上呐晾桌烤瓜氡磉_(dá)哪個(gè)意思？他在一些著述中謹(jǐn)言慎語(yǔ)，避免人們得出火星上有生命的確切結(jié)論，而在其他著述中，他引導(dǎo)人們得出的恰恰是一些那樣的結(jié)論。似乎在他的腦子里，canali兼有“水道”和“運(yùn)河”兩層意思。

這個(gè)故事寫(xiě)進(jìn)了安娜·阿斯蘭揚(yáng)的新書(shū)《繩索上的舞蹈》。書(shū)中講述了筆譯員和口譯員在各種歷史緊要關(guān)頭所起的作用，全是諸如夏帕雷利的運(yùn)河那樣生動(dòng)的故事。阿斯蘭揚(yáng)女士本人既做筆譯，也做口譯（用譯界的行話(huà)來(lái)說(shuō)，前者干的是筆頭的活兒，后者是口頭的），既依靠實(shí)際經(jīng)驗(yàn)，也仰賴(lài)歷史檔案。她令讀者對(duì)翻譯工作肅然起敬。

理想情況下，口譯員是隱而不現(xiàn)的;語(yǔ)言不通的兩個(gè)人會(huì)覺(jué)得他們是在直接交談?？蛇@個(gè)理想幾乎無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)。講話(huà)者常打斷自己的口譯員，聽(tīng)話(huà)者對(duì)他們很是無(wú)禮，好像是口譯員（不是實(shí)際對(duì)話(huà)者）的言語(yǔ)令人反感。這樣，夾在中間的口譯員往往會(huì)祛除或柔化粗言鄙語(yǔ);阿斯蘭揚(yáng)女士講述了一位俄語(yǔ)口譯員經(jīng)歷的幾件趣事，他所服務(wù)的意大利前總理西爾維奧·貝盧斯科尼時(shí)常出言污穢。

這件差事會(huì)讓人心力交瘁。巴西口譯員埃萬(wàn)德羅·馬加良斯在《語(yǔ)言游戲》一書(shū)中描述了在紐倫堡大審判中首次使用以電話(huà)線連接的小隔間進(jìn)行多語(yǔ)種口譯的情形。員工們工作兩天休息一天，輪班時(shí)間上限為45分鐘。一位口譯員曾說(shuō)，即便如此，她在紐倫堡的4個(gè)月，讓她感覺(jué)一下子老了10歲。也許只有奧斯曼人給予了譯員應(yīng)有的尊重，他們讓譯員成為一種擁有巨大權(quán)力的職業(yè)，因?yàn)樗麄兊氖紫g員同時(shí)還是外交部副部長(zhǎng)。

筆譯工作則不同，通常是獨(dú)立完成，看似更為從容，而當(dāng)下負(fù)有巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)壓力。在數(shù)字時(shí)代，人人相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，而雇主往往只認(rèn)最低價(jià)（或“谷歌翻譯”）。不知名的承包人和機(jī)器不能做的文學(xué)翻譯工作，不見(jiàn)得總能讓譯者應(yīng)付日常開(kāi)銷(xiāo)，但至少有激勵(lì)作用。阿斯蘭揚(yáng)女士回憶說(shuō)，有一次她試著把烏克蘭鄉(xiāng)下說(shuō)的俄語(yǔ)譯成語(yǔ)氣相同的英語(yǔ)。她與合作者曾考慮過(guò)使用蘇格蘭英語(yǔ)方言，最后還是放棄了，只好零零碎碎地使用了英格蘭西南部的英語(yǔ)土語(yǔ)。從2016年起，“國(guó)際布克文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)”的主辦方把獎(jiǎng)金平分給作者和譯者。

阿斯蘭揚(yáng)女士表示，誤譯在1945年美國(guó)用原子彈轟炸日本事件中起了作用。曾有官方報(bào)告指出，日本人將“默殺”敦促日本投降的《波茨坦公告》。這個(gè)動(dòng)詞有多層含義，包括“不予評(píng)論”和“置之不理”，還可以是“無(wú)聲蔑視”的意思。美國(guó)人則傾向于后一種解釋?zhuān)刺翎呂耆?，這最終決定了廣島的命運(yùn)。

人造語(yǔ)言世界語(yǔ)的熱衷者向來(lái)都希望，理解能促進(jìn)各民族和睦相處。諷刺的是，《銀河系漫游指南》的作者道格拉斯·亞當(dāng)斯卻站在了相反的立場(chǎng)上。在他的奇幻故事中，一旦“巴別魚(yú)”塞進(jìn)耳朵，它會(huì)即刻提供所有語(yǔ)種的完美翻譯——可是，歷史上因它而起的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)比其他原因都多。

然而，西班牙哲學(xué)家何塞·奧特加·伊·加塞特對(duì)翻譯的評(píng)論可能最具說(shuō)服力。阿斯蘭揚(yáng)女士援引他的話(huà)說(shuō)，不同語(yǔ)言中的兩個(gè)詞絕對(duì)沒(méi)有完全對(duì)等的翻譯。不僅如此，沒(méi)有兩個(gè)人用同一個(gè)詞指同一件事（可能某些科學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)除外）。因此，翻譯是“空想家”的追求，是一項(xiàng)不可能做到的完美讀心術(shù)。這并不意味著不應(yīng)該嘗試，但那些知其不可為而為之的人，必定是“優(yōu)秀的空想家”。

（譯者為“《英語(yǔ)世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)?單位：青島科技大學(xué)外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院）