Page 62 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 62
the speaker.
Source: Before I move forward, I would like to point out the difference between sovereignty and autonomy. (writing the two
concepts on the whiteboard) So sovereignty is the formal legal right of any state to decide on laws that regulate matters within the
state. But autonomy has to do with its real capacity of actually doing so.
Target: 我想先点一点主权与自治两个概念的区别。首先，主权是......一个国家, 嗯, 拥有的......一种正式的......在其国家
本土内立法的......一种权力，而自治呢，则是这个国家实际操作，嗯, 或者说真正能实现这种立法权的一种能力表现。
Source: Now in terms of sovereignty, in terms of legally circumscribing a state sovereignty, the foremost principle is the principle of
the enshrining of EU law, that EU law has the supremacy over national law.
Target: 那国家主权如何被合法限制呢? 最首要的一个原则就是欧盟法律是至高无上的，它的权威是至高无上的，高于一切国家法
律。
Source: It is actually a very striking fact. Why would any country do that really? Why would it voluntarily put itself in a situation
where other countries could decide and legislate on their own affairs while itself has to be defined by the EU law? What do you
think?
Target: 所以这其实是很吃惊的，很难以让人相信的一个事实。为什么会有国家愿意让自己服从于欧盟法呢？你们是怎样看待这个
现象的呢?
These three consecutive segments witnessed the slight transition of Dr. Levin’s register from being a formal one, featured by the
presence of term definitions and the use of academic jargons, to being a consultative one, marked by an invitation to individual
thinking on the topic concerned that would lead to discursive dialogues. The author was aware of the definitions in making, but
was not able to accurately re-present the substance of these definitions (the subject) and the diction of speech (the occasion) in the
target language. It was a conceptual error to translate “legal right” into “权力”, which means “power” in English, when the term
was supposed to be translated into “合法的权利”. It was also problematic to reframe “in terms of legally circumscribing a state
sovereignty” into a question-based sentence “那国家主权如何被合法限制呢?”, wearing a conversational tone that suggested
open answers. But it was certainly not a question; rather it was definitive and conditional, indicating a certain perspective from
which the coming principle was derived. Considering its context, the whole segment could be translated as “从合法限制国家
主权的角度来看，奉行欧盟法至高无上的原则，甚至视欧盟法高于一切国家法律的原则，是最重要的。” The revised version
could thus better match the sense of occasion of the speaker when he stated the principle in a technical manner. Subsequently,
Dr. Levin continued to clarify the principle by dropping thought-provoking questions, changing his formal style to a consultative
one. Conscious of this slight register change, the author adjusted her diction following the principle of coherency, which will be
discussed later, by integrating and simplifying explanatory expressions into straightforward and clear-cut utterances.
Another dimension the interpreter needs to take into account when following the principle of formality is that her register should also
match that of the discourse generally employed by the audience, so as to become a facilitator from a mere translator in the sense of
“bridging the gap”. In the following are some of the cases where the English descriptions of a particular set of concepts should not be
readily or conveniently rendered into their Chinese “equivalents”, if there are any, since the renditions may appear not only awkward and
rigid to the ears, but also confusing to the knowledge of the civil servants.
Source: It is de-centralized both to the sub-national agencies, so that a lot of decision-making authorities delegate the power to
them; it is also de-centralized in the sense that a lot of work is actually done out in the municipalities.
Target: 这里讲的权力下放是指许多制定决策的中央机构会把权力委派给地级行政机构；另外大部分的工作实际上是由自治市来负
责的。
Source: It is rule-making in the sense that the laws of the land are made by the government and the elected officials, politicians.
Target: 这种观点同时包括，政府是决策制定者，也就是由选举出来的政治家来做制定规则。
Source: If each official in each ministry is evenly assigned with work in the year 2009, that means everybody would work at least
in Brussels for one working day per week, or one and half maybe. But it’s not distributed evenly. Some officials will travel more
frequently than others.
Target: Er, 按照2009年的数据来看呢，如果每个部，每个工作组，就是欧盟的瑞典工作组里面的每一个员工都被平均分配工作量
的话，那就意味着每个人每周在布鲁塞尔的工作时间就是一天，或者一天半吧。但事实上，并不是平均分配的，有些官员出差更
加频繁。
The recurring terms that these three independent segments contain are not concept-loaded vocabulary but culture-specific jargons
that are conventionalized by a certain public administration system. For example, “分权化”, the translation version established
in the Chinese paper for “de-centralized”, is an academically adorned term used in written language, and may thus sound
pedantic if it is uttered. Therefore, the author popularized it into “权力下放”, which is more commonly expressed in colloquial
Chinese. With regards to the references to authorities, the interpreter is expected to contextualize such terms as “sub-national
62 | Translation Journal - July 2015
Source: Before I move forward, I would like to point out the difference between sovereignty and autonomy. (writing the two
concepts on the whiteboard) So sovereignty is the formal legal right of any state to decide on laws that regulate matters within the
state. But autonomy has to do with its real capacity of actually doing so.
Target: 我想先点一点主权与自治两个概念的区别。首先，主权是......一个国家, 嗯, 拥有的......一种正式的......在其国家
本土内立法的......一种权力，而自治呢，则是这个国家实际操作，嗯, 或者说真正能实现这种立法权的一种能力表现。
Source: Now in terms of sovereignty, in terms of legally circumscribing a state sovereignty, the foremost principle is the principle of
the enshrining of EU law, that EU law has the supremacy over national law.
Target: 那国家主权如何被合法限制呢? 最首要的一个原则就是欧盟法律是至高无上的，它的权威是至高无上的，高于一切国家法
律。
Source: It is actually a very striking fact. Why would any country do that really? Why would it voluntarily put itself in a situation
where other countries could decide and legislate on their own affairs while itself has to be defined by the EU law? What do you
think?
Target: 所以这其实是很吃惊的，很难以让人相信的一个事实。为什么会有国家愿意让自己服从于欧盟法呢？你们是怎样看待这个
现象的呢?
These three consecutive segments witnessed the slight transition of Dr. Levin’s register from being a formal one, featured by the
presence of term definitions and the use of academic jargons, to being a consultative one, marked by an invitation to individual
thinking on the topic concerned that would lead to discursive dialogues. The author was aware of the definitions in making, but
was not able to accurately re-present the substance of these definitions (the subject) and the diction of speech (the occasion) in the
target language. It was a conceptual error to translate “legal right” into “权力”, which means “power” in English, when the term
was supposed to be translated into “合法的权利”. It was also problematic to reframe “in terms of legally circumscribing a state
sovereignty” into a question-based sentence “那国家主权如何被合法限制呢?”, wearing a conversational tone that suggested
open answers. But it was certainly not a question; rather it was definitive and conditional, indicating a certain perspective from
which the coming principle was derived. Considering its context, the whole segment could be translated as “从合法限制国家
主权的角度来看，奉行欧盟法至高无上的原则，甚至视欧盟法高于一切国家法律的原则，是最重要的。” The revised version
could thus better match the sense of occasion of the speaker when he stated the principle in a technical manner. Subsequently,
Dr. Levin continued to clarify the principle by dropping thought-provoking questions, changing his formal style to a consultative
one. Conscious of this slight register change, the author adjusted her diction following the principle of coherency, which will be
discussed later, by integrating and simplifying explanatory expressions into straightforward and clear-cut utterances.
Another dimension the interpreter needs to take into account when following the principle of formality is that her register should also
match that of the discourse generally employed by the audience, so as to become a facilitator from a mere translator in the sense of
“bridging the gap”. In the following are some of the cases where the English descriptions of a particular set of concepts should not be
readily or conveniently rendered into their Chinese “equivalents”, if there are any, since the renditions may appear not only awkward and
rigid to the ears, but also confusing to the knowledge of the civil servants.
Source: It is de-centralized both to the sub-national agencies, so that a lot of decision-making authorities delegate the power to
them; it is also de-centralized in the sense that a lot of work is actually done out in the municipalities.
Target: 这里讲的权力下放是指许多制定决策的中央机构会把权力委派给地级行政机构；另外大部分的工作实际上是由自治市来负
责的。
Source: It is rule-making in the sense that the laws of the land are made by the government and the elected officials, politicians.
Target: 这种观点同时包括，政府是决策制定者，也就是由选举出来的政治家来做制定规则。
Source: If each official in each ministry is evenly assigned with work in the year 2009, that means everybody would work at least
in Brussels for one working day per week, or one and half maybe. But it’s not distributed evenly. Some officials will travel more
frequently than others.
Target: Er, 按照2009年的数据来看呢，如果每个部，每个工作组，就是欧盟的瑞典工作组里面的每一个员工都被平均分配工作量
的话，那就意味着每个人每周在布鲁塞尔的工作时间就是一天，或者一天半吧。但事实上，并不是平均分配的，有些官员出差更
加频繁。
The recurring terms that these three independent segments contain are not concept-loaded vocabulary but culture-specific jargons
that are conventionalized by a certain public administration system. For example, “分权化”, the translation version established
in the Chinese paper for “de-centralized”, is an academically adorned term used in written language, and may thus sound
pedantic if it is uttered. Therefore, the author popularized it into “权力下放”, which is more commonly expressed in colloquial
Chinese. With regards to the references to authorities, the interpreter is expected to contextualize such terms as “sub-national
62 | Translation Journal - July 2015
