Page 65 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 65
This is a case of adding a transitional sentence to the what was actually being said, in order to break the code and start the
show. The word “assume” in this context implied two speech acts: one to express what Dr. Levin had supposed and the other,
to immediately and conveniently start the introduction. However, its Chinese equivalent “假设”, usually only corresponds to the
first act, with no implication to introduce the next move. If the translation stopped here followed by no supplementary clauses, it
would sound incomplete and even subtly impolite in Chinese. Of course, it would be simpler to translate the sentence into “那我
就当大家对瑞典公共行政管理一无所知了” in the first place, so that there would be “no strings attached”, but it would also sound
slightly inappropriate in register.
Source: OK, so much for the supremacy of the EU law. We also have what people call the four freedoms, which are the basic
elements for the free flow of an EU common market. They refer to the free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Target: 好的，刚刚讲的就是关于国家主权如何合法受限的一个方面，就是国家法让位于欧盟法，那么现在介绍第二个方面，就是
主权如何合法地被限制，空洞化的第二个方面就是，四种自由。这四种自由是欧洲共同市场能够自由流通的基本因素。它们包括
人力资源、商品、服务和资本的自由流动。
This is another case of adding necessary words and expressions as links to present the rendition as more logical and organized to
the target audience. It is natural for the speaker to skip over signal phrases and jump right onto the focal points when he is relying on
key terms highlighted on the slides. It is therefore the responsibility of the interpreter to help organize the aforesaid points by putting in
“road signs”, re-covering key words mentioned earlier, so as to guide audience to follow the speech in a logical and sensible way.
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？
This case was presented earlier in 3.1 to demonstrate the principle of formality as it reflected a change of register in Dr. Levin’s
presentation. As the speaker’s register moved from a formal style to a consultative one, the author was also expected to fine-tune her
rendition to be communicative and clear-cut. Repeated words and expressions that do not strike as principal, would be better off if
cut off in the rendition. But the interpreter’s judgment call on the “dispensability” of these words and expressions should be based on
discretional discourse analysis within the context.
Source: So it is the combination of these factors that explains the EU membership. But in fact, before we decided to join the
European Union, the people who presented EU as a supranational power rivaling the United States, are using it as an argument
against membership.
Target: 所以刚刚提到的那些因素都是使人们投票加入欧盟的原因。但事实上呢，在我们投票的时候，反对派的那些人，他们不赞
成让瑞典加入欧盟的一个原因，就是不应该认为，只要加入欧盟这个超组织，这个超国家组织，就能抗衡美国了。换言之，他们
把这个原因作为拒绝加入欧盟的理由。
This case serves to demonstrate how the author attempted re-organization by reversing the sequence of utterances of the source
language. Dr. Levin stated the fact by following a regular grammatical order of the English language—subject + predicative + object +
object complement. But this order is not applicable in Chinese, particularly when the attributive clause for the subject—“who presented
EU as a supranational power rivaling the United States” functioned as a main component in the rendition. In addition, the predicative
component in English would be better conveyed if it was re-structured as the subject in Chinese. To make it sound more semantically
logical, the author gave up on the grammatical order of the source language.
Chapter Four Conclusion
This practice report describes a consecutive interpreting assignment for one of the Guangdong-Stockholm civil servant training
workshops in June, 2011. In organizing this description, an attempt has been made to review the assignment in a logical order
that moves chronologically through a “conference cycle”, from before the workshop to during and after. The review highlights the
importance of early preparation of both glossary building and knowledge structuring, and of final preparation of a “mind-map” that
allows immediate associations and contextualization of updated terms from the given documents. In the assignment, three dimensions
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 65
show. The word “assume” in this context implied two speech acts: one to express what Dr. Levin had supposed and the other,
to immediately and conveniently start the introduction. However, its Chinese equivalent “假设”, usually only corresponds to the
first act, with no implication to introduce the next move. If the translation stopped here followed by no supplementary clauses, it
would sound incomplete and even subtly impolite in Chinese. Of course, it would be simpler to translate the sentence into “那我
就当大家对瑞典公共行政管理一无所知了” in the first place, so that there would be “no strings attached”, but it would also sound
slightly inappropriate in register.
Source: OK, so much for the supremacy of the EU law. We also have what people call the four freedoms, which are the basic
elements for the free flow of an EU common market. They refer to the free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Target: 好的，刚刚讲的就是关于国家主权如何合法受限的一个方面，就是国家法让位于欧盟法，那么现在介绍第二个方面，就是
主权如何合法地被限制，空洞化的第二个方面就是，四种自由。这四种自由是欧洲共同市场能够自由流通的基本因素。它们包括
人力资源、商品、服务和资本的自由流动。
This is another case of adding necessary words and expressions as links to present the rendition as more logical and organized to
the target audience. It is natural for the speaker to skip over signal phrases and jump right onto the focal points when he is relying on
key terms highlighted on the slides. It is therefore the responsibility of the interpreter to help organize the aforesaid points by putting in
“road signs”, re-covering key words mentioned earlier, so as to guide audience to follow the speech in a logical and sensible way.
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？
This case was presented earlier in 3.1 to demonstrate the principle of formality as it reflected a change of register in Dr. Levin’s
presentation. As the speaker’s register moved from a formal style to a consultative one, the author was also expected to fine-tune her
rendition to be communicative and clear-cut. Repeated words and expressions that do not strike as principal, would be better off if
cut off in the rendition. But the interpreter’s judgment call on the “dispensability” of these words and expressions should be based on
discretional discourse analysis within the context.
Source: So it is the combination of these factors that explains the EU membership. But in fact, before we decided to join the
European Union, the people who presented EU as a supranational power rivaling the United States, are using it as an argument
against membership.
Target: 所以刚刚提到的那些因素都是使人们投票加入欧盟的原因。但事实上呢，在我们投票的时候，反对派的那些人，他们不赞
成让瑞典加入欧盟的一个原因，就是不应该认为，只要加入欧盟这个超组织，这个超国家组织，就能抗衡美国了。换言之，他们
把这个原因作为拒绝加入欧盟的理由。
This case serves to demonstrate how the author attempted re-organization by reversing the sequence of utterances of the source
language. Dr. Levin stated the fact by following a regular grammatical order of the English language—subject + predicative + object +
object complement. But this order is not applicable in Chinese, particularly when the attributive clause for the subject—“who presented
EU as a supranational power rivaling the United States” functioned as a main component in the rendition. In addition, the predicative
component in English would be better conveyed if it was re-structured as the subject in Chinese. To make it sound more semantically
logical, the author gave up on the grammatical order of the source language.
Chapter Four Conclusion
This practice report describes a consecutive interpreting assignment for one of the Guangdong-Stockholm civil servant training
workshops in June, 2011. In organizing this description, an attempt has been made to review the assignment in a logical order
that moves chronologically through a “conference cycle”, from before the workshop to during and after. The review highlights the
importance of early preparation of both glossary building and knowledge structuring, and of final preparation of a “mind-map” that
allows immediate associations and contextualization of updated terms from the given documents. In the assignment, three dimensions
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 65
