翻译漫谈：新闻翻译【3】

本文由Yurii原创，转载请注明来源： Life Sailor

原文

“BRITAIN does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community,” asserted Margaret Thatcher in 1988. Now, increasingly, it does. Opinion polls show that most Britons are in favour of leaving the European Union. Baroness Thatcher’s Conservative Party, which took Britain into Europe four decades ago, is divided between those who long for an arm’s-length relationship and those who want to walk out. The second camp is swelling.

Even the fiercest British critics of the EU are astonished by the speed at which things are moving. Parliamentary rebellions over Europe are becoming easier and easier to organise. Euroscepticism is hardening in the Conservative Party, in much the same way as social conservatism has gone from being a powerful current in America’s Republican Party to an intolerant orthodoxy. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which wants to leave the EU, has abruptly moved from the political margins to the mainstream. A referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU now seems a matter of timing.

Continental Europeans are surprised too—and annoyed. They are bewildered that the British should be talking of leaving a club that many believe has shifted decisively in a free-trading, Anglo-Saxon direction in the past two decades. They also resent the way Britain seems to be using the threat of an exit as a bargaining tool, especially at a time when the euro is in crisis. As they see it, Britain wants to carve out a privileged place for itself in the European club, where it can enjoy free trade without any of the other membership rules. In Berlin and Rome, political leaders argue that Britain needs to make up its mind once and for all: does it want to be in or out?

Oops!

For an economically liberal newspaper that has been sceptical of much that Brussels does, a British exit would be a double tragedy. Britons would suffer far more than they currently realise, as we explain in detail in our briefing this week. Europe would be damaged too. Britain has stood for free trade and low regulation, so without it the union would be more lethargic and left ever further behind by America and the emerging world.

The speediest way for Britain to tumble out would be an “In or Out” referendum called by a prime minister frightened by rising anti-Europe feeling in Parliament and the country as a whole. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, has tried to resist this, hinting instead that Britons would be given a choice between the status quo and a more detached relationship. But few are satisfied with that. Conservative MPs look over their right shoulders at UKIP and clamour for a sharper choice.

Another route out involves a diplomatic slip. The cleverer Eurosceptics, including Mr Cameron, do not want Britain to leave; they just want to bring back some powers from Brussels. But their efforts to do so are making things worse. Last year almost all other EU members lined up against Mr Cameron, who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis. The British now hope that tightening euro-zone integration provides a chance for Mr Cameron to negotiate looser ties. They could be wrong. Other countries are tiring of British demands. Many, including Germany, would prefer to avoid a British exit, but they are not so desperate to keep Mr Cameron in that they are prepared to concede much in the way of social and labour-market regulation. And some, such as France, might positively welcome the departure of the club’s most awkward member. Bad-tempered negotiations would increase the likelihood of an “out” vote in a British referendum.

Little sovereignty, large cost

And what if Britain left? It could grab a few benefits quickly. The nation would save about £8 billion ($13 billion) a year in net budget contributions. Freed of the common agricultural policy, its food could become cheaper. If it pulled out of the single market, it could do away with annoying labour directives. The City would not have to worry so much about a financial-transaction tax and creeping European finance rules.

Yet these gains would be greatly outweighed by the costs of a British exit, which would dent trade with a market that accounts for half of Britain’s exports. The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away, along with large parts of the financial-services industry. Britain would have to renegotiate dozens of bilateral trade deals from a much weaker position than it enjoyed as a member of the EU. It would cut a greatly diminished figure on the world stage. It would have bought some sovereignty, but at an extraordinary cost to Britain—and its partners.

Among those who want out, there is talk of finding an accommodation by which Britain would leave the EU but still trade freely with it (the equivalent of eating in a restaurant but not paying the cover charge). Some Eurosceptics suggest Britain could join Norway in the European Economic Area. That would leave it bound by EU regulations that it would be almost powerless to shape—a situation many Britons, especially Eurosceptics, would find intolerable. Others hope Britain might get the same deal as Switzerland, which is a little further removed but gets good access to the single market. It wouldn’t: the EU already regrets giving Switzerland the Swiss option, so it is scarcely likely to give bigger, more troublesome Britain the same deal. Again, disappointment and a referendum beckon.

Can anything be done to prevent this slow-motion disaster? Quite possibly, it can. Oddly, Mr Cameron should try emulating Baroness Thatcher. She is remembered today as a handbag-swinger who commanded Brussels to retreat, but she also knew how to make common cause with other European leaders. Unfortunately, the quality of British EU diplomacy has deteriorated in recent years. Obsessed with repatriating powers and with appearing tough to their domestic audience, Britain’s current leaders seem to have forgotten the art of dealmaking. Mr Cameron has a good case to make, especially when he argues for extending the single market to promote growth. He also has powerful sympathisers in Europe, including Germany’s Angela Merkel, but they seldom become useful allies because Britain is seen as a blackmailing zealot.

The other priority should be educating Britons about what exactly a British exit would really involve. Big business and the City, whose interests lie solidly inside the EU, need to take a stand. The Labour Party, which has been playing a cynical and dangerous game, also needs to change its line. In October Labour MPs voted with anti-European Tories over the EU budget, handing the government its first major defeat. By strengthening those who want to leave Europe, Labour is making it more likely that a Conservative government will have to promise an in-or-out referendum. If it does, Labour may be bounced into promising the same.

Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne. They need to remind Britons of the victories that have been won within the EU and of the dangers of falling out of it. And above all, they need to rediscover the virtues of muddling along and keeping options open. The referendum is a good example. Rushing to hold a simple in-or-out vote sounds clear and decisive. But stalling for time is wiser. The government should resist demands for a vote at least until it becomes clear what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave. This sort of wait-and-see approach may feel unsatisfactory, but it is what kept Britain out of the euro.

Britain’s position in Europe may become untenable, if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join. But that is not a certainty, and nor is Britain’s steady marginalisation. Difficult and often humiliating as it may be, the best course is to stick close to Europe, and try to bend it towards Britain.

译文及剖析

“英国并不梦想脱离欧洲，成为一个舒适却孤立的社区。” 玛格丽特·撒切尔夫人1988年时宣称。但是现在，这却逐步的成为现实。民意调查显示大多数英国人偏向于脱离欧盟。撒切尔夫人带领的保守党，40多年前将英国领进欧盟，现在正分裂成两派，一部分希望保持距离但维护关系，另一部分则希望脱离欧盟。而后者的阵营正在壮大。

European Community，原文是全大写的，所以是专有名词，指“欧共体”（欧盟前身）；assert有“断言、坚决主张”的意思，翻译为“宣称”力度减弱了；“这却逐步成为现实”意思模糊，原文的does是针对之前的dose not来说的，意思很明确，可翻译为“却日益脱离欧洲/走向当年的反面”；in favor of是“赞成”而不是“偏向于”；Baronness没有翻译出来，这里的Baronness Thatcher’s Conservative Party是一起的，用来表示“那个时代”的意思，所以应当翻译为“女爵士”；40年前，英国加入的是欧共体而不是欧盟；“撒切尔夫人带领的保守党，40多年前将英国领进欧盟，现在正分裂成两派”不符合中文习惯，且时态不对，可改为“撒切尔女爵的保守党曾在40年前率领英国加入欧共体，如今已分裂成两派”；之前说“分裂为两派”，之后就应当说“一派如何，另一派如何”；an arm’s-length relationship一般翻译为“‘正常’关系”或者“有限度的亲密关系”，这里也可翻译为“不要过于紧密”。

即使是英国最激烈的欧盟批评家也惊叹于事情发展的速度。反欧盟的议会越来越容易组织。保守党中的欧洲怀疑主义正在变强，正如美国共和党中的社会保守主义从主要力量到令人难以忍受的正统主义。想要脱离欧盟的英国独立党，突然从政治边缘走向主流。英国去留欧盟的公投，现在看来只是时间问题。

Parliamentary rebellion不是“反欧盟的议会”，而是“议会里的欧盟反对派/反对活动”；“正如美国共和党中的社会保守主义从主要力量到令人难以忍受的正统主义”太长，而且结构弄错了，in much the same way as可翻译为“这情形正好像/正如”，下面的意思是“社会保守派不再是美国共和党中的强大势力，而成了不容反对的正统”，intolerant不是“难以忍受”，而是“不容许反驳、不宽容”；“英国独立党”作为专有名词，应当括号注释出原文；wants翻译为“主张”更好；abruptly翻译为“忽然/出人意料”比“突然”要好；“走向主流”不如“成为主流”；a matter of timing翻译为“是迟早的事”比“只是时间问题”更地道些。

欧洲大陆也感到惊讶——并且烦恼。他们都感到很困惑，英国应该在二十年前，很多人毅然转移自由贸易，盎格鲁 – 撒克逊的方向的时候谈论离开俱乐部。他们也憎恨英国似乎把威胁退出作为讨价还价的工具，尤其是在欧元处于危机之中时。在他们看来，英国想在欧洲俱乐部为自己开拓出一个特殊的位置，在那里可以享受自由贸易却不用遵守任何其他的会员规则。在柏林和罗马，政治领导人认为，英国需要立刻下定决心，一劳永逸：去还是留？

annoyed不是“烦恼”，是“恼火”；第二句的意思完全弄错了，原文的意思是“过去20年里，欧盟的许多国家已经坚定地转向了盎格鲁-撒克逊式的自由贸易，英国现在竟然在讨论是否应当离开这个群体，欧陆各国对此十分困惑”；euro翻译为“欧元”是准确的；“开拓”与“位置”搭配不当，可改为“谋得”或“打造”；once and for all没有“立刻”的意思，直接翻译为“彻底”即可。

Oops! 啊哦！

对布鲁塞尔的所作所为一直持怀疑态度的经济自由派报纸表示，英国的退出将是一个双重悲剧。英国人的遭遇将坏到远非他们现在所能想象，具体情况我们将在这周的简报作出解释。欧洲也将受损。英国一直主张自由贸易，少量监管，所以缺少了它的联盟将更加了无生气，越来越落后于美国和新兴世界。

第一句翻译错了，没看出来newspaper指的就是这本杂志（后面说的our briefing this week可佐证），另外应当注明布鲁塞尔所在的比利时是这段时间的欧盟轮值主席国；a double tragedy的a不应翻译，直接说“双重悲剧”即可；the economist的briefing栏目翻译为什么名字，应当遵从习俗，如果没有专门的翻译，可参考现有杂志对应栏目的名字：“动态”、“快报”、“简报”，或保留原名不翻译也可；“欧洲也将受损”不通顺；low regulation翻译为“少量监管”搭配不当，可改为“宽松监管”；“联盟将更加了无生气”的搭配不当，可改为“联盟的活力更匮乏/低落”，left even further behind不是“越来越落后”，而是“越发落后”。

英国退出的最快方式将是举行由首相号召的“去留”公投。英国首相戴维·卡梅伦，对议会及全国范围内越来越高涨的反欧盟情绪感到害怕。他试图抵抗，暗示与其反欧盟，英国可以在现状和更超脱的关系中做一个选择。但几乎没人感到满意。保守党议员担心独立党，叫嚷着需要一个更清晰的选择。

第一句是个长句，翻译时应切断，它有几个部分，应当妥善组织：“公民和议员共同的反欧盟情绪高涨”，“这种情绪吓到首相”，“首相发起公投”，“这是英国脱离欧盟最快的办法”；之前只是做逻辑的分析，到第二句才说到现任首相卡梅伦，这类句子不能直接按英文结构翻译，可改为“曾试图抵抗这种情绪的英国首相卡梅伦暗示，”；instead不是“与其反抗”，而是“还有其他主张”的意思；detached翻译为“超脱”不如“松散”或“孤立”，因为”超脱“意指“置身事外（公平、公正）”；最后一句完全翻译错了，look over their right shoulders at UKIP中，look over不是固定搭配，over是与shoulders搭配的，意思是“保守党议员看着更右倾的UKIP”。

另一条出路则涉及到外交。聪明的欧洲怀疑论者，包括卡梅伦先生，都不希望英国退出，他们只是想从布鲁塞尔讨回更多的权力。但他们越这么努力，事情却变得越糟糕。去年，几乎所有其他欧盟成员都一致反对卡梅伦，尽管他竭力阻止财政紧凑以帮助解决欧元危机。英国现在希望欧元区整合的收紧能够给卡梅伦提供一个松绑谈判的机会。他们可能错了。其他国家已经对英国的要求感到厌倦。包括德国在内的许多国家都不希望英国退出，但他们也没有绝望到在社会和劳动力市场的监管方式上让步以留住卡梅伦先生。而另一些国家，比如法国，则会很高兴俱乐部中最麻烦的成员离开。愤怒的谈判更增加了英国全民公投“去”的可能性。

第一句的slip没翻译出来，这里的slip意思明显是the act or an instance of departing secretly，也就是“偷偷离开”；cleverer应翻译为“更聪明的”，直接翻译为“聪明”显得其他人都“不聪明”，有误；Eurosceptics开头大写，是专有名词，国内有翻译为”欧元怀疑派“的，如果不确认通行译法，需要在译文后用括号注明原文；“聪明的欧洲怀疑论者，包括卡梅伦先生，都不希望英国退出”不符合中文习惯，可改为“包括卡梅伦先生在内的更聪明的欧元怀疑论派都不希望英国退出”；bring back翻译为“讨回”色彩不对，可改为“拿回”；But their efforts to do so are making things worse没有“越…越…”的意思；去年其他欧盟成员反对卡梅伦的原因是who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis，也就是卡梅伦阻止一项旨在解决欧元危机的财政协约，这里把原文的意思彻底弄反了；“欧元区整合的收紧”中“收紧”意思不明，可能是抬高门槛也可能是紧密联系，应当用“欧元区的加强整合”；并不存在“松绑谈判”，原文的意思是“就更松散的关系协商”；“他们可能错了”不如“他们大概弄错了”；“他们也没有绝望到在社会和劳动力市场的监管方式上让步以留住卡梅伦先生”，这里看出了原文的so…that…结构，但desperate翻译错了，不是“绝望”而是“拼命”，所以可改为“他们也不愿赌上社会和劳动力市场监管方式的让步，以留住卡梅伦先生”；bad-tempered翻译为“愤怒的”不对，应该翻译为“在这种糟糕情绪下的”更好。

Little sovereignty, large cost 小主权，大成本

那么如果英国退出了欧盟呢？有几个好处迅速可以体现。英国每年可以节省大约8亿英镑（13亿美元）贡献给欧盟的净预算。脱离了共同农业政策，食物也会更便宜。退出了单一市场，就不用烦恼欧盟对劳动力的监管。金融城也不用担心太多金融交易税和逐渐上升欧洲财务规则。

8 billion单位弄错了，是80亿英镑，130亿美元；do away with是固定搭配，意思是“干掉/杀死”，所以不是“不用烦劳欧盟对劳动力的监管”，而是“再没有烦人/麻烦的劳动法规”；worry so much about中的much是用来修饰“担心”的，而不是“金融交易税”的，creeping也翻译错了，真正的意思是“进展缓慢”而不是“逐渐上升”。

然而，英国退出的成本将大大超过这些收益，出口贸易市场的一半将被削弱。把英国作为其欧洲业务基地的汽车制造商将逐渐撤离，大部分的金融服务行业也会随之撤离。英国将不得不以比欧盟成员弱得多的地位，重新进行几十个双边贸易谈判。英国在世界舞台上的影响也将急剧下降。退出也许能带来一些主权，但是英国——甚至欧盟都会付出惨重的代价。

“出口贸易市场的一半将被削弱”翻译错了，原文的意思有两个：“欧盟这个市场占据了英国出口的一半”，“英国退出给予这个市场的生意沉重一击”；“把英国作为其欧洲业务基地”累赘，可改为“以英国为欧洲业务基地”；“英国将不得不以比欧盟成员弱得多的地位”理解起来比较绕，可改为“失去了欧盟成员国身份，英国不得不以弱势得多的地位”；“急剧”的意思是“快而剧烈”，同时强调速度和程度，但原文只提到了程度，所以应该是“大为降低”；“带来一些主权”不如“拿回/获得部分主权”；partner不是“欧盟”，是“伙伴”。

那些要退出的人中，有人说英国可以在离开欧盟的同时保持与其自由贸易（相当于在餐馆吃饭却不付钱）。某些欧洲怀疑论者建议英国可以像挪威一样加入欧洲经济区。这样一来，英国就不能影响欧盟的法规而必须受欧盟约束了——这种情形，大多数英国人，尤其是欧洲怀疑论者都无法忍受。其他人则希望英国得到跟瑞士一样的待遇，虽然跟欧盟离得远，但还是在欧盟市场。但欧盟已经后悔给瑞士特权，所以几乎不可能给更大，更麻烦的英国同样的待遇。说来说去都是失望，只能全民公投了。

“英国就不能影响欧盟的法规而必须受欧盟约束了”这句话比较绕，原文的重点也不突出，可改为“英国就只有受欧盟法规约束的份，而没有参与制定的份了”；瑞士并不是“还在欧盟市场”，而是“与单一市场的交流相当方便”。

有没有什么措施能阻止这种慢动作的灾难？有的，很可能有。说来也怪，卡梅伦先生应该效仿撒切尔夫人。人们仍然记得她“铁娘子”的风范，命令布鲁塞尔撤退，但她也知道如何与其他欧洲国家领导人合作。不幸的是，近年来英国欧盟外交的质量越来越恶化。英国现在的领导人痴迷于遣返权力和以强势的姿态出现在国民面前，他好像忘了交易谈判的艺术。卡梅伦也不是没有道理尤其是在他支持扩展单一市场以促进增长时。他也强烈的同情欧洲，包括德国总理默克尔，但他们成不了强力的盟友，因为英国被看作是一个勒索狂。

“慢动作的灾难”不容易理解，可改为“缓慢发生的灾难”；Oddly的意思不是“说来也怪”，而是“相反”（因为撒切尔夫人给人印象都是强硬派，而上文说应当和欧盟搞好关系，所以这里给出“学习撒切尔夫人”的建议显得很奇怪），所以不妨改为“出乎大家意料”或者“反其道而行之”；handbag-swinger的意思是“挥舞手提包的人”，而不是“铁娘子”；commanded翻译为“命令”不及“喝令”；“英国欧盟外交的质量”翻译不对，应当是“英国对欧盟外交的质量”；“越来越恶化”应该较为“日益恶化”或者“越来越差”才通顺；“遣返权力”不对，应该是“拿会权力”；“交易谈判的艺术”累赘，直接说“谈判的艺术”即可；Mr Cameron has a good case to make的意思是“他可以大有作为”，而不是“卡梅伦也不是没有道理”；卡梅伦是“被欧洲同情”而不是“同情欧洲”。

还有一个可以优先考虑的措施就是告诉英国人，英国退出欧盟究竟意味着什么。利益依赖欧盟的大企业和金融城必须选择立场。一直愤世嫉俗，玩着危险游戏的工党，也必须改变他们的路线。十月份，工党议员和反欧盟的保守党托利派投票反对欧盟预算，成功的击败了政府。工党通过加强退出欧盟的力量来使保守党政府承诺去留公投。如果真这样，工党也将不得不做出相同的承诺。

“还有一个可以优先考虑的措施”翻译错了，应当是“另一点当务之急/要紧的事”；“利益依赖欧盟”把solid漏掉了；“take a stand”不是“选择立场”而是“表明立场”；“也必须改变他们的路线”累赘，可改为“也必须改变路线”；用“成功的击败了政府”翻译handing the government its first major defeat，主被动关系弄错了，应改为“给了政府第一次重大挫折”；“工党通过加强退出欧盟的力量”不像中文，应改为“工党为退出欧盟的力量助阵/捧场”；最后那句完全翻译错了，be bounced into意思是“匆忙同意某决定”，所以应该是“工党可能要争分夺秒去赞同”。

不管在英国还是在布鲁塞尔，卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本都还有很多繁重的工作要做。他们必须提醒英国人他们在欧盟赢得的胜利和退出欧盟的危险。最重要的是，他们需要重新发现等待的好处，保持选项开放。全民公投就是个好例子。急于举行简单的去留公投听起来明确而果断。但拖延时间显然更明智。政府应该抵制投票的请求，至少应该等到事情更明朗，明确英国到底会投票去还是留。这种等待和观望的态度也许令人不满意，但至少能阻止英国退出欧元区。

“不管在英国还是在布鲁塞尔，卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本都还有很多繁重的工作要做”翻译错了，在英国和布鲁塞尔的是“繁重的工作”，而不是“卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本”，而且这里应当注明奥斯本是“财政大臣”；“在欧盟赢得的胜利”改为“在欧盟已经取得的胜利”更准确；muddling along的意思是“得过且过”，不是简单的“等待”，可翻译为“敷衍塞责”或“虚与委蛇”；keeping options open翻译为“选项开放”错了，其本意是“不做决断，留出空间/退路”，所以可以翻译为“搁置问题”；“急于举行简单的去留公投”不妥，这种说法的重点在于“急于”，与后面的“听起来”搭配不当，应改为“即刻/立即/马上”；“政府抵制公投”的“抵制”不对，应当是“拒绝/否决”，at least until直接翻译为中文很困难，可以改为“即便要公投，也应当”；what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave的意思理解有差错，Europe和Britain之间是分开的，意思是“英国要投票决定去留的欧盟是什么样子”；it is what kept Britain out of the euro是过去时态的强调句型，意思是“过去英国就是靠这招才没有加入欧元区”。

如果经济危机的解决让欧元区国家结合更紧密并且使得其他欧盟国家加入欧元区，那么英国在欧洲的地位将可能难以维持。但那也不一定，英国也不一定逐步边缘化。尽管困难而且可能遭受羞辱，但是最好的方法还是紧贴欧洲，并试图让其偏向英国。

if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join，这句话理解错了，resolution不是“经济危机的解决”而是“经济危机的解决方案”，而且other EU countries join的对象是这个“解决方案”而不是“欧元区”；“但那也不一定”偏口语化，应改为“但这并非定数/还有变数”；humiliating翻译为“遭受羞辱”不如“丢面子”；bend it towards Britain翻译为“让其偏向英国”不如“扭转它对英国的态度”。

总评

通常，一篇长文章的翻译难度要远高于若干篇短文章，因为在文章内部需要维持一致性，如本文始终谈的是英国和欧洲的关系，但是这种一致性又会从多个侧面展开，本文就谈到，去或离，各有什么好处坏处，以及英国内部各派力量的现状和态度。所以这些，都是需要译者在阅读时从整体理解和把握的，不能弄错。

本篇译文有许多地方之所以弄错了，就是没有跳出字句的层面，从整体上理解原文。“工党通过加强退出欧盟的力量来使保守党政府承诺去留公投。如果真这样，工党也将不得不做出相同的承诺”就是典型的例子，工党和保守党的态度前文已经说明，既然工党要促进公投，为什么“果真如此”之后，工党又要“不得不做出相同的承诺”呢？这明显是翻译错了，即便只看中文也可以知道这里不通。

译文的另一大问题是有好几处弄错原文的结构，尤其是谁限定谁，谁修饰谁。最明显的例子就是Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne翻译为“不管在英国还是在布鲁塞尔，卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本都还有很多繁重的工作要做”，还有worry so much about……，其中的much是表示worry的程度，翻译成“担心太多金融交易税”则是用“太多”用来修饰“金融交易税”了。如果译者更认真一些，或者对英文的理解能力更深刻一些，是可以避免这类错误的。

From Life Sailor, post 翻译漫谈：新闻翻译【3】

原文

译文及剖析

总评

Leave a Reply Cancel reply