语言理解中的文化互释

（注：本文系杨慧林教授在“2009中国-欧洲语言合作研讨会”（2009 China-EU Multilingualism Conference）主题演讲内容摘要）

中文摘要 ：没有任何传统可以一成不变，语言也是如此。德里达有“文学行为”、“宗教行为”之说，翻译作为不同语言之间的行为，则是将相互的理解内化为一种新的话语。从诠释学的意义上说，这正是保罗•利科所谓的“话语即语言的事件”。

这并不只是解构主义的语言游戏，在中国经典中也有丰富的资源。比如当德里达的Comment ne pas parler难以找到恰切的英文翻译时，《庄子》却有“大辩不言”之类的相似表达。

这种不同文化之间的相互诠释，可以在理雅各的翻译活动中找到典型的例子，特别是他对“道”的翻译。在与基督教经典的参照中，他对中国经典的理解达到了更深的层次，因此他认为“翻译‘道’的最佳方式，就是将其挪用到译文中，而不是寻找一个与之相当的英文词。”这可能使之进一步将“道”比之于“上帝”，甚至可能导致某些“过度诠释”，然而其中所包含的洞见不仅与“委办译本”《圣经》以“道”译“Word”的重要阐释相关，而且也为《道德经》本身的理解留下了一个范例，乃至远远超过近些年中国翻译家自身的理解。

艾略特的《岩石》一诗，也恰好可以为老子之“道”、基督教之Word的相互启发提供佐证。尽管中国与西方有着巨大的差异，但是只有基于理雅各、艾略特的诠释背景，苏格拉底的“自知我无知”和卡尔•巴特的“人言与圣言”才能在中国语境中得到理解。

语言使我们相互区别，但又正是语言之间的互动，不断丰富着我们的语言和我们的相互理解。

英文摘要 ：No culture or tradition could stay in its original state, and it is even true in speaking of our own languages.  As Jacques Derrida’s description of the acts of literature and acts of religion, translation is also an act between different languages because of its formalizing and internalizing our mutual-understanding into a new set of discourse.  And hermeneutically, in terms of Paul Ricoeur, “discourse is an event of language”.

Never take it just as a kind of dialectic language game of the deconstructive “hermeneutic mafia”, because there have been exactly the same resources in Chinese classics.  For instance, when Derrida’s “Comment ne pas parler” seems to be impossibly translated into accurate English , we may find lots of similar expressions in the writings of Chuang Tzu, something like大辩不言 .

The typical case of such an inter-interpretation of different cultures in the act of translation could be traced back to a priest of London Missionary Society James Legge (1814-1897), especially in his translation of Tao.  His deep understanding of Chinese classics in comparison with Christian scriptures made him believe that “the best way of dealing with it in translating is to transfer it to the version, instead of trying to introduce an English equivalent for it”.   Such insight promotes a re-interpretation or over-interpretation of Tao in a comparative reading of God, but surprisingly, it not only contributes to the Chinese translation of “In the beginning there’s Word” in Delegates Version of the Bible, but also leaves an appropriate interpretation of Tao Te Ching itself, even much better than the translation by a famous contemporary Chinese translator.

This might be further approved by T. S. Eliot’s poem The Rock.  Of course there is a large space diachronically and synchronically between China and the West. Anyway, Socrates’ “I know my own ignorance” and the distinction of “the words and the Word” by Karl Barth could be better understood in Chinese merely with the multilingual concern of James Legge and T. S. Eliot.

Language makes us different from one another, but it is also the inter-act of languages that makes it possible for us to enrich our own language and our mutual-understanding.