關於 我可能錯了英文版 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

洪蘭的劣譯已經引起譯界公憤，有些沒在PTT出沒的高手
也加入掃蕩的工作了。Google+ 「譯人譯事」的格主，
上回把蘋果的相關報導翻譯為英文後，又在「語言本能」的
作者序、第一章揪出了33個錯誤。加上安徽醫科大學的老師尹力
所列舉的15個錯誤，洋洋灑灑共48個，都把它們翻為英語，
並寄給作者 Steven Pinker 教授了。希望英語世界的科普作者
也都能瞭解問題有多嚴重，不要再讓洪蘭糟蹋他們的作品了。

「譯人譯事」的格主希望有用FB或Google+ 的朋友能幫忙轉發出去，
形成社會壓力，不但肅清洪蘭既有的劣譯，更要讓她不能繼續製造受害者。

Google +:譯人譯事
https://plus.google.com/110896187168631282520/posts/5Nn7MHXZy12

Facebook:

https://ppt.cc/tnz7

PDF: 語言本能
https://ppt.cc/cp3k

PDF: 蘋果的報導
https://ppt.cc/8rYT


-----------------------------
譯人譯事
洪蘭翻譯門 - 上午6:58

48 translation errors found in Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct,
translated by Daisy Lan Hung (洪蘭)／洪蘭譯《語言本能》（大陸版）中的 48 個誤
譯（英文說明）

洪蘭翻譯、Steven Pinker 原著的《語言本能》，光是作者序及第一章就至少有
33 個翻譯問題嚴重程度從不可思議的愚蠢大錯、硬傷，到漏譯細節、
原意稍被曲解的小錯，應有盡有。

另從第二章起隨便翻看，還可隨意找到 15 個錯誤（其中有的來自大陸教師/讀者尹力的
披露
(https://www.amazon.cn/review/RC93VT754YTV6/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RC93VT754YTV6)
。

全部 48 處大小誤譯記錄於此，每個錯誤均回譯成英文，讓英語讀者理解該錯誤的嚴重程
度。

已去信原作者 Pinker 教授 告知這些誤譯並敦促他正視此問題的嚴重性，各位可以不必
再寄給他相同的內容。但歡迎關心台灣翻譯的中英文讀者轉載、討論。

誤譯列表連結在此（無需登入 Google，任何人皆可閱讀）：


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CCqYZEkgoDOku-BgR1AS5ut670M8wbo3d7r0sSNnXKg/edit?usp=sharing*

以下將文件內容複製一遍：

This is a list of 48 translation errors found in 語言本能/语言本能, the 2004
Simplified Chinese version of Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct, 1994.
Daisy Lan Hung is the translator. Hung’s translation problems in Thinking,
Fast and Slow (快思慢想) by author Daniel Kahneman is recently reported by
several Taiwanese newspapers. You can read one of the news articles here.

The first 33 translation errors are found in the Preface and Chapter 1 of The
Language Instinct alone. For good measure, another 15 errors found by
exploring the rest of the book are added to the list. In each numbered
error, the relevant original English text is shown, followed by "->" and then
by the English "back-translation" of Hung's Chinese, in order to give English
readers an idea of what the problem is. The page number shown belongs to the
Chinese book. Explanatory notes are placed in {...}.

The document you are reading is viewable by anyone with the link. You don't
need a Google login. Feel free to share this link with anyone you think
might be interested in the translation issues:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CCqYZEkgoDOku-BgR1AS5ut670M8wbo3d7r0sSNnXKg/edit?usp=sharing

#1 Preface, p.14
[For students unaware of the science of language and mind,
{note: in the Chinese, "the science of language" and "the mind", i.e., "the
science" does not apply to "the mind"}]

#2 Preface, p.14
[or worse, burdened with memorizing word frequency effects on lexical
decision reaction time or the fine points of the Empty Category Principle
->
or worse, tormented by word frequency effect and word reaction time (or
reaction time of the effect) in the lexical decision operation, or devastated
by the Empty Category Principle]

#3 Preface, p.14
[I hope to convey the grand intellectual excitement that launched the modern
study of language several decades ago.
->
I hope to bring to you a kind of great excitement much like that which
impacted the field of modern linguistics decades ago.]

#4 Preface, p.15
[I hope to offer something different from the airy platitudes—Language Lite—
that typify discussions of language (generally by people who have never
studied it) in the humanities and sciences alike.
->
I hope to offer something different from the kind of airy platitudes
typically found in "Language Life", a (TV/radio) show discussing language
(usually hosted by people who have never studied it).]

#5 Preface, p.15
[This book, then, is intended for everyone who uses language, and that means
everyone!
->
This book, then, is intended for everyone who uses language, and I really do
mean all people!]

#6 Preface, p.15
[My home institution, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a special
environment for the study of language
->
...the best environment for...]

#7 Preface, p.16
[Thanks go also to...for erudite answers to questions ranging from sign
language to obscure ball players and guitarists
->
...for answering questions ranging from sign language to ball players and
guitar(s)]

#8 Preface, p.16
[one entire paragraph is omitted in translation: I am happy to acknowledge
the special care lavished by John Brockman, my agent, Ravi Mirchandani, my
editor at Penguin Books, and Maria Guarnaschelli, my editor at William
Morrow; Maria's wise and detailed advice vastly improved the final
manuscript. Katarina Rice copy-edited my first two books, and I am delighted
that she agreed to my request to work with me on this one, especially
considering some of the things I say in Chapter 12.]

#9 Ch 1, p.21
[As you are reading these words, you are taking part in one of the wonders of
the natural world.
->
...you are making one of the wonders...]

#10 Ch 1, p.21
[we can shape events in each other's brains with exquisite precision.
->
we can describe (or draw a picture of) the ideas in each other's brains with
high precision.]

#11 Ch 1, p.21
[Simply by making noises with our mouths, we can reliably cause precise new
combinations of ideas to arise in each other's minds.
->
...we can transfer the ideas in our mind to the other person's mind with
precision.]

#12 Ch 1, p.22
[Perhaps the next time you are in a supermarket you will look for club soda,
one out of the tens of thousands of items available,
->
...you will look for club soda (specifically) from tens of thousands of sodas
(or kinds of soda or brands) available,]

#13 Ch 1, p.22
[But a race of Robinson Crusoes would not give an extraterrestrial observer
all that much to remark on.
->
But a kind of people like Robinson Crusoe is not likely to leave any
accomplishments worthy of being circulated and remarked upon by posterity.]

#14 Ch 1, p.22
[What is truly arresting about our kind is better captured in the story of
the Tower of Babel,
->
On the other hand, the story of the Tower of Babel comes closer to describing
us (the human race) properly]

#15 Ch 1, p.22
[A common language connects the members of a community into an
information-sharing network with formidable collective powers. Anyone can
benefit from the strokes of genius, lucky accidents, and trial-and-error
wisdom accumulated by anyone else, present or past. And people can work in
teams, their efforts coordinated by negotiated agreements.
->
A common language connects the members of a community, giving it power:
anyone can share the experience and wisdom of anyone else, present or past.
And people can work in teams to overcome hardship.]

#16 Ch 1, p.22
[As a result, Homo sapiens is a species, like blue-green algae and
earthworms, that has wrought far-reaching changes on the planet.
->
As a result, Homo sapiens as a species survived in this world just like
blue-green algae and earthworms did.]

#17 Ch 1, p.23
[They know that it is man's most important cultural invention, the
quintessential example of his capacity to use symbols, and a biologically
unprecedented event irrevocably separating him from other animals. They know
that language pervades thought,
->
They know that it is man's most important cultural invention. The use of
symbols is the difference of the greatest difference between man and animals.
{"difference" appears twice, making it nonsensical in Chinese} They know that
language has control over thought,]

#18 Ch 1, p.24
[Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains.
->
Instead, it is a special control that is preconfigured in our brains.]

#19 Ch 1, p.24
[But I prefer the admittedly quaint term "instinct."
->
But I prefer the noun "instinct".]

#20 Ch 1, p.24
[Rather, spiders spin spider webs because they have spider brains,
->
...because they have brains,]

#21 Ch 1, p.25
[Thinking of language as an instinct inverts the popular wisdom, especially
as it has been passed down in the canon of the humanities and social sciences.
->
...especially as it has been passed down as doctrines/dogmas.]

#22 Ch 1, p.26
[language is an art, like brewing or baking; but writing would have been a
better simile. It certainly is not a true instinct, for every language has to
be learned. It differs, however, widely from all ordinary arts; ... an
instinctive tendency to acquire an art...
->
{in the Chinese translation, "art" here is translated as 藝術, which is the
Chinese term for art as that which is aesthetically pleasing, but it should
be more appropriately translated as 技藝/技能/技術, meaning a skill.}

#23 Ch 1, p.26
[It takes ... a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of making the
natural seem strange, so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive human
act.
->
Many acts by humans come naturally out of instinct. If we want to ask for the
why of any instinctive human act, we have to first slow down the mind in
order to understand and analyze it (the mind), and when we do so (slow down
the mind), natural things now seem/look strange.]

#24 Ch 1, p.27
[Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend?
->
Why do we talk to a crowd with a different attitude than when we talk to a
friend?]

#25 Ch 1, p.27
[This entire paragraph is missing in translation: Thus we may be sure that,
however mysterious some animals' instincts may appear to us, our instincts
will appear no less mysterious to them. And we may conclude that, to the
animal which obeys it, every impulse and every step of every instinct shines
with its own sufficient light, and seems at the moment the only eternally
right and proper thing to do. What voluptuous thrill may not shake a fly,
when she at last discovers the one particular leaf, or carrion, or bit of
dung, that out of all the world can stimulate her ovipositor to its
discharge? Does not the discharge then seem to her the only fitting thing?
And need she care or know anything about the future maggot and its food?]

#26 Ch 1, p.27
[I want to debauch your mind with learning, to make these natural gifts seem
strange, to get you to ask the "why" and "how" of these seemingly homely
abilities.
->
I want to cause these gifts, which you have taken for granted and considered
natural, to seem strange to you, to get you to...]

#27 Ch 1, p.27
[Watch an immigrant struggling with a second language or a stroke patient
with a first one, or deconstruct a snatch of baby talk, or try to program a
computer to understand English, and ordinary speech begins to look different.
->
Watch a stroke patient struggling with producing a word or a fragmented
sentence, or try to program a computer to understand English, ...]

#28 Ch 1, p.28
[Mental terms like "know" and "think" were branded as unscientific; "mind"
and "innate" were dirty words.
->
..."mind" and "innate" were obscenities {literal meaning of "dirty words",
such as swear words; doesn't convey the metaphor for "taboo" that "dirty
words" does in English}]

#29 Ch 1, p.28
[...dogs salivating to tones
->
...dogs salivating upon seeing the signal]

#30 Ch 1, p.28
[Therefore, he argued, children must innately be equipped with a plan common
to the grammars of all languages, a Universal Grammar, that tells them how to
distill the syntactic patterns out of the speech of their parents
->
...with the blueprint for comprehending/analyzing (all) the languages of the
world, i.e. the so-called Universal Grammar. The universality/universalness
of this grammar tells them how to distill the grammar out of the speech of
their parents]

#31 Ch 1, p.28
[The structures of mind that develop over time are taken to be arbitrary and
accidental;
->
...taken to be 武斷 (= imperious, domineering, dogmatic) and accidental
{"arbitrary" is often inappropriately translated as 武斷, a decidedly
pejorative term meaning "imperious"; here it should be 隨機（會）的 instead,
meaning "happening by chance; depending on the circumstances"}]

#32 Ch 1, p.29
[Even knowing very little of substance about linguistic universals, we can be
quite sure that the possible variety of language is sharply limited. . . .
The language each person acquires is a rich and complex construction
hopelessly underdetermined by the fragmentary evidence available [to the
child].
->
...The language each person acquires is a rich and complex construction.
(Therefore) it should not be restricted/confined/qualified from only the
fragmentary evidence available to the child.]

#33 Ch 1, p.29
[Nevertheless individuals in a speech community have developed essentially
the same language. This fact can be explained only on the assumption that
these individuals employ highly restrictive principles that guide the
construction of grammar.
->
...employ (a) very limited (set of) principles... {the translator has
mistaken "restrictive" for "restricted"}]

#34 Ch 4, p.115
[A part of speech, then, is not a kind of meaning; it is a kind of token that
obeys certain formal rules, like a chess piece or a poker chip.
->
A portion of spoken language (or speech), then, is not a kind of meaning...]

#35 Ch 6, p.192
[The voicelessness of the t in slapped matches the voicelessness of the p in
slapped because they are the same voicelessness; they are mentally
represented as a single feature linked to two segments.
->
...; in the terminology of psychology (or: in psychological
lexicon/vocabulary), they are represented as the same thing, as two segments
{the word "segments" here is left as English, in running Chinese text,
untranslated.} under the same feature.]

#36 Ch 8, p.255
[But this is not so. Beyond a time depth of about a thousand years, history
and typology often do not correlate well at all.
->
But this is not so. One thousand years ago, history and topography (topology)
did not correlate well. {here, not only did the translator mistake "typology"
for "topology" but she also put "topology" in parentheses after the Chinese
term 地誌學, which is the standard term for "topography".}]

#37 Ch 8, p.255
[English has changed from a free-word-order, highly inflected,
topic-prominent language, as its sister German remains to this day, to a
fixed-word-order, poorly inflected, subject-prominent language, all in less
than a millennium.
->
[...all these transitions occurred during the most recent millennium.]

#38 Ch 8, p.258
[All languages have a vocabulary in the thousands or tens of thousands,
sorted into part-of-speech categories including noun and verb.
->
..., and their nouns and verbs are distinguished according to "categories of
spoken language (or speech)". {a different, though still incorrect,
translation for “part of speech” for the second time}]

#39 Ch 8, p.271
[there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that
both the Gothic [Germanic] and the Celtic, though blended with a very
different idiom, had the same origin as the Sanskrit;
->
..., though they had many different idiomatic expressions blended into them,
...]

#40 Ch 9, p.297
[The king's curiosity about the original language of the world allegedly was
satisfied two years later when the shepherd heard the infants use a word in
Phrygian, an Indo-European language of Asia Minor.
->
...use a word in Phoenician, an Indo-European language of Asia Minor.]

#41 Ch 9, p.298
[If Victor or Kamala had run out of the woods speaking fluent Phrygian or
ProtoWorld, who could they have talked to?
->
...fluent Phoenician...]

#42 Ch 11, p381
[These skills [for example, learning a grammar] may well have arisen as a
concomitant of structural properties of the brain that developed for other
reasons.
->
These skills for learning a grammar may well...]

#43 Ch 11, p385
[I challenge the reader to reconstruct the scenario that would confer
selective fitness on recursiveness.
->
I'd like the reader to imagine what kind of environment could have brought
about selective fitness.]

#44 Ch 11, p385
[Would it be a great advantage for one of our ancestors squatting alongside
the embers, to be able to remark: "..."?
->
Wouldn't it be a great advantage...?]

#45 Ch 11, p385
["Beware of the short beast whose front hoof Bob cracked when, having
forgotten his own spear back at camp, he got in a glancing blow with the dull
spear he borrowed from Jack"
->
{The purpose of this contrived example of English sentence featuring
recursion is clearly lost on the translator, as she translated it into a
mundane, normal Chinese counterpart corresponding in meaning but, alas, not
in structure. In fact, it is possible to render this sentence in Chinese that
is just as contrived (yet still grammatical) as the English counterpart, by
illustrating a different kind of recursion that exists in Chinese grammar,
"pre-nominal" recursion. But since the translator did not get the
"recursiveness" in the previous sentence, let's not push it.}]

#46 Ch 11, p385
[Human language is an embarrassment for evolutionary theory because it is
vastly more powerful than one can account for in terms of selective fitness.
->
...because it (human language) is not something that evolutionary theory can
account for.]

#47 Ch 11, p385
[I am reminded of a Yiddish expression, ...
->
...a Hebrew expression,...]

#48 Ch 12, p.391
[No one, not even a valley girl, has to be told not to say Apples the eat
boy...
->
No one, not even a child from the poorest and remotest village, knows that
one cannot say...] {in the Chinese translation, the logic of negation is all
wrong. It should be: everyone knows this; or: there is not anyone who does
not know this.}




--
There are a lot of things we don't want to know about the people we love.

--- Chuck Palahniuk

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 203.67.158.28
※ huanglove:轉錄至看板 Gossiping 09/23 12:58