20110126

向沈旭暉進一言: 辭達而已矣

沈旭暉〈給唐英年的信: Lend Me Your Ears, What Went Wrong? 〉一文,似乎頗引人注目,我先在 Facebook 上看到朋友轉貼,昨天又有讀者問我對該文有甚麼意見。我在 Facebook 的 comment 是「不知怎的,沈旭暉寫的東西每每看到我頭暈」;讀者說:「在大眾報章上刊登的文章竟然寫得如此深奧,我覺得有點反感」,我的回應是:「即使是寫學術文章,也可以盡量寫得清通一點,沈君卻反其道而行,寫報紙文章也來個大顯功架;這有兩個可能的解釋:一是他擺脫不了學術文字的束縛,一是他故意賣弄。」今天重讀沈文,忍不住想多講幾句。

沈君這封「信」,當然不只是寫給唐英年的,也是向留意有關事件的市民大眾表達高見。唐司長會不會看沈君鴻文,很成疑問,然而,即使他嘗試看,恐怕看不了兩段便大叫投降,喝紅酒鬆弛腦筋去了 --- 紅酒多喝了會頭痛,但至少喝時是樂趣,沈文給人的,就只有頭痛。無論沈君文章的論點怎樣正確,以如此糾纏的文字寫出,便難讓人明白,那麼文章的作用何在呢?子曰:「辭達而已矣。」對於寫給大眾看的文章,這個原則就更加重要了。

以下用〈給唐英年的信〉其中一節為例子,說明何謂「糾纏的文字」:

『你說「這個世界是豐富多元的,我們應該有包容的胸襟,尊重他人的想法和意見,而不是對持相反意見的人動輒口誅筆伐」。每字都正面,但句子是不平衡的:「多元」是客觀、形而上的,泛指不同觀點、生活方式的並存,是恆常的;「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」是主觀、形而下的,每個時代都不同,說句術語,被建構的。

50後常主觀標籤青年「動輒口誅筆伐」,得到後者客觀上反多元的結論。但單以形而下論證形而上是無意義的,像形而下的五四運動口誅筆伐,帶來了形而上的多元; 上一代不接受粗口,「百X成才」卻是個別網絡百花齊放的grammar。

青年發表不同意見正是支持多元,若因形而下的「口誅筆伐」而被標籤、邊緣化,難免深信50後在偷換概念,進行反多元的思想壟斷。若有心確立多元,lend me your ears,無論對方的口筆如何,都應有包容胸襟。』

- 為甚麼句子不平衡是個問題?難道句子全都應該是平衡的?究竟「平衡」在這裏是甚麼意思?

- 「形而上」和「形而下」這兩個哲學用語在這裏不清楚是甚麼意思,亦不見得有必要用;其實,就連「客觀」和「主觀」兩詞也沒有必要用。

- 「多元」是恆常的?還是多元是恆常的?前者大概是指「多元」這個詞語的意義,後者指多元這一現象。不過,無論是指語意或現象,都不是恆常的。

- 「每個時代都不同」的,究竟是甚麼?是「動輒口誅筆伐」和「謙恭」的語意?是「動輒口誅筆伐」和「謙恭」的高低標準?是「動輒口誅筆伐」和「謙恭」的行為表現?

- 五四運動的口誅筆伐帶來了多元,並不能說明口誅筆伐者不是反多元,正如我們不能從恐怖襲擊帶來美國的高度戒備,推論出恐怖份子歡迎美國高度戒備。

- 青年發表不同意見,這只能顯示他們的意見是多元的,不能顯示他們支持多元,除非他們不但發表意見,還支持他人發表不同的意見。

- 這一節的意思可能只是:就算青年真的動輒口誅筆伐,唐英年也不能據此推論出他們反多元,因為動輒口誅筆伐和支持多元是沒有矛盾的。唐英年和其他50後這種指責,只會令青年覺得反多元的其實是50後。

本人無意當唐司長的打手,只是就文論文,聊發書生意氣而已。沈旭暉應該不會看到我這篇文章,「向沈旭暉進一言」云云,不是當真的,我寫給的,其實是以沈君為模仿對象的年青人。

35 則留言:

  1. 1.讀王老師博文題目,我還以為沈君的文章是英文
    2.點擊鏈接過去看原文,未頭暈以前已經眼暈:不習慣中英並用的老一套。要是寫外語,就該有中文一起,而且應該在不得已的情況下這樣做
    3.不認識這些人和事,所以不願置言。但覺得王老師說“學術文字的束縛是非常客氣的話。

    回覆刪除
  2. 我放棄看沈的文章很久了,原因很簡單,因為我很多時都唔明佢想講乜。一直以為是我理解能力差,所以我沒有向人講過。而家睇黎和我有同一想法的人多的是。

    回覆刪除
  3. Hi W. Wong, I'm a first-time commenter here but I've been browsing your blog for a while. Just want to say I actually attempted to translate Shen's essay a couple of days ago and posted it on my blog. I agree totally with you about his use of obscure language (and indeed references) and indeed his mix of English/Chinese sentence structures. In fact, the passage you quoted is one which I found the most difficult (and thus also the must fun!) to translate.

    And to be honest I don't entirely agree with some of the examples he cited either nor his line of logic (and this is coming from someone who also don't agree with the nonsense spouted by Tang at all), but then again I enjoyed trying to shape Shen's fussy language back into something slightly more readable in English ;)

    回覆刪除
  4. Arrgh, typo, I meant "the most fun"!

    回覆刪除
  5. I agree that simple is good. but we should not request author to simplified the wordings in their work to attract or please readers. You would not ask Shakespeare to simplified Hamlet, right?

    I think the article by 沈 is a bit difficult to read but at the same time it can irritate readers to think. try to read more times and you will get sth more than you expect.

    Don't forget to think when you are reading =)

    回覆刪除
  6. allie,

    //但覺得王老師說“學術文字的束縛是非常客氣的話。//

    - 其實已很不客氣了。

    回覆刪除
  7. William,

    //而家睇黎和我有同一想法的人多的是。//

    - 想來是如此了。

    回覆刪除
  8. Snowdrops,

    I've just read your translation; it's much more readable than the original!

    回覆刪除
  9. 沈君初期的文章不是這樣,愈寫愈差~

    回覆刪除
  10. ykyuen,

    //we should not request author to simplified the wordings in their work to attract or please readers//

    - I agree, but this is not what I advise Shen to do.

    // it can irritate readers to think//

    - I did find Shen's article irritating.

    //Don't forget to think when you are reading//

    - Thank you for your advice. I will try to do that.

    回覆刪除
  11. 仲尼,

    //沈君初期的文章不是這樣,愈寫愈差~//

    - 是嗎?早期的我倒沒看過。

    回覆刪除
  12. 1. 「句子平衡」是中學中英文寫作的要求。
    2. 「形而上」及「形而下」,是哲學的入門知識。當然,哲學跟中英文不同,中學生並不一定了解,但我相信沈生的文章的主要讀者不是中學生。
    3. 「多元」「動輒口誅筆伐」的討論:你想多了。
    4. 「五四運動...」你看來是在「打倒稻草人」。
    5. 「青年發表不同意見...」是各點中我唯一認同的,但原句稍改為「青年支持發表不同意見...」已成 (而大概大家都認同這個說法)。為兩個字那麼執著,我只好說:你想多了。

    沈生文辭冗悶,本為人所共知之事,早期文章每每都如學術論文,更是看得人頭昏腦脹。不過其文章就有一個特色,就是對其要批評的說法或題材,研究資料精準,往往比本來提出該說法的人更清楚,少有能及。

    今閣下評論沈生的文字時,竟然有部分是:我不懂這個字是什麼意思。

    若青年人不應沈生為模仿對象,似乎對閣下此文更加不應一讀。

    回覆刪除
  13. 司南,

    多謝你讀了我這篇青年人不應一讀的文章。你的論點恕我不回應了,因為即使回應,在閣下眼中也不過是執著用字而已。

    回覆刪除
  14. For some reason, I kept thinking "Emperor's New Clothes" after reading some of the comments...

    Ah Wong, you have shown much patience and restrain this time in your responses.

    回覆刪除
  15. lin,

    //For some reason, I kept thinking "Emperor's New Clothes" after reading some of the comments... //

    - The Emperor's new clothes, indeed!

    //you have shown much patience and restrain this time in your responses.//

    - I am evolving.

    回覆刪除
  16. //Ah Wong, you have shown much patience and restrain this time in your responses. //

    咁就唔過癮啦!以為有好戲上演嘛!

    回覆刪除
  17. Meshi,

    唔係所有對拆都好睇咖!我依家學精咗,明知會浪費時間嘅還擊我都費事出招啦!

    回覆刪除
  18. Hi Wong, Sinan:

    Sorry for interrupting your conversation, but I am seriously wondering how does one translate 「形而上」及「形而下」, because from what I can gather online these terms came from I Ching, but from what I was able to understand these two terms are quite similar to Western philosophies relating to Idealism and Empiricism. I am genuinely interested in finding out what might be the correct technical terms to translate these in English, and would be grateful to you (or anyone else) who might be able to help.

    Just a brief comment on this as well: "不過其文章就有一個特色,就是對其要批評的說法或題材,研究資料精準,往往比本來提出該說法的人更清楚,少有能及。"

    I have read some of Shen's earlier output, and whilst I agree that he does reference his articles with proper scientific (or social scientific) evidence, what I found alarming is that some of his essays took advantage of the relative lack of knowledge among his audience regarding proper political terms to make his argument sound more legitimate than it is (e.g. in one of his past essays he translated "Fascist corporatism" as merely "corporatism", giving readers the misconception that there is only one type of corporatism -- the Fascist kind, and in the process falsely legitimising that particular Fascist brand of a broad political theory).

    I also wish that he would have inserted proper English terms when he was referencing Western ideas or organisations, as it is just damn hard to find out what he meant when English readers like myself are trying to "reverse-engineer" his Chinese terms back into English ones so that those of us used to reading English media for international news could understand his references.

    For example, in this particular essay of his that I attempted to translate, 蓋達 is used for Al Queda (which I was able to guess as much, but it would have been helpful for him to insert "Al Queda" in brackets), and I still have problem determining what is 真主黨燈塔電視臺 in English (or even Arabic). I understand these are probably well-known terms in the Chinese media, but it would have been helpful for those of us who are overseas to better understand the points that he was making and the references that he was using if Shen could insert the proper English terms whenever he references international incidents in support of his arguments.

    回覆刪除
  19. Oh, just saw the above comment as well, I just hope you didn't feel that I was "attacking" you (or Sinan) in my long-winded comment above, and I'm genuinely interested in your take Prof Wong on the correct translation of the above philosophical terms. Many thanks in advance.

    回覆刪除
  20. 羅渣插口:
    以前看沈某論時局世政的文章,確有許多未聽過未想過的新名詞和新概念(例如甚麼是「次主權」),頗有些大開眼界之感,然而看得多了,見其越「撻」越多,多到令人吃不消,恕本人才疏學淺,睇唔明就放棄,以免壞腦(早已壞左,唔想加劇病情)!
    得出一個老掉大牙的結論,要「深入」唔難,要「淺出」才考工夫!
    不過沈某仍有不少「fan 屎」,想來出於崇拜其高尚學歷居多,睇唔明仍照啃者大不乏人!

    回覆刪除
  21. Okay just want to say that after quite a bit of digging I found out that 真主黨燈塔電視臺 refers to Al Manar (see wiki entry here for anyone who might be interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar). And I only found this out because page 4 of the Google happened to retain the heading of a cached but now non-existent page that uploaded Al Manar videos on a Mainland Chinese website!!

    回覆刪除
  22. Snowdrops,

    I am going to write a short piece on「形而上」及「形而下」 and post it here this evening; hope it will be helpful to you.

    Don't worry, I didn't find your comments offensive in any way.

    回覆刪除
  23. Roger,

    //想來出於崇拜其高尚學歷居多,睇唔明仍照啃者大不乏人//

    - 也不止是學歷,他那年少有為和衣著髮式出眾的形象可能也有點關係。

    回覆刪除
  24. 我以前讀過沈分析中國民族主義的幾篇文章,覺得他講得不夠透徹,就沒有再追讀他的東西了。現在才知道他在別的話題上還另有高論。

    回覆刪除
  25. 佢之前好似有一篇講五十後既超穩定結構文章
    我没有詳細看過
    但係我有限既知識內,超穩定結構指中國封建社會多
    實在不明白為何可以用落香港呢個短短幾十年既社會內。

    回覆刪除
  26. CYC,

    //現在才知道他在別的話題上還另有高論。//

    - 沈君非常多產,而且不止於評論時事。

    回覆刪除
  27. 匿名,

    //佢之前好似有一篇講五十後既超穩定結構文章
    我没有詳細看過
    但係我有限既知識內,超穩定結構指中國封建社會多
    實在不明白為何可以用落香港呢個短短幾十年既社會內。//

    - 「超穩定結構」是本人行外的術語,看字面實在猜不到是甚麼意思。

    回覆刪除
  28. 今天明報有一文對沈君作出很到位的批評。

    回覆刪除
  29. 已看了,謝謝!那篇文章可算拳拳到肉。(其他讀者:該文已貼在「公諸同好」)

    回覆刪除
  30. 唔好意思都要講句﹐條友文筆直頭係狗屁不通﹐連小學生都好過佢。
    單係“有說你選擇那場合作深度發言,是因為我們太溫和而籠絡、或太反叛而立威﹕這是non-issue。”已經充滿問題。
    佢文筆出問題﹐根本就已經遠遠超過語意不清的問題﹐而係連白話文基本文法出錯。

    “你選擇那場合作深度發言”﹐介詞去左邊﹖而當“深度發言”被視作一個名詞時﹐名詞前面又唔見左動詞。
    “是因為我們太溫和而籠絡、或太反叛而立威”﹐本身又係狗屁不通﹐用改動最少的簡單改法﹐是“是因為(你覺得)我們太溫和而(去)籠絡、或太反叛而(要)立威”
    後面“﹕這是non-issue。”﹐先唔講中英夾雜﹐有“無關宏旨”唔用而死用英文啦﹐我亦唔講用錯標點符號呢個問題啦﹐單講“這是non-issue”呢句﹐non-issue作為noun﹐前面唔加量詞唔係問題呀﹖但至少後面要加個“的”...
    堂堂一個大學副教授﹐既然要弄得偽學術﹐我倒退一萬步﹐容許你寫英式中文﹐但你連寫文連主語﹑謂語﹑賓語﹑連接詞﹑動詞﹑量詞﹑助語詞都寫到亂七八糟﹐我寧願條友直接寫英文﹐然後用google中英語文翻譯機算數啦...

    回覆刪除
  31. 文少,

    那兩句的確大有問題,他文法大亂的句子多的是。

    回覆刪除
  32. 實在忍唔住﹐要寫篇文鬧佢﹐唔鬧佢真係對唔住自己(怒)

    回覆刪除
  33. 文少,

    是嗎?會過去一讀大作。

    回覆刪除
  34. It's hardly conceivable that Simon Shen, as a international relations scholar by professon, would use philosophical concepts in an article which intended to address to the general public. It seems to me that a more appropriate (and in fact much simpler) translation for 「形而上」(following Shen's logic) would be bottom-up, whereas 「形而下」would be top-down. This should explain why Shen brings up the May Fourth Movement in the article to show that the condescending, top-down intellectual debates motivated grass-root responses which were interactive on many levels. Nothing very theoretical here.「多元」probably just means the diversity of opinion, or multi-lateralism in this case.

    回覆刪除
  35. GP,

    Thank you for your comments.

    回覆刪除