Grammatical analysis versus accuracy of translation in international affairs
« previous post | next post »
In this widely cited article, "China says Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong no longer has meaning", Reuters (6/30/17) quoted PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesman, Lu Kang, as follows:
Now Hong Kong has returned to the motherland's embrace for 20 years, the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as a historical document, no longer has any practical significance, and it is not at all binding for the central government's management over Hong Kong. The UK has no sovereignty, no power to rule and no power to supervise Hong Kong after the handover.
In "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's Regular Press Conference on June 30, 2017", the same remarks by Lu Kang were translated by the MFA (6/30/17) thus:
It's been 20 years now since Hong Kong's return to the motherland, and the arrangements during the transitional period prescribed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration are now history and of no practical significance, nor are they binding on the Chinese central government's administration of the Hong Kong SAR. The British side has no sovereignty, no power to rule and supervise Hong Kong after the handover.
In "Grammar Matters: Did China Really Declare that the Entire Sino-UK Joint Declaration is 'Not At All Binding'? Maybe Not." (Lawfare, 7/3/17), Julian Ku interrogates the implications of the two English translations for the Chinese government's apparent willingness to "spurn the entire Joint Declaration without even offering a plausible legal justification."
From the MFA's own official website, here's what spokesman Lu Kang said in Chinese, together with my translation:
Xiànzài Xiānggǎng yǐjīng huíguī zǔguó huáibào 20 nián, “Zhōng-Yīng liánhé shēngmíng” zuòwéi yīgè lìshǐ wénjiàn, bù jùyǒu rènhé xiànshí yìyì, duì Zhōngguó zhōngyāng zhèngfǔ duì Xiānggǎng tèqū de guǎnlǐ yě bù jùbèi rènhé yuēshù lì. Yīng fāng duì huíguī hòu de Xiānggǎng méiyǒu zhǔquán, méiyǒu zhìquán, yě méiyǒu jiāndū quán.
现在香港已经回归祖国怀抱20年，《中英联合声明》作为一个历史文件，不具有任何现实意义，对中国中央政府对香港特区的管理也不具备任何约束力。英方对回归后的香港没有主权，没有治权，也没有监督权。
Now that Hong Kong has already returned to the motherland's embrace for twenty years, as a historical document the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" does not have any practical significance, nor does it possess any binding force on the Chinese central government's management of the Hong Kong SAR. The British side has no sovereignty over Hong Kong after reunification; it has no right to rule, and it has no right to supervise.
Regardless of what Lu Kang may have intended by these remarks, they lit up a storm of discussion on the Chinese internet over their implications for China's obligations to a twenty-year old treaty, just as Reuters' English translation led to widespread umbrage over China's evident disregard of its treaty obligations.
Julian Ku states: "the MFA translation should obviously be treated as authoritative (or at least more authoritative)." But what if the MFA translation is inaccurate? The MFA translation may be "authoritative" in the sense that it is "official", but in drawing legal conclusions, what matters is the degree of its accuracy. With regard to China's adherence to treaty obligations, it makes no sense to argue over the grammar of competing translations. When it comes to authoritativeness, all that matters is what Lu Kang originally said in Chinese.
I leave it to the lawyers and linguists on Language Log to determine whether what Lu Kang said amounts to a disavowal of the stipulations of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of December 19, 1984.
[H.t. Bill Holmes]
Jonathan Smith said,
July 4, 2017 @ 6:17 pm
The implication of the key interpolation to the MFA English ("the arrangements during the transitional period prescribed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration are now history and of no practical significance") is that the Declaration in fact applied only to the transitional period. This position appears to go back at least a few years, as when a British delegation was blocked entry to HK in 2014, it was reported that "Ni Jian 倪坚, deputy Chinese ambassador to Britain […], conveyed the message […] that the Joint Declaration 'is now void and only covered the period from the signing in 1984 until the handover in 1997.'" But as shown above apparently this is an occasional rhetorical convenience more than it is a principled legal argument…
Thorin said,
July 4, 2017 @ 8:42 pm
I translate documents pertaining to foreign policy, and I'm struck by the change in meaning between "Now Hong Kong has returned to the motherland's embrace for 20 years," and "It's been 20 years now since Hong Kong's return to the motherland"/"Now that Hong Kong has already returned to the motherland's embrace for twenty years." The former makes it sound as though Hong Kong has agreed to "join" the mainland for another twenty years, at which point another referendum will be held or meeting will occur.
Michael Watts said,
July 4, 2017 @ 11:08 pm
The MFA translation ("It's been 20 years now since Hong Kong's return to the motherland") is accurate (as to the role of the 20 years). The other two are handicapped by the effort to produce an English sentence which closely mirrors the syntax of the Chinese.
Victor Mair said,
July 5, 2017 @ 2:09 am
Translations are not handicapped, but enhanced, by reflecting the syntax, sense, and substance of an original text.
Nowhere is there a stipulation or expectation that the Sino-British Joint Declaration of December 19, 1984 would lose validity after 20 years. Quite the contrary, when a period of time is mentioned with regard to an agreement between Great Britain and the PRC concerning Hong Kong, it is that the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the PRC would remain in effect for 50 years.
Jonathan Smith's comment on "occasional rhetorical convenience" vis-à-vis "principled legal argument" is much appreciated.
Bathrobe said,
July 5, 2017 @ 4:24 am
I think that what Michael Watts meant is that the two translations tried to put 'now' at the start of the sentence, reflecting the position of 现在 in the Chinese. The problem is that 'now that' in English suggests that 20 years is an important inflection point.
The Chinese is less clear and could be understood in two ways. As the Ministry suggested, it could be regarded as a pure statement of fact ('It's been 20 years now since Hong Kong's return to the motherland'), or as Reuters and Professor Mair translate it, the passage of 20 years can be regarded as having particular significance and ramifications ('Now [that] Hong Kong has returned to the motherland's embrace for 20 years'). Either interpretation is possible, but treating this statement as unconnected with what follows certainly sounds a little forced, if not disingenuous.
Victor Mair said,
July 5, 2017 @ 5:18 am
The point is not to split grammatical hairs, but to understand the logic and implication of what Lu Kang said with regard to the significance of the twenty year period for the validity of the "Sino-British Joint Declaration".
tangent said,
July 5, 2017 @ 5:40 am
Help, does the phrase about "the arrangements during the transitional period" exist in the Chinese original or does it not? That's the difference between the MFA translation and Dr. Mair, and that's at the heart of what Julian Ku is saying.
Ku's article really didn't give me an understanding of how that discrepancy can exist given the Chinese. I'm counting on Language Log for my deep analysis of Chinese text!
Bathrobe said,
July 5, 2017 @ 6:25 am
@ tangent
There is a sentence missing from this post:
《中英联合声明》就中方恢复对香港行使主权和过渡期有关安排作了清晰划分.
"'The Sino-British Joint Declaration' drew a clear distinction between the restoration of China's exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong and arrangements for the transitional period". (This is my translation; others can probably do better.)
Without this context you are left wondering where that particular part of the Ministry translation sprang from. It's there, but not in the section cited in the post.
Bathrobe said,
July 5, 2017 @ 6:27 am
I should have looked at the Ministry translation, which says:
The Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984) clearly marks the transitional period off from China resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. It's been 20 years now since Hong Kong's return to the motherland, and the arrangements during the transitional period prescribed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration are now history and of no practical significance, nor are they binding on the Chinese central government's administration of the Hong Kong SAR.
Victor Mair said,
July 5, 2017 @ 8:57 am
The missing phrase that tangent noticed was not in the part of the Chinese original quoted and translated by Reuters, but it was mysteriously worked in from the previous sentence to a position after the "20 years" phrase of the quoted portion by the MFA translator(s). This is only one factor that vitiates the MFA translation as an accurate rendering of what Lu Kang actually said.
A. said,
July 5, 2017 @ 11:10 am
I'm not a native English speaker, but I don't interpret any of the translations mentioned in this post to mean that Hong Kong was to stay with the mainland for 20 years only and then break back away.
J.W. Brewer said,
July 5, 2017 @ 11:12 am
What audience (domestic, foreign, both?) was Lu Kang addressing in his untranslated remarks? If you were the British government, you would be most interested in what the PRC government's actual view vis-a-vis its obligations and its need to respond to any formal UK complaints about non-compliance with those obligations, and I'm not sure either public statements in Mandarin by a spokesperson or debatable English translations of those statements would be the best evidence of the actual internally-held PRC view. One issue lurking in the background here is the chronic failure of international treaties to provide clear mechanisms for their enforcement other than the traditional view (now fallen into disfavor in some circles) that a material violation by country A of its treaty with with country B is a sufficient justification for B to declare war on A, or, where the intended beneficiaries of the treaty are the inhabitants of C which has been transferred from B to A, perhaps sufficient justification for armed revolution by the inhabitants of C against A. A less confrontational approach to resolving disputes about the PRC's compliance with its obligations (such as a ruling by the International Court of Justice) is not necessarily available unless the PRC opts to participate in and cooperate with such a judicial process, and why would it do so?
Victor Mair said,
July 5, 2017 @ 4:02 pm
@J.W. Brewer:
Lu Kang was speaking in his official capacity as spokesperson of the PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) at a regularly scheduled briefing for the international press. What he said in Chinese, I presume, should be considered as an authoritative representation of the views of the MFA (i.e., the Chinese government), and it is posted on the official website of the MFA as such.
Now things get a bit tricky, because — although the MFA translation of his remarks into English are also on an official MFA website — we have seen that the translation is not altogether accurate.
Of course, pace A., none of the three translations implies that Hong Kong should revert to its former status (not controlled by China) after 20 years. That's not in question at all. What's at issue is whether the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" no longer has binding force (bù jùbèi rènhé yuēshù lì 不具备任何约束力 — this is definite language, since rènhé 任何, particularly in repeated rhetorical usage, is stronger than a simple "any", but can often convey the notion of "whatever; whatsoever") after 20 years. In this case, all three translations, including the MFA translation, warts and all, adequately convey the idea that Lu Kang holds it to be a historical document and therefore no longer of practical significance.
This is actually of extreme importance with regard to China's adherence to its treaty obligations according to the "Sino-British Joint Declaration", which stipulate that Hong Kong's status, according to the treaty agreement, was not supposed to change for 50 years.
In light of the findings of the International Tribunal at the Hague in favor of the Philippines v. China, submitted by the Philippines in 2013 and decided by the tribunal on July 12, 2016 after three years of hearings and investigations, but rejected by China, despite the determination of the tribunal that China's "nine-dashed line" and other actions contravened Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China's apparent relegation of the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" to the status of insignificant "historical document" is disturbing.
It is this willingness to dismiss treaty obligations and international law that so many people found troubling in Lu Kang's remarks. The last sentence of Julian Ku's article brings that out nicely. Exigencies of grammar and literary felicity aside, all three translations adequately convey the crucial matter of whether or not the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" has effect for only 20 years.
Eidolon said,
July 5, 2017 @ 8:05 pm
There is no translation error. The PRC's stance has been, for some time now, that the Sino-British Joint Declaration only applied to the period between 1984 and 1997. This was apparent back in 2014: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1654603/china-says-british-complaints-over-hong-kong-visit-ban-useless
Julian Ku's article misses this fact and assumes that Lu Kang's words were without precedent or reflects new policy. He should have looked more deeply into the matter. China banned UK law makers from entering Hong Kong in 2014 on the basis that attempts by the UK to supervise the administration of Hong Kong were simply not welcome, and that China had no cause to tolerate it. To this end, I'd love to know whether there are any translation errors in the following, straight forward statement by former Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying:
"Britain has no sovereignty over Hong Kong that has returned to China, no authority and no right to oversight. There is no such thing as a moral responsibility. The real aim of a small minority of British people trying to use so-called moral responsibility to obscure the facts is to interfere in China's internal affairs. [This] cannot succeed, and is something China certainly cannot accept."
Or the words of Chinese deputy ambassador Ni Jian, paraphrased by Richard Ottaway:
"Richard Ottaway, the chairman of the British Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, said during the emergency debate that Ni Jian, deputy Chinese ambassador to Britain, had conveyed the message on Friday that the Joint Declaration "is now void and only covered the period from the signing in 1984 until the handover in 1997.""
Both of these stances were conveyed through official channels and made news in 2014. While the statements back then were not as explicit as they are today, they reflect the exact same stance – the UK has no power of oversight in Hong Kong; the Chinese government exercises full sovereignty; and that the Sino-British Joint Declaration was void in 1997.
The implications for such an interpretation, I leave to others. But it's obvious to me there is no translation error.
Victor Mair said,
July 5, 2017 @ 10:57 pm
@Eidolon
"There is no translation error" at the beginning of your comment and repeated — prefaced by "it's obvious to me" — at the end of your comment.
You're the first person to introduce the notion of "translation error" into this discussion.
Since you have done so — I don't know why — please check the English against the Chinese carefully.
Jonathan Smith said,
July 6, 2017 @ 12:27 am
@Eidolon
1) ah dun sed that
2) that (interpolation in the MFA English of "the arrangements during the transitional period prescribed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration") IS a/the "translation error," though naturally "error" not in the sense of someone messed up but rather someone chose to render explicit in English the (flimsy) defense of an original statement of the form "black is white, QED."
David said,
July 6, 2017 @ 4:53 am
Not related to language, bu the CCP is playing word games…
re: "through the looking glass"
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
julie lee said,
July 6, 2017 @ 11:32 am
"arrangements during the transitional period prescribed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration are now history and of no practical significance, nor are they binding "
That is to say, the Chinese government feels under no moral obligation to keep a promise, which is that the Basic Law in Hong Kong would last for 50 years. Keeping a promise, keeping one's word, is a basic requirement of Confucianism. Fidelity (keeping one's word or promise) is one of the Five Constants forming the foundation of Confucian morality , namely ren "humanity", yi "duty or doing what's right", li "propriety" zhi "knowledge, intelligence", and xin "fideliity, keeping one's word".
The Chinese government runs some 480 Confucius Institutes around the world. It just shows how cynical it is—using the name of Confucius just as a brand name, a name that will sell its product, with contempt for Confucius's moral teaching.
NatShockley said,
July 6, 2017 @ 6:39 pm
A more elegant phrasing of that first clause in English – retaining the "motherland's embrace" part while also adhering to the conventions of English idiom – would be something like
"Given that Hong Kong returned to the motherland's embrace twenty years ago now, "
Edwin Schmitt said,
July 8, 2017 @ 2:34 am
@David Perhaps you'll appreciate the most recent xkcd post, especially the mouseover…
https://xkcd.com/1860/
Graeme said,
July 8, 2017 @ 5:55 am
So the PRC has clarified (if that's the correct term in an area as subtle as the language of international law) that they are rejecting any British role in superintendence. But are not denouncing the substance of the treaty. m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2101823/we-still-recognise-sino-british-joint-declaration-legally
Pragmatically, it is hard to see how things could be otherwise; but egregious breach of commitments could still give rise to unilateral sanction by the UK, possibly even a UN GA resolution I suppose.
Bathrobe said,
July 8, 2017 @ 8:47 am
I doubt that there will be sanctions from the UK or even a UN resolution. Essentially, all that can be said is that the trustworthiness and honour of the PRC have probably taken a hit.
Don Clarke said,
July 8, 2017 @ 4:28 pm
The MFA translation is wrong, no doubt about it. But in any case I don't agree with Ku that an MFA English translation could be more authoritative than the original Chinese. I have a blog post addressing Ku's piece from a language and law perspective here: http://thechinacollection.org/chinese-grammar-matters-response-julian-ku/
Don Clarke said,
July 8, 2017 @ 4:29 pm
I should add that the latest clarification from the PRC doesn't walk anything back. They deny that there is anything in the Joint Declaration that constrains what they do today. Whether they call the JD a "treaty" or call it "binding" is just word games, given this fundamental stance.
Victor Mair said,
July 8, 2017 @ 11:40 pm
"…
all that can be said is thatthe trustworthiness and honour of the PRC haveprobablytaken a hit."Judging from the reactions on many forums and in the media, "the trustworthiness and honour" of the PRC have definitely been besmirched.
Much else can be said about the regrettable implications of both the Chinese and English versions of the statement by the PRC MFA spokesman, Lu Kang, as well as about the sorry attempt of his colleague, Xu Hong, director general of the MFA’s treaty and law department, to gloss over the very serious negative implications of Lu's words, as reported here:
"Beijing says Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong handover still binding but does not allow UK to interfere" (SCMP, 7/8/17)
Needless to say, I am very grateful to Don Clarke, a specialist on Chinese law, for his two comments just above this one, as well as for his cogent and much welcome blog post addressing Julian Ku's "Grammar Matters" article.