“What Is Lost in Translation? Differences between Chinese Foreign Policy Statements and Their Official English Translations”, 2022-07-01 ():
[discussion] Targeting different audiences, Chinese foreign policy statements and their official English translations differ substantially.
For this research note, I compare the English and Chinese versions of 91 foreign policy statements issued by the People’s Republic of China and catalog all minor differences, differences in degree, and substantive differences.
More than half of the statements contain differences between the Chinese original and the official English translation. I find substantial variation in how prominent the 3 types of differences feature over time as well as across document types and policy-making levels. Most importantly, the majority of substantive differences and differences in degree alter the intentions that China signals…In terms of policy substance, substantive differences feature most prominently in the issue areas of multilateral cooperation, international environment, and China’s self-description (Figure 7). In the latter two, the Chinese version signals more illegitimate ambitions; in multilateral cooperation, the Chinese version signals more legitimate intentions. Most differences in degree appear regarding the international order, the international environment, and multilateral cooperation (Figure 8). The differences do not impact the signaled intentions except for the international order, where the Chinese versions signal more illegitimate intentions.
Fortunately, my analysis also shows that automatic translation can pick up most of the identified differences…I translated the official Chinese text with Google Translate and DeepL and then compared the automatic translations with the official translations provided by the Chinese government. The translation tools were able to pick up all differences in degree between the original Chinese text and its official English translation that I had identified. Of the substantive differences, the translation tools could pick up between 94.7% (Google Translate) and 97.4% (DeepL). There was only one substantive difference that none of the translation tools was able to pick up: the English version of the “China in the world” policy paper described China as “a country that suffered abuse and humiliation in the past.” The Chinese version contained the same description but referred to China as a great power (大国). Hence, these automatic translation tools can be of great use when comparing the different versions.
The extent and depth of these differences make it necessary to consider both versions of a document.