古蹟英譯探微

On the Translation of the Cultural Heritage Term“Monument”

我國《文化資產保存法》英譯本，將古蹟一詞譯為monument，但有部分學者主張譯為文化紀念物，因為根據International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)及《世界遺產公約》(World Heritage Convention)，monument(s)應包含紀念性雕塑與繪畫作品、考古地之元素或構造物、碑碣、穴居與上述特徵之所有組合物，與臺灣目前文資法中定義的古蹟及歷史建築概念並不相同。另外，新創的文化紀念物一詞，並非我國文獻之用語，也沒有解決文資法古蹟一詞英譯的問題。本文試圖從辭源學角度，剖析中文古蹟一詞與英文monument的字源與涵義，並整理學者專家的相關論述，發現古蹟一詞的內涵並不狹隘，譯成monument尚屬貼切，並不致引起歧義，造成國人誤解。事實上，目前聯合國教科文組織接受的是中國大陸官方的譯本，值得我們觀察。

In our Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, the word“monument”is used in place of the Chinese version’s term“古蹟”. Some local scholars have different opinions on this translation. They insist that the paired words have different denotations and connotations, so they are not in good match. This article tries to analyse these two words from their own etymological and lexicological sources and their usage in cultural heritage literatures of both languages. The conclusion is that the Chinese term“古蹟”could be a good pair to the word“monument”in translation and there is no problem of misunderstanding. It is note whorthy that the scholars in mainland China use this translation of monument as“古蹟”and the official UNESCO uses their version, too. If connection to the global standards is our goal for conserving cultural heritage, it is better that this controvertial terminology problem be clarified.