世行的文字之戰(zhàn)

Until last month, Paul Romer, chief economist at the World Bank, was best known for his brilliant research in the field known as “endogenous growth theory” — the idea that growth comes from the decisions made within an economic system rather than as a result of external factors.

直至上個(gè)月，世界銀行(WB)首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家保羅•羅默(Paul Romer)最為人熟知的還是他在名為“內(nèi)生增長(zhǎng)理論”領(lǐng)域的出色研究。內(nèi)生增長(zhǎng)理論認(rèn)為，增長(zhǎng)來自經(jīng)濟(jì)體系內(nèi)部做出的決策，它并非外部因素作用的結(jié)果。

Now, however, Romer is creating waves for a very different reason: he is waging war on how economists use the word “and”. Yes, you read that right. Last month, Romer sent an email to World Bank staff demanding that they tighten up their writing skills. In particular, he implored them to be more concise and clear when compiling reports, and to avoid creating hopelessly long, confusing documents crammed with lists of pious goals linked by that offending word “and”.

然而，如今羅默卻在因?yàn)榉浅２煌脑蛳破痫L(fēng)波：他正對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家使用“以及”(and)這個(gè)單詞的方式發(fā)動(dòng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。是的，你沒有看錯(cuò)。上個(gè)月，羅默向世行員工發(fā)出了一封電子郵件，要求他們加強(qiáng)寫作技能。特別是，羅默懇請(qǐng)他們?cè)诰幹茍?bào)告時(shí)更簡(jiǎn)明而清晰，避免制造冗長(zhǎng)難懂的文件，避免文件中大量出現(xiàn)以令人不適的“以及”連接起來的長(zhǎng)串不切實(shí)際的目標(biāo)。

“Because of . . . pressure to say that our message is ‘this, and this, and this too, and that . . . ’ the word ‘and’ has become the most frequently used word in Bank prose,” Romer complained. “To drive home the importance of focus,” he added, “I’ve told the authors that I will not clear [a] final report if the frequency of ‘and’ exceeds 2.6 per cent.” The 2.6 per cent goal came about because that was the pattern found in World Bank reports a few decades ago (though Romer says it was merely a symbolic threshold). In contrast, “and” has recently accounted for 7 per cent of all words used in the organisation’s reports.

“由于……有壓力要表達(dá)出我們傳遞的信息是‘這個(gè)、以及這個(gè)、還有這個(gè)、以及那個(gè)……’，‘以及’一詞已成為世行文章中最常用的詞匯。”羅默抱怨稱。“為清楚地表明關(guān)注這一點(diǎn)的重要性，”他補(bǔ)充說，“我已告訴各位作者，如果一篇最終報(bào)告中‘以及’一詞的使用頻率超過2.6%，這份報(bào)告我不會(huì)批。”提出2.6%的目標(biāo)，是因?yàn)檫@是幾十年前的世行報(bào)告符合的規(guī)律(不過羅默表示這個(gè)數(shù)字只是一個(gè)象征性閾值)。相比之下，“以及”一詞最近在該機(jī)構(gòu)報(bào)告中出現(xiàn)的次數(shù)占了總字?jǐn)?shù)的7%。

Is Romer’s request reasonable? Not if you talk to many World Bank staff. Romer is not the first chief economist to create angst, but his demands have left some colleagues so incensed that he has been stripped of management control of the research division (Jim Yong Kim, World Bank president, wrote in a note to staff that another senior official would lead the Development Economics Group in order to create a stronger link between the Bank’s research and operational divisions, but that Romer would continue to provide “timely thought leadership on trends directly affecting our client countries”).

羅默的要求合理么?如果你問許多世行員工，答案是否定的。羅默不是第一位在世行內(nèi)部引發(fā)焦慮的首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，然而他的要求讓部分同僚怒不可遏，以至于他被剝奪了對(duì)發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)部(Development Economics Group)的管理控制權(quán)(世行行長(zhǎng)金墉(Jim Yong Kim)在給員工的一份通知中寫道，另一位高級(jí)官員將領(lǐng)導(dǎo)發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)部，以便在該行研究和運(yùn)營(yíng)部門之間建立更緊密的聯(lián)系，不過羅默會(huì)繼續(xù)對(duì)“直接影響我們客戶國(guó)的趨勢(shì)提供及時(shí)的、思想上的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)”)。

Personally, I am inclined to applaud what Romer has done. That 2.6 per cent threshold might seem bizarre; and perhaps it is a little unfair to focus on a single word. But speaking as someone who, in my work as a journalist, has been forced to read numerous official reports from bodies like the World Bank, I fully share Romer’s frustration with the impenetrable jargon that is bandied about.

從個(gè)人角度來說，我傾向于為羅默所做的事鼓掌歡呼。這一2.6%的上限看起來可能很奇怪，而且僅關(guān)注一個(gè)單詞可能有失公平。不過，出于記者工作需要，我不得不閱讀大量世行等機(jī)構(gòu)出具的報(bào)告，作為一個(gè)讀者，對(duì)于滿篇難以理解的行話，我有著與羅默完全相同的不滿。

It is not only multilateral organisations that fail in this respect. Last month, the veteran British journalist and editor Harold Evans published a guide to good writing, entitled Do I Make Myself Clear?, which identifies numerous examples of turgid and impenetrable prose from politicians, philanthropists, company executives and so on.

在這方面做得不好的不僅僅是多邊組織。上個(gè)月，英國(guó)資深記者兼主編哈羅德•埃文斯(Harold Evans)出版了一本有關(guān)好文風(fēng)的題為《我說清楚了嗎?》(Do I Make Myself Clear?)的寫作指南。該書列出了大量造作難懂的文章范例，這些文章出自政客、慈善家、公司高管等各色人等之手。

***

***

The kind of writing that Evans highlights is not merely irritating — it has serious, albeit subtle, implications. If official statements and documents are wrapped in layers of jargon, it becomes difficult for ordinary citizens to have any idea what is going on. And if voters are surrounded by baffling gobbledygook, they find it hard to trust what politicians are saying, or to take their utterances literally. One of the reasons for Donald Trump’s success as a politician is his blunt, no-holds-barred style of speech, which cuts through what Evans describes as the “endless fog” of linguistic complication. And while Trump’s words often seem contradictory, many voters simply ignore this fact — precisely because they have become so cynical about language.

埃文斯專門提到的那類文體不僅僅是令人煩惱而已——這類文章會(huì)產(chǎn)生微妙卻很嚴(yán)重的影響。如果官方聲明和文件被裹在一層又一層的行話之中，普通公民就很難了解發(fā)生了什么。如果選民被費(fèi)解的官八股包圍，他們將覺得很難信任政客所說的話，或很難照字面意思理解他們的話。唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)作為政客會(huì)獲得成功，其中一個(gè)原因就是他直白、毫無顧忌的講話風(fēng)格，這種講話風(fēng)格能夠穿透埃文斯所說的語言復(fù)雜性的“無盡迷霧”。而且，盡管特朗普的話經(jīng)?？瓷先ニ坪跸嗷ッ?，許多選民卻完全忽視了這一事實(shí)——這恰恰是因?yàn)樗麄儗?duì)語言已變得如此不抱希望。

Is there a solution? Evans’s book offers plenty of practical advice for those seeking to improve their writing skills, with a 10-point checklist to encourage a clear approach (tips include “Banish clichés” and “Don’t be a bore”).

還有解決的辦法么?對(duì)于那些尋求提高寫作技能的人，埃文斯的書提供了大量實(shí)用建議，還提供了一份包含十個(gè)要點(diǎn)的清單，以鼓勵(lì)清晰的文風(fēng)(其中的訣竅包括“避免陳詞濫調(diào)”和“不要讓人討厭”)。

It seems to be a message people want to hear: Do I Make Myself Clear? has just hit the New York Times bestseller list, which is startling for a book about language, grammar and “proper” writing.

這似乎是人們?cè)敢饨邮艿男畔ⅲ骸段艺f清楚了嗎?》沖上了《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New Yorks Times)的暢銷書排行榜，一本有關(guān)語言、語法和“規(guī)范”寫作的書籍能上榜是令人吃驚的。

The big question now is how institutions such as the World Bank will respond. 如今，最大的問題是世行這類機(jī)構(gòu)會(huì)如何回應(yīng)。

Romer was not the first person to complain about the World Bank’s reports; a couple of years ago, academics at the Stanford University Literary Lab declared the Bank’s communications so “codified, self-referential and detached from everyday language” that they were in effect a “technical code”, dubbed “Bankspeak”.

羅默并不是第一個(gè)抱怨世行報(bào)告的人。幾年前，斯坦福大學(xué)文學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)室(Stanford University Literary Lab)的學(xué)者宣稱，該行的對(duì)外溝通如此“刻板、自說自話和脫離日常語言”，它實(shí)質(zhì)上是一種“技術(shù)代碼”，別名“銀行語”。

But it was not until Romer arrived there last October that anybody tried to reform the language. And I suspect he only acted because he was new to the job and knew he could return to a tenured post as an economics professor if his war on “and” went awry.

不過，在羅默去年10月來到世行之前，一直沒有人試圖改革這種語言。而且我懷疑，他會(huì)采取這一舉措，僅僅是因?yàn)樗鹿偕先?，并知道就算他?duì)“以及”發(fā)動(dòng)的這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)失利，他也可以重返經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授的終身職位。

Either way, Romer has no intention of abandoning his campaign. “There are many reasons why we must write clearly . . . it is a commitment to integrity,” he says. Indeed, he hopes this campaign will gather traction thanks to people such as Evans. “I can’t say enough about how much I admire Harry Evans and how important his new book is,” Romer told me. All eyes on the World Bank’s next Development Report.

不管怎么說，羅默不打算放棄這一運(yùn)動(dòng)。他說：“我們必須清晰行文的原因有許多……這是對(duì)誠(chéng)信的承諾。”事實(shí)上，他希望，得益于埃文斯這類人，這一運(yùn)動(dòng)的聲勢(shì)會(huì)加大。羅默告訴我：“我對(duì)哈里•埃文斯(Harry Evans)的欽佩無以言表，他的新書有多重要，我怎么講都不為過。”對(duì)于世行的下一份《發(fā)展報(bào)告》(Development Report)，大家都拭目以待。