| Traditional linguists and translation theorists hold that ambiguity is a defect of the natural language, and, therefore, should be eliminated in the process of translation. Contextualization is the most important means of disambiguation. From the communicative perspective, ambiguity can be classified into unintentional ambiguity and intentional ambiguity. The latter is thought to be a positive language phenomenon to be preserved on all occasions and by all means in the process of translation. Diplomatic ambiguity, a form of intentional ambiguity and a common language phenomenon in diplomatic language, is intended with the purpose of allowing for a degree of consensus when both or all parties fail to arrive at an agreement. Based on the traditional ambiguity and ambiguity translation studies, this paper aims to find out the peculiarities of diplomatic ambiguity and its translation.The present study first analyzes diplomatic ambiguity from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to discover the ideological element hidden behind it. The author further explores the translation principle and strategies of diplomatic ambiguity. Diplomatic ambiguity, a language phenomenon with strong ideological implications, has its dual attributes: on one hand, it leads to the resolution of conflicts and disputes and ensures the interest of one or two or more parties; on the other hand, it might sacrifice the interests of one party and become the source of new conflicts and disputes. The author arrives at the conclusion that diplomatic ambiguity, as a form of intentional ambiguity, is not always a positive language phenomenon, that it should not be preserved on all occasions in the process of translation and that"faithfulness"or"equivalence in effect"should not be the criterion of translating diplomatic ambiguity and that the translation of diplomatic ambiguity is to make the translation in accordance with the ideology of the translator and his or her patron. |
