本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛"Close examination of the CTV footage suggests that Stéphane Dion was not really the victim of some notional hearing problem or a noisy room; he was asked a question in a way that might seem relatively straightforward to native speakers of English, but which actually presented special dangers for him as a non-native speaker."
"Murphy's original question to Dion was God-awful English on its own merits."
National Post:
Colby Cosh: Understanding CTV's Dion-Murphy debacle
Posted: October 10, 2008,
Because I have so little expertise in anything, it is always an exciting moment for me when, as a columnist, I have relevant experience to contribute to an urgent matter of public interest. In the case of Stéphane Dion's disastrous Thursday interview with Steve Murphy of CTV Atlantic, which is currently being subject to a dozen different interpretations by commentators all over the spectrum, there is a group amongst us, a group to which I belong, that has access to special insight. So pardon me while I presume to speak for all those who were once inept, frustrated students of foreign languages.
All languages deal with counterfactual statements, especially backward-looking ones, a little differently. The subjunctive mood is a basic requirement for claiming the mastery of a foreign language—but it is usually the last of the basic requirements to be learned, and one of the hardest to acquire, because we all discuss counterfactuals in our own mother tongue without ever consciously considering the ontological complexity behind them. Close examination of the CTV footage suggests that Stéphane Dion was not really the victim of some notional hearing problem or a noisy room; he was asked a question in a way that might seem relatively straightforward to native speakers of English, but which actually presented special dangers for him as a non-native speaker.
Murphy's original question to Dion was God-awful English on its own merits. He asked: "If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?" Because of the clumsily juggled verb moods, the intended meaning of the question is clear to an Anglophone only by the sort of automatic inference one masters in toddlerhood. In the interview, Dion begins to answer the question as if Murphy had asked "What would you do, going forward, if you were made prime minister immediately?"
Off-camera, Murphy pulls a face because Dion has misunderstood his mangled question, and he then makes matters much worse by saying "I'm saying if you hypothetically were prime minister TODAY, what would you have done that Mr. Harper hasn't?" The emphasis on "today" confuses Dion further, he tries again to answer the question according to what he thinks is Murphy's meaning, Murphy again apparently displays some off-camera sign of frustration, Dion puts the brakes on the interview, and the process is repeated, with the whole thing ending up as a Martian-talks-to-Earthling vaudeville sketch.
This strange dynamic may not be obvious to lifelong monoglots, or even to those who have successfully learned a second language by means of immersion. You almost have to have wrestled with a second language as an adult, or at least studied one in some depth, to see what went wrong. To me, the foregoing is the only plausible linguistic interpretation of the Dion-Murphy fiasco. But it is for voters as individuals to answer the questions that depend upon a correct interpretation of the incident. Dion deserves sympathy for being misled by Murphy's unfortunate "today", but he did seize carelessly on Murphy's accentual cue like a starving dog snatching a steak, and perhaps should have recognized that Murphy was saying "has done" and "have done", attempting to steer his attention in the direction of the past-up-until-now.
Just how good the second-language comprehension of a prime minister ought to be is a fine and sensitive question with no clear, objective answer. If you and I have differing opinions about it, there is almost no way for us to have a useful argument about it. What we can agree on is that being able to hear and understand the other official language is virtually a non-negotiable requirement of the prime ministership—and, frankly, conveniently-timed just-so stories about hearing problems don't really change that. If Mr. Dion is congenitally condemned to permanent struggles with English comprehension, someone should have brought it up when the Official Opposition was choosing a leader, not the day the federal election writs were dropped. It would not be fair for Dion to escape Conservative criticism by playing the disability card here, and it is not really very "mean-spirited" of them to call a train wreck by its proper name.
CTV News also appears to have screwed up ethically by assuring Dion that the raw footage of his floundering would never appear. Once they stopped to consider that the public is entitled to pass judgment on the candidate's language abilities, which are a valid election issue, they had no other appropriate choice but to go back on their word and make the evidence available. Since they were forced to contradict themselves, there is not much sense in blaming either the Liberals or the Conservatives for insisting on one pole of the contradiction. It's not always easy for a reporter, editor, or producer to apply the ethical principles of journalism on the fly, but the CTV must wear some egg on its face for this preposterous October Surprise.
National Post
Photo: Liberal leader Stephane Dion walks past pumpkins for sale at a street market upon arriving at a campaign stop in Oakville, Ontario Friday morning. Aaron Lynett/National Post更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net