今年（2013年）的伦敦“跨艺”，在学者讨论的层面有三个议题：跨艺术、跨语言、跨学科。我被分在第二组，因此“跨语言”的议题是需要我主要思考的内容。
所谓“跨语言”，我首先想到的是：语言之间的跨越。这首先让我犯了踟蹰：语言之间能够跨越吗？从一种语言系统到另一种语言系统的自由跨越可能吗？我们组的工作模式，实际上证明了我的这种怀疑。
我们组共有五名学者，我、北舞的潘莉、刘岩、台湾学者陈雅萍和德裔英籍学者Stefanie。由于潘莉日语强而英语有限，因此我们的讨论必须要使用中英文两种语言举行，而这种方式就应该视为语言的跨越吧？可这种跨越并不自如，因为必须通过一座桥梁，那就是翻译。
因此，语言的跨越是有条件的，双方必须经过一个翻译的桥梁。
那么，翻译是否能完全尽意呢？这恐怕牵扯到的东西更多：翻译对所讨论的事宜在词汇上是否掌握、理解上是否顺畅、表达上是否通达？我本人也曾任过口译工作，深知翻译工作的不易和局限。因此，“跨语言”实际上有伪命题之嫌，因为这个跨越如果没有桥梁是根本不可能实现的。
但如果我们把语言进一步分为口头语言和身体语言之后，就会发现，这种跨越的实现是完全可能的，甚至会发现，身体语言跨越的可能性和价值从命题本身就远远高于口头语言的跨越。
在这次“跨艺”项目中，来自北京、台北、伦敦三地的9位编导和近30位舞者之间的沟通是在汉语和英语之间不断转换的，我在观摩时注意到，在许多情况下，某一语言的编导所发出的某一种语言的指令，并不需要通过翻译就被舞者们所接受。当然，这种现象也有其他的原因，比如，由于大家已经一起工作了一段时日，彼此间已经建立起了某种默契；再比如，舞者们对彼此的语言也都有了一个最基础的掌握。当然，撇开这些因素不言，其实我们会本能地得出结论：对于身体语言的理解其实是不需要翻译的。
记得几年前在北京由瑞典大使馆为了某项纪念活动而安排的一次没有现场翻译的瑞典语话剧表演，我在现场发现，大多数中国观众都如堕入云里雾里，不知话剧表现的是什么。我当时就想，如果安排一次舞蹈表演，那么就绝不会有这种尴尬。前不久在北京落幕的“北京舞蹈双周”闭幕式演出中，来自冰岛的舞蹈演出虽然是第一次跃入中国观众的眼帘，但却没有造成丝毫理解上的障碍。这种例子俯拾即是。因此，身体语言上的“跨语言”，是舞蹈艺术自身的一大优势。
这种优势还可以提升至审美层面来解读。由于没有了理解上的障碍，大家反而把注意力更加集中到对方所传达的审美领域之中，对于文化上的差异、肢体动势的判断等这些具有舞蹈艺术本体意义的特征，则会更好地予以观察和欣赏。这次参与“跨艺”编创工作的北舞郭磊院长根据江西南丰傩舞所呈现的假面民间舞形态，就引起了中英（包括台湾）学者们的一致浓厚兴趣。这让我想起在前不久于北京国家大剧院举行的“第二届北京国际芭蕾舞暨编舞比赛”的开幕式中，由高度领衔的北舞民间舞系的一台民间舞作品，让现场的各国评委欢呼雀跃，反响强烈。这些例子都让我们看到“跨语言”现象及其它赋予舞蹈艺术的意义。
因此，本次“跨艺”平台为我们提供的观察角度——“跨语言”现象及其我们在身体语言层面上关注到的超强跨越能力，让我们自豪于舞蹈艺术的表达和能量。
Translation…
Jiang Dong’s London Reflections 04: Transcending Language
The 2013 London ArtsCross session featured three topics of academic discussion: “Crossing
On first considering the topic, “Crossing Languages”, what came to mind was transcending the boundaries between languages. At first I hesitated. Is it in fact possible to cross the boundaries between languages? Can one really cross freely from one language system into another language system? My doubts were confirmed by the approach our group adopted.
There were five academics in our group: Myself, Pan Li from the Beijing Dance Academy, Liu Yan, Taiwanese academic Chen
Thus, linguistic transcendence was conditional. Both sides required the connection supplied by the interpreter.
Moreover, is it possible for an interpreter to convey meaning completely and accurately? This touches on a number of other questions: does the interpreter have a firm grasp of the terminology for the subject being discussed? Is their understanding clear? Do they express themselves smoothly? I myself have previously worked as an interpreter, and am very familiar with the challenges and limitations of interpreting. Thus, in reality, “Crossing Language” is a false proposition, since crossing is not achievable without the bridge provided by an interpreter.
However, if we further break language down into spoken language and body language, we discover that this transcendence is actually totally achievable. The possibility and the value of transcending body language is far greater than for spoken language.
During this session of ArtsCross, the communication between the nine choreographers and close to thirty dancers from Beijing, Taipei and London continually shifted between English and Chinese. During my observations of the project I noticed that when some director gave some instruction in a particular language, it often did not need to be translated, and was immediately understood by the dancers. Of course, there were other reasons for this as well. Everyone had been working together for a period of time, and a mutual understanding had already emerged between the participants. What is more, the dancers all possessed a very basic grasp of each others’ languages. Of course, setting these factors aside, we instinctively come to the conclusion that where body language is concerned, there is no need for translation.
It reminded me of a play in Swedish, put on by the Swedish embassy in Beijing for some special occasion. I noticed that the majority of the Chinese audience appeared completely lost, and had no idea what was going on in the play. I thought to myself at the time that if it had been a dance performance, this awkward situation would never have arisen. During the closing ceremony of the recent Beijing Dance Fortnight, there was a dance performance from Iceland. Although it was the first time the Chinese audiences had seen this dance, there were no obstacles to understanding whatsoever. Examples like this are a dime a dozen. Thus, the “transcendence of language” inherent within body language is one of the key strengths of dance.
This strength can also be appreciated at a purely aesthetic level. Because of the lack of impediments to understanding, people can focus more attention on the aesthetic message being transmitted and through appreciating the elements inherent to dance, such as cultural differences, physical movements, etc., can observe and appreciate more meaningfully. The Beijing Dance Academy choreographer, Guo Lei, who participated in this year’s ArtsCross, used Nuo opera masks from Nanfeng in Jiangxi province to create a masked folk dance arrangement. This attracted strong interest from all of the Chinese (including Taiwanese) and British academics. This reminded me of the opening ceremony of the recent Second Beijing Ballet and Choreography Competition, held at China’s National Centre for the Performing Arts, which featured a Taiwanese folk piece created by the Ethnic Dance Faculty at the Beijing Dance Academy. This work received enthusiastic praise from the international panel of judges. These examples paint a picture of the phenomenon of “crossing languages” and the meaning it can bring to dance.
This year’s session of ArtsCross provided us with an opportunity to observe the phenomenon of “crossing languages”, and we also noted the powerful ability of body language to cut across languages. This generated a sense of pride in the expressiveness and energy of dance as an art form.