[Bamoqubumo] Understanding Intangible Cultural Heritage from the Language Level--An Analysis Based on the "Two Chinese Versions" of the Convention

Abstract: Since the beginning of this century, the most influential international legal document in the field of cultural heritage can be called the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted in 2003.

However, there are currently two Chinese versions of the Convention: the "previous version" registered with the United Nations Secretariat, confirmed by its Secretary-General, and incorporated into the United Nations Treaty Series is not the "revised version" deposited with the UNESCO Secretariat and kept by its Director-General.

The Chinese version officially released by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress through its "Communique" or its website has neither left a clear mark as a "revised version" nor disclosed any connection with the "previous version." Based on such an "inter-text relationship", this paper uses archives verification and sample comparison to clarify the connection, dislocation and connection between core terms from the Convention itself, and reveal the inconsistencies between the two; Then combining the use of the two Chinese versions in China, it shows that understanding the "signifier" and "signifier" of "intangible cultural heritage" still needs to go back to the conceptual framework of the Convention, taking the text as the origin, and observing the potential impact of a series of keywords created in the Convention on intangible cultural heritage protection at the local, national and international levels from the verbal level and the possibility of meaning elimination.

Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage; Convention; effective text; conceptual framework; terminology system; working vocabulary Author: Bamoqubumo, researcher at the Institute of Ethnic Literature, China Academy of Social Sciences, Executive Director of the Center for Oral Tradition Research.

Zip code: 100732

Let's start with a few important time nodes, because they are closely related to the subsequent analysis of this article.

On October 17, 2003, The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") was adopted at the 32nd United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO (hereinafter referred to as "UNESCO") Conference; On August 28, 2004, with the approval of the Standing Committee of the 11th National People's Congress (hereinafter referred to as the "Standing Committee of the National People's Congress"), China became the sixth country to ratify the treaty; On April 20, 2006, the Convention was signed by the Director-General of UNESCO and the President of the General Conference and officially came into effect; in June 2008, the "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the International Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" were adopted at the Third Conference of States Parties; On April 14, 2015, 163 of the 195 member states of UNESCO had acceded to the Convention.

The unprecedented speed of ratification of the Convention far exceeds other important conventions concluded and adopted by UNESCO in the field of culture.

This not only shows that the protection of intangible cultural heritage is "in the overall interest of mankind", but also becomes "intangible cultural heritage".

As a new concept, it has been universally accepted on a global scale.

It is such a new term that goes from unfamiliar to familiar that not only enriches the discourse expression of world cultural diversity and human cultural creativity, but also changes the way people understand cultural heritage and practice.

However, as a new concept,"intangible cultural heritage" has become a hot topic in the streets, and it cannot be equated with "intangible cultural heritage protection" as a new concept entering people's life practice.

From the acceptance of concepts to the formation of concepts, it is not a step away.

It seems necessary for us to go back to the series of concepts and terms created by the Convention itself to understand the core keyword "intangible cultural heritage", thereby clarifying the world of words, dialogue relationships and discourse systems that constitute the concept of "intangible cultural heritage protection", thereby exploring multiple approaches to sustainable development for future protection practices at the local, national and international levels.

The text of the Convention is still a starting point for us to move forward, or even an origin, in the "awareness-raising actions" advocated by UNESCO.

We need to continue to set out and at the same time continue to return.

1.

Question raising: There are two Chinese versions of the Convention?

UNESCO has always played a leading role in the formulation, promotion and implementation of normative instruments in the fields of education, science and culture.

Normative actions in the field of cultural heritage are mainly divided into two categories: assisting Member States at the national level in formulating and implementing appropriate national legislation or legal frameworks to effectively protect national cultural heritage.

The construction of the UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws is the main manifestation of its achievements.

At the international level, three types of international instruments are formulated to strengthen the protection of cultural heritage, including conventions, recommendations and declarations, which embody the three basic operating principles of the organization's legal instruments: one is a "declaration", which is a purely moral or political commitment, uniting countries based on good beliefs, such as the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.

The second is the "Recommendation", which is aimed at one or more countries and seeks to encourage these countries to adopt special measures or take actions in existing methods in specific cultural environments.

In principle, it is not legally mandatory for Member States, such as the Recommendation for the Protection of Traditional Culture and Folklore adopted in 1989.

The third is "Convention", which is synonymous with "treaty" and "agreement".

It refers to an agreement reached between two or more countries, indicating the common will of relevant stakeholders and being legally binding on the parties.

For example, the 2003 Convention we are discussing is the most important international legal instrument in the field of cultural heritage protection in recent years.

[1]

The rapid development of the Convention actually reflects the deep concern paid by various countries to this increasingly fragile human cultural heritage.

Especially in the process of globalization, the international community urgently needs to find a strong legal framework.

Protect common goals and actions.

In the process of implementing the contract, countries strictly adopt their effective texts (authoritative text) should be the proper meaning of the title [2].

Article 39 of the Convention stipulates the following provisions on "valid texts":"This Convention is drafted in English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French and Russian, and the six texts have equal effect." In other words, the Chinese text cannot be simply understood as a translation based on English, French or other languages.

As one of the six "valid texts", the Chinese version is also unique in the legal sense.

However, in terms of current usage, the Convention does have two Chinese versions.

According to the information available to the author, before and after the adoption of the Convention in 2003, its "original" Chinese version began to enter the Chinese world through the UNESCO website.

That is because according to UNESCO Law, before any convention is adopted, UNESCO statutory bodies must prepare a draft text in the six working languages so that it can be included in the agenda of the General Assembly of Member States for discussion.

The "First Draft Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage"(32 C/26 Annexe III), which I still keep today, is the discussion paper of the conference that year.

In the 12 years after the adoption of the Convention, careful people may have noticed such a phenomenon: whenever the Convention's definition of "intangible cultural heritage" and its basic areas or protection measures are quoted, two kinds of inconsistent "expressions" will often appear, but we often do not take them seriously.

Re-reviewing the "Basic Documents of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" and its different versions, and simultaneously consulting the Internet of China and UNESCO's "UNESDOC Database"(hereinafter referred to as the "UNESCO Database"), it is actually not difficult to verify and compare the similarities and differences between the texts.

and intrinsic connections.

There is enough evidence to show that there are indeed two versions of the Convention with slightly different symbol numbers.

One is MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14, and the other is MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14REV.1.

The latter is a revised version of the former and is also the Chinese version currently published on the UNESCO website.

The file record number 132540c is the unique identification symbol automatically assigned to the associated file by the database, and c is the annotation of the Chinese text [3].

Figure 1: Cover of the Chinese revision with the symbol number "REV.1"

Document coding in the United Nations system has very strict regulations, based on which the basic classification, writing time, department, field involved, document sequence and language version of document archiving can be determined (ST/LIB/SER.B/5/Rev.5).

UNESCO's document management is also largely prepared and controlled in accordance with this long-standing tradition of filing.

For example, the last part of the symbol number is suffixed to reflect the changes made to the original text.

The following situations usually exist:

-/Add....

Addendum-/Amend...

Amendment: Alternative text is proposed for a part of the adopted official text based on the decision of the competent authority-/Corr...

Corrections may not apply to all language versions)-/Rev....

Revision replaces previously issued text)-/Summary version-/-* A document reissued for technical reasons

Obviously, the appearance of "Rev" in the symbol indicates that the text is a revised version, and "replaces the previously issued text" means that the text before the revision no longer meets the conditions for official quote and is replaced.

In other words, from the date of issuance of the revised version of the Convention,"previously issued texts" will cease to have legal effect.

Through a comparison of document attributes, it can be clearly seen that the creation time and revision time of the two Chinese versions of the Convention are indeed different: the document with the symbol MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14 was created on November 3, 2003, and revised on December 5, hereinafter referred to as the "previous version"); while the document with the symbol MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14 REV.1 was created on May 23, 2006, and revised on October 8, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the "revised version");"REV.1" states that so far, the text has only been revised once.

In UNESCO's legal library, such documents can also be retrieved under the entry of the Convention: MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14 REV.

only in Ara and Chi).

In other words, only the Arabic and Chinese versions have been revised among the six language versions.

In accordance with the rules of international law and UNESCO practice, any modifications should be initiated in accordance with procedures and recorded, filed and published by the Convention Secretariat.

Figure 2: Screenshot of UNESCO archives

However, the domestic authorities did not publicly mention the revision of the Chinese version of the Convention or the existence of two different Chinese versions.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be concluded from the record that the currently widely used predecessor was created in 2003 and has been replaced by the 2006 revision.

It is no longer a valid text of the Convention and therefore does not have any legal effect.

2.

Preliminary comparison of the two Chinese versions

So, what exactly goes wrong between the two Chinese texts? Which text is the "authentic" text adopted by the UNESCO Conference and formally entered into force? Is there a big difference between the two texts? Will different texts affect people's understanding of the spirit of the Convention and even the protection of intangible cultural heritage and its practice? Since there have been revisions to the text of the Covenant, should we completely abandon the previous version and fully implement the revised version? With such question marks to compare documents, it is not difficult for us to calculate that the previous version is 7099 words and the revised version is 7367 words, a difference of 268 words.

The review summary shows a total of 679 revisions, of which 332 were inserted, 338 were deleted, and 9 were formatted.

There are three major revisions to the text itself: additions, deletions, and modifications.

They mainly appear in the preface, Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter 1 "General Provisions", and individual words or sentences in relevant clauses, involving no less than 30 paragraphs.

Below, we can adopt a comparison method of text paragraphs to conduct a sample comparison of specific texts between two Chinese texts: 网站图片位

Figure 3: Comparison table between "pre-existing version" and "revised version"

The above comparison only provides the basic fact that the two Chinese versions coexist but are different.

In order to illustrate the understanding of the series of concepts or terms created by the Convention at the basic level of words or vocabulary, we may wish to compare the keywords in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 2 and the "inconsistencies" between them in order of precedence [4]:

Figure 4: Comparison of inconsistencies between "former version" and "revised version"

The above sample is based on Article 2 of the Convention, which is divided into three sections in terms of content, which respectively define the connotation terms of "intangible cultural heritage" and the main knowledge units covered by the extension terms from the conceptual framework) and what is "protection".

Various specific measures) are defined.

As far as these keywords are sampled and compared, there is a lack of minimum consistency between the original version and the English version; while the revised version has a more accurate grasp and reflection of the purpose of the legal instrument.

There are still many serious semantic confusion and understanding errors in the past, especially the use of key concepts and core terms is suspected of being "unrestrained" and "at your fingertips".

In addition to the errors in the key concepts and core terms listed above, there is also a crucial paragraph in this chapter that is expressed in vague terms, making it difficult to say that the text is consistent and the word is orderly.

For example, judging from the two paragraphs in comparison 2., the former not only deviated from the basic spirit of the Convention in terms of "innovation" and "sense of history", but also accidentally lost a keyword "respect".

Looking back at the ideological confrontation during the drafting process of the Convention, experts from folklore, anthropology, ethnology, law and other disciplines gradually reached a consensus through full dialogue and profound reflection during extremely fierce debates, games, persistence and compromise.

It is precisely in this treaty text that it is strictly and thoroughly "restated": It emphasizes the current characteristics of intangible cultural heritage, involving life modalities such as survival, present ongoing tense, inclusiveness, intergenerational inheritance, etc., and focuses on social functions and cultural significance, which reflects the cultural rights of relevant communities and groups.

Respect for rights.

From the perspective of the interpretation of righteousness,"re-creation" is far from "innovation" and "sense of continuity" is far from "sense of history".

In fact, these obvious shortcomings in the pre-existing text have caused some China scholars to refer to the English or French version to understand the "signifier" and "signifier" of key concepts when studying or interpreting the Convention, and then make their own reformulation of the connotation of certain sentences of "pre-existing text"[5].

More importantly, the key to the misplacement of the above concepts lies in the failure to fully grasp the goal of the Convention and the original intention of the drafters.

In the "Purpose" of the Convention, it is clearly stated that "respecting the intangible cultural heritage of relevant communities, groups and individuals" is "relevant groups, groups and individuals" in the past.

The most important "community" among the main types of intangible cultural heritage disappears between the two concepts of "group" and "group", which have their own purposes.

"Community" is the most reflective term in the 2003 Convention.

Respect for community and community participation are the basic prerequisites for implementing "various measures" to protect intangible cultural heritage.The Convention mentions the word "community" in 10 places, and makes corresponding provisions in Articles 1, 2, 11, 14 and 15, emphasizing that "When carrying out activities to protect intangible cultural heritage, States parties should strive to ensure the maximum participation of the communities, groups, and sometimes individuals, that create, continue and inherit such heritage, and to actively participate in relevant management." Article 13 focuses on the ethical principles that must be followed in contact with community intangible cultural heritage as "ensuring the enjoyment of intangible cultural heritage while respecting customs and practices in special aspects of the enjoyment of such heritage." The "Operation Guide" mentions the word "community" in as many as 61 places, making more detailed regulations on the full participation of communities in intangible cultural heritage protection.

In particular, it reiterates that the community must be based on the demands and interests of the community on the issue of commercial use of intangible cultural heritage.

Guided by the "five nots", the ethical principles for intangible cultural heritage protection are systematically summarized.

This basic position is further embodied in the preparation requirements for project application materials under the international cooperation mechanism, especially the code of conduct of "respecting their wishes and ensuring their prior informed consent"(FPIC) throughout the dynamic protection process.

Therefore, the verb "respect" is also a key concept in all aspects, echoing the purpose of the Convention.

Although the Convention itself does not clearly define "community","group" or "group" cannot be semantically replaced.

This is because the promulgation of the Convention in 2003 is a powerful response from the international community to the 30-year stagnation in intangible cultural heritage protection, and it is a breakthrough in the unfulfilled ambition of the "Recommendation on the Protection of Traditional Culture and Folklore"(1989).

Inheritance, which has brought about a change in the discourse relationship of "local empowerment and international cooperation"(1999)[6].

Empowering the value of intangible cultural heritage to relevant communities and groups is exactly the "protection approach" that many folklore scholars and anthropologists have painstakingly sought during the conclusion of this international legal document.

It is no exaggeration to say that "losing" communities is tantamount to losing the cornerstone of the Convention.

3.

The use of the two Chinese texts and their reflection

Do the two Chinese texts have different legal status and enforcement effects? What impact has the issue of "coexistence of texts" had or may have on China as a contracting party in the process of implementing the treaty? How should we understand, clarify and resolve this contradictory "inter-text relationship"? We may wish to list the basic situation of the use of some texts in order to explain what cognitive risks "coexistence of texts" will bring to the understanding of intangible cultural heritage, and what kind of chaos in action will be caused in the practical perspective.

On August 28, 2004, many portals forwarded the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Ratifying the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage"; however, it is unusual that the Convention itself was not published with the "Decision" as usual [7].

The "Decision" was subsequently published in full in the "Communique of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China" issue 6 in 2004.

Different from online media, there is a line attached to page 586 of the original journal reading "Editor's Note: Publication of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage suspended", but it does not make any explanation.

The full text of the Chinese version of the Convention was not officially published until the Communique of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, issue 2 of 2006, hereinafter referred to as the "deferred publication"[8]).

On May 17, 2006, the National People's Congress website also published the Chinese version of the Convention [9], the content is consistent with the "Communique" version.

However, nine years have passed, and the "suspended" Chinese version of the Convention has only been visited on the National Knowledge Network of China with "cited frequency 9" and "downloaded frequency 361".

Although the visit records of the National People's Congress Network cannot be verified, it can be inferred that although the Chinese version published by the National People's Congress Network is consistent with the current revision of UNESCO, its dissemination is very limited.

It is precisely because of the "postponement of publication" without explanation and the fact that the public is only "notified" through the paper "Communique" that the "former version" released by UNESCO in 2003 is regarded as a "valid text" in China and has been used for a long time.

Although the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress officially announced the Chinese version of the Convention in 2006 through two official channels: its Communique and its website, the texts from these two channels are the only Chinese version published by the competent department so far.

It is also a currently effective international multilateral document, which is completely consistent with the "revised version" issued by UNESCO in 2006.

However, the Chinese version of the Convention, which is currently widely used in China, is a "pre-existing" rather than a "deferred" Chinese version.

In other words, the fact that "the former is the original" is prevalent in the Chinese context cannot be circumvented.

The website of the Ministry of Culture did not publish the full text of the Convention until February 27, 2008 [10], almost two years later than the website of the National People's Congress.

Although there is no obvious inconsistency in the text of the contract published by the two websites, we can still see through document comparison that the texts published by the two competent authorities are not based on the same source.

From style to writing, and carefully comparing the inconsistencies between the two, it is almost certain that the version released on the website of the Ministry of Culture is in the transitional stage between the "pre-existing version" and the "revised version", which means that this is an unfinished version."Revised version" hereinafter referred to as the "Transitional Text ").

It stands to reason that the website of the Ministry of Culture was released two years late, but why didn't the revised edition of UNESCO or the "deferred publication" of the National People's Congress not publish? In fact, the "Selected Works of UNESCO Conventions for the Protection of World Cultures" edited by the External Relations Bureau of the Ministry of Culture was published by the Legal Press as early as June 2006.

Among them, the "Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" is used.

It is a revised version.

The text of the Convention reproduced by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Research Network of a certain university is very similar to the one on the website of the Ministry of Culture, but for some unknown reason, the "preface", which is an important part of the Convention, has "disappeared"[11].

This is obvious."subtract".

The Cultural Policy Library (CPLL) has won many visitors with its online services.

There is a column of "Current Cultural Policies and Regulations" in its "Regulations Library", and there are 162 documents recorded under the "Intangible Cultural Heritage" sub-column.

After searching, it was found that the library had published the text of the Convention twice in four years: once on August 29, 2004, it was read 4029 times [12], and the other on December 7, 2008, it was read 857 times [13]; The latter's title is "International Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage", with the addition of two words "International", and two titles "1.

Setting meaning" and "2.

Full content" have been added to the main text, which is another obvious "addition".

Once compared, it is not difficult to see that these two texts are actually the same "version", that is, the previous version.

It is worth noting that the library is copyrighted by the Central Academy of Cultural Management Cadres, and the supporting units are the Culture Office of the Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee of the National People's Congress, the Policy and Regulation Department of the Ministry of Culture, the General Office of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, and the State Administration of Press and Publication Policy and Regulations Department.

"China Intangible Cultural Heritage Network" is the most authoritative professional website in the field of intangible cultural heritage in China.

However, the text used is neither the "transitional text" published on the website of the Ministry of Culture nor the "deferred text" published by the National People's Congress, but uses the previous version published by UNESCO in 2003 [14].

In accordance with the principle of territorial management, all provinces in China have established intangible cultural heritage protection centers, most of which have opened exclusive websites and have columns on "Policies and Regulations".

However, anyone who can open a web page uses the original version almost without exception, such as Guizhou Intangible Cultural Heritage Network, Yunnan Province Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Network, Shandong Intangible Cultural Heritage Research Center, Fujian Province Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Center, Hainan Province Intangible Cultural Heritage Network, and Jilin City Intangible Cultural Heritage Network.

Only two of them indicate that the information source is "China Intangible Cultural Heritage Network."

The same "continued use" can be found everywhere on the Internet in China, such as the National Public Culture Network, the State Administration of Intellectual Property Rights, China Intellectual Property Protection Network, and the Internet Search Network, which is listed on the list of "China's Top Ten Most Popular Legal Websites," etc., which is enough to illustrate the popularity of government functional departments and professional institutions before using it.

Some institutions even directly revised the title of the Convention and placed it in the "International Declaration" column [15], ignoring the essential difference between the "Convention" and the "Declaration" in UNESCO standard instruments.

In academic circles, research results based on the text of "pre-present in the present" are also very common.

Today, on the official website of the National People's Congress, we can still see that senior experts specializing in cultural legislation are insensitive to the "coexistence" of the two Chinese versions of the Convention, so that they quote the definition of "protection" in the previous version many times in the same paragraph of their own article, and there are obvious inconsistencies.

The nine protection measures of the Convention are "reduced" to eight, and the order of each measure is also randomly placed.

[16]

The use of text in news media is even more chaotic.

For example, on the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention, a report in the legal system "rewritten" the Convention's definition and omitted "traditional handicrafts":"Intangible cultural heritage includes: oral inheritance and expression, especially language as a medium of intangible cultural heritage; performing arts; social practices and ceremonial festivals; knowledge and practice about nature and the universe." [17]

In June 2010, in order to welcome the fifth Cultural Heritage Day, the portal website of the State Council Information Office made a special report.

While releasing the Convention, it also forwarded "Comparison and Interpretation of the Concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage" and "Interpretation of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Policies and Regulations", but without exception, the words "pre-present" were used [18].

On August 3, 2015, the "Outlook" weekly sponsored by Xinhua News Agency published a "hot spot observation".

The reporter still used the previous version, and the three key paragraphs in the "definition" were used word for word.

In this report, subsequent comments on "change" and "innovation" also showed obvious deviations in understanding [19].

What is even more puzzling is that as of November 2010, Xinhuanet was still quoting the definition of "oral and intangible heritage" before the promulgation of the 2003 Convention to replace the legal document's definition of "intangible cultural heritage".

New definition:

...

The Convention entered into force in April 2006.

Intangible cultural heritage, also known as oral or intangible heritage, is material heritage that can be passed down compared to tangible heritage.

According to UNESCO's definition, it refers to "all creations from a cultural community that are based on tradition, expressed by a group or individuals, and are considered to be in line with the expectations of the community as an expression of its cultural and social identity, whose norms and values are passed down orally through imitation or other means", including various types of national traditions and folk knowledge, various languages, oral literature, customs and habits, national and folk music, dance, Etiquette, handicrafts, traditional medicine, architecture and other arts.

[20]

There are many conceptual confusion before and after this quotation, and the "various languages" in it mean that there are obvious misunderstandings in the understanding of intangible cultural heritage.

Language, including its phrasing, morphology, syntax, grammar, etc., cannot be directly included in the category of intangible cultural heritage, so it depends on the cultural expression it carries.

For example, although the Manchu language is endangered, it cannot become an intangible cultural heritage project independently; as a form of cultural expression,"Manchu Shubu" belongs to a typical "oral tradition." There are various similar differences.

For example, some scholars have called for the declaration of China's ancient books and documents as "representative works of mankind's intangible cultural heritage." This is also a misunderstanding of the spirit of the Convention and its scope of protection.

There are countless similar examples.

Of course, these phenomena may not be simply attributed to the dereliction of duty of the legislative branch or the inaction of the cultural administrative branch, but to the lack of effective regulatory coordination mechanisms and accountability systems among competent departments.

In fact, relevant functional departments in the Ministry of Culture system have successively published a variety of legal documents closely related to the Convention, and the text of the Convention included is exactly the same as the revised version [21].

The paper version of the document was officially launched as early as June 2006, but the online version is still old.

In the current information age, it continues to be widely spread by many unknown "mouseers" and has been cited in many academic works.

So, did the "revised version" appear on the Internet in China? The answer is yes.

But users are very limited.

The first is the online guide on the website of the UNESCO International Training Center for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region: launched together with the "Operation Guide" and indicating UNESCO's document number, but the time is July 4, 2013 [22].

The second is the collection of Peking University Magic Weapons [23], with the citation code CLI.T.3969.

You need to register and pay to see the full text, and the release time cannot be found; the third is the reprinting and correction of the China Folklore Network: the website published the "first" Chinese version of the Convention as early as October 20, 2003, on the occasion of the 32nd UNESCO General Conference; Later, on October 22, 2006, the old text was deleted and updated to a revised Chinese version [24] with the symbol number and a link to the PDF file in the UNESCO database.

It now seems that it may not be advisable to directly delete the "previous version" and use the "revised version".

If both Chinese versions appear on the same website at the same time, it will be conducive for readers to compare and help scholars further study the tension between the two texts, so as to grasp the time context of the Convention's entry into the Chinese context and its impact on the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection.

In fact, Baidu Encyclopedia's netizen co-construction model objectively maintains the state of "coexistence" between two texts: one is the International Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which is the former version; the other is the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, which is the revised version [25].

It can be seen from the latter's historical version records that the document was uploaded by netizen fxszxy at 01:04 on February 8, 2009, and specifically stated that the reason was "the original Chinese document of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage." It also provides a valid link to UNESCO database documents.

Since the Convention is a multilateral document ratified by many countries-a binding legal instrument), differences in terms such as concepts, terms, and vocabulary cannot be simply understood as "translation errors".

Instead, we must enter the discourse system it constructs to understand the original intention, goal, multi-directional expression and path of acceptance of the framers of the Convention.

The promulgation of the Convention has gone through 30 years of reflection, exploration and research.

From 1973 to 2002, UNESCO held a total of 52 meetings; from 2001 to 2003, the text of the Convention officially entered the drafting stage.

Although it only took less than three years, UNESCO held as many as 15 meetings, which was higher than the previous three decades.

During this period, the international expert meetings focusing on definitions, concepts, terms, and glossaries can at least cover the Piedmont Conference, the Turin Conference, the Rio de Janeiro Conference and the Paris Conference.

It can be seen that UNESCO and academic forces from all parties are searching for and polishing the working vocabulary.

Good intentions.

UNESCO itself does not constitute a think tank and does not directly produce ideas.Instead, it relies on its own organizational channels and action plans to gather various resources for intellectual support on a global scale, and through cooperation with relevant institutions, individuals, especially non-governmental organizations and independent experts, it provides debate, response, consultation and promotion at the international level.

The Convention and its core concepts discussed here come from the profound reflection of disciplines such as folklore, cultural anthropology and sociology on dynamic processes such as the process of human civilization, knowledge production and intergenerational transmission, and then on the relationship between community participation and heritage value recognition.

The discourse relationship has been completely sorted out and explained, involving long-term exploration of issues such as cultural heritage and cultural diversity, cultural creativity, cultural autonomy, and sustainable development.

Therefore, the understanding of a series of specific concepts, terms and vocabulary created by the Convention can only be further clarified by combining the conceptual tools and academic traditions of these disciplines.

4.

Custody and registration of the Convention: issues of suspension

Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations stipulates that: 1.

After this Charter comes into effect, all treaties and international agreements concluded by any Member State of the United Nations shall be registered with the Secretariat as soon as possible and announced by the Secretariat.

2.

A party may not invoke a treaty or international agreement that has not been registered in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article to any United Nations organ.

Article 40 of the Convention accordingly stipulates the following provisions on the "registration" of the Convention: "In accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, this Convention shall be submitted to the United Nations at the request of the Director-General of UNESCO.

Secretariat registration." After verification of the United Nations Treaty Collection database, the six language versions of the Convention, together with a number of other language versions, were submitted to the United Nations Secretariat for registration on May 4, 2006, and were confirmed by the Secretary-General on May 10: Registration certificate number COR-Reg-42671-Sr-53767, the entire document can be downloaded online [26] and was included in the United Nations Treaty Series, published in New York in 2007.

However, what is strange is that when we open this entire document, the Chinese version we see is an unrevised "previous version"[27].

There is, then, no correspondence between the revised version currently deposited with UNESCO and kept by its Director-General and the previous version registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations.

Therefore, does the Chinese version registered in the United Nations Treaty Series comply with the rules of international law and practice that the texts in the six languages are "equally authentic"? Which one should be regarded as the only "authentic Chinese version" with legal effect? As a layperson in international law, the author really does not know how to judge.

This issue leads us to the General Assembly's records and its resolutions on the occasion of the adoption of the Convention.

Because, no matter which official language it is, the revision of the text should be carried out in accordance with procedures.

In the UNESCO database, the author finally found the "Records of the 32nd Session of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Volume 1)" published in 2004, and saw the record of the debate on the adoption of the Convention in the fourth unit of this meeting (Committee IV) on Agenda 8.5.

The data collection contains a draft of the Chinese version of the Convention on pages 66 - 76, and the content is completely consistent with the previous version widely used in China; the adoption of the Convention is explained in the note on page 66:"Resolution adopted at the 21st plenary meeting on October 17, 2003 based on the report of Committee IV." Another unexpected discovery was that a "Resolution Correction" suddenly appeared at the end of the meeting minutes [28], with two lines of words written on the cover: "Only involving Chinese"; and "The original text of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage should be changed to the attached text." Then, if you look closely at this "attached text", you will see the revised version today.

The page number of the main body of this correction starts from page 1 and is not consecutive with the page number of the previous document.

It can be judged from this that this "Resolution Corrigendum" should be added after the fact, and will not be before the Secretariat replaced it in 2006 or before the current version becomes a revised version [29].

Perhaps it is precisely because of various mistakes in the past that from the adoption of the Convention in 2003 to its entry into force in 2006, the China government submitted amendments to UNESCO to replace the Chinese version of the Convention in the six "jointly authentic" language versions.

This should also be the reason why the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress decided to "suspend publication" of the text when it ratified the Convention.

This speculation was confirmed after questioning relevant persons in a competent department: this complex and difficult correction process is not easy from start to completion, but little is known.

Another issue related to this is that the Chinese version currently kept in the archives of UNESCO has been clearly marked as a "revised version," but the competent authorities of China have not yet officially announced its "predecessor", nor have they announced the abolition or invalidation of its "predecessor".

Of course, there is no way to address the possible "version problems" in the current text.

However, the Chinese version published by the National People's Congress website is a revised version in the UNESCO Treaty Library.

In this way, obvious inconsistencies have emerged in international and domestic practice: although the text of the treaty is the same, the "version numbers" are different.

At the same time, the original Chinese version registered with the United Nations Secretariat and the revised Chinese version kept by the Director-General of UNESCO also exist; as an international legal document, the inconsistency between the custody and registration of the text of the Convention may be caused by the failure to properly control the working procedures and their continuity.

The Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage has repeatedly emphasized that the various language versions of the Convention are the primary reference for the "Operational Guidelines" or "Operational Guidelines".

In fact, for texts in both Chinese and English, inconsistencies often appear in the use of key terms and core concepts.

In particular, concepts dedicated to the field of intangible cultural heritage and their semantic deviations are not easy to be corrected in a timely manner.

Communication between States parties and the Secretariat is often very difficult and time-consuming.

In short, these issues require serious attention from all parties involved.

As a responsible member of the international community, China should also face it with a positive, serious and prudent attitude.

The development of the Convention in 2003 was also reflected in the promulgation and continuous revision of a set of basic documents such as the "Operational Guidelines".

These documents have also had a significant impact on the protection of intangible cultural heritage in my country.

Since 2012, the External Relations Bureau of the Ministry of Culture has organized an expert group and established an editorial committee to specially compile and revise the Chinese versions of the Basic Documents of the Convention and various application forms, especially the relevant terms and written expressions of the Convention and its "Operating Guidelines" have been specially compared and proofed, clarifying and unifying the inconsistencies between the terms and terms between the two.

The book is an important reference document for my country to fulfill the responsibilities and obligations of States parties to the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

It is also an action guide and practical tool for scientific and orderly carrying out intangible cultural heritage protection and organization of project declarations and other related work.

The launch and free sharing of its Kindle e-books [30] will undoubtedly help people track and understand the development of the Convention.

It is also a guide to guide intangible cultural heritage practitioners, professional institutions and stakeholders to accurately grasp the spirit of the Convention.

Work procedures and promote the protection of intangible cultural heritage at the local, national and international levels.

However, in the specific practice of implementing the contract, we actually failed to distinguish between the two long-standing Chinese versions, did not make a deeper and more detailed interpretation of the concepts, terms and working vocabulary conveyed between them, and ignored the authority of the effective text of the Convention.

This kind of neglected phenomenon will only bring practical difficulties to our intangible cultural heritage protection work, and should attract the common attention of intangible cultural heritage authorities, protection agencies at all levels and relevant disciplines.

Conclusion: Back to the Convention

To this day, the two Chinese versions of the Convention have not been recognized by the broad audience of the text, nor have they attracted the attention of government authorities.

This was the original intention of the author to resort to relevant phenomena and facts without avoiding the cumbersome process of writing.

However, after collecting and sorting out the citations of the Convention from relevant protection agencies, mainstream media, research monographs and academic articles, I suddenly felt that listing facts was no longer so important in the face of the ever-lengthening list of materials.

In this era of big data, an article that may be able to rectify the source is like a drop in the ocean to the Internet world and may not change anything.

However, in the process of reviewing various materials, re-reading the text of the Convention, returning to UNESCO's database, and re-tracing the difficult process of drafting and promulgating the Convention, I want to understand such "coexistence of texts" and its occurrence and continuation.

A certain inevitability is like an experience of thought and knowledge.

It tells us that the twelve years since the adoption of the Convention are like a person's life has just passed a ring.

For the great cause of mankind in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, The road is still far away.

While sighing, Chang Xu kept urging himself to go back to the lines of the Convention to appreciate the folklore practice behind this legal document and the humanistic feelings of many pathfinders.

Many nights, he walked through the English version and the two Chinese versions.

Between the intertwined words, I realized that the "coexistence of texts" that originally felt so absurd may be a new way for us to understand intangible cultural heritage, the Convention, international legal documents, and national conditions for consultation.

It is also a reflection path to understand public folklore.

For the author,"introspection" may be more important.

However, a former version that should have been abolished is widely circulated but a revised version that should have been fully put into use is little known.

Faced with such a long-ignored misuse of the text, what should we do?

When I stop writing, it is also the time to choose how to face responsibilities...

-----------------------------------------------------

Notes:

※

This article is a phased research result of a selected topic by the Center for Oral Tradition Research of the Institute of Ethnic Literature, China Academy of Social Sciences.

[1]This is a brief summary based on the relevant content of UNESCO Profile 2012 edition) and its website.

[2]In the norms and practice of international law, the Convention is often referred to as the "authentic text", that is, the only legal and valid text in the sense of international law.

In the United Nations system, texts in the six official languages are also considered to be the "same authentic" text unless they are amended in accordance with legal procedures and result in an amendment to all six of them or only one text; otherwise, these six texts remain the legal authentic texts of the Convention.

[3] http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540c.pdf

[4]Here we only use the English text as a reference, not to say that Chinese terms or concepts are translated from English.

To analyze the international legal documents of the Convention, we must bear in mind that Chinese is one of the legal working languages of the United Nations.

We cannot simply attribute all problems to "translation errors" and downplay the legal significance of the Convention text.

[5]See Liang Zhiping: "Who will protect intangible cultural heritage?" Published in Zheng Peikai, ed.: Oral Transmission and Cultural Inheritance, Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press, 2006, pp.

42 - 56.

See also Lei Jingxuan: "Protection of Cultural Heritage in Two Documents and Three Languages", ibid., pp.

28 - 41.

[6]This involved a debate and reflection on where folklore should go in the protection of cultural heritage, which lasted for 16 years.

For details, see An Deming: "Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Dilemma in Folklore","Henan Social Sciences", No.

1, 2008.

See also Bamoqubumo: "Intangible Cultural Heritage: From Concept to Practice","National Art", No.

1, 2008.

[7]For example, the 2005 Convention published by the National People's Congress website in February 2007 has the "Decision" first and the Covenant text second:

http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/wxzl/2007-02/01/content_357668.htm

[8]According to the rules of international law and practice, only one valid Chinese text should be recognized in the Convention.

Since the National People's Congress did not inform the public of any clues to the amendment, it is called a "deferred publication article" here to distinguish it from the "transitional article" of the Ministry of Culture.

Whenever the "revised edition" is mentioned in this article, it mainly refers to the second Chinese edition published by UNESCO to distinguish the competent agency that issued the document.

[9]In May 2006, the Chinese version of the Convention published by the National People's Congress website:

http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/wxzl/2006-05/17/content_350157.htm

[10] http://zwgk.mcprc.gov.cn/auto255/200802/t20080227_20637.html

[11] http://cich.sysu.edu.cn/gjfybh/lhgfybh/lhgfybhflfg/2013422/n805512687.html

[12] http://www.cpll.cn/law2821.shtml

[13] http://www.cpll.cn/law8031.shtml

[14]http://www.ihchina.cn/show/feiyiweb/html/com.tjopen.define.pojo.feiyiwangzhan.FaGuiWenJian.detail.html? id=134d33fb-238a-4834-a4f4-e057dce3c1cc&classPath=com.tjopen.define.pojo.feiyiweb.faguiwenjian.FaGuiWenJian

[15] http://www.iicc.org.cn/Info.aspx? ModelId=1&Id=339

[16]http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/rdlt/fzjs/2008-09/27/content_1451586.htm; The same question also appears in other related articles by this expert.

[17]"Cultural diversity must be protected by legal means," Legal Daily, April 23, 2007.

[18] http://www.scio.gov.cn/ztk/xwfb/09/index.htm

[19]Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection, No.31,2015.

[20] http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2010-11/16/content_14245870.htm

[21]Edited by the External Relations Bureau of the Ministry of Culture: Selected UNESCO Conventions on the Protection of World Cultures (Chinese and English), Law Press, 2006.

Compiled by the Document Compilation Committee of the External Relations Bureau of the Ministry of Culture: Compilation of Basic Documents of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2012 edition), Foreign Languages Press, 2012 edition.

Editor-in-chief of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Department of the Ministry of Culture: "Compilation of Laws and Regulations on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage", Beijing: Culture and Art Press, 2013 edition.

[22] http://www.chinaculture.org/crihap/crihap/2013-07/04/content_458951.htm

[23] http://www.pkulaw.cn/fulltext_form.aspx? Db=eagn&Gid=100667265&keyword= Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage & CodingName =&Search_Mode=like

[24] http://www.chinafolklore.org/web/index.php? NewsID=2178

[25]http://baike.baidu.com/view/1434733.htm and http://baike.baidu.com/view/1006148.htm.

[26]The file file number recorded in the registration card is v2370, but it is actually v2368.

See

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202368/v2368.pdf

[27] Treaty Series: Treaties and international agreements, registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations.

Vol.

2368.

Nos.

42671 to 42706; No.

42671.

Multilateral: Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Paris, 17 October 2003, registered in May, United Nations 2007, pp.20-34.

[28] http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001331/133171c.pdf

[29]This is a meeting record of more than 200 pages long.

The document attributes clearly state that the document was created on January 12, 2004, and the revision time was October 4, 2014.

[30]Document Compilation Committee of the External Relations Bureau of the Ministry of Culture: Compilation of Basic Documents of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2013 edition), Foreign Languages Press, China Digital Culture Group Co., Ltd., 2013.

This compilation has been regularly updated since 2012 in accordance with the revised version of the Assembly of States Parties and is shared with readers free of charge in Amazon China as a Kindle e-book.

This article was published in the 6th issue of "National Art" in 2015.

Please refer to the original paper edition for annotations and charts.)