本文首先從我在魯凱族好茶部落田野中的「錯誤」與「錯愕」經驗出發，指出其中凸顯出的課題已經不再是一般的跨文化對話中的理解困境，而是連族群內部的人對自己族群傳統的認知都存在巨大差異的現象。然後轉到當時事件中的要角奧威尼在因緣際會之中，從「報導人」、「翻譯」與「顧問」等做為本族與他族的中介者，逐漸轉為魯凱族的作家，透過漢語書寫展開族群文化的紀錄與文學創作，以詩歌、散文、報導及小說等多樣的文類呈現，而創作之依據絕大部分係其對自身文化之採集與詮釋之成果，因此他的所有作品均可視之為自我書寫之民族誌來閱讀。穿梭在魯凱族好茶的田野經驗與閱讀奧威尼漢語書寫文本的體驗，我嘗試將「（魯凱族好茶部落）田野作為文本」與「（魯凱族作家奧威尼的漢語書寫）文本做為田」併置，突出二者共同的跨文化理解的基本問題。接著論述奧威尼的具體書寫文本案例，討論原住民漢語書寫在生產與接受過程中，所涉及的語言與文化脈絡問題，並進一步討論以「翻譯作為跨文化理解的模式」對此一議題的啟示。作為初步結論，我以原住民漢語文學作為跨文化理解的媒介，並將翻譯作為跨文化理解的模式，讓我們可以透過「翻譯」，昭示了一種包含他者，並且邊界可以在跨文化對話的歷史進程中不斷擴大的特質。受到詮釋學的啟發，強調我們對自身文化的自我理解永遠需要走出自身，在遭逢差異中才能反思自身文化的未言明的前見，從而擴大對自己文化的理解。而在理解的過程中，初期所發生的「錯誤」、「錯愕」等不理解或誤解的現象，正是預設了彼此可以相互理解為前提。

This study is aimed to give shape to the notion of “translation as a model/ metaphor of cross–cultural understanding”. I started this paper with a description of what I, an ethnic Han researcher, called the “error and shock” events in my fieldwork with Rukai tribal communities in southern Taiwan. These ethnographic happenings led to the realization that disputes regarding the meanings of cultural tradition existed not only in cross–cultural encounters, but also among indigenous informants themselves. I then made a close reading of literature works done by a local Rukai informant, Auvini kadresengan, a free–lance writer devoted himself to record Rukai cultural tradition through various writing genres of report, poetry, essay and fiction. As such, Auvini kadresengan’s literature works could be regarded as self–report ethnography. The highlight of this paper was to juxtapose my fieldwork with Auvini kadresengan’s writings and envision them as dialogue to illuminate what it took to establish cross–cultural understanding. The dialogical arrangement was not merely a juxtaposition of concepts or categories, isolated from their social contexts. A conversation between two people always involves a third dimension, that is, the mediation of the embedded or unconscious cultural structures in language, terminologies, non–verbal codes of behavior, and assumptions about what constitutes the imaginary, real, and symbolic. Accordingly, I emphasized that aspects of language and cultural context are essential to the production, circulation and reception of indigenous literature, which can be embodied and labeled as “translation as a model/metaphor of cross–cultural understanding”. Approaching indigenous literature as mediator of cross–cultural understanding, I interwove mine and Auvini kadresengan’s ethnographic texts to indicate that every culture always includes the other and its boundary can be widened through cross–cultural dialogue. The “error and shock” events involving misunderstanding is unavoidable in the beginning of cross–cultural encounter. Nonetheless, it is also a prerequisite to reach mutual understanding if dialogue is to be continued.