- 上一篇：中英颜色词的文化对比分析以红白为例
- 下一篇：英语习语的隐喻意义及翻译方法
For legal text translation, it is essential to practice abide by preliminary principles and techniques under the instruction of the theory concerning legal text translation. Translators need a systematic theoretical framework to find his own site and select appropriate way to study. Legal text translation is not only an inter-lingual transfer but also a transformation of thought cross culture and law system. For example, there are much discrepancy in legal terminologies seems to be corresponding in distinct legal system. Thus translators are supposed to distinguish and analyze legal terminologies other than literally translate them.
The translation problems in legal practice can be generally summarized as follows: 1) syntax error; 2) omission, addition and interpretation without real understanding; 3) incorrect translation of terminology; 4) inappropriate style of translated text; 5) deficiency of language cultivation; 6) mistakes arising from legal cultural difference
The study of legal text translation can be roughly pided into three major domains: law, language and translation. Each of the major domains can be pided into many sub-domains which will focus on different aspects of the study of legal text translation. I shall be briefly discussing three major domains:
(2) Dual functional equivalence theory;
(3) Principles of legal text translation;
(4) Techniques of legal text translation.
2. Literature Review
In writing this thesis, an extensive body of work in the field of law and language has been consulted. I shall be briefly discussing what kinds of work are being done in domains of legal language, translation theory and principle of legal text translation.
The features of legal language are one of the major domains to which the linguists and the legal practitioners devote their attention. Domains relevant to “legal language” include (1) the drafting of legal documents and legislation; and (2) the advocacy of the “plain language movement”. These two domains are relevant because the structure and the style of legal language will determine how the written legal texts and the statutes will be drafted. Gonzalez, Vasquez and Mikkelson’s article on “Drafting and interpreting legal documents (1998) and Herman’s Plain Language for Lawyers (1991) cover the subject of drafting. The objective of “the plain language movement” is to simplify the legal language and get rid of the archaic elements that make the legal language unintelligible. Critics of legal language often argue that legal language serves a membership defining purpose i.e. only those people who are in the legal field can master this language and the access of the laymen can be denied. However, those who object to the plain language movement reason that legal language does have its functions to achieve precision and to avoid ambiguity, so that a communicative purpose can be achieved within the legal domain.
Other linguists and legal scholars have discussed the subjects of “features of legal language”, “law and language”, and the style of written legal texts, including Crystal’s Investigating English Style (1969), Solan’s The Language of Judges (1993) and Chen Jianping’s An Exploration into the Translation of Legal Texts (2008).
Usually, translators and professionals maintain that the preliminary standard of legal text translation is faithfulness, or fidelity. That is to say，the target text must exactly convey the meaning which the source text intends to．However, the named faithfulness or fidelity is just an abstract principle lacking practical guidelines and objective criteria. Therefore, Eugene Nida proposed his famous notion of “dynamic equivalence”: “Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style”. This definition includes three basic terms: (1) equivalence, pointing to the original language; (2) natural, pointing to the receptor language; (3) closest, referring to link together on an extremely similar basis.