【作者】 熊德米；

【导师】 黄振定；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2011， 博士

【副题名】A Contrastive Linguistic Approach

【摘要】 中外法制史和法律语言史证明,每个法系及其语言表述系统的长足发展,须臾离不开通过翻译吸收其他法系的有益成分。近代以降的中华法系就是乘着这股川流不息的“译流”,逐渐实现了从固步自封的“祖宗之法”到海纳百川改革开放之法的伟大涅槃。正是在这股“译流”恒久不变的影响下,当今日渐葳蕤的中国特色社会主义法制体系,仍然是一个“充满外来语的世界”。斗转星移,“充满外来语世界的中国法律”这个曾经近乎贬义的称谓,而今却被赋予了崭新的涵义,即“外来语”被用来继续引进国外先进法律观念的同时,也被用来向“外来语世界”翻译输出中国的法律,使一度依托“外来语”发展壮大起来的中国法律,蝶化成倍受“外来语”本土世界青睐的重要法律渊源,而其母国则得以最终实现了从法律输入国到法律输出国的巨大转变。因此,与之相应的法律语言翻译研究,也由以往的“外译汉”单向关注,转为对“汉外互译”的双向关注。“基于语言对比的英汉现行法律语言互译研究”亦由此应运而生。本论文以英汉现行法律语言互译出版物为语料,从词、句、篇三个层次进行对比研究,实事求是地分析英汉法律语言翻译的优劣,指出客观存在的问题,提出解决问题的方法,旨在从理论和实践两个方面揭示英汉现行法律语言翻译的潜在规律,激发更多法律翻译爱好者参与法律语言的翻译及其研究,共同推动英汉法律语言翻译理论与实践研究。全文共分导论、主体和结论三大部分。“导论”是本研究的概览,旨在廓清法律语言及其相关概念,梳理国内外法律语言及其翻译研究源流,揭示论文撰写的旨趣意义和创新点等,同时就有关争议的问题提出自己的观点。主体部分共五章。第一章是英汉立法文本词、句、篇层次上的对比。英汉立法文本基本词语的共性是准确性、模糊性与专业性并立,但英汉法律词语存在法律文化和法律历史的差异；英汉法律专业术语属于法律词语的重要组成部分,其共同特点主要表现在意义单一、形式固定、语域专一、与时俱进和模糊性五个方面。英汉立法语句模式的共同特点是,两者都使用授权性、禁止性、义务性三种句法类型和预设处理型、祈使命令型、解释陈述型三种句法形态。英汉法律语篇对比包括两方面,其一是指立法语篇的标题、章、节、款、项、目等内容要素,其二是指从现代语篇学的角度分析英汉法律语篇的语言结构差异,如语法衔接和词汇衔接等。第二章是关于英汉法律翻译的基本原则和针对法律翻译者提出的基本要求。法律翻译既要遵守翻译的普遍原则,也要遵循一套适合法律翻译特点的特殊原则。因此,为适应“特殊目的语言翻译”(TLSP)的法律语言翻译,我们提出了法律翻译的专业性、权威性和可操作性三个要求以及准确性、等效性、严谨性特殊原则。然后,对法律翻译者提出了四个方面要求。第三章探讨英汉法律词语的翻译处理,其中包括法律专业术语的翻译。有效识别普通词语的法律意义,并在译文中做出恰当的表达,是法律翻译人员应当具备的基本能力。法律专业术语翻译是法律词语翻译的重点,了解东西法律术语文化差异是做好法律翻译的重要条件。为此,我们就普通法律词语和法律专业术语的翻译提出了不同的翻译原则。第四章讨论英汉法律语言句子结构异同及其翻译。首先对英汉程式化法律单句(简单句)和复句(复合句)结构进行比较分析。法律单句(简单句)主要表现为陈述句和祈使句两种句类。法律复句(复合句)主要表为预设-处理关系句或条件-结果句,如法律英语用where或if明确表示,形式完整,极易判断；法律汉语的预设句大多数情况下为隐性预设句或用“……的”或“……者”表示,变数较大,难于判断。根据英汉法律语句的特点,我们提出了英汉现行法律语句翻译的单句(简单句)互译、复句(复合句)互译以及综合性翻译原则。第五章专谈英汉法律语篇的比较与转换,重点关注复杂法律语篇中的词汇衔接和语法衔接及其翻译。词汇衔接关注英汉法律语言中相同词语重复、同义词重复和上下义关系及其英汉互译。语法衔接重点分析英汉法律语言中人称照应的显性表现形式和隐性表现形式及其翻译转换。最后为结束语。法律翻译在每一个历史变革时期都发挥过不可替代的作用,但却一直没有引起翻译界和相关学术领域的重视,研究者至今寥若晨星,研究成果捉襟见肘,富有建树的成就更是自不待言。为此,本研究结束部分指出了目前法律语言翻译研究存在的问题,呼吁学界加强对法律语言翻译的关注,并就法律翻译的理论建构以及进一步提高对法律翻译价值的认识等问题表达了作者的看法。更多还原

【Abstract】 The history of law and its language has proved that the constant development of every legal system with its language system cannot be done without assimilating useful elements from other legal systems through translating.It is with the constant "translation flow", however, that the historical legal geneology of China has gradually attained its great nirvana transforming from the feudally conservative and self-assertive "conventional codes handed down from ancestors" to an "all embracing modern law while boasting its reform and opening to the outside world" since the modern times. It is because of the constant infuence of this "translation flow" that even today’s prosperously evergrowing socialist legal system typical of the Chinese characteristics is still being regarded as "a world full of foreign legal words"With the time passing, nevertheless, "the Chinese law as a world full of foreign legal words", being once seemingly a derogatory doctrine, is nowadays endowed with neoteric connation, signifying that it is the same "foreign legal words" being once merely used to mean introducing advanced legal ideas from foreign countries into China that has nowadays been also used to mean translating or exporting legal ideas of the Chinese law into the native countries and also make themselves become "a world of foreign legal words——the Chinese legal words ", having realized a great transmutation of the Chinese law whose development and growth was once based on "foreign legal words" into one of the most important legal resources favored by the indigenous world and eventually made China experience the great transformation from law-importing into law-exporting. Therefore, the corresponding research on the translation of the legal language should also be switched from the previously unidirectional focus on "the translation of foreign languages into Chinese" to concentrating on bidirectional comparison of "mutual translation between foreign legal languages and the legal Chinese". Thus, the desertation——Investigating the Mutual Translating of the Effective Laws in English and Chinese:A Contrastive Linguistic Approach, comes into being.The desertation,being based on the bilingual materials from the publications of mutual translation of contemporary legal languages in both English and Chinese as evidential materials for its argumentation, makes a comparative study of the three levels of word, sentence and text, and practically analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the mutual translation of the legal languages of English and Chinese, pointing out objectively the problems and putting forward the approaches to solve them,so as to reveal the potential laws behind the mutual translation of current legal languages of English and Chinese for the purpose of stimulating more enthusiasts’ participation in the legal translation and jointly promote the study of both theory and practice for the translation of the legal languages fron legal English into legal Chinese or vice versus.The desertation is composed of three parts:introduction,the body and its conclusive remarks.The introduction makes a detailed elaboration of the desertation for the purpose of figuring out the legal language and its relevant concepts and carding the legal language of China and foreign countries and its source of translation studies so as to reveal the purpose and significance and the innovation of desertation and in the meantime put forward the opinions with regard to the problems under discussion.The body of the desertation is composed of five chapters. Chapter one makes macro-comparison of words, sentences and texts between English and Chinese legislative texts. Although the English and Chinese legislative texts are commonly characterized by accuracy, fuzziness and specialty, there are discrepancies in the legal culture and legal history between English and Chinese legal words;legal terms in both English and Chinese actually form an inevitable part of legal language, essentially characterized by their singulariy in sense and register, fixity in form, up-to-datedness in creation and sometimes fuzziness in explanaton. The models of the English and Chinese legislative sentences are commonly characterized by three syntactic types, i.e. permissions, prohibitions and obligations, and three syntactic forms, including presupposition-processing, imperative-command and explanation-statement. The comparison between English and Chinese legal texts includes two aspects:one is the elements including title, chapter, section, paragraph, item and sub-item;the other is the analysis of the discrepancies in language structure of English and Chinese legal texts from the perspective of modern text studies, such as grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion.Chapter two elaborates the basic norms for English and Chinese legal translation and basic requirements for legal translators. It is required that legal translation should not only comply with general norms of the translation but also establish a set of special norms in conformity with the unique characteristic of legal translation. With a view to conform to the translation of the legal language, the "translation of language for special purposes (TLSP)", we propose three requirements for the legal translation, such as specialty, authority and operability while offering three norms for legal translation, i.e., accuracy, equivalence and precision and then four requirements for the legal translator.Chapter three probes into the translation of English and Chinese legal words, legal terms included. The basic quality of the legal translator is to effectively identify and reflect the legal meaning of common words in the translation. Since the translation of legal terms constitutes the focal point of the translation of legal words, understanding cultural discrepancies behind the English and Chinese legal terms constitutes an important requirement for the successful legal translation. As such, we propose different norms for the translation of common legal words and legal terms.Chapter four discusses the similarities and discrepancies of the structure of English and Chinese legal sentences and their translation. This chapter firstly makes analysis and comparison of English and Chinese stylized legal simple sentences and complex sentences, in which, simple sentences are mainly reflected by declarative sentences and imperative sentences and complex sentences by presupposition-processing relationship or conditional-result sentences, for example, where or if can be easily judged because of definite meaning and complete form while it is difficult to judge the presupposition sentences in legal Chinese since such sentences are mainly implicit or expressed by "……的”or"……者’’in Chinese, with much variation. According to the characteristics of English and Chinese legal sentences, we propose equivalent translation of simple sentences and comprehensive translation of complex sentences of the effective English and Chinese legal sentences.Chapter five makes elaborations on the comparison and transfer of effective English and Chinese legal texts, paying close attention to lexical cohesion and grammatical cohesion and their translation in complex legal texts, the former attaches great importance to the repetition of the same words and the synonyms and the hyponymy in English and Chinese legal languages and their mutual translation and the latter to explicit representation and implicit representation of personal reference in English and Chinese legal languages and their translation.The last part of the desertation is the conclusion. Despite the irreplaceable role in each historical reform period, the legal translation has not attracted the attention from the translation circle and relevant academic fields, causing rare researchers and scarce research achievements up to now. Therefore, the conclusion of this paper points out the problems still confronted by translation studies of the legal language at present, calls for the academic circle to pay more attention to the translation of the legal language and delivers further conceptions on theory construction of the legal translation and the promotion of the recognition of the value of the legal translation.更多还原