基于语言对比的英汉现行法律语言互译研究
|
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。
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.
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。
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.
引文
邵志洪,《汉英对比翻译导论》,华东科技大学出版社,2005年版,第159页。
1. Abdre,A.1989. Legal Interpretation. Longman Group Limited.
2. Alcaraz, E.2002. Translation Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
3. Hughes,B.1994. Legal Translation. Manchester:St, Jerome Publishing.
4. Asensio, R. M.2003. Translating Official Documents. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
5. Baker, M. (ed.).2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
6. Beaugrande, R. D.& W. U. Dressler.1981. Introduction to Text-linguistics, London:Longman Group Limited.
7. Bell, T. R.1991. Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice, London:Longman Group Limited.
8. Berk-Seligson, S.1990. The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
9. Bowers, F.1989. Linguistic Aspects of Legislative Expression. Vancouver:University of British Columbia Press.
10. Busse, D.1993. Jurisprudencial Semantics. Berlin:Neil MacCormick.
11.Catford, J. C.1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
12. Clarkson K. W. (ed.).2003. West's Business Law, California: University of California Press.
13. Collin, P. H.1993. Dictionary of Law (second edition). London:Peter Collin Publishing.
14. Conley, J. M.& O'Barr W. M.1998. Just Words:Law, Language,and Power. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
15. Conrad, C.1990. Strategic Organizational Communication. New York:Holt Rinehart and Winston.
16. Deborah, C.2007. Translating Law. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
17. Edwards,A.B.1995.The Practice of Court Interpretation John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
18. Gadamer, H. G. (ed.), Barden, G.& J. Cumming (trans.).1975. Truth and Method. London:Sheed and Ward.
19. Garner, B. A.2004. Black's Law Dictionary (8th edition). Eagan: Thomson.
20. Garre, M.1999. Human Rights in Translation. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
21. Gibbons, J. (ed.),1994a. Language and the Law. London:Longman Group UK Ltd.
22.------1994b. Language of Law. London:Longman Group Ltd.
23.------2003. Forensic Linguistics. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.
24. Glendon, M. A.1991. Rights Talk. Mankato:Free Press Inc.
25. Hagan, J.2003. Law & Social Inquiry (Vol.28). Chicago:The University of Chicago University Press.
26. Haggard, R. T.2003. Legal Drafting. Minnesota:West Publishing Group.
27. Halliday, M. A. K.& R. Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
28. Hardy E. R.1988. Law Dictionary. London:Buttersworths.
29. Hatim, B.& I. Mason.1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman Group Limited.
30.1990.Levi.N.Judith Walker GA.Language in the Judicial Process.Plenum Press.
31.------1997. The Translator as Communicator. London:Routledge.
32. Leyth, G.1992. Legal Hermeneutics. California:University of California Press.
33. Lawrence M. S.1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
34. Marmor, Andrei (ed.),1995. Law and Interpretation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
35. Mellinkoff, D.1963. The Language of the Law. Boston:Little, Brown & Company.
36. Morris, M.1995. Translation and the Law. Amsterdam:John Benjamin's Publishing Company.
37. Millelson, H.2000. Introduction to Court Interpretation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
38. McCarthy, M.1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
39. Nida, Eugene A.20004, Towards A Science of Translation,Shanghai Forengn Languae Education Press.
40. Pound,Rescore.2007 Jurisprudence.West Publishing.
41.Puttman, H.1975. Mind, Thought and Reality in Philosophical Papers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
42. Quirk, R. (ed.).1985. A Comprehensive of the English Grammar. London:Longman World Publishing Corp.
43. Robinson, W. C.1898. Forensic Oratory. New Haven:Yale University Press.
44. Sarcevic, S.1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. Austin: Kluwer Law International.
45. Schiffrin, D.1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
46.------1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.
47. Shuy, R. W.2003. "Discourse Analysis in the Legal Context". In Deborah S. (ed.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
48. Solan, L. M.1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
49.------1994. Plain Meaning and Hard Cases. New Haven:Yale Law Journal Company.
50. Stein, J.& S. B. Flexner.1915.Thesurus. London:Random House.
51. Swan, M.1980. Practical English Usage. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
52. Tiersma, P. M.1999. Legal Language. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
53. Trudgill, P.1974. Sociolinguistics. London:Penguin Books Ltd.
54. Tyler, S. A.1978. The Said and the Unsaid. New York:Academic Press in New York.
55. Walker, D. M.1980. Oxford Law Dictionary. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
56.1968. Longman English Dictionary, London:Longman Group Limited.
57.1996. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition), Springfield: Merriam-Webster Inc.
58.2003. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition), Springfield:Merriam-Webster Inc.
59. Ventui.L.2004. The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
60.[英]尼古拉斯·奥斯特勒.2005.《语言帝国：世界语言史》.上海：上海人民出版社。
61.[苏联]巴尔胡达罗夫.1995.语言与翻译[M].蔡毅等(译).北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
62.白解红.2000.性别语言文化与语用研究[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
63.[英]波特,J.维斯雷尔,M.2006.话语和社会心理学[M].肖文明等(译).北京：中国人民大学出版社.
64.曹海晶.2004.中外立法制度比较[M].北京：商务印书馆.
65.曹铁根.2000.汉语与汉语文化之诠释[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社.
66.陈定安.1998.英汉比较与翻译[M].北京：中国对外贸易翻译出版公司.
67.陈福康.1992.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教学出版社.
68.陈嘉映.2003.语言哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
69.陈兴良.2006.刑法方法论[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
70.陈原.1983.社会语言学[M].上海：学林出版社.
71.陈原.2003.语言和人[M].北京：商务印书馆.
72.陈志安等.1999.模糊语言学概论[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社.
73.陈忠诚.2008.<民法通则>AAA译本评析[M].北京：法律出版社.
74.陈忠林.2007.刑法总论[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
75.陈伟军等,1991.修辞通鉴[M].北京：中国青年出版社.
76.程朝阳.2007.“权利运用中的语言面相”[A].法律、语言与权利[M].北京：法律出版社.12.
77.戴庆厦.2004.社会语言学概论[M].北京：商务印书馆.
78.邓晓芒.2008.哲学史方法论四十讲[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社.
79.董琨,1986.汉语讲义[M].北京：中央广播电视大学出版社。
80.[德]恩吉斯,K.2004.法律思维导论[M].北京：法律出版社.
81.范守义.2004.翻译研究：另类视野[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社
82.方梦之.1999.翻译新论与实践[M].青岛：青岛出版社.
83.冯志伟.1987.现代术语学[M].北京：语文出版社
84.付子堂.2006/2009.法理学进阶[M].北京：法律出版社.
85.傅伟良.2010.法律英语翻译[M].北京：石油工业出版社.
86.高名凯.1986.汉语语法论[M].北京：商务印书馆.
87.高名凯.1995.语言论[M].北京：商务印书馆.
88.[德]格罗斯菲尔德,B.2002.比较法的力量与弱点[M].孙世彦、姚建宗(译).北京：清华大学出版社.
89.葛兆光.2001.中国思想史(第一卷)[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
90.桂诗春 宁春岩.1997.语言学方法论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
91.[德]哈贝马斯,J.1989.交往与社会进化[M].张博树(译).重庆：重庆出版社.
92.[英]哈蒂姆,B.,伊恩,M.2005.话语与译者[M].王斌(译).北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
93.[英]哈特,L.H.A.1996.法律的概念[M].张文显等(译).北京：中国大百科全书出版社.
94.[英]哈特曼,R.R.K.,斯托克,F.C.1981.语言与语言学词典[M].李振麟等(译).上海：上海辞书出版社.
95.[德]海德格尔.2004.在通向语言的途中[M].孙周兴(译).北京：商务印书馆.
96.韩立新、王秀芬.2003.各国(地区)海商法汇编(英汉对照)(上册)[G].大连：大连海事大学出版社.
97.何勤华.1996.西方法学史[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
98.何勤华.2000.读律琐言[M].北京：法律出版社.
99.何勤华.2003.西方法学史[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
100. 何勤华.2006.中国法学史(一)[M].北京：法律出版社.
101. 何善芬.2002.英汉语言对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
102. 何兆武.2007.中西文化交流史[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社.
103. [德]洪堡特,W.V.1999.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类 精神发展的影响[M].姚小平(译).北京：商务印书馆.
104. 胡光志,2002.证券交易及其法律控制研究[M].北京：法律出版社.
105. [比]胡克,H.V.2008.法律的沟通之维[M].孙国栋(译).北京：法律出版社.
106. 胡裕树.1981.现代汉语[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
107. 胡壮麟.1994.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
108. 胡壮麟朱永生等.2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
109. 华尔赓等.1995.法律语言概论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
110. 黄伯荣廖序东.1997.现代汉语(下)[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
111. 黄国文.1983/1998.语篇分析概要[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
112. 黄见德.2006.西方法哲学东渐史(上)[M].北京：人民出版社.
113. 黄振定.1998.翻译学：艺术论与科学论的统一[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
114. 黄振定.2009.翻译学论纲[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
115. [苏联]加切奇拉泽.1987.文艺翻译与文学交流[M].蔡毅(译).北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
116. [德]伽达默尔.2004.真理与方法(下卷)[M].洪汉鼎(译).上海：上海译文出版社.
117. [德]伽达默尔.2005.解释学、美学、实践哲学：伽达默尔与 杜特对谈录[M].金惠敏(译).北京：商务印书馆.
118. 姜剑云.1995.法律语言与言语研究[M].北京：群众出版社.
119. 姜治文 文军.2000.翻译标准论[M].成都：四川人民出版社.
120. 蒋坚松.2001.菜根谭(英汉对照)[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
121. [美]康格拉特-巴特勒.S.1996.国外翻译界[C].赵辛而李辛(译).北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
122. [德]考夫曼,A.2002.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流(译).北京：法律出版社.
123. [德]考夫曼,A.2004.法律哲学[M].刘幸义等(译).北京：法律出版社.
124. 孔祥俊.2006.法律方法论(第二卷)[M].北京：人民法院出版社.
125. [德]拉德布鲁赫.1997.法学导论[M].米健、朱林(译).北京：大百科全书出版社.
126. [德]拉伦兹,K.1996.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥(译).台北：台湾五楠图书公司.
127. [明]雷梦麟.2000.读律琐言[M].北京：法律出版社.
128. 黎国智.1999.法学通论[M].北京：法律出版社.
129. 黎难秋.2000.中国科学翻译史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
130. 黎难秋.1996.中国科学翻译史料[M].合肥：中国科学技术大学出版社.
131. 李贵连.1998.二十世纪的中国法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
132. 李青.2005.洋务派法律思想与实践研究[M].北京：中国政法 大学出版社.
133. 李克兴.2006.法律翻译理论与实践[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
134. 李娅舒黎难秋.2002.中国科学翻译史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
135. 李仲周等.2000.世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[G].北京：法律出版社.
136. [美]理查德,A.B.2002.法律与文学[M].李国庆(译).北京：法律出版社.
137. 梁慧星.2000.民法解释学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
138. 梁启超.2008.梁启超法学论文集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
139. 梁治平.1997.“‘法’辩”[A].自选集[C].桂林：广西师范大学出版社.
140. 廖美珍.2003.法庭问答及其互动研究[M].北京：法律出版社.
141. 廖七一.2000.当代西方翻译理论[M].南京：译林出版社.
142. 廖七一.2001.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
143. 林喆.2000.法律思维学导论[M].济南：山东人民出版社.
144. 刘辰诞.1999.教学篇章语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
145. 刘重德.1991.文学翻译十讲[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
146. 刘红缨.2003.法律语言学[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
147. 刘宓庆.2006.新编英汉对比与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻 译出版公司.
148. 刘宓庆.2006.翻译美学导论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
149. 刘愫贞.1990.法律语言：立法与司法的艺术[M].西安：陕西人民出版社.
150. 刘星.2005.中国法哲学史纲[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社.
151. 刘月华.1983.实用现代汉语语法[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
152. 陆国强.1983.现代英语词汇学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
153. 陆国强.1999.英汉和汉英语义结构对比[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
154. [英]罗素.2001.人类的知识[M].张金言(译).北京：商务印书馆.
155. 罗新璋.2009.翻译论集(修订本)[C].北京：商务印书馆.
156. [英]洛克.1997.人类理解论[M].关文运(译).北京：商务印书馆.
157. 吕叔湘.1999.汉语语法论集[C].北京：商务印书馆.
158. 吕叔湘 朱德煦.1952/1962.语法修辞讲话[M].北京：中国青年出版社.
159. 吕叔湘 马庆株等.2000.语法进入门[M].北京：商务印书馆.
160. [法]孟德斯鸠.1981.法意[M].严复(译).北京：商务印书馆.
161. 孟昭毅 李载道.2005.中国文学翻译史[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
162. 马登民.1997.新刑法精解与适用[M].天津：南开大学出版社.
163. 马洪俊.2006.法律文书与司法改革[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
164. [美]马默,A.2006.法律与解释[M].张卓明徐崇立(译).北京：法律出版社.
165. 马祖毅.1999.中国翻译史(上卷)[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
166. 聂仁发.2009.现代汉语语篇研究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社.
167. 宁致远.1996.法制语文[M].北京：中国法制出版社.
168. 潘庆云.2004.法律语言鉴衡[M].上海：汉语大辞典出版社.
169. 潘文国.1997.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社.
170. 潘文国谭慧敏.2006.对比语言学：历史与哲学思考[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
171. [美]庞德.2007.法理学[M].邓正来(译).北京：中国政法大学出版社.
172. 彭万林.1994.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
173. 钱锺书.1997.钱锺书散文[M].杭州：浙江文艺出版社.
174. 钱敏汝.2001.篇章语用学概况[M].北京：外语与外语研究出版社.
175. 乔曾锐.2000.译论：翻译经验与翻译艺术的评论和探讨[M].北京：中华工商联出版社.
176. 屈承熹.2006.汉语篇章语法[M].潘文国(译).北京：北京语言大学出版社.
177. 邵志洪.2005.汉英对比翻译导论[M].南京：华东科技大学出版社.
178. 申小龙.2003.汉语与中国文化[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
179. [清]沈之奇.2001.大清律辑注[M].北京：法律出版社
180. 沈宗灵.1998.比较法研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社
181. 施觉怀.2009.法律翻译的几个特点[A].罗新璋陈应年(主编).翻译论集(修订本)[C].北京：商务印书馆.
182. 史广全.2006.中国古代立法文化研究[M].北京：法律出版社.
183. [美]史华兹,B.1992.寻求富强：严复与西方[M].叶凤美(译).南京：江苏人民出版社.
184. 舒国荣.1995.战后德国法哲学的发展路向[J].比较法研究(4).
185. 疏义红.2008.法律解释学实验教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
186. 宋雷张绍全.2010.英汉对比法律语言学[M].北京：北京大学出版社
187. 束定芳.2000.现当代语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
188. 束定芳.2000.现代语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
189. [美]孙斯坦,K.R.2004.法律推理与政治冲突[M].北京：法律出版社.
190. 孙笑侠.2005.法律人之治[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
191. 孙懿华.2006.法律语言学[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
192. 孙懿华周广然.1997.法律语言学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
193. [瑞士]索绪尔.1999.普通语言学[M].高名凯(译).北京：商务印书馆.
194. [瑞士]索绪尔.2004.普通语言学教程[M].孙周兴(译).北京： 商务印书馆.
195. [美]陶博.2004.法律英语[M].龚博华(译).上海：复旦大学出版社.
196. 谭载喜.1999.新编奈达论翻译[C].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
197. 谭载喜.2001.西方翻译简史[M],(修订本),北京：商务印书馆.
198. 谭载喜.2000.翻译学[M],武汉：湖北教育出版社.
199. 唐文.1996.司法文书修辞[M],北京：人民法院出版社.
200. [英]汤逊,A.2004.马礼逊回忆录[M].顾长声(译).桂林：广西师范大学出版社.
201. 王秉钦.2004.中国翻译思想史[M].天津：南开大学出版社.
202. 王道庚.2006.新编英汉法律翻译教程[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社.
203. 王道森.2003.法律语言运用学[M].北京：中国法制出版社.
204. 王福祥.1994.话语语言学概论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
205. 王健.2001.沟通两个世界的意义[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
206. 王健.2001.中国近代的法律教育[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
207. 王健等.2005.法学翻译与中国法的现代化(美国法律文库)[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
208. 王洁.1997.法律语言教程[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
209. 王洁.1999.法律语言研究[M].广州：广东教育出版社.
210. 王克非.1997.翻译文化史论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
211. 王力.1984.王力文集(第一卷)[C].济南：山东教育出版社.
212. [明]王明德.2001.读律佩觽[M].北京：法律出版社.
213. 王铁钧.2006.中国佛经翻译史稿[M].北京：中央编译出版社.
214. 王文华.2007.翻译的概念[M].北京：外文出版社.
215. 王武光.2003.英汉语言对比与翻译[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
216. 王宗炎.1996.“对比分析和语言教学”[A].李瑞华(编).英汉语言文化对比研究[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
217. [日]望月礼二郎.2005.英美法[M].郭建 王仲涛(译).北京：商务印书馆.
218. [德]魏德士.2003/2005.法理学[M].丁小春/邓正来(译).北京：法律出版社.
219. [美]沃尔夫,B.L.2001.论语言、思维和现实[M].高一虹等(译)长沙：湖南教育出版社.
220. [美]沃克,D.M.1989.牛津法律词典[M].邓正来等(译).北京：光明日报出版社.
221. 吴启主.2002.汉语构建语法语篇语言学[M].长沙：岳麓书社.
222. 武树臣.1994.中国法律文化传统[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
223. 伍铁平.1999.模糊语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
224. [古罗马]西塞罗.2004.国家篇·法律篇[C].沈叔平、苏力(译). 北京：商务印书馆.
225. 夏征农等.1989.辞海[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
226. 谢晖.2004.法律的意义追问[M].北京：商务印书馆.
227. 谢晖.2006.中国古典法律解释的哲学向度[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
228. 谢天振.1999.译介学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
229. 邢福义.2001.汉语复句研究[M].北京：商务印书馆.
230. 熊德米.2006.英汉法律语言中的人称指示语对比与翻译[J].外语教学(5).
231. 熊德米.2008.“法学语言关照下的模糊性司法话语分析”[J].重庆工商大学学报(4).
232. 熊德米.2009.语篇分析在司法语境中的运用[J].西南政法大学学报(5).
233. 熊德米.2010.“晚清法律翻译的‘普罗米修斯’及特殊贡献”[M].外语教学(5).
234. 熊德米.2010.司法话语分析：伸张正义的必要手段[J].外国语文(2).
235. 熊德米.2011.近代法律翻译对新旧法制转型的特殊贡献[J].英语研究(2).
236. 熊德米.2011.法律语言翻译的特殊原则[J].西南政法大学学报(2).
237. 徐大明等.1997.当代社会语言学[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.
238. 徐赳赳.2010.现代汉语篇章语言学[M].北京：商务印书馆.
239. 许钧.2003.翻译论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
240. 许余龙.2002.对比语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
241. 许余龙.2004.篇章回指的功能语用探索[M].上海：上海外教育出版社.
242. 许渊冲.1984.翻译的艺术[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
243. 薛波.2003.元照英美法词典[M].北京：法律出版社.
244. [古希腊]亚里士多德.1965.政治学[M].吴涛彭(译).北京：商务印书馆.
245. [古希腊]亚里士多德.2003.修辞学[M].北京：生活.读书.新知三联书店.
246. [古罗马]西塞罗,2005.国家篇法律篇[M].北京：商务印书馆.
247. 严复.1981.<孟德斯鸠法意>按语[M].北京：商务印书馆.
248. 严复.2009.<原富>译例词[A].罗新璋(编).翻译论集(修订本)[M].北京：商务印书馆.
249. 杨鹤皋.1988.中国法律思想史[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
250. 杨良宜.1998.国际商务游戏规则：英国合同法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
251. 杨自检等.2002.译学新论[C].青岛：青岛出版社.
252. 叶蜚声.1991.语言学纲要[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
253. 曾代伟.2001/2006.中国法制史[M].北京：法律出版社.
254. 张斌.1998.汉语语法学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
255. 张道真.1981.实用英语语法[M].北京：商务印书馆.
256. 张德禄、刘汝山.2003.语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
257. 张法连.2009.法律英语翻译[M].济南：山东人民出版社.
258. 张晋藩.2005.中国法律的传统与近代转型[M].北京：法律出版社
259. 张生.2002.中国法律近代化论集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
260. 张文显.2007.法理学(第三版)[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
261. 张应林.2006.语篇分析学[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社.
262. 张志毅.1981.简明同义词词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
263. 张志毅张庆云.2001.词汇语义学[M].北京：商务印书馆.
264. 张中秋.2003.比较视野中的法律文化[M].北京：法律出版社.
265. 张泽乾.1994.翻译经纬[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
266. 章振邦.1981.新编英语语法[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
267. 赵秉志.2004.<联合国反腐败公约>暨相关重要文献资料[G]北京：中国人民公安大学出版社.
268. 赵林.2004.西方文化概论[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
269. 赵元任.1996.中国话的文法[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社.
270. 周懿华.2006.法律语言学[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
271. 周贇.2008.“应当”一词的法哲学研究[M].济南：山东人民出版社.
272. 周仪 罗平.1999.翻译与批评[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
273. 周振想等.1994.法律词典[Z].北京：团结出版社.
274. 朱建平.2007.翻译：跨文化解释—哲学诠释学与接受美学模式[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
275. 朱永生 郑立信.2001.英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
276. 朱自瑜 朱晓农.2006.中国佛籍译论选辑评注[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
1. Abdre,A.1989. Legal Interpretation. Longman Group Limited.
2. Alcaraz, E.2002. Translation Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
3. Hughes,B.1994. Legal Translation. Manchester:St, Jerome Publishing.
4. Asensio, R. M.2003. Translating Official Documents. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
5. Baker, M. (ed.).2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
6. Beaugrande, R. D.& W. U. Dressler.1981. Introduction to Text-linguistics, London:Longman Group Limited.
7. Bell, T. R.1991. Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice, London:Longman Group Limited.
8. Berk-Seligson, S.1990. The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
9. Bowers, F.1989. Linguistic Aspects of Legislative Expression. Vancouver:University of British Columbia Press.
10. Busse, D.1993. Jurisprudencial Semantics. Berlin:Neil MacCormick.
11.Catford, J. C.1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
12. Clarkson K. W. (ed.).2003. West's Business Law, California: University of California Press.
13. Collin, P. H.1993. Dictionary of Law (second edition). London:Peter Collin Publishing.
14. Conley, J. M.& O'Barr W. M.1998. Just Words:Law, Language,and Power. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
15. Conrad, C.1990. Strategic Organizational Communication. New York:Holt Rinehart and Winston.
16. Deborah, C.2007. Translating Law. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
17. Edwards,A.B.1995.The Practice of Court Interpretation John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
18. Gadamer, H. G. (ed.), Barden, G.& J. Cumming (trans.).1975. Truth and Method. London:Sheed and Ward.
19. Garner, B. A.2004. Black's Law Dictionary (8th edition). Eagan: Thomson.
20. Garre, M.1999. Human Rights in Translation. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
21. Gibbons, J. (ed.),1994a. Language and the Law. London:Longman Group UK Ltd.
22.------1994b. Language of Law. London:Longman Group Ltd.
23.------2003. Forensic Linguistics. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.
24. Glendon, M. A.1991. Rights Talk. Mankato:Free Press Inc.
25. Hagan, J.2003. Law & Social Inquiry (Vol.28). Chicago:The University of Chicago University Press.
26. Haggard, R. T.2003. Legal Drafting. Minnesota:West Publishing Group.
27. Halliday, M. A. K.& R. Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
28. Hardy E. R.1988. Law Dictionary. London:Buttersworths.
29. Hatim, B.& I. Mason.1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman Group Limited.
30.1990.Levi.N.Judith Walker GA.Language in the Judicial Process.Plenum Press.
31.------1997. The Translator as Communicator. London:Routledge.
32. Leyth, G.1992. Legal Hermeneutics. California:University of California Press.
33. Lawrence M. S.1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
34. Marmor, Andrei (ed.),1995. Law and Interpretation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
35. Mellinkoff, D.1963. The Language of the Law. Boston:Little, Brown & Company.
36. Morris, M.1995. Translation and the Law. Amsterdam:John Benjamin's Publishing Company.
37. Millelson, H.2000. Introduction to Court Interpretation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
38. McCarthy, M.1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
39. Nida, Eugene A.20004, Towards A Science of Translation,Shanghai Forengn Languae Education Press.
40. Pound,Rescore.2007 Jurisprudence.West Publishing.
41.Puttman, H.1975. Mind, Thought and Reality in Philosophical Papers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
42. Quirk, R. (ed.).1985. A Comprehensive of the English Grammar. London:Longman World Publishing Corp.
43. Robinson, W. C.1898. Forensic Oratory. New Haven:Yale University Press.
44. Sarcevic, S.1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. Austin: Kluwer Law International.
45. Schiffrin, D.1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
46.------1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.
47. Shuy, R. W.2003. "Discourse Analysis in the Legal Context". In Deborah S. (ed.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
48. Solan, L. M.1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
49.------1994. Plain Meaning and Hard Cases. New Haven:Yale Law Journal Company.
50. Stein, J.& S. B. Flexner.1915.Thesurus. London:Random House.
51. Swan, M.1980. Practical English Usage. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
52. Tiersma, P. M.1999. Legal Language. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
53. Trudgill, P.1974. Sociolinguistics. London:Penguin Books Ltd.
54. Tyler, S. A.1978. The Said and the Unsaid. New York:Academic Press in New York.
55. Walker, D. M.1980. Oxford Law Dictionary. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
56.1968. Longman English Dictionary, London:Longman Group Limited.
57.1996. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition), Springfield: Merriam-Webster Inc.
58.2003. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition), Springfield:Merriam-Webster Inc.
59. Ventui.L.2004. The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
60.[英]尼古拉斯·奥斯特勒.2005.《语言帝国：世界语言史》.上海：上海人民出版社。
61.[苏联]巴尔胡达罗夫.1995.语言与翻译[M].蔡毅等(译).北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
62.白解红.2000.性别语言文化与语用研究[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
63.[英]波特,J.维斯雷尔,M.2006.话语和社会心理学[M].肖文明等(译).北京：中国人民大学出版社.
64.曹海晶.2004.中外立法制度比较[M].北京：商务印书馆.
65.曹铁根.2000.汉语与汉语文化之诠释[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社.
66.陈定安.1998.英汉比较与翻译[M].北京：中国对外贸易翻译出版公司.
67.陈福康.1992.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教学出版社.
68.陈嘉映.2003.语言哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
69.陈兴良.2006.刑法方法论[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
70.陈原.1983.社会语言学[M].上海：学林出版社.
71.陈原.2003.语言和人[M].北京：商务印书馆.
72.陈志安等.1999.模糊语言学概论[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社.
73.陈忠诚.2008.<民法通则>AAA译本评析[M].北京：法律出版社.
74.陈忠林.2007.刑法总论[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
75.陈伟军等,1991.修辞通鉴[M].北京：中国青年出版社.
76.程朝阳.2007.“权利运用中的语言面相”[A].法律、语言与权利[M].北京：法律出版社.12.
77.戴庆厦.2004.社会语言学概论[M].北京：商务印书馆.
78.邓晓芒.2008.哲学史方法论四十讲[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社.
79.董琨,1986.汉语讲义[M].北京：中央广播电视大学出版社。
80.[德]恩吉斯,K.2004.法律思维导论[M].北京：法律出版社.
81.范守义.2004.翻译研究：另类视野[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社
82.方梦之.1999.翻译新论与实践[M].青岛：青岛出版社.
83.冯志伟.1987.现代术语学[M].北京：语文出版社
84.付子堂.2006/2009.法理学进阶[M].北京：法律出版社.
85.傅伟良.2010.法律英语翻译[M].北京：石油工业出版社.
86.高名凯.1986.汉语语法论[M].北京：商务印书馆.
87.高名凯.1995.语言论[M].北京：商务印书馆.
88.[德]格罗斯菲尔德,B.2002.比较法的力量与弱点[M].孙世彦、姚建宗(译).北京：清华大学出版社.
89.葛兆光.2001.中国思想史(第一卷)[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
90.桂诗春 宁春岩.1997.语言学方法论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
91.[德]哈贝马斯,J.1989.交往与社会进化[M].张博树(译).重庆：重庆出版社.
92.[英]哈蒂姆,B.,伊恩,M.2005.话语与译者[M].王斌(译).北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
93.[英]哈特,L.H.A.1996.法律的概念[M].张文显等(译).北京：中国大百科全书出版社.
94.[英]哈特曼,R.R.K.,斯托克,F.C.1981.语言与语言学词典[M].李振麟等(译).上海：上海辞书出版社.
95.[德]海德格尔.2004.在通向语言的途中[M].孙周兴(译).北京：商务印书馆.
96.韩立新、王秀芬.2003.各国(地区)海商法汇编(英汉对照)(上册)[G].大连：大连海事大学出版社.
97.何勤华.1996.西方法学史[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
98.何勤华.2000.读律琐言[M].北京：法律出版社.
99.何勤华.2003.西方法学史[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
100. 何勤华.2006.中国法学史(一)[M].北京：法律出版社.
101. 何善芬.2002.英汉语言对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
102. 何兆武.2007.中西文化交流史[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社.
103. [德]洪堡特,W.V.1999.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类 精神发展的影响[M].姚小平(译).北京：商务印书馆.
104. 胡光志,2002.证券交易及其法律控制研究[M].北京：法律出版社.
105. [比]胡克,H.V.2008.法律的沟通之维[M].孙国栋(译).北京：法律出版社.
106. 胡裕树.1981.现代汉语[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
107. 胡壮麟.1994.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
108. 胡壮麟朱永生等.2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
109. 华尔赓等.1995.法律语言概论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
110. 黄伯荣廖序东.1997.现代汉语(下)[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
111. 黄国文.1983/1998.语篇分析概要[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
112. 黄见德.2006.西方法哲学东渐史(上)[M].北京：人民出版社.
113. 黄振定.1998.翻译学：艺术论与科学论的统一[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
114. 黄振定.2009.翻译学论纲[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
115. [苏联]加切奇拉泽.1987.文艺翻译与文学交流[M].蔡毅(译).北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
116. [德]伽达默尔.2004.真理与方法(下卷)[M].洪汉鼎(译).上海：上海译文出版社.
117. [德]伽达默尔.2005.解释学、美学、实践哲学：伽达默尔与 杜特对谈录[M].金惠敏(译).北京：商务印书馆.
118. 姜剑云.1995.法律语言与言语研究[M].北京：群众出版社.
119. 姜治文 文军.2000.翻译标准论[M].成都：四川人民出版社.
120. 蒋坚松.2001.菜根谭(英汉对照)[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
121. [美]康格拉特-巴特勒.S.1996.国外翻译界[C].赵辛而李辛(译).北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
122. [德]考夫曼,A.2002.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流(译).北京：法律出版社.
123. [德]考夫曼,A.2004.法律哲学[M].刘幸义等(译).北京：法律出版社.
124. 孔祥俊.2006.法律方法论(第二卷)[M].北京：人民法院出版社.
125. [德]拉德布鲁赫.1997.法学导论[M].米健、朱林(译).北京：大百科全书出版社.
126. [德]拉伦兹,K.1996.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥(译).台北：台湾五楠图书公司.
127. [明]雷梦麟.2000.读律琐言[M].北京：法律出版社.
128. 黎国智.1999.法学通论[M].北京：法律出版社.
129. 黎难秋.2000.中国科学翻译史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
130. 黎难秋.1996.中国科学翻译史料[M].合肥：中国科学技术大学出版社.
131. 李贵连.1998.二十世纪的中国法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
132. 李青.2005.洋务派法律思想与实践研究[M].北京：中国政法 大学出版社.
133. 李克兴.2006.法律翻译理论与实践[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
134. 李娅舒黎难秋.2002.中国科学翻译史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
135. 李仲周等.2000.世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[G].北京：法律出版社.
136. [美]理查德,A.B.2002.法律与文学[M].李国庆(译).北京：法律出版社.
137. 梁慧星.2000.民法解释学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
138. 梁启超.2008.梁启超法学论文集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
139. 梁治平.1997.“‘法’辩”[A].自选集[C].桂林：广西师范大学出版社.
140. 廖美珍.2003.法庭问答及其互动研究[M].北京：法律出版社.
141. 廖七一.2000.当代西方翻译理论[M].南京：译林出版社.
142. 廖七一.2001.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
143. 林喆.2000.法律思维学导论[M].济南：山东人民出版社.
144. 刘辰诞.1999.教学篇章语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
145. 刘重德.1991.文学翻译十讲[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
146. 刘红缨.2003.法律语言学[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
147. 刘宓庆.2006.新编英汉对比与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻 译出版公司.
148. 刘宓庆.2006.翻译美学导论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
149. 刘愫贞.1990.法律语言：立法与司法的艺术[M].西安：陕西人民出版社.
150. 刘星.2005.中国法哲学史纲[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社.
151. 刘月华.1983.实用现代汉语语法[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
152. 陆国强.1983.现代英语词汇学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
153. 陆国强.1999.英汉和汉英语义结构对比[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
154. [英]罗素.2001.人类的知识[M].张金言(译).北京：商务印书馆.
155. 罗新璋.2009.翻译论集(修订本)[C].北京：商务印书馆.
156. [英]洛克.1997.人类理解论[M].关文运(译).北京：商务印书馆.
157. 吕叔湘.1999.汉语语法论集[C].北京：商务印书馆.
158. 吕叔湘 朱德煦.1952/1962.语法修辞讲话[M].北京：中国青年出版社.
159. 吕叔湘 马庆株等.2000.语法进入门[M].北京：商务印书馆.
160. [法]孟德斯鸠.1981.法意[M].严复(译).北京：商务印书馆.
161. 孟昭毅 李载道.2005.中国文学翻译史[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
162. 马登民.1997.新刑法精解与适用[M].天津：南开大学出版社.
163. 马洪俊.2006.法律文书与司法改革[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
164. [美]马默,A.2006.法律与解释[M].张卓明徐崇立(译).北京：法律出版社.
165. 马祖毅.1999.中国翻译史(上卷)[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
166. 聂仁发.2009.现代汉语语篇研究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社.
167. 宁致远.1996.法制语文[M].北京：中国法制出版社.
168. 潘庆云.2004.法律语言鉴衡[M].上海：汉语大辞典出版社.
169. 潘文国.1997.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社.
170. 潘文国谭慧敏.2006.对比语言学：历史与哲学思考[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
171. [美]庞德.2007.法理学[M].邓正来(译).北京：中国政法大学出版社.
172. 彭万林.1994.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
173. 钱锺书.1997.钱锺书散文[M].杭州：浙江文艺出版社.
174. 钱敏汝.2001.篇章语用学概况[M].北京：外语与外语研究出版社.
175. 乔曾锐.2000.译论：翻译经验与翻译艺术的评论和探讨[M].北京：中华工商联出版社.
176. 屈承熹.2006.汉语篇章语法[M].潘文国(译).北京：北京语言大学出版社.
177. 邵志洪.2005.汉英对比翻译导论[M].南京：华东科技大学出版社.
178. 申小龙.2003.汉语与中国文化[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
179. [清]沈之奇.2001.大清律辑注[M].北京：法律出版社
180. 沈宗灵.1998.比较法研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社
181. 施觉怀.2009.法律翻译的几个特点[A].罗新璋陈应年(主编).翻译论集(修订本)[C].北京：商务印书馆.
182. 史广全.2006.中国古代立法文化研究[M].北京：法律出版社.
183. [美]史华兹,B.1992.寻求富强：严复与西方[M].叶凤美(译).南京：江苏人民出版社.
184. 舒国荣.1995.战后德国法哲学的发展路向[J].比较法研究(4).
185. 疏义红.2008.法律解释学实验教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
186. 宋雷张绍全.2010.英汉对比法律语言学[M].北京：北京大学出版社
187. 束定芳.2000.现当代语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
188. 束定芳.2000.现代语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
189. [美]孙斯坦,K.R.2004.法律推理与政治冲突[M].北京：法律出版社.
190. 孙笑侠.2005.法律人之治[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
191. 孙懿华.2006.法律语言学[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
192. 孙懿华周广然.1997.法律语言学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
193. [瑞士]索绪尔.1999.普通语言学[M].高名凯(译).北京：商务印书馆.
194. [瑞士]索绪尔.2004.普通语言学教程[M].孙周兴(译).北京： 商务印书馆.
195. [美]陶博.2004.法律英语[M].龚博华(译).上海：复旦大学出版社.
196. 谭载喜.1999.新编奈达论翻译[C].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
197. 谭载喜.2001.西方翻译简史[M],(修订本),北京：商务印书馆.
198. 谭载喜.2000.翻译学[M],武汉：湖北教育出版社.
199. 唐文.1996.司法文书修辞[M],北京：人民法院出版社.
200. [英]汤逊,A.2004.马礼逊回忆录[M].顾长声(译).桂林：广西师范大学出版社.
201. 王秉钦.2004.中国翻译思想史[M].天津：南开大学出版社.
202. 王道庚.2006.新编英汉法律翻译教程[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社.
203. 王道森.2003.法律语言运用学[M].北京：中国法制出版社.
204. 王福祥.1994.话语语言学概论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
205. 王健.2001.沟通两个世界的意义[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
206. 王健.2001.中国近代的法律教育[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
207. 王健等.2005.法学翻译与中国法的现代化(美国法律文库)[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
208. 王洁.1997.法律语言教程[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
209. 王洁.1999.法律语言研究[M].广州：广东教育出版社.
210. 王克非.1997.翻译文化史论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
211. 王力.1984.王力文集(第一卷)[C].济南：山东教育出版社.
212. [明]王明德.2001.读律佩觽[M].北京：法律出版社.
213. 王铁钧.2006.中国佛经翻译史稿[M].北京：中央编译出版社.
214. 王文华.2007.翻译的概念[M].北京：外文出版社.
215. 王武光.2003.英汉语言对比与翻译[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
216. 王宗炎.1996.“对比分析和语言教学”[A].李瑞华(编).英汉语言文化对比研究[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
217. [日]望月礼二郎.2005.英美法[M].郭建 王仲涛(译).北京：商务印书馆.
218. [德]魏德士.2003/2005.法理学[M].丁小春/邓正来(译).北京：法律出版社.
219. [美]沃尔夫,B.L.2001.论语言、思维和现实[M].高一虹等(译)长沙：湖南教育出版社.
220. [美]沃克,D.M.1989.牛津法律词典[M].邓正来等(译).北京：光明日报出版社.
221. 吴启主.2002.汉语构建语法语篇语言学[M].长沙：岳麓书社.
222. 武树臣.1994.中国法律文化传统[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
223. 伍铁平.1999.模糊语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
224. [古罗马]西塞罗.2004.国家篇·法律篇[C].沈叔平、苏力(译). 北京：商务印书馆.
225. 夏征农等.1989.辞海[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
226. 谢晖.2004.法律的意义追问[M].北京：商务印书馆.
227. 谢晖.2006.中国古典法律解释的哲学向度[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
228. 谢天振.1999.译介学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
229. 邢福义.2001.汉语复句研究[M].北京：商务印书馆.
230. 熊德米.2006.英汉法律语言中的人称指示语对比与翻译[J].外语教学(5).
231. 熊德米.2008.“法学语言关照下的模糊性司法话语分析”[J].重庆工商大学学报(4).
232. 熊德米.2009.语篇分析在司法语境中的运用[J].西南政法大学学报(5).
233. 熊德米.2010.“晚清法律翻译的‘普罗米修斯’及特殊贡献”[M].外语教学(5).
234. 熊德米.2010.司法话语分析：伸张正义的必要手段[J].外国语文(2).
235. 熊德米.2011.近代法律翻译对新旧法制转型的特殊贡献[J].英语研究(2).
236. 熊德米.2011.法律语言翻译的特殊原则[J].西南政法大学学报(2).
237. 徐大明等.1997.当代社会语言学[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.
238. 徐赳赳.2010.现代汉语篇章语言学[M].北京：商务印书馆.
239. 许钧.2003.翻译论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
240. 许余龙.2002.对比语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
241. 许余龙.2004.篇章回指的功能语用探索[M].上海：上海外教育出版社.
242. 许渊冲.1984.翻译的艺术[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
243. 薛波.2003.元照英美法词典[M].北京：法律出版社.
244. [古希腊]亚里士多德.1965.政治学[M].吴涛彭(译).北京：商务印书馆.
245. [古希腊]亚里士多德.2003.修辞学[M].北京：生活.读书.新知三联书店.
246. [古罗马]西塞罗,2005.国家篇法律篇[M].北京：商务印书馆.
247. 严复.1981.<孟德斯鸠法意>按语[M].北京：商务印书馆.
248. 严复.2009.<原富>译例词[A].罗新璋(编).翻译论集(修订本)[M].北京：商务印书馆.
249. 杨鹤皋.1988.中国法律思想史[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
250. 杨良宜.1998.国际商务游戏规则：英国合同法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
251. 杨自检等.2002.译学新论[C].青岛：青岛出版社.
252. 叶蜚声.1991.语言学纲要[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
253. 曾代伟.2001/2006.中国法制史[M].北京：法律出版社.
254. 张斌.1998.汉语语法学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
255. 张道真.1981.实用英语语法[M].北京：商务印书馆.
256. 张德禄、刘汝山.2003.语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
257. 张法连.2009.法律英语翻译[M].济南：山东人民出版社.
258. 张晋藩.2005.中国法律的传统与近代转型[M].北京：法律出版社
259. 张生.2002.中国法律近代化论集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社.
260. 张文显.2007.法理学(第三版)[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
261. 张应林.2006.语篇分析学[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社.
262. 张志毅.1981.简明同义词词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
263. 张志毅张庆云.2001.词汇语义学[M].北京：商务印书馆.
264. 张中秋.2003.比较视野中的法律文化[M].北京：法律出版社.
265. 张泽乾.1994.翻译经纬[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
266. 章振邦.1981.新编英语语法[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
267. 赵秉志.2004.<联合国反腐败公约>暨相关重要文献资料[G]北京：中国人民公安大学出版社.
268. 赵林.2004.西方文化概论[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
269. 赵元任.1996.中国话的文法[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社.
270. 周懿华.2006.法律语言学[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
271. 周贇.2008.“应当”一词的法哲学研究[M].济南：山东人民出版社.
272. 周仪 罗平.1999.翻译与批评[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
273. 周振想等.1994.法律词典[Z].北京：团结出版社.
274. 朱建平.2007.翻译：跨文化解释—哲学诠释学与接受美学模式[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
275. 朱永生 郑立信.2001.英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
276. 朱自瑜 朱晓农.2006.中国佛籍译论选辑评注[M].北京：清华大学出版社.