法律翻译及策略：以目的论为视角
|
摘要
法律语言是一种具备特殊语言交际功能的应用性语言。由于法律语言独特的性质和特点,相较普通语言翻译,法律翻译要求更高。并且由于其具有独特的权威性,强制性和严肃性,在翻译实践中人们对于翻译策略和方法的选择也更加谨慎。不同的学者及译者对法律翻译策略及方法提出了不同见解,有些人甚至认为法律翻译应该逐字逐句进行以保留法律文本的原有的特征。然而尽管法律翻译应该以准确忠实为标准,但是直译并不一定是达到这一要求的最佳策略,反而有可能因过于强调只字片语的形式对等而以辞害意,甚至导致法律效果的丢失或误解。
那么到底应该采取何种翻译策略,才能满足法律翻译的特殊要求,达到法律翻译的目的和标准?或者说,决定法律翻译策略选择的因素是什么呢?目前中国在在这一领域的翻译实践中仍然缺乏系统性的翻译理论指导。尽管杜金榜教授提出了遵循语言从法原则、存异求同原则和比照补足原则并对法律语言学进行了深入的研究,但是其研究重点并未放在法律翻译策略及翻译实践的研究上。
本文认为,德国功能理论派提出的功能目的论以及该学派以翻译为导向的文本类型分析研究,为法律翻译实践及策略选择提供了新的视角。在过去的研究中,译者往往将注意力集中在字词等微观层面,忽略了文本功能和目的对于翻译策略选择的影响。目的论则试图通过对不同类型法律文本不同目的的分析来对翻译策略和方法进行选择。
另外,很多学者强调由于法律文本这种特殊目的文本具有呼吁、规范等效力,译文应侧重其规范、诉请、呼吁等法律效力和功能。本文据此提出译者应注意法律原文文本和译文文本在法律效力上的区别,翻译应当关注法律文本特殊的语言形式在传递法律权威性方面的作用,但更应关注的不同类型的文本的不同交际功能的需要,有些法律文本侧重诉情功能,有些则更应侧重提供准确信息的功能,结合法律语言自身的特点选择翻译方法和策略。
功能目的论是德国功能翻译理论派学者于20世纪70年代提出的一个翻译批评标准。在《翻译批评的可能性与限制》一书中,功能翻译理论创始人赖斯坚持以原作为中心的等值理论,指出理想的译文应从概念性内容,语言形式和交际功能上与原文对等;然而,在实践中她发现有些等值是不可能实现也不应追求的,翻译应该根据翻译任务的特殊需要调整策略,在译文与原文功能不同时,译者应优先考虑译文功能特征。
此后,费米尔创立了翻译目的论,提出翻译方法和翻译策略必须由译文预期目的或功能决定。他认为无论何种翻译,其最高规则都是“目的准则”。根据目的准则,一种翻译行为由行为目的决定,即“目的决定手段”。除目的准则之外,目的论还包括连贯法则和忠实法则。在这三种法则关系中,目的法则决定其他两种法则。之后经过诺德等人的发展,目的论中还强调了功能和忠诚法则,即译文在读者中被接受理解程度和原文与译文是否以及在多大程度上对等的问题。
本文以目的论为指导,对法律文本的功能类型及翻译策略进行了探讨。作者认为根据法律文本功能分类,以目的论为指导采取灵活的翻译策略进行法律翻译具有较强的实用性和可操作性,并提出在法律翻译中根据翻译发起者的目的及译文文本在其语境中的功能,从法律文本的类型及交际目的着手,结合目的论法则和法律英语的特定找出适合法律文本翻译的策略及方法。
Legal language is by nature an applied language with special communicative functions. Due to its unique natures and characteristics, legal translation is a by far more demanding job than the translation of ordinary languages. Moreover, since legal language is characterized by authorization, enforcement and solemnity, the legal translator is required to be more prudent while adopting her/his translation strategies and methodology. Linguistic scholars and translation theorists have, as of, put forward numerous different theories and logics concerning legal translation strategies. Some even argue that the word-for-word translation strategy should be attempted to keep the intention of laws and maintain the features of the original legal texts. However, though accuracy and faithfulness should be held as the highest denominators of legal translation, they cannot be secured purely with literal translation. What is worse, overstatement of the formal equivalence of words and expressions may result in misunderstanding of meaning or loss of legal information and legal effect in the process of transmission.
In this sense, what translation strategies should be employed by the translator to meet the special law requirements, achieve the purpose and reach the standards of legal translation? In another word, what are the decisive factors to influence adaptation of legal translation strategies? Nowadays in China, it seems that much has been said or argued in journals or MA dissertations concerning the studies of legal English and the application of functional equivalence to legal translation. However, up to now the studies have merely focused on certain aspects of legal English, for instance, its lexical and syntactical features and so on and are apparently not systematic and theoretical due to various reasons. Professor Du Jinbang believed that legal communication should follow three basic principles and advocated to conduct an in-depth study on forensic linguistics. Unfortunately, his focus is on pure forensic linguistics and little attention is paid to legal translation practice.
The present thesis holds that Skopostheorie proposed by German functionalism and the translation-oriented text typology study could provide a new perspective for law translating practice and strategy adoption. In the previous study and practice, translators tended to attach too much importance to the lexical and syntactical levels of language, while neglected the influence exerted by textual functions and purposes on translation. Skopostheorie, however, attempts to find out a new way of adopting translation methods through a systematic analysis of skopos of different types of legal texts. The author of the present thesis is thus inclined to apply this theory in legal translation process.
Furthermore, many scholars hold that realization of equal legal effect of the translations should take priority over the accuracy of information transmission because of the particular features of legal languages. In terms of this problem, the present thesis maintains that equal reproduction of the legal effect of the original legal text and transmission of the accurate information of the source text do not contradict with each other. Equal legal effect would not be achieved without an accurate transmission of information, and the ultimate goal of accurate informative transmission is to produce a translation that preserves the legal effect of the original as much as possible. It is beyond question that the parallel texts of the bilingual or multilingual contracts may have equal legal effects where the target text is translated as the authentic. In many cases, however, the equal transmission of legal effect of the original text is not even expected in translating practice. Therefore, while it is commonly accepted that the formality of legal language helps to realize the solemnity of law, the translator should be aware of the various communicative functions of different types of legal texts, combing the distinct characteristics of legal language to choose translation methods in translating process.
Skopostheorie, a well-known point of translation criticism, was put forward by German functional scholars in the 1970s. In his book Translation Criticism: the Potentials and Limitations, Katharina Reiss, the founder of functional theory, insisted on the original-text-centered equivalence theory, believing that an ideal translation should be an equivalent to the source text at conceptual, linguistic and communicative levels. However, she found in translation practice that in some cases the equivalence standard could not be reached or even was undesired to reach. Rather, the translator had alternatives in adaptation of translation strategies in accordance with special requirements of translation commission. She therefore held that the translator should give priority to the target text’s function in case the function of the target text is contrary to that of the source text.
Hans J. Vermeer established Skopostheorie afterwards, which highlighted the potential skopos or functions of target text while choosing translation strategies and methods. He viewed“skopos rule”as the foremost principle of translation. According to“skopos rule,”a translation activity is determined by its purpose, namely the“purpose justifies means.”Other rules are intra-coherence and inter-coherence either of which is subordinate to the skopos rule. Skopostheorie was then developed by the functionalists such as Mattari and Nord, with the latter supplementing the“function and loyalty”principle to the theory, which solved the problem of incompatibility between the target text function and the source text function.
The present study tends to observe the functional typology of legal texts and their translation strategies from the perspective of Skopostheorie. This author believes that taking flexible translation strategies with the aid of translation-oriented typology of legal texts in the light of Skopostheorie is highly admirable. It is also believed that the translator should combine the characteristics of legal language and the rules of Skopostheorie to find out appropriate translation strategies and methods in her/his translation practice.
那么到底应该采取何种翻译策略,才能满足法律翻译的特殊要求,达到法律翻译的目的和标准?或者说,决定法律翻译策略选择的因素是什么呢?目前中国在在这一领域的翻译实践中仍然缺乏系统性的翻译理论指导。尽管杜金榜教授提出了遵循语言从法原则、存异求同原则和比照补足原则并对法律语言学进行了深入的研究,但是其研究重点并未放在法律翻译策略及翻译实践的研究上。
本文认为,德国功能理论派提出的功能目的论以及该学派以翻译为导向的文本类型分析研究,为法律翻译实践及策略选择提供了新的视角。在过去的研究中,译者往往将注意力集中在字词等微观层面,忽略了文本功能和目的对于翻译策略选择的影响。目的论则试图通过对不同类型法律文本不同目的的分析来对翻译策略和方法进行选择。
另外,很多学者强调由于法律文本这种特殊目的文本具有呼吁、规范等效力,译文应侧重其规范、诉请、呼吁等法律效力和功能。本文据此提出译者应注意法律原文文本和译文文本在法律效力上的区别,翻译应当关注法律文本特殊的语言形式在传递法律权威性方面的作用,但更应关注的不同类型的文本的不同交际功能的需要,有些法律文本侧重诉情功能,有些则更应侧重提供准确信息的功能,结合法律语言自身的特点选择翻译方法和策略。
功能目的论是德国功能翻译理论派学者于20世纪70年代提出的一个翻译批评标准。在《翻译批评的可能性与限制》一书中,功能翻译理论创始人赖斯坚持以原作为中心的等值理论,指出理想的译文应从概念性内容,语言形式和交际功能上与原文对等;然而,在实践中她发现有些等值是不可能实现也不应追求的,翻译应该根据翻译任务的特殊需要调整策略,在译文与原文功能不同时,译者应优先考虑译文功能特征。
此后,费米尔创立了翻译目的论,提出翻译方法和翻译策略必须由译文预期目的或功能决定。他认为无论何种翻译,其最高规则都是“目的准则”。根据目的准则,一种翻译行为由行为目的决定,即“目的决定手段”。除目的准则之外,目的论还包括连贯法则和忠实法则。在这三种法则关系中,目的法则决定其他两种法则。之后经过诺德等人的发展,目的论中还强调了功能和忠诚法则,即译文在读者中被接受理解程度和原文与译文是否以及在多大程度上对等的问题。
本文以目的论为指导,对法律文本的功能类型及翻译策略进行了探讨。作者认为根据法律文本功能分类,以目的论为指导采取灵活的翻译策略进行法律翻译具有较强的实用性和可操作性,并提出在法律翻译中根据翻译发起者的目的及译文文本在其语境中的功能,从法律文本的类型及交际目的着手,结合目的论法则和法律英语的特定找出适合法律文本翻译的策略及方法。
Legal language is by nature an applied language with special communicative functions. Due to its unique natures and characteristics, legal translation is a by far more demanding job than the translation of ordinary languages. Moreover, since legal language is characterized by authorization, enforcement and solemnity, the legal translator is required to be more prudent while adopting her/his translation strategies and methodology. Linguistic scholars and translation theorists have, as of, put forward numerous different theories and logics concerning legal translation strategies. Some even argue that the word-for-word translation strategy should be attempted to keep the intention of laws and maintain the features of the original legal texts. However, though accuracy and faithfulness should be held as the highest denominators of legal translation, they cannot be secured purely with literal translation. What is worse, overstatement of the formal equivalence of words and expressions may result in misunderstanding of meaning or loss of legal information and legal effect in the process of transmission.
In this sense, what translation strategies should be employed by the translator to meet the special law requirements, achieve the purpose and reach the standards of legal translation? In another word, what are the decisive factors to influence adaptation of legal translation strategies? Nowadays in China, it seems that much has been said or argued in journals or MA dissertations concerning the studies of legal English and the application of functional equivalence to legal translation. However, up to now the studies have merely focused on certain aspects of legal English, for instance, its lexical and syntactical features and so on and are apparently not systematic and theoretical due to various reasons. Professor Du Jinbang believed that legal communication should follow three basic principles and advocated to conduct an in-depth study on forensic linguistics. Unfortunately, his focus is on pure forensic linguistics and little attention is paid to legal translation practice.
The present thesis holds that Skopostheorie proposed by German functionalism and the translation-oriented text typology study could provide a new perspective for law translating practice and strategy adoption. In the previous study and practice, translators tended to attach too much importance to the lexical and syntactical levels of language, while neglected the influence exerted by textual functions and purposes on translation. Skopostheorie, however, attempts to find out a new way of adopting translation methods through a systematic analysis of skopos of different types of legal texts. The author of the present thesis is thus inclined to apply this theory in legal translation process.
Furthermore, many scholars hold that realization of equal legal effect of the translations should take priority over the accuracy of information transmission because of the particular features of legal languages. In terms of this problem, the present thesis maintains that equal reproduction of the legal effect of the original legal text and transmission of the accurate information of the source text do not contradict with each other. Equal legal effect would not be achieved without an accurate transmission of information, and the ultimate goal of accurate informative transmission is to produce a translation that preserves the legal effect of the original as much as possible. It is beyond question that the parallel texts of the bilingual or multilingual contracts may have equal legal effects where the target text is translated as the authentic. In many cases, however, the equal transmission of legal effect of the original text is not even expected in translating practice. Therefore, while it is commonly accepted that the formality of legal language helps to realize the solemnity of law, the translator should be aware of the various communicative functions of different types of legal texts, combing the distinct characteristics of legal language to choose translation methods in translating process.
Skopostheorie, a well-known point of translation criticism, was put forward by German functional scholars in the 1970s. In his book Translation Criticism: the Potentials and Limitations, Katharina Reiss, the founder of functional theory, insisted on the original-text-centered equivalence theory, believing that an ideal translation should be an equivalent to the source text at conceptual, linguistic and communicative levels. However, she found in translation practice that in some cases the equivalence standard could not be reached or even was undesired to reach. Rather, the translator had alternatives in adaptation of translation strategies in accordance with special requirements of translation commission. She therefore held that the translator should give priority to the target text’s function in case the function of the target text is contrary to that of the source text.
Hans J. Vermeer established Skopostheorie afterwards, which highlighted the potential skopos or functions of target text while choosing translation strategies and methods. He viewed“skopos rule”as the foremost principle of translation. According to“skopos rule,”a translation activity is determined by its purpose, namely the“purpose justifies means.”Other rules are intra-coherence and inter-coherence either of which is subordinate to the skopos rule. Skopostheorie was then developed by the functionalists such as Mattari and Nord, with the latter supplementing the“function and loyalty”principle to the theory, which solved the problem of incompatibility between the target text function and the source text function.
The present study tends to observe the functional typology of legal texts and their translation strategies from the perspective of Skopostheorie. This author believes that taking flexible translation strategies with the aid of translation-oriented typology of legal texts in the light of Skopostheorie is highly admirable. It is also believed that the translator should combine the characteristics of legal language and the rules of Skopostheorie to find out appropriate translation strategies and methods in her/his translation practice.
引文
Baker, M. & Malmkjear, K. (1998). Encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. (2001).The functional analysis of English: a Halliday approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: an essay on applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Gibbons, J. (1994). Language and the Law. New York: Longman Publishing.
Haggard, T. R. (2004), Legal drafting. Beijing: Law Press.
Holz-Mattari, J. (1981).Translation action theory and methods of study. Baltimore: The johns Hopkins University Press.
Jacobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (Eds.). On translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Newmark, E. (1982). Approaches to translation. Oxford:Pergamon.
Newmark, E. (1988). A text book of translation. London:Prentice Hal1.
Nida, E. (1964). Towards a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E. & Taber, C. R. (1982). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E.(1993). Language, culture and translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. (2008) Translating as a purposeful activity: functionalist approaches explained. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. (1992). Text analysis in translator training. In Dollerup, C. and Loddegaard, A.(Eds).Teaching translation and interpreting 1: training, talent and experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reiss, K. (2000) Translation criticism-the potentials and limitations. New York: American Bible Society.
Sager,J.C.(1997).Text types and translation. In A.Trosborg (Eds.). Text typology andtranslation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sarcevic, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Sarcevic, S. (2000). Legal translation and translation theory: a receiver-oriented approach. 12 Dec. 2009. http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/sarcevic.pdf.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1990). Linguistic transcoding or cultural transfer? A critique of translation theory in Germany, In S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere (Eds.). Translation, history and culture. London: Pinter.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2001). Translation studies: an integrated approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Vermeer, H. J. &Reiss, K. (2001) Framework for a general translation theory. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. In Chesterman, A. (Eds.). Readings in translation theory. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. 22 Dec. 2009.
陈建平,(2007),《法律问题翻译探索》,杭州:浙江大学出版社。
陈忠诚,(1998),《英汉法律用语正误辨析》,北京:法律出版社。
葛晓琴,(1998),翻译中的文化因素:归化与异化,《外国语》,第2期。
李克兴,张新红,(2006),《法律文本与法律翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘国涛,范海玉,(2005),《法律文书学》,重庆:重庆大学出版社。
刘家兴,(2001),《民事诉讼法学教程》,北京:北京大学出版社。
宋雷,(2005),《法律英语同义、近义词语辨析翻译指南》,台湾:台湾五南图书出版社。
沈宗灵,(2001),《法理学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
孙万彪,(2006),《汉英法律翻译教程》,上海:山海外语教育出版社。
孙致礼,(2001),翻译的归化与异化,《山东外语教学》,第1期。
滕超,孔飞燕,(2008),《英汉法律互译:理论与实践》,杭州:浙江大学出版社。
陶博,(2004),《法律英语:中英双语法律文书制作》,上海:复旦大学出版社。
王建,(2004),法律英语汉译中归化与异化之选择,《西南政法大学学报》,第3期。
张长明,仲伟合,(2005),论功能翻译理论在法律翻译中的适用性,《语言与翻译(汉文)》,第3期。
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. (2001).The functional analysis of English: a Halliday approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: an essay on applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Gibbons, J. (1994). Language and the Law. New York: Longman Publishing.
Haggard, T. R. (2004), Legal drafting. Beijing: Law Press.
Holz-Mattari, J. (1981).Translation action theory and methods of study. Baltimore: The johns Hopkins University Press.
Jacobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (Eds.). On translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Newmark, E. (1982). Approaches to translation. Oxford:Pergamon.
Newmark, E. (1988). A text book of translation. London:Prentice Hal1.
Nida, E. (1964). Towards a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E. & Taber, C. R. (1982). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E.(1993). Language, culture and translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. (2008) Translating as a purposeful activity: functionalist approaches explained. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. (1992). Text analysis in translator training. In Dollerup, C. and Loddegaard, A.(Eds).Teaching translation and interpreting 1: training, talent and experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reiss, K. (2000) Translation criticism-the potentials and limitations. New York: American Bible Society.
Sager,J.C.(1997).Text types and translation. In A.Trosborg (Eds.). Text typology andtranslation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sarcevic, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Sarcevic, S. (2000). Legal translation and translation theory: a receiver-oriented approach. 12 Dec. 2009. http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/sarcevic.pdf.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1990). Linguistic transcoding or cultural transfer? A critique of translation theory in Germany, In S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere (Eds.). Translation, history and culture. London: Pinter.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2001). Translation studies: an integrated approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Vermeer, H. J. &Reiss, K. (2001) Framework for a general translation theory. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. In Chesterman, A. (Eds.). Readings in translation theory. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. 22 Dec. 2009.
陈建平,(2007),《法律问题翻译探索》,杭州:浙江大学出版社。
陈忠诚,(1998),《英汉法律用语正误辨析》,北京:法律出版社。
葛晓琴,(1998),翻译中的文化因素:归化与异化,《外国语》,第2期。
李克兴,张新红,(2006),《法律文本与法律翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘国涛,范海玉,(2005),《法律文书学》,重庆:重庆大学出版社。
刘家兴,(2001),《民事诉讼法学教程》,北京:北京大学出版社。
宋雷,(2005),《法律英语同义、近义词语辨析翻译指南》,台湾:台湾五南图书出版社。
沈宗灵,(2001),《法理学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
孙万彪,(2006),《汉英法律翻译教程》,上海:山海外语教育出版社。
孙致礼,(2001),翻译的归化与异化,《山东外语教学》,第1期。
滕超,孔飞燕,(2008),《英汉法律互译:理论与实践》,杭州:浙江大学出版社。
陶博,(2004),《法律英语:中英双语法律文书制作》,上海:复旦大学出版社。
王建,(2004),法律英语汉译中归化与异化之选择,《西南政法大学学报》,第3期。
张长明,仲伟合,(2005),论功能翻译理论在法律翻译中的适用性,《语言与翻译(汉文)》,第3期。