基于平行语料库的汉语立法语篇禁止性规范词英译研究——以“不得”的英译为例  

On English Translation of Prohibition Terms in Chinese Legislative Texts through Parallel Corpus:A Case Study of the Term Bude

作　　者：李奉栖[1] LI Feng-qi(School of Foreign Languages, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120, China)

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学外语学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《语言与翻译》2017年第1期58-68,共11页Language and Translation

基　　金：重庆市教育委员会人文社会科学研究一般项目"基于语料库的汉语法律条文程式化结构英译研究"(15SKG014)

摘　　要：禁止性规范是立法语篇的重要组成部分。在汉语立法语篇中,"不得"一词是最常见的禁止性规范词,其英译的准确性和适切性对于维护法律的权威、保持原有的法律效力至关重要。文章以"中国法律法规汉英平行语料库"为研究工具,对比分析大陆立法语篇英文版与香港立法语篇英文版在表述"不得"这一概念上的不同倾向,以此揭示前者在翻译"不得"一词时存在的缺陷。结果表明,在大陆立法语篇英文版中,shall not及其变体、may not及其变体被混用;no…shall/may这一否定形式未被充分使用;多样化的表述被用来表达同一个概念,违反了译名统一的原则。文章讨论了这些缺陷的危害,并提出了改进意见。Prohibition is a key component of any legislative texts. ＂Bude＂ is the most frequently used prohibi- tion term in Chinese legislative texts, the accuracy and adaptivity of whose translation is of vital importance to maintain the original law＇ s authority and legal force. A contrastive analysis is made in this paper, with Parallel Corpus of China＇ s Legal Documents as the research instrument, to reveal the different trends of using English terms to express the idea of ＂bude＂ in the English versions of both China's Mainland＇ s and Hong Kong SAR＇ s legislative texts so that the defects existing in the translation of ＂bude＂ in the former can be discovered. The results show that, in China's Mainland＇ s English legislative texts, ＂shall not＂, ＂may not＂ and their variations were used inter- changeably, the negation form ＂no... shall/may＂ was underused, and diversified terms were used to express the same idea, thus violating the principle of ＂consistency in term translation＂. The harms of these defects are then discussed and remedies proposed.

关 键 词：禁止性规范 禁止性规范词 不得 英译 立法语篇 

分 类 号：H059[语言文字—语言学]