Abstract
By exploring the cultural discrepancies in Chinese legal texts and their English versions and to what extent legal and cultural discrepancies influence and constrain legal translation, the study argues that it is useful to consider cultural discrepancies within a semiotic framework. Language is a phenomenon and factor that links different cultures; the use of language is crucial to any legal system. Law, as a cultural product, is attended by cultural discrepancies when switched into other languages for the purpose of achieving equivalence. After a brief overview of cultural differences in translation, legal translation in particular, the study is set to examine the role of translation in crossing through different legal cultures and backgrounds and investigate barriers in the process of translation. Investigating cultural discrepancies in legal translation within a semiotic framework allows us to focus on certain interpretations by acknowledging that legal texts are composed with systems of systems and interacting with other cultural aspects in a wider context.
Funding statement: National Social Science Foundation, PRC, (Grant/Award Number: ‘15BYY012’).
References
Arnold, B. R. & Y. E. Matus. 2000. Test translation and cultural equivalence methodologies for use with diverse populations. In I. Cuellar & F. A. Paniagua (eds.), Handbook of multicultural mental health, 121–136. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012199370-2/50008-0Search in Google Scholar
Balkin, J. M. 1993. Understanding legal understanding: The legal subject and the problem of legal coherence. Yale Law Journal 103. 105–174.10.2307/797078Search in Google Scholar
Belkin, I. 2000. China’s criminal justice system: A work in progress. Washington Journal of Modern China 6(2). 61–84.Search in Google Scholar
Brisset, A. 2010. Cultural perspectives on translation. International Social Science Journal 61(199). 69–81.10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01748.xSearch in Google Scholar
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.11.03chaSearch in Google Scholar
Chen, S. J. 2012. China’s compliance with WTO transparency requirement: Institution-related impediments. Amsterdam Law Forum 4(4). 25–50.10.37974/ALF.234Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Z. C. 1992. Fa chuang yi hua [Window on legal translation]. Beijing: China Translation & Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, L. 2012. Attribution and judicial control in Chinese court judgments: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 19 (1). 27–4910.1558/ijsll.v19i1.27Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, L. 2014. Legal translation. Beijing: China Democracy and Legal System Press.10.1515/sem-2014-0019Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, L., L. J. Sha & Y. L. Zheng. 2009. Semiotic interpretation of legal terminology. Contemporary Rhetoric 152(2). 37–43.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, L. & K. K. Sin. 2008. Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach. Semiotica 172(1/4). 33–45.10.1515/SEMI.2008.088Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, L., K. K. Sin & W. Cheng. 2014. Legal translation: A sociosemiotic approach. Semiotica 201(1/4). 17–33.10.1515/sem-2014-0019Search in Google Scholar
Clarke, D. C. & J. V. Feinerman. 1995. Antagonistic contradictions: Criminal law and human rights in China. China Quarterly 141. 135–154.10.1017/S030574100003294XSearch in Google Scholar
Cobley, P. & A. Randviir. 2009. Introduction: What is sociosemiotics? Semiotica 173(1/4). 1–39.10.1515/SEMI.2009.001Search in Google Scholar
Coode, G. 1845. On legislative expression, or, the language of the written law. London: T. & J. W. Johnson.Search in Google Scholar
Dobinson, I. 2002. The criminal law of the people’s republic of China (1997): Real change or rhetoric? Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 11(1). 1–62.Search in Google Scholar
Dooley, R. A. & S. H. Levinsohn. 2000. Analyzing discourse: A manual of basic concepts. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-15849-2Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, L. M. 1969. Legal culture and social development. Law & Society Review 4(1). 29–44.10.2307/3052760Search in Google Scholar
Galdia, M. 2003. Comparative law and legal translation. European Legal Forum (E) 1. 1–4. http://www.simons-law.com/library/pdf/e/355.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Garner, B. A. (ed.). 2009. Black’s law dictionary, 9th edn. London: West.Search in Google Scholar
Geertz, C. 1986. The uses of diversity. In S. M. McMurrin (ed.), The Tanner lectures on human values, vol. 7, 251–275. Cambridge & Salt Lake City: Cambridge University Press & University of Utah Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ginter, A. 2002. Cultural issues in translation. Studies About Languages 3. 27–31.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1982. Logic versus pragmatics, with human language as the referee: Toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics 6. 81–133.10.1016/0378-2166(82)90026-1Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Han, S. F. 2005. Some remarks on criminal punishments in the Qin and Han Dynasties. Historical Research 3. 37–52.Search in Google Scholar
Hawkes, T. 2003. Structuralism and semiotics, 2nd edn. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203100516Search in Google Scholar
Heutger, V. 2004. A more coherent European wide legal language. European Integration online Papers 7. 1–6. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004–002.htm.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, J. P. & X. Li. 2004. On the system of public surveillance enforcement. Journal of Shandong Public Security College 77(5). 9–13.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, W. 2002. On the creativity of legal translators. Chinese Translators Journal 23(2). 41–43.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1971a. Language in relation to other communication systems. In R. Jakobson (ed.), Selected writings vol. 2: Word and language, 697–708. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110873269.697Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1971b. On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. Jakobson (ed.), Selected writings vol. 2: Word and language, 260–266. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110873269.260Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, X. M. 2006. Meanings of five punishment: A historical development. Contemporary Rhetoric 136(4). 68–71.Search in Google Scholar
Künnecke, M. 2013. Translation in the EU: Language and law in the EU’s judicial labyrinth. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 20(2). 243–260.10.1177/1023263X1302000206Search in Google Scholar
Langer, M. 2004. From legal transplants to legal translations: The globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard International Law Journal 45(1). 1–64.Search in Google Scholar
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. 1998. Wrongs and rights: A human rights analysis of China’s revised criminal law. New York: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Z. P. & H. J. Zhu. 2008. On limitations of perfection of control punishment from perspective of justice with mercy. Criminal Law review 3. 364–381.Search in Google Scholar
Littlejohn, S. W. & K. A. Foss. 2005. Theories of human communication, 8th edn. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, T. J. 2010. Analysis about the predicament of modern China legal development and its transcendence. Legal Science Magazine 1. 48–52.Search in Google Scholar
Loogus, T. 2012. Culture-related decision conflicts in the translation process. Sign Systems Studies 40(3/4). 369–384.10.12697/SSS.2012.3-4.06Search in Google Scholar
Maitland, S. 2010. “Objects in the midst of other objects”: Cultural translation and the anxieties of “otherness.” International Journal of the Humanities 8(7). 77–86.10.18848/1447-9508/CGP/v08i07/42970Search in Google Scholar
Matsushita, M. 2004. Basic principles of the WTO and the role of competition policy. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 3(2). 363–385.10.1163/221190002X00382Search in Google Scholar
Mattila, H. 2006. Comparative legal linguistics, C. Goddard (trans.). Hampshire: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar
Mello, M. M. & L. O. Gostin. 2009. Commentary: A legal perspective on diabetes surveillance – privacy and the police power. Milbank Quarterly 87(3). 575–580.10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00570.xSearch in Google Scholar
Mezey, N. 2001. Law as culture. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 13. 35–67.Search in Google Scholar
Moore, A. D. 2000. Employee monitoring and computer technology: Evaluative surveillance v. privacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 10(3). 697–709.10.2307/3857899Search in Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nelken, D. 2009. Law, liability, and culture. In D. M. Engel & M. McCann (eds.), Fault lines: Tort law as cultural practice, 21–38. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9780804771207-004Search in Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. 1964a. Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.10.1163/9789004495746Search in Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. 1964b. Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader, 126–140. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, W. 1995. Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number].Search in Google Scholar
Peña, E. D. 2007. Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development 78(4). 1255–1264.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01064.xSearch in Google Scholar
Petronienė, S. & I. Žvirblytė. 2012. Headlines of online news articles: Degree of equivalence in translation. Studies about Languages 21. 64–73.Search in Google Scholar
Pommer, S. E. 2008. Translation as intercultural transfer: The case of law. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 3(1). 17–21.Search in Google Scholar
Pym, A. 2007. Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation. Target 19(2). 271–294.10.1075/bct.20.06pymSearch in Google Scholar
Qi, X. L. 2009. Criminal policy and the revolution of the control punishment. Journal of Guizhou University (Social Science) 27(4). 78–83.Search in Google Scholar
Qu, W. S. 2012. Reflections on translation of Chinese legal terms: Problems, causes and standardization in recent years. Chinese Translators Journal 6. 68–75.Search in Google Scholar
Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3). 367–381.10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-USearch in Google Scholar
Robyns, C. 1994. Translation and discursive identity. Poetics Today 15(3). 405–428.10.2307/1773316Search in Google Scholar
Sarat, A. 1977. Studying American legal culture: An assessment of survey evidence. Law & Society Review 11(3). 427–488.10.2307/3053128Search in Google Scholar
Šarčević, S. 1997. New approach to legal translation. Cambridge: Kluwer Law International.Search in Google Scholar
Šarčević, S. 2000. Translation and translation theory: A reader-oriented approach. http://www.tradulex.com/Actes2000/sarcevic.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1983. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Schäffner, C. & B. Adab. 1997. Translation as intercultural communication – contact as conflict. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarova & K. Kaindl (eds.), Translation as intercultural communication, 325–338. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.20.33schSearch in Google Scholar
Short, T. L. 2007. Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498350Search in Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M. 1989. Exploring translation strategies. In Y. Tobin (ed.), From text to sign: A semiotic view of communication, 317–329. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.20.24sneSearch in Google Scholar
Stolze, R. 2009. Dealing with cultural elements in technical texts for translation. Journal of Specialized Translation 11. 124–142.Search in Google Scholar
Stolze, R. 2013a. The legal translator’s approach to texts. Humanities 3(2). 56–71.10.3390/h2010056Search in Google Scholar
Stolze, R. 2013b. Translation and law. Synaps 28. 3–13.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, N. 2002. State surveillance and the right to privacy. Surveillance & Society 1(1). 66–85.10.24908/ss.v1i1.3394Search in Google Scholar
Teubert, W. & R. Krishnamurthy. 2007. Corpus linguistics. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Torop, P. 2002. Translation as translating as culture. Sign Systems Studies 30(2). 593–605.10.12697/SSS.2002.30.2.14Search in Google Scholar
Toury, G. 1978. The nature and role of norms in translation. In L. Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader, 198–211. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Urban, G. 1981. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning by M. A. K. Halliday. American Anthropologist, New Series 83(3). 659–661.10.1525/aa.1981.83.3.02a00360Search in Google Scholar
Venuti, L. 1998. The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203269701Search in Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. 1992. Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatic 2(3). 235–249.10.1075/prag.2.3.01wooSearch in Google Scholar
Zhu, J. W. 2011. The socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics: Its structure, features and trends. Social Sciences in China 3. 21–39.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston