经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究
法律英语英文案例分析(3篇)
第1篇IntroductionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a landmark decision in the field of contract law, particularly focusing on the interpretation of written contracts and the principles of consideration. This analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's reasoning, and the broader implications of the decision.Facts of the CaseThe case of Johnson v. Smith revolves around a contract between two individuals, John Johnson and Mark Smith. Johnson, a well-known contractor, agreed to undertake the construction of a residential property for Smith, a real estate developer. The contract was a detailed written agreement, outlining the scope of work, the timeline, and the payment terms.The contract stipulated that Johnson would complete the construction within six months from the date of the contract, with payments to be made in installments upon the completion of specific milestones. However, after three months, Johnson encountered unforeseen delays due to issues with the foundation of the property. Despite several attempts to renegotiate the terms with Smith, Johnson was unable to secureadditional time or funds.Johnson, unable to meet the contractual obligations, decided toterminate the contract. He notified Smith of his intention to cease work and demanded payment for the work completed up to that point. Smith, however, refused to pay, arguing that Johnson had breached the contract by failing to complete the work within the stipulated time frame.Arguments PresentedJohnson's Legal Argument:1. Force Majeure: Johnson argued that the unforeseen delays were due toa force majeure event, which excused him from fulfilling his contractual obligations. He cited the unforeseen foundation issues as an example ofan event beyond his control that prevented him from completing the work on time.2. Modification of Contract: Johnson claimed that he and Smith had verbally agreed to modify the contract to extend the completion date. He provided evidence of several conversations between the two parties, which he argued demonstrated an intention to alter the original terms.Smith's Legal Argument:1. Breach of Contract: Smith contended that Johnson's failure to complete the work on time was a clear breach of the contract. He argued that the contract was a legally binding agreement and that Johnson was obligated to complete the work within the specified timeframe.2. No Modification of Contract: Smith denied the existence of any verbal agreement to modify the contract. He argued that any such modification would require a written document to be legally binding.Court's ReasoningThe court, after hearing both parties' arguments and examining the evidence presented, ruled in favor of Smith. The court's reasoning can be summarized as follows:1. Force Majeure: The court found that while unforeseen delays may indeed be grounds for excusing performance under certain circumstances, the evidence presented by Johnson did not establish that the foundation issues were a force majeure event. The court emphasized that such events must be beyond the reasonable control of the contractor and must prevent the contractor from fulfilling their obligations.2. Modification of Contract: The court ruled that the evidence of verbal agreements between Johnson and Smith was insufficient to prove a modification of the contract. The court emphasized that modifications to written contracts should be in writing and signed by both parties to be legally binding.Broader ImplicationsThe decision in Johnson v. Smith has several broader implications for contract law:1. Interpretation of Written Contracts: The case underscores the importance of interpreting written contracts strictly according to their terms. Parties should carefully review and understand the terms of their agreements before entering into them.2. Consideration: The court's decision highlights the principle of consideration, which is a fundamental requirement for a contract to be legally binding. Both parties must provide something of value (consideration) in exchange for the promises made in the contract.3. Modification of Contracts: The case serves as a cautionary tale for parties attempting to modify contracts. Any modification should be in writing and signed by all parties involved to avoid disputes over the terms of the agreement.ConclusionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a compelling example of the complexities involved in contract law, particularly in the interpretation of written contracts and the principles of consideration. The court's decision serves as a valuable precedent for future cases and underscores the importance of careful contract drafting and adherence to contractual obligations.第2篇IntroductionThis legal English case analysis focuses on the United States v. John Doe, a landmark case that revolves around the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The case highlights the complexities surrounding the definition of "authorized access" and its implications for individuals accused of unauthorized computer access. The analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, the court's decision, and the broader implications of the ruling.Facts of the CaseJohn Doe, an employee of XYZ Corporation, was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) after he accessed the company's computer system to retrieve personal information about his colleagues. Doe had been terminated from his employment and, feeling aggrieved, sought to retaliate against the company by leaking sensitive information to the media. Doe argued that he had authorized access to the company's computer system, as he was an employee at the time of the alleged offense.Legal ArgumentsThe prosecution argued that Doe's access to the company's computer system was unauthorized, as he had exceeded the scope of his employment by accessing information that was not necessary for his job. The prosecution cited the CFAA, which defines "unauthorized access" as "access to a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access."Doe, on the other hand, contended that his access was authorized, as he was an employee at the time of the offense. He argued that the term "authorized access" should be interpreted broadly to include any access that is not prohibited by the company's computer usage policy.Court's DecisionThe district court ruled in favor of Doe, finding that his access to the company's computer system was authorized. The court interpreted the term "authorized access" narrowly, holding that it did not encompass access that was merely beyond the scope of the employee's job responsibilities. The court further stated that the CFAA was not intended to criminalize all unauthorized computer access but rather to target those who exceeded their authorized access or accessed computers without authorization.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, finding that Doe's access was indeed unauthorized. The appeals court held that the term "authorized access" should be interpreted broadly, encompassing any access that isnot explicitly permitted by the company's computer usage policy. The court reasoned that the CFAA was designed to protect computer systems from unauthorized access and that the term "authorized access" should be given a broad construction to achieve this purpose.AnalysisThe United States v. John Doe case presents a critical issue in the realm of computer fraud and abuse law: the interpretation of the term "authorized access." The case highlights the complexities surrounding this issue and the differing interpretations that can arise from it.1. Interpretation of "Authorized Access"The district court's narrow interpretation of "authorized access" was based on the principle that an employee's access is only authorized ifit falls within the scope of his or her job responsibilities. This interpretation, however, could have unintended consequences, as it could make it difficult to prosecute individuals who exceed the scope of their employment in accessing computer systems.In contrast, the appeals court's broad interpretation of "authorized access" aligns with the purpose of the CFAA, which is to protect computer systems from unauthorized access. This interpretation allowsfor a more flexible approach to determining whether an individual has exceeded their authorized access, thereby ensuring that the CFAA is effective in deterring computer fraud and abuse.2. Implications for EmployersThe case has significant implications for employers, particularly in terms of developing and enforcing computer usage policies. Employers must ensure that their policies clearly define what constitutes authorized access and that employees are aware of these policies. Employers should also consider implementing regular training sessions to educate employees on the importance of adhering to computer usage policies and the potential consequences of unauthorized access.3. Broader ImplicationsThe United States v. John Doe case has broader implications for thelegal landscape surrounding computer fraud and abuse. The decision has been influential in shaping the interpretation of the CFAA and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases. The case also highlights the needfor ongoing dialogue and debate regarding the proper balance between protecting computer systems and ensuring that individuals' rights are not unduly infringed upon.ConclusionThe United States v. John Doe case is a significant legal precedent that addresses the interpretation of the term "authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The case highlights the complexities surrounding this issue and the differing interpretations that can arise from it. While the appeals court's broad interpretation of "authorized access" aligns with the purpose of the CFAA, the case also underscores the need for clear and comprehensive computer usage policies, as well as ongoing dialogue regarding the appropriate balance between protecting computer systems and safeguarding individual rights.第3篇Introduction:The following case analysis is focused on the legal dispute between Jane Doe, a plaintiff, and XYZ Corporation, the defendant. The case revolves around a breach of contract and negligence claims. The analysis will provide an overview of the facts, legal issues, and the court's decision.Facts of the Case:Jane Doe, a 32-year-old woman, was employed by XYZ Corporation as a sales representative. Jane was required to travel extensively for work, which often involved long hours and demanding schedules. During her employment, Jane was given a verbal agreement by her supervisor, John Smith, that she would receive a bonus of $10,000 at the end of the year if she met certain sales targets.Jane diligently worked towards achieving the sales targets set by the company. She spent countless hours attending meetings, contacting clients, and closing deals. By the end of the year, Jane successfully exceeded the sales targets set by XYZ Corporation. However, when the bonus was due, Jane was informed that her bonus would not be paid due to a change in company policy.Jane was shocked and disappointed by the company's decision. She felt that she had fulfilled her end of the verbal agreement and that the company was breaching its obligations. Additionally, Jane claimed that her supervisor, John Smith, had assured her that she would receive the bonus, which she believed to be a representation made by the company.Jane filed a lawsuit against XYZ Corporation, alleging breach of contract and negligence. She sought damages for the unpaid bonus and for emotional distress caused by the company's actions.Legal Issues:1. Breach of Contract:Jane's primary claim was that XYZ Corporation breached its verbal agreement to pay her the bonus. To establish a breach of contract, Jane had to prove the following elements:a. Existence of a contract: Jane had to show that there was a valid contract between her and XYZ Corporation. In this case, the existence of a verbal agreement was in question.b. Breach of the contract: Jane had to prove that XYZ Corporation failed to perform its obligations under the contract. This involved demonstrating that she met the sales targets and that the company failed to pay the bonus.c. Damages: Jane had to establish that she suffered damages as a result of the breach. This included the monetary value of the unpaid bonus and any emotional distress caused by the company's actions.2. Negligence:Jane also claimed that XYZ Corporation was negligent in failing to pay the bonus. To prove negligence, Jane had to prove the following elements:a. Duty of care: XYZ Corporation had a duty to act with reasonable care towards Jane.b. Breach of duty: XYZ Corporation breached its duty of care by failing to pay the bonus.c. Causation: Jane had to prove that the company's breach of duty caused her damages.d. Damages: Jane had to establish that she suffered damages as a result of the company's negligence.Court's Decision:The court heard both parties' arguments and considered the evidence presented. After careful consideration, the court ruled in favor of Jane Doe on both her breach of contract and negligence claims.Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court held that a verbal agreement between Jane and her supervisor, John Smith, was sufficient to create a binding contract. The court further ruled that XYZ Corporation breached its obligations under the contract by failing to pay the bonus despite Jane meeting the sales targets.In the negligence claim, the court found that XYZ Corporation owed Jane a duty of care and breached that duty by failing to pay the bonus. The court also concluded that the company's breach of duty caused Jane emotional distress, which entitled her to damages.Conclusion:The case of Jane Doe v. XYZ Corporation serves as an important reminder of the enforceability of verbal agreements and the duty of care owed by employers to their employees. In this case, the court recognized the validity of a verbal agreement and held XYZ Corporation liable for breaching its obligations. The decision highlights the importance ofclear communication and adherence to contractual agreements in the workplace.。
法律英语教学案例分析(3篇)
第1篇一、引言随着全球化的发展，法律英语在国际交流和合作中扮演着越来越重要的角色。
为了培养具备国际视野和法律素养的复合型人才，法律英语教学在我国高等教育中逐渐受到重视。
本文通过对一个具体的法律英语教学案例进行分析，探讨法律英语教学的方法、策略和效果，以期为我国法律英语教学提供参考和借鉴。
二、案例背景某法学院法律英语课程是一门针对法学专业本科生的专业英语课程，旨在帮助学生掌握法律英语的基本知识、技能和思维方式，提高学生的法律英语应用能力。
本案例以该课程的一次课堂教学为例，分析法律英语教学的效果。
三、案例分析1. 教学目标本次教学的目标是使学生了解英国合同法的基本概念和原则，掌握合同条款的英文表达，并能运用法律英语进行案例分析。
2. 教学内容本次教学内容主要包括以下几个方面：（1）英国合同法的基本概念和原则（2）合同条款的英文表达（3）案例分析3. 教学方法（1）讲授法：教师通过讲解英国合同法的基本概念和原则，使学生了解合同法的基本知识。
（2）案例分析法：教师通过分析实际案例，引导学生运用法律英语进行案例分析，提高学生的法律英语应用能力。
（3）小组讨论法：将学生分成小组，就案例进行讨论，培养学生的团队协作能力和表达能力。
4. 教学过程（1）导入：教师简要介绍英国合同法的基本概念和原则，激发学生的学习兴趣。
（2）讲解：教师详细讲解合同条款的英文表达，并举例说明。
（3）案例分析：教师选取一个具有代表性的合同案例，引导学生运用法律英语进行分析。
（4）小组讨论：将学生分成小组，就案例进行讨论，并要求各小组派代表进行汇报。
（5）总结：教师对学生的讨论进行总结，并对学生的表现给予评价。
5. 教学效果通过本次教学，学生掌握了英国合同法的基本概念和原则，熟悉了合同条款的英文表达，并能运用法律英语进行案例分析。
具体表现在以下几个方面：（1）学生的法律英语水平有所提高，能较好地阅读和理解法律英文文献。
（2）学生的法律思维和表达能力得到锻炼，能在实际工作中运用法律英语进行沟通和交流。
法律英语在翻译中的技巧分析
ｅｑｕｉｔｙ和ｊｕｒｙ ｔｒｉａｌ
ｉｎ
经过一个多世纪的变法，中国大量借鉴和吸收 万方数据 外国法学的精粹，为中国法学注入活力，从而造就了 中国法学的日益繁盛。这离不开法律英语的翻
ｌａｗ分别译成“衡平法上的陪审”和“法律上的陪审”。 １．２大量虚词在法律英语中的特殊用法也使 法律英语的翻译困难重重
法律英语在翻译中的技巧分析
高 亮
（山东省政法管理干部学院公共基础部，山东济南２５００１４１
摘要：新时期法律教育是一种学科涉猎范围 甚广的大学后续教育．即主修法律者须首先修完普 通大学的课程。足见其难度，因此法律英语的翻译也 就不能等闲视之。本文将从法律英语中词、句的特 点以及法律文化底蕴等方面入手，分析法律英语翻 译时候常见的因素和技巧。 关键词：英语翻译技巧 译技巧 英语法律 法律翻
ｃｏｍ ｍｏｒｔ ｄｅ．
ｉｓ ｄｅｔｅｒｍｉｎｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｒａｔｉｏ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｍｅａｎｂｕｙｉｎｇ ａｎｄ ｓｅｌｌ— ｉｎｇ ｒａｔｅｓ ｏｆ ＵＳ ｄｏｌｌａｒｓ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｄｅｕｔ ｓｅｈｅ ｍａｒｋｓ ａｎｄ
ｏｎ
ｆｒｅｎｃｈ ｆｒａｎｃｓ ｐｕｂｌｉｓｈｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ Ｂａｎｋ ｏｆ Ｃｈｉｎａ ｄａｔｅ ｏｆ
ｅｎｃｅｓ ｃａｎ
型鲨塑墨
ｄｉｆｆｅｒ．
ｏｎｅ
习惯及句法层面上相去甚远。英语句子重分析撤造
句多形合（ｈｙｐｏｔａｘｉｓ），是“以限定动词为核心，控制句 中各种成分之间的关系。故句子复杂化只能通过前 呼后拥．递相迭加来实现”。因重复使用词语在英语 中并不合语法规范．故在英语中使用代词或助动词 来进行替代（１ｅｘｉｃａｌ ｅｑｕｉｖａｌｅｎｔｓ）的频率高；而汉语句 子则重意合（ｐａｒａｔａｘｉｓ）．是靠“逻辑事理的顺序来实现 意合、流动、气韵三位一体的横向铺排的。”正由于两 种语言特征各异．再加之法律语言的措辞要求严谨， 故在翻译时往往不能正确遵循各自的语法要求，从 而有悖于表达。，诚如前苏联翻译家尼・查波罗斯基所 云，“人们责备不少翻译者不精通翻译所依据的外国 语，这种责备是公正的。不过，翻译者之首要职责却是 应很好地了解他们写作所用的本国语。”因此，应充 分利用翻译的各种技巧，如“增词法，重复法，省略法， 正反表达法”等．再结合法律规范或文本语言的特点， 从而准确而精练地表达原文的意思。例如： 万方数据
英汉法律翻译案例讲评(3篇)
第1篇一、引言随着全球化进程的加快，跨国法律事务日益增多，英汉法律翻译在法律实践中扮演着重要角色。
本文将通过一个具体的英汉法律翻译案例，对翻译过程中的难点、技巧及注意事项进行详细分析，以期对法律翻译工作者提供有益的借鉴。
二、案例背景某跨国公司在我国某地设立分公司，因合同纠纷向我国法院提起诉讼。
该公司提交的英文合同文本中存在多处专业术语，且部分条款表述模糊。
为确保诉讼顺利进行，我国律师对英文合同文本进行了翻译，并提交给法院。
三、案例分析1. 翻译难点（1）专业术语翻译案例中的英文合同文本涉及大量专业术语，如“force majeure”（不可抗力）、“lex loci contractus”（合同准据法）等。
这些术语在英汉法律翻译中具有一定的难度，需要翻译者具备扎实的法律功底和丰富的翻译经验。
（2）条款表述模糊部分条款在英文文本中表述模糊，如“the parties shall act in good faith”（双方应诚信行事）。
在翻译过程中，需要根据具体语境和合同目的，对模糊条款进行恰当的阐释。
2. 翻译技巧（1）专业术语翻译针对专业术语翻译，翻译者应遵循以下原则：1）准确翻译：确保翻译结果准确无误，避免产生歧义。
2）简洁明了：尽量使用简洁明了的语言，避免冗长复杂的句子。
3）符合语境：根据具体语境，选择合适的翻译方法。
例如，将“force majeure”翻译为“不可抗力”，既符合中文表达习惯，又准确传达了原意。
（2）条款表述模糊针对模糊条款，翻译者可采取以下方法：1）根据合同目的，对模糊条款进行阐释。
2）参考类似案例，寻找相关条款的翻译方法。
3）咨询专业人士，获取权威解释。
例如，将“the parties shall act in good faith”翻译为“双方应本着诚信原则履行合同”，既明确了条款含义，又符合合同目的。
3. 注意事项（1）尊重原文翻译过程中，应尊重原文的表述方式和风格，避免过度改写。
以案例说法律英语(3篇)
第1篇一、引言法律英语是法律领域特有的专业英语，它不仅包括法律术语、法律条文，还包括法律文书、法律文献等。
在全球化背景下，法律英语的重要性日益凸显。
本文将通过具体案例，分析法律英语在实际应用中的重要性，以及如何正确运用法律英语进行法律沟通和表达。
二、案例一：国际贸易纠纷案例背景：甲公司（中国）与乙公司（美国）签订了一份国际货物买卖合同，约定由甲公司向乙公司出口一批货物。
合同签订后，甲公司按照约定履行了交货义务，但乙公司以货物质量不合格为由拒绝付款。
甲公司遂向法院提起诉讼，要求乙公司支付货款及利息。
法律英语运用：1. 诉讼文书在起诉状中，甲公司使用了以下法律英语表达：- The Plaintiff (甲公司) hereby sues the Defendant (乙公司) for breachof contract and claims the payment of the due amount together with interest.（原告（甲公司）现因被告（乙公司）违反合同，要求被告支付到期款项及利息。
）2. 证据材料在证据材料中，甲公司使用了以下法律英语表达：- The quality of the goods delivered by the Plaintiff meets the requirements set forth in the contract.（原告交付的货物符合合同约定的质量要求。
）3. 法庭辩论在法庭辩论中，甲公司使用了以下法律英语表达：- The Defendant's defense is groundless and lacks evidence.（被告的抗辩无理且缺乏证据。
）三、案例二：劳动争议案例背景：张某（中国）与某公司签订了一份劳动合同，约定张某在某公司担任销售经理。
合同履行期间，张某因工作调动原因，向公司提出辞职。
公司以张某违反竞业限制条款为由，拒绝支付张某的离职补偿金。
经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究
经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究【摘要】英语翻译要遵循“信、达、雅”三原则，同样法律英语的翻译也有其固有的规律和原则可循。
在法律英语文本的翻译中，要注意措辞的准确性，文本句法的通顺性，也要照顾到特殊句式的翻译技巧与策略。
本文旨在借助经典法律案例的视角研究法律文本的翻译策略。
【关键词】法律英语；案例；翻译策略一、法律文本措辞的准确性准确性是法律英语遣词的最重要特征，因此在翻译法律文本的时候，要将准确性作为衡量文本翻译好坏的主要标准。
由于法律文本的翻译涉及两种或者多种语言，不仅要顾及法律语言本身，还要顾及到不同国家不同文化对法律英语的影响，故而准确性在法律文本的翻译过程中是必须严格坚持的原则。
如前些日子争论很大的世界著名歌星MICHAELJACKSON（迈克尔·杰克逊）的遗嘱中提到I present my whole estate to the consigner then functioning under that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust performed on March 22，2002 by me consigner which is called the MJ FAMILY TRUST，any amendments are valid before my death.遗嘱第一行estate一词的选用极为准确，在英语语词中，表达财产的词汇有property，assets，estate。
Property强调个人或团体可合法获得或者拥有的一切有价值的东西，主要包括有价证券，钱财等物品。
Assets指的是个人或公司所有的用于抵偿债务或变卖后支付债务的财产。
Estate主要指房地产。
而在遗嘱第一行所指的财产主要就是房地产，故此词的选择还是相当考究的，切实体现了法律英语翻译的准确性原则。
二、法律文本句法的通顺性通顺性的含义可以从两个角度解读：首先，选择最正确的语词，语词跟原作作者的所思所感是一致的；其次，句与句之间通顺贯通，一气呵成，有条不紊的将原作作者的意图再现出来，对原作的翻译没有任何的歪曲和误读。
从法律英语文化语境分析常见翻译问题
从法律英语文化语境分析常见翻译问题1. 引言1.1 介绍法律英语文化语境分析常见翻译问题是一个重要的研究领域，涉及到从法律英语到其他语言的准确翻译。
随着全球化的发展，法律文件和合同在国际间的交流越来越频繁，因此正确理解和翻译法律英语的文本对于保障各方的权益至关重要。
在进行法律英语文化语境分析时，常常会遇到一些翻译问题，这些问题可能是由于文化差异造成的，也可能是由于语言结构的不同所导致的。
解决这些翻译问题并确保翻译准确无误是研究的重点之一。
本文旨在通过对法律英语的特点、文化差异对翻译的影响以及常见的翻译问题进行分析，探讨解决这些问题的方法，并通过案例分析具体说明其中的挑战和解决方案。
最终，结合总结和展望未来的部分，提出一些建议来指导未来的研究和实践。
通过本文的研究，希望能够为法律英语翻译工作提供一些有益的启示和帮助。
1.2 目的本文的目的是分析在法律英语文化语境中常见的翻译问题，并探讨解决方法。
在法律领域，准确无误的翻译至关重要，因为任何偏差或误解都可能导致严重后果。
本文将深入探讨法律英语的特点，并着重讨论文化差异对翻译的影响。
通过案例分析，将进一步说明常见的翻译问题，并提出解决方法。
最终，本文将总结研究成果，展望未来在法律英语翻译领域的发展，并提出建议以帮助提升翻译质量和效率。
通过这些探讨，旨在为翻译从业人员提供有益的参考和指导，从而更好地应对法律英语文化语境下的翻译挑战。
1.3 研究意义研究意义部分的内容如下：法律英语文化语境与其他语言文化之间存在显著的差异性，这种文化差异对翻译工作有着深远的影响。
了解和分析这种文化差异，能够帮助翻译人员更好地理解原始文本的意义和内涵，从而更准确地传达信息，避免出现误解或歧义。
研究法律英语文化语境下的常见翻译问题和解决方法，不仅可以为翻译工作者提供实用的技巧和方法，还可以促进不同文化间的交流与理解，促进国际间的合作与交流。
深入探讨法律英语文化语境下的翻译问题具有重要的理论和实践意义。
浅谈法律英语的翻译原则
浅谈法律英语的翻译原则摘要：本文主要结合法律英语的特点对法律英语的翻译原则进行了相关分析和阐述，主要从庄严性、准确性和同一性等方面展开论述。
关键词：法律英语翻译原则英美法系主要以英国和美国两个国家为代表,英国是普通法和英语的发源地,曾经作为英国殖民地的美国继承了英国法律体系在其漫长的发展历程中，法律英语形成了自己独特的词汇、词法、句法、表达方式和写作风格。
首先，词汇方面，频繁运用中世纪英语、古英语单词和拉丁文,广泛运用常用词的非常用意义,主要是为了显示法律语言的神圣性、权威性。
法律英语不像英语文学作品那样,有华丽的词藻和丰富的修饰语,也不会使用比喻,夸张，拟人等修辞手法。
如It is also known as the quid pro quo (“what for what”, “something for something”) mentioned in the title of this Chapter because of the analogy to the scholastic aliquid stat pro aliquo, which exemplifies the semiotic sign relation and is (like quid pro quo) rooted in equivalence. Quid pro quo indicates that something must be given in return for the promise."quid pro quo"这个拉丁文词组出现了3次，翻译成“补偿物”。
其次，准确性原则。
准确性原则即中文的表述应当清楚具体地表达出法律英语的原有意思和宗旨。
法律语体的词汇表达简洁、易懂。
有些中文词汇在法律语体中和日常语境中的运用并没有区别，但是与其对等的英语词汇可能带有明显的语体特征，翻译成法律英语就必须体现法律英语的特征。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究
【摘要】英语翻译要遵循“信、达、雅”三原则，同样法律英语的翻译也有其固有的规律和原则可循。
在法律英语文本的翻译中，要注意措辞的准确性，文本句法的通顺性，也要照顾到特殊句式的翻译技巧与策略。
本文旨在借助经典法律案例的视角研究法律文本的翻译策略。
【关键词】法律英语；案例；翻译策略
一、法律文本措辞的准确性
准确性是法律英语遣词的最重要特征，因此在翻译法律文本的时候，要将准确性作为衡量文本翻译好坏的主要标准。
由于法律文本的翻译涉及两种或者多种语言，不仅要顾及法律语言本身，还要顾及到不同国家不同文化对法律英语的影响，故而准确性在法律文本的翻译过程中是必须严格坚持的原则。
如前些日子争论很大的世界著名歌星MICHAELJACKSON（迈克尔·杰克逊）的遗嘱中提到
I present my whole estate to the consigner then functioning under that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust performed on March 22，2002 by me consigner which is called the MJ FAMILY TRUST，any amendments are valid before my death.
遗嘱第一行estate一词的选用极为准确，在英语语词中，表达财产的词汇有property，assets，estate。
Property强调个人或团体可合法获得或者拥有的一切有价值的东西，主要包括有价证券，钱财等物品。
Assets指的是个人或公司所有的用于抵偿债务或变卖后支付债务的财产。
Estate主要指房地产。
而在遗嘱第一行所指的财产主要就是房地产，故此词的选择还是相当考究的，切实体现了法律英语翻译的准确性原则。
二、法律文本句法的通顺性
通顺性的含义可以从两个角度解读：首先，选择最正确的语词，语词跟原作作者的所思所感是一致的；其次，句与句之间通顺贯通，一气呵成，有条不紊的将原作作者的意图再现出来，对原作的翻译没有任何的歪曲和误读。
法律文本的翻译要求更为严格，不然会扭曲法律文本原本的意图，在法律裁决中出现严重错误。
在迈克尔·杰克逊遗嘱的第四部分提到如下内容：
“I direct that all federal estat e taxes and state inheritance or succession taxes payable upon or resulting from or by reason of my death （herein “Death Taxes”）attributable to property which is part of the trust estate of the MICHAEL JACKSON FAMILY TRUST，including property which passes to said trust from my probate estate shall be paid by the Trustee of said trust in accordance with its terms. Death Taxes attributable to property passing outside this Will，other than property
constituting the trust estate of the trust intentioned in the preceding sentence，shall be charged against the taker of said property”.
“译文：我指定所有因我死亡或在我死亡之时需支付的联邦遗产税和州继承税（简称“遗产税”）由迈克尔·杰克逊家庭信托基金财产支付，包括由我的遗嘱检验财产归入以上基金的财产部分应由上述受托人按照相关条款进行。
本遗嘱所涉遗产之外的遗产税，除了构成基金财产的部分，应由上述财产获得者支付”
显然，本版本的译文比较通畅顺达，符合英语的习惯表达法，也更符合法律英语的文本要求。
三、特殊句式的翻译策略
1、法律文本中状语从句的翻译方法
法律文本中状语从句居多，并且有其自己的规则，其位置与英语中的频度副词位置相同，一般应放在shall，may，或者will之后，行为动词之前。
这样的结构安排是为了明确状语修饰谓语动词这一语言关系，可以避免状语所修饰的模糊性。
翻译时可按照英文的句序译出。
“The President shall，at stated Times，receive for his Services， a Compensation，which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected，and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the U.S.，or any of them”
“总统在规定的时间内，应得到职务报酬，此项报酬在总统任期内不得增加或减少。
总统在任期内不得接受合众国或任何一州的任何其他报酬”
句中的“at stated Times”为句中的状语限定了“receive a compensation”的时间范围，译为：“在规定的时间内”。
“for his Services”状语短语表明“receive a compensation”的原因，它的位置也值得重视，它切割了谓语动词及其宾语。
忽略这个语言特点，常常会找不到宾语。
常用的习惯表达是“receive a Compensation for his Services”。
2、法律文本中定语从句的翻译技巧
鉴于法律英语的严谨性与准确性的遣词特点，在法律文本的定语从句中，采用“such as”的结构把所修饰的词组放在“such”和“as”之间，这样可以避免在理解法律文件时造成不必要的误读。
“The Economic and Social Council shall set up commissions in social and economic fields and for the improvement of human rights，and such other commissions as may be requested for the perf ormance of its functions”.
经济即社会理事会应设立社会领域、经济领域提高保障人权等各类委员会，并且要设立为履行其职责可能要求的其他委员会。
句中的“such as”引导的定语从句限定了“other commissions”，这就排除了以上提到的社会领域，经济领域，人权方面的委员会的可能性，因而不会产生理解上的误读。
3、法律文本中简略形式的翻译策略
英语从句如果是简略形式，从句位置一般安插到主句中，放在行为动词前，“shall”之后。
英译中时，一般按照原来的顺序翻译出来，也可灵活放在主句之前，具体情况具体分析。
“The Contractor shall，unless otherwise provided in the Contract，make his own arrangements for the engagement of all staff and labor，local or other，and for their payment，housing，feeding and transport”.
句中的“unless otherwise provided in the Contract”为从句的简略形式，意为“unless the Contract otherwise provides”。
参考文献：
[1]王媛媛：论法律英语的语言特征及译者角色[J]，淮阴工学院学报，2007，（05）.
[2]邓扬华：美国官员监督制约机制的特点黔西南民族[J]，黔西南师范高等学校学报，2001，（09）.
[3]李文阳：浅论法律英语的语言特点及翻译，中国翻译，1994，（06）.
[4]杨俊峰：《法律英语案例探究》，清华大学出版社，2007年版.
[5]傅伟良：法律英语翻译，石油工业出版社，2010年版.
多次主持并参与省部级课题研究，现任职于山东政法学院外国语学院。