英语论文网

and expressions with Chinese characteristics are commonlyseen, for example, the three-character or four-character phrases like “托底线、救急难、可持续”, “早发现、早介入、早救助”and“专项管理、分账核算、专款专用”.Andtherearemany expressions unique to Chinese legal language as well, such as “设区的市”, “县级以上地方人民政府”, “绩效” and so on. Besides, the use of fuzzy words is also anotherdistinctive feature of legal language. Since not everything can be defined by lawmakers in avery precise way in the legislative process, fuzziness is inevitable in legal language (Dong,2004). In the source text, such fuzzy words as “有关部门”, “适时调整” and “有条件的”are widely used.

...........................

Chapter Two Major Difficulties & Analyses of Causes

2.1 Difficulties at Lexical Level and CorrespondingAnalysis

2.1.1 Legal Terms

A term is a technical word or phrase with a specific meaning used in relation to aparticular subject. Like any other subjects, the subject of law, with high degree ofprofessionalism, also has its own terms, which, with legal characteristics, are used to expresslegal concepts in a very precise way (Dong, 2015: 108). Legal terms are the central part ofthe lexical system of a legal language, which possess such features as professionalism,exclusiveness and authoritativeness, and the use of which makes the legal language moreprofessional, formal and authoritative.

In the process of translating thesource text, conversion from one language intoanother,precisely speaking, from Chinese into English was involved. Since Chinese is the author’smother tongue and various reference books were in hand, it was hardly difficult tocomprehend the legal terms in the source text. What was really hard was how to conveythose terms in English. According to Sarcevic (1997), legal translation requires functionalequivalence in not only language but also legal effect. But “it is best to speak of ‘functionalequivalence’ in terms of a range of adequacy, since no translation is ever completelyequivalent. A number of different translations can in fact represent varying degrees ofequivalence” (Nida, 2001: 87). Sarcevic (1997) in her book divides functional equivalenceinto three groups: near-equivalence, partial equivalence, and non-equivalence, which must be considered when it comes to the translation of the legal terms. There are a great numberof legal terms in both Chinese and English legal languages, the concepts of which, in somecases, can be found near-equivalent or partially equivalent. Examples from the source textare as follows:

.............................

2.2 Difficulties at Syntactic Level and CorrespondingAnalysis

2.2.1 Sentences with “De” Structure

As is known, Chinese and English belong to disparate language families, during thelong-term application of which, they have developed different styles of their very own,which can be clearly reflected by their respective sentence structures. The most markeddifference between the sentence structures of these two languages is that English is ahypotactic language while Chinese is a paratactic language (Xu & Zhang, 2014: 62). Thecommon use of parataxis in Chinese makes the sentence structure of this language quiteloose. In some cases, sentences are allowed to be subjectless, and sentences with “de”structure is a very typical example. According to 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。