法律英语中情态动词的语用功能及翻译技巧_英语论文.doc

范文最新推荐------------------------------------------------------1 / 7法律英语中情态动词的语用功能及翻译技巧_英语论文TitleThe Pragmatic Function and Translation Skills of Modal Verbs in the Legal EnglishAbstract In the writing of English legal texts, whether the drafters or the translators of law texts can use modal verbs accurately and skillfully or not usually reflect their ability of mastering and applying legal language. In this paper, the author made a systematic exploration of the pragmatic function and translations of three modal verbs - shall, must and may, which are the most commonly used in the different types of legal texts. Of the three modal verbs, shall is the most commonly used and most powerful one. But its usage and translations are the most controversial, so it is the focus of this paper. The author quoted a large number of examples from authoritative bilingual legal texts, pointed out some cases in which the use of modal verbs belongs to the misuse or abuse, eliminated a number of errors or inaccurate translations, gave a full demonstration on the reasonable usage and translations of modal verbs, and provided some professional guidelines for the drafters and translators of English legal texts.4635Keywordslegal Englishmodal verbsshalllegal implictongolden ruleTable of Contents1. Introduction12. Literature Review22.1. American rule22.2. ABC rule22.3 The principle of maintaining the status quo33. Pragmatic Functions of shall, must and may3---------------------------------------------------------------范文最新推荐------------------------------------------------------3 / 73.1 The difference between “应当” and “必须”43.2 The difference between “应当” and “可”54. The existing translations of shall in the legal English65. Inappropriate translations of shall105.1 “将”105.2 “要”11 2.1. American rule  The first view tends to adopt American rule，so named because some rigorous U.S. lawmakers suggested to adopt the program. The rule advocates that the meaning of shall should be only limited to have a duty.The supporters of American rule are exampled by A.Bryan.Garner – the Professor of Oxford University (Garner, 2005) and Professor Fan of Shandong Institute of Business and Technology. Professor Fan, in her the study of the usage of shall in the English translation of Civil Law, put forwards that the correct approach is to limit the usage of shall to express a person be obliged to do something while in other circumstances, shall should be replaced by more appropriate words according the context (Fan Huixi, 2011) .2.2. ABC rule---------------------------------------------------------------范文最新推荐------------------------------------------------------5 / 7In the late 1980s, some legislators of Australia, Britain and Canada put forward the principle. The initial letters of the three countries are A, B, C in turn, so the principle is called ABC rule. The view holds that since the meanings of shall are too many, and it is difficult to unify and standardize its usage, the legislators should abandon the use of shall and choose a much exact word to replace shall according the context, such as must, may, will, is entitled to.The supporters of ABC rule are exampled by Michele Asprey, an Australian practicing lawyer and Mr. Chen. The two scholars strongly advocate to abandon the use of shall in the legal text. The former published Shall Must Go in the Australian Law Journal in 1992 (Asprey, 1993). The later published Get Rid of Virus in the Legal Translation - Shall in the Shanghai Science and Technology Translation in the same year (Chen Zhongshi, 1992) . 2.3 The principle of maintaining the status quoThe third group holds that the tradition should be continued, i.e., the situation in which one word shall has several meanings is still maintained, just as people have believed for centuries: to maintain the chastity of shall is both hopeless and unimportant. (3) In the function of law, “应当” and “必须” differ in their strong and weak legal obligations. Weak behavior requirement looks forward to the inpidual subject doing or not doing some act, but it is not against that the inpidual subject makes the opposite choice. Strong behavior requirement not only looks forward to the inpidual subject doing or not doing some act, but also is strongly opposed to the subject itself making the opposite choice. In the system of social norms, the provisions including “必须” and the ---------------------------------------------------------------范文最新推荐------------------------------------------------------7 / 7provisions including “应当” have different legal effects. A violation of the provisions including “必须” will result in an invalid effect, but a violation of the provisions including “应当” does not necessarily lead to invalid effect. 法律。