.

作者：陈忠诚

拜读了一些法律英译的译品，有时竟从座椅上拍案惊起并喃喃自语：怎么能译得这样（好/差）？！际此，往往就归功/过于译者。但事后冷静下来仔细一想，觉得这样做（只想到译者而没想到译审者）是很不公平的——特别是没有把译审者也放在视野内，让他们也能享受与译者同等的待遇——受到同样的批评和表扬。在自己的角度来说，还从来没有向译审者请教过哩。反省至此，深感逝者如斯、已往不谏，而来者可追也……于是，毅然命笔，补上这一课，在此向法律汉译的译审者请教了。

执笔伊始，就想到司法之作的要领：两打大字——“以事实为根据，以法律为准绳。”如果把这十二个大字浓缩一倍、予以概括，则可简化为六个大字：摆事实——讲道理。不过，译审者是精通道理的，所以在下就不必班门弄斧、讲什么人家已经精通的道理了。这就规定了我的请教的任务已经减轻了一半（否则，怎么胜任得了呢？！）——只需发现什么现象（鸡毛就鸡毛，蒜皮就蒜皮）就请教什么便了。

废话少说，这就请教了：

1. 译文与原文发生歧异时应该怎么办？正如你们所当然知道的：这种歧异是经常地、决非是少量地（绝对意义上的非少量地）在增长（随着新译品的增长而增长）。有的译本（如法律出版社诸译本）对此不作任何免责声明；有的译本（如外文出版和法制出版社等大户），如所周知，有其经典式的免责声明：

(1) In case of discrepancy between the English translation and the original Chinese text, the Chinese edition of The Law of the People’s Republic of China shall prevail.

----The Law of the People’s Republic of China (1979-1982), Foreign Languages Press, Beijing 1987,p.ii

(2) In case of any discrepancy between the English translation and the original Chinese text, however, the Chinese text shall prevail.

----Laws and Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Governing Foreign-related Matters (1949-1990), China Legal System Publishing House, Beijing 1991, Editor’s Note

(3) 英文译本与中文本如有歧义，以中文本为准。

----同上“编辑说明”

据此，先请教一下上列两书的译审诸君：

甲、读者一般只懂中文（所以要买译本以便与洋人沟通）或只懂英文（以便通过英译了解中国法）为多。如今你们要他们发现“如有”的歧义岂非强人所难？！只有精通汉/英两语者才能识别歧义呀。

乙、提供商品（书）和劳务（翻译服务）的一方（你们）在消费者即读者于买书前一无所知的情况下就提出“以中文本为准”的免责条款，这对读者有拘束力（binding force）吗？这样做合法吗？有效吗？

丙、如果上述关于“以中文本为准”的英译也与原文或原意有歧义（例如你们的译文有“shall”而原文原意并无此意，故存在了歧义），又以什么为准呢？你们何又不作免责规定了呢？

暂且请教这些。请再看数例，然后继续请教：

（4）译文与中文本如有歧义，应依中文本为准。[其英语译文见下例（5）]

——《上海市涉外经济法规规章汇编》（中英文对照）（1982-1990年），上海人民出版社1991年版，p. 636

（5）Whenever equivocality or misinterpretation turns up in the translation, the original Chinese version shall be checked as the only authentic legal text.

——同上，p.639

（6）译文，如与中文有歧义，以中文本为准。

——同上（1991-1992），上海远东出版社1994年版，p.1

(7) Whenever equivocality or misinterpretation turns up in the translation, the original Chinese version shall be checked as the only authentic legal text.

——同上，p.2

好，继续请教了——这回请教的是有关（4）—（7）产品质量的了。请教对象则是（4）—（7）例的有关译审诸君；请教的问题是：你们自己的原文和译文，自己译审过没有？你们现在是否已发现：（4）与（5）和（6）与（7）之间，其“义”不仅有“歧”，而且是互为反义的！即汉语固为“以中文为准”，上列英语译文却是相反的涵义——以英文为准！[如果表示“应以中文为准”，自当把上列译文中的“Chinese version shall be checked”改为“Chinese version shall be checked with”——你们同意吗？又，作为“译审”，你们自己创作的原文（如上列“应依中文本为准”通呢，还是“应以中文本为准”通？）你们又审过了没有？！——请教了！

2．请教有关译审：下文中的“with”你们审过没有？为什么不是“within”?!

When the assets of an enterprise are not enough for payment of its debts, the creditors who have objections to the plan for distribution of the enterprise’ s assets may, with 15 days of approval of the plan by the creditors’ meeting, petition the people’ s court to declare the enterprise bankrupt.

Ibid., p35

对此，有两事请教：

甲、上列译文中用“with”而不是“within”——你们有何译审意见？

乙、同一译文中先有“enterprise’ s”、继有“people’ s”——而且在全书中凡“’”与“s”之间与上类场合均空出一个space。这种与正字法不合的印刷，你们注意到没有？如已经注意到了——为什么不加改正地是使之呈现在读者眼前？！

3．下列译文中，怎么原文“应持有有关主管部门出具的证明文件”等十五个大字所表达的原意竟影踪全无了呢？你们注意到了没有？！如注意到了——何以听之任之；如果根本未予注意——则其故安在？！是反正在“如有歧义以原文为准”这顶保险伞下可心安理得、有恃无恐吗？！

第十七条 境外人员在新区内长期居住，需运进安家物品（不包括轿车），应持有关部门出具的证明文件向海关申请，经海关核准，在自用、合理数量范围内予以免税验放。

Article 17 Person from abroad who needs to import household necessities (motor cars not included) resides permanently in the New Area may apply to the Customs for permission. If the application is examined and approved by the Customs, such imported articles shall be exempted provided that they are for personal use only and in reasonable quantity.

--Ibid., p.150

4．同一个单位“海关总署”在下列两个条文中怎么异化为两个不同的单位名称了——你们发现了没有？为什么？——

（1）海关总署令

Order …of the General Customs Administration

---Ibid., p.142

（2）本法由海关总署负责解释。

The General Administration of the Customs shall be responsible for the interpretation of these procedures.

----Ibid., p. 151

5. 大凡书刊为便于查阅，多有目录并注明页次。但Shanghai’s Foreign Economic Rules and Regulations (1993-1994) 一书，虽有目录页达六页，却一律不附页次——虽有目录仍无法查阅，以致目录页次形同虚设。未悉译审者诸公是何意图？——请教了。

6．《上海市涉外经济法规规章汇编》（1993-1994）中英文对照本，其英语译名见于封面的（1）与见于扉页上的（2）竟各不相同——判如两书：

(1) Shanghai’s Foreign Economic Rules and Regulations

(2) Shanghai’s Foreign-Related Economic Rules and Regulations

此举是何意图，莫名其妙。可得闻乎！请教了！

7．《上海市引进国外专家暂行办法》下列英译中的“From”是根据什么习惯用法规则而大写的？请教了！

(3) Interim Procedures of Shanghai Municipality on the Intake of Experts From Abroad

——《上海市涉外经济法规规章汇编》（1993-1994）中英文对照本目录第3页

但同是这个《暂行办法》在同书334页上的下列英译中出现的，却是小写的“from”了。这又是根据什么规则而小写的呢？亦在此一并请教了：

Interim Procedures of Shanghai Municipality on the Intake of experts from Abroad

8．同样涵义的概念“职工”，在同一个条例（《上海市外商投资企业劳动人事管理条例》）中，出现于不同页次上，译名就各不相同了——这是译审工作的要求、贯彻双百方针，还是出于偶然？请教了。

（1）全部中国职工

all its Chinese staff and workers

——《上海市涉外经济法规规章汇编》（1993-1994）p. 484

(2) 发给职工保健食品

allocate health food to the staff members and workers

——同上，p.487

请教两点：

甲、同一概念不用同一译名是何考虑？

乙、表示上述“职工”一词，除上列两译外，尚有“employees”与“staffers and workers”，却不为上列译文所用。其故安在？

9．下列译文中的“was”究竟何从说起，从何译起？

Article 18 The starting date of social relief for an individual person or a family that was been approved as recipient of social relief shall be the very month in which the date of making the approval decision falls。

----New Laws and regulations Monthly Supplement （Chinese-English）1997.1，p.163

10．请教法律出版社中英对照《中华人民共和国对外经济法规汇编》第六集中总共仅156条的《民法通则》英译本的译审者诸公：其中至少8条，其下列译文中有下划线的错别字，你们发现了吗？为什么？打算如何补救？

(1) Article 13…

A person unable to understand fully the propriety of his or her own acts is a person of limited capacity and may engage incivil activities,… ----p.60

(2) Article 15…the place where he or she usually esides is deemed to be his or her domicile. ----p.60

(3) Article 19 … Where the person is declared by the People’s Court to the incompetent or …, the People’s Court, may upon application of the mentality ill person himself or of and interested person, declare…

----p.62

(4) Article 69 In any of the following situation the
----p.72

(5) Article 70 where one of the following situation occurs…

----p.73

(6)Article 100 A citizen enjoys a right to his orher likeness….

----p.81

(7) Article 148 The law of the country which has the closest connection with the person entitled to supprot applies to support

----p.89

(8) Article 150 Where foreign law or international usuages is applied in accordance with…

Ibid.

对此，你们想到过（哪怕只是一刹那）勘误吗？（错误是人们会犯的——能改就好！）

11．以下所列是两个权威单位（人大法工委和国务院法制局）组织翻译的我《宪法》第8条的两种译文，请读者鉴别有何不同：

第8条 农村人民公社、农业生产合作社和其他生产、供销、信用、消费等各种形式的合作经济，是社会主义劳动群众集体所有制经济。参加农村集体经济组织的劳动者，有权在法律规定的范围内经营自留地、自留山、家庭副业和饲养自留畜。

Article 8 Rural people’s communes, agricultural producers cooperatives and other forms of cooperative economy, such as producers’ supply and marketing, credit and consumers cooperatives, belong to the sector of socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who are members of rural economic collectives have the right, within the limits prescribed by law, to farm plots of cropland and hilly land allotted for their private use, engage in household sideline production and raise privately owned livestock.

-----The Law of the People’s Republic of China (1979-1982), Beijing 1987, p.7

(2) Article 8 Rural people’s communes, agricultural producers cooperatives and other forms of cooperative economy, such as producers’ supply and marketing, credit and consumers cooperatives, belong to the sector of socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who are members of rural economic collective have the right, within the limits prescribed by law, to farm plots of cropland and hilly land allotted for their private use, engage in household sideline production and raise privately owned livestock.

---- Laws and Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Governing Foreign-related Matters, China Legal System Publishing House, Beijing 1991.7 p.282

当然，我们主要还是要请教上列两译本的译审诸公：两译有无异同？其异同是有意识的经过两套译审人马讨论过的，还是无意识的、事出偶然？

12．对《民法通则》某条款，有如下译文两则，出自不同版本。愿向两译本的两套译审查班子，提出同上问题请教：

（1）Any taxes, debts and other unpaid expenses owed by a missing person shall defrayed by the custodian of the missing person’s property.

----The Laws of the People’s Republic of China (1983~1986), p.229

(2) Any taxes, debts and other unpaid expenses owed by a missing person shall defrayed by the custodian out of the missing person’s property.

----Laws and Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Governing Foreign-related Matters, Foreign Language Press, Beijing 1991.7,p.334

对所请教的问题的期待中亦即唯一的答案对提高译品质量会产生有效的帮助。请有关译审诸公认真解答。

13．我们发现尽管不止一个译本，但我国《宪法》第137条的译本都是一律的：

中华人民共和国国徽，中间是五星照耀下的天安门，周围是谷穗和齿轮。

（2）The national emblem of the People’s Republic of China consists of an image of Tian’anmen in its centre illuminated by five stars and encircled by ears of grain and cogwheel.

对此，拟请教各译本的译审者诸公：该条英译对国徽的描述是确切的吗？（例如，不但原文“中间”被译为“中心”而且画面上天安门也不在“中心”。难道就不必更正重译吗？

请教至此，本拟打住。奈忽然发现最后一请不多不少正好为13点，恐引起误解，诸多不便。援借重Wehofen 氏在其大作Legal Writing Style 中的高见，作为下列第14点，向法律英译的译审诸公请教——因对象为译审者诸公，就援引Wehofen氏的原文而不在诸公面前班门弄斧译成汉语了：

14．Proofread

One final word of advice : proofread your work before you let it go out. This applies not only to briefs but to anything you write, from letters to wills. The best of typists make mistakes, and do printers. Typographical errors will appear most often as misspellings. Misspelling is one of the most obvious marks of illiteracy, so the reader who finds you apparently misspelling words may mark you down for an ignoramus. If he is kind, he may prefer to assume that you knew better but were merely careless about proofreading. A careless lawyer, however, is not the sort that even the most charitable person cares to entrust with important interests.

Misspellings and other typographical errors in the text can usually be caught by careful reading, but misspellings in names and errors in numerals, as in case citations, can be found only by checking against the original. Your cause is harmed if counsel for the other party can casually correct one of your citations by referring to “Fisser v. Int. Bank,282 F.2d 231(cited by plaintiff as Fisher v. Int. Bank, 282 F.2d 281).” This sort of thing will prompt the court to conclude that you are guilty of citing authorities at second hand.

In conclusion, Appellant contends that he has brought to the attention of this Court and earlier decision which was previously overlooked and deems it controlling on the issues involved herein.

One need read only this one sentence to understand why the decision was overlooked. Counsel is obviously careless----in research as in proofreading. He is also not a very effective writer. Why does he “contend” that he has brought a case to the Court’s attention? If he has done so, why not say “he has” instead of contending that he has? And why does he merely “deem” it controlling? The answer to this we can guess: he doesn’t know what the word means.

After all the work of research and writing, one may be tempted to hand the manuscript over to a typist with a feeling of relief that the job is done. But it is not done. The most meticulous care in checking citations and quotations, and in polishing the wording for maximum effect, can be ruined if the final draft contains some howler that makes a shambles of your statement. Careful proofreading is a relatively minor chore. It is worth doing carefully.

http://www.chinalaw.gov.cn/jsp/contentpub/browser/contentpro.jsp?contentid=co1854130563