论文库

  首页 >> 论文库 >> 文献评论

《布莱克法学词典》点评

.

《布莱克法学词典》(Black's Law Dictionary)初版至今已百年有余,在读者中不乏尊之为“权威”者,然迄未见有人为之作评。难道该词典真的是完美无缺、无懈可击吗?对该法学词典作些抽样式的考察,即可得出这样的印象,即《布莱克法学词典》虽有其较高的质量,但远非无懈可击。故凡有以之为蓝本编译出版英汉法学词书者不可盲从,以免以讹传讹,贻误读者。 

兹就初步的抽样考证所得,举其实例若干,略予评论如下: 

(一)知其一(John Doe),不知其二/三(Richard Roe/Peter Poe) 

从1971年的一种美国普法读物中人们不但可以获悉"John Doe"(相当于汉语“某甲”且亦可得知与之配套的"Richard Roe"(某乙)和"Peter Poe"(某丙): 

Doe, John A fictitious name used to identify a party in a legal action whose true name is unknown or who wishes to remain anonymous,Additional unknown or anonymous parties are sometimes known as Richard Roe and Peter Poe. 

——You and the Law,Inc.1971,p.778. 

但是1991年第6版Black Law Dictionary反倒落后于上列1971年即先其20年出版的普法读物——只知有John Doe而不知有Richard Roe或Peter Poe。 

(二)百虑有疏,失之纳新 

此处所谓“失之纳新”并非别指,其实正是大多数读者都不以为新的"sexual assault"。这个人们不以为新的概念见于手头与《布莱克法学词典》同年出版的下列两法学词典: 

1.田中英夫主编:《英米法辞典》,1991东京大学出版会版; 

2.Steven H. Gifts, Law Dictionary,1991年第3版。 

但关于"sexual assault"一词,却是Black's Law Dictionary(1991)所“无可奉告”的。不过,笔者却很乐意借此机会将此词内涵顺告中文读者: 

(a) Most states have replaced the common Law rape definition with "SEXUAL ASSAULT" 

……Steven H, Law Dictionary, Third Edition. 

(b) sexual assault妨害风化罪(英美普通法对此未加特别规定,一般为行为人有****或猥亵故意而强加暴力于被害人时,则犯此罪)。——1985法律版《英汉法律词典》。瞧,连1985年《英汉法律词典》都有所告知,而1991年第6版《布莱克法学词典》却未曾谈及,可见该法学词典实不无缺憾! Dictionary of Law,1996《布莱克法学词典》如能正确抉择,本当是这样的: 

“初犯”在英语中的等值语有二: 

(a) first offender: one convicted of offence for the first time 

(b) first time offender: Any person charged or Anderson, Legal Studies Dictionary,1987 Merriam Webster with a criminal offence for the first time 

但是,“(a) first offender”是个模棱两可的模糊概念:既是“初次犯罪者”(就其自身而言)又是“第一名犯罪者”(就其与其他犯罪者的犯罪先后而言,与其为“初犯”、“再犯”或“累犯”、“惯犯”无涉)——因此它是个模糊的概念。至于“(b)first time offender”则非常精确,只有一个含义:“初(次)犯(罪者)”。 

根据法学术语必精确,切忌模棱两可的原则,《布莱克法学词典》自当选择含义精确的“first time offender”;但是不,该词典偏偏做了错误的抉择——选中了含义模糊的“first offender”: 

First offender nary,1991. 

who has never before been convicted of a crime,Black First time offender,One who has never before been convicted 

(四)界定之误 

《布莱克法学词典》亦不乏错误的界定。见于一种而是见于至少下列两种法学词书:Law Dictionary常用词"John Doe"即其适例。其正确的界定不仅 

(a) John Doe,apart to legal proceedings where true 

(b) John Doe,A fictitious name used to identify a party unknown or who wishes to remain anonymous[继续隐名]. 

Digest lnc.1971,p.778. 

Unknown in a legal action whose true name is You and the Law. The Reader’s 

这就是说,John Doe不仅其(名)不可考或无法确认,而且亦不妨是故隐其名。但布氏词典呢,却把"John Doe"规定为仅仅是"unknown"(不可考)、"not ascertained"(未经确认)而已: 

(c) The name "John Doe"is,and for some centuries has been, used in legal proceedings as a fictitious name to designate a party until his real name can be ascertained. 

When "John Doe" is, and for some centuries has been,used in legal proceedings name to designate a party until his real name can be ascertained fictitious 

When "John Doe" is Used in a search warrant,case report,textbook,or other legal document,it refers to an unknown or nonexistent person. 

---- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth, Centennial Edition (1891—1991) 

把上列(c)同(a)与(b)比较分析一下,《布莱克法学词典》之失误即昭然无疑了。必须着重指出:《布莱克法学词典》对"John Doe"一语之错误界定,其对诸英汉法律词典的误导作用是非常明显的: 

1.原告(或被告)某甲(诉讼程序中对不知道[!?]真实姓名的当事人的称呼)--1985版《英汉法律词典》1999版同上修订本 

2.诉讼程序中对不知真实姓名的当事人的称呼…… 

——1990商务版《简明英汉法律词典》 

3.对不知姓名诉讼当事人的称呼 

——1997增订新版《英汉法律政治经济词汇》 

1985(增订本)《英汉法律政治经济法律词汇》 

其他英汉法律词典似乎未受《布莱克法学词典》误导;这也许是真的,但更可能是因为其他英汉法律词书根本无"John Doe"。 

(五)落后于法学发展 

法学在发展,法学术语也在发展,但《布莱克法学词典》却有停滞不前而落后于法学词语发展形势之弊。在此仅以“污染”即“pollution”为例。 

环保法学在前进,对污染之防治也在扩容:由水污染而空气污染而噪音污染而灯光或照明 

污染即"light pollution"。但何谓"light pollution"呢?若去请教布氏词典,恐怕也只能望穿秋水不过,既然《布莱克法学词典》无意此词,我们唯有求助于法学英语实践,向实践学习。 

1.Light pollution is fast becoming a national concern.—44p.000213 tacit. 

2.Efforts to curb light pollution are under way from the Australian Outback to Britain’s Sherwood Forest.——. 

3.Last Summer Texas and New Mexico enacted tough laws to restrict outdoor lights.—. 

4.The solution to many light—pollution problems may be as absurdly simple as putting shields around outdoor bulbs.—,p.45. 

以上,我们从五个侧面各举一例,旨在引起人们注意:大可不必盲从《布莱克法学词典》,甚至误以为该词典无懈可击、完美无缺。相反,该法学词典也有其重大错误之处。此外,它尚有一些具体失误,读者倘能心中有数,读而有思,自能取之应取,弃之必弃。当然,笔者亦愿继续对《布莱克法学词典》之失误作进一步考究,以飨读者。


法律语言学研究网之“法律英语文库”
2004-6-9 0:52:00-2017-08-22