Legal Translation under Gideon Toury’s Translation Norms

【Abstract】This article mainly conducts a diachronic study on the Chinese-English texts of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Peoples Republic of China and its amendments under the guidance of Gideon Tourys translation norms.

【Key words】legal text; translation norms; translation strategies

【作者簡介】楊春瑾，廣東外語外貿大學國際學院。

1. Introduction?

With the development of democracy and peoples increasing legal awareness in China， more emphasis is placed on safeguarding justice and protecting citizens rights. The National Peoples Congress， Chinas parliament， made amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law of the Peoples Republic of China （hereafter referred to as CrPL） in 2012， marking a second amendment since its introduction in 1979 and first amendment in 1996 and expressly showcasing its importance. This article aims at conducting a diachronic analysis of the English translation of the CrPL and its amendments under Tourys translation norm theory.

2. Gideon Tourys Translation Norms?

Gideon Toury （1980） initially pointed out that translation is a norm-governed activity. He defines the norms as “the translation of general values or ideas shared by a certain community—as to what is right or wrong， adequate or inadequate—into specific performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations， specifying what is proscribed and forbidden as well as what is tolerated and permitted in certain behavioral dimension （Toury， 1995： 55）. In his view， norms that have prevailed in the translation of a particular text can be reconstructed from two types of sources： （1） from the examination of texts， the products of norm-governed activity. This will show up “regularities of behavior”， it will point to the norms that have been in operation; （2） from the explicit statements made about norms by translators， publishers， reviewers and other participants in the translation act. Toury categorizes three kinds of norms governing the different stages of the translation process： preliminary， initial and operational norms. Since preliminary norms are not typical for the practical nature of text type as legal translation is concerned， this paper will only focus on the initial and operational ones.

3. The English Translation of the CrPL under Initial Norms

Initial norms refer to the translators conscious and unconscious choice as to the main objective of his translation， the objective which governs the translation decision-making process （Toury， 1995： 57）. They reflect whether the translator attempts to remain as faithful as possible to the parameters of the original text， or seeks to adapt the emerging target text to the linguistic and literary norms active in target language to as great extent as possible. Toury calls that of the former as “adequacy” and the latter as “acceptability”.

The English translation of the CrPL mainly aims at conveying the legislative information to foreigners who are in the legal profession or are interested in learning and researching the Chinese judicial system. In other words， the major function of the English version is to promote the publicity and awareness of Chinas legal procedure transparency. Therefore， the target readers response is not the foremost priority to be considered when legal translators make the initial strategy. However， if we take a diachronic look at the English versions of the CrPL through its amendments， it is self-evident that with the increasing communication between China and the rest of the world in terms of legal culture exchanges and growing number of international suit cases， the translation of the CrPL is becoming more close towards the target legal norms in order to achieve the acceptability in target legal culture.

Example 1：

Source Text：第四十四條 公安機關提請批準逮捕書、人民檢察院起訴書、人民法院判決書…（CrPL 1996）

Target Text： Article 44 The public security organs requests for approval of arrest， the Peoples Procuratorates bills of prosecution and the Peoples Courts written judgments…（CrPL 1996）

Source Text：第五十一條 公安機關提請批準逮捕書、人民檢察院起訴書、人民法院判決書…（CrPL 2012）

Target Text： Article 51 A written request of a public security authority for approval of an arrest， an indictment of a peoples procuratorate， and a sentence of peoples court …（CrPL 2012）

When translating the Chinese legal term “ 起訴書”， translators of 1996s CrPL tend to be faithful to the source culture and translate the phrase literally into “bill of prosecution”， which， despite its faithfulness in conveying the source text information， is actually an expression coined by Chinese translators. “起訴書” actually consists of two forms， “ 公訴書” and “自訴書”. The former refers to statement of charges by the judicial organs while the latter refers to statement of charges by the plaintiff. Under the context of Chinese criminal procedure， the expression “ bill of prosecution” often refers to “公訴書”， while “自訴書” is often rendered into “bill of private prosecution”. However， the translators of 2012s CrPL adopt an expression which is more frequently used by target language users—“indictment”. The different strategies the translators adopt in translating 1996s and 2012s CrPL indicate translators subjection to the target language norms.

4. ?The English Translation of the CrPL Under Operational Norms

Operational norms refer to the actual decisions made during the translation process （Toury， 1995： 57）. It covers matricial norms and textual-linguistic norms. The former relates to the macro-structure of the text and govern decisions concerning the completeness of the target texts. These norms determine the relocation of passages， textual segmentation and the addition of passages or footnotes. The latter governs micro-level of texts， which involve the textual make-up and verbal formulation of text. Textual-linguistic norms reflect the linguistic and stylistic preferences. The following passage will take a look at three kinds of operational norm-governed translation activities： addition， rearrangement of word and sentence order and normalization.

（i） Addition

Example 1：

Source Text：第三節： 勘驗、檢查（CrPL 1979）

Target Text：Section 3：Inquest and Examination （CrPL 1979）

Source Text：第四節： 勘驗、檢查（CrPL 1996）

Target Text：Section 4：Inquest and Examination （CrPL 1996）

Source Text：第四節： 勘驗、檢查（CrPL 2012）

Target Text：Section 4：Crime Scene Investigation and Examination （CrPL 2012）

In the Chinese version， as this is a legislative law in particular relation to criminal procedure， there is the omission of the word“犯罪現場” before “勘驗、檢查” in meaning. If we follow the Chinese thinking mode and translate it literally， it will cause loss of accuracy and violate the precision of legal language. The addition of “Crime Scene” in the translation of 2012s CrPL can avoid ambiguity in meaning and add weight to its accuracy.

（ii） Rearrangement of Word and Sentence Order.

Example 2：

Source Text：第四十八條：凡是知道案件情況的人，都有作證的義務。（CrPL 1996）

Target Text： Article 48 All those who have information about a case shall have the duty to testify. （CrPL 1996）

Source Text：第六十條：凡是知道案件情況的人，都有作證的義務。（CrPL 2012）

Target Text： Article 60 Any person who has information regarding a case shall have the obligation to testify. （CrPL 2012）

Translators in mainland China tend to translate the adverbial clause “ 凡是…..的人” into “all those who do / whoever does….”， as is shown in 1996s version of CrPL. However， translators of English-speaking countries are inclined to adopt a more standard pattern， that is， “any person who does….”， as is shown in 2012s version of CrPL. This minor change of sentence pattern simply indicates the translators are increasingly influenced by target translation norms and thus gain more acceptability in target culture readers.

（iii） Nominalization

Example 3：

Source Text： 第三十四條：被告人是盲、聾、啞或者未成年人而沒有委托辯護人的…… （CrPL 1996）

Target Text： Article 34……If the defendant is blind， deaf or mute， or if he is a minor， and thus has not entrusted anyone to be his defender… （CrPL 1996）

Source Text：第三十四條：犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是盲、聾、啞人，或者是尚未完全喪失辨認或者控制自己行為能力的精神病人，沒有委托辯護人的…… （CrPL 2012）

Target Text： Article 34……Where a criminal suspect or defendant suffers vision， hearing， or speech impairment or is a mental patient who has not completely lost the ability to recognize or control his or her behavior， if he or she has not retained a defender……（CrPL 2012）

Nominalization is one of the most striking characteristics of written legal English. In this way， legal English can avoid the usage of personal references and thus achieve conciseness and objectivity. In the source text of 1996 ‘s CrPL， the information “盲、聾、啞的” are adjectives and it is translated into adjectives” blind， deaf or mute”; while in the source text of 2012s CrPL， the information with the exactly same meaning is revised as noun form “盲、聾、啞人”， as a result ， the translators render them into noun phrase “（criminal suspect or defendant suffers） vision， hearing， or speech impairment” ， which conforms to the normative and strict nature of legislative texts.

5. Conclusion?

To sum up， legal translation is a norm-governed activity. While the Chinese version of CrPL is normative and informative as the nations domestic legislative instrument， its English version only demonstrates the informative function of legal texts， which means the translators inclined to abide by source culture norms and pursue adequacy in translation rather than acceptability. However， with the increasing enhancement between Chinese and Western legal culture and the amendments made to the CrPL， translators， as is shown by analyzing under the guidance of Gideon Tourys initial and operational norms， are becoming more inclined towards the target text norms in order to achieve acceptability in the target language.

References：

[1]Toury， Gideon. In Search of a Theory of Translation[M]. Tel Aviv： The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semotics，1980.