判决书英译中的语用失误探讨

论文价格:300元/篇 论文用途:硕士毕业论文 Master Thesis 编辑:硕博论文网 点击次数:
论文字数:43255 论文编号:sb2022041316523646243 日期:2022-04-28 来源:硕博论文网

本文是一篇语言学论文,笔者认为中国的英语学习者在英语口语和其他学习活动中经常发生语用失误,这是因为他们的老师往往忽视了培养学生语用能力的重要性,而只注重语言能力。语用失误有可能导致交际失败,进而无法达到预期的交际效果。因此,中国法院判决英译中的语用失误可能会降低中国的司法效率。


CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION

1.1   Research background
In the last decade, China’s Belt and Road Initiative and economic takeoff have enhanced the connectivity with foreign countries, companies and foreigners. Take Shanghai for example: In 2018, Shanghai had approximately 164,800 foreigners with legal residency permits.1  However,  for  different  reasons,  some  of  them  are  embroiled  in  various litigation.  Subject  to Article  139  of  Constitution  of  the  People’s  Republic  of  China (effective since March 11, 2018) and Article 262 of Civil Procedure Law of the PRC (effective since July 1, 2017), foreign parties are guaranteed the right to use their native languages in court proceedings, and indictments, court judgments and other documents should be written, according to actual needs, in their native language.
Moreover,  in  2018,  Chinese  courts  heard  15,000  foreign-related  civil  and commercial  cases  of  first  instance.  As  a  result  of  China’s  deepening  of  judicial transparency  and  fairness  reform,  court  judgments  are  made  public  online.  In  this context,  the  translation  of  Chinese  judgments  of  high-quality  is  urgently  needed. However, as a cross-linguistic, cross-juristic and cross-culture event, the translation of Chinese  court  judgments  has  failed  to  be  paid  attention  to  by  researchers  and  the relevant  government  agencies,  and  thus  pragmatic  failures  are  rampant  and  even international disputes arising therefrom. In order to address these problems and improve the quality of translating judgments, this paper focuses on the “pragmatic failures” in the English translation of Chinese court judgments. 

语言学论文怎么写
语言学论文怎么写

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

1.2   Rationale
Empirical  research  on  the  field  of  pragmatic  failures  has  been  carried  out,  but  the pragmatic failures in legal texts are still out of sight. In the field of second language learning,  pragmatic  failure  is  a  hot  topic.  From  the  research  results  of  those  studies, English-learners in China tend to make pragmatic failures, and also in Russia, Korea, and other countries since these countries’ language is distantly related to English. Also, several studies are conducted to explore the pragmatic failures in the English translation of  Chinese  texts  such  as  public  notices  and  advertisements. As  a  consequence,  it  is reasonable  to  assume  that  pragmatic  failures  do  exist  in  the  English  translation  of Chinese judgments. Furthermore, the English translation of Chinese court judgments is a cross-linguistic, cross-juristic and cross-culture event, making it a more arduous task than the English translation of daily discourses. Therefore, this study is academically significant. 
Pragmatic  failures  may  lead  to  confusion  and  communication  breakdown  to  a greater  or  lesser  degree  in  practice.  Similarly,  the  pragmatic  failures  in  the  English translation of Chinese court judgments have the potential to reduce judicial efficiency and increase the waste of judicial resources. Consequently, this study is also practically significant.
As  more  and  more  foreign-related  cases  spring  up,  the  English  translation  of Chinese  court  judgments  is  urgently  needed.  Hopefully,  this  study  may  provide reference and guidance for court judgment translators and legal translation educators so as to shed light on the improvement of translation quality of the English translation of Chinese court judgments and increase the communication efficiency between China and Common law jurisdictions.
...........................

CHAPTER TWO   LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1   Definition of pragmatic failures
The concept of “pragmatic failures” are first proposed by Thomas in 1983 (Thomas, 1983).  Thomas  (1983)  believes  that  pragmatic  failure  arises  where  the  meaning interpreted by the hearer differs from what the speaker wants to convey or when the speaker believes the meaning obtained by the hearer would be different. 
Subsequently, domestic scholars have done a series of studies in this field. Zhang (2000) interprets it this way “pragmatic failure happens when the speaker fails to take the specific context into consideration, as well as the speaker’s and hearer’s identities, social  standing,  and  the  occasion,  or  when  the  speaker  ignores  the  target  culture’s special values.” Sun and Dai (2002) define pragmatic failure in a more detailed way pointing  out  that  “pragmatic  failure  occurs  when  a  speaker  uses  the  linguistic  codes appropriately  yet  fails  to  say  them  in  a  suitable  manner,  which  is  a  violation  of interpersonal interaction norms and social conventions. This would lead to unintended or undesirable communication effect.” He (2002: 202) argues that “pragmatic failure should  not  apply  to  general  performance  errors  made  in  language  usage,  but  to  an improper  manner  of  speaking,  inappropriate  idiomatic  expressions,  etc.,  which contributes to communication breakdown to produce desired effects”. Qian (1997: 215) believes that “the speaker uses grammatically correct sentences in oral communication, but unwittingly breaks interpersonal interaction norms and social standards, and does not take little notice of time, space and address and loses sight of the object we target at”. As a result, this kind of error is known as pragmatic failure (Qian, 2005: 195).
Generally  speaking,  pragmatic  failure  means  that  the  meaning  received  by  the hearer  is  not  the  meaning  the  speaker  intended  to  express,  which  may  lead  to misunderstandings, clashes, and unintelligibility in communication. 
.......................

2.2   Classification of pragmatic failures
Leech classified pragmatics into pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatic (Leech, 1983: 11). Pragmalinguistics refers to the linguistic resources for conveying communicative acts  and  interpersonal  meanings;  sociopragmatics  refers  to  the  social  perceptions underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of communicative acts. Based on  this  classification, Thomas  (1983)  differentiates  between  two  kinds  of  pragmatic failures:  pragmalinguistic  failure  and  sociopragmatic  failure.  Basically  speaking,  the former is a linguistic issue triggered by discrepancies in linguistic coding of pragmatic force. On the other hand, the latter results from cross-culturally different conceptions of what constitutes acceptable linguistic behavior (Riley, 2007: 191). Usually, scholars use Thomas’s classification of pragmatic failures in their research on pragmatic failures (e.g., Zheng & Huang, 2010; Long, 2017). However, Zhang (2000) includes linguistic errors  including  spelling  errors  and  grammatical  errors  in  the  scope  of  pragmatic failures even Thomas (1983) and many scholars do not regard linguistic errors as a kind of pragmatic failure. Also, Thomas’s classification of pragmatic failures is criticized by a few scholars. Some pragmatic failures can be viewed as pragmalinguistic failure and can also be regarded as sociopragmatic failure. The overlap between the two types of pragmatic  failures  makes  it  hard  to  distinguish  between  pragmalinguistic  failure  and sociopragmatic  failure  (Liu,  2008).  Additionally,  some  pragmatic  failure  in  human communication  is  neither  pragmalinguistic  failure  nor  sociopragmatic  failure. Therefore, Thomas’s division is not comprehensive enough (Liu & Zhong, 2003). 

语言学论文参考
语言学论文参考

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

CHAPTER THREE    THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................. 13
3.1   Structure of Chinese court judgments .................................... 13
3.2   Pragmatic principles of court judgment translation ............................ 14
3.3   Classification of pragmatic failures for the present study ................... 17 
CHAPTER FOUR   RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................... 22
4.1   Research methods ............................ 22
4.2   Data and data collection ......................... 22
4.3   Inter-rater reliability ........................... 24 
CHAPTER FIVE   ANALYSIS OF PRAGMATIC FAILURES IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF CHINESE JUDGMENTS ............... 28
5.1   Analysis of pramalinguistic failures ................................. 28 
5.1.1   Analysis of the mistranslation of everyday expressions .................... 28
5.1.2   Analysis of the mistranslation of legal speech acts ........................... 30

CHAPTER SIX  METHODOLOGICAL TRIANGULATION

6.1   Questionnaire design
The questionnaire is designed to find out whether the analysis of the pragmatic failures in the English translation of Chinese court judgments is agreed by the people that are engaged in legal translation and translation and linguistics studies, thus revealing the validity of the present study. Two parts consist of the questionnaire. The first part is to investigate  the  respondents’  occupations  and  what  kinds  of  certificates  pertaining  to translation qualifications they possess. The second part of the questionnaire uses the measurement  of  Likert’s  5  level  scale  are  designed  from  two  dimensions:  attitudes towards the analysis of pragmalinguistic failures (hereinafter referred to as “ATAPF”), attitudes  towards  the  analysis  of  sociopragmatic  failures  (hereinafter  referred  to  as “ATASF”).
1) Pragmalinguistic  failures  consist  of  five  types  of  pragmatic  failures:  mistranslation  of  everyday  expressions,  mistranslation  of  citations,  mistranslation  of logical connectors, mistranslation of legal speech acts and mistranslation of deixis. It is suggested in the previous section that court judgment translators should use the method of transliteration plus a footnote to translate the citations in Chinese court judgments. The  respondents’  agreement  on  the  method  means  they  consent  to  the  analysis  of mistranslated  citations  in  the  present  study.  By  the  same  token,  the  analysis  of mistranslated everyday expressions, logical connectors, legal speech acts and deixis is verified by asking the respondents whether they agree with the author’s investigation of the other four types of pragmalinguistic failures. 
2) Terminological  incongruency  and  legal-term  inconsistency  fall  into  the category of sociopragmatic failures. As mentioned before, terminological incongruency arises when court judgment translators fail to take the differences of legal concepts and legal culture between Chinese law system and Common law system into consideration. Legal-term  inconsistency  means  court  judgment  translators  use  various  words  or phrases to translate one legal term. If respondents agree that court translators should be aware of these differences and use one word and phrase to translate one legal term, the analysis of sociopragmatic failures in the present study is backed up by them. 
.............................

CHAPTER SEVEN  CONCLUSION

7.1   Overview of the study
The present study is the research on the pragmatic failures in the English translation of Chinese judgments. With the help of the corpus tool and a number of other assistant tools, the pragmatic failures are carefully tagged, collected and analyzed according to the theoretical framework. 
In the beginning, this paper briefly introduces the research background, research rationale, research objective and questions, methodology and data collection and the organization of this paper. 
Chapter 2 reviews a number of empirical studies pertaining to the present study, including  definitions  of  pragmatic  failure,  relevant  studies  on  pragmatic  failure, pragmatic failures in translation, and research on the translation of judgments. There is no doubt that their research is both academically and practically significant. From the research results of their studies, making pragmatic failures are common for second L2 learners. However, the research concerning the pragmatic failures in legal texts is very limited. Based on the hypothesis that pragmatic failures occur in the English translation of Chinese court judgments as court judgment translation is more complicated than the translation of daily discourse, and the fact that judgment translation of high quality is urgently needed in China, the topic of the study is the pragmatic failures in the English translation  of  Chinese  court  judgments.  Combined  with  Thomas’s  definition  of pragmatic  failures,  the  linguistic  characteristics  of  Chinese  judgments,  the  linguistic features  of  legal  English  and  the  discrepancies  of  the  two  legal  systems,  the  author proposes seven pragmatic principles that judgment translators should follow in chapter 3. Consequently, the research methodology is introduced, including research methods, data  and  data  collection,  inter-rater  reliability  and  methodological  triangulation. 
reference(omitted)


如果您有论文代写需求,可以通过下面的方式联系我们
点击联系客服
QQ 1429724474 电话 18964107217