張法連 趙永平 周宇晴

摘 要：法律術語的翻譯是法律翻譯的關鍵。術語翻譯的準確性和規(guī)范性直接影響對于西方法律的研究、涉外法律工作的開展以及法律語言自身的發(fā)展。文章主要結合法律術語翻譯的理論和實踐，以right of fixation等法律術語的漢譯為例，就目前誤譯的法律術語進行分析，并參照源語和相關資料提出可行的規(guī)范譯法。

關鍵詞：法律術語，準確性，規(guī)范性

中圖分類號：D90-055；H159 文獻標識碼：A DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1673-8578.2018.03.010

On the Legal Term Translation from “Right of Fixation”//ZHANG Falian， ZHAO Yongping， ZHOU Yuqing

Abstract： The legal term is a fundamental tool for learning different legal systems. The accuracy and standardization of the terms are required during translation， for they directly affect the research on the western law， foreign communications and the development of forensic language. This paper analyzes some inaccurate and wrong translations and provides standard versions based on source language and related materials.

Keywords： legal terms， accuracy， standardization

收稿日期：2018-01-20

基金項目：中國政法大學新興學科建設項目；研究生跨學科教育教學改革項目成果之一

作者簡介：張法連（1969—）男，博士，中國政法大學教授、博士生導師，研究方向為法律語言與文化。通信方式：franklaw168 @163.com。 趙永平（1980—），男，中國政法大學法律語言與文化博士研究生。周宇晴（1994—），女，中國政法大學法律翻譯碩士研究生。

引 言

法律術語的翻譯是法律翻譯的精髓和核心問題，更是要求最為嚴格的一類翻譯，翻譯的準確性關系到翻譯質量的高低，同時也影響中外法律文化交流和法律翻譯的發(fā)展進步。近年來，隨著十八屆四中全會提出加強涉外法律工作，以及“一帶一路”倡議對法律英語的迫切要求，法律翻譯的重要性陡然提升。但與此同時，法律術語翻譯存在諸多不規(guī)范現(xiàn)象，甚至有些誤譯的術語如今得到廣泛流傳，這嚴重損害了法律翻譯“嚴肅、公正、嚴謹”的形象。法律術語的翻譯不應閉門造車，而應該遵循特定的理論和步驟：首先應該根據(jù)具體語境弄清英美法律術語的準確定義，然后把英美法律術語本土化，即在本國法律中尋找能夠與之對等的翻譯。然而，針對兩個法律體系無法對等的術語，可以進行合理創(chuàng)造[1]。以下以五個法律術語為例，具體分析法律術語的翻譯過程，從而為術語翻譯提供規(guī)范的翻譯思路，確保法律術語翻譯的精確性、專業(yè)性、權威性和嚴肅性。

一 譯例分析

1right of fixation

目前，該術語的常見翻譯版本為“錄制權”。就fixation而言，這個詞在各大詞典中的解釋均與“錄制”無關，如《朗文當代高級英語辭典》《牛津英語高級詞典》中都解釋為“癡迷”“不正常的依戀”及“固著”。

首先從一段描述中來看這條術語的由來：“In 1994， the United States established laws prohibiting the making and distribution of ‘bootleg recordings of live music concerts. While strongly criticized by many commentators， these provisions establishing a ‘right of fixation for musicians have been upheld against repeated constitutional challenges.”[2]由此可知，結合特定的歷史背景，該術語表達的是禁止私自制作和經(jīng)銷現(xiàn)場音樂會音像錄制品的內容。

維基百科（Wikipedia）有加拿大相關法律對fixation的解釋：“Under the Canadian Copyright Act （R.S.， 1985， c.C-42）， there is no definition for fixation nor is it required that every work be ‘fixed. Under s.3（1）（1.1）， however， any literary， dramatic， musical or artistic work， communicated by telecommunication， ‘is fixed even if it is fixed simultaneously with its communication. ... Today， a live broadcast that is being simultaneously recorded， is protected by copyright. The definition of fixation within Canadian Admiral Corp. v Rediffusion Inc.， remains the valid.”[3]從這段話中可以看出，fixation在版權法領域并沒有相關的定義，但是在實際運用當中是指作品經(jīng)由電信傳播過即為fixed的狀態(tài)。

“Under Part II， Performers Rights， fixation is also addressed. The performer retains certain rights to reproductions of his/her performance depending on whether the performance was fixed or not. If the performance is not fixed， the performer has the sole right to communicate it to the public by telecommunication， to perform it in public （where it is communicated to the public by telecommunication otherwise than by communication signal）， and to fix it in any material form.”這段話強調表演內容若不是fixed的狀態(tài)，則表演者有排他性的權利經(jīng)由電信手段傳播錄制的表演內容，或通過直接表演向公眾傳播。

故該術語強調的是有無權利傳播經(jīng)由電信播送過的音像節(jié)目等內容，而原譯“錄制權”則表示“錄音錄像的權利”，事實上錄音錄像如果只供個人學習、研究或者欣賞則屬于合理使用范疇，是被法律所允許的，但在錄音錄像后未經(jīng)許可傳播出去才會涉及是否違法違規(guī)[4]，所以該術語翻譯成“錄制傳播權”要比“錄制權”更加準確。

2third degree

當看到third degree這個詞的時候，大部分譯者會覺得特別簡單，直接翻譯成“第三等級”“第三級別”之類的意思。例如，thirddegree burns三度燒傷，thirddegree murder三級謀殺，這是third degree作為形容詞來修飾名詞。但語境不同時，third degree的含義則大相徑庭。例句：The accused refused to confess despite being subjected to the third degree for two whole days.句中third degree以名詞形式存在，很顯然此時不應該翻譯為“第三級別/等級”之類的意思。查閱專業(yè)的法律辭典之后，發(fā)現(xiàn)其含義為Long and harsh questioning， especially by police， to obtain information or a confession。The third degree is a euphemism for torture （“inflicting of pain， physical or mental， to extract confessions or statements”）。由此，可以得出其含義：為了獲取信息或者讓嫌疑人坦白，公檢法機關進行長時間嚴苛的訊問。該詞是torture的委婉詞。而torture在《牛津英漢高級詞典》中的意思：any act by which severe pain or suffering， whether physical or mental， is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her a third person information or a confession， punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed， or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person， or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind， when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity發(fā)現(xiàn)其含義和我們常有所聞的“刑訊逼供”非常相似。刑訊逼供是指國家司法機關工作人員（含紀檢、監(jiān)察等）采用肉刑或變相肉刑乃至精神刑等殘酷的方式折磨被訊問人的肉體或精神，以獲取其供述的一種極惡劣的刑事司法審訊方法。至此，筆者認為完全可以將third degree連同torture都翻譯為“刑訊逼供”。

3royalty bonus

該術語普遍被譯為“超額使用費”，其翻譯依據(jù)是“royalty在法律英語中的意思是‘知識產(chǎn)權使用費，指因使用了他人的知識產(chǎn)權、版權等而繳納的費用，如royalty bonus超額使用費”。[5]

《元照英美法詞典》[6]中對這個術語的解釋為：“指油、氣租約中約定以比通常情況更高的使用費作為對價?！焙苊黠@，該詞典的解釋不全面。就royalty這個詞而言，英文意思是指知識產(chǎn)權方面，而中文翻譯則是油氣租約方面，中英文的解釋并不對應。

《美國傳統(tǒng)詞典》[7]（American Heritage Dictionary）中關于royalty bonus的解釋為：“A sum of money that is paid by a corporation in excess of interest or royalties charged for the granting of a privilege or a loan to that corporation. 由公司付給因授予特權或貸款給本公司的利息或版稅以外的一筆錢。”該解釋最貼近這個術語的本來意思，但是此釋義并未強調多付出的錢是因為“超額使用”，而將其解釋為“紅利”。

《布萊克法律詞典》[8]中bonus定義為：“A gratuity. A premium paid to a grantor or vendor. An extra consideration given for what is received. Any premium or advantage； an occasional extra dividend. A premium paid by a company for a charter or other franchises. ‘A definite sum to be paid at one time， for a loan of money for a specified period， distinct from and independently of the interest.Association v. Wilcox， 24 Conn. 147. A bonus is not a gift or gratuity， but a sum paid for services， or upon some other consideration， but in addition to or in excess of that which would ordinarily be given. Kenicott v. Wayne County， 10 Wall. 452， 21 L. Ed. 319.”由此可知，bonus是指“額外的報酬、補償費、對價”。同樣，此處的解釋依然沒有體現(xiàn)“超額使用”的情形。

另外，Sun微系統(tǒng)公司的喬爾·珀斯德曼（Joel Postman）指出：“Companies that engage in businesses with the potential to generate patentsbusinesses with engineers， programmers， developers， and designers for examplealmost always require employees to agree to assign to the company any patents created on the job. Many companies will pay an employee who is awarded patent in connection with their work a small bonus. While this can be seen as employee recognition， or reward for a job well done， it is often done for an entirely different reason. Although there is some debate on this point， many attorneys believe that the bonus constitutes ‘consideration （a term in contract law） and strengthens the companys claim to ownership of the patent.”[9]通過這段話可以得知，公司通過給付報酬來獲得雇員在工作中有可能取得的專利技術。

綜上，royalty bonus這個術語翻譯成“超額使用費”并不準確，譯成“知識產(chǎn)權使用津貼”，或者“專利使用補貼”更加準確。

4remoteness of damage

該術語有眾多翻譯版本，其中出現(xiàn)頻率最高的兩種翻譯分別為“損害之疏遠”與“間接傷害”，但都不準確，第一種譯法屬于直譯，讀者無法知曉漢語譯文的含義；而第二種譯法則完全是錯譯。

《牛津高階英漢雙解詞典》[10]對remoteness of damage的解釋為“the extent to which a defendant is liable for the consequences of his wrongful act or omission”，意思是被告因其不當行為或疏忽造成不利后果因而承當責任的程度。而Yahoo[11]上對該術語的解釋為：“After determining that the defendant did cause damage to the plaintiff， it must be established how far the legal responsibility for that damage ought to be attributed back to the defendant”以及“In between the admitted wrongdoer and innocent victim， it can be argued that the wrongdoer should have to bear the loss”此處是說被告就其對原告造成損失的賠償?shù)呢熑畏秶?/p>

綜上可以看出，該短語是說明被告人應當承擔賠償受害人損害的責任的，因此可以把該術語翻譯成“損害賠償”。

5outcome responsibility

翻譯法律術語，首先應查閱outcome responsibility的英文釋義：The view that those who cause harm are responsible for it even in the absence of fault. “Outcome responsibility serves to foster a sense of identity because it does not stretch indefinitely into the future but enables each of us to claim for ourselves， or to share with a few others， outcomes of limited extent， whether successes or failures. Yet outcome responsibility for harm to another does not by itself create a duty to compensate. The form that our responsibility for an outcome should take remains an open question. An apology or telephone call will often be enough. But outcome responsibility is a basis on which the law can erect a duty to compensate if there is reason to do so. There will be some reason to do so if the conduct in question is socially undesirable and if there is also reason to treat the harm suffered as the infringement of a right.”

綜上可知，造成傷害的人即使在沒有過錯的情況下也應負責任。“outcome responsibility有助于培養(yǎng)一種認同感，因為它不會無限期地延伸到未來，而是使我們每個人都能夠為自己主張或與其他人在一定限度內分享結果，不管是成功還是失敗。然而，對另一方造成傷害的outcome responsibility本身并不構成賠償責任。通常，道歉或打電話就足夠了。但是，如果這么做是有理有據(jù)的話，outcome responsibility是法律可以建立賠償義務的基礎。如果有問題的行為在社會上是不受歡迎的，并且還有理由將所遭受的損害視為對權利的侵犯，那么這么做是在情理之中的。”

根據(jù)英文釋義，outcome responsibility較為合理的譯法有“結果義務”和“結果責任”。“結果義務”是指合同履行完畢應當以服務提供人完成并交付特定工作結果為標志，其核心是結果實現(xiàn)義務?！敖Y果義務”所適用的語境是在服務合同內，是以合同過程為線索，以先合同義務、過程義務和結果義務為框架的服務合同義務群體系。

二 結 語

法律翻譯是法律英語學科體系的重要分支。法律翻譯人才是涉外法律人才的一種。法律英語復合型人才是涉外法律人才的必經(jīng)階段[12]。法律術語的特征決定了法律術語的翻譯必須遵循特定的翻譯步驟，這要求譯者不僅需要有堅實的翻譯功底，還應該對各大法律體系有著大致全面的了解，在此基礎上通過對源語的分析，與本國法律術語進行匹配和創(chuàng)造才能做好法律術語的翻譯工作。

參考文獻

[1] 張法連. 英美法律術語漢譯策略研究 [J]. 中國翻譯， 2016（2）： 100-104.

[2] Hughes J. Understanding （and fixing） the right of fixation in copyright law [J]. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA， 2014 ， 62 （3）： 385-436.

[3] Fixation in Canadian copyright law[EB/OL]. [2017-07-04]. https：//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_in_Canadian_copyright_law.

[4] 中華人民共和國著作權法[EB/OL]. [2017-07-13].http：//www.lawlib.com/law/law_view.asp？id=310803.

[5] 劉碧波. 實務法律英語詞匯精析 [M]. 北京， 中國法制出版社， 2013.

[6] 薛波. 元照英美法詞典 [M]. 北京： 法律出版社， 2003.

[7] William M. The American Heritage Dictionary[M].4th ed. Boston： Houghton Mifflin Co.， 2000.

[8] Garner B A. Blacks Law Dictionary[M].9th ed. St. Paul： West Publishing Co.， 2009.

[9] Do any companies give a bonus for patents or trademarks filed？ If so， how much？[EB/OL].[2017-07-04].https：//www.quora.com/DoanycompaniesgiveabonusforpatentsortrademarksfiledIfsohowmuch.

[10] Hornby A S. Oxford Advanced Learners EnglishChinese Dictionary[M].7th ed.Beijing：The Commercial Press， 2009.

[11] Remoteness of damage[EB/OL]. [2017-07-04]. https：//quizlet.com/3133956/remotenessofdamageflashcards/

[12] 張法連.新時代法律英語復合型人才培養(yǎng)機制探究[J].外語教學，2018（3）：44-46.