Chapter One Introduction

In late 2001，Chinese people's exclaim with delight hit the roof after they heard thenews from Doha. It demonstrated our efforts finally bore fruit after 15 years of hardwork, and meanwhile brought greater challenges as China undertook enormouscommitments in its accession to the WTO. One of them states as: China promised toprovide at least one WTO language (English，F(xiàn)rench or Spanish) version of relevantlaws, regulations，and policies and measures，which should be completed within nolater than 90 days from the implementation. Heavy workload and limited time madetranslators' job very pressing. Thirteen years passed, this job has almost been done ifthe fact is ignored that many translation texts need to be re-checked to achieveaccuracy. During working process, translators find legal translation difficult becauseof its distinctive language features. Therefore，exploration and careful analysis aboutlegal translation are absolutely indispensable.Furthermore, economic laws usually govern economic activities and commercialtransactions. They are the guarantee of public sound interest and the development ofsocial economy. China now embraces better chances and opportunities for economicdevelopment. English version of China's economic laws becomes increasingly vital inSino-foreign legal communications and international trade. (Du，Zhang & Yuan，2004)For this reason, special attentions are needed in studies on the translation of economiclaws.Regarding current survey in China, domestic scholars have done some research in thefield of register and have also studied legal translation from English to Chinese. Butfew of them have combined Register and legal translation together. This paper willstudy legal translation from Chinese to English under the guidance of Register Theory,one important portion in systematic linguistics. To specify the discussion, two Englishversions of Companies Law of the People's Republic of China (2005) are used assamples and the problems of translation are pointed out to better the translationversion. Companies Law of P.R.C. was first issued on December 29^, 1993. And then it wasrevised in 1999，2004，2005，and most recently in late 2013 (effective since Mar 1，2014). This paper does not target the latest version considering the fact that nowidely-acknowledged translation of the latest revised version is yet available. It isfound that Revision 2005 is the best choice considering the updateness，applicabilityand availability of translation version. Moreover, compared with 2005 Revision,roughly the 2013 Revision just updated 13 differences，mainly including: 1) loweringthe threshold of company incorporation, 2) removing the limitation towardscompany's shift in investment, 3) approving companies can provide a guaranty toshareholders, 4) entrusting shareholders' right of claim of disincoiporation, 5)improving measures and methods for shareholders to know company related issues, 6)agreeing one person to set up the company of limited liability, 7) offeringshareholders the right to ask companies to buy back equities, 8) narrowing votingpower of affiliated shareholders and the directors, 9) offering policy support toachieve depth reforms in any wholly state-owned company, 10) clarifying thequalification and obligations of directors, supervisors and senior managers, and, 11)specifying the disregard principle of corporate personality. Thus, the study of 2005Revision is helpful for the translation of newest one.
.............

Chapter Two Review of Literature

2.1 Definition of register and its development
Register is described as ”the linguistic features which are typically associated with aconfiguration of situational features with particular values of the field, modeand tenor"?” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; 22). In linguistics, Register is a type oflanguage variations. As Halliday puts it, register centers upon the "variety accordingto use，’，and it is featured by "differences in the type of language selected asappropriate to different types of situation" (Halliday，1990: 41; Halliday et al. 1964:87). For example, languages used in newscast，speech, and advertisement are differentand they belong to different registers. Halliday (1990: 41) also interpreted it as “asemantic concept" and “can be defined as a configuration of meanings that aretypically associated with a particular situational configuration of field, mode, andtenor." So it can be recognized that the language and context of situation are closelyrelated.As Zhang Lude put in 1987，the term "Register" was primarily proposed by Reid in1956 when he studied the bilingual phenomena. (Ellis & Ure，1969; 251-253) Andthen Halliday et al (1964) further studied register whilst exploring the "institutionallinguistic framework". They think language changes with its function and this kind offunction-oriented language variation is Register. For example, the language used inchurches, words used when chatting with friends, and words selected in classes aretotally different; these three fall in different registers. Halliday (1964) also thinks thedifference of register mainly can be recognized by forms, namely lexicon andgrammar, especially the former one. For example, "cleanse" is often used inadvertisement and "probe" usually appears in newspapers and more often in titles.However, Halliday changes his mind later in his book Language as Social Semiotic,and states register as "the clustering of semantic features according to situation type"(Halliday, 1978: 68，111，123). After that，differences among registers not only mean the difference in form, but also the semantic difference which takes the decisive role.Based on the investigation of Zhang Lude(1987)，it is also found that the systematicfunctional school headed by Halliday stresses the occurring condition and context.They think language occurs in certain condition and should be understood orinterpreted under the same environment. An eminent anthropologist Malinowski statesthat context can be divided into Context of Culture and Context of Situation. Theformer one refers to the social culture that speaker depends on or the whole culturalbackground; the latter one means what actually happens or the actual occurringcondition of language. Halliday combines these two principles with language system.According to his statement, language should be primarily treated as the socialbehavior or "behavioral potential" which means one "system" that speaker can selectregarding behaviors (Halliday, 1973). He redefines Context of Culture as theenvironment that can determine the system，and it decides what speaker can say in thecultural context; he reinterprets Context of Situation as the specifically selectedenvironment and it decides what speaker say in actual environment.

2.2 Three variables of register
Pursuant to researches，Halliday and Hasan (1994: 22) believe three parameters ofRegister determine the fiinctional language: Field of discourse, Mode of discourse,and Tenor of discourse. These three values hold determining roles in the linguisticfeatures of the text or context where language is used.Field of discourse refers to "the total event，in which the text is functioning, togetherwith the purposive activity of the speaker or writer; it thus includes the subject-matteras one element in it”（Halliday，1994: 22). Field is similar to genre，while gettingbroader meaning. For example, field can be divided into legal，economic，literary andother genres.Mode of discourse is defined as "the function of the text in the event, includingtherefore both the channel taken by language   spoken or written, extempore orprepared   and its [genre]，or rhetorical mode，as narrative, didactic，persuasive,’phatic communion', and so on" (Halliday, 1994: 22). It usually has oral and writtenmodes. Tenor of discourse explains "the type of role interaction, the set of relevant socialrelations, permanent and temporary, among the participants involved" (Halliday, 1994:22). It refers to people's relationship in context and always clarifies the informationreceiver and sender. For one scene for instance: one teacher gives lessons to studentsin the classroom.Field，Mode and Tenor are closely related to ideational, interpersonal and textualfunction. Field is connected to ideational meaning, and it is reflected through thetransitivity, such as verb type, active and passive voice, and structure. And thetransitivity here means the understanding towards participants, time, space，andenvironment. Tenor is related to interpersonal function, and it can be recognized bymodal verbs and adverbs. Mode is associated with text meaning, and its mode ofexpression includes information structure and cohesive device. In total, the transitivity,reference，structural cohesion, logical connection, lexicon, theme and rheme’ andcontext indicate the operation mode and meaning transfer in context and text.

Chapter Three Legal English and Its Translation .........10

3.1 Influence of Register Theory on Legal English Translation ........10

3.2 Features of Legal English from Register Perspective 10

Chapter Four Contrastive Study of the Two English Versions......... 28

4.1 Analysis in Field.........   28

Chapter Five Conclusion............ 52

Chapter Four Contrastive Study of the Two EnglishVersions

4.1 Analysis in Field
Field refers to what actually happens or the environment of language, includingdifferent topics or industries (Hatim & Mason, 2001). In the field of legal English andits translation, the concept should be stated with formal, precise and concise wordsand sentences. In this case, the formality, preciseness and conciseness areconcentrated in this part. Translation with the appropriate genre is of great importance as it can reproduce theatmosphere the original text conveys. Legal texts are drafted with frozen styleaccording to Martin Joos (1967), and words need to be exactly the same each timethey are spoken or written. The formality can be marked with the proper usage ofarchaisms, formal words or phrases, words of foreign origins, and prepositions. Preciseness is one of important standards in evaluating the quality of translation. Inlegal English, as any deviation of original text may bring corresponding legalconsequences, precision is of crucial importance in translation (Weihofen, 1979). To achieve precision，translating correctly is the basic step. The translator shouldprovide a translation version without grammatical or other low-level errors. It is foundthat V2 wrongly translated the original text in several places. It is found that both versions have done well in keeping using the consistent terms.For example, regarding “股權(quán)” in Chinese, VI always uses "equity" and V2 uses"stock rights". And VI keeps using "companies with limited liability，，，while V2maintains the translation of “a company with limited liability" when referring to “有限責(zé)任公司”? In addition, when making a general reference, VI always uses pluralitywhile V2 prefers to use the singular for. For example, VI translates “公司” into"companies" and V2 makes it as "a company". In this case, it makes readers'job easyand reduces the possibility of misunderstanding and semantic confiision. To realize conciseness, two more ways can be applicable except the use of legal termsmentioned above: correctly using reference and employing compound words. Occasionally, translators may turn to compound words for clear and succinctexplanation，such as the state-owned company quoted previously. Though it mayreduce the formality a little, it greatly benefits for the brevity. Just think，，if nocompound words used，it will be translated as "company that are owned by the State’，.Here are more examples of this kind: In the above example, V2 tactically applies "solely-funded" while VI translates “獨(dú)資”as "of the sole investment". It is obvious that VI is more inclusive and works well intranslation.

4.2 Analysis in Tenor
It is generally agreed that tenor reveals the social relations between participants. Inlegal documents，it means the ruling class and tiie general public. The mood andmodality are stressed, especially modal verbs and passive/positive voice, as it isbelieved employment of them is hugely influenced by interpersonal relations. Modal verbs in this law are focused by separating into four types based on contentimparity: authorizing provisions, obligatory, prohibitive and declaratory provisions.The modal verbs，“shall，，，“should，，，"may" and "must" appear a lot; but the truth isthat not so many modal verbs are required in legal writing or translation.For example, drafters and translators use “shaU” mindlessly, many of which can bedeleted to improve clarity. If translators or authors want to reserve "shall", theyshould ensure that each "shall" in the sentence is equal to "must". Actually, "shall"can be replaced with "must", and in contracts "will" or "agrees to" (Gamer，2002).Gamer (2001: 105) expounds it more clearly in the other book，"shall" means "has aduty to" and it is a mandatory word. But when it is connected with any negative wordlike “nothing，，，"neither" or "not", its meaning changes. Increasingly official draftersand transactional drafters noticed this problem. For example, the Federal Rules ofAppellate Procedure and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure removed "shall" to alarge extent，and use "must" to state requirements (Gamer, 1996: 29). In equivalent English authorizing provisions, "may" is often employed “if a right,privilege，or power is conferred，” "except that when an intended right might beconstrued as merely an unenforcible privilege, he should use "is entitled”； if it isabridged, he should use ‘may not'，，(Chen Zhongcheng，1998). “May，，gives a voicefor permission or authorization，or possibility (Gamer, 2002). Haigh (2012) alsoagrees that "may" usually refers to a possibility or an entitlement. Considering theusage of “may” and the suggestion of deleting “shall，，，VI translates more properly,because in example 39，the original text exactly provides a possibility. In example 40，VI uses "can" and V2 uses "may". In general, “can，，expresses the physical or mentalability, and is less used in legal writing (Gamer，2002). In this context，V2 is better38 with employment of "may".
...........

Chapter Five Conclusion

This paper starts with introduction, covering study background statement, generalsituation of Companies Law，selection of translation version and thesis structure. Thesecond chapter reviews a large number of academic papers and books about Registertheory and legal translation. Register's definition and development history, its threemain components: Field, Mode and Tenor，and researches done by China's scholarshave been explored. Regarding researches of legal translation, discussion of legalterms, translation strategy, translation theories, translation history，and translators'subjectivity have been discussed. The following part is the theoretical framework.Register theory's influence on legal translation is probed in. Moreover, this part alsopays attention to features of legal English including the characteristics of lexicon,sentence structure and text cohesion. It is found in the field of lexicon，legal Englishusually uses legalese，words of foreign origins，archaisms，synonyms, and certainvague words; regarding syntax, long sentences，declarative sentences，passive voice,parallel structure, and embedded clauses and parenthesis are frequently employed; inview of context, various cohesive devices is applied, such as conjunction, lexicalrepetition, reference, and substitution etc. Also, the standards of Chinese-English legaltranslation are discussed based on two Chinese scholars' research. Considering theuniqueness of legal English, its translation should meet special requirements. And thispaper adopts the five principles provided by Qiu Guixi (2000) on account offeasibility. Chapter Four is the body part. Two versions are compared to make textanalysis. From the field level, formality, precision, and conciseness are focused. Toput it more detailed, the application of archaism, formal words，words of foreignorigins, and prepositions are discussed and it finds that V2 uses more formal wordsthan VI; VI is more precise and accurate considering the correctness of translation,use of legal terms, consistency of terms, words or phrases selection, providingprofessional understanding of original text, and avoiding omission; and VI is of higher simplicity and conciseness than VI as it successfiilly removes needless wordsand uses compound words properly. In the light of tenor level, this paper mainlystudies the use of modal verbs，employment of active voice, and discarding sexistlanguage. Performance of modal verbs usage in both versions is barely satisfactory.They need to improve translation quality and check more materials to use modal verbscorrectly. And V2 uses more active voice and less sexist language to be in line withguidance of Register theory. In addition’ the nominalization and cohesion intranslation is explored on basis of mode level and it finds VI better accords withrequirements of mode. Three tables have been formulated to clearly state thecomparison and differences. Also certain suggestions are given accordingly to solveexisting problems of translation.Legal translation is a complicated and complex transdisciplinary subject. It requiresprofessional knowledge towards the original text and also excellent translation skills.Because of limited knowledge, the conclusion is surely open to criticism andcorrection. It is just expected that this research can contribute a bit to study and surveyin the same or similar field. Laws，especially economic laws，are closely related tosocial activities and constitute the legal foundation for solving potential disputes. Anymistake in translation may bring grave consequences. Therefore, translators shouldalways bear this in mind and will never be too careful.
..........

參考文獻(xiàn)（略）