On Lexical And Syntactic Features Of Real Right Law Of The People’s Republic Of China From Domestication And Foreignization Perspective

Nowadays, with the development of legal system, there is much greaterdemand towards legal translation and practice. The research on legal translationhas played an important role in improving legal translation career, increasing thequality of legal translation and bridging legal cultures. During the past years,legal translation has stimulated more and more attention in China, even aroundthe world. This paper will discuss the Chinese-English legal translation of RealRight Law of the People’s Republic of China from the perspective ofdomestication and foreignization. The combination of Real Right Law s Englishversions and domestication and foreignization will help understand the lexicaland syntactic features.The methodology of this dissertation is to first collect materials, then makeuse of the Domestication and Foreignization theory to carry out the comparativestudy and finally come to the conclusion. The materials selected in this paper aretwo English versions of Real Right law of the People’s Republic of China. Oneis from Law School of Peking University,2008(hereinafter referred to as V1)and the other is from China Legal Publishing House,2009(hereinafter referredto as V2). The comparison and analysis focus on words, terms, sentencestructures and long sentences.From the analysis of Real Right Law, it comes to the conclusion:1) fromthe lexical perspective, V2are much more accurate and equivalent to theoriginal meaning than V1while from the syntactical perspective, V1betterstrengthens the expression of legal language and preserves the legal stylecompared with V2;2) V1and V2are doing well in applying domestication intosentence structures and long sentences, while both perform badly in applying itinto words and terms;3) V2more successfully applies foreignization into wordsand terms compared with V1, although V1works better than V2in the application of foreignization into sentence structures and long sentences;4) theapplication of domestication is more frequent than that of foreignization, interms of words, terms, sentence structures and long sentences.There are some limitations in this dissertation. Firstly, due to the lack oflegal research materials from English speaking countries, the contrastive study ismerely conducted on the basis of two English versions of China’s Real RightLaw, with no real right laws of the English speaking countries to be comparedwith. Secondly, due to the restriction on the length, the author cannot make anoverall and thorough contrastive study of the two English versions. Lastly, dueto the author s limited knowledge and experience in legal profession, someproblems such as how to combine domestication and foreignization in C-E legaltranslation are not touched upon.In view of the above limitations, it is hoped that the contrastive studyshould be carried out by comparing other parallel legal texts of English speakingcountries. To enhance the validity and coverage of legal translation researches, itis also hoped that some special subject corpora for legal translation should beestablished．...