| 翻译界对峙法说话的翻译研究异常匮乏，翻译的文本成绩颇多，但很少能找到适合的说明。本文作者率先对英汉立法说话的句子构造停止了比较。作者以比较说话学的办法论作指点，对现代英汉立法说话在词组和句子层面停止了比较。发明英汉两种说话在表达雷同的立法内容时，在表达措施上不尽雷同。在词组层面，作者重要对英语立法说话中占领相对优势的名词词组停止了剖析，比较其在汉语中绝对应的表达措施。作者发明在英语名词词组中，法语毕业论文，中间词的润饰语异常灵巧；而汉语则绝对稳固，润饰语老是放在中间词的后面，平日用偏正词组来表现。然则，对于英语立法文献中的名词润饰语，汉语可以用分歧的措施来表现，而不只仅限于偏正词组。在句子层面，立法说话的逻辑身分是立法文件独有的特点。作者对这些身分在英汉句子中的表示停止了比较，发明英汉立法语句在逻辑身分方面异常类似，但在表达办法上却显著分歧。作为程式化说话的一种，图解式说话以其清楚的表达措施在现代英汉立法说话中占领凸起的位置。英汉图解式说话最年夜的差别在于它们的句子构造。英语的图解式说话平日都很长，从头至尾只包括一个完全的句子，在语法上弗成朋分。而汉语图解式说话确可以包括几个句子，图解的头部和上面所列项目绝对自力，法语毕业论文，只是在逻辑上互相联系关系。别的，作者在论文中还将每部门的比较成果应用于英汉翻译理论，证实是可行的。作者信任，本文在英汉立法说话的翻译研究上具有开辟性意义，将起到抛砖引玉的感化，推进英汉立法文件的翻译研究。 Abstract: Translation of the law to speak of the translation study is very scarce, translation of the text scores a lot, but very few can find a suitable description. The author of this paper is the first to compare the sentence structure of English and Chinese legislation. The author makes a comparison between the phrase and the sentence level in the modern English Chinese legislation by the way of comparative speaking. It is not identical to the expression methods of the two kinds of speech in Chinese and English. At the phrase level, the author analyzes the relative superiority of the noun phrases in the English legislative language, and compares the absolute expression methods in Chinese. The invention in English noun phrases and word modifiers dexterous abnormal; and Chinese is absolutely stable, modifiers always put back in the middle term, normally used endocentric phrases to express. However, in the English literature of legislation on the noun modifiers, Chinese can use different methods to express, not only from endocentric phrases. At the level of the sentence, the logic element of legislative speech is the unique characteristic of the legislative document. The author of these factors in the English and Chinese sentences in comparison, the invention of English and Chinese legislative statements in terms of logical identity is unusually similar, but in the expression of a significant difference. As a program of speaking, graphic style to speak with a clear expression in the modern English Chinese legislative speech occupied the position of the salient. The biggest difference between Chinese and English is the construction of their sentences. The graphical English speech on weekdays are very long, from first to last consists only of a complete sentence, grammatically indivisible. The graphic language of the Chinese language can include a few sentences, the chart of the head and the items listed above are absolutely independent, but in a logical relationship with each other. In addition, the author of the thesis will be applied to the translation theory of English and Chinese, which is proved to be feasible. Author trust, this paper speak in English and Chinese legislative translation studies has pioneering significance, will play a valuable role, promoting legislative documents in English and Chinese translation studies. 目录: Preface 9-11 Chapter 1 Comparability 11-25 1．1 English and Chinese Grammar 12-13 1．2 English and Chinese Sentence Structure 13-16 1．2．1 Syntax 13 1．2．2 Sentence 13-15 1．2．3 Phrase 15-16 1．3 English and Chinese Statutes 16-22 1．4 The Principles of Legislative Translation 22-25 Chapter 2 Noun Phrase 25-57 2．1 The Concept of Noun Phrase 25-26 2．2 Determiners 26-29 2．2．1 Features 26-27 2．2．2 Implications for E-C Translation 27-29 2．3 Premodifiers 29-35 2．3．1 Adjective 29-30 2．3．1．1 Features 29-30 2．3．1．2 Implications for E-C Translation 30 2．3．2 Noun 30-35 2．3．2．1 Features 30-34 2．3．2．2 Implications for E-C Translation 34-35 2．4 Postmodifiers 35-57 2．4．1 Prepositional phrases 35-40 2．4．1．1 Features 35-38 2．4．1．2 Implications for E-C Translation 38-40 2．4．2 Non-finite clauses 40-46 2．4．2．1 Infinitive clause 40-42 2．4．2．1．1 Features 40-41 2．4．2．1．2 Implications for E-C Translation 41-42 2．4．2．2 Participle Clause 42-46 2．4．2．2．1 Features 42-45 2．4．2．2．2 Implications for E-C Translation 45-46 2．4．3 Relative clause 46-57 2．4．3．1 Features 46-49 2．4．3．2 Implications for E-C translation 49-57 Chapter 3 Legislative Sentence 57-97 3．1 The English Legislative Sentence 57-73 3．1．1 Legal Rule 57-68 3．1．1．1 Legal Subject 58 3．1．1．2 Legal Action 58-68 3．1．1．2．1 Predicate without modal verb 59-60 3．1．1．2．2 Predicate with modal verb 60-68 3．1．2 Limitations on Application 68-72 3．1．2．1 Case 68-69 3．1．2．2 Condition 69-71 3．1．2．3 Exception 71-72 3．1．3 The Legislative Sentence Together 72-73 3．2 The Chinese Legislative Sentence and E-C Translation 73-97 3．2．1 Legal Premise 73-77 3．2．1．1 Features 73-75 3．2．1．2 Implications for E-C translation 75-77 3．2．2 Legal Rule and Legal Consequence 77-92 3．2．2．1 Legal Subject 77-84 3．2．2．1．1 Features 77-80 3．2．2．1．2 Implications for E-C translation 80-84 3．2．2．2 Chinese Legal Action 84-92 3．2．2．2．1 Permission 84-85 3．2．2．2．1．1 Features 84-85 3．2．2．2．1．2 Implication for E-C translation 85 3．2．2．2．2 Obligation 85-87 3．2．2．2．2．1 Features 85-86 3．2．2．2．2．2 Implication for E-C translation 86-87 3．2．2．2．3 Prohibition 87-92 3．2．2．2．3．1 Features 87-88 3．2．2．2．3．2 Implications for E-C translation 88-92 3．2．3 Proviso（但书） in Chinese Legislative Sentence 92-96 3．2．3．1 Features 92-93 3．2．3．2 Implication for E-C translation 93-96 3．2．4 The Chinese Legislative Sentence Together 96-97 Chapter 4 Graphic 97-110 4．1 Definition 97-98 4．2 The Goal of Graphic: Clarity 98-101 4．3 The Sentence Structure of Graphic 101-106 4．3．1 English Graphics 101-103 4．3．2 Chinese Graphics 103-106 4．4 Implications for E-C Translation 106-110 Conclusion 110-112 Acknowledgement 112-113 Bibliography 113-116 |
