Legal significance of communicating between two worlds

Author: Wang Jian
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-10-01
Features: The legal evolution in modern China holds special academic significance because this period marks the break and end of traditional governance models that had lasted for thousands of years, and also signifies the birth of a completely new modern legal system in China. Although our institutional evolution in the past was not entirely self-generated, as some scholars claim, none of the external influences were as intense and widespread as those since the late Qing Dynasty. In the early 20th century, the Qing court issued an edict for reform. At first, this transformation seemed merely a temporary measure, but ultimately, it led to a cultural choice, with the political and legal systems of the aged empire being replaced by Western-style institutions. Western legal norms, principles, theories, and concepts were continuously disseminated in China, manifesting as a series of terms, yet more than just words. Through constant introduction, reading, memorization, and mass reproduction via modern media, as well as modern legal education, they have become part of our own knowledge. Even in this process, we have lost our original memory of our own history. For example, contemporary historians explaining the history of Chinese law cannot avoid these foreign terms and the various concepts and principles behind them. From a broader perspective, the process by which a nation translates and adopts the terms of another alien culture can be seen as a form of cultural assimilation. Translation, first and foremost, is the transformation of linguistic symbols. In the process, it is evident that translators must face the challenge of expressing the meaning and style of the original text as completely and accurately as possible. Of course, this is not an easy task. Mr. Qian Zhongshu used the analogy of traveling: "From the initial departure to the final arrival, this is a very arduous journey. Along the way, one encounters and risks, inevitably losing or damaging something. Therefore, translations often deviate from the original, deviating in meaning or tone from the source text." (Revised edition of Seven Annotations, Shanghai, 1994, p. 80). Such difficulties are not limited to literary translation but also cannot be avoided in the translation of legal texts. Moreover, "loss" and "damage" may only be negative omissions; the translation process can also involve positive additions. Translated terms may add meanings that the original terms do not possess, as in the Roman legal term "accessio." However, we can further deepen this issue by transforming the title of this book from a declarative sentence into a question: "Can people communicate the legal meaning between two worlds through translation?" In our daily use of various bilingual dictionaries, when we encounter an unfamiliar word in a foreign text, we always turn to the dictionary to understand it. This gives us a sense or illusion that there are always equivalent synonyms between different languages. Borges said: "Dictionaries are based on the assumption—an obviously unverified assumption—that language is composed of equivalent synonyms." Yet, can such correspondences be verified in translation? From Nietzsche to Foucault, to the more recent scholars who have made "the politics of translation" a (see the edited collection Language and the Politics of Translation by Xu Baogiang and Yuan Wei, Central, 2001), have all raised thought-provoking questions about this. In the case studies of legal term translation since modern times presented in this book, it is not difficult to find such supporting evidence. Simply put, Western legal vocabulary is imbued with the cultural spirit of the West, and their Chinese translation can be said to be a process of control by Western legal concepts over users. Are we being controlled? This statement may sound quite harsh—more harsh is the claim that we have been "colonized." But how can we not be controlled? When such a vocabulary is inescapable, even if it is not translation but writing, to what extent can that writing be distinguished from translation? Of course, in very rare cases—often in metaphysical discussions—we still see examples of writing in classical Chinese. However, the deliberate avoidance of "contamination" by Western terms clearly indicates that the author is particularly influenced by foreign vocabulary. Even if we step back and assume that writing is not controlled by foreign terms, what kind of control do the vocabulary and the cultural power behind them exert? Although this book focuses on textual research and often leaves theoretical analysis brief, the meticulous of the origins of the various legal terms we are now familiar with but take for granted holds great academic significance and can inspire further reflection. During the reading process, a sudden thought occurred to me: will the terms we have now accepted and seem fixed or certain to us, in a hundred years, become completely transformed? "The later generation will look upon the present as we look upon the past," and is this not a warning!