Cover not available
Article published In:
Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 14:2 (2023) ► pp.285–300

Pluricentric legal Chinese

A Rethink on harmonization and uniformization of legal terminology

ORCID logo | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
ORCID logo | International University of Monaco
Chinese is the language of legislation and of court and administrative procedures in several jurisdictions as well as in numerous international organizations. Its legal status differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and displays its pluricentric character. Legal acts that are issued in these jurisdictions demonstrate therefore different levels of terminological formation and other legal-linguistically relevant varieties. It is the task of legal lexicography to register lexical varieties of legal Chinese in the relevant jurisdictions. However, in addition to all lexicological and lexicographical efforts, the question could be asked whether terminological harmonization constitutes the appropriate answer to problems caused by pluricentric Chinese legal terminology. It could be claimed that the task of legal linguists is not only to research but also to shape the Chinese legal language. There exist, in fact, examples of such activities that will be closely scrutinized in this article.
Keywords: linguistic pluricentrism, legal lexicography, harmonization of legal terminology, language planning, legal language, legal Chinese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Underlying conceptual issues
    • 2.1Legal hybridity and legal culture
    • 2.2Legal-linguistic methodology in pluricentric jurisdictions
  • 3.Some possible tasks for legal linguists
    • 3.1Shaping basic terminology
    • 3.2Developing lexicological taxonomy
    • 3.3Recommendations
  • 4.Trends and limitations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Bibliography
Published online: 14 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.21013.cha
References (29)
Bibliography
Bilingual Dictionary Subdivision Linguistics & Dictionary Division (ed.). 2002. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian: Han Ying shuangyu (The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary: Chinese/English Edition) (Revised & enlarged ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press.Google Scholar
Cabré, Teresa M. 1999. Terminology: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chan, Ho-Yan. 2014. Liangan Sandi Heyuefa Zhongyao Cihui (Key Terms in Contract Law of Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
Chan, Ho-yan. 2015. Liangan Sandi Qinquanfa Zhuyao Cihui. (Key Terms in Tort Law of Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
Chan, Ho-Yan. 2017. Liangan Sandi Gongsifa Zhuyao Cihui. (Key Terms in Company Law of Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
Chan, Clara Ho-yan. 2020. Legal Translation and Bilingual Law Drafting in Hong Kong: Challenges and Interactions in Chinese Regions. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chan, Patrick, Ho Betty, Ng Margaret, Wilkinson, Michael, Liang, Vincent, King-kui, Sin and Yen, Tony (eds.) 2005. The Hong Kong English – Chinese Legal Dictionary. (Xianggang Yinghan Shuangjie Falü Cidian), Hong Kong: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, and Sin, King Kui. 2008. Terminological equivalence in legal translation, in: Semiotica, vol. 172/ 1–41, pp. 35–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, and He, Liangzhen. 2016. Revisiting Judgment Translation in Hong Kong, in: Semiotica, vol. 2091, pp. 59–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael. 1992. Pluricentric Languages – Introduction, in: Clyne, M. (ed.) Pluricentric Languages. Differing Norms in Different Nations (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 62), Berlin/New York: Mouton/de Gruiter, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Galdia, Marcus. 1999. Lakisaksa, in: Encyclopaedia Iuridica Fennica, vol. VII1, pp. 550–555.Google Scholar
. 2017. Lectures on Legal Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Uniform or Pluricentric Legal Chinese?, in: Comparative Legilinguistics. International Journal for Legal Communication, vol. 361, pp. 71 – 77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The Comparative Element in Comparative Legal Linguistics, in: Comparative Legilinguistics. International Journal for Legal Communication, vol. 431, pp. 57–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. (Ed.). 2009. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Grzybek, Joanna. 2013. Alternatywne metody rozwiązywania sporów w przekładzie chińsko-polskim i polsko-chińskim. Studium badawcze terminologii z zakresu arbitrażu. Dissertationes legilinguisticae, vol. 21, Poznań: Contact.
Grzybek, Joanna, Fu, Xin. 2017. Contrastive Parametric Study of Legal Terminology in Polish and Chinese. Application of Parametric Approach to Comparison of Legal Terminology between Polish and Chinese for Translation Purposes. Poznań: Contact.Google Scholar
Hickling, Reginald H. 1975. Language, Law and Singapore, in: Malaya Law Review, vol. 17/11, pp. 136–148.Google Scholar
Hsu, Tzu-pin. 2009. Cong “Xiandai Hanyu Cidian” yu Xianggang Shumianyu de Chayi Kan Hanyu Cihui Guifan Wenti (The Standardisation of Chinese Lexicon: From the Perspective of the Difference between “Modern Chinese Dictionary” and Hong Kong’s Written Chinese), in: Xiongxi Li, Siu Lam Tin and Tze-pin Hse (eds.), Haixia Liang’an Xiandai Hanyu Yanjiu (The Study of Cross-Straits Modern Chinese). Hong Kong: Educational and Cultural Press, pp. 154–165.Google Scholar
Husa, Jaakko. 2018. Macro-Comparative Law – Reloaded, in: Tidsskrift for Rettvitenskap, vol. 1311, pp. 410 – 447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubacki, Artur Dariusz. 2014. Pluricentryzm w niemieckim języku standardowym i specialistycznym, in: Comparative Legilinguistics, vol. 171, pp. 163–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Pluricentryzm w niemiecko-polskich słownikach ogólnych i specialistycznych, in: Lingwistyka Stosowana, vol. 15/41, pp. 33 – 46.Google Scholar
Li, Li. 2013. Translation as a Complex Inter-Linguistic Discourse and its Current Problematic Practice in the Genre of Legal Fiction in China, in: International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, vol. 26/4, pp. 849–859. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Elizabeth A. and Jonathan Law (eds). 2006. A Dictionary of Law, 6th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mattila, Heikki. E. S. 2017. Vertaileva oikeuslingvistiikka. Juridinen kielenkäyttö, lakimieslatina, kansainväliset oikeuskielet, 2nd ed. Helsinki: Alma Talent.Google Scholar
Qu, Wensheng. 2013. Cong Cidian Chufa: Falü Shuyu Yiming Tongyi yu Guifanhua de Fanyishi Yanjiu (Lexicography: A Study of Unification and Standardisation of Translated Legal Terms). Shanghai: Shanghai Remin Press.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tian, Xiaolin. 1996. Zhongguo Neidi he Xianggang Diqu Cihui zhi Bijiao (A Comparison of the Lexicons of Mainland China and Hong Kong). Retrieved from Huayuqiao (Bridge of Chinese): [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chan, Clara Ho-yan & Marcus Galdia
2023. Problems in English-Chinese and Chinese-English legal translation: with a case study of mistranslations. Comparative Legilinguistics 55 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.