법령화행에서 ‘한다’와 ‘하여야 한다’의 번역문제: ‘shall’의 사용을 중심으로
Issues of Translating ‘handa’ and ‘hayeoya handa’ in Korean Statutes: Focusing on the Possibility of Using Shall in the English Translation of Korean Statutes
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study explores the issues of translating ‘handa’ and ‘hayeoya handa’ in Korean statutes, which typically express declarations and obligations in Korean legal speech acts. Traditionally, ‘handa’ and ‘hayeoya handa’ in Korean statutes have all been translated by using modal auxiliary ‘shall’, regardless of their intended illocutionary forces. This was possible because ‘shall’ has been widely used in expressing constitutive rules and other declarative forces, as well as expressing obligations in English statutes. However, due to the Plain Language Legislation adopted by many common law countries, ‘must’ and present indicatives are rapidly replacing ‘shall’ for expressing obligations(ordering) and declaratives. This change requires Korean legal translators to distinguish declarations and obligations in legislative acts and translate them using different performative markers. In order to identify possible obstacles in distinguishing obligations and declaratives and other factors that make it hard for translators to determine illocutionary forces of Korean legislative provisions, this paper conducts a case study of a Korean law to analyze its illocutionary forces and performative markers and compares their translations with a British statute corpus of 750 thousand words, with reference to the legislative drafting guidelines of EU and common law countries.
Abstract
This study explores the issues of translating ‘handa’ and ‘hayeoya handa’ in Korean statutes, which typically express declarations and obligations in Korean legal speech acts. Traditionally, ‘handa’ and ‘hayeoya handa’ in Korean statutes have all been translated by using modal auxiliary ‘shall’, regardless of their intended illocutionary forces. This was possible because ‘shall’ has been widely used in expressing constitutive rules and other declarative forces, as well as expressing obligations in English statutes. However, due to the Plain Language Legislation adopted by many common law countries, ‘must’ and present indicatives are rapidly replacing ‘shall’ for expressing obligations(ordering) and declaratives. This change requires Korean legal translators to distinguish declarations and obligations in legislative acts and translate them using different performative markers. In order to identify possible obstacles in distinguishing obligations and declaratives and other factors that make it hard for translators to determine illocutionary forces of Korean legislative provisions, this paper conducts a case study of a Korean law to analyze its illocutionary forces and performative markers and compares their translations with a British statute corpus of 750 thousand words, with reference to the legislative drafting guidelines of EU and common law countries.
참고문헌 (33)
- 강현철, "법령용어의 순화와 정비에 관한 법언어학적 연구" (2003), 한국법제연구원
- 국회법제실, "법제실무" (2015), 국회법제실
- 김도훈, "법률 문서 번역에 대한 소고", 번역학연구, 12(3), pp.7~31 (2011), 한국번역학회
- 김문현, "법령용어 및 문장구조의 문제점과 개선방안", pp.9~32 (2002), 한국법제연구원
- 류성진, "미국의 Plain Writing Act of 2010과 Federal Plain Language Guidelines of 2011에 대한 연구", 미국헌법연구, 23(3), pp.67~99 (2012), 미국헌법학회
- 문기탁, "훈시규정에 대한 고찰", 성신법학, 9, pp.75~91 (2010)
- 박영도, "입법이론연구(Ⅲ)-법령용어에 관한 연구" (1995), 한국법제연구원
- 박영도, "입법이론연구(Ⅴ)-입법기술의 이론과 실제" (1997), 한국법제연구원
- 법제처, "법령입안·심사기준" (2012), 법제처 법제도선진화담당관실
- 유정주, "한국 법령 번역에서 ‘shall’의 사용에 대한 고찰: 비교 코퍼스 분석 결과를 중심으로", T&I Review, 5, pp.71~92 (2015)
- 외교통상부, "한·미 자유무역협정 국·영문본 주요 용어집" (2007), 외교통상부
- 외교통상부, "한·EU FTA 국·영문본 주요 용어집" (2010), 외교통상부
- 이창수, "문학번역에서의 화행 번역: 문제점과 시사점", 국제회의 통역과 번역, 3, pp.147~163 (2001)
- Asprey, Michele M, "Shall Must Go", Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, 3, pp.79~83 (1992)
- "Plain English Manual" (1993)[URL]
- Cao, Deborah, "Translating Law" (2007), Multilingual Matters
- "English style guide: a handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission" (2015)[URL]
- Garner, Brian A., "Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage" (2011), Oxford University Press
- Garzone, Giuliana, "Variation in the use of modality in legislative texts: Focus on shall", Journal of Pragmatics, 57, pp.68~81 (2013)
- "Legistics" (2015)[URL]
- Kimble, Joseph, "The Many Misuses of Shall", Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, 3, pp.61~77 (1992)
- Kurzon, Dennis, "It is Hereby Performed. . . : Explorations in Legal Speech Acts" (1986), John Benjamins Publishing
- Palmer, F. R, "Modality and the English Modals" (1990), Longman
- Šarčević, Susan., "New Approach to Legal Translation" (1997), Kluwer Law International
- Sullivan, Ruth, "Sullivan on the construction of statutes" (2014), Lexis Nexis Canada
- Thornton, G.C., "Thronton’s Legislative Drafting" (2013), Bloomsbury Professional
- Trosborg, Anna, "Translation Studies: an interdiscipline", pp.309~318 (1994), J. Benjamins
- Trosborg, Anna, "Statutes and Contracts: An Analysis of Legal Speech Acts in the English Language of the Law", Journal of Pragmatics, 23(1), pp.31~53 (1995)
- Trosborg, Anna, "Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language. Discourse Analysis of Statutes and Contracts" (1997), Gunter Narr Verlag
- "Drafting Guidance" (2014)[URL]
- Williams, Christopher, "Tradition and change in legal English: verbal constructions in prescriptive texts" (2007), Peter Lang
- Williams, Christopher, "Modality in English: theory and description", pp.199~210 (2009), M. de Gruyter
- Williams, Christopher, "Is legal English “going European”? The case of the simple present", Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58(1), pp.105~126 (2013)