英汉法律语言的特色

第二章　英汉法律语言的特色

“The first thing we do，let’s kill all the lawyers.”

——William Shakespeare，Henry VI（Part 2）

“If a lay person can read a document from beginning to end without falling asleep，it needs work.”

——Daniel White^[1]

美国作家及律师Daniel R.White曾对法律职业者进行调侃。他指出，几乎每一个法律事务所的合伙人（law partners）都会认为自己在语法上颇有造诣，甚至可以对斯特朗克与怀特的《文体要素》^[2]中所提出的有关规则进行修改。因此，每一个表达直接明了的句子都会被他们修改得面目全非。以“The sky is blue.”为例。法律职业界的任何新锐（junior associate）都会天真地认为该命题简洁明晰，Williams也不例外，认为其符合任何大型律师事务所的文书起草要求。如果Williams受过法学教育，就会加上修饰词，改为“The sky is generally blue”，或者改为“The sky generally appears blue”，或者在此基础上再添加几个音节，改成“The sky generally appears to be blue.”，则可谓滴水不漏、无懈可击了。但某资深同事（senior associate）对该表述却不以为然，认为Williams应尽量以“法律人”起草文书的方式措辞，再提交给其合伙人审阅，并建议至少应修改为：“In some parts of the world，what is generally thought of as the sky sometimes appears to be blue”。该句子富含如此之多的修饰语，Williams觉得自己应当稳操胜券了，于是提交其合伙人Carter审查。下面就是他们两人的对话内容（W表示Williams，C表示Carter）：

C：You say here that in some parts of the world，what is generally thought of as the sky sometimes appears to be blue.I assume this is just an early draft.Could I see the final version？

W：Uh，that’s all I have right now..what exactly do you mean？

C：Well，it’s a bit bald，don’t you think？I mean，just to come right out and assert it as fact.

W：I beg your pardon？Are we talking about the same thing？

C：Well，this business about“the sky”—what did you mean by“the sky”？

W：Well，I meant what I see when I look up at least，when I’m outside.Isn’t that what everyone sees？

C：Okay，if you mean only when you’re outside，you have to say so.Our opponents in this case would love to rip us apart on that kind of error.And what about at night？Even at night？I see stars at night—are they blue？Do you mean everything but stars，or do youmean when there are no stars out？

W：I meant during the day，I guess.

C：You guess.Williams，this is serious business.We can’t go around guessing at things.Besides，what about the sun？If it’s daytime，the sun will be out—or do you know something I don’t？

W：Well，sure..I mean，no，I don’t..But no one in his right mind looks at the sun.You’d go blind.

C：What support do you have for this comment about“some parts of the world？”Which parts？Do we need to state it so broadly？Can’t we just say“in Cleveland”or wherever we mean？

W：That sounds fine to me.I just never thought anyone would challenge..that is，who would disagree with..

C：And what do you mean by“generally thought of？”Thought of by whom？Lawyers？Scientists？Morticians？Dammit，Williams，this piece has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.I haven’t seen such sloppiness in all my years at Cavil，Quibble ＆Quiver.Take it back and see if you can’t do a little better this time around.

——THESKYISBLUE，by DanielR.White^[3]

在上述对话中，类似于“In some parts of the world，what is generally thought of as the sky sometimes appears to be blue.”这类真理性的、颇为严谨的表述，在资深律师Carter眼中却漏洞百出，因该句中并未对sky进行概念界定（并随之引发“白天还是晚上”，以及“白天和晚上能看到不同的东西”等分歧）、未对some part of the world进行限定，以及未确定“谁（who）”会认为天是蓝色的。总之，该句子有待进一步完善。

从这个例子中我们可管窥法律执业者所运用的语言的一些特征。这种特征将影响到法律文本的草拟人和法律文本的阅读者，也会对法律翻译者造成障碍。毕竟法律与语言存在着千丝万缕的联系。英国哲学家大卫·修谟就曾指出，法与法律制度是一种纯粹的语言形式，法的世界肇始于语言，法律是通过语词订立和公布的。语言是表述法律的工具，法律不能脱离语言而独立存在。有学者甚至感叹，“欲治法学，必先治语言学。欲当罗马学学者，必先当语言学家。”^[4]因此，本章将首先对法律语言进行定位，进而就其在词汇、句法以及语篇方面的特征进行介绍和比较，并佐之以实证分析，以期为读者展示法律法规语言的全方位特征。