Đề tài Áp dụng mô hình đánh giá chất lượng bản dịch của house vào việc đánh giá bản dịch tiếng Anh luật đầu tư số 59/2005/QH11

participation, i.e., the absence of direct addressee involvement, supports the ideational component by making for a linear, non-alternating and premeditated organization of the message. The unfrequent appearance of nouns and pronouns referring to the addresser makes the statements more factual. Thus the addresser becomes more impersonal and authoritative. On the dimension Social Role Relationship, the impersonality and authoritativeness of the relationship reinforce the ideational component by promoting a transmission of rights and obligations and rules as facts disregarding the political circumstances of addresser and addressee. The same linguistic devices that create the impersonality also support the interpersonal component of the text, e.g. intentional specification of an agent or a recipient or use of verbs to express the Deontic modality. On the dimension Social Attitude, there is a frequency of complex, abstract noun phrases and impersonal structures, and an exclusive presence of complete, well-planned and well-structured sentences. These provide for an efficiently condensed and objective flow of the message, which supports the ideational component of the text’s function. On the dimension Province, the ideational component of the text’s function is strongly supported by the use of a highly conventionalized and institutionalized textual format, strong textual coherence the use of words and phrases typical of the legal field, and the use of unmarked verb tense. CHAPTER 3. DISCUSSION 3.1. Comparison of Target Text and Source Text After the ST has been analyzed, the TT is examined under the same set of parameters. Then a profile of the text is made. The comparison between the TT’s profile and the TT’s profile reveals the following mismatches: (1) Medium: TT fails to preserve a syntactic discontinuity in 8.(/): Nhà nước bảo đảm thực hiện đối với nhà đầu tư nước ngoài các quy định sau đây # the State shall guarantee to implement the following provisions in respect of foreign investors. While in ST, there are no pronominal references to the addresser and the addressees, there are, however, some in TT: there are extra pronouns in TT: their in 8.(2/c,dd); its in 8.(2/g), 9.(1, 1/a); it in 9.(1); and his, her in 9.(2). In ST, all these pronouns are implied. (2) Participation: TT lacks implied addressee’s participation in 6.(3): [Any compensation or damages] shall be permitted to be remitted abroad # được quyền chuyển ra nước ngoài. The use of the passive in TT changes the recipient of the verb được quyền chuyển from addressee to the money received. In 6.(4) and 9.(4) in ST, there is only one one-word verb, “theo”, which is often used in combination with another verb to state the basis of the act performed by the verb. In its use in this specific context, the omitted verb is “phải” (tuân theo/ thực hiện theo) – must comply with. TT has reconstructed this verb in two ways: in 6.(4), the verb phrase shall be implemented is added but put in contracted parentheses to show that it is added by the translator, and “theo” is translated as in accordance with. In 9.(4), “theo” is put into shall be subject to. Whereas in ST, the two sentences are isomorphic, in TT they are not. In TT, the noun “investor”, in contrast with its equivalence in ST, is always clear in terms of number. Yet, this does not hinder TT from being inclusive because even when there is the determiner “an” before investor, the word can still refer to any investor, not to a specific one. (3) Social Role Relationship In TT, there is a clarification of number where the nouns are countable, in opposition with in ST. Yet, the translator is not expected to be able to do anything about this because the English language requires that every countable noun be specified in terms of number. Nevertheless, the precision and inclusiveness of TT is not thus impeded. Noun phrases with post-modifiers are translated in TT in almost the same order, except in the following instances: 8.(1), 8.(2/c), 11.(2), and 12.(4). In 8.(2/c) there is even an unequal translation of the idea: số lượng và giá trị tương ứng với số lượng và giá trị hàng hoá xuất khẩu vs. the same quantity and value as goods exported. If the intention of TT is to maintain the noun phrase structure as it is in ST, this phrase could be put as quantity and value corresponding to those of goods exported. The idea in 11.(2) is also mistranslated: các ưu đãi như quy định tại Giấy chứng nhận đầu tư vs. incentives the same as the investment certificate. This can be paraphrased as incentives as provided in the investment certificate. The noun phrase in 12.(4) has been shortened because the head noun has been changed into a verb in the passive voice: (có) thỏa thuận khác trong hợp đồng được ký giữa đại diện cơ quan nhà nước có thẩm quyền với nhà đầu tư nước ngoài – otherwise provided in a contract signed between a representative of a competent State body of Vietnam with the foreign investor. TT is somehow less committal and less authoritative than ST. All the four timeless performative verbs in ST are rendered into a verbal structure with “shall”: 7.( ) - shall protect intellectual property rights (bảo hộ quyền sở hữu trí tuệ), shall ensure the legitimate rights (bảo đảm lợi ích hợp pháp), 8.(/) - shall guarantee to implement the following provisions […] (bảo đảm thực hiện […] các quy định), and 11.(3) - shall make specific provisions on guarantee for interests (quy định cụ thể về việc bảo đảm lợi ích). The structure with “shall” in legal English is often used to impose obligations, not to express commitments or declarations nor to express intentions. This use of the “shall + verb” structure in TT makes the addresser’s acts more like obligations on the part of the addresser, not commitments. In ST the above four illocutionary acts are more of commitments and declarations. In ST, only one modal particle is used with the verb to express the Deontic modality of granting permissions. In TT, it is replaced by a modal phrase: 6.(3) – shall be permitted to be remitted abroad – được chuyển; 9.(1, 2) – shall be permitted to remit abroad – được chuyển; 10.( ) – shall be entitled to uniform application of price rates […], fees and charges – được áp dụng …; 11.(1) – (shall) be entitled to (the) benefits and incentives – được hưởng …; 11.(2) – shall be guaranteed to enjoy incentives - tiếp tục hưởng các quyền và ưu đãi; shall be a deduction of the loss – được trừ thiệt hại; shall be a change – được thay đổi. Again, the use of shall in such constructions, to some extent, weakens the authoritative tone of the ST. In legal English, the model shall is rarely used to express permissions or rights. In 6.(4) and 9.(4) TT fails to convey the implied modal of obligation and cannot make the meaning clear with just one verb like in ST. Instead, TT has an added clarifying phrase in square brackets which is a passive construction in 6.(4) - procedures … [shall be implemented] in accordance with law vs. thể thức .. theo quy định của pháp luật. And “theo” in 9.(4) is made into a phrase: procedures … shall be subject to the laws… vs. thủ tục … theo quy định của pháp luật …. There is hardly any way for the Deontic modality of obligation to be implicitly expressed in English like in Vietnamese. TT also makes use of ‘nominalization’ of verbs but due to the inflectional nature of English, most nominalized verbs cannot keep their base form. Furthermore, there are more nominalized verbs, as well as adjectives, in TT than in ST: 6.(2/1)- necessity – cần thiết (adj), discrimination – phân biệt đối xử (v); 6.(4)- acquisition – trưng mua (v), requisition - trưng dụng (v); 10.( )- (process of) an investment activity – (quá trình) hoạt động đầu tư (v), uniform application – áp dụng thống nhất (v); 11.(2)- continuation of enjoyment – tiếp tục hưởng, deduction (of the loss) – trừ (thiệt hại) (v), a change of … (objective) – được điều chỉnh (mục tiêu) (v), consideration – xem xét (v). In two instances, ST nouns are changed into verbs in TT: 9.(1/dd)- thuộc sở hữu hợp pháp (n) à lawfully owned, and 12.(4)- có thoả thuận khác à otherwise provided. TT is on the whole more nominalized than ST. Several active structures in ST are changed into passive in TT, or some passive constructions are added in TT: 6.(2/2)- không phân biệt đối xử – (must) be made on the basis of non-discrimination; 6.(4)- theo quy định của pháp luật– [shall be implemented] in accordance with law; 8.(2/b)- số lượng, giá trị, loại hàng hoá và dịch vụ xuất khẩu khoặc sản xuất, cung ứng trong nước – quantity, value or type of goods or services which may be exported or of goods which may be manufactured domestically or services which may be provided domestically and từ nguồn xuất khẩu– obtained from exported goods; 9.(1/dd)- thuộc sở hữu hợp pháp– lawfully owned; 9.(3 )- tỷ giá giao dịch tại ngân hàng– the trading exchange rate published by a commercial bank; do nhà đầu tư lựa chọn– selected by the investor; 10.( )- do Nhà nước kiểm soát– which are controlled by the State; 11.(1)- được hưởng– be entitled to (benefits, incentives). All the nouns in ST, if appear more than once, are repeated to avoid any misinterpretations of reference and to maintain the dual characteristics of precision and inclusiveness. In 9.(1) and 11.(1), however, TT substitutes two nouns with one pro-form: 9.(1)- it shall be permitted to remit abroad – nhà đầu tư được chuyển ra nước ngoài; 11.(1)- than those to which the investor was previously entitlted – so với quyền lợi, ưu đãi mà nhà đầu tư được hưởng trước đó. In terms of cohesion, TT adds the pro-adjective “such” where in ST there is not: 6.(2/1)- such investor (shall) – nhà đầu tư (được), such compulsory acquisition or requisition – việc trưng mua, trưng dụng. Besides, while ST tries its best to minimize the use of possessive determiners with nouns referring to addressee, TT cannot do so: 8.(2/c)- their import requirements – nhu cầu nhập khẩu; 8.(2/dd)- in their research and development activities – trong hoạt động nghiên cứu và phát triển; 8.(2/g)- its head office – trụ sở chính; 9.(1)- discharged fully its financial obligations – thực hiện đầy đủ nghĩa vụ tài chính, its profits – lợi nhuận; 9.(2)- discharged fully his or her financial obligations – thực hiện đầy đủ nghĩa vụ tài chính. (4) Social Attitude: On this dimension, TT shares some of the syntactic mismatches with the dimension of Social Role Relationship as discussed above, i.e., verb tense and passive structures. In terms of lexical means, lexical items in TT cannot construct the shade of formality as in ST. Words and phrases in TT are not distinctively marked [+ formal]. In one particular instance, one verb in ST is put into two words in TT: 6.(2/1)- trưng thu – acquire compulsorily. This has the effect of fading the degree of formality that the original word brings to its reader. (5) Province TT also makes use of modal verbs but in certain cases they are not properly used to convey addresser’s intention in ST. The three most common modal verbs in legal English are shall, must and may. In establishing obligations and prohibitions, must and shall and their negatives are used. In establishing rights and permissions, may is used. But in TT, shall is sometimes not used in its normal sense in legal English, as in 7.( )-shall protect # bảo hộ, shall ensure the legitimate rights # bảo đảm lợi ích hợp pháp, 8.(/)- shall guarantee to implement # bảo đảm thực hiện; 11.(2)- there shall be resolution # được giải quyết; 11.(2/b)- There shall be a deduction # được trừ; 11.(2/c)- shall be a change # được thay đổi; 11.(2/d)- consideration shall be given # được xem xét; and 11.(3)- shall make specific provisions # quy định cụ thể. Also, the substitution of one modal verb with a verb phrase sometimes makes TT less imposing than ST. To be both precise and inclusive, TT makes use mostly of non-deictic present tense verbs whereas ST makes use of the tenselessness of verbs. TT shows a great attempt to preserve the structure of article-clause-item of ST but in 11.(2) it totally fails to. In ST, all the smallest units of the article are verb phrases enumerated a, b, c and d. And these are coordinate. But in TT, b, c and d are changed into clauses and a into a noun phrase: a) Tiếp tục hưởng các quyền và ưu đãi; à Continuation of enjoyment of benefits and incentives; b) Được trừ thiệt hại vào thu nhập chịu thuế; à There shall be a deduction of the loss from taxable imcome; c) Được điều chỉnh mục tiêu hoạt động của dự án; à There shall be a change of the operational objective of the project; d) Được xem xét bồi thường trong một số trường hợp cần thiết. à Consideration shall be given to paying compensation in necessary circumstances. Such alteration seriously destroys the parallel structure of listing items within a provision of the ST. Another significant textual mismatch occurs in 8.(2/a) and 8.(2/b), where phrases are re-ordered and clarified in a way that makes the two clauses much less ambiguous to readers of English than had the original order been preserved. Vietnamese readers can clearly understand that the noun “nhà sản xuất” goes with the noun “hàng hoá” and “nhà cung ứng” with “dịch vụ” with both [+human] nouns being uninterchangeable. So the phrase mua hàng hoá, dịch vụ từ nhà sản xuất hoặc cung ứng dịch vụ nhất định trong nước in 8.(2/a) is unambiguously clear. In TT, the noun “nhà sản xuất” is grouped with “hàng hoá” and “nhà cung ứng” with “dịch vụ”, which makes the sentence much clearer: to purchase compulsorily goods from a specific domestic manufacturer or services from a specific domestic service provider. Similarly, in 8.(2/b), the phrase hạn chế số lượng, giá trị, loại hàng hoá và dịch vụ xuất khẩu hoặc sản xuất, cung ứng trong nước has been paraphrased into to restrict the quantity, value or type of goods or services which may be exported or of goods which may be manufactured domestically or services which may be provided domestically. Overtly erroneous errors Some of the above mismatches do not only constitute situational-dimensional mismatches between TT and ST but also referential mismatches. All of these mismatches have already been pointed out so it may be unnecessary to include all of them in a detailed list here; instead, only some obvious ones will be mentioned hereafter. In 6.(2/2) in ST: “không phân biệt đối xử giữa các nhà đầu tư” has a rather hard-to-identify agent. If based on the sentence structure, the agent is “Việc thanh toán hoặc bồi thường”, and the verb is in the active voice. If based on the sentence meaning by referring back to the previous sentence, the actual agent here should be “Nhà nước”, because as stipulated in 6.(2/1), it is “Nhà nước” that performs the act of paying compensation or damages to the investor whose assets have been requisitioned or acquired by the State. In TT, this is put into “[Payment of compensation or damages (must) …] be made on the basis of non-discrimination between investors”, which helps clarify the agent, though such clarification might not be the intention of the addresser. Similarly, in 6.(3), “được quyền chuyển ra nước ngoài” in ST would imply it is the recipient of the payment of compensation or damages that is the potential beneficiary, not the payment itself. TT has mitigated this right of investors by using a passive structure which focuses on the payment: “[Any compensation or damages payable to foreign investors …] shall be permitted to be remitted abroad. 8.(2/c) – wrong choice of “same”: nhập khẩu hàng hoá với số lượng và giá trị tương ứng với số lượng và giá trị hàng hoá xuất khẩu vs. to import goods at the same quantity and value as goods exported – If an investor had to import and export goods at the same quantity and value, there would be no profits. He therefore has no reason to carry out investment activities in Vietnam, the primary goal of which is to gain profits. “Corresponding” would have been a much better choice. In 8.(2/d), “hàng hoá sản xuất” which means “goods that are manufactured” is rendered into “the manufacture of goods”, which alters the focus of the clause. Another change of the subject is seen in 11.(2). In ST, it is the investor that is the subject of đuợc giải quyết bằng một, một số hoặc các biện pháp sau, but TT has changed the focus to methods of resolution: there shall be resolution by one, a number or all of the following methods. Therefore, three out of four verb phrases have been altered into sentences and one into a noun phrase. 11.(2/a)- tiếp tục hưởng các quyền và ưu đãi becomes continuation of enjoyment of benefits and incentives; 11.(2/b)- được trừ thiệt hại vào thu nhập chịu thuế becomes There shall be a deduction of the loss from taxable income; 11.(2/c)- được điều chỉnh mục tiêu hoạt động của dự án becomes There shall be a change of the operational objective of the project; 11.(2/d)- được xem xét bồi thường trong một số trường hợp cần thiết becomes Consideration shall be given to paying conpensation in necessary circumstances. And in 12.(1), one verb, i.e. giải quyết thông qua, is used for all the nouns listed: được giải quyết thông qua thương lượng, hoà giải, trọng tài hoặc Toà án. But in TT, được giải quyết and only two nouns, i.e. thương lượng, hoà giải are kept together: shall be resolved through negotiation and conciliation; another verb has been added to clarify the other two nouns: shall be referred to arbitration or to a court. Statement of Quality The comparison of ST and TT along the eight parameters shows that there are mismatches on all dimensions of language use. However, the greatest number of mismatches occurs on the Social Role Relationship parameter. On the whole, these mismatches render the text in the specified instances less authoritative and less committal. They also convey a different referential meaning in some other instances. In many cases, TT does not make use of the verb structure with shall in its normal use in legal English. It can be said that both the ideational and interpersonal components of ST are violated with the interpersonal component being violated to a greater extent. Mismatches on all parameters have a contribution to this, especially those on the parameters of Social Role Relationship and Province. Target readers of TT are foreign investors from various countries. Those who are from a legal system similar to that of Vietnam will to a great extent perceive the translation the way Vietnamese readers do, both ideationally and interpersonally. But those from other legal systems, especially those of the Common Law tradition, will mainly perceive the ideational aspect only. 3.2. Quality of the translation The underlying idea in House’s model is that a translation should be functionally and pragmatically equivalent to its original. Functional equivalence is achieved when the TT can match its ST in function and employs equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function. And a text’s function is made up of an ideational and an interpersonal component. The ST’s ideational function is to inform the addressees of measures to guarantee their investment activities in Vietnam by setting forth their rights and obligations, the addresser’s commitments, as well as guarantees for other issues related to investment activities in Vietnam. The ST’s interpersonal function is to show the addressees that the addresser is being direct, authoritative, and at the same time committal. Assessed on this criterion, the English translation of chapter II of the Vietnamese Law on Investment of 2005 has a rather poor quality. In certain cases the TT does not match its ST’s function, both ideationally and interpersonally. All these functional mismatches have been listed above, so only one typical example should be mentioned, i.e. 8(2/d). In the ST, the focus is on “goods that are manufactured” - hàng hoá sản xuất, but in the TT the phrase is translated into “the manufacture of goods”, which is a completely different focus. Not only does the TT fail to match the ST’s function in certain instances, it also fails to employ situational-dimensional means equivalent to those of the ST. There are considerable mismatches on all parameters of the dimension of language use, which leads to a violation of both ideational and interpersonal functions of the ST. Some linguistic means constitute mismatches on more than one parameter, for example: The improper use of modal verbs and modal expressions in TT wrongly conveys the addresser’s intention. Obligations are sometimes turned into permissions, and commitments into obligations. This improper use also weakens the authoritative tone of the text. ST makes use of the unique characteristics of linguistic items, like the unidentified number of nouns, the tenselessness of verbs, and the formality of Chinese-Vietnamese words, to construct the text as it is, to create the genre of the text. TT, however, cannot reveal these characteristics. The use of extra linguistic items makes TT in some instances clearer than ST, which is not pragmatically equivalent. TT readers can understand the addresser’s ideas more easily while ST readers have to make inferences. 3.3. Implications for translating Vietnamese legal documents into English Legal documents enacted by the National Assembly of Vietnam are unquestionably authoritative on the Vietnamese territory. There are of course limited cases where Vietnamese laws shall apply in another country. This happens when there is an agreement between the government of Vietnam and the government of the other country that the law of Vietnam shall be applied to settle certain kinds of legal disputes between citizens of the two countries. And for Vietnam to integrate into the world’s moving economy, it is crucial that foreign individuals and organizations have an easier access to the body of legal documents of Vietnam in which they are involved. Therefore, more and more Vietnamese legal documents are being translated into English, the language of international communication, to be used as reference. The English legal language developed from the Common Law tradition of Britain before it was spread around the world. But this does not mean that when translated into English, translated versions of Vietnamese legal documents have to resemble those of Britain or the U.S.A. Instead, the style and format of Vietnamese legal documents should be preserved in the translations because the translations are not expected to, and they hardly can, transfer the STs’ pragmatic effects to target readers. Therefore, the ideational meaning of STs should be paid special attention to; or as Newmark has put it, the most appropriate method for translation of authoritative documents for reference is semantic translation (1989:128). From the analysis and comparison of the source and translation texts of the Vietnamese Law on Investment of 2005, the following implications are drawn up for translators of legal documents: The first and foremost requirement is to carefully study the ST to fully understand the addresser’s intentions. It is vital that the translator does this. Interpretations of the same law of a linguist may differ considerably from those of a legal expert because the former has a more linguistically logical mind while the latter a legally logical one. But the translator cannot do this all by himself. He deliberately needs consultancy from several legal experts. One and the same provision may be interpreted differently by different legal professionals. This is caused by the wording as well as the punctuating of the provision. For example, in 6.(2/2) of the examined ST, “Việc thanh toán hoặc bồi thường phải bảo đảm lợi ích của nhà đầu tư và không phân biệt đối xử giữa các nhà đầu tư”, the subject of ‘không phân biệt đối xử’ is rather ambiguous. Is it the payment or is it the government that performs the act of “không phân biệt đối xử”? The answer may vary. And in 8.(2/a), “Ưu tiên mua, sử dụng hàng hoá, dịch vụ”, whether the punctuation “,” means and or or is not obvious. Upon hearing different views, it is the translator that has to decide what should be the proper interpretation of confusing provisions. And all these ambiguities have to be taken note of and be attended to during the actual work of translating. The second requirement concerns the selection of terms. There should be no problem with terms that are identical in the two languages. But it is not uncommon that a term and the translation often accorded with it are only equivalent to certain extent. A mere TL word cannot always fully express the denotative, as well as the connotative, meaning of the SL term. For example, hội thẩm nhân dân in Vietnamese and juror in English are not totally equivalent. In other cases, a term in the SL expresses a concept that does not exist in the TL. Therefore, the translator has an important role in sending the addresser’s message to the foreign reader. It is crucial that the translator first examine the ST terms to fully grasp its meaning in that context, and then brainstorm the possible translations, deciding on the most appropriate translation of the term. If the selected translation still cannot match its ST term in all aspects, consideration should be given to the use of commentary notes. This is to minimize the instances of the original provisions being partly or totally misconstrued, which is of great importance in case of disputes. Thirdly, linguistic structures of the TT have to be carefully selected. The translator should try his best to preserve linguistic structures of the ST. Only when there is no direct equivalent of a structure should he seek for a TL structure with the same function. Special attention should be given to structures expressing rights and duties. Clarifying additions should also be minimized, especially where such additions may affect or alter the addresser’s intention. As in 9.(1), “Sau khi thực hiện đầy đủ nghĩa vụ tài chính đối với Nhà nước Việt Nam, nhà đầu tư nước ngoài được …”, the ST stresses the placing of nhà đầu tư at subject position while the TT has shifted its position to the adverbial: After a foreign investor has discharged fully its financial obligations to the State of Vietnam, it shall be permitted to …. Finally, the draft translation has to be read by at least two foreigners, the most desirable being legal experts, one from the Common Law system and the other from a non-English speaking country. No matter how carefully he did during the translation of the ST, it is by no means his translation work is perfect. He needs English-speaking legal experts to read through his finished work. And if there are differences in their interpretations of the same text, the translator has to take notes and work on an alternative to assure the two foreigners understand the TT in the same way. If their interpretations are different from the original message, the translator will have to work on the whole process again. Only when necessary justifications and amendments have been made, should the translation be publicized. CONCLUSION This study has compiled different scholars’ works on the history and linguistic features of English and Vietnamese legal language, as well as the common traditions of law in the world. Legal English has more distinct features from everyday ordinary English than legal Vietnamese, making it a more highly specialized genre. Translation of texts from one language into the other is sometimes difficult due to certain differences in terms of structures and terminologies. Britain, the motherland of legal English, follows the Common Law tradition while Vietnam tends to follow the Civil Law system with the two systems being different in their not taking and taking, respectively, legal codes as their basis. Thanks to the longer history of development of the English legal system, legislative techniques of British legislators are generally better than those of their Vietnamese counterpart. This suggests that Vietnamese legal documents’ style and format be preserved when the texts are translated into English. Any changes would affect the interpersonal aspect of the text. Due to the call of international economic integration, many more Vietnamese authoritative legal documents are being translated into English for reference. However, no set model for assessing the translations of such texts has been set forth. Therefore, this study has, after presenting it, tried to apply the model for translation quality assessment developed by House J. in assessing the Vietnamese Law on Investment of 2005 with a hope to assess the quality of the English translation. In the first place, the ST is analyzed to draw its textual profile on the eight parameters. Then a statement of its function is made. A similar procedure is carried out with the TT. Results from a comparison of the ST and the TT reveal that there are mismatches between the two texts on most parameters. The TT fails to match the ST’s function in certain instances and there remain overtly erroneous errors, which could have been avoided had the translator been more careful with his work. Under this model, the translation is of poor quality because it does not completely match the ST’s functions as well as it fails to employ similar means to perform the two functions of the text. Four implications for translating Vietnamese legal documents into English have been proposed. The reasonable method for legal translation is believed to be semantic translation with the ST’s style and format being preserved. The translator has to study the ST thoroughly before working on the actual translation process, which has to be carried out carefully. However, this study only applies the model to the English translation by the Transportation Publishing House while there are several other versions available. Therefore another study could be carried out to compare the quality of these translations. REFERENCES English 1. Al-Qinai J. (2000), “Translation Quality Assessment: Strategies, Parameters and Procedures”, Meta, XLV (3), retrieved from 2. Altay A. (2002), “Difficulties Encountered in the Translation of Legal Texts: the Case of Turkey”, Translation Journal 6 (4), retrieved from 3. Asher R.E. (1994), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Pergamon Press, New York. 4. Australasian Legal Information Institute, Criminal Code 1995 of Western Australia, retrieved from 5. Baker M. (1992), In Other Words, a Course-book on Translation, Routledge. 6. Baker M. & Malmkjaer K. (2001), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Routledge: London and New York. 7. Bell R. T. (1991), Translation and Translating, Routledge, London and New York. 8. Bhatia V. K. (1993), “Analysing Genre – Language Use in Professional Settings”, Applied Linguistics and Language Studies Series, London. 9. Bhatia V.K. (1987), “Language of the Law”, Language Teaching, 20, pp. 227-34. 10. Black’s Law Dictionary (1990), 6th Edition, Minneapolis. 11. Bogdan M. (1994), Comparative Law, Kluwer. 12. Catford J.C. (1965), A Linguistic Theory of Translation, OUP, Oxford. 13. Chesterman A. (ed.) (1989), Readings in Translation Theory, OY Finn Lecture Ab. 14. Collin C. (1990), English Grammar, Rupa&Co. 15. Collin P.H. (1993), Dictionary of Law, 2nd ed., Peter Collin Publishing Ltd. 16. Garzone G., Legal Translation and Functionalist Approaches: a contradiction in terms?, retrieved from 17. Gibbons J. (ed.) (1994), Language and the Law, Longman, London. 18. Harvey M. (2002), "What's so Special about Legal Translation?", Meta, XLVII (2), retrieved from . 19. Hatim B. & Mason I. (1990), Discourse and the Translator, Longman, London. 20. Hatim B. & Munday J. (2004), Translation – An Advanced Resource Book, Routledge, London and New York. 21. House J. (1977), A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen. 22. House J. (1997), Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Gunter Narr, Tubingen. 23. House J. (2001), “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation”, Meta, XLVI, retrieved from 24. Jakobson R. (1959/2000), “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”, in R. Brower (ed.) (1959). On Translation, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000). pp. 113-18. 25. Koller W. (1979), Equivalence in Translation theory, translated from German by A. Chesterman, in A. Chesterman (ed.), pp. 99-104 26. Lawtran.com (2004), Characteristics of English Legal Language, retrieved from 27. Legalmessenger.com, Legal History, retrieved from 28. Leo D.D. (1999), “Pitfalls in Legal Translation”, Translation Journal 3 (2), retrieved from 29. Leonardi V. (2000), “Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality”, Translation Journal, 4 (4), retrieved from 30. Maley Y. (1994). “The Language of the Law”, in Gibbons J. (ed.). (1994). Language and the Law. London: Longman. 31. Marxists Internet Archieve, The General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade, Article II, retrieved from 32. Mellinkoff D. (1963), The Language of the Law, Little Brown, Boston. 33. Mochny D. Translating Law Texts is Translating Culture, translationdirectory.com, retrieved from 34. Munday J. (2001), Introducing Translation Studies, Routledge, London and New York. 35. Net Lawman, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, retrieved from 36. Newmark P. (1981), Approaches to Translation, Pergamon, Oxford. 37. Newmark P. (1988), A textbook of translation, Prentice Hall, New York and London. 38. Newmark P., “Communicative and Semantic Translation”, in Chesterman A. (ed.) (1989), pp.116-37. 39. Nida E.A. (1964), Towards a Science of Translating, E.J. Brill, Leiden. 40. Nida E.A. (1969), “Science of Translation”, Language 43 (3), pp. 483-98. 41. Nida E.A. (1969), The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden. 42. Nord C. & Sparrow P. (1991), Text Analysis in Translation, Atlanta. 43. Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute, Law of Property Act 1925, retrieved from 44. Quirk R., Greenbaum S. (1973), A University Grammar of English, Longman. 45. Sarcevic, S. Legal Translation and Translation Theory: a Receiver-Oriented approach, retrieved from 46. Tiersma P.M. (1989), Linguistic Aspects of Legislative Expression, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 47. Tiersma, P. The Nature of Legal Language, retrieved from 48. Translatorscafe.com (2003), Characteristics of Legal Discourse, retrieved from 49. Trosborg A. (1997), “Translating Hybrid Political Texts”, A. Trosborg (ed.), Text Typology and Translation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. 50. Venuti L. (2000), The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge, London and New York. 51. Venuti L. (2001), "Strategies of Translation", in: M. Baker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge, pp. 240-44. 52. Vinay J.P. & Darbelnet J. (1965), “Stylistic compare du francais et de l’anglais”, in Newmark, P. (1988), A Textbook of Translation, Prentice Hall International. 53. Vystrcilova R. (2000), “Legal English”, Philosophica 73, retrieved from 54. Wikipedia.org, Legal Translation, retrieved from Vietnamese 1. Diệp Quang Ban (2004), Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, tập hai, Nxb Giáo dục, Hà Nội. 2. Bộ Tư pháp, Hệ thống văn bản quy phạm pháp luật, nguồn: 3. Đại học Luật Hà Nội (1999). Từ điển Luật học - Tố tụng Hình sự, Nxb Công an Nhân dân, Hà Nội. 4. Trần Trí Dõi (2005), Giáo trình lịch sử tiếng Việt (sơ thảo), Nxb Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. 5. Nguyễn Đăng Dung, Ngô Đức Tuấn, Nguyễn Thị Khế (1995), Nhà nước và pháp luật đại cương, Nxb TP Hồ Chí Minh, Tp. Hồ Chí Minh. 6. Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (1998), Từ vựng học tiếng Việt, Nxb Giáo dục, Hà Nội. 7. Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (chủ biên) (2005), Lược sử Việt ngữ học (tập 1), Nxb Giáo dục, Hà Nội, trang 15–19. 8. Đinh Trọng Lạc, Nguyễn Thái Hoà (1997), Phong cách học tiếng Việt, Nxb Giáo dục, Hà Nội. 9. Nguyễn Xuân Linh (1998), Pháp luật đại cương, Nxb Thống kê, Hà Nội. 10. Nhà xuất bản Giao thông Vận tải (2005), Luật đầu tư 2005, Hà Nội. 11. Lê Hùng Tiến (1996), “Một số đặc điểm của ngôn ngữ Luật tiếng Việt và ứng dụng trong phiên dịch Việt – Anh”, Ngoại ngữ, (6/1996). 12. Lê Hùng Tiến (1999), Một số đặc điểm của ngôn ngữ Luật pháp tiếng Việt, Luận án tiến sĩ ngữ văn, Trường Đại học Khoa học Xã hội và Nhân văn, Hà Nội. 13. Lê Hùng Tiến (2003), “Dịch văn bản luật pháp tiếng Việt sang tiếng Anh từ góc độ ngữ dụng học”, Tạp chí khoa học ĐHQGHN, Ngoại ngữ, XIX (1/2003), Nxb Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội. 14. Lê Hùng Tiến (2006), “Nghiên cứu dịch thuật và những khuynh hướng nghiên cứu ngôn ngữ”, Tạp chí khoa học ĐHQGHN, Ngoại ngữ, XXII (1/2006), Nxb Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. 15. Trung tâm KHXH&NV Quốc gia (2002), Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, NXB Khoa học Xã hội, Hà Nội, trang 13 – 25. 16. Trung tâm từ điển học (1998), Từ điển tiếng Việt, Nxb Đà Nẵng, Đà Nẵng. 17. Cù Đình Tú (1983), Phong cách học và đặc điểm tu từ tiếng Việt, Nxb Đại học và Trung học chuyên nghiệp, Hà Nội. 18. Đào Trí Úc (1997), Nhà nước và pháp luật của chúng ta trong sự nghiệp đổi mới, Nxb Khoa học xã hội: Hà Nội. 19. Hoàng Văn Vân (1997), “Về ngôn ngữ học và dịch thuật”, Ngoại ngữ, (6/1997). APPENDIX A. Vietnamese version of the selected text CHƯƠNG II BẢO ĐẢM ĐẦU TƯ Điều 6. Bảo đảm về vốn và tài sản 1. Vốn và tài sản hợp pháp của nhà đầu tư không bị quốc hữu hoá, không bị tịch thu bằng biện pháp hành chính. 2. Trường hợp thật cần thiết vì lý do quốc phòng, an ninh và lợi ích quốc gia, Nhà nước trưng mua, trưng dụng tài sản của nhà đầu tư thì nhà đầu tư được thanh toán hoặc bồi thường theo giá thị trường tại thời điểm công bố việc trưng mua, trưng dụng. Việc thanh toán hoặc bồi thường phải bảo đảm lợi ích hợp pháp của nhà đầu tư và không phân biệt đối xử giữa các nhà đầu tư. 3. Đối với nhà đầu tư nước ngoài, việc thanh toán hoặc bồi thường tài sản quy định tại khoản 2 Điều này được thực hiện bằng đồng tiền tự do chuyển đổi và được quyền chuyển ra nước ngoài. 4. Thể thức, điều kiện trưng mua, trưng dụng theo quy định của pháp luật. Điều 7. Bảo hộ quyền sở hữu trí tuệ Nhà nước bảo hộ quyền sở hữu trí tuệ trong hoạt động đầu tư, bảo đảm lợi ích hợp pháp của nhà đầu tư trong việc chuyển giao công nghệ tại Việt Nam theo quy định của pháp luật về sở hữu trí tuệ và pháp luật có liên quan. Điều 8. Mở cửa thị trường, đầu tư liên quan đến thương mại Để phù hợp với các quy định trong các điều ước quốc tế mà Việt Nam là thành viên, Nhà nước bảo đảm thực hiện đối với nhà đầu tư nước ngoài các quy định sau đây: 1. Mở cửa thị trường đầu tư phù hợp với lộ trình đã cam kết. 2. Không bắt buộc nhà đầu tư phải thực hiện các yêu cầu sau đây: a) Ưu tiên mua, sử dụng hàng hóa, dịch vụ trong nước hoặc phải mua hàng hóa, dịch vụ từ nhà sản xuất hoặc cung ứng dịch vụ nhất định trong nước; b) Xuất khẩu hàng hóa hoặc xuất khẩu dịch vụ đạt một tỷ lệ nhất định; hạn chế số lượng, giá trị, loại hàng hóa và dịch vụ xuất khẩu hoặc sản xuất, cung ứng trong nước; c) Nhập khẩu hàng hóa với số lượng và giá trị tương ứng với số lượng và giá trị hàng hóa xuất khẩu hoặc phải tự cân đối ngoại tệ từ nguồn xuất khẩu để đáp ứng nhu cầu nhập khẩu; d) Đạt được tỷ lệ nội địa hóa nhất định trong hàng hóa sản xuất; đ) Đạt được một mức độ nhất định hoặc giá trị nhất định trong hoạt động nghiên cứu và phát triển ở trong nước; e) Cung cấp hàng hoá, dịch vụ tại một địa điểm cụ thể ở trong nước hoặc nước ngoài; g) Đặt trụ sở chính tại một địa điểm cụ thể. Điều 9. Chuyển vốn, tài sản ra nước ngoài 1. Sau khi thực hiện đầy đủ nghĩa vụ tài chính đối với Nhà nước Việt Nam, nhà đầu tư nước ngoài được chuyển ra nước ngoài các khoản sau đây: a) Lợi nhuận thu được từ hoạt động kinh doanh; b) Những khoản tiền trả cho việc cung cấp kỹ thuật, dịch vụ, sở hữu trí tuệ; c) Tiền gốc và lãi các khoản vay nước ngoài; d) Vốn đầu tư, các khoản thanh lý đầu tư; đ) Các khoản tiền và tài sản khác thuộc sở hữu hợp pháp của nhà đầu tư. 2. Người nước ngoài làm việc tại Việt Nam cho các dự án đầu tư được chuyển ra nước ngoài thu nhập hợp pháp của mình sau khi thực hiện đầy đủ các nghĩa vụ tài chính đối với Nhà nước Việt Nam. 3. Việc chuyển ra nước ngoài các khoản trên được thực hiện bằng đồng tiền tự do chuyển đổi theo tỷ giá giao dịch tại ngân hàng thương mại do nhà đầu tư lựa chọn. 4. Thủ tục chuyển ra nước ngoài các khoản tiền liên quan đến hoạt động đầu tư theo quy định của pháp luật về quản lý ngoại hối. Điều 10. Áp dụng giá, phí, lệ phí thống nhất Trong quá trình hoạt động đầu tư tại Việt Nam, nhà đầu tư được áp dụng thống nhất giá, phí, lệ phí đối với hàng hoá, dịch vụ do Nhà nước kiểm soát. Điều 11. Bảo đảm đầu tư trong trường hợp thay đổi pháp luật, chính sách 1. Trường hợp pháp luật, chính sách mới được ban hành có các quyền lợi và ưu đãi cao hơn so với quyền lợi, ưu đãi mà nhà đầu tư đã được hưởng trước đó thì nhà đầu tư được hưởng các quyền lợi, ưu đãi theo quy định mới kể từ ngày pháp luật, chính sách mới đó có hiệu lực. 2. Trường hợp pháp luật, chính sách mới ban hành làm ảnh hưởng bất lợi đến lợi ích hợp pháp mà nhà đầu tư đã được hưởng trước khi quy định của pháp luật, chính sách đó có hiệu lực thì nhà đầu tư được bảo đảm hưởng các ưu đãi như quy định tại Giấy chứng nhận đầu tư hoặc được giải quyết bằng một, một số hoặc các biện pháp sau: a) Tiếp tục hưởng các quyền và ưu đãi; b) Được trừ thiệt hại vào thu nhập chịu thuế; c) Được điều chỉnh mục tiêu hoạt động của dự án; d) Được xem xét bồi thường trong một số trường hợp cần thiết. 3. Căn cứ vào quy định của pháp luật và cam kết trong điều ước quốc tế mà Việt Nam là thành viên, Chính phủ quy định cụ thể về việc bảo đảm lợi ích của nhà đầu tư do việc thay đổi pháp luật, chính sách ảnh hưởng bất lợi đến lợi ích của nhà đầu tư. Điều 12. Giải quyết tranh chấp 1. Tranh chấp liên quan đến hoạt động đầu tư tại Việt Nam được giải quyết thông qua thương lượng, hoà giải, Trọng tài hoặc Toà án theo quy định của pháp luật. 2. Tranh chấp giữa các nhà đầu tư trong nước với nhau hoặc với cơ quan quản lý nhà nước Việt Nam liên quan đến hoạt động đầu tư trên lãnh thổ Việt Nam được giải quyết thông qua Trọng tài hoặc Toà án Việt Nam. 3. Tranh chấp mà một bên là nhà đầu tư nước ngoài hoặc doanh nghiệp có vốn đầu tư nước ngoài hoặc tranh chấp giữa các nhà đầu tư nước ngoài với nhau được giải quyết thông qua một trong những cơ quan, tổ chức sau đây: a) Toà án Việt Nam; b) Trọng tài Việt Nam; c) Trọng tài nước ngoài; d) Trọng tài quốc tế; đ) Trọng tài do các bên tranh chấp thoả thuận thành lập. 4. Tranh chấp giữa nhà đầu tư nước ngoài với cơ quan quản lý nhà nước Việt Nam liên quan đến hoạt động đầu tư trên lãnh thổ Việt Nam được giải quyết thông qua Trọng tài hoặc Toà án Việt Nam, trừ trường hợp có thoả thuận khác trong hợp đồng được ký giữa đại diện cơ quan nhà nước có thẩm quyền với nhà đầu tư nước ngoài hoặc trong các điều ước quốc tế mà Việt Nam là thành viên. APPENDIX B. English version of the selected text CHAPTER 2 INVESTMENT GUARANTEES Article 6 Guarantees relating to capital and assets 1. Lawful assets and invested capital of investors shall not be nationalized or confiscated by administrative measures. 2. In a case of real necessity for the purpose of national defence and security and in the national interest, if the State acquires compulsorily or requisitions an asset of an investor, such investor shall be compensated or paid damages at the market prices at the time of announcement of such compulsory acquisition or requisition. Payment of compensation or damages must ensure the lawful interests of investors and be make on the basis of non-discrimination between investors. 3. Any compensation or damages payable to foreign investors as stipulated in clause 2 of this article shall be made in a freely convertible currency and shall be permitted to be remitted abroad. 4. Procedures and conditions for compulsory acquisition and requisition [shall be implemented] in accordance with law. Article 7 Protection of intellectual property rights The State shall protect intellectual property rights during investment activities; and shall ensure the legitimate rights of investors in technology transfer in Vietnam in accordance with the laws on intellectual property and other provisions of the relevant laws. Article 8 Opening markets and investments related to trade In order to comply with the provisions of international treaties of which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a member, the State shall guarantee to implement the following provisions in respect of foreign investors: 1. To open the investment market in compliance with the committed schedule; 2. Not to compel an investor to undertake the following requirements: (a) To give priority to the purchase or use of domestic goods or services; or to purchase compulsorily goods from a specific domestic manufacturer or services from a specific domestic service provider; (b) To export goods or services at a fixed percentage; to restrict the quantity, value or type of goods or services which may be exported of or goods which may be manufactured domestically or services which may be provided domestically; (c) To import goods at the same quantity and value as goods exported, or to selfbalance compulsorily foreign currency from sources obtained from exported goods in order to satisfy their import requirements; (d) To achieve certain localization ratios during manufacture of goods; (dd) To achieve a stipulated level or value in their research and development activities in Vietnam; (e) To supply goods or provide services in a particular location whether in Vietnam or abroad; (g) To establish its head office in a particular location. Article 9 Remittance of capital and assets abroad 1. After a foreign investor has discharged fully its financial obligations to the State of Vietnam, it shall be permitted to remit abroad the following: (a) Its profits derived from business activities; (b) Payments received from the provision of technology and services and from intellectual property; (c) The principal of and any interest on foreign loans; (d) Invested capital and proceeds from the liquidation of investments; (dd) Other sums of money and assets lawfully owned by the investor. 2. A foreigner working in Vietnam for an investment project shall be permitted to remit abroad his or her lawful income after having discharged fully his or her financial obligations to the State of Vietnam. 3. The remittance of the above sums of money shall be made in a freely convertible currency in accordance with the trading exchange rate published by a commercial bank selected by the investor. 4. Procedures for remitting abroad the sums of money relating to an investment activity shall be subject to the laws on foreign exchange control. Article 10 Application of uniform prices, fees and charges During the process of an investment activity, the investor shall be entitled to uniform application of price rates for goods and fees and charges for services which are controlled by the State. Article 11 Investment guarantees in the event of changes in law or policies 1. If a newly promulgated law or policy contains higher benefits and incentives than those to which the investor was previously entitled, then the investor shall be entitled to the benefits and incentives pursuant to the new law as from the date the new law or policy takes effect. 2. If a newly promulgated law or policy adversely affects the lawful benefits enjoyed by an investor prior to the date of effectiveness of such law or policy, the investor shall be guaranteed to enjoy incentives the same as the investment certificate or there shall be resolution by one, a number or all of the following methods: (a) Continuation of enjoyment of benefits and incentives; (b) There shall be a deduction of the loss from taxable income; (c) There shall be a change of the operational objective of the project; (d) Consideration shall be given to paying compensation in necessary circumstances. 3. Based on the provisions of the laws and commitments in international treaties of which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a member, the Government shall make specific provisions on guarantee for interests of investors in the case where a change in laws or policies affects adversely the interests of the investors. Article 12 Dispute resolution 1. Any dispute relating to investment activities in Vietnam shall be resolved through negotiation and conciliation, or shall be referred to arbitration or to a court in accordance with law. 2. Any dispute as between domestic investors or as between a domestic investor and a State administrative body of Vietnam relating to investment activities in the territory of Vietnam shall be resolved at a Vietnamese arbitration body or court. 3. Any dispute to which one disputing party is a foreign investor or an enterprise with foreign owned capital, or nay dispute as between foreign investors shall be resolved by one of the following tribunals and organizations: (a) A Vietnamese court; (b) A Vietnamese arbitration body; (c) A foreign arbitration body; (d) An international arbitration body; (dd) An arbitration tribunal established pursuant to the agreement of the disputing parties. 4. Any dispute between a foreign investor and State administrative body of Vietnam relating to investment activities in the territory of Vietnam shall be resolved by a Vietnamese arbitration body or court, unless otherwise provided in a contract signed between a representative of a competent State body of Vietnam with the foreign investor or in an international treaty of which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a member.