한·중 법률용어 번역의 등가관계 : 사법공조분야 양자조약을 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to describe equivalence relationship of Korean and Chinese legal terms from the perspective of form and meaning. To this end, 2,897 Korean and Chinese legal term pairs were extracted from the Korean and Chinese version of the bilateral treaties of Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters, Treaty on Extradition and Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters, which are then compared through a quantitative and qualitative method.

In chapter 2, based on isolated existing studies, types and characters of legal terms and formation methods, including historical process of their formation are examined. Then, the concept of equivalence in logic and in translation studies at its earlier stage is compared, and explained from the perspective of ST-TT relationship. Equivalence has often been regarded as an obstacle to the development of translation studies, under the misconception that it refers to the ‘perfect match between form and meaning’.

Chapter 3 explains the data extraction process in detail, and compares and analyzes both Korean and Chinese legal terms through a quantitative method. On the basis of 2,897 term pairs, frequency lists of Korean and Chinese terms are drawn up and TTRs(Type/Token Ratio) are produced. The TTRs are found to be 16.29% and 16.91% respectively, nearing towards one-on-one correspondence. This is because the meaning of the Korean and the Chinese versions are the same, and most Korean legal terms are Sino-Korean words, showing similarity in terms of the structure. However, a close look at the pairs shows that a one-on-one relationship between the terms is not established.

Chapter 4 compares and analyzes equivalence in form between Korean and Chinese legal terms. In legal translation, what needs to be translated is the legal concept and thus the form of language may not be deemed important. However, as legal terms in Korean and Chinese share a common origin of Chinese characters, this can trigger language interference. Moreover, observing equivalence in form in translation products can reveal a connection between the terms of the two languages. Accordingly, the pairs extracted in chapter 2 are classified into identical and non-identical pairs, the former sharing equal Chinese characters and the latter having different Chinese characters. Among the 2,987 tokens, 40.49% are identical pairs, and among the 667 types, 27.95% are. Based on this result, the ratio of high/low frequency words and identical pairs is calculated to determine whether high or low frequency includes more identical pairs. Also, the ratio of technical/nontechnical terms and identical pairs is calculated to observe which of them includes more identical pairs. Their relationships are then statistically examined.

In chapter 5, equivalence relationship is described in terms of commonalities and differences in the concept of Korean and Chinese legal terms. The two languages share a number of legal terms with identical forms and similar concepts, since Korea and China both belong to the continental law system with written law. Also, China exchanged legal terms with Japan in its earlier stages of establishing modern law, which was then received by Korea. Nevertheless, there exist differences in the concepts which are often used in everyday life such as prosecution, proceedings, trial, arrest, and custody. The conceptual commonalities and differences are compared and analyzed based on their dictionary concept. Institutional and cultural differences between the two countries are also described since such knowledge is essential for translators.

Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the study, and delineates its limitations and significance. This study is significant in that it has drawn up legal term pairs after considering the context of the translation products, and compares and analyzes their form and legal concept. A number of legal translations between Korean and Chinese have been produced, yet have not been addressed from a theoretical perspective. Accordingly, ample research questions remain for exploration. The author highly anticipates the development of translation education and practice using this study as its basis for additional future research.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 1.1 연구의 필요성 1
• 1.2 연구의 범위와 방법 4
• 1.3 선행 연구 10
• 제2장 이론적 배경 14
• 2.1 번역학의 언어학적 접근방법 14
• 2.2 번역학의 등가 개념과 등가관계 17
• 2.3 법률용어의 정의와 유형 24
• 2.4 법률용어의 성격 31
• 2.5 법률용어의 제정과 형성 36
• 제3장 데이터 추출과 계량적 분석 44
• 3.1 데이터 추출 과정 44
• 3.2 타입/토큰 비율(TTR) 58
• 3.3 빈도목록 65
• 제4장 한·중 법률용어의 형태적 등가관계 73
• 4.1 동형용어와 이형용어의 분포 74
• 4.2 출현빈도와 동형용어 비율 75
• 4.3 용어의 전문성과 동형용어 비율 83
• 4.4 소결 90
• 제5장 한·중 법률용어의 의미적 등가관계 92
• 5.1 공소와 기소의 번역 93
• 5.2 소송과 재판의 번역 96
• 5.3 체포·구속·구금의 번역 101
• 5.4 형벌 명칭의 번역 107
• 5.5 소결 110
• 제6장 결 론 113
• 6.1 연구 요약 113
• 6.2 연구의 한계 및 의의 115
• 참고문헌 118
• ABSTRACT 126
• 부록 130