Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Translating Contract Law Terminology in the Civil Code of the P.R.C.: A Corpus-Based Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Translating Contract Law Terminology in the Civil Code of the P.R.C.: A Corpus-Based Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Translating Contract Law Terminology in the Civil Code of the P.R.C.: A Corpus-Based Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Translating Contract Law Terminology in the Civil Code of the P.R.C.: A Corpus-Based Analysis
2025
Overview
Terminology has long been a central concern in both theoretical and practical studies of legal translation. This study conducts a comparative and mixed-method analysis of the translation of contract law terminology, based on two pairs of self-compiled corpora: 1) the English monolingual translation of the Book of Contract of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the official text of UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016, and 2) the parallel bilingual corpora of these texts. Focusing on three representative pairs of legal terms (formation/conclusion of contracts, terms/clauses of contracts, and obligor/obligee and creditor/debtor), the study identifies key inconsistencies in the translated version of the Book of Contract. Notably, the terms formation and conclusion are used inconsistently, and no clear distinction is made between terms and clauses, in contrast to the usage found in the reference corpus. The study also compares the use of obligor/obligee and creditor/debtor, offering suggestions for more accurate and contextually appropriate translation choices. Ultimately, the study seeks to contribute to the standardization of legal terminology in Chinese legislative translation, enhance legal translation quality, promote mutual understanding among different legal systems, and foster international legal and commercial cooperation, while providing the global community with clearer access to Chinese legal culture as well.
