The examples in Table 3 are lexical errors. Lexical errors can be divided into two types: one is linguistic error and the other is error in legal terms. In Example 1 of Table 3, the term 後半段 “houbanduan” is incorrectly translated as the last part, but the correct term must be the last part. In example 2 of Table 3, the translators apparently do not know that the correct English legal term is for 條 `tiao` article and the term for 項 is `xiang` paragraph. Mattila, Heikki. 2006. Comparative Legal Linguistics. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.Search in Google Scholar From the legal standard or from the lawyers` point of view, none of the information presented here, except for the phonetic transcription, is correct. In the field of criminal law, each of the synonyms mentioned here, such as murder, murder, murder, murder and murder, has its own definition and is composed of different constituent criteria within the meaning of the law.

Moreover, the correct legal translation of manslaughter 過失致死 is `guoshizhisi` and not 過失殺人 `guoshisharen`. In fact, in our criminal law, there is no legal term like 過失殺人`guoshisharen`, since 殺人 `to share` (`murder`) is considered by law as an act of will; Therefore, it is impossible for 殺人 `sharen` (`murder`) to collide with 過失 `guoshi` (`negligent`). In other words, the correct terms of the law regarding murder are 過失致死 `guoshisharen` (“manslaughter”) or 故意殺人 “guyisharen” (“murder”). This false legal term is often seen in mass media such as television, the Internet, magazines and newspapers, which is why the error is so widespread. The example explains the unreliability of ordinary language references. Legal interpretation has its own method, at least in translation studies [41:15, 40:147]. However, it is not easy to define such a method in detail. Undoubtedly, there is no shortage of rules of interpretation, also known as guidelines, maxims, canons, etc., used by lawyers practicing in different legal systems and catalogued by jurists. They largely converge between legal cultures, at least in the Western world [see: 4]. However, these are nothing more than rules of thumb [52:338].

In our view, they are best understood as heuristic tools that provide a framework for interpretive analysis, but in no way dictate the results of interpretation [see: 35]. In fact, sometimes even lawyers and judges struggle with the complexity and technicality of legal language and have difficulty understanding legal texts in their own language (Kennedy 2000:428). Translated legal texts are often even more difficult to understand, and sometimes the difficulty is often caused by the interventions of non-legal translators. Šarcevic (1997:113) points out that “all LSP (language for special purposes) translations are interdisciplinary in nature”, which means that the legal translator must be able to make legal and linguistic decisions. This view presupposes competence in law and translation. In terms of specialized terminology, Rotman (1995-1996:195) states that a thorough knowledge of the source and target legal systems is necessary, and that legal translations “require not only knowledge of the law in general, but also a solid knowledge of the field, its doctrines and certain models.” Schroth (1986:55-56) also points out that “. The legal translator must know how to achieve the same legal effect in the target language. In general, we recognize the concept of fidelity (or author`s intent) as an important point of contact between translation theory and legal theory, which has the potential for mutual enrichment and therefore merits exploration in future research. There are also many other issues that require further investigation, such as: the value of impartiality in the work of the translator and judge, the problem of the recipients of legal translations and legal interpretations, the methodological tools of legal translation and legal interpretation, as well as the role of “precedents” in legal translation and legal interpretation.

Despite the brutal fact that there are no two languages that completely overlap, nor two legal systems, nor two cultures, and the fact that there are many errors in translated legal texts, we continue to believe that equivalence both theoretically and practically exact can be achieved only by the simple fact that a concept, An expression in law is a vehicle of signs. that is not born with an inherent meaning, but has been endowed with meaning by language users (Cheng & Sin, 2008; Cheng et al., 2014a, 2014b). This fact has been established in translation theory. The traditional notion of translator as a mere intermediary between the source producer(s) and the target recipient(s) is being challenged. In keeping with current trends in general translation theory, many scholars portray the legal translator as an independent “text producer” rather than a “bilingual typist” offering simple linguistic equivalence [16:382, 25:180, 45:97, 46:4]. In fact, some jurisdictions assume that translators “co-write laws rather than translate them” [21:75]. In Canada, this approach is called “bijuralism” [13:34–35], while in the European Union it is often referred to as “multilingual drafting” [53:59–60]. However, such a new conceptualization of the translator`s role not only does not eliminate the practical problems inherent in the translation process, but even creates others [53:63-64]. It seems that we are faced with a paradox: lawyers and judges, because of their anchoring in practical legal discourse, have the tools to identify doubts of interpretation, but do not have the power to eliminate them from legal texts. At the same time, the external epistemic position of translators means that they generally lack the tools to identify interpretative doubts, but they have the power (but not necessarily the legitimacy) to eliminate them from legal texts (i.e., target texts). In this research, we created a small corpus with English and Chinese summaries of the Law Reviews of Taiwan. We identified the issues found in these summaries and categorized them into several categories.

After analysing the problems, we found that translators face many problems when translating legal texts: the influence of ordinary language, the lack of reliable reference works, insufficient legal knowledge, gaps in the target or source language and the specificities of legal language. These problems only complicate the task of translation. Strategies are proposed to improve the skills of legal translators and help them overcome these obstacles. Compared to the situation in Taiwan, the study of legal translation abroad has attracted a lot of attention. For example, in China and Hong Kong, many academic institutions are conducting research in this area. In America and Europe, the study has gained prominence over the past three decades. Here is a brief introduction to the most important research in legal translation in Western culture. The LexisNexis Group [13] is a computer-aided legal research company. In the 1970s, LexisNexis pioneered the electronic accessibility of legal and journalistic documents. Since 2006, the company has had the world`s largest electronic database for legal and public information. LexisNexis includes authoritative nineteenth-century legal publishing marks, among others; Butterworths in the UK, Canada, Asia-Pacific, Les Editions du Juris® Classeur in France and Martindale-Hubbell® and Matthew Bender® worldwide. Since precedents are very important in common law countries, it is essential to learn how to find data in databases such as Westlaw or LexisNexis.

In fact, students at most law schools in America have to take courses for a period of time to familiarize themselves with database searching. Unfortunately, both databases are much more complicated than Lawbank and Lawdata, but once translators get used to managing search methods, databases will be very useful in finding the authentic use of target law terms. To sum up, we would like to highlight some key points of our discussion.