「Rights」翻譯為「權/權利」的符號傳播觀點

“Rights” Translated into “Quán / Quán lì” from the Perspective of Communicative Signs

翻譯的誕生多用來溝通兩種不同文化的讀者，然而譯者為找出對應的詞語有時不是那麼容易。從法律翻譯史看來，早期不同地區法律體系的交流多歸功於西方傳教士、商賈與作戰士兵，當時的他們必然能感受到東方與西方法律制度的截然不同，這些互動形成所謂「互為法律」的現象。究竟，華文世界大家熟悉的「權利」一詞是怎樣來的? 據考證，該詞彙源自於19世紀時中國翻譯西方國際法著作的　「Rights」一詞，西方「Rights」本有「直、正確、正義」之字源涵義，後來發展出「權力正當性與利益」及「個人自主性」之意涵。古中國文獻的「權」一詞則指「上位者權力」，「利」一詞帶有「謀利」之暗示，因此「Rights」一開始與 「權/權利」不甚吻合。法律本是一符號系統，不同的法律文化衍生出不同的系統。本文發現，「Rights = 權利」代表當時法律符號解釋者(即譯者)對符號發送者(即國際法原著) 的一連串協調過程，但法律概念表達傾向單義與精確性，解釋項終究會穩定下來而呈現較為單義的現象。

 

The birth of translated works is mostly a result of communicating with readers of different cultures. However, it may not be so easy for a translator to find the corresponding words or expressions. Glancing over the development of legal history, the spread of early legal cultures between China and the West has been through the interactions between missionaries, merchants, and soldiers in combat. At that time, the people in direct contact might feel a great difference between the legal systems of the East and the West. How did the concept of “Quán / Quán lì” (權/權利) give birth to the Chinese world? Quite a few verifications have proved that this expression occurs to reflect the meaning of the word “rights” in international law in the 19th century. As a pure legal concept, the term “rights” implies the legitimacy of power/interests and the autonomy of an individual. It has an origin of “straight, correct, and justice”. On the other hand, in Chinese culture, the word “Quán” refers to the “power of the superior” and the word “lì” is even more suggestive of “profit.” Therefore, “right” from the beginning does not quite match the meaning of “Quán / Quán lì.” Law is a system of signs while different legal cultures represent different systems of signs. “Rights = Quán / Quán lì” implies the coordination and interaction of the interpreters (i.e., the translators) with the senders of communicative signs (i.e., the authors of the original works). In communicating legal discourse such dynamic interpretation will eventually stabilize and show a tendency of precision and monosemic expression characterized by most legal discourse.