The problem of equivalence of legal terminology and asymmetry of legal systems in translation from Russian to Chinese

The article is dedicated to the issue of equivalence in the translation of legal texts in the language pair of Russian and Chinese, and the identification of effective strategies for solving translation tasks. Key points highlight the problem of terminological equivalence in the context of syntactic cultural and legal asymmetry in the legal discourse of the two languages. The aim of the research is to determine the issues of equivalence in the process of translating legal texts at the present stage and the options for their resolution. The study used texts of a legal nature in Russian and Chinese, including laws, codes, protocols, and comments as research material. The research subject comprises legal terms and non-equivalent vocabulary in legal texts that pose challenges for translation. The article defines that in the translation of legal texts, equivalence must be considered in close correlation with adequacy. A descriptive-analytical method was used for selecting the material, which describes the chosen content, while a comparative method was employed to identify the similarities and differences of various synonyms when selecting equivalents for terms, as well as a contextual analysis method, since the contextual usage is considered when examining the structural-semantic and functional features of comparisons. The scientific novelty of the work lies in a comprehensive approach to the problem of translating legal texts in the Russian-Chinese language pair, allowing for the first time a wide range of factors influencing the translation outcome to be described. During the research, three types of terms that may cause difficulties in translation were identified: 1) legal terms that have several translation options in the target language; 2) terms that have multiple meanings within the original language; 3) terms referring to phenomena that have no equivalents in the target language. The main conclusions argue that, in addition to terminological synonymy within one system, it is essential to understand the specifics of the legal systems of Russia and China in order to select equivalents in the Chinese language that correspond to the context.