目錄TOC\o"1-3"\h\u1461746441摘要 .IntroductionAstheprocessofglobalisationacceleratesandcross-bordertrade,investmentandlegalcooperationbecomemoreandmorefrequent,thequalityoftranslationoflegaltexts,asthecorecarrierforregulatingsocialrelations,directlyaffectstheaccuracyandauthorityoftheapplicationoflaws.TheCivilCodeofthePeople'sRepublicofChinaisamilestoneinChina'slegalsystem,inwhichtheRealRightsSection,asacorechapterregulatingpropertyownershipandutilisation,notonlyconcernsthedomesticeconomicorder,butalsoplaysakeyroleinforeignlegalaffairs.AccuratetranslationoftheprovisionsofthePropertyCodeisanimportantprerequisiteforpromotingtheinternationaldisseminationofChina'slegalsystemandensuringthesmoothdevelopmentoftransnationallegalpractice.thisstudyappliesthestaticequivalencetheorytothetranslationofthePropertyTitleoftheCivilCode,whichhelpstoexpandtheapplicableboundariesoflegaltranslationtheory.Becauseofitsrigour,normativeandauthoritativenature,legaltextsputforwardspecialrequirementsfortheadaptabilityoftranslationtheory.ThefunctionalequivalencetheoryproposedbyEugeneNaidaemphasisesthattheresponseofthetranslatedreaderstothetranslatedtextshouldbebasicallythesameastheresponseoftheoriginalreaderstotheoriginaltext,whichprovidesanimportantframeworkfortranslationresearch.Thestaticequivalencetheorydevelopedonthebasisofthistheoryemphasisesthestrictcorrespondencebetweentheoriginalandthetranslatedtextintermsofformandcontent,whichishighlycompatiblewiththequalitiesoflegaltexts.TakingthelegaltextsofthePropertyTitleoftheCivilCodeastheresearchobject,part1clarifiesthebackgroundandsignificanceoftheresearch;part2elaboratesindetailtheconnotationofthetheoryofstaticreciprocity,itsdevelopmenthistoryanditskeypointsintranslationpractice,providingatheoreticalbasisforthesubsequentanalyses;part3introducesthemethodologyofresearchingpartofthePropertyTitleoftheCivilCode,andgivesanoverviewoftheoverallsituationofthetranslationofthelegaltexts;part4,theresearchobjectisbasedontheprincipleofsamenessandconsistency,andanalysestheembodimentofthetheoryofstaticequivalenceindifferenttranslationsofthePropertyTitleoftheCivilCode;part5summarizestheresearchresultsandlooksforwardtofutureresearchdirections.2.LiteraturereviewThischapterisdividedintothreeparts,aimingtoprovideanoverview:Thefirstpartintroducestheexistingliteratureonlegaltexttranslation;thesecondpartoutlinestheactualsituationsofvarioustheoriesinlegaltexttranslation;thethirdpartpresentsthebasicconceptsofthestaticequivalencetheoryanditsapplicationintranslationstrategiesbothdomesticallyandinternationally.2.1ResearchonthelegaltextstranslationintherealrightssectionScholarshavedeeplyintegratedthetheoryofstaticequivalenceintothestudyoftranslationofrealrights,andLiKexingpointedoutREF_Ref928037748\r\h[1]thatthistheorycaneffectivelyguaranteetheconsistencyoflegalterminologyandthelogicalstabilityofprovisionsbystrictlycorrespondingtotheformandcontentoftheoriginaltext,suchasthestandardiseduseoftermssuchas“realrights”and“ownership”inthetranslatedtext.Thetheoryoffunctionalequivalence,ontheotherhand,providesastandardisedapplicationofculturalcharacteristics.Functionalequivalencetheoryprovidesnewideasforthetranslationofconceptswithculturalcharacteristics,andsolvestheproblemofcross-culturalcommunicationofconceptssuchas“宅基地使用權(quán)”byrealisingtheconvergenceofunderstandingbetweenreadersofthetargetlanguageandreadersoftheoriginallanguagethroughItaliantranslationandadditionofnotes.Fromtheperspectiveofthetheoryofpurpose,thestudymakesitclearthatthetranslationoflegaltextsneedstoserveinternationalcommunicationandapplication,sothatthetranslationstrategypaysmoreattentiontoreadabilityandpracticability.Intermsofterminologytranslation,theacademiapromotestheestablishmentofastandardisedglossaryofterms,andreferstointernationalauthoritativelegalterminologydatabasestounifytranslationmethodsandreduceambiguity.Syntactictranslationhasproposedmethodssuchassplittinglongsentences,adjustingtheorderofwords,andpreciselyusingconnectingwordstoensurethatthetranslationislogicallyrigorous,suchasmaintainingtherigorousconditionsandrightrelationsintheoriginaltextinthetranslationoftheprovisionsonsecurityrights.Thetranslationofconceptswithculturalcharacteristicsadoptsstrategiessuchasexplanatorytranslationandinnovativeterminology,forexample,“土地承包經(jīng)營權(quán)”istranslatedas“RighttoContractfortheManagementofLand”,andbyaddinganotetotoexplainitsChineselegalbackgroundandtoconstructanunderstandablelegalconceptinthetargetlanguage.REF_Ref930508377\r\h[2]Thestudyfocusesonimprovingtranslationqualityandproposesmulti-dimensionalsolutions.Throughstrengtheningthetrainingoftranslators'legalexpertise,thestudymakesupforthelackofinterdisciplinaryknowledgeinlawandtranslation;buildsatranslationqualityassessmentsystemtostandardisethetranslationstandardsintermsofterminologicalaccuracy,logicalcoherence,culturaladaptability,etc.;carriesoutcomparativestudiesofmultipletranslations,summarisestheexcellenttranslationexperience,andpromotesthesystematicenhancementofthequalityoftranslationsoftheRealRights.2.2ResearchontranslationoflegaltextstranslafromotherperspectivesThestudyoflegaltextstranslationhasalongandfruitfulhistory.EugeneNaida'stheoryoffunctionalequivalencehashadaprofoundimpactonlegaltextstranslation.Thetheoryemphasisesthattheresponseofthetranslatedreaderstothetranslatedtextshouldbebasicallythesameastheresponseoftheoriginalreaderstotheoriginaltext.Inlegalprovisiontranslation,thetranslatorneedstofindtheclosestexpressiontothefunctionoftheoriginalprovisionaccordingtothelegalcultureandlinguistichabitsofthetargetlanguage.Throughthisfunctionalequivalencetranslation,thetargetlanguagereaderscanunderstandthecorefunctionandmeaningofthelegalprovisionasaccuratelyasthesourcelanguagereaders.Catford'sTranslationTransformationTheoryprovidesamethodforlegaltextstranslationtodealwithdifferencesinlinguisticform.Thetheoryincludeshierarchicalconversionandcategoryconversion,etc.Inlegaltextstranslation,lexicalconversionandothercategoryconversionsituationsoftenoccurinordertoconformtotheexpressionhabitsofthetargetlanguagelegaltexts.REF_Ref931382341\r\h[3]2.3OverviewofstaticequivalencetheoryStaticequivalenceisaconceptproposedbyLiKexingrelativetodynamicreciprocityintranslationtheoryREF_Ref933533637\r\h[4].Althoughstaticreciprocaltranslationissimilartodirectorsemantictranslation,itisnotequivalenttodirectorsemantictranslationmuchlessto“deadtranslation”.Itsconnotationandextensionarericherandbroaderyetstricterthanthatofdirectorsemantictranslation.Atruestaticequivalenttranslationrequiresthatthedeepermeaning,thesurfacemeaning,thelanguagestructure,style,formatandtheoriginaltextoftheseaspectsofthefullequivalencealsorequiresthatthetranslationoftheoriginaltexttothemaximumextentpossibletoreproducetheoriginalauthor'swritingintentions.Basedonthenormativeandstrictnatureoflegaltexts,theauthorbelievesthatthistheoryismoreapplicabletothepracticeoflegalEnglishtranslation.Inforeigncountries,thestudyofstaticreciprocaltranslationtheoryisnotasextensiveandin-depthasitisinChina,butitstillprovidesanimportanttheoreticalframeworkforscholarsinthedisciplineoftranslation,especiallyinthediscussionofformalreciprocityanddynamicreciprocity.TheresearchofthistheoryinChinamainlyfocusesonthefieldoflegaltexttranslation,andsomeofitalsoinvolvesotherfields,whichiselaboratedbyLiKexinginhisworkssuchasOntheStaticequivalencelTranslationofLegalTexts.[4]Hepointedoutthatthecharacteristicsoflegallanguagedeterminethatlegaltranslationneedsandcanachievestaticequivalence.Legaltextshavehighrequirementsforthehomogeneityandconsistencyofvocabularyandsentencestructure,andthewritersoflegaldocumentsarealsomoreprofessional,whichmakeslegaltranslationstendtobestereotypedandpatternedfromformtocontent,providingobjectiveconditionsforstatictranslation.Atthesametime,alargenumberoflegalconceptsandspecialisedtermsrepeatedinthelegaltextsalsomakeitpossibletousethesamevocabularytoachieveapreciselevelofexpression.Intermsofappliedresearch,manyscholarshaveappliedthetheoryofstaticequivalencetothepracticalstudyoftranslationofspecificlegaltexts,forexample,scholarshavetakenthetranslationoflegaltermswithChinesecharacteristicsintheCivilCodeastheobjectofstudy,andbasedonthetheoryofstaticequivalence,havestudiedthestrategyofEnglishtranslationtoensurethatthetranslationcanaccuratelyconveythelegalconceptsandconnotationsoftheoriginaltext.REF_Ref933903391\r\h[5]3.MethodologyThissectionfirstraisescorrespondingissuesregardingthestaticequivalencetheoryinthetranslationoflegaltextsintheRealRights.Then,basedontheseissues,itelaboratesontheresearchtopic,researchobjectives,andappropriatesolutions,inordertoprovideasuitablepracticalbasisandtheoreticalsupportwhenconductingcaseanalyses.3.1ResearchquestionsThegrammaticalstructureofthelegalprovisionsintheRealRightsoftheCivilCodeiscomplex,witharigorouslogicalrelationship,andcontainsnumerousconditionalsentencesaswellasvariousexpressionsoflegalrelationships.Italsoincludesalargenumberofspecializedterms,someofwhichhaveuniqueChineselegalandculturalconnotationsandhavenodirectequivalentsintheinternationalcontext.Basedonthis,thefollowingtwoquestionsareraised.1.Undertheframeworkofthestaticequivalencetheory,howcanthetranslationofChinesecharacteristiclegaltermsinthelegaltextoftheRealRightsbetterconveytheoriginalmeaning?2.Howcanthegrammaticalstructurebeaccuratelytransformedbasedonthestaticequivalencetheory,soastoretainthelogicalsequenceandhierarchyoftheoriginaltextwhileconformingtothegrammaticalrulesandexpressionhabitsofthetargetlanguage?3.2ResearchsubjectsTakingthetranslationoftheprovisionsofthePropertyTitleasanexample,theauthorwillarguebywayofillustrationonthebasisoftheprovisionsofthethreetypicalrealrightsinthePropertyTitle,namely,ownership,usufructandsecurityinterests.Ownershipistherightoftherightholderwithinthelimitsofthelaw,thefulldominationoftheobjectandexcludeothersfrominterferingwiththerightofproperty,istheonlycompleterightofproperty;usufructisthecontentoftheuseoftheobject,incomeforthecontentofthelimitedrightofproperty,includingtherighttolandcontractmanagement,therighttousethelandforconstruction,therighttousethelandforresidentialpurposes,therightofresidenceandtherightofeasement;thesecurityinterestsistoensurethattheclaimforthefulfilmentofthecreationoftherighttodominateaparticularpropertyoftheexchangevalueofthecontentofthelimitedrightofpropertyTypicalsecurityinterestsincludemortgages,pledges,andliens.Thetranslationtechniquesofeachrightareexploredanddevelopedintermsoflexicalequivalenceandsentenceequivalencerespectively.3.3ResearchobjectivesAccuratelyconveythemeaningsofChineselegaltermswithcharacteristics.ByanalyzingtheChineselegaltermswithuniquefeaturesintheRealRightsoftheCivilCode,thisstudyexploreshowtoapplyappropriatetranslationstrategieswithintheframeworkofstaticequivalencetheorytoensuretheaccuratereproductionofthesemanticmeaningandtheeffectivetransmissionoflegalfunctionsofthesetermsinthetargetlanguage,therebyavoidingmisunderstandingsordeviationscausedbyculturaldifferences.Optimizetheconversionmethodsofgrammaticalstructures.Thisresearchinvestigateshowtoreasonablytransformlegalprovisionswithcomplexsyntaxandclearhierarchicalstructureinthesourcelanguageinaccordancewiththestaticequivalencetheory,whileensuringthatthelegallogicandhierarchicalstructureoftheoriginaltextarenotdisrupted,andthatthetranslationconformstotheexpressionnormsandpragmatichabitsofEnglishlegallanguage.basedonthetheoryofstaticequivalence,setindicatorsintermsofterminology,syntax,cultureandotherdimensions,constructanobjectiveassessmentsystem,quantitativelyevaluatethetranslations,identifyproblemsandproposeimprovementmeasures,providereferencefortranslationteaching,andimprovethequalityofthetranslationoftheRealRightsSeriesandtheinternationalinfluenceofChineselaw.3.4ResearchmethodsGuidedbythestaticequivalencetheory,thisstudyemployedacombinationofcasestudyandliteraturereviewmethodstoconductacomparativeanalysisofthevocabularyandsyntaxoftwoEnglishtranslationsoftheRealRightsoftheCivilCode,inordertoexaminethemanifestationandapplicationofthestatictheoryinthesedifferenttranslations.3.4.1CasestudyFocusingonthecorecontentoftheRealRightsSectionoftheCivilCode,provisionsinvolvingkeyconceptssuchasownership,usufructuaryrightsandsecurityrightsareselected,whileattentionispaidtoprovisionscontainingcomplexlegalrelationshipsandculture-specificconcepts.ThesecasesarebothtypicalandcomprehensiveincoveringthemaindifficultiesinthetranslationofthePropertyTitle,andhighlighttheapplicationvalueofthestaticequivalencetheorybycomparingthetreatmentofdifferenttranslations.TheTitleofRealRightsisdividedintofivesub-titles,coveringgeneralprovisions,ownership,usufructuaryrights,securityrightsandpossession,etc.,withalargenumberofprovisionsandastrictlogic.Itcontainsalargenumberofhighlyspecialisedterms,suchas“conventionalusufructonrurallandforagriculturaloperations”,“righttouserurallandasaresidentialLot”,“rightofhabitation”,“l(fā)ienright“etc.The“ConventionalUsufructonRuralLandforAgriculturalOperations”andthe“RighttoUseRuralLandasaResidentialLot”arecolouredwithChinesecharacteristics,andthetranslationprocessneedstohaveadeepunderstandingofthebackgroundoftheirbirth;The“rightofresidence”isanewtypeofpropertyrightinChina'sCivilCode,whichhasnodirectcounterpartintheEnglishlegalsystem;the“easement”hasacomplexlegalrelationshipandinvolvestherightsandobligationsofmanyparties;andthe“securityright”coversavarietyofspecificformsofrealrights,whichneedstobetranslatedtakingintoaccountboththewholeandthedetails.Byanalysingthetranslationoftheseterms,theapplicationofthetheoryofstaticequivalenceinthetranslationofthetermsofthePropertySectionoftheCivilCodecanbecomprehensivelydemonstrated.Inaddition,legalprinciplessuchasthe“principleoflegalrightofproperty”andthe“principleofpublicityandtrust”shouldalsobetranslatedtoensureterminologicalconsistencyandaccuracy,soastomaintaintheauthorityofthelegaltext.3.4.2literatureresearchLiuGuiyingpointsoutinhisStudyontheTheoryofReciprocalTranslationanditsApplicabilitytoLegalTextsthatthetextualcharacteristicsandpurposeoflegaltextsdeterminethattheyaresuitableforstaticreciprocaltranslation.REF_Ref934693320\r\h[6]WhenitcomestotheculturaldifferencesbetweenChineseandWesterncultures,thetranslatordoesnotneedtoconsiderorexplaintheculturaldifferences,anddoesnotneedtotakeintoaccountthereactionofthereadersofthetranslatedtext,whoneedtounderstandclearlythesourcecultureconveyedbythetranslatedlanguagethroughothermeans.Thetranslator'stranslationprocessisastaticapproach,whichistheessentialdifferencebetweenstaticreciprocaltranslationandNaida'sdynamicreciprocaltranslation.LiKexingalsointhe“onthelegaltextofthestaticequivalenttranslation”onthestaticequivalenttranslationoflegaldocumentsontheeffectivenessofthetranslatedtextinaccordancewiththetranslationofthelegalactsperformedinaccordancewiththesourcetextofthelegalactsshouldbethesame.Thetranslatedtextmusthaveexactlythesamelegaleffectasthesourcetext.Inordertoachievethis,theentrypointattheoperationallevelisthateverywriting/legislativeintentoftheauthorsofthesourcelegaltext(includinglegislators/judges/lawyers,etc.)mustbereproducedtothegreatestextentpossibleinthetranslatedtext,andalltheinformationinthesourcetext,fromthequalitytothequantitytothetype,mustbepreciselyandstaticallyexpressed,sothattheinformationinthetranslatedtextandthatinthesourcetextarecompletelyequivalent.4.AnalysisoflegaltextstranslationinrealrightsfromstaticequivalenceInthefieldoflegaltranslation,itiscrucialtoensurehomogeneityandconsistencyinthetranslatedtext.Inthispart,theauthorwilltakesomeexamplesfromtheEnglishtranslationoftheCivilCode,andarguetheapplicationofthestaticequivalencetheoryinthetranslationcasesoflexicalandsyntacticbycomparingthetwomoreauthoritativeversionsthanothers,theCLA（法工委）andthePKULAW（北大法寶）.Vocabularyequivalencenotonlyrequiresthateachlegaltermisusedinastandardisedway,butalsorequiresthattheirhomogeneityandconsistencybeensuredinthetranslationprocess,onthisbasis,theuseofprepositionsisalsoparticularlyimportant,andthesamewordsandevenprepositionsshouldbeusedinthesamecontexttoensurethatastrictequivalenceisformedbetweenthetermsofthetranslatedlegaltext.第二百九十八條按份共有人對共有的不動產(chǎn)或者動產(chǎn)按照其份額享有所有權(quán)。Targettext1（CLA）Co-ownersbyshareshavetheownershipoftheco-ownedimmovableormovablepropertyaccordingtotheirshares.（PKULAW）Co-ownersindividedco-ownershiphavetheownershipofaco-ownedimmovableormovableinproportiontotheirshares.第二百九十九條共同共有人對共有的不動產(chǎn)或者動產(chǎn)共同享有所有權(quán)。（CLA）Article299Jointco-ownersjointlyhavetheownershipoftheco-ownedimmovableormovableproperty.（PKULAW）Article299Co-ownersinundividedco-ownershipjointlyenjoytheownershipofaco-ownedimmovableormovable.Target1tendstoadoptthedirecttranslationmethod,translating“按份共有人”as“co-ownersbyshares”and“共同共有人”as“jointco-owners”.Thistranslationmethodishighlyconsistentwiththeoriginaltextintermsofform,preservingthelanguagestructureandarrangementorderintheChineselegalprovisions,achievingacertaindegreeofstaticlexicalequivalence.However,thereareissueswiththevocabularyusage,suchasthetermsbeinglessstandardizedortheusagebeingsomewhatmundane.Forexample,“havetheownership”althoughclearinmeaning,isnotassuitableas“enjoyownership”or“holdtitle”fortheEnglishlegalcontext;atthesametime,therepeateduseoftheword“joint”(jointco-ownersjointlyhave...)isalsosomewhatcumbersome,disruptingthebrevityandconcisenessthatEnglishlegallanguageshouldhave.Incontrast,Target2placesgreateremphasisontheaccuracyoflegalprofessionaltermsandinternationallyacceptedexpressions.Forinstance,translating"按份共有"as"dividedco-ownership"and"共同共有"as"undividedco-ownership"notonlymaintainsanexactcorrespondenceinmeaningwiththeoriginalChinesewords,butisalsoatermwidelyrecognizedinthecivillawsystemandinternationalprivatelawfields.Thischoiceofterminologydemonstratesahigherlevelofstaticlexicalequivalence,meaningnotonlyaliteralequivalencebutalsoanequivalentinlegalsemanticsandinstitutionalaspects.Moreover,expressionssuchas"inproportiontotheirshares"and"jointlyenjoytheownership"usemorestandardizedandidiomaticlanguage,reflectingthecommoncollocationsandtermcombinationsoflegalEnglishinexpressingownershiprelationships,therebyenhancingtheprofessionalismandreadabilityofthetext.第三百三十三條土地承包經(jīng)營權(quán)自土地承包經(jīng)營權(quán)合同生效時設(shè)立。（CLA）Aconventionalusufructonrurallandforagriculturaloperationsshallbecreatedfromthedatewhenthecontractfortheusufructonrurallandforagriculturaloperationsbecomesvalid.（PKULAW）Arighttocontractualmanagementoflandiscreatedatthetimewhenthecontractontherighttocontractualmanagementoflandentersintoeffect.Arighttocontractualmanagementoflandreferstotherightofnaturalpersonsorsocialorganisationstopossess,useandbenefitfromlandcollectivelyownedbypeasantsorownedbytheStateandusedbythepeasantscollectivelyonthebasisofacontract.Bothtranslationsaccuratelyuse“contract”for“合同”,“right”for“權(quán)利”,and“enterintoeffect”for“生效”.whicharedifferentfromtheoriginalChineseterms“contract”,“right”and“benefit”.ThecommonlegalEnglishtermssuchas“contract”,“right”for“right”and“enterintoeffect”intheoriginalChinesetextformamoreaccuratecorrespondencewiththeconceptsof“contract”,“right”and“enterintoeffect”intheoriginalChinesetext,andachieveastaticequivalenceintheuseofbasiclegalterms.Thefirsttranslationuses“conventionalusufructonrurallandforagriculturaloperations”toexpress“土地承包經(jīng)營權(quán)”,whichisslightlycomplex;thesecondtranslationuses“righttocontractualmanagementofland”,whichismoreconciseandclear,andisamorecommonexpression.Inaddition,thefirsttranslationuses“date”toemphasiseaspecificdate,whiletheseconduses“time”toplacemoreemphasisonapointintime,whichreflectsthedifferenceinvocabularychoiceinasubtleway,butbothcanconveythebasiclanguageof“之時”.Example3:第三百四十四條：建設(shè)用地使用權(quán)人依法對國家所有的土地享有占有、使用和收益的權(quán)利，有權(quán)利用該土地建造建筑物、構(gòu)筑物及其附屬設(shè)施。（CLA）Article344WithrespecttotheState-ownedlandzonedforconstructionpurposes,apersonwiththerighttousealotofsuchlandisentitledtopossess,use,andbenefitfromthelot,andtouseittoconstructbuildings,structures,andauxiliaryfacilities.（PKULAW）Article344Theholderoftherighttouselandforconstructionshall,inaccordancewiththelaw,havetherighttopossess,useandenjoythelandownedbythestate,andshallhavetherighttousesuchlandtoconstructbuildings,structuresandtheirancillaryfacilities.Firstly,inthetranslationof"建設(shè)用地使用權(quán)人",theTarget2uses"theholderoftherighttouselandforconstruction",whichismoreterm-orientedcomparedtotheexplanatoryexpression"apersonwiththerighttousealotofsuchland"intheTarget1,accuratelyconveyingthelegalstatusandsemanticstructureoftheoriginaltext.Secondly,theTarget2retainstheexpression“依法”,ensuringthecompletenessofthelegalauthorizationtone,whiletheTarget1omitsthiskeycomponent,weakeningthenormativefeatureoftheoriginaltext.Regardingthephrase"國家所有的土地",theTarget2directlytranslatesitas"landownedbythestate",achievingword-for-wordcorrespondence.WhiletheTarget1addstheextendedcontent"zonedforconstructionpurposes",althoughitisgrammaticallycorrect,itdeviatesfromthemeaningoftheoriginalsentence.Additionally,whenexpressingthethreerightsof"占有、使用和收益",theTarget2uses"possess,useandenjoy",usingthetraditionallegalterm"enjoy"whichismoreinlinewiththestyleoflegaltexts,whiletheTarget1's"benefitfrom"iscloseinmeaningbutlackstheprecisionoflegalterminology.Finally,inthetranslationof"附屬設(shè)施"，theTarget2corresponds"附屬"with"ancillaryfacilities"，havingamoreformaltone，andrealizesclearsyntacticstructureequivalencethrough"their".Example4:第三百六十二條宅基地使用權(quán)人依法對集體所有的土地享有占有和使用的權(quán)利，有權(quán)依法利用該土地建造住宅及其附屬設(shè)施。（CLA）Article362Apersonwhohastherighttouseahousesiteisentitledtopossessandusethelotoflandownedbythecollective,andtoutilizesuchlotoflandtobuildadwellingandauxiliaryfacilitiesinaccordancewithlaw.（PKULAW）Article362Theholderoftherighttouserurallandasaresidentiallotshall,inaccordancewiththelaw,havetherighttopossessandusecollectively-ownedland,andusethelandforconstructinghousesandtheirancillaryfacilities.requiresensuringthatrepeatedlegalconceptsaretranslatedusingthesamesentencestructure,grammaticalformandpunctuationintheprocessoftranslatinglegaltexts,inordertoensurethataone-to-oneequivalenceisformedpriortothetranslationandthesourcetext,whichisthecoreofthetheoryofstaticequivalence,andthepurposeofwhichistomaintaintheaccuracyandseriousnessofthetranslationoflegaltexts.Example5:第三百六十六條居住權(quán)人有權(quán)按照合同約定，對他人的住宅享有占有、使用的用益物權(quán)，以滿足生活居住的需要。（CLA）Article366Apersonwitharightofhabitationisentitledtotherighttousufructofpossessingandusinganotherperson”sdwellingasagreedinthecontract,soastomeethisneedsofhabitation.（PKULAW）Article366Asagreeduponinacontract,apersonhavingarightofhabitationenjoystheusufructtooccupyanduseanother'shousingunitsoastomeettheneedsofliving.ThesyntacticstructureofTarget1closelyfollowstheChineseoriginal,with"beentitledtotherighttousufruct"asthecorepredicatestructure,continuingtheexpressionof“...有權(quán)”;“asagreedinthecontract”followsimmediately,achievingastaticequivalencewith“按照合同約定”;theuseof“soastomeethisneedsofhabitation”clearlyexpressesthepurposeclause,correspondingto“以滿足生活需要”,thesentencestructureisslightlylengthy,andtherepeateduseofthestructure"rightto"maycauselanguageburden.Target2adoptsaprepositionalphrase-earlysentencestructure(Asagreed...),whichisclosertotheEnglishexpressionhabitandslightlydeviatesfromtheChineseoriginalorder;“enjoystheusufructtooccupyanduse…”Itretai