CHALLENGES OF MODAL VERB TRANSLATION IN THE VIETNAMESE LAW ON ENTERPRISES INTO ENGLISH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51453/3093-3706/2026/1409Keywords:
Translation challenges, Modality, Legal discourse, Modal translation, Legal tranlslationAbstract
This paper investigates the challenges of translating Vietnamese modal verbs in the Vietnamese Law on Enterprises into English. Drawing on a parallel corpus comprising the 2020 Vietnamese Law on Enterprises and its English translation, the study adopts descriptive and contrastive methodologies to analyze modal usage across languages. Six core challenges emerge: (1) the use of shall, (2) the use of must, (3) translating double modal constructions, (4) omissions of modal expressions in English translations, (5) additions of modal expressions in English translations, (6) practical translator decisions when Vietnamese clauses lack explicit modals. The contrastive analysis leads to a key recommendation: translate phải as must in English rather than shall. The study also highlights the frequent unsuitability of the is required to construction for translating phải. When Vietnamese texts omit modals, English modal markers require careful selection to preserve the source language’s normative stance and legal precision. While the corpus provides substantial insights for legislative translation, findings may be most applicable to similar legal genres. The research contributes to theoretical understanding of modality transfer, informs translator education, and offers practical guidance for producing faithful, consistent, and enforceable cross-linguistic legal translations.
Downloads
References
1. Asprey, M. M. (1992). Shall must go. Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 3, 79-84.
2. Biel, Ł. (2017). Researching legal translation: A multi-perspective and mixed-method framework for legal translation. Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, 68, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.2436/rld.i68.2017.2967
3. Bui, T. N. (2004). Khảo sát các động từ tình thái trong tiếng Việt [A survey of modal verbs in Vietnamese] [Doctoral dissertation]. Ha Noi Vietnam National University.
4. Bukarica, A. E. (2019). The use of modal verbs in English legal texts and their Serbian equivalents. Zbornik za jezike i književnosti Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 9(9), 73–96.
5. Catford, J. C. (2000). A linguistic theory of translation: An essay on applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
6. Cheng, L., & Wang, X. (2017). Modals and modality in legal discourse: A corpus-based sociosemiotic interpretation. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric (IJSVR), 1(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSVR.2017010103
7. Cooper, P. K. (2011). Is there a case for the abolition of “shall” from EU legislation. RGSL Research Papers, 1.
8. Depraetere, I. (2015). Modality. In The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 370-386). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685533
9. Downing, A., & Locke, P. (2002). A university course in English grammar. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087640
10. Emily, P. W. Y. (2005). The cultural transfer in legal translation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 18(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-005-9004-7
11. Felici, A. (2012). Shall ambiguities in EU legislative texts. Comparative Legilinguistics, 10(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2012.10.04
12. Fennell, B. A., & Butters, R. R. (2011). Historical and contemporary distribution of double modals in English. In E. W. Schneider (Ed.), Focus on the USA (pp. 265–288). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.19.1.10pla
13. Frawley, W. (Ed.). (2008). The expression of modality (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197570
14. Ho, V. H. (2023). The expressions of epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese: A contrastive on “thấy” and “nghĩ” in Vietnamese and mental verbs in English. World Journal of English Language, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n5p231
15. Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18
16. Kimble, J. (1992). The many misuses of shall. Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, 3, 61-77.
17. Kirakosyanová, N. (2021). Development of modal verb “shall” in legal English [Bachelor thesis]. Univerzita Karlova.
18. Knežević, B., & Brdar, I. (2011). Modals and modality in translation: A case study based approach. Jezikoslovlje, XII(2), 117–145.
19. Lebedeva, I. S., & Orlova, S. N. (2019). Semantics and pragmatics of the double modal “might could”. Training, Language and Culture, 3(2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.29366/2019tlc.3.2.5
20. Nguyen, Q. (2002). Tình thái và các góc độ nghiên cứu. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 18(2), 16–22.
21. Nguyen, T. L., & Tran, H. (2019). The Modality and The Meaning of Modality of the Vietnamese Verdicts. Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Journal of Science, 16(5), 69-79.
22. Nguyen, T. N. (2016). Nghĩa tình thái đạo lí của câu trong các văn bản văn học giảng dạy ở trường trung học phổ thông [Deontic modality of sentences in literary texts taught at high schools]. Ngôn ngữ & Đời sống, (5), 12–20.
23. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Brill Archive.
24. Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.
25. Pei, J., & Li, J. (2018). A corpus-based investigation of modal verbs in Chinese civil-commercial legislation and its English versions. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 3(1), 77-102. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2018-2003
26. Sarcevic, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
27. Sergeyevna, Y. M. (2025). Overcoming linguistic challenges in translation: Strategies for success. American Journal of Philological Sciences, 5(04), 60–62. https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue04-16
28. Suhadi, J. (2017). Epistemic modality and deontic modality: Two sides of a coin. In Proceedings of The 3rd Annual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) 2013, (pp. 323–328). Banda Aceh, Indonesia: Syiah Kuala University. https://doi.org/10.31227/osf.io/wv7zx
29. Thornton, G. C. (1987). Legislative drafting (Vol. 56). London: Butterworths.
30. Triebel, V. (2009). Pitfalls of English as a contract language. In Translation issues in language and law (pp. 147–181). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
All articles published in SJTTU are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA) license. This means anyone is free to copy, transform, or redistribute articles for any lawful purpose in any medium, provided they give appropriate attribution to the original author(s) and SJTTU, link to the license, indicate if changes were made, and redistribute any derivative work under the same license.
Copyright on articles is retained by the respective author(s), without restrictions. A non-exclusive license is granted to SJTTU to publish the article and identify itself as its original publisher, along with the commercial right to include the article in a hardcopy issue for sale to libraries and individuals.
Although the conditions of the CC BY-SA license don't apply to authors (as the copyright holder of your article, you have no restrictions on your rights), by submitting to SJTTU, authors recognize the rights of readers, and must grant any third party the right to use their article to the extent provided by the license.
