NAATI法律翻译分享 – 一个价值500万美元的逗号A $5 Million Comma – A NAATI Legal Translation Reflection (双语)

作为一个 NAATI普通话口译员，每天的工作中，至少有一半甚至超过一半都与法律相关。无论是中国大陆的法律体系，还是英美法系，法律语言的严谨性无需多言。

在法律世界里，“咬文嚼字”不是挑剔，而是必要。法律翻译，是翻译领域中极具挑战性的工作。

翻译本身就具有“不可翻译性”这一特性。有些源语言中的词汇、制度、概念，在目标语言中根本不存在完全对等的表达。而作为 NAATI翻译、三级认证翻译从业者，我们必须严格遵守“准确原则”。在某些特定情况下，译员只能以“译者备注”的方式进行必要说明——这是少数可以“解释”的情形。

很多时候，感觉像是在钢丝上跳舞，戴着手铐的艺术。

今天分享的，是一个简简单单的逗号。简单，又不简单。一个价值500万美元的逗号。

案例背景：2017年，美国缅因州一家乳制品公司的送货司机起诉公司，要求支付加班费。根据缅因州法律，员工每周工作超过40小时通常应获得加班工资。但法律中同时列出若干“豁免”岗位，其中包括从事：“packing for shipment or distribution”（为运输或分销而进行包装）问题在于，这句话缺少牛津逗号（Oxford comma），导致出现两种可能的理解。

第一种解读（公司立场）

“distribution（分销）”是一个独立的豁免活动。

也就是说：

为运输而进行包装，或者分销。

如果分销本身是独立行为，那么送货司机属于分销人员，根据豁免条款，公司无需支付加班费。

第二种解读（司机立场）

该条文只豁免“为运输或分销而进行的包装”这一单一行为。

也就是说： 只有从事“包装”的员工才属于豁免范围。司机并不从事包装工作，因此不应被豁免，应获得加班费。这起“牛津逗号案”的争议来源于缅因州加班法本身的条文表述，而非公司劳动合同。上诉法院认定：该条文存在歧义。在劳动法框架下，若条文存在模糊，应从保护劳动者权益的角度作狭义解释。最终，法院支持司机的主张。公司随后达成约500万美元的和解。

这个案件因此被广泛称为“牛津逗号案”，成为法律语言精确性的重要案例。

一个更简单的例子，帮你理解牛津逗号化解歧义的功能。

没有牛津逗号：

I invited my parents, Tom and Lucy.

我邀请了我的父母、汤姆和露西。

可能有两种理解：

1.我的父母就是汤姆和露西。（只有两个人）

2.我邀请了三组人：我的父母、汤姆、露西。

有牛津逗号：

I invited my parents, Tom, and Lucy.

我邀请了三组人：

• 我的父母

• 汤姆

• 露西

意义清晰，没有歧义。

一个牛津逗号，消除了可能的歧义。

题外话：逗号的区别

逗号，分为中文逗号和英文逗号。

中文逗号： ，

英文逗号： ,

普通人可能看不出区别。

但在法律翻译中，每一个标点都有可能影响理解。

从NAATI认证翻译角度看，无论是：

驾照翻译

出生证翻译

结婚证翻译

无犯罪证明翻译

微信翻译

短信翻译

这些看似“简单”的文件，都可能作为证据上庭，具有法律效力。

作为 NAATI翻译专家、三级翻译、认证翻译从业者，我们不仅在翻译文字，更是在传递法律意义。帮读者获得公正。

谨记：法律语言不允许“差不多”。

A $5 Million Comma – A NAATI Legal Translation Reflection (Bilingual)

As a NAATI Certified Mandarin Interpreter, at least half – often more than half – of my daily work involves legal matters. Whether within the legal system of Mainland China or under common law jurisdictions, the rigor of legal language speaks for itself.

In the legal world, careful wording is not pedantry – it is necessity. Legal translation is one of the most challenging areas in the translation profession.

Translation itself carries the inherent characteristic of “untranslatability.” Certain terms, systems, and concepts in the source language simply do not have fully equivalent expressions in the target language. As practitioners engaged in NAATI translation and Level 3 Certified Translation, we must strictly adhere to the principle of accuracy. In specific circumstances, the only permissible clarification is clearly identified as a translator’s note – this is one of the very few situations in which a translator may “explain.”

Many times, it feels like performing art on a tightrope – while wearing handcuffs.

Today’s case is about a seemingly simple comma. Simple, yet not simple. A comma worth five million dollars.

Case Background: In 2017, delivery drivers for a dairy company in Maine, United States, sued their employer for unpaid overtime. Under Maine law, employees who work more than 40 hours per week are generally entitled to overtime pay. However, the statute also lists certain exempt categories of work, including employees engaged in “packing for shipment or distribution.” The issue was that this phrase lacked an Oxford comma, which created two possible interpretations.

First Interpretation (Company’s Position)

“Distribution” is treated as a stand-alone exempt activity.

In other words:

Packing for shipment, or distribution.

If distribution itself is an independent activity, then delivery drivers fall within the scope of distribution. Under the exemption clause, the company would not be required to pay overtime.

Second Interpretation (Drivers’ Position)

The provision exempts only the single activity of “packing for shipment or distribution.”

In other words, only employees engaged in packing fall within the exemption. The drivers did not perform packing work; therefore, they should not be exempt and should be entitled to overtime pay.

The dispute in this “Oxford comma case” originated from the wording of the Maine overtime statute itself, not from the company’s employment contract. The appellate court held that the provision was ambiguous. Under labor law principles, when a statutory provision is unclear, it must be interpreted narrowly in favor of protecting employees’ rights. Ultimately, the court supported the drivers’ position. The company later reached a settlement of approximately five million dollars.

This case has since been widely referred to as the “Oxford Comma Case” and has become an important example of the precision required in legal language.

A simpler example helps illustrate how the Oxford comma removes ambiguity.

Without the Oxford comma:

I invited my parents, Tom and Lucy.

This sentence may be understood in two ways:

1. My parents are Tom and Lucy. (Only two people.)
2. I invited three parties: my parents, Tom, and Lucy.

With the Oxford comma:

I invited my parents, Tom, and Lucy.

It means, I invited three groups of people

• My parents
• Tom
• Lucy

The meaning is clear and free from ambiguity.

One Oxford comma eliminates potential misunderstanding.

A brief note on punctuation: There are Chinese commas and English commas.

Chinese comma: ，
English comma: ,

Most people may not notice much difference. However, in legal translation, every punctuation mark may affect interpretation.

From the perspective of a NAATI certified translator and NAATI translation expert, whether it involves:

• Driver’s licence translation
• Birth certificate translation
• Marriage certificate translation
• No criminal record translation / Police clearance translation
• WeChat translation
• SMS translation

These seemingly “simple” documents may be submitted as evidence in court and carry legal effect.

As a NAATI translation expert, Level 3 translator, and Certified Translation practitioner, we are not merely translating words – we are conveying legal meaning and helping readers access fairness and justice.

Remember: Legal language does not allow “nearly correct.”