English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

One of the difficulties in legal English translation lies in how translators understand and convey legal terminology. For one thing, it requires functional equivalence in language; for another, legal functional equivalence is also needed. According to the Equivalence Theory of Sarcevic, and considering the different levels of language and legal functional equivalence in the corresponding words from the source language to the target language, the following measures can be taken in legal terminology translation: using the exact words when concepts are equivalent; using functionally equivalent words when concepts are nearly or partly equivalent; using paraphrase, neutral, borrowed, or neologisms when concepts are totally different.

Equivalence Theory and Legal Translation: Achieving functional equivalence in Chinese and English legal terminology