Shall and its Thai translations in the ASEAN Double Tax Treaties: a corpus-based study

Main Article Content

Mali Satthachai


This study aims to reveal the functions of shall and its Thai translations in the ASEAN Double Tax Treaties. The comparisons were conducted based on three self-built legal corpora: an English monolingual comparable corpus (228,280 words), an English-Thai parallel corpus (146,334 words) and a Thai monolingual comparable corpus (1,173,485 words). This study, first investigated the frequency and functions of shall in the ASEAN Double Tax Treaties in the light of plain writing principles (Williams, 2011). It also examined the Thai translations of shall by focusing on the relationship between English texts and Thai translations, based on equivalence (Biel, 2014), source language shining through (Teich, 2003), and between Thai translations and Thai non-translated texts in a legal genre (Biel’s (2014) textual fit, and Teich’s (2003) normalization). The findings reveal that the plain writing principles are not adopted when it comes to shall and its translations. There is the evidence of equivalence (Biel, 2014) between the source text and translation. Also, the Thai translations of shall are oriented more towards their source texts which in turn, lessens the textual fit (Biel, 2014) and makes them different from comparable texts in the same language.

Article Details

How to Cite
Satthachai, M. (2023). Shall and its Thai translations in the ASEAN Double Tax Treaties: a corpus-based study. Chiang Mai University Journal of Humanities, 24(2), 92–119. Retrieved from
Research Articles


Adler, M. (2012). The plain language movement. In L. M. Solan & P. M. Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 67-83). Oxford University Press.

Biel, Ł. (2014). Lost in the eurofog: The textual fit of translated law. Peter Lang.

Cambridge Dictionary (2023).

European Commission. (2022). English style guide of European Commission: A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission. English Style Guide - European Commission / english-style-guide-european-commission.pdf / PDF4PRO

Felici, A. (2012). Shall ambiguities in EU legislative texts. Comparative Legilinguistics, 10(1), 51-66.

Foley, R. (2000). Legislative language in the EU: The crucible. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 15(4), 361-374.

Garner B. A. (2004). Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.). Thomas/West.

Garzone, G. (2001). Deontic modality and performativity in English legal texts. In M. Gotti & M. Dossena (Eds.), Modality in specialized texts. Selected papers of the 1st CERLIS Conference (pp. 153-173). Peter Lang.

Giczela-Pastwa, J. (2019). Inverse legal translation: A corpus-driven study of multi-word units related to the structure of translated statutory provisions. In Ł. Biel, J. Engberg, R. M. Ruano & V. Sosoni (Eds.), Research methods in legal and interpreting: Crossing methodological boundaries (pp. 48-65). Routledge.

Iwasaki, S. (1998). Causative and benefactive constructions in Thai. In S.L. Chellian & W.J.D (eds.)., Reuse papers from the fifth annual meeting of the Southeast Asian linguistics society (pp. 201-210). Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.

Iwasaki, S. & Ingkaphirom, P. (2005). A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge University Press.

Kenny, D. (2009). Equivalence. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd ed.) (pp. 96-99). Routledge.

Kilgarriff, A. (n.d.). Sketch Engine.

Lembersky, G., Ordan, N. & Wintner, S. (2012). Language models for machine translation: Original vs. translated texts. Computational Linguistics, 38(4), 799-825.

Lembersky, G., Ordan, N. & Wintner, S. (2013). Improving statistical machine translation by adapting translation models to translationese. Computational Linguistics, 39(4), 999-1023.

National Electronics and Computer Technology Center. (n.d.). Thai romanization.

Nida, E. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. E. J. Brill.

Palmer, F. R. (2009). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Pontrandolfo, G. (2019). Corpus methods in legal translation studies. In Ł. Biel, J. Engberg, R. M. Ruano & V. Sosoni (Eds.), Research methods in legal and interpreting: Crossing methodological boundaries (pp. 13-28). Routledge.

Rayson, P. (n.d.). Log-Likelihood.

Šarčević, S. (1997). New Approach to Legal Translation. Kluwer Law International.

Šarčevic, S. (2000). New approach to legal Translation. Kluwer Law International.

Satthachai, M. & Kenny, D. (2019). Deontic modality in English-Thai legislative translation: A corpus-based study. Translation Spaces, 8(1), 39-66.


Satthachai, M. (2019). Passive, deontic modality and cohesive conjunction in English-to-Thai legislative translation: A corpus-based study [Doctoral dissertation, Dublin City University]. DCU Online Research Access Service

Srioutai, J. (2004). The Thai Cla: A marker of tense or modality? Camling, 2, 100-107.

Smyth, D. (2014). Thai an essential grammar (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Teich, E. (2003). Cross-linguistic variation in system and text. A method for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Mouton de Gruyter.

Thai Royal Institute Dictionary. (2011).

Uwanno, B. (2000). Administrative Law [กฎหมายปกครอง]. Bangkok: Netibhandisapa

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969).


Wang, J. & Cheng, X. (2014). Misuse of shall in the English translation of China’s legal text. World Journal of English Language, (4)1, 25-31.

Williams, C. J. (2009). Legal English and the modal revolution. In R. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. Van Der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description (pp. 199-210). Mouton De Gruyter.

Williams, C. J. (2011). Legal English and plain English: An update. ESP Across Cultures, 8, 139-151.