This paper analyses some key issues related to legal-institutional translation, a specialized and fascinating area, which plays a significant role as a means of communication between legal systems. In an attempt to provide an integrated... more
This paper analyses some key issues related to legal-institutional translation, a specialized and fascinating area, which plays a significant role as a means of communication between legal systems.
In an attempt to provide an integrated approach to legal translation, this dissertation focuses on some methodological similarities between comparative lawyers and legal translators when faced with two major problems: the incommensurability between legal systems, which determines a degree of conceptual and terminological incongruency between legal languages. In order to be effective, legal translation must take account of both legal and linguistic aspects: building upon legal comparison, further dimensions need to be considered, essentially relating to linguistic and extra-linguistic factors in terms of the context and the distinctive nature of legal discourse.
In legal language some clear traits can be identified at various levels: specific technical terms, stylistic features, complex syntax and the frequent resort to standardized forms and stock phrases. In addition, the language of the law is inherently vague and polysemic. Structural characteristics include the system- and culture-boundedness of legal discourse and the special pragmatic status of legal texts, essentially connected with the performative nature of legal language, defined as a “langage d’action”.
The distinctive nature of legal texts has methodological and practical consequences. Legal translation is not a process of terminological transcoding and involves specific aspects, which mark it off from other areas of specialized translational activities and require special strategies and techniques.
The main emphasis will be on some key cases for discussion: the dispute on untranslatability, the debated concept of equivalence and Nord’s theoretical distinction, based on the function of the translated text, between instrumental and documentary translation.
An attempt is made to shed light on the first two issues in their development over time, eventually rejecting the idea that there is one universally applicable concept of equivalence. Therefore, standardized and absolute models should be abandoned in favor of a more dynamic and flexible approach, based on an integrated approach to legal concepts and pragmatic considerations. Some examples are presented to show that, on this basis, legal translation is possible and productive.
A dynamic approach is also relevant when theoretical principles are implemented in actual practice, which is characterized by indefinite situations with blurred edges. According to Dullion’s analysis, Nord’s distinction corresponds to a continuum with two extreme poles and several intermediate cases. For example, documentary translations can produce indirect legal effects in practice; moreover, thanks to translation legal texts can be a vehicle for legal transplants and the introduction of legal concepts in new systems.
Attention is also drawn to the changing role and competences of legal translator, who is now regarded as an active mediator, whose decision-making powers and responsibilities have been constantly increasing.
The concluding remarks attempt to show that, if a dynamic and flexible approach is chosen, legal translation can enhance knowledge, information and text quality, thus enabling and improving cross-cultural and cross-system legal communication. Some examples will be analyzed in the end, opening the way to further comments: legal translation is not only possible but also vital in our era of multilingualism and globalization.
In an attempt to provide an integrated approach to legal translation, this dissertation focuses on some methodological similarities between comparative lawyers and legal translators when faced with two major problems: the incommensurability between legal systems, which determines a degree of conceptual and terminological incongruency between legal languages. In order to be effective, legal translation must take account of both legal and linguistic aspects: building upon legal comparison, further dimensions need to be considered, essentially relating to linguistic and extra-linguistic factors in terms of the context and the distinctive nature of legal discourse.
In legal language some clear traits can be identified at various levels: specific technical terms, stylistic features, complex syntax and the frequent resort to standardized forms and stock phrases. In addition, the language of the law is inherently vague and polysemic. Structural characteristics include the system- and culture-boundedness of legal discourse and the special pragmatic status of legal texts, essentially connected with the performative nature of legal language, defined as a “langage d’action”.
The distinctive nature of legal texts has methodological and practical consequences. Legal translation is not a process of terminological transcoding and involves specific aspects, which mark it off from other areas of specialized translational activities and require special strategies and techniques.
The main emphasis will be on some key cases for discussion: the dispute on untranslatability, the debated concept of equivalence and Nord’s theoretical distinction, based on the function of the translated text, between instrumental and documentary translation.
An attempt is made to shed light on the first two issues in their development over time, eventually rejecting the idea that there is one universally applicable concept of equivalence. Therefore, standardized and absolute models should be abandoned in favor of a more dynamic and flexible approach, based on an integrated approach to legal concepts and pragmatic considerations. Some examples are presented to show that, on this basis, legal translation is possible and productive.
A dynamic approach is also relevant when theoretical principles are implemented in actual practice, which is characterized by indefinite situations with blurred edges. According to Dullion’s analysis, Nord’s distinction corresponds to a continuum with two extreme poles and several intermediate cases. For example, documentary translations can produce indirect legal effects in practice; moreover, thanks to translation legal texts can be a vehicle for legal transplants and the introduction of legal concepts in new systems.
Attention is also drawn to the changing role and competences of legal translator, who is now regarded as an active mediator, whose decision-making powers and responsibilities have been constantly increasing.
The concluding remarks attempt to show that, if a dynamic and flexible approach is chosen, legal translation can enhance knowledge, information and text quality, thus enabling and improving cross-cultural and cross-system legal communication. Some examples will be analyzed in the end, opening the way to further comments: legal translation is not only possible but also vital in our era of multilingualism and globalization.
