You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Humanities
  • Article
  • Open Access

18 February 2013

The Legal Translator’s Approach to Texts

Technische Universität Darmstadt TUD, Hochschulstraße 1, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
This article belongs to the Special Issue Translation as the Foundation for Humanistic Investigations

Abstract

Translation can be a basis for humanistic investigations when translation is seen as a personalized activity. The article describes, on the basis of hermeneutics, the specific perspective from which a translator may approach legal texts. Various aspects have to be considered in such texts, since the cultural and legal background is evident in linguistic aspects at the text level. Different text types are rooted in a specific legal system and fulfill their function within a special field of law. Comparative law does research on the differences in legal concepts, whereas translation uses this knowledge as a basis. Legal terminology presents various levels of abstraction and appears in texts besides general language words. Well-grounded understanding along with subject knowledge is necessary for legal translation. This should be combined with proficiency in writing in the legal style. The translator tries to make source cultural and legal aspects transparent for target readers, as translation is always a means of comprehension that furthers communication.

1. Introduction

The humanities deal with persons and their work—in research and in professional practice. Translation as the act of social mediation of messages is thus a core object of humanistic investigations. The translating person is confronted with the task of understanding a given text in order to present its content in another language for readers in a different culture. The focus is on the translator’s cognition and activity in relationship to the surrounding cultures and the subject fields represented in texts. The translator needs a special competence, and this situates our theoretical approach within the paradigm of philosophical hermeneutics that reflects on the conditions of comprehension as a human outlook toward the world [1]. Hermeneutics explores the possibility of understanding otherness, and this is central for the task of translating which cannot be reduced to only an interlingual transfer in the sense of replacing “the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text by a chain of signifiers in the target language” [2].
From the hermeneutical perspective, translational reading has a medial effect and leads to a new formulation of the message understood based on subject knowledge, cultural awareness, and stylistic proficiency. The point of departure for translational hermeneutics is the awareness that a translator can only translate what and how he or she has understood it. Translation, in practice, is a task yet to be performed; no methodological steps can be operationalized. What one can do, however, is to describe some points of orientation in the world of texts for the translator. But before that, it will be useful to first define some important concepts in this field of the hermeneutical dealing with texts.

2. Important Concepts of Translational Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is characterized by a concept of scholarship different from science, which is stressed again today as modern [3]. It is typical for the humanities. Here, instead of giving an endless continuation of causal relations as a proof, or the logical deduction of truth by inference, authors attempt to reasonably motivate an opinion or argumentation.
Truth is knowledge that is inter-subjectively plausible and is gained by discussion and negotiation. Consensus is construed in dialogue by persuasion and argumentation, and truth exists only as a shared knowledge within a group. Everybody here has a share in it, but with any change in the community, this must be negotiated anew. There is no absolute objective truth that would be valid forever and for everybody. Rather, any subjective conviction must be motivated and explained in order to be acceptable for others. And learning is always possible. Questions of comprehension, of the phenomenology of intercultural differences, of one’s orientation in the world, of translation strategies in formulating, are relevant. In order to better discuss hermeneutics as a research paradigm in translation studies (TS), we will discuss some concepts in this field, such as subjectivity, historicity, phenomenology, process character, holistic nature, and reflection.

2.1. Subjectivity

Subjectivity cannot be excluded from hermeneutical thinking, because the language activity of human beings is at stake here, and this is always determined by their respective historical situation, the given knowledge base, and their own life experience. The intelligibility of a text is relative to the audience and its capability.

2.2. Historicity

Historicity is decisive, as persons change permanently while living together. The language of a people is also evolving constantly. The objects of research in humanities are objects having developed over time ([3], p. 31). There is the “consciousness of being affected by history” [4]. The subjectivity of personal translation strategies, on the other hand, is not merely an individualistic power position [5], but rather a cultural imprint that we cannot obliterate. We have to critically reflect on it. Hence, the cultural position of translators and their strategies based on knowledge and experience have to be integrated into empirical research.

2.3. Phenomenology

Phenomenology is relevant, as the texts, cultural specificities, and objects are perceived by the individual in a specific way. It is important to be aware of the fact that things (ideas and objects) are not “as they appear to us,” as we can see them. Of course, ontologically, the things have a quasi objective identity on a higher level, but this is not experienced directly—that would be a naïve subjectivity—and then only through an intentional work of transcendence, going from the single to the general. The structures of perception are cognitively the same in all people, but their perspectives are different. Understanding is never a matter of fact, since an author’s task will “always be of relative and subjective value only” [6]. Comprehension is not impossible, as language is a medium of communication; on the other hand, however, encountering with alterity is also subject to the hermeneutical circle of a limited personal pre-knowledge. The phenomenology of things is determined culturally, and the translator is obligated to reflect critically and be critical about his/her own understanding and strategies.

2.4. Process Character

The process character is typical for hermeneutical translation. Due to continuous cultural and historical development, a translational solution can never be final. It is always a “hermeneutic sketch,” the attempt to adequately express an utterance. At the same time, there is always and inevitably also the potential of a further improvement: maybe one will find an even better formulation later on. The holistic nature is important in this process. Schleiermacher ([6], p. 72) has already pointed out that text elements have their meaning only in the context of the whole of the text. The meaning of a text is more than a simple addition of the single words and sentences. Holistic pre-understanding guides this textual analysis.

2.5. Reflection

A critical reflection, finally, is necessary when we try to achieve a responsible translation which gives a loyal presence to the source text and is also geared towards the conditions of comprehension in the target addressees. Translators should be aware of their social and cultural position, whether and how they might motivate the decision for a certain formulation based on factual criteria. The translation strategies will be different in each individual case, depending on the translator’s capacity. This hermeneutical approach is also a basis for translation in the field of law.

3. The Relationship between Law and Translation

In the scholarly discussion about “translation and the law,” the focus is first on two different academic disciplines—translation studies and comparative law. They do specific research—either on translation theories or on legal systems. And the relationship between both the concepts—law and translation—is somewhat unclear at first glance. We might split it up into two questions:
(1)
Where is translation in the field of law?
(2)
What are the special problems of translation here?
Law according to its purpose is a system of social convention defined by social agreement and legislation that regulates the orderly living together of people within their culture. It has been created and developed in history. All aspects of life—dealing with offence and crime, trade, family affairs, administration, education, etc.—are governed by law and legislation. The fields where such rules apply are both national and international. And there is also supranational law. Furthermore, today there is global interaction in the field of business and commerce, and formation of hybrid societies due to migration. That means that in one country as a political entity there might live persons with divergent legal worldviews as a result of which different concepts of law confront each other.
We cannot translate “law” as such. What we can do at first is to compare legal systems. Comparative law is an important field of research today and it focuses on the differences in legal concepts [7]. At first sight, the human values seem to be the same for all peoples in the world: Internal peace, justice, status of persons, public order, freedom of speech and of religion, fair trade, recognized education, punishment of crimes, etc. However, the respective ideas are not identical everywhere, and their legal treatment is different, according to the cultural and political background. The difference between existing legal systems is mainly visible in the central concepts regarding those values.
The link between both areas of research—comparative law and translation studies—is the fact that law is set down, handed down, and interpreted within texts, by language. This is the link to other questions regarding translation. There are texts in various fields of law, such as civil, criminal, trade, administrative, family, international, European law, etc. We find a so-called legal language here, and the translator will approach texts with a double perspective: regarding both law and linguistic features. Although there are many obstacles to overcome in the translation of legal texts, translation is possible. It is true that in any translation there are always losses and gains. However, for centuries, countries, peoples, and nations have held political and commercial links and relationships thanks to translation.
The legal backgrounds in different cultures are decisive here as law is an interpretive concept: “The reach of legal hermeneutics is more constrained. Understanding is situated, and the field of application makes a difference as to how meaning in that field is derived” [8].

5. Focus on Translation Problems in the Law

When we ask how translation might interact with aspects of law, we look at texts that actually have to be translated. Our perspective is reversed from the general characteristics of legal systems to the concrete language level: “The translator of a legal text aims at introducing foreign legal worldviews into a different legal life-world. His task is to make the foreign legal text accessible for recipients with a different (legal) background” ([8], p. 283).
Texts to be translated in the field of law come from various text genres, but are mainly documents by which a person wants to establish a right in another culture: personal certificates, diplomas, contracts, affidavits, etc. Court sentences and some articles from legislative codes are also translated sometimes for information. However, in all these translations, the validity and the meaning of those texts are bound to the source language culture, and this cannot be changed. There is no transfer of culture, but only transparent formulation in a “documentary translation,” what House [10] also calls “overt translation.” The translation is a secondary text to help understanding.
The texts are rooted in one specific law as just described, and law is part of a culture. Culture is the background of every human communication, and the cultural aspects referring to that extra-textual environment are only implicit in the texts. Interpreters must allow themselves to be guided by the nature of what is being understood. They will put aside methods and remain open to the meaning of the text [11].
Legal translation is impossible without a prior understanding of the given text. Hence, hermeneutics is relevant here, because the very problem of understanding is a universal one. The traditional “plurality of specialized hermeneutics” within the humanities, of which legal hermeneutics in jurisprudence is a part just like theology, has been overcome by a general hermeneutics first proposed by Schleiermacher in the early 19th century ([11], p. 357). This hermeneutics reflects on the chance of comprehension.
Understanding is never a matter of fact but has to be searched in a process of interpretation based on relevant, well-grounded knowledge.
Whereas literary interpretation often sees an inexhaustibility of meaning, both in its depths and in the potential proliferation of its diverse interpretations, readings in law, by contrast, are more constrained; they are not free, but must be attentive to, and able to incorporate, existing doctrine, the statutory text, and prior precedent [12]. Legal hermeneutics is a regional form of hermeneutics, but it cannot ultimately be separated from humanistic hermeneutics in general. The translator should have access to legal knowledge, but the process of comprehending a text is the same as in other readings.
Legal texts are for jurists. Law or jurisprudence as a specialist declarative knowledge in its concepts would rather easily function with only an exclusive, fixed technical terminology. Expert communication among lawyers and judges does not require general intelligibility. However, legal texts—such as codes, court sentences, certificates, trade agreements—do rule the life and activities of lay persons. Thus these texts must also appeal to general language in order to be understood by the people. Moreover, lawyers also use general language, as it would not be possible to write texts without general language.
Legal language as a specialized language has two kinds of addressees: the lawyer and the general public [13,14]. Its terms have a double coding—not only a specialist concept, but also a lay meaning—and often they use the same linguistic frame. This is true for all fields of legal discourse. Terms designing legal concepts sometimes can be misleading when interpreted from one’s own worldview and based merely on their linguistic appearance [15,16], that is, from the outside [17,18]. This has consequences for the translation work and will be discussed below.

10. Conclusions

Our description of the problems faced by a legal translator in practice may be taken as a basis for further research. The translator applies a double perspective to both the language structure and the content of meaning. Of course, numerous studies on legal language, and also on the translation of legal texts, have been published already. However, often the focus there is only on external subject matters, such as different legal concepts, stylistic features, analysis of macro-structure, the problems of lexicography, etc. The point where all these individual different aspects come together is their interrelation in the translator him or herself, as a professional person who acts on the texts and tries to produce an adequate translation apt for further interpretation by jurists.
The legal translator’s work is based in hermeneutics, since one needs to understand the text without necessarily being a full jurist. Comparative law as the field of research regarding legal content finds a concrete application when legal translators can make use of its findings in their translation concerning words and the style of the genre. Whereas jurists focus on the legal consequences of acts and decisions, often speaking intuitively about these aspects, translators will particularly focus on the language form of speech acts, in order to achieve precision in their writing.
Translation studies as the field of research regarding translation as a process and a product might be enriched by integrating the hermeneutical outlook visible in the double perspective of the legal translator.
The translator’s cognition reaches out into various cultures and specialist topics. The specific problem, then, is to combine various aspects in one’s activity.
Translation as a strategic action of persons thus forms a basis for many different humanistic investigations, such as research into cognitive outreach, cultural interaction, learning effects and professional activity. The focus will always be more on action than on structures.

References

  1. Radegundis Stolze. The Translator’s Approach—Introduction to Translational Hermeneutics. Theory and Examples from Practice. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2011, p. 45. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  2. Lawrence Venuti. The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation. London/New York: Routledge, 1995, p. 17. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  3. Marcus Beiner. Humanities. Was Geisteswissenschaft macht. Und was sie ausmacht. Berlin: University Press, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  4. WeinsHans-Georg Gadamer. Truth and Method, 2nd rev. ed. Translated by W. Glen-Doepel. Revised by Joel Weinsheimer, Donald G. Marshall; New York: Crossroad, 1990, p. 301. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  5. George Steiner. After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation, 3rd ed. Oxford: University Press, 1998, p. 298. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  6. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher. “On the different methods of translating.” In Translating Literature: the German Tradition. From Luther to Rosenzweig. Edited by A. Lefevere. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1977, pp. 66–89, 81. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  7. Rodolfo Sacco. Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2001. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  8. Sieglinde E. Pommer. “The Hermeneutic Approach in Legal Translation.” In Unterwegs zu einer hermeneutischen Übersetzungswissenschaft. Radegundis Stolze zu ihrem 60. Geburtstag. Edited by L. Cercel and J. Stanley. Tübingen: Narr, 2012, pp. 274–87, 276. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  9. Pierre Legrand. “European Legal Systems are not converging.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45 (1996): 52–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Juliane House. Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr, 1997, p. 29. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  11. Teresa Godwin Phelps, and Jenny Ann Pitts. “Questioning the Text: The Significance of Phenomenological Hermeneutics for Legal Interpretation.” St. Louis U.L.J. 29 (1984–1985): 353–82, 363. [Google Scholar]
  12. George H. Taylor. “Ricoeur and Law. The Distinctiveness of Legal Hermeneutics.” In Ricoeur Across the Disciplines. Edited by S. Davidson. London/New York: Continuum, 2010, pp. 84–101. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  13. Helmut Müller-Tochtermann. “Struktur der deutschen Rechtssprache. Beobachtungen und Gedanken zum Thema Fachsprache und Gemeinsprache.” Muttersprache 69 (1969): 84–92, 91. [Google Scholar]
  14. Radegundis Stolze. “Dealing with cultural elements in LSP texts for translation.” JosTrans, the Journal of specialized Translation 11 (2009): 124–42. [Google Scholar]
  15. Matthew Leung. “Assessing Parallel Texts in Legal Translation.” JosTrans, the Journal of specialized Translation 1 (2004): 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  16. Franziska Zezulka, and Yvonne Helal. “Einbürgern oder verfremden? Besonderheiten bei Übersetzungen juristischer Texte ins Arabische.” MDÜ Fachzeitschrift für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 4 (2009): 74f. [Google Scholar]
  17. Anja Drame. “Mehr als eine Geste. Terminologie, Recht und Gerechtigkeit in Südafrika.” MDÜ Fachzeitschrift für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 3 (2009): 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  18. King Kui Sin, and Derek Roebuck. “Language engineering for legal transplantations.” Language and Communication 16 (1996): 235–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Susan Šarčević. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997, p. 71. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  20. Christine Fuchs-Khakhar. Die Verwaltungssprache zwischen dem Anspruch auf Fachsprachlichkeit und Verständlichkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1987, p. 39. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  21. Els Oksaar. “Sprachliche Mittel in der Kommunikation zwischen Fachleuten und zwischen Fachleuten und Laien im Bereich des Rechtswesens.” In Fachsprachen und Gemeinsprache. Edited by W. Mentrup. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1979, pp. 100–13, 102. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  22. Anne Lise Kjær. “Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Sprache und Recht bei der Übersetzung von Rechtstexten der Europäischen Union.” In Übersetzen von Rechtstexten. Fachkommunikation im Spannungsfeld zwischen Rechtsordnung und Sprache. Edited by P. Sandrini. Tübingen: Narr, 1999, pp. 63–79. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  23. Juan C. Sager. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1990, Volume 80. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  24. Rosemarie Gläser. “Fachsprachen und Funktionalstile. Art. 16.” In Fachsprachen—Languages for Special Purposes. Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft—An International Handbook for Special Languages and Terminology Research. Edited by L. Hoffmann, H. Kalverkämper and H. E. Wiegand. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 199–208. [Google Scholar]
  25. Anna Trosborg. “‘Acts’ in contracts: Some guidelines for translation.” In Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline. Edited by M. Snell-Hornby. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1994, pp. 309–18. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.