Where ‘fiscal’ Cannot Mean ‘financial’: A Case Study at the Crossroads of Legal and Public Service Translation Taxonomies
This paper attempts to delineate the scope of legal translation with a view to distinguishing it from public service translation (PST). Legal translation tends to be recognized as a constituent of PST. However, the paper challenges this view and suggests it is legal translation under which PST is subsumed. Some Russian legal scholars believe inadequacies in legal translation may have grave consequences for a country’s international status, while PST is known to affect individuals. Whenever a translation flaw occurs in institutional settings, identifying whether a flaw is attributable to a translator’s legal incompetence or insufficient knowledge of matters the law regulates, or mere inexperience might be no easy task. A high-profile legal translation case is analyzed based on debates among government authorities, academia, and media. The analysis advocates more distinct goal-oriented criteria behind identifying translation branches under study, given their primary goals in institutional contexts.
The paper contains arguments over the feasibility of regarding legal translation as a type of institutional translation. Such notions as institute, institutionalisation, and institutional environment are analyzed with the focus placed on their relevance for the current translation activities. The interdisciplinary approach advocated in the paper aims to expand theoretical foundations for the emerging legal translation paradigm.
This volume investigates advances in the field of legal translation both from a theoretical and practical perspective, with professional and academic insights from leading experts in the field. Part I of the collection focuses on the exploration of legal translatability from a theoretical angle. Covering fundamental issues such as equivalence in legal translation, approaches to legal translation and the interaction between judicial interpretation and legal translation, the authors offer contributions from philosophical, rhetorical, terminological and lexicographical perspectives. Part II focuses on the analysis of legal translation from a practical perspective among different jurisdictions such as China, the EU and Japan, offering multiple and pluralistic viewpoints. This book presents a collection of studies in legal translation which not only provide the latest international research findings among academics and practitioners, but also furnish us with a new approach to, and new insights into, the phenomena and nature of legal translation and legal transfer. The collection provides an invaluable reference for researchers, practitioners, academics and students specialising in law and legal translation, philosophy, sociology, linguistics and semiotics.
The chapter features a theoretical viewpoint on an elusive notion of a ‘minimal unit of translation’ which is believed to underlie a technical mastery of translation in general and legal translation, in particular. Consequently, it is hoped to bear relevance to the core legal translation studies issues. However, no essential conceptualization has been undertaken to-date regarding a ‘unit of legal translation.’ This slows down the postulating of such crucial concepts for the legal translation theory and practice, as equivalence and semantic invariant, legal meaning nature and structure, practicable legal translation quality assessment criteria, and other vital issues. The legal translation theoretical framework may eventually benefit from the in-depth observations of several cases reviewed with a view to extrapolating them further on and using in larger legal translation data analysis. Some regularities of the English–Russian legal languages switch, describing respective techniques employed, are also elaborated on and discussed in detail.
Legal Translation In The Law Terminology Coreference Perspective
The article revisits a sustainable phenomenon inherent in languages for special purposes (domain-specific sublanguages) – multiple nomination of concepts exemplified by the legalese and correlating with cognitive representations of domain-specific knowledge. This phenomenon profiles an obvious problem area in special translation theory. Synonymy is treated in line with Yu.D. Aprecian’s concept whereby lexical units are regarded as semantically related if and when they appear referentially identical, i.e. co-referential. Co-reference gives rise to complexities in perceiving and comprehending legal texts in English–Russian translation. An interdisciplinary paradigm is applied for singling out an earmarked direction within the modern Translation Studies – Domain-Specific Translatology. A new name to once customary ‘special translation theory’ draws translation researchers to focus on profound studying of professional translation/interpreting across domain-specific fields, i.e. expert communication area, with the view of analyzing problems aggravated by the terminological co-reference available both in the source-language and target-language as well.
This article aims at describing several challenges typical of legal texts remarkably complicated for perceiving and comprehending even within the legal profession. One of the challenges associated with legal texts comprehension appears to be an interdisciplinary phenomenon attributable to languages for special purposes at large - multiple alternative nomination which we name the terminological co-reference trap. Legalists, legal practitioners and legal translators when confronted with the said phenomenon in the English-Russian interaction have to fix non-routine communication gaps. Examples drawn from various legal branches allow for validating a few theoretical assumptions regarding the issues under analysis.
The article advocates a standpoint whereby semantic relations of proximity between termsof law are not established routinely and linguistic data are de-termined by the existingpattern and interaction of internal legal domains. The role of legal linguistics is emphasized; Russian–English correspondences for terminological attributes ‘fiscal’ and ‘financial’ are provided from the Russian and Anglo-American legal languages with the strictly fixed usage in finance, tax and banking fields specified.