Cross-linguistic Semantics of International Law. A corpus-informed translation of A. Cassese’s International Law into Greek (original) (raw)
Related papers
2007
In my paper I will discuss both the processes of interlingual and intralingual translation of laws. The objective is to establish how the intralingual and the interlingual translation process influence or even shape a particular language of the law affecting thus the laws and the communication in a given legal system. In order to achieve this, I will initially research into the historical process that produced a series of intralingual translations of major laws in Greece and both interlingual and intralingual translations of laws in Cyprus, investigate the main principles used in interlingual and intralingual translation, examine how the languages of the law in Greece and Cyprus were affected by these translations, and show how intralingual and interlingual translation influenced the law both in Greece and Cyprus.
The present study reflects the combined experience of the authors as teachers and translators in the fertile area of cross-cultural studies of law and international communication. It is based on postgraduate courses, the LawLab: Communicating Legal English (2013) and doctoral seminars held at the Department of Human and Social Sciences, International University 'Stranieri' of Perugia.
A Terminological Perspective on Legal Translation
2021
Translation studies have gained considerable importance in terms of their practical utility in various fields of activity. Translation studies, coupled with terminology, can be said to focus on the accurate transfer of meaning between different languages, cultures and systems. The analysis of legal terms in different languages (English, French and Romanian) aims to provide a new perspective upon a highly controversial subject-the interpretation of laws, legislative texts, jurisprudential cases, etc. in accordance with the European Union principles and pragmatic ways of organizing ideas and securing the intended meaning, impacting heavily on legal translators and legal practitioners alike.
The present book is a part of the research project in legilinguistic translatology, entitled: ‘Parametrisation of legilinguistic translatology in the scope of civil law and civil procedure’. Financial support was provided by the National Science Centre of the Republic of Poland (Sonata Bis Programme — research grant no. DEC-2012/07/E/HS2/00678, which enabled us to finance the research into the Polish-Greek language pair. The basic assumptions for the parametric approach to the comparison of legal terminology in legal translation are presented in Chapter I. Legilinguistics, understood here as legal linguistics, is the discipline devoted to the nature, development and usage of legal language, while legilinguistic translatology, as a subdiscipline of translatology, concerns itself with the theory and practice of the translation of legal texts. As legilinguistic translatology is subdivided into theoretical and practical translatology, the present study is categorised as an investigation in the practical field. However there are some references to theoretical legilinguistic translatology also. The point of departure is the paradigm of legal communication, where the source text (here also called the ‘translandive text’) are Polish statutes in the area of civil law, the source-text author is the Polish lawmaker, the translation is a legal text (here also called the ‘translantive text’), the recipient is a Greek legal professional or judicial authority. The author and the recipient of the potential translation are both members of the professional legal communicative community, and simultaneously the author of the text is a member of the communicative community of the Polish language, while the recipient of the potential translation is a member of the Greek-language communicative community. The research methodology is presented in Chapter II. The parametric comparative analysis takes as a point of departure terms excerpted from Polish civil law statutes, i.e. the Civil Code (Kodeks Cywilny) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego), here also called ‘translandive units’. They are compared with Greek terms, which, first of all, come from Greek civil law statutes, i.e. the Civil Code (Αστικός Κώδικας [Astikos Kodikas]) and the Code of Civil Procedure Κώδικας Πολιτικής Δικονομίας [Kodikas Astikis Dikonomias]). If they are not present in statutes, they are excerpted from other legal genres, and, ultimately, if they are not present in other legal genres, either, then, they are excerpted from other lects (e.g. LSPs, vernacular lect) or potentially coined by the translator. The very first step of comparative analysis focuses on the meaning of the terms in a legal context. This is followed by analysis of the source-text unit compared with the translantive text (target text) in the context of the relevant dimensions of the terms. The dimensions are understood as a set of homogeneous properties that are used to calculate the distance between the compared terms. The set of minimal dimensions, which allow us to calculate the similarities and differences between the compared terms, comprises: genre, lect, branch of law, sub-branch of law and optional dimensions. The presumed objective of the comparative analysis is to determine: 1) lack of distance, where the compared terms can be recognised as synonyms; 2) short distance; where the compared terms can be recognised as translational equivalents; 3) significant distance, where compared terms cannot be recognised as translational equivalents, and there is a need to compensate for the lack of common dimensions; 4) lack of possible calculation because there is no term that could be compared on the basis of the aforementioned dimensions and their properties. Research material comprises the basic normative acts of Polish and Greek substantive and procedural civil law. Firstly, the relevant dimensions are presented in hierarchical order (Chapter III); then, they are applied to calculate the distance between Polish and Greek civil law terms. They are investigated from the perspective of the relations of convergence (Chapter IV), polysemy (Chapter V), complementarity (Chapter VI), cognate words and potential false friends (Chapter VII), imprecise or flexible meaning (Chapter VIII), euphemisms and metaphors (Chapter IX). Semantic-lexical relations are investigated from the intralingual and interlingual points of view, within the framework of the language of Polish and Greek civil law. Since comparative analysis of Polish and Greek terms is accompanied by certain directives of particularistic Polish-Greek legilinguistic translatology, under the relevant postulates of general legilinguistics, they are used within the translation algorithm. It should be stressed that the algorithm is presumed to be a set of actions executed in a certain order in order to achieve a certain result. Then, the translational algorithm based on parametric calculation of distance between compared legal terms is applied, and the explanation scheme is given (Chapter X). In conclusion the results of the research are presented analytically and subsequently discussed in Chapter XI, with concluding notes are provided from the perspective of: 1) translation practice, and 2) lexicography and terminography in reference to LSP lexicography.
"Semiotics of International Law Trade and Translation" by Evandro Menezes de Carvalho
2011
Every theoretical study is the interpretation and explanation of a certain phenomenon after the object of study is observed and described. In the case of this book, our object of study is clearly defined: legal discourse. In order to better define legal discourse conceptually, it should be pointed out that legal discourse is a continuum of societal discourse. We begin with the notion of the law as a cultural construct. Its existence is connected to a legal culture that is not objectively referred to as the "law" at any time or place. 26 The fact is that culture is the environment where the law is coined and culture determines the law's relationship with language. As stated by Cornu, "what ensures the connection between law and language is the mediation of a third term, the environment that nourishes it and accompanies its development, in short, the culture from where it comes. Law and language are cultural events." 27 Thus, culture and language are inseparable from the process of creating the law and law language. 28 This language is termed the "language of the law or law language" 29 due to its connection with a legal system that has been socially developed and that attaches to it a specialized feature distinct from common language. There are two dimensions that complete each other and give to the language of the law its distinct features. Both the legal system and its own vocabulary shape the social perception of the law, and it is up to the former to lend a prescriptive sense to law language. The normative prescription does not describe behaviors as they are, but rather, how they should be, in the form of the deontic operators: it is prohibited, mandatory and permitted. The language of the law thus becomes the instrument for intervening in the social environment, sometimes to modify it or to preserve it. 30 Once the language of the law is on the move, it becomes legal discourse. 31 Hence, the question: Is legal discourse only revealed by legal norms or does it also involve meta-discourse? To answer this question we must make a semantic 26 This statement does not necessarily attach the birth of Law to the advent of the state. It is a historical standpoint and certainly not an irrefutable verdict. 27 Cornu (2000), at 12. 28 We must elaborate on the multidimensional object we call "Law". The goal of this study is not a theoretical approach at the ontological level. This study is limited to the linguistic dimension, taking into consideration the expression of Landowski, to whom the "Law" is more than a linguistic dimension: "what we call 'law' is not only a corpus-although quite vast-of linguistic expressions (legal discourse and jurisprudence), it is also the set of institutions and actors, of situations and decisions, of 'legal' facts and acts whose perception, as a global system of meaning that, evidently, cannot be strictly 'textual' or linguistic" Landowski (1989), at 78. 29 The term "language of the law" or "law language" is used in the widest sense to encompass all verbal and non-verbal manifestations in the field of the law. 30 According to Jacques, "the legal text is a place for intervention in what is real by its prescriptive role, by the transformation of what is real by its performative component, modeling what is real by its descriptive role" Jacques (1992), at 439. 31 According to Cornu, legal discourse is "the language of the law in action, or more precisely, language in action in the law. Legal discourse is the operationalization of language, through words xx Preliminary Considerations distinction between discourse "of the law" and the so-called "legal" discourse to then establish the position of the latter for the purpose of this study. This distinction is established by analytically breaking down the semantic content in order to focus on the object of our investigation. The discourse "of the law" refers to prescriptive utterances that threaten with the use of force, and the meanings attached to these utterances are given by the authoritative norm and issued by an acknowledged authority. 32 Thus, it is the discourse governing the actions of the addressees due to its deontic meaning whether this meaning is in the law or in a court decision. Legal discourse, on the other hand, refers to the discourse "of the law" but it is empty of any coercive meaning. They are discourses, scientific or not, that speak of the law. Among such discourses one can find: legal dogmatics, grounds for opinions, discussion papers on bills, and the lectures given by a law professor. 33 All legal discourses have the same referent: the law. Therefore, they tend to build their rationality from the "insides" of their own system of law. Upon establishing the governing law, both the authority producing the law, and the meaning of the law, or rather "what should be done", are acknowledged. Hence, that which is intended to describe the law will also prescribe the law, to some extent. It is exactly for this reason that, according to Correas, "it is not possible to formulate a descriptive discourse regarding the discourse of the law". However, "the discourses that speak at the service of law. One must differentiate between the two elements that make up the definition. Legal discourse is, at the same time, an act of linguistics and an act of law" (op. cit., at 211, emphasis in the original). 32 See Correas in Crítica da ideologia jurídica, op. cit., at 57-73. 33 From a point of view different from our own, Cornu states: "a discourse may be considered legal discourse either directly, because it establishes or states what the law is, or more generally, because it contributes to the realization of the law. Therefore, at the first level, legal discourse can be: the passing of statute, the pronouncement of judgment, the establishment of convention. All the messages that play a role in the performance of the law, such as evidence of damages, witness statements, summons, expert opinions, etc. are also legal discourse by their necessary association. Thus, the conclusion is that legal discourse originates in the purpose of the message: all messages that establish or apply norms of law are legal discourse" (op. cit., p. 214, emphasis in the original.). This perspective has the merit of including, among other objects of study, other textual manifestations that are not directly related to the Law; however, they maintain a relationship with the Law. According to Ziembinski, "when one uses the term 'legal language' to determine a 'language that concerns the law', mainly aims at the language that contains the propositions according to the legal provisions and legal norms from the point of view of legal dogmatics, that is, the propositions concerning the content, the binding force and the legal effects of these norms." Ziembinski also analyzes the concept of legal discourse: "One must distinguish between two things: (1) the broad definition of 'legal language' according to which legal language contains expressions of all kinds, relative to legal norms; therefore, descriptive propositions about validity, content, and the legal effects of the norms in question (or even the relative proposition to the genesis and the social implication of these norms), as well as the evaluation of legal norms and rules of exegesis of the law. (2) the concept of 'legal language' limited only to descriptive propositions. I find it useful to distinguish between 'purely descriptive legal language' and 'legal language sensu largo' which is, effectively, a language of specific legal sciences, it does not mean equating these sciences to a dogmatic description of a legal system" Ziembinski (1974), at 30.