“Many non-experienced translators think that a good legal dictionary is enough to do the job. They do not realise that even the best dictionary does not contain all the terms they are going to encounter in the course of translation. And even lexicographers can make mistakes. Consulting a dictionary and finding some kind of equivalent does not mean that translators find what they are looking for.”
Aleksandra Matulewska, Lingua Legis in Translation, Peter Lang Press, 2007
As mentioned in a recent post, glossaries can be useful aids in legal translation and in legal interpretation. As the number of migrants/refugees entering Greece and other European countries increases, could initiatives similar to the Canadian multilingual glossary outlined below provide a replicable model for improving the quality of legal translation and court interpreting?Continue Reading..
“If translators themselves lack linguistic and legal knowledge even the best already existing legal dictionaries and selection of legal documents will not suffice to get good legal translations. The problem is that in order to translate a text written in a language for special purposes not only is advanced knowledge of a foreign language (not to mention a native one) essential , but also knowledge of the subject-matter discussed in the text is necessary.”
Aleksandra Matulewska, Lingua Legis in Translation, Peter Lang Press, 2007
Back in June 2015 I attended the Transius Conference on legal and institutional translation hosted by the University of Geneva.
Over the coming weeks, I’ll be summarising some of the main points made by speakers based on notes taken at the conference. The idea is to convey a rough flavour of the main ideas presented at the conference. This is the second blogpost in the series…Continue Reading..
While certainly not an infallible aid in the process of legal translation, glossaries -especially monolingual ones- can be useful in understanding the legal terms as used in the source text, which can make translation of the legal text into the target language easier and more accurate.
A colleague recently drew my attention to this monolingual English glossary of basic legal terms from the Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario / Canada). The glossary can be accessed at:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/glossary
Because Canada is bilingual, a monolingual French version is also available at:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/french/glossary/
“Even very well matched parallel texts cannot solve the problem of source-language concepts which have no equivalents in the target language … in the age of the information society and ‘information deluge’, sometimes it is very difficult to find reliable parallel texts among those which are available … parallel texts do not solve the problem of finding equivalents to concepts and institutions which do not exist in the target language.”
Aleksandra Matulewska, Lingua Legis in Translation, Peter Lang Press, 2007
“The legal function of the text gives it a very specific meaning. The fact that a legal text always functions in a definite legal reality requires a special translative treatment and approach, that is the adequate transposition of the legal realities in question.”
Aleksandra Matulewska, Lingua Legis in Translation, Peter Lang Press, 2007
Back in June 2015 I attended the Transius Conference on legal and institutional translation hosted by the University of Geneva.
Over the coming weeks, I’ll be summarising some of the main points made by speakers based on notes taken at the conference. The idea is to convey a rough flavour of the main ideas presented at the conference.
Let’s start with a keynote speech given by Professor Jan Engberg entitled: Comparative law and legal translation: Adjusting partners to build the necessary knowledge Continue Reading..
EU court ruling removes special treatment for specific more widely-spoken European languages
Last week (24/9/2015) the General Court of the European Union handed down its Judgment in Cases T-124/13 Italy v Commission and T-191/13 Spain v Commission.
This ruling annuls 3 competition notices to recruit personnel published by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) which required candidates for the EU jobs it was advertising to choose English, French or German as their second language and as the language of communication with EPSO.
Candidates needed to have 1 official EU language plus ‘satisfactory knowledge’ of a second language to be chosen by each candidate from English, French or German’. That second language would be used in communications with EPSO and in the selection procedure itself. EPSO asserted that these restrictions on the number of languages were justified to promote greater efficiency in day-to-day work, otherwise with an excessive range of EU languages effective functioning of the EU institutions would be impaired.
Italy and Spain, whose languages didn’t receive ‘preferential’ treatment complained to the General Court. They essentially argued that the EPSO notices discriminated against them, infringed the EU’s language regime contained in Regulation No 1 of 1958 and disregarded the principle of proportionality. Italy argued that European citizens have the right to address the EU Institutions using any one of the official languages, and that they have the right to receive answers from the Institutions in the same language. Spain added that in practice, that restriction on languages provided all candidates whose first language is one of the three languages mentioned above with a competitive advantage.
The General Court’s judgment has now annulled the 3 notices. The court argued that even if the Institutions can adopt details rules governing the language regime in their internal rules, the Institutions concerned by the contested notices did not use that option. Competition notices cannot be regarded as internal rules. The notices fell within the scope of Regulation No 1 and infringe it because they limit correspondence with EPSO to the three languages mentioned. That is sufficient in itself to justify the 3 notices being annulled, without there being any need to examine whether they give rise to unlawful discrimination on grounds of language.
Candidates are entitled to choose the language in which to draft the application form from any of the official languages and that correspondence from EPSO must also be written in the language chosen by candidates.
The General Court also said in relation to the use of a small number of languages for the competition itself constitutes discrimination on grounds of language. It is clear that such a requirement favours certain potential candidates since they can participate in the competition and be recruited as EU officials, whereas the others who do not have such knowledge are excluded.
According to the General Court, the claim that English, French or German remain the most widely used languages is a vague statement not supported by any specific evidence. In its view the obligation for candidates to choose English, French or German as a second language is not objectively justified or proportionate to the objective pursued by the Commission, namely to recruit officials and agents who are immediately operational.
… an interesting judgment that seems to confirm the existing EU principle that all official languages within the Union are of equal importance, no matter how few speakers they have.
The judgment is not yet available in Greek or English.
Source: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150107en.pdf
The end of absence: Reclaiming what we’ve lost in a world of constant connection
Michael Harris, Current Press, 2014
Harris explores the implications of living an ever-connected world, where we have constant access to the internet. Looking at the physical, psychological and emotional effects of ‘dependence’ on the internet, he explores what he sees as a unique turning point in history, when there are people still alive from the pre-internet age who remember what it was like to live without the internet. He also examines whether it is possible to re-experience that absence by going offline.
What’s all this got to do with translation? Near the end of the book, Harris quotes the work of Noga Arikha, historian of ideas and goes on to say that, “I think Arikha, like all people alive in this moment, is engaged in an act of massive translation. We are the few translators of Before and After. It’s a privileged thing to be a translator, but not an easy thing.
Never a truer word spoken!
An interesting insight a few days before International Translation Day
The book definitely makes for an interesting read.
