legal-translation

LegalTranslationandTranslationTheory:aReceiver-orientedApproachSusanŠarcevicUniversityofRijeka,CroatiaI.IntroductionInthisageofglobalization,theneedforcompetentlegaltranslatorsisgreaterthanever.Thisperhapsexplainsthegrowinginterestinlegaltranslationnotonlybylinguistsbutalsobylawyers,thelatterespeciallyoverthepast10years(cf.Berteloot,1999:101).AlthoughBertelootmaintainsthatlawyersanalyzethesubjectmatterfromadifferentperspective,sheadviseshercolleaguesalsototakeaccountofcontributionsbylinguists(ibid.).Iassumethisincludestranslationtheoryaswell.Inthepast,bothlinguistsandlawyershaveattemptedtoapplytheoriesofgeneraltranslationtolegaltexts,suchasCatford’sconceptofsituationequivalence(Kielar,1977:33),Nida’stheoryofformalcorrespondence(Weisflog,1987:187,191);alsoinWeisflog1996:35),and,morerecently,Vermeer’sskopostheory(seeMadsen’s,1997:17-26).Whilesomelegaltranslatorsseemcontenttoapplyprinciplesofgeneraltranslationtheory(Koutsivitis,1988:37),othersdisputetheusefulnessoftranslationtheoryforlegaltranslation(Weston,1991:1).Thelatterviewisnotsurprisingsincespecialmethodsandtechniquesarerequiredinlegaltranslation,afactconfirmedbyBocquet,whorecognizestheimportanceofestablishingatheoryoratleastatheoreticalframeworkthatispracticeoriented(1994).Byanalyzinglegaltranslationasanactofcommunicationinthemechanismofthelaw,mybookNewApproachtoLegalTranslation(1997)attemptstoprovideatheoreticalbasisforlegaltranslationwithintheframeworkofmoderntranslationtheory.Likeotherareasoftranslation,thetranslationoflegaltextsis(oroughttobe)receiveroriented.Withthisinmind,thispaperfocusesonthereceptionofparalleltextsinthemechanismofthelaw,showinghowlegaltextsauthenticatedintwoormorelanguagesareinterpretedandappliedbycourtsinvariousplurilingualjurisdictions.Itisnotconcernedsomuchwithmethodsofinterpretationbutratherwiththeimplicationsforthedecision-makingprocessoftranslators.Aboveall,itattemptstoshowhowtranslationstrategyisaffectedbythecommunicativefactorsofreceptioninbilingualandmultilingualjurisdictions.Sincethesuccessofanauthenticatedtranslationdependsonitsinterpretationandapplicationinpractice,theultimateaimistoencourageinteractionbetweentranslatorsandthejudiciary.Vestedwiththeforceoflaw,authenticatedtranslationsenablethemechanismofthelawtofunctioninmorethanonelanguage.Translationsoflegislation,treatiesandconventions,judicialdecisions,andcontractsareauthoritativeonlyiftheyhavebeenapprovedand/oradoptedinthemannerprescribedbylaw.Inaccordancewiththetheoryoforiginaltexts,allauthenticatedtranslationsarejustasinviolateastheoriginaltext(s).Hence,theyarenotregardedas“meretranslations”butasoriginalsandarenotevenreferredtoastranslations(Šarcevic,1997:20;Berteloot1999:112).Thisisperhapsthereasonwhyparalleltexts,astheyarereferredtohere,havebeenneglectedbymosttranslationtheoristsormentionedonlyinpassing.Todaythesituationischanging.II.RoleoftheReceiverinModernTranslationTheoryOneofthemaintasksoftranslationtheoristsistoidentifycriteriatoaidtranslatorsselectanadequatetranslationstrategy.Thispresupposes,ofcourse,thatthetranslatorisvestedwiththeauthoritytomakesuchdecisions.Foralongtimethemainfactordeterminingtranslationstrategywastexttype,thusleadingtothecreationoftexttypologies,thefirstofwhichwerebasedonsubjectmatter.In1971KatherinaReissmadeasignificantcontributiontogeneraltranslationtheorybyproposingatexttypologythattakesintoaccountnotonlythesubjectmatterbutalsothefunctionoftheparticulartexttype(1971:32).Thenewemphasisonfunctionturnedtheattentionoftranslationtheoriststothepragmaticaspectsoftexts,causingmanyofthemtoturntheirbacksonlinguistictheoriesoftranslation.Shiftingtheemphasisfrominterlingualtoculturaltransfer,Germanscholars(Vermeer,Holz-Mänttäri,Nord,Hönig,Kussmaul)nowviewtranslationasa“cross-culturalevent”(Snell-Hornby,1988:43)embeddedinanactofcommunication.Releasedfromhis/hercommitmenttoreproducethesourcetext,thetranslatorisatextproducerwhocreatesanewtextonthebasisofthecommunicativefactorsofreceptionineachsituation.Atfirstitwasbelievedthattranslationstrategyisdeterminedprimarilybythetypeofaudiencetowhomthetargettextisdirected,thusleadingtothe“discovery”thatthesametextcanbetranslatedindifferentwaysfordifferentreceivers.Thereafter,themainemphasiswasshiftedtothecommunicativefunctionorpurposeofatranslation.AsinHansVermeer’sskopostheory,thefunctionalapproachrequirestranslatorstoproduceanewtextthatsatisfiestheculturalexpectationsofthetargetreceiversfortextswiththeintendedskopos(1998:41-45).Inessence,theskopostheoryhasmodernizedtranslationtheorybyofferinganalternativetotraditionaltranslation.Intraditionaltranslation,wherethetranslatorisexpectedtoreconstructtheformandsubstanceofthesourcetextinthetargetlanguage,thefunctionofthetargettextisalwaysthesameasthatofthesourcetext.WhileVermeerinsiststhattheskopostheoryalsoappliestotraditionaltranslationswithoutashiftinfunction(Funktionskonstanz),itclearlyfocusesontranslationswhosefunctiondiffersfromthatofthesourcetext(Funktionsänderung).Departingfromtradition,thefunctionalapproachpresumesthatthesametextcanbetranslatedin