A Few Remarks on Legal Translation and Intercultural Encounters

• Authors: Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka

Abstracts

EN

The text offers comments on legal translation and its special nature. It is argued that legal translation is much different from other types of specialised translations. Unlike the language of engineering or medicine, legal language does not only refer to the related specialised practice, i.e. the law, but constitutes legal reality, being at the same time an instrument with which legal disputes are resolved. In the context of translation, legal language is particularly challenging as the process of finding equivalence is not restricted to interlinguistic level, but invites both intralinguistic and intersemiotic considerations. Moving not only between different natural languages, but also between different legal cultures, legal translators have to face problems that can often be naturally found in intercultural communication.

Keywords

EN

equivalence; legal language; legal translation

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 265-281

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka

• University of Lodz

References

• Austin, John L. 1962/1975. How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, 2nd ed., edited by J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Bakhtin, Mikhail. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays [ed. by M. Holquist; trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist; trans. V. W. McGee]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
• Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Charrow, Robert P. & Veda R. Charrow. 1979. “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions”. Columbia Law Review. Vol. 79, No. 7, pp. 1306-1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842 ; https://www.jstor.org/stable/1121842
• Crystal, David. 2018. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108528931
• Danet, Brenda. 1980. “Language in the legal process”. Law and Society Review 14, pp. 445–564. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i354491 ; https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192
• Endicott, Timothy A.O. 2000. Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268406.001.0001
• Fetzer, Anita & Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka. 2021 (in press). “Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse”. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ed. by M. Haugh, D. Kádár & M. Terkourafi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 520-543.
• Frank, Jerome N. 1947. “Words and music: Some remarks on statutory interpretation”. Columbia Law Review. No. 8, pp. 1259-1278. https://doi.org/10.2307/1118098
• Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. London: Blackwell.
• Gotti, Maurizio. (2003) Specialized Discourse. Linguistic Features and Changing Conventions. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Hart, Herbert L. A. 1961/1994. The Concept of Law (2nd ed.). Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press.
• Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum et al. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
• Hutton, Christopher. 1995. ‘Law lessons for linguists? Accountability and acts of professional communication’, Language and Communication 16(3): 205–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(96)00010-9
• Hutton, Chris. 2009. Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. In: On Translation, ed. by R. A. Brower. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 232-239.
• Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna. 2019 Teoretyczno-prawne I logiczne uwarunkowania przekładu prawnego. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
• Lauchman, Richard. 2001-2005. Plain Language. A handbook for writers in the U.S. Government. Available at http://www.lauchmangroup.com/PDFfiles/PLHandbook.PDF (accessed May 2007).
• Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
• Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenboum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (1992) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman.
• Robinson, Stanley. 1973. Drafting: Its application to conveyancing and commercial documents. London: Butterworths.
• Sarcevic, Susan. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
• Sugarman, David & H.L.A. Hart. 2005. “Hart Interviewed: H.L.A. Hart in Conversation with David Sugarman” (interview 1988) Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 267-293 http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2063/stable/3557228
• Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2001 (ms). Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of Speech Acts in English Legal Texts. PhD dissertation, University of Lodz, Poland.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2005. “English legal texts in translation-the relevance-theoretic approach” Relevance Studies in Poland 2, pp. 169-181.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2007. “Linguistic Aspects of the deontic shall in the legal context” In: Language and the Law: International Outlooks, ed. by K. Kredens and S. Goźdź-Roszkowski.. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 181-199.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2008. “The Relevance of Vague Expressions in the Law” Research in Language 6, pp. 167-187.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2009. "Legal Speech Acts in a Cognitive Linguistic Perspective - Focus on Modality" Comparative Legilinguistics (International Journal for Legal Communication) 1: 1, pp. 159-175.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2013a. From Speech Acts to Speech Actions. Łódź: Lodz University Press.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2013b. “Speech action in legal contexts”. In Marina Sbisà & K. Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of Speech Actions [Handbook of pragmatics; Part 2], Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 613-658.
• Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2016. “The interface of language and culture in the legal context–some teaching implications”. In: Languages, Culture, Media, ed. by M. Kopytowska, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, J. Osborne, J. Schmied, K. Yumlu. Chambéry: Editions de l’Université de Savoie Mont Blanc, pp. 323-338, ISBN: 978-2-919732-75-3
• Wojtczak, Sylwia & Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka. 2019. “Metaphors and Legal Language: A few comments on ordinary, specialised, and legal meaning”. Research in Language 17: 3, pp. 273-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.17.3.04
• Wojtczak, Sylwia, Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka, Rafał Augustyn. 2017. Metafory konceptualne jako narzędzia rozumowania i poznania prawniczego [Conceptual Metaphors as Tools in Legal Reasoning and Cognition]. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
• Wróblewski, Jerzy, 1948. Język prawny i prawniczy. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
• Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1959. Zagadnienia teorii wykładni prawa ludowego. Warszawa.
• Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1984. “Zagadnienia terminologii nauk prawnych” [Terminology issues in legal sciences]. Nauka Polska 3, pp. 80-82.
• http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=149&invol=304 (accessed February 2019)
• CLARITY: http://www.clarity-international.net/journals/56.pdf (accessed May 2016)
• https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/22/notes/contents (Justice Act 1999; accessed February 2019)
• https://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/probono.htm (accessed June 2010)
• InfoCuria Case-Law; C-127/04 – O’Byrne; https://curia.europa.eu (accessed February 2019)
• law.com.dictionary (accessed May 2016)
• https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/223/ (on Smith vs. United States (508 U.S. 223) accessed February 2019)
• http://www.lateralmag.com/articles/issue-29/when-whales-were-fish (accessed February 2019)

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1731-7533.18.3.02

Biblioteka Nauki

1368404