Legal Translation as Knowledge Mediation

21.11. 2014

Legal translation as knowledge mediation

- Mediating Legal Knowledge to Different Target Groups Jan Engberg Dept. of Business Communication

Legal translation as knowledge mediation Jan Engberg

Dept. of Business Communication

21.11. 2014

Overview

› Frame of reference I: Knowledge Communication

› Frame of reference II: Translation = Operations at text, not at system level

› Purposeful activity of conscient and insightful translator

› Examples of purposeful decision making in legal translation as knowledge mediation

› Taking it one step further: Knowledge mediator as a socially responsible agent



21.11. 2014

My frame of reference I: Knowledge Communication › Focus upon knowledge systems, cognitive operations and domain-

specific actions centred around individual’s minds

› Focus upon individual nature of cognition

› Focus upon interaction between knowledge of individuals and aggregated knowledge of peer group to which individuals belong

Engberg 2007, 4-5

› Aim: To study the strategic (= decision-based) communication of specialised knowledge in professional settings with a focus upon the interplay between knowledge and expertise of individuals and knowledge as a collective phenomenon and the coping with knowledge asymmetries

3



21.11. 2014

Knowledge Communication – focal points

› Three perspectives (Kastberg 2010, Ditlevsen 2011, Engberg 2012): ›

› Construction of knowledge (e.g., cognitive and linguistic structures of individuals) › Representation of knowledge (e.g., texts and genres, semiotics) › Communication of knowledge (e.g., interaction, sociology, setting)

› Analytical point of departure in the individual human being, but basic interest in

knowledge in its actual complexity (Kastberg 2007, 2010)



21.11. 2014

Summing up

› Knowledge is personal and only empirically accessible as such (and consequently dependent upon cognitive mechanisms and structures)

› Knowledge is collective and only relevant for communication as such

› Knowledge is dependent upon macro-conditions in society

› Knowledge and its emergence is a relevant object of post-structuralist reflection

Differing perspectives with differing logics



21.11. 2014

My frame of reference II › Interested in multilingual legal drafting and legal translation

› One problem: Difference between concepts in different legal systems -> how to translate non-overlapping concepts represented in legal texts?

› One solution: Formulate target text so that similarities and differences relevant for source text and for target situation are focused and open for dissemination

› Some prerequisites (to be treated in the remainder of my talk):

› Distinction between a text and a system level in communication

› Analysis of source text’s focus and purpose of target text’s knowledge creation

› Thorough insight into social knowledge underlying texts in source and target language

6



21.11. 2014

Mincke 1991: 465 › ‘The … idea that complete translations are not possible is based on the probably

wrong assumption that meanings of words of a language must be transferred into another [language] when translating. However, this is only the case in the special situation that a word with its meanings is itself the object of the utterance. As long as the text treats non-linguistic reality, translatability is only dependent on whether the treated object may be presented in another language with sufficient precision. This will normally be the case in regular legal texts like statutes and contracts.’ (my translation and emphasis).

-> Healthy distinction between system level and textual level



21.11. 2014

A suggested definition

› Translating terms in legal documents consists in strategically choosing relevant parts of the complex conceptual knowledge represented in the source text in order to present the aspects exactly relevant for this text in the target text situation (cf. Engberg 2011)

› Means:

› Words in the source text makes knowledge light up in the mind of the reader

› But not all accessible knowledge of the concept is central in source text – relevance and perspective!

› Next filtering when creating target text – relevance and perspective!



21.11. 2014

Roots of the suggested definition

› Related to Vermeer 1986, 33 (Skopos Theory): Translation as an offer of information in a language t of the culture T, which imitates an offer of information in a language s of the culture S according to its specified function; a complex form of action

› Leaving the idea of the ”holy original” as main guide, introducing the prevalence of the target text situation (cf. Sarcevic next slide)



21.11. 2014

Translation as a purposeful activity

› „While some functional equivalents are always acceptable (near equivalence) or never acceptable (non-equivalence), most functional equivalents fall into the category of partial equivalence. Accordingly, the question of acceptability arises primarily when a functional equivalent and its source term are only partially equivalent. In such cases, the acceptability of a functional equivalent usually depends on context, thus requiring the translator to analyze each textual situation before deciding whether a functional equivalent is acceptable in that particular context.”

(Sarcevic 2000, 241 – my emphasis)

Translation as operation at text level, creating access to relevant parts of the underlying knowledge (system level) – difference between tasks in work in multilingual legal settings



21.11. 2014

(INTERPERSONAL) KNOWLEDGE COMMUNICATION › Any understanding of concepts is based upon a (re-)construction of meanings

among participants on the basis of their pre-existing individual stock of knowledge - focus upon the individual player and his/her intention to understand, but guided by previous and agreed upon knowledge

› The (re-)construction process is in principle open concerning its end result, at least over time – but may be checked by asking / talking

› Consequences:

› Uttering a text is highlighting aspects of pre-existing knowledge for purposes of situation

› Efficiency of translation may be checked empirically – as actually (re-)constructed knowledge



21.11. 2014

My take on translation: Conclusions

› Consequences:

› Distinguish between text and systems level

› Translation as textually profiled mediation of knowledge, not system transfer

› When translating, we convey perspectives of more encompassing units of knowledge

› The efficiency of the mediation may be checked empirically – as target text intends to (re-)create knowledge in the minds of concrete target culture persons



21.11. 2014

Example

› Rendering court names when translating court decisions

Landsret Appeal court

First court Jury court

Civil and criminal cases

Højesteret Highest court Only appeals


Byret First court Jury court


Supreme Court Highest court Only appeals


Court of Appeal Only appeals

One civil and one criminal division

Appeal Court Appeal court


Supreme Court Highest court Only appeals


District Court First court Jury court


Crown court Appeal court

First court Criminal cases

High court Appeal court

First court Civil cases

Magistrate’s court

First court Prel. Investing. Criminal cases

County court First court Civil cases

Denmark England US

Assignment:

Translating Danish judgement in appeal case for documentary purposes

“Decision in the case A vs. B, issued by the Danish

High Court /

Crown Court /

Appeal Court /

Court ”Vestre Landsret”

in the case no. xx on February 14 2001.”

Choosing parts of knowledge from source text system with relevance for

target text situation



21.11. 2014

Quality standards - conclusion

› Seeing legal translation as knowledge mediation across linguistic and cultural asymmetries ensues that high translation quality is creating a text that gives rise to the (re-)creation of knowledge at a level of delicacy that is in accordance with the requirements of the target text situation.

› This may be checked empirically by subjecting text to actual knowledge (re-)creation in intended situations



21.11. 2014

Taking it one step further: Knowledge Mediator as Socially Responsible Agent

› Post-structuralist vantage point (deconstructing the natural)

› Prominent examples: Vidal Claramonte, Martín Ruano (Salamanca)

› Basic supplementary idea: Translators cannot avoid responsibility for their choices, also from the point of view of the social consequences



21.11. 2014

Martín Ruano: Reflexive Practice

› “In general terms, what seems to be missing in the conceptualisation of translation and interpreting as reproduction is the ability to assume the participatory role of these professionals in the (re)construction of meanings and of broader elements such as identities, power positions or symbolic capital, which can be accounted for when translation and interpreting are conceived as socially-situated practices.” (Martín Ruano 2014, 201; my emphasis)

› Example: Ideal of literalness in legal translation to be seen not as neutrality, but as prioritising adequacy (with source text and culture) over acceptability (in target culture), reinforcing negative perception of source culture in target culture challenge of concept of neutral translator as invisible non-person!!

› Basis for (re-)negotiation of translators’ identities as neutral – neutrality as contextually negotiated concept



21.11. 2014

Vidal Claramonte: Deconstruction and Responsibility

› Post-structuralism and law: Deconstructing law (not ‘objective’ justice, rather institutionalised justice, interpretive violence)

› ”Contemporary translators inhabit multiple realities and cannot limit themselves to universal and uniform translating formulae. If they did, all respect for diversity would be lost, particularly in places where the legal translator is so necessary in contemporary society: police stations, courts of law, NGOs and international organisations.” (Vidal Claramonte 2013, 184)

› “We can no longer naively rely on the foundations once offered by our legal system and by those translation theories that believed in equivalent meaning. Instead, we must perform a deconstruction of “normal” courtroom proceedings, keeping in mind that legal translation is no longer neutral but ideologically charged, …” (Vidal Claramonte 2013, 192)



21.11. 2014

Consequence: Suggesting a new model for (researching) legal translation

› We are in a new world situation that demands new ways of translating, especially in such a sensitive field as legal translation. To achieve a more ethical legal translation it will be necessary to destroy the homogeneous, devour universalism and facilitate a new form of thinking and, subsequently, of translating. Translators should be aware of the responsibilities involved here. Every translation upsets the translator, who never comes out of the process unscathed, because translation is never carried out in symmetrical situations, and because language and translation shape our identities (in the plural). (Vidal Claramonte 2013, 191)



21.11. 2014

Overlaps and differences

› Differences

› Difference in basic assumption: Post-structuralist rejection of the unified core self vs. Knowledge as simultaneously individual and social (Power of the dialogue)

› Difference in focus: Power struggle vs. Dynamic meaning approach

› Overlaps:

› Dynamic meaning approach

› Translator as responsible agent



21.11. 2014

Summing up: Characteristics of legal translators

› The legal translator is an active knowledge mediator, shaping messages as input to non-automatic knowledge construction processes

› The processes behind constructing such knowledge are an important object of study

› The basic position challenges the view of the legal translator as a neutral copyist

› Consequently, the identity of the legal translator as invisible is challenged, demanding a re-negotiation of role and identity in the personal and power context of legal translation, i.e., in relation to co-operators

› Requires assuming a social responsibility also on the side of the legal translator.

› References:

› Ditlevsen, M. G. (2011). Towards a Methodological Framework for Knowledge Communication. In M. Petersen & J. Engberg (Eds.), Current Issues in Specialized Communication. Bern: Lang.

› Engberg, J. (2007). Wie und warum sollte die Fachkommunikationsforschung in Richtung Wissensstrukturen erweitert werden? Fachsprache, 29(1-2), 2-25.

› Engberg, J. (2011). Rechtsübersetzung als Wissensvermittlung – Konsequenzen aus der Art rechtlichen Wissens. In S. Roiss, C. Fortea Gil, M. Á. Recio Ariza, B. Santana Lopez, P. Zimmermann Gonzalez & I. Holl (Eds.), En las vertientes de la traducción/interpretación del/al alemán (pp. 393-406). Berlin: Frank & Thimme.

› Engberg, J. (2012). Specialized Communication and Culture, Practice, Competence, and Knowledge: Implications and derived insights. In L. Pon, V. Karabalic & S. Cimer (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Today: Research and Perspectives. Angewandte Linguistik heute: Forschung und Perspektiven (pp. 109-130). Frankfurt a.M. et al.: Lang.

› Engberg, J. (2013). Comparative law for translation: The key to successful mediation between legal systems. In A. Borja Albi & F. Prieto Ramos (Eds.), Legal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects (pp. 9-25). Bern et al.: Lang.

› Kastberg, P. (2007). Knowledge Communication: The emergence of a third order discipline. In C. Villiger & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Kommunikation in Bewegung : Multimedialer und multilingualer Wissenstransfer in der Experten-Laien-Kommunikation. Festschrift für Annely Rothkegel (pp. 7-24). Berlin: Lang.

› Kastberg, P. (2010). Knowledge Communication. Formative Ideas and Research Impetus. Pragmatic Perspectives, 2(1), 59-71.

› Martín Ruano, M. R. (2014). From suspicion to collaboration: defining new epistemologies of reflexive practice for legal translation and interpreting. JoSTrans(22), 194-213.

› Vidal Claramonte, M. C. Á. (2014). Towards a new research model in legal translation: future perspectives in the era of asymmetry. Linguistica Antverpiensia(12), 182-196.

Date post:	07-Jul-2015
Category:	Law
Upload:	janengberg
View:	184 times
Download:	1 times

Legal Translation as Knowledge Mediation

Law