Legal translation and “traditional” comparative law – Similarities and differences

Ingrid Simonnæs

Abstract


The aim of this paper is to describe some similarities and differences encountered when comparing legal translation and comparative law as separate yet interrelated disciplines. To this end, their respective objectives and methods are broadly outlined. This is followed by a case study on translations of a specific legal text into English and German which have been produced by candidates sitting the Norwegian National Translator Accreditation Exam. In this paper, I intend to show that comparative law “in the traditional sense” (Friedman, 1990, p. 49) is much concerned with issues of translation and show that there are not only similarities but also differences.


Keywords


Legal translation ; "traditional" comparative Law ; Interpretation ; Culture-bound concepts ; Norwegian legal system ; German legal system

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akehurst, M. (1972). Preparing the authentic English text of the E.E.C. Treaty. In B. A. Wortley (Ed.), An introduction to the law of the European Economic Community (pp. 20–31). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Basedow, J., Hopt, K., & Zimmermann, R. (Eds.). (2005). Hein Kötz. Undogmatisches: Rechtsvergleichende und rechtsökonomische Studien aus dreißig Jahren. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Beaugrande, R. de (1987). Determinacy distributions in complex systems: Science, linguistics, language, life. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 2, 147–190.

Bessing, J., Schrader, J., & Lipp, V. [translators] (2011). The Norwegian 2005 Dispute Act in Norwegian and in German and English Translation. In V. Lipp & H. Haukeland Fredriksen (Eds.), Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway (pp. 135–447). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Boele-Woelki, K. (2008). European challenges in contemporary family law: Some final observations. In K. Boele-Woelki & T. Sverdrup (Eds.), European challenges in contemporary family law (pp. 413–423). Antwerp: Intersentia.

Boele-Woelki, K., & Sverdrup, T. (Eds.). (2008). European challenges in contemporary family law. Antwerp: Intersentia.

Brand, O. (2006–2007). Conceptual comparisons: Towards a coherent methodology of comparative legal studies. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 32(2), 405–466.

Bühler, A. (1999). Die Vielfalt des Interpretierens. Analyse & Kritik, 21, 117–137.

Chesterman, A. (2000). Memetics and translation studies. SYNAPS Fagspråk, Kommunikasjon, Kulturkunnskap, 5, 1–17.

Chesterman, A. (2010). Skopos theory: A retrospective assessment. In W. Kallmeyer, E. Reuter, & J. F. Schopp (Eds.), Perspektiven auf Kommunikation: Festschrift für Liisa Tittula zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 209–225). Berlin: SAXA.

Curzon, L. B. (2002). Dictionary of law. (6th ed.). London: Longman.

Fischer, M. W. (1984). Hermeneutik als Lebensform?: Hermeneutik und Strukturtheorie des Rechts. ARSP − Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 20, 51–73.

Friedman, L. M. (1990). Some thoughts on comparative legal culture. In D. S. Clark (Ed.), Comparative and private international law: Essays in honor of John Henry Merryman (pp. 49–57). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1988). On the circle of understanding. In J. M. Connolly & T. Keutner (Eds.), Hermeneutics versus science?: Three German views. Essays by H.-G. Gadamer, E. K. Specht, W. Stegmüller (translated, edited and introduced by J. M. Connolly & Th. Keutner) (pp. 68–78). Notre Dame, IN.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Heck, P. (1932). Begriffsbildung und Interessenjurisprudenz. Tübingen: Mohr.

Herbots, J. H. (1987). La traduction juridique : Un point de vue belge. Les Cahiers de Droit, 28(4), 813–844.

Jesch, D. (1957). Unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff und Ermessen in rechtstheoretischer und verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 82(2–3), 163–249.

Kisch, I. (1973). Droit comparé et terminologie juridique. In M. Rotondi (Ed.), Inchiesti di diritto comparato (pp. 402–423). Padova: Cedam.

Langer, M. (2004). From legal transplants to legal translations: The globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard International Law Journal, 45(1), 1–65.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas: A series of addresses (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Cooper Square.

Lind, Å. (2009). Norsk-engelsk juridisk ordbok. (3rd ed.). Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forl.

Merryman, J. H., Clark, D. S., & Haley, J. O. (1994). Introduction to comparative law. In J. H Merryman, D. S. Clark, & J. O. Haley (Eds.), The civil law tradition: Europe, Latin America, and East Asia. (pp. 1–2). Charlottesville, VA: Michie Comp.

Michaels, R. (2006). The functional method of comparative law. In M. Reimann & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative law (pp. 339–382). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Minor, J. (Ed.), (1923). Novalis Schriften. Bd. III. Jena: Eugen Diederichs. [cited as Novalis]

Nerhot, P. (1990). Interpretation in legal science: The notion of narrative coherence. In P. Nerhot (Ed.), Law, interpretation and reality: Essays in epistemology, hermeneutics and jurisprudence (pp. 193–225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Nord, C. (1989). Loyalität statt Treue: Vorschläge zu einer funktionalen Übersetzungstypologie. Lebende Sprachen, 34(3), 100–105.

Örücü, E. (2006). Methodology of comparative law. In J. M. Smits (Ed.), Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law (pp. 442–454). Cheltenham: Elgar.

Örücü, E., & D. Nelken (Eds.). (2007). Comparative law: A handbook. Oxford: Hart.

Sandrini, P. (1996). Comparative analysis of legal terms: Equivalence revisited. In C. Galinski & K. D. Schmitz (Eds.), TKE ‘96 − Terminology and Knowledge Engineering. Proceedings Fourth International Congress on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, 26.-28. August 1996, Vienna, Austria (pp. 342–350). Frankfurt: Indeks.

Šarčević, S. (1994). Translation and the law: An interdisciplinary approach. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (pp. 301–307). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Šarčević, S. (2000). Creativity in Legal Translation: How much is too much? In: A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in Context. Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. 281–292.

Simonnæs, I. (2009a). Übersetzungstheorien und Gebrauchstexte – Anwendung und Auswirkung auf das Übersetzen von Rechtstexten: Eine exemplarische Analyse. Babel – Revue internationale de la traduction, 55(2), 124–141.

Simonnæs, I. (2009b). Verstehen und Interpretation in der intralingualen Rechtskommunikation: Voraussetzung und Anwendung in Theorie und Praxis. trans-kom 2(2), 160–172, http://www.trans-kom.eu/ihv_02_02_2009.html

Simonnæs, I. (2012). Rechtskommunikation national und international im Spannungsfeld von Hermeneutik, Kognition und Pragmatik. Berlin: Frank & Timme.

Snell-Hornby, M., Pöchhacker, F., & Kaindl, K. (Eds.), (1994). Translation studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sunde, J. Ø. (2010). Champagne at the funeral: An introduction to legal culture. In J. Ø. Sunde & K. E. Skodvin (Eds.), Rendezvous of European legal cultures (pp. 11–28). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Vermeer, H. J. (1996). A skopos theory of translation: Some arguments for and against. Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT.

Watson, A. (1993). Legal transplants: An approach to comparative law. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Wesenberg, G. (1951) Juristische Methodenlehre: Friedrich Karl von Savigny. Stuttgart: Koehlerer.

Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1996). Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts. Tübingen: Mohr.

Government of Canada. Where Our Legal System Comes from. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html (01.11.13)

Legislation.gov.uk, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents (01.11.13)