Qualetra Final Conference – Antwerp – 17 October 2014 Training Legal Translators: Comparative Criminal Law Applied Tony Foster & Dirk Broeren Stichting Instituut van Gerechtstolken en -Vertalers (SIGV) 1 Outline • Introduction • The problem • Legal translation according to the lawyer – Legal translation is comparative law • Legal translation according to the linguist – Legal translation is comparative definition • Uniting the linguistic and legal points of view • Conclusions 2 Introduction • Central thesis: higher quality of legal translation in criminal proceedings through comparative law • Case in point: the specialist eight-month course on legal translation in criminal proceedings offered by the Dutch training institute for legal interpreters and translators SIGV – Output: successful candidates qualify for entry in the government-supervised register of sworn translators 3 The problem Lexicographers and translators: “Please translate these Dutch terms into English, in such a way that they mean the same!” Legal translation - the lawyer: “Legal translation is an exercise in comparative law (i.e. in comparative definition of legal terms)” Methods of comparative law • Linguistic relationships: – Etymology and cognates • Historical-Family relationships: – Common law versus Civil Law systems • Functional relationships (functional equivalence [FE]): – Do two terms have the same function in both legal systems? • Equivalence in procedural function of concept • Equivalence in substantive law Comparative Law: The Debate 7 Comparative Criminal Law Applied The SIGV course: “Non verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu” St. Jerome (347 ‒ 420 CE) 8 Legal translation - the linguist: “Ah, what they want is semantic and pragmatic equivalence.” A procedure for translation 1 2 3 • Make sure you understand the Dutch term • Define it in Dutch • Know where to look to find an English equivalent • Define it in English • Compare your definitions • Legal translation is comparative definition The procedure looks easy But how does one define concepts? By means of componential analysis (CA) or prototypical analysis (PA)? Definition according to Aristotle Definiens: concept to be defined Genus proximum: class to which definiens belongs large animal Differentia specifica: distinguishing features of the definiens that people ride Problems • How defining is this definition of horse? – Elephants are also large animals that one can ride. • So when is a definition adequate? – What about more abstract concepts than horses? • The number of necessary differentia specifica may be unpractically large • Legal terms are abstract A helpful semanticist • Have you tried componential analysis? – Splitting up a term into contrasting features, or components of meaning (Nida 1979, pp. 32-67; Fronzaroli 1993, pp. 79) – An English paradigm for human beings: Man Woman Boy Girl Male Female Adult Immature + + - + + + + - + + A glimmer of hope: Can't we apply CA contrastively? Legal translation – linguist & lawyer: “Why not ‘translate’ comparative law into semantic features as a starting- point for translation?” Let's give it a go • The example of moord – murder • Definitions of Dutch moord and English (UK) murder Cognates Legal family Murder + - Functionally equivalent: e.g. mens rea - Moord + - - Maybe an extra feature? • Some crimes are more serious than others: – Mala in se (wrongs in themselves) – Mala prohibita (wrongs because the law says so) – But also within the same category (moord/doodslag are both mala in se) Cognates Legal family FE 1: mens rea FE 2: gravity of offence Murder + - - + Moord + - - + Oh dear… • Conclusion of componential analysis: – Moord and murder differ in more than one many feature, so they're not acceptable equivalents • And yet everyone translates moord into murder Objection # 1: The sense boundaries between the defining features are fuzzy An illustration: mens rea • What's on a killer's mind? – Opzettelijk (Articles 287, 288, 288a, 302 Dutch Criminal Code) – Schuld (Article 307 Dutch Criminal Code) – Met voorbedachten rade? (Article 289 Dutch Criminal Code) What were you thinking? Opzet Willens en wetens Voorwaardelijk opzet Aanzienlijke kans voor lief nemend Bewuste schuld Roekeloosheid (vertrouwend op goede afloop) Onbewuste schuld Niet nadenkend waar dat wel moet Comparing Dutch and English law Opzet Intent Voorwaardelijk opzet Bewuste schuld Onbewuste schuld Intent/Recklessness Negligence Objection # 2: CA wrongly assumes that all features are equal Prototype theory (Rosch 1978) • Categories have a centre and a periphery – So not all members have the same status • This brings us back to the birdie • Question for discussion: – What are the prototypical features of moord and murder? Conclusion What do we teach our students in theory and/or in practice? 26 Lessons for life (?): • Legal translation is an exercise in comparative law (De Groot) • Bringing semantics and comparative law together in one framework can help you strengthen the quality of you work • But don’t forget the “real world”: – Translating Du. moord into E. murder is fine if you're subtitling an episode of CSI – Beware of the grumpy judge with “a little knowledge” • Why do you interpret premeditated murder? Murder is always premeditated, stupid! 27 28 References Adams, M. & Bomhoff, J. (eds.) (2012). Practice and theory in comparative law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fronzaroli, P. (1993). Componential analysis. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik, 6(1), 77-91. De Groot, G.R. (1993). Recht en vertalen II. Deventer: Kluwer. Lasser, M. (2009), Judicial deliberations. A comparative analysis of judicial transparency and legitimacy (pp. 162-3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nida, E.A. (1979). Componential analysis of meaning: An introduction to semantic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Loyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 29