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