These theoretical divergences are certainly reinforced by the fact that translation and interpretation also have a much broader and non-legal meaning. More generally, translation can be understood as “interpretive practice” [30:149] or “the interpretation of verbal signs by means of another language” [27:145]. The philosopher H.-G. Gadamer asserted that “each translation is at the same time an interpretation. It may even be said that translation is the culmination of the translator`s interpretation of the words given to him” [20, 386]. Similarly, the eminent seminarian Umberto Eco believed that translation is a “limited mode of interpretation” [26:263] or “a particular type of interpretation” [12:130]. In contrast, another radical view, interestingly attributed to Gadamer, holds that essentially “all communication is translation” [44:187] and attempts to extend the theory of translation “into a complete theory of language” [44:187]. The translation of legal documents refers to translations made on legally binding documents. These may include birth certificates and other identity documents. Biel, Łucja and Jan Engberg. 2013.
Models and research methods in legal translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, Neue Reihe – Themen der Übersetzungswissenschaft 12,. 1–13. Almost all documents handled by a legal translator are legally binding or have a legal requirement for accuracy. This means that the translated document may be completely invalid if there are errors. These documents often need to be notarized to ensure there are no inaccuracies or fraud attempts – a fake birth certificate, marriage certificate, or other document is a common way for people to enter other countries, so notarizing these translations helps prevent this. Another difference is in style and tone. Legal translators must ensure that translations are used in a good passive voice for the legal field of a foreign country. Legal translation is the translation of the language used in legal environments and for legal purposes. Legal translations can also mean that it is a certain type of translation that is only used in law, which is not always the case. Since law is a culturally dependent field, legal translation is not necessarily linguistically transparent. Lack of transparency in translation can be avoided by using Latin legal terminology where possible, but in non-Western languages, debates focus on the origins and precedents of certain terms, such as the use of certain Chinese characters in Japanese legal discussions.
[1] When someone hires a translator or translation agency for a legal translation process, it is extremely important to be able to count on a reliable result. If the translation is not accurate enough, there may be legal consequences. A poorly translated document can have a direct impact on people`s rights. Such criteria have been proposed by other scientists and it is necessary to critically evaluate them at this stage. Chromá suggests that legal interpretation can only be considered if “the legal context must be taken into account in the search for adequate meaning” [11:7]. Therefore, this implies that translators of legal texts in some (most?) It is not necessary to take into account the legal context to find the appropriate meaning of a legal text. Such an assertion is untenable. As the above analysis shows, the legal context is essential to understanding legal texts. In fact, the importance of legal knowledge in legal translation theory is undisputed and is rightly included in theoretical models of legal competence in translation [16, 26, 40, 41]. A major difference between lawyers and translators (and probably also between legal interpreting and legal translation), on the other hand, is that lawyers tend to take their starting point in the sense of words, while translators tend to take larger units of text, such as sentence or section.
as a starting point [referring to 16: 376]. We find that such a difference is purely methodical and not conceptual. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction, although it describes the effect rather than the cause. The latter is correctly identified by Husa, who notes that “a translator deciphers the entire text, whereas legal interpretation is much more selective. In other words, only difficult or unclear parts of legal texts require interpretation, since in most cases the meaning of words and sentences is not a problem; On the other hand, interpretation is necessary only when there is uncertainty or a dispute as to the legal meaning which can or should be attributed to a text” [26: 263]. Its results are fairly consistent with the legal opinion presented above. Legal interpretation (i.e. interpretation in the strict sense) is selective not because lawyers, unlike linguistically trained translators, tend to focus on certain words, but because only certain words (or phrases or sentences, etc.) raise interpretative doubts and therefore require legal interpretation. As Fallon puts it, “an important challenge to legal interpretation is to resolve confusion, uncertainty, or disagreement over claims of legal significance” [18:1276]. In other words, legal interpretation as we are discussing is not primarily a matter of communication, but of problem solving.
This brings us to four instructive questions: what are these problems?, how do they arise?, how can they be solved?, and who can solve them? Obviously, this situation poses a challenge to translators of legal texts and requires them to have knowledge not only of languages but also of the law [22:259; 40:145; 44:192]. In other words, “translators must enter the realm of law” [26:262] and “know how lawyers, including judges and legislators, think and write, and how to write how they do it” [8:5]. This aspect of legal translation has been duly recognized in translation studies. Ramos proposed a detailed competency model in legal translation that focuses on thematic and cultural subcompetencies that include “knowledge of legal systems, hierarchy of legal sources, areas of law, and key legal concepts; an awareness of the asymmetry between legal concepts and structures in different legal traditions” [41, 12].