Ex-implicitation in Legal Translation

7/28/2019 Ex-implicitation in Legal Translation

1/15


2/15

Meta LV, 2, 2010

Explicitation and Implicitation in Legal Translation A Process Study of Trainee Translators

mette hjort-pedersen

Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmarkp.@.

dorrit faber

Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark.@.

RSUM

Le prsent article a pour objet dexaminer lutilisation de lexplicitation et de limplicitationdans le domaine de la traduction juridique. Sur le plan linguistique, les textes juridiquessont complexes et diciles comprendre pour les non-spcialistes. Du point de vuecogniti, on pourrait par consquent sattendre ce que lexplicitation et limplicitationapparaissent rquemment dans les textes cibles juridiques,tant donn que les traduc-teurs ont tendance laisser dans les textes cibles des traces de leur comprhension, ruitdun travail ardu. Dun autre ct, les traductions dans le domaine juridique ont desconsquences juridiques dans le monde rel. Du point de vue juridique, on pourrait doncsattendre ce que lexplicitation et limplicitation apparaissent assez rarement dans lestextes juridiques traduits, vu leet, sur le plan juridique, que peuvent avoir lajout ou lasuppression dinormations. Cependant, comment cette contradiction se traduit-elle dans

les textes cibles produits par des traducteurs dexpertises variables ? Le prsent articletudie le phnomne de lexplicitation et de limplicitation dans les traductions ralisespar les tudiants en traduction. Notre hypothse est que le manque de comptencessusantes en matire de scnarios juridiques a plus de poids que les eorts mentauxdes tudiants et que ceux-ci choisiront, pour plus de sret, de se restreindre aux expli-citations et aux implicitations obligatoires.

ABSTRACT

This article explores the use o explicitation and implicitation in the context o legaltranslation. Legal texts are linguistically complex and dicult to understand or lay per-sons. From a cognitive point o view it may thereore be assumed that ex- and implicita-

tions will be requent phenomena in legal TTs, because translators will tend to leavetraces o their hard-won understanding in the TT. On the other hand, legal translationshave legal consequences in the real world. From a legal point o view it may thereoreconversely be assumed that ex- and implicitations will be relatively rare phenomena inlegal TTs because o the potential legal eect o adding or removing inormation. Buthow is this schism refected in legal TTs perormed by translators at dierent levels oexpertise? This article examines phenomena o ex- and implicitations in trainee translatorTTs. It is hypothesized that lack o sucient knowledge o legal scenarios will overrideheavy mental processing eorts and that trainee translators will restrict themselves tochoosing only obligatory ex- and implicitations as their sae bet.

MOTS-CLS/KEYWORDS

traduction juridique, explicitation, implicitation, processus cognitis, protocoles de ver-balisationlegal translation, explicitation, implicitation, cognitive processes, think-aloud protocols


3/15

238 Meta, LV, 2, 2010

1. Introduction

T x p xp p - . Exp p , .., B-K(1986), p - xp p , , (K 1998: 84). T p xp .. K K (2005) Pp (2004). Exp x -p p (L-B 1996; P 2003; D 2005 ). Ip q p (K K 2005).O p xp xp p x . B p x,

p xpp .

2. Background

I p . Cp xp, x A P, j, p , p p p, (S 1989). A -

, , p , j p p . I , x q. A x q px f -xp q p , p . A x , p , p x . T p xp,

xp , , , p x.O , p xp

p x. F p , - - p p / x, xp p p . RC, EU, x p : ;

, p q? (C 2003: 42).

C, p p q pp. L x


4/15

, px. O , p x - xp / p. T p pp P (2005),

p px q xp . R W (2004), xp p px-, P p x, , xp (P 2005: 8-9).

S (2001) - x xp. W H S x p -p grammaticalmetaphors. T -p

() p , p p xp p -x x . A p -p, , - , ppx pp [], p p p, -p , p (S 2001: 11).

T x xp. , p -

p px p. L-B(1996: 155) V (1985) p f px x .

B ? H p p xp (p- )? O, , xp px S xp p p p,p. T q /p p p x p norm .

T p , p xp. p, pp p p xp.

F p , x p p pp p : T px x xp xp , p, , . p x x. T,

explicitation and implicitation in legal translation 239


5/15

240 Meta, LV, 2, 2010

xp , p xp, ..,p xp , .

xp p q :D xp , , , p p px x? A , pp xp x (), , p ? C, x (S) xp, p xp , xp- , p (SL) x .

F, p xp p , p xp p p ? A xp p?

3. Data and methodology

T - p p D M.A. E Sp Pp p.

A p B.A. M.A. , p D.W pj - -

. T p p (J 1999). I . H, - -p (AP) p , ..,D (2005).

I p p -

x , f , p . W p (Hp 1991; H 2000; J 2000).

4. Te source text with focus points

O x x D p q j p. I 103 , 75 , . T p p p, - p p x -, x pp, x


6/15

. D, p, I. I , p p, .

E S D, p oreign p p L Sp Pp (LSP), - S .

T p p xp q , p,- p p, . p . I , , xp .

A p - xp p . H, p, p .

T x (69 ) p- :

S x

[] pj 248 , - p p .

A EF- 18, p p p 15. p1999 . D , p 15. p 1999 p .

p ,.., p, - p reerence assignment(RA) enrichment(EN), pp S. F pp, ( ) p q -

(B 1992: 68). E p p p(B 1992: 61). T x p x p, .

p S, p .

O ()

T A J A (which? RA) 248 (by whom? EN) x C C (which? RA) (in relationto what/when EN) (by whom? EN) j (by whom? EN) .T (which? RA) Ep J C 18



7/15

242 Meta, LV, 2, 2010

pp (by whom? EN) C C pp (who/which? RA) 15 Ap 1999 . I p (by whom? EN) C C App 15 Ap 1999 .

W x pp x, p , p.

5. Inferencing and translating

T x. T xp AP, this is not easy, Im not sure, this is annoying,

maybe, . ( Hj-P F [2009]). T not xp who, when, where, . H, xp. T I pp p-. T p 69 p 56.06, 49.09, 47.06, 34.55 , p. I S p p p p, p. N

p p p xp , p - - p pp. H, p p, p p .

5.1. Mental explicitation

T xp 1 . T - p p p p, M&M, &A,A&M, K&M. T p, .., px , 4 q , 6 . I p xp- p, 8 16 p p (50%), 19 24 p p(79.16%).


8/15

Table 1

Mental explicitation

Linguistic unitMental

explicitationM&M &A A&M K&M

RA A J A 0EN 3 + + +

RA T C C 3 + + +

EN 3 + + +

EN ( ..)

3 + + +

EN j ( ) 2 + +

RA T 2 + +

EN pp ( ) 4 + + + +

RA pp. 3 + + +

EN p 4 + + + +

T p p p p :

1. Reerence assignment . Ap xp, .., p x - , .H, p p p. I ,

.2. W x q enrichment, p

p . A q , xp- , p pp 7 8 p(87.5%). N 9 12 p (75%). T pp (as was the case) xp 3 4 p(75%).

5.2. Target text with linguistic explicitations and implicitations

W xp p , , . F, , p p xp p pp. O P (2003: 73) K K (2005: 15), -. Exp p: p.

1) A (A) q , xx p ;

2) Sp (S) q, .., () x

.

S, p :



9/15

244 Meta, LV, 2, 2010

1) R (R), S x ;

2) G (G), L x p S x .

2 p xp xp / p p xp p .

Table 2

Mental explicitation and linguistic explicitation/implicitation

LinguisticUnit

M&M &A A&M K&M

men-tal

linguistic men-tal

linguistic men-tal

linguistic men-tal

linguistic

expl impl expl impl expl impl expl impl

RA A. J A A A A A

EN + A + + R R

RA C C + + A +

EN

+ A + S + R

EN( ..)

+ A + R +

ENj( )

+ S +

RA + S +

ENpp( )

+ S + S + S + S

RA pp.

+ + S +

EN p + A + + +

Overall time/Focus p. time

56.06/41.18 49.09/38.02 47.06/29.35 34.55/12.01

T xp - p 27. O xp, 14 (51.85%) xp . I 11 (40.74%), xp . O 2 p(7.40%) p .

C, 5 xp p p xp.

6. Te analyses

A , p - xp p , p, 2 , .


10/15

I p, p . W p p - p, . W , ,

p p x , p . A p p (as was the case), p , p p .

W , xp , - . F , , p xp p. T , , xpp p.

Sp , x, p

p p . I, .

E AP xp pp p, p , . I p p ( ) q , . W p, , , -

p p . T . S, p xp, xp . AP - p. I AP D . W q , q .

6.1. Enrichment of passives

W p (is ound), M&M . T p D , fnd. T p xp .

p 248 p CC

T :

p Danish High Court does not fnd fnd( ) that section o the Administration o JusticeAct

T x : TeDanish High Court does not fnd.



11/15

246 Meta, LV, 2, 2010

T p x p,.., pp (that makes it easier yes) p p x. T L p, x ,

. O , p, , , - p p.

A p A&M, . T p , p j.

I I D x O D A J j does not exclude

A J A x

I x reduction p (isound) : [] the Danish Administration o Justice Act doesnot exclude that

J AP, - . I p p.

&A p,

x : I I A J A x I

I x literal: Te Danish Administrationo Justice Act is ound

W p ( p), p -, M&M ( ). T p xp x- p.

6.2. Enrichment of nominalisations

p p , x - - ,.., () (the preparation [o the case]). A pp xp, p, . T pp : p p (prepara-

tion) pre-trial stage xp:(L ): pp p p p pre-trialstage as the pre-trial stage


12/15

T x specifcation D - (preparation), pre-trial stage .

6.3. Enrichment of elliptical phrase

T p p (as was the case) p- p p . O xp , A&M p p :

I pp , ?

x specifcation:previously.H, K&M p xp (as is

the case) p. T p D .

T p xp reduction p p :

W pp I has allowed pp

T , SL p p, p

x- p.

6.4. Reference assignment in connection with culture-bound elements

F, xp xp p . W Rpj (the Administration o Justice

Act), p p p. F p AP xp, xp j Danish: Te Danish Administration o

Justice ActT AP

p . W (the City Court), AP p ,.., A&M:

C C Cp

A&M x addition: TeCopenhagen City Court. T p ,

.., Danish

T x ( ) xp: Te District Court/City Court



13/15

248 Meta, LV, 2, 2010

W ( ), p(M&M &A) x :

T C C H C (&A) I pp C C (M&M)

T xp &A, p literaltranslation: . W M&M, , xp . T the order, p speci-

fcation p pp C C j. T , p p . T p xp .

T p q p (theappellants statement o case) pp xp p, (the appellant) . T ,, xp p pp- , q, the appellant, p . O p (&A) p :

W p Y, ( I).

T xp q

speciy x : the appellants notice o appeal( p x ).

6.5. Summing up the analyses

T p AP . P - pp p x . W

xp , , .., - D p (2005: 236), xp p -p p. Exp (Danish/Copenhagen) pp (Administration o Justice Act/City Court).

x- p pp S x. I , .., p p , easier L p/ . S pp, xp p. O ,

p , -- .

T p xp.


14/15

D I p p- p, . T p p pp p x x . L

p . A, pp .

7. Conclusion and perspectives

A xp, p p q p p. W p xp xp p p q . T, xp p

. H, p - .

T p xp p p . A p xp p P (2005). A p xp, D (2005: 236) - xp. Sp, , x . W p p,

, xp . T f , -p p.

A () xp p . A , AP . N AP xp p x p xp--xp .

B p , , pp xp p . T, x p p p . W x xp xp p . A, x x p p xp p . I , p p p p

xp .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENS

W I M L D p J p F.



15/15

250 Meta, LV, 2, 2010

REFERENCES

Blakemore, D (1992): Understanding Utterances. An Introduction to Pragmatics. C:B.

Blum-Kulka, S (1986): S C C . In: J

House S Blum-Kulka, . Interlingual and intercultural communication.: G N V, 17-35.Correia, R (2003): EU L x. In: A osi, . Crossing Barriers

and Bridging Cultures. Te Challenges o Multilingual ranslation or the European Union .C: M M, 38-44.

Dimitrova, B E (2005): C P P A: Exp C P. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Applique. 81:25-39.

Dimitrova, B E (2005): Expertise and Explicitation in the ranslation Process.A: J Bj.

Haastru, K (1991): Lexical Inerencing Procedures. : G N V.Hort-Pedersen, M Faber, D (2009): U C P

L S: A P S S . Hermes Journal o Languageand Communication Studies. 42:189-209.

House, J (2000): C . In: Sj irkkonen-Condit R Jskelinen, . apping and Mapping the Processes o ranslation and Inter-

preting. Outlooks on Empirical Research. A: J Bj, 149-162.Jskelinen, R (2000): F - . In:

Sj irkkonen-Condit R Jskelinen, . apping and Mapping the Pro-cesses o ranslation and Interpreting. Outlooks on Empirical Research . A: JBj, 71-82.

Jakobsen, A L (1999): L x P . In: G Hansen,. Probing the Process in ranslation. Cp: S, 9-20.

Klaudy, K (1998): Exp. In: M Baker K Malmkaer, . REp S. L: R, 80-85.

Klaudy, K Kroly, K (2005): Ip : p p .Across Languages and Cultures. 6(1):3-28.

Laviosa-Braithwaite, S (1996): Cp p: p - p . In: M helen B Lewandowska-omaszczyk, . ranslation and Meaning, Part 3. M: E, 153-163.

Pai, V (2004): Exp: A x? In: A Mauranen, .ranslation Universals. Do Tey Exist?A: J Bj, 143-164.

Perego, E (2003): E xp : C. AcrossLanguages and Cultures. 4(1):63-88.

Puurtinen, (2003): Exp p x .Across Languagesand Cultures. 4(1):53-62.

Pym, A (2005): Explaining Explicitation, version 2.2. V 19 M 2010, .

Searle, J R. (1989): H p W. Linguistics and Philosophy. 12(5):535-558.Steiner, E (2001): ranslations English German: investigating the relative importance o

systemic contrasts and o the text-type translation. V 19 M 2010, .

Vanderauwera, R (1985): Dutch Novels ranslated into English: Te transormation o aminority literature. A: Rp.

Whittaker, S (2004): x x x : ? Forum 2(2):221-240.

Ex-implicitation in Legal Translation

Documents

Transcript of Ex-implicitation in Legal Translation