1

Training Legal Translators: Comparative Criminal Law Applied

Tony Foster & Dirk BroerenStichting Instituut van Gerechtstolken en

-Vertalers (SIGV)

Qualetra Final Conference – Antwerp – 17 October 2014

2

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

3

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

“Please translate these Dutch terms into English, in such a way that they mean the same!”

Lexicographers and translators:

The problem

“Legal translation is an exercise in comparative law (i.e. in comparative definition of legal terms)”

Legal translation - the lawyer:

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

7

Comparative Law: The Debate

8

Comparative Criminal Law Applied

The SIGV course:

“Non verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu”

St. Jerome (347 ‒ 420 CE)

“Ah, what they want is semantic and pragmatic equivalence.”

Legal translation - the linguist:

A procedure for translation

1• Make sure you understand the Dutch term• Define it in Dutch

2• Know where to look to find an English equivalent• Define it in English

3• Compare your definitions• Legal translation is comparative definition

But how does one define concepts?By means of componential analysis (CA) or prototypical analysis (PA)?

The procedure looks easy

Definition according to Aristotle

Definiens: concept to be defined

Genus proximum: class to which definiens belongs

large animal that people ride

Differentia specifica: distinguishingfeatures of the definiens

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:

Male Female Adult Immature

Man + - + -Woman - + + -Boy + - - +Girl - + - +

Can't we apply CA contrastively?A glimmer of hope:

“Why not ‘translate’ comparative law into semantic features as a starting- point for translation?”

Legal translation – linguist & lawyer:

Let's give it a go

• The example of moord – murder• Definitions of Dutch moord and English (UK)

murder

Cognates Legal family Functionally equivalent: e.g.mens rea

Murder + - -

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

The sense boundaries between the defining features are fuzzy

Objection # 1:

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

Onbewuste schuld

Roekeloosheid (vertrouwend op goede afloop)

Niet nadenkend waar dat wel moet

Comparing Dutch and English law

Opzet Intent

Voorwaardelijk opzet

Intent/RecklessnessBewuste schuld

Onbewuste schuld Negligence

CA wrongly assumes that all features are equal

Objection # 2:

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?

26

What do we teach our studentsin theory and/or in practice?

Conclusion

27

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!

28

29

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.