CHALLENGING THE EXISTENCE OF LEGAL TRANSLATION: A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSLATION THEORY

Main Article Content

Michele MANNONI

Abstract

This paper focuses on the lack of recognition of comprehensive and text-genre unrelated translation theories, a condition that keeps translators imprisoned in the old and sterile debate on free Vs. literal translation. By challenging two of the most common opinions, that is, the presumed existence of legal texts and legal-translation theories and that of the presumed utility of the notion of free and literal translation, this paper underlines the importance of the adoption of a comprehensive theory absolutely independent from the classification of the texts to be translated. More specifically, Popovič’s semiotics approach to translation gives great space to personal interpretation and anisomorphism, hence discarding once and for all the concept of faithfulness and equivalence in translation. As I attempt to prove in this paper, faithful and objective translations cannot exist, as translation is proved to be a subjective act: it is a creative process for which the interpreter is called to give his own interpretation on the signs created within the text.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
MANNONI, M. (2016). CHALLENGING THE EXISTENCE OF LEGAL TRANSLATION: A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSLATION THEORY. Comparative Legilinguistics, 26, 99-123. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2016.26.05
Section
Articles

References

  1. Alcaraz Varò, Enrique, and Brian Hughes. 2002. Legal Translation Explained. 2012th ed. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
  2. Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law. Multilingual Matters.
  3. D’Attoma, Sara, and Michele Mannoni. 2016. Atti del processo civile italiano. Traduzione in cinese e commento traduttologico [“Italian lawsuit documents. Translation into Mandarin Chinese and translation analysis”]. Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.
  4. “Dizionario Di Inglese – Il Vocabolario Di Traduzioni Online – La Repubblica.” 2015. Dizionario Di Inglese – Il Vocabolario Di Traduzioni Online – La Repubblica. Accessed May 24. http://dizionari.repubblica.it/inglese.php.
  5. Eco, Umberto. 2003. Dire quasi la stessa cosa: esperienze di traduzione [Saying Almost the Same Thing: Experiences in translation]. Bompiani.
  6. “Example Clause – Liquidated Damages.” 2015. Accessed May 24. http://www.oceancontracts.com/marine_construction_contract/liquidated_damages.php.
  7. Formichella, Laura, and Enrico Toti. 2014. Leggi tradotte della Repubblica Popolare Cinese. VII: Legge sui brevetti, legge sui marchi, normativa in materia di marchio notorio [Translated laws of the People’s Republic of China. VII. Patents, trademarks, and well-known trademarks laws.]. Torino: Giappichelli Editore.
  8. Garzone, Giuliana. 2000. “Legal Translation and Functionalist Approaches: A Contradiction in Terms?” ASTTI/ETI: 395–414.
  9. Harvey, Malcom. 2002. “What’s so Special about Legal Translation?”. Meta, XLVII (2).
  10. House, Juliane. 2009. Translation. OUP Oxford.
  11. Kasirer, Nicholas. 2001. “François Gény’s Libre Recherche Scientifique as a Guide for Legal Translation”. Louisiana Law Review, 61 (2).
  12. Lûdskanov, Aleksandăr. 1967. (Bruno, Osimo Transl., 2008) Un approccio semiotico alla traduzione. Dalla prospettiva informatica alla scienza traduttiva [“A semiotic approach to translation. From computer science approach to the science of translation”]. Milan: Hoepli.
  13. Mannoni, Michele. 2015. Fondamenti di Linguistica Forense Cinese. Traduzione Giuridica e Semiotica [“Basis of Chinese Forensic Linguistics: Legal translation and semiotics”]. Pisa: Il Campano.
  14. Popovič, Anton. 1975. (Bruno, Osimo Transl., 2006) La Scienza Della Traduzione: Aspetti Metodologici, La Comunicazione Traduttiva [“The science of translation: methods and translation as a form of communication”]. Milano: Hoepli.
  15. Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. Kluwer Law International.
  16. Šarčević, Susan. 2000. “Creativity in Legal Translation: How Much Is Too Much?” In Translation in Context: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Granada, 1998, edited by Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier. John Benjamins Publishing.
  17. Seidman, Naomi. 2010. Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation. University of Chicago Press.
  18. “Skins s02e01 Episode Script | SS.” 2015. Springfield! Springfield!. Accessed May 21.
  19. http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=skins&episode=s02e01.
  20. Steiner, George. 1998. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford University Press.
  21. Tiersma, Peter M. 2000. Legal Language. University of Chicago Press.
  22. Torop, Peeter. 1995. (Bruno, Osimo Transl., 2010) La traduzione totale [“Total translation”]. Hoepli.
  23. Wolff, Leon. 2011. “Legal Translation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Kirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Wandle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. “Yourdictionary.com.” 2015. Accessed May 25. www.yourdictionary.com.
  25. Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minshi Susong Fa 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法 (“Law of Civil Procedure of the People’s Republic of China”). [Shorten: LCP] (2012).
  26. Zaccaria, Giuseppe. 2000. Translation in Law. LIT Verlag Münster.