Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Governing-Law Anchor in Legal Translation-A Homicide Case Study

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study is aimed to test the governing-law anchor in the comparative analysis of legal terminology to harmonize the clash of legal cultures in legal translation. It is considered as an adjustment to a juritraductological approach to legal translation which invites legal translators to merge the tools of jurilinguistics, comparative law and traductology in the comparative analysis of legal concepts before selecting a suitable translation solution (Monjean-Decaudin, in: Research methods in legal translation and interpreting, Routledge, 2019). Rather than transposing a text from a source law system to a target law system, legal translators are believed to operate in the bi-semiotic environment of two legal cultures as navigators of their recipients toward understanding the legal concepts under the governing law of the document. To this end a comparative conceptual analysis, that correlates with the parametrization method (Matulewska in Stud Logic Gramm Rhetor 45:161–174, 2016), should be anchored in the analysis of the source law concepts (Šarčević in New Approach to Legal Translation, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000). First, the componential and taxonomic analyses were used to identify conceptual markers/parameters of source concepts to serve as tertia comparationis for the subsequent search of their functional equivalents in the target legal culture. Source concepts and their functional equivalents were subsequently subject to a comparative componential analysis aimed to reveal a degree of their match based on which coinage operations were activated in selecting suitable translation strategies. We hypothesized that the change in the governing-law perspective would trigger changes in translation solutions. The governing-law-anchored process of comparative analysis was detailed and exemplified by the analysis of the conceptual field of Homicide in the Slovak law, English law, and the US Model Penal Code.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Monjean-Decaudin, Sylvie, Joёlle Popineau. 2019. How to Apply Comparative Law to Legal Translation: A New Juritraductological Approach to the Translation of Legal Texts. Research methods in legal translation and interpreting, 115–129. Routledge. HAL ID halshs-03084449. [Cited 2021-04-20]. Available on https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03084449.

  2. Chromá, Marta. 2011. Synonymy and Polysemy in Legal Terminology and their Applications to Bilingual and Bijural Translation. Research in Language 9 (1): 31–50. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0004-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Szemińska, Weronika. 2011. Translating Law into a Dictionary. A Terminographic Model. Research in Language 9 (1): 177–185. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0004-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Krichker, O.ľga. 2018. Basic Lexical and Syntactic Features of Modern Legal English. Teoretična i didaktična filologija: Zbyrnik naukovich prač, Serija Filologija 28: 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mattila, Heikki. 2006. Comparative Legal Linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Janigová, Slávka. 2012. Translation of Legal Texts as Cognitive Interactions. In Cognitive Dynamics in Linguistic Interactions, 261–280. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

  7. Knapp, Viktor. 1996. Velké právní systémy: úvod do srovnávací právní vědy. Praha: C.H. Beck.

  8. Trosborg, Anna. 1991. An Analysis of Legal Speech Acts in English Contract Law. ‘It is Hereby Performed.’ Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 6:65–90. Copenhagen: CBS. [Cited 2021-03-15]. Available on https://tidsskrift.dk/her/article/view/21456/18908.

  9. Doczekalska, Agnieszka. 2013. Comparative Law and Legal Translation in the Search for Functional Equivalents—Intertwined or Separate Domains? Comparative Legilinguistics 16 (1): 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tóthová, Marta. 1999. Právna komparatistika, 1999. Košice: Universita P.J.Šafárika.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Janigová, Slávka. 2019. A Legilinguistic Approach to Translation of Legal English terminology. In Anglistika XXI. veka, 318–323. Sankt-Peterburg: Universitetskie Obrazovateľnye Okruga.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nida, Eugene Albert. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sierocka, Halina. 2021. How Vague is the Third Space for Legal Professions in the European Union? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law—Revue Internationale de Sémiotique juridique 34 (4): 1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09806-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Šarčević, Susan. 2000. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice-Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2016. Semantic relations between legal terms. A case study of the intralingual relation of synonymy. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 45 (58): 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2016-0022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Felber, Helmut. 1984. Terminology Manual. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Horecký, Ján. 1974. Základné problémy terminológie. Kultúra slova 8(5):129–132. Bratislava: JÚĽŠ SAV. [Cited 2021-03-20]. Available on https://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/ks/1974/index.html.

  19. Horecký, Ján. 1974/b. Obsah a forma termínu. Kultúra slova 8(10):321–324. Bratislava: JÚĽŠ SAV. [Cited 2021-03-20]. Available on https://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/ks/1974/10/ks1974-10.lq.pdf.

  20. Sager, Juan Carlos. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Chromá, Marta. 2016. Traps of English as a Target Language in Legal Translation. Comparative Legilinguistics 26: 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Burukina, Olga. 2012. Legal Translation: Principles of Success. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 4 (1): 570–590.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Groot, De., Conrad J.P.. Gerard-René, and Van Laer. 2006. The Dubious Quality of Legal Dictionaries. International Journal of Legal Information 34 (1): 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In On Translation. Cambridge, Mass.

  25. Chromá, Marta. 2004. Legal Translation and the Dictionary. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Csach, Kristián. 2011. Rezistencia vnútroštátneho práva a problém právnych transplantátov. In Rezistencia vnútroštátneho práva a právne transplantáty, 10–13. Košice: Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach, Právnická fakulta.

  27. Kyselova, Tatiana. 2008. The Concept of Legal Transplant. Literature Review Draft 2008. [Cited 2021-04-19]. Available on http://www.academia.edu/3371274/The_Concept_of_Legal_Transplant_Literature_Rev iew_DRAFT_2008.

  28. Langer, Máximo. 2004. From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure. Harvard International Law Journal 45 (1): 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tomášek, Michal. 1998. Překlad v právní praxi. Praha: Linde Praha, a.s.

  30. Sombati, Ján. 2021. Úvod do právnej komparatistiky. [Cited 2021-03-18]. Available on https://www.flaw.uniba.sk/fileadmin/praf/Pracoviska/Katedry/KPDPK/Prezentacie_SPS_Ekonomia/SPS_Ekonomia_Uvod_2016.2017.pdf.

  31. Malone, Joseph Lawrence. 1988. The Science of Linguistics in the Art of Translation. Some Tools from Linguistics for the Analysis and Practice of Translation. Albany: State of New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Klabal, Ondřej. 2022. Teaching Comparative Conceptual Analysis to Legal Translation Trainees. In Teaching Translation vs. Training Translation, Olomouc: Palacký University.

  34. Watson, Alan. 1974. Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law. Virginia: Scottish Academic Press/University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 305/2005 Z.z. (Criminal Code/Trestný zákon). [Cited 2021-04-16]. Available on https://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/2005-300.

  36. Oxford Dictionary of Law. Sixth Edition. 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  37. Powel, Richard. 1993. Law Today. Harlow: Longman group UK Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Criminal Justice Act 2003 (UK). [Cited 2021-04-09]. Available on https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/12.

  39. Crown Prosecution Service. [Cited 2021-04-12]. Available on https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter.

  40. U.S. Model Penal Code. 1985. The American Law Institute. [Cited 2021-04-28]. Available on https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/08d77d/pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of British and American Studies, Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia

    Slávka Janigová

Authors
  1. Slávka Janigová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slávka Janigová.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janigová, S. The Governing-Law Anchor in Legal Translation-A Homicide Case Study. Int J Semiot Law 36, 1655–1676 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09992-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09992-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation