As is known, the challenges posed by legal translation are enormous, since they involve aspects that go beyond the literality of words. They thus involve authentic conceptual, doctrinal and linguistic clashes and, in short, make the forms of law itself question. On the other hand, one would think that, being inserted in hypermodernity, the difficulties surrounding legal translation would be completely solved by current computer science. The reality is different.
In effect, the legal translation requires effective instruments and measures that make possible in a responsible way, bring the existing limits between the different legal cultures. For this, the recourse to the method is fundamental, as it is one of the greatest guarantees when faced with the dilemma of communicating from one language to another relevant legal content.
In that sense, the functional theory of Eugene A. Nida is key at the time of systematizing and making the legal translation. Very preliminary, it is a normative process that systematizes the differences between the language of origin, the message to be transmitted, the target language and the receiver, so as to find in that interaction, the way of transmitting the content normative from one legal culture to another in a functional way.
To carry out this exercise, three equivalence groups are distinguished, namely: close equivalence, partial equivalence and non-equivalence or null equivalence. These groups fundamentally determine the degree of distance between legal concepts and their legal cultures.
Thus, then, close equivalence will take place in those cases in which the concepts in question between the language of origin and the language of destination have similarities for different reasons. For example, a hypothesis of this type, in relation to Chilean law, will take place with respect to the expression “celebrar un contrato”, which will not admit greater complexity, since the context and having made a correct weighting of its elements, will be understanding that what is sought to be done is to perfect the agreement of wills and not to celebrate (in the playful sense) having reached that stage. A rough approach may throw “to celebrate an agreement”. However, the English will be translated to “to execute an agreement”, since it is understood that what is sought is to formalize the agreement of wills.
On the contrary, the difficulty increases when dealing with cases in which there are assumptions of partial equivalence. These are situations in which, although there are similarities with respect to the normative characteristics between the language of origin and the language of destination, it is necessary to carry out a more complex and extensive lexical and legal-comparative exercise. An example of that is the expression “entrega material” that, in front of a poorly finished exam, can deliver a translation that reads “material delivery” or “material surrender”. Well, being a lease case, having weighted the criteria in question, the correct expression will correspond to “delivery of possession”.
The complexity increases in those cases in which the equivalence is null and the proximity between one legal culture and the other is considerable. The foregoing is given in cases in which powers are granted to the directors of corporations. Thus, in contrast to the expression “dación en pago de bienes muebles”, which would be alien to the Anglo-Saxon legal culture, the translator must weigh the implications of the power conferred. A light translation will read “datio in payment of movable property”. Consequently, having weighed the factors at stake, the correct translation will be “datio in solutum of personal property”, since it is understood that there is talk of a payment method, whose figure, of Roman origin, has to be integrated into the expression in order to give account to the receiver of the singularity that said institution represents.
As you can see, the mechanism that we have briefly reviewed constitutes an effective theoretical guarantee when giving method and sufficiency to the legal translation, since it provides conceptual tools that allow the translator to elucidate and distinguish beyond the literalness of the words, the existing scopes between the different legal cultures at the time of translation.
In effect, the legal translation requires effective instruments and measures that make possible in a responsible way, bring the existing limits between the different legal cultures. For this, the recourse to the method is fundamental, as it is one of the greatest guarantees when faced with the dilemma of communicating from one language to another relevant legal content.
In that sense, the functional theory of Eugene A. Nida is key at the time of systematizing and making the legal translation. Very preliminary, it is a normative process that systematizes the differences between the language of origin, the message to be transmitted, the target language and the receiver, so as to find in that interaction, the way of transmitting the content normative from one legal culture to another in a functional way.
To carry out this exercise, three equivalence groups are distinguished, namely: close equivalence, partial equivalence and non-equivalence or null equivalence. These groups fundamentally determine the degree of distance between legal concepts and their legal cultures.
Thus, then, close equivalence will take place in those cases in which the concepts in question between the language of origin and the language of destination have similarities for different reasons. For example, a hypothesis of this type, in relation to Chilean law, will take place with respect to the expression “celebrar un contrato”, which will not admit greater complexity, since the context and having made a correct weighting of its elements, will be understanding that what is sought to be done is to perfect the agreement of wills and not to celebrate (in the playful sense) having reached that stage. A rough approach may throw “to celebrate an agreement”. However, the English will be translated to “to execute an agreement”, since it is understood that what is sought is to formalize the agreement of wills.
On the contrary, the difficulty increases when dealing with cases in which there are assumptions of partial equivalence. These are situations in which, although there are similarities with respect to the normative characteristics between the language of origin and the language of destination, it is necessary to carry out a more complex and extensive lexical and legal-comparative exercise. An example of that is the expression “entrega material” that, in front of a poorly finished exam, can deliver a translation that reads “material delivery” or “material surrender”. Well, being a lease case, having weighted the criteria in question, the correct expression will correspond to “delivery of possession”.
The complexity increases in those cases in which the equivalence is null and the proximity between one legal culture and the other is considerable. The foregoing is given in cases in which powers are granted to the directors of corporations. Thus, in contrast to the expression “dación en pago de bienes muebles”, which would be alien to the Anglo-Saxon legal culture, the translator must weigh the implications of the power conferred. A light translation will read “datio in payment of movable property”. Consequently, having weighed the factors at stake, the correct translation will be “datio in solutum of personal property”, since it is understood that there is talk of a payment method, whose figure, of Roman origin, has to be integrated into the expression in order to give account to the receiver of the singularity that said institution represents.
As you can see, the mechanism that we have briefly reviewed constitutes an effective theoretical guarantee when giving method and sufficiency to the legal translation, since it provides conceptual tools that allow the translator to elucidate and distinguish beyond the literalness of the words, the existing scopes between the different legal cultures at the time of translation.
“The content of this article is of the exclusive property of Key Translations Limitada. Its publication, transmission, distribution, sale, edition and any other use of its content (including, but not limited to, text, photographs, brands, videos and logotypes) is expressly forbidden.”
