Reporting from Canterbury – Part 3

Following two previous posts in late August (part 1 & part 2), today I would like to end my report on the Canterbury conference “Comparative Law: Engaging Translation” with a summary of Professor Gémar’s keynote talk.

Prof. Jean-Claude Gémar, Universities of Montreal & Geneva

Law’s labours: Lost or gained in translation? Language, law and translation.

The highly eminent Professor Gémar treated* us to “21 ways to look at translation” (both general and legal). It was a whistle-stop tour of more or less every important issue for translators and translation. These are the main points only – the full paper will be published in the conference proceedings.

  1. Translating: from Babel to Babel** – ancient and modern
  2. What translation is (and is not all about) – source and target; facilitating communication
  3. Translation: ways and means – methods and strategies
  4. Translation and equivalence
  5. Translation: an art, a craft or a “science”?
  6. Language and translation: general vs technical
  7. Law and translation: a natural or forced partnership?
  8. The specificity of legal texts
  9. Translating legal texts, translation problems
  10. The translator is a sorcerer’s apprentice
  11. Translation’s semper fi, but the translator is always confronted with novel textual conditions
  12. Translation is governed by cultures
  13. Linguistic vs legal equivalence
  14. Translation is not a matter of words
  15. The length of the translated text
  16. Sense-giving and sense-reading
  17. It is always possible to say the same thing… differently
  18. French and English: two (linguistic) solitudes
  19. The good, the bad, and… the worse
  20. The quest for the grail: in search of the best translation method
  21. The translator: interpres ut orator?

Professor Gémar concluded with some enlightening statements and citations: “to translate is to seek truth without the expectation of resolution”. “Language signs [are…] far more mysterious than atoms and stars”. “A translation, particularly a legal one, is but an approximation, if not a compromise”. “This quest for equivalence is […] for the translator, a herculean effort and task”. “How can we translate into French or Spanish (or whatever language) Mary Poppins’ supercalifragilisticexpialidocious? We shouldn’t even try!”

*and it was a real treat – if you have the opportunity to hear him speak in person, don’t miss the chance.

** The translation journal Babel

You might also be interested to listen to a recording of Professor Gémar speaking (in French) at the University of Montreal in their conférences midi series, entitled Traduire le droit: de la traduction juridique à la jurilinguistique – Texte(s), culture(s) et équivalence”. Click to access the video.

Reporting from Canterbury – Part 2

I hope you will enjoy this second post on the conference “Comparative Law: Engaging Translation”, once again, a subjective selection that may be of interest to you. You can find the first post here.

Asst. Prof. Cornelis Baaij, University of Amsterdam

Legal translation and the ‘Contamination’ of Comparative Legal research

As you can see from the title, Cornelis Baaij talked about the translator as a contaminant. Before the translators reading this start preparing to lynch him 🙂 I must add a caveat – he was talking about a very specific situation – the context of comparative legal research.

In brief, Baaij argues that a target-oriented approach to legal translation in the above case is not useful – that any efforts on the part of the translator to “tailor-make” the text for its audience will hinder the comparative lawyer in their task of understanding a foreign legal system. He therefore advances a literal approach – exposing the “foreignness” of the text.

Whether you agreed with his propos or not, it was certainly a very stimulating talk!

Continue reading

Reporting from Canterbury – Part 1

Today I offer you my report on the conference “Comparative Law: Engaging Translation” that took place at Kent Law School, Canterbury, UK from 21-22 June 2012.

The conference brought together many highly eminent speakers, and included a host of different perspectives and disciplines.

The conference’s main assumption was that “the question of comparative law is through and through one of translation”.

Continue reading