Legal translation

Leon Wolff

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Legal translation theory brooks little interference with the source legal text. With few exceptions (Joseph 1995, Hammel 2008, Harvey 2002, Kahaner 2005, Kasirer 2001, Lawson 2007), lawyers and linguists tend to tether themselves to the pole of literalism. More a tight elastic band than an unyielding rope, this tether constrains - rather than prohibits - free translation. It can stretch to accommodate a degree of freedom by the legal translator. However, should it go too far, it snaps back to the default position of linguistic fidelity. This 'stretch and snap' gives legal translation a unique place in general translation theory. In the general debate over the 'degree of freedom' the translator enjoys in conveying the meaning of the text, legal translation theory has reached its own settlement. Passivity is the default; creativity, the 'qualified' exception (Hammel 2008: 275).
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies
EditorsKirsten Malmkjaer, Kevin Windle
Place of PublicationOxford
PublisherOxford University Press
Pages228-242
Number of pages15
Edition1
ISBN (Print)9780199239306
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

translator
Pole
lawyer
creativity
interference
linguistics

Cite this

Wolff, L. (2011). Legal translation. In K. Malmkjaer, & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (1 ed., pp. 228-242). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0017
Wolff, Leon. / Legal translation. The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. editor / Kirsten Malmkjaer ; Kevin Windle. 1. ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2011. pp. 228-242
@inbook{fea3697dfc1348c3b7298856e0bdda5a,
title = "Legal translation",
abstract = "Legal translation theory brooks little interference with the source legal text. With few exceptions (Joseph 1995, Hammel 2008, Harvey 2002, Kahaner 2005, Kasirer 2001, Lawson 2007), lawyers and linguists tend to tether themselves to the pole of literalism. More a tight elastic band than an unyielding rope, this tether constrains - rather than prohibits - free translation. It can stretch to accommodate a degree of freedom by the legal translator. However, should it go too far, it snaps back to the default position of linguistic fidelity. This 'stretch and snap' gives legal translation a unique place in general translation theory. In the general debate over the 'degree of freedom' the translator enjoys in conveying the meaning of the text, legal translation theory has reached its own settlement. Passivity is the default; creativity, the 'qualified' exception (Hammel 2008: 275).",
author = "Leon Wolff",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0017",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780199239306",
pages = "228--242",
editor = "Kirsten Malmkjaer and Kevin Windle",
booktitle = "The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",
edition = "1",

}

Wolff, L 2011, Legal translation. in K Malmkjaer & K Windle (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. 1 edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0017

Legal translation. / Wolff, Leon.

The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. ed. / Kirsten Malmkjaer; Kevin Windle. 1. ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 228-242.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Legal translation

AU - Wolff, Leon

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Legal translation theory brooks little interference with the source legal text. With few exceptions (Joseph 1995, Hammel 2008, Harvey 2002, Kahaner 2005, Kasirer 2001, Lawson 2007), lawyers and linguists tend to tether themselves to the pole of literalism. More a tight elastic band than an unyielding rope, this tether constrains - rather than prohibits - free translation. It can stretch to accommodate a degree of freedom by the legal translator. However, should it go too far, it snaps back to the default position of linguistic fidelity. This 'stretch and snap' gives legal translation a unique place in general translation theory. In the general debate over the 'degree of freedom' the translator enjoys in conveying the meaning of the text, legal translation theory has reached its own settlement. Passivity is the default; creativity, the 'qualified' exception (Hammel 2008: 275).

AB - Legal translation theory brooks little interference with the source legal text. With few exceptions (Joseph 1995, Hammel 2008, Harvey 2002, Kahaner 2005, Kasirer 2001, Lawson 2007), lawyers and linguists tend to tether themselves to the pole of literalism. More a tight elastic band than an unyielding rope, this tether constrains - rather than prohibits - free translation. It can stretch to accommodate a degree of freedom by the legal translator. However, should it go too far, it snaps back to the default position of linguistic fidelity. This 'stretch and snap' gives legal translation a unique place in general translation theory. In the general debate over the 'degree of freedom' the translator enjoys in conveying the meaning of the text, legal translation theory has reached its own settlement. Passivity is the default; creativity, the 'qualified' exception (Hammel 2008: 275).

U2 - 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0017

DO - 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0017

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780199239306

SP - 228

EP - 242

BT - The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies

A2 - Malmkjaer, Kirsten

A2 - Windle, Kevin

PB - Oxford University Press

CY - Oxford

ER -

Wolff L. Legal translation. In Malmkjaer K, Windle K, editors, The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. 1 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. p. 228-242 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0017