Філологічні науки/ 6 Актуальні проблеми перекладу

канд. філ. наук Гоца Н.М.

Тернопільський національний педагогічний університет ім.. Володимира Гнатюка, Україна

DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF LEGAL ENGLISH AND ITS TRANSLATION INTO UKRAINIAN

To understand legal English one is obliged to learn its peculiarities at each language level. That is why the aim of this work is to make brief analysis of legal language’s levels to make translation of legal language easier and more precise.

Legal language has become one of the most significant aspects of such researchers as Deborah Cao [1], Aiga Dukāte [2], Gubby Helen [3], Houbert Frédéric [4], Eugene A. Nida [5], Susan Šarčević [6], and many others not mentioned in this research paper.

1. THE MORPHOLOGICAL AND SYNTACTICAL LEVELS. In early legal documents their contents were usually set down as a solid block of script. At the level of syntax, legal linguistics examines sentence length, and frequency of subordinate clauses. On the other hand, phonology, and phonetics are further away from legal linguistics. However, as to morphology, some phenomena can provide important research topics. Amongst other things, this concerns the construction of compound words, from the standpoint of their clarity and modifications then taking place in the original words forming part of the construction.

· Sentence length and syntactical constructions. A common feature of the syntax of legal language is the formal and impersonal written style coupled with considerable complexity and length. Sentences in legal texts are longer than in other text types. Extensive use of conditions, qualifications and exceptions are the additional linguistic features of legislative language, commonly used to express complex contingencies. These linguistic features create barriers to the effective understanding of such writing for the ordinary reader including the translator. In written legal English, in which documents are divided into sentences, the sentences tend to be extremely long. Legal sentences are usually self-contained units which do not need to be closely linked either to what follows or to what has gone before, the context. In legal English, complex structures, passive voice, multiple negations, and prepositional phrases are extensively used. Statements are very often of a characteristic type which is reflected in equally characteristic sentence structure.

Example of French influence is that in that language adjectives normally follow the noun that they modify. Such combinations are still common in legal English, including: malice aforethought – завчасно обдуманий; court martial – військовий суд; fee simple – безумовне право власності; solicitor general – заступник міністра юстиції (генерального прокурора).

Structure of these phrases is not typical for English word order. But they are rendered into Ukrainian according to Ukrainian language sentence structure. In this case a formal equivalent is used in target language. For example:

Among other important rights included in fee simple ownership is the right to use the real property as one sees fit. – Поміж інших важливих прав, що притаманні повному володінню нерухомості є користування нерухомістю на власний розсуд.

· Punctuation. The sentences which went to make up a document were usually long. When legal documents came to be printed, compositors, in keeping with the practices already established, thought that legal language should have a visual coherences interrupted as little as possible by features that could be regarded as not forming as essential part of the language itself. Therefore, long, thinly punctuated sentences are the rule rather than the exception. The tendency nowadays is to recognize the usefulness of punctuation as a guide to grammatical structure, although only a limited range of punctuation marks is allowable in legal English.

· Repetition of lexical items. Apart from the occasional introductory adverbial, almost the only formal linkage to be found between the sentences is the repletion of lexical items. In almost all other varieties too much repletion is considered tiresome. It is often reduced by the use of anaphora, in which a substitute word refers back to a lexical item that would otherwise have needed repeating. Pronoun reference and anaphora are virtually done away with, the most notable omission being it. This pronoun turns up only in formulaic constructions such as It is agreed as follows.

· Abuse of nominalization and passive constructions. An excessive use is made of nominalizations and passives. This abuse is what makes us label legal language as “neutral” and “aseptic”. In legal English there is very marked tendency to use postmodifications in the nominal groups. The long complicated nominals are noticed by contrast with the verbal groups, which are relatively few. There is also a fondness for using non-finite clauses (infinitives, gerunds and present and past participles), which in many other varieties would be replaced by postmodifiers of nominal elements (finite relative clauses). For example:

The whole proceeding, questions and answers, are often transcribed into typewritten form. A party may be compelled to answer “interrogatories” (written question propounded by other party). – Уся судова процедура, запитання та відповіді часто фіксуються у друкованій формі. Сторону можуть примусити відповідати на запитання “опитувального переліку” (переліку питань у письмовій формі, запропонованого іншою стороною).

· Infringement of the ordo rectus. Another source of oddity is the insertion of post-modifying elements at precisely those points in a group at which they will most clearly give the required sense. The need to achieve precision or avoid ambiguity always takes precedence over considerations of elegance, and unusual sequences.

· Use of the suffixes –er and –ee. In general, the ending –or/-er refers to somebody who grants something, that is, it is the active point of view of the action; its counterpart, the passive subject, usually ends in –ee. Words ending in -ee to indicate the person who was the recipient or object of an action. For example, “mortgagor” is the person who borrows money, giving a property as security (боржник по заставній, заставник). Whereas “morgagee” is the person or company which lends money for someone to buy a property and takes a mortgage of the property as security (кредитор по заставній, заставоутримувач).

Lawyers, even today, are coining new words on this pattern, including detainee – затриманий, lessee – наймач, орендар, etc. They are usually translated finding a functional equivalent in Ukrainian language. For example:

In such a case, the landowner is called the lessor and the person to whom the property is rented is called the lessee or tenant. – У такому випадку власник землі називається „орендодавець”, а особа, яка її орендує, називається „орендар” або „наймач”. Here we also have another word of French origin – tenant – наймач.

· Restrictive use of finite verbal forms. The verbal groups used in legal language are notable for the high proportion of non-finites and for the number of finites that are of the type modal auxiliary (usually shall) + be + past participle.

Shall is used to express what is to be the obligatory consequence of a legal decision, and not as a marker of future tense, its main function in other varieties.

2. THE SEMANTIC LEVEL. Our study is based on the following: 1) vocabulary and 2) ambiguity. The range of vocabulary that may be encountered in legal language is extremely wide since almost anything can become the subject of legislation. But lawyers have developed marked preferences in their choice of words. It is especially noticeable that any passage of legal English is usually full of archaic words and phrases of a kind that could be used by no one else but lawyers.

v Adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Among them, those words which consist of an adverbial word of place to which a preposition-like word has been suffixed. They are used to refer clearly to specific times and places in and around documents.

Here means this document – the one you are reading; There means that document – the one which is being discussed, not the one you are reading.

HERE. Hereafter: in the future – from the production of this document on; Hereby: resulting from this document; Herein: appearing somewhere in this document; Hereinafter: listed later in this document; Hereof: relating to this document or part of it; Hereto: mentioned in this same section of this document; Heretofore: previous to the production of this document; Hereunder: following this document; Herewith: accompanying this document.

THERE. Thereafter: from the production of that document until now; Thereby: resulting from that document or decision; Therefore: for that reason or purpose; Therein: appearing somewhere in that document; Thereinafter: listed later in that document; Thereinbefore: mentioned previously in that document; Thereinunder: following that document; Thereof: relating to that document; Thereto: mentioned in that section of that document; Theretofore: in the time before that document was produced; Therewith: accompanying that document.

v Archaisms. Archaic words are being used less frequently than other terms, so they became rather obscure in the course of time. Archaic terms belonging to formal style which are used by lawyers are also called legalisms and lawyerisms. Claims that archaisms can easily be simplified are justified by the fact that an average person is usually ignorant of their meaning. Such is the case with circumlocutions which characterize legal writing and can be seen in prepositional phrases (in the event that instead of if). Some of them can be simplified as well: Adequate number of: enough; At the time when: when; For the duration of: during; During such time as: while; The reason being that: because

v Legal terms of French and Latin origin. These words and phrases of Legal French and Latin have never become naturalized in the manner of other loan words. Quite a number of such words that still survive play an important role as technical terms and so constitute an active and highly distinctive part of legal vocabulary.

French borrowings. The French element in legal vocabulary is extremely large. To terms derived from French belong a great number of legal words: appeal – апеляція, attorney – повірений; юрист; прокурор, bailiff – бейліф, судовий пристав, bar – застава, counsel – нарада, намір, court – суд, defendant – підсудний, обвинувачений, judge – суддя, jury – присяжні, justice – юстиція, правосуддя, voir dire – попередній іспит клятвою свідка, claim – позов, заявка.

Latin borrowings may be divided into two main groups. The first one contains words and mostly set phrases that do not change their primary structure in English. Usually they do have their English equivalents but in legal discourse Latin forms are used. To second group belong words adapted to English. For example: certiorari – офіційне повідомлення; prima facie – на перший погляд; inter alia – між іншим; bona fide – добросовісний, сумлінний, справжній; habeas corpus – письмове розпорядження, яке зобов’язує особу з’явитися в суді; de jure – юридично, де-юре.

As law is a culture-dependent subject field, the work of legal translation and its products are not necessarily linguistically transparent. Only professional translators specialising in legal translation should translate legal documents and scholarly writings. One of the main reasons why legal language is sometimes difficult to understand is that it is often very different from ordinary English. This comprises two issues: 1) the writing conventions are different, and 2) a large number of difficult words and phrases are used.

Literature:

1. Cao Deborah. Translating Law / Deborah Cao. – Multilingual matters, 2007. – 190 p.

2. Dukāte Aiga. Translation, manipulation and interpreting / Aiga Dukāte. – Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 2009. – 200 p.

3. Gubby Helen. English Legal Terminology: Legal Concepts in Language. – Eleven International Publishing, 2011. – 272 p.

4. Houbert Frédéric. Translation as a communication process. – http://translationjournal.net/journal//05theory.htm.

5. Nida Eugene A. Contexts in translating / Eugene A. Nida. – John Benjamins Publishing Co, 2001. – 124 p.

6. Šarčević Susan. New approach to legal translation / Susan Šarčević – Kluwer Law International, 1997. – 308 p.