The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - conclusions

CamelThe judge and the quality of the translation. An exciting serial in eight episodes written by Isabelle Bambust.

In the first episode you met the main actors, Fields & co, and you were immediately confronted with different views on translation quality.

The second episode took place in court. There, the translation quality turned out not to be the same as outside the court.

In the third episode, you discovered that there is upstream translation quality, in the fourth downstream.

In the fifth episode, you read how the judge had to deal with interpretation of different quality.

In the sixth episode, you took a closer look at all kinds of translated supporting documents.

In the seventh and penultimate episode, you had to judge with the judge about translated requests, convocations and decisions.

In the final episode, you, as a translator, were brought before the court yourself. You ended up in the middle of a copyright conflict and there was a problem with your contractual liability.

Now, it is time for some final considerations and conclusions.

 

 

Ivory tower with some indifferentism here and there

Ghent, Isabelle Bambust - A first consideration is that the judge rarely, if ever, demonstrates translational scientific insight in his decisions on procedural translation quality.

In fact, the judge often seems to underestimate the degree of difficulty and the importance of translation. For example, some judges are aware of the limitations of poor translation quality, but they do not remedy them. They prefer to make uncertain decisions based on the limited knowledge they have.

 

Regardless of the legal framework in which the judge acts, I think it is possible to speak of a certain indifferentism. I would venture to say that judges would benefit from "scientific or otherwise reflexive lucidity about translation".(75)

 

Transcendent approach as a necessary starting point

It is striking that the court approaches problems with procedural translation quality transcendent in the first place. This makes sense, too. In my opinion, a formal error identified by the transcendent approach should automatically be considered an irregularity.

The judge should always proceed to a product-based approach if a problem with the translation quality is identified. The latter is not always the case.

 

The problem with the product-based approach

When the court does adopt a product-based approach, there are often side effects, such as the appreciation that the party concerned should have reacted earlier or more concretely (user-based approach), or the appreciation that the party has obtained all the information and that its rights of defence have not been violated.

However, the fact that there must always be a party that reacts first is at odds with the judge in his role of ultimate guardian of (criminal) law.

Moreover, the problem is always the same: both the party and the judge are often unable to control the translation quality.

 

My criticism of the criterion of the rights of defence

I would like to criticise the judge who, in accordance with the law, only takes account of the rights of the defence in a product-based approach.

To put it bluntly, therefore, the legal world could become a swamp of bad translations - or perhaps it already is - where the user is expected to make all the necessary efforts to understand what is said (or meant) in the translation. Efforts that the legal translator may not have made... Although poor quality can of course also have its cause: too high urgency, lack of passion for translating, inadequate compensation.

 

Poor litigant

Where is the respect for the citizen, for the right-seeker in such a language swamp?

And can we just ignore language rules and language conventions? In addition to the mere compliance with the rights of defence, a translation should also look like something, right? Because, as Jan Gielkens puts it, "(...) sometimes it doesn't matter when someone uses a language he doesn't master well compared to people who do. (...) But sometimes it doesn't matter. When it comes to printed or (...) in writing, informative texts are involved (...).'(76)

 

Quality of the translation as the subject-matter of the substantive dispute

Sometimes an external translation quality problem is referred to the court. The problem is then contained in a substantive dispute. In that case, the court will have to take into account the framework, for example a contractual or regulatory demarcation.

In a contractual framework, for example, we see that the lack of quality is contractually restricted. For example, it must be communicated in concrete terms within a certain period of time. As a result, the judge does not always have the opportunity to get to the essence of translation quality.

We would also like to point out that the proof of translation quality can go in any direction. Expert research sometimes produces diametrically different results.

 

By way of coda: a marginal observation on the clear and simple language

Clear, non-ambiguous legal language obviously increases the chance of a high-quality translation.

But even simple straightforward language, in my opinion, increases the chance of translation quality. A text in a less complex legal language requires less effort on the part of the translator to understand it.

Despite numerous initiatives to simplify the legal language, very little is happening. After all, not everyone is convinced of the need for simplification.

That's how I smile in Rome when I read Patrizia Giampieri. In her handbook on legal translations from English into Italian, she wonders whether the "plain English movement" also exists in an Italian form. In the 1990s there was apparently a "Progetto Chiaro", which was subsequently given up.

Patrizia Giampieri claims that, in any event, the Italian legal language is not far removed from the normal Italian language. She refers to the fact that Latin terms do not appear strange or antique in Italian, as is the case in English: “L’utilizzo di alcuni termini latini, non sono poi così distanti ed antiquati in Italiano come lo sono in Inglese.”

It also states that it is perfectly clear in the Italian legal language how an obligation must be expressed unequivocally. This always happens in the present time (il presente indicativo).(77)

In my opinion, Giampieri is a rather quick judge; after all, the two examples she mentions are not essential characteristics of the Italian legal language - a legal language which, in my opinion, is indeed as complex as, say, the Belgian legal language.

In addition, her comment on Latin expressions is difficult to follow in Italian. Latin cannot be equated with Italian just like that, and the typical legal Latin expressions also sound a bit strange in Italian to a certain extent.

 

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial (introduction)

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 1: Fields & co

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 2: translation quality in the legal world

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 3: upstream translation quality

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 4: downstream translation quality

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 5: the judge and the quality of interpreting performance

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 6: the judge and the translation quality of supporting documents

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 7: the judge and translated requests, convocations and decisions

The judge and the quality of the translation. Serial - episode 8: the judge and the quality of the translation as the subject-matter of the substantive dispute

 

(75) H. BLOEMEN, “Misplaatst engagement. Mona Baker als symptoom?”, Filter 2008, nr. 3, 41-53.

(76) J. GIELKENS, “Lebe das jahrige Vondelpark!”, Filter 2017, week 32, http://www.tijdschrift-filter.nl/webfilter/vrijdag-vertaaldag/2017/week-32-jan-gielkens.aspx.

(77) P. GIAMPIERI, Legal English. Atti e documenti del processo civile: casi ed esercizi, Milano, Giuffrè Editore, 2015, 16.

 


Powered by CrossLang

Author: Isabelle Bambust

Machine translation: SDL Machine Translation (previously SDL BeGlobal)

Post-editing: Quick Post Editor 10

Source language: Nederlands (nl)


Additional information