کتاب Comparative study of French and Persian legal vocabularies

Table of Contents

Introduction: 7
CHAPTER I: 11
Legal Translation: Challenges and Difficulties 11
I.1. General Overview of Legal Document Translation 11
I.1.1. Characteristics of Legal Texts 12
I.1.2. The History of Legal Translation: Epistemological and Pragmatic Foundations 15
I.2. Challenges and difficulties in legal systems 19
I.2.1. The French Judicial System 20
1.2.2 The Iranian Judicial System 22
I.2.3. The Marriage Act in France 23
1.2.4 Marriage Certificate in Iran 27
CHAPTER II: 33
The Methodology of Legal Translation: From Linguistic and Referential Equivalence to Functional and Interpretative Equivalence 33
II.1. Functional Theories for Legal Translation 33
II.1.1 The Challenges of equivalence in legal translation (the diversity of equivalents) 34
II.1.2. Vinay and Darbelnet’s Approach (For a Functional and Practical Equivalent) 40
II.2. Cultural and Interpretative Theories in Legal Translation 43
II.2.1 The cultural dimensions of legal translation 43
Cultural and target-specific equivalents 47
II.2.2. Umberto Eco’s approach: an interpretative perspective 50
CHAPTER III: 54
Analysis of French Translations 54
III.1. Legal Lexicon and Expressions in Iranian Marriage Official Documents 54
III.1.1. Common Terminology in Marriage Documents in Iran 55
III.1.2. Tables of equivalents provided by translators 55
III.2. Translation Analysis of the Dat 72
III.2.1. The Translation Analysis of Data Following the Approach of Vinay and Darbelnet 73
III.2.2. The Translatological Analysis of Data, Following Umberto Eco’s Approach 79
Conclusion 88
Bibliography 92

This chapter provides a general overview of legal translation and offers explanations regarding legal texts and the inherent challenges and difficulties in legal systems.
I.1. General Overview of Legal Document Translation
The fact that legal texts are generally considered difficult to read and understand stems from their societal functions of law control and regulation. In order to provide a solid foundation for legal decision-making processes, which must be systematic and fair, the text of the law must be clear, explicit, and precise. It should be expected that such strict conditions impose equally strict requirements on the language design of legal texts. To some extent, such design may involve expanding the capabilities of the linguistic system far beyond the ordinary to meet the strict requirements of the appropriate form of the text.
From the public’s perspective, the linguistic features thus incorporated into the formulation of the law are often perceived as a barrier to understanding its content and as a source of communication failure wherever these texts are highlighted. The fact that societies have specific professions designed to serve as a link between the public and the judicial system suggests the potential risk of problems arising from the mismatch between ordinary communication routines and the language of legal texts. In the following two sections, we will discuss the characteristics of legal documents as well as the history of legal translation.

I.1.1. Characteristics of Legal Texts
Before discussing the characteristics of different legal texts, it is important to define what a legal text is. Legal texts are part of legal discourse. Nevertheless, the question arises as to which texts in particular can be considered legal texts. At first glance, any text related to law can be considered a legal text. According to Gérard Cornu’s definition: “Any discourse that deals with the creation or realization of law is legal” (Cornu, 1990: 21). According to this definition, “the typology is limited to texts that create or realize law, which restricts this category to text producers such as the legislator, the judge, and the legal professional” (Gémar, 2001: 21). Thus, any text produced by a legislator (for example, constitution, law, decree), a judge (for example, judgments), and other institutions such as other legally qualified officials (for example, a notary or a lawyer), is legal. In other words, we can say that if the sender or creator of a text performs legal functions, this text can be considered a legal text.
Every legal text can be considered as a specialized text belonging to legal discourse. Legal texts differ from other types of texts by their internal and external properties, i.e., their functional, structural, and linguistic characteristics. Each legal text not only has a particular function but also a structure that characterizes it. Without going into further detail, it can be affirmed that an important characteristic typical of the structure of legal texts is their highly formulated and stereotyped nature. However, the consensus seems to be that routine legal documents tend to follow a predetermined structure that changes little over time. Looking at the structure of different legal texts, we notice that, generally, a legal text moves from abstract to specific matters. Mattila observes that “the structure of the text must be coherent: main elements are presented before secondary elements, and general rules before specific conditions and exceptions” (Mattila 2013: 81).
The structure of a legal text is determined by the genre of a legal text. Mattila (2006: 4) speaks of genres or more precisely sub-genres in legal language that correspond respectively to the language of authors writing about the law, the language of legislators, judges, administrations, or lawyers. Legal texts are written in legal language, which is defined as language for specific purposes, a language for special use. According to J.-C. Gémar, the term “language of law” encompasses several specific languages that form an essential typology of the various possible legal discourses (1995b: 115-116). He defines six main languages that “form the framework of the language of law, the linguistic framework in which the law is expressed.” He names them as follows: – the language of the Legislator or legislative style; – the language of Justice or judicial style; – the language of Administration or regulatory style; – the language of business; – the “private” language, that of the individual, embodied by civil law; – the language of doctrine (Gémar 1995b: 116). So according to him, “The language of law, finally, is far from uniform, even if it is sometimes unambiguous in its terms. Unlike other technical domains, its register is very extensive and ranges from the most pragmatic – contractual text, for example, but also sometimes legislative text… – to the most aesthetic, even mystical. In this last category can be included texts as laden with symbols as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), the Napoleonic Code (1804), or certain doctrinal texts whose literary value is recognized.” (Gémar, 2001-2002, 17).
From the above considerations, it follows that legal texts are formulated in a special language that is subject to specific syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic rules. Along the same lines, Cao (2007) argues that legal language covers all communications within a legal framework. Legal language, considered as a type of complex discourse, is often difficult to understand and incomprehensible to non-specialists. The specific properties of legal discourse also pose many problems for translators and interpreters. Due to the obscurity of legal language, there has been an inconclusive debate on whether the language in which legal documents are written should be clarified and simplified.
Furthermore, Bocquet (2008) distinguishes three types of legal texts: normative texts, syllogistic texts, and descriptive texts (Bocquet, 2008: 10), “The first, represented by legislative texts on the one hand, and by contract texts on the other hand, belong to the discourse that creates legal reality and does not describe it. The second category is that of judicial or administrative decisions that apply a norm to facts. Finally, the third group consists of texts paraphrasing the first two groups, such as texts of doctrine or judicial chronicles.” (Quoted by Ivo Petrů, 2016: 6). In other words, we can say that there are three types of texts: normative texts, texts of decisions that apply these norms, and texts that explain the content of legal rules. Subsequently, Bocquet (2008) discusses the three types of discourse: the discourse of the legislator, the judge, and doctrine. The general characteristics of legal discourse for him include the subjects of discourse, the types of message, and the modes of expression.
G. Cornu (2005: 213), following the elements of the communication scheme, categorizes legal discourses in a certain order, based on the subjects of discourse, the type of message, and the mode of expression. He presents his typology of legal discourse, where we find the enactment of a law, the pronouncement of a judgment, or the establishment of a convention. All other messages that contribute to the implementation of the law also fall within the framework of legal discourse. These include, for example, the assessment of damage, the statement of a witness, the summons of a litigant, not to mention the opinion of an expert or scientist on legal matters. Cornu (2005) also discusses the most elaborate types of legal discourse: legislative discourse (texts of laws), judicial discourse (judicial decisions), and customary discourse (legal maxims and adages).

I.1.2. The History of Legal Translation: Epistemological and Pragmatic Foundations
Although the translation of texts ranks among the oldest and most significant practices worldwide, legal translation has been neglected in translation studies and legal studies. Nevertheless, in recent years, various studies have examined legal texts and their translations from different perspectives. Despite its relatively short history, there is already enough hindsight to identify some stages in the emergence and consolidation of legal translation studies. Its recognition as an academic field is associated with that of translation studies in general since the 1970s, and stimulated by the school of jurilinguistics in Canada. Gémar (1979), as a prelude to jurilinguistics, in the first Méta volume devoted to legal translation studies, already presented legal translation as a new discipline, emphasizing the constraints and specificity of its object.

While acknowledging that “there are still too many unknowns,” he considered his own contribution at the time as a possible “starting point for establishing a true methodology” for legal translation, and identified the need for an interdisciplinary approach:
“Any approach should draw on a form of legal logic, the only essential factor in the epistemological process because it starts from an established fact, that of the reality of law, and goes through methodology, which represents the means between practice and theory” (Gémar 1979: 53).
In the same special issue of the journal, Michel Sparer’s perspective on the cultural dimension of legal translation illustrates how the focus on culture-related communication crystallized as a means of empowerment for professionals in Canada:
“We have recently dispensed with literal fidelity to adopt with profit a more refined and autonomous conception of the translator’s role, one that involves translating the idea before focusing on the word” (Sparer 1979: 68).
Legal experts such as Pigeon (1982), also from Canada, and De Groot (1987), have contributed to the debate on the implications of incongruities between legal systems for legal translation, and have justified the relevance of functional equivalence and comparative legal methods, respectively. During the same period, Šarčević (1985), in a specific review article, and Weston (1991), in a legal-linguistic analysis of the French legal system, made new breakthroughs in the analysis of translation techniques applied to legal texts.
After this initial period of increasing focus on specific problems and transition from traditional theories, legal translation studies entered a crucial stage in the mid-1990s due to several converging factors. First, three monographs were entirely dedicated to the paradigms of legal translation by eminent representatives of the first generation of legal translation scholars: Bocquet (1994, expanded in 2008), Gémar (1995), and Šarčević (1997), followed by Alcaraz Varó and Hughes (2002) and Cao (2007) for almost ten years. Despite differences in their approaches, they all analyze features of legal language and translation problems resulting from conceptual incongruity, taking into account pragmatic and legal considerations, and advocating for the active role of the legal translator. These theories have contributed to better defining the scope and academic profile of the field and have inspired many contemporary researchers and translators.
Indeed, this period can be considered catalytic for the development of shared conceptualizations in legal translation studies and for the formation of a global community of legal translation studies. This was facilitated by two additional factors: 1) the use of new electronic communication means, which gradually made the dissemination of research findings much more dynamic and accessible, as opposed to the slower and geographically limited expansion of the initial period; and 2) the flourishing of translation studies in general, with the proliferation of academic programs including legal translation and the exponential increase in the number of researchers in legal translation studies.
As the first and most comprehensive work of its kind in today’s lingua franca, Šarčević (1997) quickly became a particularly influential landmark. Her contribution to the advancement and internationalization of legal translation studies was decisive insofar as she integrated into her analysis the new communicative theories of translation, especially those of German-speaking researchers (such as Holz-Mänttäri, Reiss, Snell-Hornby, Vermeer, or Wilss). As Šarčević (2000: 329) herself stated, “by analyzing legal translation as an act of communication within the mechanism of law,” she attempted “to provide a theoretical basis for legal translation within the framework of modern translation theory.”
However, Šarčević (1997: 18-19; 2000: 331-332) remains critical of the universal applicability of Vermeer’s skopos theory to legal translation. It is the next generation of scholars who have tested and fully embraced functionalist theories, particularly Nord’s version of skopos theory (Nord 1991a, 1991b, 1997), as a useful general framework in legal translation studies (for example, Prieto Ramos 1998 and 2002, Dullion 2000, Garzone 2000). Equally receptive to these theories, Peter Sandrini and Roberto Mayoral Asensio must also be mentioned as major proponents of applied research in legal translation studies in German-speaking countries and in the Spanish context during the same period, particularly for their work on comparative analysis of legal terminology (Sandrini 1996a, 1996b) and the translation of official documents (Mayoral Asensio 2003).

Another significant milestone of this period was the international conference “Legal Translation: History, Theory/s, Practice” held at the University of Geneva in February 2000. Its proceedings, probably the most cited in legal translation studies, illustrate the dynamism of the field at the turn of the millennium and the role played by the Geneva School of Legal Translation Studies (within the Geneva School of Translation and Interpretation, ETI). As noted by Bocquet (2000: 17), legal translation had been the main center of excellence in translation at ETI since its inception, and a communicative approach (“the communicative method focused on the translation product,” as described in Bocquet 1996) had been applied there over the preceding decades.

It’s not surprising considering that: 1) the debate over the spirit versus the letter of the law originated in multilingual Switzerland in the early 20th century (even before in Canada), in the context of translating the Swiss Civil Code from German into the other national languages (see in-depth analysis by Dullion 2007); and 2) ETI programs were designed to meet the needs not only of national institutions but also, and especially, those of international organizations based in Geneva, whose professionals also contributed to training in various language combinations, “supporting intercultural, interinstitutional, and international dialogue” (Bocquet 1996: 72). This multidimensional orientation continues to shape the Geneva School of Legal Translation Studies as highly pragmatic (emphasizing improving practice models based on professional evidence) and inclusive (of influences, target languages, and multiple objectives, including a significant institutional component and a long-standing combination of legal and translation expertise in education and research).

During the “catalytic period,” the Geneva School played a key role in promoting specific approaches and designations such as “legal translation studies” and “juritraductology” in the field of legal translation studies (see, for example, Bocquet 1994 and Abdel Hadi 2002), establishing itself as an academic authority in the field. Leading figure of the Canadian School, Jean-Claude Gémar, joined ETI in 1997 and was involved in the creation of the GREJUT (Groupe de recherche en Jurilinguistique et Traduction) research group on legal translation with Claude Bocquet and Maher Abdel Hadi a year later. The subsequent introduction of a specialization in legal translation at the postgraduate level in 2000, along with the aforementioned conference held the same year, also exemplify the renewed momentum in legal translation studies.
Since the mid-2000s, an increasing array of researchers has continued to broaden the interdisciplinary scope by applying intercultural paradigms to various branches of law, genres, and legal contexts in many jurisdictions and languages. They have also expanded on cross-cutting topics, such as specific competency models, pedagogical issues, or the use of corpora and new resources in legal translation (for example, Biel 2010). While computer-assisted translation tools have garnered increasing attention in the context of the “technological turn,” machine translation, in particular, has not been a priority in legal translation studies. This is not surprising in a field where the complex layers of legal meaning and interpretation associated with the system make automatic semantic processing a real challenge (see, for example, Hoefler and Bünzli 2010) for the automatic production of usable drafts. As Mattila (2013: 22) predicts, “legal translation will remain essentially a human activity, at least in the near future.” Nevertheless, new computational developments and statistical-based experiments in well-defined domains could trigger new interdisciplinary perspectives.