See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https:www .researchgate.ne tpublic ation314254078 [629099]

See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https://www .researchgate.ne t/public ation/314254078
STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR LEGAL TRANSLATION
Article    in  Comp arativ e Legilinguistics · Januar y 2013
DOI: 10.14746/ cl.2013.16.6
CITATIONS
2READS
1,413
1 author:
Some o f the author s of this public ation ar e also w orking on these r elat ed pr ojects:
Legal Linguistics View pr oject
Financial L egislation View pr oject
Mar cus Galdia
International Univ ersity of Monac o
17 PUBLICA TIONS    8 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
All c ontent f ollo wing this p age was uplo aded b y Mar cus Galdia on 20 A ugust 2019.
The user has r equest ed enhanc ement of the do wnlo aded file.

77

STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR LEGAL
TRANSLATION

Marcus GALDIA, PhD, JD, Professor of Law
International University of Monaco
2, av. Albert II, MC 98000 Monaco
[anonimizat]

Abstract: The article deals with translation strategies in their relation to translation tools.
It reflects the theoretical requirements for professional legal translations in the light of the legal-
linguistic equivalence and the skopos-theory. The author stresses that developing translatorial
strategies as well as designing and using translation tools are theory-dependent activities. What
remains to be developed is the explicit model of hitherto implicitly followed particular
translatorial strategies in relation to all types of translation tools. In the institutional setting the
relevant translatorial strategies are influenced by guidelines that regulate many issues that are
subject to choices made by individual translators. These guidelines often also determine the use of
translation tools. As of now, on-line translation tools widen considerably the traditional
lexicographical notions and they contribute to work rationalization in that they offer the translator
a survey of already existing translation alternatives. However, available translation tools,
traditional and digital, tend towards solving problems of translatorial routine.Their multitude
corresponds with the number of dynamic problems in legal translation that cannot be rigidly
determined. Therefore, creative legal translation remains an essentially human activity.
Meanwhile, the multitude of existing approaches might lead in future to the emergence of a legal-
linguistic thesaurus that would display the totality of legal speech acts that constitute the legal
discourse. The legal-linguistic thesaurus, that would constitute the main translation tool, does not
preclude developing of other goal-oriented translation tools of limited scope. Therefore,
notwithstanding the on-going changes, strategically responsible choice of translatorial strategies and the
corresponding informed choice of translatorial tools are essential techniques for daily translation work.

STRATEGIE I NARZ ĘDZIA TŁUMACZENIA PRAWNICZEGO

Abstrakt: W artykule omówione zostaj ą problemy wynikaj ące w relacji pomi ędzy strategiami
translatorskimi i narz ędziami wspomagaj ącymi tłumaczenie. Punkt wyj ściowy stanowi ą
teoretyczne wymagania dla profesionalnych tłumacze ń tekstów prawnych wynikaj ące z pojęcia
ekwiwalencji legilingwistycznej oraz teorii skoposu. Autor podkreśla, że planowanie strategii
translatorskich, jak równie ż stosowanie narz ędzi wspomagaj ących tłumaczenie s ą działaniami
zależnymi od wyboru teorii. W tym kontek ście koniecznym wydaje si ę rozwinięcie eksplicytnego
modelu strategii translatorskich zwi ązanych z wyborem narz ędzi wspomagaj ących tłumaczenie,
które dotychczas s ą jedynie domy ślne w praktyce translatorskiej. Ponadto, w instytucjach
w których wykonywane s ą przekłady maj ą zastosowanie dyrektywy dla tłumaczy, które reguluj ą
kwestie związane z wyborem i zastosowaniem narz ędzi wspomagaj ących tłumaczenie. Cyfrowe
narzędzia wspomagaj ące przekład rozszerzyły dotychczasowe poj ęcia leksykograficzne
i przyczyniły si ę do racjonalizacji trybu pracy udost ępniając tłumaczowi do wyboru przegl ąd
ekwiwalentów tłumaczeniowych. Jednakowo ż, tradycyjne i cyfrowe narz ędzia wspomagaj ące są
pomocne głównie przy rozwi ązywaniu rutynowych problemów przekładów. Ich znaczna liczba
odpowiada ilo ści problemów przekładu prawnego o charakterze dynamicznym, które nie mog ą

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

78 by ć rozwi ązane w sposób sztywny. Z tego powodu kreatywne tłum aczenie prawne pozostaje
działalno ści ą wykonywan ą przez ludzi. Jednak że istniej ąca mnogo ść podej ść do identifikacji strategii
translacyjnych mogłaby w przyszło ści doprowadzi ć do stworzenia tezaurusu j ęzyka prawa
dokumentuj ącego całokształt prawnych aktów mowy, które tworz ą dyskurs prawny. Tezaurus j ęzyka
prawa, który mógłby sta ć si ę głównym narz ędziem wspomagaj ącym, nie wyklucza jednak rozwoju
innych narz ędzi mniejszego pokroju wspomagaj ących przekład. Dlatego, pomimo zachodz ących
zmian, odpowiedzialny wybór strategii translatorski ch i narz ędzi wspomagaj ących przekład pozostaje
jedn ą z podstawowych umiej ętno ści zawodowych tłumacza w jego codziennej pracy.

Strategies and tools in the theory of legal transla tion

The theory of legal translation has set up numerous requirements that must be
considered when translator’s practical work shall l ead to satisfying results. More
precisely, taking these theoretical requirements in to consideration is necessary in order
to provide a professional legal translation and not only a work that may satisfy some
urgent daily needs. The translation theory that str uctures all professionally relevant
activities starts with the most salient point in tr anslation that is rooted in the concept of
linguistic equivalence. The equivalent transfer of meaning between the source language
and the target language is its fundamental postulat e. Based on this fundamental
postulate particular theories were developed in ord er to determine the conditions under
which equivalent semantic transfer may take place i n the translation process. Within the
theory of legal translation they can be positioned on a scale between two extremes,
ranging from the principal impossibility to reach e quivalence to ‘everything goes’-
approaches (Galdia 2009, 226). Moderate theories of equivalence which give the tone in
the contemporary translation debate expect from the translator the accomplishment of
the semantic transfer along skopos-theoretical dete rminations (Matulewska 2013, 15).
The skopos-theory developed by Reiss and Vermeer (1 984) helps determine the
equivalence in translation. It demands from the tra nslator the determination of the goal
that should be achieved with the envisaged translat ion (cf. Šar čevi ć 2012, 190). Yet, the
translation of legal texts includes not only termin ological problems but also the
necessity to comply with a multitude of instruction s and guidelines which are issued by
institutions that commission translations. Translat ors have to develop specific
professional strategies in order to integrate such formal requirements into their working
habits. Therefore, translating means making strateg ical choices about language use that
are goal-oriented; translation is not a downright “ derivative of language competence”
(Ramos Prieto 2011, 18). Thus, theory steers practi ce. In fact, since the skopos-
theoretical re-orientation of translation studies t ranslators are not lost in translation any
more as the translation process has been clearly ch aracterized in epistemological terms.
As a result of the epistemological clarification of the translation process the translation
has been liberated from previously dominating ‘trad uttore-traditore’-myths and it
became a rational linguistic practice that can be t aught and learned. In the past,
education regarding legal translation was limited t o abstract methodology as no
sufficient experience was there to set up translato rial strategies. Equally, translation
tools were scarce or not available for many languag es. Nowadays, legal translation as
a professional practice develops more than ever in interrelation between translatorial
strategies and the choice of translation tools.

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

79 Complexity of legal translation processes as networ ks of skills, strategies and tools

Despite all mentioned improvements, legal translati on remains a professionally
demanding task because it includes the necessity of strategic choices in an area where
professional language is used. All too often it is still perceived as demanding mainly
because it would require excellent knowledge of the translation languages that clearly is
also the case. Uncompromisingly, therefore, also th e legal translation theory requires
from translators the most advanced level of profici ency in both translation languages.
This requirement comes close to bilingual competenc e. Yet, bilingual competence is
regularly of functional type; it is limited to cert ain circumstances of language use. Some
models of legal translation rely therefore more rea listically on continuous improvement
and monitoring of translator’s linguistic skills (G ortych 2009, 192). Evidently,
proficiency in at least two languages is a tacit pr erequisite for becoming a translator.
Yet, translation is a profession that goes beyond t his formal and undeniably also
fundamental practical condition. Translatorial comp etences include the language
proficiency as main logical requirement, as well as other pragmatic and technical skills.
Essential in terms of linguistic pragmatics are the intercultural competence, the thematic
competence, and last but not least, the translation service provision competence (Prieto
Ramos 2011, 10) that enable the translator to cope with his/her task practically.
Practically essential is also the awareness of auxi liary sources called sometimes
“instrumental competence” or “information mining co mpetence” (Prieto Ramos 2011, 13). It
enables the translator to choose the appropriate so rt of documents or tools that will facilitate
the translation process. Translatorial practice is therefore best characterized as a process in
which strategical decisions based on professional c ompetences are taken towards the
background of solid yet always vulnerable translato r’s linguistic proficiency. In addition to
the linguistic requirement, legal knowledge is indi spensable in order to exercise this
profession in a responsible manner. In order to cop e with this problem some researchers
proposed to introduce a module comprising systemati c legal training into the model of
legal-linguistic translation (Prieto Ramos 2011, 12 ). Structural complexity of legal texts,
especially of international conventions and longer statutory texts such as codes,
excludes the possibility of translation that would be based solely on translator’s
linguistic proficiency and basic legal knowledge. I n the search for textual continuity and
cohesion in complex translation projects language p roficiency and legal knowledge
become effective when strategies are defined and de veloped and when translation tools
are aptly selected. Legal translation is therefore an area where auxiliary tools play
a decisive role because only relatively simple lega l texts can be translated without
recourse to traditional or on-line translation tool s.

Multitude of translation tools

Different needs and different work conditions led t o the emergence of a multitude of
translation tools. Roughly speaking, every translat ion strategy requires specific
translation tools. It is expedient to construe the notion of a ‘translation tool’ broadly and
perceive all auxiliary (external) materials as tran slation tools. However, it also goes
without saying that traditional and on-line databas es that represent the legal language or
at least the legal terminology usually dominate the translatorial practice. Professional
discussion would be impoverished if the notion of t ranslation tools would be reduced to

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

80 computer programmes and databases that are accessib le on-line. The translatorial
practice is complex and translatorial strategies ma y include different types of translation
tools. A deceptive approach is sometimes adopted by experienced translators who
cherish the conviction that they find more or less automatically the appropriate access to
their texts. They will at best provide acceptable t ranslations by chance. Meanwhile,
professional practice cannot be based on coincidenc e. In fact, coincidental translations
are particularly discouraged in institutional setti ngs where textual stability guarantees
the proper understanding of legal texts. Depending on the level of institutionalization of
the translation process, the translator will have t o consult more or less thoroughly
institutional guidelines that authoritatively deter mine the translatorial usages in
a particular institution. A perusal of auxiliary ma terials for legal translators, such as the
NCSC Guide to Translation of Legal Materials (NCSC 2011), shows that the tendency
towards standardization in the area of legal transl ation is growing. This holds true
notwithstanding the disclaimers often used in such materials which correctly stress that
the guidelines are not legally binding upon freelan ce translators. In practice, however, it
is difficult to avoid compliance with the standards set in such documents. Freelance
translators may also benefit from such guidelines b ecause they often state best
translation practices within an institution. In the institutional setting, the translation
guidelines will determine most strategic decisions and the choice of appropriate
translation tools. In fact, particular terminologic al databases and glossaries are used in
practice mostly according to applicable institution al translation guidelines. Other
frequently used materials include the information o n domestic and foreign law involved
in the translation, court decisions and scholarly w ritings about relevant legal issues as
well as preparatory materials published by parliame nts that explain the motives of the
enacted legislation. In recent years, on-line trans lation tools gained increasing
popularity and computer-assisted translation became more attractive especially in the
area of full-text search and text editing. The elec tronic tools comprise spelling and
grammar check programmes as well as terminology dat abanks. In institutions where
considerable amount of legal texts is translated th is sort of programmes aims at avoiding
double work and helps identify analogous texts that can be used in further translation.
Furthermore, digital databases such as the Talking Law Dictionary (2008) include
pronunciation of legal terms by native speakers; th is tool is particularly interesting for
languages such as English where the pronunciation o f legal terms may surprise even
accomplished interpreters or translators. Electroni c translation tools include also
programmes for automated translation such as SYSTRA N used within the EU
institutions. Generally, such programmes are less f requently used for legal translations
as until now no programme enables a complete legal translation that would make human
control of the target text obsolete. In fact, trans lation software facilitates the translation
process with regard to terminological routine (Bogu cki 2009, 19). Yet, classical
translation problems remain unresolved in all appro aches that aim at developing
automated translation tools. With this in mind, Pro fessor Heikki E.S. Mattila (2013, 22)
concluded that “legal translation will remain an es sentially human activity, at least in
the near future.” Further technological development s may be expected in this sector of
industry as it can be assumed the interaction betwe en humans and machines within the
translation process will grow. Electronic translati on tools are not only of practical
importance. On-line translation tools and other IT innovations benefit from and

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

81 contribute to the development of legal informatics that enables new insights into the
structure of law and its language. After all, the s ource and the target legal texts are
embedded in a complex textual structure. Their high degree of intertextuality makes
them properly understandable only towards the backg round of all types of translation
tools that were named above.

Strategically dominated access to translation tools

What remains to be developed nowadays in the theory of legal translation is the explicit
model of hitherto implicitly followed particular tr anslatorial strategies in relation to all
types of translation tools. Translation strategies that have to be construed as singular yet
intertwined steps in the translation process are gr ounded in the main skopos-relevant
translatorial choices. They are however also more c omplex than the basic goal
determinations of the envisaged translation because they involve numerous particular
strategies and also the regular recourse to externa l tools. The explicitly stated strategies
within the translation process would enable the tra nslator to be always perfectly aware
of what part of the translation process (s)he is in volved in and what other decisions and
external tools are appropriate at this particular s tage. The skopos-theory solves also the
equivalence problem in the legal translation in tha t it introduces a dynamic skopos-
determined equivalence between the legal source lan guage and the legal target language
(Galdia 2003b, 2). While in general translation stu dies the skopos-theoretical
determinations were accommodated rather favourably, in the legal translation theory the
skopos-based approach has not always been perceived as the last word on legal
equivalence. The reason for this skeptical attitude is the dynamic solution that the
skopos-theory has to offer instead of a more ‘algor ithmically’ devised model that would
be preferred by many legal translators. Legal trans lators who are duly concerned with
the quality of their work used to look for tools th at provide certainty. Both the general
and the particular legal translation theories offer dynamic approaches that stress
translator’s responsibility for the strategic choic e that functions as the starting point for
professional translation. The dynamic equivalence o f legal terms that belong to different
legal systems is also the key to legal translation. The lack of any reliable systems of
conceptual reference for legal translation makes th is challenging strategy unavoidable.
As far as systems of reference are concerned, L. Be audoin (2002, 119) underlined the
“absence of universal operational referents,” while F. Prieto Ramos (2011, 12) stressed
the “asymmetry between legal notions and structures in different legal traditions.” To
illustrate, when the translator of a chemical text has to translate ‘water’ into whatever
other target language she will have no problems wit h it as chemistry provides her an
unambiguous system of reference. The translator wil l, as a rule, find without unexpected
obstacles the corresponding Chinese term ‘shui’ tha t is verifiable within the system of
chemical elements as H 2O. Meanwhile, when the common law legal terms ‘prom issory
estoppel’ or ‘domestic abuse’ have to be translated into Chinese the result is less
evident. The lack of any system of notional referen ce in micro- or macroperspective
makes choices of translatorial strategies much more difficult than in the case of general
translation or the translation of texts belonging t o natural sciences. This concerns also
the design and use of translation tools, both tradi tional and digital, that are expected by
translators to be able to cope with problems of leg al equivalence in a reliable way. One
may doubt that static equivalents could be develope d in the Chinese language that could

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

82 be authoritatively included in an English-Chinese o n-line law dictionary as sole correct
equivalents of the above named two English legal te rms. This fact has consequences for the
choice of translation strategies and professional t ools for the accomplishment of legal
translations because the certainty that many legal translators are looking for cannot be
offered by the multiple existing legal translation tools. Legal language differs in its
conceptual shape from one jurisdiction to another a nd this state of affairs is regular and
understandable. It reflects the legal diversity all over the world. Legal diversity cannot be
overcome but in a process of globalization of law t hat as of now remains a distant although
realistic future.

Institutional guidelines and standardization

Translators who work in specialized international o rganizations or governmental
agencies follow institutional guidelines that delim it their linguistic creativity. For
instance, an international organization may commiss ion a translator to translate
a statute. This organization imposes in its guideli nes for translators the numerical and
semantical mirror image between the source and the target text. One may assume that in
such a case the syntax of the target language may s uffer to a certain extent under the
instruction that the translator would have to apply . From the point of view of the
commissioning institution such structural guideline s have advantages: they ensure
reciprocal and mechanical reference between the sou rce and the target text. Meanwhile,
it is difficult to accept a translating strategy ba sed on such guidelines from the linguistic
point of view because it regularly leads to syntact ic inaccuracies in the target language.
However, the above example is instrumental in makin g plain the implications of
translatorial decision making processes that take p lace under the requirements of the
skopos-theory. Translatorial strategies and transla tion tools make sense only when they
reflect the main postulates of this theory. In our case, it would be necessary to rethink
and reformulate the guidelines imposed upon the tra nslator. As mentioned above, such
guidelines practically govern also institutionally non-organized legal translators. Within
European institutions, the ‘Interinstitutional Styl e Guide’ (includes acronyms and
abbreviations), the ‘English Style Guide’, the ‘Joi nt Practical Guide of the European
Parliament’, that are accessible on-line, are examp les of such documents. Such
institutional guidelines will, for example, determi ne that in preambles to legal
documents the term ‘acknowledging’ should be used i nstead of the possible ‘affirming’,
‘adopted’ instead of ‘approved’, ‘accepts’ instead of ‘endorses’, or ‘expresses its
appreciation’ instead of ‘expresses its thanks’. Th ey may allow in certain cases to use
legal terms in the language of their origin. The gu idelines may furthermore impose upon
translators of statutory texts the obligation to re nder the statutory provision in the target
text with the number of phrases that corresponds ex actly with the number of phrases in
the source text. Often, plain language guidelines w ill be applicable, especially in
English-speaking countries. In addition to internat ional institutions, translation
guidelines are particularly important in countries with several official languages such as
Switzerland, Canada, Belgium or Finland. Under the conditions of official bi- or
multilingualism the translation problems remain bas ically unchanged, the only
modification being the disappearance of the problem of conceptual intersystemic
incompatibility. The translator who works in a bi- or multilingual country acts within

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

83 one legal system that is expressed in different, of ten genetically unrelated languages.
This legal system has to be rendered in several lan guages that have the same notional
frame of reference. Many problems that are typical for bi- or multilingual countries can
be avoided through parallel drafting in several lan guages, mostly bilingual drafting.
Meanwhile, for some bilingual jurisdictions, such a s Hong Kong, appropriate common
law terminology must be developed to enable meaning ful translations from English into
Chinese (Wu 2003, 221, Cao 2005, 170). For Hong Kon g, Zhao (2001, 3) stressed the
necessity to avoid Anglicized Chinese in legal tran slations there. Furthermore, due to
the number of translations in bi- or multilingual j urisdictions and the necessity to assure
terminological coherence, legal translation will be inevitably exposed to institutionally
determined guidelines. Particularly important for l egal translators in such jurisdictions is the
access to databases that are perceived as authorita tive within bi- or multilingual legal
systems. It is however important to bear in mind th at all named types of guidelines are
purely conventional and their scientific status var ies. They aim at standardization of
language use in the public sphere where originality and inventiveness are only reluctantly
accepted. After all, statutory provisions must be u nderstood and applied by persons other
than their authors. The intersubjective element in text constitution imposes under such
circumstances the choice of language use strategies that favour standardized expression.

Thesaurus of legal language and legal discourses

In order to facilitate the daily work of translator s a thesaurus of legal discourses would
be helpful. Such a universal translation tool would reflect the totality of the legal
language, i.e. the legal speech acts that form the legal discourse (Galdia 2009, 137).
Legal text types that determine legal discourses ar e well known. They also prefigure the
translation strategies and the appropriate choice o f tools for legal translation. Research
into the structure of specialized discourses is alr eady very advanced (cf. Gotti 2008) and
could be used to form a thesaurus of legal discours es. In a pragmatically oriented
approach to legal translation the multilingual thes aurus of legal discourses would be the
main tool for any theoretical and practical transla torial activity in areas related to law.
A thesaurus of this type would describe the legal d iscourse in a multidimensional
perspective and canvass its lexis as well as the mo rpho-syntactic structure. It would
furthermore include all textual conventions that ar e characteristic for the text types in
question. Such a translation tool has not been acco mplished yet. Instead, the available
terminology databases display some characteristic f eatures of the legal discourse,
mostly in the indirect way, through the characteriz ation of its lexical units. Available for
numerous languages are law dictionaries, bi- or mul tilingual, legal glossaries and legal
encyclopedias, in paper and in digital versions. Tr aditionally, the main criterion used for
distinguishing dictionaries from encyclopedias is t he difference made between ‘term’
and ‘concept’. It is generally maintained (Mattila 2013, 140) that dictionaries are
developed around terms and that encyclopedias focus on concepts. In lexicographical
practice both forms often intertwine so that legal dictionaries provide also some
conceptual information and legal encyclopedias show terms in their contexts of use.
T. Lundmark (1999, 2006) favours rather legal encyc lopedias than bilingual law
dictionaries due to unsolved and also largely unsol vable problems in translation
between (at least partly) incompatible legal system s such as the common law and the
civil law. As methods grounded on comparative law m ay bring only case oriented

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

84 approximation, translation equivalents that result from the application of these methods
cannot be generalized or engender more rigidly form ed equivalents. Therefore,
a bilingual legal dictionary may appear as a theore tically unthinkable enterprise in the
sense described by T. Lundmark. Heikki E.S. Mattila (2013, 23) referred in an
analogous context to differences and similarities b etween law dictionaries and legal
encyclopedias. He also showed the procedure that en ables to add value to a legal
encyclopedia through developing of indices that fun ction as dictionary entries within the
textual structure of legal encyclopedias such as th e Encyclopaedia Iuridica Fennica
(1994-1999). Nowadays, on-line translation tools wi den considerably the traditional
lexicographical notions. In the area of legal trans lation they contribute primarily to work
rationalization in that they offer translators a su rvey of already existing translation
alternatives. The main structural distinctive featu re between the thesaurus of legal
language or legal discourse and the digital transla tion tools is the circumstance that the
thesaurus is integrative and descriptive. It does n ot promise the translator to provide
automatically the terms that fit his/her immediate needs. Instead, it includes sufficient
linguistic data that enable the conceptual analysis which leads the translator to the
choice or to the creation of an appropriate legal t erm or legal text type. In so doing, it
reflects another type of work rationalization than most digital translation tools which
aim at approximation to automatic translation.

General and special dictionaries

Already existing general and special dictionaries s hed light on lexicographical and
lexicological problems that should be solved within the debate about the translation
tools. In some broadly designed dictionaries lingui stic terminology is introduced as
belonging to the special register of a language (Ga ldia 2003a, 120). Such dictionaries
are solidly founded in the view that an ambitious d ictionary of a language has to cover
different areas of use and include also professiona l language belonging to law,
astronomy, or agriculture. Such a lexicographical a pproach is well protected against
criticism. Meanwhile, general dictionaries provide the legal translator with terms such
as ‘law’ or ‘crime’, ‘penal’ etc. These terms doubt less make part of the legal language.
Yet professional translators are perfectly familiar with them. This notwithstanding,
general dictionaries that include special registers are welcome because they witness to
the reality of language use. Bilingual law dictiona ries oscillate between complex
dictionaries that cover the context of use and illu strate it with phraseological and other
examples to hands-on glossaries and terminology lis ts (cf. Mattila 2012, 37). As far as
bilingual law dictionaries are concerned, one might question – in the way of analogy to
the problem of legal equivalence or as a result of it – the possibility to develop a law
dictionary that provides stable equivalents. For in stance, in a specific case concerning
the German-English legal-linguistic transfer doubts have been expressed about such
a lexicographical conception (Lundmark 1999). Other researchers, such as Gérard
Cornu tried to respond to the theoretical challenge with reductionist means. Cornu
isolated strictly legal terminology and determined circa 250-400 words as belonging to
the area of exclusive use in legal contexts in the French language. He determined lexical
units such as ‘emphytéose’, ‘préciput’, ‘protêt’, o r ‘sursurestaire’ as exclusively legal
vocabulary (Cornu 2005, 62-65). When applied upon t he English language this method

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

85 would identify ‘promissory estoppel’ or ‘habeas cor pus’ as belonging exclusively to the
legal register as their use in other registers woul d be rather metaphorical or ironical.
Other terms, such as ‘defeasible’ or ‘partnership’ that are used in non-legal contexts as
well would not count as distinctive elements of the legal English. In contrast to the
restrictive semantical approaches, Jaakko Husa (200 7, 311-370) created
a comprehensive corpus of legally relevant vocabula ry in the legal Greek. It includes
among others also the Greek equivalents of English terms such as ‘mother-in-law’,
‘buyer’, ‘sister’ or ‘inappropriate’. As a result o f Husa’s attempt to define the legal-
linguistic vocabulary that would be relevant for a legal dictionary, it became apparent
that whatever term may become relevant for law. The context of use of a term finally
determines whether a term is relevant for law. This context of use cannot be
predetermined because linguistic communication is a dynamic social process. In
theoretical terms, only the legal thesaurus in the sense proposed above can cope with
such a definition of legal language because it port rays the totality of the legal language
in the legal discourse. Meanwhile, semantically res trictive approaches are popular
among legal translators as they reflect “words that are difficult to grasp or to
remember.” In spite of this understandable preferen ce, the semantically restrictive
approaches remain poorly founded in the linguistic theory because they underestimate
the complexity of the legal language. Practically, however, the translator’s problem is
that most terms belonging to the legal language or potentially belonging to it can be
assumed as being mastered by a professional. It can therefore appear as obsolete to state
them in translation tools that are designed for pra ctical purposes. The mentioned
thesaurus of the legal language that is unavoidable for any solid legal-linguistic research
may therefore prove to be cumbersome in use for tra nslators who require much less
information. However, the conflict between theory a nd practice is apparent because the
theory acknowledges the multiplicity of translatori al strategies and the multitude of
corresponding translation tools. The problem is sol vable in that the translator makes the
appropriate choice between the practicable strategi es and the available translation tools.

Multilingual Terminology Databases

In recent years on-line databases of legal terminol ogy (term banks) emerged as
a response to practical criticism on printed legal dictionaries. Their almost unlimited
storage capacities and limited costs make them look like an attractive alternative to
dictionaries published on paper. For instance, the United Nations made accessible on-
line its UNTERM (United Nations Multilingual Termin ology Database) that was
primarily designed for its Secretariat and that pre viously could be accessed via intranet
only. It includes both terminology and nomenclature necessary for the standardization
of multilingual practice in UN-related documents. T he International Monetary Fund set
up a multilingual directory including IMF-relevant terminology without definitions. The
International Labour Organization made accessible t wo databases, ILO Thesaurus and
ILOTERM covering the area of social and labour law. Several terminology databases
developed for European institutions are publicly ac cessible: IATE (Inter-Active
Terminology for Europe) is the European Union’s mai n terminology base within the
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European U nion. Furthermore, one can mention the
EUROVOC Thesaurus, the JRC-Acquis Multilingual Para llel Corpus within the Joint
Research Center, the TAIEX-CCVista-translation data base, and the EuroTermBank,

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

86 a consolidated interface for EU terminology develop ed mainly for the needs of new EU
member states. Multiple bilingual terminological da tabases exist in the EU members
states for their particular languages (Berger 2009) . Among valuable initiatives, one may
also mention the Japanese-English on-line database Legal Terms Standard Dictionary
(cf. Working Group – Cabinet Secretariat 2006). Mea nwhile, no terminology database is
perfect; for instance UNTERM’s Spanish language ter minology corpus has been
criticized as largely following the linguistic usag es of Spain and therefore being less
helpful for translators in Latin America. Practically oriented guides for translators such
as the NSCS Guide to Translations of Legal Material s (2011, 14) recommend therefore
the use of on-line terminology databases as a start ing point for translatorial searches.
The results obtained should be further verified and aligned with the specific terminology
of the translated text; translators must be aware o f that on-line translation tools “may
compromise meaning” as stated in the NSCS guide (20 11, 14).

On-line databases providing legal information

Also legal information is available on-line, and it is often proposed by non-academic
bodies. Many governments and supreme courts provide basic yet reliable legal
information on-line. For instance, Finnish law can by consulted at finlex.fi. For France,
the database legifrance.gouv.fr and for Monaco the legimonaco.gouv.mc allow access to
the domestic legislation of these countries and som etimes also the translation of legal
acts into English. In the institutions of the Europ ean Union, the glossary ‘EUROPA:
Summaries of EU Legislation’ explains EU legal term s. The database ‘Eurojargon’ and
many subject glossaries, e.g. for agriculture or ta xation and customs in EU law cover
particular areas of the EU legislation and its dive rse policies. The EU-website
N-lex.europa.eu which defines itself as a “common g ateway to national law” of the EU
countries provides updated texts of domestic legisl ation of EU countries. The site
Thomas.loc.gov informs about the law of the USA. Fu rthermore, the legal systems of
the USA, Canada and Mexico are covered by lawsource .com that includes links to
databases that provide information about the state law of fifty US states. Legislation
relevant for international taxation is accessible u nder tax-news.com. Some legal
databases include quotations from legal literature and legal definitions in (printed)
dictionaries: 1. the original legal term; 2. its tr anslation; 3. definition(s); 4. explanatory
notes; 5. translation of the definition(s); 6. tran slation of explanatory notes (cf. Working
Group, 2001, 31). This very general structure is ra ther conventional and it allows for
creativeness within a formally defined pattern. Fil ling this pattern with appropriate
content is methodologically less consensual. The di gital technology frees lexicographers
from the constraints of paper-era dictionaries. Mea nwhile, it also puts in jeopardy many
digital lexicographical undertakings that overestim ate this newly acquired liberty and
aim at unlimited storage of data. In brief, the pro blem of on-line databases is that they
may provide too much data to be efficient; especial ly unreflected accumulation of text
samples has to be avoided. The methodology that wou ld address this issue is urgently
needed. Otherwise digital translation tools will pr ovide more and more text samples that
are added to the explanation of legal terms. The pr actical problem with this type of
information is that jurists who work as legal trans lators will be aware of the information
and non-jurists will regularly have problems with u nderstanding it because the use of

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

87 such databases requires at least basic legal educat ion. Meanwhile, most legal databases
do not solve translation problems. For instance, wh en the British legal term ‘devolution
issues’ has to be translated, the translator will f ind in the legal database only the
explanation of this specific British constitutional term. As a rule, foreign language
equivalents will not be suggested in a legal databa se. Methodology would have to be
developed that would facilitate the design of legal information for non-jurists and
reduce the amount of formally correct yet hermetica lly closed legal information based
on text samples and definitions. The analysis of le gal information in the age of
technological change is a relatively new area of le gal research (Berring 2000, 1675).
This is, however, rather a problem to be solved in legal informatics than in the theory of
legal translation.

Methodological essentials for on-line databases

Lexicological and lexicographical studies have a cr itical impact upon the development
of a methodology for advanced terminological on-lin e databases. In fact, linguistic
corpora are not only “repositories of authentic lan guage data” as stressed by Onesti
(2011, 38). They are also working tools for profess ionals who act under economical and
time constraints. Technically unlimited possibiliti es of storage in term banks allow for
quoting of text samples from specialized literature that regularly are not understandable
for non-jurists. As a result, the term banks provid e legal information to those who
master the subject and do not need it and leave beh ind all those who need information.
Equally, overbroad linguistic databanks include lan guage that is well known to
professional translators. Contemporary corpus-analy sis projects such as the Italian
Corpus Jus Jurium that stress methodological aspect s focus on conceptions that are
representative and contemporary (Onesti 2011, 39). Even a monolingual corpus such as
corpora.unito.it represents a valuable support for translators who deal with a query
concerning the Italian legal language. This databas e, like most others that can be
perceived as methodologically advanced, is not limi ted to terms; it also reflects the
structure of legal documents and juridical texts. I t comes close to the idea of a legal
thesaurus representing the legal discourse that has been mentioned in one of the above
paragraphs. The pragmatic approach to legal transla tion stresses the necessity to
broaden the purely conceptual focus of terminologic al or lexicological studies. Its
expanded focus covers legal-linguistic speech acts as a basis for a legal translation
concept that is integrated in the structure of the legal discourse. In the light of
a pragmatically oriented theory of legal translatio n not only the legal terminology is to
be transferred in the quest for legal equivalence. Every legally relevant utterance that is
to be translated makes part of broader meaningful u nits that constitute legal discourses.
Therefore, legal equivalence is achieved in transla tion when elements of the legal
discourses, i.e. its main legal speech acts, have b een adequately transferred.
Furthermore, linguistically oriented databases shou ld not try to compete with ‘juridical’
databases that provide primarily legal information (cf. Onesti 2011, 38). Next,
terminological databases have to be updated regular ly in order to reflect contemporary
language use. Legal language tends towards conservatism and chang es slower than the
non-specialized registers. Meanwhile, tolerance tow ards linguistic archaisms finds its
limits on the level of understandability. When lega l language becomes unintelligible, it
must be adapted to general transformations that occ ur in the ordinary language.

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

88 Databases that also include the diachronic perspect ive upon language use are therefore
valuable for general linguists and philologists. Th ey are less useful for translators who
usually are interested in the synchronic aspects of language use.

Ambiguities of the Digital Age

The technological evolution within the sector of tr anslation tools is a process that
includes many ambiguities and contradictions. As a result of the technological
evolution, the formal difference that is made here between traditional and digital
translation tools may disappear in the course of di gital transformation of auxiliary
materials for translators. This act of disappearanc e is of ambiguous nature as the
theoretically identified problems of legal translat ion that are rooted in the
incompatibility of terms and concepts belonging to different legal systems cannot be
solved definitely by neither of them. Also terminol ogical confusion governs this
multitude of digital translation tools that call th emselves ‘dictionaries’ while being
rather ‘glossaries’ or ‘term lists’. Databases of d ifferent sort are accessible on the
internet that may encompass between several dozens and several hundred thousand
entries. Their reliability is another main concern for translators. The reliability is
difficult to test by translators who are not jurist s because convincing and coherent
explanation of a legal term that may be traced in a database does not necessarily
guarantee that the information is correct. Regularl y, the legal translator will not have the
necessary legal knowledge to assess the quality of information provided on-line.
Interestingly, the EU database IATE includes degree s of reliability for the terms
proposed, for example the grade 4 means ‘very relia ble’ on its reliability scale.
Meanwhile, these degrees of reliability refer to te rms in specific contexts and are
therefore of relative value. Some of existing on-li ne databases are well-intentioned, yet
this is not a guarantee for reliability either. Oth ers aim at pure commercial promotion of
financial investment products or of attorneys’ serv ices. Reliability upon this sort of data
bases is problematic. Another problem is circularit y in information design. The
databases refer the translator to already existing texts; they do not help him/her when a
new term has to be translated. Notwithstanding thei r impressive volume they cannot
include terms ‘of first impression’ in a jurisdicti on that are a real problem for
translators. Moreover, many of the databases are ep hemeral; they cannot be used as
a stable point of reference by translators. Finally , also the educational character of this
sort of material for translators remains problemati c. Sporadic consultation of an on-line
database or consultation of several databases may l ead to the acceptable solution of
a particular translation problem but it may also ne glect the needs of a translator who
tries to improve own skills. Frequently, time-consu ming on-line researches lack any
further going cognitive and pedagogical effects whi le the systematic work with a printed
dictionary may lead to strengthening translator’s o verall terminological competence
through constant study of one source of reference. Incidentally, as a subcultural
phenomenon, ‘crowd translation’ emerged in social n etworks where translators ask for
assistance of other translators in their search for ‘right words’. Future research may
show the consequences of such experiments. Thus, th e digital age confronted translators
with a new problem that is the number of available information sources. Use of
selective strategies with respect to the digitally available information may reduce the

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

89 complexity of work with translation tools. First, p rofessional translators should rather
use terminological databases that may be perceived as authoritative via their connection
to competent institutions. Second, translators shou ld regularly monitor the development
of interesting databases in order to be able to tak e the right decision when the use of
such databases becomes acute for them. Under condit ions imposed by the digital age the
translator is – like his/her predecessors in times of acute scarcity of auxiliary materials –
again referred back to own skills and competences. These skills and competences will
help the translator to strike the right balance bet ween the available multitude of sources
and his/her real needs.

Translator’s search strategies

The multitude of available translation tools forces the translator to select some tools that
will prove optimal for his/her work. The translator ’s professional competence includes
the ability to develop a strategy for the efficient search of equivalents to problematic
terms (cf. Mattila 2002, 562). Such selection strat egies include several constellations.
They require also the awareness that a translation problem may exist. A translator
confronted with the Italian term ‘beni’ or the Fren ch term ‘biens’ may simply translate
them into English as ‘goods’. Better still is to ho ld on and examine the possibility of
a misleading term – a ‘faux ami’ – as it is frequen tly the case with general terms (Van
Drooghenbroeck 2000, 437). The problem awareness is the controlling strategy in such
cases. It is possible to indicate this sort of prob lems in law dictionaries. Meanwhile, the
risk of harmful associations is rarely taken into a ccount by authors of law dictionaries.
When in a translation from Chinese into German the translator has to find the equivalent
for the Chinese term ‘tíngsh ĕn’ a dictionary (Köbler 2002, 167, 354) proposes
‘Tagsatzung’, a term used in Austria and Switzerlan d yet not in Germany, without
marking this specific regional usage. Should the tr anslation based on the equivalent
term suggested in the dictionary be used for purpos es of a reader in Germany, this
reader will not understand it. Use of a legal dicti onary will therefore never lead to
a mechanistic and correct translation. Likewise, it cannot discharge the translator from
terminologically critical analyses. The translator confronted with legal terms that cause
problems, i.e. such terms that display potential me aning alternatives in the target
language, may also engage in chain translation and use for instance dictionaries of
languages related to the target language (Mattila 2 002, 562). In a specific case, no
equivalence may exist in the Finnish legal language for a French legal term, yet it may
exist for a German term. The translator may examine the analogous use of the
equivalent coined for the German term. Other legal languages, especially those close to
the target language, may be used as a source of ins piration for the translator confronted
with an unsolved terminological problem. Many on-li ne databases favour such searches.
Another strategy includes the searches via juridica l or doctrinal systematic of legal
matters. This strategy requires the competence to u nderstand texts written for jurists. It
also includes the use of a simple tool that is a le gal textbook. While translating a text on
insolvency from Dutch into Finnish the translator c ould use in parallel a law textbook,
an introduction into the Finnish insolvency law. Ma ny translating problems can be
solved by parallel reading of such textbooks withou t time-consuming researches in
dictionaries, general and specialized, that due to their unavoidable disconnection from
the contexts of use regularly prove more disenchant ing than helpful. Most necessary

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

90 lexical units can be easily reconstructed within th eir appropriate semantic fields with the
help of this strategy. What is more, the translator who chooses this strategy also
increases his/her competence in the area of law, wh ich is only partly the case when
a dictionary is consulted. Finally, available trans lation tools are developed for
anonymous users; they cannot be tailored down to re flect specific problems which an
individual translator may encounter. For terminolog ical and other linguistic problems
the translator should therefore develop a personal database where (s)he would include
useful text samples and all problematical terms, ex pressions, or legal definitions that
cause problems. This personal database functions be st when it is founded on the
associative principle, i.e. when it follows individ ual associations of terms within the
semantic field; it can therefore neglect intersubje ctive criteria that are typical for
dictionaries. While working on such a database the translator should not try to develop
a scientific work but rather focus upon subjective problems that reiterate in his/her daily
work. Some of her subjective recurrent problems mig ht even be overcome through the
work on own databases. Furthermore, work with trans lation tools has a short-term aim,
i.e. solving of a burning translation problem. It i s more efficient when also long-term
cognitive interests that expand translator’s overal l professional competences are taken
into consideration. The most efficient search strat egy that resorts to translation tools
unites both short- and long-term goals in the daily translation practice.

Translator’s lexicological dilemmas

Available translation tools, traditional and digita l, tend towards solving problems of
translatorial routine. Yet, in many complicated pro fessional constellations translators
are still left alone. Many problems can be solved b y using the general translatorial
competence that cannot be assisted by existing tran slation tools. Individual translators
will regularly be confronted with lexicological pro blems, especially in situations where
a legal term of the source language does not exist in the target language. When a term
such as ‘third party spoliation of evidence’shall b e translated for the first time it is not
sufficient to know that ‘evidence destruction’ is m eant by it. Translators need next to
understanding of law also the appropriate words. Th is standard situation worsens when
the source language term is not listed in any avail able lexicographical resource
databases. Such a ‘term of first impression’ – i.e. a term for which no lexicographical
precedent exists – is a challenge to the translator ’s professional skills. Translators can
render such a term with a neologism, they can add a n explanatory note to the newly
coined word or expression. Also the original term c an be added in the explanatory note
(Mattila 2002, 564). Yet, translators should not ov erburden the translation with
explanations in footnotes. After all, their task is to translate and not to comment;
numerous notes in a translation impede its readabil ity. Occasionally, they may even
expose the translator to suspicion by less experien ced clients who might assume that the
translator is not competent enough and is looking f or excuse in form of defensive
comments about his/her translation. Another dilemma emerges when the translator is
able to trace in auxiliary materials a previously u sed equivalent that does not convince
him/her. Shall (s)he use a term because it has alre ady been introduced by someone into
the legal language, even if only marginally, in a s ituation when (s)he has a better
proposal? Likewise, general translatorial competenc e enables the translator to create

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

91 a corresponding French term, e.g. ‘assignation’ to a common law term such as
‘subpoena’. Yet, will this new coinage be generally accepted? The answer to such
dilemmas is searched in institutionalized standardi zation processes. Public institutions
provide a remedy in form of standardization of term inological coinage and of
terminology use, yet they neglect the ‘better term- problem’. In law, like cases should be
solved alike. In the legal translation, like words should be used in like contexts. Usually
institutional administrative procedures that regula te the use of terms prevail over
individual creativeness. As a result, a deficient y et standardized terminological coinage
will have to be used instead of a better yet non-st andardized alternative. This
disadvantage can be remedied by regular updating of databases by teams of experts.
Ultimately, legal translation is not limited to tra nslating of statutory provisions or court
decisions. Particularly demanding is the translatio n of scholarly legal texts because they
may deal with doctrinal problems that were previous ly unexpressed in the target
language. Frequently, especially in the area of com parative law, they will deal with
terms that are not part of the law in force in a gi ven jurisdiction. For instance, the
translation of articles dealing with ‘punitive dama ges’ into German is cumbersome
because the German civil law does not know any ‘pun itive damages’ as a legal concept
and therefore also lacks a term to express them. Th e translator can easily coin
a neologism such as ‘Strafschadensersatz’. Meanwhil e, this new term may be
unreadable, i.e. not understandable for German read ers who are exposed to it for the
first time within their horizon limited by their do mestic law. Acceptance of new term
coinages and sustainability of their use are proble ms connected to this particular case.

Creative translation into lesser used languages

Legal translation into lesser used languages is par ticularly intricate. The translator
cannot rely on professional evaluation and liabilit y standards because such standards do
not exist for lesser used target languages due to t he lack of systematic involvement in
this sort of activity.Translation tools for lesser used languages, such as e.g. Mari, Komi,
or Maori are rare. Usually only general dictionarie s are available for such languages.
What is more, coherent legal terminology is frequen tly missing in these languages.
Therefore, translators working with these languages should be foremost interested in
language policy issues and they should try to trace guidelines which provide for the
direction in which the legal terminology of the tar get language should be developed. In
such linguistic policy guidelines – should they exi st for the given language – mostly
borrowings from the source language or direct calqu es will be proposed to translators as
basic translation techniques. When, for instance in Nenets (a language spoken in the
North of the Russian Federation) there is no domest ic term for ‘state’ the translator will
use the Russian word ‘ государство ’ (‘gosudarstvo’) unchanged in the Nenets target te xt
due to the generally accepted translation strategy for Nenets-Russian translations (cf.
Nenyang 2001, 37). Translation avoidance may also b e perceived as an appropriate
strategy when e.g. nomenclature is concerned and eq uivalents in the target language
cannot be determined. Furthermore, the question of understandability of individually
coined legal terminology has to be thoroughly consi dered by the translator in order to
avoid falling into the hermeneutic trap with the re sult that the target language text will
remain a formal translation, i.e. a text that is un derstandable only under recourse to the
source text. Therefore, aspects of intertextuality and terminological coherence must be

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

92 taken into account by translators who work with lan guages with less stable legal
terminology or where no legal language actually exi sts, or where it is limited to
constitutional texts and the like. Linguistic polic y guidelines remain the most important
translation tool in such cases.

Conclusions

Professional legal translation is a search for the legal-linguistic equivalence towards the
background of translation strategies that steer the choices within the translation process.
Due to the complexity of the legal translation proc ess translatorial strategies include
also the choice of appropriate translation tools. U nquestionably, knowledge of the
relevant languages is the most fundamental ‘transla tion tool’, yet due to the complexity
of texts that can be classified as ‘legal texts’ th e use of multiple traditional and digital
translation tools is unavoidable even for seasoned translators. As a result of this
complex professional setting, expanding one’s knowl edge of the relevant legal
languages and the reflection upon specialized langu age use remain basic tasks for the
professional training that never stops. In institut ional settings, many of the issues
inherent in the process of legal translation are an ticipated and determined in translation
guidelines. Additionally, legal translators have to incorporate into their own working
habits the competence to deal with translation tool s. Their choice depends on the goals
defined by the translator in a particular translati on process. Some translators may wish
to avoid complex on-line translation tools and use the traditional law dictionaries.
Others may prefer the contemporary digital technolo gy. Some translators may wish to
shift their focus of attention from bilingual law d ictionaries as main tools for the
translatorial practice to other materials that may suit their goals better, such as relevant
law textbooks or self-developed thematical database s. Institutionally independent legal
translators who enjoy the freedom of choice of tran slatorial strategies may opt for
different approaches that do not contradict the fin al result. Meanwhile, the use of
broadly designed terminological databases is often burdensome due to pressing time
limits in the activity of translators. Translation is after all primarily a service and not
academic research and therefore the use of some aca demically ambitious and
theoretically well-justified databases may prove le ss useful for legal translators.
Computer-assisted translation provides tools that i ncrease the overall linguistic quality
of the final translation, mainly through facilitati ng of full-text search and final editing of
target language texts. Yet the digital tools cannot solve the most complex translation
problems that are rooted in the incompatibility of many legal concepts. The multitude of
translation tools brought by the digital technology is generally beneficial because it
enables the shift from lexis dominated traditional translation tools towards broader
thesauruses of legal discourse. It allows a qualita tive evolution of translation tools that
would go beyond contemporary tendencies towards qua ntitative increase of available
legal-linguistic information. Yet, digital technolo gy causes also problems to translators
due to the lack of transparency about authoritative ness and reliability of accumulated
data. In sum, professionalism in legal translation means also adequate choice of
translation strategies and competent use of transla tion tools. This choice can be
perceived as responsible and efficient when theoret ical requirements of the legal
translation theory are integrated into translators’ daily professional practice.

Marcus GALDIA, Strategies and Tools for Legal…

93
Bibliography

Berger, Albrecht. 2009. Online Access to Legislatio n in the EU: from Fee-based to Free
Information. In Law via the Internet , ed. Ginevra Peruginelli and Mario Ragona.
Florence: European Press Academic Publishing, 49-56 .
Beaudoin, Louis. 2002. Legal Translation in Canada. In The Development of Legal Language, ed.
Heikki.E.S. Mattila, 115-130. Helsinki: Kauppakaari .
Berring, Robert. 2000. Legal Information and the Se arch for Cognitive Authority. California Law
Review , 88: 1673-1708.
Bogucki, Łukasz. 2009. Tłumaczenie wspomagane komputerowo. Warszawa: PWN.
Cao, Deborah. 2005. Chinese Law. A Language Perspective . Aldershot: Ashgate.
Cornu, Gérard. 2005. Linguistique juridique , 3 rd ed. Paris: Montchrestien.
Drooghenbroeck, van, Sébastien. 2000. La nozione di “beni” ai sensi dell’articolo 1 del Primo
protocollo addizionale, The European Legal Forum , 7: 437-444.
Galdia, Marcus. 2003a. Flerspråkiga juridiska ordbö cker, LexicoNordica. 10: 119-131.
Galdia, Marcus. 2003b. Comparative Law and Legal Tr anslation, The European Legal Forum , 1: 1-4.
Galdia, Marcus. 2009. Legal Linguistics . Frankfurt am Main/New York et al: Peter Lang.
Gortych, Karolina. 2009. The Function of Ancient Gr eek in Modern Greek – Polish Legal
Translation Training, Comparative Legilinguistics. International Journal for Legal
Communication , 1: 190-206.
Gotti, Maurizio. 2008. Investigating Specialized Discourse , 2 nd ed. Bern/Berlin/Bruxelles et al: Peter Lang.
Husa, Jaakko. 2007. Kreikan oikeus ja oikeuskieli. Helsinki: Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys.
Köbler, Gerhard., Xinjun Duan, Xun, Li. 2002. Rechtschinesisch. Deutsch-Chinesisches und
Chinesisch-Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch für jedermann . München: Vahlen.
Lundmark, Thomas. 1999. Über die grundlegende Unmög lichkeit ein juristisches Wörterbuch mit
der Zielsprache Englisch zu erstellen. Plädoyer für eine Rechtsenzyklopädie. In Recht und
Übersetzen, ed. Gerard-Rene de Groot, and Rainer Schulze, 59-65 . Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Lundmark, Thomas. 2006. How (Not) to Write a Biling ual Law Dictionary. In Law and Language
– Recht und Sprache , ed. Thomas Lundmark and Astrid Wallow, 57-65. Ber lin: LIT Verlag.
Lundmark, Thomas. 2005. Talking Law Dictionary. Münster: LexisNexis.
Mattila, Heikki.E.S. (ed.) 1994-1999. Encyclopaedia Iuridica Fennica. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Lakimiesyhdistys. vol. I-VII.
Mattila, Heikki. E.S. 2002. Vertaileva oikeuslingvistiikka. Helsinki: Kauppakaari.
Mattila, Heikki.E.S. 2012. Legal Vocabulary, in The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, ed.
Peter M. Tiersma and Lawrence Solan, 27-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mattila, Heikki.E.S. 2013. Comparative Legal Linguistics. Language of Law, Lat in and Modern
Lingua Francas , 2nd ed. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2013. Legilinguistic Translatology. A Parametric Approach to Legal
Translation. Bern/Berlin: Peter Lang.
Nenyang, M. ( Ненянг , M.) 2001. Русско -ненецкий разговорник . Луца ’-Ненэця вада ’лахоре .
Moscow: INPO.
NCSC-National Center for State Courts. 2011. Guide to Translation of Legal Materials.
Consortium for Language Access in the Courts: Willi amsburg.
Onesti, Cristina. 2011. Methodology for Building a Text-Structure Oriented Legal Corpus,
Comparative Legilinguistics. International Journal for Legal Communication , 8: 37-48.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2011. Developing Legal Tran slation Competence: An Integrative
Process-Oriented Approach, Comparative Legilinguistics. International Journal for
Legal Communication , 5: 7-21.
Reiss, Katharina, and Vermeer, Hans J. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationstheorie .Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Šar čevi ć, Susan. 2012. Challenges to the Legal Translator. In The Oxford Handbook of Language
and Law , ed. Peter M. Tiersma and Lawrence Solan 187-199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Comparative Legilinguistics 16/2013

Working Group. 2001. Tuomioistuinsanasto. Glossary of Court Terms. Helsinki: Edita.
Working Group-Cabinet Secretariat. 2006. Hôrei yôgo nichi-ei hyôjun taiyaku jisho. Japanese-
English Legal Terms Standard Dictionary .
Wu, Ruiguang. 2003. Xianggang shuangyu tingshen zhong de ruogan wenti. In Yuyan yu falü
yanjiu de xin shijie. Language and Law in a New Perspective, ed. Zhou Qingsheng,
Wang Jie, Su Jinzhi , 213-224. Beijing: Law Press China.
Zhao, Yuhong. 2001. Drafting Policy on Bilingual Legislation. Comments on the Hong Kong
Securities and Futures Act , published as LC Paper No. CB (2) 1136/00-01 (01).
View publication statsView publication stats