Cover not available
Article published In:
Legal and institutional translation: Functions, processes, competences
Edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos
[Target 33:2] 2021
► pp. 207–227

Legal translation into a non-mother tongue

The role of L1 revision

ORCID logo | Charles University

The article reflects on the problem of L2 legal translation, paying specific attention to the role of L1 revision and its impact on the overall quality of the final product. Twenty non-native translations (Czech–French) of a legal text were subjected to a two-stage assessment procedure: First, by two native revisers without legal training (revision stage), and second, by two native experts (metarevision stage). In the revision stage, the average quality of the translations was rated between B (good) and C (borderline). During the metarevision stage, the experts identified a higher number or errors, especially in the domain of legal meaning. No less than 84% of the revisions made by the non-expert revisers were confirmed by the expert revisers, while the remaining cases were mostly under-revisions (12%), and, less frequently, over-revisions (4%). In situations where L2 translation is inevitable, L1 revision, even when carried out by professional revisers with little or no legal background, seems to be a viable option. However, all stakeholders should be aware of the risks associated with this practice, bearing in mind the specific nature of legal translation.

Keywords: legal translation, L2 translation, translation quality assessment, revision, metarevision, Czech–French
Article outline
  • 1.Rationale
  • 2.L2 legal translation
  • 3.Translation revision
  • 4.Aim and methodology
  • 5.Analysis of the results
    • 5.1What is the overall quality of L2 legal translations?
    • 5.2What types of errors occur in L2 legal translations?
    • 5.3In what respects does non-expert revision differ from expert revision?
    • 5.4What is the inter-reviser agreement?
  • 6.Conclusion: Can revision by native non-experts be deemed sufficiently reliable?
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21034.dub
References
Adab, Beverly
2005 “Translating into a Second Language: Can We, Should We?” In In and Out of English: For Better, for Worse?, edited by Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers, 227–241. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arthern, Peter J.
1987 “Four Eyes Are Better than Two.” In Translating and the Computer 8: A Profession on the Move, edited by Catriona Picken, 14–26. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Biel, Łucja
2017 “Quality in Institutional EU Translation: Parameters, Policies and Practices.” In Quality Aspects in Institutional Translation, edited by Tomáš Svoboda, Łucja Biel, and Krzysztof Łoboda, 31–57. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, Jody
2007 “Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 71: 2–24.Google Scholar
Campbell, Stuart
1998 Translation into the Second Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Chodkiewicz, Marta
2016 “What Types of Errors Do Undergraduate Students Make Depending on Directionality?” In Translation and Meaning. New Series, Vol. 2, Pt. 2, edited by Łukasz Bogucki, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, and Marcel Thelen, 191–208. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Corness, Patrick
1999 “Stylistic Aspects of Translation from Czech into English: Some Features of a Sample Non-literary Corpus.” Folia Translatologica 7/1999: 11–83.Google Scholar
Duběda, Tomáš
2018 “La traduction vers une langue étrangère: compétences, attitudes, contexte social [Translating into a foreign language: Competences, attitudes, social context].” Meta 63 (2): 492–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Commission
2016 “Omnibus-15 – Translation services into EU languages 2016/S 139-25111.” Accessed March 21, 2019. [URL]
Experts and Interpreters Act, 36/1967
Accessed March 21, 2019. [URL])
Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitta Jääskeläinen
2009 “Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence: Where Are We, Where Do We Need to Go?” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 169–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guinchard, Serge, and Thierry Debard
eds. 2017 Lexique des termes juridiques 2017–2018 [Dictionary of legal terms 2017–2018], s.v. “compensation”. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
Hurtado Albir, Amparo
ed. 2017 Researching Translation Competence by PACTE Group. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IAPTI
2015 “Translation into a Non-native Language.” Accessed March 27, 2019. [URL]
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
2015 “Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services. ISO 17100:2015.” Accessed March 21, 2019. [URL]
Kelly, Dorothy, Anne Martin, Marie-Louise Nobs, Dolores Sanchez, and Catherine Way
2003 La direccionalidad en traducción e interpretación: perspectivas teóricas, profesionales y didácticas [Directionality in translation and interpreting: Theoretical, professional and didactical perspectives]. Granada: Atrio.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander
2007 “Translation Revision: A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Legal Text.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon, edited by Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 115–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ličko, Roman
2014 Translation into English as a Foreign Language: A Slovak Survey. Banská Bystrica: Belianum.Google Scholar
Martin, Tim
2007 “Managing Risks and Resources: A Down-to-earth View of Revision.” In Revision and Technical Translation, edited by Louise Brunette, special issue of The Journal of Specialised Translation 81: 57–63.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Czech Republic
n.d. “Register of Experts and Interpreters.” Accessed March 21, 2019. [URL]
Mossop, Brian
2007 “Empirical Studies of Revision: What We Know and Need to Know.” In Revision and Technical Translation, edited by Louise Brunette, special issue of The Journal of Specialised Translation 81: 5–20.Google Scholar
2015/2020 “Readings on Revising and Editing in Eight Languages.” Accessed March 27, 2019. [URL]
Newmark, Peter
1988 A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando
2015 “Quality Assurance in Legal Translation: Evaluating Process, Competence and Product in the Pursuit of Adequacy.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 281: 11–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, Paul, Xiaolan Xu, Jian Xiao, Anthony Wong, and Qi Yuan
2008 “Quantitative Analysis of Translation Revision: Contrastive Corpus Research on Native English and Chinese Translationese.” Paper presented at XVIIIth FIT World Congress, Shanghai, China, August 2008.
Rey-Debove, Josette, and Alain Rey
2012 Le Petit Robert de la langue française [Le Petit Robert. Dictionary of French]. Electronic edition, s.v. “compenser”.Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry
1972 “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10 (3): 209–231.Google Scholar
Svoboda, Tomáš
2016 Central European Translation Market Survey. Accessed March 21, 2019. [URL]
Wagner, Emma
2005 “Translation and/or Editing – The Way Forward?” In In and Out of English: For Better, For Worse?, edited by Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers, 214–226. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whyatt, Bogusława, and Tomasz Kościuczuk
2013 “Translation into a Non-native Language: The Double Life of the Native-speakership Axiom.” In Translation in an Age of Austerity, edited by Vilemini Sosoni and Margaret Rogers, special issue of mTm 51: 60–79.Google Scholar