011-legal translation theory and practice

6666

� Legal Translation: Legal Translation: Legal Translation: Legal Translation:

Theory and PracticeTheory and PracticeTheory and PracticeTheory and Practice Hanem E. El-Farahaty 7

� Metaphors We Translate By:Metaphors We Translate By:Metaphors We Translate By:Metaphors We Translate By: The Influence of Conceptual The Influence of Conceptual The Influence of Conceptual The Influence of Conceptual Metaphor in Translation StudiesMetaphor in Translation StudiesMetaphor in Translation StudiesMetaphor in Translation Studies

Ahmed H. Al-Maaini 31

� Identifying the English Language Identifying the English Language Identifying the English Language Identifying the English Language Needs of Saudi Police OfficersNeeds of Saudi Police OfficersNeeds of Saudi Police OfficersNeeds of Saudi Police Officers

Mohammed Nasser Alhuqbani 55

��

�� : �� !"��#� ��$� %�&�

!" ' ()�*�� +!�,� �-.�/ � 0�"�� 1�� &"2� 3�4�� 56�-# 5��#�7�� ,�� 5��8��9�� 5��:

��'��;��

� Volume: Volume: Volume: Volume: 1111 Issue: Issue: Issue: Issue: 2222 � AugustAugustAugustAugust 2008200820082008

7777 ccccAynAynAynAyn, Journal of the Saudi Association , Journal of the Saudi Association , Journal of the Saudi Association , Journal of the Saudi Association

of Languages and Translationof Languages and Translationof Languages and Translationof Languages and Translation

Legal Translation: Legal Translation: Legal Translation: Legal Translation: Theory and PracticeTheory and PracticeTheory and PracticeTheory and Practice

Hanem E. El-Farahaty*

L IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction Legal translation is bound by each language’s culture and system; it is

not merely transcoding between the source language (SL) and the target language (TL) but it is also ‘a translation from one legal system into another— from the source legal system into the target legal system’ (cf. Sarcevic, 1997:13). It involves all the legal texts that are used in various legal settings be it a court, a national or international organisation, a law book, a legal report, a birth certificate, a contract, etc.

This paper discusses legal translation in theory and practice and falls into two sections: the first of which gives a historical review of legal translation in the Western and Arabic tradition while the second section discusses the most common difficulties of legal translation with examples from English/Arabic/English legal texts. These examples were taken from a collection of authentic legal texts, some of them were obtained from professional lawyers, others were taken form the United Nations’ (UN) online website, and from legal books. This section also demonstrates the techniques that the legal translator can use to overcome such difficulties. The paper concludes with practical guidelines for the legal translator.

1111.... Historical Review of Legal TranslationHistorical Review of Legal TranslationHistorical Review of Legal TranslationHistorical Review of Legal Translation Legal translation was basically used for diplomatic purposes. It dates

back to Babylon (2001 BCE) with the establishment of Hammurabi’s translation centre the purpose of which is transferring his laws all over the kingdom. It reached its peak in the 8th and 9th centuries Abbasid’s era.

* A Ph.D. researcher in English/Arabic/English legal translation since May, 2007 in the

School of Modern Languages and Cultures, Leeds University and is currently working as a teacher of Arabic as a foreign language in Leeds University and have been working as a freelance translator since 1999. Ms. El-Farahaty has participated in a number of national and international conferences since 1999 and is a member of International Association of Translation and Interpreting Studies (IATIS) and World Arabic Translation Association (WATA)

� Hanem E. ElHanem E. ElHanem E. ElHanem E. El----FarahatyFarahatyFarahatyFarahaty � Legal Translation:Legal Translation:Legal Translation:Legal Translation: Theory and PracticeTheory and PracticeTheory and PracticeTheory and Practice

8888

“Translating archival documents and registers among other translation activities took place in that era” (Delisle and Woodsworth, 1995:112).

Legal documents were considered by some as sacred as the Bible. The goal behind that was attributed to the ‘mysteriousness, i.e. legal texts conveyed an assumed truth not to be comprehended by the human mind but accepted on faith alone’ (cf. Sarcevic, 1997:25). Legal translation was affected by that old tradition until the Middle Ages when the Bible was translated into the language of the layman. Yet, legal translation continued to be of a special nature till the advent of the 20th century with the translators’ tendency for simplification.

1.11.11.11.1 The Language of the Legal Text The Language of the Legal Text The Language of the Legal Text The Language of the Legal Text English law encountered three main stages of development: before the

Norman Conquest, during the Norman Conquest, and after the Norman Conquest. The Anglo-Saxons invaded England in the 5th century A.D. and contracts and pleadings could be traced back to their reign. Such laws were affected by ‘the alliterative and rhythmical fashions of the day’ (Mellinkoff, 1963:36). He (ibid:37) adds that ‘the vein of rhythm runs through the language of the law, sometimes in traditional oral words, sometimes carried over into what is only written’. Gu (2006:110) comments that ‘the Anglo-Saxons formed laws in their primitive language that was rigid in both meaning and form’. All the old words that are considered an integral part of legal English up till now such as hereof, hereinafter, hereinunder, etc. date back to the Anglo-Saxons’ Old English. Latin and French were the formal languages of legal documents during and after the Norman Conquest (1066). Haigh (2004:x) argues that

For a period of 300 years, French was the language of legal proceedings, with the result that many words in current legal use have their roots in this period. These include property, estate, chattel, lease, executor and tenant.

He adds:

As the printed word became more commonplace, some writers made a deliberate effort to adopt words derived from Latin, with the aim of making their text appear more sophisticated … Some writers also started to use a Latin word order. This led to an ornate style, deliberately used to impress rather than inform … It also lies behind the frequent use of ‘shall’ constructions in legal documents. (ibid)


9999

Because of the existence of three languages: English, French and Latin, the need for legal translation increased in various countries. In Germany, lack of misunderstanding of Latin led to the German’s interest in translating legislations. The approach used in translating these legal documents was that of word-for-word translation. No attention was given to context or cohesion.

In France and Italy, the well-known Justinian Corpus, Juris Civilis, which was basically written in Latin, then literally translated into Greek pursuant to emperor Justinian’s (d.565) approval, was taught in the universities. In this respect, Sarcevic notes that it was taught by ‘using monolingual glosses which expressed the whole passage through textual interpretation or commentary and it continued during the period’ (1997:27). In England, Latin and French continued to be the language of the law till the 17th century. In 1650, English became the formal language of the law. Nevertheless, it was so loaded with old English, Latin, Norman-French and Middle English terms that they became an integral part of it. These countries among others revolted against Latin and they advocated its replacement with their own languages.

In the 17th century, the French language was one of the competitive languages to Latin and it began to replace it in international conferences and in treaties. Thus, legal translators started to adopt a new technique of translation, namely, target-oriented translation that respects the target text (TT) syntax but they did not move to free translation. In the first decade of the 19th century, Napoleon established his civil code known as the Napoleonic Code (1804) which, though not the first code, has been so successful that it had left its impact on the law of many other countries. Consequently, translation reached its peak in Napoleon’s era.

1.21.21.21.2 Approaches to Legal Translation Approaches to Legal Translation Approaches to Legal Translation Approaches to Legal Translation In the 18th century Germany, Frederic Schleiermacher distinguished

between literary and worldly texts, for the second to mean legal texts he set his ‘source-oriented’ versus ‘target-oriented’ approach. He believed that ‘either the translator leaves the writer alone as much as possible and moves the reader toward the writer, or he leaves the reader alone as much as possible and moves the writer toward the reader’ (cf. Munday, 2001:28; and Robinson, 2002:229). Schleiermacher favoured the source-oriented approach or the faithful most literal translation. His ideas were influential on other theorists such as Lawerence Venuti (1995) who proposed ‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’ later to replace Schleiermacher’s


10101010

‘naturalizing’ and ‘alienating’. His classification for texts helped in raising the awareness of the importance of text typology in translation.

However, the 19th century translators favoured the literal word-for-word translation of legal texts. This tradition has continued up to the advent of the 20th century with the slow movement towards considering the TT rules and the increasing awareness of the language differences. Translators and lawyers soon realized that literal translation is a violation of language rights.

The second half of the 20th century witnessed progress in the translation movement in general and in legal translation in particular. It has long been playing a vital role in communication both nationally and internationally. This role has become even more important due to globalisation, as the need for establishing international bodies has increased (i.e. the UN). Thus, the need for multilingual legal translation has increased.

The debate on legal translation continued in the 20th century in European as well as non-European countries such as France, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, and Belgium. A major question was raised by lawyers and translators about the possibility of following the spirit of the TT or following the source text (ST) literally. A number of translators advocated fidelity to the ST while some others favoured idiomatic translation and stressed the communicative element. In this context, Sarcevic (1997:39) notes that ‘parallel texts of single instrument do not have to correspond visually, nor do the terminology and syntax have to be modelled on the original; instead it is the effect that must be the same’. She (ibid:24) summarizes the stages of development of the legal translation since the Roman Empire until recent times in the following continuum:

Strict literal → literal → moderately literal → near idiomatic → idiomatic → co-drafting

It is conceivable that the word-for-word versus communicative translation, a debate which dates back to the Roman Empire, will be everlasting in the legal arena. Translators who advocated fidelity to the ST have not managed as yet to provide an accurate description of what they meant by the term. It is the same debate on equivalence that has been going on for decades. Translators nowadays are no longer considering fidelity to the ST. They redefine it to mean ‘achieving an equivalent effect on the target reader and thus some stylistic changes may occur to cope with TL cultural conventions’ (cf. Harvey, 2002:180). It is worth mentioning that translation approaches may vary according to the legal genres and their functions. For example,


11111111

literal translation would be the best in translating official documents (i.e. birth, marriage, or divorce certificates).

Lack of well-defined techniques for translating legal discourse proves useful in sight of the challenging nature of legal translation. The reason for this difficulty is the specific nature of legal discourse; i.e. the uniqueness of its lexical items; and the ambiguity and complexity of sentences. Garre (1999) argues that more than one translation theory can be applied in the field of legal translation (i.e. human rights documents). Among the main theories that Garre has mentioned are the relevance theory, the hermeneutics theory, the prototype theory, text analysis, the skopos theory, text typology, and pragmatics. Garre’s suggestions are effective since a legal translator will require a mix of tools that will enable him to figure out the type of the legal document, its function, its structure, and the pragmatic effect. All these aspects along with the special nature of legal discourse make the task of the legal translator more difficult. The following section is a discussion of the problems that a legal translator is likely to face.

2222. . . . Problems of Legal Translation Problems of Legal Translation Problems of Legal Translation Problems of Legal Translation

Harvey (2002:17) notes that legal translation combines the ‘inventiveness of literary translation with the terminological precision of technical translation’. According to Harvey’s argument, the translator’s task is unusually challenging. The difficulties that the legal translator faces involve lexical incongruities, syntactic complexities, textual dissimilarities, and system and cultural differences. The following discussion provides details about these problems and offers practical strategies of how the legal translator may handle them.

2.12.12.12.1 Lexical Problems Lexical Problems Lexical Problems Lexical Problems Cao (2007:29) argues that ‘the absence of equivalent terminology across

different languages necessitates the constant comparison between the legal systems of the SL and TL. According to Cao’s argument, the case of legal translation from English into Arabic or vice versa is even more difficult because of the wide gap between the English and the Arabic legal systems, on one hand, and between the language systems of the two languages, on the other. What makes the task of the translator harder is mixing between styles and registers as in the language of lay witnesses, slang of the police and technical jargon of the reports and testimony of expert witnesses who may be doctors, surgeons, bankers, technicians, etc. This is what Alcarez and Hughes (2002:14) call ‘legalese’. Some of the lexical difficulties that a


12121212

translator of legal texts faces are discussed below:

((((1111) ) ) ) Archaic Vocabulary Archaic Vocabulary Archaic Vocabulary Archaic Vocabulary The language of the English law is full of old and Latin words that date

back to the Middle Ages. Examples of Latin words and expressions are given by Haigh (2004): ‘ad hoc, de facto, pro rata, inter alia, ab initio, mutatis mutandis’. Examples of old and Middle English words are ‘hereby, thereby, aforesaid, and hereof’ to mention just a few. These archaic words combine a big part of the legal jargon that lawyers tend to use and which are difficult for non-lawyers to understand. For Haigh (2004:xvi) examples of jargon include ‘boilerplate clause and corporate veil’.

Because these words do not exist in Arabic legal discourse, they do not have direct equivalents, hence, they cause difficulty in translating English legal discourse into Arabic. Being a cultural mediator, the Arabic legal translator may try to understand these words conceptually rather than translating them literally, or resort to specialist dictionaries. Doing so, he/she can overcome the technical complexity of such terms and achieve the highest level of equivalence he/she can get. In the case of archaic expressions, the translator should find an approximate corresponding expression in the TL. For example, the English terms ‘hereunder’ and ‘hereinafter’ may be translated as =>� ?�@A . Also, ‘herewith’ as in ‘I enclose herewith’, can be translated as ( =0�: B@��C , and ‘hereinafter’ as in ‘In the presence of the two witnesses hereinafter’ can be translated as = ��DE F�G?8� �� H�9��-��A . Also, the translator may omit such archaic term as it does not affect the overall meaning of the text and the reader will have to continue reading to find the names of the witnesses. Moreover, the word ‘hereby’ can be omitted in the Arabic translation of ‘I hereby declare …’ =( H,/�I A((( It is worth mentioning that although such archaic terms do not exist in the Arabic legal texts, the English legal translator adds them to give the text a legal spirit. Here is one of these examples:

�J� )��D4� (((� K��L�� 9M/ �9�NO:((( which is translated into English as:

I … hereby authorize the following marriage certificate. (marriage certificate)

((((2222) ) ) ) Technical and General WordsTechnical and General WordsTechnical and General WordsTechnical and General Words Legal English includes technical i.e. legal terms, as well as non-technical,

i.e. non-legal, every day vocabulary. The former category includes ‘legal terms of art’ which have fixed legal meanings and cannot be replaced by


13131313

other words, such as (plaintiff, and defendant - 1/9��P Q I ,0�,/ S/9��C Q I ). When the TL does not have the exact equivalent, the translator may resort to what Asensio (2003:59) calls ‘functional adaptation’. For example, English distinguishes between a ‘solicitor’ and a ‘barrister’. The former’s work involves direct contact with clients and he can represent them through litigation, while the latter is prohibited to do so. The main task of a barrister is offering specialist advice on legal cases. On the contrary, Arabic has one function for all of them: =(1#�TA Thus, the translator is advized to consult specialist dictionaries, seek advice form lawyers, and be well-versed in different law systems. Moreover, a translator can seek an approximate translation to give the nearest meaning of the original. For instance, the closest Arabic equivalent to ‘Registry of Births and Deaths’ or the ‘Registry Office’ is =U9�� ;��A .

Legal documents involve common terms with legal meaning such as ‘distress, consideration, construction, redemption, tender, hold, and prefer’ (Haigh, 2004:xvii) whose Arabic counterparts are subsequently given below:

L�V� W��#2� X/,Y�# Z�� ,[;\� ,H�� ]@ ,%�^/,9&8 ,H.�9� ��2� 1^�� ( Because they can occur in a legal context, they require more effort and

alertness on the part of a legal translator. He/she may need to consult specialists, and analyze similar texts in order to arrive at the best solution. An example of this is the word (compensation - =Z�� which may mean financial, or moral compensation. In a legal context, it is understood as (financial compensation - Y�# Z��), unless otherwise stated. Thus, the main determinant is the overall context. Similarly, Arabic translates ‘moral compensation’ or giving one’s reputation back as =_` '�A .

Abstract words are also crucial in the field of international law such as human rights. Although words such as ‘freedom, privacy, right, and fairness’ are commonly used in our daily life, they are subject to many interpretations in the legal paralance. In this context, Garre (1999:116) argues that ‘the translator must consider the differences of meanings that these terms may have in general and in a legal context’. Also, a legal translator’s task is to translate the words as they are and leave the interpretations to the court. For instance, the English phrase ‘fundamental human rights’ is translated into Arabic as =��8�82� a�;Jb� c�MEA . In this example, the word ‘fundamental’ is ambiguous and needs more clarification. Yet, a translator cannot take the initiative towards disambiguating this word.

((((3333) ) ) ) Polysemous Words and Repetitions Polysemous Words and Repetitions Polysemous Words and Repetitions Polysemous Words and Repetitions Polysemy, in legal discourse, describes words that have more than one


14141414

meaning in legal documents. For example, the word ‘right’ has many distinguishable meanings. In this case, the translator should avoid mechanical translation and guess work and the only practical way is to judge the context of the statement. In the case of repetitious words such as ‘perform and performance’, the translator should be aware that they may have different meanings in the same paragraph which is very likely in the legal context. Consider the following examples from the translation of the Charter of the UN:

a) (appropriate − e8�&#� f��g g ) b) (ends, aims, objectives h��i2�, 5��j�� − = 5��j�� ,

((((4444) ) ) ) HomonymsHomonymsHomonymsHomonyms, , , , SynonymsSynonymsSynonymsSynonyms, , , , Antonyms and HypoAntonyms and HypoAntonyms and HypoAntonyms and Hyponyms nyms nyms nyms Homonyms describe a word that has two senses. For example, the word

‘bank’ is a word that means a financial institution and an edge of a water stream. It is worth noting that the difference between polysemes and homonyms is subtle and there are no clear-cut boundaries between them.

Synonyms refer to different words that have similar meaning such as ‘buy and purchase’. This category of words is known in legal discourse as lexical doublets such as the English doublet ‘Maintenance of, (strengthening) international peace and security’, and its Arabic counterpart = k\E=9�:�� AY�9�� H#2�� F,;��A . They are difficult to translate because the SL may not have the exact corresponding equivalents. Yet, in the case of Arabic, translating these vocabularies is not too difficult because Arabic is rich with synonyms and because generally it prefers repetitions. Antonyms are those words that have opposite meanings such as the English pair ‘facilities and hindrances’ and its Arabic equivalent =5�l�� 56�!;��A . Finally, a hyponym describes the relationship between a general term and a more specific term that is considered a part of it such as ‘law, and common law, civil law, Islamic law, etc.’.

((((5555) ) ) ) Functional Words Functional Words Functional Words Functional Words Any language consists of major or content words such as nouns and

verbs, and function words such as prepositions and conjunctions. The latter are used to relate between the major elements of the sentence and also across sentence boundaries. Alcarez and Hughes (2002:165) note that ‘each specialist field has its own functional vocabulary’. For them (ibid) legal English uses two main types of functional language: (1) adjectival/adverbial groups (e.g. hereinafter, and forthwith), (2) conjunctions and prepositional phrases (e.g. under, prior to, and in accordance with, etc.).

Translating this category of words from English into Arabic, for instance,


15151515

is difficult due to the archaic nature of such words that may not have equivalents in Arabic. Yet, translation of adjectives is subject to the context in which the adjective is found. For instance, the adjective ‘high’ is translated into Arabic as =Y�/A or =m�8nA . In a legal context, it is translated into =m�8nA as in (the high contracting parties -a��#�;�� a�9�� a�@�^��). In a more formal context, the word ‘highness’, referring to ranks, is translated into Arabic as = eE��Y��A or =�*;�� eE�� A .

Moreover, a legal translator may use literal translation or paraphrase. For example, the English prepositional phrase, ‘in accordance with’, is translated into Arabic as =�M@�o� PA , ‘pursuant to the discussion’ is translated as =�-l�&�� 9��A , ‘prior to the discussion’, is translated as =�-l�&�� lA , whereas ‘the meeting prior to the session’, is translated as =�;,�,� B��;�� %�M,�� A . The second technique will depend mainly on the overall context. A very good example in translating the connecting word, ‘whereas’, as found in the preamble of Universal Declaration of Human Rights is =a�p ��A . Also, the Arabic equivalent of the English word ‘under’ is =qrA but in a sentence like ‘the case under discussion’ it will be translated as = 9�lA as in s4�� A =9�l ��DM�� .

The above discussion shows that these concepts require caution, investigation, and knowledge on the part of the translator. For instance, with two synonyms like ‘final and conclusive’ in English, the Arabic translator should decide upon the proper way of translating them; is he/she going to translate them literally as =1.�tA and =1#��uA ,,,, or is he/she going to use one equivalent for the two terms? In most cases, it is always advisable that the legal translator sticks to the same range of words if the TL allows him to do so. In Wai-Yee’s view, descriptive equivalence or paraphrase is preferred ‘if a one-to-one translation could not reveal the legal meaning or distinguish the legal term from other similar terms’ (2002:79). Sarcevic comments that ‘this way is the most secure way for compensating for terminological incongruity’ (1997:79).

2.22.22.22.2 Syntactic Problems Syntactic Problems Syntactic Problems Syntactic Problems Complexity of text structure and the discontinuity of sentences is a

problematic area in legal discourse. In response to this difficulty, Garre (1999:116) asks the following question: ‘How should the translator or the legal professional deal with variances in sentence and text structures in different structures?’ Among the syntactic problems which we encounter in legal discourse are:

((((1111) ) ) ) Syntactic complexitySyntactic complexitySyntactic complexitySyntactic complexity Legal discourse in English is characterized by the excessive use of long


16161616

and complicated sentences. Similarly, Arabic legal sentences are lengthy and complex, a fact that causes difficulties in translating from English into Arabic and vice versa. We usually encounter long sentences forming a whole paragraph. Thus, a sentence consists of a number of subordinating and coordinating clauses that are joined by many subordinating and coordinating conjunctions which may be peculiar to the TL.

According to Farghal and Shunnaq (1992:204), ‘the ability to cope successfully with syntactic discontinuity which is a characteristic feature of legal texts, constitutes a key gate to finding one’s way smoothly through the text’. Parenthetic clauses, for Farghal and Shunnaq (ibid), are the reason behind syntactic discontinuity. The use of conditionals such as ‘if, when, should, and provided that’ and phrasal verbs such as ‘put down and enter into’ also adds to the difficulty of legal translation. The latter are to be studied carefully because they are vague and do not follow specific grammatical rules.

Long and complex sentences of legal discourse result in ambiguity. This is a structural ambiguity which is purposefully made to create uncertainties and also for diplomatic reasons (Harvey, 2002:181). Misinterpretation of such structures leads to mistranslation. In this context, Harvey (ibid) adds that ‘ambiguity, then, is an integral feature in legal discourse and should be rendered in translation’.

As for a sentence with a complex structure, the translator is advised to divide the sentence into independent and dependent clauses. This process simplifies his understanding of the main pieces of information given in each sentence, though it is not an easy task. He/she then may have a choice of following the same structure of the ST which most legal translators do. Yet, this method results in ambiguity as in the case of translating from English into Arabic. These two have different syntactic structures because the former uses a SVO structure while the latter uses a VSO structure. He/she may also consider the syntactic structure of the TL and stick to the content displayed in the sentence. It is worth noting that this technique involves risk as it may lead to subjectivity or lack of accuracy. That is, content may be sacrificed for achieving formal adequacy of the TL.

As for syntactic ambiguity, a legal translator may also need to stick to the most common structures that have been famously used in dealing with similar syntactic difficulties. That is, he seeks advice and searches for genuine solutions rather than look for alternatives.

((((2222) ) ) ) PassivizationPassivizationPassivizationPassivization English legal discourse excessively manipulates passive forms that


17171717

obscure the agent. On the other hand, Arabic does not favour using passive very frequently. In this case, the legal translator resorts to the technique of adaptation, which is very helpful in translating between incongruent languages. For example, a translator may use the active in place of the passive. To explain this idea, compare the following two examples from English and Arabic versions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

a) No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

vh�� w I�#�� :�V� �� -E�� 8�M�� 56#�� 5��M�,� v� e�x��,� a�;Jy )� ( b) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

vz�{�E �� a�;Jy )� X/ ZM�� \;�� 0�\J �� |Lo( The above two examples display two different ways of translating the

same passive form ‘shall be subjected to’. In the first it was translated as passive (h��w I ), whereas in the second sentence it was deleted and the modal expression (z�{) was used.

In other cases, the translator can use personification in which he/she can assign a person to a legal act that can be personalized in Arabic. That is, he/she can translate ‘a corresponding credit facility is willing to proceed with the funding of the project’ as: ��"y F�� a� }~�� %}�� 5� A =X/ .

((((3333) ) ) ) Modal AuxiliariesModal AuxiliariesModal AuxiliariesModal Auxiliaries Whereas English uses a well-defined system of modal auxiliaries, Arabic

does not. The Arabic modal system is lexical and not grammatical. Examples of the most common modals used in Arabic legal discourse are deontic modals. This type of modals expresses obligation, permission, or prohibition. Obligation is represented by the following modal phrases or to be precise expressions:

a� 9�v,a� e"�� H# ,a� e{ ,a� Sj&� ,��,^�� H# ,]�,/ \a� 0�,/ Permission is expressed through the following expressions:

H�*�=�A ,H�� ,L.�7� H# , z�{=]� A a� Based on that, translating modals from English into Arabic will result in

many inadequate counterparts but when translating from Arabic into English there are more adequate forms. For example, English legal discourse prefers the use of imperative ‘shall’ to the present indicative or the future tense, whereas Arabic translation of imperative ‘shall’ or ‘may’ uses the present indicative. This point is also true for the mandatory ‘must’


18181818

and this prevents the translator from using the same form of the verb in the target text. The present indicative expresses has less formality and weaker strength than the use of ‘shall’. Bowler states that:

because the legislative modals are ambiguous between epistemic senses of necessity and possibility, on the one hand, and the deontic sense of obligation, sanction and prohibition, on the other, it is best not to mix their use, as the deontic use is obviously the most frequent, it is the epistemic sense that should be avoided. (cf. Bhatia (2003:27)

Abdel-Fattah (2005:42-45) offers some techniques in translating modals from English into Arabic and vice versa:

1) Classification of modals: to understand the real category of the modal involved (i.e. epistemic or root (deontic or dynamic)).

2) Modal rephrasing: paraphrasing the modal to its periphrastic counterpart.

3) Modal retranslation: retranslation after the first draft is finished helps in making sure that this is the ‘original’ rendering, of the modal.

4) Utilizing ambiguity: sometimes ambiguity is utilized in translation only if there is another ambiguous counterpart in the target language.

((((4444) ) ) ) ParallelismParallelismParallelismParallelism Parallel structures are a common feature of Arabic in general and of

legal texts in particular. Abdul-Raof (2001:56) defines them as ‘phrases which have the same structural rhythmical pattern employed for a stylistic effect’ such as:

�� M�� -�� X/ ��J'�2� �� a�� :��M@� F;�M�� ,�!��/ �� $�:�o �y��z��# ��;�# �^l 36�, %��u X\;�� ,%�D�� S^8�� ,%�'�8 �!&# ��,��(

The Jordanian flag shall be of the following form and dimensions: “The length of the flag shall be twice its width. It shall be divided horizontally into three parallel and equal stripes, the uppermost of which shall be black, the centre, white, and the lowest, green.”

In the case of legal texts they add more emphasis to the verb. These


19191919

structures do not exist in English and thus they must result in translational difficulty. The translator in this case should search for corresponding equivalents in English that transfer the exact meaning of the message. Doing that, he will have to sacrifice the rhetorical elements that the Arabic text exhibits.

2.32.32.32.3 Textual Problems Textual Problems Textual Problems Textual Problems Translation in general and legal translation in particular is difficult

between two languages because of the textual features they both have. Both English and Arabic have totally different textual features. These features include the layout, the punctuation system, conjunctions, cohesion, etc. Arabic and English are two different languages both orthographically and linguistically. Orthographically, Arabic starts from right while English starts from left. Also, English employs upper case i.e., capital letters, while Arabic does not have these features. Linguistically, Arabic is a VSO language, while English is a SVO language. However, these are minor problems and they do not pose serious difficulties in translatability.

((((1111) ) ) ) RepetitionRepetitionRepetitionRepetition Although English and Arabic use similar cohesive devices in legal

discourse such as repetition and reference, the frequency of such features and the way they are handled in the text is different from English to Arabic and vice versa. English for instance reduces the amount of repetitious words, as long as the meaning can be retrieved and there will be no ambiguity. For more clarification, consider the following instance from An Agreement Between Libya and the U.S.A. — II (Mansoor, 1965a:282):

m��M� a� �9��4�� 5��v�� #��V z��{f;��*��9��&� � ,1.��#� ,�� ,f;��*� �� )�� E��;��f;# �u� 1&@ (((�;J m9M��o �x� H# 0�@�p f;��# (((

The Government of the United States of America may make engineering, topographic, hydographic, coast and geodetic and other technical surveys… A sufficient number of copies with title and triangulations and other control data of such a survey shall be furnished…(Mansoor, 1965b:125).

The above example shows that the Arabic extract uses same word repetition of the word f;#A - survey). It is mentioned in the Arabic text four times while the English text avoids that repetition and the word is only used twice. Doing that, the English text employs a number of premodifying adjectives to specify the type of survey needed. This results in a class shift of


20202020

the two plural nouns �E��;�� 2�A - lands, and coasts) to modifiers of the noun (survey - f;#), to become the modifying noun ‘coast’ and the adjective ‘geodetic’.

Yet, this is not always the case in translating legal texts because repetition is necessary to deal with the ambiguities that may arise in the legal interpretation of the legal text. Consider the following instance from the above agreement (Mansoor, 1965a:284):

z�{�94�� 5��v�� 5�^,;� �@9� a� �94�� 5��v�� 5��M� 0&�# �!�*�l ��# �p�� o �,*��94�� 5��v��*/ �� 5�9E�� 0&�# �!�*�l ��;/ �,�94�� 5��v�� ,*/ �� ,*/ ��

�94�� 5��v�� ,*/ �@9�� F�� a� �` >/ �94�� 5��v�� ,*�� ((( x�� 5�^,8�94�� 5��v�� ((( 5�9E��94�� 5��v�� ,*/ (((( �94�� 5��v�� 5��l(

The United States authorities may pay the United States forces in checks expressed in United States currency, or military scrip denominated in units of United States currency, or in Libyan or in United States currency, provided the payment in United States currency shall take place…The United States authorities will take…in the units of the United States currency…the United States forces. (Mansoor, 1965b:125).

There are also other cases of repetition in Arabic which do not exist in English and of which the legal translator should be fully aware and investigate how he will deal with them. In this case, they have no bearing on the process of translating. These include root repetition as in:

H�9�� '�!�yI—6p�� Ia��p�� , (Mansoor, 1965a:299) The attestment of two witnesses— delegate, the right to delegate, subsequently. (Mansoor 1965b:139)

Pattern repetition is a repetition of the same pattern such as: ��@ ,�/�@ W��\#. It also may occur with a combination of synonyms and antonyms. Consider the following example from the Trade and Payments Agreement Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Lebanese Republic—II (Mansoor, 1965a:189):

'�[�8v�� M,�� p�*7� 56#�� 5�"�� /� ��p2� �,#��# �D�� B^�o� ��9�� .�D�� M&�� H�L�� q�LJ��;��'�� 9�� ,8��q�LJ�� B��^� (((

Most-favored-nation treatment shall be applied with respect to


21212121

customs regulations and formalities concerning the importation, exportation, conveyance in transit, warehousing, and transshipment of goods being imported and exported or in transit. (Mansoor, 1965b:81).

Suffix repetition as in the repetition of the plural suffix A5�= as in: � 5�"��= ��p�*7� 56#�� - customs regulations and formalities) in the above example.

The same argument applies to reference or, to be more precise, pronominalization in Arabic, which is exemplified through the following excerpts from the Agreement Between Libya and the World Health Organization:

�#��V� B^�−]�� *�� 9��M# [�i aN� S��E �t� s�E − X�/ ��$� ,�� !�\��#� ��$��#�� '�"�#�( (Mansoor, 1965a:287)

The government, insofar as it is not already bound to do so, shall apply to the Organization, its staff, funds, properties, and assets. (Mansoor, 1965b:128)

The above example shows pronominalization of the noun (��$� - the Organization) through the pronoun (�� - its). The English translator avoids the repetition of such pronouns and uses the pronoun ‘its’ only once to refer to ‘staff, funds, properties, and assests’ of the Organization.

((((2222) ) ) ) Punctuation Punctuation Punctuation Punctuation Punctuation marks in English vary whereas Arabic uses a few, mainly,

the comma, and the dot, which is used only at the end of a too long sentence. This huge difference between the two systems causes difficulty in legal translation. As a start, consider the example on pronominalization above in which Arabic links a list of nouns with the conjunction (� - and) while the English text uses the commas to link between these nouns. This implies that Arab text makers generally do not follow a well-defined system that employs punctuation marks with the same efficacy and precision as in English. The following is another illustrative example from the Constitution of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (chapter 1: article 4):

�� M�� -�� X/ ��J'�2� �� a�� :��M@� F;M�� !��/ �� $�: �^l 36� �y��z��# ��;�# ,X\;�� %�D�� S^8�� %�'�8 �!&# ��,��,%��u ��E�J H# �!�,/ ��

0/�\�� h�� ;# 0�9/�l �� F.�l s,�# ��;�� s,�� x� � �$�: ��&� ��;#��2� 1/�8 Z�� ep�p,a� H�*� �� 0�E�;# H# 9E�� ^l ��.�' 0/��;�� H# �/ ��


22222222

0^8� a�� s�4� }��# �� : �� :�M� �^MJ 9&/ s�4�� s,�� z �� ^��G�� 9E� H# �� 4�� a�� s,�� x� �9/�M� ��z��# (

<http://www.daleelirbid.com/info-and-regulations/pages/constitution.htm> The Jordanian flag shall be of the following form and dimensions: “The length of the flag shall be twice its width. It shall be divided horizontally into three parallel and equal stripes, the uppermost of which shall be black, the center, white, and the lowest, green. At the end of the flag-staff the flag shall have a red triangle, the base of which shall be equal to its width. In the triangle there shall be a white seven-pointed star of such a size that it may be one-fourteenth part of its length. The star shall be so placed that its centre shall be at the intersection of the lines bisecting the angles of the triangle, and the axis running through one of its points shall be parallel to the base of the triangle.”

<http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/constitution_jo.html>

The above example shows the unique difference between the Arabic punctuation system and the importance of using a variety of punctuation marks in English. The Arabic text above consists of one sentence with a dot at the end. This sentence is divided into two main constituent parts by the use of a colon and three commas. The English translation, however, employs four main sentences ending with a full stop and they may be considered five if we count the first sentence ending with a colon to be one sentence. The English text uses more commas than the Arabic text does especially when referring to a list of nouns or adjectives. This does not form a problem to the Arabic text which can add as many nouns or adjectives as possible. In this case, addition of the conjunction ‘and’ is preferable to the commas. The English text adds a punctuation device which is not made use of in the Arabic text, which is the quotation marks after the colon. These quotation marks separate the description of the flag from the introductory sentence.

From the above text, one can deduce that punctuation and cohesive devices may affect the layout of the text, hence a change of the flow of information that should be exhibited in the text is produced. Farghal and Shunnaq (1992:106) comment on the importance of employing proper layout features in technical texts in general and in legal texts in particular. The following instance illustrates their argument:


23232323

The general Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 35/206 N of 16 December 1980,

Gravely concerned about thee inhuman oppression of millions of women and children under apartheid, …

For Farghal and Shunnaq (ibid), the following translation does not represent the appropriate layout:

��l �y [-� �#�� *7��\ ¡¢W�� a�J�p �'�� a �£¤¡ ( 9�9-�� !M,l H/ ~�� ?p)¥&�� \�� m�¦J qr W�\:2�� %�;&�� 6� U�;Jy6�� '�!^�v� |�§,((

the appropriate rendering, according to Farghal and Shunnaq, is given below:

�� *7� ay�#��, �� ٳ��l �y [-� ��\ ¡¢ W�2� a�J�p ¨�©�� a �£¤¡, �� \�� &¥(ٳ� �;�� B,M ��-9�9 ٳ� W�\:2� � %�;&�� 6� U�;Jy6�� '�!^�v� %�z,(((

Thus, the legal translator should be aware of the peculiarities of the two languages, and in this case, of how the punctuation marks are employed in both languages.

2.42.42.42.4 System and Cultural Differences System and Cultural Differences System and Cultural Differences System and Cultural Differences Legal translation is not a mere transcoding of lexis and grammar. It is

rather a translation from one legal system into another. David and Brierley (1985:20-31) classify the world legal systems into Romano-Germanic Law (Continental Civil Law), the Common Law, Socialist Law, Hindu Law, Islamic Law, African Law, and Far East Law. Romano-Germanic Law, widely known as the Civil Law, derives from the Roman Law and the Canon Code. This legal system is widely followed by many countries of the world, mainly, France, Germany, Austria, South Africa, etc. It is based on various codes of law the most important of which is the French Civil Code, and the Swiss Civil Code. These codes are considered the main source of the principles of law known as the Civil Law.

The Common Law dates back to the Anglo-Saxons. The main countries that follow the Common Law are primarily Britain, the United States of America and Canada. It was founded as a hierarchy of court decisions to be used as reference to future cases which will be used as a new reference to other future cases and so forth. This tradition went on prior to the written


24242424

Civil Law and judges continue to follow it after the written Civil Law. Thus, it is basically based on custom contrary to the Civil Law which is primarily based on the Roman Code mentioned earlier.

The Socialist Law refers to the belief of the republican ruling and the working class interests. The most common followers are Russia (known before as the Soviet Union), China and Libya. Such countries adopt the Marxist-Leninist ideologies of breaking the boundaries of Captialism, moving to Socialism and then to Communism.

The Hindu Law, as the name implies, describes the law followed in India since 1950 and it constitutes a part of the British colonial legal system since 1772. It involves personal laws such as marriage, adoption, inheritance, etc. The Islamic law or sharą ah is the law followed in some Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia. They adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah in ruling all aspects of life. Some North African countries such as Egypt, and Morocco have both Islamic and law courts. Other Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh follow a secular law with some Islamic rulings in family law. Turkey, follows a definite secular law in all aspects of life. (For more information on other types of law systems, see Reimann and Zimmermann, 2006; David and Brierley, 1985).

It is also important in this context to contrast the legal tradition to the legal system outlined above. Obenaus (1995:249) defines the legal tradition refers as ‘a set of deeply rooted historically conditioned attitudes about the nature of law, about the role of law in society’. He (ibid) adds that ‘the legal tradition relates the legal system to the culture of which it is a partial expression. It puts the legal system into a cultural perspective.’

The above discussion shows that legal systems are strikingly different and each of them is embedded in the cultural background of such system. For example, English legal discourse forms an integral part of the English Common Law and it is also a part of the English cultural background. On the other hand, Arabic legal discourse involves aspects of the Islamic Law and Civil Law, and it is greatly affected by the customs and traditions of the Arabic countries. In this connection, Farghal and Shunnaq (1999:157) say: ‘Some lawyers consider legal translation merely an extension of comparative law.’

According to Snell-Hornby (1988:34), ‘Translation is an imitation of the source text in the target text against the new cultural background, the main determinant of the translation being the specific function’. To exemplify, some Arabic official documents such as marriage or divorce certificates


25252525

involve Islamic elements such as reference to God at the beginning of the certificate: (praise be to God - =ª 9*V� . Within the certificate, the Hijri calendar is used and some culture bound concepts such as (ciddah =9/w P� − , for the latter to mean, as Bahmeed (2008: 6) puts it, ‘a period during which a Muslim woman usually keeps at home and does not use make-up or perfume to beautify herself. 130 days for the woman whose husband passed away and about 90 days for the divorcee.’ In Hatim, Shunnaq and Buckley (1995:98) they translate =��/�� 9��PA , as ‘the legally prescribed period before marrying’. If it is translated as ‘the legally prescribed period’, it will be incomplete and alien to the target reader.

Other ways of religious and culture-specific terms are used in Arabic legal texts such as referring to the time of the meeting after performing one of the five prayers that a Muslim should do every day. In a reminder of a committee meeting for members of Bank Al-Jazira, a Saudi P Arabian Bank, the text reads A%��6�� m�� j# 9�� |9M/ �#L�� - which will be held on Tuesday, after Maghreb prayer). In the same document, a religious concluding statement B�@�� Y� ª� � A - May Allah help us all). If this text is to be translated to English, the English translator should explain what he means by ‘the after Maghreb prayers’. That is, he may mention that this prayer takes place after sunset, or it is an evening prayer. To be more precise, he adds in his translation the exact corresponding time of the meeting. In this case, some basic knowledge of Sharicah is required.

Sometimes, omission is used to overcome such alien elements as in translating Arabic multi-lateral treaties into English. To clarify the above argument, there are expressions in Arabic treaties and in diplomatic correspondences of Arab leaders with the UN Secretary that are purely cultural. These examples include the (Basmalah - =F�E�� H�� ª� F;� , the formal addresses (e.g. ��67� eE�� E), the concluding religious remarks (e.g. ~p� ª��), reference to Qur’an and Sunnah, euphemisms, and catch phrases such as =��/ ��u�Q IA . Edzard (1998:54) comments on the Arabic quotations from the Qur’an in the human rights documents as follows:

the function of the quotations is twofold: they can either be used to show an assumed equality between the Islamic and the Western Perspective on international human rights, or they can be used to show an assumed superiority of the Islamic Perspective.

It is worth remarking that the second possibility in Edzard’s words is not very likely because quoting from Qur’an does not mean that the Arab


26262626

leaders want to focus on the superiority over the Western tradition. We believe that it is rather a cultural orientation. Thus, the Arab reader finds the above expressions easy to understand because they are part of his culture. Yet, if these expressions are translated into English, they will be, to some extent, meaningless to the target reader. That could be why international treaties and other international documents of the UN are more secular and void of any of the above expressions. Al-Bainy (2002:153) notes that ‘as additions and omissions arise most of the time, because of cultural differences, they are more frequent in local than in international documents.’

L ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion The paper has discussed the theoretical background of legal translation

and traced the approaches that have been used in translating such sensitive texts. It has also dealt with the common problems that an English/Arabic/English translator may encounter when translating these texts. This has been achieved through pinpointing the main sources of difficulty between both languages whether lexical, syntactic, textual or system-based.

For lexical difficulties, the legal translator should understand the different types of vocabulary he/she is dealing with in the text, whether they are common, specialized, archaic, abstract, or functional. Each type of these lexical items requires caution, investigation and knowledge on part of the translator. For example, with common words, the translator is entitled to distinguish the exact meaning of these words in the legal context. He/she should consult specialists, and analyze similar texts for reaching the best solution. In the case of specialized words, he/she may try to understand the lexical items conceptually rather than translating them literally, or resorting to specialist dictionaries. When translating archaic expressions, the translator should find an approximate corresponding expression in the TL or use paraphrasing. Abstract words are so sensitive and they are subject to many legal interpretations in the legal context. Thus, the legal translator should translate them as they are and never try to disambiguate them even if his translation will result in a vague text. For functional words, the translator’s best way is to use ‘paraphrase’ if there is no one-to-one correspondence between them.

Syntactic elements such as sentence complexity, passivization, modals are other aspects that a legal translator should know how to handle. Generally, he should be aware of the syntactic differences between English


27272727

and Arabic. To handle syntactic complexities, the legal translator needs to understand the main constituent parts of the message, look for similar cases of translating the same structure. Syntactic adaptation is good solution for language incongruities. For instance, passivization in English is more likely to be translated into active in Arabic. Similarly, translation of modal auxiliaries is subject to many adaptations. Thus, the translator is entitled to figure out the different facets that a modal can be translated from and into a language (English or Arabic in this case).

Dealing with textual, system and cultural difficulties, a translator should be aware of the textual differences between English and Arabic (i.e. cohesion) and do the appropriate adaptations accordingly. He should bear in mind that such adaptations should not be made on the expense of content. The same principle is true regarding system and cultural differences for which the legal translator acts as a cultural mediator. A number of techniques are likely in translating culture-bound terms (i.e. omission). Knowledge of the system and culture background of the two languages increases the challenge that the translator is encountered with in doing his important task.


28282828

L BibliographyBibliographyBibliographyBibliography Abdel-Fattah, Mohamed (2005). ‘Transalting Modal Auxiliaries from English into Arabic and Vice Versa’, Babel, vol. 51 (1): pp. 31-48.

Abdul-Raof, Hussein (2001). Arabic Stylistics: A Coursebook. Wiesbaden: Harraso Witz.

Al-Bainy, Ramez Hamad (2002). Additions and Omissions in Translation with Special Reference to Literary and Legal Translated Texts. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UK: University of Portsmouth.

Alcaraz, Varo, Enrique and Brian, Hughes (2002). Translation Practices Explained, Legal Translation Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Asensio, M. Roberto (2003). Translating Official Documents. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Bahameed, Adel Salem (2008). ‘Hindrances in Arabic-English Intercultural Translation’, Translation Journal, vol. 12 (1): pp. 1-16.

Bahtia, Vijay, Christopher N. Candlin and Maurizio Gotti (eds) (2003). ‘Legal Discourse in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts: Arbitration Texts in Europe’, Linguistic Insights, 6, Antwerp.

Cao, Deborah (2007). Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

David, René and Brierley, John (1985). Major Legal System in the World Today. London: Stevens.

Delisle, Jean and Judith, Woodsworth (1995). Translators Through History. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Edzard, Lutz (1998). Language as a Medium of Legal Norms: Implications of the Use of Arabic as a Language in the United Nations System. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.

Farghal, M. and Shunnaq, A. (1992). ‘Major Problems in Students’ Transaltions of English Legal Texts into Arabic’, Babel, vol. 38 (4): pp. 203-210.

Farghal, M. and Shunnaq, A. (1999). Translation with Special Reference to English and Arabic. Jordan, Irbid: Dar Al-Hilal for Translation.

Garre, Marianne (1999). Human Rights in Translation: Legal Concepts in Different Languages. Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Gu, Sharron (2006). The Boundaries of Meaning and Formation of Law: Legal Concepts and Reasoning in the English, Arabic, and Chinese Traditions. Montreal/London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Haigh, Rupert (2004). Legal English. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.


29292929

Harvey, Malcolm (2002). ‘What’s so Special about Legal Translation?’, Meta, vol. 47 (2): pp. 177-185.

Hatim, B. Shunnaq, A. and Buckley, R. (1995). The Legal Translator at Work: A Practical Guide. Jordan, Irbid: Dar Al-Hilal for Translating and Publishing.

Mansoor, M. (1965a). Legal and Documentary Arabic Reader (Vol. 1). Leiden: E.J.Brill.

______ (1965b). Legal and Documentary Arabic Reader (Vol. 2). Leiden: E.J.Brill.

Mellinkoff, David (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little/Brown.

Munday, Jeremy (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London: Routledge.

Obenaus, Gerhard (1995). ‘The Legal Translator as Information Broker’. In Morris Marshall (1995). Translation and the Law. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, pp. 247-259.

Reimann, Mathias and Zimmermann, Reinhard. . . . (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, Douglas (2002). Western Translation Theory. Manchester; St. Jerome.

Sarcevic, Susan (1997). New Approach to Legal Translation. London/ Boston: Kluwer Law International.

Snell-Hornby (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.

Sohn, Louis B. (1956). Basic Documents of the United Nations. Brooklyn: The Foundation Press.

Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London/ New York: Routledge.

Wai-Yee (2002). ‘The Pitfalls of Linguistic Equivalence: The Challenge for Legal Translation’, Target, vol. 14 (1): pp. 75-106.

Online ResourcesOnline ResourcesOnline ResourcesOnline Resources <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_systems_of_the_world> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_law> <http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/constitution_jo.html> <http://www.daleelirbid.com/info-and-regulations/pages/constitution.htm>


30303030

szjÛa@—‚Üß@@

òîãìãbÔÛa@òº�Ûa@ZÕîjĐnÛaë@òíŠÄäÛa@@

$�%�� &'�(

)*'�� +�� ,*� )-.�/

01 ,34%� 56�� 078� 9�:�� 91 0;' )*�<� ��= >4*� )*'�'�;�� )?@��A

−�C( DE. -18��− �;�� 56� ):�� 078� ):�� 9*'�'�;�� 9.�FE�� 91 0;' )*�<� G( H A I�*�*�J�4�KL""M ,NL�� O

) �F' )*'�'�;�� )?@�� P �� IQ�E ��;*��R� H94S*TJ 9<4SQ UV &4;E � : GS�-

� X�-�� Y� Z�:�� Y )*'�'�;�� )?@�� [� )*\J�R ) � ]�8� &4;�� ^�S_�� &4S;�� S.� ,`�-�

ab-�� ) c*�b'd� UV )*1�-�� [. )*'�'�;�� )?@�� ebf. ]��E�*� � �g�� 56� �C6 �

h�'�;�� ]�/J [. �i*�� ]��j� &R )*'�'�Q �7��' P ��H, &S.k� ^�@Sb�d� lQ�� [.�

m ��,h�'�;�� 3�� [. �(no� ��S�� pS-1 �qS � &4S;�� CS( r�S- �H ).g�4S�� s

)*'�'�;�� N��E�� &/@. �ii/�� Q G�� 1�-�� t�� 3�:��

011-legal translation theory and practice

Documents

united states

saudi police

translation

repetitions

translating

cultural differences

legal translation

legal translation