Third Space of Legal Translation: Between Protean Meanings, Legal Cultures and Communication Stratification

Abstract

Legal translation is a complex transfer of the text formulated in a source language into a target language which needs to take into account a wide array of factors to ensure the equality of parties to the process of interlingual communication. It is an autonomous realm of cross-cultural events within which the system-bound of legal concepts/notions deeply rooted in language, history and societal evolution of one country are transformed and integrated into the language of another, and as a result, stratified over the course of time (Mattila in Comparative legal linguistics, Routledge, Aldershot, 2006). That aspect of legal translation is called the Third Space (Bhabha in: Ashcroft B, Griffiths G, Tiffin H (eds) The post-colonial studies readers. Routledge New York, pp 206–209, 1995). The authors investigate some aspects of the Third Space including (1) Protean meanings and diverging legal cultures which are constantly remodeled, (2) cultural codes, and communication stereotypes as well as (3) communication problems stemming from stratification of communication in legal settings. The research methods applied include the semiotic analysis of legal translation strategies and potential loss of meaning.

The Multiplicity of Third Space of Communication in Law

“…The struggle for true justice is still ongoing and will certainly last for a long time as the impact of colonialism and colonial laws is undeniable and deeply ingrained in social consciousness of the inhabitants of colonialized territories. The stratification of nations, also discussed by Matulewska and Wagner [19] is also revealed in Wainwright's research findings [25] and its omnipresence or pervasiveness, though scary and inhuman, is a fact.…”

“…The more distant the source and target language cultures are (in respect to a wide array of social, economic, legal, historical, political, racial, linguistic factors), the longer the chain of translation (number of pivot languages between the source language of the message sender and the target native language of the message recipient), the more difficult it is to communicate efficiently. [19] The authors investigate the evolution of concepts and terms in divergent legal cultures. The selected examples of marriage and sex-related terminology illustrate the problems of communicating across languages and understanding messages through the lens of the national legal system, leading to stereotyping in situations where the legal realities differ or where one has been recently reshaped while the other remains unchanged [20].…”

“…Thus, the meaning modelled by cultural codes may be perceived as parts of subconsciously conveyed pragmatic meaning. Accordingly, cultural codes inevitably shape our perception of the surrounding world [19] Finally, Matulewska and Wagner [19] address communication problems stemming from the stratification of communication in legal settings. The concept of stratification is broadly discussed in sociological research but it is not often touched upon in translation studies.…”

“…To recapitulate, it must be agreed that "The process of legal translation is very susceptible to the Third Space as metaphorically described by Bhabha [2], and may be subject to a wide array of manipulations. [19] The second paper in this Special Issue is authored by Margaret Flöter-Durr and Paulina Nowak-Korcz (La notion de tiers-espace et la traduction juridique: quelle articulation?) [21].…”

“…But there are many other sources of miscommunication, some of which are objective and stem from the lack of isomorphism between languages and legal systems. The incongruence of concepts, also known as system-bound or culture-bound concepts and the need to relativize translation cannot be forgotten here [19,[29][30][31]. Furthermore, it is often hard to predict the consequences of translations that have not been done with due diligence: the repercussions of translation errors or challenges may include, as examples: financial loss at individual, business, State and European levels; costs to businesses and national economies; loss of opportunity; failed transactions; reputational damage; infringed or denied rights; financial or professional liability; perverting the course of justice; failed or hampered enforcement whether in civil or criminal matters, including serious and organised crime; hindrances to cross-border mutual assistance in criminal matters; failed government initiatives; and the impairment of legal security and certainty.…”