The Linguist

20 The Linguist Vol/63 No/2 ciol.org.uk/thelinguist FEATURES A prescriptive approach can be misleading in legal settings; Richard Vranch makes the case for descriptive translation L egal translation has been described as "the ultimate linguistic challenge". 1 An initial read of a new assignment is often a journey into the unknown, quickly revealing unique and country-specific judicial systems, terms and procedures. This requires discipline, careful contextual reading and copious preparatory research in both source and target languages. An exciting and rewarding process for sure. Repackaging and expediting an obscure or unique legal concept to transcend subject-matter-specific, geographical and linguistic boundaries is as wonderful as it is daunting. A solid translation theory canon has been evolving over the past seven decades offering diverse stratagems to that end. While a purely prescriptive word-to-word method may be preferable in terms of faithfulness to the original, it can fall short in properly conveying meaning. A strict sense-to-sense stance risks sacrificing faithfulness by omission or addition. Equivalence avoids the distraction of word units by shining a spotlight on the message; yet formal equivalence sticks to boilerplate solutions, which may render a text unreadable without heavy footnoting. Dynamic equivalence propitiates a sense-to- sense naturalness while giving culture a foot in the door. And functional equivalence goes even further, fully committing to equivalence in the target language over faithfulness to the original while also embracing cultural aspects. Prescriptive v Plain When it comes to standard legal forms and templates, a purely prescriptive approach, drawing essentially on well-established equivalents, works well. But in a globalised market, legal translators often take on source texts from countries they are unfamiliar with, which requires a more flexible approach. A true expert communicates complex concepts in plain and simple language. Moreover, not every English speaker is familiar with complicated English legalese. These two grounds alone present a strong case for a descriptive approach to legal translation. There has been a recent push for plain language in English legal documents. The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) sets a great example in this regard. Despite having the final say on any number of legal puzzles within its jurisdiction, it does so without straying from everyday vocabulary, wherever possible, and using short, clear sentences. In Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others, the UKSC outlined the cause in plain and simple terms: "Does the court have the power to grant 'newcomer injunctions', i.e. injunctions against persons who are unknown and unidentified as at the date of the order, and who have not yet performed, or threatened to perform, the acts which the injunction prohibits?" It then ruled "that the court has power to grant newcomer injunctions. However, it should only exercise this power in circumstances where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or to enforce public law that is not adequately met by any other available remedies." A style no doubt worthy of imitation by translators. A descriptive approach A descriptive method allows legal translators to enhance this plain-language approach. Those navigating French and Spanish legal texts enjoy an ever-growing library of benchmark reference works, not to mention a plethora of robust online resources. In his French to English dictionary, FHS Bridge sets the bar rather high by providing astonishingly understandable descriptive English renditions of complex French legal terms. 2 He translates concours idéal as a 'single act fulfilling the conditions required to constitute various offences', rather than the more direct 'notional plurality of offences'. This even allows one to keep the original French term while adding the more extensive, descriptive rendering in a translator's note. As to concours réel, he suggests 'plurality of offences dealt with in the same proceedings'. This descriptive stance is especially important for omnipresent yet commonly mistranslated terms. In her outstanding lexicon, Rebecca Jowers takes a similar approach for Spanish to English. 3 In Spain, the term procurador is at serious risk of being confused as a false friend of 'prosecutor' in English. Jowers offers 'party agent' as a translation option. Procurador can also be confused with the party's legal counsel. Indeed, 'party agent' fittingly describes this licensed legal professional's role in representing a party procedurally, receiving notices and summons, and sending important documents to and liaising with both the party's legal representative and the court. Another example is encubramiento, which could be directly translated as 'concealment'. Jowers delightfully describes it in legal English as 'aiding and abetting after the fact'. Her flexible and descriptive approach allows nuanced renderings in English even when two different source terms include identical words or phrases. For example, she renders medidas Laws that make sense

• Cover