At the same time, translation theory states that it is not impossible to imagine more than one correct translation of a particular text. As Kischel said – perhaps a little too harshly – « The question with legal translations is not which translation is correct, but, more modestly, which is less wrong. » [28: 7]. Indeed, « accuracy must depend on the extent to which the average reader for whom a translation is intended is likely to understand it correctly » [37:1]. This is particularly visible in the context of Skopos` theory, which places the communicative purpose of the text at the center of the translator`s enterprise [38: 569-570]. Different recipients or even the same receiver in different communication situations assign different functions to the same language material and thus change its communication purpose. That is not the case with the interpretation of the law. The belief that there is a right answer to every interpretive doubt (Dworkin`s thesis that there is only one right answer) is deeply rooted in the idea of the legal system itself. The communicative purpose of a legal text is always the same – to define the rights and obligations of a person in a binding way. Therefore, there is no room for other correct interpretations. This is not to say that there cannot be competing interpretations.

On the contrary, lawyers are constantly in the legal discourse, making claims and arguing for their preferred interpretations. However, the entire commitment is based on the assumption that ultimately only a correct and correct interpretation will prevail. Sin also explains the need for a meta-translation mechanism (1999:205): while translation is generally more nuanced than we think, legal translation is much more complex than transferring words from one language to another. The Editorial Division of the Ministry of Justice [Government of Hong Kong] takes a similar position: « To make Chinese the common law language, Chinese legal terms must reflect the common law meaning that exists behind their English equivalents, » adding: « When choosing the Chinese term, we must take into account the `relevance` and `acceptance` of the term (1999:39). It defines `adequacy` as `if a Chinese term can carry the meaning of its English equivalent according to the grammatical rules and semantic schemes of the Chinese language` and `acceptance` as `if the Chinese translation conforms to the grammatical and usage rules of the Chinese language and is intelligible` (39). In the last case. » The translation of legal law often involves striking a balance between `acceptance` and `reasonableness` and, in most cases, the predominant consideration remains `accuracy` (the Chinese version has the same legal effect and is interpreted in the same way as the English version` (40). We hope you found this list of facts about legal translations illuminating and now have a better understanding of the translation industry and the importance of accurate legal translations. Many people confuse translation and interpretation, but they are very different. Interpreters translate oral or sign language into another spoken or sign language. This process takes place in real time.

Traditionally, the professor of translation has spent a lot of time identifying such errors, probably because they are easier to quantify. Rather, House (1997:40-45) calls for greater efforts to combat their so-called « erroneous hidden errors » resulting from dimensional and functional imbalance, along the five situational dimensions of medium, participation, social role relationship, social attitude, and province. However, if we refer to the previous discussion on the interpretation of the law, the dimensions of the House will still not be sufficient to inform the intention of the legislator and determine the legal effect, since the statements are made only on the functions of the text – mainly on the idealistic and interpersonal components according to Halliday – but not much on how they occur. They focus mainly on formal characteristics. The interpretation of these linguistic and textual characteristics should lead to the object and purpose of the legislation. Intentional error does not exclude this, but it also invites greater subjectivity. According to this document, the grammatical and literal meanings of expressions in texts are subordinate to the intention of the legislator. In general translation theory, such an emphasis on intention would coincide with the ideas of functionalist scholars such as Vermeer and Nord. Legal translators rely heavily on the codes of criminal and civil procedure of the target country, as well as civil and commercial law.

These codes contain the necessary legal concepts defined in a specific language. This article discusses a lesson that could be drawn from the interpretation of bilingual legislation and its evaluation for the pedagogy of translation evaluation. Although bilingual legislation is a relatively new phenomenon in Hong Kong, it has a well-established tradition in other communities around the world, and experience has been sought (Fung, 1997). Translation quality assessment, including quality assessment of legal translations (Maier, 2000), is an evolving field. As in many other disciplines, when the subject of assessment is discussed, the focus has traditionally been on the mistakes made by learners. The teacher-evaluator is the authoritarian figure who corrects. However, in some cases of bilingual interpretation and conciliation of statutes, the judge, also a traditional authoritarian figure, is presumed that the two language versions are prima facie authentic and that any alleged discrepancies between the two must be carefully examined and proved. This alternative way of thinking can be educational.

In addition, the fact that the judge must openly explain and justify his decision in a judgment is an example of the type of evaluation procedure that can be beneficial both for the teacher-evaluator and for learners who must become self-evaluators of their work. If you`re looking for any type of translation, take the time to ask questions to make sure you`re protecting your sensitive information and getting the most accurate finished project. Such knowledge is required in some models of legal competence in translation [see: 41:13], and rightly so. The difficulty lies not in its degree of sophistication or complexity, but in the very practical nature of the knowledge. It is difficult to achieve this without participating in the legal discourse. In other words, it requires an inner perspective, which is naturally adopted by a practicing lawyer or judge. A translator`s point of view, on the other hand, is external by default.