The discussion from the problems of legal translation from the comparative law perspective involves the word “denotation”. Comparative law studies the variations and similarities between thelaws of various countries supplying the foundation for the manufacture of bilingual dictionaries which include the data essential to make legal communication across borders effective. It may also help mutual understanding and also the dispelling of prejudice and misinterpretation.
A legitimate term under legislation A, understood like a systemic term, is changed into another term under legislation B by locating a term that corresponds using the purpose of the legal term under legislation A. This enables, for instance, the British legal term trust to become converted into German as Treuhand in a few instances.
Within the translation of legal terms, one frequently they resort to pairs of terms which appear in some way connected with a relationship of equivalence. The legal denoters, that have up to now been used in the descriptive model, have a similar legal “meaning”, but now you ask , exactly what do they denote? At the minimum, the problem may illustrate the two designated terms might lack a typical denoter. They function differently than synonyms the terms “mean” exactly the same factor to jurists, while they aren’t identical. They’re also not necessarily similar simply because they exist poor different legal and language systems, but nonetheless they continue to be comparable. It may be securely stated the functional approach to comparative law has shown the comparability of legal terms.
The terms may also be compared by mention of the their connotations it may be sufficient to supply a linguistic foundation for the functional comparative law term to be able to determine the connotations from the legal terms.
The structural feature present with legal translation – the lack of globally operative relation to reference – could be overcome only with the comparison of legal institutions on the situation-by-situation basis, as highlighted above. From today’s perspective, it appears justifiable to state that legal translation is within practice plus theory is really a secure profession demanding special technical understanding due to its complexity.
The present findings of mostly terminology-orientated studies around the translation of legal texts have defined the fundamental condition in legal translation because the legal and technical qualification of legal institutions. The issue of qualification, the reinterpretation of mostly incompatible legal terms, could be solved only by comparative law methods.
Nonetheless, the scope of dialogue surrounding legal translation is characterised by an growing quantity of questions which connect with the technical language and practical facets of legal language. They are consequently aspects of legal linguistics – that is indeed an evolving field of study that the circumstances and techniques must be clarified.