Wolff, Leon (2011) Legal translation. In Malmkjaer, Kirsten & Windle, Kevin (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Administrators only | Request a copy from author
Legal translation theory brooks little interference with the source legal text. With few exceptions (Joseph 2005; Hammel 2008; Harvey 2002; Kahaner 2005; Kasirer 2001; Lawson 2006), lawyers and linguists tend to tether themselves to the pole of literalism. More a tight elastic band than an unyielding rope, this tether constrains — rather than prohibits — liberal legal translations. It can stretch to accommodate a degree of freedom by the legal translator however, should it go too far, it snaps back to the default position of linguistic fidelity. This ‘stretch and snap’ gives legal translation a unique place in general translation theory. In the general debate over the ‘degree of freedom’ the translator enjoys in conveying the meaning of the text, legal translation theory has reached its own settlement. Passivity is the default; creativity, the ‘qualified’ exception (Hammel 2008: 275).
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from and citation databases.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
|Item Type:||Book Chapter|
|Keywords:||Legal translation theory, Linguistics, Law, Legal text|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100)
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Law
Current > Schools > School of Law
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2011 Oxford University Press|
|Deposited On:||28 Sep 2015 00:32|
|Last Modified:||28 Sep 2016 14:43|
Repository Staff Only: item control page