Conference in Amsterdam in January 2011:

ACLL-CSECL: The Role of Legal Translation in Legal Harmonization

On 21 January 2011 the Centre for the Study of European Contract Law (CSECL) and the Amsterdam Circle for Law & Language (ACLL) organize an international conference on the Role of Legal Translation in Legal Harmonization.

The speakers of the conference examine from different perspectives to what extent and in which ways legal translation affects legal harmonization in the EU.

Date: 21 January 2011
Location: Amsterdam

I got the date from a post to the Forensic Linguistics mailing list, which added:

Perhaps interesting for the conference calendar of the FL homepage, I
would like to inform you that the Amsterdam Circle for Law & Language
(ACLL) and the Centre for the Study of European Contract Law (CSECL) are
organizing a conference on 21 January 2010 on the role of legal
translation in legal harmonization. It will take place in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. Seven prominent speakers will discuss this issue from the
perspective of the legislative procedure in the EU, legal translation
studies and comparative law.

Translation Commentator is a weblog by Rosene Zaros that has been running for some time, mainly with comments on the translation industry in the USA.

A recurrent topic is the commodification of translation (it does appear that this term is more common than commoditization, both on UK and edu sites). To quote Bernie Bierman’s email given in her latest entry:

Translation (and) the translation process, is (are) not about words…big words, little words, short words, long words, whole words or particles of words. It is equally not about numbers or names or formulas or equations. Translation is about writing and communication. Indeed, before the so-called “wizards” of technology came long in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s, translation was viewed by many as one branch of the communications arts. Indeed, from any clear point of view, whether objective or subjective, translation is about writing and communication. It is not about word-matching, as some if not many of today’s technologically-obsessed translators, CAT workers and CAT operators believe.

Two issues frequently discussed by translators:

1. How shall I charge?
by source text
by target text
by word
by line
by page
What is a word?
What is a page?
What is a line?

NB German words are on average longer than English words
German words in legal texts are on average longer than German words in general texts

I have an Excel file someone gave me to adjust between styles of charging. There’s also a website somewhere that helps. I’ll add it if I remember it.

I can’t get very excited about this, and I think whichever method you use, you have to fix a rate that gives you enough per hour at the end of the day.

2. The use of CAT tools
in particular translation memory
in particular the way translation agencies/companies use TM programs to reduce payment to translators
the idea that using TM saves time

Again, I find TM excellent for quality control, and it doesn’t save me time.

There was an exciting exchange on Jill Sommer’s blog, Musings from an overworked translator, on this topic last November, Trados ad = tempest in a teapot. (That’s US for storm in a teacup – I thought they had done away with the tea).
This in turn went back to a discussion on ProZ. A Trados ad quoted a translator who translated over 34,000 words in 10 hours rather than 17 days, with a fairly empty TM. It sounds to me like a repetitive text.

An example of the Franconian ‘weiches P’, I assume.

Not welcome at Country Corner, Fürth.

LATER NOTE: I thought this Frankenberger was a local hoodlum, but the penny has just dropped – it refers to Sebastian Frankenberger, who initiated the Bavarian referendum as a result of which Bavaria now has the strictest anti-smoking regulations in Germany.

I am pleased to announce that Victor Dewsbery has a new weblog, Language Mystery. Let’s wish it a long and active future.

At Victor’s website there are a number of resources, such as translations of the titles of German statutes, a glossary of Christian terms, German public institutions, advice on not trusting dictionaries, and a lot more.

Advertisements for carp restaurants in local advertising paper (click to enlarge):

Anyone who is learning about how to translate German statutes into English might be interested to compare the two online translations of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz.

1. Goethe Institut (formerly Inter Nationes translations)

2. BFDI (Der Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit)

Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (original German)

In no. 1, I was struck by:

a) The use of Article instead of section for §

b) The difficulty of navigating to sections 5, 43 and 44

c) Section 43 (2) ‘fails to appoint a commissioner for data protection’ – I would only use this for the Federal Commissioner – here, prefer ‘data protection officer’ (No. 2 has ‘data protection official’)

d) Translation of rechtzeitig as on time instead of in (good) time (No. 2 has ‘within the prescribed time limit’)

e) Mystifying translation of section 43 (7): contrary to Article 29 para. 3 sentence 2 does not ensure the acceptance of recordings,
(No. 2: in violation of Section 29 (3) second sentence fails to ensure the inclusion of identifiers)

Incidentally, if one looks at no. 1’s translation of section 29, the terms used do not match.

In no. 2, I liked

a) data subject for Betroffene(r)
(No. 1 had affected party – I was going to use person affected, although I see I had already got data subject in my database)

b) Bußgeldvorschriften and Strafvorschriften, as headings, translated as Administrative offences and Criminal offences
(No. 1 had Administrative Fine Provisions and Penalty Provisions)

c) Translation of section 43 (5):
entgegen § 29 Abs. 2 Satz 3 oder 4 die dort bezeichneten Gründe oder die Art und Weise ihrer glaubhaften Darlegung nicht aufzeichnet
in violation of section 29 (2) third or fourth sentence fails to record the evidence described there or the means of presenting it in a credible way
(No. 1: contrary to Article 29 para. 2 sentence 3 or 4 does not record the reasons named there or does not record the way in which they are credibly presented)

There is more. I would love to know who did the BFDI translation.