Dan Harris, of Harris Bricken, writes China Law Blog – the latest entry answers a translator’s question on how a US common-law contract ‘translated’ into Chinese works in practice: Drafting International Contracts That Work.
I am a translator helping a U.S. company on its contracts and — to put it mildly — things are not going well. The deal I’m translating for has been running into a lot of trouble because the American law firm that wrote the contracts has written them in highly complex legalese. …
Harris’s approach is: if a contract between a US and a Chinese company is drafted in long-winded US style (78 pages with a lot of boilerplate and elevated language in one case), his law firm has lawyers create an equivalent contract in Chinese, both simpler to understand and likely to be understood and accepted by the Chinese courts.
The post also quotes a 2015 post on the Adams on Contract Drafting blog where Ken Adams interviewed Steve Dickinson of China Law Blog on the same subject. Dickinson says:
I should also add that Chinese lawyers have major problems interpreting U.S. and British common law contracts. Their standard approach is to guess at the meaning and then mistranslate and then work with the mistranslation, leading to disaster on all counts.
Although it is clear that the Chinese prefer a short English contract written in a simple style, I get the impression that the Chinese version is always going to take precedence, plain English or not.
The problems of using English as a language for international contracts are dealt with in wonderful practical detail in Triebel/Vogenauer, Englisch als Vertragssprache.
Dannemann/Schulze: German Civil Code Volume I: Books 1 – 3 Article-by-Article (sic) Commentary
This is a huge thick tome which has just appeared. You might like to have a copy, although you might not like to pay the justified price of over £200 for it.
About 40 authors and over 2300 pages. Here’s the blurb at Beck Verlag.
- There are many so-called official English translations of German statutes online. Some are here: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/Teilliste_translations.htm
But you can often find translations elsewhere. Austrian and Swiss statutes are similarly available.
There used to be an official site linking translations elsewhere (only as long as the German statutes were current, although translators and lawyers do sometimes need earlier versions). Sadly that cgerli site, cited at the bottom of the opening page of this blog, now only links to hotels in Salzburg. Before that, Robin Stocks used to keep a collection, but I think it would be too much for him and me to resurrect/update it.
There is a side-by-side translation of the new post-2002 bits by Gerhard Dannemann online at the German Law Archive.
The online translation of the BGB is thus described:
Übersetzung durch ein Übersetzer-Team des Langenscheidt Übersetzungsservice. Laufende Aktualisierung der Übersetzung durch Neil Mussett.
Translation provided by the Langenscheidt Translation Service. Translation regularly updated by Neil Mussett.
It only goes as far as the 2013 update of the German original.
2. The Dannemann/Schulze commentary quotes this online translation, plus its own versions of the post-2013 sections. It does not like the translation but I assume foreign lawyers would be confused if the online version, which they sometimes pass on to clients, were different. And it has the great advantage that the authors can point out which bits of the translation they don’t like. I have not yet many examples, as I have not had time to look very closely, but for example, the general part now includes Unternehmer and Verbraucher, which the online translation calls entrepreneur and consumer. The notes show how complex the situation is: the EU directives use the term trader. Dannemann has an online translation of the new parts of the BGB post-2002 and uses businessperson, which I like. The Commentary notes:
The definition of entrepreneur (Unternehmer) is of central relevance…Even though the German word is identical, it must be distinguished from Unternehmer as used in §§ 631 et seq.
By the way, I don’t understand why section 14, in theory identical to the online translation, capitalizes the word partnership:
An entrepreneur means a natural or legal person or a Partnership with legal personality who or which, when entering into a legal transaction, acts in exercise of his or its trade, business or profession.
The online BGB translation is often criticized by translators, but they can’t usually give examples of what they mean. Nor do I feel able to criticize them off the cuff – it’s only on the rare occasions when a specific section is problematic that it strikes me. I am giving the Unternehmer example to show how useful a commentary is.
3. Why does it say on the cover and title page “Article-by-Article Commentary”? Surely these are sections in English?
4. I love German commentaries. They are huge tomes with all sorts of details on the law, section by section. If you really need details on this Code, are not near a German law library and find this volume too expensive, I would recommend buying a used copy of Palandt’s commentary in German. Not dated before 2002, when the Code was greatly changed, but it need not be new. Here’s a screenshot from abebooks today, showing you could get the 2007 version most cheaply. There are later ones available too. I used to pick one up at a students’ bookshop in Germany.
It would answer most questions of the meaning of the Code.
5. This commentary is intended for English-speaking lawyers who know little German or little German law. It has a full introduction putting the Code in historical context. Each section has the original German (dated 2018 I think), the online translation and a number of notes under subheadings. There may be notes on the translation and on EU law.
6. I should repeat what I’ve written before, that the terminology of the BGB is consistent in what now seems an unnatural way. Many criticisms of the translations are based on a misunderstanding – they find a term unnatural and don’t realize it has to be consistent throughout, just like the original. This is why, as I’ve written before too, there must be footnotes. And this volume more than generously provides them.
You can buy this dictionary, or will soon be able to, in the paper version or as an Acolada digital version (already available) – I see it’s possible to rent it online for an annual fee. The Acolada version can be combined with other reference works, including Kettler’s dictionary of Intellectual Property and Creifelds.
Buch. Hardcover (In Leinen)
6. Auflage. 2020
Rund 1102 S
C.H.BECK. ISBN 978-3-406-60914-5
(In Gemeinschaft mit Matthew Bender/New York und Helbing & Lichtenhahn/Basel)
Format (B x L): 16,0 x 24,0 cm
This is the 6th edition. The 5th is out of print.
If you are using a paper dictionary, I remember this and Romain both being quite time-consuming to use. The digital version will at least find your word promptly.
I have a problem with dictionaries nowadays. The updates are not always very comprehensive, or at least they don’t contain new information that is very useful for me. For example, the latest DE>EN Romain contained a large number of updates to include feminine terms. Maybe it used to say Rechtsanwalt and now it says Rechtsanwalt/Rechtsanwältin. I am afraid this had little effect on my use of the dictionary. My copy eventually fell apart and I then bought a second-hand copy of the earlier edition (3rd ed., 1994). This does the job for me. I think there may be a successor to Romain in the pipeline but have no information on this.
This blog has been around for far too long. Its current address is transblawg.co.uk. It may become necessary to change the url to transblawg.co.uk, but this depends on how many of my brain cells have survived the lockdown.
The very rare posts here have been rather heavy, so before that continues, here are some local photos.
First of all, here is an NHS “Better Health” poster. When Boris Johnson decided to campaign against obesity, we began to see this slogan ‘Let’s Do This’ and this advice here ‘Simple Swaps’. This is a fat man stuffing lettuce into his mouth. There is a 12-week NHS course online to encourage healthy eating, and all sorts of slimming clubs (as they no longer call themselves) are probably available free for some weeks through your GP. So I imagine a fair amount of money has been pumped into this by the government. I think the problem is more complex, but then I would say that, wouldn’t it?
The next is the side view of the door to my dentist’s practice. It’s the view you get if you wait to the left of the door wearing a mask. I like the way all the details are picked out in red. Fortunately I only had a checkup.
The final one shows the kind of reason I haven’t had to give the cat any breakfast today – she is fast asleep. The mouse in this photo did escape though, perhaps to be caught another time. Mice are under people’s sheds and decking, usually.
In a recent mailing list discussion, a colleague queried the online translation of the German Civil Code, because they thought that ‘charge’ meant to charge a person with a criminal offence, whereas in the context used, it meant ‘encumber’ – quite correctly. This is a good illustration of the uncertainty of some translators when faced with legal texts!
There are a large number of translations of statutes into English available online, many of them ‘official’, whatever that means. Whether they have serious problems or not I usually only notice if I happen to be dealing with a specific part of a statute and especially if Iwant to use the terminology of the translation so my customer can consult the whole thing. I have definitely recorded complaints about some of these translations, as readers of this blog will know.
It seems to me that a particular problem with the Civil Code is that a lot of vocabulary is used consistently throughout, even where in everyday German one might vary it. I think the verbs relating to real and personal property are the same, for example. But many translators simply find a translation and follow it slavishly without considering its reliability (because they aren’t in a position to judge it). But a translation into English that closely follows the German wording may not work as well as a more discursive one.
That’s when I pointed out that a really useful BGB translation would have footnotes.
Now it seems that Professor Gerhard Dannemann and Reiner Schulze are publishing such a version.
. It should be out in July and will cost 280 euros. Intended for German and British lawyers.
In its first edition, this article-by-article commentary covers books 1 to 3 of the code, i. e. General Part, Law of Obligations, Law of Things. The commentary takes into account all the changes up to December 2018 and provides a consolidated version of the BGB.
The commentary of each article is headed by the current version of the article both in the German original and an English translation followed by a clearly and uniformly structured analysis of the provision. Focus is laid on the understanding of the meaning of the provision in the context of the code and the proper use of the terminology both in German and English. As the meaning of the BGB does not always follow from the wording of its provisions, especially if translated into another language, they need further explanation. Taking into account the origin of the BGB in 19th century Germany and the difficulties inherent in any legal translation, the proper use of terminology is the real challenge of the commentary.
Facing this challenge, the commentary meets the expectations both of German and foreign lawyers by providing the proper terminology and explanation in English to lawyers and translators and by offering a systematic overview on the BGB to lawyers who are not very familiar with the German civil law.
Professor Dannemann is responsible for the German Law Archive site and there are some bilingual BGB translations there.
There is a new standard for legal translation. I am not interested in acquiring a standard, in particular this one, but I do think it’s interesting what the committee who prepared the standard thought about legal translators.
It’s for individual legal translators but it seems the ATC (Association of Translation Companies) is considering selling packages to help people apply.
The new standard for individual legal translators has been widely reported. Legal translators are wondering if they will feel obliged to have it, what it will cost them in time and money, whether clients will require it and so on. I followed a webinar by the ATC on it. I honestly can’t see this standard going anywhere. The German authorities aren’t going to adopt it because they think that ISO 10771 with an appendix suffices.
The document can be bought for CHF 118 from iso.org. It can be bought as a PDF and downloaded.
Background can be found at Slator: Germany Rejects ISO Standard for Legal Translation, Experts Defend ISO Standard for Legal Translation.
So,I will pick out just a few things: There are definitions, incidentally, of check (source and target language, by the translator), revision (source and target language, by the reviser), review (only target language) and proofread (target language). Those are terms often confused. (Presumably dealt with in the earlier ISO for translators, 10771).
There are also definitions of authorized legal translator and lawyer linguist.
An authorized legal translator would include what is sometimes called a sworn translator in Germany. There are a number of terms used by the various Länder. So this is useful.
Note 1 to entry: Court or government body authorization is generally given on the basis of relevant national legislation, to translate specific documents used in judicial settings, by public authorities or as part of legal proceedings and to take part in legal proceedings in the capacity of an authorized legal translator.
Note 2 to entry: Depending on the national legislation or convention, an authorized legal translator may in some countries or regions also be referred to as a court-appointed translator, sworn translator, court authorized legal translator or a certified legal translator.
A lawyer linguist in this context sounds here like the way I have always understood it – a lawyer with language skills who makes a legal contribution to international legislation, for instance in the EU. Maybe not a practising lawyer, but there as a lawyer rather than a translator, in the main. Some of my colleagues who are qualified lawyers and translators and work as freelances call themselves lawyer linguists, I think to emphasize the fact that they are lawyers, which always impresses clients (as I know to my advantage), not that being a qualified lawyer makes you a competent translator.
person with legal background and linguistic competence who provides legislative linguistic advice
Note 1 to entry: The lawyer linguist can also provide advice within the context of bilingual or multilingual co-drafted legislation, and comparison services to ensure equivalency and consistency between different language versions of legislation.
Note 2 to entry: Depending on the custom or convention a lawyer linguist can in some countries or regions also be referred to as jurilinguist.
Note 3 to entry: A lawyer linguist can, from time to time, also translate, revise or review legal texts, provide advice on legal terminology, legal analysis, etc.
There follows a general description of legal translation. It looks rather inflated to me, or rather, the description would apply equally to technical, economics, medical or much other translation:
Given the highly specialist field, potential legal consequences of mistranslation, and formal and liability issues, legal translation requires specific competences and qualifications and a very professional approach from the specialist translators involved in providing the legal translation service.
5.2 sets out the required qualifications. There are five possibilities of meeting the criteria. Most require at least three years’ experience in translating in the legal field. However, the last does not:
has obtained an officially recognized qualification as an authorized legal translator on the basis of relevant national requirements and regulations.
I am a sworn translator for the Bavarian courts, so presumably I would qualify even if I did not fit the other categories (not quite sure I do, as I have a Ph.D. in German and am qualified as a solicitor). But a person with this qualification, at the time I did it, did not have to have law as their special subject. The only nod towards work for the courts for translators whose main subject was technical or economics translation, for example, was a sort of gap-filling paper on the terminology of the German courts.
I’m skipping over large amounts of definitions of what legal translation consists of and all the stages the individual legal translator is responsible for.
One issue which has been questioned among translators relates to ‘signing off’.
6.7 Signing off and record keeping
In order to ensure full transparency and traceability when the translation is completed, even if there is no formal authorization requirement, the legal translator should sign off the translation as part of the deliverable in a manner agreed previously with the client or required by any other relevant agreements. This may, depending on the specific requirements or convention, include: electronic signature, signing or coding the document, file or TM segments, etc. If required to do so by the client, circumstances or appropriate agreements, the legal translator should provide a short written statement of the translator’s and the reviser’s qualifications, compliance of the translation with the relevant legal requirement and the source text.
NOTE Signing off and record keeping of legal translations can also be covered by regulations.
This seems a bit heavy but in its simplest form it is similar to the stamp and formula added to a certified German translation. It seems to me that the most important element of that is that the trnaslator is identified and can be traced.
This document is the Austrian equivalent of the German Strafbefehl. It is part of the Austrian Mandatsverfahren (German Strafbefehlsverfahren).
Mandatsverfahren: Muhr/Peinhopf Wörterbuch rechtsterminologischer Unterschiede Österreich-Deutschland offer the translation mandating procedure.
That is a weird translation.
The story came to my attention because it was widely reported, originally in Österreich, then in Der Standard, in a joky way, and thereafter in the New York Times and The Guardian.
Sie haben den öffentlichen Anstand verletzt, indem Sie vor Polizeibeamten laut einen Darmwind haben entweichen lassen.
You offended public decency by loudly breaking wind in the presence of police officers.
The newspaper articles are classic examples of wordplay. Wikpedia too has articles on Blähung and Flatulence, and on Blowing a raspberry – apparently the latter went into US usage despite their lack of rhyming slang.
Ein Wiener muss für einen “lauten Darmwind” vor einem Polizisten 500 Euro Strafe zahlen. Wie die Tageszeitung “Österreich” online berichtet, soll sich der Vorfall in der Nacht des 5. Juni in Wien-Josefstadt zugetragen haben. Die Polizei sprach auf Twitter von “voller Absicht”. “Und anfurzen lassen sich die Kollegen dann doch eher ungern.”
A man in Vienna has been fined €500 (£447) for breaking wind loudly in front of police in a move the Austrian capital’s police force was at pains to defend.
The Österreich newspaper reported that the penalty stemmed from an incident on 5 June and that the offender was fined for offending public decency.
City police wrote on Twitter that “of course no one is reported for accidentally letting one go”.
It seems there have been earlier cases, sometimes with a fine of 50 euros. In this case, the fart was only one part of wider conduct, and is described as fully intentional. (ORF) The man can appeal, but would probably be safer not to.
I have been here before (Judgment and judgment), in 2012, and I quoted Lord Neuberger.
Now, Joshua Rozenberg, in A bad day for Jay J, in the Law Society Gazette, mentions the spelling difference again:
It was the family lawyer James Turner QC who set Twitter alight by observing that Wilson had taken the trouble to refer to ‘editorial judgement’ (following the spelling in the statute) but the court’s judgment (following conventional usage). Many of my followers recalled being taught, as students, that a judge uses judgement to write a judgment. News to me; but perhaps I am too judgmental.
(The reference is to Lord Wilson in the Supreme Court).
I missed the Twitter storm, but it doesn’t seem new.