The Translation Of Legal Terminologies

The translation of legal terminologies is deemed as a very difficult job by those who are employed in the business. The translation of legal terminologies is made very difficult by the lack of equivalence. Firstly, linguistic structures that are found in the source language very often have no direct equivalent structures in the target language. Secondly easily recognizable target language terms may not accurately convey the concept or process referred to within the source text. This lack of equivalence is caused partly by linguistic factors such as the differences of lexical systems between two languages, and partly by extra-linguistic factors such as different legal systems, different cultural, social and historical backgrounds, which are imbedded in the legal language. Thus, legal terminologies in many cases do not lead to very precise translation and loss of meaning becomes inevitable. For the translation of legal terminologies, the faithful and accurate conveyance of meaning between the ST and the TT is the foremost requirement. The lack of equivalence and the demand for high precision constitute a paradox. In this conflicting situation, untranslatability naturally occurs. In this paper, the author tries to examine this problem with the theory of equivalence, meaning, translatability and compensation strategies. The author reviews Roman Jacobson, Eugene Nida and some other scholar' s theories, brings them into comparison with the practice of the translation of legal terminologies, and reaches the conclusion that languages partition reality differently, and equivalence is always relative. Equivalence can only be attained in certain aspects and to a certain degree. To make sure of a faithful and accurate conveying of meaning between the ST and the TT, a translator must turn to compensation strategies as a means of partlyovercoming the difficulties caused by the lack of equivalence. On a practical level in the translation of legal terminologies, these strategies include methods like splitting, paraphrasing, providing footnotes, seeking a functional equivalence, etc. The author hopes that a dynamic treatment with multiple translation methods can settle the conflict between the lack of equivalence and the demand for high precision, and partly solve the problem of the translation of legal terminologies.