Search Results
This paper aims to distinguish between the process of unification of law and the unification of national languages of the law and to show that both processes are partial and governed by similar rules. Translators are not expected either to make their national legal terminology or phraseology similar to those applied in the international sources of law, except for new terms coined for legal concepts previously unknown in a given legal system. Attention of the reader is also turned to the ignorance sometimes demonstrated by subject specialists in the field of the term formation principles and, at the same time, the unquestionable importance of their part played in the process of legal translation, as well as the phenomenon of “local translation usage” that, irrespective of its irrational nature, should be taken into account. This is why there is a need to develop the awareness of the specific register and phraseology of the national language of the law as well as to train inexperienced translators in their native legal languages in order to avoid uncontrolled foreign influence and undesired linguistic interference.
