Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Abstract

Legal concepts and notions are deeply affected by religions, ethics, philosophy and the culture of a particular nation. As Friedman (in: Nelken (ed) Comparing legal cultures, Dartmouth, Aldershot, 1997, p. 34) highlights, understanding legal culture (i.e. expectations, attitudes, values and ideas towards law and legal institutions) is a crucial factor as it both affects their translation and interpretation and consequently has an impact on the application of law. This increases in importance, for example, in the context of the principle of mutual trust and recognition of judgments assumed by the European Union as the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in the European Union, which would not be possible without the trust in each other’s justice system and the respect for the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. In that vein, ‘the Third Space’ (i.e. the legal translation process), where legal concepts and notions of multiple origins meet and where their meanings are negotiated, transformed, translated and integrated into various socio-political and cultural contexts has acquired an immense significance. Although there may be natural similarities between legal professions in the European Union, they could differ quite substantially as they are deeply rooted in the history and societal evolution of a country; therefore, they are generally regulated at a national, not a European level. In light of the above, the author intends to perform an in-depth analysis of key terminology in the field of names of legal professions which exist in the Member States of the European Union. The author focuses on the terms which refer to the legal profession of lawyers as they might pose obstacles in translation and interpretation due to different functions and roles these legal professionals play in their legal systems or due to the lack of their equivalents in other legal systems. The terminology is compared to present similarities and differences in their meaning, particularly putting some emphasis on socio-political and cultural contexts. The research methods encompass the analysis of relevant literature and the terminological analysis of the research material, which includes the information on legal professions provided by particular Member States on the European e-Justice portal and relevant national regulations in that respect. Finally, the author draws the conclusion that a thorough analysis of the functions and roles of a particular legal profession in socio-political and cultural contexts is required before the translation and interpretation of the term is provided as it helps to avoid ambiguity and makes legal communication precise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The terms used for legal professions are underlined by the author of the paper to highlight their usage and position in the text.

  2. The UK being the country in transition to be withdrawn from the European Union has been excluded from the list this time.

References

  1. Advokat Samfundet (the Danish Bar and Law Society) website https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/Service/English.aspx. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  2. Ainsworth, J. 2014. Lost in Translation? Linguistic Diversity and the Elusive Quest for Plain Meaning in Law. In The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation eds. Le Cheng, King Kui Sin and Anne Wagner, 43–57. Abingdon: Routledge.

  3. Athens Bar Association https://www.dsa.gr/page/identity-athens-bar-association. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  4. Bhabha, H.K. 1994. The Location of Culture. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bhabha, H.K. 2006. Cultural Diversity and Cultural Differences. In The Post-Colonial Studies Reader, ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, 155–157. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bhatia, V.K., and A. Bhatia. 2011. Legal Discourse Across Cultures and Socio-Pragmatic Contexts. World Englishes 30(4): 481–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Biel, Ł. 2014. Lost in the Eurofog: The Textual Fit of Translated Law. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Chambers of Advocates Malta https://www.avukati.org/. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  9. Collins COBUILD English Usage Dictionary https://www.thefreedictionary.com/lawyer. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  10. Cornelius, E. 2011. The Curious Case of Legal Translation. Liberator 32(1): 121–143.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Die Össtreichischen Rechstanwälte https://www.rechtsanwaelte.at/en/. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  12. Encyclopaedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/advocate. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  13. Encyclopaedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/lawyer. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  14. Encyclopaedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/legal-profession/England-after-the-Conquest#ref61073. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  15. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Cyprus https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-cy-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  16. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Denmark https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-dk-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  17. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Estonia https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-ee-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  18. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Germany https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-de-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  19. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Greece https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-el-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  20. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Hungary https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-hu-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  21. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Italy https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-it-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  22. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Luxembourg https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-lu-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  23. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Malta https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-mt-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  24. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Portugal https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-pt-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  25. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Slovakia https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-sk-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  26. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in Sweden https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-se-en.do?member=1. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  27. European e-Justice Portal _ Legal professions in the EU https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-en.do. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  28. Finnish Bar Association https://asianajajaliitto.fi/en. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  29. Friedman, L.M. 1997. The Concept of Legal Culture: A Reply’. In Comparing Legal Cultures, ed. D. Nelken, 33–40. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kierzkowska, D. 2008. Tłumaczenie Prawnicze. Warszawa: Translegal.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych https://kirp.pl/foreign-activity/. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  32. Lithuanian Bar Association http://www.advokatura.lt/en/about-the-bar/legal-services-provided-qm6c.html. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  33. McAuliffe, K. 2015. Translating Ambiguity. Journal of Comparative Law 9(2): 49–71.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Matulewska, A. 2007. Lingua Legis in Translation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Matulewska, A. 2014. In Quest of Sufficient Equivalence: Polish and English Insolvency Terminology in Translation: A Comparative Study. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 38(51): 167–188. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Medrea, N., and C. Caraiman. 2011. The Problem of Legal Romanian-English/English-Romanian Dictionaries and Glossaries and Legal Translations. Curentul Juridic, The Juridical Current, Le Courant Juridique 47: 269–274.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mehrez, S. 1992. Translation and the Postcolonial Experience: The Francophone North African Text. In Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, ed. Lawrence Venuti, 120–138. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Obenaus, G. 1995. The Legal Translator as Information Broker. In Translation and the Law, ed. M. Morris, 247–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Odvetniška Zbornica Slovenije http://www.odv-zb.si/en/regulations/bar-act. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  40. Online Etymology Dictionary https://www.etymonline.com/word/advocate. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  41. Piszcz, A., and H. Sierocka. 2020. The Role of Culture in Legal Languages, Legal Interpretation and Legal Translation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09760-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Prosecutor’s Office Act in Estonia https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/121122012016?leiaKehtiv. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  43. Resolution No. 102/X/2018 on the English equivalents of the profession of attorney-at-law, the self-government of attorneys-at-law, its authorities and organisational units and the name “Law Firm of Attorney-at-Law” https://kirp.pl/uchwala-krajowej-rady-radcow-prawnych-w-sprawie-tlumaczenia-nazwy-zawodu-radcy-prawnego-na-angielski/. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  44. Sarcević, S. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schäffner, C., and B. Adab. 2001. The Idea of the Hybrid Text in Translation Revisited. Across Languages and Cultures 2(2): 277–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sierocka, H. 2014. Cultural Dimensions of Legal Discourse. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 38(51): 189–196. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sveriges Advokatsamfund https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Advokatsamfundet-engelska/. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  48. The Netherlands Bar https://www.advocatenorde.nl/english. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  49. Wagner, A., and J.C. Gémar. 2014. Communication and Culture Mediation Techniques in Jurilinguistics. Semiotica 201: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. West Encyclopedia of American Law https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/counsel. Accessed 05 September 2020.

  51. Wolf, M. 2000. The Third Space in Postcolonial Representation. In Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era, ed. Sherry Simon and Paul St-Pierre, 127–145. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Toury, G. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond: Revised Edition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Halina Sierocka.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sierocka, H. How Vague is the Third Space for Legal Professions in the European Union?. Int J Semiot Law 34, 1401–1416 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09806-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09806-6

Keywords

Navigation