Explicitation as a means of rendering legal terminology in the English–Ukrainian translation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Abstract
The article highlights the problem of English-Ukrainian translation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of the article is to identify the role of explicitation in achieving communicatively effective English-Ukrainian translation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The objectives of the article include clarifying the concept of explicitation as a translation solution and identifying and describing the types of explicitation in the analyzed English-Ukrainian translation. The object of the analysis is explicitation as a method of rendering the meaning of an original English-language legal term in Ukrainian, while the subject presupposes identifying the types of explicitation in the English-Ukrainian translation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The material for the analysis consists of examples of explicitation in the English-Ukrainian translation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The novelty of the study lies in the systematic analysis of explicitation as a manifestation of the expansion of the grammatical structure of a legal term in translation, which indicates the instability and ongoing formation of the terminological system of the target language. As a result of the study, three types of explicitation are distinguished: lexical (replacement of a hyperonym with a hyponym), lexico-grammatical (distribution of the meaning of one structural unit among several units and the addition of new units), and grammatical (division of sentences and expansion or elevation of the status of a phrase to the level of a subordinate clause). The obtained data prove that the structural organization of the current state of Ukrainian legal terminological system is a dynamic indicator of its gradual transition from the phase of formation to the stage of maturity – from the expansion of grammatical structure and polysemy, characteristic of the current stage, to structural equivalence and terminological stability. Such development is required for the successful harmonization of Ukrainian legislation with international standards and for the formation of a self-sufficient, stable legal language system. Prospects for further research are seen in the use of corpus linguistics tools to verify the proposed assumptions.
Downloads
References
Dzhuska, A., & Hniedkova, O. (2021). Pereklad rishen Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny v Ukraini: orhanizatsiino-pravovi aspekty [Translation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine: Organizational and legal aspects]. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Seriia: Filolohiia. Zhurnalistyka, 32(71), 6(3), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.32838/2710-4656/2021.6-3/07
Aleksandrovskaya v. Ukraine, No. 001-208759, ECHR (2021). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_f73#Text
Bogdan v. Ukraine, No. 001-117921, ECHR (2024). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_j94#Text
O.M. and D.S. v. Ukraine, No. 001-219197, ECHR (2022). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_i40#Text
Sukhyna, O., & Loboda, Yu. (2019). Spetsyfika perekladu sudovykh rishen Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny [Specific features of translating judgments of the European Court of Human Rights]. Pivdennyi arkhiv, 78, 116–120. https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2663-2691/2019-78-22
Aleksandrovskaya v. Ukraine, No. 001-208759, ECHR (25 March 2021). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-208759
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bogdan v. Ukraine, No. 001-117921, ECHR (8 February 2024). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-117921%22]}
Bybee, J. (2012). Domain-general processes as the basis for grammar. In M. Tallerman & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp. 528–536). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cosmulescu, A. M. (2021). Views on the complexity of legal translation. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 18, 134–144.
Garzone, G. (1999). The translation of legal texts: A functional approach in a pragmatic perspective. Textus, 12(2), 391–408.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kjær, A. L. (2019). Translation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights into non-official languages: The politics and practice of European multilingualism. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3478529
Klaudy, K. (1998). Explication. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (p. 81). London, UK: Routledge.
Klaudy, K., & Károly, K. (2005). Implicitation in translation: An empirical justification of operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
O.M. and D.S. v. Ukraine, no. 001-219197, ECHR (15 September 2022). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-219197%22]}
Pelkey, J. (2023). Embodiment and language. WIREs Cognitive Science, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1649
Sarčević, S. (2000). Legal translation and translation theory: A receiver-oriented approach. In Legal translation: History, theory/ies and practice (International Colloquium, University of Geneva, pp. 17–19).
Sărmașiu, A.-M. (2021). Challenges of legal translation: Specific problems and strategies identified through a virtual workshop. Professional Communication and Translation Studies, 14, 158–167.
Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
