Self-protective approaches to the translation of monolingual normative acts and their result

Abstract

Translating monolithic normative acts is a common practice. Nevertheless, in the literature, it is not easy to find more extensive statements by the authors of such translations on the translation approach they used. This attitude results from the generally approved principle of maximum fidelity to the source text, which is guaranteed by a literal or source-like translation. This approach has many advantages. One of them is the selfprotective function. In the opinion of many translators, the accusation of translation infidelity cannot be formulated in the case of literal translation, in which the connection with the legal culture of the source language is evident. In this sense, literal translation is preservative and cautious, as it protects the translator against the accusation of not being faithful to the original text. Moreover, it relieves the translator of the responsibility of understanding the translation, places lower competency requirements on translators, and does not require comparative tests. In spite of these advantages, preservative approaches to text translation are not free from serious disadvantages. They are often incoherent and incomprehensible. Such translations suggest the existence of the so-called nonequivalent terminology. Therefore, translations that are faithful to the original text and unfaithful in reception may constitute a serious legal threat to their addressees.