See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345764104

Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

Article in IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science · November 2020

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916

CITATIONS READS

4 1,989

2 authors:

Mohsine Mahraj Youcef Hdouch

Cadi Ayyad University Ibn Tofaïl University
7 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsine Mahraj on 15 February 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)
Volume 25, Issue 11, Series 3 (November. 2020) 09-16
e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
www.iosrjournals.org

Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

1
Mohsine MAHRAJ, 2Youcef HDOUCH
1
(English Department, School of Arts/ Ibn Tofail University, Morocco)
2
(English Department, School of Arts/ Ibn Tofail University, Morocco)

ABSTRACT:
This paper examines legal translation in terms of its sources of difficulty. It addresses the issue of the
technicality of legal language which poses serious problems to the legal translator through looking at its nature
and lexical features. The scope of this study encompasses two bilingual settings; English and Arabic. English in
this respect is the point of reference to Arabic. What is more, English will roughly represent the Common Law
systems like that of Britain and USA. Arabic will stand for the Islamic Law system applied in the Arab world
and specifically in Morocco. This study will be limited to English as a source language in approaching legal
translation difficulties. Therefore, focus will not be on the sources of difficulty in Arabic as such, but they will
be discussed only with reference to English. It is hoped that this contribution will be of invaluable help for
translators as well as translation teachers and students interested in English-Arabic legal translation.
KEYWORDS: Legal English,legallanguage,legal translation, lexicon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Date of Submission: 28-10-2020 Date of Acceptance: 09-11-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I. INTRODUCTION
Globalization and the rapid flow of communication between peoples and countries throughout the
world have immensely speeded up the process of translation. To translate has become a must, not only because
of people‟s need to understand the language, culture, society and the legal norms of their foreign partners, but
also due to the worldwide trend, today, of bringing together in binding international agreements laws and red
tape procedures. This should serve to deter any country willing to set its own systems of law from operating
single-handedly. Translation becomes a profession besides being an art. Higher schools and specialized
institutions with training programs were established to teach students techniques and theories of this craft. So, in
translation studies, the typology is interpreted in terms of general and technical translational activities. The
former depends roughly on the competencies and personal skills of the translator. The latter, however, demands
besides the translator‟s creativity, a thorough knowledge of the technical tools and terminologies which the
specialized translator must master. Legal translation (LT, henceforth), in this regard, epitomizes the technical
dimension whereby both the nature of law and the legal language of the source text (ST) and target text (TT)
represent a real challenge to the legal translator. LT is then used as a cover term for both the translation of law
and other communications in the legal setting. More importantly, as it is rightly stated byCoa (2007) [1], “it is a
fact that translating law between any languages is not a straightforward affair […]legal translation is complex,
and it requires special skills, knowledge and experience on the part of the translator to produce such translation”
(p.03). The difficulty and complexity of LT is, in fact, due to the differences in legal systems and laws, the
nature of legal discourse and its terminology, and the cultural differences which make the task of the translator
harder and harder. In this regard, the present paper probes into some of the linguistic issues of LT. First, special
attention is given to the nature of legal language as a source of difficulty. Second, the paper explores the most
common lexical aspects with special reference to Arabic.

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF LEGAL LANGUAGE

Translating legal texts is a difficult and arduous exercise due to the nature of language used therein. It
is roughly acknowledged that legal language (LL) is a specialized, normative and performative language which
incorporates both a technical and an undetermined linguistic system within the legal setting (Cao, 2007, p.142)
[1]. LL is roughly located under the umbrella of languages for specific purposes (LSP). Accordingly, it is the
language for legal purposes. It is used by lawyers, law makers and other legal professionals in the course of their
work. It is also identified with legal writing or the drafting of written documents such as contracts, court
pleadings or laws. In this vein, Legal English has traditionally been the preserve of lawyers from English-
speaking countries (especially the U.S., the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa) which have
shared Common Law traditions.

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 9 |Page

 Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

LL problematizes a source of difficulty in legal translation because of four interrelated features

pertaining to its nature. The first of which is its technicality whereby both LT and LL epitomize two technical
settings which demand a great understanding of the legal system involved. LL is a LLP which deals with all
types of legal texts. However, debates about the existence of a „so- called‟ LL or a technical language have
given rise to two different stands. The first contends that there is no LL, and, even if it exists, it is part of the
ordinary language, while the second holds that LL is a technical language. With regard to the first view, LL is
no more than a specialized form of the ordinary language. It is a use of the ordinary language for particular
purposes, and in this case, legal purpose (Coa, 2007, p.15) [1]. The second viewpoint, however, holds that LL is
to be identified as a technical language, and thus the designation of LL as technical language is totally valid and
acceptable. In fact, different arguments were provided to explain the technical nature of LL. Caton (1963, p.
viii) [2] states that LL is identified as a technical language providing that it is always an adjunct to ordinary
language. He [2] adds that both LL and the ordinary one share the same syntax and the same speech acts, though
each one has its own separate lexicon. Equally important, Schauer (1987, p. 571) [3] furthers that LL is a
technical language whereby the terms used in ordinary setting is being contextualized to fit the legal sphere and
thus lose its ordinary dimension therein. In contrast to these two arguments, Hart (1954) [4] argues that LL is
totally different from ordinary language in the sense that LL is “sui generis”, a category of its own. LL, Hart [4]
explains, takes for granted the existence of a legal system which incorporates rules of law as the norm and basis
of LL. Legal terms, in this respect, are meaningful only in the existence of a legal system with its rules of law.
Furthermore, Jackson (1985, p. 47) [5] maintains that the difference which holds between LL and ordinary
language resides in the lexicon and structure of both jargons: “[LL] having a lexicon constituted in a manner
different from that of the ordinary language, and involving terms related to each other in ways different from
those of the ordinary language, must be autonomous of the ordinary language”. LL, according to Jackson [5], is
marked by unintelligibility and incomprehension not only to the layperson but also to those who have an
advanced knowledge of natural languages. This problem is explained by a “lack of knowledge of the system,
rather than lack of knowledge of individual lexical items” to quote Jackson (1985, p. 48) [5]. So, understanding
the legal system from which legal terms have emanated is of paramount importance to the legal translator.
The second aspect which makes LL a source of difficulty in translation is the normative or prescriptive
nature of it. Legal scholars and philosophers argue that LL is a normative language. According to Jori (1994)
[6], it is concerned with norm creation (e.g. legislation), norm production (e.g. court pleadings and decisions),
and norm expression (e.g. official sermons). This normative nature of LL is explained by the fact that people do
respect the regulations of law which are prescribed to them in terms of directives. The latter governs their
behavior in society and shoulder them the responsibility of transgressing others‟ right of life, freedom, equality
and the like. This makes of law a respected and esteemed system people seek to hold and abide by. Jenkins
(1980, p. 103) [7] rightly states that the normative nature of LL, and Law by and large, is incorporated in the
ideals and principles that people cherish, the purposes and aspirations they pursue, and the notions they hold. He
adds that law is created as a set of prescriptions having the form of imperatives, defining and enforcing the
arrangements, relationships, procedures and patterns of behavior which are to be followed in a society (Jenkins,
1980, p. 98) [7]. Therefore, the function of LL is not limited to describe or inform, but to direct, prescribe and
adjust the conduct of people in a society. In this respect, Maley (1994) [8] agrees that:
In all societies, law is formulated, interpreted and enforced [. . .] and the greater part of
these different legal processes is realized primarily through language. Language is the
medium, process and product in the various arenas of the law where legal texts, spoken
or written, are generated in the service of regulating social behavior. (p.11)
In addition, all legal documents (legislations, contracts, agreements, etc.) have one common purpose which is to
direct, govern and regulate people‟s social practice through the medium of language.Accordingly,Olivecrona
(1971) [9] affirms that:
The purpose of all legal enactments, judicial pronouncements, contracts, and other legal
acts is to influence men‟s behavior and direct them in certain ways, thus, the legal
language must be viewed primarily as a means to this end. (p.177)
In brief, LL has a normative function that aims at giving directives and establishing rules so as to
maintain order amongst peoples and keep peace in their community. This makes of LL a language of legal
norms par excellence.
The performative nature of LL is the third aspect which is closely related to the normative nature.
According to the speech act theory developed byAustin‟s (1962) [10] and Searle‟s (1969) [11], uttering words
does not only mean that we say things, but also we do things. So, our speech involves actions which are
commonly known as “performatives”. Accordingly, LL is highly demonstrative of this theory. Jori(1994, p.
2092) [6] explains that by merely uttering words, people accept public and private legal responsibilities, assume
legal roles and qualities, transfer legal rights and impose or discharge obligations. More importantly, Coa (2007,
p. 15) [1] states that the performative nature of language is indispensable to law in achieving its purpose of

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 10 |Page

 Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

regulating human behavior and society and setting out obligation, prohibition and permission. Nonetheless, the
performative function of LL could be otherwise exploited by totalitarian regimes to serve their own interests
bysuing and condemning minority detainees or prisoners of conscience. In this regard, LL operates as a
manipulative device and powerful weapon to spread chaos and threaten the lives and freedom of innocents and
civilians.
The vagueness and ambiguity of language is also demonstrative in LL. Coa (2007, p. 19) [1] lists
many English legal expressions such as “fair and reasonable”, “due process of law”, “due diligence”,
“reasonable endeavors” as being vague and elusive. However, such ambiguous expressions may cause instances
of disputes and thus lead to disagreement, bearing in mind that the function of Law is to solve such disputes. So,
one of the priorities of legal systems, according to Schauer(1993, p. xi) [12], is to resolve disputes that are
sometimes created by the indeterminacies of language. Furthermore, linguistic indeterminacy or uncertainty
may undertake two dimensions. The first of which is within the same language, which is roughly known as
intralingual indeterminacy. The second occurs when translating from one language to another. This is usually
referred to as interlingual indeterminacy. The second type may occur in translating legal texts and thus lead to
disagreement and misunderstanding.
To conclude, in translating legal texts, the translator should have in-depth knowledge of LL. The latter
represents a real source of difficulty in LT due to its multifaceted nature. It is very specific and ambiguous, and
it carries normative and performative functions.

III. LEXICAL ISSUES IN LEGAL TRANSLATION

The nature of law and culture contribute in developing various linguistic features in LL. These features
embody some of the major problems in LT which are usually of lexical nature. This part of the paper focuses on
how lexical characteristics problematize a source of difficulty for the legal translator.
Legal languages are universally characterized by a unique and complex legal lexicon. However, each
LL has its own distinctive vocabulary due to the legal system which it represents. Coa (2007, p. 20) [1] contends
that the legal vocabulary in each language is often extensive. It results from and reflects the law of the particular
legal system concerned. For example, Legal English terminology is different from the legal Arabic oneas the
former is demonstrative of the Common Law system while the latter is representative of the Islamic Law
tradition. What is more, the English legal lexicon is full of archaic words, formal and ritualistic usage, word
strings, common words with uncommon meanings and words of over-precision, among others (Danet, 1980
[13]; Mellinkoff, 1963 [14];Tiersma, 1999 [15]).Following are some of the most common lexical difficulties
which a legal translator may encounter.

3.1. Archaism
Language of the law is usually referred to as obsolete and archaic. In his work entitled Legal writing
and Drafting, Rylance (1994, p.46) [16] criticizes the archaic nature of LL as follows:
Lawyers often use archaic phrases quite needlessly. This is largely a result of the traditional
training system and the unquestioning habit of lawyers. […] when used in drafting, these
expressions create a false impression of precision when in reality they conceal lazy thinking.
In fact, archaic vocabulary is abundant in legal texts which are addressed to the public. It is important,
foremost, to define the notion itself of “archaism” which is very complex than it appears to be. Cornu (2000, p.
27) [17] states that “in defining “archaism”, oldness is necessary but not a sufficient qualifier; everything that is
archaic is likely to be old, but all that is old is not likely to be archaic”. Linguistically speaking, archaism can be
defined as the deliberate use of an older form that has fallen out of current use (McArthur& McArthur, 2005)
[18]. Tiersma (1999, p. 95) [15] states that “legal language often strives toward great formality; it naturally
gravitates towards archaic language”. So, according to Tiersma [15], archaism makes LL formal vis-à-vis other
jargons. This explains why lawyers heavily use old and archaic terms instead of new ones. To just mention a
few, Alcaraz and Brian (2002, p. 08) [19] suggest the following:
 “Imbibe” instead of (drink)
 “Inquire” instead of (ask)
 “Peruse” instead of (read)
 “Forthwith” instead of (at once)
More importantly, the ending of verbs in the third singular of simple present is demonstrative of the inflectional
morpheme “eth” instead of “es”. For instance:
 This contract witnesseth that …
In fact, Legal English lexicon is full of archaic words dating back to the Middle Ages. These old English
expressions (such as hereto, hereof, herewith, and so on) embody the legal jargon whereby Lawyers and Legal
professionals handle their cases in their course of work. These kinds of expressions do not have a full
corresponding equivalent in Arabic language. This causes problems of difficulty when translating from English

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 11 |Page

 Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

into Arabic. The translator in this case should understand the conceptual dimension of these expressions and
avoid translating them literarily. He may resort to specialized dictionaries to compensate for this lacuna. So, the
mission of the translator is to look for a close and high level of equivalence between the ST and TT. Alcaraz and
Brian (2002, p. 09) [19] contend that these archaic words are usually adverbs, they are a mixture of deictic
elements: „here‟ „there‟ and „where‟ with some prepositions like: of, after, by, under etc. Examples of such
adverbs along with Arabic translation can be set as follows:
 I enclose herewith
ٍّ‫ أرفك ط‬

 In the presence of the two witnesses hereinafter

‫فً حضٕر انشاْذٌٍ انتانٍح أسًاؤْى‬ 

 Hereinafter referred to as wife.

.‫انًشار ئنٍّ فًٍا تعذ فً ْذا انعمذ تاسى انشٔجح‬ 

 The parties hereto agree as follow.

ً‫تى اتفاق انطزفٍٍ تًٕجة ْذا انعمذ عهى يا ٌه‬ 

 The total rent for the term hereof is the sum of

‫ئجًانً انسٕيح انكزائٍح عٍ ْذِ انًذج تمذر تًثهغ‬ 
It is worth noting that the translator may omit some archaic words without distorting the overall meaning of the
ST. For example: the word „hereby‟ can be omitted in:
 I hereby declare
ٍ‫ أعه‬
More importantly, the absence of such archaic words in Arabic language allows the English translator, in this
case, to use them in their translation to give the TT a legal effect. The following example, taken from a marriage
certificate, demonstrates this fact:
...ً‫ صذر عمذ انشٔاج انتان‬... ‫ تحضٕري أَا‬
 I… hereby authorize the following marriage certificate.
To conclude, it is worth noting that legal English makes use of archaic words more than Arabic does. Therefore,
legal translators should pay greater attention to archaism when translating legal texts either from or to English.

3.2. Latinism
Latinism in English legal discourse involves any word or expression that is borrowed from Latin. It
occupies a large area of the legal terminology in the English legalese. Garner (1995)[20] states that Latinisms
are classified into two major categories:
Legal readers often encounter Latin in modern texts _some of it necessary and some of
it not. In legal writing we must distinguish between terms of art [e.g. Prima facie], for
which there are no ordinary English equivalents, and those terms that are merely
vestigial Latinisms with simple English substitutes [e.g. Sub silentio]. (p. 501)
Concerning the occurrence of Latin in legal language, it is interesting to note the distinction made by
Garner (2001) [21] about the different types of legal Latin: “ (1) Good Latin, allowed by the grammarians and
lawyers; (2) false or incongruous Latin (…); (3) words of art, known only to the sages of the law, and not to
grammarians, called “Lawyers‟ Latin” (p. 883). Here are some Latin phrases and words in common use cited in
Garner (2001) [21] along with their Arabic translation:
 Bona fide (good faith or in good faith): ‫بحسن نية‬
 Res judicata (an issue adjucated): ‫حجية األمر المقضي به‬
 Res nova ( a new thing; an undecided question of law): ‫قضية لم يسبق البث فيها‬
 Actus reus (guilty act): ‫العنصر المادي‬
 Alibi (elsewhere) :‫دفع بالغيبة‬
It is important to note that besides Latinism, legal French terms do apparently enrichlegal English. This
is of course due to the Norman Conquest in 1066. According to Crystal and Davy (2016, p. 208) [22], the
language of the invaders gained an undeniable position in the legal sphere of England, bringing with it a wealth
of legal French terminology. Examples of French terms in English legalese, to mention just a few include:
Contract, proposal, schedule, terms, conditions, policy, alias, quash (Bouharaoui, 2008) [23].

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 12 |Page

 Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

3.3. Technicality
Technicality is another lexical aspect of legal language. According to Tiersma (1999,p. 108) [15], “if a
word or a phrase is used exclusively by a particular trade or profession or if that profession uses it in a way that
differs from its normal meaning and the term has a relatively well-defined sense, it should be considered a
technical term”. Technicality addresses those legal terms which are fixed in meaning and do not necessarily
have a shared semantic load like that of ordinary and non-legal vocabulary. In this respect, Alcaraz and Brian
(2002, p. 17) [19] suggest a classification of technical vocabulary into two types. The first of which refers to
purely technical terms. These terms are exclusively applicable to the legal setting. Bouharaoui(2008) [23] cites
examples of this category as follows:
 Decree (n): ‫يزسٕو‬/‫حكى‬
 Mortgage (n)ٍْ‫ر‬
 Sub-letting ٍ‫كزاء يٍ انثاط‬
 Deem (v)‫ٌعتثز أٔ ٌعذ‬
 Premises ‫عمار‬
 Tenant ‫انًكتزي‬
 Lease (n)‫ كزاء‬/‫ئٌجار‬
 Hereinafter ‫فًٍا تعذ‬
 Landlord‫ انًكزي‬/‫انًانك‬
The second, however, addresses semi-technical terms. These terms share both the ordinary lexicon
meaning and the legal dimension as well. They are often polysemous words, difficult to recognize without
understanding the context in which they occur. For example the word “Assignment” has two distinctive
meaning. The first, linked to a general meaning, indicates „a duty that somebody is assigned to perform‟. The
second, however, is legally loaded which means „a transfer of property by deed of conveyance‟. So, the Arabic
translation of this word will not stop at the general meaning of the word (‫ ٔاجة‬،‫)يًٓح‬, but it goes beyond that to
mean (‫)َمم انًهكٍح‬. Other examples with their Arabic legal transcoding may include the following:
 Maintenance ( ‫) َفمح‬
 Consideration (‫)تعٌٕض‬
 Title (‫)حك انتًهك أٔ سُذ انًهكٍح‬
In fact, purely technical terms are monosemic words that do not pose a big challenge for the translator since they
have one legal meaning, whereby the translator can consult bilingual legal dictionaries. What is more, the
understanding of these terms can help the translator to easily handle any legal texts in which they may occur. In
contrast, semi technical terms are polysemous words with different interpretations. These kinds of words are
interpreted according to the context in which they occur. Once again, the translator is advised to heavily draw on
specialized dictionaries whenever there is a semantic ambiguity in the context under study.

3.4. Redundancy and Repetition

LL is concerned with accuracy and clarity of reference. Accordingly, the use of repetitious words and/or
functional redundancy is apparently omnipresent in English legal lexicon. According to Sabra (1995, p. 29) [24],
in legal writing, drafters avoid the use of anaphoric devices such as personal or demonstrative pronouns. Also,
the verb “to do” is avoided for it can substitute a whole clause. Here is an example along with its Arabic
translation cited in Sabra (1995, p. 29) [24]:
 The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor at the office of the Lessor.
.‫ ٌذفعانًستأجزئنىانًإجزفًٍكتثانًإجز‬
In the above example, if we substitute the underlined phrase (the office of the Lessor) with the
possessive pronoun phrase (his office), there will be a confusion and an ambiguity to whether the intended
office is the one of the Lessee or that of the Lessor. So this kind of repetition or redundancy facilitates the task
of the translator to grasp the exact meaning of the legal drafter. Therefore, the translator of legal texts should
maintain the same redundancy of the ST because it is a functional redundancy used to avoid problems of
ambiguity and meaninglessness.

3.5. Synonyms
There are many legal terms which have several synonyms that may look alike, but differ widely in
legal terminology. This issue can generate a difficulty in LT. In English, for example, the term “Law” may be
synonymous with words such as: statute, legislation, act, enactment, regulation, ordinance, rule, decree, etc.
Similarly, there are several terms in Arabic for the word “Law”; ( ... ‫ انذستٕر‬،‫ انظٍٓز‬،‫ انًزسٕو‬،‫ انحكى‬،‫ انتشزٌع‬،ٌَٕ‫(انما‬.
Examples from different English legal settings along with their Arabic equivalents are illustrated below:

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 13 |Page

 Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

Table no 1: English-Arabic synonymous legal terms

Law English (SL) Arabic (TL) (trans. mine)
International Treaty, Convention, Agreement, Protocol, .‫ انًٍثاق‬،‫ انثزٔتٕكٕل‬،‫ اإلتفاق‬،‫ ئتفالٍح‬،‫يعاْذج‬
Law Charter.
Criminal Law Homicide, Manslaughter, Murder, ‫ ئغتٍال‬،‫ لتم انعًذ‬،)‫ لتم انخطأ (غٍز يتعًذ‬،‫انمتم‬
Assassination.
Contract Law Warranty, Term, Condition, Covenant. ‫ تعٓذ يكتٕب‬،‫ حال‬،‫ يٓهح‬،ٌ‫ضًا‬
Property Law Mortgage, Charge, Pledge, Lien, ٍْ‫ ر‬،‫ رٍُْح فاء‬،‫ ٔدٌعح‬،‫تصزف عماري يشزٔط‬
Assignment, Hypothecation. ‫ رٍْ غٍز حٍاسي‬،‫ َمم انًهكٍح‬،‫ايتٍاس‬

In this connection, Coa (2007) [1] affirms that most of these words are:
[…] synonyms, but they are not identical; each has its own connotations. When translated into
other languages, the distinctions may be lost. Similarly, phrases such as „transferring
property‟, „assigning property‟, „disposing property‟, „dealing with property‟ and „selling
property‟ all have the basic similar meaning of „selling‟ but each word also carries its own
meaning due to the development and evolution of English property law and legal culture and
practice. (p. 73)

3.6. Legal Tautologies

Tautologies are another lexical source of difficulty for legal translators. Rylance (1994, p. 45) [16]
defines legal tautologies as words of identical meaning, grouped in pairs (doublets) or even triplets, where only
one is necessary. For example, in the expression „null and void‟, „null‟ adds nothing to „void‟ and „void‟ adds
nothing to „null‟. The sources of these legal tautologies, according to Houbert (2005, p. 70) [25], are fourfold.
The first of which is mostly etymological. In the middle ages and renaissance era, legal drafters used to
associate terms of French or Latin origin with Anglo-Saxon ones so as to help clarify the meaning. For example,
the expression „acknowledge and confess‟ relates a term of old English and the other of old French. The same
can be said of „act and deed‟ which associates a Latin and an English term. The second reason which lies behind
using Tautologies in LL is for emphasizing an aesthetic function. It is worth noting that tautologies often carry
an alliterative tone. This is clearly the position of Mellinkoff (1963) [14]:
The power of alliteration has also helped preserve in the law tautologies such words and
phrases as to have and to hold, mind and memory, new and novel, aid and abet, part and
parcel, safe and sound, rest, residue, and remainder, while other rhymes help keep alive the
duplicating remise, release, and forever quitclaim; give, devise and bequeath; and the more
meaningful ready, willing, and able. (p. 43)
Thirdly and in parallel with the etymological reason, it is stated that tautologies exist because of
lawyers‟ lack of knowledge of the meaning of some foreign terms. So, they tend to use doublets or triplets,
whereas only one is sufficient. In this regard, Garner (1995, p. 187) [20] affirms that “when one of the words
might be unfamiliar, the synonym served as a gloss. Finally, lawyers distrusted their ability to find the right
word, and therefore used a verbal scattergun instead of a rifle shot”. So, in the light of this argument, tautologies
are, therefore, used solely for purposes of reserving the possible accurate meaning. The last reason that is
mentioned by Houbert (2005) [25]is that lawyers opt for tautologies for financial interests. Lawyers were paid
per word, and this explains their tendency to enlist synonymous terms. So every redundant expression puts more
cash in their pockets. Furthermore, tautologies in LL can be classified in terms of their grammatical and
syntactic dimension. They can be either nouns, verbs, adjectives or even prepositions. Also, they can be
constructed in two (doublets/legal pairs) or three terms (triplets). The following chart is demonstrative of this
fact:

Table no 2: Legal English tautologies (Houbert, 2005, p. 71) [25]

Types of Tautologies Doublets Triplets
1) Verbal Agree and covenant Cancel, annul and set aside
2) Nominal Power and authority Right, title and interest
3) Adjectival Separate and distinct General, vague and indefinite
4) Prepositional By and between -----

According to Sabra (1995, p. 36) [24], the use of legal tautologies is merely a tradition adopted when
drafting legal documents. Since legal drafters, nowadays, do not normally use such pairing of words as a
distinction from simple style of expressions. More importantly, translations of tautologies are differently
approached. Houbert (2005) [25] affirms:

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 14 |Page

 Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

Some advocate rendering every nuance of expression, and to translate “word for word”, while
others, arguing the synonymic character of these expressions, prefer to simplify the translation
by rendering two or three source terms by a single target term. (p. 72)
Translation of tautologies is governed by the context in which they occur. Also, it is worth noting that
any footnoting of tautologies is not recommended, because it risks removing the real nuance of the source
expression. So, the translator must do all their best to find an equivalent term for each source expression
regardless of its nature.

3.7. The use of ‘Said’, ‘Such’ and ‘Same’

The use of these three terms carries an anaphoric reference in legal texts. However, each of these words
has its own peculiarities and also is subject to much criticism about its unusual use in LL. Firstly, the term
„said‟, according to Sabra (1995, p. 43) [24], is used either as an article or as a demonstrative pronoun. For
example:
 Lessee promises to pay a deposit. Said deposit shall accrue interest at a rate of five percent per annum.
In this example, the word „said‟ can be substituted by the article „the‟ or by the demonstrative pronoun „this‟
without losing or distorting the meaning of the text. More importantly and regardless of its frequent use in legal
texts, Garner (1995, p. 779) [20] contends that “said never lends greater precision than the, this, that, these, or
those_ in many contexts, it introduces imprecision”. Accordingly, Mellinkoff (1963) [14] states that the term is
unnecessary and it only engenders disagreement amongst legal scholars:
As with aforesaid, if the antecedent is certain, said is unnecessary_ e.g. “said defendant” when there is
only one defendant, “said plaintiff” when there is only one plaintiff. When there is any possibility of said
referring to two things, whether both are in the same writing or one is in and another out, reasonable men will
differ, litigation is invited. Though some lay critics tell us that, worthless elsewhere, said is traditional and
permissible in the law, it is either unnecessary or dangerous, and should be dropped. (pp. 318–319)
Secondly, Doonan (2001) [26] approaches the term „such‟ by stating: “ „Such‟ is frequently used in
legal documents to refer to a person or thing which has already been mentioned in order to avoid the need to
refer again in full to that person or thing”. „Such‟ if used in this way secures an economy of words. For example:
 The asset register of the company comprises a complete and accurate record of all plant and machinery
vehicles and equipment owned used or possessed by the company and such register is accurate in all
aspects. (Doonan, 2001, pp. 189-190) [26]
In this example, reference to „such register‟ avoids the need to refer again to „the asset register of the company‟
which would be a kind of unnecessary verbiage. What is more, the term „such‟ can be used as a demonstrative
pronoun to imply „this or that sort‟. For example:
 We conclude that the trial court‟s order constituted an abuse of discretion in the procedural posture of this
case which compels us to set aside such order (Tiersma, 1999) [15].
This example demonstrates that the phrase „such order‟ signifies „this order‟. So, here the function of „such‟ is
apparently similar to „said‟. In this respect, Rylance (1994) [16] argues:
When „such‟ is used in a similar way to the archaic „said‟, to refer to a previous noun, much the same objections
apply. Many lawyers have acquired the „such habit‟: if a provision refers to an item more than once, they feel
compelled to put „such‟ before each subsequent reference. (p. 168)
Thirdly, „same‟ is used to refer to an antecedent and thus avoid repetition. Tiersma (1999) [15] states that „same‟
in legal usage refers to sameness of reference. He puts forward the following example:
 The tenant shall pay all the taxes regularly levied and assessed against Premises and keep the same in
repair. (p. 88)
In this example, „the same‟ refers to the word „Premises‟. Accordingly, Tiersma (1999, p. 91) [15] suggests that
the pronoun „it‟ can conveniently substitute the phrase „the same‟. However, this term has been the subject of
much criticism. Doonan (2001) [26], among others, contends that “the continued use of „same‟ as a pronoun in
legal documents is avoidable and, consequently, difficult to justify when alternative pronouns can be used which
result in greater clarity without affecting precision” (p. 192).
To sum up, translating legal texts involves several lexical difficulties that the translator is supposed to
overcome, especially when translating from different legal systems. In legal English, archaism, Latinism and
tautologies, among many others are most abundant lexical issues that require great attention from legal
translators.

IV. CONCLUSION
This paper has discussed some sources of difficulty in LT. it has demonstrated that LL in general and
legal English in particular has a many-sided aspects. Besides being technical, it is vague and ambiguous and has
a performative function in legal proceedings. Additionally, the legal English lexicon is extremely different from
the ordinary one due to the technical terminology and the sophisticated construction of its vocabulary. The

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 15 |Page

 Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation

afore-discussed sources of difficulty make the task of the translator arduous and challenging if the latter cannot
be acquainted with this type of legalese where precision and scrutiny are the leading way to a better translation.
It is highly recommended that translation teachers should invest enough time and devote constant effort
in teaching these lexical issues to their students. This could be done through a vocabulary activity that focuses
on teaching legal terminology in context. The use of authentic documents in this respect is highly recommended.
For instance, marriage or divorce certificates can be exploited to practice translation of archaic phrases and
expressions. A court decision is also a palpable example to practice legal synonyms and tautologies from
English into Arabic. Teachers are also recommended to invite their students to train them to compile bilingual
glossaries by exploiting parallel texts from both English and Arabic. Parallel texts, original legal texts from
different languages, can be employed to train translation students and familiarize them with the legalese of both
languages in terms of editing styles, technicality and normative function. Both legal translators and translation
teachers need to collaborate with computer developers to design computer aided translation softwares that will
facilitate the task of translators save their timeand effort.
This paper has discussed the nature of LL, and was limited in scope as it addressed only the lexical
aspects that characterize legal texts with reference to English Arabic translation. Future research is highly
recommended in other areas that present a source of difficulty in LT. syntactic as well as cultural aspects of both
English and Arabic should be investigated as they generate a vivid source of difficulty due to the origins of both
languages. Equally essential, English and Arabic Legal systems need to be demystified as they constitute
another source of difficulty for legal translators.

REFERENCES
[1]. Cao, D. (2007). Translating law.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
[2]. Caton, C. (Ed.). (1963). Philosophy and ordinary language. London: University of Illinois Press.
[3]. Schauer, F. (1987). Precedent. Stanford Law Review, 39(3), 571–605. doi:10.2307/1228760
[4]. Hart, H. A. L. (1954). Definition and theory in jurisprudence.The Law Quarterly Review, 70, 37–60.
[5]. Jackson, B. (1985). Semiotics and legal theory. London: Routledge.
[6]. Jori, M. (1994). Legal performative. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Simpson (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics (Vol. 4). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[7]. Jenkins, I. (1980). Social order and the limits of law: a theoretical essay. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
[8]. Maley, Y. (1994). The language of the law.In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 11–50). New
York, NY: Longman.
[9]. Olivecrona, K. (1971). Law as fact (2nd ed.). London: Stevens and Sons.
[10]. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[11]. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University
Press.
[12]. Schauer, F. (Ed.). (1993). Law and language.Aldershot: Dartmouth
[13]. Danet, B. (1980). Language in the Legal Process. Law & Society Review, 14(3), 445–564.
doi:10.2307/3053192
[14]. Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
[15]. Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. London: University of Chicago Press.
[16]. Rylance, P. (1994). Legal writing and drafting. London: Blackstone Press.
[17]. Cornu, G. (2000). Linguistique juridique. Paris: Domat Droit Privé/Montchrestien.
[18]. McArthur, T. B., & McArthur, R. (Eds.). (2005). Concise Oxford companion to the English
language (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19]. Alcaraz, E., & Hughes, B. (2002). Legal translation explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Pub.
[20]. Garner, B. A. (1995). A dictionary of modern legal usage (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.
[21]. Garner, B. A. (2001). Black's law dictionary (2nd ed.). Eagan, MN: West Publishing Company.
[22]. Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (2016). Investigating English style. Abingdon: Routledge.
[23]. Bouharaoui, A. (2008). Some lexical features of English legal language. Retrieved from
https://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1763.php
[24]. Sabra, M. (1995). Translating contracts. Cairo: The American University of Cairo.
[25]. Houbert, F. (2005). Guide pratique de la traduction juridique: Anglais-français. Paris: La Maison du
Dictionnaire.
[26]. Doonan, E. (2001). Drafting. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.

1Mohsine MAHRAJ, et. al. “Lexical Issues in English-Arabic Legal Translation.”IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 25(11), 2020, pp. 09-16.

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2511030916 www.iosrjournals.org 16 |Page

View publication stats