The Pernicious Effects of Terms Used for and by the Legal Translation Profession

Abstract

This paper posits that the terminology used for and by the legal translation profession is not without significance, and may affect perceived status, professionalization, empowerment, and even remuneration. Serious signalling issues in the translation profession as a whole were brought to the fore in a study by Pym et al (2012), while Katan (2011a) reported on a widespread perception of low status by translators themselves. Facilitators and barriers to translators’ professionalization and empowerment have been investigated extensively (e.g., Dam & Koskinen, 2016; Dam & Zethsen, 2010; Sela-Sheffy, 2011), while in recent years there has been a discernable downward pressure on the amount that clients seem willing to pay for legal translation. It would appear, however, that there is little discussion in the literature of the actual terms used within the legal translation procurement process and for the actors involved. As a short illustration in English: we may establish a cline going from “asset”, “resource”, “vendor”, “freelancer”, “supplier”, and “provider” to “professional” or “practitioner”, and consider how such terms are applied to the translation and legal professions and the very different signals that are transmitted (Scott, 2015). Further examples from a recent global survey of stakeholders in the outsourced legal translation market (Scott, 2016a) are also examined. Conclusions will be drawn regarding the potential of concepts such as occupational branding (Ashcraft et al, 2012), and the implications of terminological awareness for legal translator training programmes, professional bodies, and for individual legal translators.

Keywords

• Occupational prestige
• professionalization
• status
• occupational branding
• legal translation practitioners.