|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Lost in Translation-- By AdrianHernandez - 11 Mar 2022 I remember the first time I saw legalese was when I read the word “lien” on a letter my dad received in elementary school. My immediate thought was that this was probably meant something similar to lion since they seemed so similar. I went to the school library as soon as I got dropped off the next day to look up what it was. I could barely understand the definition but it looked bad. I told my dad what it was when I got home, and he eventually seeked out legal help. I remember going to one of the meetings and there being a woman translating in the office between the attorney and my dad. The thing is, she wasn’t translating everything either was saying. This isn’t the first time that I noticed my parents receiving subpar service just because they didn’t speak English. When I was in high school, I remember having to translate the conversation between my mom and her attorney. I remember leaving and thinking “isn’t there someone they can call who isn’t a 15 year old to do this?” Granted, part of my rationale came from annoyance but now that I’m older I realize how unprofessional it was to rely on the skills of a high-schooler to relay potentially really important information. I’m sure that my anecdotes are not unique. What’s worst, is that these experiences happened in Houston, where I would argue that it should be easier to find people who are proficient enough in Spanish to translate a legal conversation. I can only imagine how it’s even harder to translate from languages that aren’t as widespread. The elitism of the legal field can cause so many things to get lost in translation. Even for English-speakers, the language that is used in the legal field is intimidating and confusing. As I go through law school, I am constantly looking up and adding to my cheat sheet what certain legal terms are. Language is meant to be constantly evolving—however, the legal field continues to act conservatively by using the same confusing language for decades. I can only imagine how confusing it is for children who have a basic grasp of two languages, to suddenly add a third complicated language when trying to translate the type of conversations I would growing up. Even when offices have staff who are there to translate, they usually struggle to translate the conversation in my experience. In my previous place of employment, there was a specific level of Spanish proficiency that had to be obtained in order to translate financial conversations. I fear that legal offices don’t hold their staff members who are assigned to translate to the same standards. These lack of standards on who is able to translate conversations can lead to a lot of issues. Whenever a non-English speaker is telling their story, many details can be lost because the translator doesn’t know how exactly to translate the story accurately. There are also cultural nuances that can be lost with a subpar translation. Though the words in the conversation can be translated completely correct, the feel and reasoning is sometimes lost when it’s being translated by someone who just has a superficial understanding of the language. I think there are a couple of steps that offices can take in order to prevent this. The most simple one is to devote money to ensuring that they are using an official and reputable legal translation service whenever speaking to non-English speaking clients. I’m not sure what the cost of this type of service is, but I think this is a worthwhile investment to make sure that the message of both the attorneys and the clients are not being lost in translation. This will also prevent any child who barely has a grasp of either language the unnecessary anxiety of making sure they are translating everything efficiently. The second solution that works with the first one is not relying on staff in the office simply because they “know” a language. There are many levels of language proficiency, and all clients deserve to be assisted by someone who is comfortable enough with the language to handle potentially complex situations. This would prevent important details or instructions from being downplayed in conversation. I think one more issue that needs to be addressed is also the type of language that attorneys use. There are some things that can be said with less complex and legal language. Though this tactic might be useful in the courtroom for intimidation—whenever it comes to talking to clients, attorneys would be able to better assist them if they used language they don’t have to run home to look up what it means. This would probably help resolve the translation issue to a degree because then a higher degree of language mastery wouldn’t be necessary if attorneys talked in intermediate English instead of legal English.First step to improvement is to tighten it up. Go through each sentence and remove any words that aren't pulling weight. There are repetitions to remove, too. When the piece is 150-200 words shorter it will work much better for you. Substantively the current draft separates you from what you are discussing, even when it is personal experience. It's like witness testimony and consultants' recommendations. But the questions in the reader's mind are about how this affects your practice. You should use the space you gain from the tightening to speak to that. You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
