Can We Avoid Redundant Legal Phrases in Translation?

Why Do Legal Translators Encounter Redundancy?

Why do legal translators encounter terms like null and void or last will and testament that seem unnecessarily repetitive? A deeper dive into the origins of these expressions reveals their historical roots and functional purposes, yet also highlights the challenges they pose for modern translation, especially between French and English. Understanding how these terms emerged and why they persist is critical for translators who aim to balance precision with clarity.

The Origins of Redundant Legal Language

Historical Context of Paired Synonyms

Legal redundancy often stems from the medieval blending of languages in England’s legal system. Following the Norman Conquest in 1066, English law absorbed influences from Latin, Norman French, and Anglo-Saxon. To ensure clarity across linguistic divides, lawyers paired synonyms from different languages, such as:

• Free and clear (freo from Old English + cler from Old French)
• Last will and testament (will from Old English + testamentum from Latin)

This practice ensured that both the legal elite and common people could understand legal terms. Over time, paired synonyms became entrenched in legal writing, serving as a safeguard against ambiguity while lending a sense of gravitas.

Why Redundancy Persists

Despite modern efforts to simplify legal language, these coupled terms remain prevalent.

Factors Contributing to Redundancy in Legal Language

Several factors contribute to their longevity:

1. Precision: In legal contexts, slight differences in meaning between synonyms may be significant. For instance, in the legal phrase suffer or permit, suffer implies passive tolerance, while permit connotes active allowance. Such distinctions are critical in interpreting legal obligations and responsibilities.
2. Tradition: Legal professionals rely on precedent, often replicating familiar terms that have stood up to scrutiny.
3. Rhetorical Impact: Phrases like ordered, adjudged, and decreed create a sense of authority and certainty.
4. Litigation Avoidance: Redundancy reduces the risk of misinterpretation, ensuring that documents withstand challenges in court.

Translating Legal Redundancy

French legal language often avoids the verbosity characteristic of English legal drafting. Translators must navigate these differences carefully to maintain clarity without introducing unnecessary complexity.

Examples of Simplified Equivalents:

• Last will and testament → testament
• In full force and effect → en vigueur
• Free and clear → libre (e.g., Un bien libre de toute hypothèque → A property free of any mortgage)
• Save and except → sauf

French legal texts rely heavily on context, which often eliminates the need for redundant phrasing. Translators should recognize that adding paired synonyms to English translations can obscure rather than clarify meaning.

Tips for Avoiding Overly Complex Legalese in Translation

1. Resist Literalism: Do not translate French lawyerisms into English lawyerisms unless they are strictly necessary. For example, nonobstant might be better translated as despite rather than the archaic notwithstanding.
2. Reduce duplicative phrases: Regardless of the source language, aim for simplicity by choosing one term instead of using paired synonyms. For example, instead of translating “alter or change” into French as “modifier ou changer,” which repeats the same concept, simplify it to just “modifier.”

Similarly, terms like “full and complete” can be translated into a single term in French, such as complet or intégral, without losing meaning. For example, the English phrase “The tenant must ensure full and complete payment of rent by the due date” could be translated as “Le locataire doit s’assurer du paiement complet du loyer à la date d’échéance”or “Le locataire doit s’assurer du paiement intégral du loyer à la date d’échéance”. This approach avoids redundancy while maintaining clarity in legal translations. Simplifying paired terms helps make the text more concise and easier to understand.

1. Understand the Context: Determine whether the audience for the translated document consists of legal professionals or non-specialists. For non-specialist audiences, including business professionals or individuals outside the legal field, aim for clarity while maintaining necessary legal precision. Avoid overly technical lawyerisms and prefer clear, accessible language, but ensure the legal meaning is preserved—terms like full force and effect may still be essential in certain contexts to maintain accuracy and readability.
2. Learn from the Source Language: French legal language can serve as a model for conciseness. Translators can emulate this clarity when drafting English translations by avoiding verbose constructions.

A Balancing Act for Legal Translators

Translators must balance respect for legal tradition with the need for clarity. While redundant phrases have historical significance, their overuse can undermine clarity. By focusing on intent and functionality, legal translators can craft documents that meet both linguistic and legal standards without burdening the reader with unnecessary complexity.

Many scholars in the field, such as Peter M. Tiersma, Richard C. Wydick and Amy E. Sloan explore acknowledge that evolution of legal writing is slow, but translators have an opportunity to lead the charge toward clarity. By demystifying redundancy and prioritizing precision, translators can honour the law’s linguistic heritage while making it accessible to all.

To learn more on this topic, I recommend the following books and scholarly articles:

Legal Language, by Peter M. Tiersma

Plain English for Lawyers, by Richard C. Wydick & Amy E. Sloan

The Concept of Legal Language: What Makes Legal Language ‘Legal‘?, by Ondřej Glogar