5. The classification of legal vocabulary
Probably the greatest single difficulty encountered initially by legal translators is the unfamiliarity of the vocabulary characteristic of this type of discourse. Unfortunately there is no way round this problem except the deliberate process of learning. There is no magic wand one can wave. Nevertheless, it is possible to find some semblance of system in the legal lexicon, and this is the point of the present introductory section. Fuller discussion of the points raised here will be found in Chapter 7, which deals with problems of translation as they relate to vocabulary.
As a first step, the lexical items found in any given language can be dividedinto two groups: symbolic (or representational) items and functional items. The latter type consists of grammatical words or phrases that have no direct referents either in reality or in the universe of concepts, but which serve to bind together and order those that do. Examples from the legal sphere are 'subject to', 'inasmuch as', 'hereinafter', 'whereas', 'concerning', 'under' and 'in view of'. Deictics, articles, auxiliaries, modals and other purely syntactic and morphological markers also belong with this group, as do other more complex units like 'unless otherwise stated', 'as in section 2 above', 'in accordance with order 14' and similar phrases (Harris 1997).
The symbolic or representational group, on the other hand, includes all the terms that refer to things or ideas found in the world of reality, physical or mental. Legal terms of this type may be one-word units ('tort', 'court', 'law','right', 'adjudge', 'contract', 'misrepresentation', 'guilty', 'liable', etc.) or compound units ('serve proceedings', 'bring in a verdict', 'evidence in rebuttal' 'tenant from year to year', 'statute-barred claims', 'beyond reasonable doubt',and many others). This group may be further subdivided into three subgroups for any given specialist lexicon: purely technical vocab
……