Jurilinguistic Analysis in Translation, Comparative Law Practice. Translate the Letter or “The Spirit of the Laws”? The Case of the Code Napoléon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Translated texts sometimes reflect the targeted legal system’s conventional manner of writing law; however, the equivalence of the legal message must be realized. Translating law into another legal culture goes through a comparative analysis of the laws involved, the command of which is needed to achieve legal equivalence. The form of the target text must nevertheless correspond to its legal culture. Legal translation is then the meeting point of languages, cultures and laws. To succeed, this meeting must be based on an ad hoc knowledge of both laws. Then comparative law enters into play as the legal translator’s “fellow traveler”, whom it equips for the exchange. To realize it, “two intersecting receptions will suffice” (Carbonnier). This operation is successful when concepts and notions overlap and the letter of the law (the substance) and the law’s expression (the form) merge, demonstrating “the spirit of the laws”. Benchmarking is the way to reach this goal. It is conducted here under the light of jurilinguistics via the analysis of terms and concepts presenting various translation difficulties, which demonstrate the necessity of comparative law (I). A comparison of translations of the Napoleonic Code and other civil codes will complete the quest for the spirit of the laws by the way in which the letter or the spirit of the text to be translated is rendered (II). The lessons to be learned are aimed at language professionals, who will find in jurilinguistic comparative analysis a way to perfecting their work and, in the translations of the civil codes, a basis of reflection on the role and functions of translation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".