A Jurilinguistic Approach in Legal Education

Article
  • 235 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to advocate for including jurilinguistics in legal education. It presents jurilinguistics as a tool for understanding law and therefore supports continuing efforts to teach it. Knowing it is not unique, this essay proposes a jurilinguistic approach that focuses on the in-between of legal translation and comparative law. The proposal outlines the importance of educating in the capabilities of teaching a particular subject in a language other than their official one. The idea is to let the Other help to understand the Self. Particularly pertinent in transnational law programs, it is a multicultural approach that not only recognizes the other, but also embraces it.

Keywords

Jurilinguistics Legal education Legal translation Comparative law Multiculturalism Legal theory 

References

  1. 1.
    Alterini, Atilio Aníbal. 2009. Derecho internacional de los contratos. La Ley 2009-A: 671.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balán, Jorge. 2011. English and the rest: Understanding the languages of science. International Higher Education 65: 5–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berman, Antoine. 1995. L’épreuve de l’étranger: Culture et traduction dans l’Allemagne romantique, Herder, Goethe, Schlegel, Novalis, Humboldt, Schleiermacher, Hölderlin. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bogdan, Michael. 2005. Is there a curricular core for the transnational lawyer? Journal of Legal Education 55: 484–487.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campana, Marie-Jeanne. 1999. Vers un langage juridique commun en Europe? In Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme, ed. Rodolfo Sacco, and Luca Castellani, 7–34. Torino/Paris: Harmattan Italia/Harmattan.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornu, Gérard. 1999. Rapport de synthèse. In Les mots de la loi, ed. Nicolas Molfessis, 99–108. Paris: Économica.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornu, Gérard. 2005. Linguistique juridique. Domat droit privé:viii, 443.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Craig, Scott. 2004/2005. A core curriculum for the transnational legal education of JD and LLB students: Surveying the approach of the international, comparative and transnational law program at Osgood Hall Law School. Penn State International Law Review 23: 757–773.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Mestral, Armand. 2003. Guest editorial: Bisystemic law-teaching—The McGill programme and the concept of law in the EU. Common Market Law Review 40: 799–807.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. 2004. Vers un nouveau sens commun juridique: droit, science et politique dans la transition paradigmatique. Trans. Nathalie Gonzales Lajoie. Droit et société. Série Sociologie, 39. Paris: LGDJ.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubouchet, Paul. 2001. Le modèle juridique: Droit et herméneutique. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eco, Umberto. 1994. La recherche de la langue parfaite dans la culture européenne. Faire l’Europe. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eco, Umberto. 2001. Experiences in translation. Trans. Alastair McEWEN. Toronto Italian studies. Goggio publication series. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferretti, Federico. 2010. The design of an international mobility programme for PG law students at Brunel Law School: Putting theory and policy into practice. The Law Teacher 44(2): 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fettes, Mark. 2001. Les géostratégies de l’interlinguisme. In Géostratégies des langues, ed. Jacques Maurais, and Michael Morris, 35–46. Terminogramme. Québec: Les publications du Québec.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fletcher, George P. 1999. Fair and reasonable. A linguistic glimpse into the American legal mind. In Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme, ed. Rodolfo Sacco, and Luca Castellani, 57–70. Torino/Paris: Harmattan Italia/Harmattan.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friel, Raymond J. 2005. Special methods for educating the transnational lawyer. Journal of Legal Education 55: 507–513.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galdia, Marcus. 2009. Legal linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garro, Alejandro. 1988. The teaching of Latin American legal systems in U.S. Law Schools. Journal of Legal Education 38: 271–277.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gémar, Jean-Claude. 1995. Traduire, ou, L’art d’interpréter. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gémar, Jean-Claude. 2005. Avant-propos. In Jurilinguistique: Entre langues et droits = jurilinguistics: Between law and language, ed. Jean-Claude Gémar, and Nicholas Kasirer, xiii–xvi. Montréal/Bruxelles: Éditions Thémis/Bruylant.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gémar, Jean-Claude. 2005. Langage du droit et (juri)linguistique. États et fonctions de la jurilinguistique. In Jurilinguistique: Entre langues et droits = jurilinguistics: Between law and language, ed. Jean-Claude Gémar, and Nicholas Kasirer, 5–22. Montréal/Bruxelles: Éditions Thémis/Bruylant.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gémar, Jean-Claude ed. 1982. Langage du droit et traduction: essais de jurilinguistique = The language of the law and translation: essays on jurilinguistics. In Langues de spécialité (Collection). Québec: Linguatech/Conseil de la langue française.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gervais, Sophie, Mélanie Roy, and Martin Lagassé. 1997. Le droit face aux diversités religieuses et culturelles. Sherbrooke: Les Éditions Revue de droit Université de Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw. 2010. Responsibility and welfare: Keywords and semantic categories in legal academic journals. In Researching Language and the Law, vol. 121, ed. Davide S. Giannoni, and Celina Frade, 71–87. Series Linguistic Insights. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenstein, Rosalind. 2001. Vol au-dessus d’un nid de casquettes ou tout ce que vous avez toujours voulu savoir sur les pièges de la traduction juridique. In Variations autour d’un droit commun: Travaux préparatoires, ed. Mireille Delmas-Marty, 101–119. Paris: Société de législation comparée.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grodley, James. 2000/2001. Comparative law and legal education. Tulane Law Review 75:1003–1014.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grosswald Curran, Vivian. 2004/2005. The role of foreign languages in educating lawyers for transnational challenges. Penn State International Law Review 23: 779–783.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grosswald Curran, Vivian. 2006. Comparative law and language. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law, ed. Reinhard Zimmermann, and Mathias Reimann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=851506. Accessed 25 June 2012.
  30. 30.
    Hamel, Rainer Enrique. 2005. Language empires, linguistic imperialism, and the future of global languages. Department of Anthropology, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana México, D.F. http://www.hamel.com.mx/Archivos-PDF/Work%20in%20Progress/2005%20Language%20Empires.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2012.
  31. 31.
    Hoffman, Craig. 2011. Using discourse analysis methodology to teach “Legal English”. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse 1(2): 1–19.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Iorns Magallanes, Catherine J. 2005. Teaching for transnational lawyering. Journal of Legal Education 55: 519–524.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jakab, András. 2007. Dilemmas of legal education: A comparative overview. Journal of Legal Education 57: 253–265.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jedwab, Jack, and Victor Armony. 2009. ¡Hola Canadá! Spanish is third most spoken language. FOCALPoint 8(4): 14–16.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jukier, Rosalie. 2006. Transnationalizing the legal curriculum: How to teach what we live. Journal of Legal Education 56: 172–189.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kasirer, Nicholas. 1992. The infans as bon père de famille: “Objectively Wrongful Conduct” in the Civil Law Tradition. American Journal of Comparative Law 40: 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kasirer, Nicholas. 1997. What is vie commune? Qu’est-ce que living together? In Mélanges offerts par ses collègues de McGill à Paul-André Crépeau = Mélanges presented by McGill colleagues to Paul-André Crépeau, ed. Centre de recherche en droit privé et comparé du Québec, 487–534. Cowansville, Quebec: Éditions Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kasirer, Nicholas. 1999. Le real estate existe-t-il en droit civil? Un regard sur le lexique juridique de droit civil de langue anglaise. In Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme, ed. Rodolfo Sacco, and Luca Castellani, 89–113. Torino/Paris: Harmattan Italia/Harmattan.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kasirer, Nicholas. 2002. Bijuralism in Law’s Empire and in Law’s Cosmos. Journal of Legal Education 52(1 & 2): 29–41.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kasirer, Nicholas. 2003. Legal education as métissage. Tulane Law Review 78: 481–501.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kasirer, Nicholas. 2003. Portalis now. In Le droit civil, avant tout un style?, ed. Nicholas Kasirer, 1–46. Montréal: Éditions Thémis.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kasirer, Nicholas. 2005. “Délit” interdit! No “Offence”! In Colloque du trentenaire. Thirtieth Anniversary Conference. 19752005, ed. Centre de recherche en droit privé et comparé du Québec, 203–231. Montréal: Éditions Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kelsen, Hans. 1967. Pure theory of law. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kischel, Uwe. 2009. Legal cultures—Legal languages. In Translation issues in language and law, ed. Frances E. Olsen, and Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein, 7–17. Basingstoke [England]; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Knight, Jane. 2004. Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education 8: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Knight, Jane. 2011. Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education 62: 14–15.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford political theory. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lajoie, Andrée. 1998. Introduction. In Théories et émergence du droit: Pluralisme, surdétermination et effectivité, ed. Andrée Lajoie, Roderick A. MAcdonald, Richard Janda, and Guy Rocher, 1–6. Montréal/Bruxelles: Éditions Thémis/Bruylant.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Laplantine, François, and Alexis Nouss. 1997. Le métissage: Un exposé pour comprendre, un essai pour réfléchir. Dominos; 145. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Laplantine, François, and Alexis Nouss. 2001. Métissages: De Arcimboldo à Zombi. Paris: Pauvert.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lebel-Grenier, Sébastien. 2006. What is a transnational legal education? Journal of Legal Education 56: 190–195.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lundmark, Thomas. 1999. Educating lawyers for Europe. In Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme, ed. Rodolfo Sacco, and Luca Castellani, 115–121. Torino/Paris: Harmattan Italia/Harmattan.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Macdonald, Roderick, and Jason MacLean. 2005. No toilets in park. McGill Law Journal 50: 721–787.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Maurais, Jacques. 2001. Introduction: Vers un nouvel ordre linguistique mondial? In Géostratégies des langues, ed. Jacques Maurais, and Michael Morris, 7–33. Terminogramme. Québec: Les publications du Québec.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    McAuley, Michael. 2002. On a theme by René David: Comparative law as technique indispensable. Journal of Legal Education 52: 42–48.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mellinkoff, David. 2004. The language of the law. Eugene, OR: Resource Pub., an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Montoya, Juny. 2010. The current state of legal education reform in Latin America: A critical appraisal. Journal of Legal Education 59: 545–566.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moréteau, Olivier. 1999. L’anglais pourrait-il devenir la langue juridique commune en Europe? In Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme, ed. Rodolfo Sacco, and Luca Castellani, 143–162. Torino/Paris: Harmattan Italia/Harmattan.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Morisette, Yves-Marie. 2002. McGill’s integrated civil and common law program. Journal of Legal Education 52(1 & 2): 12–27.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nouss, Alexis. 2005. Plaidoyer pour un monde métis. Paris: Textuel.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ost, François. 1993. L’herméneutique juridique entre hermétisme et dogmatisme. Le jeu de l’interprétation en droit. Revue internationale de sémiotique juridique 8(18): 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ost, François. 2009. Le droit comme traduction. Collection Mercure du Nord/Verbatim. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pérez Perdomo, Rogelio, and Manuel Gómez. 2008. Innovaciones en la educación jurídica de América Latina. Derecho y Democracia 2(Cuadernos unimetanos 15): 2–5.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pfersmann, Otto. 2001. Le droit comparé comme interprétation et comme théorie du droit. In Variations autour d’un droit commun: Travaux préparatoires, ed. Mireille Delmas-Marty, 121–134. Paris: Société de législation comparée.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Puig, Ricardo. 2002. Ciencia y arte de la traducción. Montevideo: Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sacco, Rodolfo. 1991. La comparaison juridique au service de la connaissance du droit. Collection Etudes juridiques comparatives. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sánchez, Gloria. 1997. A paradigm shift in legal education: Preparing law students for the twenty-first century: Teaching foreign law, culture, and legal language of the major U.S. American trading partners. San Diego Law Review 34: 635–679.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New approach to legal translation. The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Smits, Jan M. 2011. European legal education, or: How to prepare students for global citizenship? The Law Teacher 45(2): 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Spanbauer, Julie M., and Katerina P. Lewinbuk. 2008–2009. Embracing diversity through a multicultural approach to legal education. Charlotte Law Review 1:223–251.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tallon, Denis. 1999. Le choix des mots au regard des contraintes de traduction. In Les mots de la loi, ed. Nicolas Molfessis, 31–36. Paris: Économica.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vanderlinden, Jacques. 1995. Comparer les droits. À la rencontre du droit. Bruxelles: E. Story-Scientia/Kluwer éd. juridiques Belgique.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vanderlinden, Jacques. 1999. Le futur des langues du droit ou le dilemme du dernier orateur. In Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme, ed. Rodolfo Sacco, and Luca Castellani, 193–221. Torino/Paris: Harmattan Italia/Harmattan.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2002. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Massachusetts/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Waxman, Michael P. 2001. Teaching comparative law in the 21st. Century: Beyond the Civil/Common Law Dichotomy. Journal of Legal Education 51: 305–312.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    White, James Boyd. 1990. Justice as translation: An essay in cultural and legal criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations