Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

13possible? The question of translatability (or untranslatability) has been traditionallyapproached from two different points of views: the universalist view and the monadistor relativist view. According to de Pedro (1999), supporters of the former approach (e.g.Chomsky) claim that the existence of linguistic universals ensures translatability,whereas those who endorse the latter (e.g. Leibniz, Humboldt, Schlegel andSchleiermacher) maintain that each linguistic community interprets reality in its ownparticular way and that this jeopardizes translatability. Like the untranslatability debatein general, in law, too, this issue has been addressed from two points of view. Poirier(2005: 553) explains that:Appliquée au droit, cette notion signifie que les concepts de deux systèmesjuridiques différents ne peuvent être comparés entre eux parce qu‘ilsappartiennent à des cultures différentes et que pour cette raison ils ne peuventpas être traduits d‘une culture à l‘autre.At one end of the pole are those scholars who assert that law is incommensurable.Supporters of this position include scholars like David (1974) and Sacco (1991). Ingeneral, the main argument put forth is that law cannot be translated because it isconsubstantial with language and therefore one of the most culturally impregnateddomains. As a result, legal concepts alien to or non-existent in the target system areuntranslatable. Criticisms of this point of view sustain that even terms such as law,direito and droit refer to different traditions depending on the reader being English,Portuguese or Québécois but are nevertheless translatable. Therefore, at the other end ofthe pole, many scholars consider that legal translation is feasible and highly productivebecause it is a socio-cultural need (Mounin 1965; Harvey 2002). Supporters of thisposition also argue that even though legal translation is not an easy task, it can takeplace by means of a continuum of equivalence (Cao 2007: 32). Contrary to theuniversalist approach of the translatability debate in general, which maintains thatlanguages share universals, untranslatability is viewed here as an abstract concept thatserves to highlight the degree of complexity of legal translation.