Machine Translation: A Cautionary Tale

Recently, whilst surfing the web, I ran across my hometown's official website, which boasts a redundantly-named "language translation" option for non-English-speaking visitors to the site. Having already spent so much money putting together a very nicely designed site, my city apparently decided that they could save a bit of money by foregoing the costs involved with hiring professional translators to translate their web content into German, Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese (simplified), Korean, and Russian.

Thus, my fiscally conscious municipal government decided to make use of SYSTRAN's machine translation software. It couldn't be simpler - curious non-English-speaking visitors would just need to click on the flag representing their native language and they would be presented with a real-time translation of the page of their choice. Just in case this plan did not prove as simple in practice as it was in someone's PowerPoint presentation, someone in the City Solicitor's office drafted the following disclaimer:

The information on the City of Cincinnati's web site is originally published in English. Sections of the web site offer Systran machine translation software that allows for real-time translation of information into French, German, Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Korean, and Russian. Translations from English may not always be accurate or precise. The City of Cincinnati does not warrant such translations and disclaims any responsibility, including all alleged direct and consequential damages, for inaccurate translations. Readers relying on precise information should check the original English versions.

Thus, in the eyes of the City's web design staff, any problems that SYSTRAN's software had in helping the City "think globally and communicate locally" (as SYSTRAN's website claims) would be taken care of by a disclaimer that disclaimed all liability for mistranslations.

In English, anyway...

Machine Translation Meets Legalese

You see, the way the website is set up, users looking for a non-English version of the page click on a small flag icon on the home page. This will bring them to the disclaimer page. Having read the disclaimer and assumed the risks involved in the use of the SYSTRAN software by clicking on "Continue", the City expects to have immunised itself from any potential legal vulnerability. However, the City decided that not even the disclaimers were worth a few hundred dollars in translation fees.

Disclaimers are contractual language. When determining the meaning and effect of contractual language, courts generally look to the "plain meaning" of the language. Thus, let's have a look at the "plain meaning" of the disclaimers that German, French, Spanish, Russian, and Japanese speakers read:

FRENCH: Les traductions de l'anglais peuvent toujours ne pas être précises ou précises. La ville de Cincinnati ne justifie pas de telles traductions et ne dément aucune responsabilité, y compris des dommages directs et consécutifs tout allégués, des traductions imprécises.

WHAT IT REALLY SAYS:
Translations of English can always not be precise or precise. The City of Cicninnati does not justify translations like that, and does not deny any liability, including direct and consecutive damages, totally alleged, of imprecise translation.

GERMAN: Übersetzungen von Englisch können möglicherweise nicht genau oder exakt immer sein. Die Stadt von Cincinnati gewährleistet solche Übersetzungen und dementiert keine Verantwortlichkeit, einschließlich ganz angebliche direkte und Folgeschadenn [sic], für ungenaue Übersetzungen.

WHAT IT REALLY SAYS:
Possibly, translations from English can not always exactly or precisely be (how existential!). The City of Cincinnati guarantees such translations, and disclaims no liability, including totally alleged direct and consequential damages for imprecise translations.

SPANISH: Las traducciones del inglés pueden siempre no ser exactas o exactas. La ciudad de Cincinnati no autoriza tales traducciones y no niega ninguna responsabilidad, incluyendo daños directos y consecuentes todo alegados, de traducciones inexactas.

WHAT IT REALLY SAYS:
Translations of English may always not be exact or exact. The city of Cincinnati does not authorise translations like that, and denies no liability, including direct and consequential damage, all alleged, of inexact translations.

RUSSIAN: Переводы от английской языка не могут всегда быть точны или точны. Город cincinnati (!) не гарантирует такие переводы и disclaims (!!) никакая ответственность, включая совсем alleged (!!!) сразу и логически вытекающие повреждения, для неточных переводов.

WHAT IT REALLY SAYS:
Translations from the English language cannot always be exact or exact. The city of Cincinnati (not transliterated) does not guarantee such translations and does not disclaim (not even translated) any liability, including totally alleged (also not translated) immediately also logically consequent harm for inexact translations.

JAPANESE: 英語からの翻訳は常に正確または精密でないかもしれない。シンシナチ(sic)市はそのような翻訳を保証しないし、不正確な翻訳のための責任を、すべてに疑わしい直接及び間接損害を含んで、放棄しない。

WHAT IT REALLY SAYS:
Translations from English might not always be correct or accurate. The City of Cincinnatchy does not guarantee translations like that, and, for the benefit of inaccurate translations, it does not disclaim liability, including completely dubious direct or indirect damages.

Machine Translation - Taking Your Carefully Chosen Words Straight Through the Looking Glass

The "plain language" of all of these disclaimers - with the exception of the Russian version, in which the key words are left in English - consistently states that the City of Cincinnati does not disclaim any responsibility of any kind for any damage caused by inaccuracies in the machine translations. Non-English speaking users who elect to see the SYSTRAN "translation" of the site are agreeing, by clicking on CONTINUE, that the City of Cincinnati may be held responsible for all damages, including direct or consequential damages, arising out of mistranslations (or perhaps we should call them systranslations). And, since we are talking about translation software that somehow manages to take the words "disclaims any responsibility" and mangles them, consistently in several different languages, into "disclaims no responsibility", the decision to save on translations could have a serious downside. The terms of adhesion contracts - take-it-or-leave it standardised fine-print contracts like this one - must generally be construed against the interests of the person who drafted it, but this just makes it too easy.

Machine Translation - Bridging the Language Barrier, or Just Adding a Moat?

Cincinnati, like cities the world over, wants to make itself attractive to international tourism and business. To this end, it has created a very well-done website with plenty of information, in a very nice layout. How ironic that all of this effort should be counteracted by attempts to internationalise the website in a cut-rate manner! Certainly nothing says "we want to do business with you" like "we, a city of over 300,000, can't be bothered to spend a couple of thousand dollars to provide intelligible translations of our web content."

Cincinnati, this one's on me:

La version originale des informations sur le site web de la vile de Cincinnati était rédigée en anglais. Des parties du site sont fournies du logiciel de traduction automatique de Systran, qui permet la traduction en temps réel du contenu au français, allemand, l'espagnol, le chinois simplifié, le coréen, et le russe. Il peut y avoir des erreurs de traduction dans les traductions de l'anglais. La ville de Cincinnati ne fait aucune garantie quant aux traductions, et n'accepte aucune résponsabilité juridique - pour les dommages-interêts directs voire indirects - résultant des erreurs de traduction. Les lecteurs qui ont besoin des informations précises devraient lire les versions originales.

Die Informationen auf der Webseite der Stadt Cincinnati wurden ursprünglich in englischer Sprache verfaßt. Einige Teilbereiche der Seite sind mit der Übersetzungssoftware der Firma Systran ausgestattet, welche die Echtzeit-Übersetzung von Inhalten ins Französische, Deutsche, Spanische, Chinesische (VR China), Koreanische, und Russische ermöglicht. Es kann sich ergeben, daß die Übersetzungen aus dem Englischen Übersetzungsfehler enthalten. Die Nutzung der übersetzten Inhalte erfolgt ohne Gewähr seitens der Stadt Cincinnati; die Stadt Cincinnati übernimmt keinerlei Haftung für Übersetzungsfehler, insbesondere für daraus entstandene unmittelbare Schäden und Folgeschäden. Leser, die präziser Information bedürfen, sollten die englischen Originalfassungen verwenden.

Информации, находящиеся на сайте города Цинциннати, были первоначально опубликованы на английском языке. На несколько страниц этого сайта возможно использовать программ автоматического перевода фирмы Systran, который поставляет переводы на французский, немецкий, испанский, китайский (НР Китай), корейский, и русский языки. Переводы с английского языка могут и содержать ошибки. Город Цинциннати не берет на себя никакой юридической ответственности, в том числе и ответственности за возмещение прямых и непрямых ущерб из-за ощибок в переводе. Читатели, которым нужны точные информации, должны использовать английскую версию.

Las informaciones contenidas en la web de la ciudad de Cincinnati fueron originalmente redactadas en inglés. Algunas partes del sitio están provistas del software de traducción automática de Systran, que permite la traducción en tiempo real del contenido al francés, alemán, español, chino (simplificado), coreano, y ruso. Las traducciones del inglés no son necesariamente correctas o exactas. La ciudad de Cincinnati no garantiza dichas traducciones, ni acepta ninguna responsabilidad jurídica por errores de traducción, incluyendo la responsabilidad por daños directos e indirectos. Los lectores que necesiten informaciones precisas deberán leer las versiones originales en inglés.

シンシンナティ市のウェブサイトの内容は英語で作成されました。SYSTRAN社の実時機 械翻訳ソフトでフランス語、ドイツ語、スペイン語、中国語（簡体字）、韓国語、ロシヤ語に翻訳できるページもあります。訳文の内容には誤訳もありえます。 シンシンナティ市は、当該翻訳に関しては、如何なる保証もうしませんし、誤訳から生じるあらゆる直接又は間接な損害に関しては何の法的責任も負わないもの としますので、ご了承ください。正確な情報が必要な方は、英語版をご利用ください。

Terminology Note: Culpa in Contrahendo (German)

Culpa in contrahendo ("c.i.c.") is a judicially crafted doctrine of the German law of obligations (Schuldrecht). Literally translated from the Latin, it means "culpable conduct during contract negotiations." The doctrine was developed by the courts to impose a mutual duty of care upon persons who were not yet in privity of contract.

This duty was derived from the "penumbras" of several sections of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ("BGB"), the German Civil Code, including §§ 122, 179, 307 (now § 311a II), 309 (now §§ 311 II & 280), 463 II (now § 437)*, and 663. The doctrine was considered necessary due to "inadequate provisions for negligent injury to property (no general liablity for negligent injury to property, and limited liability for employees, § 831)" Palandt, BGB, § 276 Rn 67
§ 122 gives a party who has relied on another's statement of intent (Willenserklärung) a claim to compensation in the case that the party that made the statement revokes it in three cases:

1. if the statement of intent is void because it was not expected to be taken seriously (§ 118);
2. if the person making the statement was mistaken as to the content of a statement of intent or did not intend to make the statement of intent (§ 119); or
3. if the statement of intent was incorrectly transmitted by a third party (§ 120).

§ 179 imposes liability upon anyone who knowingly concludes a contract as the unauthorised agent of a third party who does not consent to the conclusion of the contract, unless the party with whom the contract was concluded was aware that she was not dealing with an authorised agent.

§ 307 imposes liability on a person who concludes an impossible contract if that person knew, or should have known, that performance on the contract was impossible (in whole or in part) and the other party relied on the validity of the contract and was unaware that the contract was impossible to peform. § 309 extends the liability for impossible contracts to cover unlawful contracts.

§ 463 II imposes liability on someone who sells a defective product, and in bad faith fails to inform the buyer of the defect.

§ 663 requires anyone who is publicly licensed as an agent to obtain business for others - or who offers such services - to inform the principal in a timely manner of refusal to accept a particular job.

Each of these provisions creates mutual duties between parties who are in the process of negotiating a contract, but who have not yet concluded an agreement, similar to the common law implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The statutes upon which c.i.c. is based protect parties' reasonable expectations that statements of intent can be relied upon, and that contracts are negotiated in good faith with full disclosure. "The legal relationship that arises when contractual negotiations are initiated is characterised by a lack of inherent duties to perform certain acts; it merely includes duties of mutual respect, care, and loyalty." Palandt, BGB § 276 Rn 65, 59th ed. Liability arises regardless of whether an agreement is ultimately concluded. "What is required is conduct that is geared towards concluding an agreement or initiating business contacts. Thus, a claim to damages for c.i.c. will only arise if the plaintiff was present in the business of the defendant in the capacity of a prospective customer, and not merely a visitor." (see e.g. BGH 66,54, Palandt § 276 Rn 66). The Bundestag has codified this doctrine in the new § 311a II.

True to its roots as a stop-gap doctrine to make up for inadequacies in German tort law (Deliktsrecht), the classic example of the application of c.i.c. is a supermarket slip-and-fall case, known as the "Lettuce Case."

A family is walking through a supermarket, intending to buy food. While walking through the frozen foods section, their 4 year-old daughter slips and falls on a wet piece of lettuce that was negligently left their by the employees of the supermarket, and suffers various injuries.
The problem presented by this case is that there is no satisfactory way to sue the supermarket for negligence, and the responsible employee is likely judgment-proof (a/k/a "broke"). § 831 of the Civil Code makes employers liable for their employees only if the employer was reckless or negligent in selecting the employee, and the negligence or recklessness caused the damage. Nothing in this case suggests that the owner of the supermarket was negligent in choosing the employee responsible for lettuce removal. The negligence was on the part of the employee. While this would be enough for respondeat superior liability on the part of the owner under U.S. law, under German law, this negligence does not give rise to liability on the part of the owner. Thus, the only way in which to hold the owner of the supermarket liable, thus making it possible to recover damages, is via culpa in contrahendo:

The family was in the supermarket for the purpose of purchasing food; thus, they were in the supermarket for the purpose of initiating contract negotiations or a business relationship. This created a duty of care on the part of both the family and the owner. Since the family had put their trust in the owner of the supermarket by entering the building, the owner of the supermarket had a duty to maintain it in a safe condition. The lettuce leaf constitutes a breach of this duty, subjecting the owner to c.i.c. liability.



* Sections redesignated and amended by the Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz (Obligations Law Modernisation Act of 2002).



Full text of the provisions of the Civil Code mentioned above.

§ 118
Mangel der Ernstlichkeit

Eine nicht ernstlich gemeinte Willenserklärung, die in der Erwartung abgegeben wird, der Mangel der Ernstlichkeit werde nicht verkannt werden, ist nichtig.

§ 119
Anfechtbarkeit wegen Irrtums

(1) Wer bei der Abgabe einer Willenserklärung über deren Inhalt im Irrtum war oder eine Erklärung dieses Inhalts überhaupt nicht abgeben wollte, kann die Erklärung anfechten, wenn anzunehmen ist, dass er sie bei Kenntnis der Sachlage und bei verständiger Würdigung des Falles nicht abgegeben haben würde.

(2) Als Irrtum über den Inhalt der Erklärung gilt auch der Irrtum über solche Eigenschaften der Person oder der Sache, die im Verkehr als wesentlich angesehen werden.

§ 120
Anfechtbarkeit wegen falscher Übermittlung

Eine Willenserklärung, welche durch die zur Übermittlung verwendete Person oder Einrichtung unrichtig übermittelt worden ist, kann unter der gleichen Voraussetzung angefochten werden wie nach § 119 eine irrtümlich abgegebene Willenserklärung.

§ 122
Schadensersatzpflicht des Anfechtenden

(1) Ist eine Willenserklärung nach § 118 nichtig oder auf Grund der §§ 119, 120 angefochten, so hat der Erklärende, wenn die Erklärung einem anderen gegenüber abzugeben war, diesem, andernfalls jedem Dritten den Schaden zu ersetzen, den der andere oder der Dritte dadurch erleidet, dass er auf die Gültigkeit der Erklärung vertraut, jedoch nicht über den Betrag des Interesses hinaus, welches der andere oder der Dritte an der Gültigkeit der Erklärung hat.

(2) Die Schadensersatzpflicht tritt nicht ein, wenn der Beschädigte den Grund der Nichtigkeit oder der Anfechtbarkeit kannte oder infolge von Fahrlässigkeit nicht kannte (kennen musste).

§ 179 Haftung des Vertreters ohne Vertretungsmacht (1) Wer als Vertreter einen Vertrag geschlossen hat, ist, sofern er nicht seine Vertretungsmacht nachweist, dem anderen Teil nach dessen Wahl zur Erfüllung oder zum Schadensersatz verpflichtet, wenn der Vertretene die Genehmigung des Vertrags verweigert.

(2) Hat der Vertreter den Mangel der Vertretungsmacht nicht gekannt, so ist er nur zum Ersatz desjenigen Schadens verpflichtet, welchen der andere Teil dadurch erleidet, dass er auf die Vertretungsmacht vertraut, jedoch nicht über den Betrag des Interesses hinaus, welches der andere Teil an der Wirksamkeit des Vertrags hat.

(3) Der Vertreter haftet nicht, wenn der andere Teil den Mangel der Vertretungsmacht kannte oder kennen musste. Der Vertreter haftet auch dann nicht, wenn er in der Geschäftsfähigkeit beschränkt war, es sei denn, dass er mit Zustimmung seines gesetzlichen Vertreters gehandelt hat. § 280 Schadensersatz wegen Pflichtverletzung (1) Verletzt der Schuldner eine Pflicht aus dem Schuldverhältnis, so kann der Gläubiger Ersatz des hierdurch entstehenden Schadens verlangen. Dies gilt nicht, wenn der Schuldner die Pflichtverletzung nicht zu vertreten hat.

(2) Schadensersatz wegen Verzögerung der Leistung kann der Gläubiger nur unter der zusätzlichen Voraussetzung des § 286 verlangen.

(3) Schadensersatz statt der Leistung kann der Gläubiger nur unter den zusätzlichen Voraussetzungen des § 281, des § 282 oder des § 283 verlangen.

§ 311
Rechtsgeschäftliche und rechtsgeschäftsähnliche Schuldverhältnisse

(1) Zur Begründung eines Schuldverhältnisses durch Rechtsgeschäft sowie zur Änderung des Inhalts eines Schuldverhältnisses ist ein Vertrag zwischen den Beteiligten erforderlich, soweit nicht das Gesetz ein anderes vorschreibt.

(2) Ein Schuldverhältnis mit Pflichten nach § 241 Abs. 2 entsteht auch durch 1. die Aufnahme von Vertragsverhandlungen,
2. die Anbahnung eines Vertrags, bei welcher der eine Teil im Hinblick auf eine etwaige rechtsgeschäftliche Beziehung dem anderen Teil die Möglichkeit zur Einwirkung auf seine Rechte, Rechtsgüter und Interessen gewährt oder ihm diese anvertraut, oder
3. ähnliche geschäftliche Kontakte.
(3) Ein Schuldverhältnis mit Pflichten nach § 241 Abs. 2 kann auch zu Personen entstehen, die nicht selbst Vertragspartei werden sollen. Ein solches Schuldverhältnis entsteht insbesondere, wenn der Dritte in besonderem Maße Vertrauen für sich in Anspruch nimmt und dadurch die Vertragsverhandlungen oder den Vertragsschluss erheblich beeinflusst.

§ 311a
Leistungshindernis bei Vertragsschluss

(1) Der Wirksamkeit eines Vertrags steht es nicht entgegen, dass der Schuldner nach § 275 Abs. 1 bis 3 nicht zu leisten braucht und das Leistungshindernis schon bei Vertragsschluss vorliegt.

(2) Der Gläubiger kann nach seiner Wahl Schadensersatz statt der Leistung oder Ersatz seiner Aufwendungen in dem in § 284 bestimmten Umfang verlangen. Dies gilt nicht, wenn der Schuldner das Leistungshindernis bei Vertragsschluss nicht kannte und seine Unkenntnis auch nicht zu vertreten hat. § 281 Abs. 1 Satz 2 und 3 und Abs. 5 findet entsprechende Anwendung.

§ 437
Rechte des Käufers bei Mängeln

Ist die Sache mangelhaft, kann der Käufer, wenn die Voraussetzungen der folgenden Vorschriften vorliegen und soweit nicht ein anderes bestimmt ist,
1. nach § 439 Nacherfüllung verlangen,
2. nach den §§ 440, 323 und 326 Abs. 5 von dem Vertrag zurücktreten oder nach § 441 den Kaufpreis mindern und
3. nach den §§ 440, 280, 281, 283 und 311a Schadensersatz oder nach § 284 Ersatz vergeblicher Aufwendungen verlangen.

§ 663
Anzeigepflicht bei Ablehnung

Wer zur Besorgung gewisser Geschäfte öffentlich bestellt ist oder sich öffentlich erboten hat, ist, wenn er einen auf solche Geschäfte gerichteten Auftrag nicht annimmt, verpflichtet, die Ablehnung dem Auftraggeber unverzüglich anzuzeigen. Das Gleiche gilt, wenn sich jemand dem Auftraggeber gegenüber zur Besorgung gewisser Geschäfte erboten hat.

§ 831
Haftung für den Verrichtungsgehilfen

(1) Wer einen anderen zu einer Verrichtung bestellt, ist zum Ersatz des Schadens verpflichtet, den der andere in Ausführung der Verrichtung einem Dritten widerrechtlich zufügt. Die Ersatzpflicht tritt nicht ein, wenn der Geschäftsherr bei der Auswahl der bestellten Person und, sofern er Vorrichtungen oder Gerätschaften zu beschaffen oder die Ausführung der Verrichtung zu leiten hat, bei der Beschaffung oder der Leitung die im Verkehr erforderliche Sorgfalt beobachtet oder wenn der Schaden auch bei Anwendung dieser Sorgfalt entstanden sein würde.

(2) Die gleiche Verantwortlichkeit trifft denjenigen, welcher für den Geschäftsherrn die Besorgung eines der im Absatz 1 Satz 2 bezeichneten Geschäfte durch Vertrag übernimmt.

§ 118
Lack of seriousness

A statement of intent that is not meant seriously, which is made in the expectation that such statement would not be misunderstood to be serious, is void.

§ 119
Voidability due to mistake

(1) A person who, when making a statement of intent, is mistaken as to its content or did not at all intend to make a statement of the content of the statement that was actually made, may void the statment if it appears that such person would not have made such statement if he had been aware of the facts and made a reasoned evaluation of them.

(2) A mistake as to such characteristics of the person or the object as are considered material in the normal course of dealing shall also be deemed to constitute a mistake.

§ 120
Voidability due to incorrect transmission

A statement of intent that was incorrectly transmitted by the person or entity charged with its transmission may be voided pursuant to the requirements of § 119 for statements of intent mistakenly made.

§ 122
Voiding party's duty to compensate

(1) If a statement of intent is void pursuant to § 118 or voided pursuant to §§ 119, 120, the person who made the statement of intent shall be liable to compensate the person to whom the statement was required to be made, if the statement was required to be made to a specific person, or, otherwise, to compensate any third party for any damage incurred by such person or such third party in reliance on the validity of the statement; provided, however, that liability shall not extend beyond the interest of such person or such third party in the validity of the statement.

(2) There shall be no duty to compensate if the person who suffered damage was aware of the grounds for voiding the statement, or was unaware of them due to negligence (should have been aware of them).

§ 179
Liability of unauthorised agents

(1) An agent who, in concluding an agreement on behalf of another, fails to prove that he is authorised to represent such other, is liable, at the election of such other party, either to specifically perform such agreement or to compensation, if the principal refuses to authorise the conclusion of the agreement.

(2) If the agent was unaware of the lack of authorisation, the agent shall only be liable to compensate such damage as is incurred by the other party in reliance on the authorisation; however, the amount of such compensation shall not exceed the amount of the interest of the other party in the enforceability of the agreement.

(3) The agent shall not be liable if the other party knew or should have known of the lack of authorisation. Nor shall the agent be liable if his ability to conduct his own affairs has been limited, unless he acted with the consent of his legal representative. § 280 Compensation for breach of duty (1) If the debtor breaches a duty arising out of the obligation, the creditor shall be entitled to compensation for the damages arising from such breach. The foregoing shall not apply if the debtor is without fault in the breach of duty.

(2) The creditor shall only be entitled to compensation for delayed performance under the additional requirements of § 286 .

(3) The creditor shall only be entitled to compensation in lieu of specific performance under the additional requirements of § 281, § 282 or § 283.

§ 311
Transactional and quasi-transactional obligations

(1) Unless otherwise provided by law, there must be a contract between the parties to a transaction in order for a transaction to create a relationship of obligation, and in order to modify the terms of a relationship of obligation.

(2) A relationship of obligation with the duties enumerated in § 241 II may also be created by 1. the initiation of contract negotiations,
2. the invitation to form a contract, if one party entrusts to the other party his rights, legal goods, and interests or allows the other party to influence such rights, legal goods, and interests in contemplation of a future transactional relationship , or
3. similar business contacts.
(3) A relationship with the obligations enumerated in § 241 Abs. 2 can also arise for persons who are not themselves intended to become parties to the contemplated contract. Such a relationship shall arise, inter alia, in cases in which such third party accepts a special trust or substantially influences the conclusion of the contract.

§ 311a Inability to perform at time of conclusion of contract (1) The fact that the debtor is not obligated to perform on a contract pursuant to § 275 I - III and such inability to perform exists at the time of conclusion of the contract does not affect the enforceability of the contract.

(2) At the election of the creditor, the creditor may require compensation in lieu of performance or compensation for expenses incurred within the limitations of § 284 . The foregoing does not apply if the debtor was unaware of the inability to perform at the time of conclusion and is not at fault for such unawareness. § 281 I Sent. 2 and 3 and V shall apply accordingly.

§ 437
Buyer's rights in case of defects

If the object is defective, the buyer may do the following, if the requirements of the respective provisions are fulfilled and unless other rights are elsewhere provided:
1. request replacements pursuant to § 439 ,
2. rescind the contract pursuant to §§ 440, 323 and 326 Abs. 5 or reduce the purchase price pursuant to § 441 and
3. request compensation pursuant to §§ 440, 280, 281, 283 and 311a or compensation for expenses incurred pursuant to § 284 .

§ 663
Duty to report refusal

A person who is publicly licensed to procure certain transactions or has publicly offered to do so, shall, if he does not accept an assignment to procure such transactions, timely inform the person offering the assignment of such refusal. The foregoing also applies if a person has made an offer directly to the person offering the assignment to procure certain transactions.

§ 831
Vicarious liability for employees

(1) A person who appoints another to perform a task is liable to compensate for the damage such other unlawfully causes to a third party while performing such task. No duty to compensate shall arise if the employer exercised due care in selecting and supervising such employee, or if the damage would have arisen even if due care were exercised.

(2) The foregoing paragraph shall also apply to a person who contractually undertakes to procure one of the transactions enumerated in par. 1 sent. 2 .

On Learning a Language

MISE EN SCÈNE

I began studying languages quite early in life, probably around age five. At the time, there was a rather ancient Random House Unabridged Dictionary lying around in my room, and I occasionally leafed through it. Inside the back cover, there was a chart, labelled ALPHABETS OF THE WORLD. It included Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Russian Cyrillic, and German Fraktur. For some reason, the Cyrillic alphabet interested me, and I decided to learn more. Over the next several years, I located books and cassettes and any other source of information on Russian. Along the way, my interest extended beyond Russian alone, and I began actively seeking out materials for learning any language I could think of, the more obscure or difficult-sounding, the better. Nineteen odd years after I was taken by the rear cover of a disintegrating dictionary, I speak ten languages fluently, and varying amounts of several more.

One thing that I do not intend to discuss at any length is how I was able to learn so many languages. Simply put, I do not have any real explanation. While I imagine that it most likely is some combination of innate ability, motivation, and having started studying languages before the age of ten, it is difficult to be any more specific. I agree generally with Noam Chomsky et al. that the use and comprehension of language is likely an innate human trait, and that it follows that there is most likely some natural variation in the language acquisition faculty.

When I refer to a "language acquisition faculty," I am not referring necessarily to an anatomical "language acquisition centre" that could be located and studied microscopically (though the existence of such a centre seems plausible). Rather, I am referring to a predisposition toward the mental faculties that increase the probability of acquiring a second (third, etc.) language. Most important among these, in my view, are flexibility and intuition.

Flexibility refers to the ability to partially restructure one's system of verbal associations and relationships. In order to successfully learn a language, one must be able to associate, for example, the concept of tree with the utterance Baum. Similarly, one must be able to hear /zhenonjenavistníchestvo/ and associate it with женоненавистничество and to associate 教育勅語　with /kyôiku chokugo/. Flexibility, as I use it, also includes the ability to adapt to new thought processes, which is essential when learning languages with radically different syntax and modes of expression.

Intuition, in the sense in which it is important to language acquisition, is the ability to suspend pre-existing knowledge from other (particularly unrelated) languages in order to make full use of context and other cues to figure out the meaning of a word, phrase, or expression.

Most likely, it is because of these factors, and the mental agility they imply, that language learning is most effective before the age of ten. Prior to age ten, the brain is still in its formative stages. There is much more leeway for acquisition of new thought patterns, and a greater degree of malleability. L1 (first-language) acquisition is still in its relatively early stages, as well. Starting at age ten, the current theory goes, the linguistically relevant areas of the brain (e.g. associative auditory cortex, temporal lobe) are increasingly hardwired; thus, the ability to learn a new language after that age is significantly reduced.

In my opinion, while my basis for saying so is largely anecdotal, this conclusion should be qualified. In my own experience, the age of ten should not be assigned talismanic value in determining whether to start learning a language. However, early foreign language exposure is at least an important factor in the ability (or lack thereof) to learn a language later in life. The more foreign language exposure one has in early years, the greater the probability of acquiring an additional language even after the decade mark is reached. Often, there is a tendency toward excessive determinism in speaking about language acquisition. People often say - similarly to those who might assert that age ten is some sort of cutoff point - that "it is impossible to learn an L2 (second language) to the same degree of proficiency as one has with an L1," and similar statements. This is usually a case of broad allegations and narrow proof - the data adduced in support of these deterministic claims usually come nowhere near supporting such far-reaching conclusions. Suffice it to say, for our current purposes, that there are myriad factors at work, and any one (or group of several acting jointly) could conceivably influence an individual's ability to learn a language decisively.

LEARNING A LANGUAGE: SOME SUGGESTIONS

Maximise Exposure to the Language

If you hope to have any idea of how the language you want to learn is actually spoken, finding some way to get exposure to people who speak the language is key. There are a number of ways to do this. Meeting and socialising with people from a country or region where your desired language is spoken is always worth considering (although, if you're looking to learn a more obscure language, such as Bella Coola, or a recently deceased language, such as Ubykh, this method will be of limited utility). A good alternative is to find audio recordings or broadcasts in the language you're studying. There are plenty of resources online for both. A short-wave radio doesn't hurt either. Don't worry about not understanding much at first; even if you're not picking up vocabulary, you can still get a feel for pronunciation, tone, and other important elements of speech.

Written material is also highly useful, and easily available on the Internet. Yahoo and similar directories can point you to lists of periodicals from pretty much any country. Reading these, with or without a decent bilingual dictionary, is often quite useful for vocabulary building and facilitates the understanding of the common structures of the language and other important information. Cities with large immigrant communities will often have free newspapers in the community's language. Even instruction manuals can be useful (although many are poorly translated).

Music is also useful, even when just starting out. For one thing, it is invaluable as a pronunciation guide, as lyrics are generally available online or elsewhere. The key to using music is to find singers with relatively standard pronunciation and clear enunciation. Some suggested listening, arranged by language¹:

German

Die Toten Hosen

Herbert Grönemeyer

Die Ärzte

Rosenstolz

Spanish

Ricardo Arjona

El último de la fila

Victor Jara

Maná

Enanitos verdes

Italian

Laura Pausini

Lorenzo Jovanotti

Punkreas

Ligabue

Japanese

B'z

Mr. Children

SMAP

Kemuri

Zard

Russian

ДДТ

French

MC Solaar

NTM

Turkish

Grup Yorum

Yeni Türkü

Sertab Erener

Sebnem Ferah

Swedish

Lisa Nilsson

Finnish

Juice Leskinen

Learn to Analyse

Once you've begun to progress in your study of a language, and have at least a small vocabulary to fall back on, it's important to begin to use what you do know to help you figure out what you don't. There are a number of ways of going about this, and each has advantages and disadvantages. One common way of doing this - often unintentionally - is by reaching for the dictionary every time one encounters an unknown word or expression. This is generally not the best way; however, if a dictionary is to be used, it's important to make conscious use of the tool (assuming that you have a halfway decent dictionary, which is rarely the case). The first thing to do, when looking up words used in something you are reading is to look at the patterns that emerge: what is their relative placement in the sentence? A more advanced, and more useful version is to obtain the original and a translation of a given book (I often use the works of John Grisham or Stephen King), and read them side by side.

The side-by-side method² is generally much more useful than the dictionary hunt-and-peck method. While the dictionary will give you a literal translation (often at random) of the individual words and phrases you look up, it does not put them the needed context, nor does it always do the full job of translation. While this may be unproblematic in many cases (though almost never in the case of non-Indo-European languages), it leaves much to be desired when dealing with more articulate or idiomatic texts. Using two versions of the same work side by side does not eliminate this problem entirely (there is always the possibility of a mistranslation), but it certainly reduces it. Looking at two language versions of the same sentence side by side provides a wealth of information: structural and syntactical information (what goes where), vocabulary, as well as slang and idioms that dictionaries may not cover.

Diagramming can come in handy. As you begin to line up the elements of the original and translated sentence, start to put together a tree diagram of the structure of the sentence. Figure out what elements are grouped together. How are things categorised? Does specification go from general to specific or specific to general³? It helps, in this context, to have an awareness of one's own language (although this exercise often awakens that awareness). How are the overall patterns differing from what you're used to? This helps to understand the underlying thought processes, which is essential in order to achieve anything approaching fluency. Indeed, fluency might well be defined as the point in the language learning curve at which one stops thinking in translation, and instead is able to think directly in the target language.

Enjoy Yourself

Learning a foreign language can be deadly dull, particularly the way foreign languages are generally taught in schools and universities. Boredom can shorten the attention span and reduce the amount of information you actually successfully assimilate. Of course, there's no reason learning a foreign language has to be boring. No language is so narrow that it does not include interesting subject matter. Try to find resources that allow you to learn the aspects of the language that interest you. Try to dilute the boring necessaries such as general greetings and basic grammar by locating materials (slang dictionaries, specialised dictionaries and texts, etc.) that teach the sorts of things that you actually want to know how to say. The way to learn a language is not written in stone. There is no reason why one has to wait until "advanced" instruction to learn how to say "petition for review," "cardiomegaly," or "bugger off, you barmy sod!" The goal is to learn the language; part of that is making sure it holds your interest.

CONCLUSION

There is no "right way" to teach or learn a language. Certainly, however, there are those who claim otherwise. Berlitz, for example, requires all its language instructors to follow "the Berlitz Method(tm)." They are taught that all students will learn excellently by this method (speaking none of the student's native language during class, explaining all concepts in the foreign language, etc.), and that if they don't learn from The Method, there must be something wrong with them. No deviation from The Method is permitted. When you get to this point with any "method" or "philosophy," you're beyond the realm of science or education and are entering that of organised religion. A method is a tool - nothing more, nothing less. A tool is used if and when it appears to be the best way of getting the job done. You should no more trust a language instructor who says "this is the only method I use" than you would trust a carpenter who says "my philosophy is that there's no problem a hammer can't fix - now where're those windowpanes?" The "right" method is the method that results in you learning.

¹Suggested additions, are of course, welcome.

²Students of Japanese will profit from the convenience of the 対訳本　(taiyakubon), which puts the original and the translation of a given work on opposite pages. These most commonly cover the classics, but screenplays and more modern works are also available.

³NB: These are not the only two possibilities. Occasionally, some languages will start at an intermediate level of generality, and progress either to the next highest or next lowest level of specificity.

Introduction: The Translator's Task

Basic Propositions

The Thought Process
A lot of people assume that translation can be done by anyone with a dictionary, simply by looking each word up. Before continuing, let's pause to have a look at what results this "theory" of translation yields:

§3 Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch
Die Wirksamkeit eines Gesetzes und die daraus entspringenden rechtlichen Folgen nehmen gleich nach der Kundmachung ihren Anfang; es wäre denn, daß in dem kund gemachten Gesetze selbst der Zeitpunct seiner Wirksamkeit weiter hinaus bestimmt würde.
{note: unusual spellings in original are due to early 19th Century Austrian orthography}

Dictionary "Translation"

§3 General Bourgeois Lawbook
The effectiveness of a law and the from there jumping out legal consequences take equally after the announcement their beginning; it would be because that in the announced law itself the time point of his effectiveness further outward was determined.

Frighteningly, there are those of my colleagues who apparently subscribe to this "theory," and make my proofreading and editing work that much more exciting. Since we've got an example handy, I'll use that as the jumping-off point for my discussion of my own thought process in translating (and, I suspect, that of the majority of my colleagues who do not write gibberish).

The first question I ask is: What sort of text is this? This is essential, as the same word can have a multitude of meanings depending on the context (look up set or run sometime in the latest Random House Dictionary).

Among other things, Wirksamkeit can mean "effectiveness," "efficacy," "effect," "enforceability." It's worth noting that several of these possible meanings are possible even within the legal field alone. We speak of an enforceable contract as wirksam. Die Wirksamkeit einer Erklärung, however, does not refer to the enforceability of a declaration; it refers to the effectiveness of a declaration, notice, etc. (e.g. a notice of termination). When a statute provides "Dieses Gesetz wird am Tage nach seiner Verkündung wirksam," however, we are referring to the law "taking effect," on its "effective date."

Here, we are dealing with a statute, namely the Austrian General Civil Code. This knowledge will shade my interpretation of every word and phrase in the text. For example, the dictionary "translation" above translated bürgerlich as "bourgeois." This is not, strictly speaking, incorrect. If we were translating a sociological, historical, or Marxist text, this would most likely be the rendering of choice. In a legal text, however, bürgerlich means "civil."

Having determined what sort of text I'm translating, my next step is to read the text. This may seem obvious, but it's easy to skim over things and miss words like "not," "which," "and," or "or," which can change everything:

Example: Come out with your hands up and we'll shoot!

So careful reading of the text is essential. It also allows the translator to begin to get a preliminary grasp on what the text is saying and begin to start dealing with the actual translation. I also begin making mental notes and asking questions - are there any words that are unclear? Any strange grammatical constructions? Any stylistic peculiarities? If I find any, I write them down, and either look them up or ask someone else who might know. Once I've gotten a handle on the original, I start thinking about the actual translation.

With this text, which is written in the style and orthography of 19th Century Austrian legal texts, one of my first considerations will be style. Should the style of the era be reflected in the translation? Unless I'm translating the text for incorporation in a literary or other similar work, the answer will most likely be no. If I'm translating something like this, it's usually so that 21st CenturyEnglish-speaking lawyers will be able to understand what 21st Century Austrian lawyers are trying to say. There's no need to complicate things unnecessarily just because it might be fun to try my hand at period English.

Having disposed of that consideration, I will next start the actual translating process. Ultimately, it will come out something like:

§3 General Civil Code
Statutes, and any legal consequences arising from their operation, shall take effect immediately after their promulgation, unless the promulgated statute provides for a later effective date.

In translating this statute, one of the first problems is "die daraus entspringenden rechtlichen Folgen". Daraus is a da-compound, in which a preposition is applied to a pronoun representing some antecedent. Antecedents are important. While it would not make terribly much difference here whether the legal consequences (rechtliche Folgen) arose (entspringend) from the statute (Gesetz) or its operation (Wirksamkeit, in a dual role), sometimes it does. At any rate, making sure that daraus refers back to the correct antecedent is essential to a correct translation. Given the subject of the original (Die Wirksamkeit, the effect or operation) and the location of the clause (directly following Die Wirksamkeit eines Gesetzes, the effect of a statute), it appears clear that the legal consequences are arising out of "the operation of a statute."

The next thing is the use of the present tense. German-language legislative drafting generally uses present tense when English drafting would not. Here, for example, "Die Wirksamkeit...und die...Folgen...nehmen... ihren Anfang." This is a prospective, mandatory statement. § 3 of the General Civil Code mandates that they take effect immediately after promulgation. Thus, in English, I render this with "shall," the buzzword for mandatory provisions. The same thing would apply if I were translating from English to German. In German, the future tense "shall/will" would seem strange, given that it has more of a predictive feel to it. It is just this sort of consideration that makes dictionaries at best a starting point in translation, and not always a very good one.

This also explains why many translations are much longer or shorter than the original text. For example, the original here is 39 words long, and the translation only 30. Often, one language needs fewer words to get across the same idea.

The Scope of Translation and "Untranslatables"

Translation has limits. Translation is most useful, and most precise, when the source and target languages are closely related or have a certain degree of parity of expression, by which I mean that the idiomatic expressions and grammatical constructions of the two languages closely parallel each other. The less two languages have in common, the more risk there is that important things won't make it across the language barrier. A Spanish-Portuguese translation will likely emerge virtually unscathed; a Japanese-Italian translation, on the other hand, might not fare so well. Much as "hard cases make bad law," "hard texts make bad translations."

Another issue that can often throw a big spanner into the works is that of words that are specific to a particular country, culture, region, group, etc., or have strong cultural connotations.These words are often the ones described as "untranslatable." For example, in Japanese, tatami (畳） refers to the ubiquitous floor mats used as carpeting in Japanese homes. English has no word of its own that readily brings to mind the image of tatami, much less the important cultural connotations. There is an expression: Tatami no ue de shinu (畳の上で死ぬ　－to die on tatami). Its meaning goes well beyond the plain language, however. Tatami here is a metaphor for the comforts of a Japanese home, and the image of "dying on tatami" refers to the desire to die in one's homeland.

Similarly, many languages have features that do not exist in other languages. These features often provide a great deal of meaning. Pronouns are a case in point. Many Indo-European languages have pronouns not present in English, e.g. du/Sie (German), tú/vos/usted (Spanish), tu/vous (French), du/De (Norwegian/Danish), to/shomâ (Farsi), tum/aap (Hindi/Urdu), or anata/kimi/ anta /omae/ kisama/ ware/ temee/ sochira (Japanese, not Indo-European, but still a good example). Each of these pronouns means "you;" however, each has its own particular connotation, and gives a great deal of information about such things as context, respect of the speaker for the interlocutor, degree of intimacy, etc. The connotations of these words are not easily reproduced in English, and can reasonably be called "untranslatable" due to the vast amount of lexicalinformation that is lost.

Willst du `ne Tasse Kaffee (German)
¿Le apetece un café?(Spanish)
てめえ、コーヒー飲みてえか？(Temee, koohii nomitee ka?) (Japanese)

The meaning of these sentences is, superficially, the same: Do you want coffee? However, each sentence in the original tells us a great deal about the terms of the relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor.

The German sentence uses the familiar du and abbreviates eine to `ne. This tells us, without more, that the speaker is on friendly, or at least familiar, terms with the interlocutor, that they are related, of the same age, or have known each other long time. German summarises all of these concepts by saying that they are per Du.

The Spanish sentence uses the formal usted (a contraction of vuestra merced, "Your Mercy"). This tells us that the speaker may wish to show the interlocutor particular respect, is a business associate or other non-social acquaintance, is a subordinate of the interlocutor, or is from the Antioquía, where usted is used more broadly than in the rest of the Spanish speaking world.

The Japanese sentence tells us even more. Firstly, we can tell that the speaker is probably yakuza, or a similar underworld type. Moreover, the speaker obviously holds his (this speech pattern is almost exclusively used by men) interlocutor in contempt. Calling someone temee is the pronominal equivalent of hacking phlegm in the interlocutor's face. This is confirmed by the nomitee ka (drink-volitional interrogatory), which is the plainest possible form for this question.

None of this information can adequately be expressed in an English translation without completely obliterating the original text

The Translator's Task

What, in light of all the limitations and concerns I've described above, is the translator's job? This is a subject of considerable debate, to which I hope to contribute the following.

I see the translator's job as being similar to that of a judge. There is a clear analogy to be drawn between statutory construction and translation. Unlike an author or a legislator, who is writing on the tabula rasa, the translator, like a judge, is not expressing her own ideas. Instead, the first task of translators and judges is to figure out exactly what the author (legislature) meant. The question is not what the author should have said. Nor is it the translator's job to modify the content of the original.

I once got into a debate with a professor of mine over the translation of the dedication of a book by an editor. The editor expressed his Ehrfurcht of the addressees of the dedication. Ehrfurcht means awe. However, my professor was of the opinion that this should be rendered as "respect," because "an American editor would never admit to being in 'awe' of anyone." In other words, the translator should attempt to reformulate the content of the original author's words in order to fit what a similarly situated person in the country in which the target language is spoken would say. I believe this leaves far too much discretion to translators. A rule o thumb such as this is useful when no adequate rendering of the original word is available. However, where there is an accurate translation of a word or expression, a translator should not substitute her judgment for that of the author. If the author had meant "respect," the author knows how to say Hochachtung. If the author says "awe," then we say "awe."

While I firmly believe that the best translations come from texts that leave little or no discretion to the translator, most texts do not fit this category. When terms are ambiguous or translations are unclear, the translator must, of necessity, use some discretion. There, it is perfectly appropriate to think in terms of how a native speaker of the target language would express a concept. The translation must not seem translated. If a literal translation of the plain language of the original leaves an awkward, odd-sounding text that does not ring true to native ears, then the translator can and should be creative.

However, once creativity comes into play, the translator must be even more vigilant than before. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is someone else's work that we are construing. Thus, in the exercise of our creative impulses we must be guided by the intentions of the author, to the extent that they can be discerned (of course, it's even better when the author can be asked directly; unfortunately, this is rarely the case). Here, again, the analogy to the task of a judge holds. The author is, presumably, the expert on what the author meant. Thus, we must defer to the author in all cases, unless the author's writing makes it impossible to discern the intended meaning (or, as occasionally happens, the author's writing is lousy).

Note, however, that I'm not saying that the content of the author's thoughts should be changed simply for lack of a decent equivalent in the target language. Rather, we must use the tools available to us in the target language to figure out how best to make clear the author's intent, real or assumed, in our translation. If the thought is total gibberish, it is our job to create equivalent gibberish, faithful to the original, in the target language. The quality of the thoughts is not our concern.

Similar concerns arise when translating legal documents. There, the problem is often that a particular legal concept exists in the country of the author, but does not exist in the country of the target language. Here, what is called for is not so much translation as explanation. Sometimes this can be done quite inobtrusively, by "translating" the concept with a phrase that describes roughly what is meant. For example, if I were required to translate "Rule Against Perpetuities," a concept that few non-common law systems have been masochistic enough to adopt, into Russian, I would not translate it literally into the (unintelligible) "Правило против вечностьей" (Pravilo protiv vjechnostjej). Instead, I would render it "Запрет временно неограниченных косвенных прав на имущество" ("Zaprjet vremjonno neogranichonnyx kosvjennyx prav na imushchestvo) or the prohibition of temporally unlimited contingent interests in property," since this, as far as anyone has been able to tell, is what the RAP is all about. Failing all else, I'll simply put in a footnote with the prefix "Trans. Note:". Contrary to what some believe, the use of explanatory notes does not necessarily denote a bad translation. However, they should be used rarely, and as a last resort.