Cover not available
Part of
Instrumentalising Foreign Language Pedagogy in Translator and Interpreter Training: Methods, goals and perspectives
Edited by Olaf Immanuel Seel, Silvia Roiss and Petra Zimmermann-González
[Benjamins Translation Library 161] 2023
► pp. 156–176

Chapter 9
Teaching contrastive legal grammar for translators

| Palacký University Olomouc , Czech Republic
This chapter instrumentalises an area of foreign language teaching that is often neglected in translation programmes’ curricula, namely the contrastive grammar of specialised languages. More specifically, this chapter addresses the incorporation of the contrastive grammar of legal English and Czech into an English grammar classroom. First, the rationale behind such an approach is presented with reference to the existing legal translation competence models and curricular design. Second, a number of linguistic phenomena encountered in English legal texts, and possibly neglected in English language classes for translators, are discussed from a socio-constructivist training perspective, and a series of exercises is presented that may be used, or adapted for use, by the instructors of such courses to help them cover these specific aspects of English grammar.
Keywords: foreign language teaching for translators, legal English, legal translator training, contrastive grammar, legal translation competence, communicative sub-competence, legal grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Knowledge of legal grammar as part of legal translation competence
  • 3.Teaching considerations
  • 4.Classroom procedures
    • 4.1Reported speech
    • 4.2Subjunctive
    • 4.3Relative clauses
    • 4.4Conditionals
    • 4.5Modality
    • 4.6Locative Subjects
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 1 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.161.09kla
References (34)
References
Bázlik, Miroslav, and Patrik Ambrus. 2008. A Grammar of Legal English. Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer, Iura Edition.Google Scholar
Bázlik, Miroslav, and Ada Böhmerová. 2019. Legal English and Its Lexical and Grammatical Structure for Czech Lawyers and Translators. 2nd ed. Prague: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Biel, Łucja. 2017. “Enhancing the Communicative Dimension of Legal Translation: Comparable Corpora in the Research-Informed Classroom.” Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 11 (4): 316–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brůhová, Gabriela, and Markéta Malá. 2017. “On English Locative Subjects.” Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philologica 1: 19–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butzkamm, Wolfgang, and John A. W. Caldwell. 2007. The Bilingual Reform: A Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language Teaching. Tübingen: Narr Studienbücher.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, Guy. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duběda, Tomáš, David Mraček, and Vanda Obdržálková. 2018. Překlad do nemateřského jazyka [Translation into L2]. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Dušková, Libuše. 2012. Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny [Grammar of Present-day English Compared with Czech]. 4th ed. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Genovich, Laura. 2021. LinkedIn Post on commas. [URL]
González-Davies, María. 2004. Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on Legal English: Aspects Past and Present of the Language of the Law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
. 2012. “The Grammar and Structure of Legal Texts.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, ed. by Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma, 39–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Bernard S. 1995. Making Sense in Law. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications (reprinted 1997).Google Scholar
Kerr, Philip. 2014. Translation and Own-language Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiraly, Don. 2010. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Klabal, Ondřej. 2017. “Quality Assurance in Translating National Legislation: The Case of Czech Companies and Cooperatives Act.” Czech and Slovak Linguistic Review 1–2: 87–104.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Shall We Teach Shall: An Attempt at a Systematic Step-By-Step Approach.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 53 (66): 119–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koba, Jacek. 2002. Tip of the Week or a Wry Look at Improving the Use of Written English in One Polish Firm. Warsaw: Altravox Press.Google Scholar
Krois-Lindner, Amy. 2006. International Legal English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ličko, Roman. 2014. Translation into English as a Foreign Language: A Slovak Survey. Banská Bystrica: Belianum.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Piecychna, Beata. 2013. “Legal Translation Competence in the Light of Translational Hermeneutics.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 34 (47): 141–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2011. “Developing Legal Translation Competence: An Integrative Process-Oriented Approach.” Comparative Legilinguistics: International Journal for Legal Communication 5: 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Quality Assurance in Legal Translation: Evaluating Process, Competence and Product in the Pursuit of Adequacy.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 28 (1): 11–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riley, Alison, and Patricia Sours. 2014. Common Law Legal English and Grammar: A Contextual Approach. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Scarpa, Federica, and Daniele Orlando. 2017. “What It Takes to Do It Right: An Integrative EMT-based Model for Legal Translation Competence.” Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 21–42.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 2007. “Language and computing, past and present.” In: Evidence-based LSP. Translation, Text and Terminology, ed. by Khurshid Ahmad and Margaret Rogers, 21–52. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Soriano-Barabino, Guadalupe. 2016. Comparative Law for Legal Translators. Oxford: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. Haag: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English Usage. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy, Sonia Vandepitte, and Marc Van de Velde. 2007. “Introduction: A Linguistic ‘Re-Turn’ in Translation Studies?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21: 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram. 1982. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar