Cover not available
Article published In:
Legal and institutional translation: Functions, processes, competences
Edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos
[Target 33:2] 2021
► pp. 183–206

Legal meta-comments in the think-aloud protocols of legal translators and lawyers

A qualitative analysis

ORCID logo | University of Geneva
In order to ensure successful subprocesses within the overall legal translation process, a correct and comprehensive understanding of the source text is crucial. Legal translators must be able to grasp all the legal, linguistic, communicative, and situational dimensions of the text. The focus of this study is on the cognitive processes involved in the first reading phase of the legal translation process and, in particular, on the question of whether legal translators and lawyers have different text reception processes. By analysing the think-aloud protocols recorded in a mixed-methods study, legal meta-comments (LMCs) from translators and lawyers are examined and compared. The results suggest that the two groups approach the text from different angles, which leads to some suggestions for further developing the training of legal translators.
Keywords: legal translation, legal translation studies, think-aloud protocols, translation process research, cognitive translation studies, translator training
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Legal translation: Competence – process – training
  • 3.Experimental design and material
  • 4.Results from the analysis of the TAPs
    • 4.1Legal meta-comments (LMCs)
    • 4.2Frequency and distribution of LMCs in the participant groups
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions and suggestions for legal translation training
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21038.gri
References (54)
References
Bestué, Carmen. 2019. “A Matter of Justice: Integrating Comparative Law Methods into the Decision‑Making Process in Legal Translation.” In Research Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting: Crossing Methodological Boundaries, edited by Łucja Biel, Jan Engberg, Rosario Martín Ruano, and Vilelmini Sosoni, 130–147. Law, Language and Communication. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borja Albi, Anabel, and Fernando Prieto Ramos, eds. 2013. Legal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects. New Trends in Translation Studies 4. New York: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. 2016. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner, eds. 2014. The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Law, Language and Communication. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Dancette, Jeanette. 1997. “Mapping Meaning and Comprehension in Translation: Theoretical and Experimental Issues.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, edited by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 77–103. London: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Dullion, Valérie. 2014a. “Droit comparé pour traducteurs: de la théorie à la didactique de la traduction juridique [Comparative law for translators: from theory to didatics of legal translation].” In Legal Translation and Jurilinguistics: Globalizing Disciplines. Retrospects and Prospects, edited by Anne Wagner and Jean-Claude Gémar, special issue of International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 28 (1): 91–106.Google Scholar
. 2014b. “Traduire les textes juridiques dans un contexte de plurilinguisme officiel: quelle formation pour quelles compétences spécifiques [Translating legal texts in a context of official multilingualism: Different types of training to develop specific competences]?” In Translation and Official Multilingualism, edited by Gillian Lane-Mercier, Denise Merkle, and Reine Meylaerts, special issue of Meta 59 (3): 636–653.Google Scholar
, ed. 2017. Between Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts – Competence and Choice in Legal Translation, special issue of Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (1).Google Scholar
EMT Expert Group. 2017. “European Master’s in Translation: Competence Framework 2017.” [URL]
Engberg, Jan. 2009. “Individual Conceptual Structure and Legal Experts’ Efficient Communication.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 22 (2): 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Comparative Law for Translation: The Key to Successful Mediation between Legal Systems.” In Legal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects, edited by Anabel Borja Albi and Fernando Prieto Ramos, 9–25. New Trends in Translation Studies 4. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ericsson, Karl Anders, and Herbert Alexander Simon. 1993 [1984]. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Rev. ed. 7. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Dorrit, and Mette Hjort-Pedersen. 2013. “Expectancy and Professional Norms in Legal Translation: A Study of Explicitation and Implicitation Preferences.” Fachsprache: International Journal of Specialized Communication 35 (1–2): 42–62.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Rev. ed. Benjamins Translation Library 8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung: Stand – Methoden – Perspektiven [Translation process research: state of the art – methods – prospects]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitta Jääskeläinen. 2009. “Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence: Where Are We, and Where Do We Need to Go?” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 169–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grass, Thierry. 2000. “Structures comparées des arrêts de la cour de cassation et de la Cour fédérale de justice allemande (Bundesgerichtshof) [Structural comparison of judgments of the French Court of Cassation and the German Federal Court of Justice].” In Hermetik und Manipulation in den Fachsprachen [Hermeticism and manipulation in languages for special purpose], edited by Klaus Morgenroth, 245–260. Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung 55. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Rechtstexte unter der Lupe: Lesen Übersetzer anders als Juristen? Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rezeption von Textstrukturmarkern in der institutionalisierten Textsorte des französischen Kassationsgerichtsurteils [Legal texts under the magnifying glass: Do translators read texts through a different lens than lawyers? Empirical investigation of the reception of discourse markers in the judgments of the French Cour De Cassation as an institutionalised text genre].” In Legal Translation: Current Issues and Challenges in Research, Methods and Applications, edited by Ingrid Simonnaes and Marita Kristiansen, 221–442. Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung 149. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, and Sambor Grucza, eds. 2016. Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 2. Berlin: Language Science Press. [URL]
Hansen, Gyde. 2006. Erfolgreich Übersetzen: Entdecken und beheben von Störquellen [Translating successfully: Identifying and remedying interferences]. Translations-wissenschaft 3. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, and Dorrit Faber. 2010. “Explicitation and Implicitation in Legal Translation – A Process Study of Trainee Translators.” Meta 55 (2): 237–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Uncertainty in the Cognitive Processing of a Legal Scenario: A Process Study of Student Translators.” HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business (42): 189–209.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, and Joost van de Weijer. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G., and Paul Kußmaul. 2006. “Einblicke in mentale Prozesse beim Übersetzen [Insights into mental processes during translation].” In Handbuch Translation [Translation Studies Manual], 2nd ed., edited by Mary Snell-Hornby, Hans G. Hönig, Paul Kußmaul, and Peter A. Schmidt, 170–178. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T., and Barbara Dragsted. 2018. “Genre Familiarity and Translation Processing: Differences and Similarities Between Literary and LSP Translators.” In Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research, edited by Isabel Lacruz and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 55–76. American Translators Association scholarly monograph (ATA). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2015. Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services 01.020, no. 17100:2015(E). Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2003. “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision, and Segmentation.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, edited by Fabio Alves, 69–95. Benjamins Translation Library 45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, Donald C. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Translation Studies 3. Kent: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Krogsgaard Vesterager, Anja. 2017. “Explicitation in Legal Translation: A Study of Spanish-into-Danish Translation of Judgments.” In Quality in Legal Translation, edited by Hendrik J. Kockaert and Nadia Rahab, special issue of JosTrans 271 (January 2017): 104–123.Google Scholar
Kuckartz, Udo. 2016. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practical issues, and computer support]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. 2018. Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. American Translators Association scholarly monograph (ATA). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monjean-Decaudin, Sylvie, and Joëlle Popineau-Lauvray. 2019. “How to Apply Comparative Law to Legal Translation: A New Juritraductological Approach to the Translation of Legal Texts.” In Research Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting: Crossing Methodological Boundaries, edited by Łucja Biel, Jan Engberg, M. Rosario Martín Ruano, and Vilelmini Sosoni, 115–129. Law, Language and Communication. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, Laura, ed. 2018. Observing Eurolects: Corpus Analysis of Linguistic Variation in EU Law. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Celia Martín de Leon. 2018. “Fascinatin’ Rhythm – and Pauses in Translators’ Cognitive Processes.” HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 571: 29–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orlando, Daniele. 2016. The Trials of Legal Translation Competence: Triangulating Processes and Products of Translators vs. Lawyers. PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Trieste. [URL]
PACTE. 2003. “Building a Translation Competence Model.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, edited by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Benjamins Translation Library 45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Zum Wesen der Übersetzungskompetenz – Grundlagen für die experimentelle Validierung eines Ük-Modells [On the nature of translation competence – Foundations for the experimental validation of a translation competence model].” In Quo vadis Translatologie? Ein halbes Jahrhundert universitäre Ausbildung von Dolmetschern und Übersetzern in Leipzig; Rückschau, Zwischenbilanz und Perspektive aus der Außensicht [Quo vadis Translation Studies? Half century of academic training for interpreters and translators at Leipzig; an external view on the past, interim results and prospects], edited by Gerd Wotjak, 327–342. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Piecychna, Beata. 2013. “Legal Translation Competence in the Light of Translational Hermeneutics.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 34 (1): 141–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pommer, Sieglinde. 2006. Rechtsübersetzung und Rechtsvergleichung: Translatologische Fragen zur Interdisziplinarität [Legal translation and comparative law: Aspects of interdisciplinarity from a translational perspective]. Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 21, Linguistik 290. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pontrandolfo, Gianluca. 2017. “La revisión de traducciones jurídicas y la evaluación de su calidad en el ámbito profesional: Un estudio empírico [Revision of legal translation and quality evaluation in the professional context: An empirical study].” In Dullion 2017, 114–144. 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.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Parameters for Problem-Solving in Legal Translation: Implications for Legal Lexicography and Institutional Terminology Management.” In The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, edited by Le Cheng, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner, 121–134. Law, Language and Communication. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz: Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit [Translation competence: Cognitive principles of translation as an expert activity]. Studien zur Translation Bd. 5. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Šarčević, Susan. 2012. “Challenges to the Legal Translator.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, edited by Peter M. Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan, 187–199. New York: Oxford University Press. [URL]
Scarpa, Federica, and Daniele Orlando. 2017. “What it Takes to Do It Right: An Integrative EMT-Based Model for Legal Translation Competence.” JoSTrans (27): 21–42.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Jean Nitzke, Anke Tardel, Katharina Oster, Silke Gutermuth, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2019. “Eye-Tracking Revision Processes of Translation Students and Professional Translators.” Perspectives 27 (4): 589–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonnæs, Ingrid. 2012. Rechtskommunikation national und international im Spannungsfeld von Hermeneutik, Kognition und Pragmatik [National and international legal communication between hermeneutics, cognition, and pragmatics]. Forum für Fachsprachenforschung 103. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Legal Translation and ‘Traditional’ Comparative Law – Similarities and Differences.” In Research Models and Methods in Legal Translation, edited by Łucja Biel and Jan Engberg, special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia 121: 147–160.Google Scholar
Simonnaes, Ingrid, and Marita Kristiansen, eds. 2019. Legal Translation: Current Issues and Challenges in Research, Methods and Applications. Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung 149. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Sun, Sanjun. 2011. “Think-Aloud-Based Translation Process Research: Some Methodological Considerations.” Meta 56 (4): 928–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Biel, Łucja
2022. Translating Legal Texts. In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo
Griebel, Cornelia & Katrin Zuschlag
2022. IPDR 2.0 statt „Ich finde, das klingt besser“. In Re-Thinking Translator Education [Sprachen lehren – Sprachen lernen, ], ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.