Article published in:
Legal and institutional translation: Functions, processes, competences
Edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos
[Target 33:2] 2021
► pp. 183206
References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borja Albi, Anabel, and Fernando Prieto Ramos
eds. 2013Legal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects. New Trends in Translation Studies 4. New York: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer
eds. 2016New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner
eds. 2014The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Law, Language and Communication. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark
2011Designing 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. 2017Between 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
Engberg, Jan
2009 “Individual Conceptual Structure and Legal Experts’ Efficient Communication.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 22 (2): 223–243. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Rev. ed. Benjamins Translation Library 8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2008Translationsprozessforschung: 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
Griebel, Cornelia
2017 “Fuzzy Concepts in Translators’ Mind: A Cognitive-Translational Approach to Tackling the Difficulties of Legal Translation.” In Dullion 2017, 97–113. CrossrefGoogle 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
2020 “ ‘Article 1103: oh pff… yes―then concerns… the… um… unilateral contract…’ What Do Hesitation and Repair Markers Tell Us About Text Reception Patterns of Translators and Lawyers?Translation, Cognition and Behaviour 3 (1): 51–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, and Sambor Grucza
eds. 2016Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 2. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://​langsci​-press​.org/​/catalog​/book​/108
Hansen, Gyde
2006Erfolgreich 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
2011Eye 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
2015Translation 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, Donald C.
1995Pathways 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 27 (January 2017): 104–123.Google Scholar
Kuckartz, Udo
2016Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practical issues, and computer support]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, and Riitta Jääskeläinen
eds. 2018Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. American Translators Association scholarly monograph (ATA). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mori, Laura
ed. 2018Observing Eurolects: Corpus Analysis of Linguistic Variation in EU Law. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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, 57: 29–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orlando, Daniele
2016The Trials of Legal Translation Competence: Triangulating Processes and Products of Translators vs. Lawyers. PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Trieste. https://​arts​.units​.it​/retrieve​/handle​/11368​/2908045​/187217​/ORLANDO​_PhD​_Thesis​.pdf
2017 “Calling Translation to the Bar: A Comparative Analysis of the Translation Errors Made by Translators and Lawyers.” In Dullion 2017, 81–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pommer, Sieglinde
2006Rechtsübersetzung 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
1998Translatorische 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. http://​www​.oxfordhandbooks​.com​/view​/10​.1093​/oxfordhb​/9780199572120​.001​.0001​/oxfordhb​-9780199572120​-e​-14
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simonnæs, Ingrid
2012Rechtskommunikation 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 12: 147–160.Google Scholar
Simonnaes, Ingrid, and Marita Kristiansen
eds. 2019Legal 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar