Cover not available
Article published In:
Between specialised texts and institutional contexts – competence and choice in legal translation
Edited by Valérie Dullion
[Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3:1] 2017
► pp. 64–80

Studying the curricular objectives by Q-methodology

 | School of Foreign Languages, China University of Political Science and Law
Translation competence is the ability to comprehend the source of oral or written text accurately in the same way the producer intends to deliver the message, and then accurately, and in the proper style, re-express the meanings in the target language. Legal translation competence is the ability to translate faithfully in the legal context. Analyzing the concept of legal translation competence helps to identify curricular objectives and curriculum designs for training legal translation professionals. This paper examines key teaching objectives of training legal translators in Chinese context, by using the Q-methodology.
Keywords: legal translation competence, curricular objectives, Q-methodology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical construction of legal translation competence
    • 2.1Linguistic competence
    • 2.2Translation competence
    • 2.3Legal translation competence
  • 3.Research process: The Q-methodology
    • 3.1Research objectives
    • 3.2Concourse collecting and organizing
    • 3.3Q-Sorting
    • 3.4Data analysis and findings
  • 4.Professional idealism: Curricular suggestions
    • 4.1Enculturation and acculturation
    • 4.2Curricular objectives
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 1 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.1.05gao
References (33)
References
Alcaraz, Enrique, Brian Hughes, and Anthony Pym. 2014. Legal Translation Explained. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benmaman, Virginia. 1989. “Towards Standardization of Legal Terminology: The Search for Appropriate Linguistic/Conceptual Equivalents.” In Proceedings of the Northeast Conference on Legal Interpretation and Translation, ed. by Adalberto Aguirre, 75–81. Jersey City: Consortium on Legal Interpretation & Translation.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession.” The Modern Language Journal 76 (4), 445–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biel, Łucja. 2011. “Professional Realism in the Legal Translation Classroom: Translation Competence and Translator Competence.” Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (1), 162–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Benjamin S., Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
Brown, Steven R.. 1993. “A Primer on Q-methodology.” Operant Subjectivity 16 (3/4): 91–138.Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin. 2001. “Speaking.” In The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages, ed. by Nunan, David, and Ronald Carter Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jongh, Elena M.. 1992. An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory & Practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Du, Jinbang, Fu Zhang, and Liang Yuan. 2004. “Translation of Chinese Law: Problems and Solutions.” Chinese Translators Journal 25 (3): 72–76.Google Scholar
EMT expert group. 2009. “Competences for Professional Translators, Experts in Multilingual and Multimedia Communication.” [URL]
Exel, Job Van, and Gjalt de Graaf. 2005. Q-methodology: A Sneak Preview. [URL]
Gao, Lianhong. 2013. “The Transfer of the Foreign Language Curricular Goals and the Implications for ELP Curricular Development.” International Journal of Legal English 1 (1): 104–121.Google Scholar
Geeroms, Sofie M.. 2002. “Comparative Law and Legal Translation: Why the Terms Cassation, Revision and Appeal Should Not Be Translated.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 50 (1): 201–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Diana. 2005. A Handbook for Translator Trainers. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Khoshgooyanfard, Alireza. 2011. “How People Think about a TV Program: A Q-methodology Approach.” The Qualitative Report 16 (2): 482–493. [URL]
Krathwohl, David R.. 2002. “A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview.” Theory into Practice 41 (4): 212–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Defeng, and Mu Hu. 2006. “Research on Legal Translation: Achievements and Future Research.” Chinese Science and Technology Translators Journal 19 (3): 47–51.Google Scholar
Liu, Liguang. 2014. “Categorizing College Students by Academic Attitudes: An Application of Q-Methodology Approach.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Education and Management, ed. by Mohamed A. Seedat, 237–243. Lancaster, PA: DEStech Publications.Google Scholar
Luebke, Stephen, and James Lorié. 2013. “Use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Developing Reading Comprehension Specifications.” Journal of Applied Testing Technology 14 (1): 1–27. [URL]
Marinetti, Cristina. 2008. “Review of Translating Law by Deborah Cao (2007).” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15 (1): 121–125.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht. 2000. “Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation.” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schäffner, and Beverly Adab, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. DOI logoGoogle 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
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2009. “Interdisciplinariedad y ubicación macrotextual en traducción jurídica.” Translation Journal 13 (4). [URL]
. 2011. “Developing Legal Translation Competence: An Integrative Process-Oriented Approach.” Comparative Legilinguistics – International Journal for Legal Communication 51: 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šarčević, Susan. 1994. “Translation and the Law: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” In Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pochhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 301–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Stolze, Radegundis. 2013. “The Legal Translator’s Approach to Texts.” Humanities 21: 56–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court Task Force on Interpreter & Translator Services. 1984. Background Report 21: Interpreting and Translating as Professions. Trenton, NJ: Court Interpreting, Legal Translating & Bilingual Services Section, Administrative Office of the Courts.Google Scholar
Tao, Youlan. 2013. On the Making of Translation Textbooks for Translation Majors in China: Theoretical Construction and Suggested Solutions. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Shuhuai. 2013. On Translation Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar