1.Introduction

As time has passed translator training has progressed considerably to include Translator Competence (TC) models whilst trying to keep pace with constant technological innovations. Prior training in translation classes for research, terminology and IT skills, more often than not, has been geared towards general, scientific or technical translation where the terms, concepts or objects are more often related by unequivocal relations. In legal translation, however, the similarity between concepts (and hence terms) is frequently only superficial. Legal terminology courses available today offer various approaches on legal language and legalese, Comparative Law, legal professions and then various fields of law (Family Law, Criminal Law, etc.). In this chapter we will describe an approach that has been tested in the context of undergraduate and postgraduate, introductory and advanced, legal translation courses (Spanish-English), with between approximately 120–180 students per year, at the University of Granada. The different activities proposed have been gradually incorporated into the training since the mid-nineties, culminating in the latest version of the rubric presented. This approach attempts to dismantle some of the trainees’ prior perceptions about terminology as purely word-for-word equivalents and reconstruct the framework for an approach to terminology for legal translation purposes or legal “translation-oriented terminology” (Thelen 2015, 352–357). Furthermore, we contend that the scaffolded approach (Way 2014) to terminology training for legal translation will cultivate their ability to identify and solve terminological problems by encouraging them to become autonomous learners and by preparing them for lifelong learning.

Terminology and conceptual incongruency between legal systems and cultures has, without a shadow of a doubt, vexed legal translators since time immemorial. As Katan (2011) reminds us, “[a]lthough translation has been practiced for millennia (Chesterman, and Wagner 2002; Palumbo 2009, 1), and is possibly the “second oldest profession” (Baer and Koby 2003, viii), “the academicization” (Baker 2011, xiv) of the practice only began within living memory.” Prieto Ramos (2014a, 268–271) has described the evolution of Legal Translation Studies (LTS) from its initial stage (from late 1970) when it began to transition away from more traditional linguistic approaches towards more specific issues for translators embodied in more complex explanatory models and frames, to the catalytic stage (mid-1990s and the mid-2000s) where terminological equivalence took the centre stage (Šarćevič 1997), in a shift towards more communicative and functional approaches, leading to the current period of consolidation and expansion we are enjoying today, concurrent with an explosion of technical tools and interdisciplinary approaches.11.For an excellent overview of current research trends see Biel et al. (2019). Whilst Bowker (2020, 262) reminds us that university programmes dedicated solely to terminology are rare, terminology, as a vital tool, was rapidly welcomed into translation programmes. It was during the late 1980s and early 1990s that the design of new translator training programmes incorporated research, IT skills and terminology training into their undergraduate programmes. As early as 1991 the University of Granada held a two-day Colloquium on teaching terminology (Gallardo, and Sánchez 1992) where the content of the new terminology module was debated with Heribert Picht (Arntz, and Picht 1995), Teresa Cabré (1998) and other leading figures in the field of terminology who shared their ideas.22. Coloquio Iberoamericano sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología [Iberoamerican Conference on Teaching Terminology], EUTI – School of Translating and Interpreting, University of Granada. 24–26 June, 1991. As Thelen (2012, 360) indicates “[t]oday, the teaching of terminology and practical terminology work are a constituent component of virtually every course of studies in the translation, interpreting or technical writing sectors”, which is reiterated by Bowker (2020, 262).

It soon became apparent, however, that Terminology, taught as an academic discipline, was not necessarily complying with the needs of translator trainees as the divide between “terminology proper” and “terminology for translators” unfolded, as we shall see below. Furthermore, the tendency to train translator trainees in mainly scientific and technical terminology, which has traditionally been conceived as providing clear cut, unequivocal relations for concepts and terms, has marginalized legal terminology.

The International Elecrotechnical Commission, in their discussion of the role of terminology in scientific and technical communication,33. https://​www​.iec​.ch​/standardsdev​/resources​/terminology/. reiterate the fact that “While one might hope that terms, concepts, and objects are related by unequivocal relations, this is generally, and unfortunately, not the case.” Furthermore, ISO 1087 (2019, 6) in its provision of basic vocabulary for the theory and application of terminology work defines terminology as a “representation of a concept by an expression that describes it and differentiates it from related concepts” and considers concepts to be “units of knowledge”. It is vital then, as suggested by Hempel (1966, 275), to learn “to distinguish between concepts […] and the corresponding terms  , the verbal or symbolic expressions that stand for those concepts”, and to understand that terminology is not necessarily limited to lone words. We cannot forget either that, as suggested by Goźdź-Roszkowski, and Pontrandolfo (2017, 3–4), “[l]egal phraseology also plays a pivotal role in legal translation”; in fact, they consider it to be one of the most problematic challenges for legal translators as “legal translation is not only a question of terminology” (Goźdź-Roszkowski, and Pontrandolfo 2017, 4). They also remind us that “[t]here is a strand of research which focuses on multi-word terms and collocations where at least one lexeme is a term” (Goźdź-Roszkowski, and Pontrandolfo 2017, 3). Kjær (2007, 509–510) provides examples in German of six sub-groups of phrasemes (English examples given here): (1) Multi-word-terms (mainly Adjective + Noun in stable combinations) for example true threat, (2) Latin multi-word-terms, for example ex parte, (3) Collocations (Noun + Verb) conclude a contract, (4) What Kjær calls Funktionsverbgefüge or a semantically significant noun and a semantically empty verb in German, which in English would be a semantically empty verb and a semantically significant noun such as give consideration to, (5) Binomials, or English doublets and triplets, such as null and void or liens and encumbrances and (6) Phrasemes using archaic words such as per diem.

Similar attention has been paid to this wider terminological focus necessary in translation by Faber and Reimerink (2019, 20) who explore the analysis of terminological meaning in legal texts by using Frame-Based Terminology (FBT) (see Engberg in this volume). These authors consider that “at the heart of many legal frames and documents, we find events and actions in the real world. These are related to the general lexical domains of General action, Perception, Change, Possession and sometimes even Feeling”.

As a result, they affirm that:

This signifies that verbs in legal texts are the real terms because they are at the center of legal meaning. In specialized language, this may sound strange because general language verbs are rarely regarded as terms, much less legal terms, and thus are not included in specialized knowledge resources. Nevertheless, they are crucial because their meaning as well as their argument structure relates legal concepts.(Faber and Reimerink 2019, 20–21)

Arturo (2020a) discusses the difference between true terms of art and hybrid terms in legal texts, where she considers the latter to be more problematic. She describes terms of art as having something that makes them unique and different from other legal terms which also have precise, specialized meaning. Their specialized meaning, however, is jurisdiction-dependent and their precision does not depend on a specific context (See example below). On the other hand, she suggests that other terms pose problems for translators for quite the opposite reason. They may have legal equivalents in the target language and target jurisdiction, however their meaning in the source language and source jurisdiction will depend heavily on their context. She proves her point by providing 61 possible translations for “claim” from English to Spanish (Arturo 2020b), which she considers a hybrid term. In this regard, it has a precise, specific meaning, just as terms of art do. However, it is only precise in a specific context, which means that it is heavily nuanced. Arturo underlines the chameleonic nature of hybrid terms and “how nuanced legal terminology can be”, hoping “to create awareness about the extent to which contect matters in our field” (2020b:2). (e.g. claim to citizenship – derecho a la nacionalidad/claim for compensation-demanda/acción por daños y perjuicios). These hybrid terms pose enormous difficulties for trainees who, in initial stages of learning, tend to search for solutions word by word. Trainees often have difficulties in identifying multi-word terms or hybrid terms. We will return to all these matters when we discuss deconstructing trainees’ prior knowledge of terminology.

Evidently, legal terminology is riddled with differences in conceptual content, requiring legal translators to achieve a quasi-expert understanding of the law and excellent research skills to overcome the terminological problems they face. What then do trainees consider to be terminological tasks in the texts they are asked to translate and which problems do they encounter?

2.Situating legal terminology in translator training

As mentioned earlier, it was in the early 1990s that translator training programmes incorporated instrumental, information mining competences and research skills through IT, research and terminology training. These subjects or modules often appear separately in early stages of training or are incorporated into translation modules. When taught and designed by specialists from these fields the training is, in our experience, often tailored towards the traditional design of each of these fields and not necessarily adapted to the needs of translator trainees.

Thelen deftly describes this dichotomy as “Theory-oriented Terminology” which he suggested as “the natural counterpart” of the term “Translation-oriented Terminology” or “Ad-hoc Terminology” (Thelen 2012, 132). He distinguishes, then, between […] the type of terminology work done by terminologists who are essentially concerned with the relation between terms and concepts, concept formation, term formation and standardisation” (Thelen 2012, 132) and

[t]he kind of terminology work done by translators, either monolingually (in order to analyse the meaning of a term in the source language and/or the meaning of an equivalent term in the target language) or bilingually or multilingually (in order to compare the results of the monolingual analyses to see if there is equivalence between them), but always with a view to translation, where effectiveness and efficiency of the translation process and speed are most important.(Thelen 2012, 132)

Whilst translators may use Theory-oriented Terminology during the translation process to solve their terminological problems, their main objectives are to provide a quality translation and, possibly, keep a register of the terminology found (with definitions and contexts) for future use. Indisputably, applying Theory-oriented Terminology in Translation-oriented Terminology will be conducive to improving the quality and consistency of translation. As Bowker (2020, 264) indicates, “[t]he improved consistency that results from properly managing terminology is a key benefit because it increases the quality of the final translation”. Furthermore, Strandvik (2016) reminds us that terminology is “the only error category present in all systems for translation quality assessment” and therefore a critical component in the legal translation process and, consequently, in assessing translator trainees. Prieto Ramos (2020c, 310) also reminds us that “[l]ikewise, the connection between legal source mining skills and legal translation quality is worth exploring:” One of our objectives in training is to impress this idea on trainees by helping them to interiorize good practices (including research and comparative analysis skills) for terminology management.

Bowker (2020, 261–283) offers an excellent overview of terminology management highlighting the work of terminologists in collecting, processing, describing and presenting terminology in accessible systems. She also reminds us that translators often work in an ad hoc fashion when they must find a rapid solution to their terminological problems. Trainers must be aware that translator trainees may work in many different professional fields, becoming terminologists, translators, technical writers and more. For those who pursue a career in institutional translation, the use of institutional term bases will be a part of their daily working life. We cannot forget, however, that a large proportion of our graduates will pursue careers as freelancers or in language service provision agencies which, depending on their size, may or may not provide terminological data bases. Whilst considerable attention has been paid to institutional terminology by several authors (Biel 2008; Engberg 2013; Prieto Ramos 2014b, 2020a, 2020b), legal translation beyond institutional contexts, or what Scott (2018) refers to as outstitutional legal translation, has received less attention despite the fact that it represents a considerable amount of legal translation practice. Pym et al. (2012, 88) calculated that approximately 75% of translators in their survey of certified translators in the EU worked as freelancers, and the growing externalization of translations in institutions could increase this figure even more.

Bowker (2020, 264) reminds us that terminology is an inevitable part of the translation process, where translators spend considerable time researching, selecting and deciding upon the most adequate solution for terms in each of their briefs. She describes an interesting Canadian study (Champagne 2004, 30) which finds that experienced translators spend 20%-25% of their time on terminology tasks, whilst the figures for novice translators vary from 40% to 60%. This is worrying if, as Biel (2008, 22) reminds us, “[m]ost translators work to tight deadlines under substantial time pressure and in reality have little time to carry out in-depth comparative-law analyses. It is vital for them to retrieve accurate equivalents as quickly as possible”. If this is the case, as I believe, it is evident that translator trainees will need to intertwine their instrumental and other competences to complete their translation tasks successfully to become efficient translators. The challenge is far beyond simply improving their search skills and ability to use terminological databases. As suggested by the EMT Competence Framework (2017, 8), the terminological problems encountered by trainees are enmeshed in and dependent on their ability to: “Evaluate the relevance and reliability of information sources with regard to translation needs” and “Acquire, develop and use thematic and domain-specific knowledge relevant to translation needs (mastering systems of concepts, methods of reasoning, presentation standards, terminology and phraseology, specialised sources etc.).”

Without a framework of criteria to make reasoned choices between the variety of terms they may find, trainees are condemned to constant uncertainty in their decision-making (Way 2014) and hence to depleted self-efficacy beliefs (Haro-Soler 2018) in their ability to complete a given task. If trainees are expected to identify terms in context, disambiguate them, and select equivalent terms in the source and target languages and legal systems (Thelen 2012), they will rely heavily on their communicative, research, thematic and cultural competences to do so. The methodology used in comparative law (Soriano-Barabino 2016) is also a vital tool in their training.

The panorama for legal terminology translator trainers is, then, complex and diverse. One of the most challenging conundrums for them is accommodating the terminology theory often taught in terminology modules to the needs of the legal translator. A relevant objective is to guide trainees to the discovery of how terminology can best serve legal translators, whilst emphasising the importance of the how, the where, and the why of the implementation of good practices. In the following sections we will suggest tools to address the challenges described above both through activities and deliberate practice (Ericsson et al. 1993) which have been implemented successfully at the University of Granada over the last 33 years. We will highlight the importance of beginning by raising the trainees’ awareness of the ubiquity of the law and their understanding of legal language and how it is used in different contexts and for different receivers. We will also highlight the usefulness of dismantling trainees’ perceptions on the univocity of terminology, especially in legal terminology, by reconstructing a framework for comparative conceptual analysis (Klabal 2021; Soriano-Barabino 2016, 15–17). We will describe how we can facilitate the steps necessary for achieving expertise and interiorising terminology management through deliberate practice.

3.Back to basics

The translator education or translator training dichotomy has been discussed in the literature (Way 2020, 180–181), as academia is often torn between the higher education requirements of educating students to be complete citizens and the industry’s demands for highly trained specialized translators. Whilst controversial for some, we must agree with Mossop’s affirmation that students need to be grounded in the basics of TC which will provide them with the skills and criteria to quickly learn, as novice translators, the further skills they may need. Mossop’s view (2003, 20) that “If you can’t translate with pencil and paper, then you can’t translate with the latest information technology” often comes to mind when students try to use the latest databases or tools at their disposal, but constantly comment that they could not decide between possible choices of information or terms as they are unsure of which is the most adequate solution. This uncertainty in their decision-making is due to the lack of a framework grounded on sound ability in each of the TC subcompetences which provides them with the positive self-efficacy beliefs that will facilitate their successful completion of tasks (Way 2016).

Stimulating the interaction between all the students’ TC subcompetences to develop their ability to identify and solve legal translation problems in the authentic, project-based, learner-centred, collaborative translation class as autonomous, lifelong learners is a formidable challenge. Approaches based on critical discourse analysis (Way 2014, 2016), complexity theory, decision making, and problem-solving (Prieto Ramos 2014b; Way 2014) have suggested solutions to these challenges. The overarching approach and the context for the following sections are designed to encourage trainees to integrate all their competences into their legal translator training, through a critical discourse analysis approach (Way 2003, 2005, 2012) in conjunction with a decision-making approach (Way 2014). This joint approach is grounded in a student-centered (Kiraly 1995, 2000), project management – based methodology that monitors each trainee’s individual translator competence development (Way 2008, 2009, 2017, 2021) whilst promoting self-regulated learning (Way 2019a).

4.Legal terminology translator training

Translator trainees at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, are, by and large, young and therefore have little vital experience. They have not had time to marry, divorce, have a mortgage or be involved in court processes. Legal translation classes will often seem alien to their personal experiences which impedes significant learning (Way 2019b) as we filter the information we receive according to its relevance to our lives. They are also digital natives immersed in the visual era of cinema, TV series, and videogames. Motivating them (Way 2019a) to become inspired by legal translation and terminology is not always easy. We can, however, design activities to arouse their interest and immerse them gradually into the intricacies involved in the tasks they will face. An overarching principle is that trainees understand that each legal professional group has its own characteristics, language and culture.

Trainees also need to understand that these legal professional groups each have their own cultural and experiential frameworks which influence their comprehension of not only their own legal system, but also other legal systems and terminology. As they are all familiar with the idea of avatars, we suggest that they imagine that they need an avatar for each of the legal professional groups. In each particular case, trainees will have to learn about each legal professional group’s practices, culture, language and shared knowledge, which are forged by their own history and which influence the way in which citizens perceive their sociocultural framework and the workings or the world which surrounds them. This, apparently, seems to be easy for them to assimilate as long as they are motivated, which is key to their success in understanding how the law permeates all levels of society.

The activities and deliberate practices outlined below have not only been tried and tested in the Spanish-English language combination at the University of Granada, but also in others (Klabal 2021) and can be used in the classroom or as extracurricular activities adapted to other languages, legal systems and cultures.

5.A scaffolded decision-making approach to legal terminology training

As described in Way (2014), scaffolding the difficulty of the legal terminology tackled in a course is crucial. Once we have motivated and reset the students’ mindsets it is easier to commence with a field which will be of some relevance to them. Easing trainees into legal translation gently is important if we do not wish to face them with an insurmountable task. We have found that Family Law is one of the best choices as many of the concepts and terms are at least vaguely familiar and, to some extent, part of their vital experience. Initial term comparisons as suggested above, on marriage, divorce or separation, for example, provide a solid basis from which to start.

Once we have laid the foundations described in the activities above, it is time to turn to translation proper and to integrate the development of terminological competence into the overarching task of developing translator competence.

6.Assessing terminological work

In our approach, correcting trainees terminological work is normally done in the classroom through peer debate of their proposals which includes evaluating their definitions, contexts, solutions and the reliability of their resources. It is vital to attempt to elicit alternative solutions from trainees rather than simply indicate that a solution is wrong and directly give them the most appropriate solution without discussing how that solution can be found and why it may be more appropriate (Haro-Soler 2019).

Further to this, trainees are given individual rubrics (Way 2021) for their project roles (in this case as the terminologist), which aims to reflect the results of their decision-making within the manageable combined assessment framework used (Way 2021). The rubric discussed here, designed after analysis of the academic and professional literature available (Andrade 2000; ELIA 2016; Massey and Ehrenseberger-Dow 2010; Massey, Jud and Ehrenseberger-Dow 2015; Orlando 2011, 2012; TAUS 2017; Way 2015), endeavours to balance the process-product, multiple subcompetences, error-mistake/success and academic-professional quality requirements. It hinges on the development of their TC, decision-making and complying with industry demands in an attempt to stimulate their ability to identify and solve terminological problems, whilst encouraging autonomous, self-regulated learning. The rubric (Annex 1) has been piloted at the University of Granada in the third and fourth-year undergraduate courses in specialized and advanced legal translation over the last three academic years.

The rubric identifies the trainee, their working group and the translation task being assessed. The definition of the scale appears on the left-hand side with the scale of 4 linked to the levels in the left-hand column of “professional/advanced/developing/ novice”, explained as can be seen below in Figure 1. In this way, as many trainees are in their final year and on the verge of joining the professional market, we avoid negative connotations and situate the trainees on their professional path towards expertise. Finally, the right-hand column for Support leads trainees to a variety of support materials available on a platform according to the level they require as marked in the rubric (Way 2021). The rubric is also flexible. The 4 levels on the scoring scale can be applied differently depending on the difficulty of the ST or the terminological problems it contains. In the first text in a new field we may expect trainees to comply with just 50% or 75% of the required standards. In this case, 75% may merit level 4, whilst at a later stage in training in the same field we may require 100% to reach level 4.

Figure 2 provides the criteria for project initiation, including elements which trainees often simply do not identify or consider of little importance. Some of these criteria are also included in other role rubrics as we have found that trainees often see their project work as team work (individual unconnected steps) rather than as collaborative work which “entails not only the division of work in a specific task, but it requires its joint completion so that the team members can construct meanings together and can develop cultural and professional knowledge” (Huertas Barros 2011, 44). The idea is to guide them through the translation process both individually and collectively so that they can interiorize the steps for future individual or collaborative projects.

Figure 3 outlines vital steps in task planning which are often overlooked by explicitly stating what is expected of them, trainees find it easier to comply with the expectations of their role.

The criteria in Figure 4 ensure that the trainees are aware of the expectations for their completed work. As the trainees each present their work by role in class presentations based on the completed Project Management Sheet (Way 2009), which they also upload with the whole project, they each discuss the challenges faced and the solutions they found for debate in the classroom. This allows all class members to participate by making suggestions or asking questions leading to vicarious and peer learning.

Task execution (Figure 5) reflects decision-making skills when searching for and selecting solutions as part of a team. Here, expectations are clearly outlined and discussion will debate the fulfilment of the task.

Finally, one of the most neglected areas of the terminologist’s role in a translation project has, in our experience, been the final stages of the process (Figure 6). This has been included in our approach as part of the relevant aspects which need to be addressed for effective training. Apparently simple steps, such as clearly labelling the files uploaded to the class platform, are explicitly required in the rubric and, therefore, become a part of the trainees’ standard practice. Participation in collaboratively resolving terminological problems for the translator is discussed and solutions are considered. This is high on trainees’ lists of priorities as they often consider that group work may reflect badly on some team members when others either do not complete their tasks or do so only partially.

The rubric promotes self-analysis of trainees’ strengths and weaknesses in their tasks, help them identify areas requiring improvement in the different tasks in the translation process, pinpointing where exactly they should pay more attention or spend time on self-improvement.

7.Conclusions

We have presented some of the possible steps necessary to dismantle trainees’ prior perceptions about terminology and reconstruct their mindset within an approach to terminology for legal translation purposes or legal “translation-oriented terminology” (Thelen 2015, 352–357). The initial, vital steps of deconstructing prior terminology assumptions, to a certain extent, will lay the foundations for trainees to acquire a new approach which is tailored to their legal terminological tasks. This can be achieved, firstly, through an activities based approach highlighting the ubiquitous nature of the Law that introduces them to common difficulties that they will encounter, and immerses them in the different cultural, historical perceptions of the world as perceived by different legal/administrative systems and the legal professions which are reflected in the texts, as well as in the legal language they will have to tackle. This fundamental basis for deliberate practice helps to address terminological mismatches and avoids a feeling of helplessness and frustration with every task they face. Successful scaffolding of the texts selected for deliberate practice can be enhanced if the trainees are provided with a system, by which they can avoid the most common errors they are likely to commit at each stage of their training. This is vital, given that they are not legal experts and are not familiar with the complexity of the underlying importance of precision and appropriateness in a vast range of legal fields in every step of the terminological process they undertake for each translation brief. Underlining the importance of their decision-making process, grounded on a sound methodology, will ensure greater success in their endeavours, thereby increasing their self-efficacy beliefs and confidence in their work. Furthermore, assessing their terminological work through a prism that reflects both academic and professional requirements, as in the rubrics, allows us to measure the success of their decision-making during the process, thereby detecting areas for improvement, and also improves the appropriateness and quality of their final product. Learning to identify terminological problems in the pre-translation stage and assimilating effective processes enables students to progressively acquire the necessary skills to justify their decisions. In time, with deliberate practice, these processes are interiorized and become automatic to an extent, which reduces their uncertainty and decision-making load, their lack of confidence in their decision-making, to make them efficient, legal translators on the road to expertise.