Volume 33, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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, (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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bestué, Carmen
    2019 “A Matter of Justice: Integrating Comparative Law Methods into the Decision‑Making Process in Legal Translation.” InResearch Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting: Crossing Methodological Boundaries, edited byŁucja Biel, Jan Engberg, Rosario Martín Ruano, and Vilelmini Sosoni, 130–147. Law, Language and Communication. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351031226‑9
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351031226-9 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. 10.3726/978‑3‑0353‑0433‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0353-0433-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cheng, Le, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner
    eds. 2014The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Law, Language and Communication. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark
    2011Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed.Los Angeles: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dancette, Jeanette
    1997 “Mapping Meaning and Comprehension in Translation: Theoretical and Experimental Issues.” InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, edited byJoseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 77–103. London: Thousand Oaks.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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].” InLegal Translation and Jurilinguistics: Globalizing Disciplines. Retrospects and Prospects, edited byAnne Wagner and Jean-Claude Gémar, special issue ofInternational Journal for the Semiotics of Law28 (1): 91–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]?” InTranslation and Official Multilingualism, edited byGillian Lane-Mercier, Denise Merkle, and Reine Meylaerts, special issue ofMeta59 (3): 636–653.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ed. 2017Between Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts – Competence and Choice in Legal Translation, special issue ofTranslation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. EMT Expert Group
    EMT Expert Group 2017 “European Master’s in Translation: Competence Framework 2017.” https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/emt_competence_fwk_2017_en_web.pdf
  11. Engberg, Jan
    2009 “Individual Conceptual Structure and Legal Experts’ Efficient Communication.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law22 (2): 223–243. 10.1007/s11196‑009‑9104‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-009-9104-x [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “Comparative Law for Translation: The Key to Successful Mediation between Legal Systems.” InLegal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects, edited byAnabel Borja Albi and Fernando Prieto Ramos, 9–25. New Trends in Translation Studies 4. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ericsson, Karl Anders, and Herbert Alexander Simon
    1993 [1984]Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Rev. ed. 7. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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 Communication35 (1–2): 42–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Rev. ed. Benjamins Translation Library 8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Göpferich, Susanne
    2008Translationsprozessforschung: Stand – Methoden – Perspektiven [Translation process research: state of the art – methods – prospects]. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 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 Cultures10 (2): 169–191. 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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].” InHermetik und Manipulation in den Fachsprachen [Hermeticism and manipulation in languages for special purpose], edited byKlaus Morgenroth, 245–260. Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung 55. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Griebel, Cornelia
    2017 “Fuzzy Concepts in Translators’ Mind: A Cognitive-Translational Approach to Tackling the Difficulties of Legal Translation.” InDullion 2017, 97–113. 10.1075/ttmc.3.1.07gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.1.07gri [Google Scholar]
  20. 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].” InLegal Translation: Current Issues and Challenges in Research, Methods and Applications, edited byIngrid Simonnaes and Marita Kristiansen, 221–442. Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung 149. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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 Behaviour3 (1): 51–75. 10.1075/tcb.00034.gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00034.gri [Google Scholar]
  22. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen, Gyde
    2006Erfolgreich Übersetzen: Entdecken und beheben von Störquellen [Translating successfully: Identifying and remedying interferences]. Translations-wissenschaft 3. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, and Dorrit Faber
    2010 “Explicitation and Implicitation in Legal Translation – A Process Study of Trainee Translators.” Meta55 (2): 237–250. 10.7202/044237ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/044237ar [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. Hönig, Hans G., and Paul Kußmaul
    2006 “Einblicke in mentale Prozesse beim Übersetzen [Insights into mental processes during translation].” InHandbuch Translation [Translation Studies Manual], 2nd ed., edited byMary Snell-Hornby, Hans G. Hönig, Paul Kußmaul, and Peter A. Schmidt, 170–178. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hvelplund, Kristian T., and Barbara Dragsted
    2018 “Genre Familiarity and Translation Processing: Differences and Similarities Between Literary and LSP Translators.” InInnovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research, edited byIsabel Lacruz and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 55–76. American Translators Association scholarly monograph (ATA). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.18.04tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.18.04tan [Google Scholar]
  29. ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
    ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 2015Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services01.020, no. 17100:2015(E). Geneva: ISO.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
    2003 “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision, and Segmentation.” InTriangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, edited byFabio Alves, 69–95. Benjamins Translation Library 45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45.08jak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.08jak [Google Scholar]
  31. Kiraly, Donald C.
    1995Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Translation Studies 3. Kent: Kent State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Krogsgaard Vesterager, Anja
    2017 “Explicitation in Legal Translation: A Study of Spanish-into-Danish Translation of Judgments.” InQuality in Legal Translation, edited byHendrik J. Kockaert and Nadia Rahab, special issue ofJosTrans27 (January 2017): 104–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuckartz, Udo
    2016Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practical issues, and computer support]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lacruz, Isabel, and Riitta Jääskeläinen
    eds. 2018Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. American Translators Association scholarly monograph (ATA). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xviii
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xviii [Google Scholar]
  35. 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.” InResearch Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting: Crossing Methodological Boundaries, edited byŁucja Biel, Jan Engberg, M. Rosario Martín Ruano, and Vilelmini Sosoni, 115–129. Law, Language and Communication. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351031226‑8
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351031226-8 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mori, Laura
    ed. 2018Observing Eurolects: Corpus Analysis of Linguistic Variation in EU Law. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.86 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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. 10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192 [Google Scholar]
  38. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2017 “Calling Translation to the Bar: A Comparative Analysis of the Translation Errors Made by Translators and Lawyers.” InDullion 2017, 81–96. 10.1075/ttmc.3.1.06orl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.1.06orl [Google Scholar]
  40. PACTE
    PACTE 2003 “Building a Translation Competence Model.” InTriangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, edited byFabio Alves, 43–66. Benjamins Translation Library 45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45 [Google Scholar]
  41. PACTE
    PACTE 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].” InQuo 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 byGerd Wotjak, 327–342. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Piecychna, Beata
    2013 “Legal Translation Competence in the Light of Translational Hermeneutics.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric34 (1): 141–159. 10.2478/slgr‑2013‑0027
    https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2013-0027 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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]
  44. 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].” InDullion 2017, 114–144. 10.1075/ttmc.3.1.08pon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.1.08pon [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. 2014 “Parameters for Problem-Solving in Legal Translation: Implications for Legal Lexicography and Institutional Terminology Management.” InThe Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, edited byLe Cheng, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner, 121–134. Law, Language and Communication. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. Šarčević, Susan
    2012 “Challenges to the Legal Translator.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, edited byPeter M. Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan, 187–199. New York: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199572120-e-14
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 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]
  50. 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.” Perspectives27 (4): 589–603. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1597138
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1597138 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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]
  52. 2013 “Legal Translation and ‘Traditional’ Comparative Law – Similarities and Differences.” InResearch Models and Methods in Legal Translation, edited byŁucja Biel and Jan Engberg, special issue ofLinguistica Antverpiensia12: 147–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. Sun, Sanjun
    2011 “Think-Aloud-Based Translation Process Research: Some Methodological Considerations.” Meta56 (4): 928–951. 10.7202/1011261ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1011261ar [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error