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

References

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. 2013 Legal 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. 2016 New 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. 2014 The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Law, Language and Communication. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark
   2011 Designing 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. Dullion, Valérie
   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. Dullion, Valérie
   ed. 2017 Between 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. Engberg, Jan
    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
    2009 Basic 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
    2008 Translationsprozessforschung: 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. Griebel, Cornelia
    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. Griebel, Cornelia
    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. 2016 Eyetracking 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
    2006 Erfolgreich 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. Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, and Dorrit Faber
    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
    2011 Eye 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) 2015 Translation 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.
    1995 Pathways 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
    2016 Qualitative 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. 2018 Innovation 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. 2018 Observing 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
    2016 The 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. Orlando, Daniele
    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. PACTEFabio Alves
    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. PACTEGerd Wotjak
    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
    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]
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. Prieto Ramos, Fernando
    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
    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]
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
    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]
52. Simonnæs, Ingrid
    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. 2019 Legal 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]