1887
image of Terminological hybridity in institutional legal translation

Abstract

Abstract

The analysis of domain-specific terminology is essential for characterizing specialized discourses, and emerges as a useful means of measuring the thematic hybridity of law and legal translation in particular. This paper accordingly presents a large-scale mapping of terminological and phraseological features in a multi-genre corpus that was built as part of the LETRINT project on institutional legal translation. The corpus-driven analysis focuses on the density of legal terminology and phraseology, on the one hand, and that of terminology of other specialized domains, on the other, in nine genres that are considered representative of three central legal functions (law-making, compliance monitoring and adjudication) in three international settings (the European Union, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization). The comparative examination of density scores provides empirical evidence of the common core features of the selected genres, and reveals variations based on institutional thematic focus, primary legal function and genre specificities. These insights nuance our understanding of international legal discourses and domain specialization in institutional translation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/term.21047.pri
2022-07-07
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/term.21047.pri/term.21047.pri.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/term.21047.pri&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Biber, Douglas
    1993 “Representativeness in Corpus Design.” Literary and Linguistic Computing8 (4): 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  2. Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Miriam Seghiri Domínguez
    2006ReCor.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Fontanet, Mathilde
    2018 “Translating Hybrid Legal Texts for Science and Technology Institutions: The Case of CERN.” InInstitutional Translation for International Governance: Enhancing Quality in Multilingual Legal Communication, ed. byFernando Prieto Ramos, 126–138. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781474292320.0018
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474292320.0018 [Google Scholar]
  4. Gries, Stefan T.
    2008 “Phraseology and Linguistic Theory: A Brief Survey.” InPhraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. bySylviane Granger, and Fanny Meunier, 3–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.06gri [Google Scholar]
  5. Hewson, Lance
    2013 “Is English as a lingua franca translation’s defining moment?” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer7 (2): 257–277. 10.1080/13556509.2013.10798854
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.10798854 [Google Scholar]
  6. Kjær, Anne-Lise
    2007 “Phrasemes in legal texts.” InPhraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (Vol.2), ed. byHarald Burger, Dimitrij Dobrovol’skij, Peter Kühn, and Neal R. Norrick, 506–515. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Koester, Almut
    2010 “Building Small Specialised Corpora.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ed. byMichael McCarthy, and Anne O’Keeffe, 66–79. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203856949.ch6
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Mayoral Asensio, Roberto
    2007 “Specialised translation: A concept in need of revision.” Babel53 (1): 48–55. 10.1075/babel.53.1.05may
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.53.1.05may [Google Scholar]
  9. McAuliffe, Karen
    2011 “Hybrid texts and uniform law? The multilingual case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law24: 97–115. 10.1007/s11196‑010‑9188‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9188-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. O’Donnell, Mick
    2019UAM CorpusTool. Retrieved fromwww.corpustool.com/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Oostdijk, Nelleke
    1991Corpus Linguistics and the Automatic Analysis of English. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Prieto Ramos, Fernando
    2014a “International and supranational law in translation: From multilingual lawmaking to adjudication.” The Translator20 (3): 313–331. 10.1080/13556509.2014.904080
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.904080 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014b “Parameters for problem-solving in legal translation: Implications for legal lexicography and institutional terminology management.” InThe Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, ed. byAnne Wagner, Kin-Kui Sin, and Le Cheng, 121–134. Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2019 “Implications of Text Categorisation for Corpus-based Legal Translation Research: The Case of International Institutional Settings.” InResearch Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting: Crossing Methodological Boundaries, ed. byŁucja Biel, Jan Engberg, Rosario Martín Ruano, and Vilelmini Sosoni, 29–47. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351031226‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351031226-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2020 “The use of resources for legal terminological decision-making: patterns and profile variations among institutional translators.” Perspectives29 (2): 278–310. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1803376
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1803376 [Google Scholar]
  16. Prieto Ramos, Fernando, Giorgina Cerutti, and Diego Guzmán
    2019 “Building representative multi-genre corpora for legal and institutional translation research: The LETRINT approach to text categorization and stratified sampling.” Translation Spaces8 (1): 93–116. 10.1075/ts.00014.pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00014.pri [Google Scholar]
  17. Prieto Ramos, Fernando, and Giorgina Cerutti
    2021 “Terminology as a source of difficulty in translating international legal discourses: an empirical cross-genre study.” International Journal of Legal Discourse6 (2): 155–179. 10.1515/ijld‑2021‑2052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2052 [Google Scholar]
  18. Prieto Ramos, Fernando, and Diego Guzmán
    2021 “Examining institutional translation through a legal lens: A comparative analysis of multilingual text production at international organizations.” Target33 (2): 254–281. 10.1075/target.21003.pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21003.pri [Google Scholar]
  19. Ruusila, Anna, and Emilia Lindroos
    2016 “Conditio sine qua non. On phraseology in legal language and its translation.” Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito3 (1): 120–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sandrelli, Annalisa
    2018 “Observing Eurolects: The case of English.” InObserving Eurolects: Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law, ed. byLaura Mori, 64–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
    2001 “EU project proposals as hybrid texts: Observations from a Finnish research project.” Across Languages and Cultures2 (2): 261–265. 10.1556/Acr.2.2001.2.9
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.2.2001.2.9 [Google Scholar]
  22. Trklja, Aleksandar
    2018 “A corpus investigation of formulaicity and hybridity in legal language. A case of EU case law texts.” InPhraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings, ed. byAnne Wagner, Vijay Kumar Bhatia, Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski, and Gianluca Pontrandolfo, 157–169. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/term.21047.pri
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/term.21047.pri
Loading

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