ORGANIZATION OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES IN LEGAL LANGUAGE AND RELATED TRANSLATION PROBLEMS

• Authors: Łucja BIEL

Title variants

PL

PROBLEMY TERMINOLOGICZNE W PRZEKŁADZIE PRAWNICZYM ZWIĄZANE Z ORGANIZACJĄ STRUKTUR WIEDZY

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper examines the organization of background knowledge structures in legal language and related incongruities of legal terms. The cognitive linguistics methodology, in particular its findings on the nature of meaning, is applied. Terms serve as prompts with a semantic potential to activate various levels of knowledge structures, such as domains, scripts, scenarios, cognitive models and frames. In most cases organization of knowledge will differ in the SL and TL. The final part analyses translation strategies and techniques in terms of their potential to activate relevant knowledge.

PL

Artykuł omawia specyfikę terminów prawniczych i struktury wiedzy aktywowane przez terminy. W analizie zastosowano metodologię językoznawstwa kognitywnego. Terminy pełnią rolę skrótów prowadzących do pojęć zakotwiczonych w strukturach wiedzy, jak np.: domeny, scenariusze, modele kognitywne i ramy. Struktury wiedzy są odmiennie zorganizowane w poszczególnych systemach prawnych, przyczyniając się do nieprzystawalności pojęć. Strategie i techniki translatoryczne w różnym stopniu uzupełniają brakującą wiedzę.

Keywords

EN

legal language; legal translation; translation strategies; cognitive linguistics

PL

język prawny; tłumaczenie prawne i prawnicze; strategie translatorskie; językoznawstwo kognitywne; język prawny; tłumaczenie prawne i prawnicze; strategie translatorskie; językoznawstwo kognitywne

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Comparative Legilinguistics
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 1
• Pages: 176-189

Dates

published

2009-07-04

Contributors

author

Łucja BIEL

References

• Alcaraz, E., Hughes, B. 2002. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
• Biel, Ł. 2006. Incongruity of Company Law Terms: Categorization of Polish Business Entities and their English Equivalents. Translation Journal 10:4 www.accurapid.com/journal/38legal.htm.
• Biel, Ł. 2008. Legal terminology in translation practice: dictionaries, googling or discussion forums? SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 3:1 www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTI03/pdf_doc/BielLucja.pdf, p. 22–38.
• Chesterman, A. 2005. Problems with Strategies. New Trends in Translation Studies. In Honour of K. Klaudy, Károly K. and Á. Á. Fóris (eds). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, p. 17-28.
• Clausner, T. C., Croft W. 1999. Domains and Image Schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10, p. 1–31.
• Evans, V. 2006. Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17:4, p. 491–534.
• Evans, V., Green M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.
• Fillmore, Ch. 1982. Frame Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed), Seoul: Hanshin, p. 111–137.
• Gizbert-Studnicki, T. 2001. Problem przekładu tekstów prawnych. Dziedzictwo prawne XX wieku. Księga pamiątkowa z okazji 150-lecia TBSP UJ. Zakamycze: Kraków, p. 41–55.
• Harvey, M. 2000. A beginner’s course in legal translation: the case of culture-bound terms. Genéve 2000: Actes www.tradulex.org.
• Hill, C. A., King C. 2004. How Do German Contracts Do as Much with Fewer Words? Chicago-Kent Law Review 79, p. 889–926.
• Kierzkowska, D. 2002. Tłumaczenie prawnicze. Warszawa: Tepis.
• Kierzkowska, D. (ed.). 2005. Kodeks tłumacza przysięgłego z komentarzem. Warszawa: Tepis.
• Kjœr, A. L. 2000. On the Structure of Legal Knowledge: The Importance of Knowing Legal Rules for Understanding Legal Texts. Language, Text, and Knowledge. Mental Models of Expert Com-munication, L. Lundquist and R. J. Jarvella (eds). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 127–161.
• Langacker, R. W. 1988. A View of Linguistic Semantics. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, p. 45–90.
• Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. 2001. Universals of Translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Stud-ies, M. Baker (ed.). London/New York: Routledge, p. 288–291.
• McLeod, I. 2005. Legal Method. 5th Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
• Sager, J. 1998. Terminology: Theory. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker (ed.). London/New York: Routledge, p. 258-262.
• Šarčević, S. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
• Šarčević, S. 2000. Legal Translation and Translation Theory: a Receiver-Oriented Approach. Genéve 2000: Actes www.tradulex.org.
• Schäffner, Ch. 1993. Meaning and Knowledge in Translation. Translation and Knowledge, Y. Gambier and J. Tommola (eds). Turku: University of Turku, p. 155-166.
• Séguinot, C. 2000. Knowledge, Expertise, and Theory in Translation. Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, p. 87–104.
• Thelen, M. 2002. Relations between Terms: a Cognitive Approach. The Interaction between Termi-nology, Lexicology, Translation Studies and Translation Practice. Linguistica Antverpiensia I, p. 193–209.
• Ungerer, F., Schmid H. J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London/New York: Long-man.
• Venuti, L. 2001. Strategies of Translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker (ed.). London/New York: Routledge, p. 240-244.
• Weston, M. 1991. An English Reader's Guide to the French Legal System. New York/Oxford: Berg.
• Wilss, W. 1994. Translation as a Knowledge-Based Activity: Context, Culture, and Cognition. Lan-guage, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East, R. de Beaugrande, A. Shunnaq and M. H. Heliel (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, p. 35–43.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/cl.2009.01.13