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

Main Article Content

Łucja BIEL

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
BIEL, Łucja. (2009). ORGANIZATION OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES IN LEGAL LANGUAGE AND RELATED TRANSLATION PROBLEMS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 1, 176-189. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2009.01.13
Section
Articles

References

  1. Alcaraz, E., Hughes, B. 2002. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Clausner, T. C., Croft W. 1999. Domains and Image Schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10, p. 1–31.
  6. Evans, V. 2006. Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17:4, p. 491–534.
  7. Evans, V., Green M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.
  8. Fillmore, Ch. 1982. Frame Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed), Seoul: Hanshin, p. 111–137.
  9. 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.
  10. Harvey, M. 2000. A beginner’s course in legal translation: the case of culture-bound terms. Genéve 2000: Actes www.tradulex.org.
  11. Hill, C. A., King C. 2004. How Do German Contracts Do as Much with Fewer Words? Chicago-Kent Law Review 79, p. 889–926.
  12. Kierzkowska, D. 2002. Tłumaczenie prawnicze. Warszawa: Tepis.
  13. Kierzkowska, D. (ed.). 2005. Kodeks tłumacza przysięgłego z komentarzem. Warszawa: Tepis.
  14. 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.
  15. Langacker, R. W. 1988. A View of Linguistic Semantics. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, p. 45–90.
  16. Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. 2001. Universals of Translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Stud-ies, M. Baker (ed.). London/New York: Routledge, p. 288–291.
  17. McLeod, I. 2005. Legal Method. 5th Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
  18. Sager, J. 1998. Terminology: Theory. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker (ed.). London/New York: Routledge, p. 258-262.
  19. Šarčević, S. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  20. Šarčević, S. 2000. Legal Translation and Translation Theory: a Receiver-Oriented Approach. Genéve 2000: Actes www.tradulex.org.
  21. Schäffner, Ch. 1993. Meaning and Knowledge in Translation. Translation and Knowledge, Y. Gambier and J. Tommola (eds). Turku: University of Turku, p. 155-166.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Ungerer, F., Schmid H. J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London/New York: Long-man.
  25. Venuti, L. 2001. Strategies of Translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker (ed.). London/New York: Routledge, p. 240-244.
  26. Weston, M. 1991. An English Reader's Guide to the French Legal System. New York/Oxford: Berg.
  27. 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.