Abstract
AbstractIt is a well-acknowledged fact in legal translation studies that when searching for terminological equivalents, translators should make use of comparative conceptual analysis (e.g. Sandrini 1996; Chromá 2014; Engberg 2015). Thus, legal translation trainees should be equipped with the necessary tools to carry out such analysis, but the question remains: are they? This paper is a follow-up to a study published in 2017 (Klabal, Knap-Dlouhá and Kubánek 2017), where modified think aloud protocols were used to explore the following research question: to what degree are university students doing a course in legal and economic translation able to apply the methods of comparative conceptual analysis to translation of terms not accounted for sufficiently in legal dictionaries or terms with no straightforward equivalents. The results showed that major issues involve non-linearity of the analysis carried out and insufficient use of the resources available. The present study involves a different group of 29 BA students of the same course two years later, who were assigned the same task. As the retrospective protocols fail to simulate real-life conditions, this study uses screen recording and keystroke logging to track the processes leading to the identification of the conceptual equivalent in a more detailed and less subject-dependent manner. The results suggest that the steps most challenging for students include identification of relevant (essential) features defining the source and target language concepts, comparison of these features and selection, or creation, of an equivalent term reflecting the results of the analysis. Students also frequently show Google-driven searching, which influences the order of the steps performed in their analyses and the sources used. To address these challenges, translation training should include a range of tailor-made exercises focusing on the critical steps of the analysis as well as on improving web searching skills.
Highlights
It is an undisputed fact in legal translation that “translators of legal terminology are obliged to practice comparative law” (de Groot 2006: 424)
Even if such dictionaries exist for the respective language pair, they will not include all terms encountered by translators, or may become outdated as a result of developments in legal terminology and law in general
The results of our experiment have shown that despite being instructed to use the conceptual analysis (CCA), students rather opt for “standard term research”. This can Ondrej Klabal, Michal Kubanek be evidenced by the fact that non-congruent candidates are not discarded even after their definition, which proves their lack of equivalence, has been read
Summary
It is an undisputed fact in legal translation that “translators of legal terminology are obliged to practice comparative law” (de Groot 2006: 424). In the real world such dictionaries are rather scarce (cf Sarcević 1989; Biel 2008) Even if such dictionaries exist for the respective language pair, they will not include all terms encountered by translators, or may become outdated as a result of developments in legal terminology and law in general. This poses a problem for professional translators and even more for translation trainees as observed by Sycz-Opon (2019: 164), whose research into their informationmining habits revealed that “the trainees were not prepared for situation where an entry was missing in a dictionary and had no established strategy for such situations.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
