Quality Assurance in Legal Translation: Evaluating Process, Competence and Product in the Pursuit of Adequacy
Tóm tắt
Building on a functionalist framework for decision-making in legal translation, a holistic approach to quality is presented in order to respond to the specificities of this field and overcome the shortcomings of general models of translation quality evaluation. The proposed approach connects legal, contextual, macrotextual and microtextual variables for the definition of the translation adequacy strategy, which guides problem-solving and the rest of the translation
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Al-Qinai, Jamal. 2000. Translation quality assessment. Strategies, parametres and procedures. Meta: Translators’ Journal 45(3): 497–519.
Angelelli, Claudia V. 2009. Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct. In Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice, ed. Claudia V. Angelelli, and Holly E. Jocobson, 13–47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
ATA. 2011. ATA Certification Program—Rubric for Grading (Version 2011). http://www.atanet.org/certification/aboutexams_rubic.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
Biel, Łucja. 2011. Training translators or translation service providers? EN 15038:2006 standard of translation services and its training implications. Journal of Specialised Translation 16: 61–76.
Bocquet, Claude. 1996. Traduction spécialisée : choix théorique et choix pragmatique. L’exemple de la traduction juridique dans l’aire francophone. Parallèles 18: 67–76.
Borja Albi, Anabel, and Fernando Prieto Ramos, eds. 2013. Legal translation in context: Professional issues and prospects. Bern/Berlin/Brussels/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang.
Bowker, Lynne. 2001. Towards a methodology for a corpus-based approach to translation evaluation. Meta: Translators’ Journal 46(2): 345–364.
Brunette, Louise. 2000. Towards a terminology for translation quality assessment: A comparison of TQA practices. The Translator 6(2): 169–182.
Bush, Peter. 1997. Even horses shall have their day: A response to Hans G. Hönig. Current Issues in Language and Society 4(1): 64–69.
Byrne, Jody. 2007. Caveat translator: Understanding the legal consequences of errors in professional translation. Journal of Specialised Translation 7: 2–24.
Cary, Edmond, and Rudolf Walter Jumpelt, eds. 1963. Quality in translation: Proceedings of the IIIrd congress of the international federation of translators (FIT), Bad Godesberg, 1959. Oxford/London/New York/Paris: Pergamon Press.
Colina, Sonia. 2008. Translation quality evaluation: Empirical evidence for a functionalist approach. The Translator 14(1): 97–134.
DGT. 2013. Report on the third translation studies day. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/publications/studies/translation_studies_day_2013_report_en.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014.
Drugan, Joanna. 2013. Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London: Bloomsbury.
European Committee for Standardization. 2006. EN 15038:2006 Translation services – Service requirements. Brussels: CEN.
Ferreri, Silvia, et al. 2013. Document quality control in public administrations and international organisations. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Gémar, Jean-Claude. 2013. Translating vs co-drafting law in multilingual countries: Beyond the Canadian odyssey. In Legal translation in context: Professional issues and prospects, ed. Anabel Borja Albi and Fernando Prieto Ramos, 155–178. Bern/Berlin/Brussels/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang.
Gouadec, Daniel. 2010. Quality in Translation. In Handbook of translation studies, vol. 1, ed. Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 270–275. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hague, Daryl, Alan Melby, and Wang Zheng. 2011. Surveying translation quality assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5(2): 243–267.
Hale, Sandra, et al. 2012. Improvements to NAATI testing: Development of a conceptual overview for a new model for NAATI standards, testing and assessment. http://www.naati.com.au/pdf/int/intfinalreport.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.
Hönig, Hans G. 1997. Propositions, power and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. Current Issues in Language and Society 4(1): 6–34.
Horguelin, Paul A., and Louise Brunette. 1998. Pratique de la révision, 3rd ed. Brossard (Québec): Linguatech.
House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Künzli, Alexander. 2007. Translation revision: A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text. In Doubts and directions in translation studies, ed. Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 115–126. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lauscher, Susanne. 2000. Translation quality assessment: Where can theory and practice meet? The Translator 6(2): 149–168.
Levý, Jiří. 1965. Will translation theory be of use to translators? In Übersetzen: Vorträge und Beiträge vom Internationalen Kongreß literarischer Übersetzer in Hamburg, 1965, ed. Rolf Italiaander, 77–82. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.
Martin, Tim. 2007. Managing risks and resources: A down-to-earth view of revision. Journal of Specialised Translation 8: 57–63.
Martínez Melis, Nicole, and Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2001. Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta: Translators’ Journal 46(2): 272–287.
Roberto, M.A. 2003. Translating official documents. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Mossop, Brian. 2007. Revising and editing for translators, 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Piecychna, Beata. 2013. Legal translation competence in the light of translational hermeneutics. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 34(1): 141–159.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 1998. La terminología procesal en la traducción de citaciones judiciales españolas al inglés. Sendebar 9: 115–135.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2002. Beyond the confines of literality: A Functionalist approach to the sworn translation of legal documents. Puentes 2: 27–35.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2011. Developing legal translation competence: An integrative process-oriented approach. Comparative Legilinguistics—International Journal for Legal Communication 5: 7–21.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2013. ¿Qué estrategias para qué traducción jurídica?: por una metodología integral para la práctica profesional. In Translating the law: Theoretical and methodological issues, ed. Icíar Alonso Araguás, Jesús Baigorri Jalón and Helen J.L. Campbell, 87–106. Granada: Comares.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2014. International and supranational law in translation: From multilingual lawmaking to adjudication. The Translator 20(2). 10.1080/13556509.2014.904080.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2014. Parameters for problem-solving in legal translation: Implications for legal lexicography and institutional terminology management. In The Ashgate handbook of legal translation, ed. Anne Wagner, King-Kui Sin, and Le Cheng. Farnham: Ashgate.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2014. Legal translation studies as interdiscipline: Scope and evolution. Meta: Translators’ Journal 59(2).
Prioux, R., and Michel Rochard. 2007. Économie de la révision dans une organisation internationale : le cas de l’OCDE. Journal of Specialised Translation 8: 21–41.
Reiss, Katharina. 2000. Translation criticism: The potentials and limitations: Categories and criteria for translation quality assessment. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien. 2013. Research methodologies in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Stejskal, Jiri. 2009. Quality assessment in translation. In CIUTI-Forum 2008 (enhancing translation quality: Ways, means, methods), ed. Martin Forstner, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke and Peter A. Schmitt, 291–300. Bern/Berlin/Brussels/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang.
Turner, Barry, Miranda Lai, and Neng Huang. 2010. Error deduction and descriptors: A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment. Translation & Interpreting 2(1): 11–23.
Vlachopoulos, George. 2009. Translation, quality and service at the European commission. In CIUTI-Forum 2008 (enhancing translation quality: Ways, means, methods), ed. Martin Forstner, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke and Peter A. Schmitt, 15–22. Bern/Berlin/Brussels/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang.
Waddington, Christopher. 2001. Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta: Translators’ Journal 46(2): 311–325.