This debate is linked to another major issue in LIT studies, that of the role of those who practice, and it is argued that the definition of that role is closely linked to how legal systems, as cultural systems, define and organize justice and embrace the myths of law (such as the universality of norms or authorlessness) that affect key notions such as translatability and equivalence.
#Conectores contraste en ingles free#
The dual character of LIT, symbolic and communicative, is analyzed as the basis of different translation policies in institutional settings and also of disciplinary discrepancies in advocating for different translation methods (on a continuum between free and literal), which has remained a major debate in LIT studies but also in the struggles between legal and translation studies to establish their jurisdiction over LIT.
#Conectores contraste en ingles professional#
It is argued that the conceptualization of culture is at the root of long-standing positions in the field of LIT, including the professional profile of practitioners, which is understood in dichotomous terms (translators or law experts, regardless of other external factors) or contextualized (in localized trade-offs of priorities and constraints correlated with competencies). Notions, paradigms, and methods are linked to the conceptions of LIT and culture that underlie the studies and ways of engaging in a dialogue between the different perspectives are suggested in order to further advance the understanding of LIT from an integrative perspective. The review highlights different conceptions of what it means to practice and study LIT and the location of these differences on the basis of the developments of the notion and application of culture in different schools in legal and translation studies.
It critically reviews the evolution of central notions, addresses key issues, discusses the methods employed in the study of LIT, and identifies open questions for future research. This chapter reviews how culture has been understood and integrated into the contributions dealing with legal interpreting and translation (LIT) studies referring to disciplines related to language and law. Bhatia 1993, Garofalo 2009) with a more qualiquantitative approach based on corpus linguistics, more specifi cally on corpus-assisted discourse studies (Partington 2004, Partington et al. Visconti 2000, Garofalo 2006).įrom a methodological point of view, the study combines a qualitative approach oriented at the discourse genre (cf. Indeed, studying discourse markers is a necessary precondition for translators, since the semantic and pragmatic relations conveyed by these particles and their distributional differences represent the guidelines for the selection of adequate translation solutions (cf. The secondary objective, which nevertheless guides the whole study, is to carry out a legal translation-oriented analysis. The primary objective of the paper is to carry out a quantitative analysis of the distribution of this type of discourse markers in COSPE, as well as a qualitative analysis aimed at characterising the markers uses in COSPE and identifying trends of use in judicial discourse. The focus of the study is on special particles which play a pivotal role in judicial texts: “contrargumentative markers” (Portolés 1998, Montolío 2001) or “antioriented argumentative markers” (Escandell 2013), which, following Rudolph (1996) have been labeled “argumentative markers of contrast”.
P align="LEFT">The present paper stems from a contrastive corpus-based study of phraseology in Spanish, Italian and English criminal judgments (Pontrandolfo 2013).īy exploring the Corpus of Criminal Judgments (COSPE), a large comparable trilingual corpus (Spanish, Italian, English) of approximately 6 million words, the present paper aims at investigating the close relationship among specialised discourse, discourse markers and translation.
0 kommentar(er)
