Direction-asymmetric equivalence in legal translation
Identifikátory výsledku
Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11210%2F21%3A10436544" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11210/21:10436544 - isvavai.cz</a>
Výsledek na webu
<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=LwtUsVKI3j" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=LwtUsVKI3j</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/cl-2021-0012" target="_blank" >10.2478/cl-2021-0012</a>
Alternativní jazyky
Jazyk výsledku
angličtina
Název v původním jazyce
Direction-asymmetric equivalence in legal translation
Popis výsledku v původním jazyce
The concept of equivalence, despite the criticism it has received in the past decades, remains a useful framework for the study of correspondence between legal terms. In the present article, I address the question of direction-asymmetric equivalence in legal translation, i.e. equivalence that does not obey the "one-to-one" principle, and which usually implies that the translator's decision-making is more difficult in one direction than in the other. This asymmetry may be triggered by intrinsic semantic characteristics of legal terms (synonymy and polysemy), by differences between legal systems (system-specific terms, the procedures used for their translation and their handling in lexicographic sources, competing legal systems, tension between cultural boundedness and neutrality), or by social factors (L1 vs. L2 translation). The instances of directional asymmetry discussed are illustrated with examples from French and Czech.
Název v anglickém jazyce
Direction-asymmetric equivalence in legal translation
Popis výsledku anglicky
The concept of equivalence, despite the criticism it has received in the past decades, remains a useful framework for the study of correspondence between legal terms. In the present article, I address the question of direction-asymmetric equivalence in legal translation, i.e. equivalence that does not obey the "one-to-one" principle, and which usually implies that the translator's decision-making is more difficult in one direction than in the other. This asymmetry may be triggered by intrinsic semantic characteristics of legal terms (synonymy and polysemy), by differences between legal systems (system-specific terms, the procedures used for their translation and their handling in lexicographic sources, competing legal systems, tension between cultural boundedness and neutrality), or by social factors (L1 vs. L2 translation). The instances of directional asymmetry discussed are illustrated with examples from French and Czech.
Klasifikace
Druh
J<sub>SC</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS
CEP obor
—
OECD FORD obor
60203 - Linguistics
Návaznosti výsledku
Projekt
—
Návaznosti
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Ostatní
Rok uplatnění
2021
Kód důvěrnosti údajů
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku
Název periodika
Comparative Legilinguistics
ISSN
2080-5926
e-ISSN
—
Svazek periodika
2021
Číslo periodika v rámci svazku
47
Stát vydavatele periodika
PL - Polská republika
Počet stran výsledku
15
Strana od-do
58-72
Kód UT WoS článku
—
EID výsledku v databázi Scopus
2-s2.0-85120311734