Правовая коммуникация в лингвоареальном ракурсе: юридический евроанглийский
The article reviews legal communication across the contemporary linguistic areal of the English language, including such variants as Euro-English. Legal terminology is exemplified to show co-existing legal expert communities’ preferences and tendencies in parallel nomination. So doing allows for capturing British, American and Euro-English legal traditions echoed by respective naming traditions manifested through terminological wording parallels.
The article addresses legal paronyms as constituents of modern legal English from the perspective didactic approaches to be applied in teaching legal language to students of law. Definitions of paronyms used by Russian and foreign linguists are compared. Instances of paronyms in legal English are analyzed with a view of identifying instrumental methods to be applied in linguistic didactics.
«Bankruptcy» Concept Within the Legal Linguistics Coordinates: Russian–English–French Approximations
The article addresses the notion of bankruptcy as perceived by speakers of current Russian, English and French languages both lawyers and participants in professional communication from other trades. Semantic structure of the term is identified based on its lexicographic and regulatory definitions.
The chapter features a theoretical viewpoint on an elusive notion of a ‘minimal unit of translation’ which is believed to underlie a technical mastery of translation in general and legal translation, in particular. Consequently, it is hoped to bear relevance to the core legal translation studies issues. However, no essential conceptualization has been undertaken to-date regarding a ‘unit of legal translation.’ This slows down the postulating of such crucial concepts for the legal translation theory and practice, as equivalence and semantic invariant, legal meaning nature and structure, practicable legal translation quality assessment criteria, and other vital issues. The legal translation theoretical framework may eventually benefit from the in-depth observations of several cases reviewed with a view to extrapolating them further on and using in larger legal translation data analysis. Some regularities of the English–Russian legal languages switch, describing respective techniques employed, are also elaborated on and discussed in detail.
Legal Translation In The Law Terminology Coreference Perspective
The article revisits a sustainable phenomenon inherent in languages for special purposes (domain-specific sublanguages) – multiple nomination of concepts exemplified by the legalese and correlating with cognitive representations of domain-specific knowledge. This phenomenon profiles an obvious problem area in special translation theory. Synonymy is treated in line with Yu.D. Aprecian’s concept whereby lexical units are regarded as semantically related if and when they appear referentially identical, i.e. co-referential. Co-reference gives rise to complexities in perceiving and comprehending legal texts in English–Russian translation. An interdisciplinary paradigm is applied for singling out an earmarked direction within the modern Translation Studies – Domain-Specific Translatology. A new name to once customary ‘special translation theory’ draws translation researchers to focus on profound studying of professional translation/interpreting across domain-specific fields, i.e. expert communication area, with the view of analyzing problems aggravated by the terminological co-reference available both in the source-language and target-language as well.
This article aims at describing several challenges typical of legal texts remarkably complicated for perceiving and comprehending even within the legal profession. One of the challenges associated with legal texts comprehension appears to be an interdisciplinary phenomenon attributable to languages for special purposes at large - multiple alternative nomination which we name the terminological co-reference trap. Legalists, legal practitioners and legal translators when confronted with the said phenomenon in the English-Russian interaction have to fix non-routine communication gaps. Examples drawn from various legal branches allow for validating a few theoretical assumptions regarding the issues under analysis.
This book reflects the latest trends in the contemporary legal science. The author consequently develops his idea that interhuman communicatation and interaction play an important role in creation and in ligitimation of law, involving the social groups in a communicative process.