LANGUAGE AND CULTURE MEDIATION AMONG LEGAL SYSTEMS THROUGH SPECIALIZED CONCEPTS INTERPRETATION: FRAME-BASED APPROACH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/15eks336Keywords:
language and culture mediation, interpretation, legal concepts.Abstract
The paper explores the hypothesis that argues for the necessity to incorporate frame-based approach into language and culture mediation between two/among several legal systems. The article aims to consider the implementation of frame-based approach to the legal concepts interpretation in the course mediation between two legal systems. To this end, the research includes a number of steps. Among them there is the identification of specialized concept essence within the language and culture mediation framework; analysis of challenges regarding language tools and legal knowledge integration to render the legal concepts meaning in the course of mediation between two legal systems; observation of stages of frame-based approach to interpretation of legal concepts in the course of mediation between two legal systems. The research methodology integrates theoretical and empirical studies that stand on qualitative research paradigm. The study uses comparative ethnographic approach, case study and grounded theory techniques. The analysis operates with the translation techniques terminology. The research stood within English-Russian legal knowledge settings. The on-line English- Russian law dictionary was used to select the concepts as the dictionary is based of UNO multilingual texts corpus (Dictionary reverse.net- on-line). The techniques to analyze parallel corpus mining by the use of bilingual definitions correlations were applied to content analysis of the source and target legal concepts definitions. Cluster analysis was used to structure the empirical data. The research findings confirm the relevance of the approach under study.
Downloads
References
1. ALCARAZ, V. E.; HUGHES, B. 2014. Legal Translation Explained. New York: Routledge. First published 2002 by St. Jerome Publishing. ISBN 13: 978-1-900650-46-5 (pbk).
2. ANDOR, J. 1985. On the psychological relevance of frames. Quaderni di semantica.6(2): 212 – 221.
3. Attorneys- General in Common Law and Hybrid Jurisditions. n/d. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_general (accessed on 16 April 2018)
4. BELENKOVA, N.;DAVTYAN, V. 2016. Correlation of translation and other language activities. International journal of environmental & science education.11(18): 10951-10959.
5. BERCEA, R. 2014. Legal translation and legal interpretation: the epistemological gap. The
Translator.20(3): 273-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.927968
6. BHATIA, V. K.;CANDLIN,Ch. N.; ALLORI,P. E. 2008. Language, Culture and the Law. The Formulation of Legal Concepts across Systems and Cultures. Series: Linguistic Insights. Peter Lang, 2008. ISBN:978-3-03911-470-2
7. BIBLER, V. S. 1991. From science to the logic of culture. Moscow: Politizdat.
8. BOCHNER, S. (ed.) 1981. The Mediating Person: Bridges between Cultures. Boston, Mass: G.K. Hall; Cambridge (UK), Mass.: Schenkman Pub. Co., p. 73. ISBN: 081619016X
9. Bresler’s Law Dictionary. Available online: http://www.clearwriting.com/dictionary/ (accessed on 7 June 2018)
10. BRYANT, A.;CHARMAZ, K. 2007. In: A. BRYANT, K. CHARMAZ (ed.). The SAGE Handbook of
Grounded Theory. London (UK): Sage. ISBN: 9781849204781
11. CABRÉ CASTELLVÍ, T. 2000. Elements for a Theory of Terminology: Towards an Alternative Paradigm.Terminology.6(1): 35–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/term.6.1.03cab
12. CANTER, D.;KEPPEL, R. 2008. Profiling: Principles, Processes, Practicalities. London: Prentice Hall.
13. Cat’s paw theory. n/d. Available online: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3eadc444-0c4f- 4f7d-96b8-ccf93754b708 (accessed on 12 April 2018)
14. COLLET, T. 2004. What is a term? In The Translation of Domain-Specific Languages and Multilingual Terminology Management. Special issue of LinguisticaAntverpiensia, edited by Rita Temmerman and Uus Knops, 99–112.
15. CONDAMINES, A. 1995. Terminology: New needs, new perspectives. Terminology.2(2): 219-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/term.2.2.03con
16. Criminal Law. Lawyers Source. Available online: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com (accessed on 18 March 2018)
17. DENZIN, N. K.; LINCOLN,Y. S. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. In: N. K. DENZIN, Y. S. LINCOLN (ed.). California (USA), Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.
18. Dictionary reverse.net- on-line. Available online: https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-russian/law (accessed on 22 March 2018)
19. DRUGAN, J.;STRANDVIK, I.; VUORINEN, E.. 2018. Translation quality, quality management and agency: principles and practice in the European Union institutions.In:J. MOORKENS (ed.).Translation Quality Assessment. Sheila Castilho, Federico Gaspari, Stephen Doherty. Springer International Publishing AG, pp. 39–68. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_3
20. ELLET, W. 2007. The Case Study Handbook: How to Read, Write, and Discuss Persuasively about Cases., Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN-13: 978-1422101582
21. ENGBERG, J. 2013. Comparative law for translation: the key to successful mediation between legal systems.In:A. B. ALBI, F. P.RAMOS (ed.). Legal Translation in Context. Professional Issues and Prospects. Oxford: Lang.
22. FILLMORE, Ch. J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280: 20–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x
23. GARZONE, G. 2000. Legal Translation and Functionalist Approaches: a Contradiction in Terms? ASTTI/ETI: 395–414. Available online: http://www.tradulex.com/Actes2000/Garzone.pdf
24. GOODALE, M.; MERRY, S. E. 2007. The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law between the Global and the Local. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.ISBN-13: 978-0521683784 DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511819193
25. GÓRNICZ, M. 2013. Teaching medical translation to non-medical students – a case study with some theoretical insights. JAHR.4(7): 129–144.
26. GUMPERZ, J.; HYMES, D. 1991 [1972]. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. In: J. GUMPERZ,D. HYMES (ed.).New York: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-0-631- 14987-3
27. GUO, M.;SHEN, Q.;YANG, Y.; GE, H.;CER, D.;ABREGO,G. H.;STEVENS, K.;CONSTANT, N.;
SUNGA, Y-H.;STROPE, B.;KURZWEIL, R. 2018. Effective Parallel Corpus Mining using Bilingual Sentence Embeddings. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.11906
28. GUSSAK, D. Therapy in Prison: Where Legal, Ethics, and Morals Collide. Available online: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/art-trial/201408/therapy-in-prison-where-legal-ethics-and- morals-collide
29. HEINZ, M.;CHENG, H-I; INUZUKA, A. 2007. Greenpeace Greenspeak: A Transcultural Discourse Analysis. Language and Intercultural Communication.7(1): 16-36. DOI: 10.2167/laic186.0
30. HERNANDEZ SACRISTAN, C. 1997. Traductor, traducción y mediación intercultural. In:C. H. SACRISTÁN, R. M.MARCO (ed.).Lenguaje y Emigración. Spain: Valencia: Universitat de València, 247–260.
31. HUDSON, R. 1985. Some basic assumptions about linguistic and nonlinguistic knowledge. Quaderni di semantica.6(2): 284 – 287.
32. HYMES, D. 1964. Introduction: Towards ethnographies of communication. In:J.J. Gumperz, D. Hymes (ed.).American Anthropologist.66(6, Part 2): 1–35, edited by.
33. Indefinite_imprisonment. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_imprisonment (accessed on 8 June 2018)
34. JOPEK-BOSIACKA, A. 2018. Theoretical and Logical Prerequisites for Legal Translation. International Journal of Language and Law.7: 47–69. DOI: 10.14762/jll.2018.047
35. LARA, L. F. 1999. Término y cultura: hacia una teoría del término. Terminología y modelos culturales. Institut universitari de linguística aplicada (IULA). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 39–60. ISBN: 84-477-0667-2
36. LEDERER, M. 1989. The Interpretive Theory of Translation: a brief survey. Publicos de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
37. LIANOS, I. 2009. Lost in Translation? Towards a Theory of Economic Transplants. London (UK): Centre for Law, Economics and Society, Faculty of Laws. Available online: https://studylib.net/doc/12999869/centre-for-law--economics-and-society-cles-faculty-of-law.
38. LINDBLOM, J.;ZIEMKE, T. 2003. Social situatedness of natural and artificial intelligence: Vygotsky and beyond. Adaptive Behavior.11(2): 79–96. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/85262.pdf
39. Linguistic Mediation: What is it and how can we introduce it in ELT? 2019. Available online: https://www.macmillaneducation.es/en/noticias/linguistic-mediation-what-is-it-and-how-can-we- introduce-it-in-elt/
40. MATTILA, H.E. S. 2013. Comparative Legal Linguistics. 2nd Edition. Ashgate: Farnham.
41. MEYER, I. 1992. Knowledge Management or terminology- intensive Applications: Needs and Tools. In Lexical Semantics and knowledge Representation, edited by James Pustejovsky and Sabine Bergler. First published 1991 University of California Berkeley, California, USA; Berlin (Germany): Springler Verlag, 21–37. Available online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W91/W91-0200.pdf
42. MINSKY, M. 1975. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In:P. WINSTON (ed.).The Psychology of Computer Vision. USA: McGraw-Hill. Available online: http://courses.media.mit.edu/2004spring/mas966/Minsky%201974%20Framework%20for%20knowledg e.pdf
43. MORRIS, M. 1995. Translation and the Law. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN: 155619627X (US)
44. MWD - Merriam Webster Dictionary on-line. Available online: https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/therapy (accessed on 15 April 2018)
45. NELKEN, D. 2017. Comparing Legal Cultures. In: D. NELKEN (ed.). USA: Taylor & Francis. eISBN: 9781351949972
46. NIDA, E. A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures involved in Bible Translating. Leiden (Germany): E. J. Brill.
47. ODL – Oxford Dictionary of Law. Sixth edition. Oxford University Press, 2006.
48. PEARSON, J. 1998. Terms in Context. The Netherlands- USA: Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 9789027222695.
49. PHILBRICK, F. A. 1949. Language and the Law. New York: Macmillan Co. Available online: https://ia600301.us.archive.org/12/items/languagelawseman00phil/languagelawseman00phil_bw.pdf
50. PICHT, H. 2002. The concept in Terminology: A unit of thought, knowledge and Cognition? In Scientific and Technical terminology. Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 7
51. Poll: Should police officers be required to undergo sensitivity training? n/d. Available online: http://fox43.com/2017/03/02/poll-should-police-officers-be-required-to-undergo-sensitivity-training/
52. Prison-jail. n/d. Available online: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prison (accessed on 21 May 2018)
53. PURNELL, L. 2018. Cross Cultural Communication: Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication, Interpretation and Translation. In:M. DOUGLAS, D. PACQUIAO, L.PURNELL(ed.).Global Applications of Culturally Competent Health Care: Guidelines for Practice, edited by. Springer International Publishing AG. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-69332-3_4
54. ROSCH, E. 1978. Principles of Categorization. In:E. Rosch, B. Lloyd (ed.).Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale NJ (USA): Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiation. Available online: https://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4610/9778_083247.pdf
55. ŠARČEVIĆ, S. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. ISBN: 9789041104014
56. TEMMERMAN, R.;KERREMANS, K. 2007. Terminology, situatedness and variation. Sammendrag – Nordterm 2007.
57. Tree strikes laws. n/d Available online: https://ru.wikipedia.org (accessed on 3 March 2018)
58. UNDERHILL, J. W. 2012. Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: love, truth, hate & war. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
59. USA department of the Interior. n/d. Available online: https://www.doi.gov/ (accessed on 19 May 2018)
60. VARGA, C. 2005. Legal Traditions? In Search for Families and Cultures of Law. Acta JuridicaHungarica.46(3-4): 177–197.
61. What is the difference between jail and prison?n/d. Available online: https://www.hg.org/legal- articles/what-is-the-difference-between-jail-and-prison-31513(accessed on 19 May 2018)
62. WU, T.; ZHANG, L.; Qi, C.; Cui, X.; Xu,K. 2017. Encoding Category Correlations into Bilingual Topic Modeling for Cross-Lingual Taxonomy Alignment. In International Semantic Web Conference, Springer, Cham, pp. 728–744. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68288-4_43
63. WÜSTER, E. 1996 [1974]. La teoria general de la terminologia: una zona fronterera entre la lingüística, la lògica, l'ontologia, la informàtica i les ciències especialitzades. In: M. Cabré (ed.). Terminologia. Selecció de textos d'E. Wüster. Barcelona: Servei de Llengua Catalana, Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 153– 202.
64. ZAWADA, B. E.; SWANEPOEL, P. 1994. On the Empirical Inadequacy of Terminological Concept Theories: The Case for Prototype Theory. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication.1(2): 253–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/term.1.2.03zaw
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
