Translation by explicature: a form-based approach for translating legal texts

References

Aitken, James K. & Peter J. Butt. 2004. Piesse – the elements of drafting, 10th edn. Sydney: Law book Co.Search in Google Scholar

Alves, Fabio. 2007. Cognitive effort and contextual effect in translation: A relevance theoretic approach. Journal of Translation Studies 10(1). 18–35.Search in Google Scholar

Alves, Fabio. 2010. Explicitness and explicitation in translation: A relevance theoretic approach. In Jorge Campos da Costa & Fábio José Rauen (eds.), Topics in relevance theory, 77–99. Porto Alegre: EdiPUCRS.Search in Google Scholar

Alwazna, Rafat Y. 2017. Culture and law: The cultural impact on Islamic legal statements and its implications for translation. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(2). 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0013.Search in Google Scholar

Azuelos-Atias, Sol. 2010. Semantically cued contextual implicatures in legal texts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(3). 728–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.009.Search in Google Scholar

Azuelos-Atias, Sol & Ning Ye. 2017. On drafting, interpreting, and translating legal texts across languages and cultures. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(1). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-1000.Search in Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486456Search in Google Scholar

Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599552Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2000. Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12(1). 44–89.Search in Google Scholar

Catford, John. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: OUP.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008. Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach. Semiotica 172. 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEMI.2008.088.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le, King-Kui Sin & Winnie Cheng. 2014. Legal translation: A sociosemiotic approach. Semiotica 2014(201). 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2014-0019.Search in Google Scholar

Chesterman, Andrew. 2011. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis. Methods and strategies of process research. In Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild & Elisabet Tiselius (eds.), Integrative approaches in translation studies, 23–35. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.94.05cheSearch in Google Scholar

Christensen, Leah M. 2006. Legal reading and success in law school: An empirical study. Seattle University Law Review 30. 603.Search in Google Scholar

Delisle, Jean, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke & Monique C. Cormier. 1999. Terminologie de la traduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/fit.1Search in Google Scholar

Dimitrova, Birgitta Englund. 2005. Expertise and explicitation in the translation process, 64. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Engberg, Jan. 2009. Individual conceptual structure and legal experts’ efficient communication. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 22. 223–243.10.1007/s11196-009-9104-xSearch in Google Scholar

Floor, Sebastian J. 2007. Four bible translation types and some criteria to distinguish them. Journal of Translation 3(2). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.54395/jot-pfw5h.Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 1972. The archeology of knowledge. New York: Harper. (translated by A.M. Sheridan). [Orig. French 1969: L’archéologie du savoir].Search in Google Scholar

Garzone, Giuliana. 2000. Legal translation and functionalist approaches: A contradiction in terms. AsTTi/eTi 395. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27655588.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Brill.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1989. Translation and relevance. University of London Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1990. Theoretical account of translation – without a translation theory. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 2(2). 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.2.2.02gut.Search in Google Scholar

Gutt, Ernst-August. 2000a. Translation and relevance: Cognition and context, revised edn. Manchester and Boston: St. Jerome Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Gutt, Ernst-August. 2000b. Issues of translation research in the inferential paradigm of communication. In Maeve Olohan (ed.), Intercultural faultlines – research models in translation studies 1: Textual and cognitive aspects, 161–179. Manchester: St. Jerome.10.4324/9781315759951-11Search in Google Scholar

Hatim, Basil, Abdulla Shunnaq & Ron Buckley. 1995. The legal translator at work: Arabic-English legal translation. Jordan: Irbid: Dar Al-Hilal for Translation and Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 2001. Traducción y Traductología. Introducción a la Traductología. Madrid: Cátedra.Search in Google Scholar

Hurtado Albir, Amparo & Fabio Alves. 2009. Translation as a cognitive activity. In Jeremy Munday (ed.), The Routledge companion to translation studies, 54–73. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Katan, David. 2011. The status of translator. In Gambier Yves & Luc Van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of translation studies, 146–153. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin.Search in Google Scholar

Lessig, Lawrence. 1993. Fidelity in translation. Texas Law Review 71(6). 1165–1268.Search in Google Scholar

Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2017. Communities of message senders and recipients in legal settings and their communicative needs. The translator’s perspective. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(1). 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob L. 2017. Discourse, interests, and the law: Some pragma-legal reflections. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(1). 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0004.Search in Google Scholar

Newmark, Peter. 1988. A textbook of translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Perna, Cristina Lopes. 2010. Legal translation in the light of relevance theory. In Jorge Compas da Costa (ed.), Topics in relevance theory, 115–133. Porto Alegre: EdiPUCRS.Search in Google Scholar

Pommer, Sieglinde E. 2008. No creativity in legal translation? Babel 54(4). 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.54.4.04pom.Search in Google Scholar

Ramos, Fernando Prieto. 2002. Beyond the confines of literality: A Functionalist approach to the sworn translation of legal documents. Puentes 2. 27–35.Search in Google Scholar

Ramos, Fernando Prieto. 2014. Parameters for problem-solving in legal translation: Implications for legal lexicography and institutional terminology management. In Le Cheng, King Kui Kui Sin & Anne Wagner (eds.), The Ashgate handbook of legal translation, 121–134. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited (Law, language and communication).Search in Google Scholar

Recanati, Francois. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615382Search in Google Scholar

Saqf Al-Hait, Asem. 2012. The reliable guide to legal translation. Amman, Jordan: Dar Althaqafa for Publishing and Distributing.Search in Google Scholar

Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The language of judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986/95. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition with Postface 1995.Search in Google Scholar

Tendahl, Markus & Raymond W. GibbsJr. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40(11). 1823–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Vermeer, Hans. 1996. A Skopos theory of translation. Heidelberg: TextconText Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Vinay, Jean-Paul & Jean Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation, 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/btl.11Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present, and future. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 3–28. London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and skills in translator behavior. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/btl.15Search in Google Scholar