\u039c\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018\u039d\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u039b\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u2019 \u03b1\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 academia.edu. \u00a0\u0391\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c3\u03b5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7, \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03af \u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.
\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marta Chrom\u00e1: Legal Translation and the Dictionary. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Postfach 2140, D-72011 T\u00fcbingen. 2004, vii + 122 pp. ISBN 3-484-39122-7. Price: 38,00 EUR.<\/p>\n
Reviewed by Tomasz Borkowski, MA. S\u0105dowa 23, 42-270 K\u0142omnice, Poland.<\/p>\n
This work by Marta Chrom\u00e1 details the theoretical basis underlying the writing of the Czech-English Law Dictionary with Explanations (2001). The general purpose of the book, contained in the \u201cForeword\u201d, is to share the experience the Author gained while compiling said dictionary, especially as concerns the functioning of language and the law in the two systems with those who may want to embark on a similar task, i.e., to create a dictionary whose source language is not widely spoken, and whose target language is English.<\/p>\n
Before I embark on a detailed presentation of the book, however, I consider it crucial to present my \u201cperspective statement\u201d, i.e. the perspective from which I will cover the contents of the book. It is consistent with that of the Author\u2019s presumed recipients as stated in the \u201cForeword\u201d, namely that of a lexicographer-beginner and terminology coordinating editor of an electronic terminological database who wants to create a Polish-English electronic dictionary containing statutory terms. Thus, in considering the goals of the dictionary, I will carefully look at how Chrom\u00e1 describes those legal, linguistic and pragmatic factors that, in her view, influence proper lexicographical methodology to ensure a correct interlingual transfer of information reflected by legal terms in a dictionary. Legal Translation and the Dictionary is divided in six parts, the first three of which are entitled: \u201cI. Introduction\u201d, \u201cII. Law dictionary and the language of the law\u201d, and \u201cIII. Conclusion\u201d. The next two are extensive summaries in German and French, and the last one \u2013 a bibliography.<\/p>\n
\u201cIntroduction\u201d contains a brief course on the modern history of Czech bilingual lexicography that reaches back to Josef Jungmann\u2019s Czech-German Dictionary in 5 volumes (1834-1839). Chrom\u00e1 distinguishes the period following World War I when certain members of the Prague Linguistic Circle attached to the Prague School of (functional) Linguistics engaged in research in what we call now the \u201clanguage for specific\/special purposes (LSP)\u201d. This was a branch that developed after the establishment of the commercial college, a new type of post-secondary school. The 1950s saw departments of foreign languages become the main centers of research in LSP, as well as in specialist lexicography \u2013 or, more specifically, terminography. The greatest achievements preceding the 1990 political breakthrough were the edition of Russian-, German-, French\u2013 and English-Czech thirteen-branch legal-language lexicons. 1990 marked a new era in both LSP research and bilingual lexicography. Thus, \u201cIntroduction\u201d puts the Author\u2019s work in the context of what was done in Czech terminography research up until the particular year, which leaves the reader curious as to the contribution Chrom\u00e1 has made in this field.<\/p>\n
Part II of the book is divided into four subparts, which reflect the intention of Chrom\u00e1 voiced in the Foreword, a major asset in itself, as it helps the reader to focus on the step-by-step elaboration of the previously outlined contents. In subpart entitled: \u201c1.Objectives of the Dictionary\u201d the Author specifies them as: 1. to offer help to translators of Czech legal texts into English in the aim of producing both linguistically and legally correct, precise, and accurate translations that the translated text be comprehensible to English-language native speakers who are lawyers and whose legal system is based on Common Law (in 1.1. non-native English-language speakers are also included); 2. to standardize (codify \u2013 the Prague Circle\u2019s terminology) English translation equivalents of Czech legal terminology, something which is vital in view of the (then yet to take place) accession of the Czech Republic to the EU; 3. to map the basic features of the Czech legal language; 4. to find authentic equivalents in the Anglo-American system of law of words and concepts which have seemingly been poorly translated from Czech. The above-mentioned have definitely been set reasonably and they touch the linguistic, legal, and pragmatic issues detailed in II, so let us look at how their attainment is pursued throughout the book.<\/p>\n
In 1.1 the importance of defining the target users as one of the most influential factors in pre-lexicographical stage decision-making is emphasized, with the following types of users being set forth: a) linguists lacking a legal educational background (mainly translators and interpreters, including Czech teachers of legal English); b) graduates (or students) of law schools, lacking formal linguistic education; c) dictionary users who are neither linguists nor lawyers. All users should have a solid intermediate knowledge of Czech (as English-language speakers) or English (as a native Czech). The main goal of the dictionary, having regard to the above-mentioned types of users, is \u201cto assist those who deal with Czech legal texts in trying to understand and transfer them into (legal) English\u201d (p. 5).<\/p>\n
In subpart 2, \u201cLegal framework\u201d, Chrom\u00e1 traces the sources of problems characteristic of Czech-to-English legal translations. The key ones are:<\/p>\n
Interestingly enough, the Author, recognizing the acquis communautaire written in English as another source of legal and linguistic equivalents, denies European Union law full reliability. Here she points to the failure to fully standardize it within the Czech legal system, Czech being the target language in said standardization process, and she contrasts that process with the CELDE task, where Czech is the source language. But is this enough justification for the book\u2019s outright rejection of EU law in English as a source of potential equivalents? One may quite legitimately suggest that, given the importance of accession to the EU (which the Author mentions with regard to the linguistic objectives of CELDE \u2013 see above), she should more clearly or comprehensively explain the rejection.\u00a0 Maybe the areas of law that CELDE covers (see later here) prove to be unaffected by the acquis communautaire, and thus no possible retranslation needs to be considered. But if this was the case, it should have been explicitly stated in the book.<\/p>\n
Having outlined the legal framework underlying Czech-to-English translations, Chrom\u00e1 proceeds to specifying the linguistic framework in subpart 3, which is the most extensive one in the book. First, in 3.1.1., \u201cLSP and LLP\u201d, she defines LSP as \u201ca subsystem of the general language system which consists of (describing and analyzing) the selection, combination and use of existing morphological, lexical and syntactic units, structures and patterns that would best serve the specific stylistic, discourse and generic functions of a text in a concrete subject area and specific social context\u201d (p. 13), and attributes the name \u201cLSP variety\u201d (basing on Picht and Draskau, 1985) to language for legal purposes (LLP).<\/p>\n
Then in 3.1.2, \u201cTerminology\u201d, and in other sub-subparts (3.1.2.1-3.1.2.7) the Author broadly covers lexical, semantic, grammatical and syntactic restrictions of the LSP variety that result from the use of terminology understood as the most visible part of the vocabulary (i.e., the collection of terms which represents the system of concepts) of an individual, special subject-field. First of all, she describes the types of lexical units in the legal language, the most relevant one for us being \u201cpure\u201d law terminology, i.e., that which is used exclusively within the branch of law.<\/p>\n
At the same time, Chrom\u00e1 points out that it is codification, i.e., publishing monolingual law dictionaries based on a respective legal system (rather than standardization) that is characteristic of legal terminology. Thus, perhaps, she should have used the term \u201cstandardization of reference\u201d in describing the objectives of CELDE with respect to English equivalents, i.e., the situation in which one concept is represented by one term throughout the entire system (Sager, 1990: 114-118). Lacking this, the reader may be left confused as to the meaning of the term \u201cstandardization\u201d here.<\/p>\n
In 3.1.2.1 Chrom\u00e1 juxtaposes the traditional approach to terms being monosemous (one meaning) and mononymous (one word) lexical units with the fact that the majority of legal terms are multi-word expressions and phrases requiring a context for them to be recognized. In 3.1.2.2. the Author subcategorizes terms according to their function as specialist terms (or terms of art) referring to defined or definable concepts and descriptive terms (nomenclatures or taxonomies). Then Chrom\u00e1 claims that as regards the normativity of terminology, the language of the law contains prescriptive terminology that represents prescriptive norms expressed by statutory terms. 3.1.2.3. is a meticulous study on the grammatical, i.e., morphemic, categorial (e.g., countable vs. uncountable varieties of one word), lexemic and syntagmatic subcategorization of terms. 3.1.2.4., in turn, focuses on polynomial lexemes (i.e., containing more than one word) called also phrasemes, which need appropriate identification on the part of a special lexicographer.<\/p>\n
The extended meaning of vocabulary as noted with reference to 3.1.2 is related to the description of the \u201cterm\u201d at the beginning of 3.1.2.1, where Chrom\u00e1 cites that it is \u201can expression denoting a concept as a part of the system of concepts of a specific subject-field\u201d. Later in the book (4.2) the Author mentions also a concept-system structure and notes the need for cross-referencing. Unfortunately, this vital systemic perspective seems to be reflected neither in the description of the dictionary nor in the entries themselves. One may only wonder how the maintenance of unity and the consistency of the identification of a term within the conceptual system where it is used (which is of paramount importance for users) can be ensured without defining and presenting relationships among the concepts reflected by dictionary entries, an increasingly powerful terminographical approach taken, e.g., by Sager (1990).<\/p>\n
When pointing to synonymy in terminology in 3.1.2.5., Chrom\u00e1 emphasizes the need of ascertainment thereof by analyzing the intension and distribution of two allegedly synonymical terms, which, if identical, make them full synonyms; otherwise such terms could be partial synonyms, which prevail in occurrence. Other relationships between terms: homonymy and polysemy (3.1.2.6), considerably affect a lexicographer\u2019s work, as the former requires different headwords, whereas the latter requires different equivalents for one headword. At the same time the Author argues that there is no pure homonymy in either legal Czech or legal English, as homonyms are used in different branches of science. This approach may well take a considerable load off the lexicographer when in doubt as to the relations between terms having the same form and allegedly different meaning: they would consequently be either polysemes or different instances of the occurrence of one term. The three-page coverage of legal jargon in 3.1.2.7 is only relevant for us insofar as the legalese in English covers also statutory texts, whereas in the Czech legislative texts we would only find standardized Czech (SC), which is in contrast to professionalisms (jargon) belonging to common Czech (CC).<\/p>\n
\u201cTechnical\u201d terminology issues finished, the Author presents in 3.2, \u201cLinguistics of Translation\u201d, her views on what we could call an analytical solution based on translation theory to the problems of finding the right equivalents to legal terms in a dictionary given the incongruities of different-type legal systems. Chrom\u00e1\u2019s coverage of the topic is quite extensive and is continued in 4.2 (\u201cConceptual Dictionary\u201d), but the relevant gist for our perspective is as follows:<\/p>\n
Such an approach seems to be highly user-oriented as regards the resulting dictionary contents. However, the information underlying my brief account of Chroma\u2019s approach here and in 2 below is not a summary of a uniform piece of writing, for her focus is dispersed to quite an extent throughout part 3 and 4 of the book: hence it requires a lot of effort to combine all the pieces into a logical whole. This of course is contributory to one\u2019s reasoning skills, so indispensable in a translator\u2019s work, but some might well regard it a drawback. To give a credit to the Author, chart 1 on page 51, which covers the elements of the interlingual information transfer, is highly useful for readers, although extremely concise.<\/p>\n
Let me go into details here. Chrom\u00e1 limits the meaning of the term \u201cequivalence\u201d to the act of cross-language matching \u201cwords or phrases having equal or corresponding import, meaning or significance\u201d (p. 50).<\/p>\n
For clarity purposes, we can make a certain classification of the types of possible equivalents presented by the Author. In view of preservation of the cultural specificity of source terms, \u201clegal realia\u201d, i.e. expressions that are \u201cculturally rooted in the national law and language\u201d but have \u201cno, or an incomplete, counterpart in the target language and target legal system\u201d (p. 51), such as the Czech term maturita (a distant equivalent of the A-level in the UK) would have the lowest equivalence potential. Their target-language rendition would fall either within: a) the category of \u201ccultural equivalents\u201d obtained by \u201cnaturalization\u201d or borrowing, the example here being Austrian-German-English terms \u201cmatura-exam\u201d for maturita; or within: b) the category of \u201cequivalent paraphrase\u201d or \u201cexplanatory equivalents\u201d, i.e. explanatory paraphrasing of a source-language term to mediate the source information in a case where there seems to exist a cross-system onomasiological lacuna. The example here is the Czech term p\u0155estupek rendered by Chrom\u00e1 as \u201cadministrative infraction\u201d or, more generally, \u201cadministrative delict\u201d, where adding the word \u201cadministrative\u201d to target-language legal terms serves to show that the wrongful act is to be judged according to administrative rather than civil law.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, the equivalence potential would be much higher if there are functional equivalents to be found: \u201cterms in the target legal system designating concepts or institutions, the function of which is the same as that of the source term\u201d (p. 55, after \u0160ar\u010devi\u0107: 1989a). Chrom\u00e1 underlines, after \u0160ar\u010devi\u0107, that most functional equivalents are only partially equivalent insofar as their main characteristics are the same, whereas the accidental ones may be different. In such cases Chrom\u00e1, referring to \u0160ar\u010devi\u0107, regards it legitimate to require \u201cthat they [lexicographers \u2013 T.B.] cite equivalents of the target legal system which most accurately convey the legal sense of the source term\u201d since \u201cas a result of the inherent incongruity of the terminology of different legal systems, legal lexicographers cannot be expected to provide translation equivalents which are identical to their source terms at the conceptual level \u2026\u201d (p. 67).<\/p>\n
One may also think of other types of equivalents that would be addressed to the \u201cunknown or unidentifiable\u201d recipient recognized by the Author (p. 55). Unfortunately, we do not know exactly what she means by such a recipient, although we can speculate that, in contrast with the supposed users mentioned in 1.1 in the book, \u201cunknown\u201d recipients would most probably be non-native English-speakers who, knowing Czech, indulge in translation or linguistic studies of some kind, but do not have solid knowledge concerning English-speaking countries\u2019 legal systems. Neither do we know the solution that Chrom\u00e1 would offer such users to prevent their confusion regarding functional equivalents. Although the Author notices that in such case \u201cthe alternative equivalent should be mentioned in a translator\u2019s note or gloss\u201d (p. 55), and that \u201cthe message in one text is transferred to another text in order to make it understood by the recipient\u201d (ibid.), we do not find anywhere in the book any specific approach to secondary term formation leading to obtaining equivalents that would satisfy the communicative needs of such \u201cinternational\u201d and, consequently, \u201cmulticultural\u201d collective recipient by translating a term in a way that does not directly relate to target legal-system terms. An example of such an approach can be the possibility to use \u201cneutral\u201d, i.e. non-technical terms, a policy mentioned by Rayar (1997) and \u0160ar\u010devi\u0107 (1997). Apart from preventing equivalents from being biased against non-native speakers of English, the use of \u201cneutral\u201d equivalents could serve a purpose where there is no functional equivalent that would be acceptable (\u0160ar\u010devi\u0107 1997: 242, 255).<\/p>\n
Subpart 4: \u201cLexicographical framework\u201d provides us with an insight into CELDE as an object of terminographical description. We may state that the first part of subpart 4, i.e., 4.1-4.3, concerns the conceptual aspects of CELDE. Again, the picture is quite dispersed here, a flaw that I also pointed out with regard to subpart 3, and my concise reconstruction and assessment of it would be as follows: CELDE, according to the terms Chrom\u00e1 evoked, can be described as a bilingual special purpose (segmental\/ technical) encoding (for the Czech people: pattern L1-L2) or decoding (for the Englishmen: pattern L2-L1) translating dictionary containing explanations, which the Author considers a more reliable alternative to common glossary-like dictionaries. A great idea in itself, but only terms not frequently used in legal Czech and those not having a legal equivalent in the Anglo-American system does the author give a chance of being provided with explanations. Although Chrom\u00e1 does not mention it, one would think she had done a thorough frequency analysis in this respect within a chosen corpus of texts.<\/p>\n
In the event, the Author understands explanations as serving to report and clarify usage, rather than to define in the sense of prescribing, as if \u201cfor the first time\u201d. Hence, she avoids using the word \u201cdefinition\u201d in the title. They usually, although not always, refer to both the source term and the target term \u2013 naturally, there are more English explanations, as sometimes several functional equivalents are contained in one entry. It is worth mentioning that explanations are brief and given in smaller letters (which is highly user-friendly), and they can be expressed in a number of ways, ranging from (definitions by) synonyms, substitutions, and (definitions by) paraphrases, to definitions by analysis, by synthesis, by implication and denotation, with every type being exemplified by the Author. This contributes to greater transparency of her argument.<\/p>\n
Explanatory parts are intended also to include (in some cases) essential yet highly useful information in the form of usage examples (e.g., a headword + adjective and their equivalent(s) or longer phrases, e.g., a whole sentence or a clause). In such cases glosses in small letters are used to indicate different contexts of usage of particular terms, or said terms are interlaced with glosses that can form parts of the terms in certain contexts. Both ways of glossing aim at explaining the cultural specificity of given terms. Thus, in this respect, CELDE is a highly flexible resource as especially regards the choice of one of several functional equivalents of a given source term. This stems from the fact, with regard to entries containing explanations, the dictionary identifies the essential conceptual differences and similarities between given equivalent pairs in one entry, thereby providing a translator with possibilities for making informed decisions on whether any of the equivalents would adequately reflect the concept of the source term, and whether it should be used with or without the interlaced gloss if contained in the entry. Furthermore, genuine usage examples, especially longer than a two-word phraseme, are often a source of highly useful information on the syntactical context of a given term, the knowledge so indispensable for correct use of terminology both in the source and the target language. Chrom\u00e1 underlines the importance of the syntactical context throughout her book, and she considers the lack of it a perennial disadvantage of many dictionaries.<\/p>\n
The second part of subpart 4, i.e. 4.4, \u201cCollection of material and entry-processing\u201d, accounts for the technical aspect of CELDE: its source material and micro- and macrostructure arrangement. This is here that we get to know that the dictionary is based on two parallel electronic corpora of: a) \u201ccore laws representing the whole body of Czech law\u201d, i.e., for example, the Civil Code, the Commercial Code, and the Criminal Code, supplemented by about 3,000 pages of authentic legal documents, including court documents and textbooks; b) English legislative texts, such as the Louisiana Civil Code, Canadian Penal Code, etc., as well as authentic documents, all of which are described as topically relevant to the Czech ones. The selection of such type of materials is highly reasonable, since we have to agree with Chrom\u00e1\u2019s remark that legislation is the main source of both new terms and the syntactic structures subsequently applied in non-legislative legal discourses. The Author, basing also on other linguists\u2019 opinions, considers such parallel-corpora approach a far more better for comparative purposes than any corpora including original texts and translations, since \u201clinguists should never rely on translations when they are describing the language \u2026; such corpora would have minimum significance in determining the relationship between the source text and language on the one hand and the target language and text on the other.\u201d (p. 71).<\/p>\n
The next part of 4.4 (4.4.1-4) contains detailed information on CELDE\u2019s microstructure first and foremost in visual terms. I have already given a lot of information concerning this topic when commenting on subpart 4. Worth adding here is that most CELDE\u2019s headwords are simple lexemes, including primarily nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs, i.e., lexical units carrying the bulk of legal information. The necessity of including them is plain. Furthermore, the Author, guided by a user-friendly approach, decided that multi-word terms or phrases can be found under the respective terms constituting them, thus extending the size of the dictionary by a certain number of repeated entries. Strangely enough, however, although Chrom\u00e1 emphasizes the need of keeping source information in the database as regards both headwords and equivalents, as well as usage examples (but apparently not with regard to explanations in the form of definitions), only one example of a cited entry includes notes to this extent (p. 56).<\/p>\n
Finally, in 4.5 Chrom\u00e1 devotes about half a page for describing the IT aspect of creating CELDE. She describes the database software used for storing and processing excerpts and for ultimate processing of individual entries. The Author also describes her dictionary in numbers.<\/p>\n
As regards the macrostructure, then, starting from the constructional aspect of the dictionary, there are 9,200 headwords in CELDE, and they are arranged alphabetically, which seems to be the most effective approach. Within the headwords CELDE contains 29,000 Czech terms, phrases and semi-sentences, and about 46,000 English equivalents thereof. A database of excerpts consisting of 167,000 words was used to select about 145,000 Czech words for both headwords and exemplifications. The English side of the dictionary, in turn, includes 215,000 words selected from 253,000 contained in a database of English equivalents of headwords and examples of use.<\/p>\n
Referring to 4.5, I think that more information on the way of selecting headwords and keeping them terminologically consistent \u2013 i.e., ensuring that a given term is always used in one meaning (except for polysemous ones of course) \u2013 could have been given apart from a concise statement that the headwords are \u201cadequate with respect to the excerpted material\u201d (p. 72). Such information would be far more relevant for readers, most notably lexicographers or terminologists themselves.<\/p>\n
In part III \u2013 \u201cConclusion\u201d \u2013 the Author contains a summary of findings together with implications for future research. In applied linguistics the purpose of the research will focus on analysis of individual text types in private, public and procedural law with the aim of creating \u201ccomparable corpora of English and Czech legal texts\u201d (p. 83). In lexicography it will concentrate on preparation of a comprehensive English-Czech law dictionary covering the legal systems of all major English-speaking countries, including here the compilation of an English law corpus, the purpose of the dictionary being the provision and explanation of \u201cconcepts of the Anglo-American system of law\u201d and finding \u201ctheir conceptual and\/or functional equivalents and counterparts in Czech law and legal language\u201d (ibid.).<\/p>\n
Parts IV and V contain abbreviated versions of the respective subparts of the book in German and French, which enables Chrom\u00e1 to acquaint a wider circle of readers with her basic findings.<\/p>\n
Finally, part VI includes an extensive bibliography.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
In this review I have presented in brief Chrom\u00e1\u2019s views on the subject of terminography, along with a short assessment thereof. Considering everything that was said here, I am convinced that sharing the lexicographical experience the Author gained with others is by all means valuable. In most general terms we can say that the goals of the dictionary itself are explicitly covered, as are the terminographical solutions corresponding to these goals and serving communicative the needs of potential readers, with some non-clarity, however, with regard to the needs of \u201cunknown\u201d users. More specifically, on the one hand we are offered a description of a wide context of legal language and its interlingual transposition accompanied by the absorbing idea of the inclusion of a wide range of explanation types in entries (especially that of \u201cflexible\u201d terms with interlaced glosses) and numerous exemplary CELDE entries. This is of course excellent, except for lack of transparent organization of the contents to some extent.<\/p>\n
On the other hand there is scant information on the methodology, on the basis of which the Author selected the chosen 145,000 words from a rich Czech-language corpus containing about 167,000 words. Were the frequency of terms in the corpus or delineation of conceptual fields the deciding factors? Or were there other factors? I would consider coverage of this particular issue, for example under 4.4, crucial from the lexicographer-terminologist\u2019s perspective.<\/p>\n
The apparent lack of coverage of the issue concerning the dictionary as a full reflection of the system of concepts underlying legal systems, and hence the lack of indication of internal relationships holding both among the CELDE source and target terms in its microstructures, may also raise concerns.<\/p>\n
Yet another great merit of Chrom\u00e1\u2019s work is the extensive bibliography containing the basic and most recent subject-area literature. Although here the lack of either the authors\u2019 or main theoretical terms\u2019 index reference may also be regarded an imperfection.<\/p>\n
Thus, it is entirely worthwhile to read the book as a valuable contribution to specialist lexicography science, although, considering all the relevant factors \u2013 Legal Translation and the Dictionary provides less than comprehensive instruction on how to compile a bilingual, LSP dictionary.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Picht H., J. Draskau (1985), Terminology: An Introduction. Surrey: University of Surrey.<\/p>\n
Rayar, L. (translator) (1997), The Dutch Penal Code. Littleton: Fred B. Rothman & Co. 277 pp.<\/p>\n
Sager, J.C. (1990), A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam\/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 254 pp.<\/p>\n
\u0160ar\u010devi\u0107, S. (1997), New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. 308 pp.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
About the Author: Tomasz Borkowski graduated from the Institute of Applied Linguistics, Warsaw University, and currently is a PhD student at the faculty of LSP, Warsaw University. He is working on a PhD thesis concerning a bilingual LSP dictionary. For\u00a0five years he has been cooperating with the Translegis (formerly TEPIS) Publishing House as a coordinating editor in charge of dealing with the English-language translations of Polish legislative instruments, with a special emphasis on pre- and post-translation editing, as well as terminology preparation. He also manages the PolTerm terminology database, recently imported to EuroTermBank database (www.eurotermbank.com<\/a>), and a translation memory of Polish legislative texts and their English-language translations in one of CAT tools. During the last year he was a main expert in the Information Processing Centre, Warsaw, working on implementation of the EuroTermBank project. Apart from that, since four years he has been teaching students Polish-English and English-Polish translation of LSP texts (legislative and business texts) at his current faculty at the Warsaw University.<\/p>\n source: https:\/\/www.academia.edu\/8346378\/Marta_Chroma_-_Legal_Translation_and_the_Dictionary_-_review<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u039c\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018\u039d\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u039b\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u2019 \u03b1\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 academia.edu. \u00a0\u0391\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c3\u03b5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7, \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03af \u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[153,165,89,167],"tags":[206,177,179,206,177,179],"class_list":["post-581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-153","category-165","category-89","category-167","tag-206","tag-177","tag-179"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5NEKd-9n","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/581\/"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post\/"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3\/"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments\/?post=581"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/581\/revisions\/"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":756,"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/581\/revisions\/756\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/?parent=581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/?post=581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurtrans.com\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags\/?post=581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}