|
List of Figures, Tables, and Boxes |
|
|
ix | |
| Acknowledgements |
|
xiii | |
| Introduction |
|
1 | (7) |
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
|
|
4 | (2) |
|
1.3 Practitioner Research |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
1.5 Boundaries of the Study |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
1 The Outsourced Legal Translation Environment |
|
|
8 | (23) |
|
1.1 The (Legal) Translation Market as an Outsourcing `Entity' |
|
|
8 | (13) |
|
1.1.1 Widespread Outsourcing |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
1.1.2 Cursory Order Specifications |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
1.1.3 Perceived Low Status of Agents |
|
|
10 | (3) |
|
1.1.4 Diversity of Agents' Skill Sets |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
1.1.5 Heterogeneous Quality and Quality Standards |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
1.1.6 The Speed of Change |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
1.1.7 Complex Actor Interactions in the Outsourced Legal Translation Market: A Representation of the Chain of Supply |
|
|
16 | (5) |
|
1.2 Agency Theory as a Lens to Research the Outsourced Legal Translation Market |
|
|
21 | (10) |
|
1.2.1 The Suitability of the Theory |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
1.2.2 How the Concept of Agency Has So Far Been Applied in Translation Studies |
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
1.2.3 Goal Congruence and Functionalism |
|
|
23 | (2) |
|
|
|
25 | (4) |
|
1.2.5 Regulating Mechanisms and Balance of Power |
|
|
29 | (2) |
|
2 Facets of Legal Translation Performance |
|
|
31 | (25) |
|
2.1 Negotiating between Languages |
|
|
31 | (8) |
|
2.1.1 Translation `Equivalence' |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 Legal Language/Discourse(s) |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
2.1.3 Legal Linguistic Features |
|
|
34 | (3) |
|
2.1.4 The Equivocal Nature of Legal Discourse Leading to Language Risk |
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
2.1.5 The Potential Risks of Plain Language |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
2.2 Negotiating between Legal Systems |
|
|
39 | (3) |
|
2.2.1 Asymmetry between Legal Systems, Areas of Law, Legal Concepts, and Terms |
|
|
39 | (2) |
|
2.2.2 Conveying Appropriate Levels of Legal Equivalence |
|
|
41 | (1) |
|
2.3 Negotiating between Genres and Subgenres |
|
|
42 | (6) |
|
2.3.1 Genre-Aware Translation Performance |
|
|
42 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 Classifications/Taxonomies of the Legal Macrogenre |
|
|
43 | (5) |
|
|
|
48 | (4) |
|
2.4.1 The Suitability of a Functionalist Approach to Legal Translation Performance |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 Differentiation of Receivership and Differentiation of Status |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
2.4.3 Specifying Levels of Covetmess for Legal Translations |
|
|
50 | (2) |
|
2.5 The Tesseract of the Legal Translator's Textual Agency |
|
|
52 | (4) |
|
3 Constraints on the Outsourced Legal Translation Process |
|
|
56 | (25) |
|
3.1 Constraints on Legal Translation Performance Arising Upstream of the Translator's Intervention |
|
|
56 | (5) |
|
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
3.1.2 Failures to Apply Quality Norms to the Source Text |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
|
|
60 | (1) |
|
3.2 `In-performance' Constraints Affecting Legal Translation |
|
|
61 | (15) |
|
3.2.1 Intentional Ambiguity |
|
|
61 | (3) |
|
3.2.2 Systemic and Conceptual Constraints |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
3.2.4 Intertextual and Interdiscursive Constraints |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
3.2.5 Purpose-Related Constraints |
|
|
66 | (6) |
|
3.2.6 Relational Impediments |
|
|
72 | (4) |
|
3.3 Constraints Downstream: Performance Assessment and Liability |
|
|
76 | (3) |
|
3.3.1 The Benchmark of Fitness-for-Purpose |
|
|
76 | (2) |
|
3.3.2 Other Quality Standards |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
3.3.3 The Translator's Liability |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
3.4 Logistical Constraints |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
4 A Comprehensive Legal Translation Brief |
|
|
81 | (22) |
|
|
|
82 | (3) |
|
4.1.1 The Translation Brief as Proposed by Nord |
|
|
82 | (2) |
|
4.1.2 Briefing as Viewed by Other Scholars |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
4.2 Briefing and Outsourcing in Practice |
|
|
85 | (6) |
|
4.2.1 Briefing in Related and Comparable Business Sectors |
|
|
85 | (2) |
|
4.2.2 Market Initiatives on Translator Briefing from Professional Bodies and Individuals |
|
|
87 | (3) |
|
4.2.3 Legal Translation Procurement Initiatives by Service Provision Intermediaries and by Institutions, Including Differentiation |
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
4.3 Relational Aspects of Briefing |
|
|
91 | (7) |
|
4.3.1 The Legal Translation Practitioner as a Hub |
|
|
91 | (3) |
|
4.3.2 Relational Agency and Proactive Behaviour to Stimulate Information Flows |
|
|
94 | (2) |
|
4.3.3 Levels of Interpretive Autonomy |
|
|
96 | (2) |
|
4.4 Towards a Tailored Brief for the Legal Translation Context |
|
|
98 | (5) |
|
5 A Triangulated Survey of the Outsourcing of Legal Translations to External Practitioners |
|
|
103 | (76) |
|
5.1 Research Paradigms and Methodology |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
5.2 Scope and Environment |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
|
|
107 | (6) |
|
|
|
107 | (4) |
|
5.3.2 Access to Participants |
|
|
111 | (2) |
|
5.3.3 The Data-Gathering Stage |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
5.4 Data-Analysis Methods |
|
|
113 | (4) |
|
5.5 Presentation of Data Collected |
|
|
117 | (56) |
|
|
|
117 | (5) |
|
|
|
122 | (21) |
|
5.5.3 Performance of Outsourced Legal Translation |
|
|
143 | (30) |
|
5.6 Summary of Survey Findings |
|
|
173 | (3) |
|
5.7 A Briefing Template for Practitioners |
|
|
176 | (4) |
| Conclusions |
|
179 | (8) |
|
C.1 Outsourced Legal Translation in situ: The Chain of Supply and Its Implications |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
C.2 The Need for Comprehensive Briefing |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
C.3 The Multifaceted Nature of the Legal Translator's Textual Agency |
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
C.4 Unravelling Legal Translation Performance Constraints |
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
C.5 Fitness-for-Purpose: Meeting Expressed Requirements |
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
C.6 Professionalization and Empowerment |
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
C.7 Insights into Text Types Outsourced for Translation |
|
|
183 | (1) |
|
C.8 Avenues for Future Research |
|
|
184 | (1) |
|
C.9 Concluding Statements |
|
|
185 | (2) |
| Afterword |
|
187 | (2) |
| Bibliography |
|
189 | (22) |
| Index |
|
211 | |
