Lucja Biel
Editor-in-Chief of the Jostrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation;
Head of ILS UW Corpus Research Centre; EST Board Member
Address: Instytut Lingwistyki Stosowanej
Uniwersytet Warszawski
ul. Dobra 55
00-312 Warszawa
Poland
Head of ILS UW Corpus Research Centre; EST Board Member
Address: Instytut Lingwistyki Stosowanej
Uniwersytet Warszawski
ul. Dobra 55
00-312 Warszawa
Poland
less
InterestsView All (38)
Uploads
Papers by Lucja Biel
https://www.crcpress.com/Research-Methods-in-Legal-Translation-and-Interpreting-Crossing-Methodological/Biel-Engberg-Ruano-Sosoni/p/book/9781138492103
The purpose of this volume is to explore key issues, approaches and challenges to quality in institutional translation by confronting academics’ and practitioners’ perspectives. What the reader will find in this book is an interplay of two approaches: academic contributions providing the conceptual and theoretical background for discussing quality on the one hand, and chapters exploring selected aspects of quality and case studies from both academics and practitioners on the other. Our aim is to present these two approaches as a breeding ground for testing one vis-à-vis the other.
This book studies institutional translation mostly through the lens of the European Union (EU) reality, and, more specifically, of EU institutions and bodies, due to the unprecedented scale of their multilingual operations and the legal and political importance of translation. Thus, it is concerned with the supranational (international) level, deliberately leaving national and other contexts aside. Quality in supranational institutions is explored both in terms of translation processes and their products – the translated texts.
Translation in Context. Professional Issues and Prospects: Series New Trends in Translation Studies, 2013, Peter Lang, Oxford, Vol. 4, 315 pp
Especially, the features of our globalized multicultural societies pose unprecedented challenges to practitioners who, in their daily work, often perceive the shortcomings of inherited models and established norms, and who thus often also experience acute dilemmas. In this scenario, we have seen a rise of sociological approaches, post-structuralist and critical approaches applied to legal translation, ethnographic studies and perspectives based on knowledge communication theories. In the light of these approaches emphasizing the role of legal translators as (pro)active agents, legal translation emerges as complex decision-making activity not only with challenges concerning the knowledge to be conveyed, but also with deep socio-political and ethical implications. In the panel, we want to have a special focus upon such approaches, but without limiting us to this type of innovative studies in the field of legal translation. Importantly, the panel wants to counter the tendency of fragmentation following the growth in number of studies and the rise in level of autonomy by presenting different approaches together.
Like legal translation, legal interpreting, in particular court interpreting, has developed separately within the field of Interpreting Studies. Much of the focus has been on norms, ethics, working conditions and training, with a solid grounding in empirical data. What legal translation and legal interpreting have in common is the cross-systemic and cross-cultural mediation of legal discourse; nevertheless, they seem to be researched in two distinct parallel worlds. Interestingly, the internal boundary is more pronounced in research than in professional practice where court translators and interpreters have joint qualifications in a number of countries.
This panel aims at integrating and consolidating the existing and novel data from varied angles across internal boundaries to arrive at methodological, pedagogical and theoretical generalisations about legal translation and interpreting.
how they have travelled within the EU primarily through translation. The main argument set forward is that EU terminology is the result of the Europeanisation of law which is achieved through the convergence of national laws and law harmonisation, but is also strongly affected
by global trends which are in turn influenced by socio-political and historical factors. The final section discusses the ‘side effects’ of hybridity, including instability of meaning, graphic/surface
similarity and semantic opacity, asymmetries of terms between official languages and the complex relation between supranational and national levels of meaning.