![]() ![]() Cílem této studie je popsat rozdíl mezi termíny pomocí kvalitativní analýzy jejich kolokačních vzorců a profilu v občanském zákoníku. Podle našeho názoru nejsou definice formulované autory zákona dostatečné, aby uživatelům odborného jazyka osvětlily zamýšlený rozdíl (cf. Oba z těchto výrazů se často v běžném jazyce používají jako synonyma, a proto představují riziko, že je překladatel neidentifikuje jako termíny. Abstract in Czech: Český občanský zákoník nedávno zavedl rozlišení mezi dvěma výrazy označujícími časový úsek: dobou a lhůtou. The findings of the Ondřej Klabal: Within the Period to Meet … 50 analysis will outline the strategies available to translators dealing with temporal expressions at the Czech-English interface. The analysis is based on a corpus compiled of the Czech Civil Code and a comparable corpus of civil legislation drafted in English. The second part of the paper consists of an analysis of potential English equivalents (time limit, period, deadline, time) and their collocates as used in legislation drafted in English. Therefore, this paper aims at describing the difference in meaning of these terms on the basis of a qualitative analysis of their collocational patterns and collocational profile, as used in the wording of the said law. It is believed that the definitions provided by the draftsmen of the said code do not describe the difference in meaning sufficiently for non-lawyers to understand (cf. Both of these terms are used, often interchangeably, in ordinary Czech language and are thus susceptible to failure by translators to be recognized as terms. The Czech Civil Code has recently introduced differentiation between two terms denoting a period of time: lhůta and doba. We conclude with a detailed comparison of legal translation and legal interpretation in the context of those four issues. We then focus on four issues of legal interpretation in the narrow sense: the types of legal interpretive problems, the creation of legal interpretive problems, the methods of legal interpretation, the resolution of legal interpretive problems. Jurists, on the other hand, usually assume the narrow sense which renders legal interpretation and legal translation as two distinct activities with some shared features. The wide sense is often assumed by translation scholars and it renders legal interpretation as a necessary prerequisite for legal translation. We argue that the relationship between legal translation and legal interpretation changes significantly depending on the notion of legal interpretation that is assumed. We start with distinguishing between the two notions of legal interpretation: the wide sense (interpretation as understanding) and the narrow sense (interpretation as problem solving). We adopt the perspective of legal theory-as opposed to the perspective of translation studies-which seems to be underrepresented in the literature of the subject. The common wisdom is that these activities are closely related, but the nature of that relationship remains disputable. In this article we investigate the relationship between legal translation and legal interpretation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |