This HTML5 document contains 37 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n9http://localhost/temp/predkladatel/
n7http://purl.org/net/nknouf/ns/bibtex#
n13http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/riv/tvurce/
n16http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/
n11https://schema.org/
shttp://schema.org/
skoshttp://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
n3http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/
n2http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n19http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F14%3A10281853%21RIV15-MSM-11220___/
n8http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/klicoveSlovo/
n15http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/duvernostUdaju/
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n17http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/jazykVysledku/
n10http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/aktivita/
n18http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/druhVysledku/
n6http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/obor/
n4http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/gregorian-year/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F14%3A10281853%21RIV15-MSM-11220___
rdf:type
skos:Concept n16:Vysledek
dcterms:description
The practice, as well as theory, of bilingual (or multilingual) legal lexicography lags behind the practice and theory of the translation of legal texts. Dictionary making requires much deeper and more extensive knowledge of law in both the source and target language cultures than the practice of legal translation. One of the reasons supporting this premise is that the lexicographer, compiling individual entries and looking for relevant equivalents, sooner or later resorts to a certain degree of inductive generalization since the dictionary cannot contain all possible occurrences of a particular word in all possible source language legal contexts and their target language equivalents. Legal translators, on the other hand, expect their translational legal dictionary to offer equivalents suitable and proper in their particular translation of a particular legal text in a particular legal context. This tension between expectations and needs of legal translators and the potential of translational legal dictionaries (fully dependent upon the lexicographic expertise and translational experience of a dictionary maker) will be dealt with. The focus will be on (a) the contextuality of the process of legal translation, whose primary purpose appears to be the transmission of the sense of the source text and its segments, thus slightly suppressing the relevance of the meaning of individual words or even phrases; and (b) reflection of this contextuality in a formally constrained dictionary for legal translation. The practice, as well as theory, of bilingual (or multilingual) legal lexicography lags behind the practice and theory of the translation of legal texts. Dictionary making requires much deeper and more extensive knowledge of law in both the source and target language cultures than the practice of legal translation. One of the reasons supporting this premise is that the lexicographer, compiling individual entries and looking for relevant equivalents, sooner or later resorts to a certain degree of inductive generalization since the dictionary cannot contain all possible occurrences of a particular word in all possible source language legal contexts and their target language equivalents. Legal translators, on the other hand, expect their translational legal dictionary to offer equivalents suitable and proper in their particular translation of a particular legal text in a particular legal context. This tension between expectations and needs of legal translators and the potential of translational legal dictionaries (fully dependent upon the lexicographic expertise and translational experience of a dictionary maker) will be dealt with. The focus will be on (a) the contextuality of the process of legal translation, whose primary purpose appears to be the transmission of the sense of the source text and its segments, thus slightly suppressing the relevance of the meaning of individual words or even phrases; and (b) reflection of this contextuality in a formally constrained dictionary for legal translation.
dcterms:title
Translation and the Law Dictionary Translation and the Law Dictionary
skos:prefLabel
Translation and the Law Dictionary Translation and the Law Dictionary
skos:notation
RIV/00216208:11220/14:10281853!RIV15-MSM-11220___
n3:aktivita
n10:I
n3:aktivity
I
n3:dodaniDat
n4:2015
n3:domaciTvurceVysledku
n13:8443890
n3:druhVysledku
n18:C
n3:duvernostUdaju
n15:S
n3:entitaPredkladatele
n19:predkladatel
n3:idSjednocenehoVysledku
51058
n3:idVysledku
RIV/00216208:11220/14:10281853
n3:jazykVysledku
n17:eng
n3:klicovaSlova
Dictionary; Law; Translation
n3:klicoveSlovo
n8:Law n8:Dictionary n8:Translation
n3:kontrolniKodProRIV
[93D72F7A999C]
n3:mistoVydani
Farnham
n3:nazevEdiceCisloSvazku
Law, language and communication
n3:nazevZdroje
Legal Lexicography: A Comparative Perspective
n3:obor
n6:AG
n3:pocetDomacichTvurcuVysledku
1
n3:pocetStranKnihy
320
n3:pocetTvurcuVysledku
1
n3:rokUplatneniVysledku
n4:2014
n3:tvurceVysledku
Chromá, Marta
s:numberOfPages
26
n7:hasPublisher
Ashgate Publishing Limited
n11:isbn
978-1-4094-5441-0
n9:organizacniJednotka
11220