Email this article Concept maps as teaching tools for students in legal translation
Abstract
Abstract – The exponential growth of international business relations has resulted in the development of rules and laws regulating the relationships between parties from different countries and, as a consequence, of international institutions (e.g. Arbitration Tribunals, Chambers of Commerce) and legal instruments (e.g. international arbitration awards, contracts and power of attorney), intended to safeguard the fairness of transactions. International contracts certainly entail more serious problems than contracts agreed upon at a national level, as different legal systems (e.g. Common Law vs. Civil Law), discourse practices and languages come into contact (Bhatia et al. 2008; Cordero-Moss 2013, 2014). As a result, a number of significant problems arise in terms of translation theory and practice, including issues relevant to the teaching of legal translation, i.e. what methods and tools can be used to teach students, with poor or no knowledge of legal issues, to translate international contracts correctly and knowingly. With that in mind, this paper proposes a methodology to develop legal competences in students attending an MA course in specialized translation at the University of Bari. The methodology is based on the construction of a set of concepts maps (Novak, Cañas 2007) regarding English and Italian contracts, namely distribution agreements. Map-building is intended as a simplification teaching methodology the purpose of which is to easify students’ learning of legal matters (Bhatia 1983) and their encyclopedic knowledge (Evans, Green 2006).
References
Ausubel D.P., Novak J.D. and Hanesian H. 1978, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Bhatia V.K. 1983, Simplification v. easification – the case of legal texts, in “Applied Linguistics” 4 [1], pp. 42-54.
Bhatia V.K., Candlin C.N. and Engberg J. 2008, Legal Discourse Across Cultures and Systems, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong.
Biktimirov E.N. and Nilson L. 2006, Show Them the Money: Using Mind Mapping in the Introductory Finance Course, in “Journal of Financial Education” 32, pp. 72-86.
Cabré-Castellvì M.T. 2003, Theories of terminology: their description, prescription and explanation, in “Terminology” 9 [2], pp. 163-199.
Cordero-Moss G. 2014, Interpretation of Contracts in International Commercial Arbitration: Diversity on More Than One Level, in “European Review of Private Law”, pp. 13-36.
Cordero-Moss G. 2013, International arbitration and commercial contract interpretation: contract wording, common law, civil law and transnational law, in Millqvist G., Lindskoug P., Samuelsson P. and Maunsbach U. (eds.), Essays in honour of Michael Bogdan, Juristförlaget, Lund, pp 33-57.
Davies M. 2011, Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?, in “Higher Education” 62 [3], pp. 279-301.
Derbentseva N., Safayeni F. and Cañas A. 2004, Experiments on the Effects of Map Structure and Concept Quantification, in Cañas A.J., Novak J.D. and González F.M. (eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Dirección de Publicaciones de la Universidad Pública de Navarra, Navarra, pp. 209-216.
Evans V. and Green M. 2006, Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Faber P. 2009, The Cognitive Shift in Terminology and Specialized Translation, in “MonTI” 1, pp. 107-134.
Fillmore C.J. 1976, Frame semantics and the nature of language, in “Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech” 280, pp. 20-32.
French C. 2004, Data Processing and Information Technology, Thomson Learning, London.
Gaudin F. 1993, Pour une socioterminologie: Des problèmes pratiques aux pratiques institutionnelles, Publications de l’Université de Rouen, Rouen.
Heutger V. 2008, Legal Language and the Process of Drafting the Principles on a European Law of Sales, in “Electronic Journal of Comparative Law” 12 [2]. http://www.ejcl.org/122/art122-3.pdf (7.29.2017).
Kennedy D.M., McNaught C. and Fritze P. 2004, Conceptual Tools for Designing and Learning, in Kommet P. (ed.), Cognitive Support for Learning. Imagining the Unknown, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 141-154.
Kress G. and van Leeuwen T. 1996, Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, Routledge, London.
Langacker R. 1987, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Lumer J. and Hesse M. 2004, Concept Mapping in the Teaching of Biology, in Kommet P. (ed.), Cognitive Support for Learning. Imagining the Unknown, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 81-91.
Lumer J. and Ohly K. 2004, Mapping Procedures for Learning Molecular Genetics, in Kommet P. (ed.), Cognitive Support for Learning. Imagining the Unknown, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 109-122.
Novak J.D. 2002, Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (LIPHs) leading to empowerment of learners, in “Science Education” 86 [4], pp. 548-571.
Novak J.D. and Cañas A.J. 2007, Theoretical Origins of Concept Maps, How to Construct Them, and Uses in “Education, Reflecting Education” 3 [1], pp. 29-42.
Novak J.D. and Cañas A.J. 2008, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf (7.29.2017).
Perfumi C. 2012, Theory and Practice of Constructing a Common Contract Law Terminology, in “Opinio Juris in Comparatione” 1, pp. 1-30.
Pozzo B. 2003, Harmonisation of European Contract Law and the Need of Creating a Common Terminology, in “European Review of Private Law” 11 [6/6], pp. 754-767.
Propen A. 2007, Visual communication and the map: How maps as visual objects convey meaning in specific contexts, in “Technical Communication Quarterly” 16 [2], pp. 233-54.
Simonini G. 2009, Concessione di Vendita in Esclusiva e Distribuzione Integrata nel Sistema Antitrust. www.studiolegalesimoninicoratza.it (7.29.2017).
Stefanowitsch A. and Gries S.T. 2003, Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions, in “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics” 8 [2], pp. 209-243.
Stone T. 2009, Blending Web 2.0 Technologies with Traditional Formal Learning. A Guide for CLOs and Training Managers. www.elementk.com (7.29.2017).
Temmerman R. 2001, Sociocognitive terminology theory, in Cabré M.T. and Feliu J. (eds.), Terminología y Cognición, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, pp. 75-92.
Full Text: pdf
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
