Search

This paper continues an idea presented in a previous article that addressed the same issue of the legal dictionaries and glossaries with special reference to the main methodology used by authors in creating these necessary linguistic instruments. The main point of this article is that apart from the scarcity of these books on the Romanian market in comparison with, for example, the economic ones, the legal researcher, professional or translator faces the challenge of providing not only an accurate translation but also a comprehensible one for certain target reader whose expectancies relate to the system of law he comes from. It is true that English has become a lingua franca, especially for the world of business, yet as regards the area of law the differences imposed by the various legal systems make the job of the translator in this domain even more difficult as the translation is supposed to mediate a comprehensible communication between two systems of law: that of the original text and its translated version. The aim of this study is to offer several suggestions for improving the quality of these indispensable linguistic instruments (dictionaries and glossaries) as well as to suggest some ways of coping with the translation in the field of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our study is meant to point out the main methodology used by authors in creating the English-Romanian/Romanian-English legal dictionaries/glossaries which exist on the book market in our country. The research worker who is interested in studying the content and structure of such dictionaries immediately notices the small number of these books on the Romanian market in comparison with, for example, the economic ones. At the same time, the research workers and also the users of legal dictionaries quite easily identify the frequent scarcity and the simple structure of the entries included by lexicographers. Our study will analyze the criteria used by the authors of these dictionaries for selecting the terms included in their books, as well as the structure of the selected entries (phonetic script, contextualization, identification of uncountable/countable nouns, indication of special plural forms, such as the foreign plural, references made to synonyms for disambiguation etc.). Finally, the aim of our paper is to offer several suggestions for improving the quality of these indispensable linguistic instruments (dictionaries and glossaries) and for encouraging lexicographers to invest energy in creating better and well-conceived specialized legal dictionaries and glossaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]