[Al-Qinai, J. 2000. Translation Quality Assessment. Strategies, Parameters, and Procedures. Meta, Vol. 45: 497–519.10.7202/001878ar]Search in Google Scholar
[Angelelli, C. 2009. Using a Rubric to Assess Translation Ability: Defining the Construct. In Angelelli, C. and Jocobson, H. E. Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies: A Call for Dialogue between Research and Practice (eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13–47.10.1075/ata.xiv.03ang]Search in Google Scholar
[ATA. 2011. ATA Certification Program-Rubric for Grading (Version 2011). http://www.atanet.org/certification/aboutexams_rubric.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bhatia, V. K. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Biel. L. 2011. Training Translators or Translation Service Providers? EN 15038:2006 Standard of Translation Services and its Training Implications. Journal of Specialized Translation, Vol. 16: 61–76.]Search in Google Scholar
[Biel, L. and Engberg, J. 2013. Research Models and Methods in Legal Translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, Vol. 12: 1–11.10.52034/lanstts.v0i12.316]Search in Google Scholar
[Borja Albi, A. and Prieto Ramos, F. 2013. Legal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects. Bern/Berlin/Brussels/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0353-0433-6]Search in Google Scholar
[Bowker, L. 2001. Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-based Approach to Translation Evaluation. Meta, Vol. 46 (2): 345–364.10.7202/002135ar]Search in Google Scholar
[Brunette, L. 2000. Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment: A Comparison of TQA Practices. The Translator, Vol. 6: 159–182.10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064]Search in Google Scholar
[Bush, P. 1997. Even Horses Shall Have Their Day: A Response to Hans G. Hönig. Current Issues in Language and Society, Vol. 4: 64–69.10.1080/13520529709615480]Search in Google Scholar
[Byrne, J. 2007. Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation. Journal of Specialized Translation, Vol. 7: 2–24.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cao, D. 2007. Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599552]Search in Google Scholar
[Colina, S. 2008. Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach. The Translator, Vol. 14: 97–134.10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251]Search in Google Scholar
[Dagut, M. 1981. Semantic ‘Voids’ as a Problem in the Translation Process, Poetic Today, Vol. 2: 61–71.10.2307/1772486]Search in Google Scholar
[De Groot, G. 2006. Legal Translation. In. J. Smith (ed.) Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 423–433.]Search in Google Scholar
[EMT Exert Group 2009. Competences for Professional Translators, Experts in Multilingual and Multimedia Communication, Retrieved October 1. 2013, from: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/emt/key_documents/emt_competences_translators_en.pdf]Search in Google Scholar
[Farrar, J. H. and Dugdale, A. M. 1990. Introduction to Legal Method. London: Sweet and Maxell.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gény, F. 1922. Science et Technique en Droit Privé Positif. Tome 1, Paris: Recueil Sirey.]Search in Google Scholar
[González-Jover, A. G. 2011. Course Design and Lesson Planning in Legal Translation Training, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, Vol. 19: 253–255.10.1080/0907676X.2011.592201]Search in Google Scholar
[Gouadec, D. 2010. Quality in Translation. In Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L. (eds.). Handbook of Translation Studies, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 270–275.10.1075/hts.1.qua1]Search in Google Scholar
[Hague, D., Alan, M. and Wang, Z. 2011. Surveying Translation Quality Assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, Vol. 5: 243–267.10.1080/13556509.2011.10798820]Search in Google Scholar
[Hargitt, S. 2013. What Could Be Gained in Translation: Legal Language and Lawyer-Linguists in a Globalized World? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 20 (1): 425–447.10.2979/indjglolegstu.20.1.425]Search in Google Scholar
[Hatim, B. and M., I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[House, J. 1997. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hurtado Albir, A. 1999. Ense˜nar a Traducir. Metodología en la Formación de Traductores e Intérpretes, Madrid: Edelsa.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hurtado Albir, A. 2007. Competence-Based Curriculum Design for Training Translators, the Interpreter and Translator Trainer, Vol. 1: 163–195.10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798757]Search in Google Scholar
[Jiménez-Crespo, M. A. 2009. Conventions in Localization: A Corpus Study of Original vs. Translated Web Texts. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized Translation, Vol. 12: 79–102.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kockaert, H., Federica, S., Segers, W. and Steurs, F. 2014. QUALETRA: The Implication of the Transposition of Directive 64/2000 for the Training and Assessment of Legal Translators and Practitioners. International Conference on Translation and Interpreting Studies, Innsbruck.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lasnier, F. 2000. Réussir la Formation par Compétences, Montreal: Guérin.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lauscher, S. 2000. Translation Quality Assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet? The Translator, Vol. 6: 149–168.10.1080/13556509.2000.10799063]Search in Google Scholar
[Maier, C. 2000. Introduction. The Translator, Vol. 6: 137–148.10.1080/13556509.2000.10799062]Search in Google Scholar
[Martin, T. 2007. Managing Risks and Resources: A Down-to-Earth View of Revision, Journal of Specialized translation, Vol. 8: 57–63.]Search in Google Scholar
[Martínez Melis, N. and Hurtado Albir, A. 2001. Assessment in Translation Studies: Research Needs. Meta, Vol. 46: 272–287.10.7202/003624ar]Search in Google Scholar
[Martínez Mateo, R. 2014. A Deeper Look into Metrics for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA): A Case Study. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, Vol. 49: 73–94.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mattila, H. E. S. 2006. Comparative Legal Linguistics 3–4 (trans. by Christopher Goddard).]Search in Google Scholar
[Matulewska, A. and Gortych-Michalak, K. 2014. Teaching Certified Translator Candidates at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland. Polskie Towarzystwo Tlumaczy Przysiêgłych I Specjalistycznych Tepis. Warszawa: Tepis.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mossop, B. 2007. Revising and Editing for Translators, Manchester: ST. Jerome Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[Muñoz Martín, R. 2010. On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology. In Schreve G. and Angelone E. Translation and Cognition, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 169–187.10.1075/ata.xv.10mun]Search in Google Scholar
[O’Brien, S. 2012. Toward a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized Translation, Vol. 17: 55–77.]Search in Google Scholar
[Orozco, M. and Sánchez-Gijón, P. 2011. New Resources for Legal Translators, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, Vol. 19: 25–44.10.1080/09076761003784979]Search in Google Scholar
[Orts, M.Á. 2012. A Genre-Based Approach to the Translation of Private Normative Texts in Legal English and Legal Spanish, International Journal of Semiotic of Law, Vol. 25: 324.10.1007/s11196-010-9213-6]Search in Google Scholar
[Pommer, S. 2008. No Creativity in Legal Translation? Babel, Vol. 54: 355–368.10.1075/babel.54.4.04pom]Search in Google Scholar
[Prieto Ramos, F. 1998. La Terminología Procesal en la Traducción de Citaciones Judiciales Espa˜nolas al Inglés. Sendebar, Vol. 9: 115–135.]Search in Google Scholar
[Prieto Ramos, F. 2002. Beyond the Confines of Literality: A Functionalist Approach to the Sworn Translation of Legal Documents. Puentes, Vol. 2: 27–35.]Search in Google Scholar
[Prieto Ramos, F. 2013. Qué Estrategias para qué Traducción Jurídica?: por una Metodología Integral para la Práctica Profesional. In Alonso Araguás, I., Baigorri Jalón, J. and Helen J.L., Translating the Law: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Campbell, Granada: Comares, 87–106.]Search in Google Scholar
[Prieto Ramos, F. 2014. International and Supranational Law in Translation: From Multilingual Lawmaking to Adjudication. The Translator, Vol. 20: 313–331.10.1080/13556509.2014.904080]Search in Google Scholar
[Prieto Ramos, F. 2015. Quality Assurance in Legal Translation: Evaluating Process, Competence, and Product in the Pursuit of Adequacy. International Journal of Semiotic of Law, Vol. 28: 11–30.10.1007/s11196-014-9390-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Saldanha, G. and O’Brien, S. 2013. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies, Manchester, New York: St Jerome Publication.]Search in Google Scholar
[Šarčević, S. 1997. New Approach to Legal translation, The Hague: Kluwer Law.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sparer, M. 2002. Peut-on Fair de la Traduction Juridique? Comment Doit-on L’enseigner? Meta, Vol. 47: 256–278.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stejskal, J. 2006. Quality Assessment in Translation. Multilingual, Vol. 80 (17): 41–44.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tiersma, P. M. 2004. The Creation, Structure, and Interpretation of the Legal Text, http://www.languageandlaw.org/LEGALTEXT.HTM.]Search in Google Scholar
[Vlachopoulos, G. 2009. Translation, Quality and Service at the European Commission. In CIUTI Forum 2008 (Enhancing Translation Quality: Ways, Means, Methods), Forstner, M., Lee-Jahnke, H. and Schmitt, P. A. 15–22. Bern/Berlin/Brussels/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Williams, M. 2004. Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.10.1353/book6617]Search in Google Scholar