60-Article Text-161-1-10-20210729

Lingua Legis
nr 28, 2020, s. 7–40

lingualegis.ils.uw.edu.pl
Monika Popiołek
University of Warsaw
ISO 20771:2020 overview and legal translator

competence requirements in the context
of the European Qualifications Framework,
ISO 17100:2015 and relevant research
Summary
The article provides an overview of legal translator competence set in the ISO 20771:2020
standard in the context of relevant research, European Qualifications Framework (EQF)
and ISO 17100:2015 with the aim of determining the similarities and differences be-
tween the various approaches, the extent to which the referenced resources conform to
or differ from the ISO 20771:2020 requirements, and the practical implications thereof.
Some relevant translator competence research and models are referenced here in order
to provide more context and information, and illustrate the potential gap or overlap
between research and current industry best-practice reflected in ISO standards.
On the basis of analysis of the referenced resources and the background information on
ISO standards development process, the author demonstrates that consensus-based ISO
standards take a pragmatic approach and provide most accurate information about pro-
fessional translator requirements. The author posits that ISO requirements standards
are also, by definition, more operational and easier to validate through conformance
assessment than any other models or resources and that is why the industry uptake and
implementation of standards is so significant.
There have been a lot of discussions within the industry and the academia on translator
competence and qualifications requirements. Given the fact that ISO standards are the
most important source of information on actual market requirements for translators,
prevalent industry terminology and industry best practice, they need to be taken on
board by all stakeholders. This overview of the industry’s pragmatic approach to legal
translator competence and other translator requirements, as reflected in ISO 20771, also
outlines some of the practical and professional implications of industry standardization
in the hope that it might become the starting point for more discussions on this subject
in the future.
8 Monika Popiołek
Keywords: legal translation, translator competence, legal translator, translator qualifica-

tions, EQF, ISO 17100, ISO 20771, best practice, requirements, continuous professional
development (CPD)
Introduction
This article provides an overview of legal translator competences set in the ISO
20771:2020 Legal translation – Requirements (ISO 20771) standard in the con-
text of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), ISO 17100:2015 Transla-
tion services – Requirements for translation services (ISO 17100) and some rel-
evant research with the aim of determining what are the main similarities and
differences between the various approaches, to what extent do these reference
resources overlap with or conform to the ISO 20771 legal translator require-
ments, and what are the practical implications thereof. Some relevant translator
competence research and resources are analysed and referenced here to provide
more context and information in this field of study.
On the basis of the analysis of translator competence and other relevant
requirements set in the ISO 17100 and ISO 20771 standards, the author initially
tries to determine if these ISO standards are in-line with the EQF. The same
approach is then applied to some relevant research and resulting models. The
author concludes that although there is a significant overlap between all the re-
sources in terms of concepts and their definitions, there are also notable gaps in
terms of clarity, granularity, terminology used, scope of validation and practical
application.
Analysis of translator competence set in ISO standards against much of
the translator competence research and models is not an easy task because the
terminology used to signify similar concepts often differs from the standardized
terminology. Nevertheless, based on this analysis and the background informa-
tion provided on ISO standards development process, the author provides not
only an overview of the pragmatic approach taken in ISO translation standards
but also discusses the key differences between standard translation competence
requirements and other referenced research and resources. Practical implica-
tions of the standard approach and its relative importance for the industry and
the profession are also discussed here.
1. ISO and standards – some background information
ISO, founded on 23 February 1947, with a Central Secretariat in Geneva, Swit-

zerland, is an independent, non-governmental international organization with
ISO 20771:2020 overview and legal translator competence requirements in the context... 9
a membership of 165 national standards bodies. ISO develops voluntary, con-

sensus-based, market relevant International Standards. The actual standards
work is done by key industry stakeholders, referred to as experts, appointed by
the national standards organisations, and assigned to technical committees that
lead standards development on the basis of existing best practice in a given in-
dustry or area and with the aim of addressing actual market needs and filling
important standardization gaps. In total, ISO collaborates with over 700 inter-
national, regional and national organizations, which contribute their expertise.
The object, structure and rules of ISO and its standardization process are laid
down in its Statutes (ISO 2018). It is noteworthy that, as stipulated in the WTO
Code of Conduct, international standardization takes precedence over nation-
al standardization and all ISO members should align their own processes so
that approved ISO standards can also be adopted as national standards in their
countries. All ISO standards are reviewed at least every five years to ensure that
they remain up-to-date and relevant (this is referred to as the Systematic Review
process). Through this process, national standards bodies review a standard (in
consultation with stakeholders) and decide whether it is still valid, should be
updated, or withdrawn.
Under the Vienna Agreement between ISO and the European Commit-
tee for Standardization (CEN), where an ISO standard is simultaneously ap-
proved as a European Standard it automatically becomes a national standard
for all CEN members and any pre-existent conflicting national standards have
to be withdrawn. Moreover, CEN standards may also be used as a basis for the
development of ISO standards. This is relevant for the discussion because there
are currently no translation industry standards being developed within CEN.
Some ISO standards have also been approved as EN standards on the basis of
the Vienna Agreement but it is important to understand this distinction.
The establishment in 2011 of subcommittee 5 within ISO technical
committee 37 (ISO TC 37/SC5), which deals specifically with translation, in-
terpreting and related technology standards, was a major breakthrough for the
industry and quickly led to the development of some key standards. ISO TC
37/SC5 is composed of 35 participating national members (i.e. standards bod-
ies), 12 observing members and more than a dozen industry liaison organisa-
tions, and has already produced 17 published industry standards and 7 more
are currently under development (as of April 2021). As a rule, ISO standards are
always a function of industry best practice and they should be analysed in that
context.
Over the past few decades much progress has been made in develop-
ing and implementing the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) in or-
10 Monika Popiołek
der to facilitate restructuring of academic teaching programmes and setting the

same level of comprehensive educational and professional requirements across
Europe. This has changed some academic approaches to competence research.
Academic research conducted with the aim of describing and conceptualizing
translator competence became more popular. In recent years, this research has
focused more on specialist translator competence. Some of this research was
undertaken with the aim of adapting translation graduate and post-graduate
training programmes (especially within the EMT framework) to the EQF. Since
the approach taken in ISO standards is more pragmatic and market-oriented
(rather than conceptual), it makes sense to view standard translator competence
in the wider context of EQF and, to some extent, the more specific translator
competence research and resulting models while at the same time focusing on
their different function and purpose (which underlies the different, require-
ments-based, approach taken in ISO standards).
In case of ISO translation standards, the main purpose was to define
translator competence and qualifications by setting measurable requirements
subject to conformance assessment (which is an objective and recognized form
of validation for the purpose of adoption and certification, for example). To
this end, competence is defined in translation requirement standards with re-
gard to individuals (actual translators and their skills rather than some theoreti-
cal concept of translation) and requirements are set with reference to specific,
objective, and auditable criteria for the purpose of documenting and validat-
ing competence and qualifications in practice. Given the ISO consensus-based
standard development process and representative involvement of international
stakeholders, as described above, it is reasonable to assert that industry stand-
ards are a comprehensive and up-to-date reflection of relevant industry best
practice and market requirements. This applies in particular to requirements
with regard to translator competences and qualifications, translation processes,
technologies and some other key professional requirements.
2. ISO translation standards and the EQF
The first approach to standardizing translator competence and qualifications in

Europe was the European EN 15038:2006 Translation services – Service require-
ments standard. This standard was superseded by ISO 17100:20015 Translation
services – Requirements for translation services standard, and the EN 15038 was
withdrawn in 2015. The publication of ISO 17100:2015 Translation services –
Requirements for translation services (ISO 17100), on 1 May 2015, was the first
milestone in international standardization of translator competence and quali-
fication requirements. ISO 17100 is a product standard for translation service

providers (TSPs) that sets comprehensive, generalist translator competence and
qualification requirements and defines the translation process. Henceforth ISO
17100 also became a benchmark for other translation industry standards. Fol-
lowing a Systematic Review, it was approved as an up-to-date valid standard in
2020.
ISO 20771:2020 Legal translation – Requirements (ISO 20771) was pub-
lished on 20 April 2020 and it is the first specialized international standard de-
veloped for individual translators. The standard sets competence and qualifi-
cation requirements for legal translators, covers all professional aspects of the
legal translation service, and establishes a framework for the relevant process
and terminology. Since ISO 20771 requirements reflect market best practice and
are designed to be objective, operational and used for conformance assessment
legal translators can be certified on the basis of this standard. Therefore, analy-
sis of other resources dealing with general or specialist translator competence
needs to be primarily benchmarked against these two ISO standards and, in
turn, the standards can be analysed within a wider context of other frameworks
or programmes.
The EQF for lifelong learning was established pursuant to the Recommen-
dation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 (2008/C
111/01). The Preamble to the Recommendation recognized that increased trans-
parency of qualifications is one of the main components necessary for adapta-
tion of education and training systems in the European Community (EC) to the
demands of today’s knowledge society. Hence, the development and recognition
of citizens’ knowledge, skills and competence were deemed crucial for the devel-
opment of individuals, competitiveness, employment and social cohesion in the
EC. The Recommendation took into account Decision No 2241/2004/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on a single Com-
munity framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Euro-
pass) and Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning.
The objective of the EQF was to create a common reference framework
which would translate and disambiguate the different qualifications systems and
their levels, whether for general and higher education or for vocational educa-
tion and training, with the aim of improving transparency, comparability and
transferability of qualifications issued in the different EU Member States. Each
level of qualification should, in principle, be attainable by way of a variety of
educational and career paths. The EQF should, moreover, enable international
sectoral organisations to relate their qualifications systems to a common Euro-
12 Monika Popiołek
pean reference benchmark and thus demonstrate the relationship between inter-
national sectoral qualifications and national qualifications systems. The purpose
was to achieve wider objectives of promoting lifelong learning and increasing
employability, mobility and social integration of employees and learners (tak-
ing into account transparent quality assurance principles and information ex-
change). Henceforth the EQF contributed to the positive redefining of many
professional competence models, modernising education and training systems
(taking into account the interrelationship of education, training and employ-
ment), building bridges between formal, non-formal and informal learning, and
leading also to the validation of learning outcomes acquired through experience
(rather than a formal qualification).
The EQF also made national qualifications more readable across Europe
because the framework-based schemes in different countries’ national qualifica-
tions systems were now related to a common European reference framework.
Individuals, educators and employers use the EQF to better understand and
compare the qualifications levels of different countries and different education
and training systems. Since 2012, all new qualifications, including certificates,
diplomas and ‘Europass’ documents issued by the competent EU authorities
contain a clear reference, by way of national qualifications systems, to the ap-
propriate EQF level. Therefore, as in the case of other sectors, the EQF (even
though it is not a standard per se) had an impact on the academic and industry
approach to translator competence and standards.
The core of the EQF, which has been slightly revised since 2008, specifies
eight reference levels describing what a learner knows, understands and is able to
do. These are referred to as ‘learning outcomes’. Levels of national qualifications are
placed at one of the central reference levels, ranging from basic (Level 1) to advanced
(Level 8). All eight levels are described in terms of learning outcomes: knowledge,
skills and competences (European Commission 2018: 18)
Qualifications frameworks play an increasingly important role at inter-
national, national and sector levels. Learning outcomes descriptors of qualifi-
cations frameworks are normally designed using a horizontal axis identifying
learning domains (such as knowledge, skills and competence) and a vertical di-
mension indicating how the complexity of learning increases from one level to
another (1-8).
Learning outcomes are defined by Cedefop (European Centre for the
Development of Vocational Training) as:
a) “statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on
completion of a learning process, which are defined in terms of knowl-
edge, skills and competence”(Cedefop 2014: 74);
b) “sets of knowledge, skills and/or competences an individual has acquired

and/or is able to demonstrate after completion of a learning process, ei-
ther formal, non-formal or informal” (Cedefop 2014: 73).
This relationship can be expressed as a loop where the interaction be-
tween what is intended (intended learning outcomes) and what has actually
been achieved (achieved learning outcomes) feeds into a continuous improve-
ment process.
The focus on actually achieved learning outcomes introduces the con-
cept of competence, defined by Cedefop as the “ability to apply learning out-
comes adequately in a defined context (education, training, work or profession-
al development)” (Cedefop 2014: 47). Competence is understood as actually
achieved learning outcomes, validated through the ability of the learner to au-
tonomously apply knowledge and skills in practice, in society and at work. Thus,
learning outcomes are validated by their relationship to competences (Cedefop
2014: 28). While the term competence is widely used throughout Europe, and
in some countries it is even used as a substitute for the term learning outcomes,
there are several definitions provided and this might create some confusion.
The definition provided by the Recommendation on the EQF is a compromise
pointing towards a shared approach: “Competence means the proven ability to
use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in
work or study situations and in professional and personal development” (Euro-
pean Parliament and Council of the EU 2008: 4).
Learning outcomes are specified in three categories: knowledge, skills
and competence.
• Knowledge - outcome of assimilation of information through learning.
Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices related
to a field of study or work (European Parliament and Council of the
European Union 2008: 4);
• Skill - cognitive or practical ability to apply knowledge and use know-
how to complete tasks and solve problems (European Parliament and
Council of the European Union 2008: 4);
• Competence – is the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and per-
sonal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations
and in professional and personal development’ (European Parliament
and Council of the European Union 2008: 4).
Another important term defined within the EQF is qualification. Quali-
fication covers a wide range of learning outcomes and their different aspects
which are subject to validation. A formal qualification represents a formal out-
come (e.g. certificate, diploma or title) of an assessment and validation process
14 Monika Popiołek
which is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has

achieved learning outcomes according to a specific standard and/or possesses
the necessary competence to do a job in a specific area of work. A qualification
confers official recognition of the value of learning outcomes in the labour mar-
ket, education and training. A qualification can also be a legal entitlement to
practice a trade (Cedefop 2014: 94, cf. Cedefop 2008, Eurydice 2006; European
Training Foundation 1997; OECD 2007; ILO 1998, European Parliament and
Council of the European Union 2008). Competence-based qualification thus
states that a person is qualified to work in a specific field or occupation.
Taking the above into consideration, the EQF and the European Parlia-
ment and Council definition of competence can be simplified as follows:
competence = knowledge + skills (and other abilities) + proven ability to use
them in practice
The formal outcome of an assessment process of competence translates
into a qualification.
3. Translator competence – relevant research and reference to ISO 17100
Extensive research has been undertaken in the past with the aim of concep-
tualizing translator competence. Scholars have frequently used different terms
(such as translator competence, translation competence, transfer competence,
translational competence, translation performance, translation ability, transla-
tion skill etc.) for what seems to be basically the same or similar concept. More
recently, some scholars have claimed that their research is predominantly em-
pirical and more comprehensive because it has been developed under academic
and industry partnerships and used advanced methodology (see e.g. PACTE
2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011a and 2011b; EMT Expert Group 2009; Göpferich
and Jääskeläinen’s TransComp 2009; Toudic and Krause’s EMT Competence
Framework 2017).
Most approaches and definitions of competence focus on the ‘knowl-
edge’ and ‘skills’ (including ‘other abilities’) components at the expense of the
‘proven ability to use them in practice’ component. In recent years the academic
focus has also gradually shifted to translator competence (rather than the more
abstract translation or transfer competence) thus bringing it more in-line with
the EQF, the EP and Council of the EU approach, and ISO standards.
Since the 1990s, the study of translator competence has in fact become
a more pressing issue due to the practical necessity for restructuring a lot of
programmes in the wake of the Bologna process in Europe, as proposed in the
competence-based approach of the European Master’s in Translation (EMT)
partnership project launched by the European Commission. It has been noted

that the EMT project promotes the sort of translator education that would pre-
dominantly meet the requirements set by European Union institutions based
on their internal needs but it also makes a case for more practical education
and enhancing employability of graduates throughout Europe. So, the above
developments are all inter-connected and give a bigger picture when engaging
in discussions about translator competence.
It is impossible to reference all the translator competence research and
models but a certain pattern emerges when analysing some representative ap-
proaches. Göpferich, for example, distinguishes the following translator sub-
competences: communicative competence in at least two languages, domain
competence, tools and research competence, translation routine activation
competence, psychomotor competence, and strategic competence (Göpferich
2009: 21-23). Prieto Ramos summarizes the situation as follows: “In spite of
the different perspectives, consensus has grown in the past two decades around
some elements of the so-called ‘competence-based training’ (see e.g. Hurtado
Albir 2007). Firstly, the need to orientate translator training programmes to the
development of professional skills (see e.g. Hurtado Albir 1999 or Schäffner
2000). Secondly, the perception of translation competence as a complex (…)
‘super-competence’ (e.g. Wilss 1976: 120) (…). Thirdly, studies on translation
competence have progressively expanded the list of core components of transla-
tion macro-competence. During the 1990s, authors like Nord (1991), Delisle
(1992), Gile (1995), Kiraly (1995), and Neubert (2000), albeit using different
labels and divisions, identified similar key competences. These can be summa-
rized as follows by combining Nord’s (1991: 235) account of ‘essential compe-
tences required of a translator’ and Neubert’s (2000: 6) taxonomy of ‘parameters
of translational competence’: (1) language competence; (2) textual competence
(text reception and analysis, production and quality assessment); (3) subject
or thematic competence; (4) cultural competence; (5) research competence;
(6) transfer competence.” (Prieto Ramos 2011:8).
Pym argues that the latest multicomponent translator competence mod-
els followed the fragmentary development of the profession, were a response to
interdisciplinarity and the break with linguistics, and supported a certain mod-
el of traditional translator training. He stated rather perceptively that “Since
the 1970s the notion of ‘translation competence’ has been viewed as at least
1) a mode of bilingualism, open to linguistic analysis, 2) a question of market
demands, given to extreme historical and social change, 3) a multicomponent
competence, involving sets of skills that are linguistic, cultural, technological
and professional, and 4) a ‘super-competence’ that would somehow stand above
16 Monika Popiołek
the rest. (…). On the other hand, a simple minimalist concept of translation
competence, based on the production then elimination of alternatives, can
help orient translator training in times of rapid technological and professional
change.” (Pym 2003:481). He also argues that the lists of components in multi-
component models are vague and ever growing “Perhaps because the earlier
scholars were thinking in terms of linguistics and students, and not in terms of
how translators work in the world (such was the exclusion explicit in Wilss).” He
also notes that [the multicomponent] model is not the only one, nor necessar-
ily the best and that “Given the inherent failure of the multicomponent models
to keep up with historical change, serious thought should now be invested in
the minimalist ’super-competence’ approach.” (Pym 2003:487) He believes this
means accepting that there is no neat definition of all the things that translators
need to know and will be called upon to do and a concept is needed to define the
very act of translating. Therefore, he proposes the following minimalist defini-
tion of translation competence:
• “The ability to generate a series of more than one viable target text (TTI,
TT2 … TTn) for a pertinent source text (ST);
• The ability to select only one viable TT from this series, quickly and with
justified confidence.” (Pym 2003:489)
He concludes that “A minimalist concept of competence should help
keep such aims clearly in sight. A multicomponent model, on the other hand,
tends to accept complexity without critically distinguishing between means and
ends.” This definition and approach are conceptually appealing, but also over-
simplistic and difficult to expand on.
Despite the different perspectives, Prieto Ramos notes that most re-
searchers seem to agree that translation competence is a complex, multi-com-
ponential, concept comprising several sub-competences which are particular-
ly useful for designing academic curricula. (Prieto Ramos 2011:10). It seems,
however, that some of the components (or subcomponents) typically listed
are unpractical and difficult or impossible to assess (validate), and there is no
agreement as to the final number of elements that need to be included on the
core translator competences list. It is also difficult to see how a concept “par-
ticularly useful for designing academic curricula” would automatically also be
useful for defining and assessing professional competences actually required
by the market. Pym, for example, also expressed surprise that it took such
a long time for definitions of competence to include reference to the client’s
brief (Pym 2003:486). This is an interesting point because nowadays it is quite
obvious that a translator should take into account a brief (aka project speci-
fication) or use specific tools or resources but it does not necessarily mean
that fulfilment of project requirements, specifications or agreements would

be included on the list of translator competences as this is clearly part of any
professional’s ability to meet requirements, deadlines and other contractual
obligations, rather than a translator competence as such. If the EQF approach
is adopted, whereby competence is the proven “ability to apply learning out-
comes” by an individual, then it is easy to see the distinction and correlation
between competence, qualifications, and service, process or project require-
ments.
Given the fact that the industry has matured and professionalized very
rapidly over the past few decades, the translation process and project require-
ments have been researched and standardized in quite a lot of detail and are no
longer bundled into the generalist container of ‘translation competence’ which
previously seemed to include a whole range of different things separate from
actual translator competence (such as schedules, ethics and collaboration sce-
narios). Nowadays, the discussion of process or project requirements (see e.g.
ISO 17100 or ISO 20771) would be treated as a separate area of concern where
the individual translator’s role is analysed as part of a project management
work-flow, subject to various scenarios and agreements, depending on the proc-
ess adopted, types of projects, technologies and resources used, specifications,
deadlines, project management constraints, any number of different service or
professional requirements, and other factors.
The PACTE (Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and
Evaluation) Group led by Amparo Hurtado Albir was involved in developing
a holistic model of translation competence and then a holistic model of the ac-
quisition of translation competence in translation, both direct and inverse. This
research focused on expert translators’ ‘dynamic’ concept of translation and ap-
proach to the translation of specific texts, understood to be textual, communi-
cative, and functional (hence the connection with the functionalist approach
extended to acquisition) as opposed to a ‘static’ concept and approach which
was defined as linguistic and literal. In the 2005 version of their model, trans-
lation competence is defined as “the underlying knowledge system needed to
translate” (PACTE 2005: 610). Based on the previous (empirical) research in
that area, in 2005-2007 PACTE defined a model of translation sub-competenc-
es, which included the following components:
1. “Bilingual sub-competence: procedural knowledge required to com-
municate in two languages, i.e. pragmatics, sociolinguistics, textuality,
grammar and lexis in each language;
2. Extra-linguistic sub-competence: bi-cultural, encyclopaedic and sub-
ject matter (thematic) knowledge;
18 Monika Popiołek
3. Translation knowledge sub-competence: knowledge of principles that

guide translation (process, methods, procedures) aspects of the profes-
sion (types of translation briefs, users), the labour market, etc.
4. Instrumental sub-competence: procedural knowledge for the use of
documentation resources & information technologies;
5. Strategic sub-competence: procedural knowledge that guarantees ef-
ficiency in the translation process by identifying and solving problems.
It is a key competence that creates links between the other sub-compe-
tencies;
6. Psycho-physiological components: cognitive components, such as
memory, perception, attention span, perseverance etc.; attitudes such
as curiosity, rigor, etc., and abilities such as creativity, analysis, logical
reasoning, etc.” (PACTE 2007: 331)
Bilingual Extra-Linguistic
Sub-Competence Sub-Competence
Strategic
Sub-Competence
Knowledge
Instrumental
about Translation
Sub-Competence Sub-Competence
Psycho-physiological
Components
Figure 1. The PACTE Group’s revised translation competence model (PACTE

2005: 610; 2007: 331)
The PACTE Group posits, on the basis of their research, that an expert
translator possesses the ability to solve problems, and that this is also part of
translation competence. They conclude that strategic competence is the most
important of all the sub-competences that interact during the translation proc-
ess (hence its central position) because it underlies the decision-making and
problem-solving processes. Strategic sub-competence, instrumental sub-com-
petence and knowledge about translation are therefore considered to be specific

to translation competence. However, this is not obvious from the model (see
Figure 1).
Within this approach, bilingual sub-competence was not considered to
be specific to translation competence but strategic sub-competence was. If de-
cision-making and problem-solving processes are fundamental for translation
competence then surely bilingualism is crucial. Furthermore, the PACTE trans-
lation knowledge sub-competence seems to focus on service provision rather
than actual translation skills, so the terminology used here (not always consist-
ently) might be somewhat misleading. The psycho-physiological components,
on the other hand, are very difficult to define and measure. It is also debatable
if some of the components included in the model (e.g. psycho-physiological
components) can even be classified as part of competence according to the EQF
definition.
The PACTE approach is, to a certain degree, reflected in the EMT ref-
erence framework which proposed “a minimum quality profile” (EMT Expert
Group 2009: 1), subsequently replaced by the EMT Expert Group 2017 frame-
work, in order to facilitate development of newly launched translation pro-
grammes. Within the 2009 framework, ‘competence’ was defined as “the com-
bination of aptitudes, knowledge, behaviour and know-how necessary to carry
out a given task under given conditions”. Six interdependent competences were
thus identified (see Figure 2):
- Translation service provision competence (interpersonal and produc-
tion dimensions);
- Language competence;
- Intercultural competence (sociolinguistic and textual dimensions);
- Information mining competence;
- Thematic competence;
- Technological competence. (EMT Expert Group 2009:4).
The most recent EMT Competence Framework developed in 2017 (see
Figure 3) is still based on the EMT’s founding principles set out by the Expert
Group in January 2009 but the focus is on employability of graduates. Further-
more, it is much more streamlined with the EQF and claims to also take into ac-
count the research outcomes on translation and translator competence reported
by the translation studies research community and the changes that have affect-
ed the language services industry since then. Within this approach, competence
is defined as “the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social
and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional
and personal development” (EMT Expert Group 2017: 3). As the definition in-
20 Monika Popiołek
Language
Intercultural
Thematic
Info
Technological mining
Figure 2. EMT Expert Group translation competence model (EMT Expert Gro-
up 2009: 4)
Figure 3. EMT Expert Group translation competence model (EMT Expert Gro-
up 2017: 4)
dicates, this approach is much more aligned with EQF than the previous one.
The EMT 2017 model defines five main areas of competence:
1. Language and Culture (transcultural and sociolinguistic awareness and
communicative skills),
2. Translation (strategic, methodological and thematic competence),
3. Technology (tools and applications),
4. Personal and Interpersonal (all the generic skills, often referred to as
“soft skills”, that enhance graduate adaptability and employability),
5. Service Provision (skills relating to the implementation of translation
and, more generally, to language services in a professional context).
(EMT Expert Group 2017: 6-11)
The model is simplified and does not claim to provide a comprehen-

sive and exhaustive description of all the competences, skills and knowledge
that translation graduates should acquire. Notably, it does not include theoreti-
cal knowledge or research skills (information mining), translation and service
provision have been separated, and service provision is no longer the central
element but seems to be treated as the final stage within a process, and the-
matic competence is now covered under translation (along with strategic and
methodological competence). As in the original framework, the EMT 2017
model lays down a common set of learning outcomes for EMT Master’s degree
programmes, described in terms of the general competences and specific skills
that graduates are expected to possess, and it includes a note to the effect that
the aim of Master’s degree programmes is to teach a combination of knowledge
and skills so that students can achieve the competences considered essential for
access to the translation industry and to the wider labour market. In general, in
spite of the fact that the EMT 2017 model is more in line with the EQF, the EMT
2009 model was more structured and had a clearer distinction between compe-
tences which are frequently found in learning outcomes. As a result of the modi-
fications, the EMT 2017 framework has amalgamated several competences to
create a ‘super’ translation competence, which does not allow for more detailed
analysis and granularity. The visual representation of the different competences
in the 2017 model as ‘a series of mechanical cogs’, that are presumably supposed
to set the whole competence mechanism in motion, looks quite dynamic at first
glance but is actually rather confusing when analysed from the process perspec-
tive. The actual relationship between the various elements is not clearly defined
and the suggested sequencing is inaccurate (e.g. the language and culture com-
petence does not actually trigger the translation competence, and the transla-
tion competence does not trigger the technology competence etc.).
22 Monika Popiołek
ISO 17100 sets the following translator competence requirements:

a. “Translation competence: the ability to translate content in accordance
with 5.3.1, including the ability to address the problems of language
content comprehension and language content production, and the abil-
ity to render the target language content in accordance with the client-
TSP agreement and other project specifications,
b. Linguistic and textual competence in the source language and the
target language: the ability to understand the source language, fluency
in the target language, and general or specialized, knowledge of text-
type conventions. This linguistic and textual competence includes the
ability to apply this knowledge when producing translation or other tar-
get language content,
c. Competence in research, information acquisition and processing:
the ability to efficiently acquire the additional linguistic and specialized
knowledge necessary to understand the source language content and to
produce the target language content. Research competence also requires
experience in the use of research tools and the ability to develop suitable
strategies for the efficient use of the information sources available,
d. Cultural competence: ability to make use of information on the behav-
ioural standards, up-to-date terminology, value systems and locale that
characterize both source and target language cultures,
e. Technical competence: the knowledge, abilities and skills required to
perform the technical tasks in the translation process by employing
technical resources, including the tools and IT systems that support the
whole translation process,
f. Domain competence: the ability to understand content produced in the
source language and to reproduce it in the target language, using the ap-
propriate style and terminology.” (ISO 17100:2015: 3.1.3)
A comparison of the EMT 2017 competence model and ISO 17100
shows that the new EMT model seems to have benefitted not only from EQF
and the PACTE Group approach but also, to a certain extent, from ISO 17100.
The competences are more aligned between these frameworks (except for some
classification, terminology and application issues). The main difference between
the EMT 2017 model and ISO 17100 is still the approach by EMT to competenc-
es as ‘translation competences’ rather than ‘translator competences’ (attributed
to an individual) and the degree of simplification. This is not just a terminologi-
cal or technical issue because the EMT 2017 model is actually a set of compe-
tences which contain several bundles of sub-competences within an oversimpli-
fied model. For example, the fact that the EMT 2017 ‘translation competence’ is
made up of strategic, methodological and thematic sub-competences bundled

together makes it less fine-grained and more difficult to analyse than the more
straightforward ISO 17100 classification. In ISO 17100 the EMT ‘thematic’ sub-
competence is classified separately as “domain competence”, while the EMT
‘strategic’ and ‘methodological’ sub-competences are classified as “competence
in research, information acquisition and processing”. Furthermore, in ISO 17100
the bundled together EMT ‘language and culture’ sub-competences are classi-
fied as “linguistic and textual competence (…)” and “cultural competence” ac-
cordingly. In the EMT 2017 model most soft skills are bundled together within
the service provision category which is too general. For example, it is difficult to
determine what are the obscure “skills relating to the implementation of trans-
lation”. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the EMT 2017 model is conceptually
more in line with the EQF, simpler and visually more attractive than the PACTE
and EMT 2009 models or the ISO 17100 competence requirements classifica-
tion, it is in fact too simplistic and difficult to use in practice. It is also difficult
to see how the EMT 2017 competences can be objectively validated. In ISO
17100 the service provision component is dealt with separately from translator
competence requirements – as it is clearly part of translation process require-
ments and also falls within the competence of other functions (reviser, project
manager etc.). This makes the ISO 17100 standard more comprehensive than
any of the referenced models. Thanks to this approach, the standard is also eas-
ily implementable and fulfilment of the standard requirements can be properly
documented and assessed for conformance.
4. Legal translator competence – relevant research
While many scholars have tried to define the profile of a competent legal trans-
lator (see e.g. Šarčević 1994, Hertog 2001, Prieto Ramos 2011, Piecychna 2013),
the scope and extent of legal knowledge required for the translator to achieve
expert competence and ensure quality remains an open question. While Sofer
stresses in his Handbook the importance of writing skills, specialisation in a le-
gal field and knowledge of good legal reference resources (Sofer 2006: 106–107),
Obenaus focuses on the need for good information brokering skills and func-
tionality (Obenaus 1995: 250). On the other hand, Trosborg (1997: 156) clearly
emphasises the importance of legal terminology, whilst Šarčević (1997: 271) rec-
ommends a guiding theory specific to legal translation and attempts to describe
the ideal legal translator although she concludes that such ideal translators sim-
ply do not exist. Šarčević defines legal translation as “an act of communication
in the mechanism of law” which could also be used to describe what a lawyer
24 Monika Popiołek
does. She also stresses that a legal translator must be to some extent an expert
not only in translation but also in law and that legal translation competence
should include thorough knowledge of legal terminology, in-depth understand-
ing of logical principles, logical reasoning, problem solving and text analysis
abilities as well as knowledge of the source and target legal systems, (Šarčević
1997: 113-114). While it is easy to agree with Šarčević on the legal background
requirement and practice-oriented approach, it seems obvious that such skills as
the understanding of logical principles, logical reasoning, problem solving and
text analysis abilities are common requirements for any type of translator (or in
fact any type of professional) and it is the domain (subject matter) competence
that is actually instrumental in defining legal translator competence.
Most researchers underline the need for legal translators to be quali-
fied as lawyers or collaborate with lawyers and they also identify the need for
translators to have a sound legal background (see e.g. Cao 2007: 5; Gouadec
2007: 31; Prieto Ramos 2011: 13; Šarčević 1994: 304 and 1997:113; Wilss 1996:
73), but the actual scope and extent of expertise in law required of legal transla-
tors is still a hotly debated topic. Gouadec states that in situations when a legal
translator is not himself a lawyer or does not have a solid legal background, the
translation “should always be a joint effort by a translator and a lawyer, the lat-
ter having the last say, of course.” Gouadec (2007: 33). Manganaras goes further
and argues that “a qualified legal translator is a lawyer” and legal translation is
better performed by a “law graduate who is acquainted with at least one or two
foreign languages” than by a “translation graduate who has taken legal transla-
tion courses” (Manganaras 1996: 64ff ).
Orlando and Scarpa (2014: 209-218) presented some research in the
context of the EMT model for the conceptualisation of legal translation compe-
tence as developed within the QUALETRA project (JUST/2011/JPEN/AG/2975),
whose main aims were the training and accreditation of highly-qualified legal
translators specialising in criminal proceedings in line with Directive 2010/64/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to
interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. The top-down approach
model, the conceptual grid of sub-competences for legal translators, integrates
the general EMT reference framework for translation competences (EMT Expert
Group 2009) with the specific knowledge and sub-competences that are strictly
related to legal translation. The model was adopted as a basis for the training and
testing objectives of the QUALETRA project and resulted in the competence grid
(enumerating sub-competences specific for professional legal translators) and the
ECQA ‘Skills card’ which focuses on the competences and skills of prospective
translators in the specific legal subdomain of criminal proceedings, i.e. the trans-
lation of ‘essential documents’ and the European Arrest Warrant specifically men-
tioned in the Directive (Scarpa, Kockaert, Orlando 2014: 4-17).
The procedure adopted in the QUALETRA project, and the EMT 2009
‘wheel of competences’ model (see Figure 2), served as a starting point for de-
fining the general translation competences assumed to be already acquired by
translators wishing to specialise in legal translation. To this end, the sub-compe-
tences specific to legal translators were extracted from the relevant literature and
integrated into the EMT reference framework with additional core components
more strictly related to legal translation (Scarpa, Kockaert, Orlando 2014: 4-17).
This approach took a broader view that professional translators specialised in
specific areas are translators first, which is also implicit in Cao’s definition of
legal translation as “the rendering of legal texts from the SL into the TL,” (Cao
2007: 10) whereby legal translation can be distinguished from other forms of
translation by merely adding the qualifier “legal”. The specialisation of transla-
tors in specific areas was however meant not necessarily as a sequential proc-
ess but rather a model expressed in a hierarchical sense, where the knowledge
of specific subject matter should be considered a subcomponent of translation
competence and be complemented by further sub-competences, both innate
and acquired.
Orlando (2016) researched the difference between a translator trained
for legal translation vs. lawyer trained for legal translation. The conclusion was
that “The analysis shed light on the different levels of translation competence
displayed by the two groups, with direct implications for the identification of
their specific training needs. In particular, the results indicate a more superfi-
cial approach for lawyers, who mainly focused on the micro-textual level, prob-
lematised little and produced poor quality translations. By contrast, the find-
ings suggest that the translation-specific training of translators enabled them to
reach acceptable quality levels, despite their lack of subject-field specialisation.
The identification of a possible correlation between the different backgrounds of
the participants and the quality of their translation thus appears to suggest that
a translation background is in fact a fundamental component of legal transla-
tion competence, to be integrated with the necessary legal knowledge” (Orlando
2016: 7). The results led to the first, empirical attempt both at validating the in-
tegrative EMT-based model for legal translation competence developed as part
of the QUALETRA project, which provided the theoretical foundation for the
study, and grounding the notion that “a competent legal translator is first of all
a competent translator” (Cao 2007: 39).
Building on previous holistic multicomponent paradigms of macro-
competence (PACTE, in particular), Prieto Ramos (2011) proposes an integra-
26 Monika Popiołek
tive process-oriented approach to legal translation competence focused on legal

translation-specific know-how within the key methodological or strategic sub-
competence that controls all other sub-competences. This approach is grounded
in professional practice and includes all the relevant components but the com-
bination of individual translator competence with process requirements might
be confusing if one tries to use the resulting model for the purpose of actually
validating professional practice and competence (especially in terms of opera-
tive knowledge) in real life scenarios.
Legal translation process-oriented
Strategic of methodological competence
Communicative Interpersonal
textual competence and professional
Thematic and management
cultural Instrumental competence
competence competence
Figure 4. Legal Translator Competences Model based on Prieto Ramos 2011
Apart from the generic skills required for all translation work, in Prieto
Ramos’s approach the strategic or methodological competence includes self-
assessment and quality control which is somewhat puzzling as there is no real
explanation of how the latter is relevant for individual competence except for
a general statement further on in the article to the effect that “Quality control in
legal translation requires particular emphasis on accuracy and effectiveness of
legal communication when assuring the macro-textual coherence of solutions
to the semantic, procedural and reformulation problems encountered.” (Prieto
Ramos 2011:17). Moreover, when discussing revision as a critical final phase
of the translation process, Prieto Ramos does not specify that revision is an
activity performed by another equally competent translator/reviser. These re-
marks about quality control are confusing because it is difficult to imagine any
professional translation process where a translator effectively and objectively
performs self-assessment and auto-quality control.
Furthermore, in the model based on Prieto Ramos’s approach (see Fig-

ure 4), communicative and textual competence includes specialized legal lin-
guistic uses and legal genre conventions, and the interpersonal and professional
management competence includes knowledge of legal framework for profes-
sional practice and fiscal obligations as well as deontological aspects. In this
specialized context, ‘thematic’ (domain) competence constitutes a distinctive
feature of legal translation competence (hence the emphasis in Figure 4) and
includes: knowledge of legal systems, hierarchy of legal sources, branches of law
and main legal concepts, awareness of asymmetry between legal notions and
structures in different legal traditions. In Prieto Ramos’s view, the core of that
sub-competence would be very close to the practical principles of comparative
law. He also distinguishes other elements of legal science and legal linguistic
knowledge as part of legal translation competence, such as:
- Scope of specialization: classification of legal genres (textual compe-
tence);
- Comparative legal linguistics: features of legal discourse in the source
and the target languages and jurisdictions (communicative and textual
competence);
- Documentation: specialized legal sources (instrumental competence);
- Professional practice: market conditions, associations and deontology
issues in legal translation (interpersonal and professional management
competence).
(Prieto Ramos 2011:13)
It seems that Prieto Ramos was quite forward thinking when he pro-
posed in 2011 a legal translation competence approach based on the previous
holistic multicomponent paradigms of translation macro-competence but aimed
at avoiding conceptual duplications and with a focus on professional practice
(including incorporation of distinctive legal thematic elements) (Prieto Ramos
2011: 7). Unfortunately, he does not include objective assessment (e.g. revision)
among the elements that are important for the legal translation quality process.
Nevertheless, his argument that the integral development of legal translation
competence requires specific interdisciplinary methodologies and needs to be
process-oriented, focus on the legal translation-specific know-how, a combina-
tion of practical translation skills and legal knowledge and adhere to a rigor-
ous translation process, reflects some of the thinking behind the legal translator
competence requirements set in the ISO 20771 standard as well. However, the
distinction between translator competence and process requirements is clearly
made in the ISO 20771 standard and this more comprehensive approach allows
not only for practical assessment of individual translator competence based on
28 Monika Popiołek
measurable skills and qualifications but also independent process validation in

real life situations. This distinction is also important from the point of view of
methodology because assessment of individual competence and performance is
always retrospective, while process requirement mapping is always a prospec-
tive activity that falls under quality assurance.
5. ISO 20771 Overview
Legal translation is a specialization which covers law related or legal specialist

field translation in terms of content as well as context (e.g. legal settings). Given
the potential legal consequences, formal and liability issues, this specialization
requires specific competences and a professional approach from the individuals
involved. The standard explicitly states that due to the formalized and sensi-
tive nature of the subject matter in certain countries, settings and under certain
circumstances legal translators may be subject to specific professional, confi-
dentiality and ethical requirements, authorisation, certification, and/or security
clearance procedures (ISO 20771: v).
ISO 20771 is intended for implementation by individual translators who
specialize in the provision of legal translation services. The standard specifies
requirements for the competences and qualifications of legal translators, revis-
ers and reviewers. In particular, it specifies the core processes, resources, con-
tinuous professional development, training and other aspects of the legal trans-
lation service provided by individual translators. Fulfilment of the requirements
set out in the standard enables the individual legal translator to demonstrate
their capability to maintain a desired level of quality in legal translation serv-
ices that will meet the Client’s and other applicable specifications and therefore
be considered a fit for purpose specialist translation product. ISO 20771 takes
a similar approach to translator competences as ISO 17100 and adds domain
knowledge and specialist legal field practical understanding and skills to the
generic competences. The standard requirement is that legal translators “shall
have the following competences:
a) Translation competence: the ability to translate specialist legal content,
including the ability to address the problems of specialist language con-
tent comprehension and production, and the ability to render the target
language content in accordance with the project specifications, using
the correct language register, specialist terminology and taking into ac-
count other aspects of legal translation specialization,
b) Linguistic and textual competence in the source language and the
target language: the ability to fully understand the source language,
fluency in the target language, and knowledge of specialist genre con-

ventions, language registers, legal collocations and terminology in both
the source and target language. The linguistic and textual competence
includes the ability to apply this knowledge and specialist legal termi-
nology when producing legal translation,
c) Specialist legal field competence: the ability to understand specialist
legal content produced in the source language and to reproduce it in
the target language, using the appropriate up-to-date specialist legal
language register, genre conventions, terminology and style. If required
and authorised to do so, a legal translator should have the knowledge of
proper procedure for certifying a translation,
d) Competence in research, information acquisition and processing:
the ability to efficiently acquire additional specialist legal knowledge or
source documents and terminology necessary to understand and process
specialist source language content, to produce the legal specialist target
language content, and to critically assess the credibility and reliability of
all the resources. Research competence also requires experience in the
use of research tools and search engines, the ability to develop suitable
specialist terminology bases and strategies for the efficient use of the in-
formation sources available, evaluation of their relevance and credibility
in a given context, and source. If required, to be capable of providing
information about the requirements for legalization or authorisation of
translated legal documents,
e) Legal culture competence: ability to make use of information on be-
havioural standards, value systems, understanding of legal procedures
and systems, language registers and locale that characterize both source
and target language legal cultures and are relevant to the specialisations
and settings that the legal translator is dealing with as well as ability to
understand the distinction and cultural and factual implications behind
different legal systems and approaches (intersystemic, intrasystemic or
acultural),
f) Technical competence: abilities and skills required to perform the tech-
nical tasks in the specialist translation process by accessing and employ-
ing technical resources, and using tools, templates, electronic signature
systems, data safety and security systems, document and terminology
data bases and IT systems that support the legal translation process.”
(ISO 20771:2020: 5.1).
30 Monika Popiołek
Legal translation process-oriented
Linguistic Competence in
and textual Specialist research,
Translation competence Legal culture Technical
competence legal field information competence
in the competence acquisition competence
SL and the TL and processing
Figure 5. Legal Translator Competence Model based on ISO 20771
The competences referenced above are seen as complementary to the

minimum legal translator qualifications requirements and that is why they are
quite general. What is more, it is relatively easy to devise methods of assessing
them in practice. For example, the competences described in points a) to f) can
all be measured and validated by way of legal translation tests using the techni-
cal and other resources described in point f) (ISO 20771:2020: 5.1). Also, the
referenced models do not generally include lists of specific skills such as the use
of templates, electronic signature systems, security systems, terminology data
bases etc. So, based on the above reasoning and the research done as part of the
QUALETRA project and Prieto Ramos’s work, one may conclude that the legal
translator competences set in ISO 20771 include similar competence compo-
nents as those discussed in the referenced research, but the referenced research
does not take into account all the components set in the standard, and there are
some notable conceptual and terminological differences which make the stand-
ard more operational. The differences in approach are even more pronounced
when one takes into account some of the other ISO 20771 requirements.
6. Other ISO 20771 requirements relevant for the discussion on legal trans-
lator competence
The ISO 20771 qualification requirements complement the competence ones.

ISO 20771 standard requires that a legal translator shall meet at least one of five
criteria in relation to the relevant language pair and have documented evidence
to support this. Thus, in order to demonstrate conformance, the legal translator
“shall meet one of the following requirements:
a) has obtained a recognized degree in translation, language studies or an
equivalent degree that includes a significant translation training com-
ponent from an institution of higher education and a post-graduate de-
gree in law or another specialist legal field from an institution of higher
education and has the equivalent of at least three years’ full-time profes-
sional experience in translating within the legal field;
b) has obtained a recognized degree in law or another specialist legal field
from an institution of higher education and has the equivalent of at least
three years’ full-time professional experience in translating documents
within the legal field;
c) has obtained a recognized degree in translation or any field from an in-
stitution of higher education and has the equivalent of at least five years’
full-time professional experience in translating in the legal field;
d) has obtained a recognized degree in any field from an institution of
higher education and a recognized professional qualification as a certi-
fied legal translator from an officially recognized professional organisa-
tion and has the equivalent of at least three years’ full-time professional
experience in translating in the legal field;
e) has obtained an officially recognized qualification as an authorised le-
gal translator on the basis of relevant national requirements and regula-
tions.” (ISO 20771:2020:5.2).
Once again, the qualifications described above are quite specific and it
is relatively easy to validate them by asking the translator for documented proof
thereof. The full-time professional experience in translating within the legal
field requirement can be validated through relevant references, copies of con-
tracts and other documented evidence of such experience. It is noteworthy that
the other approaches and models referenced do not include any specific transla-
tor qualification requirements or experience component which makes them less
useful than standards from the practical point of view (e.g. when a translator
needs to demonstrate the fulfilment of specific requirements for the purpose of
certification, as part of procurement or recruitment process etc.).
Additionally, there are some other important requirements and recom-
mendations set in ISO 20771 which are also relevant in the context of the dis-
cussion on competence and professional translation practice, such as:
- requirement to perform full revision (obligatory) and review (recom-
mended) of all translations;
- responsibility of the legal translator towards the client for the whole pro-
cess, which includes fulfilling all the specifications and ensuring that
independent revision takes place;
- requirement to have some sort of service agreement and service specifi-
cation in place for the translation service;
- requirement to follow a standard process for managing a translation
project;
32 Monika Popiołek
- recommendation for signing off on the translation (if possible) and re-
cord keeping in order to ensure full transparency and traceability;
- requirement for dealing with feedback, complaints, and taking correc-
tive action;
- requirement for maintaining confidentiality and security
- recommendation for carrying professional liability insurance and a re-
lated requirement which stipulates that the client shall be informed if
the translator is uninsured.
It is noteworthy that the ISO 20771 is the first ISO standard which sets
a clear recommendation that translators should engage in continuous profes-
sional development and maintain documented proof of such activities. The
standard also outlines how this should be achieved.
A comparison of the approach proposed by Prieto Ramos (Prieto Ra-
mos 2011) and the ISO 20771 standard shows that the most notable differ-
ences are:
- the clear distinction between competence, qualification and translation
process in ISO 20771 is missing in Prieto Ramos’s approach and makes
his recommendations much less comprehensive and inoperable in prac-
tice;
- the structured model (integrating competence, qualification and trans-
lation process) proposed in ISO 20771 is based on measurable criteria,
reflects actual market practice and allows for validation of all require-
ments and conformance assessment while Prieto Ramos’s model is held
together by the strategic/methodological meta-competence and focuses
on thematic competence, and other aspects of professional practice,
which are purely descriptive and hence difficult to implement and vali-
date objectively;
- Prieto Ramos’s strategic/methodological meta-competence-centred ap-
proach references self-assessment and quality control but sets no actual
requirements while ISO 20771 proposes a clear requirements model for
legal translator competences, qualifications and the relevant process
which includes quality control measures and steps;
- the ISO 20771 requirement that all legal translation shall be revised by
another equally competent translator/reviser is clearly missing in Prieto
Ramos’s approach and this is a serious weakness - suggestions of transla-
tor self-assessment and self-revision at the conclusion of the translation
process are inconsistent with industry best practice and do not contrib-
ute anything relevant to the ongoing discussion on objective translation
quality control.
The most notable similarities between ISO 20771 and Prieto Ramos’s
approach involve the focus on legal domain competence (albeit the terminology
and model is different in ISO 20771 and there is a complementary relationship
between minimum competence and qualification requirements), professional
practice and the legal translation process orientation.
The above overview of ISO 20771 requirements and analysis of relevant
approaches demonstrates that the referenced industry standards reflect actual
best practice and are in-line with the EQF and its strategic goals. Furthermore,
ISO 20771 and ISO 17100 are written using standardized industry terminology
and use comprehensive models, measurable professional qualifications, experi-
ence and other minimum requirements as the benchmarks for conformance
assessment. ISO 20771 is focused on the specialist and practical aspects of legal
translation and it sets a wide range of professional requirements and offers rec-
ommendations relevant not only to legal translators but all translation profes-
sionals.
7. Conclusions
ISO industry standards are developed by key stakeholders on the basis of con-
sensus, existing best practice and with the aim of addressing actual market
needs and filling important standardization gaps. They are probably the most
important and comprehensive professional resource available on the market.
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the relevant ISO industry standards
should be taken on board and used widely within both the industry and the
academia. The lack of relevant and informed publications on industry standards
indicates that there are still research gaps in this area and more information
campaigns are needed.
The EQF Recommendation launched many important initiatives aimed
at standardizing academic teaching programmes and setting the same level of
comprehensive educational and professional requirements but this has not nec-
essarily translated into the general adoption of a uniform approach to translator
competence outside the industry. ISO industry standards have taken a pragmat-
ic approach to translator competence, validation and resulting qualifications.
By associating competence with individuals and referring to specific, auditable
criteria and requirements for the purpose of documenting and validating com-
petence in practice and setting required minimum qualifications, ISO standards
are operational, certifiable and therefore contribute to the creation of profes-
sional certification schemes that can be complementary to or alternative to for-
mal academic qualifications.
34 Monika Popiołek
ISO 17100 translator competence and qualification requirements are

referenced here to show the difference between the ISO 20771 approach to spe-
cialist legal translator competence and qualification requirements and general
translator requirements. Since ISO 20771 and ISO 17100 share the same ap-
proach and terminology, they are in many ways complementary and easy to
analyse side-by-side. As stated above, analysis of the ISO industry requirements
standards demonstrates that they are in-line with the EQF and have contributed
to some of the more recent theoretical approaches of translator competence.
Analysis of academic approaches to translator competence poses
a greater challenge. There is a conceptual overlap between ISO standards and
the referenced theoretical approaches but there are also some significant dif-
ferences in application and terminology. From the industry’s point of view,
ISO translation requirements standards are much more useful than theoreti-
cal frameworks or models developed for policy or academic reasons. This is
a function of their purpose. Standards are industry-driven and if they do not
reflect best practice and/or are difficult to implement by market players, then
they fail to fulfil their main purpose and are considered invalid. Hence, one
might posit that academic approaches are less pragmatic, and objective than
standards and may use different terminology for more or less the same con-
cepts because they are not validated in practice and the uptake of relevant ISO
standards among the academia is significantly slower than in case of other
stakeholders. It is worth mentioning here that translation and interpreting
terminology has been standardized for some years now and ISO 17100 and
ISO 20771 have contributed significantly to this effort. Relevant standardized
terminology has also been published in ISO 20539:2019 Translation, interpret-
ing, and related technology – Vocabulary.
An important requirement set in both ISO 17100 and ISO 20771 is that
all translations have to be revised by a competent reviser after the translator
has performed all the required checks. None of the referenced frameworks or
models mention this requirement or specific reviser competence requirements
in spite of the fact that it is considered by the industry to be a crucial element of
translation quality assurance and assessment. In fact, revision competence is still
in much higher demand on the top-end market than post-editing competence.
Therefore, it is not surprising that some of the previous research on conceptual-
izing and describing translator competence may be less useful nowadays and
ISO industry standards have filled this gap. Given the fact that ISO standards
are developed in response to actual market demand and their usefulness has
been positively verified in practice, their wider adoption is evidently a win-win
option for all stakeholders.
Based on implementation and certification figures, it is clear that the

industry uptake of ISO standards has been phenomenal. The European Union
initiatives are also driving projects aimed at better adjustment of individual
competence and qualifications to the requirements of knowledge society, and
academic programmes are trying to adjust to market needs and benchmarks.
Given the fact that one of the EQF aims is adaptation of education and training
systems in the Community to the demands of today’s knowledge society, pro-
moting lifelong learning and increasing employability, it is reasonable to expect
that graduates and post-graduates should have more practical experience and
access to know-how about the profession and the industry. Most of this infor-
mation is provided in ISO industry standards.
The ISO translation standards discussed in this article address the is-
sue of competence validation and minimum professional competence-based
qualifications of a translator and define the different options in a consistent,
clear and objective way, which is seen as one of their main strengths. De-
spite the growing consensus on translation competence as a multi-faceted
or multi-component model comprising several core components and their
dynamic interrelation, more research is needed on practical application and
instruments for objective validation of specialist translator competence. The
approach to practical application is the main difference between theoretical
models and standards. There are on-going discussions within the industry on
what is required of translator education and training nowadays and there is
a consensus that it needs to focus more on actual market requirements and
the dynamic changes taking place within the industry. In time, as ISO indus-
try standards are taken on board by all stakeholders, there will be more publi-
cations on this subjects and standards will definitely be used as an important
resource for training of future translators and their continuous professional
development.
To conclude, certain conceptual elements of academic competence
models are reflected in standards (albeit the specific terminology and classifi-
cation methods may differ) but standards have a different function (hence the
pragmatic approach), they reflect the changes taking place in the industry more
closely and they reference the experience and validation factor as an element of
translator competence and qualifications as a matter of course. Furthermore,
standards are much more comprehensive, operational and readable – which is
of course also a function of their practical application. Last but not least, as op-
posed to the academic or hybrid models, standards generally set measurable
minimum requirements because otherwise they could not be used for conform-
ance assessment. If, for some reason, some elements of best practice are not cru-
36 Monika Popiołek
cial, measurable or operational, and therefore difficult to implement or validate,

they are treated in standards as recommendations (not requirements).
The background information and presented analysis indicate that while
the translation industry is becoming more mature and the dynamic develop-
ment of relevant industry standards is driving specialisation and profession-
alization, and the other way round, ISO standards still need to be promoted
more actively and used as a key resource for translator education. Therefore, this
overview of industry’s pragmatic approach to legal translator competence and
other requirements, as reflected primarily in ISO 20771, within a wider research
and standardization context also outlines some of the practical implications of
standardization in the hope that this might become the starting point for more
analysis and discussions on the subject in the future.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cao, Deborah. (2007). Translating Law. Multilingual Matters. Topics in Translation.
Buffalo/Toronto. Clevedon: pp. xii, 189.
Cedefop. (2014). “Terminology of European education and training policy: a selection
of 130 key terms (second edition)”. Luxembourg: Publications Office. http://
www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/4117
(accessed 01.12.2020).
Cedefop. (2008). “Strengthening European cooperation in vocational education and
training policy”. Luxembourg: Publications Office. https://www.cedefop.euro-
pa.eu/files/9010_en.pdf (accessed 01.12.2020).
Delisle, Jean. (1992). “Les manuels de traduction: essai de classification.” TTR (traduc-
tion, terminologie, rédaction) 5(1): 17-47.
EMT Expert Group. (2009). “Competences for Professional Translators, Experts in Mul-
tilingual and Multimedia Communication”. Brussels: European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/emt/key_documents/emt_
competences_translators_en.pdf. (accessed 01.12.2020).
EMT Expert Group. (2017). “Competence framework 2017”. Daniel Toudic and Ale-
xandra Krause (eds.) EMT Expert Group 2017. Brussels: European Commis-
sion. EMT_Competence_FWK_2017_EN_WEB.indd (europa.eu) (accessed
01.12.2020).
EMT - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/pro-
grammes/emt/network/emt_faq_en.pdf. (accessed 01.12.2020).
European Parliament and Council of the EU. (2008). Recommendation of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 (2008/C 111/01) on EQF. https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32008H0506(01) (ac-
cessed 01.12.2020).
European Commission. (2018). “The European Qualifications Framework: supporting
learning, work and cross-border mobility”. 1 ed. European Union. https://tiny-
url.com/ya39wxbn (accessed 01.12.2020).
ETF – European Training Foundation. (1997). “Glossary of labour market terms and
standard and curriculum development terms”. Turin: ETF.
Eurydice. (2006). “TESE – Thesaurus for education systems in Europe”. Brussels: Eury-
dice. https://www.lu.lv/materiali/biblioteka/es/pilnieteksti/izglitiba/TESE%20
-%20Thesaurus%20for%20Education%20Systems%20in%20Europe.pdf (ac-
cessed 05.05.2021).
Gile, Daniel. (1995). “Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Tra-
ining”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitta Jääskeläinen. (2009). “Process Research into the De-
velopment of Translation Competence: Where Are We, and Where Do We
Need to Go?” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 169–91. DOI: 10.1556/
Acr.10.2009.2.1.
Göpferich, Susanne. (2009). “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and Its Acqu-
isition: The Longitudinal Study TransComp”. In: Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke
Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees (eds.). Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Re-
sults in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, 11-37.
Gouadec, Daniel. (2007). “Translation as a Profession”. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hertog, Erik. (2001). “Aequitas: access to justice across language and culture in the EU”.
Antwerpen: Lessius Hogeschool.
House, Juliane. (1986). “Acquiring Translational Competence in Interaction”. Juliane
House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.) Interlingual and Intercultural Commu-
nication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisi-
tion Studies, Tübingen: Narr, 179-191.
Hurtado Albir, Amparo (dir.). (1999). “Enseñar a traducir: metodología en la formación
de traductores e intérpretes”. Madrid: Edelsa.
Hurtado Albir, Amparo. (2007). “Competence-based Curriculum Design for Training
Translators”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1(2): 163-195.
ILO – International Labour Organization. (1998). “ILO thesaurus [Thesaurus BIT =
Tesauro OIT]: labour, employment and training terminology”. Geneva: ILO.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). “ISO Statutes”. https://www.iso.
org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/statutes.pdf (accessed 01.12.2020).
ISO 20539:2019 Translation and interpreting and related technology – vocabulary. (2020).
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 20771:2020 Legal translation – Requirements. (2020). Geneva: International Orga-
nization for Standardization.
ISO 17100:2015 Translation services – Requirements for translation services. (2015). Ge-
neva: International Organization for Standardization.
Kiraly, Donald. (1995). “Pathways to Translation. Pedagogy and Process”. Kent, Ohio:
Kent State University Press.
Manganaras, Ioannis. (1996). “The Qualified Legal Translator is a Lawyer Trained in
Translation”. Lingua Legis, no 4 (September 1996): 62-71.
Neubert, Albrecht. (2000). “Competence in language, in languages, and in translation”.
In: Christina Schäffner and Beverly Adab (eds.). Developing Translation Com-
petence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3-18.
38 Monika Popiołek
Nord, Christiane. (1991). “Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methodology, and Di-
dactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis”. Amster-
dam: Rodopi.
Obenaus, Gerhard. (1995). “The legal translator as information broker”. In: Translation
and the Law, edited by M. Morris. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benja-
mins, 247-61.
OECD. (2007).”Qualifications systems: bridges to lifelong learning” [Systèmes de certifi-
cation:des passerelles pour apprendre à tout âge]”. Paris: OECD.
Orlando, Daniele and Federica Scarpa (2014). “Training Legal Translators. A Survey of
Current Practices.” Danuta Kierzkowska (ed.). New Tasks For Legal Interpre-
ters and Translators in the Enlarged Europe. Proceedings from the international
conference, Kraków, 3-5 April 2014. Kraków: Polskie Towarzystwo Tłumaczy
Przysięgłych i Specjalistycznych TEPIS, 209-218.
Orlando, Daniele. (2016). “The Trials of Legal Translation Competence: Triangulating
Process and Product of Translators vs. Lawyers”. PhD thesis, University of Trie-
ste. https://arts.units.it/retrieve/handle/11368/2908045/187217/ORLANDO_
PhD_Thesis.pdf (accessed 01.12.2020).
PACTE (2003). “Building a Translation Competence Model”. In: Fabio Alves (ed.) Trian-
gulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43-66.
PACTE (2005). “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodologi-
cal Issues”. Meta: Translators’ Journal 50 (2), 609-19.
PACTE (2007). “Zum Wesen der übersetzungskompetenz – Grundlagen für die experi-
mentelle Valiedierung eines Ük-Modells [Translation competence: main featu-
res of the experimental validation of translation competence]”. In: Wotjak, Gerd
(ed.) Quo vadis Translatologie? Ein halbes Jahrhundert Universitäter Ausbildung
von Dolmetschern und Übersetzern in Leipzig. Rückschau, Zwischenbilanz und
Perspectiven aus der Aussensicht, Berlin: Frank & Timme, 327-342.
PACTE (2008). “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: ‘Knowledge
of Translation’ and ‘Efficacy of the Translation Process”. In: John Kearns (ed.).
Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates. London: Con-
tinuum, 104-26.
PACTE (2011a). “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Mo-
del: Translation Problems and Translation Competence”. In: Cecilia Alvstad,
Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius (eds.). Methods and Strategies of Process Re-
search: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 317-43.
PACTE (2011b). “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Mo-
del: Translation Project and Dynamic Translation Index”. In: Sharon O’Brien
(ed.) Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: Continuum, 30-56.
Piecychna, Beata. (2013). “Legal Translation Competence in the Light of Translational
Hermeneutics”. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 34 (1), 141-59.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. (2011). “Developing Legal Translation Competence: An Inte-
grative Process-Oriented Approach”. Comparative Legilinguistics - International
Journal for Legal Communication 5, 7-21.
Pym, Anthony. (2003). “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In De-

fence of a Minimalist Approach”. Meta. Volume 48, Issue 4, 481–497. Online publi-
cation: Aug. 6, 2004. DOI https://doi.org/10.7202/008533ar (accessed 01.12.2020).
Šarčević, Susan. (1994). “Translation and the law: An interdisciplinary approach”. Mary
Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl (eds). Translation studies:
An interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301-307.
Šarčević, Susan. (1997). New approach to legal translation. The Hague/Boston: Kluwer
Law International.
Scarpa, Federica, Hendrik J. Kockaert, and Daniele Orlando. (2014). “ECQA Legal
Translator in Criminal Proceedings - Skills Card.” http://eulita.eu/sites/default/
files/a) ECQA_Legal_Translator_in_Criminal_Proceedings_Skills_Card.pdf.
(accessed 01.12.2020).
Scarpa, Federica, and Daniele Orlando. (2017). “What It Takes to Do It Right: An In-
tegrative EMT-Based Model for Legal Translation Competence.” JoSTrans. The
Journal of Specialised Translation 27, 21-42.
Schäffner, Christina and Adab, Beverly (eds.). (2000). “Developing Translation Compe-
tence: Introduction”. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Sofer, Morry. (2006). The Translator’s Handbook. Schreiber Publishing Inc. Maryland.
Toudic, Daniel and Alexandra Krause (eds). (2017). “Competence framework 2017”
EMT Expert Group. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/emt_competen-
ce_fwk_2017_en_web.pdf (accessed 01.12.2020).
Trosborg, A. (1997). “Text Typology: Register, Genre and text Type”. In: A. Trosborg
(ed.) Text typology and translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
3-23.
Wilss, Wolfram. (1976). “Perspectives and limitations of a didactic framework for the
teaching of translation”. In: Richard Brislin (ed.). Translation Applications and
Research. New York: Gardner, 117-137.
Wills, Wolfram. (1996). Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam & Phi-
ladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Monika Popiołek is a graduate of the University of Warsaw Faculty of Modern Languages

- English Institute (MA), Executive MBA Programme at the Warsaw University of Tech-
nology Business School (WUT BS, London Business School, HEC Paris, NHH Bergen joint
programme) (Executive MBA - with distinction), and a PhD Management Programme at
the Warsaw School of Economics (SGH). Her research specializations are strategic quality
management, translation quality assurance, specialist translation and standards.
Monika Popiołek is CEO of MAart Agency Ltd., President of the Polish Association of
Translation Companies (PSBT), authorised sworn translator and interpreter, Chair of
the Polish Committee for Standardization (PKN) Technical Committee 256 on Language,
Translation and Terminology, Head of Polish delegation to ISO TC 37, ISO, CEN, OASIS
expert, and the EUATC Liaison Representative to ISO TC 37. She is on the editorial board
40 Monika Popiołek
of the JIAL journal (published by the John Benjamins Publishing Company) and publishes
on quality management and standards. She was an editor for ISO 17100:2015 Translation
services – Requirements and Project Leader for ISO 20771:2020 Legal Translation – Re-
quirements.

60-Article Text-161-1-10-20210729

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

60-Article Text-161-1-10-20210729

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

60-Article Text-161-1-10-20210729

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lingua Legis

nr 28, 2020, s. 7–40

ISO 20771:2020 overview and legal translator

Keywords: legal translation, translator competence, legal translator, translator qualifica-

1. ISO and standards – some background information

ISO, founded on 23 February 1947, with a Central Secretariat in Geneva, Swit-

a membership of 165 national standards bodies. ISO develops voluntary, con-

der to facilitate restructuring of academic teaching programmes and setting the

2. ISO translation standards and the EQF

The first approach to standardizing translator competence and qualifications in

fication requirements. ISO 17100 is a product standard for translation service

b) “sets of knowledge, skills and/or competences an individual has acquired

which is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has

3. Translator competence – relevant research and reference to ISO 17100

partnership project launched by the European Commission. It has been noted

that fulfilment of project requirements, specifications or agreements would

3. Translation knowledge sub-competence: knowledge of principles that

Figure 1. The PACTE Group’s revised translation competence model (PACTE

petence and knowledge about translation are therefore considered to be specific

The model is simplified and does not claim to provide a comprehen-

ISO 17100 sets the following translator competence requirements:

made up of strategic, methodological and thematic sub-competences bundled

4. Legal translator competence – relevant research

tive process-oriented approach to legal translation competence focused on legal

Legal translation process-oriented

Strategic of methodological competence

Figure 4. Legal Translator Competences Model based on Prieto Ramos 2011

Furthermore, in the model based on Prieto Ramos’s approach (see Fig-

measurable skills and qualifications but also independent process validation in

5. ISO 20771 Overview

Legal translation is a specialization which covers law related or legal specialist

fluency in the target language, and knowledge of specialist genre con-

Legal translation process-oriented

Figure 5. Legal Translator Competence Model based on ISO 20771

The competences referenced above are seen as complementary to the

The ISO 20771 qualification requirements complement the competence ones.

ISO 17100 translator competence and qualification requirements are

Based on implementation and certification figures, it is clear that the

cial, measurable or operational, and therefore difficult to implement or validate,

Pym, Anthony. (2003). “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In De-

Monika Popiołek is a graduate of the University of Warsaw Faculty of Modern Languages

You might also like