Abstract
The inclusion of specialised corpora in terminological studies since the early 1990s has allowed for the observation and description of the behaviour of terminology in authentic linguistic contexts. As a result, what is nowadays known as “Textual Terminology” (Bourigault & Slodzian 1999, Pour une terminologie textuelle. Terminologies Nouvelles 19. 29–32) has become commonplace practice in the study of terminology. This new approach to terminology has led to the development of alternative paradigms to the General Theory of Terminology and to increasing interest in terminological variation, i.e. the existence of multiple terms to refer to a single concept. In this paper, the focus is on terminological variation in legal terminology. Variation in terminology can be studied from a number of perspectives and the one undertaken here is diachronic. The aim of the paper is to determine whether legal terminology, being “the most visible and striking linguistic feature of legal language” (Cao 2007: 53, Translating law. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters) but also deemed to change very slowly (Lemmens 2011, The slow dynamics of legal language: Festina lente? Terminology 17(1). 74–93), is subject to terminological variation in the short term and, if so, what type of variation it experiences. To do so, European Union legal acts in English and Italian and national legal acts in Italian dealing with the topic of victims of crime and their rights were examined and concrete examples of denominative and conceptual variation were extracted. The presence of two legal systems in the analysis made it necessary to add the ‘legal system’ variable to the methodological framework to provide a more comprehensive picture of the types of short-term variation detected. The inclusion of this variable led to the classification of the variants into two types, i.e. ‘intra-systemic’ and ‘inter-systemic’ variation. Moreover, an attempt was also made to classify the variants discussed in the paper against Picton’s typology for the description of short-term knowledge evolution through terminology (Picton 2014, The dynamics of terminology in short-term diachrony. A proposal for a corpus-based methodology to observe knowledge evolution. In R. Temmerman & M. Van Campenhoudt (eds.), Dynamics and terminology. An interdisciplinary perspective on monolingual and multilingual culture-bound communication, 157–182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins). This attempt resulted in the recognition of the lack of suitable categories for all the types of variation identified and thus of the need for further investigation of the dynamics of legal terminology embedded in a multi-level jurisdiction such as the EU.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Doctor Andrea Cabiale and Jacopo Della Torre for a number of helpful discussions on the interpretation of national and supranational legal provisions and Professor Marella Magris for precious remarks during the course of this study.
References
Alvaro, G. & A. D’Andrea. 2015. The impact of directive 2012/29/EU on the Italian system for protecting victims of crime in criminal proceedings. In S. Ruggeri (ed.), Human rights in European criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the Lisbon treaty, 307–317. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-12042-3_15Search in Google Scholar
Bourigault, D. & M. Slodzian. 1999. Pour une terminologie textuelle. Terminologies Nouvelles 19. 29–32.Search in Google Scholar
Cabré, M. T. 1999. Terminology: Theory, methods and applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tlrp.1Search in Google Scholar
Cao, D. 2007. Translating law. Clevedon & Buffalo & Toronto: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599552Search in Google Scholar
Drouin, P., A. Francœur, J. Humbley & A. Picton (eds.). 2017. Multiple perspectives on terminological variation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tlrp.18Search in Google Scholar
Faber, P. 2009. The cognitive shift in terminology and specialized translation. MonTI. A (Self-) Critical Perspective of Translation Theories 1. 107–134.10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.5Search in Google Scholar
Freixa, J. 2002. La variació terminològica. Anàlisi de la variació denominativa en textos de diferent grau d’especialització de l’àrea de medi ambient. Filologia Catalana. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.Search in Google Scholar
Freixa, J. 2006. Causes of denominative variation in terminology. A typology proposal. Terminology 12(1). 51–77.10.1075/term.12.1.04freSearch in Google Scholar
Freixa, J., I. Kostina & M. T. Cabré 2002. La variación terminológica en las aplicaciones terminográficas. In Actas del VIII Simposio Iberoamericano de Terminología (Cartagena de Indias, 28–31 October 2002).Search in Google Scholar
Gambaro, A. & R. Sacco. 1996. Sistemi giuridici comparati. Torino: UTET.Search in Google Scholar
Garzone, G. 2000. Legal translation and functionalist approaches: A contradiction in terms? In Actes du Colloque International “La traduction juridique. Histoire, théorie(s) et pratique” (Geneva, 17–19 February 2000), 395–414.University of Bologna. http://www.tradulex.com/Actes2000/Garzone.pdf (access date: 15/07/2017).Search in Google Scholar
Gaudin, F. 1993. Pour une socioterminologie: Des problèmes pratiques aux pratiques institutionnelles. Rouen: Université de Rouen.Search in Google Scholar
Gaudin, F. 2003. Socioterminologie: Une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie. Brussels: Éditions Duculot.10.3917/dbu.gaudi.2003.01Search in Google Scholar
Gialuz, M., L. Lupária & F. Scarpa (eds.). 2014. The Italian code of criminal procedure. Critical essays and English translation. Padova: Wolters Kluwer/CEDAM.Search in Google Scholar
Gialuz, M., L. Lupária & F. Scarpa (eds.). 2017. The Italian code of criminal procedure. Critical essays and English translation, 2nd revise. Padova: Wolters Kluwer/CEDAM.Search in Google Scholar
Ibekwe-SanJuan, F. 1998. Terminological variation, a means of identifying research topics from texts. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’98) (Montreal, 10–14 August 1998), 564–570. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: University of Montreal.10.3115/980451.980939Search in Google Scholar
Kerremans, K. 2010. A comparative study of terminological variation in specialised translation. In C. Heine & J. Engberg (eds.), Reconceptualizing LSP. Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP Symposium (Aarhus, 17–21 August 2009), 1–14. Aarhus.Search in Google Scholar
Lemmens, K. 2011. The slow dynamics of legal language: Festina lente? Terminology 17(1). 74–93.10.1075/term.17.1.05lemSearch in Google Scholar
Mannozzi, G. 2003. La giustizia senza spada. Uno studio comparato su giustizia riparativa e mediazione penale. Milano: Giuffrè Editore.Search in Google Scholar
Mattila, H. E. S. 2006. Comparative legal linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar
Pasa, B. 2007. Old terms for new concepts in consumer contracts? (Jean Monnet Working Pape 9/07). New York: NYU School of Law http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/070901.pdf (access date: 16/07/2017).Search in Google Scholar
Peruzzo, K. 2012. Secondary term formation within the EU: Term transfer, legal transplant or approximation of Member States’ legal systems? JoSTrans – The Journal of Specialised Translation 18 (Special issue “Terminology, Phraseology and Translation”). 175–186.Search in Google Scholar
Peruzzo, K. 2013a. Short-period evolution in EU legal texts: Old and new terms, old and new concepts. Linguistica 53(2). 39–53.10.4312/linguistica.53.2.39-53Search in Google Scholar
Peruzzo, K. 2013b. Terminological equivalence and variation in the EU multi-level jurisdiction: A case study on victims of crime. PhD Thesis. Trieste: University of Trieste. http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/handle/10077/8592 (access date: 21/07/2017).Search in Google Scholar
Peruzzo, K. 2014. Capturing dynamism in legal terminology: The case of victims of crime. In R. Temmerman & M. Van Campenhoudt (eds.), Dynamics and terminology. An interdisciplinary perspective on monolingual and multilingual culture-bound communication, 43–59. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tlrp.16.03perSearch in Google Scholar
Picton, A. 2011. Picturing short-period diachronic phenomena in specialised corpora: A textual terminology description of the dynamics of knowledge in space technologies. Terminology 17(1). 134–156.10.1075/term.17.1.08picSearch in Google Scholar
Picton, A. 2014. The dynamics of terminology in short-term diachrony. A proposal for a corpus-based methodology to observe knowledge evolution. In R. Temmerman & M. Van Campenhoudt (eds.), Dynamics and terminology. An interdisciplinary perspective on monolingual and multilingual culture-bound communication, 157–182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tlrp.16.09picSearch in Google Scholar
Prieto Ramos, F. 2014. Parameters for problem-solving in legal translation: Implications for legal lexicography and institutional terminology management. In L. Cheng, K. K. Sin & A. Wagner (eds.), The Ashgate handbook of legal translation, 121–134. Farnham: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar
Sacco, R. 1991. La comparaison juridique au service de la connaissance du droit. Paris: Economica.Search in Google Scholar
Sager, J. C. 1990. A practical course in terminology processing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.44Search in Google Scholar
Temmerman, R. 2000. Towards new ways of terminology description: The sociocognitive approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tlrp.3Search in Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
