1. EU terminology – business as usual or new challenges?
Ingemar Strandvik
Quality Manager,
Directorate-General for Translation
European Commision
14 Nov 2016

2. Terminology and LSP translation
Terminology is a key component of language for special purposes – and of its translation
Terminology: 'set of designations belonging to one special language'
QT Launchpad/QT21/MQM:
'terminology' the only error category present in all systems for translation quality assessment
The EU-funded project QT Launchpad/QT21 came up with the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), which is a conceptual framework for assessing translation quality. The project analysed all existing models for translation quality assessment. Only one error category was present in all models: the category terminology error. In other words, in language-for-special-purpose translation (Fachsprachlinche Ubersetzung) terminology plays a key role.
Terminology is always a major issue in legal translation, simply because there are never one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems in different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific.
This well-known problem for legal translators becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects.

3. Terminology and Legal Translation
System-specificity of legal terminology
no one-to-one relations, 'organic ecosystems'
'marriage', 'appeal'
’banks’ (civil law) or ’a bank, banking corporation or other organisation or association for banking purposes’ (common law)
Legal translation and legal translation
Purpose of the document: information, procedural or material use in Court, multilingual law, …
Between languages and legal systems?
Terminology is always a major issue in legal translation, simply because there are never one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems in different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific. Even terms such as 'marriage' are different
In legal translation, when translation takes place between different legal orders, terminology is always an issue, because there are hardly ever one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems of different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific (De Groot, 2012: 140). This well-known problem for legal translation becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, where all language versions are equally authentic. Terminological quality in that context actually is a question of fundamental rights: Basic quality requirements for legislation include accessibility and foreseeability. In multilingual lawmaking, the addressees of all language versions should be able to understand their rights and obligations, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects. They should have the same access to it independently of their language. They should not be discriminated against because of their official language.
This well-known problem for legal translators becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects.
In the Joint Practical Guide, we se that ”concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing fromtheir meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language”. Note the ”as far as possible”. This instruction is fully in line with the ISO standards for terminological work, according to which you focus on ”definitions” and ”concepts” and not on the surface level. You don’t translate terms without a conceptual analysis.
However, the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in its famous CILFIT ruling established the so called ”conceptual autonomy of EU terminology”. It should always be borne in mind that when a term appears in an EU legal act, it may have a different meaning than the same term in the national context.

4. EU terminology in EU translation
Multilingual law
all language versions formally equal - equally authentic binding law – translations are the law
Basic quality criteria for multilingual law:
identical legal effect in 24 languages and uniform interpretation and application in 28 national legal orders
Basic quality criteria for legislation:
accessibility, predictability, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, non-discrimination, … (JPG, ECHR)
Terminology is always a major issue in legal translation, simply because there are never one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems in different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific.
This well-known problem for legal translators becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects.
In the Joint Practical Guide, we se that ”concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing fromtheir meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language”. Note the ”as far as possible”. This instruction is fully in line with the ISO standards for terminological work, according to which you focus on ”definitions” and ”concepts” and not on the surface level. You don’t translate terms without a conceptual analysis.
However, the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in its famous CILFIT ruling established the so called ”conceptual autonomy of EU terminology”. It should always be borne in mind that when a term appears in an EU legal act, it may have a different meaning than the same term in the national context.

5. Guidelines: Joint Practical Guide
‘concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing from their meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language’
'the same terms are to be used to express the same concepts and that identical terms must not be used to express different concepts /…/ the use of synonyms should be avoided'
'the use of expressions and phrases — in particular, but not exclusively, legal terms — too specific to the author’s own language or legal system, will increase the risk of translation problems /…/ as regards actual legal terminology, terms which are too closely linked to national legal systems should be avoided.'
Terminology is always a major issue in legal translation, simply because there are never one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems in different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific.
This well-known problem for legal translators becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects.
In the Joint Practical Guide, we se that ”concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing fromtheir meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language”. Note the ”as far as possible”. This instruction is fully in line with the ISO standards for terminological work, according to which you focus on ”definitions” and ”concepts” and not on the surface level. You don’t translate terms without a conceptual analysis.
However, the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in its famous CILFIT ruling established the so called ”conceptual autonomy of EU terminology”. It should always be borne in mind that when a term appears in an EU legal act, it may have a different meaning than the same term in the national context.

6. Other guidance: ISO standards
International standards for terminological work (such as ISO 704, ISO1087)
focus on ‘concepts’ ‘definitions’, not on ‘surface’
'doble systematicidad' (terms should fit into two systems: the general language and the specialised language of the domain concerned) (cf. 'grey ice')
terminology evolves over time, just as natural language
Terminology is always a major issue in legal translation, simply because there are never one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems in different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific.
This well-known problem for legal translators becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects.
In the Joint Practical Guide, we se that ”concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing fromtheir meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language”. Note the ”as far as possible”. This instruction is fully in line with the ISO standards for terminological work, according to which you focus on ”definitions” and ”concepts” and not on the surface level. You don’t translate terms without a conceptual analysis.
However, the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in its famous CILFIT ruling established the so called ”conceptual autonomy of EU terminology”. It should always be borne in mind that when a term appears in an EU legal act, it may have a different meaning than the same term in the national context.

7. Terminology tetrahedron.
has self-supporting trunk
ağaç
concept
drvo
non-climbing
arbre
is tall
koks
has trunk
tree
term
referent
träd
Baum
muorra
Träden du ser på bilden är unika referenter som har unika egenskaper, och av de egenskaper de allihopa har gemensamt, t.ex. att de är en sorts växter med vedartad stam, formar vi begreppet ”träd” i vårt medvetande. Begreppet ”träd” är alltså en abstraktion av samtliga träd, dvs. referenter, i den verkliga världen. De gemensamma egenskaperna abstraheras också, och kallas då inom terminologiläran för ”kännetecken”.
Begreppet tillhör alltså den kognitiva världen. Begreppet kan sägas vara en mental föreställning, en ”bild”, en kunskapsenhet, som vi härbärgerar i vårt medvetande. Begreppet är uppbyggt av kännetecken. Varje kännetecken är en abstraktion av en gemensam egenskap hos referenterna, precis som begreppet är en abstraktion av referenterna.
För att kommunicera med våra medmänniskor klarar vi oss förstås inte bara med begreppen , utan vi behöver använda oss av språket. En direkt språklig motsvarighet till begreppet bör definitionen vara. Definitionen bör beskriva de kännetecken för begreppet som är mest väsentliga och som särskiljer begreppet från andra begrepp. Definitionen ska alltså inte beskriva enskilda referenter eller ”förklara en term”. Definitionen av begreppet ”träd” ska tala om vad det är som gör att ett träd är ett träd och inte till exempel en buske eller en lian. Den ska inte beskriva hur en viss ek utanför mitt fönster ser ut eller språkhistorien bakom ordet träd. Inom terminologiläran finns det också regler för hur man formulerar definitioner rent språkligt. Detta kommer vi att diskutera senare under kursen.
Men det språkliga redskapet framför andra när vi kommunicerar om begreppen är förstås termerna. Om definitionen kan ses som en beskrivning av begreppet, kan termerna fungera som en sorts etiketter på begreppet. Som du ser på bilden kan termerna på olika språk se helt olika ut, även när begreppet bakom är gemensamt.
definition
дeрево
tall plant with hard self-supporting trunk and branches, that lives for many years
characteristics
© Terminologicentrum TNC
Västra vägen 7 B
Solna
Telefon:
Telefax:
Webbplats:
E-post:

8. Other guidance: case law
CILFIT ruling (283/81):
'Conceptual autonomy of EU terminology'
'Legal concepts (in EU legislation) do not necessarily have the same meaning in EU law and in the law of the various Member States'
Ex. 'consumer'
Terminology is always a major issue in legal translation, simply because there are never one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems in different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific.
This well-known problem for legal translators becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects.
In the Joint Practical Guide, we se that ”concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing fromtheir meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language”. Note the ”as far as possible”. This instruction is fully in line with the ISO standards for terminological work, according to which you focus on ”definitions” and ”concepts” and not on the surface level. You don’t translate terms without a conceptual analysis.
However, the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in its famous CILFIT ruling established the so called ”conceptual autonomy of EU terminology”. It should always be borne in mind that when a term appears in an EU legal act, it may have a different meaning than the same term in the national context.

9. The 'traditional challenges' (1)
Level of technical detail in legislation
Long, term-dense technical annexes. Count as 'normal translation' - Time constraints.
Conceptual complexity of legal harmonisation
EU law the same for all but the relation between EU law and the national legal systems is not
When to create new EU terms?
Cilfit - Conceptual vs. terminological autonomy
Tricky balance, even with concept analysis…

10. The 'traditional challenges' (2)
EU terminology = LSP +Legal Terminology
terminology from the domain being regulated 'wrapped up' in EU legal acts, cf. CERN example
How to create terms?
synonyms
'trans-european high-speed railway systems'
'mobile equipment for construction and maintenance of infrastructure' vs. 'working vehicles'
'grey ice', 'banks', 'doble systematicidad'
Lawyer’s vs. Expert’s perspective
Term quality vs. Term status
The 'corrigenda hurdle'
The trick is to strike the right balance. To determine when you need to create new EU terms and when you can use well-established terms that already exist at national level.
Formally all terms in a legal act are legal terms. In practice however a distinction may be needed between purely legal concepts and ”normal” LSP terminology from a ”normal” subject field.
If all terminology is re-created at EU level, the national experts, those who have to apply the law, may have to learn a parallel terminology. This is hardly the idea, since the very purpose of terminology is to facilitate expert communication.
From a formal legal point of view, a term is correct once it appears in an adopted legal act, even if all subject field experts agree that it is not the ideal term.
To strike the balance is not easy.

11. The 'traditional challenges' (3)
How to interpret the guidelines (JPG)?
“Clear, simple and precise” (cf. Eurolect project)
“In so far as possible, everyday language should be used”
“Must not be perceived as translations in a negative sense”
”Overly complicated sentences, comprising several phrases, subordinate clauses or parenthesis are to be avoided”
“Texts peppered with loan words, literal translations or jargon are hard to understand and the source of much of the criticism”
If we have a closer look at this guide, we find the following kind of instructions.
The texts should be ”clear, simple and precise”. ”In so far as possible, everyday language should be used”. ”Overly complicated sentences, comprising several phrases, subordinate clauses or parenthesis are to be avoided”.
”Texts peppered with loan words, literal translations or jargon are hard to understand and the source of much of the criticism”.
This is the objective for the drafting. It is not me saying this. It is the three legal services. In order for us to be able to comply with the quality requirement for legislation.

12. The 'traditional challenges' (4)
How to interpret the guidelines? (cont.)
‘concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing from their meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language’
the use of expressions and phrases — in particular, but not exclusively, legal terms — too specific to the author’s own language or legal system, will increase the risk of translation problems
as regards actual legal terminology, terms which are too closely linked to national legal systems should be avoided.
Terminology is always a major issue in legal translation, simply because there are never one-to-one relations between the conceptual systems in different legal orders. Legal terminology is always system-specific.
This well-known problem for legal translators becomes even more complex in multilingual lawmaking, since the translation becomes applicable law and produces legal effects.
In the Joint Practical Guide, we se that ”concepts shall be expressed in the same terms as far as possible without departing fromtheir meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language”. Note the ”as far as possible”. This instruction is fully in line with the ISO standards for terminological work, according to which you focus on ”definitions” and ”concepts” and not on the surface level. You don’t translate terms without a conceptual analysis.
However, the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in its famous CILFIT ruling established the so called ”conceptual autonomy of EU terminology”. It should always be borne in mind that when a term appears in an EU legal act, it may have a different meaning than the same term in the national context.

13. New emerging challenges?
Work organisation: terminology takes time
Tools: fantastic – if used properly…
Reuse of already translated segments
Term use often inconsistent in originals and in different policy areas
MT of terminology – massive 'grey ice'
The 'branding (trade mark) argument'
'Leave it in English, consider it a trade mark'
Names: EU Aid volunteer, Small Business Act, …
Terms: Eurobonds
Acronyms: CAP, FP7; FCCU, …
Finnish Ombudsman: the ELY case

14. Conclusions The challenges are huge, and underestimated
Awareness of terminological working methods more important than ever, for drafters, translators, lawyer-linguists and managers
Cooperation and collaboration between the different actors more important than ever
Research needed on the impact of tools, the 'trade mark argument' and on end user perceptions

15. -
Thank you!