terMinology in translation training Courses – the baCKground to editing
4. on legal terMinology through the eyes oF the terMinologist: diFFiCulties and Challenges
Thebookintroducedinthispaperisbasedontheideaoftheauthorand,consideringits
genre,itisanexperimentalwork.Thestudyinthebookaimstogiveaninsightintotheoreti-calquestions.Itdescribesbrieflythemaincharacteristicsoflegalterminologyanditanalyses
fromvariouspointsofviewtheterminologicalapproachthatmaybeusedinthisdomain.
Subjecttosocio-culturalchanges,legalterminologyshouldalwaysbeup-to-dateand,
asa result,conceptsandtermscontinuouslychange,disappear,emergeandre-emerge;itis
characterisedbya strongverbalityaccompaniedbyunambiguityandflexibilityatthesame
time,anditisalsoembeddedina systemwhichismanifestedinthefactthatnationallegal
institutionsarecountryspecificandcloselylinkedtolaws.asconceptsarecomplex,lawyers
oftenusetheprincipleofpraesumptio similitudinisandtheypresumesimilaritybetweenlin-guisticversionsinordertoenhancesuccessfulcommunication(Villányi2016:95).However,
theyhavetoaimforexactlanguageuseasitiscrucialforlegalcertainty.Let’sconsiderabout
thestatusofcourtinterpreters.asnémeth(2017)states,interpretingatcourtsandforpublic
authoritiesisa responsibleactivityinthejudicialsystemthatiscloselylinkedtosocialtrust
injustice.Therefore,courtinterpretersshouldhaveanextensiveknowledgeofthebasicsof
law(Horváth2017).
4.1 legaltermsofa nationvs. the euroPean union
Itisimportanttocalltheattentionofa beginnertranslatortothefactthatthelegalterminol-ogyofa nationandoftheeuropeanunionisnotnecessarilythesame.TheLSPforlawand
administrationandterminology,createdbytheinstitutionsoftheeuropeanunioninorder
tooperatethesame,isusuallydifferentiatedfromthenationalLSPforlawmainlycontaining
termscorrespondingtothelocal,geopoliticalterritorywithnationalspecificities.
Thesystemoflegalconceptsandterminologyoftheeuropeanunion(thatisbasedon
theacquiscommunautaire)hasdifferentfeaturesasitisnotcountry-specificbutitisbuilton
similar,artificial,neutralanduniformlyunderstoodconcepts.Fromtheperspectiveofcontent
andlanguageitaimstobehomogeneous.Legaltermsoftheeuropeanunionhavea priori
autonomousequivalences,autonomousconceptsandconceptualsystems(Somssich2011).
duringtheselectionprocessoftheterms,itisworthexaminingthewaytheyrelatetothe
alreadyexistingtermslinkedtothespecificcountries.Isitworthhighlightingthedifferences
betweentheconceptsontheleveloftermsorisitenoughtostandardisetheuseofthealready
existingconcepts?Isitworthintroducinga newterm?Forexample,inHungariana newterm
(héa) wascoinedforvalueaddedtaxofMemberStates,whileinothercountriestherewereno
newlinguisticsignscoinedforthesameconceptbuttheinterpretation(definition)ofvalue
addedtax(áfa)wasextended.Termcreationinthiscaseisidealif,asa result,thelegalsystems
oftheeuandthecountriescomplementeachother(Tamás2014).
4.2 challengesstemmingfromdifferencesinlegalsystems
WhiletheLSPforlawbetweenHungarianandgermanandbetweenFrenchandItalian,
togetherallmembersoftheromanCivilLawsystem,sharesimilarfeaturesforhistorical
reasons.Theseparatedevelopmentoftheenglishspeciallanguageforlawisduetothedif-ferentdevelopmentpathofCommonLaw.Forthisreason,itiscommonknowledgethat
theuseofenglishinCivilLawaslinguafrancaisposesgreatchallenges.Thereareseveral
reasonsforthesedifficulties.romanCivilLawpreferswrittenlaw,whileCommonLawis
builtoncaselaw(precedents)anddifferencesarevisibleinmanyareas:thelegalareasare
divideddifferently,therearedifferentlegalinstitutionswithdifferentstructures,evenparts
ofjudgmentsmayfollowa differentorder.Itisalsoa factthatenglishistheofficiallanguage
ofmanycountriesanditisnotalwaysa solutiontouse“BritishLaw”forreferencesincethere
isa differentsysteminenglandandWales,whilethereisa socalledhybridlegalsystemin
Scotland,mixingtraditionsofromanCivilLawandCommonLaw.Thelegalsystemsof
thefederalstatesoftheunitedStatesarealsodifferentfromeachotherandalsofromthe
federallevel.Thelargenumberofnativeandnon-nativelanguageusersmakesthesituation
evenmorecomplicated,makingcountry-specifictheuseofenglish.Theuseofenglishterms
isotherwisecharacterisedbystrongdependenceoncontextasa resultofcertainlinguistic
economy.Inthefieldoflawthesecharacteristicsmakeparticularlydifficultforenglishtoplay
theroleoflinguafranca.
Ina situationlikethisthenon-nativeusersofenglishneedpointsofreferencetohelp
theminmakingtheirdecisions.Thisiswhyitisimportanttogiveanexactanddetailed
presentationofthelegalconcepts,toindicatethedocumenttypesandtoforcethelanguage
userstomakedecisions,sinceitisbeneficialforthelanguageusertochoosea specificsolution
dependingonthecontextandontheclient.anexampleforthisisinthepaper:A jogszabály terminus megfeleltetésének kihívásairól az Alaptörvény angol nyelvű fordításaiban (http://www.
jogiforum.hu/blog/5/188)The Challenges of Conveying the Term “ jogszabály” in the English Translation of the Fundamental Law of Hungary thatanalysesthespecificenglishequivalents
oftheHungarianterm“ jogszabály”(laws)ina specificcontexti.e.invariousenglishtransla-tionsoftheFundamentalLawofHungary(seelegislation, legal regulations, lawandother
versions).Theanalysispointsoutthatseveralaspectsshouldbetakenintoconsiderationwhen
makingthefinaldecision,thereisnoperfectsolution,themostsuitabletermmightalsobe
a functionalequivalentwhichdoesnotcompletelycovertheHungarianconceptbutmight
dóraMáriaTamás
bea suitablesolutioninthegivencontext.Theuseofa functionalequivalentworksonlyif
importantconceptualdifferencesarenothiddenandthetermselectedisnotmisleading.
Wherethereisa needfora newsolutionitsdefinitionandthesharingofsuchdefinitionshelp
tokeeptherelatedconceptobviousforthelanguageusers,evenifthetermisreinterpreted.
Thiscanensuretheuniversaluseofa term.
Thisbookcontainsnosimilaranalysis,itwasnotpartofitsobjectives,butsuchexamina-tionsmaycontributetothemostdetailedanalysisofenglishlegalterms.Thedifficultiesof
teachingenglishLSPforlawareexaminedinthepaperofBalog(2017),whoalsohighlights
thedependenceofenglishlegaltermsoncontextsanddealswiththequestionsofcategoris-inglegalgenres.
4.3 didacticaldilemmas
aprimaryobjectiveduringthecreationofthebookwastomakeitusefulforthosewhoare
interestedinthetopic.Thetargetgroupofreadersisnothomogeneoussincelegalterminol-ogyclassesareattendedbystudentswithdifferentbackgroundsofconceptualandlinguistic
knowledge.
Thedefinitionoflegaltermsraisesa numberofquestions,whileprofessionalknowledge
isa centralquestioninterminology,too(Fóris2008).Theprimarysourcesfordefininglegal
conceptsarelawsinforce.Sincetheyareauthenticsourcestheyfollowchanges,suchup-to-datednessisnotpossibleinprintedlegalencyclopaedias.Thelawsoftenlistseparatelyunder
generalprovisionsthedefinitionsoftheirconcepts.Traditionalterminologicaldefinitionsto
definelegalconceptsarerare.Sometimestheroleofthedefinitionisplayedbythedescription
offunctions(i.e.courttypes).Whenthecourtlevelsareexamineditisnotworthexamining
andconveyingthecourtsseparately,ratheritisbettertothinkina system(levels,casetypes,
etc.).althoughsometimesittakesmoreefforttounderstandtheoriginaldefinitionsfrom
laws,theyareoftenmoreaccurateandtheycorrespondtopracticeand,asexamples,theycan
provideuswithinformationaboutfindingdefinitionsforlegalterms.
underthedatacategoryofforeignlanguageequivalentsofa singleHungariantermthere
aremoreversionslisted,standardisationofthistypewasnottheobjectiveofthebook,this
wouldhaverequiredbroaderdiscussions.ThepurposeofInternationaloverviewislimitedto
describingdifferentversions,thestudentsmaylookforreliablesourcesina foreignlanguage
onthebasisofthedescriptionofthelegalconceptsandtheequivalentsandtheycancomplete
theprocessofconceptualcomparison.
duringthechoiceoftermsanobjectivewastoselecttermswhichareparticularlyimpor-tantwhenlearninglegalterminologyandinpractice,too.Certainrecordswillremaincurrent
(e.g.‘szándékosság’- intentionality)whileotherswilllosetheirup-to-datednessduetochanges
inlaw(e.g.treediagramofpublic administration),buttheserecordsmaybeusedinthefuture
asexamplesforfindingsourcesforlegalterms,describinglegalconcepts,approachingprob-lemsorforfindingsolutions.
Selectingthetypesofdocumentsalsoraisedseveralquestionsrelatedto,forexampletheir
moredetailedclassificationanddescription,aswellasfurtheropportunitiesforusingthem.
Theaimwastocollectintheannexeoriginal,anonymiseddocumentsrelatedtotheterms
presentedintheglossary,possiblyfromseveralcountrieswithinthesamelanguagearea.
ThesedocumentsinHungarianandfourforeignlanguagesmay,ontheonehand,beuseful
forstudentswitha preliminaryknowledgeoflanguagesandlinguistics,whowanttobecome
familiarwithcertaintypesofdocumentsevenbeforetheyactuallyhavetotranslatethem,
while,ontheotherhand,thecountryspecificcharacteristicsmaybeofinterestinthecontext
ofexploringterminology.
5. suMMary
assuggestedabove,althoughconveyinglegaltermsisa complextask,terminologyofferssome
solutionsthatlanguageserviceprovidersmayrelyonandusefororientatingtheirchoices.
Studentsintranslation,interpretingandterminologyprogrammeswillmanagetolearnlegal
termsina foreignlanguageiftheyfirstbecomeacquaintedwithandunderstandtheconcepts
representedbyHungarianlegalterms.asa textbookintroducinglegalconceptsbasedona ter-minologicalapproach,thisworkendeavourstohelpmeetthischallenge.Inordertoachieve
this,thebookpresentsthetheoreticalbackgroundwhileitalsodemonstratesthroughthe
glossaryhowtheoryisputintopractice.althoughsocialchangeswillinevitablybringabout
changesinlegalterminology,theapproachadoptedinthebookmaymaintainitsrelevance.
references
Balogh,d.2017.a jogiszaknyelvoktatásésa jogiszakfordítóképzéskapcsolódásipontjai.[Inter-facesbetweenteachingLSPforlawandtraininglegaltranslators.]Modern Nyelv oktatás Vol. 23.no.4.3–21.
Fóris, Á. 2008.Kutatásról nyelvészeknek. [on research for linguists.] Budapest: nemzeti
Tankönyvkiadó.
Horváth,I.2013.Bírósági Tolmácsolás.[Courtroominterpreting].Budapest:eLTeeötvös
Kiadó.
Horváth,I.2017.Bíróságitolmácsolása gyakorlatban.[CourtroominterpretatinginPractice.]
In:Horváth,I.(szerk.)Tolmácsolás a bíróságon. Esettanulmányok a bírósági tolmácsolás gya- korlatából.[Interpretingatcourt.CasestudiesoncourtInterpreting.]Budapest:HVg-oraCLap-ésKönyvkiadóKft.9–13.
Klaudy,2017.egyirányúinterdiszciplinaritás:a fordítástudománykapcsolataa terminológiá-valésa pragmatikával.[one-wayinterdisciplinarity:therelationshipbetweenTranslation
StudiesandTerminologyandPragmatics.]FordítástudományXIX.1.szám.5–20.
Kovács,T.2015.Contract Law. Szerződések Joga. Angol jogi szaknyelv I.[Contractlaw.Legal
english.]Budapest:révaidigitálisKiadó.
németh,g.2017.Igazságügyietikaidilemmákésösszefüggéseka bíróságitolmácsolásban.
[JudicialandethicaldilemmasandrelatedIssues.]In:Horváth,I.(szerk.)Tolmácsolás a bíróságon. Esettanulmányok a bírósági tolmácsolás gyakorlatából.[Interpretingatcourt.Case
studiesoncourtInterpreting.]Budapest:HVg-oraCLap-ésKönyvkiadóKft.14–22.
Petz,a.2014.Terminology of Civil Law.Budapest:arxofficeKft.
Somssich,r.2011.Az európai jog fogalmai.[Conceptsofeuropeanlaw.]Budapest:eLTe
Állam-ésJogtudományiKar,nemzetköziMagánjogiéseurópaigazdaságiJogiTanszék
(JeanMonnetCentreofexcellence).
dóraMáriaTamás
Tamás,d.2014a.A gazdasági szakszövegek fordításának terminológiai kérdéseiről. Fordítás-tudományi értekezések I.[Theterminologicalaspectsofthetranslationofeconomictexts.
essaysinTranslationStudiesI.]Budapest:eLTeBTKFordító-ésTolmácsképzőTanszék.
Tamás, d. M. 2017.Bevezetés a jogi terminológiába a terminológus szemüvegén át. [Intro-ductiontolegalterminologyobservedthroughthelensofa terminologist.]Budapest:
eLTeeötvösKiadó.(http://www.eltereader.hu/kiadvanyok/tamas-dora-maria-bevezetes-
a-jogi-terminologiaba-a-terminologus-szemuvegen-at/).
Tamás,d.M.2017.a jogszabályterminusmegfeleltetésénekkihívásairólazalaptörvényan-golnyelvűfordításaiban.[Thechallengesofconveyingtheterm“Jogszabály”(laws)inthe
englishtranslationofthefundamentallawofHungary.]Jogi Fórum(blog)(2017.október
27.)http://www.jogiforum.hu/blog/5/188.
Trebits,a.,Fischer,M.2009.EU English – Using English in EU Contexts.Budapest:Klett.
VárnaiJ.Sz.,Mészárosa.É.2011.Fordítókalauz.[aTranslator’sguide.]Budapest:Tinta
Könyvkiadó.
Villányi,J.2016.egyhelyes,kétfordított.onerightandtwolefts.In:Bencze,L.(szerk.)
A pontos fogalmazás művészete.Clear writing.Budapest:MagyarnyelvstratégiaiIntézet
(manysi.hu/download/69).