Article In:
Babel: Online-First Articles

Acquis terminology in English–Georgian translation

ORCID logo | Shota Rustaveli State University
 | Shota Rustaveli State University
Translation of the Acquis communautaire was followed in almost every acceding EU state with debates about the quality, multiple cases of requests for corrigenda, and controversies regarding the terminology “consistence.” Insignificant in one respect or undetected in another, translational mistakes incurred costs as well as additional efforts on behalf of the EU and national institutions. The paper examines the consistency of terminology of the EU–Georgian Association Agreement, Title IV, articles 1–276. The analyses were conducted using a custom-built bilingual corpus platform and software. The goal of this research was to continue the development of the CT analyses and methodology for the translated Acquis, as well as legal texts in general. We analyzed legal collocations or “terminological collocations” that are translated with the functional equivalents, causing inconsistencies and errors in the teleological interpretation of the law, as well as term variation. Another value of the research is that it ascertains and promotes the significance of the corpus linguistic methodology for the development of the CTS of legal texts.
Keywords: EU–Georgian Association Agreement terminology, corpus linguistics, translation
Article outline
  • Challenges of Acquis communautaire translation in Georgia
  • A concept in the theoretical perspective of terminology
  • Legal terminology, culture and translation theories
  • Corpus linguistic translation studies, a brief overview
  • Research methodology
  • Results and discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (47)
References
Apridonidze, Shukia. 2014. “Some Issues of Geographical Terminology in Georgian.” Terminology Issues, edited by Lia Karosanidze, vol I1, 28–38. Tbilisi: Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar
Arabuli, Avtandil. 2016. “Terminological Policy and Law on the State Language.” Terminology Issues, edited by Lia Karosanidze, vol. II1, 19–28. Tbilisi: Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar
Baaij, CJW Jaap. 2016. “EU Translation and the Burden of Legal Knowledge.” In Language and Culture in EU Law, edited by Susan Šarčević, 109–122. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bajčić, Martina. 2023. “Terminological Variation and Conceptual Divergence in EU Law.” In Handbook of Terminology, vol. 31, edited by Hendrik Kockaert and Frieda Steurs, 271–289. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona, and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. 2019. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Federico Zanettin. 2004. “When Is a Universal Not a Universal?” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, edited by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 51–62. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerman, Elias J. 1959. “The Septuagint as a Translation.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 281: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biel, Łucja. 2010. “Corpus-Based Studies of Legal Language for Translation Purposes: Methodological and Practical Potential.” In Reconceptualizing LSP, edited by Carmen Heine and Jan Engberg, 1–15. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. “The Textual Fit of Translated EU Law: A Corpus-Based Study of Deontic Modality.” The Translator 20 (3): 332–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. “Quality in Institutional EU Translation: Parameters, Policies and Practices.” In Quality Aspects in Institutional Translation, edited by Tomáš Svoboda, Łucja Biel, and Krzysztof Łoboda, 31–57. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
. 2017b. “Researching Legal Translation: A Multi-Perspective and Mixed-Method Framework for Legal Translation.” Revista de Llengua i Dret: Journal of Language and Law 681: 76–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biel, Łucja, and Dariusz Koźbiał. 2020. “How Do Translators Handle (Near-)Synonymous Legal Terms? A Mixed-Genre Parallel Corpus Study into the Variation of EU English–Polish Competition Law Terminology.” Estudios de Traducción 101: 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabré Castellví, M. Teresa. 1999. Terminology: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Theories of Terminology: Their Description, Prescription, and Explanation.” Terminology: International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 9 (2): 163–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, Deborah. 2023. “Terminological Features of the Chinese Legal Language.” In Handbook of Terminology, edited by Łucja Biel and Hendrik J. Kockaert, 173–190. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaava, Sopiko. 2020. “The Principles of Terminology Development and Their Legitimization Procedure in 1918–1923 (According to Archival Materials).” In Terminology Issues, edited by Lia Karosanidze, vol. IV1, 35–50. Tbilisi: Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar
de Groot, Gerard-René. 2006. “Legal Translation.” In Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, edited by Jan M. Smits, 423–434. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Directorate-General for Translation (DGT), European Commission. 2011. “Quantifying Quality Costs and the Cost of Poor Quality in Translation.” In Quality Efforts and the Consequences of Poor Quality in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Drugan, Joanna, Ingrid Strandvik, and Eija Vuorinen. 2018. “Translation Quality, Quality Management and Agency, Principles and Practice in the European Union Institutions.” In Translation Quality Assessment, From Principles to Practice, edited by Joss Moorkens, Sheila Castilho, Federico Gaspari, and Stephen Doherty, 39–68. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg, Jens. 2023. “Frame Approach to Legal Terminology, What May Be Gained from Seeing Terminology as Manifestation of Legal Knowledge?” In Handbook of Terminology, edited by Łucja Biel and Hendrik J. Kockaert, 16–36. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erjavec, Tomaž. 2006. “The English–Slovene ACQUIS Corpus.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06) edited by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Daniel Tapias, 2138–2141. Genoa: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Antonio San Martín. 2011. “Linking Specialized Knowledge and General Knowledge in EcoLexicon.” In Actes de la Cinquième Conférence TOTh (TOTh 2011), edited by Nathalie Friburger, Béatrice Habert, Gilles Sérasset, and Colette Vella, 171–184. Chambéry: Université Savoie Mont Blanc.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela, Pilar León-Araúz, and Arianne Reimerink. 2016. “EcoLexicon: New Features and Challenges.” In Proceedings of GLOBALEX 2016: Lexicographic Resources for Human Language Technology, 73–80. Portorož: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Fletcher, George P. 1985. “The Right and the Reasonable.” Harvard Law Review 98 (4): 949–982. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambashidze, Rogneda. 1988. “Georgian Terminological Lexicography. Norms and Normative Issues.” In Issues of Georgian Speech Culture, edited by Shukia Apridonidze, vol. VIII1, 27–58. Tbilisi: Science.Google Scholar
Gippert, Jost. 2016. “Complex Morphology and Its Impact on Lexicology, The Kartvelian Case.” In Proceedings of the 17th EURALEX International Congress, edited by Tinatin Margalitadze and George Meladze, 16–36. Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi University Press.Google Scholar
Gurgenidze, Vazha. 2004. Officer’s Desk Dictionary. Compiled by Samson Uridia et al.; Tbilisi: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. 2006. “Legal Reasoning.” In Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, edited by J. M. Smits, 407–422. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylen, Kris, and Frieda Steurs. 2014. “Translating Legal and Administrative Language, How to Deal with Legal Terms and Their Flexible Meaning Potential.” Turjuman, Revue de Traduction et d’Interprétation 23 (2): 96–146.Google Scholar
Kocbek, Alenka. 2009. “A Targeted Approach to Legal Translation.” In Legal Language in Action, Translation, Terminology, Drafting and Procedural Issues, edited by Susan Šarčević, 43–62. Zagreb: Globus. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kordić, Ljubica. 2020. “Specific Issues and Challenges in Translating EU Law Texts.” Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts 7 (3): 235–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koźbiał, Dariusz. 2017. “Two-tiered Approach to Quality Assurance in Legal Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Union.” In Quality Aspects in Institutional Translation, edited by Tomáš Svoboda, Łucja Biel, and Krzysztof Łoboda, 81: 155–174. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Margalitadze, Tinatin, Giorgi Meladze, and Zakharia Pourtskhvanidze. 2022. “English–Georgian Parallel Corpus and Its Application in Georgian Lexicography.” Lexikos 32 (2): 158–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peruzzo, Katia. 2023. “Legal Terms That Travel, Constraints to Presenting National Legal Terminology to International Audiences.” In Handbook of Terminology, vol. 31, edited by Łucja Biel and Hendrik J. Kockaert, 152–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramos, Fernando P. 2017. “The Evolving Role of Institutional Translation Service Managers in Quality Assurance, Profiles and Challenges.” In Quality Aspects in Institutional Translation, edited by Tomáš Svoboda, Łucja Biel, and Krzysztof Łoboda, 31–57. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ramos, Fernando P., and Diego Guzmán. 2023. “Measuring the quality of legal terminological decisions in institutional translation: A comparative analysis of adequacy patterns in three settings.” In Handbook of Terminology, vol. 31, edited by Łucja Biel and Hendrik J. Kockaert, 375–396. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayfield, Donald. 2012. Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer, trans. 2014. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action. Skopos Theory Explained by Christiane Nord. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šarčević, Susan. 1991. “Bilingual and Multilingual Legal Dictionaries, New Standards for the Future.” Meta 36 (4): 615–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semple, William Hugh. 1965. “St Jerome as a Biblical Translator.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 48 (1): 227–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teppei, Kato. 2013. “Jerome’s Understanding of Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.” Vigiliae Christianae 671: 289–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todua, Mzia, Huub Willems, Khatuna Kviralashvili, Irakli Svanidze, and Tamar Metreveli. 2006. Obligation Law. Tbilisi: Georgian Young Lawyers Association.Google Scholar
Trimble-Landova, Marketa. 2006. “Legal Landscape in a ‘Legislative Hurricane,’ The Czech Legislative Process from Association to Accession.” Master’s thesis, University of Stanford Law School.
Tvaltvadze, Darejan. 2009. Efrem Mtsire’s Colophons. Tbilisi: Nekeri.Google Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia. 2017. “Translation Product Quality, A Conceptual Analysis.” In Quality Aspects in Institutional Translation, edited by Tomáš Svoboda, Łucja Biel, and Krzysztof Łoboda, vol. 81, 15–29. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar