Cover not available
Article published In:
Terminology
Vol. 29:1 (2023) ► pp.45–77

Terminological hybridity in institutional legal translation

A corpus-driven analysis of key genres of EU and international law

ORCID logo | University of Geneva
ORCID logo | University of Geneva
The analysis of domain-specific terminology is essential for characterizing specialized discourses, and emerges as a useful means of measuring the thematic hybridity of law and legal translation in particular. This paper accordingly presents a large-scale mapping of terminological and phraseological features in a multi-genre corpus that was built as part of the LETRINT project on institutional legal translation. The corpus-driven analysis focuses on the density of legal terminology and phraseology, on the one hand, and that of terminology of other specialized domains, on the other, in nine genres that are considered representative of three central legal functions (law-making, compliance monitoring and adjudication) in three international settings (the European Union, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization). The comparative examination of density scores provides empirical evidence of the common core features of the selected genres, and reveals variations based on institutional thematic focus, primary legal function and genre specificities. These insights nuance our understanding of international legal discourses and domain specialization in institutional translation.
Keywords: terminology, phraseology, hybridity, international legal discourse, legal genre, institutional legal translation
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Annotation results
    • 3.1Overall distribution of terminological features
    • 3.2Distribution per institutional setting
      • 3.2.1Distribution in the EU sub-corpora
      • 3.2.2Distribution in the UN sub-corpora
      • 3.2.3Distribution in the WTO sub-corpora
    • 3.3Comparative analysis per primary legal function and genre
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 7 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.21047.pri
References (22)
References
Biber, Douglas. 1993. “Representativeness in Corpus Design.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 (4): 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Miriam Seghiri Domínguez. 2006. ReCor.Google Scholar
Fontanet, Mathilde. 2018. “Translating Hybrid Legal Texts for Science and Technology Institutions: The Case of CERN.” In Institutional Translation for International Governance: Enhancing Quality in Multilingual Legal Communication, ed. by Fernando Prieto Ramos, 126–138. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2008. “Phraseology and Linguistic Theory: A Brief Survey.” In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Sylviane Granger, and Fanny Meunier, 3–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hewson, Lance. 2013. “Is English as a lingua franca translation’s defining moment?” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7 (2): 257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kjær, Anne-Lise. 2007. “Phrasemes in legal texts.” In Phraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (Vol. 21), ed. by Harald Burger, Dimitrij Dobrovol’skij, Peter Kühn, and Neal R. Norrick, 506–515. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koester, Almut. 2010. “Building Small Specialised Corpora.” In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Michael McCarthy, and Anne O’Keeffe, 66–79. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayoral Asensio, Roberto. 2007. “Specialised translation: A concept in need of revision.” Babel 53 (1): 48–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McAuliffe, Karen. 2011. “Hybrid texts and uniform law? The multilingual case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 241: 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, Mick. 2019. UAM CorpusTool. Retrieved from [URL]
Oostdijk, Nelleke. 1991. Corpus Linguistics and the Automatic Analysis of English. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2014a. “International and supranational law in translation: From multilingual lawmaking to adjudication.” The Translator 20 (3): 313–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “Parameters for problem-solving in legal translation: Implications for legal lexicography and institutional terminology management.” In The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, ed. by Anne Wagner, Kin-Kui Sin, and Le Cheng, 121–134. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Implications of Text Categorisation for Corpus-based Legal Translation Research: The Case of International Institutional Settings.” In Research Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting: Crossing Methodological Boundaries, ed. by Łucja Biel, Jan Engberg, Rosario Martín Ruano, and Vilelmini Sosoni, 29–47. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “The use of resources for legal terminological decision-making: patterns and profile variations among institutional translators.” Perspectives 29 (2): 278–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando, Giorgina Cerutti, and Diego Guzmán. 2019. “Building representative multi-genre corpora for legal and institutional translation research: The LETRINT approach to text categorization and stratified sampling.” Translation Spaces 8 (1): 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando, and Giorgina Cerutti. 2021. “Terminology as a source of difficulty in translating international legal discourses: an empirical cross-genre study.” International Journal of Legal Discourse 6 (2): 155–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruusila, Anna, and Emilia Lindroos. 2016. “Conditio sine qua non. On phraseology in legal language and its translation.” Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito 3 (1): 120–140.Google Scholar
Sandrelli, Annalisa. 2018. “Observing Eurolects: The case of English.” In Observing Eurolects: Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law, ed. by Laura Mori, 64–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2001. “EU project proposals as hybrid texts: Observations from a Finnish research project.” Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2): 261–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trklja, Aleksandar. 2018. “A corpus investigation of formulaicity and hybridity in legal language. A case of EU case law texts.” In Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings, ed. by Anne Wagner, Vijay Kumar Bhatia, Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski, and Gianluca Pontrandolfo, 157–169. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Prieto Ramos, Fernando
2024. Revisiting translator competence in the age of artificial intelligence: the case of legal and institutional translation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 18:2 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Lin, Xiaowen, Muhammad Afzaal & Hessah Saleh Aldayel
2023. Syntactic complexity in legal translated texts and the use of plain English: a corpus-based study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.