Cover not available
Part of
Dynamics and Terminology: An interdisciplinary perspective on monolingual and multilingual culture-bound communication
Edited by Rita Temmerman and Marc Van Campenhoudt
[Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice 16] 2014
► pp. 79–98

4. Cross-domain disharmonization. A case study with adventure activities in legal and tourist domains in Spain

 | Universidad de Málaga
The phenomenon of harmonization has attracted much attention in the legal domain, and considerable efforts are devoted to reach both conceptual and terminological harmonization to ensure unambiguous communication in situations where different legal systems and languages come into contact. However, little interest was aroused for other kinds of harmonization, which are also of great importance. This paper aims to shed some light on what it is being called cross-domain harmonization, which refers to an intralingual harmonization that involves different specialized domains. To illustrate this kind of harmonization, or more specifically the lack of it (disharmonization), and its consequences, we provide several examples taken from real tourist and legal texts. Finally, some proposals are discussed tackling this type of disharmonization.
Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.16.05dur
References (22)
Alcaráz Varó, Enrique. 2007. El inglés jurídico: Textos y documentos. 6th edition. Ariel: Barcelona.Google Scholar
Arntz, Reiner. 1993. “Terminological Equivalence and Translation.” In Terminology. Applications in Interdisciplinary Communication, ed. by Helmi Sonneveld, and Kurt Loening, 5–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowker, Lynne, and Pearson Jennifer. 2002. Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiocchetti, Elena, and Leonhard Voltmer. 2008. “LexALP – Harmonising Alpine Terminology.” In Harmonising Legal Terminology, ed. by Elena Chiocchetti, and Leonhard Voltmer. Bolzano: EURAC. [URL]. (Accessed March 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Ceusters, Werner. 1999. “Harmonisation and Formalisation of Nursing Terminology: A Three-dimensional Approach.” In CNP and Telematic Applications for Nurses in Europe, ed. by Randi A. Mortensen, 164–173. Amsterdam: IOS PRESS.Google Scholar
Dann, Graham. 1996. The Language of Tourism. A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Oxon: CAB International.Google Scholar
Durán-Muñoz, Isabel. 2011. El trabajo ontoterminográfico aplicado a la traducción de textos del turismo de aventura (español, inglés, alemán): fases de preparación, elaboración y edición. Málaga: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Málaga.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Necesidades de mejora y adecuación en la traducción de textos turísticos promocionales.” Hermeneus 14: 264–277.Google Scholar
European Committee for Standarisation. 2005. CWA 15453. Harmonization of Vocabularies for eLearning. [URL]. (Accessed March 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Infoterm. 2005. Guidelines for Terminology Policies. Formulating and Implementing Terminology Policy in Language Communities. Paris: UNESCO. [URL]. (Accessed March 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Laurén, Christer, Johan Myking, and Heribert Picht. 1998. Terminologie unter der Lupe: Vom Grenzgebiet zum Wissenschaftszweig. Vienna: TermNet.Google Scholar
Paumgartten, Francisco, Roland Solecki, Jochen Buschmann, Ruth Clark, Konstanze Grote, Martina Rauch, and Ibrahim Chahoud. 2009. “Harmonization of Terminology in Developmental Toxicology: The Quest for a More Precise Description and a Harmonized Classification of Fetal Observations.” Reproductive Toxicology 27: 8–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavel, Silvia, and Diane Nolet. 2001. Handbook of Terminology. Ottawa: The Government of Canada’s Translation Bureau. [URL]. (Accessed March 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Peñalver Torres, Maria Teresa. 2004. “El turismo activo como alternativa y complemento al modelo turístico en la región de Murcia.” Cuadernos de Turismo 14: 179–215.Google Scholar
Prechal, Sacha, and Bert van Roermund (eds). 2008. The Coherence of EU Law. The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts. Oxford: Oxford Studies in European Law. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandrini, Peter. 1996. Terminologiearbeit im Recht: Deskriptiver begriffsorientierter Ansatz vom Standpunkt des Ubersetzers [IITF Series 8]. Vienna: International Network for Terminology TermNet.Google Scholar
Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 2011. “Stars, Problem Children, Dogs and Cash Cows: Evocative Terminology in Multilingual Business Communication.” SYNAPS 25, 17–29. Bergen: Norwegian School of Economics.Google Scholar
Tunney, James. 2004. “World Trade Law, Culture, Heritage and Tourism. Towards a Holistic Conceptual Approach?” Current Issues in Tourism 7 (4–5): 383–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voltmer, Leonhard. 2008. “Experiences in Harmonising.” In Harmonising Legal Terminology, ed. by Elena Chiocchetti, and Leonhard Voltmer. Bolzano: EURAC. [URL]. (Accessed March 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Weylandt, Elke. 2009. “A la découverte du francais juridique. Over de eigenheid van het juridisch Frans in Belgie.” Ad Rem, Special issue: Rechtstaal 60–64.Google Scholar
Wise, David, Sidney Beck, Diana Beltrame, Bruce Beyer, Ibrahim Chahoud, and Ruth Clark. 1997. “Terminology of Developmental Abnormalities in Common Laboratory Mammals.” Teratology 55: 249–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Durán-Munoz, Isabel
2016. Producing frame-based definitions. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 22:2 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.