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
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

Cited by 1 other publications

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 19 march 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.