Features of the use of legal terminology in the countries of the European Union

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2523-4153.2021.241513

Keywords:

term, legal terminology, law, language of law, normative legal act, European Union, formal certainty, legislation, legal system

Abstract

The article examines the issue of the peculiarities of the use of legal terminology in the countries of the European Union. It is emphasized, that the reform of domestic legislation and its approximation to world standards requires thorough research of European legislation. In particular, the cornerstone of today's challenge is the proper use and common approaches to the use of legal terminology. That is why theoretical research on the peculiarities of the use of legal terminology in the legislation of the European Union is necessary to properly improve domestic legislation and avoid mistakes and misunderstandings in the future.

Emphasis is placed on the fact that domestic and foreign researchers have not developed a unified approach to understanding the term "terminology". That is why this term is used in three different meanings. It is also noted, that the category "term" is not new and has been in the field of view of researchers for a long time, but its direct study has only recently begun.

It is noted, that legal terminology is considered as technical, i.e.it is the most noticeable and striking linguistic feature of legal language. In this sense, legal terminology is used to denote concepts that belong to the legal field.

It is emphasized that, in contrast to the systemic languages, used in national texts, the European Union resorts to a form of "cultural communication", governed by multilingualism. Such communication is considered cultural because it is not rooted in any of the national cultures of the EU Member States. Legal acts, adopted by the EU institutions, which are to be applied and enforced in all Member States, must avoid cultural specificities and, therefore, the concepts or terminology specific to any one national legal system must be used with caution

Author Biography

Viktor Lazariev, Kharkov National University of Internal Affairs

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Theory and History of State and Law

References

Uhoda pro asotsiatsiiu mizh Ukrainoiu, z odniiei storony, ta Yevropeiskym Soiuzom, Yevropeiskym spivtovarystvom z atomnoi enerhii i yikhnimy derzhavamy-chlenamy, z inshoi storony (2014). Uhoda, Spysok, Mizhnarodnyi dokument No. 984_011. 27.06.2014. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/984_011#Text

Peruzzo, K. (2011/2012). Terminological Equivalence and Variation in the EU Multi-level Jurisdiction: A Case Study on Victims of Crime. ANNO ACCADEMICO, 316. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/3845078/Terminological_Equivalence_and_Variation_in_the_EU_Multi_level_Jurisdiction_A_Case_Study_on_Victims_of_Crime?email_work_card=view-paper

Stanisław, G.-R., Iwona, W.-P. (2011). Editorial to Special Issue on Legal Terminology. Research in Language, 9 (1), 5–8. doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0015-z

Jopek-Bosiacka, A. (2011). Defining Law Terms: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Research in Language, 9 (1), 9–29. doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0008-y

Bajcic, M. (2011). Conceptualization of Legal Terms in Different Fields of Law: The Need for a Transparent Terminological Approach. Research in Language, 9 (1), 81–93. doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0001-5

Chiocchetti, E., Ralli, N. (2011). Legal Terminology and Lesser Used Languages: The Case of Mòcheno. Research in Language, 9 (1), 135–146. doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0003-3

Robertson, C. (2011). Multilingual Legislation in the European Union. EU and National Legislative-Language Styles and Terminology. Research in Language, 9 (1), 51–67. doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0011-3

Cabré, M. T. (1999) Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 248. doi: http://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.1

Magris, M.; Prado, D. (Ed.) (2002). La banca dati terminologica TERMITdella S.S.L.M.I.T. dell’Università di Trieste. La terminologia in Italia. Unione Latina, 48–57.

Myking, J.; Antia, E. (Ed.) (2007). No Fixed Boundaries. Terminology and LSP: Studies in Honour of Heribert Picht, B. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 73–91. doi: http://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.8.10myk

Kageura, K. (2002). The Dynamics of Terminology: A Descriptive Theory of Term Formation and Terminological Growth. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: http://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.5

Gotti, M.; Kredens, K., Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (Eds.) (2007). Legal Discourse in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts. Language and the Law: International Outlooks. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 21–33.

Fomina, I. N. (2019). Eurospeak and the Russian terminology of law: translation challenges. Professional Discourse & Communication, 1 (3), 41–49. doi: http://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-3-41-49

Kjær, A. L.; Kredens, K., Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (Eds.) (2007) Legal Translation in the EuropeanUnion: A Research Field in Need of a New Approach. Language and the Law: International Outlooks. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 69–95.

Published

2021-09-30

How to Cite

Lazariev, V. (2021). Features of the use of legal terminology in the countries of the European Union. ScienceRise: Juridical Science, (3(17), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.15587/2523-4153.2021.241513

Issue

Section

Juridical Science