Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions

97Terminologija | 2024 | 31 doi.org/10.35321/term31-05 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions Konceptualusis lygiavertiškumas daugiakalbėje ES terminijoje: iššūkiai ir galimi sprendimai ORSOLYA HEDVIG KARDOS Council of the European Union1 ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8038-6715 ABSTRACT This article examines the implications of concept orientation for translation-oriented multilingual terminology work in the European Union context. Terms and concepts in EU texts can be divided into three groups based on their universality or specificity to a particular conceptual system: universal, EU-specific, and country-specific. These terms often appear together in EU texts, and translators must be aware of their nature to find the best equivalent in the target language. The paper outlines strategies for translators dealing with different types of terms. It also discusses the challenges of translating universal terms with country-specific dimensions. It highlights how a lack of equivalence information and confusion between universal and country-specific terms can compromise terminology entries. Due to the diversity of legal systems in the 27 Member States, the lack of an equivalent term in the target language requires translators to choose between inexact or partial equivalents. It is therefore crucial to indicate in a terminological database the absence of conceptually equivalent terms in the target language. To assist translators, IATE, the EU’s concept-oriented terminology database, provides information on the origin of terms and the degree of equivalence between concepts expressed by specific terms in different languages. However, this information is not always systematic. It can often only be obtained after thoroughly examining several data fields. It is argued that systematically indicating the EU-, or country-specific origin of the concept represented by the database entry, together with the introduction of a new optional transfer comment field to clarify the degree of equivalence between terms, as seen in other multilingual termbases, 1 Disclaimer: The views expressed are solely those of the writer and may not be regarded as stating an official position of the Council of the EU. Orsolya Hedvig Kardos98 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions would greatly benefit translators by providing a clearer understanding of equivalence relationships and helping them to make informed choices when selecting target language terms. KEYWORDS: EU terminology, translation-oriented terminology, multilingual terminology, concept-orientation, conceptual equivalence, degree of equivalence, equivalence field. ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje nagrinėjama orientavimosi į sąvokas reikšmė į vertimą orientuotam daugiakalbiam terminologijos darbui Europos Sąjungos kontekste. ES tekstų terminai ir sąvokos gali būti suskirstyti į tris grupes, atsižvelgiant į jų universalumą ar specifiškumą tam tikroje sąvokų sistemoje: 1) universalūs, 2) būdingi ES ir 3) būdingi konkrečiai šaliai. Šie terminai ES tekstuose dažnai figūruoja kartu, o vertėjai turi suvokti jų pobūdį, kad rastų geriausią vertimo kalbos atitikmenį. Straipsnyje pateikiamos strategijos vertėjams, dirbantiems su skirtingų tipų terminais. Taip pat aptariami iššūkiai, kylantys verčiant universalius terminus, turinčius konkrečiai šaliai būdingų aspektų, parodoma, kaip informacijos apie lygiavertiškumą trūkumas ir universalių bei konkrečiai šaliai būdingų terminų painiojimas gali susilpninti terminų įrašus. Nagrinėjami specifinių ES terminų vertimo į nacionalinės teisės kalbą iššūkiai konkrečiai 27 valstybėse narėse, kurių teisės sistemos skiriasi. Dėl valstybių narių teisės sistemų įvairovės, nesant atitinkamo termino vertimo kalboje, vertėjai turi rinktis netikslius ar dalinius atitikmenis. Todėl labai svarbu terminų bazėje nurodyti, kad vertimo kalboje nėra konceptualiai lygiaverčių terminų. Siekiant padėti vertėjams, IATE, į sąvokas orientuotoje ES terminologijos duomenų bazėje, pateikiama informacija apie terminų kilmę ir sąvokų, įvardytų konkrečiais skirtingų kalbų terminais, lygiavertiškumo laipsnį. Tačiau ši informacija ne visada yra sisteminga. Dažnai ją galima gauti tik nuodugniai išnagrinėjus kelis duomenų laukus. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad sąvokos kilmės nurodymas duomenų bazės įraše kaip ES ar konkrečios šalies ir naujo neprivalomo lauko PERKĖLIMO KOMENTARAS įvedimas, siekiant paaiškinti terminų lygiavertiškumo laipsnį, kaip daroma kitose daugiakalbėse terminų bazėse, būtų labai naudingas vertėjams, nes jie geriau suprastų lygiavertiškumo santykius ir galėtų priimti pagrįstus sprendimus parinkdami vertimo kalbos terminus. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: ES terminija, į vertimą orientuota terminija, daugiakalbė terminija, orientavimasis į sąvokas, konceptualusis lygiavertiškumas, lygiavertiškumo laipsnis, lygiavertiškumo laukas. 99Terminologija | 2024 | 31 1. THE PRINCIPLE OF CONCEPT-ORIENTATION AND TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE Concept analysis is crucial in multilingual terminology because terminology focuses on concepts (onomasiological approach)2 rather than on words (semasiological or lexicographic approach). Indeed, a comparative conceptual analysis must first be carried out to find an equivalent in the target language (TL) whenever terminology work involves more than one language, as is the case in the EU context. Precisely because of the concept-oriented nature of terminology, terms are strictly speaking not translated from one language to another. Instead, the equivalent TL term is selected or created based on conceptual analysis. As each culture conceptualises the world from its point of view, concepts are often not identical across languages. ISO 860:2007 (clause 3.5) defines ‘equivalence’ as a “relation between designations in different languages representing the same concept”. ISO 25964-2:2013 recognises that terms are often not fully equivalent and it classifies degrees of equivalence as exact, inexact or near-equivalence, partial and non-equivalent. It also acknowledges that equivalence situations usually cannot be described in terms of clear-cut categories, but rather in terms of “points along the spectrum of possibilities that lie between the extremes of exact equivalence and absence of equivalence” (ISO 25964-2:2013, 51). Indeed, the cases along this continuum are the most difficult. In section 5, we will look at different equivalence scenarios with reference to the categories of equivalence mentioned above. 2. CONCEPTUAL AUTONOMY OF EU TERMINOLOGY Regulation No 1/1958 of the EEC Council3 establishes the official and working languages of the Union and requires the multilingual production of documents, resulting in ‘linguistic versions’ that are equally authentic. Consequently, multilingual, text-based, collaborative terminology work is integral to translation. Yet, the existence of an independent EU concept system makes the translation or ‘multilingual drafting’ of EU texts truly 2 ISO standard 1087:2019 defines a ‘term’ as “a designation that represents a general concept by linguistic means”. A ‘general concept’ is further defined as a “concept that corresponds to a potentially unlimited number of (perceivable or conceivable) objects which form a group by reason of shared properties”. 3 Consolidated version of the Regulation No 1/1958 of the EEC Council determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/ reg/1958/1(1)/2013-07-01. Orsolya Hedvig Kardos100 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions unique. The Court of Justice recognised the autonomy of EU concepts in Case 283/81, stating that “community law uses terminology which is peculiar to it”, and that “legal concepts do not necessarily have the same meaning in community law and in the law of the various Member States”. The Joint practical guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of European Union legislation (JPG) underlines this autonomy in the drafting of EU legislation, advising that “concepts or terminology specific to any one national legal system are to be used with care” (section 5) and that “terms which are too closely linked to a particular national legal system should be avoided” (section 5.3.2). The aim is to avoid conceptual differences by choosing transparent terms not linked to a specific legal system. This cultural neutralisation (Biel, Doczekalska 2020: 187) can be challenging, as most terms originate from the legal systems of EU Member States (Fischer 2010b: 26; Stefaniak 2013: 64). On the other hand, new EU concepts can influence national legal language, demonstrating the interaction between EU and national legal languages. Many authors (Klaudy 2007: 260; Rádai-Kovács 2009: 88; Fischer 2010a: 160; Schäffner, Adab 2001; Somssich et alii 2010: 66; Bergomi 2023) emphasise the hybrid nature of EU law, blending universal, EU-specific, and country-specific concepts and terms. Based on Fischer (2010a: 165), figure 1 illustrates that official languages describe the EU and Member States’ concept systems. Intra-lingual comparative terminology work is therefore key to limit interference between national and EU concepts. This is especially important for languages that are official in multiple Member States. Figure 1. The coexistence of several concept systems in selected languages, based on Fischer (2010a: 165) 101Terminologija | 2024 | 31 Given the autonomy of EU concepts, any term may become EU-specific when defined in an EU legislative act. For example, the term ‘primary energy consumption’ is defined in Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency as “gross consumption of primary energy for the purpose of providing secondary energy to consumers”, making it an EU-specific concept with an EU origin in IATE (entry 3549696). Meanwhile, a broader universal term that includes energy used for non-energy purposes is ‘primary energy consumption’ (IATE 48366). Likewise, the term ‘frontier worker’ has two entries in IATE: the universal term ‘frontier worker’ (IATE 3550291), i.e. “a person who works in one State but resides in a neighbouring State, to which he or she returns on a regular basis” and ‘frontier worker’ (IATE 865809), as EU-specific term, defined in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 as “any person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State and who resides in another Member State to which he or she returns as a rule daily or at least once a week”. In many cases, there is not only a conceptual but also a linguistic difference between the corresponding terms (see the Spanish term ‘trabajador transfronterizo’ in entry 3550291 vs. ‘trabajador fronterizo’ in entry 865809). It is therefore the job of the translator to correctly identify the relevant terminology entry, which requires an understanding of the conceptual framework and the origin of the term. 2.1. The Co-occurrence of Terms Belonging to Different Concept Systems Country-specific reports and recommendations are typical examples of hybrid EU texts in which universal (‘employment rate’, ‘unemployment’, ‘labour market’, etc.), EU-specific (‘Social Scoreboard’, ‘European Pillar of Social Rights’) and country-specific terms (‘Public Works Scheme’) co-occur: “Hungary performs relatively well on some indicators of the Social Scoreboard supporting the European Pillar of Social Rights, but significant challenges remain. The employment rate is slightly above the EU average and unemployment well below. Inequality is lower than in many other Member States, although it is increasing. Gaps in employment and pay between genders and skills groups remain wide compared with the rest of the EU. Labour market outcomes for women and vulnerable groups, including Roma and people with disabilities, are weak. The Public Works Scheme has decreased markedly, but is still oversized and not effective in leading participants to jobs in the primary labour market.” Source: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT: Country Report Hungary 2020, SWD/2020/516 final. Orsolya Hedvig Kardos102 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions We categorise these terms according to their conceptual specificity or universality as follows:4 a) Universal terms are domain-specific but not bound to any community or organisation (Fischer 2010a: 67). Examples include terms covering broad local realities, such as ‘teacher’, ‘tribunal’ or ‘local authority’. Some derive from international law, such as the ‘universality principle’, while others, such as the concept of ‘sustainable development’ lack internationally accepted definitions (Somssich et alii 2010: 112). b) Concerning EU-specific concepts, there are two approaches (Rádai-Kovács 2009: 85–90; Fischer 2010a: 155–160; Fischer 2010b: 28). In the narrower sense, only terms that originate in the basic legal and institutional framework of the European Union can be considered EU terms. The broader approach includes all terms that appear in EU texts. A balanced approach (Biel, Doczekalska 2020: 185–189) considers ‘EU supranational terms’ a special category of legal terminology with characteristics such as autonomy, multilingualism and continuity. They include terms created by the EU, such as the ‘pandemic emergency purchase programme’ (IATE 3589188) and existing universal terms redefined by the EU for its purposes, such as ‘removal’ (IATE 778629) as defined in Directive No 2008/115/EC vs. ‘removal’ as a universal term (IATE 3584070). EU-specific terms in IATE are identified by the ‘European Union’ domain and/or origin and include legal and administrative terms, and terms belonging to different policy areas under EU competence. c) Country-specific terms originate from specific countries and are linked to their social structures, culture, or traditions. These terms do not have an equivalent in the TL and pose the highest difficulty for translators as pointed out, for example, by Prieto Ramos and Cerrutti (2021: 166). In the next sections, we will see why understanding the nature of the term (universal, EU-specific, or country-specific) is crucial for the translator to find the correct term in the TL. 4 For a similar categorisation of terms based on their ‘discourse features’, see Prieto Ramos, Cerutti (2021: 160). 103Terminologija | 2024 | 31 2.2. Comparative Terminology Work Translators use different strategies, depending on whether a term indicates a universal, EU-specific or country-specific concept. a) For universal terms, translators need to establish the conceptual equivalence between the SL term and the TL term. Fischer (2010a: 173) refers to this interlingual comparison as horizontal comparative terminology work. Ideally, universal SL terms have their exact equivalent in the TL. However, some universal terms do not have an exact equivalent in the TL, but only an inexact or partial equivalent, or no equivalent at all. In this case, translators can either: i. use an inexact or partial equivalent (a ‘functional’ equivalent), i.e. a TL term that describes a TL concept with the same function as the SL concept, or ii. they can use a ‘translation equivalent, i.e. a TL term created to describe the SL concept (Fischer 2010a: 86–88). The choice between functional and translation equivalents in terminology depends on the degree of similarity between the SL and TL concepts and the context. A functional equivalent is selected, i.e. a domestication strategy is employed, when there’s significant overlap, while a translation equivalent, i.e. a foreignisation strategy, is preferred when the difference is significant. The context may also influence the choice, with a domestication strategy sometimes being preferred to make the term more familiar. b) For EU-specific terms, due to the autonomy of the EU concept system, not only inter-lingual equivalence but also intra-lingual equivalence plays a role. Translators check the equivalence between the EU-specific concept and possible existing TL concepts. This intra-lingual comparative process is referred to by Fischer (2010a: 177) as vertical comparative terminology work. Due to the autonomy of the EU concept system, translation equivalents are regularly chosen over functional equivalents (also referred to as ‘national terms’ in Stefaniak 2013: 63), as the use of national terms could distort the message of the EU text and it would not be clear that the term covers an EU concept. This necessity implies that EU texts often have an unfamiliar and non-native character, as many authors have pointed out (e.g. in Koskinen 2000: 90). c) Terms that are specific to one country or organisation do not have an exact equivalent in other languages unless the country or Orsolya Hedvig Kardos104 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions organisation in question has several official languages. Again, translators can either i. adopt a domestication strategy by choosing a functional equivalent, or ii. opt for foreignisation and create a translation equivalent. The possible degrees of equivalence for each type of term described above, and the corresponding strategies that can be used to translate terms into the TL, are summarised in the table below: Table 1. Types of SL terms with degree of equivalence and possible strategies to find/create their TL equivalent TYPE OF SL TERM TERMS INDICATING UNIVERSAL CONCEPTS TERMS INDICATING EU-SPECIFIC CONCEPTS TERMS INDICATING COUNTRY-SPECIFIC CONCEPTS Degree of equivalence exact equivalence near/partial/no equivalence exact equivalence near/partial/no equivalence Translation strategies for TL terms use existing TL term create translation equivalent use functional equivalent create translation equivalent use functional equivalent create translation equivalent use functional equivalent 3. CONCEPT-ORIENTATION IN IATE The EU’s terminology database, IATE (Interactive Terminology for Europe: www.iate.europa.eu), is concept-oriented like most others. With more than 650,000 entries and almost 7 million terms in 24 EU languages and some others, it is one of the largest multilingual databases in the world. It has been in use for the management of EU-specific terminology since 2004. As IATE is highly multilingual, all terms in an entry must be related to the same concept. This is ensured, inter alia, by the structure of an entry and the key data fields that it contains, as we will see below. 3.1. Language-Independent Level (LIL) This level contains data for the entire entry, including administrative metadata and concept-related information such as domain, origin, and cross-references. IATE’s domains are aligned with EuroVoc, the EU’s multilingual thesaurus. The origin field indicates a concept’s geographical or institutional (e.g. EU or UN) origin. cross-references link related entries. 105Terminologija | 2024 | 31 Figure 2. Language-independent level of IATE entry 853538 Ideally, definitions should be language-independent with equivalents in each language section. However, due to the absence of a non-language system for defining concepts, each language section defines the concept independently. This leads to a split of conceptual information between language-independent and language-specific levels, causing potential discrepancies in definitions across languages (Kardos, Rádai-Kovács 2014: 168). 3.2. Language Level (LL) This level refers to the concept and is written in a specific language and applies to all terms in that language. Definitions in different languages appear here. IATE uses an anchor language as a reference for all other languages to ensure that definitions refer to the same concept. This key principle ensures that “each entry corresponds to a single concept, which applies ‘horizontally’ across all languages and ‘vertically’ for all the terms in each language” (IATE Handbook, 81). The anchor language, typically English or French, is usually the source language of the text in which the term first appears. However, for country-specific concepts the anchor language should be the official language of the country or institutions concerned and the relevant country/institution should be indicated in the origin field. Additional information related to the concept is provided in the notes field. A missing anchor language or different concepts defined by different languages can make an entry potentially corrupt. Therefore all language sections must refer to the same concept as defined by the anchor language. Orsolya Hedvig Kardos112 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions 4.3. Country-Specific Terms As explained in section 3.1 above, the main tool for identifying country-specific (or institution-specific) terms in IATE is the origin field, which is reasonably placed at the language-independent level (LIL) of the entries. The systematic completion of this field, and its verification by translators, is crucial for the correct selection of terms. Another important feature is that in the case of country-specific terms, the anchor language is always the/an official language of the country/organisation to which the term is specific. Exact equivalence is in principle impossible in the case of country-specific terms, which exist in only certain countries and therefore have no exact equivalents in other languages. They may be expressed by inexact or partial (functional) equivalents or, in the absence of equivalence, by translation equivalents. As shown above, it is not uncommon for EU legal texts to refer to country-specific concepts. It is therefore of the utmost importance to distinguish these concepts from other universal or EU-specific concepts, also at the term level. Translators are therefore encouraged to use translation equivalents. Among EU texts, country-specific terms are perhaps most common in the case law of the Court of Justice. For example, the term ‘Corte di Cassazione’ (IATE 3585131) is specific to Italy, so the anchor language is Italian. The country-specific nature of the term is also made clear by the origin field in the LIL, and the definition and the notes explain its role in the Italian legal system. The English term is a translation equivalent, which is made clear by the TL note: “Origin of the reference: Internal document of the English Language Unit, Directorate-General for Multilingualism, Court of Justice of the European Union, 2019 (Formulation IT > EN)”. This information on the “origin of the term” is used in IATE entries of the Court of Justice, when the concept does not exist in the TL.8 Given the diversity of the legal systems of the 27 Member States, the lack of conceptual equivalence is a daily challenge for the Court’s translators. The systematic indication of the absence of conceptually equivalent terms in the TL is valuable information for translators. However, as we have seen, the entries of other institutions may be prepared with a different approach and may show functional and translation equivalents as exact equivalents of the anchor language term. 8 As stated by the Court of Justice’s leaflet on legal terminology in IATE (Comparative multilingual legal vocabulary. A structured collection of terminological data, 2020). 113Terminologija | 2024 | 31 For example, the term ‘Amstgericht’ (IATE 889426), the court of first instance of ordinary jurisdiction in Germany, is rendered in French with a functional equivalent belonging to the Swiss jurisdiction: ‘Tribunal cantonal (“Amtsgericht”)’ and a note in the LL clarifies that the concept is specific to the German context, while in English a translation equivalent is proposed: ‘Local Court’, even though the English definition does not mention that this concept is specific to Germany. 5. HOW THE TERMINOLOGY DATABASE CAN HELP TRANSLATORS FIND THEIR WAY AROUND As we have seen, the first step in choosing the right term is to identify how systemic the term is. This requires determining whether the term is universal, EU or country-specific. The appropriate IATE entry can then be selected. It has been found that the lack of exact equivalence is not only a problem for country/institution-specific terms but also for universal terms that may have country-specific dimensions. On the other hand, in the absence of exact equivalence, there appears to be no systematic indication of whether a given term is a translation or a functional equivalent (except the Court of Justice’s IATE entries). To address this, terminologists often insert notes at the language or term level of the entry. In other cases, it is only through careful study of the references or conceptual analysis that we can determine the level of equivalence and whether the proposed term is a translation or a functional equivalent. Sometimes term evaluation labels such as ‘preferred’, ‘accepted’ or ‘deprecated’ are used, although in principle this field should provide an indication of the appropriateness of a term in the EU context and not of equivalence relationships. To address the challenges and to promote the systematic indication of equivalence relationships, especially in the absence of an exact equivalent, we propose to: a) Systematically indicate the EUor country-specific nature of a term by including the relevant country/organisation in the origin field for country-specific terms. An empty origin field would indicate that the concept is not linked to any country or organisation and can therefore be considered universal. Language level notes could also be used to explain specificities of the concept in question. b) Introduce a new optional data field: the transfer comment field, i.e. a “note in a terminological data collection providing information on Orsolya Hedvig Kardos114 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions the degree of equivalence, directionality or other special features affecting equivalence between a designation in one language and another designation in a second language” (ISO 12616-1:2021). This optional field would indicate whether a term is functional or translation equivalent. The use of an equivalence field is common in multilingual terminology databases. WIPO Pearl, the database of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, includes a transfer comment field that indicates the degree of equivalence between terms in different languages (Valentini et al. 2016: 197; WIPO Pearl User Guide). Likewise, Termium Plus, the Government of Canada’s terminology database, uses specific labels (i.e. ‘semantic parameters’, such as ‘generic’ and ‘specific’) to indicate that the entry term has a broader/narrower meaning than that of its equivalent in another language. Similarly, IUSTerm, the database of the Hungarian Office for Translation and Attestation includes an equivalence field that categorises terms as perfect, functional, or translation equivalents (Tamás et alii 2020: 126). 6. CONCLUSION As we have seen, in many cases the difficulty for the translator is that the source text contains a combination of universal concepts, culture-specific concepts (belonging to a national culture or legal system) and homogenised concepts (belonging to the EU concept system). Therefore, translators must be able to identify the universal, EU-or country-specific nature of a concept indicated by a given term to be able to place it in the appropriate concept system. Furthermore, IATE, the main terminology management tool of EU institutions does not systematically indicate the universal, EUor country-specific nature of a term, nor does it present equivalence relationships in a formalised way. At present, the origin field, language and term level notes, evaluation labels, term, and context references help translators to make informed terminological decisions. The dedicated origin field is the most appropriate field to provide information on the system-bound nature of terms, and therefore its systematic completion is essential for institution/country-specific terms. Moreover, to clarify the equivalence conditions, we propose the inclusion of a new optional transfer comment data field, the completion of which would be recommended especially in the case of terms that do not have exact equivalents. It could specify whether the indicated term is perfect, functional or 115Terminologija | 2024 | 31 translation equivalent. Providing this kind of information on conceptual equivalence relationships may help translators in making informed terminological decisions according to the context. REFERENCES Bergomi Caterina 2023: Exploring Judicial Interpretation: Comparative Law Methodology and the Hybridisation Paradigm. – Global Jurist 23(3), 243–253. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2023-0119. Biel Łucja, Doczekalska Agnieszka 2020: How do supranational terms transfer into national legal systems? A corpus-informed study of EU English terminology in consumer protection directives and UK, Irish and Maltese transposing acts. – Terminology 26(2), 184–212. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00050.bie. Commission Staff Working Document – Country Report Hungary 2020. Available at: https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1584543810241&uri=CELEX:52020SC0516. Court of Justice of the European Union 2020: Comparative multilingual legal vocabulary. A structured collection of terminological data. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/trad/Affiche%20VJM_en.pdf. European Commission, Legal service 2015: Joint practical guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of European Union legislation, Publications Office. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2880/89965. Fischer Márta 2010a: A fordító mint terminológus, különös tekintettel az európai uniós kontextusra. Doktori disszertáció, Budapest: ELTE. Available at: http://www.euenglish.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ PHD-FISCHERM%C3%81RTA-2010.pdf. Fischer Márta 2010b: Translation(policy) and terminology in the European Union. – Thelen Marcel, Steurs Frieda (eds). Terminology on everyday life, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.13.03fis. IATE Handbook. Available at: https://iate.europa.eu/assets/IATE_Handbook_public.pdf. ISO 860:2007 Terminology work – Harmonization of concepts and terms. ISO 25964-2:2013 Information and documentation – Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies —– Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies. ISO 1087:2019 Terminology work and terminology science – Vocabulary. ISO 12616-1:2021 Terminology work in support of multilingual communication – Part 1: Fundamentals of translation-oriented terminography. Judgment of the Court of 6 October 1982. Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Corte suprema di Cassazione - Italy. Case 283/81. ECLI:EU:C:1982:335 Kardos Orsolya, Rádai-Kovács Éva 2014: IATE – An indispensable tool for EU translations. – Muráth Judit (ed.). Hungarian Lexicography III. LSP lexicography, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 163–181. Koskinen Kaisa 2000: Beyond Ambivalence. Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation. – Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, Tampere: Tampere University Press. Available at: https://urn.fi/urn:isbn:95144-4941-X. Klaudy Kinga 2007: Az EU-szakszövegek fordításának oktatása. – Klaudy Kinga (ed.). Nyelv és fordítás. Válogatott fordítástudományi tanulmányok, Budapest: Tinta Kiadó, 255–266. Prieto Ramos Fernando, Cerutti Giorgina 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. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2052. Rádai-Kovács Éva 2009: Az euroterminus, avagy az európai uniós terminológia jellemzői, különös tekintettel az újlatin nyelvekben megjelenő sajátosságokra, ELTE Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola, Budapest. Schäffner Christina, Adab Beverly 2001: The idea of the hybrid text in translation revisited. – Across Languages and Cultures, 2(2), 277–302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.2.2001.2.11. Somssich Réka, Várnai Judit, Bérczi Anna 2010: Study on Lawmaking in the EU Multilingual Environment, European Commission, Directorate General For Translation. Available at: https://termcoord.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/Study_on_lawmaking_in_the_EU_multilingual_environment.pdf. Stefaniak Karolina 2013: Multilingual Legal Drafting, Translators’ Choices and the Principle of Lesser Evil. – Meta, 58(1), 58–65. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7202/1023809ar. Orsolya Hedvig Kardos116 Conceptual Equivalence in Multilingual EU Terminology – Challenges and Possible Solutions Tamás Dóra Mária, Polácska Edina, Klenk Márk 2020: A hiteles fordítás terminológiai támogatásának lehetőségei. – Szoták Szilvia (ed.). A hiteles fordítás mint közfeladat, Budapest: OFFI Zrt., 113–130. Available at: https://www.offi.hu/offi-akademia/kiadvanyok/a-hiteles-forditas-mint-kozfeladat. Valentini Christina, Westgate Geoffrey, Rouquet Philippe 2016: The PCT Termbase of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Designing a database for multilingual patent terminology. – Terminology 22(2), 171‒200. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/term.22.2.02val. WIPO Pearl – User Guide. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/reference/en/wipopearl/guide.html. KONCEPTUALUSIS LYGIAVERTIŠKUMAS DAUGIAKALBĖJE ES TERMINIJOJE: IŠŠŪKIAI IR GALIMI SPRENDIMAI Santrauka Sąvokų analizė yra pagrindinė terminijos darbo dalis, ypač daugiakalbiuose ir į vertimą orientuotuose kontekstuose. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjama orientavimosi į sąvokas reikšmė į vertimą orientuotame terminologijos darbe Europos Sąjungoje. Europos Teisingumo Teismo pripažinta ES teisės sistemos autonomija reiškia, kad teisės terminai ES teisėje ir nacionalinėje teisėje gali turėti skirtingas reikšmes. Terminų tipų įvairovė ES tekstuose reikalauja, kad vertėjai suvoktų universalų, specifinį ES ar konkrečiai šaliai terminų pobūdį, kad parinktų geriausią konkrečios kalbos atitikmenį. Straipsnyje aprašomos strategijos, kurias vertėjai gali naudoti dirbdami su įvairių tipų terminais (universaliais, būdingais ES ar būdingais konkrečiai šaliai). Nagrinėjami sunkumai verčiant universalius terminus, turinčius konkrečiai šaliai būdingų aspektų. Straipsnyje parodoma, kaip informacijos apie lygiavertiškumą trūkumas ir universalių bei konkrečiai šaliai būdingų terminų painiojimas gali susilpninti terminų įrašus. Taip pat akcentuojami specifinių ES terminų perkėlimo į nacionalinės teisės kalbą iššūkiai. Pabrėžiama, kad kalbant apie konkrečiai šaliai būdingus terminus, nesant atitinkamo termino vertimo kalboje, gali tekti vartoti netikslius ar dalinius atitikmenis. ES terminologijos duomenų bazėje IATE pateikiama (nors ne visada sistemingai) tam tikra informacija apie terminų kilmę ir lygiavertiškumo santykius. Dažnai ją galima gauti tik nuodugniai išnagrinėjus kelis duomenų laukus. Kad būtų išspręstos šios problemos, straipsnyje rekomenduojama sistemingai nurodyti sąvokos kilmę ir įvesti naują neprivalomą duomenų lauką PERKĖLIMO KOMENTARAS, kuriame būtų paaiškinti konceptualiojo lygiavertiškumo santykiai. Teigiama, kad šis neprivalomas duomenų laukas galėtų būti naudingas vertėjams, nes padėtų jiems suvokti lygiavertiškumo santykius ir priimti pagrįstus sprendimus parenkant vertimo kalbos terminus. Gauta 2024-01-30 Orsolya Hedvig Kardos Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175. B-1048 Bruxelles/Brussel. Belgique/België E-mail [email protected]