Teisės aktų terminų ir jų apibrėžčių reikalavimų klausimu

Requirements for Terms and Definitions in Legislative Acts120 Alvydas Umbrasas doi.org/10.35321/term29-07 Requirements for legal terms and their definitions ALVYDAS UMBRASAS Lietuvių kalbos institutas ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5184-0056 ANNOTATION The regulation of the terms of legal acts has already become a tradition in Lithuania, but the requirements for the terms of legal acts and their definitions may be the subject of discussion. Since the drafting of legislation is governed by the legislation itself, it is worthwhile to clarify what terminological requirements they impose. That is what this article is about. Better regulation of the requirements for legislative terms and their definitions can contribute to improving the quality of legislation. KEY WORDS: legal terms, linguistic requirements, logical requirements, terminology, definition. ABSTRACT The management of the terms of legal acts has already acquired a tradition in Lithuania, but the requirements for these terms and their definitions may be the subject of a debate. Since the drafting of legal acts is regulated by the legal acts themselves, it is worth clarifying the terminological requirements that are imposed on them. That is the focus of this article. Better regulation of the requirements for terms and definitions in legal acts can contribute to improving the quality of legislation. KEYWORDS: terms of legal acts, linguistic requirements, logical requirements, terminology ordering, definition. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Legislation is one of the most important mediums of language use in a state, and its language influences the language used in other media. In terms of terminology, legislation is also important, because it not only uses terms but also defines them. The terminological aspects of legislation are the subject of this article. In the article descriptive analytical method 121Terminologija | 2022 | 29 examines the requirements imposed on the terms of legislative acts – they are assessed not only from the terminological but also from the legal regulation aspect. The aim is to identify the requirements for legislative terms and their definitions in the sources governing the drafting of legislation, to assess the adequacy of those requirements and to provide some insights and recommendations based on practice. The main focus of the article is on the terminological aspects of legislation adopted in Lithuania, i.e. national legislation, but if necessary, the context of European Union legislation translated into Lithuanian is also considered, because they are similar in terminology and also have an impact on national legislation. Taking into account the nature of the investigated issues and the state of the discussed phenomena, the article further distinguishes two parts, in which the data are analyzed differently: in the first part, without examining specific examples, the requirements imposed on the terms of the legislative acts are described in general, and in the second part – on the contrary – more attention is paid to examples of the definitions of the terms of the legislative acts, to show their specificity. As will be seen, the requirements for these definitions are a task for the future. In addition to legal sources, the article mainly refers to Kazimieras Gaivenis’ researches, he paid the most attention to the requirements of terms and their definitions in our terminology, general terminology issues (see Gaivenis 2002: 14–49). Stasys Keinys (1980: 27–58) has also written about the requirements relevant to the research. The term requirements are now more often discussed in a didactic context (e.g., Akelaitis et al. 2009: 36–44). The status of the Lithuanian language as a state language is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as in the Law on the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania. The latter specifically specifies the use of language in the legislative field – “Acts and other legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be adopted and published in the state language” (VKĮ 1995: 31). The legislation governing the drafting of legislation also sets qualitative language criteria. As early as 1995, the Law on the Procedure for the Preparation of Laws and Other Legislative and Regulatory Acts of the Republic of Lithuania was adopted, which states that “[L]egislation 1 Here and hereafter, the number of articles or paragraphs is not given in the accompanying legal acts and recommendation publications. On the question of the requirements of terms and their definitions in legislative acts122 Alvydas Umbrasas writes in accordance with the general norms of the Lithuanian language and legal terminology” (ĮTNARTĮ 1995: 12). This statement has been rewritten in the Recommendations for the Drafting of Laws and Other Legislative Acts (ĮTARR 1998: 1.8). Subsequently, the wording has changed somewhat2, but the provision that legislation must comply with the general language norms and legal terminology requirements has been retained in the Legislative Framework Act of the Republic of Lithuania adopted in 2012 (TPĮ 2012: 14), as well as in the Recommendations for the Preparation of Draft Legislative Acts approved in 2013 (TAPRR 2013: 5) and their subsequent versions. By the way, compliance with language rules is considered from a very practical point of view in the preparation of multilingual EU legislation: the Common Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for those drafting EU legislation states that “[a]cts drafted in accordance with grammar and punctuation rules are easier to understand correctly and to translate into other languages” (CPG 2015: 1.4.2; this provision was also included in the first edition of the Common Practical Guide (CPG 2008: 1.4.2)). Thus, regularity in this regard is important functionally, helps not only on the intralingual, but also on the interlingual level. The instruction to comply with the legal terms requirements in the legislation has been legally established almost since the beginning of the restoration of independence, but it should be borne in mind that after the restoration of independence Lithuania had almost no dictionaries of legal terms3. Thus, it is assumed that the legal basis is not guided by any dictionaries of legal terms, but by established practice of the use of legal terms, terms developed according to usual models. Terms are subject to linguistic and logical requirements, which usually include regularity, accuracy, systematicity, brevity, practical convenience, emotional neutrality, etc.4 (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206, 211). These requirements are basically applicable to any field, but the language of legal acts differs from the language of science, in law it is important to formally regulate expression, compliance with expression instructions and recommendations. Although the requirements of legal terms are not systematized in any way and are not always expressed clearly and explicitly, 2 among other things, the emphasis has been placed not on the preparation of legislative acts, but on their drafting, and legal terminology has replaced legal terminology. 3 During the first period of independence, no dictionaries of legal terms were published (although lists of terms and draft dictionaries existed). The Dictionary of Legal Terms compiled by Alfonso Žiurlis (Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishers, 1954, 240 pp.), which appeared at the beginning of the Soviet period, remained the only one throughout the Soviet period. Since 1995, a number of translated dictionaries have been published, not only of terms, but also of legal language in general (see Umbrasas 2008 for more details), but quality legal terminology is still lacking. 4 In earlier publications, K. Gaivenis has mentioned the translability into other languages and even the sounding, uniqueness, in addition to the requirements for terms (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 115). 123Terminology | 2022 | 29 they are mentioned in both national and European Union drafting guidelines. Pirmieji atkurtosios nepriklausomybės teisės aktai, reglamentuojantys teisės kalbą, apskritai apeliavo į bendrinės kalbos normų laikymąsi ir galmost recently, a precise provision has emerged – “[l]egislative time limits must be <...> regular” (TAPRR 2013: 6.5). The requirement of correctness in legislation is essentially general – it includes language in general and terminology as part of it. The regularity of terms also relates to all the parts of the language, including not only word formation, morphology, syntax, but also pronunciation, pronunciation, spelling, punctuation. In addition to correctness, there are also issues of influence of other languages and language purity5. In the legislation governing the legal language it was previously stated clearly: “International words are used only when there are no equivalents of these words in the Lithuanian language” (ĮTNARTĮ 1995: 12; ĮTARR 1998: 1.8). Later the provision was detailed: "Preference is given to Lithuanian terms. If necessary, the international term may be indicated in conjunction with the Lithuanian term (one of them – in parentheses)” (ĮTARR 2002: 6). Nevertheless, implementing the provision of avoidance of international terms in the legislation was probably rather tricky, lacking objective evaluation criteria – not always local and international terms are functional equivalent, equally widespread and equally established, and artificial protection of one of them may not correspond to usage tendencies or be simply subjective. Thus, although the criterion of purity is de facto taken into account in the practice of terminology management, the provisions relating to international words have gradually disappeared in the recommendations for drafting legislative acts, and more focus has been placed on borrowings coming through translation, at the same time providing for the possibility of indicating the equivalents of other languages to generally insufficiently established Lithuanian terms: “In the legislation, all common words of other languages must be translated into Lithuanian” (ĮTARR 2002: 6); “The legislation shall not use common words of other languages, except for non-Lithuanian words or their combinations (mostly Latin) traditionally used in some areas. If necessary, a word in another language (usually a term) may be indicated in parentheses next to the Lithuanian one” (TAPRR 2013: 6.2). The language abbreviation must be indicated next to the equivalent (TAPRR 2021: 134). The terms used in national legislation now often come from European Union legislation, and when translating them it is necessary to deal with borrowing and 5 Purity of language and terminology is not generally perceived as a requirement, it is an extralinguistic, not related to the language system itself, language norming principle, which is expressed in the fact that preference is given to words of the own language (Gaivenis, Kaulakienė 2014 [1996]: 229–230). On the issue of the requirements of the terms of the legislative acts and their definitions,124 Alvydas Umbrasas mentions other problems that lead to a negative attitude towards the language of documents: “Texts full of borrowed, literal translations or jargon are difficult to understand and become a source of criticism of the Union’s legislation, which in such cases is considered ‘foreign’” (BPV 2015: 5.4). This means that the text appears natural and does not have a translational character. The requirement of clarity for legal language applies also to legal terminology (legislation in general is based on the principle of clarity (TPI 2012: 3)). This requirement can be seen as an opposition to complexity, confusion, and sophistication, hence the desire for simple terms. The European Union legislators are advised to “make every effort to express the purpose of the provision in simple terms so that it can be presented simply. Everyday language should be used as much as possible. If necessary, clarity of phrases is given priority over sophistication of style” (BPV 2015: 1.4.1). Lack of clarity can be an obstacle for both translators and applicants of legislation, so “the original text must be straightforward, clear and understandable, because if it is too complicated or ambiguous, it may become inaccurate, approximate or completely wrong when translated into one or more other languages of the Union” (BPV 2015: 5.2). Now, more and more people talk about plain language, the possibilities of simplifying the legal language and changing terms into simpler ones are being analyzed, so that the legal language can be understood without the help of specialists (Čėsnienė 2014b). In this context, the concept of intralingual translation of legal language has already emerged, i.e. the concept of translation is expanded, it is spoken of translation within the same language, in order to make the legal text more accessible to the target audience, to facilitate it for specialists or to simplify it for non-specialists (Čėsnienė 2014a). In practice, however, it does not seem that the effort to simplify the legal language has yet yielded any more tangible results. In Lithuanian recommendations for drafting legislation, the requirement of shortness of time is not excluded6 (it could not be a strict requirement, unless it is a recommendation), but for convenience reasons it is provided for the possibility of making abbreviations of terms in the legislation, which are valid only in that legislation, and in the related or implementing legislation they should be introduced from 6 In the drafting of legislation, sometimes even excessively strives for shortness of time, sacrificing accuracy. For translators of EU legislation, the requirement of brevity is added to the requirements for terms in order to make the term user-friendly (TV 2006: 1.1). There are opinions that the length of the term may indicate either the novelty of the term or insufficient standardization. It is assumed that the better the terminology is developed and standardized, the more shorter terms should be used (Kaulakienė, Makariūnienė 2014 [1999]: 36). However, the criterion of brevity is not a priority in standardisation practice. 125Terminology | 2022 | 29 new (TAPRR 2013: 6.5; TAPRR 2021: 116). The recommendations make it clear that the legislative deadlines must be precise (TAPRR 2013: 6.5; TAPRR 2021: 11). Here it should be borne in mind that the requirement of accuracy with unambiguity and definition of meaning, but gali prieštarauti trumpumo reikalavimui. Kita vertus, termino tikslumo samprata gali būti diskusijų objektas. K. Gaivenis tikslumą pirmiausia sieja acknowledges that these things are difficult to achieve (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 207). It is obvious that in language in general, the unambiguity of terms is a utopia, about it can be spoken at least only within the limits of one specific terminology system (Keinys 2003: 50). The avoidance of ambiguity in terms in the legislation (BPV 2015: 6.2) is fully understandable, but having one meaning does not in itself guarantee the accuracy of the term. Legislators are told that ‘[i]n the interests of clarity and to avoid problems of interpretation, it may be necessary to define a term’ (BPV 2015: 6.2.3). By comparing the term with the definition, it is already possible to talk about its accuracy. The accuracy of a term, of course, is related to its semantics, and is also related to motivation, but, as K. Gaivenis correctly observes, it cannot be said that motivated terms are accurate and unmotivated – inaccurate (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 208). The motivation of the term may be unclear (it is important not to be misleading), but it must be acknowledged that the clarity of the motivated terms is greater7. Clarity alone is not necessarily synonymous with accuracy, but it is generally considered an advantage if the term can be clear and undefined. The measurement of accuracy may be based on the correspondence of the characteristics specified in the definition and would be more relevant for the assessment of generic terms than for the assessment of genus terms. Specific characteristics of the latter terms are particularly important in terms of distinctiveness, which also determines accuracy. When preparing legal opinions on draft national legislation, it is assessed whether the legal terms used in the draft are “in accordance with the terms established in the existing legal regulation, in particular in the legislation governing similar legal relations” (TINTARR 2010: 15.3.3). The fact that the terminology should be used consistently, based on existing legislation, is also emphasised in the European Union drafting guidelines (BPV 2015: 6.2.1). At the same time, consistency of terminology is sought in the same legislation, its annexes and implementing legislation (BPV 2015: 6; 6.2.1). Consistency is important when drafting legislative amendments, so that in a consolidated version 7 well-motivated innovations, for example, are likely to have a better chance of being adopted. On the question of the requirements of the terms and their definitions in the legislation,126 Alvydas Umbrasas would not create terminological differences (TAPRR 2021: 111). It is good in terms of ease of application when the deadlines of national and European legislation coincide, but due to established traditions this is not always achievable and not necessarily always the aim. The requirement for consistency of terms generally manifests itself through the desire for uniformity. It is explained to the European Union legislators: “Term consistency means that the same terms must be used for identical concepts and that the same term must not be used for different concepts” (BPV 2015: 6.2). The second part of the statement focuses on ambiguity, which, as practice shows, is generally unavoidable, but unambiguity should be sought at least within the limits of the relevant legislation. In practice, large problems due to ambiguity usually do not arise (definition helps if necessary) or they are rare, more problems cause synonymy, especially while the terms are new, because different means of expression can sometimes mislead, create the illusion of difference of concepts. Different translations of identical terms in related European legislation can cause problems of application and confusion in the national legislation implementing that legislation, so the desire to avoid synonyms (BPV 2015: 1.4.1) naturally arises in order to ensure terminological consistency. It is also achieved through compatibility: it is suggested that EU legislators take into account the multilingual nature of the legal terms they use, and therefore avoid concepts and terms that are specific to certain national legal systems and use them with caution (BPV 2015: 5; 5.3.2). At the same time, as far as possible, the terms of the legislative acts and their concepts are harmonized with terms in science, technology and common language in general (BPV 2015: 6). The requirement of systematic terminology is not explicitly mentioned in the legislative drafting guidelines, but it is important in practice and applies to the management of terms in any field8. It can be said that terms do not function alone – they are part of a certain system of terms. Translators of EU legislation are directed to seek systematic terminology: “When using existing or creating new terms, it is necessary to ensure that they are consistent with the system” (TV 2006: 1.1). The systemic requirement can be treated as both a logical and a linguistic requirement. K. Gaivenis considers the requirement of systematic use of terms to be logical and relates it to the classification of concepts, the logical division 8 It should be borne in mind that the principle of systematic use is one of the principles applied in legislation in general, according to which, among other things, the aim is to ensure that legal provisions are consistent with each other (TPĮ 2012: 3). 127Terminology | 2022 | 29 based. Terminology is relevant to hierarchical classification, when subordination relationships are established between the divided groups, and phase classification, when the population is divided in various respects (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 211–213). Thus, in this aspect, the term of the legal act must not be in the wrong classification category (e.g., related between species), in the wrong classification group (for example, when classifying actions, the result of the action must not be included). In practice, however, systematicity is often assessed from the point of view of the expression of the term, taking into account the content, the basis of classification, i.e. linguistic and logical requirements work together here, the aim is to ensure that the expression of the terms of a certain classification group is consistent with each other. And this is not only a question of the typicity of the term construction (which K. Gaivenis (2014 [1994]: 213) mentions), for example, the choice of the same category of the term construction or the same formant of the term construction, but also the uniformity of the syntactic constructions of the terms, the coordination of the number of words, etc. In addition, the term is also used to refer to the ability to perform a task. Operative convenience9 is understood as the suitability of a term for the creation of new, semantically and formally dependent words, i.e. other terms (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 210). The legislative drafting guidelines do not mention this and, in fact, in the practice of managing legislative deadlines, this requirement is not a priority, although it is not ignored. Translators of EU legislation are instructed that the term must be convenient for new terms to do, this is called the doability requirement (TV 2006: 1.1). In linguistics, adjectives are usually considered to be a form of a verb or a particular type of verb, but they can also be attributed to a base word. Time requirements are sometimes referred to as consistency, for example in the guidelines for translators of EU legislation. They are told that “terms must be stable, not changed every few or several years. Sometimes even not entirely accurate established and widely used terms are better than accurate new ones, because it is not easy to change a term in the minds of consumers” (TV 2006: 1.1). Nevertheless, consistency is not so much a requirement as a principle of standardising the terms, which is actually being pursued in practice. According to K. Gaivenis, “[t]erminology standardization’s goal is not to accelerate the change of terms, but to maintain the invariance of the microsystems of terminology” (Gaivenis 2014 9). 46). Teisės aktų terminų ir jų apibrėžčių reikalavimų klausimu128 Alvydas Umbrasas [1996]: 227). As a rule, unsettled, varying terms are changed, while traditional ones are left untouched10. K. Gaivenis adds to the logical requirements of terms the requirement of accuracy of definitions11 (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 211). However, it is not appropriate to regard this as a requirement of the time limits themselves. The requirements of the definitions can reasonably be regarded as autonomous. Based on logic and other criteria, scientists distinguish between two or several to several dozen types of definitions (see Rimkutė 2021: 180–184). Of course, there are not so many requirements for definitions, they would depend on the recipient of the definition and the medium of publication (e.g. textbook, scientific monograph, dictionary of terms, standard of terms, etc.). As with terms, definition requirements can also be linguistic and logical. Of Lithuanian linguists, K. Gaivenis has perhaps paid the most attention to the definitions of terms, but he has not systematized the requirements for definitions in his works. This researcher pointed out that the definitions of terms may differ from the usual lexicographic definitions, that the model of indicating the closest relative concept and species differences should be applied when creating definitions, in accordance with the following most important rules: “a) the definition must be adequate, i.e. the scope of the defining concept must be equal to the scope of the defining concept; (b) it shall not contain a defective wheel; (c) be precise, clear and unambiguous; d) must not be negative” (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 116). Other sources also indicate the requirements of harmonizing definitions, indicating essential features, striving for brevity, avoiding interpreting the term with identical words, etc. (see further Rimkutė 2021: 184–185). In science, the usual requirements for the definition of terms can be applied at least in part to the formulation of the definitions of terms in legal acts, but the intersection of tradition and innovation in terminology has been described by K. Gaivenis, taking into account the pursuit of progress and functional purposefulness: “Some drafters of terminology standards strictly require that terminology standards be mandatory, that the terminology presented in them be preserved for decades. In terms of the terminology system, this requirement is unrealistic, because the components of the system must constantly change and renew. Only in this case will the system be constantly perfected. Otherwise, the system will degrade. Thus, the principle of thermal stability does not prevent the system from changing, but only stops its unnecessary decomposition. When evaluating an established term, the first thing to consider is not how the new term is better, but why the old term is bad” (Gaivenis 2014 [1996]: 228–229). 11 K. Gaivenis mentions the accuracy of definitions, but the term definition is now generally used. The terminology of the legislation has contributed to the spread of this term, because the definition is used in the Terms Bank Act (LTBTĮ 2003) and its implementing legislation. 135Terminology | 2022 | 29 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS The term bank of the Republic of Lithuania law and its implementing legislation legally regulated the term management of legislative acts encourages the evaluation of the requirements of the legal acts. Recommendations for drafting legislative acts oblige to comply with the requirements of legal terminology, the general norms of Lithuanian language and clearly state that the terms of the legislative acts must be accurate and regular, in accordance with the terms of the already valid legislative acts. Thus, the requirements of linguistic correctness, logical accuracy and consistency are considered, it can be said, the most important, because they are indicated directly. The requirement of coherence with the deadlines of other legislative acts partly implies the requirement of systematicity. The latter requirement, as well as the possible requirement of clarity of the time limits, is linked to the principles of clarity and systematicity generally applied in legislation. Other scientifically known requirements for terms, such as brevity, creative convenience, emotional neutrality, are not explicitly expressed in the drafting guidelines. The shortness of terms is actually sought in the legislation, but shortness is not perceived as a requirement, it is more determined by practical reasons, the desire to ensure the convenience of consumption. The conflict between accuracy and brevity is sometimes not easily resolved, so the legislative drafting guidelines provide for the possibility of shorter versions of terms, thus ensuring easier functioning of contractual terms in the text. It is customary to define the terms used in the legislation, but the legislative drafting recommendations do not generally indicate how this should be done, only separate the normative provisions of the legislation from the definitions of terms, i.e. do not allow the definitions to raise requirements, conditions, etc. (this should be done in the text of the legislation). In definitions, legislators sometimes try to indicate the subject matter of the legislation, the functions assigned to the entities, etc., but this is not a matter of definitions of concepts, but of provisions to be expressed in the text of the legislation. Practical experience shows that terms are usually defined in the legislation in an explanatory (indicative of signs), enumerative and reference manner. Reference definitions have been created by the relationships between legislation and the subordination-based provision not to define terms of higher-level legislation, as well as terms defined in other related legislation. The model of formulating reference definitions is not standardized, it cannot be ruled out that due to the direct application of some European Union legislation such definitions may increase. Listing definitions in the legislation are sometimes convenient, but at least somewhat broader application is essentially restricted On the issue of the requirements of legal acts terms and their definitions136 Alvydas Umbrasas the nature of the concepts themselves – rarely a concept includes a pre-known, finite set of elements. It is usually more convenient to specify the attributes so that the concept can encompass known and potential galima taikyti moksle žinomus loginius terminų apibrėžčių reikalavimus, tačiau teisės aktų specifika rodo, kad į teisės aktų rengimo rekomendacijas elements. It would also be worthwhile to include guidelines on the definition of terms in the wording of definitions. The current regulation of legislative definitions is incomplete. In general, it should be understood that the definition is the basis of the term management – it is the basis for assessing the accuracy and clarity of the term, therefore the implementation of the requirements of the term itself depends on the definition. LITERATŪRA Akelaitis Gintautas, Pečkuvienė Laima, Žilinskienė Vida 2009: Specialybės kalba: administracinės kalbos vadovėlis, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universiteto Leidybos centras. BPV 2008: Europos Parlamento, Tarybos ir Komisijos bendrasis praktinis vadovas asmenims, rengiantiems Bendrijos teisės aktus, Liuksemburgas: Europos Bendrijų oficialiųjų leidinių biuras. BPV 2015: Europos Parlamento, Tarybos ir Komisijos bendrasis praktinis vadovas asmenims, rengiantiems Europos Sąjungos teisės aktus, Liuksemburgas: Europos Sąjungos leidinių biuras. Čėsnienė Žaneta 2014a: Intralingvistinio vertimo samprata ir jos evoliucija teisiniame diskurse. – Logos 78, 194–202. Prieiga internete: http://www.litlogos.eu/L78/Logos_78_194_202_Cesniene.pdf. Čėsnienė Žaneta 2014b: Lexical Units Impeding the Perception of Legalese in the Context of Plain Language. – Res Humanitariae 16, 37–53. Prieiga internete: https://e-journals.ku.lt/journal/RH/ article/1874/info. Gaivenis Kazimieras 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius: LKI leidykla. Gaivenis Kazimieras 2014 [1979]: Bendrieji lietuvių terminijos kūrimo ir norminimo principai. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 107–117. Gaivenis Kazimieras 2014 [1994]: Kalbiniai ir loginiai terminų reikalavimai. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 204–213. Gaivenis Kazimieras 2014 [1996]: Apie du terminų norminimo principus. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 224–229. Gaivenis Kazimieras, Kaulakienė Angelė 2014 [1996]: Ekstralingvistiniai terminų norminimo principai. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 229–235. ĮTARR 1998: Įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų rengimo rekomendacijos (patvirtintos Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 1998 m. rugpjūčio 17 d. įsakymu Nr. 104). Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/ portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.84BA09B7F50B. ĮTARR 2002: Įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų rengimo rekomendacijos (patvirtintos Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 1998 m. rugpjūčio 17 d. įsakymu Nr. 104 (Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 2002 m. kovo 21 d. įsakymo Nr. 75 redakcija)). Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/ lt/legalAct/TAR.6E8262E60853. ĮTNARTĮ 1995: Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymų ir kitų teisės norminių aktų rengimo tvarkos įstatymas Nr. I-872. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.502CB1B9F3DB. Kaulakienė Angelė, Makariūnienė Eglė 2014 [1999]: Statistinis terminų trumpumo vertinimas. – Angelė Kaulakienė. Terminologija. Terminografija. Terminija: straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Technika, 36–38. Keinys Stasys 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Keinys Stasys 2003: Dėl mokslo terminų vienareikšmiškumo supratimo. – Terminologija 20, 47–55. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/471. LRTBĮ 2003: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų banko įstatymas Nr. IX-1950. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar. lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.D1F51C2190D5/asr. 137Terminologija | 2022 | 29 Rimkutė Aušra 2021: Sudėtinio termino dėmenų ir apibrėžties subordinacija: vieno atvejo analizė. – Terminologija 28, 175–191. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2095. TAPRR 2013: Teisės aktų projektų rengimo rekomendacijos (patvirtintos Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 2013 m. gruodžio 23 d. įsakymu Nr. 1R-298). Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/ legalAct/9f8e8430723411e3a1f1b21417c4c75e. TAPRR 2021: Teisės aktų projektų rengimo rekomendacijos (patvirtintos Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 2013 m. gruodžio 23 d. įsakymu Nr. 1R-298 (Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 2021 m. lapkričio 18 d. įsakymo Nr. 1R-388 redakcija)). Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/ lt/legalAct/12575f60488c11ec992fe4cdfceb5666. TINTARR 2010: Teisinių išvadų dėl norminių teisės aktų projektų rengimo rekomendacijos (patvirtintos Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 2009 m. gegužės 29 d. įsakymu Nr. 1R-168 (Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministro 2010 m. rugsėjo 8 d. įsakymo Nr. 1R-190 redakcija)). Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.78663FCA5223. TPĮ 2012: Lietuvos Respublikos teisėkūros pagrindų įstatymas Nr. XI-2220. Prieiga internete: https://www.etar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.B4FA4C56B8D5. TV 2006: Terminologijos vadovėlis: Europos Komisijos Vertimo raštu generalinio direktorato Lietuvių kalbos departamento vertėjams, Liuksemburgas. Prieiga internete: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/ terminology_guidelines_lt.pdf. Umbrasas Alvydas 2008: Lietuvių teisės terminografija: nuo rankraščių iki duomenų bazių. – Specialybės kalba: terminija ir studijos: mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universiteto Leidybos centras, 100–109. Umbrasas Alvydas 2013: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas: 10 metų po įstatymo priėmimo. – Terminologija 20, 96–122. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/475. VKĮ 1995: Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas Nr. I-779. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/ portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.0B0253BB424C. VLEe – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, e. variantas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Prieiga internete: https://www.vle.lt. ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TERMS OF LEGAL ACTS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS Summary The article analyses the requirements for legal terms not only from a terminological point of view, but also from the point of view of legal regulation. The aim is to find out what requirements are placed on legal terms and their definitions in the sources governing the drafting of legislation, to assess the sufficiency of these requirements, and to provide some practice-based insights and recommendations. The focus of the paper is on the terminological aspects of the legislation adopted in Lithuania, i.e., national legislation, but the context of European Union legislation is also considered where appropriate, as the terminological nature of these pieces of legislation is similar. The guidelines for drafting legal acts oblige compliance with the requirements of legal terminology and the norms of the standard Lithuanian language; they make it clear that the terminology of legal acts must be precise, correct, and consistent with the terminology of the existing legal acts. The requirements for linguistic correctness, logical precision, and consistency are thus considered to be of paramount importance, as they are explicitly stated. The requirement that terms be consistent with the terms in other legal acts implies, to some extent, the requirement of systematicity. The latter requirement, as well as the requirement of the clarity of terms, is linked to the In the question of the requirements of terms and definitions in legislation138 Alvydas Umbrasas principles of clarity and systematicity applied to legislation in general. Other requirements for terms known in terminology theory, such as conciseness and derivability, are not explicitly expressed in the drafting guidelines. It is common practice for legislation to define the terms to be used, but the drafting guidelines do not, in principle, specify how this should be done. The guidelines only distinguish regulatory provisions in legislation from definitions of terms, i.e., they do not allow requirements, conditions, etc. to be imposed in the definitions. In practice, it appears that terms are usually defined in legislation by reference to the attributes of the concept, by listing the elements included in the concept or by reference. The pattern of the formulation of definitions is not standardised. While the formulation of definitions may be subject to the logical requirements of definitions known in terminology theory, the specific nature of legislation suggests that it would be worthwhile to include guidance on the definition of terms in the drafting guidelines. The current regulation of definitions of terms in legislation is insufficient. Received 2022-11-03 Alvydas Umbrasas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]