Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė

The One-Stop-Shop System – a tool for harmonizing the terminology of draft European Union legislation in Lithuanian with the institutions of the Republic of Lithuania EGIDIJUS ZAIKAUSKAS European Commission KEYWORDS: one-stop-shop system, terminology management, terminology harmonization, legislation, European Union institutions, state institutions of the Republic of Lithuania INTRODUCTORY REMARKS One of the most important criteria of the quality of a legal act is the use of good and appropriate terminology. Several hundred European Union translators, who translate proposals for EU legal acts and other EU documents into Lithuanian, are guided in their daily work by this kind of credo. Given the specific nature of EU texts—the legal and political importance of the documents, the many policy, economic, social and technical fields they cover, the frequent introduction of new concepts, and so on—translators in EU institutions constantly have to address various terminological problems: devising or selecting terms for new concepts, assessing term variants and synonyms and choosing the most appropriate ones, harmonizing terminology across different systems, and so forth. They often turn to Lithuanian experts for help in clarifying a complex concept or selecting the most appropriate term to designate it. Terminological problems vary in complexity, and the importance of different concepts and the terms that designate them also varies in legal acts and throughout the legal system. Some problematic terms are of concern to many stakeholders: not only the EU institution that drafted the legal act and the other EU institutions involved in the EU legislative process, but also Lithuanian state institutions in the relevant field, since some EU legal acts are directly applicable in the Member States, including Lithuania, while the provisions of others have to be incorporated into legislation by Lithuanian state institutions. It is therefore very important that the terminology of EU and Lithuanian legal acts be harmonized as much as possible. Experts review most draft EU legal acts in Lithuanian through the EU membership information system of Lithuania Terminologija | 2015 | 22 127 (LINESIS)1. However, because deadlines are often very short, this review is only superficial and provides the (personal) opinion of a single expert2. Resolving more complex terminology issues in EU legal acts requires a more specialized mechanism that includes most of the stakeholders involved in the EU legislative process—both EU and LR institutions—and enables decisions to be made that are as harmonized as possible. Such a mechanism for harmonizing the terminology of draft EU legal acts is the One-Stop-Shop System (VLS)3. The article goes on to present an analysis of the One-Stop-Shop System and the facts surrounding its development, examine how it operates, analyze VLS queries, and compare terminology-development trends in the Lithuanian-language departments of EU institutions and in LR state institutions. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OSS In 2009, the Lithuanian Language Department of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation put forward the idea of creating a mechanism to coordinate terminology both across EU institutions and with institutions of the Republic of Lithuania (RL), and which the EU institutions’ Lithuanian translation units could use to obtain more easily an authoritative, coordinated opinion from Lithuanian experts on the concepts in more complex draft EU legislation. At that time, systems for coordinating the terminology of draft EU legislation with national institutions were operating in the European Commission’s Swedish and Finnish translation units4. After the EU and RL institutions had reached agreement and aligned the main principles, a one-stop-shop system was introduced in 2010—the “system for coordinating, through a single responsible institution, the terminology of draft legislation translated by the EU institutions’ Lithuanian translation units into Lithuanian with institutions of the Republic of Lithuania”— 1For more on LINESIS, see the website of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania http://www.lrs.lt/intl/presidency.show?theme=201&lang=1&doc=630 (accessed 2015-07-20). 2For LINESIS comments on draft EU legislation in Lithuanian, see Lukoševičiūtė 2012. 3The article also draws on ideas from the joint presentation by the author and Audra Ivanauskienė (State Commission of the Lithuanian Language), “The one-stop-shop system—a means of solving the terminological problems of the most complex European Union documents in Lithuanian,” delivered on 4 June 2015 at the conference “Scientific, Administrative and Educational Levels of Terminology,” organized jointly by the International Lithuanian Terminology Forum (LTF) and the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. The presentation slides were published on the LTF website http://ec.europa.eu/translation/lithuanian/ltf/index_lt.htm (accessed 2015-07-20). 4How the EU institutions’ Finnish terminology coordination system (ESKO) operates: EU institution translators send queries by email to the Terminology Service of the Finnish Government. The Service decides which ministry to forward the queries to. Each ministry has two system coordinators, who decide which ministry experts should receive the translators’ queries, and send the answers received from the experts to the Terminology Service, which forwards them to the EU institution translators. The system provides for the possibility of consulting the Institute for the Languages of Finland on linguistic questions while submitting a query. In addition, after receiving an answer, translators may contact the experts who provided it directly. For more on ESKO, see Kuhmonen 2011. 128 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė tutions’ Lithuanian translation units with institutions of the Republic of Lithuania (OSS Description 2015, point 1). Within the EU institutions, the OSS operates on the basis of an agreement among the Lithuanian translation units. Eight EU institutions participate in the system: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, the European Court of Auditors, and the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union. The legal basis for the operation of this system in Lithuania is Resolution No. 998 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 7 July 2010, “On the coordination of terminology in Lithuanian for draft legislation of the European Union,” which established “the procedure for coordinating the terminology in Lithuanian of draft legislation received from European Union institutions with ministries, government agencies and agencies under ministries, and state research institutions that participate in the process of adopting and implementing EU legislation <...>” (Resolution No. 998, point 1). Under this resolution, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (VLKK) was designated as the coordinating Lithuanian institution; for this purpose, it uses the organizational system of the Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania, while “terminology commissions operating within state institutions and agencies organize terminology coordination in those institutions and agencies” (Resolution No. 998, point 2). HOW THE VLS OPERATES VLS queries are prepared to address problematic terms in translations into Lithuanian of draft EU legal acts. When a terminological problem cannot be resolved independently, a VLS query is prepared on the basis of the document being translated. The consideration of the problem involves not only translators and terminologists from the Lithuanian translation units of all eight EU institutions participating in the system (hereinafter, EU institution translators), but also the VLKK and Lithuanian state and research institutions working in the subject area of the concept in question (hereinafter, Lithuanian experts). The VLKK is the “one-stop shop” in Lithuania: it receives VLS queries from EU translators, forwards them to the relevant Lithuanian institutions, collects their proposals, discusses those proposals together with their representatives, and submits a final proposal to the EU translators regarding the problematic concept. All communication takes place by email. Terminologija | 2015 | 22 1 2 9 If the term proposed by the Lithuanian experts is approved by all EU institutions5, it is entered in the document being translated, and detailed terminological data are provided in the EU institutions’ IATE terminology database. Terms coordinated through the VLS are assigned the highest, fourth, reliability rating in IATE. If the agreed term comes from a legal act adopted with the participation of more than one EU institution6, information about it is also entered in the electronic information file for the legal act being translated, in the EU institutions’ language information storage and exchange system (ELISE). This information is received directly by translators from different EU institutions working on the document and by lawyer-linguists of the Council and the European Parliament. All query data—the query submitted for consideration by the EU institutions, the query sent to the VLKK, the VLKK’s response, and the final decision of the EU institutions—are published and archived on the EU institutions’ “EurTerm” terminology website7. Unfortunately, terms agreed by EU and Lithuanian institutions through the one-stop-shop system are not included in the Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania. This should be taken care of by the terminology commissions of Lithuanian state institutions: they should submit a relevant proposal to the VLKK. TERMINOLOGICAL PROBLEMS ADDRESSED THROUGH THE VLS The reasons why EU translators need VLS queries are captured by the three-letter abbreviation SKP: shortage, error, surplus. Essentially, these reasons form the basis of any terminological standardization work: 1) shortage of terms—there is no official Lithuanian term, and a new concept needs to be named; 2) errors in terms—the existing Lithuanian term (or terms) is incorrect; 3) surplus of terms—in several official sources, the same concept is named using different terms. 5 When the VLS system was being created, no provision was made for what to do if the EU institution translators rejected a proposal. It was only in 2015 that the EU institution translators agreed that if any EU institution disagreed with the Lithuanian experts’ proposal, giving reasons for its disagreement, it would prepare a follow-up query and the procedure would start again. 6 These are most often European Parliament and Council regulations and directives, proposals for which are frequently translated by European Commission translators. 7 A list of VLS queries with key data is available on the LTF website http://ec.europa.eu/translation/lithuanian/ltf/documents/ltf_oss_statistics_lt.pdf (accessed 2015-07-20). 1 3 0 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė 1. Lack of terms Requests concerning new concepts are by far the most frequent. Many EU texts contain concepts that had not previously been designated by Lithuanian terms, and some texts contain several dozen such new concepts. Requests are submitted through the VLS only if the concept is very important or difficult, for example, belongs to a highly specialised field and requires particular expert knowledge to explain and designate it, e.g.: genomic breeding value (in English genomic breeding value), proximity hosting (in English proximity hosting), cross-margining (in English cross-margining), uncovered short sale transaction (in English naked short selling), and so on. However, a new concept does not always mean that, before the request was submitted, there was no Lithuanian equivalent at all for designating it. For example, when gathering information for a request concerning the English term viral video, several Lithuanian equivalents were found online: viral klipas, virusinis video, virusinis vaizdo klipas. However, until then the concept had not appeared in any legislation, dictionary or other reliable, official source, and online texts used loanwords or literal calques to designate it. The aim of the request is to select or create a correct Lithuanian term that accurately conveys this relatively new concept. In this case, the LR experts endorsed the term proposed by the EU translators: plitusis vaizdo įrašas (request COM-2011-08). Quite often, new concepts are designated simply by copying, translating morpheme by morpheme, or even borrowing terms from another language, usually English. In both cases, identical features of the concept are designated in both languages, thus ensuring relatively easily that the content of the English and Lithuanian versions of EU legislation is identical. More than a few such terms, which at first sight seem entirely equivalent to those in another language, have been established through the VLS, e.g.: environmental dumping (in English environmental demping), profit repatriation (in English repatriation of profit), modified live-virus vaccine (in English modified live-virus vaccine) and so on. Of course, this does not mean that terms in different languages denoting the same concept cannot be equivalent if they designate different features, since the relationship between a term and a concept is essentially conventional. Sometimes a term’s internal motivation alone is not enough to link it to a concept; institutional endorsement is also required, for example, agreement through the VLS and/or approval by the VLKK. The VLKK’s position is decisive also when requests submitted through the VLS propose extending the meanings of words, for example, by analogy with other fields Terminologija | 2015 | 22 1 3 1 to establish a new meaning for an international word. Although such requests are not frequent, it appears that EU translators are more inclined than VLKK terminologists to assign new meanings to words already used in Lithuanian. For example, it was proposed to extend the meaning of the word genocide and establish the terms gender genocide (in English gendercide), women’s genocide (in English feminicide), and girls’ genocide (in English femail infanticide). The VLKK did not endorse the proposal and instead proposed using the terms gender-based killing, gender-based killing of women and gender-based killing of girls, respectively (request EP-2013-01-03). The EU translators’ request to extend the meaning of the word coal by introducing the term low-coal economy (in English low-carbon economy) also failed to secure the LR experts’ approval. The LR experts proposed the term low carbon dioxide emission economy, which in effect meant a return to 2007, when, in EU documents, the term (gas) emission began to be replaced by the term (gas) release in consultation with LR experts; the latter term eventually became established in EU legislation. EU institutions therefore decided not to accept the LR experts’ proposal, but, taking into account the arguments against extending the meaning of the word coal, they also abandoned their own proposed term low-coal economy. The legislation retained the somewhat cumbersome and somewhat inaccurate term that had already been in use: low-carbon technology economy. For less formal texts, translators are advised to use the somewhat shorter and more fluent variant low carbon dioxide pollution economy, which is expected eventually to become established in legal language as well (request COM-2014-08). The LR experts also rejected the EU translators’ proposal to extend the meaning of the word content: they did not approve the term creative content (in English creative content), meaning the body of works (most often artistic works) created using multimedia, computers or communications technologies, or the information contained in such works together with its mode of presentation. Since the LR experts did not submit a specific proposal for this concept, the term proposed by the EU translators was included in the draft EU legislation. It eventually became established in public texts as well (request COM-2013-06). In several cases, VLKK terminologists and LR experts nevertheless endorsed the proposed extension of meaning submitted through the VLS. For example, a new meaning was approved for the term co-location, hitherto used only in finance and philology (in English co-location): “a service for storing and maintaining a company’s server in a data centre that also houses the servers of other companies, particularly a stock exchange, which ensures a particularly high-speed connection to the exchange” (request EP-2014-04). 132 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė 2. Terminological errors Before joining the European Union in 2004, Lithuania had to adopt the main EU legal acts. To do so, they had to be translated into Lithuanian. There were a great many translated EU legal acts, and the most suitable terms were not always selected in the translation process. Inappropriate terms—for example, terms that incorrectly denote the features of a concept, fail to indicate important features, or do not fit the terminology system of the relevant field—also occur in legal acts translated after Lithuania’s accession to the EU. When a new version of a legal act is adopted, inappropriate terms can sometimes be corrected and replaced with better ones, but all interested parties, including the institutions of the Republic of Lithuania, need to be informed about the terms being changed. Better still if the new terms are adopted by agreement among all parties. Therefore, VLS consultations are prepared on important terms used in EU legal acts that are to be changed. In the very first VLS consultation (COM–2011–01), it was agreed to replace the unsystematic term feed operator (English feed business operator) with the more suitable term feed business operator. It was also agreed to replace the term denoting a related concept, food handling operator (English food business operator), with the term food business operator. In 2013, VLKK reported that experts had demanded the restoration of the old term food handling operator. The main reason was that the term was used on certificates of approval for food handling operators, the form of which had been approved by the ministry, and thousands of certificate forms had been printed. Changing the official (although not ideal) term would have required the forms to be reprinted, causing the ministry a considerable financial loss. Another example of an inappropriate term is pebble bearings reactor (English pebble-bed reactor). At first glance, this Lithuanian term, translated word for word, corresponds to the English term, is semantically transparent and systematic, but the original meaning of the compound ball bearing—“a support for shafts or rotating axles, consisting of two rings with balls between them” (AGTTŽ 2006)—makes it misleading: this is a gas-cooled nuclear reactor in which spherical fuel elements are held on a particular support (a bearing, a bed!). Through VLS, it was agreed to use the term spherical fuel element reactor (consultation COM–2011–05). Literal translation is one of the more common causes of semantic errors in terminology. EU documents used the term urban mining, translated literally from the English term urban mining, although the concept has little to do with mining Terminologija | 2015 | 22 1 3 3 : “the recovery of secondary raw materials from landfills, including specialized ones, e.g. those containing construction materials, demolished buildings, household appliances and waste.” The final term agreed through VLS was recovery from urban waste (consultation EP-2012-03). Sometimes a term becomes inappropriate when the concept itself changes. Until 2011, under EU legal acts, both the total quantity of fish caught and the catch that fishing vessels brought ashore were calculated. Fish that had been caught but were unsuitable—too small or of low-value species—or injured were thrown back into the sea by fishers on the spot. This caused considerable harm to nature. To promote more sustainable fishing, a regulation was adopted requiring the entire quantity of fish caught to be counted as catch. Therefore, through VLS, the term maximum sustainable catch quantity (English maximum sustainable yield) was replaced by the term maximum catch from sustainable fishing (consultation COM-2011-11). A term may also need to be changed when international nomenclature changes. By an IUPAC decision of 30 May 2012, the name of chemical element No. 114, ununquadium, was changed to flerovium in honour of the Russian physicist Georgy Flyorov, and the name of chemical element No. 116, ununhexium, was changed to livermorium in honour of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA). Therefore, through VLS, the Language Commission was asked to approve the Lithuanian names of these elements, flerovis and livermoris. The Republic of Lithuania’s experts and VLKK unconditionally approved the new terms (consultations COM-2012-10 and COM-2012-11). 3. Terminological excess Over the 11 years of Lithuania’s EU membership and even before then, thousands of EU documents were translated into Lithuanian. Because of the urgency of the work, the terminology in by no means all of them was systematically checked by terminologists and coordinated with other EU and Republic of Lithuania institutions. Consequently, the same concept is sometimes designated by different terms in documents issued by different institutions, or even by the same institution. When such a concept appears in a draft new legal act, it is difficult for the translator to decide which term to choose. Sometimes the choice is determined by formal legal criteria: • legal consistency must be observed – the implementing legal act must use the same terms as the basic act, • preference is given to EU treaties and to the regulations, decisions and directives governing the area, 134 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė the terms in EU legal acts take precedence over those in national legal acts, priority is given to the opinion of the expert who participated in discussing the draft legal act in the Council of the EU. It is also considered whether a term that may be somewhat imperfect but is correct has become established in public usage, is used in a nomenclature, is associated with trademarks, and so on. Nevertheless, when the criteria set out above do not constrain the choice, selecting the best term from several or from a whole cluster of synonyms is not easy. In exceptional cases, experts from the Republic of Lithuania are consulted. In inquiry EP-2014-07, experts were asked which of the many synonyms would be the best way to designate the concept denoted by the English term key performance indicator. While preparing the inquiry, EU translators found more than ten synonyms and variants: pagrindiniai veiklos rezultatų rodikliai, pagrindiniai veiklos rezultatų vertinimo rodikliai, pagrindiniai veiksmingumo rodikliai, pagrindiniai veiksmingumo rezultatų rodikliai, pagrindiniai rezultatų rodikliai, pagrindiniai rezultatyvumo rodikliai, pagrindiniai efektyvumo rodikliai, svarbiausieji veiklos rodikliai, esminiai veiklos rodikliai, įmonės veiklos vertinimo rodikliai, pagrindinis veiklos rodiklis (EU translators’ suggestion), and others. Legal criteria and usage trends did not warrant giving preference to any one of them, so both EU translators and experts from the Republic of Lithuania focused first and foremost on ensuring that the term designated the concept as accurately as possible. It is true that most of the synonyms found denoted a collective concept, whereas the legal act required a rodiklio as a unit of account. It was agreed with the experts from the Republic of Lithuania to use the term pagrindinis veiklos rezultatų rodiklis. Even technical terms that name what might seem to be a fairly specific concept can have several synonyms. For example, nine Lithuanian equivalents for English loop flow were found in different sources: gretutinis srautas, srovės tiekimas aplinkinėmis linijomis, nekoordinuojamas energijos žiedinis srautas, gretutinėmis elektros linijomis tekantis elektros srautas, nekoordinuojamas srautas, energijos perdavimas aplinkinėmis linijomis, srovės tekėjimas aplinkinėmis linijomis, kontūro srovė, aplinkinis srautas (EU translators’ suggestion). Experts from the Republic of Lithuania proposed using the term žiedinis srautas. The arguments put forward by the experts from the Republic of Lithuania are as follows: “It was agreed to propose the term žiedinis srautas, because it better corresponds to the physical processes in an electricity system. According to the Ministry of Energy Terminologija | 2015 | 22 1 3 5 the ministry, the term bypass flow is not used in the electricity sector; it is associated with logistics—when something cannot be transported directly, the flow has to be rerouted. According to the Ministry of Energy, electricity cannot be transmitted around through the electricity grid, because this would contradict Kirchhoff’s laws.” The term proposed by the LR experts was adopted (query EP-2014-06). Even a pair of synonyms can pose problems for legal translators, for example, a term containing an international element and a term containing its Lithuanian equivalent. This type of synonymy is quite common in Lithuanian. The use of such synonyms in less formal texts may have stylistic value, but it is unacceptable in administrative documents, especially legal acts. For example, query COM-2012-19 addressed which synonym—illegal migration or unlawful migration—should be used in the legal act. The LR experts indicated that the terms are equivalent and can be used interchangeably: “There is no semantic difference or connotation, so linguistically both terms, illegal migration and unlawful migration, should be treated equally. Nor does LR law distinguish between these concepts <...>. Illegal migration and unlawful migration, like illegal work and unlawful work, and similar expressions, are used interchangeably as synonyms. In principle, preference could be given to the Lithuanian element rather than the international one, although terms containing the element nelegalus, -i have been more prevalent to date.” With the LR experts’ agreement, the more commonly used term containing the international element, illegal migration, was included in the EU legal act. Every detail matters in a legal act, so sometimes even the grammatical form of a term is negotiated. Query Taryba-2011-04 was intended to determine which form—small enterprise or small enterprise (English small enterprise)—is more appropriate. It was decided that in this case the simple or definite form does not affect the content of the concept, and it was agreed that the definite form would continue to be used in EU legal acts, since that form is used in both primary and secondary EU law, while LR law would continue to favour the simple form, as used in the Law on the Development of Small and Medium-sized Businesses and entered in the LR Terminology Bank (approved term). The circumstances and reasons for aligning the terms presented here through the one-stop system differ. However, all the examples show EU translators’ aim to use terms in EU legal acts that are as correct, semantically better motivated, systematic, and as far as possible agreed with all interested parties as possible. 136 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė NUMBER OF OLS QUERIES BY EU INSTITUTION The first OLS query was submitted to the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language on 1 February 2011. By 1 June 2015, 140 queries had been submitted to the VLKK: 91 by the European Commission, 43 by the European Parliament, and 6 by the Council of the European Union (Fig. 1). The fact that the European Commission submits the most queries can primarily be explained by two facts: the European Commission prepares and translates the largest number of EU documents, and it most often drafts the initial proposals for legal acts; consequently, the Commission’s translators are the first to address terminological problems arising from the original texts, such as naming new concepts, among others. Although infrequently, the one-stop system also works in the opposite direction: using the OLS, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language sent four terminological notices to EU institutions by 1 June 2015, concerning the terms costs, “the value of the best (from an economic perspective) alternative forgone in order to achieve the desired objective”; crowdfunding (English crowd funding); small hive beetle (Latin Aethina tumida); and food business operator (English food business operator)8. The concepts in all the terminological notices are also found in EU legal acts, so, where possible, terms proposed by LR experts are incorporated into new versions of EU legal acts. Fig. 1. Number of OLS queries by submitting institution 8 For a fuller explanation of the latter term, see the section “Terminology Errors.” Terminologija | 2015 | 22 1 3 7 NUMBER OF VLS QUERIES BY SUBJECT AREA The largest number of queries concerned concepts in finance (34), agriculture (17), health (15), economics (13), the environment (12), and other areas (Fig. 2). Fig. 2. Number of VLS queries by subject area These figures indirectly indicate which subject areas pose the greatest difficulties for translators in EU institutions and where the greatest lack of specialist knowledge lies. A more detailed analysis of queries by subject area also reveals trends in EU lawmaking, albeit not very pronounced ones: in 2011–2013, experts were most often consulted on the environment and health, whereas in 2014 and 2015 the queries mostly concerned concepts in finance and energy. To some extent, the higher number of queries about concepts in particular subject areas is determined by the programmes of work and legal initiatives of EU institutions. Some queried concepts belong to more than one subject area, creating additional problems for LR experts when selecting the most appropriate term. For example, the views of three ministries differed on how to designate in Lithuanian the concept referred to in English as malpractice: “The Ministry of Economy proposed the term professional negligence (noting that Article 5(3) of the Directive on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications 205/36/EC uses the term serious professional negligence (English serious professional malpractice); this term is also used in the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Recognition of Regulated Professional Qualifications (2008-04-03, No. X–1478)). 1 3 8 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė In the view of the Ministry of Justice, a possible term is negligent performance of professional duties, but negligence is generally associated with carelessness and thus would not cover intentional acts, which are usually designated by the term abuse. In the view of the Ministry of the Interior, the term unlawful conduct in the performance of professional duties would be suitable in the field of internal affairs. It was agreed in the discussion that it is not appropriate in every field or in every case to speak of unlawfulness. Acts may be lawful but improper. Sometimes it may be appropriate to speak of a professional error. The concept probably also needs to include omissions. The characteristics of the concept may differ across subject areas.” (Response to query COM–2015–02.) As can be seen from the quoted text, the ministry representatives identified different aspects of the concept that were important specifically to their respective fields. Translators are often not sufficiently familiar with the subject area of the document they are translating to distinguish subtle aspects of a concept. They must therefore either consult an expert in the relevant field or seek a more general way of expressing the concept. Most often, however, they rely on the analysis of the concept made by the authors of the term in the source language, assuming that the source-language term denotes the relevant characteristics of the concept, and therefore that the Lithuanian term can simply be translated literally. For example, in EU legislation the English term malpractice was most often translated as improper practice. When the concept was considered by the VLKK Terminology Subcommittee, it was decided that, despite the somewhat differing characteristics attributed to the concept in different fields, the most general term could be improper performance of professional duties. This term was then included in the draft EU legal act being translated. To make it easier to determine which characteristics of a concept should be brought to the formal level of the term, it was agreed that queries should be prepared in relation to a specific draft EU legal act, since particular characteristics of a concept may be more important in a given text. Thus, the one-stop-shop system is oriented towards text-based terminology. ONE-STOP-SHOP SYSTEM CHALLENGES Like any data-processing and coordination system involving many entities, the one-stop-shop system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps the system’s greatest drawback is the relatively small number of terms coordinated. Several reasons account for these low quantitative indicators. First, preparing a high-quality query takes a long time, so that experts at the institutions of the Republic of Lithuania understand which concept is being asked about and do not have to search for additional information themselves. Terminologija | 2015 | 22 139 When preparing a query, not only are the main Lithuanian terminology databases checked—LRTB, IATE, the LST terminology database, EuroTermBank, etc.—but information is also gathered from full-text legal-act databases: EUR-Lex, the Seimas document database, the Register of Legal Acts of the Republic of Lithuania (TAR), and supplemented with other data from printed sources and the internet. The important selected data are presented in a standardised query form. Table 1 presents a somewhat simplified query form with explanations of the data fields. Table 1. One-stop-shop system query form with explanations of data fields Submission No. Number in the VLS system Submitting institution E.g., European Commission Start date IATE No. Legal act [Draft legal act being translated, the concept in which is the subject of the query.] LT term [Term or terms proposed by the EU institutions, from which the most suitable one is to be selected. Proposals from EU institutions that disagree with the proposed term are presented in the next table.] Field [Term of use according to the Eurovoc classification.] Definition [The definition is usually taken from the draft legal act being translated or created by the request authors on the basis of other languages (translated).] Equivalents in other languages [Equivalents are usually provided for at least three procedural EU languages—English, French and German. Efforts are also made to provide equivalents in other languages that experts may know, such as Polish, Latvian and Russian. Latin terms are also sought for medical, biological and anatomical concepts.] Problems [The reasons and circumstances behind the request are explained so that experts know what to focus on most.] Context [Text excerpts explaining the concept, usually from an EU legal act.] Term synonyms [Other terms denoting the concept under consideration, with source references, particularly if they are used in EU legal acts.] Related concepts [Terms that help explain the concept under consideration, for example, terms denoting a broader concept (genus–species relationship) or a parallel concept (co-hyponyms).] Notes [Any additional information that may be useful when considering the request.] 140 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė Another major obstacle limiting the possibilities for using the VLS and substantially reducing the number of queries is the total time taken to process a query and respond to it. It is not uncommon for more time to elapse between identifying a terminological problem in a draft EU legal act being translated and receiving a response from LR experts (or for more time to elapse if a query were prepared) than is allotted for translating that document. As a rule, when the deadline for translating a document is shorter than three weeks, no query is even prepared, since the ministry alone allows up to 14 working days for considering it, so a timely response is not expected. In such cases, terms are usually coordinated on a smaller scale: for example, a ministry expert is asked directly to clarify the concept, while colleagues in the VLKK’s Department for Replacing Foreign Words with Lithuanian Equivalents are consulted about the form of the term. It is not only those preparing queries who face certain problems, but also the experts who have to consider them and from whom a reasoned response is expected. Queries are prepared mainly on the basis of translators’ working materials; the principal point of reference is terminology in other languages, primarily English. Because of differences between systems and terminological traditions, English terms cannot always be translated on a one-to-one basis. For example, in competition policy the English term foreclosure is used to denote a fairly broad concept; the feature “temporal circumstances of the action” is not essential to it and is therefore not marked in the structure of the English term. Before the VLS query, the Lithuanian terms market restriction, restriction of opportunities, market closure were used to mean only the creation of obstacles to new companies’ entry into the market. However, the English term also refers to efforts to drive existing market participants out of it. Accordingly, the experts proposed that, where the broader concept is needed, the compound term driving out of the market or creating obstacles to entering it be used, despite its comparatively atypical structure in Lithuanian terminology. This term, as the one denoting the broadest concept, was entered into IATE (query COM-2011-03). Another serious difficulty for experts in selecting an appropriate term for the concept queried through the VLS is that some concepts are specific to EU legal acts and are not encountered by LR legal drafters. For example, no consensus was reached on the concept denoted by the English term governance in one of the first VLS queries. This concept is most often used in EU documents of a political nature, which tend to be somewhat ambiguous, making it very difficult to select a Lithuanian term that would convey the concept precisely. LR experts proposed a whole range of possible terms: collaborative management (or collaborative governance), negotiated management (or Terminologija | 2015 | 22 141 negotiated governance), horizontal management (or horizontal governance), non-hierarchical management (or non-hierarchical governance), intergovernmental management, but none of these found its way into EU texts, and EU translators most often opt for the semantically less precise but simpler term management (query Taryba-2011-01). Similar problems arose with macroeconomic concepts designated in English by metaphorical terms cradle-to-gate, gate-to-grave, cradle-to-grave, life cycle. LR experts, asked to establish official terms and clarify whether several terms denoted the same concept, replied: “The term provided in the legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania (the Lithuanian equivalent of English cradle-to-grave) is not used, and is therefore irrelevant; moreover, the concept itself is unclear.” (Response to query COM-2013-09.) Nevertheless, even in such unclear cases, experts try to help translators. Since borrowed metaphors are avoided in Lithuanian administrative and academic language, several options were proposed in this case, each directly naming some important features of the concepts: cradle-to-grave – the entire cycle, the cycle from the extraction of (raw materials) to the end of the (product’s) life, extraction of (raw materials)–end of the (product) cycle; cradle-to-gate – pre-production stage, the stage from the extraction of (raw materials) to the production of the (product), the stage from extraction of (raw materials) to the start of production of the (product); gate-to-grave – post-production stage, the stage from production of the (product) to the end of its (life) cycle, the stage from production of the (product) to the end of its (life) cycle (query COM-2013-09-12). DIFFERENCES IN TERMINOLOGY MANAGEMENT IN EU AND LR INSTITUTIONS A more detailed analysis of completed VLS queries reveals certain differences in terminology management between EU and LR institutions. One striking difference is that terms proposed by LR experts often have more components than the terms proposed by EU translators to designate the same concept. The average length of terms proposed by EU translators9 is 2.77 components, while that of terms proposed by LR experts is 3.28 components (Fig. 3). Thus, terms proposed by LR experts are, on average, 16% longer than the terms proposed by EU translators to denote the same concepts10. 9 The terms counted are those in queries for which the proposals made by EU translators and LR experts did not coincide. Function words are not counted in either Lithuanian or English terms. 10 The figures are not absolutely precise, since EU translators and LR experts proposed several synonyms for some concepts. 142 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė Fig. 3. Average length of non-matching terms proposed by EU terminologists and LR experts and their English equivalents The terms proposed by both LR experts and EU translators are considerably longer than their English equivalents (see Fig. 3). This difference is fairly consistent and is likely due both to differences in language structure and to terminological traditions, such as the avoidance of terminological metaphors in Lithuanian. Although there are not enough facts to draw general conclusions, considering not only the number of components but also their semantics, one can see that EU translators pay greater attention to the terms in the source language, tend to copy their structure more closely, and use Lithuanian terms to denote the same features of a concept as those denoted by the source-language term, mostly English11. This can be explained by both formal and subjective factors. On the one hand, the aim is to ensure that concepts are designated equivalently in versions of EU legislation in all languages, since the best principle for terminology management in a global linguistic space is considered to be an international concept and national expression: terms in different languages designate the same features of a concept. On the other hand, attachment to English terms is sometimes due to an inability to move beyond the source text and limited knowledge of the concept: there is reluctance to use Lithuanian words to denote features of the concept other than those denoted in the source language. LR experts with a better understanding of the concepts are less often hindered by English terms; they pay greater attention to terminological accuracy and therefore choose other features of the concept more freely as the semantic basis of a term. 11 For more on the relationship between terms coined by EU translators and source-language terms, see Zaikauskas 2014. Terminologija | 2015 | 22 143 Table 2 presents a range of examples illustrating trends in terminology creation among EU translators and experts from the Republic of Lithuania. Table 2. Comparison of terms proposed by EU translators and experts from the Republic of Lithuania to denote the same concept; the terms proposed by the experts from the Republic of Lithuania are longer English term Proposal by EU translators Proposal by experts from the Republic of Lithuania feminicide genocide of women gender-based killing of women permanent material long-lasting material reusable material communication chain communication chain information transmission chain emerging economies emerging economies emerging market economies non-return rate non-return rate cow herd conception rate power-to-gas power-to-gas conversion use of electricity to produce gas low carbon economy low-carbon economy low carbon dioxide emissions economy note issuance facility note issuance facility facility for underwriting short- and medium-term debt securities clinical trial clinical trial interventional clinical trial of a medicinal product There were fewer cases in which Lithuanian experts proposed shorter terms. Almost all of them are examples not of narrowing the concept, but of linguistic economy (Table 3). Table 3. Comparison of terms proposed by EU translators and Lithuanian experts to denote the same concept; terms proposed by Lithuanian experts are shorter English term EU translators’ proposal Lithuanian experts’ proposal foster dam surrogate lactating female substitute nursing mother exorbitant jurisdiction unreasonably broad jurisdiction excessive jurisdiction life cycle thinking life-cycle-based approach life-cycle principle Overall, experts did not accept more than half of the terms proposed by EU translators and suggested alternative terms. Most of the terms proposed by Lithuanian experts (72 out of 86) were accepted and entered into draft EU documents (Fig. 4). 1 4 4 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė Figure 4. Correspondence between the proposals of EU translators and Republic of Lithuania experts (percent) What happens when the proposals of EU translators and Republic of Lithuania experts do not match? Usually, translators at EU institutions accept the proposals of Republic of Lithuania experts and, if it is not too late, enter the terms in the draft legal acts being translated. Nevertheless, proposals from Republic of Lithuania experts are sometimes not accepted because circumstances have changed during the EU legislative process, concepts have been changed while the document is being edited, additional information about a concept has been received, etc. There were 11 such cases (7.9 percent), including cases in which experts made no proposal. For example, in 2012, four concepts in the English-language clinical trial, clinical study, clinical investigation and clinical research set were coordinated through the One-Stop-Shop System (request COM-2012-24) for the Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. EU translators agreed with the terms proposed by Republic of Lithuania experts: intervencinis klinikinis vaistinio preparato tyrimas, klinikinis vaistinio preparato tyrimas, klinikinis medicinos prietaiso tyrimas and biomedicininis tyrimas. However, during subsequent consideration of the draft legal act in the EU Council and the European Parliament, two of the agreed terms were changed. At the request of Republic of Lithuania experts who attended Council meetings, the terms intervencinis klinikinis vaistinio preparato tyrimas and klinikinis vaistinio preparato tyrimas were replaced in the final Lithuanian text of the regulation by klinikinis tyrimas and klinikinė studija, while the term klinikinis medicinos prietaiso tyrimas (English clinical investigation) disappeared from the text altogether. Until April 2015, no procedure had been established for how EU institutions should act if a term proposed by Republic of Lithuania experts, for one reason or another, Terminologija | 2015 | 22 145 cannot be entered in a draft legal act. It has now been agreed that, in such cases, a repeat request will be prepared explaining the changed circumstances and asking for the concept to be considered again. From April to June 2015, three proposals from the Republic of Lithuania were received, for which it was decided to submit repeat requests. CONCLUSIONS The system for coordinating Lithuanian-language terminology in draft EU legal acts with experts from Republic of Lithuania government and research institutions (the One-Stop-Shop System, VLS) is based on sending terminological information through a single channel and coordinating opinions in stages. Although this creates a more complex terminological coordination structure and the process takes longer, the reliability of the terms agreed upon is greater. Three main reasons create the need to coordinate terms through the One-Stop-Shop System: a lack of terms, errors in terms, and an excess of terms. These three factors are characteristic of any prescriptive terminology. On the other hand, the One-Stop-Shop System also has pronounced features of textual terminology, since, both under formal provisions and for practical purposes, the concepts in VLS requests are generally linked to specific draft EU legal acts. Linking a concept to a specific text makes it easier to identify its field and define it, but sometimes limits the possibility of using the agreed term in other texts. The benefits of coordinating terms with Republic of Lithuania experts are demonstrated by the fact that Republic of Lithuania experts proposed more than half of all the agreed terms. Despite certain limitations that result in a relatively small number of terms being coordinated, the terminological coordination system created through the One-Stop-Shop System is a good example and a reliable basis for developing other similar terminology management systems. Analysis of the requests submitted during the system’s three-and-a-half years of operation reveals certain trends in terminology management in the Lithuanian translation departments of EU institutions and in Republic of Lithuania government and research institutions. For example, when choosing a Lithuanian term, EU translators pay greater attention to the structure of the term in the source language and use Lithuanian terms to denote the same features as in English. This is intended not only to achieve linguistic economy but also to ensure the greatest possible correspondence between terms in different languages. Republic of Lithuania experts are less attached to equivalents in other languages and are more concerned with conveying the concept accurately, using a term to indicate its most important features, which do not necessarily correspond to those indicated by equivalents in other languages. Consequently, terms proposed by Republic of Lithuania experts are on average 16 percent longer than those proposed by EU translators. 146 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė ŠALTINIAI AGTTŽ – Juškaitė N., Keinys St., Sakalauskas K. Aiškinamasis geležinkelių transporto terminų žodynas: terminai lietuvių, anglų, vokiečių ir rusų kalbomis, Vilnius: „Lietuvos geležinkeliai“, 2006. Reglamentas Nr. 536/2014 – Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 536/2014 dėl žmonėms skirtų vaistų klinikinių tyrimų, kuriuo panaikinama Direktyva 2001/20/EB. – http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LT/TXT/?qid=1434728567404&uri=CELEX:32014R0536 (žiūrėta 2015-07-20). VLS užklausų sąrašas – Lietuvių terminologijos forumo interneto svetainė, Vieno langelio sistema, VLS užklausų sąrašas. – http://ec.europa.eu/translation/lithuanian/ltf/onestopshop_lt.htm (žiūrėta 2015-07-20). LITERATŪRA Kuhmonen K. 2011: ESKOsta apua EU-säädöksiin. – Terminfo 3, 2011. Informacija pateikiama pagal straipsnio santrauką anglų kalba. – http://www.tsk.fi/tsk/fi/terminfo_32011-615.html (žiūrėta 2015-07-20). Lukoševičiūtė I. 2012: Pranešimo „Lietuvos ekspertų pastabos Europos Komisijos vertėjo akimis“ seminare „Vertimas bei terminologija ES institucijose ir bendradarbiavimas su LR ekspertais“ (Vilnius, 2012 m. lapkričio 13 d.) skaidrės. – http://ec.europa.eu/translation/lithuanian/ltf/documents/term_lukoseviciute_linesis_lt.pdf (žiūrėta 2015-07-20). Nutarimas Nr. 998 – Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės 2010 m. liepos 7 d. nutarimas Nr. 998 „Dėl Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų terminų lietuvių kalba derinimo“. – Valstybės žinios, 2010-07-15, Nr. 84-4417. VLS aprašas 2015: VLS aprašas_2015-04-22.pdf. – „EurTerm“, vikis: ES institucijų terminologijos interneto portalas, Lietuvių kalbos svetainė, Vieno langelio sistema. – https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/LTTERM/VLS (svetainė prieinama tik ES institucijų darbuotojams). Zaikauskas E. 2014: Terminų vertimo būdai Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų vertimuose į lietuvių kalbą. – Terminologija 21, 71–89. THE “ONE-STOP-SHOP” SYSTEM AS THE TOOL FOR THE HARMONIZATION OF LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY OF DRAFT EU LEGAL ACTS WITH LITHUANIAN NATIONAL BODIES The “one-stop-shop” system (VLS) was created more than 4 years ago and was designed for the harmonisation of terminology across the translation units of the Lithuanian language of the European Union institutions and with responsible national bodies of the Republic of Lithuania. In the EU institutions the system functions under the internal inter-institutional agreement and in Lithuania its functioning is regulated by Resolution of the Lithuanian Government No. 198. A terminology problem raised by a language unit of an EU institution is discussed at the inter-institutional level and then the query is sent to the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (VLKK), which serves as a “one-stop-shop”. VLKK forwards the query to the ministries concerned, then collects their answers, discusses the issue at the meeting of the Terminology Sub-Commission and finally sends the term agreed at the national level to the EU institutions. If the institutions accept the proposal, the agreed term is used in the Lithuanian version of the draft EU legal act and entered in the IATE and ELISE systems. All documentation related to VLS queries is archived on the EU intranet portal “EurTerm”. Such procedures of the harmonization of terminology via VLS require considerable efforts and resources but the terms harmonised in this way are of the highest reliability and constitute the terminology of top quality. The demand for the harmonization of terms via the “one-stop-shop” system is determined by three main factors: 1) lack of terminology for new concepts, 2) erroneous Terminologija | 2015 | 22 147 terms, and 3) excess of terms naming the same concept (synonymy). All of the three are on a larger scale typical for any normative terminology process. The strong requirement to base queries on particular documents, namely on draft EU legal acts under translation, links the VLS system to text-based terminology. The background of a particular document gives some advantages: in most cases a domain is fixed and the attributes of the concept are easier to define. On the other hand, because of the peculiarities of the EU legislation drafting procedures such text-based terminology is less durable and more restricted in use. Closer analysis of terminology problems solved via the VLS system gives some clues as to the differences of attitudes toward terminology standardisation in the EU institutions vs. Lithuanian national bodies. It is obvious that EU translators rely more on the term equivalents in other languages, trying to follow their structure, mostly that of English terms, and even translating composite English terms word by word. In contrast, Lithuanian experts and terminologists of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language concentrate more on concepts and try to design terms by naming concepts in a more precise way. Therefore, terms proposed by experts are often longer than those proposed by EU translators, though both are much longer than English equivalents. Despite some different approaches to terminology standardisation and some challenges and restrictions of its functioning, the VLS system constitutes a good example of successful cooperation between numerous institutions at both European and national levels. Its model and experience can be used as a pattern for the creation and elaboration of other terminology management systems. Gauta 2015-07-03 Egidijus Zaikauskas Europos Komisija Bâtiment Jean Monnet C3/115, rue Alcide de Gasperi, L-2920 Luxembourg, Luxembourg E. paštas [email protected] Straipsnyje pateikiama asmeninė autoriaus nuomonė. Ji niekaip negali būti tapatinama su Europos Komisijos ar bet kokio jos padalinio oficialia nuomone. 148 Egidijus Zaikauskas Vieno langelio sistema – Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektų lietuvių kalba terminų derinimo su Lietuvos Respublikos institucijomis priemonė