|
|
ix | |
|
|
x | |
|
|
xi | |
Introduction |
|
1 | (6) |
|
Chapter 1 Terms, concepts and other conundrums |
|
|
7 | (20) |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
1.2 From Google to a General Theory of Terminology |
|
|
8 | (6) |
|
1.2.1 Wuster's idealized vision of terminology |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
1.2.2 A terminological clarification |
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
1.3 Different takes on terminology and terminology work |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
1.4 Logical and ontological relationships vs. legal reasoning |
|
|
16 | (2) |
|
1.4.1 Logical relationships |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
1.4.2 Ontological relationships |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
1.5 The concept vs. term quandary |
|
|
18 | (4) |
|
1.5.1 Legal vs. linguistic conceptualization |
|
|
20 | (2) |
|
1.6 Recent terminology theories |
|
|
22 | (2) |
|
|
24 | (3) |
|
Chapter 2 Investigating legal concepts, language and the law |
|
|
27 | (34) |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
2.2 Researching specialized languages |
|
|
28 | (4) |
|
2.2.1 Legal scholars and the study of language |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
2.3 The dichotomy between specialized and general language: The fiction of legal language |
|
|
32 | (4) |
|
2.4 What language and the law have in common |
|
|
36 | (3) |
|
|
39 | (13) |
|
2.5.1 Types of legal concepts |
|
|
40 | (4) |
|
2.5.2 Determinate and indeterminate legal concepts |
|
|
44 | (6) |
|
2.5.3 Coping with indeterminate legal concepts in practice |
|
|
50 | (2) |
|
2.6 Polysemous legal terms |
|
|
52 | (6) |
|
2.6.1 Implications of the cognitive shift for resolving polysemy |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
2.6.2 Polysemy in the EU context |
|
|
56 | (2) |
|
|
58 | (3) |
|
Chapter 3 (How) Do courts do things with words? |
|
|
61 | (18) |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
3.2 The linguistic importance of case-law reasoning |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
3.3 Interpretation as a perennial source of legal difficulty |
|
|
62 | (6) |
|
3.4 General methods of legal interpretation |
|
|
68 | (10) |
|
3.4.1 Statutory interpretation methods implemented by U.S. Courts |
|
|
70 | (4) |
|
3.4.2 The role of the context in legal interpretation or `anything goes' |
|
|
74 | (4) |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
Chapter 4 Understanding EU legal concepts |
|
|
79 | (12) |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
4.3 Conceptualization of EU legal concepts |
|
|
80 | (9) |
|
4.3.1 Difference in conceptualization |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
4.3.2 The CJEU's case-to-case approach |
|
|
81 | (8) |
|
|
89 | (2) |
|
Chapter 5 Multilingualism and EU legal concepts |
|
|
91 | (16) |
|
|
91 | (1) |
|
5.2 The multilingual character of EU law |
|
|
91 | (13) |
|
5.2.1 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties |
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
5.2.2 Official and working language |
|
|
93 | (1) |
|
5.2.3 Problems posed by multilingualism in practice |
|
|
94 | (1) |
|
5.2.4 The CJEU's approaches to reconciling divergent language versions |
|
|
95 | (9) |
|
5.3 A summary of findings |
|
|
104 | (3) |
|
5.3.1 What will the future bring? |
|
|
105 | (2) |
|
Chapter 6 EU legal translation and challenges for the dictionary: Incorporating legal translation into dictionary making |
|
|
107 | (30) |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
|
108 | (7) |
|
|
110 | (1) |
|
6.2.2 Equivalence: A mission impossible |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
6.2.3 Conceptual analysis as the comparative-law approach to legal translation |
|
|
112 | (3) |
|
6.3 Some challenges posed by legal translation to the legal dictionary |
|
|
115 | (14) |
|
6.3.1 Analysis of lexicographic treatment of legal terms |
|
|
119 | (6) |
|
6.3.2 Coping with different types of equivalence in a legal dictionary |
|
|
125 | (4) |
|
6.4 Choosing the right approach to legal translation in the EU context |
|
|
129 | (3) |
|
6.4.1 Using functional equivalents when translating EU legal concepts |
|
|
131 | (1) |
|
6.5 Practical guidelines for legal translators working in the EU |
|
|
132 | (2) |
|
|
134 | (3) |
|
Chapter 7 Multilingual legal dictionaries: Towards a termontological dictionary of EU law |
|
|
137 | (32) |
|
|
137 | (1) |
|
7.2 Reinventing the dictionary |
|
|
137 | (5) |
|
7.2.1 The future of legal dictionaries: Going digital and cognitive |
|
|
140 | (2) |
|
7.3 The role of theory in the making of dictionaries |
|
|
142 | (3) |
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
7.4 The role of definitions in a legal dictionary |
|
|
145 | (12) |
|
7.4.1 Redefining the role of legal definitions |
|
|
148 | (2) |
|
7.4.2 The problems of defining and categorizing EU legal concepts |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
7.4.3 Subject-field classification: Demarcation of EU law |
|
|
151 | (6) |
|
7.5 Filling a gap in legal lexicography |
|
|
157 | (5) |
|
7.5.1 Prototype giveth, terminography taketh |
|
|
157 | (3) |
|
7.5.2 Teleological definitions |
|
|
160 | (2) |
|
7.6 Integrating extralinguistic information into the dictionary |
|
|
162 | (5) |
|
7.6.1 Parts of the ontological structure |
|
|
166 | (1) |
|
|
167 | (2) |
|
Chapter 8 Methodology for the making of a termontological dictionary |
|
|
169 | (28) |
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
8.2 Termontographic methodology |
|
|
169 | (17) |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
8.2.2 Information-gathering phase |
|
|
173 | (8) |
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
8.2.4 Teleological definitions of indeterminate legal concepts |
|
|
182 | (4) |
|
8.3 Dictionary display of indeterminate EU law concepts |
|
|
186 | (8) |
|
|
186 | (2) |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
8.3.3 Company of a Member State |
|
|
188 | (2) |
|
8.3.4 Company of a Member State: Different parts |
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
8.3.5 Wholly artificial arrangement |
|
|
190 | (2) |
|
|
192 | (2) |
|
|
194 | (1) |
|
8.5 Form of the termontological dictionary: Go digital or perish |
|
|
195 | (2) |
|
Chapter 9 Concluding remarks and directions for future research |
|
|
197 | (4) |
|
9.1 Digitalisation and customized lexicography |
|
|
198 | (3) |
|
|
201 | (14) |
|
|
215 | (4) |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
|
217 | (2) |
|
|
219 | (2) |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
|
219 | (2) |
Subject Index |
|
221 | |