New Insights into the Semantics of Legal Concepts and the Legal Dictionary.

Intro -- New Insights into the Semantics of Legal Concepts and the Legal Dictionary -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- List of abbreviations -- Introduction -- Outline -- 1. Terms, concepts and other conundrums -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 From Google to a General Theory of Terminology -- 1.2.1 Wüster's idealized vision of terminology -- 1.2.2 A terminological clarification -- 1.3 Different takes on terminology and terminology work -- 1.4 Logical and ontological relationships vs. legal reasoning -- 1.4.1 Logical relationships -- 1.4.2 Ontological relationships -- 1.5 The concept vs. term quandary -- 1.5.1 Legal vs. linguistic conceptualization -- 1.6 Recent terminology theories -- 1.7 Summary -- 2. Investigating legal concepts, language and the law -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Researching specialized languages -- 2.2.1 Legal scholars and the study of language -- 2.3 The dichotomy between specialized and general language -- 2.4 What language and the law have in common -- 2.5 Legal concepts -- 2.5.1 Types of legal concepts -- 2.5.1.1 Vagueness and indeterminacy of legal concepts -- 2.5.2 Determinate and indeterminate legal concepts -- 2.5.2.1 Civil law vs. common law -- 2.5.2.2 Conceptualization of indeterminate legal concepts -- 2.5.3 Coping with indeterminate legal concepts in practice -- 2.6 Polysemous legal terms -- 2.6.1 Implications of the cognitive shift for resolving polysemy -- 2.6.2 Polysemy in the EU context -- 2.7 Summary -- 3. (How) Do courts do things with words? -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 The linguistic importance of case-law reasoning -- 3.3 Interpretation as a perennial source of legal difficulty -- 3.4 General methods of legal interpretation -- 3.4.1 Statutory interpretation methods implemented by U.S. Courts -- 3.4.1.1 Constitutional interpretation.

3.4.2 The role of the context in legal interpretation or 'anything goes' -- 3.4.2.1 The CJEU's utilization of the context -- 3.5 Summary -- 4. Understanding EU legal concepts -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Conceptual autonomy -- 4.3 Conceptualization of EU legal concepts -- 4.3.1 Difference in conceptualization -- 4.3.2 The CJEU's case-to-case approach -- 4.3.2.1 Example 1: Compensation for use -- 4.3.2.2 Example 2: undertaking -- 4.3.2.3 Example 3: Arrival time -- 4.4 Summary -- 5. Multilingualism and EU legal concepts -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 The multilingual character of EU law -- 5.2.1 The vienna convention on the law of treaties -- 5.2.2 Official and working language -- 5.2.3 Problems posed by multilingualism in practice -- 5.2.4 The CJEU's approaches to reconciling divergent language versions -- 5.2.4.1 Comparing different language versions -- 5.2.4.2 The CILFIT guidelines -- 5.2.4.3 Example 1 -- 5.2.4.4 Example 2 -- 5.3 A summary of findings -- 5.3.1 What will the future bring? -- 6. EU legal translation and challenges for the dictionary -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Legal translation -- 6.2.1 Legal texts -- 6.2.2 Equivalence: A mission impossible -- 6.2.3 Conceptual analysis as the comparative-law approach to legal translation -- 6.2.3.1 The illusion of comparing legal concepts -- 6.3 Some challenges posed by legal translation to the legal dictionary -- 6.3.1 Analysis of lexicographic treatment of legal terms -- 6.3.1.2 A glance at multilingual databases of EU law -- 6.3.2 Coping with different types of equivalence in a legal dictionary -- 6.3.2.1 What to do in case of non-equivalence -- 6.4 Choosing the right approach to legal translation in the EU context -- 6.4.1 Using functional equivalents when translating EU legal concepts -- 6.5 Practical guidelines for legal translators working in the EU -- 6.6 Summary -- 7. Multilingual legal dictionaries.

7.1 Introduction -- 7.2 Reinventing the dictionary -- 7.2.1 The future of legal dictionaries -- 7.3 The role of theory in the making of dictionaries -- 7.3.1 Terminography -- 7.3.2 Domains -- 7.4 The role of definitions in a legal dictionary -- 7.4.1 Redefining the role of legal definitions -- 7.4.2 The problems of defining and categorizing EU legal concepts -- 7.4.3 Subject-field classification -- 7.5 Filling a gap in legal lexicography -- 7.5.1 Prototype giveth, terminography taketh -- 7.5.2 Teleological definitions -- 7.6 Integrating extralinguistic information into the dictionary -- 7.6.1 Parts of the ontological structure -- 8. Methodology for the making of a termontological dictionary -- 8.1 Introduction -- 8.2 Termontographic methodology -- 8.2.1 Search phase -- 8.2.2 Information-gathering phase -- 8.2.3 Refinement phase -- 8.2.4 Teleological definitions of indeterminate legal concepts -- 8.2.4.1 Public health -- 8.2.4.2 Worker -- 8.4.2.3 Establishment -- 8.3 Dictionary display of indeterminate EU law concepts -- 8.3.1 Parent company -- 8.3.2 Subsidiary company -- 8.3.3 Company of a Member State -- 8.3.4 Company of a Member State -- 8.3.5 Wholly artificial arrangement -- 8.3.6 Merger -- 8.4 Verification phase -- 8.5 Form of the termontological dictionary -- 9. Concluding remarks and directions for future research -- 9.1 Digitalisation and customized lexicography -- Bibliography -- Appendix 1 -- a. Legislative acts: -- b. Case law: -- c. Textbooks: -- Appendix 2 -- a. Legislative acts: -- b. Books and articles: -- Subject index.

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, 2024. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries.