UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRIESTE

XXV CICLO DEL DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN

SCIENZE DELL’INTERPRETAZIONE E DELLA TRADUZIONE

TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE AND VARIATION

IN THE EU MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION:
A CASE STUDY ON VICTIMS OF CRIME
Settore scientifico-disciplinare: L-LIN/12

DOTTORANDA
KATIA PERUZZO

COORDINATORE
PROF. FEDERICA SCARPA

SUPERVISORE DI TESI
PROF. MARELLA MAGRIS

CO-SUPERVISORE DI TESI
PROF. FEDERICA SCARPA

CO-SUPERVISORE DI TESI
PROF. MITJA GIALUZ

ANNO ACCADEMICO 2011 / 2012

to the memory of my beloved grandmother,

Liliana
 There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.

Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven

 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 1

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 TERMINOLOGY: A POLYSEMOUS TERM....................................................................................................... 7

1.2 TERMINOLOGY AND PAROLE ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 DYNAMISM AND TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 11
1.4 LEGAL TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 12
1.4.1 Legal language as a language for special purposes ..................................................................... 12
1.4.2 Legal terminology in the EU multi-level jurisdiction .................................................................... 15
1.5 AIMS OF THIS THESIS ............................................................................................................................... 17
1.6 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS .......................................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 2. THE AREA OF LAW: VICTIMS OF CRIME ........................................................................ 23

2.1 THE NOTION OF ‘VICTIM’ IN INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS ...................................................................... 23

2.2 THE NOTION OF ‘VICTIM’ IN SUPRANATIONAL DOCUMENTS ..................................................................... 25
2.3 INTERNATIONAL VICTIM-RELATED DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................... 26
2.3.1 Protection of victims of crime ....................................................................................................... 27
2.3.2 Compensation to victims of crime ................................................................................................. 28
2.3.3 The position of victims of crime in criminal proceedings and their rights .................................... 29
2.3.4 Mediation in criminal cases .......................................................................................................... 30
2.4 EUROPEAN UNION VICTIM-RELATED DOCUMENTS ................................................................................... 33
2.4.1 European Union documents as supranational documents ............................................................ 34
2.4.2 Victims of crime in the framework of European Union legislation ............................................... 36
2.4.3 Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA ............................................................................... 41
2.4.4 Council Directive 2004/80/EC ...................................................................................................... 46
2.4.5 Council Directive 2012/29/EU ...................................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 55

3.1 THE METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 55

3.1.1 The type of terminographic work .................................................................................................. 55
3.1.2 The object of study ........................................................................................................................ 56
3.1.3 The order of the methodological phases ....................................................................................... 58
3.2 CABRÉ’S METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 58
3.3 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF MULTILINGUAL TERMINOLOGY IN THE EU MULTI-
LEVEL JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................................................... 60
3.3.1 STEP 1. Definition of the terminographic work and the area of knowledge ................................. 61
 3.3.1.1 Definition of the pragmatic and linguistic variables ............................................................................ 62
3.3.1.1.1 Definition of the area of knowledge ............................................................................................... 62
3.3.1.1.2 Definition of the addressees ........................................................................................................... 63
3.3.1.1.3 Definition of the languages and the type of terminology ............................................................... 63
3.3.1.1.4 Definition of the scope ................................................................................................................... 66
3.3.1.2 Choice of IT tools, reference materials and consultants and acquisition of information about the area
of knowledge ............................................................................................................................................................ 66
3.3.1.3 Preliminary frame-based conceptual structuring of the area of knowledge ......................................... 68
3.3.2 STEP 2. Compilation of the EU parallel corpus ........................................................................... 68
3.3.2.1 Design of the parallel corpus ............................................................................................................... 69
3.3.2.1.1 Internal criterion ............................................................................................................................. 69
3.3.2.1.2 External criteria .............................................................................................................................. 70
3.3.2.2 Retrieval of documents ........................................................................................................................ 72
3.3.2.3 Organisation and classification of texts ............................................................................................... 74
3.3.2.3.1 Size and structure ........................................................................................................................... 76
3.3.2.3.2 Text type ........................................................................................................................................ 77
3.3.2.3.2.1 Legal language and text classification ...................................................................................... 78
3.3.3 STEP 3. Terminographic processing of the EU corpus ................................................................. 83
3.3.3.1 Semi-automatic extraction of candidate terms ..................................................................................... 83
3.3.3.1.1 AntConc ......................................................................................................................................... 86
3.3.3.1.2 TermoStat Web 3.0 ........................................................................................................................ 88
3.3.3.2 Terminological analysis....................................................................................................................... 90
3.3.3.2.1 Bilingual cross-check and identification of translation equivalents ............................................... 90
3.3.3.2.2 Extraction of linguistic, pragmatic, and conceptual information .................................................... 95
3.3.4 STEP 4. Selection of national comparable texts ........................................................................... 96
3.3.5 STEP 5. Terminographic processing of national comparable texts ............................................ 101
3.3.6 STEP 6. Population of a translation-oriented terminological knowledge base .......................... 106
3.3.6.1 Term clustering ................................................................................................................................. 106
3.3.6.2 Cross-linguistic term matching .......................................................................................................... 108
3.3.6.3 Conceptual (re)structuring of the area of knowledge ......................................................................... 109
3.3.7 STEP 7. Revision and validation ................................................................................................. 110
3.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 111

CHAPTER 4. VICTIMS OF CRIME FROM A MONOLINGUAL TERMINOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE: TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION ................................................................................ 113

4.1 STATE OF THE ART IN THE STUDY OF TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION ...................................................... 113
4.1.1 The exclusion of terminological variation from standardisation-oriented terminology theories 113
4.1.2 The inclusion of terminological variation in terminology studies ............................................... 115
4.2 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION: A POLYSEMOUS TERM ........................................................................... 119
4.2.1 Terminological variation according to Ibekwe-SanJuan ............................................................ 120
4.2.2 Terminological variation according to Daille............................................................................. 122
4.2.3 Terminological variation according to Jacquemin ..................................................................... 124
4.2.4 Terminological variation according to Freixa ............................................................................ 125
4.2.4.1 Freixa’s classification of causes of denominative variation............................................................... 126
 Table of Contents

4.3 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION FROM A BI- AND MULTILINGUAL PERSPECTIVE....................................... 130

4.4 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION FROM A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TEXTUAL PERSPECTIVE ....................... 132
4.4.1 The concept of ‘concept’ in terminology theory .......................................................................... 133
4.4.2 The concept of ‘concept’ in this study ......................................................................................... 136
4.5 DENOMINATIVE VARIATION IN A MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION ............................................................... 138
4.5.1 First variable: degree of specialisation ...................................................................................... 139
4.5.1.1 Horizontal denominative variation .................................................................................................... 141
4.5.1.1.1 Inflectional variation .................................................................................................................... 142
4.5.1.1.2 Syntactic variation........................................................................................................................ 144
4.5.1.1.3 Morphosyntactic variation............................................................................................................ 147
4.5.1.1.4 Lexical variation .......................................................................................................................... 148
4.5.1.1.5 Variation through expansion/reduction ........................................................................................ 152
4.5.1.1.6 Graphic variation.......................................................................................................................... 160
4.5.1.1.7 Combined variation ...................................................................................................................... 160
4.5.2 Second variable: time span ......................................................................................................... 161
4.5.2.1 Univocal terms .................................................................................................................................. 163
4.5.2.2 Non-univocal terms ........................................................................................................................... 165
4.5.3 Third variable: conceptual (legal) system(s) .............................................................................. 168
4.5.4 Fourth variable: legal force ........................................................................................................ 170
4.6 CONCEPTUAL VARIATION IN A MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION .................................................................. 172
4.6.1 Intra-systemic conceptual variation ............................................................................................ 173
4.6.2 Inter-systemic conceptual variation ............................................................................................ 175
4.7 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 176

CHAPTER 5. VICTIMS OF CRIME FROM A MULTILINGUAL TERMINOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE: TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE.......................................................................... 177

5.1 TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE AND TRANSLATIONAL EQUIVALENCE ................................................ 177

5.2 TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE IN LEGAL TERMINOLOGY ................................................................... 179
5.3 TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE IN THE EU MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION ............................................ 180
5.3.1 Terms and named entities ............................................................................................................ 190
5.3.2 Degrees of equivalence and terminographic processing............................................................. 192
5.3.2.1 Interlingual intra-systemic equivalence ............................................................................................. 193
5.3.2.2 Interlingual inter-systemic equivalence ............................................................................................. 194
5.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 197

CHAPTER 6. VICTIMS OF CRIME FROM A TERMINOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE. MULEX: A

LEGAL TRANSLATION-ORIENTED TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASE............................ 199

6.1 FROM TERMINOLOGICAL DATABASES TO TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASES .................................. 199

6.2 FROM TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASES TO ONTOLOGIES .............................................................. 201
6.3 FROM ONTOLOGIES TO ONTOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASES ...................................... 203
6.4 MULEX: A LEGAL-TRANSLATOR ORIENTED TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASE ................................ 209
6.4.1 MuLex: terminographic entries and graphic user interface........................................................ 213
6.4.1.1 Conceptual information ..................................................................................................................... 215
 6.4.1.1.1 Concept fields .............................................................................................................................. 216
6.4.1.1.2 Conceptual relational structures ................................................................................................... 220
6.4.1.1.2.1 Conceptual relations ............................................................................................................... 224
6.4.1.1.3 Legal system ................................................................................................................................ 225
6.4.1.1.4 Definition ..................................................................................................................................... 226
6.4.1.1.5 Equivalence .................................................................................................................................. 231
6.4.1.1.6 Term variants and notes on terminological variation ................................................................... 232
6.4.1.2 Linguistic information ....................................................................................................................... 234
6.4.1.2.1 Context ......................................................................................................................................... 236
6.5 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 238

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ............................................................................... 241

7.1 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 241

7.1.1 Terminological dynamism: variation .......................................................................................... 243
7.1.2 Terminological dynamism: equivalence ...................................................................................... 245
7.1.3 Capturing terminological dynamism in MuLex ........................................................................... 247
7.2 FUTURE WORK ....................................................................................................................................... 249

ANNEX 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 253

ANNEX 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 263

ANNEX 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 265

ANNEX 4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 271

ANNEX 5 ........................................................................................................................................................... 283

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 295

 List of Figures

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1. Stages followed in a systematic monolingual terminological work according to

Cabré (1999: 131)..................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.2. Stages followed in the terminological analysis of multilingual terminology in a
multi-level jurisdiction. ............................................................................................................ 61
Figure 3.3. Bhatia’s genre distinction in the legal language (Bhatia 1987: 227). .................... 79
Figure 3.4. Genre distinction of the EU corpus in the classification of written legal language
(blue box). ................................................................................................................................ 81
Figure 3.5. Screenshot of the word list (ranks 1-21) of the English subcorpus without
footnotes generated with AntConc. .......................................................................................... 86
Figure 3.6. Screenshot of the word list (ranks 1-21) of the Italian subcorpus without footnotes
generated with AntConc. .......................................................................................................... 87
Figure 3.7. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: state compensation scheme, scheme. .... 91
Figure 3.8. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: vittima/e particolarmente vulnerabile/i. 92
Figure 3.9. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: child victim(s). ...................................... 93
Figure 3.10. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: violent intentional crime. ...................... 94
Figure 3.11. Genre distinction of national texts in the classification of written legal language
(blue box). ................................................................................................................................ 97
Figure 3.12. Example of anisomorphism in conceptual relations. genotype: CHILD VICTIM. 109
Figure 5.1. Assessment of interlingual equivalence on the basis of the genotype-phenotype
distinction. .............................................................................................................................. 183
Figure 5.2. Assessment of interlingual equivalence on the basis of the genotype-phenotype
distinction. A case of terminological and conceptual vacuum. Example: CRIMINAL INJURIES
COMPENSATION AUTHORITY. .................................................................................................. 190
Figure 6.1. Fields containing conceptual information in the MuLex graphic user interface
(highlighted in yellow). .......................................................................................................... 216
Figure 6.2. Conceptual template for the legal area of victims of crime. ................................ 218
Figure 6.3. Differences in conceptual relational structures related to the same concept.
Searched term: Victim Support Europe. ................................................................................ 223
Figure 6.4. Presence of a conceptual relational structure related to a single legal system.
Searched term: Victim Support. ............................................................................................. 223
Figure 6.5. Colours associated to conceptual relations in MuLex. ........................................ 224
Figure 6.6. Different conceptual relations in a conceptual relational structure. Searched term:
child victim. ............................................................................................................................ 225
Figure 6.7. “Legal system” field in the MuLex graphic user interface. ................................. 226
Figure 6.8. Visualisation of the “Term variant” an “Notes on terminological variation” fields
for the Italian main term risarcimento da parte dello Stato. ................................................... 233
Figure 6.9. Fields containing linguistic information in the MuLex graphic user interface
(highlighted in yellow). .......................................................................................................... 234
Figure 6.10. Example of a term with one context only. Searched term: qualifying claimant.
................................................................................................................................................ 237
Figure 6.11. Example of a term with two contexts. Searched term: assisting authority. ....... 237
 List of Tables

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Distribution of number of documents and types and tokens in the EU corpus. ................ 76
Table 3.2. Distribution of documents in text-type categories in the EU corpus. ............................... 83
Table 4.1. Types of variation according to the different variable taken into consideration. ........... 139
Table 4.2. Possible lexical variants obtained considering a variable number of elements constituting
the terminological units. ................................................................................................................... 148
Table 4.3. Possible lexical variants obtained considering a the elements being modified in multi-
word terminological units. ............................................................................................................... 149
Table 4.4. English term variants through expansion. ....................................................................... 154
Table 4.5. Italian term variants through expansion. ......................................................................... 156
Table 4.6. English term variants through reduction. ........................................................................ 158
Table 4.7. Italian term variants through reduction. .......................................................................... 158
Table 4.8. Correspondence of univocal terms in the EU corpus...................................................... 163
Table 4.9. Examples of behavioural patterns of English non-univocal terms. ................................ 166
Table 4.10. Examples of behavioural patterns of Italian non-univocal terms. ................................ 166
Table 4.11. Diachronic variation in the term cluster referring to the MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL
CASES genotype.............................................................................................................................. 167
Table 4.12. Inter-systemic denominative variation in the Italian term cluster referring to the
MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES genotype. ........................................................................... 170
Table 4.13. Denominative variation in terms of legal force in the Italian term cluster referring to the
RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME genotype. ............................................................................... 171
Table 5.1. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction. ...................................................................................................................................... 184
Table 5.2. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction. Example: LEGAL AID. ................................................................................................... 185
Table 5.3. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction. Example: CIVIL PARTY. ................................................................................................ 186
Table 5.4. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction. Example: QUALIFYING CLAIMANT. ............................................................................... 187
Table 5.5. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction. Example: CROSS-BORDER VICTIM. ................................................................................ 187
Table 5.6. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction. Example: CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY. ....................................... 189
Table 6.1. List of fields containing linguistic information in MuLex.............................................. 235
 Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Prof. Marella Magris, whose passion for
terminology and warm words have accompanied me throughout my PhD years. I would like
to thank her for supporting me and giving me a feeling of security in all the steps of this
research project. I would like to express my profound thanks to my co-supervisor, Prof.
Federica Scarpa, for her close and accurate supervision, her constant encouragement and the
excellent research opportunities she has provided me with. My sincere thanks go to my co-
supervisor, Prof. Dr. Mitja Gialuz, who inspired me with his endless enthusiasm for criminal
law and offered me the opportunity to look at the peculiarities of legal terminology from a
lawyer’s rather than a translator’s perspective.
I am especially grateful to Prof. Dr. Rita Temmerman, for welcoming me wholeheartedly into
her team at the Centre for Special Language Studies and Communication, Erasmushogeschool
Brussel, and for all her wisdom and guidance during and after my stay abroad. I must also
thank the whole CVC team for always making me feel like I belonged there.
I am particularly thankful to Professor Dr. Alenka Kocbek of the University of Primorska,
who has followed and supported my work over the past year.
There have been many people that I have had the opportunity to collaborate or exchange ideas
with in these years. I would like to thank Dr. Giuseppe Palumbo and Dr. Stefano Ondelli, for
generously providing their support and advice every time I needed, and Paola Valli and Carla
Quinci, for giving me courage as colleagues and friends. Special tanks go also to Prof.
Pérette-Cécile Buffaria, for trusting in me and encouraging me. I am grateful to Dr. Isabel
Durán-Muñoz, for motivating my interest in terminology and knowledge representation and
sharing with me the joys and struggles of co-writing. My thanks go to Anne-Kathrin
Schumann, for being a constant source of academic delight and surprise.
I am very thankful to Enrico Paoli, for opening my eyes to the tantalizing but at the same time
bewildering world of programming, for his virtual assistance and enormous patience.
Finally, I could not have completed this research project without the support of all my friends
and family. I want to express my gratitude to Marco, who has backed me up in all my
decisions and whose love has offered me the stability in personal life necessary to pursue my
ambitions. I would like to thank my parents, Ornella and Giorgio, for standing by my side and

1
their loving support, and my sister, Alessia, who can’t help being bewildered by my interest in
studying and researching. I must also thank Lidia and Sandro, for being there every time I
needed. My deepest love and gratitude go to my grandmother, Liliana, for her unconditional
love. I feel blessed that I have had the opportunity to have someone special like her in my life.

2
 Abstract

ABSTRACT

This research project aims at studying the English and Italian legal terminology related to the
area of law of victims of crime and embedded in the multi-level jurisdiction provided by the
supranational legal system of the European Union (EU), on the one hand, and the British and
Italian national legal systems, on the other. The main hypothesis is that legal language is
inherently characterised by terminological dynamism, which emerges both at the linguistic
level – with different terms used to refer to individual legal concepts – and at the conceptual
level, where different conceptualisations of the same legal domain are reflected. Since the
bilingual legal terminology that has been examined occurs within a judicial space in which
several legal systems are interconnected, such dynamism is expected to manifest itself in two
different linguistic settings. In the first, the terminology in a national and an EU variety of the
same language is taken into consideration, while in the second setting, terminology is studied
from a multilingual perspective.
In order to verify the main hypothesis, a methodological framework has been set out, on the
basis of both the methodological premises for terminological analysis proposed by Cabré
(1999a) and the distinction between genotypes and phenotypes introduced by Sacco (1991).
Such a methodology required the compilation of a bilingual corpus of EU legal texts and a
collection of national legal texts focusing on the figure of the victim of crime.
The examination of the terminology extracted has shown that in the first linguistic setting
envisaged, intralingual dynamism is reflected in terminological variation, which can affect
either the linguistic layer (denominative variation) or the conceptual layer (conceptual
variation) of terminology, with denominative variation consisting in the co-existence of
several terminological units in which no substantial difference in the phenotypes involved is
produced, while in conceptual variation anisomorphism among the phenotypes can be
observed. In both cases, all the terms affected by the phenomenon of terminological variation
are related to the same genotype. A classification of denominative variation has been
proposed based on four variables, i.e. degree of specialisation, time span, legal system, and
legal force. Due to the methodology adopted in this research project, in which the EU legal
terminology has been taken as the starting point for both the terminological analysis and the

3
preliminary conceptual structuring of the legal area of the study, conceptual variation has
emerged to be less frequent than denominative variation. By taking the legal system as a
variable in the analysis of conceptual variation, such variation has been subdivided into intra-
systemic variation, occurring within a single legal system, and inter-systemic variation, when
the supranational and the national legal systems elaborate two conceptually different
phenotypes which, in spite of their conceptual anisomorphism, can be linked to the same
genotype.
In the second linguistic setting, where terminology is studied from a multilingual perspective,
legal terminology has turned out to be characterised by different degrees of interlingual
equivalence. On account of the embeddedness of the legal terminology examined in three
different legal systems, different types and degrees of terminological equivalence have been
identified and discussed: the types of terminological equivalence are intra-systemic and inter-
systemic equivalence, while the degrees of equivalence are absolute equivalence, relative
equivalence and non-equivalence.
Another aim of this thesis was to record the collected terminological data in a legal
translation-oriented terminological knowledge base (TKB). The terminology under discussion
is characterised by a high degree of dependency on the legal system it refers to and the
MuLex terminological knowledge base was specifically designed for helping the work of
legal translators. This TKB aims at capturing the differences among the legal systems
involved in the study and showing the peculiarities in the usage of legal terminology in such
legal systems to its end users. For optimising the representation of the domain-specific
knowledge implied by legal terminology, in MuLex terminographic entries integrate a tool
enabling the graphic representation of the conceptual relational structures among the concepts
analysed and recorded in the TKB.

4
 Abstract

ABSTRACT

Il presente progetto di ricerca ha lo scopo di analizzare la terminologia giuridica in lingua

inglese e italiana relativa alla figura della vittima di reato e radicata nello spazio giuridico
europeo, caratterizzato dalla coesistenza dell’ordinamento giuridico sovranazionale
dell’Unione europea (UE) e degli ordinamenti giuridici nazionali del Regno Unito e
dell’Italia. Secondo l’ipotesi principale alla base del progetto, il linguaggio giuridico è
intrinsecamente caratterizzato da un certo grado di dinamismo terminologico, che si esprime
sia a livello linguistico, con una serie di termini utilizzati per riferirsi a uno stesso concetto,
sia a livello concettuale, dove si riflettono le diverse concettualizzazioni della stessa area del
diritto. Poiché la terminologia giuridica analizzata nella presente tesi si colloca in uno spazio
giuridico che vede il sovrapporsi di vari ordinamenti, si presume che detto dinamismo si
manifesti in due diversi contesti linguistici. Nel primo contesto, che è di tipo intralinguistico,
viene presa in considerazione la terminologia utilizzata nelle varianti nazionale e
sovranazionale della stessa lingua, mentre nel secondo contesto, di tipo interlinguistico, la
terminologia è esaminata da una prospettiva multilingue.
Al fine di verificare la veridicità di tale ipotesi, è stata sviluppata una metodologia per
l’analisi della terminologia giuridica in cui la distinzione tra genotipi e fenotipi introdotta da
Sacco (1991) si unisce ai principi metodologici proposti da Cabré (1999a) per il lavoro
terminografico. Per poter applicare detta metodologia è stato necessario costruire un corpus
bilingue di testi dell’Unione europea e una collezione di testi di origine nazionale, entrambi
incentrati sulla figura della vittima di reato.
L’analisi della terminologia estratta ha rivelato che, nel primo contesto linguistico, il
dinamismo intralinguistico si riflette nella variazione terminologica, che può interessare sia la
sfera linguistica della terminologia (variazione denominativa) sia la sfera concettuale
(variazione concettuale). La variazione denominativa consiste nell’esistenza di più unità
terminologiche per designare uno stesso concetto, che però non comporta modifiche
sostanziali nei relativi fenotipi. Nel caso della variazione concettuale, invece, è possibile
riscontrare un certo anisomorfismo nei fenotipi. In entrambi i casi, tuttavia, tutti i termini
interessati dal fenomeno della variazione terminologica mantengono la relazione con uno
stesso genotipo. Si è proposta una classificazione della variazione denominativa prendendo in

5
considerazione quattro variabili, ossia il livello di specializzazione, il periodo temporale,
l’ordinamento giuridico e la valenza giuridica. Visto l’approccio metodologico adottato nel
presente progetto di ricerca, in cui la terminologia giuridica dell’Unione europea è presa come
punto di partenza ai fini dell’analisi terminologica e della strutturazione preliminare del
sistema concettuale relativo al dominio, la variazione concettuale è stata riscontrata con minor
frequenza rispetto alla variazione denominativa. Nell’analisi del secondo tipo di variazione
terminologica, ossia della variazione concettuale, è stata presa in considerazione un’unica
variabile, ovvero l’ordinamento giuridico. In base a tale variabile, la variazione concettuale è
stata classificata come intra-sistemica, qualora sia riscontrata nell’ambito dello stesso
ordinamento giuridico, ed inter-sistemica, qualora l’ordinamento sovranazionale e quello
nazionale elaborino due fenotipi concettualmente diversi che, a prescindere dalle divergenze
concettuali, possono essere ricondotti allo stesso genotipo.
Nel secondo contesto linguistico, ovvero quello multilingue, la terminologia giuridica si è
dimostrata caratterizzata da diversi gradi di equivalenza interlinguistica. Essendo la
terminologia esaminata radicata in tre sistemi giuridici diversi, sono stati individuati due
diversi tipi di equivalenza terminologica, ossia l’equivalenza intra- e inter-sistemica, e tre
diversi gradi di equivalenza terminologica, ovvero l’equivalenza assoluta, l’equivalenza
relativa e la non equivalenza.
Altro scopo della presente tesi era quello di registrare le informazioni terminologiche raccolte
in una base di conoscenza terminologica orientata alla traduzione giuridica. Giacché la
terminologia esaminata è caratterizzata da un alto tasso di dipendenza dall’ordinamento
giuridico a cui fa riferimento, la base di conoscenza terminologica MuLex è stata concepita
specificamente come ausilio alla traduzione giuridica. MuLex ha quindi lo scopo di esplicitare
le differenze riscontrate tra i sistemi giuridici esaminati e spiegare le peculiarità dell’uso di
tale terminologia giuridica agli utenti finali. Al fine di ottimizzare la rappresentazione della
conoscenza soggiacente la terminologia giuridica, le schede terminografiche in MuLex sono
dotate di uno strumento di visualizzazione che consente la rappresentazione grafica delle
strutture relazionali concettuali che raffigurano i concetti analizzati registrati nella base di
conoscenza stessa.

6
 Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of Chapter 1 is to delineate the theoretical framework for the study of multilingual
legal terminology embedded in the multi-level jurisdiction made of the supranational legal
system of the European Union (EU), on the one hand, and the British and Italian national
legal systems, on the other.

1.1 TERMINOLOGY : A POLYSEMOUS TERM

In order to provide the theoretical framework for the study of legal terminology in a multi-
level jurisdiction, it is first of all necessary to understand how the term “terminology” is used
in this doctoral thesis. In contemporary usage, the term “terminology” bears three different
meanings (see Cabré 1999a: 32; Magris et al. 2002: i; Sager 1990: 3):
 the set of practices and methodologies applied for the collection, description and
presentation of terms in one or more languages;
 the set of theoretical premises, arguments and conclusions required for explaining the
relations between concepts and terms;
 the set of terms belonging to a single subject area.
According to the first meaning, terminology consists in an activity or practical application. In
order to distinguish it from the second and third meaning of “terminology”, in 1995 Alain Rey
proposed the neologism “terminography” (Rey 1995: 129), which was in line with the
existing distinction between lexicology and lexicography. In ISO Standard 1087-1 on
terminology work, the term “terminology work” corresponds to what Rey called
“terminography”, since it is defined as the “work concerned with the systematic collection,
description, processing and presentation of concepts […] and their designations […]” (ISO
1087-1 2000: Section 3.6.1). In the Standard, on the other hand, “terminography” is assigned
a narrower meaning, being limited to the “part of terminology work […] concerned with the
recording and presentation of terminological data […]” (ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.6.2).
With reference to the practical activity, in this thesis the neologism introduced by Rey and the

7
Chapter 1

adjective “terminographic” derived from it are used in the broadest sense, and the expression
“terminographic work” is used as a synonym of “terminography”.
A further terminological clarification is also needed with regard to the second and the third
meaning mentioned above. In ISO Standard 1087-1, the second meaning is assigned to what
is referred to as “terminology science” (ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.5.2), while the third
meaning corresponds to a “set of designations […] belonging to one special language […]”
(ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.5.1). In order to distinguish between the two, in this thesis the
science is referred to as “Terminology” with a capital letter, while a set of terms is designated
by the term “terminology” with a lowercase letter (see Faber 2009: 110).
So far, the term “term” has been used without further specification. The discussion on the
definition of what a term is has played a central role in Terminology for almost forty years
(see, among others, Akhmanova 1974; Cabré 1999a; Collet 2004a; L’Homme et al. 2003;
Kageura 1995; Rey 1995). Originally, the discussion on the nature of terms in Terminology
was focused mainly on the distinctive traits of terms as compared to words found in general
language (see, for instance, Felber 1984). However, the dichotomy between words on the one
hand and terms on the other has been appropriately questioned by several authors (see Cabré
2003; Kageura 2002; Picht & Draskau 1985, among others). Therefore, for the purposes of
this research study the theses proposed by Myking are applied to the study of terminology in
general and individual terms in particular:

 There are no fixed boundaries between specialised communication

and other forms of communication, and, consequently,
 There are no fixed boundaries between terms and the rest of
vocabulary and phraseology. (Myking 2007: 74)

In line with this view, it can be stated that special language or language for special purposes
(LSP) is not something substantially different from natural language, but is rather natural
language used in a specific communicative setting. Since LSPs are thus sublanguages of a
natural language, it follows that “[a]ll terms are words” and “term status is a matter of
communicative behaviour” (Myking 2007: 83). As observed by Kageura, “[a]ny definition is
controversial and provisional outside a specific context, and the validity of any definition of
term should be supported by an explicitly declared theoretical standpoint and the concrete
description of the phenomena based upon it” (Kageura 2002: 11). Therefore, while the
provision of a general and universally acceptable definition is out of the scope of this research
project, in this thesis a “term” is conceived in line with the definition provided by De Bessé,
et al. (1997: 152), but taking Kageura’s remarks into account as well (Kageura 2002: 10).
8
 Introduction

Whereas a further illustration of the multidimensional character of terms is provided in

Section 3.1.2, here it is sufficient to consider a term or terminological unit to be a
lexical unit consisting of one or more than one lexical items which represents a concept inside
a domain. The concept of ‘concept’, which is also a widely debated topic in Terminology, is
not a major concern at the moment and is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.4.1.

1.2 TERMINOLOGY AND PAROLE

The beginnings of scientific studies in the terminological field in the 1930s are generally
attributed to Eugen Wüster, who elaborated the first theoretical proposal in Terminology,
which is nowadays known as the General Terminology Theory (GTT) or the traditional
terminology theory and is further discussed in relation to terminological variation in
Section 4.1.1. The standpoint adopted in the GTT is “essentially prescriptive in nature” (Faber
2009: 110), since its principles for the compilation and description of terminological data
have been elaborated with a view to achieving unambiguous communication by means of the
standardisation of scientific language. The standardisation purposes pursued by the GTT have
been accompanied by a belief in the dichotomy between the conceptual realm and
terminology in its third meaning, where concepts play a central role. In other words, “[a]ny
terminology work starts with concepts” (Felber 1984: 98), and this establishes the precedence
of concepts over terms, which are considered independent from the conceptual system. The
terminographic work envisaged by Felber and the GTT in general is standardisation-oriented,
which means that the principles elaborated by the GTT, though allegedly applicable to all
types of terminological and terminographic studies, are not universal by reason of the bias
posed by their scope. Within the GTT framework, the focus on concepts and conceptual
systems was seen as crucial for the description and organization of terminological data.
Moreover, in the GTT terminological information was conceived as an idealised, standardised
version of LSP, since the aim pursued by the supporters of this theory was to eliminate all the
sources of ambiguity or linguistic aspects which could hinder straightforward communication,
such as synonymy and variation. Quoting Temmerman discussing Kageura’s view of the
GTT, it can be said that “[t]he emphasis of traditional Terminology is on the language system
(langue)” (Temmerman 2000a: 33).
The GTT can be said to have monopolised the theoretical debate for more than fifty years.
However, the 1990s saw the emergence of new approaches – further analysed concerning

9
Chapter 1

terminological variation in Section 4.1.2 – which started undermining the hegemony of the
traditional terminology theory and “integrating Terminology into a wider social,
communicative, and linguistic context” (Faber 2009: 112). Such alternative approaches have
moved away from the standardisation-oriented practices supported by the GTT and
acknowledged the need for theoretical frameworks allowing for the analysis of term
behaviour in context (descriptive approach) rather than forcing the usage of a standardised
terminology in context (prescriptive approach). By observing terms in their natural habitat,
i.e. texts, descriptive approaches have contributed new perspectives on the concept of ‘term’
in Terminology (see Section 3.1.2) and have also led to the consideration of terminological
phenomena that were neglected by the GTT, such as terminological variation, which is
illustrated in Chapter 4. These theoretical approaches have also envisaged a wide variety of
applications of terminography other than standardisation, such as information extraction and
retrieval, where no precedence is assigned to the analysis of the conceptual system over
terminological data found in authentic textual material. According to several authors (see
Cabré 2003; L’Homme et al. 2003; Temmerman 2000a, among others), the alternative
approaches to the GTT are:
 Socioterminology (Gambier 1991; Gaudin 1993), which integrates sociolinguistic
principles in Terminology and focuses on terminological variation occurring in different
social and situational contexts;
 Textual Terminology (Bourigault & Slodzian 1999), which focuses on the real use of
terminology in texts (see Condamines 2010: 46) by incorporating methods developed in
the field of Corpus Linguistics;
 Communicative Theory of Terminology (CTT) (Cabré 2000), according to which
terminological units “are at one and the same time units of knowledge, units of language
and units of communication” (Cabré 2003: 183) and, therefore, the analysis of such units
requires that the cognitive, linguistic as well as socio-communicative components of
terms are accounted for;
 Sociocognitive Terminology (Temmerman 2000a, 2000b), in which insights from
Cognitive Semantics on prototype structure, analogical thinking and metaphorisation are
exploited for the reformulation of the concept of ‘concept’ and the elaboration of the
concept of ‘unit of understanding’, which is necessary for explaining terminological
variation occurring in different verbal, situational and cognitive contexts.

10
 Introduction

In this research project, the detailed analysis of alternative approaches is not seen as essential
for the analysis of legal terminology in the EU multi-level jurisdiction 1 . However, in the
above mentioned terminology theories a common trait has been observed which is considered
to be fundamental for the study presented in this thesis, i.e. the descriptive approach to
terminology. Since the “termhood” (Kageura & Umino 1996: 261) or “termness” (Myking
2007: 85) of a lexical unit can only be established on the basis of the communicative setting
where the lexical unit is embedded, terms should be analysed in their natural habitat, i.e. at the
textual level. This means that the shift from a prescriptive approach to terminology towards
multiple descriptive approaches has also entailed a shift in focus from langue to parole (see
Kageura 2002: 11–14). Since the aim of this study is to describe the behaviour of legal
terminology in the EU, British and Italian legal systems, the selected approach is necessarily
descriptive in nature and thus focuses on the usage of such terminology in the realm of
parole.

1.3 DYNAMISM AND TERMINOLOGY

In Section 1.2, the differences in the prescriptive approach proposed by the General Theory of
Terminology and the descriptive approaches developed ever since the early 1990s have been
outlined. Given the shift in focus from langue to parole, it comes as no surprise that in the last
two decades interest has grown for terminological phenomena that in the GTT framework
were considered an impediment to unambiguous communication and therefore eliminated by
means of standardisation. In the GTT, instances of synonymy and polysemy were seen as
deviant forms of expression, while the ideal situation was represented by univocity, according
to which only one term should be assigned to a concept and only one concept should be
designated by a term. As stated by Cabré, “[b]y limiting its objectives to the achievement of
univocity in professional communication, the GTT ignores the complexity of the
interdisciplinary approach implied in its own foundation and denies the communicative needs
of professionals for adequate terminological support” (Cabré 2000: 42). In such a static view
of terminology, the concept-term relation can be conceived more as the result of a deliberate
terminographic/standardisation activity than as a consequence of natural conceptual and
linguistic evolution of a knowledge domain. Owing to the fact that the conceptual system is

1
For a critical examination of the General Theory of Terminology and a discussion on alternative theories to it,
see Cabré (2003), Durán Muñoz (2012), L’Homme et al. (2003) and Temmerman (2000a), among others.

11
Chapter 1

independent from language and shared among the domain experts, in the GTT the one-to-one
concept-term relation was seen as permanent and universal.
However, as proven by the alternative theories to the GTT mentioned in Section 1.2, it is very
difficult to reconcile the univocity principle and the universality of concept-term relations
with empirical data obtained by observing terminology at the parole level. Due to the static
view on the conceptual system underlying terminology, the GTT requires a synchronic
elaboration (see Felber 1984: 98). This means that, by adopting the GTT approach, not only
linguistic phenomena such as polysemy and synonymy are eliminated by means of
standardisation, but the possibility of observing terminological (conceptual and linguistic)
evolution on a diachronic axis is hampered (Temmerman 1997: 62). On the other hand, in
recent years it has been acknowledged that “all technical terminologies, even the most highly
standardized ones, are also affected by basic lexico-semantic processes, such as the
development of polysemy, synonymy and so on” (Fuertes-Olivera 2005: 43). In such cases,
“the use of one term instead of another can reflect the knowledge, social and professional
status of a group of users, as well as the power relationships between speakers” (Faber 2009:
113). Therefore, ever since the 1990s, terminology theories have accounted for the dynamism
that affects terminology both at the conceptual and linguistic (parole) level. Such dynamism
can be observed monolingually, in which case it is generally reflected in terminological
variation, or multilingually, where it influences terminological equivalence. The phenomena
of terminological variation and terminological equivalence are the keystones of this research
project and are further discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. In order to examine them, a
set of legal terms regarding the legal area of victims of crime as developed by the EU, British
and Italian legal systems has been collected.

1.4 LEGAL TERMINOLOGY

Since the terminology concerning victims of crime examined in this thesis falls into the broad
category of legal terminology, in the following section the main characteristics of legal
terminology in the EU multi-level jurisdiction will be presented.

1.4.1 LEGAL LANGUAGE AS A LANGUAGE FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES

The research study presented in this thesis consists in the examination of multilingual legal
terminology embedded in the multi-level jurisdiction made of the EU supranational legal

12
 Introduction

system and the British and Italian national legal systems. In order for the lexical units found
in texts to be considered terms, the texts from which they are extracted need to reflect the
characteristics of specialised communication. Therefore, for a lexical unit to be considered a
legal term, the language used in the text from which it is retrieved should fall into the
category of language for special purposes (LSP).
Longman’s Dictionary of Applied Linguistics defines “languages for special” or “specific
purposes”, which are also labelled “special languages”, as those languages which are “used
for particular and restricted types of communication […] and which contain lexical,
grammatical, and other linguistic features which are different from ordinary language”
(Richards et al. 1985: 159). Although this definition seems fairly clear, the first problem
arises when one tries to distinguish between what belongs to LSP and what is, instead, part of
ordinary language (also referred to as common language, language for general purposes or
LGP). Actually, different currents of thought have developed out of the attempts to define and
categorise LSPs, which range from authors who consider LSPs as almost closed linguistic
systems which function autonomously from common language to authors who maintain that
the main differences between LSPs and LGP are to be found in the deviations of LSPs from
LGP, which are generally of a lexical/terminological nature. In this thesis, the second
standpoint is supported, since for the purposes of this study LSPs are seen as sublanguages
with specific communicative functions in relation to specialised domains. Such functions and
the knowledge domain concerned determine the linguistic choices and, among these, the
usage of a specific terminology.
The referential needs satisfied by terminology are usually considered the distinctive feature of
LSPs and are generally mentioned as the first characteristic of LSPs 2 . However, it is
practically impossible to draw a sharp dividing line between LSP terminology and LGP
vocabulary and list the single items that belong to one lexical group or the other (see
Section 1.1). Apart from lexical similarities, LSPs and LGPs share a great number of common
linguistic features, such as syntactic and morphological characteristics. Therefore, following
Schröder (1991: 4), in this study an LSP is considered to be not an alternative system to LGP,
but rather a sublanguage of a total language with specific features or frequencies of
occurrence that are not common to all the other sublanguages being part of the total language
system. In this light, LSPs can be considered to represent “the totality of linguistic means
used in a limited sphere of communication on a restricted subject in order to enable cognitive
work to be done and mutual information to be conveyed by those acting in the said domain”

2
See, for instance, Cortelazzo (1994) and Schröder (1991).

13
Chapter 1

(Hoffmann 1987: 298). However, two remarks can be made. First of all, so far total language
and its sublanguages have been considered within the Saussurian meaning of langue, i.e.
regarding language and its sublanguages as an ideal system. Due to the textual approach
adopted in this study, the legal language under examination is rather an instance of a
sublanguage intended as parole (see Section 1.2). Secondly, Hoffman refers to “those acting
in the said domain”. When considering an LSP, a specialised domain is generally understood
as a specific knowledge area in which a given socio-professional category of people, together
with a group of people of variable size with a personal interest in it, are directly involved.
However, between law and other knowledge domains a difference can be observed which lies
in the fact that

Law permeates into every cell of social life. It governs everything from the
embryo to exhumation. It governs the air we breathe, the food and drink that
we consume, our travel, sexuality, family relationships, our property, the
world of sport, science, employment, business, education, health, everything
from neighbour disputes to war. (Slapper & Kelly 2011: IX)

Since law permeates social life in such a profound way, “even when we are not consciously
engaged with the law” (Calavita 2010: 49), legal language holds a very close relationship with
LGP and is not necessarily restricted to a socio-professional community. This is so also from
a terminological perspective. Due to the close relationship between legal provisions and the
community regulated by such provisions, the vocabulary found in legal texts can be ascribed
to three categories: purely technical terminology, i.e. the terminology used in the legal domain
only, semi-technical terminology, comprising those lexical items which are part of the LGP
vocabulary but acquire a technical meaning when applied to the legal domain3, and terms or
words that refer to the regulated reality (see Megale 2008: 74–75, Sagri & Tiscornia 2009: 1).
Therefore, in several cases no clear-cut distinction between legal terminology and LGP
vocabulary can be drawn. However, even though it is sometimes hard to determine whether a
linguistic item (generally intended as a text) belongs to an LSP or the LGP, all the texts
selected for the purposes of this study are considered as part of legal language intended as an
LSP due to the highly specialised area of law they deal with (see also Mattila 2006: 3,
Schröder 1991: 4, and Šarčević 1997: 8).

3
For the distinction between purely technical terminology and semi technical terminology in legal language
from a translational perspective, see Alcaraz Varó & Hughes (2002: 153–162).

14
 Introduction

1.4.2 LEGAL TERMINOLOGY IN THE EU MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION

When considering legal language in the light of LSPs, legal terminology intended as purely
technical terminology “is the most visible and striking linguistic feature of legal language”
(Cao 2007: 53). In this sense, legal terminology is used to refer to concepts that belong strictly
to the legal domain. However, law is “entirely created by humans” and is thus “always linked
to the culture of any particular society: it therefore constitutes a social phenomenon” (Mattila
2006: 105). As a consequence, legal concepts are human constructions that are bound to a
specific legal system. Such a legal system is the product of a specific history and culture and,
given the close relation between the legal system and culture, legal rules and concepts differ
from legal system to legal system. This, in turn, affects the degree of comparability of legal
systems and concepts and, consequently, the translatability of legal terminology.
Legal terms are therefore the linguistic reflection of the legal product of a certain culture.
When the legal terminologies of two (or more) legal systems are compared, differences
among the respective legal systems may emerge and the translatability of legal terms needs to
be assessed case by case. As Gotti puts it, “legal terminology is so culture-bound (the reasons
being at the same time historical, sociological, political and jurisprudential) that a satisfactory
translation of all the legal terms of one text from one context to another is at times
impossible” (Gotti 2007: 22–23). In such cases, only the comparative awareness of the
cultural elements included in legal concepts allows for the solution of potential terminological
pitfalls (see Palermo 2007: 141).
So far, the relationship between legal terminology and legal system has been approached from
a national perspective, in the sense that legal systems have been seen in a traditional way as
the product of a culture within national boundaries. However, the research project presented
in this study does not account for only national legal terminologies, but also takes into
consideration a further legal layer, i.e. the EU supranational legal system. Unlike system-
bound languages used in national texts, within the EU resort is made to a form of “acultural
communication” (Tosi 2003: 129, emphasis in the original) which is governed by
multilingualism4. Such a communication is considered acultural because it is not embedded in
any of the national cultures of the EU Member States. The legal acts adopted by the EU
institutions, which are meant to be applicable and enforceable in all the Member States, “must
avoid culture-specific features” (Tosi 2003: 129) and, consequently, in them “concepts or
terminology specific to any one national legal system are to be used with care” (European
Parliament et al. 2003: Guideline 5). The already complex nature of EU lawmaking is further
4
For an overview of the linguistic regime and the principle of multilingualism in the European Union, see
Cosmai (2007: 1–18) and Wagner et al. (2002: 1–10).

15
Chapter 1

complicated by the linguistic regime of EU institutions, which requires that the same content
of a legal act is expressed in the 23 official languages of the EU5. This means that 23 different
languages are used to express a single legal system, which is made of legal concepts that can
be either derived from national legal concepts by means of re-contextualisation or developed
ex novo at the supranational level. Given the constant elaboration and re-elaboration of legal
notions within the EU jurisdiction, it can be said that the “European reality [is] in a constant
process of creation” (Rollason 2003: 118, emphasis in the original).
When legal provisions with a supranational legal force are developed, they need to be
expressed in a linguistic form which avoids possible ambiguities owing to the usage of legal
terms rooted in national legal systems. For this reason, to refer to an EU concept “a
supranational term which has no immediate national ‘meaning’ may be preferable” (Wagner
et al. 2002: 64). The terminology specifically developed for designating EU concepts is
sometimes considered to be a distinctive element of “Eurospeak”, “Eurojargon” or
“Eurocratese”6, which is generally attributed a negative connotation, since EU languages are
frequently accused of being vague and obscure. However, in the case of EU legal drafting, the
use of neologisms is determined by the need for designating new legal concepts and making
the differences among the supranational and the national legal systems clear.
Another feature characterising the EU reality is the intrinsic vagueness of EU legal concepts.
In general, vagueness in legal language is seen as an essential component of normative texts7.
Vagueness, in this context, is seen as the flexibility needed for interpreting laws and adapting
legal terms and concepts to “new or changed social and moral environments” (Sandrini 1999:
104). Therefore, vagueness is seen as the necessary bridge between abstract rules and concrete
cases. However, “if this freedom becomes too far-flung there will be insecurity about the
application of laws and citizens will not know what to expect from the administration of
justice” (Sandrini 1999: 105). Therefore, a balance is needed between “anarchy and over-
regulation” (Endicott 2000: 195).
If, on the one hand, a certain degree of vagueness is to be expected in all legal texts, this is
even more likely in the EU legal system. As pointed out by Kjær, “EU legal concepts are
generally lacking the deep level structure of meaning otherwise characteristic of legal
semantics. This renders the meaning of EU concepts inherently unstable, fuzzy, and vague”

5
EU official languages are Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German,
Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene,
Spanish and Swedish.
6
For an overview of equivalents for Eurospeak in other European languages, see Cosmai (2007: 24).
7
On the topic of vagueness in legal language, see Bhatia et al. (2005), Endicott (2000), Simonnæs (2007) and
Tiersma (1999).

16
 Introduction

(Kjær 2007: 81). The reason for this lies in the fact that “vagueness is commonly found to be
strategic to all-inclusiveness” (Polese & D’Avanzo 2010: 94), which is necessary in the EU
multi-level jurisdiction for the Member States to transpose at the national level the rules
agreed at the EU level. In other words, while vagueness at the national level plays a central
role in applying abstract legal provisions to concrete events, at the EU level it serves for
making EU legal provisions sufficiently flexible for Member States to be able to implement
them in their national legal systems.
On the basis of the observations made so far, the topic which will be examined in this thesis,
i.e. legal terminology, features different characteristics due to the different legal systems
involved and degrees of cultural embeddedness and vagueness of terms. Legal terminology is
also influenced by the constant evolution of legal notions, which is necessary for adapting the
legal systems to the ever-changing reality they are supposed to regulate and, in the case of
national legal systems, the novelties introduced by the EU jurisdiction. Considering that legal
terminology is thus subject to on-going conceptual development at different levels and
embedded in different legal systems, and bearing in mind that legal language shares some
common traits with LGP (see Megale 2008: 78–79), it is expected that some dynamism can be
observed also as regards the legal terminology taken into consideration for this research
project.

1.5 AIMS OF THIS THESIS

LSPs and LGP are part of a complex language system which is characterised by dynamism in
terms of linguistic and knowledge evolution. Such dynamism can be reflected in vocabulary
and, when vocabulary is attributed “term status” (Myking 2007: 83) on the basis of the
communicative setting it is employed in, dynamism is expected to affect terminology as well.
Looking form a terminological perspective, the study of the actualisation of lexical items
featuring some termhood at the parole level constitutes a clue to the understanding of the
phenomena in which the dynamic nature of language comes to light.
Legal language is a sui generis LSP due to its close relationship with the legal system it refers
to and the metaphysical phenomenon it describes. Legal terms used in this LSP “are always
tied to a scheme”, which is the underlying legal system, and their meanings “are in the first
place discernible by their relation to a legal system” (Ajani & Ebers 2005: 12). Therefore, as
noted by Sacco, “[l]a compresenza di più linguaggi giuridici in una sola lingua non è un fatto

17
Chapter 1

raro” (Sacco 1992: 477), or, as Ajani and Ebers put is, “within a language there is not always
a single legal language. Rather there are as many legal languages as there are legal systems”
(Ajani & Ebers 2005: 12). The co-existence of multiple legal languages expressed by a single
language is generally acknowledged when taking into consideration different national legal
systems expressed in the same language, such as the legal systems of Germany, Austria and
Switzerland on the one hand and the UK, USA and Australia, New Zealand, Canada on the
other (with due respect to the internal differences in federal countries). However, in the
European continent the institution of the EU has implied the incorporation of a new
supranational legal system which is expressed in the languages of the Member States and,
from a legal standpoint, influences the legal systems of the Member States. It follows that a
difference exists between comparing the legal languages and terminologies of different
national legal systems and the legal languages and terminologies used to refer to national
legal systems and a supranational legal system.
The main hypothesis in this thesis is therefore that legal language is intrinsically characterised
by terminological dynamism, which is intended both at a linguistic and conceptual level. This
means that the analysis of legal terminology should reveal, at a linguistic level, some
heterogeneity in the terms used to refer to legal concepts, while at the conceptual level it is
considered likely to reflect different conceptualisations of the legal domain. If multilingual
legal terminology is observed within a judicial space in which several legal systems are
interconnected at a supranational level such as in the EU, terminological dynamism is
expected to manifest itself in two different linguistic settings. In the first setting, where a
national and an EU variety of the same language co-exist, dynamism is considered to be
intralingual and is supposed to be reflected in terminological variation, which can affect the
linguistic layer (denominative variation) or the conceptual layer (conceptual variation) of
terminology. On the other hand, in the second setting envisaged, legal terminology is
observed from a multilingual perspective, in which case dynamism is considered interlingual.
Due to the possible anisomorphism in the regulation of social life by the legal systems taken
into account, such dynamism is deemed to be reflected in different degrees of interlingual
equivalence.
The primary aim of this thesis thus consists in performing a terminological analysis of legal
terminology rooted in the EU multi-legal jurisdiction in order to observe terminological
dynamism both intralingually and interlingually. The main focus of the thesis is therefore on
two specific terminological phenomena, i.e. terminological variation and terminological
equivalence. The legal terminology under discussion is supposed to be characterised by

18
 Introduction

different degrees of intralingual variation and interlingual equivalence. The methodological

framework adopted for carrying out the terminological analysis has been specifically
developed so as to take into account the co-existence of more than one legal system and the
method proposed by Cabré for multilingual terminographic work has been taken as the
starting point (Cabré 1999a: 129–159).
The secondary aim of this thesis is to record the terminological data retrieved during the
terminological analysis in a legal translation-oriented terminological knowledge base (TKB).
Since the terminology under discussion is characterised by a high degree of dependency on
the legal system it refers to, the MuLex TKB has been specifically designed for legal
translation purposes, aiming at capturing the peculiarities of the legal terminology analysed
and making them available to possible legal translators. For optimising the representation of
the domain-specific knowledge implied by legal terminology, this TKB integrates a tool for
visualising conceptual relational structures in terminographic entries.
In order to pursue the above mentioned aims, the legal terminology of a specific area of law
rather than legal language in general has been selected. The area of law under examination is
therefore the legal subdomain of victims of crime. Since the primary aim of this thesis is to
carry out a terminological analysis and the legal systems taken into consideration are the EU
legal system and the British and Italian national legal systems, the languages involved in the
study are English and Italian.

1.6 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS

In Chapter 2, the legal area of victims of crime is presented from a historical perspective. The
discussion starts with an overview of the notion of ‘victim’ as conceived in international and
EU documents and is followed by a presentation of such documents which are considered the
milestones for the development of victim-related legislation. For the examination of
international documents, four main topics are considered: the protection of victims of crime,
compensation for victims of crime, the position of victims of crime in criminal proceedings
and their rights, and mediation in criminal cases. As far as EU victim-related documents are
concerned, first of all the reasons for considering them supranational rather than international
documents are presented. This difference is highlighted because it determines a different legal
force in the Member States, with EU acts having a higher impact on national legal systems
than international documents. Then, three main EU acts are discussed which are the

19
Chapter 1

cornerstones of EU legislation concerning victims of crime and their right, i.e. Council
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, Council Directive 2004/80/EC and Council Directive
2012/29/EU.
In order to analyse the legal terminology concerning victims of crime, a methodological
framework that takes into account the multidimensional nature of such terminology in terms
of legal languages and legal systems involved is needed. The methodological framework
adopted in this thesis, which merges the methodological premises proposed by Cabré (1999a)
and the distinction between genotypes and phenotypes introduced by Sacco (1991), is
presented in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the first terminological phenomenon that was supposed to characterise
legal terminology in the EU multi-level jurisdiction, i.e. terminological variation. In order to
examine this phenomenon, first a review of the scientific discussion on how variation is
conceived in Terminology is provided. Given the polysemy of the term “terminological
variation”, it is stated that in this study the term is used to refer to two correlated phenomena.
The first phenomenon occurs when one and the same concept is referred to by means of
different denominations (denominative variation), while the second occurs when the concept
itself cannot be considered properly cleat-cut and the differences in the conceptualisation
(conceptual variation) can be reflected in denominative variation.
In Chapter 5, the second main topic of this research study is presented, i.e. terminological
equivalence. Given the embeddedness of the legal terminology under examination in three
legal systems, different types and degrees of terminological equivalence are discussed. The
types of terminological equivalence analysed are intra-systemic and inter-systemic
equivalence, while the degrees of equivalence discussed are absolute equivalence, relative
equivalence and non-equivalence.
The details concerning the features of the MuLex TKB are given in Chapter 6. MuLex has
been developed specifically to contain terminological (linguistic and conceptual) information
regarding legal terminology and is intended for legal translators. On the grounds of the
peculiarities of legal terminology observed in Chapters 4 and 5, the TKB has been designed
so as to make the differences among national and supranational legal notions clear and
provide sufficient conceptual and linguistic information so as to assist legal translators in their
decision-making and problem-solving tasks involved in the retrieval or formulation of
translation equivalents. This has been possible also through the incorporation of a tool for the
visual representation of conceptual knowledge.

20
 Introduction

Chapter 7, which concludes the thesis, consists of an overview of the achievement of the aims
and suggests ideas for future work in the study of dynamism and representation of legal
terminology in a multi-level jurisdiction.

21
 Chapter 2. THE AREA OF LAW: VICTIMS OF CRIME

As stated in the Chapter 1, the main aims of this study are twofold. Firstly, to analyse from a
translational perspective the terminology used in EU documents within the legal area of
victims of crime and, secondly, to compare such terminology to that available in texts on the
same area of law but referring to the English and the Italian legal systems. However, before
delving into the deeper aspects of victim-related terminology, some information on the
historical development of this area of law needs to be provided. To do so, a brief overview is
presented below of the most relevant legal documents that eventually led to the elaboration,
within the EU, of a common core of measures specifically dedicated to victims of crime. The
milestones of the victim-related legislation that will be presented below range from
documents issued by international organisations to documents adopted by regional
organisations, i.e. “formal institutions whose membership is limited by geography”
(Pevehouse 2005: 3).

2.1 THE NOTION OF ‘VICTIM’ IN INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

Before presenting the documents in which crime victims play a central role, it seems
appropriate to introduce the main notion underlying this thesis, i.e. the victim of crime. The
number of international and supranational8 documents which, since the late 1970s, have dealt
with victims of crime can be said to be relatively high9.
However, despite the increasing attention paid to the victim by international and supranational
organisations and institutions (see Allegrezza et al. 2012: IX), no common notion of ‘victim’
has been elaborated at either the international or the supranational level so far. As a matter of
fact, the two definitions that can be found at the international level are completely dependent
on the notion of ‘crime’ (Allegrezza 2012: 12) and differ from each other according to the
different aims pursued by the documents. From a chronological viewpoint, the first
8
For a definition of the difference between “supranational” and “international” documents, see Section 2.4.1
below.
9
For instance, according to del Tufo (2003: 708), the documents dealing with victims of crime issued only by
the Council of Europe from 1977 to 2003 are as many as 40.

23
Chapter 2

international document focusing specifically on victims is the European Convention on the

Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes10, signed by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg
on 24th November 1983. As can be observed in the title, the Convention is not intended to
address the area of law of victims of crime at large, but rather to focus on a certain category of
victims, i.e. victims of violent crimes. Moreover, although this document is considered as a
milestone in the evolution of the victim-related legislation, it does not contain any proper
definition of the notion under discussion. Instead, in the following statement of the Preamble
to the Convention the main features necessary for a person to be considered as a victim under
the Convention are analytically enumerated; “for reasons of equity and social solidarity it is
necessary to deal with the situation of victims of intentional crimes of violence who have
suffered bodily injury or impairment of health and of dependants of persons who have died as
a result of such crimes” (Council of Europe 1983). Despite not being a proper definition, this
statement analytically enumerates the main features necessary for a person to be considered a
victim under the Convention.
Moving from an international, though regional, dimension towards a wider international
context, two years later the UN published its Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for
Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power11, signed by the General Assembly in its 96th Plenary
Meeting on 29th November 1985. According to this Declaration, victims are: “persons who,
individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury,
emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights,
through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member
States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power” (UN General Assembly
1985: Annex, Chapter A, Paragraph 1).
As in the case of the above-mentioned European Convention, the definition provided in the
Declaration can be considered only functional to the Declaration itself, although it explicitly
mentions the need for a national criminal law to be violated in order for an act to be
considered as a crime under the Declaration. Moreover, just like the European Convention,
the notion of victim also includes “the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim”,
to which the Declaration adds the “persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist
victims in distress or to prevent victimization” (UN General Assembly 1985: Annex, Chapter

10
Council of Europe (1983) European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime, European
Treaty Series, 116, 24.11.1983.
11
UN General Assembly (1985) Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of
Power, 96th Plenary Meeting, 29.11.1985.

24
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

A, Paragraph 2). Therefore, in both cases the notion of ‘victim’ includes what in international
and supranational terms is referred to as the “direct victim” and the “indirect victim”.

2.2 THE NOTION OF ‘VICTIM’ IN SUPRANATIONAL DOCUMENTS

However, a different perspective was adopted some years later in the very first definition of
‘victim’ available in the supranational context of the European Union. The document at issue
is the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings (2001/220/JHA)12, which clearly marked the beginning of what has been called
by Allegrezza et al. (2012: IX), with an increasing priority being given by EU institutions to
the needs and the rights of victims of crime.
Despite aiming at reaching high levels of both protection and harmonisation of treatment for
victims of crime, the already-mentioned documents are of no directly applicable legal force
for the Member States of the respective organisations. On the contrary, framework decisions,
which can be used to provide for approximation of rules in criminal matters, are binding upon
the Member States only as to the result to be achieved, thus leaving discretion as to the choice
of forms and method (Spaventa 2007: 7).
In comparison to the Council of Europe and the UN documents illustrated in Section 2.1, the
Council Framework Decision represents a further, legally-binding step towards the
harmonisation process of victim-related issues within the EU Member States. According to
Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, a victim is “a natural person who has suffered
harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, directly
caused by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a Member State”
(Council of the European Union 2001: Article 1(a)). This definition, however, diverges from
the previously presented definitions insofar as it does not mention other possible persons that
can be assimilated to the notion of ‘victim’ other than the direct victim.
Further discussion on victim-related issues within the EU, especially as far as compensation
to crime victims13 is concerned, led to a later elaboration of the notion and to the formulation
of a new definition of “victim” in Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council, which substitutes the definition in Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA

12
Council of the European Union (2001) Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of
victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA), Official Journal of the European Communities, L 82,
22.3.2001, pp. 1–4.
13
See, for instance, Commission of the European Communities (2001).

25
Chapter 2

(see Section 2.4.3 in this thesis). According to this definition, a victim is verbatim what
Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA states a victim is, but it can also include: “family
members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have
suffered harm as a result of that person’s death” (European Parliament & European Council
2012: Article 2(1)(a)(ii)), where “family members” may refer to “the spouse, the person who
is living with the victim in a committed intimate relationship, in a joint household and on a
stable and continuous basis, the relatives in direct line, the siblings and the dependants of the
victim” (European Parliament & European Council 2012: Article 2(1)(b)).
Therefore, even in the supranational context of the EU, the notion of ‘victim’ is moving
towards the inclusion of both direct and indirect victims of a crime, thus converging with the
international definitions, although not overcoming the close relation holding between a
definition and the document containing it.

2.3 INTERNATIONAL VICTIM-RELATED DOCUMENTS

Ever since 1977 – the year of publication of what is considered to be the first victim-related
document issued by an international organisation, i.e. Resolution (77) 27 on the
Compensation of Victims of Crime of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe14 –
the number of documents dealing with issues concerning the victims of crime has increased
significantly. The documents of this type that are most relevant for this thesis are contained in
the following, by no means exhaustive, list:
- the 1983 Council of Europe European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of
Violent Crime;
- the 1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime
and Abuse of Power;
- the 1985 Recommendation R (85) 11 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on
the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure15;
- the 1987 Recommendation No. R (87) 21 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States
on Assistance to Victims and the Prevention of Victimisation16;

14
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1977) Resolution (77) 27 on the Compensation of Victims
of Crime, 275th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, 28.9.1977.
15
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1985) Recommendation No. R (85) 11 of the Committee of
Ministers to Member States on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure,
387th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, 28.6.1985.

26
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

- the 1999 Recommendation No. R (99) 19 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States
concerning Mediation in Penal Matters17;
- the 2001 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime18;
- the 2001 United Nations Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice19.
A detailed examination of every single international document relevant to the topic
under discussion is beyond the aim of this thesis. In what follows, the specific themes tackled
by these documents are discussed only briefly after being grouped into four main categories:
1) the development of services providing support and assistance to victims of crime in order
to improve their protection, 2) the harmonisation of State compensation, 3) the enhancement
of the victim’s position in criminal proceedings and the attribution of new rights to victims or
harmonisation of existing rights, and 4) the establishment of alternative justice paradigms,
such as mediation in the framework of restorative justice. Each of these four categories will
be dealt with in more detail in the following four sections.

2.3.1 PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME

Several international documents highlight the fact that victim protection should be pursued in
two different ways. First, the criminal justice systems of the States involved should ensure the
implementation of all the necessary measures to prevent victims from suffering from
secondary victimisation, i.e. “the victimisation that occurs not as a direct result of the criminal
act but through the response of institutions and individuals to the victim” (Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe 2006: Appendix 1.3). Second, the governments of the
Member States should take a series of measures that do not directly affect the criminal justice
system, but are rather meant to produce changes in the public in general and in the public
services specifically developed for victim assistance purposes. For example, the 1985 United
Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power
calls upon Member States to take the necessary steps to “implement social, health, including
mental health, educational, economic and specific crime prevention policies to reduce
victimization and encourage assistance to victims in distress” (UN General Assembly 1985:

16
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1987) Recommendation No. R (87) 21 of the Committee of
Ministers to Member States on Assistance to Victims and the Prevention of Victimisation, 410th Meeting of the
Ministers’ Deputies, 17.9.1987.
17
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1999) Recommendation No. R (99) 19 of the Committee of
Ministers to Member States concerning Mediation in Penal Matters, 679th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies,
15.9.1999.
18
UN General Assembly (2000a) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 62nd
Plenary Meeting, 15.11.2000.
19
UN General Assembly (2001) Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the
Twenty-first Century, 81st Plenary Meeting, 4.12.2000.

27
Chapter 2

Point 4(a)). Likewise, among the international documents with a regional dimension, the 1987
Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (87) 21 prompts the implementation of activities
aimed at ascertaining “victims’ needs and victimisation rates in order to gather the necessary
data to assist in the development of victim assistance programmes and structures” (Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1987: Recommendation 1). The same Recommendation
also suggests taking all the necessary steps so as to ensure a sufficient degree of (medical,
psychological, social and material) assistance and protection to victims, to provide assistance
during the criminal process, to raise the consciousness of the public on victim-related issues,
and to develop policies to identify particularly vulnerable groups and prevent their
victimisation.
All these principles, together with other suggested steps to improve the victims’ situation, are
further developed in other international documents, among which the 2006 Council of Europe
Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to
crime victims 20 is worth mentioning. According to this Recommendation, Member States
should take all the necessary measures so as to provide the widest form of assistance to
victims, which includes the provision of assistance for their rehabilitation in the community,
at home and in the workplace, medical care, material and psychological support, social care,
counselling, and protection against secondary victimisation.

2.3.2 COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME

Ever since the beginning of the discussion on victims of crime at the international level,
compensation has played a central role. In 1977, the Council of Europe issued the Resolution
(77) 27 on the Compensation of Victims of Crime, which states that, for reasons of equity and
social solidarity, it is necessary to harmonise national provisions regarding “the situation of
those who are victims of crime and in particular of those who suffered bodily injury and of
dependants of those who are killed by crime” (Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe 1977: Preamble). It also states that, given that the possibilities of obtaining
compensation available to victims are often insufficient, especially when the offender has not
been identified or is without sufficient resources to compensate the victim(s), the
compensation provided by the State “should include, in appropriate cases, at least loss of past
and future earnings, increase of expenses, medical expenses, expenses of medical and
professional rehabilitation, and funeral expenses” (Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe 1977: Paragraph I(5)).
20
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2006) Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on assistance to crime victims, 967th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, 14.6.2006.

28
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

Another international document which deals specifically with compensation is the 1983
Council of Europe European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime.
Unlike the 1977 Resolution, the 1983 Convention narrows its field of application to a
restricted group of victims and specifically addresses victims of violent intentional crimes. As
opposed to the previously-mentioned document, the compensation provided to this specific
group of victims also includes loss of maintenance for the dependants of the direct victim who
died as a result of the crime. A very similar provision is contained in the 1985 United Nations
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which
states that when full compensation cannot be obtained from the offender or other sources,
States should provide financial compensation both to “[v]ictims who have sustained
significant bodily injury or impairment of physical or mental health as a result of serious
crimes” and “[t]he family, in particular dependants of persons who have died or become
physically or mentally incapacitated as a result of such victimization” (UN General Assembly
1985: Annex A(12)).
The common core among the international documents dealing with compensation to crime
victims can be said to be the basic principle that compensation should, in any case, be
provided by the offender. However, in those cases when this is objectively impossible, other
sources of compensation should be made available by the State (del Tufo 2003: 712).

2.3.3 THE POSITION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR RIGHTS
International organisations are engaged in the promotion of the implementation of measures
that can either entail the organisation of society in general (e.g. by raising consciousness of
the general public on victim-related issues and/or developing social and health services
specifically trained to deal with victims of crime) or affect the criminal justice systems in
particular. The category of measures devoted to improving the position of victims of crime in
criminal proceedings can be considered to be included in the broader category of the
protection of crime victims delineated earlier in Section 2.3.1 and falls into the second type of
measures, i.e. those involving changes in the criminal justice system.
The main international document dealing specifically with these measures is the 1985 Council
of Europe Recommendation No. R (85) 11 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on
the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, which suggests
that Member States should review their legislation and practices as regards the treatment of
victims at different levels.

29
Chapter 2

The first level to be mentioned is the police level (Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe 1985: Letter A), where great attention is paid to the following aspects: victim-oriented
training of police officers, the information police should provide victims of crime with, and
the need for clear and complete statements of the injuries and losses suffered by the victims in
the reports to be delivered to the prosecuting authorities.
At the level of prosecution (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1985: Letter B),
the questions of compensation to victims and the information to be provided to victims about
the final decision concerning prosecution are tackled, together with their right to ask for a
review of a decision not to prosecute and to institute private proceedings.
The next levels concern two different procedural steps, i.e. the questioning of the victim
(Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1985: Letter C), where victims with special
needs are identified, and court proceedings (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
1985: Letter D), where particular attention is devoted to the information that the victim needs
to be provided with, the possibility for a criminal court to order compensation by the offender
to the victim, and the victim’s right to restitution.
The last level tackled by the Recommendation is the enforcement stage (Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe 1985: Letter E), where victims should be assisted in the
collection of any form of reparation.
The Recommendation also provides two further areas where Member States should improve
their legislation and practices which, however, cannot be linked to any specific phase in
criminal proceedings, but are rather relevant throughout criminal proceedings, as well as
before the beginning and after the end of such proceedings. These two areas are the protection
of privacy, which is needed in order to “protect the victim from any publicity which will
unduly affect his private life or dignity” (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
1985: Letter F), and the special protection of the victim against intimidation and the risk of
retaliation by the offender (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1985: Letter G).

2.3.4 MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Ever since the beginning of the discussion on victim-related issues in the international setting,
mediation in criminal cases (or, rather, in penal cases, to use the expression more frequent in
international documents) has been devoted considerable attention. Nevertheless, it was not
before the publication of Recommendation No. R (99) 19 of the Committee of Ministers to
member states concerning mediation in penal matters in 1999 that an international, though
regional, document was entirely dedicated to this issue. Mediation is a participatory technique

30
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

that falls within the broad category of restorative processes and is defined as follows by
Recommendation No. R (99) 19: “any process whereby the victim and the offender are
enabled, if they freely consent, to participate actively in the resolution of matters arising from
the crime through the help of an impartial third party (mediator)” (Committee of Ministers of
the Council of Europe 1999: Point I).
The aims of restorative justice programmes in general and mediation in particular are the
following: restoring community order and peace and repairing damaged relationships;
denouncing criminal behaviour as unacceptable and reaffirming community values;
supporting victims, giving them a voice, enabling their participation and addressing their
needs; encouraging all concerned parties, particularly the offenders, to take responsibility;
identifying restorative, forward-looking outcomes; preventing recidivism by encouraging
change in individual offenders and facilitating their reintegration into the community (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2006: 10).
In previous documents, victim-offender mediation was mentioned, for example, in
Recommendation No. R (85) 11 on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal
Law and Procedure, which recommended the governments of Member States “to examine the
possible advantages of mediation and conciliation schemes” (Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe 1985: Recommendation II.1). Likewise, the 1985 United Nations
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power suggested
that “[i]nformal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, including mediation, arbitration
and customary justice or indigenous practices, should be utilized where appropriate to
facilitate conciliation and redress for victims” (UN General Assembly 1985: Point 7). Given
that in those years the disparity in the application of mediation in criminal cases among States
was high and in some States mediation was still an uncommon practice, Recommendation No.
R (87) 21 on Assistance to Victims and the Prevention of Victimisation recommended that
Member States encourage experiments (whether on a national or a local basis) in mediation
between offenders and victims.
Twelve years later, in Recommendation No. R (99) 19, the Council of Europe noted “the
developments in Member States in the use of mediation in penal matters as a flexible,
comprehensive, problem-solving, participatory option complementary or alternative to
traditional criminal proceedings” and “the need to enhance active personal participation in
criminal proceedings of the victim and the offender and others who may be affected as parties
as well as the involvement of the community” (Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe 1999: 10). The Council also highlighted the importance of mediation from a social

31
Chapter 2

and relational perspective, as by means of this restorative technique victims have the
opportunity to express their legitimate interest, communicate with the offender and obtain
apology and reparation, while offenders have more possibilities for reintegration and
rehabilitation. The scope of Recommendation No. R (99) 19 is to promote mediation as a
generally available service which is to be considered as either complementary to traditional
criminal proceedings or an alternative to them. On account of the fact that fundamental
procedural safeguards should be applied to all forms of mediation – such as the right to legal
assistance, to translation/interpretation and, in case minors are involved, to parental assistance
– mediation as conceived in the Recommendation should be considered to be an umbrella
term covering several techniques. As a matter of fact, the two main parties taking part in
mediation are the (direct and indirect) victim and the offender (including the accused person),
assisted by a facilitator or mediator, though participation of other (legal and physical) persons
cannot be excluded. Apart from the number and type of participants, mediation can take
various forms, such as: a sharing of views for better understanding between victim and
offender; apology from the offender; voluntary decision by the offender to make reparation in
favour of the victim or undertake some other action, such as community service work or
participation in a rehabilitation programme (indirect reparation); resolution of any conflict
between the victim and the offender, or even between their families or friends; an agreement
on sanctions and undertakings which may be suggested as a sentence or court order
(Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1999: 16). Mediation in penal matters can
be carried out either with the parties meeting either face-to-face or separately the mediator,
who can be a professional or a trained lay volunteer, and can take place within a criminal
justice agency or an independent community-based organisation.
Notwithstanding these differences, paragraph 7 of Appendix to Recommendation No. R (99)
19 suggests the need for guidelines on the use of mediation in penal matters, which should
take into account some essential aspects concerning mediation within the framework of
criminal justice. These aspects can be summarised as follows (Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe 1999: Appendix, Section IV): the need for the parties to be fully informed
of their rights, the nature of the mediation process and the possible consequences of their
decision before agreeing to mediation; the voluntariness of participation in mediation;
confidentiality in mediation; the availability of mediation at all stages of the criminal justice
process; the application of special regulations and legal safeguards to minors participating in
mediation; the impossibility to apply mediation in case any of the parties involved is not
capable of understanding the meaning of the process because of the party’s age, degree of

32
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

maturity or intellectual capacity; the constraint on using participation in mediation as

evidence of admission of guilt in subsequent legal proceedings; the need to inform the
competent criminal justice authorities of the state of the mediation procedure within a
reasonable time-limit; the application of the ne bis in idem principle in mediation cases, and
the need to take a decision as to how to proceed without delay when a case is referred back to
the criminal justice authorities without an agreement between the parties or after failure to
implement such an agreement.
The principles established by Recommendation No. R (99) 19 constitute the basis for further
discussion – at the international, supranational and national levels – on the possibility for the
victim to be involved in the solution of the criminal case. The possibility for victims to
participate in mediation processes shows the gradual acknowledgement by legal practitioners
of crime as a conflict between individuals rather than between the offender and the State
(Mantle et al. 2005: 2), which can end with an agreement between the parties involved instead
of a criminal sanction (del Tufo 2003: 724).
From the victims’ perspective, the expansion of the application of mediation – intended as the
whole range of victim-offender reconciliation practices available in different jurisdictions –
proves that the awareness of criminal justice systems of victims’ needs and expectations is
increasing. This new paradigm, therefore, is intended to meet victims’ needs and expectations
both in terms of primary and secondary victimisation and, unlike traditional criminal
proceedings which deal with two primary aspects of crime, i.e. the physical and the financial,
aims at addressing the emotional impact of crime on direct and indirect victims as well (see
Achilles & Zehr 2001: 88).

2.4 EUROPEAN UNION VICTIM-RELATED DOCUMENTS

The previous section consisted in a brief overview of international documents dealing with
victims of crime and four main victim-related aspects. In what follows, attention is again
focused on the regulation of the area of law of victims of crime, but this time the discussion is
limited to European Union documents, that is supranational documents only. Although the
aim of this thesis is not the examination of the special nature of European Union law as
compared to international sources of law, a terminological clarification needs to be made at
this point as regards the expressions “international documents” and “supranational
documents”.

33
Chapter 2

2.4.1 EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS AS SUPRANATIONAL DOCUMENTS

So far, the expression “international documents” has been used to refer to documents
published by two organisations that are unanimously considered international organisations,
namely the United Nations and the Council of Europe. As for the adjective “supranational”,
following Barents it can be said that “[it] is indissolubly linked to the early development of
European integration”, when “[i]t referred to a new type of organisation of relationships
between European nation states which, contrary to the traditional forms of inter-state co-
operation based on national sovereignty and voluntarism, would bring an end to ‘age-old
rivalries’ and ‘bloody conflicts’” (Barents 2004: 23). Although the word “supranational”
cannot be found in the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty)21, nor in the
Treaty on European Union (EU Treaty)22, “[i]n legal literature it is generally accepted that the
Commission of the EC may be described as a ‘supranational’ institution” (Barents 2004: 32).
The European Union documents mentioned in the present study and used to compile an EU
corpus (see Section 3.3.2) can in fact be considered as supranational documents because they
are drafted and issued by EU institutions and refer to a legal system of a sui generis nature.
As an examination of the features that make European Union law a special legal order or
system is beyond the scope of this study, let it just be said that the main difference between
the international documents mentioned in the previous section and the documents that are
discussed here resides in the power of issuing legally binding legal acts that the Member
States recognised first to the European Communities and later to the European Union. The
assignment of this power to a public legal body other than the national state implied the
establishment of a new form of organisation of relationships between States which involved a
restriction of their sovereignty, whereas in the participation in international bodies the
sovereignty of Member States is totally safeguarded. This has important consequences for the
application of EU law within Member States, since the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
established two seminal principles of the EU legal order: direct effect of EU law and
supremacy of EU law over national law (Craig & De Búrca 2011: 63).
The principle of direct effect applies to all binding EU law, i.e. primary legislation (treaties)
and secondary legislation (regulations, directives, decisions, opinions and recommendations;
atypical acts; international and interinstitutional agreements, and agreements between
Member States). In its broader sense, which is derived from the ground-breaking judgment in

21
European Union (2006) Consolidated Version of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Official
Journal of the European Union, C 321, 29.12.2006, pp. 37–186.
22
European Union (2010) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Official Journal of the
European Union, C 83, 30.3.2010, pp. 13–46.

34
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

the Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration23 case, ‘direct effect’
means that “provisions of binding EU law which are sufficiently clear, precise, and
unconditional to be considered justiciable can be invoked and relied on by individuals before
national courts” (Craig & De Búrca 2011: 180). According to this judgment, contrary to other
international treaties a new legal order was established in which not only Member States, but
also “individuals could derive rights from the EEC Treaty” (Craig & De Búrca 2011: 185).
As far as the principle of supremacy of EU law over national law is concerned, it must be said
that no mention of it can be found in primary legislation earlier than the Declaration on the
primacy of EU law was included in the 2007 Lisbon Treaty24. Nonetheless, ever since the
early years of the existence of the European Community, the European Court of Justice,
acknowledging the European Community’s goals of integration and cooperation among the
Member States, established that EU law could not be subordinate to the Member States’
national law, as this would produce disparities (see Craig & De Búrca 2011: 256-257). For
this reason, “according to the ECJ, any norm of EU law takes precedence over any provision
of national law, including the national constitutions” (Craig & De Búrca 2011: 256). The
beginnings of the supremacy doctrine can be said to date back to 1963 with the Van Gend en
Loos case, whose primary interest was nevertheless on the establishment of the principle of
direct effect. Only one year later, another ECJ case contributed to the formation of the
supremacy doctrine, namely Costa v ENEL25. According to the ECJ:

By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created
its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an
integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their
courts are bound to apply.
By creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions,
its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on
the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a
limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the States to the
Community, the Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit
within limited fields, and have thus created a body of law which binds both
their nationals and themselves.
The integration into the laws of each Member State of provisions which
derive from the Community, and more generally the terms and the spirit of
the Treaty, make it impossible for the States, as a corollary, to accord

23
European Court of Justice (1963) Case 26/62, Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963. Van Gend en Loos v
Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tariefcommissi, The
Netherlands.
24
European Union (2007) Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing
the European Community, Official Journal of the European Union, C 306, 17.12.2007, pp. 1–271.
25
European Court of Justice (1964) Case 6/64, Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1964. Flaminio Costa v
E.N.E.L., Reference for a preliminary ruling: Giudice conciliatore di Milano, Italy.

35
Chapter 2

precedence to a unilateral and subsequent measure over a legal system

accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity. Such a measure cannot therefore
be inconsistent with that legal system. The executive force of Community
law cannot vary from one State to another in deference to subsequent
domestic laws, without jeopardizing the attainment of the objectives of the
Treaty set out in Article 5 (2) and giving rise to the discrimination
prohibited by Article 7.

(...)

The precedence of Community law is confirmed by Article 189, whereby a

regulation ‘shall be binding’ and ‘directly applicable in all Member States’.
This provision, which is subject to no reservation, would be quite
meaningless if a State could unilaterally nullify its effects by means of a
legislative measure which could prevail over Community law.
It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the
Treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and
original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however
framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and
without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question.
The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the
Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the
Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights,
against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of
the Community cannot prevail.

Given that a discussion about direct effect and the reasons justifying the supremacy of EU law
over national law is beyond the aims of this section, let it be just said that these two
principles, together with the transfer of sovereignty from Member States to EU institutions,
are fundamental for understanding the differences between international and supranational
sources of law and, therefore, between international and supranational documents.
Consequently, whereas the international sources discussed in Section 2.3 aim at influencing
victim-oriented policies within the Member States and fostering international cooperation in
this regard, EU documents – being supranational in their nature – have a more direct impact
on the Member States’ legislation and, given the principle of direct effect, on the life of EU
citizens.

2.4.2 VICTIMS OF CRIME IN THE FRAMEWORK OF EUROPEAN U NION LEGISLATION

As highlighted in the previous section, the relationship between EU law and the national
legislation of EU Member States is regulated by two basic principles, namely the principle of
direct effect and the principle of supremacy of EU legislation over national legislation.
Notwithstanding the primacy of EU law, however, unlike national governments the
institutions of the EU enjoy no general competence, which means that they cannot regulate

36
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

every area of legal interest. Instead, EU institutions have what is generally referred to as
“attributed competence”, meaning that “the EU only has the competence conferred on it by
the Treaties” (Craig & De Búrca 2011: 73). Since the determination of EU competences
represented a matter of no little disagreement, in order to avoid the uprising of conflicts on
this issue the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1st December 2009, established
that the limits of these competences are governed by the principle of conferral. Under this
principle, “the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by
the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein”, whereas
“[c]ompetences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States”
(European Union 2007: Article 3b(2)). Title I, Article 2A also established a categorisation of
EU competences, which was absent in previous sources of EU law, and thus clarified the
division of competences between the EU and the Member States. According to this
categorisation, competences can be distinguished in exclusive competences, shared
competences, and supporting competences.
As for exclusive competences, the EU is the only body to legislate and adopt binding acts in
the fields listed in Article 3 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU)27, while the Member States are only allowed to apply these acts unless otherwise
provided by the EU. As regards the shared competences listed in Article 428 of the TFEU,

26
Article 3 of the TFEU reads as follows:
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its
conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its
internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.
27
Council of the European Union (2010) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 83, 30.3.2010, pp. 47–199.
28
Article 4 of the TFEU reads as follows:
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence
which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.
2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy; (j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.
3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have

37
Chapter 2

both the EU and the Member States are authorised to adopt binding documents. When the
Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area,
the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area, but
“[t]he Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not
exercised its competence” and “[t]he Member States shall again exercise their competence to
the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence” (European Union
2007: Article 2A). Finally, with regard to the supporting competences established by Article 6
of the TFEU, EU’s intervention is limited to supporting, coordinating or complementing the
action of the Member States. As a consequence, no legislative power is conferred on the EU
in these fields.
The categorisation provided by the Treaty of Lisbon proves useful to understand how the main
topic of this thesis, i.e. the area of law of victims of crime, is treated within the framework of
EU law. In the pre-Lisbon Treaty era, the EU was characterised by what was known as the
“three-pillar structure”, in which the European Community constituted the first pillar, the
Common Foreign and Security Policy the second pillar and police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters the third pillar. The Treaty of Lisbon abolished this complex structure
together with the European Community, which was therefore replaced by the European
Union. As a matter of fact, Title I, Article 2C of the Treaty, which determines the main areas
that fall into the category of shared competences, mentions at letter (j) the so-called “Area of
Freedom, Security and Justice” (AFSJ), which was introduced into European law under the
Treaty of Amsterdam 29 of 1997. This area “is conceived […] as a series of policies”
(Chalmers et al. 2010: 492), which are summarised in Article 67 of Title V of the TFEU.
According to this article:

1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with
respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions
of the Member States.
2. It shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and
shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border
control, based on solidarity between Member States, which is fair towards
third-country nationals. For the purpose of this Title, stateless persons shall
be treated as third-country nationals.

competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the exercise of
that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.
4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out
activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member
States being prevented from exercising theirs.
29
European Union (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties
establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, Official Journal of the European Union, C 340,
10.11.1997, pp. 1–308.

38
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

3. The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through

measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through
measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial
authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual
recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the
approximation of criminal laws.
4. The Union shall facilitate access to justice, in particular through the
principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extrajudicial decisions in
civil matters.

As can be seen, the AFSJ covers different policy areas, which range from the management of
the EU’s external borders to judicial cooperation in civil and, what is more relevant to the
purposes of this study, criminal matters. Since it includes police cooperation and the fight
against crime, particularly as regards specific types of crime such as terrorism, organised
crime, and trafficking in human beings, which are generally committed in cross-border
situations, it follows that victims of crime, who are the persons who are directly or indirectly
involved in the commission of a crime and suffer from its consequences, are also considered
in the framework of the AFSJ.
Narrowing down the discussion on AFSJ to the current EU policies, the priorities for the area
of freedom, security and justice for the period 2010-2014 are set out in the multiannual
Stockholm Programme 30 , which is built on two previous programmes, i.e. the Tampere
Programme 31 and the Hague Programme 32 . The Stockholm Programme is meant for
addressing the challenges posed by the AFSJ in a comprehensive manner within the new legal
framework developed by the Treaty of Lisbon. As can be seen from the title of the Stockholm
Programme, i.e. An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, the priority is to
focus on the interests and needs of EU citizens. The priorities identified by the European
Council in this document are the following: promoting European citizenship and fundamental
rights; achieving a Europe of law and justice; achieving a Europe that protects, granting a
more effective and efficient access to Europe in a globalised world; achieving a Europe of
responsibility, solidarity and partnership in migration and asylum matters; and improving
Europe’s external dimension, i.e. its relations with non-EU countries.
In the Stockholm Programme, victims of crime are specifically addressed in Paragraph 2.3.4
entitled Victims of crime, including terrorism, although many other provisions of the
Programme can be applied to victims, since they are expressly recognised as vulnerable

30
European Council (2010) The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting
Citizens, Official Journal of the European Union, C 115, 4.5.2010, pp. 1–38.
31
European Council (1999) Presidency Conclusions of Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999.
32
European Council (2005) The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the
European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 53, 3.3.2005, pp. 1–14.

39
Chapter 2

persons or persons with specific needs in terms of special protection measures and assistance.
Since the AFSJ must be realised throughout the EU, according to the Programme a series of
measures is to be implemented so as to facilitate access to justice for all EU citizens, promote
cooperation between judicial authorities and further develop the mutual recognition of court
decisions in both civil and criminal cases. In order to achieve these aims, common minimum
standards are progressively being adopted and implemented within the Member States for the
purposes of approximating criminal and civil law procedures and enhancing police and
judicial cooperation. Bearing in mind that the EU has a shared competence in the AFSJ, it
seems quite evident that these actions focus more on the fight of cross-border crime than
crime in general, since it is the cross-border form of crime that can be best tackled by means
of supranational cooperation. Therefore, the types of crime that are specifically referred to in
the Stockholm Programme are organised crime, trafficking in human beings, sexual abuse,
sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, cyber crime, economic crime,
corruption, counterfeiting and piracy, and drug trafficking. Thus, it is hardly surprising that
EU documents relevant to the area of law of victims of crime which have been issued both
before and after the Stockholm Programme, apart from dealing with victims of crime and their
rights in general, also mention victims in close connection to these specific types of crimes.
This is recognised by the European Commission itself, which stated that the EU has been
“targeting specific groups of victims – victims of trafficking, child sexual exploitation and
abuse, and terrorism” (European Commission 2011: 2–3).
Therefore, within the AFSJ and, more specifically, the framework of judicial cooperation in
criminal matters, the discussion on victims of crime at the EU level nowadays finds its
bedrock in two fundamental documents, namely the TFEU and the Stockholm Programme.
However, from a historical perspective, the beginnings of a thorough consideration of
victims’ rights and victim-oriented measures can be traced back to the late 1990s, with the
Presidency Conclusions of the European Council meeting in Tampere on 15-16 October 1999
and the Initiative of the Portuguese Republic with a view to adopting a Council Framework
Decision on the standing of victims in criminal procedure33. Point 32 of the Conclusions of
the Tampere meeting states that minimum standards should be adopted on the following
topics: protection of crime victims, their access to justice and their right to compensation, and
national programmes for assistance and protection of crime victims. However, it is the second
document that has been mentioned which is fundamental in the study of the development of

33
Portuguese Republic (2000) Initiative of the Portuguese Republic with a view to adopting a Council
Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal procedure, Official Journal of the European
Communities, C 243, 24.8.2000, pp. 4–8.

40
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

EU victim-related legislation, as it gave the impulse for the drafting and adoption of Council
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (see also Section 2.4.3). Since the aim of this thesis is to
examine the terminology used in victim-related documents rather than provide an in-depth
examination of the development of victim-related legislation within the EU, in the following
sections three legal instruments adopted by the European Council are presented, namely a
framework decision and two directives. The reason for choosing to illustrate these three
instruments is that they represent the milestones of the development of EU victim-related
legislation also because they deal with victims of crime in general, unlike other documents
which take into account only certain types of victims of crime.

2.4.3 COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2001/220/JHA

Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings (2001/220/JHA) represents a groundbreaking step in the elaboration of victim-
related legislation within the EU. Following the conclusions of the European Council meeting
in Tampere (see Section 2.4.2), according to point 4 of the Preamble to the Framework
Decision “Member States should approximate their laws and regulations to the extent
necessary to attain the objective of affording victims of crime a high level of protection
irrespective of the Member State in which they are present”.
The title of the Framework Decision makes direct reference to the standing of victims in
criminal proceedings. However, for the purposes of the Framework Decision itself, in order to
consider and address victims’ needs “in a comprehensive, coordinated manner, avoiding
partial or inconsistent solutions which may give rise to secondary victimisation” (Council of
the European Union 2001: Preamble, point 5), the provisions of the Framework Decision are
not limited to the criminal proceedings, but may also extend to measures to be taken before or
after the criminal proceedings to provide an appropriate degree of assistance to victims and
mitigate the effects of crime (Council of the European Union 2001: Preamble, point 6). The
main rights of victims that, according to the Framework Decision, required approximation
were the right to be treated with respect for one’s dignity, the right to provide and receive
information, the right to understand and be understood, the right to be protected at the various
stages of the criminal procedure and the right to have allowance made for the disadvantage of
living in a different Member State from the one in which the crime was committed (Council
of the European Union 2001: Preamble, point 8). Although not imposing any obligation on
Member States to ensure victims are granted the same status as the other parties to
proceedings, the Framework Decision recognised the difficult situation victims find

41
Chapter 2

themselves in after the commission of a crime and the need for establishing minimum rights
and services that could ease such situation.
The first two rights granted to victims of crime according to Article 2 of the Framework
Decision are the right to be respected for the sake of the dignity of the individual and the right
to recognition of their rights and legitimate interests. The same Article also introduced
another legal concept that would become a fundamental notion in the development of EU
victim-related legislation, i.e. the concept of PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE VICTIMS.
In the Framework Decision, no definition for this legal concept is provided and the
consequent absence of clear-cut conceptual boundaries has led to differences in the
application of the provision of Article 2(2), which states that “[e]ach Member State shall
ensure that victims who are particularly vulnerable can benefit from specific treatment best
suited to their circumstances”. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement of the existence of a so far
not better identified group of particularly vulnerable victims has laid the basis for the
elaboration of specific norms such as on the protection of victims of domestic violence or
child abuse.
A further fundamental right is found in Article 3, which relates to hearings and the provision
of evidence, and derives from the right of protection of personal dignity. Article 3 states that
“[e]ach Member State shall safeguard the possibility for victims to be heard during
proceedings and to supply evidence” and “shall take appropriate measures to ensure that its
authorities question victims only insofar as necessary for the purpose of criminal
proceedings”. The objectives pursued by this Article are to avoid multiple hearings as far as
possible and to limit the interfering in the victim’s personal life by means of the questioning,
unless this is strictly necessary to gather evidence about the crime. Hence, the provisions of
Article 3 aim at reducing the risk of secondary victimisation.
Another right is regulated by Article 4, which is entirely devoted to the right to receive
information. As regards this right, the Framework Decision provides a list of the minimum
amount and type of information victims need to receive, which concerns the type of services
or organisations to which they can turn for support and the type of support they can obtain,
where and how they can report an offence, what happens after such a report is made and their
role in the proceedings, how and under what conditions they can obtain protection, legal
advice, legal aid or any other sort of advice, compensation, and any special arrangements
available to victims who are resident in a State other than the State where the crime was
committed. The same Article also provides for the possibility for victims to be kept informed
of the outcome of their report, the conduct of the criminal proceedings regarding the person

42
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

prosecuted for offences concerning them, and the court’s sentence. The right to receive
information is further complemented by Article 5 on communication safeguards, according to
which victims having the status of witnesses or parties to the proceedings are to be granted all
the necessary measures to minimise as far as possible communication difficulties concerning
their understanding of, or involvement in, the relevant steps of the criminal proceedings in
question.
Article 6 provides that access to specific assistance (advice and legal aid) should be granted to
victims, while article 7 goes a step further and establishes that Member States shall afford
victims who have the status of parties or witnesses the possibility of reimbursement of
expenses incurred as a result of their legitimate participation in criminal proceedings. Given
the role victims play in criminal proceedings, however, the right to legal aid and
reimbursement of expenses regulated by the Framework Decision varies: when the victims are
witnesses, they only have the right to expenses, whereas if they are parties to the proceedings,
they are entitled to both rights.
Article 8 deals with the right to protection and establishes that each national legal system
“shall ensure a suitable level of protection for victims” (Council of the European Union 2001:
Article 8(1)). What seems most important here is that the right to protection, particularly
concerning safety and protection of privacy, is extended also to “their families or persons in a
similar position” (Council of the European Union 2001: Article 8(1)).
Looking at this provision through the lens of time, the inclusion of victims’ family members
and other people in a similar position seems quite interesting for two reasons. First of all,
although in Article 1(a) the Framework Decision provides a definition for the term “victim”
which refers to direct victims only, the right established by Article 8 can be applied also to
people who are indirect victims in accordance to the national law applicable. It follows that,
despite the harmonisation intent envisaged by the Framework Decision, national legal systems
may anyway develop their own victim protection strategies and practices, leading to different
treatments in different Member States. Secondly, this provision is relevant in view of the
development of the legal concept of VICTIM within the EU, as illustrated in reference to the
definition of victim in Section 2.2. Admittedly, when the term victim is used in the Framework
Decision under discussion, only the direct victim of a crime is intended, while in Council
Decision 2012/29/EU discussed in Section 2.4.5, the meaning of the term is broadened so as
to include also the indirect victims such as family members or other people in a comparable
position.

43
Chapter 2

In the discussion of the victim’s right to protection, Article 8 goes one step further and
establishes specific rules concerning the measures to adopt for the purposes of the court
proceedings. The functions exercised by these measures are twofold: on the one hand, they
are intended for protecting the privacy and photographic image of victims and their families
or persons in a similar position, while on the other, they are adopted to avoid contact between
victims and offenders within court premises, unless so required by criminal proceedings.
Moreover, Article 8 mentions special measures for victims who are particularly vulnerable,
which should be taken when the victim is asked to give evidence in open court and people
other than the direct victim are considered.
Article 9 provides for the right to compensation in the course of criminal proceedings: “[e]ach
Member State shall ensure that victims of criminal acts are entitled to obtain a decision within
reasonable time limits on compensation by the offender in the course of criminal proceedings,
except where, in certain cases, national law provides for compensation to be awarded in
another manner” (Council of the European Union 2001: Article 9(1)). In accordance with this
Article, the right to compensation of victims of crime shall be fulfilled by the offender in the
first place and measures should be adopted so as to encourage the offender to provide
adequate compensation (Council of the European Union 2001: Article 9(2)). At the same
time, recoverable property which belongs to victims and is seized during criminal proceedings
shall be returned to them without delay unless specifically required for the purpose of
criminal proceedings (Council of the European Union 2001: Article 9(3)). Article 9 of
Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, together with the international documents
dealing with compensation (already discussed in Section 2.3.2), lays the basis for the further
development of EU legislation in the field of compensation to victims of crime, which is
mainly embodied in Council Directive 2004/80/EC34 (see Section 2.4.4).
Under Article 10, penal mediation in the course of criminal proceedings shall be promoted by
Member States for offences which they consider appropriate for this sort of measure and any
agreement between the victim and the offender reached in the course of such mediation shall
be taken into account. Unlike previous articles, Article 10 does not impose a duty to
implement mediation in criminal cases on Member States, but is rather limited to promoting
this form of alternative justice which, however, can be resorted to differently in the various
Member States, given that they have the freedom to choose the offences for which they
consider mediation in criminal cases a feasible and adequate way of solution. This means that
while Article 10 of the Council Framework Decision proposes the adoption of a single
34
Council of the European Union (2004) Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to
compensation to crime victims, Official Journal of the European Union, L 261, 6.8.2004, pp. 15–18.

44
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

alternative measure to proper criminal proceedings, this measure can still vary from State to
State in accordance to the national legislation, thus still leading to an almost paradoxical
situation of heterogeneous harmonisation.
As stated earlier, the Council Framework Decision was adopted to guarantee a higher and
more harmonised degree of protection to victims, especially as regards specific types of
victims (particularly vulnerable victims) and crimes (organised crime, terrorism, sexual abuse,
among others). One particular case in which the EU is particularly involved, given its
supranational nature, is when crimes are committed in cross-border situations, i.e. when the
victim of the crime is not resident in the Member State in which the crime was committed. In
such cases, Article 11 applies, according to which appropriate measures shall be taken by the
competent authorities in the Member States involved (both the State in which the crime was
committed and the State in which the victim is resident) so as to minimise the difficulties
faced because of the cross-border situation. These measures consist of the recourse to video
conferencing and telephone conference calls for the purpose of hearing victims resident
abroad, the possibility for the victim to make a statement immediately after the commission of
an offence and to make a complaint before the competent authorities of the State of residence
if it was impossible to do so in the Member State where the offence was committed or, in the
event of a serious offence, if the victim did not wish to do so (Council of the European Union
2001: Article 11(2)). After the competent authority to which the complaint is made transmits
the complaint without delay to the competent authority in the State where the offence was
committed, the complaint is dealt with in accordance with the national legislation of the latter
State.
In order to make all the protection measures envisaged by the Framework Decision a reality,
Article 12 provides for each Member State to “foster, develop and improve cooperation
between Member States in order to facilitate the more effective protection of victims’ interests
in criminal proceedings, whether in the form of networks directly linked to the judicial system
or of links between victim support organisations” (Council of the European Union 2001:
Article 12). Compared to previous articles, in which Member States were provided with
“clues” or minimum standards on how to reach the goals imposed by the Framework
Decision, the wording of this provision is sufficiently comprehensive so as to include all sorts
of cooperation between Member States without suggesting any binding form among the
available ones, thus leaving the Member States ample discretion in the field of cooperation.
The following two articles focus more on the services and organisations who are directly
involved in dealing with victims of crime, and the training people in contact with victims

45
Chapter 2

should receive. Article 13 provides for Member States to promote the involvement of victim
support systems either through the provision of specially trained personnel within their public
services or through recognition and funding of victim support organisations. These systems
shall provide assistance and support to victims of crime in the context of proceedings, which,
according to Article 1(d), should be broadly taken to include not only criminal proceedings,
but also all contacts of victims with any authority, public service or victim support
organisation before, during, or after the criminal process. In the course of such proceedings,
the public services personnel or victim support organisations should fulfil specific tasks, such
as providing victims with the necessary information, assisting victims according to their
immediate needs, accompanying them during criminal proceedings, and assisting victims after
the end of criminal proceeding, if they request so.
According to Article 14 the personnel involved in proceedings or otherwise in contact with
victims shall receive suitable training, which should also pay particular attention to the needs
of the most vulnerable victims, and such training shall apply especially to police officers and
legal practitioners.
The last article focusing on the protection of victims is Article 15, which deals with the
practical conditions regarding the position of victims in proceedings. According to this article,
Member States “shall support the progressive creation, in respect of proceedings in general,
and particularly in venues where criminal proceedings may be initiated, of the necessary
conditions for attempting to prevent secondary victimisation and avoiding placing victims
under unnecessary pressure”. In order to do so, they shall pay particular attention to facilities
within courts, police stations, public services and victim support organisations.

2.4.4 COUNCIL D IRECTIVE 2004/80/EC

Still within the framework of the AFSJ introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, one
of the objectives of the European Union is to guarantee that persons who enjoy free
movement within the EU external borders are granted a certain degree of protection from
harm in each Member State, regardless of what their State of residence is. For the purposes of
reaching this goal, measures for facilitating compensation to victims of crimes were
considered essential also following the European Council meeting in Tampere of 15-16
October 1999, where the need for the drawing-up of minimum standards on victims’ rights to
compensation for damages, including legal costs, was highlighted as a priority. As illustrated
in Section 2.4.3, Article 9 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA focuses on the

46
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

Member States’ commitment to ensure victims of crime can collect compensation from the
offender in the course of criminal proceedings.
However, another form of compensation is envisaged by Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29
April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, namely compensation by the State. This
Directive actually establishes a system of cooperation whose aim is to facilitate access to
compensation to victims of crime in cross-border situations who are not able to receive
compensation from the offender by reason of him or her either lacking the necessary means or
not being identified or prosecuted. This system operates on the basis of the Member States’
compensation schemes which are devoted to victims of violent intentional crimes and are
supposed to guarantee fair and appropriate compensation to victims.
At the time when this Directive was adopted, in most Member States such compensation
schemes were already available, as required by the European Convention on the
Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes of 24 November 1983.
In order to overcome the difficulties faced by victims because of the impossibility to collect
compensation from the offender and the fact of being victimised in a country other than the
State of residence, the Directive imposes the creation of a system of cooperation between the
authorities of the Member States for the purpose of facilitating access to compensation in
cross-border situations. In Council Directive 2004/80/EC, a cooperation system is envisaged
in which applicants for compensation with reference to a violent intentional crime have the
right to submit an application in the Member State of residence rather than in the Member
State where the crime is committed (Article 1) and compensation shall be paid by the Member
State in which the crime was committed (Article 2). In order to make this system work in
practice, Member States establish or designate the so-called “assisting authority” and the
“deciding authority”. Assisting authorities are in charge of providing potential applicants with
essential information on the possibilities to apply for compensation and the application forms,
providing guidance and assistance as regards the supporting documentation, and receiving and
transmitting applications. Deciding authorities are responsible for providing the assisting
authority with information about the application for compensation (contact person,
acknowledgement of receipt of the application, approximate time by which a decision on the
application will be made), deciding upon the application and sending the decision both to the
applicant and the assisting authority. Moreover, according to Article 9, the deciding authority
can decide to hear the applicant or any other person such as a witness or an expert, also by
means of telephone- or video-conferencing, or to receive a report of the hearing that was held
by the assisting authority.

47
Chapter 2

Article 16 also calls for the appointment of a central contact point by each Member State for
the purposes of establishing and publishing a manual containing all the necessary information
for applicants for compensation, furthering cooperation and exchange of information between
the assisting and deciding authorities in the Member States, and giving assistance and seeking
solutions to any difficulties whenever necessary in relation to the content of the Directive.

2.4.5 COUNCIL D IRECTIVE 2012/29/EU

As already stated in Section 2.4.3, while being a milestone in the development of EU victim-
related legislation, Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA contained some provisions
that showed the path to follow in the harmonisation process, but at the same time were too
vague to produce factual effects. Under the Stockholm Programme (An open and secure
Europe serving and protecting citizens), the Commission and the Member States were asked
to examine how to improve legislation and practical support measures for the protection of
victims. The consultations, studies and impact assessments (see European Commission
2011b: 5) which were consequently carried out aimed at verifying the actions to be performed
to reach a higher degree of harmonisation within the EU and concluded that a new Directive
was necessary to substitute Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA containing concrete
obligations on the rights of victims.
On 18th of May 2011, the European Commission issued a Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards on the rights,
support and protection of victims of crime35. The Proposal was part of a legislative package
aiming at strengthening the rights of victims of crime in the EU which also included a
communication on strengthening victims’ rights in the EU36 and a proposal for a Regulation
on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters37.
The explanatory memorandum to this proposal acknowledges the improvements achieved in
the area of law of victims of crime thanks to Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (see
Section 2.4.3), but also admits that the objectives set in it have not been fully reached. In
order to offer victims of crime the widest protection possible and to assure them the right to
assistance as well as support, the implementation of the minimum standards to be applied to

35
European Commission (2011b) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime (COM (2011) 275
final).
36
European Commission (2011a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Strengtheening Victims’
Rights in the EU (COM (2011) 274 final).
37
European Commission (2011c) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters (COM (2011) 276 final).

48
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

all victims of crime throughout the EU was considered fundamental. In this case too, although
victims of crime and their needs are tackled in general terms, the proposal stresses the
importance of adopting measures which other EU policies can benefit from. Therefore, in the
Proposal crimes such as human trafficking, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children,
violence against women, terrorism, and organised crime, and the victims of these types of
crimes are explicitly mentioned. However, despite being an object of special mention in the
Proposal, the specific provisions on particularly vulnerable victims (e.g. adult and child
victims of trafficking in human beings, child victims of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and
child pornography, victims of terrorism) contained in other EU documents are not affected by
the envisaged directive.
After incorporating all the amendments necessary to reach a final version of the act in the
Proposal, the Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and
replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA was adopted on 25th October 2012.
As already stated in Section 2.1, this Directive contains a broader definition of “victim”
compared to the definition provided in Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Other
than the direct victim, this definition acknowledges the presence of other people who are
often also affected by the crime and at risk of secondary victimisation, repeat victimisation or
intimidation (Article 2(a)).
What is also noteworthy in Article 2(c) is that the notion of ‘child’ is provided with a
definition. Whereas in previous acts children were generally accepted as a particularly
vulnerable group, the notion of ‘child’ could be interpreted differently. For instance, in
Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings38, a
“child victim” is to be considered a victim “under the age of sexual majority under national
law” (Council of the European Union 2002: Article 3(2)(b)), while in other documents the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child39 of 1989 – establishing that a child is a
person under the age of 18 – is recalled. Because no overall consensus on the notion under
discussion could be established, the definition in Article 2(c), according to which a child is
“any person below 18 years of age”, represents a step further in the harmonisation of victim-
related legislation.

38
Council of the European Union (2002) Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking
in human beings (2002/629/JHA), Official Journal of the European Communities, L 203, 1.8.2002, pp. 1–4.
39
United Nations (1989) Convention on the rights of the child, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in
accordance with article 49.

49
Chapter 2

Moreover, in Article 3 Directive 2012/29/EU further develops a right already mentioned in

the Preamble to Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, i.e. the right to understand and
be understood. The Directive calls for communications to be given in a simple and accessible
language, orally or in writing, on account of the personal characteristics of the victim,
including any disability that may affect the ability to understand or to be understood (Article
3(2)).
Article 4 on the right to receive information from the first contact with a competent authority
extends the list of information victims are provided with from their first contact with a
competent authority, also including their right to interpretation and translation. Again, the list
presented in Article 4(1) is not exhaustive and the information offered to victims may vary on
the basis of the specific needs and personal circumstances of the victim and the type or nature
of the crime.
The language difficulties a victim can face in a cross-border situation are also addressed in
Article 5 on the right of victims when making a complaint, since Member States shall ensure
that “victims who wish to make a complaint with regard to a criminal offence and who do not
understand or speak the language of the competent authority be enabled to make the
complaint in a language that they understand or by receiving the necessary linguistic
assistance” (European Parliament & European Council 2012: Article 5(2)) and that “victims
who do not understand or speak the language of the competent authority, receive translation,
free of charge, of the written acknowledgement of their complaint […], if they so request, in a
language that they understand” (European Parliament & European Council 2012: Article
5(3)).
However, language issues are specifically dealt with in Article 7 on the right to interpretation
and translation, which victims can exercise in accordance with their role in the relevant
criminal justice system in criminal proceedings. In order to exercise this right, different
communication means can be used, such as videoconferencing, telephone or the internet.
Article 6 on the right to receive information about their case and Article 8 on the right to
access victim support services further develop what in Council Framework Decision
2001/220/JHA was regulated by Article 4 (Right to receive information) and Article 13
(Specialist services and victim support organisations). Article 9 on victim support services
establishes the minimum services which should be provided to victims: information, advice
and support relevant to the rights of victims, including the right to access national
compensation schemes for criminal injuries, and to their role in criminal proceedings,
including preparation for attendance at the trial; information about or direct referral to any

50
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

relevant specialist support services in place; emotional and, where available, psychological
support; advice relating to financial and practical issues arising from the crime; and advice
relating to the risk and prevention of secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and
retaliation (Article 9(1)(a-e)). Compared to Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA,
Directive 2012/29/EU contains much more detailed provisions, such as in Article 9(3), which
again acknowledges the need for services tailored to meet the specific needs of certain groups
of victims and sets that specialist support services develop and provide “shelters or any other
appropriate interim accommodation for victims in need of a safe place due to an imminent
risk of secondary and repeat victimisation, of intimidation and of retaliation” (Article 9(3)(a))
and “targeted and integrated support for victims with specific needs, such as victims of sexual
violence, victims of gender-based violence and victims of violence in close relationships,
including trauma support and counselling” (European Parliament & European Council 2012:
Article 9(3)(b)).
As far as the participation of victims in criminal proceedings is concerned, Directive
2012/29/EU regulates a series of rights that victims are entitled to in the course or in the
aftermath of criminal proceedings, but which are granted by procedural rules determined by
national law. These rights are: the right to be heard during criminal proceedings and to
provide evidence (Article 10); the right to a review of a decision not to prosecute (Article 11);
the right to safeguards from secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation in
the context of restorative justice services (Article 12); the right to legal aid for victims who
have the status of parties to criminal proceedings (Article 13); the right to reimbursement of
expenses incurred as a result of the victims’ active participation in criminal proceedings, in
accordance with their role in the relevant criminal justice system (Article 14); the right to the
return of the property seized in the course of criminal proceedings, unless it is required for the
purposes of criminal proceedings (Article 15); the right to decision on compensation from the
offender in the course of criminal proceedings (Article 16), and the rights of victims resident
in another Member State (Article 17), which are the same rights provided for by Article 11 of
Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.
Although in the Directive “particularly vulnerable victims” are mentioned several times
throughout the text40, the act contains a chapter (Chapter 4) dedicated to both the protection of

40
For instance, Article 10(1) explicitly refers to child victims: “Member States shall ensure that victims may be
heard during criminal proceedings and may provide evidence. Where a child victim is to be heard, due account
shall be taken of the child's age and maturity.” On the other hand, Article 9(3) mentions victims with specific
needs: “Unless otherwise provided by other public or private services, specialist support services referred to in
Article 8(3), shall, as a minimum, develop and provide: […] (b) targeted and integrated support for victims with

51
Chapter 2

victims in general and the recognition of victims with specific needs. As far as protection is
concerned, the Directive establishes that victims and their family members should be
protected from secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation, retaliation, and the risk of
emotional or psychological harm, and their dignity should be protected during questioning
and testifying (Article 18). Moreover, Article 19 regulates the victims’ right to avoid contact
between victims and their family members and the offender within the premises where the
criminal proceedings are conducted, unless in cases where the criminal proceedings require
such a contact, and establishes that new court premises should have separate waiting areas for
victims. As regards criminal investigations, victims are interviewed only where strictly
necessary for the purposes of the criminal investigation and without unjustified delay after
they made a complaint with regard to a criminal offence to the competent authority.
Moreover, the number of interviews and medical examinations is kept to a minimum and
interviews and medical examinations are carried out only where strictly necessary for the
purposes of the criminal investigation, and victims may be accompanied by their legal
representative and a person of their choice, unless otherwise established by the court. Victims
are further entitled to the right to protection of their privacy, personal integrity and personal
data during the criminal proceedings under the provisions of Article 21.
With regard to victims with specific protection needs, Article 22 provides for a timely and
individual assessment in order to identify the victims’ specific protection needs and determine
whether and to what extent they would benefit from special measures in the course of
criminal proceedings, depending on their particular vulnerability to secondary and repeat
victimisation, intimidation and retaliation. In order to assess the victims’ specific protection
needs, three factors need to be taken into account, namely the personal characteristics of the
victim, the type or nature of the crime, and the circumstances of the crime. Apart from these
factors, Article 22 goes further in the specification of aspects to consider in the individual
assessment, since other factors, such as the degree of harm suffered due to the severity of the
crime and the bias or discriminatory motive which led to the crime, the victims’ age or the
relationship between the victim and the offender, are also considered as reasons for additional
vulnerability.
Once the vulnerability of the victims is assessed, in accordance with Article 23 victims with
specific protection needs are entitled to benefit from special measures during criminal
investigations and the court proceedings. Such measures are, for instance, interviews carried
out in premises designed or adapted for that purpose, by or through professionals trained for

specific needs, such as victims of sexual violence, victims of gender-based violence and victims of violence in
close relationships, including trauma support and counselling.”

52
 The Area of Law: Victims of Crime

that purpose, conducted by the same persons unless this is contrary to the good administration
of justice, and interviews with victims of sexual violence, gender-based violence or violence
in close relationships, unless conducted by a prosecutor or a judge, conducted by a person of
the same sex as the victim on victim’s request. Other measures belonging to this category are
measures to avoid visual contact between victims and offenders, measures ensuring that the
victim may be heard in the courtroom without being present, measures to avoid unnecessary
questioning concerning the victim’s private life not related to the criminal offence, and
measures allowing a hearing to take place without the presence of the public.
Apart from the special measures for victims with specific needs, Article 24 adds a right
specifically reserved to children, i.e. the right to protection of child victims This provision
rules that in criminal investigations, interviews may be audiovisually recorded and used as
evidence in criminal proceedings, in criminal investigations and proceedings, in accordance
with the role of victims in the relevant criminal justice system. This article also establish that
competent authorities appoint a special representative for child victims where, according to
national law, the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from representing the child
victim as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim, or where the
child victim is unaccompanied or separated from the family, and where the child victim has
the right to a lawyer, to legal advice and representation.
As in the case of its predecessor, i.e. Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, the
Directive provides for both general and specialist training of practitioners who are likely to
come into contact with victims (e.g. police officers, court staff, judges, prosecutors, lawyers,
providers of victim support and restorative justice services). Such training is performed for
the purpose of increasing “their awareness of the needs of victims and to enable them to deal
with victims in an impartial, respectful and professional manner” (European Parliament &
European Council 2012: Article 25). The Directive also takes a step further as regards
cooperation between Member States compared to the Framework Decision, since in Article
26 a series of minimum standards for cooperation is set which shall include the exchange of
best practices, the consultation in individual cases, and the assistance to European networks
working on matters directly relevant to victims’ rights. As noted above with reference to other
articles, also in this Article groups that are particularly at risk such as children, victims of
gender-based violence and violence in close relationships are explicitly mentioned.

53
 Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY

In Chapter 1 the main aim of the research project has been described, i.e. the creation of a
collection of English and Italian terms that reflects the behaviour of the terminology referring
to the area of victims of crime in context, while Chapter 2 illustrated such an area of law as
conceptualised in the EU multi-level jurisdiction. This chapter illustrates the methodology
employed for carrying out the research project presented in this thesis.

3.1 THE METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

In order to elaborate an appropriate methodology for the analysis of the terminology under
examination, three preliminary remarks have been made on the type of terminographic work
to be undertaken, the object of study, and the order of the phases to be followed in the
methodology.

3.1.1 THE TYPE OF TERMINOGRAPHIC WORK

The aim of the study is to carry out a descriptive terminographic work on the terminology
used in the EU multi-level jurisdiction in the area of law of victims of crime. In order to
analyse the terminology used in this specific subdomain, an approach falling into what Picht
and Draskau (1985: 175) called the first “constellation” of the possible solutions for
undertaking a terminographic task has been chosen. In the first setting envisaged by the
researchers 41 , the terminographic work is accomplished by a terminologist with linguistic
training with the support of an expert adviser in the phases of text selection, validation and
revision. The research project can also be considered as a new project, in the sense that it
consists in a “[f]irst-time elaboration of a subject field” (Picht & Draskau 1985: 176). A
further specification should be made in relation to the type of terminographic work that has
been carried out in this project. The terms related to the area of law under discussion here,

41
The other two possible settings mentioned by Picht and Draskau (1985: 175) are: 1) a group of terminologists
working with an expert adviser in multilingual projects, and 2) a group of experts and a terminologist with
linguistic training as adviser on matters concerning language.

55
Chapter 3

which have been collected and analysed following the methodology presented in this chapter,
have also been recorded in a terminological resource that was specifically designed to fulfil
the needs and expectations of a specific group of end users, i.e. legal translators, thus allowing
for the recording of the peculiarities of legal terminology. For the purpose of identifying such
peculiarities, a terminological perspective that is far from prescriptive has been adopted. As
the approach to the analysis is textual, the methodology used in this project 1) allows for the
examination of the terminology as it is actually used in context, and 2) makes it possible to
record the collected terms in a descriptive way, so as to provide pragmatic information on
how they are used in context (parole).
It goes without saying that, by adopting a textual approach, the starting point of the analysis is
a collection of texts, i.e. a corpus. Though meant to be as exhaustive and comprehensive as
possible, the terminological analysis is thus limited by two main factors: 1) all the terms that
are analysed were extracted from a corpus which is by definition limited as regards word
tokens and types, and, 2) as the area of law chosen for the analysis concerns victims of crime,
the terms examined necessarily needed to have a semantic relation with this main topic. By
adding other texts to the textual material analysed, new terms and/or term variants can always
be found, since “[n]ew texts are always on the horizon” (Teubert 2005: 13). Hence, new term
clusters and new terminographic entries can be created. In other words, although the aim was
to provide an exhaustive overview of the terminology used in the legal sphere concerning
victims of crime, the limits of the analysis are to be found in the constraints posed by the very
adoption of a textual approach for the analysis of a textual corpus.

3.1.2 THE OBJECT OF STUDY

In order to understand how a term is conceived within this research project, it is necessary to
take into account the criticism of the General Terminology Theory (GTT) by terminology
theories ever since the early 1990s. In the traditional view of terminology, any terminographic
work should be carried out starting from the analysis of the conceptual system – being
considered as language-independent – in order to achieve the standardisation of the terms
used within a specialised field of knowledge which is deemed to be necessary for reaching
unambiguous communication. However, as several terminologists have pointed out (see
Bourigault & Slodzian 1999; Bowker 1998; Merkel 1998; Sager 1990; Temmerman 2000a,
among others), such an approach to terminology is only one of the possible approaches to the
study of the vocabulary of a specialised domain. The traditional approach leads to
disregarding the actual behaviour of terms in context in favour of a “permanent assignment of

56
 Methodology

a term to a concept” (Collet 2004a: 100). In this view, terminology should adhere to the
principle of univocity, which consists of a “one-to-one reference between term and concept”
(Faber 2009: 110).
However, as Collet critically points out, “if the meaning of a term is a language-independent
concept, it follows that the term is a context-independent lexical item, i.e. a lexical item that
always conveys the same meaning whatever the linguistic context in which it is employed”
(Collet 2004a: 100). The traditional tenet contrasts also with language evolution, which
affects both language for general purposes and language for special purposes and is necessary
for assuring the evolution of meaning: several studies have been carried out which have
questioned the permanent assignment of a term to a concept and the impossibility for the
meaning of a term to be altered in discourse (see, for instance, Bowker & Hawkins 2006;
Cabré 2006; Condamines et al. 2004; Fernández-Silva et al. 2011; Picton 2011; Tartier 2003;
Temmerman 1997). Moreover, as Collet notes, “if a term is assigned to a language-
independent concept on a permanent basis, it follows that the term is a label, i.e. a linguistic
object that is so static that it refuses any modification of its relationship to this concept, even
if this modification only concerns its linear structure” (Collet 2004a: 101). In regard to the
formal aspect of terminology, several empirical studies have proved that terms are not
immutable when used in discourse, but rather adapt to the cotext and the context they appear
in (see Freixa 2002; Kerremans 2010; Messineo 2002, to name a few).
It can be therefore concluded that the univocity principle is a utopian tenet posed by the GTT
rather than an empirically verifiable aspect of terminology, since terms are subject both to
conceptual and formal variation (for a more detailed discussion on terminological variation
see Chapter 4). In the light of the results of empirical studies on the behaviour of terms in
their natural habitat, i.e. texts, the concept of ‘term’ as developed by the traditional
terminology theory needed revision on the assumption that terms play “two distinct roles: as
names of concepts in specific domains and as words in discourse” (Condamines 2010: 45). In
Cabré’s words,

Terms, like words in the general language lexicon, are distinctive and
meaningful signs which occur in special language discourse. Like words,
they have a systematic side (formal, semantic, and functional) since they are
units of an established code; they also have a pragmatic side, because they
are units used in specialized communication to refer to the objects of the
real world. Terms do not seem to be very different from words when we
consider them from the formal or semantic point of view; they differ from
words when we consider them as pragmatic and communicative units.
(Cabré 1999a: 81)

57
Chapter 3

Therefore, when the behaviour of a term in context is taken into consideration and a textual
approach is adopted for its analysis, such as in this study, the most appropriate definition of
“term”, which has already been briefly discussed in Section 1.1, is that provided by Collet:

The term is:

 A semantically charged linear structure, which names an abstract or
a concrete reality studied by a special-subject field;
 When used in a special text, it plays a dynamic and important part in
the bringing about of text coherence and of text cohesion;
 This contribution to text coherence and to text cohesion may
translate into variability both on the level of its meaning content and
of its linear structure, especially if its linear structure is syntactically
transparent;
 This variability may lead to polysemy on the one hand, and signals
on the other hand that terms exhibiting syntactic transparency are, in
fact, paradigms, i.e. sets of all the possible forms the linear structure
can have in a text. (Collet 2004a: 109)

3.1.3 THE ORDER OF THE METHODOLOGICAL PHASES

The methodological framework developed for this study (see Section 3.3) is based on the
methodology proposed by Cabré (see Section 3.2), though the steps envisaged by Cabré have
been adapted to the peculiarities of the legal terminology embedded in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction. The main reasons for modifying such steps and resorting to additional ones (from
Step 2 to Step 5 presented in Figure 3.2) are extralinguistic: the precedence of EU law over
domestic law and the innovation brought about by EU legal provisions in the legal subdomain
of victims of crime compared to national legal provisions (see Section 2.4.1). Given this
precedence, the EU corpus (see Section 3.3.2) has been taken as the starting point for the
terminographic work and the terminology extracted from it has been considered to be the
reference for identifying national terminology (see Section 3.3.5).

3.2 CABRÉ’S METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The reference point for finding a methodology suitable for reaching the aims of this research
has been the methodological model proposed by Cabré (1999a: 129–159) for
“[t]erminological work done on a large set of terms belonging to the same subject field in a
single language” (Cabré 1999a: 130). For this specific type of terminographic work, the
author envisages at least six different stages, which are summarised in Figure 3.1 below.

58
 Methodology

Though Cabré’s method is designed for systematic searches in strictly monolingual contexts,
this apparent contrast with the purpose of the present study – which is meant to be carried out
on a bilingual basis – is overcome by Cabré herself, when adding that in “systematic
multilingual searches” all the steps envisaged for monolingual searches are followed for each
language involved and the starting point for this type of searches is “multiple, whereas the end
point is unitary” (Cabré 1999a: 151).
With regard to the methodology proposed by Cabré, a further remark should be made. The
scholar’s methodology is applied to what she refers to as “systematic searches” (Cabré 1999a:
129), i.e. searches that “cover the terms of an entire special subject field or a subpart thereof”
(Cabré 1999a: 129). Consequently, although the methodology selected for this study is based
on Cabré’s proposal, the limits posed by the textual approach (see Section 3.1.1) and the type
of corpus (see Section 3.3.2) chosen as the starting point for the terminographic work make
the type of work carried out here more similar to what Cabré calls “ad-hoc searches”, i.e.
searches that “are restricted to a single term or a small set of terms belonging to a subsection
of a subject field, or to a group of terms belonging to different fields” (Cabré 1999a: 129).

Stage 1 Definition and delimitation of task

topic
addressees
purposes
size

Stage 2 Preparation of search

acquisition of information
choice of consultants
choice of information
selecting an extraction corpus
structuring the field
proposing the work schedule

Stage 3 Preparation of the terminology

extraction
extraction record
terminological record

Stage 4 Presentation of work

Stage 5 Revision of work

Stage 6 Treatment and resolution of problematic cases

Figure 3.1. Stages followed in a systematic monolingual terminological work according to
Cabré (1999: 131).

59
Chapter 3

The relevance of Cabré’s methodological model to this study is also provided by its being
embedded in the Communicative Theory of Terminology (CTT) (Cabré 1999b, 2000), which
accounts for the most relevant aspects of modern terminology theories: the communicative
element of terminology, terminological variation, the usage of corpora in terminographic
tasks, and the need for adapting the methodology in order to take the end users’ needs and the
terminology’s practical application into account. However, there are two main differences
between Cabré’s methodology and the methodology adopted here. The first is the final aim of
the methodology, which in Cabré’s case has been developed specifically for building
comprehensive terminological collections or at least compile sets of terminographic records,
while in this research is the study of two specific phenomena, i.e. terminological variation and
equivalence in a multi-level jurisdiction. The second difference concerns the conceptual
structuring of the field, which is carried out differently in the two methodological approaches
(see Sections 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.6.3). Despite these differences, however, Cabré’s methodology
has served as a guiding light for the formulation of the methodological approach adopted in
this study.

3.3 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF

MULTILINGUAL TERMINOLOGY IN THE EU MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION

The following sections provide a step-by-step account of the methodology followed to obtain
the results presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Before discussing these steps, the aims for which
this methodological framework has been developed need to be briefly summarised. This
research project consists in the terminographic analysis of a collection of textual material
concerning the legal subdomain of victims of crime with the main aim of organising the
linguistic and conceptual data related to the extracted terminology in a translation-oriented
terminological knowledge base (TKB). In order to do so, a methodological framework is
being proposed for carrying out a terminographic work leading to a collection of
terminological data to be subsequently recorded in resources specifically designed for
translators. This same methodology can also be adopted by translators themselves as a basis
for the ad hoc terminological tasks they carry out in their everyday professional life.
Though the focus of the study is on the observation of terminology as used in vivo (see Dubuc
& Lauriston 1997: 85 and Cabré 2000: 45), i.e. as it is actually used in texts, to achieve a clear

60
 Methodology

and exhaustive picture of the victim-related terminology the study cannot do without an in
vitro analysis of the selected data against the existing terminographic/lexicographic resources.
The methodology used for the study of terminology in vivo can be divided into seven main
steps, which are further analysed in the following sections and summarised in Figure 3.2.

1. DEFINITION OF THE TERMINOGRAPHIC WORK AND THE AREA OF

KNOWLEDGE
1.1 Definition of the pragmatic and linguistic variables (area of knowledge,
addressees, languages and terminology, scope)
1.2 Choice of IT tools, reference materials and consultants
1.3 Acquisition of information about the area of knowledge
1.4 Preliminary frame-based conceptual structuring of the area of knowledge

2. COMPILATION OF THE EU CORPUS

2.1 Design of the parallel corpus
2.2 Retrieval of documents
2.3 Organisation and classification of texts

3. TERMINOGRAPHIC PROCESSING OF THE EU PARALLEL CORPUS

3.1 Semi-automatic extraction of candidate terms
3.2 Terminological analysis

4. SELECTION OF NATIONAL COMPARABLE TEXTS

5. TERMINOGRAPHIC PROCESSING OF NATIONAL COMPARABLE TEXTS

5.1 Selection of terms and terminological variants
5.2 Terminological analysis

6. POPULATION OF A TRANSLATION-ORIENTED TERMINOLOGICAL

KNOWLEDGE BASE
6.1 Term clustering
6.2 Cross-linguistic term matching
6.3 Conceptual (re)structuring of the area of knowledge

7. REVISION AND VALIDATION

Figure 3.2. Stages followed in the terminological analysis of multilingual terminology in a

multi-level jurisdiction.

3.3.1 STEP 1. DEFINITION OF THE TERMINOGRAPHIC WORK AND THE AREA OF

KNOWLEDGE

The first step, i.e. the definition of the terminographic work and the area of knowledge, can be
further divided into the following tasks:

61
Chapter 3

1.1. definition of the pragmatic and linguistic variables (area of knowledge, addressees,
languages, scope);
1.2. choice of IT tools, existing terminological/lexicographical/encyclopaedic material
and consultants;
1.3. acquisition of information about the area of knowledge;
1.4. preliminary frame-based conceptual structuring of the area of knowledge.
Each task is further discussed in the following sections.

3.3.1.1 D EFINITION OF THE PRAGMATIC AND LINGUISTIC VARIABLES

The pragmatic and linguistic variables established at the beginning of the terminographic
work are the area of knowledge, the addressees, the languages, and the scope.

3.3.1.1.1 D EFINITION OF THE AREA OF KNOWLEDGE

Following Cabré (1999a:130), before starting a terminological search authors must first define
the topic they want to address and then the end-user of the terminographic work. For the
purpose of widening the knowledge on the behaviour of legal terminology in a multi-level-
jurisdiction, a legal subdomain different from police cooperation in Europe (see Peruzzo
2006/2007) was needed, which:
a) was relevant both for the EU and the national legal systems involved (English and
Italian),
b) was relatively new from a European perspective,
c) was sufficiently self-contained, at least within the EU, so as to allow for the collection of
a limited but at the same time relatively high number of representative texts to build a
corpus,
d) proved problematic from a terminological/translational perspective.
The choice has thus fallen on the area of law of victims of crime, as this legal subdomain
meets almost all the requirements mentioned above. In fact, the topic of the standing of
victims in criminal proceedings has been at the fore in debates within the EU institutions ever
since the year 2000, when the Portuguese Republic submitted an initiative with a view to
adopting a Council Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal procedure
(Portuguese Republic 2000). Since then, this area of law has regained its status as a cutting-
edge topic also at the national level, owing to the fact that national legislators are obliged to
transpose and enforce EU legal acts into their own legal systems. As for the third requirement
above, given that the emergence of major interest in this subdomain at the EU level can be
dated back to 2000, the number of EU documents available on this topic is still limited and
62
 Methodology

allows for terminographic work to be carried out by a single terminographer. Finally, the
fulfilment of the last requirement above could not be established a priori, as the problematic
nature of certain phenomena in terminological/translational terms can only be evaluated by
means of analysis. However, a general tendency to consider legal terminology as a
problematic element in the translation process has been observed in several authors (see
Garzone 2000, Mattila 2006, Sagri & Tiscornia 2009, Sandrini 1996 and Šarčević 1997,
among others).

3.3.1.1.2 D EFINITION OF THE ADDRESSEES

The methodology adopted to analyse the terminology of a specialised domain changes
according to both the end-users of the terminological repository where the terms are recorded
and the function it is meant for in connection with the end-user. By way of example, it is not
the same thing to carry out a descriptive study on the lexical variants used to refer to specific
forms of bread in a given country as part of an ethnographic study and to use a prescriptive
terminological method to standardise the terminology used by technical drafters for the
products of a company bakery. Since the aim of this study is to examine legal terminology
from a translational perspective and build a terminological knowledge base (TKB) suitable to
contain the terminology analysed, the end-users envisaged in the study are professional
translators who need multilingual terminological reference tools during their translation tasks.
For this reason, the purpose is different from the scope for which other kind of resources
containing legal terminology are built for, such as legal encyclopaedias and bilingual or
multilingual legal resources, which are not created for translational purposes. Whereas the
latter are designed so as to include as much encyclopaedic information as possible to serve
both as a reference and knowledge acquisition tool, the purpose of the TKB developed in this
study is threefold: 1) provide the essential information needed by translators to understand the
meaning of the term they are looking for, 2) find a proposal for an equivalent term in another
language, and 3) find all other possible information that can be useful in the determination of
the most suitable equivalent, while at the same time keeping to a minimum the information
load, the cognitive effort and the time spent in searching.

3.3.1.1.3 D EFINITION OF THE LANGUAGES AND THE TYPE OF TERMINOLOGY

Given the aims described in Section 3.3, the TKB that has been built in this study is populated
with terminology that:
a) is bilingual (English and Italian), though rooted in a multi-level jurisdiction, which gives
rise to intra- and inter-systemic variation (see Section 4.5.4);
63
Chapter 3

b) concerns a specific legal subdomain, i.e. victims of crime;

c) contains both single-word and multi-word terms;
d) contains only nouns.
The reasons for focusing only on nouns are explained in the next two paragraphs and follow
from the classification of terms operated by Cabré (1999a: 85) on the basis of four criteria:
form, function, meaning and origin. From a strictly formal point of view, terms can be
classified according to the number and type of their constituent morphemes, the combination
of words following a syntactic structure to form a “terminological phrase” (Cabré 1999a: 85)
and the like. From a functional point of view of the terms in discourse, the author classifies
terms according to the grammatical category they belong to, i.e. nouns, adjectives, verbs and
adverbs, and Cabré herself also states that there is a clear imbalance in the proportion of
terminological units belonging to one or the other grammatical category, with the number of
nouns being “highly disproportionate in relation to the number of adjectives or verbs” (Cabré
1999a: 87).
However, the choice of this research to concentrate only on nouns is more specifically based
on the assumption that the terminology related to the main topic of the study can be mainly
assigned to two of the categories identified by Cabré (1999a: 87–88) on the grounds of
meaning, i.e. objects or entities and actions, both expressed by nouns. According to the
features they share and the relationships they hold with one another, terms can in fact “be
classified by the class of concept they designate” (Cabré 1999a: 87) 42. Within a specialized
domain, concepts are organised in conceptual systems, i.e. collections of mental
representations of the world. Conceptual systems are generally further organised into more or
less rigid structures or concept fields. The terminology collected for this study falls into three
concept fields (see Section 6.4.1.1.1), identified both by English and Italian labels according
to the language the terms examined pertain to:
43
a) persons involved in criminal justice/soggetti della giustizia penale (e.g. VICTIM , CROSS-

BORDER VICTIM and APPLICANT FOR COMPENSATION);

b) harm and damage suffered by victims of crime/pregiudizi subiti dalle vittime di reato (e.g.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE, CRIMINAL INJURY and MATERIAL LOSS);

3) rights of victims of crime/diritti delle vittime di reato (e.g. COMPENSATION, MEDIATION and
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE).

42
The author initially recognises four main conceptual classes, each of which is generally expressed by a
specific grammatical class: objects or entities (nouns); processes, operations and actions (verbs, nominalisation
of verbs); properties, states and qualities (adjectives); relationships (adjectives, verbs and prepositions).
43
In this thesis, terms included in the MuLex terminological knowledge base (Chapter 6) are indicated in italics,
whereas the concepts designated by such terms are shown in uppercase.

64
 Methodology

These three concept fields created for an easier management of the database are in fact
suitable for classifying mainly concepts that identify objects or entities (e.g. APPLICATION FOR
COMPENSATION, PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE VICTIM, EUROPEAN NETWORK OF NATIONAL

CONTACT POINTS FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE) and – though only occasionally – actions, which
are in any case generally expressed by means of a nominalised verb (e.g. SECONDARY

VICTIMISATION). This explains why the terms selected to be included in the collection all fall
into the grammatical category of nouns.
However, this does not mean that the other grammatical categories listed by Cabré (see
Footnote 42) are missing from the collection. In fact, when examining legal terminology two
grammatical categories come to the fore and require particular attention in the design of a
translation-oriented terminological resource: verbs and adjectives. Despite their relevance
from a translational perspective, however, they are not awarded the status of autonomous
terms in this study. Verbs (as well as prepositions, though being less numerous) are generally
dealt with as constituents of collocations, so they can be found in the “Phraseology” field of
the TKB (see Section 6.4.1.2). For example, collocations such as to enforce, execute, forward,
issue, receive, recognise, request, transfer, withdraw a European protection order can be
found in the terminological record dealing with the concept EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER.
As for adjectives, in the terminology examined here they fulfil a different function when
compared to the classification proposed by Cabré (1999a: 88): while on the one hand the
researcher suggests that adjectives are used to designate mainly properties, states and
qualities, which is also the case in the victim-related terminology, on the other it should also
be noted that adjectives cannot be considered as self-standing terms, because they are only
meaningful with regard to the nouns accompanying them. Taking as an example the term
particularly vulnerable victim, the presence of an adjective and an adverb not only qualifies
the type of victim but also changes the type of treatment and services the victim is entitled to
according to Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. By the same token,
in the terms pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss the adjective is fundamental for qualifying
the type of loss suffered by the victim and the type of compensation s/he is entitled to, thus
determining the procedure to be followed and the parties involved.
Among the criteria for classifying a term, Cabré (1999a: 88–90) also lists linguistic origin and
formation patterns (e.g. derivation and conversion), which in fact are deemed superfluous in
this study given the predominantly synchronic approach to terminology that has been adopted.

65
Chapter 3

3.3.1.1.4 D EFINITION OF THE SCOPE

The aim of the terminographic work carried out in this study is to provide a terminological
resource specifically designed for legal translators. For this reason, and owing to the fact that
the legal terminology to be collected and presented in the TKB has domain-specific
peculiarities, a proposal for a new TKB is presented (see Chapter 6) which accounts for both
aspects. In this study, the terminographic work is carried out not only to collect the data
relevant to the terms extracted, but also to identify the peculiarities that can be ascribed to the
multi-level jurisdiction in which the selected terminology is embedded. By doing so, the
design of the TKB can be better customised according to both the needs and expectations of
the end-users and the peculiarities of the terminology under examination.

3.3.1.2 C HOICE OF IT TOOLS , REFERENCE MATERIALS AND CONSULTANTS AND ACQUISITION

OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE AREA OF KNOWLEDGE
Since the textual material analysed is mainly stored in electronic format (and therefore
processable by software), appropriate tools are needed to carry out the terminological analysis
described in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5. For the purposes of this study, three types of software
have been selected: a concordancer, a term extractor and a terminology management system.
The concordancer has been used for creating word lists and word clusters to support the term
extraction phase, for searching the phraseology related to the extracted terminology and for
spotting definitions and contexts, while the term extractor was useful for identifying candidate
terms. Several freeware and commercial tools are available which make the above-mentioned
operations possible. However, among them two open-access tools have been selected, namely
AntConc and TermoStat Web 3.0, which are further discussed in Sections 3.3.3.1.1
and 3.3.3.1.2 respectively.
In regard to the terminology management system, the open-access solutions available did not
seem to fit the purpose of this study of representing linguistic and conceptual information in
terminographic entries that include a visual representation system for the conceptual
information. Several attempts have been made to exploit some freely available visual
representation tools and ontology editing tools 44 to represent the conceptual structures
obtained after identifying the conceptual relations between two or more concepts. However,
all the tools tested for this purpose have been discarded because they were not sufficiently
flexible to include both terminological and conceptual data referring to a multi-level legal
44
Attempts to visualise the conceptual structures have been made by using concept mapping tools, such as
CmapTools (http://cmap.ihmc.us/), EdrawMindmap (http://www.edrawsoft.com/freemind.php) and FreeMind
(http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), as well as the ontology editor Protégé
(http://protege.stanford.edu/).

66
 Methodology

system. In other words, in the attempts made with concept mapping tools, difficulties have
been encountered in creating a separate concept map for each legal system under study and
linking such conceptual maps with complex terminographic entries containing term clusters
created on the basis of the genotype-phenotype distinction (see Section 3.3.6.1).
The same problems have also been faced when trying to adapt the functions of an ontology
editor to terminographic needs. In this case two different solutions have been envisaged:
either creating an ontology containing only genotypes shared by all the legal systems taken
into consideration and specifying the differences among the systems in the relevant
terminographic entries, or building a separate ontology for each legal system. In the first case,
the visualised ontology would have been unique for all the legal systems, thus not allowing
for anisomorphism to be easily identified by the end user in the visualisation system. For
example, by inserting the concept VICTIM in a shared ontology, it would not have been
possible to represent the distinction between the concepts PERSONA OFFESA DAL REATO and
DANNEGGIATO typical of the Italian national legal system, thus leading to a rather simplified
conceptualisation of the national system. In the second case, two separate ontologies would
have been created and mapped to individual terminographic entries, with a consequent
duplication of data in case of correspondence. This is the case, for instance, of the concepts
developed by the EU legal system and imported into Member States’ national legal systems,
such as ASSISTING and DECIDING AUTHORITY. Another difficulty was represented by the need
of linking the output obtained by either concept mapping tools or ontology editors with the
data stored in the terminographic entries of a terminology management system and presenting
both types of information (visual-conceptual and terminographic) via a single graphic user
interface (GUI). Therefore, instead of resorting to already existing concept mapping and
ontology editing tools, on the one hand, and terminology management systems, on the other, a
TKB with an integrated visualisation system has been developed in which conceptual and
linguistic information concerning the EU multi-level jurisdiction can be stored and presented
in a translation-oriented GUI. The features of the MuLex TKB are illustrated in Chapter 6.
The acquisition of information about the area of knowledge is closely related to the choice of
reference materials and consultants. Broadly speaking, reference materials are “the documents
terminologists use to obtain background information on theoretical, methodological, practical
or bibliographical aspects on the subject” (Cabré 1999a: 117). Though such materials can
include also documents on documentation, such as bibliographies, and documents on methods
(Cabré 1999a: 117), in this case documents on the selected area of law are considered, since
they are a source of knowledge for the terminologist and “[p]ractical work in terminology

67
Chapter 3

requires that a terminologist knows enough about the field in question” (Cabré 1999a: 118).
Hence, reference materials have been selected consisting mainly in academic works, manuals
for law students45, papers focusing on victim-related topics46 and legal encyclopaedias.
The process of acquiring additional knowledge on the subfield has benefitted from constant
consultation with Professor Mitja Gialuz47, an expert on the subject of victims of crime. The
involvement of a lawyer in the knowledge acquisition and validation process has been felt as
a necessity, since “the expert is a source of fresh and updated information that can be used to
broaden, explain, comment on and confirm more reliably the information object of
terminological analysis” (Quiroz et al. 1999: 170). Finally, the knowledge acquisition process
has also been promoted by attending an academic course in Italian criminal proceedings in the
academic year 2010/2011 held at the Faculty of Law of the University of Trieste.

3.3.1.3 P RELIMINARY FRAME - BASED CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURING OF THE AREA OF

KNOWLEDGE

On the basis of the information gathered by means of the reference materials mentioned in
Section 3.3.1.2 and the knowledge acquired in the subject field, a preliminary conceptual
structuring of the legal area of victims of crime has been carried out following the principles
of Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1976, 1985). Such preliminary conceptual structuring was
necessary for identifying the frame or conceptual template of occurrence of the concepts
typical of this area of law and subdividing the area into narrower concept fields, which
provide the initial scheme for the classification of concepts. Since these concept fields make
up an individual field in MuLex terminographic entries, they are illustrated in greater detail in
Section 6.4.1.1.1.

3.3.2 STEP 2. COMPILATION OF THE EU PARALLEL CORPUS

The second step, i.e. the compilation of the parallel corpus, is further subdivided into the
following tasks:
2.1. design of the parallel corpus;
2.2. retrieval of texts;
2.3. organisation and classification of texts.

45
Among others, Ashworth & Redmayne (2005) for English, and Tonini (2010) for Italian.
46
Among others, McEwan (2009) and Lewis (2001) for English, and Baldry (1998) and Mannozzi (2000) for
Italian.
47
Professor Mitja Gialuz, Department of Legal, Language, Translation and Interpreting Studies (IUSLIT),
University of Trieste.

68
 Methodology

3.3.2.1 D ESIGN OF THE PARALLEL CORPUS

In order to carry out the terminographic work envisaged in Section 3.3, an approach that is
based on textual terminology, i.e. “terminology based on real use in texts” (Condamines 2010:
46), has been adopted. For this reason, a preparatory stage was needed to collect the textual
material to build a corpus, which is nowadays considered to be “the default resource for
almost anyone working in linguistics”, as “[n]o introspection can claim credence without
verification through real language data” (Teubert 2005: 1). Several definitions of “corpus” are
available in Corpus Linguistics and the reader is invited to refer to Pearson’s overview
(Pearson 1998: 42–43). Following Pearson’s argumentation, in this study a corpus is an
artefact – a “cross-section” of discourse (Teubert 2005: 4) – which is defined as “a collection
of pieces of language that are selected and ordered according to explicit linguistic criteria in
order to be used as a sample of the language” (Sinclair 1994: 2, quoted in Pearson 1999: 22).
In addition to Sinclair’s definition, however, in order for the collection to be a corpus in a
modern sense, the naturally occurring pieces of language should be stored in electronic format
(Zanettin 2002: 10) and also be used as a “representative of a given language, dialect, or other
subset of language” (Francis 1979: 110). In this study, however, the “pieces of language”
correspond to texts which were considered both in their full and a reduced form (see
Section 3.3.2.3.1).
Following Clear (1992: 29), the selection of the texts to be included in a corpus should be
based on external rather than internal criteria, in order to ensure that the linguistic
characteristics of corpus data are kept independent of the selection process (McEnery et al.
2006: 14). External criteria are “essentially nonlinguistic” (Clear 1992: 29, emphasis in the
original) and “concern the participants, the communicative function, the occasion and the
social setting” (Pearson 1998: 52). Following Pearson, “there is no generally applicable set of
design criteria for the compilation of special purpose corpora” (Pearson 1998: 41). Therefore,
the design of the parallel corpus for this study has taken into account an internal criterion and
different external criteria, which are described below.

3.3.2.1.1 I NTERNAL CRITERION

Although at the beginning of the corpus-driven research of the texts to be included in the
corpus external criteria were granted much more attention than internal criteria, in the last two
decades two parameters falling into the latter have attracted increasing interest, i.e. topic and
style (see Pearson 1998: 53). Given that in Section 3.3.1.1.1 it was stated that the object of the
analysis is the area of victims of crime, the texts to be included in the corpus need to deal with
this topic. As for the style of the texts, it is contended here that style can only be identified by
69
Chapter 3

analysing the already compiled corpus rather than before its construction. For this reason, the
style of the texts making up the corpus, whose register can be expected to be rather formal,
has not been considered as a text selection criterion.

3.3.2.1.2 E XTERNAL CRITERIA

The compilation of a corpus is generally based on a series of external criteria, such as size,
range of language varieties, time period covered and mode (Pearson 1998: 50). As the ways
of compiling a corpus vary according to the scope of the corpus or the research to be
performed on it, the external criteria taken into consideration may vary significantly. In this
study, the following external criteria have been considered: time period, authors, origin,
languages and technicality.
The time period the selected texts belong to is determined by the internal criterion
determining the compilation of the corpus, i.e. the topic: the area of knowledge chosen for the
study has been intensively dealt with by EU institutions since the publication of Council
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. However, an earlier document48 has been selected due to
its relevance to the area of law under discussion. Therefore, the publication date of the latter
(1998) has been chosen as the starting point for the harvesting of victim-related texts from the
EUR-Lex website. For the sake of precision, it needs to be said that the closing date for the
collection of texts does not coincide with the end of the discussion on victim-related issues at
the supranational level, as it is still on-going, but has been imposed by the time constraints of
the PhD programme.
In the original design of the EU corpus, the envisaged authors of the texts were the EU
institutions, among which the most prominent and most prolific in document production were
expected to be the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council
and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). With the only exception of judgments given in cases
heard by the ECJ, where the names of the members of the Court – and therefore of the
drafters – are known, all the other texts were assumed to be the result of a co-drafting process,
with the authors coinciding with the EU institution publishing the document. However, this
initial assumption has been reconsidered in the text selection phase, as other texts have been
selected which are written by Member States or rapporteurs49. Despite the heterogeneity of

48
European Council & Commission of the European Communities (1999) Action Plan of the Council and the
Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom,
security and justice – Text adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 3 December 1998, Official
Journal of the European Communities, C 019, 23.1.1999, pp. 1–15.
49
See, for instance, Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on “The Stockholm programme: Challenges and
opportunities in view of a new multi-annual programme on the EU area of freedom, security and justice”,
Official Journal of the European Union, C 79, 27.3.2010, pp. 37–44.

70
 Methodology

their authors, all the texts deal with the same topic from a European perspective and therefore
the geographic area which they belong to falls within the borders of the European Union.
Moreover, the languages under examination in this study are English and Italian, meaning that
the texts included in the EU corpus are necessarily written either in English or in Italian.
Apart from these criteria, in order to compile a corpus also formal and textual criteria should
be taken into account (Durán Muñoz 2012: 181). The formal criterion refers to the degree of
specialisation of the texts and the type of channel and medium used. In this regard, the texts
included in the parallel corpus are limited to specialised texts, as less specialised texts
published by the EU institutions, such as press releases on institutional websites 50 and
informative brochures and booklets available at EU informative points have not been taken
into consideration in this study (for the classification of text types see Section 3.3.2.3.2.1).
However, although the texts selected are considered to be specialised due to the topic they
deal with and the technical knowledge of the author(s), they are not necessarily intended as a
form of expert-to-expert communication. In fact, they are published on an open access
website so as to be available to the general public, thus assuming heterogeneous technical
knowledge on the part of the potential readership. Moreover, all the texts are in written form
(written to be read) and are made available on the Internet in different formats (.doc, .html,
.pdf, and .rtf)51.
As for the textual criterion, given that the guiding principle for the selection of the texts to be
included in the corpus was their topic, no text type was established a priori, since the
terminology related to victims of crime was supposed to be scattered in different text types
(see also Biber 1993: 245).
Another criterion that is generally considered necessary in corpus design is the function of the
texts. As in the case of text type, given the scope of the study and due to the fact that the
leading principle for the selection of texts was their topic, their function could not be
established before the texts were actually collected. Texts extracted from the EUR-Lex
database are in fact designed to fulfil different functions, which range from the most strictly
normative to more informative functions. Therefore, no specific function could be chosen as a
text selection criterion and the function of the texts selected was identified a posteriori.

50
See, for instance, http://europa.eu/newsroom/index_en.htm,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/press?lang=en.
51
Although the texts retrieved on the Internet are available in different electronic formats, in order to make them
processable by different software tools they have been converted into plain text format (.txt).

71
Chapter 3

3.3.2.2 R ETRIEVAL OF DOCUMENTS

The area of law of victims of crime is undergoing a large-scale revision and harmonisation
process within the EU, which is progressively changing the national legal scenarios. The legal
provisions which result from the EU law-making process and the terminology used in such
provisions are therefore likely to influence national legal systems and their terminology.
Owing to these relatively intense activities of law-making, consultation and reporting – which
are still on-going within the EU institutions – text selection has not been a straightforward
process, with all the texts making up the corpus being collected in a time span that started in
January 2010 and ended in July 2012, and the earliest document included in the corpus dating
back to 199852 and the latest to 201253 (the whole list of documents included in the EU corpus
is available in Annex 1).
In this regard, before moving on with the thesis, a terminological issue needs to be addressed
concerning the distinction proposed by Schubert and Link between texts and documents which
has been employed here: “[w]hilst the term text focuses attention on the linguistic content of a
written utterance no matter what its shape or form, the concept of the document comprises
both the textual content and its mode of presentation to readers” (Schubert & Link 2008: 139–
140). A document is thus considered as “a fixed oral or written text, including nonverbal
components, which can be reread or reheard at any time” (Schubert & Link 2008: 140).
Bearing this distinction in mind, the material selected to build the corpus originally fulfilled
the requirements imposed by the definition of “document”, but after converting the selected
documents in the format required by the software used to process them semi-automatically,
the study was carried out on texts rather than documents.
The texts included in the EU parallel corpus have been retrieved primarily by using the simple
and advanced search functions on the EUR-Lex website54. The text retrieval phase has been
prompted by the initial suggestion provided by the subject field expert (see Section 3.3.1.2) to
start from the document that is nowadays considered to be the cornerstone for EU victim-
related policy, namely Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of
victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA). Taking this document as the starting point
for the retrieval and selection phases, two methods have been applied, the first exploiting
cross-references and the second keywords.

52
See footnote 48.
53
European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2012) Directive 2012/29/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and
Protection of Victims of Crime, and Replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, Official Journal of
the European Union, L 315, 14.11.2012, pp. 57–73.
54
Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm.

72
 Methodology

In the first method, the cross-references in the texts have been used to search for other
documents dealing with the same topic. For instance, in Council Framework Decision
2001/220/JHA the Initiative of the Portuguese Republic with a view to adopting a Council
Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal procedure is referred to, which
has been included in the EU corpus. The same procedure has been followed to find more
references to other domain-specific documents in newly added documents. However, in all
EU documents also documents are recalled that constitute the legal basis for the legal
instrument being adopted but are too general in comparison to the legal subfield under
examination. In several documents included in the EU corpus, for instance, reference is made
to the Treaty of Lisbon, which deals with manifold topics and refers only briefly to victims of
crime in Article 69 A(2)(c). Owing to the relative scarcity of textual material devoted to the
subfield of victims of crime in such documents, less documents have been chosen compared
to the total amount of documents touching on the main research topic. Apart from the EU
documents mentioning only marginally victims of crime, also non-EU documents are recalled
in EU texts. For instance, in Recital 9 of Directive 2011/36/EU55, reference is made to the
2000 United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organised Crime 56 and the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action
against Trafficking in Human Beings 57 . Without denying the importance of non-EU
documents in the recent advances in the standing of victims within EU Member States, this
study aims at providing a collection of EU and national victim-related terms. Therefore, these
documents have not been taken into consideration for the compilation of the corpus, although
it cannot be excluded that the terminology found in EU documents has been influenced by the
terminology employed in other supra- or international documents.
In the second method, keywords have been used for document retrieval. As in the case of
cross-references, Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA has been taken as the starting
point. The terms in it that have been considered relevant to the topic, ranging from simple
single-word terms such as victim to more complex multi-word terms like victim support
organisation and mediation in criminal cases, have been used as keywords in the word search

55
European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2011) Directive 2011/36/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and
protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA, Official Journal of the
European Communities, L 101, 15.4.2011, pp. 1-11.
56
UN General Assembly (2000b) United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organised Crime, 15.11.2000.
57
Council of Europe (2005) Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, Council of Europe
Treaty Series, 197, 16.5.2005.

73
Chapter 3

function available on the EUR-Lex website58. Again, the number of EU documents retrieved
in such a way has increased substantially, resulting far higher than the actual number of
documents focusing specifically on victims of crime. For this reason, documents that were
only marginally relevant to the main subtopic have been discarded and not included in the
corpus.
The two methods described above have been applied to both languages under examination,
which means that both cross-references and keywords have been used either in English or
Italian and, when a new document was retrieved in one of the two languages, the
corresponding version in the other language was also searched in the EUR-Lex database.
However, not all the documents were available in both languages, as is further explained in
Section 3.3.2.3.
Before moving on to the details of the corpus used for the terminographic work, two remarks
need to be made at this point. Firstly, due to the flexible approach adopted for document
retrieval and the period of time when this task has been performed, the data analysed in the
different stages of the research varied on the basis of the different size of the corpus as regards
the number of documents and content. Consequently, terminological data such as definitions,
contexts and phraseology have been collected in a variable linguistic context. However, in
order to assure that the data recorded in the TKB were up-to-date, every time a new document
was added the text was analysed in order to identify possible new definitions or information
to be added to the existing definition or other data already recorded (e.g. new phraseology).
Secondly, although the documents have been collected at different points in time and the
analysis of the texts started before the document retrieval task was completed, all the data
discussed in this thesis actually refer to the final version of the corpus.

3.3.2.3 O RGANISATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TEXTS

The EU corpus consists of two subcorpora, an English subcorpus and an Italian one, both
corresponding to the definition of “subcorpus” provided by Atkins et al., i.e. a subset of a
corpus which constitutes “a static component of a complex corpus” (Atkins et al. 1992: 1).
The complex bilingual EU corpus under examination also falls into what Hunston calls a
“specialised corpus”, as it is “used to investigate a particular type of language” (Hunston
2002: 14), which is also referred to as “domain-specific, special language or sublanguage
corpus” (Vintar 2008: 44). As the EU corpus is designed to cover just one domain and is built
for the specific goal of extracting victim-related terminology from it, it is also a special-

58
Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/RECH_mot.do?ihmlang=en.

74
 Methodology

purpose corpora, i.e. “a corpus whose composition is determined by the precise purpose for
which it is to be used” (Pearson 1998: 48). In this regard, the EU corpus is also meant to be
“representative of the domain in terms of the text types contained and the currency of the
texts” (Vintar 2008: 44).
As stated in the previous section, the data presented here refer to the final version of the
corpus. As regards the origin of the documents that constitute the EU corpus, they are to be
considered as equally authentic versions of the same document due to the principle of equal
authenticity of texts (Athanassious 2006: 9). In the EU context, “no single text (not even the
original) should prevail in the event of an ambiguity or textual diversity between the various
language versions” (Šarčević 2000), and such parallel texts are presumed to be “equal in
meaning, effect and intent” (Šarčević 2000). Owing to the obligation to conform to the
principle of equal authenticity in order to preserve multilingualism within the EU, it would
seem difficult to subsume the corpus compiled for this study into the category of parallel
corpora, as in Corpus Linguistics a parallel corpus is generally defined as “a corpus that
contains some source texts and their translations” (McEnery & Xiao 2007: 20). However,
following McEnery and Xiao, parallel corpora can be not only bilingual or multilingual, but
also unidirectional, bidirectional or multidirectional and, by adhering to the equal authenticity
principle, EU texts can be said to make up a parallel corpus (see Hunston 2002: 15; McEnery
& Xiao 2007: 20).
The EU corpus used for this study is itself a subcorpus of the broader multilingual and
multidirectional EU parallel corpus containing all the documents produced by the EU
institutions in the 23 official languages and available online 59. However, dealing with the
entire EU corpus, regardless of the area of law or the subject matter of the documents in it,
and with all the official languages of the EU was beyond the scope of this research project.
For all the reasons above, the EU corpus compiled for this study is:
a) specialised, as it deals with the area of law of victims of crime;
b) special-purpose, as it is intended for extracting terminology related to victims of crime
to populate a translation-oriented TKB;
c) parallel, as it is made of equally authentic documents;
d) bilingual, as the documents are written either in English or Italian;
e) multidirectional, as there is no original, source language version.

59
Access to EU documents is granted on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm and
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/registre.cfm?CL=en, which have been also used to retrieve the texts
selected to compile the EU corpus.

75
Chapter 3

3.3.2.3.1 S IZE AND STRUCTURE

After the two-tiered document retrieval process presented in Section 3.3.2.2 and the final
approval of the list of selected documents by the lawyer, a final version of the EU corpus was
reached, the details of which are presented below and summarised in Table 3.1. Distribution
of number of documents and types and tokens in the EU corpus.

EU corpus EU English subcorpus EU Italian subcorpus

total number of documents 74 70

tokens (with footnotes) 475,878 473,929
types (with footnotes) 11,068 14,890
tokens (without footnotes) 455,140 456,951
types (without footnotes) 10,487 14,293

Table 3.1. Distribution of number of documents and types and tokens in the EU corpus.

While the whole list of selected texts is available in Annex 1, it is worth highlighting that the
number of selected documents for the EU English subcorpus is higher than the number of EU
Italian documents. Multilingualism is a “new field of Commission policy that promotes a
climate that is conducive to the full expression of all languages, in which the teaching and
learning of a variety of languages can flourish” (European Commission 2005: 3) and one of
the aims of the Commission’s multilingualism policy is “to give citizens access to European
Union legislation, procedures and information in their own languages” (European
Commission 2005: 3). Because EU legislation is directly binding on EU citizens, it is their
right to be able to communicate with the EU institutions and access EU legislation in one of
the 23 EU official languages. However, in regard to multilingualism, in his recent Opinion in
Case C-160/03 (Spain v Eurojust) of 16.12.2004, Advocate General Maduro stated that it is
necessary to accept restrictions to the principle of linguistic diversity in practice – which must
in any case be limited and justified – so as to meet the imperatives of institutional and
administrative life. In Maduro’s Opinion, a three-way distinction is drawn among
communications between EU institutions and EU citizens or Member States, administrative
procedures of EU institutions, and rules on the internal functioning of EU institutions
(Athanassious 2006: 12–13). While the first type of communications deserve the highest
adherence to the principle of multilingualism, in the second type of documents administrative
76
 Methodology

requirements may bring about certain restrictions to the linguistic rights, as long as the
interested parties “have been put in a position where they can properly take note of the
position of the institution concerned” (European Court of Justice 2004: Paragraph 44).
Finally, in the last type, EU institutions are responsible for choosing “the language to be used
for internal communication purposes” (European Court of Justice 2004: Paragraph 46).
Therefore, even in a linguistic regime governed by the principle of multilingualism there may
be cases where not all the documents issued by EU institutions are available in all the 23
official languages. This is actually the case of the EU corpus compiled for this study:
compared to the EU English subcorpus, the Italian subcorpus contains four documents less
which were not available in Italian at the time of the document retrieval. The reason for this
difference is to be found in the linguistic regime adopted by the EU, which tries to balance the
linguistic rights of EU citizens and Member States with the optimisation of communication
procedures within the EU institutions.
The corpus is therefore made of 74 documents in English and 70 documents in Italian, for a
total of 475,878 word tokens and 11,068 word types in the former and 473,929 word tokens
and 14,890 word types in the latter 60 . In Table 3.1, two figures for each data type are
presented for the two subcorpora, as footnotes have been deleted from the corpus. In other
words, the first group of figures reported in the table refers to the corpus made of whole texts
as downloaded from the above mentioned websites, while the second group of figures refers
to the corpus after the footnotes in the selected documents were deleted. The decision to
delete the footnotes has been determined by two technical reasons based on the observation of
the documents. First of all, most footnotes contained references to other EU documents and
were very repetitive, which would have affected the semi-automatic term extraction process
(see Section 3.3.3.1). Secondly, in the conversion of the texts from the .pdf, .html, .doc or
other file formats into the .txt format for making the texts processable by software tools (see
Section 3.3.3.1), the footnote numbers could have altered the results obtained by using the
software tools. By removing the footnote numbers, the relationship between the text and the
footnotes was in any case lost, which caused the footnotes to be removed from the cleaned
EU corpus.

3.3.2.3.2 T EXT TYPE

60
The figures reported in this study as regards word tokens and types in the EU corpus have been obtained by
processing the EU corpus with the free concordancing tool AntConc 3.2.1w for Windows, developed by
Laurence Anthony, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Japan.

77
Chapter 3

Before describing in greater detail the text types included in the EU corpus, a step back needs
to be taken to explain the classification of the texts contained in the EU corpus.

3.3.2.3.2.1 LEGAL LANGUAGE AND TEXT CLASSIFICATION

The authors having a research interest in legal language who tried to provide a classification
of linguistic material that can be assimilated into the broad category of legal language are
countless. One of the most frequently quoted classifications dates back to 1965 and is found
in Kalinowsky (quoted in Tiscornia 2007: 191). According to it, a distinction is to be made
between the “language of Law”, i.e. the language used by the legislator to express a legal rule,
and the “language of Jurists”, i.e. the language used in legal literature and legal science. The
same distinction is also found in Italian authors, among whom Mazzarese (1989) and
Spagnesi (1978) can be mentioned, who highlight the difference between the “language of the
law” (“linguaggio del diritto” or “lingua del diritto”) and the “language about the law”
(“linguaggio sul diritto”). Though the textual material collected for this study can be broadly
divided into these two categories, such a distinction does not seem to be sufficiently
comprehensive to allow for an appropriate classification of all the documents included in the
corpus. For example, the judgments of the European Court of Justice can be attributed to both
categories, as the judge provides an interpretation of the law (language about the law), but
such interpretation has legal consequences for the party to whom the judgment is awarded
(language of the law).
In order to classify the texts in the EU corpus with greater precision, Vijay Bhatia’s more
exhaustive classification has been used, although this research study does not take into
consideration all the different subcategories included in it. Such a classification (Bhatia 1987:
227, see Figure 3.3) is based on two criteria, i.e. the medium and the genre on the background
of the setting in which legal language occurs. For clarity’s sake, it should be pointed out that
the term used by Bhatia to refer to legal language in general is “language of the law” (Bhatia
1987: 227). This contrasts with the classifications mentioned earlier and with the terminology
proposed by Mellinkoff, whose “language of the law” (Mellinkoff 1963) can be said to
correspond to Bhatia’s juridical and legislative language. For the purpose of maintaining the
aforementioned difference between the language of the law and the language about the law, in
what follows the term “legal language” will be used as a hypernym of “juridical language”
and “legislative language”.

78
 Methodology

Figure 3.3. Bhatia’s genre distinction in the legal language (Bhatia 1987: 227).

The EU corpus analysed in this study is made of written texts only. Consequently, the left part
of Bhatia’s model relating to spoken language is ignored in this research project. The
classification of the language of the law proposed for written material by Bhatia is also
generic enough to be applied to different legal orders and settings – which are generally
ascribed to developed countries. However, the EU corpus built for the study contains a
selection of texts that is not broad enough to cover all the subcategories belonging to the
category of written legal texts envisaged by Bhatia. This is so because not all of the
subcategories mentioned by Bhatia’s model can be found in the EU corpus. For instance, what
in Bhatia’s model is referred to as “formal legislative language” is extremely frequent in the
written acquis communautaire and makes up a considerable part of the corpus analysed, while
“frozen legislative texts” – which are mostly used by natural and legal persons to establish a
legal relationship among them – are much less common, with the sole main exception of
agreements signed with candidate Member States, non-EU countries or other international
bodies. These documents, however, are of no relevance for the topic of the research study.
When applying Bhatia’s model to the EU corpus, a further remark needs to be made. In order
to fully understand the difficulties of the categorisation of the EU legal texts, the different
sources of legal language at the supranational level need to be taken into consideration.
Written judicial language or, in Bhatia’s terms, “juridical language”, is used here to illustrate
the complexity of the influence of EU’s multi-jurisdictional nature on language. The main EU
institution dealing with judicial issues and actually using this genre is the European Court of

79
Chapter 3

Justice (ECJ). This is so for two main reasons: firstly, the ECJ is the highest court in the EU
and decides on matters of EU relevance and, secondly, it is also responsible for issuing
preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law at the request of a court of a Member
State. Therefore, at the EU level judicial language is also used by Member States to refer to
the ECJ. This already complex scenario is made even more problematic by the ECJ both
describing the Member States’ (legal) reality and trying to provide a uniform interpretation of
EU law within its documents. Hence, when applied to the EU, judicial language is an
umbrella term for national and supranational language varieties that merge when the ECJ is
appealed to. The same can be said also for formal legislative language, as, for instance,
lawmaking and legal drafting can be fostered by EU institutions as well as Member States
(e.g. by means of initiatives), while the implementation and enforcement of EU legal rules are
monitored and reported on by different EU institutions (mainly the European Commission)
and committees.
When looking at what Bhatia refers to as “academic language”, i.e. what other authors would
classify as the language of the jurists, a difference can be seen as compared to the two genres
of written legal language mentioned above. While the EU institutions are the primary bodies
involved in the usage and production of juridical and formal language, they are not directly
involved in the usage of academic language. In fact, academic language is generally used by
scholars and authors who do not directly participate in the activities carried out by EU
institutions, but use legal language to describe, discuss and analyse these activities. For this
reason, the EU corpus does not contain texts falling into the category of academic language.
Therefore, for the written EU legal language under examination, two possible communicative
settings can be envisaged on the basis of Bhatia’s classification, i.e. the legislative and the
judicial setting. Academic texts dealing with victims of crime within the EU, which are
written by Member States nationals rather than EU institutions’ officers, have not been
included in the EU corpus but have been used as reference material.
Going back to the first distinction between the language of the law and the language of jurists,
the shortcomings of this first twofold classification become apparent for describing all the
possible communicative settings of legal language usage as opposed to the more detailed
model proposed by Bhatia. However, because even Bhatia’s classification needs some further
elaboration to allow for the inclusion of all the texts included in the EU corpus, for the
purposes of the present study the twofold distinction between the language of the law and the
language about the law has been kept and applied to written legal language. In order to

80
 Methodology

categorise the texts that make up the EU corpus, this classification has however been
combined with Bhatia’s to produce the classification illustrated in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4. Genre distinction of the EU corpus in the classification of written legal language
(blue box).

In the classification obtained by combining Kalinowsky’s and Bhatia’s models, judicial and
legislative language are grouped together under the category of the language of the law. As
stated earlier, Bhatia’s further distinction between cases and judgments in the juridical setting
and frozen and formal language in the legislative setting is irrelevant to the classification of
EU texts. In this classification proposals for new legislation are grouped with existing
legislation within the legislative subcategory, although their legal force is different: the
former can still be modified and amended, while the latter have already been passed (even
though their linguistic form and content can still be amended by means of further legislation).
In the proposed classification academic language falls into the category of the language about
the law and a new subcategory is introduced into the same category, i.e. informative language,
which is used by the EU institutions for informing citizens of their legislative activity or the
functioning of the EU. It includes, for instance, press releases published by EU institutions,
mainly the European Commission, on their websites or (paper or electronic) informative
booklets.

81
Chapter 3

In order to provide an exhaustive classification of the texts that make up the EU corpus, one
more subcategory is included which belongs to the language about the law according to the
usage of the language, but the purpose of which is to have an impact on the content expressed
via the language of the law. This subcategory is also informative in nature, but the target
audience is different from that of informative language. In fact, while informative language
addresses a broad audience, the second category, which is called here “pre-/post-legislative
language”, is generally directed to EU institutions themselves or the Member States.
Therefore, the subcategory of pre-legislative language contains texts whose function is to
launch consultations with the interested parties on possible measures to be taken at the EU
level to develop new legislation or improve the existing one, such as in the case of green
papers 61 , or to assess the impact of EU measures to be adopted to solve problems of
supranational relevance, as is the case of documents accompanying proposals for new
legislation62. On the other hand, the subcategory of post-legislative language also contains
texts serving as follow-up documents to keep the progress made towards the implementation
of the adopted measures under review, assess the meeting of the established deadlines and
obligations and suggest further proposals or amendments63.
For the reasons mentioned above, the texts making up the EU corpus falling into the category
of the language about the law actually belong to the subcategories of informative language
and pre-/post-legislative language and cannot be ascribed to the academic language
subcategory.
On the basis of the classification illustrated in Figure 3.4, the texts included in the EU corpus
are classified as shown in Table 3.2.
EU
EU Italian
Text type English
subcorpus
subcorpus
reference for
5 5
preliminary ruling
judicial opinion of Advocate 15 15
5 5
General
judgment 5 5
action plan 1 1
pre-post amended proposal 1 1
legislative Commission staff 33
3 37 1
& working paper
informative communication from
5 5
the Commission

61
See, for example, Commission of the European Communities 2001.
62
See, for example, European Commission 2009.
63
See, for example, European Commission 2003.

82
 Methodology

manual 2 1
Opinion 5 5
Report 7 7
green paper 2 2
initiative 3 3
proposal for a
decision of the
1 1
European Parliament
and of the Council
proposal for a
2 2
Council Directive
proposal for a
Council Framework 2 2
Decision
proposal for a
directive of the
3 2
European Parliament
and of the Council
Commission decision 1 1
Council decision 1 1
Council directive 2 2
Council framework
3 3
decision
decision of the
European Parliament 1 1
legislative and of the Council 21 21
directive of the
European Parliament 3 3
and of the Council
programme 1 1
Parliament legislative
3 3
resolution
Parliament resolution 6 6

Table 3.2. Distribution of documents in text-type categories in the EU corpus.

3.3.3 STEP 3. TERMINOGRAPHIC PROCESSING OF THE EU CORPUS

The terminographic processing of the EU corpus consists of two phases, i.e. the semi-
automatic extraction of candidate terms and the proper terminological analysis, which are
both explained in the following sections.

3.3.3.1 S EMI - AUTOMATIC EXTRACTION OF CANDIDATE TERMS

According to Condamines, a new perspective on terminology emerged in the mid-nineties of
the twentieth century which “proposed to derive terminology from texts, that is to say, basing
the choice and description of terms on authentic linguistic productions” (Condamines 2010:

83
Chapter 3

45). Such a textual approach was made possible by NLP, which “had developed methods for
corpus analysis, specifically for the extraction of terms and conceptual relations”, and by
textual semantics, which “had proposed new ways of analyzing specialized texts”
(Condamines 2010: 45). Despite the fact that since then IT tools specifically designed for
linguistic analysis in general and terminological analysis in particular have been under
constant evolution and improvement, the data obtained by processing corpora with such tools
are always to be evaluated, interpreted and, if necessary, revised by the linguist or
terminologist/terminographer. As for the term extraction activity, the following statement by
Gamper et al. is still valid today:

While a completely automatic term extraction is not realistic with today's

technology, tools produce candidate lists for post-editing by human experts,
which is a clear improvement over manual scanning of the entire corpus.
(Gamper et al. 1999: 157)

As a matter of fact, no list of candidate terms produced by any term extraction software can
be considered as a “final list” of terms belonging to the corpus analysed. In order to reach
such a final list of terms, the aims of the term extraction (i.e. its skopos) and the
terminographic work need to be clearly established. In other words, since the output of a term
extraction process may serve different purposes, which range from the construction of
ontologies to the creation of document indexes (see Bernier-Colborne 2012), in order to
achieve those purposes the list of candidate terms needs to be post-edited. Moreover, it is
necessary to consider that term extraction is employed for different aims by different
disciplines, such as Natural Language Processing (NLP) or Artificial Intelligence (AI), which
fail to share a common view of what a term is, both from a linguistic and a computational
point of view (Pazienza et al. 2005: 156). In such a context, although provided with a
terminological definition, termhood, i.e. “the degree to which a linguistic unit is related to
[…] domain-specific context” (Kageura & Umino 1996: 260–261), is still a blurred notion
due to the difficulties of measuring it.
Bearing this in mind, the term extraction performed in this study falls into one of the four
subcategories of term-based NLP proposed by Jacquemin and Bourigault (2003: 604). The
two authors actually divide term-oriented NLP into two broad activities: term discovery and
term recognition. Term discovery can be further subdivided into term enrichment, if prior
terminological data is available, and term acquisition, when no prior terminological data is
available. Based on the same distinguishing features, term recognition is subdivided into
controlled indexing and free indexing. As the examination of these four subcategories is

84
 Methodology

beyond the scope of this study, suffice it to say that the term extraction process performed to
achieve the aims set for this study falls into the subcategory of term acquisition, i.e. the
process of “discovering candidate terms in corpora” (Jacquemin & Bourigault 2003: 605),
since no prior terminological data on the legal domain chosen for terminological analysis was
available before the term extraction process from the EU corpus was started.
Within the subcategory of term acquisition, the term extraction process carried out in this
study aims at identifying those terms that are relevant to the legal domain of victims of crime.
A further remark is therefore needed which is linked to the skopos of term extraction. Being
the topic of the study the area of law of victims of crime, it seems quite obvious that the
corpus is studded with legal terminology. However, the legal terminology that can be found in
the corpus can be more or less relevant to the domain under examination. For instance, legal
terms such as “regulation”, “directive”, “decision” and “legislation”, which are frequently
found in EU documents, have been considered not to be sufficiently relevant to the central
research topic and have therefore been discarded from the list of candidate terms.
As stated at the beginning of this section, the term extraction process has been carried out in a
semi-automatic way by combining the usage of software tools with human expert post-editing
for term validation. The software tools employed in the study are non commercial64, a choice
which has been dictated by the intent to propose a term extraction methodology that could be
replicated by translators. Therefore, the proposed methodology makes it possible to avoid the
constraint of buying any additional tool to those translators are generally provided with.
Although it is common knowledge that professional translators work under time pressure and,
as a consequence, additional – albeit translation-related – activities are generally left aside, the
reasons for translators to perform a term extraction task are manifold, such as populating an
existing terminological repository with new terminology that could prove useful in the
translation process, gaining a preliminary overview of the terminology in a text they are
supposed to translate or the terminology of a specialised domain the text they are supposed to
translate belongs to, etc. The software tools chosen for carrying out the term extraction task
are thus freely available online and belong to two different categories: concordancers and
proper automatic term extraction tools. The first tool used is the concordancer AntConc
3.2.1.w, while the second is the automatic term extractor TermoStat Web 3.065.

64
For commercial systems available for term extraction, see Zielinski & Ramírez Safar (2005).
65
For a list of free term extraction tools available online visit http://termcoord.wordpress.com/about/testing-of-
term-extraction-tools/free-term-extractors/.

85
Chapter 3

3.3.3.1.1 A NT C ONC 66
AntConc is “a corpus analysis toolkit designed specifically for use in the classroom”
(Anthony 2005: 7). It is a freeware application which includes a concordancer, a word and a
keyword frequency generator, tools for cluster and lexical bundle analysis, and a word
distribution plot. For the purposes of this study, not all the tools included in the application
have been used and only three tools have been employed, i.e. the concordancer, the word list
generator and the word cluster tool. For term extraction, the word list generator has been used
to sort the words into alphabetical or frequency order. The two subcorpora without footnotes
have been processed separately, in combination with a stop list for each language to avoid
counting high frequency functional words. The words included in the stop lists are available
in Annex 2. In the generation of word lists, all the data in the subcorpora have been treated in
lowercase. In Figures 3.5 and 3.6 two screenshots of the word lists generated with AntConc
are presented.

Figure 3.5. Screenshot of the word list (ranks 1-21) of the English subcorpus without
footnotes generated with AntConc.

66
Anthony, L. (2007). AntConc (3.2.1.w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at
http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/. Note that a newer version of the software is available at the time of writing
on http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html.

86
 Methodology

Figure 3.6. Screenshot of the word list (ranks 1-21) of the Italian subcorpus without footnotes
generated with AntConc.

Once the most frequent words in the subcorpora were identified, candidate single-word terms
or elements of candidate multi-word terms were manually selected. For instance, in
Figure 3.6, which reproduces the most frequently occurring words in the Italian subcorpus,
five candidates were selected: “vittima” (singular), “vittime” (plural), “protezione”, “autorità”
and “risarcimento”. The lists of the first 100 results for each language obtained in this way are
available in Annex 3. To verify whether the candidates were single-word terms or part of
longer multi-word terms the Word Clusters Tool has been used: in this tool, the selected
candidates have been used as keywords to identify the clusters of words that surround them in
the corpus. The keyword was thus specified in the tool and the cluster size was established
between a minimum size of two words and a maximum size of eight words, as the length of
candidate terms should be limited (Drouin 2003: 105). The position of the searched candidate
was not specified, as the keyword could function both as a head element of the term, i.e. refer
to “the general (semantic) category to which the whole word belongs” (Hippisley et al. 2005:
130), and as a modifier, i.e. as an element which “distinguish[es] this member from other
members of the same category” (Hippisley et al. 2005: 130). The result provided by the Word
Clusters Tool is very similar to the results obtained by using a common concordancing
function. The only relevant difference between the Word Cluster Tool and the Concordance

87
Chapter 3

Tool lies in the fact that the former enables the user to choose the size of the portion of text to
be displayed, which makes it better suited for identifying both multi-word candidate terms
and collocations.
Limiting the discussion to the identification of multi-word terms and taking the most frequent
Italian candidate term “vittime” as an example, using the Word Cluster Tool made it possible
to quickly spot the following multi-word terms: vittime di reati, vittime di reato, protezione
delle vittime and, among the maximum-length clusters, risarcimento delle vittime da parte
dello Stato. As can be seen from the example provided, the searched candidate term can have
either a head function (e.g. vittime di reati) or act as a modifier (e.g. protezione delle vittime)
and can appear in several terminological variants (e.g. vittime di reati, vittime di reato).

67
3.3.3.1.2 T ERMO S TAT W EB 3.0
Besides a concordancing tool, for the purposes of term extraction also an automatic term
extraction tool was used. Research in automatic term extraction for terminological purposes
dates back to the beginnings of the 1990s, when this activity was generally referred to as
“automatic term recognition” (ATR), starting with the work of numerous researches, such as
Ananiadou (1994), Dagan and Church (1994), Daille et al. (1994), Damerau (1993), Justeson
and Katz (1995), Kageura and Umino (1996), among others. Since then, different term
extraction techniques have been developed which are nowadays generally categorised as
linguistic, statistical, or hybrid (see Drouin 2003: 99; Ha et al. 2008: 108). In linguistic term
extraction tools, the identification of candidate terms is based on the terms’ linguistic
structure, although the extraction process also relies on basic statistical data, such as their
frequency. Term extraction tools following a statistical approach are based on the assumption
that “specialised documents are characterised by the repeated use of certain lexical units or
morpho-syntactic constructions” (Ha et al. 2008: 108). Extraction tools exploit statistical data
to either select those items which occur with a frequency higher than a given threshold or
compare their frequency in a specialised text or corpus to their frequency in a general
language text or corpus. Both linguistic and statistical techniques have advantages and
disadvantages. On the one hand, linguistic tools are likely to generate noise, with too many
candidate terms being extracted compared to the actual number of terms present in the text or
corpus, and are language-dependent, which means that they can only be used for the
languages they were developed for (which are generally major languages). On the other hand,
statistical tools yield the opposite result, i.e. silence, with less frequent candidate terms often

67
Available at http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/~drouinp/termostat_web/.

88
 Methodology

being missed, though they can be generally used also for those lesser-used languages for
which linguistic term extraction tools are not available, such as minority languages (see
Streiter et al. 2003). However, these two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive
and can be merged into a hybrid approach to term extraction (see, for instance, Daille et al.
1994; Frantzi et al. 1998; Justeson & Katz 1995), where both statistical and linguistic
information is used to retrieve terms from a text/corpus, with the statistical part consisting
mainly in the usage of algorithms and shallow linguistic information acting as a syntactic
filter in the recognition of candidate terms (Ha et al. 2003: 1819).
The automatic term extraction tool used for the purposes of this study, i.e. TermoStat Web 3.0
(Drouin 2003), falls into the third category of term extraction techniques presented above.
The hybrid technique employed in TermoStat Web 3.0 has been developed for the
identification of both single-word and multi-word terms in technical corpora. The extraction
is performed by statistically comparing the frequencies of lexical items in a technical and a
non-technical corpus, assuming that the comparison of the behaviour of lexical units in
different types of corpora reveals the units that are specific to the technical corpus. In order to
do so, TermoStat Web 3.0 uses “a virtual corpus, called the global corpus (GC), built at run
time from a reference corpus (RC) and an analysis corpus (AC)”, where “the reference corpus
is a non-technical corpus while the analysis corpus is a domain-specific, technical corpus”
(Drouin 2003: 100). For the purposes of this study, there is no need to describe in detail the
functioning of TermoStat Web 3.0 and the algorithms implemented in it, which are
thoroughly illustrated in Drouin (2003). Suffice it to say that in TermoStat Web 3.0 a
linguistic constraint has been imposed on the statistically-based term extraction technique,
which limits the lexical items to be retrieved to two parts of speech only, i.e. nouns and
adjectives. TermoStat Web 3.0 allows for the identification of both single- and multi-word
candidate terms and, in the latter case, the maximum length of the candidate term corresponds
to six words, which, according to Drouin, is sufficient to “cover most cases of complex
terminological units” (Drouin 2003: 106). As a consequence, the a priori established
constraints on part of speech and candidate term length can lead to the failure of identifying
some candidate terms, though the combination of the outcome of this software with the results
obtained by using AntConc (see Section 3.3.3.1.1), followed by human validation, can be
considered to provide a reliable list of terms.
TermoStat Web 3.0 was used to process the two versions of both subcorpora, i.e. the English
and the Italian EU subcorpora with and without footnotes, in order to obtain lists of candidate
terms to submit to human validation. As stated in Section 3.3.2.3.1, the footnote-free versions

89
Chapter 3

of the subcorpora were used with the aim of excluding from the list of candidate terms some
repetitive lexical items that are typically found in the footnotes of EU documents, such as the
titles of the documents which generally contain head elements such as “Regulation”,
“Proposal”, “Green Paper”, “Directive”, “Decision”, “Communication” and the like.
However, the observation of the lists obtained by processing the subcorpora by means of
TermoStat Web 3.0 has revealed that the differences in the candidate terms extracted were not
as remarkable as expected, with the only major difference being observed in the frequency of
the single items rather than in the items themselves. For this reason, the lists obtained from
the subcorpora including footnotes have been subjected to further manual validation. The
results obtained by means of TermoStat Web 3.0 are much more reliable for the English
language as compared to the Italian language, as also confirmed by the developer of the
software 68 . In any case, also the Italian results have been taken into consideration and
manually validated. The lists of the first 100 candidate terms for each language provided by
TermoStat Web 3.0 are available in Annex 4.

3.3.3.2 T ERMINOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

In the following sections, the terminological analysis of the terms extracted from the EU
corpus is presented.

3.3.3.2.1 B ILINGUAL CROSS -CHECK AND IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSLATION EQUIVALENTS

Using the lists of candidate terms obtained by using the concordancing tool AntConc and the
automatic term extraction tool TermoStat Web 3.0, a list of candidate terms was obtained for
each language. In order to reach the final list of terms extracted from the EU parallel corpus,
the terms in these provisional lists were used as a starting point for a further cross-checking
task: each term in one language was searched in the bilingual display of the parallel corpus to
find out possible equivalents for the searched term in the other language: these equivalents
could in fact represent candidate terms that had not been recognised during one of the two
previous steps. This phase was carried out for both languages separately and led also to the
identification of other forms of expression that cannot be classified as terminological units,
but can rather be considered as anaphoric devices. To exemplify the process, some examples
of the bilingual cross-checking are presented in the figures below as well as some examples of
non terminological units.

68
Personal e-mail communication from Patrick Drouin, 11.10.2012.

90
 Methodology

EN-EU subcorpus IT-EU subcorpus

Document: COM 2001 536 final
EN 3. Overview of state compensation IT 3. PANORAMICA DEI SISTEMI DI
schemes in the Member States RISARCIMENTO STATALE NEGLI
STATI MEMBRI

EN 3.1. Introduction IT 3.1. Introduzione

EN This chapter will give an overview of IT Questo capitolo fornisce una
state compensation schemes in the panoramica dei sistemi statali di
Member States of the EU. risarcimento negli Stati membri
dell'UE.
EN The purpose is to identify the main IT Lo scopo è quello d'identificare le
features of the different schemes, not principali caratteristiche dei vari
to go in-depth on the particular sistemi, non di approfondire le
characteristics of each scheme. […] particolarità di ciascun sistema. […]
EN When references below are made to IT Quando ci si riferisce a "tutti" gli Stati
all Member States, this means all membri, s'intende tutti quegli Stati
Member States that have state membri che hanno istituito dei sistemi
compensation schemes with a general di risarcimento d'applicazione
scope of application in place. generale.
EN Greece and Italy are therefore not IT Grecia e Italia pertanto non sono
included in the overview, although it contemplate nella panoramica, anche
should be noted that the latter has a se è opportuno notare che l'Italia
scheme in place compensating possiede un sistema di risarcimento
victims suffering serious injury as a per le vittime di lesioni gravi
result of a terrorist act or of conseguenti ad azioni terroristiche o
organised crime. imputabili alla criminalità organizzata.
EN For the United Kingdom, the IT Per quanto riguarda il Regno Unito, la
description is based on the scheme in descrizione si basa sui sistemi istituiti
place for England, Scotland and in Inghilterra, Scozia e Galles, senza
Wales, thus not taking into account prendere in considerazione le
the differences that exists with regard differenze esistenti per quanto
to the scheme applicable in Northern concerne il sistema applicabile
Ireland. all'Irlanda del Nord.

Figure 3.7. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: state compensation scheme, scheme.

As can be seen from the example provided in Figure 3.7. Cross-check for translation
equivalents and terminological variants in the EU corpus bilingual display. Searched
candidate terms: state compensation scheme, scheme.
, by searching a multi-word term and its head element in the English EU subcorpus it has been
possible to spot its translation equivalents in the Italian EU subcorpus. However, bearing in
mind the equal authenticity principle, it is also possible to perform the opposite operation and
thus start the searches with Italian terms to find English equivalents, as in Figure 3.8. Cross-

91
Chapter 3

check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU corpus bilingual
display. Searched candidate terms: vittima/e particolarmente vulnerabile/i.
below.

IT-EU subcorpus EN-EU subcorpus

Document: DEC 2001/220/JHA
IT 2. Ciascuno Stato membro assicura che EN 2. Appropriate measures shall be taken
le vittime particolarmente vulnerabili for victims who are particularly
beneficino di un trattamento specifico vulnerable on account of their age,
che risponda in modo ottimale alla loro their sex or other circumstances.
situazione.
Document: DEC 2002/629/JHA
IT 2. I bambini che siano vittime di un EN 2. Children who are victims of an
reato di cui all'articolo 1 dovrebbero offence referred to in Article 1 should
essere considerati vittime be considered as particularly
particolarmente vulnerabili ai sensi vulnerable victims pursuant to Article
dell'articolo 2, paragrafo 2, dell'articolo 2(2), Article 8(4) and Article 14(1) of
8, paragrafo 4 e dell'articolo 14, Council Framework Decision
paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on
2001/220/GAI del Consiglio, del 15 the standing of victims in criminal
marzo 2001, relativa alla posizione proceedings.
della vittima nel procedimento penale.

Figure 3.8. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: vittima/e particolarmente vulnerabile/i.

Figure 3.8. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: vittima/e particolarmente vulnerabile/i.
shows an example of cross-checking by means of the bilingual display allowing for the
identification of cases where a terminological unit in one language does not correspond to a
terminological unit in the other language. In the example presented above, the Italian multi-
word term vittime particolarmente vulnerabili corresponds to a noun followed by a verbal
form in the earliest English document in which the concept of PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE

VICTIM appears. In later English documents the concept has undergone a terminologisation
process resulting in the terminological unit particularly vulnerable victim. Therefore, the
bilingual cross-checking can also prove useful in discovering “short-period diachronic
phenomena” (Picton 2011). This method can also help identify anaphoric mechanisms, such
as short forms of multi-word terms and pronouns. Though the study of non-terminological
forms of expression, both quantitatively and qualitatively, is beyond the scope of this research
study, Figure 3.9 provides an example of the variety of the phenomena that can be observed
92
 Methodology

by cross-checking the EU corpus. The example includes an extract from the European
Commission Communication (COM(2011) 60 final) on “An EU Agenda for the Rights of the
Child”, where children are the main topic. In the extract reported in Figure 3.9, the concept of
CHILD VICTIM is designated by a single English term, namely child victims, whereas in Italian
the same concept is referred to by using two terminological variants, i.e. giovani vittime and
minori vittime di reato, the clitic pronoun “ne” and the short form “minore”.
EN-EU subcorpus IT-EU subcorpus
Document: COM 2011 60
EN Children often participate as vulnerable IT I minori sono spesso coinvolti nei
witnesses or victims in criminal procedimenti penali in qualità di
judicial proceedings. They may be testimoni o vittime vulnerabili.
exploited in criminal activities, such as Possono ad esempio essere sfruttati
trafficking of illicit drugs. Legal and per attività criminali come il traffico di
practical arrangements should be put in droga. Occorrono pertanto modalità
place to avoid unnecessary multiple giuridiche e pratiche che evitino
interrogations, and to reduce the l'inutile ripetersi degli interrogatori e
negative experience of being involved attenuino l'esperienza negativa insita
in criminal proceedings. Child victims nel partecipare a un procedimento
should be given the opportunity to play penale. Le giovani vittime dovrebbero
an active part in criminal proceedings avere la possibilità di contribuire
so as to have their testimony taken into attivamente al procedimento penale, in
account. The use of Information and modo da far valere la propria
Communication Technology (ICT) testimonianza; le tecnologie
tools, and especially video- dell'informazione e della
conferencing, can allow child victims comunicazione (TIC), in particolare la
to take an active part in the videoconferenza, possono garantirne
proceedings while not being put in la partecipazione attiva senza che il
direct contact with the accused minore entri in contatto diretto con
persons. Child victims should receive l'imputato. I minori vittime di reato
adequate support leading to their dovrebbero poi ricevere un sostegno
recovery and compensation for the adeguato che consenta loro di
harm inflicted on them. ristabilirsi ed essere indennizzati per il
danno subito.

Figure 3.9. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: child victim(s).

As mentioned earlier, the study of alternative forms of expression that cannot be classified as
terminological units goes beyond the purposes of this study, which is intended to focus on
proper legal terminology only. As regards the bilingual cross-checking task, another
phenomenon that is incidentally worth mentioning is exemplified in Figure 3.10. Despite the
validity of the equal authenticity principle among different language versions, in one case the
cross-checking has shown the inconsistency of one term employed in the Italian version of an

93
Chapter 3

EU document compared to the English version. While looking for the translation equivalents
of the term violent intentional crime, a term that was retrieved conveys a different meaning,
referring to an “international crime” rather than an “intentional crime”. Since the paragraph in
which the prima facie inappropriate term has been found referred back to Council Directive
2004/80/EC, a further examination of the Directive confirmed that a substitution of the
adjective “intenzionale” with “internazionale” had occurred, causing a conceptual discrepancy
among the equally authentic versions. However, it ought to be said that the case presented in
Figure 3.10. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: violent intentional crime.

is in fact the only instance of such conceptual discrepancy identified in the analysed EU
corpus and should therefore be considered as marginal.

EN-EU subcorpus IT-EU subcorpus

Document: DIR 2004 80 EC
EN Member States shall ensure that IT Gli Stati membri assicurano che, se
where a violent intentional crime un reato intenzionale violento è stato
has been committed in a Member commesso in uno Stato membro
State other than the Member State diverso da quello in cui il
where the applicant for richiedente l'indennizzo risiede
compensation is habitually abitualmente, il richiedente ha diritto
resident, the applicant shall have a presentare la domanda presso
the right to submit the application un'autorità o qualsiasi altro
to an authority or any other body organismo di quest'ultimo Stato
in the latter Member State. membro.
Document: COM 2009 170
EN Article 1 of the Directive requires IT L'articolo 1 della direttiva obbliga
Member States to ensure that the gli Stati membri ad assicurare che la
victim of a "violent intentional vittima di un "reato internazionale
crime" committed in a Member violento" commesso in uno Stato
State other than the Member State membro diverso da quello in cui il
where the applicant for richiedente l'indennizzo risiede
compensation is habitually abitualmente abbia diritto a
resident has the right to submit an presentare la domanda di indennizzo
application for compensation in in quello Stato. L'autorità
that state. The competent authority competente dello Stato membro in
in the Member State in which the cui il richiedente risiede
applicant is currently residing (the abitualmente ("autorità di
"Assisting Authority") assists the assistenza") gli dà assistenza; gli
applicant; its obligations towards obblighi della suddetta autorità nei
the victim are set out in Articles 5 confronti della vittima sono stabiliti

94
 Methodology

– 11 of the Directive. The dagli articoli da 5 a 11 della

Assisting Authority does not make direttiva. L'autorità di assistenza non
any assessment of the application. compie alcuna valutazione della
This assessment is left to the domanda. Tale valutazione compete
authority of the Member State all'autorità dello Stato membro ai
under whose compensation sensi del quale sistema di indennizzo
scheme the victim is applying (the la vittima ha presentato domanda
"Deciding Authority"). ("autorità di decisione").

Figure 3.10. Cross-check for translation equivalents and terminological variants in the EU
corpus bilingual display. Searched candidate terms: violent intentional crime.

3.3.3.2.2 E XTRACTION OF LINGUISTIC , PRAGMATIC , AND CONCEPTUAL INFORMATION

Once all the terms in the provisional lists were submitted to the bilingual cross-checking
process, the final lists of terms and terminological variants were elaborated and discussed
with the lawyer for the purpose of field-expert validation.
The following task consisted in the collection of relevant linguistic, pragmatic and conceptual
information to be included in the MuLex terminological knowledge base. The information
collected at this stage is presented in greater detail in Chapter 6. The retrieval of such
information was mainly based on the EU corpus described above, with only minor exceptions.
In other words, the information provided for the selected terminology was primarily extracted
from the same corpus from which the terminology itself had been extracted. Taking linguistic
and pragmatic information as an example, both the EU terminology and the relevant contexts
presented in MuLex were extracted from the EU corpus, as well as the pragmatic information
relevant to the register, which is based on the information that could be inferred from the
corpus. As regards conceptual information, the definitions provided for the EU victim-related
terminology presented in MuLex were mainly retrieved or elaborated from EU documents,
although in some cases also external documentation (e.g. IATE 69 , EU glossary 70 ) was
consulted for both further refinement and confirmation of the content of the definitions. What
is interesting here is the identification of text-based conceptual relations and the conceptual
structuring of the area of law under discussion. Unlike Cabré’s methodological framework
(see Section 3.2), where the conceptual structuring was performed during the initial stages of
terminographic projects, in this study this task was performed at two separate points in time,

69
The terminological database IATE (InterActive Terminology for Europe) is available at
http://iate.europa.eu/iatediff/switchLang.do?success=mainPage&lang=en.
70
The glossary available on the http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/ website contains 233 terms
relating to European integration and the institutions and activities of the EU.

95
Chapter 3

the first of which refers to the EU legal system and the second to the national legal systems.
In order to do so, neither the entire legal system nor the entire area of law were considered,
but only the terms recorded in the final lists were taken into account and the conceptual
relations that hold among them as expressed in the EU corpus were identified. Therefore, the
representation of conceptual relations as reported in MuLex can be considered to be partial, as
it is only based on those relations that could be retrieved from the in vivo documents included
in the EU corpus. In this sense, the conceptual representation is not dissimilar from the terms
extracted from the EU corpus, because it illustrates the reality that is crystallised in existing
textual material rather than in an abstract, not linguistically represented sphere of knowledge.
As for the other terminologically relevant information, concept fields and conceptual relations
are further discussed in Section 6.4.1.1.
3.3.4 STEP 4. SELECTION OF NATIONAL COMPARABLE TEXTS
As explained so far, the term extraction process was carried out monolingually in the EU
corpus and the translation equivalents were matched manually by using the bilingual display
of equally authentic versions of the EU documents of the corpus. However, the aim of the
research project was to extract and analyse the victim-related terminology used not only
within the EU legal system, but also in the English and the Italian national legal systems.
Therefore, apart from the EU corpus described above, also national texts were taken into
consideration for the identification of relevant terminology. In this regard, a difference needs
to be highlighted concerning the methodology adopted for text selection. The selection of
national texts has followed a different path as compared to the selection of EU texts for two
main reasons. First of all, similar databases from which documents on a given legal topic as
regulated and discussed by national legal systems are not available for the English and the
Italian legal systems. Secondly, one of the aims of the research study was to correlate victim-
related EU terminology with the national terminologies. Therefore, the texts to be collected
should contain terms referring to concepts which coincide with or are similar to those
designated by EU terminology.
National texts were collected also bearing in mind that the variety of text types dealing with
legal topics at the national level is wider than that produced by EU institutions. Going back to
the classification of written legal language in the EU presented in Section 3.3.2.3.2.1 and
comparing it to the variety of national text types presented in Figure 3.11, in the national
setting academic texts can be found in addition to all the other text types found in the EU
setting. However, although some categories are shared by the different legal systems, they do
not necessarily include perfectly corresponding text types. Taking the legislative category as

96
 Methodology

an example, both EU and national texts that fall into this category can be found, but the
difference among these texts may still prove significant.

Figure 3.11. Genre distinction of national texts in the classification of written legal language
(blue box).

As regards the classification of national texts, whereas judicial and legislative texts are
generally related to the relevant national legal system (e.g. UK Public General Acts are to be
enforced only in the UK and Italian laws only in Italy), the texts that fall into the category of
the language about the law can refer to both the national and the EU legal systems. This is
especially true for academic texts, which can deal with national, supranational or international
legislation. Although this consideration may not seem essential, it is actually relevant when
considering the reference of a term to a certain legal system and its diatopical distribution.
This preliminary remark on the classification of national texts is necessary in order to
understand the diversity in the textual material used in this study.
The texts available on the EUR-Lex website differ from national legal documentation. The
differences concern the text type and language, as well as the availability, quantity,
systematicity in classification, and reference legal system of the texts. In order to collect
national texts containing terms having a connection with the EU terminology extracted
following the methods presented above, both the language of the law and the language about
the law were taken into consideration, including academic language. However, unlike the EU
corpus, in which there are no informative documents, in some cases national informative texts

97
Chapter 3

were also considered. The English and Italian EU terms selected were thus used as keywords
for collecting the national documents. Owing to the wide range of text genres, the collection
of national documents was carried out at different points in time and using different sources,
including more traditional, paper-based ones, also depending on the category of the searched
texts, i.e. the language of the law and the language about the law.
As for online resources, the two main websites used to collect legislative texts are
normattiva.it71 for the Italian legislation and legislation.gov.uk72 for the English legislation.
Both websites are search engines for legislation and have an advanced search function that
allows for searching keywords either in titles or in context and selecting the desired year or
time span and type of legal instrument 73 . However, although the two websites work in a
similar way, major differences between the two are due to the characteristics of the two legal
systems involved in the research project: while normattiva.it does not provide the user with
either linguistic or geographic options, legislation.gov.uk makes it possible to choose between
English and Welsh and specify the geographic boundaries within which the legal instruments
are applicable, namely United Kingdom, Great Britain, England and/or Wales, Scotland, and
Northern Ireland. Despite these differences, the two websites were used for document
collection in the same way. The EU terms extracted (see Section 3.3.3.1) were used as
keywords to search for national legislation and the documents obtained in such a way were
validated manually in order to establish their relevance to the main topic of the study and
saved in their electronic format. However, since the Italian website turned out to be
insufficient for retrieving the legislative documents necessary for a thorough terminological
analysis of the selected area of law, the Italian Codice Penale (Criminal Code) and Codice di
Procedura Penale (Code of Criminal Procedure) were also taken into consideration.
Besides this documentation, other sources were considered to be necessary to reach a similar,
or even a wider coverage of text types as compared to the EU corpus. Among online
resources, further websites need to be mentioned owing to their relevance to the topic and
their availability of information on victims of crime, which are mainly the official websites of
the following government departments or organisations: the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS)74, which has a whole section devoted to victims and witnesses75, Victim Support76, the

71
Available at http://www.normattiva.it/.
72
Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.
73
In legislation.gov.uk it is possible to choose between “All legislation”, “Primary legislation”, “Secondary
legislation” or selected types of legal instruments, whereas in normattiva.it only specific legal instruments can be
selected, e.g. “costituzione”, “decreto-legge”, “decreto legislativo” and “legge”.
74
Available at http://www.cps.gov.uk/.
75
Available at http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/index.html.
76
Available at http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/.

98
 Methodology

charity giving free and confidential help to victims of crime, witnesses, their family, friends
and anyone else affected by crime in England and Wales, and the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority (CICA)77, the government body responsible for administering the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in England, Scotland and Wales. Although these
websites and the legal instruments collected deal with the same topic, the information that can
be found in these websites is quite different from that contained in the legal instruments: the
texts available on these websites can be classified as texts belonging to the language about the
law, more precisely the subcategory of informative texts. However, the information found in
these informative texts may be of two different types: while they provide information about
the department, body or organisation itself, describing its policies, values and goals, the
services provided to the victims and – occasionally – the internal functioning (e.g. details
about the staff employed), they can also provide the legal basis which regulates the area of
law they are concerned with.
For example, the CPS website contains a whole subsection devoted to codes of practice
relating to victims and witnesses, among which the most interesting from the standpoint of
this study is the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime78. The Victim Support website contains
a subsection called Victims: the legal background79, where the most significant laws and sets
of guidance across the English criminal justice system are provided, whereas on the CICA
website the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme can be found. These websites are also
conceived as a user-friendly resource providing practical information on what the rights of
victims and witnesses are. On the CICA website, for instance, the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Scheme and a guide explaining the details concerning the application for
compensation, the payment of awards and other issues relevant to compensation are available.
Moreover, the CPS website provides a whole range of useful leaflets explaining how to report
a crime to the police and what happens before, during and after the trial. Given the increasing
attention devoted to vulnerable victims both at the supranational and national level, it comes
as no surprise that the CPS website also has an entire subsection dedicated to young victims
and witnesses80, where a distinction is made between young people and children and different
materials responding to the needs of the two age groups are available81.

77
Available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/criminal-injuries-compensation-authority.
78
Available at http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/victims_code.pdf.
79
Available at http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/About-us/What-we-do/victims-legal-background.
80
Available at http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/young_victims/index.html.
81
The content of this subsection is adapted to different age groups: for instance, a step-by-step description of the
criminal proceedings in its broadest meaning, ranging from the commission of the crime to the contacts with the
Crown Prosecutor and the lawyer and the actual trial, is provided to children by means of pictures and to young
people by means of textual material reproducing a hypothetical criminal case involving a teenager.

99
Chapter 3

On the basis of the examples reported so far, it can be concluded that the victim-related
informative material available online is very heterogeneous and, although its macro-function
is to inform the reader about different victim-related issues, the micro-functions can vary
significantly, especially according to the activity the victim is involved in (e.g. reporting a
crime to the police, giving a witness statement, applying for compensation) and the victim’s
age and vulnerability.
Looking for online informative material in the Italian context, the situation is rather different.
The website of the Ministero della Giustizia (Ministry of Justice)82, for example, has a section
called Schede pratiche (Practical files)83, where two subsections are found which could be
expected to relate to the main topic of this study, namely Minori (Minors) and Processi e
cause (Trials and lawsuits), but in fact do not dealt with victims of crime. The subsection
concerning minors is mainly devoted to adoption and kidnapping, and no mention is made of
children as victims or witnesses of a crime, while in the second subsection only partial
information about the rights granted to people involved in criminal proceedings is given, such
as the right to legal aid (patrocinio a spese dello Stato). On the website of the Italian police
force (Polizia dello Stato 84 ) no useful information for a hypothetical victim of a crime is
provided, although by searching in the news archive a leaflet containing some information on
the main rights of crime victims can be found. On the website of the other Italian police force,
i.e. the Arma dei Carabinieri85, no practical guidance for crime victims has been found.
As for victim support organisations, in Italy there is no organisation comparable to Victim
Support. Support to victims in Italy is provided by different charities that generally focus on a
single type of victims or crime, such as child abuse or domestic violence. These charities are
usually local and provide their services to the municipal communities, although some of them
can be included in government-funded projects, such as the Rete Nazionale Antiviolenza86
(National Network Against Violence) activated by the Dipartimento per le Pari Opportunità
(Department for Equal Opportunities) of the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Presidency of the Council of Ministers) to fight gender-based violence. Given the lack of an
organisation committed to offering nation-wide support to all victims of crime, irrespective of
their gender, age, or other personal circumstances and the crime they have been the victims
of, no website of any Italian victim support organisation was into account for the collection of

82
Available at http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/homepage.wp.
83
Available at http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_3.wp.
84
Available at http://www.poliziadistato.it/.
85
Available at http://www.carabinieri.it.
86
Available at http://www.pariopportunita.gov.it/index.php/numeri-di-pubblica-utilita-sezione/117-numero-
verde-1522-antiviolenza-donna.

100
 Methodology

informative material. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is more informative material
concerning victim-related issues available in British than in Italian websites.
Unlike the EU corpus, during the collection of national documents also academic texts were
gathered, which were available either in electronic or paper format. The authors of these texts
are always known (see, for instance, Allegrezza 2012; Ashworth & Redmayne 2005; Cendon
1998), since also each entry in legal encyclopaedias is generally accompanied by the name of
its author. This leads to a further remark on the authorship of texts that make up the EU
corpus and the collection of national texts. Irrespective of their belonging to the language of
the law or about the law, EU documents can be divided into three groups according to their
author:
1) documents written by EU institutions whose names of the drafters are unknown;
2) documents written by Member States whose names of the drafters are unknown (e.g. the
above mentioned Initiative of the Portuguese Republic);
3) documents written by known authors (e.g. the above mentioned opinions of Advocates
General).
As for national documents, the variety of texts and therefore of sources selected corresponds
to a variety of authors, according to which the national documents can be divided into:
1) legislative documents whose names of the drafters are unknown;
2) (mainly informative) documents written by governmental bodies, organisations and
charities whose names of the drafters are unknown;
3) academic and pre-/post-legislative documents written by lawyers whose names are
known.
So far, the national documents collected have never been referred to as a set of documents
making up a corpus and in what follows this set is always referred to as a collection of
national texts, because it does not meet the requirements of a corpus mentioned in
Section 3.3.2.1, since not all the texts are available in electronic format nor can be processed
by software for linguistic data management and analysis. The choice of keeping the texts in
their original formats and treating them as a collection of texts rather than a proper corpus has
been determined by practical reasons that have not been considered to influence the
terminological analysis.

3.3.5 STEP 5. TERMINOGRAPHIC PROCESSING OF NATIONAL COMPARABLE TEXTS

The terminographic processing of national comparable texts exhibits some similarities and
some differences with the analysis carried out for EU terminology (see Section 3.3.3). The

101
Chapter 3

two approaches are similar in the aim they pursue, since in both cases the scope is to identify
terms and relevant linguistic and conceptual information, as well as information about the
terminological equivalence, but they differ in the steps followed to reach this goal owing to
the differences in the textual material analysed. Comparing Step 3 and Step 5 in Figure 3.2, it
can be seen that the first two sub-steps almost coincide: the first sub-step allows for the
identification of the terms to submit to terminological analysis, while the second consists in
the terminological analysis itself. However, the method used for term identification is
different. For EU terminology, a semi-automatic extraction process was carried out (see
Section 3.3.3.1), while the extraction of national terminology followed a different path. As
mentioned in Section 3.3.4, the national texts were collected on the basis of a list of key EU
terms, which means that the extraction of national terms started with the verification of the
presence of the EU terms in national contexts. The national textual material was then also
manually analysed in order to identify possible term variants and, in the case a terminological
vacuum emerged, a further check was carried out to identify possible lexical variants or a
conceptual vacuum. Once national terms were selected, a terminological analysis was carried
out in a similar fashion as the analysis described in Section 3.3.3.2, with the only difference
that no bilingual cross-checking was possible due to the lack of parallel texts.
This phase is exemplified by the English term victim and the Italian term vittima. The former
term was used to retrieve national victim-related texts, such as the Youth Justice and Criminal
Evidence Act 199987 and the Victims’ Code of Practice88. By searching for the term victim in
such documents, the actual usage of the term in national contexts was checked. By means of
the same technique it was also possible to identify the terminological variants in which the
term victim is the head element, such as victim of criminal conduct and victim of crime, and
other terminological units which either contain the searched key term, such as vulnerable and
intimidated victim, or co-occur frequently with it, such as Criminal Injuries Compensation
Authority. Since the presence of the same term in legal texts of different origin is not a
sufficient criterion to declare absolute correspondence between the concepts designated by the
term itself, the collected texts were also examined in order to identify possible definitions of
the terms searched. A definition for the term victim was found in the Victims’ Code of
Practice, according to which a victim is a person “who has made an allegation to the police,
or had an allegation made on his or her behalf, that [s/he has] been directly subjected to

87
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23), London, HMSO, available at
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/pdfs/ukpga_19990023_en.pdf.
88
Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service & Department for Constitutional Affairs (2004) The Code of
Practice for Victims of Crime, available at http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/victims_code.pdf.

102
 Methodology

criminal conduct under the National Crime Recording Standard” (CJS 2005: Paragraph 3.1)
and is therefore entitled to receive services under the Victims’ Code of Practice. This
definition slightly differs from the definition provided by Article 1(a) of Council Framework
Decision 2001/220/JHA, which states that a victim is “a natural person who has suffered
harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, directly
caused by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a Member State”.
Therefore, a further conceptual analysis of the EU and the national concept designated by the
term victim was carried out to identify the common traits and the distinguishing elements of
the EU and the national concept 89 and establish the degree of conceptual correspondence
between them. Before moving on to the Italian example, it should be noted that in the present
study the term “correspondence” is used to refer to the relationship that holds between the
terms used to refer to the same concept or two very similar concepts in a single language,
while the term “equivalence” is used to designate the same relationship holding among
concepts belonging to different languages.
The same procedure was adopted for the Italian term vittima. Unlike the equivalent English
term, which was found in national texts belonging both to the language of the law and the
language about the law and refers to a concept that can be considered quite similar to the
concept designated by the same term in EU documents, in the Italian national context the term
vittima deserves a deeper terminological and conceptual analysis. The search for this term in
the major Italian sources of criminal law, i.e. the Codice Penale and the Codice di Procedura
Penale, revealed that the term itself is only used twice in Article 498(4-ter) of the latter
code90, although in these cases it is to be considered as a modifier of two head elements,
namely “minore” (minor) in the first case and “maggiorenne infermo di mente” (mentally
disabled adult) in the second case. However, on the grounds of the preliminary frame-based
conceptual structuring of the area of knowledge described in Section 3.3.1.3, and owing to the
purposes for which it was conceived, it is reasonable to assume that the Codice di Procedura
Penale also takes into account the concept of VICTIM or at least a similar concept. To identify
the terms that could refer to such a concept, the Codice di Procedura Penale was examined
and an entire part (Articles 1-108) devoted to the persons involved in criminal proceedings
was found where Title VI (Articles 90-95) specifically deals with what is known in Italian as

89
For an in depth examination of the conceptual differences between the EU and the national concept of victim
see the terminographic entry “victim” in MuLex.
90
The text of Article 498 (4-ter) of the Codice di procedura penale reads as follows: “Quando si procede per i
reati di cui agli articoli 600 600-bis, 600-ter, 600-quater, 600-quinquies, 601, 602, 609-bis, 609-ter, 609-quater e
609-octies e 612-bis del codice penale, l'esame del minore vittima del reato ovvero del maggiorenne infermo di
mente vittima del reato viene effettuato, su richiesta sua o del suo difensore, mediante l'uso di un vetro specchio
unitamente ad un impianto citofonico.”

103
Chapter 3

persona offesa dal reato. This term designates a concept that can be – at least partially –
compared to the concept of VICTIM. At this point, a conceptual analysis was necessary to
verify the similarities and differences in the EU concept VICTIM and the Italian concept
PERSONA OFFESA DAL REATO and the intralingual (an)isomorphism identified in this phase was
recorded in the MuLex TKB base during when compiling the terminographic entries.
The terminological analysis of national terms against the background of an already existing
list of EU terms therefore required the adoption of a comparative approach, which allowed for
the identification of similarities and discrepancies in the legal concepts belonging to different
legal systems. Such an approach made it necessary to resort to additional textual material as a
source of conceptual information and consult the field expert to check for the appropriateness
of the conclusions reached. The need for additional reference material mainly emerged from
the lack of definitions and/or sufficient knowledge-rich contexts from which conceptual
information could be extracted to elaborate comprehensive definitions. Taking the already-
mentioned example of the Italian term persona offesa dal reato into consideration, it would be
plausible to think that the Codice di Procedura Penale, which provides the basis for criminal
proceedings in Italy, also provides a sort of definition of the key players taking part in them.
However, this is not the case for the term in question. Therefore, although the code can be
considered a reliable source for contexts and information on the rights and powers of the
persona offesa dal reato, the information in it was insufficient for formulating a definition
and support was sought by resorting to additional material, mainly academic works (see
Section 3.3.1.2).
When comparing the national terminology with the EU terminology, the terminological
analysis also required that, both when there was lexical identity between EU terms and
national terms as in the victim example discussed above and when new terms were identified
as in the case of persona offesa dal reato, a search for possible terminological variants of the
searched terms or the new terms identified was carried out. For instance, while searching for
the English term victim in English national texts, the term and its three EU term variants (i.e.
victim of a crime, victim of the offence and crime victim) were found also in the national
context, but the search also revealed the presence of another variant, i.e. victim of criminal
conduct, which had not been detected in the EU corpus. A further cross-check in the EU
corpus confirmed the exclusive usage of the latter variant only in national texts.
Going back to the Italian example and limiting the discussion to the search for terminological
variants of the Italian national term persona offesa dal reato, in the Codice di Procedura
Penale a short form of the term was detected, i.e. persona offesa, while in the Codice Penale

104
 Methodology

the short form offeso was found. Further examples which fall into the category of term
variants (see Chapter 4) were found, namely soggetto leso in legislative documents and
soggetto passivo del reato in academic texts and pre-legislative texts. The term vittima was
identified in pre-legislative texts 91 and academic texts, especially those dealing with the
sociological and psychological aspects of victimisation rather than the normative elements
regulating the victim’s role in criminal proceedings, where the term persona offesa dal reato
and its short forms are preferred. The term parte offesa was also detected in all the national
text genres considered but, despite its usage in legislative documents, the terminological
analysis revealed that, from the strict standpoint of the Italian criminal procedure, the term is
inappropriate to designate the concept PERSONA OFFESA DAL REATO, because its head element,
i.e. parte (party), entails a range of rights, powers and duties reserved to those that are
allowed to have an active role in the criminal proceedings, while the persona offesa dal reato
is only considered a proper party when s/he is also the person who has been injured or
damaged by the crime (danneggiato) and can therefore claim compensation during the
criminal proceedings (parte civile). In all the other cases, s/he is simply considered to be a
soggetto del procedimento penale (person involved in criminal proceedings).
While searching for national terminology, although no automatic term extraction tool was
used, it was observed that some terms frequently co-occurred with the searched key terms and
terminological variants identified in the collection of national texts. This is the case of the
above mentioned term persona offesa dal reato, which was frequently found in contexts
where the term danneggiato occurred. Based on this observation, some frequently co-
occurring terms were selected and added to the MuLex TKB as their frequency in conjunction
with the searched terms seemed to indicate the existence of a close conceptual relationship92.
In these cases, a terminological vacuum leading to a conceptual vacuum was observed at the
EU level, as a further cross-check in the EU corpus proved that these terms were only used in
national contexts. Consequently, for these terms the conceptual analysis was not performed
inter-systemically by taking into consideration two legal systems expressed by the same

91
See, for example, Boato & Cima 2002.
92
The English terms belonging to this category are: application for compensation and its synonym claim for
compensation, applicant and its full form applicant for compensation, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
and its variant CICA, Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and its variant CICS, qualifying claimant, and
Victim Support. Given that for the last term mentioned the variants Victim Support England & Wales and Victim
Support England and Wales were also found, although they do not seem to be very frequent, for the sake of
completeness also the terms Victim Support Northern Ireland and its variants Victim Support NI and VSNI, and
Victim Support Scotland and its variant VSS were included in MuLex. The Italian terms falling into this category
are: danneggiato and its variants parte danneggiata, persona danneggiata dal reato and danneggiato dal reato,
and the term elargizione and its full form elargizione a carico dello Stato.

105
Chapter 3

language, i.e. by comparing the Italian national concept with the EU concept and the English
national concept and the EU concept.

3.3.6 STEP 6. POPULATION OF A TRANSLATION-ORIENTED TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

BASE

In order to record all the linguistic and conceptual data gathered during Steps 3 and 5 (see
Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5 respectively), the MuLex TKB was developed. Though the specific
features of MuLex are described in Chapter 6, the procedure followed to populate it,
especially as regards the clustering of term variants in terminographic records and the cross-
linguistic matching of term equivalents, will be briefly illustrated below.

3.3.6.1 T ERM CLUSTERING

In MuLex, terminographic entries are concept-oriented, meaning that every entry is created to
collect all the possible terminological units referring to a single concept. However, as has
been illustrated by means of the examples provided in Section 3.3.5, the terminological
analysis of national terms against the background of an already existing list of EU terms
revealed similarities and discrepancies in the legal concepts belonging to different legal
systems. In order to record the extracted terms in MuLex, the concept of ‘term cluster’ was
introduced to group terminological units in concept-oriented terminographic entries. In this
research study, a term cluster is a group of terminological units created on the basis of the
genotype-phenotype distinction introduced by Sacco (1991: 27). Such distinction allows for a
certain degree of conceptual anisomorphism within the term cluster, in which terms not
always meaning the same thing but often meaning almost the same thing are grouped.
Following Sacco (1991: 27), when analysing the concepts designated by EU and national
terms the general features of these concepts were identified to find the underlying “genotype”,
i.e. the super-abstract legal notion the concepts refer to. Therefore, if an EU concept and a
national concept shared the same genotype, they were considered to be “phenotypes” of that
genotype, i.e. the embodiment of the super-abstract notion in one of the legal systems
involved. In this study, the terms designating these phenotypes were regarded as
terminological units to be included in the same term cluster. Term clusters recorded in MuLex
may thus contain terms that refer to phenotypes among which conceptual correspondence is
not absolute, as in the examples of victim and vittima discussed in Section 3.3.5. By adopting
the genotype-phenotype distinction, 108 term clusters have been created, which contain a total
of 346 terminological units, of which 149 are English and 197 are Italian terms.

106
 Methodology

In the cases exemplified in Section 3.3.5, when comparing the legal systems expressed in the
same language common genotypes being instantiated by national and EU phenotypes were
found. However, when searching for national terminology another phenomenon was
observed, i.e. the lack of both the searched term and an alternative to it in the national context.
To illustrate this phenomenon, the English term cross-border victim found in the EU corpus is
taken as an example. The concept designated by this term is an EU concept. Given its
definition, according to which a cross-border victim is an EU citizen who becomes the victim
of a crime in a Member State other than that where s/he is habitually resident, and owing to
the implementation in the UK of Council Directive 2004/80/EC which relates to
compensation to crime victims in cross-border situations, it is clear that the lack of a term to
refer to the concept is not justified by a conceptual vacuum in the British legal system.
Therefore, an alternative linguistic form can be expected to be used in national contexts, as is
the case of the following example from the When Things Go Wrong section in the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office93 website, which reads “If you are unfortunate enough to be the victim
of a crime of any kind overseas, our Embassies may be able to help you” 94 . Though the
genotype is present in both the EU and the British legal systems, no national term was found
to be included in the relevant term cluster.
So far it has been said that all the terminological units in one language referring to a shared
genotype were gathered in a term cluster. However, among the terms forming a term cluster, a
main term needed to be selected for terminographic purposes (e.g. presentation of
terminological data, cross-linguistic term matching, etc.). In order to do so, in this research
project some criteria were followed which depended on the characteristics of the terminology
analysed, the multi-level jurisdiction in which the terminology was rooted and the envisaged
end users of the TKB used for recording the terms. If a legal concept was referred to by only
one term, such term corresponded to the main term, but when more than one terminological
unit were gathered in a term cluster, the following criteria were considered to identify the
main term among them. First of all, if both EU and national terms belonged to the same
cluster, the former were preferred on the basis of the methodological approach adopted in the
research study, which started with the terminological analysis of the EU legal system. In case
terms were found both in legally binding and non-legally binding texts, the terms rooted in the
former were preferred due to the higher degree of control on terminology in such documents
(see European Parliament et al. 2003: Guideline 5). If more than one term was available in
normative texts, then the term used in the latest document was selected as the main term.
93
Available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/.
94
Available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/when-things-go-wrong/crime/.

107
Chapter 3

Finally, if the terms were found in non-legally binding texts only, then the most frequent term
was selected.

3.3.6.2 C ROSS - LINGUISTIC TERM MATCHING

In order to analyse national terms and identify the linguistic and conceptual similarities and
differences between EU and national terminology, the two languages have been treated
separately, so as to generate distinct term clusters for each language. Since the terminological
analysis presented in this study is translation-oriented, term clusters needed a further step, i.e.
cross-linguistic term matching, which was carried out on the basis of the identification of
shared genotypes and terminological equivalents in the EU corpus. The reason for taking into
account two aspects for the cross-linguistic matching was determined by the different origins
of the terms under study. As discussed in Section 3.3.2.3, the equal authenticity principle
governing EU documents made it possible to identify the translation equivalents used in EU
documents. However, given that one aim of the terminological analysis was to establish a
connection between EU and national terms and that there was no absolute correspondence
between them, as in the case of vittima and persona offesa dal reato discussed above, the
identification of translation equivalents in parallel texts was not enough. Therefore, while
equivalence between EU terms was established on the basis of their usage in parallel texts, for
national terminology a different approach was adopted.
The differences between the two approaches are illustrated by taking the example of the terms
legal aid and patrocinio gratuito. The two terms are used as equivalents in EU documents and
refer to the legal assistance provided free of charge to those who lack sufficient resources in
so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. Being embedded in the EU
legal system, the concept the two terms refer to is sufficiently broad so as to include all the
forms of legal aid encountered in the Member States’ legal systems. The focus in the EU term
is primarily on the fact that such assistance is free of charge for the person who is entitled to
it. However, when compared to the terminology used in the Italian national setting, a
conceptual divergence due to the usage of the modifier “gratuito” (free) is observed. If, on the
one hand, in the EU context the modifier “gratuito” shows that the victim is entitled to legal
assistance free of charge, without preventing any authority from paying it, in the Italian
national context the same modifier is provided with an additional meaning, i.e. patrocinio
gratuito and its variant gratuito patrocinio refer to a form of legal assistance that is free for
the person entitled to it and no payment is due to the lawyer providing it. Therefore, although
the EU term and the national term form part of the same term cluster based on the genotype

108
 Methodology

they are associated with, there are conceptual differences to be taken into account both within
one language, as in the case just mentioned, and from a bilingual perspective.
Looking at the English term, while in the EU context the payment of the expenses for legal
aid is not mentioned, in the English national legal system it is clear that these legal costs are
paid by the government. Therefore, in the process of cross-linguistic term matching, after the
EU translation equivalents were identified, a comparative analysis of the characteristics
specific to the legal systems needed to be carried out to identify the differences and
similarities in the phenotypes associated to a common genotype. In so doing, it was possible
to first establish the degree of terminological correspondence within the legal systems
expressed by the same language and, secondly, establish the degree of equivalence within the
legal systems that are expressed in different languages. Such differences are further discussed
in Chapter 5 on terminological equivalence.

3.3.6.3 C ONCEPTUAL ( RE ) STRUCTURING OF THE AREA OF KNOWLEDGE

When all the terminological data were recorded in the MuLex TKB and the degree of
intralingual correspondence and interlingual equivalence among terms was established, the
conceptual relations among the recorded concepts, which are discussed in greater detail in
Section 6.4.1.1.2.1, could be included in the TKB. These relations were first identified by
consulting the textual material analysed, i.e. the same material from which terms were
extracted, and were later validated by the subject field expert. In so doing, differences in the
conceptualisation among the legal systems were depicted. For instance, in the example
provided in Figure 3.12, the CHILD VICTIM genotype is conceptualised differently in the EU
and the Italian legal system: while in the EU legal system there is a conceptual relation
between this genotype and the CHILD-FRIENDLY JUSTICE genotype, in the Italian legal system
such relation was not found, since the latter lacks a phenotype in the Italian system.

Legal system: EU Legal system: Italy

109
Chapter 3

Figure 3.12. Example of anisomorphism in conceptual relations. genotype: CHILD VICTIM.

On the basis on the information gathered in the terminological analysis (see Sections 3.3.3
and 3.3.5), the preliminary conceptual structure elaborated before the actual terminological
analysis could be reconsidered and redefined, also by consulting the subject field expert, in
order to include the conceptual information in the TKB.

3.3.7 STEP 7. REVISION AND VALIDATION

The final step in the methodology proposed for carrying out a terminographic work in the
field of legal terminology embedded in a multi-level jurisdiction is the revision and validation
phase. In this phase, the subject field expert plays a central role, since “[b]oth the terms and
the term relations require to be controlled by the expert” (Hamon & Nazarenko 2001: 188).
Therefore, the expert was consulted not only in the text selection phases (Steps 2 and 4), but
also throughout the terminological analysis phases (Steps 3 and 5) with the aim of fixing
concepts, establishing the conceptual systems, solving problems concerning discrepancies in
the legal systems and phenotypes referring to common genotypes, and validating the
equivalents established in the term-matching phases (see Quiroz et al. 1999: 169). The expert
was also consulted for the final revision and validation of the terminological collection,
especially for the purpose of revising the definitions included in MuLex in light of the latest
development in the area of law of victims of crime.
In this thesis, an emblematic case of the essential role of the expert in the validation phase is
provided by the Italian and English term clusters related to the VICTIM WITH SPECIAL

PROTECTION NEEDS genotype. During the first text selection phase of the research, Council
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA was first selected among EU texts, from which the
Italian term vittima particolarmente vulnerabile (already discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.1) was
extracted, which was initially selected as the main term on the basis of the criteria illustrated
in Section 3.3.6.2. The relevant genotype identified was PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE VICTIM,

for which Italian term variants and the English equivalent and relevant term variants were
searched. However, once the Council Directive 2012/29/EU was included in the EU corpus,
another term was found in each language, i.e. victim with specific protection needs and vittima
con esigenze specifiche di protezione. The terminological analysis carried out on these two
terms revealed a strong connection with the PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE VICTIM genotype,
though a conceptual difference was identified. Therefore, the expert was consulted for
verifying whether: a) the terms could be considered to belong to same term cluster, and b) the
genotype needed revision on the basis of the conceptual evolution occurred in a time span of

110
 Methodology

11 years. On the basis of expert consultation, it was determined that: a) the terms could
actually be considered to belong to the same term cluster, in spite of the conceptual
differences among the phenotypes in the EU legal system, and b) since the conceptual
evolution produced a conceptual shift and the 2001 Council Framework Decision was
replaced by the 2012 Directive, the original genotype should have been replaced by the
VICTIM WITH SPECIFIC PROTECTION NEEDS genotype.
Though the final version of the terminological collection underwent revision and validation
by a domain expert, it should not be overlooked that “term bases […] are prone to continuous
evolutions: creation, modification, semantic shifts, neologisms, etc. Therefore, term databases
need to be constantly rebuilt, maintained, and enriched in order to follow the thematic drifts in
scientific and technical areas” (Jacquemin & Bourigault 2003: 604). As a consequence,
though being revised and validated by a subfield expert, the data contained in the
terminological collection need to be considered provisional in nature.

3.4 SUMMARY

In Chapter 3, the methodology adopted for the terminographic work which is the focus of the
research study presented in this thesis has been illustrated. The methodological framework
was developed on the basis of Cabré’s methodological model (Cabré 1999a: 129–159),
although some substantial differences can be identified when comparing the two models,
which are mainly due to the type of terminology subject to terminological analysis. Cabré’s
model is intended as a general model for systematic multilingual searches in areas of
knowledge where the underlying conceptual system is assumed to be shared, regardless of the
language that is used to refer to the conceptual system. The methodological framework
presented here, on the other hand, was specifically developed for the terminological study of
legal terminology embedded in a multi-level jurisdiction. Due to the co-existence of different
legal systems, it was assumed that there were both similarities and discrepancies in the
conceptual systems under discussion, corresponding to two national legal systems and a
supranational legal system. The similarities could be identified mainly at the genotype level,
i.e. when the super-abstract legal notions were taken into account, while discrepancies
emerged especially at the phenotype level.
The type of terminology selected for carrying out a terminographic work affected the
methodological approach also from another perspective. Owing to the precedence of EU law

111
Chapter 3

over national law within the boundaries of the EU, the terminology extracted from the EU
corpus was analysed before the same analysis was carried out for national terminology, which
had two methodological consequences: firstly, the textual material to be analysed was
gathered at different points in time and in different ways (Steps 2 and 4), and secondly, the
terminological analysis was performed in two different moments, since it was first carried out
on EU terminology (Step 3) and only afterwards on national terminology (Step 5).
The terminological analysis carried out following the methodology presented in this chapter
revealed that cases of terminological and conceptual anisomorphism can be observed both
within a single language and interlingually when comparing EU terminology with national
terminology. Such cases prove the existence of terminological dynamism in the legal
terminology rooted in a multi-level jurisdiction, which is reflected in different types of
terminological variation presented in Chapter 4 and different degrees of terminological
equivalence discussed in Chapter 5.

112
 Chapter 4. VICTIMS OF CRIME FROM A MONOLINGUAL
TERMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE : TERMINOLOGICAL
VARIATION

Chapter 4 illustrates the first phenomenon in which terminological dynamism in the EU

multi-level jurisdiction is reflected, i.e. terminological variation. The term “terminological
variation” comprise different linguistic phenomena according to different authors. In this
study, the term is used to refer to two correlated phenomena: the first of which occurs when
one and the same concept is referred to by means of different denominations (denominative
variation), while the second occurs when a concept lacks cleat-cut boundaries and the
differences in the conceptualisation reflect in denominative variation (conceptual variation).

4.1 STATE OF THE ART IN THE STUDY OF TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION

In order to understand how terminological variation is conceived in this thesis, first of all
some points of view on this topic of different currents of thought and authors are presented,
and then a tentative definition of this phenomenon is provided that fits the purposes of this
study.

4.1.1 THE EXCLUSION OF TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION FROM STANDARDISATION-

ORIENTED TERMINOLOGY THEORIES

Ever since the beginning of scientific studies in the field of Terminology in the 1930s, which
can be said to be unanimously attributed to Eugen Wüster, the existence of diverse single-
word or multi-word terms95 to refer to a single concept has been recognised as a linguistic
phenomenon characterising specialised language as well as general language. However, the
approach adopted by early terminologists to deal with this phenomenon was considerably
different from those developed mainly in the last two decades. The approach adopted by
Wüster (1979), who was a “fierce proponent of unambiguous professional communication”

95
In this thesis, the terms “single-word terms” and “multi-word terms” are used interchangeably with
“monolexical terms” and “polylexical terms”.
113
Chapter 4

(Cabré 2003: 165), reflects the author’s personal experience in terminographic tasks, which at
the time were carried out mainly in the field of engineering. Out of such experience and with
a view to reach unambiguous communication among experts, the “father of terminology
science” developed a conviction in the need for the systematisation and standardisation of
specialised lexical units on the basis of international principles. Such principles should be
applied in practical terminographic tasks, i.e. the description and the recording of
terminological units, and should suit all the languages for special purposes. However, in order
for practical international principles to be formulated, more general and abstract principles
were needed which could give birth to a general theory of Terminology96. In later references
to Wüster’s work and principles, which were further elaborated and disseminated by Helmut
Felber, these abstract principles were generally referred to as the General Theory of
Terminology (GTT), and are still known by this name today. However, since several authors
(see further) criticised these principles and acknowledged the impossibility to consider them
as general, the GTT is also referred to as “traditional Terminology” (see, for example,
Temmerman 1997) or “classical Terminology” (see, for instance, Bouveret 1998).
The most prominent features of terminology that are commonly attributed to Wüster’s work,
but were actually collected in a comprehensive volume published posthumously by Felber,
i.e. Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie
(1979), derive from Wüster’s differentiation between Terminology and Linguistics. These
features are summarised by Cabré (2003: 166) and regard three different spheres, namely
language (e.g. priority of the concept over its designation(s), monosemy, univocity,
synchronic treatment of terms, priority of written registers), assumptions about the evolution
of terminology (e.g. conscious control of evolution by means of language planning and
standardisation, priority of international designations), and working methods (e.g. exclusive
use of the onomasiological approach as opposed to the semasiological approach used in
lexicography, preference for systematic ordering) (see Cabré 2003: 166). According to
Wüster’s approach, prominence is given to concepts and terms that are conceived as labels in
different languages, all referring to an underlying conceptual model which is universal and
standardised. In such a conceptual model, cultural differences are not contemplated and
therefore terms referring to a concept are considered as equivalent, regardless of the language
they belong to. As already mentioned, Wüster’s principles originated from his own experience
with scientific and technical communication mainly in the engineering domain, which
explains why his ambitious aim was that of assuring unambiguous communication in every
96
For the sake of precision, it is worth noting that Wüster himself preferred the term “Terminologielehre”,
highlighting the practical aspect of the principles proposed, to the term “Theorie”, which he actually never used.

114
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

scientific and technical field. Two observations can be made in this regard. First of all,
although the principles proposed by Wüster and collected and elaborated by Felber are
generally referred to as “the General Theory of Terminology”, they arose from the practical
experience in a specific domain only. Secondly, these principles can be applied only when the
specific aim is that of standardising a domain-specific terminology to achieve unambiguous
communication in this domain. This means, however, that the terminographic task being set is
prescriptive and excludes any form of descriptive approach which would allow to keep trace
of the terminology actually used by field experts. As Cabré pointed out, since Wuster’s
application-oriented approach based on allegedly general terminological principles became
subject to much criticism, later authors supporting the GTT modulated its principles by
admitting controlled synonymy (although preference was still given to the avoidance of
synonymy in standardisation tasks), complementing the study of terminological units with
that of phraseology, considering spoken forms as well as written ones, and introducing the
description of the process of term formation and the representation of conceptual structures
which are not necessarily ordered hierarchically (see Cabré 2003: 167-168). In the same
article, Cabré enumerates also the GTT principles that were kept almost unaltered by the
authors belonging to the Vienna School of Terminology (Arntz & Picht 1989; Felber & Budin
1989; Felber 1984; Wüster 1979), which are: the priority of concepts over their designations,
and the consequent adherence to the onomasiological approach in terminography; the
precision of the concept; the need for a prescriptive approach in standardisation and language-
planning tasks; the control of the evolution of terms by means of planning, unification and
standardisation; the priority of international forms of designation; and the authority of the
written over the spoken form (see Cabré 2003: 168). Therefore, in the GTT approach, the
focus on unambiguous communication has led to a prescriptive and standardisation-oriented
view in which alternative linguistic designations of a concept are seen as a threat to effective
specialised communication.

4.1.2 THE INCLUSION OF TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION IN TERMINOLOGY STUDIES

As stated before, the early studies in Terminology, covering however a time span of more
than 50 years (from the 1930s to the mid 1980s), were carried out for standardisation purposes
and, from this perspective, terms were seen as lexical units with specific characteristics,
among which bi-univocity was certainly of primary importance. According to the GTT, the
designation of a concept and the relevant concept are linked via a bi-univocal relation, which
means that one term only can designate a concept (monosemy) and one concept can only be

115
Chapter 4

denoted by one term (mononymy). However, since the early 1990s, owing to the application
of specialised corpora to terminological studies, the ideal of the bi-univocity holding between
terms and concepts has been questioned by several authors, and polysemy has been
recognised as a linguistic phenomenon characterising not only the language for general
purposes but also written specialised discourse (see, for instance, Cabré 2003; Condamines &
Rebeyrolle 1997; Eriksen 2002; Ferrari 2002; Zawada & Swanepoel 1994). Among the
alternative paradigms which have extensively criticised the GTT’s monosemy/mononymy
postulate, three schools of thought are worth mentioning here, namely Socioterminology
(Gaudin 1993, 2003), the Communicative Theory of Terminology (Cabré 1999b), and
Sociocognitive Terminology (Temmerman 2000a). In general, it can be said that these three
alternative approaches to the GTT share some common aspects, in that they are descriptive,
thus relying on empirical evidence provided by text and corpus analysis, and they all follow a
mainly semasiological line, which can be occasionally complemented by some
onomasiological contributions.
Let us now take a closer look at the three alternative approaches trying to countermeasure the
postulates of the GTT. Though not completely abandoning the prescriptive perspective,
Socioterminology has criticised the GTT for not taking into account the social dimension of
terms, which are embedded in an LSP – itself a form of natural language – and are therefore
subject to variation depending on the social context in which they appear. Being a social
science, Terminology addresses social issues and is thus compelled to reckon with all the
social aspects concerning terminological units, including variation. The acceptance of
variation in terminology theory also allows for the recognition of the concept systems as
being ever-changing rather than static.
In the second of these approaches, the Communicative Theory of Terminology (CTT)
developed by Cabré (1999b), terminology is observed from the perspective of a general
theory of language (Ferrari 2002: 222) and is conceived as an interdiscipline whose attention
is focused on terminological units. Compared to the words in general language,
terminological units are therefore not considered to be lexical units with completely different
characteristics. In Cabré’s words, “a lexical unit is by itself neither terminological nor general
but […] it is general by default and acquires special or terminological meaning when this is
activated by the pragmatic characteristics of the discourse” (Cabré 2003: 189–190), meaning
that any lexical unit is to be considered as “inherently polyhedral” (Cabré 2000: 49), i.e.
simultaneously integrating linguistic, cognitive and social aspects. Not only lexical units have
the potential of being terminological units based on the “specific selection of semantic

116
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

features according to the conditions of every speech act” (Cabré 2003: 190), but
terminological units share the same features that are generally attributed to words in the
general language. Since “[a]ny process of communication involves variation of lexical forms,
which manifest themselves as alternative denominations for the same concept (synonymy) or
in the semantic openness of one form (polysemy)” (Cabré 2000: 49–50), and given that
terminological units are lexical items used in specialised communication settings, it follows
that variation also concerns terminological units, “although in different degrees, according to
the type of communicative situation” (Cabré 2000: 50). Therefore, Cabré insists that the GTT
“cannot account for the complexity of actual terminological phenomena occurring in texts”
(Cabré 2000: 39), and that its most unsatisfactory element is “its reductionist character, which
makes it unable to explain the complexities occurring in special communication” (Cabré
2000: 39). The author also recognises that since the GTT has introduced a standardisation-
oriented methodology which is considered universally valid, regardless of the specialised
domain, the aim, the languages and the communicative setting or context involved, the
terminographic activities carried out following this methodology provide the end user with an
idealised rather than realistic view of the usage of terminological units in authentic,
spontaneous specialised communication.
The Sociocognitive Terminology developed by Temmerman (2000a) made a further step in
the questioning of the bi-univocity principle postulated by the GTT by drawing upon the
distinction between concepts on the one hand and categories on the other. While concepts are
clear-cut and can therefore show a natural tendency towards univocity (Temmerman 1997:
62), categories are prototypically structured, which makes univocity impossible for three
reasons (Temmerman 1997: 67). First of all, in the sociocognitive theoretical framework
polysemy is considered functional for LSP discourse, as it derives from the evolution of
meaning and allows for conveying changes in meaning. Terminological units are therefore not
necessarily addressed from a synchronic perspective as in the GTT, but can be analysed from
a diachronic point of view so as to see their development in time. Secondly, besides
polysemy, also synonymy is considered functional for LSP discourse, since it is used to
express different perspectives on the same subject. Thirdly, the GTT postulate that literal
language can replace figurative language is confutated on the grounds that the latter “is a
motor to make the thoughts move” (Temmerman 1997: 67). From the sociocognitive
perspective, therefore, “understanding is a never-ending process in which synonymy and
polysemy play a role” (Temmerman & Kerremans 2003: 2) rather than being “perturbing
factors” (Temmerman 2009: 107).

117
Chapter 4

The GTT approach seems to be too restricted also from a translator’s perspective. As pointed
out by Collet, “les traducteurs et rédacteurs consultent les dictionnaires spécialisés dans le but
de se renseigner sur la terminologie ayant cours dans un domaine ou afin d’acquérir un
minimum de connaissances encyclopédiques ou conceptuelles pertinentes” (Collet 2004b:
247–248), an observation that can be extended from specialised dictionaries to traditional
terminological resources as well. The reason for this resides in the fact that such resources
often focus more on conceptual information, usually provided in the form of a definition, than
on the linguistic information their users are looking for. They can be thus considered to
respond appropriately to the need for encyclopaedic information translators may have, but the
acquisition of this type of knowledge is not the only reason for consulting them. Indeed,
traditional terminological resources often lack the necessary information related to the
behaviour of words, and more specifically terms, in context, which is the information that
translators, representing one of the groups of users who most frequently resort to
lexicographical and terminographic resources, need most (Durán Muñoz 2012). Therefore,
while on the one hand lexicographical and terminographic resources may prove useful for
translators from a conceptual or encyclopaedic perspective, “[t]heir usefulness […] – like any
general language dictionary – is limited to represent the ‘langue’ or ‘norm’ level of language
and not the individual actual text level” (Gerzymisch-Arbogast 2008: 20), which is the level
translator have to come to terms with. It follows that “[q]uestions such as ‘are there any
collocational restrictions?’ or ‘what term fits best in the context of my translation?’ remain
very often unanswered” (Kerremans 2010). Therefore, dictionaries and other terminographic
resources can be said to accomplish their referential function only partially because they are
developed on the basis of a normative, prescriptive structuring which makes them inadequate
in reflecting the language, and consequently the terminology, as it is used in authentic
contexts of specialised discourse, where the univocity principle has been empirically proven
not to be the rule. Therefore, it is fundamental for translators, whose professional environment
is the multifaceted specialised discourse, to know a concept’s various designations that are
used in different communicative settings, and to be provided with all the necessary
information so as to be able to choose the most appropriate solution according to the variables
affecting their task (e.g. source text, target text, genre, register, target audience, intended
function).
As noted earlier, in the last two decades the focus of studies in Terminology has moved away
from the predominantly standardisation-oriented approach proposed by the GTT. Thanks to
the development of IT tools and consequently of Corpus Linguistics, corpus analysis has

118
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

become a fundamental part of the terminological activity, leading to the development of more
descriptive approaches that fall within the so-called “textual Terminology” (Bourigault &
Slodzian 1999), which aims at reflecting the actual use of terminological units in authentic
specialised contexts. According to Bourigault and Slodzian, there are two main reasons for
this significant shift. On the one hand, “[l]es applications de la terminologie sont le plus
souvent des applications textuelles (traduction, indexation, aide à la rédaction)”; therefore, “la
terminologie doit ‘venir’ des textes pour mieux y ‘retourner’” (Bourigault & Slodzian 1999:
30). On the other hand, “[c]’est dans les textes produits ou utilisés par une communauté
d’experts, que sont exprimées, et donc accessibles, une bonne partie des connaissances
partagées de cette communauté, c’est donc par là qu’il faut commencer l’analyse” (Bourigault
& Slodzian 1999: 30). It follows that the inclusion of a textual approach into the study of
terminology has allowed for a shift from a prescriptive orientation towards a more descriptive
one that has shed new light on the actual usage of terminology in LSP texts and therefore on
terminological variation as well.

4.2 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION: A POLYSEMOUS TERM

So far, the terms “terminological variation”, “polysemy” and “synonymy” have been used
without a clear qualification of their meaning or definition. In this regard, it should be noticed
that the term terminological variation has been introduced in terminological studies only
recently, while the terms polysemy and synonymy have a longer tradition. A review of the
relevant literature shows that there is no unanimous definition of terminological variation,
polysemy and synonymy. Therefore, what follows will provide a brief description of the
evolution of the usage of these terms and a proposal for a definition of terminological
variation which is functional for the purposes of describing the behaviour of terminological
units in a multi-jurisdictional setting.
Starting with synonymy, a definition that reconciles the points of view of many authors is the
one provided by the international standard ISO-1087-1, according to which synonymy is the
“relation between or among terms in a given language representing the same concept” (ISO
1087-1 2000: Section 3.4.19). The standard goes further in distinguishing proper synonyms,
which are those terms that are interchangeable in all contexts, from quasi-synonyms, which
are interchangeable only in some contexts. It should be noted that the standard does not
provide any clue to neither the exact meaning of context nor the factors that may determine

119
Chapter 4

the interchangeability, which can be bound to either the specific features of the terms
involved (e.g. diatopic or diaphasic aspects) or to conceptual differences (e.g. inclusion,
overlapping) (see Magris 2012: 163; Rogers 1997: 219). Therefore, the definitions provided
by this standard seem insufficient to describe the phenomena under discussion and it should
not come as a surprise that, in order to avoid the difficulties posed by the proliferation of
definitions for synonymy and quasi-synonymy (or near or partial synonymy), in recent studies
(see, for instance, Bowker & Hawkins 2006; Condamines 2010; Daille 2005; Freixa et al.
2002; Freixa 2005; Kerremans 2010) resort is made to the term terminological variation,
which in fact also needs further consideration. While the term terminological variation seems
quite useful in the view of overcoming the negative connotation that synonymy and polysemy
have acquired in terminological studies due to the denial attitude promoted by the GTT, it
needs to be pointed out that it is not used to refer to a single observable linguistic
phenomenon, but is rather an umbrella term covering a series of phenomena. Indeed, even
with the introduction of this new term, the definitional difficulties encountered previously
have not been fully overcome, since there is no shared view on what phenomena fall into the
category of terminological variation. In what follows, the position on terminological variation
of four authors is presented and a tentative definition which is functional for the research
study is provided.

4.2.1 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION ACCORDING TO IBEKWE-SANJ UAN

In the early days of the discussion on terminological variation, Ibekwe-SanJuan conceived it
in a restricted sense, i.e. as “changes affecting the structure and the form of a term producing
another textual unit close to the initial one” (Ibekwe-SanJuan 1998: 564). According to the
author, these changes can be obtained by means of permutation, expansion and substitution,
thus leading to very different results in terms of the variants produced. In her 1998 paper on
terminological variation, Ibekwe-SanJuan (1998: 566–567) focused on noun phrases and the
syntactic variations that can occur in them when:
a) a term’s structure is changed from a syntagmatic structure into a compound one:
Permutation, e.g. accession of azolla-anabaena → azolla-anabaena accession;
b) a component word in Term 1 is replaced by another word in Term 2 in terminological units
of equal length and the words replaced occupy the same position in the term: substitution, e.g.
head substitution: nodule development regulation → nodule development arrest; modifier
substitution: alfalfa root hair → curled root hair;

120
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

c) a word component is added in an existing term: Expansion, e.g. left expansion: self-licking
→ refractory self-licking; right expansion: blue light → blue light-induced expression;
insertion: conserved domain → conserved central domain.
As it appears clear from the examples provided by the author, by having recourse to different
syntactic transformations the results obtained differ significantly concerning the meaning of
the terminological units involved in the transformation. Whereas in the case of permutation
the order of the elements constituting the terminological units change leaving their meanings
unaltered, in the case of substitution the element may be substituted by a synonymous
element. However, according to Ibekwe-SanJuan for the term that has undergone a
transformation to be classified as a terminological variant synonymy is not a requirement, as
shown in the examples provided by the author herself. The same can be said for
terminological units that are subject to one of the three possible forms of expansion, since the
meaning of the term is changed according to the component that is added. This means that the
terminological units obtained by means of permutation, substitution and expansion are
conceptually linked but not necessarily synonymous, since these transformations can yield
three types of conceptual relations according to Ibekwe-SanJuan: equivalence (here termed
“correspondence”, see Section 3.3.5), “class_of” and generic/specific relations (Ibekwe-
SanJuan 1998: 568). As stated earlier, among the range of transformations proposed by the
author, conceptual correspondence can only be produced by permutation. On the other hand,
substitution can engender “class_of” relations because the type of relation changes according
to the component (modifier or head) that is replaced within the terminological unit. If the
component to be replaced is the modifier, then the concept class remains the same and the
properties of the class are modified, as in the example of template DNA, genomic DNA and
target DNA (see Ibekwe-SanJuan 1998: 568). If, on the other hand, the head element is
substituted, the class of property remains the same, while the concepts associated to that class
of property change, such as in DNA fragment, DNA sequence and DNA fingerprinting (see
Ibekwe-SanJuan 1998: 568). Finally, expansion results in generic/specific relations that are
hierarchical and allow for the construction of families of concepts or objects and families of
properties (see Ibekwe-SanJuan 1998: 568). As far as the transformations leading to
terminological variation considered by Ibekwe-SanJuan are concerned, three more points
should be made: firstly, the author focuses on one language only, i.e. English; secondly, only
one-directional transformations are envisaged in permutation; and thirdly, the opposite
transformation to expansion, i.e. reduction, is not taken into consideration. In other words, in

121
Chapter 4

permutation the transformation is only possible from a syntagmatic structure to a compound

one and not vice versa, and a terminological variant can be expanded, but not reduced.

4.2.2 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION ACCORDING TO DAILLE

The approach to terminological variation adopted by Ibekwe-SanJuan and discussed so far is
functionalist, in the sense that the author observed three possible ways of syntactically
transforming existing terminological units for the specific purpose of identifying research
topics from texts. A more comprehensive view on the phenomenon of terminological
variation is provided by Daille et al., who offer the following definition: “A variant of a term
is an utterance which is semantically and conceptually related to an original term” (Daille et
al. 1996: 201). Following Daille (2005), this definition contains three fundamental elements.
First of all, a term variant is an utterance, which means that it is a form that is attested, i.e.
found in a text; secondly, the definition refers to an original term, which means that a term
can only be considered a variant if an authorised term (the so-called original term) is recorded
either in a thesaurus or in a terminological resource; and finally, the fact that the variant is
semantically or conceptually related to the original term can be interpreted differently, since a
variant can be a synonym of the original term or present some semantic distance from it or
even refer to another concept on the basis of a conceptual relation (see Daille 2005: 182–183).
Again, as in the range of terminological variants proposed by Ibekwe-SanJuan, also this
model of terminological variation allows for term variants to be linked to the original term
through different relations other than synonymy, thus considering as term variants also
hyponyms and hypernyms. As in the case of Ibekwe-SanJuan, Daille herself concedes that
“the adopted definition of term variation is highly dependent on the foreseen application” and
that “[m]ost of the researchers working on application-oriented terminology engineering who
face term variation choose not to give a definition of term variation but rather present the kind
of variations they handle or aim to handle” (Daille 2005: 183).
In order to illustrate how the different types of variation depend on the application, the
computer techniques applied and the type of data analysed, Daille presents four possible
settings in which the focus is on terminological variation, namely information retrieval, text
indexing, terminology watch and controlled terminology for computer-assisted translation
systems. As pointed out by Cabré et al., “a dichotomy seems to emerge from Daille’s survey:
variations defined for terminology resource-building or language-related applications
(translation) versus variations defined for end applications in other fields using terminological
resources” (Cabré et al. 2005: 12).

122
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

For the purposes of information retrieval based on term mining, which falls into the second
category, Daille considers that only those forms which preserve a synonymy relation with the
base term can be considered as proper terminological variants (Daille 2003a: 33), where a
base term is a syntactic structure or a grammatical pattern shared by the most common multi-
word terms (Daille 2005: 183). The other setting relevant for the second category in which
terminological variation plays a central role is machine-aided text indexing, which consists of
retrieving documents on the basis of a control vocabulary. In this case, Daille draws on
Jacquemin and Tzoukermann, who define a variant as “a text occurrence that is conceptually
related to a term (the original term) and that can be used [for] researching information within
text databases” (Jacquemin & Tzoukermann 1999: 27, italics in the original). The definition
provided by Jacquemin and Tzoukermann resembles Dailles’s definition of term variant in
considering the original term and its variants as being conceptually related. In other words,
both definitions state that, regardless of its selection criteria, the original term is linked to its
variants by a conceptual relation, whose type is however not specified. Therefore, according
to this definition, a term such as translational or transcriptional inhibition is considered as a
variant of translation inhibitor (see Jacquemin & Tzoukermann 1999: 3–4).
The third setting identified by Daille (2005: 187) is scientific and technological watch (STW)
(Ibekwe-SanJuan & SanJuan 2002: 181), which falls into the category of terminology
resource-building or language-related applications. The purpose of STW is to achieve a global
view of research topics in a certain scientific and technological field in order to capture “topic
emergence, growth, shifts and obsolescence” (Ibekwe-SanJuan & SanJuan 2002: 183).
Ibekwe-SanJuan & SanJuan (2002) do not provide a definition of variant as in the cases
illustrated above, but discuss the two possible transformations that lead to the creation of term
variants and prove useful for STW purposes. In fact, given the specific phenomena that STW
is intended to get a grasp of, which are all connected to the idea of topic development in time,
it should not be surprising that the conceptual relations holding among the term and its
variants are not limited to the correspondence relation (synonymy), but can be of different
types, such as “type_of” relations. Therefore, Ibekwe-SanJuan & SanJuan (2002) limit their
consideration to two syntactic transformations, i.e. expansion and substitution, which both
allow for the identification of terms designating different concepts, such as glutenin subunit
and its variant apparent polymerisation of glutenin subunit (expansion) and protein content of
bread and protein content of bun (substitution) (see Ibekwe-SanJuan & SanJuan 2002: 186).
The last setting identified by Daille and relevant for translation tasks is controlled
terminology for computer-assisted translation systems (Daille 2005: 188). In this regard,

123
Chapter 4

Daille draws on Carl et al. (2004), who focus on term extraction and the identification of term
variants in bilingual texts. Since their starting point is controlled language (i.e. technical
writing), Carl et al. distinguish between “preferred base forms of terms” and “unauthorized
variants” (Carl et al. 2004: 102) and suggest a method for detecting term variants and their
translations in aligned texts on the basis of term variation patterns. These patterns are
“omission, insertion, permutation, coordination, synonymy, derivation, and typographical
variation” (Carl et al. 2004: 106). As can be seen, these authors too consider several types of
transformations that lead to the creation of term variants linked to each other by different
types of relations, among which synonymy is only one type. This means that also in this case
correspondence is not the only relation possible among the original or base term and the
variants that derive from it.
Therefore, even though Daille agrees with the definition of terminological variant provided by
Daille, Habert and Jacquemin (1996), she admits that, according to the specific practical
activity where term extraction is used, only certain types of relations are to be taken into
consideration for terms to be considered as terminological variants.

4.2.3 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION ACCORDING TO J ACQUEMIN

Jacquemin identifies two sources of variation on the basis of the elements that are subject to
modification in the original terminological unit (Jacquemin 1996). In his classification, type 1
variants are defined as “occurrences where the content words of the original terms are not
modified (except inflections)” (Jacquemin, 1996: 448), but where the structure of the variant
as compared to the original term may vary. Therefore, by means of compositional
modification variants such as tumor target cells and cells in subcutaneous tumors can be
obtained from the original term tumor cell (see Jacquemin 1996a). Type 2 variants originate
from the existence of synonyms in technical languages. Jacquemin points out that while
“[s]ome synonyms preserve the stems of the reference term as in arterial pressure/pressure of
the arteries […] some others substitute content words by semantically related ones such as
renal/kidney (Dunham et al. 1978)” (Jacquemin, 1996: 448). Again, as in the classifications of
terminological variation seen earlier, also Jacquemin implicitly recognises that different types
of relations can hold among original terms and their variants. In the example provided by the
author for type 1 variants, for instance, a hierarchical (hypernymy-hyponymy) relation can be
observed, while in type 2 variants the morpho-syntactic modifications affect not the meaning,
which remains the same both in the original term and in its variant, but only the morpho-

124
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

syntactic structure of the variants. In other words, in type 2 variants the original term and its
variants are connected by a correspondence relation (synonymy).
As seen so far, according to several authors term variation is a broad term which can refer to
different phenomena on the basis of the different applications term variation is studied for.
Therefore, on the one hand, term variation can be useful for deriving additional terms (term
variants) from an original term by means of different operations such as insertion,
coordination, morphological and syntactic alterations. These operations result in term variants
which are semantically linked to the original term without being necessarily synonyms.
Consequently, he relations that hold between the original term and its variants can be either
hierarchical (hypernymy-hyponymy) or non hierarchical, and formal modifications are
accompanied by conceptual changes. On the other hand, the above mentioned authors also
acknowledge the existence of another type of term variation, i.e. the syntactical and/or
morphological transformation of an original term into a variant which maintains the identity
of the concept represented by the original term. Such a wide range of terminological units
falling into the category of term variants may prove useful for different types of research and
applications, such as in information retrieval and text indexing. However, such variety seems
inappropriate for practical terminographic work, since, for instance, it hinders the
classification and recording of terminological data in a term base.

4.2.4 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION ACCORDING TO FREIXA

An author who clearly distinguishes terminological variation into two different types and
adopts an approach that is more functional for practical terminographic work is Freixa. The
author advocates a division of terminological variation into denominative variation (variación
denominativa), which affects denominations, and conceptual variation (variación conceptual),
which affects the concept variants refer to97 (Freixa et al. 2002: 2).
Freixa et al. include in conceptual variation “toda clase de heterogeneidades que se dan en el
plano de contenido de un término” (Freixa et al. 2002: 2), but acknowledge that while it
concerns the conceptual layer, it has also consequences for the formal, linguistic or, rather,
expressive layer. In this regard, however, a further point needs to be made. According to
Freixa, conceptual variation differs from the variation affecting concepts described by the
authors mentioned above. In fact, in line with Ibekwe-SanJuan, Daille and Jacquemin, in
Freixa’s view terms deriving from an original term by means of different morphological or
syntactic modifications, regardless of the semantic or conceptual relation holding between
97
Note that Freixa does not refer to one of the terms as the original term and the other terms as conceptual or
denominative variants, but rather considers all the terms referring to a single concept as term variants.

125
Chapter 4

them and the original term, should be considered variants of the original term. On the
contrary, conceptual variation is limited to a single concept, which can be approached in
different ways giving rise to different designations. Every single designation is therefore
developed in order to stress the conceptual aspects that are more relevant in a given context
(Freixa 2002: 55). Therefore, while for Ibekwe-SanJuan, Daille and Jacquemin terminological
variation can concern terms designating different concepts, Freixa excludes this possibility
and considers only the phenomenon in which a shift in the conceptualisation can be observed
but where the concept designated by the original term and its variant(s) can be said to be the
same. Such a conceptual variation can be attributed to what Condamines and Rebeyrolle refer
to as different points of view (Condamines & Rebeyrolle 1997) or to the multidimensionality
of concepts (Bowker 1997; Meyer et al. 1992; Rogers 2004), but also to the degree of
specialisation of the text (Cabré 2003) or the target audience (Bowker & Hawkins 2006).
From the perspective of practical terminographic work and for the purposes of this study, both
conceptual and denominative variation are of paramount importance. Denominative variation
is defined by Freixa as follows:

[...]the phenomenon in which one and the same concept has different
denominations; this is not just any formal variation (variation between a
term and a periphrasis, or a definition, for example), but is restricted to
variation among different denominations, i.e., lexicalised forms, with a
minimum of stability and consensus among the users of units in a
specialised domain. (Freixa 2006: 51)

Again, as in the case of conceptual variation, the relation that holds among denominative
variants is correspondence (expressed in different degrees of synonymy). Therefore, it can be
concluded that, according to Freixa, terminological variation is a phenomenon that can affect
the conceptual or the formal layer of terms, but only when the relation that links the relevant
terms is a correspondence relation, which means that the term variants have a co-referential
status (Kerremans 2010: 2). Consequently, in Freixa’s view, terminological variation diverges
from the notion of terminological variation proposed by previous authors who admitted also
hierarchical and non hierarchical relations as a linking factor between an original term and its
variant(s).

4.2.4.1 F REIXA ’ S CLASSIFICATION OF CAUSES OF DENOMINATIVE VARIATION

Apart from describing the two forms of terminological variation, Freixa also engages in a
deeper investigation of the causes of denominative variation by first distinguishing between

126
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

what she terms self-variation and hetero-variation (Freixa 2006: 52). The first type of
variation occurs when a specialist expresses the same idea or names a concept in different
ways, while the second type occurs when different specialists express the same idea in
different ways (Freixa 2006: 52). After establishing this dichotomy between self- and hetero-
variation, which helps understanding the causes of denominative variation, Freixa proposes a
classification of causes, which she divides in the following groups: dialectal (caused by the
different origins of the authors), functional (caused by different communicative registers),
discursive (caused by different stylistic and expressive needs of the authors), interlingual
(caused by the contact between languages), and cognitive (caused by different
conceptualisations and motivations) (Freixa 2006: 52). Apart from the causes included in this
classification, Freixa also acknowledges that languages have certain characteristics or
behaviours which enable variation to exist (which she terms preliminary causes). The first
characteristic identified by Freixa is linguistic redundancy, i.e. the possibility of referring to a
certain idea, concept, object, etc. by different linguistic forms, a phenomenon that reflects
different discursive and cognitive strategies. The second characteristic is the arbitrariness of
the linguistic sign, although the author admits that “terminological units are often motivated
units” (Freixa 2006: 54).
Within dialectal causes, Freixa identifies three subcategories, namely geographical,
chronological and social variation. As the author admits herself (Freixa 2006: 55), while
geographical differences can be observed synchronically, chronological differences are to be
considered on a temporal axis and the denominative variation observed often implies
conceptual variation as well, since it is produced by progress in the knowledge area. As for
social variation, Freixa points out that this phenomenon is more widespread in non-
specialised communicative settings than in specialised discourse. This type of variation has
been studied in depth by Socioterminology (Gambier 1991; Gaudin 1993, 2003), which
focused on the social (socioeconomic, sociocultural and socioprofessional) and therefore
extralinguistic factors affecting specialised discourse in general and terminology in particular.
In line with social dialectal variation, according to Freixa functional variation is again less
frequent in specialised communicative settings than in general discourse (Freixa 2006: 57).
Nevertheless, following Rey (1983: 283), she points out that this type of variation is highly
dependent on the following factors: the terminology domains, the types of conceptualisation,
the constitution of term systems, the social conditions of the discourse production and the
environment in which terms are used. Unlike the GTT, which limited the discussion to the
terminology used in specialised communication among specialists of a specific knowledge

127
Chapter 4

area, the theories of Terminology most recently developed have included in their research also
other communicative settings in which LSPs are used. This means that functional variation is
observed by taking into consideration parameters that were ignored by the GTT, such as the
tone, which presupposes that the content and the expressive means of the message are
modified so as to adapt to the supposed degree of specialisation of the target recipient. An
even greater attention paid to the influence of the level of specialisation on the occurrence of
denominative and conceptual variation can be found in Cabré’s Communicative Theory of
Terminology (CTT). According to Cabré, the degree of specialisation is inversely
proportional to the amount of expressive variation used to refer to a unique concept. In other
words,

A highly specialised text tends to be precise, concise, and systematic; and

the terminology it uses tends toward monosemy and univocity. As the
degree of specialisation decreases, the discourse exhibits characteristics
more akin to general expression: semantically, there will be more
conceptual variation, redundancy, ambiguity, and lack of precision;
formally, it will have greater variation of lexical synonymy, and, above all,
a wider use of paraphrastical formulae containing analytical explanations of
concepts which, on a more specialised level, would be explained
synthetically. (Cabré 2000: 53)

The hypothesis of an inverse proportionality between the degree of specialisation and

terminological variation postulated by Cabré was confirmed by Freixa herself in her doctoral
thesis on environmental terminology (Freixa 2002). Therefore, on account of the specialist’s
level of knowledge and the recipient’s expected level of education, different types of
discourse are produced, which affect the terminology used and produce what is generally
known as vertical variation (Cabré 2003: 179; Freixa et al. 2002: 5; Montero Martínez 2000:
5).
The third type of causes of denominative variation identified by Freixa are the so-called
discursive causes, which consist of rhetorical and stylistic modifications in denominations.
There are several reasons for operating this type of changes, such as avoiding repetition, being
more economical, emphatic, creative or expressive, or achieving lexical cohesion (Freixa
2006: 60). In order to reach these goals and depending on the variables of the communicative
setting, specialists and technical writers can resort to different strategies, among which
synonymy is one of the most frequent. There is no doubt that, for rhetorical and stylistic
reasons, denominative variation is intrinsically linked to the types of denominative variation
illustrated above, i.e. dialectal and functional variation. To put it differently, discursive

128
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

variation may be caused by the writers’ personal preferences for a specific style or their
intention to find a more adequate terminological unit for the concept they want to refer to as
compared to the existing terms (self-variation), the linguistic norms imposed by the
communicative setting (e.g. specialist communication or science popularisation),the topic
under discussion as well as the state of the art of the topic. Depending on the variables
affecting the communicative setting, the type of discursive variants selected may be different:
for example, in Freixa’s words, “in highly specialised texts the most usual method is the use
of acronyms and the reductions of terms next to properly developed forms” (Freixa 2006: 61).
Apart from acronyms, Freixa also mentions two other forms of anaphoric reduction, i.e. non-
lexicalisable reductions, which are shortened forms of a multi-word term (which is not
generally recognised as a terminological unit), and already lexicalised reductions, which are
shortened forms generally considered as proper terms (Freixa 2006: 62). In the case of
discursive variants used for reaching specific goals in terms of expressiveness, creativity and
originality, following Irgl’s conclusion (in the language of business and economics), it can be
said that the “unusual, striking colourful or contrastive expressions […] are practically never
true synonyms, even if they may occur in the field of terminology” (Irgl 1987: 278) and are
therefore to be considered as quasi-synonyms.
Furthermore, Freixa identifies interlingual causes which produce synonymy on the basis of
the geographical and cultural closeness of both the languages and the sender(s)/recipient(s)
involved. Unlike the causes of denominative variation illustrated earlier, which are all to be
found in a monolingual setting, interlingual/intercultural causes can be observed from a bi- or
multi-lingual perspective. The contact of two languages and the consequent terminological
transfer occurring between them may therefore produce different results, ranging from the
creation of loanwords in the recipient language to the development of neologisms on the basis
of existing terms in the donor language.
The last category of causes of denominative variation illustrated by Freixa are cognitive
causes (Freixa 2006: 64), which depend on the different perspectives or perceptions of reality
by language users and are closely linked to the discursive causes of variation. Freixa attributes
cognitive variation to different factors, among which the first is represented by conceptual
imprecision, i.e. the blurred boundaries of concepts, which can be an actual feature of the
concept itself but may also be determined by the lack of denominative and conceptual fixation
of the term at a certain point in time. Another cognitive factor causing denominative variation
is the ideological distance between the specialists/technical writers, who are in a halfway
position “between conceptual necessity and a wish for ideological differentiation” (Freixa

129
Chapter 4

2006: 65), and the already-existing theories or among different schools of thought or currents.
Freixa also mentions a special case of ideological differentiation researched by Gómez De
Enterría (2000: 79, quoted in Freixa 2006: 65), i.e. the usage of attenuated denominations or
euphemisms to avoid existing forms that have assumed a negative connotation. Freixa
includes in this category also other types of cognitive variants, i.e. variants caused by cultural
factors, which influence the observation of reality quoted in Freixa 2006: 65); variants caused
by “different domains approaching the same references from different perspectives” (Freixa
2006: 66); and variants caused by different levels of importance attributed to the constitutive
elements of a concept. Given that the cognitive causes leading to denominative variation
concern the interpretation (or point of view or vision) of the concept, denominative variation
may be said to be a consequence of conceptual variation which can manifest itself in different
degrees.

4.3 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION FROM A BI- AND MULTILINGUAL

PERSPECTIVE

This brief and by no means exhaustive overview of the main authors who have been engaged
in the research of terminological variation shows that the main approach adopted to study this
phenomenon is monolingual, i.e. term variation is predominantly observed within a single
language only. Despite this general tendency, however, some authors have also centred their
attention on terminological variation in bilingual contexts. Daille (2005: 182), for instance,
recalls three studies which approach this topic from a contrastive point of view by taking into
consideration two languages, namely French and English. The first study mentioned by Daille
is found in Daille et al. (1994), who investigated term extraction from a bilingual parallel
corpus and source and target term mapping. Secondly, Daille mentions Carl et al. (2004)’s
study on the potentialities of what they call an Abductive Terminological Database for
detecting term equivalents and their variants in bilingual texts. Finally, Daille also mentions
Grabar & Zweigenbaum (2004), who focus on terminology structuring, i.e. the identification
of hierarchical or non-hierarchical relations holding between terms extracted from an existing
resource, performed on a parallel resource, namely the French version and the original version
of the US National Library of Medicine thesaurus. By taking a closer look at the objectives
and the materials employed in these studies, some similarities and differences can be
observed. As far as the objectives are concerned, the first two studies can be said to share the

130
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

common goal of matching source terms with target terms without leaving out their possible
variants, while the third study exploits term identification for detecting relations among terms
rather than interlingual equivalence. As regards the materials used, the first two studies use
bilingual texts, whereas in the third study a thesaurus is employed.
The goal pursued by the third study and the type of materials used in the first two are indeed
combined in another paper (Rogers, 2004), which deals with a different language combination
because it analyses an automotive handbook written in German and translated into English. In
this article Rogers stresses the multidimensionality of conceptual relations that can be
observed in the terms and phraseological structures of bilingual texts. Such
multidimensionality hinders the possibility of establishing one-to-one equivalence relations
among terms in different languages used in context and, from a translational perspective,
produce term variation both in the source and in the target text.
Rogers carried on with researching variation in source and target texts (Rogers 2007a, 2007b,
2008) by explicitating the link between terminological variation (here expressed in terms of
lexical chains) and terminological equivalence. The object of study in this case is a user
manual for an electrically powered breathing aid for patients suffering from sleep apnœia
originally written in German and translated into French and English. The aim of this line of
research is to bring to the fore the differences in the way conceptual relations are modelled in
parallel texts and to discuss the difficulties in codifying equivalence in bilingual and
multilingual termbases designed for specialist translators.
Another study on terminological variation focusing on cognitively motivated terminological
variants in parallel corpora was conducted by Fernández-Silva & Kerremans (2011). In this
case, the analysis is on scientific articles in Galician on the economic effects of environmental
disasters on fisheries and their English translations. The aim of this study was to establish the
cognitive distance, i.e. the difference in conceptual information, between the source terms and
their translation equivalents. On the basis of the cognitive distance and the frequency of
translation units in the aligned texts, an interlingual variation index (IVI) is computed,
indicating whether the translation equivalent used in the target text tends towards a more
literal or a freer translation.
In 2010, an ongoing project on terminological variation within specialised translation was
presented by Kerremans (2010) who, as in Rogers’ second line of research presented above,
adopted a multilingual perspective for his research. In this study, a comparative analysis is
carried out of terminological variation in a trilingual parallel corpus (English, French and
Dutch) dealing with biodiversity. The results presented in this article indicate that the

131
Chapter 4

terminological variation encountered in source texts is reflected in the translations and

confirm the author’s hypothesis that “specialised translations contain at least as many
terminological variants for a given unit of understanding as in the source texts or even more”
(Kerremans 2010: 13).

4.4 TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION FROM A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL

TEXTUAL PERSPECTIVE

From what has been said so far, terminological variation is a polysemous term whose
definitions greatly depend on the specific application it is studied for and are at the same time
rare, being rather replaced by classifications and taxonomies of term variants. In order to
discuss terminological variation in the textual material described in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.4, a
stance needs to be taken with regard to the phenomena that are considered to be textual
manifestations of terminological variation. Following the dichotomy identified by Cabré et al.
(2005: 12) in Daille (2005) and discussed earlier in Section 4.2.2, terminological variation in
this research project falls into the first line of research that has been identified, i.e. the study
of terminological variation for terminology resource-building (term bases, lexicons,
ontologies, thesauri) or language-related applications (translation), rather than for end
applications in other fields exploiting terminological resources (Cabré et al. 2005: 12). This is
so because the end application, i.e. the terminological knowledge base MuLex (for a closer
insight, see Chapter 6) in which the collected terminology has been recorded, is designed for
legal translators. However, in the dichotomy outlined by Cabré et al., the terminological
variation included in the first category - which follows the viewpoint proposed by Daille
(2003b), Jacquemin & Tzoukermann (1999) and Jacquemin (2001) - includes phenomena
such as synonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy and morphological variants of the same term,
taking in no account the shift in the semantic class of the variant as compared to the original
term.
In this research project, however, an even narrower perspective is adopted which harks back
to the definition of “denominative variation” provided by Freixa (2006: 51). As illustrated in
Section 4.2.4, Freixa calls “denominative variation” the phenomenon where one and the same
concept is referred to by means of different denominations, which are lexicalised forms that
have reached a minimum of stability and consensus among the users in the relevant
specialised domain. The author uses this term so as to differentiate it from “conceptual

132
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

variation”, which implies a modification of the concept referred to by different variants. As

the author acknowledged herself, however, the boundary line between the two types of
variation is not always clear-cut in reality, since denominative variation can be the result of a
conceptual modification driven by cognitive causes or other motivations. Since the two types
of variation are actually closely related, in what follows terminological variation is used as a
hypernym, as variation is observed both at a conceptual and a denominative level. Given the
specific purposes of this study, which considers the behaviour of terms in a multi-level
jurisdiction, terminological variation specifically refers to two phenomena:
a) one where a set of different terms is used to refer to a concept that is shared by the legal
systems taken into account for the study (denominative variation in a multi-level jurisdiction,
see Section 4.5);
b) the other where terms are used in more than one legal system to refer to concepts that are
not necessarily shared by the relevant legal systems (conceptual variation in a multi-level
jurisdiction, see Section 4.6).
In this study, the co-referent terms which fall into the first category of terminological
variation are grouped into term clusters (see Section 3.3.6.1) or, in Fernández-Silva and
Kerremans’s words (Fernández-Silva & Kerremans 2011: 320), “cluster[s] of terminological
variants”. The terms that fall into the second category, however, are also likely to form
separate term clusters on the basis of the differences existing among the concepts they refer
to. Before moving on to the discussion of the term variants encountered in the terminological
analysis (Steps 3 and 5 in Chapter 3), a digression is needed at this point to clarify what is
meant by “concept” in this study, since the term can be interpreted in many possible ways.

4.4.1 THE CONCEPT OF ‘CONCEPT’ IN TERMINOLOGY THEORY

So far, the term “concept” has been used without a precise qualification. In this regard, it
should be noted that the notion has been the object of much critical debate in the last two
decades in the terminology field. In the GTT, a concept is defined as “an element of thinking”
or “a mental construct representing a material or immaterial individual object” (Felber 1984:
103). From the viewpoint of the GTT, a concept is construed as “an aggregate of
characteristics which we can cognize as being common to a number of individual objects, and
which we use as means for mental ordering and communication” (Felber 1984: 103).
Concepts are therefore considered to exist independently of the term (Felber 1984: 103).
Consequently, from this standpoint concept systems are independent from term systems
(Temmerman 1997: 53).

133
Chapter 4

A similar function to the one attributed to concepts by the GTT can be found in Sager, who
formulates his own preliminary definition of concepts, which in his view are “constructs of
human cognition which assist in the classification of objects by way of systematic or arbitrary
abstraction” (Sager 1990: 22). The marked diversity emerging from a comparison of this
definition with others formulated by different committees involved in terminology
standardisation admittedly reflects, according to the author, a “considerable divergence of
opinion on the matter” (Sager 1990: 23). Consequently, he prefers to consider the notion of
‘concept’ as an axiomatic principle and abandon the preliminary definition by leaving the
notion undefined.
The same conclusion is reached by Draskau Kewley, who follows (Budin 1988, quoted in
Draskau Kewley 1991: 270) in stating that “[i]n the soft sciences, […], concepts frequently
remain theoretical and incapable of convincing empirical demonstration, murky and obscure
rather than decisively defined” (Draskau Kewley 1991: 270). Even though concepts and the
relations obtaining among them are “[t]he fundamental bricks-and-mortar of any theory”
(Draskau Kewley 1991: 270), a classification of concepts is only possible on the basis of their
characteristics, the sum of which constitute a concept, or rather its intension (see, for instance,
Wright & Budin 1997: 101, (ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.2.9). Since characteristics are
themselves concepts, “the nature of any concept is a relational complex” (Draskau Kewley
1991: 270), leading to concepts lacking a clear-cut definition.
A similar position is held also by Kageura, who leaves “the problem of what ‘concept’ is to
the safe hands of philosophers and psychologists” (Kageura 2002: 56). He actually rejects
providing a proper definition and prefers considering a concept as “something that ‘exists’” or
a “descriptive device”, which can be either a mental or a social construct which is necessary
to attribute the concept a “minimal explanatory substance” (Kageura 2002: 56).
While, on the one hand, there are authors who choose to avoid defining the concept of
‘concept’ as in the cases presented above, on the other hand, there are some international
organisations and scholars working in the field of Terminology who have tried to coin their
own definitions. Among them, Cabré defines a concept as “an element of thought, a mental
construct that represents a class of objects [...] [c]oncepts consist of a series of characteristics
that are shared by a class of individual objects” (Cabré 1999a: 42). Following her train of
thought, it follows that “[c]oncepts are mentally independent of terms and exist before they
are named” (Cabré 1999a: 42). Cabré acknowledges that the conceptual structures “in which
each concept occupies a specific place and acquires a functional value” (Cabré 1999a: 43)
reflect the knowledge that one or more specialists share on a specialized subject and are

134
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

therefore variable. However, despite admitting the possible multidimensionality of conceptual

structures - thus opposing the view held by the GTT (see Faber 2009: 111) - she advocates a
standardisation approach by stating that “the work of the terminologist begins with
establishing the structure of concepts which summarizes the knowledge of a discipline and
then searches for the names of each concept in this structure” (Cabré 1999a: 43).
All the definitions seen above seem to indicate that the idea of concepts being independent
from terms and consisting of characteristics seems to permeate the discussion on what a
concept is. As a matter of fact, characteristics are also fundamental in the definition provided
by ISO standard n° 1087-1 on Terminology work, according to which a concept is a “unit of
knowledge created by a unique combination of characteristics” (ISO 1087-1 2000: Section
3.2.1), and a characteristic is an “abstraction of a property of an object or of a set of objects”
(ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.2.4). The same standard also distinguishes between individual
concepts98 and general concepts. Individual concepts are those concepts which correspond to
only one object, such as Saturn and the Eiffel Tower (ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.2.2), and
which are referred to by means of appellations (ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.4.2). On the
contrary, general concepts are those concepts which correspond to two or more objects which
form a group by reason of common properties, such as planet or tower (ISO 1087-1 2000:
Section 3.2.3), which are designated by a term (ISO 1087-1 2000: Section 3.4.3).
In the brief and far from exhaustive overview of the attempts of definition of the concept of
‘concept’ within the field of Terminology presented so far99, two common elements can be
identified: on the one hand, the need to depict and gather the characteristics of a concept so as
to identify it and differentiate it from other concepts within the same specialised field, and, on
the other, the supposed independent status of concepts and conceptual structures from the
language expression, i.e. terms. However, empirical studies in different specialised fields
carried out since the early 1990s within the currents of Socioterminology, Textual
Terminology, Communicative Terminology and Sociocognitive Terminology have proved
that the bedrocks of the GTT and more traditional terminological approaches following the
GTT rest on an idealized vision of specialized communication rather than on the observation
of the actual behaviour of terminology in authentic communicative contexts. Such studies
allowed modern terminology theories to abandon the traditional conception of ‘concept’ as
the intension obtained by summing up its characteristics, since “[t]he concepts to which terms

98
In this thesis, “named entity” is used to refer to what is called “individual object” in the ISO 1087-1 standard
(see Section 5.3.1).
99
For a more detailed overview on the definition of “concept” in the second half of the 20th century, refer to
Antia (2000: Chapter 4).

135
Chapter 4

refer are not well-defined, clear-cut entities” and they “have been shown not to be language
independent” (L’Homme et al. 2003: 153).
Contrary to the key role in terminology management attributed to the concept by Wüster, who
considered it as the starting point for all modern work on the problems in Terminology (see
Wright & Budin 1997: 100), in more recent terminology theories the concept of ‘concept’ has
lost its centrality and left room for terminological units, which “constitute the central object of
the knowledge field of terminology” (Cabré et al. 2005: 1–2). Such a change in the focus of
terminology theories has been possible due to the fact that, on the one hand, a textual
approach was adopted and corpus linguistics methods were included in practical
terminological work and, on the other, the theory of Terminology experienced a cognitive
shift (Faber 2009). Such a shift was the partial replacement in terminological practice of the
merely onomasiological approach, which professed the precedence of concepts over terms, by
a semasiological approach, in which the meaning is analysed of terms usually extracted from
large specialised corpora.
The most critical view against the centrality of the notion of ‘concept’ as conceived by the
GTT and traditional terminology theorists was probably expressed by Temmerman. Although
multidimensionality in Terminology had been dealt with by several authors before her (see,
among others, Bowker & Meyer 1993; Bowker 1997; Kageura 1997; Meyer et al. 1992;
Skuce & Meyer 1990; Zawada & Swanepoel 1994), Temmerman is the first author to propose
an alternative view on concepts which implies a change in the terminology being used. In her
sociocognitive approach, instead of concepts, it is “units of understanding” that should be
considered “as items which need definitions” (Temmerman 2000a: 73), where units of
understanding include both concepts, i.e. clearly delineated abstractions that are attributed a
position in a logical or ontological concept structure (see Temmerman 2000a: 73, 2000b:
453), and categories, which are “all the units of understanding which are impossible to
describe according to the principles of traditional Terminology” (Temmerman 2000a: 73).
Contrary to clear-cut concepts, constituting the minority of units of understanding, categories
have a prototype structure and lack the precision required in the classical concept theory,
since they present “scalar/graded characteristics” (Temmerman 2000a: 28).

4.4.2 THE CONCEPT OF ‘CONCEPT’ IN THIS STUDY

So far, an overview of the discussion on the concept of ‘concept’ in the field of Terminology
has been presented. In the early days of theoretical studies in Terminology, a definition of
“concept” was essential since in the onomasiological approach proposed by Wüster and

136
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

traditional terminology theorists concepts needed to be clearly identified and distinguished

from other concepts in the same domain. In more recent days, the change in the
methodologies applied to practical terminological work and the theoretical shifts driven by
different contributions from various multidisciplinary fields have removed concepts from
their privileged position in terminology theory. This has led to the two different standpoints
illustrated above. On the one hand, some authors question the traditional definition of
“concept”, but prefer not to provide their own definition since concepts are useful for
terminology description and defining them would inevitably put boundaries to entities whose
boundaries cannot always be determined. On the other hand, other authors propose an
alternative view on concepts and, as in the case of Temmerman, accompany it with an
alternative definition and terminology.
Having seen all these different approaches to the concept of ‘concept’ and in the light of the
shifts the concept itself has undergone in terminology theory, it should be noted that in this
thesis the term “concept” is still used. In Sowa’s words,

Concepts are inventions of the human mind used to construct a model of the
world. They package reality into discrete units for further processing, they
support powerful mechanisms for doing logic, and they are indispensable
for precise, extended chains of reasoning. But concepts and percepts cannot
form a perfect model of the world, -- they are abstractions that select
features that are important for one purpose, but they ignore details and
complexities that may be just as important for some other purpose. (Sowa
1984: 344)

Following his train of thought, which is nevertheless closer to the standpoint of the GTT and
standardisation-oriented terminology theories than to modern terminology theories, it is
interesting to note the emphasis Sowa laid on purpose. Taking purpose as a starting point for
an application-oriented reflection on the concept of ‘concept’ and with no ambition to
formulate a general definition to explain what a concept is, in this thesis concepts are
conceived pragmatically as units belonging to the cognitive sphere which manifest themselves
by means of terminological units, with which they have a close relation. The formation of
concepts and terminological units depends on a series of factors, such as different purposes,
perspectives, world views and theories, which determine the multidimensionality and the
variation that can be observed in the parole aspect of language. The close relation between
terminological units and concepts also allows for concepts to be subject to modification and
negotiation through the usage of the terms that designate them in discourse. By admitting that
concepts are multidimensional, in the sense that they can be approached and constructed from

137
Chapter 4

different points of view and they can experience modifications, three axioms maintained by
the GTT turn out to be questionable.
The first is the principle of univocity holding between terms and concepts, according to which
“a concept can only be named by one term and a term can only refer to one concept” (Collet
2004b: 100). As has been seen throughout this Chapter, terminological variation (both in
terms of conceptual and denominative variation) is a feature that characterises specialised
discourse in general and specialised texts in particular, meaning that univocity should be
considered as an ideal in certain standardisation and language planning tasks rather than as a
principle observable in real-life discourse. The second GTT axiom to be questioned is the
universal nature of terms and therefore of concepts. By ceasing to consider a terminological
unit as the designation for labelling a concept that is part of a universally accepted and
(language-, culture- etc.) independent concept system, terms and concepts are seen as the
result of a combination of factors that come into play in specialised discourse, such as the
topic and the specific perspective taken to approach the topic, the degree of knowledge of the
participants in the communicative situation and the purpose of the communicative act, among
others. The third GTT axiom to be brought into question is the synchrony principle deriving
from the central position attributed to the study of concept systems in traditional
Terminology, which is carried out synchronically. Once concept systems are withdrawn from
that position, attention can be given also to the study of the development and evolution of
terminology, which is carried out diachronically.
To sum up, by moving from a traditional approach to terminology towards communicative
and cognitive text-based approaches, the building blocks of the GTT have undergone
considerable revision, allowing for multidimensionality, dynamism and variation to be
considered as ‘physiological’ features characterising terms and concepts rather than as an
impediment to unambiguous communication. And it is in the light of modern terminology
theories that, in this thesis, concepts are conceived as “a flexible entity within a
multidimensional concept system” (Fernández-Silva et al. 2011: 52).

4.5 DENOMINATIVE VARIATION IN A MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION

As has been highlighted several times so far, terminology as a set of terms used within a
specialised domain can be approached from different perspectives and can therefore be
regarded as a multidimensional object of study. Since terminological variation is a

138
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

multifaceted phenomenon that characterises terminology, variation as well can be considered

multidimensional and can be approached from various angles. These angles are determined by
the same variables that are taken into consideration for analysing the behaviour of terms in
context. In order to analyse the victim-related terminology extracted following the
methodology described in Chapter 3, four different variables have been employed in this
study, the first two of which come into play in all specialised domains, the third is only
relevant when the same language is used to refer to different conceptual systems and the
fourth when legal texts with different legal force are considered. If these variables are applied
in the study of denominative variation, two types of variation can be observed in relation to
each variable.

Variable Type of variation

st
1 variable degree of specialisation vertical variation vs. horizontal variation
2nd variable time span synchronic variation vs. diachronic variation
3rd variable conceptual (legal) intra-systemic variation vs. inter-systemic
system(s) variation
4th variable legal force variation among texts with equal legal force vs.
variation among texts with different legal force

Table 4.1. Types of variation according to the different variable taken into consideration.

In the following sections, each variable and the observable types of variation are discussed in
greater detail and provided with examples extracted from the EU corpus (see Section 3.3.2)
and the collection of national texts (see Section 3.3.4). However, to illustrate terminological
variation, a term variant needs to be compared with a reference term. Therefore, in order to
examine terminological variation, in this research project the reference term that will be used
to describe the modifications occurring in the co-referring terms coincides with the main term
identified according to the criteria described in Section 3.3.6.1. However, in some cases it has
been impossible to find concrete examples of the types of variation described by taking the
main term as a reference term and consequently some types of denominative variation are
illustrated through examples taking into consideration two term variants.

4.5.1 FIRST VARIABLE: DEGREE OF SPECIALISATION

Ever since multidimensionality and its consequent variation were identified as prominent
features of terminology, several authors have emphasised the role of the degree of
specialisation in the occurrence of terminological variation and terminological density. As far

139
Chapter 4

as the impact of this variable on denominative variation is concerned, Cabré, for instance,
speaks of a “greater variation of lexical synonymy” (Cabré 2000: 53) in less specialised texts
and says that not only does the degree of specialisation reflect in the quantity of terminology
contained in texts, but it also determines the type of terminology texts contain (Cabré 2003:
179).
The same view is held by Freixa, who devoted her doctoral thesis to the study of
denominative variation in texts of different degrees of specialisation dealing with
environmental issues (Freixa 2002). Starting from the general hypothesis that “el grau
d’especialització (GE) dels textos condiciona quantitativament i qualitativament la variació
denominativa (VD)” (Freixa 2002: 11), Freixa carries out an empirical research that leads to
the same conclusion as Cabré. The researcher actually confirms that denominative variation is
more frequent in less specialised texts than in texts with a higher degree of specialisation, i.e.
that in more specialised texts there are less notions represented by more than one designation
(which she refers to as “nocions polidenominatives” (Freixa 2002: 12)) and the
polidenominative notions are referred to by a smaller number of denominative variants.
Freixa also shows that there is a correlation between the degree of specialisation of texts and,
on the one hand, the specific type of denominative variation and, on the other, the different
degree of conceptual correspondence characterising denominative variants, resulting in a
higher degree of correspondence in more specialised texts than in less specialised ones
(Freixa 2002: 365–366).
As has been seen so far, the degree of specialisation has been considered as a factor producing
vertical variation by Cabré and Freixa, among others (see, for instance, Ahmad & Rogers
1992; Ciapuscio 1999), who implicitly include in this factor also the recipients of the text.
Some other authors, however, consider the recipients of the text as a separate cause of vertical
variation from the degree of specialization of the text (see, for instance, Gómez González-
Jover 2006; Montero Martínez 2000).
Given the features of the EU corpus (see Section 3.3.2) and of the national texts collected to
carry out the comparison between EU terms and national terms (see Section 3.3.4), it is not
possible to take into account the factor of vertical variation in this research study, where the
methodology adopted requires the degree of specialisation to be as homogeneous as possible.
Consequently, as has been pointed out in Section 3.3.2.1.2, both the EU and national contexts
taken into consideration for this study do not contain any texts dealing with the topic of
victims of crime which have a low degree of specialisation (e.g. summaries of EU legislation

140
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

on the Europa website100, practical information for victims and witnesses on Victim Support
web pages101, etc.). Therefore, though being heterogeneous as regards text type, legal force,
author, geographical and legal relevance, the texts selected for this research study can be
considered rather homogeneous with regard to the degree of specialisation, since they are all
concerned with a specific legal topic and the expected level of knowledge in legal issues of
their target readers is high.

4.5.1.1 H ORIZONTAL DENOMINATIVE VARIATION

Although vertical denominative variation cannot be observed in the textual material selected
for this study, what can in fact be observed is what is here referred to as horizontal
denominative variation, which consists of the coexistence of more than one designation for
the same concept in a set of texts having a homogeneous degree of specialisation (Peruzzo
2010: 183). In Peruzzo (2010), five different categories of horizontal denominative variation
were identified, namely inflectional, syntactic, morphosyntactic, paradigmatic and anaphoric
variation, which could also combine in a single terminological unit and thus give rise to a
further category of combined horizontal denominative variants. The textual material used, the
methodology adopted and the types of variants analysed in Peruzzo (2010) are however
different from those adopted in the present research project. First of all, the documents
considered for the study carried out in 2010 had an EU origin but made up a smaller corpus as
compared to the EU corpus built for this study. Secondly, the time span covered by the texts
ranged from 2000 to 2010, while the EU corpus described in Section 3.3.2 covers a longer
time span (1998-2012). Thirdly, in the previous study a contrastive examination of the Italian
terminological units used to reproduce English units was carried out. In other words, the
English versions of the texts in the corpus were taken as the starting point from which
denominative variation was analyzed in the Italian texts. Conversely, in this research project
the two EU subcorpora and the collections of national texts are considered separately on a
linguistic basis, which means that the phenomenon of horizontal denominative variation is
observed intralingually. This does not imply that parallel texts are not taken as a reference
point for the identification of term variants. In fact, as pointed out in Section 3.3.3.2.1, a
cross-check has been carried out interlingually by means of the bilingual display function so
as to spot all the possible variants of a main term to be included in a term cluster. However, in
order to adhere to the principle of equal authenticity (see Section 3.3.2.3), i.e. not considering

100
Available at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/index_en.htm.
101
Available at http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/Home/Help-for-victims and
http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/Home/Help-for-witnesses.

141
Chapter 4

one of the two language versions of the same document as the source text and the other as the
target text, and given that the textual material under examination is not made of parallel texts
only, but also includes documents of national origin, the analysis of term variants is carried
out from a monolingual perspective. Moreover, as stated in Section 4.4, in this research
project only those term variants are taken into consideration which have a lexicalised form
that makes it possible to link them to the main term even in a decontextualised setting
regarding the legal area under discussion. Consequently, some categories of variation
examined here differ from the categories identified in the 2010 study and the category of
anaphoric variation (see Daille 2005: 185; Peruzzo 2010: 185) is not examined.

4.5.1.1.1 I NFLECTIONAL VARIATION

As conceived in Peruzzo (2010), inflectional variation presupposed the existence of variants
“in which an orthographic modification occurs in the target text term due to an inflectional
process which is not justified by a change in the source text term and does not modify the
semantic content of the original term” (Peruzzo 2010: 184). As pointed out in Section 4.5.1.1,
according to the equal authenticity principle all the texts are to be considered as equally
authentic and no priority can be given to original texts over their translations for the purpose
of legal interpretation. Though the process of translation is implied in the drafting of legal
documents at the EU level, the translated documents are to be considered in the same way as
originals, i.e. as the linguistic expression of a supranational legal order. Therefore, there are
no grounds for considering the terms in one language version of a certain EU document as
source terms to be contrasted with the target terms in another language version.
However, it is possible to identify cases of inflectional variation even without taking one
language version as a starting point for the analysis. In this particular case, the inflectional
modifications that are relevant to the research project concern the number of one of the
constituents of the terminological unit. In fact, inflectional variation is not considered to be
relevant if it implies a change in the number of the terminological unit because such a change
is required by the cotext or the stylistic conventions of the language under examination. For
instance, Article 3(3) of Directive 2012/29/EU (emphasis added) states that:

Unless contrary to the interests of the victim or unless the course of proceedings would be
prejudiced, Member States shall allow victims to be accompanied by a person of their choice
in the first contact with a competent authority where, due to the impact of the crime, the
victim requires assistance to understand or to be understood.

142
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

The example provided illustrates how the shift from the singular to the plural form and vice
versa does not jeopardise the connection of the terms to a single concept. Since the
modification does not imply a change in the lemma, the two forms are not considered
terminological variants. The example provided, however, concerns a single-word term.
Indeed, the same line of reasoning can be extended to multi-word terminological units where
the modification occurs in the head element, such as in the following examples extracted from
the same Directive (emphasis added):

Member States shall ensure that victims may be heard during criminal proceedings and may
provide evidence. Where a child victim is to be heard, due account shall be taken of the
child's age and maturity.

The right of child victims to be heard in criminal proceedings should not be precluded solely
on the basis that the victim is a child or on the basis of that victim's age.

For the purposes of this research project, inflectional variation is in fact considered to occur
when a modification in the number can be observed in one of the modifiers constituting the
terminological unit. In other words, to be relevant for this study, inflection needs to concern
the number of the modifier (a content word) in a terminological unit rather than that of the
head element. When such a modification occurs and the concept underlying the lexical
manifestation does not undergo any changes then there is correspondence among variants. As
far as this specific type of inflectional variation is concerned, it should be noted that in the
textual material analysed this type of denominative variation has only been observed in
Italian, e.g. the main terms diritti delle vittime, protezione delle vittime, risarcimento da parte
dello Stato and sistema di risarcimento statale.
As for the first main term, it should be noted that in the analysed textual material several
lexicalised forms have been found, of which four fall into the category of inflectional
variation. First of all, the genotype VICTIM’S RIGHTS in Italian is referred to by means of the
main term diritti delle vittime and its inflectional variant diritti della vittima, which implies a
shift from the plural to the singular form. However, the same genotype is also designated by
the full form (see Section 4.5.1.1.5) of the main term, i.e. diritti delle vittime di reato and
diritti delle vittime di reati. In this case, the modifier of the modifier rather than the direct
modifier of the head element undergoes an inflectional modification. However, it needs to be
said that the alternation of the elements “reato” and “reati” in the analysed textual material is

143
Chapter 4

very limited, since the term variant diritti delle vittime di reati has been found in one text
only102.
The same type of variation also applies to the other main terms mentioned above and
concerns the same modifiers as in the example of diritti delle vittime. In the case of protezione
delle vittime, the main term has two full forms, i.e. protezione delle vittime di reato and
protezione delle vittime di reati, where the alternation concerns the modifiers. The same
happens with the lexical variants (see Section 4.5.1.1.4) tutela delle vittime di reato and tutela
delle vittime di reati, where the main term is subject to more than one variation: the head
element “protezione” is replaced by the synonym “tutela” and the short modifier “vittime” by
its full forms where the inflectional variation occurs, namely “vittime di reato” and “vittime di
reati”.
Also in the case of risarcimento da parte dello Stato the inflectional variation concerns the
lexical variants indennizzo delle vittime and indennizzo della vittima, although the latter has
been found in one text only103. Finally, inflectional variation has also been observed in the
lexical variants of the main term sistema di risarcimento statale, i.e. sistema nazionale di
risarcimento delle vittime di reato and sistema nazionale di risarcimento delle vittime di reati,
with the former occurring in one text only 104.
Apart from the examples provided for Italian, a case in which inflectional variation occurs in
the modifier of a terminological unit was also found in English, although the variation also
implies the insertion of a pronoun. The inflectional variants under discussion are two low-
frequency variants (only one occurrence each) of the main term mediation in criminal cases,
namely mediation between the offender and his victim and mediation between victims and
offenders.

4.5.1.1.2 S YNTACTIC VARIATION

Following Daille (2005: 184), the category of syntactic variation can be said to include
different subcategories, namely shallow syntactic variation and proper syntactic variation.
Although acknowledging some correspondence between the types of syntactic variation

102
Regno del Belgio (2002) Iniziativa del Regno del Belgio in vista dell’adozione di una decisione del Consiglio
che istituisce una rete europea di punti di contatto nazionali per la giustizia riparatoria, Gazzetta ufficiale delle
Comunità europee, C 242, 8.10.2002, pp. 20–23.
103
Parlamento europeo (2000) Relazione sulla Comunicazione della Commissione al Consiglio, al Parlamento
europeo e al Comitato economico e sociale “Vittime di reati nell’Unione europea – Riflessioni sul quadro
normativo e sulle misure da prendere”, 25.4.2000.
104
Parlamento europeo & Consiglio dell’Unione europea (2012) Direttiva 2012/29/UE del Parlamento europeo e
del Consiglio del 25 ottobre 2012 che istituisce norme minime in materia di diritti, assistenza e protezione delle
vittime di reato e che sostituisce la decisione quadro 2001/220/GAI, Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea, L
315, 14.11.2012, pp. 57–73.

144
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

examined in this research study and those identified by Daille, her classification cannot be
fully applied to the terminological variation observed in this research project. Therefore, in
what follows discrepancies with Daille’s classification of syntactic variation can be observed.
Daille defines shallow syntactic variation as the variation which modifies the function words
of the base terms, i.e. “noun phrases composed of a head noun and a nominal or adjectival
modifier” (Daille 2005: 183), whereas in syntactic variation proper it is the internal structure
of the base form to be modified (Daille 2005: 184). In this regard, the categorisation she
proposes derives from the study of French terminology, which means that her categorisation
may be expanded if the behaviour of terminology in other languages is observed. A further
remark needs to be made with reference to Daille’s classification of syntactic variation. As
has been discussed in Section 4.2.2, according to the author terminological variation may
imply a conceptual shift from one concept to one or more different concepts in the passage
from an original term to its variant, which is also the case in the syntactic variants obtained
using insertion and coordination. According to Daille, however, variants are also those terms
which are obtained by inserting a modifier such as an adjective in a ‘noun+preposition+noun’
sequence, as in the case of the base term lait de brebis and its variant lait cru de brebis (Daille
2005: 184), and those in which the base term is expanded by coordination, as in the case of
alimentation humaine and alimentation animale et humaine (Daille 2005: 185). Since the
notion of terminological variation in this research project differs from Daille’s and her
classification cannot be accepted, the three categories grouped within what she refers to as
“shallow syntactic variation” are here assimilated to the broader concept of syntactic variation
and those modifications that result in a conceptual shift are not taken into consideration.
Moreover, Daille includes in her classification of shallow syntactic variation what she refers
to as “predicative variants” (Daille 2005: 184), which consist of a noun and an adjective
where the latter plays a predicative role. The example she provides is that of the term pectine
mêthylêe and its predicative form ces pectines sont mêthyêes. Although examples of this sort
can be found in the textual material examined in this research project, such as in the case of
the progressive lexicalisation of the phrase victims who are particularly vulnerable into the
terminological unit particularly vulnerable victims105, for the purposes of this research project
those expressions in which the adjective has a predicative role are not considered lexicalised
forms, i.e. terms, and are therefore not considered term variants. On the other hand, in this

105
The first document in which the expression victims who are particularly vulnerable was found is the 2000
Initiative of the Portuguese Republic with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the standing of
victims in criminal procedure and the same expression was used in different documents until 2003. Instead, the
term particularly vulnerable victim appeared two years later and the latest document in which it could be found
dates back to 2011.

145
Chapter 4

research project the umbrella category of syntactic variation contains two subcategories and,
due to the nature of the modifications involved, can only be applied to multi-word terms. The
first subcategory comprises syntactic modifications that affect the function words belonging
to a certain terminological unit without requiring a change in its content words, whereas the
second subcategory affects the distribution of content words in a multi-word terminological
unit.
The first type of syntactic variation 106 falling into the first subcategory, which has been
identified in the data being analysed in both languages, is the substitution of the preposition.
As far as English is concerned, for instance, in the main term compensation from the offender
the preposition “from” is replaced by the preposition “by”, resulting in compensation by the
offender, while the preposition “for” is substituted by “to” in the main term state
compensation for victims. Another example is provided by the main term compensation of
material losses, in which the preposition “of” is replaced by “for”. As for compensation, a
similar case has been identified in Italian, where the contracted preposition “dei” in the main
term risarcimento dei danni non materiali is replaced by a simple preposition followed by an
article, thus resulting in risarcimento per i danni non materiali.
The second type of variation falling into the first subcategory derives from the “optional
character of the preposition and of the article” (Daille 2005: 184). Due to typological
differences in the languages under examination, however, the variation observed varies
according to the language. Accordingly, in the English data there is greater alternation
between term variants with either a ‘noun1+noun2’ or a ‘noun1+preposition+noun2’ or a
‘noun1+preposition+article+noun2’ sequence. On the other hand, in Italian the alternation is
mainly between the ‘noun1+preposition+noun2’ and ‘noun1+preposition+article+noun2’
patterns. An English example in which a ‘noun+noun’ structure alternates with a
‘noun1+preposition+noun2’ structure is provided by the terms victims' rights, victims rights
and rights of victims, while in the term cluster referring to the VICTIM genotype the pattern
including the article has also been found, as there is alternation among the terms crime victim,
victim of crime and victim of a crime. As regards Italian, an example involving the presence or
absence of prepositions and articles was retrieved, i.e. the term cluster referring to the
MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES genotype. In this cluster, two term variants are found which
fall into the category of shallow syntactic variation, but they also imply some changes that can
be ascribed to other types of syntactic variation and can therefore be said to be combined
variants (see Section 4.5.1.1.7). These variants are mediazione tra vittima e autore del reato
106
The first two types of syntactic variation described here correspond to the first two types of shallow syntactic
variation mentioned by Daille (2005: 184).

146
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

and mediazione tra l'autore del reato e la vittima. Comparing the first term with the second,
while in the latter the preposition is not modified, in the former there are some missing
articles. However, the examples provided both for English and Italian show how these
variations do not occur in isolation but are accompanied by another type of syntactic
variation. This falls into the second subcategory of syntactic variation and comprises those
variants obtained by changing the order of the content words in the main term. Therefore,
whereas in English the alternation between ‘noun1+noun2’ and ‘noun1+preposition+noun2’
structures is only possible by replacing noun1 with noun2 and vice versa, in Italian the
absence or presence of articles has been observed together with the permutation of the
multiple modifiers linked to a single head element in the terminological unit.
As for the second subcategory of syntactic variation proper, i.e. variation consisting in the
permutation of content words with no further modifications in the terminological unit, only a
pair of term variants for the term cluster referring to the STATE COMPENSATION SCHEME

genotype has been found. This is the case of the Italian terms sistema di indennizzo nazionale
and sistema nazionale di indennizzo. In the first variant the adjective “nazionale” is linked to
the modifier “indennizzo”, while in the second variant the adjective refers to the head
element. Although a conceptual difference is brought about due to the different position held
by the modifier moving the focus from the compensation provided by the state in the first
variant to the compensation scheme established and financed by the state in the second
variant, such a difference is negligible in the contexts where the variants are used and, as a
consequence, the two terms can be said to be variants belonging to the same term cluster.

4.5.1.1.3 M ORPHOSYNTACTIC VARIATION

The third category of variation is represented by morphosyntactic variants, in which both the
content and the functional words of a terminological unit are modified without producing a
semantic change. Italian examples of this category refer to state compensation to crime
victims, such as risarcimento statale delle vittime di reati / risarcimento da parte dello Stato
delle vittime di reati (STATE COMPENSATION genotype) and sistema di risarcimento statale /
sistema di risarcimento da parte dello Stato (STATE COMPENSATION SCHEME genotype). In
these examples, the alternative forms are semantically equivalent but syntactically different:
the first variant follows a ‘noun+adjective+modifier’ pattern, while the second is an example
of a ‘noun+prepositional phrase+modifier’ sequence. The same difference can be noticed in
the second example, in which the alternation between an adjective and a prepositional phrase
is found in the modifier rather than in the head element.

147
Chapter 4

4.5.1.1.4 L EXICAL VARIATION

The fourth category of horizontal denominative variation is represented by lexical variation,
also referred to by Daille (2005: 185) as “paradigmatic variation”, consisting in the
substitution of one of the constituents of the terminological unit by a synonym preserving at
the same time the semantic correspondence of the unit. As stated by Freixa and Montané, the
substitution can occur either in the head element of a terminological unit or in its modifier
(see Freixa & Montané 2006: 201). Due to the substitution of an element of the terminological
unit with a synonym, in the literature lexical variation is generally assimilated to the
phenomenon of synonymy, as noted by Freixa (2002: 279). However, because different types
of lexical variation can be observed in the textual material, in this research project the term
lexical variation is preferred to synonymy, since the latter is used to refer to a subcategory of
lexical variation where a terminological unit is entirely replaced by a synonymous
terminological unit, while lexical variation includes also other forms of variation which are
described below.
Before moving to the description of the examples identified in the data which have been
analysed, it should first be noted that different criteria have been used by different authors to
classify synonyms or, following the line of reasoning above, lexical variants 107 . In what
follows, two criteria are taken into account (see Freixa 2002: 279). The first is the number of
constituents of the terminological units (single-word or multi-word units) and is more general
in nature, since it can be applied to all terminological units. The second criterion coincides
with the element (head or modifier or both) that is substituted within a multi-word term, and
can therefore be applied to polylexical terminological units only. The lexical variants that can
be obtained by taking into consideration these criteria are the following:

Criterion Reference term Lexical variant

single-word terminological unit single-word terminological unit
number of elements
single-word terminological unit multi-word terminological unit
constituting the
multi-word terminological unit single-word terminological unit
terminological units
multi-word terminological unit multi-word terminological unit

Table 4.2. Possible lexical variants obtained considering a variable number of elements
constituting the terminological units.

107
A review of classifications of synonyms provided by different authors can be found in Freixa (2002: 164–
175).

148
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

Criterion Reference term Lexical variant

element being head1+modifier1 head2+modifier1
modified head1+modifier1 head1+modifier2
in a multi-word
head1+modifier1 head2+modifier2
terminological unit108

Table 4.3. Possible lexical variants obtained considering a the elements being modified in
multi-word terminological units.

With regard to the first criterion, because the number of multi-word terms generally exceeds
the number of single-word terms, also in the textual material analysed the examples involving
polylexical terminological units are more abundant than those concerning monolexical
terminological units. Nevertheless, examples of the first type of lexical variation have been
identified in Italian as regards the terms testimone and teste (term cluster referring to the
WITNESS genotype). As for the second type of lexical variation produced by the change in the
number of the elements constituting co-referring term variants, this has not been found in the
research data. Although multi-word terms are more frequent than single-word terms, in the
victim-related terminology an example of the third type of lexical variation can be found in
Italian, i.e. the terms indennità and indennizzo (term cluster referring to the STATE

COMPENSATION genotype), which are both used as lexical variants of the main term
risarcimento statale.
The far more frequent type of lexical variation related to the first criterion observed in the
textual material analysed is the fourth type, i.e. lexical variation in which a multi-word term is
replaced by a synonymous multi-word term. However, in order to describe this type of
variation the second criterion needs to be accounted for, namely the element of the reference
term that is substituted in the variant. Having a look at the English term clusters identified,
different patterns of multi-word lexical variation can be observed. Considering the
‘head1+modifier1 → head2+modifier1’ pattern first and bearing in mind that in this type of
pattern the head and the modifier in English are linked by means of a preposition, examples
are provided by the main term application for compensation and its lexical variant claim for
compensation. However, in most of the English multi-word terms examined, the modifier is
either a noun or an adjective preceding the head. Therefore, the standard lexical variation
pattern for English polylexical terms is ‘modifier1+head1 → modifier1+head2’. An examples
is provided by the pair composed of the main term victim support organisation and its variant
victim support group. The objection that in this example the head element in the variant is not
108
Note that the order of the elements can be inverted according to the typological conventions of the languages
under discussion, thus producing other possible combinations, such as ‘modifier1+head1 → modifier2+head1’ or
‘head1+modifier1 → modifier2+head1’.

149
Chapter 4

a perfect synonym of the head element of the main term may be valid in principle, since
denominative variation can suggest a conceptual variation. However, given the specialised
domain in which the variants are used and the contexts in which they have been found, not
only these variants can be considered contextual synonyms (see Sager 1990: 59), but also the
conceptual difference can be neglected and the terms can be said to belong to the same term
cluster.
Among the ‘multi-word term → multi-word term’ variation pattern, the pattern which is more
frequent is the one in which the head element remains unchanged while the modifier changes
regardless of its position. As far as the ‘modifier1+head1 → modifier2+head1’ pattern is
concerned, the following English examples can be given in which the first terminological unit
corresponds to the main term: material loss, economic loss, pecuniary loss and financial loss;
immaterial damages and moral damages; and central contact point and national contact
point. However, since in English the modifier can also occur after a head element followed by
a preposition (and possibly by an article introducing the modifier), other possible patterns of
lexical variation can be observed where the modifier itself can be a single-word or a multi-
word unit. As a consequence, the number of patterns increases alongside the increase of the
number of constituents of the polylexical term. The main term mediation in criminal cases
and its variant mediation in criminal proceedings illustrate a simpler case in which the head
element of the modifier is replaced. A more complex case is exemplified by the main term
compensation for immaterial damages and its variants compensation for non-pecuniary losses
and compensation for pain and suffering, in which the head element is kept unvaried, while
the whole modifier is substituted with a synonymous expression.
The last ‘multi-word term → multi-word term’ variation pattern identified in the English
victim-related terminology collected is the ‘head1+modifier1 → head2+modifier2’ pattern. In
this case, the type of link holding among the head element and the modifier can be ignored,
since both are replaced in the shift from the main term into its variant. In this regard, it should
be noted that this pattern and the ‘single-word term → single-word term’ pattern are
sometimes acknowledged as proper synonyms in literature, while the other patterns described
earlier are thought to produce lexical variants rather than proper synonyms. An example of an
English term cluster containing this type of lexical variation is the one referring to the
IMMATERIAL DAMAGES genotype, in which the main term immaterial damages discussed
above also has the lexical variant non-pecuniary loss. As for this last type of lexical variation,
another case has been retrieved which, however, differs from all the other examples
mentioned so far. In fact, the terms at issue, i.e. the main term Victim Support Europe and its

150
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

variants European Forum for Victim Services and European Forum for Victims’ Services,
designate an organisation, i.e. a named entity, and the usage of the terms is determined by the
organisation itself. In other words, the victim support organisation which was once called
European Forum for Victim Services changed its name into Victim Support Europe, making
the alternation between the two terms within the same text impossible.
The lexical variation pattern in which alternation is produced among multi-word terms is
frequent in the Italian textual material analysed as well. Contrary to the pattern valid for
English in which the modifier generally comes before the head element, in the most frequent
pattern in Italian the modifier comes after the head element. An example of this pattern is
provided by the main term protezione delle vittime and its variant tutela delle vittime.
However, the most frequent variation pattern observed in the Italian textual material is the
‘head1+modifier1 → head1+modifier2’ pattern, in which the modifier can be either an
adjective or a noun/noun phrase introduced by a preposition (and possibly an article).
Examples of the pattern in which the modifier is an adjective are: danno materiale, danno
pecuniario, danno economico and danno patrimoniale (referring to the MATERIAL LOSS

genotype) and giustizia riparativa, giustizia restaurativa, giustizia restitutiva, giustizia

riparatrice, giustizia risarcitoria and giustizia riparatoria (referring to the RESTORATIVE

JUSTICE genotype). Examples of the pattern in which the modifier is a noun or a noun phrase
introduced by a preposition (and an article) are: domanda di risarcimento and its variant
domanda di indennizzo, organizzazione di assistenza alle vittime and its variant
organizzazione di sostegno alle vittime, sistema di risarcimento statale and its variant sistema
nazionale di indennizzo, among others. A further form of multi-word lexical variation is
represented by the case in which the main term follows a ‘head1+modifier1(adjective)’
pattern and the variant has a ‘head1+modifier2(noun phrase)’ pattern, such as the term cluster
referring to the MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES genotype, in which the main term mediazione
penale is accompanied by a whole range of variants, namely mediazione nell'ambito dei
procedimenti penali, mediazione nelle cause penali, mediazione tra vittima e autore del reato,
mediazione tra l'autore del reato e la vittima, mediazione tra la vittima e l'autore del reato
nell'ambito dei procedimenti penali, mediazione tra vittima e autore del reato nel
procedimento penale and mediazione tra autore e vittima del reato. The last type of multi-
word lexical variation discussed for the English victim-related terminology, i.e. the form of
lexical variation where a whole multi-word term alternates with a lexically different multi-
word term, has also been found in Italian. The examples of this type of variation are: mancato
guadagno and lucro cessante, sistema di risarcimento statale and regime d'indennizzo delle

151
Chapter 4

vittime and, as already seen for English, Victim Support Europe and Forum europeo per i
servizi alle vittime.
Finally, a sui generis type of lexical variation is represented by the alternation of a term with
an equivalent term in a different language, i.e. a loan word. This type of variation has been
considered as a marginal phenomenon, since in the textual material analysed only one
example of this alternation has been found in the English EU subcorpus. The example
includes the main term civil party, which is itself a loan translation of “partie civile”, which
indicates a genotype which is typical for Civil Law jurisdictions but is absent in Common
Law systems, and the French variant partie civile.

4.5.1.1.5 V ARIATION THROUGH EXPANSION / REDUCTION

The fifth category of horizontal denominative variation is obtained by means of reduction or
expansion of the main term. In this category of variation, the fact that a term variant is
obtained either by reduction or by expansion depends on the selection of the reference term.
In her proposal for a formal classification of term variants, for instance, Freixa (2002: 277–
279) contemplates only reduction as a possible form of variation (Freixa 2002: 277-279).
Such an approach is due to her methodological choice of comparing a multi-word term
composed of a higher number of elements with shortened forms of the same term (Freixa
2002: 269–270). In order to classify cases of reduction, Freixa introduces three criteria: the
component of the terminological unit in which reduction occurs (i.e. head or modifier), the
number of elements that are reduced, and the structure of the terminological units (Freixa
2002: 278). In Freixa’s methodology the starting point for the examination of variation
through reduction is always a multi-word term, while the term variant obtained can be either a
multi-word term or a single-word term.
In contrast with Freixa’s approach, in this study the reference term coincides with the main
term identified on the basis of the criteria illustrated in Section 3.3.6.1. Taking the main term
as the starting point for the analysis of terminological variation and confronting term variants
against it, both expansion and reduction are possible forms of variation. As a consequence,
there are no restrictions on the number of elements in the term serving as the main term, since
this can be either a multi-word or a single-word terminological unit. As far as variation via
reduction/expansion is concerned, however, in line with Freixa (2002: 278) it should be
highlighted that this category of variation is mainly anaphoric, meaning that the main term
and the term variant(s) can be considered as being linked by a contextual relation. An
example of anaphoric variation is provided by the Italian term cluster referring to the CHILD

152
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

VICTIM genotype discussed in Peruzzo (2010: 186), where the full form of the main term is
replaced either by a short form or a pronoun. However, in this study the focus is on cases
where the term variant(s) can be linked to the main term via non-anaphoric relations, provided
that such a link can be drawn if the domain remains unchanged, i.e. if the terms under
discussion occur in victim-related texts. Moreover, it is interesting to note here that, in the
terms that are subject to reduction and expansion, the head element remains unchanged, the
only exception being the Italian term richiedente, which has been discussed below.
Starting the analysis of this category of variation with expansion, it is worth mentioning that
in most of the cases observed expansion occurs between a multi-word main term and a multi-
word variant, while the cases in which a single-word main term is expanded into a multi-word
variant represent a minority. This is so because of the specific approach that has been adopted
and described above: the main term needs to be specific enough so as to allow for a
conceptual correspondence relation to be drawn between it and its variants. Therefore, a
single-word term deprived of relevant modifiers can result too vague or ambiguous to be
recorded as the main term to which more specific multi-word term variants can be linked. For
example, in the Italian EU corpus the concept APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION is often
referred to by using the short form domanda rather than its full form domanda di
risarcimento. However, the short form is not included in the relevant term cluster and cannot
serve as a main term because the same term can refer to other types of applications.
Therefore, the only cases in which a monolexical term can be considered as a main term on
the basis of the selected criteria, even though there are polylexical variants for that term, are
those cases in which the single-word term is specific enough within the domain under
discussion to be linked to its multi-word variants. Two cases of this kind have been observed
in the Italian EU corpus (richiedente → richiedente il risarcimento, richiedente l'indennizzo,
soggetto richiedente un risarcimento statale; vittima → vittima di reato), and three in the
English EU corpus (applicant → applicant for compensation, applicant for state
compensation; reparation → victim reparation; victim → crime victim, victim of a crime,
victim of the offence). In all the other cases of variation by means of expansion, the main term
is a multi-word terminological unit that corresponds to a short form of its variants. Such
variants are obtained by adding modifiers to the head element or the modifiers already present
in the short form. The cases in which this type of variation is observed are exemplified in the
following tables:

153
Chapter 4

Main term Term variant Variation Type of expansion

pattern109
application for application for state H(N1) + Prep + insertion
compensation compensation M(N2) → H(N1) +
Prep + M(N3) +
M(N2)
compensation for compensation awarded H(N1) + Prep + insertion
immaterial damages for immaterial damages M(Adj1) + M(N2)
→ H(N1) +
M(Adj2) + Prep
M(Adj1) + M(N2)
European network of European network of M(Adj1) + H(N1) insertion
national contact points national contact points + Prep + M(Adj2)
for restorative justice for mediation in + M(N2) + M(N3)
criminal cases and + Prep + M(Adj3)
restorative justice + M(N4) →
M(Adj1) + H(N1)
+ Prep + M(Adj2)
+ M(N2) + M(N3)
+ Prep + M(N5) +
Prep + M(Adj4) +
M(N6) + C +
M(Adj3) + M(N4)
legal aid free legal aid M(Adj1) + H(N) left expansion
→ M(Adj2) +
M(Adj1) + H(N)
protection of victims protection of victims of H(N1) + Prep + right expansion
crime M(N2) → H(N1) +
Prep + M(N2) +
Prep + M(N3)
state compensation state compensation for M(N1) + H(N2) → right expansion
victims M(N1) + H(N2) +
Prep + M(N3)
state compensation for M(N1) + H(N2) → right expansion
victims of crime M(N1) + H(N2) +
Prep + M(N3) +
Prep + M(N4)
state compensation to M(N1) + H(N2) → right expansion
victims M(N1) + H(N2) +
Prep + M(N3)

Table 4.4. English term variants through expansion.

109
Adj = adjective, Adv = adverb, Art = article, C = conjunction, H = head, M = modifier, N = noun, Prep =
preposition, PrepArt = contracted preposition+article, PrepP = prepositional phrase, V = verb.

154
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

Main term Term variant Variation Type of expansion

pattern110
domanda di domanda per ottenere H(N1) + Prep + insertion
risarcimento un risarcimento M(N2) → H(N1) +
Prep + M(V) + Art
+ M(N2)
rete europea di punti di rete europea di punti di H(N1) + M(Adj1) insertion
contatto nazionali per contatto nazionali per + Prep + M(N2) +
la giustizia riparatoria la mediazione nei Prep + M(N3) +
procedimenti penali e M(Adj2) + Prep +
per la giustizia Art + M(N4) +
riparatoria M(Adj3) → H(N1)
+ M(Adj1) + Prep
+ M(N2) + Prep +
M(N3) + M(Adj2)
+ Prep + Art +
M(N5) + PrepArt +
M(N6) + M(Adj4)
+ C + Prep + Art +
M(N4) + M(Adj3)
risarcimento da parte risarcimento alle H(N1) + PrepP + insertion
dell'autore del reato vittime da parte M(N2) + PrepArt +
dell'autore del reato M(N3) → H(N1) +
PrepArt + M(N4) +
PrepP + M(N2) +
PrepArt + M(N3)
diritti delle vittime diritti delle vittime H(N1) + PrepArt + right expansion
della criminalità M(N2) → H(N1) +
PrepArt + M(N2) +
PrepArt + M(N3)
diritti delle vittime di H(N1) + PrepArt + right expansion
reati M(N2) → H(N1) +
PrepArt + M(N2) +
Prep + M(N3)
diritti delle vittime di H(N1) + PrepArt + right expansion
reato M(N2) → H(N1) +
PrepArt + M(N2) +
Prep + M(N3)
domanda di domanda di H(N1) + Prep + right expansion
risarcimento risarcimento da parte M(N2) → H(N1) +
dello Stato Prep + M(N2) +
PrepP + M(N3)
domanda di H(N1) + Prep + right expansion
risarcimento statale M(N2) → H(N1) +
Prep + M(N2) +
M(Adj)
protezione delle vittime protezione delle vittime H(N1) + PrepArt + right expansion
di reati M(N2) → H(N1) +
PrepArt + M(N2) +
110
See footnote 109.

155
Chapter 4

Prep + M(N3)
protezione delle vittime H(N1) + PrepArt + right expansion
di reato M(N2) → H(N1) +
PrepArt + M(N2) +
Prep + M(N3)
risarcimento da parte risarcimento da parte H(N1) + PrepP + right expansion
dello Stato dello Stato alle vittime M(N2) → H(N1) +
di reati PrepP + M(N2) +
PrepArt + M(N3) +
Prep + M(N4)
risarcimento da parte H(N1) + PrepP + right expansion
dello Stato alle vittime M(N2) → H(N1) +
di reato PrepP + M(N2) +
PrepArt + M(N3) +
Prep + M(N4)

Table 4.5. Italian term variants through expansion.

As can be seen from the examples above, the patterns for terminological variation through
expansion vary greatly. The term variants are derived from the main term by adding an
additional modifier either to the head element or to the modifier of the main term. According
to the position occupied by the additional modifier, expansion is obtained via three types of
shifts: right expansion (when the additional element is added on the right of the main term),
left expansion (when the additional element is added on the left of the main term) and
insertion (when the additional element is added in between the components of the main term).
Among the possible shifts, left expansion has been observed only in the English textual
material, and specifically the main term legal aid, to which the additional adjective “free” can
be added. It should be noted that in this example, as well as in the other cases of expansion
reported in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, the additional elements found in the expanded term variants
may supplement the main term with conceptual aspects that are not made explicit in the
textual manifestation of the main term but are implied in the concept the main term refers to.
In other words, the addition of “free” only makes explicit what is implicit in the main term
legal aid, since in the narrow legal area of victims of crime as well as in the broader legal area
of criminal proceedings legal aid is a right granted to those persons involved in criminal
proceedings who are eligible for it.
The other two shifts, namely right expansion and insertion, have been identified both in
English and Italian. In both types of shift, the additional modifier can be added either to the
head element or to the modifier that qualifies the head element. As regards right expansion,
the term variants of the main term state compensation exemplify both types of right
expansion. Indeed, two term variants have been found in which the modifier “victims” is

156
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

added to the head element by means of two different prepositions, i.e. state compensation for
victims and state compensation to victims, as well as a third variant in which the modifier is
further complemented by the modifier “crime” introduced by a different preposition, i.e. state
compensation for victims of crime.
As regards Italian, the only type of right expansion that has been identified in the textual
material is the second type, that is the type in which a further modifier is added to the
modifier already part of the main term. This is the case, for instance, of the variants of the
main term domanda di risarcimento, i.e. domanda di risarcimento da parte dello Stato and
domanda di risarcimento statale. As in the term legal aid above, the conceptual aspect added
to the main term was already implicit in the main term, since the only possible case in which
the victim can apply for compensation is when compensation is awarded by the State,
whereas in criminal or civil proceedings (depending on the legal system) it is the judge who
decides whether compensation should be provided by the offender.
Like right expansion, insertion can concern the head element or the modifier of the main term.
Examples of the first type of insertion are European network of national contact points for
restorative justice → European network of national contact points for mediation in criminal
cases and restorative justice, and the Italian equivalents rete europea di punti di contatto
nazionali per la giustizia riparatoria → rete europea di punti di contatto nazionali per la
mediazione nei procedimenti penali e per la giustizia riparatoria. Although the insertion of
the elements “mediation in criminal cases” in English and “mediazione nei procedimenti
penali” in Italian assigns an additional conceptual facet to the term, the correspondence
relation among the terms is maintained, since both refer to the same named entity. The second
type of insertion also adds a conceptual aspect to the modifier, as in the case of application
for compensation → application for state compensation, without for this reason hindering the
correspondence relation between the main term and its variant, in the same way as in the
Italian equivalent domanda di risarcimento discussed above as regards right expansion. As
for Italian, examples of the second type of insertion have not been found in the textual
material analysed, since the modification of the modifier is usually obtained by right
expansion.
The opposite operation to expansion to obtain term variants is reduction, which consists in the
elimination of a constituent element of the main term to produce a shortened form of it.
Unlike the cases of expansion, the examples of this type of variation are not very frequent.
This is so due to the criteria established for the selection of the main term and the variants to
be included in the terminological knowledge base MuLex and submitted to terminological

157
Chapter 4

variation analysis. Therefore, only those variants which are not contextual variants and thus
do not depend on anaphoric relations within the texts are taken into consideration also in the
discussion of terminological variation via reduction. The cases of reduction found in the
textual material analysed that fulfil these criteria are summarised in the following tables:

Main term Term variant Variation Type of reduction

pattern111
application for application H(N1) + Prep + multi-word term →
compensation M(N2) → H(N1) single-word term
state compensation compensation scheme M(N1) + M(N2) + multi-word term →
scheme H(N3) → M(N2) + multi-word term
H(N3)

Table 4.6. English term variants through reduction.

Main term Term variant Variation Type of reduction

pattern112
mediazione penale mediazione H(N1) + M(Adj1) multi-word term →
→ H(N1) single-word term
punto di contatto punto di contatto H(N1) + Prep + multi-word term →
centrale M(N2) + M(Adj1) multi-word term
→ H(N1) + Prep +
M(N2)
vittima particolarmente vittima vulnerabile H(N1) + M(Adv1) multi-word term →
vulnerabile + M(Adj1) → multi-word term
H(N1) + M(Adj1)

Table 4.7. Italian term variants through reduction.

As can be noted from the examples provided, in both English and Italian two types of
terminological variation by means of reduction have been observed. The first type consists in
the elimination of the modifier, leading to the shift of a multi-word term into a single-word
term. Examples are the English main term application for compensation and its variant
application, and the Italian main term mediazione penale and its variant mediazione.
Although the shortened form of the head element can be said to be less specific than the main
term which it is derived from, in the area of law of victims of crime the short form can still be
considered to be specific enough to be linked to the same genotype as the main term. For
instance, in cases where victims of crime are directly involved, it would be hard to find any
other form of mediation other than mediation in criminal cases. On the other hand, the second
111
See footnote 109.
112
See footnote 109.

158
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

type of reduction presupposes the formation of a shorter version of the main term which is
still a multi-word term. In this case, reduction is obtained by deleting a modifier that qualifies
the modifier of the head element. In other words, in order to fall into this category, the main
term needs to contain two modifiers113, of which the direct modifier of the head element is
maintained in the term variant, while the modifier of the modifier is left out. As with the first
type of term variation via reduction, however, the correspondence relation between the main
term and its variants is preserved in the specific domain in which they are used even without
depending on anaphoric relations within the text.
A further type of terminological variation through reduction is provided by the shift of a full
form into an abbreviation (acronym or initialism). This type of variation is different from the
forms of reduction seen above, since no constituent element of the main term is deleted in the
variant derived from it, but rather each content word making up the main term is reduced to
its initial. As regards abbreviations in the textual material analysed, it should be noted that the
only cases that have been considered relevant to the area of law under discussion and suitable
for recording into the terminological knowledge base MuLex are English abbreviations. This
does not necessarily mean that such abbreviations are only used in English texts, but rather
that they are of English origin. In order to illustrate this point, it is first necessary to
distinguish between two types of abbreviations, a distinction that is needed to explain the
occurrence of English abbreviations in Italian texts. The first type is represented by
abbreviations resulting from terms referring to named entities, such as organisations, while
the second type is represented by abbreviations referring to any other term apart from named
entities. As far as the first type is concerned, the following examples have been retrieved in
the English textual material analysed: Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority → CICA,
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme → CICS, and Victim Support Scotland → VSS. Also
the main term Victim Support Northern Ireland falls into the same group though, unlike the
previous examples, it produces two different variants, i.e. the full initialism VSNI and the
partial abbreviation Victim Support NI. The reason for finding only English abbreviations and
no Italian ones in the textual material analysed lies in the fact that the abbreviations found in
Italian texts refer to named entities peculiar to the UK reality, therefore it is hardly surprising
that the abbreviations CICA and CICS are also present in texts written in Italian.

113
The limit of two modifiers is determined by the empirical observation of the terminological data extracted
from the textual material analysed. However, this does not impede the finding of further examples with main
terms containing more constituent elements leading to the formation of different term variants obtained by
reduction.

159
Chapter 4

The instance that embodies the second type of initialism is the main term restorative justice
and its initialism RJ. Unlike the first type of initialisms in which there is no modification in
capitalisation, since the reduction leaves the uppercase of the elements involved unchanged,
the second type may also imply a graphic variation: thus restorative justice → RJ is an
example of a combined terminological variation (see Section 4.5.1.1.7) rather than a variation
via reduction only.

4.5.1.1.6 G RAPHIC VARIATION

Compared to the categories of horizontal denominative variation seen earlier, graphic
variation does not imply a modification in terms of inflection, (morpho)syntactic and lexical
change, expansion or reduction, but the only changes that affect the main term are, as the
name suggests, graphic. These changes include both the alternation of uppercase/lowercase
and orthographic modifications, although in the textual material analysed the selected
terminology in both languages has not included any case of the latter and the only graphic
variants involving an alternation of uppercase and lowercase have been found in the English
texts. The examples are the following: European network of national contact points for
restorative justice → European Network of national contact points for Restorative Justice,
assisting authority → Assisting Authority, deciding authority → Deciding Authority, central
contact point → Central Contact Point, and state compensation → State compensation.
Interestingly, all the examples provided follow the same pattern, with the main term
containing the relevant elements in lowercase and the term variants containing the same
elements in uppercase. As stated earlier in Section 4.5, the directionality of terminological
variation in this study is determined by the criteria applied for the selection of main terms and
is therefore functional to the research project, although such directionality does not show the
chronological evolution of terminology.

4.5.1.1.7 C OMBINED VARIATION

Apart from the cases illustrated above, in which the term variant is obtained from a main term
via a single type of shift, term variants can also be derived from a main term by a combination
of shifts that can follow one another into more than one of the categories discussed above, as
already seen for the example of restorative justice → RJ.
Therefore, for instance, in the Italian textual material the term variant sistema nazionale di
risarcimento da parte dello Stato is obtained from the main term sistema di risarcimento
statale through the insertion of the modifier “nazionale” and the morphosyntactic change of
the adjective “statale” into the modifier introduced by a prepositional phrase “da parte dello

160
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

Stato”. The same main term also produces the variant regime di risarcimento delle vittime di
reati, in which the head “sistema” is replaced by “regime” (lexical variation), the modifier
“statale” is deleted (reduction), and the modifier “delle vittime di reati” is added (right
expansion). Another example is provided by the main term rete europea di punti di contatto
nazionali per la giustizia riparatoria, which through reduction and insertion is transformed
into the variant rete europea per la mediazione e per la giustizia riparatoria.
An English example of combined variation is provided by the main term application for
compensation and its variant claim for cross-border compensation, in which the head element
“application” is replaced by the synonym “claim” (lexical variation) and an additional
modifier is added to the already existing one (insertion). A further example is represented by
the main term state compensation scheme and the variant Member State scheme to
compensate crime victims, where the more generic modifier “state” is substituted by the more
specific multi-word modifier “Member State” (lexical variation with conceptual shift) and the
noun modifier “compensation” is replaced by a morphosyntactic variant, i.e. the verb “to
compensate”, which presupposes a syntactical change (permutation). Due to the transitive
nature of the verb involved in this variation, a right expansion of the term is necessary,
bringing about the addition of the further modifier “crime victim”.

4.5.2 SECOND VARIABLE: TIME SPAN

The second variable considered in this research study for the purposes of describing
denominative variation is time span, i.e. the period of time covered by the texts from which
terminology is extracted. As pointed out by Picton, “[t]he diachronic dimension has long been
ignored in terminology” (Picton 2011: 134). According to Dury and Picton (2009), such a
lack of interest for the diachronic dimension has two main reasons. The first is a theoretical
cause, since the field of Terminology has long been monopolised by a single approach, i.e.
that postulated by the GTT, which was centred on the standardisation of terminology and
therefore excluded any possible research on variation. The second reason is technical in its
nature and derives from the first one: since there was no need for studies in terminological
variation, the resources and tools developed for studying this phenomenon were scarce.
Nevertheless, since the 1990s, terminology theories have benefitted from the improvement of
Natural Language Processing tools and techniques (Picton 2011: 136) as well as the
incorporation into terminology studies of corpus linguistics methods and therefore of a textual
approach. This new interest in carrying out studies on terminological variation has also
entailed that the diachronic dimension of variation be also taken into account and used in a
variety of studies. Kocourek (1982: 23, quoted in Picton 2011: 136), for instance, notes that
161
Chapter 4

early diachronic studies often consisted in the description of isolated terms spanning over a
long period of time. However, Picton (2011: 136) points to a more varied research reality,
where the diachronic perspective emerges from the study of neologisms as well as trends and
technological innovations in scientific domains114.
In her article describing short-period diachronic phenomena in specialised corpora, Picton
investigates four linguistic clues affecting terminology that point to the evolution of
knowledge: frequency, knowledge-rich contexts, (co)existence of term variants and syntactic
dependency (Picton 2011: 139–141). However, for the purpose of describing the diachronic
perspective of denominative variation in this research study, the linguistic clues identified by
Picton are not totally appropriate, since the aim here is not to provide evidence of knowledge
evolution as provided by the conceptual changes in time which are discussed in Section 4.6,
but rather to focus only on one of Picton’s clues, i.e. the co-existence of term variants, with a
focus on those term variants in which no conceptual shift can be identified.
In order to do so, it should be noted that the discussion here is limited to the EU corpus. This
is so for two main reasons. Firstly, the texts making up the EU corpus cover all the victim-
related issues tackled by the EU from the beginning of the discussion on these issues at the
EU level. Therefore, while the EU corpus can be considered as sufficiently comprehensive to
represent the complete evolution of victim-related issues from the EU perspective, it does not
include the conceptual variation which has been produced in this same terminology when
used in different legal systems. Secondly, by limiting the analysis to EU texts, the time span
covered by these texts is short (1998-2012) 115 , making the EU corpus a short-diachronic
corpus (Picton 2011: 138). From this point of view, the co-existence of term variants in the
EU corpus implies a simplification of the multi-level jurisdiction in which terminology
nowadays evolves within the boundaries of the EU. Indeed, the permeability to legal concepts
and terminology of the legal systems involved makes it impossible to prevent the migration of
concepts and terms from one legal system to the other – regardless of whether such a system
is national or supranational – which is anyway necessary for implementing and promoting EU
policies. Therefore, even though in what follows the focus is on EU terminology, its evolution
may have been caused by the influence exercised by some national terminology.
As regards the study of EU terminology from a diachronic perspective, three term behavioural
patterns were identified, of which one concerns univocal terms and the remaining two regard
terms subject to terminological variation.

114
For a brief overview of diachronic studies in Terminology, see Picton (2011: 136).
115
See the list of EU documents included in the EU corpus in Annex 1.

162
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

4.5.2.1 U NIVOCAL TERMS

The first behavioural pattern consists in the existence of a single term to refer to a given
concept, i.e. mononymy. This is, however, the least frequent pattern in the terminology
extracted from the EU corpus. As far as the English EU subcorpus is concerned, no term
variant has been spotted for the terms child-friendly justice (2011), criminal injuries (2001-
2012), witness (2000-2010), and secondary victimisation (2000-2011). In the Italian EU
subcorpus, the terms autorità di assistenza (2002-2009), autorità di decisione (2002-2009),
and parte civile (2001-2009) have been found to follow the mononymy principle. Apart from
these examples, where there is no correspondence between mononymy/terminological
variation in the two languages116, there are also cases where mononymy is reflected in both
languages for the same genotype. These cases are summarised in the following table:

English univocal term Italian univocal term Time span

bystander passante 2001-2002
cross-border victim vittima transfrontaliera 2001-2002
mediatore mediator 2004-2011
samaritano samaritan 2001-2002
European protection order ordine di protezione europeo 2010-2012
executing State Stato di esecuzione 2010-2011
issuing State Stato di emissione 2010-2011
person causing danger persona che determina il pericolo 2010-2011
protected person persona protetta 2010-2011
protection measure misura di protezione 2010-2012
State of supervision Stato di sorveglianza 2010-2011

Table 4.8. Correspondence of univocal terms in the EU corpus.

The cases of mononymy extracted from the EU corpus allow us to draw some inferences.
First of all, by observing the English examples, it is possible to see that univocal terms occur
almost synchronically, such as in the case of child-friendly justice (2011), which has been
found in texts written during one single year only, or over a longer time span, such as the
example of secondary victimisation (2000-2011), which covers almost the whole period under
consideration. The fact that a term can be found in texts issued over a very short period of
time can be attributed to the marginal relevance of the concept the term refers to within the
specialised domain. Therefore, from the data available in the EU corpus it can be concluded

116
For instance, whereas in the English EU subcorpus the genotype CHILD-FRIENDLY JUSTICE is referred to by
using child-friendly justice only, in the Italian EU subcorpus two terms are found, i.e. giustizia a misura di
minore and giustizia adattata ai bambini.

163
Chapter 4

that, whereas children play a central role in the victim-oriented EU legislation117, the concept
of CHILD-FRIENDLY JUSTICE is not as relevant, although this does not prevent a renewed
interest in the topic to grow in the future. The same can be said also for those terms which are
univocal both in English and Italian, such as bystander and samaritan.
On the other hand, for the example of cross-border victim a different line of thinking should
be followed. In fact, though the EU corpus is focused on the figure of the victim of crime and
the term victim and its variants all refer to the genotype VICTIM, the genotype itself is
multidimensional. Put differently, the EU deals with victims of crime, but different
documents deal with different aspects of the victim and therefore the term victim can be
interpreted differently according to the focus of the document. To illustrate this point, Council
Directive 2004/80/EU can be taken as an example. The Directive specifically concerns
compensation to crime victims in cross-border situations, meaning that the person applying
for compensation has been a victim of a crime committed in a Member State other than the
Member State where the person is habitually resident. In other words, in order to be eligible
for compensation, according to this Directive the person needs to be a cross-border victim. It
follows that, even though the term cross-border victim itself is not used in this act, the
concept is still relevant for the topic.
Another conclusion can also be reached by observing the second part of Table 4.8, starting
from the term European protection order. As has already been noted for the term child-
friendly justice, the fact that certain terms are used only during a short period of time does not
preclude a future development of the same topic. This can be considered even more likely if
the time span covered is very recent, as in the case of the term European protection order and
the other terms with a time span 2010-2011 or 2010-2012, which are, inter alia, all related to
the concept of EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER. Indeed, all these terms were introduced by
Directive 2011/99/EU to refer to new concepts created within the framework of the EU legal
system and – given that the deadline for the enforcement of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions to comply with this Directive is 11 January 2015 (European
Parliament & Council of the European Union 2011a: Article 21(1)) – it is more than likely
that these terms will be used (or modified through terminological variation) in future
documents.
The examples provided so far are all related to univocal terms found in the EU corpus.
However, it should not be overlooked that the same conclusions on topic relevance and

117
Several EU victim-related legal acts and non-legally binding documents have been issued in which child
victims are specifically mentioned and considered as victims with specific protection needs, such as Directive
2011/92/EU and Directive 2012/29/EU .

164
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

possible future usage can be drawn for non-univocal terms, such as those presented further
below.

4.5.2.2 N ON - UNIVOCAL TERMS

The second and third behavioural patterns were observed in non-univocal terms, i.e. in those
terms which are subject to terminological variation. The difference between the two patterns
lies in the time span in which the term variants are found; however, both behaviours can be
observed in the same term cluster, meaning that the patterns are not mutually exclusive. The
first, and less frequent, pattern concerning non-univocal terms consists in the co-existence of
term variants during the same period of time. It should however be noted that the time span
considered is not an objective variable but is rather established by the observer. Therefore, in
the specific case of this research study, within the short-diachronic EU corpus the occurrence
of a term in the corpus in a specific year or time span is attested via the publication date of the
document the term has been found in.
On the other hand, the second pattern concerning non-univocal terms involves the
substitution, in the course of time, of a term with another term which is linked to the former
by a correspondence relation. Again, within the time span considered for this research project,
the reference time for attesting the occurrence of a term in the EU corpus is a year, established
on the basis of the publication date of the document the term has been found in.
The terms that present these two types of diachronic variation are listed in Annex 5, while in
the following tables only three examples for each language have been listed in order to clarify
the point.

Genotype Phenotype Time span

MEDIATION IN mediation in criminal cases 2001-2009
CRIMINAL mediation in criminal proceedings 2009
CASES mediation between the offender 2002,
and his victim 2003
mediation between victims and 2002 found in one document
offenders only
penal mediation in the course of 2001,
criminal proceedings 2009
2004,
penal mediation 2009
victim-offender mediation 2002-2012
mediation in penal matters 2000-2004
STATE state compensation 2001-2011
COMPENSATION State compensation 2002,2004

165
Chapter 4

State compensation for crime 2002 found in one document

victims only
2001,
state compensation for victims 2002
state compensation for victims of 2002 found in one document
crime only
state compensation to victims 2002
VICTIM victim 2000-2012
crime victim 2000-2011
victim of the offence 2009
victim of a crime 2000-2009

Table 4.9. Examples of behavioural patterns of English non-univocal terms.

Genotype Phenotype Time span

PROTECTION protezione delle vittime 2000-2012
OF VICTIMS tutela delle vittime 2000-2012
OF CRIME tutela delle vittime di reato 2002-2012
2002 found in one document
tutela delle vittime di reati only
protezione delle vittime di reati 2001-2011
protezione delle vittime di reato 2011-2012
tutela delle vittime della 2000-2009
criminalità
RESTORATIVE giustizia riparativa 2011-2012
JUSTICE 2006 found in one document
giustizia restaurativa only
2002 found in one document
giustizia restitutiva only
2006 found in one document
giustizia riparatrice only
2004 found in one document
giustizia risarcitoria only
giustizia riparatoria 2002-2004
RIGHTS OF diritti delle vittime 2000-2012
VICTIMS OF diritti delle vittime della 2000-2012
CRIME criminalità
2002 found in one document
diritti delle vittime di reati only
diritti delle vittime di reato 2011-2012
diritti della vittima 2000-2012

Table 4.10. Examples of behavioural patterns of Italian non-univocal terms.

In the English EU subcorpus, no example of the first type of pattern described above has been
found. Among the English examples in Table 4.9, the variant pair that is closer to the

166
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

described behavioural pattern is the victim (2000-2012) and crime victim (2000-2011) pair,
since these two terms have coexisted for a relatively long time. Conversely, in the Italian
examples provided in Table 4.10, the two cases of non-univocal terms coexisting for the same
time span are protezione delle vittime / tutela delle vittime (2000-2012) and diritti delle
vittime / diritti delle vittime della criminalità (2000-2012).
All the other examples provided in Tables 4.9 and 4.10 fall into the second behavioural
pattern of non-univocal terms. Taking a look at the first genotype reported in Table 4.9, i.e.
MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES, the following observations can be made (see Table 4.11). First
of all, the terms included in the cluster make their first appearance in the EU corpus at
different points in time, e.g. mediation in criminal cases is firstly attested in 2001 and penal
mediation in 2004. Secondly, some terms occur in the EU corpus for one year only, such as
mediation in criminal proceedings and mediation between victims and offenders. Thirdly,
among the terms occurring only in one specific year, some can be found in one document
only, such as the last term mentioned.

Time span
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Term

mediation in
criminal cases
mediation in criminal
proceedings
mediation between the
offender and his victim
mediation between victims
and offenders
penal mediation in the
course of criminal
penal
mediation
victim-offender
mediation
mediation in
penal matters

Table 4.11. Diachronic variation in the term cluster referring to the MEDIATION IN
CRIMINAL CASES genotype.

Some of the terms that occur in one document only within the EU corpus, such as the term
mediation between victims and offenders, are also hapaxes Even though hapaxes are not
generally considered for inclusion in most terminological resources, for the purposes of this
research study all the term variants that fall in one of the categories of terminological

167
Chapter 4

variation described in Chapter 4 are recorded and included in the MuLex terminological
knowledge base. The reasons for this choice are better explained in Section 4.5.4, in which
the influence on terminology of the fourth variable, namely the legal force of the documents
included in the textual material analysed, is discussed.

4.5.3 THIRD VARIABLE: CONCEPTUAL (LEGAL) SYSTEM(S)

For the purposes of this research project, the third variable taken into consideration for the
description of denominative variation is the conceptual system or, since in this specific case
conceptual systems coincide with legal systems, the legal system the terminology analysed
maps to. The denominative variation produced in a multi-level jurisdiction such as the EU and
observed by considering legal systems as a variable has a peculiar nature which derives from
the particular linguistic context characterising the multi-level jurisdiction. What makes the
study of denominative variation in this context different from mono-jurisdictional settings is
that terminological variation is studied within one individual language (either English or
Italian), but such language is used in different legal systems. This means that, in order to
study denominative variation, two language varieties are taken into consideration, i.e. the
national variety and the supranational (EU) variety. Therefore, a methodological approach is
adopted which is similar to the methodology used to analyse multilingual terminology even
though it is applied to a monolingual setting: the language varieties are first treated separately
and, once the conceptual data regarding the underlying legal systems are collected, the terms
belonging to different language varieties are clustered on the basis of a shared genotype (see
Section 3.3.6.1).
In order to describe denominative variation from the point of view of the legal systems in
which the terminology is embedded, term clusters are taken as the starting point for the
discussion. As described in Section 3.3.6.1, term clusters in this study are obtained on the
basis of the identification of a common genotype for a series of phenotypes, each of which
can belong either to the national or to the EU legal system or to both. Another aspect to
consider is that, even when the genotype is not shared by both the national and the EU legal
system, a term used to refer to that specific genotype can be used in texts embedded in legal
systems where the genotype is lacking. In other words, when considering the third variable for
the description of terminological variations, two factors need to be taken into account. The
first factor is conceptual in its nature, and consists in the embeddedness of genotypes in legal
systems, whereas the second factor is textual, and refers to the embeddedness of terms in legal

168
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

texts. By combining these two factors in the analysis of the term clusters, two different types
of denominative variation were observed, namely intra-systemic and inter-systemic variation.
Intra-systemic variation is produced when the terms within a term cluster refer to a genotype
that is embedded only in a legal system and the terms are only found in texts that are
embedded in that same legal system. This is generally the case for term clusters referring to
genotypes embedded in national legal systems which are not shared by the EU legal system,
rather than vice versa. This is so since EU lawmaking is typically aimed at producing effects
within Member States. Therefore, genotypes which are generated within the EU are generally
absorbed by national legal systems. Intra-systemic variation can be illustrated briefly by
taking the English main terms Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and Criminal
Injuries Compensation Scheme and their variants CICA and CICS. These two clusters refer to
two genotypes that are specific to the English national legal system only and the texts in
which the terms are found are of national origin only. It follows that the variation is produced
within a single legal system and is thus considered as intra-systemic.
Inter-systemic variation, on the other hand, occurs when the terms belonging to the same
cluster refer to a genotype that is shared by (at least) two legal systems and are found in legal
texts of different origins. Table 4.12 shows the Italian term cluster referring to the MEDIATION
IN CRIMINAL CASES genotype shared by both the EU and the Italian national legal system. The
third column indicates the regional label (see Section 6.4.1.2), i.e. the origin of the texts in
which the term has been found. The first two terms, i.e. mediazione penale and mediazione,
are used in both varieties of Italian, that is EU-Italian and national Italian, while the variants
mediazione autore-vittima and mediazione fra autore e vittima di reato have only been found
in the national variety of Italian, and the remaining term variants have been identified in EU
texts only.

Genotype Phenotype Regional label

MEDIATION IN mediazione penale EU, Italy
CRIMINAL CASES mediazione EU, Italy
mediazione tra l'autore del reato e la vittima EU
mediazione tra la vittima e l'autore del reato EU
nell'ambito dei procedimenti penali
mediazione tra vittima e autore del reato nel EU
procedimento penale
mediazione tra autore e vittima del reato EU
mediazione nell'ambito dei procedimenti penali EU
mediazione nelle cause penali EU

169
Chapter 4

mediazione tra vittima e autore del reato EU

mediazione vittima-reo EU
mediazione autore-vittima Italy
mediazione fra autore e vittima di reato Italy

Table 4.12. Inter-systemic denominative variation in the Italian term cluster referring to the
MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES genotype.

The example illustrated in Table 4.12, however, leads to a further consideration as regards
inter-systemic variation. In the cases of inter-systemic denominative variation where more
than one term is used in texts of a single origin, such as the two terms used only in the
national Italian variety described above, among such terms also intra-systemic variation is
produced. This means that in terminological clusters such as the Italian one referring to the
MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES genotype, inter-systemic variation coexists with intra-systemic
variation.

4.5.4 FOURTH VARIABLE: LEGAL FORCE

The last variable considered for the purposes of describing denominative variation in this
study is the legal force of the document from which a term has been extracted. As already
illustrated in Section 3.3.2.3.2.1, the textual material analysed has been classified according to
the legal force of the selected documents. A first distinction can therefore be made between
legally binding and non-legally binding texts. On the basis of the legal force of the documents
from which terms are extracted, a term is provided with a specific style label (see
Section 6.4.1.2) in the MuLex knowledge base. The field devoted to the style label makes it
possible to choose among a range of labels, which are discussed in Section 6.4.1.2. However,
since the degree of specialisation of the textual material is rather homogeneous (see
Section 4.5.1), what is interesting for the discussion on denominative variation is that terms
belonging to the same term cluster can be classified on the basis of the legal force of the
documents from which they have been extracted. Therefore, terms belonging to a term cluster
which has been found in legally-binding texts are labelled as “official” terms, whereas the
others may feature different style labels.
The choice of labelling a term as “official” has two reasons. Firstly, before being adopted and
published, both the content and form of legally-binding texts undergo several amendments,
which means that the terminological choices in such documents are deeply pondered, while
the same degree of accuracy is not necessarily expected from non-legally binding texts.
Secondly, the decision to label such terms as “official” is in line with the main aim of MuLex,
which is designed for translators. For instance, drafters of EU legislation (and consequently

170
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

translators) are expected to make a consistent use of terminology, both within the document
they are working on and with acts already in force, especially when such acts deal with the
same field. Therefore, when designing MuLex, there was a strong need for creating a clear
indicator of the occurrence of terms in legally-binding texts.
As regards the impact of legal force on denominative variation, two further considerations
should be made. Legal force can also be seen in the light of both the second variable, i.e. the
diachronic dimension, and the third variable, i.e. the legal system dimension. As for the
combination of legal force and the diachronic dimension, it should not be overlooked that the
migration of terms among text types is a very frequent phenomenon. Consequently a term
which is used in legally-binding texts can also be found in non-legally binding texts and vice
versa at different points in time. However, since the analysis carried out in this study provides
a snapshot of the behaviour of terms in a short-diachronic corpus, what is interesting to note is
that in a corpus that is rather homogeneous as regards content but at least as heterogeneous as
regards text types, for some documents of the corpus the legal force is still provisional. This is
the case, for example, of proposals for new legislation that are published and available to the
general public, but have not reached their final version yet. This means that these texts, and
consequently their terminology, are still subject to potential modifications and amendments,
which made their linguistic form provisional at the moment in which the analysis was carried
out. Apart from the diachronic perspective, however, also the legal system plays a role in the
denominative variation linked to the documents’ legal force. In other words, a term may be
official in one legal system but not in another, or different official terms can be used in
different legal systems. In order to illustrate this point, an example is provided in Table 4.13.

Genotype Phenotype Regional label Style label

RIGHTS OF EU, Italy official EU,
VICTIMS OF potentially
CRIME diritti delle vittime official Italy
diritti delle vittime della criminalità EU official EU
EU potentially
diritti delle vittime di reati official EU
EU, Italy potentially
diritti delle vittime di reato official Italy
diritti della vittima EU, Italy official EU

Table 4.13. Denominative variation in terms of legal force in the Italian term cluster referring
to the RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME genotype.

171
Chapter 4

As can be seen from the example in Table 4.13, the terms diritti delle vittime, diritti delle
vittime della criminalità and diritti della vittima are official in EU documents while, at the
time of writing this thesis, the term diritti delle vittime di reati is potentially official in the EU
context. As far as the Italian context is concerned, however, no term included in the term
cluster has been found to be used in legally binding texts, whereas in the same context the
term diritti delle vittime di reato is considered potentially official.

4.6 CONCEPTUAL VARIATION IN A MULTI-LEVEL JURISDICTION

In Section 4.5, a classification of the instances of denominative variation observed in the area
of law of victims of crime has been proposed. In denominative variation, a set of terms
forming a term cluster refers to a concept that is supposed to be shared. On the other hand, in
this section the second type of terminological variation is presented: conceptual variation. In
this case, the variation concerns the conceptual sphere, but produces consequences for the
designations used. In order to understand what is meant here by conceptual variation, the
genotype-phenotype distinction and the embeddedness of legal terms and concepts in a
specific legal system need to be taken into account.
As seen in Section 3.3.6.1, the terminological units found to refer to phenotypes that can be
linked to a common genotype have been grouped in term clusters. However, although they are
all related to the same genotype, phenotypes can differ from each other on a conceptual basis.
Therefore, in the study of conceptual variation those terms are accounted for which refer to
phenotypes that feature some conceptual discrepancy but can still be grouped in the same
term cluster on a genotype basis. Since the relevant phenotypes can be rooted in different
legal systems, two types of conceptual variation can be observed, i.e. intra-systemic and inter-
systemic conceptual variation.
Before illustrating some examples of the two types of conceptual variation mentioned above,
it should be noted that all the types of denominative variation based on the four variables
described (degree of specialisation, time span, reference legal system(s), and legal force) can
be observed when examining conceptual variants. What is meant here is that the discrepancies
at the conceptual level reflect in the linguistic level, producing term variants that can be
classified according to the typology presented in Section 4.5. Therefore, a classification of
conceptual variation is not provided in this section.

172
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

The occurrences of conceptual variation in the terminological analysis carried out in this
study are fewer compared to the occurrences of denominative variation. The reason for this is
to be found in the methodological approach adopted. Since the selection of terms is performed
at two different stages (Step 2 and 4 in Chapter 3), with EU terms being extracted first and
national terms retrieved on the basis of the collection of EU terms, the national terms are
supposed to have a close conceptual relation with the identified genotypes.

4.6.1 INTRA -SYSTEMIC CONCEPTUAL VARIATION

Intra-systemic conceptual variation is observed in terms referring to phenotypes belonging to
the same legal system which can be grouped in the same genotype, notwithstanding the slight
conceptual differences that can be observed among them. Generally, such conceptual
differences can be ascribed either to the degree of specificity of the term used to refer to the
phenotype or to the different perspective from which the same genotype is approached.
In order to illustrate intra-systemic conceptual variation based on the degree of specificity of
the term, the Italian terminological units used within the EU legal system to refer to the CHILD
VICTIM genotype are provided as an example. In EU legal texts, this genotype is referred to by
using three terminological units, which are minore vittima di reato (main term), minore
vittima del reato and giovane vittima. Among these terms, the first and the second term show
the same degree of specificity, since they convey the same phenotype: a person who is
victimised and is below 18 years of age (for the sake of precision, the age limit was
established by Council Directive 2012/29/EU, although the terms had been used in earlier
documents as well). Unlike these two terms, however, giovane vittima, which implies a
lexical variation (see Section 4.5.1.1.4), cannot be said to express the same degree of
specificity, since the adjective “giovane” is not generally used in legal contexts to convey a
specialised meaning that can be linked to an age limit regulated by law. A similar example is
found in the same subcorpus, in which the SECONDARY VICTIMISATION genotype is referred to
by the terms vittimizzazione secondaria (main term) and its lexical variant pregiudizio
secondario. As in the previous example, the main term is more specific, since it refers to a
specific action (“vittimizzazione”) and qualifies it by using an adjective (“secondaria”) which
allows to distinguish it from primary victimisation, whereas in the second term the head
“pregiudizio” is not as specific, referring to any kind of consequences deriving from the
commission of an offence and not necessarily caused by the justice system.
In order to illustrate the second type of intra-systemic conceptual variation, an example from
the English EU subcorpus can be mentioned in which a difference in perspective is identified.

173
Chapter 4

Unlike the examples provided above, here the conceptual shift can be said to be motivated by
the evolution experienced by the phenotype in the course of time. Therefore, the time span
variable in this case is relevant, since the evolution of the area of law produces a conceptual
change in the phenotype with a consequent denominative variation. The example is the
VICTIM WITH SPECIFIC PROTECTION NEEDS genotype. Ever since the beginning of the EU
discussion on the rights of victims of crime, the existence of some categories of victims who
are more vulnerable than others on account of their age, gender, or other personal
circumstances has been acknowledged. In the attempt to adopt specific measures to account
for their specific condition, several legal provisions have been drafted in which they were
originally referred to as particularly vulnerable victims. By trying to provide a general
classification of the conditions that can lead a victim to be considered particularly vulnerable
and resorting to this term, the legal principle that could be inferred from the wording of
different provisions118 is that certain victims are particularly vulnerable a priori and are thus
entitled to a set of special measures. However, such an approach could have led to a
discriminating situation in which victims who would have drawn much benefit from such
measures could not access them due to their personal circumstances. For this reason, the
original phenotype of PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE VICTIM has been modified so as to allow
for a case-by-case evaluation of the circumstances that can give rise to the right to benefit
from special measures. Consequently, a conceptual shift from the intrinsic vulnerability to the
actual needs of the victim has been made which resulted in the term victim with specific
protection needs.
A similar example that refers to the Italian legal system is found in the LEGAL AID genotype.
In this case, in the Italian legislation two terms are found, i.e. gratuito patrocinio and
patrocinio a spese dello Stato. The phenotypes implied in the national legal system
conceptually differ: the first term refers to the legal aid victims were entitled to in the past and
for which lawyers received no payment, while the second term designates the legal aid
granted to victims by lawyers who are paid by the State for the service provided. Therefore,
although the phenotypes diverge, from the victim’s perspective they produce the same result
and, from the terminographic perspective adopted in this thesis, they are grouped in the same
term cluster.

118
See, for instance, Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.

174
 Victims of Crime from a Monolingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological Variation

4.6.2 INTER -SYSTEMIC CONCEPTUAL VARIATION

The examples provided in the previous section illustrate cases of conceptual variation
reflected in denominative variation that occur within a single legal system. Inter-systemic
conceptual variation, on the other hand, is observed when terms referring to conceptually
diverging phenotypes belonging to different legal system can be grouped in the same
genotype. Unlike the previous type of conceptual variation, inter-systemic conceptual
variation occurs when a shared genotype is actualised differently in the legislations observed.
An emblematic case consists in the different phenotypes embedded in the EU and the Italian
legal systems that relate to the VICTIM genotype. In the EU Italian subcorpus, the person who
is affected by a crime or injured by an offender is referred to as vittima. A similar phenotype
can be found in the Italian national system, and, more specifically, in the Italian Codice di
Procedura Penale, where it is termed persona offesa dal reato. Nevertheless, the term vittima
is not a neologism in Italian. Indeed, within the national boundaries the term vittima is a
common word in general language and it is also the main term to refer to the this concept in
both criminology and victimology. Moreover, it can also be occasionally found in some
Italian bills and laws 119 . Despite these occasional occurrences, the term vittima is not
considered a proper technical term within the specialised domain of criminal law due to a lack
of clear-cut boundaries. Notwithstanding the “deliberate vagueness of legal concepts”
(Liebwald 2007: 134), which is considered essential for adapting the content of legal
provisions to cases in the concrete reality (see Section 1.4.2), the absence of a definite
semantic content for the term victim makes the term itself generally unsuitable for being used
in specialised texts. Furthermore, there is also another reason for resorting to a different term
in the national setting. In fact, when the term vittima is used, it is implied that the person can
suffer a physical or mental injury and/or loss, which can be pecuniary or non pecuniary. In the
Italian legal system, on the contrary, a distinction is drawn between the person who is
passively involved in the actual commission of the crime (persona offesa dal reato) and the
person who bears the consequences of the crime (danneggiato). Only the latter can take part
to the criminal proceedings as a proper party. In most cases, the two figures coincide, but
there may be also cases in which they do not, such as in the event of murder, where the
danneggiato can be a family member, for instance. Therefore, when comparing the EU and
the Italian phenotype, a conceptual difference is observed that corresponds to a case of
inclusion, since according to the definition of vittima or victim provided in Council Directive

119
See, for instance, Legge 26 marzo 2001, n. 128, Interventi legislativi in materia di tutela della sicurezza dei
cittadini, and Proposta di Legge n. 2802, Norme per la tutela delle vittime di reati per motivi di omofobia e
transfobia, 14.10.2009.

175
Chapter 4

2012/29/EU both the direct victim and the family of the victim are considered victims and no
terminological distinction is made between a victim and the person having the right to
participate in criminal proceedings by reason of being victimised.

4.7 SUMMARY
In Chapter 4, the phenomenon of terminological variation in the EU multi-level jurisdiction
has been examined. Given the polysemy that characterises the term “terminological variation”
in recent studies in terminology, first of all a definition has been provided, according to which
terminological variation occurs when more than one designation is used to refer to a concept.
Since the legal terminology in which this phenomenon has been observed is embedded in a
multi-jurisdictional setting, the genotype-phenotype distinction has been introduced. On the
basis of such distinction, terminological variation has been subdivided into two main
categories, i.e. denominative variation and conceptual variation. In the former, variation
occurs without implying a conceptual difference in the phenotypes involved. In order to
describe denominative variation, four different variables have been introduced: the degree of
specialisation of the documents in which the terms occur, the time span in which the
documents have been written, the legal system the documents belong to and their legal force.
On the basis of these variables, two types of variation for each variable have been identified.
On the other hand, variation can be observed on the basis of a conceptual shift which affects
the phenotypes related to a shared genotype. Such conceptual shift produces a variation in the
denomination used to refer to the phenotypes. Given that phenotypes can be embedded either
in the national or the EU legal system, conceptual variation can be subdivided into two
categories: intra-systemic conceptual variation and inter-systemic conceptual variation.

176
 Chapter 5. VICTIMS OF CRIME FROM A MULTILINGUAL
TERMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE : TERMINOLOGICAL
EQUIVALENCE

In Chapter 5, the second phenomenon in which dynamism in terminology emerges is

presented, i.e. terminological equivalence,. Due to the embeddedness of the legal terminology
collected in three legal systems, intra-systemic and inter-systemic terminological equivalence
can be observed, which can be expressed in different degrees: absolute equivalence, relative
equivalence and non-equivalence.

5.1 TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE AND TRANSLATIONAL EQUIVALENCE

The methodological framework illustrated in Chapter 3 and the TKB MuLex described in
Chapter 6 focus on the same common core, i.e. multilingual legal terminology embedded in a
multi-level jurisdiction. Although their aims are different, with the methodology adopted for
carrying out a terminological analysis and the TKB aiming at presenting the results of the
terminological analysis, the envisaged end users who can benefit from these results of the
analysis stored in MuLex are the same, i.e. professional translators. It follows that the
terminological analysis is performed bearing in mind that the main reason for consulting
MuLex is finding term equivalents for legal translation.
As a consequence, the matching of terms in different languages, which – due to the
peculiarities of the legal context and terminology analysed in this research project consists of
a two-step process (see Section 3.3.3 and 3.3.5) – plays a central role in any translation-
oriented terminographic project. Such a cross-linguistic term matching is possible by
establishing the degree of equivalence between terms in different languages. However, both in
Terminology and Translation Studies the concept of ‘equivalence’ has caused intense debate,
leading Gerzymisch-Arbogast to state that “‘[e]quivalence’ is one of the most traditional and
critical concepts in translation theory” (Gerzymisch-Arbogast 2001: 228). In this study, the
concept of ‘equivalence’ as intended in Translation Studies is considered to be relevant for

177
Chapter 5

understanding how ‘equivalence’ is conceived as regards legal terminology. As a

comprehensive account of ‘equivalence’ in Translation Studies is beyond the scope of this
chapter, only those aspects of translational equivalence which are useful for understanding
terminological equivalence are going to be taken into account.
A first attempt of defining translation equivalence can be found in Catford’s statement that
“[t]ranslation equivalence occurs when a SL and a TL text (or item) are relatable to (at least
some of) the same relevant features” (Catford 1965: 50). A similar position is held by Nord,
who sees equivalence as “a static, result-oriented concept describing a relationship of ‘equal
communicative value’ between two texts or, on lower ranks, between words, phrases,
sentences, syntactic structures and so on” (Nord 1997: 35–36). According to both scholars,
translation equivalence can be achieved both at the level of the text and at a lower level by
taking into consideration different “items”. As regards the textual level of translation
equivalence, Bolaños Cuéllar considers it as “a text-bound relation which is linguistically
realized in texts and whose only tangible, empirically apprehensible form is the SL and TL
texts” (Bolaños Cuéllar 2002: 81). On the other hand, translation equivalence at a lower level
is supported by Cheng and Sin, who consider it as “the similarity between a word or
expression in one language and its translation in another” (Cheng & Sin 2008: 35).
No matter what the unit taken into consideration for establishing equivalence is, be it a whole
text or an “item”, it is interesting to note that translational equivalence can be ascribed to what
Catford (1965: 27) refers to as “textual equivalence” and Gerzymisch-Arbogast (2001: 237)
calls “text-specific equivalence”. This type of equivalence is parole-oriented, since it occurs
in a communicative event in which several intertwined factors are to be taken into account,
i.e. syntactic, lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and semiotic factors (see Bolaños Cuéllar 2002:
79). Therefore, the realisation (during translation as process) and evaluation (in translation as
product) of translational equivalence depend on the selected criteria and change according to
the variables taken into consideration at a textual and extra-textual level (e.g. participants in
the communication, extra-linguistic context).
On the basis of the considerations made so far, terminological equivalence can be considered
as being completely different from translational equivalence, just as completely different is
the object of study of the two disciplines. As aptly summarised by Rogers, “[t]he focus in
Translation Studies is clearly on text, whereas in Terminology Studies it has additionally been
on system” (Rogers 2008: 102). Therefore, terminological equivalence does not fall into the
category of textual equivalence, but can be rather assimilated to what Catford (1965: 27) calls
“formal correspondence”, where a formal correspondent is “any TL category (unit, class,

178
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence
structure, element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the
‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL”. Hence,
if textual equivalence is parole-oriented, formal correspondence is langue-oriented, since it
can be established only “at relatively high levels of abstraction” (Catford 1965: 32), i.e. at a
“systematic, virtual level” (Gerzymisch-Arbogast 2001: 228). It follows that, while on the one
hand “translation equivalence is always equivalence-in-context” (Altenberg & Granger 2002:
18), because the meaning of words does not depend only on their semantic content but “is
also determined by their grammatical and lexical environment (syntagmatic relations like
colligation and collocation), as well as by the situation in which they are used (style,
pragmatics)” (Altenberg & Granger 2002: 22), on the other, formal correspondence is
context-independent. However, although the distinction between textual equivalence and
formal correspondence is accepted and is considered to be necessary to understand the
concept of ‘equivalence’ when applied to multilingual terminology, in this study the possible
coincidence of formal correspondence and textual equivalence at the “item” level is not
excluded.

5.2 TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE IN LEGAL TERMINOLOGY

In order to examine the issue of terminological equivalence in relation to a collection of terms

which are embedded in a multi-level jurisdiction, some preliminary remarks on terminological
equivalence and translation in legal terminology are needed.
As observed by Cao (2007: 53), “[l]egal terminology is the most visible and striking linguistic
feature of legal language as a technical language, and it is also one of the major sources of
difficulty in translating legal documents”, this being so because “many legal words in one
language do not find ready equivalents in another, causing both linguistic and legal
complications”. The “lack of equivalent terminology” (Yankova 2007: 106) is due to the fact
that every legal text is necessarily grounded in the laws of a certain country and,
consequently, its translation cannot ignore the differences between the different legal systems
the TL and SL refer to (see Arntz 1995: 137). Though the focus in Cao and Arntz is on textual
equivalence among legal terms in translation, while in this thesis equivalence is approached
from a purely terminological perspective, their observations about the lack of equivalents on
account of inter-systemic differences are relevant also for the purposes of this research study.
This is so because, if a lack of equivalents is acknowledged in the translation process, the

179
Chapter 5

same lack will be encountered in carrying out a terminographic task. On the basis of what has
been said so far, it can be concluded that relative and zero equivalence (see Section 5.3.2.2)
rather than absolute equivalence are the most frequent types of equivalence observed in legal
terminology. Therefore, also in the terminographic study carried out following the
methodology presented in Chapter 3, examples of different types of terminological
equivalence have been encountered as regards the collection of victim-related terminology in
English and Italian which has been recorded in the MuLex TKB.
However, a further remark needs to be made as regards the peculiarities of the legal
terminology recorded in MuLex. The victim-related terminology examined in this study is to
be considered a sui generis terminology for two intertwined reasons: the first is the
embeddedness of such terminology in both different and shared legal systems, while the
second is its usage in the same language to refer to both a supranational and a national legal
system. Owing to this overlap of languages and legal systems, the types of terminological
equivalence which can be observed vary according to the legal system being taken as a
reference point.

5.3 TERMINOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE IN THE EU MULTI-LEVEL

JURISDICTION

According to Picht and Draskau, the assessment of equivalence is one of the central features
of terminological analysis (Picht & Draskau 1985: 172), be it bilingual or multilingual,
though, when taking into consideration two languages, “it is not until after the completion of
[…] unilingual operations that the two systems are compared, i.e. the degree of equivalence of
the systems – and thus of the individual concepts – is examined” (Arntz 1993: 9). The same
idea is expressed also by Šarčević in relation to the assessment of equivalence in legal
terminology: in her view, “terminologists should not deal with isolated concepts but need to
compare the conceptual structures of the functional equivalent and its source term by
analyzing the conceptual hierarchies to which each belongs” (Šarčević 1997: 243). Therefore,
in order to establish equivalence among legal terms, the first step must be the analysis and
comparison of the underlying conceptual systems.
For the assessment of equivalence in this thesis, however, a slightly different approach has
been taken due to the peculiarities of the terminology being examined. As explained in
Chapter 3, the textual material used for term extraction and analysis has been collected in two

180
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence
separate stages (Steps 2 and 4 in Chapter 3) and the cross-linguistic matching, for which the
degree of equivalence needed to be assessed, has also been carried out in two different steps
(Steps 3 and 5 in Chapter 3). Moreover, because of the legal system involved in Step 2 and
the linguistic regime regulating it, in Step 3 a different method has been applied from the one
suggested by Picht and Draskau as well as Šarčević.
As briefly summarised by Cheng and Sin, “[f]or the differences in each and every legal
system, it is natural that terminological incongruity exists between different legal systems”
(Cheng & Sin 2008: 34). However, though a term-matching task is involved in Step 3 (see
Section 3.3.3.2.2), since the terms involved in this task all refer to the same legal system (the
EU legal system), it is given for granted that the underlying conceptual system is unique.
Therefore, this specific case can be ascribed to the following situation envisaged by Rodolfo
Sacco:

Una corrispondenza totale, senza riserva, permanente, fra due espressioni

appartenenti a due lingue diverse può essere creata solo da un elemento
artificiale. Se vogliamo prescindere […] dall’ipotesi di una lingua
intieramente artificiale, il significato di una parola è artificiale se un’autorità
superiore alla lingua si è pronunciata sul valore del termine, o sulla
corrispondenza fra due vocaboli. Così avviene se un legislatore è bilingue, e
con ciò impone che i due testi abbiano di necessità lo stesso significato.
(Sacco 1992: 487)

Though Sacco does not specifically refer to the EU multilingual context, where the same legal
system needs to find its textual expression in 23 languages, his view about “bilingual
legislators” artificially establishing equivalence among terms can be considered to apply also
to the European context. Besides the existence of a single conceptual system expressed in 23
languages, the EU legal system is also characterised by a tendency of introducing specific EU
terminology into all EU languages in order to differentiate supranational from national
terminology 120 . Therefore, on the basis of both the equal authenticity principle (see
Section 3.3.2.3) and the possible control of EU institutions on language (and terminology in
particular), an equivalence relation is presumed to hold among the terms used in EU texts. In
Correia’s words,

Where Community law is concerned […], the term ‘equivalence’ not only
remains valid but also has a rare chance to deploy its full semantic content.
[…] the various language versions of the regulations and other European

120
See the Joint Practical Guide (2003: Guideline 6), where it is stated that “concepts or terminology specific to
any one national legal system are to be used with care”.

181
Chapter 5

‘laws’ are ‘equivalent’ in the strict sense of the word, since they have the
same legal value and can be invoked indiscriminately, in appelas to the
Court of Justice for instance, by EU citizens or businesses, irrespective of
their Member State of origin or that country’s official language or
languages. (Correia 2003: 41)

Though this type of equivalence is considered to hold among terms employed in legally
binding texts, for the purposes of this study this relation is extended also to non-legally
binding texts, since they are meant to serve the same purpose, provide the same information
and address the same indended readers. Moreover, although the equivalence among EU texts
– and terms – is given for granted, it should be noted that “[a]lthough widely accepted, in time
the presumption of equal authenticity has […] been subject to extensive criticism, as in many
cases divergences in meaning between the different language versions of an international
instrument do exist” (Garzone 2003: 209). A similar conclusion on the impossibility of
absolute equivalence even in a multilingual legal system is reached by Correia, who states
that equivalence “can only be an approximation because – […] paradoxically – there are
different degrees of equivalence. It is the translator's job to find the best linguistic
equivalences, in order to safeguard the legal equivalence of multilingual law as far as
possible” (Correia 2003: 41). Therefore, although a margin for non-absolute equivalence is
left even in the EU multilingual legal system, in the methodology adopted in this research
project the terms extracted from the English and Italian EU subcorpora by means of the
bilingual display function (see Section 3.3.3.2.1) have been considered as equivalent.
On the other hand, in the assessment of equivalence concerning national legal terms carried
out in Step 5 (see Section 3.3.5), a methodology similar to the approaches proposed by Picht
and Draskau and Šarčević has been adopted, though, also in this case the peculiarities of the
terminology and the legal systems involved have been taken into account. Before assessing
interlingual equivalence, the conceptual correspondence among the terms retrieved in national
texts has been established intralingually on the basis of a genotype-phenotype distinction (see
Section 3.3.6.1). In this way, a term cluster for each genotype has been created, containing,
where appropriate, both the national and EU legal terms in the same language. Therefore,
interlingual equivalence could be established by using the genotypes as a tertium
comparationis, i.e. a concept which lies outside the systems under examination (Draskau
Kewley 1991: 272). As in Figure 5.1, on the basis of the terminological analysis carried out in
Step 3, in the EU legal system individual phenotypes have been identified which were
referred to by means of both English and Italian EU terms. When English and Italian national
terms were retrieved and the relevant phenotypes were identified in Step 5, a common

182
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence
genotype was identified to which both EU and national genotypes could be linked. These
genotypes are to be considered artefacts, since, unlike phenotypes which exist in legal
systems, they need to be constructed by the observer during a comparison of legal systems.
Such genotypes are created by examining the phenotypes, in order to identify the shared
components and eliminate the differing properties (see Sagri & Tiscornia 2009: 6). In so
doing, the intralingual correspondence and the interlingual equivalence between EU and
national terms were assessed and terms in the same language but belonging to different legal
systems were grouped in terminological clusters.

EU legal

EN term 1 IT term 1

EN term 2 EU IT term 2
PHENOTYPE
EN term n IT term n

UK legal GENOTYPE IT legal system

EN term 1 IT term 1
UK IT
EN term 2 PHENOTYPE PHENOTYPE IT term 2

EN term n IT term n

Figure 5.1. Assessment of interlingual equivalence on the basis of the genotype-phenotype

distinction.

Figure 5.1 exemplifies a situation where all the following circumstances are realised:
 more than one term in English and Italian designate an EU phenotype;
 more than one term in English designate a UK phenotype;
 more than one term in Italian designate an Italian phenotype;
 a shared genotype can be derived from the comparison of the EU, UK and Italian
phenotypes.

183
Chapter 5

However, this is only one of the possibilities that can occur when observing the behaviour of
terms in the EU multi-level jurisdiction. First of all, as regards the number of terms in each
language referring to the same phenotype, in some cases – as in the one exemplified above –
more than one term is used and thus terminological variation can be observed (see Chapter 4),
while in others only one term can be retrieved. However, more relevant for the discussion on
terminological equivalence is the existence or lack of a phenotype that can be linked to a
shared genotype in all the legal systems taken into consideration. In other words, two different
situations can be envisaged. In the first, due to the different conceptualisation in the legal
systems under study, there may be cases where in one of the legal systems there is no
phenotype that relates to a genotype being shared by the other two legal systems. In the
second situation, a similar conceptual anisomorhism results in a phenotype being found only
in one legal system, leading to the phenotype and the genotype to coincide. These situations
can in turn produce different consequences for the terminology used. In order to illustrate the
three possible cases envisaged so far, some examples extracted from the victim-related
terminological collection are presented below immediately after Table 5.1, summarising all
the types of terminological correspondence and equivalence in this study.

Language Type of equivalence/correspondence

EU language + EU language interlingual intra-systemic equivalence

EU language + national language intralingual inter-systemic correspondence

national language + national language interlingual inter-systemic equivalence

Table 5.1. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level

jurisdiction.

For the purpose of illustrating the case where a shared genotype can be found for phenotypes
existing in the EU legal system and both the UK and the Italian legal systems, the terms
referring to the LEGAL AID genotype are provided as an example in Table 5.2.

Type of equivalence/correspondence Example

legal aid and patrocinio gratuito are equivalent in

interlingual intra-systemic equivalence
EU documents

184
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence

legal aid in EU documents has a broader meaning

than legal aid in English national documents
since it can include all forms of legal aid

patrocinio gratuito in EU documents means that

the victim can benefit from legal assistance
without paying for it
intralingual inter-systemic
patrocinio gratuito in Italian national documents
correspondence
means that legal aid is free for the victim and the
lawyer providing it is not paid for it
in the national setting other terms are found to
refer to the LEGAL AID genotype for which legal
costs are paid by the government, i.e. patrocinio a
spese dello Stato per i non abbienti and its short
form patrocinio a spese dello Stato

the English national term legal aid can be

interlingual inter-systemic equivalence considered equivalent to the Italian national term
patrocinio a spese dello Stato per i non abbienti

Table 5.2. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level

jurisdiction. Example: LEGAL AID.

In the example above, all the possible types of terminological equivalence and
correspondence envisaged earlier are represented. However, as noted by Rogers, “in most
cases it is a question of establishing the degree of equivalence” (Rogers 2008: 103). Actually,
the only case where absolute equivalence is observed is when the English and Italian terms
legal aid and patrocinio gratuito are used within the EU legal system, i.e. when interlingual
intra-systemic equivalence is achieved. On the other hand, the conceptual variation (see
Section 4.6) occurring when the EU phenotype is compared to the national phenotypes,
though not hindering the possibility of linking the phenotypes to a shared genotype (LEGAL
AID = legal assistance which is free for the victim), reduces the degree of interlingual inter-
systemic equivalence to a case of relative equivalence.
Apart from the case where in each legal system there is a phenotype that can be linked to a
shared genotype, in the terminological analysis there are also cases where there is a
conceptual vacuum in one of the legal systems under discussion. In order to illustrate such
cases, the CIVIL PARTY genotype is taken as an example in Table 5.3.

185
Chapter 5

Type of equivalence/correspondence Example

civil party and parte civile are equivalent in EU

interlingual intra-systemic equivalence
documents

terminological and conceptual vacuum in the

English legal system
intralingual inter-systemic
correspondence
parte civile in EU and Italian national documents
are equivalent

interlingual inter-systemic equivalence no equivalence

Table 5.3. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level

jurisdiction. Example: CIVIL PARTY.

In the example above, the CIVIL PARTY genotype is shared by the Italian and the EU legal
systems, while it is lacking in the English legal system, a conceptual vacuum that is also
accompanied by a terminological vacuum: while the genotype is designated by an English
term in EU texts, in national texts no such term has been found. It can then be concluded that
no intralingual equivalence has been assessed at the national level.
Yet a different case occurs when a phenotype and the term to designate it are only found in
one of the legal systems involved in the terminological analysis. While searching for the
national terms to refer to phenotypes similar to EU phenotypes, also some other terms that
were bound to the national systems have been selected. Although further cross-checking in
the EU corpus confirmed that no similar phenotypes could be identified in the EU legal
system, some of these terms were recorded in MuLex anyway due to the frequent co-
occurrence with other recorded terms and their relevance for the national legal system. An
example of cases such as this is the QUALIFYING CLAIMANT phenotype, illustrated in
Table 5.4, which refers to the persons other than the victim who are entitled to apply for
compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) in the UK.

Type of equivalence/correspondence Example

terminological and conceptual vacuum in the EU

interlingual intra-systemic equivalence
legal system, no equivalence

intralingual inter-systemic qualifying claimant refers to a British national

correspondence phenotype

186
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence

terminological and conceptual vacuum in the

Italian legal system

interlingual inter-systemic equivalence no equivalence

Table 5.4. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level

jurisdiction. Example: QUALIFYING CLAIMANT.

In the example above, the QUALIFYING CLAIMANT phenotype is only found in the British
national legal system, since it specifically refers to the procedure for obtaining compensation
by applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is the organisation
responsible for awarding compensation for blameless victims of violent crimes in the UK.
Consequently, in this case the phenotype coincides with the genotype and in the EU and the
Italian national legal systems no phenotypes can be matched to the relevant genotype.
However, yet another case has also been observed where the phenotype exists but no
lexicalised form referring to it can be found in one or more legal systems. This generally
happens when an EU concept is transposed without any conceptual modifications in the legal
systems of the Member States, such as in the case of the EU concept cross-border victim
presented in Table 5.5.

type of
example
equivalence/correspondence

interlingual intra-systemic cross-border victim and vittima transfrontaliera are

equivalence equivalent in EU documents

the concept of CROSS-BORDER VICTIM has been

transplanted in the English legal system, although the
term cross border-victim is yet to be attested in
English national texts
intralingual inter-systemic
correspondence
the concept of CROSS-BORDER VICTIM has been
transplanted in the Italian legal system, but the term
vittima transfrontaliera is found in Italian academic
texts

on the grounds of the data presented so far, no

interlingual inter-systemic
equivalence between national terms can be
equivalence
established

Table 5.5. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level

jurisdiction. Example: CROSS-BORDER VICTIM.

187
Chapter 5

The CROSS-BORDER VICTIM genotype, which has already been discussed in Section 3.3.6.1
with reference to term clustering, can be considered to coincide with the phenotype found in
the EU legal system on the grounds that the concept is only meaningful when the EU
supranational legal dimension is taken into account to enforce the provisions of Council
Directive 2004/80/EC. Due to the Member State obligation to “bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with [the] Directive by 1
January 2006 at the latest” (Council Directive 2004/80/EC: Article 18(1)), the same
phenotype can be expected to be found in the Member States’ national legal systems as well.
However, this is not strictly true for the United Kingdom, at least from a terminological point
of view. Though both the UK and Italy have implemented the Council Directive, in English
national texts no term has in fact been identified to refer to the CROSS-BORDER VICTIM

genotype, while in Italy the term vittima transfrontaliera has been found only in academic
texts. It can therefore be concluded that, though the phenotype has been imported in all the
Member States’ national legal systems, such a “legal transplant” (Watson 1974) has not
produced a “terminological transplant” in the British legal system, where a terminological
vacuum has been observed.
The last case of terminological equivalence in the EU multi-level jurisdiction refers to nation-
specific terminology extracted from national legal systems. As already mentioned in
Section 3.3.5, some terms which are specific to the legal system of one of the Member States
have been selected and included in MuLex owing to their co-occurrence and relevance to the
main topic of the research. In other words, a cross-check of these terms in the EU corpus has
revealed that in fact they are not EU terms and the genotype they refer to has no phenotype
counterpart in the EU legal system. Given that the phenotypes designated by these terms are
specific to only one of the legal systems taken into consideration and there is no shared
genotype among all the legal systems, it would be plausible to expect that both a conceptual
and a terminological vacuum should occur in the EU and the other national legal systems.
However, the search for term equivalents has revealed that, though a conceptual vacuum in a
legal system can indeed exist, it is not necessarily accompanied by a terminological vacuum.

188
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence

Type of equivalence/correspondence Example

conceptual and terminological vacuum, no

interlingual intra-systemic equivalence
equivalence

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refers

to a British phenotype
intralingual inter-systemic
correspondence
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is used
in Italian to refer to a British phenotype

no inter-systemic equivalence but interlingual

interlingual inter-systemic equivalence
terminological equivalence

Table 5.6. Types of terminological equivalence and correspondence in the EU multi-level

jurisdiction. Example: CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

Table 5.6 shows the CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY phenotype. As far as the
conceptual vacuum is concerned, such phenotype can be considered to be identical to the
QUALIFYING CLAIMANT example shown in Table 5.4, since the phenotype was created within
the British legal system and, given the lack of similar phenotypes in the EU and Italian legal
systems, can be said to coincide with its genotype. Between these two phenotypes there is,
however, a difference at the terminological level. In the example in Table 5.4, a
terminological and conceptual vacuum has been observed both in the EU and the Italian legal
systems, resulting in a lack of equivalence (zero equivalence) at both levels, but the same
does not apply to the CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY phenotype. While
comparing the British and the EU legal systems, a conceptual and terminological vacuum
emerged in the latter system, since no similar phenotype, and, consequently, no term referring
to it, were retrieved. Also the search for a similar phenotype in Italian national texts has
revealed a conceptual gap in the Italian legal system, although the borrowing Criminal
Injuries Compensation Authority has been found in non-legally binding texts. This is so
because in such texts the reference legal system is not necessarily the Italian one and
consequently the phenotype the term refers to is embedded in a jurisdiction other than the
Italian one. For clarity’s sake, the same example is also presented graphically in Figure 5.2.

189
Chapter 5

EU legal

conceptual and terminological vacuum

UK legal IT legal system

GENOTYPE conceptual vacuum but

Criminal
Injuries UK Criminal
Compensation Injuries
Authority PHENOTYP Compensation
Authority

CICA

Figure 5.2. Assessment of interlingual equivalence on the basis of the genotype-phenotype

distinction. A case of terminological and conceptual vacuum. Example: CRIMINAL INJURIES
COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

5.3.1 TERMS AND NAMED ENTITIES

The last example provided in Section 5.3 offers the opportunity to make a further comment on
the type of terminology included in this research project. Notwithstanding the initial decision
that all the terms to be included in the TKB should be nouns, when defining the type of
terminology to be extracted and analysed (see Section 3.3.1.1.3), no specification was made
of the type of concepts these terminological units should refer to, apart from the general
requirement that the concepts should fall into one of the broad concept fields outlined in
Section 3.3.1.3 and illustrated in Section 6.4.1.1.1. This entails that, in the term extraction
process (Steps 3 and 5 in Chapter 3), some lexical units have been retrieved which are not
universally acknowledged as being proper terms.
For instance, according to some authors who use term extraction for ontology learning from
text and ontology population, these lexical units, which could be described as named entities
and can be included in what Cao refers to as “words associated with areas of law and
institutions” (Cao 2007: 65), should be kept separate from domain-specific terminology (see
Velardi et al. 2001; Omrane, et al. 2011; Buitelaar et al. 2005, among others). In ontology
learning from text, terms are seen as the “linguistic realizations of domain-specific concepts”

190
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence
(Buitelaar et al. 2005: 6), and are identified mainly on the basis of their intension, while
named entities represent the extensional realisation of concepts (Buitelaar et al. 2005: 2).
Therefore, it follows that terms are generally used in the learning or generation of an
ontology, while named entities are more relevant for the population of an ontology. From an
ontological perspective, named entities are considered as instances of concepts (Navigli &
Velardi 2008: 85), which generally come into play once the elaboration of the ontology is
completed, because named entities or instances are used for “instantiating a knowledge base”
(Buitelaar et al. 2005: 4), i.e. an ontology.
As far as this research study is concerned, however, the distinction between proper
terminological units and named entities is not considered to be fundamental on the basis of
two main reasons. The first lies in the approach adopted for term clustering and term
matching, which is based on the genotype/phenotype distinction discussed in Section 3.3.6.1.
As has been illustrated in the examples in Tables 5.4 and 5.6, because a phenotype is
embedded in one legal system only and it is impossible to find a shared genotype for all the
legal systems examined, in some cases phenotype and genotype coincide, since no super-
abstract legal notion can be identified. This is particularly true when named entities are taken
into account, since in the legal domain this category frequently includes institutions and
organisations operating within only one national legal system. Such a system-specificity
applies not only to named entities referring to the British and the Italian national legal
systems, but also to some EU named entities which in fact could be expected to be relevant to
the legal systems of all the Member States. For instance, the term European network of
national contact points for restorative justice refers to a network established by the EU which
operates EU-wide and it is the very uniqueness of its nature that makes it difficult to identify a
category of which the European network of national contact points for restorative justice
could be an instance of. In other words, given the very specific and unique features of this
network, the named entity under discussion can be said to designate both the concept and an
instance of that concept, i.e. both a genotype and a phenotype, a fact that undermines the
distinction between categories and instances postulated in the ontologists’ view mentioned
above.
The second reason why for the aims of this terminographic study the distinction between
proper terminological units and named entities is not considered to be fundamental is that the
starting and ending points of this terminographic research project are texts rather than the
conceptualisation of domain-specific knowledge: the lexical units found in the textual
material in one language are analysed in order to understand their underlying conceptual

191
Chapter 5

features, which are in turn used to go back to the textual material and find possible
equivalents in a different language. This is so because this research study is application-
oriented and the MuLex TKB has been designed for translators, which makes distinguishing
between proper terms and named entities unnecessary, since translators are required to
translate both types of lexical items, irrespective of the category they belong to. Therefore, in
the term extraction and retrieval process (Steps 3 and 5 in Chapter 3) also some named
entities (as well as their terminological variants, which are reported in the relevant
terminographic entries) have been selected for inclusion in the TKB.
It should be noted that the selected named entities have been extracted from the EU corpus
and the collection of English texts, but not from the Italian texts. The EU named entities are
the already discussed European network of national contact points for restorative justice in
English or rete europea di punti di contatto nazionali per la giustizia riparatoria in Italian
and Victim Support Europe, which is used both in English and Italian. The named entities
retrieved in the collection of English national texts are: Criminal Injuries Compensation
Authority, Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, Victim Support, Victim Support Northern
Ireland and Victim Support Scotland. The reasons why no national named entities have been
selected from the collection of Italian national texts are the following two. First, in Italy there
is neither a nation-wide victim support organisation nor a general compensation scheme
which victims, no matter what crime they have suffered from, can apply to. Thus the lack of
national named entities corresponds to a factual non-existence. Second, the decision not to
include a named entity in the TKB has been determined by the type of named entity retrieved.
Looking for the nation-specific instantiation of ASSISTING AUTHORITY, Article 1(2) of the
121
Legislative Decree n. 204/2007 states that the assisting authority in Italy is the Procura
generale della Repubblica (Public Prosecutor’s Office), an office which in fact is in charge of
a wide variety of duties that are not necessarily linked to the area of law related to victims of
crime, hence the decision not to include this named entity in the TKB.

5.3.2 DEGREES OF EQUIVALENCE AND TERMINOGRAPHIC PROCESSING

The final part of this chapter is devoted to a series of conclusions on the different degrees of
terminological equivalence in the EU multi-level jurisdiction that can be drawn from the
examples provided in Section 5.3, as well as the observations concerning the conceptual
nature of legal named entities and the methodology that has been used for both term

121
Decreto Legislativo 6 novembre 2007, n. 204, Attuazione della direttiva 2004/80/CE relativa all'indennizzo
delle vittime di reato, Gazzetta Ufficiale, 261, 9.11.2007.

192
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence
clustering ( intralingual correspondence) (see Section 3.3.6.1) and cross-linguistic term
matching (interlingual equivalence) (see Section 3.3.6.2).

5.3.2.1 I NTERLINGUAL INTRA - SYSTEMIC EQUIVALENCE

As shown in Table 5.1, interlingual intra-systemic equivalence has been assessed by
identifying term equivalents in the English and Italian EU subcorpora. In this case, the degree
of equivalence has been considered absolute, since the underlying legal system for both the
English and the Italian terminology is the same, i.e. the EU legal system, and the linguistic
versions of the same documents are the result of the process of an “interlingual text
reproduction” (Kjær 2007: 7). However, it should not be overlooked that, while the legal
system is one and the same, according to the multilingualism principle that the EU legal
system should be expressed in 23 legal languages:

Il multilinguismo non è stato percepito come un problema fino a che la

Comunità europea si è occupata di materie attinenti alle competenze sue
proprie, quali la regolamentazione di parametri economici, di standard
tecnici e di misure restrittive alla realizzazione del mercato comune. Anzi,
nelle materie suddette, il diritto comunitario ha innovato anche la
terminologia degli ordinamenti nazionali […]. Quando il legislatore
comunitario agisce in un settore di sua sicura competenza ne elabora anche i
concetti giuridici e le unità lessicali in maniera tale che i concetti abbiano lo
stesso significato in tutte le lingue anche a livello nazionale. (Rossi 2008:
367)

Though Rossi was referring to EU private law, his observations can also be applied to the EU
legal area concerning victims of crime, due to the development of EU provisions, and thus EU
legal concepts, in this domain. Considering that “[b]orrowing and neologism are much more
common in legal systems that are in the process of establishment or developing than in more
mature or established systems” (Cao 2007: 57), then the terms referring to concepts developed
within the EU such as ASSISTING and DECIDING AUTHORITY, CENTRAL CONTACT POINT or
CROSS-BORDER VICTIM are equivalent in the two languages taken into consideration and can be
recorded as such in a terminographic entry as the one used in the MuLex TKB (see Chapter
6).
However, cases of diverging linguistic versions of the same document have been brought
before the European Court of Justice122, proving that such a high degree of equivalence is not
always realised at a textual level. Moreover, EU institutions do not always need to introduce

122
For an overview on the issue of multilingualism and diverging linguistic versions in the EU, see Pozzo (2008)
and Van Calster (1997).

193
Chapter 5

new legal concepts in EU legislation and resort to neologisms. The standard procedure is
rather the “readjustment of national terminology” (Buchin & Seymour 2003: 111), i.e. using
legal terms already existing in the national legal systems and adapting them to new specific
communication needs (see Rossi 2008: 363). In such cases, equivalence is forced upon terms
that in fact would not be equivalent if used within their national legal systems. An example of
this “forced” equivalence is represented by the terms victim and vittima, two terms which, as
seen in Section 3.3.5, at the EU level refer to the same phenotype and in the TKB are
provided with a definition that sets the boundaries of this concept. Conversely, when the two
terms are used in their respective national settings, the intralingual correspondence and inter-
systemic equivalence between them can be considered to be only relative.

5.3.2.2 I NTERLINGUAL INTER - SYSTEMIC EQUIVALENCE

When terminological equivalence is considered from a national – and not supranational –
point of view, cases of absolute terminological equivalence among legal systems become very
rare (Bullo 2007: 89): “[w]hen the target language and the source language relate to different
legal systems, absolute equivalence is impossible” (De Groot 1996: 157). Not only is absolute
equivalence impossible, but the search for it is even “futile” (Cao 2007: 59). Therefore, from
a translational perspective, in all the cases when an inter-systemic translation is required, the
methods and strategies to be adopted depend on several variables (e.g. skopos of the
translation and intended reader) and lead to different types of translation, ranging from literal
translation or functional equivalence to borrowing and descriptive equivalence (see Cao
(2007: 59); Šarčević (1997: 235–237), among others). From a terminological point of view,
however, rather than reached at a textual level, formal equivalence should be assessed among
the available terminological units (see 5.1).
When considering legal terminology in this light, once it is established that

La parola esprime la nozione, ma diversamente da altri contesti tecnici, nel

dominio giuridico certi concetti, creati, elaborati e definiti dal legislatore o
dal giurista di un certo sistema giuridico, non necessariamente
corrispondono a concetti elaborati per un differente sistema. (Sagri &
Tiscornia 2009: 6, referring to Sacco 2000: 126)

three possible cases are envisaged by Šarčević: near, partial and zero or non-equivalence.
Legal terminology, Šarčević’s definitions of these three types of equivalence are based on the
distinction between essential and accidental characteristics of legal concepts (Šarčević 1997:
237):

194
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence
 near equivalence occurs when concepts A and B share all of their essential and most
of their accidental characteristics or when concept A contains all of the characteristics
of concept B, and concept B all of the essential and most of the accidental
characteristics of concept A:
 partial equivalence occurs when concepts A and B share most of their essential and
some of their accidental characteristics or when concept A contains all of the
characteristics of concept B but concept B only most of the essential and some of the
accidental characteristics of concept A;
 non-equivalence occurs when only a few or none of the essential features of concepts
A and B coincide or if concept A contains all of the characteristics of concept B but
concept B only a few or none of the essential features of concept A or when there is no
functional equivalent in the target legal systemfor a particular source concept (see
Šarčević 1997: 238–239).
However, as regards the distinction between near and partial equivalence, when the
conceptual analysis of a legal concept is carried out it is not always possible to distinguish
between essential and accidental characteristics. Therefore, in order to include all the cases
which lie between the two ends of the equivalence spectrum (absolute equivalence vs. non-
equivalence), the term “relative equivalence” (Sandrini 1999: 102) has been used in this
thesis. For the aim of recording cases of relative equivalence and zero equivalence in MuLex
(see Chapter 6), different approaches have been adopted on the basis of the
genotype/phenotype distinction.
As far as relative equivalence is concerned, the terms that could be related to a common
genotype have been recorded as part of the same terminographic entry and the non-absolute
degree of equivalence has been clarified. For instance, the English term victim and the Italian
term vittima feature an absolute equivalence at the EU level (absolute interlingual intra-
systemic equivalence), but only a relative equivalence at the national level (relative
interlingual inter-systemic equivalence). This is so because the English term is broader than
the Italian one, since it may also include the concept of DANNEGGIATO which instead is kept
separate in the Italian legal system.
A similar case of relative equivalence is represented by the terms state compensation and
risarcimento da parte dello Stato. Unlike the EU level, where they are absolute equivalents, at
the national level their equivalence is only relative by reason of the substantial differences
existing in the regimes governing state compensation. In the UK, the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority uses a specific tariff scheme to assess the amount of the award for

195
Chapter 5

victims of crimes of violence, while in Italy no such scheme exists and only victims of
specific crimes (extortion, terrorism, organised crime) are entitled to compensation.
The last type of equivalence, i.e. zero or non-equivalence, is exemplified by the Italian term
elargizione, which designates the compensation awarded to victims of extortion, terrorist
attacks and organised crime in Italy and has thus been regarded as a separate, national-specific
phenotype. No similar notion has been found in the EU and British legal systems when
looking for a comparable phenotype, resulting in a conceptual vacuum and a case of non-
equivalence in the two systems. Because the aim of MuLex is to provide useful
terminological material for legal translators, for any terminological gap encountered, a
proposal for a possible equivalent should be suggested (see Section 6.4.1.2). In this case, the
proposal is provided by a so-called “descriptive paraphrase” (Šarčević 1997: 252) – State
compensation for victims of extortion, terrorism or subversion of the democratic order –
which is derived from the definition of the Italian concept. For these same reasons, this
strategy was applied also to the English term qualifying claimant, discussed in Section 5.3, for
which the proposed equivalent is soggetto avente i requisiti necessari per richiedere il
risarcimento statale. Suggesting a proposal for an equivalent term in case of a terminological
gap in one of the languages is in fact in line with the scope and the multilingual approach of
the TKB, requiring the completion of a terminographic entry that would otherwise provide
information in one language only. However, given the non-prescriptive aims of MuLex, all
proposals should be seen merely as a starting point for translators to appreciate the differences
among the legal systems recorded in the TKB and either formulate their own proposals or opt
for an altogether different translation strategy (Sandrini 1999: 109).
When a phenotype is absent in a legal system, to refer to the foreign legal notion an
alternative strategy is that of using a borrowing (see Šarčević 1997: 256–259), which in this
research study concerns mainly named entities (see Section 5.3.1). However, in the TKB a
distinction has been made between Italian loan word equivalents of the English terms which
were found in the analysed Italian texts and those which were not. In the example provided in
Figure 5.2, the English borrowing Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was found in an
Italian text referring to the British legal system and was consequently recorded in MuLex as
an Italian loan-word equivalent for the English term, while another borrowing, i.e. Victim
Support, was labelled as a mere proposal.

196
 Victims of Crime from a Multilingual Terminological Perspective: Terminological
Equivalence
5.4 SUMMARY

In Chapter 5, the issue of terminological equivalence in the EU multi-level jurisdiction has

been discussed. In order to define the framework in which terminological equivalence is
analysed, first of all a distinction has been drawn between terminological and translational
equivalence, which, following Andrew Chesterman, can be considered as respectively formal
and textual equivalence. In turn, the examination of terminological equivalence in the EU
multi-layered legal setting has revealed two different types of equivalence. The first, which
has been called here “interlingual intra-systemic equivalence”, occurs between terms in
different languages referring to a unique legal system (the EU), while the second, namely
“interlingual inter-systemic equivalence”, occurs between terms in different languages
referring to different legal systems. While the first type of equivalence can be expected to be
absolute on the grounds of the multilingualism principle, in the second an assessment of
terminological equivalence is called for, since “[a]ny notion of equivalence is a matter of
judgement” (Altenberg & Granger 2002: 16). From such an assessment, which requires the
evaluation of intralingual correspondence first, it emerged that, due to the intrinsic
anisomorphism in legal systems, the main degrees of equivalence in an inter-systemic
analysis are relative and zero equivalence. Such degrees of equivalence have then been
discussed from a terminographic perspective and the solutions adopted for recording the cases
identified in the textual material analysed on the basis of the genotype/phenotype distinction
have been presented.
As regards the recording of relative and zero equivalence in MuLex, it was shown that, when
no equivalent was available in the textual material analysed, both relative equivalents and
proposals for term equivalents have been included in the TKB. Two remarks have been
finally made concerning proposals for term equivalents, the first regarding the limits of an
analysis of a limited number of texts and the second on the limits intrinsic in the proposal of a
single term equivalent. As concerns the first, though the broadest possible amount of textual
material concerning the legal area of victims of crime has been collected so as to carry out a
comprehensive terminological analysis, this does not exclude in principle that for the
terminological gaps which have been identified an equivalent could not be found if new
textual material were considered. As for the second remark, bearing in mind that a single
concept can very often be referred to my means of different terms (see Chapter 4 on
terminological variation) – making translation a decision-making process where the translator
is required to choose among different possible solutions – when suggested, the single

197
Chapter 5

proposal’s only function is to serve as a starting point for the terminological analysis that the
translator should perform him/herself on a case-by-case basis (see Section 5.3.2.2).

198
 Chapter 6. VICTIMS OF CRIME FROM A TERMINOGRAPHIC
PERSPECTIVE. MULEX: A LEGAL TRANSLATION -ORIENTED
TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASE

The terminology and the relevant terminological data collected following the methodology
described in Chapter 3 have been recorded in the translation-oriented TKB MuLex. In
Chapter 6, the specific features developed in MuLex for making the peculiarities of legal
terminology observed in Chapters 4 and 5 accessible to end users. Such features have been
specifically designed to make the differences among national and supranational legal notions
clear and provide sufficient conceptual and linguistic information to assist legal translators in
the retrieval or formulation of translation equivalents. A tool has been incorporated in the
TKB to allow for the graphic representation of conceptual knowledge.

6.1 FROM TERMINOLOGICAL DATABASES TO TERMINOLOGICAL

KNOWLEDGE BASES

Ever since the beginnings of studies in Terminology, the discussion has been devoted to
terminological repositories which should contain domain-specific terminology. As pointed out
by Meyer et al.,

Much of the world’s terminological data is stored in large terminological

databases (TDBs) […]. These TDBs are useful only to humans, and even
then to only a small subset of potential users: translators remain the
principal user category, even though TDBs have obvious applications in
technical writing, management information and domain learning, not to
mention a wide variety of machine uses such as information retrieval,
machine translation and expert systems. A major weakness of TDBs is that
they provide mainly linguistic information about terms (e.g. equivalents in
other languages, morphological information, style labels); conceptual
information is sparse (limited to definitions and sometimes contexts),
unstructured, inconsistent and implicit. (Meyer et al. 1992: 956, emphasis in
the original)

199
Chapter 6

The authors acknowledge that, in the early 1990s, “a growing number of terminology
researchers [were] calling for the evolution of TDBs into a new generation of terminological
repositories that are knowledge-based” (Meyer et al. 1992: 956), which are generally referred
to as “terminological knowledge bases” (TKBs). As Cabré puts it, knowledge databases are
“knowledge repositories represented in a formal language that can be accessed by users via an
expert system based on terminological units, which are organised into a conceptual network
containing various types of relations” (Cabré 2006: 98). Though Cabré does not use the term
“terminological knowledge base”, the definition she provides suits the type of terminological
repository under discussion.
The differences between TDBs and TKBs regard three different dimensions: the information
contained in the repository, the support for the acquisition and the systematisation of
information, and the facilities employed for retrieving information.
As regards the information, the main difference between TDBs and TKBs lies in the greater
inclusion of specialised-domain knowledge in TKBs as compared to TDBs. In this regard, it is
undeniable that any terminographic task is based on some sort of conceptual structuring,
regardless of the type of terminological repository used for recording terminology. This is
especially true if the traditional onomasiological approach proposed by the GTT is taken into
consideration. However, while this conceptual structuring is exploited for populating both
TDBs and TKBs (see Meyer et al. 1992: 959), in the former only the terminologists and the
experts involved in the creation of TDBs have access to it, although such structuring is seen
as having a great potential in increasing the domain-specific knowledge of the users of
terminological repositories, since “[m]ost TDB users are not domain experts, and thus hope to
acquire some domain knowledge when they look up a term” (Meyer et al. 1992: 957).
Therefore, in TKBs such conceptual information is made explicit and available for end users,
allowing for conceptual relations to be explicitly represented and possibly leading to a graphic
representation of the knowledge domain. The possibility of representing graphically the
information stored in a terminological repository also enhances the potential of these
repositories to foster the acquisition and the systematisation of information. The conceptual
information available in TKBs, usually presented as conceptual maps, can also be used for
retrieving further information which is not accessible by means of already known terms used
as keywords in the search facility of the repository. This, again, may lead to the further
acquisition of knowledge.
In the evolution from TDBs to TKBs, terminological repositories have benefitted from the
developments experienced more in general by linguistic resources in electronic format,

200
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
especially as regards the creation of dictionaries. The development of linguistic resources has
been possible owing to the incorporation of large-scale, general-language textual corpora,
which have gradually given way to smaller, more domain-specific corpora (see Cabré 2006:
95). Ever since the early 1990s, the methodologies used in terminographic tasks have also
started to complement with electronically processable textual corpora. However, given the
existing differences in terms of approaches adopted and goals pursued by the two disciplines,
the incorporation of corpora in lexicology and terminography has led to the development of
two different types of resources containing different types of information. As regards
lexicology, lexical repositories such as WordNet (see Fellbaum 1998 and Vossen 1998) are
being developed to record words and the existing relations among them on a lexical basis,
while terminological knowledge bases are intended as repositories of terms rather than words.
Given the close connection among terms and the underlying concepts, the relations contained
in these repositories are conceptual in nature rather than lexical. The conceptual information
available in TKBs can thus be used for acquiring knowledge about the domain the terms
belong to and the relations holding among concepts, while lexical repositories provide their
users with lexical and semantic information about general language.

6.2 FROM TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASES TO ONTOLOGIES

As stated by Temmerman and Kerremans, “[m]ore recently and more frequently […] TKBs
are now referred to as ontologies” (Temmerman & Kerremans 2003: 3). This statement can be
considered valid depending on what is meant by “ontology”. Several authors have proposed
their answer to the question “What is an ontology?”, thus leading to the proliferation of
definitions, insomuch as Guarino described “ontology” as an overloaded term (Guarino
2006).
In order to explain the meaning attributed nowadays to the term “ontology”, a step backwards
needs to be taken. The term originally belongs to philosophy, where “it means a systematic
explanation of Existence” (Gómez Pérez 1999: 33). In this sense, ontology is to be seen as a
discipline, i.e. the study of what exists or can exist or the study of the nature and structure of
reality. However, the term has been taken on in Artificial Intelligence (AI), where it has
assumed a different meaning, though connected to the meaning it bears in philosophy. A first
description of an ontology in AI is provided by Neches et al. (1991: 40), who state that
ontologies are models of the world represented as frameworks in the form of top-level

201
Chapter 6

declarative abstraction hierarchies which are provided with sufficient information to lay down
the ground rules for modelling a domain. According to them, “[a]n ontology defines the basic
terms and relations comprising the vocabulary of a topic area as well as the rules for
combining terms and relations to define extensions to the vocabulary” (Neches et al. 1991:
40). Two years later, Gruber formulated what has become the most quoted definition in the AI
field: “[a]n ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization” (Gruber 1993: 199).
Among the many authors who elaborated Gruber’s definition, Borst defined an ontology as “a
formal specification of a shared conceptualization” (Borst 1997: 12). In these and other
definitions of “ontology”, the term “conceptualisation” is intended as an abstract model of
some phenomenon in the world or a domain, while the expressions “explicit” and “formal”
mean respectively that the concepts included in this model are explicitly defined and that the
content of the ontology is machine-readable. The addition of “shared” in Borst’s definition
refers to the knowledge captured in the ontology, which needs to be consensual, and therefore
agreed upon by a group.
The enumeration of all the possible definitions which provide a different point of view on the
meaning of ontology is out of scope here123, but the examples provided so far are sufficient to
draw the difference between “ontology” as intended in philosophy and “an ontology” as
conceived in Information Technology and, more specifically, Artificial Intelligence. While
ontology in the philosophical sense is a science, an ontology in AI is an artefact, a hierarchical
structure used for describing the shared conceptualisation underlying the knowledge
represented in a knowledge base.
On the basis of the considerations presented so far, it comes as no surprise that contamination
has occurred, with ontologies crossing the boundaries of AI and entering the realm of
Computational Terminology. As noted by Faber, “[m]ore recently, sociocognitive
terminology has also begun to focus on ontologies as a more viable way of implementing
conceptual representations” (Faber 2009: 118). This has inevitably led authors in the field of
Terminology to the formulation of their own definitions of ontology. For instance,
Temmerman and Kerremans define an ontology as “a knowledge repository in which
categories (terms) are defined as well as relationships between these categories”, where
“[i]mplicit knowledge (for humans) needs to be made explicit for computers” (Temmerman &
Kerremans 2003: 3). In this regard, it should not be overlooked that in AI ontologies should
ideally represent the conceptualisation of either reality or a specialised domain independently
from language. However, as stated by Jarrar and Meersman,

123
Guarino and Giaretta (1995: 25), for instance, mention seven possible interpretations of the term “ontology”.

202
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base

A correct understanding of ontologies must however reconcile that they are

repositories of (in principle) language- and task-independent knowledge,
while any effective use by e.g. software agents naturally requires interaction
with some necessarily lexical representation. Also the creation of ontologies
as (sets of) agreements about structure and semantics of a domain requires
the use of – usually natural – language […]. (Jarrar & Meersman 2002:
1238)

Nowadays ontology engineering has encouraged the development of different types of

ontologies, of which the most commonly used according to Gómez Pérez and Benjamins
(1999: 3–4) are: knowledge representation ontologies, general/common ontologies, top-level
ontologies, meta-ontologies, also known as generic ontologies or core ontologies, domain
ontologies, linguistic ontologies, task ontologies, domain-task ontologies, method ontologies,
and application ontologies. By way of simplification, it can be said that the theoretical
premises on which ontologies are based have allowed for their widespread application in
different research and practical fields, such as the Semantic Web, information retrieval and
extraction, indexing and so on. Therefore, also Terminology has benefitted from the
incorporation of ontology-oriented approaches, since “ontologies are considered as a valuable
means to approach terminological work: the reason is that a substantial part of the
terminologist’s work needs a conceptual approach” (Bautista Zambrana 2011: 313). However,
the cross-contamination experienced by the two disciplines does not justify the identification
of ontologies with terminological knowledge bases, since in projects subsuming an
ontological approach the conceptualisation represents only one of the components of the
TKB, i.e. the “domain-dependent terminological network” (Aizawa & Kageura 2001: 7),
rather than the whole TKB.

6.3 FROM ONTOLOGIES TO ONTOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

BASES

The increasing importance of ontology “in contemporary terminology theory and

applications, where it has gained a key role in the elaboration of terminological repositories”
(Leonardi 2012: 19), has been recognised by several authors. Temmerman and Knops, for
instance, state that

203
Chapter 6

At least three shifts have affected the discipline of terminology over the last
decade: the shift towards computational terminology management, the
linguistic shift in the theory of terminology and the ontology shift which
combines the (semi-) formalised representation of semantic relationships
with terminological management systems. (Temmerman & Knops 2004: 11)

The first shift mentioned by the authors applies to the terminographic activity and the
methodologies adopted for carrying out such activity, which have been deeply influenced by
the integration of IT and computerised Applied Linguistics technologies. Following Vargas
Sierra (2007: 47–48), terminology management has progressed qualitatively at least as
regards four aspects. Firstly, the advent of Internet has made an ever-increasing number of
documents and large amounts of information readily available. Secondly, on the basis of such
textual material, the compilation of electronic corpora for terminological purposes is easier
and faster. Thirdly, (semi-) automatic extraction tools are used to retrieve specialised
knowledge from such corpora, and, finally, software tools specifically designed for the
management of terminological information, i.e. TKBs, usually referred to also as terminology
management systems, are developed and employed for the manipulation, storage and
consultation of terminological data.
The second shift regards the theoretical foundations of Terminology and, consequently, the
approaches used to study terminology, with a progressive moving away from the prescriptive
approach supported by the GTT and the adoption of a descriptive standpoint (see Section 1.2).
Following Vargas Sierra’s reasoning, the third shift derives from the second shift. The reason
for this lies in the need for improving TKBs so as to make it possible to explicitly represent
the domain-specific knowledge acquired by terminologists during their terminographic work.
Therefore, the third shift identified by Temmerman and Knops consists in the combination of
two types of computerised systems: on the one hand, the (semi-) formalised representation of
conceptualisations typical for ontologies, and on the other hand, the terminology management
systems containing terminological data. The merging of these systems leads to the creation of
what Vargas Sierra calls “termontological databases” (“bases de datos termontológicas”)
(Vargas Sierra 2007: 48). Therefore, whereas conceptual relations have always played a
central role in the field of Terminology, as is evident from the primacy attributed to concepts
by the GTT, the inclusion of explicit conceptual structuring in terminological repositories is a
recent phenomenon. In the resulting terminology management systems,

los términos son objetos lingüísticos contenidos en una base de datos

terminológica, y dichos objetos se relacionan a través de una red de
relaciones conceptuales, que está contenida en una ontología, y mediante la

204
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
cual se asocian la base de datos terminológica y la ontología, formando, en
su conjunto, una base de datos termontológica. (Vargas Sierra 2007: 48)

The merging of the two disciplines has brought about two main approaches: Ontoterminology
(Roche 2007a) and Termontography (Temmerman & Kerremans 2003). The aim of these
multidisciplinary approaches, which can be considered both research- and application-
oriented, is to incorporate ontologies into terminological resources. However, some
differences among the two approaches can be identified.
In Ontoterminology, ontology is placed at the core of the study of terminology and “[t]he
main idea is to separate the linguistic dimension from the conceptual dimension of
terminology and establish relationships between them” (Roche et al. 2009: 321). On the other
hand, Termontography is embedded in the sociocognitive approach (see Section 1.2) and is
based on the assumption that “a knowledge base analysis should ideally precede the
methodological steps which are generally conceived as the starting-points in terminography”
(Kerremans 2004: 268). Such an analysis leads to the construction of a “common knowledge
base or categorisation framework” (Kerremans 2004: 268) containing units of understanding
(see Section 4.4.1) and intracategorial relations. The main difference in these approaches is
given by the goals envisaged by their advocates. According to Roche, in Ontoterminology
ontology is placed at the centre of terminology and “l’ontologie joue un rôle fondamental à
double titre: pour la construction du système notionnel et pour l’opérationnalisation de la
terminologie” (Roche 2007a: 8). In other words, the construction of an ontology in the
ontoterminological approach is seen as a goal in itself as well as a means for operationalising
terminology. Conversely, the categorisation frameworks developed within Termontography
are intended for helping terminographers in “the information gathering phase during which a
corpus is developed” and allow them to “establish specific extraction criteria as to what
should be considered a ‘term’: i.e. the natural language representation of a unit of
understanding, considered relevant to given purposes, applications or groups of users”
(Kerremans 2004: 268).
Finally, another important feature that distinguishes the two approaches is the type of
ontology used. Ontoterminology relies on the onomasiological approach, which “consists in
first defining the domain ontology and then identifying the most suitable terms to denote the
concepts (if necessary, new normalised terms are proposed)” (Roche et al. 2009: 4). In order
to produce such an ontology, the domain conceptualisation in carried out in a formal language
which is independent from the words of usage (Roche 2007b: 51). In other words, the
conceptualisation obtained consists in a shared, allegedly universal and objective model.

205
Chapter 6

However, once attempts are made to map such ontologies to the terminology found in textual
corpora, problems emerge (see Leonardi 2012: 28–29). Conversely, in its first phases the
termontographic approach also counts upon the development of a “culture- and language-
independent categorisation framework” (Kerremans et al. 2004: 565). However,
Termontography is developed so as to account for cultural diversities as well, since “cultural
differences may emerge from a multilingual terminological analysis and from a comparison of
terms referring to the same category” (Kerremans et al. 2005: 102). Therefore, this approach
“allows the framework to expand with a culture-specific layer during the search phase,
provided that culture-specific categories (relevant for the purpose of the framework) are found
in the textual material” (Kerremans et al. 2004).
More recently, a further methodological approach combining terminology and ontology, i.e.
Ontoterminography, has been proposed by Durán Muñoz (2012). In the first methodology
outlined earlier, i.e. Ontoterminology, the focus is on the building of the ontology and no end
user of the terminological collection obtained by applying it is specified. Therefore, it should
be assumed that the ontoterminological methodology is not designed for a specific
application. Instead, both Termontography and Ontoterminography can be considered
application-oriented. The incorporation of ontological analysis in the termontography
workflow is useful for the compilation of a terminological dictionary containing multilingual
data (Temmerman & Kerremans 2003: 5). In the same line, the methodology illustrated in
Durán Muñoz’s proposal is intended for the elaboration of ontoterminographic collections
specifically designed for translators (Durán Muñoz 2012: 19).
Apart from the methodologies incorporating ontologies in terminographic practice presented
so far, several projects have been carried out which exploit ontological resources for the
representation of domain-specific knowledge in multilingual TKBs. These projects are not
necessarily designed for translation purposes. The project generally considered the pioneer in
this field is COGNITERM (Меуeг et al. 1992), led by professor Skuce at the University of
Ottawa. COGNITERM “is essentially a hybrid between a term bank and a knowledge base, or
a terminological knowledge base” (Meyer et al. 1992: 958), which uses a knowledge
engineering tool, called CODE (Conceptually Oriented Description Environment), to manage
the information about the concepts belonging to a specialized subject field. The usage of this
tool, where “each concept is represented in a frame-like structure called a concept descriptor
(CD)” (Meyer et al. 1992: 958), has led to the construction of a bilingual (French/English)
TKB dealing with the domain of optical storage technologies. Apart from incorporating a

206
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
terminological repository with a knowledge base, this TKB also allows for the knowledge
stored in it to be visualised graphically in various semantic net displays.
Another ontology-based terminological project is ONCOTERM 124 (López Rodríguez et al.
2006), whose objective is the building of a bilingual (English-Spanish) online knowledge base
dedicated to the medical subdomain of oncology. The purpose of this project is to share
relevant information not only with medical doctors, patients and their families, but also with
professional translators, technical writers and the public health system personnel. The
development of such a TKB is based on the reference conceptual framework obtained by
adapting to ONCOTERM’s needs the open-access ontology MikroKosmos (µKosmos)
(Mahesh 1996), originally developed for the machine translation of Chinese texts on the
domain of company mergers and acquisitions into English. The conceptual structure in this
project is not available to end users, since the graphic user interface is not provided with a
visualisation tool for the representation of concepts in a frame- or network-like structure,
although hierarchical relations are collected in tables.
The design of the MikroKosmos ontology as adopted in the terminological management
system OntoTerm125 (Moreno & Pérez 2000) has also been exploited by the GENOMA-KB
project126 (Cabré et al. 2004, Feliu et al. 2004) for the purpose of developing a TKB on the
human genome domain based on specialised information both provided by experts and
extracted from textual material. The aim of this project is “to establish the main theoretical
ground basis and some refined strategies in order to improve terminological units retrieval,
the emergence of cognitive nodes from texts and the detection of conceptual relations among
terms in a semiautomatic way” (Cabré et al. 2004: 87), in view of improving specialised
information retrieval systems in the long run. Four modules are integrated in this
terminological knowledge base: a textual database containing Catalan, Spanish and English
documents on the human genome domain; a factographic and documental database including
bibliographic information about the tagged documents stored in the textual database; a
terminological database containing specialised linguistic units linked to the concepts stored in
the ontology; and a human genome ontology, where concepts are organised on a set of
hierarchical and non-hierarchical conceptual relations (Feliu et al. 2004: 32). All the four
modules are accessible to end users, who are translators, technical writers and field experts.

124
Available at http://www.ugr.es/local/oncoterm/.
125
Available at http://www.ontoterm.com/.
126
Available at http://genoma.iula.upf.edu:8080/genoma/index.jsp.

207
Chapter 6

Another project merging ontology and terminology is ONTODIC 127 , developed by the
TecnoLeTTra group of the Universitat Jaume I de Castellón. The project aims at proposing “a
systematic methodology for the elaboration of onomasiological terminological dictionaries
using an ontology editor” (García & Alcina Caudet 2009). The dictionaries resulting from the
adoption of this approach, which are developed by combining various techniques, such as
electronic corpora, text analysis tools, terminological databases, term extractors and ontology
editors, aim at containing terminology and specialised knowledge, which can be accessed
taking the meaning, and not only the lemma, as the starting point for consultation. The end
users of such resources are primarily language experts (translators, interpreters and technical
writers), though such dictionaries can also be used by field experts and the general public.
Finally, the last terminological resource based on ontological principles mentioned here is
EcoLexicon128 (Reimerink & Faber 2009, Reimerink et al. 2010), developed by the LexiCon
Research Group of the University of Granada. This terminological resource is the result of
previous research projects carried out by the same group, namely PuertoTerm – Coastal
Engineering: knowledge structure and generation of terminological resources (Tercedor &
López-Rodríguez 2008), MarcoCosta: Multilingual knowledge frames in the integrated
management of coastal areas (León Araúz et al. 2008), and Ecosistema: Single information
space for frame-based environmental data and thesaurus (López Rodríguez et al. 2010). This
TKB contains Spanish, English and German terms related to environmental events and is
designed mainly for translators, technical writers, and environmental experts. The resource is
composed of various modules devoted to conceptual, linguistic and graphic information. The
information stored in these modules is extracted from a specialized domain corpus and is
organised in a frame-like structure, the so-called “Environmental Event (EE)” (Reimerink &
Faber 2009: 630), allowing for the conceptualisation of dynamic processes related to
environmental issues. From our point of view, the most interesting part of the EcoLexicon
projects is the user interface, through which users have access to the ontological structure and
can see the exact position of the concepts in the domain hierarchy, visualise the conceptual
relations in a dynamic network of related concepts, access the definitions and the terms
designating the concepts in different languages, the contexts and concordances for the
selected term and graphic resources, when available (Reimerink et al. 2010: 2327–2328).
So far, the evolution of electronic terminological resources from terminological databases to
terminological knowledge bases relying on ontological premises has been presented and some
examples of projects developing these resources have been provided. In the following section,
127
Available at http://tecnolettra.uji.es/es/?page_id=35, http://tecnolettra.uji.es/es/?page_id=186.
128
Available at http://ecolexicon.ugr.es/en/.

208
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
the MuLex terminological knowledge base developed for the storage of multilingual
terminological information is illustrated.

6.4 MULEX: A LEGAL-TRANSLATOR ORIENTED TERMINOLOGICAL

KNOWLEDGE BASE

As seen so far, nowadays ontology is playing an increasingly prominent role in terminology

theory and applications. However, the methodologies and the projects exploiting ontological
principles and tools for the development of ontology-oriented terminological knowledge bases
(see Section 6.3) bring about both advantages and disadvantages. While the incorporation of
ontologies in such resources allow for a clear classification of concepts within formally
represented conceptual structures, thus helping the development of consistent terminological
data, the presence of a shared ontology in the resource presupposes the existence of a shared
conceptualisation of the domain the ontology is used to describe. Taking the last project
mentioned in the previous section as an example, the creation of Environmental Events in
EcoLexicon to describe environmental processes within a single ontology and the possibility
to map the terms in different languages to the concepts stored in the ontology module imply a
universally accepted, language- and culture-independent conceptualisation of the
environmental event described. However, as admitted for the termontographic methodology
by Kerremans et al. (2004), who seem to adopt a different perspective among the authors
dealing with ontological terminological knowledge bases, the development of categorisation
frameworks which are language- and culture-independent may be followed by an integrative
phase in which culture- and language-specific categories are added to the previously
developed framework (see Section 6.3).
A similar view is adopted also in this research project for the development of the MuLex
TKB. This is so because MuLex is developed for managing and storing the multilingual
terminology concerning a legal subdomain for which the cultural embeddedness cannot be
denied (see Section 1.4), since “[n]o language can exist unless it is steeped in the context of
culture; and no culture can exist which does not have at its center, the structure of natural
language” (Bassnett 1991: 14). When applying the same assumption to the context of legal
language in general and legal terminology in particular, “the ‘body of culture’ coincides with
all aspects of the legal system governing and defining a given culture” (Kocbek 2008: 51–52).
Therefore, a direct correlation is to be expected between the legal terminology used and the

209
Chapter 6

underlying legal system. The creation of a single ontology or conceptual system as a

backbone for the setting up of a knowledge base containing multilingual terminological data –
as proposed in several ontological terminological projects (see Section 6.3) – is insufficient to
represent the “body of culture” designated by legal terminology. This drawback is even more
evident if applied to a TKB which is conceived as translation-oriented, since a lack of
consideration for the anisomorphism between legal systems and thus between legal
terminologies involved in the translation process may have serious consequences for the end
product of the process, i.e. the target text. Moreover, Šarčević’s statement that “concepts with
a very high level of cultural context are frequently untranslatable” (Šarčević 1997: 70)
provides further evidence for the impossibility of mapping multilingual legal terminology to a
single reference ontology.
On the basis of the observations made so far, the approach adopted for the creation of the
MuLex TKB takes into consideration the evolution experienced by terminological databases,
which have progressively incorporated ontological principles for the analysis of the relevant
specialised domain, without underestimating the importance of acknowledging the
discrepancies among legal systems. Hence, for the purposes of creating a conceptual structure
that would take into account the differences among the EU, English and Italian legal systems
as far as victims of crime are concerned, an approach similar to the one adopted in the Legal
Taxonomy Syllabus (LTS) project129 (Ajani, Boella et al. 2007, Ajani, Lesmo et al. 2007) has
been selected. Several attempts to exploit the potentiality of ontologies in the legal field have
been made so far (see, for instance, Despres & Szulman 2004 and Tiscornia 2007). However,
the LTS project seems to feature the highest degree of similarity with the research project
presented in this thesis as regards the approach to the legal area and aims of the conceptual
and terminological analysis. The LTS 130 is an ontology-based tool designed to collect
multilingual legal information on EU directives and build conceptual legal dictionaries
following a bottom-up approach, i.e. basing the construction of conceptual structures on
textual material. Starting from the assumption that the drafting (translation) and transposition
of EU directives are complex processes where terminological and conceptual misalignments
can occurs, the LTS is based on a conceptual backbone which “consists in a taxonomy of
concepts (ontology) to which the terms can refer to express their meaning” (Ajani, Boella et

129
Available at http://www.eulawtaxonomy.org/index_en.php.
130
The LTS tool was developed during the Training and Mobility of Researchers research programme “Uniform
Terminology for European Private Law” (2002-2006) carried out by a network of seven universities: University
of Turin (Italy), University of Barcelona (Spain), University of Lyon 3 (France), University of Münster
(Germany), University of Nijmegen (The Netherlands), University of Oxford (United Kingdom), and University
of Warsaw (Poland).

210
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
al. 2007: 22). Nevertheless, the authors “do not assume the existence of a single taxonomy
covering all languages” (Ajani, Boella et al. 2007: 22), and therefore “the LTS includes
different ontologies, one for each involved national language plus one for the language of EU
documents. Each language-specific ontology is related via a set of association links to the EU
concepts” (Ajani et al. 2009: 20).
In line with the LTS project, MuLex is developed for the purpose of managing and storing
multilingual terminological data belonging to a multi-jurisdictional setting, so it is designed to
bring to the fore the differences in the conceptual systems involved in the research project by
means of a distinct conceptual relational structure for each legal system(see
Section 6.4.1.1.2). In this regard, it is interesting to acknowledge that the cultural
embeddedness and language dependency of the legal system are relative when the EU legal
system is taken into consideration. According to Ajani et al., the “various national ontologies
have a reference language. This is not the case for the EU ontology. For instance, a given term
in English could refer either to a concept in the UK ontology or to a concept in the EU
ontology” (Ajani et al. 2009: 20). For this reason, in LTS lightweight ontologies are used, i.e.
“simple taxonomic structures of primitive or composite terms together with associated
definitions”, and “the ontology can be limited to those structural relationships among terms
that are considered as relevant” (Ajani, Lesmo et al. 2007: 43). Given the type of terminology
analysed for the purposes of this research project, also in the design of MuLex account has
been taken of the multi-jurisdictional context represented by the EU and its Member State.
Consequently, three conceptual relational structures are developed, two of which are national
(British and Italian) and one is supranational (EU).
Before moving on to the description of the features of MuLex, a terminological clarification is
needed. In the ontological terminological projects illustrated in Section 6.3, the conceptual
reference model has been referred to in many different ways, such as ontology and
categorisation framework, and different authors refer to it by means of different expressions,
such as conceptual map, conceptual model and so forth. As seen in section 0, the main term
used nowadays, i.e. ontology, results overloaded and implies, even in the terminological field,
the usage of specific ontology-development tools, while the other terms can be considered
equivalent, since they all reflect a formal way of representing conceptual knowledge.
However, in this thesis the term “conceptual relational structures” is preferred. The reason for
this choice lies firstly in the fact that no ontology-development tool has been used for the
representation of the conceptual content stored in MuLex. This means that the conceptual
knowledge so far is not stored for possible artificial agents to access it, but is rather directed

211
Chapter 6

to human users only. Moreover, though in line with the current trends in ontology-oriented
terminological resources, MuLex is developed for the management of terminological data
extracted from texts and, consequently, it does not aim at constructing comprehensive
ontologies containing all the concepts belonging to a specialised domain, but rather
establishing relations among the concepts derived from the terms extracted from corpora. As
pointed out by Cole, “[f]or descriptive terminology, the absence of a completely delineated
concept network for a given field is not of particular importance. A complete analysis of this
type, even where such is possible, is not necessary in order to identify individual concepts and
the terms by which they are designated” (Cole 1991: 19). Therefore, since the conceptual
focus of MuLex is on relations, the term used to refer to the networks of related concepts is
“conceptual relational structures”. Moreover, it should also be specified that at the time of
writing of this thesis no common conceptual relational structure comprising all the concepts
stored in MuLex in an ontology-like fashion was available for each legal system taken into
consideration, but rather a single conceptual relational structure for each concept. These
relational structures are, however, conceived within the frames developed in Fillmore’s Frame
Semantics (Fillmore 1976, 1985) (for further details on MuLex conceptual relational
structures, see Section 6.4.1.1).
In spite of the similarities highlighted so far, some differences between the LTS and MuLex
can also be observed. First of all, while both projects focus on the conceptualisation of legal
domains covered by both the EU and national legal systems, the LTS constructs proper
lightweight ontologies for the legal systems analysed and in MuLex conceptual relational
structures are built for individual concepts. Secondly, the LTS is intended for supporting
lawyers in their study, drafting and translation of “the peculiarities of European Union
Directives concerning the polysemy of legal terms, and the terminological and conceptual
misalignment” (Ajani, Lesmo et al. 2007: 43), while MuLex is not limited to a single text type
such as the LTS, but is rather concept field-oriented. This means that the focus is on the
terminology of a specific area of law, regardless of the text types dealing with it, rather than
on a specific type of supranational act and its implementation acts. However, even though the
LTS was originally intended as a thesaurus for EU directives in general, ever since its creation
it has specialised mainly in consumer law. Thirdly, while the end users of the LTS are legal
practitioners, who can anyway be involved in translation tasks, MuLex is primarily designed
for specialised translators, though it may prove useful to other users as well. Finally, the two
resources differ both in the languages covered and the type of linguistic and conceptual
information provided: on the one hand, the LTS covers English, French, German, Italian and

212
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
Spanish, while MuLex includes English and Italian, while on the other hand the LTS has a
less fine-grained user interface, which means that there are less structured fields as compared
to MuLex. By way of example, the “Description” field in the LTS can include different types
of information, from definitions to notes on the usage of the selected term and descriptions of
terminological difficulties. As regards the user interface, a further remark can be made: the
ontological part of the LTS is represented in the form of relations, but the ontology is not
available for all the terms included in the knowledge base, while in MuLex every
terminological record is provided with at least one conceptual relational structure.

6.4.1 MULEX: TERMINOGRAPHIC ENTRIES AND GRAPHIC USER INTERFACE

Before proceeding to the detailed description of the internal features of the MuLex TKB, the
assumptions on which it is conceived are briefly summarised below.

Aim
The aim of the MuLex TKB is to serve as a tool for the storage and
managing of terminological (conceptual and linguistic) data on the legal
subdomain of victims of crime in the EU multi-level jurisdiction.

Intended users
The intended users of MuLex are specialised translators, but the TKB can
also be consulted by legal practitioners with an interest in
linguistic/terminological issues.

Approach
The methodology for the retrieval of the terminological and conceptual data
regarding the area of law under discussion have been illustrated in Chapter
3. However, it is important to recall here some fundamental assumptions
concerning the approach adopted which influenced the design of the MuLex
TKB.
The approach adopted for the retrieval and analysis of the conceptual
material stored in MuLex is a middle-out approach, since it combines the
bottom-up (from textual corpora to conceptual data) and top-down (from
conceptual analysis to terms) approach (see also Faber et al. 2001: 182;
Temmerman & Kerremans 2003: 4). However, once the collection of the
relevant terms in the selected languages is established, the concepts these
terms refer to are classified using a two-tiered system. On the one hand,
concepts are assigned to one category (i.e. concept fields, see
Section 6.4.1.1.1) as conceived within the theoretical framework of Frame
Semantics and applied for instance in Faber et al. (2007) and Faber et al.
(2005). On the other hand, once the concepts are assigned to a concept field,
the relations with the other concepts included in the MuLex terminological
knowledge base are established and a conceptual relational structure is
created. Every concept is therefore presented in a relational structure which
may change according to the legal system involved (see Section 6.4.1.1.2).

213
Chapter 6

As concerns the design of MuLex, it should be borne in mind that, ever since 1997, the
University of Trieste has been developing and populating the terminological database
TERMit (Magris 2001), from which inspiration has been drawn for the building of MuLex.
The need for the creation of a TKB specifically designed for the storage and the managing of
conceptual and linguistic data concerning legal terminology has actually arisen from the
results of an earlier research study in the field of legal terminology (Peruzzo 2006/2007).
What emerged from the previous study was that the structure of the terminographic entries in
the terminological database TERMit did not prove perfectly adequate for storing conceptual
and terminological data embedded in a multi-jurisdictional setting, since it did not allow for
distinguishing in a clear and user-friendly fashion the national from the supranational
conceptual level on the one hand and terms which are used in national contexts from terms
employed in EU contexts on the other hand. The impossibility of classifying terms and
concepts according to the legal system and the geographic area they belong to in an intuitive
manner led to the formulation of long descriptions of the differences in the usage of terms and
the possible conceptual discrepancies among legal systems. This, in turn, resulted in very long
terminographic entries, the consultation of which could be rather time consuming. Due to the
problems faced in the previous research project as regards the recording of data which
presented terminological and conceptual variation and given that cases of partial
correspondence and equivalence were expected to emerge also in this project, the idea was to
develop a new TKB where all the features of TERMit which fitted the data to be recorded in
the TKB would be kept and new features would be added so as to adapt the TKB to the
peculiarities of multilingual legal terminology in a multi-level jurisdiction. Consequently,
some of the features described in the following sections were already present in TERMit,
while others are new.
As regards the structure of the MuLex terminographic entries, the first feature to distinguish
MuLex from TERMit is the fact that individual entries are concept-based but the data are
presented separately according to the language. Although both repositories are concept-
oriented, in the sense that every single entry is designed for containing the terms and the
relevant data referring to a single concept, in TERMit an entry contains terminological
information for all the languages taken into account. For instance, if languages L1 and L2 are
examined, the terminographic entry concerning concept C contains at least one term for each
language, a definition and a context for both languages L1 and L2. Given the large amount of
information to be provided in a TKB devoted to multilingual legal terminology, in the design
of MuLex a choice has been made to simplify the entries by splitting bilingual entries into two

214
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
separate, language-based entries. Therefore, the relation among two conceptually equivalent
language-based term clusters is established by means of a hyperlink (for further details on the
equivalence relation, see Section 6.4.1.1.5).
In the sections below a detailed description of the fields constituting MuLex terminographic
entries and the graphic user interface (GUI) of the TKB is provided. In order to describe the
entries, the fields that are visualised in the GUI are presented according to the data they are
intended to store, i.e. conceptual information (see Section 6.4.1.1) and linguistic information
(see Section 6.4.1.2). While for some fields the fact of belonging to one or the other category
is obvious, such as the “Concept field” in which only conceptual information is stored, there
are also fields in which conceptual and linguistic information are inextricably intertwined,
such as the “Notes on terminological variation” field (see Section 6.4.1.1.6). Therefore, the
classification as conceptual rather than linguistic information may be considered arbitrary.

6.4.1.1 C ONCEPTUAL INFORMATION

In MuLex, conceptual information is mainly provided in the following fields: Subject,
Subfield, Concept field, Legal system, Definition, Equivalence, Term variants and Notes on
terminological variation. In these fields, the conceptual information is made explicit in a
linguistic form, i.e. via an explanation. However, conceptual information on the relations
existing among the concept the searched term refers to and the other concepts stored in
MuLex is also available in the graphic visualisation boxes containing conceptual relational
structures (see Section 6.4.1.1.2).

215
Chapter 6

Figure 6.1. Fields containing conceptual information in the MuLex graphic user interface
(highlighted in yellow).

The first two fields mentioned above, i.e. “Subject” and “Subfield”, are the same as conceived
in the original TERMit database (Magris 2002: 50). Their aim is to delimit the boundaries of
the domain the term treated in the entry belongs to. Since this research study is mainly
focused on the area of law of victims of crime, it seems quite obvious that all the
terminographic entries relevant to this project bear the same Subject and Subfield, i.e.
“criminal law/diritto penale” and “victims of crime/vittime di reato”. Owing to the fact that
the other fields containing conceptual information need further consideration as compared to
these two fields, they are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

6.4.1.1.1 C ONCEPT FIELDS

Following Faber et al., “[t]he specification of the conceptual structure of specialized domains
is a crucial aspect of terminology management” (Faber et al. 2006: 191). These conceptual
structures can be considered abstractions which should, at least partially, reflect the
complexity and the dynamic nature of the real-life events or processes of which the concepts
constituting the event or the process are part. However, being only an abstract representation
of what can be observed in reality, the events or processes these conceptual structures

216
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
represent are to be conceived as prototypical (see Faber et al. 2006: 191-192). It follows that
the concepts included in a TKB should be arranged in prototypical conceptual structures in
the form of event templates, intended as “larger chunks of knowledge” (Geeraerts 2010:
222)131. In this regard, however, it should not be overlooked that “each knowledge area can be
said to have its own event template” (Faber et al. 2006: 192).
In order to represent the victim-related concepts identified in the terminological analysis
phase (Steps 3 and 5 in Chapter 3) in a conceptual structure that is adequate to the legal
subdomain established by using the “Subject” and “Subfield” fields, an approach based on
Frame Semantics has been adopted. According to Frame Semantics,

in order to truly understand the meanings of words in a language, one must

first have knowledge of the semantic frames or conceptual structures that
underlie their usage. Frames are a type of cognitive structuring device based
on experience that provide the background knowledge and motivation for
the existence of words in a language as well as the way those words are used
in discourse. (Faber et al. 2006: 192)

Therefore, once the boundaries of the area of law are established, the concepts need to be
organised according to a frame which represents prototypical, though flexible events in the
victim-related domain. This frame consists in a metalanguage containing predefined relations
between concepts (see Faber et al. 2001: 182). Given that the present study focuses on the
terminological and conceptual differences among national and supranational legal systems, it
would be legitimate to expect that different frames are developed in each legal system.
However, as highlighted by Sagri and Tiscornia:

La parola esprime la nozione, ma diversamente da altri contesti tecnici, nel

dominio giuridico certi concetti, creati, elaborati e definiti dal legislatore o
dal giurista di un certo sistema giuridico, non necessariamente
corrispondono a concetti elaborati per un differente sistema (Sacco 2000:
126). Le lingue di differenti paesi esprimono concetti che sovente non si
equivalgono. La nozione giuridica, pur essendo all’origine di un numero
indefinito di realizzazioni che maturano nelle diverse esperienze culturali e
giuridiche, è incentrata su elementi considerati come invariabili da un
sistema giuridico all’altro. Ad esempio la nozione di contratto è incentrata
sull’accordo, la convenzione, il consenso, il patto, a prescindere dalla sua
realizzazione linguistica. Secondo alcuni linguisti (Vanderlinden 1995: 23),
dato che difficilmente una parola di una lingua corrisponde interamente ad
un’altra parola di un’altra, una metodologia utilizzabile nella traduzione è

131
These chunks of knowledge are also referred to as “Idealized Cognitive Models” (Lakoff 1987) or “frames”
(Fillmore 1976, 1985). For an in-depth examination of the differences between Lakoff’s Idealized Cognitive
Models and Fillmore’s frames, see Geeraerts (2010: 222–225).

217
Chapter 6

rappresentata dal riuscire a decomporre le nozioni giuridiche, far figurare tra

i componenti tutti gli elementi che non corrispondono ad uno o l’altro dei
termini che si cerca di comparare, per poi individuare le caratteristiche
comuni di entrambi al fine di estrapolare il concetto generale. (Sagri &
Tiscornia 2009: 6)

Although Sagri and Tiscornia’s considerations regard the (im)possibility of translating legal
terms, the acknowledgement of the fact that a legal notion (“nozione giuridica”) can be
decomposed into elements which can be considered invariable in all legal systems can be
applied to the discussion on the creation of identical frames for different legal systems.
Therefore, as regards the area of law under discussion, the prototypical situation in which
victims of crime are involved can be represented in a conceptual template (

Figure 6.2), where the main categories and interrelations are outlined.

ACTION/OMISSION

performs causes

AGENT CONSEQUENCES

affect

PATIENT

can be entitled to

can be granted
REMEDIES

RIGHTS

Figure 6.2. Conceptual template for the legal area of victims of crime.

The conceptual template in

218
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
Figure 6.2 comprises six main categories (represented as nodes) that have been identified in
the preliminary frame-based conceptual structuring of the area of knowledge described in
Section 3.3.1.3. These categories are linked by means of conceptual relations (represented as
arrows) and, together with conceptual relations, are considered fundamental for the
understanding of the prototypical situation in the area of law of victims of crime, though such
prototypical situation is highly simplified in the template.
In order for a prototypical situation to involve a victim of crime, the presence of certain
categories is essential (upper part of the figure), while other categories can be considered
accessory (lower part of the figure). In order for this prototypical situation to be considered
acceptable, however, it has to be observed through the lens of criminal law, i.e. considering
that it occurs within a jurisdiction where criminal conduct is both defined and punished. That
said, the essential categories represented in

Figure 6.2 are “agent”, “action/omission”, “consequences” and “patient”. The “agent” in the
prototypical situation coincides with the offender who, by performing an “action” or
“omission” which is considered criminal conduct according to the relevant legal system,
produces “consequences”, i.e. harm, suffering, damage to property, for the “patient”, i.e. the
victim. Once the “patient” is affected by the “consequences” of an “action” or “omission”,
depending on a series of circumstances, such as the legal system, the type of consequences,
the degree of involvement in the offence, which are not relevant here for the understanding of
the conceptual template, he or she can be granted certain “rights” (e.g. the right to
compensation) and can be entitled to “remedies” (e.g. compensation).
On the basis of the conceptual template, the categories that were considered interesting from a
terminological perspective were selected, i.e. “consequences”, “patient”, “rights” and
“remedies”. In the term extraction process described in Section 3.3.3.1, only those terms
which could be ascribed to one of these categories were chosen. The reason for considering
four categories instead of the six categories shown in

Figure 6.2 lies in the relevance given to the “patient” rather than to the “agent” or the “action”
or “omission” that leads a person to become a “patient”. The main focus of this research
project is the figure of the victim of crime, therefore preference has been given to the
consequences of the commission of a crime for the victim and the aftermath of a crime where
the criminal justice system (or alternative forms for solving the victim-offender conflict, such

219
Chapter 6

as mediation) is involved. In so doing, the offender and the criminal conduct, together with
the possible categorisation of crimes, have been ignored in this study.
In regard to the usage of the conceptual template in the term extraction phase, however, a
remark needs to be made. Though in the conceptual template the “patient” category seems to
include only one figure, i.e. the victim of a crime, in reality this figure is multifaceted and can
assume different roles. Hence, the victim of crime can be considered either one of the possible
figures that fall into this category or the figure encompassing all the possible facets. To put it
differently, when a crime is committed, a person can be directly affected by the crime,
therefore he or she will be considered the direct victim of the crime. However, the direct
victim can be classified differently according to different criteria, such as age (e.g. child
victim), or protection needs (e.g. victims of trafficking of human beings). The victim can also
assume a different role in criminal proceedings, such as a victim acting as a witness or as a
civil party in Civil Law jurisdictions. Moreover, other people can be involved in the
commission of a crime without being directly affected by it, as in the case of samaritans and
bystanders. Therefore, the “patient” category should be intended as broad enough to include
all these figures.
The conceptual template has also been used to classify the extracted terms in MuLex. In order
to do so, the “Concept field” field has been used. The categories included in this field slightly
differ from the categories shown in

Figure 6.2. First of all, with regard to the “patient” category, due to the variety of figures that
can be included in it, the label used to indicate that a term can be attributed to it is “persons
involved in criminal justice/soggetti della giustizia penale”, since those figures are considered
from a criminal law perspective. In the same vein, in MuLex also the “consequences”
category has been made more explicit by using the label “harm and damage suffered by
victims of crime/pregiudizi subiti dalle vittime di reato”. On the other hand, as for the last two
categories considered, namely “rights” and “remedies”, a single label has been used, i.e.
“rights of victims of crime/diritti delle vittime di reato”. The reason for merging the two
categories into a single “Concept field” lies in the fact that the remedy a “patient” is entitled
to generally derives from a right the patient has to obtain that remedy, therefore remedies and
the relevant rights are seen as the two faces of the same coin. In the same category also other
terms referring to concepts that are neither remedies nor rights have been included on the
basis of their relevance for the latter, such as victim support organisation or application for

220
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
compensation, which refer to concepts that make the exercise of a right, and therefore the
achievement of a remedy possible in the framework of criminal justice.

6.4.1.1.2 C ONCEPTUAL RELATIONAL STRUCTURES

In recent years, Terminology has experienced a shift towards knowledge engineering
(ontologies) and a need has emerged to include knowledge representation tools in terminology
management systems. As noted by Picht and Draskau, what they call the “system of concepts”
is considered

an instrument by which the following ends may be achieved:

1. The reconnaissance of the structure of the inventory of concepts of a
special subject field as a preliminary to a systematic elaboration.
2. The recognition of the exhaustiveness of an inventory of concepts.
3. The comprehension of the relationship between concepts which may be
important for the formation of terms.
4. The recognition of the degree of congruence between the systems of
concepts of different languages; this in turn is indispensable for the
recognition of equivalence.
5. The representation in a systematically organized dictionary, of the results
of terminology work; the dictionary form may be available in hard-copy or
on-line, in a termbank. (Picht & Draskau 1985: 92)

It follows that the “system of concepts in terminology is not a goal in itself, nor an intellectual
pastime” (Picht & Draskau 1985: 92), but it constitutes an additional aid in several phases of a
terminographic project. However, in this view, the elaboration of conceptual systems is seen
useful from the terminographer’s point of view, while the possible use of such systems by the
users of terminological resources is neglected. Following Meyer et al., “terminological
repositories have an important teaching function” (Meyer et al. 1992: 957) and, within
terminological repositories, conceptual systems “have didactic value […], for they allow a
rapid review of the situation and a better understanding of the subject field, especially for the
non-expert such as the student or the translator” (Picht & Draskau 1985: 92). Therefore, once
the didactic potential of concept systems within terminological resources is acknowledged,
the representation of such conceptual systems needs to be taken into consideration, since “[i]t
is extremely useful for anyone acquiring subject-field knowledge to have access to a
representation of the concept system” (Meyer et al. 1997: 104). Following Faber et al., such
information should be included in termbases “in other formats to enhance textual
comprehension” (Faber et al. 2006: 205).
As regards the choice of the most suitable way to represent a concept in a conceptual system
intended as a “set of concepts structured according to the relations among them” (ISO 1087-1

221
Chapter 6

2000: Section 3.2.11), a consideration has been made with reference to the quantity of
information to be displayed in an individual terminographic entry. Nowadays, the possibilities
for knowledge representation are almost infinite, since knowledge representation resources
(KRRs) 132 based on knowledge organisation systems (KOSs) 133 are developed by different
scientific and business communities for the widest possible range of applications. However,
due to the type of conceptual information to be recorded in MuLex, which is embedded in the
EU multi-level jurisdiction, when designing the legal translation-oriented terminological
resource, the possibility to include a graphic representation of the concepts within a
conceptual system for each legal system involved has been considered. In this regard, the
TERMit termbase – of which MuLex represents a legal translation-oriented evolution – is not
provided with any graphic knowledge representation system (Magris 2002: 52), and thus the
presence of such a tool in MuLex constitutes a major development in the structure of the
TKB.
In order to enrich terminographic entries with conceptual information about the existing
relations among the terms recorded in MuLex, the needs of the end users of the TKB have
been considered. While several knowledge representation resources allow for the visualisation
of complex structures or whole conceptual systems or ontologies, the terminographic entries
in MuLex are already rich in both conceptual and linguistic information organised in different
fields. Therefore, the conceptual information provided in a graphic form integrates the
conceptual information already existing within the terminographic entry while, at the same
time, avoiding an information overload.
The choice has thus been to link a conceptual relational structure to each term included in
MuLex. Unlike conceptual systems or conceptual maps capturing the entire structure of the
domain, on the left-hand side of the MuLex GUI a structure is provided which represents the
concept the searched term refers to as the central node and the conceptual relations that link
this concept to other concepts recorded in MuLex. Therefore, the conceptual relational
structure is not a network where all the concepts are interrelated and all the possible relations
are represented, but it rather contains only first-level relations among the concept-node and
other concepts. The types of relations that can be recorded and visualised in MuLex are
discussed in Section 6.4.1.1.2.1. Since the terminology included in the TKB is embedded in a
multi-level jurisdiction, when the concept belongs to both the supranational and the national
legal system, two conceptual relational structures are visualised. These relational structures
can differ according to the conceptual relations that have been identified in the conceptual
132
For a classification of KRRs see Wright (2007: 159).
133
For an overview on KOSs see Hodge (2000: Chapter 1).

222
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
analysis phases described in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5. It is precisely in the light of these
differences that the didactic value of the graphic representation of conceptual information
integrated into a TKB is best understood. An example of differing conceptual relational
structures is presented in Figure 6.3.

Legal system: EU Legal system: UK

Figure 6.3. Differences in conceptual relational structures related to the same concept.
Searched term: Victim Support Europe.

Conversely, when the concept belongs to one legal system only, a single conceptual relational
structure is visualised. The absence of a conceptual structure for one of the legal systems
involved in the study is thus a symptom of a conceptual vacuum, and such absence is in itself
another important source of conceptual information for the end user of MuLex. An example is
represented by the concept VICTIM SUPPORT which is provided in Figure 6.4.

Legal system: UK

Figure 6.4. Presence of a conceptual relational structure related to a single legal system.
Searched term: Victim Support.

In regard to the conceptual relational structures included in MuLex, however, two remarks
must be made. The first concerns the synchronic nature of the visualisation: the structures

223
Chapter 6

included in the visualisation boxes are actually adequate for providing synchronic conceptual
information, but are not suited for representing the diachronic evolution of concepts.
Therefore, in order to understand cases where a legal concept undergoes conceptual revision
in time, such as the VICTIM WITH SPECIAL PROTECTION NEEDS example discussed in
Section 3.3.7, the conceptual relational structures are of no help and resort needs to be made
to the explanations provided in other fields. The second remark regards the risk of subjectivity
in the representation of conceptual relational structures. In this regard, Quiroz et al. state that
“[t]he specialist in the subject-field, as any human being, can be dominated by subjectivity”
(Quiroz et al. 1999: 173). Though being established on the basis of the textual material
analysed and being revised and validated by a field expert, the conceptual relational structures
can anyway be considered as a single “snapshot” of a larger conceptual system as
conceptualised by the observer and partially biased by the scope of the terminographic project
and the technical constraints of the knowledge representation resource used.

6.4.1.1.2.1 CONCEPTUAL RELATIONS

The typology of conceptual relations used to create conceptual relational structures in MuLex
resembles the typology employed in TERMit (Magris 2002: 52), though one of the relations
envisaged in the latter – antonymy – has not been used in MuLex. The reason for this lies in
the fact that no instance of antonymy has been identified in the textual material analysed.
Taking the central node, i.e. the concept the searched term refers to, as a starting point, the
conceptual relations under discussion are identified by a label that is assigned to the concept
the central node is related to. These labels are “superordinate”, “coordinate”, “subordinate”,
and “general. In order to distinguish the types of relations in the conceptual relational
structures, a colour has been attributed to each label (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5. Colours associated to conceptual relations in MuLex.

The first three types of relation are used to identify hierarchical relations among terms, while
“general” is an umbrella label which encompasses all non-hierarchical relations. The reason
for using such a generic label is in line with the aim pursued by the TKB and its intended end
users: a further classification of non-hierarchical conceptual relations would add complexity
to the conceptual relational structure without necessarily providing more information. The
“general” label is thus applied to all those cases where a conceptual relation is identified and
224
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
such relation can determine the co-occurrence of the terms referring to correlated concepts in
texts. In Figure 6.6, the usage of relations in the elaboration of the conceptual relational
framework concerning the CHILD VICTIM concept is illustrated. The concept referred to by the
searched term corresponds to the central node (red square), while the correlated concepts are
represented by coloured circles. In the example provided, CHILD VICTIM is a type of VICTIM

WITH SPECIAL PROTECTION NEEDS, therefore the latter concept is considered a superordinate of
the selected concept. The concept CHILD VICTIM has three correlated concepts, since a child
victim can be either a direct victim or an indirect victim and can also be victimised in a
country where he or she is not habitually resident, therefore being a cross-border victim.
Finally, CHILD-FRIENDLY JUSTICE holds a general type of relation with CHILD VICTIM, since
there is a clear conceptual correlation between the two terms, but it cannot be classified as a
hierarchical relation.

Legal system: EU

Figure 6.6. Different conceptual relations in a conceptual relational structure. Searched

term: child victim.

6.4.1.1.3 L EGAL SYSTEM

Another field in MuLex terminographic entries intended for containing conceptual
information is the “Legal system” field which constitutes another novelty as compared to
TERMit. The pre-defined labels that can be used to fill this field are “EU”, “Italy” and “UK”,
respectively indicating which legal system the concept corresponding to the central node in
the conceptual relational structures belongs to. As can be seen in Figure 6.7, the “Legal
system” field appears in two different positions within the terminographic entry: under the
relevant conceptual relational structure, to identify the legal system the structure is intended to
represent, and in the upper right-hand side of the terminographic entry. The reason for

225
Chapter 6

repeating the same information twice in an individual entry lies in the fundamental role
played by the legal system in the area of law analysed. Since the type of information recorded
is highly dependent of the multi-level nature of the jurisdiction within the EU boundaries, it is
essential for this type of information to be provided clearly in the TKB.

Figure 6.7. “Legal system” field in the MuLex graphic user interface.

6.4.1.1.4 D EFINITION
Apart from conceptual relational structures and the indication of the legal system a concept
belongs to, another fundamental source of conceptual information in MuLex is provided by
the “Definition” field. According to Béjoint (1997: 19–20, quoted in Faber et al. 2007: 41),
definitions have never been given due consideration in terminology, with the result that, “[i]n
many terminological databases, definitions are simply inserted in a cut-and-paste fashion from
other dictionaries, term bases, or knowledge resources, without taking into consideration both
their internal and external coherence” (Faber et al. 2007: 41).
In MuLex, definitions, i.e. the linguistic description of concepts which “seek to make
statements about an extra-linguistic entity by use of linguistic means (words, terms, signs)”
(Picht & Draskau 1985: 49), are seen as fundamental since they can be used with two aims:
on the one hand, for acquiring knowledge about a concept within the legal system it belongs
to, and on the other, for identifying possible similarities and discrepancies when comparing
226
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
the definitions of concepts referring to a common genotype but belonging to different legal
systems. The embeddedness of the legal concepts treated in this study in different legal
systems has lead to the inclusion of multiple definitions in individual MuLex terminographic
entries. Given the methodological principles on which this study is based, according to which
the EU legal system is taken as the starting point of the terminological analysis, in case two
definitions need to be recorded in a MuLex terminographic entry so as to make the
differences among legal systems clear, the definition of the EU phenotype always precedes
the definition of the national phenotype. An example is provided by the term criminal injury,
which is accompanied by two definitions (see below).
With the aim of populating the “Definition” field, both the EU corpus and the collections of
national texts have been thoroughly scanned so as to identify already existing definitions for
the selected terms. However, it can be said that “high-quality definitions are the exception
rather than the rule in most of the corpora” (Meyer 2001: 284). In order to find definitions in
the textual material, the concordancer AntConc (see Section 3.3.3.1.1) has mainly been used
in combination with a series of keywords that generally indicate the presence of definitions
which have been identified by observing the available material. For instance, in some of the
legally-binding texts in the EU corpus, a whole article is devoted to definitions and bears the
title “Definitions” as well134. As for the retrieval of definitions, however, a distinction needs
to be made between the types of textual material used in this research study and its origin: the
legally-binding texts included in the EU corpus can be said to be more constrained concerning
the format and the information to be provided than national texts. It follows that this type of
texts generally include a section with definitions and such definitions are introduced by
standardised formulae, such as in Article 2 of Directive 2012/29/EU (emphasis added):

1. For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:
(a) ‘victim’ means:
(i) a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or
economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence;
(ii) family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and
who have suffered harm as a result of that person's death;
(b) ‘family members’ means the spouse, the person who is living with the victim in a
committed intimate relationship, in a joint household and on a stable and continuous basis, the
relatives in direct line, the siblings and the dependants of the victim;
(c) ‘child’ means any person below 18 years of age;
(d) ‘restorative justice’ means any process whereby the victim and the offender are enabled, if
they freely consent, to participate actively in the resolution of matters arising from the
criminal offence through the help of an impartial third party.
134
See, for instance, Article 1 in Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA and Article 2 in Directive
2012/29/EU.

227
Chapter 6

In regard to national legislation, however, Scarpelli notes that

mentre nei paesi anglosassoni è pacifico che, nel dar forma agli statutes, si
possa dare definizioni dei termini impiegati, nei paesi di diritto codificato
prevale tra gli studiosi l’idea che stabilir definizioni non sia compito del
legislatore e, ove al contrario con la legge delle definizioni vengano
stabilite, esse non partecipino al valore vincolante delle norme. (Scarpelli
1994: 319)

Therefore, a similar solution to the one adopted in EU legally binding texts is resorted to in
British statutes. An example is provided by Section 1(4) of the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Act 1995 (c. 53) (emphasis added), where it is stated that

In this Act
“adjudicator” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 5(1)(b);
“award” means an award of compensation made in accordance with the provisions of the
Scheme;
“claims officer” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 3(4)(b);
“compensation” means compensation payable under an award;
“criminal injury”, “loss of earnings” and “special expenses” have such meaning as may be
specified;
“the Scheme” means the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme;
“Scheme manager” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State to have overall
responsibility for managing the provisions of the Scheme (other than those to which section
5(2) applies); and
“specified” means specified by the Scheme.

By comparing the two examples provided above, a common trait can be noted: the definitions
provided are to be considered as relevant only for the document they refer to (e.g. “For the
purposes of this Directive” and “In this Act”). In this way, the existence of a definition of a
term in a legally-binding texts does not prevent the same term from being interpreted
differently if used in another text, confirming the idea expressed by several authors that “legal
concepts are subject to a certain degree of vagueness and, hence, legal definitions are open
definitions” (Sandrini 1999: 105).
Moreover, an aspect that is featured in the second example provided and is very frequent in
definitions found in normative texts is the presence of cross references (e.g. “appointed by the
Secretary of State under section 5(1)(b)”). This type of information in definitions allows for
the avoidance of repeating large chunks of texts which can be found elsewhere in the same
documents or in other acts, while at the same time hindering the acquisition of knowledge by
means of definitions if the content of the cross-reference is unknown and making the

228
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
definition unsuitable for recording in a TKB. It follows that reformulation is needed by taking
into account the information available in the cross-reference.
As noted by Scarpelli (1994: 319), definition sections or articles are absent from the Civil
Law normative texts, as can be confirmed also as regards the Italian texts taken into
consideration in this thesis. This does not mean that conceptual information on which to base
the elaboration of a definition is absent from these texts, but rather that such information
needs to be inferred from the texts. For instance, the definition for the term parte civile
available in MuLex has been derived from Article 74 of the Codice di Procedura Penale135,
which contains neither the term itself nor a definition intended in the classical (Aristotelian)
sense, i.e. a definition specifying the superordinate (genus) and the distinguishing features
(differentia).
Therefore, a different approach towards definitions can be observed in normative texts
embedded in different legal systems, with EU and British texts more prone to including a
definition section and Italian texts generally avoiding formal definitions. This, however, needs
to be considered as a general tendency rather than a rule, since also in EU and British
normative texts not all the relevant terms are provided with a definition. Taking the EU legal
system as an example, the term assisting authority, introduced by Directive 2004/80/EC, is
not formally defined, though all the relevant information for understanding what the activities
and the responsibilities of this authority are and formulating a definition suitable for a TKB is
scattered in the text of the Directive itself.
Apart from normative texts, definitions have also been extracted or derived from non-legally
binding texts. In this case, no general trends have been observed in the texts embedded in a
certain legal system, although greater resort to academic texts has been made as far as Italian
is concerned due to the lack of definitions in Italian national normative texts.
In regard to the definitions included in MuLex, another consideration on the type of
definitions can be made. In traditional terminology theories, the definition par excellence is
the classical, formal definition in which a concept is explained by means of a superordinate
concept and the features that allow for a differentiation from other concepts. This type of
definition is generally referred to also as “intensional definition” (see, for instance, Picht &
Draskau 1985: 52). In MuLex, an example of intensional definition is represented by the

135
Article 74 of the Codice di Procedura Penale reads as follows: “L’azione civile per le restituzioni e per il
risarcimento del danno di cui all'articolo 185 del codice penale può essere esercitata nel processo penale dal
soggetto al quale il reato ha recato danno ovvero dai suoi successori universali, nei confronti dell’imputato e del
responsabile civile.”

229
Chapter 6

definition of the term risarcimento da parte dello Stato136, where the superordinate concept
“risarcimento” is followed by the specification of the peculiarities of this type of
compensation.
However, in the terminological analysis carried out in this research project other types of
definitions are more frequent than intensional definitions. For instance, the definition for the
term qualifying claimant137 is an example of an extensional definition (see, for instance, Picht
& Draskau 1985: 52). In this type of definition, all the possible situations where a person can
be classified as a qualifying claimant are listed. The above-mentioned EU definition of the
term victim can also be considered an example of extensional definition. However, most
definitions recorded in MuLex combine elements of intensional and extensional definitions,
though they can include encyclopaedic information as well. By way of example, the definition
of the term risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale 138 can be considered neither an
intensional nor an extensional definition because, on the one hand, it cannot provide the
extension of the concept due to the type of concept involved, and on the other hand, the
information in it is not limited to the genus plus differentia scheme (compensation + type of
damage), since it includes also the function of the compensation and the way such
compensation can be provided (restoration or replacement).
Finally, for several terms, no existing definition or textual material to be reformulated into a
definition has been found. In such cases, a definition has been formulated ex novo and has
been subject to thorough revision and validation by the field expert. Resort to the formulation
of definitions from scratch has been made in two different situations, which depend on the
presence or absence of a certain term and the corresponding concept in a given legal system.
In the first situation, a term and the underlying concept were found and could be linked to a

136
The definition of the term risarcimento da parte dello Stato included in MuLex reads as follows:
“Risarcimento erogato a favore delle vittime di reato attraverso fondi pubblici”.
137
The definition of the term qualifying claimant included in MuLex reads as follows: “In cases of fatal injury,
the person entitled to apply for compensation who, when the victim died, was in one of the following groups:
• The victim’s wife, husband or partner registered under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The couple must have
either been living together immediately before the victim died, or, if they were not living together, this must have
been because of infirmity or ill health.
• The victim’s former wife, husband or partner registered under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but only if the
victim was supporting them financially immediately before the date the victim died.
• The unmarried partner of the victim, if they were living together as husband and wife or as partners of the same
sex (although not registered under the Civil Partnership Act 2004), immediately before the victim died and for at
least two years before that.
• The natural parents of the victim, or the person or people the victim treated as their own parents.
• The children of the victim, or the people who the victim accepted as their children or who were dependent on
the victim.
138
The definition of the term risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale included in MuLex reads as follows:
“Risarcimento spettante al soggetto leso da un danno non patrimoniale con funzione sanzionatoria, deterrente e
compensativa, ossia di ripristino – almeno in una prima approssimazione – della situazione preesistente
all'illecito, sia in forma specifica, ove possibile, sia per equivalente”.

230
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
legal system, but neither a definition nor textual material to be reformulated into a definition
were found in the texts analysed. This is the case, for instance, of the Italian term danno
derivante da reato, which can be considered a self-explanatory term, since it contains the
genus and the differentia in the lexicalised terminological unit and is sufficiently clear so as
not to deserve a definition139. The second situation, on the contrary, occurs when a conceptual
vacuum accompanied by a terminological vacuum was identified in one of the legal systems
taken into consideration and, consequently, a proposal for an equivalent term was suggested.
This situation can be better clarified by means of an example, i.e. the term qualifying claimant
referring to a concept belonging to the UK legal system. Given that the referent in this case is
outside the Italian national legal system and the EU legal system, it comes as no surprise that
the absence of an equivalent term corresponds to the conceptual vacuum and, consequently, a
definition in Italian was not found neither in the textual material analysed nor in the
specialised terminological resources consulted. Therefore, first of all a proposal for an
equivalent term was suggested (soggetto avente i requisiti necessari per richiedere il
risarcimento statale), and afterwards a definition in Italian was formulated on the basis of the
information available in English.

6.4.1.1.5 E QUIVALENCE
Another field in MuLex terminographic entries containing mainly conceptual information is
the “Equivalence” field. Following the reasoning on the multidirectionality of terminographic
entries in TERMit presented by Magris (2002: 53-54), and given the complexity posed as
regards equivalence by the multi-level jurisdiction taken into consideration in this study, also
in MuLex the degree of interlingual equivalence is expressed in a verbal form instead of by
means of symbols.
Though the types of terminological equivalence as regards the terms analysed in this research
project have already been discussed in Chapter 5, two further remarks need to be made on the
“Equivalence” field. First of all, this field is only present in the record referring to the main
term, while for terminological variants the field is replaced by a link to the main term, since
the equivalence relation was established among the main terms identified in English and
Italian. In case a translator in his or her translation process establishes that the main term is
not the most appropriate equivalent for his or her text, then he or she can decide on the most
suitable equivalent by consulting the “Terminological variants” field and the relevant notes on
139
Given that MuLex is intended as a multilingual TKB for legal translators allowing them to acquire additional
legal knowledge and compare the definitions in different languages so as to evaluate the possible differences in
terms of equivalence, in MuLex every terminological entry is provided with a definition. Consequently, a
definition was elaborated also for those terms which are considered self-explaining.

231
Chapter 6

terminological variation, where the information on the usage of the variants and possible
conceptual differences among them are stored. Secondly, at the time of writing of this thesis,
the explanation of the degrees of equivalence in the “Equivalence” field was expressed in
Italian only, following the methodology used in TERMit, though in the future the possibility
of explaining the degree of equivalence in the language of the main term is also envisaged.

6.4.1.1.6 T ERM VARIANTS AND NOTES ON TERMINOLOGICAL VARIATION

To conclude the discussion on conceptual information recorded in MuLex terminographic
entries, two further fields are mentioned here which, however, are to be considered borderline,
since they can contain either conceptual or linguistic information or both. These two fields
have been derived from the original structure of TERMit terminographic entries and its
“Synonyms” field (Magris 2002: 52). In TERMit, the terminological data are presented in a
sequential order. Conventionally, in a single concept-oriented terminographic entry the Italian
main term with the relevant data and the “Equivalence” field is followed by the information
concerning the synonyms and variants of the main term. Once the terminological data about
the Italian main term and the possible synonyms and variants are presented, the same data are
illustrated for the main term and the possible synonyms and variants for the other language(s)
taken into account, except for the “Equivalence” field, which is repeated only once in each
entry.
Given the graphic user interface used in MuLex, which is conceived as an Internet accessible
TKB, the structure of TERMit entries did not suit the envisaged knowledge representation
purpose, since it seemed likely to produce an information overload. Therefore, in the design
of MuLex it has been preferred to keep the original concept- (in this case genotype-) oriented
structure, in the sense that terms in one language are grouped in term clusters on the basis of
their conceptual correspondence to a genotype and the main terms in the two languages are
linked on the account of their conceptual equivalence established on the basis of a shared
genotype. However, the terminological information is not provided all at the same time on the
same webpage. Instead, every time a term is searched in MuLex, only the information
relevant to that term is displayed, while other information can be reached by means of the
hyperlinks provided. Therefore, as far as term variants are concerned, if the webpage of the
relevant main term is displayed, in the “Term variants” field a list of variants is provided if
the concept the main term refers to is a polydenominative notion. Conversely, if the webpage
of a term variant is displayed, the link to the main term is provided.

232
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
The reason for substituting the “Synonyms” field in TERMit with the “Notes on
terminological variation” field in MuLex derives from the observations on terminological
variation discussed in Chapter 4. For the purposes of this study, the usage of the “Synonyms”
field to indicate possible semantic and/or stylistic differences between the main term and its
synonyms seemed reductive, since what are generally considered proper synonyms constitute
only a minority of the term variants included in the terminological collection. Although
TERMit admits the recording of variants as well as synonyms, on account of the observations
on terminological variation in Chapter 4, in the design of the MuLex graphic user interface
the labels “Term variants” and “Notes on terminological variation” have been used to name
the relevant fields.

Figure 6.8. Visualisation of the “Term variant” an “Notes on terminological variation” fields
for the Italian main term risarcimento da parte dello Stato.

In Figure 6.8, the information about terminological variation concerning the main term
risarcimento da parte dello Stato as displayed in MuLex is provided. As can be seen from the
example, the “Term variants” field contains the list of term variants in the form of hyperlinks
which, if clicked, open a new webpage containing the terminological information relevant for
the selected term variant. In the brackets next to each term variant, the regional label is
shown, so as to facilitate the end users in the choice of which term variant to visualise

233
Chapter 6

according to the origin of the text they need to translate. This indication is particularly useful
in cases such as the example provided, where the number of variants is high.
As said earlier, in the “Notes on terminological variation” field both conceptual and linguistic
information can be found. In the example provided, a note on the partial correspondence
between the main term and the term indennità falls into the category of conceptual
information, while the stylistic note on the usage of certain term variants only in EU contexts
provides linguistic information.

6.4.1.2 L INGUISTIC INFORMATION

The linguistic information about the terminology recorded in MuLex is captured by means of
the following fields: “Language”, “Part of speech”, “Gender”, “Category”, “Usage label”,
“Regional label”, “Style label”, “Origin”, “Lexica”, “Phraseology” and “Grammar”.

Figure 6.9. Fields containing linguistic information in the MuLex graphic user interface
(highlighted in yellow).

With the only exception of the “Language” field, which in TERMit is subsumed in the label
for the identification of the language (e.g. de, en, it) that precedes the term, all the other fields
were already present in the first version of the TERMit termbase. The standard attributes used
in these fields containing linguistic information in MuLex are summarised in Table 6.1. In

234
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
this regard, however, it should be noted that, while the indication of the language and the part
of speech is compulsory for all the terms included in the TKB, the compilation of the other
fields containing linguistic information is optional and depends on the type of terminological
data retrieved in the textual material analysed.

Field Attributes used in MuLex for the terminological project on victims of

crime
Language English, Italian
Part of speech noun, noun group
Gender m., f.
Usage label main term, proposal, uncommon, rejected, recommended
Regional label EU, Italy, UK, CoE, UN
Style label official (EU, Italy, UK)
potentially official (EU, Italy, UK)
obsolete
Origin loan word
loan translation

Table 6.1. List of fields containing linguistic information in MuLex.

Though in most cases the attributes can be considered self-explanatory and some of them
have already been discussed elsewhere, it is believed that some of them need further
specification.
As regards the “Usage label” field, the attribute “main term” is used to refer to the term
selected as the main term in a term cluster and the concept is a polydenominative notion. If,
on the contrary, the term cluster consists of a single term, no such attribute is applied. Another
attribute which can be used in this field is “proposal”, which is assigned to those terms which
are proposals of term equivalents in case of terminological vacuum (see also Section 5.3.2.2).
In relation to the “Regional label” field, though the aim of this research study is to analyse the
terminology used in the EU and British and Italian national legal systems, in some cases, due
to the cross-references available in the EU corpus analysed, it has been possible to depict also
some terms that are used in a jurisdiction other than those under study. Therefore, for the sake
of completeness, in some cases the terms included in the MuLex TKB can be assigned the
attribute “CoE” corresponding to the Council of Europe and “UN” corresponding to the
United Nations. The choice to include also this kind of information has been taken in light of
a possible future expansion of the research towards other legal systems.

235
Chapter 6

As far as the “Style label” field is concerned, the difference between the attribute “official”,
which was already available in the first version of TERMit, and the attribute “potentially
official”, which has been introduced specifically for the purposes of this study, has already
been explained in Section 4.5.4 with reference to denominative variation from a diachronic
perspective. However, in this regard it should be noted that the two attributes can also be
followed by the indication of the regional label, so as to distinguish between the different
types of usage in texts of different origin. For instance, the term protezione delle vittime di
reati is labelled as official in the EU and potentially official in Italy. Another possible
attribute concerning the style of the term is “obsolete”, which indicates that the term in
question is no longer used and has been replaced by another term, such as in the case of
European Forum for Victim Services, which has been substituted by Victim Support Europe
(see Section 4.5.1.1.4).
The other fields containing linguistic information are not summarised in Table 6.1 because
they do not contain standard attributes which can be chosen from a list. The “Lexica” field,
for instance, is intended for indicating the presence of the selected term in a dictionary about
the specialised domain in question (see Magris 2002: 51). However, given that the EU
terminology is not usually recorded in specialised dictionaries but rather in terminological
resources developed by EU institutions, a frequent attribute which can be found in this field is
“IATE”, the interinsitutional EU termbase. Moreover, the “Phraseology” field contains
collocations involving the selected term which have been collected by means of the
concordancer AntConc (see Section 3.3.3.1.1) in the phases of term extraction and
terminological analysis. For instance, for the term cross-border victim the following
collocations have been recorded: to assist cross-border victims, to facilitate the access to state
compensation for a cross-border victim, to improve the position of cross-border victims.
Finally, the “Grammar” field is used to specify particular grammatical behaviours of the terms
in the textual material analysed, such as in most EU variants of the term state compensation
scheme, which have been only found in their plural form.
Apart from the fields containing linguistic information discussed above, another field which
can contain both linguistic and conceptual information is the “Context” field, which is
discussed in greater detail in the following section.

6.4.1.2.1 C ONTEXT
As observed by Magris with regard to terminographic entries,

236
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
Le voci non devono servire soltanto a reperire equivalenti, ma essere
considerate piuttosto una chiave d’accesso a una varietà di informazioni di
tipo linguistico, concettuale, enciclopedico, pragmatico. Oltre alla
definizione, pertanto, risultano preziosi anche campi quali il contesto, le
note linguistiche ed enciclopediche, le specificazioni corrispondenti alla
suddivisione tematica ecc. (Magris 2004: 64)

In line with this reasoning, and bearing in mind that all the terms recorded in MuLex have
been extracted from authentic legal texts, with the only exception of the proposals for term
equivalents, the “Context” field is seen as an important source of information. Given the
specific aim of this research study and the embeddedness of the terms in different legal
systems, in the creation of terminographic entries the following approach has been followed:
when a term could only be retrieved in texts regarding one legal system, only one context was
recorded in MuLex (see example in Figure 6.10), whereas if two legal systems were involved,
then two contexts were recorded (see example in Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.10. Example of a term with one context only. Searched term: qualifying claimant.

Figure 6.11. Example of a term with two contexts. Searched term: assisting authority.

However, for the sake of completeness it should also be said that a marginal case has also
been recorded in MuLex. This case is represented by the term penal mediation in the course
of criminal proceedings, which is not provided with a context since it has only been found as
the title of Article 10 in Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.
The selection of the contexts to record in MuLex has been performed mainly by processing
the textual material by means of the concordancer AntConc (see Section 3.3.3.1.1), which
makes it possible to browse a corpus and visualise the searched term in its original contexts.

237
Chapter 6

The number of occurrences of the terms recorded in MuLex in the textual material analysed
are very variable. For instance, the searched term victim occurs 1869 times in the English EU
subcorpus, while the term national compensation scheme for criminal injuries constitutes a
hapax in the same subcorpus. It follows that, in case of hapaxes, the only available context
has been selected, while in the other cases selection criteria were needed. Therefore, two
selection criteria were introduced. The first concerns the legal force of the text in which the
term could be found: if the term appeared both in legally binding and in non-legally binding
texts, then a context extracted from the former was preferred, since the text itself was
supposed to have undergone a thorough drafting process and a linguistic revision.
The second criteria, on the other hand, regards the type of information provided by the
context itself. As has been said earlier, the “Context” field can be generally said to provide
linguistic information, since it is used to show how a term actually is used in authentic texts.
However, following Meyer, some contexts can fall into the category of “knowledge-rich
contexts” (KRCs), i.e. contexts which indicate “at least one conceptual characteristic, whether
it be an attribute or a relation” (Meyer 2001: 281). Meyer distinguishes between two types of
KRCs, namely defining and explanatory KRCs (Meyer 2001: 283-289). For the purposes of
the selection of contexts in this research project, the second type of KRCs has been taken into
consideration as a possible source of additional information. However, unlike Meyer, whose
aim is to identify this information in contexts so as to formulate definitions or enhance the
terminographer’s knowledge of the domain (see Meyer 2001: 288), in this study the
“didactic” potential of KRCs was seen from the point of view of the end user. In other words,
the contexts selected for inclusion in MuLex were meant to provide the end user with
additional information as compared to the information included in the definition. For instance,
in Figure 6.11, two contexts are provided for the term assisting authority. The conceptual
information that can be inferred from the first context is that there is a relation between the
assisting authority and an applicant, who can expect a series of services (e.g. guidance,
information) to be provided by the authority. On the other hand, from the second context it
emerges that one of the tasks of the assisting authority is to help victims in applying for
compensation in cross-border situations and that the assisting authority in the UK is the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

6.5 SUMMARY

238
 Victims of Crime from a Terminographic Perspective. MuLex: a Legal Translation-oriented
Terminological Knowledge Base
In Chapter 6, the MuLex TKB has been presented. This TKB has been developed taking into
account recent practices in the terminological and terminographic field, which has
experienced a gradual but fundamental evolution that can be attributed to four main reasons
identified by Vargas Sierra (2007: 47-48): the advent of Internet, the building of electronic
corpora and the development of software for corpus analysis, the development of term
extraction tools and terminology management systems. On these premises, and given the
growing importance of visual representation of specialised domain knowledge prompted by
the increasing implementation of ontologies in different scientific and commercial
communities, such as terminology management, the TERMit termbase has been taken as the
starting point for the reflection on a possible legal-translation oriented TKB. This reflection
has resulted in MuLex, which has been specifically designed for recording terminological
data concerning legal terms which, on the one hand, are embedded in the EU multi-level
jurisdiction, and, on the other hand, are characterised by the terminological dynamism
described in Chapters 4 and 5.
MuLex shares several similarities with the TERMit database from which it derives; however,
some substantial changes have been made so as to adapt the TKB to the terminology it was
supposed to contain and the needs of the end users, i.e. legal translators. The main difference
consists in the possibility to visually represent the conceptual knowledge by means of
conceptual relational structures, i.e. maps containing the concept the selected term refers to
and the relations it holds with other concepts included in the TKB. Another difference which
is worth mentioning is the introduction of the new “Legal system” field which, together with
the “Regional label” field, allows for the identification of the jurisdiction the concept is rooted
in and the origin of the texts in which the relevant term is used. In this way, it is believed that
the end users of the TKB have an easier access to the multidimensionality implied by a
multilingual terminology used in a multi-jurisdictional setting.

239
 Chapter 7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Chapter 7 presents an overview of the findings of this study with regard to the aims set in
Chapter 1 as well as suggestions for future work in the study of dynamism in terminology and
the representation of legal terminology in the EU multi-level jurisdiction.

7.1 CONCLUSIONS

The first section of this chapter is devoted to the main conclusions of this thesis with
reference to the aims established in Chapter 1. The main contribution of this research project
can be summarised in the following four proposals that have been developed in this thesis:
 a methodological framework for carrying out a terminological analysis of the legal
terminology embedded in the EU multi-level jurisdiction;
 a classification of terminological variation that can be observed in the legal terminology
embedded in the EU multi-level jurisdiction;
 a classification of the terminological equivalence which can be established by comparing
legal terms embedded in the EU multi-level jurisdiction;
 a legal translation-oriented terminological knowledge base (TKB) integrating a tool for
the visual representation of conceptual knowledge in terminographic entries.
Throughout this research work, the main initial hypothesis that legal language is intrinsically
characterised by a terminological dynamism, both at a linguistic and at a conceptual level, has
been confirmed. The legal terminology analysed from a terminological perspective in this
thesis was drawn from a single area of law, i.e. the area of victims of crime (Chapter 2). This
legal area has become a cutting-edge topic at the EU level ever since the adoption of Council
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA and, since then, has undergone remarkable modifications
and a major evolution, which resulted in the issuing of Council Directive 2012/29/EU. The
consequences of the incorporation of these two legal acts and similar ones in the EU legal
system have been at least three: firstly, the proliferation of other, (non-)legally binding texts
of supranational origin focusing on the same area of law; secondly, the growing interest in the

241
Chapter 7

figure of the victim of crime in the academic community; thirdly, the transposition of EU
legal provisions in the national legal systems of the Member States and the further
development of this area of law at the national level.
Given the relevance of the topic in both supranational and national legal texts, the
methodological framework (Chapter 3) for this research study has been set up so as to allow
for a terminological analysis of the terminology used in EU, British and Italian texts.
However, contrary to methodological models developed for multilingual searches in which
the languages and conceptual systems are treated separately, in this case the methodological
framework had to account for the dependence of legal language to the legal system on the one
hand and the prevalence of EU law over national legislation within the EU borders on the
other. Starting from Cabré’s model for multilingual terminographical tasks (Cabré 1999a:
129-159), a 7-step framework has been developed in which the genotype-phenotype
distinction introduced by Sacco (1991) in comparative law has been integrated. In such a
methodological approach, the term extraction process and the terminological analysis were
performed at two different stages, a choice that was determined by the nature of the
terminology examined. A first semi-automatic term extraction was carried out on a corpus of
EU texts written in English and Italian. The candidate terms identified were validated by a
lawyer and cross-checked by using the bilingual display of parallel texts so as to find possible
term variants and establish term equivalents within the EU corpus. The selected EU terms
were then individually analysed so as to gather all the conceptual and linguistic information to
be recorded in a TKB. On the basis of the selected terms, national texts focusing on the figure
of the victim of crime were collected and terms from the collections of national texts were
retrieved. At this stage, a further terminological analysis was also performed so as to gather
further terminological data to be included in the TKB. In so doing, it was also possible to
identify the conceptual features of national terminology and proceed to the next step, which
consisted in the actual population of the TKB.
In order to record the terminological data collected in the terminological resource, the terms
extracted from the EU corpus and the collections of national texts were grouped in term
clusters, i.e. sets of terminological units referring to individual concepts. Given that the terms
taken into consideration are embedded in different legal systems, in order to proceed to the
term clustering task Sacco’s distinction (1991) for the study of comparative law was
integrated in the process. According to this distinction, in the legal domain super-abstract
notions can be identified which find their actual embodiment in phenotypes, i.e. the concrete
actualisation of genotypes within the legal system. On the basis of this distinction, the terms

242
 Conclusions and Future Work

designating phenotypes referring to a shared genotype were grouped in term clusters, which
were matched cross-linguistically according to the degree of equivalence assessed among
them. In the final stage, the content of the TKB was validated and revised by the field expert.

7.1.1 TERMINOLOGICAL DYNAMISM: VARIATION

By means of the 7-step methodological framework adopted in this research study, the
terminological analysis proved to be dynamic on two different levels, i.e. intralingually and
interlingually. The first type of terminological dynamism observed consisted in
terminological variation (Chapter 4) within each of the two languages taken into consideration
separately. Since in Terminology the term “terminological variation” has come to mean
different phenomena according to different authors and different terminology-related
applications, to suit the aims of this study variation was defined as the modification that
affects the form of terminological units making up an individual term cluster. Such a variation
can affect either the formal features of terminological units (denominative variation) or their
conceptual as well as formal aspects (conceptual variation). While denominative variation
involves terminological units in which no substantial difference in the phenotypes concerned
is produced, in conceptual variation anisomorphism among the phenotypes can be observed.
In both cases, however, all the terms affected by the phenomenon of terminological variation
are part of the same term cluster and are therefore related to the same genotype.
The analysis of terminological variation in this study has been influenced by the
methodological framework described in Chapter 3. Given the textual approach and the order
of the phases concerning term selection and term analysis, the identification of phenotypes
and the subsequent elaboration of genotypes has been prompted by the semi-automatic
processing of a corpus made up of EU texts. Thus, the preliminary conceptual structuring of
the legal area of victims of crime was based on concepts from the EU legal system and guided
the search for both national phenotypes and the relevant terminology to be recorded in term
clusters on the grounds of shared genotypes. A conceptual restructuring was then carried out
on the basis of the terminological data extracted from national texts. Such a methodological
approach ensured the high degree of conceptual correspondence displayed by the phenotypes
examined and that the most frequent type of terminological variation in the corpus is
denominative rather than conceptual. In order to describe denominative variation, four
variables were considered: degree of specialisation, time span, legal system and legal force.
The application of such variables produced two different types of denominative variation for
each variable.

243
Chapter 7

As regards the degree of specialisation, denominative variation has been classified as vertical
variation, when the texts in which the terminology analysed are more or less specialised, and
horizontal variation, when the degree of specialisation is considered as being homogeneous.
Since both the texts included in the EU corpus and the collection of national texts are assumed
to share a similar degree of specialisation, despite the heterogeneity of their text types and
legal force, the examination of variation depending on the first variable has focused on the
horizontal category of variation. On the basis of the terminology extracted from the EU
corpus and the collections of national texts, six different types of horizontal variation have
been identified: inflectional, syntactic, morphosyntactic, lexical, graphic and variation
through expansion and reduction. Moreover, a further type of variation has also been
described in which the modifications characterising for more than one type of horizontal
variation co-occur in a single variant (combined variation).
For the time span variable, i.e. the period of time covered by the texts from which the
terminology was extracted, two types of variation have been identified, i.e. synchronic
variation and diachronic variation. The first occurs when variation is observed throughout the
time span covered by the documents in which a specific term is found, while diachronic
variation is observed when a change in the terms used to refer to a phenotype occurs on the
diachronic axis, i.e. when a term is replaced by a variant in the course of time. However, with
regard to the behaviour of terms from a diachronic perspective, within the EU corpus cases of
univocity have also been identified, with some phenotypes not being affected by variation in
the time span considered (1998-2012).
The third variable taken into consideration for the study of denominative variation is the
reference legal system. Given the legal system of the texts from which terms were extracted,
denominative variation has been classified as intra-systemic variation, if the terms refer to a
single legal system, and inter-systemic variation, if variation is observed when comparing the
terminology used in two different legal systems expressed in the same language. When this
variable is taken into account, the type of variation (intra- or inter-systemic) depends on the
number of legal systems taken into consideration and the type of phenotype the terms refer to.
The example provided in Section 4.5.3 shows that the presence of one type of variation does
not exclude the other, since variation can occur both intra- and inter-systemically.
The last variable consists in the legal force of the document from which the terms are
extracted. In the classification of EU and national texts proposed in Chapter 3, the EU and
national textual material analysed was subdivided into legally-binding texts and non legally-
binding texts. After attributing the terms extracted for the purposes of this research project to

244
 Conclusions and Future Work

either category, variation was observed within either texts with equal legal force or texts with
different legal force. Based on such a distinction, terms were classified accordingly in the
MuLex TKB. However, given the diachronic dimension introduced by considering the time
span variable, another element was also considered as regards the legal force of the texts
examined, i.e. the provisional nature of the legal force of certain documents. What is meant
here is that in the textual material analysed also some documents aiming at promoting or
amending the legal provisions regulating specific aspects of the legal area of victims of crime
were included. Such documents are proposals or initiatives for the adoption or modification of
legal acts that contain parts of text which could become normative in the future but do not
have this function yet at the time of examination. Therefore, in the analysis of denominative
variation also the provisional nature of the legal force of some legal texts, and consequently of
the terminology used in them, was accounted for.
The second category of terminological variation considered in this study is conceptual
variation, which involves a shift in the conceptual aspects of terminological units. In this case,
variation affects not only the designations used, i.e. the terminological units grouped into a
single term cluster, but also the phenotypes related to a single genotype. However, given the
methodological approach adopted in this study, which considered the EU legal terminology as
the starting point for the terminological analysis and the preliminary conceptual structuring of
the area of law under discussion, the conceptual shifts in the phenotypes play a marginal role
in the phenomenon of terminological variation. The reference legal system was considered as
a relevant variable in this case too and on its basis conceptual variation has been subdivided
into intra- and inter-systemic conceptual variation. In the former, examples were identified
where variation can be ascribed to a conceptual shift due to the development of the legal
notions in the course of time. This means that the area of law has been subject to a change
leading to the shift from a phenotype to another without hindering the link between these two
phenotypes and the more abstract genotype. On the other hand, inter-systemic variation has
been observed when in the supranational and the national legal systems there are two
conceptually different phenotypes which, in spite of these conceptual divergences, can be
linked to the same genotype.

7.1.2 TERMINOLOGICAL DYNAMISM: EQUIVALENCE

The second type of terminological dynamism was observed from an intralingual perspective
with terminological dynamism in the EU multi-level jurisdiction resulting in different degrees
of terminological equivalence, which come to the fore when the terms in different languages

245
Chapter 7

are compared at an abstract level. Given that the terminological analysis in this study was
carried out on a set of terminological units embedded in a multi-layered legal setting, two
different types of terminological equivalence have been identified. The first type consists in
intra-systemic equivalence, which occurs between terms in different languages referring to a
unique legal system (the EU). The second type is inter-systemic equivalence, which occurs
when the terms taken into consideration refer to different legal systems. In the first,
equivalence is expected to be absolute on the grounds of the two principles of multilingualism
and equal authenticity holding among texts. In the second, the degree of equivalence in
terminologies referring to two different legal systems needs to be evaluated on a graded scale,
where the possible degrees identified in this setting are absolute equivalence, relative
equivalence, and non-equivalence. In the inter-systemic cases examined in this thesis,
absolute equivalence can occur when an EU legal concept is transferred into the Member
States’ national jurisdictions without any changes in the phenotype and, therefore, the national
phenotypes are mutually corresponding on a conceptual level. If, on the other hand, a change
affects two phenotypes that can be linked to a common genotype anyway, the degree of
equivalence is only relative, while in the cases where the area of law is regulated differently
and there is no correspondence between two phenotypes on a genotype basis, no equivalence
can be established.
Absolute equivalence represents the ideal case in multilingual terminography and poses no
problems in the recording of multilingual terminological data in a TKB, while instances of
relative equivalence and non-equivalence require particular attention. In MuLex, both cases of
relative and non-equivalence were recorded following two different procedures: in relative
equivalence, the degree of equivalence was assessed on the basis of the shared genotype and
explained in the “Equivalence” field, while in the cases of non-equivalence, different
approaches were adopted according to the textual material available. The first approach
consists in using a textual equivalent of the foreign concept, with the proposed equivalent
corresponding to the term used in the foreign legal system and therefore consisting in a loan
word. When, on the other hand, an equivalent could not been found, a proposal for an
equivalent term was suggested and recorded. Such proposals can be subdivided into two
groups according to the type of referent designated by the terms. The first group includes
terms referring to named entities, for which the proposal consists in a loan word
corresponding to the denomination of the named entity. The second group, on the other hand,
is made by the terms referring to legal concepts which are specific for one of the legal

246
 Conclusions and Future Work

systems involved in the study. For each of these concepts a term was proposed consisting in a
descriptive paraphrase conveying the main characteristics of the foreign concept.

7.1.3 CAPTURING TERMINOLOGICAL DYNAMISM IN MULEX

The main traits of the terminological dynamism observed in Chapters 4 and 5, as well as other
terminological data relevant for victim-related terminology, were all recorded in the MuLex
TKB, which was developed for a specific group of end users, i.e. legal translators. In order to
highlight the differences among the legal systems concerned in the study and the peculiarities
of the usage of legal terminology within those systems, the most recent practices in
terminology and terminography were taken into account. In terminography, the most
remarkable evolution has led to the questioning of the terminological principles established by
the General Theory of Terminology, the development of new terminographic methodologies
and the spreading of electronic terminographic resources. This evolution has been driven by
the advent of Internet, the building of electronic corpora and the development of software for
the analysis of electronic corpora, term extraction tools and terminology management
systems. Nowadays, designers of terminological resources are giving growing importance to
the visual representation of specialised domain knowledge, which is made possible by the
increasing implementation of ontologies in different scientific and commercial communities.
Therefore, visual representation has been considered as a viable way to integrate conceptual
information in the MuLex TKB.
In order to develop a legal translation-oriented TKB, the principles at the core of the TERMit
termbase (Magris 2002) of the University of Trieste have been taken as the starting point for
further elaboration and adaptation. Despite the similarities between TERMit and MuLex,
some substantial changes have been made so as to adapt the TKB to the terminology it is
supposed to contain and the needs of its end users, i.e. legal translators. Such differences
specifically regard the selection of the main term, the way terminographic entries are
displayed (i.e. the graphic user interface), and the way conceptual information is provided to
the end user.
In order to select the main term, new criteria have been added to the frequency criterion. The
decision to consider additional criteria, namely the occurrence of a term in legally binding
rather than non-legally binding texts and the chronological criterion, was determined by the
specialised domain which the terminology examined belongs to. Since terms used in
normative texts are subject to a higher linguistic control, they are expected to be more
reliable. Consequently, such terms are also considered as more suitable to be recorded as main

247
Chapter 7

terms in a terminographic entry, even though they may result less frequent than other terms
found in non-legally binding texts.
As concerns the graphic user interface, the terminographic entries in MuLex are presented as
a set of web pages, with every entry being split in as many web pages as there are terms in it.
This means that a terminographic entry actually consists of two term clusters, one for each
language involved, which are linked on the basis of the genotype they refer to. Each cluster
can contain one or more terms, which are related by means of hyperlinks. Therefore, instead
of visualising a terminographic entry on a single web page, the information relevant to a
genotype is distributed in several interlinked web pages so as to avoid information overload.
Another novelty introduced in MuLex as compared to TERMit consists in the possibility to
provide the end user with a visual representation tool which is integrated in the graphic user
interface. This tool allows for the visualisation of conceptual knowledge by means of
conceptual relational structures. These structures are conceptual maps containing the concept
the selected term refers to and the relations it holds with other concepts included in the TKB.
The main concept is represented as the central node in the structure and the other concepts are
linked to it by means of different relations. The relations included in these structures have
been classified as hierarchical and non-hierarchical relations and reflect the types of relations
identified in the textual material examined. The possible hierarchical relations are
superordinate-subordinate relations and coordinate relations, while the only possible non-
hierarchical relation is the general relation. The latter type of relation is associative and, for
the purposes of the present study, carrying out a further classification of associative relations
was not felt as necessary for visually representing conceptual knowledge.
What is interesting in reference to the conceptual relational structures developed in MuLex is
that three structures can be created for each terminographic entry. The reason for the multiple
representation of conceptual information lies in the embeddedness of legal concepts in three
different jurisdictions. Therefore, when a legal concept can be found in more than one legal
system, a conceptual relational structure for each system is available and displayed on the
web page. The insertion of multiple relational structures in the MuLex graphic user interface
has also implied the creation of a new field, i.e. the “Legal system” field, in which, as its
designation suggests, the reference legal system is recorded. This field, together with the
indication of the geographical area where the relevant term is used (recorded in the “Regional
label” field), allows for the identification of the jurisdiction the concept is rooted in and the
origin of the texts where the relevant term is used. In this way, the access to the

248
 Conclusions and Future Work

multidimensionality implied by the usage of multiple terminologies in a multi-level

jurisdiction is believed to have been made easier.

7.2 FUTURE WORK

In this last section, the envisaged future work and possible future lines of research that have
emerged during this research project are presented.
The first direction that needs to be pursued is the further development of the MuLex graphic
user interface. In spite of the incorporation of a tool for visually representing conceptual
relational structures in the terminological knowledge base, at the time of writing no web-
based input form which could be used for the online population of the TKB is available.
Moreover, the conceptual relational structures also need further development, with the
incorporation of hyperlinks among related concepts, so as to allow for a more dynamic type of
browsing among terminographic entries.
Since the MuLex TKB was specially designed for legal translators, it would be very useful to
have this resource tested by professional translators. Their feedback would prove essential to
understand what further improvements to the TKB might be needed to adapt it even further to
the real needs of translators. Moreover, in view of the practical use of the terminological data
stored in MuLex, the development of an export function so as to allow for the export of data
in the TermBase eXchange (TBX) format would be advisable in order to enhance a greater
compatibility and interchange with other terminology management and computer-assisted
translation (CAT) tools.
With reference to the methodology proposed in Chapter 3, it would be interesting to widen the
research by expanding the study of the conceptualisation of the area of law of victims of
crime. The research project presented in this thesis was in fact based on a preliminary frame-
based conceptualisation of this legal area, but not all the concept fields identified in the
template illustrated in Figure 6.2 were explored, therefore the examination of victim-related
terminology should be expanded by considering both the types of crimes in which victims are
involved and the agent committing them, i.e. the author. Moreover, the TKB should be
enriched with further national terms by using the EU terminology as the starting point in
combination with the genotype-phenotype distinction.
Another aspect which was observed while carrying out the study but not given due
consideration in this thesis is the relationship between genotypes, phenotypes and named

249
Chapter 7

entities. In particular, it was noted that a different degree of vagueness is employed in the
legal systems taken into consideration, with EU terms either tending towards a higher degree
of vagueness than national terms or designating broad concepts that have concrete
counterparts within national legal systems. The emblematic case found in the textual material
analysed is represented by the EU term victim support organisation and the British term
Victim Support, between which there is a close conceptual relation at the genotype level, but
the former designates a general category and the latter a named entity, i.e. an instance of the
general category. It would therefore be very interesting to explore the different degrees of
vagueness in legal terminology and the relationship between genotypes, phenotypes and
named entities in a multi-level jurisdiction in which one legislation has precedence over the
other legislations involved.
The inclusion of more terms and concepts related to the national legal systems would also
yield further results as regards the comparison of the legal systems involved. In Chapter 5,
different degrees of terminological equivalence were identified when comparing the
supranational and the national terminologies on the basis of the genotype-phenotype
distinction. However, the selection of national terminology was limited by constraints
imposed by the methodology selected. By extending the search for terminology to national
texts, more differences in the conceptualisation of the area of law of victims of crime would
emerge which would bring about more cases of relative and especially non-equivalence.
Therefore, by including new textual material it would be possible to further elaborate the
frame-based conceptual structure for each legal system taken into account. The discrepancies
in these structures would reveal cases of non-equivalence, allowing a further reflection on the
possible strategies for formulating terminological equivalents in a translational perspective.

250
Annexes
 Annex 1

Annex 1
List of EU documents included in the EU corpus140

Issuing Official Journal

Title Main topic
institution(s) Date
Council of the Action Plan of the Council and the OJEC C 019, area of freedom,
European Union, Commission on how best to implement 23.1.1999, 1-15. security and justice
European the provisions of the Treaty of
Commission Amsterdam on an area of freedom,
security and justice – Text adopted by
the Justice and Home Affairs Council
of 3 December 1998
European Report on the Commission 25.4.2000 standing of victims
Parliament communication to the Council, the in criminal
European Parliament and the proceedings
Economic and Social Committee on
crime victims in the European Union:
Reflexions on standards and actions
(A5-0126/2000)
Portuguese Initiative of the Portuguese Republic OJEC C 243, standing of victims
Republic with a view to adopting a Council 24.8.2000, 4-8. in criminal
Framework Decision on the standing of proceedings
victims in criminal procedure
European European Parliament legislative 12.12.2000 standing of victims
Parliament resolution on the initiative of the in criminal
Portuguese Republic with a view to proceedings
adopting a Council Framework
Decision on the standing of victims in
criminal procedure (9650/2000 - C5-
0392/2000 - 2000/0813(CNS) )
European European Parliament resolution on the OJEC C 67, standing of victims
Parliament Commission communication to the 1.3.2001, 304- in criminal
Council, the European Parliament and 308. proceedings
the Economic and Social Committee
on crime victims in the European
Union: Reflexions on standards and
action (COM(1999) 349 - C5-
0119/1999 - 1999/2122(COS) )
Kingdom of Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium OJEC C 242, European network
Belgium with a view to the adoption of a 8.10.2002, 20-23. of national contact
Council Decision setting up a points for
European network of national contact restorative justice
points for restorative justice

140
For the sake of practical convenience, the titles of the documents are given in English, although the EU
corpus is made of English and Italian texts (see Section 3.3.2). In case the document is only available in English,
the title is followed by a star (*).

253
Council of the Council Framework Decision of 15 OJEC L 82, standing of victims
European Union March 2001 on the standing of victims 22.3.2001, 1-4. in criminal
in criminal proceedings proceedings
(2001/220/JHA)
European Green Paper – Compensation to crime 28.9.2001 compensation to
Commission victims (COM (2001) 536 final) crime victims
European Proposal for a Council Directive on the 11.2.2002 trafficking in
Commission short-term residence permit issued to human beings
victims of action to facilitate illegal
immigration or trafficking in human
beings who cooperate with the
competent authorities (COM (2002)
0071 final)
European Opinion of the Economic and Social OJEC C 125, compensation to
Economic and Committee on the ‘Green Paper on 27.5.2002, 31-39. crime victims
Social Committee compensation to crime
victims’
Council of the Council Decision of 22 July 2002 OJEC L 203, AGIS
European Union establishing a framework programme 1.8.2002, 5-8.
on police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters (AGIS)
(2002/630/JHA)
Council of the Council Framework Decision of 19 OJEC L 203, trafficking in
European Union July 2002 on combating trafficking in 1.8.2002, 1-4. human beings
human beings (2002/629/JHA)
European European Parliament resolution on the 24.9.2002 compensation to
Parliament Commission Green Paper on crime victims
compensation to crime victims
(COM(2001) 536 C5-0016/2002
2002/2022(COS))
European Proposal for a Council Directive on 16.10.2002 compensation to
Commission compensation to crime victims (COM crime victims
(2002) 562 final)
European Proposal for a Decision of the 4.2.2003 prevent violence
Commission European Parliament and of the against children,
Council establishing a second phase of young people and
a programme of Community action women and to
(2004-2008) to prevent violence protect victims and
against children, young people and groups at-risk
women and to protect victims and
groups at-risk (the DAPHNE II
programme) (COM (2003) 54 final)
European Amended proposal for a Decision of 15.10.2003 prevent violence
Commission the European Parliament and of the against children,
Council establishing a second phase of young people and
a programme of Community action women and to
(2004-2008) to prevent violence protect victims and
against children, young people and groups at-risk
women and to protect victims and
groups at-risk (the DAPHNE II
programme) (presented by the

254
 Annex 1

Commission) (COM (2003) 616 final)

European European Parliament legislative 23.10.2003 compensation to
Parliament resolution on the proposal for a crime victims
Council directive on compensation to
crime victims (COM(2002) 562 – C5-
0517/2002 – 2002/0247(CNS))
European Communication from the Commission 30.12.2003 area of freedom,
Commission to the Council and the European security and justice
Parliament – Biannual Update of the
Scoreboard to Review Progress on the
Creation of an Area of "Freedom,
Security and Justice" in the European
Union (Second half of 2003) (COM
(2003) 812 final)
Council of the Council Framework Decision OJEU L 13, sexual abuse,
European Union 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on 20.1.2004, 44-48. sexual exploitation
combating the sexual exploitation of of children and
children and child pornography child pornography
European European Parliament legislative OJEU 64 E, European network
Parliament resolution on the initiative by the 12.3.2004, 182- of national contact
Kingdom of Belgium with a view to 194. points for
the adoption of a Council Decision restorative justice
setting up a European network of
national contact points for restorative
justice (11621/2002 C5-0467/2002
2002/0821(CNS))
European Court of Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 11.11.2004 standing of victims
Justice delivered on 11 November 2004 (Case in criminal
C-105/03) proceedings
European Court of Reference for a preliminary ruling by OJEU C 146, standing of victims
Justice the Tribunale di 21.6.2003, 16. in criminal
Firenze by order of that Court of 3 proceedings
February 2003 in the
criminal proceedings against Maria
Pupino
European Report from the Commission on the 16.2.2004 standing of victims
Commission basis of Article 18 of the Council in criminal
Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 proceedings
on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings (COM (2004) 54 final)
European Commission Staff Working Paper – 15.3.2004 compensation to
Commission The follow-up to the Tampere crime victims
Conclusions as concerns the protection
of victims of crime: the question of the
legal basis for the Commission’s
proposal for a Council Directive on
compensation to crime victims (COM
SEC 2004 322)(*)
European Green Paper on the approximation, 30.4.2004 approximation,
Commission mutual recognition and enforcement of mutual recognition
criminal sanctions in the European and enforcement of

255
 Union (COM (2004) 334 final) criminal sanctions
European Decision 803/2004/EC of the European OJEU L 143, prevent violence
Parliament, Council Parliament and of the Council of 21 30.4.2004, 1-8. against children,
of the European April 2004 adopting a programme of young people and
Union Community action (2004 to 2008) to women and to
prevent and combat violence protect victims and
against children, young people and groups at-risk
women and to protect victims and
groups at risk (the
Daphne II programme)
Council of the Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 OJEU L 261, compensation to
European Union April 2004 relating to compensation to 6.8.2004, 15-18. crime victims
crime victims
Council of the Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 OJEU L 261, trafficking in
European Union April 2004 on the residence permit 6.8.2004, 19-23. human beings
issued to third-country nationals who
are victims of trafficking in human
beings or who have been the subject of
an action to facilitate illegal
immigration, who cooperate with the
competent authorities
European Manual 80/2004 – Compensation to compensation to
Commission crime victims (UK)(*) crime victims
European Manual 80/2004 – Compensation to compensation to
Commission crime victims (Italy) crime victims
European Communication from the Commission 18.10.2005 trafficking in
Commission to the European Parliament and the human beings
Council – Fighting trafficking in
human beings - an integrated approach
and proposals for an action plan (COM
(2005) 514 final)
European Court of Judgment of the Court of Justice OJEU C 193, standing of victims
Justice (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in 6.8.2005, 3-4. in criminal
Case C-105/03, Reference for a proceedings
preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy), in
criminal proceedings
against Maria Pupino
European Court of Reference for a preliminary ruling OJEU C 74, standing of victims
Justice from the Tribunale di 25.3.2006, 4 in criminal
Milano by order of that court of 6 proceedings
October 2005 in Ministero
Pubblico v Giovanni Dell'Orto
European Report from the Commission to the 2.5.2006 trafficking in
Commission Council and the European Parliament human beings
based on Article 10 of the Council
Framework Decision of 19 July 2002
on combating trafficking in human
beings (COM (2006) 187 final)
European Opinion of the European Economic OJEU C 110,
Economic and and Social Committee on the 9.5.2006, 75-82.

256
 Annex 1

Social Committee prevention of juvenile delinquency.

Ways of dealing with juvenile
delinquency and the role of the
juvenile justice system in the European
Union
European Commission Decision 2006/337/EC of OJEU L 125, compensation to
Commission 19 April 2006 establishing standard 12.5.2006, 25-30. crime victims
forms for the transmission of
applications and decisions pursuant to
Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating
to compensation to crime victims
European Court of Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 8.3.2007 standing of victims
Justice delivered on 8 March 2007 (Case C- in criminal
205/09) proceedings
European Report from the Commission based on 16.11.2007 sexual abuse,
Commission Article 12 of the Council Framework sexual exploitation
Decision of 22 December 2003 on of children and
combating the sexual exploitation of child pornography
children and child pornography (COM
(2007) 716 final)
European Court of Judgment of the Court (Third OJEU C 199, standing of victims
Justice Chamber) of 28 June 2007 25.8.2007, 9. in criminal
(reference for a preliminary ruling proceedings
from the Tribunale di
Milano – Italy) – Criminal proceedings
against Giovanni
Dell'Orto
European Court of Reference for a preliminary ruling OJEU C 283, standing of victims
Justice from the Hoge Raad der 24.11.2007, 13. in criminal
Nederlanden, lodged on 5 September proceedings
2007 – Stichting
Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de
Intercollegiale Toetsing v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën
European Court of Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 10.7.2008 standing of victims
Justice delivered on 10 July 2008 (Case C- in criminal
404/07) proceedings
European Court of Judgment of the Court (Third OJEU C 301, standing of victims
Justice Chamber) of 9 October 2008 22.11.2008, 11. in criminal
(reference for a preliminary ruling proceedings
from the Fővárosi
Bíróság, Republic of Hungary) —
Criminal proceedings
brought by Győrgy Katz against István
Roland Sós
European European Parliament resolution of 16 OJEU C 41 E, children
Parliament January 2008: Towards an EU strategy 19.2.2009, 24-46.
on the rights of the child
(2007/2093(INI))
European Commission Staff Working Document 25.3.2009 sexual abuse,
Commission – Accompanying document to the sexual exploitation

257
 Proposal for a Council Framework of children and
Decision on combating the sexual child pornography
abuse, sexual exploitation of children
and child pornography, repealing
Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA.
Impact Assessment (COM SEC 2009
356)
European Proposal for a Council Framework 25.3.2009 sexual abuse,
Commission Decision on combating the sexual sexual exploitation
abuse, sexual exploitation of children of children and
and child pornography, repealing child pornography
Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA
(COM (2009) 135 final)
European Proposal for a Council Framework 25.3.2009 trafficking in
Commission Decision on preventing and combating human beings
trafficking in human beings, and
protecting victims, repealing
Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA
(COM 2009 136 final)
European Commission Staff Working Document 20.4.2009 compensation to
Commission - Accompanying document to the crime victims
Report from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliamentand
the European Economic and Social
Committee on the application of
Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating
to compensation to crime victims
(COM SEC 2009 0495)(*)
European Report from the Commission pursuant 20.4.2009 standing of victims
Commission to Article 18 of the Council in criminal
Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 proceedings
on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings (2001/220/JHA) (COM
(2009) 166 final)
European Report from the Commission to the 20.4.2009 compensation to
Commission Council, the European Parliament and crime victims
the European Economic and Social
Committee on the application of
Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating
to compensation to crime victims
(COM (2009) 170 final)
European Multi-annual programme 2010-2014 25.11.2009 Stockholm
Parliament regarding the area of freedom, security programme
and justice (Stockholm programme)
European Parliament resolution of 25
November 2009 on the
Communication from the
Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council – An area
of freedom, security
and justice serving the citizen –
Stockholm programme

258
 Annex 1

European European Parliament resolution of 25 OJEU C 285 E, Stockholm

Parliament November 2009 on the 21.10.2010, 12- programme
Communication from the Commission 35.
to the European Parliament and the
Council – An area of freedom, security
and justice serving the citizen –
Stockholm programme
European Court of Reference for a preliminary ruling OJEU C 205, standing of victims
Justice from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság 29.8.2009, 20. in criminal
(Republic of Hungary) lodged on 8 proceedings
June 2009 – Criminal proceedings
against Emil Eredics and Another
Kingdom of Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, OJEU C 69, European
Belgium, Republic the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic 18.3.2010, 5-18. Protection Order
of Bulgaria, of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the
Republic of French Republic, the Italian Republic,
Estonia, Kingdom the Republic of Hungary, the Republic
of Spain, French of Poland, the Portuguese Republic,
Republic, Italian Romania, the Republic of Finland and
Republic, Republic the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to
of Hungary, the adoption of a Directive of the
Republic of Poland, European Parliament and of the
Portuguese Council on the European Protection
Republic, Romania, Order
Republic of
Finland, Kingdom
of Sweden
European Proposal for a Directive of the 29.3.2010 trafficking in
Commission European Parliament and of the human beings
Council on preventing and combating
trafficking in human beings, and
protecting victims, repealing
Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA
(COM (2010) 95 final)
European Communication from the Commission 20.4.2010 Stockholm
Commission to the European Parliament, the programme
Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions – Delivering an area of
freedom, security and justice for
Europe's citizens Action Plan
Implementing the Stockholm
Programme (COM (2010) 171 final)
European Council The Stockholm Programme – An Open OJEU C 115, Stockholm
and Secure Europe Serving and 4.5.2010, 1-38 programme
Protecting Citizens
Committee of Opinion of the Committee of the OJEC C 141, trafficking in
Regions Regions on Combating the sexual 29.5.2010, 50-54. human beings
abuse, sexual exploitation of children
and child pornography and Combating
trafficking in human beings, and
protecting victims

259
European Court of Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 1.7.2010 standing of victims
Justice delivered on 1 July 2010 (Case C- in criminal
205/09 ) proceedings
European Data Opinion of the European Data OJEU C 355, European
Protection Protection Supervisor on the initiative 29.12.2010, 1-9. Protection Order
Supervisor of the Kingdom of Belgium, the
Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of
Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the
French Republic, the Italian Republic,
the Republic of Hungary, the Republic
of Poland, the Portuguese Republic,
Romania, the Republic of Finland and
the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the European Protection
Order, and on the initiative of the
Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of
Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the
Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and
the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the
Council regarding the European
Investigation Order in criminal matters
European Court of Judgment of the Court (Second OJEU C 346, standing of victims
Justice Chamber) of 21 October 2010 18.12.2010, 14. in criminal
(reference for a preliminary ruling proceedings
from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság
(Hungary)) – Criminal proceedings
against Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné
Sápi
European Court of Reference for a preliminary ruling OJEU C 37, standing of victims
Justice from the Audiencia 13.2.2010, 19. in criminal
Provincial de Tarragona (Spain) lodged proceedings
on 30 November
2009 – Criminal proceedings against
Magatte Gueye
European Communication from the Commission 15.2.2011 children
Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions – An EU Agenda for
the Rights of the Child (COM (2011)
60 final)
European Directive 2011/36/EU of the European OJEU L 101, trafficking in
Parliament, Council Parliament and of the Council of 5 15.4.2011, 1-11. human beings
of the European April 2011 on preventing and
Union combating trafficking in human beings
and protecting its victims, and
replacing Council Framework Decision
2002/629/JHA
European Court of Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 12.5.2011 standing of victims
delivered on 12 May 2011 (Case C- in criminal

260
 Annex 1

Justice 483/09 ) proceedings

European Commission Staff Working Paper – 18.5.2011 standing of victims
Commission Executive summary of the Impact in criminal
Assessment proceedings
Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission
to the Eurropean Parliament, to the
Council, tothe European economic and
social Committee and to the
Committee of the Regions -
Strenghthening victim's rights in the
EU (COM SEC 2011 581 final)(*)
European Communication from the Commission 18.5.2011 standing of victims
Commission to the European Prliament, the Council, in criminal
the Economic and Social Committee proceedings
and the Committee of the Regions –
Strengthening victims’ rights in the EU
(COM (2011) 274 final)
European Proposal for a Directive of the 18.5.2011 standing of victims
Commission European Parliament and of the in criminal
Council establishing minimum proceedings
standards on the rights, support and
protection of victims of crime (COM
(2011) 275 final)
Council of the Resolution of the Council of 10 June OJEU C 187, standing of victims
European Union 2011 on a Roadmap for strengthening 28.6.2011, 1-5. in criminal
the rights and protection of victims, in proceedings
particular in criminal proceedings
European Directive 2011/93/EU of the European OJEU L 335, sexual abuse,
Parliament, Council Parliament and of the Council of 13 17.12.2011, 1-14. sexual exploitation
of the European December 2011 of children and
Union on combating the sexual abuse and child pornography
sexual exploitation of children and
child pornography, and replacing
Council Framework Decision
2004/68/JHA
European Directive 2011/99/EU of the European OJEU L 338, European
Parliament, Council Parliament and of the Council of 13 21.12.2011, 2-18. Protection Order
of the European December 2011 on the European
Union protection order
European Court of Judgment of the Court (Fourth OJEU C 319, standing of victims
Justice Chamber) of 15 September 2011 29.10.2011, 5. in criminal
(reference for a preliminary ruling proceedings
from the Audiencia Provincial de
Tarragona – Spain) – Criminal
proceedings against Magatte Gueye
and Valentín Salmerón Sánchez
European Data Opinion of the European Data OJEU C 35, standing of victims
Protection Protection Supervisor on the legislative 9.2.2012, 10-15. in criminal
Supervisor package on the victims of crime, proceedings
including a proposal for a Directive
establishing minimum standards on the

261
 rights, support and protection of the
victims of crime and a proposal for a
Regulation on mutual recognition of
protection measures in civil matters
European Opinion of the European Economic OJEU C 43, standing of victims
Economic and and Social Committee on the 15.2.2012, 39-46. in criminal
Social Committee “Communication from the Commission proceedings
to the European Parliament, the
Council, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the
Regions – Strengthening victims’
rights in the EU”
European Directive 2012/29/EU of the European OJEU L 315, standing of victims
Parliament & Parliament and of the Council of 25 14.11.2012, 57- in criminal
Council of the October 2012 establishing minimum 73. proceedings
European Union standards on the rights, support and
protection of victims of crime, and
replacing Council Framework Decision
2001/220/JHA

262
 Annex 2

Annex 2
List of English and Italian stop words
English stop words
a however some
about i still
across if than
after in that
all into the
almost is their
also it theirs
am its them
among just then
an last there
and least these
another let they
any like this
are likely those
as main thus
at mainly to
be many too
because may us
been me wants
being might was
better mine we
but most well
by must were
can my what
cannot neither when
concerning no where
could nor which
did not while
do now who
does nowadays whom
either of whose
else off why
ever often will
every on with
for only without
from or worse
get other would
getting our yet
got ours you
had own your
has rather yours
have regard
having regards
he said
her say
here says
hers she
him should
his since
how so

263
Italian stop words
deve nostra sulla
a devo nostre sulle
abbia di nostri suo
abbiamo dunque nostro suoi
abbiano e nostro tale
abbiate è nuovi tali
ad ecco nuovo tanto
adesso ed o te
agli essere oltre tra
ai fa ora tua
al fare peggio tue
all’ fine per tuo
alla fino però tuoi
alle fra più tutta
allo gente poco tutte
allora giù qua tutti
altra gli quale tutto
altre ha quali ultimo
altri hai quasi un
altro hanno quello una
anche ho questo uni
ancora i qui uno
avere il quindi va
avete in relativa voi
aveva indietro relative volte
avevamo invece relativi vostra
avevano io relativo vostre
avevate l’ riguardo vostri
avevi la rispetto vostro
avevo lavoro sarà vostro
ben le se
bene lei sei
buono lo sembra
che loro sembrava
chi lui senza
circa lungo si
con ma sia
cosa me siamo
cui meglio siano
d’ mi siate
da mia siete
dà mie solo
dagli miei sono
dai mio sopra
dal molta soprattutto
dall’ molti sotto
dalla molto stati
dalle negli stato
dallo nei stesso
degli nel su
dei nell’ sua
del nella subito
dell’ nelle sue
della nello sugli
delle no sui
dello noi sul
dentro non sull’

264
 Annex 3

Annex 3
Word lists obtained with AntConc141

First 100 results for the English EU subcorpus

Word Frequency Word Frequency

with notes without notes

member 3845 member 3771
victims 3205 victims 3141
states 2998 states 2932
article 2710 article 2572
european 2556 european 2397
criminal 2240 criminal 2118
state 2003 state 1955
decision 1967 decision 1852
victim 1869 victim 1847
commission 1785 commission 1649
framework 1723 framework 1619
crime 1624 shall 1573
council 1612 crime 1565
shall 1584 protection 1471
protection 1515 measures 1461
measures 1487 union 1425
union 1469 council 1387
rights 1423 rights 1363
proceedings 1385 proceedings 1356
such 1352 such 1328
compensation 1346 compensation 1327
law 1320 law 1262
eu 1233 eu 1158
child 1186 child 1108
national 1112 national 1102
legal 1074 legal 1063
information 1064 information 1034
justice 1024 s 984
s 1021 justice 976
children 1009 children 948
directive 964 ensure 934
ensure 935 directive 921
court 899 court 877

141
The highlighted cells in the tables show the candidate terms that have been further analysed according to the steps
descibed in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5.

265
person 844 person 830
order 833 order 816
under 833 under 807
trafficking 803 against 750
against 792 necessary 745
c 790 particular 744
human 770 support 737
between 763 between 734
particular 762 cooperation 721
support 757 action 714
cooperation 752 human 707
necessary 750 trafficking 705
action 749 right 660
case 693 take 639
right 683 authorities 634
including 652 including 633
provisions 651 provisions 633
take 649 offences 618
authorities 644 violence 594
offences 628 within 593
sexual 613 sexual 583
violence 603 judicial 582
within 599 persons 579
judicial 596 appropriate 570
persons 596 authority 565
programme 582 case 552
appropriate 573 programme 550
paragraph 573 referred 544
authority 571 level 541
p 566 b 524
referred 556 treaty 519
level 550 more 518
more 549 out 517
treaty 547 accordance 496
b 539 offence 487
out 533 need 481
offence 508 application 480
accordance 506 possible 478
proposal 500 enforcement 472
enforcement 499 offender 470
application 495 made 468
oj 493 access 467
cases 487 area 459
need 487 minimum 458
possible 481 cases 453
made 480 proposal 452
266
 Annex 3

offender 480 taken 452

area 478 implementation 447
data 473 procedure 446
procedure 471 up 445
access 470 specific 444
convention 468 one 443
implementation 468 paragraph 442
minimum 463 data 438
up 461 provided 438
one 460 calls 437
community 459 community 437
taken 459 c 436
specific 457 countries 426
beings 454 rules 423
provided 448 security 422
security 446 assistance 417
calls 437 convention 417
countries 433 provide 417
rules 433 question 416
parliament 423 beings 412
adopted 421 each 408

First 100 results for the Italian EU subcorpus

Word Frequency Word Frequency

with notes without notes

membri 2754 membri 2713
vittime 2618 vittime 2582
articolo 2006 articolo 1926
decisione 1931 decisione 1832
commissione 1812 unione 1763
unione 1812 vittima 1753
vittima 1770 commissione 1718
quadro 1679 quadro 1592
consiglio 1567 reato 1488
penale 1557 penale 1472
reato 1514 misure 1393
misure 1410 consiglio 1377
diritto 1404 diritto 1368
europea 1363 europea 1296
diritti 1339 diritti 1286
protezione 1284 protezione 1250
europeo 1191 europeo 1111

267
reati 1130 autorità 1110
procedimento 1065 reati 1109
risarcimento 1057 risarcimento 1052
autorità 1049 procedimento 1047
come 1045 come 1028
quanto 909 quanto 903
particolare 895 membro 881
membro 893 particolare 877
direttiva 884 assistenza 868
assistenza 872 direttiva 851
minori 871 minori 836
materia 851 presente 829
presente 840 materia 809
giustizia 839 giustizia 803
contro 824 parte 787
parte 795 contro 783
tratta 762 può 770
cooperazione 748 tratta 745
c 739 cooperazione 727
può 735 persona 711
persona 718 informazioni 689
informazioni 700 disposizioni 673
azione 686 livello 673
disposizioni 684 azione 668
art 683 persone 654
esecuzione 676 ue 652
livello 674 esecuzione 644
ue 669 art 634
persone 667 ambito 626
paragrafo 666 paesi 625
paesi 643 paragrafo 625
ambito 639 caso 591
caso 604 programma 575
programma 594 applicazione 563
applicazione 580 umani 561
umani 572 cittadini 555
cittadini 571 modo 547
pag 566 pena 531
pena 558 norme 528
modo 550 proposta 512
n 536 esseri 509
proposta 536 sicurezza 509
norme 535 trattato 508
trattato 531 violenza 505
sicurezza 530 nazionali 500
punto 521 possono 496
268
 Annex 3

esseri 519 misura 494

violenza 507 possibilità 492
possono 502 domanda 489
nazionali 501 libertà 488
misura 499 dovrebbe 482
dati 497 nazionale 482
domanda 489 b 476
b 486 base 469
relazione 486 dati 469
nazionale 484 n 468
dovrebbe 483 relazione 465
base 478 valutazione 447
possibilità 458 garantire 438
attuazione 454 attuazione 437
libertà 452 penali 433
penali 448 bambini 425
valutazione 448 sanzioni 415
convenzione 447 convenzione 413
gu 447 c 411
garantire 439 giudice 411
sanzioni 437 necessarie 406
bambini 436 conto 392
gai 415 mediazione 390
giudice 414 devono 389
necessarie 411 criminalità 388
lotta 405 dovrebbero 388
parlamento 404 sessuale 388
mediazione 398 riguarda 387
conto 396 sistema 387
sessuale 396 accesso 386
riguarda 394 inoltre 386
settore 394 settore 385
sistema 393 gai 384
causa 391 lotta 381
devono 390 necessario 369
dovrebbero 390 fondamentali 366
inoltre 390 nonché 366

269
 Annex 4

Annex 4
Candidate terms obtained with TermoStat Web 3.0142

First 100 results for the English EU corpus with notes

Candidate
Frequency Specificity Variants Pattern
(grouping variant)
victim 4865 236.66 victim. victims Common_Noun
proceeding 1378 124.96 proceeding. proceedings Common_Noun
measure 1724 121.38 measure. measures Common_Noun
compensation 1281 117.67 compensation Common_Noun
crime 1804 117.59 crime. crimes Common_Noun
protection 1405 114.66 protection. protections Common_Noun
offence 1132 103.09 offence. offences Common_Noun
criminal proceeding. criminal Adjective
criminal proceeding 802 102.97 proceedings Common_Noun
article 1229 101.62 article. articles Common_Noun
trafficking 697 91.93 trafficking Common_Noun
cooperation 723 91.90 cooperation Common_Noun
person 1394 81.64 person. persons Common_Noun
paragraph 599 80.79 paragraph. paragraphs Common_Noun
offender 629 79.93 offender. offenders Common_Noun
justice 737 78.44 justice Common_Noun
accordance 506 75.50 accordance Common_Noun
right 1637 73.33 right. rights Common_Noun
child 2031 73.24 child. children Common_Noun
provision 889 71.11 provision. provisions Common_Noun
enforcement 477 69.36 enforcement Common_Noun
law 1305 68.76 law. laws Common_Noun
mediation 380 68.24 mediation Common_Noun
Adjective
human being 418 67.25 human being. human beings Common_Noun
penalty 614 66.98 penalty. penalties Common_Noun
competent authority. competent Adjective
competent authority 341 66.97 authorities Common_Noun
implementation 466 66.71 implementation. implementations Common_Noun
crime victim. crime victims. crimes Common_Noun
crime victim 338 66.55 victims Common_Noun
regard 462 64.30 regard. regards Common_Noun
authority 1181 64.02 authority. authorities Common_Noun
Adjective
national law 307 63.60 national law. national laws Common_Noun
framework 448 61.63 framework. frameworks Common_Noun
exploitation 343 60.06 exploitation Common_Noun
procedure 659 59.15 procedure. procedures Common_Noun

142
The highlighted cells in the tables show the candidate terms that have been further analysed according to the steps
descibed in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5.

271
directive 335 57.18 directive. directives Common_Noun
Adjective
legal person 240 56.52 legal person. legal persons Common_Noun
violence 589 55.87 violence Common_Noun
application 562 55.07 application. applications Common_Noun
objective 479 54.88 objective. objectives Common_Noun
necessary measure. necessary Adjective
necessary measure 223 54.47 measures Common_Noun
Adjective
sexual exploitation 207 52.32 sexual exploitation Common_Noun
assistance 391 52.25 assistance Common_Noun
Adjective
mutual recognition 208 52.03 mutual recognition Common_Noun
information 998 51.29 information Common_Noun
minimum standard. minimum Adjective
minimum standard 207 51.21 standards Common_Noun
prosecution 275 50.66 prosecution. prosecutions Common_Noun
decision 886 50.31 decision. decisions Common_Noun
proposal 585 50.10 proposal. proposals Common_Noun
residence 329 49.88 residence. residences Common_Noun
Common_Noun
victim of crime. victim of crimes. Preposition
victim of crime 191 49.80 victims of crimes Common_Noun
preliminary ruling. preliminary Adjective
preliminary ruling 187 49.55 rulings Common_Noun
Adjective
judicial cooperation 184 49.45 judicial cooperation Common_Noun
Adjective
criminal matter 185 49.43 criminal matters Common_Noun
judgment 309 49.30 judgment. judgments Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
area of freedom 181 49.04 area of freedom. areas of freedom Common_Noun
Common_Noun
child pornography 182 49.03 child pornography Common_Noun
Adjective
third country 181 48.89 third country. third countries Common_Noun
obligation 313 48.84 obligation. obligations Common_Noun
instrument 344 48.75 instrument. instruments Common_Noun
Adjective
restorative justice 178 48.63 restorative justice Common_Noun
recognition 368 48.33 recognition Common_Noun
principle 564 47.95 principle. principles Common_Noun
pornography 193 47.87 pornography Common_Noun
child victim. child victims. children Common_Noun
child victim 171 47.19 victims Common_Noun
action 825 47.12 action. actions Common_Noun
protection measure. protection Common_Noun
protection measure 167 47.10 measures Common_Noun
state 885 46.62 state. states Common_Noun
Common_Noun
state compensation 162 46.38 state compensation Common_Noun
Adjective
personal datum 160 45.77 personal data Common_Noun
Common_Noun
protection order 145 43.87 protection order. protection orders Common_Noun
access 427 43.78 access. accesses Common_Noun
fundamental right 175 43.28 fundamental right. fundamental rights Adjective

272
 Annex 4

Common_Noun
Common_Noun
victim support 141 43.25 victim support Common_Noun
legislation 402 43.05 legislation. legislations Common_Noun
Adjective
european protection 138 42.79 european protection Common_Noun
Adjective
european protection Common_Noun
order 135 42.31 european protection order Common_Noun
Adjective
criminal offence 154 42.01 criminal offence. criminal offences Common_Noun
national 192 41.95 nationals Common_Noun
sentence 339 41.58 sentence. sentences Common_Noun
jurisdiction 213 40.74 jurisdiction. jurisdictions Common_Noun
initiative 314 40.56 initiative. initiatives Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
protection of victim 124 40.54 protection of victims Common_Noun
victimisation 129 40.47 victimisation Common_Noun
prevention 231 39.30 prevention Common_Noun
Common_Noun
exploitation of child. exploitation of Preposition
exploitation of child 116 39.20 children Common_Noun
adoption 193 38.97 adoption. adoptions Common_Noun
Adjective
criminal law 151 38.71 criminal law. criminal laws Common_Noun
Adjective
national court 112 38.51 national court. national courts Common_Noun
datum 345 38.40 data Common_Noun
framework decision. framework Common_Noun
framework decision 111 38.34 decisions Common_Noun
Adjective
sexual abuse 128 38.34 sexual abuse Common_Noun
freedom 388 38.14 freedom. freedoms Common_Noun
purpose 489 38.10 purpose. purposes Common_Noun
evaluation 219 37.81 evaluation. evaluations Common_Noun
asylum 140 37.49 asylum Common_Noun
court 641 37.28 court. courts Common_Noun
Common_Noun
residence permit 104 37.09 residence permit. residence permits Common_Noun
Adjective
natural person 103 36.91 natural person. natural persons Common_Noun
Common_Noun
victim of trafficking. victims of Preposition
victim of trafficking 102 36.73 trafficking Common_Noun
imprisonment 150 36.65 imprisonment Common_Noun

First 100 results for the English EU corpus without notes

Candidate
Frequency Specificity Variants Pattern
(grouping variant)
victim 4795 242.22 victim___victims Common_Noun
proceeding 1349 127.39 proceeding___proceedings Common_Noun
measure 1697 124.06 measure___measures Common_Noun

273
compensation 1266 120.61 compensation Common_Noun
crime 1766 119.71 crime___crimes Common_Noun
protection 1374 116.71 protection___protections Common_Noun
criminal proceeding___criminal Adjective
criminal proceeding 779 104.66 proceedings Common_Noun
offence 1101 104.56 offence___offences Common_Noun
article 1191 102.74 article___articles Common_Noun
cooperation 696 92.82 cooperation Common_Noun
trafficking 631 89.81 trafficking Common_Noun
person 1370 83.40 person___persons Common_Noun
offender 613 81.22 offender___offenders Common_Noun
justice 712 79.13 justice Common_Noun
accordance 496 77.03 accordance Common_Noun
right 1593 74.29 right___rights Common_Noun
child 1931 72.45 child___children Common_Noun
provision 868 72.22 provision___provisions Common_Noun
paragraph 471 72.11 paragraph___paragraphs Common_Noun
mediation 372 69.60 mediation Common_Noun
enforcement 451 69.14 enforcement Common_Noun
law 1251 68.65 law___laws Common_Noun
competent authority___competent Adjective
competent authority 336 68.56 authorities Common_Noun
implementation 445 66.86 implementation___implementations Common_Noun
penalty 585 66.81 penalty___penalties Common_Noun
crime victim___crime Common_Noun
crime victim 319 66.65 victims___crimes victims Common_Noun
Adjective
human being 384 65.96 human beings Common_Noun
authority 1169 65.94 authority___authorities Common_Noun
regard 457 65.94 regard___regards Common_Noun
Adjective
national law 305 65.38 national law___national laws Common_Noun
framework 431 62.00 framework___frameworks Common_Noun
procedure 645 60.19 procedure___procedures Common_Noun
exploitation 310 58.26 exploitation Common_Noun
Adjective
legal person 239 58.17 legal person___legal persons Common_Noun
violence 582 57.33 violence Common_Noun
objective 475 56.44 objective___objectives Common_Noun
directive 312 56.40 directive___directives Common_Noun
necessary measure___necessary Adjective
necessary measure 222 56.05 measures Common_Noun
application 546 55.70 application___applications Common_Noun
assistance 389 53.85 assistance Common_Noun
Adjective
mutual recognition 205 53.27 mutual recognition Common_Noun
minimum standard___minimum Adjective
minimum standard 206 52.69 standards Common_Noun
information 971 52.00 information Common_Noun
prosecution 272 51.96 prosecution___prosecutions Common_Noun
Adjective
sexual exploitation 190 51.68 sexual exploitation Common_Noun

274
 Annex 4

Common_Noun
victim of crime___victim of Preposition
victim of crime 190 51.23 crimes___victims of crimes Common_Noun
preliminary ruling___preliminary Adjective
preliminary ruling 187 51.11 rulings Common_Noun
decision 863 51.05 decision___decisions Common_Noun
residence 321 50.65 residence___residences Common_Noun
obligation 307 49.78 obligation___obligations Common_Noun
Adjective
judicial cooperation 175 49.74 judicial cooperation Common_Noun
Adjective
restorative justice 175 49.74 restorative justice Common_Noun
Adjective
third country 176 49.72 third country___third countries Common_Noun
instrument 336 49.54 instrument___instruments Common_Noun
Common_Noun
child pornography 173 49.29 child pornography Common_Noun
recognition 359 49.05 recognition Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
area of freedom 170 49.02 area of freedom___areas of freedom Common_Noun
Adjective
criminal matter 170 48.85 criminal matters Common_Noun
child victim___child Common_Noun
child victim 171 48.68 victims___children victims Common_Noun
principle 550 48.66 principle___principles Common_Noun
protection measure___protection Common_Noun
protection measure 167 48.58 measures Common_Noun
action 810 48.22 action___actions Common_Noun
proposal 536 47.99 proposal___proposals Common_Noun
Common_Noun
state compensation 160 47.54 state compensation Common_Noun
pornography 180 47.51 pornography Common_Noun
state 856 46.98 state___states Common_Noun
judgment 272 46.43 judgment___judgments Common_Noun
Common_Noun
protection order 145 45.24 protection order___protection orders Common_Noun
access 424 45.15 access___accesses Common_Noun
Adjective
personal datum 143 44.58 personal data Common_Noun
fundamental right___fundamental Adjective
fundamental right 173 44.37 rights Common_Noun
Common_Noun
victim support 139 44.29 victim support Common_Noun
Adjective
european protection 138 44.13 european protection Common_Noun
Adjective
european protection Common_Noun
order 135 43.64 european protection order Common_Noun
legislation 391 43.58 legislation Common_Noun
Adjective
criminal offence 152 43.03 criminal offence___criminal offences Common_Noun
national 186 42.43 nationals Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
protection of victim 123 41.64 protection of victims Common_Noun
victimisation 128 41.57 victimisation Common_Noun
jurisdiction 204 40.82 jurisdiction___jurisdictions Common_Noun
sentence 313 40.22 sentence___sentences Common_Noun

275
initiative 298 40.20 initiative___initiatives Common_Noun
Adjective
national court 112 39.72 national court___national courts Common_Noun
adoption 189 39.68 adoption___adoptions Common_Noun
Adjective
criminal law 148 39.47 criminal law___criminal laws Common_Noun
framework decision___framework Common_Noun
framework decision 110 39.36 decisions Common_Noun
evaluation 218 38.99 evaluation___evaluations Common_Noun
Adjective
sexual abuse 124 38.86 sexual abuse Common_Noun
prevention 216 38.58 prevention Common_Noun
purpose 475 38.55 purpose___purposes Common_Noun
asylum 139 38.54 asylum Common_Noun
Common_Noun
exploitation of child___exploitation Preposition
exploitation of child 104 38.26 of children Common_Noun
court 629 38.20 court___courts Common_Noun
Adjective
natural person 103 38.08 natural person___natural persons Common_Noun
freedom 369 37.78 freedom___freedoms Common_Noun
Common_Noun
residence permit 100 37.51 residence permit___residence permits Common_Noun
Common_Noun
victim of trafficking___victims of Preposition
victim of trafficking 97 36.94 trafficking Common_Noun
datum 316 36.77 data Common_Noun
possibility 367 36.76 possibility___possibilities Common_Noun
abuse 244 36.75 abuse___abuses Common_Noun

First 100 results for the Italian EU corpus with notes143

Candidate
Frequency Specificity Variants Pattern
(grouping variant)
Adjective
stati membro 2459 358.65 stati membri Common_Noun
vittima 4076 313.4 vittima___vittime Common_Noun
reato 2528 274.56 reato___reati Common_Noun
risarcimento 1068 189.87 risarcimento___risarcimenti Common_Noun
procedimento 1257 185.03 procedimento___procedimenti Common_Noun
Common_Noun
decisione quadro 803 181.03 decisione quadro___decisioni quadro Adjective
procedimento penale___procedimento Common_Noun
procedimento penale 713 179.82 penali___procedimenti penali Adjective
Common_Noun
vittima di reato___vittima di Preposition
vittima di reato 438 140.28 reati___vittime di reati Common_Noun
Adjective
presente direttiva 367 138.39 presente direttiva Common_Noun
Common_Noun
decisione quadro 495 138.04 decisione quadro___decisioni quadro Common_Noun
dell’unione 266 117.75 dell’unione Common_Noun

143
When Italian texts are processed by TermoStat Web 3.0, the output contains a higher degree of noise as compared to
the English results (see also Section 3.3.3.1.2), for instance when articles are not recognised as such, as in the case of
“nell’ambito” or “all’articolo”. Moreover, the software often changes the gender of the adjectives into the singular
masculine form, such as in “stati membro” and “persona giuridico”.

276
 Annex 4

Adjective
stato membro 254 115.06 stato membro Common_Noun
tratta 500 104.69 tratta Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
stato di esecuzione 216 103.6 stato di esecuzione Common_Noun
nell’ambito 193 100.23 nell’ambito Common_Noun
articolo 1903 99.81 articolo___articoli Common_Noun
mediazione 395 99.49 mediazione Common_Noun
Adjective
altro stato 183 97.58 altro stato___altri stati Common_Noun
giudice 481 93.24 giudice___giudici Common_Noun
persona giuridica___persone Common_Noun
persona giuridico 233 90.42 giuridiche Adjective
decisione 2175 88.45 decisione___decisioni Common_Noun
protezione europeo___protezione Common_Noun
protezione europeo 147 86.49 europei Adjective
racc 137 84.35 racc Common_Noun
membro 3578 81.48 membro___membri Common_Noun
protezione 1234 81.28 protezione Common_Noun
Common_Noun
dell’unione europeo 127 81.19 dell’unione europea Adjective
Adjective
presente decisione 123 79.89 presente decisione Common_Noun
all’articolo 119 78.57 all’articolo Common_Noun
Common_Noun
essere umano 505 77.41 esseri umani Adjective
l’art 113 76.55 l’art Common_Noun
lett 113 75.18 lett Common_Noun
riparatoria 111 73.49 riparatoria Common_Noun
reciproco Adjective
riconoscimento 103 73.05 reciproco riconoscimento Common_Noun
Common_Noun
giustizia riparatoria 108 72.75 giustizia riparatoria Common_Noun
Common_Noun
misura di protezione___misure di Preposition
misura di protezione 168 72.33 protezione Common_Noun
pena|pene 254 72.22 pene Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
stato di emissione 100 71.97 stato di emissione Common_Noun
esecuzione 630 71.68 esecuzione Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
piano d' azione 99 71.6 piano d' azione___piani d' azione Common_Noun
condannato 168 70.56 condannato___condannati Common_Noun
Common_Noun
ordine di protezione___ordini di Preposition
ordine di protezione 95 70.13 protezione Common_Noun
pubblico ministero___pubblici Adjective
pubblico ministero 93 69.38 ministeri Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
tratta di essere Common_Noun
umano 201 69.23 tratta di esseri umani Adjective
pena 554 67.94 pena Common_Noun
Adjective
maggiore parte 88 67.47 maggior parte Common_Noun

277
 misura necessaria___misure Common_Noun
misura necessario 265 67.21 necessarie Adjective
Common_Noun
ordine di protezione Preposition
ordine di protezione europeo___ordini di protezione Common_Noun
europeo 86 66.69 europei Adjective
misura 1827 66.48 misura___misure Common_Noun
essere 515 65.67 essere___esseri Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
autorità di assistenza 83 65.5 autorità di assistenza Common_Noun
pronuncia 112 65.43 pronuncia Common_Noun
assistenza 729 65.33 assistenza Common_Noun
artt 85 65.11 artt Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
tratta di essere 178 65.02 tratta di esseri Common_Noun
minore 142 64.78 minore___minori Common_Noun
Common_Noun
norma minimo 215 64.22 norma minima___norme minime Adjective
Adjective
libero circolazione 77 63.06 libera circolazione Common_Noun
Adjective
la commissione 77 63.06 la commissione Common_Noun
persona 1350 63.03 persona___persone Common_Noun
pronuncia Common_Noun
pregiudiziale 78 62.64 pronuncia pregiudiziale Adjective
all’art 76 62.64 all’art Common_Noun
l’articolo 75 62.22 l’articolo Common_Noun
gepd 74 61.8 gepd Common_Noun
sfruttamento Common_Noun
sessuale 212 61.51 sfruttamento sessuale Adjective
Common_Noun
persona protetto 75 61.38 persona protetta Adjective
sig 132 59.79 sig Common_Noun
sanzione 548 59.33 sanzione___sanzioni Common_Noun
risarcimento statale___risarcimento Common_Noun
risarcimento statale 68 58.76 statali Adjective
Common_Noun
assistenza alla vittima___assistenza Preposition
assistenza al vittima 92 58.55 alle vittime Common_Noun
Common_Noun
materia penale 153 57.89 materia penale___materie penali Adjective
Common_Noun
Preposition
autorità di decisione 65 57.86 autorità di decisione Common_Noun
Adjective
cinque anno 65 57.86 cinque anni Common_Noun
Common_Noun
titolo di soggiorno___titoli di Preposition
titolo di soggiorno 100 57.6 soggiorno Common_Noun
Common_Noun
sistema di sistema di risarcimento___sistemi di Preposition
risarcimento 68 57.47 risarcimento Common_Noun
ce 305 57.29 ce Common_Noun
indennizzo 213 57.23 indennizzo___indennizzi Common_Noun
Common_Noun
domanda di domanda di risarcimento___domande Preposition
risarcimento 63 56.95 di risarcimento Common_Noun

278
 Annex 4

in 200 56.64 in Common_Noun

autorità competente___autorità Common_Noun
autorità competente 234 56.64 competenti Adjective
per 170 56.42 per Common_Noun
sentenza 366 56.22 sentenza___sentenze Common_Noun
deposizione 79 56.2 deposizione___deposizioni Common_Noun
giustizia 798 55.93 giustizia Common_Noun
Common_Noun
giudice nazionale 91 55.82 giudice nazionale___giudici nazionali Adjective
l’autorità 60 55.56 l’autorità Common_Noun
diritto 2591 55.39 diritto___diritti Common_Noun
art 140 55.23 art Common_Noun
il 477 55.09 il Common_Noun
slsg 60 55.08 slsg Common_Noun
Common_Noun
domanda di domanda di pronuncia___domande di Preposition
pronuncia 57 54.13 pronuncia Common_Noun
l’unione 56 53.64 l’unione Common_Noun
Common_Noun
persona fisico 116 53.2 persona fisica___persone fisiche Adjective
dell’art 55 53.15 dell’art Common_Noun
paragrafo 711 52.78 paragrafo___paragrafi Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
stato di condanna 54 52.66 stato di condanna___stati di condanna Common_Noun
particolare Adjective
attenzione 53 52.16 particolare attenzione Common_Noun
procedimento di Common_Noun
procedimento di mediazione___procedimenti di Preposition
mediazione 53 52.16 mediazione Common_Noun
questione questione pregiudiziale___questioni Common_Noun
pregiudiziale 74 51.99 pregiudiziali Adjective
domanda di Common_Noun
domanda di pronuncia Preposition
pronuncia pregiudiziale___domande di Common_Noun
pregiudiziale 53 51.65 pronuncia pregiudiziale Adjective

First 100 results for the Italian EU corpus without notes

Candidate
Frequency Specificity Variants Pattern
(grouping variant)
stati membro 2423 365.45 stati membri Adjective Common_Noun
vittima 4023 318.76 vittima___vittime Common_Noun
reato 2481 278.23 reato___reati Common_Noun
risarcimento 1063 194.38 risarcimento___risarcimenti Common_Noun
procedimento 1229 186.91 procedimento___procedimenti Common_Noun
decisione quadro 774 181.73 decisione quadro___decisioni quadro Common_Noun Adjective
procedimento
penale___procedimento
procedimento penale 691 181.36 penali___procedimenti penali Common_Noun Adjective
Common_Noun
vittima di reato___vittima di Preposition
vittima di reato 426 141.75 reati___vittime di reati Common_Noun

279
presente direttiva 363 141.28 presente direttiva Adjective Common_Noun
Common_Noun
decisione quadro 446 132.6 decisione quadro___decisioni quadro Common_Noun
dell’unione 254 118.11 dell’unione Common_Noun
stato membro 250 117.17 stato membro Adjective Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
stato di esecuzione 215 106.09 stato di esecuzione Common_Noun
tratta 487 105.34 tratta Common_Noun
nell’ambito 188 101.54 nell’ambito Common_Noun
mediazione 387 100.62 mediazione Common_Noun
altro stato 178 98.78 altro stato___altri stati Adjective Common_Noun
articolo 1810 97.77 articolo___articoli Common_Noun
giudice 477 95.19 giudice___giudici Common_Noun
persona giuridica___persone
persona giuridico 232 92.59 giuridiche Common_Noun Adjective
protezione europeo___protezione
protezione europeo 143 87.53 europei Common_Noun Adjective
decisione 2065 86.41 decisione___decisioni Common_Noun
membro 3523 83.45 membro___membri Common_Noun
protezione 1200 81.55 protezione Common_Noun
presente decisione 121 81.34 presente decisione Adjective Common_Noun
dell’unione europeo 119 80.66 dell’unione europea Common_Noun Adjective
all’articolo 116 79.62 all’articolo Common_Noun
l’art 112 78.23 l’art Common_Noun
essere umano 495 78.22 esseri umani Common_Noun Adjective
lett 111 76.46 lett Common_Noun
reciproco
riconoscimento 102 74.62 reciproco riconoscimento Adjective Common_Noun
riparatoria 108 74.34 riparatoria Common_Noun
Common_Noun
misura di protezione___misure di Preposition
misura di protezione 168 74.29 protezione Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
stato di emissione 100 73.88 stato di emissione Common_Noun
Common_Noun
giustizia riparatoria 105 73.57 giustizia riparatoria Common_Noun
pena|pene 245 72.07 pene Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
piano d' azione 95 71.99 piano d' azione___piani d' azione Common_Noun
pubblico ministero___pubblici
pubblico ministero 93 71.22 ministeri Adjective Common_Noun
Common_Noun
ordine di protezione___ordini di Preposition
ordine di protezione 93 71.22 protezione Common_Noun
esecuzione 600 70.4 esecuzione Common_Noun
condannato 161 70.28 condannato___condannati Common_Noun
Common_Noun
tratta di essere Preposition
umano 193 68.9 tratta di esseri umani Common_Noun Adjective
misura necessaria___misure
misura necessario 264 68.89 necessarie Common_Noun Adjective
maggiore parte 86 68.45 maggior parte Adjective Common_Noun

280
 Annex 4

misura 1805 68.2 misura___misure Common_Noun

ordine di protezione Common_Noun
ordine di protezione europeo___ordini di protezione Preposition
europeo 84 67.64 europei Common_Noun Adjective
Common_Noun
Preposition
autorità di assistenza 83 67.23 autorità di assistenza Common_Noun
assistenza 725 67.1 assistenza Common_Noun
pena 527 66.66 pena Common_Noun
pronuncia 110 66.42 pronuncia Common_Noun
essere 505 66.4 essere___esseri Common_Noun
minore 141 66.2 minore___minori Common_Noun
norma minimo 213 65.51 norma minima___norme minime Common_Noun Adjective
artt 80 64.75 artt Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
tratta di essere 171 64.73 tratta di esseri Common_Noun
persona 1330 64.35 persona___persone Common_Noun
pronuncia
pregiudiziale 78 64.3 pronuncia pregiudiziale Common_Noun Adjective
all’art 76 64.3 all’art Common_Noun
la commissione 76 64.3 la commissione Adjective Common_Noun
libero circolazione 76 64.3 libera circolazione Adjective Common_Noun
persona protetto 75 63 persona protetta Common_Noun Adjective
sfruttamento
sessuale 206 61.72 sfruttamento sessuale Common_Noun Adjective
l’articolo 70 61.67 l’articolo Common_Noun
sig 132 61.42 sig Common_Noun
risarcimento statale___risarcimento
risarcimento statale 68 60.32 statali Common_Noun Adjective
Common_Noun
assistenza alla vittima___assistenza Preposition
assistenza al vittima 92 60.12 alle vittime Common_Noun
Common_Noun
Preposition
autorità di decisione 65 59.4 autorità di decisione Common_Noun
Common_Noun
sistema di sistema di risarcimento___sistemi di Preposition
risarcimento 68 59 risarcimento Common_Noun
Common_Noun
domanda di domanda di risarcimento___domande Preposition
risarcimento 63 58.46 di risarcimento Common_Noun
cinque anno 63 58.46 cinque anni Adjective Common_Noun
Common_Noun
titolo di soggiorno___titoli di Preposition
titolo di soggiorno 98 58.34 soggiorno Common_Noun
sanzione 522 58.24 sanzione___sanzioni Common_Noun
indennizzo 210 58.13 indennizzo___indennizzi Common_Noun
autorità competente___autorità
autorità competente 230 57.38 competenti Common_Noun Adjective
giudice nazionale___giudici
giudice nazionale 91 57.33 nazionali Common_Noun Adjective
l’autorità 60 57.03 l’autorità Common_Noun
deposizione 77 56.79 deposizione___deposizioni Common_Noun
slsg 60 56.54 slsg Common_Noun
materia penale 143 56.33 materia penale___materie penali Common_Noun Adjective

281
gepd 57 55.56 gepd Common_Noun
Common_Noun
domanda di domanda di pronuncia___domande di Preposition
pronuncia 57 55.56 pronuncia Common_Noun
diritto 2502 55.42 diritto___diritti Common_Noun
giustizia 763 55.09 giustizia Common_Noun
il 462 55.02 il Common_Noun
per 159 54.81 per Common_Noun
persona fisico 116 54.67 persona fisica___persone fisiche Common_Noun Adjective
dell’art 55 54.56 dell’art Common_Noun
l’unione 54 54.05 l’unione Common_Noun
Common_Noun
stato di condanna___stati di Preposition
stato di condanna 54 54.05 condanna Common_Noun
in 183 53.88 in Common_Noun
particolare
attenzione 53 53.54 particolare attenzione Adjective Common_Noun
procedimento di Common_Noun
procedimento di mediazione___procedimenti di Preposition
mediazione 53 53.54 mediazione Common_Noun
questione questione pregiudiziale___questioni
pregiudiziale 74 53.39 pregiudiziali Common_Noun Adjective
domanda di
domanda di pronuncia Common_Noun
pronuncia pregiudiziale___domande di Preposition
pregiudiziale 53 53.02 pronuncia pregiudiziale Common_Noun Adjective
senso dell’art 50 51.97 sensi dell’art Common_Noun Adjective
sull’unione 50 51.97 sull’unione Common_Noun
pena detentivo 78 51.79 pena detentiva Common_Noun Adjective
comma 140 51.73 comma___commi Common_Noun
nell’ambito 49 51.44 nell’ambito Common_Noun

282
 Annex 5

Annex 5
English and Italian terms recorded in MuLex

English terms

Genotype Term
applicant
APPLICANT
applicant for compensation
applicant for compensation
APPLICANT FOR COMPENSATION applicant
applicant for state compensation
application for compensation
application
APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION
claim for compensation
claim for cross-border compensation
application for compensation
APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION
claim for compensation
assisting authority
ASSISTING AUTHORITY
Assisting Authority
bystander
BYSTANDER
innocent bystander
central contact point
CENTRAL CONTACT POINT Central Contact Point
national contact point
child victim
CHILD VICTIM
child victim of crime
CHILD-FRIENDLY JUSTICE child-friendly justice
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
CICS
CICS
civil party
CIVIL PARTY
partie civile
compensation for immaterial damages
compensation awarded for immaterial
damages
COMPENSATION FOR IMMATERIAL compensation for non-material damage
DAMAGES
compensation for non-pecuniary losses
compensation for pain and suffering
non-pecuniary compensation
compensation from the offender
COMPENSATION FROM THE OFFENDER
compensation by the offender
compensation of material losses
COMPENSATION OF MATERIAL LOSSES compensation for material losses
compensation for pecuniary loss

283
 pecuniary damages
CRIMINAL DAMAGE criminal damage
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
AUTHORITY CICA
CRIMINAL INJURY criminal injury
CROSS-BORDER VICTIM cross-border victim
deciding authority
DECIDING AUTHORITY
Deciding Authority
direct victim
DIRECT VICTIM
primary victim
European network of national contact
points for restorative justice
European network for mediation and
EUROPEAN NETWORK OF NATIONAL restorative justice
CONTACT POINTS FOR RESTORATIVE European Network of national contact
JUSTICE points for Restorative Justice
European network of national contact
points for mediation in criminal cases and
restorative justice
EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER European protection order
EXECUTING STATE executing State
general damages
immaterial damage
IMMATERIAL DAMAGE
moral damage
non-pecuniary loss
indirect victim
INDIRECT VICTIM
secondary victim
injured person
injured party
aggrieved person
INJURED PERSON
aggrieved party
person aggrieved
person injured
ISSUING STATE issuing State
legal aid
LEGAL AID
free legal aid
loss of earnings
LOSS OF EARNINGS loss of income
lucrum cessans
material loss
economic loss
MATERIAL LOSS
financial loss
pecuniary loss
mediation in criminal cases
mediation in criminal proceedings
MEDIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES
mediation between the offender and his
victim
284
 Annex 5

mediation between victims and offenders

mediation in penal matters
penal mediation
penal mediation in the course of criminal
proceedings
victim-offender mediation
Victim-Offender Mediation
VOM
mediator
MEDIATOR
facilitator
PERSON CAUSING DANGER person causing danger
PROTECTED PERSON protected person
PROTECTION MEASURE protection measure
protection of victims of crime
PROTECTION OF VICTIMS
protection of victims
QUALIFYING CLAIMANT qualifying claimant
reparation
REPARATION
victim reparation
restorative justice
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
RJ
rights of victims
rights of crime victims
RIGHTS OF VICTIMS rights of victims of crime
victims rights
victims' rights
SAMARITAN samaritan
SECONDARY VICTIMISATION secondary victimisation
state compensation
State compensation
State compensation for crime victims
state compensation for victims
STATE COMPENSATION state compensation to victims
state compensation for victims of crime
compensation from the government to
victims of a crime of violence
compensation from public funds
STATE COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS
State compensation for victims of
OF EXTORSION, TERRORISM OR
extorsion, terrorism or subversion of the
SUBVERSION OF THE DEMOCRATIC
democratic order
ORDER
state compensation scheme
compensation scheme
compensation to victims system
STATE COMPENSATION SCHEME Member State scheme to compensate crime
victims
State compensation scheme for victims of
crime

285
 state compensation scheme for criminal
injuries
state scheme to compensate victims
national compensation scheme for criminal
injuries
national compensation scheme
national scheme on compensation for
crime victims
national scheme on compensation to
victims of violent intentional crimes
victim compensation scheme
STATE OF SUPERVISION State of supervision
crime victim
victim
VICTIM victim of a crime
victim of criminal conduct
victim of the offence
Victim Support
VICTIM SUPPORT Victim Support England & Wales
Victim Support England and Wales
Victim Support Europe
VICTIM SUPPORT EUROPE European Forum for Victims' Services
European Forum for Victim Services
Victim Support Northern Ireland
VICTIM SUPPORT NORTHERN IRELAND VSNI
Victim Support NI
victim support organisation
VICTIM SUPPORT ORGANISATION
victim support group
Victim Support Scotland
VICTIM SUPPORT SCOTLAND
VSS
victim with specific protection needs
victim with specific needs
VICTIM WITH SPECIAL PROTECTION
particularly vulnerable victim
NEEDS
particularly vulnerable person
vulnerable victim
WITNESS witness

286
 Annex 5

Italian terms

Genotype Term
AUTORITÀ DI ASSISTENZA autorità di assistenza
AUTORITÀ DI DECISIONE autorità di decisione
CICS CICS
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
AUTHORITY CICA
danneggiato
danneggiato dal reato
DANNEGGIATO
persona danneggiata dal reato
parte danneggiata
danno da reato
danno derivante da reato
DANNO DERIVANTE DA REATO
danno ex delicto
danno procurato da reato
danno materiale
danno economico
DANNO MATERIALE
danno patrimoniale
danno pecuniario
danno non materiale
danno morale
DANNO NON MATERIALE
danno non patrimoniale
danno non pecuniario
diritti delle vittime
diritti delle vittime della criminalità
DIRITTI DELLE VITTIME diritti delle vittime di reati
diritti delle vittime di reato
diritti della vittima
domanda di risarcimento
richiesta di risarcimento
DOMANDA DI RISARCIMENTO domanda di indennizzo transfrontaliero
domanda di indennizzo
domanda di risarcimento statale
elargizione
ELARGIZIONE
elargizione a carico dello Stato
giustizia a misura di minore
giustizia adatta ai bambini
GIUSTIZIA A MISURA DI MINORE giustizia adatta ai minori
giustizia adattata ai bambini
giustizia adattata ai minori
giustizia riparativa
giustizia restaurativa
GIUSTIZIA RIPARATIVA
giustizia restitutiva
giustizia riparatrice

287
 giustizia riparatoria
giustizia risarcitoria
mancato guadagno
MANCATO GUADAGNO lucro cessante
lucrum cessans
MEDIATORE mediatore
mediazione penale
mediazione
mediazione autore-vittima
mediazione fra autore e vittima di reato
mediazione nell'ambito dei procedimenti
penali
mediazione nelle cause penali
mediazione tra autore e vittima del reato
MEDIAZIONE PENALE mediazione tra l'autore del reato e la
vittima
mediazione tra la vittima e l'autore del
reato nell'ambito dei procedimenti penali
mediazione tra vittima e autore del reato
mediazione tra vittima e autore del reato
nel procedimento penale
mediazione vittima-reo
VOM
minore vittima di reato
giovane vittima
minore vittima del reato
MINORE VITTIMA DI REATO
persona offesa minorenne
persona offesa minore
vittima minorenne
MISURA DI PROTEZIONE misura di protezione
ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE EUROPEO ordine di protezione europeo
ORGANIZZAZIONE DI ASSISTENZA ALLE organizzazione di assistenza alle vittime
VITTIME organizzazione di sostegno alle vittime
PARTE CIVILE parte civile
PASSANTE passante
gratuito patrocinio
assistenza legale gratuita
patrocinio a spese dello Stato
PATROCINIO A SPESE DELLO STATO
patrocinio a spese dello Stato per i non
abbienti
patrocinio gratuito
PERSONA CHE DETERMINA IL
persona che determina il pericolo
PERICOLO
persona informata sui fatti
persona che può riferire circostanze utili ai
PERSONA INFORMATA SUI FATTI
fini delle indagini
persona in grado di riferire circostanze utili

288
 Annex 5

ai fini dell'attività investigativa

possibile testimone
PERSONA PROTETTA persona protetta
protezione delle vittime
protezione delle vittime di reati
protezione delle vittime di reato
tutela del soggetto passivo del reato
PROTEZIONE DELLE VITTIME tutela delle vittime
tutela delle vittime della criminalità
tutela della vittimalità
tutela delle vittime di reati
tutela delle vittime di reato
punto di contatto centrale
PUNTO DI CONTATTO CENTRALE punto di contatto
punto centrale di contatto
rete europea di punti di contatto nazionali
per la giustizia riparatoria
rete europea per la mediazione e per la
giustizia riparatoria
RETE EUROPEA DI PUNTI NAZIONALI
rete europea di punti di contatto nazionali
PER LA GIUSTIZIA RIPARATORIA
per la mediazione nei procedimenti penali
e per la giustizia riparatoria
rete europea di punti di contatto nazionali
per la giustizia risarcitoria
richiedente
richiedente il risarcimento
RICHIEDENTE
richiedente l'indennizzo
soggetto richiedente un risarcimento statale
RICHIEDENTE richiedente
RICHIESTA DI INDENNIZZO richiesta di indennizzo
riparazione
RIPARAZIONE restituzione
riparazione del danno
risarcimento da parte dell'autore del reato
RISARCIMENTO DA PARTE risarcimento alle vittime da parte
DELL'AUTORE DEL REATO dell'autore del reato
risarcimento del danno da parte del reo
risarcimento da parte dello Stato
indennità
indennizzo
indennizzo della vittima
RISARCIMENTO DA PARTE DELLO indennizzo delle vittime
STATO indennizzo delle vittime da parte dello
Stato
indennizzo delle vittime di reato
indennizzo statale
risarcimento alle vittime da parte dello

289
 Stato
risarcimento da parte dello Stato alle
vittime di reati
risarcimento da parte dello Stato alle
vittime di reato
risarcimento dei danni alle vittime di reati
da parte dello Stato
risarcimento delle vittime di reati da parte
dello Stato
risarcimento erogato dallo Stato
risarcimento pubblico
risarcimento statale
risarcimento statale alle vittime di reato
risarcimento dei danni materiali
risarcimento dei danni patrimoniali
RISARCIMENTO DEI DANNI MATERIALI risarcimento del danno patrimoniale
risarcimento delle perdite materiali
risarcimento materiale
risarcimento dei danni non materiali
risarcimento dei danni morali
RISARCIMENTO DEI DANNI NON risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale
MATERIALI risarcimento morale
risarcimento per danni non pecuniari
risarcimento per i danni non materiali
SAMARITANO samaritano
sistema di risarcimento statale
regime di risarcimento delle vittime di reati
regime d'indennizzo delle vittime
regime nazionale di risarcimento delle
vittime della criminalità
sistema di indennizzo
sistema di indennizzo delle vittime di reati
intenzionali violenti
sistema di indennizzo nazionale
sistema di risarcimento
sistema di risarcimento a spese dello Stato
SISTEMA DI RISARCIMENTO STATALE
sistema di risarcimento da parte dello Stato
sistema di risarcimento delle vittime
sistema di risarcimento statale per le
vittime di reati
sistema nazionale di indennizzo
sistema nazionale di risarcimento
sistema nazionale di risarcimento da parte
dello Stato
sistema nazionale di risarcimento delle
vittime di reati
sistema nazionale di risarcimento delle

290
 Annex 5

vittime di reato
sistema nazionale in materia di indennizzo
delle vittime di reati intenzionali violenti
SOGGETTO AVENTE I REQUISITI
soggetto avente i requisiti necessari per
NECESSARI PER RICHIEDEREIL
richiedere il risarcimento statale
RISARCIMENTO STATALE
STATO DI EMISSIONE Stato di emissione
STATO DI ESECUZIONE Stato di esecuzione
STATO DI SORVEGLIANZA Stato di sorveglianza
testimone
TESTIMONE testimonio
teste
VICTIM SUPPORT Victim Support
Victim Support Europe
VICTIM SUPPORT EUROPE Forum europeo per i servizi alle vittime
Forum Europeo per i Servizi alle Vittime
VICTIM SUPPORT NORTHERN IRELAND Victim Support Northern Ireland
VICTIM SUPPORT SCOTLAND Victim Support Scotland
offeso
persona offesa
persona offesa dal reato
VITTIMA soggetto leso
soggetto passivo del reato
vittima
vittima di reato
vittima con esigenze specifiche di
protezione
persona offesa vulnerabile
persona particolarmente vulnerabile
VITTIMA CON ESIGENZE SPECIFICHE DI vittima a tutela rafforzata
PROTEZIONE vittima con esigenze particolari
vittima con esigenze specifiche
vittima di reato particolarmente vulnerabile
vittima particolarmente vulnerabile
vittima vulnerabile
vittima diretta
VITTIMA DIRETTA
vittima primaria
vittima indiretta
VITTIMA INDIRETTA
vittima secondaria
VITTIMA TRANSFRONTALIERA vittima transfrontaliera
vittimizzazione secondaria
pregiudizio secondario
VITTIMIZZAZIONE SECONDARIA
seconda vittimizzazione
ulteriore vittimizzazione

291
References
 References

References

Achilles M. & Zehr H. (2001) Restorative Justice for Crime Victims: The Promise, The
Challenge, in Restorative Community Justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming
Communities, G. Bazemore & M. Schiff (eds), Cincinnati (OH), Anderson Publishing,
pp. 87–99.
Ahmad K. & Rogers M. (1992) Terminology Management: A Corpus-based Approach,
Proceedings of Translating and the Computer 14 (London, 10-11 November 1992),
London, Aslib, pp. 33–44.
Aizawa A. & Kageura K. (2001) A Graph-based Approach to the Automatic Generation of
Multilingual Keyword Clusters, in Recent Advances in Computational Terminology, D.
Bourigault, C. Jacquemin & M.-C. L’Homme (eds), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, pp. 1–27.
Ajani G., Boella G., Lesmo L., Mazzei A., Radicioni D. P. & Rossi P. (2009) Multilevel
Legal Ontologies, in Semantic Processing of Legal Texts: Where the Language of Law
Meets the Law of Languag, E. Francesconi, S. Montemagni, W. Peters & D. Tiscornia
(eds), Berlin, Springer, pp. 13–28.
Ajani G., Boella G., Lesmo L., Mazzei A. & Rossi P. (2007) Multilingual Ontological
Analysis of European Directives, Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2007) (Prague, 23-30 June 2007), pp.
21–24.
Ajani G. & Ebers M. (2005) Uniform Terminology for European Contract Law: Introduction,
in Uniform Terminology for European Private Law, G. Ajani & M. Ebers (eds), Baden
Baden, Nomos, pp. 11–20.
Ajani G., Lesmo L., Boella G., Mazzei A. & Rossi P. (2007) Terminological and Ontological
Analysis of European Directives: Multilinguism in Law, Proceedings of ICAIL ‘07 (Palo
Alto, 4-8 June 2007), pp. 43–48.
Akhmanova O. (1974) When is a Word a “Term” and How do We Distinguish Between
Terms and Words of “Everyday” Language?, in Terminology: Theory and Method, O.
Akhmanova & G. Agapova (eds), Moscow: Moscow State University, pp. 22–30.
Alcaraz Varó E. & Hughes B. (2002) Legal Translation Explained, Manchester, St. Jerome.
Allegrezza S. (2012) La riscoperta della vittima nella giustizia penale europea, in Lo scudo e
la spada. Esigenze di protezione e poteri delle vittime nel processo penale tra Europa e
Italia, S. Allegrezza, H. Belluta, M. Gialuz & L. Lupária (eds), Torino: Giappichelli
Editore, pp. 1–31.
Allegrezza S., Belluta H., Gialuz M. & Lupária L. (2012) Introduzione, in Lo scudo e la
spada. Esigenze di protezione e poteri delle vittime nel processo penale tra Europa e
Italia, S. Allegrezza, H. Belluta, M. Gialuz & L. Lupária (eds), Torino: Giappichelli
Editore, pp. IX–XI.

295
Altenberg B. & Granger S. (2002) Recent Trends in Cross-linguistic Lexical Studies, in Lexis
in Contrast. Corpus-based Approaches, B. Altenberg & S. Granger (eds),
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 3–48.
Ananiadou S. (1994) A Methodology for Automatic Term Recognition, Proceedings of the
15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ‘94) (Kyoto, 5-9
August 1994), pp. 1034–1038.
Anthony L. (2005) AntConc: A Learner and Classroom Friendly, Multi-Platform Corpus
Analysis Toolkit, Proceedings of IWLeL 2004: An Iteractive Workshop on Language e-
Learning (Tokyo 10 December 2004), L. Anthony, S. Fujita, Y. Harada & W. Daigaku
(eds), Tokyo: Waseda University, pp. 7–13.
Antia B. E. (2000) Terminology and Language Planning: An Alternative Framework of
Practice and Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Arntz R. (1993) Terminological Equivalence and Translation, in Terminology. Applications in
Interdisciplinary Communication, H. B. Sonneveld & K. L. Loening (eds),
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 5–19.
Arntz R. (1995) Confrontare, valutare, trasporre: metodi e problemi della traduzione
giuridica, in La traduzione. Nuovi approcci tra teoria e pratica, R. Arntz (ed.),
Bolzano/Napoli: Accademia Europea Bolzano/CUEN, pp. 137–162.
Arntz R. & Picht H. (1989) Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit, 2nd ed.,
Hildesheim/Zürich/New York, Georg Olms Verlag.
Ashworth A. & Redmayne M. (2005) The Criminal Process (3rd ed.), Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Athanassious P. (2006) The Application of Multilingualism in the European Union Context,
Frankfurt am Main, European Central Bank.
Atkins S., Clear J. & Ostler N. (1992) Corpus Design Criteria, Literary and Linguistic
Computing, 7(1), pp. 1–16.
Baldry A. C. (1998) Assistenza alle vittime di reato. Obiettivi, proposte e realtà, Rassegna
penitenziaria e criminologica, 1/3, pp. 161–176.
Barents R. (2004) The Autonomy of Community Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law International.
Bassnett S. (1991) Translation Studies, revised ed., London/New York, Routledge.
Bautista Zambrana M. R. (2011) Using Ontologies for the Teaching of Terminology: The
Case of a Package Travel Ontology, Proceedings of TISLID’10: Technological
Innovation in the Teaching and Processing of LSPs (Madrid, 21-22 October 2010), N.
Talaván Zanón, E. Martín Monje & F. Palazón Romero (eds), Madrid: Editorial UNED,
pp. 311–323.
Béjoint H. (1997) Régards sur la définition en terminologie, Cahiers de Lexicologie, 70(1),
pp. 19–26.
Bernier-Colborne G. (2012) Defining a Gold Standard for the Evaluation of Term Extractors,
Proceedings of the ColabTKR Workshop, LREC 2012 (Istanbul, 21-27 May 2012).
Bhatia V. (1987) Language of the Law, Language Teaching, 20(4), pp. 227–234.

296
 References

Bhatia V., Engberg J., Gotti M. & Heller D. (2005) (eds) Vagueness in Normative Texts,
Bern, Peter Lang.
Biber D. (1993) Representativeness in Corpus Design, Literary and Linguistic Computing,
8(4), pp. 243–257.
Bolaños Cuéllar S. (2002) Equivalence Revisited: A Key Concept in Modern Translation
Theory, Forma y Función, 15(1), pp. 60–88.
Borst W. N. (1997) Construction of Engineering Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing and
Reuse, PhD Thesis, University of Twente.
Bourigault D. & Slodzian M. (1999) Pour une terminologie textuelle, Terminologies
Nouvelles, 19, pp. 29–32.
Bouveret M. (1998) Approche de la dénomination en langue spécialisée, Meta: journal des
traducteurs, 43(3), pp. 393–410.
Bowker L. (1997) Multidimensional Classification of Concepts and Terms, in Handbook of
Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management, S. E. Wright &
G. Budin (eds), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 133–143.
Bowker L. (1998) Variant Terminology: Frivolity or Necessity?, Proceedings of the 8th
European Association for Lexicography Conference (EURALEX ‘98) (Liège, 4-8 August
1998), pp. 487–496.
Bowker L. & Hawkins S. (2006) Variation in the Organization of Medical Terms: Exploring
Some Motivations for Term Choice, Terminology, 12(1), pp. 79–110.
Bowker L. & Meyer I. (1993) Beyond “Textbook” Concept Systems: Handling
Multidimensionality in a New Generation of Term Banks, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Congress on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering (TKE ‘99)
(Cologne, 25-27 August 1993), K.-D. Schmitz (ed.), Frankfurt, Indeks Verlag, pp. 123–
137.
Buchin N. & Seymour E. (2003) Equivalences or Divergences in Legal Translation? In
Crossing Barriers and Bridging Cultures. The Challenges of Multilingual Translation
for the European Union, A. Tosi (ed.), Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto/Sydney, Multilingual
Matters, pp. 111–116.
Budin G. (1988) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Terminologieforschung in den
Sozialwissenschaften, Vienna, University of Vienna.
Buitelaar P., Cimiano P. & Magnini B. (2005) Ontology Learning from Text: An Overview,
in Ontology Learning and Population: Methods, Evaluation and Applications, P.
Buitelaar, P. Cimiano & B. Magnini (eds), Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 3–12.
Bullo F. (2007) Il lavoro terminologico tra comparazione e diritto europeo: coerenza o
contraddizione?, Atti del convegno La traduzione del diritto comunitario ed europeo:
riflessioni metodologiche (Trento, 10-11 March 2006), E. Ioriatti Ferrari (ed.), Trento,
Università degli Studi di Trento, pp. 87–110.
Cabré M. T. (1999a) Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

297
Cabré M. T. (1999b) La terminología: Representación y comunicación. Elementos para una
teoría de base comunicativa y otros artículos, Barcelona, Institut Universitari de
Lingüística Aplicada.
Cabré M. T. (2000) Elements for a Theory of Terminology: Towards an Alternative
Paradigm, Terminology, 6(1), pp. 35–57.
Cabré M. T. (2003) Theories of Terminology. Their Description, Prescription and
Explanation, Terminology, 9(2), pp. 163–199.
Cabré M. T. (2006) From Terminological Data Banks to Knowledge Databases: The Text as
the Starting Point, in Lexicography, Terminology and Translation. Text-based studies in
honour of Ingrid Meyer, L. Bowker (ed.), Ottawa, Ottawa University Press, pp. 93–106.
Cabré M. T., Bach C., Estopà R., Feliu J., Martínez G. & Vivaldi J. (2004) The GENOMA-
KB Project: Towards the Integration of Concepts, Terms, Textual Corpora and Entities,
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
(LREC ‘04) (Lisbona, 26-28 May 2004), pp. 87–90.
Cabré M. T., Condamines A. & Ibekwe-SanJuan F. (2005) Introduction. Application-driven
Terminology Engineering, Terminology, 11(1), pp. 1–19.
Calavita K. (2010) Invitation to Law & Society. An Introduction to the Study of Real Law,
Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Cao D. (2007) Translating Law, Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto, Multilingual Matters.
Carl M., Rascu E., Haller J. & Langlais P. (2004) Abducing Term Variant Translations in
Aligned Texts, Terminology, 10(1), pp. 101–130.
Catford J. C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics,
London, Oxford University Press.
Cendon P. (1998) Non di sola salute vive l’uomo, in Studi in onore di P. Rescigno, Milano,
Giuffrè Editore, pp. 138–139.
Chalmers D., Davies G. & Monti G. (2010) European Union Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Cheng L. & Sin K. K. (2008) Terminological Equivalence in Legal Translation: A Semiotic
Approach, Semiotica, 172(1), pp. 33–45.
Ciapuscio G. E. (1999) Variación conceptual del término y grado de especialidad de los
textos, Revista Argentina de Lingüística, 11, pp. 49-83
CJS (2005) The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, London, Office for Criminal Justice
Reform.
Clear J. (1992) Corpus Sampling, in New Directions in English Language Corpora.
Methodology, Results, Software Developments, G. Leitner (ed.), Berlin/New York,
Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–32.
Cole W. D. (1991) Descriptive Terminology: Some Theoretical Implications. Meta: journal
des traducteurs, 36(1), pp. 16–22.
Collet T. (2004a) What’s a Term? An Attempt to Define the Term within the Theoretical
Framework of Text Linguistics, Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series, Special Issue on
the Translation of Domain Specific Languages and Multilingual Terminology

298
 References

Management, R. Temmerman & U. Knops (eds), 3, Hoger Instituut voor Vertalers en

Tolken, Hogeschool Antwerpen, pp. 99–111.
Collet T. (2004b) Esquisse d’une nouvelle microstructure de dictionnaire spécialisé reflétant
la variation en discours du terme syntagmatique, Meta: journal des traducteurs, 49(2),
pp. 247–263.
Condamines A. (2010) Variations in terminology. Application to the management of risks
related to language use in the workplace, Terminology, 16(1), pp. 30–50.
Condamines A. & Rebeyrolle J. (1997) Point de vue en langue spécialisée, Meta: journal des
traducteurs, 42(1), pp. 174–184.
Condamines A., Rebeyrolle J. & Soubeille A. (2004) Variation de la Terminologie dans le
Temps: une Méthode Linguistique pour Mesurer l’Évolution de la Connaissance en
Corpus, Proceedings of the 11th European Association for Lexicography Conference
(EURALEX ‘04) (Lorient, 6-10 July 2004), pp. 547–557.
Correia R. (2003) Translation of EU Legal Texts, in Crossing Barriers and Bridging
Cultures. The Challenges of Multilingual Translation for the European Union, A. Tosi
(ed.), Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto/Sydney, Multilingual Matters, pp. 38–66.
Cortelazzo M. A. (1994) Lingue speciali. La dimensione verticale, Padova, Unipress.
Cosmai D. (2007) Tradurre per l’Unione europea, 2nd ed., Milano, Hoepli.
Craig P. & De Búrca G. (2011) EU Law. Text, Cases, and Materials, 5th ed. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Dagan I. & Church K. (1994) Termight: Identifying and Translating Technical Terminology,
Proceedings of the fourth conference on Applied natural language processing (ANLC
‘94) (Stroudsburg (PA), 13 October 1994), pp. 34–40.
Daille B. (1994) Study and Implementation of Combined Techniques for Automatic
Extraction of Terminology, Proceedings of the ACL 1994 Workshop on The Balancing
Act: Combining Symbolic and Statistical Approaches to Language (Las Cruces, 27-30
June 1994), pp. 29–36.
Daille B. (2003a) Terminology Mining, in Information Extraction in the Web Era, M. T.
Pazienza (ed.), Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, pp. 29–44.
Daille B. (2003b) Conceptual Structuring through Term Variations, Proceedings of the ACL
2003 Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment
(Sapporo, 7-12 June 2003), F. Bond, A. Korhonen, D. MacCarthy & A. Villacicencio
(eds), pp. 9–16.
Daille B. (2005) Variations and Application-oriented Terminology Engineering, Terminology,
11(1), pp. 181–197.
Daille B., Gaussier É. & Langé J.-M. (1994) Towards Automatic Extraction of Monolingual
and Bilingual Terminology, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on
Computational Linguistics (COLING ‘94) (Kyoto, 5-9 August 1994), pp. 515–521.
Daille B., Habert B. & Jacquemin C. (1996) Empirical Observation of Term Variations and
Principles for Their Description, Terminology, 3(2), pp. 197–258.
Damerau F. J. (1993) Generating and Evaluating Domain-Oriented Multi-Word Terms from
Texts, Information Processing and Management, 29(4), pp. 433–447.
299
De Bessé B., Nkwenti-Azeh B. & Sager J. C. (1997) Glossary of terms used in terminology,
Terminology, 4(1), pp. 117–156.
De Groot G.-R. (1996) Law, Legal Language and the Legal System: Reflections on the
Problems of Translating Legal Texts, in European Legal Cultures, V. Gessner, A.
Hoeland & C. Varga (eds), Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp. 155–161.
Del Tufo M. (2003) Linee di Politica criminale europea e internazionale a protezione della
vittima, Questione Giustizia, 4, pp. 705–725.
Despres S. & Szulman S. (2004) Construction of a Legal Ontology from a European
Community Legislative Text, in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Jurix 2004:
The Seventeenth Annual Conference, T. Gordon (ed.), Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 79–88.
Draskau Kewley J. (1991) Some Reflections on “Equivalence/Äquivalenz” as a Term and a
Concept in the Theory of Translation, Meta: journal des traducteurs, 36(1), pp. 269–
274.
Drouin P. (2003) Term extraction using non-technical corpora as a point of leverage,
Terminology, 9(1), pp. 99–115.
Dubuc R. & Lauriston A. (1997) Terms and Contexts, in S. E. Wright & G. Budin (eds),
Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 80–88.
Durán Muñoz I. (2012) La ontoterminografía aplicada a la traducción. Propuesta
metodológica para la elaboración de recursos terminológicos dirigidos a traductores,
Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.
Dury P. & Picton A. (2009) Terminologie et diachronie: vers une réconciliation théorique et
méthodologique? Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée (RFLA), 14(2), pp. 31–41.
Endicott T. (2000) Vagueness in Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Eriksen L. H. (2002) Die Polysemie in der Allgemeinsprache und in der juristischen
Fachsprache Oder: Zur Terminologie der “Sache” im Deutschen, Hermes, Journal of
Linguistics, 28, pp. 211–222.
Faber P. (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminology and Specialized Translation, in A (Self-
)Critical Perspective of Translation Theories, A. Vidal Claramonte & F. Aixelá (eds),
pp. 107–134.
Faber P., León Araúz P., Prieto Velasco J. A. & Reimerink A. (2007) Linking Images and
Words: the Description of Specialized Concepts, International Journal of Lexicography,
20(1), pp. 39–65.
Faber P., López Rodríguez C. I. & Tercedor Sánchez M. I. (2001) Utilización de técnicas de
corpus en la representación del conocimiento médico, Terminology, 7(2), pp. 167–198.
Faber P., Márquez Linares C. & Vega Expósito M. (2005) Framing Terminology: A Process-
Oriented Approach, Meta: journal des traducteurs, 50(4), CD-ROM.
Faber P., Montero Matínez S., Castro Prieto M. R., Senso Ruiz J., Priesto Velasco J. A., León
Araúz P., Márquez Linares C., Vega Expósito M. (2006) Process-oriented Terminology
Management in the Domain of Coastal Engineering, Terminology, 12(2), pp. 189–213.
Felber H. (1984) Terminology Manual, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, Infoterm.
300
 References

Felber H. & Budin G. (1989) Terminologie in Theorie und Praxis, Tübingen, Gunter Narr
Verlag.
Feliu J., Giraldo J. J., Vidal V., Vivaldi J. & Cabré M. T. (2004) The GENOMA-KB Project:
A Concept Based Term Enlargement System, Proceedings of Workshop on
Computational and Computer-Assisted Terminology, in association with LREC ‘04
(Lisbon, 25 May 2004), pp. 32–35.
Fellbaum C. (1998) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Fernández-Silva S., Freixa J. & Cabré M. T. (2011) A proposed method for analysing the
dynamics of cognition through term variation, Terminology, 17(1), pp. 49–74.
Fernández-Silva S. & Kerremans K. (2011) Terminological Variation in Source Texts and
Translations: A Pilot Study, Meta: journal des traducteurs, 56(2), pp. 318–335.
Ferrari L. (2002) ¿Un caso de polisemia en el discurso jurídico? Terminology, 8(2), 221–244.
Fillmore C. J. (1976) Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language, Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and
Speech, 280, New York, New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 20–32.
Fillmore C. J. (1985) Frames and the Semantics of Understanding, Quaderni di Semantica, 6,
pp. 222–254.
Francis W. N. (1979) Problems of Assembling and Computerizing Large Corpora, in
Empirische Textwissenschaft: Aufbau und Auswertung von Text-Corpora, H.
Bergenholtz & B. Schaeder (eds), Königstein im Taunus, Scriptor, pp. 110–123.
Frantzi K. T., Ananiadou S. & Tsujii J. (1998) The C-value/NC-value Method of Automatic
Recognition for Multi-Word Terms, Proceedings of the Second European Conference on
Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL ‘98) (Heraklion, 21-23
September 1998) London, Springer Verlag, pp. 585 – 604.
Freixa J. (2002) La variació terminològica. Anàlisi de la variació denominativa en textos de
diferent grau d’especialització de l’àrea de medi ambient. Filologia Catalana,
Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Freixa J. (2005) Variación terminológica: ¿Por qué y para qué?, Meta: journal des
traducteurs, 50(4), CD-ROM.
Freixa J. (2006) Causes of Denotative Variation in Terminology. A Typology Proposal,
Terminology, 12(1), pp. 51–77.
Freixa J., Kostina I. & Cabré M. T. (2002) La variación terminológica en las aplicaciones
terminográficas, Actas del VIII Simposio Iberoamericano de Terminología (Cartagena
de Indias, 28-31 October 2002).
Freixa J. & Montané A. (2006) Variación denominativa y biounivocidad en el lenguaje de las
matemáticas, Revista Española de Lingüística, 36, pp. 189–215.
Fuertes-Olivera P. A. (2005) Specialized Communication and English Studies: Research
Proposals on Specialized Lexicography and English for Specific Purposes, Atlantis.
Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 27(2), pp. 41–55.
Gambier Y. (1991) Travail et vocabulaire spécialisés: prolégomènes à une socio-terminologie,
Meta: journal des traducteurs, 36(1), pp. 8–15.

301
Gamper J., Nejdl W. & Wolpers M. (1999) Combining Ontologies and Terminologies in
Information Systems, Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Terminology
and Knowledge Engineering (TKE ‘99) (Innsbruck, 23-27 August 1999), P. Sandrini
(ed.), Vienna, Termnet, pp. 152–168.
García N. M. & Alcina Caudet A. (2009) Conceptual Relations Established by Processes: The
Case of Cocción (Firing) in Industrial Ceramics, Proceedings of 8th International
Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence (TIA 2009) (Tolouse, 18-20
November 2009).
Garzone G. (2000) Legal Translation and Functionalist Approaches: A Contradiction in
Terms?, Actes du Colloque International “La traduction juridique. Histoire, théorie(s) et
pratique” (Geneva, 17-19 February 2000), ASTTI/ETI, pp. 395–414.
Garzone G. (2003) Arbitration Rules across Legal Cultures: An Intercultural Approach, in
Legal Discourse in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts. Arbitration Texts in Europe,
V. Bhatia, C. N. Candlin & M. Gotti (eds), Bern, Peter Lang, pp. 177–220.
Gaudin F. (1993) Pour une socioterminologie: des problèmes pratiques aux pratiques
institutionnelles, Rouen, Université de Rouen.
Gaudin F. (2003) Socioterminologie: une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie,
Brussels, Éditions Duculot.
Geeraerts D. (2010) Theories of Lexical Semantics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast H. (2001) Equivalence Parameters and Evaluation, Meta: journal des
traducteurs, 46(2), pp. 227–242.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast H. (2008) Fundamentals of LSP Translation, MuTra, LSP Translation
Scenarios. Selected Contributions to the EU Marie Curie Conference, H. Gerzymisch-
Arbogast, G. Budin & G. Hofer (eds), 2, Vienna, ATRC Group, pp. 7–64.
Gómez De Enterría J. (2000) Últimas tendencias neológicas en la prensa económica, in La
neologia en el tombant de segle, M. T. Cabré, J. Freixa & E. Solé (eds), Barcelona,
Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, pp. 75–84.
Gómez González-Jover A. (2006) Meaning and anisomorphism in modern lexicography,
Terminology, 12(2), pp. 215–234.
Gómez Pérez A. (1999) Ontological engineering: a state of the art, Expert Update, 2(3), pp.
33–43.
Gómez Pérez A. & Benjamins V. R. (1999) Overview of Knowledge Sharing and Reuse
Components: Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, Proceedings of the IJCAI-99
workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods (KRR5) (Stockholm, 2 August
1999), pp. 1–15.
Gotti M. (2007) Legal Discourse in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts, in Language and
the Law: International Outlooks, K. Kredens & S. Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds), Frankfurt
am Main, Peter Lang, pp. 21–33.
Grabar N. & Zweigenbaum P. (2004) Lexically-based Terminology Structuring, Terminology,
10(1), pp. 23–53.
Gruber T. R. (1993) A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications, Knowledge
Acquisition, 5(2), pp. 199–220.

302
 References

Guarino N. (2006) Ontology and Terminology. How Can Formal Ontology Help Concept
Modeling and Terminology?, Presentation delivered at EAFT-NordTerm Workshop on
Terminology, Concept Modelinf and Ontology (Vaasa,10 February 2006).
Guarino N. & Giaretta P. (1995) Ontologies and Knowledge Bases, in Towards Very Large
Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building & Knowledge Sharing, N. J. I. Mars (ed.),
Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 25–32.
Ha L. A., Fernandez G., Mitkov R. & Corpas G. (2003) Mutual Bilingual Terminology
Extraction, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation (LREC ‘08) (Marrakech, 26 May-1 June 2008), pp. 1818–1824.
Ha L. A., Mitkov R. & Corpas G. (2008) Mutual Terminology Extraction Using a Statistical
Framework, Procesamiento del lenguaje natural, 41, pp. 107–112.
Hamon T. & Nazarenko A. (2001) Detection of Synonymy Links between Terms:
Experiments and Results, in Recent Advances in Computational Terminology, D.
Bourigault, C. Jacquemin & M.-C. L’Homme (eds), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John
Benjamins, pp. 185–208.
Hippisley A., Cheng D. & Ahmad K. (2005) The Head-modifier Principle and Multilingual
Term Extraction, Natural Language Engineering, 11(2), pp. 129–157.
Hodge G. (2000) Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond
Traditional Authority Files, Washington, DC, Digital Library Federation.
Hoffmann L. (1987) Language for Special/Specific Purposes, in Sociolinguistics. An
International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, U. Ammon, N. Dittmar
& K. J. Mattheier (eds), Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp. 298–302.
Hunston S. (2002) Corpora in Applied Linguistics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ibekwe-SanJuan F. (1998) Terminological Variation, a Means of Identifying Research Topics
from Texts, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational
Linguistics (COLING ‘98) (Montreal, 10-14 August 1998), Stroudsburg (PA), University
of Montreal, pp. 564–570.
Ibekwe-SanJuan, F. & Sanjuan E. (2002) From Term Variants to Research Topics,
Knowledge Organisation, 29(3/4), pp. 181–197.
International Organization for Standardization (2000) International Standard ISO 1087-1.
Terminology Work: Vocabulary. Part 1: Theory and application, Geneva, International
Organization for Standardization.
Irgl V. (1987) Synonymy in the Language of Business and Economics, in Special Language.
From Human Thinking to Thinking Machines, C. Laurén & M. Nordman (eds),
Clevedon/Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters, pp. 275–282.
Jacquemin C. (1996) What Is the Tree That We See Through the Window: A Linguistic
Approach to Windowing and Term Variation, Infomation Processing and Management,
32(4), pp. 445–458.
Jacquemin C. (2001) Spotting and Discovering Terms through Natural Language Processing,
Cambridge, MIT Press.

303
Jacquemin C. & Bourigault D. (2003) Term Extraction and Automatic Indexing, in The
Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, R. Mitkov (ed.), Oxford, Oxford
University Press pp. 599–615.
Jacquemin C. & Tzoukermann E. (1999) NLP for Term Variant Extraction: Synergy between
Morphology, Lexicon, and Syntax, in Natural Language Processing Information
Retrieval, T. Strzalkowski (ed.), Boston, Kluwer, pp. 25–74.
Jarrar M. & Meersman R. (2002) Formal Ontology Engineering in the DOGMA Approach, in
On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, Proceedings of the DOA/CoopIS/ODBASE
2002 Confederated International Conference (Irvine, 30 October-1 November 2002), R.
Meersman & Z. Tari (eds), Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, pp. 1238–1254.
Justeson J. S. & Katz S. M. (1995) Technical Terminology: Some Linguistic Properties and
an Algorithm for Identification in Text, Natural Language Engineering, 1(1), pp. 9–27.
Kageura K. (1995) Toward the Theoretical Study of Terms: A Sketch from the Linguistic
Viewpoint, Terminology, 2(2), pp. 239–257.
Kageura K. (1997) Multifaceted/multidimensional Concept Systems, in Handbook of
Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management, S. E. Wright &
G. Budin (eds), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 119–132.
Kageura K. (2002) The Dynamics of Terminology: A Descriptive Theory of Term Formation
and Terminological Growth, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Kageura K. & Umino B. (1996) Methods of Automatic Term Recognition: A Review,
Terminology, 3(2), pp. 259–289.
Kalinowsky G. (1965) Introduction à la logique juridique, Paris, Pichon & Durand-Auzias.
Kerremans K. (2004) Categorisation Frameworks in Termontography, Linguistica
Antverpiensia New Series, Special Issue on the Translation of Domain Specific
Languages and Multilingual Terminology Management, R. Temmerman & U. Knops
(eds), 3, Hoger Instituut voor Vertalers en Tolken, Hogeschool Antwerpen, pp. 263–277.
Kerremans K. (2010) A Comparative Study of Terminological Variation in Specialised
Translation, Reconceptualizing LSP. Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP
Symposium (Aarhus, 17-21 August 2009), C. Heine & J. Engberg (eds), pp. 1–14.
Kerremans K., Desmeytere I., Temmerman R. & Wille P. (2005) Application-oriented
Terminography in Financial Forensics, Terminology, 11(1), pp. 83–106.
Kerremans K., Temmerman R. & Tummers J. (2004) Discussion on the Requirements for a
Workbench supporting Termontography, Proceedings of 11th European Association for
Lexicography Conference (EURALEX ’04) (Lorient, 6-10 July 2004), G. Williams & S.
Vessier (eds), pp. 559–570.
Kjær A. L. (2007) Legal Translation in the European Union: A Research Field in Need of a
New Approach, in Language and the Law: International Outlooks, K. Kredens & S.
Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds), Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, pp. 69–95.
Kocbek A. (2008) The Cultural Embeddedness of Legal Texts, Journal of Language &
Translation, 9(2), pp. 49–70.
Kocourek R. (1982) La langue française de la technique et de la science, Zurich, Brandstetter
Verlag.

304
 References

L’Homme M.-C., Heid U. & Sager J. C. (2003) Terminology during the Past Decade (1994–
2004) An Editorial Statement, Terminology, 9(2), pp. 151–161.
Lakoff G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the
Mind, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
León Araúz P., Faber P. & Pérez Hernández C. (2008) LSP Dictionaries and Their Genuine
Purpose: A Frame-based Example from MARCOCOSTA, Proceedings of the 13th
European Association for Lexicography Conference (EURALEX ‘08) (Barcelona, 15-19
July 2008), pp. 997–1006.
Leonardi N. (2012) “Ontology” and Terminological Frameworks: An Overview of Issues and
Term(s), Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 48, pp. 19–33.
Lewis R. (2001) Increasing The Price Of Pain: Damages, The Law Commission And Heil v
Rankin, The Modern Law Review, 64(1), pp. 100–111.
Liebwald D. (2007) Semantic Spaces and Multilingualism in the Law: The Challenge of
Legal Knowledge Management, Proceedings of LOAIT ’07. II Workshop on Legal
Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (Stanford, 4 June 2007), P. Casanovas,
M. A. Biasiotti, E. Francesconi & M. T. Sagri (eds), pp. 131–148.
López Rodríguez C. I., Faber P., León Araúz P., Prieto Velasco J. A. & Tercedor Sánchez M.
(2010) La Terminología basada en marcos y su aplicación a las Ciencias Ambientales:
los proyectos MarcoCosta y Ecosistema, Arena Romanistica, 7(10), pp. 52–75.
López Rodríguez C. I., Tercedor Sánchez M. & Faber P. (2006) Gestión terminológica basada
en el conocimiento y generación de recursos de información sobre el cáncer: el proyecto
Oncoterm, RevistaeSalud.com, 2(8).
Magris M. (2001) TERMit, la banque de données terminologique de la SSLMIT,
Terminometro, 5, pp. 50–55.
Magris M. (2002) La banca dati terminologica TERMIT della S.S.L.M.I.T. dell’Università di
Trieste, in La terminologia in Italia, D. Prado (ed.), Unione Latina, pp. 48–57.
Magris M. (2004) Verso una terminografica per il traduttore giuridico, Linguistica
Antverpiensia New Series, Special Issue on the Translation of Domain Specific
Languages and Multilingual Terminology Management, R. Temmerman & U. Knops
(eds), 3, Hoger Instituut voor Vertalers en Tolken, Hogeschool Antwerpen, pp. 53–65.
Magris M. (2012) Variation in Terminologie, Terminographie und Phraseographie, JoSTrans
- The Journal of Specialised Translation, 18, pp. 160–174.
Magris M., Musacchio M. T., Rega L. & Scarpa F. (2002) Instroduzione, in Manuale di
terminologia. Aspetti teorici, metodologici e applicativi, M. Magris, M. T. Musacchio, L.
Rega & F. Scarpa (eds), Milano, Hoepli, pp. i–ix.
Mahesh K. (1996) Ontology Development for Machine Translation: Ideology and
Methodology, Las Cruces, New Mexico State University.
Mannozzi G. (2000) Problemi e prospettive della giustizia riparativa alla luce della
“Dichiarazione di Vienna”, Rassegna Penitenziaria e Criminologica, 1/3, pp. 1–28.
Mantle G., Fox D. & Dhami M. K. (2005) Restorative Justice and Three Individual Theories
of Crime, Internet Journal of Criminology, pp. 1–36.

305
Mattila H. E. S. (2006) Comparative Legal Linguistics, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing
Limited.
Mazzarese T. (1989) Logica deontica e linguaggio giuridico, Padova, CEDAM.
McEnery T. & Xiao R. (2007) Parallel and Comparable Corpora: What is Happening?, in
Incorporating Corpora: the Linguist and the Translator, G. Anderman & M. Rogers
(eds), Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, pp. 18–31.
McEnery T., Xiao R. & Tono Y. (2006) Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced
Resource Book, London/New York, Routledge.
McEwan J. (2009) The Testimony of Vulnerable Victims and Witnesses in Criminal
Proceedings in the European Union, ERA Forum, 10(3), pp. 369–386.
Megale F. (2008) Teorie della traduzione giuridica: fra diritto comparato e Translation
Studies, Napoli, Editoriale scientifica.
Mellinkoff D. (1963) The Language of the Law, Boston, Little, Brown & Co.
Merkel M. (1998) Consistency and Variation in Technical Translations. A Study of
Translators’ Attitudes, in Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, L.
Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (eds), Manchester, St. Jerome, pp. 137–149.
Messineo C. (2002) Variación conceptual y formal del término educación bilingüe
intercultural (ebi) en distintos tipos de discursos, Terminology, 8(1), pp. 113–139.
Meyer I. (2001) Extracting Knowledge-rich Contexts for Terminography. A Conceptual and
Methodological Framework, in Recent Advances in Computational Terminology, D.
Bourigault, C. Jacquemin & M.-C. L’Homme (eds), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John
Benjamins, pp. 279–302.
Meyer I., Eck K. & Skuce D. (1997) Systematic Concept Analysis within a Knowledge-Based
Approach to Terminology Terminology Management, in Handbook of Terminology
Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management, S. E. Wright & G. Budin
(eds), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 98–118.
Meyer I., Skuce D., Bowker L. & Eck K. (1992) Towards a New Generation of
Terminological Resources: An Experiment in Building a Terminological Knowledge
Base, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics
(COLING ‘92) (Nantes, 23-28 August 1992), pp. 956–960.
Montero Martínez S. (2000) La unidad terminológica: de la uniformidad a la variación,
Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación, 2, pp. 1–7.
Moreno A. & Pérez C. (2000) Reusing the Mikrokosmos Ontology for Concept-based
Multilingual Terminology Databases, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000) (Athens, 31 May-2 June 2000), pp.
1061–1067.
Myking J. (2007) No Fixed Boundaries, in Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP: Studies in
Honour of Heribert Picht, B. E. Antia (ed.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins,
pp. 73–91.
Mеуeг I., Bowker L. & Eck K. (1992) COGNITERM: An Experiment in Building а
Terminological Knowledge Base, Proceedings of the 5th European Association for
Lexicography Conference (EURALEX ‘92) (Tampere, 4-9 August 1992), pp. 159–172.

306
 References

Navigli R. & Velardi P. (2008) From Glossaries to Ontologies: Extracting Semantic Structure
from Textual Definitions, in Ontology Learning and Population: Bridging the Gap
between Text and Knowledge, P. Buitelaar & P. Cimiano (eds), Amsterdam, IOS Press,
pp. 71–87.
Neches R., Fikes R., Finin T., Gruber T., Patil R., Senator T. & Swartout W. R. (1991)
Enabling Technology for Knowledge Sharing, AI Magazine, 12(3), pp. 36–56.
Nord C. (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained,
Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.
Omrane N., Nazarenko A. & Szulman S. (2011) From Linguistics to Ontologies. The Role of
Named Entities in the Conceptualisation Process, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (Paris, 26-29
October 2011), J. Filipe & J. L. G. Dietz (eds), pp. 249–254.
Palermo F. (2007) Lingua, diritto e comparazione nel contesto comunitario. Profili
metodologici, tra opportunità e rischi, Atti del convegno La traduzione del diritto
comunitario ed europeo: riflessioni metodologiche (Trento, 10-11 marzo 2006), E.
Ioriatti Ferrari (ed.), Trento, Università degli Studi di Trento, pp. 133–159.
Pazienza M. T., Pennacchiotti M. & Zanzotto F. M. (2005) Terminology Extraction: An
Analysis of Linguistic and Statistical Approaches, in Knowledge Mining. Studies in
Fuzziness and Soft Computing, S. Sirmakessis (ed.), Berlin, Springer, pp. 255–279.
Pearson J. (1998) Terms in Context, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Pearson J. (1999) Comment accéder aux éléments définitoires dans les textes spécialisés?,
Réseau international de néologie et de terminologie, 19, pp. 21–28.
Peruzzo K. (2006) Europol e la cooperazione di polizia in Europa: un’analisi terminografica
in italiano e inglese, Master’s Thesis, Trieste, Università degli Studi di Trieste.
Peruzzo K. (2010) Horizontal Denominative Variation in an EU Victim-related English-
Italian Parallel Corpus, Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione/International
Journal of Translation, 12, pp. 177–188.
Pevehouse J. C. (2005) Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and
Democratization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Picht H. & Draskau J. (1985) Terminology: An Introduction, Guilford, University of Surrey.
Picton A. (2011) Picturing Short-period Diachronic Phenomena in Specialised Corpora: A
Textual Terminology Description of the Dynamics of Knowledge in Space
Technologies, Terminology, 17(1), pp. 134–156.
Polese V. & D’Avanzo S. (2010) Linguistic and Legal Vagueness in EU Directives
Harmonising Protection for Refugees and Displaced Persons, in Researching Language
and the Law, D. S. Giannoni & C. Frade (eds), Bern, Peter Lang, pp. 89–111.
Pozzo B. (2008) L’interpretazione della Corte del Lussemburgo del testo multilingue: una
rassegna giurisprudenziale, in Europa e linguaggi giuridici, B. Pozzo & M. Timoteo
(eds), Milano, Giuffrè Editore, pp. 383–433.
Quiroz G., Plested M. C., Muñoz C., Giraldo J. J. & Zapata G. (1999) Some Considerations
on the Relationship between the Terminologist and the Expert in the Building of a
Database, in Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Terminology and

307
 Knowledge Engineering (TKE ’99) (Innsbruck, 23-27 August 1999), P. Sandrini (ed.),
Vienna, Termnet, pp. 169–179.
Reimerink A. & Faber P. (2009) EcoLexicon: A Frame-Based Knowledge Base for the
Environment, Proceedings of the European conference TOWARDS eENVIRONMENT.
Opportunities of SEIS and SISE: Integrating Environmental Knowledge in Europe
(Prague, 25-27 March 2009), J. Hradec, E. Pelikán, O. Mirovský, W. Pillmann, I.
Holoubek & T. Bandholtz (eds), pp. 629–636.
Reimerink A., León Araúz P. & Magaña Redondo P. J. (2010) EcoLexicon: An
Environmental TKB, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language
Resources and Evaluation (LREC ‘04) (Malta, 17-23 May 2004), pp. 2322–2329.
Rey A. (1983) Synonymie, néonymie et normalisation terminologique, in Problèmes de la
définition et de la synonymie en terminologie. Actes du colloque international de
terminologie (Université Laval, Quebec, 23-27 May 1982), D. Duquet-Picard (ed.),
Université Laval, Quebec, GIRSTERM, pp. 281–310.
Rey A. (1995) Essays on Terminology, translated and edited by J. C. Sager,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Richards J., Platt J. & Weber H. (1985) Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Essex,
Longman.
Roche C. (2007a) Le terme et le concept: fondements d’une ontoterminologie, Proceedings of
Terminology & Ontology: Theories and applications (TOTh 2007) (Annecy, 1 June
2007), pp. 1–13.
Roche C. (2007b) Saying Is Not Modelling, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop
on Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Science (NLPCS 2007) (Funchal, 12-13
June 2007), pp. 47–56.
Roche C., Calberg-Challot M., Damas L. & Rouard P. (2009) Ontoterminology: A New
Paradigm for Terminology, Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge
Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD 2009) (Madeira, 5-8 October 2009),
pp. 321–326.
Rogers M. (1997) Synonymy and Equivalence in Special-language Texts. A Case Study in
German and English Texts on Genetic Engineering, in Text Typology and Translation,
A. Trosborg (ed.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 217–245.
Rogers M. (2004) Multidimensionality in Concepts Systems: A Bilingual Textual Perspective,
Terminology, 10(2), pp. 215–240.
Rogers M. (2007a) Lexical Chains in Technical Translation, in Indeterminacy in Terminology
and LSP: Studies in Honour of Heribert Picht, B. E. Antia (ed.),
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 15–35.
Rogers M. (2007b) Terminological Equivalence in Technical Translation: A Problematic
concept? St. Jerome and Technical Translation, SYNAPS, 20, pp. 13–25.
Rogers M. (2008) Terminological Equivalence: Probability and Consistency, MuTra, LSP
Translation Scenarios. Selected Contributions to the EU Marie Curie Conference, H.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, G. Budin & G. Hofer (eds), 2, Vienna, ATRC Group, pp. 101–
108.

308
 References

Rollason C. (2003) Opaque or User-friendly Language?, in Crossing Barriers and Bridging

Cultures. The Challenges of Multilingual Translation for the European Union, A. Tosi
(ed.), Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto/Sydney, Multilingual Matters, pp. 117–119.
Rossi P. (2008) L’impatto del multilinguismo sull'armonizzazione del diritto privato europeo,
in Europa e linguaggi giuridici, B. Pozzo & M. Timoteo (eds), Milano, Giuffrè Editore,
pp. 361–382.
Sacco R. (1991) La comparaison juridique au service de la connaissance du droit, Paris,
Economica.
Sacco R. (1992) La traduzione giuridica, in Il linguaggio del diritto, U. Scarpelli & P. Di
Lucia (eds), Milano, Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto, pp. 475–490.
Sacco R. (2000) Lingua e diritto, Ars Interpretandi. Traduzione e diritto, 5, pp. 117–134.
Sager J. C. (1990) A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
John Benjamins.
Sagri M. T. & Tiscornia D. (2009) Le peculiarità del linguaggio giuridico. Problemi e
prospettive nel contesto multilingue europeo, MediAzioni,
http://www.mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it.
Sandrini P. (1996) Comparative Analysis of Legal Terms: Equivalence Revisited, in TKE ‘96:
Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, C. Galinski & K. D. Schmitz (eds), Frankfurt,
Indeks Verlag, pp. 342–351.
Sandrini P. (1999) Legal Terminology. Some Aspects for a New Methodology, Hermes,
Journal of Linguistics, 22, pp. 101–111.
Šarčević S. (1997) New Approach to Legal Translation, The Hague, Kluwer Law
International.
Šarčević S. (2000) Legal Translation and Translation Theory: A Receiver-oriented Approach,
Proceedings of the International colloquium Legal Translation. History, Theory/ies and
Practice (Geneva, 17-19 February 2000), University of Geneva.
Scarpelli U. (1994) La definizione nel diritto, in Il linguaggio del diritto, U. Scarpelli & P. Di
Lucia (eds), Milano, LED, pp. 311–324.
Schröder H. (1991) Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on Languages for Special
Purposes. A Thematic and Bibliographical Guide, in Subject-oriented Texts. Languages
for Special Purposes and Text Theory, H. Schröder (ed.), Berlin/New York, de Gruyter,
pp. 1–48.
Schubert K. & Link L. (2008) Multidimensional Control in Technical Translation, MuTtra,
LSP Translation Scenarios. Selected Contributions to the EU Marie Curie Conference,
H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, G. Budin & G. Hofer (eds), 2, Vienna, ATRC Group, pp. 131–
165.
Simonnæs I. (2007) Vague Legal Concepts: A Contradictio in Adjecto?, in Indeterminacy in
LSP and Terminology, B. E. Antia (ed.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp.
119–134.
Sinclair J. (1994) Corpus Typology: A Framework for Classification, EAGLES document,
Pisa.

309
Skuce D. & Meyer I. (1990) Computer-assisted Concept Analysis: An Essential Component
of a Terminologist’s Workstation, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on
Terminology and Knowledge Engineering (TKE ‘90) (Trier, 2-4 October 1990), H. Czap
& W. Nedobity (eds), Frankfurt am Main, Indeks Verlag, pp. 187–199.
Slapper G. & Kelly D. (2011) The English Legal System, 12th ed., New York, Routledge.
Sowa J. F. (1984) Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine,
Reading/Menlo Park/London/Amsterdam/Don Mills/Sidney, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Spagnesi E. (1978) Bibliografia delle edizioni giuridiche antiche in lingua italiana. Testi
statutari e dottrinali dal 1470 al 1700, Firenze, Olschki.
Spaventa E. (2007) Opening Pandora’s Box: Some Reflections on the Constitutional Effects
of the Decision in Pupino, European Constitutional Law Review, 3(1), pp. 5–24.
Streiter O., Zielinski D., Ties I. & Voltmer L. (2003) Term Extraction for Ladin, Proceedings
of TALN 2003, Workshop on Natural Language Processing of Minority Languages with
few computational linguistic resources (Batz-sur-Mer, 11-14 June 2003).
Tartier A. (2003) A Method for Observing Terminological Evolution, Proceedings of the
Con- ference “Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing” (RANLP ‘03), pp.
467–471.
Temmerman R. (1997) Questioning the Univocity Ideal. The Difference between Socio-
cognitive Terminology and Traditional Terminology, Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 18,
pp. 51–93.
Temmerman R. (2000a) Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive
Approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Temmerman R. (2000b) Training Terminographers: The Sociocognitive Approach,
Proceedings of the 9th European Association for Lexicography Conference (EURALEX
2000) (Stuttgart, 8-12 August 2000), pp. 453–460.
Temmerman R. (2009) Ways of Managing the Dynamics of Terminology in Multilingual
Communication, Scolia, pp. 105–123.
Temmerman R. & Kerremans K. (2003) Termontography: Ontology Building and the
Sociocognitive Approach to Terminology Description, Proceedings of the 17th
International Congress of Linguists (CIL17) (Prague, 24-29 June 2003), E. Hajicová, A.
Kotešovcová & J. Mírovský (eds), Prague, Matfyzpress, MFF UK (CD-ROM).
Temmerman R. & Knops U. (2004) The Translation of Domain Specific Languages and
Multilingual Terminology Management, Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series, Special
Issue on the Translation of Domain Specific Languages and Multilingual Terminology
Management, 3, Hoger Instituut voor Vertalers en Tolken, Hogeschool Antwerpen, pp.
11-18.
Tercedor M. & López-Rodríguez C. I. (2008) Integrating Corpus Data in Dynamic
Knowledge Bases. The Puertoterm project, Terminology, 14(2), pp. 159–182.
Teubert W. (2005) My Version of Corpus Linguistics, International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 10(1), pp. 1–13.
Tiersma P. M. (1999) Legal Language, Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press.

310
 References

Tiscornia D. (2007) The Lois Project: Lexical Ontologies for Legal Information Sharing,
Proceedings of V Legislative XML Workshop (San Domenico di Fiesole, 14-16 June
2006), C. Biagioli, E. Francesconi & G. Dartor (eds), Florence, European Press
Academic Publishing, pp. 189–204.
Tonini P. (2010) Manuale di procedura penale (11th ed.) Milano, Giuffrè Editore.
Tosi A. (2003) Chapter 14. Conclusions, in Crossing Barriers and Bridging Cultures. The
Challenges of Multilingual Translation for the European Union, A. Tosi (ed.),
Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto/Sydney, Multilingual Matters, pp. 128–131.
Van Calster G. (1997) The EU’s Tower of Babel – The Interpretation by the European Court
of Justice of Equally Authentic Texts Drafted in More than One Official Language,
Yearbook of European Law, 17(1), pp. 363–393.
Vargas Sierra C. (2007) El léxico especializado y las ontologías, in Las lenguas profesionales
y académicas, E. Alcaraz Varó, J. Mateo Martínez & F. Yus Ramos (eds), Barcelona,
Ariel, pp. 41–52.
Velardi P., Missikoff M. & Basili R. (2001) Identification of Relevant Terms to Support the
Construction of Domain Ontologies SymOntos: A Symbolic Ontology Management
System, Proceedings of the Workshop on Human Language Technology and Knowledge
Management (HLTKM ’01) (Tolouse, 6-7 July 2001).
Vintar Š. (2008) Corpora in Translation: A Slovene Perspective, The Journal of Specialised
Translation, (10), pp. 40–55.
Vossen P. (1998) (ed.) EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic
Networks, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wagner E., Bech S. & Martínez J. M. (2002) Translating for the European Union institutions,
Manchester, St. Jerome.
Watson A. (1974) Legal Transplants, Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press.
Wright S. E. (2007) Coping with Indeterminacy: Terminology and Knowledge Representation
Resources in Digital Environments, in Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP: Studies
in Honour of Heribert Picht, B. E. Antia (ed.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John
Benjamins, pp. 157–179.
Wright S. E. & Budin G. (1997) (eds) Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects
of Terminology management, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Wüster E. (1979) Einführung in die Allgemeine Terminologielehre und Terminologische
Lexikographie, Wien/New York, Springer.
Yankova D. (2007) How Harmonious Is Harmonisation of Legislation? On the Concept of
Term Equivalence, in Language and the Law: International Outlooks, K. Kredens & S.
Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds), Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, pp. 97–107.
Zanettin F. (2002) Corpora in Translation Practice, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002) (Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria, 27 May-2 June 2002, E. Yuste (ed.), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, University
of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, pp. 10–14.
Zawada B. E. & Swanepoel P. (1994) On the Empirical Adequacy of Terminological Concept
Theories: The Case for Prototype Theory, Terminology, 1(2), pp. 253–275.

311
Zielinski D. & Ramírez Safar Y. (2005) Research Meets Practice: T-survey 2005. An Online
Survey on Terminology Extraction and Terminology Management, http://ecolotrain.uni-
saarland.de/download/publs/sdv/t-survey_aslib2005_zielinski.htm#_ftn1.

International, Supranational and National Documents

Codice di Procedura Penale (Testo coordinato ed aggiornato del D.P.R. 22 settembre 1988, n.
447).
Codice Penale (Testo coordinato ed aggiornato del Regio Decreto 19 ottobre 1930, n. 1398).
Commission of the European Communities (2001) Green Paper. Compensation to crime
victims COM (2001) 536 final, 28.9.2001.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1977) Resolution (77) 27 on the
Compensation of Victims of Crime, 275th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies,
28.9.1977.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1985) Recommendation No. R (85) 11 of
the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Position of the Victim in the
Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, 387th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies,
28.6.1985.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1987) Recommendation No. R (87) 21 of
the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Assistance to Victims and the
Prevention of Victimisation, 410th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, 17.9.1987.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (1999) Recommendation No. R (99) 19 of
the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning Mediation in Penal Matters,
679th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, 15.9.1999.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2006) Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the
Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime victims, 967th Meeting
of the Ministers’ Deputies, 14.6.2006.
Committee of the Regions (2010) Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on “The
Stockholm programme: Challenges and opportunities in view of a new multi-annual
programme on the EU area of freedom, security and justice”, Official Journal of the
European Union, C 79, 27.3.2010, pp. 37–44.
Council of Europe (1983) European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent
Crime, European Treaty Series, 116, 24.11.1983.
Council of Europe (2005) Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,
Council of Europe Treaty Series, 197, 16.5.2005.

312
 References

Council of the European Union (2001) Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the
standing of victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA), Official Journal of the
European Communities, L 82, 22.3.2001, pp. 1–4.
Council of the European Union (2002) Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on
combating trafficking in human beings (2002/629/JHA), Official Journal of the
European Communities, L 203, 1.8.2002, pp. 1–4.
Council of the European Union (2004) Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004
relating to compensation to crime victims, Official Journal of the European Union, L
261, 6.8.2004, pp. 15–18.
Council of the European Union (2010) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 83, 30.3.2010, pp.
47–199.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (c. 53), London, HMSO.
Decreto Legislativo 6 novembre 2007, n. 204, Attuazione della direttiva 2004/80/CE relativa
all'indennizzo delle vittime di reato, Gazzetta Ufficiale, 261, 9.11.2007.
European Commission (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament, Biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the
creation of an area of “freedom, security and justice” in the European Union, Second half
of 2003, COM(2003) 812 final.
European Commission (2005) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economica and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism (COM
(2005) 596 final).
European Commission (2009) Commission Staff Working Paper Accompanying document to
the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision
2004/68/JHA, SEC(2009) 356.
European Commission (2011a) Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions. Strengtheening Victims’ Rights in the EU (COM (2011) 274 final).
European Commission (2011b) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of
Victims of Crime (COM (2011) 275 final).
European Commission (2011c) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters (COM
(2011) 276 final).
European Commission (2011d) Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child (COM (2011) 60
final).
European Council & Commission (1999) Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on
how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom,

313
 security and justice – Text adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 3
December 1998, Official Journal of the European Communities, C 019, 23.1.1999, pp.
1–15.
European Council (1999) Presidency Conclusions of Tampere European Council of 15 and 16
October 1999.
European Council (2005) The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and
Justice in the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 53, 3.3.2005,
pp. 1–14.
European Council (2010) The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving
and Protecting Citizens, Official Journal of the European Union, C 115, 4.5.2010, pp. 1–
38.
European Court of Justice (1963) Case 26/62, Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963. Van
Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, Reference for a preliminary
ruling: Tariefcommissi, The Netherlands.
European Court of Justice (1964) Case 6/64, Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1964. Flaminio
Costa v E.N.E.L., Reference for a preliminary ruling: Giudice conciliatore di Milano,
Italy.
European Court of Justice (2004) Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on
16 December 2004 (Spain v Eurojust).
European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2011a) Directive 2011/99/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European
Protection Order, Official Journal of the European Union, L 338, 21.12.2011, pp. 2–18.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2011b) Directive 2011/92/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on Combating the Sexual
Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography, and Replacing
Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA, Official Journal of the European Union, L
335, 12.12.2011, pp. 1–14.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2011c) Directive 2011/36/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating
trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework
Decision 2002/629/JHA, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 101,
15.4.2011, pp. 1-11.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2012) Directive 2012/29/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 Establishing Minimum
Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime, and Replacing
Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, Official Journal of the European Union, L
315, 14.11.2012, pp. 57–73.
European Parliament, Council of the European Union & European Commission (2003) Joint
Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for
Persons Involved in the Drafting of Legislation within the Community Institutions,
Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

314
 References

European Union (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the
Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, Official
Journal of the European Union, C 340, 10.11.1997, pp. 1–308.
European Union (2006) Consolidated Version of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, Official Journal of the European Union, C 321, 29.12.2006, pp. 37–186.
European Union (2007) Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the
Treaty Establishing the European Community, Official Journal of the European Union,
C 306, 17.12.2007, pp. 1–271.
European Union (2010) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Official
Journal of the European Union, C 83, 30.3.2010, pp. 13–46.
Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service & Department for Constitutional Affairs (2004)
The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, available at
http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/victims_code.pdf.
Legge 26 marzo 2001, n. 128, Interventi legislativi in materia di tutela della sicurezza dei
cittadini, Gazzetta Ufficiale, 91, 19.4.2001.
Parlamento europeo (2000) Relazione sulla Comunicazione della Commissione al Consiglio,
al Parlamento europeo e al Comitato economico e sociale “Vittime di reati nell’Unione
europea – Riflessioni sul quadro normativo e sulle misure da prendere”.
Parlamento Europeo & Consiglio dell’Unione europea (2012) Direttiva 2012/29/UE del
Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 25 ottobre 2012 che istituisce norme minime in
materia di diritti, assistenza e protezione delle vittime di reato e che sostituisce la
decisione quadro 2001/220/GAI. Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea, L 315,
14.11.2012, pp. 57–73.
Portuguese Republic (2000) Initiative of the Portuguese Republic with a View to Adopting a
Council Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Procedure, Official
Journal of the European Communities, C 243, 24.8.2000, pp. 4–8.
Proposta di legge d'iniziativa dei deputati Boato e Cima, n. 3367, Legge quadro per
l’assistenza, il sostegno e la tutela delle vittime di reati, Camera dei Deputati, 7.11.2002.
Proposta di Legge n. 2802, Norme per la tutela delle vittime di reati per motivi di omofobia e
transfobia, 14.10.2009.
Regno del Belgio (2002) Iniziativa del Regno del Belgio in vista dell’adozione di una
decisione del Consiglio che istituisce una rete europea di punti di contatto nazionali per
la giustizia riparatoria, Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee, C 242, 8.10.2002, pp.
20–23.
UN General Assembly (1985) Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime
and Abuse of Power, 96th Plenary Meeting, 29.11.1985.
UN General Assembly (2000a) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized
Crime, 62nd Plenary Meeting, 15.11.2000.
UN General Assembly (2000b) United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish
Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United
Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, 15.11.2000.

315
UN General Assembly (2001) Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the
Challenges of the Twenty-first Century, 81st Plenary Meeting, 4.12.2000.
United Nations (1989) Convention on the rights of the child, adopted and opened for
signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20
November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2006) Handbook on Restorative Justice
Programmes, New York, United Nations.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23), London, HMSO.

316