Cover not available
Part of
Handbook of Terminology: Volume 3. Legal Terminology
Edited by Łucja Biel and Hendrik J. Kockaert
[Handbook of Terminology 3] 2023
► pp. 16–36

Frame approach to legal terminology

What may be gained from seeing terminology as manifestation of legal knowledge?

 | Aarhus University
Central in this chapter are affordances of applying a frame approach to the representation of legal knowledge and the relation to legal terminology. The first part introduces the basic idea of linguistic meaning as based on the knowledge held by language users. It is followed by a presentation of frame semantic approaches that have been used for representing legal terminology. The next section discusses conceptual dynamics as an aspect on which frame approaches have special attention. The final section presents a method for constructing a broad basis for conceptual comparisons for lawyers as well as for translators in a frame format as well as an example for how translators may take advantage of such a frame representation.
Keywords: frame semantics, meaning and legal knowledge, legal translation, comparative law
Article outline
  • Introduction: Meaning as knowledge held by users
  • Frame approaches
    • General aspects of frame approaches in connection with terms
    • Frame approaches to (legal) terminology and terminography
    • Frame approaches for legal terminological resources
    • Frame approaches representing knowledge underlying legal communication
  • How does a frame-oriented conceptualization of legal terms influence the description of terms?
    • Dynamic nature of legal knowledge due to distributed character
    • Non-monolithic character of legal knowledge, subject to contemporary challenge
  • How may a frame approach be practically useful for legal translation?
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives (CC BY-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.3.fra2
References (59)
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. “Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields.” In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, edited by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering. A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brand, Oliver. 2007. “Conceptual Comparisons: Towards a Coherent Methodology of Comparative Legal Studies.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32(2):405–466.Google Scholar
Busse, Dietrich. 1997. “Semantisches Wissen und sprachliche Information. Zur Abgrenzung und Typologie von Faktoren des Sprachverstehens.” In Methodologische Aspekte der Semantikforschung, edited by Inge Pohl, 13–34. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2012. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busse, Dietrich, Michaela Felden, and Detmer Wulf. 2018. Bedeutungs- und Begriffswissen im Recht. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabré, M. Teresa. 1999. Terminology: theory, methods and applications [Reprint, Original title: <<La>> terminolgia. La teoria, els mètodes, les aplicacions, 1992]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condamines, Anne and Aurélie Picton. 2022. “Textual Terminology. Origins, principles and new challenges.” In Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining terms, concepts and specialized knowledge, edited by Marie-Claude L’Homme and Pamela Faber, 219–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg, Jan. 2009a. “Individual Conceptual Structure and Legal Experts’ Efficient Communication.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 22(2):223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. “Methodological aspects of the dynamic character of legal terms.” Fachsprache 31(3–4):126–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Knowledge construction and legal discourse: The interdependence of perspective and visibility of characteristics.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(1):48–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Comparative law for translation: The key to successful mediation between legal systems.” In Legal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects, edited by Anabel Borja Albi and Fernando Prieto Ramos, 9–25. Bern: Peter Lang. 978-3-0353-0433-6Google Scholar
. 2016. “Conceptualising Corporate Criminal Liability: Legal Linguistics and the Combination of Descriptive Lenses.” In Constructing Legal Discourses and Social Practices: Issues and Perspectives, edited by Girolamo Tessuto, Vijay K. Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone, Rita Salvi and Christopher Williams, 28–56. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Comparative Law and Legal Translation as Partners in Knowledge Communication: Frames as a Descriptive Instrument.” In Institutional Translation for International Governance: Enhancing Quality in Multilingual Legal Communication, edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos, 37–48. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Comparative law for legal translation: Through multiple perspectives to multidimensional knowledge.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 33(2):263–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg, Jan and Dorothee Heller. 2008. “Vagueness and Indeterminacy in Law.” In Legal Discourse across Cultures and Systems, edited by Vijay K. Bhatia, Candlin, Christopher N. and Jan Engberg, 145–168. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, ed. 2012. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Frames as a framework for terminology.” In Handbook of Terminology, edited by Henrik J. Kockaert and Frieda Steurs, 14–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela and Pilar Araúz. 2016. “Specialized Knowledge Representation and the Parameterization of Context.” Frontiers in Psychology 7:1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela and Marie-Claude L’Homme. 2014. “Lexical semantic approaches to terminology. An introduction.” Terminology 20(2):143–150.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela and Ricardo Mairal. 1999. Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela and Arianne Reimerink. 2019. “Framing terminology in legal translation.” International Journal of Legal Discourse 4(1):15–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson, and Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. “Background to FrameNet.” International Journal of Lexicography 16(3):235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gephart, Werner. 2006. Recht als Kultur. Zur kultursoziologischen Analyse des Rechts. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Heylen, Kris and Frieda Steurs. 2014. “Translating legal and administrative language: How to deal with legal terms and their flexible meaning potential.” Turjuman 23(2):96–146.Google Scholar
Holste, Alexander. 2019. Semiotische Effizienz interfachlicher Sprache-Bild-Textsorten: Schreibprozesse bei Pflichtenheften in technischen Ausschreibungen. Berlin: Frank & Timme. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janich, Nina and Ekaterina Zakharova. 2014. “Fiktion „gemeinsame Sprache“? Interdisziplinäre Aushandlungsprozesse auf der Inhalts-, der Verfahrens- und der Beziehungsebene.” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 61(1):3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kann, Christoph and Lars Inderelst. 2018. “Gibt es eine einheitliche Frame-Konzeption? Historisch-systematische Perspektiven.” In Frames interdisziplinär: Modelle, Anwendungsfelder, Methoden, edited by Alexander Ziem, Lars Inderelst and Detmer Wulf, 25–68. Düssseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerremans, Koen, Vanessa Andries, and Rita Temmerman. 2016. “Studying the Dynamics of Understanding and Legal Neologisms within a Linguistically Diverse Judicial Space: The Case of Motherhood in Belgium.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 231:46–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerremans, Koen, Rita Temmerman, and Peter De Baer. 2008. “Construing domain knowledge via terminological understanding.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 7:177–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konerding, Klaus-Peter. 1993. Frames und lexikalisches Bedeutungswissen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
L’Homme, Marie-Claude. 2005. “Sur la notion de ‘terme’.” Meta 50(4):1112–1132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Maintaining the balance between knowledge and the lexicon in terminology: a methodology based on frame semantics.” Lexicography 4(1):3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Lexical semantics for terminology: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
L’Homme, Marie-Claude, Benoît Robichaud, and Carlos Subirats. 2014. “Discovering frames in specialized domains.” In Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 1364–1371. Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. “An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Science 10:1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, James L. and David E. Rumelhart. 1985. “Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 114(2):159–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 1994. “The principle of semantic compositionality.” Topoi 13:11–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peruzzo, Katia. 2014. “Term extraction and management based on event templates: An empirical study on an EU corpus.” Terminology 20(2):151–170.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Legal system: an additional variable in the analysis of short-term diachronic evolution of legal terminology.” International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(2):291–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, Janine. 2012. “Identifying equivalents of specialized verbs in a bilingual comparable corpus of judgments: A frame-based methodology.” In Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 1791–1798. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Methodological bases for assigning terminological equivalents.” Terminology 19(2):237–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Using frame semantics to build a bilingual lexical resource on legal terminology.” In Handbook of Terminology, edited by Henrik J. Kockaert and Frieda Steurs, 427–450. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rackevičienė, Sigita, Violeta Janulevičienė, and Liudmila Mockiene. 2019. “Cirmumnavigating non-equivalence in legal languages: A trilingual case study of generic-specific concepts and terms.” The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 7(1):1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonnæs, Ingrid. 2013. “Legal translation and “traditional” comparative law – Similarities and differences.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 12:147–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Approaches to terminology. Now that the dust has settled …” Synaps 20:27–36.Google Scholar
ten Hacken, Pius. 2015. “Terms and specialized vocabulary.” In Handbook of Terminology, edited by Henrik J. Kockaert and Frieda Steurs, 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Anne, Aleksandra Matulewska, and Le Cheng. 2020. “Law as a culturally constituted sign-system – A space for interpretation.” International Journal of Legal Discourse 5(2):239–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarco-Tejada, Maria Ángeles, and Antonio Lazari. 2017. “Los modelos de semántica de marcos para la representación del conocimiento jurídico en el Derecho Comparado: el caso de la responsabilidad del Estado.” Revista de Llengua i Dret 67:18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2014. Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zweigert, Konrad and Hein Kötz. 1996. Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung. 3rd ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Engberg, Jan
2024. Students in the third space: constructions of knowledge of foreign law in legal translations from German into Danish. Comparative Legilinguistics 60 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
Engberg, Jan
2024. Wie man Fach-Kontext beim Übersetzen einbezieht – und was es für ihre Überprüfung braucht. In Translation im Kontext [TRANSÜD. Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens, 146], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Fernández‐Silva, Sabela & Juan Antonio Núñez Cortés
2024. Exploring the Effect of Plain Terminology on Processing and Comprehension of Administrative Texts in Spanish: A Self‐Paced Reading Experiment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.