MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

MOLDOVA STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS

THE YEAR’ THESIS

A Contrastive study of Legal Terminology in
English and Romanian

Submitted by: Cernenchi Doina,

group EI201TR
Research Adviser: Cupcic Silvia

Chişinău - 2022
MINISTERUL EDUCAŢIEI, CULTURII ŞI CERCETĂRII AL REPUBLICII MOLDOVA
UNIVERSITATEA DE STAT DIN MOLDOVA
FACULTATEA DE LITERE
DEPARTAMENTUL TRADUCERE, INTERPRETARE ȘI LINGVISTICĂ APLICATĂ

TEZA DE AN
Studiu Contrastive al Terminologiei din
Domeniul Legal în Engleză și Română

Realizat de: Cernenchi Doina,

Grupa: EI201TR
Analizat de: Cupcic Silvia

Chişinău - 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................4
Chapter 1. Introduction into terminology.............................................................5
General information................................................................................................5
Terminology...........................................................................................................5
Definition:.................................................................................................................9
Information about term:...........................................................................................13
Term definition:....................................................................................................13
Chapter 2. Analysis of Term Formation.............................................................17
2.1 Term Formation..............................................................................................17
2.2. The main features of term formation in general:........................................18
1) Derivation......................................................................................................18
2) Compounding...................................................................................................25
3) Conversion.......................................................................................................28
2.3 Introduction into legal domain.......................................................................30
 The legal domain..........................................................................................30
 Legal Terminology.......................................................................................32
Chapter 3. Contrastive analysis of English and Romamian Legal Terminology
.................................................................................................................................35
 A terminological analysis of legal terms....................................................35
 Borrowings....................................................................................................36
Conclusions............................................................................................................37
Bibliography...........................................................................................................38
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the science of terminology, that is, the theory and practice study of words as
cohesive systems of lexical objects equipped with a unique creative dynamism, is neither well
defined nor widely accepted. Each scientific, technical, socio-human field has its own terms. We
are aware that the terminology of a discipline is not a state, but a continuous process. It is true
that terminology is the most dynamic component of vocabulary, which serves as the main source
for completing and expanding the inventory of lexical units of the common language.
We define terminology as a set of actions centered on the production of terms, their collecting
and explanation, and eventually their distribution in a variety of written and digital media. Many
researches over time have concluded that terminology is an independent discipline. This
statement is based on two points: the observation that an innovative conceptual foundation has
been built to manage the phenomenon of identification in special languages and the idea that
terminology is recognized as an autonomous field of implementation in the field of interaction.
Theoretical questions about the nature of terms came later, as part of the implementation process
to coordinate terminological study in particular special disciplines.
The work of Wüster is a good illustration. He was first concerned in techniques of term
synthesis and normalization, but after applying them in The Machine Tool (An Interlingual
Dictionary of Basic Concepts) (1968), he focused on features of term theory.
Terminology is a relatively recent science that analyzes terminology and their applications in
specific fields. According to Maria Teresa Cabré, this science is concerned with the gathering,
description, and presentation of terminology in one or more languages in order to improve
communication among specialists and professionals. This is a linguistic science that
systematically analyzes the designation of concepts (terms, names, symbols) by investigation
and analysis of terms used in specific situations in any subject area, with the goal of recording
and promoting accurate usage. The main properties of words, according to linguist scholar
Bertha Mara Gutiérrez Rodilla, are:
1. Precision - When a term is precise, its communication aspect remains constant, i.e. its
meaning is not affected by context.
2. Emotional neutrality — the use of phrases must be free of subjective, personal, or
subjective components included in the conventional register.
3. Time stability - it refers to the validity of a term (together with its meaning and referent)
across time.
The cognitive dimension of terminology, — for example the organization of information within
a field of knowledge, is regarded as a means of making a contribution to accuracy and
systematicness in relocating knowledge in various constructive situations, rather than as a final
moment in itself restricted for researchers or subject field specialists.
The linguistic aspect of terminology theory is found in the principles guiding the relationship
between a term and a concept, and, more specifically, in the linguistic processes of the term as a
lexical unit. The linguistic elements of term formation are of interest not only to terminology
professionals, terminologists, and subject field specialists, but also to translators and interpreters,
especially when the latter are forced to go above and beyond the call of duty as translators due to
a lack of dictionaries and glossaries in less widely used languages.
Chapter 1. Introduction into terminology
General information
Terminology, as a basic concept, focuses on the importance of the structure of concepts,
conceptual relationships, the links between terms and concepts and the application of terms to
concepts. The emphasis on moving from concepts to terms divides terminological techniques
from lexicography techniques.
The use of a terminological computational methodology has risen due in large part to the
explosion of information, which has resulted in significant worry about adequate categorizations
for the many new ideas generated, particularly in science and technology, as well as a huge
interest in international public communication. For several decades, terminological practice has
become a method consistent with the necessary supporting theories, by involving and applying
the knowledge of a small group of academics and practitioners, for whom this field has become
a particular one. Terminology courses are currently being given in a number of European and
American colleges, although without the assistance of good textbooks. Now, much of the
theoretical basis of terminology means more than just a theory, a conceptual structure, based on
principles that end up being more than just the use of terms. It is worth mentioning that the
terms are distinguished by an exact linguistic object within a specific discourse, where the
number of terms is constantly increasing, this actually representing the basic characteristics of
the terms. As the terminology and number of terms are constantly growing, some unjustified and
unfounded theories or concepts end up encouraging studies on the computational treatment of
terms.
The Vienna school of terminology created the classic theory of terminology. It is evident that
this school, which was founded on Wuster's work, helped to open the study area of terminology.
The Vienna school has also made a strong case for terminology's freedom as a distinct field of
study with its own practice and theory. In Felber’s opinion, the theory of terminology has three
distinct characteristics:
(1) “Any terminology work starts with concepts. The sphere of concepts is independent of the
sphere of terms”;
(2) “Only the terms of concepts, i.e. the terminologies, are of relevance to the terminologist, not
the rules of inflections and the syntax”;
(3) “The terminological view of language is a synchronic one, i.e. for terminology the present
meanings of terms are important. For terminology the system of concepts is what matters in
language”.
The term "concept" is important in this framework. The "concept," which is the foundation of
basic terminology theory and the beginning point for all terminology study, is defined as "an
element of thought consisting of an accumulation of attributes, which ultimately are concepts."
Felber supports these arguments by stating that "terminologies are deliberate constructions." The
usage of language is the standard in ordinary language... The unrestrained use of words in terms
would result in anarchy. As a result, the standardization of single terminology necessitates
consistent translinguistic norms."
In fact, terminology can be analyzed as a science, or, in the other hand as an art, because it is a
creative process that involves time, organization, creativity, and a lot of research, and it can
study in one language or in two or more languages at the same time. The goal of comparative
terminology, also defined as bilingual or multilingual terminology, is to identify the equivalency
between terms in two or more languages in a given topic. Therefore, when it comes to the
correct and fair analysis of this profession, people must have a basis in the field of terminology,
which involves both the knowledge of the terms in the field with which they will deal and the
knowledge and application in practice of the methods of terminological research.

Figure 1. Terminology as a discipline, and as a practice and art (3., pag 127)
The first group considers terminology to be a distinct scientific subject. They are primarily
concerned with providing a theoretical framework for Terminology (a scientific subject with a
capital letter) within which the dynamics of terminology (term development and terminological
creation) may be characterized. Language learners, cognitive scientists, and sociolinguists utilize
terminology in this sense. The culmination of their efforts is a coordinated Terminology
concept.
The second group regards terminology as a practice and an art form. The fundamental goal of
terminology for this category is that it should be utilized for communication in particular areas,
communication through intermediates, and compilation of glossaries and dictionaries of
specialist subjects. Terminology is utilized by specialists in specific fields, intermediaries (such
as semi-specialists, commentators, and translators), and linguists — terminologists,
terminographers, and language planners – from this perspective. Terminology is a
communication instrument in this context; terminology is an objective. Their efforts result in the
publication of standardized dictionaries for specific fields or dictionaries for specialized
locations.
Cabré believes that the Theory of Terminology is necessary since it is one of the boundaries that
separates Terminology as a science.
Most people believe that terminology is the study of terms. Indeed, terminology is the study of
the meaning of language statements, or more accurately their concepts.
To put it another way, terminology, or the science of terms, originated from the necessity to
name and identify things.
For the term of terminology science, the International Terminology Center (Infoterm) states a
distinct status for two main reasons: first, because there are three terminology schools, the most
famous in the world: schools in Vienna, Prague and the Soviet Union; and secondly, in the last
two decades a growing number of universities have begun to conduct basic studies and research
in terminology. The notion is the beginning point of terminological study in the three classic
schools of terminology. It is a thinking unit or component that expresses an object's intrinsic
properties. According to the Vienna school, as a representative being Wüster clearly states that
the concept can persist without language. In the Canadian school, the word is the beginning
point for terminological examination. Whereas the Prague and Soviet schools maintain the
Saussurian position that perhaps the term is the sum of its concept and form, Wüster believes
that the "sign" has a conceptual level and a variety of alternative realizations, a minor
observation that is not rejected by others. Wüster emphasizes the importance of the concept
system. The best term should be chosen, and it should be as accessible and international as
possible. As a result of all of these influences, the scientific study of terminology has become
confused with the pragmatic practice of specialisation. Terminology could support the
development of cognitive sciences and sociolinguistics if it can break free from the constraining
environment of standardisation procedure and its objectivist approach.
There are several opinions and concepts about terminology, including ideas:
In his work "Conceptology in Terminology Theory, Semantics, and Word Formation," Peter
Weissenhofer understands the difference between the usage of concepts in terminology theory
and semantics and suggests an expansion of Wüster's four-field concept model. Terminology
theory must deal with problems of uncertainty and template events. The subjective nature of
terminology is demonstrated by the fact that specific topic specialists in the humanities and
social sciences frequently hold opposing views on the concepts important to their respective
disciplines. Many subject areas in the scientific and technological fields are expected to include
those where accuracy and determinacy are frequently the key objectives for their language. The
subject areas could be represented on a scale ranging from top to bottom criteria for clarity and
determinacy.
Terminology, according to Kyo Kageura, is a separate discipline from linguistics. He admits that
the significance on concepts emphasized by those who assert terminology individuality appears
to be intrinsically correct, considering significance is commonly viewed as a characteristic of
the linguistic structure. Kageura considers that terminology should really be integrated into
linguistics rather than treated as a distinct study. Research studies of the terminology of various
special languages may aid in the comprehension of conceptual concepts in language.
Terminology's theoretical separation between the conceptual and linguistic aspects of the
communication context in which terminology acts is artificial. Given that the goal of
terminology is to examine how ideas emerge and are related to in particular language
interactions, a reanalysis of its principles is required.
According to Ingrid Mayer, terminology has both a linguistic and a theoretical aspect. She
contends that terminology can improve special linguistic interaction, and that the diversity and
potentials of creative abilities in scientific and research thinking could become a topic of study
in the near future, i.e., terminology would be the field that would highlight communication skills
and integration, in her opinion.
Another point of view on terminology is that of terminologist Sager, who claims that
"terminology as an area of study contains a series of procedures that have developed around the
formation of terms, their investigations and interpretation, and finally their demonstration in
numerous print and digital media." Terminology, according to Sager, is largely an illustration of
a "research methods" - how to accomplish things.
The terminology being studied from a scientific perspective has some basic characteristics,
such as:
a) this is a particular topic - which contains the vocabulary of spoken and written
communication;
b) has a defined objective - namely to obtain, receive, and define terms that can then be adapted
in order to increase the effectiveness of communication; however, this basic purpose was
created and highlighted from the beginning, being auxiliary to the requirements.
c) and last but not least, it includes a conceptual framework.
The Vienna School of Terminology cites the four important concepts as its fundamental
terminology core principles: 1) Terminology examines concepts before terms – this means that
terminology, according to Wüster, begins with the definition and tries to correctly define each
concept. Consequently, the discussed and examined approach begins with the sign's substance,
for example, its significance. 2) A term is continuously ascribed to a notion; 3) Concepts are
distinct and can be assigned an area in a theory system – this theory asserts that theories should
not be researched throughout solitude, but instead as aspects in a present systems that can be
direct funding on a close examination of the properties of notions that introduce out the social
connections between the theories; 4) Terms and theories used in this study are explored in
sequence. Wüster defines terminology uniformity as "the objective of unifying theories and
structures of concepts, specifying concepts, avoiding homonymy, removing synonymy, and
generating, if needed, new terms in accordance with terminological standards."
Finally, we understand that terminology research actually involves the various responsibilities
such as: trying to define conceptual framework based on theory systems, classifying a correct
terminology to each core principle, and documenting terms and their definitions in
terminological vocabulary knowledge and database systems, defining notions and theory
connections, trying to establish theory mechanisms characterized by specific theories and
prototype connections.
Another important term is socioterminology, which attempts to analyze the actual usage of
language in society, as the name implies. A descriptive method to terminology is being
encouraged to substitute the didactic goal of conventional terminology schools.
The qualitative methodology includes the examination of synonymy and polysemy, which
contradicts the old schools' concept of monosemy. As a result, terminology is now an aspect of
organizational semantics, which investigates both general and specialized language. Second,
socioterminology brings into question the validity of distinct sectors or spheres. As a result,
terminologists and linguists no longer wish to divide information into homogenous chunks that
are distinct and well-protected from any foreign effects.

Definition:
While terminology is fundamental to its origins in linguistics and semantics, it has lately
evolved into the vast subject of communication research, which can be defined as a recent
development. In this situation, we can see how terminology can be quite multifunctional. It is
necessary for the proper functioning of all disciplines, aids in differentiation in all other
subjects, and is inextricably linked with a variety of distinct specialties, as E. Wüster underlined.
He referred to it as a multidisciplinary area of research, linking linguistics, logic, ontology, and
information systems to other fields.
The common element across these fields is that they are all concerned, in some way, with the
systematic structuring of the complicated interactions between concepts and terms. Since
terminology relates to concepts, meanings, and names, it is best to begin a debate with a clear
definition of the issue. The study and area of activity known as terminology relates to the
collecting, characterization, analysis, and presentation of terms, i.e. lexical units belonging to
particular areas of the use of one or more languages.
The Oxford Dictionary defines terminology as “the body of terms used with a particular
technical application in a subject of study, theory, profession et cetera.”
Terminology serves as the foundation for any translation. It is the vocabulary, phrases, and
technical terms that are used to describe terms and construct sentences. Since the beginning of
translation as a profession, technical translators have created lists of words for translation
reasons. Most lists have two columns, one containing terms in the original language and the
other containing the same phrase in the target language. Most people associate a terminology
database or termbase with a dictionary.
We must keep in mind, however, that there is not a single approach in the study of terminology
as a discipline, but several. However, three of the most important approaches are:
a) from the point of view of linguistics, the terminology is part of the specialized lexicon by
belonging to domains;
b) from the point of view of a technical-scientific discipline, the terminology is the reflection of
one's own conceptual organization and, therefore, of a means of expression and communication;
c) from the user's point of view (directly or through intermediaries), the terminology is a set of
useful and practical communication units, which must be evaluated according to criteria of
economy, accuracy and relevance of expression.
The set of specialized words in a certain discipline or field of activity is, as we know, the
terminology of this specialty. It is also appropriate to mention the basic units of terminology -
the terms, the ones that name the corresponding concepts of each specialized discipline. But the
status of terminology as an autonomous science can be demonstrated by establishing its specific
differences in relation to lexicology. The connection between terminology and lexicology is the
most direct, because the terminology has as a starting point the lexicological-graphic methods.
Over time, however, terminology has experienced a separate development, conceiving and
solving in its own way the problems of its object of study, its methodology, the terms it must
create and the conditions of their use.
Starting from the definition of the concept of terminology, which we can say that „Terminology
is a branch of science which deals with the gathering, description, and presentation of terms in
one or more languages in order to improve communication between specialists and
professionals.”
In truth, terminology is a complex subject that varies based on the approach used and the
connections of the person addressing it, therefore, it can be:
 a resource,
 a set of methodologies and procedures to be used in creating this resource,
 a factor in communication,
 a community of actors, and
 an academic discipline.
The first approach, in which the essence of concepts, cognitive relations, connections between
terms and concepts, and giving terms to concepts are of primary importance, provides the basis
for a broad theory of terminology. The approaches used in terminology differ from those used in
lexicography since they focus on going from concepts to terms. This viewpoint, which is now
regarded as the most comprehensive and structured theoretical approach to terms, varies from
lexicological principle in three different ways: it prioritizes the theory over the classification; it
is only important in the determination of the terminological unit and not with the other aspects
of linguistic characterization; and it excludes any contrastive technique or knowledge.
Terminology, according to Wüster, is a separate study dealing with the interaction between
sciences such as physics, chemistry, medicine, and a variety of other fields such as linguistics,
logic, ontology, and computer science.
Terminology and logic both have a fundamental involvement in concepts. In contrast to
semantics, which is focused with the name-meaning connection, terminology is particularly
concerned with the link between individual objects and the theories that describe them.
Terminology and rationality are both interested in how theories interact to one another.
Furthermore, rationale informs the types of relationships and the network of characters
terminologists employ to describe these connections. Nevertheless, terminology is intimately
related to the unique topic fields. Terminology is not even a final stage in itself, nor can
definitional work be related with simply offering sets of a sequence of theories with their
respective names; terminology is the provider of scientific knowledge, in technology, and
interaction; as a side effect, it must function inside the constraints of offering a service to other
fields of study.
The contemporary evolution of terminology is the outcome of technological breakthroughs and
the growing demand for specialized communication across two or more languages.
Terminology, as any other technique, is impacted by the subject parts of the field of action it
supports; it has thus been regarded as an interdisciplinary action instead of a topic in its own
capacity. It differs from mainstream linguistics in that it has its own concepts about the lexicon
of a language and its own methods based on all of these concepts. Traditional terminology,
instead of including the analysis of language growth and evolution, highlighted the conceptual
system, which became, according to traditional terminology advocates, the foundation of
particular language. Principles, on the other hand, evolve with time, as do their classifications.
According to Cabré, the Theory of Terminology must be identified and seen according to the
model he himself proposed as an example.
Terminological units and lexical units are not distinguished in linguistic theory; an examination
of their phonological, morphological, and syntactic properties would indicate no difference.
They differ in terms of their semantic and pragmatic characteristics.
From the description of the concept of terminology according to Kageura we can deduce the
following points:
1. The concepts vocabulary and domain must be established before the theory of terminology
can be formed. Because these theories are additional, the concept terminology's formation is
maintained by extra-linguistic elements.
2. The notion terminology is solidified at the stage of 'parole,' and the appropriate theory of
Terminology can achieve de jure independence only if it is finally connected with the idea
'domain' or some of its manifestations.
3. Terminology comes before terms: 'It is terminology, not particular terms, that matches more
directly to the concept domain.'
This indicates that if a lexical unit is to be accepted as a word, it must first be placed in a
terminological area. This assumes a specific linguistic presence, which means that the idea of
terminology should empirically materialize as a system of concrete terms.
4. There must be a terminological domain, which might also linguistically be a subset of the
lexical field as opposed to the textual domain.
All of these arguments contribute to Terminology's theoretical position, where terminology as a
topic vocabulary in its entirety constitutes a practical item of Terminology with certain
connection points to two additional notions – area and vocabulary.
Figure 2. Cabré's view on the Theory of Terminology (3., pag 129)
Cabré begins with two premises. The first is that terminology is "a set of wants, a set of
procedures to fulfill these needs, and a coherent field of knowledge" (Cabré 2003: 182). Her
second premise is that the terminological units are the constituents of terminology.
Terminological units are multifunctional; they are parts of knowledge, parts of language, and
units of communication all at the same time.
As a result, their definition must include cognitive (the notion), linguistic (the word), and
sociocognitive / communicative / pragmatic (context) elements. This multidimensional trait
separates them from other linguistic units with similar structural characteristics (words) as well
as elements that reflect specialist skills.
In conclusion, we can say that manifesting itself as a discipline and field of research,
terminology plays a key role: it contributes to facilitating and streamlining communication,
while ensuring quality, thanks to specialized vocabularies, unilingual or multilingual, and their
widespread use. to users, through communication networks. As a result, we may conclude that
terminological theory began and is still being created through real world experience, which is
motivated by the desire to solve language-based communication difficulties.
Information about term:
A special topic language's lexicon represents the discipline's organizational factors by providing
as many lexical units because there are ideas relevant sections in the subdomain and by
restricting the reference of each such lexical unit to a well-defined location. Aside from a wide
range of characteristics provided with the characteristic of special reference, the lexicon of a
special language consisted of items of general reference that do not appear to be peculiar to any
field or disciplines and whose referential attributes are consistently imprecise or generalised.
The elements that are distinguished by special reference within a practice are known as the
'terms' of that practice, and they structure its 'terminology'; those that function in general guide
across a wide range of contains are simply known as 'words,' and their context is known as the
'vocabulary.'
Terms - words related to a specific branch of science, used primarily in scientific works but also
in newspaper, publicistic, and belles-lettres style; they are usually monosemantic, for example:
terms of chemistry-hydrogen; terms of medicine-penicillin, influenza; terms of physics-nucleus;
terms of art-renaissance. With the expansion of general education, numerous words that were
earlier considered terms have entered the common literary language.
Because the multitude of lexical elements in a language is limited, some objects could also do
dual service, therefore words may be forced into service as words in specific special languages.
Terms, the primary objects of terminology, are viewed as symbols that represent concepts.
Concepts must be generated and come into existence before terminology can be created to
express them. In contrast, identifying a notion may be considered an important step in
establishing a concept as an useful to society or useable thing. In the theoretical model, a
concept of terms includes part of a lexicology hypothesis. Moreover, in accordance with its
functional aims, this theoretical introduction refers only to those aspects of lexicology which are
directly applicable to the dual functions of terminologists as creators of techniques such as
automatic dictionaries and glossaries and as consultants on the use in special classification of
subjects.
Concepts are represented linguistically through terms. Apart from in ordinary language, where
symbol unfairness is permitted, special languages try to systematize concepts of identification
and designate concepts according to which was before norms or basic principles. Polysemy,
metaphor, and adjectival persistence are all effectively implemented in general language; true
word formation is uncommon. Where it exists, it is founded on everyday experiences and hence
constitutes a prescientific approach to understanding.

Term definition:
It is obviously impossible to create a full list of all existing definitions of a phrase. As a result, it
is best to stick to the most crucial ones. Throughout its history, the idea of "term" has been
regarded as:
- "a word that is the name of a rigorously defined concept";
-"a word that expresses a clearly defined philosophical, scientific, technological, or other
concept";
- "a word or a group of words that communicates a notion in some unique science, technology,
art, or social life, for example";
- "“a word or a collocation of special (scientific, technical, etc.) language that is produced
(received or borrowed) for proper articulation of unique concepts and notations of certain
objects";
- "a carefully constructed word intentionally generated or derived from natural language";
-"a word or a collocation being the specific name of a special notion for any field of research,
technology, production, social political life, culture, etc.".
According to the substantive approach, a term is a specific word or a word combination
(collocation) that varies from ordinary nominative units in terms of consistent support,
preciseness, systematic nature, and context dependency. Nonetheless, the majority of the phrases
have these characteristics. Many linguists regard this strategy of pitting concepts versus words
as "refused by modern science."
Terms, according to the functional (descriptive) approach, are words that perform a "particular
function." The opposition "term – word" proved to be quite productive in the term
theorycreation under this technique. The majority of these "special" capabilities, however, are
inherent in ordinary words. Furthermore, "there is no clear line of demarcation between terms
and common vocabulary. [...] The process of interchange between trivial language and
terminology in the form of terminologization and determinologization never ceases."
Unlike in lexicology, the word has not really been assigned very distinct definitions, the lack of
clarity being attributable to the several approaches taken to it. Since Bloomfield proposed in
1926 that the word is "a minimal free form," meaning that it is the smallest meaningful linguistic
unit that may be utilized freely to transmit meaning, things have become increasingly
convoluted. Katamba (2005) is one of the authors who has attempted to shed some light on what
is meant by a word. His explanations are based on identifying a variety of distinct ways in which
the term "word" can be employed. Before getting into the meat of the explanations, he defines
"word-form" as "the physical form that represents or illustrates a word in speech or writing."
Terms can be single words or multiword phrases. There is nothing that distinguishes terms from
conventional English in terms of syntax, however terms have a strong tendency to be nouns,
typically compound nouns.
Terms are possibly more workable for MT systems than common language vocabulary because
they are less unclear. While a common language word may reflect more than one concept in a
concept system, terms and the concepts they indicate are typically one-to-one mapped.
- Phonological words:
Words exist as actual objects in both writing and speech. They are known as phonological words
when seen from this viewpoint. The recognition of spoken words appears to be a more
challenging process than recognition of written words, owing to the absence of immediately
recognizable breaks at the limits of a written word in speech. When words are spoken, they do
not separate themselves clearly; they arrive in a torrent and overlap.
Nonetheless, even if specific words do not stand out separately in the production of speech,
divided by a pause analogous to a blank in writing, speakers can identify them. There are dozens
of pages on voice recognition, but for the sake of this book, enough it to mention that the
process of identifying a spoken word begins with the phonetic stage, when the listener hears a
variety of sounds.
- Words as a lexical items:
Lexicology makes a distinction between words as word-forms and words as lexical items or
lexemes. The lexical item is an abstract entity with various forms that may be found in
dictionaries and has a specific meaning. When we use language, we create concrete things called
word-forms, which we write (orthographic words) or speak (phonological words). According to
Katamba, the relationship between a lexeme and its word forms is one of realization,
representation, or manifestation. For example, the lexeme good might appear in actual speech or
writing as good, better, or the greatest.
The difference between word-forms and lexemes is simple to grasp. It is a distinction that we, as
language users, are conscious of even at a young age, and it provides the basis for word-play in
puns and purposeful ambiguity in everyday life.
- Grammatical words:
Terms are important in syntax from a grammatical standpoint since sentences comprise strings
of words. A grammatical word is a lexical item with a specific meaning and certain
morphological and syntactic properties. Syncretism refers to the phenomena of using the same
word-form of a lexeme as various grammatical terms. Syncretism does not simply apply to
verbs. It could be a feature of other lexical items as well.
Grammatical words, according to Katamba (2002), are distinguished by positional movement on
the one hand and rigidity or internal cohesion on the other. The author indicates that words in a
sentence can be moved around without changing its overall grammatical meaning, but with a
little altered emphasis.
Consequently, focused on four approaches outlined above, Bejan and Asandei propose the
following definition of the word: "The term word refers to the basic unit of a given language
that results from the association of a certain meaning with a specific combination of sounds
capable of a specific grammatical use."

In modern usage, the term has three meanings: 1. the scheduled of approaches and techniques
used for the selection, explanation, and presentation of terms; 2. a theory, for example: the
collection of property, assertions, and conclusion of the study necessary for clarifying the
connections between terms and concepts that are crucial for a coherent activity under 1; and 3. a
vocabulary of a specific subject area. The word is a non-countable noun in its first two
definitions; in its third, it is measurable and quantifiable and has a plural form.

- Basic feature of word-groups:

Words or word groups are formed when words are combined to form lexical units. It is
important to remember that lexicology is concerned with words, word forming morphemes, and
word-groups. Word-groups' structural and semantic coherence may differ. Some word-groups,
such as perspective, appear to be operationally and semantically separate. They are commonly
referred to as set phrases, word-equivalents, or phraseological units, and are studied by the
lexicological branch known as phraseology. This form of word-group is classified as a free
word-group or phrase and is examined in syntax. Before delving into phraseology, it is
necessary to identify the characteristics shared by various word-groups, regardless of the degree
of structural and semantic cohesiveness of the component-words. The lexical valency of words
and the grammatical valency of words are two essential variables in grouping words into word-
groups.
Word-groups can be seen structurally in a variety of ways. Word-groups can be defined by the
sequence and arrangement of its constituent components. For example, the word-group to read a
book can be classed as a verbal-nominal group, smb.- as a verbal prepositional-nominal group,
and so on. According to the distribution criterion, all word-groups can be split into two large
classes: according to their head-words and according to their syntactical characteristics.
Word-groups are divided into predicative and non-predicative groupings based on their
syntactical structure. Predicative word-groups, such as 'he went,' have a syntactic structure
comparable to those of a statement; and all the others are non-predicative. Non-predicative
word-groups are classified as subordinative or coordinative based on the sort of syntactic
relations that exist between the elements.
Statistical analysis is important not just for its precision, as well as for its application to specific
challenges in communication technology and information theory. Statistical analysis is critical
in selecting vocabulary for a foreign language for teaching reasons.
Chapter 2. Analysis of Term Formation
2.1 Term Formation
When inventing a new term for a new notion using the techniques stated above, there are various
requirements that a term should meet that must be taken into account, particularly the following:
1. clarity; 2. coherence; 3. appropriateness; 4. linguistic economy; 5. derivability and
compoundability; 6. linguistic correctness; and 7. preference for native language. Other
academics add that terminology should be monosemantic, accurate, systematic in nature,
succinct, easy to say, context-free, and stylistically neutral. The requirements listed above can be
separated into two groups: those expressing the relationship between a concept and its form, and
those relating to the linguistic form of a term.
The production of ideal phrases is an objective that terminologists aim towards but rarely
achieve. Attempts for term harmonization, integration, and standardization can be accomplished
by classification and systematization. Investigating term formation tendencies Sager categorizes
them as follows:
a. Naming a topic using existing resources requires simile, metaphor, and metonymy.
b. Existing resource modification includes:
-Affixation or derivation
-Compounding
-Conversion
-Compression – abbreviation, clipping, acronym, etc. .
The invention of new terms, which may be neologisms or borrowings. When it comes to the
circumstances of creation, there are two major types:
a. primary term formation, which occurs concurrently with concept creation and is monolingual;
b. secondary term formation, which develops when a new term is produced for a previously
known idea.
Term formation can occur as a result of terminology review or as a result of the transmission of
knowledge (particularly scientific and technical knowledge) to another language community via
direct borrowing, loan translation, parallel formation, adaption, total new creation, and so on.
Depending on which of the two types gets engaged, it could be spontaneous or well planned and
engineered. Another major contrast is that there is no pre-existing linguistic structure with
primary term formation, yet adequate term formation principles exist. There is always an already
existing term, which is the term of the SL, and which can serve as a model for secondary term
development (Valeontis,Mantzari 2006). This would be critical when translingual borrowing
happens and the so-called "analogue rule" proposed by Valeontis must be considered. To put it
simply, when generating a term in a TL to name a new idea that was primarily named in an SL,
the term formation mechanism should be selected to be equivalent to the word formation
mechanism used for the original term.
Clavera and Torruella's classification divides the sources utilized to create new terms into two
categories: elements from the same language and materials from different languages. Three
methods are operative when resources from the same language are used:
a. formal – involving
derivation, compounding,
parasynthesis (a process of
simultaneous prefixation and
suffixation), and shortening;
b. semantic – extension of
meaning and
c. functional – conversion.
a. formal – involving
derivation, compounding,
parasynthesis (a process of
simultaneous prefixation and
suffixation), and shortening;
b. semantic – extension of
meaning and
c. functional – conversion.
a. formal – involving derivation, compounding, parasynthesis (a process of
simultaneous prefixation and suffixation), and shortening;
b. semantic – extension of meaning; and
c. functional – conversion.
Terms may be formed while using resources from another language through loan words, loan
translations or calques, and semantic loan translations or semantic calques.
Sager reaffirms the resources that can be used in term formation: developing new forms,
exploiting existing forms, or borrowing words from other languages or fields. It provides a list
of term production processes for English while providing opportunity for other languages to use
other word generation mechanisms:
-Derivation;
-Compounding;
-Abbreviation;
-Conversion;
-Terminologization;
-Semantic transfer within a special language;
-Transdisciplinary borrowing;
-Translingual borrowing. (4.)
There is no attempt to further classify the term formation processes, but for the first time,
terminologization and reterminologization are mentioned. Furthermore, keep in mind that the
aforementioned systems frequently combine and interact. Moreover, in general analysis of
logistics word generation, subscribe to Popova's notion of term formation as a three-stage
process: science-specific, logical, and linguistic. The final stage is involved with naming terms
in general and language nomination in particular.
In overview, the study into term formation and terminological designation in English and
Romanian, for example, logistics terms, first mentions semantic structures of term formation
based on metaphorical and metonymical transfer, specialization, and extension of the frequently
used definition of words. The next section discusses the morphological approach of term
generation, which is most commonly represented by affixation and compounding. Following
that, the syntactic approach of creating terminological sentences and their contents typical of
English words is examined. Another key source of terminology is connected to shortening and
its subcategories - univerbisation, abbreviation, and clipping. Last but not least, one of the most
fruitful methods of term generation – borrowing from a foreign language – is thoroughly
examined.

2.2. The main features of term formation in general:

The most prolific methods for creating new words in a language, are derivation, compounding,
and conversion. There are separate parts for each.
1) Derivation - the act of manufacturing new words in a language by introducing prefixes
and/or suffixes to roots or stems is known as derivation.

 Prefixation:
Prefixes are inserted in front of roots or stems to generate new words through prefixation.
Prefixes do not normally carry functional meaning, which is that they do not affect the
morphological class of the roots or stems to which they are added, even if they do modify their
meaning. Prefix classification should thus be based mostly on semantic grounds. Thus, English
prefixes are classified into the following groups based on the meaning they convey:
 negative prefixes, the vast majority of prefixes in English indicate varying degrees of
negative meaning:
- de- / dis- (“not”, “the contrary of”): depress, disapprove, dishonour;
- in- / il- / ir- / il- (allomorphs of the same bound morpheme that are employed according to the
initial sound of the root or stem to which they are added – “not”, “the contrary of”): insane,
impossible, irrelevant, illiterate;
- non- (“not”): non-stop, non-resident, nonsense, nonconformist.
- mis – (“bad+(ly)”, “wrong+(ly)”): mislead, mistrust, misfortune, misunderstanding;
- un- (“the opposite of”, “not”): unfair, unwise, unexpected, unbalanced;
- mal- (“bad+(ly)”, “wrong+(ly)”): malfunctioning, malformation, malpractice.
• reversative and privative prefixes:
- un- (“to deprive of”, “to reverse the action”, “to release from”): unveil, unlock, unleash;
- de- / dis- (“to reverse the action”, “to get rid of”, “to deprive of”): defrost, decentralize,
deforestation, disconnect, discoloured.
• prefixes of degree and size:
- arch- (“supreme”, ‘chief”, “most important”): archenemy, archbishop;
- hyper- (“extra”): hypersensitive, hypertension, hyperinflation;
- mini- (“little”, “small”): miniskirt, minicomputer, minivacation;
- over- (“too much”): overreact, overdone, overdressed, overconfident;
- out- (“more”, “better”, “faster”, “longer”): outnumber, outstanding, outrun, outlive;
- sub- (“less than”): subhuman, substandard, subnormal;
- under- (“too little”): underdeveloped, underestimate, undercharge.
• prefixes of attitude:
- co- (“accompanying”, “with”, “together”): cooperation, coordination, co-author, co-produce;
- pro- (“for”, “on the side of”): pro-democratic, pro-European;
- anti- (“against”): antiwar, antifreeze, anticlimax, antiimperialist;
- counter- (“against”, “in opposition”): counteract, counterproductive, counterblast.
• prefixes of time and order:
- ante- (“before”): antenatal, anteroom, antediluvian, antepenultimate;
- fore- (“before”): forearm, forehead, foretell, fore-mentioned;
- pre- (“before”): prehistoric, preheat, precondition, pre-election;
- ex- (“former”): ex-wife, ex-president, ex-friend;
- post- (“after”): post-war, post-date, post-position.
• prefixes of space, direction and location (the majority of
these prefixes originate in prepositions and adverbs of place that
still function as such in English):
- in- (“going in”, “being in”): influx, income, intake, inmate;
- out- (“going out”, “being out”): outflow, output, outdoors;
- up- (“in an ascending direction”): uphill, uptown, upstairs;
- down- (“in a descending direction”): downhill, downstairs, downfall;
- sub- (“under”): subway, suborbital, subsoil;
- inter- (“between”, “among”): international, interface, interactive;
- trans- (“across”, “into another place”): transatlantic, transmigration, transcontinental.
• the iterative prefix re- (“one more time”, “again”): reread, rebuild, redecorate, reconsider.
According to their origin, English prefixes may be:
• Germanic prefixes:
- be-: besprinkle, bewilderment, become;
- for-: forbid, forbear;
- mis-: mislead, misinterpret, miscalculate;
- out-: outlive, outgrow, outstanding;
- over-: overeat, overloaded, overhear;
- un-: unfriendly, uncommon, unbelievable;
- up-: upright, upshot, uptake;
- with-: withstand, withdraw, withhold;
• Latin prefixes:
- bi-: bimonthly, bifocal, bidirectional;
- de-: decompose, deconstruct, declutch;
- dis-: disagree, disadvantage, discontinue;
- em- / en-: empower, enslave;
- inter-: interlocutor, intergalactic, intercontinental;
- non-: non-success, non-resistant, non-payment;
- trans-: transformer, transmutation, transpose.
• Greek prefixes:
- a- / an-: anomalous, analphabet;
- anti-: antibody, antithesis, anticlerical;
- hyper-: hypercritical, hypermetrical.
According to their productivity, English prefixes may be classified as:
• productive prefixes (involved into the process of new words creation at the present stage in
the development of English):
- re-: retake, rethink, rewind, review;
- un-: unbelievable, unnecessary, undo;
- non-: non-verbal, non-stop;
- de-: deconstruct, denominalization, defrost;
- dis-: disengage, dismiss, disconnect;
- out-: outome, outright, outstanding;
- re-: reconstruct, refine, re-establish;
- mis-: misunderstanding, misfire, mislaid.
• semi-productive prefixes (at present, relatively inactive inthe formation of new words in
English):
- co-: co-author, co-editor, cooperation;
- counter-: counteractive, counteract, counterattack;
- sub-: subway, submarine, sublet;
- up-: upward, update, upload;
- vice-: vice-president, vice-rector;
• unproductive prefixes (at present, no longer used in the process of forming new words in
English, though they might have been productive at earlier stages in the evolution of the
language):
- be-: beloved, becalm, besprinkle;
- with-: withholder, withdraw, withstand.
Furthermore, prefixes can be considered in terms of the phonological modifications they cause
in the roots or stems to which they are attached. Non-neutral prefixes are those that produce
such alterations, whereas neutral prefixes do not.
 Suffixation
Suffixes are attached to roots or stems to form new words by suffixation. Suffixes, with
exception of prefixes, affect the morphological class of the items to which they are affixed. As a
result, the most practical classification of suffixes would be based on grammatical rather than
semantic criteria. Suffixes are classified into the following subclasses based on the part of
speech they produce:
nominal suffixes – nouns may be formed from other nouns, from adjectives or verbs:
a) suffixes denoting the doer of the action:
- -er (generally, it forms names of occupations from the corresponding verbs): driver, teacher,
singer, advisor;
- -ster: gangster;
- -eer / -ier: profiteer, pamphleteer, gondolier;
- -ist: typist, artist;
- -ent / -ant: student, attendant.
b) feminine suffixes (gender morphological markers are uncommon in English; however, there
are instances where the feminine is generated from the masculine of nouns using suffixes.):
- -ette: usherette;
- -ess: lioness, duchess, actress;
- -ix: aviatrix;
- -euse: chauffeuse.
c) suffixes denoting nationality:
- -ese: Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese;
- -an / -ian: Korean, Hungarian, Estonian;
d) diminutive suffixes:
- -ette: kitcinette;
- -let: booklet;
- -y / -ie: daddy, auntie.
e) abstract noun-forming suffixes:
- -ing: breaking, reading, asking;
- -age: coverage, mileage, tonnage;
- -ance -ence: appearance, assistance, experience;
- -ism / -icism: criticism, Catholicism, post-modernism, deconstructivism;
- -hood: boyhood, neighbourhood, childhood;
- -dom: freedom, martyrdom;
- -ment: nourishment;
- -ness / -ess: happiness, tenderness, prowess;
- -ty: certainty, honesty;
- -ship: kinship, friendship, leadership.
• adjectival suffixes – adjectives can be derived from other adjectives, nouns, or verbs. The
following are the most common adjectival suffixes in English:
- -ish: tallish, foolish, greenish, Turkish;
- -y / -ly: cloudy, silky, manly, brotherly, womanly;
- -less: sugarless, harmless, flawless;
- -ful: joyful, useful, delightful, eventful;
- -ed: wooded, pointed, horned;
- -able / -ible: readable, understandable, adaptable, accessible;
- -ive: progressive, possessive, aggressive;
- -some: handsome, cumbersome, tiresome.
The suffixes –er (cleverer, smarter) and –est (cleverest, smartest) of the mono and some
disyllabic adjectives, accordingly, should be specified here as well. In the case of disyllabic
adjectives, there is an alternation between the synthetic and analytical ways of generating the
contrast and exceptional, by putting the adverbs more and most next to the adjective in the
positive discipline.
• verbal suffixes – verbs are mostly created from nouns and adjectives. The number of verb-
forming suffixes in modern English is very limited; nonetheless, those that are still in use today
are increasingly productive and thus extremely common:
- -ise / -ize: utilize, fertilize, Latinize, organize;
- -ify: intensify, simplify, diversify;
- -en: brighten, enlighten, deepen, widen.
• adverbial suffixes – derived adverbs are formed by adding suffixes to nouns and adjectives
mostly:
- -ly (added to most of the adjectives): happily, strangely, badly, beautifully;
- -wise: likewise, clockwise, crabwise;
- -ward / -wards: northward(s), westward(s), backward(s), foreward(s).
• numeral suffixes:
- -teen (it generates the cardinal numerals between 13 and 19): thirteen, fifteen, eighteen,
nineteen;
- -ty (it is used to form the cardinal numeral designating multiples of 10): thirty, forty, sixty,
ninety;
- -th (it is the suffix forming ordinal numbers other than one, two, three and those that have
these in their structure): fourth, sixth, twentieth, fiftieth, twenty-fourth, eighty-seventh.
English suffixes are of the following main origins:
• Germanic suffixes:
- -er: Londoner, worker, poker;
- -art: drunkard, braggart;
- -hood: boyhood, brotherhood;
- -ing: learning, reading, interesting;
- -man: gentleman, townsman;
- -ship: friendship, authorship;
- -ed: wooded, added;
- -some: handsome, twosome;
- -wise: likewise, clockwise;
- -en: darken, deepen, whiten;
- -ish: selfish, reddish, boyish;
- -y: dirty, silky, hairy;
- -ly: manly, slowly, hardly;
- -th: tenth, growth.
• Romance (Latin, French and Italian) suffixes:
- -ette: kitchinette, usherette, novelette;
- -or: actor, inspector;
- -ee: employee, payee, trainee;
- -ess: lioness, actress, hostess;
- -age: marriage;
- -al: arrival, betrayal, dismissal;
- -ance / -ence: assistance, resistance, dependence;
- -ery / -ry: flattery, bakery, dentistry;
- -ment: acknowledgement, movement, amazement;
- -ant / -ent: claimant, correspondent;
- -fy / -ify: signify;
- -ize / -ise: modernize, organize, moralize.
• Greek suffixes:
- -ist: modernist, classicist;
- -ism: communism, colloquialism, organism.
Like prefixes, suffixes may be grouped, according to their ability to create new words at the
present stage in the development of English, into:
• productive suffixes (which are, at present, active in terms of new words formation):
- -able: profitable, regrettable, understandable;
- -ed: loved, grouped, played;
- -ing: interesting, clearing, meaning;
- -less: sugarless, harmless, speechless;
- -ness: calmness, brightness, happiness;
- -y: edgy, bloody, cloudy;
- -ly: scarcely, evenly, likely;
- -ish: selfish, childish, Turkish.
• semi-productive suffixes (at present, less active in the process of word formation):
- -dom: kingdom, freedom, boredom;
- -ful: spoonful, mouthful, hurtful;
• unproductive suffixes (at present, no longer used to form new words):
- -ance: deliverance, acceptance;
- -age: coinage;
- -ment: movement, development;
- -some: handsome, gruesome;
- -th: tenth, eleventh.
2) Compounding
Compounding or composition is the technique of making new words by combining two or
more roots or stems grammatically and semantically (for example, at least two constituents that
occur or can, in principle, occur in isolation). Compound words can be characterized in terms of
their orthographic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties.
 Orthographic characteristics of compounds
In English, compounds can be spelled in three ways: solid (as one word): bullfighter, etc;
hyphenated (as two words separated by a hyphen): self-determination, easy-going, etc; and
completely separate words: price cut, etc.
 Phonological characteristics of compounds
Linguists such as Bloomfield (1973), Cook (1969), and Arnold (1966) have highlighted the
importance of the phonic criterion of stress in the case of compounds. Compounds, like simple
words, usually have one primary tension and no junction. Based on this criterion, which reveals
the advanced part of the process of combination of the various stems, it is able to differentiate
between compounds such as ‘bluebell’ and ‘blackboard’, as well as their equivalent phrases
‘blue bell’ and ‘black bird’, which have two strong tension and a junction. Regardless of how
useful the phonological criterion is in distinguishing between compounds and simple
combinations of free lexemes.
In the case of reduplicatives like pooh-pooh, goody-goody, roly-poly, wishywashy, flip-flop,
sing-song, harum-scarum, and bow-wow, phonological considerations promote compounding.
These are examples of words formed through reduplication, which is defined as "the repetition
of the root of a word in part or in its full" (Katamba 2005: 72).
In English, there are two types of reduplicatives, according to Bauer (1983): rhyme motivated –
nitwit, teeny-winny, hurlyburly – and ablaut motivated – riff-raff, tittle-tattle, mish-mash. The
vowel and consonant(s) that appear after it in the final syllable of a word are identical, whereas
ablaut means a transformation in the root vowel (which generally indicates a transformation in
grammatical class, e.g. the o – e alternation in the pairs long – length, strong – strength marks
the difference between the adjective and its relating noun respectively). The two elements that
alternate in the construction of a reduplicative may be both separate bases in English – Black-
Jack, brain-drain – or one or both components may be pseudostems that are not detectable as
distinct units of the language – ding-dong.
Morphological characteristics of compounds:
Compounds can be classified according to the morphological class to which they belong
(Marchand (1969) suggested a finer subclassification based on the existence or absence of a
verbal element in the compound). As a result, he refers to "verbal nexus combinations" rather
than "non-verbal nexus compounds"). In general, compound members can be found in all
morphological categories.
• compound nouns:
- noun + noun. According to Tătaru (2002), possible semantic relationship between the two
nominal elements may be, among others, of:
• purpose: baby carriage, bachelor flat, backpack;
• place: city-dweller;
• resemblance: bullfrog, swordfish.
Sometimes, one of the nominal stems may be in the genitive as in tailor’s dummy. The two
nominal stems may also be linked by prepositions or conjunctions as in, father-inlaw.
- verbal noun + noun: meeting place, writing desk;
- noun + verbal noun: air-conditioning, sleepwalking;
- adjective + noun. Several cases can be identified here:
• adjective proper + noun: highlands, bluebell;
• participial adjective ending in -ing + noun: blotting paper, boarding card;
• participial adjective ending in past participle specific endings + noun: built environment,
wrought iron.
- pronoun + noun. Generally speaking, these compounds help to distinguish the masculine and
the feminine from the common gender: she-wolf, he-doctor;
- verb + noun: pickpocket, dare-devil;
- noun + verb. The verbal stem may take either the form of an infinitive or that of an -ing
participle: sunset, rainfall, bodybuilding;
- verb + verb. Sometimes, the verbal stems are linked by conjunctions: makeshift, make-believe;
- adverb + noun: after-thought, back-talk, outer space;
- adverb + verb: upstart;
- verb + adverb: turn-round;
- preposition + noun: underworld;
- preposition + verb: undergraduate.
The compounds made up of more than two elements mostly belong to the nominal class in
English. These have a rather irregular structure and include words such as: good-for-nothing,
mother-in-law, much-talked, all-too- accurate, etc.
• compound adjectives:
- adjective + adjective: metallic-green, bitter-sweet;
- noun + adjective: duty-free, sea-sick, earth-bound. The language model of the comparative of
equality (as...as) also serves as the foundation for the stylistic device of simile. Some similes
that have become clichés as a result of repetition have also become compound adjectives: sea-
green. As Tătaru (2002) observes, the denominal stem self- also generates compound adjectives,
generally with an adjective of participial origin: self-governing, self-educated, self-sustained,
self-controlled;
- adjective + noun + -ed: light-hearted, evil-minded;
- noun + verb (participle): love-struck, storm-beaten;
- noun + noun + -ed: lion-hearted;
- adverb + verb (participle): ill-behaved, well-meant;
- adverb + adjective: evergreen.
• compound verbs:
- noun + verb: house-keep;
- adjective + verb: white-wash, sweet-talk;
- verb + verb: drop-kick, blast-freeze;
- adverb + verb: overhear, underestimate, down-grade.
In the case of English verbs, appropriate composition is rather weakly represented. A closer look
at what appear to be compound verbs reveals a mix of composition and other word creation
mechanisms. To blackmail, for example, is formed by both composition and conversion, to
baby-sit, stage-manage or vacuum-clean are the result of both composition and backformation.
• compound adverbs:
- adverb + adverb: throughout;
- adjective + noun: downhill, outdoor;
- adverb + preposition: wherefrom.
• compound numerals:
Beginning with twenty-one, any cardinal numerals between round figures are compound words.
Round figures from one hundred upward are represented by compound numerals constructed
with the copulative conjunction "and": ten thousand three hundred and forty. Distributive
numerals are obtained by reduplicative composition along with the insertion of the preposition
“by”: two-by-two, nineby- nine, twenty-by-twenty.
• compound pronouns:
Compound pronouns are a very new addition to the language. They first appeared in the Middle
Ages and have not changed since. They were developed using a variety of structural models,
including:
- possessive adjective + the noun self: myself, yourself, ourselves;
- personal pronoun in the accusative + the noun self: himself, herself, themselves;
- the predeterminers some-, any-, no-, or the adjective every + the nouns body, thing: anybody,
something, everybody;
3) Conversion
Conversion is the process of creating new words by shifting them from one morphological class
to another with no modifications to their form or pronunciation. In English, the approach is quite
effective. In fact, this strategy is so common that many scholars regard it as a question of
grammatical usage rather than a method for word construction. Among these are Pyles and
Algeo (1993), who use the term "functional shift" to refer to the process and emphasize the fact
that it converts words from one grammatical function to another without affecting their form in
any way. Cristina Tătaru (2002) continues the same line of thought by referring to what is
conventionally known as "conversion" as "functional polysemy," as opposed to "lexical
polysemy," which merely entails a change in lexical meaning while leaving the grammatical
class of the terms unchanged.
 Nouns obtained by conversion
Adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions are the most often changed parts of
speech into nouns.
• nouns converted from adjectives:
Because there is such a wide range of adjectives in English, the nouns derived from them are
numerous and exhibit a wide range of semantic links with their originals, creating the subtype
they belong to exceedingly diverse. The following are some examples of de-adjectival nouns:
- collective nouns obtained from adjectives by definite articulation: the good, the young;
- nouns denoting characteristic features, obtained by the same mechanism: the beautiful, the
absurd;
- proper collective nouns denoting nationalities: the English, the Dutch. Other such nouns are
obtained by adding the plural ending –s to the adjective, the article becoming then optional:
(the) Romanians, (the) Americans;
- nouns denoting “the presence of the quality in a person”: an academic, an anarchist;
- nouns denoting “the presence of the quality in an object”: an adhesive, an adverbial, an
absolute.
• nouns converted from verbs:
De-verbal nouns may express:
- the result of the action denoted by the original verb: a drive;
- the process to which the original verb referred: an alert, an arrest;
- the agent of the action denoted by the verb: an advocate, an ally, a cheat;
- the name of the action denoted by the verb: a hunt, a jump, an attempt.
• nouns converted from adverbs, prepositions and interjections:
In English, nouns derived from adverbs are uncommon. Some of the most basic directional
adverbs, such as front, back, behind, aside, left, and right, have been nominalised, occasionally
by using a definite article. Sometimes directional adverbs are designated for the plural and used
nominally in binominals like the ups and downs, the ins and outs. However, the fact that these
nouns are not employed outside of specified phrases or in the singular shows that the adverb
transformation is not yet complete.
Adjectives obtained by conversion:
According to Tătaru (2002: 85), “it could be said that anything that fulfils an attributive and / or
a predicative function is an adjective in English”.
Nouns, for example, can function both as descriptive adjectives: technology boom, trail-and-
error judgment and as limitative adjectives: family duties, trial match.
Adjectives can be formed by converting pronouns. This phenomena may be seen in all
compounds containing the personal pronouns he and she, which create the masculine and
feminine from the common gender. Without changing their form, demonstrative, relative-
interrogative, indefinite, and reflexive pronouns can act as adjectives.
When used in adjectival distribution, numerals also take on adjectival functions: the second
answer.(and so on)(5. Pag43-60)
Word formation is the creation of new words from elements already existing in the
language. Every language has its own structural patterns of word formation.

2.3 Introduction into legal domain

Law is a tool that states what is permissible or not permissible in society, i.e. what is lawful or
criminal, and so commands citizens how to interact. These 'instructions' issued by a recognized
authority establish a framework within which society and people can function. They also
determine who has the right to act or not act in accordance with the law, and their perception has
an impact on all aspects of our everyday lives, from how we behave in traffic to how we control
possession of material and non - material things. Laws are enforced at both the national and
international levels, with the goal of 'standardizing' and harmonizing (parts of) the legal realm,
such as within the European Union.
The investigation described in this paper focuses on the application of terminological principles
in a specific area of the legal domain: real property rights and constraints. Actual property rights
and constraints govern and influence real ownership rights and use. The use of defined
terminology rules will aid in the organization of this area of the legal domain.
Actual property rights and constraints are crucial components of the cadastral realm and are
essential for effective land use, land use planning, and dispute resolution. However, because they
come from different legal systems and cultural contexts, these methods of conflict resolution are
not unified.
A more in-depth examination of the substance of some other standardized approach known as
the Legal Cadastral Domain Model. More research is required in the various facets of real
property rights and restrictions within the legal arena. This work contributes to current research
into cost-effective cross-border information services. It emphasizes a terminological approach to
explaining real property rights and constraints. The goal of this study is to discuss whether it is
possible to discover any characteristics and criteria that would allow the collection of actual
property rights and limits according to the categorization provided in the LCDM without regard
to any current legal systems. The methodology selected is founded on terminological principles
utilized in international standardization. The goal is to add to studies on real estate transactions
by developing a terminological structure for grouping current real property rights and limits. The
formation of a terminological structure would not interact with the existing legal systems, but
would allow for the creation of unified vocabulary for categorization.
The study does not address the organizational and legislative components, as well as the
resources and normative power required to achieve the desired categorization.
This material is intended for readers from various backgrounds. Cadastral surveyors, real estate
lawyers, knowledge engineers, and other professions involved in research of real estate
legislation application and classification in conjunction with cross-border transfer of real
property information are primary target audiences.
When it comes to real property rights and limits, the choice of words has an economic influence
because real property rights and other rules are a vital instrument in conflict settlement all over
the world. The author believes that regulated vocabularies or explanations due to the legal
content of rights and regulations are useful tools for preventing land and property issues and
even for facilitating cross-border real estate transactions (Paasch).
 The legal domain
Without the protection of a legislative structure to protect personal freedoms, organized society
as we know it and sometimes take for granted would cease to exist. In any large number of
people, generic rules and principles must be the primary tool of social control, rather than
specific instructions provided to each individual separately (Hart). The rule of law is and must be
strong. To avoid this sad situation, tools of government are required to safeguard the rights
offered by society and to resolve any conflicts of interest that may arise.
In law, there is no set structure. There are various theories about the nature, form, and purpose of
law, and these views have been offered and argued by legal experts during the previous two and
a half centuries. The legal realm has been described as a "pool of legislative source materials
with abstractly containers of various kinds, from which we shall subsequently draw rules, norms,
and regulations of any preferred structure."
Without communication, no structure can function properly. The use of words and their accurate
analysis have always been important for communication and consequently society, and the legal
domain is no exception (Glenn 2004). A detailed and proper understanding of the exact legal
phrases we employ while working on collaborative tasks and projects is critical to the success of
our businesses. Any explanation must be intelligible by all people involved, and any success is
dependent on this. Understanding, on the other hand, demands a defined and established word;
otherwise, we would not be able to understand what is meant accurately. In the legal field, there
are numerous terminologies that are employed. As a result, terminology and semantics have been
hotly debated among legal experts and intellectuals for decades.
One of these strategies of making sense of the world around us, which consists of an infinite
number of objects, that allows us to advance above the stage of an intellectual pleasure is to
apply terminology concepts to the domain that has to be addressed. As a result, terminology is
considered as a significant tool when operating in the legal domain.
Artificial intelligence research focuses on the translation of legal concepts into a 'knowledge
theoretical language' (Peczenik 1974) for application in automated information analysis. Wood
(1990) is more direct in his critique of how terminological ambiguities have been addressed in
the fields of artificial intelligence and law, stating that:
“[t]his [communication problem] has had the unfortunate consequence of creating
incommensurable vocabularies and misunderstanding, a ‘tower of Babel’ which has cut
researchers of from each other and from the worlds of legal practice an[d] scholarship. The
failure to communicate has afforded some researchers the opportunity of shrouding their work in
mystery and of avoiding criticism.”
Although if situations have presumably improved in recent years, Woods' statement is significant
because it emphasizes the importance of openness and cooperation when working with terms.
Without a clear vocabulary describing the issue or domain under investigation, every attempt to
advance a common terminological methodology will remain veiled in mystery.
Legal argument is a difficult process, and variety may be explained by academics focusing on
different sections of the legal domain and '...that a number of things that initially jump out as
differentials may be justified by a lack of inconsistency in the use of terminology'. (Wahlgren).
Nonetheless, nothing can be analyzed or balanced without an agreed terminology. When using
terminology in the legal realm, various considerations must be considered. A law is sometimes
not simple to understand, and the usage of words in the legal sphere is fraught with the same
semantic issues that plague word comprehension in other disciplines. Peczenik (1974) uses the
word 'house' as an example, noting that a 'cabin' or 'hut' can be labeled a house under certain
circumstances and not others.
Even if a term or expression is ambiguous or ambiguous, it is not necessary to give every
alternative interpretation, and the emphasis is placed on the specific context in which the word or
expression is employed.
  Legal Terminology
The categorization of terms would be as difficult as the classification of individuals. However,
classification is required to avoid using terminology that were created once but have since fallen
out of usage or were never recognized by the society.
Linguists classify legal terminology into two categories:
a) pure legal terms or legalese: unsecured debt (creanță chirografară) – refers to debt created
without any collateral promised to the creditor; (and a term in romanian as a pure legal term)
acrescămînt – creşterea drepturilor succesorale ale unei persoane, drept urmare a renunţării sau
înlăturării altor persoane de la moştenire, and
b) common words that are used as terms in the legal field: to punish (a pedepsi), rape (viol),
robbery (jaf), theft (furt), etc.
According to the grade of recommendation, Thorsten Trippel distinguishes:
 preferred (term): terms that are recommended for a certain concept,
 accepted (term): terms that are not strictly recommended but used and accepted,
 archaic (term): terms that can be found in old documents but are not used any more,
 deprecated (term): terms that should not be used at all and subsidized by the prefered or an
accepted term.
Different linguists have developed a variety of classifications based on various factors. As a
result, the bulk of terms can be classified as follows:
1. Latin terms.
The presence of Latin terms in the English legal language is one of its many distinguishing
aspects. The existence of such phrases is due to a variety of factors. "First and foremost, it was
unavoidable for English law to escape the influence of Latin, which was supported by the Roman
church's power over Europe at the time, as well as its prevalent use as a language of learning and
literature, and also due to the extraordinary strength of Roman law, which was a coherent current
is applied with the intensity of an organization over a large region of Europe."
There are many common Latin words used today in English courts and legal proceedings, such
as: habeas corpus - bring a person before a court; pro bono - done for free for the public good;
status quo - how things are currently; subpoena - an order commanding a person to appear in
court under a penalty for not appearing. Some Latin constructions had changed their meaning
through the time. Linguist Mellinkoff D. gives the following examples: the original meaning of
corpus delicti was body of the crime, and the modern meaning is material evidence in a crime;
de facto (from the fact) - in reality, actually, in effect; de jure (from the law) - according to law,
by right; (in) flagrante delicto (while the crime is burning) - red-handed, in the act; sine qua non
(without which not) - an indispensable condition, a prerequisite. [41:20]
In the following, in this table are expressed the words that are common in both English and
Romanian.
Representation: Common Latin legalese

Word Modern meaning Romanian

(English)
-affidavit a sworn, written depoziţie, mărturie
statement scrisă sub jurământ

-subpoena an order commanding citaţie

a person to appear in
court under a penalty
for not appearing

-alibi alibi alibi

-status quo the existing condition status quo

or state of affairs

-corpus delicti material evidence in a Corpuri delicte

crime

-De facto De facto De facto

-De jure De jure De jure

Latin continues to be an important legal language in England, particularly in writing. Because

writs were written in Latin for so long, many of them still have Latin words today.
2. Legalese of French origin.
French phrases and words borrowed from French abound in legal terminology. French phrases
are embedded in legal terminology for historical reasons, not because they are more exact than
their English equivalents. Historically, law French was employed because the majority of judges
were from the Norman aristocracy.
Many tautologies can be attributed to Law French. Goods (eng) and chattels (fr), for example;
sell (eng) and assign (fr); break (eng) and enter (fr). As lawyers translated documents from
French to English, many abstractions evolved.
3. Doublets
Throughout its lengthy history, the language has adopted many words from other languages all
around the world. The development of several doublets was one of the effects of excessive
borrowing. A legal doublet is a standardized term that is often used in English legal terms and
composed of two or more near synonyms. The origin of the doubling – and even triple – is
sometimes traced back to the shift of legal language from Latin to French.
For example: made and enter, by and between, terms and conditions, covenants and obligations,
represents and warrants.
4. Borrowings: internationalisms, anglicisms.
Scientific and technical terminology account for a sizable part of borrowings (41%). The number
and kind of borrowings are determined not only by historical circumstances, the nature and
length of connections, but also by the degree of genetic and structural proximity of the languages
involved. The deeper and more versatile the effect, the closer the languages. It is critical to
distinguish between the two processes: adapting borrowed material to language standards and
implementing these words according to the concept they represent. Borrowing assimilation
involves changes in sound shape, morphological structure, grammatical qualities, interpretation,
and use.

Chapter 3. Contrastive analysis of English and Romamian Legal

Terminology
 A terminological analysis of legal terms
When discussing the terminology of European Court of Human Rights decisions, it should be
noted that they have a regular, conventional, and correct terminology, which implies that all
choices contain and contain the same lexicon and lexical constructions.
The introduction of a common legal language facilitates standardization, for example, term such
as: applicant/plaintiff – reclamant, the case – cauză, defendant – pîrît, judicial decision –
hotărîrea instanţei de judecată, the law – în drept, case law – practica judecătorească,
jurisprudenţă, judgement – hotărîre, section – articol ,procedure – procedură, to issue a
decision – a emite o decizie, provision – normă, final judgement – decizie finală, definitivă, to
appeal against the judgement – a contesta decizia, to deliver a judgement – a pronunţa o
hotărîre and many other words.
As introduced in the theoretical part, there are several types of term formation, including:
The goal of systematizing these principles is to promote accuracy and accountability in linguistic
information processing. Derivation and conversion are used to achieve this goal.
1) use of nouns - adjectives, and viceversa:
ro: crime-criminal,
ilegal – ilegalitate,
en: constitution – constitutional,
certain – certainty.
2) use of nouns - verbs and viceversa:
ro: a contesta – contestare,
a suspenda – suspendare,
en: to arrest – arrest,
to appeal – appeal,
to promulgate – promulgation.
We can generate new phrases by using the existing forms:
1) suffixation:
ro: -ant: reclamant,
-are: lichidare, promulgare, invocare, examinare,
en: -ant: antapplicant,
-al: constitutional,
-y: inquiry,
-ment: judgement, amendment,
-tion: notification, authorisation, compensation, investigation,
-able: appealable,
-ory: statutory, etc.
2) prefixation:
ro: i-: ilegal, ilegalitate,
extra-: şedinţă extraordinară, extraordinary meeting,
ne-: neexecutare, nefondat,
re-: reexaminare, retroactive,
i-: illegal,
non-: non-governmental, non-pecuniary, non-enforcement, etc. .
3) conversion:
ro: a împuternici – împuternicit, a invoca – invocare, a suspenda – suspendare, a audia -
audiere, a notifica – notificare, a contesata - contestare, a remite – remitere, a hotărî –
hotărîre,
en: sanction – to sanction, appeal – to appeal, to ban – ban, claim – to claim, to appeal –
appeal, etc.
 Borrowings
Borrowings and neonyms in the legal field are usually successful and thoroughly
incorporated into the TL. In other circumstances, the initial loan is replaced subsequently by
a version more compatible with the TL's grammatical elements.
Latin's impact can be observed in a number of terminology and phrases that are still used in
legal writing today. They are as follows:
-ad hoc (on the spur of the moment); de facto (really);
- inter alia (often interpreted in English as 'including but not limited to');
-mens rea (the mental aspect of a crime, alludes to criminal purpose; the Latin name for the
"guilty mind");
-actus reus (the external element or the objective element of a crime; the deed of a crime; the
Latin term for the "guilty act");
-obiter dictum (the Latin term for the "guilty act") (informal opinion; a remark or observation
made by a judge).
 Translation from Latin into English
– in forma pauperis- legal aid;
– corpus delicti- facts of crime;
– ultra vires- beyond powers;
– donatio mortis causa- donation gift, etc.

Conclusions

Consequently, a word is a semantically complex lexical level unit that is influenced by

multisystemic elements. A considerable number of terms have a dual purpose since they operate
in a specific domain where they are customary and extensively used, as well as in the common
domain where they are highly specialized.
The evolution of terminology is inextricably linked to the objects of extralinguistic reality, such
as the characteristics of systemic organization and functioning, as well as the idiosyncrasies of
language, particularly the structure of the lexical level. Then there is active interaction of
commonly used and field vocabularies, which is primarily reflected in terminologization and
determinologization processes, whilst interaction of different term lexicons enables
transterminologization and reterminologization.
Generally, legal terminology evolves as a result of scientific development and globalization. As a
result, it evolved into a means of communicating and decodification of cultures, effective
communication, languages, and concepts. As a result, we see an active trend aimed at boosting
term denominative and cognitive uniformity. Standardization of terminology adds to
understanding, conversational ease, and term unification. As a result, terms are produced for a
specific reason: to cover a denominative space for a new idea, to substitute an archaic term of an
existing concept, or to substitute a terminological unit with a more appropriate one. As a
consequence, terms continue to refresh and grow in the scope of vocabulary development.
A terminological framework would make it easy to compare rights and constraints in different
laws, lowering transaction costs in cross-border real estate transactions.
Terminological considerations, such as the accurate application and use of real estate words,
have been increasingly significant in recent decades. They are created to increase the expense
creating, processing, analysis, and transmission of electronic content for an specific area.
So much important to say about terminology is better articulated in the framework of linguistics,
information science, or applied linguistics. We define terminology as a set of actions centered on
the production of terms, their collecting and elucidation, and ultimately their representation in
various written and electronic mediums. Subjects produce knowledge on this topic and are thus
acceptable in and of itself; methods are just means to a goal, in the example of terminology, how
to achieve tasks.
The formation of new terms in each legal sector demands special attention because the terms
gradually become a part of general language. There is a very close relationship between general
(codified) language and scientific language. Legal word formation analyses are significant
because they allow us to reflect on their exact meaning and be aware of any potential ambiguity.
It is critical to comprehend the concept that the unit of knowledge reflects, what forms the
mental representations of each type of derivation (e.g., we can associate the notion of the word
with a suffix or prefix), accurate spelling, the construction of initialsms, eponyms, synonyms,
and so on.
Bibliography
1. [M. Teresa Cabre] Terminology Theory, Methods
2. Linguistic external.essex.ac.uk
3. BrnoStudiesEnglish_36-2010
4. Term Formation and Terminological Designation in English and Bulgarian Logistics Terms
5. An Introduction to English Lexicology
6. Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and
Creativity.
7. 2000. The English Language. A Historical Introduction.
8. 1987. Historical Change and English Word-Formation: Recent Vocabulary. New York,
Oxford: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
9. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge
10. Vakulenko, Maaksym. 2013-2014. Term and terminology: basic approaches, definitions, and
investigation methods(Easterm-European perspective). In: Terminology Science & Research
vol. 24: 13-28.
11. Oxford Dictionary of Law
12. Temmerman R., Towards new ways of terminology description, Amsterdam, 2000
13. Strehlow R.A., Standardization of technical terminology, 1998
14. Wright S.E., Standardizing terminology for better communication: Practice,
Applied Theory and Results, 1993
15. Cabré, M. Teresa, Automatic term detection in the book “Recent advances in computational
terminology”, of Didier Bourigault, Christian Jacquemin and Marie-Claude L'Homme, France
2001
16. Terminology Today: A Science, an Art or a Practice? Some Aspects on Terminology and Its
Development.
17. A practical course in terminology processing-Juan C. Sager (1996)
18.THE LINGUISTIC DIMENSION OF TERMINOLOGY: PRINCIPLES AND METHODS
OF TERM FORMATION – Kostas Valeontis, Elena Mantzari, 2006
19. Standardization within the Legal Domain: A Terminological Approach
20. Bowker, Lynne, Lexicography, terminology and translation. Text-based studies in honour of
Ingrid Meyer, Canada, 2007, 257 p.
21. Cabré, M. Teresa, Terminology: Theory, methods and applications, Philadelphia. PA, John
Benjamins, 1998,