Suchergebnisse

At the Conference "Multilingualism in the enlarged European Union" (Vienna 2001) several speakers prognosticated a consequent enrichment and modernisation of the langu[1]ages in the new member states and expected this process to follow the same or similar ways of adaptation. On the basis of these expectations this paper deals with a specific area of the EU lexi[1]con, the so called Eurojargon, whose harmonisation could be considered a special aim. The "Plain language guide" to Eurojargon (http://europa.eu/abc/eurojargomm[1]dex_en.htm) contains 80 entries and is available in each official language of the EU, whe[1]reas the "European Glossary" contain; only the "old" member languages (before enlarge[1]ment in 2004). As opposed to the "European Glossary" with its 200 terms, which is inte[1]ractive, the "Plain language guide" (with the exception of about 10 terms taken over from the glossary) is not and can therefore not be used as a bi- or multilingual dictionary. That is the reason why the author of this paper has compiled lists of equivalents, including En[1]glish, French, German and the four Slavonic EU-languages (Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovene). This paper is dealing with the mutuality and differences of the keywords (internationa[1]lisms, loans/calques, analytic denominations, abbreviations, metaphors) and briefly with the derinitions of selected examples. In conclusion we can state that the prognosticated assimilation undoubtedly takes place on the level of concept formation (on the semantic level), but a formai internationalisation is not dominant. The formation of equivalents is largely based on traditional patterns, including semantic change. Thus the Eurojargon can be regarded as an example of linguistic diversity in conceptual unity and is in no way do[1]minated by English to such an extent as other domains of the modem lexicon.