In:Handbook of Terminology: Volume 4. Terminology planning in Europe
Edited by Rossella Resi and Frieda Steurs
[Handbook of Terminology 4] 2025
► pp. 377–391
Efforts and challenges in translating concept to reality
The Dutch case
Published online: 26 September 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.4.eff1
https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.4.eff1
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the terminology landscape for the Dutch language spoken in the
Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders). The Low Countries, as the Netherlands and Flanders are called, are a very strong
economic region with the two largest ports in Europe: Rotterdam and Antwerp. This triggers a lot of economic activity,
constituting a strong international component with a huge need for translation and terminology work. At the same time, the Dutch language is strongly supported by language
technology. We will address the status planning, the corpus planning and finally the acquisition planning. A lot of
research activities are being conducted in the field of terminology, especially in Flanders.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Language planning: The Dutch language community
- 2.1Status planning
- 2.1.1Dutch legislation
- 2.1.2Belgian legislation
- 2.1.3European legislation
- 2.2Corpus planning
- 2.2.1Partnerships
- Dutch Language Union and ‘SaNT’
- CoTerm
- NL-Term
- The Dutch Language Institute
- 2.2.2General vocabulary and terminology: A continuum
- 2.2.3The Centre of Expertise for Dutch Terminology
- 2.2.3.1Terminology work
- Unique tools for Dutch terminology
- 2.2.3.2Terminology as a lexical collection
- Terminology projects
- 2.2.3.3Terminology as a science
- 2.2.3.1Terminology work
- 2.2.4Dutch terminology in the European institutions: The “Termraad”
- 2.2.5Dutch terminology compiled by specific professional associations and organisations
- 2.2.1Partnerships
- 2.3Acquisition planning
- 2.3.1Acquisition for terminology practice
- 2.3.2Acquisition for terminology research
- 2.3.2.1Brussels
- 2.3.2.2Ghent
- 2.3.2.3Leuven
- 2.1Status planning
- 3.Conclusion
References
References (28)
Act Decree. 2013. [URL]
Belgian constitution. 2021. [URL]
Bestuursafspraak Friese taal en
cultuur 2024–2028. [URL]
Centraal Bureau voor de
Statistiek. 2023. [URL]
Consumer law. 1977. [URL]
De Schutter, Helder. 2021. “Personality
and territoriality in theory and in Belgium.” Language Problems and Language
Planning 45 (2): 218–237.
Dutch constitution 1995–2018. [URL]
Dutch Language Union
Treaty. 1980. [URL]
EUR-Lex. 2011. [URL]
Foundation NL-Term. [URL]
Grön, Leonie. 2019. The
sublanguage factor: Modelling term variation in clinical records. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Leuven.
Heylen, Kris, and Dirk De Hertog. 2015. “Automatic
Term Extraction” In Hendrik Kockaert and Frieda Steurs (Eds.), Handbook
of Terminology. Volume
1, 203–221. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Id-Youss, Lahousseine. 2016. Concept
System Construction: a Step toward Better Legal Communication. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Leuven.
ISO 29383. 2020. [URL]
ISO 30042. 2019. [URL]
Kerremans, Koen, Rita Temmerman, and Jose Tummers. 2004. “Discussion
on the Requirements for a Workbench supporting
Termontography”. In Proceedings Euralex
2004: 559–569.
Kockaert, Hendrik, and Frieda Steurs (Eds.). 2015. Handbook
of Terminology. Volume
1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Language law. 1966. [URL]
. 1973. [URL]
Ostbelgienstatistik. 2024. [URL]
Rigouts-Terryn, Ayla. 2021. D-TERMINE.
Data-driven Term Extraction Methodologies Investigated. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Ghent.
Statbel. 2024. [URL]
Statistiek Vlaanderen. 2024. [URL]
Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards
New Ways of Terminology Description. The sociocognitive
approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Voorzetten 32. 1990. [URL]
Wet inburgering [Citizenship Law] 2021. [URL]