Resilience Discourse in IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology
10.15160/1826-803X/2816
Questo contributo analizza il discorso sulla resilienza all'interno dell'Unione Europea e si pone i seguenti obiettivi: il primo riguarda la costruzione di una breve storia del concetto di resilienza all'interno delle politiche UE - &nbsp;partendo dalle prime definizioni (2012) fino alla creazione di una vero e proprio framework della resilienza (2020); il secondo obiettivo è la descrizione della lessicalizzazione del concetto di resilienza all'interno del lavoro terminologico della UE, in particolare l'associazione concettuale e terminologica tra resilienza e COVID-19. Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene prima delineata una storia concettuale di resilienza, in seguito viene evidenziata la crescente presenza del concetto di resilienza nei discorsi UE legati alla sicurezza - tra cui la sicurezza alimentare - e la politica estera; infine, vengono tracciati i collegamenti&nbsp;tra il concetto di resilienza e la terminologia COVID-19 presente nella banca dati terminologica della UE, IATE.
application/pdf
1826-803X
2816
en
Anna Anselmo
Sezione di Lettere
Terminologia, Resilienza, IATE (InterActive Terminology for Europe), COVID-19, Armonizzazione
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology
Text.Serial.Journal
https://annali.unife.it/lettere
Letteratura e Linguistica
2024-03-25
2024-03-25
2024-03-25
2024-03-25
57-79
AOLF
Anna Anselmo
2023
10.15160/1826-803X/2816
57
Università degli Studi di Ferrara
1826-803X
Terminologia, Resilienza, IATE (InterActive Terminology for Europe), COVID-19, Armonizzazione
en
79
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology
https://annali.unife.it/lettere/article/download/2816/2495
Anna Anselmo


Resilience Discourse in IATE’s Multilingual
COVID-19 Terminology


     Abstract: This article focuses on resilience discourse in the EU and it sets out to address the
     following aims: the construction of a concise conceptual history of resilience discourse within the
     EU – from first definitions (ca. 2012) to the creation of a comprehensive resilience framework
     (ca. 2020); the description of the lexicalisation of resilience in EU terminological work, with
     particular reference to COVID-19-related terminology. To that end, it firstly traces the shifting
     semantics of the term “resilience” in time. Secondly, it highlights the growing ubiquity of the
     concept in EU policymaking. Thirdly, it investigates the conceptual and terminological rela-
     tionship between EU resilience discourses and IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology.



Introduction

This article aims to offer insight into EU resilience discourse from a conceptual-terminologi-
cal perspective. Scholars have variously provided competing genealogies (Foucault 1977) for
the concept of “resilience” in an effort to better understand its fast-growing ubiquity in the
social sciences, in politics and in policymaking (Walker – Cooper 2011; Bourbeau 2018).
While such genealogical work forms a pivotal background to what follows, the emphasis here
is on the EU’s definition of resilience, on the conceptual connection between EU-resilience
discourse and the EU’s post-COVID-19 recovery discourse, and on the presence of the term
“resilience” (both as a single term and as part of complex terms (ISO 1087:2019: 3.4.9)) in
IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology. The EU’s resilience discourse transpires
through the harmonisation of resilience terminology across EU languages, whereby official
terminology work operationalises and reinforces resilience as one of the key tenets of current
EU policies (Tocci 2020).
      Research aims are presented in the first section; the second section opens with a concise
literature review of resilience studies and then introduces resilience discourse in the context
of the EU with particular emphasis on the post COVID-19 scenario; lastly, a critical descrip-
tion of the resilience-related entries in IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology is pro-




                                        57-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)
58-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                                              Anselmo


vided in order to assess the extent to which terminological harmonisation reflects and perpet-
uates the EU’s political conceptualisation of resilience.



Research Aims

In what follows, COVID-19 is referred to as a syndemic, i.e. a synergistic epidemic. The syn-
demics theory was originally put forward by medical anthropologist Merrill Singer (2009). It
proposes that epidemics can co-occur in certain contexts, that they interact in meaningful
ways through biological, social, and psychological processes, and that they share upstream fac-
tors (social, cultural, economic, educational, ecological) driving both their co-occurrence and
interaction (Mendenhall et al. 2022)1. A cursory overview of well-known COVID-19 corpora
shows that there is a lexical-conceptual interconnection between the syndemic and the con-
cept of “resilience”. The CORD-19 Dataset (COVID-19 Open Research Dataset) contains
203,386 occurrences of the term resilience (60.33 per million tokens)2. In 444 occurrences,
resilience appears in the phrase “recovery and resilience”, while in 273 it occurs in the phrase
“resilience and recovery”. Both word orders are common in language use. The Coronavirus
Corpus3 contains 56,616 occurrences of resilience in 34,623 texts; resilience co-occurs with
“recovery” (recovery and resilience) in 674 of these instances in 466 texts; while in 252 occur-
rences in 228 texts, resilience occurs in the phrase with the reverse word order, resilience and
recovery. Not only do these numbers point to the lexical-conceptual connection between the
COVID-19 syndemic and resilience, but they also show how recovery measures tend to be
juxtaposed with resilience in the syndemic context.
       The COVID-19 crisis has been called «a harbinger of a new global risk landscape in the
Anthropocene» and has exposed «the vulnerability of our global society to systemic risks»
(Rockström et al. 2023, 897). That is why many political response strategies to COVID-19
tend to integrate resilience thinking by building uncertainty, risk and adaptability into their
policymaking. Since response strategies are effected as recovery plans, the concepts of recovery
and resilience in the context of COVID-19 are interconnected. This article proposes a prelim-
inary exploration of such interconnection and pursues the following research aims:
1. The construction of a concise conceptual history of resilience discourse within the EU –

1
    The present author has employed the “syndemics approach” in previous publications (Anselmo 2021; 2022 a e
        b; 2023) to address COVID-19-related terminological issues and language inequality during health crises.
2
    The dataset is available on www.sketchengine.eu (last accessed: 11 December 2023). The version used for the
        data reported above is “CORD-19 with reduplications”, last updated in 2022.
3
    The Coronavirus Corpus is available here: www.english-corpora.org/corona/ (last accessed: 11 December 2023).
         The corpus contains data collected from January 2020 to December 2022.
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology     59-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


from first definitions (ca. 2012) to the creation of a comprehensive resilience framework (ca. 2020);
2. The description of the lexicalisation of resilience in EU terminological work, with particu-
lar reference to COVID-19-related terminology.

In order to achieve these aims, the following steps are taken:
    •   Regarding aim 1: a short resilience literature review is offered to build a definitional
        baseline in the fields of politics and policymaking. The subsequent concise conceptual
        history of EU resilience discourse shows how the semantics of resilience across differ-
        ent disciplines are drawn on to build a EU definition that is not only theoretically
        complex, but also fully operationalised into four interconnected dimensions. The
        concise conceptual history is based on the following corpus of texts: The EU Approach
        to Resilience. Learning from Food Security Crises (2012), Council Conclusions on EU
        Approach to Resilience (2013), Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries,
        2013-2020, A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy
        (2016), i.e. The EU Global Strategy, Joint Communication (2017), The Strategic Fore-
        sight Report (2020). These have been selected following Tocci (2020) – who traces the
        recent history of EU resilience discourses – and the EU Science Hub’s “resilience”
        glossary entry – which offers an overview of current EU resilience actions. These texts
        are thus recognised as part of the genealogy of EU resilience thinking both internally
        (these texts cross-reference each other) and externally – Tocci (2017; 2020), in partic-
        ular, refers to these texts as key in the development of EU resilience discourses.
    •   Regarding aim 2: IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology is briefly intro-
        duced and, subsequently, interrogated to identify resilience-related entries and
        their formal features. This approach is intended to highlight the political role of
        terminology work in harmonising resilience-related terms across member state lan-
        guages and, consequently, in naturalising EU resilience discourse. In other words,
        centralised terminology management and harmonisation aims at uniformity in ter-
        minology use and, consequently, naturalises – i.e. makes ideas seem “normal” and
        “natural” (Kellner et al. 2019, 21) – EU policies and political perspectives.



Resilience Discourse: a Conceptual Sketch

The OED’s entry for “resilience” lists five different acceptations. Acceptation five reads:
«The quality or fact of being able to recover quickly or easily from, or resist being affected
by, a misfortune, shock, illness, etc.; robustness; adaptability» (OED 5). This acceptation is
first found in Cassell’s Illustrated History of England and dates back from 1857, effectively
60-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                                                  Anselmo


marking the semantic shift from material to figurative bouncing back. Resilience, more
than its cognate word form “resiliency”, has become ubiquitous in academia (across several
disciplines), as well as in politics and policymaking. In time, different viewpoints of resili-
ence have emerged. In some strands of psychology, resilience refers to an individual’s ability
to adapt positively after a traumatic event, while ecology studies use resilience to describe
how an ecosystem can return to a state of equilibrium and maintain its functions after a
disturbance (Bourbeau 2018, 19). The genealogy of the term has been the object of debate,
with Bourbeau noting that the term was used in psychology literature – in both word forms,
resilience and resiliency – as early as 1955 (Ivi, 23), and Walker and Cooper (2011) claiming
that resilience has increasingly become ubiquitous in world politics and security due to
1970s ecology discourses. Nowadays, resilience is argued to have replaced, on the one hand,
stability as the predominant trope within security discourses (Zebrowski 2016) and, on the
other hand, sustainable development as the focus of social-ecological discourses (Franken-
berger et al. 2014; Ferguson 2019, 105).
       The semantic core of resilience can be found in the emergence of trauma or crisis as
events4 (Zizek 2014) disrupting an entity (e.g. the financial market, the ecosystem, a child…).
Resilience is thus «the capacity of the entity to anticipate, adapt to and recover from the event
such that it resumes its original configuration, shape, functional relationships or trajectory
afterward» (Welsh 2014, 3). This conceptualisation points to resilience as the capacity to re-
turn to the status quo ante a crisis, but the concept has increasingly shifted focus, especially
in policymaking, going from a bouncing back semantic core to a more sustained emphasis on
the semantics of change and transformation. In particular, resilience has come to bridge both
prevention and response to hazards (Chmutina et al. 2016), and to conceptualise them in
terms of bouncing forward, i.e. «reacting to crises by changing to a new state that is more
sustainable in the current environment» (Shaw 2012). In politics and policymaking, resili-
ence has become useful in naturalising a “risk society”, i.e. normalising awareness of ontolog-
ical risk, uncertainty, contingency and insecurity, according to the paradigm first advanced by
Beck (1992)5. Resilience has thus increasingly internalised the bouncing forward semantics.
Its success is due precisely to its focus on uncertainty: contemporary challenges such as «cli-
mate change, pandemics, economic meltdowns, or even certain kinds of terrorism […] are
based primarily on uncertainty, are located in the future, and often lack clear adversaries»
(Corry 2014, 256). Therefore, resilience is now argued to involve «the capacity to absorb



4
    Zizek defines an event as an amphibious notion: «an effect that exceeds its causes» (2014, 2); that is, as some-
        thing that emerges seemingly out of nowhere and that manifests a circular structure, whereby the causes
        can never fully account for the synergistic energy of the event itself.
5
    See also Ekberg (2007).
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology             61-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


shocks, avoid tipping points, navigate surprise and keep options alive, and the ability to inno-
vate and transform in the face of crises and traps» (Rockström et al. 2023, 897). Seen in this
light, resilience is key to articulating policies that address uncertainty, change, and complexity
across diverse epistemic communities (Welsh 2014). The appeal further lies in the term being
a metaphorical frame that is sufficiently malleable to cut across the so-called «“grey area” be-
tween academic, policy and practice discourse» (Bristow 2010, 163).
       Such versatility implies a common metaphorical/semantic core which can then be inflected
according to the specific discipline or epistemic community. Resilience is, therefore, employed as
part of agendas pushing for acceptance and management of novelty, adaptation, unpredictability,
transformation and vulnerability as constitutive of governance. Such approach sees flexibility and
adaptability as pivotal in developing the capacity to seek out unforeseen opportunities in crisis and
trauma (Seville 2009; Shaw 2011). Precisely because of these characteristics, resilience has also re-
cently been associated with neoliberal and technocratic turns in policymaking (Jacobs et al. 2022)
as it displaces authority and responsibility from the centre (governments) to the periphery (local
communities and individuals) (Chmutina et al. 2016, 71).



Resilience Discourse: the EU, COVID-19, and Recovery Plans

The EU’s progressive adoption of resilience as a policymaking paradigm can be read against
the theoretical-practical, academic-governmental backdrop sketched above. Resilience dis-
courses within the EU have their origin in the early 2010s. In 2012, the European Commis-
sion (henceforth the EC) published a relevant document, The EU Approach to Resilience.
Learning from Food Security Crises (henceforth EUAR 2012). In this document, resilience is
defined as «the ability of an individual, household, community, a country or a region to with-
stand, adapt to, and quickly recover from stresses and shocks such as drought, violence, con-
flict or natural disaster» (EUAR 2012, 5). The document further delineates the concept in
terms of prevention, preparedness, risk and disaster management strategies. The “resilience
paradigm” [Fig. 1] supports the visual conceptualisation of resilience as a return to the status
quo ante a crisis. In 2013, two key documents were produced. The first was issued by the
Council of Europe, titled Council Conclusions on EU Approach to Resilience (henceforth CCR
2013), as a response to the Commission’s EUAR. The CCR do not define resilience, rather,
they operationalise6 it by listing key principles in the implementation of resilience strategies.


6
    On definitions operationalising a term, see Brooks (1992, 30), who sees the possibility of defining certain
        concepts by specifying «a set of measurable criteria such that individuals and groups [...] could agree
        whether the criteria are being met in a concrete development program». While Brooks was specifically
62-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                                                Anselmo


The CCR highlight the horizontal, overarching nature of resilience and emphasise the need
to adopt a holistic approach in implementing policies. The second document was issued by
the EC: Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries, 2013-2020. Here, too, resilience
is defined as “bouncing back”, the same definition as the EUAR is provided verbatim.




            Figure 1 – The Resilience Paradigm in The EU Approach to Resilience:
                        Learning from Food Security Crises (2012, 4).

It was the 2016 EU Global Strategy (henceforth EUGS 2016) that took resilience beyond the
domains of humanitarianism and food security and across EU policy silos. Furthermore, the
2016 EUGS took the concept from the bouncing back semantics to a far more comprehensive
definition that built risk and uncertainty into EU policies (Tocci 2020), as well as including the
semantics of renewal through reform. In particular, resilience began to co-occur with the pre-
modifiers “state” and “societal”, thus developing the multisystemic and cross-policy nature of
the concept. Resilience was thus defined as: «the ability of states and societies to reform, thus
withstanding and recovering from internal and external crises» (EUGS 2016, 23). Not only did
the EUGS identify resilience as key in EU policymaking, but they also provided a definition
that upturned the semantic focus: resilience is primarily about reform and change, and only
secondarily is it about “withstanding” and “recovering”.
     The EUGS paved the way for the 2017 “Joint Communication” by the High Repre-
sentative of the EC, which combined the EUAR and the EUGS definitions to place heavy
emphasis on the semantics of change. Therefore, resilience was defined as interconnected with
democracy, sustainable development, and the capacity to reform. Here, too, is the definition


     writing about definitions of sustainability, the present author believes Brooks’ observation is also applica-
     ble to resilience.
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology              63-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


operationalised as a set of key objectives to be achieved:
         the adaptability of states, societies, communities, and individuals to political, economic, en-
         vironmental, demographic, or societal pressures; the capacities of states to build, maintain,
         or restore core functions and cohesion; and the ability of societies, communities, and indi-
         viduals to manage risk and opportunities in peaceful and sustainable ways. (Tocci 2020)
Resilience discourse as a way of “bouncing forward” and embracing change and transfor-
mation started to take root: after trauma or crisis there can be no actual return to the status
quo ante, states and societies will and should be different after a crisis (Joseph 2018). The non-
linearity of resilience approaches emphasises reorganisation, renewing, the ability to change
in response to external shocks, retaining core functions but seizing opportunities to acquire
new features and assets (Walker et al. 2004).
       The COVID-19 syndemic has brought resilience discourse into even sharper relief. The
EU’s first response to the syndemic has been dubbed «uncoordinated» (Wolff – Ladi 2020).
Several months into the health crisis, the EU rearticulated resilience discourse and effectively
turned resilience into a master trope for post-COVID-19 governance. To that effect, a concise
yet comprehensive introduction to EU resilience discourses is represented by the EU Science
Hub’s glossary of scientific activities7 (henceforth EUSHG), which is part of the EC’s Joint
Research Centre website, and whose primary objective is to provide science and data for im-
plementation into policymaking. The glossary entry for “resilience” defines it as «a new com-
pass for EU policies» (EUSHG), and states that the EC’s effort is to build “resilience think-
ing” into “policymaking” (EUSHG). Resilience is here defined holistically: «the ability not
only to withstand and cope with challenges but also to undergo transitions, in a sustainable,
fair, and democratic manner» (EUSHG), with a specific focus on «strengthening the mech-
anisms of shock absorption and enhancing the capacity for adaptation and transformation»
(EUSHG). In particular, the EU Science Hub entry provides the multiword term “transform-
ative resilience”, dubbing any residual “bouncing back” semantics of resilience “undesirable”,
and opting for policies that “bounce forward”. The EUSHG is founded upon two distinct
documents that effected the definitive transition to current EU resilience discourse: Building
a Scientific Narrative towards a More Resilient EU Society (Manca et al. 2017) and the Strate-
gic Foresight Report (2020).




7
    See the EU Science Hub’s website here: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/index_en (last accessed: 20
         February 2024). For the glossary entry concerning resilience see: https://joint-research-centre.ec.eu-
         ropa.eu/scientific-activities-z/resilience_en (last accessed: 20 February 2024).
64-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                                         Anselmo


     Building a Scientific Narrative towards a More Resilient EU Society is a Joint Research
Centre article aimed at mapping the scholarly and scientific evolution of resilience, with partic-
ular emphasis on social resilience. It proposes a tripartite definition of a resilient society,
whereby resilience is here articulated into layers of absorption, adaptability, and transformation:
     A resilient society is able to cope with and react to shocks or persistent structural changes
     by either resisting to it (absorptive capacity) or by adopting a degree of flexibility and mak-
     ing small changes to the system (adaptive capacity). At the limit, when disturbances are
     not manageable anymore, the system needs to engineer bigger changes, which in extreme
     cases will lead to a transformation (transformative capacity). (Manca et al. 2017, 5)
The Strategic Foresight Report is expressive of the EU’s transition-led political agenda subse-
quent to the first wave of COVID-19. It describes resilience as enabling both processes of
recovery and processes of strengthening and intensification of transitions. The report envi-
sions a framework within which resilience can be both mapped and measured, and recovery
starts to become a buzzword. Vulnerability is key to the report, as uncertainties as well as vul-
nerabilities become inherent to governance in resilience discourses: both vulnerabilities and
resilience capacities within the EU are measured according to fourteen megatrends – long-
term driving forces that impact the future, i.e. diversification of education and learning, the
changing nature of work, growing consumption, etc. – and a four-dimensional framework
for assessing resilience is proposed.
       Each dimension is articulated into sub-categories (capacities, vulnerabilities, and op-
portunities): the first is the social and economic dimension of resilience; the second is the
geopolitical dimension; the third is the green dimension; the fourth is the digital dimension.
These dimensions contribute to the EU’s definition of resilience as they are multisystemic
(Wernli et al. 2021), that is, they not only bridge different policy silos, but also address the
societal, the political, the economic, the sustainable, and the security elements in govern-
ance. The dimensions aim to provide a view of strengths (capacities), weaknesses (vulnera-
bilities), and chances of growth (opportunities), which frames the EU COVID-19 crisis vis-
à-vis resilience as a complex scenario, containing capacities for response and management as
well as windows for opportunity and growth.
       The four-dimensional framework is also aimed at implementing transitional policies to-
wards effective recovery and is coupled with a policymaking and analytical perspective dubbed
strategic foresight, in other words, «the discipline of exploring, anticipating and shaping the
future» to «build and use collective intelligence in a structured and systematic way to antici-
pate developments and better prepare for change» (SFR 2020). Strategic foresight includes
«Horizon scanning, the assessment of megatrends, emerging issues and their policy implica-
tions, as well as the exploration of alternative futures via visioning and scenario planning,
[which] are key to informing strategic political choices» (Ibid.). Resilience thus emerges as a
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology             65-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


multisystemic, multidisciplinary, multifaceted concept, interconnected with processes of as-
sessment of preparedness and vulnerabilities, and achieving recovery as a form of successful
transition to renewal and regeneration.



Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID -19 Multilingual Terminology

Terminological work within the EU is instrumental in the popularisation and naturalisation
of cultural-political ideas. Terminological work and standardisation have been fruitfully used
in multilingual contexts such as Catalonia to «coordinate terminological activity […], to pro-
mote and create terminology resources and ensure their availability, and to promote the de-
velopment of linguistic engineering products»8. Institutional terminological departments
continue to collect terminology and recommend its use via termbases to ensure correct and
consistent use. When multiple languages are involved, as is the case in the EU, terminology
work can also imply harmonisation, that is, a process aimed at «la désignation, dans plusieures
langues, d’une même notion par des termes qui reflètent les mêmes caractères ou des caractères
similaires dont la forme est la même ou légèrement différente» (ISO 869:1996 in Chiocchetti
2008, 24). Terminology management and harmonisation in the EU are implemented thanks
to the Terminology Coordination Unit (TermCoord) and to the IATE termbase. IATE was
initially intended for EU professionals, and it was aimed at «the collection, the dissemination
and shared management of EU-specific terminology»9. A further aim was the harmonisation
of terminology to «support the multilingual drafting of EU texts»10. In particular, harmoni-
sation is effected thanks to the implementation of reliability values and evaluations into the
termbase (IATE User’s Handbook, 94-96). Reliability values are graphically expressed using
stars, which indicate the reliability of the match between term and concept as well as the reli-
ability of the sources used in the terminological entry. Evaluation, on the other hand, indicates
the degree to which a term and its use are deemed appropriate and correct. Evaluations are
expressed through the following terms “preferred”, “admitted”, “deprecated”, “obsolete”,
“proposed”. Evaluation, in particular, manifests the aim to offer harmonised terminology.
Once IATE was released to the public, its target audience widened (e.g. language profession-




8
    See TERMCAT Terminology Centre: https://llengua.gencat.cat/en/direccio_general_politica_linguistica/02_or-
         ganismes_vinculats/01_centre_de_terminologia_termcat/ (last accessed: 31 May 2023).
9
    See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/translation/en/terminology/about-iate (last accessed: 10 April 2023).
10
     See IATE User’s Handbook: https://iate.europa.eu/assets/handbook.pdf (last accessed: 10 April 2023).
66-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                                                    Anselmo


als, academia, national experts, public administration, policy advisers, private sector compa-
nies, and the general public) and the termbase became a reference resource11 that offered vali-
dated – i.e. harmonised – terminology. The value of harmonisation is both communicative
and political: while harmonised terminology aims at optimising communicative processes (i.e.
the drafting, editing, and translating of documents), it also functions as an officiously stand-
ardising force12 that language service providers at all levels refer to, and, consequently, facili-
tates the spread and naturalisation of specific concepts and their lexical designations.
      IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology was first drafted in April 2020 as an emer-
gency response to the proliferation of technical and semi-technical terms surrounding
COVID-19, to fulfil the need for consistent use of terminology and, therefore, effective com-
munication (Callegari 2020). This was due to the realisation, early in the syndemic, that com-
munication was one of the most important tools at the disposal of health practitioners and
governments to contain the spread of the virus (Bowker 2020). Many medical or public health
terms went through processes of de-terminologisation – i.e. specialised terms were integrated
into everyday lives and knowledge – (Meyer – Mackintosh 2020); at the same time, the rapid-
ity and severity of the syndemic predicament only allowed for very little formal language plan-
ning and consensus building (Bowker 2020, 2). There ensued the need for clarity and lack of
conceptual ambiguity when communicating vital syndemic-related information across differ-
ent contexts and fields, and the health and political value of doing so effectively was and is of
primary importance. The fact that IATE (and the COVID-19 terminology within IATE)
were recognised as instrumental in the joint European roadmap towards lifting containment
measures is evidence of the inherent political values of terminology harmonisation. Effective
and unambiguous communication to counter the spread of the virus is not the only purpose
for harmonising COVID-19-related terminology. Syndemic-related policies and policymak-
ing strategies also require clear conceptualisations and unambiguous terminology, which, in
turn, can facilitate the transmission of the political thinking underlying their production. In
other words, the conceptualisation and lexicalisation of resilience thinking, and the insertion
of COVID-19-related resilience policies in IATE’s COVID-19 Terminology served to natu-
ralise resilience thinking as it conceptually and lexically trickled down member state policies,
media, and into the everyday.
      IATE’s Multilingual COVID-19 Terminology was specifically conceived to benefit
IATE users by offering comprehensive coverage of COVID-19-related terms and by providing
access to accurate and harmonised multilingual content13. As a subset of the IATE general

11
     See https://cdt.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-multilingual-terminology-available-iate (last accessed: 10 April 2023).
12
     On the formal definition of terminology standardisation see Chiocchetti – Ralli (2013).
13
     See https://cdt.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-multilingual-terminology-available-iate (last accessed: 1
        September 2023).
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology               67-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


termbase, it consists of an Excel spreadsheet listing all single and multi-word terms related to
COVID-19 and SARS-Cov-2 contained in IATE. The terminology was first drafted in April
2020 and included 270 entries; it grew to count 730 entries in March 2021, when it was last
updated. Here reference is made to the March 2021 update. It is not a glossary, per se, but an
English-only list of terms; this means that term variants, spelling variants, synonyms and ab-
breviations are included in the list as independent items. Each independent item redirects to
the terminological entry in the IATE general termbase. This relative overlapping is explained
by the concept- rather than term-oriented rationale for IATE entries: while the list contains
terms, each of them is listed with a URL that redirects to a IATE entry, which, being concept-
oriented, will contain synonyms, spelling variants, and abbreviations.
      The IATE general termbase contains four distinct entries for “resilience” belonging to
the fields of health, social questions, earth sciences and materials technology, and IT and data
processing14. As a component of multi-word terms, it appears in 65 further entries, spanning
fields as disparate as information security, the environment, the economy, finance, and migra-
tion, among many others. The focus in what follows is on resilience as conceptualised within
recovery discourses related to the COVID-19 crisis. To that effect, the presence of the term
“resilience” has been assessed in the Excel spreadsheet listing IATE’s COVID-19 terms, yield-
ing the following results, here arranged in alphabetical order:

       •    European Recovery and Resilience Facility
       •    Health System Resilience
       •    National Recovery and Resilience Plan
       •    Recovery and Resilience Facility
       •    Recovery and Resilience Plan
       •    Recovery and Resilience Task Force
       •    Recovery and Resilience Tool
       •    Resilience15

Several of these are synonymous and are dealt with accordingly in the analysis below. The
terminological results afford the following preliminary observations:

       •    Except for the single term resilience, all other occurrences present “resilience” as part
            of multi-word terms.


14
     See https://iate.europa.eu/home (last accessed: 12 Decmber 2023).
15
     A further search was carried out for the term variant “resiliency” and the adjective “resilient”, yielding no
        results. The Excel sheet contains abbreviations which are reported in the detailed analysis section.
68-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                                            Anselmo


    •      Resilience is primarily used in connection with the noun “recovery”, forming the pre-
           modifying adjectival collocation “recovery and resilience”, which appears to be the
           preferred word order in EU texts.
    •      Resilience is only used as a noun in two instances (Health System Resilience and Re-
           silience); in all other instances it is used as a premodifying adjectival qualifier.

Commentary on the terms does not focus on the formal characteristics of the terminological
entries (e.g. the type, number, and uniformity of term descriptors), but on the term defini-
tions (reference is made to the “term in context” and “notes” descriptors if considered relevant
to the analysis of definitions). The aim is to assess the extent to which the terms and their
definition are manifestations of hegemonic EU resilience discourse.

1. The “European Recovery and Resilience Facility” is a lookup form – a variant form – of
“Recovery and Resilience Facility”. IATE’s COVID-19 terminology Excel list redirects to a
single entry in which both term variants are listed, as well as the abbreviated form “RRF”.
“Recovery and Resilience Facility” is defined as a:
        financial support mechanism in response to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pan-
        demic to support investments and reforms to make EU economies more resilient [my ital-
        ics], mitigate the economic and social impact of the crisis and support recovery [my italics],
        while fostering green and digital transitions.
The multiword term juxtaposes recovery and resilience processes, syntactically representing
their conceptual connection via the conjunction “and”. The two concepts are also addressed
in the definition: while the adjective “resilient” is only used with reference to the economy of
EU member states, the entire definition has a resilience subtext: firstly, the RRF is meant to
mitigate the economic and social impact of the crisis – this is in line with the social and eco-
nomic dimension of the EU’s resilience framework; secondly, the RRF is said to be in place
to sustain and facilitate green and digital transitions, which is an explicit reference to the green
and digital dimensions of the resilience framework. The multi-word term “Recovery and Re-
silience Tool” is another lookup form of “Recovery and Resilience”.
2. “Health System Resilience” is defined as «health systems’ capacity to adapt effectively to
changing environments, sudden shocks or crises». While the definition is concise, the “term
in context” descriptor in the terminological entry offers a more detailed definition in the form
of an example sentence:
        Health system resilience can be defined as the capacity of health actors, institutions, and
        populations to prepare for and effectively respond to crises; maintain core functions when
        a crisis hits; and, informed by lessons learned during the crisis, reorganise if conditions re-
        quire it. Health systems are resilient if they protect human life and produce good health
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology      69-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


     outcomes for all during a crisis and in its aftermath. Resilient health systems can also de-
     liver everyday benefits and positive health outcomes. (Kruk et al. 2015, 1910)
Thanks to the scholarly definition included in the terminological entry, “health system resili-
ence” appears to align with the EU’s resilience framework, specifically with the bouncing for-
ward semantics – the verbs “prepare”, “maintain”, “reorganise” indicate the tripartite seman-
tic organisation of resilience intended as processes of absorption, adaptability, and reform.
The term points to the social and economic dimension of the EU’s resilience framework, in-
sofar as health is connected with considerations of well-being at both individual and societal
level. It also points to the multisystemic implication of both health systems and resilience
frameworks, which address “health actors”, “institutions” and “populations”. Health System
Resilience is a lookup form of Resilience as conceptualised in the domains of “organisation of
healthcare” and “healthcare system”. It is connected to, but narrower than the entry for resil-
ience in the domain of “social questions”. The latter is defined as the «ability of a social, eco-
logical, or socio-ecological system and its components to anticipate, reduce, accommodate, or
recover from the effects of a hazardous event or trend in a timely and efficient manner». This
definition predates the EU’s resilience framework as laid out in the 2020 Strategic Foresight
Report (the “term reference” and “term in context” descriptors date from 2012 and 2008, re-
spectively; the entry itself was first created in 1997 and last updated in May 2015) but is
aligned with the EU’s first forays into defining resilience as preparedness and response. The
entry for health system resilience dates from 2019 and was last updated in 2020. The concept
was tackled in the Strategic Foresight Report as health systems in the EU were severely hit by
the syndemic in terms of structure, preparedness and ability to manage and prevent the spread
of disease (SFR 2020). The terminological entry for health system resilience both draws on
the specificity of resilience in the domain of healthcare and on the broader EU definition of
resilience as absorption, adaptability, and reform.
3. “National Recovery and Resilience Plan” is a lookup form of “Recovery and Resilience
Plan”; it is abbreviated as RRP. IATE defines it as «a plan prepared by an EU Member State,
to be submitted to the European Commission in the framework of the “Recovery and Resil-
ience Facility”». The terminological entry contains a note descriptor, listing the expected con-
tents of any national R&R plan; in practice, the plan «will contain the Member State’s in-
vestment and reform agenda, as well as the investment and reform packages to be financed
under the Facility». The multiword term is thus associated with the domains of finance, eco-
nomic recovery, and EU membership, and is therefore a manifestation of the social and eco-
nomic dimension of the resilience framework. This is exemplified by the nouns “investment”
and “reform” in the note: the former is intended to designate practical economic support,
which must be supplemented by reform plans; the latter manifests the “bouncing forward”
semantics, whereby resilience is not merely implementing economic support, but it entails
70-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                                      Anselmo


planning for structured change leading to renewal and regeneration.
4.“Recovery and Resilience Task Force” is defined as:
     [An] entity, reporting directly to the President of the European Commission, created in the
     wake of the coronavirus crisis to support Member States with the elaboration of their recov-
     ery and resilience plans, ensure that plans comply with the regulatory requirements, deliver
     on the objectives of the green and digital transitions, monitor the implementation of finan-
     cial support and coordinate the European Semester in this period of time.
The “RECOVER” [sic] is another accepted designation for the task force. The entry was first
created in September 2020 as plans for a recovery and resilience framework that could tackle the
multisystemic damage caused by COVID-19 were underway. The term thus designates struc-
tured support offered member states to work towards a way out of the crisis. The task force is
expressive of the EU’s resilience framework and it operates with a focus on financial support
aimed at reform, which also facilitates the green and digital transitions. The task force thus appears
as a direct emanation of the four-dimension resilience framework as outlined in the 2020 SFR.



Concluding Remarks

This article has analysed the conceptual evolution of resilience in time, tracing its conceptual
contours and highlighting its versatility. Subsequently, it has analysed the evolution of the
concept in the context of EU policymaking, with two specific aims in mind:

1. The construction of a concise conceptual history of resilience discourse within the EU in
the timeframe 2012-2020;
2. The description of the lexicalisation of resilience in EU terminological work, with particular
reference to COVID-19-related terminology and COVID-19 recovery plans.

Firstly, a concise resilience literature review was presented; secondly, the evolving semantic
features of EU resilience discourses were traced through select key resilience texts with the aim
to document the change and complexification in resilience thinking; thirdly, the connection
was drawn between EU resilience thinking and COVID-19 terminology through EU termi-
nological work provided by IATE.
      The EU focuses on multilingualism and the implementation language equality, in an
effort to guarantee EU citizens access to institutional documents, laws, education and training
programmes, and health information in their own languages. This is all the more relevant
since lack of access to terminology and LSPs (languages for special purposes) in one’s native
language has proven discriminatory (UNESCO 2005). Managing a health crisis such as the
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology        71-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


COVID-19 syndemic, requires the management of specialised terminology regarding all as-
pects of the crisis, from policy guidelines, medical information, health guidance, to actual reg-
ulations and recovery programmes. IATE was instrumental in a top-down approach to man-
aging COVID-19-related terminology. The present analysis of resilience-related IATE entries
is founded on the contention that the elaboration of a EU resilience framework avails itself of
IATE as a tool for the harmonisation of terminological designations across languages, and,
consequently, puts the dissemination and naturalisation of hegemonic policy thinking across
member states into effect. While this is neither a prescriptive nor a legally binding process –
the EU does not actively engage in language planning and standardisation16 and IATE is partly
crowd-sourced17 – the harmonisation of terminology in a public forum such as IATE achieves
the semi-fixed connection of concept and term, and, therefore, facilitates the naturalisation of
concepts – i.e. resilience – as policy compasses at a supranational and, subsequently, national
level. In fact, language policies have been recognised as instrumental in implementing political
strategies (Krzyzanowski – Wodak 2011). With reference to the present article, resilience-re-
lated terminological entries in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology show the juxta-
position of the concepts of resilience and recovery in multi-word terms and their interconnec-
tion as far as policymaking is concerned. Resilience-related entries have thus been discussed in
terms of their definitions and how these definitions were expressive of the EU resilience frame-
work delineated in the Strategic Foresight Report.


Anna Anselmo
Università degli Studi di Ferrara
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Via Paradiso, 12
I – 44121 Ferrara
anna.anselmo@unife.it




16
     For more information on language planning and standardisation see Chiocchetti – Ralli (2013).
17
     See https://yourterm.eu (last accessed: 12 December 2023).
72-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                            Anselmo


Riferimenti bibliografici

Anselmo 2022a
A. Anselmo, Sustainability and COVID-19, «Iperstoria» 20, 145-164.

Anselmo 2022b
A. Anselmo, Terminology for Medical Journalism: Terminological Resources, Neology, and the
COVID-19 Syndemic, «LCM Journal» 9/2, 145-168.

Anselmo 2023
A. Anselmo, The COVID-19 Syndemic and The Politics of Terminology Harmonisation, «Ex-
pressio» VII 215-238 (forthcoming).

Beck 1992
U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London.

Bourbeau 2018
P. Bourbeau, A Genealogy of Resilience, «International Political Sociology» XII/1 19-35.

Bowker 2020
L. Bowker, French-language COVID-19 Terminology: International or Localized?, «The
Journal of Internationalization and Localization» VII/1,2 1-27.

Bristow 2010
G. Bristow, Resilient Regions: Re-‘place’ing Regional Competitiveness, «Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society» III/1 153-167.

Brooks 1992
H. Brooks, Sustainability and Technology, in Sience and Sustainability - Selected Papers on
IIASA’s 20th Anniversary, Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Vienna, 29-60.

Callegari
E. Callegari, COVID-19 Event: A Frame-Based Terminology Approach, https://term-
coord.eu/2020/04/covid-19-event-a-frame-based-terminology-approach/, (last accessed: 29
February 2024).
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology   73-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


Chiocchetti 2008
E. Chiocchetti, Criteri di Armonizzazione della Terminologia della Convenzione delle Alpi,
in E. Chiocchetti – L. Voltmer (eds.), Normazione, armonizzazione e pianificazione lingui-
stica, EURAC Research, 19-30, (http://webfolder.eurac.edu/EURAC/LexALP_shared/me-
dia/Chiocchetti.pdf).

Chiocchetti – Ralli 2013
E. Chiocchetti – N. Ralli (eds.), Guidelines for Collaborative Legal/Administrative Termino-
logy Work, https://www.termcoord.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Guidelines_for_col-
laborative_legal_administrative_terminology_work.pdf.

Chmutina et al. 2016
K. Chmutina – G. Lizarralde – A. Dainty – L. Bosher, Unpacking Resilience Policy Dis-
course, «Cities» LVIII 70-79.

Corry 2014
O. Corry, From Defense to Resilience: Environmental Security beyond Neo-liberalism, «Inter-
national Political Sociology» VIII/3 256-274.

Ekberg 2007
M. Ekberg, The Parameters of the Risk Society: A Review and Exploration, «Current Sociol-
ogy» LV/3 343-366.

European Commission Joint Research Centre 2017
European Commission Joint Research Centre, Building a Scientific Narrative Towards a
More Resilient EU Society. Part 1, A Conceptual Framework, https://publications.jrc.ec.eu-
ropa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC106265/jrc106265_100417_resilience_scienceforpoli-
cyreport.pdf.

European External Action Service 2016
European Exteral Action Service, A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And
Security Policy, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf.

Ferguson 2019
P. Ferguson, Discourses of Resilience in the Climate Security Debate, «Global Environmental
Politics» XIX/2 104-126.
74-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                              Anselmo


Foucault 1977
M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, New York.

Frankerberger et al.
T.R. Frankenberger – M.A. Constas – S. Nelson – L. Starr, Current Approaches to Resilience
Programming among Nongovernmental Organizations, https://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/col-
lection/p15738coll2/id/128167/filename/128378.pdf, (last accessed: 29 February 2024).

ISO 869
ISO 869: 1996 Terminology Work – Harmonisation of Concepts and Terms, revised by ISO 860:
2007.

Iso 1087
ISO 1087: 2019 Terminology Work and Terminology Science.

Iso 704
ISO 704: 2022 Terminology Work - Principles and Methods.

Jacobs et al. 2023
T. Jacobs – N. Gheyle – F. De Ville – J. Orbie, The Hegemonic Politics of ‘Strategic Autonomy’
and ‘Resilience’: COVID‐19 and the Dislocation of EU Trade Policy, «JCMS: Journal of Com-
mon Market Studies» LXI/1 3-19.

Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council 2017
A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU’s external action, https://www.eeas.eu-
ropa.eu/sites/default/files/join_2017_21_f1_communication_from_commis-
sion_to_inst_en_v7_p1_916039.pdf.

Joseph 2018
J. Joseph, Varieties of Resilience: Studies in Governmentality, Cambridge.

Kellner et al. 2019
D. Kellner – J. Share – A. Luke, The Critical Media Literacy Guide: Engaging Media and
Transforming Education, Leida.
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology   75-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


Kohrt et al. 2022
B.A. Kohrt – C.H. Logie – E. Mendenhall – A.C. Tsai, Syndemics and Clinical Science, «Na-
ture Medicine» XXVIII/7 1359-1362.

Kruk et al. 2015
M.E. Kruk – M. Myers – S.T. Varpilah – B.T. Dahn, What is a resilient health system? Lessons
from Ebola, «The Lancet» 385/9980 1910-1912.

Krzyzanowski – Wodak 2011
M. Krzyżanowski – R. Wodak, Political Strategies and Language Policies: The European Un-
ion Lisbon Strategy and its Implications for the EU’s Language and Multilingualism Pol-
icy, «Language Policy» X/2 115-136.

Manca et al. 2017
A.R. Manca – P. Benczur – E. Giovannini, Building a Scientific Narrative Towards a More
Resilient EU Society, «JRC Science for Policy Report».

Meyer – Mackintosh 2000
L. Meyer – K. Mackintosh, When Terms Move into our Everyday Lives: An Overview of De-
Terminologization, «Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in
Specialized Communication» 6/1 111-138.

Rockstrom et al. 2023
J. Rockström – A.V. Norström – N. Matthews – R. Biggs – C. Folke – A. Harikishun – S.
Huq – N. Krishnan – L. Warszawski – D. Nel, Shaping a resilient future in response to
COVID-19, «Nature Sustainability» VI/8 897-907.

Seville 2009
E. Seville, Resilience: great concept…but what does it mean for organisations?, «TEPHRA»
XXII 9-14.

Shaw – Theobald 2011
K. Shaw – K. Theobald, Resilient local government and climate change interventions in the
UK, «Local Environment» XVI/1, 1-15.
76-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                            Anselmo


Shaw 2012
K. Shaw, ‘Reframing’ Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice, «Planning
Theory & Practice» XIII/2 299-333.

Singer 2009
M. Singer, Introduction to Syndemics: A Critical Systems Approach to Public and Community
Health, San Francisco.

The Council of Europe 2013
The Council of Europe, Council conclusions on EU approach to resilience, https://www.consil-
ium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/foraff/137319.pdf, (last accessed: 29
February 2024).

The European Commission 2012
The European Commission, The EU Approach to Resilience. Learning from Food Security
Crises, 1-13, https://reliefweb.int/attachments/e6e7d188-d0b8-3fb5-b613-
a4d4cbe122d4/com_2012_586_resilience_en.pdf, (last accessed: 29 February 2024).

The European Commission 2013
The European Commission, Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries, 2013-2020,
https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/resilience/com_2013_227_ap_crisis_prone_coun-
tries_en.pdf, (last accessed: 29 February 2024).

The European Union 2020
The European Union, Strategic Foresight Report, https://commission.europa.eu/sys-
tem/files/2021-04/strategic_foresight_report_2020_1_0.pdf.

Termcat Terminology Centre
Gencat, retrieved May 31, 2023, from https://llengua.gencat.cat/en/direccio_general_polit-
ica_linguistica/02_organismes_vinculats/01_centre_de_terminologia_termcat/.

Translation Centre for the Bodies of the Eu
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the EU, COVID-19 multilingual terminology available
in IATE, https://cdt.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-multilingual-terminology-available-iate,
(last accessed: 29 February 2024).
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology   77-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


Translation European Parliament
Translation European Parliament, About IATE, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/transla-
tion/en/terminology/about-iate, (last accessed: 10 February 2024).

Unesco 2005
Guidelines for Terminology Policies – Formulating and implementing terminology policy in
language communities, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000140765, (last accessed: 29 February 2024).

Tocci 2017
N. Tocci, From the European Security Strategy to the EU Global Strategy: explaining the jour-
ney, «International Politics» LIV/4, 487-502.

Tocci 2020
N. Tocci, Resilience and the Role of the European Union in the World, «Contemporary Secu-
rity Policy» XLI/2 176-194.

Walker et al. 2004
B. Walker – C. S. Holling – S.R. Carpenter – A. Kinzig, Resilience, Adaptability and Trans-
formability in Social–ecological Systems, «Ecology and Society» IX/2.

Walker – Cooper 2011
J. Walker – M. Cooper, Genealogies of resilience: From Systems Ecology to the Political Economy
of Crisis Adaptation, «Security Dialogue» XLII/2 143-160.

Welsh 2014
M. Welsh, Resilience and Responsibility: Governing Uncertainty in a Complex World, «The
Geographical Journal» 180/1 15-26.
78-79AOFL XVIII (2023)                                                             Anselmo


Wernli et al. 2021
D. Wernli – M. Clausin – N. Antulov-Fantulin – J. Berezowski – N. Biller-Andorno – K.
Blanchet – L. Böttcher – C. Burton-Jeangros – G. Escher – A. Flahault – K. Fukuda – D.
Helbing – P.D. Jaffé – P. Søgaard Jørgensen – Y. Kaspiarovich – J. Krishnakumar – R.J. Law-
rence – K. Lee – A. Léger – N. Levrat – R. Martischang – C.M. Morel – D. Pittet – M.
Stauffer – F. Tediosi – F. Vanackere – J.D. Vassalli – G. Wolff – O. Young, Building a multi-
systemic understanding of societal resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic, «BMJ Global
Health» VI/7 1-6.

Wolff – Ladi 2020
S. Wolff – S. Ladi, European Union Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic: Adaptability in Times
of Permanent Emergency, «Journal of European Integration» XLII/8 1025-1040.

Zebrowski 2016
C. Zebrowski, The Value of Resilience: Securing Life in the Twenty-First Century, New York.

Zizek 2014
S. Žižek, Event, London.
Resilience Discourse in IATE’s COVID-19 Multilingual Terminology   79-79 AOFL XVIII (2023)


Sitografia

Cord-19
Corpus with Reduplications, www.sketchengine.eu, (last accessed: 29 February 2024).

Iate
IATE, European Union Terminology, retrieved December 12, 2023, from https://iate.eu-
ropa.eu/home, (last accessed: 29 February 2024).

Iate
IATE, User’s Handbook, https://iate.europa.eu/assets/handbook.pdf, (last accessed: 29 Febru-
ary 2024).

Resilience
Resilience, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, www.oed.com, (last accessed:
10 January 2024).

The Coronavirus Corpus
The Coronavirus Corpus, www.english-corpora.org/corona/, (last accessed: 29 February 2024).

YouTerm
YouTerm, retrieved December 12, 2023, from https://yourterm.eu, (last accessed: 29 Febru-
ary 2024).
