{"title":"Eduardo D. Faingold (2020): language rights and the law in the European Union","authors":"Yuxin Liu, Fumin Fang","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2051","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"38 1","pages":"149 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85720355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Multilingualism in EU Institutions and EU Law","authors":"Karin Luttermann, Janice M. Engberg","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2043","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"17 1","pages":"1 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85057476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Setting out from a quotation by Eugene Nida, this paper critically analyses the issue of translation quality in the peculiar context of EU institutions and bodies. While EU-specific translating is certainly acknowledged as a purposeful activity and generally takes into account the various parameters associated with functionalist theories of translation, other factors may intervene. In particular, attention is drawn to the risk that a single word or concept can take on different meanings in each of the institutional or cultural contexts comprising the European Union, and to the need to make sure that Europe’s words mean the same thing for any European citizen. Against this backdrop, the creation of EU-specific terminology is seen as an inherent step in the formation of new institutional or political concepts related to the activities or the practices of the European Union. Some examples of translation discrepancies are presented, along with their differing impact on the effectiveness of the legal or political message and the differing quality standards they seem to require in order to ensure interlingual consistency.
{"title":"Best for whom? An EU-specific insight into translation quality","authors":"Domenico Cosmai","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2046","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Setting out from a quotation by Eugene Nida, this paper critically analyses the issue of translation quality in the peculiar context of EU institutions and bodies. While EU-specific translating is certainly acknowledged as a purposeful activity and generally takes into account the various parameters associated with functionalist theories of translation, other factors may intervene. In particular, attention is drawn to the risk that a single word or concept can take on different meanings in each of the institutional or cultural contexts comprising the European Union, and to the need to make sure that Europe’s words mean the same thing for any European citizen. Against this backdrop, the creation of EU-specific terminology is seen as an inherent step in the formation of new institutional or political concepts related to the activities or the practices of the European Union. Some examples of translation discrepancies are presented, along with their differing impact on the effectiveness of the legal or political message and the differing quality standards they seem to require in order to ensure interlingual consistency.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"29 1","pages":"69 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84758407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Legal concepts are generally deeply rooted in a specific legal system. Even when two legal systems use the same official language, such as Germany and Austria, the system-boundness of their legal concepts may lead to communication problems. German is also an officially recognised minority language in South Tyrol, Italy. In South Tyrol, the local public authorities must use the minority language in their relations with German-speaking citizens. This brought about the need to elaborate a local German legal terminology to express Italian legal concepts. Terminology development efforts intended to promote terminology consistency and avoid an excessive regionalisation of South Tyrolean German, so as to foster communication with the neighbouring German-speaking legal systems. In the last decades, European Union law has led to a growing harmonisation in the legal terminologies of its Member States, facilitating communication between the different legal systems, also with benefits for terminology work in South Tyrol. This paper focuses on how European legal acts impact on national legal terminology and affect German legal terminology in South Tyrol. The considerations set out are based on comparative legal terminology work regarding the Italian and the German-speaking legal systems done at Eurac Research.
{"title":"The impact of European legal acts on national legal terminology and on German as a minority language in South Tyrol, Italy","authors":"Klara Kranebitter","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2048","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Legal concepts are generally deeply rooted in a specific legal system. Even when two legal systems use the same official language, such as Germany and Austria, the system-boundness of their legal concepts may lead to communication problems. German is also an officially recognised minority language in South Tyrol, Italy. In South Tyrol, the local public authorities must use the minority language in their relations with German-speaking citizens. This brought about the need to elaborate a local German legal terminology to express Italian legal concepts. Terminology development efforts intended to promote terminology consistency and avoid an excessive regionalisation of South Tyrolean German, so as to foster communication with the neighbouring German-speaking legal systems. In the last decades, European Union law has led to a growing harmonisation in the legal terminologies of its Member States, facilitating communication between the different legal systems, also with benefits for terminology work in South Tyrol. This paper focuses on how European legal acts impact on national legal terminology and affect German legal terminology in South Tyrol. The considerations set out are based on comparative legal terminology work regarding the Italian and the German-speaking legal systems done at Eurac Research.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"27 1","pages":"113 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74854963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Good governance is a key factor in underpinning the integrity and efficiency of an institution, whether it is a private company or a national or international organisation. The core principles of good governance are now often defined as fairness, accountability, responsibility and transparency. Although these terms are familiar to all those involved in corporate social responsibility/sustainability and business ethics, and are frequently discussed in the European Parliament and European directives, they often pose a challenge to the translator, since obvious equivalents for all of them do not exist in all EU languages. In this paper, I take the example of accountability, and examine the way that it is represented in both Spanish and German in the EUROPARL7 parallel corpus of European Parliament Proceedings, available in the Sketch Engine corpus platform. Accountability in English can be defined as an assurance that individuals or organizations will be evaluated on their performance or behaviour related to something for which they are responsible, or more simply, as being responsible for explaining what you do and able to give a satisfactory account of it to those whom your actions affect. The English term accountability thus differs from responsibility and transparency, although it overlaps with both. However, not all languages allow us to distinguish easily between the concepts they designate. In fact, the majority of Spanish translations of accountability found in EUROPARL7 simply use responsabilidad, while others make reference to rendir cuentas or rendición de cuentas, and a few actually use transparencia. In German, the picture is less confused, with the closer term Rechenschaftspflicht employed as the usual translation, but an abundance of alternatives such as Verantwortlichkeit and Auskunftspflicht also appear. In my conclusions, I discuss the rationale that may underlie the different choices, point to problems that might arise from poor translations, and suggest reasons we should strive to maintain clear definitions of these key concepts.
良好的治理是支撑一个机构的诚信和效率的关键因素，无论是一个私人公司还是一个国家或国际组织。善政的核心原则现在往往被定义为公平、问责、负责和透明。尽管这些术语对于所有涉及企业社会责任/可持续性和商业道德的人来说都很熟悉，并且经常在欧洲议会和欧洲指令中讨论，但它们往往对翻译构成挑战，因为并非所有欧盟语言中都存在所有这些术语的明显等价物。在本文中，我以问责制为例，并研究了在Sketch Engine语料库平台中可用的欧洲议会会议记录EUROPARL7平行语料库中以西班牙语和德语表示的方式。在英语中，问责制可以被定义为一种保证，即个人或组织的表现或与他们所负责的事情相关的行为将得到评估，或者更简单地说，是负责解释你所做的事情，并能够向你的行为影响的人给出令人满意的解释。因此，英语术语问责制不同于责任和透明度，尽管它与两者重叠。然而，并不是所有的语言都允许我们容易地区分它们所指定的概念。事实上，在europar7中发现的问责制的大多数西班牙语翻译只是使用责任制，而其他翻译则参考rendir cuentas或rendición de cuentas，少数翻译实际上使用透明。在德语中，情况就不那么混乱了，通常的翻译是rechenschaftspflict，但也有大量的替代词，如Verantwortlichkeit和auskunftspflict。在我的结论中，我讨论了可能导致不同选择的基本原理，指出了可能因翻译不当而产生的问题，并提出了我们应该努力保持这些关键概念清晰定义的原因。
{"title":"Translating the principles of good governance: in search of accountability in Spanish and German","authors":"R. Breeze","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2045","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Good governance is a key factor in underpinning the integrity and efficiency of an institution, whether it is a private company or a national or international organisation. The core principles of good governance are now often defined as fairness, accountability, responsibility and transparency. Although these terms are familiar to all those involved in corporate social responsibility/sustainability and business ethics, and are frequently discussed in the European Parliament and European directives, they often pose a challenge to the translator, since obvious equivalents for all of them do not exist in all EU languages. In this paper, I take the example of accountability, and examine the way that it is represented in both Spanish and German in the EUROPARL7 parallel corpus of European Parliament Proceedings, available in the Sketch Engine corpus platform. Accountability in English can be defined as an assurance that individuals or organizations will be evaluated on their performance or behaviour related to something for which they are responsible, or more simply, as being responsible for explaining what you do and able to give a satisfactory account of it to those whom your actions affect. The English term accountability thus differs from responsibility and transparency, although it overlaps with both. However, not all languages allow us to distinguish easily between the concepts they designate. In fact, the majority of Spanish translations of accountability found in EUROPARL7 simply use responsabilidad, while others make reference to rendir cuentas or rendición de cuentas, and a few actually use transparencia. In German, the picture is less confused, with the closer term Rechenschaftspflicht employed as the usual translation, but an abundance of alternatives such as Verantwortlichkeit and Auskunftspflicht also appear. In my conclusions, I discuss the rationale that may underlie the different choices, point to problems that might arise from poor translations, and suggest reasons we should strive to maintain clear definitions of these key concepts.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"42 1","pages":"43 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80840001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article analyses the linguistic norms found within legal and legislative language and their implementation. It attempts to answer the following questions: is there a common scope for the use of linguistic norms in general language and legislative language, what can form the basis for resolving issues of correctness in legal and legislative language and is a codification of the linguistic norms for legislative language necessary? The discrepancies observed between normative standards and linguistic practise raise the issue of the need to codify linguistic norms within legal and legislative language. In this article, I hypothesise the need to elaborate a source for codifying the norms of legal and legislative language.
{"title":"Linguistic norm in legal language and legislative language – The issue of codification","authors":"Marta Andruszkiewicz","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyses the linguistic norms found within legal and legislative language and their implementation. It attempts to answer the following questions: is there a common scope for the use of linguistic norms in general language and legislative language, what can form the basis for resolving issues of correctness in legal and legislative language and is a codification of the linguistic norms for legislative language necessary? The discrepancies observed between normative standards and linguistic practise raise the issue of the need to codify linguistic norms within legal and legislative language. In this article, I hypothesise the need to elaborate a source for codifying the norms of legal and legislative language.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"140 1","pages":"269 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74134839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The principle of the equal authority of authentic languages enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) has created significant debates in the interpretation of multilingual treaties. In this context, the present article explores the complex ramifications of the legal translation of human rights treaty provisions and the “translatability” and transposition of legal concepts into other linguistic frameworks. It considers whether a semiotic analysis of the content of UN international human rights treaties conducted in a single authentic language, English or French, has a raison d’être, in light of Victoria Welby’s Threefold Laws of Meaning. The article further assesses whether the Sense and Significance of treaty provisions will differ in distinct languages. It begins by examining the important role attributed to English and French at the international level. Secondly, it studies the problem of the variations between the meaning(s) of provisions enshrining rights in two or more authentic languages, namely Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish, and which interpretation should prevail under the Vienna Convention. For this purpose, it considers problems that arise expressly in English and French by conducting a comparative study of these languages with the Spanish and Chinese texts of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
《维也纳条约法公约》(1969年)所载的真实语言同等权威原则在多语种条约的解释中引发了重大争论。在此背景下，本文探讨了人权条约条款法律翻译的复杂后果，以及法律概念在其他语言框架中的“可译性”和转置。根据维多利亚·韦尔比(Victoria Welby)的“意义三重法则”(three - fold Laws of Meaning)，本文考虑以英语或法语这一单一真实语言对联合国国际人权条约内容进行符号学分析是否有être的理由。本文进一步评估条约条款的意义和意义在不同的语言中是否会有所不同。它首先考察了英语和法语在国际层面上的重要作用。第二，它研究以阿拉伯文、英文、中文、法文、俄文和西班牙文两种或两种以上的真正语文规定权利的条款的含义之间的差异问题，以及根据《维也纳公约》应采用哪种解释。为此目的，委员会审议以英文和法文明确出现的问题，将这些语文与《公民权利和政治权利国际盟约》(1966年)的西班牙文和中文文本进行比较研究。
{"title":"The semiotic puzzle: Authentic languages & international law","authors":"Clara Chapdelaine-Feliciati","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2039","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The principle of the equal authority of authentic languages enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) has created significant debates in the interpretation of multilingual treaties. In this context, the present article explores the complex ramifications of the legal translation of human rights treaty provisions and the “translatability” and transposition of legal concepts into other linguistic frameworks. It considers whether a semiotic analysis of the content of UN international human rights treaties conducted in a single authentic language, English or French, has a raison d’être, in light of Victoria Welby’s Threefold Laws of Meaning. The article further assesses whether the Sense and Significance of treaty provisions will differ in distinct languages. It begins by examining the important role attributed to English and French at the international level. Secondly, it studies the problem of the variations between the meaning(s) of provisions enshrining rights in two or more authentic languages, namely Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish, and which interpretation should prevail under the Vienna Convention. For this purpose, it considers problems that arise expressly in English and French by conducting a comparative study of these languages with the Spanish and Chinese texts of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"23 1","pages":"317 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78131253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Issues of production, translation and transformation of texts are explored in the light of the differences between modern Western legal thought and Chinese views of legal rationality. Contemporary Chinese culture is often viewed with suspicion. On the one hand, Chinese thinking is mistrusted as influenced by the Confucian world view regarded as deeply irrational. On the other hand, China’s economical practises are often suspected of mere reproducing and copying. This paper is concerned neither with alleged or factual deficiencies of China’s legal rationality nor with violations of “intellectual property” or other rights or the governmental policies of the People’s Republic of China. My interest is the fact that accusation and concern for the Chinese practises of creation and transformation by copying and cloning seem to hit the nerve of Western modernity’s cult of authenticity. The very problem, the paper suggests, is our modern relation to the other and to the others. I will argue this in three steps: the first part starts from a discussion of ‘shanzhai’, the Chinese neologism pointing to alternative ways of production, before analysing the Western scandalization of plagiarism; drawing upon studies from various disciplines, specific aspects of writing and scripture, such as the the differentiation between real text and fiction, the idea of authentic speaking and the distinction between textual and functional equivalents, are explored. The second part is first about the role of truth and truthfulness in modern Western art and philosophy, then about the interpenetration of wisdom and cunning in ancient Greek and Chinese thought. The final part addresses the relation of reasonable knowledge and instrumental rationality in legal thinking. The Chinese notion of ‘quan’, law, is described as a jurisgenetic path of law. Against this background, open questions associated with legal “transplants” come to the fore.
{"title":"Border troubles. Some uncertainties of legal transfer","authors":"Claudius Messner","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2033","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Issues of production, translation and transformation of texts are explored in the light of the differences between modern Western legal thought and Chinese views of legal rationality. Contemporary Chinese culture is often viewed with suspicion. On the one hand, Chinese thinking is mistrusted as influenced by the Confucian world view regarded as deeply irrational. On the other hand, China’s economical practises are often suspected of mere reproducing and copying. This paper is concerned neither with alleged or factual deficiencies of China’s legal rationality nor with violations of “intellectual property” or other rights or the governmental policies of the People’s Republic of China. My interest is the fact that accusation and concern for the Chinese practises of creation and transformation by copying and cloning seem to hit the nerve of Western modernity’s cult of authenticity. The very problem, the paper suggests, is our modern relation to the other and to the others. I will argue this in three steps: the first part starts from a discussion of ‘shanzhai’, the Chinese neologism pointing to alternative ways of production, before analysing the Western scandalization of plagiarism; drawing upon studies from various disciplines, specific aspects of writing and scripture, such as the the differentiation between real text and fiction, the idea of authentic speaking and the distinction between textual and functional equivalents, are explored. The second part is first about the role of truth and truthfulness in modern Western art and philosophy, then about the interpenetration of wisdom and cunning in ancient Greek and Chinese thought. The final part addresses the relation of reasonable knowledge and instrumental rationality in legal thinking. The Chinese notion of ‘quan’, law, is described as a jurisgenetic path of law. Against this background, open questions associated with legal “transplants” come to the fore.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"25 1","pages":"151 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75536867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：