a lawyer-linguist view on eu terminology · 2. lawyer linguist viewpoint on terminology the...
TRANSCRIPT
A lawyer-linguist view on EU terminology
Colin Robertson, Lawyer-linguist
All comments are purely personal.
2
Summary
1. Introduction
2. Lawyer linguist viewpoint on terminology
3. Lawyer-linguist tasks
4. Four viewpoints on terminology: law, policy, language and action
5. EU legislative acts and terminology
6. EU legal English: implications for terminology
7. EU legal English: non-native speakers
8. EU multilingual interpretation of terms
9. A semiotic view on terminology
10. Conclusion
2 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
3
1. Introduction
Legal language and terms raise difficulties:
- Legal concepts are abstract
- Terms take meaning from context
- Each legal system creates its own context
- The aim of a legal system is to provide a single
answer in a given set of circumstances,
- to answer the question: “what is the law?”
- Terms are shaped and adapted within the system so
as to fit together as part of a complex network of concepts.
3 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
4
Legal systems: shaped by experience
new concepts, terms constantly added.
Differences:
historical experiences, geography, economics ...
develop in own ways, introduces terms specific to self
Similarities:
background structures shared with other legal systems
shared origins, shared concepts but adapted to system
Legal ‘families’, for example in Europe:
Civil Law deriving mainly from Roman Law
Common Law deriving mainly from English law
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
5
Concepts and terms shared across legal families:
(person, ownership, contract, heir, duty, right …)
Concepts and terms that are specific to each family
(Civil law: delict; Common law: tort)
Frequently it is possible to find equivalent terms across
legal systems, as with delict / tort: usufruct / liferent
However:
(a) precise legal implications differ between systems
(b) frequently a concept and term in one legal system has
no direct equivalent in another legal system
(Scots:lawburrows: a legal action to prevent harm)
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
6
How to handle?
Depends on task in hand, type of text, nature of the text.
Drafting new text:
reuse concepts/terms, invent new terms, give new
meanings to old terms.
Translating:
search for meaning of SL terms, seeks equivalents, ... or
if none, maybe reuse SL term, maybe invent new term...
EU legislative texts: need to have terms for EU concepts in
all languages.
Concepts become EU when they are used in an EU legal
text.
There is a constant pressure with respect to terminology.
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
7
EU legislative texts: single text in 24 languages. (Synoptic)
Message is the ‘same’ in each version. Meaning derives from all language versions as a whole.
That implies close term equivalence across languages.
But languages are used for more than one legal system.
We study SL terms in their specific context and select TL terms according to the TL legal context.
Certain EU languages span more than one legal system, a single term may have different meanings according to the particular system.
UK example:
A law on companies applies to whole UK, but different legal systems in UK (English, Scots….)
So English court applies English law meaning;
Scots court a Scots law meaning: terms in their context…
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
8
The same principle applies to terms in other languages.
For example: ‘married’ can mean different things in different countries (formal ceremony, informal reputation as married, gay marriages…)
Precise implications of each term:
specific to system, link in with other concepts and terms in system.
Legal concepts are system bound.
This applies to EU legal terminology.
However, the EU context is different, and more complex, than the national legal context.
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
9
Being ‘system bound’ is a defining feature of legal terms.
A system has an inside, an outside and a boundary in
between.
There are legal boundaries and linguistic boundaries.
There are also subsystems within a legal system.
(branches of law: civil law, criminal law, commercial
law…: e.g. the concept of ‘person’ has different implications inn each branch)
- Inside a system (subsystem) , the rules (and terms)
are aligned, and coordinated as part of a web or
network and form a cultural whole.
- Legal systems, rules and terms change with time.
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
10
Legal terms are subject to linguistic factors:
Legal systems use one or more languages.
Each language chops up reality in different ways
Each language has its own grammar and syntax
Each language is the product of a speech community(ies)
with a history, experiences and its own culture.
Legal language and terms reflect the culture.
EU legal language is drawn from diverse sources
EU texts are drafted in one (or more) language(s),
translated into others, aligned legal-linguistically,
transposed into national law and concepts, and acted on
by citizens.
10 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
11
A broad structured approach to Terminology?
Or each term is alone and studied ad hoc for equivalents?
Thesis here is that terms need to be studied individually, but that one can seek to categorise them in various ways and this can help in the process of analysis and problem solving.
This approach is called here ‘lawyer-linguist viewpoint’
It starts with the role and tasks of lawyer linguists.
It suggests viewpoints for looking at texts and terms.
These viewpoints can assist in identifying boundaries for terms: specific to a system, shared with other fields, serving particular purposes or peripheral …
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
12
Purpose today: explore some broad issues that
relate to terminology.
Avenues for tackling legal terms, focus on their
function.
Reference language: English, focus from that point
of view.
Background: need to understand the culture
behind terms.
Lawyer-linguists have legal training and insights.
Hope today: some insights, derived from many
years pragmatic experience.
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
13
2. Lawyer linguist viewpoint on terminology
The starting point here: lawyer-linguist (juriste-linguiste)(JL)
- Trained lawyer: knowledge of legal systems, legal concepts,
methods, philosophy and terminology: part of Legal Service.
- Trained in analysing problems from a legal point of view
- Linguist: knowledge of several languages and viewpoint of
translation, revision
- Trained in drafting legal texts, terminology, translation
- May have training in linguistics (but many do not)
- Specialist expert with an ‘insider’s’ view on both law and
legal language
- Pragmatic, emphasis on problem solving
13 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
14
3. Lawyer-linguist tasks
EU JLs translate (Court of Justice) and revise legal texts
(Commission, Council, European Parliament, European
Central Bank).
They oversee the final stages of preparation of EU
legislative texts in all languages .
They review terminology and negotiate with experts
JLs in the Commission assist the DGs in drafting of EU
legislative texts and legislative quality
JLs in Council revise texts and assist Legal Service
colleagues and delegations with legislative quality
JLs in EP revise texts and assist in legislative quality and
aligning languages
14 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
15
Everyone has their own methods of work.
There are different ways to revise a legal text:
- horizontal read from start to end
- vertical reading from general headings to small details
- Selecting different viewpoints to study the text in
sequence …
This last method is selected here for attention.
Take four viewpoints: Law, policy, action and language
If we study a legal text from each angle, we notice different
things.
But these heads can also be applied to terminology and
this is something to explore today.
Is there a systematic method towards studying legal terms?
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
16
4. Four viewpoints on terminology: law, policy, language and action
All terms in a legal text become ‘legal’ because the text is part of the legal system.
The meaning of terms is decided ultimately by judges in
court cases, after hearing opposing arguments of the
parties.
We search cases for the precise meanings of terms in
relation to facts. (apply / not apply?)
So in a legal text, a viewpoint of law prevails overall.
However, within that we can ‘tag’ or ‘allocate’ each term as
relating to law, policy, language, action.
There is overlap, but we become able to see the overlap
and that helps us focus on the function of a term
16 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
17
Looking at texts and terms from different viewpoints leads
one to ask different questions, and look for different
information.
That leads to different answers and insights, and clarifies
function.
It assists in penetrating to deeper levels of meaning in
source and target language versions.
It is an analytical exercise. We see more clearly the
function of the term, phrase, sentence...
Link to the wider context. Useful for review, checking....
17 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Questions:
Is the term purely legal? Part of the infrastructure of the
legal system?
Is the term connected with policy, the field of activity, the
domain (agriculture, environment...) and shared with
non-legal texts?
What action is intended through the term? (legal effects)
Is the term connected more to the language (grammar,
syntax)?
18 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
19
(a) Law viewpoint:
(i) The formal structure and layout of the text
(ii) Terminology relating to legal ‘infrastructure’: - names of legal acts (regulation, directive , decision ...)
- names of procedures (ordinary legislative, judicial ...)
- parts of legal acts (title, citations, articles, annexes...)
- status of the act (valid, annulled, void, suspended…) - actions performed (amend old acts, codify,
consolidate, repeaL, adopt, declare, decide...)
- names of bodies and authorities (EUROPOL ...)
19 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Note: The use of particular legal terms triggers precise legal
consequences.
For example ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ triggers codecision by European Parliament and Council.
Codecision triggers joint adoption and signature.
Signature triggers entry into law as a legal act.
Legal act triggers behaviour to comply
Behaviour triggers legal effects.
Legal effects trigger disputes
Disputes trigger court cases
Court cases trigger judicial interpretation, new meanings
New meanings trigger new legislation – perhaps.
20 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
21
(iii) terms can also be related to particular legal fields or
domain (succession law, family law, commercial law ...)
(cf ‘legal policy’)
This overlaps with the policy view, but the legal view asks
which system the terms belong to: EU law, national law,
international law?
If EU law, then the term is an EU concept valid for all
languages, and we need term equivalences.
If national law, then the term is national context bound:
possibly there is no precise equivalent for other
languages/legal systems.
21 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
If international, then the concept may be widely shared and
not strongly system bound, but maybe the terms have
not been adapted to all languages.
Positioning a term (concept) according to system, or
subsystem, places the term (concept) in relationship to
other terms (concepts) in that system.
The problem then is to find (or create) a suitable match in
the TL.
But here we ask the status and function of the TL text:
- information?
- new legal text? Same system ( eg EU) or different
system?
22 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
23
(b) Policy view on terminology
EU legal texts do not exist in a vacuum.
They regulate some activity in some way.
The activity falls within a policy field.
(competition, agriculture, fisheries, environment...)
The EU treaties (TEU, TFEU) set out the EU policy fields:
(see http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-
initiative/public/competences#treaties for a list)
Member states have larger and more complex policy fields,
with subdivisions and branches.
(For example: look at all the codes in French, German,
Italian....... Law) 23 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Terms in EU and international legal texts often have roots
and origins in national systems that can be analysed, but
meanings can shift.
Policy terms are shared, often with a non-legal field.
For example:
medical terms derive from medicine;
agricultural terms from agriculture;
financial terms from finance …. The legal act builds on pre-existing concepts and terms
and adapts them for its own purposes of regulation.
The meanings become legal and system bound.
24 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
25
(c) Language view on terminology
The texts use language (cf signs and symbols), so the
language view is another all-embracing view. It can
cover everything, but in particular we can use it for:
- Type of text, structure, presentation, layout,
i.e. formal aspects (overlap with law view)
- Use of language in general: grammar, syntax,
punctuation, sentence structures, register (legal
language is formal), style (third person, neutral, limitation
on literary styles).
- In general the language view should not give rise to
difficulties about terminology; but cf specifically linguistic
concepts and terms: language policy?
25 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
26
(d) Action view on terminology
The action view asks what the text is doing, what each
paragraph, sentence, clause and term is doing; what is
their function?
For example:
- introduce change, preserve status quo, declare, record,
clarify a legal situation, prohibit, encourage, direct,
command ... But exactly what and how?
Intended results in EU texts are often complex and subtle,
adapting to different hypotheses in national law.
These are the legal effects; they should be the same for
each language version in an EU legal text. That is the
aim. 26 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Note:
We have an acid test for equivalence in term meaning
through considering the practical results and effects.
Like a mouse in a maze: if we come out at the same place
in terms of effects and results for each language version
then maybe the terms are OK .....
The problem with all draft legal texts is one is not sure how
they will actually be interpreted for each language in
each member state.
It is the job of the lawyers of the EU institutions to defend
the authors’ intentions and argue their viewpoints.....
27 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
28
An EU lawyer-linguist viewpoint takes into account:
that the action intended by a text is often to take place
within national law either directly or after transposition of
the EU text into national law.
So EU terms must ‘function’ on several levels:
- As part of EU law (represented by the text)
- As part of each national legal system that uses the
language in question
- Maybe also in an international agreement.
28 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
We can see that terms can become focal points between
legal systems (national, international, supranational)
We can see this as a ‘matrix’ in which legal terms exist, linked to their intimate relationship to context: each a
system-bound context.
A same term with ‘different’ meanings in each context. (e.g. Copyright legal texts exist in all three levels:
- National: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK)
- EU: Directive 2001/29/EC ... on the harmonisation of
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
information society
- International (Berne Convention)
29 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
However we can also think of terms in this matrix as points
of intersection between them.
Do terms such as: copyright, exclusive rights, fair use,
public domain, moral rights ... have the same meaning in
each system?
For translation, we have term equivalence, but term
equivalence does not necessarily mean same legal
effects across system boundaries.
We can return to the four viewpoints and consider how they
can help here.
30 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
31
The four viewpoints (law, policy, language, action) can be used for making an initial categorisation of a term.
Example: ordinary legislative procedure
Law concept; specific to EU: concept to be reproduced in all languages; same meaning for all; triggers effects
Example: gender mainstreaming
Policy concept; source in gender equality texts; originally not legal (?), but becomes legal if in legal text; if SL is non-EU source may not require exact term equivalence, but if concept in EU legislative text, need TL term.
Example (hypothetical): trespass
EN common law legal concept; no exact term equivalent in civil law; if in an EU legal text, create term equivalents, but then term loses its EN common law meaning and acquires new EU meaning reflected across all languages.
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
32
5. EU legislative acts and terminology Terms also take meaning from their place within a legal text, at
least as regards their potential effects.
Obligations and commands are for the ‘enacting provisions’ (articles)
Background and ‘motivation’ are for recitals.
Technical details are for annexes: usually highly specific and
concrete terms.
Language and terminology are adapted to each part:
‘shall’ only in articles, conditional verbs in recitals to introduce
(should, must), reported speech (is to, are to), etc.
32 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
33
The structure and terminology of EU legislative acts is set
out in guidance:
(a) Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on
Common Guidelines for the Quality of Drafting of
Community Legislation (Official Journal C 73, 17.3.1999,
p.1)
(b) Joint Practical Guide for the Drafting of Community
legislation. 2003. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. Luxembourg.
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/index.htm)
(c) Interinstitutional Style Guide:
(http:// publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000300.htm)
33 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
34
These texts set out guidance and are published in all EU
languages.
Accordingly equivalent terms are established for all
languages and have to be used.
Terms in these texts can be seen under the law view, since
they are mandatory.
Blocks of text become treated as equivalent.
(eg subsidiarity recital, Schengen recital...?
Thus the unit of equivalence can shift from the term to the
block of text.
Special care goes into the guidance texts, checked by JLs.
We turn now to consider some specifically English
language issues. 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
35
6. EU legal English: implications for terminology
English has become a principal EU drafting language.
There are terminology implications:
Originally EU drafting was in French.
French: language of civil law
English: language of common law.
Civil law: based on Roman law and concepts, written law.
Common law: based on ancient unwritten custom, brought
forth through court cases
Civil law: parliament and executive emphasis
Common law: judge and court emphasis.
35 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
36
Simplified view, but helpful: points to linguistic divergences,
as well as term differences.
In a Common law system, the common law (court cases) is
the background system, and statute (written law) the
exception. So laws are drafted to change the common
law and as exceptions are narrowly drafted, precise and
dense, and focus on specific issues.
Common law legislative drafting tends to be denser than
civil law drafting.
It tends to seek to provide a solution to every possibility.
It tends to have specific narrow terms, often with
definitions.
It tends to leave less scope to judges for adapting to the
facts than civil law texts.
36 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
37
EN legal texts may tend towards higher density, and a
greater use of narrow (difficult to understand) terms.
EN drafting prefers verbal rather than nominal forms …
So, sometimes it is a case of converting verbal phrases into
nominal phrases, or vice versa…. Just as a densely structured sentence in German may
need to be restructured less densely in another language
… However, EU legal texts are written differently from national
legal texts since they are written by non-native speakers
and are written to be translated.
We will touch on this later on in connection with English.
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
38
Nonetheless, the concepts of civil law and of common law
historically are not so different as both have been
concerned with general life in civil community, as opposed
to specialised areas of law, such as Mercantile law or
Canon law.
There has been common law in civil law countries too:
(jus commune – le droit commun....)
However, English law has many concepts originally unknown
to Civil law systems (trust, trespass).... and vice versa...
Does drafting in English pose a problem for EU law and
language? Are English concepts and terms a problem?
Most EU member states are civil law countries: some are
hybrid.
38 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
39
EU English:
- Originally translation from French, so key concepts
inherited from the outset.
- Generally ‘functions’ in parallel with French in preparation of new primary law treaties.
- Has its own style, developed as translation language and
perpetuated through time.
- EU texts constructed in accordance with the general
guidance, etc.
- Subject to control, checking and modifications to
accommodate other languages.
Common law dimension thus appears to be not significant.
EU English is closer to civil law language; separate genre.
39 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
40
7. EU legal English: non-native speakers
To reinforce the low level of common law input, many (most?)
EU drafters are non-native speakers.
This has terminology implications:
- non-standard English syntax can occur
- false-friends (actual, adhere, addition, raisin, sensible...)
- concepts deriving from different cultures (run amok)
(Malaya) (cf go berserk) (old Norse)
Generally, the texts are checked by native-speakers, but
political compromise wording tends to limit the scope for
intervention here.
40 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
41
For the purposes of terminology, one needs:
- awareness,
- knowledge of correct English usage,
- knowledge of other languages,
- ability to detect ‘ghost’ languages behind a text - to check whether a term is intended to have a ‘standard
English’ meaning (which one?) or a ‘ghost’ language meaning (which one?)
- to check other languages for their interpretation
- to check with authors and experts as to their intention
- to reflect on how the terms may be interpreted by the
courts.
- Here we should bear in mind multilingual interpretation…
41 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
42
8. EU multilingual interpretation of terms
Linguistic meaning and legal meaning are not the same.
To see this, read cases where judges analyse texts.
Legal meaning derives from many factors: the texts, facts,
intentions, the system as a whole, what is permitted and
not permitted, ways of acting, procedures to follow, and
much more. There are different legal ways of reading a
text: broadly, narrowly, similar words – similar meaning
...
Linguistic meaning takes the wording in the text, but it also
links that wording and text to other texts … intertextually.
Legal texts frequently refer to other texts in references.
42 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
43
Judicial interpretation is a specialised skill: legal meaning:
What is the law?
A court analyses terms and allocates meaning and legal
effects. It is guided by deeper-level principles, such as
teleology in EU cases, in its methods of analysis. These
influence meaning. Further, a text can be found to have
‘no meaning’. (i.e. no meaning in law)
The Court of Justice has developed techniques for
interpreting multilingual texts and terminology.
We will take one example...
43 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
44
Case C-265/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Audiencia Nacional: Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de
Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de
Fútbol European Court Reports 2005 Page I-02579.
Reference from a Spanish court for a preliminary ruling on
wording in an EU Agreement with Russia
Mr Simutenkov, Russian footballer moved to Spain and
was prevented from playing in premier league games.
Claimed rights under an EU/ Russia Agreement.
The problem was with the words in Spanish in the text of
the agreement: velarán por que…… no implique ninguna
discriminación por
44 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
45
Art 23 of Agreement
Spanish:
“1. Salvo lo dispuesto en la legislación, las condiciones y los
procedimientos aplicables en cada Estado miembro, la
Comunidad y sus Estados miembros velarán por que el trato
que se conceda a los nacionales rusos, legalmente
empleados en el territorio de un Estado miembro, no
implique ninguna discriminación por motivos de
nacionalidad, por lo que respecta a las condiciones de
trabajo, la remuneración o el despido, en comparación con
los nacionales de ese mismo Estado.”
45 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
46
Problem:
Seven languages, including Russian, pointed to an
‘obligation’ (“shall ensure ... shall be free”)
and three pointed to ‘endeavours’ (velarán por que ... no
implique)
Which meaning should prevail?
Advocate General Stix-Hackl described different
approaches for answering this question.
46 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
47
(Multilingual legal interpretation: different approaches
where a difference between language versions)
1. Common minimum of all languages as starting point
(i.e. “endeavours”)
(but here no convincing arguments for this approach and
not supported by practice in the case law.)
“in the circumstances of the present case, in which it is not
just one text that diverges from all the others, the
approach does not permit a convincing solution”.
47 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
48
2. Determine clearest text, eliminate texts not typical, or
containing a translation error.
(This approach possible, found in Court’s case law, but:)
“in the circumstances of the present case, in which it is not
just one text that diverges from all the others, the
approach does not permit a convincing solution”.
48 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
49
3. The “language versions forming the majority prevail”
(preference in favour of language versions laying down
“obligation”).
(Approach possible, found in Court’s case law, but:)
“That may … be countered by the Court’s line of argument under which, in certain circumstances, a single language
version is to be favoured over the majority.”
49 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
50
4. Take the original text which served as source for the
translations
Here text had been negotiated in English (“shall ensure”: obligation).
50 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
51
5. Consider the intention of the parties and the object of the
provision to be interpreted.
“The intention of the parties is of decisive importance for
the interpretation of Article 23(1) of the Agreement. The
documents which have been submitted by the
Commission that were used in preparing for the
negotiations on the Agreement support the view that the
parties wanted to lay down a clear obligation going
beyond the obligation merely to use endeavours.”
51 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
52
Arguments in support of this last and fifth approach
regarding interpretation:
- comparison with other similar agreements which say
clearly “shall endeavour to ensure” ,
- since different wording could imply a different meaning
and intention;
- circumstances, revealed by the negotiating documents
(“Russia expressed a wish to that effect.”) .
52 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
So the intention seemed clear, but did the Agreement have
direct effect?
If not, then national law, discriminating against
Simutenkov, could prevail.
If yes, then the wording of the Agreement, as part of EU
law, should prevail.
53 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
54
The Court’s Ruling in Simutenkov ....
“Article 23(1) .... must be construed as precluding the
application to a professional sportsman of Russian
nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established in
a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation of
that State which provides that clubs may field in competitions
organised at national level only a limited number of players
from countries which are not parties to the Agreement on the
European Economic Area.”.
So: obligation; Simutenkov won; intention of parties;
teleological approach; Spanish text not convey legal
meaning
54 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
55
As regards direct effect:
The Court observed in its judgment:
“40. ... the words ‘[s]ubject to the laws, conditions and
procedures applicable in each Member State’, ... cannot be construed as allowing Member States to
subject the application of the principle of non-
discrimination set out in the former of those two
provisions to discretionary limitations, inasmuch as such
an interpretation would have the effect of rendering that
provision meaningless and thus depriving it of any
practical effect.”
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
56
So, when searching for terms and equivalences useful to
reflect on the different approaches of the Court on
interpretation.
Ask about practical effects of each possible term.
Reflect on whether term relates to law, policy, language or
action.
Reflect on whether a ‘false friend’ in English source text, or a loan from another system under English guise.
Other methods of analysis.... Eg Semiotics, study of signs.
56 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
57
9. A semiotic view on terminology
Semiotics: study of ‘signs’. Saussure: essentially binary view: ‘signifé’ et ‘signifiant’
(‘signified’ and ‘signifier’).
Thing and name for it = sign
Translation: concept and search for term; term and search for
underlying concept.
However, different ideas are often associated with particular
words and terms, and these can vary across languages.
A binary view does not give formal space for these variables.
57 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Tripartite concept of the sign
Charles Sanders Peirce, (pronounced ’purse’!), American
philosopher and logician, studying ‘phenomenology’ proposed inter alia a tripartite basis to the ‘sign’.
Object (thing, concept, signified)
Representamen (word, term, label, signifier)
Interpretant (relationship between Object / Representamen)
58 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
59
He also distinguished between ‘object’ and ‘semiotic object’.
This is the distinction between the actual object directly
perceived and the ‘thing in our minds’ when we speak of
them.
The problem is that the ‘things in our minds’ varies between us and much of the translation task is to analyse what
the author had in mind and how to convey something like
it to the reader of the translation. In EU texts the
translations read like, and are, ‘originals’.
59 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
60
We can use Peirce’s ‘interpretant’ to reflect on certain aspects of terms.
We can use it to ask questions such as: what is the cultural
context of the source term?
We can do a similar task for possible TL terms.
The method provides a structured way to ‘get inside’ terms and analyse them.
The concept of the sign is abstract, but useful.
60 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
61
The 3 components = sign
Vary any component = new sign.
Check which components match up between terms in
different languages.
EU signs have a characteristic: they vary in one element:
representamen.
(Or do they? We are led to reflect on nuances and effects ...)
61 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Example:
Regulation (representamen) (EN)
A type of EU legal act (object)
Function in EU law, its attributes … (interpretant)
Règlement (representamen) (FR)
A type of legal act (object – same as for EN)
Function in EU law, its attributes … (interpretant – same as
for EN)
We can analyse any concepts, terms, sentences, texts etc
as signs. Not solve the problem, but makes clearer.
62 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
63
The Interpretant provides a space to ask about the nature of the object, associations with it, cultural ideas, etc, etc.
We can take any term and think about it in these terms.
For legal terms, the object is often highly specific.
Example: trespass – one term but applied to many contexts (trespass to land, property, person….)
The semiotic approach gives us a door to analysing legal terms.
29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
64
10. Conclusion
Rapid overview of many issues.
A range of ideas implicit in a legal-linguistic view of terminology.
Legal terms embedded in system context.
Clarify function from perspectives: law, policy, language, action.
Courts interpret by lining up language versions and looking for
legal meaning.
Semiotics offers tools of analysis of terminology ...
64 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
65
END
65 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
66
References
This presentation is based on ideas taken from the following publications. They can be referred to for
fuller details and references.
EU Lawyer linguists and tasks
Šarčević, Susan / Robertson Colin (2013). The work of
lawyer-linguists in the EU institutions. In: Borja Albi,
Anabel / Prieto Ramos, Fernando (eds). Legal
Translation in Context. Professional Issues and
Prospects. Oxford etc: Peter Lang. 181-202.
66 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Four viewpoints on terminology: law, policy, language and action
Robertson, Colin. 2010. Legal-linguistic Revision of EU
Legislative Texts. In Maurizio Gotti & Christopher
Williams (eds). Legal Discourse across Languages and
Cultures. 51-73. Bern: Peter Lang.
EU legal English
Robertson, Colin. 2012. EU Legal English: Common
Law, Civil Law or a new genre? European Review of
Private law. 5&6.2012 [1215-1240]
67 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
68
The structure of EU legislative acts
Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on
Common Guidelines for the Quality of Drafting of
Community Legislation (Official Journal C 73, 17.3.1999,
p.1)
Joint Practical Guide for the Drafting of Community
legislation. 2003. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. Luxembourg.
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/index.htm)
Interinstitutional Style Guide:
(http:// publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000300.htm)
68 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
69
Legal language styles and terminology
Robertson, Colin. 2011. Multlingual legislation in the
European Union: EU and national legislative-language
styles and terminology. Research in language. Warsaw:
Versita. 2011
http://versita.metapress.com/content/g851738257gm73k
1/
EU legal English: non-native speakers
Robertson, Colin. 2010. Legislative drafting in English for
non-native speakers: some do's and don'ts (with
reference to EU legislation). In Gotti, Maurizio and
Williams, Christopher (eds,). ESP across cultures.
Special issue: Legal English across cultures. Volume 7.
Bari: Edipuglia. 2010 147-163.
69 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
EU multilingual legal texts: interpretation
Robertson, Colin. 2012. The Problem of Meaning in
Multilingual EU Legal Texts . International Journal of
Law, Language & Discourse, 2012, 2(1), 1-30
http://www.ijlld.com/2012-index
EU legal translation
Robertson, Colin. 2012. Translation in context. St Jerome
and modern multilingual law.
SYNAPS.http://www.nhh.no/en/research---
faculty/department-of-professional-and-intercultural-
communication/research/publications/synaps---a-journal-
of-professional-communication.aspx
70 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
71
Robertson, Colin. EU legislative texts and translation.
(currently in press 2013)
Placing in a context of signs
Robertson, Colin. 2010. “EU Law and Semiotics”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. Dordrecht.
Springer. 145-164.
Robertson, Colin. 2011. What EU legislative texts reveal
about power, control and transparency. In Vijay K.
Bhatia, Christoph A.Hafner, Lindsay Miller and Anne
Wagner (eds.). Transparency, Power and Control:
Perspectives on Legal Communication. Farnham:
Ashgate. 109 – 123
71 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
72
More generally
Robertson, Colin. 2013. How the European Union functions
in 23 languages SYNAPS.
http://www.nhh.no/Files/Filer/institutter/fsk/Synaps/28-
2013/Robertson_28_2013.pdf
Robertson, Colin. 2009. "LSP and EU Legal Language".
http://www.asb.dk/fileadmin/www.asb.dk/isek/robertson.p
df
72 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology
Robertson, Colin. Il diritto scozzese e il diritto inglese: due
sistemi, una lingua; 43 Quaderni di Libri e riviste d’Italia,
la traduzione, Saggi e documenti (IV), 1999, pp. 117-
134.
Robertson, Colin. 1999. Multilingual Law: A Framework for
Understanding In Language for Special Purposes
Perspectives for the new Millenium, Vol.2. 697- 703.
Tuebingen: Gunter Narr.
Robertson, Colin. 2009. Multilingual Law: What is it? How
is it made? How is it Used and Applied? (with reference
to EU practice)". Sočanac, Lelija, Goddard, Christopher,
Kremer, Ludger (eds). In Curriculum, Multilingualism and
the Law. 373-395. Zagreb: Globus.
73 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology