masaryk university faculty of arts complex prepositions in eu
TRANSCRIPT
Masaryk UniversityFaculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Lenka Vedralová
Complex Prepositions in EUComplex Prepositions in EU Legislation and their TranslationLegislation and their Translation
EquivalentsEquivalentsMaster’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: PhDr. Jarmila Fictumová
2008
11
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Lenka Vedralová
author's signature
22
I would like to express my thanks to PhDr. Jarmila Fictumová for her pertinent and readily provided advice, which was priceless for me in the process of writing this thesis.
33
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 51. Legal texts and their translation......................................................................... 7 1.1. Legal English and its specificities................................................................... 7 1.1.1. Vocabulary of legal English...................................................................... 8 1.1.2. Syntax of legal English............................................................................. 12 1.2. Translation of legal texts................................................................................. 13 1.3. Translation of the European Union legislation................................................ 18 1.3.1. General aspects of translation of EU legislation...................................... 18 1.3.2. Translation of EU legislation into Czech................................................... 272. Complex prepositions in English language........................................................ 30 2.1. General definition and usage of prepositions.................................................. 30 2.2. Categories of prepositions............................................................................... 323. Complex prepositions in legal texts..................................................................... 35 3.1. Explanation of the research method................................................................ 35 3.2. Complex prepositions in the EU legislation corpus and their translations...... 37 3.2.1. Prepositions of reference........................................................................... 38 3.2.2. Prepositions conveying other concepts than reference............................. 48 3.2.3. General remarks........................................................................................ 56CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 59List of figures............................................................................................................. 62Bibliography............................................................................................................... 63
44
Introduction
The subject of my thesis is the issue of complex prepositions in European Union
legislation drafted in English and their translation equivalents in Czech. I have chosen
this topic because I have been dealing with the contentual aspect of EU legislation
during my other studies and now I wanted to study these texts from the linguistic point
of view. Another reason for choosing this topic was that I was wondering to what extent
Czech translators are bound by strict rules concerning the EU institutional translation.
The thesis is based on a parallel corpus consisting of twelve EU legislation texts
drafted between 1980 and 2007. My aim was to select twenty commonly used English
complex prepositions and analyse their use in EU legislation in English as well as to
look at the frequency of their occurrences. I was also interested in finding out how these
prepositions are translated into Czech. I expected that an English preposition may have
several translation variants and wanted to see how translators´ choices are influenced by
the context. The next step in my analysis was the comparison of my findings to the
situation in other texts. Hence I paid attention to frequency of preposition occurrences in
English translations of Czech legislation and in English literary texts.
My initial assumption was that complex prepositions were going to be more
frequent in legal texts than in literary texts. Furthermore, I supposed that English
complex prepositions would tend to be simplified in Czech translations. I also expected
that prepositions would be translated differently in legal and literary texts. I believed
that translators have a relatively free hand at translating prepositions. Translation rules
concerning prepositions cannot be so strict as in the case of terminology. Before
analysing the prepositions one by one, I thought it necessary to present a brief but
55
comprehensive insight into the domain of legal English and legal translation.
The opening chapter of this thesis is dedicated to legal English and its linguistic
specificities. Stratification of its vocabulary and its syntax are touched upon. The second
part of the first chapter deals with some common problems that translators of legal texts
have to face and it also focuses on the particularities of the translation of EU legislation.
Attention is paid to translation of EU legislation into Czech – a distinction is being
made between the pre-adhesion translation and translation after May 1st 2004.
The second chapter is devoted to prepositions as a closed word class. Different
aspects of prepositions are treated: their function in a sentence, linguistic properties and
their categories. Distinction between complex prepositions and free nominal structures
is emphasised with regard to further analysis.
The third chapter starts with the description of the research method. Information
on the corpora is provided and their usage in this particular research is explained.
Prepositions selected from the EU legislation corpus are dealt with separately. Many of
these prepositions convey reference and that is why a separate section is dedicated to
them. Next section deals with prepositions conveying other concepts than reference. I
looked at the usage of these prepositions in original texts and studied their translations
into Czech trying to find at least some data that could be generalised. Subsections
dealing with concrete prepositions include a number of examples which illustrate their
typical or special uses. At the end of the thesis I presented my findings that could
possibly be generally valid.
66
1. Legal texts and their translation
Before I start dealing with complex prepositions in legal texts, I will dwell a bit on some
general facts concerning the specificities of legal texts and their translations. This
chapter is going to deal with some specificities of legal English, with translation of legal
texts in general and last but not least with translation of EU legislation into Czech. Let
this chapter be a necessary point of departure to this thesis on complex prepositions in
legal texts and their translation into Czech.
1.1. Legal English and its specificities
Legal English may be defined as “style of English used by lawyers and other legal
professionals in the course of their work” (Haigh: 13). It is a kind of English for specific
purposes used mainly for drafting legal texts such as legal documents (contracts,
licences...), court pleadings (summons, briefs, judgements...), laws (acts of European
Commission, subordinate legislation...) and legal correspondence. It is also the means of
communication within the field of law. Legal English is a subsystem of standard English
on which it is based1. Legal English is a purpose-built language that does not aim at
beauty of expression, but it contains a number of unusual features in return. Its
specificities mainly relate to terminology and syntactic structure. In many cases the
unusual features serve the general requirements posed on legal English. According to
Tomášek, these requirements are accuracy of expression, expliciteness, conciseness,
intelligibility, stability, coherence and non-expressivity (Tomášek: 28). Let us now look
more closely at vocabulary and syntax of legal English.
1 Many features of legal English may be generalized and applied to other legal languages. In this thesis, dealing exclusively with legal English, some general features of legal language identified by Tomášek are drawn on and they are subsequently applied to legal English. I did my best to find pertinent examples to illustrate these features.
77
1.1.1. Vocabulary of legal English
Legal English vocabulary contains almost all parts of speech of standard English with
the exception of interjections. “Adjectives are fairly scarce [in legal English] (because
they are often imprecise and vague), nouns tend to be abstract rather than concrete
(because they frequently do not refer to physical objects)” (Hiltunen: 84). Moreover,
the frequency of occurrence of particular words in legal texts is different from their
frequency of occurrence in other texts. The differences of occurrence of certain linking
words in legal and literary texts will be explored in chapter 3.
Legal texts contain words of the language base, terminology specific to the field
of law as well as terminology specific to other fields (e.g. medicine, politics, economics,
civil engineering...). To illustrate the stratificatoin of legal vocabulary, Tomášek uses
two diagrams forming three subsets. Let us use his diagrams to illustrate the situation in
legal English.
Figure 1. Stratification of legal English vocabulary: (Tomášek: 48) - adapted by the author of the thesis
In the picture, subsets A and B represent the totality of expressions used in the
language base and subsets B and C represent expressions used in legal language.
➢ Subset A stands for expressions used only in language base, that are unknown in legal language (e.g. friendship, beauty, happiness).
88
➢ Subset C stands for expressions used exclusively in legal language (e.g. forced heir, right of establishment).
➢ Subset B stands for expressions used in both language base and legal language. Thus subset B is the intersection of sets A and C. Subset B can be further divided into two parts B1 and B2.
➢ Part B1 contains words common to language base and legal language, which have, at least a little bit, legal meaning (e.g. trial, judge, treaty, contract, penalty).
➢ Part B2 contains words common to language base and legal language without any specific legal meaning, but which are used in legal texts (e.g. man, water, day). Complex prepositions, which are going to be dealt with here, belong essentially to this group.
Alcaraz offers a different simpler classification. He distinguishes between
symbolic items and functional items of legal vocabulary. “The latter type consists of
grammatical words or phrases that have no direct referents in reality or in the universe
of concepts, but which serve to bind together and order [symbolic items that do have
direct referents in reality]” (Alcaraz: 16). Symbolic items may be further divided into
purely technical words, semi-technical words and everyday words. If the two
classifications are put together, it may be said that the object of our attention –
complex prepositions fall into B2 functional category. More in chapter 2.
Naturally, subset A words are not going to be dealt with here at all. Subsets B and
C are more relevant for the topic of this thesis and thus they are going to be dealt with
briefly.
A very prominent part of legal English vocabulary is its terminology. It was
already suggested that some terms are specific to legal English and others are
“borrowed” from other fields. The latter terms are not going to be mentioned here. As
far as the former are concerned, first of all it should be said that legal terminology does
not form a set of words stable in time. As Alcaraz puts it, “in legal texts […] terms are
99
continually being redefined, as social developments overtake past practice and thus
force legislation to change, simply in order to keep abreast of new standards of
acceptable and unacceptable behaviour” (Alcaraz: 25). To this I should add that new
terminology in EU legislation springs also from the deliberate process of deepening
integration of the European countries. Because of the appearence of new concepts that
have to be named and codified by the law, new terms appear and the meaning of other
terms may get extended or narrowed. Words such as “sustainable growth, subsidiarity,
structural funds, internal market and single currency” are examples of terms that
acquired specific meanings in the course of the European integration. On the one hand,
legal English terminology develops constatly, but on the other hand it also contains a
number of fossilized latin terms or phrases (e.g. ad litem2, affidavit3 or post mortem
auctoris4). These expressions appear more frequently in national legislations than in the
legislation of the EU, nevertheless this does not mean they are very rare in the EU legal
texts.
From the above mentioned examples one may notice that legal English terms are
not always single-word. In fact, compound terms are more frequent in legal English
than single-word terms. Tomášek says that single-word terms are perfectly meaningful,
often among the oldest and practically rudimentary elements of legal language (e.g. law,
code), but they are often developed by attributes (e.g. civil law, penal code) or they are
changed by other word-making processes (e.g. lawyer, codify) (Tomášek: 113).
Both Tomášek and Alcaraz bring forward some multivocal semi-technical
2 "to the lawsuit" - referring to a party appointed by a court to act in a lawsuit on behalf of another party who is deemed incapable of representing himself
3 "he asserted" - a legal term from Medieval Latin referring to a sworn statement4 "after the author's death" - The phrase is used in legal terminology in the context of intellectual
property rights, especially copyright, which commonly lasts until a certain number of years after the author's death.
1010
expressions (Tomášek: 15, Alcaraz: 159). “Semi-technical vocabulary is a complex
group, since it contains terms that have one meaning (or more than one) in the everyday
world and another [one or more] in the field of law” (Alcaraz: 158-160). Only by the
context is one able to tell whether these expressions belong to subset C or B in
Tomášek's diagrams.
To illustrate this let us take Alcaraz's example of the word case:
general meaning a specific set of circumstances, a particular instance or representative sample
“You must do what is best in each case.”
legal meaning 1 litigation, action, suit, prosecution “The case was heard by the High Court.”
legal meaning 2 legal grounds for proceeding “There is no case to answer.” “You have no case.”
legal meaning 3 arguments put forward by counsel, technical side of pleadings sustained by either side
“The entire defence case depended on the construction of one clause in the contract.”
It is no surprise that multivocal words like the word case often pose problems to
unxeperienced translators. Their correct translation is only possible, if the translator
truly understands the contents of the legal text in question.
Apart from single-word or compound technical or semi-technical expressions,
legal English vocabulary comprises another unusual component – the so-called
linguistic patterns (Tomášek: 52). These are multi-word phrases or whole sentences,
which are unchanging in legal texts. Examples of linguistic patterns in EU legislation
are sentences such as: “This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly
applicable in all Member States.” or “This Regulation shall enter into force on the day
following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.”
Obviously these linguistic patterns cannot be translated haphazardly. Once they are
translated, this translation has to be reproduced in later translations.
1111
1.1.2. Syntax of legal English
As suggested above, the raison d'être of legal texts is primarily to convey information,
not to charm their readers by glaring originalily. For the sake of clarity legal texts (like
other technical texts) tend “towards stereotypical sentence structures” (Ilek: 15).
Hiltunen claims that “the syntax of legal English is really quite simple [and
stereotypical]. What complicates it, are the heavy nominal constituents” (Hiltunen: 69).
In fact, most of the information in legal texts is packed into nominal structures. While
the sentence structure of English legal texts themselves is not very complicated,
sentences in these texts are rather “long and contain a great number of coordinated and
[even more] subordinated clauses5” (Hiltunen: 70). Moreover, sentences are often
extended by lengthy enumerations. Many of those long sentences of legal texts are „rich
in syntactic indicators of condition [...] hypotheses,” causality and other relations
(Alcaraz: 20). These are often conveyed by conjunctions, prepositions and prepositional
phrases. Prepositions will be dealt with in a general manner in chapter 2 and some
concrete examples from EU legislation will be analysed in chapter 3.
Another prominet feature of legal texts in English, that is worth mentioning, is
the frequent use of passive voice. The use of passive voice makes it possible to convey
information without mentioning the agent and thus makes the text impersonal and more
generally applicable. In order to avoid ambiguity, legal texts contain many repetitions.
Pronouns are used only where there is no danger of ambiguity – nouns are often
repeated in their entirety. The visual structure of legal texts is also a specific one.
Paragraphs and sections are often visually distinguished and marked by numbers,
lettres, section marks or all on them.
5 An excuse for multi-clause sentences may be that legal texts are not meant to be read aloud.
1212
From the above mentioned features, it is clear that legal texts are specific in
several ways, differing markedly from other types of texts. For a translation of a legal
text to have the same impact as the original, this specificity has to be preserved. In the
following sub-chapter, some general aspects of translation of legal texts are going to be
dealt with.
1.2. Translation of legal texts
One may wonder if translation of legal texts is in any way different from translation of
other technical texts. To this the following should be answered: although the translation
of legal texts shares many common features with translations of other technical texts, it
is in a way specific. The main reason for this specificity are the differences of legal
systems of different countries, which legal translators have to overcome. Translators of
texts concerning biology, medicine, physics, mathematics or information technologies
do not face such problems (or just in a very limited extent).
Usually, if one talks about translation, he imagines transtalion from one language
(source language - SL) to another (target language - TL). But Tomášek views the
situation a bit differently. He distinguishes two types of legal translation: intrasemiotic
translation and intersemiotic translation (Tomášek: 39). By the intrasemiotic
translation of a legal texts he understands their interpretation, mainly for the purpose of
application (Tomášek: 55). The intersemiotic translation of legal texts is a conversion
from one language to another for members of another language group to understand
them. However, the two types of transnlation cannot be viewed separately. In fact, for
the intersemiotic translation of a legal text to be correct, the intrasemiotic translation has
to be applied in the course of its elaboration. The two-stage translation process is
1313
described in the following scheme.
Figure 2. Translation process: (Tomášek: 42) - adapted by the author of the thesis
The translator should verify that the legal text has the same (or at least very
similar) meaning in both source and target languages. If the translator does not verify
the equivalence of the whole text, s/he should do so at least for the terminology. To be
able to do this, the translator needs not only an excellent knowledge of SL and TL, but
s/he also needs to orientate her/himself in the domain of law, especially in the legal
system of SL country and TL country. S/he needs to be aware of the differences between
the two legal systems that are relevant for his/her translation and thus avoid mistakes
that could arise from these differences.
Now I will briefly look at some6 common problems, that translators of legal texts
often come across and that may be sources of mistakes in their translations.
6 The following enumeration of problems is far from exhaustive. It is just to illustrate what legal translators have to face.
1414
a) equivalence of equivalents
Tomášek pertinently calls one of the problems of legal translation the “equivalence of
equivalents” (Tomášek: 97). This problem relates to the synonymy of terms in SL and
TL. “Many linguists believe that true or complete synonymy does not exist in any
language7 (Shiyab). I will not polemize about the catholicity of this statement here; I
will simply take it for granted and go on with the explanation. “Since complete
synonymy does not exist in monolingual settings, let alone across languages” (Shiyab),
translators have to rely on partial synonymy between SL and TL terms. Partial
synonyms are words, that share several (but not all) essential semantic components. Let
us see the scheme for illustration.
Figure 3. Kinds of synonymy according to Shiyab, drawn by the author of the thesis
In one legal language (e.g. English) few terms have their full synonyms in
another legal language (e.g. Czech). The majority of translation equivalents are just
partial synonyms. Some semantic components of partial synonyms in TL differ from
those in SL or are not at all shared by them. In legal language this is partly due to the
difference of legal systems or to different customs in the domain of law. Let us illustrate
this situation by means of Tomášek's example (117)8:
7 Cruse, D. A. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. p. 270., Quine, W.V.O. "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Philosophical Review, 60/1951 p. 20-43.
8 The example is adapted by the author of the thesis.
1515
At first sight it seems that natural Czech translation equivalent of the English term “law of property” would be “vlastnické právo”. However, the situation is more complicated. Anglo-Saxon “law of property” refers uniquely to real estate, whereas Czech “vlastnické právo” refers to both real and personal estate. English term “ownership” refers uniquely to personal estate. Thus, the extralinguistic reality is grasped differently in the two legal languages. Having this in mind a translator might decide to translate “law of property” by another Czech term - “majetkové právo k nemovitosti”. This term seems to be a full translation synonym, but in fact it is not. According to the tradition in the UK, the monarch is the sole owner of the land, which s/he only lends to his/her subjects. From the legal point of view subjects can only own buildings on the land9. Thus, “majetkové právo k nemovitosti” is more synonymous to “law of property” than “vlastnické právo”, but it is not its full synonym.
Translator of a legal text often has to deal with similar semantic non-equivalence
of semblant equivalents. If full equivalence of TL text cannot be achieved, the translator
should do his/her best to at least maintain the “equivalent effect” of the translated text
(Alcaraz: 180). Here, comparative law may be of great help.
b) terms with no equivalents in TL
Very often transtators have to deal with terms that have no translation equivalents in TL.
These terms are usually lawmaker's creations rather than results of historic progress of
legal language. According to Tomášek, the advantage of these newly created terms is
that they are usually accurately defined by the lawmaker who created them (98). Of
course, their disadvantage is that a translator has to devise his/her own translation
equivalent. Doing this a translator should firstly grasp the meaning of the term and then
devise its translation - respecting syntax, grammar and other conventions of TL.
As examples of terms with no ready-made translation equivalent let me state
some English translations of names of Czech institutions:
9 Current practice of law does not work with this custom anymore, nevertheless, it still has impact on legal terminology.
1616
Okresní správa sociálního zabezpečení Regional Social Security AdministrationÚřad práce Labour OfficeČeský úřad zeměměřičský a katastrální Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and CadastreČeský institut pro akteditaci Czech Accreditation Institute
c) multiple-word technical terms
Another source of problems for a translator not trained to the law may be the abundance
of multiple-word technical terms. The meaning of words composing the term when they
are used separately in everyday speech is usually different from the meaning they
acquire when used as parts of a multilpe-word legal term. Thus a translator cannot
translate these terms word by word, but s/he has to know their overall meaning and
translate them by their TL equivalent (which is often multi-word as well). Alcaraz cites
some examples (Alcaraz: 158):
accessory before the fact spoluviník před činemburden of proof důkazní břemenointerlocutory injunction prozatimní soudní opatřenípower of attorney plná moc zástupce/zmocnění
An inexperienced translator not knowing these terms might translate burden of
proof as for instance *tíha důkazů. Of course a translator has to learn the significance of
such terms in order to translate them correctly, but various term databases may be of
great hepl in this respect.
d) functional vocabulary
Functional or grammatical words are such words the purpose of which is to interrelate
full-meaning words. Most often functional words are conjunctions and prepositions.
Prepositions usually form special collocations with verbs. These collocations must be
translated by the equivalent TL collocations – not word for word. The following
1717
example explains the situation:
to bring a case into/before the court předat věc soudu *přinést věc před soud
In this sub-chapter some general problems of translation of legal texts have been
dealt with. These problems further underline the specificity of legal language and it is
advisable to keep them in mind for the further reading. The next sub-chapter is more
concrete – it covers the domain of the special kind of legal translation – the one of EU
legislation.
1.3. Translation of European Union legislation
As has already been forshadowed, the translation of legal texts created within the
European Union is specific in several aspects. These will be clarified in the
forthcomming sub-chapter. Firstly, I am going to be concerned with some basic
concepts of the EU, which are relevant for the translation. Subsequently, more technical
aspects of translation of EU legislation are going to be touched upon.
1.3.1. General aspects of translation of EU legislation
Before pursuing concrete aspects of translation of EU legislation, some points will be
made on the specific milieu in which legislative texts and their translations originate.
a) Multilingualism in the EU – some basic concepts
The European Union is a democratic international organization which guarantees equal
status to all its member states as well as to all its citizens. The EU unites its member
states by acting on behalf of their common (mainly economic) interests and at the same
1818
time it respects their different identities10. This concept is often called
“unity in diversity”. While there is no official definition of identity as such, it is
generally understood that languages are parts of the national identities. In the interest of
respect of “unity in diversity”, official languages of the member states are official
languages of the EU. Since January 1st 2007 there are 23 official languages: Bulgarian,
Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian,
Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak,
Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish.
For the sake of its legitimacy European legislation has to be published in all
official languages. Part of EU legislation is directly applicable11 in the member states
and another part has to be correctly transposed into national legislations12. The existence
of European legislation in national languages is thus a necessary prerequisite for it to be
respected. The concept of “direct applicability” of EU legislation is closely linked to
the so called concept of “multiple authenticity”. There is no single authentic language
version of the legislation, but all 23 versions are equally authentic and of the same
liability. The authenticity of different language versions of legislation is not affected,
even if there may be discrepancies in their meanings. However, discrepancies in
meaning of different language versions are highly undesirable. Thus a very high
standard of translation is a must as far as legal texts are concerned. One of the
consequences of multiple authenticity is that “[n]one of the legislation refers to
translation” (Wagner: 7). Under certain circumstances the word “translation” migt even
have some negative connotations. One might think that a translated text is secondary,
10 Treaty on European Union C 191 29 July 1992, Title I, Art. F(1) “The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States...”
11 regulations12 directives
1919
whereas the emphasis is placed on the equal legitimacy of all language versions.
Therefore one does not say that a legal text was translated into 22 languages. Instead it
is said that it was drafted in all the official languages. In case of differences in meaning
between two language versions one cannot talk about “wrong translation”, but only
about “disparity between co-drafted versions”. Even if the word “translation” is rarely
mentioned in connection with external documents, this is not to reduce its value.
Though the EU is a multilingual organization, for the sake of cost-effectiveness
its 23 official languages are not always used all at once. This concept is called
“controlled multilingualism” and it consists in the use of “working languages13” for
internal communication. Many internal documents are drafted in one or two languages
(mostly English, French or German) and their translations into other official languages
are not requested at all or are requested in a lower quality. The length of the texts sent
for translation is also limited according to their nature and importance (Hruška). By
some restrictive rules applying to translation and interpretation the EU seeks to maintain
the cost of multilingualism at an acceptable level.
b) How do the EU translation services work?
All the main institutions of the EU have their own translation departments. But I am not
going to inquire into each one of them. Let us just consider the most important
translation service. The largest translation service of the EU is the Directorate-General
for Translation (known as DGT) within the European Commission. With its
approximately 1,750 staff directly involved in translation it is the largest translation
service in the world (Rhodes). It is located in Brussels and Luxembourg and has
13 There is no official mention of “working languages” in the texts and these languages do not have legally privileged position in comparison to the rest of the official languages.
2020
detached Field offices in other member states. The DGT works exclusively for other
Directorates-General and services of the Commission.
The DGT translates various kinds of documents. Apart from legislation, which is
going to be treated in detail later, it translates policy documents, speeches,
correspondence, press releases, technical studies, financial reports, promotional
material, correspondence with national ministries, firms, interest groups or individuals
etc. As has been suggested above, not all of these texts are translated in the top quality.
The quality of translation is “fit-for-purpose”: internal (informative) documents are
translated faster and with less precision than documents for publication (Rhodes).
Nowadays most documents within the EU are drafted in English (Swaan).
Consequently, the most common source language for the EU translators is English. The
graph below shows that the dominance of English is really significant with 72 % of
texts being written in this language.
2121
Figure 4. Source languages comparison in 2006 (Translating for a Multilingual Community: 7)
English also dominates as a target language, though this dominance is not so
pronounced as in case of source languages.
Figure 5. Target languages comparison in 2006 (Translating for a Multilingual Community: 7)
English, mostly with French and German, serves as a relay language. The so
called “relay method” of translation is used for uncommon language combinations.
2222
A translator whose principal language is the source language of the document (e.g.
Estonian) translates it into relay language known by another translator who then puts it
into a requested target language (e. g. Czech) (Rhodes). With 23 official languages this
method has become fairly used and it makes English as a relay language still more
popular than before. Apart from the relay method, there are other methods of translation.
The traditional method consists in the translator translating from a language s/he knows
very well into his/her principal language. In some cases it is also done the other way
round. Under certain circumstances, translation tasks may be outsourced to external
translators or translation agencies. However, this does not apply to the translation of
legislation.
Let us now look more closely on the practical side of the translation process at
the DGT:
Figure 6. Translation process (Translating for a Multilingual Community: 16)
1. A Commission department electronically sends a document to the DGT with a
request for it to be translated. The requesting department has to respect the maximum
length of the document.
2323
2. The DGT's Demand Management Unit accepts the request. Before being
assigned to a translator, the document may be manually pre-processed. Documents
drafted by non-native speakers of the SL sometimes need editing before they are sent
for translation. If there are any previous translations of similar documents, they are
extracted from the central memory and provided to the translator.
3. The competent translation unit is given the document to translate. The
document is either assigned to a particular translator, or translators serve themselves
according to their availability. A translator uses various tools that facilitate the
translation: terminology databases, translator's workbench and translation memories,
machine translation... In case of doubt, a translator can contact a person responsible for
the document at the requesting department and ask him/her a question. A translator can
also have an assistant type the translated document for him/her or may use a speech
recognition tool.
4. (5.) According to its importance the translated document may be revised by
another translator. Translations of inexperienced translators are revised more frequently
and thoroughly.
6. The translation unit releases the translation by sending it electronically to the
requester and by its uploading into electronic archives.
To conclude this section, it should be pointed out that there is not much space for
individualism in translation for the EU institutions. There are “strait-jacket” conventions
that specify one particular translation option (and not necessarily the one a translator
considers the most correct or the most elegant) and many texts have already been
translated before in earlier versions (Rhodes). That is why “you are not the master of
your text” (Wagner: 47). In Rhodes' words, “translators have to be humble”. While they
have little opportunities of “putting a personal imprint (or even their name) on their
translations,” translators may enjoy working in a multinational environment,
“immersing themselves in […] new subject areas” and having opportunities to learn
new languages (Wagner: 56).
Tomášek draws attention to some problems that may arise from the quasi-
2424
anonymity of translators and text drafters. In short, he says that it may lead to
weakening individual responsibility for the outcome and to inability to trace the sources
of mistakes, which consequently persist in the texts (Tomášek: 30). To avoid (or at least
limit) this threat of deresponsibilisation, translators' work is evaluated on a regular basis
and their promotion partially depends on its quality. Translators, like other EU
employees, are officials appointed for life. However, in case of serious neglect of their
duties, they can be sanctioned or even discharged.
c) Translating of EU legislation in practice
Legislation represents about 33 % of the texts that the DGT translates. Drafting
legislation is the task of the Commission, it is thus natural that its translation service
translates this kind of texts a lot.
Figure 7. Pages translated by category – 2006 (Rhodes - lecture)
In this subchapter, I pay attention to some specificities of translation of EU
legislation. The first thing that has to be done here is defining legislation in the EU
context. By the name legislation are meant all the following documents: Regulations of
the Commission/of the Council/of the Council and of the European Parliament,
2525
Directives of the Commission/of the Council/of the Council and of the European
Parliament, Decisions of the Commission/of the Council/of the Council and of the
European Parliament, Decisions of the Joint Committee of the European Economic
Area, Commission Recommendations, annexes to EU legislative acts, Regulations of
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, legislation or regulations of
Member States.
Legislative texts are translated exclusively by in-house translators. Translation of
these texts is provided in the top quality – the so called translation quality type A (or
TQT A). TQT A texts are multilingually concordant, translated in line with the rules for
EU legislative documents and they aim at maximum clarity (Rhodes). These translations
are thoroughly revised.
There is an important point to be made about the language of directives and
regulations. These documents “represent an international compromise [...]. Because they
are results of a compromise, they may contain some woolly phrasing and because they
are international, they expressly avoid using legal terminology that belongs to any
particular national legal system” (Wagner: 58).
EU legislation regulates various domains that are in many cases specific only to
some member states (or even to one member state). Naturally, this fact has
consequences for translators. "For example, the Mediterranean countries have a rich
vocabulary of terms related to olive growing. Finland, Sweden and Danemark have no
climatic chance of growing olives themselves, and little tradition of trade in olives. Yet
EU directives and reports on olive-growing have to be translated [into languages of
these countries]", which lack corresponding terms (Wagner, 62-63). The apparent non-
translatability of some concepts illustrated by the example is a great challenge for all
2626
translators of the EU legislation.
1.3.2. Translation of EU legislation into Czech
a) Pre-membership translation
By the day of the Czech Republic's joining the EU, a great number of European legal
acts had to be translated in a relatively short time to become legally binding for the new
member state and its citizens. These legal acts were originally created in a different
social and political environment of the second half of the 20th century. In Malíř's
opinion, this is the reason for the fact that Czech translations of these documents are not
always truthful and accurate (Malíř: 338). The subject of translation was the whole body
of EU legislation (acquis communautaire). In case of the Czech Republic the total
volume of documents to be translated was around 94,00014. The Czech Republic is
responsible for the translation of the acquis done before its adhesion to the EU. The
Coordination and Revision Center under the Office of the Government was
responsible for translating the acquis into Czech. Its task was to coordinate assignment
of translations and their subsequent revision. The majority of pre-adhesion translations
was provided by translation agencies, which were chosen in a call for tenders according
to severe criteria. The translating jobs were provided by internal or external translators
of these agencies. The following scheme demonstrates the process of pre-adhesion
translation of legal texts in the Czech Republic.
14 Department of Compatibility under the Office of the Government <www.vlada.cz>
2727
Figure 8. Pre-membership translation in the Czech Rep. – created by the author on the basis of information provided by the Office of the Government
1. The Coordination and Revision Center (CRC) assigns translation tasks to translation agencies or individual translators on request of central authorities or on its own iniciative. The assignment of translation tasks is done according to the importance of the documents.
2. Translators can conslult competent ministries or other central authorities ("gestors") about new or unclear terminology.
3. The translation is first revised by the CRC. The aim of revision is to ensure accuracy, consistence of terminology, correspondence with Czech legal writing standards and intelligibility.
4. The CRC employees retrieve new terminology from the translated document and add it into the database.
5. The translation is revised by the competent ministry or other central authority. Revised documents are added into the ISAP database ("Informační systém pro aproximaci práva")15 – it is a database of revised translations which are not yet
15 Restricted public access at: http://isap.vlada.cz
2828
binding.
6. Documents are finalised by Czech lawyer-linguists in the European Commission or Council. They are the last people to modify the text (apart from the typographic touches).
7. Documents are prepared for publication by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
8. New document is added into the EUR-Lex database and published in the Official Journal. In the moment of their publication in Czech language the legal documents become binding for the Czech state and its citizens.
Before the adhesion of the Czech Republic to the EU, the Directorate-General for
Translation at the European Commission established a field office in Prague to provide
translations of non-legislative documents.
b) Translation after May 1st 2004
Nowadays Czech translations of EU legislation are essentially provided by the
Directorate-General for Translation at the European Commission. As has already been
said, translation of legal documents is never outsourced to translation agencies. The
Czech department of the Directorate-General is located in Luxembourg and employs
approximately 57 translators and 15 support staff (Rhodes). Its most frequent source
languages are English (48,704 pages in 2006 – 83,95%) and French (7,368 pages in
2006 - 12,56%).
2929
2. Complex prepositions in English language
The preceding chapter was concerned with some general aspects of legal English and
legal translation. The second chapter of this thesis remains general as well. The purpose
of the second chapter is to analyse complex prepositions in contemporary English. The
attention will be paid mainly to their usage and to their potential of conveying meaning.
Where possible, the analysis is going to be completed by examples taken from the EUR-
Lex based corpus.
2.1. General definition and usage of prepositions
Prepositions are parts of speech that “carry the grammatical relationships” (Greenbaum:
431). Together with pronouns, determiners, auxiliary verbs and conjunctions,
prepositions are defined as grammatical (or function/al or form) words as opposed to
content (or full or lexical) words which “carry the semantic content of the vocabulary”
(Greenbaum: 431). In some grammar books prepositions are defined as a closed class16
(Greenbaum: 431, Huddleston: 603). Prepositions are the closed class because there is
the relatively stable stock of prepositions in English and additionnal members are not
readily accepted. “[T]hough new prepositions are added to the language from time to
time there is no freely productive morphological process for forming them”
(Huddleston: 603). The distinction between grammatical and content words roughly
corresponds to the distinction between closed-class and open-class words.
In his 1935 grammar, Curme defines a preposition in terms of its usage as “a
word that indicates a relation between the noun or pronoun it governs and another word,
16 Greenbaum (92) recognizes 7 closed classes: auxiliaries, conjunctions, prepositions, determinetrs, pronouns, numerals, interjections and 4 open classes: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs.
3030
which may be a verb, an adjective, or another noun or pronoun” (Curme, 1935: 87). In
“The costs are allocated on the basis of principles.” on the basis of shows a relation
between the noun principles and the passive verb are allocated.
Traditional noun or pronoun may be in this framework substituted by a noun
phrase. Analogically in “All costs and revenues are correctly assigned or allocated
on the basis of consistently applied and objectively justifiable cost accounting
principles.” on the basis of shows a relation between the noun phrase consistently
applied and objectively justifiable cost accounting principles and the passive verb
phrase are correctly assigned or allocated (corpus: 8).
The function of prepositions may be likened to the function of adverbs. Not only
do they simply show a relation between two elements, but they can limit the force of
one element. Curme points out that “prepositions [with the assistance or their
dependents], like adverbs, limit the force of the verb as to some circumstance of place,
time, manner, degree, cause, condition, exception, concession, purpose or means”
(Curme, 1931: 559). For example, in “Member States may grant operating aid to new
plants producing renewable energy that will be calculated on the basis of the external
costs avoided.” on the basis of and its noun phrase dependent express the manner of
realization of the verb clause (corpus: 36).
As opposed to Curme´s traditional conception, Huddleston and Pullum adopt a
significantly different conception of prepositions. They “take them to be heads of
phrases – comparable to those headed by verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs, and
containing dependents [or complements] of many different sorts” (Huddleston: 598).
The traditional definition of prepositions specifies that they “usually precede17
17 That is why they are called prepositions. (Latin ‘prae’ means before and ‘positio’ means position.)
3131
the noun phrase they govern”, but Huddleston poins out some cases where this rule does
not apply (Huddleston: 602). Generally, prepositions rarely appear in postposition in
texts written in formal style (Dušková: 274). In the EUR-Lex based corpus the
prepositions in question mostly precede their complements such as in:
The aid must be granted in respect of diseases mentioned in the list of animal diseases established by the World Organisation for Animal Health. (corpus: 214)
However there are also some special cases where the preposition is preceded by
its complement:
The aid must not relate to a disease in respect of which Community legislation provides for specific charges for control measures. (corpus: 214)
In this sentence the complement is "repeated" after preposition in the form of
personal pronoun which.
2.2. Categories of prepositions
For a start, two basic types of prepositions may be distinguished: simple and complex
(Dušková: 275). Complex prepositons consist of two or more words, but semantically
and syntactically they function as a single word and they usually do not permit syntactic
manipulation with their elements. Compare “On the basis of statistical data that may be
regularly provided by the Member States...” (corpus: 106) for example, with:
*On the very basis of statistical data...*On the bases of statistical data...*On basis of statistical data...*On the basis and account of statistical data...
Possibility of syntactic manipulation may serve as a diagnostic test for
distinguishing between free nominal structures and complex prepositions (Dušková:
277, Huddleston: 619). Unlike complex prepositions, free nominal structures may be
3232
modified at will. Compare:
free nominal structure complex preposition
in the light of the morning sun in the light of the results of that review (corpus: 249)
The free nominal structure can be modified by saying for example in the bright
light of the morning sun, whereas the complex preposition does not allow for this
possibility (Dušková: 277).
Complex prepositions are in a way secondary (or derived) – they developped
from the previously existing elements. In English language these combinations may be
commonly encountered :
a) two-word prepositions
adverb along with, apart from, ahead of,
verb + preposition owing to, allowing for, depending of,
adjective due to, prior to, subsequent to,
conjunction but for, because of
b) three-word prepositions
preposition + substantive + preposition in view of, in line with, in addition to
c) four-word prepositions
preposition + in/definite article + substantive + preposition in the light of,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------with a view to
(Definite article is more common in this type of complex prepositions.)
Whereas simple prepositions form a real closed class, complex prepositions
form a relatively opened class – some of them grow obsolete and new ones are being
3333
created (Dušková: 276). Most of the new prepositions develop according to the pattern
preposition + substantive + preposition. The reason new prepositions are created is the
need to convey relations between two concepts as accurately as possible and thus make
it possible for shading our thoughts. This is important mainly in technical language
including legal language. However, the use of complex prepositions is not always vital
to conveying a particular meaning. Some complex prepositions have simple equivalents,
which may replace them in most of the contexts. For example, in addition to can be
replaced by besides and with regard to is usually interchangeable with regarding. As is
going to be shown in the third chapter, there is an overall tendency in legal texts to give
priority to complex prepositions.
Another significant distinction can be drawn between free and bound
prepositions. “Free prepositions have an independent meaning; the choice of preposition
is not dependent upon any specific words in the context. In contrast, bound prepositions
often have little independent meaning and [their] choice depends upon some other word
(often the preceding verb)” (Biber: 74). Complex prepositions are normally free (ibid.),
but later in this thesis, it will be seen that while complex prepositions in legal texts may
be independent of the concrete words, they are largely determined by the set structure of
the texts and by the legal language usage.
3434
3. Complex prepositions in legal texts
The analysis of particular complex prepositions should be preceded by an explanation of
the method and the way of making the corpus of legal texts. For the purpose of the
analysis of complex prepositions in EU legislation a parallel corpus consisting of twelve
EU legislation texts was made. These texts include directives, regulations and
guidelines dating from 1980 to 2007. It means that the corpus includes texts drafted
before and after the Czech Republic´s adhesion to the EU. The whole corpus (English
and Czech parts together) comprises 160,330 words. English and Czech versions of the
12 texts were taken from the EUR-Lex database. The two language versions of the texts
were aligned and tabulated to facilitate their comparison. Twenty complex prepositions
with abstract meanings frequently used in the corpus were highlited as well as their
Czech translations. Different colour was used for each preposition. The whole corpus
with highlited prepositions can be accessed on the CD which is a supplement to this
thesis. In the forthcoming sub-chapter the twenty complex prepositions selected from
the corpus and their different translations will be analysed.
3.1. Explanation of the research method
While “[t]he most central members [of the preposition word class] have meanings
which, at least in origin, have to do with relations in space and time,” complex
prepositions usually convey more complex and more abstract meanings (Huddleston:
603). The meaning of any prepositions cannot be judged by looking at them in isolation
but always with a view to the context.
Although all kinds of prepositions (including those conveying relations in space
3535
and time) appear in legal texts, prepositions conveying abstract relations are more
characteristic. Attention will be focused on abstract complex prepositions selected from
the legal corpus, which are going to be grouped according to concepts they convey.
These concepts are: addition, exception, manner, identification, condition, purpose and
reference. However, complex prepositions cannot always be strictly categorized
according to concepts they convey. As you are going to see, different Czech translations
of English complex prepositions testify to this claim. The table in the next sub-chapter
lists the twenty complex prepositions selected from the EU legislation corpus, the
number of their occurrences in the corpus and different versions of their Czech
translations with numbers of occurrences in brackets.
It can be seen from the following table that numbers of occurrences of different
prepositions vary significantly – the most frequent listed preposition being
in accordance with (157 occurrences), the least frequent being in line with and
regardless of (5 occurrences). In total, 762 complex prepositions were highlited in the
corpus and their Czech translations were included in the analysis. Listed prepositions
are going to be dealt with one by one. I will look at their translations in the already
mentioned EU legislation corpus as well as take account of these prepositions in English
translations of Czech legislation. For this purpose English translations of the Czech
Civil Code (about 53,838 words) and Commercial Code18 (about 190,107 words) are to
be used. English translations and Czech originals of these two codes can be accessed on
the enclosed CD. Listed English prepositions are highlighted in these translations. An
English literary text corpus made up of 4 novels19 written in British English (about
18 Numbers of occurrences of listed prepositions in these two Czech codes are presented in the table at the end of the third chapter (page 55).
19 Amis, Kingsley: Lucky Jim, Grahame, Kenneth: The Wind in the Willows, Hardy, Thomas: Tess of the D´Urbervilles, Lawrence, D. H.: Sons and Lovers
3636
465,346 words) will also be checked for occurrences of the listed complex
prepositions20. When possible, their usage in literary texts will be compared to their
usage in legal texts. However, their occurrence in literary texts is not expected to be
very frequent.
In the table on page 56, translations of prepositions suggested in Bočánková´s
Anglicko-český právnický slovník can be found and compared to translations in the
corpus
3.2. Complex prepositions in the EU legislation corpus
and their translations
It can be seen from the table below that many complex prepositions frequent in
EU legislation convey similar meanings. The fact that different English prepositions are
translated by the same Czech expressions testifies to this claim. At first sight the
repertory of English prepositions in legal texts seems very wide as the same concepts
are conveyed by several prepositions. Many listed prepositions express reference. It
seems thus appropriate to devote a separate section to prepositions of reference.
20 Numbers of occurrences of listed prepositions in the literary corpus are presented in the table at the end of the third chapter (page 55).
3737
3.2.1. Prepositions of reference
By means of these prepositions the drafter can express reference to other legal texts,
principles, conditions, requirements, rules etc. Prepositions such as in conformity with,
in line with, in accordance with, according to, pursuant to convey reference which is
more complete than reference conveyed by in the light of, in view of, in relation to or
with regard to. The former group of prepositions conveys a slightly stronger accord than
the latter group. This claim is justified by the nature of prevalent Czech translations:
v souladu s conveys stronger accord than s přihlédnutím k.
a) in conformity with
With only 8 occurrences this preposition expressing reference is not very frequent in the
EU legislation corpus. Neither are its Czech translations very diverse: v souladu s and
podle. In the English translation of the Czech Commercial Code this preposition appears
only twice and it is a translation of Czech v souladu s and podle. This preposition refers
to both general nouns such as principles or conditions and to sections of concrete
documents. In conformity with does not occur in the literary corpus.
b) in line with
This preposition, the meaning of which is close to in conformity with, does not
frequently occur in the EU legislation corpus either. Four of its five occurrences are
translated by v souladu s. Judging from the limited number of its occurrences, this
preposition can refer either to rather vague notions (such as policy) or to concrete
documents (such as Commission Recommendations). In line with does not appear in the
literary corpus or the Czech legislation corpus.
c) in accordance with
With 157 occurrences this is the most frequent listed preposition in the EU legislation
3838
corpus. It is commonly used to make reference to other concrete legislative texts or to
the text where it occurs itself. Less often it refers to general concepts (principles,
case law, national law...). Into Czech in accordance with is translated by 3 different
expressions – v souladu s with 112 occurrences being the most frequently used.
Naturally, a question arises here, whether the choice of different Czech translations of
in accordance with was influenced by the noun to which they refer or by some other
factor.
In the EU legislation corpus in accordance with was 4 times translated by
ve shodě s. However, the use of ve shodě s instead of v souladu s does not seem justified
by the context.
in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition (corpus: 91, 92)
ve shodě se zásadou otevřeného tržního hospodářství s volnou soutěží (corpus: 92)
v souladu se zásadou otevřeného tržního hospodářství s volnou soutěží (corpus: 91)
in accordance with the procedure set out in this Article(corpus: 135)in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14(2) (corpus: 275)
ve shodě s postupem stanoveným v tomto článku (corpus: 135)
v souladu s postupem podle čl. 14 odst. 2 (corpus: 275)
Following the examples above, it seems that translations of in accordance with
ve shodě s and v souladu s are interchangeable. Even if the example sentences are
considered in wider context, their interchangeability is still evident. Eleven times
in accordance with has no direct translation equivalent in the EU legislation corpus. The
example below shows that the compex preposition was replaced by the instrumental
case in the Czech translation. Sentence simplifications using the instrumental account
for 10 out of 11 omissions of direct translation of in accordance with in the corpus.
3939
Technical specifications regarding the reproduction of the logo shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14(2) and published by the Commission. (corpus: 255)
Technické specifikace týkající se reprodukce loga budou přijaty Ø postupem podle čl. 14 odst. 2 a zveřejněny Komisí. (corpus: 255)
And what about in accordance with translated as podle? Were there any reasons
to prefer podle to v souladu s? If one looks at the following example, it does not seem
there were any.
designated by Member States in accordance with Articles 50 and 94 of that Regulation (corpus: 209)
určených členskými státy v souladu s články 50 a 94 uvedeného nařízení (corpus: 209)
designated by Member States in accordance with Articles 50 and 94 of that Regulation (corpus: 207)
určených členskými státy podle článků 50 a 94 uvedeného nařízení (corpus: 207)
However, in some other cases the use of podle instead of v souladu s is justified
by the nature of the noun that follows the preposition. In the example below the
preposition podle is more natural to refer to formulář than v soulasu s.
completion reports on each shipbuilding and conversion contract [...] in accordance with the annexed Schedule 2 (corpus: 241)
zprávy o dokončení ke každé smlouvě o stavbě a přestavbě lodě [...] podle formuláře 2 uvedeného v příloze (corpus: 241)
In another case it seems that podle was used because the translator did not want
to have the same prepositions close to one another. Similar expression: "hodnocena
v souladu s kritérii" also appears in the corpus (107).
shall be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty. Such aid shall be assessed in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Community guidelines (corpus: 206)
se oznamuje Komisi v souladu s čl. 88 odst. 3 Smlouvy. Taková podpora se posuzuje především podle kritérií stanovených v Pokynech Společenství (corpus: 206)
In accordance with is also very frequent in the Czech legislation corpus (114
occurrences). It is a translation of original podle and v souladu s. On the contrary, this
preposition occurs only once in the literary corpus and into Czech it is translated in a
way that a back-translation test would certainly not reveal its original presence.
4040
In accordance with the kindly Badger's injunctions, the two tired animals came down to breakfast very late next morning (literary corpus: 117)
Využili Jezevcovy laskavosti a druhého dne přišli k snídani hodně pozdě.
d) according to
This preposition may be seen as a less formal relative of in accordance with. Maybe it is
because of its formality, that in accordance with is given priority over this preposition in
the EU legislation corpus. In this corpus according to is mostly used to refer to general
nouns (such as procedures, requirements, criteria, principles). Less often does it refer to
concrete texts or their parts. According to is mostly translated by podle, which can be
considered a less formal variant of v souladu s. In the following example, nouns referred
to by the two prepositions are similar, but translations of the prepositions vary.
verified in accordance with the requirements of Annex V, point 5.6 (corpus: 250)
nechat ověřit [...] v souladu s požadavky bodu 5.6 přílohy V (corpus: 250)
recognised according to the requirements of Article 9 (corpus: 262)
uznaný podle požadavků článku 9 (corpus: 262)
It seems there is a tendency towards translating more formal English
prepositions by more formal Czech prepositions. However, with 30 translations of
in accordance with by podle, this is really just a tendency.
Perhaps thanks to its relative clarity and brevity, according to is the most
frequent preposition in the Czech legislation corpus. It is mostly a translation of podle.
Less often more complicated phrases are translated by according to such as in:
Občanskoprávní vztahy vznikají z právních úkonů nebo z jiných skutečností, s nimiž zákon vznik těchto vztahů spojuje. (Občancký zákoník: 1)
Civil legal relationships shall arise from legal acts or from other facts resulting in the rise of these relationships according to an act. (Civil Code: 1)
Presumably, due to its lesser formality, according to is the most frequent listed
preposition in the literary corpus.
4141
e) pursuant to
This is another relatively frequent preposition of reference. In the EU legislation corpus
pursuant to refers almost exclusively to concrete legal documents or their parts
(articles, paragraphs). Only in two cases does it refer to more general nouns (principle
of proportionality, Community or national legislation). As to its translations into Czech,
podle is most common (110 out of 141). Other translations are na základě and
v souladu s. The choice of the translations is influenced by the context only to a limited
extent. The following example shows that pursuant to was translated differently in two
similar passages, whose proximity in the text is very close.
Annual reporting format on aid schemes exempted under a group exemption regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 (corpus: 150)
Tiskopis výroční zprávy o režimech podpor vyňatých nařízeními o skupinových výjimkách přijatých podle článku 1 nařízení Rady (ES) č. 994/98 (corpus: 150)
Information required for all aid schemes exempted under group exemption regulations adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 (corpus: 150)
Informace požadované pro všechny režimy podpor vyňaté podle nařízení o skupinových výjimkách přijatých na základě článku 1 nařízení Rady (ES) č. 994/98 (corpus: 150)
Surprisingly, there is only one occurrence of pursuant to in the Czech legislation
corpus. The reason for this may be that the same concepts are expressed by other
prepositions mentioned before.
f) within the meaning of
Despite its frequent occurrence in the EU legislation corpus, within the meaning of is
always translated by the same expression ve smyslu. This preposition makes reference
exclusively to concrete legal texts or their parts (articles, paragraphs, provisions)
allowing the drafter not to repeat or lengthily explain information included in previously
published texts. By means of this preposition and its referent various realities and
practices can be specified as to their nature and their application can be delimitated. In
the following example the legitimacy of the Court´s jurisdiction is established by
4242
reference to a particular article of the Treaty.
The Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 229 of the Treaty to review decisions (corpus: 130)
Soudní dvůr má neomezenou pravomoc ve smyslu článku 229 Smlouvy přezkoumat rozhodnutí (corpus: 130)
In the Czech legislation corpus within the meaning of does not occur at all. Its
function is assumed by other prepositions.
g) in the light of
In the light of is a complex preposition conveying reference. However, this reference is
slightly less strong than the reference conveyed by the prepositions above. In most cases
in the light of says that some reality/document is taken into consideration while
something is done. It is also used to introduce sentences by stressing out someone´s
competence to do something. This usage can be seen in the following example, where
in the light of is translated in two different ways.
In the light of the Commission’s considerable experience in applying Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to regional investment aid and in the light of the guidelines on national regional aid issued by the Commission […] it is appropriate [...] that (corpus: 151)
S ohledem na rozsáhlé zkušenosti, které Komise s používáním článků 87 a 88 Smlouvy v oblasti investiční regionální podpory má, a ve světle pokynů k vnitrostátní regionální podpoře vydaných Komisí […] je vhodné, aby [ ...] (corpus: 151)
The use of ve světle seems to be justified rather by translator´s desire not to
repeat the same expression than by the inappropriateness of s ohledem na in this
context. In the light of refers in particular to general concepts (objectives, experience,
conditions, results) and only rarely to concrete documents. This preposition is rather
rare in the Czech legislation corpus - only two occurrences, which are translations of
s přihlédnutím k.
In the light of occurs 5 times in the literary corpus21, but three of the occurrences
have literal meaning and thus cannot be considered as prepositions.
21 All occurrences are in Hardy´s Tess of the D´Urbervilles.
4343
Clare arose in the light of a dawn that was ashy and furtive, as though associated with crime. (literary corpus: 256)
Clare se probudil do světla rozbřesku, popelavého a pokradmého, jako by souvisel se zločinem.
Free nominal structures like the one mentioned above are rather unlikely to
occur in legal texts.
h) in view of
This preposition is exclusively used to refer to general nouns such as consequences,
specificities or rules in the EU legislation corpus. In view of is not very frequent in the
corpus and there are not many Czech translations. In some contexts vzhledem k is a
more appropriate alternative to more common s ohledem na. In the following example
s ohledem na would be possible, but vzhledem k sounds a bit more natural:
the need to maintain and develop effective competition within the common market in view of, among other things, the structure of all the markets concerned (corpus: 106)
potřebu zachování a rozvoje účinné hospodářské soutěže na společném trhu, mimo jiné vzhledem ke struktuře všech dotčených trhů (corpus: 106)
All prepositions in view of in the Czech legislation corpus are translations of
vzhledem k. In the literary corpus in view of as a preposition occurs only once. In its
other three occurrences in view of is a free nominal structure with literal sense:
After some miles they came in view of the clump of trees beyond which the village of Marlott stood. (literary corpus: 193)
Ujeli několik mil k místu, odkud byla na dohled skupina stromů, za nimiž ležela vesnice Marlott.
Hard at it went the two animals, till at last the result of their labours stood full in view of the astonished and hitherto incredulous Mole. (literary corpus: 115)
Oba pracovali s novým úsilím a konečně se před udiveným a dosud nevěřícím Krtkem jasně objevil výsledek jejich práce.
In contrast to legal texts, in view of is not likely to be identified in the contexts
above through back-translation.
i) with regard to
This preposition is used to refer to various realities (environmental aspects, obligation
to inform or mobile communications); it does not refer to legal or other documents.
While the number of its occurrences in the EU legislation corpus is not high (only 11),
4444
with regard to is translated in eight different manners. Its translations into Czech are
motivated by the sense of a sentence and naturalness. In some cases much simpler
Czech prepositions were used in place of with regard to:
Should this Regulation expire without being extended, Member States should have an adjustment period of six months with regard to de minimis aid covered by it. (corpus: 177)
Pokud by použitelnost tohoto nařízení skončila a nebyla by prodloužena, mají členské státy pro programy podpory de minimis podle tohoto nařízení k dispozici adaptační období šesti měsíců. (corpus: 177)
Organisations shall be able to demonstrate an open dialogue […] with regard to the environmental impact of their activities (corpus: 270)
Organizace musejí být schopny prokázat otevřený dialog […] o dopadech jejich činností (corpus: 270)
This "simplification" does not harm formality of legal texts and contributes to
their comprehensibility in Czech. Translations of with regard to also differ in
accordance with their positions in sentences. Some translations tend to occur in initial
positions and others in intermediate positions. In the following examples, in which
prepositions have similar referents, translations fit their positions in the sentences.
With regard to a concentration as defined in Article 3 which does not have a Community dimension (corpus: 111)
Pokud jde o spojení definované v článku 3, které nemá význam pro celé Společenství (corpus: 111)
also powers of action with regard to concentrations on the markets for agricultural products (corpus: 93)
včetně pravomocí týkajících se případů spojování na trhu se zemědělskými produkty (corpus: 93)
With regard to occurs relatively frequently in the Czech legislation corpus.
With regard to is a translation of the same prepositions by which it is translated in the
EU legislation corpus (s ohledem na, ohledně), but it is also a translation of other
expressions such as ve věcech, vůči, vzhledem k, při. Sometimes Czech simple
prepositions are translated by this complex preposition, which makes the translation
more complicated than the original. For example, simple preposition u is translated as
with regard to ten times in the Commercial Code.
U práv vymahatelných u soudu začíná běžet promlčecí doba
With regard to rights enforceable before a court, period of negative prescription begins to run (Commercial Code: 205)
4545
In other cases with regard to is not a translation of Czech preposition but of
another part of speech. For instance an adjective can be translated by this preposition:
Prodávající je povinen obstarat objednané zboží v dohodnuté lhůtě a není-li lhůta dohodnuta, ve lhůtě přiměřené okolnostem.
The vendor must arrange for the ordered goods within the agreed period and, if no period is agreed, within a period appropriate with regard to all circumstances (Civil Code: 73)
With regard to occurs only four times in the literary corpus and its translations
into Czech are not very surprising (v souvislosti s, pokud šlo o, v poměru k).
j) in respect of
This preposition holds a record in the number of translation variants. Its 53 occurrences
in the EU legislation corpus are translated in 19 different ways.
in respect of (53) na (které) (12) vztahující se k (1)ve vztahu k (8) k nimž (1)u (nichž/kterých) (6) pokud se jedná o (1)pro (4) týkající se (1)pokud jde o (3) které (1)v souvislosti s (3) jehož (1)ohledně (3) za (1)vzhledem k (2) v (1)na základě (2) související s (1)spojený s (1)
In respect of is a preposition of reference, which, unlike other prepositions, is
often preceded by its referent. The referent reappears after in respect of in the form of a
pronoun. The respective sentence structure is usually kept in Czech translations.
products and services in respect of which the Member State has granted a special or exclusive right (corpus: 3)
výrobky a služby, na které členský stát udělil zvláštní nebo výlučné právo (corpus: 3)
This preposition is not used to refer to concrete legal or other documents. Like
with some previously mentioned prepositions, Czech translations of in respect of are
4646
sometimes more concise than the original, as short Czech prepositions are used instead
of complex English ones.
A request may in particular be made by a competition authority of a Member State in respect of a case where the Commission intends (corpus: 68)
Orgán pro hospodářskou soutěž členského státu může zejména podat takovou žádost v případě, kdy Komise zamýšlí (corpus: 68)
In the English translation of the Czech Commercial Code in respect of is not a
rarity. Very often it is a translation of Czech simple preposition na. The order of clause
members may be retained or it may be changed like in the following example:
Byla-li společnost zrušena nebo byl-li na majetek společnosti prohlášen konkurs
If the company was wound up, or if a bankruptcy order was adjudged in respect of its property (Commercial Code: 42)
k) in relation to
Though not so numerous as in case of in respect of, translations of in relation to are also
various. Translations are often to some extent determined by the context. For example,
preposition za is determined by the preceding word sankce.
foresees sanctions of a similar kind in relation to an infringement of Article 81 or Article 82 of the Treaty (corpus: 66)
stanoví obdobné sankce za jednání v rozporu s články 81 nebo 82 Smlouvy (corpus: 66)
A preposition can also be translated by the whole sentence. Below you can see
in relation to translated by a conditional clause, which makes the Czech text more
explicit.
This Regulation should not exempt aid cumulated with other State aid, including aid granted by national, regional or local authorities [...] in relation to the same eligible costs (corpus: 143)
Toto nařízení by nemělo vyjímat podporu kumulovanou s jinou státní podporou, včetně podpory poskytnuté vnitrostátními, regionálními nebo místními orgány [...] pokud se vztahují na stejné způsobilé náklady (corpus: 143)
In relation to occurs twenty-five times in Czech Commerical Code. It is mostly
a translation of vůči. However, in some cases in relation to is not a translation of
particular prepositions, but it is a part of complex structures, which have no direct
4747
equivalent in the original text.
To neplatí, jestliže již jménem společnosti vymáhá náhradu škody nebo splacení vkladu statutární orgán společnosti.
However, this shall not apply if action to obtain damages or action in relation to suchdefault has already been taken by the partnership's statutory organ. (Commercial Code: 54)
l) regardless of
Regardless of can be counted among prepositions of reference but the reference it
conveys is "negative". It is an antonym of such prepositions as in view of, with regard to
and in the light of. This is reflected in its Czech translations, all of which are
bez ohledu na.
In the Czech legislation corpus there is no such universal one to one
correspondence in all original expressions and their regardless of translations. In many
cases one would hardly tell what exactly was the Czech expression translated by
regardless of. The following example illustrates this claim.
Přenechá-li se věc jak stojí a leží If a thing is transferred regardless of its quality and quantity (Civil Code: 54)
This section undoubtedly showed that many complex prepositions occuring in
legal texts convey reference. At this point it is time to deal with prepositions conveying
other concepts.
3.2.2. Prepositions conveying other concepts than reference
In this section several prepositions conveying different concepts will be analysed.
However, unlike in the section on prepositions conveying reference, every concept will
be represented by only one or two prepositions.
4848
m) for the purpose of
The central component of this complex preposition suggests that it conveys purpose.
Using for the purpose of with its referent, drafters can express for what reason
something can be done. If for the purpose of has this sense, it is mostly translated as
za účelem.
the Commission may interview any natural or legal person who consents to be interviewed for the purpose of collecting information (corpus: 125)
může Komise vyslechnout každou fyzickou nebo právnickou osobu, která s výslechem souhlasí, za účelem shromáždění informací (corpus: 125)
However, in legal texts for the purpose of can also have another slightly
different use – it introduces paragraphs in which important concepts are defined. When
for the purpose of is used this way, it is usually translated as pro účely.
For the purpose of this Regulation:1. "aid" means any measure fulfilling all the criteria laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty (corpus: 203)
Pro účely tohoto rozhodnutí se:1. "podporou" rozumí jakékoli opatření splňující všechna kritéria stanovená v čl. 87 odst. 1 Smlouvy (corpus: 203)
In the Czech Civil Code, which is rather dated, for the purpose of is
predominantly a translation of simple prepositions such as k, na, do, while in the newer
Commercial Code it is more a translation of za účelem and pro účely.
Družstvo je společenstvím neuzavřeného počtu osob založeným za účelem podnikání
A "co-operative" (in Czech "družstvo") associates an unrestricted number of persons and is formed for the purpose of carrying on business activity (Commercial Code: 169)
Majetek ve společném jmění manželů [...] může jeden z manželů použít k podnikání
A property [...] falling into the joint property of spouses may be used by one spouse for the purpose of business (Civil Code: 29)
n) with a view to
This is another preposition conveying purpose, which occurs more frequntly in the EU
legislation corpus than for the purpose of and it has more translation variants. Most
translation varians are interchangeable. In the following example with a view to (with
4949
same referents) are translated by two different expressions. Naturally, the form of the
referents in Czech is adjusted to the nature of the preceding expressions.
Such documents shall include commitments offered by the undertakings concerned vis-à-vis the Commission with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market (corpus: 122)
Mezi tyto dokumenty patří rovněž závazky nabídnuté Komisi dotčenými soutěžiteli s cílem zajistit slučitelnost spojení se společným trhem (corpus: 122)
pursuant to Article 6(2) with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market. (corpus: 132)
v souladu s čl. 6 odst. 2 závazky za účelem zajištění slučitelnosti spojení se společným trhem. (corpus: 132)
With only two occurrences with a view to is rare in the Czech legislation corpus.
It is a translation of s cílem.
o) by means of
In the EU legislation corpus this preposition expresses manner in which something is
done – by what legal or material instruments. Into Czech by means of can be translated
by the instrumental case – no preposition equivalent is thus necessary.
Notification will be given by means of the form of which a model is shown in the Annex. (corpus: 30)
Oznámení se podává Ø formou22, jejíž model je uveden v příloze. (corpus: 30)
Unusual but worth noting are the cases where a complex preposition and its
referent are translated by a completely different sentence structure. In the example
below preposition + noun are translated by an infinitive.
An organisation [...] must establish its current position with regard to the environment by means of a review . (corpus: 288)
Organizace [...] musí přezkoumat své současné chování z hlediska ochrany životního prostředí. (corpus: 288)
In the Czech legislation corpus by means of is most frequently a translation of
the instrumental case. This preposition occurs only once in the literary corpus23 and it is
translated in by the instrumental case.
22 In the light of the context, I suggest that the word formou should be replaced by prostřednictvím formuláře.
23 Amis´ Lucky Jim
5050
p) on the basis of
The meaning of on the basis of lingers between manner and reference. In a typical case
the referent of this preposition is a reason why something is done. Referents of this
preposition are either legal texts or their parts or abstract/concrete nouns (policy,
information, statistical data, law). Translations of on the basis of are rather monotonous
– 58 out of 61 occurrences are translated as na základě.
This preposition is very frequent in the Czech legislation corpus, but there is not
a single occurrence in the literary corpus. On the basis of is a translation of na základě
or of the instrumental case – therefore it does not necessarily have a prepositional
equivalent in the original text.
Muž a žena, kteří chtějí uzavřít manželství, mohou smlouvou uzavřenou formou notářského zápisu upravit své budoucí majetkové vztahy v manželství obdobně.
On the basis of an agreement drawn up in the form of a notarial record, a man and woman intending to enter into marriage may analogously regulate their future property relationships. (Civil Code: 28)
q) in addition to
The middle component of this complex preposition clearly indicates its
meaning - addition. Usually, together with the referent of in addition to (which is
already known), something else has to be done, used, considered or applied – if this
structure is retained in Czech translation, the preposition is usually translated as kromě.
If the structure in Czech translation is inverse and the referent of in addition to is the
new reality which has to be done, used, considered or applied together with something
already known, different translation is used - a navíc.The same applies in the Czech
legislation corpus.
5151
knownnewIn addition to the requirements in Annex I - Section A employees shall be involved in the process aimed at continually improving (corpus: 270)
Kromě požadavků v příloze I–A je třeba zapojit zaměstnance do procesu neustálého zlepšování (corpus: 270)
Aid to shipbuilding [...] shall be subject to, in addition to the provisions of Article 93 of the Treaty, the special notification rules provided for in paragraph 2. (corpus: 240)
Na podporu podnikům zabývajícím se stavbou [...] lodí,[...] se vztahuje článek 93 Smlouvy a navíc zvláštní pravidla o oznamování stanovená v odstavci 2. (corpus: 240)
r) with the exception of
This preposition conveys a concept which is in a certain way opposite to the one
conveyed by in addition to, but four times it is translated by the same Czech preposition
kromě. In fact, Czech kromě can convey addition or exception – all depends on the
context.
aid [...] for the introduction at farm level of innovative animal breeding techniques or practices, with the exception of costs relating to the introduction or performance of artificial insemination (corpus: 221)
podpora [...] na zavedení inovačních technik a praktik chovu zvířat na úrovni hospodářství, kromě nákladů souvisejících se zavedením nebo prováděním umělé inseminace (corpus: 221)
s) on behalf of
On behalf of is a preposition conveying identification – someone does something for or
instead of someone else. In fact, the distinction whether something is done for
(in the name of) or instead of someone is determining as to the Czech translation. The
translator has to understand what is going on and use a Czech preposition that describes
the situation clearly. Thus two different translations of on behalf of can be encountered
in one paragraph. In the example below the second on behalf of could have been
translated by jménem as well, but za is more natural in this context.
5252
The owners of the undertakings […] shall supply the information requested on behalf of the undertaking [...] concerned. Lawyers duly authorised to act may supply the information on behalf of their clients. (corpus: 71)
Vlastníci podniků [...] sdělí požadované informace jménem dotyčného podniku [...] Řádně zmocnění právní zástupci mohou sdělit informace za své klienty. (corpus: 71)
On behalf of is relatively frequent in Czech Commercial Code. It is usually a
translation of Czech simple prepositions za and pro and of jménem. In some cases
on behalf of was used by the translator to clarify the situation while it has no direct
equivalent in the original text. The translated sentence structure is markedly more
explicit and complex than the original.
Zároveň s úplatou je komitent povinen uhradit komisionáři náklady, které komisionář nutně nebo užitečně vynaložil při plnění svého závazku.
In addition to paying him a commission, the principal is bound to compensate the commission agent for all necessary and purposefully incurred expenses connected with fulfillment of his obligation on behalf of the principal. (Commercial Code: 238)
This preposition is rare in the literary corpus. Once it is translated as pro and
another time it is translated by the dative case:
So far, Dixon's efforts on behalf of his special subject (literary corpus: 9)
Až dosud jediné úsilí, které Dixon svému nepovinnému předmětu věnoval
t) as regards
The meaning of this preposition lingers between condition and reference. Its
Czech translations vary accordingly. If translators feel that as regards conveys
condition, they tend to translate it by expressions including the word pokud. If they feel
that it conveys a simple reference, they tend to omit it in the translation. However, it
seems that sometimes the sentence acquires the meaning of reference or condition only
on the basis of translators choice of Czech preposition. In the following example the
difference between the two sentences in English is not prominent but in translation the
5353
difference of their interpretation is evident.
this Directive shall not apply to financial relations between the public authorities and:(a) public undertakings, as regards services […](c) public credit institutions, as regards deposits of public funds placed with them by public authorities (corpus: 8-9)
nevztahuje se tato směrnice na finanční vztahy mezi veřejnou mocí a:a) veřejnými podniky, které se Ø zabývají službami […]c) veřejnými úvěrovými institucemi, pokud se jedná o vklady veřejných prostředků, které u nich uloží veřejná moc (corpus: 8-9)
As regards is rare in both Czech legislation corpus and literary corpus. Its two
occurrences in the Czech legislation corpus are translations of u and ohledně. One of its
occurrences in the literary corpus is translated as co, the other has no direct translation
in Czech:
The applause died away slightly, enough for sounds of laughter to be heard through it; then it gathered force again, soon reaching a higher level than before, especially as regards the feet-stamping. (literary corpus: 89)
Potlesk natolik ustal, že bylo slyšet drobné výbuchy smíchu; pak se ozval znovu, daleko silněji, zejména Ø dupání zesílilo.
5454
Occurrences of prepositions in the Czech legislation and literary corporaCzech Civil Code Czech Commercial
Code24Literary corpus
in conformity with 0 2 0
in line with 0 0 0
in accordance with 10 104 1
according to 162 107 16
pursuant to 0 1 0
within the meaning of 0 0 0
in the light of 0 2 5
in view of 0 3 4
with regard to 13 37 4
in respect of 0 44 2
in relation to 0 25 1
regardless of 2 7 3
for the purpose of 13 30 0
with a view to 0 2 1
by means of 8 14 1
on the basis of 89 124 0
in addition to 0 24 6
with the exception of 0 10 1
on behalf of 0 30 2
as regards 0 2 2
TOTAL 297 568 49
24 Some prepositions occur in English commentaires added to the English translation of Commercial Code.
5555
Czech translations of English complex prepositions according to Bočánkováin conformity with podle, v souladu sin line with v souladu s in accordance with podleaccording to - pursuant to podle, na základě (čeho), shodně s (čím)within the meaning of ve smyslu (čeho)in the light of - in view of se zřetelem k (čemu), vzhledem kwith regard to s přihlédnutím k, s ohledem nain respect of pokud jde o, co se týká, ohledněin relation to ve vztahu k (čemu), týkající se (čeho)regardless of bez ohledu (na co), nehledě (na co)for the purpose of za účelem (čeho)with a view to za účelem (čeho), s cílem (čeho)by means of prostřednictvím/pomocí (čeho)on the basis of na základěin addition to kromě (čeho), mimo (co)with the exception of s výjimkouon behalf of v zastoupení, jménemas regards pokud jde o, co se týče, s přihlédnutím k
3.2.3. General remarks
In the two preceding sections twenty complex prepositions were analysed as for their
translation into Czech and the frequency of their occurrences in different texts. Let me
now conclude and generalise.
First of all, I should say that translators of EU legislation have a relative leeway
when translation of prepositions is concerned. In contrast to terminology, there are no
hard and fast rules for translation of prepositions. It is thus possible to find identical
English sentences translated with two different prepositions. Sometimes Czech
5656
translators use various prepositions out of mere desire not to repeat the same expression.
However, in other cases the choice of translation is (at least to some extent) influenced
by the context and by preposition´s referent.
Not always do English complex prepositions have a direct translation
equivalent. In translation English prepositions may be accounted for by cases (dative,
instrumental), by other word classes or they may not be accounted for at all (most often
in literary texts). Czech translations often have simple prepositions where complex
prepositions are used in the original. By analogy, in legal translations from Czech into
English complex prepositions are often added in clauses with no or just simple
prepositions. Judging from the texts I worked with, it seems that legislation in English
has more complicated and longer sentences than legislation in Czech – partially because
of popularity of complex prepositions.
Despite its volume the literary corpus did not abound in complex prepositions.
Six of the listed prepositions were not used in the literary corpus at all. The rest was
represented only by 49 occurrences. In the Czech legislation corpus the situation is
different. Frequency of occurrences of the listed prepositions is quite high in both the
Civil Code and Commercial Code. Nonetheless, the variation of prepositions is
considerably lower in English translation of the Civil Code (only 7 out of 20
prepositions are present). In English translation of the Commercial Code 18 out of 20
prepositions are present. It is difficult to account for this disparity between the two
codes in a plausible way. It may be because of the difference of ages of the two codes or
because of their very nature – the Civil Code is more people-oriented and thus contains
less complicated sentence structures.
As for the translations suggested in Bočánková´s dictionary, they frequently
5757
appear in the EU legislation corpus. However, there are some more translation variants
which the dictionary does not mention. These translation variants are still very close to
those in the dictionary.
5858
Conclusion
This thesis was mainly concerned with complex prepositions in EU legislation and
secondarily in other legal and literary texts. Parallel corpora of English and Czech legal
texts and of literary texts were used in the course of my work.
The two initial chapters of the thesis are theoretical. The first chapter was
devoted to specificities of legal English and to problems of translation of legal texts.
Different items of legal vocabulary were identified – the most prominent being
terminology and semi-technical terms. The so called linguistic patterns are also typical
of legal texts – these are fossilized sentences that are used invariably as if they were a
single item. Legal English syntax can be characterized by stereotypical sentence
structures, long sentences, passive voice and frequent repetitions. In the section
concerned with legal translation difficulties originating in differences of legal systems
of various countries were emphasised. It was explained that a good legal translator has
to be an excellent linguist as well as find his/her bearing in legal systems of SL and TL
countries. General aspects of translation within the European Union were dealt with in
the last section of the opening chapter. Some concepts relevant for translation (such as
"direct applicability" and "multiple authenticity" were explained. Furthermore, the
translation process within the Directorate-General for Translation was described.
Importance of English as a source language for the EU translators was underlined as
72 % of documents were drafted in this language in 2006.
The second chapter was devoted to prepositions in general. Function of these
grammatical words in language was characterized. Simple and complex prepositions
were distinguished by their structure and by the way new members are formed. To
5959
illustrate theoretical claims, I included several example sentences from the EU
legislation corpus.
The third and last chapter represented a practical piece of research concerned
with concrete occurrences of complex prepositions in the texts and the various
translation variants. Before I started dealing with twenty prepositions one by one, I
briefly described the research method and presented the texts in which the prepositions
were analysed. Twelve prepositions conveying reference were analyses in a separate
section. Despite conveying the same concept, these prepositions vary in frequency of
occurrences as well as in their usage. Some of them take only written documents or their
parts as referents. Others refer uniquely to general nouns. Yet others refer to both texts
or concrete/abstract nouns. The overall context and the nature of referents influence the
choice of translation equivalents. However, translators retain some leeway in choosing
the best fitting variant. The situation is similar with prepositions conveying purpose,
condition, manner, identification, exception and addition in the next section.
In the introduction of my thesis I presented several assumptions I had in mind
when I started writing. My aim was to find out whether they were justified. I did not
really expect to identify any hard and fast universally valid rules for use and the
translation of complex prepositions. On the contrary, it seems that anything that could
be observed prepositionwise is more a tendency than a rule. To conclude, I daresay that
my assumptions, which were not really bold, revealed themselves justified. In the last
section of the third chapter entitled "General remarks", my assumptions were compared
to my findings. Judging from the corpora limited in length, some interesting claims
could be drawn. Complex prepositions are really more frequent in legal texts than in
literary ones. In Czech translations complex prepositions tent do be simplified - whether
6060
this is due to the nature of Czech language itself or because of a desire not to sound
over-formal. In legal translations from Czech into English complex prepositions are
commonly added or they replace original simple prepositions.
I hope that my thesis, despite its limited length and area of interest, provided an
interesting insight into legal translation and more concretely into the translation of
complex prepositions. I think my thesis might initiate similar analyses of other word
classes or linguistic patterns in legal texts and their translations.
6161
List of figuresFigure 1. Stratification of legal English vocabulary Figure 2. Translation processFigure 3. Kinds of synonymy according to ShiyabFigure 4. Source languages comparison in 2006
Figure 5. Target languages comparison in 2006
Figure 6. Translation process
Figure 7. Pages translated by category – 2006
Figure 8. Pre-membership translation in the Czech Republic
6262
BibliographyPrimary sources
KAČENKA: English-Czech corpus. Electronic tool of the Department of English and American Studies – Faculty of Arts, MU, version on the date 15.1.1998.
source of the following texts:
Amis, Kingsley. Lucky Jim. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1962.
Amis, Kingsley. Šťastný Jim. Praha: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1959. (translation Jiří Mucha)
Grahame, Kenneth. The Wind in the Willows. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1994.
Grahame, Kenneth. Žabákova dobrodružství. Praha: Albatros, 1987. (translation Míla Grimmichová)
Hardy, Thomas. Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Bibliomania Network Library, year of acquisition of the electronic text not stated. <http:/www.bibliomania.com>.
Hardy, Thomas. Tess z D'Urbervillů. Praha: Odeon, 1975. (translation Marta Staňková)
Lawrence, David Herbert. Sons and Lovers. Project Gutenberg's Etext, 1995.
Lawrence, David Herbert. Synové a milenci. Praha: Jan Fronek, 1931. (translation Z. Vančura a R. Wellek)
EUR-Lex <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/> source of the following texts:
Commission Directive (80/723/EEC) of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings.
Council Regulation No 3094/95 of 22 December 1995 on aid to shipbuilding.
Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (2001/C 37/03).
Commission Regulation No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Regulation No 761/2001 of the European parliament and of the council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS).
6363
Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services.
Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.
Council Regulation No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings.
Commission Regulation No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid.
Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings.
Commission Regulation No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001.
Commission Regulation No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the fisheries sector and amending Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004.
Zákon č. 40/1964 Sb., Občanský zákoník ve znění pozdějších předpisů.
Zákon č. 513/1991 Sb., Obchodní zákoník ve znění pozdějších předpisů.
Printed secondary sourcesAlcaraz, Enrique and Hughes, Brian. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester,
UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1-900650-46-0.
Biber, Douglas et al. Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 1999. ISBN 0-582-23725-4.
Bočánková, Milena. Anglicko-český právnický slovník. Praha: Linde, 2001. ISBN 80-7201-320-0.
6464
Curme, George O. A Grammar of the English Language – Vol. I. Syntax. D.C Heath & Company, 1931.
Curme, George O. A Grammar of the English Language – Vol. II. Parts of Speech, Accidence. D.C Heath & Company, 1935.
Dušková, Libuše et al. Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny. Prague: Academia, 1988.
Greenbaum, Sidney. Oxford English Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-19-861250-8.
Haigh, Rupert. Legal English. London: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 978-1-85941-950-2.
Hiltunen, Risto. Chapters on Legal English. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990. ISBN 951-41-0615-6.
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-521-43146-8.
Ilek, Bohuslav. “Místo teorie odborného překladu”. In Popovič, Anton Ed. Preklad odborného textu. Blatislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladatelstvo, 1977.
Malíř, J. "Publicita typických právních aktů ES". Právní rozhledy, 2004, n. 9. Tomášek, Michal. Překlad v právní praxi. Praha: Linde, 2003. ISBN 80-7201-
427-7.
Translating for a Multilingual Community. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007. ISBN 92-79-03586-X
Wagner, Emma, Bech, Svend and Martínez, Jesús M. Translating for the European Union Institutions. Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1-900650-48-7.
Other secondary sources
Department of Compatibility under the Office of the Government <www.vlada.cz>
Directorate-General for Translation at the European Commission <http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/>
Hruška, Emil. “ Jazykové problémy v orgánech a institucích Evropské unie”. Vaša Európa, 8. 4. 2005. <http://www.vasaeuropa.sk/index.php?i=2111>
Rhodes, Philip. Translating for the EU. Lectures – Brno, 6. 11. - 20. 12. 2007.
6565
Shiyab, Said M. “Synonymy in Translation” Translation Journal vol. 11, n. 4, October 2007. <http://www.accurapid.com/journal/42synonymy.htm>
Swaan, Abram de. “Angličtina vítězí už i v EU”. Euroskop, 13. 9. 2005. <http://www.euroskop.cz/16818160/clanek-zpravodajstvi/abram-de-swaan-anglictina-vitezi-uz-i-v-eu-mame-se-toho-obavat-/>
Treaty on European Union. Official Journal C 191 of 29 July 1992 <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11992M/htm/11992M.html>
6666