EU LANGUAGE BARRIERS – CHALLENGES IN TRANSLATING LEGAL TEXTS

Chief Assist. Gergana Georgieva, PhD

South-Western University ‘Neofit Rilski’- Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria
Abstract: The article scrutinizes the variety of languages in the European Union. The
linguistic unification of Europe is no longer a necessary requisite to overcome language
barriers. The identity of Europe can only be represented adequately by respecting its
diversity. Therefore, it is only the promotion of all national languages that will allow us to
preserve the richness of the culture of which these languages are the privileged means of
expression. The multilingual policy adopted by Europe is thus a critical test for the European
Union. Translation is an inevitable part of language learning and teaching as well as a
challenge for the European Court of Justice to interpret certain legal texts. Increasing
globalization demands the knowledge of English for special purposes, i.e. Legal English in
order to translate texts clearly, accurately, unambiguously, through cohesion links and
means.

Keywords: multilingualism, language barriers, legal texts

1. Introduction can leave interpreters lost for words. The

Multilingualism
The European integration process has been
coming in strongly and the clear time
framework and thoroughness of information
connected with duties relating the
application of European law standards
creates conditions for establishing greater
and longer communicational practices.
The European Union has been operating in
24 official languages and some people
question whether EU institutions are
becoming overburdened by multilingualism.
It is the right of every citizen of the
European Union to ask questions and get
answers in each of the official languages of
the Union. In the beginning, when the
founder states are 6, the official languages
are 4, when the Member States are 28, their
number of official languages exceeds to 24.
It is not by chance that after Bulgaria and
Romania’s accession in 2007, the
Romanian representative in the European
Commission Leonard Orban is responsible
for multilingualism. Brussels, Belgium, the
European Union's headquarters city, is
quickly getting a reputation as the new
Babel. Parliamentary sessions are
conducted in 24 languages simultaneously.
Some analysts fear the effectiveness of its
institutions could be getting lost in
translation. Unfamiliar words or phrases
policy of official multilingualism as a
deliberate tool of government is unique in
the world. The EU sees the use of its
citizens’ languages as one of the factors
which make it more transparent, more
legitimate and more efficient.
Today, people learn foreign languages
more often than in the past. However, the
need for translation has not disappeared. On
the contrary, phenomena such as
globalization and the rapid pace of
technological development, along with the
related need for user guides for emerging
new products, as well as increasing
numbers of TV channels, have increased the
amount of translation needed.
Regarding the value of machine translation,
it can give only a rough idea of what is
meant by a text written in a language one
has no knowledge of at all, but the risk of
misunderstanding is quite high. Proper
translation needs to consider context,
structure and grammatical rules, style, as
well as potential double meanings from
synonyms and plays on words. This is why,
language-related technology should be seen
as a tool for human translators, not a
replacement for them.
2. Translation
Translation in the European institutions
concerns legislative, political and
administrative documents, which are
complex and highly formal in form and
content. In such translations, repetition and
strict adherence to layout and stylistic rules
are signs of good practice. Electronic
translation support tools are very useful for
this purpose. The EU passes laws that are
directly binding on individuals and
companies, and as a matter of simple
natural justice, they and their national
courts should be able to read these laws in
a language they can understand. More
broadly, every citizen in the EU is entitled
and encouraged to make a contribution to
the cause of European integration, and they
should be able to do this in their own
language. The work of the EU’s
institutional translation enhances the EU’s
openness, legitimacy and efficiency. Their
precise tasks and working methods vary
depending on the role of each institution.
3. Legal framework
The basic principles underlying the
language policy of the European Union are
that everybody in the Union should be able
to contribute to the building of it, should be
informed about what it is doing in their
name and should be provided with texts of
EU law in a language they can understand.
The linguistic unification of Europe is no
longer a necessary requisite to overcome
language barriers. The identity of Europe
can only be represented adequately by
respecting its diversity. Therefore, it is only
the promotion of all national languages that
will allow us to preserve the richness of the
culture of which these languages are the
privileged means of expression. The
multilingual policy adopted by Europe is
thus a critical test for the European Union.
The very first Council Regulation of 1958
(which has been amended after successive
enlargements) lists the official languages of
the Union and states when they must be
used. The EU has to have translation
services to put these rules into effect:
Council Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958
determining the languages to be used by the
European Economic Community, as
amended after each enlargement [1].
The Regulation is based on the EC Treaty
Article 290. Article 314 lays down the
principle of multilingualism. Article 21
states that every citizen of the Union may
write to any of the institutions or bodies in
one of the languages mentioned in Article
314 and have an answer in the same
language.
Much of the material translated is
legislation and the documents leading up to
it. The initial proposals in the Commission
are usually drafted, circulated and discussed
internally in one or two languages, but
when the texts make their way to the
Parliament, the Council and the Committees
for further debate, amendment and
finalization, they have to be supplied in
every official language so that everyone
involved knows exactly what they contain.
All these bodies give their input in all
official languages. Furthermore, all
finalized EU law has to be published in the
Official Journal in all the official
languages before it can enter into force.
Documents of major political importance
are also translated into every official
language so that everyone in the Union can
read them and take part in the public debate,
in their own language.
The EU’s translation services cooperate
interinstitutionally through an
Interinstitutional Committee for Translation
and Interpretation.
The institutions of the European Union
employ large numbers of highly-qualified
professional translators including lawyer-
linguists, translators having a degree in
law.
4. Language and Law
The relation between language and law is a
very tight one. There is a “change in field
relationship where the discipline that is
offering its knowledge (linguistics) actually
joins with the field to which the application
is being made (law). Such a co-joining is
somewhat rare in the history of applied
linguistics [2]. Indeed, applied linguistics
offers insights about educational issues in
fields that are related. Studies on medical
discourse, however, do not have a great
impact on medical communication practice,
while law is inseparable from the language.
Most cases with tape recorder evidence
involve language crimes. These are crimes
committed with words and are recognizable
as speech acts, such as threatening,
promising, agreeing, etc. All
aforementioned legal concerns are indelible
from language production and
comprehension: in defamation, for instance,
the main issue is whether harm can be
inferred from the actual language used,
which falls within the field of pragmatics,
or in plagiarism cases where stylistics
analyses are resorted to [3].
5. Challenges in translating legal
texts
In Hart’s reasoning the legal language is sui
generis because even common English
words such as “will” or “can” take on a
special meaning when used with words like
“company”, for these words correlate to the
facts not only by the rule of English, but
also by the rules of English law [4].
Another legal theorist, Morrison, presents
the idea that (legal) terms are ordinary
language terms put to technical use either in
the form of different deployment or in the
form of one-among-many meanings [5].
For example, courts and lawyers are not the
only participants in commercial law.
Businessmen, corporations and their
customers even outnumber attorneys. They
are the ordinary language users that might
adopt a technical usage. They are also the
people, though, with whom others are to
remain in linguistic contact. The consuming
public dictates the terms of the law for
lawyers, or, indeed, they dictate the law
itself. If we consider, for example, the
concept of “promise” – it is not a technical
term, but an ordinary one. Its meaning is
defined by extra-law forces in society. As
the public’s concept of what is “reasonable”
changes, the legal meaning of “reasonable”
changes as well. Therefore, legal language
is not a technical language, since the people
are the source of the law, which does not
hold true for, e. g. mathematics.
Legal words are ordinary English, albeit not
always in the ordinary language sense.
Lazzaro makes a distinction between factual
(those describing fragments of reality) and
normative terms (describing facts or
situations qualified by rules). Factual terms
are not necessarily technical. They assume
technical meaning when given an express
definition in law [6].
Linguistic interpretation of law has been
really pressing, since language is a means of
expressing thoughts and making
conclusions which are formulated by
hypotheses, rules and regulations in legal
clauses.
Translation is an inevitable part of
language learning and teaching as well as
a challenge for the European Court of
Justice to interpret certain legal texts.
Legal theorists determine the writing of
decrees as accurate, clear, unambiguous,
including everything, even abstract
structures. Such logic finds its expression in
linguistic tools that are used to
conceptualize. Interpretation should be
distinct, informatively correct and never
ambiguous. Thus, cohesion reflects the
basic information of legal arguments as
well as the function of writing ordinances.
Although theory may argue that there are no
rules to determine a better quality of one or
another translation, the editorial practice
shows that even if inarguable errors exist, it
is not difficult to define whether a text
needs rectifications. What I am trying to
discuss in this paper is a “real” translation,
requiring professional ethics, a translation
from one natural language to another one. I
am making this clarification, as the “real”
or proper translation should be seen as a
serious one, not as in the story of the Italian
adventurer that joined the occupying forces.
He said he knew Arabic and was a
translator, while he did not know a single
word in this language. When an alleged
rebel was caught and questioned, the fake
interpreter asked the rebel, uttering
something in fictional Arabic. Accordingly, face various challenges. This unresolved
the prisoner did not understand anything issue leads to the conclusion that a
and he mentioned something unfamiliar to metalanguage is needed to describe the
the interpreter. The latter one translated into whole diversity. Hence, one could infer that
Italian whatever came to mind, for example, there is a necessity for clear, accurate and
that the rebel refused to answer. Therefore, unambiguous interpretations of texts
usually the man caught was hanged. The through cohesion links and means.
end of this story with fictional interpretation
is not known. Probably the interpreter lived
with the money earned through translations,
or maybe he was uncovered and fired. In
fact, in this case, there is no translation, but
a complete transmutation. It could not be
even determined as adaptation. Regarding
legal texts, however, there are differences,
since a terminological caution is necessary
there. Language changes because its
function changes. What distinguishes the
English language for Specific Purposes
from the general, common, “Plain” English
is not the existence of a necessity as such,
but the realization of a need for such
language [7].
6. Conclusion
The stages of globalization and
internationalization have had a significant
impact on the legal language and made it

References
[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31958R0001:EN:HTML
[2] Shuy, R. W. 1986: Language and the Law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 7:50-63.
[3] Yankova, D., Legal Language Made Simple: Statutory Provisions in English and
Bulgarian. Tip-Top Press Ltd., Sofia, Bulgaria, 2004, p. 11.
[4] Hart, H.L.A. 1961: The Concept of Law: Oxford: OUP.
[5] Morrison, M. J. 1989: Excursions into the Nature of Legal Language. Cleveland State Law
Review 37: 271-336.
[6] Lazzaro, G. 1997: Law and Ordinary Language. In A. Pintore & M. Jori (eds.) Law and
Language. The Italian Analytical School. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications, 175-209.
[7] Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. 1987: English for Specific Purposes. A Learning-Centered
Approach. Cambridge: CUP.