Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies
English Language and Literature

Jan Bene

Translation of Terminology in EU
Legislative Texts
Bachelors Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Jarmila Fictumov

2008

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,

using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
..
Authors signature

Acknowledgement
I would like to express many thanks to my supervisor, PhDr. Jarmila Fictumov, for her valuable
comments, helpful suggestions and the time that she devoted to supervising my thesis.

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1
1.Terminology: origins, uses, and relevance for translation ....................................................... 2
1.1 The origins of terminology ............................................................................................... 3
1.2 What is terminology and who are its users? ..................................................................... 3
1.3 Standardization of terminology ........................................................................................ 6
1.4 Neology and neonymy ...................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Terminology and translation ............................................................................................. 8

2. Legal English ........................................................................................................................ 12

2.1. Legal language and legal translation ............................................................................. 12
2.2. Legal English and its features ........................................................................................ 13

3. The European Union: history, legislation, and terminology ................................................. 15

3.1. History of the EU ........................................................................................................... 15
3.2. EU legislation, drafting, and multilingualism ................................................................ 16
3.3 Terminology in EU legislative texts ............................................................................... 19

4. Translating terminology in EU legislative texts: problems, issues, solutions ...................... 20

4.1. Alcaraz and Hughes: threefold classification of legal lexicon, and problems ............... 20
4.2. Deborah Caos typology of problems ............................................................................ 23
4.2.1. Legal conceptual issues .......................................................................................... 24
4.2.2. Legal system-bound words ..................................................................................... 27
4.2.3. Ordinary vs. legal meaning ..................................................................................... 31
4.2.4. Linguistic and legal uncertainty .............................................................................. 32
4.3. EU Terminology neology and neonymy ..................................................................... 35

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 40

Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to discuss translation of terminology in EU legislative texts
as a specific and complex translation issue which, in several attributes, diverges
from the issue of legal terminology translation in general. In this way, the thesis sets
to present translation of terminology in EU legislative texts as a multifaceted
phenomenon.
The thesis posits that although the terminology used in EU legislation written in
English embodies widely recognized problems of translating legal terminology, the
translation process of this terminology is different from the one related to general
legal language, not only to English. The reasons for this distinction are, as the thesis
argues, that EU legislation is drafted by lawyers and other employees of the
European Commission for whom English is a non-mother tongue. The European
Union and its institutions constitute a multilingual environment and the legislation
reflects that fact. Moreover, the legal system of the EU is a composite, a hybrid of
the continental Civil and the English Common Law and thus, new legal concepts
have to be either adopted in the legal and language systems of the member states or
new legal concepts have to be and are created in the form of neologisms. This also
brings about the issue of standardization of EU terminology such a task is difficult
to achieve and it is briefly addressed in the thesis as well.
Another issue the thesis points out is that the EU represents a political arena and
the language as well as terminology of legislative texts mirrors this fact. Vagueness
of terms is the result of political compromises. The above-mentioned facts make the
translation of EU legislative terminology written in English complex and difficult.

The first section of the thesis explains what the word terminology stands for,
how it is used in academic and linguistic discourse and, more importantly, what its
relevance for translation and translation studies is.
In the following section, the issue of legal English is discussed. In order to show
how translation of terminology (and language) in EU legislation written in English
differs from the translation of English legal language and texts, the thesis points out
the main characteristics and features of legal English.
The third section of the thesis offers a brief history of the EU and then proceeds
with major features present in EU legislation written in English as well as with the
issue of EU terminology. Subsequently, the thesis intends to put EU legislation
terminology in the general framework of translation issues associated with legal
terminology.
Further on, the thesis turns to several other problems that are emblematic of EU
legislation terminology, such as the issue of neology.
In conclusion implications and solutions for the translation of EU legislation
terminology are summed up.

1. Terminology: origins, uses, and relevance for translation

In this section of the thesis, terminology as a term and as an academic field is
introduced. Brief origins and incentives for the rise of terminology are outlined and
the major differentiation of the usage of the term is presented. Users of terminology
are described too. The section also offers an overview of the discussion on how
terms and words are differentiated, and also on what neology and standardization
are. The section concludes with pointing out the relationship between terminology
and translation.

1.1 The origins of terminology

Terminology as a new discipline emerged with the progress and development that
came about in the first half of the 20th century:
Rapid technological progress led to an explosion of new concepts
which needed to be named. The internalization of trade created a
need for equivalent terminology in a range of languages. With the
formulation and dissemination of new ideas, new terminology was
being coined [] It was becoming clear that the speed of
technological progress was such that it was no longer possible to
control the naming of new concepts and there was a danger that the
same concept might be named differently by different communities
creating confusion and communication difficulties. (Pearson 9)
The standardization of language of particular domains was then a logical step and so
the first institutions such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) or
later on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) were established
(ibid.) and the discipline of terminology gained gradual credibility and relevance.

1.2 What is terminology and who are its users?

Terminology is a specific area of linguistics. Its specificity lies mainly in its
treatment of terms as opposed to words. In Teresa Cabrs words, for terminology,
terms are of interest on their own account [as opposed to the usage of words only in
context] and neither inflection [] nor syntax [] are of consequence (Cabr 33).
She then adds yet another general observation and differentiation between words
and terms: Pragmatics is the factor that most significantly differentiates terms from
words. Pragmatically, terms and words differ with respect to their users, the
situations in which they are used, the topics they communicate, and the type of
3

discourse in which they usually occur (ibid. 36). The term terminology itself is a
rather ambiguous and polysemic word. The main uses of this word are three:

The principles and conceptual bases that govern the study of

terms

The guidelines used in terminographic work

The set of terms of a particular special subject (Cabr 32; also

see Pearson 1998 or Wills 1999)

In this way, terminology can be generally described in 3 ways (for a wider

classification of what else may constitute terminology, see Wilss 1999). In this
thesis, however, the term related to the third concept in Teresa Cabrs classification
is used. To explain this usage more clearly, terminology in this sense is the
collection of words which one would normally associate with a particular discipline.
These may be nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs which are considered to have a
clearly defined meaning when used in the context for which they have been defined
(Pearson 9). To put it into the legal, and more importantly, EU context, legal
terminology is the vocabulary used when speaking or writing about law as well as
when participating in the legal processes. The EU legal terminology is then the
vocabulary that is found in the European law and used in drafting the EU legislation,
and in lawsuits concerned with this particular type of law. However, in legal and EU
legislation language, the terms that are said to form the lexicon of this field were not
and are not always defined primarily to be used in this context and this is where the
vagueness and ambiguity, polysemy and synonymy in the translation process
emerge and cause problems.
To continue with, the users of terminology and of the tools invented and
introduced for storing terminological data can be, according to Teresa Cabr,

divided into two main groups. These are the direct users, and intermediaries who
use terminology to facilitate communication for other users (11). To elaborate more
on these two groups, Cabr goes on to explain that the direct users of terminology
are the specialists in each subject field. For them, terminology is a necessary tool for
communication and an important element for conceptualizing their own subject
matter (ibid.). The other group, the intermediaries, these are language
professionals like translators, technical writers, and interpreters who need
terminology to carry out their profession of facilitating communication. They need
glossaries and specialized dictionaries because they assist in technical writing or in
translating a text from one language to another (ibid. 12).
The issue of the users of terminology is crucial for understanding how
terminology is used in and what its role in communication is. This is where the
differentiation between the concepts of general and specialized communication
and that between language for general or special purposes (LGP and LSP
respectively) is introduced. For Teresa Cabr, specialized communication differs
from general communication in two ways: in the type of oral or written texts it
produces, and in the use of a specific terminology (47). To continue with, in
specialized texts, concision, precision, and suitability are the relevant criteria [and]
terminology plays a major role in achieving these three objectives (ibid.). As a
result then, according to Cabr, specialized communication is the communication
wherein terminology is one of the major features (for more information on the
subject of LSP, see Bowker and Pearson 2002).
To offer another distinct view on the cohesion between communication, users
and terminology, Jennifer Pearson claims in her book Terms in Context that there
exists no usable definition of term (8). She suggests that a distinction between

words and terms is futile without reference to the circumstances in which they are
used (ibid.). Thus, she suggests that all language used in certain communicative
settings is potentially terminological, unless otherwise demonstrated (ibid.).
However, later on she proposes the concept of communicative settings where the
expert-expert communication a concept resembling Cabrs specialized
communication as one of the types of communicative settings is described as
particular communicative context [that] is likely to be the one with the highest
density of terms (Pearson 37). Conversely, she also, though with certain
reservations, writes about terminology and its users as a vocabulary used mainly in
specialized communicative setting (LSP in other words) and primarily by specialists
(direct users and intermediaries).
In presenting the discussion on how terms and words can be differentiated, and
consequently how and where terminology is used and thus constituted, the aim of
the thesis is to point out the major features of terminology as a specialized
vocabulary. Taking Pearsons reservations into account, terminology and terms are
first and foremost used in specialized communication, in law and legal contexts and
by specialists such as lawyers, legislators and linguists; but they may also appear in
more general communicative settings and be used by non-experts. EU terminology
is mainly used in an expert-expert communication setting in the European
Commission where legislation drafts are prepared.

1.3 Standardization of terminology

The term standardization of terminology refers both to establishing some forms of
language by means of self-monitoring and to the intervention of an appropriate
organization in order to establish preferences for some forms over others (Cabr
199). It entails several operations such as the unification of concepts and concept

systems, the definition of terms, the reduction of homonymy, the elimination of

synonymy, the fixing of designations [] and the creation of new terms (Cabr
200). In the European Union context as well as in the legal one in general, some of
these operations are not and cannot be carried out, not least in their entirety. A case
in point is the reduction of homonymy and synonymy which is, according to
Deborah Cao (2007), one of the major problems in translating legal terminology. On
the other hand, another extreme in the form of proliferation of new terms is common
in the EU environment as new agendas and policies are created.
As for the purpose of standardization of terms, the aim is to aid communication
in special languages (Cabr 200). Teresa Cabr also stresses that standardization
cannot be carried out without the intervention of subject specialists [] Though it is
regularly revised, standardized terminology must give the impression of stability
(ibid.). The element to add to that is also the consistency of terminology. One more
point that Cabr mentions is that terminological standardization requires prior
preparation (ibid.). This is debatable in the EU context because with new agendas,
new terms are handily introduced, translated into the 23 member state languages and
thus standardized without the process of legitimating process that translators,
linguists, and terminologists in particular root for (for discussion on terminological
standardization, see Pearson 1998).

1.4 Neology and neonymy

From a linguistic point of view, neology refers to the appearance of new words or
lexical neologisms (Cabr 204). However, this field of study can also be
approached from a cultural or political viewpoint and may thus refer to yet another
four different activities (ibid.). The term neologism in its lexical meaning is
associated with general language (LGP) mentioned above. Terminological

neologisms are called neonyms: they are monoreferential, more descriptive, longer
than single words, and durable (Cabr 207). Neonyms as new terms are very
common in the EU context and pose one of the major problems in the translation of
terminology.
One general point needs to be added to the issue of neology. Among the terms
which are put into an official glossary or into a dictionary of terms, there may
appear terms which were only placed into the dictionary during, not prior to, the
making of it as they are for example equivalents of newly termed concept in another
language. These, however, cannot be considered terms which form a part of a
subjects terminology until such decision is carried out officially by terminologists
(Machov 134).

1.5 Terminology and translation

Translation facilitates communication between speakers of different languages it
is a process whereby texts and utterances in one language are translated into other
languages. In translation, as words and sentences are transformed from one language
(source language, SL) into another (target language, TL), the problem of
equivalence between the two languages in question arises. Apart from stylistic
issues, equivalence is the major practical as well as philosophical question in
translation and translation studies. As Enrique Alcaraz and Brian Hughes (2002)
sum up Eugene A. Nidas view, semantic equivalence is an essential prerequisite
for effective translation (23) (for more on equivalence and translation, see Baker
1992, or Newmark 1991).
With regard to terminology, the problem of equivalence at the word level is the
most visible one: terminology is the most visible and striking linguistic feature of
[] technical language, and it is also one of the major sources of difficulty in

translating (Cao 53). In general, therefore, translating terminology is one of the

biggest obstacles that the translators of technical texts and documents have to face.
Also, it is the main link between terminology and translation.
Knowledge of the source and target languages are necessary prerequisites for
proper translation and, in technical translation, translation implies understanding
the source text and this requires knowledge of the specific terms of the source and
target languages [as well as] some familiarity with the subject matter (Cabr 47).
This is the very basis of the relation between terminology and, predominantly
technical, translation. As Jennifer Pearsons suggestion above shows, terminology is
present in any kind of communication and thus knowledge of some terminology is
necessary in every translation task.
In technical translation and therefore in LSPs such as legal English or EU
legislation in English, both in-house and freelance translators employ translation
tools and data banks that help them with the technical terminology of a particular
subject they are faced with. Data banks of terms are structured collection[s] of
information about the units of meaning and designation of a special subject field
addressed to the needs of a specific group of users [] Their primary purpose is to
facilitate translation by giving translators a one-stop, user-friendly tool for queries
that includes several dictionaries and is capable of providing reliable suggestions
(Cabr 176-77). In this way, terminological data banks are yet another bond
between terminology and translation, and their existence suggests the importance of
terminology and the translators knowledge and usage of it when translating
technical texts.
A third connection between terminology and translation, inherently connected to
the previous one, is the role of terminology in language services of international and

supranational organizations such as the United Nations (UN) or the EU.

Terminology in language services of such organizations is needed for naming the
innovations and neologisms that are constantly developed e.g., the new agendas
and policies of the EU. It is also necessary for communication, be it via documents
and texts, or in spoken word. Along with the syntax and format of the written
communication, terminology is one of the major elements of such documents (Cabr
219). Multilingualism in the UN or the EU then, logically, requires multilingual
terminology: In multilingual situations, translators need the assistance of
terminologists for answering questions about specific cases of equivalents between
languages. Multilingual terminology is fundamental for accurate translation of
technical documents (ibid.). This is, again, where translation and terminology
converge.
Teresa Cabr claims that all such organizations have two types of professionals
involved with terminology: (a) the subject field specialists and translators and
interpreters who assist them in communication in foreign languages, and (b)
terminologists, but also linguists, lexicographers, information scientists and
language planners (220). In the EU, a dissimilar relation between the terminologist
and the translator emerges. In the EU legislation drafting, the person drafting the
particular piece of legislation does usually speak and write in English, yet it is not
his/her mother tongue and the terminology along with the syntax of the final text
may be influenced by the persons mother tongue. As Wolfgang Teubert claims in
Bengt Altenbergs Lexis in Contrast (2002), in the case of the EU documents []
it is often impossible to say which is the original text and which is the translation
[] Earlier drafts may well have been written in Spanish or German or other EU
languages (205). Teubert holds that for example the French version [of a draft]

10

[] differs from the legal and administrative language used in France [] [T]he
legal and administrative language used in the European Commission is a special
jargon on its own, and the different language versions this jargon is used in are
linked by the continuous practice of translation (ibid.). Such environment thus
requires intervention from the European Commissions Directorate General for
Translation (DGT), which edits the version of the legislation written in English, and
when the draft is adopted in the Commission plenary session, the DGT translates it
into the other member state languages (Cao 151). The intervention of the DGT is the
only language planning that is carried out during the drafting of the legislation.
Following this train of thought, the terminology as well as the syntax of the
documents created in the European Commission is in legal English or legal French
often, however, the documents are translations. The various concepts that
concomitantly form the terminology of the EU legislation thus come from several
legal and socio-cultural systems. It all depends on the national composition of the
respective departments at the Commission. French and English (legal) languages are
widely used in the Commission as will be shown in the section dealing with the
EU and so the legal concepts that form the legal and technical terminology in the
EU legislation will logically come from these two legal and social systems. They
will, nevertheless, be influenced by other member state languages. This is a
problem, especially in a case where the terminology in the translation is a result of
political compromises between these two and the other languages. On the other
hand, the presumption and knowledge of the fact that the terminology is embedded
in one or two member countries legal systems can help the translators deal with the
EU terminology.

11

This section of the thesis sought to outline the most important facts about
terminology as a field and as an issue in translation. In the following section, the
thesis will provide information on and basic characteristics of legal English. In
addition, legal English will be introduced as a case of technical language or, in other
words, an LSP, and general problems arising in its translation will be mentioned.

2. Legal English
2.1. Legal language and legal translation
As a first step in introducing legal English in this thesis, the umbrella term of legal
language needs to be explicated. Legal language is the language of and related to
law and legal process. This includes language of the law, language about law, and
language used in other legal communicative situations (Cao 9). To continue with
the characteristics of legal language, legal language is a type of register [] a
variety of language appropriate to different occasions and situations of use [] in
this case, a variety of language appropriate to the legal situations of use (ibid.). To
add to that the information in what kind of texts the legal language is used, these are
the texts produced or used for legal purposes in legal settings (ibid.). Deborah Cao
(2007) also provides a classification of legislative texts and typology of legal
translation.
As to legal translation, this is a type of the translational activity involving
special language use, that is, language for special purpose (LSP) in the context of
law, or language for legal purpose (LLP). Legal translation has the characteristics of
technical translation and also shares some of the features of general translation
(Cao 8). In this thesis, Caos definition of legal translation is followed with regard to
the context of the European Union. Thus, in her division of three types of legal
translation, the first type legal translation for normative purposes is the focus of

12

the thesis for this type refers to the production of equally authentic legal texts in
bilingual and multilingual jurisdictions of domestic laws and international legal
instruments and other laws (Cao 10). As one of the examples of such a type of
legal translation, Cao mentions the multilingual laws of the EU.
In this way, the thesis posits and tries to present legal language as a distinct type
of register and a LSP, and its translation as a kind of technical translation.

2.2. Legal English and its features

Legal English is a variety of legal language. The reason for choosing legal English
is not merely the fact that English is one of the two languages used in drafting
legislation in the Commission as has been mentioned before. The reasons are, in
fact, numerous, as Deborah Cao states:
The English language is now the dominant language in many
translations of law, as in the case of multilingual international
instruments such as those formulated under the auspices of the
United Nations (UN) and also in bilateral agreements. In the latter
case, even when the official languages of the two countries
concerned do not include English, in many bilateral agreements,
the English text is often included as an authentic text. English is
also the language used in most international trade documents.
Besides, English is the language of the Common Law. Legislative
drafting in English has also had a major influence over the drafting
of multilateral instruments today. (4)
To sum up, [the] international community accords an important place to the
English-speaking countries and their systems of law (Alcaraz, Hughes 2). With
regard to legal language, legal English, according to the two scholars quoted, is

13

nowadays the most important and widely used variety of the LSP that is legal
language. Conversely, legal translation is concerned primarily with the issues and
problems that stem from the translation of English and legal English as linguistic
systems.
To elaborate more on the connection between legal translation and legal English,
the thesis now mentions briefly the characteristic features of this particular variety
of legal language. Enrique Alcaraz and Brian Hughes (2002) list latinisms, terms of
French or Norman origin, formal register and archaic diction, archaic adverbs and
prepositional phrases, doublets an triplets, frequent performative verbs and
euphemisms along with contemporary colloquialism as the leading features of
todays legal English (4-14). In the context and environment of the European Union,
and the European Commission in particular, some of these features are obviously
toned down or transformed. For example, French or Norman-origin words are
frequent thanks to the presence of French as the second most-used drafting
language, while colloquialisms are often influenced by the nationality of the person
who drafts the legislation. In fact, the mixture and transformation of several legal
registers, with English in the lead, causes the emergence of what is termed legalese.
In the EU, this legalese is called eurojargon or euroslang. This is where the
uniqueness of legal English in the EU and the terminology stems from. As the EU
legislation often deals with matters that are not purely of legal nature, and as these
are drafted in a multilingual environment, it is often the technical issues at stake
that give translators most trouble (Alcaraz, Hughes 14). In other words, the
technicalities of legal vocabulary present a serious challenge to the translator or
interpreter (ibid.). The issue of legal vocabulary and terminology will be dealt with

14

in the following sections, but first, the context of the EU and its legislative texts is
introduced.

3. The European Union: history, legislation, and terminology

3.1. History of the EU
In 1951, France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries signed the European
Coal and Steel Community Treaty (ESCS Treaty). The main aim of the ESCS was
to secure peace in post-war Europe, as well as to promote economic and political
cooperation. This first and successful attempt at integrating former enemies in war
was followed by signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which established the
European Economic Community (EEC). This treaty added several new policies to
the scope of ECSC activities, such as the common agriculture policy (CAP). After
bitter quarrels between the French president de Gaulle and other heads of member
states over the accession of Great Britain to the EEC and over the putting into
practice of the common market project, Denmark, Ireland, and Great Britain became
new EEC members in 1973. In 1979, the first direct elections to the European
Parliament (EP) were held, and Greece joined the Community in 1981. In 1986,
Spain and Portugal joined the EEC and the Single European Treaty was then signed
and ratified, thus widening yet again the scope of EEC activities. In the 1990s,
Sweden, Austria, and Finland become new members and had to ratify the newly
established Treaty of the European Union which, among other things, introduced the
European citizenship and delegated more legislative power to the EP. In May 2004
and January 2007, another 12 countries, along with the Czech Republic, accessed
the EU, and extended the number of official EU languages to 23 by the year 2008
(europa.eu; for more information on European integration, see Fiala, Pitrov 2002,
or Blair 2005).

15

3.2. EU legislation, drafting, and multilingualism

To introduce the roles of individual EU institutions in the legislative process: the
European Commission drafts laws, the Council and the EP approves them and, once
adopted, the EU legislation becomes the domestic law of all the member countries
and directly binding on EU citizens as well (Cao 150). The EU legislation can be
divided into primary legislation which consists of the treaties, secondary legislation
regulations, directions, decisions, recommendations and opinions derived from
the treaties, and the case law of the European Court of Justice.
Multilingual drafting, authenticity, and jurisdiction of EU legislation abide by
the Article No. 314 of the Nice Treaty, which lists, as of today, 23 official EU
languages. Furthermore, Council Regulation No. 1/58/EEC is another law to which
the use of languages in the EEC adheres. The third law is the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties of 1969. Article No. 33 of this particular convention states that
when a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally
authoritative in each language. The provisions of these three pieces of law assure
that the Community legislation is accessible to every individual. In this manner,
democracy as well as transparency within the EU is preserved this is also due to
the fact that the EU citizens may address any institution in their respective language.
There are, however, several problems with this multilingual arrangement. As
Andrej Glzl (2007) sums it up:
[A]s of today, the EU has [23] official languages and, thus, [23]
equally authentic language versions of legal instruments through
which community law is expressed. This fact causes a problem and
creates an environment of legal uncertainty of those, who should
benefit from Community law i.e. individuals. The problem is

16

systematic and twofold. The first aspect of the problem is caused

by the mandatory process of translating the original texts of new
legal instrument into all of the Communitys official languages,
which is happening during the lawmaking process. The translation
process necessarily creates mistakes and the final official language
versions of the Community instruments are many times not
identical in their meaning. The second aspect of the problem
results from the process of translation of existing legal instruments
into the official language of any new Member State joining the
Community. Naturally, as with any translation, translations are
statistically bound to contain mistakes and the translation of a
document into another language may cause the fact that a different
meaning will be given to the translation (or its part) than to the
original document. (3)
To return to the issue of the EU legislation terminology, legal concepts are
embedded in a legal order and the concepts used in the original language/legal order
may not have a perfect equivalent in the target language/legal order. This is
especially true in the context of the EU: at present [27] national legal orders, the
autonomous legal order of the Communities and [23] official languages (Mulders
1). When one considers these circumstances and takes into account Glzls
observations, it is clear that translation of EU terminology is a very specific and
hitherto unprecedented issue this is more so when one considers that the current
situation in the EU language arrangement results in 506 language combinations
(Translating for a Multilingual Community). It is important to note that, in such an

17

environment, terminological standardization, though desirable, is an extremely

difficult a task.
With 23 official languages and 506 language combinations for translation, there
is, logically, a need for providing the best conditions and facilities for the, both inhouse and freelance, translators. These facilities include terminological data banks,
legislation databases, corpora and many other translation memory (TM) tools. The
Directorate General for Translation is with more than 2, 000 in-house translators by
far the largest of all EU translation services (the EP employs about 1200
translators); and, as far as translation volumes are concerned, it is the largest
translation agency in the world (Translating for a Multilingual Community;
Altenberg, Granger 190). For the purposes and needs of not least legal translation on
daily basis, the DGT has the advantage of utilizing software tools Poetry, Suivi,
Dossier Manager, DGT Vista, and databases such as EUR-Lex, Eurovoc and IATE,
a terminological database (Translating for a Multilingual Community). The
InterActive Terminology for Europe (IATE) is used since 2005 and contains more
than 8.5 million validated EU-related terms by combining terminology databases of
the individual EU institutions and bodies (IATE Leaflet). For freelance translators,
the whole acquis communautaire is nowadays available in the form of multilingual
parallel corpora thanks to the DGTs Joint Research Center (JRC)1. To sum up, the
EU language services develop, in cooperation with IT, translation, and linguist
experts, new and progressive translation tools to ensure both easier translation, the
upper-mentioned transparency and democracy, as well as better translation tools and
progress in technical translation and instruments that this translation makes use of.

The DGT-TM is available at: http://langtech.jrc.it/DGT-TM.html.

18

In the previous sections of this thesis, the field of terminology, the meanings of
the word term, and the connection between terminology and translation have been
introduced. Also, it has been explained what is understood by legal language and
legal English and that these registers and varieties are considered languages for
special purposes (LSPs). Then, the thesis provided information on the context of the
EU, its legislation, and the multilingual environment that asks for employment of
unprecedented numbers of translators and interpreters along with IT translation
tools. In the next section, therefore, the thesis sets to introduce a definition of EU
legislation terminology.

3.3 Terminology in EU legislative texts

Based on the previous sections and observations included in them, terminology in
EU legislative texts refers to the set of terms used in the European Union legislative
texts which are drafted in one or two languages, then translated into English or
French this is the original and official version and consequently translated into
the remaining 21 official languages. It is a terminology that is, due to its
multilingual, legal and social order origin, very intricate and complex to translate.
Also, the point of departure and point of reference of this terminology is,
notwithstanding the above-mentioned multilingual nature, most often English,
followed by French. To establish this as a fact: English language, legal English in
fact, is the most used TL and SL in the European Commission where the legislation
is drafted. Nonetheless, the reservations from the first two sections of the thesis need
to be remembered: the language of the drafts as well as official legislation may also
be influenced by other member state languages. Notwithstanding, the trend of
preferring English over other official languages of the EU progresses in such a way
that the proportion of texts written in English as an SL during the period 1997-2006

19

rose from 45.4% to 72% (Translating for a Multilingual Community). This is even
more striking when one considers the increase in amount of texts translated after the
accession of twelve new countries during 2004-7. Such statistics establish legal
English as the most widely used language in the EU. Thus, it follows that most of
the terminology, though inherently of multilingual origin, is created in English as
the official version of draft legislation is primarily presented in English.

4. Translating terminology in EU legislative texts: problems, issues,

solutions
In this section of the thesis, a linguistic and a legal typology of problems
associated with translation of legal terminology are introduced. To these two
typologies, the thesis adds several other problems and issues that should be taken
into consideration when speaking of translating EU legislation terminology these
problems are, however, based more on observations of the EU environment rather
than on linguistic and translation theory. This overview is by no means a
comprehensive and exhaustive one; the central aim here is to apply existing
typologies of legal terminology translation problems to the EU context, and the
European Commission context in particular, and conclude observations that will
show characteristics of the EU terminology which are not found in legal
terminology in general.

4.1. Alcaraz and Hughes: threefold classification of legal lexicon, and problems
In their book Legal Translation Explained from 2002, Enrique Alcaraz and Brian
Hughes divide lexical items into two general categories: symbolic or
representational items and functional items. While the latter category includes
deictics, articles, auxiliaries, modals and other purely syntactic and morphological

20

markers as well as other more complex units such as unless otherwise stated, the
other category consists of all the terms that refer to things or ideas found in the
world of reality, physical or mental (16). Of course, the terms in this group may be
both one-word as well as compound units. To elaborate more on the category of
symbolic items, the authors subdivide it into three subcategories which refer to any
given specialist field (ibid.) and not only to the legal register.
The first subgroup is the category of purely technical terms. As to legal
language, this group consists of terms that are found exclusively in the legal sphere
and have no application outside it (ibid.). These are, in fact, pure terms as they
possess the basic features of terminology such as that they are monosemic and are
durable (see Section 2 of the thesis). Terms included in this particular group (e.g.
legal, illegal, lawful, judge, or the ones common in the EU context such as
eligible, or authority) are said to be the least troublesome terms for a translator
to deal with [but still] the rest of the text cannot be dealt with until they have been
understood and catered for (17). Alcaraz and Hughes claim that the only problem
there is with this group of terms is the question whether to translate such terms or
leave them as they are (155). With regard to the EU and its law as well as
jurisdiction of this law, these terms are, quite clearly, what differentiates the EU law
from any other legal system, and thus, such constitutive terms need to be translated,
or at least explicated, in all cases. The problem that the two authors mention is,
therefore, relevant in this particular case. As to translation of purely technical
compound units, special translation technique such as modulation should be
considered (158) and the immediate context of such terms analyzed.
The second subgroup is the one of semi-technical or mixed terms such as case,
consideration, find or information. These are polysemic words and phrases

21

from the common stock that have acquired additional meanings by a process of
analogy in the specialist context of legal activity (17). This group presents the
translator with many more problems and issues to consider than the first one. The
primary observation is that the law and the language of the law adapts and extends
to meet the need of the society (ibid.), thus widening its lexical stock. As a result,
these terms are hard to recognize for the translator. Also, one-word terms may, in
this group, be translated using compound terms. Moreover, connotation, ambiguity,
partial synonymy and context-dependency come into play (18). As with any other
legal system in the world, this group of terms exists and embodies the abovementioned characteristics also in the EU law and legal language.
As for the third subgroup, this is the everyday vocabulary frequently found in
legal texts. This group is the most numerous [and] consists of terms in general use
that are regularly found in legal texts but, unlike the previous group, have neither
lost their everyday meanings nor acquired others by contact with the specialist
medium (ibid.). Any technical term may thus qualify. A useful observation is,
however, that these terms are commonly found in one area of the law, or one legal
genre, than in any others. In this manner, they are obviously context-bound (162).
In addition to this threefold typology, the two authors also deal with lexical
vagueness in legal vocabulary. They hold that specific definition [provided for
example in annexes] is one of the chief means by which the precise meaning of a
lexical unit is determined and legal certainty is guaranteed (30). In the EU
legislation, annexes are commonly attached to the primary legislation, yet they do
not include terminological overview or glossaries. Such helpful tools are provided
only ad hoc as the drafting procedure presupposes translation of the specific

22

technical terminology into 22 languages (for such ad hoc glossary, see

http://ec.europa.eu/translation/language_aids/english_en.htm).
In the next section, the thesis introduces Deborah Caos typology which is less
general and more focused on law as a multilingual matter, and which addresses the
EU context in a more direct way.

4.2. Deborah Caos typology of problems

As opposed to the previous typology, Caos typology stems from two premises that
she elaborates on in her book Translating Law. The first one draws on the work of
Bernard S. Jackson. Cao sums his perceptions of legal translation in this way:
[A]ccording to Jackson, the legal system is critical to understanding. The words
make sense only within the context of the legal system itself. Understanding an item
of the legal lexicon requires knowing the legal system (17). In this manner, we can
perceive the EU law both primary and secondary as a legal system, or at least as
a hybrid of the member states systems. The second point of reference in Caos
typology is the observation that the translation of [] legal documents of
international nature as opposed to domestic laws has its own idiosyncrasies as well
as sharing the characteristics of translating law in general (134). Given the nature
of the EU law, Cao adds later on that it is more municipal than international law in
character, or a hybrid [of international and domestic law] (150). Taking these two
observations into consideration, it is obvious that Cao acknowledges certain specific
characteristics to the EU law and its terminology as it combines domestic with
international, as well as Civil and Common Law in one.
In her typology of major terminological issues in legal translation, Cao considers
four terminological areas: a) legal conceptual issues and the question of equivalence
and nonequivalence of legal concepts in translation; b) legal terms that are bound to

23

law and legal institutions; c) legal language as a technical language in terms of

ordinary vs. legal meanings, and legal synonyms; and d) terminological difficulties
arising from linguistic uncertainty such as vagueness and ambiguity (54).

4.2.1. Legal conceptual issues

In translating legal concepts, their system-bound position has to be taken into
account. This particular characteristic presents a real challenge for the legal
translator as there exist concepts that are either unknown in the TL or those that do
not exist in the same form in the TL as they do in the SL. Cao points out, again, that
legal translation is not the automatic transposition of a concept from one language
into another, but rather it requires thorough knowledge of the two legal systems that
interface with one another as well as a comparative analysis of the text and the terms
to be translated (ibid.). Nowadays, terminological databases are developed and
used in order to ensure terminological harmonization, and one of them is the EUs
IATE mentioned above. As Cao points out, however, this terminological data bank
remain[s] at the terminological, not conceptual level (55). It is important to note
here that, also, terminological equivalents in for example Czech, Polish or Greek are
found and standardized only ad hoc, both within the IATE database and the
domestic legal system of the country in question. It follows that the legal concepts
from English, French, Italian, Spanish, and German will be the ones the official and
original term draws on. This observation may be of use to the translator as he/she
may focus on these languages and their legal systems in order to know their systems
and the concepts that underlie such systems in the very same way that Jackson,
according to Cao, proposes.
Within the first subgroup of Caos typology, the author differentiates between
two scenarios in translation of legal concepts: firstly, when there are no existing

24

equivalent concepts and words in the TL [] new words must be created or new
meanings introduced. In the second scenario, when there are no existing words in
the TL that are linguistic equivalent to the SL, these words in the two languages
may only carry partially equivalent meanings in law or sometimes may not be
functionally equivalent in law at all (55). The EU legislation, however, brings its
legal concepts into the national legal systems notwithstanding the precision of the
translation. As Cao puts it: [such partially equivalent terms] need to be translated as
equivalents, as there are no functionally equivalent alternatives, and any other
translation is simply unthinkable (57).
As for the first of Caos scenarios, the author uses as examples the Common
Law concepts that are unknown to the Civil Law system and vice versa; as well as
Chinese adoption of Continental Europe terms, or legal Hebrews domestication of
concepts coming from various European languages (56). To approximate Caos
concept to the focus of this thesis, Cao claims that borrowing and neologism are
much more common in legal systems that are in the process of establishment or
developing than in more mature or established process (57). While this observation
is generally true as far as individual languages and their respective legal systems are
concerned, it is only partially true with the EU. The EU is a supranational entity
which is not, however, based on a sole supralanguage, some kind of lingua franca
of the EU. In an environment that increasingly uses translation as a necessary
communication channel, not only vis--vis to the EU citizens, borrowing and
neologism is undoubtedly common. Yet, it in no way implies the immaturity of for
example Czech or Slovak legal languages and systems. During the more than fifty
years of EUs existence, all the member countries had to adopt new legal concepts

25

as well as to adapt their legal systems to the EU system. On the other hand, it does
imply that the EU legal system is still in the process of making and is still in flux.
One of the cornerstones of the project of the EEC and the EU and of their legal
systems is the legal concept of subsidiarity. The concept is defined in Article 5 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community and refers to an internal as well as
external policy which should ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible
to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at Community
level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local
level. To be more specific, it is the principle whereby the Union does not take
action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is
more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level (Europa
Glossary). The term comes from Latin and is closely bound to constitutions and
constitutional law. All EU member countries had to adopt this very cornerstone term
and apply it in their national jurisdictions along with applying it in relation to the
EU institutions. The Czech legal system or its legal language know no such term,
and so these had to rely on neology, along with many other member states, as there
is no one-word or compound term that would include the linguistic, referential, and
conceptual meanings of the term. Moreover, although the term is clearly of Latin
origin, it is used in legal English and pervades through all the documents in English.
It is now perceived to be English as most of the documents that the EU produces and
issues are generated in English. All in all, the first scenario in Caos first subgroup
addresses neology and borrowing, to which the thesis relates in more detail in
Section 4.
The second scenario addresses the issue of faux amis (also known as false
cognates or false friends). The author mentions the EUs acquis communautaire

26

which is a term used for denominating the body of EU laws, and not acquis. In
Czech, the European acquis was left without translation and the original term is used
(mostly in the abbreviated form acquis). To elaborate on the second scenario more,
the concept of authority, a term which is widely used in the EU legislation and other
documents, comes to mind. In the relationship between Czech and English lexicon,
authority as a term is, in one of its meaning, a false cognate. In Czech, a
homographic term would be autorita, which is respect in English and therefore is
not common in the legal lexicon. On the other hand, it can also be translated as
autorita or orgn, a legal body. To conclude with Caos first subgroup, the author
stresses that it is [] important to remember that legal concepts from different
countries are seldom, if ever, identical. It is futile to search for absolute equivalence
when translating legal concepts (59). Again, the obligation to translate the legal
concepts of the EU legislation notwithstanding how clumsy the translation may be
needs to be remembered.

4.2.2. Legal system-bound words

To continue with the second subgroup in Caos typology, the legal system-bound
words are divided into three types:
(1) words associated with legal personnel;
(2) words associated with court structures; and
(3) words associated with particular areas of law and institutions (60).
As to the first type, Cao differentiates mainly between the terms associated with
legal personnel in Common Law jurisdictions and Continental Law legal systems as
well, as she makes distinction within the two Laws themselves (60-63). This is not,
nevertheless, the focus of the thesis. The EU and its ECJ draws on the French and
the British legal system and their naming of legal personnel: the ECJ employs 27

27

judges, 8 advocates general, one of which is the registrar, and the Court may sit as
full court, in a grand chamber of 13 judges or in chambers of 3 or 5 judges (for more
on the composition of ECJ and the two other EU courts, see curia.europa.eu). The
terminology of this particular area is set in the Treaties and the task of maintaining
the correct position and standing of the ECJ legal personnel in the translation is not
a problem. What constitutes a problem is the aim of the translators to approximate
the naming of the ECJ, European Court of First Instance and the Civil Service
Tribunal personnel to the naming in the respective national system. As the
jurisdiction and the powers are given by the Treaties, no translation can change it. A
good and as closest translation to the national legal personnel naming as possible,
however, enhances the understanding of EU citizens to what kind of staff the EU
courts employ and also sheds light on the workings of these three courts.
The second type in Caos second sub-group concerns the naming of the
individual courts and the respective court hierarchies. She points out that in English
Common Law jurisdictions, there are two words for court: the general term court
and a narrower term tribunal, which refers to panels and bodies that exercise
administrative or quasi-judicial functions with limited or special jurisdictions (64).
In the EU case, the problem of EU and national court naming, especially with regard
to the member states court hierarchies, is a difficult translation and also political
issue. Cao quotes an instance during the drafting of the EU Constitution where
some languages ha[d] different words for court, signifying a hierarchy that may
not be reflected in other languages (65). She adds that the solution finally adopted
was to call the lower body general court or the equivalent except in languages
where single words were enough to convey the hierarchical relationship (ibid.).
Also, the DGT then published an English Style Guide where the English

28

translations of the judicial bodies of the Member States are suggested for use by
translators, together with the English translations of the names of the various
European national legal instruments (ibid.). Still, as a reminder, the thesis points
out that as far as the case of translating the Lisbon Treaty is concerned, we are
speaking of 506 language combination in which the national court hierarchies had to
be translated (for more on translation problems associated with the ECJ, see
Mulders 2006) .
The three EU courts mentioned above are not as hard a task to translate;
nevertheless, their names in Czech do not suggest much of their respective
jurisdictions or their hierarchy. One more point to add is that the ECJ is translated as
Evropsk soudn dvr in order to be recognized as a distinctive judicial body among
the other international courts with all-European jurisdictions. Also, though not an
instance of Court terminology, the EU institutions and the personnel working in
them and for them need to be addressed here. The EU institutions are, as in nation
states, divided into the executive, legislative, and judicial ones, and there are also
controlling bodies that ensure efficiency of the EU project such as the European
Court of Auditors, or bodies that govern some of the major EU policies such as the
European Central Bank, the manager of the common currency project. Exactly
because the EU institutions resemble those of the member states, the naming of
these institutions is not a big translation and terminological issue, and the same
applies for the naming of the personnel. The only consideration in the institutional
naming is that of differentiation between Council of Europe (Rada Evropy in Czech)
which is not an EU or EEC institution and which was established shortly after the
Second World War, and European Council (Evropsk rada) which is the supreme

29

institution of the EU although it is not an institution per se2. That is why there is also
a distinction between the European Council consisting of the heads of member states
governments or presidents, and Council (Rada ministr) which consists of
individual national sectional ministers. For a useful guide on the issue of the EU
institutions for students of law and of translation, see the two-volume Selected
Topics from the European Union: An Introduction to English Terminology Used in
Key EU Documents for Law Students by Renata Vystrilov.
The third type in Caos second group of terminological problems is the divisions
and branches of law that use special sets of vocabulary (Cao 65). The European
Union and its court hierarchy is not based on constitutional law, administrative law,
public international law, criminal law, the law of procedure, civil law, commercial
law, labour law etc. that Cao works with the legal system rather works with the
category of who is the accuser and whether the accused in the case is the national
government, the EU institutions, or the laws they produce. The institutions (a
polysemic term in legal terminology as it means both instituce, and prvn institut)
and domains of law, therefore, are in the case of the ECJ based on neology and on
national legal systems of the member countries. In this manner, Caos typology
acquires a new, neology-based, dimension. In addition, the domains of law and the
institutions are delineated in the EU legislation which only deals with the EU
policies thus, there is no criminal or commercial law, but rather 32 individual
policies which are then divided into several other areas, plus the establishing

The European Council was embedded in the primary legislation by the Single European Act of

1987 and its position was then clarified by the Treaty on European Union of 1992 (Fiala, Pitrov
2003).

30

Treaties. Subsequently, there are fewer institutions to translate in the EU law than in
the national legal systems.
To sum up this second subgroup of Caos typology, the author concludes that
given the diversity in legal systems and practices, translating across jurisdictional
boundaries is not a simple mechanical process. A basic knowledge and
understanding of the relevant legal systems and their structures and a high degree of
proficiency in the two legal languages are paramount for the legal translator (67).
To modify this statement towards the EU environment, facts about the EU law are
taught at universities and in commercial courses nowadays, and so the knowledge of
the system and the structures is not the central issue here. Rather, it is the number of
languages that is used in the drafting process and the number that is involved in the
creation of the technical and legal terminology of the EU legislation. Moreover, as
the EU widens its scope on a regular basis, the legal systems grows on and with the
enlargement process, the number of languages increases as well. This is where the
legal and political practices of the EU and its institutions and their naming are
endangered in the translation.

4.2.3. Ordinary vs. legal meaning

The third group in Deborah Caos typology of terminological areas is the ordinary
vs. legal meaning type. This group, actually, is very similar, if not identical, with the
second and also the third group in Alcaraz and Hughess categorization. As Cao
introduces this group, these are many words used in legal texts that have an
ordinary meaning and a technical legal meaning [and] one of the tasks for the legal
translator is to identify the legal meaning and distinguish it from its ordinary
meaning before rendering it appropriately into the TL (67). The author then goes
on to illustrate her point on several examples such as equity which in legal English

31

has more than five distinct meanings (69), or on warranty (68). As before, and as
proposed by Jennifer Pearson and others above in the thesis, the solution is to make
use of the context both immediate and wider legal context (70). This applies to the
EU as well, for the context of the respective policies and areas is crucial for
recognizing the technical meaning of a term. To mention some examples from the
EU on this point, words such as ceiling (meaning both the overhead upper surface
of a room and an upper limit on what is allowed) or initiative (meaning
readiness to embark on bold new ventures and the first of a series of [political]
actions) drive the point home.
This group of Caos includes also legal synonyms, which the author illustrates on
many examples between French and English. As for the EU translation,
distinguishing between the individual kinds of treaties, conventions, agreements,
protocols, pacts, covenants and many others is a good example (71). On this
particular issue, Cao concludes that it may be difficult to find sufficient synonyms
in the TL [and] this may present a challenge for the translator who needs to be
resourceful and sometimes even creative so that appropriate choices are made to
distinguish the synonyms in translation (73). With the EU terminology, such
challenges emerge on a regular basis.

4.2.4. Linguistic and legal uncertainty

The last group of Caos typology is linguistic and legal uncertainty, which includes
vagueness, generality and ambiguity. Cao also admits that other linguistic features
such as unclarity, relativity, inexplicitness and indexicality may contribute to
linguistic and legal uncertainty (73-4). To define what Cao suggest in this group,
ambiguity refers to a situation in which a word, phrase or sentence [] has more
than one [both legal and ordinary] meaning (74). To continue with, an expression

32

is vague or imprecise if it admits of borderline cases in actual use (ibid.). And

finally, an expression is general when it is applicable to any one of a number of
things whose differences are not denied or necessarily overlooked, for instance,
coloured as opposed to a specific colour of red or blue (75). To approximate it
closer to the EU context, ambiguity in the EU terminology is often a result of
political compromises that are an inherent aspect during the drafting of the EU
legislation. As Cao puts it: In the EC, as EU draft legislative texts go through
extensive consultation, examination and revision, EU law is often the fruit of
difficult compromises [] and the changes are made [] to achieve policy ends
(153). The advice to the translator and interpreter here is that translators should
avoid attempts to clarify vague points, obscurities and ambiguities, and [] those
who do run the risk of upsetting the delicately achieved balance and misrepresenting
the intent of the parties (ibid.)
Cao adds another aspect to her point as she insists on distinguishing between
linguistic uncertainty and legal indeterminacy. Whereas linguistic uncertainty is
clear from the definition of its composites above, legal indeterminacy means that
the law is indeterminate when a question of law or of how the law applies to facts
has no single right answer (ibid.). This legal uncertainty was and still is one of the
issues where the ECJ needs to actively manage the implementation of the EU
legislation, and where mainly generality is a challenge and also a legal as well as a
translation issue. Cao offers several examples of ECJ cases to illustrate her
argumentation (78-9), but what is the most important observation here, as far as
translation is concerned, is the aim of the ECJ to apply the [Community] law in a
uniform and consistent manner, and despite the different usage and shades of
meaning in different languages, the court must provide a unitary meaning (79).

33

Cao, in conclusion, perceives and writes about a paradox that arises from such,
though logical, aim of the ECJ and other courts as well. She states that for bilingual
and multilingual jurisdictions [such as the EU], there is [] the legal principle of
equal authenticity of bilingual and multilingual legal instruments, which creates a
legal fiction that the words in different authentic language versions are deemed to be
equivalent and have the same meaning (80; italics mine). Logically, the legal
fiction is necessary for legal certainty and consistency so that citizens are governed
by the same law, being treated equally irrespective of their linguistic diversity.
Consequently [] words and phrases in law and other legal texts are deemed equal,
linguistically and legally [] which places [] responsibility in the translator
(ibid.). Nonetheless, the translation, given the inherent indeterminate nature of
language, is always inferior as long as the meaning and impact of the law is in
question just as the ECJs decisions show.
This section of the thesis has introduced and outlined Alcaraz and Hughess
along with Deborah Caos typology of terminological issues and applied them to the
EU terminology as defined above. While the former typology is rather general,
based on linguistics and on translation theory, the latter one is more practical and
also law and legal language-based, and, thus, is more easily applicable to the
terminology that is the focus of this thesis. Nonetheless, both typologies address the
issue of neology on a superficial level, as neology and neonymy are not very
common in legal language and translation. In the EU environment, however,
neology and neonymy is a common occurrence as the thesis posits in the following
section.

34

4.3. EU Terminology neology and neonymy

As much as uncertainty and indeterminacy are characteristic features of language,
neology and neonymy are emblematic of the EU legal and technical language and
terminology (for definition of neology and neonymy, see Section 1.4 of the thesis).
Due to the historical, legislative, administrative, and judicial processes that underlie
the project of European sectional as well as political integration, new words and
terms had to be coined and standardized for the EEC and the EU to make use of in
everyday discourse and practice. To demonstrate how much neology and neonymy
pervaded the EU and its language and terminology, this section discusses two cases
in point from the EU agendas and policies. One is the common agriculture policy
(CAP) translated into Czech as spolen zemdlsk politika (SZP) which is one of
the most well-known, most subsidized and oldest policies of the EEC/EU, and the
Czech term mentioned above is a binding term3. The other policy is the legal
concept of state aid, recently implemented in the Czech Republic.
To begin with the CAP, this policy was established at a conference in Stresa in
1958, soon after the signing of the Treaty of Rome, establishing the European
Economic Communities. Since the very idea of the European integration project laid
in the premise that controlling German iron and steel industries would prevent
another worldwide-scale war and would enhance mutual trade within Western
Europe, trade in industrial products was the flagship of the project. With the new
EEC, however, the trade in industrial products needed to be balanced for
agriculture-exporting countries by an agricultural policy. The basis for this new
CAP was a market price support system which introduced an intricate structure of
specific types of prices that would ensure reasonable revenues for the producers as
3

See: http://isap.vlada.cz/. Note: the database is no longer updated.

35

well as reasonable prices for consumers (Fiala, Pitrov 391). The term market price
support system is not an official term, and it cannot be found in any legislation
accessible via IATE or EUR-Lex. Logically, its translation is not uniform: the term
is used mainly in academic and scholarly texts dealing with the CAP. In general,
however, the term is translated as spolen (jednotn) trn organizace (dy) (see
for example Fiala, Pitrov 2003, or Cyvnov, ernkov 2002). Following this train
of thought, the complex system of market price support, logically, brought about a
new and still widening terminology, consisting of terms such as Common
Organization of [Agricultural] Markets (COM) translated as Spolen organizace
zemdlskch trh,4minimum (also termed support or intervention) price
translated into Czech as intervenn cena5, indicative price (also known as target
or guide price) which is smrn cena in Czech6, threshold price which is
prahov cena in Czech7, variable import levies which is, according to IATE8,
translated as dovozn dvky, but in academic publications, it is referred to as
variabiln pirky (see Fiala, Pitrov 2003), export refund translated as vvozn
nhrada9, decoupling which cannot be found in the IATE official database as the
term is generally left untranslated, and many others (for more on the principles and
terminology of the CAP, see Pezaros 1998; for Czech introduction to terminology
and basis of the CAP, see Jedlika 2004). In fact, the aforementioned terms are a tip
of the iceberg as they are only the well-known and widely used terms by the
4

Definition, usage, and possible translations available at http://iate.europa.eu.

Translation of the term available at http://isap.vlada.cz.

Translation available at both IATE: http://iate.europa.eu/iatediff/ as well as isap.vlada.cz.

Translation available at both IATE: http://iate.europa.eu/iatediff/ as well as isap.vlada.cz.

See http://iate.europa.eu.

Translation available at: http://iate.europa.eu.

36

politicians and by the European farmers. There exist tens of unofficial, non-binding
terms related to the CAP which are used in academic discourse. It is important to
stress here, however, that all the official terms and their translations were
successfully standardized throughout the years. The 1990s, nonetheless, brought
about a boom in neonymy in this area. With finishing the flagship project of the
common European market and also for many other reasons, the EU had to begin to
reform its CAP and each reform and amendment to the existing schemes, systems
and structures meant new terminology. Moreover, it was a terminology that had no
linguistic basis in any of the member states as no such complex policy existed in any
of those countries. Within the period of 2004-7, twelve new countries accessed the
EU and the new terminology had to be translated, explicated, adopted, and
standardized in several new languages. Also, the Eastern accession itself triggered
a new reform and, consequently, a new wave of new CAP terminology based on
neology. The Common Agriculture Policy was established from scratch; it was a
political decision that caused the creation of new, artificial policy with synthetic and
unpredictable terminology, based on specialized agriculture, technical, business and
legal language, which constantly develops and widens.
The state aid policy is also a forced legal concept with no legal footing in any of
the legal systems of the member states of the EU. The concept was established by
Articles 86, 87, and 88 of the Treaty of Rome and is defined as an advantage in any
form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public
authorities (europa.eu). The legal concept of state aid does not exist in any country,
because national governments make use of privatization or nationalization in order
to financially help and subsidize the state-owned companies and maintain low

37

unemployment rate. Following this manner of thought, state aid had not existed as a
legal concept before the Treaty of Rome.
To return to the terminological issue that is the focus of the thesis, state aid
brought with itself a whole new set of terms that were formerly unknown in the
member countries. The problem in translating this terminology is generally twofold:
the terms had no terms of equivalent meaning and legal impact in the member
states legal systems, and they were formed artificially in a multilingual
environment. Moreover, following a more recent and more particular observation
connected to the 2004 accession wave, the Czech Republic had to translate and
adopt this legal concept into its legal system as a part of the EUs acquis
communautaire. The translation had to be precise, but it could not explicitly say
state in the meaning of sttn, for this would be too nationalistic in a
supranational and postmodern environment this is why the term was translated as
veejn podpora. The translation is correct, but the very act of transforming the
English term into Czech in this form implied changing and creating several other
legal concepts in the Czech legal system as no such legal concept as veejn
prostedky ever existed in Czech legal, trade or commerce discourse. Therefore,
apart from achieving a nationalistic subtlety in the form of the Czech term, the
Czech government had to invent new legal concepts as well as to adopt the
European one into the Czech legal system: this was done by the Act No. 59/2000
and later on by an amendment No. 215/2004.
In order to illustrate some of the issues of translating, creating and adopting the
Czech terms related to the legal concept of state aid, several of the Czech terms
listed on the web page of Office for the Protection of Competition (ad pro

38

ochranu hospodsk soute)10 are briefly discussed here: program podpory,

blokov vjimky, pobdkov motivan efekt, podpora de minimis, or
nezkonn podpora. To begin with, the term program podpory is an official
translation of the English aid programme and its usage and definition can be traced
at the IATE database11. Out of the remaining five terms listed above, however, only
podpora de minimis is a term which can be found at EUR-Lex, IATE or Eurovoc
the official EU websites with search tools. In fact, podpora de minimis has its own
Commission Regulation: the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1998/2006. The rest
of the terms are newly created legal and technical terms, binding within the Czech
national legislation. Still, in finding the meaning and legal impact of these hitherto
non-existent terms, one can only rely on the Czech legislation, without being able to
consult the European legislation as is the case in other instances of the
Commissions and EUs activities. The translation of the terminological apparatus
that came along with the legal concept of state aid thus brought sophisticated and
unprecedented linguistic, political, and administrative implications.
The aim of this subsection was to illustrate how neology and neonymy add
complexity to the translation of the EU legislation terminology. Though only two
examples have been mentioned above, other examples could be found on a monthlybasis which is another element of the complex issue that is the translation of this
terminology.

10

http://www.compet.cz/verejna-podpora/zakladni-pojmy/

11

http://iate.europa.eu.

39

Conclusion
The central aim of the thesis was to discuss the translation of EU terminology as a
distinct translation issue of multifarious nature. The initial section sought to identify
what terminology as a term stands for, and what the relationship between terminology
and translation is.
The second section introduced Legal English as a specific register, which is
nowadays used widely and worldwide in legal texts. As the statistics from the DGT
leaflet suggest, it is used in the European Commission as a primary drafting language.
The third section offered a brief overview of the history of European integration
and also an insight into the workings of the European Commissions DGT. In this way,
the thesis sought to provide an introduction into the focus of the thesis, which was the
translation of terminology in EU legislative texts.
To reiterate from Sections 3 and 4, EU terminology was defined and then
examined within the framework of two typologies concerning Legal English
terminology and its translation. The intention was to show that vis--vis the two
typologies and the translation problems implicated by them, the translation of
terminology in EU legislative texts stands as a distinct issue characterized by features
which are not inherent to Legal English or to legal translation in general. At issue in
particular was the multilingual nature of the legal texts that the Commission drafts and
produces the important note here was that, in Teuberts words, it is not possible to
distinguish source language from target language (Altenberg 213). Translation of EU
terminology offers wider implications for the issues that Deborah Cao listed in her
typology. In particular, the translation and transposition of legal concepts presented an
interesting debate.

40

The thesis then provided a view on how neology and neonymy (defined in
subsection 1.4) affect the creation, usage, adoption, and, logically, also standardization
of EU terminology. The main argument was that the EU environment based on
communicating via translation and interpretation in 23 languages brings about an
unprecedented number of new terms that are still to be coined. Indeed, it needs to be
mentioned that such new terms are created and consequently used on a daily basis.
To conclude with, the European Commissions Directorate General for
Translation has at its disposal hi-tech translation memory tools designed for coping with
the translation and interpretation tasks that the EU texts present the translators with. The
tools do facilitate the DGT employees work. It is important to note, however, that not
only translators and linguists are involved in the creation of terminology. EU
terminology is born in political and technical discourse and in drafting of the results of
such discourse. Thus, the terminology that was the focus of the thesis inherently
possesses features characteristic of no other legal language, apart from the language
used in the United Nations. This kind of language, along with the terminology which is
used in EU legal texts, is affected by political compromises. This can be clearly seen in
the vagueness of the wording and the fact that it is also a legal hybrid, combining Civil
Law and Common Law and their legal concepts.
Taking all these facts into account, it can be said that the translation of
terminology used in EU legislative texts undoubtedly implies specific considerations for
the translator and has become a discipline in its own right.

41

Works Cited
Primary Sources:
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1/58 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be
used by the European Economic Community.
Treaty of Nice, Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the
European Communities and Certain Related Acts, 2001/C 80/01.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 27 Jan. 1980.
Zkon ze dne 2. dubna 2004 o prav nkterch vztah v oblasti veejn podpory a o
zmn zkona o podpoe vzkumu a vvoje, 215/2004 Sb.
Zkon ze dne 24. nora 2000 o veejn podpoe, 59/2000 Sb.

Secondary Sources:
Alcaraz, Enrique, and Brian Hughes. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester: St.
Jerome, 2002.
Baker, Mona. In Other Words: a Coursebook on translation. London: Routledge, 1992.
Blair, Alasdair. The European Union since 1945. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2005.
Bowker, Lynne, and Jennifer Pearson. Working with Specialized Language Corpora.
London: Routledge, 2002.
Cabr, M. Teresa. Terminology: theory, methods, and applications. Ed. Juan C. Sager.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins P.C., 1999.
Cao, Deborah. Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2007.
Cyvnov, P. and R. ernkov. Analysis of Price and Market Policy in the European
Union. Sbornk z konference: Model evropskho zemdlstv a jeho implementace v
podmnkch R, September 18-19, 2002. Ed. Karel Urbnek. esk Budjovice:
Jihoesk univerzita, 2002.
Europa Glossary. 12 April, 2008. <http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/index_en.htm>.
European Court of Justice. 12 April, 2008. < http://curia.europa.eu/>.

42

Fiala, Petr, and Markta Pitrov. Evropsk unie. Brno: CDK, 2003.
Glzl, Andrej. Lost in Translation; EU Law and the Official Languages Problems of
the Authentic Text. Centre for European Legal Studies, 2007: 1-11.
<http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/events/Glezl.pdf>.
IATE: A single database for all EU-related terminology (InterActiveTerminology for
Europe) in 23 languages opens to public. 28 June, 2007.
<http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/962&format=PDF&aged=
1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en>.

IATE: InterActiveTerminology for Europe. 12 April, 2008.

<http://iate.europa.eu/iatediff/SearchByQueryLoad.do?method=load>.
Jedlika, Jan. Spolen zemdlsk politika EU. Speciln analzy June 2004. 12
April, 2008. < http://www.csas.cz/banka/content/inet/internet/cs/CAP.pdf>.
Joint Research Centre of the EU Commission. 12 April, 2008.
<http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm>.
Lexis in Contrast: corpus-based approaches. Ed. Bengt Altenberg, Sylviane Granger.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins P.C., 2002.
Machov, S. Terminografie. Manul lexikografie. Eds. ermk, F., Blatn, R.
Jinoany: H&H, 1995.
Mulders, Leo. Translation at the Court of Justice. Binding Unity and Divergent
Concepts in EU Law. Utrecht University, Utrecht. 12 Jan. 2006.
<http://www.universiteitvantilburg.nl/faculteiten/frw/departementen/europeesrecht/budc
-conference/papers/mulders/>.
Newmark, Peter. About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991.
Pearson, Jennifer. Terms in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins P.C.,
1998.

43

Pezaros, P. An Introduction to the Common Agricultural Policy: Principles,

Objectives, and Orientations. CIHEAM-IAMC 29 (1998): 1-20.
Sage Thesaurus. 12 April, 2008. < http://www.sequencepublishing.com/>.
The European Union On-line. 12 April, 2008. < http://europa.eu/>.
Translating for a Multilingual Community. 12 April, 2008.
<http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/bookshelf/brochure_en.pdf>.
ad vldy esk republiky. 12 April, 2008. <
http://isap.vlada.cz/homepage.nsf/dataver>.
ad na ochranu hospodsk soute. 12 April, 2008. < http://www.compet.cz/>.
Vystrilov, R. Selected topics from the European Union. Volume 1, An introduction to
English terminology used in key EU documents for law students. Olomouc: UP,
2003.
Vystrilov, R. Selected topics from the European Union. Volume 2, An Introduction to
English terminology used in key EU documents for law students. Olomouc: UP,
2001.
Wilss, Wolfram. Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins P.C., 1999.

44