A lawyer-linguist view on EU terminology · 2. Lawyer linguist viewpoint on terminology The starting point here: lawyer-linguist (juriste-linguiste)(JL) - Trained lawyer: knowledge

A lawyer-linguist view on EU terminology

Colin Robertson, Lawyer-linguist

All comments are purely personal.

2

Summary

1. Introduction

2. Lawyer linguist viewpoint on terminology

3. Lawyer-linguist tasks

4. Four viewpoints on terminology: law, policy, language and action

5. EU legislative acts and terminology

6. EU legal English: implications for terminology

7. EU legal English: non-native speakers

8. EU multilingual interpretation of terms

9. A semiotic view on terminology

10. Conclusion

2 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology

3

1. Introduction

Legal language and terms raise difficulties:

- Legal concepts are abstract

- Terms take meaning from context

- Each legal system creates its own context

- The aim of a legal system is to provide a single

answer in a given set of circumstances,

- to answer the question: “what is the law?”

- Terms are shaped and adapted within the system so

as to fit together as part of a complex network of concepts.


4

Legal systems: shaped by experience

new concepts, terms constantly added.

Differences:

historical experiences, geography, economics ...

develop in own ways, introduces terms specific to self

Similarities:

background structures shared with other legal systems

shared origins, shared concepts but adapted to system

Legal ‘families’, for example in Europe:

Civil Law deriving mainly from Roman Law

Common Law deriving mainly from English law

29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology

5

Concepts and terms shared across legal families:

(person, ownership, contract, heir, duty, right …)

Concepts and terms that are specific to each family

(Civil law: delict; Common law: tort)

Frequently it is possible to find equivalent terms across

legal systems, as with delict / tort: usufruct / liferent

However:

(a) precise legal implications differ between systems

(b) frequently a concept and term in one legal system has

no direct equivalent in another legal system

(Scots:lawburrows: a legal action to prevent harm)


6

How to handle?

Depends on task in hand, type of text, nature of the text.

Drafting new text:

reuse concepts/terms, invent new terms, give new

meanings to old terms.

Translating:

search for meaning of SL terms, seeks equivalents, ... or

if none, maybe reuse SL term, maybe invent new term...

EU legislative texts: need to have terms for EU concepts in

all languages.

Concepts become EU when they are used in an EU legal

text.

There is a constant pressure with respect to terminology.


7

EU legislative texts: single text in 24 languages. (Synoptic)

Message is the ‘same’ in each version. Meaning derives from all language versions as a whole.

That implies close term equivalence across languages.

But languages are used for more than one legal system.

We study SL terms in their specific context and select TL terms according to the TL legal context.

Certain EU languages span more than one legal system, a single term may have different meanings according to the particular system.

UK example:

A law on companies applies to whole UK, but different legal systems in UK (English, Scots….)

So English court applies English law meaning;

Scots court a Scots law meaning: terms in their context…


8

The same principle applies to terms in other languages.

For example: ‘married’ can mean different things in different countries (formal ceremony, informal reputation as married, gay marriages…)

Precise implications of each term:

specific to system, link in with other concepts and terms in system.

Legal concepts are system bound.

This applies to EU legal terminology.

However, the EU context is different, and more complex, than the national legal context.


9

Being ‘system bound’ is a defining feature of legal terms.

A system has an inside, an outside and a boundary in

between.

There are legal boundaries and linguistic boundaries.

There are also subsystems within a legal system.

(branches of law: civil law, criminal law, commercial

law…: e.g. the concept of ‘person’ has different implications inn each branch)

- Inside a system (subsystem) , the rules (and terms)

are aligned, and coordinated as part of a web or

network and form a cultural whole.

- Legal systems, rules and terms change with time.


10

Legal terms are subject to linguistic factors:

Legal systems use one or more languages.

Each language chops up reality in different ways

Each language has its own grammar and syntax

Each language is the product of a speech community(ies)

with a history, experiences and its own culture.

Legal language and terms reflect the culture.

EU legal language is drawn from diverse sources

EU texts are drafted in one (or more) language(s),

translated into others, aligned legal-linguistically,

transposed into national law and concepts, and acted on

by citizens.


11

A broad structured approach to Terminology?

Or each term is alone and studied ad hoc for equivalents?

Thesis here is that terms need to be studied individually, but that one can seek to categorise them in various ways and this can help in the process of analysis and problem solving.

This approach is called here ‘lawyer-linguist viewpoint’

It starts with the role and tasks of lawyer linguists.

It suggests viewpoints for looking at texts and terms.

These viewpoints can assist in identifying boundaries for terms: specific to a system, shared with other fields, serving particular purposes or peripheral …


12

Purpose today: explore some broad issues that

relate to terminology.

Avenues for tackling legal terms, focus on their

function.

Reference language: English, focus from that point

of view.

Background: need to understand the culture

behind terms.

Lawyer-linguists have legal training and insights.

Hope today: some insights, derived from many

years pragmatic experience.


13

2. Lawyer linguist viewpoint on terminology

The starting point here: lawyer-linguist (juriste-linguiste)(JL)

- Trained lawyer: knowledge of legal systems, legal concepts,

methods, philosophy and terminology: part of Legal Service.

- Trained in analysing problems from a legal point of view

- Linguist: knowledge of several languages and viewpoint of

translation, revision

- Trained in drafting legal texts, terminology, translation

- May have training in linguistics (but many do not)

- Specialist expert with an ‘insider’s’ view on both law and

legal language

- Pragmatic, emphasis on problem solving


14

3. Lawyer-linguist tasks

EU JLs translate (Court of Justice) and revise legal texts

(Commission, Council, European Parliament, European

Central Bank).

They oversee the final stages of preparation of EU

legislative texts in all languages .

They review terminology and negotiate with experts

JLs in the Commission assist the DGs in drafting of EU

legislative texts and legislative quality

JLs in Council revise texts and assist Legal Service

colleagues and delegations with legislative quality

JLs in EP revise texts and assist in legislative quality and

aligning languages


15

Everyone has their own methods of work.

There are different ways to revise a legal text:

- horizontal read from start to end

- vertical reading from general headings to small details

- Selecting different viewpoints to study the text in

sequence …

This last method is selected here for attention.

Take four viewpoints: Law, policy, action and language

If we study a legal text from each angle, we notice different

things.

But these heads can also be applied to terminology and

this is something to explore today.

Is there a systematic method towards studying legal terms?


16

4. Four viewpoints on terminology: law, policy, language and action

All terms in a legal text become ‘legal’ because the text is part of the legal system.

The meaning of terms is decided ultimately by judges in

court cases, after hearing opposing arguments of the

parties.

We search cases for the precise meanings of terms in

relation to facts. (apply / not apply?)

So in a legal text, a viewpoint of law prevails overall.

However, within that we can ‘tag’ or ‘allocate’ each term as

relating to law, policy, language, action.

There is overlap, but we become able to see the overlap

and that helps us focus on the function of a term


17

Looking at texts and terms from different viewpoints leads

one to ask different questions, and look for different

information.

That leads to different answers and insights, and clarifies

function.

It assists in penetrating to deeper levels of meaning in

source and target language versions.

It is an analytical exercise. We see more clearly the

function of the term, phrase, sentence...

Link to the wider context. Useful for review, checking....


Questions:

Is the term purely legal? Part of the infrastructure of the

legal system?

Is the term connected with policy, the field of activity, the

domain (agriculture, environment...) and shared with

non-legal texts?

What action is intended through the term? (legal effects)

Is the term connected more to the language (grammar,

syntax)?


19

(a) Law viewpoint:

(i) The formal structure and layout of the text

(ii) Terminology relating to legal ‘infrastructure’: - names of legal acts (regulation, directive , decision ...)

- names of procedures (ordinary legislative, judicial ...)

- parts of legal acts (title, citations, articles, annexes...)

- status of the act (valid, annulled, void, suspended…) - actions performed (amend old acts, codify,

consolidate, repeaL, adopt, declare, decide...)

- names of bodies and authorities (EUROPOL ...)


Note: The use of particular legal terms triggers precise legal

consequences.

For example ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ triggers codecision by European Parliament and Council.

Codecision triggers joint adoption and signature.

Signature triggers entry into law as a legal act.

Legal act triggers behaviour to comply

Behaviour triggers legal effects.

Legal effects trigger disputes

Disputes trigger court cases

Court cases trigger judicial interpretation, new meanings

New meanings trigger new legislation – perhaps.


21

(iii) terms can also be related to particular legal fields or

domain (succession law, family law, commercial law ...)

(cf ‘legal policy’)

This overlaps with the policy view, but the legal view asks

which system the terms belong to: EU law, national law,

international law?

If EU law, then the term is an EU concept valid for all

languages, and we need term equivalences.

If national law, then the term is national context bound:

possibly there is no precise equivalent for other

languages/legal systems.


If international, then the concept may be widely shared and

not strongly system bound, but maybe the terms have

not been adapted to all languages.

Positioning a term (concept) according to system, or

subsystem, places the term (concept) in relationship to

other terms (concepts) in that system.

The problem then is to find (or create) a suitable match in

the TL.

But here we ask the status and function of the TL text:

- information?

- new legal text? Same system ( eg EU) or different

system?


23

(b) Policy view on terminology

EU legal texts do not exist in a vacuum.

They regulate some activity in some way.

The activity falls within a policy field.

(competition, agriculture, fisheries, environment...)

The EU treaties (TEU, TFEU) set out the EU policy fields:

(see http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-

initiative/public/competences#treaties for a list)

Member states have larger and more complex policy fields,

with subdivisions and branches.

(For example: look at all the codes in French, German,

Italian....... Law) 23 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology

http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/competences



Terms in EU and international legal texts often have roots

and origins in national systems that can be analysed, but

meanings can shift.

Policy terms are shared, often with a non-legal field.

For example:

medical terms derive from medicine;

agricultural terms from agriculture;

financial terms from finance …. The legal act builds on pre-existing concepts and terms

and adapts them for its own purposes of regulation.

The meanings become legal and system bound.


25

(c) Language view on terminology

The texts use language (cf signs and symbols), so the

language view is another all-embracing view. It can

cover everything, but in particular we can use it for:

- Type of text, structure, presentation, layout,

i.e. formal aspects (overlap with law view)

- Use of language in general: grammar, syntax,

punctuation, sentence structures, register (legal

language is formal), style (third person, neutral, limitation

on literary styles).

- In general the language view should not give rise to

difficulties about terminology; but cf specifically linguistic

concepts and terms: language policy?


26

(d) Action view on terminology

The action view asks what the text is doing, what each

paragraph, sentence, clause and term is doing; what is

their function?

For example:

- introduce change, preserve status quo, declare, record,

clarify a legal situation, prohibit, encourage, direct,

command ... But exactly what and how?

Intended results in EU texts are often complex and subtle,

adapting to different hypotheses in national law.

These are the legal effects; they should be the same for

each language version in an EU legal text. That is the

aim. 26 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology

Note:

We have an acid test for equivalence in term meaning

through considering the practical results and effects.

Like a mouse in a maze: if we come out at the same place

in terms of effects and results for each language version

then maybe the terms are OK .....

The problem with all draft legal texts is one is not sure how

they will actually be interpreted for each language in

each member state.

It is the job of the lawyers of the EU institutions to defend

the authors’ intentions and argue their viewpoints.....


28

An EU lawyer-linguist viewpoint takes into account:

that the action intended by a text is often to take place

within national law either directly or after transposition of

the EU text into national law.

So EU terms must ‘function’ on several levels:

- As part of EU law (represented by the text)

- As part of each national legal system that uses the

language in question

- Maybe also in an international agreement.


We can see that terms can become focal points between

legal systems (national, international, supranational)

We can see this as a ‘matrix’ in which legal terms exist, linked to their intimate relationship to context: each a

system-bound context.

A same term with ‘different’ meanings in each context. (e.g. Copyright legal texts exist in all three levels:

- National: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK)

- EU: Directive 2001/29/EC ... on the harmonisation of

certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the

information society

- International (Berne Convention)


However we can also think of terms in this matrix as points

of intersection between them.

Do terms such as: copyright, exclusive rights, fair use,

public domain, moral rights ... have the same meaning in

each system?

For translation, we have term equivalence, but term

equivalence does not necessarily mean same legal

effects across system boundaries.

We can return to the four viewpoints and consider how they

can help here.


31

The four viewpoints (law, policy, language, action) can be used for making an initial categorisation of a term.

Example: ordinary legislative procedure

Law concept; specific to EU: concept to be reproduced in all languages; same meaning for all; triggers effects

Example: gender mainstreaming

Policy concept; source in gender equality texts; originally not legal (?), but becomes legal if in legal text; if SL is non-EU source may not require exact term equivalence, but if concept in EU legislative text, need TL term.

Example (hypothetical): trespass

EN common law legal concept; no exact term equivalent in civil law; if in an EU legal text, create term equivalents, but then term loses its EN common law meaning and acquires new EU meaning reflected across all languages.


32

5. EU legislative acts and terminology Terms also take meaning from their place within a legal text, at

least as regards their potential effects.

Obligations and commands are for the ‘enacting provisions’ (articles)

Background and ‘motivation’ are for recitals.

Technical details are for annexes: usually highly specific and

concrete terms.

Language and terminology are adapted to each part:

‘shall’ only in articles, conditional verbs in recitals to introduce

(should, must), reported speech (is to, are to), etc.


33

The structure and terminology of EU legislative acts is set

out in guidance:

(a) Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on

Common Guidelines for the Quality of Drafting of

Community Legislation (Official Journal C 73, 17.3.1999,

p.1)

(b) Joint Practical Guide for the Drafting of Community

legislation. 2003. Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities. Luxembourg.

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/index.htm)

(c) Interinstitutional Style Guide:

(http:// publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000300.htm)


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/index.htm



34

These texts set out guidance and are published in all EU

languages.

Accordingly equivalent terms are established for all

languages and have to be used.

Terms in these texts can be seen under the law view, since

they are mandatory.

Blocks of text become treated as equivalent.

(eg subsidiarity recital, Schengen recital...?

Thus the unit of equivalence can shift from the term to the

block of text.

Special care goes into the guidance texts, checked by JLs.

We turn now to consider some specifically English

language issues. 29/11/2013 EU legal language and terminology

35

6. EU legal English: implications for terminology

English has become a principal EU drafting language.

There are terminology implications:

Originally EU drafting was in French.

French: language of civil law

English: language of common law.

Civil law: based on Roman law and concepts, written law.

Common law: based on ancient unwritten custom, brought

forth through court cases

Civil law: parliament and executive emphasis

Common law: judge and court emphasis.


36

Simplified view, but helpful: points to linguistic divergences,

as well as term differences.

In a Common law system, the common law (court cases) is

the background system, and statute (written law) the

exception. So laws are drafted to change the common

law and as exceptions are narrowly drafted, precise and

dense, and focus on specific issues.

Common law legislative drafting tends to be denser than

civil law drafting.

It tends to seek to provide a solution to every possibility.

It tends to have specific narrow terms, often with

definitions.

It tends to leave less scope to judges for adapting to the

facts than civil law texts.


37

EN legal texts may tend towards higher density, and a

greater use of narrow (difficult to understand) terms.

EN drafting prefers verbal rather than nominal forms …

So, sometimes it is a case of converting verbal phrases into

nominal phrases, or vice versa…. Just as a densely structured sentence in German may

need to be restructured less densely in another language

… However, EU legal texts are written differently from national

legal texts since they are written by non-native speakers

and are written to be translated.

We will touch on this later on in connection with English.


38

Nonetheless, the concepts of civil law and of common law

historically are not so different as both have been

concerned with general life in civil community, as opposed

to specialised areas of law, such as Mercantile law or

Canon law.

There has been common law in civil law countries too:

(jus commune – le droit commun....)

However, English law has many concepts originally unknown

to Civil law systems (trust, trespass).... and vice versa...

Does drafting in English pose a problem for EU law and

language? Are English concepts and terms a problem?

Most EU member states are civil law countries: some are

hybrid.


39

EU English:

- Originally translation from French, so key concepts

inherited from the outset.

- Generally ‘functions’ in parallel with French in preparation of new primary law treaties.

- Has its own style, developed as translation language and

perpetuated through time.

- EU texts constructed in accordance with the general

guidance, etc.

- Subject to control, checking and modifications to

accommodate other languages.

Common law dimension thus appears to be not significant.

EU English is closer to civil law language; separate genre.


40

7. EU legal English: non-native speakers

To reinforce the low level of common law input, many (most?)

EU drafters are non-native speakers.

This has terminology implications:

- non-standard English syntax can occur

- false-friends (actual, adhere, addition, raisin, sensible...)

- concepts deriving from different cultures (run amok)

(Malaya) (cf go berserk) (old Norse)

Generally, the texts are checked by native-speakers, but

political compromise wording tends to limit the scope for

intervention here.


41

For the purposes of terminology, one needs:

- awareness,

- knowledge of correct English usage,

- knowledge of other languages,

- ability to detect ‘ghost’ languages behind a text - to check whether a term is intended to have a ‘standard

English’ meaning (which one?) or a ‘ghost’ language meaning (which one?)

- to check other languages for their interpretation

- to check with authors and experts as to their intention

- to reflect on how the terms may be interpreted by the

courts.

- Here we should bear in mind multilingual interpretation…


42

8. EU multilingual interpretation of terms

Linguistic meaning and legal meaning are not the same.

To see this, read cases where judges analyse texts.

Legal meaning derives from many factors: the texts, facts,

intentions, the system as a whole, what is permitted and

not permitted, ways of acting, procedures to follow, and

much more. There are different legal ways of reading a

text: broadly, narrowly, similar words – similar meaning

...

Linguistic meaning takes the wording in the text, but it also

links that wording and text to other texts … intertextually.

Legal texts frequently refer to other texts in references.


43

Judicial interpretation is a specialised skill: legal meaning:

What is the law?

A court analyses terms and allocates meaning and legal

effects. It is guided by deeper-level principles, such as

teleology in EU cases, in its methods of analysis. These

influence meaning. Further, a text can be found to have

‘no meaning’. (i.e. no meaning in law)

The Court of Justice has developed techniques for

interpreting multilingual texts and terminology.

We will take one example...


44

Case C-265/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the

Audiencia Nacional: Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de

Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de

Fútbol European Court Reports 2005 Page I-02579.

Reference from a Spanish court for a preliminary ruling on

wording in an EU Agreement with Russia

Mr Simutenkov, Russian footballer moved to Spain and

was prevented from playing in premier league games.

Claimed rights under an EU/ Russia Agreement.

The problem was with the words in Spanish in the text of

the agreement: velarán por que…… no implique ninguna

discriminación por


45

Art 23 of Agreement

Spanish:

“1. Salvo lo dispuesto en la legislación, las condiciones y los

procedimientos aplicables en cada Estado miembro, la

Comunidad y sus Estados miembros velarán por que el trato

que se conceda a los nacionales rusos, legalmente

empleados en el territorio de un Estado miembro, no

implique ninguna discriminación por motivos de

nacionalidad, por lo que respecta a las condiciones de

trabajo, la remuneración o el despido, en comparación con

los nacionales de ese mismo Estado.”


46

Problem:

Seven languages, including Russian, pointed to an

‘obligation’ (“shall ensure ... shall be free”)

and three pointed to ‘endeavours’ (velarán por que ... no

implique)

Which meaning should prevail?

Advocate General Stix-Hackl described different

approaches for answering this question.


47

(Multilingual legal interpretation: different approaches

where a difference between language versions)

1. Common minimum of all languages as starting point

(i.e. “endeavours”)

(but here no convincing arguments for this approach and

not supported by practice in the case law.)

“in the circumstances of the present case, in which it is not

just one text that diverges from all the others, the

approach does not permit a convincing solution”.


48

2. Determine clearest text, eliminate texts not typical, or

containing a translation error.

(This approach possible, found in Court’s case law, but:)

“in the circumstances of the present case, in which it is not

just one text that diverges from all the others, the

approach does not permit a convincing solution”.


49

3. The “language versions forming the majority prevail”

(preference in favour of language versions laying down

“obligation”).

(Approach possible, found in Court’s case law, but:)

“That may … be countered by the Court’s line of argument under which, in certain circumstances, a single language

version is to be favoured over the majority.”


50

4. Take the original text which served as source for the

translations

Here text had been negotiated in English (“shall ensure”: obligation).


51

5. Consider the intention of the parties and the object of the

provision to be interpreted.

“The intention of the parties is of decisive importance for

the interpretation of Article 23(1) of the Agreement. The

documents which have been submitted by the

Commission that were used in preparing for the

negotiations on the Agreement support the view that the

parties wanted to lay down a clear obligation going

beyond the obligation merely to use endeavours.”


52

Arguments in support of this last and fifth approach

regarding interpretation:

- comparison with other similar agreements which say

clearly “shall endeavour to ensure” ,

- since different wording could imply a different meaning

and intention;

- circumstances, revealed by the negotiating documents

(“Russia expressed a wish to that effect.”) .


So the intention seemed clear, but did the Agreement have

direct effect?

If not, then national law, discriminating against

Simutenkov, could prevail.

If yes, then the wording of the Agreement, as part of EU

law, should prevail.


54

The Court’s Ruling in Simutenkov ....

“Article 23(1) .... must be construed as precluding the

application to a professional sportsman of Russian

nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established in

a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation of

that State which provides that clubs may field in competitions

organised at national level only a limited number of players

from countries which are not parties to the Agreement on the

European Economic Area.”.

So: obligation; Simutenkov won; intention of parties;

teleological approach; Spanish text not convey legal

meaning


55

As regards direct effect:

The Court observed in its judgment:

“40. ... the words ‘[s]ubject to the laws, conditions and

procedures applicable in each Member State’, ... cannot be construed as allowing Member States to

subject the application of the principle of non-

discrimination set out in the former of those two

provisions to discretionary limitations, inasmuch as such

an interpretation would have the effect of rendering that

provision meaningless and thus depriving it of any

practical effect.”


56

So, when searching for terms and equivalences useful to

reflect on the different approaches of the Court on

interpretation.

Ask about practical effects of each possible term.

Reflect on whether term relates to law, policy, language or

action.

Reflect on whether a ‘false friend’ in English source text, or a loan from another system under English guise.

Other methods of analysis.... Eg Semiotics, study of signs.


57

9. A semiotic view on terminology

Semiotics: study of ‘signs’. Saussure: essentially binary view: ‘signifé’ et ‘signifiant’

(‘signified’ and ‘signifier’).

Thing and name for it = sign

Translation: concept and search for term; term and search for

underlying concept.

However, different ideas are often associated with particular

words and terms, and these can vary across languages.

A binary view does not give formal space for these variables.


Tripartite concept of the sign

Charles Sanders Peirce, (pronounced ’purse’!), American

philosopher and logician, studying ‘phenomenology’ proposed inter alia a tripartite basis to the ‘sign’.

Object (thing, concept, signified)

Representamen (word, term, label, signifier)

Interpretant (relationship between Object / Representamen)


59

He also distinguished between ‘object’ and ‘semiotic object’.

This is the distinction between the actual object directly

perceived and the ‘thing in our minds’ when we speak of

them.

The problem is that the ‘things in our minds’ varies between us and much of the translation task is to analyse what

the author had in mind and how to convey something like

it to the reader of the translation. In EU texts the

translations read like, and are, ‘originals’.


60

We can use Peirce’s ‘interpretant’ to reflect on certain aspects of terms.

We can use it to ask questions such as: what is the cultural

context of the source term?

We can do a similar task for possible TL terms.

The method provides a structured way to ‘get inside’ terms and analyse them.

The concept of the sign is abstract, but useful.


61

The 3 components = sign

Vary any component = new sign.

Check which components match up between terms in

different languages.

EU signs have a characteristic: they vary in one element:

representamen.

(Or do they? We are led to reflect on nuances and effects ...)


Example:

Regulation (representamen) (EN)

A type of EU legal act (object)

Function in EU law, its attributes … (interpretant)

Règlement (representamen) (FR)

A type of legal act (object – same as for EN)

Function in EU law, its attributes … (interpretant – same as

for EN)

We can analyse any concepts, terms, sentences, texts etc

as signs. Not solve the problem, but makes clearer.


63

The Interpretant provides a space to ask about the nature of the object, associations with it, cultural ideas, etc, etc.

We can take any term and think about it in these terms.

For legal terms, the object is often highly specific.

Example: trespass – one term but applied to many contexts (trespass to land, property, person….)

The semiotic approach gives us a door to analysing legal terms.


64

10. Conclusion

Rapid overview of many issues.

A range of ideas implicit in a legal-linguistic view of terminology.

Legal terms embedded in system context.

Clarify function from perspectives: law, policy, language, action.

Courts interpret by lining up language versions and looking for

legal meaning.

Semiotics offers tools of analysis of terminology ...


65

END


66

References

This presentation is based on ideas taken from the following publications. They can be referred to for

fuller details and references.

EU Lawyer linguists and tasks

Šarčević, Susan / Robertson Colin (2013). The work of

lawyer-linguists in the EU institutions. In: Borja Albi,

Anabel / Prieto Ramos, Fernando (eds). Legal

Translation in Context. Professional Issues and

Prospects. Oxford etc: Peter Lang. 181-202.


Four viewpoints on terminology: law, policy, language and action

Robertson, Colin. 2010. Legal-linguistic Revision of EU

Legislative Texts. In Maurizio Gotti & Christopher

Williams (eds). Legal Discourse across Languages and

Cultures. 51-73. Bern: Peter Lang.

EU legal English

Robertson, Colin. 2012. EU Legal English: Common

Law, Civil Law or a new genre? European Review of

Private law. 5&6.2012 [1215-1240]


68

The structure of EU legislative acts

Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on

Common Guidelines for the Quality of Drafting of

Community Legislation (Official Journal C 73, 17.3.1999,

p.1)

Joint Practical Guide for the Drafting of Community

legislation. 2003. Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities. Luxembourg.

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/index.htm)

Interinstitutional Style Guide:

(http:// publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000300.htm)





69

Legal language styles and terminology

Robertson, Colin. 2011. Multlingual legislation in the

European Union: EU and national legislative-language

styles and terminology. Research in language. Warsaw:

Versita. 2011

http://versita.metapress.com/content/g851738257gm73k

1/

EU legal English: non-native speakers

Robertson, Colin. 2010. Legislative drafting in English for

non-native speakers: some do's and don'ts (with

reference to EU legislation). In Gotti, Maurizio and

Williams, Christopher (eds,). ESP across cultures.

Special issue: Legal English across cultures. Volume 7.

Bari: Edipuglia. 2010 147-163.


EU multilingual legal texts: interpretation

Robertson, Colin. 2012. The Problem of Meaning in

Multilingual EU Legal Texts . International Journal of

Law, Language & Discourse, 2012, 2(1), 1-30

http://www.ijlld.com/2012-index

EU legal translation

Robertson, Colin. 2012. Translation in context. St Jerome

and modern multilingual law.

SYNAPS.http://www.nhh.no/en/research---

faculty/department-of-professional-and-intercultural-

communication/research/publications/synaps---a-journal-

of-professional-communication.aspx





http://www.nhh.no/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=/Files/Filer/institutter/fsk/Synaps/27-2012/Artikkel+2_+27-12.pdf

http://www.nhh.no/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=/Files/Filer/institutter/fsk/Synaps/27-2012/Artikkel+2_+27-12.pdf

http://www.nhh.no/en/research---faculty/department-of-professional-and-intercultural-communication/research/publications/synaps---a-journal-of-professional-communication.aspx



























71

Robertson, Colin. EU legislative texts and translation.

(currently in press 2013)

Placing in a context of signs

Robertson, Colin. 2010. “EU Law and Semiotics”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. Dordrecht.

Springer. 145-164.

Robertson, Colin. 2011. What EU legislative texts reveal

about power, control and transparency. In Vijay K.

Bhatia, Christoph A.Hafner, Lindsay Miller and Anne

Wagner (eds.). Transparency, Power and Control:

Perspectives on Legal Communication. Farnham:

Ashgate. 109 – 123


72

More generally

Robertson, Colin. 2013. How the European Union functions

in 23 languages SYNAPS.

http://www.nhh.no/Files/Filer/institutter/fsk/Synaps/28-

2013/Robertson_28_2013.pdf

Robertson, Colin. 2009. "LSP and EU Legal Language".

http://www.asb.dk/fileadmin/www.asb.dk/isek/robertson.p

df


http://www.nhh.no/Files/Filer/institutter/fsk/Synaps/28-2013/Robertson_28_2013.pdf



http://www.asb.dk/fileadmin/www.asb.dk/isek/robertson.pdf

http://www.asb.dk/fileadmin/www.asb.dk/isek/robertson.pdf

Robertson, Colin. Il diritto scozzese e il diritto inglese: due

sistemi, una lingua; 43 Quaderni di Libri e riviste d’Italia,

la traduzione, Saggi e documenti (IV), 1999, pp. 117-

134.

Robertson, Colin. 1999. Multilingual Law: A Framework for

Understanding In Language for Special Purposes

Perspectives for the new Millenium, Vol.2. 697- 703.

Tuebingen: Gunter Narr.

Robertson, Colin. 2009. Multilingual Law: What is it? How

is it made? How is it Used and Applied? (with reference

to EU practice)". Sočanac, Lelija, Goddard, Christopher,

Kremer, Ludger (eds). In Curriculum, Multilingualism and

the Law. 373-395. Zagreb: Globus.


Documents

A lawyer-linguist view on EU terminology · 2. Lawyer linguist viewpoint on terminology The starting point here: lawyer-linguist (juriste-linguiste)(JL) - Trained lawyer: knowledge