International Journal of Legal Discourse最新文献

{"title":"Multilingualism in EU Institutions and EU Law","authors":"Karin Luttermann, Janice M. Engberg","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2043","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85057476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Best for whom? An EU-specific insight into translation quality","authors":"Domenico Cosmai","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2046","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Setting out from a quotation by Eugene Nida, this paper critically analyses the issue of translation quality in the peculiar context of EU institutions and bodies. While EU-specific translating is certainly acknowledged as a purposeful activity and generally takes into account the various parameters associated with functionalist theories of translation, other factors may intervene. In particular, attention is drawn to the risk that a single word or concept can take on different meanings in each of the institutional or cultural contexts comprising the European Union, and to the need to make sure that Europe’s words mean the same thing for any European citizen. Against this backdrop, the creation of EU-specific terminology is seen as an inherent step in the formation of new institutional or political concepts related to the activities or the practices of the European Union. Some examples of translation discrepancies are presented, along with their differing impact on the effectiveness of the legal or political message and the differing quality standards they seem to require in order to ensure interlingual consistency.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84758407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Frontmatter","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-frontmatter1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-frontmatter1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78239365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The impact of European legal acts on national legal terminology and on German as a minority language in South Tyrol, Italy","authors":"Klara Kranebitter","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2048","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Legal concepts are generally deeply rooted in a specific legal system. Even when two legal systems use the same official language, such as Germany and Austria, the system-boundness of their legal concepts may lead to communication problems. German is also an officially recognised minority language in South Tyrol, Italy. In South Tyrol, the local public authorities must use the minority language in their relations with German-speaking citizens. This brought about the need to elaborate a local German legal terminology to express Italian legal concepts. Terminology development efforts intended to promote terminology consistency and avoid an excessive regionalisation of South Tyrolean German, so as to foster communication with the neighbouring German-speaking legal systems. In the last decades, European Union law has led to a growing harmonisation in the legal terminologies of its Member States, facilitating communication between the different legal systems, also with benefits for terminology work in South Tyrol. This paper focuses on how European legal acts impact on national legal terminology and affect German legal terminology in South Tyrol. The considerations set out are based on comparative legal terminology work regarding the Italian and the German-speaking legal systems done at Eurac Research.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74854963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Translating the principles of good governance: in search of accountability in Spanish and German","authors":"R. Breeze","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2045","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Good governance is a key factor in underpinning the integrity and efficiency of an institution, whether it is a private company or a national or international organisation. The core principles of good governance are now often defined as fairness, accountability, responsibility and transparency. Although these terms are familiar to all those involved in corporate social responsibility/sustainability and business ethics, and are frequently discussed in the European Parliament and European directives, they often pose a challenge to the translator, since obvious equivalents for all of them do not exist in all EU languages. In this paper, I take the example of accountability, and examine the way that it is represented in both Spanish and German in the EUROPARL7 parallel corpus of European Parliament Proceedings, available in the Sketch Engine corpus platform. Accountability in English can be defined as an assurance that individuals or organizations will be evaluated on their performance or behaviour related to something for which they are responsible, or more simply, as being responsible for explaining what you do and able to give a satisfactory account of it to those whom your actions affect. The English term accountability thus differs from responsibility and transparency, although it overlaps with both. However, not all languages allow us to distinguish easily between the concepts they designate. In fact, the majority of Spanish translations of accountability found in EUROPARL7 simply use responsabilidad, while others make reference to rendir cuentas or rendición de cuentas, and a few actually use transparencia. In German, the picture is less confused, with the closer term Rechenschaftspflicht employed as the usual translation, but an abundance of alternatives such as Verantwortlichkeit and Auskunftspflicht also appear. In my conclusions, I discuss the rationale that may underlie the different choices, point to problems that might arise from poor translations, and suggest reasons we should strive to maintain clear definitions of these key concepts.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80840001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Linguistic norm in legal language and legislative language – The issue of codification","authors":"Marta Andruszkiewicz","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyses the linguistic norms found within legal and legislative language and their implementation. It attempts to answer the following questions: is there a common scope for the use of linguistic norms in general language and legislative language, what can form the basis for resolving issues of correctness in legal and legislative language and is a codification of the linguistic norms for legislative language necessary? The discrepancies observed between normative standards and linguistic practise raise the issue of the need to codify linguistic norms within legal and legislative language. In this article, I hypothesise the need to elaborate a source for codifying the norms of legal and legislative language.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74134839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The semiotic puzzle: Authentic languages & international law","authors":"Clara Chapdelaine-Feliciati","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2039","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The principle of the equal authority of authentic languages enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) has created significant debates in the interpretation of multilingual treaties. In this context, the present article explores the complex ramifications of the legal translation of human rights treaty provisions and the “translatability” and transposition of legal concepts into other linguistic frameworks. It considers whether a semiotic analysis of the content of UN international human rights treaties conducted in a single authentic language, English or French, has a raison d’être, in light of Victoria Welby’s Threefold Laws of Meaning. The article further assesses whether the Sense and Significance of treaty provisions will differ in distinct languages. It begins by examining the important role attributed to English and French at the international level. Secondly, it studies the problem of the variations between the meaning(s) of provisions enshrining rights in two or more authentic languages, namely Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish, and which interpretation should prevail under the Vienna Convention. For this purpose, it considers problems that arise expressly in English and French by conducting a comparative study of these languages with the Spanish and Chinese texts of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78131253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Border troubles. Some uncertainties of legal transfer","authors":"Claudius Messner","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2033","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Issues of production, translation and transformation of texts are explored in the light of the differences between modern Western legal thought and Chinese views of legal rationality. Contemporary Chinese culture is often viewed with suspicion. On the one hand, Chinese thinking is mistrusted as influenced by the Confucian world view regarded as deeply irrational. On the other hand, China’s economical practises are often suspected of mere reproducing and copying. This paper is concerned neither with alleged or factual deficiencies of China’s legal rationality nor with violations of “intellectual property” or other rights or the governmental policies of the People’s Republic of China. My interest is the fact that accusation and concern for the Chinese practises of creation and transformation by copying and cloning seem to hit the nerve of Western modernity’s cult of authenticity. The very problem, the paper suggests, is our modern relation to the other and to the others. I will argue this in three steps: the first part starts from a discussion of ‘shanzhai’, the Chinese neologism pointing to alternative ways of production, before analysing the Western scandalization of plagiarism; drawing upon studies from various disciplines, specific aspects of writing and scripture, such as the the differentiation between real text and fiction, the idea of authentic speaking and the distinction between textual and functional equivalents, are explored. The second part is first about the role of truth and truthfulness in modern Western art and philosophy, then about the interpenetration of wisdom and cunning in ancient Greek and Chinese thought. The final part addresses the relation of reasonable knowledge and instrumental rationality in legal thinking. The Chinese notion of ‘quan’, law, is described as a jurisgenetic path of law. Against this background, open questions associated with legal “transplants” come to the fore.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75536867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The translation of affirmative action into legal discourse in Brazil","authors":"Celina Frade","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Several studies have recently discussed legal translation beyond the transfer of equivalent linguistic and terminological features from a source language to a target language. Such perspectives can provide linguistics, translators and legislators with a framework for translating outside events of social life, including its demands, knowledge, wishes and cultural developments throughout periods of time into legal discourse. In this paper, we aim to discuss a broader approach of legal translation to depict how public policies on affirmative action have been introduced in Brazil in the light of institutionalization and further instrumentalization by law. In particular, we make an attempt to show how domestic legislation is translated and enacted considering both the context (as the source ‘language’) and legal discourse (as the target language). Our claim is that the process entails a transformation or translation of context (common sense achieved by society) into legal discourse (law) by means of categorization of everyday concepts into legal concepts to meet both the socioeconomic and historical contexts at hand and the framework of written law. The analysis is based on the Rio de Janeiro state law 5346/2008, a landmark law ruling affirmative action in Brazil insofar as it expands the categories of beneficiaries – the so-called quotistas – taking into consideration the social, political and economic context then. In addition, we argue that the criterion of categorization is not arbitrary but is rather cultural, economic and historically driven and objectivates the human production of a role identity of the beneficiaries beyond subjective intentions. To conclude, this analysis was only made possible with the contribution of more comprehensive viewpoints on legal translation and the role played by social perceptions in the translatability of domestic legislation in monolingual jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ijld-2020-2040","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72420515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Otherness, elsewhere, and the 'Ecology' of law's implications: The semiotic oceans surrounding legal signification and its discriminatory exteriority/objectivity","authors":"M. Ricca","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2034","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Modern legal systems’ efficacy and self-consistency rely upon semantic/cultural conditions that they do not engender and are unable to maintain without resorting to the cognitive provisions gushing out from freedom—this is the preliminary assumption of this essay. Some factors play a generative role in this direction. The cornerstone of legal modernity is the ‘exteriority’ of law. This means that legal qualifications have to draw from the morphological appearances of human behaviors and relate to only their empirical/factual signification and consequences. The domain of intentions, the internal forum, is out of law’s cognitive reach. The whole grammar of modern liberties is somehow imbued with the idea that freedom can exist only insofar as a ‘zone’ of behavioral autonomy is granted by means of objectively determined rights and duties. The formal features of these rights and their pragmatic implications cannot therefore be opined just because their exterior significance allegedly assures a shelter for individual freedom. In a sense, freedom is considered as an epiphenomenon of the protection afforded by the past reification of rights. The ensuing silent assumption is that should freedom redefine the content and the objective behavioral implementations of those rights, it would annihilate itself. What this approach overwrites, however, is that the morphological appearances of gestures and things stem from cultural and inter-subjective-discursive activities—a kind of semantic social contract—that can never be considered accomplished once and for all. This is because the very molding of the shapes and features of morphological appearances implies that freedom, viz. a non-indifferent differing is at work. But freedom, in turn, is a ‘phenomenon’ the origin of which dwells in the individuals’ internal forum, their own experiences, including their mnestic environment and the semiotic crossroads that constitute their minds. Nevertheless, legal terminological apparatuses—as shown above—are treated/used as systems of signs that encapsulate a semantic discontinuity in their legitimacy, a setback in the definition not only of what it is to be, but also the factual dimension to which legal categorizations implicitly refer. This discontinuity is often passed off as an objectivity normatively granted and absorbed by legal language that includes not only the meanings of what ‘ought to be’ but—silently—even of what ‘is.’ The exteriority of modern law and the objectivity of the related morphological assumption make up, therefore, the lexicon of ‘an’ equality somehow immunized against freedom and its semantic-political differentiating significance. The equality of differences before the law, but not inside the law, is the Kafkian liberticidal and mystifying outcome of the above Cartesian-fashioned misuse of law’s mythologized exteriority/objectivity and the epistemological sleight of hand for which such a binomial paves the way. The paper will analyze the ","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77845396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}