Multilingualism in Law

This article was entered in the editorial right for improvement due to formal or factual deficiencies in quality assurance . This is done in order to bring the quality of articles from the subject area law to an acceptable level. Help to eliminate the shortcomings in this article and take part in the discussion ! ( + ) Reason: Transfer to FachQS for discussion about postponement. - Sechmet (discussion) 16:30, June 9, 2019 (CEST)

Multilingualism in law is a scientific research field in legal linguistics . The multilingualism in law is also of great practical importance, such as supranational organizations such as the European Union .

Multilingualism in the European Parliament

Multilingualism in the European Parliament refers to all those legal texts that are translated into all official languages ​​of the European Union in the interests of equal rights in European legal policy . All members of the European Parliament (MdeP) have the right to speak in any official language they choose . The European Union (EU) is characterized by its cultural and linguistic diversity. Through their versatile cultural policy which is characterized language policy of the EU emerged, which is largely independent since 1,992th Since 2013, 24 states have belonged to the EU, whose right it is to read all legal texts in their language. Therefore, all documents and legal provisions are written in every official language and not just in the more commonly used languages ​​such as English or French.

Official languages ​​of the EU

Since Croatia joined in 2013, a total of 24 different languages ​​have been spoken in the European Parliament. Since then, all documents have been translated into the following official languages:

• German, French, Italian, Dutch (1958)
• Danish, English (1973)
• Greek (1981)
• Portuguese, Spanish (1986)
• Finnish, Swedish (1995)
• Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Czech, Hungarian (2004)
• Bulgarian, Irish, Romanian (2007)
• Croatian (2013)

All languages ​​are equal. With all 24 official languages equal, there are 552 different combinations of translation , because each language can be translated into 23 others.

Legal translation

When translating and reviewing legal texts, there are strict rules that translators must adhere to. The Parliament's internal translation service must therefore meet the requirements in a relatively short time and translate the documents. The translation services are mainly concerned with working on EU legislation that is adopted or rejected in committees and becomes legal acts once adopted. So this work of the internal translator is, so to speak, the last and a very responsible step. However, the European Parliament's translation services also deal with other types of text from different areas, such as the decisions of the governing bodies of Parliament and the European Ombudsman. In addition, with information for the citizens and all Member States, with parliamentary questions and documents from other political committees as well as the determination of the annual EU budget and the discharge procedures. Last but not least, the interpreting services deal with the resolutions of the European Parliament on current issues.

Legislative process

In addition to the parliament's internal translation service, language lawyers are involved in the legislative process, guaranteeing optimal quality and correctness of the legal texts. There are around 75 language lawyers in a team who largely take care of the following: The members and committee secretariats receive advice on wording and procedures. Then they create the legal texts, which are then published in the committee, the quality of which is guaranteed by the language lawyers. On the other hand, they are responsible for the technical preparation of the amendments and the publication of the adopted texts by the plenary. Last but not least, language lawyers prepare the final version of the legal texts with the help of the Council's legal experts.

Interpreting

In addition to written translators, interpreters are also used for simultaneous oral translation. The European Parliament has one of the largest interpreting services in the world. About 270 interpreters are currently employed. There are also around 1,800 external accredited persons. Interpreters from the European Parliament enable its members to communicate in an understandable way so that they can understand and communicate with one another. Different types of interpreting are offered in the European Parliament.

Simultaneous interpreting

The interpreter translates the speech simultaneously during a session, i.e. in parallel. He is sitting in a soundproof booth with a view of the hall and his translation can be heard by the participants through headphones.

Consecutive interpreting

With this variant, the interpreter reproduces his translation using notes at the end of the speech. This type of interpreting is mainly used for interviews, in small groups or working lunches, but has now been largely replaced by simultaneous translation.

Whispered interpreting

The interpreter sits next to the participant and simultaneously whispers the translation to him. However, this variant is only possible with a relatively small group in which the participants are close together.

Luggage interpreting

This type of interpreting is a variant of simultaneous interpreting in which it is not possible to use a soundproof booth. This is why the interpreter uses a suitcase for "suitcase interpreting" in which there is a system of headphones and a microphone.

Translation of legal texts

The right in one's own language is of great importance because this is the condition for this right to be accessible and understandable for every citizen. If the political will to multilingualism is present in a state and there are therefore several official languages, i.e. official languages, each legal text must be available in the various language versions. Such a multilingual legal system provides that the laws are authentic and binding in all language versions. However, there is always a language version that, in case of doubt, is placed above the others in terms of its validity.

Origin of the different language versions

As we saw in the chapter on multilingualism in the European Parliament, the translation of legal texts is subject to strict regulations and translators must work promptly and responsibly. There are a total of 24 official languages ​​in the EU, all of which are legally equivalent. In spite of the strict templates, the basic rule is that when translating legal texts there is room for subjectivity and creativity, but that this room can be reduced in certain situations and with certain types of text. The main difficulty in the translation process is ensuring that the content is consistent, which should be taken into account when producing the text. This leads to the biggest problem of legal translation: understanding the source text and knowing the facts.

There are three different methods of drafting or translating multilingual standard texts:

• The multilingual elaboration of the texts
• The revision of the texts
• The pure translation

There are often overlaps or different mixtures between the individual processes, which, however, always show a dominant type. Within the various procedures, attention must also be paid to three specific characteristics for translating legal texts: It is about a different language culture, a different legal culture and potentially target groups with very different prior knowledge.

Multilingual elaboration of the texts

Within this procedure, the translator has two different approaches: the so-called co- editing or the mixed-language editing .

Co-editing

During co-editing, the legal text is drawn up in parallel in several monolingual versions. There is no source text and a discussion between the different language versions from the start. This procedure is considered an ideal case, since all languages ​​are equivalent and the texts are also linguistically authentic due to the consideration of the linguistic peculiarities.

Mixed language editing

In the mixed-language editing process, a mixed-language text is developed in which each of the translators involved writes a part of the text in their own language.

Corevision

With corevision, several monolingual texts are written from a single or mixed language text. At the time of the translation, the source text is not yet fixed and therefore each language version changes during the process.

Pure translation

In contrast to the corevision, with the pure translation the source text is already largely fixed at the time of translation. The translations into other official languages ​​no longer have any influence on the original text. This procedure is used, for example, when a certain language version is only incorporated into the legal process very late. The positive aspect of this procedure, however, is the potential for clarification, as nobody reads the text more precisely than the person who is supposed to translate it.

According to national legal systems, court judgments can be subject to very different criteria in terms of form and content and can therefore only be translated into another language with certain difficulties.

translator

Now that the various procedures for translating legal texts have been explained, the question arises of who is potentially most suitable for translation. Do you commission the translation from an expert in the respective subject (here e.g. from a lawyer) or from a professional translator? Both sides have their own advantages. The translator's linguistic training helps ensure the quality of the text. The acquisition of satisfactory language skills also takes longer and is more complex than the acquisition of specialist knowledge. The subject matter experts, on the other hand, point out that knowledge of subject contexts is more important than linguistic correctness and elegance. This argument is particularly relevant when it comes to the problem of interpreting different linguistic versions in legal linguistics.

A division of labor within the translation is therefore ideal, which ensures both the technical and the linguistic competence during the process according to the different phases of the translation. The different phases of the translation based on the division of labor are:

• The reception phase
• The transfer phase
• (Re) production phase

Factual problems and the knowledge level worked out. The (re) production phase deals with checking and ensuring the correctness and acceptability of the design of the target text. The high quality of the translations achieved through the division of labor is a prerequisite for multilingual, multicultural and professional-interdisciplinary communication skills within an institution such as the European Union. At the European Court of Justice, on the other hand, legal texts are usually translated by so-called juristes-linguistes , who have dual qualifications.

Understandability of legal texts

Comprehensibility plays a major role, especially in legal texts. Especially in large societies where many different values, traditions and languages ​​prevail, everyone must be given access to their rights, if necessary in different languages. Everyone must be free to appropriate their own rights and to be able to use them. At this point, legal language can be very difficult to define as technical language like any other: It is aimed at citizens, so this language is closely linked to intelligibility. It must be made available to every citizen what his rights and duties are in order to ensure that the citizen is given the opportunity to adhere to these rules. Normative texts are there to represent written law and to bind the citizen to this right. Legal texts are also necessary for lawyers in order to make decisions based on standard texts and to be able to access these texts. Here, too, it is therefore inevitable to make texts understandable. The following is intended to show the extent to which it is possible to make normative texts more understandable, which factors can contribute and whether this is just a question of the formulation.

Understanding text in general

Dietrich Busse made some fundamental remarks about text understanding and text interpretation: Every text must be interpreted , a text only gets its meaning in the interpretation . Therefore, any text, whether formulated understandably or incomprehensibly, can always be interpreted in many different ways. Depending on the interpretation, each interpretation may be correct, but does not necessarily preclude other interpretations. The knowledge base of every reader, which is necessary to understand a text, is derived from this interpretation. References must always be made, based on these references, which every reader makes, the different interpretations result. The aim for a generally understandable text is that the author is given the task of visualizing this knowledge base and producing a sufficiently understandable text on the basis of this. Linguistic means , choice of words and formulations should be adapted to the general reader. The problems here are to what extent a text can be simplified, i.e. also generalized, without giving the recipient a greater scope for interpretation. Because that's exactly what shouldn't happen on the other side. Because (legal) texts should be made as clear as possible to the reader. The first requirement is here. The question arises here as to how one can overcome this hurdle without creating further problems for the reader (namely in the interpretation). But: how is a text produced to suit a specific group of addressees whose knowledge base can only be assumed due to a lack of knowledge? The more precise a text, the smaller the target group to which this text is accessible. However, the legal theory of interpretation assumes that the main concern is that a text is written in an understandable manner. However, this also means that every reader is assumed to have a certain knowledge of the world that they may not have at all. The following insight emerges from these explanations: Linguistic problems therefore not only necessarily depend on how a text was formulated. Knowledge of language and knowledge of the world merge, the references that have to be drawn in the reception of texts require not only language knowledge, but also knowledge of the world. Here the specific requirement is placed on the legal language. "Making a legal text understandable for larger groups of addressees always requires imparting legal expertise". Legal language has many legal terms, the interpretation of which is not language-related, but decision-related. At this point the design plays a major role again. The meaning of these words unfolds based on the recipient's knowledge base. There are several hierarchies according to which a term can be precisely defined, so legal texts open up more semantic leeway than setting clear limits. Depending on the context, the same text can be assigned different meanings. This is the language work that takes place on legal texts. In addition to the interpretation of the texts, it is important here to adhere to institutional rules of interpretation. Here it becomes clear once again: a text is not only bound to linguistic forms, but at the same time and equally to the institutions in which they appear.

How can a text be made understandable?

Busse differentiates between two types of making intelligible: that on the side of the recipient and vice versa on the side of the producer. In the first case, a text already exists that must be made more understandable for the recipient, and in the second case the author is faced with the task of producing a new text that must be clearly understandable for the addressee. The difficulty here is to produce an improved text with regard to its original text, which does not change the original meaning of a text. However, this is exactly what happens: the original text never has completely the same opinion as its improved text. So does text optimization of legal texts make any sense here? The design gives a lot of leeway for design even before it is optimized, so what does it look like if the text is simplified even further and thus generalized? A few attempts at optimization have shown this: semantically, the source text and the "new text" were no longer identical and thus gave different leeway for interpretation and thus a different case law . What does it mean to make it understandable with existing texts? Since there is already a produced text, it is important to paraphrase so far that someone who does not otherwise deal with legal language can understand it. Busse cites the example here of a lawyer explaining his rights to his client to such an extent that it is obvious to him. In this case, making understandable is equivalent to a certain form of translation in which the knowledge base of the addressee is expanded, the so-called expansion of the inference base . For the producer of a text, this in turn means addressing his text to an abstract addressee group, whose knowledge base he must put himself in the shoes of. However, this knowledge base is only assumed. Here the author is faced with the task of assessing this knowledge in advance and dealing with it. So it becomes clear: Making legal texts understandable turns out to be a difficult task, which in the end can only be assumed for the abstract reader.

Can texts be linguistically optimized?

Busse writes here that it is less about making it understandable than about avoiding obstacles to understanding when producing the text. It is more difficult to improve an existing text with regard to the knowledge base of a recipient than to forego linguistic formulations that are difficult to understand in advance. As already explained above, improving a text is also about changing the meaning of the text, even if only in the smallest possible way. The consequences of this are different ways of interpretation and interpretation, which can lead to different judgments. Busse refers to von Polenz, who explains that making things more explicit leads to facts being made clearer that were not originally intended to be made clear. Because: the text should be there to be interpreted. Finally, Busse comes to the conclusion that from a linguistic point of view, no specific advice can be given as to how and whether an optimization can be carried out. Optimization is therefore possible in principle, but there is still a great need for research on this. Ultimately, it is not that easy a task to bring a legal text closer to the recipient and make it easier to understand. There are more and more hurdles that have to be overcome and which in the end can make work on the text more difficult for lawyers and these are actually the people for whom the text is there. The text-reader relationship is very complex and always different depending on the person, their level of knowledge and their previous knowledge. When exactly a text is incomprehensible depends on many factors that are not always of the linguistic origin.

literature

• Reiner Arntz : Technical multilingualism in law and technology. Hildesheim, Georg Olms AG, 2001
• Isolde Burr, Gertrude Créciano: Europe: Language and Law. La construction européenne: aspects linguistiques et juridiques. Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003
• Dietrich Busse: Comprehensibility of legal texts - a problem in formulation technology? Legislation today 1994/2, pp. 29–37
• Gérard-René de Groot, Reiner Schulze (ed.): Law and translation. Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1999
• Jakob Haselgrube: Multilingualism in the European Union. An analysis of EU language policy, with a special focus on Germany. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang GmbH, 2012
• Markus Nussbaumer, Rebekka Bratschi: Multilingual legislation. 2014
• Christian FG Schendera: The comprehensibility of legal texts. A critical presentation of the research situation In: Kent D. Lerch: Understanding right. Understandability, misunderstanding and incomprehensibility in law. De Gruyter 2004, pp. 321-374

Web links

• Multilingualism in the European Parliament European Parliament website, accessed on June 22, 2019
• Interpreting website of the European Parliament, accessed on June 22, 2019
• Interpretation website of the European Commission, accessed on June 22, 2019
• Andreas Lötscher: The (in) comprehensibility of laws - a challenge for the legal editors, Zeitschrift für Europäische Rechtslinguistik, eJournal 2016

Individual evidence

1. ↑ ^{a b c d} Nussbaumer, Markus / Bratschi, Rebekka (2014): Multilingual legislation.
2. ↑ ^{a b c d} Multilingualism in the European Parliament. Retrieved February 22, 2017 . 
3. ↑ Haselhuber, Jakob (2012): Multilingualism in the European Union. An analysis of EU language policy, with a special focus on Germany. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.
4. ↑ European Parliament - interpreting. Retrieved February 22, 2017 . 
5. ↑ ^{a b} Arntz, Reiner (2001): Subject-related multilingualism in law and technology. Hildesheim: Georg Olms AG.
6. ↑ Suzanne Ballansat: “Attendu que?” French court judgments as a challenge for the translator University of Geneva, no year
7. ↑ Jutta Lashöfer: On the style change in judicial decisions. About stylistic changes in English, French and German civil law judgments and in decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Waxmann Verlag , 1992
8. ↑ Burr, Isolde / Créciano, Gertrude (2003): Europe: Language and Law. La construction européenne: aspects linguistiques et juridiques. Baden-Baden: Nomos publishing company.
9. ↑ Christian FG Schendera: The comprehensibility of legal texts. A critical presentation of the research situation, pp. 321–374.
10. ↑ ^{a b c d e f} Busse, Dietrich (1994): Comprehensibility of legal texts - a problem of formulation technology? From: Legislation today 1994/2, pp. 29–37.