This paper focuses on the impact of the creation of the new administrative French region «Occitanie – Pyrénées, Méditerranée» under the social representations of the Occitan linguistic space point of view. This new region was created in 2016 by the union of two former regions, Midi-Pyrénées and Languedoc-Roussillon, and does not correspond precisely to the linguistic and historical Occitanie. Therefore, the name of the new region could delegitimize both the name and the linguistic practices – indeed, already remarkably jeopardized.
The jus commune (droit commun) is the intellectual canvas upon which any rule of law is built upon within a given society, that must be integrated in any interpretation or construction process in any field of law, even constitutional law. As the jus commune bears a series of structural values, one ponders as to the correct construction of linguistic law to be held in that regard within a minority society entrenched inside a greater federal superstructure, where linguistic preservation is a collective existential matter. The author submits that the Supreme Court of Canada may have neglected to consider this important factor in Quebec when striking down large sections of the Charter of the French Language pertaining to the official language of law and judicial decisions in the 1979 Blaikie case, in which it imposed official constitutional bilingualism in matters of legislation and judicial decisions to the enclaved French-speaking province. Perhaps the appropriateness of this decision should be revisited.
The European Union is an organisation that uses multiple languages, and its law is no exception. Dealing with over twenty authentic language versions of EU legislation appears to represent an additional challenge in the interpretation of the provisions of the common legal order. Unlike most other works, this article does not focus on the process of interpretation conducted by an adjudicating panel or an Advocate General, but rather on the statements of the parties involved in a dispute, or on the national courts that request a preliminary ruling when referring to multilingualism.
This work is divided into two separate parts. Firstly, the author focuses on cases whereby a national court or a party invokes the multilingual character of EU law. The second part is dedicated to the issue of multilingualism in EU case law. Unlike EU law, the judgments of the Court of Justice, as well as the Advocate Generals’ opinions, are authentic in certain languages only. However, research has proven that a solitary, authentic language version does not help to avoid problems the multilingual nature of European Union’s legal discourse.
Both issues have been analysed based on the texts of judgments and opinions passed in cases recently resolved by the CJEU. Of course, the statements of the parties or national courts referring to multilingualism do not always have a great influence on the final result of the case. Nevertheless, the unique perspective taken in this article can serve as a good illustration of the various possibilities one can make use of when using multilingual comparison in the process of legal interpretation.
The present article is a contrastive legal-linguistic study that deals with phraseologisms in criminal judgments of the German and Arabic legal systems. It aims primarily to determine legal phraseologisms that occur repeatedly in the same fixed form in German and Arabic criminal judgments and that have a specialized meaning. It focuses on the identification of types of such phraseologisms in the various components of criminal judgments. The aim is to find out which legal-linguistic phraseologisms are used in which parts of the texts of criminal judgments and what differences and similarities can be identified between the German and Arabic systems in this respect.
The aim of this paper is to establish the repertoire and distribution of verbal and adverbial exponents of epistemic modality in English- and Polish-language judgments passed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and non-translated judgments passed by the Supreme Court of Poland (SN). The study applies a model for categorizing exponents of epistemicity with regard to their (i) level (high-, medium- and low-level of certainty, necessity or possibility expressed by the markers; primary dimension), (ii) perspective (own vs. reported perspective), (iii) opinion (based either on facts or beliefs) and (iv) time (the embedding of epistemic markers in sentences relating to the past, present or future) (contextual dimensions). It examines the degree of intra-generic convergence of translated EU judgments and non-translated national judgments in terms of the employment of epistemic markers, as well as the degree of authoritativeness of judicial argumentation, and determines whether the frequent use of epistemic markers constitutes a generic feature of judgments. The research material consists of a parallel corpus of English- and Polish-language versions of 200 EU judgments and a corpus of 200 non-translated domestic judgments. The results point to the high salience and differing patterns of use of epistemic markers in both EU and national judgments. The frequent use of high-level epistemic markers boosts the authoritativeness of judicial reasoning.
Corrigenda issued by international organizations provide a most relevant source for the analysis of translation errors and what they reveal about institutional translation quality control and correction processes. This study examines corrigenda published in three settings (the European Union institutions involved in law-making, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization) in three years over a decade: 2005, 2010 and 2015. It reviews the procedures used to introduce translation corrections in these institutions before presenting the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of translation-triggered corrigenda in two target languages, French and Spanish, per setting, year, genre, error type and severity. A distinction is made between content reformulation corrections and minor formal corrections for the comparison of diachronic changes and semantic impact levels of corrected errors between the institutions considered. The findings confirm that minor formal errors may have meaning-distorting effects that are as serious as content reformulation errors; when this is not the case, they rarely trigger single-correction corrigenda. The UN recourse to “reissues for technical reasons” for translation corrections and the growing number of corrigenda to EU legal acts and their implications for translation quality assurance and legal certainty are further contextualized and discussed drawing on both corpus analysis and consultations with institutional informants.
This paper applies a structured legal-linguistic profiling approach to EU “staff representation bodies” as a way to access domains that lie behind the public face of EU institutions and their texts concerning translation, language and terminology. The study commences with a legal-linguistic analysis of EU texts for references to “staff”, “staff representation” and “employment” in order to identify specific texts and bodies of relevance to the study. This approach leads to two broad categories: staff committees and trade unions. Information is sought from EU institutions about these bodies and their translation and language arrangements, and a list is made of websites available to the general public. These sites are then examined as part of the legal-linguistic profiling approach.
This article discusses preliminary findings of a study on the transposition of the legal concept of genocide into 131 national jurisdictions. The specificities of this transposition into national criminal systems, as well as those related to the international legal definition of genocide, are described in the first part. The communicative situations in which the concept of genocide has been transposed are then examined in order to show their scope and breadth, and to which extent they contribute to the transformation of the concept of genocide. Trends related to the object of transformation in the definition and their effect on meaning are subsequently outlined. The findings point to a situation where, despite having been the object of multiple consensus at the international level, the concept of genocide has been transformed by the vast array of domestic legal languages and legal systems into which it has been transposed and thereby reinforce the relation between the configuration of the language and law, and the difficulty of translation.