Fundamental legal-linguistic research includes next to monolingual approaches to the legal language also comparative approaches. Meanwhile, the epistemic value of comparative approaches is unclear in legal linguistics. Therefore, in this article different legal-linguistic comparative approaches will be scrutinized, and their perspectives made operational in legal linguistics. Especially, the traditional analysis of legal terminology gains momentum here in the context of discursive comparative approaches. The multilingual origins and the intertextual mode of existence and development of the legal language are identified as its characteristic features. They also shape processes in which the language of the global law emerges in the contemporary social reality.
Authors of translations of legal codes do not usually inform about their approach to solving translational problems. One of the reasons is the firm belief in the need for a faithful and thus literal translation of the output text. This unlawful approach creates a field for unfounded creation of so-called Equivalent terminology. Consequently, translations contain expressions whose meanings in the target language are incomprehensible or cannot be determined by reference to the doctrine or case-law. A legal approach based on subject knowledge and a precise methodology for determining interlingua equivalents eliminates the problems arising from a non-lawful approach. In the analytical part of the article there is presented a methodology of the legal approach to solving translational problems and the method of its practical application.
Research into ‘translation universals’ in legal translation is a relatively new field, which still needs to be expanded with further empirical studies. The few studies conducted so far fall into two main categories: a) analyses that explore the typical features of European legalese as translated language against national legal language; b) studies based on corpora of national legal language translated into other national languages.
The present paper is framed within the second category and aims at contributing to the academic debate on translation universals applied to legal language; more specifically, it aims at testing the methodology adopted to study translation universals on a bilingual parallel corpus of judgments delivered by the Spanish Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional, TC) translated for informative purposes into English.
The corpus-based analysis, carried out mainly quantitatively, includes the comparison with a larger corpus of original judgments delivered by the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) with the final objective of testing some indicators of simplification, explicitation, normalisation, levelling out, interference, untypical collocation.
Preliminary results are promising, even though it is not possible to identify robust and homogeneous trends.
Therapeutic jurisprudence is an interdisciplinary examination on the effect of the law on the mental and emotional health of those implicated in the judicial process. It concentrates primarily on the psychological impact of legal rules and procedures, as well as on the behaviour of legal players. TJ is a tool not often used in the promotion of linguistic rights. Endowed with a double mission, both normative and descriptive, TJ makes it possible to measure the impact of health incidences. In providing legal reformers with more precise tools to assess the health impacts of new linguistic rights standards TJ offers such a path of implementation of linguistic rights – not only from the formal point of view, but by keeping in mind their actual effectiveness – integrating law and languages in a way to mitigate their consequences on a population’s health.
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.