Problems Raised By The Translation Of The Eu Legislation

=== f53dea00086351caa87adac5eabb17bf19034696_688959_1 ===

Introduction

The history which led to the formation of the European Union, its diversity and multicultural, along with the multilingual aspect represents the reason behind choosing this topic and motivates me into going further with the structure of the paper.

Through the entire first chapter, European Union presentation, along with its 2 subchapters, I have tried to emphasize the basics when it comes to the respectable institution.

Historically speaking, the European Union began to be forged many centuries ago, first with the Roman Empire, then with the Holy Germanic Roman Empire, and, in 1867, after the impact of the Prussian wars, the Austro-Hungarian Empire emerged, which ended in 1914 after the Sarajevo bombing. But in the meantime, other European countries also decide to form alliances. Thus, in 1882 Italy and Germany allied themselves with the Austro-Hungarian Empire to form what was called the Triple Alliance. In 1894 the Franco-Russian military alliance was produced, and in 1907 Great Britain joined them.

After the Second World War, the countries most affected by the war decided to share their production of Coal and Steel, and so the ECSC emerged in 1952, which would later give rise to what was called the Common Market, as it was known to the European Union at first. It was created in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome. The signatories were Italy, France, Germany and the Benelux (Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium), but, since 1973, there has been the accession of almost all countries in Europe, which culminated with that of the countries of the East in 2004 and 2007. Currently, the Union is made up of 28 countries, after the accession of Croatia on July 1st, 2013. But the European Union is not an invention of our time, but, in fact, corresponds to the desire and beliefs of the peoples that the integrate.

What distinguishes the European Union from all other international organizations is its legislative power. That is, it has the capability to legislate. The supranational Community legislation, coming from the action of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, in a decision procedure, links the Member States, which have to respect it and, in addition, in its translated version, which is the most interesting. The legal instruments of the Union, binding and mandatory, are treaties – legal acts that set out the objectives of the EU, the rules applicable to its institutions, the manner in which decisions are made and the relationship between them and the Member States; regulations – legal acts of general scope. They are of direct and obligatory applicability in all their terms in the legal order of the Member States; directives – legal acts that bind the receiving Member State as to the result to be achieved, leaving it up to the national authorities to choose the form and means necessary for that purpose.

Many are the community documents that must be translated into all languages, but the essential thing is that the translations that imply legal obligations are considered original, give faith and are directly applicable and binding in the Member States; hence the responsibility of community translators.

The second chapter, The voice of the Member States, along with The collaboration between the professionals and Multilingualism and translation, focuses on the relationships which can be found and the basis of the institution.

Multilingualism is established by Council Regulation 1 on the linguistic regime of the European Community (OJ L of October 6, 1958), which has been modified by the Acts of Accession of the different countries, declaring that the official languages ​​and those of work of the Union are the 24 existing at present. Article 6 of the said Regulation declares that the institutions can determine the modalities of application of this linguistic regime in their internal regulations.

The community translator is a rare figure. First of all, it lives integrated into the European context, in which it will be the guarantor of the multilingualism established by the Treaty establishing the Union, so it must work in coherence with the preceding texts and with other languages. In the European Union, there are four main institutions, two of them politically independent, the Commission and the Court of Justice, and two led by the Member States: the Council and the Parliament.

The last and final chapter presents a case study from which we can conclude that translation is a service of great importance for the institutions of the European Union, since its work is essential to achieve a communication process in the institutions. The tests that must be overcome to get to work in one of its translation departments are rigorous and require great professionalism, because the EU translator, even if he has tools that facilitate his work, should always be up to the task demanded by providing quality textual productions.

Chapter I

The European Union: A general presentation

By stating EU functioning, this means how decisions are made at the EU level and who takes them. At the center of this decision-making process are the EU institutions, such as the Parliament, the Council and the European Commission, which may have been heard of, as well as other bodies. To show how the EU works, this publication first explains how EU legislation is drawn up. Below, you will find more information on each of the EU institutions, as well as on the agencies and support agencies.

At the center of the EU are the Member States (the twenty-eight countries that belong to the Union) and their citizens. The distinctive feature of the EU is that, although all of them are sovereign and independent countries, they have shared part of their sovereignty in order to gain strength and enjoy the advantages of size.

Sharing sovereignty means, in practice, that the Member States delegate some of their decision-making powers to the common institutions created by them in order to take democratically and at European level decisions on specific matters of joint interest. Therefore, the EU is somewhere between the federal system government and the weak intergovernmental cooperation system of the United Nations.

The EU has achieved many achievements since its creation in 1950. It has created a single market of goods and services covering twenty-eight countries with more than 500 million citizens, who are free to move and establish themselves where they wish. He created the single currency (the euro) which is now a great world currency, and which makes the single market more efficient. It is also the largest provider of aid programs for development and humanitarian aid in the world. These are just some of the achievements made so far.

Looking ahead, the EU is working to get Europe out of the current economic crisis. It is at the forefront of the fight against climate change and its consequences; as it intends to continue growing, it helps neighboring countries to prepare for EU membership; and is developing a common foreign policy that will greatly contribute to spreading European values ​​throughout the world.

The success of these objectives depends on the ability to make effective decisions at the right time and to apply them well.

The main EU institutions

All EU countries are part of the economic and monetary union (EMU), which means that they coordinate their economic policies and consider that economic decisions are a matter of common interest. Within the EMU, there is no single institution responsible for general economic policy, but rather the competences are shared between the Member States and the EU institutions.

In the euro area, i.e. in the seventeen countries that use the euro as their single currency, the European Central Bank (ECB) deals independently with monetary policy, which focuses on price stability and interest rates. of interest.

The twenty-eight governments of the Member States are responsible for fiscal policy, which refers to decisions on taxation, spending, and borrowing. They also take care of work and welfare policies. However, as the decisions on fiscal matters adopted by a Member State of the euro area can affect the entire euro area, these decisions must conform to the standards set at EU level. Therefore, for EMU to function effectively and guarantee stability and growth, it is necessary to coordinate public finances and appropriate structural policies. In particular, the economic crisis that began in 2008 highlighted the need to strengthen economic governance in the EU and the euro area through, inter alia, better policy coordination, control, and monitoring.

The Council oversees the public finances and the economic policy of the Member States and can make recommendations to the different EU countries on the basis of proposals from the Commission. It may recommend adjustment measures and penalize countries in the euro area that do not adopt corrective measures to reduce excessive levels of debt and deficits.

Governance of the euro area and important economic policy reforms are also addressed at the Euro Summits, where heads of state or government of euro area members meet.

Relations with non-EU countries are the responsibility of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who is appointed by the European Council, and who also holds the position of vice-president of the European Commission. At the level of heads of State or Government, the Union is represented by the President of the European Council.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) is a diplomatic and foreign affairs service of the Union under the authority of the High Representative. It is composed of expert staff from the Council, the Member States, and the European Commission.

The Council prepares and adopts decisions in the field of foreign and security policy based on guidelines established by the European Council. The Commission, on the other hand, is responsible for trade with non-EU countries and for financings for them, such as humanitarian aid or development aid. The Commission also represents the Union in all areas of EU competence other than foreign and security policy.

The most common procedure for approving EU legislation is the so-called ordinary legislative procedure, also known as the decision procedure, which places the Parliament and the Council on an equal footing and makes the laws passed using this procedure joint acts of both institutions. Applies to most EU legislation on a broad spectrum of areas, such as consumer rights, environmental protection, and transport. In accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, the Commission presents a proposal that must be adopted by both Parliament and the Council. Parliament’s approval is required for all international agreements in areas pertaining to the ordinary legislative procedure.

Parliament must be consulted on a whole series of proposals and its approval is required for important political or institutional decisions, such as legislation on social security and social protection, fiscal provisions in the field of energy and the harmonization of taxes on the business volume and indirect taxes. Parliament is also pushing for new legislation by examining the Commission’s annual work program, studying what new laws would be appropriate and ask the Commission to present proposals.

The Parliament exercises in various ways the democratic control of the other European institutions. This he does in several ways. Firstly, when a new Commission is appointed, the Parliament holds hearings of all the candidates for the posts of Commissioners and President of the Commission (presented by the Member States) and cannot be appointed without the approval of Parliament.

On the other hand, the Commission is politically accountable to Parliament, which can submit a motion of censure calling for the resignation of the entire Commission. More generally, Parliament exercises control by periodically examining the reports sent to it by the Commission and by asking written and oral questions.

The commissioners attend the plenary sessions of the Parliament and meetings of the parliamentary committees. In the same way, the Parliament maintains a regular dialogue with the president of the European Central Bank on monetary policy.

Parliament elects its president for a term of two and a half years. The president represents the Parliament before the other institutions of the EU and before the rest of the world and is assisted by fourteen vice-presidents. The President of the European Parliament, together with the President of the Council, signs all legislative acts once they have been adopted.

The work of Parliament is divided into two main stages:

1. Preparation of the plenary session. Deputies from the 20 parliamentary committees specializing in particular areas of EU activity are responsible for this. For example, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, or the International Trade Commission. The issues under discussion are also discussed by the political groups.

2. The full. The plenary sessions, which are attended by all the deputies, are normally held in Strasbourg (one week per month) and sometimes plenary sessions are held additional in Brussels. In these plenary sessions, Parliament examines the proposed legislation and votes on the amendments before taking a decision on the text as a whole. Other items on the agenda may include communications from the Council or the Commission or questions about what happens in the EU or in the world.

The European Council brings together the top political leaders of the European Union (EU), that is, the heads of State and Government, its president and the president of the Commission. They meet at least four times a year to set the course and general political priorities of the EU as a whole. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also participates in its meetings.

As a summit of the heads of State or Government of all the EU countries, the European Council represents the highest level of political cooperation among the Member States. In their meetings, the leaders decide by consensus on the general orientation and priorities of the Union and provide the necessary impetus for their development.

The European Council does not adopt the legislation. At the end of each meeting, it issues conclusions, which reflect the main messages resulting from the debates and take stock of the decisions adopted, as well as their follow-up. The conclusions identify major issues to be addressed by the Council, that is, meetings of ministers. You can also ask the European Commission to present proposals to face the specific challenges or opportunities of the Union.

The meetings of the European Council, in principle, take place at least twice every six months. More meetings (extraordinary or informal) can be convened to solve urgent problems that require decision-making at the highest level, for example, in economic affairs or foreign policy.

The activities of the European Council are coordinated by its president, who is responsible for convening and presiding over the European Council meetings and for promoting its work.

The president of the European Council also represents the Union abroad. Together with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, he represents the interests of the Union in matters of foreign policy and security.

The president is elected by the European Council for a term of two and a half years, extendable once. The Presidency of the European Council demands exclusive dedication: the president cannot simultaneously exercise any national mandate.

The European Council adopts most of its decisions by consensus. However, in some cases, a qualified majority is applied, such as the election of its president and the appointment of the Commission and the High

A representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. When the European Council decides by vote, only Heads of State or Government can vote.

The European Council is assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council. Outside the European Council, the heads of State or Government of countries whose currency is the euro also meet at least twice a year, together with the president of the European Commission. The president of the European Central Bank is also invited to these meetings of the Euro Summit. The President of the European Parliament can also be invited.

The meetings are an opportunity to discuss the governance of the euro area, as well as important reforms in economic policy. The Euro Summit was formally instituted through the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TECG), signed by twenty-five Member States in 2012 and which came into force on January 1, 2013. The President of the Summit of the Euro is appointed by the heads of State or Government of the members of the euro area. The appointment occurs at the same time as that of the President of the European Council and has the same duration. The two charges can be performed by the same person.

In some cases, the leaders of countries that have ratified the TECG but do not use the euro as a currency also participate in the debates of the Euro Summit. When these countries do not have the right to participate, the president of the Euro Summit keeps them well informed, as well as the other EU Member States, about the preparation and outcome of the summits.

It is easy to confuse European bodies, especially when very different bodies have very similar names, like these three Councils:

The European Council is constituted by the heads of State or Government (i.e. presidents and/or prime ministers) of all the countries of the EU, plus its president and the president of the European Commission. It is the highest level of policymaking in the Union, so its meetings are often called summits.

The Council also is known as the Council of Ministers, this institution is made up of ministers from all EU countries. It meets periodically to make detailed decisions and adopt EU legislation.

The Council of Europe is not an EU institution, but rather an intergovernmental organization whose purpose is to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It was created in 1949 and one of its first achievements was to draft the European Convention on Human Rights. To enable citizens to exercise their rights under the Convention, created the European Court of Human Rights. The Council of Europe now has the forty-seven Member States, including all EU countries, and its headquarters are located in Strasbourg, France.

The voice of the Member States

In the Council, the ministers of the Member States of the European Union (EU) meet to discuss issues related to the EU, make decisions and adopt legislation. The ministers who attend these meetings have the authority to commit their government to the measures agreed upon at the Council meetings.

The Council is an essential decision-making body of the EU. Its activities are carried out in meetings attended by a minister from each of the national governments of the EU. The purpose of these meetings is to debate, agree, modify and, finally, adopt legislation; coordinate the policies of the member states, or define the EU’s foreign policy.

The ministers who attend the Council meeting change according to the topics on the agenda, which is known as the configuration of the Council. For example, if the Council addresses environmental issues, the meeting is attended by the environment ministers of each EU country, and is called the Environment Council; similarly, in the case of the Council for Economic and Financial Affairs or the Competitiveness Council, and so on.

The Presidency of the Council rotates between the Member States and lasts for six months. It is not the same case as the Presidency of the European Council. The responsibility of the government that holds the Presidency is to organize and preside over the different meetings of the Council. By way of exception, the Foreign Affairs Council is chaired by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, which deals with foreign policy on behalf of the Council.

In the interest of the continuity of the Council’s activity, the semi-annual presidencies collaborate closely in groups of three. These teams of three Presidencies (trios) develop a joint program of work of the Council for a period of eighteen months.

Each participating minister is empowered to commit his government. In addition, it is responsible before the elected national bodies, which guarantees the democratic legitimacy of the decisions of the Council. The Council has five essential responsibilities:

1. Adopt European legislation. In most areas, it is collegiate with the European Parliament.

2. Coordinate the policies of the Member States, for example in economic matters.

3. To develop the common foreign and security policy of the EU based on the strategic lines set by the European Council.

4. Celebrate international agreements between the EU and one or more States or international organizations.

5. Approve the EU budget jointly with the European Parliament.

The activities of the Board are described in more detail below. A large part of the EU legislation is adopted jointly by the Council and the Parliament. As a general rule, the Council only acts on a proposal from the Commission, and it is the Commission which is normally responsible for ensuring that EU legislation, once adopted, is correctly applied. All EU Member States are part of the economic and monetary union (EMU), although not all of them belong to the euro area. Within the framework of the EMU, the economic policy of the EU is based on a close coordination of national economic policies. This coordination is entrusted to the Ministers of Economy and Finance, which together make up the Council of Economic and Financial Affairs.

The definition and implementation of the EU’s foreign and security policy is the exclusive competence of the European Council and the Council, acting unanimously. It is executed by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy together with the Member States, meeting in the Foreign Affairs Council.

Each year, the Council celebrates (i.e. officially signs) a series of agreements between the European Union and other countries, as well as with international organizations.

These agreements can cover broad areas such as trade, cooperation, and development, or they can address specific issues such as textiles, fisheries, science and technology, transport, etc. Such agreements are subject to the approval of the European Parliament in areas where they have decision powers.

The annual budget of the EU is decided jointly by the Council and the Parliament. If both institutions do not agree, the conciliation procedure is followed until the budget is approved.

All Board discussions and voting on legislative acts are public and can be viewed live on the Council’s website.

The General Affairs Council guarantees the overall coherence of the activities of the different Council configurations and supervises the effective follow-up of the European Council meetings. It receives support from the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper, acronym derived from the French Committee of Permanent Representatives).

The decisions of the Council are taken by vote. Currently, the Council decides by qualified majority, except when the treaties stipulate a different procedure such as, for example, unanimity in the field of taxation and foreign policy. In the system of qualified majority voting, the larger the population of a Member State, the more votes that State will have, although this system will be adjusted to give more weight proportionally to the countries with less population.

In 2014, the current method of qualified majority voting will be replaced by a new system: double majority voting. For the Council to approve the

EU legislative proposals will require a majority not only of member countries of the EU (55%) but also of the EU population (65%). This system will reflect the legitimacy of the EU as a union of peoples and nations. It will increase the transparency and effectiveness of EU legislation. This method will be accompanied by a new mechanism whereby a minimum of four Member States, representing at least 35% of the EU population, will be able to block a decision. If this mechanism is used, the Council must do everything in its power to reach a satisfactory solution within a reasonable period of time.

The General Secretariat of the Council assists both the European Council and its president and the Council of the EU and its rotating Presidency. It is headed by a secretary general appointed by the Council. The concept of enhanced cooperation If some Member States want to cooperate more closely in areas of action that are not the exclusive competence of the EU but fail to obtain the agreement of all the other Member States, the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows them to work together. It allows a minimum of nine Member States to use the EU institutions to achieve closer cooperation. However, the following conditions must be met: cooperation must promote the objectives of the Union and must be open to all Member States that wish to join it.

A number of countries are applying this procedure in the case of divorce legislation, which allows them to find a common solution for marriages from different EU countries that wish to divorce in the EU. It also applies in the case of the unitary patent system in which most, but not all, EU Member States participate.

All EU Member States are part of the economic and monetary union (EMU), which means that they coordinate their economic policies and consider that economic decisions are a matter of common interest for all. However, not all Member States have joined the euro area and adopted the single currency, the euro. Some have chosen not to do so at the moment, while others are still preparing their economies to meet the criteria to belong to that zone. The Member States of the euro area must cooperate closely and are also subject to the single monetary policy of the European Central Bank. Therefore, the Member States in the euro area need a forum to discuss euro area policies and take decisions in this regard. This forum cannot be the Economic and Financial Affairs Council since it includes all the Member States.

The solution is the Euro group, formed by the Ministers of Economy and Finance of the members of the euro area.

The Euro group acts to promote economic growth and financial stability in the euro area by coordinating economic policies. Since only Ecofin can make official decisions on economic matters, the Euro group meets informally the day before the Ecofin meetings, approximately once a month. The following day, the Euro group members officially approved at the Ecofin meeting the agreements reached the informal meeting of the Euro group. Only the ministers representing the members of the euro area participate in the voting on Euro group matters. The Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro and the President of the European Central Bank also attend the meetings of the Euro group. The members of the Euro group elect a president for a term of two and a half years. The General Secretariat of the Council provides administrative support for the meetings of the Euro group. The European Union is progressively developing a common foreign and security policy (CFSP), which is subject to different procedures compared to other areas of action. The European Council and the Council of the EU define and jointly apply the CFSP. The EU’s overarching objectives in the international arena are to promote democracy, the rule of law, human rights and freedom, and respect for human dignity and the principles of equality and solidarity. To achieve these objectives, the EU develops relationships and collaboration with other countries and organizations around the world.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) is a diplomatic and foreign affairs service of the Union. It is headed by the High Representative and is composed of expert staff from the Council, the Member States, and the European Commission. The EU has delegations in most countries around the world and is part of the EEAS. They work closely with the embassies of the EU Member States on issues related to the CFSP. Any Member State or the High Representative, on its own or with the Commission, can raise issues of importance to the CFSP in the Council. Given the urgency of some matters relating to the CFSP, mechanisms are available to ensure rapid decision-making. In general, decisions in this area are taken unanimously.

In addition to promoting the CFSP, the High Representative also represents the Union in matters of foreign and security policy throughout the world, engages in political dialogue with third countries and partners, and expresses the EU’s position on organizations and meetings. At the level of heads of State or Government, the Union is represented by the President of the European Council.

The CFSP also covers issues of security and defense, an area in which the EU is developing a common security and defense policy (CSDP). The purpose of this policy is to allow EU countries to carry out crisis management operations. These are humanitarian missions and the establishment or maintenance of peace, which may be of a civil or military nature. The Member States make some of their forces available to the EU voluntarily for these operations, which are always coordinated with NATO, whose command structures are sometimes used for practical tasks in EU missions. A series of EU agencies coordinate these activities. The Political and Security Committee (PSC): monitors the international situation and examines the EU’s response options in crisis situations abroad. The Military Committee of the European Union (EUMC): consists of the Chiefs of Defense Staff of all EU countries, directs the EU military activities and advises on military matters. The General Staff of the European Union (EUMS): is composed of military experts who work in a permanent military headquarters in Brussels and assist the CMUE.

The Commission is a politically independent institution that represents and defends the interests of the European Union (EU) as a whole. In many areas it is the driving force in the EU institutional system: it proposes legislation, policies and action programs and is responsible for implementing the decisions of the European Parliament and the Council. It also represents the Union in the outside world, with the exception of the common foreign and security policy.

The term Commission is used in two senses. First, it refers to the members of the Commission, that is, the team of men and women appointed by the Member States and Parliament to lead the institution and make its decisions. Second, the term refers to the institution itself and its staff. Informally, the members of the Commission are known as commissioners. All of them have held political positions and many have been ministers, but as members of the Commission, their commitment is to act in the interest of the Union as a whole, without accepting instructions from national governments.

The Commission has several Vice-Presidents, one of whom is also the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and, therefore, it participates in the activities of both the Council and the Commission.

The Commission is politically accountable to Parliament, which has the power to dismiss it by passing a motion of censure. The Commission attends all the sessions of the Parliament, where it must clarify and justify its policies. It also responds periodically to the written and oral questions posed by the deputies.

The European Union is based on the rule of law, which means that all the actions undertaken by the EU are based on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all the countries that compose it.

Treaties are negotiated and accepted by all EU Member States and, in turn, ratified by their parliaments or by referendum.

In order to conclude, the treaties set out the objectives of the European Union, the rules for the EU institutions, how decisions are made and the relationship between the EU and its Member States. They have been modified with each accession of new Member States and, in addition, they have also been modified to reform the EU institutions and give them new areas of responsibility.

The last amending treaty (the Lisbon Treaty) was signed in Lisbon on December 13, 2007, and entered into force on December 1, 2009. The previous treaties are incorporated in the current consolidated version, which includes the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The Treaty on Stability, Coordination, and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TECG) is an intergovernmental treaty that was signed by all EU member states except the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom in March 2012. It is designed to promote budget discipline, strengthen the coordination of economic policies and improve the governance of the euro area. Currently, seventeen EU countries use the euro as their currency.

The treaty is often called the fiscal pact. It entered into force on January 1, 2013, in all the member states that completed the ratification process. It is not an EU treaty, but an intergovernmental treaty and it is intended to finally turn it into EU legislation.

As a conclusion to the chapter above, The Union is closed to an institutional framework that aims to defend its values ​​and objectives, as well as its interests, the citizens of the United States. This framework is also guaranteed by the coherence, effectiveness and continuity of Community policies and actions. Under Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union, the institutional framework is composed of seven institutions:

European Parliament; elected directly by the EU voters every five years, the deputies in the European Parliament represent the citizens. Parliament is one of the main legislative institutions of the EU together with the Council of the European Union (“the Council”). The main functions of the European Parliament are:

1) to debate and approve, together with the Council, EU legislation.

2) Submit a control to other EU institutions, especially the Commission, to ensure its democratic functioning.

3) Discuss and adopt, together with the Council, the EU budget.

The European Council brings together the heads of State or Government of each EU country, the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council, who is the President of the meetings. It also includes the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Its function is twofold: the limit and the general priority of intergovernmental cooperation.

The Council of the European Union is the forum where the ministers of the EU countries meet for legislation and political control. Approves EU legislation. Coordinates the various economic policies of the countries of the EU. Sign agreements between the EU and other countries. Approves the annual budget of the EU. Develops EU foreign and defense policies. Coordinates cooperation between courts and the policies of member countries.

The European Commission is one of the main institutions of the European Union. Represents and defends the interests of the EU as a whole, draws up proposals for new European legislation and manages the day-to-day work of implementing policies and making use of European funds.

The Court of Justice interprets EU law to ensure that it is applied in the same way in all member countries. It also resolves legal conflicts between EU institutions. Individuals, companies and organizations can also resort to the Court if they consider that an EU institution has violated their rights.

The Court of Justice interprets EU law to ensure that it is applied in the same way in all member countries. It also resolves legal conflicts between EU institutions. Individuals, companies and organizations can also resort to the Court if they consider that an EU institution has violated their rights.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has its headquarters in Frankfurt (Germany). It manages the euro, the only currency of the EU, and protects the speed of prices in the EU. The ECB is also responsible for setting the main lines of economic and monetary policy of the EU and its implementation.

Citizens can and should expect the decision-making process in the EU to be as transparent and open as possible. The greater the opening, the easier it is to ensure a balanced representation and avoid abusive pressures and unlawful or privileged access to both information and decision-makers. Transparency is, in turn, a key element to encourage the active participation of European citizens in the democratic life of the EU. The Transparency Registry has been created to answer basic questions such as what interests are pursued, who defends and with what budget. The system is managed jointly by the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Chapter II

The specialists and translators in the European Union

The elaboration of a specialized text is an operation in which a specialist of the subject matter of the text writes this as knowledgeable not only of the contents but also of other relevant factors, such as the characteristics of the genre, terminology, and phraseology, the style, the receiver, etc. a typical scheme of this operation could be the following:

Author -> common language -> specialized language : terminology, phraseology, style, gender, and so on and so forth -> concepts : connections between concepts, other theoretical aspects, cultural dimension, and so on and so forth -> other elements: documentary sources, references, communication situation, receiver and so on and so forth (COMPETENCE) -> MESSAGE-> TEXT

Table 1: Development of a specialized text

A common thread starts with the specialist and goes through all the factors. This thread represents the competence, that is, precisely what the expert contributes when writing the text. With such a scheme it will be possible to analyze, for example, the elaboration of a judicial resolution in a court, of a manual of engineering done by engineers or of a paper on neurology presented by specialists in a congress.

Now, if what we have in the box of the common language is not only one but two languages, we are facing the problem that concerns us here: the passage from one to another.

Here two common languages ​​appear, each with its specialized language. The other factors can be coincident or equivalent, but they are not necessarily (for example, the relationship between specialized language and common language to which it belongs does not have to be the same in 1 and 2).

The permanent question that requires a response in technical translation is how to get as close as possible to the ideal operation represented in table 1 when going from one common language to another, that is, how to achieve the model represented in table 2.

When speaking of specialization or specialists (read technicians, experts, professionals, etc.), we always refer to the function, not the specific people who perform it. In this sense, it is not important that there be a double competence in the same person, in translation and in a technical field, or to the extent that a translator has a specialized field or a specialist in translation techniques.

In a situation in which the text of language 1 is the starting text, that is, in a translation situation, when considering what the optimal way is to make this model, we must answer three main questions:

What degree of thematic competence should the editor of text 2 have?

What degree of linguistic competence should the editor of text 2 have?

What should be the articulation between the two functions, the properly linguistic and the thematic?

The answers to these questions feed one of the liveliest controversies in the theory and practice of translating specialized texts. Below are the different possible formulas in general and, later, their concretion in the case of community institutions.

2.1. The collaboration between the specialist and the translator

The specialist is a source of terminology, references, and content. On the one hand, he knows the technicalities already coined in the target language. When these do not exist and must be created, they can contribute to the location of other documentary sources and also provide a thorough knowledge of the contents that constitute a safety factor when validating the necessary lexical creation.

On the other hand, the specialist, who as such is not an expert on languages, may be more inclined to be attracted by the language of origin. Due to their training and functions, the interest that linguistic aspects deserve is secondary to the contents. A habitual consequence of this attitude of the specialist is a fear of losing the link of formal similarity between the term of origin and the translated one, not to recognize one in the other, which favors the option for the tracing.

The translator is, in turn, a specialist in the language, specifically in inter-linguistic communication. His area of ​​expertise includes competence in both languages ​​and appropriate transfer techniques. Because of his training and functions, he has developed a strong linguistic sensitivity that gives him more resources to resist the formal attraction of the source text.

The two competitions are given in the same person. It is the professional who translates, capable of performing both functions with the quality of a specialist. It is, of course, the most difficult formula to achieve and, therefore, constitutes the exception.

The thematic specialist himself translates the text, although he is not himself an expert in translation. The formula has a long tradition and numerous defenders: An expert in a highly technical question, if you have sufficient linguistic capacities, may be a very good extempore interpreter (Jean Herbert, quoted by JIMENEZ 1998 : 341). It is also sometimes an irreplaceable formula.

The text is translated by a specialized translator, who has considerable referential competence in a small number of subjects.

The text is translated by a generalist translator, whose referential competences, although they cannot be profound, do include, in contrast, a greater thematic variety.

Obviously, the less the thematic specialization of the translator, the more necessary will be the contribution of the expert, according to the following formulas: the specialist transmits the information to the translator through material mediators: glossaries, data banks, parallel texts, diverse documentation, etc. Communication is limited since it is unidirectional; the translator consults the specialist directly through various means of communication: institutional channels, discussion forums, and so on and so forth; specialist and translator work in a convergent way. The specialized text translated is the result of a team effort. It is the formula that joins the two competitions with more guarantees (this modality is not at all a novel technique. Already in the Spanish medieval translation are common works in tandem between the translator and understood in the matter, that is, with a convergence of linguistic and referential skills.

These reciprocal contributions can give indirect results on a more general level. In the collaborative relationship, the technician can become aware of the linguistic problems, establishing their own quality control mechanisms or, why not, consulting the translator in turn. On the other hand, and thanks to its careful reading of the text, the translator can contribute to discovering points that can be improved, even if they are content, of the original, in a relationship of reciprocity (Schofield : 1998). The double-sided translation unit, the technical-linguistic binomial, is thus achieved. This requires, of course, the establishment of a dialogue that is only possible in a relationship of collaboration based on mutual recognition and respect: the writer and the translator must develop the respect and genuine affection for one another that grows out of their mutual recognition of their respective professional abilities (JIMENEZ 1998 : 241).

The respective actions and responsibilities of the technician and the translator are determined by the competences of one and the other. They must, therefore, have a clear delimitation, but at the same time be complementary functions. It must be avoided that the translator works as a thematic specialist and that he does it as a translator.

From the point of view of the translator, one might wonder what interest specialists may have in collaborating with translators. As we have just pointed out, linguistic reflections that are of secondary interest in their activity can be avoided, avoiding an unnecessary distancing of the common language, for example, with false technicalities, recognizing the contents and the language of the texts that, in the case of the institutions, are destined to them (mainly the legislative ones) and to influence in a timely manner in the final result.

We will refer, in a stricter sense, to the Council of the European Union (General Secretariat); however, our observations and conclusions could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to other Community institutions such as the Commission or the European Parliament and even to other international organizations, especially those of a multilingual nature.

From the point of view that interests us, we can say that these are non-specialized thematic institutions (such as the WHO, the IMO or the International Court of Justice), which cover fields as varied as agriculture, criminal law or law. car industry.

In general, translation is carried out by internal translation services made up of training professionals and different backgrounds: there are translators with linguistic-philological or translation training, on the one hand, and translators with training in other branches (law, economics, medicine, social sciences …). This mixed composition has the advantage of containing elements of specialization (sometimes merely academic, but not always).

By a specialist we understand, in principle, the person who directly or indirectly draws up the original document from the conceptual point of view. In the case of the Council of the EU, it is usually treated (in order of increasing functional specialization) of:

editors of the General Secretariat: they are the advisers and secretaries of the working groups and, as such, the hinge between the conceptual elaboration of the text and its translation;

the staff of permanent representations: they play a role of stable liaison between the Member States and the General Secretariat;

technicians delegated by the administration of each Member State; they constitute working groups.

In a broad sense, we call any other expert on the subject (researchers, private company technicians, professors …) who does not participate in the community legislative procedure, but because of their specific knowledge can be a primary source of information.

The original of the documents is drawn up within the institution. In the Council, the documents are usually written by an official with the contributions of the delegates of the Member States. Thus, the basic text (legislative proposal), which comes from the Commission, is being reworked by negotiation in a system of instances of increasing level of responsibility (working groups → Committee of Permanent Representatives → Councils of Ministers). The last step is the adoption of the legislative act and its publication, in all official languages, in the Official Journal of the European Union.

In the vast majority of cases, the translator is completely absent throughout this drafting process. Its mission – always parallel – is to respond, only after each successive version of a document, with the corresponding translation. The only exception is the recent and infrequent practice of the linguistic revision requested of translation services for certain texts written in a non-native language (WAGNER, BECH, MARTINEZ 2001 : 75).

Thus, the translation is conceived as a later, and therefore separate, the phase of the writing of the text. It is true that the translator can, if necessary, collect information or clarifications about the original. But the limited place that these consultations occupy in practice neither corresponds to the potential offered by the presence of technicians in the meetings nor is it sufficient for the needs of the translation.

The direct redactor of a document is between the technical delegate (with whom it coincides in the work meetings and whose contributions it collects in the text) and the translator (of the own institution).

A sensitive editor can make the translation work considerably easier by providing reference documents (previous versions or informative documents), according to the translators’ queries, gathering information directly from other specialists (either at the meeting itself or a posteriori), including Assuming training or information tasks for translators.

A final phase in the preparation of the legislative documents is the legal-linguistic formalization (supervision of the quality of the writing and of the agreement of the texts in the different linguistic versions), which is the responsibility of the linguistic jurists. As the name suggests, they combine both competences, but their function is not translation itself but a special form of revision. Although it is not a formal legal requirement, the Councils want that, as an added guarantee, any legislative text that is going to be published in the Official Gazette is subject to this revision. A frequent procedure in this phase is the collation meetings, which are also attended by national delegates, and which constitute an excellent opportunity to solve interpretation and spill problems in the terminology used in the target language. However, taking place after the formal adoption of the text by the Council, as immediately prior to publication in the Official Gazette, the practical utility of the procedure is clearly reduced. This is the only formal occasion in which the confrontation between original and translations occurs. And, nevertheless, the participation of the translators is not planned here either.

The principle of multilingualism was established by Regulation (EEC) No. 1/58, derived in turn from Article 290 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In the current version of this Regulation, twenty (to which the Irish, Bulgarian and Romanian will soon be added) official and working languages ​​and stipulate the documents to be published in all of them. This means that, from the point of view of legal value, there is no distinction between the original version of a text and translations into the other official languages ​​of the Union. In fact, when the texts are published in the Official Journal of the European Union, there is no indication of the original version. Now, if original and translations have the same legal value, it would be possible to deduce that in their respective elaboration, at least analogous criteria would weigh. However, as we have seen, original and translations belong to different spheres within the institutions, with approaches, elaboration guidelines and other important aspects not only different but often distant.

In summary, we can say that the original is the responsibility of the editors and technicians, while the translation is the responsibility of the translators. Think of the development of a text that requires specialized skills in a particular field. On the one hand, in the elaboration phase of the original, these competencies are contributed by the editors and technicians, who for all the conceptual aspects – and even for the linguistic ones – will be entirely responsible for the final result, but only for one of the versions! On the other hand, in the elaboration phase of the other versions (translation), some conceptual aspects (expression of content, use of terminology, etc.) remain in the hands of translators, the whose recognized field of expertise is, however, the linguistic.

The original, when written frequently in a non-native language, may present linguistic deficiencies (WAGNER, BECH, MARTINEZ 2001 : 750 – 780). The translation, in turn, runs the risk of lacking sufficient technical guarantees. This paradoxical situation can end up giving rise to mismatches between original and translations, both in terms of linguistic rigor and terminology or content (let us remember, in this regard, that the DIN 2345 standard on translation contracts establishes that the responsibility for the technical and linguistic correction of the original lies with the client) (KRAFFT, HERZOG 1998 :23).

So harmful is the fact that the translator loses control of the product of his work (the notion of ownership of the translation, which in some services is attributed to the editor) (KRAFFT, HERZOG 1998 : 78 – 79), as working outside the reality of content that is driving. The translator must be sovereign in the aspects of grammatical, lexical and style correction, and must collect and integrate the technical orientations of the specialist: content, definition, and articulation of the concepts, terminology, and phraseology coined. Symptomatic of this discrepancy of criteria is the fact that the normative on quality of the writing has been elaborated without the participation of the services of translation and is applied only to the originals. Development of Declaration No. 39 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This regulation includes aspects of the conception of the text (legal rigor and clarity) together with more general ones that easily affect both the translated text and the original one. It is true that point 5 refers to the multilingual character of Community legislation and points out the great use that translators’ observations can have for the drafter.

It is debatable that a different method could have been (or should be) followed from the beginning: A solution that could have been adopted to solve the problems of translation of device texts in the European institutions could have been the parallel editing or drafting, that is, some activities that consist, with slight nuances that differentiate them, in which the specialists, not necessarily translators, collaborate writing the legal texts almost simultaneously. However, in the case of an organization that is not bilingual […] but plurilingual, the solution loses all its viability, unless it is reduced to language pairs (NOMBELA 1996 : 39). However, this is precisely the system applied in the United Nations: All documents are written simultaneously in several languages ​​or are subsequently translated into the six official languages ​. The advantages of this approach, however, are diminished by certain drawbacks (NOMBELA 1996 : 183), which confirms that it is not an infallible system.

If we look at recent developments in this problem, there seems to be a tendency to reduce the dichotomy. Thus, for example, in the General Secretariat of the Council, a greater coordination of the different phases of document production, the establishment of better communication procedures between experts and translators, certain improvements in the specialization of these, or the Efforts to sensitize the editors about the need to collaborate with translators. However, there is still much to be done in this regard.

Faced with the situation we have just described, in which the efforts of specialists and translators are far from mutually reinforcing, we must find all the useful and flexible formulas that allow us to overcome the barriers between one and the other and facilitate the use reciprocal of the work and the competences of both groups. From the general debate on the necessary degree of specialization of the translator it is clear that, in an institution such as the Council of the EU, the optimal situation is halfway between the two possible extremes: the specialist translator and the generalist translator, not specialized.

In fact, in the Council, the pace of work is marked by the political dynamics of the activity of the EU. Therefore, the need for flexibility prevails, since the workflow on a certain topic is very irregular. It is therefore appropriate for the translator to offer sufficient versatility to deal with the great diversity of topics on which the Council works. That is, it must be a generalist who has substitution techniques with which to compensate for the lack of specific knowledge in a particular discipline or field: documentary resources, ability to evaluate sources, the possibility of consultation or contact with specialists, etc. In this way, it will cover a much wider range of topics than a translator who is fully specialized in a single subject. At the same time, if you want to make optimal use of consulting the specialist as a source of information, you must have some knowledge of the subject in order to raise relevant questions and assimilate and integrate the explanations obtained in the text. Hence the convenience of promoting a relative specialization, always within the aforementioned versatility.

In the Council, this tension between the extremes is resolved in the so-called functional associations. These are groups without their own administrative identity, which are subsidiary to the Council’s political dynamics. That is to say, that in case of necessity its components assume any type of document. Even so, they allow channeling the workflow with a principle of thematic criteria. This practical solution, however, is clearly underutilized and should have more infrastructure and institutional support. In this sense, the formation of the components of the functional association is fundamental (acquisition of the necessary knowledge, however basic, and monitoring of the evolution of the topic in the activity of the institution), as well as the establishment and maintenance of contacts , in particular with the specialists who participate in the work meetings.

The Commission, for its legislative powers of initiative and execution, performs the bulk of the technical work that underpins the legislative proposal. For this reason, its editors are in more direct contact with the primary sources of information. It is also an institution of considerable size that allows a greater degree of specialization. This is also reflected in the administrative structure (thematic groups) of the Translation Service.

The legislative process, however, continues in other institutions (Council and European Parliament), which work from the text of the Commission. It seems logical, then, to maintain a continuous and intense relationship throughout the different phases, in order to take advantage of the technical work already carried out by the Commission and thus avoid duplications, inconsistencies, etc. In a multilingual institution such as the Council, it is essential to consider the profitability that the multiplier effect offers in translation. This aspect directly affects the organization of work and is specified in two ways: terminological problems common to all target languages; they can be: comprehension (content): the solution is also common to all languages, because it is conceptual equivalence (terms): the solution will vary according to the language, although sometimes they can coincide (e.g., in nearby languages); problems common to series of successive texts in a language and on the same subject: the solution coincides.

Given that in both case 1 and case 2 it is common for different texts to be translated by different translators as well, it would be absurd for each translator of each language to do the same terminological research for each text of a set or sequence (for example, in a legislative proposal that gives rise to five successive drafts to be translated into twenty languages, the same conceptual problem will be repeated a hundred times). The time invested would be disproportionate and, in any case, the terminological coherence would always be compromised.

Everything, therefore, advises a certain centralization of a large part of the contacts with specialists (without this implying discarding direct contact between translator and specialist). This task of mediation should fall, on the one hand, in the service of terminology or documentation (CORREIA, GONZÁLEZ 2000 : 1), and on the other in linguistic coordination, responsible for providing contacts and institutional references, although not directly performed terminological investigations.

Although the search for the different equivalences of a term in eleven languages ​​can lead to different paths, in a large number of cases a determined terminological or documentary investigation can be carried out in several or all of the languages ​​in parallel.

But the information obtained through these channels is only profitable, of course, through good document management, the natural response of the translation services. It must be stored in databases or communicated to the translator in an immediate way by the most appropriate means (tracking files, service communications …) so that the multiplier effect is not frustrated.

Other interaction formulas included:

Contact lists: A systematized and selected file of informants can be a fundamental instrument to quickly access the ideal specialist: the best dictionaries are, undoubtedly, telephone directories. They are, in addition, dictionaries that speak, with which we can converse to explain a problem and direct them towards the solution (BALLIU 1998 : 86.).

The lists of delegates that participate in the meetings already exist; systematizing them by language and subject and making them available to translators with the relevant contact data would not be more than a small step.

The aforementioned DIN 2345 standard includes, among the documentation that the client must provide to the translator, the name of contact persons who can attend to their queries (KRAFFT, HERZOG 1998 : 22). It is also not difficult to get in touch with the technicians of the national ministries or with those of the permanent representations. The assistance of translators to meetings of working groups: Closer monitoring of the work of the competent bodies in each topic could involve the participation of the translator as an observer in certain group meetings, depending on the content of these and the difficulties of translation that the document poses.

Greater contact with the interpreters: To the group meetings already attend, on many occasions, the interpreters (service separated from the translation), which thus become potential links between the technical and linguistic function. Subsidiary, therefore, a closer relationship with them could in some way supplant direct assistance when it appears to be discouraged for various reasons.

– Collation meetings: A variant of the participation in work meetings would be collation meetings that would be attended by the drafter of the document (preferably assisted by one or several delegates or by the competent person of the Commission) and the translator who is in charge of the same in each language. It should be noted that other institutions (such as the Court of Accounts) apply this method with good results. Unlike the legal-linguistic formalization phase, the collation would be carried out before the formal adoption of the text, which would give more scope to prevent possible errors.

– Delegate’s observations file: Delegates who attend the work meetings, and who return to their ministry below, could receive a comment sheet on the translation that would allow them to establish a contact with the translators without the need for the presence of these in the meeting. In it, they would collect as much information as they consider useful for the translation, as well as observations on the version they have already used in the meeting. While it is true that these types of observations are received sporadically, especially from permanent representations, a standard form that would be distributed systematically would facilitate these contacts.

– Discussion forums: A more constant and active participation in forums focused specifically on technical translation, in which both competences converge, would open access to countless sources of information. At the same time, a better mutual knowledge of both groups would be promoted. Given the importance of the personal factor in these environments, it would be advisable that participation in them be channeled through support services (terminology, documentation).

The translator of specialized texts lives in the permanent desire to reach the best sources of documentation. Due to the current proliferation of scientific and technical innovations, which are disseminated with a speed that is sometimes close to immediacy, it is utopian for the translator to pretend to follow by himself the rhythm of conceptual and terminological creation.

When, in addition, the specialty fields that it has to cover are as vast and diverse as those that are dealt with in European institutions, the material documentary sources are often insufficient viaticum in the search for their particular grail. Your best resource is then a solid network of contacts with those who possess the necessary reference stock and are immersed in this generation process: the specialists in the different topics.

2.2. Multilingualism and translation

The Community institutions welcome precisely all the plethora of specialists who elaborate the original texts and who live closely the reality from which they derive. The current relationship between these specialists and the translators is far from making the most of this propitious situation. This is not, on the other hand, a trivial matter, since the translated community texts are not mere reference versions, but have full legal value for themselves. The principle of multilingualism is thus a guarantee of transparency, which is one of the pillars of democracy itself.

The recent enlargements of the European Union and the imminent ones have more than doubled the number of official languages. Any improvement of the uses that govern the translation activity in the institutions will necessarily contribute to facilitating the integration of the new languages, and therefore of the new citizens, into the community system.

A recent study on the multilingualism of Swiss legislation stresses, in its conclusions, the professionalism and efficiency of the translators involved in process of drafting texts. Praise, however, which is tempered by the following observation: these same translators do not always manage to make their voice.

Legal translation as it is practiced in the context of plurilingual official has already been well studied. First, the text to be translated is part of an inter-textual network particularly dense and coherent. This interdependence has an important consequence for terminology: the translator is most often faced with notions that have already been standardized in a translinguistic perspective. His job is not to compare notions defined differently within distinct legal orders, in order to establish an equivalence that is always problematic but to formulate a message based on the notions of one and the same legal order. which is expressed in several languages. Secondly, the target text itself can be a legal instrument. Its function is therefore not limited to informing the reader about a foreign communication act. Third, given the variety of types of legal texts that are translated, translation is not always aimed at specialists. It can also count among its recipients the citizen, the litigant, the administered. The massive nature of translation gives this activity, taken globally, a significant influence on the language and its evolution. The risk is, in the worst cases, to lead to the generalization of bureaucratic jargon-riddled with interference. Fourth, the production and reception of texts are largely institutionalized. Translation thus becomes part of a collective, global (involving a number of stages and steps), interdisciplinary and multilingual process. Also, in the legislative field, the process that results in texts that are not translations in the strict sense, includes translation phases and generates the translation of other texts, be they preliminary or partial, or preparatory documents. Although not very visible, translators are present, alongside other professionals.

Next, I am going to combine two points of view: part of the daily practical reality in which translators live, and is another side of the possibilities of working remotely from linguistic and theoretical reflections. A first observation is that these two approaches, which is quite natural, cannot easily be combined and that one can think: the theoretical facts are quite marginal and far from the imperative requirements to come: to respect the deadlines very short, retrieve passages already translated, find technical terms often very specialized, etc.

In fact, I would like to question the very notion of a theory of translation, a term too often used a little lightly. When one seeks to make a theory, by examining a translation, one will easily find a considerable number of passages where the translation does not make exactly the sense, or if one wants the intention of the original text, and one ends in principle by having a long list of concrete examples. Some of them contain translation errors or at least not very successful or less than optimal translations, which can be corrected or improved more or less easily, and their theoretical interest is limited, which does not, of course, prevent a reflection on the factors that make precisely a given passage difficult to translate (false friends, syntax and semantics idiomatic or idiosyncratic, cultural incompatibilities) likely to interfere with a translator without much experience. Other translated passages are perceived as unsatisfactory even though it may be difficult to find better – we could talk about untranslatable. It goes without saying that the distinction between these two categories is not at all clear.

If one seeks to rise from this concrete and prosaic enumerative level and arrive at more theoretical generalizations, it turns out that certain commonplaces are easy to pronounce, such as the difficulties come from what could be named structural, semantic or cultural incompatibilities between the two languages ​​. On the other hand, it is very difficult to formulate a detailed and even more or less formalized theory of translation that could be compared to the different theories that have been proposed to capture the notion of the human language.

Linguists agree on many structural phonetic, syntactic, semantic and cognitive notions, even if it is true that they are very far from having a single general theory that is unanimously accepted. In my opinion, it is precisely this lack of unanimity that prevents the creation of a theory of translation. If our theoretical understanding of the functioning of a single language remains uncertain and precarious, then how can we define translation as a transposition of content between two languages?

That said, it is obvious that translation has always been a necessary activity, and in a practical way perfectly feasible. One aspect of the theory we are looking for would undoubtedly be psycholinguistic: to seek to understand the exact process by which a skilled translator passes between the two languages, and perhaps to contrast it with the efforts of a person who knows both languages. question, but who do not have the specialized competence of the translator. Another much more practical aspect is the search for data (terms, archives) essential to a serious translator: with the evolution of computers, it has experienced, as is the case in so many other areas, impressive progress.

For the European citizen in general, the European Union is something, perhaps something rather vague, which is in Brussels. In fact, the three European institutions responsible for legislative work, namely the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament, do most of their work in Brussels, but Parliament, as well as the Commission, have some their general secretariat in Luxembourg, while the sessions of the Parliament take place in Strasbourg, one week per month (which is, of course, a logistical challenge). Three other European bodies are entirely in Luxembourg: the Court, the Court of Auditors and the Investment Bank.

The institutions each have an independent administration, and in particular, a translation service; that of Parliament comprises some 450 translators and 300 secretaries in 11 linguistic divisions, one for each official language of the Union – figures which will increase further with enlargement. To this must be added freelance translation agencies that build capacity during the busiest periods – the workload varies greatly depending on political activities. However, the institution cannot control the quality and deadlines of freelancers as securely as those of the internal service.

Although each institution has its own translation service, the legislative documents (which are of course the most important) pass from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament according to complex procedures, which forces translators to coordinate their work to the extent possible with regard to terminology and basic documents.

Parliament participates in legislative procedures through reports, opinions, and amendments. The most urgent problems (human rights issues, natural disasters) are the subject of resolutions. MEPs can put questions to the Council or the Commission on all sorts of subjects, asking for example whether a construction project or public works comply with the Union’s environmental legislation.

To these political documents are added a multitude of internal administrative memories.

The total volume of texts to be translated is approximately 50,000 pages of source text per year. With 11 official languages ​​(which will increase to 20 languages ​​by 2004), this translates into approximately 500,000 translated pages per year. It is obvious that such amounts of text imply industrial production.

With 20 languages, the mere fact of recognizing each language to distribute the desired language version will already pose a small linguistic problem to the departments responsible for this distribution.

A good translator must have various skills, including:

an almost perfect mastery of his mother tongue, including the administrative and legislative style;

a very good passive understanding of several other (written) EU languages, at least three (4-6 is normal);

computer skills: experience in word processing and research in computer databases and on the Internet;

knowledge of EU institutions and legislative procedures;

knowledge of terminology and relevant terminology discussions;

a knowledge of the exact format of the documents, i.e. format templates and detailed macros, which contain hundreds of versions corresponding to each stage of the legislative procedure: in this area, it is mainly the secretaries who have specialized expertise;

a general culture allowing to deepen in all kinds of specialties that suddenly become hot news (for example the question of genetically modified organisms, mad cow disease, legal problems of copyright, etc.).

We must also know how to live with stress: the fundamental rule is to respect deadlines, otherwise, we risk political repercussions. If in a legislative procedure, the current text is missing in one of the 11 official languages, the deputies concerned have the right to demand that the vote is postponed. A translator is often forced to translate 8-10 pages in one day; however, the number of pages is an insignificant indication – the speed of the work depends on a number of factors: quality of the original, especially with regard to references, the complexity of the subject, etc. As an example of a series of texts that are very difficult to translate, there is a procedure for the regulation of tobacco products, with many pages taken from German legislation containing an analysis of chemical substances which, in the opinion of the chemists German, should be settled.

Machine translation (MT) already exists to a certain extent for some language pairs, and it gives an idea of ​​the content of a text. It is still far from the level where it could replace human translators when it comes to texts with a general and varied content, and where the translation must be of high quality. It is therefore little used by the translation service of the European Parliament.

Terminology databases are obviously essential for creating consistent and logical terminology, especially when it comes to terms relating to the institutions and legislative processes of the EU itself, and much effort and resources have been invested. in institutional bases. At the moment we are also trying to integrate them so that only one search is sufficient for all the bases.

It goes without saying that translators are among those who have benefited the most from the creation of the Internet and search engines like Google, which makes it possible to immediately find relevant and current terms in every conceivable field. It can be said that, with the advent of the Internet, the consultation of other tools (paper or computer dictionaries, institutional database) has decreased, although it is still essential for reasons of quality and consequence.

At the moment, tools based on a translation memory are becoming more and more important. The EU’s legislative procedures involve rather repetitive texts: the definitive text will be created gradually, going through a series of different versions containing more or less profound amendments and modifications. As a result, many passages, or even most of the text, come back several times to the translation service, so it is useful to be able to recover, recycle these parts to avoid retranslating them. This is true not only for the speed but also for the quality – even if it was faster to retranslate (which may be the case for a short passage and difficult to find), it would create different variants, which is undesirable.

The simplest method would, of course, be from the old version, and change it manually where it was changed. But it is obvious that in this field, the computer can help to quickly retrieve already translated sentences, looking not only in a previous version but in all the documentation on which the most current text was based. We have created software translation memories (including Translators Workbench), which combine in parallel the original version and the target version, sentence by sentence. The sentence is in principle defined as a sequence delimited by major punctuation marks. For new source text, the software checks for each sentence whether it has already been translated.

It seems pretty trivial, but it turns out that the practical implementation of this idea is not without complications. Even if the software finds an identical sentence, from a linguistic point of view, it often happens that the formatting is not the same, which means that the software does not recognize the identity. Normally, we also want to find sentences that are almost identical, even if there is a slight difference. It is, therefore, necessary that the software allows for defining the desired degree of resemblance. In any case, the result must be reviewed by a human translator, for several reasons – among other things, what is in the memory is the result of an earlier translation, not necessarily optimal.

Even if we do not find many sentences already translated, the translation memory can be useful because it includes a function concordance: if the translator encounters a term (a single word or a sequence of words) difficult to translate, he can consult the memory; if this term is there, it will be presented in its context in source and target languages; thus, one does not have to repeat terminological research already carried out.

But the use of translation memories is not without drawbacks, from the point of view of speed, efficiency, and quality. You have to follow a training to know how to handle this specialized software, whose interface is not always convenient; it is necessary to create and verify the translation memories, and in general it is necessary to have a system of document management which makes it possible to quickly find the relevant texts which must be used to create each memory (alignment).

Roughly speaking, we could describe the current situation as follows: we probably have all the pieces of the puzzle: documentation management, translation memory system, specialized training for the staff supposed to use them. It remains to develop in an optimal way, the synthesis of all these integrated systems ideally, to use them, and it will still require hard work.

There are a number of linguistic issues that are of great practical importance in the atmosphere of the European institutions, and which could no doubt be the subject of language research projects.

Passive language skills are interesting in European institutions: it could be argued that they have become a kind of laboratory for multilinguistic experiences, and the observations made could be broadened and applied on a larger scale. An official has the right to work either in English or in French, but, as noted above, he will face difficulties if he does not possess sufficient passive knowledge, that is if he does not understand the other well enough. work language.

It is significant that translators only translate into their mother tongue, but from 3 or 4 and sometimes up to 7 or 8 languages. This does not mean that the translator is an active master of all these source languages ​​(besides the active-passive dimension, one must also consider the written-spoken dichotomy, and it is the interpreters, and not the translators, who take care of the spoken language).

More generally, for citizens of the Union, it would be sufficient to have only passive language skills for a whole range of linguistic tasks (read various texts, including legislation and other regulations or various textbooks, follow the media – newspapers, radio, television, etc.). Then arises the linguistic (or psycholinguistic and pedagogical) question: to what extent are active and passive knowledge separated? Would it be possible, for example, to acquire a very good passive understanding of the French language without at the same time doing the work necessary to acquire active knowledge? The idea would be to save somehow the investment needed for comprehensive language training.

In my opinion, it would hardly be possible to develop a purely passive training which would leave aside the asset, since these two aspects go hand in hand, even if any user of a language has a passive repertoire well. wider than its active resources. There is, however, a special and not insignificant case, where indeed a good understanding does not presuppose the ability to express oneself in the language in question, namely the case of related languages ​​such as Swedish-Danish or Spanish-Portuguese (in the European Union). we will soon also have Finnish-Estonian and Czech-Slovak couples). A Swede will learn without much difficulty to understand Danish, and vice versa, without acquiring the ability to express himself in Danish, but it is a question partially terminological since the Swedish could be regarded as a variant Danish slightly deteriorated. Translators, of course, take advantage of these phenomena to learn to translate from a larger number of source languages. A typical case would be a translator who translates original French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, but who speaks fluently only one of these languages. To a certain extent, the institution’s professional training department also organizes so-called conversion courses for translators.

What is meant by the quality of a translation? There are several parameters: timeliness – an impeccable translation that comes after the fact is useless; a correct search for quotes and references; a consequent terminology; correct formatting; and of course, the grammar and style that go to delicate political nuances. There is a kind of conflict between the language of specialists and the simple language supposed to be understood by all. In Sweden, the authorities have officially opted for a clear and simple administrative language (klarspråk), and in Britain, there is the plain English campaign. Nevertheless, a very large number of the texts of the institutions are quite far from these ideas of simplicity. It is hardly permissible for a Swedish translator to make a simple version of a French original visibly written for specialists. On the other hand, it is not always easy, from the point of view of linguistic theory, to define notions of simplicity and clarity, nor to specify the level of desirable linguistic hygiene. Can we push the simplification very far without losing precision? Should we remove the terms that some citizens do not understand, at the risk of impoverishing the language?

I can scarcely summarize the reflections I have just made other than by noting that the linguistic situation is evolving, in its small details (the form of our documents, small incremental administrative and informational improvements), as well as globally in the European Union. the threshold of enlargement. The only sure thing is that nothing is safe, and you have to expect new challenges.

Chapter III

Case study: Judicial neologisms

We learned in our school years that the word neologism derives from Greek roots, formed from neo which means new and logo or λόγος which means word. Neologism means that term that appears in a particular language as new, or also the insertion of a new concept in an already existing entry or word, or term that comes from another language in particular. The origin of neologisms occurs on several occasions by fashions and thanks to the need for new denominations. Neologisms are those new entries or words that in certain cases take a long time to be officially added to a language; that is created answer to the needs of denomination caused by those changes of socio-cultural nature, by technological and scientific advances or by the desire to expand the expressive possibilities for literary or aesthetic reasons. On the other hand, many of the neologisms that appear can be originated from already existing terms in the same language or from words from another.

According to purism, which is a tendency that rejects lexical and grammatical contributions from other languages, there are unnecessary neologisms, such as those that lengthen the words making them longer, but there are also other necessary neologisms, which as an example we can make mention of seropositive or bonobos. At present, the pioneers in the propagation or diffusion of neologisms and linguistic loans are the different means of communication. On the other hand, some of these words are characterized by having a brief, fleeting, momentary or temporary lapse.

The present analysis starts from a double problematic evidenced by the neologisms in any language and proposes to analyze some neologisms in Romanian and Spanish to highlight certain difficulties that are involved when translating and harmonizing the European legal registers.

Throughout history, authors have studied both the complexity of setting precisely the limits of new words coined or newly admitted in a language, as the multiple processes of formation of lexical units, at formal and semantic level.

Paradoxically, the legal language continues to preserve in most of its structures quite rigid lexical-stylistic characteristics, among which we enumerate the taste for the archaic, the attachment to stereotyped formulas, and the lexical expressive redundancy. However, we have asked ourselves if a field so specialized, but at the same time current and essential as the legal one, has not undergone some transformations, one of them due to the obligatory translation that underlies the current European interactions.

With regard to the difficulty of establishing the life of neologisms, it should be mentioned that, if in the middle of the last century, the category of neologism fitted terms whose use was considered new for about 10-15 years, nowadays the classification is less durable, resuming to approximately five years.

A possible argument resides in the ephemeral and instantaneous of communication, which implies its rapid diffusion and acceptance within the common language.

With respect to the innovation process closely related to neologisms, this is a natural phenomenon in each language, but with very specific determinations, since it alludes to the human need for implicit lexical ingenuity, either through formal mechanisms or at semantic levels. Therefore, we have neologisms of form, that is, words created from language changes, morphological words already existing in one’s own and respectively, meaning neologisms, or in other words, new words from existing words in the own language that undergo semantic or meaningful changes.

First of all, we will try to explain the creative root that is discovered in the production of neologisms and outline, as far as possible, the main ways or methods of linguistic innovation.

It is clear that the lexicon and the newly created units are intrinsically related to mentalities, to the universe of things and to social evolution at a given moment. The current society lives by a dizzying multiplicity of neologisms that duplicates the constant expansion and the accelerated social rhythm. Concepts as general as information or communication determine linguistic contents highly influenced by them. Here is one of the decisive factors when coining new terms:

The progress, the diversity and the increasing complexity of the technologies. Technical innovation leads to a lexical novelty, in such a way that it becomes a new domain, a novel technology that is born at the same time with its respective terminology (see for example the number of terms on construction technology: names of new materials, new methods to counteract phonic, aquatic, terrestrial pollution etc.)

Changes in political and social order. European community terminology probably plays the leading role, which has fostered a considerable exchange of information and translation. In reality, the entire community acquis represents a large database that introduced and put into circulation a large series of neologisms, along with many very current debates on translation techniques.

The influence of the mass media, as a type of barometer with respect to the current state of the lexicon in a language (see especially the advertising language that also stimulates the playful aspect of lexical creation).

The importance acquired by the computer domain. Practically, the technology of each large company uses some computer program with its specificities to develop its activities. Perhaps one of the most widespread computer languages ​​is Windows since spreadsheet, file or window are normal neologisms for each user of the twenty-first century.

The politically correct mentality generates many new terms parallel to those previously used, which used to have sexist, sexist, discriminatory connotations, etc. (for example, the use of the phrase people with disabilities or disabled instead of people with disabilities, disabilities, chronically ill).

All the lexical units could be grouped into two lexical categories:

that of the common language and, respectively,

the lexicon of specialized languages or the specialized lexicon, where the lexicon would also fit.

In turn, all the lexical units newly entered into a language, i.e. the neologisms, are divided into two classes: the neologisms that belong to a category called common neologisms and, respectively, specialized neologisms, terminological or neological (RUCĂREANU 2001 : 52-53)

Although the lexicon term is equivalent to the vocabulary, for example, the linguistic analysis L. Hjelmslev does not operate any distinction, we personally differentiate between lexicon as the totality of words or words made available by a language to all speakers, while vocabulary, rather, it would mean the set of words used in the communication process by a certain group of speakers in a certain situation.

The increasingly precise and coherent procedure to differentiate and separate the structured set of specialty terms – in other words, the terminology, in general – and its almost total autonomy with respect to lexicology, have led to some studies elaborated, among which common processes of training and renewal of lexemes have been highlighted. In this sense, between the current lexicon of a language and its specialized terminologies, shared situations have been evidenced to introduce, lend or form neologisms in a language. These come either from the translation processor from the spontaneous linguistic creativity of a person or group.

It is the procedure whose result is the neologisms that come from loans (indirectly), and that they denominate new terms in certain interlinguistic contexts. In such a case, the newly adopted neologism in a language is due to the work of specialists in language professions (translators, terminologists) or experts in a particular field of expertise.

For example, in the Romanian legal terminology, means riot, rix querella accompanied by fight or insults, which comes from the French rixe: querelle violent accompagnée of menaces et de coups, which in turn, comes from the Latin rixa.

The Spanish legal dictionary defines it as pendency, chimera, question, providing the syntagm tumultuary quarrel = fight of people among themselves, undertaking, using means or dangerous instruments for the life or integrity of contenders.

In this case, we witness the introduction of a neologism in the language through a type of translation that serves a highly specialized field and given its technical nature, the term is often duplicated by its non-specialized equivalent, i.e. fight, contest.

Anyway, we could talk about several types of translation that use different resources such as equivalences, transfers, loans, etc. Without delving into these general procedures that do not always lead to neologisms, we wanted to highlight some of the most frequent processes.

Transposition means the actual translation of the terms. Some scholars consider that those terms of specialty that do not represent neologisms in a foreign language of great diffusion, would not have to be adapted ad litteram, nor would they have to be rendered by another language, but rather translated. Spanish is the perfect example in this sense when denominating most of the computer concepts.

In contrast, Romanian has been working in reverse, being a language of limited diffusion. For example, from English utterance, the Romanian term used in the last century uteranță (RO), a term that was abandoned in favor of influence. Another example, French: statement (FR), which subsequently became enunț (RO).

The linguistic tracing is a procedure that annuls the stylistic effects of the indirect loan – of texts, books, articles – but confers new authentication on the international level. Here are a couple of examples in Romanian, Spanish and French that come from the English data bank or space shuttle: data banking – navetă spațială (RO), data bank – spacecraft (ES), banque des données – navette spatiale (FR).

Without discarding the importance of tracing as one of the main sources of rejuvenating the lexicon of a language, we observe that it is historically determined and that, depending on specialized terminologies or common lexicon, some differences can be marked. Lately, it is true, the rubrics of the common lexicon tend to be more spontaneous, while the specific terminologies work with a rigorous conscience, especially in indirect contact with French and, more often, with English.

Periphrastic translation refers to the reproduction of a term in a language by means of a periphrasis in another language. Thus, the English railway has resulted in voie ferée and chemin de fer (FR), rail (ES), and respectively, cale ferată and drum de fier (RO). The procedure reproduces in a bilingual manner specific notion, whose sui generis expression cannot be transmitted by tracing or other means.

The lexical loan is determined by the impossibility of establishing an equivalence between two metalinguistic systems. This process does not translate but transposes literally and then acquires an analytical description thanks to the translator.

In this situation, the analyst (MLADIN 2004 : 5) describes how the Greek term was taken in Latin under the form philologia, with which penetrates other languages: philologia (ES), filozofie (RO), Philology (English), Philologie (German), filologija (Russian).

Used with caution, the lexical loan is one of the most exact procedures, giving rise to a wide range of international terms. This procedure describes the invention of a new term by a person or group that in its own language creates an object or defends a new idea.

As an example, we stop to evoke only the term quark, which was taken up in his literary discourse by James Joyce, is a word that means nothing.

The present contexts raise today many debates about the durability of these neologisms of ephemeral life (KOCOUREK 1982 :133). In this situation there are a multitude of Latinisms integrated into many languages, and they have also found an adapted form in each language: from the Latin words: consensus, consortium, corpus delicti has been reached in Romanian and Spanish to consent (RO ) – consensus (ES) or consortium (RO) – consortium (ES), corp delict (RO) – body of crime (ES).

In addition, the approach is even more complicated in the case of hypermethylation neologisms, as was the case when experimenting to introduce the term calculator in Romanian, as an English translation (computer) – unsuccessful attempt in favor of calculator (RO) or computer (RO) -, while the Atlantic Spanish (that of Central America, Mexico, and South America) did it without problems, and only Spain resisted the adoption of Anglicism, preferring a computer. In the legal field, the research highlights three processes:

– The first refers to a need to cover both a conceptual void, as a terminological gap and proposes the creation of new lexical units that accompany new and necessary concepts in a language. Here would fit both the recent terms that come from any research laboratory, as well as the terminology of the European Union. In the legal area, new linguistic labels have been imposed such as Ombudsman or the People, Defender of which they can differ according to country or region, as can be seen in the following table. He is a State official responsible for representing the interests of citizens in the face of abuses that may be committed by officials of a State.

The figure comes from the Swedish Constitution that established this figure in 1809, to give an immediate response to citizens before abuses difficult to solve by bureaucratic or judicial. That is why in various languages ​​his name is referred to in the Swedish Ombudsman. In the Spanish-American countries, it is commonly called the Ombudsman, while in French-speaking countries it is usually called Médiateur de la République.

Neologisms: between innovation and translation

We note that in Romanian the Avocatul Poporului syntagma has been preferred, the burden of the Defender being assumed by the term Lawyer, while the genitive of the People remained the same as in Spanish in form and content.

In fact, one of the key objectives of the acquis communautaire has been to harmonize the European legal registers for their greater ease of knowledge and use.

The same concept – the acquis of the EU -, preserved in Romanian under the French form acquis, reveals a very complex idea that cannot and should not be reduced to a mere inventory of records and documents. On the contrary, it represents the political position of the Member States, their objectives, and regulatory principles.

In Romanian, due to the loan of the French and the masculine gender of the noun, sometimes a substitution of the term by the syntagmas takes place: community law or European legislation. We cannot agree, even more, we claim an imperfect synonymy, since the last terms do not include directives, taking positions and agreements signed at European level, therefore we are facing a confusion of meanings.

The second process is found more often and concerns aspects derived from the translation terminology when the existence of a given concept is assumed and only a terminological gap is manifested. In this case, a certain lexical unit in the source language corresponds to the concept already existing in the target language, where the creation of a new term is operated.

We note that there may be entities in each country that assume competencies translators and terminologists, whose activity is to find situations of emptiness terminological, but not of concepts and, consequently propose equivalences in the respective language of that country or reject the loans considered barbarisms in rubrics that are not integrated into the language.

In this case, translators are the first to face new terms in the source language, to which their work requires them to identify the appropriate correspondences. The advantage is that these neologisms are in a real communication context and appear in specialized texts that ensures its legitimate and consecrated use. However, there are also disadvantages: a because of the very short deadlines for translating such texts, the translators do not have the necessary time for the careful treatment of each of these

The situations and sometimes, the proposed solutions are not the best. Yet more, it has been observed that most translation neologisms are phrases and not terms coined according to the terminological requirement, what you want to say that it is only brief definitions of the respective concepts.

Observation: In Romania, most of the European concepts were partially known, thus they have been able to be adapted with enough facility. Without, however, some problems have arisen at the level of the terms, according to the ISO, when the neologisms have not been integrated or have not become coherent with respect to the network of concepts to which they belong.

Specifically, although the equivalences have been established first at the conceptual and then, at a formal level, neologisms have resulted that have not been adequate or have created inaccurate or superfluous parallelisms. In this category, they register some groups such as drept (law) and legislație (legislation) that are used to indistinctly; also, the terms commercial law, customs law, contract law run the same risk of confusing each other with national legislation, customs legislation, commercial legislation, with explanations of content very loose or lacking full understanding of meanings.

The third phenomenon that can be distinguished in the language legal, it departs from the two previous processes – highly denominative – and it alludes to the neology of meaning and not of form. These are new words from words already existing in the language that undergo semantic changes. This situation no longer highlights so much interest, except the audacity to create continuously new terms Some are quite transparent and similar to the common neologisms, while others become surprising, too complicated or automatic, according to the record: from the word exception, the exceptional neologism has been formed; of the alien lexeme has been amenity, to cause has come to causation, predispose to the predisposing adjective and superfluous as necessary or origination, when there was already need and origin.

When studying the neologisms and their appearance in the language, either through innovation or creation or through the different forms of translation, the ISO norms about neology must be strictly adhered to with respect to the complete procedures of training, integration, adequacy, and correction.

Likewise, independently if it is a conceptual void or terminological void, a process of translation, innovation, and permanent adaptability are imperative, which promotes collaboration between translators and professionals, with the aim of eradicating the parallel or confusing terms. Finally, consistency and terminological precision, even in the case of legal neologisms, can only be achieved if fluctuations in the selection, use, interlinguistic transfer and interpretation of texts are avoided, in accordance with the parameters inherent to communication. and within the limits agreed at the international level.

The work carried out by translators varies according to the field in which they carry out their activity, the effectiveness of their processes and the use of tools. It is not the same to work as a translator in a private agency as in the UN, or in a company that in an institution of the European Union. The effectiveness of the task of the translator is conditioned to the resources that he finds at his disposal in his place of work and to the use he makes of them in order to obtain a good translation.

To carry out a good translation, it is essential to have a good editing service, which helps to eliminate possible errors and improve the quality of the translations. This is the case of the General Directorate of Translation, which, as we said in section 5.1, is the largest institutional translation department in the EU, and has an editing service consisting of 14 editors. (of which ten are full-time). These editors are dedicated to working with documents and web pages, both in English and French, and it is the translators who ask for their help when they need to clarify some of the concepts that appear. Thus, it is estimated that annually they publish a total of 30,000 pages in English and approximately 2,000 pages in French, with which their work is essential to improve the documents with which they work, in this case, the European Commission. Its mission is to improve the quality of documents and web pages, making them more clear, correct and concise so that they are easier to read and translate later.

Regarding the main editing, problems are poor structures, the use of nouns instead of verbs, abbreviations, abstract language and the use of the passive voice. In addition, due to the variety of origin of the service workers to define a non-academic English, a style guide is used to adapt the texts and thus avoid possible differences. They also offer training courses for translators, provide useful online tools (style guides and tutorials, among others) and offer a help service in real time. In other words, these editors correct linguistic errors, help the authors of the texts to create clearer messages and restructure the information of the web pages since the documents with which they work can be of all kinds: legislation, reports, communications of the press, contracts, brochures, guides, bulletins, etc. The editing service is, in short, of vital importance because it allows the Commission to communicate effectively, avoiding bad writing that would offer a bad image of the institution.

On the other hand, one of the most important parts in the work of translation is the terminology, not only because it involves the analysis of the terms in the source language and the search for equivalents in the target language but also because of the great responsibility of fixing the specific vocabulary of the different fields in a terminology of public access (Inter-Active Terminology for Europe, better known by its acronym IATE). The terminology is recognized as a central activity of the DGT. There are at least two terminologists for each linguistic department, which, as we mentioned in previous sections, amount to a total of 24 departments in Brussels and Luxembourg. This service of terminologists is informed about the needs of the translators so that, later on, the Plenary of Terminologists of the DGT prepares the projects that finally lead to the adoption of an annual work program by the Programming Committee (formed by managers and terminologists). This Committee is responsible for monitoring multilingual projects through a biannual evaluation, which is based on quantitative indicators (movements in IATE), qualitative indicators (entries with a context or a note), and in reports sent by the departments on specific activities of each language. The terminologist is, in short, an intermediary between translators and specialists, and is responsible for selecting, editing and pondering sources.

IATE terminology for official languages for the European Union

If we analyze the table, we can see how the first three positions correspond to the terms in English, followed by the terms in French and in German, which is perhaps due to the fact that they are the procedural languages ​​with which one works internally in the institutions and languages ​​prevailing in the EU. On the other hand, we must highlight the small number of terms (approximately 490,000) in IATE of languages ​​such as Romanian, Bulgarian, Slovak and Slovenian, due in large part to their late incorporation into the European Union, which is hardly one-third of the terms in English. In the case of Spanish, which is at the same level as languages ​​such as Danish or Portuguese, could in the near future include a greater number of terms due to the importance and recognition that is beginning to win in the world. Finally, the Croatian is the one with fewer terms in IATE, since he has only been in the European Union for three years. In summary, it can be seen that multilingualism is something present although the figures show that there are great inequalities between languages.

The main challenges of IATE for the work of the DGT are to determine how data are effectively incorporated for the languages ​​that are arriving, respond to new terminological needs and reduce the number of duplicates in the historical data, that is, a consolidation of the IATE content. The IATE terminology projects are carried out before or during the translation, respectively the proactive projects or in parallel, and also from the documents already translated. Translators can create entries in the base of any language so that later the terminologists of each department can pass to a validation phase of those entries. Until 2007, IATE was a database of restricted use for the translation services of the institutions. However, that year it was opened to external users through free online access, with entries currently in the 24 official languages ​​of the EU, in addition to Latin. On the other hand, in its search interface public, there are many elements that help the user in the search, such as the list of the last queries, a feedback sheet with general comments regarding the entries and an individual search profile.

In addition to IATE, the DGT uses other tools such as translation memories, which not only facilitate the work of translators but also ensure consistency in translated texts. In the DGT, for example, we work with tools known as SDL Trados Studio and Euramis, which are also very useful. Other tools that are used are Eur-Lex, a publication service of EU legislative texts, and DGTVista, a database of translations of the European Commission.

Likewise, the General Directorate of Translation has its own style guide, available only in English because most texts are translated from or into this language. It includes common scoring errors, geographical names and legal instruments with their corresponding solution. Recently, a multilingual metasearch engine called MagicSearch has been developed that allows users to simultaneously search multiple sources, such as dictionaries, corpora, machine translation engines and search engines.

It is a very novel and useful tool, in which it is possible to search in the 24 official languages ​​of the EU and others such as Catalan or Russian. MagicSearch saves time and effort to the translators in terms of terminology search, since it offers the possibility to search in IATE and in turn in other databases such as ProZ, TAUS, Linguee or Glosbe among others.

Once the translation services in the EU have been analyzed, we will devote the following chapter to the work of interpreter in the European Union, where we will be able to see what the steps are to follow to work as an interpreter in the EU and how its work is carried out.

The role of the interpreter, as we have seen in the first chapters of the work, has been essential since the first agreements that began to shape the current European Union. Their role in the institutions is fundamental for oral communication to take place, since the translation is already in charge of translation, between the 28 Member States and abroad.

The linguistic regime of international meetings varies between one modality and another, which leads us to consider the advantages and disadvantages of both modalities. For example, consecutive interpreting between two languages can be done by a single interpreter, while simultaneous interpretation towards the 24 official languages of the EU requires a greater number of interpreters.

The following organizational chart shows the organization of interpretation services in the European Union institutions, as well as the organizations to which they also offer their services:

Organization of interpretation services in the institutions of the Union

European

As can be seen, the interpretation services of the European Parliament and the European Commission, that is, the Directorate General for Interpretation and Conferences and the Directorate General for Interpretation (SCIC) respectively, are in charge of serving other institutions and others. organisms of the European Union. The difference with the organization of translation services is evident, in terms of a greater concentration of interpretation services in two institutions.

The European Parliament is governed by the principle of comprehensive controlled multilingualism, which gives its deputies the choice of expressing themselves in their sessions in any official language of the European Union. Obviously, the use of one or other languages ​​varies according to the needs of the participants. Given this situation, the interpreters are organized depending on the languages ​​used. For example, it is established that in meetings with a maximum of six active and/or passive languages, two interpreters per booth are needed, whereas, in meetings with a minimum of seven active and/or passive languages, three interpreters per booth are required. That is, if a meeting uses the 24 official languages ​​of the EU, the services of a total of 72 interpreters will be needed. In order for interpretation services to be carried out in an appropriate manner, the official workplaces of the Parliament are equipped with interpretation booths that comply with ISO standards and have technicians who are responsible for the correct operation of the service. In the event that the deputies must travel for work reasons to any country, the Parliament also puts at your disposal an interpretation service.

In addition, and as in any of the EU institutions, the Parliament has official interpreters (about 330) and temporary interpreters, also called external interpreters. In relation to the required profile, the interpreter must be first of all a professional capable of perfectly understanding the languages ​​with which he works, he must master his mother tongue, since it is his work tool, update his knowledge to have an extensive culture general and, finally, must be able to adapt to situations of all kinds and to interpret all kinds of discourses.

The European Commission is another institution of the European Union that has an interpretation service, the General Direction of Interpretation (DG Interpretation). In this case, we are also talking about an important body, since for 50 years the Commission’s proposals have been negotiated daily, with which the interpretation service here makes more sense than ever. DG Interpretation is probably the most important service within the European Union, since it provides a high-quality service in meetings organized by the Commission and other institutions such as the European Council, the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee, the EU agencies present in all the Member States and the European Investment Bank. It also helps to provide interpreters around the world, as it collaborates with universities and administrations in third countries.

Case study

The translation errors during the EU forming that changed history

Throughout history, translation errors have been created by diplomatic conflicts and misunderstandings that have lasted for centuries. During my years in school, I have noticed the following.

Internet is full of jokes about nefarious translations made by people who believe that Google Translator is as effective as a teacher, but the thing is not so funny when serious issues are at stake.

It seems incredible that in a globalized world, and in a territory such as the European Union, translation errors continue to be made in diplomatic matters. But it happens. In November 2013 the entire Spanish press (letting itself be carried away by the agencies) ensured that a spokesman for the European Commission had labeled an advertisement by Minister Wert as “garbage”. In fact, the spokesman for Education, Dennis Abbot, had used the word rubbish, which can mean “garbage”, but in that context the correct translation would have been “nonsense”. And it is not the same, as Abbot insisted (without much success).

This error of translation – on the other hand, very convenient for the press – does not exceed the category of anecdote, but what would have happened with a misinterpretation of this type in a context of war? What happens when a bad translation is considered good and everyone believes it is true? These are seven of the most serious translation errors in history.

When US President Jimmy Carter traveled to Poland in 1977, the State Department hired a Russian interpreter who knew Polish, but who had never professionally translated that language.

At that time, Poland was still under the communist orbit, and Carter tried to win over the people with a friendly speech. But the translator could have the enthusiasm. Carter began by saying, “I left the United States this morning,” and the translator said, “I’ve left the United States never to return.” When the president said, “I have come to know your opinions and understand your wishes for the future,” the translator suggested that Carter wanted the Poles sexually. Even an innocent phrase about how happy he was to be in Poland became “happy to see the private parts of Poland.” It was a disaster.

The delegation hired another translator hastily. He knew well Polish, but not English, so he did it wrong again, but it was not funny, he was simply unable to translate.

With the Cold War in full swing, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev delivered a speech at the Polish embassy in Moscow, during a banquet attended by many Western ambassadors. The assistants were stunned when the communist leader said: “Like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you! “

In the middle of the arms race the Western press interpreted his words as a direct threat, but the Soviets hurried to explain that everything had been a misunderstanding. Khrushchev’s phrase had been taken out of context.

In fact, it was a reference to the ‘Communist Manifesto’ in which Max says that the bourgeoisie produces its own undertakers. The correct translation of his speech – which should not always be literal – should have been something like “like it or not, history is on our side. We will live to see how they bury you. “ Not that it is the friendliest phrase in the world, but it was an ideological proclamation, not a threat.

Conclusions

Based on the research he has carried out on the presence, functioning and importance of translation and interpretation services in the European Union institutions, he will present the conclusions to which, logically, I have come with the most important objectives. exposed to the principle of work.

Organizations and international entities have a role of increasing importance in a world that is increasingly globalized. The European Union is, together with the United Nations Organization, the main project that makes States exist around common interests. Its creation was at a crucial time for the world, especially for the countries of the European continent, devastated by the disasters caused by the Second World War. What could have been possible in its beginnings over the years, and it cannot be said that its activity has been in vain until now because it is the key in the political, economic, social and cultural landscape of our days.

Romania, regretting not being a member from the beginning, largely because of the political and economic situation suffered at that time, today has a very important role highlighted by his active participation in each and every one of the institutions. Since its incorporation, which was a rapid advance for our country, it has a strong presence in the actions carried out at the entity’s headquarters. However, from the linguistic point of view, the great importance of the national level was not reflected in the weight given in the European Union.

As can be seen in the first chapters of this paper, the European Union is the proof that multilingualism is possible at present, an objective that was raised at the beginning of the entity that has taken force with the enlargements of the successive years. Unlike the United Nations Organization, which consists of six official countries, the European Union has 28 Member States and 24 official languages. In my opinion, this represents a valuable benefit for its citizens, who have the facility to understand and to be able to direct the European institutions in their own language. In this way, it can be said that the objective of respect for multilingualism that was proposed to the founding countries of the Union has been fulfilled through the years until our days. Furthermore, not only respect for the principle of equality is fostered, but respect for the preference of the language as the language of communication between the countries of the EU is achieved, something that has been installed in a fund in this last century. In spite of the fact that the adaptations that have had to be carried out to a certain extent and to the extent that they are going to take new members, great importance is attached to putting one of the languages ​​in the same level at the same level. successive treaties. So much so that the Union

The European Union provides its citizens with information, both written and online, in any of the 24 official languages, as well as having an efficient translation and interpretation service in their institutions that allows them to contact all the members. It can be said that, in some way, this entity has the opportunity of translation and interpretation of its maximum splendor, because its services are unique in the world and represent the unequivocal need of these works in a century that is dominated. by the process of globalization.

As it is reflected throughout the work, translation and interpretation are a very important role for the European Union. The translation and interpretation teams are organized in an efficient way to fulfill the necessary tasks. There is a clear division of services and departments, which are responsible for meeting the needs of each of the European institutions. These are results for a large number of workers, which makes this translation and interpreting services the largest in the world. The figures are a clear example of the extensive work carried out by these services. Must highlight, however, that, in spite of the number of permanent translators and interpreters working in a fixed manner for the EU, a large part of the work corresponds to independent translators and interpreters, hired at times of great activity to achieve the full amount of work. It would be necessary to increase the number of places available in the competitions organized by EPSO to obtain a more efficient and more interconnected service among its workers.

Interviews with both the translator and the interpreter have allowed us to know first-hand details that have helped us to contrast and complete the information of the work. The opinions of the interviewees have brought us a little closer to the translation and interpretation services, their functioning and their internal activity. This practical part of the work complements the theoretical part and has allowed us to learn more about both services from expert professionals. Both have corroborated the evolution of these services over the years, enhanced by new technologies and an organization that allows them to function properly. As a result of the interviews, we have also managed to know a little more about the current employment situation of the services and the new tendencies of outsourcing of work in recent years.

Although translation plays a very important role within the EU, the interpretation is not far behind, since it connects the Member States as well as these with foreign countries through languages. We are talking about two disciplines that share the same objective, that of overcoming linguistic barriers, but that at the same time have clear differences in their behavior since the translation is less immediate than interpretation. Although it is true that both work with languages ​​and their function does not cease to be that of transmitting information, the skills required for one and the other are very different. Translators are required to write, correct and revise skills with which interpreters, for example, do not count in many cases. In the same way, the translator must be able to answer doubts and make decisions when difficulties arise. For its part, the interpreter requires skills that do not necessarily coincide with those of the translator.

The interpreter must have, in a certain way, social skills that allow him to be in contact with his clients and interact with them, as well as with a good capacity to transmit messages properly. Knowing how to speak and perform in public is very important because your voice is practically your instrument of work. Therefore, it can say that translation and interpretation go hand in hand, although their activities have notable differences in the way they are carried out.

On the other hand, the tests and the essential requirements to obtain a place in any of the directions of translation or interpretation require a professionalism and a quality in their future textual and oral productions. In these tests, the aim is to assess both the linguistic skills and knowledge and the general culture of the candidate, which allows assessing all the competencies of the candidates.

Many of them carry out a preparation that can last for years, since it is a goal pursued by many professionals dedicated to this sector, both for the prestige and for the economic remuneration and the satisfaction that it can entail. After analyzing the tests in detail, we conclude that, in the case of interpretation, they allow us to assess the competences of the profession, while in the case of translation, the early elimination of a large number of candidates may leave the profession outside of the profession. people who could have become good translators. In this sense, we fully agree with the statements made by the two professionals interviewed.

Sometimes the important work done by both translators and interpreters is not considered, which, to put it in some way, are always behind the scenes and are not valued as they deserve. Most of the actions that are carried out in the European Union would not be possible without the help of these services and their professionals. Their work is comparable in hours and effort to that of any official or employee of the EU since it is necessary to remember that translation and interpretation entail a mental agility and a responsibility to comply with the very important deadlines. On the other hand, it would be advisable for the European Union to provide more information regarding the work carried out by these professionals because although the translation has a fairly complete information on its Directorate General, the interpretation is not at the same level regarding this matter.

With this research work what has been intended is to provide a source of information for those people who are interested in knowing how translation and interpreting work is carried out in an entity such as the European Union. Above all, it constitutes a base of reference for people who intend to become official translators and interpreters of the EU tomorrow. This research can serve as a basis for further studies on the subject, since, as we have previously explained, there are not too many documents that contain information on the topics that have been raised here. It would be interesting to carry out some empirical research to verify the theoretical conclusions of this work. From this perspective, one could compare the tasks performed by official translators and interpreters of the European Union with those of other official bodies (such as the UN). Finally, it would be beneficial for the students of the Degree in Translation and Interpreting that the European Union offered information on the activities of translators and interpreters in their institutions and on how to access them, since, as we have been able to verify when performing This work, this information is not always accessible or updated.

References

BALLIU, c. 1998. ‘Enseñanza de la traducción médica a futuros traductores: Enfoque teórico y práctico’, en L. Félix Fernández y E. Ortega Arjonilla (coord.), Traducción e interpretación en el ámbito biosanitario, Comares, Granada.

BAXMANN-KRAFFT, E.M., HERZOG, G. 1998. ‘Normen für Übersetzer und technische Autoren’, Beuth, Berlin.

BUSUIOC, I. 2006. ‘Despre neologisme și neologie’: http://www.litere.uvt.ro/documente_pdf/aticole/uniterm/uniterm4_2006/ileana_busuioc.pdf

CAPELLAS, E. G., ESPUNY. G. 1998. ‘Traducción jurídica en las Naciones Unidas: El caso del documento Final Act and International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, Terminologie et Traduction’.

CIOBANU, G. 1998. ‘Elemente de terminologie’, Timișoara: Ed. Mirton.

CORREIA, P., GONZÁLEZ, L. 2000. ‘A propósito da relaçao entre terminólogo e especialistas, en VII Simpósio Ibero-Americano de Terminologia. Terminologia e Indústrias da Língua, Lisbon, November.

DELISLE, J., JAHNKE-LEE, H. CORMIER, M.C. (coord.). 2005. ‘Terminologia Traducerii’. Cluj-Napoca: Casa Cărții de Știință, trad. Rodica y Leon Baconsky.

GARRIDO, R. NOMBELA, R. 1996. La traducción en la Comunidad Europea y el lenguaje jurídico comunitario, Hieronymus Complutensis.

Jimenez, s.o. 1998. ‘El intérprete de simultánea ante la terminología médica (inglés-español): preparación y dificultades’, en L. Félix Fernández y E. Ortega Arjonilla (coord.), Traducción e interpretación en el ámbito biosanitario, Comares, Granada.

KOCOUREK, R. 1982. ‘La langue française de la technique et de la science’. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter Verlag GMBH & Co KG..

MLADIN, C.I. 2004. ‘Note despre raportul dintre lexicul comun și terminologiile speciale’, Editura Æternitas, Alba Iulia,. http://www.litere.uvt.ro/documente_pdf/aticole/uniterm/uniterm2_2004/cmladin.pdf

PACEA, O. 2005. ‘Neologismele comunicării electronice. Studiu de caz’ :http://www.ear.ro/3brevist/rv5/Pacea.pdf

PROUVOST, J., și SABLAYROLLES, J.F. 2003. Les neologismes. Paris: PUF.

REY, A. 1992. ‘La terminologie: noms et notions. Paris: PUF.

RUCĂREANU. P.E. 2001. ‘Introducere în terminologie’. București: Ed. Academiei / AGIR.

SALA, M. 1992. ‘Limbi în contact’. București: Ed. Enciclopedia.

SCHOFIELD, D. 1998. ‘Interactive-back-translation with writers of their translated manuscripts of original research in medicine and science for publication in international learned journals, Comares, Granada’.

WAGNER, E. BECH, S., MARTÍNEZ, J.M. 2002.  ’Translating for the European Union Institutions’, St. Jerome, Manchester/Northampton.