Source and target factors affecting the translation of the EU law: Implications for translator training

3.1 Sociocultural considerations

The production of an appropriate translation depends on a good understanding of the socio-cultural context in which that genre text is normally used in the source context, as well as on a parallel with the situation in which its translated variant is supposed to function. The situational considerations should regard details about the ST production, the intended original audience and the extent to which it resembles the addressees of the TT, the purpose of that text as a representative of its genre, as well as existing sub-genres.

When the teaching process is focussed on the translation of the EU legislation from English into Romanian, students must be made aware of the special features presented by the context in which this type of legislative document is produced and is used. Thus, they should understand that the communicative purpose of the EU law is similar to that of any national legislation, in the sense that it is meant to impose obligations and confer rights, but, additionally, it has the function of achieving European unification and of creating a new legal order. The process of creating the STs in this category has also some special characteristics, since the preparation and the adoption of the European legislation involve a wide range of institutions and individuals, and the texts themselves are written by people who are not necessarily native speakers of the Union’s procedural languages (English, French, and German). Moreover, the recipients of legislation do not represent a homogeneous category, as they include people of various nationalities, both members of the legal community who use such texts as part of their daily work routine, and ordinary people to whom the texts are basically addressed. It is important to stress that the addressees of the Romanian EU texts do not differ from the addressees of the original texts. All these considerations contribute to a better understanding of the genre texts and account for the linguistic format they display.

3.2 Organizational structure

Since producers of texts in a particular genre tend to be consistent in the way they structure the overall message, the segments making up those texts, as well as the function served by each segment, represent essential aspects of the genre conventions that must be identified and discussed in the translation class. Familiarization with the macrostructural features of the genre in which they are working contributes to the students’ logical comprehension of the material to be translated. But the syntagm ‘EU law’ covers a wide range of documents which present slight differences due to the particular contexts of use, and therefore, translator trainers need to be clear about the sub-genre in focus at a particular moment. For instance, the documents which, according to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, represent ‘legal acts’ (regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions, as well as delegated and implementing acts), are characterized by the following organizational structure: Title, Preamble (Opening text, Citations, Recitals and Enacting formula), Enacting terms, Concluding formulas and Annexes (the Interinstitutional Style Guide 2022, 33–40, the English Style Guide 2016/2023, 86–8). Moreover, as I will explain later, the typology of linguistic features specific to a genre is greatly influenced by the function of the text segment in which these features are used.

3.3 Pragmatic approach to the linguistic features

Before actually dealing with the challenges that the linguistic features specific to a certain category of texts might present in the transfer from a source to a target language, trainee translators should understand the presence of certain linguistic forms (e.g. the repetition of some lexical items, the use of specific verbal constructions, the preference for a certain type of vocabulary, etc.) from a pragmatic point of view. The pragmatic perspective is useful for translators because it goes beyond the study of words or grammatical structures and focuses on higher units of the text, taking into account the context, the intention of the speaker, and various implicit elements that must be accessed by the addressee. In other words, in the context of pragmatics, language is explored in close connection to the uses to which it is put. Awareness of the mechanisms by which speech acts or the cohesive devices structure the discourse specific to this category of documents is essential for the translator both at the stage of ST comprehension and at that of TT production.

3.4 Lexico-grammatical features

All the stages described so far are meant to prepare the ground for the examination of the lexico-grammatical features displayed by the EU texts written in English. In the case of this type of convention, students are familiarized with the following levels of linguistic description: general vocabulary (e.g. neologisms and formal/informal), terminology, word combinations (e.g. collocations, idioms, and specific expressions), sentence structure and complexity, specific features of the nominal and the verbal phrases (e.g. formal or informal neologisms), as well as other semantic and grammatical particularities. Decisions about the manner of dealing with these linguistic features in the process of translation must be based on some research involving, among others, parallel texts (both legal texts originally written in Romanian, and EU legislation already translated into our language), glossaries of terms and other helpful documents available on the official sites of the EU, or even information from specialists of the field.

The model of genre analysis for translation purposes described in this section is supposed to offer trainees some basic knowledge and skills that are necessary for the production of Romanian EU legal texts which are not only linguistically correct but also functional in the target context. It is important to note that, by acquiring these skills, students also become aware of the source and the target factors influencing the creation of a good translation in this field. Research evidence meant to illustrate these factors is provided in what follows.

4.1 The pragmatic perspective

The approach of the linguistic features of the EU legal texts from a pragmatic perspective reveals that the functional values assumed by the EU texts written in English have generally been transferred at the level of their Romanian translations, a characteristic that should come as no surprise in the case of a genre which aims at achieving the same communicative purpose, irrespective of the language in which it is realized. In other words, the main features presented by the cohesive devices and the speech acts displayed by the Romanian variants of these documents are greatly influenced by their English sources.

Thus, the Romanian texts illustrating this genre preserve the speech act typology of the original English documents, but the two linguistic variants of the texts differ, of course, with regard to the linguistic devices indicating these acts. The most interesting case in this respect is that of the Romanian commands, whose illocutionary force indicators are represented by verbs in the present tense of the Indicative Mood, the third-person singular, while their English counterparts are signalled by modal constructions built with the help of mandatory shall: e.g. “Contracting Parties shall decide on the appropriate time…”/“părțile contractante decid cu privire la momentul adecvat” (32020D0143). This aspect will be discussed in more detail in the section devoted to the grammatical features of the EU law (4.3).

Additionally, influenced by their sources, the Romanian EU documents in my corpus show a marked preference for cohesion achieved by means of lexical reiteration, to the detriment of the anaphorical pronouns. In other words, pronouns are avoided as much as possible, and nouns are repeated in order to avoid any ambiguity: e.g. “The competent Eurosystem central bank shall provide to the reporting agent the written notification … after the serious misconduct first became known to that Eurosystem central bank. Where there is an alleged infringement of daily reporting requirements, the competent Eurosystem central bank shall provide such notice […]”/“Banca centrală competentă din Eurosistem transmite agentului raportor notificarea scrisă … după ce respectiva bancă centrală din Eurosistem a luat cunoștință pentru prima dată de abaterea gravă. În cazul în care există o pretinsă încălcare a cerințelor de raportare zilnică, banca centrală competentă din Eurosistem transmite o astfel de notificare.” (32022R1917). Even in situations when the English original documents use pronouns, the Romanian translator sometimes prefers to resort to the lexical device of reiteration, a strategy which is clearly meant to avoid any ambiguity at the level of the translated text: e.g. “Where the controller restricts, wholly or partially, the right of access…, it shall … inform the data subject concerned […]”/“În cazul în care operatorul restricționează, complet sau parțial, dreptul de access…, operatorul informează persoana vizată […]” (32022D2359).

4.2 Lexical choice

Under the influence of their sources, the Romanian EU texts are characterized by a high proportion of lexical items with a formal character, mostly neologisms which have a rather abstract meaning and which may sometimes create difficulties of comprehension on the part of the non-specialist audience. These lexical items are not problematic in translation, since the Romanian translators have at their disposal equivalents that produce a similar effect and that sometimes even have the same Romance etymons as the English ones: e.g. applicable/aplicabil, to confer/a conferi, to consolidate/a consolida, discretionary/discreţionar, dissemination/diseminare, institution/instituţie, to notify/a notifica, onerous/oneros, procedure/procedură, proportionate/proporțional, to validate/a valida, etc.

Another category of general lexical items which is very well represented both in the English EU texts and in their Romanian counterparts is that of the function words, among which a special place is occupied by the linking devices. There is a tendency among the Romanian translators of such texts to render the English simple prepositions and conjunctions by means of Romanian preposition and conjunction phrases, thus increasing the level of explicitness in the TT: e.g. “where the supplier has been authorised for this purpose”/“în cazul în care furnizorul deține o autorizație în acest sens” (32018L1028); “under Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1163/2014 (ECB/2014/41)”/“în conformitate cu articolul 5 alineatele (1) și (2) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1163/2014 (BCE/2014/41” (32022D0514). This is clearly an influence from the target context, where the same tendency was noticed by the researchers of the Romanian legal discourse (e.g. Stoichiţoiu-Ichim 2001) and was put in relation to the necessity of making the legal provision clear and unambiguous.

EU texts, just like texts from any other specialized field, include a wide range of terms and collocations denoting realities specific to the Union. Since, before the accession process, our country had not had any previous experience with such realities, it is obvious that the EU – specific terms and collocations – started being used in our language as a result of the translation process, under the influence of the STs. However, it must be stressed that, once they have been accepted as official equivalents for the ST ones, these terms and phrases have to be used consistently by all the Romanian translators working in this field: e.g. the Council of the European Union/Consiliul Uniunii Europene, Treaty on European Union/Tratatul privind Uniunea Europeană, third country/țară terță, Community rules/norme comunitare, etc.

The presence of a series of standardized expressions is also a general feature of the legal discourse. In most of the cases, the TT solutions for these expressions are determined by the normative documents originally written in Romanian: e.g. fără a aduce atingere (for the English without prejudice to), a intra în vigoare (for the English to entry into force), (care) intră sub incidența (for the English within the scope or covered by), etc. A special position among the standardized expressions displayed by the Romanian texts that I analysed is occupied by the constructions based on inversion at the level of the noun phrase, a feature that, as Stoichițoiu-Ichim (2001) notes, was identified in the Romanian legal texts as early as in the eighteenth century and that represents a proof of the stereotypical and conservative character of the legal discourse: e.g. bună credință (for the English good faith), depline puteri (for the English full powers), prezentul regulament (for the English this Regulation), etc.

4.3 Grammatical features

The Romanian documents in my corpus have taken over many of the grammatical features presented by their English originals, but, at the same time, they reveal certain particularities that can be explained by other types of influences, such as the differences between the two language systems involved in the process of translation, or the influence exerted by the norms of the legal-administrative documents originally written in Romanian.

Syntactic complexity is clearly a feature displayed by both the English texts in my corpus and their Romanian translations. However, in the English EU documents, this complexity is manifested mainly at the levels of the clause and of the phrase, while in their Romanian translations, it is also quite richly present at the level of the sentence. This happens because, quite often, the Romanian translator renders various types of English non-finite structures by means of finite clauses which have the status of sentence constituents: e.g. “Most Council Decisions establishing the Union’s position within RFMOs […]”/“Majoritatea deciziilor Consiliului, care stabilesc poziția Uniunii în cadrul ORGP-urilor […]” (32019D1570); “The existential threat posed by climate change requires enhanced ambition […]”/“Amenințarea existențială pe care o prezintă schimbările climatice impune un nivel de ambiție mai mare […]” (32021R1119).

Syntactic discontinuities represent a phenomenon that researchers have often associated with the legal discourse (for instance, Crystal and Davy 1969 for the English legal discourse or Stoichiţoiu-Ichim 2001 for the Romanian one). In most cases, the Romanian translators of EU law preserve the discontinuities presented by the English sources of these texts. However, sometimes, the target variant displays a slightly different syntactic makeup, either because of the differences between the ST and the TT structures (e.g. “this Eurosystem central bank shall promptly notify the authorised ECB personnel”/“această bancă centrală din Eurosistem informează prompt personalul autorizat al BCE” – 32018O0014) or for the sake of greater clarity and naturalness of the Romanian translation (e.g. “The Paris Agreement, inter alia, sets out a long-term goal […]”/“ Printre altele, Acordul de la Paris stabilește un obiectiv pe termen lung […]” – 32018R0841).

The highly nominal character generally displayed by the language of the legislative writing (Crystal and Davy 1969, Bhatia 1993, Stoichiţoiu-Ichim 2001) is also one of the features revealed by the English and the Romanian EU texts. Thus, the texts in my corpus present complex nominal phrases with many of the modifiers being expressed by nouns: e.g. “the conditions for the application of the relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis in Ireland in that area”/“condițiile de aplicare a dispozițiilor relevante din acquis-ul Schengen în Irlanda în domeniul respectiv” (32020D1745); “the data collection for the use of information and communication technologies domain”/“colectarea de date pentru domeniul utilizării tehnologiilor informației și comunicațiilor se realizează” (32021R1223). The Romanian variants of the EU documents make use of even more nouns than their English counterparts, because the translator resorts to this type of solution not only for ST elements with the same morphological status but also for some non-finite forms of the verbs: e.g. “Such mechanisms should allow disputes to be settled impartially”/“Astfel de mecanisme ar trebui să permită soluționarea litigiilor în mod imparțial” (32019L0790); “Decision (EU) 2022/2522 … amending Decision (EU) 2021/2255 on the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2022”/“Decizia (UE) 2022/2522 … de modificare a Deciziei (UE) 2021/2255 privind aprobarea volumului emisiunii de monede metalice în 2022” (32022D2522). This feature represents an influence from the target side, since, in the Romanian legal discourse, the phenomenon of nominalization is characterized by “a variety of forms and high productivity” (Stoichițoiu-Ichim 2001, 174, my translation).

The syntactic patterns used in order to render the obligatory character of the law in the English EU documents, on the one hand, and in their Romanian translations, on the other, represent an important point of difference between the two linguistic variants under analysis. As already pointed out in Section 4.1, the English modal constructions built with the help of mandatory shall are paralleled by Romanian verbs in the Present Tense of the Indicative mood: e.g. “The relevant NCB shall remunerate holdings of minimum reserves […]”/“BCN relevantă remunerează rezervele minime obligatorii […]” (32022R2419), “the provisions of that Article shall apply only until 31 December 2019/“dispozițiile articolului respectiv se aplică numai până la 31 decembrie 2019” (32019R1692). The presence of the verbs in the Indicative mood in the translated variants is clearly an influence of the target factor, since this is the form traditionally used in the legal documents originally written in Romanian.

The differences between the grammatical norms of the original EU texts and those of their translations represent some of the reasons why, overall, the English documents are characterized by a more condensed and synthetic type of expression, while their Romanian counterparts are more elaborate and more explicit.

4.4 Discussion of findings

The results of the analysis regarding the English and the Romanian EU legal texts in my corpus support the idea expressed at the beginning of this article, namely that the process of rendering EU legislation into another language is influenced by an interesting interplay between a variety of source and target factors that the (future) translators of the field must know and understand. The most important factors revealed by my research study are briefly discussed below.

In the case of the influence exerted by the source factors, it must be mentioned, first of all, that the pragmatic features revealed by the Romanian texts are generally formed under the close influence of the English originals. Since all the linguistic variants of the EU documents are realizations of one and the same genre, and, consequently, are meant to achieve a similar communicative purpose, it is not surprising that the Romanian texts illustrating this genre preserve the speech act typology of their English sources and that, in both these sets of texts, the preferred cohesive device is the lexical reiteration. The English STs are also responsible for the high proportion of neologisms with a rather abstract meaning displayed by the Romanian EU documents, neologisms which, as illustrated earlier, sometimes even have the same Romance etymons as their English sources. The third source influence mentioned here refers to the fact that the process of translating EU legal texts from English (as well as from German and French) enriched the Romanian legal-administrative language with a wide range of terms specific to the EU.

As regards the target factors, a very important role is played by the standardized expressions, which, represented either by constructions with a reversed word order (prezenta decizie, bune practici, libera circulaţie, etc.) or by other phrases with a formulaic character (a aduce atingere, a intra în vigoare, etc.), are considered to be one of the stylistic marks of the legal texts originally written in Romanian (Stoichițoiu-Ichim 2001). In the early 2000s, when the European legislation started to be translated into our language, such standardized expressions were used as models by the first Romanian translators of this category of texts and thus contributed to the integration of the Romanian EU legal texts within our national legislation. Another target influence is represented by the tendency of the Romanian translators of EU legislation to use numerous prepositions and conjunction phrases, even when the English sources reveal simple linking devices. The preference for the use of complex structures as linking elements is based on the belief that they render the syntactic relationships between the various grammatical constituents with more precision and that they are also an expression of the elevated style generally associated with the legal texts. The use of more nouns in the Romanian EU texts in comparison to their English counterparts is also determined by the normative documents originally written in Romanian, where, as pointed out earlier, the phenomenon of nominalization is very productive. Finally, the use of verbs in the Present Tense of the Indicative mood in order to render the obligatory character of the law is not at all determined by the formal features revealed by the corresponding original structures (the English verb phrases built with the modal shall followed by a verb in the infinitive), but is determined by the norms that the Romanian legislation has in this respect.