Atjaunināt sīkdatņu piekrišanu

E-grāmata: Legal Integration and Language Diversity: Rethinking Translation in EU Lawmaking

(J.S.D. candidate, Yale University)
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
  • Formāts - PDF+DRM
  • Cena: 120,54 €*
  • * ši ir gala cena, t.i., netiek piemērotas nekādas papildus atlaides
  • Ielikt grozā
  • Pievienot vēlmju sarakstam
  • Šī e-grāmata paredzēta tikai personīgai lietošanai. E-grāmatas nav iespējams atgriezt un nauda par iegādātajām e-grāmatām netiek atmaksāta.
Legal Integration and Language Diversity: Rethinking Translation in EU LawmakingPalielināt
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:

DRM restrictions

  • Kopēšana (kopēt/ievietot):

    nav atļauts

  • Drukāšana:

    nav atļauts

  • Lietošana:

    Digitālo tiesību pārvaldība (Digital Rights Management (DRM))
    Izdevējs ir piegādājis šo grāmatu šifrētā veidā, kas nozīmē, ka jums ir jāinstalē bezmaksas programmatūra, lai to atbloķētu un lasītu. Lai lasītu šo e-grāmatu, jums ir jāizveido Adobe ID. Vairāk informācijas šeit. E-grāmatu var lasīt un lejupielādēt līdz 6 ierīcēm (vienam lietotājam ar vienu un to pašu Adobe ID).

    Nepieciešamā programmatūra
    Lai lasītu šo e-grāmatu mobilajā ierīcē (tālrunī vai planšetdatorā), jums būs jāinstalē šī bezmaksas lietotne: PocketBook Reader (iOS / Android)

    Lai lejupielādētu un lasītu šo e-grāmatu datorā vai Mac datorā, jums ir nepieciešamid Adobe Digital Editions (šī ir bezmaksas lietotne, kas īpaši izstrādāta e-grāmatām. Tā nav tas pats, kas Adobe Reader, kas, iespējams, jau ir jūsu datorā.)

    Jūs nevarat lasīt šo e-grāmatu, izmantojot Amazon Kindle.

How can the European Union create laws that are uniform in a multitude of languages? Specifically, how can it attain both legal integration and language diversity simultaneously, without the latter compromising the former? C.J.W. Baaij argues that the answer lies in the domain of translation. A uniform interpretation and application of EU law begins with the ways in which translators and jurist-linguists of the EU legislative bodies translate the original legislative draft texts into the various language versions.
In the European Union, law and language are inherently connected. The EU pursues legal integration, i.e. the incremental harmonization and unification of its Member States' laws, for the purpose of reducing national regulatory differences between Member States. However, in its commitment to the diversity of European languages, its legislative institutions enact legislative instruments in 24 languages. Language Diversity and Legal Integration assesses these seemingly incompatible policy objectives and contemporary translation practices in the EU legislative procedure, and proposes an alternative, source-oriented approach that better serves EU policy objectives. Contrary to the orthodox view in academic literature and to the current policies of the EU, this book suggests that the English language version should serve as the original and only authentic legislative text. Translation into the other language versions should furthermore avoid prioritizing clarity and fluency over syntactic correspondence and employ neologisms for distinctly EU legal concepts.
Ultimately, Baaij provides practical solutions to the conflict between the equality of all language versions, and the need for uniform interpretation and application of EU law.

Recenzijas

C.J.W. Baaij offers a clear overview of the challenges entailed by multilingual law-making in the EU, and presents and argues persuasively for a novel (and provocative) solution. This is an important text for everyone who works on EU law. * Brian H. Bix, Frederick W. Thomas Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Minnesota * C.J.W. Baaij addresses a highly topical issue in contemporary research on law and language in the European Union and does so in a convincingly interdisciplinary manner. By highlighting source-oriented translation as the best strategic choice to be made by EU translators, Baaij breaks with the dominant contemporary paradigm within translation studies, which almost exclusively favors target-oriented translation. It is welcome to search for alternative strategies to cope both practically and theoretically with the conflict between formal EU multilingualism and the equality of all language versions on the one hand and the need for uniform interpretation and application of EU law on the other hand. * Anne Lise Kjaer, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen * I find this book refreshing, thoroughly innovative, and original. Concisely written, it is a stimulating and important contribution to the current literature on both institutional translation and EU institutions. * Karen McAuliffe, Reader in Law and Birmingham Fellow, University of Birmingham *

List of Illustrations
xi
Acknowledgments xiii
1 Introduction
1(16)
1.1 Aims
1(1)
1.2 Background
2(5)
1.2.1 Between Legal Integration and Language Diversity
2(1)
1.2.2 The Centrality of EU Translation
3(3)
1.2.3 A Source-Oriented Approach to EU Translation
6(1)
1.3 Structure
7(1)
1.4 Approach and Methods
8(9)
1.4.1 Documentary Research: Public Policy Communications of EU Institutions
8(2)
1.4.2 Qualitative Empirical Research: EU Translation Praxis
10(2)
1.4.3 Quantitative Empirical Research: The Court's Interpretation of Language Versions
12(1)
1.4.4 Theoretical Framework for Assessing EU Translation Practices
13(2)
1.4.5 Case Study: Contract Law Integration and the Right of Withdrawal
15(2)
2 Articulating the Task of EU Translation
17(40)
2.1 Introduction
17(1)
2.2 The Policy Objectives of Language Diversity and Institutional Multilingualism
18(11)
2.2.1 EU's Commitment to Language Diversity and Equality
18(2)
2.2.2 External Institutional Multilingualism
20(2)
2.2.3 Internal Institutional Multilingualism
22(3)
2.2.4 Equal Authenticity and Uniformity of Language Versions
25(4)
2.3 The Policy Objectives of Contract Law Legal Integration
29(9)
2.3.1 The Objectives of Contract Law Integration and the Right of Withdrawal
29(3)
2.3.2 The Need for a Uniform Interpretation and Application of Legislative Instruments
32(4)
2.3.3 The Potential Influence of Multilingualism on Integration Measures
36(2)
2.4 A Case Study: Multilingual Interference in Contract Law Integration
38(15)
2.4.1 Diverging Cooling-Off Periods
38(4)
2.4.2 Inconsistent Use of Legal Terms: The Right of Withdrawal
42(5)
2.4.3 Diverging Modalities for the Exercise of the Right of Withdrawal
47(2)
2.4.4 Varying Legal Scopes of Legislative Instruments
49(4)
2.5 The Significance of Consistent Language Versions
53(2)
2.5.1 The Policy Benchmarks of EU Translation
53(1)
2.5.2 Concordance Among Language Versions in Contract Law Integration
54(1)
2.6 Conclusion
55(2)
3 Formalizing the Primacy of English
57(48)
3.1 Introduction
57(1)
3.2 The Reality of a Reduced Internal Institutional Multilingualism
58(12)
3.2.1 A Restricted Number of EU Official Languages
58(3)
3.2.2 A Narrow Institutional Multilingualism
61(2)
3.2.3 The Primacy of English in Practice
63(3)
3.2.4 Austerity Measures and the Inducement of an Institutional Lingua Franca
66(4)
3.3 Lifting the "Veil" of Equal Authenticity
70(16)
3.3.1 The Court's Limited Use of Comparative Language Analyses
70(4)
3.3.2 Nuancing the Need for Comparing Language Versions
74(4)
3.3.3 The Court's Inclination Toward Certain Languages
78(5)
3.3.4 The Weight of the English Language Version
83(3)
3.4 A Failed Justification of a Reduced Institutional Multilingualism
86(6)
3.4.1 Reconciling a Practice With Its Principles
86(1)
3.4.2 Denying a Principle of Multilingualism
87(1)
3.4.3 Balancing Against a Principle of Administrative Efficiency
88(2)
3.4.4 The Failure to Reconcile Efficacy with Fundamental Principles
90(2)
3.5 To Recognize English as Institutional and Pan-European Lingua Franca
92(12)
3.5.1 The Proposal for a Single Original and Authentic Language Version
92(1)
3.5.2 Adjusting Institutional Multilingualism: Replacing the Failed Promise of Equal Authenticity
93(1)
3.5.3 Adjusting Language Diversity and Equality: A Pan-European Lingua Franca
94(5)
3.5.4 The Practical and Political Feasibility of Formalizing the Primacy of English
99(2)
3.5.5 The Impact of "Brexit"
101(3)
3.6 Concluding Remarks
104(1)
4 The Mixed Approach of Current EU Translation
105(46)
4.1 Introduction
105(1)
4.2 A Theoretical Framework of Methods and Orientations
106(4)
4.2.1 Schleiermacher's Thesis
106(1)
4.2.2 The Relationship Between Orientations and Methods
107(2)
4.2.3 Distinguishing the Aims and Objectives of Translation Orientations
109(1)
4.3 The Foundations of Receiver-Oriented Translation
110(6)
4.3.1 Pragmatics and Language-as-Communication
110(4)
4.3.2 Dynamic Equivalence and a "Familiarization" Translation Strategy HI
4.3.3 Legal Equivalence and Legal Effects
114(2)
4.4 The Foundations of Source-Oriented Translation
116(8)
4.4.1 Hermeneutics and Language-as-Constitutive
116(2)
4.4.2 Translation Without Equivalence
118(2)
4.4.3 A Foreignizing Translation Strategy
120(4)
4.5 The Methodological Predispositions of Translation Orientations
124(10)
4.5.1 The Receiver-Oriented Predisposition to Freer Translation Methods
124(3)
4.5.2 Disinclination Toward Literal Translation Methods
127(2)
4.5.3 The Source-Oriented Predisposition to Literal Methods
129(2)
4.5.4 The Boundaries of Literalism in Source-Oriented Legal Translation
131(3)
4.6 The Orientations and Methods of Current EU Translation
134(10)
4.6.1 Identifying the Basic Elements of EU Translation
134(2)
4.6.2 Resemblance of Sentence Structure
136(2)
4.6.3 Legal Terms Without National Connotation: An Autonomous Interpretation
138(4)
4.6.4 Clarity, Intelligibility, and Fluency
142(2)
4.7 The Ineffectiveness of Current EU Translation Practices
144(5)
4.7.1 Contradictory Translation Aims
144(3)
4.7.2 Incompatible Measures of Intelligibility
147(1)
4.7.3 Incompatible Measures of Uniformity
148(1)
4.8 Concluding Remarks
149(2)
5 Considering a Source-Oriented Alternative
151(50)
5.1 Introduction
151(1)
5.2 A Practical Argument: Reducing the Risk of Diverging Language Versions
152(14)
5.2.1 Overview of Syntactic and Semantics Discrepancies
152(1)
5.2.2 The Risk of Diverging National Connotations of Legal Terms
153(5)
5.2.3 The Risk of Diminished Syntactic Correspondence
158(4)
5.2.4 The Limited Value of Pursuing Clarity, Fluency, and Intelligibility
162(4)
5.3 A Normative Argument: The Significance of Textual Homogeneity
166(14)
5.3.1 The Court's First-Order Arguments: Literal and Teleological Interpretations
166(4)
5.3.2 The Court's Second-Order Argument: A Uniform Interpretation and Application
170(2)
5.3.3 The Significance of Literal Interpretations as First-Order Arguments
172(4)
5.3.4 The Role of the Type of Legislative Instrument
176(4)
5.4 A Theoretical Argument: Avoiding the "Third Dogma of Empiricism"
180(20)
5.4.1 Differentiating Comparability and Commensurability
180(3)
5.4.2 The Problematic Empiricist Assumption in Receiver-Oriented Translation
183(3)
5.4.3 A Critique of Empiricism: Linguistic Relativism
186(3)
5.4.4 Donald Davidson's Principle of Charity
189(6)
5.4.5 The Constitutive Concept of Language Versus Linguistic Relativism
195(5)
5.5 Concluding Remarks
200(1)
6 The Implementation and Its Challenges
201(29)
6.1 Introduction
201(4)
6.2 Employing Neologisms for Legal Terms
205(7)
6.2.1 The Differentiating Function of Neologisms
205(3)
6.2.2 Neologisms for Contract Law Terminology
208(2)
6.2.3 Neologisms and Legal Definitions for EU Legal Concepts
210(2)
6.3 Preserving Syntactic Correspondence
212(7)
6.3.1 The Facilitative Function of Syntactic Correspondence
212(3)
6.3.2 Syntactic Correspondence in Current Contract Law Integration Measures
215(2)
6.3.3 Textual Homogeneity of Legal Definitions
217(2)
6.4 The Challenges of Source-Oriented EU Translation
219(9)
6.4.1 The Possible Lack of "New" Neologisms
219(5)
6.4.2 The Difficulty of Seeking Syntactic Correspondence
224(2)
6.4.3 Realizing Legal Uniformity in 24 Languages
226(2)
6.5 Concluding Remarks
228(2)
7 Summary and Conclusions
230(11)
7.1 Articulating the Task of EU Translation
230(2)
7.2 Formalizing the Primacy of English
232(1)
7.3 The Mixed Approach of Current EU Translation
233(2)
7.4 Considering a Source-Oriented Alternative
235(2)
7.5 The Implementation and Its Challenges
237(1)
7.6 Concluding Remarks
238(3)
Appendix I Language Cases (1960-2010) 241(20)
Appendix II Anonymized Table of Interviews 261(1)
DGT European Commission and European Council, 11 and 12 June 2008 261(1)
Directore General 7, European Council, June 2009 262(1)
Miscellaneous Interviews 2011, 2014 262(1)
References 263(24)
Index 287
C.J.W. Baaij is a J.S.D. candidate at Yale Law School. Previously, he was Assistant Professor at Amsterdam Law School, where he taught contract law, civil procedure, and legal theory. There, he also obtained his Ph.D. degree, cum laude, for his research on legal integration and language diversity, parts of which he conducted as a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia Law School.
Biežāk uzdotie jautājumi par e-grāmatām Biežāk uzdotie jautājumi par e-grāmatām
Permanent link: https://www.kriso.lv/db/97801906807942e.html
Keywords: