s - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna we Wrocławiu

124
Katarzyna Jaworska-Biskup
When constructing EU terminology in a new language one should remember
that, it must stand in congruence with the already existing terminology,
which means that EU terminology can neither exclude/contradict the target
tongue terminology, nor replace it. When translating it is necessary to check
whether a certain term exists in a target language or whether it was/is used in
another legal system. All this aims at avoiding terminological collision. It boils
down to the premise that a translator cannot show ignorance to the historically
determined phraseology of the target language (Kierzkowska 2002). A translator
should also be equipped with the knowledge of the legal system of one’s
own country and the legal system of the country whose legislation is under
translation, in simplest terms the knowledge of civil and common law culture.
The real craft of the legal translation is, according to Jerzy Pieńkoś (2003), the
ability to compare legal systems, which pertains to the comparative law knowledge.
Nevertheless, in reference to the EU it is no longer certain whether one
should talk about one legal system or maybe separate legal systems of Member
States; two opposite standpoints in legal theory dominate, namely the view that
EU law comprises distinct and coexistent legal systems and the view that there
exists a single legal system (Viola 2007: 106–108).
One of the priorities of multilingual translation is a concordance of parallel
versions of one treaty. The disregard for congruence can spark problems with
the application of the law provisions. Two notions are put forward such as concordance
and harmonization. As stated above, concordance refers to all language
versions and harmonization means that a terminology used in one text
should be consistent within run-on sentences. Of course, absolute symmetry is
not possible to achieve. The challenge of translating EU treaties is how to preserve
the intended meaning congruent in all language versions together with the
purity of one’s language. As Susan Šarcevic (2000) ascertains, the task becomes
even more difficult with each new language added to the family of EU languages.
From a translator’s point of view, it is important to mention the division
of a treaty into restricted and non-restricted parts. The restricted parts contain
technical vocabulary, whilst non-restricted or free ones do not deviate from the
ordinary discourse. A certain creativity is allowed only in the non-restricted part
(Šarcevic 2000: 224–226).
5. The analysis of sample translations
In the following section, the notion of language contact in the EU context is
elaborated on in detail. Some examples taken from the treaty on European Union
and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will serve as an
illustration. The goal of the study is not to evaluate translator’s skills but rather
to exhibit what the manifestations of language contact are, particularly how