Ordinary readers regard the EU texts as obscure and vague. Sometimes there seems that the EU institutions do not aim at the production of functional texts which comply with the target language and target culture conventions and norms, but at the production of ‘versions’ which conform to the ‘sameness format’ (Sosoni, 2012). Quality in the production and translation of texts within the EU institutions, bodies and agencies plays a vital role, because these texts apply to the general public of all member states. Therefore, the EU texts should be readable and comprehensible to all since every EU citizen has the right to have access to the EU legislation. As a result, drafters and translators should produce accurate and clear texts. Besides, “the challenge of clarity and readability is multiplied in a multilingual Community with 23 languages and 3 official alphabets” (Lönnroth, 2009: 2).
In 1999, the EU institutions adopted an Agreement on Guidelines on quality standards for the preparation of Community Legislation. The purpose of this agreement was to put the citizens of all member states at the centre of any legislative process. However, the opinions of the EU member states about the elements that constitute plain and clear language vary since traditions and the way that legal texts are drafted in countries like Germany, the UK, France, Italy or the Scandinavian countries influence the definition of clarity (Lönnroth, 2009).
Nevertheless, it is accepted by translation experts that well-written and clear originals contribute to high-quality translations and limit the number of discrepancies between language versions. The Joint Practical Guide for the drafting of legal acts underlined that “the original text must be particularly simple, clear and direct, since any over-complexity or ambiguity, however slight, could result in inaccuracies, approximations or real mistranslations in one or more of the other Community languages” (Joint Practical Guide, 2003: 17).
Obviously, the readability of the EU original texts is a thorny issue. The current article gives some recommendations about what can be done in order to improve their quality and readability. The EU texts shall use language that the readers can easily understand. Moreover, the active voice is better than the passive voice since the subject is clearly stated and understood by the reader. The long sentences should be avoided because they confuse the reader. In other words, they make the text hard, complex and difficult. A possible solution would be to split the sentences and use conjunctions, full stops or semicolons instead. Additionally, the sentences – and the paragraphs – should be short and precise. The last point that the EU drafters should take into consideration is that all texts need to be edited and proofread before translating in order to avoid mistakes, ambiguities and vagueness. Particularly, the European Commission (2012: 22) stresses that the ideal revision of an original text has the following positive effects:
● “makes the original clearer and easier to read for the general public, which is essential for legal certainty and for the Commission’s public image. Moreover, editors spot mistakes before a document is sent for translation, which also adds to the quality of the original and can contribute to a reduction of the number of subsequent versions for the text to be translated;
● makes the translators’ job more efficient in that clearer texts may be easier to translate. Moreover, clearer texts reduce the risk of translation errors;
● leads, in most cases, to a shortening of 3-4% of the original, which benefits both the reader and DGT, as the reduction has an impact on all the languages in which the document has to be translated”.
The quality of the original texts influences the quality of their translations. More specifically, if the SL text were vague and unnatural, the TL text would be obscure and unclear. Since the aim of each translator is to transfer message in a natural and acceptable way for the TL readership, Sosoni (2003: 221) underlines that the following recommendations will improve the translation quality and prevent translators from making mistakes:
● “start by reading the ST and by trying to understand its meaning and intention;
● analyze the ST in terms of text type, genre, register, style, setting and readership;
● attempt to identify and solve potential problems and difficulties, starting at the macro-level and proceeding down to the micro-level of the text;
● proceed to translate it, or reproduce it, in the TL as accurately as possible, but always bearing in mind that matter and manner are equally important;
● read the TT independently of the ST in order to evaluate its naturalness and conformity to TL norms, while making at the same time any necessary adjustments”.
Nevertheless, each translation should be always revised in order to avoid any possible mistakes and inaccuracies. This procedure should include terminology consistency, register and style. Most of the times source texts can become translations and translations may then function as source texts when they are to be translated into other languages (Gibová, 2009). This leads to the conclusion that it would be inaccurate to designate one of the texts as the source text when it comes to EU translation. Institutional EU documents are believed to be a form of autotranslation or self-translation as EU institutions are the author of both the source texts and their translations (Koskinen, 2008). However, the EU translations should be “clear, unambiguous and written in the genius of the target language” (Šarcevic, 2001: 318). Therefore, they should be as readable and comprehensible as the original EU texts. It is obvious from the points made above that there are certain measures which text drafters and translators in the EU should take in order to improve not only the readability and adequacy but also the quality of the texts produced. This will lead to positive reader reactions since they will be able to understand those texts when they enter the EU legislation.
Karantzi Ismini
Graduate from the Department of Foreign Languages Translation and Interpreting
Referencing:
● eur-lex.europa.eu. 2003. Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of legislation within the Community institutions [online]. Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/en/techleg/pdf/en.pdf [Accessed 24-12-2012].
● ec.europa.eu. 2011. Quantifying Quality Costs and the Cost of Poor Quality in Translation – Quality Efforts and the Consequences of Poor Quality in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation [online]. Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/publications/poortranslation_en.pdf [Accessed 24-12-2012].
● Gibová, K. 2009. EU Translation as the Language of a Reunited Europe Reconsidered. In Language, Literature and Culture in a Changing Transatlantic World. International Conference Proceedings. Prešov: Prešov University.
● Koskinen, K. 2008. Translating Institutions. An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
● Lönnroth, K.J. 2009. Translation and quality control: how to get the message across. Stockholm: Öppenhet och klarspråk i EU.
● Šarcevic, S. 2001. Multilingualism – The Challenge of Enlargement. In Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, vol. 9, no. 4.
● Sosoni, V. 2012. A Hybrid Translation Theory for EU Texts. Vertimo Studijos 5.
● Sosoni, V. 2003. Aspects of Lexical Cohesion in EU Texts: A Critical Study of Greek Translations and English Hybrid Texts. Surrey: University of Surrey..