Cover not available

In:Observing Eurolects: Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law
Edited by Laura Mori
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86] 2018
► pp. 169–198

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 8
Observing Eurolects

The case of Greek

Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.86.08sos
Abstract
The present paper presents the findings from the analysis of the Greek corpus of European Union directives spanning the years 1999–2008 (corpus A) and the corpus of the legal instruments used to transpose them into Greek law (corpus B). The aim of the analysis is to verify the existence of a Greek Eurolect, born through translation, and to highlight the differences between this new legal variety and the corresponding Greek legal variety. The findings of the study are particularly interesting as they point to the existence of a Greek Eurolect characterised by Europeisms on a lexical level; morphosyntactic preferences which do not conform to the Greek legal language conventions and norms; an extensive use of the future tense as a result of translating English shall into Greek; and an oscillation between the use of Κatharevousa and Demotiki, that is an H-variety and an L-variety of the Greek language.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.EU law and EU legal language
  • 3.Greek law and legal language
  • 4.Corpus design and methodology
    • 4.1Directives: Translation and transposition characteristics
      • 4.1.1The translation of directives
      • 4.1.2The transposition of directives
    • 4.2Corpus A
    • 4.3Corpus B
    • 4.4Corpus analysis: A multi-method approach
    • 4.5Levels of analysis
  • 5.Corpora analysis and findings
    • 5.1Qualitative analysis
      • 5.1.1Interviews
      • 5.1.2Qualitative corpus analysis
    • 5.2Quantitative analysis and triangulation of results
      • 5.2.1Analysis of EU-rooted phenomena
      • 5.2.2Analysis of contact-induced features
      • 5.2.3Analysis of intra-linguistic variability
      • 5.2.4Triangulation of results and discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Biel, Ł. (2014a). Lost in the Eurofog. The textual fit of translated law. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014b). The textual fit of translated EU law: A corpus-based study of deontic modality. The Translator, 20(2), 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biel, Ł., & Engberg, J. (2013). Research models and methods in legal translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 12, 1–11. Retrieved from <[URL]> (17 October 2016).
Bowker, L. & Pearson, J. (2002). Working with specialized language: A practical guide to using corpora. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caliendo, G., Di Martino, G., & Venuti, M. (2005). Language and discourse features of EU secondary legislation. In G. Cortese & A. Duszak (Eds.), Identity, community, discourse. English in intercultural settings (pp. 381–404). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cao, D. (2007). Translating law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
European Commission. nd. DGT In-house Style Guide for Greek. Retrieved from <[URL]> (17 October 2016).
Frangoudaki, A. (1993). Γλώσσα και Ιδεολογία [Language and ideology]. Athens: Odisseas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garzone, G. (2000). Legal translation and functionalist approaches: A contradiction in terms? In Legal translation: History, theory/ies and practice. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, University of Geneva (pp. 395–414). Bern: ASTI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gombos, K. (2014). EU law viewed through the eyes of a national judge. Retrieved from <[URL]> (17 October 2016).
Hart, H. L. A. (1961) The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harvey, M. (2002). What’s so special about legal translation? Meta, 47(2), 177–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. (2000). Pure doctrine of law. Bucharest: Ed. Humanitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koskinen, K. (2008). Translating institutions: An ethnographic study of EU translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Institutional illusions. Translating in the EU commission. The Translator, 6(1), 49–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koutsivitis, V. (1991). Quelques observations linguistiques concernant la version grecque des textes communautaires. Terminologie et Traduction, 3, 245–253.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenz, M. (2006). Grammatik und Stil: Das Passiv als stilistisches Mittel im Vergleich zu konkurrierenden grammatischen Konstruktionen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technical University Berlin. Retrieved from <[URL]> (17 October 2016).
Marnell, G. (2016). Essays on technical writing. Brighton, Victoria: Burdock Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, I. (2012). Text parameters in translation: Transitivity and institutional cultures. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 399–410). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mattila, H. E. S. (2006). Comparative legal linguistics (C. Goddard, trans.). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matulewska, A. (2007). Lingua legis in translation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mori, L. (2018). Introduction. The Eurolect Observatory Project . In L. Mori (Ed.), Observing Eurolects. Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Linguistic variation in legal Maltese: EU directives compared to national implementation laws. In S. Caruana, R. Fabri & T. Stolz (Eds.), Variation and change: The dynamics of Maltese in space, time and society (pp. 109–127). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Gli anni Sessanta e la costruzione dell’identità linguistica europea. Sulla formazione della varietà comunitaria d’italiano. In M. de Pasquale, G. Dotoli & M. Selvaggio (Eds.), I linguaggi del sessantotto. Atti del Convegno multidisciplinare (pp. 531–544). Roma: Editrice Apes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). L’italiano lingua della legislazione europea. In B. Turchetta, L. Mori, & R. Elisa (Eds.), Il mondo in italiano. Varietà ed usi internazionali della lingua (pp. 73–106). Roma: Editori Laterza.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). L’euroletto: Genesi e sviluppo dell’italiano comunitario. In V. Ada, P. Molinelli, P. Cuzzolin & G. Bernini (Eds.), Ecologia linguistica. Atti del XXXVI Convegno internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (pp. 473–492). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser, A. & Panaretou, E. (2011). Why a mother’s rule is not a law: The role of context in the interpretation of Greek laws. In A. Fetzer & E. Oishi (Eds.), Context and contexts. Part or whole? (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 209) (pp. 11–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panaretou, E. (2009). Νομικός Λόγος: Γλώσσα και Δομή του Νόμου [Legal language: Language and structure of the law]. Athens: Papazissis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlidou, T. (1991). Linguistic nationalism and European unity: The case of Greece. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A language policy for the European community. Prospects and quandaries (pp. 279–289). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piehl, A. (2006). The influence of EU legislation on Finnish legal discourse. In M. Gotti & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), New trends in specialized discourse analysis, (pp. 183–194). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. (2009). Principles of corpus linguistics and their application to translation studies research. Revista Tradumàtica, 7. Retrieved from <[URL]> (17 October 2016).
Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sewell, P. M. (2001). The occurrence of calque in translation scripts. Meta, 46(3), 607–615.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Somssich, R., Várnal, J. & Bérczi, A. (2010). Lawmaking in the EU multilingual environment. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate General for Translation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sosoni, V. (2012). A hybrid translation theory for EU texts. Vertimo Studijos, 5, 76–89.
(2011). Training translators to work for the EU institutions: Luxury or necessity? JoSTrans ‒ The Journal of Specialised Translation, 16, 77–108. Retrieved from <[URL]> (10 October 2016).
Stephany, U. (2015). Mood and modal verbs in the English, German, and Greek official versions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In E. Miola & P. Ramat (Eds.), Language across languages: New perspectives on translation (pp. 123–142). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2001). EU project proposals as hybrid texts: Observations from a Finnish research project. Across Languages and Cultures, 2(2), 261–264.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomatis, M. (2018). The Eurolect Observatory Multilingual Corpus. Construction and query tools. In L. Mori (Ed.), Observing Eurolects. Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tosi, A. (2005). EU translation problems and the danger of linguistic evaluation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 384–388.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1997). Translating hybrid political texts. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Text typology and translation (pp. 145–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valeontis, K. E. & Krimpas Panagiotis, G. (2014). Νομική γλώσσα, νομική ορολογία: θεωρία και πράξη [Legal language, legal terminology: Theory and practice]. Athens: Nomiki Bibliothiki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Els, T. J. M. (2001). The European Union, its institutions and its languages: Some language political observations. Current Issues in Language Planning, 2(4), 311–360.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, E., Bech, S., & Martínez, J. M. (2002). Translating for the European Union institutions. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Mori, Laura & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2021. Mapping Eurolects. Languages in Contrast 21:2 ► pp. 186 ff. DOI logo
Kozobolis, Stavros
2020. A corpus-based study on deontic modality in Competition Law: Insights from the English-Greek language pair. Estudios de Traducción 10 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Mori, Laura
2018. Conclusions. In Observing Eurolects [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 86], ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue