Cover not available
Part of
Translating Asymmetry – Rewriting Power
Edited by Ovidi Carbonell i Cortés and Esther Monzó-Nebot
[Benjamins Translation Library 157] 2021
► pp. 227–252

Chapter 10
EU institutional websites

Targeting citizens, building asymmetries

ORCID logo | University of Warsaw
This chapter uses corpus methods to explore how distance and power asymmetries are mediated by EU institutions in their website netspeak – the digital Eurolect – and subsequently reflected in Polish translations against the background of Polish domestic institutions’ websites. At the policy level, the selective translation of EU content into only procedural languages builds asymmetries between official languages. The study analysed two dimensions of translations: (1) grade of specialisation (EU terminology, EUese), and (2) engagement strategies positioning institutions and citizens in a discourse. EU and domestic websites show preferences for different types of engagement strategies, with the former oriented at downplaying power but maintaining a respectful distance while the latter decreasing distance through directness, personalisation, and informalisation.
Keywords: institutional translation, website localisation, institution-to-citizen communication, power, distance, translator’s agency, digital Eurolect, Polish Eurolect, institutional netspeak
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Institutional websites as a tool of political marketing and engagement in institution-to-citizen communication
  • 3.Localisation of EU websites: Translators’ agency in institutional guidelines
  • 4.Expectancy norms: Transformations of administrative discourse in Post-Communist Poland
  • 5.Corpus design: Institutional websites for citizens
  • 6.Analysis of the digital Eurolect: The discursive construction of power and distance in institutional communication
    • 6.1EUese, terminology and a grade of specialisation
    • 6.2Engagement: The discursive construction of the institution-citizen relationship
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 16 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.157.10bie
References (45)
References
Baisa, Vit, Jan Michelfeit, Marek Medveď, and Miloš Jakubíček. 2016. “European Union Language Resources in Sketch Engine.” The Proceedings of Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16). European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Portorož, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Biel, Łucja. 2004. “Distance in English and Polish.” Ph.D. thesis. Gdańsk: University of Gdańsk. [URL]
. 2014. Lost in the Eurofog. The Textual Fit of Translated Law. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Mixed Corpus Design for Researching the Eurolect: A Genre-Based Comparable-Parallel Corpus in the PL EUROLECT Project.” In Polskojęzyczne korpusy równoległe. Polish-language Parallel Corpora, ed. by Ewa Gruszczyńska and Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska, 198–208. Warszawa: Instytut Lingwistyki Stosowanej.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Quality in Institutional EU Translation. Parameters, Policies and Practices.” In Quality Aspects in Institutional Translation ed. by Tomáš Svoboda, Łucja Biel, and Krzysztof Łoboda, 31–57. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Eurolects and EU Legal Translation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation and Social Practices, ed. by Meng Ji and Sara Laviosa. Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biel, Łucja, Dariusz Koźbiał, and Katarzyna Wasilewska. 2019. “The Formulaicity of Translations across EU Institutional Genres: A Corpus-Driven Analysis of Lexical Bundles in Translated and Non-Translated Language.” Translation Spaces 8 (1): 67–92. DOI logo. [URL]
Caliendo, Giuditta, and Elena Magistro. 2009. “The Human Face of the European Union: A Critical Study.” CADAAD Journal 3 (2): 176–202.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2013. Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies.” Target 5 (1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Hypotheses about Translation Universals.” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2006. Language and the Internet. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DGT. 2009. Web Translation as a Genre. Studies on Translation and Multilingualism, 3/2009. Brussels: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission.Google Scholar
. 2015. DGT Translation Quality Guidelines. Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission. [URL]
. 2016. Strategic Plan 2016–2020. DG Translation. Ref. Ares(2016)1329034 – 16/03/2016. Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission. European Commission. [URL]
DJP, Departament Języka Polskiego DGT. 2019. Jak tłumaczyć strony internetowe Komisji Europejskiej. Przewodnik praktyczny. European Commission. [URL]
Duszak, Anna. 2006. “Why ‘New’ Newspeak? Axiological Insights into Language Ideologies and Practices in Poland.” In Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices: Language and the Future of Europe, ed. by Clare Mar-Molinero and Patrick Stevenson. Houndmills: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. 2nd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Dawn. 2008. “Narrating the Organizational Self: Reframing the Role of the News Release.” Public Relations Review 34 (1): 9–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein. 2009. “Genres in the Internet: Innovation, Evolution, and Genre Theory.” In Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre, ed. by Janet Giltrow and Dieter Stein, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Głowiński, Michał. 2001. “Nowomowa [Newspeak].” In Współczesny język polski [Contemporary Polish], ed. by Jerzy Bartmiński, 173–182. Lublin: WUMCS.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2005. Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 2017. “Genres of Political Communication in Web 2.0.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Bernhard Forchtner, 412–425. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Dorothee, and Jan Engberg. 2017. “Sprachliche Verfahren der Popularisierung von Rechtswissen zur Rekontextualisierung asylrechtlicher Grundbegriffe [Linguistic Methods of Popularization of Legal Knowledge: On the Recontextualization of Basic Concepts from Legislation on Asylum].” trans-kom. Zeitschrift für Translationswissenschaft und Fachkommunikation 10 (1): 1–21. [URL]
Hyland, Ken. 2005. “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2013. Translation and Web Localization. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kashima, Emiko S., and Yoshihisa Kashima. 1998. “Culture and Language: The Case of Cultural Dimensionsand Personal Pronoun Use.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29 (3): 461–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2014. “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on.” Lexicography 1: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2013. “Social Media an the Institutional Illusions of EU Communication.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 23 (1): 80–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowalewska, Bernadetta. 2018. “Localisation as a Means of Shaping the European Union’s Image: An Analysis of the Polish and English Language Versions of the EUROPA Portal.” MA dissertation. Warsaw: University of Warsaw. [URL]
Kress, Gunther. 2013. Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, Helen. 2013. “The Internet and Democracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies ed. by William H. Dutton. Online: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayoral Asensio, Roberto. 2007. “Specialised Translation: A Concept in Need of Revision.” Babel 53 (1): 48–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monzó-Nebot, Esther. 2019. “Interviewing Legal Interpreters and Translators: Framing Status Perceptions, Interactional and Structural Power.” In Research Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting: Crossing Methodological Boundaries, ed. by Łucja Biel, Jan Engberg, M. Rosario Martín Ruano, and Vilelmini Sosoni, 189–211. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesti, Giorgia. 2010. “The Information and Communication Policy of the European Union between Institutionalisation and Legitimation.” In Public Communication in the European Union. History, Perspectives and Challenges, ed. by Giorgia Nesti and Chiara Valentini, 23–48. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nielson, Jakob. 2008. “How little do users read?”. Nielsen Norman Group. May 5, 2008. [URL]
Piekot, Tomasz, Grzegorz Zarzeczny, and Ewelina Moroń. 2017. “Prosta polszczyzna w praktyce. Standaryzacja języka serwisu Obywatel.gov.pl.” In Przyszłość polszczyzny – polszczyzna przyszłości, ed. by Katarzyna Kłosińska and Rafał Zimny, 251–265. Warszawa: Narodowe Centrum Kultury.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2011. “Website Localizations.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle. Online: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
RJP, Rada Języka Polskiego. 2013. Sprawozdanie ze stanu ochrony języka polskiego w latach 2010–2011. [URL]
Scott, Mike. 2010. “Problems in Investigating Keyness, or Clearing the Undergrowth and Marking out Trails…” In Keyness in Texts, ed. by Marina Bondi and Mike Scott, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarzeczny, Grzegorz, and Tomasz Piekot. 2017. Przystępność tekstów urzędowych w internecie [Readability of administrative texts in the Internet]. Wrocław: Atut.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Koźbiał, Dariusz
2023. Research profile and bibliography of Professor Łucja Biel. Comparative Legilinguistics 52 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.