Cover not available
Part of
Observing Eurolects: Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law
Edited by Laura Mori
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86] 2018
► pp. 244–265

Chapter 10
Observing Eurolects

The case of Latvian

The aim of this corpus-driven study is to examine intra-linguistic comparisons between a language variety used in EU Latvian directives and Latvian legal texts. The findings of the study show that there are lexical items (Europeisms) suggesting a conventionalized type of Eurospeak, but no patterned variation at other linguistic levels. These identified lexical forms showed divergent variability from their counterparts in the national measures of transposition. The reasons for such phenomena were due to highly conventionalized standards of EU translation.

Keywords: EU Latvian, legal Latvian, lexical forms, corpus linguistics, Eurospeak
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Data and analysis
    • 3.1Methodology
    • 3.2The category of EU-rooted terms
    • 3.3The category of contact-induced variants
    • 3.4The category of intra-linguistic variability
    • 3.5One final example
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
  • Internet resources
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.86.10dil
References
Biel, Ł.
(2014a) Lost in the Eurofog: The textual fit of translated law. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Phraseology in legal translation: A corpus-based analysis of textual mapping in EU law. In L. Cheng, A. Wagner, & K. K. Sin (Eds.), The Ashgate handbook of legal translation (pp. 177–192). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K., Candlin, C. N., & Evangelisti Allori, P.
(2008) Introduction. In V. K. Bhatia, C. N. Candlin, & P. Evangelisti Allori (Eds.), Language, culture and the law. The formulation of legal concepts across systems and cultures (pp. 9–21). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
ES dokumentu tulkošanas rokasgrāmata
(2004) Rīga: Tulkošanas un terminoloģijas centrs (The Centre of Translation and Terminology)/Brisele: Eiropas Komisijas Tulkošanas ģenerāldirektorāts (the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission).Google Scholar
Goffin, R.
(1994) L’eurolecte: Oui, jargon communautaire: non. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 39(4), 636–642. Retrieved from [URL]
(2005) Quels corpus et quelles approches pour une description contrastive de l’eurolecte? Retrieved from [URL]
Latvijas Republikas Tieslietu ministrija
(2014) Eiropas Savienības tiesību ieviešanas rokasgrāmata. Rīga: Latvijas Republikas Tieslietu ministrija. Retrieved from [URL]
Mori, L.
(2003) L’euroletto: Genesi e sviluppo dell’italiano comunitario. In A. Valentini, 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
(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
(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)DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A.
(2006) Russian as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 78–99. Retrieved from [URL]
(2008) Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3,4), 275–314. Retrieved from [URL]
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S.
(2014) Research methodologies in translation studies. New York, NY: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M.
(2001) Comparing corpora and identifying key words, collocations, and frequency distributions through the WordSmith Tools suite of computer programs. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT: Theory and practice (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4) (pp. 47–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sīlis, J.
(2010) „Latviešu” un „briseliešu” valoda tulkojumos – divi valodas attīstības ceļi „tulkojumspiediena laikmetā”. Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti, 14, 289–298.Google Scholar
Steinberger, R., Pouliquen, B., Widiger, A., Ignat, C., Erjavec, T., Tufiş, D., & Varga, D.
(2006) The JRC-Acquis: A multilingual aligned parallel corpus with 20+ languages. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’2006). Genova, Italy, 24–26 May, 2006. Retrieved from: [URL]
Strandvik, I.
(2018) Preface. Corpus research at the service of multilingual law-making. In L. Mori (Ed.), Observing Eurolects. Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) On quality in EU multilingual lawmaking. In S. Šarčević (Ed.), Language and culture in EU law: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141–165). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Tomatis, M. S.
(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) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E.
(2001) Corpus linguistics at work (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trebits, A.
(2009) The most frequent phrasal verbs in English language EU documents–A corpus-based analysis and its implications. System, 37(3), 470–481.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tulkošanas un terminoloģijas centrs
(2006) Tiesību aktu tulkošanas rokasgrāmata. Rīga: Valsts aģentūra Tulkošanas un terminoloģijas centrs (the Centre of Translation and terminology). Retrieved from [URL]
Uysal, H. H., Plakans, L., & Dembovskaya, S.
(2007) English language spread in local contexts: Turkey, Latvia and France. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(2), 192–207.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veisbergs, A.
(2001) Latvian legal language – the fourth transition of the 20th century. In F. Mayer (Ed.), Language for special purposes: Perspectives for the new millennium (Vol. 1, pp. 623–629). Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
(2005) Tulkojumspiediens – guvums vai apdraudējums? Latviešu valoda – robežu paplašināšana, 1. sēj., 143–176. Rīga: Valsts valodas komisijas raksti.Google Scholar
(2009) Translation language: The major force in shaping modern Latvian. Vertimo Studijos, 2, 54–70.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zauberga, I.
(1999) Translations as hybrid texts. In J. Sīlis (Ed.), Interpreting and translation as intercultural communication: Theory, practice, instruction methods (pp. 96–101). Ventspils: VeA.Google Scholar
(2001) Discourse interference in translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 2(2), 265–276.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Theoretical tools for professional translators. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Mori, Laura
2018. Chapter 14. Conclusions. In Observing Eurolects [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 86], ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
Mori, Laura & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2021. Mapping Eurolects. Languages in Contrast 21:2 ► pp. 186 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 may 2023. 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.