‘SHALL’ AMBIGUITIES IN EU LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

Main Article Content

Annarita FELICI

Abstract

This paper investigates the modal ‘shall’, whose excessive use can be problematic both in legal translation and interpretation (Coode 1843, Driedger 1976). The context of analysis is the EU for offering a relative young legal environment where translation represents the main channel of communication. The analysis moves from the deontic speech acts of ordering and prohibiting and looks at examples of performativity where ‘shall’ is not only deontically binding, but it is also used to express a necessary condition or to set a new state of things up. The disambiguation is particularly evident in multilingual translation and is performed with the help of parallel concordances, which also shed light on the conceptual framework of norms. Data consist of a parallel corpus including English, French, German and Italian versions of EU legislative texts chosen between 2001-04. As a term of comparison, a small comparable corpus containing English orginal texts has also been compiled.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
FELICI, A. (2012). ‘SHALL’ AMBIGUITIES IN EU LEGISLATIVE TEXTS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 10, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2012.10.04
Section
Articles

References

  1. Adams, Kenneth A, 2007. Making Sense of ‘Shall’,in: New York Law Journal. Oct. 18, 2007.http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/nylj-shall-101807.pdf (accessed on 09.02.2012)
  2. Asprey, Michèle, M, 2003. Plain Language for Lawyers (3rd Ed.). The Federation Press Pty Ltd. Sydney.
  3. Asprey, Michèle, M, 2005. Plain Language Around the World. www.federationpress.com/au/pdf/AspreyCh4Exp.pdf (accessed on 15.02.2012)
  4. Austin, John, Langshaw, 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Australian Office of Parliamentary Counsel 2005. Plain English Manual. www.opc.gov.au/about/docs/pem.pdf (accessed on 09.03.2012).
  6. Baker, Mona, 1993. Corpus Linguistics and translation studies: implications and applications, in: Baker Mona, Francis Gill & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technologies: in Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 233-52.
  7. Barlow, Michael, 2003. ParaConc: A Concordancer for Parallel Texts, (Draft 3/03). Huston: Athlestan.
  8. Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere and William Pagliuca, 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspects and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Collins English Dictionary, 2007 (9th Ed.).
  10. Coates, Joan, 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Camberra: Croom Helm.
  11. Conte, Amedeo, G., 1994. Performativo vs. normative, in: Il linguaggio del diritto, edited by Uberto Scarpelli and Paolo Di Lucia, LED: Milano,p. 247-264.
  12. Coode, George, 1976. Legislative Expression, in: Elmer, A. Driedger, The Composition of Legislation. Legislative forms and precedents. Originally presented to Parliament as an Appendix to the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners on Local Taxation in 1843,p. 321-378.
  13. Doonan, Elmer, 1995. Essential legal Skills Drafting. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
  14. Driedger, Elmer, A, 1976. The Composition of Legislation. Legislative forms and precedents. The Department of Justice, Ottawa.
  15. European Commission, Directorate-General for Translation 2011, English Style Guide. A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission (7th ed.). http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf (accessed on 13.03.2012).
  16. Garner, Bryan, A., 1998. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford: OUP.
  17. Garner, Bryan, A., 2004. Black’s Law Dictionary. West Group.
  18. Kimble, Joseph, 2000, A Modest Wish List for Legal Writing. In: Michigan Bar Journal 79/11. http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/kimble/modest.htm (accessed on 09.03.2011).
  19. Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, The Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of legislation within the Community institutions, 2003. European Communities. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/pdf/en.pdf (accessed on 14.03.2011).
  20. Leech, Geoffrey,1987. Meaning and the English Verb. London, NY: Longman.
  21. Oxford English Dictionary, 2010 (3rd Ed).
  22. Šarčević, Susan, 2000. New Approach to legal Translation.The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  23. Véronis, Jean, 2005. Text: The Words of the European Constitution, in: Technologie du Langage.http://blog.veronis.fr/2005/04/text-words-of-european-constitution.html (accessed on 14.03.2012).
  24. Von Wright, Georg Henrik, 1963. Norm and action. A Logical Enquiry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  25. Williams, Cristopher, 2005. Vagueness in Legal Texts. Is there a Future for “Shall”?, in Bathia, Vijay K./Engberg, Jan/Gotti, Maurizio, Heller Dorothee (eds) Vagueness in Normative Texts.Bern: Peter Lang, p. 201-224.
  26. Williams, Cristopher, 2006. Fuziness in Legal English: What Shall we Do with “Shall”?, Iin: Anne Wagner & Sophie Cacciaguidi- Fahy (eds.), Legal Language and the Search for Clarity. Bern: Peter Lang, p. 237-263.