AURELIJA LEONAVIČIENĖ

Kaunas University of Technology

DALIA LIEPUONIŪTĖ

Kaunas University of Technology

TRANSLATION OF LEXICAL ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE OPINIONS OF THE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FROM FRENCH INTO LITHUANIAN

KEYWORDS: lexical analytical construction, translation method, administrative style, standard language norm.

Over the past twenty years, translations of European Union (hereinafter, EU) documents into Lithuanian have increased, and the development of administrative language has accelerated. As a result of interlinguistic influence, new linguistic features, sometimes chosen by translators without sufficient justification, have begun to appear in administrative-style texts. As is well known, lexis responds to changes most rapidly, and certain stylistic distinctions in lexical usage change. Comparing original and translated texts provides much useful data on lexical usage, particularly when comparing translated texts in the administrative style of Lithuanian, which has a lower degree of standardization, with texts in English or French, languages with long-standing traditions in this style.

The relevance of research into contemporary translated texts in the Lithuanian administrative style is demonstrated by the following remarks made at the international conference “The Lithuanian Language in the European Union” organized by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 8 December 2008: “The rather poor quality of translations of EU legislation is undoubtedly damaging to Lithuanian administrative and legal language. Documents into which translations of EU administrative texts are incorporated display features of texts in other languages: new terms and names of documents and institutions have appeared, the number of international words has increased, and untranslated words and phrases from other languages have emerged; sentence structure is changing, and sentences are very long and

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPUONIŪTĖ. Translation of lexical analytical constructions in the opinions of the Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union from French into Lithuanian

95

awkward; the influence of analytical English has led to an increase in noun constructions.” (Auksoriūtė 2008: 41–49).

Although the administrative style is the strictest, most closed, and most formulaic of all functional styles and has the least genre differentiation (Župerka 2001: 95–96), changes in its norms nevertheless affect the language of other functional styles, especially academic style, and Lithuanian standard language as a whole (Vladarskienė 2007: 55–61). Thus, issues concerning the quality of translations in the administrative style and linguistic innovations spreading through translated texts should attract increasing attention from language researchers.

In view of the topic’s relevance, one of the genres of the legal substyle of the administrative style was selected for study: the Advocate General’s Opinions in French and Lithuanian, found in the EU institutions’ document database (EUR-lex). The subject of the study is lexical analytical constructions, which are particularly characteristic of French, and their translations into Lithuanian. The choice of texts in this genre was motivated by the observation, expressed repeatedly in works on stylistics, that “descriptions of the features, linguistic characteristics, or developmental tendencies of the administrative style most often draw solely on texts of the legal substyle, as they best conform to the norms of the administrative style” (Bitinėnė 2002: 4). The research material consists of 444 pages of Advocate General’s Opinions from 2003–2013 (Fr. conclusions), divided into two comparison periods: a sample of 2003–2008 texts comprising 106,171 words, and texts from 2009–2013 comprising 114,870 words. The total number of words in the documents analyzed is 221,041. Dividing the samples of court opinions into two periods makes it possible to observe changes in the translation of the administrative texts under study over ten years and to identify changes in translation quality. The aim of the study is to examine the frequency of lexical analytical constructions in French-language Advocate General’s Opinions and to identify how they are translated into Lithuanian. The following objectives are set: 1) to discuss, in theoretical terms, French lexical analytical constructions and their differences from grammatical analytical constructions and free word combinations; 2) to identify genre-specific features of the use of lexical analytical constructions in the texts under study and compare usage data from the two study periods; 3) to identify ways of translating lexical analytical constructions into Lithuanian and discuss the quality of their translation. The stylistic analysis of the distribution and translation of the constructions under study is carried out using quantitative, comparative, translation-analysis, and descriptive methods. The research was conducted at Kaunas University of Technology as part of the Research Council of Lithuania project “Promotion of Student Research Activities”

96

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

(VP1-3.1-ŠMM-01-V-02-003). The project is funded under Priority 3, “Strengthening Researchers’ Capacities,” of the Human Resources Development Operational Programme, using resources from the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Republic of Lithuania.

THE CONCEPT OF FRENCH LEXICAL ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND RESULTS OF THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH MATERIAL

Lexical analytical constructions are characteristic of analytical languages such as English, French, and others, in which the meaning of the entire construction is expressed by two or more separate words, one of which has lexical meaning and another grammatical meaning. This form of a lexical unit often contrasts with a synthetic form, in which both lexical and grammatical meaning are expressed by a single word (Leonavičienė 2009: 24).

In linguistics, lexical analytical constructions are distinguished from grammatical analytical forms and free word combinations. Unlike grammatical analytical forms (e.g., French tu as fait, tu vas dire, il vient de parler, etc.), a lexical analytical form consists of a support verb (Fr. verbe support) combined with a noun (less often an adjective or a prepositional construction); in the same analytical language, it corresponds to a single verb, for example, avoir de l’admiration – admirer, donner un ordre – ordonner, donner les définitions – définir, donner l’autorisation – autoriser, faire des recommandations – recommander, faire une demande – demander, prendre en considération – considérer, etc. The French lexical analytical constructions presented here, as well as those found in the texts under study, most often have a one-word synonym, whereas grammatical analytical forms generally do not have such lexical synonyms.

It is somewhat more difficult to distinguish lexical analytical constructions from free word combinations and collocations characteristic of administrative style. In free word combinations and collocations, all components retain their independent meanings, whereas, as Igor Mel’čuk argues, a necessary criterion helps distinguish a lexical analytical construction: an additional inflectional meaning is attached by another word to the principal, most important lexeme (Mel’čuk 1990: 131–132).

The principal semantic component of French lexical analytical constructions is a noun, and sometimes an adjective or a prepositional construction—

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPONIŪTĖ. Translation of Lexical Analytical Constructions in the Opinions of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union from French into Lithuanian

97

According to linguists Martin Riegel, Jean-Christophe Pellat and René Rioul, in lexical analytic constructions the noun or adjective often has a cognate verb of similar meaning in the language (faire le résumé d’un livre / résumer un livre), but there are also nominal forms that have no verbal equivalents (faire le bilan de sa vie ≠ bilaner? sa vie, émettre une hypo-thèse sur la question ≠ hypothéser? sur la question, and so on) (Riegel et al. 2006: 232–233). The nominal forms in the constructions under study are highly varied, but the number of auxiliary verbs conveying grammatical information is more limited. According to M. Riegel, they are most commonly avoir, donner, faire, mettre, porter and other verbs expressing predicate relations, which indicate the beginning of an action (Pierre gagne de l’assurance), its duration (Pierre a de l’assurance / garde (conserve) son assurance), or its end (Pierre perd son assurance) and, depending on stylistic appropriateness, may be used with nominal forms (avoir de l’intérêt pour → éprouver, manifester, témoigner, etc. de l’intérêt pour; faire l’examen de → effectuer, procéder à, etc. l’examen de; donner l’ordre de → intimer l’ordre de) (Riegel et al. 2006: 232–233).

Lexical analytic constructions are a feature of the analytic system of French. These constructions have been discussed by linguists M. Riegel, J.-C. Pellat, R. Rioul (2006), I. Mel’čuk (1990), and others; questions concerning their stylistic use and translation into Lithuanian have been examined by Aure­lija Leonavičienė (2009: 23–30; 2010: 135–149), but to date there has been a considerable lack of analysis of the use of French lexical analytic constructions and ways of translating them into Lithuanian in larger, more representative samples of administrative-style texts.

An analysis of the distribution of lexical analytic constructions in the 444-page corpus of French-language research material identified a total of 705 lexical analytic constructions: tenir / prendre en / rendre compte, prendre en considération, ressortir / résulter des considérations, avoir à la disposition, avoir / énoncer / faire / imposer / fonder l’obligation, poser la/ remettre en/ saisir/ soumettre/ soulever/ déférer question, and others. The constructions selected for use in the texts are related to the subject matter and content of the texts under study. In light of the theoretical insights already discussed, examples collected from the research material were distinguished from (1) grammatical analytic forms, (2) recurring free word combinations, and (3) legal-language collocations. The opinions of the Advocates General from the first period, i.e. 2003–2008, contained 355 lexical analytic constructions; texts of the same genre from the second period, 2009–2013, contained 350 lexical analytic constructions. The similar distribution of lexical analytic constructions in texts from both periods (see Table 1) indicates that the use of these constructions remained stable in the administrative-style texts under study.

98

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

In the texts, their overall frequency—approximately 6.3 constructions per 10 pages across the research material—allows these lexical units to be regarded as a distinctive feature of the administrative-style genre under examination. Their use varies slightly between periods: approximately 6.14 constructions in 2003–2008 and approximately 6.5 in 2009–2013. The frequency of lexical analytic constructions per 10 pages in the second period is only 0.36 higher; this difference is therefore too small to substantiate an increasing tendency in their use in texts of the genre under study.

TABLE 1. Quantitative distribution of lexical analytic constructions in French

Period

Number of pages

Number of lexical analytic constructions

Frequency of lexical analytic constructions per 10 pages

2003–2008

218

355

~6,14

2009–2013

226

350

~6,5

2003–2013

444

705

~6,3

The quantitative usage data obtained can be compared with the studies of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (and its Protocols) conducted somewhat earlier by A. Leonavičienė (2010: 135–139). In a text of only 31 pages, 43 lexical analytic constructions were identified, that is, approximately 14 per 10 pages. The small size of the research sample reflected only the use of lexical analytic constructions in the document analysed and did not allow broader conclusions to be drawn about their frequency in other administrative-style genres. It was therefore decided, in conducting the present study, to substantially increase the research sample so that it would provide a more objective measure of the frequency of lexical analytic constructions in texts of the genre under examination.

Compared with studies of lexical analytic constructions in texts belonging to other functional styles of French, especially in literary texts of a similar length (in 2009–2010 A. Leonavičienė found that an average of 5.25 lexical analytic constructions were used per 10 pages in four literary prose works totalling 467 pages, and 5 lexical analytic constructions per 10 pages in 148 pages of journalistic texts (2009: 25; 2010: 139)), it can be observed that more lexical analytic constructions are used per 10 pages in the 444 pages of administrative-style opinions of the Advocates General, namely approximately 6.3 lexical analytic constructions. Lexical analytic

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPONIŪTĖ. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo

generalinio advokato išvadų leksinių analitinių konstrukcijų vertimas iš prancūzų kalbos į lietuvių kalbą

99

The abundance of constructions in French administrative (~6.3), literary (~5.25), and journalistic (~5) texts makes it possible to assert that these constructions are not stylistically marked and should be regarded as a general feature of the analytical French language system. However, their more frequent use in administrative texts makes them a distinctive linguistic feature of the genre under study. This claim is supported by C. Blanche-Benveniste’s view that the genre of a text determines the quantitative use of lexical and grammatical means (2000: 55–63), their distribution across texts and, of course, certain ways of translating them.

WAYS OF TRANSLATING FRENCH LEXICAL ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS INTO LITHUANIAN

Having examined the samples of texts from the two study periods, we identified the general ways in which lexical analytical constructions were translated over the entire decade (2003–2013): 1) translation using a Lithuanian verb; 2) translation using a nominal construction; 3) translation using a noun (see Table 2); 4) translation using an adjective or an adjective–verb combination; 5) translation using an adverb; and 6) omission of the lexical analytical construction (see Table 3).

TABLE 2. The most frequent ways of translating French lexical analytical constructions into Lithuanian

Period | Translation using a verb and its forms | Translation using a nominal construction | Translation using a noun | Number of occurrences | Frequency, percent | Number of occurrences | Frequency, percent | Number of occurrences | Frequency, percent | 2003–2008 | 212 | ~59.7 | 125 | ~35.2 | 13 | ~3.7 | 2009–2013 | 213 | ~60.9 | 120 | ~34.3 | 12 | ~3.4 | 2003–2013 | 425 | ~60.2 | 245 | ~34.8 | 25 | ~3.5

The results of the quantitative analysis for the entire study period indicate that the most frequent translation methods are translation using a verb and translation using a nominal construction. The remaining translation examples account for only 5 percent of all the examples examined.

100

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

TABLE 3. Other ways of translating French lexical analytical constructions into Lithuanian

Period | Translation using an adjective or an adjective–verb combination | Translation using an adverb | Omission of the lexical analytical construction | Number of occurrences translated | Frequency, percent | Number of occurrences translated | Frequency, percent | Number of occurrences translated | Frequency, percent | 2003–2008 | 4 | ~1.1 | 1 | ~0.3 | 0 | ~0 | 2009–2013 | 2 | ~0.6 | 1 | ~0.3 | 2 | ~0.6 | 2003–2013 | 6 | ~0.9 | 2 | ~0.3 | 2 | ~0.3

As noted, translation using a verb is the most frequent method: in the texts from the first period (2003–2008), 212 of the 355 lexical analytical constructions were translated using a verb (~59.7 percent of all the examples examined); in the second period (2009–2013), 213 of the 350 constructions were translated using a verb (~60.9 percent of all the examples examined). For the entire decade under study (2003–2013), translation of lexical analytical constructions in the Advocate General’s Opinions using a verb or one of its forms accounts for ~60.2 percent of the examples in the material studied. Translators chose this method because of the semantics of French lexical analytical constructions—that is, because they often express an action—and in view of the verbal, inflectional nature of Lithuanian:

(1) Therefore, an affirmative answer should be given to the second question. (C-349/01)

In the opinion of the Works Council, for this reason the second question should be answered in the affirmative. (C-349/01)

(2) <...> no worker may suffer any detriment on the ground that he or she is unwilling to give consent to perform such work. (C-397/01 to C-403/01)

<...> the worker will suffer no loss as a result of the employer’s actions because he or she does not wish to consent to perform such work. (C-397/01 to C-403/01)

(3) The Cour administrative (Luxembourg) has doubts as to whether a provision of national income tax law is compatible with the rules on the free movement of capital. (C-242/03)

The Cour administrative of Luxembourg doubts whether a provision of national income tax law is compatible with the rules on the free movement of capital. (C-242/03)

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPONIŪTĖ. Translation of lexical analytical constructions in the Advocate General’s Opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union from French into Lithuanian

101

Here are some further examples of this translation method:

apporter les preuves – to prove; donner des indications – to indicate; effectuer un travail – to work; exercer le contrôle – to control; faire mention – to mention; faire suite – to continue; faire usage – to use; fournir les informations – to inform; fournir des explication – to explain; mettre fin – to end; prendre une décision – to decide; prendre part – to participate, contribute, etc.

French lexical-analytical constructions do not always denote an action; they may emphasize an object or a result. These meanings are characteristic of administrative language, in which it is necessary to “set out not actions but their results, and to use concepts and defined terms” (Kniūkšta 2005: 60). Therefore, taking into account the particular meanings of the constructions being translated, translators rendered about 34.8 per cent of all examples using Lithuanian nominal constructions:

(4) The applicant in the main proceedings, the defendant in the main proceedings, the Austrian, Spanish, Italian and United Kingdom Governments, and the European Commission submitted observations in writing in the present case. (C-523/10) Written observations were submitted by the applicant and the defendant in the main proceedings, the Austrian, Spanish, United Kingdom and Italian Governments, and the Commission. (C-523/10)

(5) By letter sent on 27 October 2011, the Court put a question to be answered in writing before the hearing, in the following terms [...] (C-522/10) In a letter sent on 27 October 2011, the Court of Justice asked the following question, to which a written reply was requested before the hearing [...]. (C-522/10)

Nominal constructions whose meanings differ from those of the corresponding verbs are necessary in language. According to Pranas Kniūkšta, “differences in meaning arising from nouns are one of the most important reasons why nominal constructions take hold and spread” (2005: 69). Even when a nominal construction in the translated text can be replaced by a verb, their meanings do not always coincide. It can therefore be argued that “nominal forms of expression spread for objective reasons and inevitably become established in certain cases” (Kniūkšta 2005: 60).

The research findings indicate that examples of lexical-analytical constructions translated using nominal constructions are distributed similarly across the different periods examined: in translations of Advocate General’s Opinions from 2003 to 2008, nominal constructions were chosen 125 times (about 35.2 per cent of all examples from the period analysed), while in 2009–2013 they were chosen 120 times (about 34.3 per cent of the examples). Most frequently

102

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

such constructions occurred in translations covering the entire corpus studied (2003–2013): have the right (7.3 per cent of all nominal constructions), be at the disposal (4.5 per cent), raise / put a question (4 per cent), carry out an audit (3.7 per cent), grant a right (3.7 per cent), take a decision (3.3 per cent), submit observations (2.8 per cent), have an effect (2.8 per cent), have an impact (2.4 per cent), make reference (1.6 per cent), submit an application (1.6 per cent), provide an opportunity (1.6 per cent), lodge a complaint (1.2 per cent), etc. The research findings suggest that the choice of particular constructions and their frequency of use were determined by the subject matter and content of the texts examined. Taking these factors into account, translators chose either an exact dictionary equivalent for the French construction being translated (Examples 4 and 5) or a Lithuanian nominal construction more suitable in the specific context and more characteristic of texts in the genre under study, reflecting the lexical characteristics of administrative language:

(6) Article 48 provides that “[f]or the purposes of this Title, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Parties from applying their laws and regulations concerning the entry and residence, employment, working conditions, establishment of natural persons and provision of services [...]”.

Under Article 48, “for the purposes of this Part, nothing in the Agreement prevents the Parties from applying their laws and regulations governing the entry and residence of natural persons, work, working conditions, establishment and provision of services [...]”.

(7) More specifically, Article 65(2) of Regulation No 883/2004 provides that a frontier worker makes himself or herself “available to the employment services of the Member State of residence” [...]. (C-443/11)

Specifically, Article 65(2) of Regulation No 883/2004 provides that a frontier worker must be ‘registered with the employment services of the Member State of residence’under the authority of’. [...]. (C-443/11)

The translation of French lexical-analytical constructions into Lithuanian nominal constructions increases the quantitative use of nouns in texts of the genre examined and reflects a characteristic of administrative language: the frequent predominance of nouns over other parts of speech. The data on translations of lexical-analytical constructions in the Advocate General’s Opinions examined (444 pages) using nominal constructions (about 34.8 per cent) can be compared with findings from studies of French literary texts of a similar length (467 pages) translated into Lithuanian (Leonavičienė 2009: 26–29; 2010: 140–149). Those studies found that about 74 per cent of all lexical-analytical constructions in the literary texts examined were translated using Lithuanian verbs and only about 23 per cent using nominal constructions. Similar results were also obtained in a study of a shorter text (148 pages) of pub-

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPONIŪTĖ. Translation of lexical-analytical constructions in the Opinions of Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union from French into Lithuanian

103

...the text “For Europe” by Robert Schumann, in a literary style: 74% of all lexical analytical constructions are translated using a verb, while nominal constructions account for 26% of French lexical analytical constructions. Comparing the findings of studies on translations from French into Lithuanian of a literary text of similar length (467 pages) and judicial opinions in an administrative style (444 pages), it can be seen that, when translating an administrative-style text, nominal constructions are chosen 12% more often, thereby increasing the quantitative use of nouns, which make language more informative and static.

In examining the translation of lexical analytical constructions in the opinions of French-language Advocates General into Lithuanian nominal constructions, 15 examples were found of disregard for the norms of standard Lithuanian and of copying the source expression literally:

(8) Furthermore, unlike other directives based on Articles 13 EC (9), 57(2)(c) EC and 66 EC (10), or Article 141 EC (11), this directive makes no reference to conditions of remuneration. (C-307/05)

Furthermore, unlike other directives adopted on the basis of Article 13 EC (9), Article 57(2)(c) EC, Article 66 EC (10) and Article 141 EC (11), it makes no reference to conditions of remuneration. (C-307/05) (= it does not refer to conditions of remuneration)

(9) À la suite de cet examen, le tribunal pourra décider s’il se trouve ou pas devant les moyens nécessaires pour a priori porter effectivement atteinte à une marque dans un autre État membre au moyen d’Internet. (C-523/10)

At the end of this assessment, the court will decide whether the necessary measures exist to a priori, using the Internet, cause actual infringement of trade mark rights in another Member State. (C523/10) (= actually infringe trade mark rights in another Member State)

(10) We propose to begin our analysis with the third element, since, in the national legal system, that element could prevent the decision from being implemented, by making it legally impossible to recover the aid in respect of the assets still held by Olympic Airways when that decision was adopted. (C-415/03)

I propose beginning the analysis with the third question, since in the national legal system it could be an obstacle to implementing the decision, thereby making it legally impossible to recover the State aid in respect of the assets that Olympic Airways still held when the decision was adopted. (C-415/03) (= hinder the implementation of the decision, and thus would become...)

(11) The portion of the minimum leave from the previous year that was carried over would not in fact form part of the minimum annual leave. (C-124/05)

In fact, the portion of the minimum leave from the previous year that was carried over does not become an integral part of minimum annual leave. (C-124/05) (= is not included in minimum annual leave...)

104

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

These French lexical analytic constructions denote an action rather than the result or object of an action and should therefore not be translated using Lithuanian nominal constructions whose meanings are identical to those of verbs, since, in P. Kniūkšta’s view, they are unnecessary in the language and consequently unjustified in administrative language as well (Kniūkšta 2005: 70). When translating the Opinions of the Advocates General, translators had to examine the semantic content of the unit being translated and the ways in which it could be expressed in Lithuanian, and then choose a lexical item characteristic of administrative language. Across the entire corpus of Opinions of the Advocates General from 2003–2013, cases of inappropriate translation using nominal constructions accounted for about 2.1 per cent of all translation examples. More examples of copying French lexical analytic constructions in ways questionable under Lithuanian language norms were found in texts from 2003–2008 (12 cases) than in the Opinions of the Advocates General examined from 2009–2013 (3 cases). Cases of inappropriate translation using nominal constructions accounted for 3.4 per cent and about 0.9 per cent, respectively, of all examples of translation using nominal constructions in the two periods. The comparatively declining number of cases of inappropriate translation of lexical analytic constructions into Lithuanian suggests that the quality of EU document translation has begun to improve over the past five years.

The tendency of administrative language towards the use of nouns is also reflected in the translation of French lexical analytic constructions by nouns, which make the language more logical and abstract. In the texts from the first period examined (2003–2008), 13 such examples were found (i.e. about 3.7 per cent of all examples of translation of the lexical analytic constructions under study); in texts from the second period (2009–2013), there were 12 examples (about 3.4 per cent). Translations using nouns account for only about 3.5 per cent of all translation examples in the documents from the entire decade under study (2003–2013).

(12) Although the collective social security agreement does not distinguish between recipients of a temporary allowance on the basis of nationality, it may nevertheless have different effects depending on whether the worker resides in Germany or France at the time when he receives the temporary allowance. (C-400/02)

Although the collective social security agreement does not distinguish recipients of the temporary allowance according to nationality, its effect may vary depending on where—in Germany or France—the worker lived when receiving the temporary allowance. (C-400/02)

(13) On 16 June 2000, the Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union sent the Commission a letter from the Ministry of the Environment,

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPONIŪTĖ. Translation of lexical analytic constructions in the Opinions of the Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union from French into Lithuanian

105

dated 30 May, stating that the previous decision had been taken after having received a favourable opinion from the Regional Committee for the Assessment of Environmental Impact. (C-87/02)

On 16 June 2000, the Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union sent the Commission a letter from the Ministry of the Environment dated 30 May 2000, stating that the previously mentioned decision had been adopted on the basis of a favourable opinion from the Regional Committee for the Coordination of Environmental Impact Assessment. (C-87/02)

The choice to translate using nouns was determined not only by the customary use of this part of speech and its high frequency in administrative texts, but also by changes in sentence structure in translation and the rendering of contextual rather than dictionary meanings (examples 11 and 12). For similar reasons, 0.9 per cent of the lexical analytic constructions in the corpus were translated using adjectives or adjective–verb combinations, and 0.3 per cent using adverbs (for example, avoir le droit – lawfully, ne faire aucun doute – undoubtedly, etc.). Taken together, these two groups make up 1.2 per cent of all the examples examined.

(14) Even if a general postal tariff is applied, it is beyond doubt that, in this respect, the services in question are not services characteristic of the immediate vital needs of private customers. (C-357/07) However, insofar as a generally fixed postal tariff applies, such services undoubtedly are not typical services falling within the immediate needs of private customers. (C-357/07)

(15) However, if account were taken solely of the fact that the service was provided by a public postal service, transactions that have no connection with postal services, such as the sale of stationery or gifts in post offices, would also have to be exempted. (C-357/07) However, if one were in fact to focus solely on the fact that the services are provided by the public postal service, transactions that have no connection whatsoever with postal services, such as the sale of stationery or gifts in post offices, would also have to be exempted. (C-357/07)

Compared with translating texts in other functional styles, such as literary texts, the repetitive and undiversified ways and solutions used to translate French administrative language’s lexical analytic constructions into Lithuanian are associated with the less frequent use of creative translation transformations and strategies in texts of this style, as well as with the limited freedom available when translating administrative texts. The results of the analysis of the material examined make it possible to assert that changes in linguistic expression most often arise from the various quantitative, qualitative, morphological and syntactic transformations made in translation,

106

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

of linguistic and sociocultural adaptation of a text to a new communicative situation. All this leads translators to choose words commonly used in practice and to dispense with semantically and stylistically redundant units; omissions therefore inevitably occur in texts. An examination of the translation into Lithuanian of lexical-analytic constructions in Advocate General opinions from 2003 to 2013 identified only two instances in which such constructions were omitted (0.3 per cent of all the examples analysed).

(16) Nevertheless, I would like to offer some subsidiary observations, in order to cover the possibility that the Court might not share my analysis of this preliminary issue and might consider that the situation at issue falls within the temporal scope of Regulation No 987/2009. (C-522/10) Nevertheless, I would like to provide a supplementary answer in case the Court of Justice does not agree with my assessment of this preliminary issue and considers that the situation at issue falls within the temporal scope of Regulation No 987/2009. (C-522/10)

By omitting the phrase cover the possibility in example 16, the Lithuanian sentence incurred no semantic loss; the translator avoided verbosity and suitably polished the administrative text.

Given that “administrative style has a particularly strict genre differentiation, which helps the recipient navigate the complex diversity of texts and enables the sender creating the text to adhere to the strict requirements of the genre” (Bitinienė 2002: 4), it may be argued that in the translations of the Advocate General opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union examined here, the Lithuanian translators deliberately sought formality, logical coherence and factual precision, conveying these qualities through standard translation solutions and methods for lexical-analytic constructions that are customary in administrative language.

CONCLUSIONS

An examination of the use of French lexical-analytic constructions and their translation into Lithuanian across 444 pages of Advocate General opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union established the following:

1. A total of 705 French lexical-analytic constructions were found in the material studied, with an average frequency of approximately 6.3 constructions per ten pages. These data make it possible to regard lexical-analytic construc-

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPONIŪTĖ. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo generalinio advokato išvadų leksinių analitinių konstrukcijų vertimas iš prancūzų kalbos į lietuvių kalbą

107

…cations can be considered a distinctive feature of the administrative style of the French language, more precisely, of the language of Advocate General opinions. The most frequent constructions in the texts examined are: tenir / prendre en / rendre compte; prendre en considération; ressortir / résulter des considérations; avoir à la disposition; avoir / énoncer / faire / imposer / fonder l’obligation; poser la/ remettre en/ saisir/ soumettre/ soulever/ déférer question, and others. The use and distribution of these constructions in the texts are determined by the subject matter and content of the genre under examination.

2. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the translation of French lexical analytical constructions into Lithuanian identified two most frequent translation methods: 1) translation by a verb, conveying the construction’s referential content through the synthesis of semantic components (60.2 per cent of all examples examined), and 2) translation by a noun construction (34.8 per cent of examples). The predominant translation methods identified draw attention to the fact that French lexical analytical constructions express an action, an object and a result, which are conveyed in Lithuanian by different linguistic means: the verb denotes the action, while its forms, and the noun construction, express the object and result.

3. Other translation methods (translation by a noun (3.5 per cent), an adjective, an adjective–verb combination (0.9 per cent), an adverb (0.3 per cent), and omission (0.3 per cent)) account for only 5 per cent of all examples examined. Their selection was determined by various quantitative and qualitative morphological, syntactic and lexical transformations performed in the translated text. The small number of examples in which French lexical analytical constructions are translated into Lithuanian by an adjective, an adjective–verb combination or an adverb, and, conversely, their very frequent translation by a verb or a noun construction (the examples in these two groups together account for 95 per cent of all examples) make it possible to assert that translators’ decisions were determined by the nature of the target language, the semantics of the French units being translated, and the stylistic and genre-specific features of the text.

4. Translation errors arising from a failure to distinguish the meaning of French lexical analytical constructions account for only 2.1 per cent of all examples, i.e. 15 cases, twelve of which belong to the earlier study period, 2003–2008. In the texts from the later period (2009–2013), only two examples of non-compliance with standard language norms were found. A comparison of translation methods across the two periods shows that the quality of translations of European Union documents is gradually improving: translators are becoming more attentive to differences between the source and target languages and to the semantics of linguistic units, and have a better command of the expressive resources of Lithuanian and the norms of standard language.

108

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

SOURCE

EUR-lex – database of documents of the institutions of the European Union: Opinions of the Advocates General. Available online: <http://eur-lex.europa.eu> (accessed 2013 07 22).

LITERATŪRA

Auksoriūtė A. 2008: ES teisės aktų vertimų įtaka tolesnei lietuvių teisinės kalbos raidai. – Lietuvių kalba Europos Sąjungos erdvėje (tarptautinės konferencijos medžiaga). 2008 m. gruodžio 8 d.

Bitinienė A. 2002. Administracinio stiliaus tekstų sakinio ilgis ir struktūros pokyčiai. – Filologija 7, 4–8.

Blanche-Benveniste C. 2000: Approches de la langue parlée en français, Paris: Éditions Ophrys.

Kniūkšta P. 2005: Administracinė kalba ir jos vartosena, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Leonavičienė A. 2009: Stiliaus vaidmuo vartojant ir verčiant prancūzų kalbos leksines analitines konstrukcijas. – Žmogus ir žodis 11 (3), 23–30.

Leonavičienė A. 2010: Vertimo atodangos: teorija ir praktika (prancūzų–lietuvių kalba), Kaunas: Technologija.

Mel’cuk I. 1990: Lexème et quelques concepts apparentés: essai d’analyse et de définition. – Computational lexicology and lexicography: special issue dedicated to Bernard Quemada, Pisa: Giardini II, 111–137.

Riegel M., Pellat J.-C., Rioul R. 2006: Grammaire méthodique du français, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Vladarskienė R. 2007: Lietuvių kalbos bendrinės ir administracinės kalbos santykis. – Kalbos kultūra 80, 55–63.

Župerka K. 2001: Stilistika, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

Gauta 2013 10 03

Priimta 2013 12 20

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPONIŪTĖ. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo generalinio advokato išvadų leksinių analitinių konstrukcijų vertimas iš prancūzų kalbos į lietuvių kalbą

109

TRANSLATION OF LEXICAL ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE OPINIONS OF THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FROM FRENCH INTO LITHUANIAN

Summary

Over the past twenty years the translations of EU documents into Lithuanian have been on the increase; the development of the administrative language has been gathering pace as well. As a result of cross-linguistic influence, the texts of administrative style started featuring new, occasionally ill-founded, linguistic peculiarities selected by translators. Lexis was the fastest to react to changes; certain stylistic differential features of the use of lexis underwent changes as well. In the analysis of the use of words from the Lithuanian administrative language, the comparison of the texts of two languages – source text and its translation – is a source yielding numerous valuable data. The relevance of the topic under analysis is determined by frequent errors of translation from analytic (English, French, etc.) languages into a synthetic Lithuanian language as well as the disregard of the peculiar characteristics of the native language system, norm and stylistic use.

The article analyses the opinions of the advocate-general of the Court of Justice of the European Union in French and Lithuanian languages. Lexical analytical constructions characteristic of the French administrative language and their translation into Lithuanian were selected the research object. The study material consists of 444 pages of the opinions of advocate-general of 2003–2013 divided into two comparative periods: texts written in 2003–2008 and in 2009–2013. The total number of words in the documents under analysis is 221,041 words. The distinction of the material under analysis into two periods enables to identify the methods of translating lexical analytical constructions under analysis into Lithuanian as well as the changes in the quality of translation over the past ten years. The following objective was brought forward in the study – to analyse the quantitative use of French lexical analytical constructions in the opinions of the advocate-general and to identify the methods of their translation into Lithuanian.

The study is based on contrastive linguistics, quantitative and descriptive methods. The analysis results lead to the conclusion that in translating 705 French lexical analytical constructions found in the study material into Lithuanian and rendering their reference content, the component synthesis of semantic structures was usually selected, i.e. it is translated by a verb or its forms (60.2% of all examples under analysis), less commonly – by a noun construction (34.8% of the examples). Translation by a noun (3.5% of the examples), adjective, adjective and verb phrase (0.9% of the examples) and adverb (0.3% of the examples) are con-

110

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

sidered least common translation methods. To avoid semantically and stylistically excessive units, 0.3% of translation examples omitted lexical analytical constructions altogether. The methods of translation identified in the study lead to the conclusion that the selection of linguistic means in the target language depends on translator’s expertise, understanding of the meaning of the unit being translated and the knowledge of stylistic and genre peculiarities of the target language. The comparison of translation examples from the two periods in terms of the norm of the Lithuanian standard language shows that the translation quality of the EU documents is gradually improving: translators become more careful with regard to the peculiarities of the source and the target language, semantics of language units and are better versed in the norms of the Lithuanian standard language applicable in the administrative language.

KEYWORDS: lexical analytical construction, translation method, administrative style, norm of standard language.

AURELIJA LEONAVIČIENĖ

Kauno technologijos universitetas

Gedimino g. 43, LT-44240 Kaunas

[email protected]

DALIA LIEPUONIŪTĖ

Kauno technologijos universitetas

Gedimino g. 43, LT-44240 Kaunas

[email protected]

A. LEONAVIČIENĖ, D. LIEPUONIŪTĖ. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo

111

generalinio advokato išvadų leksinių analitinių konstrukcijų vertimas iš prancūzų kalbos į lietuvių kalbą