The Eurolect Observatory project : corpus research at the service of multilingual law-making -- Introduction : the Eurolect Observatory project / Laura Mori -- The Eurolect Observatory multilingual corpus : construction and query tools / Marco Stefano Tomatis -- Observing eurolects : the case of the Netherlandic Dutch / Gert De Sutter and Fee De Bock -- Observing eurolects : the case of English / Annalisa Sandrelli -- Observing eurolects : the case of Finnish / Mikhail Mikhailov and Aino Piehl -- Observing eurolects : the case of French / Stéphane Patin and Fabrizio Megale -- Observing eurolects : the case of German / Fabio Proia -- Observing eurolects : the case of Greek / Vilelmini Sosoni, Katia Lida Kermanidis and Sotirios Livas -- Observing eurolects : the case of Italian / Laura Mori -- Observing eurolects : the case of Latvian / Gatis Dilans -- Observing eurolects : the case of Maltese / Sergio Portelli and Sandro Caruana -- Observing eurolects : the case of Polish / Lucja Biel -- Observing eurolects : the case of Spanish / Lorenzo Blini -- Conclusions : a cross-linguistic overview on eurolects / Laura Mori
Corpus-oriented studies using the Eurolect Observatory Multilingual Corpus pinpointed patterns featuring Italian eurolect (Corpus A), thus revealing interesting and unexpected differences between national legislative texts derived from EU laws (Corpus B) and those drafted in Italy without any connection with the EU context (Corpus C). Though they all belong to the same legal domain, it is possibile to detect a cross-corpora intralingual variation induced by the situational context, either supranational or national, and related to the legislative plurilinguism/monolinguism as well as to the role of translation and language policies in order to guarantee lawmaking drafting quality. Therefore, in this paper we are presenting the hypothesis of "harmonised texts"resulted from drafting EU law whereas at national level hybridisation takes place when transposing EU directives into national laws. Infact, data at our disposal show the hybrid nature of implementing laws (Corpus B) which are inbetween Corpus A and C. The relationship with EU law, on the one hand, and with national Italian law, on the other, is not clear-cut and it is characterised by a bidirectionality. This study aims at gathering cross-corpora data in order to show two translation trends at play: harmonisation due to language contact shaping Corpus A and standardisation that is to say the projection towards Corpus C as a reference model of national legal traditions. ; Los estudios realizados sobre el Eurolect Observatory Multilingual Corpus han permitido identificar las características del eurolecto italiano (Corpus A), destacando interesantes e inesperadas diferencias entre los textos legislativos nacionales de derivación europea (Corpus B) y las normas redactadas en Italia (Corpus C). Aunque se trata de corpus que pertenecen al ámbito jurídico y representan el mismo género textual, la variación intralingüística que se observa se debe claramente a los contextos supranacional o nacional de referencia, en relación con el plurilingüismo o monolingüismo ...
This study focuses on the distribution of modal verbs (dovere and potere) inEU and Italian legislative texts. The analysis of intralingual variation is led bycomparing three legislative corpora belonging to the Eurolect ObservatoryMultilingual Corpus: Corpus A (EU directives), Corpus B (Italianimplementing laws of EU directives) and Corpus C (Italian national laws).Quantitative data are discussed and exemplified in order to providequalitative considerations related to the expression of obligation or necessity,prohibition and permission.Cross-corpora results show morphological variation between ItalianEurolect (Corpus A), EU-derived legislative Italian (Corpus B) and nationallegislative Italian (Corpus C) as far as the deontic modality is concerned. ; Il presente studio è rivolto all'analisi della distribuzione dei verbi modali (doveree potere) in testi legislativi italiani e unionali. L'analisi della variazione intralinguisticasi basa sul confronto di tre corpora che compongono lo Eurolect ObservatoryMultilingual Corpus: direttive europee (Corpus A), leggi italiane di attuazionedelle direttive (Corpus B) e leggi italiane di origine nazionale (Corpus C). Sipresentano i dati ottenuti da analisi quantitative corredati da esempi che consentonodi proporre considerazioni qualitative sulla distribuzione dei verbi modalicon cui si codificano obbligo o necessità, divieto e permesso.I risultati del confronto intercorpora mostrano una variazione morfologica chedifferenzia l'euroletto italiano (Corpus A) dall'italiano legislativo di derivazioneeuropea (Corpus B) e dalla varietà legislativa nazionale (Corpus C) per quanto riguardala modalizzazione deontica.
L'intervento realizzato dalla professoressa Laura Mori dell'Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma è stato mirato a presentare protocollo di ricerca applicato all'interno del Gruppo di Ricerca europeo "Osservatorio sull'euroletto" da lei coordinato e che vede coinvolti tredici Atenei con la partecipazione di 24 accademici impegnati nell'analisi di 11 casi linguistici. Dopo la presentazione degli obiettivi, corpus e metodologia la docente si è concentrata su alcuni risultati preliminari provenienti dall'analisi, a più livelli linguistici (lessicale, morfologico, sintattico), emersi dal confronto tra versioni italiane di un corpus di direttive UE in euroletto italiano e le rispettive misure nazionali di attuazione in italiano giuridico nazionale. Gli esempi dimostrano l'azione del contatto interlinguistico e di come l'euroletto italiano si configuri a tutti gli effetti come una varietà legislativa oltre frontiera, esito di un continuo processo traduttivo in contesto UE. Si tratta di un lavoro sistematico volto a contribuire al dibattito sulla redazione e traduzione di testi in un contesto plurilingue.
El presente trabajo se desarrolla en el ámbito del proyecto internacional "The Eurolect Observatory. Interlingual and intralingual analysis of EU legal varieties", investigación que tiene como objetivo analizar las variedades legislativas de la UE ("eurolectos", Mori, 2018a) que se han ido conformando en el marco de los diasistemas lingüísticos de 11 idiomas oficiales de la Unión Europea.El estudio se ocupa de cómo la lexicografía monolingüe del español incluye y trata los "europeísmos", es decir, variantes léxicas relacionadas con la realidad de la UE, que se originan en el marco jurídico de la Unión Europea y presentan evidencias de contacto interlingüístico. El objetivo es averiguar el grado de aceptación del léxico del eurolecto español en los diccionarios, comprobando su inclusión en estos y analizando las posibles diferencias en las entradas.A partir de una selección de unidades léxicas, se realiza un análisis en la última edición de las siguientes obras: Diccionario del español actual de Manuel Seco, Olimpia Andrés y Gabino Ramos (2011, DEA), Clave. Diccionario de uso del español actual (2012, CLA), Diccionario de la lengua española de la Real Academia Española y la Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (ASALE) (2014, DLE), Diccionario de uso del español de María Moliner (2016, DUE).Los resultados muestran en general una pobre representación de la categoría léxica de los europeísmos. El diccionario más sensible a la variación léxica asociada al eurolecto es DLE; en cambio, en CLA es más evidente la inclusión de lexemas que se refieren a la realidad europea formados con el prefijoide euro- (europalabras).En conclusión, la imagen que emerge muestra escasa consideración y perspectivas lexicográficas diferentes de los diccionarios seleccionados hacia las dinámicas de variación interna y la difusión de las unidades léxicas de procedencia europea en distintas variedades contextuales del españolAbstractThe present work is developed in the sphere of the international project "The Eurolect Observatory. Interlingual and intralingual analysis of EU legal varieties ", a research that aims to analyse the EU legislative varieties (" eurolects ", Mori, 2018a) that have been formed within the framework of the linguistic diasystems of 11 official languages of the European Union.The study deals with how monolingual lexicography of Spanish includes and treats "Europeanism", that is, lexical variants related to the reality of the EU, which originate in the legal framework of the European Union and present evidence of interlinguistic contact. The objective is to find out the degree of acceptance of the lexicon of the Spanish Eurolect in dictionaries, checking its inclusion in these and analyzing the possible differences in the entries.Based on a selection of lexical units, an analysis is made in the latest edition of the following works: Diccionario del español actual by Manuel Seco, Olimpia Andrés and Gabino Ramos (2011, DEA), Clave. Diccionario de uso del español actual (2012, CLA), Diccionario de la lengua española of the Royal Spanish Academy and the Association of Academies of the Spanish Language (ASALE) (2014, DLE), and María Moliner's Diccionario de uso del español of (2016 , DUE).The results show in general a poor representation of the lexical category of Europeanism. The most sensitive dictionary to the lexical variation associated with the eurolect is DLE; On the other hand, in CLA the inclusion of lexemes that refer to the European reality formed with the prefix Euro- (Europalabras) is more evident.In conclusion, the image that emerges shows little consideration and different lexicographic perspectives of the selected dictionaries towards the dynamics of internal variation and the diffusion of the lexical units of European origin in different contextual varieties of Spanish.
