Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

EU Legal Language and Translation. Dehumanizing the Refugee Crisis


The aim of this paper is to investigate lexical choices made in the EU legal texts, which could contribute to dehumanizing the “refugee crisis”, and compare them with the choices made by Greek translators. For this purpose, a corpus of EU legal texts, regulating migration matters and issued by the European Commission, is compiled. The language versions studied are English and Greek. The theoretical model adopted is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and the major tools used are “framing” and “detachment techniques”. The methodology employed in this research is corpus-based and the analysis is both qualitative and quantitative. The English corpus studied revealed some convincing evidence about the existence of dehumanizing strategies in EU legal texts, and its Greek version is, as expected, totally in line with the original lexical choices. By analysing a number of characteristic examples, the present paper sheds some light on the multidimensional relationship between language and ideology, while examining its influence on the translation process.

Cite as: Loupaki, JLL 7 (2018), 97–116, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2018.097

صندلی اداری سرور مجازی ایران Decentralized Exchange


EU Legal Language, EU Translation, Migration, Dehumanizing Strategies, Corpus-based Methodology, Critical Discourse Analysis



  1. Biel, Łucja (2012). EU translation as an institutional translation: An advanced course with focus on information mining competence. In Bogucki & Deckert (Eds.). Teaching translation and interpreting: Advances and perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 23–37.
  2. Biel, Łucja (2014). Lost in the Eurofog: The textual fit of translated Law. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  3. Cao, Deborah (2007). Translating law. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
  4. Chafe, Wallace (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In Tannen (Ed.). Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Advances in discourse processes. Vol. IX. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex 35–53.
  5. Dollerup, Cay (1996). Language work at the European Union. In Gaddis (Ed.). Translation horizons beyond the boundaries of translation spectrum. Binghamton: New York State University, 297–314.
  6. Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and power. London & New York: Longman.
  7. Gémar, Jean Claude (1995). Traduire, ou, l'art d'interpréter Langue, droit et société : éléments de jurilinguistique Tome 2. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
  8. Hodge, Bob & Kress, Gunther R. (1993). Language as ideology. London & New York: Routledge.
  9. Kang, Ji-Hae (2011). Institutional translation. In Baker & Saldanha (Eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York/ London: Routledge.
  10. Kilgarrifff, Adam, Baisa, Vt, Buta, Jan, Jakubek, Milo, Kovř, Vojtch, Michelfeit, Jan & Rychl (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On. Lexicography, 1, 7–36. DOI: 10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9.
  11. Kopytowska, Monika, Grabowski, Łukasz & Woniak, Julita (2017). Mobilizing against the Other: Cyberhate, refugee crisis and proximization. In Kopytowska (Ed.). Contemporary discourses of hate and radicalism across space and genres, 93, 57–97. DOI: 10.1075/bct.93.11kop.
  12. Kopytowska, Monika & Grabowski, Łukasz (2017). European security under Threat: Mediating the Crisis and Constructing the Other. In Karner & Kopytowska (Eds.). National Identity and Europe in Times of Crisis: Doing and Undoing Europe. Emerald Publishing Limited, 83–112. DOI: 10.1108/978-1-78714-513-920171005.
  13. Kopytowska, Monika, Woniak, Julita & Grabowski, Łukasz (2017). From ‘patriotism' to hate: Axiological urgency in online comments related to refugees. In Assimakopoulos, Baider & Millar (Eds.). Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. Cham: Springer Briefs in Linguistics, 32–37. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-72604-5.
  14. Koskinen, Kaisa (2008). Translating institutions: an ethnographic study of EU translation. Manchester & Kinderhook: St. Jerome Publishing.
  15. Koskinen, Kaisa (2014). Institutional translation: the art of government by translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, Special Issue: Translation in institutions, 22(4), 479–492. DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2014.948887.
  16. Koutsivitis, Vassilis. (1994). «Η μετάφραση των νομικών κειμένων». Terminologie et Traduction, 1, 325–348.
  17. Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
  18. Larose, Robert (1989). Thèories contemporaines de la traduction. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
  19. Loupaki, Elpida (2005). Η διαφοροποίηση μεταξύ πρωτοτύπου και μεταφράσματος: η περίπτωση των κοινοτικών κειμένων. [Differentiation in translation: the case of the European Union's texts]. PhD Thesis. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available at [in Greek]
  20. Loupaki, Elpida (2008). Shifts of Involvement in Translation: The case of European Parliament proceedings. In Muñoz-Calvo, Buesa-Gómez & Ruiz-Moneva (Eds.). New trends in translation and cultural identity. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 105–116.
  21. Loupaki, Elpida (2017). Multilinguisme, multiculturalisme et pratique traduisante au sein de l'Union européenne. The Journal Of Specialised Translation, 28, 52–68.
  22. Loupaki, Elpida (forthcoming). Synonymy in the domain of migration: Sign of changing mentalities? Parallèles, 30(20).
  23. Malmkjr, Kirsten (2002). The Routledge Linguistics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
  24. Mariani, Jessica (forthcoming). “Migrants”, “Refugees”, “Asylum Seekers”. Approaches and Shifts in EU Terminology.
  25. Mason, Ian (2003). Text parameters in translation: Transitivity and institutional cultures. In Venuti (Ed.). The translation studies reader. New York & London: Routledge, 175–188. DOI: 10.7202/037019ar.
  26. McAuliffe, Karen (2011). Hybrid Texts and Uniform Law? The Multilingual Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 24(1), 97–115. DOI: 10.1007/s11196-010-9188-3.
  27. McEnery, Tony & Wilson, Andrew (2003). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Endinburgh University Press.
  28. Olohan, Maeve (2004). Introducing corpora in translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.
  29. Schäffner, Christina & Adab, Beverly (1997). Translation as Intercultural Communication – Contact as Conflict. In Snell-Hornby, Jettmarova & Kaindl (Eds.). Translation as intercultural communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 325–337.
  30. Schütte, Wilfried (1993). Eurotexte – Zur Entstehung von Rechtexten unter den Mehrsprachigkeitsbedingungen der Brusseler EG-Institutionen. In Born & Stickel (Eds.). Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 88–113.
  31. Sosoni, Vilelmini (2003). Aspects of lexical cohesion in EU texts: a critical study of Greek translations and English hybrid texts. PhD Thesis. University of Surrey
  32. Sosoni, Vilelmini (2012). A hybrid translation theory for EU texts. Vertimo Studijos, 5, 76–89.
  33. Sosoni, Vilelmini (2016). Law and language in the EU. Insights of the Greek Eurolect. In Barstad et. al. (Eds.). Language and Nation. Crossroads and Connections. Münster & New York: Waxmann, 213–240. DOI: 10.1515/soci-2017-0011.
  34. Tannen, Deborah (1989). Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 6.
  35. Tannen, Deborah (Ed.) (1993). Framing in discourse. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Trosborg, Anna (1997). Translating hybrid political texts. In Trosborg (Ed.). Text typology and translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 145–158. DOI: 10.1075/btl.26.12tro.
  37. Valeontis, Kostas & Kribas, Panagiotis. (2014). Νομική γλώσσα και ορολογία. Θεωρία και πράξη [Legal Language and Terminology. Theory and Practice]. Αθήνα: Νομική Βιβλιοθήκη.
  38. Van Dijk, Teun A. (1977). Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In Just & Carpenter (Eds.). Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 3–32.
  39. Van Dijk, Teun A. (1998) What is political discourse analysis? In Blommaert & Bulcaen (Eds.). Belgian Journal of Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 11, 11–52. DOI: 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij.
  40. White, James Boyd (2006). Living speech: resisting the empire of force. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
فروشگاه اینترنتی صندلی اداری