Perspectives

Studies in Translation Theory and Practice

ISSN: 0907-676X (Print) 1747-6623 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

EU lay communication in translation: mediation,

affectivity and EU citizenship

Maria Constantinou

To cite this article: Maria Constantinou (2019): EU lay communication in translation: mediation,
affectivity and EU citizenship, Perspectives, DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1663890

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1663890

View supplementary material

Published online: 18 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20
PERSPECTIVES
https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1663890

EU lay communication in translation: mediation, affectivity

and EU citizenship
A contrastive multilingual critical discourse analytic approach to
translation
Maria Constantinou
Department of French and European Studies, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Translation within European Union (EU) institutions has attracted Received 7 December 2018
the attention of scholars in Translation Studies who have mainly Accepted 2 September 2019
investigated legal documents and focussed on their hybridity,
KEYWORDS
ideological significance, quality or their normative function. This EU lay communication;
study deals with an under-researched genre, that of EU lay intervention; evaluation;
communication. In particular, it examines some versions of a (affective) citizenship;
recent EU promotional material: 60 Gründe für die EU’. Warum wir Systemic Functional
die EU nach wie vor brauchen, initially drafted in German and then Linguistics; appraisal theory
rendered in the linguacultures of the EU. Capitalizing on Systemic
Functional Linguistics and appraisal theory, it focusses on two
versions for Greece and for Cyprus, alongside other translations of
the same document (for Ireland, Malta, France, and Germany). It
investigates the translators’ intervention, and how ideological
shifts are likely to distort the meaning potential from the
viewpoint of the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions of
the texts studied, which seem to affect the EU’s agency and
affective citizenship. It concludes that the version for Greece is
often maximally mediated, introducing shifts that do not serve the
purpose of the initial text, while the version for Cyprus, like the
other versions under attention, contributes to a more positive
evaluation of the institutions.

1. Introduction
Both translation and interpreting within European Union (EU) institutions have largely
attracted the interest of scholars in Translation Studies (henceforth TS) (Baaij, 2012;
Beaton, 2007; Biel, 2014, 2017; Cao, 2007; Damaskinidis, 2017; Derlén, 2015; Koskinen,
2008; Loupaki, 2008, 2018; Šarčević, 2007, inter alios). In particular, EU texts and their
translations have been problematized in relation to their hybridity due to the multicultural
and multilingual context in which they are ascribed (Loupaki, 2008, 2017; Schäffner &
Adab, 1997; Sosoni, 2012; Trosborg, 1997), their ideological significance (Beaton-Thome,
2010; Damaskinidis, 2017; Loupaki, 2018), their quality (Biel, 2017; Strandvik, 2015) or
their normative function, i.e. their power to govern (Koskinen, 2014). Attention has

CONTACT Maria Constantinou mariacon@ucy.ac.cy, mariacon_2004@yahoo.com

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1663890
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. CONSTANTINOU

mainly been paid to EU law texts (Felici, 2010; Loupaki, 2018; Pozzo & Jacometti, 2006; Šar-
čević, 2015, inter alios), neglecting although, to the best of the present author’s knowledge,
other types of institutional translation within the EU such as European Parliament speeches
(Calzada Pérez, 2006), Commission press releases (Lindholm, 2007, 2008) or other EU pro-
motional publications (for instance about web translation, see DGT, 2009).
The aim of this paper1 is to study from both a cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic
viewpoint the linguistic choices and discursive strategies in some versions of an EU pub-
lication: 60 Gründe für die EU’. Warum wir die EU nach wie vor brauchen.2 This pro-
motional material was initially drafted in German by the European Commission’s
Representation in Berlin, and then rendered in the official languages of the EU. Its objec-
tive was to promote the EU as an institution, close to and not detached from European
citizens. As the skopos of translation was to meet the expectations of the target audience,
the European Commission’s Representation in each country tailored the same publi-
cation to the socio-economic and cultural reality of the receiving locale.3 Thus, there
are two texts in German (for Austria and Germany), more texts in English (for Malta,
Ireland, and other English versions such as the one for Cyprus) and two versions in
Greek for Greece and Cyprus (henceforth GR version and CY version respectively).
In particular, it focusses on GR and CY versions viewed alongside other translations
of the same document (for Ireland, Malta, France, Germany).4
In particular, the publication under scrutiny aims to contribute to a positive construc-
tion of the EU as a democratic institution, which has currency stability and as a social
agent promoting a social market economy, supporting weaker regions and economic
regeneration, encouraging knowledge and research, fostering the protection of regional
specialities and promoting equality, diversity, striving for human rights, and welfare, to
mention just a few, as the headline and subhead frame suggests. However, this idealization
of the EU and its role in European societies can be foregrounded or downplayed through
translation and localization. A quick reading of the covers5 in some of the EU linguacul-
tures reveals differences both at a verbal and visual level (such as emboldment, page
arrangement).6 The German title 60 Gründe für die EU’. Warum wir die EU nach wie
vor brauchen,7 rendered differently in the languages of the EU, discloses a strategy of legit-
imization of the existence of the EU, and an effort to foreground or exalt its role in improv-
ing European citizens’ lives. As will be shown in the analysis, partially or maximally
mediated shifts can affect the EU’s agency and enhance or weaken affective citizenship.
It is, therefore, of interest to disarticulate, from a critical discourse analytic approach,
while drawing on the insights from Systemic Functional Linguistics (henceforth SFL)
and appraisal theory, translational choices, which seem to differently evaluate the role
of the EU and contribute to building dissimilarly the European identity. In doing so,
this paper will be structured as follows: the first section describes the data and method-
ology used and the research questions of the study and the second delineates the theor-
etical framework of the study. Prior to presenting the main concepts and tools related to
SFL and appraisal theory, it discusses some theoretical considerations which regard
translation and its objectives within EU institutions. The third section proceeds to the
analysis of shifts, which are suggestive of ideological significance and are likely to
affect both the ideational and interpersonal meanings of the texts. This part is followed
by the conclusion section, which elaborates the findings and sums up preliminary
assumptions of the study.
 PERSPECTIVES 3

2. Methodology and data under scrutiny

As already mentioned, the data under investigation amounts to different versions of an EU
publication aimed at promoting a positive image of Europe and thus fostering European
citizenship and loyalty toward the EU institutions. The publication is divided into twelve
parts, each of which comprises several chapters. As expected, both the parts and chapters
have distinctive headlines which sum up their content. A quick look at the headline and
subhead frame enables to identify various differences, mainly between the CY and GR ver-
sions (see infra, the Analysis section and Appendices 1 and 2). Discrepancies likely to
affect both the ideational and interpersonal meanings of the texts have also been observed
in the content of the corpus of each chapter. A considerable difference has also been noted
in the word length of both versions: while the CY version amounts to 31,710 words, the
GR text is reduced to 18,110 words. It is relevant to mention that the versions for
Germany (26,500 words), Ireland (25,620), Malta (29,440) and France (29,970) do not
present considerable differences in this regard.
However, the present study, for methodological reasons and space constraints, will
mainly focus on headlines, without ignoring the content of the chapters. Therefore, in
some cases lexico-grammatical choices in the corpus of the chapters will also be discussed
in relation to the rendering of the headlines.
Here headlines have been chosen for their significance. Scholars working mainly with
journalistic data have already underlined their important role. Indeed, headlines can reach
a readership wider than those who read the articles (Develotte & Rechniewski, 2001), while
for a large part of the population they represent ‘a primary source of condensed infor-
mation’ (Steuter & Wills, 2009, p. 13). Concurrently, headlines not only sum up the
content of the article but seem to orient the reading of that article (Abastado, 1980; Devel-
otte & Rechniewski, 2001). Their compressed narrative is ideologically powerful (Steuter &
Wills, 2009, p. 13) and can influence the reader’s understanding process of the mediated
event (Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003; van Dijk, 1991) and at the same time can bring out how
the event has been evaluated by the writer through, for instance, the process of naming
(Develotte & Rechniewski, 2001) or narrating the event (Constantinou, 2019). More
importantly, headlines have also attracted TS scholars’ attention (Khanjan, Amouzadeh,
Eslami Rasekh, & Tavangar, 2013; Kontos & Sidiropoulou, 2012; Sidiropoulou, 1995,
2008, 2018; Valdeón, 2005, 2007a, 2007b), in particular, for studying their ideological
impact (Valdeón, 2007a, 2007b) and because they have proved, to a large extent, to be
a product of the translation process as well (Sidiropoulou, 2018; Valdeón, 2005). In this
context, headlines and their translations are to be analyzed as ‘independent textual pro-
ducts, as they have the potential of playing independent roles of their own’ (Khanjan
et al., 2013) and orienting not only the readers’ interpretation of the text but also their
positioning toward the mediated event or social identity (Constantinou, 2019).
Concurrently, as language is central to the construction of social and institutional iden-
tities and therefore to the shaping of public opinion (Wodak, 2008), we assume that shifts
at the lexico-grammatical, textual and intertextual level are of crucial importance in the
translation of lay communication within the EU institutions. In this regard, what transla-
tional choices have been made in the language versions under attention? And to what
extent do they affect the perception of the EU institutions and consequently the
affective citizenship pursued by this type of EU lay communication?
4 M. CONSTANTINOU

To answer these questions, the study focusses on ‘modified instances’ (Sidiropoulou,

2018) identified in the language versions under attention. Due to space constraints, in
this study, we discuss the most representative examples whose degree of mediation
appears to distort the meaning potential of the text and in particular those instances
which are likely to negatively influence the intended affectivity between the EU and Euro-
pean citizens. With this in mind, stylistic, lexical or pragmatic discrepancies with no or
mininal negative consequences on EU affective citizenship will not be discussed in the
analysis but they will be included and annotated in Appendix 1. Prior to embarking on
the analysis, a discussion on EU text production and translation in relation to the objec-
tives (mainly affective citizenship) pursued within the EU institutions will be attempted.

3. Theoretical considerations
3.1. Citizenship, affectivity and translation in the EU
Considering their multilingual nature, texts produced within the EU institutions are tied
with ‘socially developed intercultures’ (Pym, 2004, p. 1; Sosoni, 2011, p. 83) and therefore,
it is not possible to ignore the broader social, political, ideological, intercultural and lin-
guistic framework in which they are ascribed (Sosoni, 2012). Concurrently, translation
or text production within the EU, also known as ‘EU translation’ in TS research8 occupies
‘a space in-between cultures’, whose aim is to convey and to consolidate new and pan-
European concepts (Sosoni, 2012). In this regard, EU translated texts are not conceived
of as being the products of creativity, but the outcome of multilingual and multicultural
negotiation and creation (Sosoni, 2012). Besides, EU translation is linked to the principle
of linguistic equality (Sosoni, 2012) as ‘all languages are equal or equally authentic’
(Wagner, Bech, & Martinez, 2002, p. 7). In this regard, translations are not really trans-
lations but language versions (Sosoni, 2012; Wagner et al., 2002), which are equally
treated. This means that the original is ‘no more authoritative than the other language ver-
sions’ (Wagner et al., 2002, p. 8).
Translation as the main means to maintain EU multilingualism is directly associated
with the political nature of the EU (see also Felici, 2010, p. 153). In this regard, multilin-
gualism and consequently translation serve to maintain democracy and represent the
intention of different countries that have gathered to pursue common objectives (Felici,
2010). However, how are these common objectives achieved through translation? In
other words, what are the criteria and strategies applied within EU translation policy?
Translation strategies differ even within the EU translation policy in relation to the
genre the target text (TT) belongs to. Therefore, EU translation is to be problematized
within the Skopos Theory (Reiss & Vermeer, 1984), which would amount to what has
been recently termed as ‘the fitness-for-purpose approach’, ‘combined with the genre-
based categorization of documents’ (Biel, 2017, p. 38). According to DGT Translation
Quality Guidelines drafted in 2017, and followed by Translation Quality Info Sheets for
Contractors in 2017, there are four categories of texts within the EU, which associate
quality requirements and control genre clusters and risks (see also Biel, 2017; Strandvik,
2017). In particular, Category A Legal Acts, Category B Policy and administrative docu-
ments, or Category D input for EU legislation, policy formulation and administration
would require an accurate translation to ensure mainly for Category A ‘legal accuracy’,
 PERSPECTIVES 5

and uniform interpretation and application (cf. Biel, 2017, p. 37). On the contrary, Cat-
egory C: Information for the public, which includes press releases, memos, articles to be
published in the press, leaflets, brochures, posters and web texts, may require other trans-
lation strategies and techniques. Category C belongs to lay communication within the EU
and therefore it may require localizing strategies, ‘avoidance of jargon, naturalness and
idiomaticity of translation’ (Biel, 2017, p. 38). In this regard, translators are meant to
‘produce texts that read like originals in all languages’ (DGT, 2015, p. 2, 13). They are
given more freedom and at the same time ‘are expected to provide translations which
will function seamlessly in the target culture’ (Biel, 2017, p. 38).
However, it is argued here that the degree of freedom or intervention should be proble-
matized and assessed according to the objectives set out by the initial text and text produ-
cer. Category C documents aim, in particular, to bring citizens closer to the EU, ‘in which
decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’.9 Indeed,
the publication under investigation as other EU lay texts, communicates Europe in an
effort to strengthen citizenship through affectivity. Citizenship, although a contested
concept which gave rise to discussions within the academic community (Bora & Hausen-
dorf, 2006, p. 26), can be a useful concept here, as it can be analyzed at three levels: formal,
instrumental, and affective (Koskinen, 2010). However, it is relevant to underline that no
polity can survive in the long-run unless a durable link is established and maintained
between these three dimensions of citizenship (Jones, 2001). Formal citizenship
amounts to a set of legal provisions, which endows individuals with a formal membership
of polity and defines the rights and obligations involved. This kind of citizenship provides
citizens with various rights, such as the right to information, to participation, etc. (Bora &
Hausendorf, 2006, p. 40; Koskinen, 2010, p. 144). The instrumental facet of citizenship
consists of the ‘instrumental purposes that the polity fulfils to its members’ (Jones,
2001, p. 145), such as the provision of security, material benefits, and other public
goods. The message contained in the publication under study aims to convince EU citizens
of both the viability of security, public goods and to foreground the role of the European
Union (Jones, 2001, p. 147; Koskinen, 2010, p. 144). The same instrumental citizenship
plays a key role in developing and enhancing the third dimension: affective citizenship,
as affection and loyalty towards a polity develop through continuous provision of the
valued forms of institutional citizenship (Jones, 2001, p. 145; Koskinen, 2010, p. 145).
These facets of citizenship can be viewed as developmental stages since formal citizenship
constitutes the basis for instrumental citizenship, which in turn can promote the enhance-
ment of affective citizenship (Koskinen, 2010, p. 145). As Koskinen argues, the EU texts
emphasize active citizenship ‘but it may well be that affective citizenship is the goal the
document writers have in mind’ (Koskinen, 2010, p. 145). Therefore, it is a challenge
for the EU to develop and enhance this third stage of citizenship as ‘affection makes
you wish to be addressed or accept the role of the addressee, creating a dialogic or sym-
pathetic relationship or bond’ (Koskinen, 2010, p. 145).
It is relevant to mention that citizenship is one of the objectives pursued within insti-
tutional translation to control the mind and programme collective behaviour. For
instance, the fact that the EU is conceptualized as being a family whose main concern
is to protect its ‘children’, may create a sense of security and unity within European citi-
zens and loyalty towards the EU. However, this bond, as we will see below, is subject to the
translator’s intervention. Indeed, translation may modify or even distort the intended
6 M. CONSTANTINOU

meaning, which is to construct a positive image of the EU and thus reinforce affection and
membership. Consequently, any distortion of this sense of belonging may impede the
implementation of EU agendas.
The translator’s mediation will be investigated in the lens of SFL and in particular of
appraisal theory as also developed and applied within Translation Studies.

3.2. The translator’s mediation, SFL and appraisal theory

Mediation in translation has attracted scholars’ attention, who pointed to its crucial
role in transmitting, distorting and manipulating information mainly working with
political and media texts (Baker, 2006; Constantinou, 2017, 2019; Munday, 2007,
2014, 2018; Sidiropoulou, 2018; Tymoczko, 2000, 2010; Valdeón, 2005, 2007a,
2007b). In particular, Mason and Hatim pointed to the role of the translator as a com-
municator, while focussing on translation as a form of mediation, which to their eyes is
defined as ‘the extent to which translators intervene in the transfer process, feeding
their own knowledge and beliefs into their processing of a text’ (Hatim & Mason,
1997, p. 147). Their contribution (Hatim & Mason, 1990, 1997) has been indeed of
paramount importance mainly in exploring and developing a Hallydayan systemic
functional framework within Translation Studies (House, 1997; Munday, 2007, 2014,
to mention just a few). Munday’s research (2007, 2012, 2014, 2018) has further
explored the Hallidayan model within Translation Studies, by investigating the trans-
lator’s intervention through Hallidayan interpersonal function, a key concept to the
understanding of the writer-reader relationship, while integrating in his analyses
appraisal theory. In fact, appraisal theory, being an extension of SFL (Halliday, 1994;
Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), pioneered by Martin and White (2005), and transferred
in Translation Studies (Munday, 2007), consists in more recent systemic functional
work on authorial evaluation. It is actually a particular approach to describing, explor-
ing and explaining the way language is employed to evaluate, to take stances, to con-
struct identities and to manage interpersonal positioning and relationships (Martin
& White, 2005). It focusses on the functional and communicative, rather than the
formal aspects of language use. In this regard, SFL proves an important tool for analyz-
ing texts in context, as it associates the realization of different aspects of discourse
semantics to specific lexical and grammatical choices and to the broader sociocultural
context in which texts are embedded. These strands consist in:

(a) the ideational function or meaning, which covers experiential and logical meaning. It
amounts to the use of subject-specific lexis and patterns of transitivity such as nomi-
nalization and passivization;
(b) the interpersonal function or meaning, which concerns the writer-reader relationship;
it unfolds through the use of mood and modality markers such as attitudinal epithets
and adverbs, negation, conditionals, showing evaluation or via other linguistic means
such as pronouns;
(c) the textual meaning or / function which is related to the thematic structure, infor-
mation structure and cohesion of a text. This concerns the order and organization
of elements in a sentence and patterns of cohesion such as repetition, substitution,
which contribute to ensuring textual coherence (see also Munday, 2018).
 PERSPECTIVES 7

However, it is important to underline that these three functions co-exist simultaneously

in a text and sometimes overlap (Munday, 2018); for example, the act of naming or lab-
elling (Baker, 2006) an entity, such as Malvinas versus Falkland Islands, or pseudo-state vs.
TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) has to do with the ideational metafunction of
language, which in turn has evaluative consequences on the interpersonal meaning (see
also Munday, 2018). The ideational function amounts to subject-specific lexis and patterns
of transitivity such as nominalization.
It should be also noted here that both lexical and syntactic choices are not independent
of the specific situational and socio-cultural contexts in which they are produced. Hatim
and Mason (1997) refer to mediation through translation in the context of potential ideo-
logical distortion of a source text discourse. In this perspective, the use or omission of
pronoun markers displaying closeness or affinity, such as ‘Your Europe’, as will be dis-
cussed below, should be analyzed within the socio-cultural, political and ideological con-
texts in which such translation options are embedded. Concurrently, if translation is
mediation, the rendering of EU texts entails shifts, which are likely to affect the
meaning potential of the text. Meaning potential indicates the range of lexicogrammatical
and other choices open to the text producer at all points in a text, constrained by genre and
text conventions (Munday, 2018). Translators select consciously or unconsciously lexico-
grammatical means to mediate the meaning of a given text. Their choices, whether con-
scious or unconscious, are based on the translator’s reading, which reflects value orien-
tations (Munday, 2012). In this regard, appraisal theory as demonstrated by TS scholars
can be very insightful, as it ‘provides a possible model for the recognition and analysis
of the lexical signals and realizations of value insertion’ (Munday, 2012, p. 40f). It puts
forward the different components of a speaker’s attitude, the strength of the same attitude
(graduation) and the ways that the speaker aligns him/herself with the sources of attitude
and with the receiver (engagement) (Martin & White, 2005). ‘Attitude’ is categorized into
three types or ‘systems’ (Martin, 2000; Martin & White, 2005):

(a) affect, which is related to the expression of emotions (happy, mad, sad, etc.);
(b) judgement, an ethical category, which refers to the writer’s evaluation of behaviour,
capacity, etc. (honest, brave, noble, etc.); and
(c) appreciation, which points to an aesthetic or similar evaluation of a thing or phenom-
enon (wonderful, ugly, difficult, valuable, etc.).

Engagement comprises the categorizations of monogloss and heterogloss: while the

former includes facts, author’s/ speaker’s interpretations, presuppositions, the latter
refers to dialogic contraction (to disclaim or proclaim), and dialogic expansion (to enter-
tain or attribute). Graduation comprises the categories of force (intensity, quantity in
terms of amount, time, and space) and focus or enhancement (sharpening/ softening).
Graduation, functioning as a sub-system of meanings serves to strengthen (‘up-scale’)
or diminish (‘down-scale’) the different types of attitude (Martin & White, 2005). This
concerns the use of adverbs such as extremely, slightly, very/ rather, but also other
lexical items and more subtle forms of graduation, including the option for ‘non-core’
vocabulary. According to Martin and White ‘non-core vocabulary items infused with
manner connote attitude rather than denote it’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 66). Therefore,
selecting a lexical unit such as swan off rather than go on holiday activates a negative
8 M. CONSTANTINOU

connotative meaning, and the meaning of the core verb, break may be intensified by its
synonyms smash, demolish, etc. Moreover, graduation is likely to affect not only attitude
but also engagement. The latter includes linguistic means such as reporting verbs, which
may contract or expand the dialogic interaction between the sender and the receiver, or
‘counter- expectancy indicators’ such as already, indeed, however, although, even, etc.,
which mark a shift of direction in the argument, and act to warn the reader that attitudinal
values are at stake (Martin & White, 2005, p. 67). In this regard, the SFL transitivity frame-
work helps to identify the type of agency attributed to the EU, the participants’ involve-
ment (member states, citizens) through the grammatical roles assigned to them.

4. Data analysis
As already mentioned, the data analysis section investigates, from a contrastive perspective,
modified instances which mainly demonstrate partial or maximal mediation likely to
influence the reader’s perception of the EU. The focus is on the headlines of both parts
and chapters of the CY and GR versions. Differences, whether suggestive of ideological sig-
nificance or of ‘stylistic intervention’, contribute to construing different ‘realities’ and rep-
resentations of Europe, while enhancing or weakening the intended sense of citizenship.
To be more precise, 25 out of 60 chapters and 4 out of 12 parts have different headlines
in the two versions drafted in Greek. Discrepancies10 could be categorized as follows:

(1) Attenuation of affectivity and engagement through omission of conceptual metaphor,

and/ or with the use of a more technical language, etc. (4 in the GR version).
(2) Deletion of dialogic allusions, which can result in enhancing a more bureacratic face
of the EU (3 in the GR version).
(3) The use of localizing strategies to enhance EU citizenship (4 in the CY version) and
reduction of the EU’s agency and affectivity with the use of nominal structures, or
technical language (8 in the GR version).
(4) Addition of lexical or grammatical units likely to intensify positive attitudes and to
enhance engagement (6 CY version and 3 in the GR version).
(5) Addition or omission of lexical or grammatical units with mininal or no negative conse-
quences on the evaluation of the EU’s agency (11 in the GR version, 4 in the CY version).11

4.1. Downscaling affectivity, affecting EU citizenship

Affectivity and in particular affective citizenship do not equally come into play in all the ver-
sions under attention. For instance, a comparative study of the covers shows significant dis-
crepancies. Indeed, the German title, by triggering affectivity is aimed at enhancing affective
citizenship. Like the texts in English for Malta and Cyprus, the CY version in Greek sticks
close to the German text. The additional use of the evaluative adjective ‘good’ in the English
versions for Malta and Cyprus cannot go unnoticed as it suggests a more positive value
orientation toward the EU. On the contrary, the GR version seems to distort the meaning
of the initial text by using the utterance 60 χρόνια 60 αποχρώσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής
Ένωσης, ‘60 years 60 shades of the European Union’ and by deleting the second part of
the title ‘Why we need the EU’, which indeed foregrounds the presumed necessity and
thus the positive role of the EU in European citizens’ daily lives.
 PERSPECTIVES 9

Example 1
60 Gründe für die EU’ 60 raisons de dire oui à l’Europe
Warum wir die EU nach wie vor brauchen Pourquoi nous avons besoin de l’Union
ES IST DEIN EUROPA européenne
[=60 reason for EU/ Why we need the EU C’EST VOTRE EUROPE
IT IS YOUR EUROPE] [=60 reason for EU/ Why we need the EU
IT IS YOUR EUROPE]

60 λόγοι για την ΕΕ 60 χρόνια 60 αποχρώσεις της ΕΕ

Γιατί χρειαζόμαστε την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ΑΝΤΙΠΡΟΣΩΠΕΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΕ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
Είναι η ΔΙΚΗ ΣΟΥ ΕΥΡΩΠΗ [=60 reasons for [=60 years 60 shades of the European Union
the EU- Why we need the European Union REPRESENTATION OF THE EU IN GREECE]
It is YOUR EUROPE] (CY) (GR)

60 Reasons for the EU 60 good reasons for EU

Why we need the European Union (IR) Why we need the European Union
IT IS YOUR EUROPE
(English version for Cyprus and Malta)

Moreover, ‘closeness’ likely to be activated at the interpersonal level in the texts for France,
Cyprus and Malta, thanks to the use of It is YOUR Europe seems to be inhibited in the versions
for Greece and Ireland which omit to translate this fragment. Instead, the GR version adds
Αντιπροσωπεία της ΕΕ στην Ελλάδα, ‘The EU Representation in Greece’. It goes without
saying that the translator’s intervention is far from being innocuous, as this rendering
rather than creating affinity and closeness builds an alienating distance between the EU and
Greek citizens. It is argued that such a maximally mediated option represents the EU more
as a bureaucratic institution rather than as a ‘family’ or ‘home’ which cares about European
citizens. It leads inevitably into backgrounding the ‘European sense of belonging’, which is
enhanced in the other versions. In this context, the evaluative meaning is seriously affected,
as it obliterates a fundamental conceptual metaphor (EUROPE IS YOUR HOME/
FAMILY), which seems to create a family bond with the addressee, while backgrounding
the topos of necessity for the EU. Moreover, labelling or naming differently Europe, and delet-
ing linguistic means and discursive strategies likely to establish relations of affinity and
affection could entail the translator’s surreptitious intervention in the ideological positioning
of the source text and consequently a shift at the illocutionary level (recognition vs. misrecog-
nition of the EU), which can affect the perlocutionary force of the target text on the audience
(for instance, voting in the European Parliament Elections).
Moreover, the use of 60 shades may deliver negative connotations as at the intertextual
level it could be sociocognitively associated with a recent American romantic, erotic film,
titled 50 shades of gray, rendered in Greek as 50 αποχρώσεις: απελευθέρωση.12
Attenuation of affectivity through the backgrounding of ‘family bonds’ is not limited to
the translated covers of the same promotional material but it can also be observed in the
headlines of the chapters, as in example 2:

Example 2
Wir streiten und finden zusammen – das ist wie in Nous nous disputons et nous réconcilions: c’est
einer großen Familie [=We argue and get together – comme dans une grande famille [= We argue and
it’s like in a big family] we reconcile- just like in one big family]
Συγκρουόμαστε αλλά συμφιλιωνόμαστε, όπως σε μια Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σημαίνει συγκερασμός απόψεων
μεγάλη οικογένεια [=We argue and we reconcile- [=EU means reconciling opinions] (GR)
just like in one big family] (CY)
We argue and we rally round – just like one big
family (Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)
10 M. CONSTANTINOU

The CY version privileges translational options which consist in reproducing verbal

structures and non-core vocabulary such as metaphors, while transposing polyphony,
by contrast to the GR version, which seems to delete such features. Maintaining metapho-
rical expressions, mapped on the conceptual metaphor EU MEMBER STATES ARE/
(EUROPE IS) A FAMILY, intrinsically linked to the cognitive schema THE EU IS A
COMMON HOUSE, also largely used in talks and texts about the EU (Chilton & Ilyin,
1993; Hülsse, 2006; Musolff, 2000) reinforces, on the one hand, the conceptualization of
the EU as a family on which member states can rely. On the other hand, it serves to legit-
imize or naturalize dissent and disagreements within the EU. This is aimed at creating a
positive image of the institutions and at strengthening the bonds with the EU and Euro-
pean citizens. Contrary to the versions for France, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, which stick
to the same metaphorical expression, the text for Greece seems to evaluate the situation
differently, affecting in this way engagement and therefore citizenship. In particular,
opting for a nominal structure and a more formal language register contributes to render-
ing a more technical version, which deletes the underlying conceptual metaphor, while
diminishing proximity with the European citizens and the EU. Moreover, it is relevant
to point out that similar to the HOUSE METAPHOR, the FAMILY METAPHOR
seems to emotionalize the EU (Drulák, 2004). Indeed, this emotionalization contributes
to depicting the EU no longer as just a political entity, but rather as a family, to which
European citizens belong. Consequently, it is indeed an important part of the construction
and enhancement of the European identity (see also Hülsse, 2006) that should not be
silenced in the translated versions.
Affinity can also be strengthened through the expression of positive affects. Pride for
instance is discursively constructed with the use of lexical units with positive axiology.
To be more precise, in (3) whereas the versions for Germany, Ireland, Malta, France
and Cyprus have recourse to lexical items and syntactic structures that emphasize the
achievements and a strong feeling of pride, all indicative of a positive evaluation, the
proposal in the GR text delivers less positive connotations (Europe’s track record, that
we could paraphrase as ‘what Europe has done so far’), and contributes to foregrounding
a more bureaucratic and functionary Europe. It is relevant to mention that this part
comprises chapters foregrounding the achievements of the EU such as the maintenance
of peace in the old continent in relation to what used to happen and to what happens in
other parts of the world (The EU has been keeping the peace for 70 years), its participa-
tory and democratic character (The EU is a Europe of participation), the symbolic
resources that the EU member states have in common, which are aimed at enhancing
membership and unity (We are Europe: We have Europe Day, a European flag and
the Ode to Joy), etc.

Example 3
Worauf Europa stolz sein kann [=What Europe can Ce dont l’Europe peut être fière [=This is what
be proud of] Europe can be proud of]
Τα επιτεύγματα της Ευρώπης (CY) [=Europe’s Τα πεπραγμένα της Ευρώπης (GR) [=Europe’s
achievements] proceedings/ track record]
What Europe can be proud of (Ireland, Malta,
Cyprus)
 PERSPECTIVES 11

4.2. Silencing dialogic allusions, privileging a more bureacratic face

Interestingly, from a Bakhitian perspective dialogic allusions in negative structures, such as
in (4) carry voices which are likely to contest anterior, current or future antagonistic dis-
courses, embedded in a system of values and beliefs depicting the EU as a bureaucratic,
non beneficial and even detrimental to the European citizens organization. As a result,
opting to render this polyphony is of importance for the discursive construction of the
EU, as it may contribute to ‘reworking’ or ‘rebranding’ its image, which has been
mainly damaged amid the financial crisis.

Example 4
Europa ist nicht der Wilde Westen, sondern eine L’Europe n’est pas le Far West, c’est une économie
soziale Marktwirtschaft [=Europe is not the Wild sociale de marché [=Europe is not the Wild West,
West, but a social market economy] it’s a social market economy]
Η Ευρώπη δεν είναι η «Άγρια Δύση» αλλά μια Ευρώπη: μια κοινωνική οικονομία της αγοράς
κοινωνική οικονομία της αγοράς [=Europe is not [=Europe: a social market economy] (GR)
the ‘Wild West’, but a social market economy]
(CY)
Europe is not the Wild West, but a social market
economy (for Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)

To be more precise, Europe is not the Wild West, but a social market economy is an
utterance taken from President Juncker’s State of the Union speech of the 14 September
2016, in which he stressed the social character of Europe mainly sought and fought for
within Europe for fair working conditions, well-functioning labour markets and
effective dialogue between workers and industry. This statement is grounded in negative
beliefs and representations of the EU. However, in the headline of the GR version this dia-
logic allusion is deleted. Therefore, it is argued that such a translational option may have
not the same impact on the construction of a positive evaluation of the EU.
A close comparative reading of GR and CY versions (example 5) reveals also differences
at both the ideational and interpersonal levels. In particular, the rendering in the CY text
‘The EU is not a bureaucratic “Hydra” and costs us less than we think’ employs the inclus-
ive ‘us’ (I [=translator] + you, including the generic we which refers to all Europeans,
including the EU staff). The use of the plural first-personal pronoun fosters, on the one
hand, a sense of inclusion and on the other hand, comes to contest false beliefs, according
to which the EU costs too much money to European citizens. It is also relevant to mention
that the GR version reshuffles the meaning potential of the original by foregrounding the
EU administration’s efficacy and by bringing into play a more technical language register
through the use of core vocabulary and nominalization. Such interventions lead inevitably
to evaluative reformulations of the original, and the EU is not clearly depicted as an agent
doing something to reduce bureaucracy, contrary to what we can read in the other
versions.
Example 5
Die EU ist gar kein Verwaltungsmoloch – Europa L’Europe n’est pas un mastodonte administratif –
kostet uns weniger als gedacht elle coûte moins cher qu’on le croit
[=The EU is not an administrative juggernaut – [=Europe is not an administrative juggernaut – it
Europe costs us less than we thought] costs less than we think]
12 M. CONSTANTINOU

Η ΕΕ δεν είναι μια γραφειοκρατική «Λερναία Διοίκηση της ΕΕ: αποτελεσματική χρήση πόρων
Ύδρα» και μας κοστίζει λιγότερο απ’ ό,τι [= Administration of the EU: efficient use of
νομίζουμε [=The EU is not a bureaucratic sources] (GR)
«Hydra» and costs us less than we think ]
(CY)
The EU is no bureaucratic monster – Europe costs
less than we think (for Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)

The propensity towards a more formal language in the GR version, along with the
erasure of polyphony, and in particular of voices contesting anterior and current negative
narratives anchored in assumptions and beliefs about the EU, seems not to pursue the
purpose of this publication which is to promote a more humane EU, and to foster
inclusion and affective citizenship. For instance, the narrative that the EU is a bureaucratic
monstrosity (Lohr & Seaton, 2017; Retzlaff & Gänzle, 2008), which costs a lot of money at
the expense of the European citizens, is denied in the Irish, French and Cypriot versions,
whereas the GR version again delivers a rendering which indeed silences such discourses.
Consequently, the positive impact that a headline is likely to have on the reader is
diminished, and both discursive evaluation and engagement are considerably affected.
This is due to the shifts in lexical choices and language register, in the informative
content and in the deletion of dialogic allusions. In fact, a shift from heterogloss to mono-
gloss seems to silence any disclaimed, contested or even criss-crossing or competing voices.
Similarly, in example (6) shifts in translation may also affect the deconstruction of assump-
tions about the EU’s efficacy or even its agency in front of red tape. Indeed, whereas the head-
line in the GR version emphasizes that the EU staff can be at the service of European citizens,
the identical translational option in the versions for Ireland, France, Malta and Cyprus fore-
grounds the role and agency of the EU in reducing red tape. Even if the GR version may high-
light a positive aspect of the EU and its staff’s availability to the profit of the European citizens,
it fails to transpose the meaning potential of the other versions and does not allow the Greek
reader to make mental connections in relation to the problem of red tape, and the EU’s agency
in handling it. Moreover, due to the deletion of the clause of doing, this rendering seems to
break the textual and intertextual cohesion in relation to the other chapters and parts of
the same publication, including potentially other EU texts, which aim to deliver a positive
image of the EU and thus foster European citizenship.
Example 6
Die EU baut Bürokratie ab. [=The EU is L’Europe, c’est moins de bureaucratie [=Europe
reducing bureaucracy] is less red tape]
Η ΕΕ μειώνει τη γραφειοκρατία [=The EU Το ανθρώπινο δυναμικό της ΕΕ στην υπηρεσία
reduces red tape] (CY) των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών [=The EU staff at the
service of European citizens]
(GR)
The EU is cutting red tape. (Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)

4.3. Localizing or diminishing profitability

Expert to lay communication within the EU involves tailoring translation to the locale of
the TT. This comes to justify the use of localizing strategies, which seem to trigger or
reinforce emotions and affects (affection, loyalty to the EU, pride in being European
but at the same time Cypriot, French, Irish or Greek, etc.), and to enhance positive
 PERSPECTIVES 13

evaluation of Europe. Localization concerns different levels, including political, social, cul-
tural, financial issues. It involves those reframing strategies including the addition of
elements, which may concern the locale and thus attract the reader’s attention, or the del-
etion of unnecessary information in which the target reader may not be interested. For
instance, such shifts may serve to focus on the ‘profitability’ for the given member state
(instrumental citizenship). Therefore, they are likely to positively affect both the ideational
and interpersonal meanings, and consequently the attitude of the reader, who will for
instance have a more positive evaluation of the EU. As illustrated in (7), choosing to loca-
lize the topos of profitability to reinforce both instrumental and affective citizenship can
prove a better strategy to legitimate EU financial agendas, part of which goes to funding
research:

Example 7
Deutschlands Forscher bekommen Milliarden aus
dem EU-Programm ‘Horizont 2020’ [=Germany
researchers get billions from the EU programme
‘Horizon 2020’]
Les chercheurs français reçoivent des milliards au
titre du programme européen «Horizon 2020»
[=French researchers receive billions from the
European ‘Horizon 2020’ programme]

Ερευνητές λαμβάνουν δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ από το Η ΕΕ στηρίζει την έρευνα: «Ορίζοντας 2020»
πρόγραμμα της ΕΕ «Ορίζοντας 2020» [= The EU supports research: Horizon 2020] (GR)
[= Researchers receive billions of euro from the European
‘Horizon’ programme] (CY)

Irish researchers receive billions from the European ‘Horizon Researchers receive billions from the European
2020’ programme (for Ireland) Union’s Horizon 2020 programme (for Malta)

Researchers receive billions from the European ‘Horizon 2020’

programme (English version for
Cyprus)

In following closely the German source text, both the Irish and French versions, proceed
to a localization strategy and foreground ‘a particularized profitability’ (by providing dom-
estic information about financial records) that is achievable within the EU for researchers.
This ‘localized instance’ is undoubtedly enabled by the same socio-economic realities in
both member states. Dissimilarly, Greek and Greek Cypriot realities do not allow such loca-
lizing strategies, as researchers in these countries have not yet managed to obtain similar
considerable funding. The same holds for Malta which presents a very low interest in
such programmes.13 However, comparing the two versions for Greece and Cyprus respect-
ively, it becomes obvious that placing emphasis on the beneficiary delivers, as is the case of
the English versions for Cyprus and Malta, a more positive evaluation, in terms of both the
ideational and the interpersonal meanings, rather than providing an informatively vague
rendering as in ‘The EU supports research’. The shift in transitivity with the use of the
noun ‘research’ rather than the noun- beneficiary ‘researcher’, downscales the EU’s
agency and the process of benefiting European citizens, who can obtain funding from
EU research and innovation programmes such as Horizon 2020.
Similarly, in example (8), the CY version privileges a clause of doing (‘The EU brings
profits’), which is aimed at enhancing the EU’s active role and contribution. In contrast,
nominalization in the GR version softens its role by placing emphasis on the presence of
the EU in the member states, and not what actually the EU does for Greece. Therefore, the
topos of ‘profitability’, also activated in the German and French texts, is again attenuated
or inhibited in the GR version.
14 M. CONSTANTINOU

Example 8
Die EU rechnet sich – auch für Deutschland L’Union européenne est rentable, y compris pour
[= The EU pays off – also for Germany] la France [=The European Union is profitable –
also for France]

Η ΕΕ αποφέρει οφέλη – και για την Κύπρο (CY)
[=The EU brings profits – for Cyprus too]
Η Φωνή της ΕΕ στα κράτη μέλη: Η Αντιπροσωπεία
της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής στην Ελλάδα (GR)
[=The EU voice in member-states:
The European Commission’s Represention in
Greece]

The EU pays off – for Malta (Malta)

14
The EU pays off – for Cyprus too (English version for Cyprus)

Deviation in terms of profitability can also be reflected in other choices in the GR

version. In part 5, (example 9) while in the texts for Germany, France, Ireland, Malta
and Cyprus, the emphasis is placed on the EU’s agency in lowering the cost of living,
the GR version is referring to the Single Market as one of the greatest achievements of
Europe. Although such as a maximally mediated choice may reflect the current socio-
economic reality in Greece, where the cost of living remains indeed high in relation to
the average salary, unemployment, heavy taxes, etc., this part is composed of benefits
that indeed European citizens can enjoy, as chapter titles indicate (The single market
brings down prices, Europe cuts the cost of telephone calls, etc.).
Example 9
Die EU macht das Leben preiswerter [=The EU L’Europe rend la vie moins chère [=Europe makes
makes life cheaper] life cheaper]

Η ΕΕ μειώνει το κόστος διαβίωσης [=The EU Ενιαία Αγορά: ένα από τα σημαντικότερα επιτεύγματα
reduces the cost of living]. (CY) της Ευρώπης [=Single Market: one of the most
important achievements of Europe ] (GR)

The EU lowers the cost of living (Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)

Instrumental citizenship seems to be further diminished in (10). It becomes obvious

that in the versions for Germany, France, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, the single
market’s role in reducing prices is upscaled through a clause of doing. However, nomina-
lization in the GR version contributes to downscaling this dimension by only referring to
the single market as a market with no barriers for 510 million Europeans. This transla-
tional option is again likely to affect the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions of
the text as it backgrounds the EU’s agency in reducing the prices within EU member
states, whereas it foregrounds a generalized benefit for Europeans, which may be of no
importance to those financially weakened Greek citizens.
Example 10
Der gemeinsame Binnenmarkt lässt die Preise Le marché intérieur fait baisser les prix [=The
sinken [=The common internal market lowers internal market lowers prices]
prices ]
Η ενιαία αγορά οδηγεί στη μείωση των τιμών -Ενιαία Αγορά: μια αγορά χωρίς σύνορα για 510
[=The single market leads to the reduction of εκατ. Ευρωπαίους (GR) [=The Single Market: a
prices] market with no borders for 510 million Europeans]

The single market brings down prices

(Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)
 PERSPECTIVES 15

4.4. Reshuffling the meaning, empowering affinity

Along with localizing strategies, the CY version adds evaluative lexical units which
serve to reinforce bonds with the European states and the EU. For instance, in
example (11), the EU is depicted as being the one that takes care of the transparency
within the medicines market. The additional use of a verb with positive axiology
(φροντίζει, ‘forsters’/ ‘takes cares of’) that activates the conceptual metaphor of the
EU as a mother/ parent comes to reinforce instrumental citizenship as it echoes the nar-
rative that the EU cares about all aspects of European citizens’ daily lives, including the
provision of material goods and services. On the contrary, the translational choice in
the GR version confirms once again the propensity of the GR version towards nomina-
lization and at the same time it reduces the EU’s contribution not only in terms of
‘profitability’, as we have previously seen (7–10), but also in terms of how the EU
cares about other aspects of our daily lives. It is true that the versions for France,
Germany and Ireland foreground the reduced prices within the medicines market,
and that both the CY and GR texts focus on other aspects. However, it is argued
here, that as the whole publication aims to persuade the target readership, the argu-
ments used should be based on evidence and thus be firmly grounded in the socio-econ-
omic realities within the two communities. Indeed, despite international fluctuations,
and reductions in prices, the cost of medicines in Cyprus remains persistently high,
prompting consumers to alternative markets.15 For this reason, the Greek Cypriot
translator proved highly prudent in reframing the information in this regard, making
inevitably changes at the experiential level, without however, negatively affecting the
interpersonal meaning of the CY version.
Example 11
Die EU macht Medikamente preiswerter [=The EU L’Europe fait baisser le prix des médicaments [=
makes medicines cheaper] Europe reduces prices of medicines]

Η ΕΕ φροντίζει για τη διαφάνεια στην αγορά Η ΕΕ και η αγορά φαρμάκων (GR) [= The EU and
φαρμάκων [=The EU fosters for transparency in the market of medicines] (GR)
the market of medicines] (CY)
The EU reduces the price of medicines (Ireland, The EU monitors transparency in the market for
Malta) medicines (Cyprus)

Contrary to the GR version, the Greek Cypriot translator’s intervention in the text that
follows the headline highlights the EU’s agency in terms of transparency within the medi-
cines market and informs in detail about the policies enacted within the EU member
states. The CY version underlines that regulation of prices in this domain is dependent
on each member state’s initiative, insinuating that high prices are to be attributed to dom-
estic policies within the Republic of Cyprus and not to the EU. Similar to the French
version, the CY text is much more detailed and documented (400 words) than the GR
version, which contains only 110 words.
Interestingly, a close scrutiny of the following example (12) enables us to conclude that
even if profitability is foregrounded as in the GR version, the failure to translate non-core
lexical units can significantly modify the intended meaning potential of the text. In par-
ticular, the expression Die EU verleiht Flügel, as used in the German text, gives rise to a
syllepse (a mixed trope) which activates at the same time a literal and a figurative
16 M. CONSTANTINOU

meaning. Such a choice is likely to attribute some ludic or humorous effects to the text, and
therefore it may contribute to creating or reinforcing affinity between the text producer
(the EU) and the reader (the European citizens). Concurrently, it could build a less
bureaucratic and more humane image of the EU. Moreover, the additional use of the per-
sonal pronoun ‘you’ in the CY version, as is the case in all the English texts, reinforces the
interpersonal meaning and establishes an empowering relationship between the EU and
the European citizens. In this sense, both the agency and the acted upon are foregrounded
in the CY version, contrary to what we observe in the GR text which opts for a more tech-
nical rendering by translating only the second fragment of the French version.
Example 12
Die EU verleiht Flügel: Flugtickets werden immer L’Europe donne des ailes: les billets d’avion sont
günstiger [=The EU lends wings: Airline tickets are de plus en plus abordables [Europe gives wings:
getting more and more cheaper] airfares are more and more affordable]

-Η ΕΕ σας δίνει φτερά: Αεροπορικά εισιτήρια σε Η ΕΕ κάνει προσιτότερα τα αεροπορικά ταξίδια

ελεύθερη πτώση [=The EU gives you wings: [=The EU renders the trips by air more affordable ]
airfares in free fall] (CY) (GR)

The EU gives you wings: airfares in free fall

(Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)

Affinity between the EU and its citizens could also be reinforced discursively through a
positively evaluated democracy, mainly if we consider old and current narratives about
democratic deficits within the EU institutions. A relevant example that retained our atten-
tion is the additional use of the definite article in the CY version. In particular, the article,
as used in the text, functions as a graduation marker to scale up the positive evaluation of
the EU. Contrary to the GR version which omits the use of the definite article, the CY
version, like the French translational proposal, foregrounds the democratic character of
the EU. Through this syntactic choice, the EU is depicted as being the Europe of partici-
pation, suggesting that only the EU can guarantee a participatory Europe. It enhances
formal citizenship as it underlines the active role that European citizens can enjoy
within the EU.
Example 13
Die EU ist ein Europa zum Mitmachen [=The EU is L’Union européenne est l’Europe de la
a Europe for participation ] participation [The European Union is the
Europe of participation]

Η ΕΕ είναι η συμμετοχική Ευρώπη [=The EU is the Η ΕΕ είναι συμμετοχική Ευρώπη [=The EU is

Europe of participation] (CY) Europe of participation] (GR)

The EU is a Europe of participation (Ireland, Malta, Cyprus)

5. Concluding remarks
Communicating and promoting the EU through translation proves a challenge mainly
from the viewpoint of the translator’s intervention and the repercussions that his /her
mediation may have on formal, instrumental and affective citizenship. Promotional
texts appear to be creating new modes of expression through multicultural and multilin-
gual negotiation, and in this regard, translators should not stick to a rigid technical
language. Besides, the contemporary landscape of the institutional translation seems to
 PERSPECTIVES 17

be rapidly evolving, and new directions and communication strategies used within the EU
appear to be opening up new avenues, which go beyond ‘a stereotyped bureaucratic image
of institutional text production’ (Koskinen, 2010, p. 153). Indeed, as has been shown in the
analysis, sticking to a stereotyped bureaucratic language register, with the use of nominal
structures and core vocabulary, risks weakening affinity bonds while resulting in a more
functionary and rigid image of the EU.
In particular, this study, focussing on two versions rendered by different translators
in the same official language for two different socio-cultural contexts, enabled to
unravel significant discrepancies. Modified instances in the headlines, viewed alongside
translational choices in other language versions, proved to enhance or weaken all facets
of membership of polity and more notably affective citizenship pursued within EU lay
communication. For example, in the GR version, deleting metaphorical expressions,
which reflect fundamental conceptualizations of the EU as your family/ home, silencing
intertextual allusions, which come to contest negative anterior discourses about Europe,
or altering the structure and lexical units, can indeed distort the meaning potential of
the text while affecting its ideational and interpersonal metafunctions. On the other
hand, keeping the structure of the original, reproducing the same or similar images,
using localizing strategies grounded in the socio-economic realites of the target com-
munity or even adding lexical or grammatical units can contribute to a more positive
representation of the EU, as is the case of the CY version. From this perspective, trans-
lational options made by the translators within the EU context confirm the crucial role
of translators as mediators not only in communicating the intended meaning of the
text but also in construing social and institutional roles, and in constructing EU iden-
tity. In this context, the degree of freedom of intervention should be filtered through
the objectives pursued within the institutional document to be translated. Category C
documents, as already discussed, aim to bring citizens closer to the EU, and in this
way translators or other actors involved in text production should not avoid rendering
(new) structures that serve this purpose.
From a theoretical and methodological viewpoint, concepts and tools from SFL and
appraisal theory proved useful in investigating the translator’s intervention through his/
her lexico-grammatical choices, reframing strategies and his/ her role in forming, cultivat-
ing or weakening affective citizenship. Nevertheless, this approach has some limitations, as
it does not enable to fully comprehend the translator’s mediation and explicate the motives
of partially or maximally mediated choices, or assess the impact of such modified instances
on the reader. Ongoing research, based on elicited data, aims to study how non expert
readers perceive such ideological shifts. However, from a triangulation perspective,
more corpora should be investigated and relevant ethnographic research into the EU
translation is required. This would enable to confirm tendancies of translation practices
and learn more about the process of translation and the initiatives taken by the translators
themselves within the two contexts.

Notes
1. I started elaborating on this project after a lecture given within my translation classes at the
University of Cyprus by the European Commission Field Officer for DGT Cyprus in April
2018. Prior to her intervention, I had kindly asked her to design a lecture that could
outline translational practices employed within the European Commission’s Representation
18 M. CONSTANTINOU

in Cyprus and to provide the students with some linguistic and cultural differences between
the two the European Commission’s Representations in Cyprus and in Greece: one of the
texts that she presented and attracted our attention was the document under attention. I
am indeed grateful to her for that presentation.
2. This information was provided by the European Commission Field Officer for the DGT in
Cyprus within the same lecture.
3. According to the European Commission Field Officer for DGT Cyprus, the two versions were
produced by different translators in Greece and in Cyprus. The original text was drafted in
German by the European Commission’s Represention in Berlin. Then the same document
was sent for translation to the DGT in Brussels and each language department undertook
to render it in their respective language. Both Representations in Greece and Cyprus received
the same ‘generic text’ in Greek and each of them tailored it accordingly. The ‘generic text’
was a faithful translation of the original text with no adaptation and localization strategies.
4. The material is reused with permission: ‘(c) European Union, 1995–2019’.
5. The language versions of the same promotional document are accessible at https://
publications.europa.eu/el/web/general-publications/60-good-reasons-for-the-eu.
6. See Appendix 2.
7. https://ec.europa.eu/germany/sites/germany/files/60gruende_a4_web_fr9.pdf.
8. It is worth noting the ‘EU texts’ or ‘EU translations’ are used here as short-cuts and should be
understood as texts or translation produced for the EU institutions (Wagner, 2001).
9. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/eu_union.html.
10. In some of the modified instances, as shown in Appendix 1, more than one of these categories
apply.
11. As already mentioned, these modified instances are not analyzed in this section, but they are
briefly discussed and annotated in Appendix.
12. A discussion with students within two departments and two different groups revealed a clear
cut preference for the CY title as the one for the Greek context was assessed as negatively
charged since it evoked intertextually the same movie title. Due to space constraints, the
results, which are currently being extended, are to be investigated in a forthcoming publi-
cation to better understand the impact of the translator’s intervention on the construction
of the EU identity and European citizenship.
13. See the brochure ‘Horizon 2020 – first results’ accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/
horizon2020/en/horizon-2020-statistics.
14. The version for Ireland omits to translate this sub-section.
15. ‘No let up on high medicine prices, audit official says’, published on Cyprus Mail online, on
the first March 2017. Accessible at https://cyprus-mail.com/2017/03/01/no-let-high-drugs-
prices-audit-official-says/.

Acknowledgement
I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for the insightful comments and helpful suggestions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Maria Constantinou is a special scientist at the University of Cyprus and an adjunct lecturer at the
University of Nicosia. She is also an experienced professional translator. She is particularly inter-
ested in issues related to metaphors, ideology, emotions, humour, discourse, society and identity
construction. She has participated in various conferences and published many articles and chapters
on (and in) English, French and Greek mainly from a contrastive, cross-cultural and translational
 PERSPECTIVES 19

perspective in prestigious collective volumes and peer-reviewed journals, including Social Semiotics,
Intralinea, Perspectives, Linguistica Antverpiensia, Studii de lingvistica, and Studia Romanica Pos-
naniensia. She is the guest co-editor of a special issue (47) on hate speech with the French
journal SEMEN.

References
Abastado, C. (1980). Messages des Media. Paris: Cedi.
Baaij, C. J. W. (Ed.). (2012). The role of legal translation in legal harmonization. Alphen aan den
Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Baker, M. (2006). Translation as conflict. London: Routledge.
Beaton, M. (2007). Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse. The case of the European
Parliament. The Translator, 13(2), 271–296. doi:10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241
Beaton-Thome, M. (2010). Negotiating identities in the European Parliament: The role of simul-
taneous interpreting. In M. Baker, M. Olohan, & M. Calzada Perez (Eds.), Text and context:
Essays on translation and interpreting in honour of Ian Mason (pp. 117–138). Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Biel, Ł. (2014). Lost in the Eurofog: The textual fit of translated law. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Biel, Ł. (2017). Quality in institutional EU translation: Parameters, policies and practices. In T.
Svoboda, Ł. Biel, & K. Łoboda (Eds.), Quality aspects in institutional translation (pp. 31–57).
Berlin: Language Science Press.
Bora, A., & Hausendorf, H. (2006). Communicating citizenship and social positioning. Theoretical
concepts. In H. Hausendorf & A. Bora (Eds.), Analysing citizenship talk. Social positioning in pol-
itical and legal decision-making processes (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Calzada Pérez, M. (2006). Transitivity in translating: A contrastive study of original and translated
speeches in English and Spanish from the European Parliament. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Cao, D. (2007). Translating law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chilton, P., & Ilyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the “common European
house”. Discourse and Society, 4(1), 7–31. doi:10.1177/0957926593004001002
Constantinou, M. (2017). Mediating terror through narratives a corpus-based approach to media
translation. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 13(1), 25–64. doi:10.1515/lpp-2017-0003
Constantinou, M. (2019). Charlie Hebdo’s controversial cartoons in question: Stances, translational
narratives and identity construction from a cross-linguistic perspective. Social Semiotics, 29(5),
698–727, doi:10.1080/10350330.2018.1521356
Damaskinidis, G. (2017). Ideological shifts between bilingual EU texts. A critical discourse analysis
(CDA) approach to translation. Babel, 63(5), 702–728. doi:10.1075/babel.00005.dam
Derlén, M. (2015). A single text or a single meaning: Multilingual interpretation of EU legislation
and CJEU case law in national courts. In S. Šarčević (Ed.), Language and culture in EU law.
Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 53–72). Farnham: Ashgate.
Develotte, C., & Rechniewski, E. (2001). Discourse analysis of newspaper headlines: A methodologi-
cal framework for research into national representations. The Web Journal of French Media
Studies. Retrieved from http://wjfms.ncl.ac.uk/titles.htm
Directorate-General for Translation (DGT), European Commission. (2009). Web translation as a
genre: Studies on translation and multilingualism. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved
from http://www.termcoord.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Web_translation_as_a_genre.pdf
Directorate-General for Translation (DGT), European Commission. (2015). DGT translation
quality guidelines. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/translation/maltese/guidelines/
documents/dgt_translation_quality_guidelines_en.pdf
Drulák, P. (2004). Metaphors Europe lives by: Language and institutional change of the European
Union (Working Paper, EUI Working Paper SPS No. 2004/15). Florence: Department of
Social and Political Sciences, European University Institute. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/
download/pdf/45671079.pdf
20 M. CONSTANTINOU

Felici, A. (2010) Translating EU law: legal issues and multiple dynamics, Perspectives, 18:(2),
95–108.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.).
London: Routledge.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. Harlow: Longman.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London & New York: Routledge.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tubingen: Narr.
Hülsse, R. (2006). Imagine the EU: The metaphorical construction of a supra-nationalist
identity. Journal of International Relations and Development, 9, 396–421. doi:10.1057/palgrave.
jird.1800105
Jones, R. J. B. (2001). The political economy of European citizenship. In R. Bellamy & A. Warleih
(Eds.), Citizenship and governance in the European Union (pp. 143–162). London & New York:
Continuum.
Khanjan, A., Amouzadeh, M., Eslami Rasekh, A., & Tavangar, M. (2013). Ideological aspects of trans-
lating news headlines from English to Persian. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 58(1), 87–102.
Kontos, P., & Sidiropoulou, M. (2012). Socio-political narratives in translated English-Greek news
headlines. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(2), 195–224. doi:10.1515/ip-2012-0012
Koskinen, K. (2008). Translating institutions. An ethnographic study of EU translation. Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Koskinen, K. (2010). On EU communication 2.0 using social media to attain affective citizenship. In
M. Baker, M. Olohan, & M. Calzada Perez (Eds.), Text and context. Essays on translation and
interpreting in honour of Ian Mason (pp. 139–156). Manchester: St.Jerome.
Koskinen, K. (2014). Institutional translation: The art of government by translation. Perspectives:
Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 22(4), 479–492.
Lindholm, M. (2007). La Commission européenne et ses pratiques communicatives: Étude des dimen-
sions linguistiques et des enjeux politiques des communiqués de presse (Doctoral dissertation).
Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping.
Lindholm, M. (2008). A community text pattern in the European Commission press release? As
generic and genetic view. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics
Association, 18(1), 33–58.
Lohr, M., & Seaton, J. (2017, March 26). The European Union: A bureaucratic and undemocratic
monster? Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@mathieulohr/the-european-union-a-
bureaucratic-and-undemocratic-monster-9800f43c8b6c
Loupaki, E. (2008). Shifts of involvement in translation: The case of European Parliament proceed-
ings. In M. Muñoz-Calvo, C. Buesa-Gómez, & A. M. Ruiz-Moneva (Eds.), New trends in trans-
lation and cultural identity (pp. 105–116). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Loupaki, E. (2017). Multilinguisme, multiculturalisme et pratique traduisante au sein de l’Union
européenne. The Journal Of Specialised Translation, 28, 52–68. Retrieved from http://www.
jostrans.org/issue28/art_loupaki.php#abstract
Loupaki, E. (2018). EU legal language and translation. Dehumanizing the refugee crisis.
International Journal of Language & Law (JLL), 7, 97–116. doi:10.14762/jll.2018.097
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G.
Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.
142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London:
Palgrave.
Munday, J. (Ed.). (2007). Translation as intervention. London: Continuum.
Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. London:
Routledge.
Munday, J. (2014). Translation and ideology: A textual approach. The Translator, 195–217. doi:10.
1080/13556509.2007.10799238
 PERSPECTIVES 21

Munday, J. (2018). A model of appraisal: Spanish interpretations of President Trump’s inaugural

address 2017. Perspectives, Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 26(2), 180–195. doi:10.
1080/0907676X.2017.1388415
Musolff, A. (2000). Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 21(3), 216–229. doi:10.1080/01434630008666402
Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. (Eds.). (2003). Framing terrorism. New York: Routledge.
Pozzo, B., & Jacometti, V. (Eds.). (2006). Multilingualism and the harmonisation of European law.
Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Pym, A. (2004). On the pragmatics of translating multilingual texts. The Journal of Specialised
Translation, 1, 14–28. Retrieved from https://www.jostrans.org/issue01/art_pym.pdf
Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (1984). Towards a general theory of translational action: Skopos theory
explained. C. Nord (trans.). Manchester: St Jerome.
Retzlaff, S., & Gänzle, S. (2008). Constructing the European Union in Canadian news. Critical
Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 2(2), 67–89.
Šarčević, S. (2007). Making multilingualism work in the enlarged Europe Union. In K. Kredens & S.
Gozdz-Roszkowski (Eds.), Language and the law: International outlooks (pp. 35–54). Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
Šarčević, S. (Ed.). (2015). Language and culture in EU law. Multidisciplinary perspectives. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (1997). Translation as intercultural communication – contact as conflict.
In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarova, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as intercultural communi-
cation (pp. 325–337). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sidiropoulou, M. (1995). Headlining in translation: English vs. Greek press. Target, 7(2), 285–304.
Sidiropoulou, M. (2008). Cultural encounters in advertisement translation. Journal of Modern
Greek Studies, 26(2), 337–362.
Sidiropoulou, M. (2018). Shaping public view. Critical media literacy through English-Greek trans-
lated press headlines. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(4), 511–532. John Benjamins
Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/jlp.17018.sid
Sosoni, V. (2011). Training translators to work for the EU institutions: Luxury or necessity? The
Journal of Specialised Translation, 16, 77–108.
Sosoni, V. (2012). A hybrid translation theory for EU texts. Vertimo Studijos, 5, 76–89.
Steuter, E., & Wills, D. (2009). Discourses of dehumanization: Enemy construction and Canadian media
complicity in the framing of the war on terror. Global Media Journal- Canadian Edition, 2(2), 7–24.
Strandvik, I. (2015). On quality in EU multilingual lawmaking. In S. Šarčević (Ed.), Language and
culture in EU law. Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141–165). Surrey: Ashgate.
Strandvik, I. (2017). Towards a more structured approach to quality assurance: DGT’s quality
journey. In F. P. Ramos (Ed.), Institutional translation for international governance:
Enhancing quality in multilingual legal communication (pp. 51–62). London: Bloomsbury.
Trosborg, A. (1997). Translating hybrid political texts. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Text typology and
translation (pp. 145–158). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M. (2000). Translation and political engagement: Activism, social change and the role of
translation in geopolitical shifts. The Translator, 6(1), 23–47. doi:10.1080/13556509.2000.10799054
Tymoczko, M. (2010). Ideology and the position of the translator: In what sense is a translator ‘in
between’? In M. Baker (Ed.), Critical readings in translation studies (pp. 213–228). London &
New York: Routledge.
Valdeón, R. A. (2005). Media translation in BBC- Mundo Internet texts. Revista Canaria de
Estudios Ingleses, 51, 105–119. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71866634.pdf
Valdeón, R. A. (2007a). Ideological Independence or negative mediation: BBC Mundo and CNN en
Español’s (translated) reporting of Madrid’s Terrorist Attacks. In M. Salama-Carr (Ed.),
Translating and interpreting conflict (pp. 99–118). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Valdeón, R. A. (2007b). Translating news from the inner circle: Improving regularity across
languages. Quaderns: Revista de Traducció, 14, 155–167. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/
download/pdf/71866629.pdf
van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
22 M. CONSTANTINOU

Wagner, E. (2001). Translation in the EU machinery. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 9(4),

263–270. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2001.9961423
Wagner, E., Bech, S., & Martinez, J. M. (2002). Translating for the European Union institutions.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Wodak, R. (2008). The contribution of critical linguistics to the analysis of discriminatory
prejudices and stereotypes in the language of politics. In R. Wodak & V. Koller (Eds.),
Handbook of communication in the public sphere (pp. 291–315). Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.