WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Worsening quality of Portuguese in Commission documents

The quality of Portuguese used in official Commission documents has deteriorated and is beginning to give rise to serious concern.

I had already been compelled to use other language versions of the proposal for a regulation on the establishment of a common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)(1) because the Portuguese version was incomprehensible on some key points.

I had also been confronted with governança instead of boa governação as a translation of governance, which reveals a complete ignorance of the Portuguese language among the Commission services. According to the on-line Portuguese dictionary published by Porto Editora, governança is a deprecatory feminine noun used as a pejorative term for the government. Moreover, any Portuguese person living in Portugal is well aware of this without needing to consult a dictionary, and the Commission's official translation of this extremely important political initiative has made its initiative an object of ridicule in Portugal.

I have now been confronted with a pair of regulations, (COM(2001) 764 final and COM(2002) 108 final), in which the Portuguese version of fishing for deep-sea stocks is given as pesca das unidades populacionais da fundura.

Even though the Porto Editora on-line dictionary allows the term fundura as a synonym of profundidade (depth), or an attribute equivalent to de fundo (deep), which are the two terms used to refer to this type of fish in Portuguese as it is spoken in Portugal, the expressions peixe da fundura, or unidade populacional da fundura, do not exist in Portuguese and are not used by anyone in fishing circles, the correct expressions being peixe de profundidade or peixe de fundo.

The poor linguistic quality of these two documents, whose subject matter is already highly esoteric and far-removed from everyday reality, makes them even less comprehensible.

Is the Commission aware that texts which use language badly or which are written in an incomprehensible jargon create a gulf between the institutions and the European public?

(1) COM(2001) 83 final.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission and its Linguistic Services are always concerned when users of the Services feel that they have cause for complaint about the quality of linguistic output and such complaints are assessed with great thoroughness. In addition the Translation Service constantly seeks further improvement in linguistic quality and multilingual concordance.

In response to the Honourable Member's question, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration is informed that the Portuguese version of the Proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)(1), was read attentively and there was no particular inconsistency with the other language versions which would give rise to difficulties in comprehension or lack of concordance. Moreover, the Portuguese Statistical Office (INE), with which the Translation Service is in regular contact for advice and feedback on terminology, raised no queries on this account. If the Honourable Member will specify which essential points caused his remarks the Translation Service will be glad to respond accordingly.

The Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration is further informed that, whilst the expression da fundura is used to designate several deep-sea species of fish, the Commission acknowledges the point made by the Honourable Member that the expression is not employed with reference to deep-sea stocks by the Portuguese fishing sector in Portugal. Steps have already been taken to correct the Portuguese versions of both proposals for Council Regulations.

On the issue of translation of European Governance, the Translation Service carefully pondered its choices in full knowledge that the term has not been in common usage in several countries and the solutions adopted might be challenged by some linguistic experts or others in Portugal and elsewhere. The Translation Service was therefore asked, as part of the preparations for adopting the White Paper(2), to set up a multilingual study group to examine the transposition to the different official languages of the term governance which is becoming more commonly used in several countries than at any previous time. The mandate of the study group included the possibility of finding a term which has identical roots for languages that share linguistic and cultural affinities and, most importantly, one which would not be confused with government or governmental activity, (which is conventionally understood to refer to the activity resulting from the political and administrative apparatus of governing).

After a careful examination of the limited choices available, the selection of the word governança (governança europeia) was based on the decision to recycle an old term which had the same roots as its French and Spanish equivalents and had become neutral in Portuguese usage. Indeed, the Commission linguists and terminologists came to the conclusion that, as with the French equivalent, any negative connotations associated with the term dated back to the Ancien Régime and, consequently, had since become obsolete. The text of their reasoned opinion is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. As part of the Translation Service's consideration of the issue, contacts were made by the Service with Dicionário da Academia and Dicionário Porto Editora with a view to revising their entries on the word Governança in order to convey the new meaning of the term.

The Commission and its Linguistic Services are well aware of the fundamental importance of language to identity, confidence and good communication. That is the reason for the intensive and extensive efforts which are always invested in trying to ensure proper and accurate usage in all of the official languages.

(1) OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001.

(2) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.