Loanwords in translated EU texts: threats and opportunities

ENOver the last decade, since the accession of Lithuania to the family of the EU member states, the greatest changes in the Lithuanian language can be observed in the lexical layer. This is due to the fact that cultural exchange brings new words and concepts to a recipient language along with the new realia. Meanwhile grammar of the highly inflected Lithuanian language is slow to change due to its capacity to adapt words easier to the language system. It has been observed that linguistic borrowings lead to the following changes in the Lithuanian language: - expansion of meanings, e.g., green (product); - migration of terms over fields, e.g., donor (country, language) (computer) virus; - semantic loans, e.g., deleguotasis aktas for delegated act; - new words (or neologisms), e.g., prudencinis for prudential, paneuropinis for Pan-European, proaktyvus for proactive; - pseudo-equivalents (false friends), e.g., conference (konferencija) ≠ conference (pasitarimas, posėdis), discreet (diskretiškas, taktiškas) ≠ discrete (atskiras, pavienis); - unwelcomed variation (synonymy), when different variants are used to name the same concept (e.g., variations of acquis in Lithuanian translations of EU documents include acquis / acquis communautaire / teisynas / įgytis), or the same variant is used to name different concepts.In translation of EU texts the borrowing translation strategy is often employed to avoid deviation from the legislator’s intention enshrined in the original document. Moreover, strict requirements for translators make translation a mechanical process, almost word-for-word, thus depriving it from a very important element – creativity. Such excessive ‘copying’ of the original text lexis often leads to the occurrence of underdeveloped or unmotivated words in translation. Therefore, cultural exchange through linguistic borrowing can be viewed as twofold: a threat if there is a lack of a more responsible approach when introducing new lexis to the recipient language, and as an opportunity if employed purposefully and creatively. And finally, although sociopsychological motives for linguistic borrowing are said to have no significant impact on the language system, there are cases when they result in more complex linguistic problems (e.g., in relation to gender distinction, number distinction, etc.). Therefore, not only designative and semantic motives but also sociopsychological motives for linguistic borrowing should receive more attention of linguists and researchers. [Extract, p. 186-187]