The article explores and compares the intralingual translations into Easy English, Easy German and Easy Italian of the authentic English version of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The analysis, based on a selection of relevant parameters taken from the Easy Language (EL) guidelines of Inclusion Europe (2009) and on a set of quantitative (mainly lexicometric) data, aims to identify similarities and differences in the implementation of text design rules as they are proposed by Inclusion Europe, as well as quantitative and qualitative similarities and differences that can point to the degree of comprehensibility that characterizes the various EL translations. Results show that each language seems to aim at a different type of target user and to serve substantially different communicative purposes, as demonstrated e.g. by the overall different length and structure of each version and by the varied use of pictures and simplification strategies in the EL texts (ranging from several to none) – among other features. They also highlight an unresolved issue, i.e. the fact that the line between intralingual translation and full text rewriting for comprehensibility purposes is still too blurred and treated too inconsistently in different EU countries, which might be a problem when dealing with legal texts. This poses the question of whether a systematic structured coordination between EL professionals translating legal texts in different countries should be implemented to ensure an equal transfer of content of the same normative text to the same categories of people in different European countries.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: a comparative analysis of the Easy English, the Easy German and the Easy Italian versions

Elisa Perego
;
Goranka Rocco
2022-01-01

Abstract

The article explores and compares the intralingual translations into Easy English, Easy German and Easy Italian of the authentic English version of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The analysis, based on a selection of relevant parameters taken from the Easy Language (EL) guidelines of Inclusion Europe (2009) and on a set of quantitative (mainly lexicometric) data, aims to identify similarities and differences in the implementation of text design rules as they are proposed by Inclusion Europe, as well as quantitative and qualitative similarities and differences that can point to the degree of comprehensibility that characterizes the various EL translations. Results show that each language seems to aim at a different type of target user and to serve substantially different communicative purposes, as demonstrated e.g. by the overall different length and structure of each version and by the varied use of pictures and simplification strategies in the EL texts (ranging from several to none) – among other features. They also highlight an unresolved issue, i.e. the fact that the line between intralingual translation and full text rewriting for comprehensibility purposes is still too blurred and treated too inconsistently in different EU countries, which might be a problem when dealing with legal texts. This poses the question of whether a systematic structured coordination between EL professionals translating legal texts in different countries should be implemented to ensure an equal transfer of content of the same normative text to the same categories of people in different European countries.
2022
2022
Pubblicato
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Perego Rocco The UN Convention on the Rights.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: articolo con frontespizio e indice
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 988.32 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
988.32 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3037595
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact