LAAGO · Linguistic Ambiguities in Advocates General's Opinions

Lines connect the coordinator with its partners.

Project objective

This cross-disciplinary project analyses linguistic ambiguity in English and Italian Opinions of the Advocates General (AGs) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).The study focuses on the use and semantic consequences of the lexical and structural ambiguities produced by using three different linguistic practices: text production in a first language, second language text production, and translation. Three corpora of Opinions per language (representing the three practices) will be analysed using a mixed methodology of corpus-based and manual methods to identify and compare linguistic ambiguities and their consequences in the semantic interpretations of the texts. The outcomes will show the impact of different linguistic practices on the use and production of the ambiguities, hence on the Opinions' semantic interpretation, highlighting that it necessarily has implications for the development and interpretation of EU law. This is vital to understand the repercussions of the linguistic policies in EU jurisprudence.

Original text from CORDIS.

Participants

• THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM · BirminghamCoordinatorUnited Kingdom

Links

• View on CORDIS
• DOI: 10.3030/101208436