Here is a press release of Saarbrücken University which I feel I ought to report. It appeared in the FAZ recently too.

Bei der Lektüre von Geschäftsberichten deutscher Unternehmen trifft man auf viele englische Begriffe. Damit verstoßen die Firmen vermutlich gegen das Aktien- und Handelsgesetz, wie Wissenschaftler am Institut für Wirtschaftsprüfung an der Universität des Saarlandes herausgefunden haben. In einer empirischen Studie untersuchten sie die Geschäftsberichte der „DAX 30“-Unternehmen aus dem Jahr 2009 und schauten, wie häufig darin englische Begriffe vorkommen. Laut deutschem Handelsgesetz müssen Geschäftsberichte in deutscher Sprache abgefasst sein. Der DAX 30 umfasst die wichtigsten deutschen Unternehmen aus klassischen Industriezweigen und der Technologie-Branche.

Im Paragraph 244 des Handelsgesetzbuches steht, dass der Jahresabschluss in deutscher Sprache und in Euro aufzustellen ist. Außerdem wird im Aktiengesetz (Paragraph 400 Abs. 1 Nr. 1) unter Strafe gestellt, wenn eine Aktiengesellschaft „Darstellungen oder Übersichten über den Vermögensstand, in Vorträgen oder Auskünften in der Hauptversammlung unrichtig wiedergibt oder verschleiert“. Professor Michael Olbrich, der das Institut für Wirtschaftsprüfung an der Universität des Saarlandes leitet, ist der Auffassung, dass alle von ihm untersuchten Geschäftsberichte der DAX-30-Unternehmen gegen diese Gesetzesartikel verstoßen. Die Studie wurde kürzlich in der Zeitschrift „Die Aktiengesellschaft“ (AG 2011, S. 326-331) veröffentlicht.

The report relates to a study of the “DAX 30” companies conducted by Professor Michael Olbrich, which I have not seen. The Commercial Code requires that annual reports should be written in German (section 244). In addition, the Aktiengesetz (usually translated as Stock Corporation Act) section 400 (1) no. 1 makes it a criminal offence if a public company ‘misrepresents or conceals the condition of the company, including its relations with affiliated enterprises, in presentations on the financial condition of the company, statements or information provided at the shareholders’ meeting’ (translation by Schneider and Heidenhain). Professor Olbrich allegedly finds all the annual reports of the year 2009 which he studied violated these provisions.

This is not my field, but I find it hard to believe that the use of anglicisms would amount to a criminal offence.

There’s no doubt that German financial and business texts are full of English and ‘English’, and it is sometimes hard to translate ‘English’ into English, but in most cases one understands what they mean – they just wanted to put a bit of icing on it.

Here’s an article in the Saarbruecker Zeitung with more information.

Besonders viele englische Begriffe verwenden Dax-Unternehmen, die den Namen “Deutsche” in ihrem Firmentitel tragen – wie Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Börse, Deutsche Telekom oder Deutsche Post. Die Deutschbanker rangieren laut dieser Studie in der Liste der Englisch-Sünder ganz oben. In deren Geschäftsbericht liegt der Anteil der englischen Begriffe bei 5,65 Prozent aller benutzten Vokabeln. Die Gesamtzahl der englischen Wörter addiert sich auf 8724. Wer den Bericht der Deutschen Bank verstehen will, “muss insgesamt 391 englische Vokabeln beherrschen”. An zweiter Stelle liegt der Traditionskonzern Siemens. Die wenigsten englischen Begriffe werden im Geschäftsbericht des Düngemittel- und Salzkonzerns K+S (Kali + Salz) verwendet. Hier finden sich pro Seite nur 1,77 englische Vokabeln und insgesamt lediglich 1651 englischsprachige Wörter. Sparsam bei der Verwendung der englischen Sprache sind auch der Sportartikel-Hersteller Adidas und der Stahlkonzern Salzgitter. Den Vogel schoss die Volkswagen AG ab.

“In ihrem Geschäftsbericht findet sich jeweils im Anhang des Einzel- und im Anhang des Konzernabschlusses eine vollständig auf Englisch verfasste Verlautbarung”, erläutert Olbrich. Eine deutsche Übersetzung suche man vergebens.

This is an article from the FAZ written by Tim Schroder and preserved on the website of German Language Services. I don’t know how old it is, but I found Tim Schroder credited as a translator for a Bertelsmann publication in 2010. But obviously it dates from a time when people smoked in cafés here.

Es zieht: One of the first proverb-like sayings taught in German language courses is Frische Luft ist gesund, “Fresh air is healthy.” Don’t be fooled. For obscure reasons, Germans have got it into their heads that air is the enemy, especially indoors.

For a bit of enjoyment, go into a cafe on a dull winter’s day, one where the guests can barely be distinguished through the cigarette smoke, and tilt open a window just a crack. Before you have retreated three steps, the cry Es zieht! — “There’s a draft!” — will go up and in a flurry of panic the window will be slammed shut. In Bavaria, some patrons will make the sign of the cross. What elsewhere is known as a breeze is, in the Teutonic realm, the grim reaper’s mocking breath. To help the recovery from this near brush with oblivion, butane lighters will flare as the entire room lights up as one.

I think it’s very witty (thanks to Elm for the link).

It’s a bit reminiscent of Wash Echte, of Ich werde ein Berliner, but less harsh. The latter has dried up, since it appeared in book form – bizarrely in German. It’s weird to take something well written in English and publish it only in German. I wonder how many they’ve sold (translator: Karen Gerwig). You can ‘look inside’ the book at amazon.de, and see it just doesn’t quite work in German – I don’t know if the German style exists to do it.

John Wells has a blog entry on how English words are pronounced when they turn up in German texts. (Yesterday he had one on the Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch, which was too heavy for me).

It’s quite a puzzle. There was a sweet bar called Twix that was renamed Raider (pronounced rider) and then back to Twix. So when I wanted to buy one called Nuts I pronounced it noots, which met only ridicule. I went to a German course on Word for Windows, since when I have often muttered to myself Vörtt. Excel is pronounced on the first syllable.

Wells says the authors compare the German and English pronunciations of Buckingham Palace. I’m surprised they don’t give ‘ham’ rather than ‘gm’ for the pronunciation.

A famous example of the difficulty of th for Germans was a Loriot sketch with Evelyn Hamann:

Auf dem Landsitz North Cothelstone Hall von Lord und Lady Hesketh-Fortescue befinden sich außer dem jüngsten Sohn Meredith auch die Cousinen Priscilla und Gwyneth Molesworth aus den benachbarten Ortschaften Middle Fritham und Nether Addlethorpe, ferner ein Onkel von Lady Hesketh-Fortescue, der 79jährige Jasper Fetherstone, dessen Besitz Thrumpton Castle zur Zeit an Lord Molesworth-Houghton, einem Vetter von Priscilla und Gwyneth Molesworth, vermietet ist.

Here it is on Youtube.

It’s well known that interpreters can’t always translate jokes. But this video clip is a good illustration of how little non-linguists understand the problem.

The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop…and says ‘Can you make me one with everything?’

Needless to say, this did not come across. TV hosts said, ‘You know that a joke’s in trouble if you’ve got a translator off to the side’ (this is understandable) and ‘He should have said “one with the lot”.’ (Pardon?)

The commenters are not impressed:

And yeah, this news guy butchered it. The actual joke is:
“Did you hear about the Zen monk ordering a hot dog? He said ‘Make me one with everything.'”

Adam Liptak in the New York Times:

In a decision last week in a patent case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. puzzled out the meaning of a federal law by consulting the usual legal materials — and five dictionaries.

One of the words he looked up was “of.” He learned that it means pretty much what you think it means.

In May alone, the justices cited dictionaries in eight cases to determine what legislators had meant when they used words like “prevent,” “delay” and “report.” Over the years, justices have looked up both perfectly ordinary words (“now,” “also,” “any,” “if”) and ones you might think they would know better than the next guy (“attorney,” “common law”).

All of this is, lexicographers say, sort of strange.

You’re not kidding. German judges are funny with dictionaries too, especially with the Dietl law dictionary EN>DE. And specialist bilingual dictionaries are always pretty unreliable.

Jesse Sheidlower, the editor at large of the OED, thinks it’s probably wrong in almost all circumstances to use a dictionary in the courtroom. (I suppose editor at large is not the same as criminal at large).

It’s an interesting article and links to other sources, such as a study (183 pages long) in the Marquette Law Review by Kirchmeier and Thumma on the use of dictionaries in the Supreme Court in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Learned Hand, widely considered the greatest judge never to have served on the Supreme Court, cautioned against the mechanical examination of words in isolation.

“It is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary,” Judge Hand wrote in a 1945 decision, “but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning.”

Via Johnson

U.S. Supreme Court justices on legal writing

I saw a brief reference to this recently – it was in the WSJ blog, headed Supreme Court Justices on Writing: Say it Simply.

But after skimming it and reading this, I gave up:

Chief Justice John Roberts prefers the use of “that” over “which,” feeling that the latter term “slows you down.” He says: “That just seems to have a better pace to it.”

Justice Antonin Scalia offers a useful tip for knowing whether your are using silly legalese. “If you used the word at a cocktail party, would people look at you funny? You talk about ‘the instant case’ or ‘the instant problem.’ That’s ridiculous,” Scalia told Garner.

Justice Kennedy doesn’t like briefs that turn nouns into verbs: “I ‘task’ you or I was ‘tasked’ with this assignment.”

Is that all they have to say for themselves, I wondered. I overlooked the 194-page PDF file I now find via Mark Liberman’s post on Language Log, The snoot and the Geechee.

Mark hasn’t had time to read the interviews either, but he quotes an article by Nina Totenberg. The interviews can be heard at LawProse.

ObiterJ blog: Explaining our law and legal system

The ObiterJ blog has published three short entries, and I think will be publishing more, on the English legal system. They are very informative and useful. They are on Legal Personnel, Courts of Law and Tribunals, and The Judges.

At the moment I haven’t found time to continue my own introduction to English law for translators. I was thinking of turning to the courts, which is a very useful topic but somewhat huge, depending on the detail one goes into. A change I was interested in was the tribunal system, which has changed (see the ObiterJ entry). I had missed the fact that I am no longer a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, but a Solicitor of the Sernior Courts of England and Wales. (Still wondering if the meaning of Supreme Court has now changed, or if there are simply two – the earlier Supreme Court of England and Wales (not the UK) was a collective term for several courts, excluding the House of Lords).

The source of this recommendation was the UK Human Rights Blog, which gives other links and is always a good read.