Samuel Jones
Researcher
Samuel Jones is a researcher at Demos. His research interests include culture and the arts, museums and galleries, creativity and the communication of ideas and knowledge through the cultural sector. In particular, he is interested in cross-cultural communications and the role of culture in international relations. In other work, he has focused on Global English and conversations. Recently, he has undertaken research in both the US and China.
at 3:09pm on Friday, 5th January 2007
“This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”
Well, it's the second comma. Can the agreement be terminated - with one year's notice - at any point, or just after five years?
It's a question that is exercising the finest legal and grammarian minds across the Pond. The story comes from Canada's Globe and Mail and it relates a legal disagreement between two companies. However, I would argue that the interesting point is not in the comma. More than anything else, that seems a case of grammatical clumsiness. I'm no lawyer, but the case seems to rest on a comparison that is being made between a French and an English version of the contract. You see, there's an ambiguity between two different renditions of the document. The question of linguistic accuracy and is ultimately down to intent. What will be interesting is which one, in the final verdict, will be given precedence.
Well, it's the second comma. Can the agreement be terminated - with one year's notice - at any point, or just after five years?
It's a question that is exercising the finest legal and grammarian minds across the Pond. The story comes from Canada's Globe and Mail and it relates a legal disagreement between two companies. However, I would argue that the interesting point is not in the comma. More than anything else, that seems a case of grammatical clumsiness. I'm no lawyer, but the case seems to rest on a comparison that is being made between a French and an English version of the contract. You see, there's an ambiguity between two different renditions of the document. The question of linguistic accuracy and is ultimately down to intent. What will be interesting is which one, in the final verdict, will be given precedence.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (the page leads to a pdf with french and english versions), voted at the end of the 1967 Six Day War, doesn't clearly state the wishes of the international community. While the French version clearly says that Israel must pull back from the territories ("des territoires"), the English version only mentions that the pull-back will be done "from territories occupied". Depending on which version you rely on, either Israel pulls back from some (that it might define itself) - English, or Israel must retreat to its pre-1967 borders - French.
According to this, "French uses its definite article in cases where English uses no article, such as in general statements about a mass noun: Le maïs est un grain ('Maize is a grain')." Still, the negotiators here did a poor job, costing years of mayhem, hundreds of deaths, etc, since the Palestinians rely on the French text, while the Israelis claim the English is the only reliable source of conduct.
This sort of linguistic fudging - called "constructive ambiguity" in diplomatic circles - has been raised to an art form by EU negotiators, making sure that each version of a text corresponds to each Member State's needs and whims ...