Abstract
The contribution focuses on domain dynamics in a specific type of minority language (ML), i.e. ‘local only’ MLs (Edwards 2007), and on the legal domain. Based on the example of the German-speaking minority in South Tyrol, Northern Italy, we will illustrate how geopolitical events and changing language policy and planning (LPP) have affected domain dynamics related to the legal language over the last century.
The dynamics of legal language are particularly relevant for minority communities. They are closely related not only to language but to basic human rights, for example the right to understand court proceedings and ultimately to a fair trial (Skutnabb-Kangas 2011).
Some MLs are languages of a minority only in certain countries, while being languages of the majority in other – usually neighbouring – countries. Consequently, the minority community can take advantage of language development happening mainly abroad for most specialised domains (e.g. medicine, economics, sports), with one notable exception: the legal domain. This is due to every country having a unique legal system that is expressed by a specific legal language (Cao 2007). Legal rules and institutions vary across countries and so do the terms and phrases that convey these diverging legal realities. For this reason, local-only MLs must independently develop the legal language needed to express their specific legal system of reference.
In South Tyrol, historical events first lead to forced domain renouncement (Laurén et al. 2002) of German in the legal domain due to the assimilation policies of the Italian Fascist regime. The Autonomy Statute passed in 1972 recognised German as a co-official language and introduced a fully bilingual institutional regime at local level, thus creating the need to use the ML in government, administration and the judiciary. This domain (re)conquest (Laurén et al. 2002) was achieved via various strategies over the last decades (Chiocchetti 2021). LPP began with an uncoordinated translation-based approach, later replaced by a rather rigid terminology standardisation approach enacted through a Terminology Commission. Today, a flexible approach considering stakeholders’ and end-users’ needs as well as dissemination through the online Information System for Legal Terminology bistro (https://bistro.eurac.edu) allows to address emerging issues and to share legal terminology in a more timely manner.