The number of goods and services sold on the world market makes translation of end-user licensing agreements (EULA) particularly necessary. This study highlights the reasons why US A can be considered as hybrid texts containing some of the typical characteristics of legislation and technical texts, and notes the extent to which these aspects are maintained in the text translated from a qualitative point of view. The analysis uses a small corpus of authentic English euLas and their Italian translations, and a small comparable corpus of original Italian texts has been compiled to allow for contrasting analysis. The aim is to highlight the main issues raised when translating this specific type of text, as well as approaches and techniques (such as implementation, extension, complement and elimination). 17Despite the Plain English movement, a fragile and arkane vocabulary often characterizes the language of contracts (Williams 2010; Adams 2013; Mattila 2013). From a lexical point of view, eULas have a high level of technicality and precision, not only legally, but also technically, because they present specific concepts on a particular subject (for example. B software aspects). 19 However, these categories sometimes overlap and these concepts may differ from party to party. For example, the word chord can be considered semi-technical and context-dependent by the general public, who may not be aware of its high technicality and high accuracy. Instead, the contract draftsman can use it pragmatically as a highly technical term that defines a precise legal concept.
The design and design of the concepts are also linked to the pragmatic perspective. On the one hand, the EULE can have an informative purpose, because users are informed of the various provisions. However, an ECJ is essentially a normative text (see section 2). The ST text is usually written by a company`s legal department and deals with a large number of topics. As a result, the terms are generally not negotiated and the user only decides whether or not to accept the ECJ. This situation shows a performance asymmetry that leads to the idea that US A is by nature intended to protect the rights of the funder rather than inform users. It should be noted, however, that the legal principle of contract law may apply to contractual disputes. This principle indicates that ambiguities in private documents must be resolved against the interests of the party that produced the documents. This doctrine (sometimes called the “doctrine of ambiguity”) is not applicable if both parties are included in the same way in the text and the inclusion of the ambiguous clause. This rule is intended to prevent deliberate ambiguity on the part of the editorial party (Anesa 2007; Animalsma 2005: 123) to the detriment of the other party (i.e. at the expense of end-users, in the case of THE EULA).
16In the examples cited, it is always stated in the language clause (if any) that the English version governs the agreement in all texts in which English is the ST and which presents the same principle in TTs.