1. English- language editing for the Latvian EU Council Presidency Aidan McCartney European Parliament Editing Unit

2. European Parliament Editing Unit: when, who, why, what and how

3. When and who  Since February 2012  Editing or ‘mise en forme’ work was previously done by the English Translation Unit  9 editors (including Head of Unit) and 4 assistants

4. Why  Massive increase over the years in texts written in English  English is usually the common language when a group of people are involved in drafting a text  All editors in the unit are former translators with an appreciation of the difficulties of writing in another language

5. What and how  Non-legislative texts  All areas of European Parliament activity  Parliamentary questions  Own-initiative texts (known as INIs)  Plenary documents

6. Parliamentary questions  Regarded as the property of the individual Member, not of Parliament  Questions by native speakers: ‘light’ editing  Questions by non-native speakers: thorough revision

7. INIs  Complex texts coordinated by Parliamentary Committees over time by a number of parties  Deadline of 1 working day regardless of length  Track Changes version submitted to administrator for approval

8. Plenary documents  Editing is MANDATORY for resolutions, joint resolutions and amendments  Extremely short deadlines  Technical AND linguistic checks  Ideally, approval is sought for all changes

11. Objectives  Best possible text in English within the deadline set  As close as possible to the original draft  A clear and reliable source text for fellow translators

12. Methods  Guiding principles: respect, empathy and help  Track changes and comments  Email and telephone

13. Constraints  Time  Political sensitivity  Jargon developed among the authors of a text

14. Editing for the Latvian EU Council Presidency

15. Background  Secretariat is the coordinating body for the LV Presidency  Contacted the European Parliament about seconding an English-language translator or editor  I was seconded from 1 October 2014 to 30 June 2015

16. Remit  General English-language related work  Specific work relating to the cultural programme and the public relations and communication programme  Presidency website

17. Origin  Texts translated into English by native Latvian translators  Texts written in English by Latvians

18. Guiding principles  Based on EP Editing Unit practice  Basic values: respect, empathy, true to original  Track Changes and Comments  Email interaction

19. ‘UK English’  No ‘better’ than US English  Consistent use preferable  UKUS OrganiseOrganize HarmonisationHarmonization LabourLabor CentreCenter ProgrammeProgram

20. EU terminology in English  Interinstitutional style guide for publications in English  Correct terminology ensures ‘authenticity’ of texts

21. Use of the definite article  Problematic for non-native speakers  Rarely affects meaning of text, so minor editing issue

22. Stylistic aspects  Tone and register  Informal and non-technical  Occasional problems with political sensitivity

23. Website headings and titles  Short with key words  BBC website good reference point  What to do about Zanda?!

24. Cultural texts  Extensive Presidency cultural programme  Poetic language  Wider scope to move away from literal translation

25. Summary  Leap into the unknown!  Team spirit essential  Impossible to edit everything, BUT  Positive multiplier effect obtained through cooperation

26. Paldies par uzmanību Contact: aidan.mccartney@ep.europa.eu