On effectue une analyse de la langue du droit de l’Union européenne (UE), en comparant, dans une visée contrastive, les tournures et structures caractéristiques du français avec celles du BCMS, et on aborde certaines problématiques liées à la traduction des textes juridiques de l’UE dans cette langue autrefois dénommée serbo-croate, et aujourd’hui connue sous un sigle reprenant les initiales des dénominations : bosniaque, croate, monténégrin et serbe. Cette étude se fonde sur une approche analytique d’un corpus parallèle constitué de quatre versions linguistiques (anglaise, française, croate et monténégrine) de l’Accord de stabilisation et d’association entre les Communautés européennes et leurs États membres d’une part, et la République du Monténégro, d’autre part. Ce document se rattache au droit conventionnel de l’UE et constitue le pilier du processus de stabilisation et d’association dans le cadre duquel s’effectue l’intégration des pays des Balkans occidentaux au sein de l’UE. / We analyse EU legal language, compare and contrast French characteristic structures with those of BCMS and examine problems related to the translation of EU legal texts into this language, formerly named Serbo-Croatian and today known by the initials of the names: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. This research is based on an analytical approach to a parallel corpus consisting of four language versions (English, French, Croatian and Montenegrin) of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part. This document is part of the EU’s international agreements which is a pillar of the Stabilisation and Association process, the framework for the integration of Western Balkan countries into the EU.

This dissertation analyses when, how and why Turkish loanwords became incorporated into Bosnian and Bulgarian, as seen in the writings of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Bosnian and Bulgarian Franciscans. I analyse Bosnian works (religious and secular) by Matija Divkovic, Ivan Bandulavic, Pavo Posilovic Mošunjanin, Mihovil Radnic, Stjepan Margitic Markovac, Lovro Braculjevic, Filip Lastric, Nikola Marcinkušic Lašvanin, Marko Dobretic, Bono Benic, and Grgo Ilijic-Varešanin. As a Bulgarian counterpart, I analyse three eighteenth-century Bulgarian Franciscan manuscripts and the works of Petar Bogdan Bakšic and Filip Stanislavov. The dissertation consists of eight chapters. The first chapter gives background information on Turkish presence in Bosnia and Bulgaria, the history of the Franciscans in Bosnia and Bulgaria, short biographies of each of the writers whose works are analysed, phonology and orthography. The second chapter focuses on the complications regarding establishing earliest attestations for turkisms in Bosnian and Bulgarian. The third chapter discusses the nominal morphology of turkisms in Bosnian and Bulgarian. This chapter analyses why turkisms developed the gender that they did when borrowed from a language that does not have gender as a category. Chapter four addresses the verbal morphology of turkisms in Bosnian and Bulgarian. Verbal prefixes are discussed in detail, as are Turkish voiced suffixes in Bulgarian. The fifth chapter analyses adjectives and adverbs, with focus on gender and number agreement. The sixth chapter addresses the use of Turkish conjunctions. The seventh chapter looks at the motivation, semantics and setting of turkisms in Bosnian and Bulgarian. The conclusion addresses how morphology, semantics, motivation and setting of turkisms relate to their chronology in Bosnian and Bulgarian and how these areas differ from language to language.