Definition as a Genre in Three Legal Systems: A Comparative Analysis

Q2 Arts and Humanities Comparative Legilinguistics Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.2478/cl-2020-0012
Virginia Vecchiato
{"title":"Definition as a Genre in Three Legal Systems: A Comparative Analysis","authors":"Virginia Vecchiato","doi":"10.2478/cl-2020-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper aims at comparing the definition of ‘trademark’ in three different legal systems – EU law, international law and US common law – in order to identify the discoursal, generic and textual characteristics of definition as a genre. The selected corpus of analysis is made up of three definitions from EU Regulation 2017/1001, WTO Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and US Lanham Act (sec.45) and of several US cases from 1926 to 2019. The theoretical framework within which the analysis is carried out is the seminal work on definition as carried out by Richard Robinson (1954) and Harris and Hutton (2007). The approach is mainly linguistic, though a historical excursus on the concept of definition is provided as a necessary introductory premise. The findings demonstrate that EU legal texts are characterised by a hybrid style (Robertson 2010) which results from the combination of common law and civil law textual features. The analysis of the definitional sections here displayed supports this point and confirms that EU term formation and definition are text-driven (Šarčević 2016). EU legal texts in their English version originate from the dynamic combination of two aspects: one connected to EU legal English – which is not common law English – and one connected to matters of terminology, syntax and general structure which has a French origin.","PeriodicalId":32698,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legilinguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legilinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/cl-2020-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper aims at comparing the definition of ‘trademark’ in three different legal systems – EU law, international law and US common law – in order to identify the discoursal, generic and textual characteristics of definition as a genre. The selected corpus of analysis is made up of three definitions from EU Regulation 2017/1001, WTO Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and US Lanham Act (sec.45) and of several US cases from 1926 to 2019. The theoretical framework within which the analysis is carried out is the seminal work on definition as carried out by Richard Robinson (1954) and Harris and Hutton (2007). The approach is mainly linguistic, though a historical excursus on the concept of definition is provided as a necessary introductory premise. The findings demonstrate that EU legal texts are characterised by a hybrid style (Robertson 2010) which results from the combination of common law and civil law textual features. The analysis of the definitional sections here displayed supports this point and confirms that EU term formation and definition are text-driven (Šarčević 2016). EU legal texts in their English version originate from the dynamic combination of two aspects: one connected to EU legal English – which is not common law English – and one connected to matters of terminology, syntax and general structure which has a French origin.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定义作为一种体裁在三大法系中的比较分析
摘要本文旨在比较三个不同法系——欧盟法、国际法和美国普通法中“商标”的定义,以确定定义作为一种体裁的话语特征、一般特征和文本特征。选定的分析语料库由欧盟法规2017/1001、世界贸易组织《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPS)和美国《兰哈姆法案》(第45条)中的三个定义以及1926年至2019年的几个美国案例组成。进行分析的理论框架是Richard Robinson(1954)和Harris and Hutton(2007)在定义方面的开创性工作。这种方法主要是语言学的,尽管作为必要的介绍前提,提供了关于定义概念的历史考察。研究结果表明,欧盟法律文本的特点是混合风格(Robertson 2010),这是英美法系和大陆法系文本特征结合的结果。对这里显示的定义部分的分析支持了这一点,并证实了欧盟术语的形成和定义是文本驱动的(Šarčević 2016)。欧盟法律文本的英文版本源于两个方面的动态结合:一个与欧盟法律英语有关-这不是普通法英语-另一个与术语,语法和一般结构有关,这源于法国。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Comparative Legilinguistics
Comparative Legilinguistics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Simultaneous interpretation in interpreter-mediated remote legal proceedings: some observations from a forum theatre study De la protection de l’environnement dans les Constitutions Algeriennes On the challenges of legal translation Problems in English-Chinese and Chinese-English legal translation: with a case study of mistranslations Preface to the Special Issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1