Abstract The courtroom, as the most dramatic setting of legal language, is a rich linguistic domain for research; therefore, a science mapping study of the state of the art of this emerging field is of necessity. By CiteSpace V, the present study provides a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of the research on courtroom discourse, as presented by 379 article publications and their 10,538 references in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection from 1979 to 2021. According to statistics on publications by year, it appears that courtroom discourse research has experienced a period of silence (1979–1992), followed by an emergent period (1993–2005), before entering a period of considerable growth since 2006. Weak cooperative networks, extensive information base, multiple research fronts, and dynamic hotspots of courtroom discourse research have been discovered. Courtroom discourse research focuses on three core topics: courtroom interpreting, the interaction between law, language, power, and ideology, and the investigation of courtroom trial structures. Linguistic communication issues are prominent in courtroom discourse. As far as courtroom subjects are concerned, there is an audience-oriented turn in the latest research front of courtroom discourse. The research hotspots have shifted from language ontology during the emergent period to consolidating and developing the theoretical foundations of courtroom discourse during the rapid development period. According to keyword clustering, stance studies and miscommunication research are significant research hotspots of courtroom discourse.
摘要法庭作为法律语言最具戏剧性的场景，是一个丰富的语言研究领域;因此，对这一新兴领域的现状进行科学的测绘研究是必要的。通过CiteSpace V，本研究对1979年至2021年科学网络(Web of Science, WoS)核心文献集中的379篇论文及其10538篇参考文献进行了全面和最新的法庭话语研究系统综述。从逐年出版物的统计来看，法庭话语研究经历了1979-1992年的沉寂期，1993-2005年的涌现期，2006年以后进入了相当大的增长期。法庭话语研究呈现出合作网络薄弱、信息基础广泛、研究前沿多、热点动态等特点。法庭话语研究主要关注三个核心问题:法庭解释、法律、语言、权力和意识形态之间的相互作用以及法庭审判结构的调查。在法庭语篇中，语言交际问题十分突出。就法庭主体而言，法庭话语的最新研究前沿出现了以受众为导向的转向。研究热点从初创期的语言本体论转向快速发展期的法庭话语理论基础的巩固和发展。根据关键词聚类，立场研究和误解研究是法庭语篇的重要研究热点。
{"title":"A science mapping of studies on courtroom discourse with CiteSpace","authors":"Min Yang, Min Wang","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2057","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The courtroom, as the most dramatic setting of legal language, is a rich linguistic domain for research; therefore, a science mapping study of the state of the art of this emerging field is of necessity. By CiteSpace V, the present study provides a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of the research on courtroom discourse, as presented by 379 article publications and their 10,538 references in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection from 1979 to 2021. According to statistics on publications by year, it appears that courtroom discourse research has experienced a period of silence (1979–1992), followed by an emergent period (1993–2005), before entering a period of considerable growth since 2006. Weak cooperative networks, extensive information base, multiple research fronts, and dynamic hotspots of courtroom discourse research have been discovered. Courtroom discourse research focuses on three core topics: courtroom interpreting, the interaction between law, language, power, and ideology, and the investigation of courtroom trial structures. Linguistic communication issues are prominent in courtroom discourse. As far as courtroom subjects are concerned, there is an audience-oriented turn in the latest research front of courtroom discourse. The research hotspots have shifted from language ontology during the emergent period to consolidating and developing the theoretical foundations of courtroom discourse during the rapid development period. According to keyword clustering, stance studies and miscommunication research are significant research hotspots of courtroom discourse.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"16 1","pages":"291 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83559004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Based on the self-compiled corpora of the European Union and Chinese laws on data governance, this study adopts a corpus-driven approach to comparatively study the legislative design of the EU and China on digital governance, especially on key issues such as data protection, data processing and utilization, and cross-border data transfer. It is found through corpus analysis that the EU has developed a relatively comprehensive data protection system, which internally focuses on the protection of individual data rights and externally sets high standards on the cross-border transfer of data. Despite the data protection paradigm as it manifests, the EU is facing new challenges on data exportation, data jurisdiction in the competitive digital marketplace. Shared the same concern on the data protection legislation, Chinese data law has made significant progress in personal data protection with the nascent enactment of Data Security Law and Personal Data Protection Law. Notably, Chinese legislation features the hierarchal taxonomy of data under the principle of the national security exception, while it requires more legislative skills, flexible response mechanisms, and more subordinate laws to prevent future data security threats. Moreover, the corpus-driven method conducted in this study provides evidential insights for the comparative legal textual studies across jurisdictions.
{"title":"Legislative discourse of digital governance: a corpus-driven comparative study of laws in the European Union and China","authors":"Siyue Li, C. Kit","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2059","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Based on the self-compiled corpora of the European Union and Chinese laws on data governance, this study adopts a corpus-driven approach to comparatively study the legislative design of the EU and China on digital governance, especially on key issues such as data protection, data processing and utilization, and cross-border data transfer. It is found through corpus analysis that the EU has developed a relatively comprehensive data protection system, which internally focuses on the protection of individual data rights and externally sets high standards on the cross-border transfer of data. Despite the data protection paradigm as it manifests, the EU is facing new challenges on data exportation, data jurisdiction in the competitive digital marketplace. Shared the same concern on the data protection legislation, Chinese data law has made significant progress in personal data protection with the nascent enactment of Data Security Law and Personal Data Protection Law. Notably, Chinese legislation features the hierarchal taxonomy of data under the principle of the national security exception, while it requires more legislative skills, flexible response mechanisms, and more subordinate laws to prevent future data security threats. Moreover, the corpus-driven method conducted in this study provides evidential insights for the comparative legal textual studies across jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"115 1","pages":"349 - 379"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76088788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The medical service system is an important guarantee for human rights to survival, health and development of every social member, and thus it is significant to explore, interpret and explain the diachronic construction for its legislative reform. In a corpus approach, the study firstly collects the medical-related statutes from 1990 to 2021 in China to build the P.R.C. Medical Legislation Corpus (PRCMLC), and analyzes the keywords and their collocation in the exploratory, explosive and expanding phase of the medical legislative reform. Secondly, from the perspectives of sociosemiotics, the PRCMLC data is combined with the concrete medical laws and regulations for further discussion of the MSS, MIS, DSS and PHS in legislative system. Thirdly, the study explores the core legislative ideas and the relationships among the subsystems in the diachronic analysis, which provide a general overview of the legislative objects, target, participants and mechanisms in the medical reform of China.
{"title":"A sociosemiotic exploration of medical legislation reform in China (1990–2021)","authors":"Junfeng Zhao, Jingjing Wu, Yi Yang","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2054","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The medical service system is an important guarantee for human rights to survival, health and development of every social member, and thus it is significant to explore, interpret and explain the diachronic construction for its legislative reform. In a corpus approach, the study firstly collects the medical-related statutes from 1990 to 2021 in China to build the P.R.C. Medical Legislation Corpus (PRCMLC), and analyzes the keywords and their collocation in the exploratory, explosive and expanding phase of the medical legislative reform. Secondly, from the perspectives of sociosemiotics, the PRCMLC data is combined with the concrete medical laws and regulations for further discussion of the MSS, MIS, DSS and PHS in legislative system. Thirdly, the study explores the core legislative ideas and the relationships among the subsystems in the diachronic analysis, which provide a general overview of the legislative objects, target, participants and mechanisms in the medical reform of China.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"37 1","pages":"203 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87525262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Despite the persistent focus on terminology in legal translation studies, to date, no large-scale research has empirically explored the difficulty of terminology in translating legal genres. Approaches to translation difficulty in translation studies more broadly remain limited in scope. To fill this gap, a study was conducted to measure the difficulty associated with the translation of legal terminology and phraseology, as well as with terminology of other domains, in the LETRINT 1+ corpus, including nine representative genres of three institutional settings (the European Union, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization). For comparative purposes, four levels of translation difficulty were assigned to multiple terminological features by a group of specialized translators through a consensus-building process of annotation based on the cognitive effort estimated for translation decision-making. The difficulty scores obtained confirm the correlation between legal singularity and higher translation difficulty, as well as the connection of more commonly used legal terms and phrasemes, and core economic terms, with lower difficulty levels. The findings also provide evidence of the prominence of non-legal specialized terminology in institutional legal discourses, and the aggregate terminological difficulty levels of each genre examined, which can be particularly useful for informing translation quality assurance, project management and translator training.
{"title":"Terminology as a source of difficulty in translating international legal discourses: an empirical cross-genre study","authors":"F. Prieto Ramos, Giorgina Cerutti","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2052","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite the persistent focus on terminology in legal translation studies, to date, no large-scale research has empirically explored the difficulty of terminology in translating legal genres. Approaches to translation difficulty in translation studies more broadly remain limited in scope. To fill this gap, a study was conducted to measure the difficulty associated with the translation of legal terminology and phraseology, as well as with terminology of other domains, in the LETRINT 1+ corpus, including nine representative genres of three institutional settings (the European Union, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization). For comparative purposes, four levels of translation difficulty were assigned to multiple terminological features by a group of specialized translators through a consensus-building process of annotation based on the cognitive effort estimated for translation decision-making. The difficulty scores obtained confirm the correlation between legal singularity and higher translation difficulty, as well as the connection of more commonly used legal terms and phrasemes, and core economic terms, with lower difficulty levels. The findings also provide evidence of the prominence of non-legal specialized terminology in institutional legal discourses, and the aggregate terminological difficulty levels of each genre examined, which can be particularly useful for informing translation quality assurance, project management and translator training.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"11 1","pages":"155 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88145120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study uses a combinative method of quantitative and qualitative discourse analysis applying the discourse-historical approach (DHA), based on a self-built special corpus composed of the U.S. laws, policies and strategy documents that are directly related to critical information infrastructure protection (CIIP); through a Word List ranked by frequency, it is found that there seems to be a coherent securitizing system which has been formed in the U.S. CIIP legislative practices, with some specific considerations in the CIIP policy-making process including the strategy for risk management. By further investigating the internal institutional relationships and institutional mechanisms with corpus tools, four discursive features and strategies of the U.S. CIIP institutional discourse can be discovered: the leading role of private and specific institutions in public-private cooperation; the coexisting characteristics of generality and precision in the process of object definition; the center-divergent institutional settings in executing CIIP execution; and the coordinating discourse patterns for CIIP within the U.S. legislation. Those discursive practices concerning different institutional actors can be further explained in the broader context of the U.S. social reality. This study is not only helpful in better understanding the legal practices in U.S. cybersecurity, but also provides some meaningful insights on CIIP legislation to policy makers in other countries as well as at the international level.
{"title":"Exploring the U.S. institutional discourse about critical information infrastructure protection (CIIP): a corpus-based analysis","authors":"Le Cheng, Yuxin Liu, Yun Zhao","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2058","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study uses a combinative method of quantitative and qualitative discourse analysis applying the discourse-historical approach (DHA), based on a self-built special corpus composed of the U.S. laws, policies and strategy documents that are directly related to critical information infrastructure protection (CIIP); through a Word List ranked by frequency, it is found that there seems to be a coherent securitizing system which has been formed in the U.S. CIIP legislative practices, with some specific considerations in the CIIP policy-making process including the strategy for risk management. By further investigating the internal institutional relationships and institutional mechanisms with corpus tools, four discursive features and strategies of the U.S. CIIP institutional discourse can be discovered: the leading role of private and specific institutions in public-private cooperation; the coexisting characteristics of generality and precision in the process of object definition; the center-divergent institutional settings in executing CIIP execution; and the coordinating discourse patterns for CIIP within the U.S. legislation. Those discursive practices concerning different institutional actors can be further explained in the broader context of the U.S. social reality. This study is not only helpful in better understanding the legal practices in U.S. cybersecurity, but also provides some meaningful insights on CIIP legislation to policy makers in other countries as well as at the international level.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"23 1","pages":"323 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90589586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Eduardo C. B. Bittar (2020): Semiotics, law & art: between theory of justice and theory of law","authors":"A. Wagner, Yiran Zheng","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2060","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"1 1","pages":"381 - 390"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83152147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The past few decades have seen a plethora of interest in heritage studies in international law, as the legitimization of cultural heritage is a significant aspect of protecting the legacy of humanity’s collective memory, which is fully reflected in a series of international instruments on culture. This paper examines the meaning-making process of UNESCO legal documents on cultural heritage from a sociosemiotic perspective. The data for the corpus-based study were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by applying the securitization theory to heritage studies. Research findings reveal three significant shifts in cultural heritage, i.e., from property to heritage, from tangible to intangible, and from material-centered to human-centered, which embodies the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, a philosophical idea embedded in traditional Chinese culture. As noted, terms targeting cultural heritage in UNESCO international instruments are the sign vehicle, generally mediated and shaped by social values, cultural beliefs, and conventional wisdom, etc. as a part of the interpretant, making different categories of heritage meaningful and interpretable. Characterized by temporality and spatiality, cultural heritage is subject to multiple interpretations. The meaning-making of international instruments for consideration is a sociosemiotic operation that can be construed through contextual factors and a process of social negotiation. This paper argues that a sociosemiotic approach to heritage studies is conducive to explicating the construction and deconstruction of heritage as discursive practices while offering some implications for future research.
{"title":"A sociosemiotic interpretation of cultural heritage in UNESCO legal instruments: a corpus-based study","authors":"Gwen Bouvier, Zhonghua Wu","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2055","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The past few decades have seen a plethora of interest in heritage studies in international law, as the legitimization of cultural heritage is a significant aspect of protecting the legacy of humanity’s collective memory, which is fully reflected in a series of international instruments on culture. This paper examines the meaning-making process of UNESCO legal documents on cultural heritage from a sociosemiotic perspective. The data for the corpus-based study were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by applying the securitization theory to heritage studies. Research findings reveal three significant shifts in cultural heritage, i.e., from property to heritage, from tangible to intangible, and from material-centered to human-centered, which embodies the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, a philosophical idea embedded in traditional Chinese culture. As noted, terms targeting cultural heritage in UNESCO international instruments are the sign vehicle, generally mediated and shaped by social values, cultural beliefs, and conventional wisdom, etc. as a part of the interpretant, making different categories of heritage meaningful and interpretable. Characterized by temporality and spatiality, cultural heritage is subject to multiple interpretations. The meaning-making of international instruments for consideration is a sociosemiotic operation that can be construed through contextual factors and a process of social negotiation. This paper argues that a sociosemiotic approach to heritage studies is conducive to explicating the construction and deconstruction of heritage as discursive practices while offering some implications for future research.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"s3-17 1","pages":"229 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90809805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper presents a Corpus Linguistics study of lexical features in the Opinions of Advocates General (AGs) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Using an interdisciplinary approach, combining legal studies, corpus linguistics and translation studies theories, the study aims to compare the language of some AGs’ Opinions, before and after the introduction of changes in the CJEU’s linguistic regime relating to the language(s) in which Opinions are normally drafted. The results of the corpus linguistic analysis demonstrate that certain changes in the linguistic and stylistic nature of AGs’ Opinions can be observed post-2004. On the one hand, those changes corroborate the study’s primary hypothesis that AG Opinions drafted after 2004 in non-mother tongue languages are stylistically simpler and less ‘fluent’ than those drafted (in AGs’ mother tongues) before 2004. On the other hand, the results also indicate that AG Opinions drafted after 2004 in mother tongue languages are similarly becoming stylistically simpler. These results are inherently interesting in terms of Corpus Linguistics research. However, in order to have a value outside of that field, they are best considered as a basis for more nuanced research questions, which can be investigated through interdisciplinary methods taking account of the factors of production of AG Opinions.
{"title":"A corpus-based study on opinions of advocates general of the court of justice of the European Union: changes in language and style","authors":"Virginia Mattioli, Karen Mcauliffe","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2047","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents a Corpus Linguistics study of lexical features in the Opinions of Advocates General (AGs) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Using an interdisciplinary approach, combining legal studies, corpus linguistics and translation studies theories, the study aims to compare the language of some AGs’ Opinions, before and after the introduction of changes in the CJEU’s linguistic regime relating to the language(s) in which Opinions are normally drafted. The results of the corpus linguistic analysis demonstrate that certain changes in the linguistic and stylistic nature of AGs’ Opinions can be observed post-2004. On the one hand, those changes corroborate the study’s primary hypothesis that AG Opinions drafted after 2004 in non-mother tongue languages are stylistically simpler and less ‘fluent’ than those drafted (in AGs’ mother tongues) before 2004. On the other hand, the results also indicate that AG Opinions drafted after 2004 in mother tongue languages are similarly becoming stylistically simpler. These results are inherently interesting in terms of Corpus Linguistics research. However, in order to have a value outside of that field, they are best considered as a basis for more nuanced research questions, which can be investigated through interdisciplinary methods taking account of the factors of production of AG Opinions.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"43 1","pages":"87 - 111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86691889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The European Union is a legal community of hundreds of millions of people, established in a single market through European law. This is tied to language and translation into 24 official languages, each with equally authentic status. However, this leads to considerable legal differences between Member States and underscores the dominance of English, at the Court of Justice that of French (monolingualism), both of which have no legal foundation. Rule-of-law order (Rechtsstaatlichkeit) is created by the European Reference Language System (Europäisches Referenzsprachensystem), which is presented here as a tool for the urgently required reform of the language laws in the European Union: Not having a hegemonial focus on a single language (and thus on a single legal world) or on the exclusivity of some few languages, it offers a legal-linguistic basis of communication with all treaty languages of the European Union for a clear European law and prosperity. The official languages of the Member States thus preserve the mother tongue reality of the citizens in the sense of the subsidiarity principle (multilingualism). In this way, the citizens and their Union acquire a legally valid voice and identity. This seems necessary in the face of the present restructuring of the world, in order to maintain peace for the people in Europe and to continue promoting their well-being. The basis is legal linguistics (Rechtslinguistik).
{"title":"Towards peace in Europe: on legal linguistics, prosperity and European identity – the European Reference Language System for the European Union","authors":"C. Luttermann, Karin Luttermann","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2021-2044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2044","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The European Union is a legal community of hundreds of millions of people, established in a single market through European law. This is tied to language and translation into 24 official languages, each with equally authentic status. However, this leads to considerable legal differences between Member States and underscores the dominance of English, at the Court of Justice that of French (monolingualism), both of which have no legal foundation. Rule-of-law order (Rechtsstaatlichkeit) is created by the European Reference Language System (Europäisches Referenzsprachensystem), which is presented here as a tool for the urgently required reform of the language laws in the European Union: Not having a hegemonial focus on a single language (and thus on a single legal world) or on the exclusivity of some few languages, it offers a legal-linguistic basis of communication with all treaty languages of the European Union for a clear European law and prosperity. The official languages of the Member States thus preserve the mother tongue reality of the citizens in the sense of the subsidiarity principle (multilingualism). In this way, the citizens and their Union acquire a legally valid voice and identity. This seems necessary in the face of the present restructuring of the world, in order to maintain peace for the people in Europe and to continue promoting their well-being. The basis is legal linguistics (Rechtslinguistik).","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":"3 1","pages":"7 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79130372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：