{"title":"定义作为一种体裁在三大法系中的比较分析","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Definition as a Genre in Three Legal Systems: A Comparative Analysis
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.