The Language of Eu and Polish Judges: Investigating Textual Fit Through Corpus Methods

ISBN-13: 9783631822265 / Angielski / Twarda / 2020 / 628 str.

Dariusz Kozbial

Opis

The book investigates EU judicial language and its impact on the language of national judges. It is the first comprehensive study of the judicial variety of the Polish Eurolect. The monograph applies the relation of textual fit to measure the linguistic distance between EU translations and non-translated Polish texts in corpora of judgments.

Spis treści

Table of contents

List of tables

List of figures

Abbreviations and acronyms

Glossing abbreviations

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Part I. Theoretical background

Chapter 1. Multilingualism and translation at the Court of Justice of the European Union

1.1 Context of production of CJEU judgments: policy of multilingualism

1.2 The translation process

1.3 The translator profile: lawyer-linguists

Chapter 2. Approach to genre analysis

2.1 Genre, register, style, discourse (community), legal language - setting the scene for the analysis of judgments

2.2 A mixed genre-register approach to the linguistic profiling of judgments

Chapter 3. Corpus-linguistic methodology and the operationalization of textual fit

3.1 Corpus Linguistics as a methodology

3.1.1 Corpus-based and corpus-driven approaches to the study of language

3.1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of corpus methodology

3.2 Multi-perspective framework for analysis of judicial language

3.3 The relation of textual fit and its operationalization

Part II. Empirical study

Chapter 4. Design of the JURIDIC corpus

4.1 Corpus design

4.2 Structure of the individual sub-corpora

4.2.1 CJEU corpus

4.2.2 SN corpus

4.2.3 The National Corpus of Polish (NKJP)

4.3 Representativeness, balance and comparability of the sub-corpora

4.4 Software

4.5 Normalization of corpus data and statistical measures

Part II.A Macro level

Chapter 5. Contextual and macrostructural analysis of CJEU and SN judgments

5.1 Contextual analysis of CJEU and SN judgments

5.1.1 Situational characteristics

5.1.2 Discourse participants

5.1.3 Communicative purposes

5.1.4 Communicative conventions

5.2 Macrostructural analysis of CJEU and SN judgments

5.2.1 Macro- and microstructure of CJEU judgments

5.2.2 Macro- and microstructure of SN judgments

5.3 Conclusions

Part II.B. Micro level: Pillar I - Lexico-grammatical patterns

Chapter 6. Analysis of chosen lexico-grammatical patterns

6.1 Global comparison of corpora

6.2 Analysis of keyword lists: identification of lexico-grammatical categories for further analysis

6.3 Phraseological framing with prepositions

6.3.1 Prepositions as a word class

6.3.2 Distribution of simple prepositions

6.3.3 Distribution of top 50 compound and secondary prepositions

6.3.4 Grammaticalized discourse functions of compound and secondary prepositions

6.3.4.1 Time

6.3.4.2 Cause-effect, result, contravention and condition

6.3.4.3 Reference

6.4.4.4 Intra- and inter-textual reference

6.3.4.5 Participation

6.3.4.6 Modality

6.3.4.7 Apposition

6.3.4.8 Manner and instrumental relations

6.3.4.9 Adversariality

6.3.4.10 Measure

6.3.4.11 Inclusivity/exclusivity

6.3.4.12 Commutative relations

6.3.4.13 Purpose

6.3.4.14 Distribution

6.3.4.15 Comparison

6.3.4.16 Space relations

6.3.4.17 Partitive relations

6.3.4.18 Active relations

6.3.5 Prepositions in judgments - summary

6.4 Structurization of judicial arguments

6.4.1 Parataxis

6.4.2 Hypotaxis

6.5 Deixis

6.6 Depersonalization

6.6.1 Auxiliary verbs

6.6.2 Passive voice

6.6.3 The siê impersonal pattern

6.6.4 The -no/to impersonal pattern

6.7 Legal reasoning and argumentation

6.7.1 Verdictive, exercitive (argumentative) and reporting verbs

6.7.2 Causal patterns

6.7.3 If-then conditionals and related patterns

6.7.4 Patterns of purpose

6.8 Framing with adverbials and participles

6.8.1 Adverbials

6.8.2 Participles

Part II.C. Micro level: Pillar II - Formulaicity

Chapter 7. Lexical bundles

7.1. Lexical bundles in the frequency-based (distributional) approach to phraseology

7.2. Related studies and research questions

7.3. Research material and methodology

7.4. Overall distribution of 2-8-grams in judicial language

7.5. Refinement of 3-4-grams

7.5.1 Thematic classification into content and non-content bundles

7.5.2 Overlap of 3- and 4-grams in the translation and non-translation corpora

7.6. Functional classification of lexical bundles

7.6.1 Referential bundles

7.6.1.1 Agents/institutions

7.6.1.2 Bundles denoting abstract concepts

7.6.1.3 Bundles denoting documents

7.6.1.4 Legal procedure bundles

7.6.1.5 Dates

7.6.1.6 Places

7.6.2 Discourse-organizing bundles

7.6.2.1 Intra-/Intertextual bundles

7.6.2.2 Causative-resultative and inferential bundles

7.6.2.3 Focus bundles

7.6.2.4 Framing bundles

7.6.2.5 Topic elaboration/clarification bundles

7.6.2.6 Transition bundles

7.6.2.7 Purpose bundles

7.6.2.8 Conditional bundles

7.6.3 Stance bundles

7.6.3.1 Evaluative bundles

7.6.3.2 Epistemic stance bundles

7.7 Conclusions and implications for the future

Chapter 8. Binomials

8.1 Research material and methodology

8.2 Binomials and multinomials

8.2.1 Distribution of non-extended binomials

8.2.2 Structural and semantic qualities of non-extended binomials

8.2.3 Distribution of extended binomials

8.2.4 Structural and semantic qualities of extended binomials

8.2.5 Distribution and structural qualities of multinomials

8.2.6 Functional typology of binomials

8.3 Conclusions

Part II.D. Micro level: Pillar III -Terminology

Chapter 9. Terms in the common conceptual base of EU and national judgments

9.1 Key (EU and national) terminology-related terms

9.2 Methodological approach and research material

9.3 Global distribution and overlap of simple terms and complex terms

9.4 Top 30 simple terms and top 15 complex terms

9.5 Conceptual classification of node terms

9.5.1 Agentive and institutional node terms and their environment

9.5.2 Node terms related to substantive law and case-law and their environment

9.5.3 Legal procedure node terms and their environment

9.6 Conclusions

Chapter 10. Latinisms

10.1 Research material and methodology

10.2 Distribution of Latinisms in the corpora

10.3 Overlap of Latinisms between the corpora

10.4 Repertoire of key Latinisms in the genre of judgments

10.5 Degrees of textual integration and discourse functions of Latinisms

10.6 Conclusions

Chapter 11. Synthesis and conclusions

11.1 Divergence of translated EU judgments from non-translated Polish judgments, internal variation within the Eurolect, and judicial Polish against general Polish

11.1.1 Pillar I - Divergence at the lexico-grammatical level: CJ and GC vs SN_2011-2015, CJ vs GC, SN_2011-2015 vs NKJP

11.1.2 Pillar II - Divergence at the phraseological level: CJ and GC vs SN_2011-2015, CJ vs GC

11.1.3 Pillar III - Divergence at the terminological level: CJ and GC vs SN_2011-2015, CJ vs GC

11.1.4 Possible causes of divergence and acceptability of translated language

11.2 The limited impact of translated EU judgments on national judgments (microdiachronic language change) - 1999 vs 2011-2015

11.2.1 Pillar I - Microdiachronic change at the level of chosen lexico-grammatical features

11.2.2 Pillar II - Microdiachronic change at the phraseological level

11.2.3 Pillar III - Microdiachronic change at the terminological level

11.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research

11.4 Practical applications of the study

Bibliography

Index

O autorze

Dariusz Kozbial is a corpus linguist and a translation scholar. He was an investigator in the Polish Eurolect research project at the University of Warsaw, Poland. His work focuses on the analysis of judges' discourse.