The Language of EU and Polish Judges

Table Of Contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• About the editors
• About the book
• This eBook can be cited
• Table of contents
• List of tables
• List of figures
• Abbreviations and acronyms
• 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 się 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
• Series index