Binomials in English/Polish Company Registration Discourse: The Study of Linguistic Profile and Translation Patterns [1 ed.] 9783737015363, 9783847115366

Citation preview

Interdisziplinäre Verortungen der Angewandten Linguistik

Band 6

Herausgegeben von Sylwia Adamczak-Krysztofowicz, Silvia Bonacchi, Przemysław Ge˛bal, Jarosław Krajka, Łukasz Kumie˛ga und Hadrian Lankiewicz

Die Bände dieser Reihe sind peer-reviewed.

Edyta Wie˛cławska

Binomials in English/Polish Company Registration Discourse The Study of Linguistic Profile and Translation Patterns

With 20 figures

V&R unipress

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Universität Rzeszów. © 2023 Brill | V&R unipress, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, D-37079 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress und Wageningen Academic. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages.

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2749-0211 ISBN 978-3-7370-1536-3

Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Chapter 1. Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Evolving phraseological paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Phraseology in legilinguistic research . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Binomials on the research agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1. Concepts and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2. Developments in research on binomials . . . . . . . 1.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

15 16 20 26 27 32 40

Chapter 2. Material and methodological framework 2.1. Company registration discourse . . . . . . . . 2.2. Corpus design and pre-processing stage . . . 2.3. Extraction procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Research design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Research questions and hypotheses . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

43 43 48 50 54 59

Chapter 3. Binomials in company registration discourse . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Overall frequency data: Structural categories and values identified . 3.1.1. Semantic and structural description of binomials per genre . 3.1.2. Model of types per aggregate structure – Binomials in company registration discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Linguistic variation and binomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Binomials in the diatopic perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Binomials in the text authorship perspective . . . . . . . . .

65 65 67

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

83 86 89 96

6

Contents

3.2.3. Binomials in the diachronic perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101 106

. . . . . . .

111 111 117 118 119 122 124

. . . . . .

126

. . . . . . . . . . . .

128 131

General conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

133

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

155

Chapter 4. Translating binomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Simplification and its manifestations . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Translation variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. Linguistic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.1. Part of speech variable . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.2. Semantic motivation variable . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Extralinguistic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.1. Translation variation across the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.2. Translation variation across the YEAR OF TRANSLATION variable . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Acknowledgements

The author expresses the wish to thank the authorities of the District Court, XII Economic Division – National Court Register for Kraków-S´ródmies´cie, Poland and District Court, XII Economic Division – National Court Register in Rzeszów, Poland for facilitating the extensive search of court files needed to compile the corpus.

Introduction

The ensuing text presents a contemporary account of the well-known phraseological instrument binomial expressions, including their extended variant referred to as multinomials, that date back to Medieval times and, as such, have been covered by a number of linguistic studies (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018b; Kopaczyk, 2013; Lehto, 2017; Mollin, 2012; Sauer, 2017, 2019). It remains a fact, however, that the studies available have been conducted mainly on historical, literary texts and contemporary accounts of the said phenomenon are largely based on the findings formulated in relation to these, e. g. Chapman, 2017; Fulk, 2017; Sauer, 2019. Admittedly, legal language, especially in its infancy, had a lot in common with literary texts (Grimm, 1816), a fact which holds particularly true for the use of the ritual, conventionalised repetitive formulae being part of the modern legal style. Yet diachronic studies demonstrate its continual evolution and thus some kind of update seems to be needed. Many individual instances of binomials provided as examples in course books turn out to be non-existent or marginal in contemporary legal communication, while new coinages are not accounted for. This fact, together with the widespread and illegitimate nonselective permission for elimination and/or simplification of the said items in both intralingual and interlingual legal communication generates a largely inaccurate message about the population of binomials that it is currently necessary to deal with in order to process legal texts. Apart from presenting a coherent, updated description of binomials it is the author’s intention to capture the stylistically distinctive perspective of a thematically homogeneous section of legal written discourse so that the picture that emerges is more reliable and contributes to variationist output. The author’s personal experience in legal translation and educational background in legal studies helped to identify an area where the linguistic evolution in the said respect was expected to be most marked. Such is the case of one of the most linguistically progressive legal domains – commercial law, which has been subject to significant transformation on the grounds of substantive and procedural legislation since the turn of this century (1 January 2001) and continues to adjust

10

Introduction

to the changing reality induced by Poland’s accession to the EU in 2004 and increasing globalisation of the market. Changes here affect both the political and economic systems and consequently communication, which needs to provide proper tools and rhetoric to enable the ongoing and effective practice of the legal profession. The globalised environment imposes a need to pursue professional practices which involve processing cases with – what lawyers refer to as – a foreign element, which entails increased interlingual communication, with all its side effects, be it the translationese effect, foreign language interferences or culture-bound concepts. The term interlingual is used in the foregoing in reference to the English/Polish bilingual material in a way that is non-commissive to the distinctions made in the literature of the subject between the terms interlingual, contrastive, cross-linguistic or comparative (Biel, 2015, p. 139; Hallsteinsdóttir & Farø, 2010, p. 125; Krzeszowski, 1990, pp. 11–12). Commercial law in the context of company registration proceedings limited to branches of foreign companies is of interest for yet another reason, namely its sociolinguistic complexity with regard to the diachronic and diatopic variation, as well as the authorship factor, and specifically expert/lay distinctions. Registration (constitutive entry) and the subsequent entries in the National Court Register that follow (declarative entries), as are mandatory on the grounds of law, require the attachment and processing of texts related to the common communicative environment, yet are characterised by varied text provenience, authorship categories, institutional background, setting and significantly distinct categories of entities brought together for the purpose of company registration proceedings (e. g. judicial vs. in-company officers; in-house translators vs. sworn translators). The corpus material sensu largo (cf. corpus sensu stricte as a set of candidate terms) covers the area of commercial law, acting as a macrotopic for the professional practices and related category of legal discourse, and that being formally restricted to company registration proceedings, specifically the registration of a branch of a company. This scopal limitation enabled systemic and exhaustive data extraction, ensuring the reliability of the data and – not less importantly for the aim of the study1 – it places the study among those which provide system-inherent, linguistic description of a neatly delineated section of legal discourse, going beyond the well-acknowledged general typologies. Such examples would include studies which restrict a text type selection to an institutional perspective (Trklja, 2018) or professional environment (Durr, 2017). 1 The term study is used interchangeably with the term analysis throughout the discussion, the latter favoured as component of specific collocations (e. g. unit of analysis, multiple correspondence analysis) or chosen to emphasise reference to more specific contexts (e. g. qualitative analysis, statistical analysis), either explicitly or implicitly.

Introduction

11

Here we work on an intertextually linked whole that comprises a distinct set of genres which are, however, due to the shared communicative environment, expected to share some stylistic conventions, patterns in the use of binomials included. As signalled in the title, the term discourse encapsulates the area to be analysed, and it is used here with the intention to signal that the study has implications for discourse in the broader sense rather than being strictly discourse analytic in focusing extensively on specific discourse functions. The inclusion of sociolinguistic factors and a generic context may be said to promote the study to the discourse level descriptions. The material is strongly embedded in the sociolinguistically defined and systemically varied communicative environment and, as such, it is perceived in terms of discourse practices whereby recurring binomial expressions act as instruments in constructing specific identity-marked social reality that is indicated by, among other factors, place, time and authorship-based identities. The variationist perspective relates to trends extending beyond the sentence level, and thus points to the existence of supra-sentence patterns of stylistic and/or pragmatic importance. The variationist aspect is also brought to the fore in discussing translation patterns. Another aspect that defines the place of this study against the background of the state-of-art research output is its secondary genres orientation. It is a commonly voiced deficiency of legilinguistic studies that in the main they address legislative, that is primary genres. The analytical part is divided into two components, the first devoted to the English language data (population 1) and the second investigating translation patterns on the basis of parallel English/Polish material (sample 1). The main research question to be answered regarding the monolingual material relates to the size and structural profile of the actual population of binomials contemporarily to be found in the company registration discourse. The notion of structural profile is to be held apart from the notion of linguistic profile, the latter comprising additionally information about conceptual affiliation of a binomial to a semantic field. Specifically, the author attempts to ascertain: (i) what is the frequency distribution of binomials per individual structural features (frequency distribution scheme of types per structural feature) and the per aggregate structural profile, understood as types derived as a statistics-based combination (cf. clusters) of structural features (model of types per aggregate structure), and (ii) what is the scope of sociolinguistically conditioned variation in the monolingual population, with the variables being naturally inherent in the said discourse specific context. The variationist perspective is discussed individually for the four structural variables and subsequently against the concept of aggregate structural profile. With regard to the translation-related component, based on the population of bi-component sequences only (cf. sample 1) the main research question concerns the operation of the translation feature of simplification and

12

Introduction

its specific manifestations, and here the analysis is partly inductive since the author explores the operation of other manifestations of simplification (additionally to reduction). Specifically, the author seeks to find out (i) the percentage of simplification incidence in total and per individual manifestations2 of simplification and (ii) the scope of variation under linguistic and extralinguistic factors, such as part of speech, semantic motivation as well as year and type of translation respectively. From the technical point of view, the choice of the thematic area to be investigated and the corpus methodology involving automatic processing of digitalised texts was determined by practical factors. It remained a priority for the author to investigate a thematically homogeneous, authentic and systemically retrieved section of living legal language available in the English/Polish set of parallel texts (cf. in situ analysis) and this was possible to operationalise by the authentic and custom-designed corpus methodology. Firstly, addressing the company registration discourse enabled systemic and exhaustive corpus compilation since the relevant court files possess system inherent coding for cases with a foreign element and there the English/Polish parallel data are available. Secondly, corpus methodology makes it possible to digitally process large amounts of data and combine quantitative and qualitative operations, incorporating a strong sociolinguistic component. More specifically, the study falls in the category of corpus-based studies with the obvious implications of the item ‘based’, which implies supervised data extraction. It was chosen by the author as effectively enabling the capture of the mainstream structural paradigm of binomials in the said communicative environment, which was the aim ascribed to this study.

2 The term manifestation follows the concept employed by Gumul (Gumul 2017) as a denotation of the linguistic indicators, categories of processes affecting translation of binomials.

Synopsis

The monograph is composed of four chapters which thematically stretch over a few linguistic research frameworks, addressing topics in the realm of the lexical description of phraseological units, sociolinguistics, translation studies and variationist linguistics. The element that joins the said parts of the analysis is the unit of analysis defined as binomials and their extended versions – multinomials. Chapter 1 sets the ground for the analysis of empirical data. The title of Chapter 1 is to be read as sufficiently general to encompass the current state of relevant research in the realm of phraseology and its subcategory of binomials. The discussion focuses on the legilinguistic aspects of phraseological research and, at the same time, it leaves the door open for references to non-legal contexts regarding binomials in view of the significant contribution of research based upon a literary environment. More specifically, Chapter 1 contains a synthesis of the research paths and findings with regard to phraseological units, covering the existing typologies on the basis of legal language. The ensuing sections take the readers through the domain of binomials. Here, the discussion starts with accounting for the phraseological status of these categories and then moves on to present the evolution of research paths with a focus on the material of legal language as much as possible. In view of the terminological variety, the last section is preceded by a review of the main concepts in the given field. Chapter 2 presents the methodological aspects of the analytical part. The opening section here presents information on the legal – professional environment (cf. communicative environment), defining and delimiting the corpus material in the most general way that is non-commissive to any of the sociolinguistically-oriented methodologies. The term discourse is used to delimit and embody the entirety of the material extracted from the professional environment and the relevant language patterns, capturing the sociolinguistic context and variation which exceed the frameworks of pure sentence level descriptions. The discussion in this section is, in principle, couched in substantive and formal law frameworks and it rests on the references to relevant legal provisions on registering a branch of a foreign company in Poland. This element of the discussion is characterised by inter-

14

Synopsis

disciplinarity and as such it enables adequate ground to be set for understanding the nature and scope of the linguistic material studied here. This section is informative about the categories of the entities (cf. text drafters) involved, types of texts in the legal trade in the said domain and other context-related parameters. Other methodological aspects discussed here involve a description of the corpus design, extraction procedures, research design and hypotheses to be verified. The analytical part, related to the English language data, is included in Chapter 3 which is divided into two sections devoted to (i) a description of the linguistic profile of binomials and (ii) the variationist aspect of the given population. The analysis starts with a presentation of the overall frequency distribution data for candidate terms per genre and per individual structural features (frequency distribution schemes), and then proceeds to identify a model of types per aggregate structure specific for the company registration discourse. The variationist part of study is likewise conducted on the per value types (cf. types per structural feature) and subsequently on the types per aggregate structure. The variation schemes derived cover diatopic, diachronic and authorship-based perspectives. Chapter 4 investigates translation patterns observed when translating binomials. The first section briefly introduces the phenomenon of simplification and its manifestations and proceeds to report on the findings organising the discussion in distinct sections based on the linguistic and extralinguistic factors affecting translation shifts. The conclusions present the findings, while juxtaposing the statistics for the individual variables. The findings show that in spite of being commonly devaluated as features of the heavily orthodox legal style and, as such, having more ornamental than pragmatic application, binomials have a strong representation in contemporary legal language, even in such linguistically progressive professional environments as corporate communication. Further, the population of binomials can be effectively described in terms of the well-established structural characteristic, individually per given feature and per aggregate structural profile, by clustering the chief structural features, which leads us to an exhaustive model of types actually occurring in the company registration discourse. The frequency distribution patterns show as markedly affected by genre factor and/or other sociolinguistic conditions. Some binomials are resistant to specific generic environments while others may be said to be fairly genre universal. The diatopic and diachronic perspectives alongside the authorship dimension show some variation capacity. The conclusions related to translation patterns report on the operation of simplification in the three manifestations, and the data corresponding to the individual categories of variables are juxtaposed with the intention to derive a variation scheme showing the forces which contribute most significantly to the dynamism of the translation patterns.

Chapter 1. Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

This explanatory chapter introduces a wider context for the specific units of analysis addressed by the ensuing research project; namely binomials. Legal phraseology is discussed as an overarching term to demonstrate aspects of research that shed some light on binomial expressions as phraseological subtypes. The chapter sets out the conceptual framework for the analysis to follow in that it discusses the structural aspects of binomials, which are examined for the discourse specific frequency distribution pattern, translation patterns and variation potential in both the areas. The discussion puts the relevant concepts and terms in the general-to-specific perspective to show that, sometimes, the individual denotations are to signal specific distinctions and sometimes they exist as collateral expressions. Reference is made to the relevant concepts and terms couched in different research traditions and perspectives. The selection of the material to be discussed here is conditioned by the availability of the research that directly addresses the topics covered by the analysis (legal binomials), and in the absence or scarcity of these more general categories are brought to the table. Hence, at points binomials are set against the background of standardised, ritual language and or phraseology, as overarching categories here. The discussion in this chapter starts from presenting the rationale for expanding the definitional scope of phraseology, and the most influential frameworks are referred to according to the ‘latest first’ approach. The aim is to show how contemporary approaches to phraseology accommodate binomials, especially in their most structurally non-restrictive variants. The typologies of phraseological units covered by the discussion are drawn from legilinguistic studies and they are demonstrated to be representative of various frameworks. Binomials are discussed with regard to various definitional aspects, including the historical and register specific contexts. The discussion on the latest research on binomials focuses on those aspects where the developments are deemed to be most marked.

16

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

1.1. Evolving phraseological paradigms Ontological aspects of the concept of phraseology, especially with regard to its coverage area, provide an important starting point for the study of binomials. The gradual reconceptualization of phraseology as a linguistic discipline, as noted in recent years, has enabled the recognition of a number of word combinations as formally legitimate phraseological units, the phraseological status of which was previously held as questionable, binomials being an example here, at least with regard to the formally peripheral representatives of the category. Setting such wider context allows us to understand the general development paths identified in the domain of studies on language prefabrication, and confidently and legitimately go beyond the conventional directions regarding methodologies used and conclusions drawn. The drive to go beyond the traditional definitional limits may be assumed to have been triggered by three factors of linguistic, practical and methodological nature. Linguistically, the arguments that force the flexible eligibility criteria for phraseological units draw from functionalism (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Lewin´ski, 2013; Schleppergrell, 2012), related lexicogrammatical paradigm and usage-based approaches (Ellis, 2017, p. 130), all promoting the importance of context and cultural forms in effective communication (Mejri, 2018; Svensson, 2017) and – indirectly – recognising the significance of prefabrication stretching over longer strings and/or strings that exceed the traditional structural format of phraseological units, yet are significant in terms of discourse functions, intertextual relations, and preserving genre identity. The structure of language is said to derive from lexical patterns established by the operation of context-related forces and it rests largely on formulaicity, phraseology (Hoey, 2005, p. 8). Words cooccur in strings that exceed the traditional formal scheme for collocations. One of the canonical parameters of phraseological units – formulaicity – has earned less strict definitions (Wray, 2008). Mastering a language involves following schemes validated by high frequency of usage, which confirms their high productivity potential. Language production is perceived in terms of form-function mapping and not building utterances from scratch, based purely on grammatical formulae. This linguistic background may be said to favour the inclusion of formally less conspicuous multi-word units in phraseological studies. Further, it should be acknowledged that the efficacy of communication rests largely in recognising inter-generic, inter-register distinctions. What is communicatively effective and functional in one communicative environment does not necessarily work in another. Another progressive trend in categorization of phraseology tentatively propagates the inclusion of compound words on the ground of some of their functional, structural and semantic similarities with formally conventional phrasemes, the distinction between these two categories being captured as

Evolving phraseological paradigms

17

‘visually continuous’ vs. ‘visual non-continuous’ forms (Hallsteinsdóttir & Farø, 2010, p. 125). From the practical point of view the novel, extended approach to phraseology is related to market needs, both with regard to the demands of communication in various professional environments, the educational perspective or an average user’s perspective. To explain, effective communication in professional settings requires fluency and adequacy in the use of multi-item terms. Recognition and mastery in using highly repetitive lexical bundles is of great importance in view of their pragmatic and rhetorical function. From the intralingual perspective, precision is in great demand in view of the factors which are related to the predominant mode in business communication. In many professional environments data are digitally processed to enable their migration across a variety of systems, as is the case with some sections of the judiciary. The requirement for efficient automated processing and interpretation causes the need for standardisation in communication so that texts are more easily processed and data entered automatically where possible. Our mental lexicons become adjusted to the way in which computers work so that we are able to search large lexicon banks and exploit the potential of semantic ontologies (Yurchenko, 2021, p. 32). Regarding the interlingual perspective – globalisation, a concept that is explanatory for a number of contemporary changes in the way we use language, plays a key role here. The fact that the legal profession, commercial and academic relations, whether in the domain of medicine, economy or in other disciplines, increasingly rely on interlingual communication, is also a factor which imposes strict linguistic requirements, not only with regard to terms but also with regard to items exceeding the structurally complete phraseological units. Standardisation across language varieties, in the pluricentric contexts, and consistent use of prefabricated formulae is claimed to facilitate adequate and consistent translation patterns and thus facilitate the processing of texts in translation (Kubacki, 2016). Further, from the practical perspective with regard to language acquisition and in the contexts of the tenets of the lexicogrammatical approach, the recognition of longer chunks of structures is found to considerably streamline effective linguistic performance (Les´niewska, 2019). The justification for the extension of the definitional scope of the term phraseology also needs to relate to the technological advance in methodological frameworks. The stylistics of identification, exploiting stylometry techniques, makes it possible to single out formally unconventional phraseological units and thus opens new research areas that were simply not available to the research tradition couched in qualitative analysis, referred to with the twin term as the stylistics of characterisation (Legallois et al., 2018, p. 164). Computer-driven methodologies, which enable unsupervised data extraction, allow for the recognition of the phenomenon of prefabrication exceeding the framework of

18

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

conventional collocations which, in connection with lexicogrammatical postulates, pushed the limits of phraseology beyond the standard framework (Grabowski, 2015b; Zanettin, 2013). Such a progressive background, as accounted for above, gave rise to the contemporary approach to phraseological typologies which – in an attempt to legitimise the variety of formal structures – distinguishes between distributional and linguistic typologies. The concept of distributional typology, proposed by Granger & Meunier (2008, pp. 38–39) accommodates a wide range of multi-word units which differ by the extraction procedures and are in principal referred to as n-grams/clusters and co-occurrence based strings, these being held as the top two most prolific distributional categories. The basic notions in the distributional framework relate to the continuity parameter and to the measurement index. In the case of n-grams, defined as continuous strings, it is the frequency threshold of occurrence, while discontinuous combinations of cooccurring items are established and discussed on the basis of statistical measures (Longerée & Mellet, 2018). Linguistic analyses conducted on such data sets share the common denominator of being based on non-discrete, sequential or syntagmatic units, and the methodology is referred as an unsupervised or bottom-up approach, suggestive of its exploratory and induction-oriented capacity. Among the categories satisfying the contiguity parameter, further distinctions are made on the ground of the extraction techniques. Hence, motifs or sequential patterns stand for contiguous strings which are retrieved by a combination of various annotation categories (e. g. lemma, POS tags, word forms) and are thus opposed to other non-discrete unit-based sequences, such as lexical bundles, clusters or n-grams, used on a collateral basis (Frontini et al., 2018, p. 118). Distributional typology adequately accommodates formally less conspicuous variants of binomials. Reference here is made to longer strings (extended binomials), such as triples, quadruplet or quints and the expanded variants which admit insertion of some elements and thus disturb the contiguity parameter featuring the canonical binomial profile. Linguistic typologies complement their distributional counterparts in that they account for functional aspects of phraseological units. In general, all linguistic typologies admit the eligibility criteria for phraseological units based upon the traditionally specified set of integrative criteria and these are: (i) multicomponent nature, (ii) stability (relatively stable components), (iii) use with a relatively stable component composition in discourse, (iv) complete or partial idiomaticity, and (v) fixation by lexicographic and phraseographic sources. An example here is the scheme proposed by Sylviane Granger and Fanny Meunier which is referred to as a ‘phraseological spectrum’ indicating that the authors do not aspire to propose a coherent typology, rather an account of phraseological

Evolving phraseological paradigms

19

categories which pays due respect to the functional aspect emphasised by linguistic frameworks and incorporates the approach of data-driven frameworks, whether corpus-based or corpus-driven, by going beyond the macrotextual and discourse level organisational functions of phraseological units, often materialised by the formally non-canonical units (Granger & Meunier, 2008, p. 42). Granger and Meunier’s framework is declared as an upgraded version of Burger’s canonical, linguistically-oriented typology which can be read from the following formula: phraseological units: [REFERENTIAL {nominative (collocations) (partial idioms) (idioms)} {propositional (at sentence level) (at text level)}] [STRUCTURAL] [COMMUNICATIVE]3 (Burger, 1998).

Granger and Meunier accept the tri-partite scheme, preserving the labels ‘referential function’ and ‘communicative function’ and substitute Burger’s ‘structural’ with ‘textual function’. Referential phraseological units are said to convey content message and as such they relate to phenomena, objects and facts. Here belong: lexical and grammatical collocations, idioms, irreversible bi- and trinomials, similes, compounds and phrasal verbs. Textual phraseological units are used to organise the context of text and type of discourse. The types in this category include: complex prepositions, complex conjunctions, linking adverbials and textual sentence stems. Finally, the label ‘communicative function’ covers speech act formulae, attitudinal formulae, proverbs and their fragments, commonplaces, slogans, idiomatic sentences and quotations. The last category of phrasemes is used to express feelings or beliefs, and here belong express forms of address to interlocutors (Granger & Meunier, 2008, p. 42). Other typologies fitting in the linguistic framework which are historical yet still have significant referential value have been proposed by Cowie and Mel’cˇuk: phraseological units: [COMPOSITES {restricted collocations} {figurative idioms} {pure idioms}] [FORMULAE {routine formulae} {speech formulae}] (Cowie, 1988). phraseological units: [SEMANTIC PHRASEMES {semi-phrasemes or collocations} {quasi-phrasemes or quasi-idioms} {full-phrasemes or idioms}] [PRAGMATIC PHRASEMES OR PRAGMATEMES] (Mel’cˇuk, 1998).

3 The hyponymically ordered lists given below are to be interpreted bearing in mind the following typographic conventions: capital letters are used for the top-most categories and the brackets are assigned specific ranks according to the subordination level of a given label. Hence, starting from the top-most ones: square brackets, braces and parentheses. The categories enclosed in the same types of brackets are to interpreted as placed on the same level of hierarchy.

20

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

1.2. Phraseology in legilinguistic research Legilinguistic studies into phraseological data may be said to have contributed significantly to changes in the phraseological paradigms, bringing to the fore units which are underrepresented on the ground of common language and/or other specialised languages and/or – following the contemporary open-access definition of phraseological units – accommodating the structure-wise novel categories. The greatest number of typologies proposed on the basis of legal language specifically, and those which are the most influential in the theoretical considerations and representative for research perspectives, have been proposed by Biel (2014b), Bielawski (2022), Goz´dz´-Roszkowski (2011), Hudalla (2012), Kjœr (1990, 2007), Krzemin´ska-Krzywda (2010), Lindroos (2015), Płomin´ska (2019, 2020) and Woz´niak (2016). In general the typologies of phraseological units proposed on the basis of legal language are characterised by (i) relative structural indetermination of phraseological units (ii) relative arbitrariness in recognition of the phraseological status of some phrasemes, and (iii) genre-sensitivity. Regarding the structural profile of legal phrasemes, it may be claimed that the typologies in question are less restrictive with regard to the structural confines constituting the eligibility criteria for phraseological units. Hence, the length of patterns is often unlimited. The candidate terms classified as phraseological units are not necessarily idiomatic and structural variability is acceptable. Such indeterminacy is reflected in the semantically vague labels used for the individual categories throughout the typologies: ‘pattern’ (Biel, 2014a, p. 178), ‘combinations’ (Kjœr, 2007, p. 510), ‘structurally complex’, ‘combinatory properties of terms’, to refer to the technicalities of phrase formation. The typologies vary as to the range of items which are granted the status of phraseological units. Hence, for example, binomials, multi-word terms recognised by Kjœr (2007), are not included by Tabares Plasencia in the systematics of legal phrasemes and they are treated as categories of phraseological units on the basis of specialised languages (Tabares Plasencia, 2012). Finally, genre-sensitivity is listed above as featuring the typologies in point. The significant heterogeneity of legal language is manifested in marked discrepancies in the phraseological repertoire. Hence, Biel (2014b, p. 178) states that Kjœr’s typology of normconditioned terms (Kjœr, 1990) is too general to address all domains of legal communication. The broad assumption is that the individual domain of legal communication and/or specific legal genres have distinct phraseological profiles. The studies on legal phraseology and the typologies they propose concern primarily legislative (primary) genres since legislation is widely available in digital form. The spectrum of legislation covered by phraseological studies stretches over domestic legislation (Grass, 1999; Lombardi, 2007; Płomin´ska, 2020; Szu-

Phraseology in legilinguistic research

21

bert, 2010) and also covers EU genres (Biel, 2015; Salkie, 2018; Volini, 2008). Fairly few exceptions cover the language of contracts (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2017; NowakKorcz, 2013) or judicial texts where we find studies on EU case law (Beru¯ksˇtiene˙, 2017; Koz´biał, 2018; Trklja, 2018), studies on corpora compiled from EU case law and legislative genres (Biel et al., 2018), non-EU judicial corpora (Lindroos, 2015) and judicial language drawn from mixed sources, including the non-EU perspective (Pontrandolfo, 2015). Any overview of typologies of legal phrasemes must start with reference to the canonical scheme proposed by Kjœr (1990) with regard to norm-conditioned word combinations. This typology does not account for the linguistic aspects of phrasemes but it focuses on the systemic nature of legal language, ensuring intertextuality in legal communication, and categorises phrases according to the level of their stability, as determined by law systemic constraints: norm-conditioned combinations: [PREFABRICATED WORD COMBINATIONS DIRECTLY PRESCRIBED BY LAW] [WORD COMBINATIONS ONLY INDIRECTLY PRESCRIBED BY LAW] [WORD COMBINATIONS BASED ON IMPLICIT QUOTATION FROM OTHER INTERTEXTUALLY RELATED LEGAL TEXTS] [HABITUALLY USED ROUTINE PHRASES] (Kjœr, 1990).

The typologies proposed most recently are claimed to heavily relate to the classification of phraseological units in specialised languages proposed by Gläser (2007) and to the classifications conducted on the ground of legal language by Kjœr, specifically the more general one (Kjœr, 2007). The typologies of legal phraseology may be divided into (i) those holistically covering legal communication and (ii) those generated with regard to distinct domains of legal communication, either genre-based or based on distinct communicative environments. The selection of works subsequently referred to is determined by how influential they prove to be and by their relevance for the analysis to follow. The first genre-resistant path is represented by the canonical typologies by Kjœr (2007) and Goz´dz´-Roszkowski (2011, p. 111), the latter stretching over a variety of legal genres (legislation, contracts, opinions, briefs, textbooks, academic journals and professional articles), yet limited to the category of lexical bundles. Kjœr is guided by the assumption that any comprehensive typology of word combinations, as she refers to phraseological units, needs to draw from interdisciplinary knowledge and she proposes a classification which – following the typological pattern informative about subordination of concepts, adopted in the previous section – can be expressed by the following formula:

22

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

phraseological units in legal language: [MULTI-WORD TERMS] [LATIN MULTIWORD TERMS] [LSP PHRASES {periphrastic verbal structures}] [BINOMIALS] [LEGAL PHRASEMES WITH ARCHAIC WORDS] (Kjœr, 2007, pp. 509–511).

Kjœr (2007) identifies the key features of legal terminology as latinisms, archaic style and lexical repetitiveness. Further, she shows the number of components to be non-restricted and the typology does not specify the nature of the forces triggering the said combinations. If we exclude binomials for their obvious distinctiveness, Kjœr differentiates only between ‘term’ and ‘phrase/phraseme’, which may differ only by the provenience of its elements (Latin vs. archaic). She brings to the fore the combinations with periphrastic verbs, as these in general are seen as tools of general application throughout a number of legal genres and contexts. An example of another, more recent typology in point that is not restricted to one legal genre is the typology proposed by Goz´dz´-Roszkowski who divides lexical bundles into the following categories: lexical bundles in legal language: [NOUN PHRASE WITH OF-PHRASE FRAGMENT] [NOUN PHRASE WITH OTHER POST-MODIFIER FRAGMENT] [PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE EXPRESSION] [VERB PHRASE WITH PASSIVE VERB] [VERB PHRASE WITH ACTIVE VERB] [ANTICIPATORY IT+VERB PHRASE] [ADVERBIAL CLAUSE FRAGMENTS] [VERB/ADJECTIVE+TO-CLAUSE FRAGMENT] [VERB PHRASE+ THAT-CLAUSE FRAGMENT] (Goz´dz´-Roszkowski, 2011, pp. 111–117).

The classification of lexical bundles here covers the structurally most heterogeneous classes of phraseological units, which are difficult to be defined with the classical labels and can be described with structural categories. Two conclusions emerge here. The types distinguished represent strings organised around various word-class categories and the representation of nouns and verbs here is prominent. Further, the phraseological typology covering the formally non-conventional units necessitates a further description accounting for fine structural distinctions. Typologies covering various generic contexts are representative for two orientations: (i) structure-based frameworks developed on the basis of specialised languages (Gläser, 1998) and legal language (Kjœr, 2007) and (ii) newly derived typologies addressing the productive capacity of legal terms. The structure-based orientation is represented by Lindroos (2015) and Bielawski (2022). The following show the hierarchical dependency of the individual categories and subcategories. phraseological units: [MULTI-WORD TERMS] [LATIN MULTI-WORD TERMS] [LSP PHRASES {collocations (adjective+noun) (noun+verb)} {periphrastic verbal structures (noun+periphrastic verb) (prepositions+noun+verb)}][BINOMIALS] [LEGAL PHRASEMES WITH UNIQUE COMPONENTS] [PREPOSITIONAL PHRASEOLOGISMS] [ROUTINE FORMULAE] [FORMULAIC SHORT TEXTS] (Lindroos, 2015, pp. 208–209).

Phraseology in legilinguistic research

23

phraseological units: [PHRASEOLOGICAL TERMS] [PROPER NAMES WORD COMBINATIONS] [LATIN PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS {enforced by Latin} {hybrid units with Latin term} {Latin calques}] [PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH UNIQUE COMPONENTS] [WORTPAARE] [COLLOCATIONS] [PERIPHRASTIC VERBAL STRUCTURES] [PRAGMATIC PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS] (Bielawski, 2022, pp. 200–218).

The two genre-specific typologies referred to above have been developed for secondary genres, i. e. criminal judgements and indictments, and share some features. They predominantly recognise a strong dependence on nouns and verbs in the formation of phraseological units. Both of the scholars give examples of noun- and/or verb-based phraseological units, as one of the top categories (cf. in Bielawski: ‘periphrastic verbal structures’), or as predominant representatives of a more general category (cf. in Lindroos: bracketed subcategories for LSP phrases). Further, a general trend in the genre-specific classifications that is reflected in both the typologies referred to here is the recognition of binomials as independent categories. It needs to be noted that the status of binomials as specifically legal language categories is questioned by some scholars, who claim they make up part of a category of more general, specialised languages (Tabares Plasencia, 2012, p. 321). Both the genre-specific frameworks recognise Latin terms as significant components of phraseological units, either as an independent category (cf. Bielawski) or as a component of more general categories (cf. Lindroos). Further the two typologies in question both add the category phrasemes distinguished for their pragmatic relevance, which accords with the evolution of phraseology as a distinct field of science, a result achieved by increasing the pragmatisation of phraseological units. Acknowledging the areas where the two typologies overlap, it is important to note the differences which may be capitalised in terms of occasional attempts to achieve greater levels of specificity. Neither of the two typologies is consistently more specific and they both continue to extend their classifications in distinct areas. This shows that some categories of phraseological units are exploited with varied intensity throughout the legal genres, and the evolution of subcategories testifies to the positive correlation between the increased number of discursive functions and the phraseological repertoire exploited. The category referred to in the foregoing as binomials is called word pairs (‘Wortpaare’) by Bielawski and he goes on to explain that this term is used to denote a concept that is a hyperonym for the subcategories standing for two element structures, either twin forms, composed of two identical words conjoined by a preposition (‘Zwillingsformeln’) or variously motivated, same word-class, bi-component sequences (‘Paarformeln’). In turn, Bielawski’s approach is more general with regard to categories of phraseological units marked for their pragmatic value. Hence, the scholar distinguishes ‘pragmatic phraseological units’ which may be held as corresponding to two categories distinguished by Lindroos, that is routine formulae (‘Routi-

24

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

nelformeln’) and formulaic short texts (‘formelhafte Kurztexte’), the basic distinction lying in the formally macrotextual range of the latter. Yet, Bielawski is more specific when he makes an independent category out of proper names (‘Onymische Wortverbindungen’) and collocations (‘Kollokationen’). The typologies and the nature of distinctions as discussed above on the basis of representative typologies need to be recognised as illustrative for other domains of legal communication. The profile of quantitatively salient phraseological units across distinct areas of legal communications shows significant distinctions. The distinctions between various genre-sensitive typologies remain in compliance with the concept of the heterogeneity of legal language and encourage us to search for further specificities regarding the phraseological profiles of other legal genres. Another marked strand when it comes to typologising phraseological units, as distinguished on a par with the linguistically-oriented (structure-oriented) classifications, is featured by functional orientation. This approach is most recently represented by Biel (2014b) and Płomin´ska (2020), but may be said to fit within Kjœr’s earlier framework (Kjœr, 1990) recognising the systemically controlled networking capacity of normative terms which is exploited to ensure the proper level of intertextuality of a text. Kjœr approached phraseological units from the level of legal communication as a whole and claimed that the function and related level of structural stability of phraseological units are determined by factors inherent to the legal system which allow themselves to be categorised with the following labels: normative prescription, indirect normative prescription and implicit quotation or habitual use. Kjœr offers an answer to the question ‘why’ drawing on knowledge of the legal system and legal communication as a system built on a set of terms embodying a hierarchy of concepts, while Biel and Płomin´ska may be said to approach the function of phraseological units from the perspective of their formative potential as instrument structuring terms, collocations or materialising some rhetorical functions which exceed the level of a sentence. The two typologies are representative of two scenarios. Biel typologises all phrases in the legislative genre while Płomin´ska focuses on routine expressions, only distinguishing between formal and functional typology, the latter being of direct interest to us. The categories of phraseological units for the two are as follows: phraseological units: [TEXT-ORGANISING PATTERNS] [GRAMMATICAL PATTERNS] [TERM-FORMING PATTERNS] [TERM-EMBEDDING COLLOCATIONS] [LEXICAL COLLOCATIONS] (Biel, 2014b, pp. 178–180). routine expressions: [INITIAL FORMULAE] [FINAL FORMULAE] (Płomin´ska, 2020).

Phraseology in legilinguistic research

25

Function comes to the fore here in recognising the various facets of the formative potential of some categories which in common language or in other typologies may be assigned purely ornamental function. The nomenclature for the individual categories adopted by Biel reflects the function-oriented approach (cf. ‘text organising’, ‘term-forming’, ‘term embedding’ in Biel, 2014b, pp. 178–180). Biel claims phraseological units constitute a ‘stable matrix’ (Biel, 2014b, p. 178) to be complemented with fact specific and context specific components. Płomin´ska is much more concise with the division into the text topology-based distinctions. Two aspects need to be emphasised here. Firstly, both the scholars explicitly extend the limits of the conventional definition of phraseological units, and their typologies account for units that cover any strings of words that are stored in our mental models and are found to be recurring (cf. ‘grammatical patterns’). Secondly, they both agree that the formative function of phraseological units extends the limits of a sentence. In Biel, it is confirmed by singling out the category of ‘text-organising’ patterns. In Płomin´ska’s typology the macrostructural operation of phraseological units is confirmed by the bipolar distinction into initial and final formulae (cf. ‘Initialformeln’/ ‘Finalformeln’), which shows that she thinks about phrasemes as text organising patterns. Additionally, the distinction into micro forms and macro forms (‘Mikroroutinen’/ ‘Makroroutinen’) that she proposes from the formal point of view confirms the fact that when supported by statistics she considers phraseological units to be longer chunks, irrespective of their word form combination and structural (in)completeness, provided they contribute to the text make-up. The findings emerging from the most influential studies referred to above show that legal phraseology is an instrument that serves various goals and its use is to be recognised for the significant pragmatic and stylistic potential used for various communicative purposes manifested in various genres. The two strands in the systematics of phraseological units, i. e. the structure and function-oriented approaches, show different ways of thinking about legal phraseology but they primarily testify to the distinct requirements of various genres. Importantly, the fact that in general the typologies based purely on legislative genres focus on functional aspects is determined by the phraseological profile of this genre, which may be described by a relatively significant structural consistency and high level of recurrence of limited, per kind controlled number of systemically used formulae. This makes it possible to account for the text topological arrangement of these phraseological units. The less institutionally bound genres are, the more flexible and varied the prepositional schemes become, hence the typologies based on what has earned the label of secondary genres ( judgements, courtroom genres) cover a wider range of structurally varied units. The short overview of typologies confirms the genre sensitivity of classifications of phraseological units and also points to the significant synergy among

26

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

different languages. The studies conducted on Germanic languages referred to above yielded frameworks largely resting on the same concepts, with only minor distinctions resulting from language structural specificity and/or distinct genres addressed. The classifications conducted on the German language happen to account for grammatical case distinctions and propose self-standing categories for these subtypes as is the case with the periphrastic verbal structures in Bielawski’s typology (Bielawski, 2022, p. 209). This confirms that, from the phraseological point of view, legal language has a supranational identity in that irrespective of the language the core phraseological categories remain constant. Further, the research referred to shows that studies in legal phraseology fit within the extended legal definitional paradigm, and the interest is now not necessarily on the structurally conventional units, rather on the strings of words which are not structurally complete yet found to perform an important discursive function or are subject to variation. Apart from the studies which made phraseology the main topic area and produced typologies of phraseological units following the structural paradigms discussed in the representative examples above, a number of analyses have been conducted where phraseological issues constitute an important aspect of legal terminology. Examples include studies on judicial terms covering types of court categories in translation, for example on English language (Gos´cin´ski, 2016) and Korean language data (Wojtasik-Dziekan, 2020). Some studies focus on the aspect of vague terms in legal terminology in the context of Swedish/Polish translation (Hadryan, 2017, pp. 169–180). Legal phraseology is found to be of importance in the context of linguistic studies, setting the grounds for deriving digital tools for translators (Wiesmann, 2004, pp. 368–370). Finally, phraseology is discussed pervasively in the context of being a necessary element of linguistic competence with regard to legal translation and specifically a formal criterion of assessment in the state exam for sworn translators (Kubacki, 2012, p. 204).

1.3. Binomials on the research agenda The phraseological status of binomials has been well-acknowledged in the literature of the subject despite some displaying features which may be claimed to exceed the framework of standard phraseological units along the conventional definitional paradigm (cf. reversibility, relative formulaicity or even non-formulaicity, structural variation, ad hoc construal). The term binomial alone is found to be used with the aim of encapsulating the generalising approach, whereby – whenever applicable – the denotation extrapolates to multinomials as extensions of binomials.

Binomials on the research agenda

27

In principle Section 1.3 is aimed at presenting issues which contribute to the development of the mainstream, basic definition of binomials. In order to avoid producing another definition-per-definition report, the section adopts the perterm/per label order of discussion, grouping the related concepts to account for historic developments and structure-based or context-specific approaches. Section 1.3.1 focuses on the definitional aspects and Section 1.3.2 presents the main developments within the field of studies on binomials and related concepts.

1.3.1. Concepts and definitions The definition of binomials adopted above covers the phenomenon of same word-class, phrasal parataxis-based coordination, most often linked by conjunction, which is held as a definition that is non-committal to any of the structural subtypes (Wie˛cławska, 2022c). The said phenomenon has been assigned various labels in the literature of the subject, both regarding the English language material and other languages, and the distinctions within one language result from there being collateral labels and/or hypernymically related terms. The German language terms held as equivalents include Zwillingsformeln (Hudalla, 2012, pp. 107–108; Krzemin´ska-Krzywda, 2010, p. 143), Paarfomeln (Bielawski, 2022, p. 204), Binomiale Konstruktionen (Lindroos, 2015, p. 170) or Wortpaare, the latter used by Bielawski (2022, p. 204) as a superordinate term for both synonymous and non-synonymous binomials, also referred to as Phraseologische Wortpaare (Hudalla, 2012, p. 107). In French, scholars use the term les expressions binaires (Gémar & Mattila, 2012, p. 418) or les tautologies (Houbert, 2005, p. 70). The English language terminology in point provides for even more detailed distinctions, which is related to the use of a multitude of labels. The author asserts the use of the term binomial to be legitimate in this work and chose it as denotation of the leading concept, since it is said to be a commonly accepted label for the said linguistic phenomenon (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 7). Following the convention practised in academic discussions, as referred to above, the term binomials will be treated as inclusive of its extended version – multinomial, the latter being occasionally used whenever reference is made explicitly to word strings exceeding bi-component sequences. Likewise, the term bi-component sequence is employed when the focus is on coordination of two conjuncts. The other related concepts that are employed in the English language literature of the subject are discussed here in groups as (i) generic, historical or hyponymically related terms or (ii) set in the context of the nomenclature adopted to refer to the structural features of binomials.

28

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

The generic perspective covers labels which are possibly least restrictive in terms of conceptual load and thus encompasses structural categories which satisfy the most general and unquestionable features of binomials, such as coordination, parallelism and parataxis. Scholars who do not want to relate to any specific category or school of thought and focus on the general structural aspects of the said phenomenon (cf. coordination) often use labels like parallel structures or coordinate structures. This is found to be the case in legal studies which embody the general perspective (Jopek-Bosiacka, 2012, p. 63). Moreover, endeavours to employ relatively uncommissive labels without relating to the semantic motivation-based distinctions or the logical relationship between the components are reflected in the addition of fairly neutral components to accompany the item binomial. These often emphasise the multi-component nature of binomials and – it may be claimed – leave the reader with the feeling of an unregulated approach to the eligibility criteria of the category. The items in point are ‘expressions’ used in binomial expressions (Lambrecht, 1984, p. 753), ‘sequence’ used in sequence of two words (Kubaschewski, 2017, p. 142), nominal sequences (Rutkowska, 2017, p. 178) or binomial sequences (Rutkowska, 2017, p. 181), and finally the item ‘string’ in strings of coordinated words (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 19) or in coordinated strings (Sprau, 2017, p. 219). Some of the labels held as related to binomials may be perceived as their historical equivalents. From the diachronic perspective we can identify terminological denotations of binomials which may be said to be close equivalents for the most conventional types of binomials, that is synonymous and antonymous strings. The proliferation of this category of related terms demonstrates that the new materials on which binomials are analysed and the new methodologies applied catalyse the need for ever new labels which enable researchers to accurately grasp the relevant context, signal the distinctiveness of the material covered by the analysis and distinct context-specific features of binomials. Hence, Toury referred to conjoint phrases (Toury, 1995) and this term appears in contemporary summative reports (Munday, 2016, pp. 181–182). The other terms are: doublets (Altohami, 2020, p. 42; Bázlik & Ambrus, 2008, p. 143; Melinkoff, 1963, p. 121), freezes (Cooper & Ross, 1975, p. 63), and conjoined lexical items (Bakir, 1999, pp. 9–33 after: Khatibzadeh & Sameri, 2013, p. 13779) or twin lexical collocations (Iglesias-Rábade, 2007). The historical labels recur in contemporary studies but usually only in the context of reference to earlier periods of research. The development of new terms testifies to the continuing interest in the stylistic and pragmatic potential of binomials and to the new approaches being proposed. The terminological shift may be held as a sign of the adoption of less restrictive definitions, whereby the referent encompasses concepts which go beyond the traditional framework of structures (cf. etymological motivation, expansion in the process of translation).

Binomials on the research agenda

29

As signalled earlier, the existing terminological maze may be said to have emerged in the context of using hyponymically related terms. This may be said to have resulted, if not directly, from the conceptual extension of the term binomials to legitimise the status of items which earlier were not explicitly recognised as subcategories. The case in point is the category of enumerations, which is occasionally listed as an independent linguistic category exploited in legal stylistics and, as such, it happens to be discussed as an independent phenomenon. Enumerations, also referred to as enumerative words groups (Kubaschewski, 2017, p. 151), or enumerative phrases (Sprau, 2017, p. 209), are defined as strings of cohyponyms that ‘belong to a larger set, a list as it were […]’ (Chapman, 2017, p. 53). Enumerative binomials are defined more specifically as a distinct category identifiable on the basis of semantic relationship, next to such divisions as synonymous, complementary and contiguous (Koskenniemi, 1968, pp. 90–96). Specific functions performed by enumerations are perceived as a rhetorical instrument to induce accumulation, bringing about the air of exceptional status and context of the situation, and in historical texts such phrases include lists of people who serve the king, lists of sins (e. g. ‘stalu & cwalu’>‘theft and murder’) and weapons, (e. g. ‘sweord & stengum’>‘sword and spear’) (Chapman, 2017, p. 53). The concept of extensions, also referred to as extended binomial expressions or extended binomials (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2017), are yet another way to capture the conjoints which exceed the limit of bi-component sequences. The conceptual distinction between extensions and enumerations is not always explicit and it may be said to be a matter of perspective. In contrast to enumerations, within the realm of extensions the emphasis here is on the number of conjuncts, while the term enumerations refers rather to the motivating force bringing the conjuncts together and is mentioned in the literature of the subject in the context of semantic motivation. Some scholars emphasise the interdependence and somewhat blurred distinction between extended versions of binomials and enumerations, as encapsulated in the following quotation: ‘We acknowledge the fact that binomials can sometimes be extended to trinomials and multinomials by adding more coordinated elements, thus shading off into enumerations and lists, e. g. hold, defend and favour’ (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 3). The addition of third and consecutive coordinated elements causes extension of the ‘unit of meaning’ and the conceptual load of the unit thus formed can be described in terms of semantic relations, here enumeration comes to the fore (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2017, p. 208). The first quotation referred to above also shows that trinomials, probably on the basis of their increased frequency factor when compared to longer strings in question, are held apart from the latter (cf. ‘trinomials and multinomials’). The labels adopted for 3-, 4- and 5-component sequences are

30

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

triplets, quadruplets/quadrinomials and quints/quinquenomials respectively (Sprau, 2017, p. 206). Expansions, also expanded structures, expanded binomials, are assumed when basic structural patterns are expanded into more complex schemes, where the primary, single items of the same word-class are coordinated into a binomial or multinomial and additional elements are inserted in-between.4 Expansion is discussed in the context of ‘[…] broadening the definition of binomial beyond a sequence of two coordinated lexemes of the same word-class […] to include a set of two short coordinated phrases’ (Rutkowska, 2017, p. 197). The two categories of binomials are also referred to in terms of the binary oppositions simple structures/binomials vs. complex structures/binomials (Kubaschewski, 2017, p. 145; Rutkowska, 2017, p. 197). Conventionally, in the historical literary texts additional elements may involve an adjective and article (e. g. ‘thobscurte & derknes’>‘the obscurity and darkness’), a determiner ‘thy sciences & thy craftes’>‘your knowledge and your cunning’ (Kubaschewski, 2017, p. 145), or a preposition with determiner to the effect of generating a combination of two prepositional phrases (e. g. ‘hys lyf & of his deth’> ‘of his life and of his death’) (Kubaschewski, 2017, pp. 144–145). From the analytical point of view, expanded binomials are also discussed in terms of their core elements (also ‘bare frame’), whereby these core elements stand for the main structural foundation, where the lexical meaning is embodied and upon which the extension is developed. Core elements stand in opposition to the lexemes that constitute the expansion elements (e. g. adjective), without which the bare frame is self-sufficient in that it may sometimes be reduced to ‘plain juxtaposition’ (Sprau, 2017, p. 208). The attribute ‘core’ is used in yet another context with relation to binomials, whereby it pre-defines the term binomial. Core binomials are characterised by two features (‘formulaic behaviour’ and ‘relative irreversibility’) with this being a parameter for how easily we can conceptualise a given conjoint as binomial which epitomises the most classic, historically grounded candidates to the class of binomials (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 3). The term peripheral binomial (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 3) is at the other pole of the dichotomic distinction. It is emphasised, however, that the distinctions and categorisation run through significantly blurred and fuzzy borders. Other labels covering the hyponymically related concepts that fit in the pattern: pre-modifying or post-modifying attribute specifying the place of binomials on the cline of conventional/less conventional structures involve: true binomials, prototypical binomials and binomials proper. True binomials are 4 Cf. The term expansion or its verbal derivative is also used in the studies on binomials with reference to the process identified in translation that consists in ‘developing phrasal element out of single item’.

Binomials on the research agenda

31

structures conjoined by the conjunction and (Mollin, 2017, p. 283). Prototypical binomials are referred to by some as nominal binomials (Rutkowska, 2017, p. 198) or – less often – as fitting in the pattern: lexeme plus conjunction plus lexeme (Kubaschewski, 2017, p. 142). Binomials proper conceptually cover the most conventional types of binomials, that is synonymous binomials (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a). For synonyms the relationship is presented still more precisely by substituting the term ‘synonymy’ with ‘near-synonymy’ (Chapman, 2017, pp. 51–53). Another set of related terms was identified as encompassing hyponyms covering categories which designate the structural mobility potential of binomials with regard to the capacity of the conjuncts to swap positions. Here the terms in point are those denotations composed of the premodifiers irreversible, fixed, frozen (cf. freezes) (Bunin & Levy, 2006, p. 233; Cooper & Ross, 1975, p. 63; Gustafsson, 1976), non-flexible, and their morphologically derived antonyms non-fixed (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 3), reversible, non-formulaic (Lehto, 2017, p. 262) or non-frozen (Bunin & Levy, 2006, p. 234). Finally, the category of formulaic binomials emerges as the only label which emphasises the compositionality of meaning. This to some degree correlates with the feature of structural stability, which translates into the meaning encapsulated in binomials having compositional structure. Specifically, binomials are claimed to be formulaic when they are ‘[…] stored and employed as a whole in order to save processing effort’ (Giammarresi, 2010, p. 262), that is permanent and fixed unlike temporary non-formulaic items (Hejazi & Dastjerdi, 2015, p. 513). Terminological inconsistency is also noted when it comes to distinct nomenclature used for the structural elements of binomials. Hence, the structural components of binomials are referred to as conjuncts (Motschenbacher, 2013, p. 1), conjoins (Grover, 1999, p. 116), constituents (Kubaschewski, 2017, p. 147) or elements variously predefined to form the following phrases: conjoined elements (Cooper & Ross, 1975, p. 63), coordinated elements (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 3) or core elements with reference to structural distinctions between the simple vs. complex conjoints. The second component of structural frame of conjoints (bi- or multinomials) is the linking element joining the two lexical constituents. The label linking element is found to best encapsulate the said instrument since it is wide enough to cover those cases of asyndetic coordination (i. e. without a conjunction), and the conventional formula, where the binomial frame is based on the lexical link, most typically and and or, referred to as copulative/additive and disjunctive coordinating conjunction respectively (Andrades, 2016)5. Still, to bring together

5 The term conjunction is also used in linguistics in reference to the phenomenon of coordi-

32

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

the varied terminology, other mainstream labels used as denotation of conjunction in the sense given above are coordinator (Grover, 1999, p. 116) and – in the literature on logical relations in the domain of law – connector (cf. disjunctive connector vs. conjunctive connector) (Jopek-Bosiacka, 2019, pp. 117, 122). Conjunctions in binomial expressions are occasionally referred to by their subordinate category labels: coordinating conjunctions and correlative conjunctions (both-and; either-or, neither-nor, nor-nor) (Lehto, 2017, p. 266).

1.3.2. Developments in research on binomials Research on binomials dates back to the mid 20th century (Abraham, 1950; Bendz, 1965) and specifically Malkiel’s publication (Malkiel, 1959) is accepted as the starting point for contemporary approaches. It is held as a landmark here as (i) introducing the very term binomial6 which allowed the acknowledgement of its independent status, in contrast to it previously being regarded as a mere alliterative tool, and at the same time streamlining research into its generic features (ii) constituting a cut-off point to leave apart the past research, which was mostly characterised by a critical attitude towards binomials. The new start meant new research directions, new research domains, and a more positive attitude towards binomials, in that they were recognised as an efficient and effective rhetorical tool, serving stylistic and pragmatic purposes.7 Although the legal context of binomials has been examined earlier, and Grimm’s publication dating back to the 19th century (Grimm, 1816) is referred to most often as representative in this respect for the pre-Malkiel time frame, all major studies on legal binomials actually fit in the 20th century perspective. Jurilingustic studies into binomials may be said to stretch over a wide array of communication modes defined on the basis of conventional dichotomous distinctions: legislative/non-legislative; written/oral; historical/contemporary; authentic/non-authentic text corpora. Studies on legislative genres include analyses of acts passed by Parliament set against the US/British contrast (Frade, 2005; nation, but such use is questioned by some scholars, since it does not incorporate disjunction, i. e. coordination with or, referred to as disjunctive coordination (Grover, 1999, p. 116). 6 The term used previously to study phenomena related to binomials was word pairs, occasionally used in the 20th century by some scholars (Bendz, 1965) and coordinated pairs (Abraham, 1950). 7 The shift towards a positive approach to binomials is not yet completed. The critical research output of the 20th century that is considered to belong to the ‘old school’ approach covers studies by Koskenniemi (1968) and Gustafsson (1975, p. 12). Moreover, not negating the pragmatic and discursive functions of binomials, some fairly recent studies still consider them in the context of pleonastic (Bissardon, 2005, p. 68) and redundant expressions (Cornu, 2005, p. 328).

Binomials on the research agenda

33

Gustafsson, 1984) and EU legislative texts on competition law (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a), while non-legislative genres are represented by judicial texts (Pontrandolfo, 2015) and templates of contracts (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018b). The proportion of studies on oral communication in the domain of law is low and here the benchmark is the study on Europarl in Romance and Germanic languages (Graën & Volk, 2021). Further, studies on historical texts are naturally represented by works on the Scots legal language (Kopaczyk, 2009, 2013), while contemporary legal texts are researched by Altohami (2020), Andrades (2016), Dobric´ Basanezˇe, (2018a, 2018b), Gustafsson (1984), Moreno (2013) and Pontrandolfo (2015). Further, most of the studies were conducted on authentic language corpora, on the understanding that we assign the feature of authenticity to all the texts which were drawn from the actual practice of legal practitioners, whether legislators or other legal practitioners engaged in the legal trade. The study on contract templates by Dobric´ Basanezˇe (2018b) may be held as a representative for non-authentic materials. The studies on legal binomials also vary by the time range of the texts constituting the corpora. The term ‘contemporary’ corpus is reserved for corpora compiled from 20th and 21st century texts and here belong, for example, research into binomials used in Eurolect or recent case-lawbased corpora (Pontrandolfo, 2015). Some studies were conducted on corpora which cover a longer period of time. The study by Altohami covering the time span 1790 to the present constitutes an example here (Altohami, 2020). In order to grasp the general trends in the post-Malkiel research output, and present the most distinctive directions and development paths, the ensuing discussion has been organised around four aspects that were found to have undergone the most significant shifts: (i) widening the definitional scope of binomials; (ii) corpus material, with regard to the languages/language pairs examined and text types/language registers; (iii) methodology; and (iv) functional aspect. The discussion shall adopt the time-reversed perspective in that we apply the present-day perspective to the developments in each of the four fields. One of the major changes in the approach to the research into binomials in current studies is the inclusion of items that show variation in the constituent order and may be referred to as reversible (Mollin, 2013), non-fixed, flexible (Chapman, 2017) or not frozen (Koevering et al., 2020). The old school approach featuring mostly studies published before the turn of the 21st century held that binomials are irreversible and they have a fixed order which was assumed to be determined mainly by phonological constraints (phonologically prominent elements occupying the first positions) and other factors, like semantic prosody, yet the latter with a more marginal role. We need to remember, however, that the demarcation line between the old and new approach is blurred and the reversibility factor is still present in the post-millennial research agenda (e. g. Vorberg et al., 2011).

34

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

Acknowledging reversibility as one of the features of binomials and including such items in the corpora have given rise to new research perspectives. The shift was from researching into word order principles (constraints, mainly phonological) of irreversible binomials to looking for rules that would capture more complex issues regarding the ordering and association preferences. It has emerged that no discrete set of features have been identified that would holistically account for the greater or lesser susceptibility of binomials to the structure disturbance processes. Following Sánchez we may claim that the ‘concept of binomials is thus diluted, as conceived by Malkiel (1959)’ (Sánchez, 2013, p. 292) and contemporarily it is perceived as a dynamic framework of a set of mutually interacting factors which determine the linguistic behaviour of binomials. This new school approach to the research into reversibility may be said to encompass two paths: (i) constraint-oriented yet more progressive in comparison to the early heavily phonology-based studies and (ii) correlational statistics-oriented. The first strand of linguistic investigations focused on the effort to identify new constraints. Besides other factors already examined in previous studies (e. g. phonology, orthography) the new areas examined for this purpose were lexical fields, morphology, sex of the author and target audience. For example, the word order patterns in English binomials were found to be governed effectively by lexical gender (Motschenbacher, 2013). Answers were found in the psychological context and items with which researchers identified more closely came first (cf. proximity principle) (Koevering et al., 2020). The second strand of research addressing constraints proposes a combined factors approach. Some scholars claim that the validity of individual constraints is not to be totally disregarded, and instead they should be viewed as a hierarchical system, and the weight of importance is assigned depending on the widely understood context and purpose of the study. The reversibility potential is best adjudged as an interplay of many factors deriving from the field of phonology in line with the traditional approach, but also from areas such as semantics, language culture and generic context, and these are to be perceived as a complex system and not individually. The relationship between the individual constraints would appear to have been neglected by the majority of studies, with the exception of Levelt & Sedee (2004). Bunin and Levy use three frameworks for analysis of this variation: traditional optimality theory, stochastic optimality theory, and logistic regression, arriving at the conclusion that semantic constraints are given priority over others, as is clear from the following quotation: […] online corpora, we show that a number of semantic, metrical, and frequency constraints contribute significantly to ordering preferences, overshadowing the phonological factors that have traditionally been considered important. […] (Bunin & Levy, 2006, p. 233).

Binomials on the research agenda

35

The novel approach is confirmed in Mollin (2012), where the prefix ‘re-’ used in the phrase making up part of the title (cf. ‘revisiting binomial order’) signals a fresh look at the previously studied phenomena. As mentioned above, the less restrictive approach to which items may be qualified as binomials, and thus studied as such (cf. not fixed, reversible, nonformulaic, not frozen), for some moved the focus of analysis from seeking answers to the question ‘why’ to embarking on studies pursuing an answer to the question ‘how often’ – ‘yes’. The strand of correlational statistics-oriented research focused on the analysis of probability measures for co-occurrence of items constituting binomials. The status of reversible and non-formulaic, non-prefabricated coinages as binomials is confirmed by Sauer (2019, p. 232) and such populations are high on the research agenda today. The novel research aims to determine the measures of reversibility and association (Graën & Volk, 2021). Further, mutual information and frequency data were used to identify rules of co-occurrence of the constituents forming binomials and specialisation of certain nouns to occupy stable positions in binomials (Sánchez, 2013). To complement the concise overview of the research on factors affecting the conjunct ordering preferences, it needs to be stressed here that the continuously expanding set of constraints in point is made possible by approaching the topic from a range of linguistic perspectives. Scholars have gone beyond the limits of analysing binomials as a category, and couch their analyses in a broader context, covering, for example, the sociolinguistic perspective (Motschenbacher, 2013). The studies proposed these days capture binomials ‘in use’ and, to some extent, analyse the same issues but from perspectives which enable the identification of new patterns of interdependencies, sometimes relating to factors already identified. Ordering constraints are approached from the perspective of language acquisition (Hamdan & Guba, 2007), interlingual communication and translation (Giammarresi, 2010; Hejazi & Dastjerdi, 2015). The interlingual aspects of the use of binomials are being addressed with increasing intensity, which is again justifiable on the ground of the increasing globalisation and international nature of the legal trade as well as interest in cross-cultural issues, and is supported by the arrival of new instruments and tools (corpora and digitalised texts) allowing the interlingual perspective to be firmly grasped. The cases in point are studies addressing issues of equivalence cross linguistically, either with the use of comparable corpora (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018b; Pontrandolfo, 2015) or parallel corpora (Graën & Volk, 2021). The need to produce language acquisition instruments has led scholars to take up studies on issues related to the compilation of multilingual dictionaries of binomials (Hamdan & Guba, 2007). The interlingual context covers translation-oriented studies on binomials, and these include aspects of the translator’s competence (Al-Jarf, 2016) or strategies adopted in translation of binomials. The authors

36

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

cited above arrive at a typology of equivalences identified in the translation of binomials and draw conclusions regarding trends in the choice of translation strategies. These are found also to be determined by the sex of translators. One of the findings is that women tend to use modulation more often than literal translation and their translation equivalents are highly emotionally laden, as opposed to men where modulation also prevails but it serves the purpose of conveying more fact-related knowledge (Hejazi & Dastjerdi, 2015). Literal translation of binomials is also confirmed by Moreno (2013). Another aspect of research into binomials that has undergone noticeable developments is the type of corpus material, and by this we understand the languages (language pairs) examined and language registers. Regarding the first point, English still remains on the top of the analyses, which is understandable for two reasons: its leading role in global communication and thus the need to discuss usage-based problems encountered in specialised communication, and the Anglo-Saxon provenience of the binomials proper (synonymous binomials). Yet at the same time new languages have come to fore. The developments here may be measured by the inclusion of other languages examined on their own, in contrast with English or from the translational perspective, and by streamlining studies on multilingual material. The first trend is exemplified by the latest studies on German (Donalies, 2015; Gaweł, 2017; Hofmeister, 2009, 2010) and Spanish language material (Andrades, 2016; Moreno, 2013; Sánchez, 2013). The minority language research includes, for example, English/Arabic (Al-Jarf, 2016), English/Persian (Khatibzadeh & Sameri, 2013), English/Croatian (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a). Regarding the second trend, progress in studies on multilingual material is to be assessed in connection with advanced extraction methodologies currently employed. Admittedly, the pre-millennial critical research output covers studies on multilingual material (Abraham, 1950; Bendz, 1965), yet these studies involved the use of simplified processing techniques, less thematically profiled material and much smaller data sets. The representative multilingual studies conducted contemporarily are very much advanced both methodologically and in terms of hypotheses posed. The representative publications here include studies in Germanic languages (English, German, Swedish) (Graën & Volk, 2021) and a data set of Italian, Spanish and English (Pontrandolfo, 2015). Regarding multilingual data in the context of the generic profile of the corpus material, a gradual expansion of the topical scope is noticeable. This does not mean ignoring research on historical literary texts. On the contrary during the late 20th century a significant proliferation of studies on Old English (Chapman, 2017; Fulk, 2017; Ogura, 2017) and Middle English texts (Kubaschewski, 2017) was noted, which may be considered as a new aspect on the issue of binomials in terms of their stylistics, pragmatics and structure, and also with regard to the

Binomials on the research agenda

37

distinctive style or intergeneric variation of authorship. The basic difference from previous studies on historical texts is that the post-millennial approach is axiologically positive, and the use of binomials is considered as an embellishment rather than anomaly. Along this well-beaten, axiologically-refreshed research path, namely studies of historical literary texts, there exists a parallel trend which covers contemporary texts. Here it is necessary to distinguish between research into (i) mixed-genre type and/or general language corpora and (ii) highly topical corpora which constitute part of the chronologically latest and most advanced methodologies, fitting in with the most recent research desiderata. The first category is represented by studies of British and American English language material, and by studies on a combination of corpora, either purely written, or compiled along the criterion of specific genre afiliation, for example four prose variants (Gustafsson, 1984), British National Corpus texts (Lohmann, 2011; Mollin, 2012) or mixed, whereby various genres are combined, as in the Corpus on Contemporary American English covering the period from 1810–2009 in Google Books (Mollin, 2013). Generic combinations are sometimes enhanced by a combination of modes of communication, written and spoken (Bunin & Levy, 2006, p. 235). The second category of developments regarding the composition of corpus material is noted in the context of highly topical and specialised languages corpora, which are a perfect tool to identify patterns of binomials structure for narrower fields of communication. Examples include hard news corpora (Hejazi & Dastjerdi, 2015), political speech corpora (Khatibzadeh & Sameri, 2013) or a proliferation of studies in legal corpora, representing specific text types, such as contracts (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2017). The definitional expansion, that is the focus for reversibility status and thus inclusion of non-formulaic binomials as well as covering specific language registers and minority languages, is associated with yet another change in the research profile related to the sphere of methodology. Recent years have seen a shift towards heavily computerised studies which enable research into naturally occurring binomials and advanced correlational statistics on large and topical or discourse-specific corpora. The latest research output regarding binomials includes studies fitting in the corpus methodology understood as automatic processing of digitalised material. This increases the reliability of the findings because the analyses are no longer based on intuition, but they include a quantitative component. Recent corpus studies on phraseology can be mainly defined as either corpus-based (deductive), corpus-driven (inductive),8 or a combination of the two (Granger, 2005; Lee, 8 Other related notions are corpus-assisted, corpus-informed/corpus illustrated or corpus-induced studies which denote various levels of interdependence between the corpus data dis-

38

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

2008, p. 94; Pontrandolfo, 2015). A corpus-driven approach, which consists in working on units which have not been predefined for extraction (unsupervised extraction), is, in principle, considered as more advanced with regard to phraseology in general, since it enables the extraction of candidate terms which remain beyond the structural mainstream. However, it is not necessarily a prerequisite in the case of research on binomials, because they have a clear and fairly definite structural profile and as such they optimally require an integrated approach to extraction instead of an unsupervised extraction method. Contemporary studies on binomials are either corpus-driven/corpus-based (Altohami, 2020; Pontrandolfo, 2015) or simply corpus-based (Graën & Volk, 2021), the latter to be appreciated in the case of studies which aim to capture the mainstream representatives of a category, address specific types of binomials, for example those classified as cranberry collocations (Pe˛zik, 2018, p. 45) and/or verify already tested hypotheses on more homogeneous samples. Apart from the technical advance in extraction methodology, significant progress can be observed in the way digitalised data are processed. Automatic data processing is to be valued for the potential to process larger corpora and perform more sophisticated statistical calculations, which is the only realistic approach to big data. In this context, studies on binomials include those that have applied semi-automatic (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a) or fully automatic data processing methods (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2017; Volk & Graën, 2017). Finally, regarding research methodology, the use of parallel corpora for researching binomials is to be seen as a sign of progress. Examples here include the study on an English/Croatian data set (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a) and the analysis on adverbial binomials conducted on a multiparallel corpus (Graën & Volk, 2021). The fourth aspect of research that has been touched by changes is the function of binomials. Apart from axiology-grounded shifts (cf. binomials are no longer a linguistic anomaly) the role played by binomials started to be discussed in the context of identifying their pragmatic, discourse-specific and genre-generative function. The purely stylistic function is still recognised with regard to significantly conventionalised genres. Poetry and law are characterised by extensive use of binomials employed for ritual and ornamental purposes, a stylistic aspect that is still researched today. Specifically, studies conducted on legal texts cover both the diachronic (Galdia, 2009, p. 102) and contemporary perspective (Altohami, 2020; Biel, 2014a, p. 102; Pontrandolfo, 2015), the latter relating also to interlingual communication in the field of law where binomials are claimed to be a feature of translationese (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a; Motschenbacher, 2013). It cussed, manifested by extraction techniques and the hypotheses posed (Grabowski, 2015a, p. 28; Lee, 2008, p. 87).

Binomials on the research agenda

39

needs to be noted, however, that contemporary studies also emphasise the pragmatic effect exercised by binomials, both on the ground of historical and literary texts and in legal communication. In legal texts the pragmatic function of binomials is manifested in the performative, law enactive formulae composed of binomials.9 Also, in the context of interlingual communication in the domain of the legal profession binomials are commonly held as notions materialising specific concepts, or combination of concepts, used in foreign legal systems (Gabrovsˇek, 2011). Post-millennial studies into minority languages emphasise yet another function of binomials noted in the context of language acquisition and production. Namely, binomials are assigned the operational role of an instrument which allows the effective preservation of a language variety as an element of cultural heritage. This is said to be based on its formulaic capacity which is shown to positively correlate with the communicative efficaciousness (Les´niewska, 2019) and thus enables easier language transmission. Specifically, binomials are demonstrated to have survived better in the ritual language of Nepal than in common speech since the first was transmitted orally and oral transmission is specifically effective when it concerns languages strongly marked by parallelism, binomials being an example here (Vorberg et al., 2011). This finding accords with Toury’s conclusions regarding the share of binomials in the phraseological repertoire of languages which develop against an array of foreign patterns, which are young and ‘under the influence of imported models’, in contrast to the wellestablished linguistic systems (Munday, 2016, p. 182). These two related findings confirm that, in their formulaic capacity, binomials may be said to serve the function of the preservation of culture, whether in the form of ensuring the sustainability of language variants from the diachronic perspective, or as markers of an old style in newer language variants. Finally, the latest studies emphasise the role of binomials as carriers of social values in the context of gender politics and communication. It was discovered that one of the semantic constraints prescribing the order of conjuncts follows the social perception of the female and male distinctions, as in ladies and gentlemen (Motschenbacher, 2013). It remains a fact that the existing research findings regarding binomials invariably point to their evolution in distribution and structure in English. This is to be noticed primarily in the long diachronic perspective (Bach, 2017; Kopaczyk, 2013; Mollin, 2017; Schaefer, 2017). Notably, studies show qualitative and quantitative distinctions across registers and languages (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a). The findings show that the trends observed are not absolutely consistent. For example, Mollin claims that ‘binomials are reversible to different degrees’ 9 For more information on performativity in legal language see Witczak-Plisiecka (2007).

40

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

(Mollin, 2013, p. 170) and thus domain-specific research carried out on homogenous corpora is needed.

1.4

Conclusions

The aim set to Chapter 1 was to present a theoretical background pertaining to phraseology that conceptually accommodates legal binomials, putting them against the notion of phraseological units in general and accounting for their structural and environment-specific variants that come to the fore next to the canonical types. The overview of the research directions in the realm of general phraseology yields a somewhat eclectic picture, whereby the traditional perspectives (cf. linguistic frameworks) are shown to be complemented by frequency-based paradigms (cf. distributional frameworks), the latter encompassing the structurally progressive variants that tend to escape the traditional integrative eligibility criteria for phraseological units, that is multi-componentiality, stability, idiomaticity, fixed lexicographic account (Feilke, 2007). Importantly, the structural newcomers prove to be carriers of important discourse functions, intertextual relations. They turn out to be important tools to signal genre identity and perform pragmatic and rhetorical functions. The evolution of the phraseological paradigms is referred to as a shift from analytical to more synthetic approaches to phraseology, the latter capturing wider sociolinguistic aspects of language use (Grabowski, 2015b, p. 52–66). The extended phraseological paradigms employ a number of terms as denotators of the object of analysis. These are: multi-item terms, multi-word units, clusters, n-grams, lexical bundles. In general they cover conceptually overlapping notions and the terminological variantivity here is largely manifested by the various extraction methodologies or affiliation to specific research traditions. Other, related terms are occasionally used to emphasise specific properties of structural profile. Hence, the notion of non-discrete units points to the sequences exceeding the part of speech categories. The term sequential patterns emphasises the contiguity parameter. The evolution in the phraseological eligibility criteria is found to result from linguistic, practical and methodological factors. On the linguistic niveau we notice the significant role of the functional approach to phraseology which promotes the recognition of extended strings. From the practical point of view, the extended phraseological paradigm allows us to reveal stylistic conventions that are specific for different professional environments, specific professional settings, which is important in the context of the focus on specialised phraseology. It allows us to explore various facets of phraseology that are formally

Conclusions

41

unconventional from the perspective of traditional research paradigms, especially in the context of specifically situated discourse, featured by significant institutional bias and/or novel norms, brought about by the global business environment. The practice-grounded rationale for going beyond the traditional research perspectives proves to be important from the user and learner point of view. For the users, recognition of extended, field-specific repertoire of phraseological units is a key to its domain-controlled standardisation and thus effective data processing and data retrieval, assuming an increasing dependence of communication on digital tools. Communication these days involves digital data migration which – in the context of phraseology – means that standardised and context-adjusted use of phraseological units ensures effective communication, both at the level of human communication and computer-mediated communication, the latter taking account of authentic user-based patterns. The advantages for learners resulting from achieving insights into the realm of phraseology covered are not to be underestimated. Scholars are unanimous here as to the increased effectiveness of communication relying on reproduction of longer and contextualised strings of words. Further, the current, progressive approach to phraseology is largely stimulated at the level of research methodologies which mostly draw from the potential of information technology expertise that proposes methods of unsupervised, bottom-up approaches, mechanisms of delexicalized searching or formulae composed of various levels of annotation categories, whereby lemmas, discrete units and word forms are found for one search query. The research into legal phraseology broadly fits in the novel, progressive paradigm in that the focus is on structurally flexible sequences. The existing typologies fall into categories that are universal for legal language (cf. genreresistant typologies) and those covering specific generic contexts, for example genres identified in judicial discourse, derived genres or legislative genres. In the genre-specific typologies, a distinction is made between typologies accounting for categorisation along the structural categories and those focusing on the functional aspects of phraseological units, the latter making it an important element of linguistic competence. The section devoted to binomials states their canonical features, which revolve around the same word-class components, paratactic relation and prevalent linking options, and points to the variations in their structural profile which consist mainly in the ordering scheme, linking elements, extensions and expansions. Reference is made to the mainstream subcategories, sometimes captured as oppositions. Hence, the dichotomy referred to as simple vs. complex binomials sets the canonical same word-class items conjoined by a linking element, as opposed to the sequences extended with additional elements, often an adjective. Further, true binomials are sequences linked by the prototypical

42

Investigating phraseology with focus on legilinguistic research

conjunction and. Core binomials encompass strings featured by formulaic behaviour and relative irreversibility. Prototypical binomials stand for two nominal lexical items in making up the binomial sequence. Binomials proper are featured by synonymy-based motivation. The overview reveals that binomial expressions typical for legal language are also found in other languages. Some of the alternative terms denotating binomial expressions (e. g. conjoint phrases, conjoined lexical items) are either historically alternative denotations or they aspire to point to some subcategories (e. g. doublets). The research into binomials is found to have been evolving. The classical areas, such as ordering constraints or reversibility, are no longer addressed on an individual basis. The research on binomials either follows the combined factors perspective, or embarks on the search for new constraints, touching on, for example, the sociolinguistic aspects. Additionally, recent studies point to the increased interest in interlingual aspects of binomials. Analyses are conducted on a novel type of language material. The corpora are either strictly topical, mixed-genre or multilingual. Rarer languages and contemporary texts are included. The extraction methodologies have been enhanced with unsupervised extraction techniques. These shifts of research paths here brought about less restrictive eligibility criteria for binomials and the category is also found to encompass: non-frozen, not fixed, reversible and non-formulaic items. Although the common, usage-based approach follows in line with the old-school thinking, which held that binomials are relicts of the past having mainly ornamental function that needs to be eliminated, many contemporary analyses, especially those recognising the conceptual, systemic and intertextual layers of legal communication, recognise binomials as important carriers of pragmatic and rhetorical functions.

Chapter 2. Material and methodological framework

This chapter explains the socio-legal context for the analysed material, the methodological aspects of data processing and the hypotheses posed. It starts with a short presentation of the legal field to which the texts within the corpus relate. This part is intentionally considerably law-based in that the author relates to the legal provisions setting the relevant regulatory background. This is intended to confirm the systemic character of the corpus sensu largo, which provides the background context for the specific professional setting of the language material. Further, the readers are taken through a presentation of the principles of corpus compilation, the extraction procedure, pre-processing work, research design, the research questions and related hypotheses.

2.1. Company registration discourse For the purpose of this study, company registration discourse, treated as a communicative ecosystem for the use of binomials, is delimited by professional practices (Bhatia, 2017; Cheng, 2014), and is related to the registration proceedings of a branch of a foreign company to the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register in Poland (hereinafter referred to as company registration). From the point of view of the preceding linguistic analyses, the linguistic material (i. e. company registration discourse) may be said to be related to a number of thematic areas addressed by other studies. It is grounded in commercial law since a significant number of texts concern company law issues. The term commercial law is used as a label delimiting the area of law addressed to refer to the mainstream typology of legal disciplines. The material examined may be treated as corporate discourse or business discourse in that it constitutes communication that has been ‘generated by business organisations’ (Bhatia, 2017, p. 87; Frandsen & Johansen, 2014; Groot, 2014, pp. 237–253; Kraakman et al., 2004, pp. 1–5; Mautner, 2015, p. 240).

44

Material and methodological framework

The very term discourse was chosen here as defining and classifying the area investigated, as opposed to the related concepts of language, communication or text. It signals (i) the distinctiveness of the language so delimited, characterised by rich and common intertextual links, and language patterns extending over sentence level (ii) rich sociolinguistic variation potential and patterns related thereto (iii) generic complexity and related distinctions, these being considered here as discourse level phenomena. The analysis is not heavily discourse analytic, yet it is held as having implications for the discourse.10 The discourse area covered herewithin escapes the conventional delimitation criteria, that is, a theme, genre or institutional basis. The material is defined on the basis of context and is purpose-driven, in that it is produced with the specific intention of company registration. The overall aim brings together those entities performing the professional practices of interest, and further entails a variety of institutional dimensions. Traditional formats were classed along dichotomic distinctions: expert/lay communication, corporate/public communication, prescriptive/ descriptive use of language environment. On the linguistic plateau, the eligibility criteria for the texts to represent the company registration discourse may be accounted for by reference to varied constructs that are well-established on the ground of sociolinguistics, all pointing to a significant role of context in linguistic analyses. The corpus material may be perceived as a product of one community of practice defined as a group of people performing the same practices and thus producing a shared repertoire of language resources (Ostermann, 2015, p. 177). Further, the texts are definable by reference to specific institutional setting or institutional environment (Coupland, 2014, p. 817; Dijk, 2015, p. 205; Zhu, 2014, pp. 35–36). 10 Discourse has many definitions (Cheng, 2014, pp. 13–14; Gordon, 2017, pp. 94–95; Lee, 2008, p. 94) and most commonly the distinct approaches are discussed with reference to various schools of linguistic studies. The most traditional, ‘low level’ definition of the said term has been developed on the basis of functional-typological grammar: ‘language analysed across sentence boundaries’; ‘aspects of grammar that are motivated by patterns that stretch over many sentences’ (McEnery & Andrew, 2012, pp. 133–134). Less-restricted definitions/approaches are adopted on the ground of Critical Discourse Analysis and neo-Firthian corpus linguistics. The first holds that the supra-sentential dimension of discourse analysis is to be materialised by analysing characteristic types of language use in a group of texts or a community, thus foregrounding the social setting and practice component (McEnery & Andrew, 2012, pp. 135–136; Zhu, 2014, pp. 36–37). The latter, represented by Sinclair, focuses on cohesion and coherence aspects of a text (Cheng, 2014, pp. 13, 14). Here the term discourse is employed with a specific application in a somewhat less restricted sense, as a construct capturing the discourse-level phenomena with regard to the sociolinguistically-oriented parts of the analysis (describing language variation, mapping the occurrence of the candidate terms across genres making up the corpus). Here discourse eludes classification among any of the linguistic schools. The use of the term discourse differs from other, stricter accounts of this term in that the study ‘aims at showing some implications for discourse rather than being strictly discourse analytic’ (Lee, 2008, p. 94).

Company registration discourse

45

It thus follows that the corpus material referred to so far as fitting in one and the same communicative environment satisfies the criteria of professional discourse in the sense of being used in professional contexts and for professional purposes (Cheng, 2014). Notably the attribute ‘professional’ here is to be understood in the broader sense, presupposing professionalism as communication between professionals and semi-professionals or lay people (Gunnarsson, 2009, p. 5), which is linked to specific professional practices related to the company registration procedure. The attribute ‘institutional’ in relation to the corpus material is to be understood extensively, that is covering the following bipolar distinctions: public vs. non-public institutions and in-company vs. expert communication. The corpus material is thematically and purposefully homogeneous, yet the texts are naturally affiliated to varied institutional and professional categories (i. e. occupational categories) and as such they present an interesting collection of material for the study of variation. This implies interinstitutional communication from the cross-cultural perspective, where culture implies different legal systems, and institutional setting is understood extensively; that is, the inclusion also of non-public institutions (cf. court vs. company situated communication vs. legal professionals not affiliated with the judiciary). The presentation of the legal context (substantive and procedure-related regulations) covers the time span from 1st January 2001 to the present day, since the earlier cut-off date is the date of entry into force of the main provisions that govern the operation of the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register. These are: the Polish Code of Commercial Companies of 15 September 2000, the Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997, the Polish Act of 20 August 1997 – Provisions Implementing the Act on National Court Register. Today, specific issues related to the operation of branches of foreign companies are regulated under Art. 18(1)/ The Polish Act of 6 March 2018 on Participation of Foreign Entrepreneurs and other Foreign Entities in Economic Activitites on the Territory of the Republic of Poland. Although the court files search criterion was set on the year 2017, which covered any foreign branches of companies in operation at the two divisions of the National Court Register before and in 2017, the latest reference to the Polish Act of 6 March 2018 on Participation of Foreign Entrepreneurs and other Foreign Entities in Economic Activities on the Territory of the Republic of Poland (art. 18, point 1) that is currently in force is entirely justified. The texts comprising the corpus have been retrieved from the court files in 2017 but – in principle – the provisions in point set forth in the previous legal status, that is under Art. 89/ The Polish Act on Freedom of Economic Activity of 2 July 2004 (Jara & Schlichte,

46

Material and methodological framework

2006; Michnik, 2009; Napierała, 2008) were not subject to amendment (Bielecki & Ruczkowski, 2019; Długosz et al., 2019).11 The production of company registration discourse rests on the notion of entry into the register, which entails a procedure aimed at registering a company (cf. a branch of company) into the state electronic system (constitutive entry), and updating information on the status of a company on an annual basis (declarative entry). Entries are effectuated on the basis of documents attached to an application for an entry, lodged by an entity or are made ex officio, according to the provisions of the applicable law. The discourse is materialised in the form of written communication between the court and commercial legal entities. The corpus used for this study comprises a section of this documentation covering all documents written in English, which are English/Polish bilingual texts or are English texts accompanied by translation into Polish (including sworn translations). This short overview of the legal context in principle rests on the distinction into the documents lodged at the court as attachments to the application to have a branch of foreign company registered, as opposed to the documents submitted to the court at later stages of company operation, depending on the circumstances. The said bipolar distinction between registration and operational documentation correlates with the distinction between first (constitutive) and consecutive (declarative) entries to the Register, and with yet another distinction in the documents which are explicitly enumerated by the legislator by title, as opposed to those whose form is not specified in Polish law in view of the systemic legal differences between the relevant states (e. g. different authorities being competent for the issue of specific certificates), and the lex generalis principle which allows for the distinction of various schemes of responsibility among the company officers, as determined by a legal document. Specifically, mandatory documentary attachments to the application for constitutive entry include an act of incorporation (akt załoz˙ycielski), articles of association (umowa) or statutes (statut) with a certified translation attached (Art. 18(1)/ The Polish Act of 6 March 2018 on Participation of Foreign Entrepreneurs and other Foreign Entities in Economic Activities on the Territory of the Republic of Poland). Additionally, entities conducting business activity on 11 […] if the entrepreneur operates under an act of incorporation, articles of association or statutes, [he is obliged] to attach their copies to the registration files of the branch office, together with a certified translation into the Polish language; if more than one branch office is established by a foreign entrepreneur in the territory of the Republic of Poland […] if the entrepreneur operates or pursues economic activity on the basis of an entry in a register [he is obliged] to attach a copy of that entry to the registration files along with a certified translation into the Polish language […] (Art. 89/ The Polish Act on Freedom of Economic Activity of 2 July 2004).

Company registration discourse

47

the basis of an entry to a register are required to submit an excerpt from the Register (odpis z rejestru) confirming the fact of incorporation, also with certified translation into Polish (Art. 18(2)/ The Polish Act of 6 March 2018 on Participation of Foreign Entrepreneurs and other Foreign Entities in Economic Activities on the Territory of the Republic of Poland). Another case when the legislator explicitly states what document is to be submitted is the case of a financial report of a company. The law requires that it is to be submitted on an annual basis (Art. 69(1b)/ The Polish Act on Accountancy of 29 September 1994). Documents qualified to the second category, referred to above, i. e. documents whose form is not specified by the legislator, are discussed on the basis of examples corresponding to the order of entries in the Register (information disclosed in section 1 – section 6 of the National Court Register IT system). In principle, this category of documents is required to confirm specific facts connected with the operations of a branch of a company in a way that is compliant with the legal regulations applicable to the registered seat of the entity. Hence, for example, the legal practice and law prescribe submission of resolutions in the event of disclosing the business name of a company or address, including any changes in such data (Art. 38(1)/ The Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997). The entry into the register may also be made on the basis of a document issued by any competent authority if this is the common practice in the country of provenance of the company. The same procedure (i. e. similar types of documents) holds true in the event of the submission of a power of attorney by an entrepreneur to allow representation of a company (Art. 39(1–5)/ The Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997), and information regarding the initiation or closing of liquidation proceedings of a foreign entity. Resolutions or decisions are lodged with the National Court Register files to confirm the suspension of a member of a company body (Art. 39(5)/ The Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997). Finally, declarations are submitted to confirm the selection of the applicable law (Art. 38(14)/ The Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997). Power of attorney is entered into files to inform the National Court Register about the appointment of a proxy holder (Art. 39(1)/ The Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997). The overview presented above needs to be complemented with certain information about the category of adjunct documents, the need for which arises in connection with the interlingual context of company registration discourse. A case in point is the provisions of the Convention of 1961 on the requirements imposed on public documents submitted at foreign institutions. According to the provisions set forth in Art. 1/ Convention of 5 October Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation of Foreign Public Documents, concluded 5 October 1961, any public document is to be accompanied by an Apostille, which has a

48

Material and methodological framework

standardised form. Legalisation is not required in the case of documents issued in countries which are signatories of the Convention. It emerges from the systemic search of court files that the range of documents retrieved as meeting the search criteria (drawn up in English, bilingual or accompanied by Polish translation) exceeds the types specified, specifically for the operations of a branch of a foreign company in Poland in the relevant legal provisions referred to above. For example, there is a significant number of documents produced by authentification authorities (e. g. notary public) in connection with (i) the requirement of the notary authentification of copies, once copies are submitted or (ii) the fact of the document being originally drawn up in the notarial form in the document’s source country. In the latter case the translation covered both the text of authentification (notary clause) and the document proper. Many documents are bilingual although only Polish is required to be processed by the court. Some documents have two or three translations: the in-house translation, the translation performed by a foreign public notary and a translation certified by a Polish sworn translator, as required by law. The varied titles and rich institutional context are found to be an essential feature of the documents. This is accounted for by the fact that in many cases the information disclosed to the National Court Register, as prescribed by the legislator, is often delivered in the form compliant with the applicable regulations of the source country. Further, a significant number of documents were found to be highly repetitive per one and the same company, both in form and at the level of content. Admittedly, the type of information to be disclosed in the National Court Register is specified mainly in Art. 38 and 39/ The Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997. The range of facts to be disclosed is limited, yet since it is mandatory to report on any changes to the factual situation the court files include a number of repetitive documents varying only in personal data (e. g. change of commercial proxy).

2.2. Corpus design and pre-processing stage The analysis relies on a large collection of personally digitalised texts, retrieved from the court files at two divisions of the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register in Kraków: (District Court for Kraków-S´ródmies´cie, XII Economic Division, National Court Register [Sa˛d Rejonowy dla KrakowaS´ródmies´cia w Krakowie; XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sa˛dowego]) and Rzeszów (District Court in Rzeszów, XII Economic Division, National Court Register [Sa˛d Rejonowy w Rzeszowie; XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sa˛dowego]). The corpus comprises texts related to the entities (branches of foreign companies) for which the two divisions of National Court Register

Corpus design and pre-processing stage

49

were competent as of 31 December 2017. On the formal side (extraction), apart from being qualified as company registration discourse, the texts may be classed as a category of texts processed in the court proceedings when adjudicating ‘cases with a foreign element [sic]’ (Gołaczyn´ski, 2015). The corpus compilation was preceded by an online survey conducted at all the divisions of National Court Register in Poland,12 the results of which allowed the author to formulate the specific search criterion which enabled the retrieval of a representative sample of texts and ensured exhaustive systemic and per category text retrieval. The search criteria exploited in retrieving the texts from court files may be defined as covering a specific spatiotemporal context. Precisely, the court files searched pertained to: (i) all branches of foreign entrepreneurs for which the said court divisions were competent in view of the registered seat in Poland, and (ii) entities entered into the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register, where the shareholders do not have information on REGON (a unique nine-digit identification number for business entities) and PESEL (a unique eleven-digit identification number for private entities), which was indicative of their foreign provenance and thus interlingual communication. In terms of the time factor the court files in the two representative divisions of the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register were systemically pre-defined, as covering all entities having submitted a register entry for the year 2017, which was indicative of their active status. Further, the category of entities was narrowed to branches of foreign companies, which ensured a spatially homogeneous context. The composition of the corpus may be defined in a concise way by reference to a few buzz words which recur in the literature of the subject in the context of recommended research methodologies, and these are: authentic texts, non-legislative genres (Biel, 2018b, p. 29; Pontrandolfo, 2019), parallel (translation) corpus (Altenberg & Aijmer, 2000, p. 16; Cartoni et al., 2013, p. 24; FrankenbergGarcia, 2004, p. 9; Macken et al., 2011, pp. 376, 386; Rabadán, 2007, p. 484; Salkie, 2018, p. 140; Vanderbauwhede et al., 2011, p. 442; Vigier & Sánchez Ramos, 2017, p. 13; Vintar, 2008, p. 42; Zufferey & Cartoni, 2014, p. 368), and thematic corpus (Biel, 2018a, p. 23). The design of this corpus may be said to satisfy these conditions. It is authentic and homogeneous in terms of common context. The texts may be classified as secondary, and specifically target genres (Bhatia, 2006, pp. 1– 12 The survey covered 21 divisions of the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register in Poland. The findings allowed the drawing of conclusions regarding the adequate proportion and selection of court locations to be searched. Two representative court divisions were identified, which – from the statistical point of view (scope of court competence) and in view of the category of volume of the ‘cases with a foreign element’ processed – were held as representative for the said communicative environment from the national perspective, and thus selected for corpus compilation (Wie˛cławska, 2018a).

50

Material and methodological framework

7), and as such they satisfactorily complement the plethora of legicentric corpus studies dominating the research agenda (Pontrandolfo, 2019, p. 14). The parallel corpus covering the English and Polish component covers 5,628 texts and 2,106,587 tokens.13 The corpus material has been manually pre-processed following accepted standards (Aijmer, 2009; Lehmberg & Wörner, 2009; Schmidt, 2009). At the stage of text digitalisation the texts making up the corpus were annotated with the following metadata: within

Specifically, in the order to be listed, the above metadata included a unique document number, five institutional categories, twelve professional/occupational positions, the sex of the author, year of source text in three time slots, genre, year of target text in four time slots, three categories of translation type, reference to the National Court Register and unique registration number, number of words in the source text and target texts, the latter proceeded by source text country code.14 The subsequent stage involved automatic tagging in the lexical processing programme Sketch Engine.

2.3. Extraction procedure Candidate terms is the overarching, technical term for the units of analysis covered by the study – binomials. The definition of binomials, as adopted for the purpose of this analysis follows the non-restrictive definition tradition (Kopaczyk & Sauer, 2017, p. 3; Sauer, 2019, p. 232) and hence the candidate terms examined in the following sections are defined as word pairs of conceptually related, same word-class lexemes, joined by a linking element (comma or a conjunction), not necessarily formulaic. Again, along the well-acknowledged paradigms, such bi-component sequences stretching over longer sequences are considered to be multinomials. To prevent a proliferation of terms, and in view of the obvious parallelisms, the term binomial is used to denote both bi-component sequences and multinomials, except in cases where one of the two are applicable on the basis of exclusivity. 13 Other studies conducted on the corpus in the interim stage of its compilation and digitalisation exploit its monolingual (Wie˛cławska, 2021) and bilingual potential for various categories of discrete units (Wie˛cławska, 2020b, 2020c). 14 For a more extensive description of the context categories coded for the texts compiling the corpus see Wie˛cławska (2020a).

Extraction procedure

51

This relatively non-committal definition adopted throughout the ensuing study encompasses a wide range of structural variants. The bipolar distinctions featuring the population of candidate terms traverse the reversible/irreversible, formulaic/non-formulaic dichotomies. The analysis covers candidate term which are not necessarily formulaic and not necessarily contiguous (cf. expanded binomials), for which the status of binomials might be questionable according to more restrictive typologies. The candidate terms extracted have the status of non-discrete units as sequential and syntagmatic categories, exemplified also by clusters, lexical bundles, motifs or P-frames (Legallois et al., 2018, p. 165). The automatic extraction of the candidate terms from Sketch Engine, which was used to lexically process the corpus texts, was operationalised with the use of supervised detection (Longerée & Mellet, 2018, p. 146), whereby the extraction formulae provided for the extraction of specific candidate terms pre-defined for word-class profile, linking element and sequence. Specifically, the syntagmatic approach adopted in data extraction was utilised by making use of the computer query language formulae for the individual parts of speech as a structural feature of binomials and multinomials. The specific search queries were composed of partially delexicalized formulae, whereby the linking devices were proposed explicitly, making here a closed class representation. The design of the search formulae was individual and it provided for alternative choices of some phrase components and a variable, albeit limited number of phrase components (up to 5 conjuncts inclusive). Each formula is custom-designed and was construed with the use of symbols related to distinct annotation levels, that is tag and word level, making use of the basic regular expression principles. The formulae for the five word-class categories are as follows: adverbial binomials or multinomials: [tag="RB.?"][word=",|neither|nor|by|and|or"]){1,4}[tag="RB.?"] adjectival binomials or multinomials: [tag="J.*"][word=",|neither|nor|by|and|or"]){1,4}[tag="J.*"] preposition: [tag="IN"][word=",|neither|nor|by|and|or"]){1,4}[tag="IN"] prepositionanl binomials or multinomials: [tag="IN"][tag="J.*"][tag="IN"])|([tag="N.*"][tag="IN"]) [word=",|neither|nor|by|and|or"]){1,4}(([tag="IN"][tag="J.*"] [tag="IN"])|([tag="N.*"][tag="IN"] nominal binomials or multinomials: [tag="N.*" & tag!="NP|NPS"]{1,} [word=",|neither|nor|by|and|or"]){1,4}[tag="N.*" & tag!="NP|NPS"]{1,} verbal binomials or multinomial: ([tag="V.*"][word=",|neither|nor|by|and|or"]){1,4}[tag="V.*"]

52

Material and methodological framework

Each of the candidate term search formulae were accompanied with the search formula for metadata, which was produced at the stage of text digitalisation and coding for sociolinguistic variables (cf. initial coding discussed in previous section): within

The extraction formulae provide for the retrieval of simple binomials fitting in the scheme of a sequence of between two and five items of the same word-class linked by comma or pre-defined conjunction. The generality of the search formulae ensured extensive results but it also made it possible to identify cases of extended binomials at the manual clearance stage. The extraction procedure was performed in two stages: a fully automatic stage and semi-manual stage. The first stage of extraction (automatic retrieval of candidate terms from Sketch Engine and automatic data clearance in Sketch Engine – clearance 1) was based on the cut-off point set at 5 occurrences. The quantities are provided in raw frequencies and in percentages to ensure reliable statistical calculations. The second stage of extraction, referred to as semimanual clearance (clearance 2 and clearance 3) slightly changed the initial occurrence rate of some of the candidate terms but it did not affect the final calculations of results. Clearance 1 was performed on the data referred to as the virgin sample and it involved eliminating the system inherent noise, whereby elimination covered in principle cases of errors in automatic tagging and extraction results that ran counter to the author’s intention (e. g. comma as a subordinate conjunction). These clearance operations were conducted on the basis of the key words in context without reference to the immediate context, with the use of the sorting functionality in Sketch Engine. Clearance 2 aimed at the elimination of multiplication, defined here as occasional cases of shorter strings being extracted twice, the second time as part of longer sequences. Cases of such related candidate terms were fished out whenever they occurred in the same place in a corpus and text, that is shorter candidate terms bearing the same token number as longer strings that occurred within the range of the same five slots were left out (cf. illegitimate range). This had already been performed on the data in .xls format and it was an automatic and manual procedure. The automatic clearance of such multiplications at this stage was run with the use of a logical function. Manual operation was necessary for the elimination of the residual multiplication which could not be removed by the operation of the computer logical function for technical reasons. The manual

Extraction procedure

53

operation worked to the effect that any strings that made up part of the longer sequences occurring within the range of 5 neighbouring tokens (cf. legitimate range) were eliminated. Clearance 3 was aimed as the final selection stage of the candidate terms. Here the selection was based on the examination of the immediate linguistic contexts and it was intended to eliminate other cases of non-conformity with the intended lexicogrammatical profile of candidate terms. Setting the threshold for the automatic extraction allowed for elimination of markedly marginal candidate terms that are incidental, which – in principle – complies with the assumption that phraseology should follow the techniques of demography and empirical sociology investigating typical phenomena instead of focusing on what is rare and unique (Grabowski, 2015a, p. 27). However, at the same time the relatively low frequency cut-off value adopted for the research enables the author to include in the data set the candidate terms that – although not incidental – are relatively low in the frequency ranking, but as such provide information on the structural stability factor (structural variantivity of binomials), enable investigation of the sociolinguistic variation and enable capture of the wholistic perspective. Such an approach admitting inclusion of fairly low frequency candidate terms can be justified both on the ground of sociology, which conditions the frequency threshold on the type of research questions posed and the adequate statistical significance score for 95% confidence level (Babbie, 2008, pp. 21–76), and on the ground of the specific context of this research. Firstly, binomials constitute an exceptions category of phraseological units whereby the criterion of formulaicity and pre-fabrication is not an absolute condition. Some of them are coined on the spur of the moment and thus low frequency items are included in the population (Sauer, 2019, p. 232). Secondly, the type of corpus exploited for the analysis (systemically compiled and contextually homogeneous) minimises the incidental character of binomials strings otherwise matching the structural criteria. Rarer candidate terms are assumed to point to variation paths rather than being disqualified from analysis. Thirdly, the marked frequency distribution scheme of the candidate terms across genres serves as an argument here (Grabowski, 2015a, p. 29). The candidate terms extracted were coded for their structural and semantic properties (primary coding). For the part of speech variable the values were: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition. Regarding the number of conjuncts parameter, the population of candidate terms included representatives of all the values, that is binomials to quints. Coding for semantic motivation revealed categories which enabled the adoption of a context specific conceptual framework.

54

Material and methodological framework

The candidates were also coded for (i) semantic fields they conceptually related to, (ii) structural and functional variantivity15 (iii) and translation patterns (three simplification manifestations).

2.4. Research design The research format adopted here can be accounted for in reference to a number of methodology-related concepts and these are corpus-based studies/corpus studies, the usage-based approach and functionalism. Hence, the study is designed in the usage-based paradigm in that we deal with empirical data actually retrieved from the professional practice in the domain of commercial law and related translators’ output. We deal with usage-based, rather than intuition-based data processing, both in the intralingual and interlingual perspective. It may be described as aspiring to be ‘functionally-oriented’ in the broadest sense of the term in that it seeks to present a functional explanation to formal (lexicogrammatical) distinctions, which is held as the main concern of functionalism (McEnery & Andrew, 2012, p. 171). Both parts of the analysis, i. e. the monolingual (population 1) and bilingual stages (sample 1) attempt to account for sociolinguistically-determined variation (i) in the usage of specific types of binomials and multinomials, if any, and (ii) in the translation patterns related thereto. The study is couched in the functionalist paradigm also with regard to the genre-related perspective, where variation is traced along the text genres identified individually for the pragmalinguistic context subjected to the analysis. The conceptual framework has been built around the concept of context parameters affecting variation identified running through the variables of setting and participants. Further, the role of corpus may be described in principle as a corpus-based (deductive) approach, in that the supervised method of extraction was employed.16 Although deemed to be of restricted exploratory value with regard to 15 The term variantivity is used here with reference to the potential of legal language to express one function with structurally and/or functionally alternative formulae (cf. Wie˛cławska, 2019b). The term variantivity captures the perspective of a candidate term which happens to have formally and/or conceptually related embodiments, and it is to remain distinct from variation which is discussed in the contexts of factors causing distinctions. Variantivity is introduced here to denote the existence of structurally or functionally related formulae, whereby the individuals thus related differ with regard to the linking element, grammatical forms or paradigmatically related synonyms (structural varianitvity) or convey the same sense by conceptually contiguous yet non-synonymous terms (functional variantivity). The notion is used with reference to both monolingual and bilingual samples. 16 The inferential/deductive components that correlates with the notion of corpus-based analysis may be said to be enhanced by elements of induction [corpus-driven approach] at

Research design

55

limiting the range of structurally unconventional binomials, the said technique for corpus investigation (the set of candidate terms was deliberately limited to the pre-defined syntagmatic units) is considered as appropriate to answer the research questions. The corpus material is topically and contextually homogeneous and variationist analysis on a structurally pre-defined set of candidate terms that have been exhaustively retrieved from court files is expected to yield reliable results. The research questions to be answered, as well as the methodology and tools employed, address the research perspectives that are extensively recommended and currently underrepresented, and promote the use of thematic corpora and inclusion of empirical data sets incorporating the contextual factors (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2014, p. 108) The methodological framework is characterised by eclecticism regarding the various perspectives it brings together. The study largely relies upon quantitative data, yet it also has a strong qualitative component that is manifested in the assignment of structure-based and translation-related values to the candidate terms. Further, it is deductive but bears elements of an inductive approach with regard to the simplification of the exploratory component. It is corpus-based and empirical since the data are authentic and accompanied by rich metadata descriptions. Further, the analysis employs pure statistical processing which is held as indispensable but entirely absent in many analyses (Hansen-Schirra & Gutermuth, 2015, p. 66) and it includes more advanced types of multiple data sets, like clustering, as recommended in the literature of the subject (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2014, p. 29; Zanettin, 2013, p. 32). Finally, automatic processing of the data is combined with manual verification and data annotation when digitalising the texts. Also, coding for structural properties and translation shifts (cf. translation patterns) was performed manually. The correlation effect in the context of frequency distribution schemes and variationist phenomena was examined between variables that are inherent for the said communicative environment and naturally operative there. The frequency distribution schemes for the structural categories of binomials were presented against the genres actually identified in the authentic corpus and were tested for their variation capacity against the sociolinguistic variables that were actually identified, that is time, place, authorship and type of translation factors. The key terminological distinctions made in the analysis are as follows: part of speech, number of conjuncts, linking element and semantic motivation categories, which were assigned the status of variables (structural variables). The sociolinguistic distinctions run through sociolinguistic variables (e. g. country of origin, year of origin of the source text document, authorship). The subcategories points where the author explores new surface manifestations of translation features (apart from reduction – insertion and conjunction distortion).

56

Material and methodological framework

embodying specific structural or sociolinguistic identities are referred to as values/variable indicators (e. g. adjectival binomials). The categories of binomials are identified either as featured by individual values, i. e. structural features (type per structural feature) or as featured by a combination of values (type per aggregate structure). The term structural category is used as covering both types, depending on the context. The notion of structural profile is to be distinguished from the notion of aggregate structural profile, the latter resting on a set of structural features. The aim of the analysis conducted on the monolingual data (population 1) is (i) to ascertain the use of specific structural categories, i. e. types of binomials (types per structural feature) in company registration discourse as a whole, and in correlation with specific genres inherent in the said discourse, (ii) to examine the variation potential of the frequency distribution schemes against three sociolinguistic variables (diatopic, diachronic and authorship perspective), (iii) to derive a model of types of quantitatively and cognitively salient structural categories, i. e. types per aggregate structure and (iv) to identify the sociolinguistically conditioned variation patterns for the frequency distribution schemes and the context situated model. Distinction shall be observed between the notion of scheme and model. The monolingual population of candidate terms is discussed in the context of a frequency distribution scheme, construed on the basis of types per structural feature. In turn, the representation of types per aggregate structure that are quantitatively and cognitively salient in company registration discourse is referred to as a model of types per aggregate structure and it is construed on the basis of types per aggregate structure. The analysis conducted on the parallel data (sample 1) aims at identifying translation patterns, in principle also referred to as translation shifts, translation features, translation laws (Munday, 2016, p. 184), translation regularities, or – most commonly – translation universals. The varied terminology in point results from the evolution of the concept over time, and an attempt made by some scholars to contrive a label that would not aspire to being unexceptionally operative languagewise or contextwise, which also remains the intention here. In the forgoing the term translation pattern is found to be most adequate for two reasons (i) as interpreted literarily it is safest to operate exception-free and (ii) as it effectively encompasses the additional variationist perspective, i. e. the operation of translation feature under variationist effect. The three phenomena qualified as simplification are labelled simplification manifestations. The operationalisation of the verification of the hypotheses for population 1 (hypothesis 1 and related hypotheses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) involves the following set of operations:

Research design

57

(i)

quantification and qualitative analysis of the structural parameters of binomials in English company registration discourse and correlations between them – frequency data for the variables of part of speech, linking element, number of conjuncts and semantic motivation; (ii) identification of the tentative correlation patterns regarding genre-specific frequency distribution schemes for the individual types per structural feature – multiple correspondence analysis; (iii) presentation of an exhaustive description of the repertoire of binomials in company registration discourse, based on their quantitative and cognitive salience per combination of values (clustering the structural features along the principle ‘each with each’ and merging the quantitatively minor categories) – model of types per aggregate structure; (iv) examination of the context-specific data for variation capacity by identifying bipolar schemes for relative distinctions in the distribution of specific structural categories of candidate terms; this contrastive component of the study rests on testing the sociolinguistically conditioned variation with regard to diatopic, diachronic and authorship-based dimensions – with the use of multiple correspondence analysis and forest plot analysis, the latter per three individual structural features and per model of types per aggregate structure; The operationalisation of the verification of the hypotheses for sample 1 (hypothesis 2 and related hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2) rests on: (i) quantification and qualitative analysis of the parameters related to simplification and parameters of translation variation with regard to the intensity of the simplification process; (ii) identification of general correlations between the structural variables (part of speech and semantic motivation) and sociolinguistic variables (type of translation and year of translation) on the one hand and dependent variables (simplification parameters) on the other – multiple correspondence analysis for simplification across the phrase structural and sociolinguistic contexts (cf. linguistic vs. extralinguistic factors); (iii) derivation of a bipolar comparative scheme for the variation potential of the three manifestations of simplification per linguistic and extralinguistic factors – forest plot analysis for reduction, insertion and conjunction distortion per part of speech and semantic motivation (linguistic factors) and type and year of translation (extralinguistic factors).17

17 The following software was used to obtain results: TIBCO Statistica 13.3.0 Software and R Programme.

58

Material and methodological framework

The interpretation of the data related to population 1 is conducted with reference to: (i) the assessment of the discriminatory power of the structural values subjected to the variation test in the context of diatopic, diachronic and authorshipbased distinctions in the frequency distribution of candidate terms and this will be ascertained on the basis of the p value, and (ii) the dynamics of variation per specific structural feature; the assessment here is based on the odds ratio score distinctions of a structural feature per sociolinguistically bipolar context. The data related to sample 1 (simplification, including the context of translation variation) are discussed in the context of (i) the discriminatory power of the values within structural and sociolinguistic variables in predicting the simplification positive cases, which will be ascertained on the basis of the p value, and (ii) the dynamics of variation per specific structural feature, assessed on the basis of the odds ratio score per manifestation of simplification and (iii) variation consistency with regard to the linguistic and extralinguistic factors and values related thereto, assessed on the basis of the range of deviation from point ‘1’, where ‘range’ is to be understood as the relative persistency of a feature in discriminating translation patterns in either direction. Conclusions related to the analysis of parallel data involve comparison of which structural and context-specific categories are more prone or resistant to translation variation and thus additional terms are employed here. Here, the discrimination potential in the pairs of two structural and sociolinguistic variables is compared and the said variables are ranked according to their variation capacity. The parameters contrasted here in the said pairs of variables are the p value and odds ratio score respectively. The comparison is conducted per one manifestation for the two linguistic and extralinguistic factors respectively. The term discrimination potential referred to in the conclusions is to be understood distinctly from discriminatory power used with regard to individual values to assess the statistical relevance of a variable. Regarding the very structure of candidate terms, the following terminological distinctions will be observed in the discussion unless quotations are referred to where author-specific terminology is occasionally referenced. The two categories conventionally distinguished regarding the structure of binomials are linking item and conjunct, the first covering comma or a conjunction and the latter a specific part of speech, also referred to as a component predominantly when reference is made specifically to the number of lexical items making up the candidate terms (cf. bi-component sequences). Whenever a comma is excluded out of the system the author uses the term conjunction to avoid other linking elements conjoining the conjuncts. More specific labels, disjunctive connector and conjunctive connector, are used after Jopek-Bosiacka (2019) to differentiate between the two main types of logical relations as descriptive labels for and- and or-based binomials.

Research questions and hypotheses

59

The analysis involves processing imbalanced populations (cf. population 1 and sample 1), which is conditioned by the actual volume of the empirical data retrieved using the exhaustive search formula. This is not perceived as inhibiting any comparative analyses since the analysis is conducted on the scores in percentage and not on the basis of raw frequencies, the latter being added for information purposes only. To ensure reliable results, the statistical analysis was supported with further analysis of the statistical significance index and – when possible – the author used the technique of grouping quantitatively marginal values with the aim of arriving at trends based on qualitatively homogeneous and thus cognitively salient types (grouping as part of secondary coding). The grouping of specific values is to be held apart from grouping of structurally profiled types performed with the aim of generating a holistic model of binomials in company registration discourse (cf. clustering). Finally, the bilingual data set for analysis of translation patterns constitutes the total representation of all the bi-component part of speech categories, except for nominal ones, where a random sample had to be derived to minimize the frequency distinctions. The pool of nominal bi-component sequences was derived from population 1 of all nominal bi-component sequences, as a number ensuring an admissible estimation error range up to a maximum of 2.5%, with a confidence level of 95% (Steczkowski, 1995, p. 190).

2.5. Research questions and hypotheses The aim of the research project has been established on the basis of two chief assumptions that were formulated after having analysed the findings and conclusions proposed in the subject literature, relating to (i) the intralingual and (ii) interlingual behaviour of binomial expressions. Regarding the first perspective, the sequential strings are structurally decomposable to individual types, identifiable by features related to part of speech, semantic motivation, number of conjuncts and linking element profile. The distribution of the per structural feature types is shown to be distinct for various literary genres and dynamic from the diachronic perspective. The candidate terms vary with regard to some key parameters such as flexibility, fixedness, formulaicity. The evolutionary and dynamic nature of binomials and multinomials is evidenced by their reversibility potential and distinct representations in various types of texts. With regard to interlingual patterns, acknowledging the obvious difficulties in translating phraseology, especially the strongly culture-sensitive categories (Kochman-Haładyj, 2021; Krzyz˙anowska & Grossmann, 2018; Szerszunowicz, 2012) the basic assumption repeated across research findings that is of rele-

60

Material and methodological framework

vance to this work is that standardised and conventionalised language, elaborate phraseology (Laviosa-Braithwaite, 2011, pp. 288–289), is prone to simplification, qualified as stylistic simplification. The historical background for translation patterns regarding binomials dates back to Toury’s theory, in which he claimed that the share of conjoint phrases (cf. binomials) in use varies depending on its dependence on related foreign patterns. Specifically, in translation there happen to be more conjoint phrases as a result of them being copied from source texts or substitution of single items from source texts with conjoint phrases in the pursuit of precision and out of fear or insecurity (Toury, 1995, pp. 103–104, 111). The referential range of the term simplification, as adopted in the foregoing, should be explicated in relation to a few related terms − repetitions and reductions − which are to be kept distinct from simplification denoting the textual fit of a document (cf. T universals), dealing with reduced lexical density, poorer type/token ratio and other manifestations of ‘reduced variety’ in target texts (Chesterman, 2004; Laviosa-Braithwaite, 1997; Zanettin, 2012). In some literary works the phenomenon of diminution of complex phraseological units with regard to the ‘equivalence relation’ (cf. S-universal) (Biel, 2014a, p. 102) is also included as simplification (cf. Biel, 2014a), used specifically in reference to repetitions and as such is an equivalent to reduction (Baker, 1993; Chesterman, 2004), or is used by some as an umbrella term in the said context which covers reductions and other related phenomena. Regarding the latter, reference is made by some scholars to ‘reducing or omitting repetitions’ (Blum-Kulka & Levenston, 1983; Laviosa-Braithwaite, 2011, p. 289). In some works the reduction of repetitive strings is discussed in sections devoted to simplification (Biel, 2014a, p. 102). In this study, simplification is used as a blanket term for any processes of disintegration of sequential strings that consist of the diminution of binomials. Reduction here is one of the manifestations of simplification. The hypotheses are to be verified by the examination of two distinct populations of candidate terms: the monolingual population 1, and the bilingual sample 1, the latter comprising parallel data. Hence, the main research question in the empirical study with regard to the English language material alone (population 1) relates to the structural profile of the candidate terms, specifically in the communicative environment covered by the analysis: Research question no. 1 (population 1) Can conclusions be drawn regarding the linguistic profile of binomials in contemporary company registration discourse based on statistical analysis of the empirical data retrieved from court files in the light of the findings available in the literature of the subject on this unit of analysis? If ‘yes’ what would the conclusions encompass?

Research questions and hypotheses

61

Hypothesis 1 The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data allows us to (i) draw conclusions regarding the structural profile of binomials in the communicative environment examined, that is word-class profile, length of sequential strings, linking element and semantic motivation (on the basis of the quantitative salience of scores of the individual indexes); and (ii) gather data concerning the frequency distribution scheme of the individual types per structural feature per genre, represented in the company registration discourse (correlation-based scores). Research question no. 2 (sample 1) What is the degree of simplification affecting binomials in the English/Polish translation of company registration discourse on the basis of the data emerging from the qualitative analysis of parallel data? Hypothesis 2 On the basis of the qualitative analysis of the concordance hits, including the candidate terms in their textual environment, we may identify consistently occurring incidence of simplification manifested as reducing bi-component strings to a single element. Some other manifestations of simplification are expected to be identified (inductive part of the analysis). It is assumed that the phenomenon of variation in translation in the repertoire of binomials in Polish translationese is largely grounded on the operation of simplification, whereby reduction is observed. This is supported by the findings discussed in the literature of the subject (Biel, 2014a, p. 102). However, scholars note that the operation of this translation universal is to be verified on different language pairs and registers. Also, the structure of binomial expressions is complex (e. g. formulaic vs. flexible) and this may affect translation patterns (Dobric´ Basanezˇe, 2018a), thus necessitating the search for patterns in closely delineated areas of communication (both thematically and contextually). It is expected that simplification operates with varied intensity and it has more manifestations than reduction. The hypothesis may be verified by an analysis of the frequency patterns for the well-established manifestation of simplification and correlation of the results with the variables concerning the structure of binomials. Additional manifestations of simplification are expected to be identified. The main research questions and the main hypotheses posed trigger further, more detailed research questions and related hypotheses on the intra- and interlingual plane:

62

Material and methodological framework

Research question 1.1 (population 1) What are the quantitatively and cognitively salient types of sequential strings that are actually used in the company registration discourse? The question pertains to the types identified per individual structural features and to the types generated by clustering the individual structural features, that is types per aggregate structure. Hypothesis 1.1 It is assumed that in spite of the descriptive framework capturing the generic features of binomials, as proposed in numerous critical studies (Gustafsson, 1984; Kopaczyk, 2013; Malkiel, 1959; Mollin, 2017; Sauer, 2017), the types of candidate terms draw a dynamic and evolution-oriented picture, whereby (i) individual, company registration discourse-inherent genres display distinct frequency distribution schemes of binomials per individual structural variables (part of speech, number of conjuncts, linking element, semantic motivation); and (ii) as such, the repertoire of candidate terms is distinct and fairly congruent in specific communicative environments. It is expected that the company registration discourse is characterised by structural categories of binomials, which largely rests on the condition of intertextuality. It is further expected that the textual congruity of the corpus texts shall enable the derivation of a model of types per aggregate structure where some types common for literary texts or other specialised language genres show either increased or decreased frequency. Research question 1.2 (population 1) Do the structural categories, whether types per structural feature or types per aggregate structure, undergo variation under specific sociolinguistic conditions inherent in company registration discourse? Specifically, do the structural categories undergo variation from the diatopic, diachronic and authorship-based perspectives? Hypothesis 1.2 The time factor, text provenience and authorship variables are discussed in the literature of the subject as factors causing variation in language use (Matulewska, 2017, pp. 129–146; Nirkhi et al., 2016; Peruzzo, 2017). Thus, it is expected that some degree of variation will be noted in our sample of candidate terms. Research question 2.1 (sample 1) Is translation variation dependent on structural features of binomials, as identified in company registration discourse? If ‘yes’ what is the comparable intensity of variation per structural category of candidate terms covered by the analysis?

Research questions and hypotheses

63

Hypothesis 2.1 It is assumed that statistical analysis will yield reliable data on frequency distribution patterns related to the manually coded incidents of simplification correlated with the structure-based variables. Comparison of the results for the structural variables in point shall enable conclusions to be drawn on the intensity of the translation variation process. Research question 2.2 (sample 1) Is the operation of simplification (covering the manifestation of reduction and possibly other indicators) gradable with the effect of variation in the translation output in the context of language external factors? Specifically, do the type of translation and year of translation affect the operation of simplification in translation? Hypothesis 2.2 It is assumed that the intensity of simplification varies in the short diachronic perspective in line with the trends observed for terminology-related shifts (Peruzzo, 2017). This is expected to be particularly true with regard to the domain of commercial law which – as affected by increasing globalisation, triggered by the EU principle of free movement of goods, persons, services and capital – is characterised by intensive cross-border legal activity, and thus an increased volume of interlingual communication, presumably prone to dynamic changes. Relating to the relevant studies concerning translation variation (LapshinovaKoltunski & Zampieri, 2018; Lapshinova-Koltunski, 2013, 2015) it is anticipated that the translation output regarding simplification will show distinctions in the dynamicity of the process.

Chapter 3. Binomials in company registration discourse

The aim of this chapter is to present an exhaustive collection of binomials in company registration discourse with regard to their frequency distribution schemes and identify quantitatively and cognitively salient structural categories that constitute an actual population of domain-specific binomials, amongst which stylistic and pragmatic functions are identified and variation is examined. The chapter begins with a presentation of the structural features of binomials, as identified in the corpus, together with their mutual correlation patterns. The presentation of the multiple correspondence data sets the ground for further, more in-depth investigation and it is followed by an overview of the actual ratio of specific structurally-profiled candidate terms in a corpus, which is presented per individual genre (frequency distribution scheme of types per structural feature). Further, a model of types per aggregate structure is derived and we are presented with a complex parameters perspective. The model represents the actual repertoire of candidate terms that are quantitatively and cognitively salient in the company registration discourse. The discussion is complemented by an investigation of insights into the variationist perspective of the population of binomials, per specific structural variables for the three distinctions (authorshipbased, diachronic and diatopic) respectively and per model of types per aggregate structure.

3.1. Overall frequency data: Structural categories and values identified The corpus of candidate terms extracted comprises 8,550 items. The candidate terms were coded for four structural variables − part of speech, number of conjuncts, linking element and semantic motivation. The structural features, that is the values identified, were coded in the corpus pre-processing phase. The part of speech values cover nominal, verbal, adjectival, prepositional and adverbial

66

Binomials in company registration discourse

candidate terms, coded per part of speech label. Regarding the number of conjuncts, the values range from binomials (‘code 2’) to quinquenomials (coded ‘code 3’, ‘code 4’ and ‘code 5’). The other two structural variables are type of linking element and semantic motivation, with the values: and (‘code 2’), or (‘code 3’), comma (‘code 1’), comma and and (‘code 12’), comma and or (‘code 13’) and and or (‘code 23’) and comma, and and or (‘code 123’) and synonymy (‘code 1’), antonymy (‘code 2’), grammatical pairs (‘code 3’) and sequential patterns (‘code 4’) respectively. In order to examine the interdependence between these features, multiple correspondence analysis was conducted. Figure 1 shows the cognitive salience of some structural features (values) in the population of binomials and their natural clustering, which provides preliminary information about the quantitatively salient structurally profiled types which constitute the per usage model of binomials in the said communicative environment. 4

LEL_123

2

NOC_5 POS_adjective MOT_1

Dim.2

0

POS_preposition MOT_2 POS_adverb

LEL_2

POS_verb

NOC_2

LEL_1

MOT_4 POS_noun

LEL_3

LEL_13 LEL_12

NOC_3 NOC_4

MOT_3

−2

−4

−6

LEL_23 −1

0

Dim.1

1

a linking element (LEL)

a semantic motivation (MOT)

a number of conjuncts (NOC)

a part of speech (POS)

2

Figure 1. Multiple correspondence analysis: structural features of binomials.

The distribution pattern of the values is varied in the sense that some data is seen to cluster and in other cases the distance between the individual values is relatively significant, which may be assumed to be indicative of weaker correspondence patterns.

Overall frequency data: Structural categories and values identified

67

Figure 1 demonstrates that the correspondence patterns among the individual values are strongest between the predominant structural features. Hence, adjectival, prepositional and adverbial binomials correspond fairly markedly with synonymous binomials, antonymous binomials and grammatical pairs, as well as with the prototypical conjunctions, and and or. A weaker, yet significant, correlation is noted between nominal and verbal candidates, sequential patterns and less prototypical conjunctions. Finally, categories that are quantitatively insignificant in the corpus are quinquenomials and candidate terms conjoined by a combination of prototypical conjunctions (and, or) or a comma combined with other conjunctions. There are cases which may be referred to as soloist correspondence patterns where two feature values may be said to cooccur predominantly with each other, that being the case of quinquenomials and combined linking elements comprising and, or and plus comma (‘code 123’). The findings enable us to single out which structural features are significant in contemporary legal communication and, more specifically, precisely how significant the share of the individual structural categories is in contemporary company registration discourse.

3.1.1. Semantic and structural description of binomials per genre The overview of the individual structural categories of binomials (types per structural feature) is conducted with reference to the individual genres. The author tested the correlational patterns of the individual variables (four structural properties) with the individual genres, as identified in the said communicative environment. The scheme proposed takes account of 11 genres: CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION, COMPANY EXTRACT, FOUNDATION ACT, DECLARATION OF WILL, FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION, REPORT, AUTHENTIFICATION, AUTHORISATION, VERIFICATION, RESOLUTION, MISCELLANEOUS. Figure 2 below presents the relevant correlations for the structural variable number of conjuncts, where the length of the candidate terms is placed vertically, with the number of components corresponding to code ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, and ‘5’ respectively (primary coding). The share of the categories in the population, as per number of conjuncts is as follows: 2 components – 6,932 candidate terms (81.07602%), 3 components – 1,050 candidate terms (12.28070%), 4 components – 259 candidate terms (3.02924%) and 5 components – 309 candidate terms (3.61404%). The volume of tokens per individual categories here is initially illustrative of this aspect of structural profile of bi-component sequences in the company registration discourse. We see that binomials markedly dominate in the said communicative

68

Binomials in company registration discourse

environment and, with a relatively strong share of trinomials, the remaining two extended strings are in the minority. At this point it may be stated that company registration discourse is characterised by non-extended types of binomials. AUTHORISATION

1.35% 0.00%

VERIFICATION

0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION

0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MISCELLANEOUS

DECLARATION OF WILL

REPORT

RESOLUTION

COMPANY EXTRACT

CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION

AUTHENTIFICATION

FOUNDATION ACT

‘code 5’

36.49%

62.16%

100.00%

100.00%

0.00% 1.60% 6.98%

91.42%

5.15% 1.47% 8.82%

84.56%

1.74% 0.00% 6.96%

91.30%

0.00% 0.00% 9.93%

90.07%

0.00% 1.69% 7.04%

91.27%

0.58% 0.00% 5.23% 0.24% 0.71%

94.19%

19.48%

79.57%

4.95% 3.90% 13.30% ‘code 4’

77.86% ‘code 3’

‘code 2’

Figure 2. Structural profile of binomials – number of conjuncts per genre.

The relative correlation between the number of components and genre type would appear to confirm the general trend. Hence, binomials (‘code 2’) account for 81.08% in the whole population of candidate terms and they are followed by trinomials (‘code 3’) scoring 12.28%, with quadrunomials (‘code 4’) and quinquenomials (‘code 5’) staying largely behind with a score of 3.61% and 3.03%

Overall frequency data: Structural categories and values identified

69

respectively. The sample extracts below are illustrative for the individual structural categories in question: EXTRACT 1 – binomial #317824 ● Scot ● 458 ● 1 ● 036 ● 13 ● 4 ● M ● 5 ● 2008 ● 3 ● 5 ● 2009 ● 1 ● 818718 […] of the kind referred to in section 235(3) of the CA2006; and(c) any other liability incurred by or attaching to him in the actual or purported execution and/or discharge of his duties and/or the exercise or purported exercise […]. EXTRACT 2 – trinomial #908051 ● UK ● 1147 ● 1 ● 096 ● 8 ● 0 ● K ● 5 ● 0 ● 11 ● 5 ● 2016 ● 1 ● 6929 […] any form, and(b) include any arrangements in connection with the payment of a pension, allowance or gratuity, or any death, sickness or disability benefits, to or in respect of that director.(4) Unless the director […]. EXTRACT 3 – quadrunomial #1019216 ● UK ● 1261 ● 1 ● 203 ● 7 ● 4 ● K ● 4 ● 1988 ● 3 ● 4 ● 2005 ● 1 ● 4100, […] drafts, bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments, and all receipts for moneys paid to the Company shall be signed, drawn, accepted, endorsed, as the case may be, in such manner as […]. EXTRACT 4 – quinquenomial #85992 ● UK ● 140 ● 1 ● 010 ● 4 ● 4 ● M ● 4 ● 2002 ● 3 ● 4 ● 2005 ● 1 ● 1967 […] a member or is otherwise interested, and generally as the Directors think fit.(i) To apply for, purchase or otherwise acquire and hold or use any patents, licences, concessions, copyrights and the like, conferring any […].

Closer examination of the values for the most numerous category, bi-component sequences, confirms the high scores and at the same time shows that the individual scores per specific genres exceed the average for binomials. Bearing in mind the relative distance between the border scores we may identify three frequency bands. The top frequency band (= 100%) comprises FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION and VERIFICATION. The sample of quantitatively salient candidate terms in this group are those representing the semantic fields of validity (force and effect), authorisation (power and authority) and credibility (true and correct; true and fair; true and genuine; fraud or error). The medium frequency band (≥84.56% to ≤94.19%) comprising binomials includes markedly lower scores in general and the genres here are CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION, MISCELLANEOUS, COMPANY EXTRACT, REPORT, RESOLUTION and DECLARATION OF WILL. The representatives of this section of the population are conceptually related to the semantic domain of credibility (accurate 18 The values falling within the framework of the primary coding system include in the order they are mentioned: token number, country, doc id, institutional name, krs, krs_item, professional title, sex, source text word count, source text year, title, target text word count, target text year, type of translation, word count. Note the annotation mark referred to as ‘krs’ and ‘krs_item’ refers to the file number corresponding to the specific text from which a candidate term was extracted.

70

Binomials in company registration discourse

and complete; due and careful; representation or reproduction; notice or documents) and temporal relations (annual or special; present and future). The low frequency band (≥62.16% to 2010 population may be interpreted in accordance with the distribution of values related to the number of conjuncts. Hence, the bi-component sequences are conventionally linked by and and this model would appear to be sustainable over time. With marked frequency data for all four semantic motivation values across the corpus and the sociolinguistically conditioned distinctions noted so far, the short diachronic perspective unveils yet another distribution pattern, showing a bipolar distinction (synonymy vs. complementarity). Figure 12 draws a clear line of distinction between the preference for synonymous candidate terms in TIME SLOT >2010 and preference for complementarily motivated candidate terms in TIME SLOT ≤2010. The case in point representing the latter category are antonymous pairs (‘code 2’) with an odds ratio score at the level of 0.82. The other two categories of semantic motivation (grammatical pairs and sequential patterns coded ‘3’ and ‘4’ respectively) prove to have no discriminatory power with p values = 0.1190 and 0.9506 respectively. The short diachronic perspective confirms the well-established status of the stylistically salient types per structural feature, i. e. binomials proper which seem to be on the increase, and at the same time the data in contrast shows that the practice of using some binomials is resistant to change. The cases in point are grammatical pairs and sequential patterns. In order to complement these findings with data capturing the aggregate account of linguistic context regarding the candidate terms, the search for timerelated distinctions moved on to the a-n model of structurally profiled binomials. Figure 13 serves as an illustration in point. The forest plot visualisation shows that the highest salience is ascribed to nominal synonymously motivated binomials conjoined by and (c/odds ratio = 2.29), which makes this type a marked feature of TIME SLOT >2010 texts. Leaving the clusters labelled as ‘mixed’ and ‘rare’ out of the detailed discussion here, for the reasons stated above we arrive at the following interpretation. The remaining structural categories that are found to be more frequent in the post2010 diachronic category are: verbal complementarily motivated binomials conjoined by and (l/odds ratio = 1.97), nominal complementarily motivated binomials conjoined by and (h/odds ratio = 1.63), and nominal synonymously motivated binomials conjoined by or (d/odds ratio = 1.33). Binomial candidate terms which are found to be less frequent in TIME SLOT >2010 are: nominal complementarily motivated binomials conjoined by or (i/odds ratio = 0.82), adjectival (synonymously motivated binomials conjoined by and) (a/odds ratio = 0.81), prepositional (synonymously or complementarily

105

Linguistic variation and binomials

CLUSTER

OR (LCI UCI) p value |

b c h d f g i j e k l m n a

| | | | | | | | | | | | | 0.2

0.5 TIME SLOT ≤2010

1

0.41 2.29 1.63 1.33 0.85 0.88 0.82 0.48 1.31 0.68 1.97 1.05 1.14 0.81

(0.28 (1.78 (1.36 (1.03 (0.64 (0.69 (0.71 (0.41 (1.02 (0.55 (1.65 (0.89 (0.96 (0.65

0.59) 2.94) 1.94) 1.72) 1.13) 1.13) 0.95) 0.57) 1.68) 0.84) 2.35) 1.24) 1.34) 1.00)

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0269 0.2681 0.3128 0.0078 0.0000 0.0379 0.0004 0.0000 0.5805 0.1329 0.0474

2 TIME SLOT >2010

Figure 13. Model of binomial types per aggregate structure – variation in the diachronic perspective.

motivated binomials conjoined by or) (k/odds ratio = 0.68) and adverbial (complementarily motivated binomials conjoined by or) (b/odds ratio = 0.41). If we exclude the clusters labelled ‘miscellaneous’, the structurally defined binomials which are claimed to have no discriminatory power on the basis of the p value exceeding the threshold of 0.05 are as follows: verbal complementarily motivated binomials conjoined by or [antonymous binomials (f/p value = 0.2681) or grammatical pairs (g/p value = 0.3128)], verbal synonymously or complementarily motivated binomials conjoined by or (m/p value = 0.5805). It emerges from Figure 13 that the use of binomials fitting in the less frequent word class categories may be said to have decreased over time. Hence, the population from 2010 and earlier is featured by increased frequency of the types of verbal binomials (l) and nominal binomials respectively (c, d, h). This would appear to lead to the conclusion that the less frequent word class categories, such as adjectival, adverbial and prepositional binomials, make up part of the stylistic convention that becomes less salient over time, which may have been triggered by the postulates of the Plain Language Movement. Further, some regularity may be observed with regard to the semantic motivation-related profile of the quantitatively salient nominal and verbal binomials. Hence, the majority of the nominal binomials (two out of three clusters) that are quantitatively salient in the TIME SLOT >2010 population are homogeneous in terms of semantic motivation, specifically covering synonymously motivated candidate terms (c and d). These historically most prototypical types of bino-

106

Binomials in company registration discourse

mials are evidenced with the highest odds ratio scores. Likewise, the verbal cluster that is found to dominate in the TIME SLOT >2010 population is composed exclusively of complementarily motivated binomials conjoined by or (l). This shows that the most contemporary legalese is characterised by binomials which (i) present specific matches between the part of speech values and semantic motivation-related values and, more specifically (ii) the most prototypical features as regards semantic motivation (i. e. synonymy) come to the fore only in connection with specific part of speech values. When it comes to the linking element no definite patterns have been identified over the time axis.

3.3. Conclusions The data confirm the strong position of binomials in contemporary legal stylistics. The findings abolish some commonly held assumptions about contemporary legal language, according to which binomials and their extended variants are relicts of the past, reserved for traditional legal texts, with their use on the decline under the influence of the Plain Language Movement. The facts speak to the contrary. Binomials are found in short, modern texts that are, in principle, devoid of archaic rhetorical figures. They form a part of the legal style practised by both legal professionals and lay people. The description of the candidate terms resting on the main structural categories of word class, semantic motivation, number of conjuncts and linking element shows a distinctive distribution scheme in our corpus both quantitatively and qualitatively. This allows us to draw some conclusions in the context of the structural profile of binomials in contemporary legal communication and their semantics. Referring to the first aspect, the findings show varied proportions of different types per structural feature which (i) confirms the wellascertained principle about binomials being a structurally varied linguistic category, and (ii) per reference to the findings pertaining to other registers and/or individual stylistic conventions – points to company registration discoursespecific regularities. If we interpret the data in the light of the studies on binomials in Old English writing, then we may conclude that there is a shift towards flattening their structural profile in modern legal discourse. Specifically, binomials proper, that is synonymous sequences, do not constitute the cognitively most salient category. Further, longer strings are a minority in our corpus. The repertoire of linking options is likewise limited contemporarily. A trend is noted with regard to the quantitatively significant level of structural variantivity, arising out of the contemporary productivity potential of binomial templates, which operates along the mechanism of paradigmatic substitution, whereby individual elements within the sequences are substituted with semantically related elements

Conclusions

107

(often variantivity of linking element). As a result we get onomasiologically related sets of candidate terms, some of them being new coinages construed within distinct legal cultures and institutional conventions. Without prejudice to the findings about distinctiveness and coherence of the frequency distribution scheme, and the regularities noted for company registration discourse as a whole, some trends were noted in the per genre perspective. Genres show distinctions in that they are more or less prone or resistant to the use of binomials in general or per specific structural types. Recognising the intergeneric distinctions as observed in the company registration discourse, the phraseological system with regard to binomials in the said communicative environment is congruent, which is manifested in the recurrence of some individual candidate terms across a number of genres or – in the onomasiological perspective – by the recurrence of specific semantic categories which prove to have varied structural or functional variants. Closer analysis of the immediate linguistic context for the sample material shows that binomials that surface today in company registration discourse do not merely fulfil an ornamental function, but they are often carriers of important pragmatic and/or stylistic functions (conventional authority building), as part of performative (enactive) formulae, carriers of intertextual relations. The methodology of the study provided for the generation of a model of binomials which was specific for the company registration discourse (model of types per aggregate structure). The aim was to show current, statistically significant correlations between the individual structural features in their capacity to make part of quantitatively and qualitatively salient structural categories. This was to provide (i) a holistic account of the population of binomials in the said communicative environment, and (ii) ensure the transparency of operation of the variation processes to be presented later. The model comprising types labelled as a-n clusters represents the actual population of binomials as used in the company registration discourse. These clusters, derived through the systemic process of grouping, represent the quantitatively salient, and at the same time structurally transparent and consistent, types of binomials which actually constitute part of the legal terminology in our communicative setting. The model builds on the general context-dependent structural profile of binomials and presents the set that is structurally transparent, consistent and significant for company registration discourse. Some types per aggregate structure are found to dominate in company registration discourse and others are virtually non-existent. Specifically, it emerges from the model that the percentage of candidate terms other than those that may be considered as prototypical in the context of semantic motivation or part of speech variable (synonymous, nominal, verbal) is significant. Among the cognitively and quantitatively salient types are adverbial, prepositional binomials or

108

Binomials in company registration discourse

those complementarity-based. Further, it emerges that specific structural features prove to have higher co-occurrence potential. In the literature of the subject the structural features of binomials are examined individually, while the model accounts for the context-specific and functional presentation in point. It emerges from the model that some structural features are actually of marginal importance. For example, the number of quadrunomials and quints is relatively low in our corpus. The rarer conjunctions do not contribute a significant population in the present study. Acknowledging the distinctiveness of company registration discourse with regard to the structural profile of binomials, pointing to the quantitative and cognitive salience of some structural types of candidate terms, we need to admit the existence of some corpus internal systemic regularities which arise out of its rich and extensive sociolinguistic environment. Variation-oriented analysis of the monolingual population of binomials exploited in the company registration discourse which captures diatopic, authorship-oriented and diachronic perspectives shows some systemic distinctions, referred to as variation patterns. The variation pattern that emerges here points to a few regularities from the macro- and micro perspectives, covering aspects related to structural and sociolinguistic variables. The macro perspective is discussed in the context of the relative operational force of the structural variables (per variable account). The micro perspective is related to trends in the behaviour of specific values of the individual structural variables (per value account). Hence, from the macro perspective the findings allow the generation of a ranking list of the structural variables according to how prone they are to induce variation. In order of descending significance these are: part of speech variable, with an odds ratio of 2.02 for adverbial strings in the authorship-based distinctions; linking element variable distinctions, evidencing the second highest score for and from the short diachronic perspective (odds ratio = 1.84); and number of conjuncts and semantic motivation variation, with a score of 1.50 for binomials and 1.41 for synonymy, both from the diachronic perspective. This leads to the conclusions that our monolingual population is the most homogeneous, that is least prone to variation with regard to the variable of semantic motivation, where statistics indicate the lowest level of divergence from structural homogeneity in the corpus. If we compare the force of operation of the three sociolinguistic variables the picture that emerges shows that the distinctions here are not significant, yet the most noticeable changes (the highest odds ratio scores) are noted for the short diachronic perspective, where three out of four structural variables induce most significant variation, compared to the other two sociolinguistic factors. The diatopic and authorship-based distinctions are less marked.

Conclusions

109

In the micro perspective capturing the regularities for type per structural feature we find out (i) which candidate terms are most prone and thus which tend to vary most significantly in the three sociolinguistic environments (ii) and what is the directionality of the trends identified. In this way we identify the per value types which are resistant to sociolinguistically induced changes. Hence, we note that the predominant trend in the domain of part of speech categories is based on the distinctions into principal and cognitively marginal binomials, in the sense adopted here, in that the first prove to generally stand out as distinctive markers of style for the categories distinguished in the diatopic, authorship-based and diachronic perspectives. Further, the variation potential regarding the number of conjuncts variable shows that the distribution of both values is distinct in the two categories of population across the three sociolinguistic perspectives. The regularity noted for the linking element is that or as a coordinating tool, which has an extensive logical-semantic application (conjunctive connector and non-exclusive disjunctive connector), is most widely exploited throughout the corpus, irrespective of the sociolinguistic distinctions. Finally, the pattern noted with regard to semantic motivation is to be discussed in the context of synonymy vs. complementarity relations, the latter comprising antonymy, grammatical pairs and sequential patterns. The pattern that emerges here is that the synonymous word strings retain their high potential to discriminate, scoring either relatively high or low, showing increased or decreased frequency in specific populations. The finding is ascertained also by virtue of the statistically insignificant yet still informative score of two classes of complementarity (sequential patterns and grammatical pairs). The variationist analysis conducted on the aggregate structural profile data (a-n model) reveals a holistic and dynamic picture of the intralinguistic context. The distribution patterns of binomials, both per specific structural feature and in the aggregate perspective (a-n model), prove to be dynamic, and shifts in the share of specific structural categories of binomials across the diachronic, diatopic and authorship-related perspectives were noted. All in all, the data show that generic distinctions, so extensively examined in the literature of the subject, are not the only area of variation in the domain of legal communication. Moreover, the concept of institutionally-biased stylistics, which is also exploited here as the foundation of the authorship-based distinctions, has so far been investigated mainly in the context of EU legilinguistics. Here, the concept of institutional bias exceeds this framework. One of the findings is that not all structural categories (types per aggregate structure) show variation across the three sociolinguistic categories examined. Some types prove to be resistant to distinctions in their distribution pattern and, as readers, we encounter the same types of binomials irrespective of text provenience, authorship factor or source text date.

110

Binomials in company registration discourse

Further, the discrimination potential of the three sociolinguistic variables shows uneven intensity, which is reflected in the wide range of the odds ratio scores. This testifies to the fact that the distinctions in the repertoire of binomials per categories contrasted have varied proportions. For example, authorshipbased distinctions are more extensive than others (2.02 odds ratio). The variation pattern derived for the a-n model categories may also be perceived through the perspective of more general structural categories. For example, diachronically, the post-2010 category is characterised by quantitative salience of three nominal clusters and decreased markedness of the less prototypical categories (adverbial, adjectival, prepositional binomials), while diatopically the variation pattern shows the markedness of structurally more distant categories.

Chapter 4. Translating binomials

This chapter reports on the findings concerning the translation patterns regarding binomials in interlingual communication. The aim of the analysis is to establish whether or not binomials are simplified in translation, and if ‘yes’, how far the shifts identified are dependent on their structure in the context of individual structural features and across the sociolinguistically varied background, the latter being found as currently relevant to the professional environment covered by the analysis. The discussion starts with a presentation of population-related data (sample 1) and is followed by statistics related to the three manifestations of simplification. The section devoted to translation variation starts with a discussion of the findings emerging from the multiple correspondence analysis and is followed by an analysis of the two main paths: variation along the linguistic and extralinguistic factors.

4.1. Simplification and its manifestations The sample for investigating translation patterns had to be limited for a number of reasons. Candidates for which there were no Polish language equivalents were eliminated (cf. section 2.2). The number of candidates was cut by half to facilitate the effort of processing the task manually. Hence, sample 1, as it is referred to in this study, amounts to 4,316 candidate terms composed of the whole population of adjectival, adverbial, prepositional and verbal binomials (758, 300, 761 and 1,369 candidate terms respectively) and a randomly chosen set of nominal binomials (1,128). The representation of nominal binomials was established by way of calculation in a way that minimises the effect of the imbalanced sample and ensures an admissible estimations error (cf. 2.4). The analysis confirmed the operation of simplification in its most obvious manifestation, that is reduction, which consists in the use of a single-item term as the interlingual equivalent of a binomial. Instances of such translation mecha-

112

Translating binomials

nism are noted in all the structural types of binomials, irrespective of their semantic motivation, part of speech or conjunction. The quantitative data are as follows. REDUCTION was noted in 2,294 hits (53.15107%). The score for INSERTION is 2,131 (49.37442%) and for CONJUNCTION DISTORTION – 3,001 (69.53197%). The multiple correspondence analysis presented below (Figure 14) is informative about the interdependence patterns between the three manifestations of simplification. REDUCTION_YES

0.5

Dim.2

CONJUNCTION DISTORTION_NO INSERTION_NO 0.0 CONJUNCTION DISTORTION_YES INSERTION_YES −0.5

−1.0

REDUCTION_NO −0.50

a CONJUNCTION DISTORTION

.0

Dim.1

0.51

a INSERTION

.0

a REDUCTION

Figure 14. Multiple correspondence analysis: manifestations of simplification.

It emerges from Figure 14 that CONJUNCTION DISTORTION and INSERTION correlate positively. REDUCTION is shown to be particularly consistent and pervasive with prepositional binomials. The following parallel data excerpts are illustrative of the said phenomenon. EXHIBIT 16: prepositional binomial/REDUCTION #36089 ● UK ● 73 ● 1 ● 004 ● 4 ● 11 ● K ● 4 ● 1956 ● 3 ● 4 ● 2004 ● 1 ● 1917 (x) To do all or any of the above things in any part of the world, and either as principals, agents, trustees, contractors or otherwise, and either alone or in conjunction with others, and either by or through agents, sub-contractors, trustees or otherwise. (X) podejmowanie wszelkich powyz˙szych czynnos´ci i działan´ w jakiejkolwiek cze˛s´ci s´wiata, w charakterze mocodawcy, agenta, powiernika, wykonawcy lub w innych

Simplification and its manifestations

113

charakterze, samodzielnie lub ła˛cznie z innymi osobami, poprzez agentów, podwykonawców, powierników lub w inny sposób. EXHIBIT 17: prepositional binomial 2/REDUCTION #129365 ● Scotland ● 210 ● 1 ● 016 ● 2 ● 4 ● M ● 4 ● 1992 ● 3 ● 4 ● 2005 ● 1 ● 2275 (u) Subject to and in accordance with a due compliance with the provisions of Sections 155 to 158 (inclusive) of the Act (if and so far as such provisions shall be applicable), to give, whether directly or indirectly, any kind of financial assistance (as defined in Section 152(1)(a) of the Act) for any such purpose as is specified in Section 151 (1) and/or Section 151(2) of the Act. Z zastrzez˙eniem postanowien´ par. 155–158 (wła˛cznie) Ustawy i z zapewnieniem włas´ciwej zgodnos´ci z nimi ( jes´li i w takim zakresie, w jakim postanowienia te be˛da˛ stosowne) – udzielanie, bezpos´rednio lub pos´rednio, wszelkiego rodzaju pomocy finansowej (zdefiniowanej w par. 152(l)(a) Ustawy) dla wszelkich celów okres´lonych w par. 151(1) i/lub par. 152(2) Ustawy.

The rationale behind the operation of reduction in the two clear cut instances may be provided on the basis of the Plain Language Movement, which recommends the elimination of such combinations as redundant from the semantic point of view. Yet, some research findings and practical experience point to significant inconsistency here. Some instances of reduced binomials may raise doubts as to the legitimacy of reducing binomials (Kubacki & Wie˛cławska, 2022). Exploration of the data allowed the author to reveal the operation of some other processes which are held to be alternative manifestations of simplification, assumed to weaken the formulaic strength, structurally destabilise and thus obscure the conventional flow of legal communication. This includes the phenomenon of INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION. Insertion involves the destabilisation of coordinate structure by separating the two components of a binomial (dictionary equivalents) with an object or otherwise. Examples in point are found across all structural types of candidate terms. Illustrative examples are listed below, covering an instance of prepositional and nominal binomials, and verbal candidate terms are also identified. EXHIBIT 18: prepositional binomial/INSERTION #920183 ● UK ● 1149 ● 1 ● 097 ● 1 ● 4 ● M ● 6 ● 2015 ● 3 ● 6 ● 2016 ● 1 ● 17069 4.2.1 be paid up by the automatic capitalisation of available reserves of the Company, unless and to the extent that the same shall be impossible or unlawful or a majority of the Exercising Investors shall agree otherwise, in which event the Exercising Investors shall be entitled to subscribe for the Anti-Dilution Shares in cash at par (being the par value). 4.2.1. byc´ opłacone w drodze automatycznej kapitalizacji doste˛pnych rezerw Spółki, o ile be˛dzie to moz˙liwe i w stopniu w jakim to be˛dzie to moz˙liwe lub zgodne z prawem lub chyba z˙e wie˛kszos´c´ inwestorów korzystaja˛cych uzgodni inaczej, w którym to przypadku inwestorzy korzystaja˛cy sa˛ uprawnieni do obje˛cia akcji w gotówce po równo ( jako wartos´c´ nominalna˛ wczes´niej zatwierdzona˛ przez dyrektora inwestycyjnego).

114

Translating binomials

EXHIBIT 19: verbal binomial/INSERTION #551359 ● UK ● 794 ● 1 ● 059 ● 2 ● 4 ● K ● 5 ● 0 ● 3 ● 5 ● 2012 ● 1 ● 6597 * No dividend may be declared or paid unless it is in accordance with shareholders’ respective rights. *Nie wolno ogłaszac´ wypłaty dywidendy ani wypłacac´ dywidendy, jes´li nie jest zgodna z odnos´nymi prawami udziałowców.

The material included in these Exhibits illustrates the insertion of the elements ‘be˛dzie to moz˙liwe’ and ‘dywidendy’ respectively. The source text formulaic structure of the candidate terms thus becomes disintegrated and we may say it loses its cognitive capacity of being easily processed in the communication flow.25 CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is treated as the third manifestation of simplification in that it destabilises the semantics and structural frame of the source text candidate terms and thus weakens their idiomaticity and their capacity to signal generic, register-related and contextual distinctions. Candidate terms are assumed to undergo CONJUNCTION DISTORTION when the fixed frame constituted by the conjunction is distorted, that is when the source and target text conjunctions are not direct dictionary equivalents. However, as was stated in Chapter 3, in general the range of conjunctions in binomials exceeds the most often used and and or, the parallel data used for the translation analysis (sample 1) comprises only candidate terms which are conjoined by and or or since only such sequences have been identified in the corpus. Hence, the term linking element covering comma and combination of the basic coordination tools is not applicable in Chapter 4. The operationalisation of the classification here rests on the assumption that the application of the conjunction in English and Polish as an element of binomials is to follow the principles emerging out of the logical relations ascribed to conjunctions in general on the basis of law, that is conjunction (logical relation) vs. disjunction (logical relation). Specifically, the operationalisation consists in the quantification of the bilingual data for the two categories of conjunctions and their qualitative analysis. The criteria adopted for the latter are as follows: CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is assumed for cases which exceed the following interlingual correspondence framework: ‘i’ and ‘lub’ being the only legitimate target language equivalents for and and or respectively, that is (i) without illegitimate swapping of these dictionary equivalents for the two conjunctions and (ii) without using more elaborate equivalents including the correlative forms (ba˛dz´ … ba˛dz´, czy, etc.). Such a tertium comparationis principle seems to be justified on the basis of legal stylistics, which ascertains the distinctiveness of legal technique in this respect from general language rules, 25 In some cases INSERTION served as a mechanism to preserve the grammatical correctness of a sentence. In the event the translator decided to preserve the two elements without resorting to reduction, the object needs to be repeated if the two conjuncts requiring an object are different cases (e. g. pursuant to and in connection with the provisions > ‘w zwia˛zku z postanowieniami i w nazwia˛zaniu do postanowien´’) (Wichrowska, 2019).

Simplification and its manifestations

115

both in English and Polish, and seems to demand a close analysis of the pragmatic environment which rests on logical relations between the coordinated elements along the disjunction/conjunction (logical relation)26 axis, as already referred to when discussing the monolingual context in Chapter 3 (Jopek-Bosiacka, 2019, pp. 109–167). The rules in point identified for English are said to pertain also to Polish legal communication. This in principle means the requirement of using a dictionary of English/Polish equivalents for the specific conjunctions, subject to one exception. According to the usage-based principle pertaining to logical relations in the domain of law, the non-exclusive disjunctive connector or is interchangeable with the conjunctive connector and when used for enumeration (Jopek-Bosiacka, 2019, p. 111). This may be held as an argument that would, in some contexts, legitimise the English/Polish translation patterns when or is translated with the dictionary equivalents specified for and and the other way round. In such cases, swapping of the dictionary equivalents and/‘i’ and or/‘lub’ would not be considered as cases of CONJUNCTION DISTORTION. Examples that are most representative for such trends include: EXHIBIT 20: prepositional binomial/CONJUNCTION DISTORTION #34838 ● UK ● 73 ● 1 ● 004 ● 4 ● 11 ● K ● 4 ● 1956 ● 3 ● 4 ● 2004 ● 1 ● 1917 (f) To purchase, take on lease, or in exchange, hire or other-wise acquire and hold for any estate or interest any lands, buildings, easements, rights, privileges, concessions, patents, patent rights, licences, secret processes, machinery, plant, stock-in-trade, and any real or personal property of any kind necessary or convenient for the purposes of or in connection with the Company’s business or any branch or department thereof. (F) kupno, dzierz˙awienie/leasing lub najem lub nabywanie w inny sposób oraz posiadanie maja˛tku lub udziału w gruncie, budynkach, słuz˙ebnos´ciach, prawach, przywilejach, koncesjach, patentach, licencjach, procesach, maszynach, fabrykach, towarach znajduja˛cych sie˛ w obrocie oraz jakichkolwiek prawach do nieruchomos´ci lub własnos´ci osobistej wszelkiego rodzaju, niezbe˛dnych lub odpowiednich dla celów Spółki czy tez˙ w zwia˛zku z działalnos´cia˛ prowadzona˛ przez Spółke˛, jej oddziały lub departamenty. EXHIBIT 21: prepositional binomial/CONJUNCTION DISTORTION #450523 ● Cyprus ● 643 ● 1 ● 051 ● 11 ● 4 ● M ● 6 ● 2007 ● 3 ● 6 ● 0 ● 1 ● 12702 112.The directors may entrust to and confer upon a managing director any of the powers exercisable by them upon such terms and conditions and with such restrictions as they may think fit, collaterally with or to the exclusion of their own powers and may from time to time revoke, withdraw, alter or vary all or any of such powers. 112.Dyrektorzy moga˛ powierzyc´ i nałoz˙yc´ na Dyrektora Zarza˛dzaja˛cego wszelkie uprawnienia wykonywane przez nich na takich warunkach i z takimi ogra26 This explicitation refers to the publication where conjunction is used as the denotation of logical relations recognised in legal communication (complementing disjunction in the binary system of logical relations). In order to avoid confusion with conjunction used as any lexical linking element conjoining the elements, for binomials the bracketed appendix ‘logical relations’ is used after it.

116

Translating binomials

niczeniami, jakie uwaz˙aja˛ za włas´ciwe, czy to równolegle z, czy z wyła˛czeniem swoich własnych uprawnien´ i moga˛ co pewien czas odwoływac´, cofac´, zmieniac´ czy poprawiac´ wszystkie czy niektóre z takich uprawnien´. EXHIBIT 22: verbal binomial/CONJUNCTION DISTORTION #121414 ● UK ● 204 ● 1 ● 014 ● 8 ● 1 ● K ● 6 ● 2005 ● 3 ● 6 ● 2005 ● 1 ● 12366 13.3 A resolution in writing signed or approved by telegram telefax or telex by all the directors shall be as valid and effectual as if it had been passed at a meeting of Directors duly convened and held and may consist of several documents in the like form each signed by one or more Directors; but a resolution signed by an alternate Director need not also be signed by his appointor and, if it is signed by a Director who has appointed an alternate Director, it need not be signed by the alternate Director in that capacity. 13.3 Pisemna uchwała podpisana i zatwierdzona telegramem, telefaksem lub teleksem przez wszystkich dyrektorów be˛dzie tak samo waz˙na i skuteczna, jakby została podje˛ta na zgromadzeniu Dyrektorów zwołanym we włas´ciwy sposób i odbytym, i moz˙e składac´ sie˛ z kilku dokumentów w podobnej formie podpisanych przez jednego lub wie˛cej Dyrektorów. EXHIBIT 23: adjectival binomial/CONJUNCTION DISTORTION not recognised #1024272 ● UK ● 1268 ● 1 ● 204 ● 5 ● 4 ● K ● 4 ● 2005 ● 3 ● 4 ● 2005 ● 1 ● 2984 The Company shall have a first and paramount lien on every share (not being fully paid) for all money (whether presently payable or not) called or payable at a fixed time in respect of that share and the Company shall also have a first and paramount lien on all shares under liability to the Company whether he be the soleholder thereof or one of two or more joint holders for all moneys presently payable by him or his estate to the Company. Spółka ma prawo pierwszego lub prymarnego zatrzymania na wszystkie (niecałkowicie zapłacone) udziały, na całkowita˛ kwote˛ wierzytelnos´ci (niezalez˙nie od tego, czy wymagalne czy nie) lub na kwoty pienie˛z˙ne płatne za te udziały w okres´lonym terminie.Spółka posiada tez˙ pierwsze i prymarne prawo zatrzymania na wszystkie udziały do zapłacenia lub wkładów do wniesienia, niezalez˙nie od tego, czy osoba posiadacza udziałów jest jedynym włas´cicielem czy jednym z wielu włas´cicieli, ba˛dz´ aktualnie całkowicie obarczony wierzytelnos´ciami ze strony Spółki.

CONJUNCTION DISTORTION seems to be the most pervasive phenomenon when we compare the relevant statistics for REDUCTION and INSERTION. Hence, out of the total number of candidate terms in population 2 (4,316) 69.53197% are classified to this type of simplification manifestation. The examples quoted above represent three main patterns identified in the qualitative analysis of the corpus data. The three hits were recognised as cases of distortion. It is assumed as the starting point for the qualitative analysis and related categorisation of translation patterns that in some cases we may legitimise the and/or swap for the reasons acknowledged by the legislative technique, and such cases are not qualified as simplification. The first scenario represented by Exhibits 20 and 21 shows the employment of close synonyms instead of the most straightforward dictionary equivalents for or.

Translation variation

117

We quoted two excerpts from the corpus since they represent two distinct schemes: embellishment with a more sophisticated near-equivalent (Exhibit 20) and adding elements by employing correlative conjunction equivalent (Exhibit 21). Hence we have the conjunction ‘czy (tez˙)’ as equivalent of or (for the purposes of or in connection with > ‘dla celów Spółki czy tez˙ w zwia˛zku z’) and the use of correlative conjunction ‘czy … czy…’ (collaterally with or to the exclusion of > ‘czy to równolegle z, czy z wyła˛czeniem’). The second pattern that was noted is represented by Exhibits 22 and 23, where we deal with a case exceeding the standard correspondence scheme reflecting the dictionary equivalence and that is: ‘i’ and ‘lub’ acting as Polish equivalents of both and and or. As long as the translation of Exhibit 23 may be held as legitimate, in that we have the case of conjunction (logical relation), and here a conjunctive connector used for enumeration purposes, and as such it is held as equivalent to or, both in Polish and English (cf), then the example quoted as Exhibit 22 raises doubts. It emerges from the immediate and extended contexts that here one of the premises is to be satisfied, hence the resolution is to be either signed or approved by some electronic means of communication and the two cannot cooccur. Using ‘i’ in translation is wrong because the phrase here is a case of ordinary disjunction and or seems to function here as an exclusive disjunctive connector and as such it is not legitimate to translate and with ‘lub’. It should be concluded here that, bearing in mind all the register specific distinctions and relevant grammatical rules, the adequate translation of the phrase coordination mechanisms is very much context-specific. The same conjunction is to be interpreted as a distinct logical relation and thus distinct translation patterns are allowed.

4.2. Translation variation In this chapter the author describes an analysis intended to examine whether the simplification process noted for translating binomials is marked by variation across linguistic and extralinguistic factors. In order to test the basis for the identification of potential systemic tendencies in translation variation, the author conducted multiple correspondence analyses to verify the main patterns of interdependence between the specific variables. Subsequently, in order to verify the variation-related hypotheses with relevant quantitative data (hypotheses no. 2.1 and 2.2 regarding the impact of structural features and specific sociolinguistic factors on simplification intensity respectively) the discussion rests in presenting the frequency and correlation statistics for the individual pairs of variables. The correlations are tested for the 3 simplification manifestations and the values within the two structural variables (part of speech variable and semantic motivation variable) and sociolinguistic variables (type and year of translation varia-

118

Translating binomials

ble). In order to support the findings, the discussion is also based on the forest plot data, which complements the principal findings related to correlations by providing a comparative perspective for how the individual structural and sociolinguistic variables, and specifically the values related to these, affect the intensity of the operation of the three simplification manifestations.

4.2.1. Linguistic factors The linguistic variables chosen for examination with regards to translation variation include the part of speech variable and semantic motivation variable. In order to introduce general information on the distribution patterns a multiple correspondence analysis is presented. Figure 15 visualises the clustering of values related to independent and dependent variables and thus points to a correlation between the processes qualified as simplification and linguistic variables. MOT_3 CONJUNCTION DISTORTION_NO

1.0

POS_adjective INSERTION_NO

Dim.2

0.5

REDUCTION_NO POS_verb POS_noun

4

0.0

MOT_1

POS_adverb

MOT_2 CONJUNCTION DISTORTION_YES

−0.5

REDUCTION_YES

INSERTION_YES

−1.0

POS_preposition −1.0

−0.50

.0 Dim.1

a

CONJUNCTION DISTORTION

a

semantic motivation (MOT)

a

INSERTION

a

part of speech (POS)

0.51

.0

a

REDUCTION

Figure 15. Multiple correspondence analysis: simplification across phrase structural context (part of speech and semantic motivation).

Translation variation

119

It emerges from Figure 15 that the values for the individual variables are distributed in such a way that they form clusters, which testifies to the operation of some system in the distribution of simplification phenomena in the context of a specific structure of binomials. In this case clusters stand for cooccurrence of the proposed categories of simplification-related variables: REDUCTION, INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION and structural variables (part of speech and semantic motivation). This means that REDUCTION, INSERTION or CONJUNCTION DISTORTION cooccur with specific structural categories of binomials. The data show that the bipolar dependent categories standing for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ values for the three manifestations of simplification respectively cluster with distinct values related to the part of speech and semantic motivation variable. Hence, in the order mentioned above adjectives, nouns and verbs are fairly resistant to all three simplification processes, while adverbs and prepositions placed below the horizontal axis prove to be susceptible to the simplification treatment. Referring to semantic motivation, binomials which are characterised by complementarity relations (putting together two grammatical forms, ‘code 3’ of one lexeme or sequential patterns ‘code 4’) proved to be rather unaffected by reduction, conjunction distortion and insertion. On the contrary, synonymously ‘code 1’ and antonymously ‘code 2’ motivated binomials cluster with the ‘yes’ values for the said simplification phenomena. It needs to be noted that the multiple correspondence analysis is to be interpreted in terms of (i) identifying the ‘yes – no’ link between the variables and – more specifically – values (cooccurrence or no cooccurrence) but also (ii) in terms of relative strength of the contingency link. For example, adjectives, verbs and nouns are characterised by more consistent scores, as they are located closer to the relevant dependent variables. Likewise, on the plane of semantic motivation-related values, binomials motivated by synonymy ‘code 1’, antonymy ‘code 2’ and grammatical pairs prove to be more unequivocal in the way they are treated in translation, falling within the realm of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ values for simplification respectively. In order to shed more light on the translation variation phenomenon as noted in the company registration discourse we shall move on to discuss the relevant correlation patterns, including a comparative account of the trends, that is distinctive binary distribution patterns for the three manifestations of simplification. 4.2.1.1. Part of speech variable The five values identified for the part of speech variable show distinct frequency distribution schemes throughout the three manifestations. Hence, simplification affected candidate terms prevail in adverbial, prepositional and verbal binomials

120

Translating binomials

with scores of 65.67%, 78.06% and 51.21% respectively for REDUCTION positive candidate terms. Further, INSERTION accommodates the majority of nominal and prepositional binomials with scores of 53.46% and 77.92% respectively. Finally, binomials affected by CONJUNCTION DISTORTION constitute a majority in all the part of speech-profiled categories and the relevant frequency data are 53.30%, 94.67%, 76.68%, 74.24% and 64.50% for adjectival, adverbial, nominal, prepositional and verbal binomials respectively. These correlations prove to be statistically significant (Chi-square = 300/p value = 0). Such frequency distribution schemes for the individual categories of binomials allow conclusions to be drawn from two perspectives. Firstly, in the context of the five values it emerges from the data set that the grammatical structure of binomials is to be considered as a decisive factor for the operation of simplification. We see quantitative distinctions and the simplification process is more salient for some part of speech categories of binomials. Secondly, from the perspective of the three simplification manifestations, we see distinctions in that some of them are more susceptible to variation with regard to the part of speech variable. For example, CONJUNCTION DISTORTION evidences total domination of positive cases with the part of speech profile recording the majority of positive cases. Also, there are distinctions when it comes to the part of speech correlation with simplification per total. Here, prepositional binomials record higher scores for ‘yes’ cases for all the three simplification manifestations. In order to gain further insights into the more fine-grained distinctions here, that is (i) the discriminatory power of the individual values for the part of speech category and (ii) the summative account of some trends, the forest tree statistics need to be examined. Figure 16 presents the data in point. OR (LCI UCI) p value

OR (LCI UCI) p value |

adverb |

noun

| |

| 2.73 (2.35 3.18) 0.0000 |

verb |

0.5 1 2 NO YES REDUCTION

|

1.60 (1.41 1.83) 0.0000

| 4.92 (4.18 5.79) 0.0000 |

0.81 (0.72 0.90) 0.0001 0.51 (0.44 0.58) 0.0000

|

0.15 (0.11 0.21) 0.0000

0.61 (0.55 0.69) 0.0000

preposition

adjective

1.47 (1.20 1.79) 0.0002

OR (LCI UCI) p value

| 0.02 0.050.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 NO YES INSERTION

| |

1.36 (1.20 1.55) 0.0000 0.60 (0.52 0.70) 0.0000

|

5.50 (3.66 8.27) 0.0000 1.02 (0.87 1.19) 0.8069 0.89 (0.75 1.06) 0.1971 0.56 (0.49 0.65) 0.0000 0.35 (0.30 0.42) 0.0000

0.5 1 2 5 NO YES CONJUNCTION DISTORTION

Figure 16. Three manifestations of simplification and part of speech variable.

The distribution of the individual values on the forest plots allows us to identify the discriminatory power of the individual values for the three manifestations individually and as a whole, that is, across the three manifestations. Hence, the

Translation variation

121

values that prove to be devoid of discriminatory power in the sense of showing statistically insignificant scores are noun and prepositions in correlation with CONJUNCTION DISTORTION (p values = 0.8069 and 0.1971 respectively). It emerges from the forest plot that prepositional and adverbial phrases are more often reduced than others and the odds ratios are 2.73 and 1.47 respectively, indicating a higher probability of occurrence. Verbal, adjectival and nominal phrases had an odds ratio at the level of 0.81, 0.51 and 0.61 respectively, which means that they are that much less often affected by REDUCTION than the candidate terms in the reference group. When it comes to INSERTION, this manifestation occurs more often in prepositional, nominal and verbal binomials (odds ratio = 4.09, 1.60 and 1.36 respectively). The probability of adjectival and adverbial binomials being affected by INSERTION is lower by 0.60 and 0.15 times respectively. CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is most frequently operative in the case of adverbial binomials. Here the odds ratio is 5.50. The other two statistically significant scores belong to verbal and adjectival binomials and they indicate that these two categories are characterised by CONJUNCTION DISTORTION 0.56 and 0.35 times more rarely than in the reference group. The two remaining categories of binomials, noun and preposition, do not show significant distinctions in the distribution model of the affected and unaffected candidate terms. If we consider the quantitative data horizontally we can identify some trends when it comes to the consistency of distribution patterns per specific value. The tendency noted is stable for adjectival binomials which – in the overall scheme – appear to be fairly resistant to simplification throughout the three manifestations. Another trend regarding variation consistency is to be noted in the case of adverbs and prepositions. These two categories of binomials are prone to being affected by two manifestations: REDUCTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION for adverbs and REDUCTION and INSERTION for prepositions. It needs to be noted that the scores for the odds ratio index are significantly higher for these values. This scheme stands in contrast to the nominal and verbal binomials which are prone to undergoing translation shift related to one manifestation only. For both these groups it is INSERTION. Notably, the odds ratio index is relatively low here. Overall, the model of distribution for the occurrence of simplification is more homogeneous. The translation practice with regard to simplification patterns observed across binomials shows interdependence. It emerges that the translators’ choices are conditioned by the function of the candidate terms. Items that most often carry a lot of conceptual load (nominal binomials) are less frequently reduced for fear of message distortion. In contrast, we have structural types where the translators’ interference in the formulaic structure of binomials is extensive and takes on the form of a number of manifestations (prepositional binomials). It shows that

122

Translating binomials

translators are more confident in applying the most extremist manifestations of simplifications (cf. REDUCTION) to the structural categories which serve purely stylistic functions, operating as embellishments. 4.2.1.2. Semantic motivation variable The analysis of correlations between the occurrence of the three simplification manifestations and the categories of binomials corresponding to the four classes of semantic motivation reveals an unequal distribution of values. Hence, REDUCTION is shown to be a dominating tendency for the category of synonymously motivated binomials and grammatical pairs with scores of 74.34% and 76.23% respectively. Antonymically conjoined binomials and grammatical pairs score lower for REDUCTION. In turn, INSERTION positive candidate terms outnumber those in the reference group for the category of sequential patterns (64.98%). Finally, the process of CONJUNCTION DISTORTION affected binomials most significantly. The only category of binomials where the score is higher for the unaffected cases is the category of grammatical pairs. CONJUNCTION DISTORTION positive cases in the category of synonymous binomials, antonymous binomials and sequential patterns correspond to the score of 63.51%, 73.65% and 79.59% respectively. The three correlations corresponding to the three manifestations of simplification prove to be statistically significant (Chi-square scores are 598, 188.1 and 244.9 respectively/p value = 0 in each case). Such quantitative distribution related to the simplification phenomenon points to the existence of a correlation between the variable of semantic motivation and each of the three manifestations of simplification. In terms of the forest plot data, they complement the correlation statistics in that they provide a comparative account of the relative frequency with which the three manifestations of simplification occur per individual structural category. Following the discussion scheme adopted in the previous section (i) we identify the discriminatory power of the individual values, (ii) we gather findings regarding the variation dynamics with which the semantic motivation variable operates and (iii) we find out about the variation consistency range for the individual values per three manifestations. As emerges from Figure 17 below, the majority of the values in point yield statistically significant scores in showing quantitative distinctions in the model. The only exception here is the value coded as ‘1’ corresponding to synonymously motivated binomials for which the score for CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is found to have no discriminatory power (p value = 0.6857) and value ‘2’ corresponding to antonymically motivated binomials which is also non-discriminative for INSERTION (p value = 0.5930).

123

Translation variation OR (LCI UCI) p value

OR (LCI UCI) p value |

2

|

0.65 (0.58 0.72) 0.0000 | 2.34 (1.88 2.91) 0.0000

3 |

4

0.2

0.5 2 1 NO YES REDUCTION

|

1.03 (0.92 1.15) 0.5930

|

0.65 (0.54 0.79) 0.0000

|

|

2.12 (1.88 2.39) 0.0000

0.5

NO

0.73 (0.65 0.81) 0.0000

1 2 YES INSERTION

1.57 (1.39 1.76) 0.0000 0.30 (0.25 0.36) 0.0000 | 2.19 (1.92 2.49) 0.0000

| 2.05 (1.83 2.30) 0.0000

0.31 (0.28 0.35) 0.0000 |

1

OR (LCI UCI) p value

|

0.98 (0.87 1.09) 0.6857

0.5 1 2 0.2 NO YES CONJUNCTION DISTORTION

Figure 17. Three manifestations of simplification and semantic motivation variable.

Binomials where the level of REDUCTION is higher than in the reference group rank from among the synonymously motivated units and grammatical pairs. In these cases the odds ratio here is 2.12 and 2.34 respectively, which means that for these two structural categories positive cases are found more often by 2.12 and 2.34 respectively, and the latter result is the highest odds ratio index throughout the simplification for the variable in point. In the case of antonymously motivated binomials and sequential patterns the chance of REDUCTION is lower by 0.65 and 0.31 times respectively. The category of sequential patterns is quantiatively salient when it comes to INSERTION (odds ratio = 2.05). Synonymously motivated binomials and grammatical pairs scored lower odds ratios, which evidences that the chance of INSERTION in this group is lower by 0.73 and 0.65 than in the reference group. In terms of CONJUNCTION DISTORTION, the statistically significant scores belong to synonymous, antonymous binomials, for which the chance of occurrence of CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is 2.19 and 1.57 times higher respectively than in the remaining categories. The other statistically significant score relates to grammatical pairs, for which the affected cases occur 0.30 times less frequently than in the reference group. If we approach the forest plot data with an attempt to assess the variation consistency, understood as a relatively predominant operation of one simplification manifestation for a value, the frequency distribution scheme identified for semantic motivation proves to be significantly dispersed when we compare the three manifestations. This testifies to the unidirectional operation of the semantic motivation variable towards specific simplification manifestations. In other words the predominant tendency is that, depending on the type of semantic motivation, a binomial falls in one of three simplification processes: REDUCTION, INSERTION or CONJUNCTION DISTORTION. The only category of binomials that proves to work towards consistent variation and undergoes two

124

Translating binomials

of the three processes in point are sequential patterns, which show a high odds ratio for INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION. The translation patterns that emerge here may again be accounted for from the functionalist perspective. It emerges from the data that synonymous binomials and grammatical pairs which are functionally redundant are more likely to be reduced than other categories of binomials. Reduction may be said to act to the benefit of precision and effectiveness of legal communication, and reduction of evidently redundant items saves the message processing effort. In turn, the conceptually significant, thus essential, candidate terms are tamed with more conservative mechanisms which involve splitting the formulaic structure and/or experimenting with conjunctions.

4.2.2. Extralinguistic factors This part of the research task, related to translation patterns under the impact of context-specific sociolinguistic factors, focuses on two variables. The relative frequency distribution of simplification positive cases throughout the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable and the YEAR OF TRANSLATION variable context were subject to analysis. In both cases the specific values for the two extralinguistic factors were identified in the course of the corpus search and thus constitute the exploratory component of the study. The distinctions regarding the simplification translation patterns are examined against the sociolinguistic context parameters, which is natural for the professional environment covered by the analysis. The set of texts making up the corpus, in principle homogeneous (thematically and on the basis of legal procedure) proved to be varied in terms of the TYPE OF TRANSLATION (cf. controlled variation). The concept of controlled variation stretches over the other context parameter of the YEAR OF TRANSLATION in that when compiling the corpus the pre-definition of the text search criterion was timewise restrictive (the texts were retrieved only from those court files which noted at least one entry in the National Court Register, thus actively operating branches of companies), and in this respect it is referred to as controlled, yet the actual time span covered by the corpus texts was identified only in the exploration phase and it is qualified by the natural, context specific conditions which account for the life span of the entities producing the company registration discourse. The corpus exploration revealed the existence of three types of translation: CERTIFIED, NON-CERTIFIED and CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY. The first two categories cover texts which were translated by sworn translators or produced by in–company officers or operating in bilingual versions in the companies. Alternative certification is a specificity of the contexts here and it relates to texts which have been authenticated by public officers abroad. The variable of

125

Translation variation

YEAR OF TRANSLATION encompasses the following time intervals identified in the primary coding: 2000–2005, 2006–2010, 2011–2015, 2016–2017. The border demarcation points were naturally set, the low bottom line corresponding to the oldest translation identified in the corpus. The groups are purposefully unequal and they were set to delimit periods anticipated to introduce some shifts, e. g. EU accession (2004) and the expected intensification of legal activities involving a foreign element that followed, and the latest time slot expected to be distinct in view of potential increasing standardisation in the translation practice resulting from the increase in volume of international legal practice in recent years. In order to set the grounds for the identification of the variation patterns in detail, individually for the two extralinguistic factors multiple correspondence analysis was performed (Figure 18). TT_CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY

6

Dim.2

3

YT_TIME SLOT 2000−2005 YT_TIME SLOT 2006−2010 REDUCTION_YES INSERTION_NO CONJUNCTION DISTORTION_NO TT_CERTIFIED 0 CONJUNCTION DISTORTION_YES INSERTION_YES YT_TIME SLOT 2011−2015 REDUCTION_NO YT_TIME SLOT 2016−2017

TT_NON-CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY

−3 0 a

CONJUNCTION DISTORTION

Dim.1

1

2

a

INSERTION

a

TYPE OF TRANSLATION (TT)

a

REDUCTION

a

YEAR OD TRANSLATION (YT)

Figure 18. Multiple correspondence analysis: translation variation per extralinguistic factors.

The distinctions in the relative distance between the values visualised in Figure 18 are informative about the scale of the simplification phenomena. The most marked distinction here is the relatively weak distinction between the values concerning the translations labelled as CERTIFIED and NON-CERTIFIED and the three manifestations of simplification.

126

Translating binomials

4.2.2.1. Translation variation across the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable The correlation statistics performed on the candidate terms indicate marked distinctions in the bipolar frequency distribution scheme. Some values have higher scores for simplification affected candidate terms in all three manifestations. Specifically, the translation-related values classified as CERTIFIED and CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY noted an increased score for REDUCTION, INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION, specifically 53.40% and 56.22%, and 79.65% and 64.53% respectively. This confirms the existence of a tendency in the corpus data when it comes to variation in translation in the context of the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable. It needs to be noted that the correlations in point are statistically significant for all the three manifestations of simplification (p value ≤0.05). The Chi-square value is at the level of 10.59, 50.29 and 62.70 respectively. In order to gain closer insights into the statistical data pointing to the tendency of translation variation, we present a corresponding forest plot which constitutes a supplement to the correlation statistics. Figure 19 below presents the relevant data. OR (LCI UCI) p value

OR (LCI UCI) p value

NONCERTIFIED

|

0.63 (0.47 0.84) 0.0014

CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY CERTIFIED

| |

0.5 1 NO YES REDUCTION

1.34 (1.05 1.69) 0.0163 1.19 (1.01 1.41) 0.0431

|

OR (LCI UCI) p value |

0.44 (0.31 0.62) 0.0000 |

|

1.16 (0.89 1.50) 0.2651 | 1.96 (1.60 2.38) 0.0000

0.5 1 2 NO YES INSERTION

0.40 (0.30 0.54) 0.0000 1.37 (1.07 1.74) 0.0122 | 1.82 (1.53 2.17) 0.0000

0.2

0.5 1 2 NO YES CONJUNCTION DISTORTION

Figure 19. Three manifestations of simplification and the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable.

The discrimination potential of the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable is comparatively high in general. Only in the case of the variant labelled as CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY does the score cross the centre line (p value = 0.2651) for INSERTION and thus it is held as not unequivocal. In more detail, we read from Figure 19 that the dynamics of the three frequency distribution schemes varies. The chance of occurrence of certified translations and alternatively certified translations featured by REDUCTION positive binomials is 1.19 and 1.34 times higher than in the REDUCTION negative reference group, where the chance of REDUCTION positive candidate terms is 0.63 times less frequent than in the reference group. The same tendency holds true for CONJUNCTION DISTOR-

Translation variation

127

TION, where the positive cases occur 1.82 and 1.37 times more often for certified and certified alternatively translations and 0.40 less often for non-certified translations. In the case of INSERTION the tendency is the same if we assume that the score for alternatively certified translations (p value = 0.2651) fits with this pattern on the basis that statistically insignificant scores do not evidence a contrary tendency. Hence, binomials are more likely to be INSERTION positive in translations labelled as CERTIFIED and CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY with scores of 1.96 and 1.16 respectively, while the score for the category NONCERTIFIED indicates that it is 0.44 times rarer for INSERTION positive binomials compared to the reference group. Figure 19 also allows us to discover some comparative data in the context of the said variable. It shows in which of the three manifestations the scope of translation variation is most significant. The proof is in the scope of deviation from point ‘1’, with the most extreme left and right side scores for REDUCTION, INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION being: 0.63–1.19, 0.44–1.96, 0.40–1.82 respectively. The comparison of these scores shows that the scheme for REDUCTION is most homogeneous here (the difference between the border scores is 0.56). INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION constitute more dispersed models where the frequency-based distinctions are more salient. Finally, we may examine the data in Figure 19 in terms of variation consistency per given type of translation value across the three manifestations of simplification. It shows that the frequency distribution scheme here is highly consistent. All the values prove to be consistent on the right or left side of the central line for all three manifestations of simplification. This means that the three types of translation created an environment for the consistent application of, or resistance to, the application of any of the three simplification manifestations. It needs to be noted that the category CERTIFIED ALTENATIVELY registered a statistically insignificant score in INSERTION but – in view of the fact that it does not unequivocally point to the opposite trend – it may be assumed as not undermining our scheme, accounting for a trend when binomials are simplification positive throughout the said value. Considering all the values, the data point clearly to varied intensity of the simplification process and the tendency noted proves to be consistent through all three manifestations of simplification. Specifically, binomials prove to be affected by the simplification processes when they are found in texts which are CERTIFIED or CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY translations. It may be assumed that these two categories of texts are characterised by an increased domestication factor in that the translators more often seek the most naturally sounding equivalents possible on the ground of the target language. This may be caused by a higher level of professionalism and linguistic confidence that may be associated with expert, certified translations, whether they are sworn translations (here

128

Translating binomials

referred to as CERTIFIED) or translations prepared – for example – by bilingual lawyers, authenticating legal texts or drawing up bilingual versions (here referred to as CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY). We may also assume that the pro-simplification trend in the two categories of translation arises out of increased confidence with regard to disciplinary know-how. Sworn translators and – most often – barristers, notaries public – making up the category of alternative certifying bodies, are more conscious of the cross-cultural distinctions and culture boundness factor and – having field-specific knowledge – they are able to judge where simplification is to be accepted without much risk of losing the conceptual load. They are more prone to use non-literary equivalents. Another factor that may have a significant impact on the translation output here is the institutional context of in-house translations. It emerges from our data that binomials in the non-certified translations prove to be more simplification-resistant. These translations are often prepared by in-house translators or they are part of bilingual texts. As such, they are expected to meet some institutional standards, which often include such aspects as increased use of borrowings and/or literary translation of some terms. This functional approach adopted in multinational companies is to facilitate communication, including company specific terms which often run against the linguistically accepted equivalents should there be a need to cross-reference between the source and target texts. 4.2.2.2. Translation variation across the YEAR OF TRANSLATION variable The correlation between the variable YEAR OF TRANSLATION and each of the three simplification manifestations is statistically significant. The Chi-square scores are 15.67, 24.12 and 14.94 for REDUCTION, INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION respectively. The overall conditional probability score for REDUCTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is higher for ‘yes’ cases (52.96% and 69.56%), with INSERTION scoring marginally lower than non-INSERTION (49.55%). In other words, taking into account the total score, binomials which are affected by INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION constitute the majority, while cases of REDUCTION positive score lower. When we discuss the score individually per specific time slot we find that REDUCTION positive binomials outnumbered those fitting in the reference group in all but the 2016–2017 TIME SLOT, and the scores noted are 60.29%, 52.0% and 52.61% against 49.64% respectively, along the chronological axis. Further, only the two last time slots (2011–2015 and 2016–2017) evidence to the prevalence of INSERTION positive binomials in translation, yet here the frequency-related salience is marginal and the scores in point are 52.39% and 52.42% for the chronologically viewed time slots. The situation is markedly

129

Translation variation

different for CONJUNCTION DISTORTION in which the ‘yes’ cases invariably outnumber the ‘no’ cases, meaning that binomials affected here prevail irrespective of the time slot and the chronologically reported scores are 70.77%, 66.08%, 69.24% and 74.09% respectively. In order to complement the information presented above with data which enable us to gain a contrastive perspective, forest plots per time slot are discussed here. OR (LCI UCI) p value

OR (LCI UCI) p value

TIME SLOT 2011-2015 TIME SLOT 2016-2017

| |

TIME SLOT 2000-2005 TIME SLOT 2006-2010

| |

1 NO YES REDUCTION

0.96 (0.86 1.06) 0.3729

|

1.17 (1.06 1.29) 0.0020

0.85 (0.75 0.95) 0.0062

|

1.17 (1.04 1.32) 0.0080

1.31 (1.14 1.50) 0.0002 0.94 (0.85 1.05) 0.2865

|

OR (LCI UCI) p value | | |

0.74 (0.64 0.85) 0.0000 |

1 NO YES INSERTION

0.98 (0.89 1.10) 0.7763

0.96 (0.86 1.07) 0.4485

|

1.22 (1.07 1.39) 0.0034 1.03 (0.89 1.20) 0.6845 0.83 (0.74 0.93) 0.0013

1 NO YES CONJUNCTION DISTORTION

Figure 20. Three manifestations of simplification and the YEAR OF TRANSLATION variable.

Figure 20 shows much less dispersion in the frequency distribution compared to the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable. A relatively significant number of values are characterised by low discriminatory power. Hence, the YEAR OF TRANSLATION variable did not work as a discriminative feature for REDUCTION in the case of translations fitting in the TIME SLOTS 2011–2015 (p value = 0.3729) and 2006–2010 (p value = 0.2865), since these values have a low discriminatory power. Further, cases of INSERTION affected binomials prove not to be discriminated in the case of translations fitting in TIME SLOT 2006–2010 (p value = 0.7763). Finally, translations fitting the TIME SLOTS 2011–2015 (p value = 0.4485) and 2000–2005 (p value = 0.6845) were not found to discriminate between the cases of binomials affected or not affected by CONJUNCTION DISTORTION. Other values related to the YEAR OF TRANSLATION feature discriminate relatively effectively between the simplified and non-simplified cases. Hence, the value referred to as TIME SLOT 2000–2005 is distinctive here. Binomials translated in the period 2000–2005 were REDUCTION positive 1.31 times more often than those REDUCTION negative. The odds ratio result here is the highest for this type of simplification. On the other hand, in Figure 20 we have the TIME SLOT 2016–2017 characterised by an odds ratio score that is the lowest in this category (odds ratio = 0.85), and this shows that this value effectively discriminates between the reduced and non-reduced binomials. The probability of occurrence of REDUCTION in translation of binomials translated in 2016 or 2017 is lower by

130

Translating binomials

0.85 compared to the REDUCTION negative candidate terms fitting in this time slot. The operation of the process of INSERTION shows a greater tendency in more recent times (TIME SLOT 2011–2015 and TIME SLOT 2016–2017). Binomials translated in these time frames note the same odds ratio at a level of 1.17. The preceding time slot (2000–2005) has an odds ratio score of 0.74, which means that the INSERTION is 0.74 rarer in binomials translated in this time slot. CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is the third manifestation of simplification, and is noted with the highest positive score for the TIME SLOT 2016–2017 (odds ratio = 1.22). Alternatively, we have binomials translated in the period 2006–2010 which are evidenced with the odds ratio of 0.83. In other words the operation of CONJUNCTION DISTORTION is noted 0.83 times less frequently in this category of binomials than in the reference group. The dynamics of variation per three manifestations of simplification may also be assessed via the perspective of deviation from point ‘1’ (Figure 20). The left and right side most extreme scores for REDUCTION, INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION are: 1.31–0.85, 1.17–0.74, 1.22–0.83 respectively. Based on these quantitative data we may assume that the ranges present comparable distinctions and thus the frequency distribution schemes corresponding to the three simplification manifestations may be assumed to be homogeneous to a comparable degree. To conclude, there are no significantly marked tendencies both (i) when it comes to the variation consistency pattern, whereby one variable would evidence timewise a consistent score per one manifestation or (ii) regarding an unequivocal directional development pattern in the translation variation in the short diachronic perspective covered by the study. The somewhat inconspicuous, yet relatively distinctive trends may be identified for REDUCTION per se and with regard to the other two manifestations. Hence, REDUCTION has not shown an increased odds ratio index in recent years. This shows the relative resilience of binomials to being reduced compared to the two other manifestations of simplification. In our communicative environment REDUCTION is not as readily applied as it is communicated in the literature of the subject. Further, with regard to INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION we note increased scores for the time slots 2011–2015 and 2016–2017, which means that, in this period, translation of binomials was more readily affected by INSERTION (1.17 for both time frames) and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION (0.96 and 1.22 respectively). This conclusion is drawn with the reservation that we consider the 2011–2015 score for CONJUNCTION DISTORTION – which, in principle, is rendered as having low discriminatory power – as not disturbing our data interpretation on the ground of the assumption that a statistically insignificant score does not indicate a contrary tendency. This finding may be accounted for qualitatively on

Conclusions

131

the basis of (i) the directional evolution of translation practice over time in the context of increased translation activity in recent years; and (ii) the resulting increased standardisation of translation practice which strives for simplification under the aegis of the spreading Plain Language Movement. To explain, an increased amount of translation activity, which is an established fact in the global economy, means more texts and thus more repetitive translation process and the more effective spread of translation practices, thus tendencies start to emerge. The two chronologically preceding time frames indicate inconsistency here. Fewer texts that were translated in the pre-accession period translated into increases in conservatism in translation techniques.

4.3. Conclusions The findings show that the simplification process is operative with regard to the candidate terms covered by the analysis and it has three manifestations. It emerges from the data discussed in Chapter 4 that the process operates extensively and its intensity is subject to variation (cf. translation variation). The operation of simplification per se in its three aspects may be discussed in terms of its consequences for the precision and effectiveness of legal communication. Without resorting to any attempts to assess the legitimacy of the translation techniques used by the translators which result in simplification it is necessary to conclude on the basis of the data gathered that the lack of a systemic approach in translation practice in this area (excessive yet not absolute operation of simplification) is to be perceived as a danger for the consistency and, thus clarity, of legal communication from the interlingual perspective. Specifically it may contribute to inconsistency of generic profiles and interrupt the intertextuality fit in communication when the same category of documents or related documents have distinct wording in terms of binomials. Selective and inconsistent simplification of binomials may be said to contribute to the generation of translationese in the negative sense of this term, that is a language variant which is characterised by (i) ungrammatical structures, and (ii) disturbed fluency (an increased number of objects in the capacity of antecedent referents). The summative report on the operation of the translation features under the variationist effect (cf. translation patterns) involves (i) ascertaining the variation from the linguistic and extralinguistic perspectives and (ii) assessing the discrimination potential for the relevant variables, which involves reference to the discriminatory power and variation capacity parameters. Hence, regarding the linguistic variables it emerges that both part of speech and semantic motivation variables encompass two values which do not have

132

Translating binomials

discriminatory power, in that they do not yield statistically significant results. In both cases this relates to CONJUNCTION DISTORTION, with one case identified for INSERTION. The conclusions are as follows: REDUCTION remains the most markedly variation prone in the part of speech context, where prepositional binomials noted the highest score of 2.34. The same scheme is noted for INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION, where the leaders are again prepositional strings, scoring 4.92, and adverbial binomials, with a score of 5.05. This clearly confirms that the variation capacity is higher for part of speech variables compared to semantic motivation. Following the parallel contrastive account of the impact of extralinguistic factors in the variation of simplification processes, it is to be concluded that the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable is a more influential variation factor. Hence, its relative discrimination potential is higher in that only one value proves to have lower discriminatory power (with a statistically insignificant score for translations certified alternatively in the case of INSERTION). This result is set against four cases of values ranked low in discriminatory power, noted per all the three manifestations and per all the time slots, except for the TIME SLOT 2016–2017. YEAR OF TRANSLATION thus has relatively low discrimination potential. The assessment is also positive for TYPE OF TRANSLATION, if we take into account the variation capacity parameter. Here, the cross-manifestation comparison points to the domination of TYPE OF TRANSLATION and – notably – all the highest odds ratio scores related to translations labelled as CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY. The findings show that the frequency distribution scheme for incidents of simplification is more dispersed for the variable TYPE OF TRANSLATION, which shows that the distinctions between the texts, including the operation of translation features in point, are more marked than in the diachronic perspective and thus the translation patterns are more varied. Certified translations, both those produced by sworn translators and by other entities (cf. CERTIFIED and CERTIFIED ALTERNATIVELY) prove to be more prone to undergoing simplification. The translation patterns here are relatively resistant to variation along the time axis.

General conclusions

This study is a state of the art account of the structural and functional aspects of binomials and their extended variants, as found in English/Polish company registration discourse. It is hoped that the applied perspective of the account will add to the theoretical context of academic discussions on binomials and phraseology in general by showing that usage is considerably function- and contextdependent, both in the intra- and interlingual frameworks. Still with regard to phraseology in general, the tendencies observed in monolingual and interlingual data sets can be accounted for in terms of anthropocentric linguistics which foregrounds the role of context that – apart from the linguogenetic resources of language users (in our case categories of language users) – affects the way language is individually reconstructed, that is, communication is materialised (F. Grucza, 1983; S. Grucza, 2010). In our case the English language representation of binomials shows traits of such individualism (patterns individual for categories of users) in that the population is structurally profiled compared to other contexts (e. g. literary texts), shows sociolinguistically conditioned distinctions and paradigmatic and syntagmatic variation. In the interlingual perspective the translation patterns can be fitted into the simplification framework, but they are not consistent through the structurally and contextually varied population of binomials. The context-dependent situatedness of a translation scopos, the conceptual status of specific categories of binomials and the principle of relevance (Durr, 2020; Flöter-Durr, 2019) drive translators to produce Polish equivalents often affected by simplification, in which the meaning is reconstructed (Felder & Gardt, 2018). It is hoped that the approach adopted is sufficient to satisfy a number of current postulates related to methodology, in that it exploits authentic materials which are contemporary, non-legislative texts, delimited thematically and arranged into sets of parallel texts. With regard to the scope of the analysis, the study addresses the specific phraseological issues from a broader and naturally inherent contextual perspective. The commonly recognised structural distinctions of binomials are examined for their discriminatory power, discrim-

134

General conclusions

ination potential, variation capacity and variation consistency with regard to the factors actually operative in company registration discourse and approached from the perspective of translation practice. The study dispels a number of common myths about the features of binomials in legal communication, and provides an appropriate scale to the relevant phenomena, in which some types are rare or virtually non-existent and others enjoy relatively strong positions. The simplification of binomials in translation proves to be not an absolutely operative process. For example, reduction is not applied to all categories of binomials. Moreover, the study allows us to construe updated definitions of some key concepts within the field that are relevant for contemporary communication in the domain of law. The very concept of binomial has received a new apparel, which confirms the legitimacy of the inclusion of non-formulaic candidates in the strictest sense of the term. Finally, the study brings into this domain of phraseology non-conventional research paths, leaving aside extensively and traditionally researched aspects (e. g. reversibility, motivation per se) and focusing on the sociological and interlingual aspects for which the globalised economy and increased legal trade set adequate context and create increased demand. In general the present study is an attempt to answer the research questions: (i) whether binomials are found in contemporary legal communication based on the example of company registration discourse and if ‘yes’, how well they fit in the four, well-established structure-based types (word class, linking element, semantic motivation and number of conjuncts distinctions), and what is the proportion of the individual types in company registration discourse, with regard to (a) types per structural feature and (b) types per aggregate structure (ii) whether binomials are prone to variation in the sociolinguistic perspective and (iii) whether binomials become simplified in translation and what are the manifestations of simplification in the given communicative environment. The findings show that binomials represent all the conventionally identified structure-based distinctions, though in specific proportions, which testifies to positive verification of hypothesis 1 (research question no. 1). The repertoire of candidate terms covers representatives of various word classes and categories of linking elements, semantic motivation and number of conjuncts. The ratio of the individual types varies and from the perspective of the whole corpus it is found to be genre-dependent. However, it would be too far reaching a claim that some categories that are quantitatively less salient (e. g. multinomials) are disappearing from contemporary legal communication (as items which are very culture-specific, not easy to transfer on the ground of other legal cultures, obscuring communication and having predominantly stylistic function, thus being largely redundant). It is often the case that the well-established structural frameworks are filled in with new semantic load, recontextualised and new coinages are gen-

General conclusions

135

erated. The new coinages fit in the recognised semantic fields, such as validity, credibility, authorisation, vendition, professional appellations, quality, legal instruments, to mention those most extensively represented. The per structural feature account (frequency distribution schemes) is followed by the presentation of the model of types per aggregate structure, the latter showing the actual population of candidate terms as structurally complete types (a – n clusters or a – n model) which stand out in the genre-based frequency test specifically in company registration discourse, confirming positive verification of hypothesis 1.1 (research question no. 1.1). The two perspectives are held as complementary in that they shed light on the contextual specificities of the individual structural categories and the holistic representation and environment-specific model typical for company registration discourse. The sociolinguistically-oriented section of the study shows that the English language population of candidate terms varies over time, according to text provenience and authorship category, thus hypothesis 1.2 (research question no. 1.2) has been positively verified. This shows that usage-based distinctions are noted in spite of the terminological regime and repetitiveness, legitimised in legal communication. Variation and distinctions run not only across genres, this aspect having already been on the research agenda for some time, but along other paths. In general, more recently (time frame >2010) company registration discourse favours more conventional types of binomials, i. e. true binomials (conjoined by and), synonymous binomials, defined in the literature of the subject as binomials proper. Further, the time factor does not seem to favour the prototypical categories of binomials, understood as nominal sequences, since it is adverbial and prepositional strings that are on the increase over time. In turn, diatopically, the frequency distribution system shows a tendency for UK-based communication favouring conjunction-wise combined linking patterns, showing a domination with regard to verbal and adverbial binomials, with decreased frequency of grammatical pairs, compared to the non-UK population. Finally, in the context of authorship, the most marked distinctions are grounded in nonprofessional entities (cf. 3.2.2.) favouring the use of candidate terms which may be said to exceed the mainstream, conventional profile, that is bi-component sequences, conjoined by or, adverbial and prepositional candidate terms, antonymous binomials or grammatical pairs. This shows that binomials are not absent from the phraseological repertoire of users without an educational background in law. Additionally, more sophisticated types in the group of binomials are found to be even more typical for the discourse of this group of users. The closer qualitative analysis shows that it is these structural types that tend to constitute functionally important elements of company registration discourse, and are thus recurrently used to ensure intertextual links and congruity of in-

136

General conclusions

company communication, where the prefabrication principle is demonstrated to cover longer, and generally rarer strings. In general, with regard to research question no. 1.1 the variationist perspective shows the onomasiological potential of the candidate terms. Many of them operate in company registration discourse along their structural variants (cf. structural variantivity), resting on variation in the paradigmatic framework with regard to linking element or change of order of conjuncts and functional variants, whereby the related strings are generated with the use of distinct, yet conceptually related conjuncts (cf. functional variantivity). The translation-related part presents some findings regarding the simplification process noted in translation practice (research question no. 2). The relevant hypothesis posed has been positively verified and REDUCTION emerges as a phenomenon which is largely involved in the practice of translating binomials, yet the empirical material shows two other processes at work: INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION. REDUCTION is not the only factor which violates the conventional and inherent grammatical and semantic structure of binomials, and thus the formulaicity-based intertextual layer of legal texts. The conclusion here is that INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION need to be treated as additional manifestations of simplification, which may be described in terms of specific frequency distribution schemes. The translation shifts appear to be triggered by the operation of two forces: (1) the common belief that all binomials are relicts of the past and as such we are permitted to reduce them, (2) the natural endeavour to meet the ‘verbalises well’ requirement, accounted for by the rules of Polish common language grammar, which tempt translators to destabilise formulaic word strings. The processes may be said to fit in the tendency noted for EU legal language which accepts deprivation of the innate cultural component in the process of deculturalization, deterritorialization and neutralization (Sosoni & Biel, 2018, p. 3). Further, it emerges that in some cases the type of simplification process and its intensity are dependent on the structural profile of binomials and their sociolinguistic context, regarding the translation type and the date of translation factors (research questions no. 2.1 and 2.2). Both the hypotheses in point here (i. e. hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2) have been positively verified, with the reservation of distinctions in the discrimination potential of the variables examined. The cases confirmed for sustainable variationist trends are found to pertain to all the variables examined. Translation variation with regard to simplification is partially controlled, in that patterns emerge. Hence, the peripheral binomials (adverbial and prepositional binomials) are more frequently reduced than the principal part of speech categories. With regard to semantic motivation, binomials motivated by complementarity are more resistant to being reduced than synonymous strings or grammatical pairs, and they are more prone to under-

General conclusions

137

going INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION. Further, certified translations and translations certified alternatively constitute the environment where binomials appear to be more readily reduced than in non-certified translations. The short diachronic perspective proves to be the weakest variation factor. REDUCTION does not show any clear-cut tendency over time, while INSERTION and CONJUNCTION DISTORTION show a slight increase in recent years, which may be accounted for on the grounds of increasing harmonisation of translation practice towards a more consistent application of the two processes, engendering a more progressive approach to the translation of binomials. Aware of the limitations of the study and the need to further verify the results, the author remains confident about the possible application of the material studied and attached. The findings shall be of substantial use for didactic purposes in the domain of teaching both legal language and legal translation. With so much being said about the importance of the heterogeneity of legal language and thus the need to take account of various language internal and language external distinctions that exceed the canonical, genre-based classifications of language use, the material seems to satisfy today’s expectations of language description, and as such it may present reliable teaching material or a source of reference for the compilation of teaching curricula. The findings are based on a corpus which covers a clearly delineated communicative environment. The corpus is authentic, parallel and strictly thematic. Candidate terms are extensively annotated for metadata, all of which enables a discussion of the status of binomials from both an intra- and inter-linguistic perspective, encapsulating the sociolinguistic aspect of language use. These aspects of the material presented should naturally be appreciated by scholars working on the development and/or improvement of the efficiency of lexical processing tools, including machine translation devices. Effective IT programming in this respect is largely conditioned by access to linguistic material that is rich in sociolinguistic description, authentic and drawn from non-prescriptive texts, and it is hoped this study has contributed in some way to setting the ground for further analyses of the English/Polish language material by providing some tentative insights into the distinctions under examination and offering authentic data to be further processed. The study leaves space for both technical improvements and a continuation in terms of the methodological aspects and scope of analysis. Methodologically, the statistical analysis had to be performed on imbalanced data sets (population 1 and sample 1). Such was, however, the natural representation of the candidate terms identified on court files and such were the research goals aiming at presenting the scale of the phenomenon from a number of angles. An account per phrase ID would seem to be informative and revealing about some other aspects. Likewise, variation is calculated in terms of odds ratio result for all occurrences of the candidate terms and an account per lexical types (phrase ID) would provide

138

General conclusions

more fine-grained insights into the specific generic profile of the candidate terms. These research directions are to be followed. It needs to be emphasised here that in view of the effort made in the compilation of the corpus (systemic court files search and subsequent digitalisation), and the corpus pre-processing involving manual coding, the methodological apparatus had to be calibrated in such a way as to make the study feasible in a specific time frame and – importantly – provide an exhaustive account of the repertoire of candidate terms in the said communicative environment against the authentic sociolinguistic background. It remains the author’s hope that under these conditions any limitations of research scope may be justifiably overlooked. Here the intention was to capture the dynamics of use and to verify how saturated company registration discourse is with binomials by presenting the frequency data per number of hits. The model of types per aggregate structure was derived by calculations on all the exhaustive data sets and, as such, it is to be held as unique for the given communicative environment. The methodology adopted enabled the development of a picture that allows the identification of the scale of the phenomenon and the relevant interdependencies. Narrowing the analysis to more homogeneous samples in terms of quantitative representation and/or seeking interlinguistic distinctions per phrase ID would necessitate choosing quantitatively calibrated samples of the population and would produce at best a fragmentary picture, without taking account of quantitatively marginal cases, and as such it would address different research questions. It remains without doubt that the study should be followed by more in-depth analyses limited to sections of the corpus which would be closely homogeneous per genre from among those where binomials occur. This would have the potential to yield more detailed results regarding (i) the specific communicative functions (stylistic and/or pragmatic) being performed by a set of conceptually related binomials and (ii) the category of genre-specific binomials which are employed only in selected genres. Further, future analyses could extend the qualitative analysis and strengthen the semantic and pragmatic dimension. Binomials could be examined for their participation in embodying specific concepts and/or manifesting specific discourse functions. Going beyond the field of commercial law, further studies in the said contexts should cover other legal disciplines and language pairs and they should take account of systemic structural differences between languages. Also, defining the cognitive framework of the scheme observed would allow us to establish the mechanism governing the application of simplification in cases where no marked correlation patterns were identified. The data obtained in the analysis with regard to simplification may be assumed to set a solid foundation for prescriptive studies in the said field. From the perspective of the adequacy of the formulae used, comparative law study, en-

General conclusions

139

compassing the candidate terms representative for various structural profiles, would shed some light on the recipients’ expectations, setting acceptability criteria for simplification, which is very much expected from the perspective of didactic and translation practice.

Bibliography

Abraham, R. D. (1950). Fixed order of coordinates: A study in comparative lexicography. The Modern Language Journal, 34(4), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.2307/318913. Adler, M. (2012). The Plain Language Movement. In P. M. Tiersma & L. M.Solan (Eds.), Language and Law (pp. 67–83). Oxford University Press. Aijmer, K. (2009). Parallel and comparable corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics – An International Handbook (pp. 275–291). Walter de Gruyter. Al-Jarf, R. (2016). Translation of English and Arabic binomials by advanced and novice student translators. In L. Ilynska & M. Platonova (Eds.), Meaning in Translation. Illusion of Precision (pp. 281–199). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Altenberg, B., & Aijmer, K. (2000). The English-Swedish parallel corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. In C. Mair & M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) (pp. 15–33). Rodopi. Altohami, M. W. (2020). Doublets in legal discourse: Data-driven insights for enhancing the phraseological competence of EFL law students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(20), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i20.13985. Andrades, A. (2016). Propuesta de equivalencias de binomios en la traducción jurídica inglés-español. Estudios de Traducción, 6, 129–145. Babbie, E. (2008). Podstawy badan´ społecznych. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Bach, U. (2017). ‘I do make and ordayne this my last wyll and testament in maner and forme Following’: Functions of binomials in Early Modern English protestant wills. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 222–240). Cambridge University Press. Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Togini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: in Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–250). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bakir, M. J. (1999). Ordering principles in conjoined lexical pairs. Linguistic Research, 4, 9– 33. Bázlik, M., & Ambrus, P. (2008). A Grammar of Legal English. Wolters Kluwer. Bendz, G. (1965). Ordpar. P.A. Nordstedt and Söner Förlag. Beru¯ksˇtiene˙, D. (2017). A corpus-driven analysis of structural types of lexical bundles in court judgments in English and their translation into Lithuanian. Kalbotyra, 7–31.

142

Bibliography

Bhatia, V. (2006). Legal genres. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier. Bhatia, V. (2017). Critical Genre Analysis. Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Settings. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Bhatia, V., & Bhatia, A. (2011). Legal discourse across cultures and socio-pragmatic contexts. World Englishes 30(4), 481–495. Biel, Ł. (2014a). Lost in the Eurofog: the Textual Fit of Translated Law. Peter Lang. Biel, Ł. (2014b). Phraseology in legal translation: A corpus-based analysis of textual mapping in EU law. In L. Cheng, K., K. Sin, & A. Wagner (Eds.), The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation (pp. 177–192). Ashgate Publishing Company. Biel, Ł. (2015). Phraseological profiles of legislative genres: Complex prepositions as a special case of legal phrasemes in EU law and national law. Fachsprache, 3–4, 139–160. Biel, Ł. (2018a). Corpora in institutional legal translation: Small steps and the big picture. In F. P. Ramos (Ed.), Institutional Translation for International Governance. Enhancing Quality in Multilingual Legal Communication (pp. 25–36). Bloomsbury. Biel, Ł. (2018b). Lexical bundles in EU law: The impact of translation process on the patterning of legal language. In S. Goz´dz´-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.), Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 11–26). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Biel, Ł., Biernacka, A., & Jopek-Bosiacka, A. (2018). Collocations of terms in EU competition law: A corpus analysis of EU English collocations. In S. Marino, Ł. Biel, M. Bajcˇic´, & V. Sosoni (Eds.), Language and Law. The Role of Language and Translation in EU Competition Law (pp. 249–274). Springer. Bielawski, P. (2022). Juristische Phraseologie im Kontext der Rechtsübersetzung am Beispiel deutscher und polnischer Anklageschriften. Frank and Timme GmbH. Bielecki, L. & Ruczkowski, P. (2019). Komentarz do ustawy o zasadach uczestnictwa przedsie˛biorców zagranicznych i innych osób zagranicznych w obrocie gospodarczym na terytorium Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. In Konstytucja biznesu. Komentarz. Wolters Kluwer Polska. Bissardon, S. (2005). Guide du language juridique. Vocabulaire, pièges et difficultés. LexisNexis Litec. Blanco, X. (2020). Remarques sur la variation diachronique des collocations. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 1(116), 7–94. Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E. A. (1983). Universals of lexical simplification. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 119–139). Longman. Bunin, B. S., & Levy, R. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language, 82, 233–278. Burger, H. (1998). Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Erich Schmidt. Cartoni, B., Zufferey, S., Meyer, T. (2013). Using the Europarl corpus for cross-linguistic research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 27(27), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.27.0 2car. Chapman, D. (2017). Fixity and flexibility in Wulfstan’s binomials. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 41–62). Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

143

Cheng, W. (2014). Corpus analyses of professional discourse. In V. Bhatia & S. Bremner (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 13– 25). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Chesterman, A. (2004). Hypotheses about translation universals. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær, & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies (pp. 1–14). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cooper, W., & Ross, J. (1975). World order. In R. Grossman, L. J. San, & T. Vance (Eds.), Papers from parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–111). Chicago Linguistic Society. Cornu G. (2005). Linguistique juridique. Montchrestien. Coupland, N. (2014). Social context, style, and identity in sociolinguistics. In J. Holmes & K. Hazen (Eds.), Research Methods in Sociolinguistics. A Pracitcal Guide (pp. 290–304). Wiley Blackwell. Cowie, A. P. (1988). Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use. In R. Carter, R. & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp. 126–139). Longman. Dijk van, T. A. (2015). Context. In K. Trac (Ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 198–209). Wiley Blackwell. Długosz, T., Niewe˛głowski, A., Piszcz, A., Rutkowska-Tomaszewska, E., & Zakrzewski, P. (2019). Oddziały przedsie˛biorców zagranicznych. In G. Kozieł (Ed.), CEIDG. Rzecznik Małych i S´rednich Przedsie˛biorców. Przedsie˛biorcy zagraniczni w obrocie gospodarczym. Komentarz (pp. 297–301). C.H. Beck. Dobric´ Basanezˇe, K. (2017). Interpreting phraseological units in contracts: The case of extended term-embedding collocation. Pregledni Rad, SL 84 5 ru, 199–216. https://doi.o rg/10.22210/suvlin.2017.084.04. Dobric´ Basanezˇe, K. (2018a). Binomials in EU competition law. In M. Silva, B. Łucja, B. Martina, & So. Vilelmini (Eds.), Language and Law. The Role of Language and Translation in EU Competition Law (pp. 225–249). Springer. Dobric´ Basanezˇe, K. (2018b). Extended binomial expressions in the language of contracts. In S. Goz´dz´-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.), Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings (pp. 203–220). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Donalies, E. (2015). Kurz und Bündig – über Mehrlingsformeln. Sprachreport, 31(3), 28–33. Durr, M. (2017). La notion de pertinence en traduction juridique bidirectionnelle françaisallemand. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01831568v1. Durr, M. (2020). La pertinence en traduction juridique. Un regard franco-allemand. Peter Lang. Ellis, N. C. (2017). Chunking in language usage, learning and change: I don’t know. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 113–147). Cambridge University Press. Feilke, H. (2007). Strukturelle Aspekte der Phraseme/Structural aspects of set phrases. In H. Burger, D. Dobrovol’skij, P. Kühn, & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Phraseologie. Ein Internationles Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung/Phraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 20–26). Walter de Gruyter. Felder, E., & Gardt, A. (2018). Wirklichkeit oder Konstruktion? Sprachtheoretische und Interdisziplinäre Aspekte einer Brisanten Alternative. Walter de Gruyter. Flöter-Durr, M. (2019). Die Diskursivität in der Übersetzung: Sinn, Gebrauch und Relevanz. Linguistische Treffen in Wrocław, 15(1), 69–79.

144

Bibliography

Frade, C. (2005). Legal multinomials: Recovering possible meanings from vague tags. In V. Bhatia, J. Engberg, M. Gotti, & D. Heller (Eds.), In Vagueness in Normative Texts (pp. 133–156). Peter Lang. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2014). Corporate communication. In V. Bhatia, & S. Bremner (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 220–236). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2004). Lost in parallel concordances. In G. Aston, S. Bernardini, & D. Steward (Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners (pp. 213–229). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Frontini, F., Boukhaled, M. A., & Ganascia, J.-G. (2018). Approaching French theatrical characters by syntactical analysis: a study with motifs and correspondence analysis. In D. Legallois, T. Charnois, & M. Larjavaara (Eds.), The Grammar of Genres and Styles: From Discrete to Non-Discrete Units (pp. 118–139). Walter de Gruyter. Fulk, R. D. (2017). Pragmatic and stylistic functions of binomials in Old English. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English Fixed and Flexible (pp. 27– 40). Cambridge University Press. Gabrovsˇek, D. (2011). ‘Micro’ phraseology in action: A look at fixed binomials. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 8(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10. 4312/elope.8.1.19-29. Galdia, M. (2009). Legal Linguistics. Peter Lang. García, A. B. (2020). Changement linguistique et variation : étude de capaz que et de de repente. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 1(116), 45–69. Gaweł, A. (2017). Zur Ikonizität deutscher Zwillingsformeln. Linguistik Online, 81(2/17), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.81.3645. Gémar, J.-C., & Mattila, H. E. S. (2012). Jurilinguistique comparée: langage du droit, latin et langues modernes. Éditions yvon blais. Giammarresi, S. (2010). Formulaicity and translation: A cross-corpora analysis of English formualic binomials and their Italian translation. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language: Acquisition and Communication (pp. 257–275). Continuum International Publishing Press. Gläser, R. (1998). The stylistic potential of phraseological units in the light of genre analysis. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp. 125–143). Oxford University Press. Gläser, R. (2007). Fachphraseologie. In H. Burger, D. Dobrovol’skij, P. Kühn, & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Phraseologie. Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung/ Phraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 482–505). Walter de Gruyter. Gołaczyn´ski, J. (2015). Jurysdykcja, uznawanie orzeczen´ sa˛dowych oraz ich wykonywanie w sprawach cywilnych i handlowych. Rozporza˛dzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1215/2012. Komentarz. C.H. Beck. Gordon, C. (2017). Discourse analysis. In K. Trac (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 382–397). Wiley Blackwell. Gos´cin´ski, J. (2016). The names of English judicial offices, courts and tribunals and their translation into Polish. Comparative Legilinguistics, International Journal for Legal Communication, 28, 43–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/cl.2016.28.3.

Bibliography

145

Goz´dz´-Roszkowski, S. (2011). Patterns in Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. Peter Lang. Grabowski, Ł. (2015a). O frazeologii z perspektywy je˛zykoznawstwa korpusowego. Przegla˛d głównych nurtów badawczych z ostatniego dwudziestolecia w Wielkiej Brytanii i USA. In Problemy Frazeologii Europejskiej X (pp. 23–48). Oficyna Wydawnicza LEKSEM. Grabowski, Ł. (2015b). Phraseology in English Pharmaceutical Discourse; A Corpus-driven Study of Register Variation. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego. Graën, J., & Volk, M. (2021). Binomial adverbs in Romance and Germanic languages – A corpus-based study. In J. Lavid-López, C. Maíz-Arévalo, & J. R. Zamorano-Mansilla (Eds.), Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age: Recent Advances and Explorations (pp. 326–342). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Granger, S. (2005). Pushing back the limits of phraseology: How far can we go? In C. Cosme, C. Gouverneur, F. Meunier, & M. Paquot (Eds.), Proceedings of Phraseology 2005. An Interdisciplinary Conference (pp. 165–168). Université Catholique de Louvain. Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 27–50). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Grass, T. (1999). Phraseme des Zivilrechts in einem zweisprachigen elektronischen Wörterbuch französisch–deutsch. In A. Sabban (Ed.), Phraseologie und Übersetzen (pp. 119– 130). Aisthesis Verlag. Grimm, J. (1816). Von der Poesie im Recht. Zeitschrift Für Geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, 2, 25–99. Groot de, E. (2014). Corporate communication and the role of annual reporting. In S. Bremner & V. Bhatia (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 220–236). Routledge Taylor & Francis. Grover, C. (1999). Coordination. In K. Brow (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories (pp. 115–122). Elsevier. Grucza, F. (1983). Zagadnienia metalingwistyki. Lingwistyka – jej przedmiot, lingwistyka stosowana. PWN. Grucza, S. (2010). Główne tezy antropocentrycznej teorii je˛zyków. Lingwistyka Stosowana – Applied Linguistics – Angewandte Linguistik. Przegla˛d/Review, 2, 41–68. Gunnarsson, B.-L. (2009). Professional Discourse. Continuum International Publishing Press. Gustafsson, M. (1975). Binomial Expressions in Present-day English: A Syntactic and Semantic Study. Turun Yliopisto. Gustafsson, M. (1976). The frequency and ‘frozeness’ of some English binomials. Neuphilologische Mittelingen, 77, 623–637. Gustafsson, M. (1984). The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal English. Text, 4(1–3), 123–141. Hadryan, M. (2017). Polish-Swedish Translation: A Parametric Approach to Comparison of Legal Terminology. Wydawnictwo Naukowe CONTACT. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Hodder Arnold. Hallsteinsdóttir, E., & Farø, K. (2010). Interlinguale Phraseologie. In K. Kuiper (Ed.), Yearbook of Phraseology 1 2010 (pp. 125–158). Walter de Gruyter.

146

Bibliography

Hamdan, J. M., & Guba, M. N. A. (2007). The treatment of binomials in monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES), 8, 105– 122. Hansen-Schirra, S., & Gutermuth, S. (2015). Approaching comprehensibility in translation studies. In K. Maksymski, S. Gutermuth, S. Hansen-Schirra (Eds.), Translation and Comprehensibility (pp. 53–76). Frank and Timme GmbH. Hejazi, S., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2015). Translation of binomials in hard news: A contrastive study of English and Persian. Sciences, Mediterranean Journal of Social, 6(2 S1), 512– 516. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Hofmeister, W. (2009). Zwillingsformel. In G. Uedin (Ed.), Historisches Lexikon der Rhetorik (pp. 1584–1586). Tübingen. Hofmeister, W. (2010). Sammlung der gebräuchlichen Zwillingsformeln in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Graz. Houbert, F. (2005). Guide pratique de la traduction juridique (anglais-français). La Maison du Dictionnaire. Hudalla, I. (2012). Phraseologismen der deutschen Rechtssprache und ihre Ubertragung ins Franzosische – ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln? Pladoyer fur ein juristisch orientiertes, pragmatisches Ubersetzungskonzept. Beiträge Zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung, 52, 97– 114. Huerta, P. M. (2020). Création, variabilité, variantes phraséologiques et diatopiques. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 1(116), 173–195. Iglesias-Rábade, L. (2007). Twin lexical collocations in legal late Middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 43, 17–47. Innes, B. (2016). Summing up in jury trials as interactive discourse – one plank in the New Zealand judiciary effort to improve communication with juries. In R. Lawson & D. Sayers (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Research Application and Impact (pp. 132–151). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Jensen, M. N. (2015). Optimising comprehensibility in interlingual translation: The need for intralingual translation. In K. Maksymski, S. Gutermuth, S. Hansen-Schirra (Eds.), Translation and Comprehensibility (pp. 163–194). Frank & Timme GmbH. Jara, Z., & Schlichte, J. (2006). Przenoszenie siedzib polskich i niemieckich spółek do innego pan´stwa członkowskiego Unii Europejskiej. Przegla˛d Prawa Handlowego, 2, 25– 30. Jopek-Bosiacka, A. (2012). Przekład prawny i sa˛dowy. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA. Jopek-Bosiacka, A. (2019). Teoretycznoprawne i logiczne uwarunkowania przekładu prawnego. Wolters Kluwer Polska. Khatibzadeh, P., & Sameri, M. (2013). Translation of binomials in political speeches and reports; Contrastive study of English and Persian. Elixir International Journal Linguistics and Translation, 56 A, 13779–13785. Kjœr, L. A. (1990). Context-conditioned word combination in legal language. Journal of the International Institute for Terminology Research, 1(1–2), 21–32. Kjœr, L. A. (2007). Phrasemes in legal texts. In H. Burger, D. Dobrovol’skij, P. Kühn, & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Phraseologie. Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössi-

Bibliography

147

schen Forschung/Phraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 506–515). Walter de Gruyter. Klein, J.-R. (2020). Les apparences sont trompeuses ou Souvent X varie bien fol est qui s’y fie Réflexions sur les concepts ‘variation’ et ‘variante’ en parémiologie. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 1(116), 145–171. Kochman-Haładyj, B. (2021). Anglo-American and Polish Proverbs Linguo-Cultural Perspective on Traditional Values. Peter Lang. Koevering van, K., Benson, A. R., & Kleinberg, J. (2020). Frozen binomials on the web: Word ordering and language conventions in online text. WWW ’20: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, 606–616. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380143. Kopaczyk, J. (2009). (Multi-word) units of meaning in 16th–century legal Scots. In R. W. McConchie, A. Tyrkkö, & H. Jukka (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (pp. 85–95). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Kopaczyk, J. (2013). The Legal Language of Scottish Burghs. Oxford University Press. Kopaczyk, J., & Sauer, H. (2017). Defining and exploring binomials. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 1–25). Cambridge University Press. Koskenniemi, I. (1968). Repetitive Word Pairs in Old and Early Middle English Prose. Turun Yliopisto. Koz´biał, D. (2018). Phraseological profile of judgements: Complex prepositions in EU competition law judgements. In S. Marino, Ł. Biel, M. Bajcˇic´, & V. Sosoni (Eds.), Language and Law. The Role of Language and Translation in EU Competition Law (pp. 325– 358). Springer. Kraakman, R., Armour, J., Davies, P., Enriques, L., Hansmann, H., Hertig, G., Hopt, K., Kanda, H., Pargendler, M., Ringe, W.-G., & Rock, E. (2004). The Anatomy of Corporate Law. A Comparative and Functional Approach. Oxford University Press. Krzemin´ska-Krzywda, J. (2010). Juristische Phraseologie und Formulierungsmuster als Übersetzungsproblem. In J. Maliszewski (Ed.), Posener Beiträge zur Germanistik, Volume 25: Diskurs und Terminologie beim Fachübersetzen und Dolmetschen (pp. 137– 149). Peter Lang. Krzeszowski, T. (1990). Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs No. 51). Walter de Gruyter. Krzyz˙anowska, A., & Grossmann, F. (2018). Rapport Pragmatèmes en contraste: de la modélisation linguistique au codage lexicographique. In La phraséologie française: sens, co-textes, contextes (Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature), 42(4), 252– 265. Kubacki, A. (2012). Tłumaczenie Pos´wiadczone. Status, kształcenie, Warsztat i Odpowiedzialnos´c´ Tłumacza Przysie˛głego. Wolters Kluwer Polska. Kubacki, A. (2016). Der plurizentrische Ansatz in der Rechtsübersetzung. Eine Fallstudie zur schweizerhochdeutschen und bundesdeutschen Terminologie im Familienrecht. Lingwistyka Stosowana, 18(3), 65–77. Kubacki, A., & Wie˛cławska, E. (2022). Modelling comprehensibility in legal translation from a computational and empirical perspective: How practice meets expectations. Sociolinguistics 36 (in print).

148

Bibliography

Kubaschewski, E. (2017). Binomials in Caxton’s Ovid (Book I). In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 141–150). Cambridge University Press. Lambrecht, K. (1984). Formulaicity, frame semantics, and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language, 60(4), 753–796. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2013). VARTRA: A comparable corpus for analysis of translation variation. In Proceedings of 6th Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora (pp. 77–86). Association for Computational Linguistics. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2015). Variation in translation: Evidence from corpora. In C. Fantinuoli, F. Zanettin (Eds.), New Directions in Corpus-based Translation Studies (pp. 93–114). Language Science Press. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., & Zampieri, M. (2018). Linguistic features of genre and method variation in translation: a computational perspective. In D. Legallois, T. Charnois, & M. Larjavaara (Eds.), The Grammar of Genres and Styles: From Discrete to Non-Discrete Units (p. 92–117). Walter de Gruyter. Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1997). The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A Resource and a Methodology for the Empirical Study of Translation. Unpublished PhD thesis. UMIST Manchester. Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (2011). Universals of translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 288–291). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Lee, D.Y.W. (2008). Corpora and discourse analysis. In V. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in Discourse Studies (pp. 87–99). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Legallois, D., Charnois, T., & Larjavaara, M. (2018). The balance between quantitative and qualitative literary stylistics: how the method of ‘motifs’ can help. In D. Legallois, T. Charnois, & M. Larjavaara (Eds.), The Grammar of Genres and Styles: From Discrete to Non-Discrete Units (pp. 165–193). Walter de Gruyter. Lehmberg, T., & Wörner, K. (2009). Annotation standards. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics – An International Handbook (pp. 484–501). Walter de Gruyter. Lehto, A. (2017). Binomials and multinomials in Early Modern English Parliamentary Acts. In J. Kopaczyk, & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 261–277). Cambridge University Press. Les´niewska, J. (2019). Articles in English as a Second Language: A Phraseological Perspective. Jagiellonian University Press. Levelt, C., & Sedee W. (2004). De normen en waarden van ‘normen en waarden’. Paper presented at TIN-dag (The Linguistic Society of the Netherlands annual meeting). Utrecht. Lewin´ski, P. (2013). Załoz˙enia gramatyki funkcjonalnej. In A. Burzyn´ska-Kamieniecka & A. Libura (Eds.), Sapientia Ars Vivendi (pp. 459–475). Oficyna Wydawnicza ATUT. Lindroos, E. (2015). Im Namen des Gesetzes. Eine vergleichende rechtslinguistische Untersuchung zur Formelhaftigkeit in deutschen und finnischen Strafurteilen. Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 297. Lapland University Press. Lohmann, A. (2011). Constituent order in coordinate constructions – a processing perspective. Germany University of Hamburg dissertation.

Bibliography

149

Lombardi, A. (2007). ‘Rechtswidrige Taten fordern’. Usuelle Wortverbindungen in strafrechtlichen Texten (deutsch vs. italienisch). In K. Ehlich & D. Heller (Eds.), Studien zur Rechtskommunikation (pp. 115–151). Peter Lang. Longerée, D., & Mellet, S. (2018). Towards a topological grammar of genres and styles: a way to combine paradigmatic quantitative analysis with a syntagmatic approach. In D. Legallois, T. Charnois, & M. Larjavaara (Eds.), The Grammar of Genres and Styles: From Discrete to Non-Discrete Units (pp. 140–163). Walter de Gruyter. Macken, L., Clercq de, O., & Paulussen, H. (2011). Dutch parallel corpus: A balanced copyright cleared parallel corpus. Meta, LVI(2), 374–390. Malkiel, Y. (1959). Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua, 8, 113–160. Matulewska, A. (2017). Contrastive Parametric Study of Legal Terminology in Polish and English. Wydawnictwo Naukowe CONTACT. Mautner, G. (2015). Corporate discourse. In K. Tracy (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 2040–2252). Wiley-Blackwell. McEnery, T., & Andrew, H. (2012). Corpus Linguistics. Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press. Mejri, S. (2018). La phraséologie: cotexte, contexte et contenus culturels. In S. Mejri & A. Krzyz˙anowska (Eds.), La phraséologie française: sens, co-textes, contextes (pp. 11–38). Maria Curie Skłodowska University Press. Mel’cˇuk, I. (1998). Collocations and lexical functions. In A.P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp. 23–53). Oxford University Press. Melinkoff, D. (1963). The Language of the Law. Little, Brown. Michnik, A. (2009). Poste˛powanie o wpis do rejestru przedsie˛biorców. Wolters Kluwer Polska. Mollin, S. (2012). Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–384. Mollin, S. (2013). Pathways of change in the diachronic development of binomials reversibility in late Modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 4(2), 168–203. Mollin, S. (2017). Developments in the frequency of English binomials. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 281–295). Cambridge University Press. Moreno, A. A. (2013). La importancia de los binomios en la traducción jurídica. Translating Culture, Series Interlingua, 3, 401–414. Motschenbacher, H. (2013). Gentlemen before ladies? A Corpus-based study of conjunct order in personal binomials. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(3), 212–242. Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Napierała, J. (2008). Oddział spółki zagranicznej w Polsce w s´wietle europejskiego prawa. In M. Cejmer, J. Napierała, T. Sójka, A. Gawrysiak-Zabłocka, P. Grzegorczyk, M. Jamroz˙y, J. Jerzmanowski, W. Klyta, K. Oplustil, M. Spyra, & T. Targosz (Eds.), Europejskie prawo spółek. T. IV. Spółki zagraniczne w Polsce (pp. 69–114). Wolters Kluwer Polska. Nirkhi, S., & Dharaskar, R. (2013). Comparative study of authorship identification techniques for cyber forensic analysis. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 4(5), 32–35. Nirkhi, S., Dharaskar, R., & Thakare, V. M. (2016). Authorship verification of online messages for forensic investigation. Procedia Computer Science, 78, 640–645.

150

Bibliography

Nowak-Korcz, P. (2013). Selected features of Polish and French contract law – characteristics of contracts for transferring rights to things. Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication, 14, 47–116. Oddo, A. (2020). Peut-on établir la diachronie de la diatopie? Cahiers de Lexicologie, 1(116), 197–216. Ogura, M. (2017). Binomials, word pairs and variation as a feature of style. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 63–82). Cambridge University Press. Ostermann, A. C. (2015). Community of practice. In K. Trac (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 177–186). Wiley Blackwell. Peruzzo, K. (2017). Legal system: an additional variable in the analysis of short-term diachronic evolution of legal terminology. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 2 (2), 291–313. Pe˛zik, P. (2018). Facets of Prefabrication. Perspectives on Modelling and Detecting Phraseological Units. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódziego. Picton, A. (2011). Picturing short-term diachronic phenomena in specialised corpora: A textual terminology description of the dynamics of knowledge in space technologies. Terminology, 17(1), 134–156. Płomin´ska, M. (2019). Juristische Fachpheaseologie – Zwischen Konvention und Routine. Untersucht am Beispiel deutscher und polnischer Gesetzestexte zum Zivilrecht. (Warschauer Studien zur Germanistik und zur Angewandten Linguistik 34). Peter Lang. Płomin´ska, M. (2020). Routineausdrücke in deutschen Gesetzestexten – Versuch einer Klassifizierung. Colloquia Germanica Stetinensia, 29, 239–253. https://doi.org/DOI: 1 0.18276/CGS.2020.29-13. Pontrandolfo, G. (2015). Investigating judicial phraseology with COSPE: A contrastive corpus-based study. In C. Fantinuoli, & F. Zanettin (Eds.), New Directions in Corpusbased Translation Studies (pp. 137–160). Language Science Press. Pontrandolfo, G. (2019). Corpus methods in legal translation studies. In Ł. Biel, J. Engberg, M. R. M. Ruano, & V. Sosoni (Eds.), Research Methods in Legal Translation and Interpreting. Crossing Methodological Barriers (pp. 13–28). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Rabadán, R. (2007). Translating the ‘predictive’ and ‘hypothetical’ meanings English/ Spanish. Meta, 52(3), 484–502. Rutkowska, H. (2017). Binomials in Several Editions of the Kalender of Shepherdes, an Early Modern English Almanac. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 175–200). Cambridge University Press. Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2014). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Salkie, R. (2018). Legal phraseology in contrast. The fact that and its German counterparts. In S. Goz´dz´-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.), Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus- based Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 126–143). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Sánchez, I. R. (2013). Frequency and specialisation in Spanish binomials N y N. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 95, 284–292. Sauer, H. (2017). Flexible and formulaic: Binomials and multinomials in the Late Middle English. The Wise Book of Philosophy and Astronomy. Acta Philologica, 50, 61–79.

Bibliography

151

Sauer, H. (2019). In defence of Lydgate: Lydgate’s use of binomials in his Troy Book (Part 1). Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagiellonicae Cracoviensis, 136, 227–244. Schaefer, U. (2017). On the linguistic and social developments of a binomial: The example of to have and to hold. In J. Kopaczyk, & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 322–343). Cambridge University Press. Schleppergrell, M. J. (2012). Systemic functional linguistics. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 21–34). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Schmidt, H. (2009). Tokenizing and part-of-speech tagging. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics – An International Handbook (pp. 527–552). Walter de Gruyter. Sosoni, V., & Biel, Ł. (2018). EU legal culture and translation. International Journal of Language and Law, 7, 1–7. Sprau, M. (2017). Binomials and multinomials in Sir Thomas Elyot’s The Boke Named The Gouernour. In J. Kopaczyk & H. Sauer (Eds.), Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible (pp. 201–221). Cambridge University Press. Steczkowski, J. (1995). Metoda reprezentacyjna w badaniach zjawisk ekonomiczno-społecznych. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Svensson, M. H. (2017). L’influence du contexte sur l’interprétation des expressions à sens figuré. In F. Grossmann, S. Mejri, & I. Sfar (Eds.), La phraséologie: sémantique, syntaxe discours (pp. 217–229). Honoré Champion. Szerszunowicz, J. (2012). English-Polish contrastive phraseology. In A. Rozumko & D. Szymaniuk (Eds.), Directions in English-Polish Contrastive Research (pp. 139–162). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Szubert, R. (2010). Juristische Phraseologie – lexikalisierte Benennungseinheiten der Rechtssprache. Studia Germanica Gedanensia, 23, 147–158. Tabares Plasencia, E. (2012). Analyse und Abgrenzung rechtssprachlicher phraseologischer Einheiten im Spanischen und Deutschen und ihre Bedeutung für die Übersetzung. Lebende Sprachen, 57(2), 314–328. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Trklja, A. (2018). A corpus investigation of formulaicity and hybridity in legal language. In S. Goz´dz´-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.), Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 89–108). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Vanderbauwhede, G., Desmet, P., & Lauwers, P. (2011). The shifting of the demonstrative determiner in French and Dutch in parallel corpora: From translation mechanisms to structural differences. Meta, 56(2), 443–464. Vigier, F. J., & Sánchez Ramos, M. (2017). Using parallel corpora to study the translation of legal system-bound terms: The case of names of English and Spanish courts. In Computational and Corpus-based Phraseology. Second International Conference, Europhras 2017 London UK, November 13–14, 2017 Proceedings (pp. 260–273). Springer. Vintar, Sˇ. (2008). Corpora in translation: A Slovene perspective. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 10, 40–55.

152

Bibliography

Volini, M. (2008). Phrasemes in EU Framework Decisions. In V. K. Bhatia, C. Candlin, & P. Evangelisti Allori (Eds.), Language, Culture and the Law. The Formulation of Legal Concepts across Systems and Cultures (pp. 245–257). Volk, M., & Graën, J. (2017). Multi-word adverbs – How well are they handled in parsing and machine translation? In Proceedings of The 3rd Workshop on Multi-Word Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technology (MUMTTT). University of Zurich. Vorberg, A., Bickel, B., Gaenszle, M., Müller, G., Banjade, G., Paudyal, N. P., Bhatta, T. N., & Rai, I. P. (2011). An Optimality-Theoretic Analysis of Binomials in Chintang Ritual Language. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Optimality-Theoretic-Analysis -of-Binomials-in-∗-Vorberg-Bickel/f2e9aeea1e8ef87d6d7ef089f213a535abbc4fc1. Wichrowska, W. (2019). Osia˛gna˛wszy pełnoletnios´c´, maja˛tek stał sie˛ moja˛ własnos´cia˛ – o zasadach uz˙ywania imiesłowowego równowaz˙nika zadnia. In W. Wichrowska (Ed.), Dobre praktyki legislacyjne (pp. 99–106). http://www1.rcl.gov.pl/sites/zalaczniki/artyk ul_21.pdf. Wie˛cławska, E. (2018a). Capitalising on translation market data in the field of commercial law. Comparative Legilinguistics, 33, 85–115. Wie˛cławska, E. (2018b). Towards the establishment of genre distinctions of company legal registration proceedings. Komunikacja Specjalistyczna, 16, 145–167. Wie˛cławska, E. (2019a). Field-specific conventions in the translation of company law documentation for court proceedings. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 58(71), 221–243. Wie˛cławska, E. (2019b). Sociolinguistic and grammatical aspects of English company registration discourse. Humanities and Social Sciences, XXIV, 26(4), 185–195. Wie˛cławska, E. (2020a). Contextualising the notion of context in jurilinguistic studies. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law/Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 33, 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09701-0. Wie˛cławska, E. (2020b). Discrete units as markers of English/Polish contrasts in company registration discourse. Linguodidactica, XXIV, 309–327. Wie˛cławska, E. (2020c). English/Polish contrasts in legal language from the usage-based perspective. In L. Lanthaler & R. Lukenda (Eds.), Redefining and Refocusing Translation and Interpreting Studies Selected Papers from the 3rd International Conference on Translation and Interpreting Studies TRANSLATA III (Innsbruck 2017) (pp. 99–104). Peter Lang. Wie˛cławska, E. (2021). Quantitative distribution of verbal structures with reference to the authorship factor in legal stylistics. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 66(1), 147– 165. Wie˛cławska, E. (2022a). Approaching legal multinomials from the sociolinguistic perspective − insights into authorship-based distinctions (submitted to publication). Wie˛cławska, E. (2022b) Predictive analysis for text classification: discrete units in company registration discourse. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 27(4), 229–252. Wie˛cławska, E. (2022c). State-of-the-art research into parallel structures in intra- and interlingual communication. In A. D. Kubacki & P. Sulikowski (Eds.), Translation Landscapes – Internationale Schriften zur Übersetzungswissenschaft (pp. 85–99). Verlag Dr. Kovacˇ. Wiesmann, E. (2004). Rechtsübersetzung und Hilfsmittel zur Translation. Gunter Narr Verlag.

Bibliography

153

Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2007). Language, Law and Speech Acts Pragmatic Meaning in English Legal Texts. Wyz˙sza Szkoła Studiów Mie˛dzynarodowych w Łodzi. Wojtasik-Dziekan, E. (2020). Analysis of the semantic scope of two Korean terms equivalent to English court. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law/Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 33(3), 657–671. Woz´niak, J. (2016). Fachphraseologie am Beispiel der deutschen und der polnischen Fassung des Vertrags von Lissabon (Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik, Bd. 52). Peter Lang. Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford University Press. Yurchenko, D. (2021). Frequency of the phraseological units in discourse as part of the phraseographic practice. In E. Arsenteva (Ed.), The Discoursal Use of Phraseological Units (pp. 30–44). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Zanettin, F. (2012). Translation-Driven Corpora. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Zanettin, F. (2013). Corpus Methods for Descriptive Translation Studies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 95, 20–32. Zhu, Y. (2014). A situated genre approach for business communication education in crosscultural contexts. In V. Bhatia & S. Bremner (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 36–39). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Zufferey, S., & Cartoni, B. (2014). A multifactor analysis of explicitation in translation. Target, 26(3), 361–384. Convention of 5 October Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation of Foreign Public Documents, concluded 5 October 1961 [Konwencja znosza˛ca wymóg legalizacji zagranicznych dokumentów urze˛dowych, sporza˛dzona w Hadze dnia 5 paz´dziernika 1961 r., Dz. U. 2005 Nr 112 poz. 938]. The Polish Code of Civil Procedure of 17 November 1964 [Ustawa z dnia 17 listopada 1964 r. Kodeks poste˛powania cywilnego, Dz. U. 1964 Nr 43 poz. 296, ze zm.]. The Polish Code of Commercial Companies of 15 September 2000 [Ustawa z dnia 15 wrzes´nia 2000 r. Kodeks spółek handlowych, Dz. U. 2000 Nr 94 poz. 1037 ze zm.]. The Polish Act on Freedom of Economic Activity of 2 July 2004 [Ustawa z dnia 2 lipca 2004 r. o swobodzie działalnos´ci gospodarczej, Dz. U. 2004 Nr 173 poz. 1807 ze zm.] The Polish Act on National Court Register of 20 August 1997 [Ustawa z dnia 20 sierpnia 1997 r. o Krajowym Rejestrze Sa˛dowym, Dz. U 1997 Nr 121 poz. 769 ze zm.]. The Polish Act of 20 August 1997 – Provisions Implementing the Act on National Court Register [Ustawa z dnia 20 sierpnia 1997 r. – Przepisy wprowadzaja˛ce ustawe˛ o Krajowym Rejestrze Sa˛dowym, Dz. U. 1997 Nr 121 poz. 770 ze zm.]. The Polish Act of 6 March 2018 on Participation of Foreign Entrepreneurs and other Foreign Entities in Economic Activitites on the Territory of the Republic of Poland [Ustawa z dnia 6 marca 2018 r. o zasadach uczestnictwa przedsie˛biorców zagranicznych i innych osób zagranicznych w obrocie gospodarczym na terytorium Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Dz. U. 2018 poz. 649 ze zm.]. The Polish Act on Accountancy of 29 September 1994 [Ustawa o rachunkowos´ci – polska ustawa z dnia 29 wrzes´nia 1994 roku, Dz.U. z 1994 r. nr 121, poz. 591 ze zm.].

Figures

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20

Multiple correspondence analysis: structural features of binomials. Structural profile of binomials – number of conjuncts per genre. Structural profile of binomials – linking element per genre. Structural profile of binomials – part of speech per genre. Structural profile of binomials – semantic motivation per genre. Model of types per aggregate structure. Multiple correspondence analysis: structural features and sociolinguistic variables. Frequency distribution data for the diatopic distinctions. Model of binomial types per aggregate structure – variation in the diatopic perspective. Frequency distribution data for the text authorship distinctions. Model of binomial types per aggregate structure – variation in the text authorship perspective. Frequency distribution data for the short diachronic distinctions. Model of binomial types per aggregate structure – variation in the diachronic perspective. Multiple correspondence analysis: manifestations of simplification. Multiple correspondence analysis: simplification across phrase structural context (part of speech and semantic motivation). Three manifestations of simplification and part of speech variable. Three manifestations of simplification and semantic motivation variable. Multiple correspondence analysis: translation variation per extralinguistic factors. Three manifestations of simplification and the TYPE OF TRANSLATION variable. Three manifestations of simplification and the YEAR OF TRANSLATION variable.

66 68 72 76 80 84 89 90 93 97 99 102 105 112 118 120 123 125 126 129