Defining Law Terms: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

The translation practice trends towards legal definitions seem to be more and more informed by the globalization and ‘Europeanisation’ processes now constituting a still broader context of legal communication rather than confined to the text of a legal instrument itself

Semantics of nouns and nominal number

In the present paper, I will discuss the semantic structure of nouns and nominal number markers. In particular, I will discuss the question if it is possible to account for the syntactic and semantic formation of nominals in a parallel way, that is I will try to give a compositional account of nominal semantics. The framework that I will use is "twolevel semantics". The semantic representations and their type-theoretical basis will account for general cross-linguistic characteristics of nouns and nominal number and will show interdependencies between noun classes, number marking and cardinal constructions. While the analysis will give a unified account of bare nouns (like dog / water), it will distinguish between the different kinds of nominal terms (like a dog / dogs / water). Following the proposal, the semantic operations underlying the formation of the SR are basically the same for DPs as for CPs. Hence, from such an analysis, independent semantic arguments can be derived for a structural parallelism of nominals and sentences - that is, for the "sentential aspect" of noun phrases. I will first give a sketch of the theoretical background. I will then discuss the cross-linguistic combinatorial potential of nominal constructions, that is, the potential of nouns and number markers to combine with other elements and form complex expressions. This will lead to a general type-theoretical classification for the elements in question. In the next step, I will model the referential potential of nominal constructions. Together with the combinatorial potential, this will give us semantic representations for the basic elements involved in nominal constructions. In an overview, I will summarize our modeling of nouns and nominal number. I will then discuss in an outlook the "sentential aspect" of noun phrases

ZARYS KLASYFIKACJI PRZYDAWEK W JĘZYKU KOREAŃSKIM I POLSKIM

Analyzing various classifications of sentence parts in Korean and Polish, it is easy to identify the existence of attributes in both of them, although the English term itself is not actually being used by Korean linguists, and thus might not be well known. Nevertheless, since the function of gwanhyeongeo (Kor. 관형어) in Korean, and attributes in Polish is similar, for the sake of transparency, this particular term will be used.The aim of this article is to propose a comprehensive classification of attributes in both target languages based on formal, syntactic and semantic parameters. In order to do it in the most exhaustive way, firstly different approaches concerning the definition of attributes, as well as the methods of their classification, proposed by various linguists in both languages will be examined. The author hopes to find out to which extent the typological differences between Korean and Polish are reflected in the attributes’ properties, according to which they can be classified.한국어와 폴란드어에 각각 존재하는 다양한 문장 성분의 분류를 분석해 보면 양국 언어에서 관형어의 실재를 쉽게 확인할 수 있다. ‘Attribute’란 용어 자체가 한국 언어학자들에 의해 실제로 사용되지 않음으로써 잘 알려져 있지 않지만, 한국어 문장에서 관형어의 기능은 폴란드어 문장에서의 ‘attribute’와 기능이 유사하기 때문에 연구의 명확성을 위해서 ‘attribute’라는 용어를 사용할 것이다.본 연구의 목적은 두 언어에서의 형태적ㆍ통사적ㆍ의미적 매개 변수를 바탕으로 둔 포괄적인 관형어의 분류를 제안하는 데에 있다. 이 과제를 최대한 철저히 수행하기 위하여 먼저 한국과 폴란드의 여러 언어학자들이 관형어를 어떻게 정의하고 분류해 왔는지를 알아볼 것이다.본고는 한국어와 폴란드어 간의 유형론적인 차이가 관형어의 속성을 분류하는 방법에 어느 정도 반영되는지를 밝혀 내고자 한다.Porównując różne klasyfikacje części zdania, istniejące w języku koreańskim i polskim, potwierdzimy występowanie przydawek. Pomimo, iż angielski termin określający przydawkę - ‘attribute’ nie jest stosowany przez koreańskich lingwistów, ze względu na podobieństwa gwanhyeongeo (kor. 관형어) w języku koreańskim i przydawkami w języku polskim oraz dla zachowania przejrzystości, termin ten będzie stosowany.Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaproponowanie klasyfikacji przydawek w języku koreańskim i polskim, opartej na parametrach formalnych, syntaktycznych oraz leksykalnych. Aby precyzyjnie scharakteryzować przydawki, najpierw zostaną przeanalizowane różne definicje tej części zdania oraz metody ich klasyfikacji, zaproponowane przez różnych koreańskich i polskich językoznawców. Autor żywi nadzieję, iż niniejsze badanie ujawni, do jakiego stopnia różnice typologiczne istniejące pomiędzy językiem koreańskim i polskim są odzwierciedlone we własnościach, według których przydawki w obu językach mogą zostać sklasyfikowane

GRAMATYCZNE PROBLEMY INTERPRETACJI PRAWA – CZY PRAKTYKA PRAWNICZA POTRZEBUJE TEORII LINGWISTYCZNEJ? ANALIZA ORZECZNICTWA POLSKICH SĄDÓW

Most interpretational problems in law pertain to the meaning of words. However, in this paper I address problems caused in Polish courts by grammar (namely: syntax and inflexion) of legal provisions. One can distinguish five main sources of grammatical issues in judicial interpretation of law: syntax of a sentence (i.e. order of words), conjunctive words (i.e. i, lub), punctuation marks (i.e. comma, semicolon, dash), nominal grammatical categories (i.e. number, gender), verbal grammatical categories (i. e. aspect, tense, mood). Traditional Polish canons of interpretation offer no clues on how to deal with such issues, stating only that statutes should be construed in accordance with the rules of grammar. In fact, cases in which such interpretational issues occur, are decided in a highly incoherent manner. The courts tend to feel a tension between grammatical form of a provision and its purpose, function, or other extra-linguistic values. I think the main reason of such controversy is a very limited vision of grammar shared by the courts, stemmed from primary school rather than contemporary linguistic theories.Większość problemów w interpretacji prawa tyczy się znaczenia słów zawartych w przepisach. W niniejszym tekście chciałbym poruszyć jednak problemy, które są powodowane przez gramatykę przepisów. Można wyróżnić pięć głównych źródeł tego rodzaju problemów: budowa składniowa zdania (np. szyk wyrazów), spójniki (np. i, lub), interpunkcja (np. przecinek, średnik, myślnik), deklinacyjne kategorie gramatyczne wyrazów (np. liczba, rodzaj), koniugacyjne kategorie gramatyczne wyrazów (np. aspekt, czas, tryb). Tradycyjne polskie dyrektywy wykładni nie oferują niemal żadnych wskazówek co do radzenia sobie z tego typu problemami. Co najwyżej można spotkać się z banalnym zaleceniem, by przepisy prawa interpretować zgodnie z regułami gramatyki języka polskiego. W praktyce tego typu sprawy są rozstrzygane w sposób wysoce niekonsekwentny. Sądy często dostrzegają sprzeczność pomiędzy formą gramatyczną przepisu, a jego celem, funkcją czy innymi pozajęzykowymi wartościami. W moim przekonaniu wynika to w dużej mierze z faktu, iż wizja gramatyki, jaką dysponują jest bardzo ograniczona – wywodzi się raczej z programu szkoły podstawowej niż ze współczesnych teorii lingwistycznych

What's in a compound? Review article on Lieber and Štekauer (eds) 2009. 'The Oxford Handbook of Compounding'

The Oxford Handbook of Compounding surveys a variety of theoretical and descriptive issues, presenting overviews of compounding in a number of frameworks and sketches of compounding in a number of languages. Much of the book deals with Germanic noun–noun compounding. I take up some of the theoretical questions raised surrounding such constructions, in particular, the notion of attributive modification in noun-headed compounds. I focus on two issues. The first is the semantic relation between the head noun and its nominal modifier. Several authors repeat the argument that there is a small(-ish) fixed number of general semantic relations in noun–noun compounds (‘Lees's solution’), but I argue that the correct way to look at such compounds is what I call ‘Downing's solution’, in which we assume that the relation is specified pragmatically, and hence could be any relation at all. The second issue is the way that adjectives modify nouns inside compounds. Although there are languages in which compounded adjectives modify just as they do in phrases (Chukchee, Arleplog Swedish), in general the adjective has a classifier role and not that of a compositional attributive modifier. Thus, even if an English (or German) adjective–noun compound looks compositional, it isn't

Subatomic quantification (Volume 6)

The goal of this book is to explore the relationship between the cognitive notion of parthood and various grammatical devices expressing this concept in natural language. The monograph aims to investigate syntactic constructions and lexical categories, e.g., partitives, whole-adjectives, and multipliers, encoding different kinds of part-whole structures both in Slavic and non-Slavic languages. It is envisioned to inspire radical rethinking of the ontology of models accounting for nominal semantics. Specifically, it provides novel evidence for a mereotopological approach to meaning, i.e., a theory of wholes that captures not only parthood but also topological relations holding between parts. This evidence comes from the phenomenon of subatomic quantification, i.e., quantification over parts of referents of concrete count nouns

Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding

This collection of papers on phrasal compounding is part of a bigger project whose aims are twofold: First, it seeks to broaden the typological perspective by providing data for as many different languages as possible to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon itself. Second, based on these data which clearly show interaction between syntax and morphology it aims to discuss theoretical models which deal with this kind of interaction in different ways. Models like Generative Grammar assume components of grammar and a clear-cut distinction between the lexicon (often including morphology) and grammar. Other models, like construction grammar, do not assume such components and are rather based on a lexicon including constructs. A comparison of these models on the basis of this phenomenon on the morphology-syntax interface makes it possible to assess their descriptive and explanatory power