Cover not available
Part of
Observing Eurolects: Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law
Edited by Laura Mori
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86] 2018
► pp. 121–146

Chapter 6
Observing Eurolects

The case of French

This chapter investigates the differences between two varieties of legal French: the European variety, contained in directives and drafted in Brussels, and a specific national variety, derived from the transposing laws adopted by the French Parliament. Corpus analyses are based on comparable corpora (A and B, Eurolect Observatory Multilingual Corpus) and involve different levels: lexico-semantic, morphological, syntactic and textual. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are combined. Results at each level are further categorized into ‘EU-rooted phenomena’, ‘contact-induced features’ and ‘intra-linguistic variability’ to be discussed according to the Research Project Template.
Keywords: legislative drafting, French language, European variety, national variety
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Research aim and methodology
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Lexico-semantic analysis
    • 3.2Verb morphology
    • 3.3Morphosyntax and syntax
    • 3.4Textual analysis
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.86.06pat
References (41)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do things with words. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Balian, S. (2014). La définition dans la loi. Essai de linguistique juridique. Paris: La maison du dictionnaire.Google Scholar
Benacchio, G. (2013). Diritto privato della Unione europea. Fonti, modelli, regole (6th ed.). Padua: Cedam.Google Scholar
Bertoncini, Y. (2014). L’UE et ses normes: Prison des peuples ou cages à poules? (Policy paper n° 112). Paris: Notre Europe-Institut Delors.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P., & Mainguenau, D. (2002). Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Conseil d’État & Secrétariat général du Gouvernement. (2007). Guide de légistique. Retrieved from <[URL]> (15 October 2016).
Cornu, G. (2005). Linguistique juridique (3rd ed.). Paris: Montchrestien.Google Scholar
Cosmai, D. (2007). Tradurre per l’Unione europea. Milan: Hoepli.Google Scholar
Dannemann, G. (2012). In search of system neutrality: methodological issues in the drafting of European contract law rules. In M. Adams & J. Bomhoff (Eds.), Practice and theory in comparative law (pp. 96–119). Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallas, T. (2006). Il diritto comunitario inteso come “diritto diplomatico” ed il suo linguaggio. In V. Jacometti & B. Pozzo (Eds.), Le politiche linguistiche delle istituzioni comunitarie dopo l’allargamento (pp. 171–183). Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Habert, B. (2000). Des corpus représentatifs: De quoi, pourquoi, comment ? In M. Bilger (Ed.), Linguistiques sur corpus (Études et réflexions, Cahiers de l’université de Perpignan 31) (pp. 11–58). Perpignan: PUP.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Ioriatti Ferrari, E. (2013). Interpretazione comparante e multilinguismo europeo. Padua: Cedam.Google Scholar
Joint practical guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for Persons involved in the drafting of European Union legislation. (2015).Google Scholar
Kalflèche, G. (2009). Homonymie et intégration communautaire. In G. Tusseau (Ed.), Les notions juridiques (pp. 139–152). Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
Lafon, P. (1980). Sur la variabilité de la fréquence des formes dans un corpus. Mots, 1(1), 127–165.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebart, L., & Salem, A. (1994). Statistique textuelle. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Le Querler, N. (1996). Typologie des modalités. Caen: PUC.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D. (1976). Initiation aux méthodes de l’analyse du discours. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
(2014). Discours et analyse du discours. Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
Mathieu, M. -L. (2012). La transposition des directives en droit français: Maîtrise des mots, maîtrise sur les mots. European Review of Private Law, 20(5–6), 1277–1304.Google Scholar
Mayaffre, D. (2014). Ça suffit comme ça! La fausse opposition quantitatif/qualitatif à l’épreuve du discours sarkozyste. Corela HS-15. Retrieved from <[URL]> (15 October 2016).DOI logo
Meunier, A. (1974). Modalités et communication. Langue Française, 21(1), 8–25.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, L. (2018). Introduction: The Eurolect Observatory Project . In L. Mori (Ed.), Observing Eurolects. Corpus analysis of linguistic variation in EU law (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patin, S. et al. (2016). Lecture Textométrique Différentielle (LTD) de textes législatifs comparables de l’Union européenne. Journées internationales d’analyse statistique des données textuelles (JADT), Université Sophia Antipolis (pp. 743–753). Nice: CNRS.Google Scholar
Pincemin, B. (2011). Sémantique interprétative et textométrie – Version abrégée. Corpus, 10, 259–269. Retrieved from <[URL]> (15 August 2016).
Poudat, C. (2006). Étude contrastive de l’article scientifique de revue linguistique dans une perspective d’analyse des genres. Texto!, 11(3–4). Retrieved from <[URL]> (15 October 2016).
Poudat, C., Landragin, F. (2017). Explorer un corpus textuel. Méthodes – pratiques – outils. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique: De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar
Prechal, S. (2005). Directives in EC Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rastier, F. (1989). Sens et textualité. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
(2001). Arts et sciences du texte. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
(2004). Enjeux épistémologiques de la linguistique de corpus. Texto!. Retrieved from <[URL]> (15 October 2016).
Riegel, M., Pellat, J. -C., & Rioul, R. (2004). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Rouhette, G. (2003). Note sur la version française. In G. Rouhette, I. De Lamberterie, D. Tallon, & C. Witz, Principes du droit européen du contrat (pp. 47–49). Paris: Société de législation comparée.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. S. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 3). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1996). Preliminary recommendations on corpus typology (Technical report). Paris: EAGLES (Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards).Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truchet, D. (2005). Les définitions législatives. In R. Drago (Ed.), La confection de la loi (pp. 193–207). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Von Bar, C. et al. (2012). Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Draft common frame of reference (DCFR). Munich: Sellier.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Wendy Ayres-Bennett & Mairi McLaughlin
2024. The Oxford Handbook of the French Language, DOI logo
Mori, Laura & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2021. Mapping Eurolects. Languages in Contrast 21:2 ► pp. 186 ff. DOI logo
Mori, Laura
2018. Chapter 14. Conclusions. In Observing Eurolects [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 86], ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.