Article published in:
Terminology
Vol. 26:2 (2020) ► pp. 159–183

Mapping terminological variation and ideology in data protection laws

| Zhejiang University
| Zhejiang University
This study aims to deal with the relationship between terminological variation and ideology by examining the system of terminology and the defined individual terms in data protection legislation. With two self-compiled corpora incorporating data protection laws in the United States and the European Union respectively, we adopt a corpus-assisted approach as an effective toolkit to generate a general profile of the system of legal terminology on the one hand and identify the defined legal terms in the two corpora on the other. This study, based on Van Dijk’s (1998) multidisciplinary approach to ideology, seeks to unravel the underlying ideological configurations behind the variation of legal terminology. The findings show that one plausible – though certainly not definitive – interpretation of the variation in legal terminology in the data protection domain lies in the distinct ideological stances imposed by such discourse communities as lawmakers, judges as well as the president and the party in power. The ideological investigation of terminology is a significant aspect of the study of variation phenomena. It is argued that the ideologically variable slants and historical experiences, as the contextual constraints on the ideological beliefs, may contribute to accounting for the spatial and temporal variation of legal terminology.
Keywords: legal terminology, variation, ideology, corpus-assisted approach, data protection legislation, discourse community
Published online: 04 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00049.pei
References

References

Alo, Edward R.
2013 “EU Privacy Protection: A Step Towards Global Privacy.” Michigan State International Law Review 22(3): 1095–1148.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto
2002 “Variation and Phonological Theory.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. by J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 206–243. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bainham, Andrew, Shelley Day Sclater, and Martin Richards
(eds) 1999 What Is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul
2010 Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Jason J. Czarnezki
2009 “The Ideology of Legal Interpretation.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29: 113–132.Google Scholar
Bennett, Colin J.
1992 Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beynon-Davies, Paul
2013 Business Information Systems, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas J., and Cynthia Weber
1996 “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty.” In State Sovereignty as Social Construct, ed. by Thomas J. Biersteker, and Cynthia Weber, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowker, Lynne
1997 “You Say ‘Flatbed Colour Scanner’, I Say ‘Colour Flatbed Scanner’: A Descriptive Study of the Influence of Multidimensionality on Term Formation and Use with Special Reference to the Subject Field of Optical Scanning Technology.” Terminology 4(2): 275–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bygrave, Lee A.
2015 “Information Concepts in Law: Generic Dreams and Definitional Daylight.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 35(1): 91–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, and Winnie Cheng
2012 “Legal Interpretation: Meaning as Social Construction.” Semiotica 191: 427–448.Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng, and King-Kui Sin
2014 “Revisiting Legal Terms: A Semiotic Perspective.” Semiotica 202: 167–182.Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, and Jiamin Pei
2018 “Interpreting Cybersecurity Law: A Semiotic Perspective.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences) 48(6): 121–139.Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, Jiamin Pei, and Marcel Danesi
2019 “A Sociosemiotic Interpretation of Cybersecurity in U.S. Legislative Discourse.” Social Semiotics 29(3): 286–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, and King-Kui Sin
2009 “Legal Terms Across Communities: Divergence Behind Convergence in Law.” In Diversity and Tolerance in Socio-Legal Contexts: Explorations in the Semiotics of Law, ed. by Anne Wagner, and Vijay K. Bhatia, 181–190. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Condamines, Anne
2010 “Variations in Terminology: Application to the Management of Risks Related to Language Use in the Workplace.” Terminology 16(1): 30–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr
1998 Just Words: Law, Language and Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Daille, Béatrice, Benoît Habert, Christian Jacquemin, and Jean Royauté
1996 “Empirical Observation of Term Variations and Principles for Their Description.” Terminology 3(2): 197–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Silva, Sabela, Judit Freixa, and M. Teresa Cabré
2011 “A Proposed Method for Analysing the Dynamics of Cognition Through Term Variation.” Terminology 17(1): 49–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, Luciano
2005 “Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXX(2): 351–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Focarelli, Carlo
2012 International Law as Social Construct. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freixa, Judit
2006 “Causes of Denominative Variation in Terminology: A Typology Proposal.” Terminology 12(1): 51–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
2011 Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English: A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gravells, Jane
2017 Semiotics and Verbal Texts: How the News Media Construct a Crisis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy, and Christopher Hutton
2007 Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
1994 “Ideological Exchanges in British Magistrates Courts.” In Language and the Law, ed. by John Gibbons, 156–170. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hart, Henry M., and Albert M. Sacks
1994 The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law. Minnesota: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent
1992 “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56(4): 419–441. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Martha, and Philip Durrant
2010 “What Can a Corpus Tell Us about Vocabulary Teaching Materials?” In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Anne O’Keeffe, and Michael McCarthy, 387–400. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kageura, Kyo
2002 The Dynamics of Terminology: A Descriptive Theory of Term Formation and Terminological Growth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Terminology and Lexicography.” In Handbook of Terminology: Volume 1, ed. by Hendrik J. Kockaert, and Frieda Steurs, 45–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittichaisaree, Kriangsak
2017 Public International Law of Cyberspace. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kshetri, Nir
2016 The Quest to Cyber Superiority: Cybersecurity Regulations, Frameworks, and Strategies of Major Economies. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lefevere, André
1992 Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov
1967 “Each Word Has a History of Its Own.” Glossa 1:137–149.Google Scholar
Millard, Christopher, and W. Kuan Hon
2012 “Defining ‘Personal Data’ in e-Social Science.” Information, Communication & Society 15(1): 66–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mommers, Laurens, and Wim Voermans
2005 “Using Legal Definitions to Increase the Accessibility of Legal Documents.” In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems JURIX 2005: The Eighteenth Annual Conference, ed. by Marie-Francine Moens, and Peter Spyns, 147–156. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Ni, Shifeng, Le Cheng, and King Kui Sin
2010 “Terminology Evolution and Legal Development: A Case Study of Chinese Legal Terminology.” Terminology 16(2): 159–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partington, Alan
2004 “Corpora and Discourse: A Most Congruous Beast.” In Corpora and Discourse, ed. by Alan Partington, John Morley, and Louann Haarman, 11–20. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pearson, Jennifer
1998 Terms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Purtova, Nadezhda
2018 “The Law of Everything: Broad Concept of Personal Data and Future of EU Data Protection Law.” Law, Innovation and Technology 10(1): 40–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raul, Alan Charles
(ed) 2018 The Privacy, Data, Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review, 5th edition. London: Law Business Research.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan, and Augustin Ndi-Kimbi
1995 “The Conceptual Structure of Terminological Definitions and Their Linguistic Realisations: A Report on Research in Progress.” Terminology 2(1): 61–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Paul M.
2009 “Preemption and Privacy.” Yale Law Journal 118(5): 902–947.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Paul M., Daniel J. Solove
2011 “The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information.” New York University Law Review 86: 1814–1894.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike
2018 WordSmith Tools, Version 7. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A.
1997 “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts.” American Political Science Review 91: 28–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Ruth
2007 Statutory Interpretation, 2nd edition. Toronto: Irwin Law.Google Scholar
2008 Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th edition. Markham: LexisNexis Canada.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A.
2013 “Analysing and Interpreting Variation in the Sociolinguistic Tradition.” In Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, ed. by Manfred Krug, and Julia Schlüter, 382–401. Padstow: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, Rita
2000 Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ten Hacken, Pius
2015 “Terms and Specialized Vocabulary: Taming the Prototypes.” In Handbook of Terminology: Volume 1, ed. by Hendrik J. Kockaert, and Frieda Steurs, 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
1998 Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
2000 Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University.Google Scholar
2011 “Discourse and Ideology.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. Van Dijk, 379–407. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Rolf H., and Dominic Staiger
2017 Transatlantic Data Protection in Practice. Basel: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Jiajin
2009 Log-Likelihood Ratio Calculator. Beijing: National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education.Google Scholar