Cover not available
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Methodology
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Spatial variation
      • Case 1 information v. data
      • Case 2 personal data vs. personally identifiable information
      • Case 3 personal information
    • 4.2Temporal variation
      • Case 4 personal data & special categories of data
      • Case 5 customer proprietary information
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00049.pei
References (57)
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 291: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beynon-Davies, Paul. 2013. Business Information Systems, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygrave, Lee A. 2015. “Information Concepts in Law: Generic Dreams and Definitional Daylight.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 35(1): 91–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, and Winnie Cheng. 2012. “Legal Interpretation: Meaning as Social Construction.” Semiotica 1911: 427–448.Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng, and King-Kui Sin. 2014. “Revisiting Legal Terms: A Semiotic Perspective.” Semiotica 2021: 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floridi, Luciano. 2005. “Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXX(2): 351–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Focarelli, Carlo. 2012. International Law as Social Construct. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freixa, Judit. 2006. “Causes of Denominative Variation in Terminology: A Typology Proposal.” Terminology 12(1): 51–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English: A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gravells, Jane. 2017. Semiotics and Verbal Texts: How the News Media Construct a Crisis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Terminology and Lexicography.” In Handbook of Terminology: Volume 1, ed. by Hendrik J. Kockaert, and Frieda Steurs, 45–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittichaisaree, Kriangsak. 2017. Public International Law of Cyberspace. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kshetri, Nir. 2016. The Quest to Cyber Superiority: Cybersecurity Regulations, Frameworks, and Strategies of Major Economies. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle 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 11:137–149.Google Scholar
Millard, Christopher, and W. Kuan Hon. 2012. “Defining ‘Personal Data’ in e-Social Science.” Information, Communication & Society 15(1): 66–84. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raul, Alan Charles (ed). 2018. The Privacy, Data, Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review, 5th edition. London: Law Business Research.Google 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 861: 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 911: 28–44. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, Rolf H., and Dominic Staiger. 2017. Transatlantic Data Protection in Practice. Basel: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Jiajin. 2009. Log-Likelihood Ratio Calculator. Beijing: National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Wu, Zhonghua
2022. Review of Li & Hope (2021): Terminology Translation in Chinese Contexts: Theory and Practice. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 28:1 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Zhonghua & Le Cheng
2022. Review of Ajšić (2021): Language and Ethnonationalism in Contemporary West Central Balkans: A Corpus-based Approach. Journal of Language and Politics 21:4 ► pp. 648 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Ming, Xitao Hu & Le Cheng
2021. Exploring digital economy: a sociosemiotic perspective. International Journal of Legal Discourse 6:2 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.