Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.; Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.:Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.;Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.

1994 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-79
Author(s):  
Linda C. Garro
1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-161
Author(s):  
Martin R. Gitterman ◽  
Luther F. Sies

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 669-690
Author(s):  
Federico M Mucciarelli

This work addresses the impact of language diversity and nation-specific doctrinal structures on harmonized company law in the EU. With this aim, two emblematic case studies will be analysed. The first case study is related to the definition of ‘merger’ adopted in the Company Law Directive 2017/1132 (originally in the Third Company Law Directive and the Cross-Border Merger Directive); by relying on the example of the SEVIC case decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), it will be shown that scholars’ and courts’ conception of the definition of ‘merger’ varies according to own domestic doctrinal structures. The second case study is related to the notion of ‘registered office’, which is key for establishing the scope of several harmonizing provisions and the freedom of establishment; this paper analyses terminological fluctuations across language versions of EU legislation and the impact of domestic taxonomies and legal debates upon the interpretation of these notions. These case studies show that company law concepts, despite their highly technical nature, are influenced by discourse constructions conducted within national interpretative communities, and by the language used to draft statutory instruments and discuss legal issues. The task of the CJEU is to counterbalance these local tendencies, and yet it is unlikely that doctrinal structures, rooted in national languages and legal cultures, will disappear.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Hansen

Abstract This paper describes a specific non-standard negation strategy in Iquito, a moribund Zaparoan language spoken in northern Peruvian Amazonia. This strategy is used in finite subordinate clauses (namely adverbial dependent clauses and relative clauses), as well as information questions, and it utilizes two negative markers: a negative particle which is also found in standard negation, and a verbal affix which does not function as a negator in any other context. Using existing typological characterizations of subordinate clause negation, we see that Iquito exhibits the following attested traits: it uses the standard negator in a different position, it also utilizes a distinct negator, and it employs more negators in the subordinate clause than in the main clause. But unlike the languages presented in the literature, Iquito utilizes these parameters simultaneously. Additionally, the position of the standard negator changes within the subordinate clause, depending on the reality status of the clause. Using Iquito as a case study, I propose a set of parameters for comparing subordinate clause and interrogative negation strategies to standard negation strategies, which include the type of negator used, its position, the overall number of negators, the potential for interaction with other grammatical categories, such as reality status, and the resulting word order of the clause. This set of parameters expands the initial typological characterizations of subordinate clause negation strategies.


Author(s):  
C.J.W. Baaij

This chapter provides an introduction, explicating the book’s mission and its interdisciplinary methodology while illuminating the most important concepts. The book proposes a more effective way for European Union (EU) Institutions to pursue legal integration while respecting language diversity, choosing the integration of contract law as its case study. The combined policy objectives of legal integration and language diversity function as normative benchmarks for critically assessing EU’s multilingual practices and procedures of the EU Institutions, or “Institutional Multilingualism.” It concentrates both on “EU Translation,” that is, the work of EU translators and lawyer–linguists in EU legislative bodies who produce EU’s multilingual legislation, as well as the ways in which the Court of Justice of the EU attributes uniform meaning to the various language versions of EU legislation. Finally, these evaluations are framed in terms of translation “orientations,” as expounded in a 19th-century essay by Friedrich Schleiermacher.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document