Article published In: Terminology
Vol. 26:2 (2020) ► pp.159–183
Mapping terminological variation and ideology in data protection laws
Published online: 4 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00049.pei
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00049.pei
Abstract
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, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage. 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.
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
- 4.1Spatial variation
- 5.Concluding remarks
- Notes
References
References (57)
Alo, Edward R. 2013. “EU Privacy Protection: A Step Towards Global Privacy.” Michigan State International Law Review 22(3): 1095–1148.
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.
Bainham, Andrew, Shelley Day Sclater, and Martin Richards (eds). 1999. What Is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis. Oxford: Hart.
Benesh, Sara C., and Jason J. Czarnezki. 2009. “The Ideology of Legal Interpretation.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 291: 113–132.
Bennett, Colin J. 1992. Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Beynon-Davies, Paul. 2013. Business Information Systems, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
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.
Bygrave, Lee A. 2015. “Information Concepts in Law: Generic Dreams and Definitional Daylight.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 35(1): 91–120.
Cheng, Le, and Winnie Cheng. 2012. “Legal Interpretation: Meaning as Social Construction.” Semiotica 1911: 427–448.
Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng, and King-Kui Sin. 2014. “Revisiting Legal Terms: A Semiotic Perspective.” Semiotica 2021: 167–182.
Cheng, Le, and Jiamin Pei. 2018. “Interpreting Cybersecurity Law: A Semiotic Perspective.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences) 48(6): 121–139.
Cheng, Le, Jiamin Pei, and Marcel Danesi. 2019. “A Sociosemiotic Interpretation of Cybersecurity in U.S. Legislative Discourse.” Social Semiotics 29(3): 286–302.
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.
Condamines, Anne. 2010. “Variations in Terminology: Application to the Management of Risks Related to Language Use in the Workplace.” Terminology 16(1): 30–50.
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr. 1998. Just Words: Law, Language and Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
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.
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.
Floridi, Luciano. 2005. “Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXX(2): 351–370.
Freixa, Judit. 2006. “Causes of Denominative Variation in Terminology: A Typology Proposal.” Terminology 12(1): 51–77.
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English: A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Gravells, Jane. 2017. Semiotics and Verbal Texts: How the News Media Construct a Crisis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harris, Roy, and Christopher Hutton. 2007. Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law. London: Continuum.
Harris, Sandra. 1994. “Ideological Exchanges in British Magistrates Courts.” In Language and the Law, ed. by John Gibbons, 156–170. London: Longman.
Hart, Henry M., and Albert M. Sacks. 1994. The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law. Minnesota: Foundation Press.
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56(4): 419–441.
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.
Kageura, Kyo. 2002. The Dynamics of Terminology: A Descriptive Theory of Term Formation and Terminological Growth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2015. “Terminology and Lexicography.” In Handbook of Terminology: Volume 1, ed. by Hendrik J. Kockaert, and Frieda Steurs, 45–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kshetri, Nir. 2016. The Quest to Cyber Superiority: Cybersecurity Regulations, Frameworks, and Strategies of Major Economies. Cham: Springer.
Lefevere, André. 1992. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.
Millard, Christopher, and W. Kuan Hon. 2012. “Defining ‘Personal Data’ in e-Social Science.” Information, Communication & Society 15(1): 66–84.
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.
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.
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.
Pearson, Jennifer. 1998. Terms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Raul, Alan Charles (ed). 2018. The Privacy, Data, Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review, 5th edition. London: Law Business Research.
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.
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.
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1997. “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts.” American Political Science Review 911: 28–44.
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.
Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
2011. “Discourse and Ideology.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. Van Dijk, 379–407. London: Sage.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Liu, Xiuli
Luo, Weilan & Suqing Yu
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.
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. 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.
