Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collocations of Terms in EU Competition Law: A Corpus Analysis of EU English Collocations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Language and Law

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is, first, to identify key terms in EU Competition Law in English and, secondly, to identify and examine their collocational environment via the corpus methodology. The first part of the chapter presents a theoretical background on EU English as a supranational variety of English due to the increased mediation of content through translators and non-native English-speaking authors. The chapter next discusses the role of collocations, focusing on collocations of legal terms and collocations in EU English. Section 4 describes the EU Competition Corpus (1.5 million words), comprised of EU legislation, case law and “praxis” documents on Competition Law. The corpus was used to extract term-node candidates (103 terms). Their collocational environment was analysed through words sketches and concordances in Sketch Engine and WordSmith. The analysis has focused on the following aspects of collocations: semantic prosodies, collocational ranges (combinatory potential), derivational productivity, international prefixes, Latinisms, premodification by –ing and –ed participles, adjectives with negative connotations, deverbal and deadjectival nouns and an atypical grammatical behaviour of certain patterns. Last but not least, the chapter draws attention to a high variation of terminology and phraseology at various levels, which contributes to the hybridity of EU English.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Firth (1957), p. 11.

  2. 2.

    See Chap. 15 in this volume.

  3. 3.

    Seidlhofer (2010) and Pozzo (2012a, b).

  4. 4.

    McAuliffe (2017).

  5. 5.

    European Commission (2014). See also Robinson (2017), p. 243, who observes that first drafts of EU legislation are written and examined by lawyer-linguists mainly in English.

  6. 6.

    Hanzl and Beaven (2017), p. 140, fn 1.

  7. 7.

    Article 3, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 13).

  8. 8.

    Seidlhofer (2010), p. 360.

  9. 9.

    Seidlhofer (2010), p. 356; Biel (2017).

  10. 10.

    Articles 5 and 6, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385).

  11. 11.

    Derlén (2015), p. 68.

  12. 12.

    Biel (2017), pp. 39–41, for further discussion.

  13. 13.

    Krzyżanowski and Wodak (2011).

  14. 14.

    Mattila (2013), p. 33.

  15. 15.

    Glanert (2008), p. 168.

  16. 16.

    Koskinen (2013).

  17. 17.

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics.

  18. 18.

    Seidlhofer (2010), p. 365.

  19. 19.

    Modiano (2017), pp. 314, 323.

  20. 20.

    Modiano (2017), p. 314, see also Doczekalska this volume.

  21. 21.

    Catenaccio (2008), p. 276; Pozzo (2012b), p. 1196, Robertson (2012), p. 1237, Modiano (2017), p. 322.

  22. 22.

    Salmi-Tolonen (1994); Crystal (2003), p. 182; Gardner (2017).

  23. 23.

    This phenomenon applies also to French.

  24. 24.

    Biel (2014), p. 64, Gardner (2017), p. 149.

  25. 25.

    Doczekalska (2009), p. 360.

  26. 26.

    Koskinen (2008), p. 63, on code-switching in multilingual institutions.

  27. 27.

    Biel (2014).

  28. 28.

    E.g. in respect of the European Commission, 3.1% of its staff has declared British as their first nationality (plus 1.8%—Irish nationality and 0.5%—Maltese), cf. Statistical Bulletin for the Commission on 1.10.2017, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/statistical-bulletin-staff-by-nationality-dg_en.pdf (Accessed 28 Dec 2017). It should be noted that according to Gardner (2017), p. 150, the UK staff has reduced rapidly by about 50% since 2004 and further reductions may be expected after Brexit.

  29. 29.

    cf. Wagner et al. (2002), p. 70; Tosi (2002), p. 178; Gardner (2017), p. 150; Hanzl and Beaven (2017), p. 141.

  30. 30.

    cf. Tosi (2002), p. 184, Wagner et al. (2002), p. 76.

  31. 31.

    cf. van Els (2001), p. 344; Seidlhofer (2010), p. 362.

  32. 32.

    Gardner (2017), pp. 153–162.

  33. 33.

    Modiano (2017), p. 322.

  34. 34.

    Modiano (2017), p. 322.

  35. 35.

    Gardner (2017), p. 154.

  36. 36.

    European Commission (2016).

  37. 37.

    Gardner (2017), p. 150.

  38. 38.

    Caliendo (2004), p. 163.

  39. 39.

    van Els (2001), p. 329.

  40. 40.

    Šarčević (2010), pp. 34–35.

  41. 41.

    Pozzo (2012b), p. 1198, Crystal (2003), p. 182, Robertson (2010), pp. 3, 6.

  42. 42.

    Schäffner (2000), p. 3.

  43. 43.

    In particular, the traditional terminology may be perceived as “loaded” in some national contexts, cf. Whittaker (2006), p. 60.

  44. 44.

    Mattila (2013), pp. 157–158, Šarčević (2018), p. 21.

  45. 45.

    cf. Bajčić (2017), p. 83.

  46. 46.

    Šarčević (2007), p. 44.

  47. 47.

    Jopek-Bosiacka (2011), p. 26.

  48. 48.

    Robertson (2012), p. 1237, see also Šarčević (2001), p. 43.

  49. 49.

    Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335.

  50. 50.

    Modiano (2017), p. 314.

  51. 51.

    Modiano (2017), pp. 319–321.

  52. 52.

    Wray (2002), p. 9.

  53. 53.

    The term collocation is often used as a synonym of phraseology/phraseme and covers idioms, proverbs, etc. Partington (1998).

  54. 54.

    Baker (1992), p. 47.

  55. 55.

    Nesselhauf (2005), p. 12.

  56. 56.

    Stubbs (2004), p. 111.

  57. 57.

    Sinclair (1991), p. 110.

  58. 58.

    Bhatia et al. (2004), p. 206.

  59. 59.

    Alcaraz and Hughes (2002), p. 9.

  60. 60.

    cf. Larson (1998[1984]), Baker (1992), p. 48, Hatim and Munday (2004), p. 251.

  61. 61.

    cf. Howarth (1998).

  62. 62.

    cf. Newmark (1981), p. 180, Larson (1998[1984]), p. 160, Mauranen (2000).

  63. 63.

    Nesselhauf (2005), p. 2.

  64. 64.

    cf. Howarth (1998) and Nesselhauf (2005).

  65. 65.

    Meyer and Mackintosh (1994), Heid (1994), Partington (1998), p. 17, L’Homme (2000).

  66. 66.

    L’Homme (2000), p. 91.

  67. 67.

    cf. Biel (2012), p. 227.

  68. 68.

    cf. Biel (2014), p. 47.

  69. 69.

    Kjær (2007), p. 512.

  70. 70.

    Biel (2014), p. 44.

  71. 71.

    Partington (1998), p. 19.

  72. 72.

    Teubert (2010), p. 357.

  73. 73.

    Biel (2017).

  74. 74.

    Gardner (2017), p. 161.

  75. 75.

    European Commission (n.d.).

  76. 76.

    European Court of Auditors (2016).

  77. 77.

    European Commission (n.d.).

  78. 78.

    European Commission (n.d.).

  79. 79.

    European Court of Auditors (2016), p. 30.

  80. 80.

    European Court of Auditors (2016), p. 30.

  81. 81.

    Interestingly, Wikipedia refers to an undertaking as “[T]his uncomfortable English word” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law, emphasis added).

  82. 82.

    Woods et al. (2017), p. 639.

  83. 83.

    Leucht and Marquis (2013).

  84. 84.

    Maher (2000), p. 155.

  85. 85.

    See Jones and Sufrin on the impact of French and German delegations on the initial shape of EEC Competition Law, with some of the provisions of the ECSC Treaty being drafted by the Harvard law professor Robert Bowie at the request of Jean Monnet; Jones and Sufrin (2016), pp. 36–37 and p. 36, fn 162 and Elhauge and Geradin (2011), p. 49.

  86. 86.

    See e.g. Kolasiński (2012), Kępiński (2014) on the foreign impact on Polish Competition Law.

  87. 87.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html.

  88. 88.

    https://curia.europa.eu.

  89. 89.

    Kilgarriff et al. (2014).

  90. 90.

    Scott (2017).

  91. 91.

    Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47).

  92. 92.

    Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, p. 1).

  93. 93.

    Case C-453/99, Courage and Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, ECLI:EU:C:2001:465.

  94. 94.

    See Elhauge and Geradin (2011), pp. 51–52 on the growing importance of these instruments in shaping the EU’s Competition policy by clarifying the approach behind enactments.

  95. 95.

    OJ C 130, 19.5.2010, p. 1.

  96. 96.

    OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 2.

  97. 97.

    Figures in brackets provide a normalised frequency (NF) per 1 million words (pmw), as opposed to a raw frequency (RF), that is a frequency in the entire corpus.

  98. 98.

    Semantic prosody is “a consistent aura of meaning with which a form is imbued by its collocates” (Louw (1993), p. 157).

  99. 99.

    Rodger and MacCulloch (2015), p. 2.

  100. 100.

    Jones and Townley (2017), pp. 510, 512.

  101. 101.

    Jopek-Bosiacka (2010), pp. 114–115, for further discussion.

  102. 102.

    Biber et al. (1999), pp. 590–591.

  103. 103.

    Kjær (2007), p. 506, Biel (2012), p. 227.

  104. 104.

    This is consistent with Hoey’s priming hypothesis concerning polysemous words ((2005), p. 13).

  105. 105.

    Infoterm (2005), p. 10.

  106. 106.

    Bowker and Hawkins (2006), p. 85.

  107. 107.

    Gotti (2005), pp. 37–40.

  108. 108.

    Biber et al. (1999), p. 589.

  109. 109.

    An example from the corpus: Guidelines on Vertical Restraint (OJ C 130, 19.5.2010, p. 1).

  110. 110.

    Whish and Bailey (2015), p. 729.

  111. 111.

    cf. Modiano (2017), p. 322.

  112. 112.

    http://www.eucomplaw.com/the-case/concerted-practice (Accessed 19 Jan 2018).

  113. 113.

    As an aside, in some cases, prosodies may be stretched to the limit, e.g. the use of to merit which should collocate with positive objects: the applicant’s limited or passive participation in the PG Paperboard did not merit a fine or, at most, merited only a small fine.

  114. 114.

    Langacker (2008), p. 105.

  115. 115.

    Jopek-Bosiacka (2010), p. 115.

  116. 116.

    Gotti (2005), pp. 78–80.

  117. 117.

    As observed e.g. by Gardner (2017).

  118. 118.

    Biber et al. (1999), p. 307.

  119. 119.

    Freixa (2006), p. 63.

  120. 120.

    Bowker and Hawkins (2006), p. 81.

  121. 121.

    Freixa (2006), p. 51.

  122. 122.

    Walter (2016), p. 58, fn 318.

  123. 123.

    Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114).

  124. 124.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 1).

  125. 125.

    cf. Bowker and Hawkins (2006), p. 80.

References

  • Alcaraz E, Hughes B (2002) Legal translation explained. St. Jerome, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajčić M (2017) New insights into the semantics of legal concepts and the legal dictionary. Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baker M (1992) In other words. A coursebook on translation. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia VK, Langton NM, Lung J (2004) Legal discourse: opportunities and threats for corpus linguistics. In: Connor U, Upton TA (eds) Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 203–231

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Biber D, Johansson S, Leech G, Conrad S, Finegan E (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Biel Ł (2012) Areas of similarity and difference in legal phraseology: collocations of key terms in UK and Polish company law. In: Pamies A, Pazos Bretaña JM, Nadal LL (eds) Phraseology and discourse: cross-linguistic and corpus-based approaches. Schneider Verlag, Baltmannsweiler, pp 225–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Biel Ł (2014) Lost in the Eurofog: the textual fit of translated law. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biel Ł (2017) Quality in institutional EU translation: parameters, policies and practices. In: Svoboda T, Biel Ł, Łoboda K (eds) Quality aspects in institutional translation. Language Science Press, Berlin, pp 31–57. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1048183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker L, Hawkins S (2006) Variation in the organization of medical terms. Exploring some motivations for term choice. Terminology 12(1):79–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo G (2004) EU language in cross-boundary communication. Textus 17:159–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Catenaccio P (2008) Implementing Council Directive 1993/13/EEU on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts in Great Britain: a case for intra-linguistic translation? In: Bhatia VK, Candlin CN, Allori PE (eds) Language, culture and the law. The formulation of legal concepts across systems and cultures. Peter Lang, Bern, pp 259–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Crystal D (2003) English as a global language, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Derlén M (2015) A single text or a single meaning: multilingual interpretation of EU legislation and CJEU case law in national courts. In: Šarčević S (ed) Language and culture in EU law. Multidisciplinary perspectives. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 53–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Doczekalska A (2009) Drafting and interpretation of EU law — paradoxes of legal multilingualism. In: Grewendorf G, Rathert M (eds) Formal linguistics and law. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 339–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Elhauge E, Geradin D (2011) Global competition law and economics, 2nd edn. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) Translation and multilingualism. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e0770e72-afa1-4971-8824-6190512537dc/language-en. Accessed 1 Jan 2018

  • European Commission (2016) Strategic plan 2016-2020. DG Translation. Ref. Ares(2016)1329034 - 16/03/201. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/strategic-plan-2016-2020-dg-t_march2016_en.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2018

  • European Commission (n.d.) EU jargon in English and some possible alternatives. http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/content/tips/words-style/jargon-alternatives_en.htm. Accessed 1 Jan 2018

  • European Court of Auditors, Secretariat General of Translation Directorate (2016) Misused English words and expressions in EU publications. https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2018

  • Firth JR (1957) Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Freixa J (2006) Causes of denominative variation in terminology. A typology proposal. Terminology 12(1):51–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner J (2017) Errors in EU-English. Altre Modernità 04/2017:149–164. https://doi.org/10.13130/2035-7680/8308

  • Glanert S (2008) Speaking language to law: the case of Europe. Legal Stud 28(2):161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotti M (2005) Investigating specialized discourse. Peter Lang, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanzl J, Beaven J (2017) Quality assurance at the Council of the EU’s translation service. In: Svoboda T, Biel Ł, Łoboda K (eds) Quality aspects in institutional translation. Language Science Press, Berlin, pp 139–153. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1048196

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hatim B, Munday J (2004) Translation. An advanced resource book. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heid U (1994) On ways words work together — topics in lexical combinatorics. In: Martin W, Meijs W, Moerland M, ten Pas E, van Sterkenburg P, Vossen P (eds) Euralex 1994: Proceedings. International Congress on Lexicography, Amsterdam, pp 226–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoey M (2005) Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth P (1998) Phraseology and second language proficiency. Appl Linguist 19(1):24–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Infoterm (2005) Guidelines for terminology policies. Formulating and implementing terminology policy in language communities. Unesco, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Sufrin B (2016) EU Competition Law. Text, cases, and materials, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Townley C (2017) Competition law. In: Barnard C, Peers S (eds) European Union law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 509–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Jopek-Bosiacka A (2010) Legal communication: a cross-cultural perspective. Warsaw University Press, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  • Jopek-Bosiacka A (2011) Defining law terms: a cross-cultural perspective. Res Lang 9(1):9–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kępiński M (ed) (2014) Prawo konkurencji, vol 15. C.H.Beck, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgarriff A, Baisa V, Bušta J, Jakubíček M, Kovvář V, Michelfeit J, Rychlý P, Suchomel V (2014) The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography 1:7–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjær AL (2007) Phrasemes in legal texts. In: Burger H, Dobrovol’skij D, Kühn P, Norrick NR (eds) Phraseologie/Phraseology: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/An international handbook of contemporary research, vol 1. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 506–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolasiński MK (2012) Zarys prawa antymonopolowego Unii Europejskiej na tle prawa Stanów Zjednoczonych i Polski. Wydawnictwo Dom Organizatora, Toruń

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen K (2008) Translating institutions. An ethnographic study of EU translation. St. Jerome, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen K (2013) Social media and the institutional illusions of EU communication. Int J Appl Linguist 23(1):80–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzyżanowski M, Wodak R (2011) Political strategies and language policies: the European Union Lisbon Strategy and its implications for the EU’s language and multilingualism policy. Lang Policy 10:115–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-011-9196-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L’Homme MC (2000) Understanding specialized lexical combinations. Terminology 6(1):89–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langacker RW (2008) Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larson ML (1998[1984]) Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence. University Press of America, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Leucht B, Marquis M (2013) American Influences on EEC Competition Law: two paths, how much dependence? In: Patel KK, Schweitzer H (eds) The historical foundations of EU Competition Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 125–161

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Louw B (1993) Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In: Baker M, Francis G, Tognini-Bonelli E (eds) Text and technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 157–176

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maher I (2000) Re-imaging the story of European Competition Law. Oxf J Legal Stud 20(1):155–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/20.1.155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila HES (2013) Comparative legal linguistics, 2nd edn (trans: Goddard C). Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauranen A (2000) Strange strings in translated language: A study on corpora. In: Olohan M (ed) Intercultural faultlines. Research models in translation studies I. Textual and cognitive aspects. St. Jerome, Manchester, pp 119–141

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuliffe K (2017) Behind the scenes at the Court of Justice. Drafting EU law stories. In: Nicola F, Davies B (eds) EU law stories. Contextual and critical histories of European jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 35–57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer I, Mackintosh K (1994) Phraseme analysis and concept analysis: exploring a symbiotic relationship in the specialized lexicon. In: Martin W et al (eds) Euralex 1994: Proceedings. International Congress on Lexicography, Amsterdam, pp 339–348. http://www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex1994/. Accessed 1 Jun 2012

  • Modiano M (2017) English in a post-Brexit European Union. World Engl 36(3):313–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesselhauf N (2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark P (1981) Approaches to translation. Prentice Hall, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington A (1998) Patterns and meanings. Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzo B (2012a) English as a legal lingua franca in the EU multilingual context. In: Baaij CJW (ed) The role of legal translation in legal harmonization. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 183–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzo B (2012b) Multilingualism and the harmonization of European private law: problems and perspectives. Eur Rev Priv Law 20:1185–1198

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson C (2010) LSP and EU legal language. In: Heine C, Engberg J (eds) Reconceptualizing LSP. Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP Symposium 2009. http://bcom.au.dk/fileadmin/www.asb.dk/isek/robertson.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018

  • Robertson C (2012) EU legal English: common law, civil law, or a new genre. Eur Rev Priv Law 20:1215–1240

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson W (2017) EU legislation. In: Karpen U, Xanthaki H (eds) Legislation in Europe. A comprehensive guide for scholars and practitioners. Hart, Oxford, pp 229–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodger BJ, MacCulloch A (2015) Competition law and policy in the EU and UK, 5th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmi-Tolonen T (1994) The linguistic manifestations of primary and secondary functions of law in the national and supranational contexts. Int J Semiot Law 7(19):13–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šarčević S (2001) Preserving multilingualism in an enlarged European Union. Terminologie et Traduction 2:34–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Šarčević S (2007) Making multilingualism work in the enlarged European Union. In: Kredens K, Goźdź-Roszkowski S (eds) Language and the law: international outlooks. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 35–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Šarčević S (2010) Creating a pan-European legal language. In: Gotti M, Williams C (eds) Legal discourse across languages and cultures. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 23–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Šarčević S (2018) Challenges to legal translators in institutional settings. In: Prieto Ramos F (ed) Institutional translation for international governance. Enhancing quality in multilingual legal communication. Bloomsbury, London, pp 9–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäffner C (2000) Introduction: globalisation, communication, translation. In: Schäffner C (ed) Translation in the global village. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott M (2017) WordSmith Tools version 7. Stroud, Lexical Analysis Software

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidlhofer B (2010) Lingua franca English - the European context. In: Kirkpatrick A (ed) The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 355–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair JM (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs M (2004) Language corpora. In: Davies A, Elder C (eds) Handbook of applied linguistics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 106–132

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Teubert W (2010) Our brave new world? Int J Corpus Linguist 15(3):354–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosi A (2002) The Europeanization of the Italian language by the European Union. In: Lepschy AL, Tosi A (eds) Multilingualism in Italy past and present. Legenda, Oxford, pp 170–194

    Google Scholar 

  • van Els TJM (2001) The European Union, its institutions and its languages: some language political observations. Curr Issues Lang Plann 2(4):311–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner E, Bech S, Martínez JM (2002) Translating for the European Union institutions. Translation practices explained. St. Jerome, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter F (2016) Handbook of EU Competition Law. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Whish R, Bailey D (2015) Competition law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker S (2006) The terminologies of civil protection: rights, remedies and procedures. In: Pozzo B, Jacometti V (eds) Multilingualism and the harmonisation of European law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 45–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods L, Watson P, Costa M (2017) Steiner & Woods EU law, 13th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wray A (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Warsaw, Institute of Applied Linguistics, Warsaw, Poland

    Łucja Biel, Agnieszka Biernacka & Anna Jopek-Bosiacka

Authors
  1. Łucja Biel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agnieszka Biernacka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Jopek-Bosiacka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Łucja Biel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Economics and Culture, University of Insubria, Como, Italy

    Silvia Marino

  2. Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Łucja Biel

  3. Faculty of Law, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Martina Bajčić

  4. Department of Foreign Languages, Translation & Interpretation, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece

    Vilelmini Sosoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Biel, Ł., Biernacka, A., Jopek-Bosiacka, A. (2018). Collocations of Terms in EU Competition Law: A Corpus Analysis of EU English Collocations. In: Marino, S., Biel, Ł., Bajčić, M., Sosoni, V. (eds) Language and Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90904-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90905-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation