POLYSEMIC TERMS IN CHINESE,GERMAN, GREEK AND POLISH LEGAL LANGUAGE. A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Abstract

The main issue of the paper is the phenomenon of polysemy, which is present in the Chinese, German, Greek and Polish legal languages. The phenomenon is seen as the criterion of comparative studies between the specified legal languages. As polysemy is often discussed together with homonymy, the authors have decided to define polysemy in the introduction of the text, on the basis of etymology and being contrary to homonymy. The first assumption is an existence of the polysemy of certain terms (words and syntagmas), which relies on simultaneous existence of the term both in general (lay) language and in language for special purposes. The LSP may be the legal language, for example. Based on the existing research of legal language, the authors assume polysemy does not have a homogenous character as a term and moreover this is confirmed by various legilinguistic classifications. There are typologies of legal language based on the criterion of source text, but the authors also propose the consideration of a classification performed on the basis of various fields of law i.e. civil law, constitutional law, criminal law together with confirmation of classification. This criterion may be very useful when explaining the polysemy of legal terms as it originates not only from different types of legal texts, but primarily comes from legal fields. The performed comparative analysis of selected legal terms of different Chinese, German, Greek and Polish legal fields indicates that the multiplicity of meanings of the same term (word/syntagma) comes from the presence of this term in different legal fields. Simultaneously, the primarily assumed statement of the existence of polysemy in the frame of a certain language for special purposes, i.e. legal language, is confirmed. This assumption may be a valuable aspect of further research of national legal languages and may be useful for the users of legal language such as legal translators or legal comparatists.

Full text

19
POLYSEMIC TERMS IN CHINESE, GERMAN, GREEK
AND POLISH LEGAL LANGUAGE.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Karolina GORTYCH-MICHALAK, PhD
Joanna GRZYBEK, PhD
Institute of Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University
al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań
kmmgortych@gmail.com, jgrzybek@gmail.com
Abstract: The main issue of the paper is the phenomenon of polysemy, which is present in the
Chinese, German, Greek and Polish legal languages. The phenomenon is seen as the criterion of
comparative studies between the specified legal languages. As polysemy is often discussed together
with homonymy, the authors have decided to define polysemy in the introduction of the text, on the
basis of etymology and being contrary to homonymy. The first assumption is an existence of the
polysemy of certain terms (words and syntagmas), which relies on simultaneous existence of the
term both in general (lay) language and in language for special purposes. The LSP may be the legal
language, for example. Based on the existing research of legal language, the authors assume
polysemy does not have a homogenous character as a term and moreover this is confirmed by
various legilinguistic classifications. There are typologies of legal language based on the criterion
of source text, but the authors also propose the consideration of a classification performed on the
basis of various fields of law i.e. civil law, constitutional law, criminal law together with
confirmation of classification. This criterion may be very useful when explaining the polysemy of
legal terms as it originates not only from different types of legal texts, but primarily comes from
legal fields. The performed comparative analysis of selected legal terms of different Chinese,
German, Greek and Polish legal fields indicates that the multiplicity of meanings of the same term
(word/syntagma) comes from the presence of this term in different legal fields. Simultaneously, the
primarily assumed statement of the existence of polysemy in the frame of a certain language for
special purposes, i.e. legal language, is confirmed. This assumption may be a valuable aspect of
further research of national legal languages and may be useful for the users of legal language such
as legal translators or legal comparatists.
TERMINY WIELOZNACZNE W CHIŃSKIM, NIEMIECKIM, GRECKIM I POLSKIM
JĘZYKU PRAWA
Abstrakt: Przedmiotem niniejszego artykułu jest zagadnienie wieloznaczności obecne w chińskim,
niemieckim, greckim i polskim języku prawa w ujęciu porównawczym. Ponieważ zagadnienie
polisemii jest w literaturze przedmiotu często omawiane wraz z zagadnieniem homonimii, autorki
artykułu na wstępie przyjmują określoną definicję polisemii, opartą na kryterium etymologicznym.
Pierwszym założeniem, jakie przyjmują autorki, jest fakt istnienia wieloznaczności określonych
terminów - wyrazów i syntagm - wynikającej z ich jednoczesnej obecności w języku ogólnym oraz
w języku specjalistycznym, którym jest np. język prawa. W oparciu o istniejące badania nad
językiem prawa w artykule zakłada się niejednorodny charakter tergo pojęcia, co potwierdzają
różne klasyfikacje języka prawa dokonane przez legilingwistów. Autorki proponują, aby obok

Comparative Legilinguistics 15/2013
20
przyjętych klasyfikacji uwzględnić w badaniach porównawczych języka prawa również podział
prawa na działy, np. prawo cywilne, prawo konstytucyjne etc. Przyjęcie takiego kryterium sprawia,
iż zagadnienie polisemii terminów prawnych może być wyjaśnione w oparciu o znaczenie i funkcję
tekstów prawnych i prawniczych, z jakich pochodzą dane terminy. Przeprowadzona analiza
porównawcza wybranych terminów z różnych gałęzi prawa chińskiego, niemieckiego, greckiego
i polskiego, wskazuje, że wieloznaczność terminów prawnych wynika przede wszystkim
z obecności i używania tych samych terminów w różnych gałęziach prawa. Jednocześnie
potwierdza to przyjętą na początku artykuł tezę, mówiącą że polisemia jest zjawiskiem obecnym
również w ramach danego języka specjalistycznego. Taka konstatacja może być przydatna, jak
wskazuje się na przykładach, dla użytkowników różnych narodowych języków prawa, jakimi są
tłumacze, czy komparatyści prawa.
Introduction and methodological remarks
Polysemy may be defined as multiplicity of meaning of one term (which is a word or
syntagma). Quite frequently, when discussing polysemy, the phenomenon of homonymy
occurs. Despite many definitions of polysemy, the main issue frequently discussed
among linguists is the difficulty in distinguishing polysemy and homonymy (cf. Gołąb et
al. 1968, 238, 432-433, Crystal 2008). Thus the first step of the research is to distinguish
polysemy homonymy and to define polysemy as a linguistic phenomenon.
The term legal language has no uniform, nor universal meaning because almost
every national legal system operates a wide range of national legal means to express legal
rules or to regulate legal reality. According to the main classifications and typologies of
legal language (cf. Šarčevič 1997, Mattilla 2002, Cao 2007, Matulewska 2007, Galdia
2009) often used criteria for legal language typology are types of legal texts. In the next
step of the research, despite these classifications, the authors of the paper present the
polysemy of selected terms existing simultaneously in general and in legal language.
They believe it cannot be explained relying only on the aforementioned typologies. This
assumption is confirmed by the examples of Chinese, German, Greek and Polish terms
given in the paper.
The authors assumed that polysemy originates from co-existence of the same
term in various linguistic realities. Thus one term, a word or syntagma, present and used
in general language (language used for general purposes) has a certain meaning, but when
it is exploited in the frame of language for special purposes, for instance, in the frame of
legal language, it has a different meaning (cf. Petzel 2006). These circumstances cause
polysemy of one word as it is used for different purposes and thus it has various, multiple
meanings. This statement is basic for further research performed on various Chinese,
German, Greek and Polish legal terms. The main criterion for comparative analysis is the
hypothesis about polysemy in legal language. Thus, taking into consideration the third
element of the comparative study (polysemy in LSP), the polysemy in languages for
special purposes is analysed in this common platform. In this phase of the research the
hypothesis is examined and confirmed.
The concluding remarks of the paper include the results of the research
performed and observations. The authors consider that the comparative study presented in
the paper may be useful as a method for analysis of certain linguistic phenomena in
various national legal languages. It is obvious that the proposed method cannot possibly
be the sole method for research but it enriches knowledge of legal language and its

Karolina GORTYCH-MICHALAK,Polysemic Terms in Chinese, German, Greek …
21
patterns in various legal systems. It may be used also to define semantic fields of legal
terms when analysing the corpora. Thus the presented research might be exploited by
legal translators or legal comparatists or other users of legal language.
Polysemy – general conception
The term polysemy was introduced by Bréal in 1897 (Nerlich 2003, 49). Subsequently,
polysemy has been explained from various linguistic viewpoints rooted in semantics or
even psychologically inspired semantics (cf. Stern 1931, Smith 1982). When considering
the etymology of the term polysemy, it seems quite obvious that this linguistic
phenomenon is identified by the simultaneous existence of multiple meanings for one
term. The statement is confirmed by many scholars, who consider polysemy
a phenomenon or situation where one word has many meanings (Ullman 1967, 159,
Palmer 1981, 100, Weinsberg 1983, 42) or one lexeme has many senses (Cruse 1986, 80,
Lyons 1987, 146, Veloudis 205, 196).
Frequently a polysemy is defined as one form (written or spoken) having
multiple meanings that are all related by extension (Yule 2010, 120). In extension from
this definition there are sense relations between meanings in the frame of one term. Some
scholars have tried to characterise these polysemic relations as sense relations in which
one lexeme has acquired more than one meaning (Mohammed 2009, 782-783 after Finch
2000, 173). These relations come from meaning metamorphosis and they may be based
on metaphor or metonymy (Kövecses 2002, 213) and, moreover, lexemes continually
develop their meaning variants (Löbner 2002, 45). For instance, in Chinese polysemy
often occurs in grammaticalization when the content form of origin continues to coexist
contemporaneously with its grammaticalized function form counterpart (Packard 2001,
262). Many scholars discuss polysemy and homonymy together (Gołąb et al. 1968,
238, Kovacs 2011, 7 et al.) as the homonyms are words or forms, which have many
meanings or functions, while simultaneously, the investigators believe many meanings
come from completely different words, which created one, uniform form in the historical
development of the language. The method of distinction between homonymy and
polysemy appears to be the main obstacle for linguists (cf. Crystal 2008). The traditional
approaches state that the main criterion of distinction between polysemy and homonymy
is etymology because the homonyms are different words as homonymy is not relations
between meanings of the same word but it is co-existence of multiple words having their
own meaning in the same form (Lyons 1975, 447).
The following graphs may be useful illustrative material as they present the
relations of homonymy and polysemy in parallel. The main criterion of distinction is
etymology as adopted by Lyons (1975, 447-448).

Comparative Legilinguistics 15/2013
22
Graph 1. Polysemy.
Word AB (form)
Meaning AB1
Meaning AB2
Graph 2. Homonymy.
Word AB
Meaning A coming from word A Meaning B coming from word B
In the basis of adopted criterion some examples of Chinese, German, Greek and
Polish polysemic words and homonyms are given to illustrate the method exploited in the
research. The examples are given in table form to present more schematically the under
investigation issues.
Table 1. Examples of polysemic words and homonyms.
Chinese polysemic words
Word Meaning
法律顾问 fǎlǜ gùwèn 1. syndic.
2. corporate lawyer.
3. counsellor-at-law or barrister.
4. legal adviser.
Chinese homonym
Word Meaning
仪表 yíbiǎo 1. the appearances or manners a person bears (仪 yí –
容貌举止: 仪容; 仪态 róngmào jŭzhĭ: yíróng; yíróng;
yítài).
2. instrument or meter
16
((仪 yí – 仪器 yíqì)
German polysemic word
Word Meaning
der Verkehr 1. move.
2. communication, transport.
3. trading transaction, trade market.
German homonym
Word Meaning
die Kluft
1. gulf; ravine (Old High German kluft; English cleft).
2. uniform; outfit; dress (Modern Hebrew: gilluph)
16
Cf. Lin, Ahrens 2000, 143.

Karolina GORTYCH-MICHALAK,Polysemic Terms in Chinese, German, Greek …
23
Greek polysemic word
Word Meaning
φύλλο [fílo] 1. petal, foliage.
2. leaf, page.
3. newspaper.
4. film.
Greek homonym
Word Meaning
κάβα [káva] 1. wine cellar; off licence (French cave).
2. limit in Poker (Italian cava).
Polish polysemic word
Word Meaning
kożuch [kóžux] 1. sheepskin, coat, fur.
2. (milk) skin.
Polish homonym
Word Meaning
cera [céra] 1. face, skin of face, mask of face (Latin cera - wax).
2. darn (Old Church Slavonic cěł – intact, undisturbed,
healthy)
The above given examples indicate that polysemic words have the same
etymological source but shifts of their meanings depend on certain communication
circumstances (i.e. situation, function, context, topic etc.) where the polysemic word is
used. These circumstances may have a social, cultural or professional character thus the
next step of the research is to present polysemy considered as multiple meaning of the
same word in different communicational situations.
Polysemic words in general language and in LSP (legal language)
Different communicative circumstances require various modes of linguistic
communication as different purposes of communication must be served. One of the
communicative purposes is legal communication, the basic and general function of is to
communicate law. It is a very narrow linguistic function when compared with general use
of language. Thus the distinction between language for general purposes and language for
special purposes must be highlighted.
From communication point of view, the language for general purposes is used in
almost every communication situation, as it is a basic mean for communication and basic
material for language registers (cf. Petzel 2006, Pytel 2004). According to Halliday
register is the clustering of semantic features according to situation type (Halliday, 1978:
68, 111, 123). His concept of the register may be used to explain a language variation
according to use (Lookin et al. 2011, 190). As Metthiesen (1993, 23-31) believes that
register is a higher order of semantic configuration and it is realised in semantic units of
various sizes, in the paper register is conceived as a special language variety, with its
specific semantic units (words, syntagmas), used in different situations. This statement

Comparative Legilinguistics 15/2013
24
brings us closer to the term of LSP (Language for Special Purposes) defined as
formalised and codified variety of language, used for special purposes […] with the
function of communicating information of a specialist nature at any level (Picht and
Draskau 1985, 3). The language for special purposes is seemingly a type of register as it
serves a certain purpose or purposes. When discussing the LSPs, a communication
component should be considered (functional variety). Regardless of any register
taxonomy or LSP taxonomy, a variety of language used in a certain situation (a common
component of these two terms) is not in contrast to the language for general purposes.
The statement is confirmed by de Beuagrande (1987, 7) who considers that the LSP may
be defined in terms of style or register and this approach was presented by Gläser (cf
1979) and Draskau (cf. 1983).
Legal language, regardless of many legilinguistic approaches, is a language
existing in the legal environment. Current studies indicate that legal language is a vast
term with multiple meaning as it is used to specify language used in a legal environment
to serve different purposes in the frame of so-called legal communication (Gortych-
Michalak 2013, 90-91). Thus the authors of this paper believe that legal language is a
language for special purposes as it is a means of communication in legal circles and
moreover it is a means to express law:
Law always has a linguistic form; there would be no law without language. There would
be no way to establish legal validity without language, as justice needs communication.
(Grewendorf et al. 2009, 1)
Chinese legal language – 法律汉语 [fǎlǜ hànyŭ] is considered as an
authoritative and restraining medium of law (Du 2004, 1). It is described as a variant of
the ordinary Chinese language (Song 2010, 4). In investigators’ discussions there is also
the Chinese legal language of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese legal language
of the legal system in Taiwan and the Chinese legal language of the legal system in Hong
Kong. German legal language – Rechtssprache, may be understood as a collective
concept of the legal language used in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. According to
(Sandrini 1996, 16) there is no general legal language but only national legal languages.
Greek legal language – νοµική γλώσσα [nomikí γlósa] is deemed to be the
language used in the legal field – γλώσσα στο νοµικό χώρο [γlósa sto nomikó xóro] (cf.
Kriaras 1982). Stavrakis (cf. 1995) and Tsavalos (cf. 1990) believe that Greek legal
language is professional language, used by lawyers for communication purposes in the
legal area. Moreover, scholars state that legal language is a unit – κοµµάτι [komáti] of
general, ethnic language. The latest researches of Panaretou (cf. 2009) present the
statement that legal language – νοµικός λόγος [nomikós lóγos] is a statutory language. In
the context of Panaretou’s statement the question about the concept of other languages
used for different legal purpose arises. Regardless of various statements, the definitions
of the term legal language confirm that the wide meaning of the term legal language is
not homogeneous.

Karolina GORTYCH-MICHALAK,Polysemic Terms in Chinese, German, Greek …
25
Polish legal language has been explored for over fifty years (cf. Wróblewski
1948). Current classifications of legal language are based on an almost archetypical
division of legal language created by Wróblewski. Thus, there is no uniform legal
language in the Polish legal environment, but at the very basic level of division there are
statutory language – język prawa and legal language – język prawniczy. Legal and
linguistic studies confirm this division and even develop it (cf. Gizbert-Studnicki 1972,
Zieliński 1999, Malinowski 2006 et al.). Regardless of more and more analytic typologies
of Polish legal languages, there are common criteria, which classify them into one
language for legal purposes. These criteria are: i) legal field where Polish LLP is used
and ii) function, which is communication in the legal field.
The function and the field of use are the same for Chinese, German, Greek and
Polish legal languages. They are languages for legal purposes thus the polysemy of terms
comes from purpose of the language. The following tables present examples of this
linguistic situation, which are terms with multiple meaning. The meaning depends on the
purpose of the language and the linguistic form of the term “contains” many meanings.
Table 2. Terms - examples in general language vs terms in language for legal purposes.
Meaning in language for general
purposes Meaning in language for legal purposes
Chinese examples
请求 qĭngqiú
ask, beg, demand claim, motion, petition
废除 fèichú
cancel, annul abrogate, abolish
异议 yìyì
disagreement dissenting opinion, opposition, objection,
exception
German examples
die Umsetzung
execution, realisation, conversion,
dislocation, transformation translation
die Gesellschaft
society (sociology), companionship, circle
(of people), party (social event) organisation, company (corporation)
der Zusatz
addition, adjunct, alloy, suffix amendment
Greek examples
απόφαση [apófasi]
decision, resolution sentence, verdict, judgment
αρχή [arxí]
beginning, start, rule, principle authority, rule

Comparative Legilinguistics 15/2013
26
καλώ [kaló]
to call, to order, to appeal, to invoke to summon
Polish examples
strona
page, side, bank, aspect, voice party, litigant
dzieło
work, result, creation work as object of the contract
wypowiedzenie
declaration, resignation, pronouncement notice, denunciation
The examples presented above are just samples of many situations where one
term coming from general language acquires new meaning in language for legal purposes
and thus a polysemy occurs. Polysemy of one word, which comes from a difference
between general language and language for any special purpose seems to be an obvious
phenomenon and it confirms the conception of language register given above. Moreover
it confirms the concept of polysemy adopted in the research understood as extension of
meanings that Chromá confirms: The problem (…) is extensive polysemy resulting from
a general tendency in the languages to assign new meanings to the existing vocabulary
(Chromá 2011, 46).
Polysemy inside the language for legal purposes
The latest legilinguistic studies indicate that legal language is a wide definition and
a term with multiple meanings. Thus it is not homogeneous even if seen as language for
legal purposes (LLP). Giving some examples confirming multiple meaning of the term,
a basic taxonomy of the term legal language must be mentioned. It was presented by
Kurzon (cf. Kurzon 1986 and 1987) who distinguished language of the law and legal
language. Then Mattila (cf. 2006) believes that legal language contains:
- language of legal authors,
- language of legislators (laws and regulations),
- language of judges,
- language of administrators,
- language of advocates (Mattila 2006, 4).
Mattila’s typology is based on the “source”, which may be legal author, legislator, judge
etc. Yet the typology of legal language may be based on text types, which is typology’s
criterion for Galdia (2009, 91), Šarčević (1997, 11), Cao (2007, 9-10), Matulewska
(2007, 26-27) and other scholars.
The adopted criterion of typology in studies given above is not an appropriate
criterion to examine polysemy within the extent of the language for legal purposes. The
authors of the paper examined many legal documents, normative acts and legal
documents and they confirmed the general legal rule, which defines appropriate use of
statutory terms in other legal documents, i.e. contract (Polish umowa) is a term frequently
existing both in statutes – Polish Civil Code and in legal documents, i.e. contracts,
agreements etc. The rule to use statutory terms in the legal documents is extremely

Karolina GORTYCH-MICHALAK,Polysemic Terms in Chinese, German, Greek …
27
visible in judicial sentences where judges substantiate their verdict on the base of the
constitution, the law or any other normative act. In these circumstances, the language of
judges (as called after Mattila) exploits the terms, which exist in the language of the
legislator. A parallel situation arises when contracts are drown up as contractual texts
include statutory terms too, as mentioned above.
The authors propose to adopt another criterion to examine polysemy inside the
language for legal purposes. This criterion is subdivision of law into divisions such as
civil, constitutional, crime and tax law etc. The divisions of law regulate various realities
and circumstances and thus the language used for legal communication in such
circumstances must be even more specialised and precise when compared with the
language for legal purposes. This latter language serves many legal purposes in many
legal fields.
Adopting this criterion one may distinguish for example administrative law LLP,
civil law LLP, crime law LLP and other LLPs. The following tables give examples of
legal terms which are polysemic terms from the legal division standpoint.
Table 3. Polysemy in the language for legal purposes (LLP).
Law branch Meaning of the term in certain law branch
Chinese legal term 被告 [bèigào]
Criminal procedure law the accused
17
Civil procedure law,
administrative procedure law and
criminal procedure law
defendant
18
German legal term die Auflage
Civil law
(Bürgerliches Recht) testamentary burden – die Verpflichtung
19
Administrative procedure law
(das Verwaltungsverfahrensrecht) provision – die Bestimmung
20
Greek legal term υπηρεσία [ipiresía]
Military law
(στρατιωτικό δικαίο) (military) service – (στρατιωτική) υπηρεσία
21
Civil law
(αστικό δικαίο) (public) office – (κοινωνική) υπηρεσία
22
(public) service – (δηµόσια) υπηρεσία
23
Tax law
(φορολογικό δικαίο) (provision of) services – (παράδοση) υπηρεσιών
24
Polish legal term cywilny
17
Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, 17.03.1996, article 170 (3).
18
Chinese Civil Procedure Law, 09.04.1991, article 22 et al.; Chinese Administrative Procedure Law,
04.04.1989, article 18 et al; Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, 17.03.1996, article 175 et al.
19
German Civil Law, BGB 18.08.1896, paragraphs 2192-2196.
20
German Administrative Procedure Law, VwVfG 25.05.1976, paragraph 36 (2).
21
Greek Military Law Ν.3421/2005, FEK A 302/13.12.2005, article 2, paragraph 2.
22
Greek Civil Code N. 2250/1940, FEK A 151/1946, article 1646 et al.
23
Greek Civil Code N. 2250/1940, FEK A 151/1946, article 54.
24
Greek Value Added Tax Code N. 2859/2000, FEK A 248/7.11.2000 , article 2, paragraph 1a.

Comparative Legilinguistics 15/2013
28
Administrative law
(prawo administracyjne) civil (status) – stan cywilny
25
Civil law
(prawo cywilne) civil (liability) – (odpowiedzialność) cywilna
26
Constitutional law
(prawo konstytucyjne) civil (service) – (służba) cywilna
27
The examples presented above highlight existence of polysemic terms inside the
specific language for special purposes, which is discussed LLP. Polysemy may be called
an omnipresent linguistic phenomenon as even in a language variety, which is used for
special purposes i.e. legal language (Language for legal purposes – LLP), one may still
observe it. Generally present polysemy comes from sense shifts in the frame of the
semantic field of a certain word or syntagma. The above-mentioned Halliday’s concept of
language registry explains that phenomenon as it refers to the situation in which the
language is used. This situation may be functional, which is a purpose to be fulfilled or
thematic field (topic). Thus not only function but also semantics should be considered as
criteria to analyse languages for special purposes and their semantic phenomena.
Conclusions
When referring to legal language (LLP) the criterion of language function may be useful
to distinguish the language for special purposes from the language for general purposes.
Because of the thematic field of language in action, the semantic aspect must be
considered also when distinguishing the language for special purposes from the language
for general purposes.
The scope of the samples given is to demonstrate that polysemy is a ubiquitous
linguistic phenomenon. Even in such a language unit as semantic units polysemy is still
present. Regardless of the subject field and function multiple meaning of a single term
may occur.
The results of the research presented in the paper may be applicable to applied
linguistics, for example to translation theory and practice. The phenomenon of polysemy
seems to be especially a source of ambiguity and creates a potential problems for
translators (Matulewska 2007, 120-121, Grzybek 2009, 207-216, Źrałka 2007, 76, van
Vaerenbergh 2009, 48-50, Biel 2008, 29-3 et al.) and
The study of polysemy can help translators, by giving them certain guidelines, as to how
to think about words, and how to make use of the context to resolve the ambiguity of
polysemous words (Shmidt 2008, 217).
On the other hand, one must consider that polysemic terms do not exist without
any context in a vacuum. They are part of some text or statement that is observed by the
investigators thus the sender of the message and the receiver of the message are able to
25
Polish Law about Civil Status Certificates, Dz.U. 1986 No. 36 entry. 180, article 3 et al.
26
Polish Civil Code, Dz.U. 1964 no. 16 entry 93, article 819.
27
Constitution of Republic of Poland, Dz.U. 1997 no. 78 entry 483, article 153.

Karolina GORTYCH-MICHALAK,Polysemic Terms in Chinese, German, Greek …
disambiguate polysemous words in the given context (Nerlich and Clarke 2003, 12),
which is text produced with use of language for legal purposes. Adopting this statement
helps to link lexical investigations and text investigations in translation theory and
practice as the scope of the translator is not only to give proper meaning of one term in
different language but also to produce the proper text, which includes the term.
While lawyers cannot expect translators to produce parallel texts, which are equal in
meaning, they do expect them to produce parallel texts, which are equal in legal effect.
Thus the translator's main task is to produce a text that will lead to the same legal effects
in practice (Šarčević 1997, 71).
One of the main steps in the process of translation is the perception of source
text and in this phase the translator should determine the semantic field of a certain term.
The authors believe the paper will be valuable tool to determine the meaning of source
terms and thus to transfer and to express it in the final text (translation). Moreover, the
proposed method may be useful when preparing specialised glossaries and dictionaries.

Comparative Legilinguistics 15/2013
30
Bibliography
Biel, Łucja. 2008. Legal terminology in translation practice: dictionaries, googling or discussion
forums? SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, Vol. 3:1: 22-38.
http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTI03/pdf_doc/BielLucja.pdf (access 15.02.13).
de Beaugrande, Robert. 1987. LSP as a Complex System. In Special language: From humans
thinking to thinking machine, 3-29. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Bréal, Michael. 1897. Essai de sémantique (Science des significations). Paris: Gérard Monfort.
Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law. Topics in Translation: 33. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Chromá, Marta. 2011. Synonymy and Polysemy in Legal Terminology and Their Applications to
Bilingual and Bijural Translation. Research in Language, 2011, vol. 9.1: 31-50.
Cruse, David A. 1986. Lexical Semantic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Crystal David, 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetic Sixth Edition. Malden USA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Draskau, Jennifer. 1983. Is There a Scientific/Technical Register? Unesco ALSED-LSP Newsletter.
Vol. 6 No 2 (17) November 1983: 13-17.
Finch, Geofrey. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concept. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Galdia, Marcu 2009. Legal Linguistic. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz. 1972. Język prawny a język prawniczy. Zeszyty naukowe UJ. Prace
prawnicze z. 5: 219-233.
Gläser, Rosemarie. 1979. Fachstile des Englischen. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Gołąb, Zbigniew, Adam Heinz, and Kazimierz Polański. 1968. Słownik terminologii językoznawczej.
Warszawa: PWN.
Gortych-Michalak, Karolina. 2013. Struktura polskich, greckich i cypryjskich aktów normatywnych.
Studium porównawcze w aspekcie translatologicznym. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
Contact.
Grewendorf, Günther, Monika, Rathert. 2009. Language and Law – new applications of formal
Linguistic In Formal Linguistics and Law ed. Grewendorf, Günther, Monika, Rathert, 1-22.
Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grzybek, Joanna. 2009. Polysemy, Homonymy, and Other Sources of ambiguity in the Language of
Chinese Contract. Comparative Legilinguistic International Journal for Legal
Communication 1/2009: 207-216.
Halliday, Michael, A. K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Kovacs, Eva. 2011. Polysemy in Traditional vs. Cognitive Linguistic Eger Journal of English
Studies XI (2011): 3–19.
http://anglisztika.ektf.hu/new/english/content/tudomany/ejes/ejesdokumentumok/2005/K
ovacs_2005.pdf (20.04.13).
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kriaras. 1982. [Κριαράς, Εµµανουήλ. 1982. Η νοµική γλώσσα. Μελέτες - Κείµενα – Αποφάσεις. ed.
Βοϊκλής Ε. 99-112. Αθήνα: Σάκκουλας].
Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is Hereby Performed. (Pragmatics & Beyond). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kurzon, Dennis. 1987. Language of the law and legal language. In Special language: From humans
thinking to thinking machine ed. Christer, Laurén, Marianne, Nordman, 283-290.
Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Lin, Charles Chien-Jer, Ahrens, Kathleen. 2000. Calculating the Number of Senses: Implications
for Ambiguity Advantage Effect During Lexical Acces. In Proceedings of the 7
th
International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-7). 141-156.
Chiayi: National Chung Cheng University.

Karolina GORTYCH-MICHALAK,Polysemic Terms in Chinese, German, Greek …
31
http://www.kathleenahrens.com/images/Calculating_the_Number_of_Senses-
_Implications_for_Ambiguity_ Advantage_Effect_During_Lexical_Access.pdf access
15.04.13).
Lookin, Annabelle, Alison, Moore, Maria Herke, Rebekah Wegener, and Canzhong Wu. 2011.
Halliday’s model of register revisited and explo ed. Linguistics and Human Sciences vol.
4, no. 2. 187-213.
Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Understanding Semantic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, John. 1975. Wstęp do jezykoznawstwa. Warszawa: PWN.
Lyons, John. 1987. Language and Linguistic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, Andrzej. 2006. Polski język prawny. Wybrane zagadnienia. Warszawa: Lexis Nexi
Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2007. Lingua legis in translation. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
Mattila, Heikki. 2006. Comparative legal linguistic. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.
Mohammed, Essam T. 2009. Polysemy as a Lexical Problem in Translation. Adab AL Rafidayn
(55): 781-800. Mosul: Mosul University.
Nerlich, Brigitte. 2003. Polysemy: past and present. In Polysemy. Flexible Patterns of meaning in
Mind and Language. Trends in Linguistics, ed. Nerlich Brigitte., Todd, Z., Heman V.,
Clarke, David. D., 49-78. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
Nerlich, Brigitte, David D., Clark. 2003. Polysemy and flexibility: introduction and overwiev. In
Polysemy. Flexible Patterns of meaning in Mind and Language. Trends in Linguistics, ed.
Nerlich Brigitte, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, and David D. Clarke, 3-30. Berlin:
Mounton de Gruyter.
Panaretou. 2009. [Παναρέτου, Ελένη. 2009. Νοµικός λόγος. Γλώσσα και δοµή των νόµων. Αθήνα:
Εκδόσεις Παπάζης]
Petzel, Jacek. 2006. Język prawny w świetle lingwistycznej teorii rejestru językowego. Studia
Iuridica XLV/2006: 153-163.
Picht, Heribert, Draskau, Jennifer. 1985. Terminology: An introduction. Guilford: University of
Surrey.
Sandrini, Peter. 1996. Terminologiearbeit im Recht. Deskriptiver begriffsorientierter Ansatz vom
Standpunkt des Übersetzer IITF-Series 8. Vienna: TermNet.
Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New Approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Schmidt, Goran. 2008. Polysemy in Translation. Selecting the Right Sense. In Istraživanja, izazovi
i promjene u teoriji i praksi prevođenja, ed. Karabalić, Vladimir and Marija Omazić, 203-
218. Osijek: Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Filozofski fakultet.
Song Lei (宋雷). 2010. 英汉对比法律语言学. 北京：北京大学出版社.
Stern, Gustaf. 1931. Meaning and Change of Meaning: with Special Reference to the English
Language. Göteborg: Enlanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
Smith, Michael K. 1982. Metaphor and mind. Review of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson
“Metaphors We Live By”. American Speech 57: 128-133.
Stavrakis. 1995. [Σταυράκης, Αργύριος, Νικ. 1995. Νεοελληνική νοµική γλώσσα. Αθήνα: Νοµική
Βιβλιοθήκη].
Tsavalos. 1990. [Τσάβαλος, Παναγιώτης. 1990. Ποικιλίες γλώσσας. Λόγος και Πράξης τεύχ. 43:
26-34. Αθήνα: Ο.Λ.Μ.Ε.].
Packard, Jerome L. 2001. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach.
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Palmer, Frank R. 1981. Semantics: a New outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pytel, Waldemar A. 2004. Słownictwo fachowe jako identyfikator LSP. In Języki specjalistyczne 4.
ed. Lukszyn Jurij, 101-110. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Ullman, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.

Comparative Legilinguistics 15/2013
32
van Vaerenbergh, Leona, 2009. Polysemy and synonymy: Their managemet in Translation Studies
Dictionaries and in Translator Training. A case study. In The Metalanguage of
Translation, ed. Yves Gambier, Luc van Doorslaer, 45-64. Amsterdam: John Bejamin.
Veloudis. 2003 [Βελούδης, Γιάννης. 2003. Η σηµασία πριν, κατά και µετά τη γλώσσα. Αθήνα:
Εκδόσεις κριτική].
Weinsberg, Adam. 1983. Językoznawstwo ogólne. Warszawa: PWN.
Wróblewski, Bronisław. 1948. Język prawny i prawniczy. Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Prace
Komisji Prawniczej nr 3. Kraków.
Yule, George. 2010. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zieliński, Maciej. 1999. Języki prawne i prawnicze. In Polszczyzna 2000: Orędzie o stanie języka na
przełomie tysiącleci, ed. Pisarek Walery, 50-74. Kraków: Ośrodek Badań Prasoznawczych,
Uniwersytet Jagielloński.
Źrałka, Edyta. 2007. Teaching specialised translation through official document. The Journal of
Specialised Translation (Issue 07): 74-91. http://www.jostran
org/issue07/issue07_toc.php (01.02.13).
Source texts
Chinese Criminal Procedure Law (Adopted at the Second Session of the Fifth National People's
Congress on July 1, 1979, and revised in according with the Decision on Revising the
Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China adopted at the Forth Session
of the Eighth National People's Congress on March 17, 1996).
中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法
.
Chinese Civil Procedure Law (Adopted at the Fourth Session of the Seventh National People's
Congress on April 9, 1991 and promulgated by Order No. 44 of the President of the
People's Republic of China on April 9, 1991).
中华人民共和国民事诉讼法
.
Chinese Administrative Procedure Law (Adopted at the Second Session of the Seventh National
People's Congress on April 4, 1989 and promulgated by Order No. 16 of the President of
the People's Republic of China on April 4, 1989).
中华人民共和国行政诉讼法
.
Constitution of Republic of Poland, Dz.U. 1997 nr 78 poz. 483. Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej
Polskiej z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r.
German Civil Law. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 2. Januar
2002 (BGBI. I S. 42, 2909 ; 2003 I S. 738).
German Administrative Procedure Law, Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz in der Fassung der
Bekanntmachung vom 23. Januar 2003 (BGBI. I S. 102).
Greek Civil Code N. 2250/1940, FEK A 151/1946. Αναγκαστικός Νόµος υπ. αριθ. 2250/1940
«Αστικός Κώδιξ».
Greek Military Law Ν.3421/2005, FEK A 302/13.12.2005. Στρατολογία των Ελλήνων και άλλες
διατάξεις.
Greek Value Added Tax Code N. 2859/2000, FEK A 248/7.11.2000. Κώδικας Φόρου
Προστοοθεµένης Αξίας.
Polish Civil Code, Dz.U. 1964 nr 16 poz. 93. Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny.
Polish Law about Civil Status Certificates, Dz.U. 1986 Nr 36 poz. 180. Ustawa z dnia 29 września
1986 r. Prawo o aktach stanu cywilnego.