Mapping terminological variation and ideology in data protection laws

References

1. Alo, Edward R.
   2013 “EU Privacy Protection: A Step Towards Global Privacy.” Michigan State International Law Review22(3): 1095–1148.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Anttila, Arto
   2002 “Variation and Phonological Theory.” InThe Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. byJ. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 206–243. Oxford: Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bainham, Andrew, Shelley Day Sclater, and Martin Richards
   (eds) 1999 What Is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis. Oxford: Hart.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Baker, Paul
   2010 Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Benesh, Sara C., and Jason J. Czarnezki
   2009 “The Ideology of Legal Interpretation.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy29: 113–132.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bennett, Colin J.
   1992 Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501722134
   https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501722134 [Google Scholar]
7. Beynon-Davies, Paul
   2013 Business Information Systems, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑30777‑4
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-30777-4 [Google Scholar]
8. Biersteker, Thomas J., and Cynthia Weber
   1996 “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty.” InState Sovereignty as Social Construct, ed. byThomas J. Biersteker, and Cynthia Weber, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511598685.001
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598685.001 [Google Scholar]
9. 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.” Terminology4(2): 275–302. 10.1075/term.4.2.04bow
   https://doi.org/10.1075/term.4.2.04bow [Google Scholar]
10. Bygrave, Lee A.
    2015 “Information Concepts in Law: Generic Dreams and Definitional Daylight.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies35(1): 91–120. 10.1093/ojls/gqu011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqu011 [Google Scholar]
11. Cheng, Le, and Winnie Cheng
    2012 “Legal Interpretation: Meaning as Social Construction.” Semiotica191: 427–448.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng, and King-Kui Sin
    2014 “Revisiting Legal Terms: A Semiotic Perspective.” Semiotica202: 167–182.
    [Google Scholar]
13. 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]
14. Cheng, Le, Jiamin Pei, and Marcel Danesi
    2019 “A Sociosemiotic Interpretation of Cybersecurity in U.S. Legislative Discourse.” Social Semiotics29(3): 286–302. 10.1080/10350330.2019.1587843
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2019.1587843 [Google Scholar]
15. Cheng, Le, and King-Kui Sin
    2009 “Legal Terms Across Communities: Divergence Behind Convergence in Law.” InDiversity and Tolerance in Socio-Legal Contexts: Explorations in the Semiotics of Law, ed. byAnne Wagner, and Vijay K. Bhatia, 181–190. Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Condamines, Anne
    2010 “Variations in Terminology: Application to the Management of Risks Related to Language Use in the Workplace.” Terminology16(1): 30–50. 10.1075/term.16.1.02con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.16.1.02con [Google Scholar]
17. Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr
    1998 Just Words: Law, Language and Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Daille, Béatrice, Benoît Habert, Christian Jacquemin, and Jean Royauté
    1996 “Empirical Observation of Term Variations and Principles for Their Description.” Terminology3(2): 197–257. 10.1075/term.3.2.02dai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.3.2.02dai [Google Scholar]
19. Fernández-Silva, Sabela, Judit Freixa, and M. Teresa Cabré
    2011 “A Proposed Method for Analysing the Dynamics of Cognition Through Term Variation.” Terminology17(1): 49–73. 10.1075/term.17.1.04fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.17.1.04fer [Google Scholar]
20. Floridi, Luciano
    2005 “Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?” Philosophy and Phenomenological ResearchLXX(2): 351–370. 10.1111/j.1933‑1592.2005.tb00531.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x [Google Scholar]
21. Focarelli, Carlo
    2012 International Law as Social Construct. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584833.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584833.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
22. Freixa, Judit
    2006 “Causes of Denominative Variation in Terminology: A Typology Proposal.” Terminology12(1): 51–77. 10.1075/term.12.1.04fre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.12.1.04fre [Google Scholar]
23. Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
    2011 Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English: A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑00659‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-00659-9 [Google Scholar]
24. Gravells, Jane
    2017 Semiotics and Verbal Texts: How the News Media Construct a Crisis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑58750‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58750-3 [Google Scholar]
25. Harris, Roy, and Christopher Hutton
    2007 Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Harris, Sandra
    1994 “Ideological Exchanges in British Magistrates Courts.” InLanguage and the Law, ed. byJohn Gibbons, 156–170. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
27. 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]
28. Jennings, M. Kent
    1992 “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly56(4): 419–441. 10.1086/269335
    https://doi.org/10.1086/269335 [Google Scholar]
29. Jones, Martha, and Philip Durrant
    2010 “What Can a Corpus Tell Us about Vocabulary Teaching Materials?” InThe Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ed. byAnne O’Keeffe, and Michael McCarthy, 387–400. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203856949.ch28
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch28 [Google Scholar]
30. Kageura, Kyo
    2002 The Dynamics of Terminology: A Descriptive Theory of Term Formation and Terminological Growth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tlrp.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.5 [Google Scholar]
31. Kageura, Kyo
    2015 “Terminology and Lexicography.” InHandbook of Terminology: Volume 1, ed. byHendrik J. Kockaert, and Frieda Steurs, 45–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hot.1.04ter2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.1.04ter2 [Google Scholar]
32. Kittichaisaree, Kriangsak
    2017 Public International Law of Cyberspace. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54657‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54657-5 [Google Scholar]
33. Kshetri, Nir
    2016 The Quest to Cyber Superiority: Cybersecurity Regulations, Frameworks, and Strategies of Major Economies. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑40554‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40554-4 [Google Scholar]
34. Lefevere, André
    1992 Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Malkiel, Yakov
    1967 “Each Word Has a History of Its Own.” Glossa1:137–149.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Millard, Christopher, and W. Kuan Hon
    2012 “Defining ‘Personal Data’ in e-Social Science.” Information, Communication & Society15(1): 66–84. 10.1080/1369118X.2011.616518
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.616518 [Google Scholar]
37. Mommers, Laurens, and Wim Voermans
    2005 “Using Legal Definitions to Increase the Accessibility of Legal Documents.” InLegal Knowledge and Information Systems JURIX 2005: The Eighteenth Annual Conference, ed. byMarie-Francine Moens, and Peter Spyns, 147–156. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Ni, Shifeng, Le Cheng, and King Kui Sin
    2010 “Terminology Evolution and Legal Development: A Case Study of Chinese Legal Terminology.” Terminology16(2): 159–180. 10.1075/term.16.2.02ni
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.16.2.02ni [Google Scholar]
39. Partington, Alan
    2004 “Corpora and Discourse: A Most Congruous Beast.” InCorpora and Discourse, ed. byAlan Partington, John Morley, and Louann Haarman, 11–20. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Pearson, Jennifer
    1998 Terms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.1 [Google Scholar]
41. Purtova, Nadezhda
    2018 “The Law of Everything: Broad Concept of Personal Data and Future of EU Data Protection Law.” Law, Innovation and Technology10(1): 40–81. 10.1080/17579961.2018.1452176
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2018.1452176 [Google Scholar]
42. Raul, Alan Charles
    (ed) 2018 The Privacy, Data, Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review, 5th edition. London: Law Business Research.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Sager, Juan, and Augustin Ndi-Kimbi
    1995 “The Conceptual Structure of Terminological Definitions and Their Linguistic Realisations: A Report on Research in Progress.” Terminology2(1): 61–85. 10.1075/term.2.1.04sag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.2.1.04sag [Google Scholar]
44. Schwartz, Paul M.
    2009 “Preemption and Privacy.” Yale Law Journal118(5): 902–947.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Schwartz, Paul M., Daniel J. Solove
    2011 “The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information.” New York University Law Review86: 1814–1894.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Scott, Mike
    2018 WordSmith Tools, Version 7. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Segal, Jeffrey A.
    1997 “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts.” American Political Science Review91: 28–44. 10.2307/2952257
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2952257 [Google Scholar]
48. Sullivan, Ruth
    2007 Statutory Interpretation, 2nd edition. Toronto: Irwin Law.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Sullivan, Ruth
    2008 Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th edition. Markham: LexisNexis Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Tagliamonte, Sali A.
    2013 “Analysing and Interpreting Variation in the Sociolinguistic Tradition.” InResearch Methods in Language Variation and Change, ed. byManfred Krug, and Julia Schlüter, 382–401. Padstow: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511792519.025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792519.025 [Google Scholar]
51. Temmerman, Rita
    2000 Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tlrp.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.3 [Google Scholar]
52. Ten Hacken, Pius
    2015 “Terms and Specialized Vocabulary: Taming the Prototypes.” InHandbook of Terminology: Volume 1, ed. byHendrik J. Kockaert, and Frieda Steurs, 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hot.1.ter1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.1.ter1 [Google Scholar]
53. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998 Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2000 Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2011 “Discourse and Ideology.” InDiscourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. byTeun A. Van Dijk, 379–407. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446289068.n18
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n18 [Google Scholar]
56. Weber, Rolf H., and Dominic Staiger
    2017 Transatlantic Data Protection in Practice. Basel: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑55430‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55430-2 [Google Scholar]
57. Xu, Jiajin
    2009 Log-Likelihood Ratio Calculator. Beijing: National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education.
    [Google Scholar]