Main Article Content



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.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
GORTYCH-MICHALAK, K., & GRZYBEK, J. (2013). POLYSEMIC TERMS IN CHINESE,GERMAN, GREEK AND POLISH LEGAL LANGUAGE. A COMPARATIVE STUDY. Comparative Legilinguistics, 15, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2013.15.2


  1. Biel, Łucja. 2008. Legal terminology in translation practice: dictionaries, googling or discussion forums? SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, Vol. 3:1: 22-38.
  2. de Beaugrande, Robert. 1987. LSP as a Complex System. In Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machine, 3-29. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  3. Bréal, Michael. 1897. Essai de sémantique (Science des significations). Paris: Gérard Monfort.
  4. Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law. Topics in Translation: 33. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  5. 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.
  6. Cruse, David A. 1986. Lexical Semantic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
  7. Crystal David, 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetic Sixth Edition. Malden USA: Blackwell Publishing.
  8. Draskau, Jennifer. 1983. Is There a Scientific/Technical Register? Unesco ALSED-LSP Newsletter. Vol. 6 No 2 (17) November 1983: 13-17.
  9. Finch, Geofrey. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concept. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
  10. Galdia, Marcus 2009. Legal Linguistic. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
  11. Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz. 1972. Język prawny a język prawniczy. Zeszyty naukowe UJ. Prace prawnicze z. 5: 219-233.
  12. Gläser, Rosemarie. 1979. Fachstile des Englischen. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
  13. Gołąb, Zbigniew, Adam Heinz, and Kazimierz Polański. 1968. Słownik terminologii językoznawczej. Warszawa: PWN.
  14. Gortych-Michalak, Karolina. 2013. Struktura polskich, greckich i cypryjskich aktów normatywnych. Studium porównawcze w aspekcie translatologicznym. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Contact.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Halliday, Michael, A. K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
  18. Kovacs, Eva. 2011. Polysemy in Traditional vs. Cognitive Linguistic Eger Journal of English Studies XI (2011): 3–19.
  19. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Kriaras. 1982. [Κριαράς, Εμμανουήλ. 1982. Η νομική γλώσσα. Μελέτες - Κείμενα – Αποφάσεις. ed.οϊκλής Ε. 99-112. Αθήνα: Σάκκουλας].
  21. Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is Hereby Performed. (Pragmatics & Beyond). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  22. 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.
  23. Lin, Charles Chien-Jer, Ahrens, Kathleen. 2000. Calculating the Number of Senses: Implications for Ambiguity Advantage Effect During Lexical Acces. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-7). 141-156. Chiayi: National Chung Cheng University. http://www.kathleenahrens.com/images/Calculating_the_Number_of_Senses_Implications_for_Ambiguity_Advantage_Effect_During_Lexical_Access.pdf access 15.04.13).
  24. Lookin, Annabelle, Alison, Moore, Maria Herke, Rebekah Wegener, and Canzhong Wu. 2011.
  25. Halliday’s model of register revisited and explo ed. Linguistics and Human Sciences vol. 4, no. 2. 187-213.
  26. Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Understanding Semantic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Lyons, John. 1975. Wstęp do jezykoznawstwa. Warszawa: PWN.
  28. Lyons, John. 1987. Language and Linguistic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Malinowski, Andrzej. 2006. Polski język prawny. Wybrane zagadnienia. Warszawa: Lexis Nexis
  30. Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2007. Lingua legis in translation. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
  31. Mattila, Heikki. 2006. Comparative legal linguistic. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.
  32. Mohammed, Essam T. 2009. Polysemy as a Lexical Problem in Translation. Adab AL Rafidayn (55): 781-800. Mosul: Mosul University.
  33. 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.
  34. 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:
  35. Mounton de Gruyter.
  36. Panaretou. 2009. [Παναρέτου, Ελένη. 2009. Νομικός λόγος. Γλώσσα και δομή των νόμων. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Παπάζης]
  37. Petzel, Jacek. 2006. Język prawny w świetle lingwistycznej teorii rejestru językowego. Studia Iuridica XLV/2006: 153-163.
  38. Picht, Heribert, Draskau, Jennifer. 1985. Terminology: An introduction. Guilford: University of Surrey.
  39. Sandrini, Peter. 1996. Terminologiearbeit im Recht. Deskriptiver begriffsorientierter Ansatz vom Standpunkt des Übersetzer IITF-Series 8. Vienna: TermNet.
  40. Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New Approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  41. 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.
  42. Song Lei (宋雷). 2010. 英汉对比法律语言学. 北京:北京大学出版社.
  43. Stern, Gustaf. 1931. Meaning and Change of Meaning: with Special Reference to the English Language. Göteborg: Enlanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
  44. Smith, Michael K. 1982. Metaphor and mind. Review of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson “Metaphors We Live By”. American Speech 57: 128-133.
  45. Stavrakis. 1995. [Σταυράκης, Αργύριος, Νικ. 1995. Νεοελληνική νομική γλώσσα. Αθήνα: Νομική Βιβλιοθήκη].
  46. Tsavalos. 1990. [Τσάβαλος, Παναγιώτης. 1990. Ποικιλίες γλώσσας. Λόγος και Πράξης τεύχ. 43: 26-34. Αθήνα: Ο.Λ.Μ.Ε.]
  47. Packard, Jerome L. 2001. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
  48. Palmer, Frank R. 1981. Semantics: a New outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Pytel, Waldemar A. 2004. Słownictwo fachowe jako identyfikator LSP. In Języki specjalistyczne 4. ed. Lukszyn Jurij, 101-110. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.
  50. Ullman, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
  51. 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.
  52. Veloudis. 2003 [Βελούδης, Γιάννης. 2003. Η σημασία πριν, κατά και μετά τη γλώσσα. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις κριτική].
  53. Weinsberg, Adam. 1983. Językoznawstwo ogólne. Warszawa: PWN.
  54. Wróblewski, Bronisław. 1948. Język prawny i prawniczy. Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Prace Komisji Prawniczej nr 3. Kraków.
  55. Yule, George. 2010. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  56. 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.
  57. Źrałka, Edyta. 2007. Teaching specialised translation through official document. The Journal of Specialised Translation (Issue 07): 74-91. http://www.jostranorg/issue07/issue07_toc.php (01.02.13).