Main Article Content



The Czech Civil Code has recently introduced differentiation between two terms denoting a period of time: lhůta and doba. Both of these terms are used, often interchangeably, in ordinary Czech language and are thus susceptible to failure by translators to be recognized as terms. It is believed that the definitions provided by the draftsmen of the said code do not describe the difference in meaning sufficiently for non-lawyers to understand (cf. Goźdź-Roszkowski, 2013: 100). Therefore, this paper aims at describing the difference in meaning of these terms on the basis of a qualitative analysis of their collocational patterns and collocational profile, as used in the wording of the said law. The second part of the paper consists of an analysis of potential English equivalents (time limit, period, deadline, time) and their collocates as used in legislation drafted in English. The analysis is based on a corpus compiled of the Czech Civil Code and a comparable corpus of civil legislation drafted in English. The findings of the analysis will outline the strategies available to translators dealing with temporal expressions at the Czech-English interface.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
KLABAL, O. (2017). WITHIN THE PERIOD TO MEET THE DEADLINE: CZECH NEAR-SYNONYMS DOBA AND LHŮTA AND THEIR ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 27, 49-72. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2016.27.4


  1. Adams, Kenneth A. 2013. A Manual of style for Contract Drafting. American Bar Association
  2. Bhatia, Vijay K, Nicola Langton, & Jane Lung. 2004. Legal Discourse: Opportunities and threats for corpus linguistics. In: Discourse in the Professions – A Corpus Linguistics Approach, edited by Ulla Connor and Thomas Upton. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co, pp. 203-231
  3. Chromá, Marta. 2010. Česko-anglický právnický slovník. 3. vyd. Voznice: Leda
  4. Chromá, Marta. 2011. Synonymy and Polysemy in Legal Terminology and Their Applications to Bilingual and Bijural Translation. Research in Language 9 (1): pp. 31-50
  5. Chromá, Marta. 2014a. “The new Czech Civil Code – lessons from legal translation – a case-study analysis.” In: The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, edited by Le Cheng, King Kui Sin and Anne Wagner, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 263-299
  6. Chromá, Marta. 2014b. Právní překlad v teorii a praxi. Praha: Karolinum
  7. Elischer, David, Frinta, Ondrej. Pauknerová, Monika, 2013. Recodification of Private Law in the Czech Republic. In: The Scope and Structure of Civil Codes edited by Julio César Rivera. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 105-132
  8. Explanatory Memorandum to the Czech Civil Code. 2013. Available from http://obcanskyzakonik.justice.cz/index.php/home/zakony-a-stanoviska/texty-zakonu
  9. Garner, Bryan A., Henry Campbell Black, a Ian Sumner. 2009. Black’s Law Dictionary. 9. wyd. St. Paul: West
  10. Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2013. Exploring near-synonymous terms in legal language. A corpus-based phraseological perspective. In: Lingustica Anverpiensia New Series - Themes in Translation Studies, 13. pp. 94-109
  11. Klabal, Ondřej, a Michal Kubánek. 2013. Plain or Archaic: The New Czech Civil Code Going against the Flow. [in:] Comparative Legilinguistics 12, pp. 9-19
  12. Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2007. Lingua Legis in Translation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang
  13. Riley, Alison. 1995. The Meaning of Words in English Legal Texts: Mastering the Vocabulary of the Law – A Legal Task. Law Teacher 29–30, 68–83
  14. Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. 2nd edition Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press