Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2011 / Characteristics of Independent Claim: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach to Contemporary English Patents

Characteristics of Independent Claim: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach to Contemporary English Patents

Paper · 2011 · Darren Hsin-Hung Lin and Shelley Ching-Yu Hsieh

Summary

Patent drafting in English is a demanding professional skill. Yet English for Specific Purposes research has paid little attention to patent language, especially compared with academic legal English taught in law schools. The authors take a corpus-driven route. They compile a patent technical word corpus (PTWC, about 16 million running words) from contemporary U.S. patents issued 2000–2009, and use statistical retrieval to build a technical word list covering six main patent areas. Much of the technical vocabulary gathers around the term independent claim, so they carve out a sub-corpus of more than 4.8 million running words centred on it. They analyse that sub-corpus functionally, drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics. The analysis asks which clause types host the term, which verbs co-occur with it, and what semantic prosody those verb-noun pairings carry. A highlighted finding is that the verb "direct" ties independent claim to the themes product and service and appears only in verbal clauses, often in nominalized form. The word list and collocation patterns are offered as teaching material for occupational legal English and as a bridge between legal English and NLP.

Key points

  • The data consists of U.S. patent documents from one decade (2000–2009). The full PTWC has roughly 16 million running words, and the independent claim sub-corpus has over 4.8 million.
  • The output is a frequency-based patent technical word list spanning six primary patent areas, intended to help learners grow their technical vocabulary.
  • The analysis combines co-occurrence statistics with a functional (SFL) reading of clause types, verb-noun collocations, semantic prosody and clausal nominalization.
  • The authors introduce "discourse thematic referentiality" to describe how a collocating verb, a prosodic theme and the target term combine. Their main case is product/service plus "direct" with independent claim, in a construction like "a product to which…is directed."
  • Stated limits: the work covers only one term and one decade. Future work includes "dependent claim," other time periods, and comparisons with student writing.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Pick one pivotal domain term, extract its contexts into a focused sub-corpus, and profile its collocates and host constructions; this quickly maps how a specialized genre really phrases its core concept.
  • I2. Recording which clause type a verb-noun pairing occurs in (e.g., a verb found only in verbal clauses) treats the construction itself as a strong, explainable cue rather than mere co-occurrence.
  • I3. Semantic prosody captures the evaluative colour a word picks up from its usual company, as in the paper's merger (positive) versus acquisition (negative) example.
  • I4. The paper stresses nominalized relative constructions with a fronted preposition, such as "to which the claim is directed," where the key relation hides inside a noun phrase.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (learn): when adapting to a new genre (legal, technical), select anchor terms and gather their contexts as a targeted evaluation slice for silver-data agreement among witness parsers.
  • I2 (frames): store per-verb construction preferences alongside VerbNet roles so frame assignment can prefer the readings a genre actually licenses.
  • I3 (frames): a prosody lexicon learned from collocates could flag mismatches between a word and its typical colouring, a usable signal for irony and implicature.
  • I4 (tree): add such pied-piped relatives from formal and legal text to parser regression tests, and check that the frame layer recovers the who-directs-what relation from them.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 5The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 17,450 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 17,296 worksPsychology · 1,649 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 523 worksLiterature and Literary Theory · 541 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,379 works

Cite

Cite as Darren Hsin-Hung Lin and Shelley Ching-Yu Hsieh. 2011. Characteristics of Independent Claim: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach to Contemporary English Patents. International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, Volume 16, Number 3-4, September/December 2011.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@article{lin2011characteristics,
  title = {{Characteristics of Independent Claim: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach to Contemporary English Patents}},
  author = {Darren Hsin-Hung Lin and Shelley Ching-Yu Hsieh},
  journal = {International Journal of Computational Linguistics \& Chinese Language Processing, Volume 16, Number 3-4, September/December 2011},
  year = {2011},
  doi = {10.30019/ijclclp.201112.0005},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.30019/ijclclp.201112.0005}
}

References

53 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. American Bar Association. (2010). ABA section of intellectual property law: Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/intro.html ↗
  2. Badger, R. (2003). Legal and general: Toward a genre analysis of newspaper law reports. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 249-263. find
  3. Ball, C. (1996). Tutorial notes: Concordances and http://www.georgetown.edu/cball/corpora/tutorial.html ↗
  4. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York: Longman. find
  5. Biber, D, Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  6. Bowles, H. (1995). Why are newspaper law reports so hard to understand? English for Specific Purposes, 14, 201-222. ↗
  7. Candlin, C. N., Bhatia, V. K., & Jensen, C. H. (2002). Developing legal writing materials for English second language learners: Problems and perspectives. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 299-320. ↗
  8. Chen, C. Y., & Tang, Y. I. (2004). Collocation Errors of Taiwanese College Students: Oral and Written Production. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 278-286). Taipei: Crane. find
  9. Chen, H. J. (2001). Taiwanese EFL learner corpus and interlanguage analysis. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 288-299). Taipei: Crane. find
  10. Chen, P. (2009). Aspects of referentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1657-1674. ↗
  11. Cheng, L., Sin, K. K., & Li, J. (2008). A discursive approach to legal texts: Court judgement as an example. The Asian ESP Journal, 4(1), 14-28. find
  12. Chiu, S. H. (2008). WAR metaphor in legal discourse: A reminder of their perils. The Seventh International Conference on Research and Applying Metaphor, Cáceres, Spain. May 29-31. find
  13. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ↗
  14. Chung, T. M., & Nation, P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 103-116. find
  15. Coxhead, A., & Nation, P. (2001). The specialized vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 252-267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  16. Denton, J. (2009). Content vs. concept: Two different focuses in the teaching of Legal English. In Proceedings of ESP Seminar: English for Legal Purposes (pp. 4-11). National University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan. find
  17. Du, J. (2009). Content and language integration in tertiary education in China: A case study in Wuhan Law College. The Asian ESP Journal, 5(1), 61-77. corpora. Retrieved from Dudley-Evans, T., & St. find
  18. John, M. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  19. Feak, C. B., Reinhart, S. M., & Shinshimer, A. (2000). A preliminary analysis of law review notes. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 197-220. ↗
  20. González, M., & Vyushkina, E. G. (2009). International cooperation in designing effective methods to prepare non-native EFL teachers for training and assessing Legal English skills. Georgetown Law Global Legal Skills Conference IV, Washington D.C., United States. June 4-6. find
  21. Haberstroh, J. (2009). The LAW List (The Legal Academic Word List). Georgetown Law Global Legal Skills Conference IV, Washington D.C., United States. June 4-6. find
  22. Halliday, M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press. find
  23. Harris, S. (1997). Procedural vocabulary in law case reports. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 289-308. ↗
  24. Hayvarert, L. (2003). A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  25. Hsieh, S. K. (1998). Characteristics of legal Mandarin: A corpus-linguistic approach to the criminal law. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan. find
  26. Hurford, J. R., Heasley B., & Smith, M. (2007). Semantics: A course book. New York: Cambridge University Press. find
  27. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  28. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus-based study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139. find
  29. Hyland, K. (2008). Small bits of textual material: A discourse analysis of Swales’s writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143-160. find
  30. Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 56-75. ↗
  31. Lehmann, C. (1988). Toward a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clausal combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 181-225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  32. Levinson, C. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press. find
  33. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (1996). Cross-linguistic and language-specific aspects of semantic prosody. Language Science, 18 (1-2), 153-178. ↗
  34. Li, J. (2010). Transitivity and lexical cohesion: Press representation of a political disaster and its actors. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3444-3458. find
  35. Liu, C. P. (1999). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL Writings. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 483-494). Taipei: Crane. A Corpus-Linguistic Approach to Contemporary English Patents Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. find
  36. McEnery T., & Wilson A. (2001). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. find
  37. Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. find
  38. Modiano, M. (2001). Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT Journal, 55 (4), 339-347. ↗
  39. Mudraya, O. (2006). Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 235-256. ↗
  40. Nattinger, J. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 62-82). New York: Longman. find
  41. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  42. Nelson, M. (2006). Semantic associations in business English: A corpus-based analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 217-234. ↗
  43. Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP today: A Practitioner’s guide. New York: Prentice Hall. find
  44. Sarasúa, L. (2000). Cross lingual issues in patent retrieval. In Online Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR 2000 Workshop on Patent Retrieval. Athens, Greece. find
  45. Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. find
  46. Sheremetyeva, S. (2003). Natural language analysis of patent claims. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on Patent Corpus Processing (pp. 66-73). Sapporo, Japan. find
  47. Stubbs, M. (2009). The search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 115-137. find
  48. Swales, J. M. (1983). Vocabulary work in LSP: A case of neglect. Bulletin CILA, 37, 21-34. ↗
  49. Swales, J. M. (2000). Language for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 59-76. find
  50. Tsai, S. I. (2006). Legal language used in laws of the Republic of China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. find
  51. Tsai, Y. (2008). Supply and demand analysis of patent translation. Translation Journal, 12(3), http://accurapid.com/Journal/45patents.htm ↗
  52. World Intellectual Property Organization (2009). WIPO intellectual property handbook: Policy, law and use. Geneva: WIPO Publication. find
  53. Zhang, W. (2009). Semantic prosody and ESL/EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 1-12. ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/lin-2011-characteristics-independent-claim-corpus-linguistic/