How patent can patents be?

Exploring the impact of figurative language on the engineering patents genre

Carmen Sancho Guinda and Ismael Arinas Pelln Universidad Politcnica de Madrid

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the import of figurative language (specifically of conceptual and grammatical metaphors) in the discourse of engineering patents, a genre hardly researched for stylistic and pedagogical purposes and traditionally regarded as highly impersonal. To that end, a corpus of over 300 US electro-mechanical patents has been analysed with the aid of a concordancing tool and applying a threefold convergent framework that gathers the metafunctions of Systemic Functional Lingustics (Halliday 1978, 1985), the Applied Linguistic Approach to Metaphor (Low 2008) and the Metadiscursive Approach (Hyland 2000, 2005). Findings reveal a complex network of metaphorical schemata, most non-deliberate, which constitute a tripartite choice dependent on the legal culture, the discipline and, to a lesser extent, on the authorial voice. It also binds patent writers into a community of practice (Wenger 1998) sharing a phraseological repertoire basically acquired by imitation and whose creative and confident use requires explicit instruction.
Keywords: Patents, Figurative language, Community of practice, Metadiscourse

Systemic-functional metafunctions

1. Introduction and method: narrowing the focus of the Applied Metaphor Approach Over the last two decades, a series of influential studies on the discursive application of metaphor in the academic and political fields and in economics journalese (e.g. Cameron and Low 1999, Cameron 2003, Charteris-Black 2004, Zanotto, Cameron and Cavalcanti 2008, White 2004) have paved the way for the current research into the pragmatic impact of tropes in other specific professional discourses and even genres. The latest monographic issue of Ibrica (Spring 2009), the journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, is a clear exponent of this shift of interest from the previous research on metaphor and metonymy at a sentential level and within the exclusive domain of literature, to these recent trends. Yet much remains to be investigated as to the functions performed by tropes in the communication of specialized discourse communities, and even more so in those whose discourses have been traditionally labelled as faceless. This paper attempts to bridge that gap by exploring the discourse of engineering patents from a cognitive, metadiscursive and systemic-functional perspective, and intends to serve a double purpose: didactic and disciplinary. On the one hand, it tries to facilitate the comprehension and production of a professional genre hardly accessed in the ESP classroom. On the other, to enrich the existing descriptions of the genre through a blended framework virtually untapped in this type of documents. Our methodology comprises the scrutiny of a corpus of 333 US patents1 for electromechanical devices granted from 1998 to 2009 (the most common inventions among our technical colleagues at our polytechnic university) with the aid of the concordancing program AntConc 3.2.1w (Anthony 2007)2 and the application of a threefold theoretical framework in which Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday 1978, 1985), henceforth SFL, the Applied Linguistic Approach to Metaphor (Low 2008) and the Metadiscursive Approach (Hyland 2000, 2005) converge. To avoid unnecessary taxonomical complexities we simplified

the SFL framework to its three semantic metafunctions (i.e. ideational, interpersonal, textual)3, under which the metaphorical and metonymic occurrences and their pragmatic functions may be classified and discussed. Likewise, following Lows deconstruction of metaphors in book reviews, the Applied Metaphor Approach will draw on the traditional metaphorical schemata proposed by Lakoff and Johnsons Conceptual Theory of Metaphor (1980). Finally, we will pay special attention to the interplay between the metadiscursive functions of boosting (foregrounding) and hedging (mitigation) as the internal strategic workings underlying the text.

2. A systemic overview of the genre Lexicographic sources broadly define patent as an official licence or right from the government granting a person or business the right to make or sell a particular article for a certain period, and by extension the term may refer to the invention so protected (Chambers Giant Dictionary and Thesaurus 2007: 556). However, from a linguistics standpoint and attending to our convergent framework, patents seem to mean much more. To begin with, the ideational content of any patent document must fulfil three validity criteria: utility, feasibility and novelty in combination with non-obviousness (in Europe called inventive step). Simply put, inventors must realistically solve problems and plug lacks left by previous patents (the prior art) in the same technical field and present a new product whose purpose and applications should not be inferred from previous patent inventions or their combined elements, all this claim as much exclusivity as possible without trespassing somebody elses turf. In essence, these three ruling principles coincide with those observed by Hyland (2000: 176) in research articles: relevance, credibility and novelty. In our case, an invention is relevant when useful, and the claiming of its property tacitly entails technical feasibility, which is but a sort of credibility. The notion of maximum property needs clarification though: Whom does it really

affect or condition? Certainly it is no validity criterion for patent examiners, judges or lawyers when dealing with the foreseeable legal effects of a patent application and litigation might be involved, precisely because the ownership claimed seems excessive. Conversely, it is a validity criterion for inventors and investors, who aspire to the amplest property and with it to the most substantial profits. As to the information conveyed by the text in accordance with these validity criteria, the online brochure of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation)4 distinguishes three main informative strands: technical (provided by the description and drawings), legal (contained in the claims) and business-relevant (bibliographical data such as the title of the invention, patent date, names of the inventors and patent examiners, attorneys or agents, and references to former similar patents and other technical documents). The structure of these sections or headings (bibliographical data, description and drawingsthese latter in a separate section), are strictly dictated by the codes and regulations of each country. In the USA, for example, patent applications must abide by the Consolidated Patent Rules, Title 37 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CPR37 for short) and Title 35 of the United States Code (USC35). The patent applicants use as a reference for their application the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures, abbreviated as MPEP.5 In the light of Genre Analysis (Swales 1990, Bhatia 1993, Bazerman 1999), the textual component of every patent involves a number of moves or rhetorical shifts that may span across several sections or headings in the text. Arinas (2009) distinguished five basic moves that could be entitled property scope, field and application, gaps in the prior art, physical and functional description and cautionary statements. Their functions and sections most likely to embrace them are shown in the table below.

MOVES Property scope Field and application

Gaps in prior art Physical and functional description

Cautionary statements

FUNCTIONS Delimit the invention, setting of boundaries Indication of finality and context of the invention Antecedents (previous related inventions) and their evaluation Display of components and explanation of how they work Optional alternatives and specifications about the versatility of format and applications

SECTIONS Claims Brief summary of the invention Background of the invention or prior art

Detailed description (may include drawings/graphics)

Table 1: Rhetorical moves in the patent document and sections usually associated

Lastly, the interpersonal meaning transmitted by patents is subjected to a subtle interplay of two strategic workings: hedging and boosting, which operate at a metadiscursive level (Hyland 2000, 2005). While hedges emphasize subjectivity, are open to negotiation and alternative viewpoints and withhold commitment to propositions, boosters highlight certainty, do not leave room for other opinions and mark involvement and solidarity with the addressee. In patents hedging is fundamentally oriented towards imprecision and boosting towards a promotional evaluations and an apparent solidarity with the reader which is actually intended to avoid litigation. Let us think, for instance, of the vague language commonly employed in the denomination of well-known patented objects, such as vacuum cleaners (e.g. cyclonic separating apparatus, dust collection unit, mulcher, etc.) or in the interactional formulas One skilled in the art will appreciate that, It will be understood by those skilled in the art that . Imprecise language is aimed at expanding property boundaries and thus dissuading competitors from venturing into the same area, whereas solidarity metadiscourse might be interpreted in two possible ways. One, as a deferential cognitive directive act (Hyland 2008)

telling the non-expert reader how to understand highly technical information without vetoing his/her inclusion into the circle of experts, and the other as a litigation deterrent using supposedly shared knowledge as shield. Interpersonal meaning, the least stable of the three SFL metafunctions in the patent genre, intersects and overlaps with the ideational and textual components, more constitutive of the genre, and provides a slight chance for variation by means of stance and engagement markers: for example through metadiscourse items such as attitude markers, recapitulators, code glosses and inferentials, these last three processing information for the reader instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. Most often this variation tends to be idiolectal since it happens to concentrate on very few patent documents.

3. Metaphorical schemata in the patent context We might begin by wondering what Cognitive Linguistics has to say about such a specialized genre. As any other communicative event, patents agglutinate several metaphorical schemata and an active interaction between mental spaces, two operations of undoubted interest to the cognitive analyst. But why is it relevant to make them explicit in our engineering environment? Our point is that the insertion of cognitive features in a functional framework may become a helpful mnemonic tool for students to 1) retain and handle high-frequency phraseology, 2) understand better the promotional strategies resorted to in order to achieve patentability and 3) find ways to empowerment in patent writing by exercising their creativity as genre users. Let us examine the diverse cognitive features in each of the SFL metafunctions.

3.1 Ideational cognitive features On the ideational plane, the conceptual schema INVENTIONS/DEVICES ARE LIVING ORGANISMS stands out quantitatively and establishes a metaphorical coherence which, although unintended, may prove an aid to vocabulary acquisition. The USC35 and the CPR37 mention the term embodiment to denote the best mode or version of an invention, and as a generic metaphor its raw frequency of occurrence is high (7,365 tokens). Related bodily metaphors, discipline-bound, are for instance body, limbs, (long)life, experience, grow/growth, age/aging, fatigue, deplete, die/dead, annoy, harm, suffer, squeal, response, recover, feed, nourish, nutrient, etc, all of them with variable frequencies and present in the detailed descriptions of the embodiment and prior art mechanisms (see Examples 1a, b, c, d, e). They form a consistent semantic network but non-deliberate due to their lexicalized condition. It is well-known that the lexicon of technolects normally builds upon anatomical analogies (Alcaraz 2000: 43).

Example 1 (1a) ...the main body of the aircraft (1b) ...by a radial arm 15 of said head (1c) Each upper portion 2 and 3 of the telescoping legs 101 and 102 respectively (1d) In this embodiment, aging means submitting the catalyst formulation slurry to a mild thermal treatment (1e) ...thus the neck portions grow to yield the bonded state hardened for extended wear and to resist stress fatigue

A second prominent schema is that of FORCE DYNAMICS. Words like bear, exert and force frequently associate with collocates such as influence, effect, action, compromise and

capabilities. Force is worth-studying owing to its abundance (3,292 tokens) and versatility. It does not mean actual physical force but a cause and effect relationship re-phrasable as cause to + verb, make + verb, impel to + verb or oblige to + verb. Verb tenses lead to more refined nuances which determine their confinement to certain sections, and so force to + infinitive (e.g. force to start/move/slip, etc.) can be found anywhere in the document (3,261 tokens, see Example 2), either to define and praise the embodiment or signal flaws in the prior art, but forced to + infinitive (95 tokens) is restricted to criticism of the prior art and in the gerund forcing to + infinitive (22 tokens) is limited to actions and effects realised by the embodiment parts described.

Example (2) (2a) ...utilizing frictional forces to stop or slow a vehicle. (2b) ...whereby a film of fuel is forced to flow through said space. (2c) ...this signal can be used to cycle the power on the QA chips, forcing them to reset themselves.

A third metaphorical schema is the one of CONTAINMENT, to which prepositions are crucial. Inside only expresses literal meanings referred to the position of the embodiment components but the triad within/out of/ outside, by contrast, also expresses compliance with norms and standards, collocating with words such as range, scope, bounds, principles, framework, constraints, limits, limitations, standards, specifications or industry. Within is the most polysemic preposition, admitting the meanings of literal positioning (e.g. within the said housing) and legality (e.g. within standards), as well as a third one of technical feasibility showing the embodiment properties and variables range between accepted limits (e.g. within + speed limits, tolerance limits, the calculations workspace, efficiency, adjustment, etc.). To

conclude, the schema GENERAL IS/FOR SPECIFIC is decisive in the claiming of maximum property. Vague language, in effect, deliberately blurs domain and application boundaries by substituting concrete referents for superordinate terms bordering on ambiguity. It is not infrequent to find printers and photocopiers referred to as imaging systems, imaging-forming apparatuses, colour image forming apparatuses and image transfer systems, and we have equally seen the different denominations given to vacuum cleaners (i.e. cyclonic separators, mulchers, etc.).

3.2 Textual cognitive features The whole of the patent document may be interpreted as a macro-speech act, even as the textual metaphor of a certain linguistic function. Bazerman (1999) pointed out that patents were performatives, an idea praised by Swales (2004) as promising but in reality somewhat simplistic. It is true performativity does play a role in the claims (e.g. I/we claim that) and the reporting verbs associated to the visuals (e.g. Figure X

shows/describes/represents/depicts/illustrates) but patents are complex speech acts simultaneously commissive-directive (offer a beneficial product and indirectly persuade about its convenience by fulfilling the validity criteria and resorting to boosters and hedges), representative (describe and predict) and expressive (evaluate prior art and the present invention). For that reason the label performative acts is not completely accurate. There are, in addition, two more issues concerning performativity that should be taken into account: its type and personalization. With regard to the type, it could be said that the performativity of patents is at the same time metalinguistic (e.g. claim, say) and collaborative, since it requires at least two parties to establish the legal nature of the document and acknowledge the significant consequences the claims may bring about. As for personalized performativity, it is only found

in the claims, with almost an identical proportion between the pronouns I and we (22 and 23 tokens respectively), both outnumbered by the impersonal but emphatic construction What is claimed is (246 hits). Yet a large amount of patents may enunciate their claims directly, without any performative (42 cases in our corpus). This undermines Austins hypothesis that apart from reporting about the world, language also serves to do things and change it somehow. If to this fact we add the possibility that patents may not contain performatives anticipating the function of graphs, and even not contain visuals at all, unless they are strictly necessary, then we can conclude Bazermans textual metaphor may be an overgeneralization that does not necessarily come true. An additional argument against labelling patents as a single speech act is that its descriptive body also tries to persuade the reader about the patentability of the invention (which meets the three validity criteria explained under the ideational metafunction) and there is no such speech act as persuasion. For patent writers, in any case, the persuasive goal is implicit in the validity requisites to be met (i.e. novelty, utility and non-obviousness) and therefore per se it may not seem to be a priority concern during the writing process. The various instances within Example 3 enumerate some of the most usual performatives referred to visuals (marked as V) and text (T), excepting the legal claims.

Example (3) (3.a) FIG.7 shows a partial perspective view of the right side of the shuttle. (V) (3.b) German Patent No. 19632943 describes a method for operating motor vehicle. (T) (3.c) FIG. 5c depicts a perspective view of the ball end of FIG.5. (V) (3.d) FIG.2 illustrates a second embodiment of the bending machine... (V)

10

3.3 Interpersonal cognitive features The interpersonal metafunction gathers four major metaphorical schemata as evaluative devices: the PATH schema, the PART FOR WHOLE schema, the schema DESIRABILITY IS FACTUALITY and the grammatical metaphor PROCESS AS THING. In its horizontal variant (FARTHER IS MORE) the path schema is a low-frequency feature. Far + comparative occurs only six times in evaluative comments and by far only twice, in positive appraisals of the invention (see the corresponding examples 4-6).

Example (4) and perform the work with far less expense. (Praise of invention) Example (5) is subjected to vibrations and shocks far more severe than those occurring during (Negative criticism of prior art) Example (6) by far strong enough to ensure the positional accuracy of the sliders (Praise of the invention)

In its vertical variant (UP IS MORE), nonetheless, occurrences become more abundant although they still remain within a low-frequency band (the most recurrent item does not reach 70 tokens). The adjectives high and low turn into low-frequency features (respectively 67 and 50 instances) in evaluations, while appearing over 2,000 times each in other contexts. Let us not forget that they are common in compounds (e.g. high/low- + temperature, speed, voltage, pressure, etc.) which often give name to the invention itself. As evaluators, their most frequent collocations are HIGH + accuracy, efficacy, precision and efficacy and LOW + cost, expenditure and yield. Another vertical path schema item is superior (30 tokens), used to praise the invention globally. There are some basic collocations (see examples 7-10) contrasting the present embodiment advantages with the deficiencies of the prior art:

11

Example (7) Superior + TO (13) it is still superior to the traditional piezoelectric compound. Example (8) Superior + IN (8) Hence, the axle driving unit becomes superior in assembly efficiency. Example (9) Superior + NOUN denoting property (power, control, balance, performance, resistance, etc.) (7) The EST has superior speed control and can reverse direction Example (10) Superior + NO PREPOSITION (2 occurrences in the same document) the drum brake system is considered to be superior.

The synechdochical schema PART FOR WHOLE may be applied to the statement of the utility criterion by criticising negatively the prior art without enumerating the advantages of the present embodiment. Analogously, the functions of the invention may occasionally be accounted for without describing its components. One more descriptive phenomenon involving metaphorical (or metonymic) schemata is the transposition of desirability and factuality: DESIRABILITY IS FACTUALITY or its paraphrasing metonymy POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALITY (Panther & Thornburg 1999), according to which patents reveal themselves as a blend space of both properties. Such blend underpins inventions that are not socially demanded, realistic or eventually manufacturable devices (e.g. patents for flying saucers and Santa Claus detectors, to cite some). Equally, it causes metaphorical (or metonymic) displacements that end up qualifying inherent features as choices and the optional modifications as initially desired or planned. More accurately, there is a collocational fluctuation between the adjectives desired/desirable and preferred/preferable. The inherent features of an invention are those which correct the flaws of the prior art and make the inventor design his/her creation in response to certain needs. On the contrary, the embodiment or best mode of an invention hardly (or at least not always) coincides fully with

12

its initial design, which has been successively modified for improvement and preferred among several in that process. The collocational swap referred to above mismatches features and inventions with preferred/preferable and embodiments with desired/desirable (Example 11).

Example (11) (11a) Thus, it is desired to create a machine design that reduces cogging torque, without the drawbacks of present methods. (Inherent feature of the invention as desired to bridge the gaps of previous patents. Justifies the validity of the present patent application at the end of the background/prior art description section) (11b). In the present invention, it is preferable that the braking section form a unit by itself. (Inherent feature as alternative or preference over other modesconceptual displacement) (11c) If it is desired to operate the secondary units electrically independently from the drive unit, this design is beneficial because it eliminates the separate supply of these secondary units with an electric unit and reduces the weight accordingly. (Alternative or choice as desire, equated with an inherent feature)

The blending diagram below (see Figure 1), based on Fauconniers theory (1985, 1997), gives us an idea of the mental construct so generated and its multiple projections: firstly, inventors are aware of the lacks of the prior art and of the validity criteria to be fulfilled. Secondly, a logical mapping takes placethe actual embodiment, belonging to the target domain of factuality, is defined in terms of potentiality (source domain). The resulting blend space reflects the reserved outcome of that projection.

13

Figure 1.

A productive schema, and perhaps the most salient one given its evaluative role, is A PROCESS IS A THING, listed by Downing and Locke (1992: 147-153) in their inventory of grammatical metaphors. Grammatical metaphors, essentially nominalisations, are key to any technical document because of two powerful reasons: ideationally, they transmit technical content, while interpersonally they express different shades of commitment. A low involvement on the writers part by diluting agency and increasing abstraction and vagueness, and a high one with anticipatory and other thematising resources (i.e. by means of itstructures and pseudoclefts, respectively). That is, they function as hedges or boosters.

14

Despite their status as low-frequency features, the constructions found in our corpus are valuable for being precisely the only explicit devices used to create a niche for patentability. There is a need (52 tokens) concentrates in the background of the invention (i.e. description of prior art) whereas It is preferable (139)/preferred (62) are located in the description of the embodiment, marking features not vital to the invention to be patented. It is desirable (156)/desired (17), however, oscillate between both sections.

There is a need (Example 12) acts as a mitigator or hedge avoiding categorical assertions of the type The industry/discipline needs, which never occur, and tends to be preceded by a transition marker (an inferential), preferably by thus and therefore. This is logical since it is normally contained in the last paragraphs of the background of the invention (or description of related art) section, encapsulating the gaps left by former patents and deducing the importance of the patent application. Common verbs collocating with it are adjust, accomplish, provide, prevent, monitor or set, which hint at the nature of those gaps.

Example (12) (12a) Thus, there is a need in the industry for an improved driveline coupler suitable for use in irrigation sprinkler systems and the like. (12b) Therefore, there is a need in the art for technology which works well in 4-cylinder engines.

It is preferable (Example 13) introduces numerous that-clauses (84 tokens), although most occurrences are detected in a small number of documentshence it could be regarded as an idiolectal feature in our corpus. Common main verbs in the clause are be in the subjunctive mood (e.g. be capable, be separate, in contact, be placed, be enclosed, be

15

hermetically sealed, etc.), is + past participle (e.g. is introduced, is formed, is mounted, is placed, is refilled, etc.), has, include(s) and comprise(s). Constructions with to are less frequent (48 tokens) and cluster around the verbs use and provide (and to a lesser extent dispose, employ and include). A variant is the structure It is preferable for X to, which scarcely amounts to five cases and overwhelmingly collocates with to be.

Example (13) (13a) In the present invention, it is preferable that the driving-force storing section and the braking section be separate from each other. (13b) It is preferable to provide a distance adjusting device which can change the distance between the braking member 225 and the air-current suppressing wall 224 placed therearound. (13c) It is preferable however to adjust the resonance frequency when needed as described above.

In a similar vein, it is preferred most often leads to that-clauses (43 cases) whose predominant main verbs are be (subjunctive mood), is, has/have and contain. When followed by an infinitival clause (8 hits), the accompanying verbs tend to be use, utilize, provide and have, and with the exception of one of its six occurrences, the variant containing a subject introduced by the preposition for (i.e. it is preferable for X to / that Y) is found in the same document. Somewhat more profuse (78 occurrences), it is desirable displays a varied collocational pattern that may include a metadiscursive item and several clausal options to introduce novelty with respect to the previous art. Its combinations, shown in Table 2 below, are subject to certain restrictions: some elements of the first and third columns cannot cooccur. Curiously, here infinitival clauses (49 cases) outnumber that-clauses (23), appear in a

16

few documents and their main verbs are basically limited to have, control, prevent, utilize and provide, all of which positively-loaded and with a generic meaning denoting the generic benefits of the invention. These are commonly stated in the last lines of the description of the prior/related art. In contrast, it is desired (only 17 cases) combines exclusively with infinitival clauses and verbs of specific meaning (e.g. operate, take advantage, rotate, uncouple, etc.), which suggests a detailed description of the present embodiment.

Accordingly, Alternatively, For this purpose, For this purpose, Frequently, From this point, Furthermore, In addition, In particular, Moreover, Obviously, Therefore, Thus, It is

accordingly also also highly also often frequently generally highly in fact most not particularly probably therefore
Table 2: Combination of the most frequent collocations of desirable

for

in desirable gerund

that to + infinitive

Another thematised grammatical metaphor ruled by the schema A PROCESS IS A THING is the emphatic what-construction (pseudocleft sentence), of which we have detected only three cases (see Example 14) among 403 structures, and two of them in the same document. For Hunston and Sinclair (1999: 89-90) it is a typical evaluative cluster, like the anticipatory it-constructions formerly examined. To that we could add that both border on the expression of attitudinal and epistemic stance: attitudinal since they underscore certain bits of information by means of a prospective or anaphoric fronting, and epistemic as they

17

communicate assertiveness by means of non-modalisation. In our corpus, their pragmatic function consists in selecting and interpreting contents for the reader, as a focalizing and summarizing guidance, in the detailed descriptions of the preferred embodiment. Through them, the readers attention is directed towards the most relevant aspects of the description, but in such a way that it resembles a neutral fact speaking by itselfor at the most a subtle suggestion that may be followed or notand avoids the brusqueness of a plain imperative (e.g. Notice that).

Example (14) (14a) What is important is that the wheel wells 45, which are common to all different designs, are shifted apart for the new wheel transporter arrangement. (14b) What is especially to be noted is that the engine 24 is mounted to the front portion 14 of the frame 12 and provides power to the drive system 30 providing zero turn capabilities.

There-constructions, also thematised, are equally scant (4 hits of grammatical metaphors in a total of 29 cases). Their function is either to account for failed attempts at improving the prior art, or to introduce a generalization about the lacks or needs it left unresolved. In doing so, the gradual and unstoppable nature of the tendencies and circumstances leading to those needs are stressed through the durative aspect of agentive adjectives (Example 15). As expected, there-constructions concentrate in the background of the invention section.

Example (15) (15a) In recent years, there have been increasing demands for small tractors with cabs.

18

(15b) There has been an increasing trend in recent years towards incorporating many types of motion control devices in the same vehicle to control the motion of the vehicle. (15c) Over many years, there have been attempts to provide a continuously variable transmission (CVT).

We will complete our commentary on the schema A PROCESS IS A THING by touching on three more instances: we have, the fact that, and gerund + link verb + adjective, this latter being the least frequent of all three with one single hit and serving to praise the described embodiment positively (Example 16). Its effect comes across as axiomatic due to the absence of modalisation, which confers it a tinge of scientific truth despite the subjective evaluation it conveys (simple, for whom and according or compared to what?). The fact that, however, turns out to be a more polyvalent construction depending on the preceding accompanying conjunction (in Example 17 the sentence could be rephrased as Because the drive gear 81a, 800a and driven gear 81b 800b, are made eccentric gears ), although it seems to be a mere idiolectal trait (only two occurrences and in the same document). Last, we have (8 tokens) converts an action into a direct object (e.g. we have + authentication/access violation) while functioning as a highly idiolectal solidarity formula including the reader in a perception of deduction. It may as well precede mathematical formulae, which themselves condense calculation and reasoning processes. Like the pseudoclefts in Example (11), we haveconstructions act as cognitive directives indicating to the reader those outstanding aspects that should be noted.

Example (16) The working of the concrete machine 1 is simple and as follows.

19

Example (17) Owing to the fact that the drive gear 81a, 800a and driven gear 81b, 800b are made eccentric gears, the throttle valve 70 can be finely opened and closed when the opening of the throttle valve 70 is small.

A final grammatical schema6 is AN ATTRIBUTE IS A THING, composed of a definite article, a noun, a link verb and a clause as subject complement (The + noun + link verb + clause). In our corpus searches we analysed the behaviour of signalling nouns (Flowerdew 2008), also known as shell, carrier or metadiscourse nouns and likely to function as textual beacons to orient the reader. Owing to their positive or negative affective load, in the discourse of patents they are used to praise the embodiment or criticise the related art, and might help patent examiners to visualize the strong points of the invention, the prior art flaws it covers or the improved versions of the embodiment. We restricted the collocation to the verb to be in the third person singular because the structure The + signalling noun + is + clause is more focal and therefore more emphatic than its plural counterpart (e.g. The advantage is vs. The advantages are). The singular version seems to single out a defining feature whereas the plural one may be a simple enumeration.

Example (18) (18a) The solution to this problem is to maintain the temperature of the nozzle, no higher than its materials of construction allows. (Positive load) (18b) The improvement is a check valve 38 resting on a seat 39 in the top portion of the choke 30. (Positive load. We take the qualifying structure resting on as an elliptical relative clause)

20

Surprisingly, the number of signalling nouns employed in attributive grammatical metaphors is very reduced: from the list of most frequent items shown in Table 3, only two positively-loaded ones, solution (7 hits) and improvement (1 case) have been found, as is shown in Example (18) above. They are generic and epitomize the reasons making the patent convenient, so they require a syntax that underlines that unique underlined feature. On the other hand, it seems understandable that nouns such as utility, usefulness, feasibility, innovation, novelty and viability are not subject to this attributive metaphorical frame as they are part and parcel of the validity criteria, the raison dtre of every patented invention.

POSITIVELY-LOADED advantage(s) solution(s) efficiency improvement(s) utility convenience interest refinement(s) applicability efficacy usefulness remedy feasibility innovation novelty viability

HITS 559 521 434 184 54 38 26 21 20 7 7 4 4 2 1 0

NEGATIVELY-LOADED error(s) problem(s) failure(s) stress disadvantage(s) corrosion aging fatigue drawback(s) difficulty (-ies) deterioration breakage destruction instability deficit malfunction hazard(s) inconvenience(s) danger(s)

HITS 872 474 273 198 82 76 75 45 45 37 27 27 24 15 13 12 12 11 7

Table 3: Frequencies of the main signalling nouns

Negatively-loaded signalling nouns exhibit a very different behaviour altogether. They do not associate with the former attributive string but rather with the non-finite qualifying cluster of + gerund, introduced by the verb to have or by cause and effect markers (Example

21

19). Once again, the combining nouns are of a generic nature: disadvantage (7 hits), difficulty (2), danger (2), drawback (1) and hazard (1).

Example (19) (19a) Electromagnetics could also be used but they have the disadvantage of requiring a power source. (19b) Mono and tri-functional species affect the rate of polymerization, possibly both in meltphase and solid-stating, but usually more so in solid-stating due to the difficulty of obtaining high molecular weight especially with monofunctional, chain-terminating species present. (19c) The danger of deadly chlorine gas escaping caused the evacuation of nearly a quarter of a million people from their homes or businesses. (19d) It should be pointed out that the abovementioned adjustment devices have the drawback of not allowing the distance between the main lever and the handlebar handgrip to be adjusted unless the motorcycle is stationary. (19e) Thus, the blocking means prevents the user from the hazard of hanging too many connected medical devices 12 or 14 from the support surface 24.

Conceptual and grammatical metaphors, in sum, interweave shaping the genre at the ideational and textual levels and generate interpersonal nuances that, being low-frequency features, permit individual choices and maintain the genre flexible. The excerpts gathered in Examples (18) and (19), for instance, illustrate how some grammatical metaphors may be more or less lexicalised but their use continues being a matter of personal stylistics, as opposed to the discipline-bound bodily metaphors typical of electromechanical engineering or the term embodiment, covertly prescribed by the US national regulations.

22

Conclusion: metaphor as a cohesive tripartite choice

All throughout this paper we have contended that the discourse of patents is not as straightforward or patent as might be believed but is propped up by a compact set of metaphorical schemata, some of them deliberate, which interrelate to ensure patentability. The three semantic planes in which they mesh (ideational, textual and interpersonal) have been seen here separately for clarity purposes and represent different degrees of dynamicitythe disciplinary metaphors and those directly subservient to the validity criteria are an ideational must for the patent to exist, textual performativity may occur or not, and the schemata studied under the interpersonal metafunction are generally optional. This complex fabric makes patent writers constitute themselves into a community of practice (Wenger 1998: 47) drawing on a shared (and on the whole highly constrained) rhetorical and lexicogrammatical repertoire that is not closed to individual, disciplinary and cross-cultural variation. Although it is true that much patent writingand consequently the acquisition of its phraseological and structural repertoiresis based on imitation, it is no less certain that such practice is cohesive and binds the inventors of electro-mechanical devices into a community with a common discourse and ways of doing. It is our task as teachers of professional communication to foster the noticing of acceptable stylistic alternatives among patent writers and thus equip them with the awareness and tools that may enable a more confident and creative use of the genre. We hope that the cognitive dissection carried out here contributes to that aim.

23

Notes 1. Selected and downloaded from the website of the US Patent and Trademark Office: http://www.upsto.gov 2. Lawrence Anthony, University of Waseda (Japan). Downloadable from

http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.htlm 3. Very basically, in SFL the ideational metafunction refers to the content of the message, the textual one to its organization and layout, and the interpersonal one to the communicative strategies determined by the relationships between the participants: shared knowledge, status and power, common goals and expectations, etc. 4. WIPO brochure website: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/patents/434/wipo_pub_l 434_02.pdf 5. Documents accessible at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/ http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/cfr.php?title=37 http://www.uspto.gov/web /offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100.htm Although there may be differences in the wording, the headings mentioned above are the ones most frequently used. 6. Downing and Lockes inventory of grammatical metaphors also includes

CIRCUMSTANCE AS THING, PROCESS AND CIRCUMSTANCE AS PART OF THING and DEPENDENT SITUATION AS THING, but none of these have proved to be minimally significant in our corpus.

24

References

Alcaraz Var, E. (2000). El ingls profesional y acadmico. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Arinas Pelln, I. (2010). How does a patent move? Genre analysis has something to say about it. In Gotti, M. & Williams, C. (Eds.), Legal Discourse across Languages and Cultures (pp. 313-334). Bern: Peter Lang. Bazerman, C. (1999). The Languages of Edisons Light. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman. Cameron, L. & G. Low (eds.) (1999). Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London/New York: Continuum. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Downing, A. & P. Locke (1992/2002). A University Course in English Grammar. London/New York: Routledge. Fauconnier, G. (1985/1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, J. (2008). From Noun to Clause to Discourse: Reconciling Clausal and Textual Properties of Signalling Nouns. Plenary lecture given at the INTERLAE International Conference Interpersonality in Written Academic Discourse: Perspectives across Languages and Cultures. Jaca (Huesca, Spain), 11-13 December 2008.

25

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985/1987). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London/Hong Kong: Edward Arnold. Hunston, S. & Sinclair, J.M. (1999/2003). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.74-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (2000/2004). Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. London/New York: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2008). Teaching and researching genre: academic writing in the disciplines. Seminar given at Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, 18 December 2008. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Low, G. (2008). Metaphor and positioning in academic book reviews. In M.S. Zanotto, L. Cameron & M.C. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting Metaphor in Use. An Applied Linguistic Approach (pp. 79-100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Panther, K. & L. Thornburg (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 333-360). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

26

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, M. (2004). Turbulence and turmoil in the market or the language of a financial crisis. Ibrica 7, 71-86. White, M. (ed.) (2009). Special Issue on Metaphor and LSP/Nmero monogrfico sobre metfora y LFE. Ibrica 17 (Spring/Primavera 2009).

27