Disseminating and Hiding Information in Technical Communication Courses: The Case of Patents from the Perspectives of Digital Humanities

  • Patrizia Anesa
  • Ismael Arina Pellón
Keywords: environmental patents; keyness in patents; reading comprehension; intellectual property rights; knowledge disclosure; digital humanities


Despite their ostensibly aseptic nature, technical texts involve a multifaceted net of institutional, social and pragmatic functions. Patents, in particular, are characterized by a multi-layered rhetorical exercise in which information is provided, and hidden, in light of patent disclosure lawsDrawing on the Cooperative Patent Classification scheme, a corpus of patents related to environmental issues has been compiled. The objective is to investigate the main keywords emerging in the corpus and to analyse their semantic context in this patent type. More specifically, the analysis focuses on the patents’ semantic preference and semantic prosody in order to pinpoint and examine the semantic complexities emerging in this genre and to identify the strategies employed (such as the use of linguistic vagueness) in order to provide the necessary information while not disclosing precious data.

Patents represent a complex, hybrid and cross-disciplinary genre and a finer understanding of their discursive features may contribute to spreading awareness of the importance that semantics plays within the rhetorical pattern of the text. Therefore, they may be fruitfully employed in Technical Communication courses in order to improved reading comprehension and analytical skills.


Adolphs, Svenja 2006: Introducing Electronic Text Analysis: A Practical Guide for Language and Literary Studies. London: Routledge.
Arinas Pellón, Ismael 2010: How does a patent move? Genre analysis has something to say about it. In Gotti, Maurizio / Williams, Christopher (eds) Legal Discourse across Languages and Cultures. Bern: Peter Lang, 313-334.
Arinas Pellón, Ismael 2012: How Vague can your Patent Be? Vagueness Strategies in US Patents. In HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 48, 55-74.
Arinas Pellón, Ismael 2014: Interpersonal Patent Relations: Persuasion Pointers to Novelty, Creativity, and Ownership in US Patents. In Breeze, Ruth / Gotti, Maurizio / Sancho Guinda, Carmen (eds) Interpersonality in Legal Genres. Bern: Peter Lang.
Bondi, Marina 2010: Perspectives on Keywords and Keyness. In Bondi, Marina / Scott, Mike (eds) Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-18.
Brugnoli, Patrizia 2007: Il Testo Giuridico, Apolide in una Tipologia dei Testi? Alcune Riflessioni. In Revista de Llengua i Dret 47, 43-59.
Burge, David A. 1999: Patent and Trademark: Tactics and Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Burk, Dan L. / Reyman, Jessica 2014: Patents as Genre: A Prospectus. In Law & Literature 26/2, 163-190.
Channell, Joanna 1994: Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cole, Paul 2006: Fundamentals of Patent Drafting. London: The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys.
Ewing, Thomas et al. 2014: WIPO Patent Drafting Manual. IP Assets Management Series. World Intellectual Property Organisation. Available at:
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/patents/867/wipo_pub_867.pdf (accessed June 20, 2018).
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw 2011: Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
Hunston, Susan / Francis, Gill 2000: Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lawson, Veronica 1997: The Terms and Arts of Patentese: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing. In Wright, Sue Ellen / Budin, Gerhard (eds) Handbook of Terminology: Volume 1, 171-183. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Levin, Beth 1993: English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
McJohn, Stephen M. 2012: Patents: Hiding from History. In Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal 24, 961-980.
Myers, Greg 1995: From Discovery to Invention: The Writing and Rewriting of Two Patents. In Social Studies of Science 25/1, 57-105.
Partington, Alan 1998: Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rayson, Paul / Berridge, Damon / Francis, Brian 2004: Extending the Cochran Rule for the Comparison of Word Frequencies. JADT 2004: 7es Journées Internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/12424/1/rbf04_jadt.pdf (accessed June 10, 2018).
Rayson, Paul / Garside, Roger 2000: Comparing Corpora Using Frequency Profiling. WCC ’00 Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora 9. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk./~paul/publications/rg_acl2000.pdf (accessed March 10, 2011).
Roberts, Gwilym 2007: A Practical Guide to Drafting Patents. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited.
Scott, Mike 2008: WordSmith Tools 5.0 Help, Lexical Analysis Software, Liverpool.
Slusky, Ronald D. 2007: Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer’s Guide. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
Stubbs, Michael 2002: Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Stubbs, Michael 2009: The Search for Units of Meaning: Sinclair on Empirical Semantics in Applied Linguistics 30/1, 115-137.
United States Patent and Trademark Office 2018. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Ninth Edition, March 2014, Latest Revision January 2018 [R-08.2017], available at: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.htm (accessed July 10, 2018).
Wenger, Etienne / McDermott, Richard / Snyder, William M. 2002: Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
How to Cite
Anesa, P., & Arina Pellón, I. (2019). Disseminating and Hiding Information in Technical Communication Courses: The Case of Patents from the Perspectives of Digital Humanities. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 59(1), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v59i1.117041