Download - How Patent Can Patents Be
1
How patent can patents be? Exploring the impact of figurative language
on the engineering patents genre
Carmen Sancho Guinda and Ismael Arinas Pellón
Universidad Politécnica 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
2
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
Ibérica (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
3
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 Low’s deconstruction of metaphors in book
reviews, the Applied Metaphor Approach will draw on the traditional metaphorical schemata
proposed by Lakoff and Johnson’s 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 else’s 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
4
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 drawings—these 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.
5
MOVES FUNCTIONS SECTIONS
Property scope Delimit the invention, setting of boundaries
Claims
Field and application Indication of finality and context of the invention
Brief summary of the invention
Gaps in prior art
Antecedents (previous related inventions) and their evaluation
Background of the invention or prior art
Physical and functional description
Display of components and explanation of how they work
Detailed description (may include drawings/graphics)
Cautionary statements
Optional alternatives and specifications about the versatility of format and applications
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)
6
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.
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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 Austin’s 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 Bazerman’s ‘textual metaphor’ may be an over-
generalization 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)
11
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:
12
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
13
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 modes—conceptual 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 Fauconnier’s 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 place—the 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.
14
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 writer’s part by diluting agency and increasing abstraction and vagueness,
and a high one with anticipatory and other thematising resources (i.e. by means of it-
structures and pseudoclefts, respectively). That is, they function as hedges or boosters.
15
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 documents—hence 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
16
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 co-
occur. Curiously, here infinitival clauses (49 cases) outnumber that-clauses (23), appear in a
17
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,
It is
accordingly
desirable
for Alternatively, also
For this purpose, also highly
For this purpose, also often
in Frequently, frequently
From this point, generally
Furthermore, highly
gerund In addition, in fact
In particular, most
Moreover, not
that Obviously, particularly
Therefore, probably
Thus, therefore to + infinitive
Table 2: Combination of the most frequent collocations of ‘desirable’
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
18
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 reader’s attention is directed towards the most relevant aspects of the description,
but in such a way that it resembles a neutral fact speaking by itself—or at the most a subtle
suggestion that may be followed or not—and 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.
19
(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 have-
constructions 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.
20
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)
21
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 d’être of every patented invention.
POSITIVELY-LOADED HITS NEGATIVELY-LOADED HITS
advantage(s) 559 error(s) 872
solution(s) 521 problem(s) 474
efficiency 434 failure(s) 273
improvement(s) 184 stress 198
utility 54 disadvantage(s) 82
convenience 38 corrosion 76
interest 26 aging 75
refinement(s) 21 fatigue 45
applicability 20 drawback(s) 45
efficacy 7 difficulty (-ies) 37
usefulness 7 deterioration 27
remedy 4 breakage 27
feasibility 4 destruction 24
innovation 2 instability 15
novelty 1 deficit 13
viability 0 malfunction 12
hazard(s) 12
inconvenience(s) 11
danger(s) 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
22
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 melt-
phase 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.
23
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
dynamicity—the 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 lexico-
grammatical repertoire that is not closed to individual, disciplinary and cross-cultural variation.
Although it is true that much patent writing—and consequently the acquisition of its
phraseological and structural repertoires—is 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.
24
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 Locke’s 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.
25
References
Alcaraz Varó, E. (2000). El inglés profesional y académico. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Arinas Pellón, 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 Edison’s 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.
26
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 Politécnica 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.
27
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.
Ibérica 7, 71-86.
White, M. (ed.) (2009). Special Issue on Metaphor and LSP/Número monográfico sobre
metáfora y LFE. Ibérica 17 (Spring/Primavera 2009).