本論文旨在探討智慧財產權領域專利字彙之語言特徵與應用方法。根據美國專利局詞彙表(United States Patent and Trademark Office Glossary)，首先建構了專利字彙頻率表，其中「專利申請範圍」(Patent Claim) 涵蓋17個詞彙，54% 的使用頻率,在專利申請書中最常使用。針對專利申請範圍詞彙，進一步透過 LexisNexis 法律資料庫建立了一個約一千六百萬字以上的當代專利資料庫 (Patent Technical Word Corpus)。
以此資料庫為基礎，本研究以記載專利申請範圍主要構成技術、內容、與特點的「獨立項數」 (Independent Claim) 為語料來源。主要採取「功能語法」 (Halliday, 2004) 以及「認知語法」(Langacker,1999) 來歸納「獨立項數」的語言特徵，並探討如何將研究成果應用於英語教學上。
研究結果顯示:(1) 獨立項數在功能語法中的發展，分別涉及動名詞搭配詞組 (Verb-Noun Collocation) 與語義韻律(Semantic Prosody) 兩項主要構成要素。此外，觀察到動名詞搭配的倒裝結構反映在口語子句(Verbal Clause) 的名物化 (Clausal Nominalization)；(2) 論述主題指涉 (Discourse Thematic Referentiality) 為獨立項數於功能語法發展中的主要語言特徵；(3) 獨立項數在認知語法中的發展，以所有格強制機制 (Possessed-first Coercion) 與論述標記語 (Discourse Organizing Bundle) 為物質(Material Clause) 與關係子句(Relational Clause) 的主要構成要素。我們也觀察到因果鏈倒裝動詞 (Causal Reverse Verb) 與固定標記語式 (Longer Fixed Expression) 兩項語言特徵，反映在口語子句(Verbal Clause) 中的等式句(Equative Sentence) 現象；(4) 晦澀性 (Referential Opacity) 為獨立項數於認知語法發展中的主要語言特徵。
本論文的研究成果將提供專利英文 (Patent English) 的學習者、授課者、和教材研發者做為學習與應用的參考。在專業英語 (English for Specific Purposes)的課程中，專利字彙頻率表中的高頻率字彙可以當成字彙學習的目標；授課者可以將獨立項數的語言特徵，例如動名詞搭配詞組與論述標記語以及它的修辭功能等融入學生的寫作練習，讓學生應用這些搭配詞組與標記語在專利申請書的撰寫過程。經由本論文對於當代專利歷時性的分析，我們發現獨立項數的語言特徵不但反映出專利語言的獨特性，同時提供專業英文與跨領域研究新的見解。

This thesis aims to address the characteristics of technical vocabulary (Nation, 2003) in intellectual property and cast a new light on the teaching of Patent English. The theoretical backgrounds are Functional Grammar (Halliday, 2004) and Reference Point Model (Langacker, 1999). Based on USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) Glossary, the compilation of Patent Technical Word Corpus (PTWC) contains 16 millions running words from LexisNexis. Since a significant percentage of vocabulary appears within the range of independent claim with high frequency, the present research attempts to examine the essential features to show how it was characterized in modern patent language.
The findings suggest the characteristics of independent claim are four-fold: (1) The functional development involves verb-noun collocation and semantic prosody. Verb-noun collocations happen to function as semantic trigger affected by semantic prosody. In particular, clausal nominalization (Lehrmann, 1988) is observed in that of verbal clauses. (2) Based on discourse thematic referentiality (Chen, 2009), independent claim entails how clausal-specific units constructed the patent setting. (3) In describing reference point relationship, linguistic mechanisms of possessed-first coercion and discourse organizing bundles were responsible for material and relational clauses. It is discerned there to be compositional patterns that reflect equative sentence (Hurford, Heasley, and Smith, 2007) in which verbal clauses were governed by causal reverse verb and longer fixed expressions. (4) The cognitive development of independent claim suggests modern patent language exhibits a referential character which drives opaque expressions widely spread over.
In sum, the contribution of this thesis is to provide pedagogical values to learners, teachers, and material developers for the teaching of Patent English. In English for Specific Purposes (ESP) curriculum development, patent technical words represent authentic situation which encourages advancement for vocabulary learning. It is implied that teachers can incorporate characteristics of independent claim, such as verb-noun collocations or discourse organizing bundles with its rhetorical functions into writing for practice. Aside from playing a role in modern patent language, characteristics of independent claim seems to be a much more influential factor in shaping Patent English for ESP teachers, applied linguists, and the development of interdisciplinary research.

American Bar Association. (2010). ABA section of intellectual property law: Introduction. Retrieved January 7, 2010 from http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/intro.html
Badger, R. (2003). Legal and general: Toward a genre analysis of newspaper law reports. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 249-263.
Ball, C. (1996). Tutorial notes: Concordances and corpora. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.georgetown.edu/cball/corpora/tutorial.html
Berger, L. (2004). What is the sound of a corporation speaking? How the cognitive theory of metaphor can help lawyers shape the law. Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors, 2, 169-209.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York: Longman.
Biber, D, Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conard, S., & Corters, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371-405.
Biber, D. & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286.
Bowles, H. (1995). Why are newspaper law reports so hard to understand? English for Specific Purposes, 14, 201–222.
Candlin, C. N., Bhatia, V. K., & Jensen, C. H. (2002). Developing legal writing materials for English second language learners: Problems and perspectives. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 299-320.
Chen, C. Y., & Tang, Y. I. (2004). Collocation Errors of Taiwanese College Students: Oral and Written Production. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 278-286). Taipei: Crane.
Chen, H. J. (2001). Taiwanese EFL learner corpus and interlanguage analysis. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 288-299). Taipei: Crane.
Chen, P. (2009). Aspects of referentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1657-1674.
Cheng, L., Sin, K. K., & Li, J. (2008). A discursive approach to legal texts: Court judgement as an example. The Asian ESP Journal, 4(1), 14-28.
Chiu, S. H. (2008). WAR metaphor in legal discourse: A reminder of their perils. The Seventh International Conference on Research and Applying Metaphor, Cáceres, Spain. May 29-31.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Chung, T. M.,& Nation, P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 103-116.
Cohen, R. (1998). Sidelined on the (judicial) bench: Sports metaphors in judicial opinions. American Business Law Journal, 35(2), 225-289.
Coxhead, A., & Nation, P. (2001). The specialized vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 252-267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. London: University of Chicago Press.
Denton, J. (2009). Content vs. concept: Two different focuses in the teaching of Legal English. Proceedings of ESP Seminar: English for Legal Purposes (pp. 4-11). National University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Du, J. (2009). Content and language integration in tertiary education in China: A case study in Wuhan Law College. The Asian ESP Journal, 5(1), 61-77.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durant, A. (2009). Circulation and stability: Language, law and money in Chris Hutton’s Language, Meaning and the Law. Language and Communication, 29(4), 394-400.
Feak, C. B., Reinhart, S. M., & Shinshimer, A. (2000). A preliminary analysis of law review notes. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 197-220.
Gibbons, J. (1999). Language and law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 156-173.
González, M., & Vyushkina, E. G. (2009). International cooperation in designing effective methods to prepare non-native EFL teachers for training and assessing Legal English skills. Georgetown Law Global Legal Skills Conference IV, Washington D.C., United States. June 4-6.
Haberstroh, J. (2009). The LAW List (The Legal Academic Word List). Georgetown Law Global Legal Skills Conference IV, Washington D.C., United States. June 4-6.
Halliday, M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, S. (1997). Procedural vocabulary in law case reports. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 289-308.
Hayvarert, L. (2003). A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hsieh, S. K. (1998). Characteristics of legal Mandarin: A corpus-linguistic approach to the criminal law. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, J. Y. (2007). Exploring the use of vocabulary from academic list in applied linguistics journal articles. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Hurford, J. R., Heasley B., & Smith, M. (2007). Semantics: A course book. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus-based study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
Hyland, K. (2008). Small bits of textual material: A discourse analysis of Swales’s writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143-160.
Jackson, B. (1994). Some semiotic features of a judicial summing up in an English criminal court. International Journal for Semiotics of Law, 20, 201-224.
Kwong, O. Y., & Tsou, B. K. (2005). A synchronous corpus-based study on the usage and perception of judgement terms in the Pan-Chinese context. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 10(4), 519-532.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphor we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference point construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. (2001). Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 12, 7-33.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langford, I. (2000). Forensic semantics: The meaning of murder, manslaughter and homicide. International Journal of Speech Language and Law, 7(1), 72-94.
Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 56-75.
Lehmann, C. (1988). Toward a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clausal combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 181-225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, C. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (1996). Cross-linguistic and language-specific aspects of semantic prosody. Language Science, 18 (1-2), 153-178.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Australia: Thomson.
Liu, C. P. (1999b). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL Writings. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 483- 494). Taipei: Crane.
Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loughlan, P. (2006). Pirates, parasites, reapers, sowers, fruits, foxes: The metaphors of intellectual property. Sydney Law Review, 28, 211-226.
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McEnery T., & Wilson A. (2001). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McMenamin, G. (2002). Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Modiano, M. (2001). Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT Journal, 55 (4), 339-347.
Mudraya, O. (2006). Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 235-256.
Nattinger, J. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 62-82). New York: Longman.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, M. (2006). Semantic associations in business English: A corpus-based analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 217-234.
Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP today: A Practitioner’s guide. New York: Prentice Hall.
Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Smith, M. B. (2006). Reference point construction: The underspecification of meaning, and the conceptual structure of Palauan of er. Oceanic Linguistics, 45(1), 1-20.
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (2009). The Search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 115-137.
Swales, J. M. (1983). Vocabulary work in LSP: A case of neglect. Bulletin CILA, 37, 21-34.
Swales, J. M. (2000). Language for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 20, 59-76.
Tao, H. (2003). Toward emergent view of lexical semantics. Language and Linguistics, 4, 837-856.
Thompson, G. (2000). Introducing functional grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Thornburg, E. G. (1995). Metaphors matter: How images of battle, sports and sex shape the adversary system. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 10, 225-82.
Tsai, S. I. (2006). Legal language used in laws of the Republic of China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Tsai, Y. (2008). Supply and demand analysis of patent translation. Translation Journal, 12(3), http://accurapid.com/Journal/45patents.htm
Wichman, N. L. (2002). Meaning in legal discourse: Beyond the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation. Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
Woods, D. C. (1991). Communication metaphors and the first amendment: Fire and water in supreme court opinions. Doctoral dissertation. Illinois: Northwestern University.
World Intellectual Property Organization (2009). WIPO intellectual property handbook: Policy, law and use. Geneva: WIPO Publication.
Zhang, W. (2009). Semantic prosody and ESL/EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 1-12.