This article discusses how sensitive bioethical issues are addressed in legislation, using as a starting point the analysis of a corpus of normative texts relating to Assisted Reproduction Technologies (ARTs), and in particular surrogacy, enacted in various English-speaking countries. In the investigation, special special attention is given to the re-elaboration and presentation of scientific knowledge in legal discourse with a view to detecting any possible slant or changes, and the reasons thereof. Another important object of investigation is the redefinition of certain well established categories of kinship because of the disruptive effects of biomediacal advances, and ARTs in particular, on family-based social relations. The analysis will focus on legal definitions, which are crucial in this domain considering that advances in the modern technosciences have brought about the need to categorize and name new medical practices and the situations they contribute to bringing about. The focus will be on how definitions are used in normative texts, functioning as initiators of a dynamic process generating discourses that acquire their meaning in the social and communicative contexts they are embedded in. Special attention will be devoted to the way in which specialised scientific, and especially medical, terminology and concepts, are dealt with in bioethically relevant legal discourse.

Antelmi, Donella. 2007. “Manifest Ideology and Hidden Ideology in Legal Language: Definitions and Terms.” In Discourse, Ideology and Specialized Communication, edited by Giuliana Garzone and Srikant Sarangi, 101-117. Bern: Peter Lang.

Baker, Paul and McEnery, Tony. 2015. “Introduction”. In. Corpora in Discourse Studies. Integrating Discourse and Corpora edited by Paul Baker and Tony McEnery, 1-19. London: Palgrave Mcmillan.

Belvedere, Andrea. 1979. “Aspetti ideologici delle definizioni nel linguaggio del legislatore e dei giuristi.” In Andrea Belvedere, Mario Jori e Lelio Lantella. Definizioni giuridiche e ideologie, 349-482. Milano: Giuffrè.

Belvedere, Andrea, Mario Jori e Lelio Lantella. 1979. Definizioni giuridiche e ideologie. Milano: Giuffrè.

Breczko, Anetta 2012. “The Influence of Cultural Contexts of Bioethics on the Legal Language”. Sudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 28(41): 105-121.

Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cairns, Huntington. 1936. “A Note on Leagl Definitions.” Columbia Law Review 36: 1099-1106.

Cornelius, Eleanor. 2015. “Defining ‘plain language’ in contemporary South Africa.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 44: 1-18. Doi: 10.5774/44-0-190.

Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, Norman. 2014 [1989]. Language and Power. London: Longman.

Garzone, Giuliana. 2015. “Persuasive Strategies on Surrogacy Websites: A Discourse-Analytical and Rhetorical Study”. In Power, Persuasion and Manipulation in Specialised Genres. Providing Keys to the Rhetoric of Professional Communities, edited by Maria A. Orts, Ruth Breeze and Maurizio Gotti, 101-130. Bern: Peter Lang.

Garzone, Giuliana and Srikant Sarangi. 2007. “Discourse, Ideology and Specialised Communication: A Critical Introduction.” In Discourse, Ideology and Specialised Communication, edited by Giuliana Garzone and Srikant Sarangi, 9-36. Bern Peter Lan.

Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1989. “Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory”, Linguistics, 27(4): 587-612

Hempel, Carl Gustav 1952. Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Hernández Ramos, Mario and Volker Heydt. 2017. Legislative Language and Style. In Legislation in Europe: A Comprehensive Guide For Scholars and Practitioners, edited by Ulrich Karpen and Helen Xanthaki. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Iona Institute 2014. The Ethical Case against Surrogate Motherhood: What Can We Learn from the Law of Other European Countries. Dublin: The Iona Institute.

Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna 2011. “Defining Law terms: A Cross-Cultural Perspective”. Research in Language, 9.1, 9-29. DOI 10.2478/v10015-011-0008-y.

Kleiber, Georges. 1990. La sémantique du prototype. Paris: PUF.

Lantella, Lelio 1979. “Pratiche definitorie e proiezioni ideologiche nel discorso giuridico”. In Andrea Belvedere, Mario Jori e Lelio Lantella. Definizioni giuridiche e ideologie, 5-348. Milano: Giuffrè.

Marquardt, Elizabeth 2011. One Parent of Five. A Global Loook at Today’s Intentional Families. New York: Institute for American Values.

Mazzoni, Cosimo Marco. 2002. “Ethics and Law in Biological Research”. In Ethics and Law in Biological Research edited by Cosimo Marco Mazzoni, 3-7. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

McEnery, Tony and Andrew Wilson. 1996/2001. Corpus Linguistics. An Introduction. Second Edition Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

McEnery, Tony and Andrew Hardie. 2011. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Merriam-Webster 2016. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary New Edition (c) 2016. Sprinfield MA: Merrriam-Webster.

Post, Stephen G. (ed.) 2004. Encyclopedia of Bioethcis, 3rd edition. New York: Thomson Gale.

Scarpelli, Uberto. 1985. Contributo alla semantica del testo normativo, nuova edizione, a cura di Anna Pintore. Milano: Giuffré.

Schmidt, Harald. 2007. “Whose Dignity? Resolving Ambiguities in the Scope of ‘Human Dignity’ in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights” Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 578 et seq.

Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen and Heidi Hamilton (eds.). 2001. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Scott, Mike. 2012. WordSmith Tools 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordamce, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tallacchini, Mariachiara. 2002. “The Epistemic State – The Legal Regulation of Science.” In Ethics and Law in Biological Research edited by Marco Cosimo Mazzoni, 79-96. The Hague / London / New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistc Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Teman, Elly. 2010 Birthing a Mother: The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self. Berkley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.

Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Socio-cognitive Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Thornton, G.C. 1987. Legislative Drafting, 3rd edition. London: Butterworths.

Utian, Wulf H., Leon A. Sheehan, James M. Goldfarb and Robert Kiwi 1985. “Successful pregnancy after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer from an infertile woman to surrogate”. New England Journal of Medicine. 313: 1351-1352.

Wilder, Bruce L. 2002. “Assisted Reproduction Technology: Trends and Suggestions for the Developing Law” Journal of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 18: 177-209.