Abstract

What structures are employed in the English names of university presses across Anglophone states (UK, US, Australia, Canada) and China? Do they conform to Government and Binding Theory (GB)? Or do they exhibit severe anomalies? If anomalies exist (in our data collected by February 2026), what types are prevalent? This study analyzes the naming structures of university presses in these five countries mainly through the lens of GB. There are six categories of press names: 1) Top.+Uni.+Press, 2) Uni.+Top.+Press, 3) Des. (abbr. containing Uni.) + Press, 4) Name+Uni.+Press, 5) Top.+Des.+Uni.+Press, 6) Miscellany. University presses in the four English-speaking countries primarily utilize structures 1) to 4), indicating a systematic avoidance of names containing dual designators or a combination of toponyms and designators. In contrast, China’s university presses (in Chinese) are predominantly categorized under 1) and 5), while the English versions of Chinese presses fall mainly in Categories 1), 5) and 6). Press names (for five countries) in Categories 2), 3), and 6) represent a critical area of violation of GB. Their “correct” structural and semantic interpretations that align with expectations are in substance the result of arbitrary “publisher-pruning.” Eight suggestions are proposed about press naming and translating. The analysis and suggestions may help improve (future) press naming and its translation, and may offer a useful reference for future in-depth research on topics centering around press and university names.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.