Disciplinary values in legal discoursea corpus study

  1. Breeze, Ruth
Journal:
Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

ISSN: 1139-7241

Year of publication: 2011

Issue: 21

Pages: 93-115

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

Abstract

The last 20 years have seen increasing interest in the way in which meaning is made in different professional and academic disciplines. Central to this issue is the notion of disciplinary values, that is, qualities which define what is prized or stigmatised by different professional communities. In the present paper, the notion of disciplinary values is used to examine the way legal writers communicate meaning in different genres. To this end, six adjective/adverb sets which have a prominent place in legal discourse ("clear/ly", "important/ly", "reasonable/ly", "appropriate/ly", "correct/ly" and "proper/ly") are identified. Their collocates and semantic preferences are studied in four 500,000-word corpora consisting of texts from the area of commercial law: academic journal articles, case law, legislation, and legal documents. Although the frequency and use of "clear/ly" and "important/ly" appear not to differ greatly from those found in other corpora of written and academic written texts such as the British National Corpus (BNC) and the British Academic Written English corpus (BAWE), "reasonable/ly", "appropriate/ly", "correct/ly" and "proper/ly" were found to be salient in some or all of the subcorpora. The reasons for this are then analysed within the framework of disciplinary values. These words appear to convey attributes that have particular importance in the legal profession, reflecting disciplinary values that cross the boundaries between various written genres.

Bibliographic References

  • Adolphs, S. & V. Durow (2004). “Socio-cultural integration and the development of formulaic sequences” in N. Schmitt (ed.), Formulaic Sequences, 107-126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Alcaraz, E. (2000). El inglés profesional y académico. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
  • Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus- Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Dahl, T. (2009). “The linguistic representation of rhetorical function: a study of how economists present their knowledge claims”. Written Communication 26: 370-391.
  • Di Matteo, L. (1996). “The counterpoise of contracts: the reasonable person standard and the subjectivity of judgment”. South Carolina Law Review 48: 293-236.
  • Dudley Evans, T. & M. St John (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Endicott, T. (2000). Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Engberg, J. & D. Heller (2008). “Vagueness and indeterminacy in law” in V. Bhatia, C. Candlin & J. Engberg (eds.), Legal Discourses across Cultures and Systems, 145-168. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
  • Flowerdew, J. (2001). “Concordancing as a tool in course design” in M. Ghadessey, A. Henry & R. Roseberry (eds.), Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice, 71-92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Giannoni, D. (2009). “Disciplinary values in English academic metaphors”. Linguistica e filologia 28: 173-191.
  • Gilles, S. (2001). “On determining negligence: hand formula balancing, the reasonable person standard, and the jury”. Vanderbilt Law Review 54: 814-861.
  • Green, E. (1968). “The reasonable man: legal fiction or psychosocial reality?” Law and Society Review 2: 241-257.
  • Hiltunen, T. (2006). “Coming-to-know verbs in research articles in three academic disciplines” in K.Neumann, R. Plo Alastrué & C. Pérez-Llantada Auría (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International AELFE Conference, 246-251. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.
  • Howard, R. (1991). “Teaching medical English systematically”. English for Medical Purposes Newsletter 8: 15-21.
  • Hyland, K. (1999). “Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles” in C. Candlin, & K. Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, 99-121. London: Longman.
  • Knapp, C.L., N.M. Crystal & H.G. Prince (2003). Problems in Contract Law. Cases and Materials. New York: Aspen.
  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences make Knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
  • Leech, G. (2000). “Grammar of spoken English: new outcomes in corpus-oriented research”. Language Learning 50: 675-724.
  • Meyer, P.G. (1997). Coming to Know. Studies in the Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics of Academic English. Tübingen: Narr.
  • Nubiola, J. (2009). “What reasonableness really is”. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy 45: 125-134.
  • Orts Llopis, M.A. (2005). “Semejanzas y diferencias léxicas en el lenguaje contractual en inglés y en castellano”. Ibérica 10: 23-40.
  • Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and Meanings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Pawelec, A. (2006). “The death of metaphor”. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 123: 117-121.
  • Pérez-Llantada Auría, C. (2008). “Stance and academic promotionalism: a cross-disciplinary comparison in the soft sciences”. Atlantis 30: 129- 145.
  • Pérez-Paredes, P. & P. Sánchez Hernández (2005). “Examining English for academic purposes students’ vocabulary output: corpus-aided analysis and learner corpora”. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 1: 201-212.
  • Sager, J.C., D. Dungworth & P.F. McDonald (1980). English Special Languages: Principles and Practice in Science and Technology. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter.
  • Schwartz, W. (1989). “Objective and subjective standards of negligence: defining the reasonable person to induce optimal care and optimal populations of injurers and victims”. Georgetown Law Journal 78: 241-280.
  • Scott, M. (2007). Oxford WordSmith Tools 4.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. (1998). “The lexical item” in E. Weigand (ed.), Contrastive Lexical Semantics, 1-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.
  • Stubbs, M. (2007). “On texts, corpora and models of language” in M. Hoey, M. Mahlberg, M. Stubbs & W. Teubert (eds.), Text, Discourse and Corpora: Theory and Analysis, 127-161. London: Continuum.
  • Swales, J. & A. Burke (2003). “It’s really fascinating work: differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers” in P. Leistyna & C. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis. Language Structure and Language Use, 1-18. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
  • Tuldava, J. (1998). Probleme und Methoden der quantitativ-systemischen Lexikologie. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
  • Tutin, A. (2008). “Evaluative adjectives in academic writing in the humanities and social sciences”. Paper presented at InterLAE conference: Interpersonality in Written Academic Discourse. Jaca, University of Zaragoza, Spain.
  • Vass, H. (2004). “Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres”. Ibérica 7: 125-141.
  • Wendell Holmes, O. (1881). The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Data source: Dialnet