Abstract
This study starts with the multi-dimensional analysis of describing linguistic variation in legislative discourse through three corpora (Chinese legislative corpus, the corresponding English translation corpus and American legislative corpus). Based on the findings from the multi-dimensional data derived from the factor analysis, contrastive interpretations are provided for related legal representations. This study then goes further to apply the corpus-based multi-dimensional analytical approach, deducing total 53 features into 5 interpretable underlying dimensions, represented as: Dimension 1 Involved Production vs. Specialized Information Density; Dimension 2 Narrative vs. Non-Narrative Discourse; Dimension 3 Author-centered Explicitness vs. Situational-dependent Reference; Dimension 4 Overly vs. Not Overly Expression of Persuasion; and Dimension 5 Abstract Description vs. Non-impersonal Style. After the analysis of certain typical patterns among these five dimensions, this study identifies and discusses four legal representations (non-narrative and explicitness, high informational density, the decontextualized style, and less overly persuasion) as key features represented in legislative discourse. Finally, general characteristics, tendencies and preferences identified in the three types of legislative texts are further deduced and interpreted from jurisprudential perspectives.
Acknowledgements
This publication is supported by the research grant no. 13BYY157, awarded and financed by the National Social Science Fund of China.
References
Aarts, Bas. 2013[2008]. English syntax and argumentation, 4th edn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-06335-9Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 233–250. Netherland: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/z.64.15bakSearch in Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1996. Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. Benjamins Translation Library 18. 175–186.10.1075/btl.18.17bakSearch in Google Scholar
Baker, Paul & Jesse Egbert. (eds.), 2016. Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus linguistic research. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315724812Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2014. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315844992Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62(2). 384–414.10.2307/414678Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519871Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 2014. On the exploitation of computerized corpora in variation studies. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics, 204–220. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511814358Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le. 2012. Attribution and judicial control in Chinese court judgments: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 19(1). 27–49.10.1558/ijsll.v19i1.27Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & Winnie Cheng. 2012. Legal interpretation: Meaning as social construction. Semiotica 192. 427–448.10.1515/sem-2012-0086Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng & King-Kui Sin. 2014. Revisiting legal terms: A semiotic perspective. Semiotica 202. 167–182.10.1515/sem-2014-0051Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie & Le Cheng. 2014. Epistemic modality in court judgments: A corpus-driven comparison of civil cases in Hong Kong and Scotland. English for Specific Purposes 33. 15–26.10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.006Search in Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber. 2001. Multi-dimensional methodology and the dimensions of register variation in English. In Susan Conrad & Douglas Biber (eds.), Variation in English: multi-dimensional studies, 13–42. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Coode, George. 1845. On legislative expression; Or the language of the written law. London: William Benning and Company.Search in Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger. 1997. Law’s community: Legal theory in sociological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198264903.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger. 2017. Living law: Studies in legal and social theory. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315091730Search in Google Scholar
Crystal, David & Derek Davy. 1969. The language of legal documents. In David Crystal & Derek Davy (eds.), Investigating English Style, 193–217. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Cziko, Gary A. 1989. Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments and implications for educational research. Educational researcher 18(3). 17–25.10.3102/0013189X018003017Search in Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2016. Variation, meaning and social change. In Nikolas Coupland (ed.), Sociolinguistics: theoretical debates, 68–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107449787.004Search in Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse. 2015. Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing: Investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(1). 1–29.10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egbSearch in Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of linguistic variation in American legal English: A corpus-based study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-00659-9Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, K. 2014. Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics, 30–43. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hewings, Martin & Ann Hewings. 2002. “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21(4). 367–383.10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, James S. 1972. The name and nature of translation studies. Paper presented in the 3rd International Congress of Applied Linguistics. Copenhagen, 21–26 August.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, James S. 1988. The name and nature of translation studies. In James S. Holmes (ed.), Translated!: Papers on literary translation and translation studies, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004486669_008Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Kaibao. 2016. Introducing corpus-based translation studies. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-48218-6Search in Google Scholar
Huang, Yuan, Diansheng Guo, Alice Kasakoff & Jack Grieve. 2016. Understanding US regional linguistic variation with Twitter data analysis. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 59. 244–255.10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.12.003Search in Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Michael H. Long. 2014. An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315835891Search in Google Scholar
Laviosa, Sara. 2002. Corpus-based translation studies: Theory, findings, applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004485907Search in Google Scholar
Laviosa, Sara, Adriana Pagano, Hannu Kemppanen & Ji. Meng. 2017. Textual and contextual analysis in Empirical translation studies. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-1969-2Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffery. 2014. The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics, 8–29. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Losh, Molly & Peter C. Gordon. 2014. Quantifying narrative ability in autism spectrum disorder: A computational linguistic analysis of narrative coherence. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 44(12). 3016–3025.10.1007/s10803-014-2158-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Mattila, Heikki E. S. 2013[1988]. Comparative legal linguistics: Language of Law, Latin and modern lingua francas, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315573106Search in Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, and Richard Xiao. 2007. Parallel and comparable corpora: What is happening. In Gunilla M. Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds.), Incorporating corpora. The linguist and the translator, 18–31. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599873-005Search in Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Richard Xiao & Yukio Tono. 2006. Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. New York: Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2016. Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315691862Search in Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2008. On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. Benjamins Translation Library 75. 311.10.1075/btl.75.24pymSearch in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1985. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 2010. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Boston: Pearson Education India.Search in Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2003. Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison. Lancaster University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Reppen, Randi & Douglas Biber (eds.). 2012. Corpus linguistics. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Rousseau, Pascale & David Sankoff. 1978. Advances in variable rule methodology. In David Sankoff (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods, 57–69. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2016. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_603356Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Mike. 1993. Changing sociological perspectives on chance. Sociology 27(3). 513–531.10.1177/0038038593027003010Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Neil & Nicholas Allott. 2016. Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139979634Search in Google Scholar
Stern, Alexandra Minna. 2016. Eugenic nation: Faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America. California: University of California Press.10.1525/california/9780520285064.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.). 2014. Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110317558Search in Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 2008. Rhetorical strategies in arbitration law. In Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher N. Candlin & Jan Engberg (eds.), Legal discourse across cultures and systems, 199–220. HK: Hong Kong University Press.10.5790/hongkong/9789622098510.003.0010Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Bin. 2010. Descriptive Grammar of modern Chinese. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
