Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Journal of Legal Discourse

Editor-in-Chief: Cheng, Le

Managing Editor: Sun, Yuxiu

Online
ISSN
2364-883X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Linguistic variation and legal representation in legislative discourse: A corpus-based multi-dimensional study

Yuxiu Sun / Le Cheng
Published Online: 2017-12-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0017

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.

Keywords: multi-dimensional analysis; legislative discourse; legal representations; linguistic features; corpus studies

References

  • Aarts, Bas. 2013[2008]. English syntax and argumentation, 4th edn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.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.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Mona. 1996. Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. Benjamins Translation Library 18. 175–186.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baker, Paul & Jesse Egbert. (eds.), 2016. Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus linguistic research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bhatia, Vijay K. 2014. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62(2). 384–414.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cheng, Le & Winnie Cheng. 2012. Legal interpretation: Meaning as social construction. Semiotica 192. 427–448.Google Scholar

  • Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng & King-Kui Sin. 2014. Revisiting legal terms: A semiotic perspective. Semiotica 202. 167–182.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Coode, George. 1845. On legislative expression; Or the language of the written law. London: William Benning and Company.Google Scholar

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 1997. Law’s community: Legal theory in sociological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 2017. Living law: Studies in legal and social theory. New York: Routledge.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.Google Scholar

  • Cziko, Gary A. 1989. Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments and implications for educational research. Educational researcher 18(3). 17–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eckert, Penelope. 2016. Variation, meaning and social change. In Nikolas Coupland (ed.), Sociolinguistics: theoretical debates, 68–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of linguistic variation in American legal English: A corpus-based study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.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.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.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.Google Scholar

  • Hu, Kaibao. 2016. Introducing corpus-based translation studies. New York: Springer.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Michael H. Long. 2014. An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Laviosa, Sara. 2002. Corpus-based translation studies: Theory, findings, applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

  • Laviosa, Sara, Adriana Pagano, Hannu Kemppanen & Ji. Meng. 2017. Textual and contextual analysis in Empirical translation studies. Singapore: Springer.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.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.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Mattila, Heikki E. S. 2013[1988]. Comparative legal linguistics: Language of Law, Latin and modern lingua francas, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.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.Google Scholar

  • McEnery, Tony, Richard Xiao & Yukio Tono. 2006. Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

  • Munday, Jeremy. 2016. Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Pym, Anthony. 2008. On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. Benjamins Translation Library 75. 311.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Quirk, Randolph. 1985. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Quirk, Randolph. 2010. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Boston: Pearson Education India.Google Scholar

  • Rayson, Paul. 2003. Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison. Lancaster University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Reppen, Randi & Douglas Biber (eds.). 2012. Corpus linguistics. London: Sage.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.Google Scholar

  • Schütze, Carson T. 2016. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

  • Smith, Mike. 1993. Changing sociological perspectives on chance. Sociology 27(3). 513–531.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, Neil & Nicholas Allott. 2016. Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stern, Alexandra Minna. 2016. Eugenic nation: Faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America. California: University of California Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.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.Google Scholar

  • Zhang, Bin. 2010. Descriptive Grammar of modern Chinese. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-01-15

Accepted: 2017-04-14

Published Online: 2017-12-12

Published in Print: 2017-12-20


Citation Information: International Journal of Legal Discourse, Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 315–339, ISSN (Online) 2364-883X, ISSN (Print) 2364-8821, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0017.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in