Analysis of Inserted Clauses in the Legal Discourse from the Pragmatic Perspective

Ruzanna Karapetyan, Margaret Apresyan

Abstract


The aim of the given study is to examine the use of inserted clauses in the legal discourse and their unique role in this speech genre.  The investigation of the topic is conducted in line with the principles of Functional Discourse Grammar. In the course of analysis we apply the theory of speech acts, namely performatives, the fundamental tenets of which permit to view the specific combination of shall+inserted clause as a particular feature of legal discourse.  These overcomplicated grammatical structures are shown to fulfill the immediate function of performatives, that of enacting legal acts and doing things in the pragmatic sense of word, to the full extent.

 


Keywords


Legal discourse, Functional Discourse Grammar, Speech act theory, performatives, inserted clauses, the modal verb “shall”

Full Text:

PDF

References


Austin J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Bhatia K. (2010). Textbook on Legal Language and Legal Writing. New Delhi.

Bungarten Th. (1993) Hinsichten ru einer Theorie von Fachsprachen. Zur Einfuhrung. //Fachsprachentheorie: FST (betreut und hrsg). Von Theo Bungarten, Tosted, Attikon, Bd.

Daneš F., ed. (1974). Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Academia Praha.

Engberg J. (1993). Prinzipen einer Typologisierung jurisiticher Texte. Fachsprache, international journal of LSP jg. 15.H.-1.-2.

Fiorito L. (2006). On Performatives in Legal Discourse. Metalogicon (2006) XIX, 2.

Forget D. A. (1992). Pragmatic Role for Inserted Clauses in Literary Texts. Cooperating with Written Texts. The Pragmatics and Comprehension of Written Texts, ed.by Dieter Stein, pp. 373-395, Mouton de Gruyter.

Hengeveld Kees & Mackenzie Lachlan (2009). Functional Discourse Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine and Heiko Harrog. Oxford.

Hoffman L. (1995). Intraserielle und interserielle Vergleiche von Fachtexten. Ein Beitrag zur Unterscheidung von Textsorten. Munchen.

Jakobson R. (1983). Dialogy (Dialogues between Roman Jakobson and Kristina Pomorska). Český spisovatel Praha.

Kukharenko V.A. (1998). Text Interpretation. Moscow.

Mathesius V. (1936). On Some Problems of the Systematic Analysis of Grammar. TCLP 6, 95-107.

L. Thorne McCarty (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse: Basic Features, published in ICAIL '89 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law”, pp. 180-189.

Melinkoff D. (1962). The language of Law. Boston, Little, Brown and Co.

Mohn D., Pelka R. (1984) Fachsprachen Nubingen: Niemyer.

Muller F. (1995). Juristiche Methodik. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt.

Schimer, Alfred (1913). Die Erforschung der deutschen Sondersprachen, in: Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, 5, 1-22.

Shcherba L. (1957). Selected Works in the Russian language. Moscow.

Vachek J. (1967). A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Indiana U.P. Bloomington London.

Wardhaugh R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishing.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.86

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


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

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. 

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.