Genre-based analysis of the realisation of concession in judicial discourse
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEGenre-based analysis of the realisation of concession in judicial discourse
Data publikacji: 2009
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2009, Volume 126, Issue 1, s. 128 - 148
Autorzy
Genre-based analysis of the realisation of concession in judicial discourse
The article aims to contribute a genre-based description of the realisation of Concession in EU judicial discourse. The analysis has been carried out on a corpus of judgments issued by the EU court of last instance, i.e. the European Court of Justice with the intention to identify the patterns and markers of Concession in judicial argumentation. In the analysis the author used the concept of Concession developed by Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (1999, 2000) following the assumptions underlying Interactional Linguistics. The results revealed the most frequent patterns and markers of Concession in judicial discourse. At the same time, they led the author to the conclusion that the interactional model of Concession developed for analysing the spoken mode of language may successfully be applied in the examination of written data.
Barth D. 2000. “that’s true, although not really, but still”: Expressing concession in spoken English. – Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 411–437.
Barth-Weingarten D. 2003. Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse pragmatic relation. Tübingen.
Bhatia V.K. 1993. Analysing genre. Language in use in professional settings. London.
Bhatia V.K. 2002. Applied genre analysis: a multi-perspective model. – IBÉRICA 4.2002: 3–19.
Crevels M. 2000. Concessives on different semantic levels: A typological perspective. –
Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 313–339.
Couper-Kuhlen E., Thompson S.A. 1999. On the concessive relation in conversational English. – Neumann F.W., Scheulting S. (eds.) Anlistentag 1998 Erfurt Proceedings. Trier: 29–39.
Couper-Kuhlen E., Thompson S.A. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. –
Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 381–410.
Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) 2000. Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin.
Ford C.E. 1994. Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: because on the interactive-edited continuum. – Text 14.4: 531–554. [quoted in: Barth-Weingarten D. 2003. Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen].
Grochowski M. 1976. O strukturze semantycznej przyzwolenia. – Mayenowa M.R. (ed.) Semantyka tekstu i języka. Wrocław: 25–237.
Grote B. et al. 1997. Ma(r)king concessions in English and German. – Discourse Processes 24: 87–117.
Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London.
Knott A. 1996. A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. [unpublished Ph.D. diss.]. University of Edinburgh.
Knott A., Dale R. 1994. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. – Discourse Processes 18: 35–62.
König E. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. – Hawkins J.A. (ed.) Explaining language universals. New York: 321–349.König E., Siemund P. 2000. Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. –
Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 341–360.
Kurzon D. 1997. ‘Legal language’: varieties, genres, registers, discourses. – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2: 119–139.
Le Ch. et al. 2008. Contrastive analysis of Chinese and American court judgments. – Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2.1: 49–58. [Available at: http://cadaad.rg/ejournal]
Łyda A. 2007. Concessive relation in spoken discourse. A study into academic spoken English. Katowice.
Mann W., Thompson S.A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. – Text 8.3: 243–281.
Mazzi D. 2005. Grounds and reasons. Argumentative signals in judicial texts. – Linguistica e Filologia 20: 157–178.
Mazzi D. 2006. “This is an attractive argument, but ...”: argumentative conflicts as an interpretive key to the discourse of judges. – Bhatia V.K., Gotti M. (eds.) Explorations in specialised genres. Bern: 271–290.
Mazzi D. 2007. The construction of argumentation in judicial texts: combining a genre and a corpus based perspective. – Argumentation 21: 21–38.
Oates S.L. 2000. Multiple discourse marker occurrence: creating hierarchies for natural language generation. – ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. [vol. V Proceedings of the workshop on student research]. Seattle, Wa: 41–45.
Pincoff E. 1971. The audiences of the judge. – Hubien H. (ed.) Legal reasoning (Proceedings of the world congress for legal and social philosophy). Bruxelles: 337–344.
Pisarkowa K. 1974. O stosunkach między parataksą i hipotaksą. Na przykładzie polskich zdań przeciwstawnych i przyzwalających. – Język Polski 54.2: 81–93.
Porter J.E. 1986. Intertextuality and the discourse community. – Rhetoric Review 5.1: 34–47.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S. 1973. A university grammar of English. Harlow.
Rudolph E. 1996. Contrast: adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish and Portuguese on sentence level and text level. Berlin, New York.
Sanders T.J.M. et al. 1992. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. – Discourse Processes 15: 1–35.
Swales J.M. 1990. Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge.
Taboada M. 2006. Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. – Journal of Pragmatics 38.4: 567–592.
Thompson G., Zhou J. 2000. Evaluation and organisation in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. – Hunston S. (ed.) Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourses. Oxford: 121–141.
Informacje: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2009, Volume 126, Issue 1, s. 128 - 148
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Genre-based analysis of the realisation of concession in judicial discourse
Genre-based analysis of the realisation of concession in judicial discourse
Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska, ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków
Publikacja: 2009
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: Żadna
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 2487
Liczba pobrań: 1452