Main Article Content



The aim of this paper is to establish the repertoire and distribution of verbal and adverbial exponents of epistemic modality in English- and Polish-language judgments passed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and non-translated judgments passed by the Supreme Court of Poland (SN). The study applies a model for categorizing exponents of epistemicity with regard to their (i) level (high-, medium- and low-level of certainty, necessity or possibility expressed by the markers; primary dimension), (ii) perspective (own vs. reported perspective), (iii) opinion (based either on facts or beliefs) and (iv) time (the embedding of epistemic markers in sentences relating to the past, present or future) (contextual dimensions). It examines the degree of intra-generic convergence of translated EU judgments and non-translated national judgments in terms of the employment of epistemic markers, as well as the degree of authoritativeness of judicial argumentation, and determines whether the frequent use of epistemic markers constitutes a generic feature of judgments. The research material consists of a parallel corpus of English- and Polish-language versions of 200 EU judgments and a corpus of 200 non-translated domestic judgments. The results point to the high salience and differing patterns of use of epistemic markers in both EU and national judgments. The frequent use of high-level epistemic markers boosts the authoritativeness of judicial reasoning.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
KOŹBIAŁ, D. (2019). EPISTEMIC MODALITY: A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS OF EPISTEMIC MARKERS IN EU AND POLISH JUDGMENTS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 41, 39-70. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2020.41.3


  1. Anthony, Laurence. 2017. AntPConc (Version 1.2.1). Tokyo: Waseda University.
  2. Biel, Łucja. 2014. Lost in the Eurofog. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  3. Biel, Łucja. 2016. Mixed corpus design for researching the Eurolect: A genre-based comparable-parallel corpus in the PL EUROLECT project. In Polskojęzyczne korpusy równoległe. Polish-language parallel corpora, eds. Ewa Gruszczyńska and Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska, 197–208. Warsaw: Institute of Applied Linguistics.
  4. Bralczyk, Jerzy. 1978. O leksykalnych wyznacznikach prawdziwościowej oceny sądów [On lexical exponents of truth evaluation of propositions]. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.
  5. Cheng, Winnie and 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.
  6. Coulthard, Malcolm and Alison Johnson. 2010. The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.
  7. Danielewiczowa, Magdalena, 2008a. Jak nie należy opisywać przysłówków epistemicznych [How not to describe epistemic adverbs]. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 72: 109–128.
  8. Danielewiczowa, Magdalena. 2002. Wiedza i niewiedza. Studium polskich czasowników epistemicznych [Knowledge and ignorance. Study of Polish epistemic verbs]. Warsaw: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej.
  9. Danielewiczowa, Magdalena. 2008b. Opis przysłówków epistemicznych jako wyzwanie teoretyczne [Description of epistemic adverbs as a theoretical challenge]. Prace Filologiczne LIV. Seria Językoznawcza: 47–62.
  10. Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2017a. Facts in Law. A comparative study of fact that and its phraseologies in American and Polish judicial discourse. In Phraseology in legal and institutional settings: a corpus-based interdisciplinary perspective, eds. Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski and Gianluca Pontrandolfo, 143–159. London: Routledge.
  11. Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2017b. Signalling sites of contention in judicial discourse. An exploratory corpus-based analysis of selected stance nouns in US Supreme Court Opinions and Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal Judgments. Comparative Legilinguistics 32, 91–117.
  12. Grochowski, Maciej, Anna Kisiel and Magdalena Żabowska. 2014. Słownik gniazdowy partykuł polskich [The Nest Dictionary of Polish Particles]. Kraków: PAU.
  13. Grochowski, Maciej. 1986. Polskie partykuły: składnia, semantyka, leksykografia [Polish particles: syntax, semantics, lexicography]. Prace Instytutu Języka Polskiego PAN 62. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
  14. Grzegorczykowa, Renata. 1998. [1996] Wykłady z polskiej składni [Lectures in Polish syntax], 3rd ed. Warsaw: PWN.
  15. Grzegorczykowa, Renata. 2001. Wprowadzenie do semantyki językoznawczej [An introduction to linguistic semantics]. Warsaw: PWN.
  16. Halliday, Michael A.K. and Christian Matthiessen. 2004. Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
  17. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP.
  18. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography 1, 7–36.
  19. Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2010. Deontic modality and modals in the language of contracts. Comparative Legilinguistics 2, 75–92.
  20. Mazzi, Davide. 2007b. The construction of argumentation in judicial texts: Combining a genre and a corpus perspective. Argumentation 21(1), 21–38.
  21. Mazzi, Davide. 2015. “It must be obvious that this line of argument is utterly inconsistent…”: on attitudinal qualification in English judicial discourse across legal systems. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 2, 51–67.
  22. Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: CUP.
  23. Pontrandolfo, Gianluca and Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski, 2014. Exploring the local grammar of evaluation: The case of adjectival patterns in American and Italian judicial discourse. Research in language 12(1), 71–91.
  24. Rozumko, Agata. 2013. Modal adverbs, particles and discourse markers across languages. Recent attempts at delimiting the categories in Anglophone and Polish linguistics. Białostockie Archiwum Językowe 13, 289–294.
  25. Rozumko, Agata. 2016. Linguistic concepts across languages: The category of epistemic adverbs in English and Polish. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 2(1), 195–214. DeGruyter Open.
  26. Rozumko, Agata. 2017. Adverbial markers of epistemic modality across disciplinary discourses: A contrastive study of research articles in six academic disciplines. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 52(1), 73–101.
  27. Rubin, Victoria L. 2006. Identifying certainty in texts. PhD diss., Syracuse University.
  28. Rubin, Victoria L. 2010. Epistemic modality: From uncertainty to certainty in the context of information seeking as interactions with texts. Information Processing & Management 46(5), 533–540.
  29. Rubin, Victoria L., Noriki Kando and Elizabeth D. Liddy. 2004. Certainty categorization model. Paper presented at the AAAI spring symposium: Exploring attitude and affect in text: Theories and applications, Stanford, CA.
  30. Rytel, Danuta. 1982. Leksykalne środki wyrażania modalności w języku czeskim i polskim [Lexical means of the expression of modality in Czech and Polish]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
  31. Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja. 2005. Persuasion in judicial argumentation: The opinions of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice. In Persuasion across genres. A linguistic approach, eds. Helena Halmari and Tuija Virtanen, 59–101. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  32. Scott, Mike. 2017. WordSmith Tools version 7, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
  33. Shethar, Alissa. 2002. Strategic uses of self and other perspectives. In Perspective and perspectivation in discourse, eds. Carl Friedrich Graumann and Werner Kallmeyer, 181–200. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  34. Stępień, Marzena. 2008. O wzajemnym przenikaniu się ewidencjalności i modalności (na przykładzie wybranych polskich czasowników i wyrażeń funkcyjnych) [On the reciprocal influence of evidentiality and modality (on the example of selected Polish verbs and functional expressions)]. In Lexikalische Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen, eds. Björn Wiemer and Vladimir A. Plungjan, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach Sonderband 72, 313–333. München: Otto Sagner.
  35. Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2017. Modal Adverbs of Certainty in EU Legal Discourse: A Parallel Corpus Approach. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres, eds. Karin Aijmer and Diana Lewis, 91–115. Cham: Springer.
  36. Tutak, Kinga. 2003. Leksykalne nieczasownikowe wykładniki modalności epistemicznej w autobiografiach [Lexical non-verbal exponents of epistemic modality in autobiographies]. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.
  37. Warchał, Krystyna. 2015. Certainty and doubt in academic discourse: Epistemic modality markers in English and Polish linguistics articles. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
  38. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
  39. Żabowska, Magdalena. 2008. Polskie wyrażenia ewidencjalne a partykuły epistemiczne [Polish evidential
  40. expressions and epistemic particles]. In Lexikalische Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen, eds. Björn Wiemer and Vladimir A. Plungjan, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 72, 377–393. München: Otto Sagner.
  41. Żabowska, Magdalena. 2013. Faktycznie i rzeczywiście – operacje na wiedzy i ich leksykalizacja [Actually and indeed – operations on knowledge and their lexicalization]. Linguistica Copernicana 1(9), 131–141.
  42. On-line sources
  43. Case-law of the Supreme Court of Poland. http://www.sn.pl/orzecznictwo/SitePages/Baza_orzeczen.aspx (accessed March 30, 2019).
  44. InfoCuria – Case-law of the Court of Justice. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/recherche.jsf?language=en (accessed March 30, 2019).
  45. The Eurolect: An EU Variant of Polish and its Impact on Administrative Polish. https://eurolekt.ils.uw.edu.pl/ (accessed March 30, 2019).
  46. Wielki słownik języka polskiego PAN [Polish Academy of Sciences Great Dictionary of Polish], ed. P. Żmigrodzki. http://www.wsjp.pl (accessed March 30, 2019).
  47. Cited judgments of the Court of Justice
  48. Judgment of the Court of 16 June 2015 – C-62/14
  49. Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2015 – C-231/14 P
  50. Cited judgments of the Supreme Court of Poland
  51. Judgment in the Name of the Republic of Poland of 14 January 2015 – II CSK 747/13
  52. Judgment in the Name of the Republic of Poland of 20 February 2015 – V CSK 295/14